Hillary Campaign: She "Misspoke" About Bosnia Sniper Incident
Another key moment from the Hillary campaign conference call: Hillary spokesperson Howard Wolfson acknowledged that she "misspoke" when she claimed a couple of weeks ago that as First Lady she had to avoid sniper fire in Bosnia in 1996.
Here's her original quote, from two weeks ago:
“I certainly do remember that trip to Bosnia, and as Togo said, there was a saying around the White House that if a place was too small, too poor, or too dangerous, the president couldn’t go, so send the First Lady. That’s where we went. I remember landing under sniper fire. There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base.”
Questioned about this on the call, Wolfson repeatedly said that contemporaneous news accounts said that there were "snipers in the hills" in the area. He also read from Hillary's book, Living History, saying that she also described the danger in similar terms.
However, in so doing, Wolfson did concede that her particular description of the episode might not have been accurate, saying:
“It is possible in the most recent instance in which she discussed this that she misspoke in regard to the exit from the plane, but there is no question if you look at contemporaneous accounts that she was going to a potential combat zone, that she was on the front lines.”
As it turns out, though, Hillary used a similar description a second time, two weeks before the above example, when touting her alleged commander-in-chief advantage over Obama. At an event rolling out the "red phone" ad, she said that upon arrival in Bosnia, the welcoming ceremony “had to be moved inside because of sniper fire.”
The mention of "sniper fire" here is also a stretch from her own earlier accounts of the event in Living History, when she said merely that the event was cut short due merely to reports of snipers in the hills around the airstrip.
Comments (233)
Oh, and the "first mom" took her child into this dangerous place? hmmmm...
March 24, 2008 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Even worse than that, she took our National Treasure, Sinbad, into that dangerous place. That is not the judgment that we want to see in our Commander in Chief of Imaginary Brave Deeds!!!!!!
March 24, 2008 2:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please help me bring Sinbad back into the campaign:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/03/an-open-letter-to-sinbad-your.php
Sinbad cannot not be disrespected!
March 24, 2008 4:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Come on, Greg. Don't be shy. Show the world your "parsing expertise". This post begs it.... What ? It is from HRC camp ? ..Oh, That's right. You can't do that to her. Can you ?
March 24, 2008 3:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here is the latest update in WaPo.
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/
An US Air Force journalist calls it as "Mrs. Clinton's [claim] is a lie, plain and simple."
March 24, 2008 4:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I elaborated a bit more about the situation on the ground in Bosnia inNato Reports from Bosnia
March 24, 2008 8:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who you gonna believe, me or your own eyes?
March 24, 2008 10:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why not just call it was it is - a lie?
March 24, 2008 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Homina, homina, homina. Jesus Snipers in the Hills Christ! We are NOT stupid Wolfson.
March 24, 2008 2:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is a straightforward declarative sentence, with the meaning unambiguous.
Being under sniper fire is a bit different than being informed that there might be sniper fire, isn't it? Or is there some Clintonian parsing that I'm not understanding?
March 24, 2008 2:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
You just don't understand. "Sniper Fire" is what they call a beautiful sunset in Bosnia. Jeezh, is it too much to ask people to keep up with local dialects?
And if it weren't a dangerous trip why on earth would they send Sinbad with her? You may not know this but Sinbad is America's secret weapon! You don't with the Sinbad.
March 24, 2008 2:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Washington Post gave this four Pinnocchios, I believe, which is the highest rating ever given to an obvious lie.
March 24, 2008 2:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's not misspeaking. That's lying. The kind of lying people do when they have no shame and will say literally anything to win. And it speaks of unbelievable arrogance and brazenness.
Perhaps the only thing more amazing than that is that the media isn't reported that she lied, it's reporting that her campaign says she "misspoke."
Even in the face of undeniable evidence, the media - and that includes Greg here at HRC Election Central - can't actually bring themselves to stop printing up Hillary's spin verbatim and actually report that she said something that has been proven untruthful.
