Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Wag the Blog: Clinton in Bosnia

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's story about a harrowing 1996 landing at an air base in Bosnia has now been formally debunked by comedian Sinbad (who was on the trip), the Post's fact checker Michael Dobbs, and this video provided by CBS News.

Clinton's campaign acknowledged in a conference call Monday that she "misspoke" and on Tuesday Clinton herself said she had made a mistake.

"So I made a mistake," Clinton said in a press conference in Pennsylvania. "That happens. It shows I'm human, which for some people is a revelation."

The question now before the political world is whether to take Clinton at her word or whether the Bosnia story represents a pattern of conduct that speaks to larger problems about her candidacy.

On the one hand, Clinton did accurately recount the Bosnia landing in her autobiography "Living History" and, like many of us, might simply be guilty of exaggeration or a faulty memory.

On the other, Clinton has made her experiences abroad a central part of her argument against Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) in the primary fight. She regularly notes in her stump speech that she visited more than 80 countries as first lady and played an integral role in diplomatic relations. The implicit contrast is that Obama, who has spent just three years in the U.S. Senate, does not have that same credibility on foreign affairs and could not, therefore, hit the ground running on day one -- to borrow a phrase.

Any sign that Clinton is exaggerating her experiences as first lady is then potentially perilous as it raises major questions about one of the core arguments she is advancing in the race.

The Associated Press' Ron Fournier frames the problem thusly: "What makes Clinton's situation unique -- and the Bosnia embellishments so damaging -- is the fact that the New York senator has built her candidacy on the illusion of experience. Any attack on her credentials is a potential Achilles heel."

For today's Wag the Blog question we want to know whether you think Clinton's Bosnia statements are a minor blip in the campaign or a major development that could derail any momentum she has built since her wins on March 4.

We're hoping that your opinions aren't entirely shaped by loyalty to your chosen candidate.

The smartest and most thoughtful comments will be featured in a post of their own later this week.

By Chris Cillizza  |  March 26, 2008; 6:00 AM ET
Categories:  Wag The Blog  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Freedom's Watch Makes a Move
Next: Montana: A June Battleground?

Comments

I think it is about the same level as the wright thing. Judging from the polls though, she is sinking, so it really might be bigger than it looks.

Also, Obama pulled himself out of the Wright thing with his powerful speech. Clinton is not capable of turning this Bosnia thing into an asset.

Posted by: storyofthefifthpeach | March 30, 2008 5:49 PM | Report abuse

Was Clinton in on this deal?::::

Clinton campaign head made $200,000 with subprime lender

WASHINGTON - Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign manager, Maggie Williams, earned about $200,000 on the board of a Long Island subprime lender that charged prepayment penalties -- a practice that Clinton, a critic of the subprime industry, now seeks to eliminate.

Williams, who took over the reins of Clinton's campaign in early February, served as a director on the board of the Woodbury-based Delta Financial Corp. from April 2000 until the firm declared bankruptcy in December, according to Securities and Exchange Commission records.

Posted by: storyofthefifthpeach | March 30, 2008 5:30 PM | Report abuse

I'm not sure I want someone who has "misremembered" such an event to be answering the red phone at 3 AM.

After reading through many of these comments I can only conclude that the two party system in this country is seriously broken down. When the national discussion of the election is saturated with nothing but gossip, inuendo and trivia instead of serious debate of the real problems this country faces, our future as a nation is in serious jeopardy.

Posted by: bttippens | March 28, 2008 9:05 AM | Report abuse

I'm not sure I want someone who has "misremembered" such an event to be answering the red phone at 3 AM.

After reading through many of these comments I can only conclude that the two party system in this country is seriously broken down. When the national discussion of the election is saturated with nothing but gossip, inuendo and trivia instead of serious debate of the real problems this country faces, our future as a nation is in serious jeopardy.

Posted by: bttippens | March 28, 2008 9:04 AM | Report abuse

How easily and casually Hillary lies.

Posted by: gmundenat | March 27, 2008 10:56 PM | Report abuse

The worst thing about Clinton's "war" story is that her daughter accompanied her to Bosnia. This means the former first lady has involved her child in a lie in order to advance her own agenda.

More, it suggests "to me" that Clinton could very well be a president who lies to the public in the very same way. I saw this one coming. I'm not surpised, but then I'm also not a supporter.

Posted by: jmccowan | March 27, 2008 7:58 PM | Report abuse

It's hard to mistake whether or not you are under fire.

Her comment makes the US Military look incompetent. If the First Lady of the United States was shot at, it would have been news.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | March 27, 2008 1:15 PM | Report abuse

Obama's efforts to connect to the Republican Party, specifically Bush, and Dick Chaney, of the Halliburton Company, dates back to the Presidents Grandfather, Prescott Bush, and indeed Chaney was once an executive officer of Halliburton.

The American military pounds Iraq with Artillary, bombs, and the like, destroying large sections of cities, and infra-structures, then Halliburton comes in to rebuild. Halliburton and Halliburton associated companies have raked in ten's of billions.

Obama is just like the BIG HALIBURTAN. Haliburton has contracted to build detention centers in the U.S. similiar to the one in Quantanammo Bay, Cuba. Halliburton does nothing to earn the Two Dollars for each meal an American Serviceman in Iraq eats.

http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/

Halliburton was scheduled to take control of the Dubai Ports in The United Arab Emiirate. The deal was canceled when Bush was unable to affect the transfer of the American Ports.

Now we see what some might suspect as similiar financial escapading from the Democrats.

Two years ago, Iraq's Ministry of Electricity gave a $50 million contract to a start-up security company - Companion- owned by now-indicted businessman (TONY REZKO) Tony Rezko and a onetime Chicago cop, Daniel T. Frawley, to train Iraqi power-plant guards in the United States. An Iraqi leadership change left the deal in limbo. Now the company, Companion Security, is working to revive its contract.
Involved along with Antoin "Tony" Rezco, long time friend and neighbor of Democratic Presidential hopeful Barack Obama, and former cop Daniel T. Frawley, is Aiham Alsammarae. Alsammarae was accused of financial corruption by Iraqi authorities and jailed in Iraq last year before escaping and returning here.

LIKE FATHER LIKE SON --
Recently, Obama's campaign staff have been vetted by the IRS to disclose his connection to the criminal money generating underworld. Besides, his connections to the REZCO MAFIA types, his up-coming tax fraud charges -- Obama needs to disclose why he is a MUSLIM "PATWANG-FWEEE" and disclose Obama's MUSLIM Farrakhan mob connection to Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ. Its minister, and Obama's spiritual adviser, is the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. In 1982, the church launched Trumpet Newsmagazine; Wright's daughters serve as publisher and executive editor. Every year, the magazine makes awards in various categories. Last year, it gave the Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. Trumpeter Award to a man it said "truly epitomized greatness." That man is Louis Farrakhan. Farrakhan and Chicago's Trinity United Church are trumpeting Barack Obama AKA Barack Hussein Obama as the second coming of the messiah. Obama should stop suppoting our intervention in IRAQ. It's time to introduce this false, fake Xerox - X box Obama and invite the self-indicting thief plagiarizing pipsqueke "GLORK" Xerox - X box to meet the Buffalo "GAZOWNT-GAZIKKA" Police Department Buffalo Creek. He is MAD!!! --

OBAM YOU'RE NO JFK --

"GLORK" Obama looks like Alfred E. Newman: "Tales Calculated To Drive You." He is a MUSLIM "Glork" He's MAD!!! Alfred E. Neuman is the fictional mascot of Mad. The face had drifted through American pictography for decades before being claimed by Mad editor Harvey Kurtzman after he spotted it on the bulletin board in the office of Ballantine Books editor Bernard Shir-Cliff, later a contributor to various magazines created by Kurtzman.
Obama needs to disclose why he is a MUSLIM "PATWANG-FWEEE" and stop suppoting our intervention in IRAQ. It's time to introduce this false, fake "GLORK" Xerox - X box Obama and invite the self-indicting thief plagiarizing pipsqueke Xerox - X box to meet the Buffalo "GAZOWNT-GAZIKKA" Police Department Buffalo Creek.

Michelle Obama should be ashamed.

"GLORK" Michelle Obama should be ashamed of her separatist-racist connection to Farrakhan and Chicago's Trinity United Church trumpeting Barack Obama AKA Barack Hussein Obama as the second coming of the messiah. If Michelle Obama new what her husband -- the Hope-A-Dope, Fonster Monster -- Barack Obama AKA Barack Hussein Obama did in Harlem, she would wash her wide-open, Hus-suey loving MUSILM mouth out, with twenty-four (24) mule-team double-cross X-boX-BorraX. He is a MUSLIM "Glork" It's time to introduce this false, fake "GLORK" Xerox - X box Obama and invite the self-indicting thief plagiarizing pipsqueke Xerox - X box to meet the Buffalo "GAZOWNT-GAZIKKA" Police Department Buffalo Creek. He's MAD!!!

http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/

THE SPEECH --

The Apologia has arrived and once again the self-indicting, separatist-racist Barack Obama AKA Barack Hussein Obama, promises to heal the wounds of the world. The speech is the rude awakening of mass messianism of his campaign. Apologetically, Obama the MUSLIM double-cross X-boX-BorraX has an astonishingly empty two-prawn echelon explanation of his misjudgment.
In the first prawn: with regard to his connection to separatist-racist Rev. Wright; Obama summons voodoo and juju to express slavery as beginning and ending with the Rev. Wright.
In the second prawn: Obama's speech takes credit for Ashley's dream. A dream of unity Martin Luther King, Jr. borrowed from Ashley for his historic "I Have A Dream" speech. In Obama's speech, the connective bond Ashley, the elderly black man and Obama's grandmother share; represents Obama's self-indicting rise to the Harvard Yard. For Obama, the grand flag of language is the semi-fore of words, bestowed upon our nation by the messiah-alumni from Harvard. Obama's Swoon-Song Apologia to the nation represents a failed hymn -- a hymn that fails to heal the nation, repair the world, or make this time different than all the rest. Obama's speech is a brilliant failure.

http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/

Posted by: jreno21 | March 27, 2008 1:13 PM | Report abuse

Garnet888 said:
"And lastly, do you really want a President who can't win a debate with Sinbad?"
I love it!

What makes this even more incredible is that Sinbad had already challenged her account before she made her statement on St. Patrick's Day. She was responding to his mocking claim that their biggest conflict on the trip was deciding where to eat. She even had Gen. Togo West step to the mike and humiliate himself by backing up her story.

If you look at the tape of her at that press conference, she looks terrific in her green clover covered scarf - relaxed, in control, and very well rested. She provided a lot of detail about their harrowing trip. She did not seem sleep deprived in the least.

Posted by: johnsonc2 | March 27, 2008 11:42 AM | Report abuse

I think it was a serious error, especially because it was clearly false, as shown repeatedly by television videotape, and she repeated it several times. What is most damaging is the timing. It changed the subject of campaign gossip from Rev. Wright, which was already beginning to play out.

Her efforts on Tuesday to change the discussion back to Wright looked desperate and negated her more politically wise silence of the previous week. Obama had addressed the Wright issue as best he could with his speech on race - people either accepted his explanation and found his description of racial matters uplifting or they didn't agree that he had sufficiently explained his involvement in a church with a pastor who had made angry, anti-American statements. Gratuitously bringing up the subject again didn't help her with anyone at this point in the life cycle of that story. Rather, it hurt her, and showed poor judgment - again.

The most damaging fact about this "Bosnia sniper fire" story is that it reminded people of Hillary Clinton's historic reputation for untrustworthiness at a time when she needed to run a nearly perfect campaign to overcome Obama's lead and/or reestablish herself as the candidate most likely to win in November. This story will be seen as another tipping point toward her final defeat.

Posted by: johnsonc2 | March 27, 2008 11:19 AM | Report abuse

svreader, Thanks for your post about Obama's inconsistencies and exaggerations. Keep posting that list- it is very effective and informative. We absolutely need to focus the attention onto Obama's record vs what he says.

One bit of advice though - shorten it up a bit so that people won't scroll past.

I'm no fan of the Clintons, but she has gotten way more scrutiny than Obama. He can't be allowed to just waltz to victory based on one or two scripted speeches.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | March 27, 2008 11:14 AM | Report abuse

Saturday Night Live should be good this week.

Posted by: J_thinks | March 27, 2008 9:36 AM | Report abuse

Anything that draws attention to the actual merits or lack thereof of her claim to being experienced should act like sunlight on a vampire.

Posted by: light_bearer | March 27, 2008 9:24 AM | Report abuse

Mark: All of them are "Flawed" as are all of us. I have two things that really gets me going.. Thief and Lier.. I cannot stand either, and try my best to stay away from them as much as possible. I pretty well know some things about McCain, Hillary, and Obama even though I don't know them personally, and think Hillary is far above the three of them in what I think each of them would try to do for us in their role as POTUS. The best words I can think of would be "Feeling and Helping" those of the world, as a whole, that have little of what each and everyone of us should have in our time here on earth.

Posted by: lylepink | March 27, 2008 12:50 AM | Report abuse

The defining question is whether Hillary EVER had an experience like the one she described. If so, she's right, big deal, she got confused. IF NOT...roll the tape, knowing the whole story, detail after detail, is fabricated, that she's just standing there unabashedly making this crap up. This SO undermines her credibility. We'll see an ad intercutting the film with her comments in the general election if she's the nominee. The question is whether we'll see such an ad in the primaries.

Posted by: fred | March 26, 2008 09:36 AM
-----------------------------------
You're absolutely right. The real question is: did this ever happen to Hillary? My guess is no, that this was a complete fabrication. If there were an actual sniper fire incident, wouldn't the Clinton campaign have immeidately told us when/where it happened?

Their silence tells me all I need to know. It's revealing how Clinton so casually lies about things, and then immediately disavows her story when caught.

Posted by: smc91 | March 27, 2008 12:40 AM | Report abuse

Obama's LIES are far worse. From DD --

Ok now why don't we take a look at some of the instances where St. Obama's misspoken, eh?


Just Embellished Words: Senator Obama's Record of Exaggerations & Misstatements

Once again, the Obama campaign is getting caught saying one thing while doing another. They are personally attacking Hillary even though Sen. Obama has been found mispeaking and embellishing facts about himself more than ten times in recent months. Senator Obama's campaign is based on words -not a record of deeds - and if those words aren't backed up by facts, there's not much else left.

"Senator Obama has called himself a constitutional professor, claimed credit for passing legislation that never left committee, and apparently inflated his role as a community organizer among other issues. When it comes to his record, just words won't do. Senator Obama will have to use facts as well," Clinton spokesman Phil Singer said.

Sen. Obama consistently and falsely claims that he was a law professor. The Sun-Times reported that, "Several direct-mail pieces issued for Obama's primary [Senate] campaign said he was a law professor at the University of Chicago. He is not. He is a senior lecturer (now on leave) at the school. In academia, there is a vast difference between the two titles. Details matter." In academia, there's a significant difference: professors have tenure while lecturers do not. [Hotline Blog, 4/9/07; Chicago Sun-Times, 8/8/04]

Obama claimed credit for nuclear leak legislation that never passed. "Obama scolded Exelon and federal regulators for inaction and introduced a bill to require all plant owners to notify state and local authorities immediately of even small leaks. He has boasted of it on the campaign trail, telling a crowd in Iowa in December that it was 'the only nuclear legislation that I've passed.' 'I just did that last year,' he said, to murmurs of approval. A close look at the path his legislation took tells a very different story. While he initially fought to advance his bill, even holding up a presidential nomination to try to force a hearing on it, Mr. Obama eventually rewrote it to reflect changes sought by Senate Republicans, Exelon and nuclear regulators. The new bill removed language mandating prompt reporting and simply offered guidance to regulators, whom it charged with addressing the issue of unreported leaks. Those revisions propelled the bill through a crucial committee. But, contrary to Mr. Obama's comments in Iowa, it ultimately died amid parliamentary wrangling in the full Senate." [New York Times, 2/2/08]

Obama misspoke about his being conceived because of Selma. "Mr. Obama relayed a story of how his Kenyan father and his Kansan mother fell in love because of the tumult of Selma, but he was born in 1961, four years before the confrontation at Selma took place. When asked later, Mr. Obama clarified himself, saying: 'I meant the whole civil rights movement.'" [New York Times, 3/5/07]

LA Times: Fellow organizers say Sen. Obama took too much credit for his community organizing efforts. "As the 24-year-old mentor to public housing residents, Obama says he initiated and led efforts that thrust Altgeld's asbestos problem into the headlines, pushing city officials to call hearings and a reluctant housing authority to start a cleanup. But others tell the story much differently. They say Obama did not play the singular role in the asbestos episode that he portrays in the best-selling memoir 'Dreams From My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance.' Credit for pushing officials to deal with the cancer-causing substance, according to interviews and news accounts from that period, also goes to a well-known preexisting group at Altgeld Gardens and to a local newspaper called the Chicago Reporter. Obama does not mention either one in his book." [Los Angeles Times, 2/19/07]

Chicago Tribune: Obama's assertion that nobody had indications Rezko was engaging in wrongdoing 'strains credulity.' "...Obama has been too self-exculpatory. His assertion in network TV interviews last week that nobody had indications Rezko was engaging in wrongdoing strains credulity: Tribune stories linked Rezko to questionable fundraising for Gov. Rod Blagojevich in 2004 -- more than a year before the adjacent home and property purchases by the Obamas and the Rezkos." [Chicago Tribune editorial, 1/27/08]

Obama was forced to revise his assertion that lobbyists 'won't work in my White House.' "White House hopeful Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) was forced to revise a critical stump line of his on Saturday -- a flat declaration that lobbyists 'won't work in my White House' after it turned out his own written plan says they could, with some restrictions... After being challenged on the accuracy of what he has been saying -- in contrast to his written pledge -- at a news conference Saturday in Waterloo, Obama immediately softened what had been his hard line in his next stump speech." [Chicago Sun-Times, 12/16/07]

FactCheck.org: 'Selective, embellished and out-of-context quotes from newspapers pump up Obama's health plan.' "Obama's ad touting his health care plan quotes phrases from newspaper articles and an editorial, but makes them sound more laudatory and authoritative than they actually are. It attributes to The Washington Post a line saying Obama's plan would save families about $2,500. But the Post was citing the estimate of the Obama campaign and didn't analyze the purported savings independently. It claims that "experts" say Obama's plan is "the best." "Experts" turn out to be editorial writers at the Iowa City Press-Citizen - who, for all their talents, aren't actual experts in the field. It quotes yet another newspaper saying Obama's plan "guarantees coverage for all Americans," neglecting to mention that, as the article makes clear, it's only Clinton's and Edwards' plans that would require coverage for everyone, while Obama's would allow individuals to buy in if they wanted to." [FactCheck.org, 1/3/08]

Sen. Obama said 'I passed a law that put Illinois on a path to universal coverage,' but Obama health care legislation merely set up a task force. "As a state senator, I brought Republicans and Democrats together to pass legislation insuring 20,000 more children. And 65,000 more adults received health care...And I passed a law that put Illinois on a path to universal coverage." The State Journal-Register reported in 2004 that "The [Illinois State] Senate squeaked out a controversial bill along party lines Wednesday to create a task force to study health-care reform in Illinois. [...] In its original form, the bill required the state to offer universal health care by 2007. That put a 'cloud' over the legislation, said Sen. Dale Righter, R-Mattoon. Under the latest version, the 29-member task force would hold at least five public hearings next year." [Obama Health Care speech, 5/29/07; State Journal-Register, 5/20/04]

ABC News: 'Obama...seemed to exaggerate the legislative progress he made' on ethics reform. "ABC News' Teddy Davis Reports: During Monday's Democratic presidential debate, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., seemed to exaggerate the legislative progress he has made on disclosure of "bundlers," those individuals who aggregate their influence with the candidate they support by collecting $2,300 checks from a wide network of wealthy friends and associates. When former Alaska Sen. Mike Gravel alleged that Obama had 134 bundlers, Obama responded by telling Gravel that the reason he knows how many bundlers he has raising money for him is "because I helped push through a law this past session to disclose that." Earlier this year, Obama sponsored an amendment [sic] in the Senate requiring lobbyists to disclose the candidates for whom they bundle. Obama's amendment would not, however, require candidates to release the names of their bundlers. What's more, although Obama's amendment was agreed to in the Senate by unanimous consent, the measure never became law as Obama seemed to suggest. Gravel and the rest of the public know how many bundlers Obama has not because of a 'law' that the Illinois Democrat has 'pushed through' but because Obama voluntarily discloses that information." [ABC News, 7/23/07]

Obama drastically overstated Kansas tornado deaths during campaign appearance. "When Sen. Barack Obama exaggerated the death toll of the tornado in Greensburg, Kan, during his visit to Richmond yesterday, The Associated Press headline rapidly evolved from 'Obama visits former Confederate capital for fundraiser' to `Obama rips Bush on Iraq war at Richmond fundraiser' to 'Weary Obama criticizes Bush on Iraq, drastically overstates Kansas tornado death toll' to 'Obama drastically overstates Kansas tornado deaths during campaign appearance.' Drudge made it a banner, ensuring no reporter would miss it." [politico.com, 5/9/07]


Twelve instances... when oh WHEN will they start doling out Pinocchios for these, eh?

Posted by: svreader | March 27, 2008 12:21 AM | Report abuse

I have been a Democrat for a long time. I voted for Eugene McCarthy, Walter Mondale, George McGovern, Michael Dukakis, Jimmy Carter, Al Gore, and John Kerry. The obvious question is "Where is Bill Clinton's name?" Well,for me, character has always been the most important part of any presidential candidate, and I just didn't see it in Clinton. It was just a very little lie that tipped me off. You see, Bill is close to my own age and I know my generation very well. So when he said that he had smoked marijuana but he "didn't inhale" I knew that he was either an idiot or a liar. He seemed way too smart to be that big of an idiot, so the other choice was the obvious one. It turns out I was right. Later, it was Bill Clinton lying about his sexual encounters that closed the door on his presidency being followed by another Democrat. It opened the door for the most damage the Republicans have ever been allowed to do to our republic.
The point of the story, of course, is that I feel I am a pretty good judge of character. Now Bill Clinton's wife has been caught in a little lie, and that certainly has not been the only indication of her true character. There is no way on God's green earth that she will ever get my vote.

Posted by: Arjuna9 | March 26, 2008 11:29 PM | Report abuse

Here following is evidence of how Obama, whose stated positon was to be above the politics of divisiveness, is outright disenfranchising voters. He doesn't want a vote based on a voter decided outcome, he wants to tilt the outcome so he is assured votes. Votes might be able to be manipulated in a caucus venue, but in primaries, where he has been the weakest, he has had less control of the outcome. It's probably the most outrageous irony of the election, that the first Black candidate for the Presidency would disenfranchise votes.

Clinton Camp's Response to Michigan Court Ruling

STATEMENT FROM CAMPAIGN MANAGER MAGGIE WILLIAMS ON NEW VOTE IN MICHIGAN
In the wake of today's court ruling regarding Michigan's January 15th primary, we urge Senator Obama to join our call for a party-run primary and demonstrate his commitment to counting Michigan's votes.
Senator Clinton has consistently urged that the more that 600,000 votes cast by the people of Michigan be counted and if that is not possible, that a new election be held.
Michigan voters must not be disenfranchised and the Obama campaign must not continue to block Michigan's efforts to hold a new vote. Rather it should move quickly to announce its support for a party run primary.
Michigan will be a key battleground state in November. Disenfranchising Michigan voters today will, in the heat of a general election, provide Senator McCain with a powerful argument to use against the Democratic nominee. We cannot allow this to happen.
The people of Michigan must be counted and their voices finally heard. What the people of Michigan need now is just action, not just words.

Obama Campaign Response to Michigan Ruling

"As we've said consistently, we think there should be a fair seating of the Michigan delegates. The Clinton campaign has stubbornly said they see no need to negotiate, but we believe that their Washington, my-way-or-the-highway approach is something voters are tired of," said Obama campaign manager David Plouffe.


http://thepage.time.com/2008/03/26/federal-judge-michigan-vote-flawed/

Posted by: vammap | March 26, 2008 10:20 PM | Report abuse

In the interest of full disclosure I voted for Obama but have given to both candidates.

I have had concerns about Clinton from the beginning. Issues like, Bush, Clinton, Bush Clinton, ... not really the way a democracy is supposed to be run.

Bill back in the White House, and then we really do have two Presidents.

Obama is new, can't get around that or deny that. Johnson was not, did not avoid Vietnam, Nixon was not, it went on seven more years. Ford was experienced but we had horrible economic conditions. Reagan was fairly inexperienced but is well liked. Clinton had no foreign policy experience but beat the best resume in town.

Resumes are over valued. If we were electing a resume we would appoint Bill Richardson. We don't elect resumes, we elect people. To me the judgment is -- who do I want to invite into my home for the next 4 or 8 years? Obama began to close that deal with me with his speech after winning South Carolina. He closed the deal with me with his speech on race.

I vote for judgment not experience. Experience can interfere with judgment because it limits the concept of the possible. Obama is so fresh and so smart that he is who we need. We may be at a turning point in this country of becoming just another country instead of the leading light we have been for more than 60 years.

We need an inspirational leader, not a divider and both Clinton and McCain are dividers.

Posted by: colemaninn | March 26, 2008 9:54 PM | Report abuse

JD, she could also be a frightened little girl in a hard adult shell. It fits, if you know anyone like that. That would make her a more understandable person, but not a more trustworthy President.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | March 26, 2008 9:52 PM | Report abuse

lyle, I am sensing that this story is painful for you.

If it helps, we do not know any of these candidates personally and we go on what we read, hear, and see.

I tell you I lean to McC, but I do not know him. I would not be responsible for him, if I did know him. bsimon leans to BHO but he does not know him. FemaleNick leans to HRC and she has met HRC, but she does not know her.

So if you are angry with HRC for disappointing you now, but continue to support her as the best of three flawed options, and I do the same with McC, we can just debate issues. And if either of us end up supporting someone else, that is OK too.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | March 26, 2008 9:33 PM | Report abuse

flipping around the channels tonight, I saw Dick Morris hammering HRC on Fox. Yeah I know, nothing new, but he ran down a long list of her pattern of outright lying:

- evidently, HRC claimed that Chelsea was jogging around the WTC when the plane hit (Chelsea was at home)
- HRC claimed she learned about racism in school during intramural soccer (they didn't have that sport at her school)

There were other examples, but those are the two I remember. I know Dick is a biased source and mostly a Clinton hater, but before some hater like drindl merely attacks the messenger here; he does make some good points.

Is HRC pathological? She must know she's going to get caught, it's on tape (like Kwame from Detroit...). Why lie? Is it just her nature?

If so, how awful a person she must be. and it explains alot of why she stayed with Bubba.

Posted by: JD | March 26, 2008 9:21 PM | Report abuse

I'll preface my analogy with the information that I support Sen. Obama. That said, I think the Tuzla story presents a problem for Sen Clinton that I have not seen adequately addressed.

First, the exaggerations, in and of themselves, would constitute a "minor blip." We're dealing with the memory of an event that occurred twelve years ago. On that front, I'm inclined to give Sen. Clinton the benefit of the doubt. I think there is an amount of resume padding that, while not entirely unimportant, is more or less acceptable.

However, the problem lies [no pun intended] in the actions that she has taken since confronted with the inconsistency. This is where the troubling pattern seems to emerge. First, she stated that she "misspoke," which was also proven to be untrue. And then she blamed the discrepancy on "sleep deprivation." All that these responses have done is perpetuate the controversy; keep it alive. She has taken a "minor blip" and given it legs.

From a strictly 'I want to elect a Democrat in the fall' standpoint, the seeming lack of accountability for her actions is disconcerting. Every campaign has multiple "minor blips." It is the candidate's response that I believe, generally, ends up driving the story. This is probably a good thing because it allows the electorate to see the candidates in less scripted moments responding to something they did not foresee. And with Sen. Clinton, there seems to be a pattern of not accepting consequences for actions which, I strongly believe, helps foster the zealousness with which she is pursued by others.

I think there is a natural inclination that people have to hold others accountable. Because that's the way it is in almost all of our lives. It's something almost everyone inherently understands. And on a base level, this just seems like Sen. Clinton was caught trying to pull a fast one and then not wanting to accept responsibility after having been caught.

Although I voted for Bill Clinton twice, I always thought that his inability to take responsibility for his actions made him complicit in the manner in which he was pursued. And I don't want to relive that aspect of the 90's. It's bad for the party and it's bad for the country. In fact, it seems to only be good for satisfying the personal ambitions of the Clintons'.

I hope the country has enough sense to simply walk away this time.

Posted by: jeff.cronin | March 26, 2008 8:31 PM | Report abuse

Why are we still talking about Hillary. She has no chance of winning either the nomination or any other thing in this race except a rightful second place.

Hillary, you're toast, finished, caput. Deal with it. It is over for you and your blowhard husband.

Go tell some tall stories to your New York village. They love you there. The rest of the world could not care less about your pathetic grasping at straws.

The race is over. Lawyer that into second is the new first. Grow up and learn to lose. The spectacle of you, Bill and Chelsea is truly tiresome. Please, go away, you lost and you know it. Please, go away, now!

Posted by: rfpiktor | March 26, 2008 8:25 PM | Report abuse

I think this story is damaging , not just because she has based her whole campaign on this notion of her vast experience , its also even more damaging because it speaks to the incompetent way Clinton's campaign has been managed from the start. From Patti Solis Doyle's mismanagement of money , which left Clinton unable to compete in Feb . To their inability to control Bill Clinton in South Carolina , which led to the wholesale defection of African-Americans from Clinton. Mistake after mistake has been made by her team. The fact is she was speaking from written remarks . That means someone from her campaign wrote this story for her without taking the time to fact check . Thats rank, Mike Brown incompetence for you . Which is exactly what we don't need following George W. Bush.

