GARRISON KEILLOR Advertisement

Every election year journalists unlimber a single word that helps to suppress real debate of the issues, and the Democratic presidential debate in Las Vegas saw an earlier-than-normal use of this technique.

The word is "mudslinging" and reporters inevitably use it not when politicians use ad hominem attacks, not when politicians accuse their opponents of adultery, not when politicians use innuendo without facts to back it up. Rather, reporters use it to describe legitimate debate of the issues.

Here's an example: In the 2006 campaign after Dina Titus defeated Jim Gibson in the Democratic primary for governor, KLAS reporter Edward Lawrence said, "Now the party must rally together for the general election. With all of the mudslinging in the primary, will Titus get an endorsement from Gibson and count on his supporters to follow her?"

Neither Titus or Gibson engaged in the kind of campaigning Lawrence described. Gibson was critical of Titus for voting to increase taxes and her own pension. Titus was critical of Gibson for his coziness with a developer and Nevada Power. Those are perfectly reasonable issues to raise. There was nothing underhanded about the tactics used. Indeed, it was a laudable dialogue that served voters.

When candidates are smeared as mudslingers by reporters in this way, it has an effect on campaigning. Politicians become more and more reluctant to discuss their opponents' records for fear of being attacked by journalists as dirty campaigners.

Usually it's journalists who smear the candidates with the use of the term "mudslinging." But in the Las Vegas debate on November 16, the candidates themselves triggered the first 2008 campaign year use of the misleading term.

I didn't get to see the debate live. My first inkling of what happened was a Chicago Tribune story that was headlined, "Democrats' debate turns to mud." My initial thought was that journalists were up to their old tricks of shutting down debate until I caught up with a transcript and found it was two of the candidates who used the poisonous term.

At the start of the debate, Hillary Clinton said, "And I don't mind taking hits on my record on issues, but when somebody starts throwing mud, at least we can hope that it's both accurate and not right out of the Republican playbook."

What she was describing was John Edwards' comments about (1) her vote for the Iraq war and willingness to keep troops in place in Iraq, (2) her position on a Social Security cap, and (3) her position on breaking up the money-and-power system in place in national politics. When Edwards discussed those issues, she described his remarks as "mud."

That was the first time the term was used in the debate. The second time also came from Clinton and also referred to Edwards: "But for him to be throwing this mud and making these charges I think really detracts from what we're trying to do here tonight." That comment was made in reference to the health care issue.

Then came the third and last reference to mud, from candidate Bill Richardson: "You know, let's stop this mudslinging. ... Let us debate the issues that affect the American people, and let us be positive." It's a little difficult to know what he was referring to, but the remark was included in comments he was making on health care, jobs and economic growth.

Journalists covering the debate knew a cue when they heard one. News reports were soon full of the m-word. "Clinton Accuses Rivals of Mud-Slinging" was the headline on an Associated Press story that appeared in hundreds of newspapers and web sites.

Radio talk show host Ed Schultz was one of the few who disagreed: "I think it's a sad day when a candidate has to start saying, 'Well, it's mudslinging if you point out what my voting record is'." Edwards himself did not like one bit being called a dirty campaigner: "The idea that that this is mudslinging...we're talking about substantive issues of war. If anybody, including Sen. Clinton, thinks this is mudslinging - this is milquetoast, compared to what we're going to see next fall."

Thanks to the false characterizations of valid issues as mudslinging, we're going to see less discussion of legitimate issues all next year.