March 24, 2008 2:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow, that's rather amazing. So she exaggerated big time and tried to make herself out to be a bullet-dodging heroine. This makes her other claims of being "Commander-in-Chief" and, now lately, "Commander-in-Chief of the Economy" almost poignant.
March 24, 2008 2:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
The media is almost there, but not quite. The first incident, relating to the 3 A.M., was what prompted Sinbad's comment. She then double-downed with the comment in her speech last Monday.
It would seem to me that she has a perfectly defensible argument that she misspoke the first time. But the second? After being challenged on her recollection she ups the ante. And only backs off the statement after video is produce the refutes her claim. That's not misspeaking. Sorry. That's lying.
If the media bails her out on this one, I don't want to read another post about how she's misstreated by them. Not a single one.
March 24, 2008 2:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
I second this.
Imagine had John Kerry lied like this...Or John Edwards...Or Barack Obama. Just imagine the 24/7 coverage.
Instead? Just the Washington Post...and a couple of others joining in today.
So tell me again how badly Clinton is treated?
She is mistreated, but she's also getting some incredibly benign coverage about lies that would have absolutely torpedoed anyone else's campaign.
March 24, 2008 2:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Amen. It's already bullshit that she's been mistreated - but if they're unwilling to call her out on an OUTRIGHT LIE...there's no hope.
I can't wait to see what Olbermann does with this tonight.
March 24, 2008 4:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I love it. Misspoke. Seriously.
It's fiction. It didn't happen. She lied.
Anyway, I guess we should be happy with this limited admission of error. I had money on Wolfson saying that Hillary parachuted from the plane armed with no more than a number 2 pencil and a gum wrapper and eliminated the threat in combat.
Win some. Lose some.
March 24, 2008 2:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did Obama not know about the views of his long time pastor Wright?
I think he knew and misspoke as well.
Try using the same measuring stick for all candidates. You'll see
1) McSame sucks
2) both HRC and Obama are great candidates and would make excellent presidents.
March 24, 2008 2:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
What blather. There is nothing at all analogous between Clinton flat-out lying and your assertions that somehow Obama misspoke about Wright.
March 24, 2008 3:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
He didn't deny knowing about the controversial views of his pastor. He denied being in the church when Wright made the controversial statements at issue. And despite some attempts to catch him in a lie, no one has shown that Obama was actually there.
March 24, 2008 3:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
I guess the whole Wright thing will not lay down. You are easily conflating a snippet of a sermon with a view point.
I suppose what you are really complaining about is that the descendants of slaves still have a little animosity and inherent distrust of the people in power.
SHAME ON YOU BLACK PEOPLE!!! SEE ME IN OHIO!
March 24, 2008 5:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Busted again! The following is passed overkill: "we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base.”
In other words American military would have put a First Lady in harms way. Oh! Right HRC is the exception, kinda like developing her CIC creds on the run, so to speak.
Will this ever end! And Wolfson trying to explain this, now I understand why she has not accepted the invite for a debate in N.C.(Ft. Bragg, etc)
March 24, 2008 2:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think I've "misspoke" once in my entire life. I've told plenty of lies though.
March 24, 2008 2:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Compare
and Contrast:
March 24, 2008 2:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe she just misremembers! Like Andy Pettite!
March 24, 2008 2:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't misunderestimate Hillary!!!!
McCain/Clinton '08!!!!!!!!!!!!
March 24, 2008 11:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
America needs a Commander in Chief of Sniper Fire Misspeak.
Even though she just made up her whole story about running and ducking for cover in Bosnia, Hillary is making up for it now, by running and ducking for coverup of her bald face lies to to the American People!!!!
March 24, 2008 2:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please post the Video of her landing please, since it best proves that she didn't misspoke but out right lied.
March 24, 2008 2:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
This small episode shows the folly of the Clinton strategy to go toe to toe with McCain on national security experience and the wisdom of Obama's strategy of framing the debate in terms of judgment. The comparison between McCain the war hero whose plane was literally shot down and who spent years being tortured as a POW at the Hanoi Hilton with that of HRC falsely claiming to have dodged sniper fire with her daughter and Simbad in tow, is just pathetic.