Posted by: brokenglassdemocrat | March 26, 2008 7:36 PM | Report abuse

PROUD: I stated earlier there was no excuse for FLAT OUT LIES by anyone. Hillary KNEW she was LIEING when these statements were made, this "False Remembering" does not cut it with me in no way shape or form. I am still supporting Hillary, but if more LIES come from her campaign, I will support McCain, for there is no way I could ever vote for Obama.

Posted by: lylepink | March 26, 2008 7:04 PM | Report abuse

The Hillary campaign, which has seen its hopes for a state-run revote effectively dashed by opposition from Obama and local officials, has just called for a party-run primary -- or "firehouse primary" -- and challenged the Obama camp to climb aboard.

The Hillary camp's call for the new vote comes in the wake of a decision by a Federal judge in Detroit today ruling the state's presidential primary law unconstitutional.


http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/03/hillary_campaign_calls_for_par.php

Posted by: vammap | March 26, 2008 6:49 PM | Report abuse

This doesn't seem to pose a huge problem for Clinton in and of itself, but it does suggest that she may have a hard time closing the deal on the nomination. It's things like this that remind voters that Clinton's FLOTUS years are of debatable relevance in her run for president. Ironically, despite Clinton's comments that this shows she's human, it will stir up the distrust many people have of Clinton and his her where she is weakest against Obama - the old "honest and trustworthy" column. On it's own, it is not a crippling strike. But if more of these distractions pop up for Clinton, or are dug up by the media or Obama's team, Clinton's chances of winning this thing will drop. Not only does she need to lure swing donors, but - perhaps more importantly - she needs to avoid at all costs the view (in the eyes of the public, the media, and the superdelegates) that she is trying to steal this thing away from Obama.

Posted by: C.Prachniak | March 26, 2008 6:27 PM | Report abuse

No worse than Barack Obama's claim he is an advocate for Hispanics. Fighting for them even when it is hard.


I have been reporting all over the internet since before Obama decided to even run that it can be verified that IL. U.S. Senator Presidential Candidate Barack Obama , IL. U.S. Senator Dick Durbin co-chair Obama 2008 are being complicit in allowing the Illinois Department of Human Rights and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to treat me an American U.S. Hispanic citizen who reported incidents of race discrimination in the state of Illinois in an unequal, biased, & discriminatory manner by preventing me the same race discrimination charges non-Hispanics enjoy as a matter of record and then covering up their conduct. Despite there being ample time for each to respond, redress, and stop the above mentioned serious form of discrimination nothing ,to date, has been done to fairly & fully address, redress,and stop this still ongoing serious form of discrimination which has allowed Hormel Foods Corporation, UFCW, and Target Corporation to not be held accountable for race discrimination against me because I happen to be Hispanic. Inaction ,complicity, & deliberate silence on the part of (for instance but not limited to) Obama and Durbin are responsible for my American civil rights continuing to be violated in Illinois as it relates to this serious form of discrimination in their state of Illinois and for nothing being done to fully & fairly redress and stop this still ongoing form of discrimination against an American who happens to be a Hispanic in Illinois. Hispanics who Know are just showing and showed they will not be willing victims of his "Good Judgment". He has this still going on in Illinois as we speak but Barack Obama tells Hispanic/Latinos nothing about it! I repeat this is verifiable, ongoing and Barack Obama should address it but does not and you can guess why. Included is a link to just one example (If you happen to be a Hispanic in Illinois you have no race and therefore cannot be a victim of race discrimination as I can atest) this is on IDHR's own website in the public domain.

http://www.state.il.us/dhr/Orders/2006/Oct_06/Zuniga,%20M.htm

This is nothing knew to Chris Cillizza. Barack Obama has gotton a free pass for to long wouldn't you agree.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2007/04/fix_picks_edwards_and_obama_un.html

Posted by: Chaos45i | March 26, 2008 6:26 PM | Report abuse

It is 3:00 a.m. and Hillary is sleeping. The red phone rings. Will she be as sleep deprived as she was when she responded to the question about landing in Bosnia?

Posted by: amolison | March 26, 2008 6:23 PM | Report abuse

It is 3:00 a.m. and Hillary is sleeping. The red phone rings. Will she be as sleep deprived as she was when she responded to the question about landing in Bosnia?

Posted by: amolison | March 26, 2008 6:23 PM | Report abuse

It's 3:00 a.m. and Hillary is sleeping. And, the red phone rings. Will she be as sleep deprived at 3:00 a.m. as when she responded to the question about her landing in Bosnia?

Posted by: amolison | March 26, 2008 6:22 PM | Report abuse

I think that this is a minor blip that will do little to change anyones mind with the possible exception of Clinton leaning undecideds. People who have decided they are going to vote for Clinton already know what they are getting and this exaggeration/lie is certainly not going to make those people say "Whoa, now all of a sudden I've discovered she has a personality defect and now I should not vote for her". I would think that if you were an undecided leaning towards Obama, this might push you toward a choice for him but then I think that most people leaning towards Obama would wind up voting for him anyway. If you were an undecided leaning towards Clinton, it might cause you to reconsider (but not necessarily change your vote). That amounts to few people. Politicians lying or exaggerating should not come as a surprise to anybody.

Posted by: dave | March 26, 2008 6:12 PM | Report abuse

it's interesting isn't it????

the rot in the United States ECONOMY, from sending all of our money into war profiteers pockets


has extended to NORTHERN VIRGINIA
____________________________________________________

WP Article: "Foreclosure Auctioneer's Lonely Task,"
By Nick Miroff
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, February 22, 2008

"Lot of interest out here this morning," Crossley muttered. No one showed up for the auction of 7 homes that were in foreclosure.

It wasn't always such a lonely job. When Crossley became an auctioneer two years ago for Purcellville-based Nectar Projects, foreclosure sales were few, and they would regularly draw packs of investors armed with cash and eager to bid. Now it's rare for anyone to show up. In the past three months, Crossley has conducted auctions on some 200 properties in Northern Virginia, and he has sold one.

_____________________________________________________


what does that mean, relative to the discussion regarding Obama and Hillary ???


that the people who caused this, currently deadlocking Congress and running things for their private benefit in WASHINGTON through the EXECUTIVE BRANCH...

are trying to keep things status quo, maintain their grip on the cash flow...


not knowing what is going on in WASHINGTON, and saying that those who want to bring up specific examples _OF_THAT_ are talking about the past scares me.


I see a junior congressman, buying into and using what the repulsive scammers are selling as a way of getting elected


w/o regard to what his election will mean to the people.


you want to know what will happen? look at what happened to Jimmy Carter.


If we had acted 30 years ago on his very good ideas, there would be no energy problem, probably greenhouse gases would be under control and our economy would still be booming and manufacturing would still be in_country...


but Carter was backstabbed, because he wanted to "play fair,"

after Nixon, everyone wanted someone that would "play fair,"


unfortunately, Jimmy didn't know how to make sure the bullies played fair as well...


do I need to paint a picture ????


. Hillary isn't the person that you're painting her as, you're simply selling repulsive scammer spin .


as "the truth,"


when you should be exposing it....the fact that you're not, sayz yards....


prostitutes in the whitehouse for two years???


where've you been Chris ??? speaking out?

or getting on the guest list, eh !?


.

Posted by: a_bigone | March 26, 2008 6:07 PM | Report abuse

Wag the Blog winner:
lylepink for finally owning up to a Clinton LIE as an indisputable FACT.

Good job lyle; keep those eyes wide open buddy, even if the Empress now has no clothes.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | March 26, 2008 6:02 PM | Report abuse

Obama Speech

"Where it was weakest was in explaining the very reason for the speech: how the inflammatory, even repugnant, comments of Obama's pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, are understandable."

"Wright, who has been Obama's pastor for 20 years, has said America had brought on the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 -- "America's chickens are coming home to roost" -- and that "We started the AIDS virus."

http://www.politico.com/rogersimon/


This is the hate speak that broke the camel's (the party) back. But, those on this list who ironically are hate speakers too, would never be able to discern that. That's why it's over, for those of you who don't get it yet, this primary is over...it doesn't matter who wins because they're not going to get the other candidate's votes come November... The DNC says they'll convince them to? That's laughable...

Posted by: vammap | March 26, 2008 6:00 PM | Report abuse

The oddity of it all perplexes me.
1. Why did she fabricate the story to this extent when it was so easy to prove the truth--was she so sleep deprived that she forgot that her trip was covered by the press? And my goodness, if she had been subject to sniper fire, wouldn't world-wide headlines have trumpeted the story when it occurred?
2. If this was so dangerous that a "corkscrew" landing and sprint through sniper fire were required, why in the heck did she take Chelsea along?
3. If the story were true as she told it, so what? Does a sprint through sniper fire make her more qualified as commander in chief?

For my part, I admire her intelligence and her tenacity as a candidate. However, this gives me real cause to question her commitment to the truth. A bit reminiscent of the last president named Clinton.

Posted by: gaylebush | March 26, 2008 5:36 PM | Report abuse

"aka American Gulag"

Which is a joke.

Posted by: bsimon | March 26, 2008 5:27 PM | Report abuse

"...I can see it now -Club Nodak."

aka American Gulag

Posted by: bsimon | March 26, 2008 5:25 PM | Report abuse

bsimon, You'll be happy to note that, contrary to conventional wisdom, living in Dakota Territory is also not considered torture. Although I can't think of a better place to house terrorists than the godforsaken frozen tundra of my state...I can see it now -Club Nodak.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | March 26, 2008 5:23 PM | Report abuse

proudtobeGOP writes
"The litigation of terrorists should not preclude their (legal) interrogation."

I agree. With the legal bit underscored.

Posted by: bsimon | March 26, 2008 5:11 PM | Report abuse

What momentum she already lost the nomination. Do the math! The only reason Hillary is still running is to hurt Obama so much that McCain will get elected and she would get another chance in 2012. That why she trow everything at him. It a scorched earth tactic. If she can't be President no other Democrat can!

Posted by: johnupnorth | March 26, 2008 4:57 PM | Report abuse

Mrs. Clinton also stated that she was the first First Lady to go into a combat zone since Eleanor Roosevelt.

That is false. Pat Nixon visited a combat zone in Vietnam in 1969.

Posted by: vbalfour | March 26, 2008 4:56 PM | Report abuse

What is lost in all of this is that she prefaced her telling of the story by stating some line about how if a location was too small, too distant or too dangerous they send the First Lady instead of the President. That Bill Clinton actually had gone there two months before she and Chelsea went shoots holes in that statement too (pardon the pun).

It seems almost that she or her campaign recognize that she polls best when she is seen as a victim. So, why not play that up and put her very life at risk in a story that highlights her foreign policy experience to go along with a quasi-feministic sob story of how shabby she was treated as First Lady. If no one checks it out it would be a political two for one. But it was checked out. And it instead reinforces the negative perception that goes with the very name Clinton. Truth is flexible, luck = skill.

And lastly, do you really want a President who can't win a debate with Sinbad?

Posted by: garnet888 | March 26, 2008 4:29 PM | Report abuse

bsiomon writes "The best way to defeat terrorism is to put them on trial before the world, proving that they are the criminals we say they are."

The litigation of terrorists should not preclude their (legal) interrogation.
Liberals wanted to prevent "harsh" techniques from being allowed when interrogating terrorists. No extreme temperatures, no sleep deprivation, no forced standing for long periods of time. What next? No polyfill, only feather pillows?

When the VA snipers were caught after their weeks-long seige of terror on the Capital region, to which I was subjected as a resident at the time, one of the men complained that he was being tortured in the jail for being served the veggie loaf - he had requested a vegetarian diet as required by his Muslim faith. The lawyers then spent TAXPAYER dollars to defend his right to tasty non-torturous cuisine.

This is the ridiculous extreme to which the ACLU types will go to defend the rights of bad guys. I think we have to use some common sense, and yes, litigation and due process. But, questioning and interrogation is part and parcel of the judicial process one will find themselves in if they are a suspect of a vile criminal act.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | March 26, 2008 4:24 PM | Report abuse

Before I say any thing I am a Hillary supporter.I do think it was a little foolish of her but I do think it is minor.I am not concerned.I do have a question in the honesty category about BO and Iam trying to find a neutral media person to tell me on way or the other.In PA BO is running commercials claiming his campaign does not take $$ from lobbyists . He does have lobbyists working his campaign and also I have heard some let employees help on company time.Is this true and if so does he really think they do not want something in return?

Posted by: NE-PHILLY | March 26, 2008 4:17 PM | Report abuse

I'm a Republican, so I don't wish to slam Senator Clinotn as a means of making Senator Obama look more presidential thereby.

Yes, it is big, but not because she stretched the truth until it resembles something else. What will damage her long-term (meaning, through the convention) is the offhanded way she is treating what is obviously a bold-faced lie. To say she "misspoke" is to avoid the clearly calculated use of misinformation to burnish her foreign affairs credentials. Senator Clinton is intelligent, and clearly in charge of issues both foreign and domestic. To have simply forgotten, when a comedian who was also present remembers, weakens her argument that she is the most capable nominee.

Senator Clinton's greatest weakness has long been the perception that she cannot be trusted. Many Americans base their choice upon the candidate they feel can be trusted. By avoiding a mea culpa here she is reminding people of their mistrust of her character and integrity. Sadly, and wrongly, it also reminds people of President Clinton's dificulty with the truth and what "is" is.

In fact, I respect both Democratic candidates. This episode plays to Senator Clinton's perceived weakness and takes the focus off of Senator Obama's relationship with Reverand Wright just at the time that the issue was gaining traction and Obama's poll numbers were beginning to reflect the result. for her campaign, this is a missed opportunity. Perhaps the last one.

Posted by: ccarter333 | March 26, 2008 4:11 PM | Report abuse

Proud and bsimon, lest you forget:

Since the August 7, 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania which killed 224 people and injured over 5,000, the United States government has attempted to arrest and bring to trial those responsible. The U.S. has issued a series of indictments against Osama bin Laden, the man they believe controls the international terrorist organization responsible for the bombings. As of May 2001, seventeen defendants have been charged in relation to the bombings. Of the seventeen, eight are still at large. Five have been arrested and are in custody in the United States or Great Britain.

In May 2001, four defendants were convicted after a nine-week federal trial during which prosecutors called over 90 witnesses, including al Qaeda informants and survivors of the bombings. Mohamed Rashed Daoud Al-Owhali and Khalfan Khamis Mohamed were convicted of conspiracy and murder and face the death penalty at their sentencing. Mohammed Saddiq Odeh and Wadih El Hage were convicted of conspiracy and both face life in prison. All of the defendants were represented by court-appointed attorneys and none testified on his own behalf. The jury deliberated for twelve days before reaching their verdicts on the 302-count indictment.
-----------------------------------
We have the preserved testimony and the witnesses to put OBL away for life in a maximum security facility, or if we are very kind, and think we will not be creating another mythical martyr, send him on his way to eternity.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | March 26, 2008 4:10 PM | Report abuse

Plenty of people don't trust Hillary Clinton because they don't trust Bill. Personally, it didn't disturb me when Bill lied about his affairs because I didn't think it was any of my business. Frankly, I dig Bill Clinton. But for Hillary to blatantly volunteer untrue information in yet another of her desperate, straw-clutching attempts to grab the nomination is not only pathetic, it breeds mistrust. Clinton seems desperate for this nomination and gives the impression she'd do anything to take what she feels is rightly hers.

Hillary Clinton lied, plain and simple. She was proven wrong because we live in an age where everything is recorded, and has tried to backpedal since she's been called out on her lie.

Of course, any time a high-value dignitary from the U.S. travels to an unstable region, they're shrouded in security and whisked around to brief visits. Hillary Clinton has exaggerated the circumstances of her trip beyond anything resembling reality, and her feet ought to be held to the fire for it.

Unfortunately, the media is in the middle of its backswing about vetting & testing Obama. First it was Hillary taking all the heat, and her supporters (and SNL) began complaining about Obama's media-darling status. Now the pressure's on Obama to explain every other word out of his mouth. I'd love it if the media could handle scrutinizing all the candidates at the same time!

Posted by: KimDeBarge | March 26, 2008 4:02 PM | Report abuse

proudtobeGOP writes
"Obama and Clinton want to give constitutional protection to Osama Bin Laden and inform AlQaeda in advance of our plans upon their capture."

That's the beauty of our system. It is open to the world's scrutiny, because we have nothing to hide. Or, rather, that's supposed to be how it works. When we try criminals for unlawful behavior, we notify them of the crimes for which they are being charged, and explicitly allow them to mount a defense. That is why we make fun of countries that don't allow criminals to defend themselves. That is why we disparage countries that conduct only show trials, with secret evidence and non-existent defense teams. A core principle of this country is that we only convict the guilty, and that we are assured of their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The best way to defeat terrorism is to put them on trial before the world, proving that they are the criminals we say they are. Resorting to presenting evidence gained by torture or holding military-run show trials where the criminals aren't allowed to defend themselves - or even know the evidence presented against them - lowers us to the level of those banana republics we used to make fun of.

Posted by: bsimon | March 26, 2008 3:56 PM | Report abuse

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0308/Tensions_quantified.html

I think we all knew this already. Whoever wins will have no assurance of winning in Nov because "A new Gallup analysis reveals that -- at this heated moment -- significant amounts of Democratic primary voters say they would take McCain in the general if their preferred candidate doesn't get the nomination."

Posted by: vammap | March 26, 2008 3:45 PM | Report abuse

How to end the Hillary Clinton/Barack Obama standoff

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/03/clintonobama-st.html

There is increased noise about getting this settled by Supers, before the Convention. It would seem the only solution. (not that it's going to be accepted by all.)

Posted by: vammap | March 26, 2008 3:41 PM | Report abuse

wpost, McCain condemns torture and you know it. The libs try to spin his recent vote, but it's not working. Americans know that McCain has always taken a principled stand against torture. Whether the Army Field Manual should be applied to every govt agency is a different question.

One provision in the recent legislation, (pushed by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, if that tells you anything) tried to establish a single interrogation standard requiring the intelligence community to abide by the same standards as articulated in the Army Field Manual.

John McCain, a former prisoner of war, has been an outspoken advocate against waterboarding. McCain has said the practice "is not a complicated procedure. It is torture." He has previously called waterboarding "very exquisite torture."

McCain voted against this bill because it tries to make things illegal that were already illegal. McCain doesn't oppose a ban on waterboarding.

Instead, he opposes the advertising of our methods and believes waterboarding is, and he has helped make it, illegal.

Obama and Clinton want to give constitutional protection to Osama Bin Laden and inform AlQaeda in advance of our plans upon their capture.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | March 26, 2008 3:23 PM | Report abuse

Meanwhile, John McCain, outlining his foreign policy positions on the heels of an overseas trip, today renewed his call for the United States to work more collegially with democratic nations and live up to its duties as a world leader.

"Our great power does not mean we can do whatever we want whenever we want, nor should we assume we have all the wisdom and knowledge necessary to succeed," the Republican said after returning from the Middle East and Europe. "We need to listen to the views and respect the collective will of our democratic allies."

-------------------------------

Would all sound more authentic if he weren't wiling to walk all over the Geneva Conventions and our other treaties by supporting torture. Straight Talk Express still has some flat wheels.

Posted by: wpost4112 | March 26, 2008 2:59 PM | Report abuse

"Your efforts to silence opposition sounds much like Ws and Nixon s"

Wrong again. I have encouraged you to post many times. Your posts have the same manic, entertaining tone as the Iraqi information minister who spoke of Americans dying in the deserts, the AMerican invasion has been repulsed, etc. If you are not as brave as he, you are more than a match for him in doggedness. Imagine, spinning Hillary's being caught red-handed lying about her foreign policy experiences into Barack is a dishonorable coward.

You can talk like that all you want. Don't let me stop you.

Posted by: bondjedi | March 26, 2008 2:49 PM | Report abuse

Senator Clinton's Tusla story is a blip... It may add slightly to the sense of her as inauthentic, but it won't be decisive. Part of the reason for that is the drama of what is going on with Obama over the Wright association. Obama has touched the third rail of American politics, our rage-filled racial history. He has made an extraordinary choice to grab hold of that third rail and to channel and contain all of its power. It's a heroic choice, but one that might destroy him as a candidate. Hillary's silly exaggeration seems pretty boring compared to what's going on with Obama.

I love Hillary Clinton but I chose Obama over Clinton several months ago because I became convinced he has the potential to be a transformational figure in American politics. Will Americans step up, and be transformed? I don't know. It's catch and go right now.

Posted by: REClayton | March 26, 2008 2:47 PM | Report abuse

leichtman - I, for one, find false claims about foreign policy experience to be a more valid discussion topic than somebody's pastor. Keep throwing it out there, though, maybe it'll stick. Good thing all us Pennsylvanians know better than you! Get ready for the fun to be over, friends. The clock is ticking on this circus.

Posted by: squintz | March 26, 2008 2:32 PM | Report abuse

mark in austin writes
"The inability of the Iraqis to take advantage of the breather they got is not the fault of the ones who provided the breather."

I agree, in-so-much as agreeing that the military did its job. The State Dept, on the other hand, seems to have not. Or our own political leaders. Do we have a special envoy, or someone taking charge of the non-military aspect of the Iraq problem? When Mahmoud Ahmadinejad visits Baghdad as an honored guest of Nouri al Malaki and we can't get the Iraqi gov't to agree on some basic provisions critical to their ability to self-govern, its a sign that the 'surge' is not going to produce the results we desire in Iraq.

Posted by: bsimon | March 26, 2008 2:32 PM | Report abuse

Dear Washington Post comments board:

I wanted to apologize for misspeaking the other day when I claimed to be the Queen of England. What I meant was that with the beautiful day and a decent night's sleep, I felt like royalty. It just came out wrong.

Also, when I posted last week that in my spare time I had discovered the cure for all cancers (a little lemon juice mixed with pulverized oregano), I just misspoke. What I really meant was that honey-lemon tea sure feels great when you have a cold. I don't know, it must have been a string of typos that just by coincidence formed correctly spelled words in valid grammatical arrangement. I have not, in fact, discovered the cure for cancer.

Finally, it was a misstatement when I declared that I won the National League Most Valuable Player award while manning shortstop for the Nats last year. What I meant to say is that I was once the second best hitter on my apartment building's softball team. I regret the misstatement.

I hope you realize that I say many things during the course of a day, or a year, and as such there are bound to be misstatements and misspeakings. I trust this will not effect your opinion of my honesty and forthrightness.

Sincerely,
B2O2
Prime Minister of Canada

Posted by: B2O2 | March 26, 2008 2:27 PM | Report abuse

'But that does mean his support of the surge was a poor decision. The inability of the Iraqis to take advantage of the breather they got is not the fault of the ones who provided the breather.'

yes, but you know the definition of insanity -- to do something over and over expecting to get a different result. he has already been saying stay the course and escalate for 5 years now, expecting somethging different to happen.

Posted by: drindl | March 26, 2008 2:27 PM | Report abuse

wpost is suggesting that Sen Obam is not driving this story. I would be happy to paste all of Sen Obama's communications about it if you refuse to believe that he has absolutely no interest in driving this story and would rather answer why he even today to totally distance himself from Pastor Wright.
If there is no danger in traveling to a war zone then we should ask Al Franken,John Kerry and Jo Biden about their helicopter rides where we all worry about their safety(at least I fear for all of their safety and presume others here do). Does the military try to keep these entertainers and politicians out of harm's way? We should all hope so.

Posted by: leichtman | March 26, 2008 2:25 PM | Report abuse

MarkinAustin: This Bosnia thing with Hillary was a flat out LIE, and I don't think there is any way to say otherwise. I don't understand why she would do something like this that is so STUPID. I can think of no way to make an excuse for a flat out LIE by anyone. I was lucky to have served between Korea and Viet Nam, but how this " FALSE Remembering" came about is beyond me. I think it was a good thing for her to visit the troops in a volatile situation, and showed courage. She needed to get rid of Penn and Wolfson a long time ago, but it is to late now.

Posted by: lylepink | March 26, 2008 2:23 PM | Report abuse

Leichtman, you have totally missed the point. You argument is utterly irrelevent.

Posted by: jnoel002 | March 26, 2008 2:19 PM | Report abuse

What no one seems to be mentioning with regards to this issue is the fact that lies and deceit are in fact dangerous when wielded by people of power.

4,000 dead is the sad number built upon lies. If we as the electorate willfully accept the bending and fracturing of the truth (no matter how self-serving or trite), as something that politicians do then we are undeserving of the patriotism we so readily wear on our sleeves.

Posted by: adriancoakley | March 26, 2008 2:11 PM | Report abuse

bonjedi you arw right as always. Sen Kerry an Biden were not in danger when their helicopter went down in Afghanistan and Franken an Hillary were wrong to be visiting the troops. I am sure that all of our troops will agree with you that its time they all stop these visits of course unless its Sen Obana visiting the troops which we know you will call noble. Your efforts to silence opposition sounds much like Ws and Nixon s efforts to stop us when we protested the war which I am sure that you will understand.Intimidation and your constant insults were old last week, now they are just boring.

Posted by: leichtman | March 26, 2008 1:54 PM | Report abuse

"Clinton sees herself as a heroine?" Oh, no, she sees herself as much more than that. Remember one of her disciples, Carville, called Gov. Richardson "Judas" for not supporting her. What do you think that makes Hillary (in the minds of her disciples)?

She is a legend in her own mind.

BTW, IMHO, Richardson is ten times more qualified than Obama and Clinton combined. And he has a right to support whoever he thinks is best for the country.

Posted by: lorax2 | March 26, 2008 1:48 PM | Report abuse

should be "...does not mean..."

Posted by: mark_in_austin | March 26, 2008 1:43 PM | Report abuse

I heard McC on POTUS'08 and it was a strong presentation. I still want him to flesh out a strong diplomatic initiative, which he has only alluded to on Charlie Rose. I do think the events of the day caught up with him a bit - the violence in Iraq is peaking again.
But that does mean his support of the surge was a poor decision. The inability of the Iraqis to take advantage of the breather they got is not the fault of the ones who provided the breather.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | March 26, 2008 1:41 PM | Report abuse

Clinton is showing a propensity for seeing herself as more important and more of a 'hero' than the facts support. This sort of thing is expected as a campaign tactic, but she apparently believes it until confronted with incontrovertible evidence, such as video. It shows a disturbing pattern, whether Bosnia, NAFTA meetings, Northern Ireland, or any of the rest of her inflated claims to glory.

Posted by: TomJx | March 26, 2008 1:38 PM | Report abuse

As the dems trade barbs, mired in their nomination skirmishes, Americans and interested parties the world over are wondering....who will get anything done for this country?

Meanwhile, John McCain, outlining his foreign policy positions on the heels of an overseas trip, today renewed his call for the United States to work more collegially with democratic nations and live up to its duties as a world leader.

"Our great power does not mean we can do whatever we want whenever we want, nor should we assume we have all the wisdom and knowledge necessary to succeed," the Republican said after returning from the Middle East and Europe. "We need to listen to the views and respect the collective will of our democratic allies."

He again called for creating a new global compact of more than 100 democratic countries to advance shared values and defend shared interests. He also advocated anew a successor to the Kyoto Treaty.

As he has before, he said the country should work with friendly African governments but demand both transparency and the rule of law, and he set a goal of eradicating malaria on the continent.

He also said the United States should lead a global nuclear disarmament effort as he called for a renewed commitment to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.

Meanwhile, the Dems dither away until Denver.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | March 26, 2008 1:35 PM | Report abuse

"are you suggesting that Hillary s appearance with the troops in Bosnia was somehow dishonorable? "

Why don't you quit wasting our time and find the honor in manufacturing this episode? Do you understand why you are likened to a crow, cawing the same thing over and over?

Where is the honor in exchanging flowers with Sheryl Crow at a peaceful airport, then telling people you were caught in an exchange of gunfire and mouthing it like a shrill crow on the campaign trail? How is Obama's teaching dishonorable? Are you saying there is no honor in it? Do you have any other professions that are dishonorable? Priests? Nurses? Engineers?

Posted by: bondjedi | March 26, 2008 1:35 PM | Report abuse

Remember how Gore was so effectively attacked as the "father of the internet?" Well there was some context for that: he was the chairman of the armed services committee and a principal supporter of the ARPAnet which morphed into the internet. On the other hand there is no context that softens Hillary's out and out fabrication of "experiences" Her "dodging bullets in Bosnia" and her self-reported aborted attempt as a pregnant woman to join the Marines in 1975 are, how shall I put it , complete lies for political advantage.

The Republicans will make mince meat of her lies and character flaws if she runs in November. Added to her already high negatives among the population at large, she has no chance at all of winning the presidency.

The democratic leaders (a contradiction in terms) should prevail on her to drop out of the nomination race now, and unite behind Obama, for the good of the party's chances in November.

(If Obama is not the nominee, I am voting for Nader. Now there's a candidate of real change.)

Posted by: lorax2 | March 26, 2008 1:31 PM | Report abuse

Don't forget neighboring South Dakota. Obama country-you betcha!

Posted by: wpost4112 | March 26, 2008 1:29 PM | Report abuse

Take her at her word? Pardon me, but I don't. It's pretty difficult to "misspeak" while giving prepared remarks. The fact that she told this story several times points to her mendacity. She's trying to paint herself to be the foreign policy expert, ready to lead on "day one." That backfired. In fact she was a First Lady, performing mostly ceremonial duties. The line about if it's too dangerous to send the president, send the first lady is also a falsehood that strains the imagination. It's just a continuation of the 1990s, when the Clintons would say whatever was politically expedient.

