am I lying – or have my lips stopped moving?

The New York Times has stirred up a bit of controversy in Mexico’s presidential election.

On 10 June, the newspaper ran an article with the headline: “Candidates in Mexico Signal a New Tack in Drug War.”  But it was not the headline that has stirred up the Mexicans.

My neighbors will elect a new president on 1 July, and he (or she – because there is a major party woman candidate) will take office on 1 January.

There are three leading contenders representing competing ideologies.  But, more important for most Mexicans, none of them are the incumbent, Felipe de Jesús Calderón Hinojosa.  President Calderón’s war against the drug lords is extremely unpopular.  And that unpopularity is setting part of the pace in this year's election.

And that is where our cast of characters come in.

All the polls show Enrique Peña Nieto as the leading candidate.  He is the charisma candidate.  And “leading” is almost a euphemism.  He is about fifteen points ahead of his nearest contender.

All of that is a bit surprising because he is the candidate of the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) that held almost dictatorial power for 71 years.  Until the voters booted it out in 2000.

And that breakup was not just a small lover’s spat.  In the next presidential election (2006), Mexican voters relegated PRI to third place with its votes.

The man who came in second in 2006 was Andrés Manuel López Obrador.  And he is back again as the candidate of the Democratic Revolution Party (PRD), founded by a group of former PRI politicians who wanted a party with a bit more leftist ideology and, hopefully, less corruption.

AMLO, the acronym by which he is popularly known, was the Al Gore of the 2006 election.  But, unlike Al. AMLO decided to play the sore loser.  He believed he was the winner of the 2006 election and spent an entire year leading protests in Mexico City to that effect.

Not surprisingly, he is the populist candidate in this race -- and the favorite candidate of Pravda.

But he is far behind Peña Nieto in the opinion polls.  Sometimes, in second place.  Sometimes, in third.

And the candidate who is regularly in third place is Josefina Vázquez Mota, standard bearer for the National Action Party (PAN).  The party of the last two presidents:  Vicente Fox and, of course, the unlamented Calderón.

None of the candidates has offered any support for the current war on and between the drug lords.  Even Josefina has attempted to distance herself from the current policy.

AMLO is the candidate who usually creates headlines.  Not this time.  It was Peña Nieto’s turn.

One thing you need to know about Peña Nieto.  He is a very slick candidate.  He chooses his words very carefully and stays on message.  Just as any effective candidate should.

He sat down with a reporter for The New York Times, and walked very carefully through the drug war question.  But, let me turn you over to the reporter.

Lately he has suggested that while Mexico should continue to work with the United States government against organized crime, it should not “subordinate to the strategies of other countries.”

“The task of the state, what should be its priority from my point of view, and what I have called for in this campaign, is to reduce the levels of violence,” he said in an interview. 

It sounds rather innocuous.  Mexico is in charge of what happens in Mexico, and Mexican interests will not be subordinated to the interests of the United States.  Even in prosecuting the drug war.

And none of the other candidates has said anything different.

The usual political suspects up north went into a bit of a frenzy.  With little exercises in reductionism: “Will there be a situation where the next president just turns a blind eye to the cartels, ceding Mexico to the cartels, or will they be a willing partner with the United States to combat them?”

That surprised no one in Mexico.  After all, that is the sheen on the drug lord war has down here.  It is America refusing to deal with its own problem by asking Mexico to do the heavy lifting. 

That is not news.  It is simply a policy disagreement.

What was news came from the White House.  Indirectly.

When reporters ask the administration about elections in another country, the standard response should be some variation on: “The United States honors the sovereignty of other nations an has no intention of attempting to influence the democratic actions of a free people.”

And I am willing to bet that "One senior Obama administration official" wishes that is what he had spun out, instead of what he said:

One senior Obama administration official said on Friday that Mr. Peña Nieto’s demand that the United States respect Mexican priorities “is a sound bite he is using for obvious political purposes.” In private meetings, the official said, “what we basically get is that he fully appreciates and understands that if/when he wins, he is going to keep working with us.”

So, the official word from the White is: Peña Nieto is just a politician.  He is saying what he needs to say just to get elected.  But, after he is elected, he will follow our policy.  Sounding very similar to President Obama’s stage whisper to then-Russian President Medvedev.

And that is what is causing the grumbling down here. 

Now, it very well may be true.  Candidates do lie to their constituents.  But the White House is usually not the source for such revelations.

The comment has at least bruised the Peña Nieto campaign.  Nothing can be more damaging to a Mexican politician than being sketched as an American stooge.  After all, PRI has its roots in the revolution that sent Porfirio Diaz, the quintessential patsy, packing.

Will the SNAFU affect the outcome of the election?  Most likely, not.  Peña Nieto’s lead is probably insurmountable.

But, I suspect he is now calculating just how far he wants to trust the White House.  Or, if he will even need to worry about that eventuality.

After all, it is possible there will be two new presidents next January.  And headlines like these may be a contributing factor.