Can a HRC supporter please explain how they plan on winning the experience battle with McCain?
March 24, 2008 2:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, what do you know, somebody still focussed on relevant issues, instead of this nonsense about "lying" vs "mis-speaking." Yes, I agree, the attempt to go head-to-head with McCain in a battle of experience is a fool's errand. If we really try to turn this into a contest over experience, McCain will win hands down. The way for a democrat to win this November is by running the sort of campaign which Obama is running (one focussed on "judgement" instead of "experience"). Clinton is running a campaign which could possibly work in the primary but could not hope to work in the general election, which means that she has to be planning to pivot pretty quickly in August. Can she do it? I see little reason for us to imagine that she can, and even less to reward her for this short-sightedness.
March 24, 2008 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Aye, Aye" to that.
March 24, 2008 3:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
I expect she doesn't plan on bringing up experience against McCain. She just expects to get a pass on that in the GE, so that she can just contrast the standard Dem vs Rep policy differences.
March 24, 2008 7:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
"If a place is too poor, too dangerous send the First Lady" and tell her to bring her kid along! Didn't President Clinton visit Bosnia two months earlier?
March 24, 2008 2:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't forget to take a comedian and a singer along with you.
March 24, 2008 6:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey Greg, I expect you'll be covering this when the news announcement is made?
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/3/24/123741/841/888/483214
March 24, 2008 2:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Still no link to the video?
TPM must have some sort of link-disability syndrome. Here again are two great resources to educate yourself on this wonderful story rife for 527ing:
The Carpetbagger: http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/14981.html
Yglesias: http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/03/hillary_clinton_in_bosnia.php
Keep in mind one more important thing:
The "misspeak" alibi does not liberate her from having TRASHED Sindbad's recollections of the events as those of a mere "comedian."
If she truly misspoke, she owes him a formal public apology.
March 24, 2008 2:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
In all of the din, one thing is certain: This electorate will not tolerate the trashing of Sinbad.
March 24, 2008 4:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps Obama's camp to respond to foggy memory as well here
At the same time, several of his oft-recited stories may not have happened in the way he has recounted them. Some seem to make Obama look better in the retelling, others appear to exaggerate his outward struggles over issues of race, or simply skim over some of the most painful, private moments of his life.
[...]
In his best-selling autobiography, "Dreams from My Father," Obama describes having heated conversations about racism with another black student, "Ray." The real Ray, Keith Kakugawa, is half black and half Japanese. In an interview with the Tribune on Saturday, Kakugawa said he always considered himself mixed race, like so many of his friends in Hawaii, and was not an angry young black man.
He said he does recall long, soulful talks with the young Obama and that his friend confided his longing and loneliness. But those talks, Kakugawa said, were not about race. "Not even close," he said, adding that Obama was dealing with "some inner turmoil" in those days.
"But it wasn't a race thing," he said. "Barry's biggest struggles then were missing his parents. His biggest struggles were his feelings of abandonment. The idea that his biggest struggle was race is [bull]."
Then there's the copy of Life magazine that Obama presents as his racial awakening at age 9. In it, he wrote, was an article and two accompanying photographs of an African-American man physically and mentally scarred by his efforts to lighten his skin. In fact, the Life article and the photographs don't exist, say the magazine's own historians.
[...]
Yet even Obama has acknowledged the limits of memoir. In a new introduction to the reissued edition of "Dreams," he noted that the dangers of writing an autobiography included "the temptation to color events in ways favorable to the writer ... [and] selective lapses of memory."
He added: "I can't say that I've avoided all, or any, of these hazards successfully."
March 24, 2008 2:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
So your defense for Hillary's lying multiple times on the campaign trail to bolster her credibility is that Obama may have exaggerated in his book?
March 24, 2008 2:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cut and pasted right off HillaryIs44,org Well done, laddie.
BTW, ever hear the expression "2 wrongs don't make a right"? Assuming your info (which you obviously spent a lot of time researching) is correct, how do Obama's sins absolve Hillary of hers?