Posted by: deannaizme | March 26, 2008 1:25 PM | Report abuse

"I repeat: do most of us think that WaPo should consider barring "jreno19?"

No kidding. Lifetime. Posting the same lies over and over is robotic anyway, not to mention racist.

Posted by: drindl | March 26, 2008 1:25 PM | Report abuse

Leichtman responded to my "embarrassment" for having defended him as "serious" yesterday and said:

"ok mark are you suggesting that Hillary s appearance with the troops in Bosnia was somehow dishonorable?"
-----------------------------------------
No.
------------------------------------------

Posted by: mark_in_austin | March 26, 2008 1:18 PM | Report abuse

The reason it's major is the way in which she spoke about it, as if it were a very fond, well-remembered experience, with even a certain ebullience, as if she was very proud of it all. This was not just a little slip but a clear effort to embellish to make herself look better. Makes her untrustworthy. What hasn't she exaggerated, one must ask.

Posted by: baileywick | March 26, 2008 1:16 PM | Report abuse

Obama's efforts to connect to the Republican Party, specifically Bush, and Dick Chaney, of the Halliburton Company, dates back to the Presidents Grandfather, Prescott Bush, and indeed Chaney was once an executive officer of Halliburton.

The American military pounds Iraq with Artillary, bombs, and the like, destroying large sections of cities, and infra-structures, then Halliburton comes in to rebuild. Halliburton and Halliburton associated companies have raked in ten's of billions.

Obama is just like the BIG HALIBURTAN. Haliburton has contracted to build detention centers in the U.S. similiar to the one in Quantanammo Bay, Cuba. Halliburton does nothing to earn the Two Dollars for each meal an American Serviceman in Iraq eats.

http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/

Halliburton was scheduled to take control of the Dubai Ports in The United Arab Emiirate. The deal was canceled when Bush was unable to affect the transfer of the American Ports.

Now we see what some might suspect as similiar financial escapading from the Democrats.

Two years ago, Iraq's Ministry of Electricity gave a $50 million contract to a start-up security company - Companion- owned by now-indicted businessman (TONY REZKO) Tony Rezko and a onetime Chicago cop, Daniel T. Frawley, to train Iraqi power-plant guards in the United States. An Iraqi leadership change left the deal in limbo. Now the company, Companion Security, is working to revive its contract.
Involved along with Antoin "Tony" Rezco, long time friend and neighbor of Democratic Presidential hopeful Barack Obama, and former cop Daniel T. Frawley, is Aiham Alsammarae. Alsammarae was accused of financial corruption by Iraqi authorities and jailed in Iraq last year before escaping and returning here.

LIKE FATHER LIKE SON --
Recently, Obama's campaign staff have been vetted by the IRS to disclose his connection to the criminal money generating underworld. Besides, his connections to the REZCO MAFIA types, his up-coming tax fraud charges -- Obama needs to disclose why he is a MUSLIM "PATWANG-FWEEE" and disclose Obama's MUSLIM Farrakhan mob connection to Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ. Its minister, and Obama's spiritual adviser, is the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. In 1982, the church launched Trumpet Newsmagazine; Wright's daughters serve as publisher and executive editor. Every year, the magazine makes awards in various categories. Last year, it gave the Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. Trumpeter Award to a man it said "truly epitomized greatness." That man is Louis Farrakhan. Farrakhan and Chicago's Trinity United Church are trumpeting Barack Obama AKA Barack Hussein Obama as the second coming of the messiah. Obama should stop suppoting our intervention in IRAQ. It's time to introduce this false, fake Xerox - X box Obama and invite the self-indicting thief plagiarizing pipsqueke "GLORK" Xerox - X box to meet the Buffalo "GAZOWNT-GAZIKKA" Police Department Buffalo Creek. He is MAD!!! --

OBAM YOU'RE NO JFK --

"GLORK" Obama looks like Alfred E. Newman: "Tales Calculated To Drive You." He is a MUSLIM "Glork" He's MAD!!! Alfred E. Neuman is the fictional mascot of Mad. The face had drifted through American pictography for decades before being claimed by Mad editor Harvey Kurtzman after he spotted it on the bulletin board in the office of Ballantine Books editor Bernard Shir-Cliff, later a contributor to various magazines created by Kurtzman.
Obama needs to disclose why he is a MUSLIM "PATWANG-FWEEE" and stop suppoting our intervention in IRAQ. It's time to introduce this false, fake "GLORK" Xerox - X box Obama and invite the self-indicting thief plagiarizing pipsqueke Xerox - X box to meet the Buffalo "GAZOWNT-GAZIKKA" Police Department Buffalo Creek.

Michelle Obama should be ashamed.

"GLORK" Michelle Obama should be ashamed of her separatist-racist connection to Farrakhan and Chicago's Trinity United Church trumpeting Barack Obama AKA Barack Hussein Obama as the second coming of the messiah. If Michelle Obama new what her husband -- the Hope-A-Dope, Fonster Monster -- Barack Obama AKA Barack Hussein Obama did in Harlem, she would wash her wide-open, Hus-suey loving MUSILM mouth out, with twenty-four (24) mule-team double-cross X-boX-BorraX. He is a MUSLIM "Glork" It's time to introduce this false, fake "GLORK" Xerox - X box Obama and invite the self-indicting thief plagiarizing pipsqueke Xerox - X box to meet the Buffalo "GAZOWNT-GAZIKKA" Police Department Buffalo Creek. He's MAD!!!

http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/

THE SPEECH --

The Apologia has arrived and once again the self-indicting, separatist-racist Barack Obama AKA Barack Hussein Obama, promises to heal the wounds of the world. The speech is the rude awakening of mass messianism of his campaign. Apologetically, Obama the MUSLIM double-cross X-boX-BorraX has an astonishingly empty two-prawn echelon explanation of his misjudgment.
In the first prawn: with regard to his connection to separatist-racist Rev. Wright; Obama summons voodoo and juju to express slavery as beginning and ending with the Rev. Wright.
In the second prawn: Obama's speech takes credit for Ashley's dream. A dream of unity Martin Luther King, Jr. borrowed from Ashley for his historic "I Have A Dream" speech. In Obama's speech, the connective bond Ashley, the elderly black man and Obama's grandmother share; represents Obama's self-indicting rise to the Harvard Yard. For Obama, the grand flag of language is the semi-fore of words, bestowed upon our nation by the messiah-alumni from Harvard. Obama's Swoon-Song Apologia to the nation represents a failed hymn -- a hymn that fails to heal the nation, repair the world, or make this time different than all the rest. Obama's speech is a brilliant failure.

http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/

Posted by: jreno19 | March 26, 2008 1:16 PM | Report abuse

Snipers in the night exchanging glances
Wond'ring in the night
What were the chances we'd be sharing a lie
Before the night was through.

Something in her eyes was so decieving,
Something in her smile was so calculating,
Something in her heart,
Told me I must avoid her.

Snipers in the night, they're lonely people
They were strangers in the night
Even in the moment
When they didn't shoot a single salvo.
Little did she know
DC was just a campaign away,
A long demanding decade away and -

Ever since that night we were ne'er together.
Liars at first sight, in cahoots forever.
It turned out not right,
For snipers in the night.

DC was just a campaign away,
A long demanding decade away -

Ever since that night we weren't together.
Liars at first sight, in denial forever.
It turned out not right,
For snipers in the night.

Do dody doby do
do doo de la
da da da da ya

Posted by: wpost4112 | March 26, 2008 1:11 PM | Report abuse

ok mark are you suggesting that Hillary s appearance with the troops in Bosnia was somehow dishonorable? I admire the entertainers including Al Franken who have traveled to honor our brave troops. Sorry mark I am not backing off. Its always easier to stand on the sidelines then to cast a vote or travel and be with the troops and then attack your opponent. Hillary volunteered to honor the troops mark and I regret you don t appreciate that argument. Why can we not ask Swn Obama anything like exaxtly what he did to help with the war in Bosnia? Did he write a paper, give a speech or say anything at all mark? Fine he was a law school prof in the 90s but how does that equate with Hillary s time and service as fiirst lady and exactly why is that unsir to ask? Thanks for standing up for me but I can take the heat.

Posted by: leichtman | March 26, 2008 1:09 PM | Report abuse

mark_in_austin:

A little hard finding your post amongst all the jreno19 detritus ....

Yes, thanks for reminding me about the UC affirmative action flap. It was a big deal in the Asian-American community at the time, particularly because the Asian-American chancellor of UC Berkeley was a proponent of affirmative action.

Posted by: mnteng | March 26, 2008 1:05 PM | Report abuse

http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/

THE SPEECH --

The Apologia has arrived and once again the self-indicting, separatist-racist Barack Obama AKA Barack Hussein Obama, promises to heal the wounds of the world. The speech is the rude awakening of mass messianism of his campaign. Apologetically, Obama the MUSLIM double-cross X-boX-BorraX has an astonishingly empty two-prawn echelon explanation of his misjudgment.
In the first prawn: with regard to his connection to separatist-racist Rev. Wright; Obama summons voodoo and juju to express slavery as beginning and ending with the Rev. Wright.
In the second prawn: Obama's speech takes credit for Ashley's dream. A dream of unity Martin Luther King, Jr. borrowed from Ashley for his historic "I Have A Dream" speech. In Obama's speech, the connective bond Ashley, the elderly black man and Obama's grandmother share; represents Obama's self-indicting rise to the Harvard Yard. For Obama, the grand flag of language is the semi-fore of words, bestowed upon our nation by the messiah-alumni from Harvard. Obama's Swoon-Song Apologia to the nation represents a failed hymn -- a hymn that fails to heal the nation, repair the world, or make this time different than all the rest. Obama's speech is a brilliant failure.

http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/

Posted by: jreno19 | March 26, 2008 12:58 PM | Report abuse

My comment about Sen Kerry was an anology to show how easy it is to stand on the sidelines and throw stones and nothing else just like its easy for Sen Obama to constantly stand on the sidelines and throw stones.
Posted by: leichtman | March 26, 2008 12:40 PM

But your analogy was totally out of sync. Sen. Kerry didn't make up his military service....
The issue with Clinton isn't that she was there; sure it was honorable that she was there. However, the problem is she embellished (at the very least) the situation and her role in it. She wasn't taking "sniper fire" as she claimed.
Have you watched the video?

Posted by: jnoel002 | March 26, 2008 12:57 PM | Report abuse

CHRIS!!! CHRIS!!!

PLEASE BAN "jreno" -- PLEASE, BEFORE I START PULLING OUT MY FINGERNAILS!!

Posted by: jac13 | March 26, 2008 12:56 PM | Report abuse

now that he's been endorsed by former First Lady Nancy Reagan, I think we should have a blog about that.

----------------

oh, definitely! I can't WAIT to hear what her astrologist says!

Posted by: wpost4112 | March 26, 2008 12:56 PM | Report abuse

"just like its easy for Sen Obama to constantly stand on the sidelines and throw stones. Again where and what was he doing during the Bosnian war my guess was not much."

Your defenses of Clinton become more and more absurd. No one is calling out Clinton because she went to Bosnia (although you are under the impression that she went there to fight), and calling someone out on their BS story is not "throwing stones."

And your "guess" about what Obama was doing is just that - a guess, the same sort of sloppy conjecture and mental short-cuts that buttress every one of your "arguments."

But please, respond. As the Clinton camp is so adept at moving goalposts, you are a Jedi at moving that corner you keep backing towards.

Posted by: bondjedi | March 26, 2008 12:55 PM | Report abuse

"Did she have security clearance?"

Aha! Now we're getting somewhere!

Let the record show that she never had security clearance as First Lady, and therefore could not have engaged in high level negotiations or diplomacy that was meaningful beyond "what kind of soup would the Prime Minister like for lunch when visiting the WH" or "How much did you say you will you be donating to the Clinton library?".

But, she IS on the senate Armed Services Committee, unlike Obama. That should be a prereq for POTUS, imo.

John McCain is a ranking member of said committee, and now that he's been endorsed by former First Lady Nancy Reagan, I think we should have a blog about that.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | March 26, 2008 12:54 PM | Report abuse

Hello Chris,

First, I liked your borrowed phrase "hitting the ground running." It's very appropriate as it appears HRC hit the ground running with her pantsuit on fire for lying.

This is a very big deal. The Clintons made so much noise about Barack Obama using words from his co-chair Deval Patrick.

However, this is a fabrication of huge proportion. Sadly, it is not the only one. Clinton has lied about her role in Northern Ireland. This has made some people of Irish origin in PA very mad. She lied about Kosovo and negotiating the border opening. She lied about NAFTA. She lied about some many other issues.

This is a worrying pattern which confirms what that sage David Geffen said, that the Clintons like so easily it's scary.

Her pretence of hitting the ground running will give the Republicans a Christmas present similar to Michael Dukakis masquerading as tough on security in tank.
Clinton is damaged goods. She is padding her CV to hoodwink the Americans and the rest of the world about her credentials. This is damaging because it is a pattern of lies and the Republicans must be smiling.

Posted by: wmukasa | March 26, 2008 12:51 PM | Report abuse

I am an Obama supporter. However, I think my opinion on this issue is not colored by my support, in actuality, it is illustrative of why I have chosen to support Obama over Clinton in the first place.

Clinton is touting the experience card as the primary logic for her candidacy. I have a number of problems with this, starting with the fact that out of those "35 years" only 7 are as an elected official. The only other Democratic candidate originally running with less elected experience was John Edwards (6 years), and yet Obama (11 years) is painted as the inexperienced waif.

Second, if in fact this experience derives mostly from her 20 year history as a First Lady, 8 as the US First Lady, as it must considering it is the bulk of her resume, several problems arise. If this First Lady experience truly prepared her "on day one" to be President, perhaps she had more influence on her husband's administration than the public knew about OR the Constitution allows. If her relationship to her husband, and the concept that he will somehow be in charge or co-leading with Clinton, influences her supporters, the same question emerges. Bill Clinton has served two terms, he cannot serve a third. And if, in fact, Hillary Clinton was co-leading for two terms, providing her with this unique "experience," she has also served her permitted terms.

Third, as a young woman, I am extremely wary of the first viable female candidate running for the Presidency whose basis for experience extends directly and almost exclusively from that of her husband. If her primary experience derives from that relationship, I expect that her own work during that time should be relevant and strong enough to justify her Presidential ambitions. If she is embellishing stories from that time and feels it is appropriate to single herself out as the most courageous of all recent First Ladies, as she has, I expect those stories to be bullet-proof (pardon the pun).

Finally, if she is too tired and forgetful to "misremember" this incident multiple times, despite having written about it herself, perhaps she isn't the person I'd like answering that phone at 3 AM.

Posted by: squintz | March 26, 2008 12:47 PM | Report abuse

The questions was whether this is a blip or a lingering fish.

From an independent (non-zealot lean), I think it started as a blip, but will gather steam in the coming weeks. Only because it gave the opening for other major statements that are not totally represented by facts. Easily verified by data (video, WH schedules, speech transcripts etc.)

Right or wrong this is already happening; the Northern Ireland peace negotiations flap is again being brought out, her meetings and speeches in support of NAFTA etc.

I for one think that if HRC would have run on her own accord, without attaching herself with some credit to the Bill years - this debate would not be happening - she would have garnered the nomination long ago. Since it would be HRC running on her own merits post WH, which is a pretty good record. The flawed campaign strategy is what is failing not the candidate.

IMHO for these reasons the issue is far from over - since she has attached and included the WH years (mistake) to her resume - everything is fair game. And she will get a bum rap for all that was "perceived" as negative during this time.

PS - Get off the negative attacks, it makes you look desparate and gives the air of anything to win. Us indies are pulling for something new and not a return to the old king.

Posted by: J_thinks | March 26, 2008 12:47 PM | Report abuse

exactly what have you done to serve this country? I will put my service up against your juvenile post aay day

-------------------

You used to complain hourly against personal attacks on this blog, and now you are questioning other's service to their country?? How exactly does this speak to the issue(s)?

Posted by: wpost4112 | March 26, 2008 12:46 PM | Report abuse

Lick me is a good representative of the pending clinton melt-down.

the response to "clinton is a liar" is to retort - have you ever lied?

the response to she didn't singlehandedly win the bosnian war is "did you?"

Posted by: kingofzouk | March 26, 2008 12:45 PM | Report abuse

Latest poll shows Barack back up in NC by 19. Very good news for him.

Posted by: wpost4112 | March 26, 2008 12:44 PM | Report abuse

I think the episode is very, very damaging. It isn't the fact that she lied, but how and why she lied, especially in the latest instance where she delivered her version of the trip in such a natural manner, with such conviction (smiles and body and hand gestures). You really wonder whether she has actually lost it, at least for a brief moment (not a good show of stability in someone who would be responsible for pushing the red-button). I don't think she can recover from this, even if somehow she manages to convince the superdelegates to hand over the nomination to her.

Posted by: KT11 | March 26, 2008 12:41 PM | Report abuse

caw caw? dead ender? exactly what have you done to serve this country? I will put my service up against your juvenile post aay day.
My comment about Sen Kerry was an anology to show how easy it is to stand on the sidelines and throw stones and nothing else just like its easy for Sen Obama to constantly stand on the sidelines and throw stones. Again where and what was he doing during the Bosnian war my guess was not much.

Posted by: leichtman | March 26, 2008 12:40 PM | Report abuse

I don't think this specific lie, while a seriously flagrant error, will do anything significant to her chances, though the recurring theme will definitely damage what little credibility she has left.

Polls already show a wide distrust of the Clinton name in politics, and every little lie, from a tiny "slip up" or white lie to a huge, thunderous whopper like this one, repeated on numerous occasions and always more exaggerated in each successive story, will further cement in voters' minds that Clinton is simply not good for her word. This will reflect very poorly on any attempt she makes to give "policy" or "issue" speeches in the future.

Posted by: thecrisis | March 26, 2008 12:39 PM | Report abuse

Scandal? Somebody here wrote "scandal" about the Tuzla non-issue.

Well, its only a reflection of the reporting. Repeating what you see in the news.

Posted by: pkmc83a | March 26, 2008 12:37 PM | Report abuse

From:

"Change you can Xerox."

To:

"Experience you can Fabricate."

Saying it more than once makes it more than just a mere misstatement. I understand these candidates travel unceasingly across the country, giving speeches and shaking hands for hours on end, and they get tired. They can make a mistake, a faux pas, a gaffe. But this is akin to McCain repeating that Iran is training AQI, except McCain didn't say that he dodged land mines and sniper fire to witness it first hand.

I am of the opinion that Senator Clinton's experiences as First Lady and Senator should count in her favor. But don't try to sell me a false bill of goods about how you braved dangerous war zones, taking out enemy embankments with a M-16 in one hand and a rocket launcher in the other. Be real with the people, and be real with yourself, we'll respect you more.

Posted by: walkdwalk2001 | March 26, 2008 12:36 PM | Report abuse

The question is whether her experience needs this exaggeration.
If she was a full part of Bill's foreign-policy team, then this one exaggeration is unimportant. If she was a typical First Lady -- smile-and-shake-hands -- then this exaggeation matters because it raises questions about her entire claim to being prepared to be commender in chief.
Did she participate in decisions?
Did she have security clearance?

Posted by: F_L_Palmer | March 26, 2008 12:34 PM | Report abuse

Leichtman, I have enjoyed your take on TX politics, but I have to say that your most recent post embarrassed me after I had defended you yesterday as "serious".

Posted by: mark_in_austin | March 26, 2008 12:30 PM | Report abuse

God only knows he'd do a better job than anyone in Georgie's cabinet.

At least he knows the difference between a bullet and a bouquet.

Posted by: wpost4112 | March 26, 2008 12:22 PM

On display for all is the complete foolishness of the moonbat left.

Posted by: kingofzouk | March 26, 2008 12:27 PM | Report abuse

leichtman the Wolfson & Penn surrogate is back. How was spin camp?

"Hillary was serving our nation and standing with our troops something Sen Obama has not had the experience to do."

Ugh, completely vapid, and that's leaving out your nonsensical comparison of Hillary's flower-exchanging episode to Senator Kerry's genuine experience of coming under enemy fire.

But it's dead-enders like you who make this message board so lively.

Imagine the stones of someone who spins Hillary's fabrications into an attack on Obama's experience: "Who cares if Hillary's experience is made up? Caw caw! She still has more of it! Northern Ireland! Caw! Marc Rich! Caw caw caw! I was there with Bill, except when he was with Monica! Caw! Experience! Hillary saved Jessica Lynch, too! Caw caw!"

Posted by: bondjedi | March 26, 2008 12:24 PM | Report abuse

Knowing how Obama chooses his allies and friends, Sinbad may be up for a cabinet position.

------------

God only knows he'd do a better job than anyone in Georgie's cabinet.

At least he knows the difference between a bullet and a bouquet.

Posted by: wpost4112 | March 26, 2008 12:22 PM | Report abuse

Chris, "jreno19" had posted the same screed or snippets from it 31 times by 12:14PM.

This merely disrupts and does not serve. Please take note.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | March 26, 2008 12:21 PM | Report abuse

Knowing how Obama chooses his allies and friends, Sinbad may be up for a cabinet position.

Posted by: kingofzouk | March 26, 2008 12:19 PM | Report abuse


Michelle Obama should be ashamed.

"GLORK" Michelle Obama should be ashamed of her separatist-racist connection to Farrakhan and Chicago's Trinity United Church trumpeting Barack Obama AKA Barack Hussein Obama as the second coming of the messiah. If Michelle Obama new what her husband -- the Hope-A-Dope, Fonster Monster -- Barack Obama AKA Barack Hussein Obama did in Harlem, she would wash her wide-open, Hus-suey loving MUSILM mouth out, with twenty-four (24) mule-team double-cross X-boX-BorraX. He is a MUSLIM "Glork" It's time to introduce this false, fake "GLORK" Xerox - X box Obama and invite the self-indicting thief plagiarizing pipsqueke Xerox - X box to meet the Buffalo "GAZOWNT-GAZIKKA" Police Department Buffalo Creek. He's MAD!!!

http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/

THE SPEECH --

The Apologia has arrived and once again the self-indicting, separatist-racist Barack Obama AKA Barack Hussein Obama, promises to heal the wounds of the world. The speech is the rude awakening of mass messianism of his campaign. Apologetically, Obama the MUSLIM double-cross X-boX-BorraX has an astonishingly empty two-prawn echelon explanation of his misjudgment.
In the first prawn: with regard to his connection to separatist-racist Rev. Wright; Obama summons voodoo and juju to express slavery as beginning and ending with the Rev. Wright.
In the second prawn: Obama's speech takes credit for Ashley's dream. A dream of unity Martin Luther King, Jr. borrowed from Ashley for his historic "I Have A Dream" speech. In Obama's speech, the connective bond Ashley, the elderly black man and Obama's grandmother share; represents Obama's self-indicting rise to the Harvard Yard. For Obama, the grand flag of language is the semi-fore of words, bestowed upon our nation by the messiah-alumni from Harvard. Obama's Swoon-Song Apologia to the nation represents a failed hymn -- a hymn that fails to heal the nation, repair the world, or make this time different than all the rest. Obama's speech is a brilliant failure.

http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/

Posted by: jreno19 | March 26, 2008 12:19 PM | Report abuse

At this point I think Hillary will say just about anything to get elected. It is really sad. I think her comments on Bosnia mirror her experience in the White House. She wants her 8 years in the white house as First Lady to count as years experience for the Presidency. To most people with spouses of another profession, this seems ridiculous. If just being married to someone and sharing a home together makes this plausible, I can now add software engineer to my resume and list of experience and I am currently an accountant. She does not want to take responsibility for anything. When her campaign comes out with a smear campaign against Obama and it is not received well, she blames Obama for attacking her. She wants to play the role of the victim too often. She wants to be weak (tears) if that warrants vote and then again she wants to be a tough candidate, if she thinks that will warrant votes. Initially I was a Hillary supporter, but she constantly flip, flops on issues like blowing in the wind. She needs to be honest with the people. We can spot a phony.

Posted by: ProudDemocrat1 | March 26, 2008 12:18 PM | Report abuse

leichtman writes
"Her service to the nation and our troops [in Bosnia] was honorable period."

By that measure, Sinbad & Sheryl Crow should be competing with Sen Clinton for the Dem nomination.

Posted by: bsimon | March 26, 2008 12:16 PM | Report abuse

THE SPEECH --

The Apologia has arrived and once again the self-indicting, separatist-racist Barack Obama AKA Barack Hussein Obama, promises to heal the wounds of the world. The speech is the rude awakening of mass messianism of his campaign. Apologetically, Obama the MUSLIM double-cross X-boX-BorraX has an astonishingly empty two-prawn echelon explanation of his misjudgment.
In the first prawn: with regard to his connection to separatist-racist Rev. Wright; Obama summons voodoo and juju to express slavery as beginning and ending with the Rev. Wright.
In the second prawn: Obama's speech takes credit for Ashley's dream. A dream of unity Martin Luther King, Jr. borrowed from Ashley for his historic "I Have A Dream" speech. In Obama's speech, the connective bond Ashley, the elderly black man and Obama's grandmother share; represents Obama's self-indicting rise to the Harvard Yard. For Obama, the grand flag of language is the semi-fore of words, bestowed upon our nation by the messiah-alumni from Harvard. Obama's Swoon-Song Apologia to the nation represents a failed hymn -- a hymn that fails to heal the nation, repair the world, or make this time different than all the rest. Obama's speech is a brilliant failure.

http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/

Posted by: jreno19 | March 26, 2008 12:14 PM | Report abuse

This faux Obama driven flap....

-----------------

Wow. Not only are you unable to admit to Hillary's lie, but you blame her prevarications on Barack!

Your words inspire little respect.

Posted by: wpost4112 | March 26, 2008 12:14 PM | Report abuse

Chris,

In response to your question...

Clinton's Bosnia "misstatements" are going to haunt her for some time. This matter may fall out of the active news cycle within a week, but every time now that Clinton tries to cite her "foreign policy experience," this gross twisting of facts will come back to haunt her. If the March 4 losses and the Wright scandal burst Obama's bubble a little bit, this Bosnia misstep is slowing any momentum that Clinton might have hoped to claim, and it is the sort of "Duh!" moment that often does in candidates. Kerry's "I voted for the bill before voting against it" (or was it vice versa?) and the images of him windsurfing and Dukakis' jaunt in a tank come to mind. This moment of idiocy from Clinton is going to be used to paint her as out-of-touch with political reality for a long time.

Whether from McCain, Obama, or some independent source, I fully expect a TV ad at some point that uses images on the tarmac with a voice-over of Clinton's fantastical comments, much like the YouTube video does. This will not go away for Clinton.

What is even more maddening about the flap is that it also shows Clinton to be an extremely amateurish politician. She claims to be vetted, to be experienced in dealing with the limelight and with political attacks, and yet she throws herself into this completely unnecessary scandal? Clinton is either deluded into thinking that there were actually bullets flying, or else she is so audacious to think that she can get away with manipulating facts to her pleasure in spite of what documentary evidence shows. Clinton certainly knew that the Bosnia events were recorded on video, and anyone with half a brain could have predicted that a lie this outrageous would only come back to bite Clinton.

Yet she did it anyway. Why? The excuse that she is tired and sleep-deprived just doesn't fly. If she can't show sound judgment on this matter during the campaign, then a lot of people will doubt that she could show sound judgment in the
White House.

Of course, only Clinton could be so audacious as to turn this blatant lie into a virtue: "It shows I'm human." Great. By this standard, if the left's complaints about Bush's lies have any credibility, then this makes Bush the greatest, most human president in history. Thanks, but I doubt that most people want to elect the candidate who tells the biggest whoppers just because the "mistakes" make the person seem more human.

In an election season that will be very much about putting the Bush years behind us (even the McCain will hold Bush at an arm's distance or more much of the time), Clinton's seemingly deliberate lies on this matter make the Clinton years and the Bush years all seemingly blur together into a mush of truthiness, and when Clinton starts making herself look like Bush in people's eyes, she has lost her battle.

Posted by: blert | March 26, 2008 12:14 PM | Report abuse

In answer to your question, I think what you will find is that the Clinton Partisans will say it was a minor slip that has been blown up by the Press anxious to coronate Obama as the Democratic Nominee.

The Obama partisans will say this is proof that Clinton is has a congenital brain defect that renders her incapable of speaking the truth.

An objective view would be that the Press is so board without a primary until April 22 in Pennsylvania that they are taking any morsel that falls off the table and are trying to create an issue out of it to keep their ratings up on the cable news channels and to keep people reading the newspapers.

What does it really matter if when the plane landed in "cork screwed in" or the descent was by some other glide path?

These candidates have been at it non-stop for over a year. Fatique can and does settle in. Stories from 12 years ago can get compacted and compressed into the sound bite that is allowed to the candidate.

Obama, for instance, could not have addressed Rev. Wright in the 10 second bite that is usually available. It took a 45 minute talk to give that whole episode context.

And Obama was not truthful about Rev. Wright when he said that he, Obama was never in the church pew whenever Wright was spouting off with his rantings. Obama admitted that.

Now shall we delve into the psyche of Obama and try to read the tea leaves of some sinister Manchurian candidate conspiracy that he is hiding?

No, better yet, let's delve into the psyche of Senator Clinton and how she wouldn't know the truth if it were staring her in the face because of her relating of a story from 12 years ago.