March 24, 2008 3:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, if I read you correctly, you're saying that Obama and his childhood friend disagree over their subjective impressions of the conversations they had 20+ years ago, and that a magazine he saw when he was nine, that he thought was a Life magazine, was some other magazine.
Wow, Obama's credibility is shot! Impeach the bsatard!
March 24, 2008 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
So if these claims from the book turned out to be true, would they push Senator Obama over that C.I.C. threshold?
If the friend had confirmed and the magazine did exist, would these two incidents be enough "experience" for Senator Obama to base an entire Presidential campaign on?
If they wouldn't, could you please explain how these non-issues are in any way comparable to the situation at hand?
March 24, 2008 5:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
O what LIES!!
She LIES, lies and LIES somemore.
She even disparaged Sinbad when he told the truth by saying 'he's just a comedian'
She lied about Nafta
She lied about why she voted for the war.
She lied about Rezko.
She lied about a vastrightwingconspiracy.
She is a LIAR.
March 24, 2008 2:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
They're both liars.
"Sen. Barack Obama is trying to distance himself from his pastor of 20 years after being questioned about his minister's advice to blacks to sing "damn America," instead of "bless America." Obama had touted his 21-year long membership in Trinity United Church of Christ, a controversial Chicago Christian church that Obama claimed earlier this month was not controversial, despite the fact that his minister has preached that the United States was itself responsible for being attacked on 9/11."
http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7010335862
March 24, 2008 2:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hmmmm. Where's the lie in all this frenzied quoting?
March 24, 2008 3:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
umm...his church is not controversial?
Well, Wright himself admitted it was:
“If Barack gets past the primary, he might have to publicly distance himself from me,” Mr. Wright said with a shrug. “I said it to Barack personally, and he said yeah, that might have to happen.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/30/us/politics/30obama.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all&oref=login&oref=slogin
March 24, 2008 3:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama claims a church is not controversial. Whether something is "controversial" seems to be a definite matter of opinion. Now, had Obama claimed that his church was, for instance, Roman Catholic, well, that's a factual issue, not an opinion.
Whether one was under sniper fire is not a matter of opinion, either. Or is it?
March 24, 2008 3:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why would Barack think he'd have to distance himself from Wright if he didn't think he was controversial? That makes no sense. Especially considering the fact that he already had that Muslim rumor hanging out there. No--if he thought he might have to distance himself from his Christian Pastor, it would mean he thought he was indeed controversial.
March 24, 2008 3:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll just point out that you are conflating Wright with Trinity United Church of Christ. They are not, contrary to your implication, one and the same. Obama acknowledged that Wright was a controversial figure. And frankly, the reality here is far more nuanced than you are willing to concede since it would not advance your interest.
Now what this has to do with Clinton lying when she didn't have to is beyond my comprehension. But that's not your point is it? Just muddy the water and dismiss this as politico-speak....
Intellectual dishonesty cannot and should not be justified, by any supporter.
March 24, 2008 4:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is why it's important.
"Misrepresenting your position and carefully parsing your words when you don't think you'll get caught are the hallmarks of the kind of politics that Barack Obama is running to change."
They both do it, but Hillary's campaign doesn't rest on the idea that she doesn't do it. I think this Bosnia thing, of course, was a stupid comment to make. But she never promised me she isn't a politian.
Obviously, if his Pastor is the head of TUCC, and his Pastor is controversial, that would make attending the church controversial until his Pastor is retired. At the time of his statement, Wright was still actively preaching.
March 24, 2008 4:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Shorter another_reader:
It's OK for Clinton to lie, because she never said she WOULDN'T lie!
March 24, 2008 4:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
I thought the exact same thing. Really bizarre rationale.
March 24, 2008 5:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have distanced myself from a lot of non-controversial people, issues, and situations over the years. I bet you have too.
Maybe he just disagreed.
March 24, 2008 4:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Besides the paraphrase in the quote from AHN, please provide a direct quote, with surrounding context, of Obama saying, "My church is not contraversial." I think I recall him saying something like, "My church is not considered a contraversial church in Chicago," but that's a lot different from saying "There is nothing that has ever happened at my church that anyone would consider contraversial."