One story line is about as absurd as the other. Neither serves the Democratic Party and the culprit is neither Obama nor Clinton, but an infantile press that wants immediate gratification and can't get it because they have to wait until April 22 and so we get this crap put out there and then they ask the candidates to hurl the mud that the press creates at each other.

Don't forget, that the Rev. Wright remarks Clinton made yesterday were as the result of repetitive questioning from some reporter. He had to ask several times whether Clinton criticized Obama's handling of the Wright matter and Clinton consistently said that she could only say what she would have done, and you'd have to go to Senator Obama with the question of whether he had handled the matter correctly.

How was that reported today? "Clinton Slams Obama over His Pastor". That grabs headlines, but it is not what Clinton did.

The other headline was about Chelsea Clinton's response to a Lewinski question from Butler University. She refused to answer the question telling the student that it was none of his business.

What happened? Psychological analysis of why Chelsea WON'T answer questions.

So the issue is not whether Clintons answer questions or not, it seems not to matter, the end result is that the media go into full psychological analysis of what the assume Hillary or Chelsea meant, their mental states and all, and then "report" that based on the reporters assumptions of what the candidate or her daughter "meant" or were thinking while they were talking is the story here.

That's quite a stretch and it is so far removed from reporting just the facts and letting the people decide that the press ought to just be ashamed of itself.

Posted by: pkmc83a | March 26, 2008 12:14 PM | Report abuse

By itself, this incident would be trivial -- a mistaken memory, just as everyone gets confused from time to time.

-------------------

One never mistakes being under fire.
This is creating a fictitious memory, not confusing similar incidents in the past.

Posted by: wpost4112 | March 26, 2008 12:12 PM | Report abuse

davestickler writes
"The point is, she's staked her candidacy on her experience. Because so little of her experience has been in an official policy-making position, we basically have to take her word for what she's done and what she's learned."

Exactly. She's trying to rebut Obama's argument that judgement is more important than experience, but its turning out that her claims of experience are somewhat exaggerated.

Posted by: bsimon | March 26, 2008 12:11 PM | Report abuse

If this event stood alone it would be a minor blip on the radar screen. Once you consider this event in the larger context of her claims (many of which are questionable at best) it does speak to trust.

Bosnia, Open borders, childrens health care, Ireland ect..ect. have created reasonable questions about just how honest Sen. Clinton is as a person.

To answer your specific question, 1.4M views on youtube and countless more on cbs.com and counting. The answer is obvious.

Posted by: Eternal | March 26, 2008 12:11 PM | Report abuse

I was wondering what we were going to do during these long, excruciatingly vast 6 weeks before PA primary will finally drag itself here. I guess the press has some time to kill, and slow news days mean that even small blips can be interesting. But this was more than a small blip, to be sure!

To be sure, Hillary never thought that today, March 26th 2008, she would still be fighting for, nay, trying to claw her dream prize back from the grip of her opponent. To be sure, it is the most amazing dream to become the leader of the free world and only the most amazing woman is worthy enough to even harbor the desire (or shoulder the burden, in Hillary speak). To be sure, Hillary still cannot believe that it is happening: the prize is slipping away.

When she started telling this story on the campaign trail months ago, she never dreamed that we will have these 6 weeks to kill with nothing better to do than to verify her story. When the fish got bigger every time the fishing story got repeated, the story teller simply chooses to ignore the fact that a picture with the fish's actual size shown exists.

To be sure, Hillary camp has not quite caught up with the age of Youtube, yet. When the danger of a video clip surfacing became apparent, they should have moved in fast and get ready to stop the potential massive bleeding. To be sure, it hit them before they knew what it was. It is fairly telling in the defensive tone in Hillary's response. "Well, I made a mistake" moving on, nothing to see here, people!

Posted by: shuang | March 26, 2008 12:09 PM | Report abuse

This faux Obama driven flap reminds me precisely of the 04 controversy over Sen Kerry. While W did everything he could to avoid combat against the honorable and noble service of Sen Kerry, W and his 527 shills had the audacity to attack Se. Kerry s service.
While Sen Obama was teaching con law Hillary was serving our nation and standing with our troops something Sen Obama has not had the experience to do. Her service to the nation and our troops was honorable period. Its rank hypocrisy just like with W to try and spin something honorable into something shameful. Since when is Hillary s honoring our troops shameful? Abd just like his standing on the sidelines and giving a speech about Iraq, that is always easier then being on the ground with our troops. While teaching con law during the Bosnian war precisely what was Sen Obama doing to stand by the troops and helping with the war in Bosnia, that is a comparison the Clinton campign should relish.

Posted by: leichtman | March 26, 2008 12:09 PM | Report abuse

"I repeat: do most of us think that WaPo should consider barring "jreno19?""

Barring & retroactively deleting.

Posted by: bsimon | March 26, 2008 12:08 PM | Report abuse

By itself, this incident would be trivial -- a mistaken memory, just as everyone gets confused from time to time.

But, in the broader context of her descriptions of her experience, it is very damaging, because voters may see it fitting a pattern of dishonesty. She claims to have played a major role in Northern Ireland, but her recollections of her importance are disputed by a host of the people who were involved. She claims she was against NAFTA, but now old Clinton hands say that she only opposed tackling NAFTA before health care, and not that she actually opposed the substance of the agreement.

Even her basic claim to 35 years of experience feels shaky; she was, after all, employed full-time as a lawyer for over half of that time, while she's only been employed by the government for seven years.

To make matters worse, voters already associated the "Clinton brand" with less-than-truthfulness.

The point is, she's staked her candidacy on her experience. Because so little of her experience has been in an official policy-making position, we basically have to take her word for what she's done and what she's learned. So, when she can't be trusted to describe her accomplishments accurately, it really undercuts the central thrust of her candidacy.

Posted by: davestickler | March 26, 2008 12:08 PM | Report abuse

The danger here is that Clinton leaves herself open for closer scrutiny of her schedules as first lady. Irish papers are already mocking her over her claims to important diplomatic input in the Northern Ireland settlement. While Obama may soft pedal these gaffs as long as he seems assured of the nomination,the GOP will take time to comb through her schedule and pick away at each seeming contradiction. War hero vrs. fake under-fire non-hero. Even if Clinton wins the battle for the nomination, she may well have set herself up to lose the war (if you will excuse the ovious cliche).

Posted by: fulrich | March 26, 2008 12:08 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: jreno19 | March 26, 2008 12:07 PM | Report abuse

proud is correct, I think, in stating that it is more relevant to determine if HRC actually has earned foreign policy credentials. This again fits my analogy of the searchlight illuminating a small area while leaving the entire city in the dark.

Do most of you agree that it may be time for WaPo to consider blocking jreno?
-----------------------------------------


As to the latter question: rhetorical, yes?

As to the former comment:

http://www.observer.com/2008/what-hillary-did-northern-ireland

Posted by: wpost4112 | March 26, 2008 12:07 PM | Report abuse

I repeat: do most of us think that WaPo should consider barring "jreno19?"

Posted by: mark_in_austin | March 26, 2008 12:06 PM | Report abuse

Obama's efforts to connect to the Republican Party, specifically Bush, and Dick Chaney, of the Halliburton Company, dates back to the Presidents Grandfather, Prescott Bush, and indeed Chaney was once an executive officer of Halliburton.

The American military pounds Iraq with Artillary, bombs, and the like, destroying large sections of cities, and infra-structures, then Halliburton comes in to rebuild. Halliburton and Halliburton associated companies have raked in ten's of billions.

Obama is just like the BIG HALIBURTAN. Haliburton has contracted to build detention centers in the U.S. similiar to the one in Quantanammo Bay, Cuba. Halliburton does nothing to earn the Two Dollars for each meal an American Serviceman in Iraq eats.

http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/

Halliburton was scheduled to take control of the Dubai Ports in The United Arab Emiirate. The deal was canceled when Bush was unable to affect the transfer of the American Ports.

Now we see what some might suspect as similiar financial escapading from the Democrats.

Two years ago, Iraq's Ministry of Electricity gave a $50 million contract to a start-up security company - Companion- owned by now-indicted businessman (TONY REZKO) Tony Rezko and a onetime Chicago cop, Daniel T. Frawley, to train Iraqi power-plant guards in the United States. An Iraqi leadership change left the deal in limbo. Now the company, Companion Security, is working to revive its contract.
Involved along with Antoin "Tony" Rezco, long time friend and neighbor of Democratic Presidential hopeful Barack Obama, and former cop Daniel T. Frawley, is Aiham Alsammarae. Alsammarae was accused of financial corruption by Iraqi authorities and jailed in Iraq last year before escaping and returning here.

LIKE FATHER LIKE SON --
Recently, Obama's campaign staff have been vetted by the IRS to disclose his connection to the criminal money generating underworld. Besides, his connections to the REZCO MAFIA types, his up-coming tax fraud charges -- Obama needs to disclose why he is a MUSLIM "PATWANG-FWEEE" and disclose Obama's MUSLIM Farrakhan mob connection to Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ. Its minister, and Obama's spiritual adviser, is the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. In 1982, the church launched Trumpet Newsmagazine; Wright's daughters serve as publisher and executive editor. Every year, the magazine makes awards in various categories. Last year, it gave the Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. Trumpeter Award to a man it said "truly epitomized greatness." That man is Louis Farrakhan. Farrakhan and Chicago's Trinity United Church are trumpeting Barack Obama AKA Barack Hussein Obama as the second coming of the messiah. Obama should stop suppoting our intervention in IRAQ. It's time to introduce this false, fake Xerox - X box Obama and invite the self-indicting thief plagiarizing pipsqueke "GLORK" Xerox - X box to meet the Buffalo "GAZOWNT-GAZIKKA" Police Department Buffalo Creek. He is MAD!!! --

OBAM YOU'RE NO JFK --

"GLORK" Obama looks like Alfred E. Newman: "Tales Calculated To Drive You." He is a MUSLIM "Glork" He's MAD!!! Alfred E. Neuman is the fictional mascot of Mad. The face had drifted through American pictography for decades before being claimed by Mad editor Harvey Kurtzman after he spotted it on the bulletin board in the office of Ballantine Books editor Bernard Shir-Cliff, later a contributor to various magazines created by Kurtzman.
Obama needs to disclose why he is a MUSLIM "PATWANG-FWEEE" and stop suppoting our intervention in IRAQ. It's time to introduce this false, fake "GLORK" Xerox - X box Obama and invite the self-indicting thief plagiarizing pipsqueke Xerox - X box to meet the Buffalo "GAZOWNT-GAZIKKA" Police Department Buffalo Creek.

Michelle Obama should be ashamed.

"GLORK" Michelle Obama should be ashamed of her separatist-racist connection to Farrakhan and Chicago's Trinity United Church trumpeting Barack Obama AKA Barack Hussein Obama as the second coming of the messiah. If Michelle Obama new what her husband -- the Hope-A-Dope, Fonster Monster -- Barack Obama AKA Barack Hussein Obama did in Harlem, she would wash her wide-open, Hus-suey loving MUSILM mouth out, with twenty-four (24) mule-team double-cross X-boX-BorraX. He is a MUSLIM "Glork" It's time to introduce this false, fake "GLORK" Xerox - X box Obama and invite the self-indicting thief plagiarizing pipsqueke Xerox - X box to meet the Buffalo "GAZOWNT-GAZIKKA" Police Department Buffalo Creek. He's MAD!!!

http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/

THE SPEECH --

The Apologia has arrived and once again the self-indicting, separatist-racist Barack Obama AKA Barack Hussein Obama, promises to heal the wounds of the world. The speech is the rude awakening of mass messianism of his campaign. Apologetically, Obama the MUSLIM double-cross X-boX-BorraX has an astonishingly empty two-prawn echelon explanation of his misjudgment.
In the first prawn: with regard to his connection to separatist-racist Rev. Wright; Obama summons voodoo and juju to express slavery as beginning and ending with the Rev. Wright.
In the second prawn: Obama's speech takes credit for Ashley's dream. A dream of unity Martin Luther King, Jr. borrowed from Ashley for his historic "I Have A Dream" speech. In Obama's speech, the connective bond Ashley, the elderly black man and Obama's grandmother share; represents Obama's self-indicting rise to the Harvard Yard. For Obama, the grand flag of language is the semi-fore of words, bestowed upon our nation by the messiah-alumni from Harvard. Obama's Swoon-Song Apologia to the nation represents a failed hymn -- a hymn that fails to heal the nation, repair the world, or make this time different than all the rest. Obama's speech is a brilliant failure.

http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/

Posted by: jreno19 | March 26, 2008 12:06 PM | Report abuse

"Do most of you agree that it may be time for WaPo to consider blocking jreno?"

I sent an email to the 'report offensive posts' link above.

Posted by: bsimon | March 26, 2008 12:04 PM | Report abuse

Whoppers She Won't Confess To

• She didn't know about the FALN pardons.
• She didn't know that her brothers were being paid to get pardons that Clinton granted.
• Taking the White House gifts was a clerical error.
• She didn't know that her staff would fire the travel office staff after she told them to do so.
• She didn't know that the Peter Paul fundraiser in Hollywood in 2000 cost $700,000 more than she reported it had.
• She opposed NAFTA at the time.
• She was instrumental in the Irish peace process.
• She urged Bill to intervene in Rwanda.
• She played a role in the '90s economic recovery.
• The billing records showed up on their own.
• She thought Bill was innocent when the Monica scandal broke.
• She was always a Yankees fan.
• She had nothing to do with the New Square Hasidic pardons (after they voted for her 1,400-12 and she attended a meeting at the White House about the pardons).
• She negotiated for the release of refugees in Macedonia (who were released the day before she got there).

With a record like that, is it any wonder that we suspect her of being less than honest and straightforward?

Why has McCain jumped out to a nine-point lead over Obama and a seven-point lead over Hillary in the latest Rasmussen poll?

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/hillarys_list_of_lies.html

Posted by: kingofzouk | March 26, 2008 12:03 PM | Report abuse

Math!

Obama!

Crush!

Man!

GD Michigan!

Posted by: mul | March 26, 2008 12:02 PM | Report abuse

The most important piece of the story, that she repeated the 'sniper fire' allegation multiple times over the last few weeks, has been omitted from most coverage. That being said, this story is getting excessive play from a bored media, just like the Wright videos from last week.

So is this story important, does it tell us something new about Clinton? No. The level of actual danger she faced doesn't diminish a significant portfolio of foreign diplomatic experience. And let's face it, Clinton supporters aren't embracing her because of her honesty and authenticity. The fact that she repeatedly fabricated details isn't really going to faze someone who is interested in voting for her.

Posted by: cepage | March 26, 2008 12:02 PM | Report abuse

drindl reading her news from Kos again. the actual fact-based news:

WASHINGTON (AP) - Trustees for the government's two biggest benefit programs warned Tuesday that Social Security and Medicare are facing "enormous challenges" with the threat to Medicare's solvency far more severe.
The trustees, issuing a once-a-year analysis of the government's two biggest benefit programs, said the resources in the Social Security trust fund will be depleted by 2041. The reserves in the Medicare trust fund that pays hospital benefits were projected to be wiped out by 2019.

Both those dates were the same as in last year's report. But the trustees warned that financial pressures will begin much sooner when the programs begin paying out more in benefits each year than they collect in payroll taxes. For Medicare, that threshhold is projected to be reached this year and for Social Security it is projected to occur in 2017.

The first year that payments will exceed income for Social Security will occur in 2017, just nine years from now, reflecting growing demands from the retirement of 78 million baby boomers. Medicare is projected to pay out more than it receives in income starting this year.

"The financial difficulties facing Social Security and Medicare pose enormous challenges," the trustees said in their report. "The sooner these challenges are addressed, the more varied and less disruptive their solutions can be."

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8VKK7UO0&show_article=1&catnum=0

the Dem congress responds in its usual fashion. what problem?

Posted by: kingofzouk | March 26, 2008 12:01 PM | Report abuse

Before becoming First Lady, Hillary CLinton authored a history textbook for high-schoolers. Here are some excerpts:

"December 7, 1941 - Nothing happened in the world this day. Some Japanese planes did a fly-by of a U.S. naval base.

August 6, 1945 - There was an explosion in Japan. No one knows why.

August 9, 1945 - Another explosion in Japan.

October 4, 1957 - The Soviets were lighting off firecrackers, it seems. Sputnik is the name of a Russian ballet troupe.

August 8, 1974 - Some guy quit his job today. Happens a thousand times a day, no biggie.

March 30, 1981 - Guns are bad! There was a shooting in DC today."

In light of these excerpts, I can understand Senator Clinton's grasp of history.

Posted by: bondjedi | March 26, 2008 12:00 PM | Report abuse

The story may not be fatal, but it is certainly damaging. The problem for Hillary is that she has consistently inflated her resume, and 'experience' is what she is running on. Any one who has been paying attention can imagine the devastating 'contrast' ads that are coming.

I believe this will reduce her margin of victory in PA and probably lead to landslide losses in NC and OR. As Obama's pledged delegate lead widens in May, the media narrative will increasingly focus on how/when she steps aside.

Posted by: nickylyons | March 26, 2008 11:59 AM | Report abuse

proud is correct, I think, in stating that it is more relevant to determine if HRC actually has earned foreign policy credentials. This again fits my analogy of the searchlight illuminating a small area while leaving the entire city in the dark.

mteng, I read your PA update, thanks. Did you ever read my reply to you about oriental Asian-Americans and the UC system in the 90s?
-----------
Do most of you agree that it may be time for WaPo to consider blocking jreno?

Posted by: mark_in_austin | March 26, 2008 11:56 AM | Report abuse

Shouldn't we be spending more time on McCain's recent comments re: Iran and Al-Qaeda? We have all exaggerated a story in our life, but consistently confusing (or purposefully misleading?) people about a country's involvement in Iraq gets a pass? McCain's comments are worse than Lieberman's declaration that he's an independent democrat.

so . . . Hillary? Who cares?

Posted by: andillformthehead | March 26, 2008 11:56 AM | Report abuse

"Such a desperate defense of Hillary's lie and insult to American soldiers!"

Military folks learned long ago to never take a Clinton too seriously. She is the butt of more jokes now, that's all.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | March 26, 2008 11:54 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: jreno19 | March 26, 2008 11:53 AM | Report abuse

Even before the race was narrowed to Obama and Clinton, numerous pundits noted how the major candidates for presidency on the democratic side, with the exception of Joe Biden and Chris Dodd, were thin on experience.

So I agree with CC that it was a mistake for Hillary to make experience a core issue in her campaign. She got herself into a spot where, to campaign effectively, she had to exaggerate virtually any of her experiences as First Lady and, in the case of the Bosnia trip, fabricate a tall tale. (it's clear that her statements were intentional: Who remembers sniper fire and running with their heads down across an airfield when it never happened?). All of this while having to sidestep her failures chairing the taskforce on healthcare.

I don't think her lying about Bosnia will kill her candidacy in and of itself, but I think she will lose her experience advantage as the media scrutinizes her record as First Lady over the next few weeks/months.

So, it will probably come to pass that pundits and voters see no real experience gap between Obama and Clinton, and Obama will likely get some more of his momentum back, possibly in time for the May 6 primaries. That could be the end for her.

Posted by: ChrisDC | March 26, 2008 11:53 AM | Report abuse

There is a big difference between misspeaking and lying. In this case, I find it very hard to believe this was a simple misstatement. I often forget things that have happened to me, however, rarely do I remember something that never happened. That is the distinct difference that needs to be realized here; to see that this cold, calculated move is not what democrats need in a nominee. We've had 8 years of cold calculations.

Posted by: schapklp | March 26, 2008 11:53 AM | Report abuse

Obama's efforts to connect to the Republican Party, specifically Bush, and Dick Chaney, of the Halliburton Company, dates back to the Presidents Grandfather, Prescott Bush, and indeed Chaney was once an executive officer of Halliburton.

The American military pounds Iraq with Artillary, bombs, and the like, destroying large sections of cities, and infra-structures, then Halliburton comes in to rebuild. Halliburton and Halliburton associated companies have raked in ten's of billions.

Obama is just like the BIG HALIBURTAN. Haliburton has contracted to build detention centers in the U.S. similiar to the one in Quantanammo Bay, Cuba. Halliburton does nothing to earn the Two Dollars for each meal an American Serviceman in Iraq eats.

http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/

Halliburton was scheduled to take control of the Dubai Ports in The United Arab Emiirate. The deal was canceled when Bush was unable to affect the transfer of the American Ports.

Now we see what some might suspect as similiar financial escapading from the Democrats.

Two years ago, Iraq's Ministry of Electricity gave a $50 million contract to a start-up security company - Companion- owned by now-indicted businessman (TONY REZKO) Tony Rezko and a onetime Chicago cop, Daniel T. Frawley, to train Iraqi power-plant guards in the United States. An Iraqi leadership change left the deal in limbo. Now the company, Companion Security, is working to revive its contract.
Involved along with Antoin "Tony" Rezco, long time friend and neighbor of Democratic Presidential hopeful Barack Obama, and former cop Daniel T. Frawley, is Aiham Alsammarae. Alsammarae was accused of financial corruption by Iraqi authorities and jailed in Iraq last year before escaping and returning here.

LIKE FATHER LIKE SON --
Recently, Obama's campaign staff have been vetted by the IRS to disclose his connection to the criminal money generating underworld. Besides, his connections to the REZCO MAFIA types, his up-coming tax fraud charges -- Obama needs to disclose why he is a MUSLIM "PATWANG-FWEEE" and disclose Obama's MUSLIM Farrakhan mob connection to Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ. Its minister, and Obama's spiritual adviser, is the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. In 1982, the church launched Trumpet Newsmagazine; Wright's daughters serve as publisher and executive editor. Every year, the magazine makes awards in various categories. Last year, it gave the Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. Trumpeter Award to a man it said "truly epitomized greatness." That man is Louis Farrakhan. Farrakhan and Chicago's Trinity United Church are trumpeting Barack Obama AKA Barack Hussein Obama as the second coming of the messiah. Obama should stop suppoting our intervention in IRAQ. It's time to introduce this false, fake Xerox - X box Obama and invite the self-indicting thief plagiarizing pipsqueke "GLORK" Xerox - X box to meet the Buffalo "GAZOWNT-GAZIKKA" Police Department Buffalo Creek. He is MAD!!! --

OBAM YOU'RE NO JFK --

"GLORK" Obama looks like Alfred E. Newman: "Tales Calculated To Drive You." He is a MUSLIM "Glork" He's MAD!!! Alfred E. Neuman is the fictional mascot of Mad. The face had drifted through American pictography for decades before being claimed by Mad editor Harvey Kurtzman after he spotted it on the bulletin board in the office of Ballantine Books editor Bernard Shir-Cliff, later a contributor to various magazines created by Kurtzman.
Obama needs to disclose why he is a MUSLIM "PATWANG-FWEEE" and stop suppoting our intervention in IRAQ. It's time to introduce this false, fake "GLORK" Xerox - X box Obama and invite the self-indicting thief plagiarizing pipsqueke Xerox - X box to meet the Buffalo "GAZOWNT-GAZIKKA" Police Department Buffalo Creek.

Michelle Obama should be ashamed.

"GLORK" Michelle Obama should be ashamed of her separatist-racist connection to Farrakhan and Chicago's Trinity United Church trumpeting Barack Obama AKA Barack Hussein Obama as the second coming of the messiah. If Michelle Obama new what her husband -- the Hope-A-Dope, Fonster Monster -- Barack Obama AKA Barack Hussein Obama did in Harlem, she would wash her wide-open, Hus-suey loving MUSILM mouth out, with twenty-four (24) mule-team double-cross X-boX-BorraX. He is a MUSLIM "Glork" It's time to introduce this false, fake "GLORK" Xerox - X box Obama and invite the self-indicting thief plagiarizing pipsqueke Xerox - X box to meet the Buffalo "GAZOWNT-GAZIKKA" Police Department Buffalo Creek. He's MAD!!!

http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/

THE SPEECH --

The Apologia has arrived and once again the self-indicting, separatist-racist Barack Obama AKA Barack Hussein Obama, promises to heal the wounds of the world. The speech is the rude awakening of mass messianism of his campaign. Apologetically, Obama the MUSLIM double-cross X-boX-BorraX has an astonishingly empty two-prawn echelon explanation of his misjudgment.
In the first prawn: with regard to his connection to separatist-racist Rev. Wright; Obama summons voodoo and juju to express slavery as beginning and ending with the Rev. Wright.
In the second prawn: Obama's speech takes credit for Ashley's dream. A dream of unity Martin Luther King, Jr. borrowed from Ashley for his historic "I Have A Dream" speech. In Obama's speech, the connective bond Ashley, the elderly black man and Obama's grandmother share; represents Obama's self-indicting rise to the Harvard Yard. For Obama, the grand flag of language is the semi-fore of words, bestowed upon our nation by the messiah-alumni from Harvard. Obama's Swoon-Song Apologia to the nation represents a failed hymn -- a hymn that fails to heal the nation, repair the world, or make this time different than all the rest. Obama's speech is a brilliant failure.

http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/

Posted by: jreno19 | March 26, 2008 11:52 AM | Report abuse

Was Hillary sleep deprived when she made the same claims on December 30 and February 25?

Maybe. I expect she simply confused the Tuzla event with another one (I get corrected on this sort of thing by my wife all the time). If she didn't confuse events (i.e., she never landed as described in any country at any time), then it's more than a simple mis-statement. It's an issue. A real one.

Posted by: max | March 26, 2008 11:52 AM | Report abuse

Obama's efforts to connect to the Republican Party, specifically Bush, and Dick Chaney, of the Halliburton Company, dates back to the Presidents Grandfather, Prescott Bush, and indeed Chaney was once an executive officer of Halliburton.

The American military pounds Iraq with Artillary, bombs, and the like, destroying large sections of cities, and infra-structures, then Halliburton comes in to rebuild. Halliburton and Halliburton associated companies have raked in ten's of billions.

Obama is just like the BIG HALIBURTAN. Haliburton has contracted to build detention centers in the U.S. similiar to the one in Quantanammo Bay, Cuba. Halliburton does nothing to earn the Two Dollars for each meal an American Serviceman in Iraq eats.

http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/

Halliburton was scheduled to take control of the Dubai Ports in The United Arab Emiirate. The deal was canceled when Bush was unable to affect the transfer of the American Ports.

Now we see what some might suspect as similiar financial escapading from the Democrats.

Two years ago, Iraq's Ministry of Electricity gave a $50 million contract to a start-up security company - Companion- owned by now-indicted businessman (TONY REZKO) Tony Rezko and a onetime Chicago cop, Daniel T. Frawley, to train Iraqi power-plant guards in the United States. An Iraqi leadership change left the deal in limbo. Now the company, Companion Security, is working to revive its contract.
Involved along with Antoin "Tony" Rezco, long time friend and neighbor of Democratic Presidential hopeful Barack Obama, and former cop Daniel T. Frawley, is Aiham Alsammarae. Alsammarae was accused of financial corruption by Iraqi authorities and jailed in Iraq last year before escaping and returning here.

LIKE FATHER LIKE SON --
Recently, Obama's campaign staff have been vetted by the IRS to disclose his connection to the criminal money generating underworld. Besides, his connections to the REZCO MAFIA types, his up-coming tax fraud charges -- Obama needs to disclose why he is a MUSLIM "PATWANG-FWEEE" and disclose Obama's MUSLIM Farrakhan mob connection to Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ. Its minister, and Obama's spiritual adviser, is the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. In 1982, the church launched Trumpet Newsmagazine; Wright's daughters serve as publisher and executive editor. Every year, the magazine makes awards in various categories. Last year, it gave the Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. Trumpeter Award to a man it said "truly epitomized greatness." That man is Louis Farrakhan. Farrakhan and Chicago's Trinity United Church are trumpeting Barack Obama AKA Barack Hussein Obama as the second coming of the messiah. Obama should stop suppoting our intervention in IRAQ. It's time to introduce this false, fake Xerox - X box Obama and invite the self-indicting thief plagiarizing pipsqueke "GLORK" Xerox - X box to meet the Buffalo "GAZOWNT-GAZIKKA" Police Department Buffalo Creek. He is MAD!!! --

OBAM YOU'RE NO JFK --

"GLORK" Obama looks like Alfred E. Newman: "Tales Calculated To Drive You." He is a MUSLIM "Glork" He's MAD!!! Alfred E. Neuman is the fictional mascot of Mad. The face had drifted through American pictography for decades before being claimed by Mad editor Harvey Kurtzman after he spotted it on the bulletin board in the office of Ballantine Books editor Bernard Shir-Cliff, later a contributor to various magazines created by Kurtzman.
Obama needs to disclose why he is a MUSLIM "PATWANG-FWEEE" and stop suppoting our intervention in IRAQ. It's time to introduce this false, fake "GLORK" Xerox - X box Obama and invite the self-indicting thief plagiarizing pipsqueke Xerox - X box to meet the Buffalo "GAZOWNT-GAZIKKA" Police Department Buffalo Creek.

Michelle Obama should be ashamed.

"GLORK" Michelle Obama should be ashamed of her separatist-racist connection to Farrakhan and Chicago's Trinity United Church trumpeting Barack Obama AKA Barack Hussein Obama as the second coming of the messiah. If Michelle Obama new what her husband -- the Hope-A-Dope, Fonster Monster -- Barack Obama AKA Barack Hussein Obama did in Harlem, she would wash her wide-open, Hus-suey loving MUSILM mouth out, with twenty-four (24) mule-team double-cross X-boX-BorraX. He is a MUSLIM "Glork" It's time to introduce this false, fake "GLORK" Xerox - X box Obama and invite the self-indicting thief plagiarizing pipsqueke Xerox - X box to meet the Buffalo "GAZOWNT-GAZIKKA" Police Department Buffalo Creek. He's MAD!!!

http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/

THE SPEECH --

The Apologia has arrived and once again the self-indicting, separatist-racist Barack Obama AKA Barack Hussein Obama, promises to heal the wounds of the world. The speech is the rude awakening of mass messianism of his campaign. Apologetically, Obama the MUSLIM double-cross X-boX-BorraX has an astonishingly empty two-prawn echelon explanation of his misjudgment.
In the first prawn: with regard to his connection to separatist-racist Rev. Wright; Obama summons voodoo and juju to express slavery as beginning and ending with the Rev. Wright.
In the second prawn: Obama's speech takes credit for Ashley's dream. A dream of unity Martin Luther King, Jr. borrowed from Ashley for his historic "I Have A Dream" speech. In Obama's speech, the connective bond Ashley, the elderly black man and Obama's grandmother share; represents Obama's self-indicting rise to the Harvard Yard. For Obama, the grand flag of language is the semi-fore of words, bestowed upon our nation by the messiah-alumni from Harvard. Obama's Swoon-Song Apologia to the nation represents a failed hymn -- a hymn that fails to heal the nation, repair the world, or make this time different than all the rest. Obama's speech is a brilliant failure.

http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/

Posted by: jreno19 | March 26, 2008 11:51 AM | Report abuse

a minor blip, if anything.

the basic facts remain. she did go to bosnia. it was still a 'war zone' and the reports from the time don't paint a rosy picture of it.

you can't take that away from clinton -- and it is more experience then obama has on the subject.

Posted by: priusdriver | March 26, 2008 11:50 AM | Report abuse

She now says she "mis-spoke". I'm not sure that covers it. Footage shows her landing in Tuzla, then Bosnia's most peaceful city, and strolling with a smile, her daughter in tow, to be met by flowers, children and dignitaries. In other words, there's not a word of truth in her original assertion.

It also illustrates the question of Mrs Clinton's respect for the truth. There is, first, her attempt to block access to her records.

Second, her habit of making hugely inflated claims about herself. Third, a smarminess about matters of fact, as in her recent utterance that Barack Obama is not a Muslim "as far as I know".

She's being punished, not for one episode of "mis-speaking", but a whole record of dishonesty. In Bosnian terms it's more disgraceful than many remember. In 1992 Bill Clinton ran against George Bush Snr promising to help the Bosnians survive genocide - then repeatedly went back on his word.

(Locals dubbed the emergency graveyard dug on a Sarajevo soccer field "The Clinton Cemetery".)

And I shall never forget meeting his Defence Secretary Les Aspin, who said he had wanted to land his plane under fire at Sarajevo airport to at least show some solidarity but was dissuaded by the White House. They told him it would distract from Hillary's healthcare initiative. Now Bosnia has had its small, belated revenge on her.

Christopher Hitchens is a columnist for Vanity Fair

Well said Hitch. didn't he used to be a liberal, before they went all kooky?

Posted by: kingofzouk | March 26, 2008 11:50 AM | Report abuse

here's who writes your laws:

'How much influence gets peddled in Washington? A lot, an insider beltway magazine recently concluded -- about $3 billion dollars' worth.

Lobbyists reported $2.9 billion in fees last year according to a new study by the National Journal, which declared that a record sum. It's roughly double what the industry pulled down in 1998, according to the magazine's figures.

Lobbyists likely made "hundreds of millions of dollars more" in income they aren't legally required to report, the magazine said.

Last month, the Hill newspaper reported that the top 25 lobbying firms in Washington rung up about 15 percent of the total take.

Posted by: drindl | March 26, 2008 11:49 AM | Report abuse

drindl, the best way to deal with a tantrum-throwing child is to ignore it, not encourage it.

Posted by: wpost4112 | March 26, 2008 11:47 AM | Report abuse

THE SPEECH --

The Apologia has arrived and once again the self-indicting, separatist-racist Barack Obama AKA Barack Hussein Obama, promises to heal the wounds of the world. The speech is the rude awakening of mass messianism of his campaign. Apologetically, Obama the MUSLIM double-cross X-boX-BorraX has an astonishingly empty two-prawn echelon explanation of his misjudgment.
In the first prawn: with regard to his connection to separatist-racist Rev. Wright; Obama summons voodoo and juju to express slavery as beginning and ending with the Rev. Wright.
In the second prawn: Obama's speech takes credit for Ashley's dream. A dream of unity Martin Luther King, Jr. borrowed from Ashley for his historic "I Have A Dream" speech. In Obama's speech, the connective bond Ashley, the elderly black man and Obama's grandmother share; represents Obama's self-indicting rise to the Harvard Yard. For Obama, the grand flag of language is the semi-fore of words, bestowed upon our nation by the messiah-alumni from Harvard. Obama's Swoon-Song Apologia to the nation represents a failed hymn -- a hymn that fails to heal the nation, repair the world, or make this time different than all the rest. Obama's speech is a brilliant failure.

http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/

Posted by: jreno19 | March 26, 2008 11:47 AM | Report abuse

Another Dem fable exposed:

What is not debatable, based on the Iraqi Perspectives Project, is that Saddam Hussein's regime funded, trained, and assisted terrorist groups (including al-Qaeda proxies), and sometimes actually ordered them to attack American citizens, American interests, and American allies. To compound the danger, Saddam Hussein's Iraq was simultaneously using its intelligence and security apparatus to plot and conduct terror attacks of its own.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NWQzMmY4MGFmZDZkZjZmNTAwYTMzODFhNzllOWVkNDQ=

Posted by: kingofzouk | March 26, 2008 11:46 AM | Report abuse

the party of angry adolescents:

"A sizable proportion of Democrats would vote for John McCain next November if he is matched against the candidate they do not support for the Democratic nomination," the pollsters at Gallup report this morning. "This is particularly true for Hillary Clinton supporters," they add, "more than a quarter of whom currently say they would vote for McCain if Barack Obama is the Democratic nominee."

what a fitting home for 'drindl and the moonbats'. sounds like the tired old hippie group her husband is the roadie for.

Posted by: kingofzouk | March 26, 2008 11:44 AM | Report abuse

Hillary's exaggeration of the dangers she faced in Bosnia seems likely to curtail the polling surge she has enjoyed in recent days. Throughout the primaries she has tried to distance herself from her husband's reputation for slipperiness, even as she has tried to share credit for Bill's successes. This slip hinders both endeavors. Moreover, at a time when voters and superdelegates had been thinking hard about the Wright remarks, this incident serves to change the subject; people now have a new sensational video to forward.

Posted by: dhr5s | March 26, 2008 11:43 AM | Report abuse

jreno, or whatever sock puppet, Ctrl V mashing alias you are using today: what the hell are you talking about with the "prawns"? Was Obama grilling shrimp at the church, is that what you're getting at?

Posted by: bondjedi | March 26, 2008 11:43 AM | Report abuse

The Pelosi congress:

On Friday a House Appropriations Committee website was so overwhelmed by legislators' wish lists that it crashed, forcing the committee to extend the deadline for earmark requests until Monday.

Posted by: kingofzouk | March 26, 2008 11:42 AM | Report abuse

JRENO -- you are a despicable racist.

Posted by: drindl | March 26, 2008 11:42 AM | Report abuse

These repeated sniper exaggerations are much more than a blip on the radar screen, they are the flight pattern of the Clinton campaign. Like the "35 years" of experience claim, it does not hold up to further scrutiny when Senator Clinton's work as a corporate lawyer and WalMart Board member are fully examined. Hill-Force One is rapidly running out of fuel and in for a crash landing.

Posted by: johncav | March 26, 2008 11:42 AM | Report abuse

OMG - drindl is spouting of economics again. Look for a gold medal in the ignorance olympics to be awarded post haste.

Posted by: kingofzouk | March 26, 2008 11:40 AM | Report abuse

THE SPEECH --

The Apologia has arrived and once again the self-indicting, separatist-racist Barack Obama AKA Barack Hussein Obama, promises to heal the wounds of the world. The speech is the rude awakening of mass messianism of his campaign. Apologetically, Obama the MUSLIM double-cross X-boX-BorraX has an astonishingly empty two-prawn echelon explanation of his misjudgment.
In the first prawn: with regard to his connection to separatist-racist Rev. Wright; Obama summons voodoo and juju to express slavery as beginning and ending with the Rev. Wright.
In the second prawn: Obama's speech takes credit for Ashley's dream. A dream of unity Martin Luther King, Jr. borrowed from Ashley for his historic "I Have A Dream" speech. In Obama's speech, the connective bond Ashley, the elderly black man and Obama's grandmother share; represents Obama's self-indicting rise to the Harvard Yard. For Obama, the grand flag of language is the semi-fore of words, bestowed upon our nation by the messiah-alumni from Harvard. Obama's Swoon-Song Apologia to the nation represents a failed hymn -- a hymn that fails to heal the nation, repair the world, or make this time different than all the rest. Obama's speech is a brilliant failure.

http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/

Posted by: jreno19 | March 26, 2008 11:38 AM | Report abuse

THE SPEECH --

The Apologia has arrived and once again the self-indicting, separatist-racist Barack Obama AKA Barack Hussein Obama, promises to heal the wounds of the world. The speech is the rude awakening of mass messianism of his campaign. Apologetically, Obama the MUSLIM double-cross X-boX-BorraX has an astonishingly empty two-prawn echelon explanation of his misjudgment.
In the first prawn: with regard to his connection to separatist-racist Rev. Wright; Obama summons voodoo and juju to express slavery as beginning and ending with the Rev. Wright.
In the second prawn: Obama's speech takes credit for Ashley's dream. A dream of unity Martin Luther King, Jr. borrowed from Ashley for his historic "I Have A Dream" speech. In Obama's speech, the connective bond Ashley, the elderly black man and Obama's grandmother share; represents Obama's self-indicting rise to the Harvard Yard. For Obama, the grand flag of language is the semi-fore of words, bestowed upon our nation by the messiah-alumni from Harvard. Obama's Swoon-Song Apologia to the nation represents a failed hymn -- a hymn that fails to heal the nation, repair the world, or make this time different than all the rest. Obama's speech is a brilliant failure.

http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/

Posted by: jreno19 | March 26, 2008 11:37 AM | Report abuse

GOP - You're half-right. Carter is the worst one-term prez in modern history, Dubya the worst overall.

Posted by: bondjedi | March 26, 2008 11:35 AM | Report abuse

'On Social Security, the Arizona senator says he still backs a system of private retirement accounts that President Bush pushed unsuccessfully, and disowned details of a Social Security proposal on his campaign Web site.'


Private Accounts Would Force Trillions in New Borrowing. Under Bush's plan, money that was earmarked to pay current beneficiaries would no longer be available, requiring the government to borrow trillions of dollars to allow Social Security to pay for promised benefits. Without this borrowing, benefit cuts to current retirees would have to be made.

Posted by: drindl | March 26, 2008 11:35 AM | Report abuse

bsimon-

To be fair, the quote was attributed to an anonymous Dem operative who was "familiar with the Clinton campaign's strategy." The concept is that the only way for her to win now is to render Obama unelectable, i.e., kneecap him.

Posted by: jac13 | March 26, 2008 11:35 AM | Report abuse

because my friend, Obama is nothing if not WORSE than Carter, aka Peanut...worst president in modern history.

-----------------

No, that would be our little cheerleader-acting-as-quarterback Georgie. Except he's the worst US President ever.

Posted by: wpost4112 | March 26, 2008 11:32 AM | Report abuse

Absolutely this will hurt HRC's credibility and rightfully so. The negative tone and entitlement demeanor of the Clinton campaign is a sore reminder of the year's the Clinton's were in the White House. What has happened to honesty in this country? Hillary has stretched her credentials, has her family spreading a negative tone and then they can't take the heat when it comes back to bite all of them. Anxious to see the tax returns. Remember the fund the Clinton's started to defend themselves against lawsuits when they were in the White House last time? All because of their lies. Left the White House with no money, were able to buy a costly home in Westchester Co. and now they are multimillionaires due to speaking engagements, board appointments and book deals. We should all be so lucky...

Posted by: squashmom | March 26, 2008 11:31 AM | Report abuse

"If you're in Generation X, don't give up hope"

Wasn't that Billy Idol's band before he went solo? And aren't they all in their 40s now? I think a comeback is beyond hope, instead crossing into delusion.

Posted by: bsimon | March 26, 2008 11:31 AM | Report abuse

Anyone who liked Clinton will overlook it.

Anyone who hated her, now has reason #4,229,597 to hate her more.

Posted by: JD | March 26, 2008 11:29 AM | Report abuse

Running for president is HARD!

-----------------

Cue the violins.

Posted by: wpost4112 | March 26, 2008 11:28 AM | Report abuse

because my friend, Obama is nothing if not WORSE than Carter, aka Peanut...worst president in modern history.

I look forward to getting fired up for the general election fight as a delegate to my State Republican Convention this weekend. We will have Sec. of Agriculture and former Gov Ed Schafer speaking, and the contrast between our nominee and either Dem I'm sure will be highlighted.

If Obama decides to make the trek up here to the far north next week, as his campiagn has said, I have some advice....leave the shorts back in St Thomas, Senator. I'd say it's more likely that he'll be a no-show and stay on the stump in PA.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | March 26, 2008 11:27 AM | Report abuse

jac13 writes
"Nancy Kerrigan - Barack Obama
Tonya Harding - Hillary Clinton"

And you're saying the Clinton campaign uses this characterization to describe their strategy? Seems odd. Sure, Kerrigan didn't win, but the scenario didn't play out so well for Harding either.

Posted by: bsimon | March 26, 2008 11:27 AM | Report abuse

JOHN MCCAIN WANTS TO DESTROY SOCIAL SECURITY


":If you're in Generation X, don't give up hope -- Social Security is not going bust. That's news from the annual report from the Social Security and Medicare trustees.

The latest projection is that Social Security will pay full benefits for more than 30 years. After 2041, it will pay only 78 percent of promised benefits. The projection for the long-run shortfall has fallen 10 percent since last year.

The report is an important reminder that the program is not in a crisis. While we need reforms to extend the life of Social Security, we do not need to panic and adopt massive benefit cuts. And the last thing we need is the radical step of privatization -- as George Bush and John McCain want -- that would cut benefits and shorten the program's life.

Instead, we can save Social Security by setting the right priorities. Its deficit projected into the infinite future is 1.1 percent of the economy -- about the same size as John McCain's tax plan. Saving Social Security would be a better use of resources than a $2 trillion tax plan that delivers 58 percent of its benefits to the top 1 percent of taxpayers."

Posted by: drindl | March 26, 2008 11:26 AM | Report abuse

Dear Stay-at-Home Critics: before condemning Hillary Clinton over her Bosnia remarks, ask yourself if you've travelled to as many places in the world and met as many human beings as she or Barack Obama or John McCain have? Running for president is HARD! It's easy to conflate experiences. I do it all the time. Of course, I don't have any staff members to correct me when I'm blathering on at a party: "Uh, sir, I think you're confusing your trip to D.C. with your trip to Disney World."

Posted by: dognabbit | March 26, 2008 11:24 AM | Report abuse

Once again, proudtobeGod reveals her closeted love for Hilary.

"Anyhoo, it would certainly be a problem if the story were fabricated, but there seems to be several coroborating reports of the situation being hostile and under seige of some sort."

What sort of siege would that be? Getting pelted by bouquets thrown by children?

Such a desperate defense of Hillary's lie and insult to American soldiers!

Posted by: wpost4112 | March 26, 2008 11:24 AM | Report abuse

"this really distresses me, the dem bashing that goes on here. the hysteria of it. i know a lot of it is from republicans, and what else is new, but the level of vitriol against these candidates, and the press corps' childish adoration for mccain is just making me sick."


drindl decries bashing. It seems she maintains the only license to act in that manner. my how the worm has turned. Can't we get back to bush bashing all the time instead? this creature has no sense of self whatsoever.

did it ever occur to you mindless Libs that it was your most beloved Pol ever - the clintons, that was the source of all the hate. that and the willing and miasmic drindl pack of jackals. I think the evidence now finally speaks for itself.

and even with all the facts on display, the moonbat drindl manages to invent a conspiracy whereby Repubs dress up on blogs as Libs to bash the Dems. as if we needed to do that. but then, as you tin foil hats understand, we get paid for this.

Posted by: kingofzouk | March 26, 2008 11:24 AM | Report abuse

This is a minor blip in the mind of most voters. What is major though is the way she and her campaign have handled her experience as a First Lady. She should have not pumped up her experience to be more than it was and should have concentrated more on her foreign policy experience in the senate. The experiences she has gotten as First Lady are special and unique to her and should be treated as such. They provided her an opportunity to have see a personal side of leaders in there most human form. Having discussions with wives of foreign dignitaries provides an insight into the female perspective in mostly male dominated countries. If her experience as a First Lady was presented this way, then any attacks on that experience would be seen as belittling and not appropriate.

Posted by: Frank12345 | March 26, 2008 11:23 AM | Report abuse

This is a minor blip in the mind of most voters. What is major though is the way she and her campaign have handled her experience as a First Lady. She should have not pumped up her experience to be more than it was and should have concentrated more on her foreign policy experience in the senate. The experiences she has gotten as First Lady are special and unique to her and should be treated as such. They provided her an opportunity to have see a personal side of leaders in there most human form. Have discussions with wives of foreign dignitaries provides an insight into the female perspective in mostly male dominated countries. If her experience as a First Lady was presented this way, then any attacks on that experience would be seen as belittling and not appropriate.

Posted by: Frank12345 | March 26, 2008 11:23 AM | Report abuse

Here is a question from beyond the Northern Atlantic. Back here in Europe during the last few days there was far more media-interest in HRC's plan to help home-owners than in her gaffe about Bosnia. Her plan to take some government funding to help people pay their mortgages was a breaking news story during Easter. Why did it get so little attention in the US? Arn't her and Obama's electorate interested in some very concrete and clear policy ideas concerning the subprime crisis?
Who cares about what she said about something that happened ten years ago? Isn't the immediate future more important?

In case you are wondering why I am partycrashing your discussion: many Europeans follow the primaries with abandon. We are all obsessing to know who will become the next leader of the free world. Somehow the American president is our president too.

Posted by: daphnemeijer | March 26, 2008 11:22 AM | Report abuse

[QUOTE]
The question such a response brings to mind is: for what event did she mistake the landing in Bosnia? Did she accidentally mistake another time and place when she WAS under sniper fire, rushing, ducked over, into the cover of ground transport after a harrowing landing in some combat zone?
Posted by: bsimon | March 26, 2008 10:20 AM
[/QUOTE]

bsimon has asked THE correct follow-up question.

Does anybody think the Republicans are going to let this go in the general election? Shall we write the McCain's campaign ad now? "John McCain served his country under REAL battle and torture duress, while Hillary makes false claims about imaginary sniper fire."

"MIS-STATEMENT"???????????????? Give. Me. A. BREAK!!

Posted by: egc52556 | March 26, 2008 11:22 AM | Report abuse

The Fix is supposed to be by and for political junkies. I agree that CC is a junkie, but judging by this post it is apparent that his drug of choice is the Clinton Smack. Dude, a lie is a lie, and it's apparent to everyone in the room that Clinton told this doozie because there is absolutely nothing she won't say to steal the nomination.

She has lied about NAFTA, she has lied about her Northern Ireland escapades, she has changed her story about what to do about FL & MI, she is married to the biggest liar of our generation. Her life, her marriage, her career have been nothing but a series of lies. True to form, she lies about sniper fire, gets busted doing it - by witnesses, her own account in her ghost-written autobio, by television clips - and tries to get away with "I misspoke," while enablers like Shill-izza trot out their on-the-one-hand-on-the-other-hand formulations.

You should be ashamed of yourself. The Fix is trying to undo the work Woodward & Bernstein did to rid us of one liar, and give us another one for a new generation.

Posted by: bondjedi | March 26, 2008 11:18 AM | Report abuse

One might recall Senator Clinton's assertion that if a candidate is going to build a campaign on words, then those words should be the candidate's own words.

That line of reasoning is apropos here: If a candidate is going to build a campaign on experience, there had certainly better be real experiences behind the campaigning!

Mrs. Clinton's chickens (pardon the phrase) seem to be coming home to roost.

Posted by: jaredwrightus | March 26, 2008 11:18 AM | Report abuse

Gravel leaves the Dems. A good man. A good politician.

Posted by: wpost4112 | March 26, 2008 11:16 AM | Report abuse

bsimon -

Nancy Kerrigan (favored to win Olympic gold) - Barack Obama

Tonya Harding (trailer-park trash, Nancy's chief rival, who hired a guy to break Nancy's knee) - Hillary Clinton

Posted by: jac13 | March 26, 2008 11:14 AM | Report abuse

Don't know any soldier who respects a commander who lies about being under fire. It's one of those unwritten codes in the military. She's insulted every USA soldier and is truly not fit to be their commander-in-chief.

Posted by: wpost4112 | March 26, 2008 11:14 AM | Report abuse

Proud, here is one examination of some of her other "experience".

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1721966-2,00.html

Posted by: jnoel002 | March 26, 2008 11:13 AM | Report abuse

By itself, the Bosnia Brag wouldn't be so significant, but it comes at a time when a significant number of Democrats are beginning to question her motives. Combined with her and Bill's effusive praise of McCain and its implied denigration of Obama, even many long-time Clinton supporters are becoming uncomfortable with her candidacy and some are concluding that she is willing to sacrifice the Democratic Party and all in it for her own personal ambitions.

Anecdotally, here in Texas I'm aware of several precinct-elected "Clinton" delegates to this Saturday's County Conventions (where there is another presidential preference sign-in that will allocate the ultimate delegates to the National Convention) who have either decided not to attend, or have decided to sign-in for Obama instead. This is a direct result of Democratic disenchantment with Clinton's negativity and the perception of destructive ambition on her part. If it's happening in Texas (the home of the 3AM phone call ad), logic would tell you it's happening other places, too.

Posted by: Stonecreek | March 26, 2008 11:13 AM | Report abuse

It's embarassing that so many Clinton supporters try to make excuses for Hillary's character because the lies that seem to keep on coming are clearly the sign of dubious character. After months of "lying" about her experience, it is hardly nothing that now non refutable evidence makes it way out. We just can't pass it over as a "senior" moment.
We have three candidates who all are not perfect, though some are more self aware than others. We should be talking how character is going to shape thier presidencies and what we are in line for. Unfortunately for Clinton, Bill;s administration seems likely to be the template for hers - and that possibility should make people think seriously about what they really want versus what they say they want

Posted by: nclwtk | March 26, 2008 11:11 AM | Report abuse

'P.S. to drindl: Don't think I ever aplogized for mistakenly lumping you in with the trolls/crazies the other week. Sorry. My bad.'

thanks jac. this really distresses me, the dem bashing that goes on here. the hysteria of it. i know a lot of it is from republicans, and what else is new, but the level of vitriol against these candidates, and the press corps' childish adoration for mccain is just making me sick.

another four years -- and this time dems are swiftboatng themselves -- with the help of the media, of course, as always.

and washpost, what difference does it make what hillary remembered? i really enjoy your posts, but what is the point when she can't win now?

take a look at mccain's positions and his GUARANTEE of another 4 or 8 HELLISH years of the mess we are in now --only multiplied, because my friend, McCain is nothing if not WORSE than bush -- and i'd like all of you to think about what you are doing to yourselves.

Posted by: drindl | March 26, 2008 11:11 AM | Report abuse

It's embarassing that so many Clinton supporters try to make excuses for Hillary's character because the lies that seem to keep on coming are clearly the sign of dubious character. After months of "lying" about her experience, it is hardly nothing that now non refutable evidence makes it way out. We just can't pass it over as a "senior" moment.
We have three candidates who all are not perfect, though some are more self aware than others. We should be talking how character is going to shape thier presidencies and what we are in line for. Unfortunately for Clinton, Bill;s administration seems likely to be the template for hers - and that possibility should make people think seriously about what they really want versus what they say they want

Posted by: nclwtk | March 26, 2008 11:11 AM | Report abuse

CC, still waiting for the Wag the Blog Redux on What should FL/MI do?

Anyhoo, it would certainly be a problem if the story were fabricated, but there seems to be several coroborating reports of the situation being hostile and under seige of some sort. I can see giving her the benefit of the doubt, but the bigger question is, how much DIPLOMACY did she really conduct or engage in?

That, IMHO, goes to her claim of experience with heads of state and the like. Was it all fluff and nothing official, or was it really legitimate experience in negotiations of foriegn policy? That is much more important a question to ask than whether some lone gunman was taking pot shots at Air Force II or not.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | March 26, 2008 11:11 AM | Report abuse

I am in complete agreement with AP's Ron Fornier, and said as much in a blog posting yesterday.

When a politician gets creative with the truth, it's not a big newsflash to anyone.

However, when a candidate lies on the campaign trail -- more than once -- about something core to their entire campaign, now THAT's news. Why? First, because it's a head-scratcher: What was she thinking? And second, because it's insulting the to the public: How gullible do you think we are? Third, it makes voters question her ability as POTUS -- especially after eight long years of misrepresenation of the truth and its consequences. Finally, it's foolish. We all know that the truth always comes out.

Let me rephrase: We all know this, except for the Clintons.

Posted by: VoiceofReason5 | March 26, 2008 11:11 AM | Report abuse

This story makes me think it might be time to find out what is the Clinton definition of vetted?

Posted by: jnoel002 | March 26, 2008 11:10 AM | Report abuse

http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/

THE SPEECH --

The Apologia has arrived and once again the self-indicting, separatist-racist Barack Obama AKA Barack Hussein Obama, promises to heal the wounds of the world. The speech is the rude awakening of mass messianism of his campaign. Apologetically, Obama the MUSLIM double-cross X-boX-BorraX has an astonishingly empty two-prawn echelon explanation of his misjudgment.
In the first prawn: with regard to his connection to separatist-racist Rev. Wright; Obama summons voodoo and juju to express slavery as beginning and ending with the Rev. Wright.
In the second prawn: Obama's speech takes credit for Ashley's dream. A dream of unity Martin Luther King, Jr. borrowed from Ashley for his historic "I Have A Dream" speech. In Obama's speech, the connective bond Ashley, the elderly black man and Obama's grandmother share; represents Obama's self-indicting rise to the Harvard Yard. For Obama, the grand flag of language is the semi-fore of words, bestowed upon our nation by the messiah-alumni from Harvard. Obama's Swoon-Song Apologia to the nation represents a failed hymn -- a hymn that fails to heal the nation, repair the world, or make this time different than all the rest. Obama's speech is a brilliant failure.

http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/

Posted by: jreno19 | March 26, 2008 11:10 AM | Report abuse

This "Bosnia" lie should be the end of Senator Clinton's candidacy. The biggest failure of the Bush Administration has been the destruction of trust between the Government and the people and world community - wars and torture sold on systematic distortion of evidence, and gross incompetence hiding behind patriotism. The next President will have to spend a long time re-earning the trust of the electorate, allies, and neutral countries. Senator Clinton has lied about her Bosnian experience on multiple occasions, in prepared addresses, has smeared the truthful witnesses ("Sinbad is just a comedian'), has tried to ignore and then deny the video evidence, and now is trying to laugh off the criticism by saying she just made a simple mistake (and launch more low attacks on her Democratic rival). This is shameful. The media knows it. The Democratic Party establishment knows it. The electorate senses it, and will be unlikely to forget it one the Republican operatives start their attacks based on it. Senator Clinton needs to suspend her campaign, announce her full support for Senator Obama, and get off the stage.

Posted by: brumby | March 26, 2008 11:08 AM | Report abuse

This "Bosnia" lie should be the end of Senator Clinton's candidacy. The biggest failure of the Bush Administration has been the destruction of trust between the Government and the people and world community - wars and torture sold on systematic distortion of evidence, and gross incompetence hiding behind patriotism. The next President will have to spend a long time re-earning the trust of the electorate, allies, and neutral countries. Senator Clinton has lied about her Bosnian experience on multiple occasions, in prepared addresses, has smeared the truthful witnesses ("Sinbad is just a comedian'), has tried to ignore and then deny the video evidence, and now is trying to laugh off the criticism by saying she just made a simple mistake (and launch more low attacks on her Democratic rival). This is shameful. The media knows it. The Democratic Party establishment knows it. The electorate senses it, and will be unlikely to forget it one the Republican operatives start their attacks based on it. Senator Clinton needs ot suspend her campaign, announce her full support for Senator Obama, and get off the stage.

Posted by: brumby | March 26, 2008 11:08 AM | Report abuse

http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/

THE SPEECH --

The Apologia has arrived and once again the self-indicting, separatist-racist Barack Obama AKA Barack Hussein Obama, promises to heal the wounds of the world. The speech is the rude awakening of mass messianism of his campaign. Apologetically, Obama the MUSLIM double-cross X-boX-BorraX has an astonishingly empty two-prawn echelon explanation of his misjudgment.
In the first prawn: with regard to his connection to separatist-racist Rev. Wright; Obama summons voodoo and juju to express slavery as beginning and ending with the Rev. Wright.
In the second prawn: Obama's speech takes credit for Ashley's dream. A dream of unity Martin Luther King, Jr. borrowed from Ashley for his historic "I Have A Dream" speech. In Obama's speech, the connective bond Ashley, the elderly black man and Obama's grandmother share; represents Obama's self-indicting rise to the Harvard Yard. For Obama, the grand flag of language is the semi-fore of words, bestowed upon our nation by the messiah-alumni from Harvard. Obama's Swoon-Song Apologia to the nation represents a failed hymn -- a hymn that fails to heal the nation, repair the world, or make this time different than all the rest. Obama's speech is a brilliant failure.

http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/

Posted by: jreno19 | March 26, 2008 11:07 AM | Report abuse

jac13 writes
"now it's the "Tonya Harding" strategy (also their own words)."