In any case, he obviously was speaking about the past general perception of the church--which is clearly subjective--and cannot be compared to a statement like "we ran with our heads ducked to avoid sniper fire."
March 24, 2008 5:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
In a campaign appearance earlier this month, Sen. Obama said, "I don't think my church is actually particularly controversial."
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Story?id=4443788
"Misrepresenting your position and carefully parsing your words when you don't think you'll get caught are the hallmarks of the kind of politics that Barack Obama is running to change."
March 24, 2008 5:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gee, but that doesn't provide any context. I found this quote from the same talk in which he said he didn't think his church was particularly contraversial:
"Jeremiah Wright ... has said some things that are considered controversial because he's considered that part of his social gospel."
So how can this be a "lie" when he clarifies that his Reverend has said things that were considered contraversial immediately after the quote you cite?
March 24, 2008 5:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Link?
March 24, 2008 6:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think we need to give credit where credit is due. This is the closest Hillary has ever come to admitting a mistake.
Okay, this was said via a surrogate, not directly by Hillary herself. And granted, it wasn't so much a matter of having "mispoke" as a matter of having "lied through her teeth to exaggerate yet again about her experience".
But those are quibbles. Give her credit for coming closer than ever before to admitting a mistake. Maybe, with help, she can admit that voting to authorize the use of military force in Iraq, and voting with every single senate republican (and Lieberman) to move us closer to war with Iran, were simply times that she "misvoted".
March 24, 2008 2:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, she did say that she wished she could take it back....I guess she big on do-overs.
March 24, 2008 3:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
What kind of parent takes her child into a war zone, where there is a potential for sniper fire? I would seriously question her ability to be C-in-C on that alone.
March 24, 2008 2:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, what else can you do when the kids are off for Ski Week and there just isn't any snow?
March 24, 2008 3:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here is a video clip of what really happen
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iOsGo_HWP-c&feature=bzb302
March 24, 2008 2:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
This isn't misspoke, this is MS. Spoke.
March 24, 2008 2:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Or, as they say in the Albany statehouse, Ms. Poke.
March 24, 2008 6:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iOsGo_HWP-c&feature=bzb302
March 24, 2008 2:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Can you imagine what kinds of exaggerations she'd tell us once she got into the Oval Office? Eeesch...
We already have a Commander-in-Chief who twists the truth to sway votes. Do we need another one? This is grounds for an ad further highlighting her lack of truthworthiness.
March 24, 2008 2:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
There was a withering hail of sniper fire. Sure, Hillary and Chelsea stopped to listen to the little girl read a poem. That was because Hillary didn't want the little girl to be upset, thinking there might be something wrong. As soon as the poem was read, Hillary wisked her to safety. I'm sure.
March 24, 2008 2:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Recall, that was the exact same reason Bush didn't do anything when he got the news about the WTC--he didn't want to scare the kiddies.
March 24, 2008 3:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clearly, Bush passes Hillary's C-in-C test.
March 24, 2008 3:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Youtube video making fun of her lying getting a lot of hits today. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=It6JN7ALF7Y
March 24, 2008 2:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanx. That was good.
March 24, 2008 5:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Isn't this a rather small point? I remember a certain sinking feeling in the pit of my stomach when it became clear in the last days of Ohio that we were going to waste everybody's time blathering on about what some turkey named Goolsbee said and when he did or did not say it. I remember that same sinking feeling a week or so ago when it became clear that, with the fate of nations at stake, we preferred to argue about whether Obama's pastor was too unpatriotic for Obama (not his pastor) to be president. Now I feel the same sinking feeling in my belly as I see folks eager to debate endlessly whether Clinton "lied" or not when she claimed to be under sniper fire in Bosnia.
Does it really matter? Will we be any closer to selecting the right person to sit in the Oval Office by answering this question? This is irrelevant fluff and drivel, just like the last few weeks of campaign discourse. Why are we letting ourselves be distracted by this sort of pablum?