In their view, who's Tonya & who's Nancy?

Posted by: bsimon | March 26, 2008 11:06 AM | Report abuse


McCain laid out his bold, bold plan to deal with the mortgage crisis and the economy yesterday:

SANTA ANA -- - Sen. John McCain addressed the mortgage foreclosure crisis and the weakening economy in a speech in Santa Ana today but offered no major prescriptions for quelling turbulence -- instead calling for two panels to look at the problems.

Wow! No major prescriptions! Convening two panels! Can the electorate bear such vigorous and inspirational leadership? Such decisive, hard-nosed specifics issuing from the bowels of a proposed third Bush term?

Of course, for more than four years, McCain has had an opportunity as a senator to address the shaky underpinnings of the loan industry's effect on the economy and has refused to do so. Via Think Progress's new Wonk Room, check out the facts and weep:

- McCain voted against discouraging predatory lending practices. In 2005, McCain voted against an amendment prohibiting law-breaking high-cost predatory mortgage lenders from collecting funds from homeowners who are forced into bankruptcy court. [S. 256, 3/03/05]

- McCain failed to vote on bill to overhaul mortgage lending practices of FHA.In 2007, McCain failed to vote on passage of a bill that would overhaul the mortgage lending practices of the Federal Housing Administration (FHA). The bill would reduce the required minimum down payment for an FHA-insured loan and simplify its calculation, requiring a flat 1.5 percent of the appraised value of the home. [S. 2338, 12/14/07]

- McCain failed to sign on to the Predatory Lending Consumer Protection Act. In 2003, McCain failed to add his name to this legislation, which was intended to "protect consumers against predatory practices." The bill, which was endorsed by a host of civil rights and housing advocates, including the U.S. Conference of Mayors, ACORN, and the Consumer Federation of America. [S. 1928, 11/21/03]

- McCain failed to sign on to Truth in Lending Act. Less than four months ago, McCain failed to sign on to this bipartisan initiative providing protection to consumers taking out home mortgage loans. Among other measures, it was designed to "establish new lending standards to ensure that loans are affordable and fair." McCain also refused to co-sponsor this legislation in the 107th Congress as well. [S. 2452, 12/12/2007]

Posted by: drindl | March 26, 2008 11:03 AM | Report abuse

drindl & mark_in_austin,

Like you, I'm really distressed about the direction of the campaign and the effect on the party's chances in the general. (Just look at what this catfight has done for McCain's numbers over the past month.)

I admit that I'm an Obama partisan, but objectively speaking I think the blame for this situation has to be laid at the feet of the Clinton campaign. First it was "the kitchen sink" strategy (their own words); now it's the "Tonya Harding" strategy (also their own words).

I regret to say I don't think there's anything that can be done until after May 6. I hope Obama puts on a full-court press in PA -- I'm encouraged that he's doing a five-day bus tour of the state beginning Friday -- because I think he needs to keep it close and, based on yesterday's Rasmussen poll (Obama down 10), it looks like he can. If he does, and wins NC (up 21 per PPP yesterday) even if HRC wins or comes close in IN, there may finally be some pressure on HRC to fold her tent. I only hope the damage isn't already done.

P.S. to drindl: Don't think I ever aplogized for mistakenly lumping you in with the trolls/crazies the other week. Sorry. My bad.

Posted by: jac13 | March 26, 2008 11:01 AM | Report abuse

Air Force Lt. Gen. Buster Glosson, a John McCain supporter who ran the air attack in the first Gulf War, said, "It bothers me any time anyone running for the highest office in the land fabricates a story.

"That should bother any American, whether you're military or nonmilitary."

Another source, a former Army analyst who was stationed abroad when dignitaries visited, said, "You know, we have soldiers overseas now who are getting shot at by real bullets from real enemies who really want to kill them.

"Getting shot at by snipers is not something you forget - or make light of," he added.

"If getting shot at by sniper fire qualifies you to be president, then there are thousands of guys in the military right now who are way more qualified than Hillary Clinton to be our next president."

Posted by: wpost4112 | March 26, 2008 11:01 AM | Report abuse

Is Operation Chaos legal?

This type of party switching IS illegal in Ohio:
Ohio Democrats Talking Criminal Prosecutions For Violating Pledges ...

Limbaugh's meddling is the epitome of "voter fraud", according to Michael Slater of Project Vote, a nonpartisan group that designs voter registration drives for low-income people.

Slater said that "GOP meddling in the Ohio Democratic Primary was a clear-cut example of fraudulent voting..
...Here we have a real instance of spurring people on to engage in illegal election activities with a real intent to affect the outcome," Slater said.
"That is voter fraud. People were encouraged to break the law. They had to declare allegiance to a political party and sign a document under penalty of perjury. Intent is what matters in voter fraud."

In North Carolina, party switchers can not change affiliation during the Primary's early voting period:

SESSION LAW 2007-253 e. Change of Registration at One‑Stop Voting Site. - A person who is already registered to vote in the county may update the information in the registration record in accordance with procedures prescribed by the State Board of Elections, but an individual's party affiliation may not be changed during the one‑stop voting period before any first or second partisan primary in which the individual is eligible to vote.

Did Republicans cross over to vote for Hillary just to help McCain?

Limbaugh's "Operation Chaos" helped Clinton to garner more votes in the Texas and Ohio primary according to exit polls:
For a party that loves to hate the Clintons, Republican voters have cast an awful lot of ballots lately for Senator Hillary Clinton: About 100,000 GOP loyalists voted for her in Ohio, 119,000 in Texas, and about 38,000 in Mississippi, exit polls show.

Posted by: drindl | March 26, 2008 11:00 AM | Report abuse

Here's Michael in Pittsburgh. Great to have you with us on the EIB Network. Hello, sir.

CALLER: Mega dittos, Rush. How you doing?

RUSH: Good, sir.

CALLER: I just wanted to say that yesterday I filled out my voter registration card, I got it all filled out except the final part where you check the party and took a little bit of nudging from my girlfriend to finally check the Democrat block. I didn't think I had it in me, but --
...
RUSH: All right, well, look, Michael, I appreciate the phone call. See, this happened hundreds of thousands of times across the state of Pennsylvania in the last two to three weeks due to Operation Chaos, which continues to roll on. Operation Chaos will obviously be in play in North Carolina. Obama has lost his lead in North Carolina. He had a huge lead in North Carolina. In fact, Obama, so concerned about Operation Chaos -- he's down
***************OPERATION CHAOS******************************

WHY IS NO MEDIA REPORTING ON LIMBAUGH'S CAMPAIGN TO DISRUPT THE DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL RACE?


'in the Virgin Islands. He's in Charlotte Amalie, in the Virgin Islands, St. Thomas -- he's going to be coming back tomorrow, and I understand that Obama is going to embark on a six-day bus tour throughout the state of Pennsylvania. He's ten points down in the latest Rasmussen poll. He was 11 points down a week ago, in the last polling period. Not sure it was a week ago, but he's taking Operation Chaos very seriously, folks. Six day barnstorming bus tour all across Pennsylvania to counter Operation Chaos. '

DON'T YOU THINK THIS IS NEWSWORTHY,CC?
'

Posted by: drindl | March 26, 2008 10:58 AM | Report abuse

Obama's efforts to connect to the Republican Party, specifically Bush, and Dick Chaney, of the Halliburton Company, dates back to the Presidents Grandfather, Prescott Bush, and indeed Chaney was once an executive officer of Halliburton.

The American military pounds Iraq with Artillary, bombs, and the like, destroying large sections of cities, and infra-structures, then Halliburton comes in to rebuild. Halliburton and Halliburton associated companies have raked in ten's of billions.

Obama is just like the BIG HALIBURTAN. Haliburton has contracted to build detention centers in the U.S. similiar to the one in Quantanammo Bay, Cuba. Halliburton does nothing to earn the Two Dollars for each meal an American Serviceman in Iraq eats.

http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/

Halliburton was scheduled to take control of the Dubai Ports in The United Arab Emiirate. The deal was canceled when Bush was unable to affect the transfer of the American Ports.

Now we see what some might suspect as similiar financial escapading from the Democrats.

Two years ago, Iraq's Ministry of Electricity gave a $50 million contract to a start-up security company - Companion- owned by now-indicted businessman (TONY REZKO) Tony Rezko and a onetime Chicago cop, Daniel T. Frawley, to train Iraqi power-plant guards in the United States. An Iraqi leadership change left the deal in limbo. Now the company, Companion Security, is working to revive its contract.
Involved along with Antoin "Tony" Rezco, long time friend and neighbor of Democratic Presidential hopeful Barack Obama, and former cop Daniel T. Frawley, is Aiham Alsammarae. Alsammarae was accused of financial corruption by Iraqi authorities and jailed in Iraq last year before escaping and returning here.

LIKE FATHER LIKE SON --
Recently, Obama's campaign staff have been vetted by the IRS to disclose his connection to the criminal money generating underworld. Besides, his connections to the REZCO MAFIA types, his up-coming tax fraud charges -- Obama needs to disclose why he is a MUSLIM "PATWANG-FWEEE" and disclose Obama's MUSLIM Farrakhan mob connection to Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ. Its minister, and Obama's spiritual adviser, is the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. In 1982, the church launched Trumpet Newsmagazine; Wright's daughters serve as publisher and executive editor. Every year, the magazine makes awards in various categories. Last year, it gave the Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. Trumpeter Award to a man it said "truly epitomized greatness." That man is Louis Farrakhan. Farrakhan and Chicago's Trinity United Church are trumpeting Barack Obama AKA Barack Hussein Obama as the second coming of the messiah. Obama should stop suppoting our intervention in IRAQ. It's time to introduce this false, fake Xerox - X box Obama and invite the self-indicting thief plagiarizing pipsqueke "GLORK" Xerox - X box to meet the Buffalo "GAZOWNT-GAZIKKA" Police Department Buffalo Creek. He is MAD!!! --

OBAM YOU'RE NO JFK --

"GLORK" Obama looks like Alfred E. Newman: "Tales Calculated To Drive You." He is a MUSLIM "Glork" He's MAD!!! Alfred E. Neuman is the fictional mascot of Mad. The face had drifted through American pictography for decades before being claimed by Mad editor Harvey Kurtzman after he spotted it on the bulletin board in the office of Ballantine Books editor Bernard Shir-Cliff, later a contributor to various magazines created by Kurtzman.
Obama needs to disclose why he is a MUSLIM "PATWANG-FWEEE" and stop suppoting our intervention in IRAQ. It's time to introduce this false, fake "GLORK" Xerox - X box Obama and invite the self-indicting thief plagiarizing pipsqueke Xerox - X box to meet the Buffalo "GAZOWNT-GAZIKKA" Police Department Buffalo Creek.

Michelle Obama should be ashamed.

"GLORK" Michelle Obama should be ashamed of her separatist-racist connection to Farrakhan and Chicago's Trinity United Church trumpeting Barack Obama AKA Barack Hussein Obama as the second coming of the messiah. If Michelle Obama new what her husband -- the Hope-A-Dope, Fonster Monster -- Barack Obama AKA Barack Hussein Obama did in Harlem, she would wash her wide-open, Hus-suey loving MUSILM mouth out, with twenty-four (24) mule-team double-cross X-boX-BorraX. He is a MUSLIM "Glork" It's time to introduce this false, fake "GLORK" Xerox - X box Obama and invite the self-indicting thief plagiarizing pipsqueke Xerox - X box to meet the Buffalo "GAZOWNT-GAZIKKA" Police Department Buffalo Creek. He's MAD!!!

http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/

THE SPEECH --

The Apologia has arrived and once again the self-indicting, separatist-racist Barack Obama AKA Barack Hussein Obama, promises to heal the wounds of the world. The speech is the rude awakening of mass messianism of his campaign. Apologetically, Obama the MUSLIM double-cross X-boX-BorraX has an astonishingly empty two-prawn echelon explanation of his misjudgment.
In the first prawn: with regard to his connection to separatist-racist Rev. Wright; Obama summons voodoo and juju to express slavery as beginning and ending with the Rev. Wright.
In the second prawn: Obama's speech takes credit for Ashley's dream. A dream of unity Martin Luther King, Jr. borrowed from Ashley for his historic "I Have A Dream" speech. In Obama's speech, the connective bond Ashley, the elderly black man and Obama's grandmother share; represents Obama's self-indicting rise to the Harvard Yard. For Obama, the grand flag of language is the semi-fore of words, bestowed upon our nation by the messiah-alumni from Harvard. Obama's Swoon-Song Apologia to the nation represents a failed hymn -- a hymn that fails to heal the nation, repair the world, or make this time different than all the rest. Obama's speech is a brilliant failure.

http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/

Posted by: jreno19 | March 26, 2008 10:56 AM | Report abuse

Hillary is doing what the Clinton's have done during their entire political career, lie and get away with it. The Clinton tactic is to immediately begin a smear campaign and frontal attack against anyone who disputes or disagrees with them. What is most amazing is that the media presented evidence that her lie was indeed a lie and not her confusion about what happened and where. You can be sure of this one truth, if Hillary is elected, the person or persons who did not sufficiently cover her lie to add to her illusion that in 32 years she only made one mistake, will not be welcomed in the White House, nor will they be permitted to ask questions at any news conference.

Sone other things. Where is all this money coming from for the candidates to campaign on if the economy is in as bad a shape as they say it is? I do not believe that any unemployed worker is giving the money, and workers are more interested in buying gas to get to work rather than giving it to some loud mouthed politician. SO, who is giving all this money, and who must pay taxes on this money? Does either of the candidates have to pay income taxes on what now is on-half of a billion dollars, by their own estimates? OR did the congress pass a law that political candidates could raise as much money as they could and not have to pay one cent of tax on it? You can be assured of this truth, if you received a half of a billion dollars, you would certainly pay heavy taxes on it, so why not these politicians?

Something else. These politicians are jumping on the global warming hoax bandwagon yet they are the most grevious polluters in the country. Perhaps they bought a permit from GORE"S footprint permit company to polute?
Respectfully,

Posted by: dg11703 | March 26, 2008 10:56 AM | Report abuse

Chris,
I think it's a pretty serious lapse, and one that will get play in the general election. She can't tout experience if she forgets what that experience was. And it was something she could have easily verified, too, which makes the lapse harder to explain (and defend).
This won't be a one or two day story; this will carry on and get airplay in months to come.
DB

Posted by: dbitt | March 26, 2008 10:55 AM | Report abuse

'MIAMI -- The Air Force lawyer who quit as chief prosecutor for the Guantanamo Bay war court five months ago because of what he called political interference has asked to leave the U.S. military, he said. Col. Morris D. Davis said he submitted retirement papers last week, because of fallout from his criticism of the Guantanamo court and because of family concerns.'

I just read that this guy's family was getting death threats. How sick are some of my countrymen? I feel like I live in the gulag.

Posted by: drindl | March 26, 2008 10:53 AM | Report abuse

If the media we really doing its job this story would come to light back in early January when Hillary embellished her Bosnia trip in late December 2007.

This Bosnia news story should hurt Hillary's campaign a lot more than it will because the news agency will let die. This Bosnia trip recount points to a larger problem with Hillary. What else has she "embellished" about in regards of her political experience? Hillary's claims of bringing peace to Northern Ireland and passing SCHIP are not vetted enough. As an unelected official what specifically did Hillary do to bring peace to Northern Ireland and pass SCHIP? There are already some news accounts that a Nobel Peace Prize winner of the Northern Ireland peace process called Hillary's claim "wee bit silly" and that Hillary had no hand in writing the SCHIP legislation and was initially against the SCHIP legislation.

Posted by: ajtiger92 | March 26, 2008 10:53 AM | Report abuse

The Bosnian flap is certainly embarassing, and whenever a video clip is involved, potentially damaging, but in and of itself it is not a game changer. But when you couple that with her claims of helping to bring about peace in Northern Ireland, and with her claims of creating the State Children's Health Insurance Program (S-CHIP), a trend starts to emerge of Sen. Clinton taking the primary credit for achievements that she was only involved with tangentially.

Posted by: dashner | March 26, 2008 10:49 AM | Report abuse

Okay, they're going to be seated, but they won't have a vote? They won't be able to represent their constituents. This is an aberration, a lapse of sound mental judgment, a distorted peace offering? Which? Which ever, it does not address the fact that the voters, who had nothing to do with the party's mistakes, have been disenfranchised.

Posted by: vammap | March 26, 2008 10:21 AM

It isn't any of the things you listed. The parties in Florida and Michigan ignored DNC party rules. The voters are apart of their party if they didn't like the decision they should have made their voices heard before the decision was made. The voters were not "disenfranchised" by any candidate as you have suggested, but rather by their own party.
Why should they be given a do-over when the parties knew before hand that if they moved the date of their primary forward they would be punished in this manner? It sounds like a child complaining about their punishment, "but I promise I learned my lesson." They should stop complaining because the race is close--they didn't have a problem with the punishment when they thought their votes wouldn't count.
No one was crying disenfranchisement then. Stop trying to blame Obama for something out of his control. It sounds like Hillary is trying to change the rules again and I totally understand why and I don't fault her for it. But that doesn't mean it is Obama's fault.

Posted by: jnoel002 | March 26, 2008 10:49 AM | Report abuse

If Hillary Clinton lied about snipers in Bosnia because of sleep deprivation (doubtful, given it's a lie she's said at least four times), then what will she do when she gets that call at 3 a.m.?

Posted by: tfde3 | March 26, 2008 10:48 AM | Report abuse

I've never been under sniper fire; however, I'm fairly certain I would remember the details if I had (or not). It's a complete fabrication on her part.

Posted by: eaglecapri | March 26, 2008 10:48 AM | Report abuse

The Bosnia incident is just another in a string of "misspeaking", so it does constitute a pattern of misrepresenting her accomplishments. When you build your whole campaign on being the most experienced, you do have to provide some examples of that experience. So far, these accomplishments (provided by the Clinton campaign) are:

Helping broker peace in Ireland (soundly debunked)
Opening the Balkan borders for refugees (happened before she even got there)
The Bosnia sniper attack (ha ha)
Passing SCHIP (not heavily involved at all)
Opposing NAFTA (her schedule shows otherwise)
Healthcare overhaul (a resounding failure)

These are examples of 1)gross exaggeration if we are being kind or 2)outright lying to fabricate a record of experience that she clearly doesn't have.

In a recent poll, 44% of the people question Hillary's truthfulness and trustworthiness. There's a reason for that.

Posted by: msdillo | March 26, 2008 10:48 AM | Report abuse

JReno19,

Your rantings are nuts. Are you still harping that Obama is Muslim??? Your rantings might work with folks who are brain dead and couldn't come up with an original thought. Please, check your meds because you are definitely taking too many of them!

Posted by: chris30338 | March 26, 2008 10:48 AM | Report abuse

vammap -

I asked if you had posted anything before January about the so-called "disenfranchisement" of the voters in MI and FL. Appears the answer is no.

Posted by: jac13 | March 26, 2008 10:47 AM | Report abuse

"So I made a mistake"
--George W. Bush

Heh, heh. Just kidding.

Well, I think normally this wouldn't be a "big deal," but since Obama is required to be saintly perfect by HRC and the Fox-led MSM, then yeah, it is a freaking big deal.

Was it part of her "kitchen sink" or is this how the "knife fight" starts?

Posted by: tony_in_Durham_NC | March 26, 2008 10:47 AM | Report abuse

If Hillary Clinton lied about snipers in Bosnia because of sleep deprivation (doubtful, given it's a lie she's said at least four times), then what will she do when she gets that call at 3 a.m.?

Posted by: tfde3 | March 26, 2008 10:46 AM | Report abuse

is this what you want?

"When asked yesterday how he is offering a different path forward in Iraq than Bush, McCain dodged the question, instead saying he had "no confidence" in Bush until the President implemented the surge in 2007:

I'm offering them the record of having objected strenuously to a failed strategy for nearly four years. That I argued against and fought against and said that the secretary of defense of my own party, and my own president, I had no confidence in. That's how far I went in advocating the new strategy that is succeeding.

McCain's statement stretches the truth. As late as August 2006, McCain declared that he did have "confidence" in Bush's leadership in Iraq:

Q: Do you, do you have confidence in the president and his national security team to lead the war at this stage?
McCAIN: I do. I do. I have confidence in the President and I believe that he is well aware of the severity of the situation. [Meet The Press, 8/20/06]

McCain told reporters yesterday he "objected strenuously to a failed strategy for nearly four years." If this were the case, why would he also praise Bush's "stay the course" message over that time?

- "I was heartened to hear the President say that we cannot cut and run in Iraq." [Press Release, 11/5/03]

- "I'm confident we're on the right course." [ABC News, 3/7/04]

- "And what the president did tonight is the most important thing. He laid out an articulate vision for victory in Iraq and why we need to stay the course." [Fox, 6/28/05]"

Posted by: drindl | March 26, 2008 10:45 AM | Report abuse

Hillary has used a myriad of slogans throughout this campaign. A couple of the most recent: "Change you can believe in" and "Smart".

The problem with Hillary's Bosnian gaffe is that it directly affronts her campaign messages.

Obama (and more importantly voters) can get past Obama's REV Wright piece because Obama is still on message when he attempts to bring Change to the U.S. race environment (somewhere I hear someone yelling 'Yes we can!').

Voters are going to have a hard time getting past Hillary's mistakes because the direct nature of them. Many people are reminded of Bill staring at the camera saying he didn't have "sexual relations with that woman".

In the recesses of some voter's minds they are also haunted by G.W. making a cause for war with "Iraq has WMDs". If she exaggerates one 'war story' will exaggerate another? Hillary's gaffe plays right into Obama's questioning of her judgment.

Obama's trustworthiness hasn't really been called into question like Hillary's is now. I think that is the biggest difference.

Posted by: xujames21 | March 26, 2008 10:43 AM | Report abuse

Hillary's other "Misspeaks" include:

1) Claiming it was her intervention that resulted in Mecedonia opening its borders to Kosovo refugees. The border was opened the day before she even arrived there.

2) That she played a "pivotal" role in the Northern Ireland peace process. Several key players have already stated that her role was more of a cheerleader than anything else. Lord Trimble, one of the winners of the Noble Peace Prize for his truly PIVOTAL role in the peace process has already called Hillary's assertions silly. It's also strange that she made this assertion only since she began running for the democratic nomination. None of the other players mention her "pivotal" role in their memoirs.

3)Helped bring attention to human rights violations in China. Yes, she did because she gave one speech.

4)She continues to delay the release of her tax returns since her election to the senate. Since she loaned her campaign $5 million, the American people have a right to know where this came from. She also needs to make public the list of donors to her husband's library in Arkansas. Why this delay??? Frankly, this lack of transparency taken with her history of exaggerations and "misspeaks" make it difficult to trust her word without seeing some proof first.

You can throw Rezko around all you want. Obama has never been accused of any wrong doing. One of Hillary's campaign contributors, Peter Paul, is right now on trial. Also, other campaign contributors have already been convicted. Hillary and Bill have a long list of associates who have not only been accused, but also been convicted. Obama has one and the Clinton list runs in the dozens. I haven't even seen Obama being forced to testify in front of a special prosecutor or grand jury. The Clintons have already been down that route........

Hillary points to her 35 years of experience as being the primary reason for being "ready on day one". From her gross exagerations, the only experience Hillary can claim is knowing where the White House restrooms are on "Day One". Yes, Obama may have to ask for directions.

Posted by: chris30338 | March 26, 2008 10:42 AM | Report abuse

I was struck by how she shrugged it off. So I made a mistake. So what? And yet she pounces on every small mistakes others make.
If being sleep deprived made her misspeak, how will she handle 3 a.m. calls, which, you know, would deprive her of sleep?

Posted by: middlerd1 | March 26, 2008 10:40 AM | Report abuse

mark_in_austin:

"Do you ever have the impression that the media treatment of the campaign is like a narrow beam searchlight that illuminates a small area very brightly while leaving an city in the dark?"

I think this is a really apt analogy -- depending on the day, we get to see a small segment of the city in enormous detail. Mind-numbing detail, in some cases. But getting a big picture view of each candidate requires that each of us synthesize all of these little snapshots, as well as doing our own research and thinking about the issues and the people.

Personally, I'm really happy with the qualifications with all three candidates. I think each will bring specific strengths to the Presidency. And big picture-wise, the general election promises to be a really good referendum of two very different ideas of governance. If we think about it. Unfortunately, many voters (and posters here) keep getting stuck on certain points (Rezko/Wright, Bosnia/experience). These are really the side streets of the city while the ideas on the economy, Iraq, Social Security/Medicare are the main arteries that will have a big impact on our lives in the next decade.

Also, I left you a longer (hopefully, more coherent) response earlier this morning in the Bill Clinton thread.

Posted by: mnteng | March 26, 2008 10:40 AM | Report abuse

Obama's efforts to connect to the Republican Party, specifically Bush, and Dick Chaney, of the Halliburton Company, dates back to the Presidents Grandfather, Prescott Bush, and indeed Chaney was once an executive officer of Halliburton.

The American military pounds Iraq with Artillary, bombs, and the like, destroying large sections of cities, and infra-structures, then Halliburton comes in to rebuild. Halliburton and Halliburton associated companies have raked in ten's of billions.

Obama is just like the BIG HALIBURTAN. Haliburton has contracted to build detention centers in the U.S. similiar to the one in Quantanammo Bay, Cuba. Halliburton does nothing to earn the Two Dollars for each meal an American Serviceman in Iraq eats.

http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/

Halliburton was scheduled to take control of the Dubai Ports in The United Arab Emiirate. The deal was canceled when Bush was unable to affect the transfer of the American Ports.

Now we see what some might suspect as similiar financial escapading from the Democrats.

Two years ago, Iraq's Ministry of Electricity gave a $50 million contract to a start-up security company - Companion- owned by now-indicted businessman (TONY REZKO) Tony Rezko and a onetime Chicago cop, Daniel T. Frawley, to train Iraqi power-plant guards in the United States. An Iraqi leadership change left the deal in limbo. Now the company, Companion Security, is working to revive its contract.
Involved along with Antoin "Tony" Rezco, long time friend and neighbor of Democratic Presidential hopeful Barack Obama, and former cop Daniel T. Frawley, is Aiham Alsammarae. Alsammarae was accused of financial corruption by Iraqi authorities and jailed in Iraq last year before escaping and returning here.

LIKE FATHER LIKE SON --
Recently, Obama's campaign staff have been vetted by the IRS to disclose his connection to the criminal money generating underworld. Besides, his connections to the REZCO MAFIA types, his up-coming tax fraud charges -- Obama needs to disclose why he is a MUSLIM "PATWANG-FWEEE" and disclose Obama's MUSLIM Farrakhan mob connection to Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ. Its minister, and Obama's spiritual adviser, is the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. In 1982, the church launched Trumpet Newsmagazine; Wright's daughters serve as publisher and executive editor. Every year, the magazine makes awards in various categories. Last year, it gave the Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. Trumpeter Award to a man it said "truly epitomized greatness." That man is Louis Farrakhan. Farrakhan and Chicago's Trinity United Church are trumpeting Barack Obama AKA Barack Hussein Obama as the second coming of the messiah. Obama should stop suppoting our intervention in IRAQ. It's time to introduce this false, fake Xerox - X box Obama and invite the self-indicting thief plagiarizing pipsqueke "GLORK" Xerox - X box to meet the Buffalo "GAZOWNT-GAZIKKA" Police Department Buffalo Creek. He is MAD!!! --

OBAM YOU'RE NO JFK --

"GLORK" Obama looks like Alfred E. Newman: "Tales Calculated To Drive You." He is a MUSLIM "Glork" He's MAD!!! Alfred E. Neuman is the fictional mascot of Mad. The face had drifted through American pictography for decades before being claimed by Mad editor Harvey Kurtzman after he spotted it on the bulletin board in the office of Ballantine Books editor Bernard Shir-Cliff, later a contributor to various magazines created by Kurtzman.
Obama needs to disclose why he is a MUSLIM "PATWANG-FWEEE" and stop suppoting our intervention in IRAQ. It's time to introduce this false, fake "GLORK" Xerox - X box Obama and invite the self-indicting thief plagiarizing pipsqueke Xerox - X box to meet the Buffalo "GAZOWNT-GAZIKKA" Police Department Buffalo Creek.

Michelle Obama should be ashamed.