March 24, 2008 2:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good point. Except this is the candidate making the "misstatements", not an informal advisor or a pastor who has retired.
March 24, 2008 3:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I fail to see how the distinction is germane. Whether the gaffe tumbles out of the mouth of the candidate or a surrogate, it is still nothing more than a gaffe - as insubstantial as a breeze. If we Obama supporters spend the next week working ourselves into paroxysms of righteous outrage like Frankly0 & al did last week, we simply show that we are obtuse as they are. Surely we are better than this, no?
March 24, 2008 3:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
She's using the incident to demonstrate her readiness to be commander in chief. That's not a gaffe. That's not a line tossed out in the heat of the moment. It's a deliberate anecdote that happens to not be true.
This is a bit of a problem for me.
March 24, 2008 3:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are you kidding Greggy:
The delusional super freak claims she helped resolve Northern Ireland and Kosovo crisis- bold claims followed by alarming mischaracterization of her role in Bosnia.
Wake up! We appreciate your restrain because ever since her TX and OH shenanigans most of us are unwilling to concede an iota of respect for her- but you're giving her way too much benefit of doubt, here.
It's time she explains in full what exactly was her foreign policy experience?
She says she has met 200 some odd national and international leaders. What does that mean? Did she negotiate any foreign policy agreement or was she just a pig with a lipstick on shaking hands fulfilling her role as a first lady?
I don't know if you noticed, she constantly pulls stories and numbers out of her ass about foriegn policy experience and it’s time to explain. What was her role in Bosnia? Kosovo? Northern Ireland?
March 24, 2008 4:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are you kidding Greggy:
The delusional super freak claims she helped resolve Northern Ireland and Kosovo crisis- bold claims followed by alarming mischaracterization of her role in Bosnia.
Wake up! We appreciate your restrain because ever since her TX and OH shenanigans most of us are unwilling to concede an iota of respect for her- but you're giving her way too much benefit of doubt, here.
It's time she explains in full what exactly was her foreign policy experience?
She says she has met 200 some odd national and international leaders. What does that mean? Did she negotiate any foreign policy agreement or was she just a pig with a lipstick on shaking hands fulfilling her role as a first lady?
I don't know if you noticed, she constantly pulls stories and numbers out of her ass about foriegn policy experience and it’s time to explain. What was her role in Bosnia? Kosovo? Northern Ireland?
March 24, 2008 4:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree, Kash.
And Mamie Eisenhower is looking more statesman-like all the time.
March 24, 2008 7:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Greg
You seem to be protective of HRC for no reason. Her recollection could have been fuzzy first time around (though I don't see how one can be fuzzy about being shot) but she deliberately insisted on the same story with certitude (in the face of sceptical questioning by a reporter in a public forum), even going to the extent of ridiculing Sinbad as a comedian (for which she needs to apologize to him BTW).
And, why would it bother you that the Obama supporters here justifiably happy about it ? It is not that Obama or his camp is pushing this story. She is caught up in her own lies.
March 24, 2008 4:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd agree with you if this was a case of simply misspeaking as the Clinton campaign suggested. But it isn't and frankly it is a central part of her argument that she's ready to be CIC on day 1. As I noted above, she made the initial statement. Sinbad refuted it. Instead of retracking/correcting the statement, they turn around and dismiss his statements out of hand and then trot out a general to refute it (his name escapes me) and Clinton doubles-down on the story. And do you really believe that, in the absence of the video, she would have even admitted to misspeaking?
I like your desire to stay focused on the material issues confronting the nation. But to the extent a candidate is making a claim premised on a lie, I think that fact needs to be explored. Especially where it is the central point of their candidacy.
But that's me. Your mileage may vary....
March 24, 2008 3:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
re: "ready to be CIC on day 1"
Maybe lying is part of being ready to be President. Really, I say this only half-jokingly. I can't think of any in my lifetime (since Johnson).
Of course, it's despicable, the lying, but there ya have it.