"GLORK" Michelle Obama should be ashamed of her separatist-racist connection to Farrakhan and Chicago's Trinity United Church trumpeting Barack Obama AKA Barack Hussein Obama as the second coming of the messiah. If Michelle Obama new what her husband -- the Hope-A-Dope, Fonster Monster -- Barack Obama AKA Barack Hussein Obama did in Harlem, she would wash her wide-open, Hus-suey loving MUSILM mouth out, with twenty-four (24) mule-team double-cross X-boX-BorraX. He is a MUSLIM "Glork" It's time to introduce this false, fake "GLORK" Xerox - X box Obama and invite the self-indicting thief plagiarizing pipsqueke Xerox - X box to meet the Buffalo "GAZOWNT-GAZIKKA" Police Department Buffalo Creek. He's MAD!!!

http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/

THE SPEECH --

The Apologia has arrived and once again the self-indicting, separatist-racist Barack Obama AKA Barack Hussein Obama, promises to heal the wounds of the world. The speech is the rude awakening of mass messianism of his campaign. Apologetically, Obama the MUSLIM double-cross X-boX-BorraX has an astonishingly empty two-prawn echelon explanation of his misjudgment.
In the first prawn: with regard to his connection to separatist-racist Rev. Wright; Obama summons voodoo and juju to express slavery as beginning and ending with the Rev. Wright.
In the second prawn: Obama's speech takes credit for Ashley's dream. A dream of unity Martin Luther King, Jr. borrowed from Ashley for his historic "I Have A Dream" speech. In Obama's speech, the connective bond Ashley, the elderly black man and Obama's grandmother share; represents Obama's self-indicting rise to the Harvard Yard. For Obama, the grand flag of language is the semi-fore of words, bestowed upon our nation by the messiah-alumni from Harvard. Obama's Swoon-Song Apologia to the nation represents a failed hymn -- a hymn that fails to heal the nation, repair the world, or make this time different than all the rest. Obama's speech is a brilliant failure.

http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/

Posted by: jreno19 | March 26, 2008 10:38 AM | Report abuse

I don't think this alone will derail her candidacy. While it attacks one narrative she has created based around her experience. Her supporters take her at her word that she simply is experienced, no amount of proof to the opposite will effect that.

It also feeds another narrative, that she is not trustworthy, but that is a character flaw she has always had with her detractors, thus no new ground has been broken here.

policythought.blogspot.com

Posted by: jamesbedell | March 26, 2008 10:38 AM | Report abuse

It was a lie.

It was meant to deceive. One does not forget when one is under fire, or in her case, when one is not under fire, since she has in fact never been under fire. That she wrote about the true and benign experience in a book is the necessary proof that she lied about it now for political gain. And then complained about Barack's former pastor as a smoke screen.

As opportunistic, corrupt and mendacious as her husband.

Posted by: wpost4112 | March 26, 2008 10:36 AM | Report abuse

Chris,

This post is really beneath you. So what you're telling us is that Clinton's foreign policy credentials pivots entirely on whether or not she was shot at in Bosnia? The fact that she went to a place the President was forbidden to go is irrelevant in your mind. The fact that this trip was one of more than 80 that she made during her presidency is also irrelevant, no doubt.

The sole thing that is important is that she did not come under direct sniper fire, because we know that NO ONE COULD POSSIBLY BE A GOOD PRESIDENT UNLESS THEY'VE COME UNDER SNIPER FIRE!!!

You might want to check with Mr. Obama's campaign. They might want to drop out since Chris Cillizza now says that he can't be President because he hasn't come under sniper fire. And congratulations to Senator McCain, Chris Cilliza has declared you the only viable candidate for President because you actually were shot at.

Here's the TRUTH. Both Clinton AND Obama have padded their resumes. If anything, Obama is the one who should be criticized as he centers his campaign around honesty. Why aren't you making a big deal about Obama's lies about the legislation he sponsored? Oh, yeah, it's cause it's Obama and he can't do anything wrong.

Got it. Another glass of Kool Aid, Chris?

Posted by: dclb | March 26, 2008 10:36 AM | Report abuse

'Are All Liberals Sexual Deviants?
Yes, this is an assertion made on the air by popular radio talk-show host Michael Savage. And yes, he's an idiot. But his question raises another question: Has the heightened ferocity of political discourse in this country reached a point where we need to do something to rein in the vitriol? '"

this is the kind of garbage our rightwing posters listen to. which explains a lot. but the rest of you -- democrats -- your hatred, your venom, think about what you are saying.

think about whether you want another 4 years of current policy, because that is what John McCain is PROMISING, is guaranteeing. only he beleives in neocons and radical rightwingers far more than the loopy bush ever did. he is, in fact, another dick cheney.

so you can stay on here and bash the dem canddiates all you want but rememmber what you are buying for yourselves--

NO FUTURE.

Posted by: drindl | March 26, 2008 10:35 AM | Report abuse

"So I made a mistake... That happens. It shows I'm human, which for some people is a revelation. [How dare you question my version of events.]"

Posted by: bsimon | March 26, 2008 10:33 AM | Report abuse

There are two elements to Senator Clinton's Bosnia exaggeration which merit the continued attention of the public and the press:

1) She repeatedly brought up her dangerous adventures in Tuzla as an example of her experience in foreign affairs. The lie about being under sniper fire seriously undermines this cornerstone of her claim to be ready to assume the duties of Commander in Chief.

2) When caught in the Bosnia lie, Senator Clinton did not immediately retract it or own up to it. Rather she declared it a mere "misstatement" due to her being tired and only human. The presidential method for handling this serious misstep would have been to confront it directly, acknowledge the error, and then turn her attention to issues of greater import such as the economy or the Iraq war. Instead Senator Clinton attempted to deflect public scrutiny by bringing up the tired story of Rev. Wright. This displayed a remarkably low regard for the intelligence of the American public. The mangled handling of this issue unveiled an unsettling desperation and self-regarding ruthlessness. What was revealed this week about Senator Clinton has lasting importance because it supported the impressions that the wider public have had of both Clintons for many years.

Posted by: dee5 | March 26, 2008 10:31 AM | Report abuse

It should be just a "minor blip," as should the whole controversy surrounding Rev. Wright for Obama. Unfortunately, the campaign has dragged on for so long, and the media is so desperate for any kind of story to feed the 24-hour news cycle, misstatements and non-issues become the breaking news du jour.

Did Clinton play up her Bosnia story to make herself sound more experienced? Yes. Did Obama's pastor say some unconscionable things? Yes. Do either or these issues deserve to derail the presidential aspirations of two very qualified, thoughtful people? Absolutely not. But minor issues like these are going to define the campaigns all the way until the convention, unfortunately for the Democrats, and fortunately for John McCain.

Posted by: ManUnitdFan | March 26, 2008 10:31 AM | Report abuse

"On the one hand, Clinton did accurately recount the Bosnia landing in her autobiography 'Living History' and, like many of us, might simply be guilty of exaggeration or a faulty memory."

The formulation "on the one hand" seems to be a popular one for Clinton fans like The Fix. What CC is saying is, that so long as you told the truth (or whatever passes for the truth from a Clinton's lips) at some point in the past, it's okay to manufacture something out of whole cloth later. Does Obama get a free pass on his past drug use, now that The Memoir Rule has been created by The Fix? Can he claim to be drug-free, and lie about his "experimentation" like the Clintons have?

She did not misspeak, and she wasn't tired. Misspeaking would be getting the name of the airport wrong, or the date wrong, or thinking Carrot Top and Joan Osborne were with you instead of Sinbad and Sheryl Crow. Clinton told a bald-faced lie, then when confronted with the whopper, tries to mitigate it by shutting down her PR crew. We had eight years of this with Bill Clinton; do Clinton drones honestly profess to look forward to four more?

And tired? TIRED? SHE'S THE ONE WHO IS SUPPOSED TO BE CLEAR-HEADED AT THREE IN THE MORNING!

Posted by: TheTruth | March 26, 2008 10:31 AM | Report abuse

She could probably get back on track if she had a town hall meeting and started sniffling when asked about it. What the heck - something like that worked in New Hampshire. The real story is that she was actually on an airplane and not on a broomstick when she landed.

Posted by: drjesullivan | March 26, 2008 10:30 AM | Report abuse

Think about one single fact: CHELSEA WAS THERE. Given how over-protective the Clintons were of their only child, does anyone really believe that they would sent Chelsea along on a mission that was "too dangerous" for the president???

Once there, wouldn't Hillary have shielded Chelsea in Tuzla, instead of having her stand out in the open, if snipers were a real concern? They did not even wear helmets! A protective parent would not forget those details, even after many years.

HRC (and Bill) often deflect attention from "whopper" falsehoods by encouraging debates on minutiae or semantics. Instead, it is critical to focus attention on the glaring logical inconsistencies and basic facts. All politicians exaggerate and dissemble. The problem with the Clintons is the magnitude of their distortions, and the ease with which they speak them. Ultimately, it reminds me of the Democratic version of Bush-Cheney falsehoods.

Posted by: brucekj | March 26, 2008 10:29 AM | Report abuse

March 3rd

Posted by: vammap | March 26, 2008 10:28 AM | Report abuse

Date was March 3, 2008

Posted by: vammap | March 26, 2008 10:27 AM | Report abuse

I wonder what would happen if that dreaded 3:00am phone call came into the Whitehouse and Hillary answered....
Would she be sleep deprived?
Would she mis-speak?
Would she confuse the facts?
Maybe she isn't the best person to answer the call in the middle of the night.

Posted by: mfield21 | March 26, 2008 10:27 AM | Report abuse

"President McCain."

Quote of the day.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | March 26, 2008 10:27 AM | Report abuse

So the al-Qaeda-Iran alliance wasn't just a passing thought. It was a thought that had taken up residence in McCain's brain for at least a day, possibly longer. Whether it was a simple mistake, a neoconservative delusion or a habit of mind that lumps together all of America's enemies (either sincerely or calculatedly, to build public support for military action), we cannot say. What we can say is that the idea of any or all of these options is profoundly disquieting. The very thought of a president who deliberately conflates or erroneously confuses our adversaries with each other is appalling, though not without precedent. We're mired in a war that has its roots in George W. Bush's both imagining and fabricating an alliance between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. Do we really want to perpetuate these habits of mind in the next administration?

McCain's meshugas didn't really get the attention it deserved, however. He was fortunate that his descent into fantasy occurred in the same week as Barack Obama's reverend crisis and Wall Street's near-meltdown. He got a pass from most of the media, too, in part because his statements in Jordan ran so completely counter to his image as an expert on national security.

What's been missing from the prevailing narrative of McCain's national security expertise, however, is any serious assessment of the nature of his beliefs. As early as 1999, McCain was recommending "rogue state rollback" as our policy toward such nations as Iraq. He remains an unabashed advocate of preventive war, as his comments on bombing Iran have made clear, and of permanent war, as his comments on remaining in Iraq have made clear. His advocacy of a missile defense system is rooted in a preference for military unilateralism -- though it may stimulate a new arms race -- over diplomacy. If you liked Bush's foreign and military policy, you'll love McCain's.

But McCain's thinking, unlike his life, remains an undiscovered country to his countrymen, though he is the presumptive Republican presidential nominee. On economic matters, that may be because he doesn't seem to have devoted much time or energy to thinking about the economy. That dearth of thought was apparent yesterday in his speech on the financial crisis. Even some of the barons of Wall Street, looking at the mess they've made, have been recommending stepped-up regulation of financial practices and institutions, but not McCain, who called for "removing regulatory, accounting and tax impediments to raising capital." Never mind that a leading cause of our liquidity crisis is that so many financial institutions are exempt from the regulations that would require them to back their investments with actual assets or would enable them just to value the assets that are on their books.

Posted by: drindl | March 26, 2008 10:26 AM | Report abuse

"It is 3 a.m., and the stillness of the White House night is shattered by the ringing of the red phone. President John McCain, rousing himself from a deep sleep, turns on the light and picks up the receiver. A U.S. embassy in a Middle Eastern country, he is told, has been blown up, and al-Qaeda is taking credit.

McCain takes a deep breath. "Character counts, my friend," he says. "Bomb Iran. Bomb, bomb Iran."

There is a rustling of blankets, and, brushing aside Cindy McCain, a concerned Joe Lieberman rises from the bed. "Not Iran, Mr. President," he says. "They hate al-Qaeda."

"That's right," the president says. "I remember now." He sighs with relief. "Good thing you're here every night, Joe."

But suppose, dear reader, that John McCain becomes president and Joe Lieberman doesn't bunk with the McCains on a nightly basis. How easily should the rest of us sleep? It's anything but an academic question after McCain's bizarre performance in Jordan last week.

There, he told reporters that he was "concerned about Iranian [operatives] taking al-Qaeda into Iran, training them and sending them back" to Iraq. "That's well known," he continued -- at which point Lieberman whispered a correction in his ear. "I'm sorry," McCain then said. "The Iranians are training extremists, not al-Qaeda."

What are we to make of this moment? Was it a senior moment? A jet-lagged moment? Or, worse, was it really a moment at all? After all, the evening before, McCain had told listeners of Hugh Hewitt's radio talk show that "there are al-Qaeda operatives that are taken back into Iran, given training as leaders, and they're moving back into Iraq."

/www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/25/AR2008032502294.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

Posted by: drindl | March 26, 2008 10:25 AM | Report abuse

"...an entire city..."

that's pretty much the way the media covers everything today, mark.

isn't it sad how this blog has turned into a hllary and obama-bashing forum ? with so much venom, too.

hope president mccain doesn't get us all killed but i sure don't have confidence in that.

Posted by: drindl | March 26, 2008 10:24 AM | Report abuse

This is a big story. She claims experience for this, and it's all a lie. It wasn't that she was sleep deprived, it was a bold faced lie about her experience. Don't forget that those involved in the Northern Ireland peace process also say she exaggerated her involvement. This is a pattern of falsehood, and Hillary and her campaign are proving by their behavior that she is unfit to be President. All she can do now is lie about her record and do her best to smear Obama. She's acting like a petulant child who can't understand why the voters are supporting her rival. She is throwing a tantrum, and harming her party as a result. Her behavior is disgusting, and her explanations insult our intelligence.

Posted by: KiteFencer1 | March 26, 2008 10:23 AM | Report abuse

jnoel002


Reid wrapped up the delegate issue in Las Vegas this week to his satisfaction? What does that even mean?

He says the Florida and Michigan delegates will be seated, but they can't vote. He wants to make sure they take part in the convention, because after all, they represent millions of people, but they can't vote.

Why would any delegate of a state whose constituents' votes were not allowed to count even want to attend? It certainly was not the fault of voters; it was the local parties who broke the rules.

Reid says, "They're the ones causing all the problems. No one else did. And so they will be seated. They're big states. They represent 29 million people. We want to make sure their delegates are part of the convention that takes place in Denver."

Okay, they're going to be seated, but they won't have a vote? They won't be able to represent their constituents. This is an aberration, a lapse of sound mental judgment, a distorted peace offering? Which? Which ever, it does not address the fact that the voters, who had nothing to do with the party's mistakes, have been disenfranchised.

But, the Senate Majority Leader glosses over any mention of votes, not counting or counting. The emphasis is on seating delegates, only.

The punishment that was intended to be symbolic, on the assumption that a nominee would be decided early and delegate counts wouldn't matter, has become the cross of the Democratic race.

Ironically, the bearer of the cross is the candidate who would have won most of the votes.

Obviously that was a costly assumption, sounding ironically similar to Clinton's own campaign strategy that didn't plan for this long of a race or this kind of end game.

March 24, 2008
http://www.lvrj.com/news/16948521.html

Posted by: vammap | March 26, 2008 10:21 AM | Report abuse

In the clip I saw where Sen Clinton said "So I made a mistake... That happens. It shows I'm human, which for some people is a revelation."

I thought she sounded quite defensive and a bit 'snarly', for lack of a better term. The question such a response brings to mind is: for what event did she mistake the landing in Bosnia? Did she accidentally mistake another time and place when she WAS under sniper fire, rushing, ducked over, into the cover of ground transport after a harrowing landing in some combat zone? If she hasn't been in such a situation, her faulty memory appears to be one that fabricates, rather than confuses.

Posted by: bsimon | March 26, 2008 10:20 AM | Report abuse

You report that she accrately reported the account in her book. From the witness accounts it seems that even that account greatly exaggerates the danger a lot. Also, why did it take Clinton two weeks (from the time Sinbad refuted the story) and smoking gun evidence against her account to convince her to acknowledge it. Acknowledging a mistake or "misstatement" only after it is overwhelmingly obvious is not a "willingness to admit mistakes." Clinton is trying to show that she is not like Bush in that she is willing to admit a mistake. She should try harder to show us that.

Posted by: Brendan5 | March 26, 2008 10:18 AM | Report abuse

vammap:

date?

Posted by: jac13 | March 26, 2008 10:14 AM | Report abuse

It's one of those stories that will amuse those who are highly interested in politics or strongly dislike Hilary but it will blow over quickly. She just needs to be careful not to repeat the error again otherwise exaggeration will become part of her character in the eyes of the public.

Posted by: 0207084b | March 26, 2008 10:11 AM | Report abuse

Hillary's quote, "So I made a mistake, that happens. It shows I'm human, which for some people is a revelation."

A fancied response: "You're human enough, Hillary, as far as I know."

Posted by: optimyst | March 26, 2008 10:10 AM | Report abuse

There is a certain resonance to the comparison of the individual's statement (Hillary's) v. the individual's pastor's statement (Wright) as a measuring stick for the candidates. Listen, we all know politician exaggerate. The sad truth is we actually expect and just shrug it off most the time. The most unfortunate thing in all of this is that this campaign continues to devolve as Mrs. Clinton fights to the death in this thing, pretty much forcing the Obama camp to step up their rhetoric. Then again, the fun thing (for me as a registered Democrat in the PA primary) is I get to see both of them up close and personal, just like much of the rest of the country. I just worry that this thing is going to splinter the entire Democratic party and open the way to 4 more years of Bush-like policies (and that would, quite literally, be a crime)...

Posted by: scott032 | March 26, 2008 10:10 AM | Report abuse

I don't think anyone's brought this up yet: think about the effect this would have if it were actually a sane possibility for HRC to receive the Democratic nomination. (I posit, along with Politico, that it is not such a possibility, and the continual coverage of her campaign is mostly fed from self-interest. I digress.)

If HRC were actually able to win the Democratic nomination, this "misstatement", juxtaposed against the long-chronicled, heroic, and true story of John McCain in Vietnam would result in a landslide victory for the Republicans in November. Everyone has asked us to imagine the 527 ads about Rev. Wright. Imagine the ads about this! The contrast between someone who lies about being subject to sniper fire, and who is caught in that lie by video evidence, with a decorated POW war hero? We could all be in breadlines, and the credibility gap on national security would still be too large for the Democrats to overcome.

Posted by: crt12 | March 26, 2008 10:08 AM | Report abuse

Clinton's false memories of her trip lend credence to the notion that she'll say and do anything to keep her campaign alive, and that her experience claims lack substance. I don't know if this incident is a major misstep, though, since many voters seem to have made up their minds already. It'll depend a great deal on how much traction the Obama campaign can get from the story, and how long the media runs with it. If reporters find more inconsistencies in her records, this could lead to her final downfall. If the next wave of sniping successfully distracts everyone, though, like it has throughout the campaign, this will just be a blip.

Posted by: Heron | March 26, 2008 10:04 AM | Report abuse

This would be a minor flap except that 1) Clinton used the story repeatedly to bolster her case for her foreign-policy credentials and 2) she hasn't really apologized for it. Saying "I misspoke," or "these things happen" is a total abrogation of responsibility.

The story was part of a *strategy* to paint herself as ready to be commander in chief, and implicit criticism of her opponent. She made it sound instead as if the story were the result of some impersonal outside force: "These things happen." As if it were somebody else who spoke those words (repeatedly). This is politician-speak, rather than her taking responsibility for her own actions. Whether this dies down depends on how the public (and media) see here 'apology'-- do they accept this as 'misspeaking' or (a word the media always has problems with) a lie?

The problem is that the story plays into doubts the public already has about the Clintons-- that they twist the truth when it suits them. In addition, the exaggerated (untrue) story Clinton told about Bosnia, even if it fades now, will surely be used by McCain against her if she's the nominee. I can see the campaign commercial now.

Posted by: mj64 | March 26, 2008 10:01 AM | Report abuse

OMG! If she lied about dodging bullets in Bosnia, she may have lied about trying to join the Marines in 1975. No matter. 50% of what she says are lies. How about the one about her saying "a million words a day." WOW.

Posted by: lorax2 | March 26, 2008 10:01 AM | Report abuse

It defies credulity to think that Senator Clinton simply mis-remembered the events of her visit to Tuzla. Her embellishments have been substantial.

To say that she simply "misspoke" seems to me to be disingenuous.

The astonishing aspect of the whole affair is that there is no reason for Clinton to have embellished the story.

Yes, the credibility of a candidate for president is a very important consideration for voters.

Posted by: chrisbmyh | March 26, 2008 9:59 AM | Report abuse

Vammap, Harry Reid seems to think the Michigan/Florida issue will be settled.

"Michigan and Florida wouldn't play by the rules," Reid said. "They're not my rules. They're not the caucus' rules. They're DNC rules. They broke the rules."

Adding delegates for those states, he noted, would alter the number of delegates needed to get the nomination, currently 2,025. It wasn't crystal clear, but Reid seemed to suggest that delegations from those states should get to attend the convention, but not vote."

http://www.lvrj.com/news/16948521.html
This was shown by another poster(Lilly1) yesterday on a different entry. I just thought it was timely given the disucssion.

Posted by: jnoel002 | March 26, 2008 9:58 AM | Report abuse

I think this is bad for Hillary because it is a part of a pattern of hyping her involvement in international affairs. She has also claimed to have been an important part in bringing peace to Northern Ireland, a claim that has been show to be highly exaggerated if not downright false.

Posted by: bensonbark | March 26, 2008 9:57 AM | Report abuse

And just when Hillary was seeing her Google Trends rating go up, it literally reverses, as Barack's reaches for the sky (see second chart in link);

Pennsylvania Primary- Hillary vs. Barack:
The Google Factor...

http://newsusa.myfeedportal.com/viewarticle.php?articleid=57

If she does not win PA by 20%, then it is really over for her...

Posted by: davidmwe | March 26, 2008 9:49 AM | Report abuse

Let's just say if you've made Sinbad actually funny, you've had a bad day.

Posted by: RollaMO | March 26, 2008 9:47 AM | Report abuse

Yes jac13 here's one. This is not something you're going to find on Obama's site, obviously. The Obama camp has done a good job of underplaying this..

According to an overview of a Wolf Blitzer interview, "Obama to Stiff Arm Michigan and Florida:"

"Okay, so we know Obama doesn't care about Florida, because he knows he'll lose that state to McCain, and if there's a re-vote he'll also lose it to Clinton. That would mean yet another huge swing state in her corner, which Obama can't afford because it further makes the case that Clinton's path to the White House is much better than the crap shoot Obama offers. As for Michigan, there was a "firehouse primary" floated, but the Obama campaign has evidently nixed it. To make matters worse, Zogby was on CNN recently doubting that either Michigan or Florida should count. Are these guys nuts? The fact is that Obama seems to want to deny both Michigan and Florida voters, which became apparent when James Carville tangled with David Wilhelm on CNN. Jerome agrees, BTD weighs in as well."

"The Ragin' Cagin completely unmasked the Obama campaign's actual plan to disenfranchise Floridians, which for some of us who remember 2000 all too well, sounds positively un-Democratic, capital "d." Carville puts Obama's man David Wilhelm back on his heels in this interview with Wolf Blitzer. Shorter review: don't send a boy to do a man's job. Wilhelm is totally outmatched in this one, with Carville creaming him on every angle. Carville offers solutions, Wilhelm offers pontificating and obfuscation. Sound familiar?"
"The problem with this exchange is that Carville honestly tries to off a way through the DNC's mess, but Wilhelm won't accept it, preferring the limbo and disenfranchisement Michigan and Florida voters currently are experiencing."

http://www.taylormarsh.com/archives_view.php?id=27185

Posted by: vammap | March 26, 2008 9:42 AM | Report abuse

Deciding between Hillary and Barrack is a difficult choice as is evidenced by the split in voters across the country. Regarding her Bosnia trip, I believe she has created a major blip. These were prepared remarks and the excuse of "I misspoke" is therefore not applicable. She has created the appearance of someone who can be delusional - a dangerous character flaw for a President. For me, the choice has just become easy.

Posted by: Retired2 | March 26, 2008 9:41 AM | Report abuse

I think her faulty memory could be a major blip for her campaign. Not only did it take the focus of the Wright-wronged incident; I think the media and therefore the average American to take a closer look at her "experience". There has been a lot of research done on her 35 years claim.

An article from this week's Time Magazine (I know I still read magazines) looked further into Clinton's foriegn policy experience claim. Apparently most of her claims were either exaggerated or played up. The impression I got was that Clinton is a nice activist, but nothing more.

Here's the article it's worth perusing:
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1721966,00.html

Posted by: jnoel002 | March 26, 2008 9:41 AM | Report abuse

vammap

Can you show me a post or as blog from you dated before January observing that the voters in MI and FL were being "disenfranchised?"

I didn't think so. That's because nobody, including Hillary, looked at it that way until SHE made an issue of it when it was obvious she couldn't win without them.

All the comments from the echo chamber you quoted can't change the stubborn facts.

Posted by: jac13 | March 26, 2008 9:39 AM | Report abuse

This is going to be a major problem for Senator Clinton as it damages her credibility big time. First it was said that she misspoke, then it was a mistake. She wrote about the trip in her book and now it is a mistake about the details? At best, it is a major embellishment, at worst, an out and out lie. This will put all of her future statements under intense scrutiny. I don't think that this is just going to go away as a blip in the campaign. It comes down to integriy or lack thereof.

Posted by: stewartmackay | March 26, 2008 9:37 AM | Report abuse

The defining question is whether Hillary EVER had an experience like the one she described. If so, she's right, big deal, she got confused. IF NOT...roll the tape, knowing the whole story, detail after detail, is fabricated, that she's just standing there unabashedly making this crap up. This SO undermines her credibility. We'll see an ad intercutting the film with her comments in the general election if she's the nominee. The question is whether we'll see such an ad in the primaries.

Posted by: fred | March 26, 2008 9:36 AM | Report abuse

My favored candidate is the Democratic nominee, whoever that is. So hopefully I can comment on this objectively.

What is so troubling is the complete fabrication. People aren't jumping down Clinton's throat because she got the name of the town wrong. Or because she got the type of aircraft wrong. Or because she got the date of her visit wrong. Any of these mistakes would have been understandable slips of the tongue. Misstatements, if you will.

But she claimed to have run off the plane with her head down to avoid sniper fire. And it just didn't happen. There are often shades of grey when interpreting a candidate's statements. But this is just a lie. And her willingness to concoct, and retell, this lie is disturbing.

Posted by: OverworkedUnderpaid | March 26, 2008 9:36 AM | Report abuse

According to an overview of a Wolf Blitzer interview, "Obama to Stiff Arm Michigan and Florida:"

"Okay, so we know Obama doesn't care about Florida, because he knows he'll lose that state to McCain, and if there's a re-vote he'll also lose it to Clinton. That would mean yet another huge swing state in her corner, which Obama can't afford because it further makes the case that Clinton's path to the White House is much better than the crap shoot Obama offers. As for Michigan, there was a "firehouse primary" floated, but the Obama campaign has evidently nixed it. To make matters worse, Zogby was on CNN recently doubting that either Michigan or Florida should count. Are these guys nuts? The fact is that Obama seems to want to deny both Michigan and Florida voters, which became apparent when James Carville tangled with David Wilhelm on CNN. Jerome agrees, BTD weighs in as well."

"The Ragin' Cagin completely unmasked the Obama campaign's actual plan to disenfranchise Floridians, which for some of us who remember 2000 all too well, sounds positively un-Democratic, capital "d." Carville puts Obama's man David Wilhelm back on his heels in this interview with Wolf Blitzer. Shorter review: don't send a boy to do a man's job. Wilhelm is totally outmatched in this one, with Carville creaming him on every angle. Carville offers solutions, Wilhelm offers pontificating and obfuscation. Sound familiar?"
"The problem with this exchange is that Carville honestly tries to off a way through the DNC's mess, but Wilhelm won't accept it, preferring the limbo and disenfranchisement Michigan and Florida voters currently are experiencing."

http://www.taylormarsh.com/archives_view.php?id=27185

Posted by: vammap | March 26, 2008 9:33 AM | Report abuse

If this were an isolated incident, the public might be far more forgiving. The fact that this is a pattern of Clinton embellishment (perhaps more so from the former president then Ms. Clinton herself) is why this has garnished the attention it has. This is also an atypical example of their embellishments, because in past "misspeaks", it has been difficult to produce an easy to digest ten second clip of a lie.

Posted by: icebluebeast | March 26, 2008 9:33 AM | Report abuse

Now We Need a Translator For Chelsea?

I almost feel like we need a political translator for everything this year - the latest is Chelsea Clinton has told the country that her mother's credibility is "none of our business." So Chelsea let me get this straight: whether your mother is a liar or not is none of our business?


Is Chelsea aware that her mother is running for President?

America should be completely outraged. There is a degree of moral responsibility which public life requires. One responsibility is having one's veracity be subject to examination and discussion.


Saying that we are sick of this really does not come close to how this nation should feel. What is even worse than the initial lie is watching a liar attempt to make light of it or excuse it altogether.

The nature of a liar is curious - for some reason that person believes that it is alright for them to know the truth the whole time, and they actively want you to be under a deception. Liars want you to believe something that is not true. I think it is important for people to completely understand that liars know the truth the whole time.


The liars want you to believe something that is not true AND they want to get away with it.

Getting away with it is the most outrageous part of the entire exercise.


Liars want no punishment. They want to get off. They are willing to lie again, or make up some excuse which might make them guilty of some other character flaw like excessive arrogance.

Liars have already offended the other person by attempting to place them under a deception. It is an assault that the other person usually is not aware of at the time.

The realization of the assault comes at another time. That is when the person lied to usually wants an admission of the truth as a minimum in remorse.

The excuses and the arrogance only serve to compound the problem.

What those who have been lied to truly do not understand is that the liar has been aware of the assault for quite some time already - it indicates a lack of respect.