March 24, 2008 5:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's a big deal because she LIED to us, not once, not twice, but serially! Should we trust her to tell me the truth when the time comes that that 3 am phone call has happened and she's justifying her reasons for taking what may be drastic action? Do you want to send your kid into hostile action on the basis of her word?
What lie would be big enough for you to sit up and take notice?
March 24, 2008 3:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am not sure. I do know that it would have to be a darn site bigger than this one. This just seems so petty to my mind. I am already in Sen Obama's camp, so I need no persuasion to esteem him more highly than I esteem Sen Clinton, but if I really were undecided, I have a hard time believing that this story would move me at all farther from her or closer to him. It is just too small a thing.
March 24, 2008 3:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
I know what you mean, but in terms of the realities of campaigns, yes, it does matter. Campaigns are won and lost based on how the public sees a candidate's character. Is he/she strong enough? Moral? Can I trust him/her?
Rightly or wrongly, my observation is that people react more strongly to small lies than to big lies when judging the character of a candidate. Perhaps the "big" lies are so scary that people don't feel that they are in a position to judge. Was Kissinger right or wrong in secretly bombing Cambodia? Well, who am I to judge? Meanwhile, small things like "I invented the internet" or "the snub" become coffee table chatter, especially when these incidents feed into existing public sentiment. No, Al Gore did not claim to have invented the internet, but the meme fed into an existing public perception that Al Gore thought highly of himself, his brains, and his accomplishments. No, "the snub" was not real, but it fed into the public's perception that Obama might be a bit cocky.
Clinton twists and exaggerates her accomplishments relentlessly. After all, she has been fighting for change for 35 years! This small incident fits into that existing frame in a way that is small, funny, and telling. And while any one incident might be seen as small or silly, they help to illustrate flaws that I believe are deeply real.
March 24, 2008 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, you at least make a convincing rebuttal. I hate to think that you might be right, but that is at least the strongest argument I have yet heard as to why we Obama supporters are supposed to be indignant about this.
March 24, 2008 3:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Normally I would be agreeing with you, but there is a subtext here.
Clinton has been arguing that the news media is biased against her, and a general reluctance in the big networks to call her out for lying about this is concrete evidence that it isn't true.
John McCain has been getting a free pass for months over his increasingly obvious ignorance about both foreign and domestic policy. The first moment anyone does attack him about it, his spin machine will start talking about the "liberal media elite" and how it's all biased against the poor little Republican candidate.
We have to nip that in the bud right now. If the big news agencies are unwilling to call you out for one of your lies, they are biased for you, not against you.
March 24, 2008 4:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
America does not need A Commander in Chief of Imaginary Brave Deeds!!!!!!!!
March 24, 2008 2:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why not? Didn't Reagan get confused and think he helped free Normandy or something like that? Dubya was a fighter pilot, and so on...
March 24, 2008 5:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Where's Sinbad? I miss his posts.
March 24, 2008 2:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
THIS IS EXCELLENT NEWS!! FOR HILLARY!!!
March 24, 2008 2:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I grew up in Oakland. Does that mean I was raised by sniper fire?
Getting really tired of HRC and the silly claims she's made about executive experience. From bringing peace to N. Ireland to dodging sniper fire with Sinbad and chelsea in tow. Couldn't agree more with the statement that saying HRC has executive experience is like saying yoko ono was a beatle.
March 24, 2008 2:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
re: "HRC has executive experience"
I said it once here, but I'll say it a second time.
Lying seems to be part of the job of President.
She saw Bill do it over and over as Pres (and on the campaign trail) and she's just following suit.
She's ready on Day One to be Prevaricator in Chief!
March 24, 2008 5:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
The joke going around is that "you can't spell Hillary without L-I-A-R".
About the time of the Iowa primary, I switched to Obama based on a list I had begun accumulating of unethical conduct by Hillary. Since that time, I've lost count of the number of times she's screwed up like this. Obama, by comparison, makes her look petty and incompetent. And there's no need to attack her - all we have to do is keep pointing to her self-inflicted wounds.
CHARACTER MATTERS
March 24, 2008 2:58 PM