AND it indicates a complete disparity in the perceptions of the relationship - you see, the liars have believed all along that deception is an acceptable part of the relationship.

Those who have been lied to usually have an entirely different view of the relationship.

That is why lying is viewed as not just lying, it is indicative of a whole relationship gone bad.


IT is fair to ask why Obama brought his children to the church in which Rev. Wright was speaking - therefore it is right to ask what have the Clintons been teaching their child.


Apparently, Chelsea has been taught that it is "none of our business" that her mother is a liar. I believe we have been over this topic before with the Clinton family. It does matter if a public figure is a liar. Why do we have to say it again?

Posted by: Miata7 | March 26, 2008 9:26 AM | Report abuse

kristilj,

you are a hopeless moron. how about instead of trying to spin or deflect what any level-headed person can clearly see is a LIE you just own up to it? instead you just naively say "yeah...this is a non-issue. anyway, back to trashing obama...."

Posted by: jkallen001 | March 26, 2008 9:25 AM | Report abuse

"Your candidate disenfranchised millions of voters." vammap

Hillary AND Barack signed on to the DNC rules that resulted in the FL and MI Dem party/legislatures "disenfranchising" their voters. Hillary changed her mind when she failed to put away the nomination on Super Tuesday, and the MSM have been complicit in her scam to hang this around Obama's neck.

The fact is, with everyone having agreed before the 1/29 votes that they wouldn't count, there is no fair way to either count the results (what about all the voters who stayed home 'cause it was meaningless?) or have a re-do (what about all the voters who voted in the GOP primary who wouldn't be allowed to participate in the re-do?) Obama should not have to agree to a solution that disadvantages him just because of HRC's sour grapes.

The two campaigns need to make a deal. The proposal that's out there (half of FL's delegates apportioned on the results there; and an even split of MI) makes sense to me.

But, whatever, PLEASE stop repeating the lie that it is Obama who's disenfranchising voters. This is Hillary rewriting history -- AGAIN.

Posted by: jac13 | March 26, 2008 9:24 AM | Report abuse

In regard to Hillary Clinton's statements about her trip to Bosnia. She did NOT merely "misspeak" on four separate occasions. Her statements about her trip to Bosnia are confirmation as to why she has such a low rating on trustworthiness. They also are a demonstration of the low respect that she has for the American public and their ability to believe what they see with their own eyes. The statements made to date are almost at the level of the Bush regime's claim that Saddam Hussein's alleged weapons of mass destruction program.

Posted by: lavinsr | March 26, 2008 9:24 AM | Report abuse

There is more than a little embellishment going on with Hillary's world experience. This goes from inflating courtesy meetings with political leaders into policy sessions and from sleeping in the White House to ready for the 3 AM momentous decisions. The only difference this time is she got caught.

What I find sad is how little critical assessment is made by the media of the First Lady visits to various countries (with or without sniper fire) - and the 'leadership content' if any. Sure there is some goodwill content, some messaging (to justify the taxpayer footing the bill) and some learning too. But these highly scripted visits are hardly occasions for major diplomacy or honing leadership skills that Hillary campaign markets them to be. But that's the role of the marketing - the question is whether there is sufficiency 'consumer advocacy' in the media to critically examine the marketing claims.

Posted by: kavm | March 26, 2008 9:23 AM | Report abuse

Clinton made no "mistake". This was a LIE, repeated on various occasions. Politicians lie to make themselves look good, but what is particularly ironic about this one is it actually negates what would have been a positive video clip for Clinton. The image of the first lady, strolling confidently across the tarmac, surrounded by diplomats and military personnel, then stopping to listen to the little Bosnian girl and receiving a kiss and hug from her, would have been great stuff for the Clinton campaign. Instead, now, it makes her a joke.

Why does a person lie when the truth is more flattering? Is it necessary with the Clintons for everything to be so dramatic?

Clinton should also be the last to express judgements about other peoples' choices for pastor or anything else. Some may make the judgement, "He wouldn't have continued to be MY HUSBAND.", or "I wouldn't have stayed in THAT MARRIAGE!"

The black comedy that the Clinton campaign has become reveals just how flawed a candidate she is, and suggests that the country could no more trust her as president than Bush and Cheney.

Posted by: DEfarmer | March 26, 2008 9:23 AM | Report abuse

vammap,

show me the documented proof that Obama is solely responsible for MI/FL not getting revotes. last i heard he had several doubts due to the fact that registered republicans/independents that voted the first time around would not be able to vote again in a democratic primary. THAT is disenfranchisement.

Posted by: jkallen001 | March 26, 2008 9:20 AM | Report abuse

Bosnia, Northern Ireland, SCHIP... in the spirit of baseball season, "three strikes and you're out."

In all the instances, her accounts have been disproven by people who were there.

Posted by: ericp331 | March 26, 2008 9:19 AM | Report abuse

I believe this is a major issue Hillary cannot simply wish away. This "exaggeration" fits in with the larger meme that Bill and Hillary will say and do anything to get elected. John McCain and the Republicans will have a field day in the Fall on the collection of "misstatements" especially in regards to foreign policy experience [Bosnia, bringing peace to Northern Ireland, etc].

Rightly or wrongly, Hillary will be associated with Bill's lies by omission and parsings of the truth. On one hand, she cannot take credit for her experience as first lady and distance herself from the baggage of her husband's administration.

There will likely be other "misstatements" beside the Bosnia sniper fire. Can Hillary effectively wish away those contradictions? Not likely.

Posted by: sjbecker | March 26, 2008 9:17 AM | Report abuse

BTW, the questions come from a PA newspaper, not from the candidates web sites. I think there's a lot to be learned on this forum with some constructive conversation instead of the
usual meaningless rehash of hate speech.

I assume you're attributing the last statement to Obama. I dont' agree and will tell you why later. Here's another one:

All four year old American children should be provided publicly funded perkindergarten classes.

Posted by: vammap | March 26, 2008 9:17 AM | Report abuse

I agree with the sane level-headed people who say this Bosnia story is minor. First, the event happend 12 years ago and was in a war zone. She was protected by sharpshooters the whole time she was there. Has Obama even been to Bosnia? Does Obama have any clue how it feels to deploy troops into a combat situation and then have to go face those same troops? Hillary didn't deploy the troops into Bosnia but she was there when they were sent. She endured the Republican's fanaticism about using our troops to fight "another coutnry's war." (how ironic). She lived with that conflict day in and day out every day. Where was Obama? Does he really want to have a substantive conversation about Bosnia? If I were Hillary, I would welcome it. Finally, any person naive enough to believe that Barack Obama has not consistently lied throughout this campaign knows nothing about politics. I could recite the examples that have already been discussed ad nauseum. My best example is when Obama said he co-authored a bill with Chris Dodd to deal with the financial crisis. Chris Dodd had to grit his teeth and tell the truth: Barack Obama did not co-author the bill. At least Hillary's lie dealt with something that happened 12 years ago. Barack Obama can't remember what he did last session in Congress (probably because he missed 30% of the votes).

Posted by: kristilj | March 26, 2008 9:15 AM | Report abuse

harlemboy-

"Now the real fact is that Hillary is widely regarded by senior military officials (generals, admirals, etc.)"

DUUUHHHH.... no crap. they were appointed by her husband. loyalties to her husband CANNOT be discounted. she's been over 200+ superdelegates for a while now...a lot of those committed way before the nomination battle really kicked into gear. why? loyalty to the Clinton name. nothing more.

Posted by: jkallen001 | March 26, 2008 9:14 AM | Report abuse

The bigger question that arises from "Tuzla-Gate" is Sen. Clintons' judgement. Why did she fabricate this experience? She had to know there would be video and reporters on the ground in Bosnia that could recall the facts. Yet she told this tale three times. Once before the Iowa caucus, again before the Texas and Ohio primary's and the third time before the Pennsylvania contests. The three times she "misspoke" were prior to very important votes taking place. Also her excuse of being "sleep deprived" caused her to "misspeak" doesn't bode well for her answering a 3am phone call and being of a clear mind to recall the facts needed to protect the country.

Posted by: fatboysez | March 26, 2008 9:12 AM | Report abuse

Since Obama has already declared himself the winner why the shake-down; what are Obamamaniacs afraid of? What's to prove? Why the continual reparsing of the same old lines?

One thing no one has talked about is how you would feel if your candidate was stripped of millions of votes?

Tell us. Evidently Obama's lawyers ensured that the MI/FL votes would not be counted.
The DNC was ready to work a deal; Clinton came to the table.

Your candidate disenfranchised millions of voters.

Let's talk about that today.

Posted by: vammap | March 26, 2008 9:08 AM | Report abuse

Hey Vammap: believe it or not, most people on this site know the issues. Revealing a candidate's stance on the issues is far from vetting. Are you trying to start a scandal or is this a trivia game? Illegals should have driver's licenses for the time being because we have failed them in so many other ways. At least until we do a major immigration overhaul. I look forward to more of your vetting (copying and pasting from the candidates' web sites).

If you want to have larger than zero impact you should probably head to a newspaper blog based in Pennsylvania, North Carolina, or Indiana... not one based in a place where Obama already received 75% of the vote.

Posted by: schencks84 | March 26, 2008 9:05 AM | Report abuse

So here we have two candidates tripped up by words: Obama by his pastor's words, and Clinton by her own.

The interesting issue is: what matters more to the American people, and to superdelegates? A candidates own lies, or someone else's?

How has each candidate responded? Clinton with deflecting jokes, Obama with a major (and widely acclaimed, but also deflecting) speech.

Clinton needs more than a tie... she needs big wins. And this isn't anything close to a win.

Posted by: Boutan | March 26, 2008 9:02 AM | Report abuse

The difference between Hillary Clinton and George Bush is that there is no difference. Fabricate, perpectuate and when caught admit you made mistake.

Typical Washington politican...

Posted by: gbuze007 | March 26, 2008 8:51 AM | Report abuse

It is time for Democratic leadership to take her into a room and tell her to drop out. I am amazed at how much damage she is doing to her party and how much she is indulged because she is a Clinton.

Posted by: dyork | March 26, 2008 8:50 AM | Report abuse

Okay, who's got the guts to vet the candidates? If the media won't do it, that leaves it up to us. Let's see if any of you really knows who you're voting for. Easy one first.

Question 1.

This candidate wants to give illegal immigrants driver's liscenses.

Who is it?

The other candidate does not.

Posted by: vammap | March 26, 2008 8:48 AM | Report abuse

"...an entire city..."

Posted by: mark_in_austin | March 26, 2008 8:46 AM | Report abuse

"Hillary should be more careful when describing her overseas trips. . . ." - harlemboy


AND the history of her NAFTA support, AND her role in opening borders in the Balkans, AND her role in the Northern Ireland peace accords, AND, AND, AND . . .

It's amazing how much slack each side is willing to cut its candidate. (Yes, we Obama supporters are guilty of this, too.)

As for HRC, the truth is that her claim of 35 years' experience has been fluff from day one, and the allegedly biased media are just now getting around to looking closely at it. It won't stand up to the scrutiny.

Posted by: jac13 | March 26, 2008 8:45 AM | Report abuse

Do you ever have the impression that the media treatment of the campaign is like a narrow beam searchlight that illuminates a small area very brightly while leaving an city in the dark?

Posted by: mark_in_austin | March 26, 2008 8:43 AM | Report abuse

This is not about making a mistake. It's not about having a faulty memory. It's about her insistence that she is the better candidate because of her vastly superior experience. To bolster that claim, she deliberately inflates everything she's done, not just the trip to Bosnia. A lot of people do this on their résumés when applying for a job. If I were a prospective employer and your résumé states that you were the CEO of an independent Media Delivery Services firm, but it turns out you were the local newspaper boy (or girl), I would not be impressed and would be less inclined to hire you. If I ask you where you went to college and you state that you went to Harvard, that implies that you graduated from Harvard, not that you just walked across the campus as a tourist. Senator Clinton is guilty of résumé inflation and when confronted about it, has said it was simply a "mistake". No thanks, I've decided to hire someone else for the position of President.

Posted by: valuddite | March 26, 2008 8:42 AM | Report abuse

People this is what is known as the fog of hairspray. Cut Hill a break, Aquanet has been show to have adverse affects on the brain when used in battle situations.

Posted by: wanderin1 | March 26, 2008 8:39 AM | Report abuse

If this lie (because it wasn't a misstatement) was made by someone who has not over the years been called a congenital liar, someone who lies with such ease, and someone who takes lying to such a high level, then maybe it would be just a blip. But Hillary has been called all of those things, by enemys and FRIENDS, many times over the years. This might easily be the straw that broke the camels back for people who keep making excuses for her when she lies.

Posted by: dyork | March 26, 2008 8:38 AM | Report abuse

Combined with the revelation of the many NAFTA support-building meetings she attended in the WH (after saying repeatedly in the run-up to Ohio and then in PA that she was always opposed to it), and the exaggeration of her role in the N. Ireland peace process (termed "a wee bit silly" by D. Trimble, who won the Nobel prize for his role in the process), this SHOULD be damaging to HRC, since it goes to the core of her argument that she has the experience to be CINC. (Remember, she didn't just say this once; CBS reports that she said it in Iowa in December and again in Texas in February. Was she sleep-deprived those days, too?).

In the Ohio debate she said, "If your campaign is based on words, they should be your own." Well, if your campaign is based on experience, it should really have happened.

Posted by: jac13 | March 26, 2008 8:37 AM | Report abuse

This is like the time that George Bush, Sr., checked his watch during a debate on the economy with Bill Clinton, a widely reported blunder. Everybody in America has been caught checking their watch when they shouldn't. But Clinton later said that when he looked over and say Bush doing that, he knew it would be big. It played into a narrative of the day about Bush Sr. being disinterested in economic issues. Clinton could have looked at his watch obsessively in that same debate, and nobody would have cared.

Here, the false Bosnia arrival story is resonating because it connects with Hillary Clinton's difficulty in projecting "authenticity," the sense that we are seeing the real Hillary. Authenticity is the narrative here, and that makes this not a blip.

The larger danger for her is that the Bosnia story connects that generally acknowledged weakness with what was supposed to be her great strength -- the claim of experience. It's like a short circuit in the wiring of the campaign; those two ideas were never supposed to make contact.

Which is sad, because I think what we're really hearing is a genuine expression of how she feels right now. Here she expected a welcoming ceremony in the primary season and instead she and her entourage are running for cover. It doesn't takes Dr. Freud to figure out this false memory.

Posted by: fairfaxvoter | March 26, 2008 8:35 AM | Report abuse

I love this stuff.

I've coined a term: Sinbadgate. Five cents every time you use it. Houseguest? Anyone? First Kid? Sinbad should make a comeback, but it wouldn't really be a comeback because he's never left our hearts. There's always room for more Sinbad.

Posted by: schencks84 | March 26, 2008 8:34 AM | Report abuse

heatherford

I don't think anyone, in their right mind, ever thought the Clintons ever got a pass.

Hello, earth the heatherford?

The press has been anti-Clinton from day one; day one was over 20 years ago, at least. Obama is the unvetted candidate. Let's find out who he is before it's too late.

Does the press want to deal the final blow in this election? You bettcha, since it's obvious they've been trying to elect all along; why let voters do what they can do better? And they'd much rather see her go down than him.

That's the point.

Posted by: vammap | March 26, 2008 8:28 AM | Report abuse

This is another case of the media turning a mole hill into a mountain, and trying to develop a narrative in order to slap an image onto a candidate.

A lot of people make a comparison to Gore's image as a "serial exaggerator," but that image was also a grossly unfair characterization. Looking back at the 2000 election, and at subsequent years, America now realizes that Bush was (and is) a pathological liar. But at the time, the press let Bush off the hook. Gore did not say "I invented the Internet." He said "I HELPED invent the Internet," which actually was TRUE!! His work in the Senate in the 1980s facilitated the creation of the Internet, and that's a fact. But the media was not interested in fact-checking. They only wanted to twist bits and pieces of information to fit into their larger narrative.

Now the real fact is that Hillary is widely regarded by senior military officials (generals, admirals, etc.) as possessing genuine expertise on defense matters. For them, no other candidate even comes close. And Hillary's experience in the White House is a very important part of the story because she always has been Bill Clinton's closest advisor.

Hillary should be more careful when describing her overseas trips, but the media should make a more balanced assessment of her overall credentials. Unfortunately, I think reporters just don't like Hillary, so they will bend over backwards to push the narrative of "Hillary is not all that."

Posted by: harlemboy | March 26, 2008 8:26 AM | Report abuse

Alan-in-Missoula, good to hear from you. My next door neighbor made the same point to me last night that you did about wannabes - he is a 'Nam vet, too.

On POTUS'08 I heard a former Army Sec say he was "there" and it was a dangerous situation; then he told the shopworn story that when it was unsafe for the Prez the USA would send the First Lady. That story struck me as especially nasty in its reflection on, and implications about, WJC.
-----------------------
While this story would not affect my vote if I had decided firmly for or against HRC, it would have some effect on me if I were undecided, and weighing personalities as well as policy positions.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | March 26, 2008 8:25 AM | Report abuse

This does reinforce the notion that Hillary will do and say anything to get elected, and that her pre-Senate accomplishments are, in the cold light of reality, as thin as the Excel wizardry I claimed on my resume.

At this point, though, people's positions are pretty hardened. For the Hillary fans, anything that reflects badly on her, even if it's factually accurate, is simply an attack, and thus to be argued against and explained away.

Posted by: novamatt | March 26, 2008 8:21 AM | Report abuse

Due to the fact that we have weeks and weeks before our next primary; and that the press is beginning to wonder if they are giving the Clintons a pass by not pressing the question: Since you can't win without destroying your dem opponent, why are you still running?

I would say that truthfulness and character are likely issues for the press to focus on by digging deeper into her 35 years of experience.

In other words, I think the press wants to go after her and this may give them an excuse to do so.

Posted by: heatherford | March 26, 2008 8:11 AM | Report abuse

Well there is another video floating around out there by CBS where the reporter says this:

"Mrs. Clinton came to deliver on a promise she made last December. To visit the troops after they were deployed to Bosnia.

She and daughter Chelsea toured a frontline outpost. Officers say this is one of the most dangerous places where US forces are operating. President never made it this far when he visited in January. Camp is in a zone of separation. A place where dangrous conflicts are more likely. Zone separates Serbs and Muslims in a place surrounded by mines."

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Pef5AUt-tic

So it appears as if the area was a dangerous area as far as the officers the reporter interviewed.

Then take a look at all the fibs/exaggerations that Obama has made. Didn't know Rezko; didn't have an aide talk to Canada about NAFTA; didn't hear Rev. Wright's sermons; accused Granny of being a racist when his book clearly states she feared being mugged by a black man at a bus stop; and said he was a product of the Selma marches in 1964, but seems to have been born in 1961. These are only a few off the top of my head, but there are others, like his Exelon legislation and ties and false claims of legislative success that were actually bills that other Senators worked on and helped pass, without any input from him.


Posted by: mkbourgeois | March 26, 2008 8:06 AM | Report abuse

No regrets from Obama; they're not going to change their approach, no politics of destruction, they dont' need it, they're ahead after all.

Obama never makes missteps? The truth is they're all knit-picking. But, the problem is Obama was supposed to be above the usual Washington fray?? Not True!

This is what he said in the Washington Post on March 4th:

"So there's no reason why we would want to change our approach," Obama said.

"He doesn't expect Clinton to change her approach, either. "I think she is going to push this as hard as she can," he said, to "deploy the kitchen-sink strategy and see if it works. Our job is to keep playing our game."

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/03/04/no_regrets_from_obama_1.html

This is what was said today:

"Advisers to her Democratic rival, Senator Barack Obama, pounced on the new remark, sending reporters an e-mail message with the subject line, "first time in 12 years she misspoke?"

"Mrs. Clinton's campaign responded with an e-mail catalog of Mr.
Obama's "exaggerations and misstatements." The campaign cited his saying that he was a law professor -- he was a senior lecturer -- and that his parents fell in love because of the historic 1965 civil rights march in Selma, Ala., even though he was born in 1961. He later said he was referring broadly to the civil rights movement.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/26/us/politics/26clinton.html

Posted by: vammap | March 26, 2008 8:01 AM | Report abuse

Just as Senator Obama's association with Reverend Jeremiah Wright should not imperil him, neither should one offhand remark by Senator Clinton damage her campaign.

With the incredible amount of supporters for each candidate and the numerous daily statements made by each candidate, all scrutinized by the press, it's amazing that neither one hasn't had several more so-called blunders.

Guilt by association? Give me a break. One mistake of fact? Please. Let's discuss some substantive issues!

Posted by: justmanj | March 26, 2008 7:58 AM | Report abuse

I'm sorry Chris, but you can hardly attribute the story to a faulty memory -- running across a tarmac with your only child, being shot at by snipers. That's something you either remember, or you make up.

Besides, if it had been true, don't you think it would have made the front page of every paper in the world back in '96? I'm surprised she wasn't laughed off the stage when she said it.

Posted by: finnpillsbury | March 26, 2008 7:53 AM | Report abuse

There seems to be a desperation from the Clinton camp, that her abilities, her record and her positions are simply not enough, that faked embellishments are the only way to "puff up" the profile of the candidate - that there is not enough in the tank to overcome her rival unless it's manufactured, not enough substance to overcome.

As an interested observer, Hilary Clinton seems to me to be more successful when presenting the real her, away from the strategised pressure points. The audience appears to connect with her female side. When she attacks, the picture becomes one of angry harmonics, ultimate self-interest apparently in conflict with the smart, likeable candidate people want her to be.

I would imagine that ultimately the voting public see beyond the posturing to the core elements of each candidate and judge them on these points. She should be who she is, not what polling tells her to become. Her rival appears more genuine, his attacks less hostile and more reasoned.

Perhaps she should take note and let her accomplishments speak for themselves, and allow the American public and the wider world to fall in love with her again. After all, it is this "love factor" that has so far empowered her rival.

Posted by: andy_spiller | March 26, 2008 7:43 AM | Report abuse

I have been riding the fence in this primary season. I hoped to at least wait until both candidates had campaigned here in Montana before settling on my choice. That will happen next week as Clinton and Obama visit Butte and Clinton goes on to Missoula. An Obama visit to Missoula is highly rumored among state Democrats but not yet confirmed.
Missoula contains almost a third of those who are likely to vote in the Democratic primary and is an obvious campaign stop.

I have some deep concerns about Clinton this week. One is the total misrepresentation of her Bosnia visit. As a Vietnam combat vet I know one does not forget being shot at. I also have a Vietnam Vet's loathing for "wannabes," people who make up stories about being in combat.
Clinton's claim of sniper fire at her Bosnia visit is not mere forgetfullness. It's also a very foolish lie for her to make. A first lady's life is well documented, the facts fairly easy to check as is evidenced by how quickly her Bosnia sniper story blew up in her face.
Then, she tried to make political hay over the statements of the pastor of Obama's church in Chicago, a week after it faded from the news.

It's guilt by association at best. Of course Clinton may not know her fallacies any better than she knows incoming fire.

I am willing to hear her out when she comes to Missoula next week. But I am deeply disappointed in how she has conducted herself this week.

Posted by: AlaninMissoula | March 26, 2008 7:42 AM | Report abuse

It's not so much that Hillary Clinton exaggerated the story about her landing in Bosnia. It's how she and her campaign have not taken ownership of this clear embellishment. There is a disturbing pattern. She refuses to apologize for her vote to authorize the Iraq war and she hasn't been honest about her position on NAFTA.

After dealing with a stubborn president who sticks to his views and positions at all costs, the American people deserve to be led by someone who is willing to listen to us. It also would help if our next president displaying a little bit of humility. We haven't seen that in George W. Bush and frankly nor in Hillary Clinton.

Posted by: jezuniga | March 26, 2008 7:30 AM | Report abuse

This is Hillary's "I invented the internet" moment.

There is one key difference though. She wasn't taken out of context. She really was trying to turn to molehill into a mountain. Will it effect her? Hard to say. She seems profoundly illiterate when it comes to reading the writing on the wall. In the end she still loses. The salient question is does this give her more time to damage BHO before people start laughing at her candidacy.

Posted by: justdamian | March 26, 2008 7:30 AM | Report abuse

Every thing needs to be put into context, something the press rarely does.

Clinton has more experience by virtue of her participation and involvement for 35 years.

She's way ahead of the game,and has experience to share compared to Obama, which ever way you want to look at it.

Is the press going to go after her because she misspoke, or is the press going to also go after Obama for his risky associations?

She's been picked apart to the bone, while the press continues to overlook Obama's scant record which apparently is rife with misgivings on how effective he really is at discerning people, profitting from the shady association and dealings with slum lord Rezko, following the hate-speak of a anti-white Pastor. Those are much more significant gaps than Hillary's.

Now the press is tip-toeing around him, asking the public if it's right to invade his privacy while he was on vacation.

Whoever read that headline without grimmacing had to have been one of the faithful, ready and loaded with their usual threat speak.


Posted by: vammap | March 26, 2008 7:25 AM | Report abuse

I think her comments have the potential to be major blips, especially if the Obama campaign and media continue to press the issue. I think it gives fuel to question her "experience" (which was really, always in question). Now we really know what she was talking about when she said she was ready to "hit the ground running"!!

Posted by: chrishpl | March 26, 2008 7:16 AM | Report abuse

From "Head of State"
http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/03/i-misspoke.html

"Monday, March 24, 2008
I Misspoke

It was a treacherous night landing. Ice had formed on both of our wings, and as I looked out the port window, I could see it breaking into shards, flying off into the night sky with each near barrel roll of our C-50, highlighted by the flares shooting past on either side of the cabin, turning them into falling prisms of wildly careening light.

As the cabin lurched back and forth and the sounds of rocket fire percussed the urgent, faltering rhythm of our right engine, I unfastened my seat belt, and, finding my center of gravity, rose from my seat, moving past aides frozen stock still in their chairs, arms locked like girders against their arm rests in terror, and walked up the center aisle to the pilot's cabin.

"How long to Kosovo"? I shouted over the screaming whine of the altimeter's alarm, marking our steep descent. The pilot turned, looked at me in shocked recognition--"How...how did you make it up here? No one has ever walked up here in these conditions before! How..."

"Never mind that!" I barked, with what I hoped was a not too stern forcefulness, combined with sufficient steel and empathy to create the appearance of a firm imperturbability. "Check the master FMC! Is it working or has it failed?"

The pilot, paused, as if in amazement at my readiness, and then himself awakening to crisis, looked to the Control Display Unit . "It's down! It's down!" he shouted. A bead of sweat began to form on his brow.

I knew what I had to do. "Get out of there!" I commanded, and pulled him from the seat, from where he crumbled to a fetal position on the floor behind me. Stepping over him, I took the chair behind the console.

"Check the Central Maintenance Computers and activate the NAV RAD for alternate radio tuning capability!" I shouted to the co-pilot. He, too, had broken down in tears, his head buried in his hands. I looked to his ID on the console. Another newbie.

Well, this was another one where I would have to go it alone.

Quickly, I tore the scarf from my neck and fashioned it into a crude lasso that could be used for EFIS/EICIS control. Catching the lever with my right hand, I activated the cabin loudspeaker with my left. I knew that the passengers had likely been gulled by the earlier soft patter of the pilot. "Brace yourself! Get ready! These aren't just words!" Then I pulled the lever back hard, sending us rocketing towards the runway.

"You'll never make it!" I knew that voice, and turned. Richardson! How did he trundle up to the cabin? "Out of here, Judas! And take that quivering beard with you!"

I could feel bolts straining against Pennsylvania steel as I pushed the '50 down, down, down to the ground below us. Suddenly, an explosion punctuated the sky--Hand held rocket fire at 3' o'clock!

I quickly performed the evasive maneuvers that I had learned for so long, and so well. My face became angry, then sad, then gentle, then intensely serious, then was finally rocked by a powerful squealing, an unnatural burst of laughter. That did it! The rocket exploded harmlessly behind us.

Now. Now it was time to take the stick and bring this shaking, careening flight, parts straining against themselves until nearly ready to burst, down to the ground. I put my arms to the twin arms of the FO-AP, set the APC, and with all of the strength remaining in me, began to push the levers down. Straining, I pushed harder. And harder. I could see the runway rising before us in the glare shield. I would have to find the remaining strength to bring it down.

Finally, as if a burst of superhuman might had been somehow delegated to me, I pushed the levers into locked position. I could hear Penn in the cabin shouting "We're landing...We're going down!" as I felt the rough shock of the landing gear snapping into place.

Sparks flew as we hit the runway, bullets ricocheting off of the cabin, one wheel touching pavement. I looked straight through the windshield--the militia, arms at the ready stood at the runway's end. The last obstacle.

I turned the craft hard, sending it hurtling sideways across the pavement. It swept the militia away in a single screaming motion that combined with the screaming that arose from the cabin, as we continued to move towards the small, makeshift terminal, where the dignitaries, negotiators, and heads of state awaited for my arrival.

I did not close my eyes. I did not let go of the wheel. I watched--as we ground to a halt just before the doors of the terminal.

I looked fore, at the dignitaries protecting themselves from the sniper fire that raged around them. I looked aft, at the passengers, shaken but safe.

We had arrived. All was good.


Just a moment...

Due to the discovery of a video of the above described occasion, I would like to make few small corrections. The flight was in fact actually a regularly scheduled chartered flight that was actually flown by the pilot and co-pilot--although the pilot did have a cold, and during the flight, I did at several times give serious attention to our flight conditions (notes indicate that I found it "a bit bumpy"). I would also note that the dinner, Salmon with Creamed Potatoes, was undercooked, and was served with a Riesling that was unusually dry. It is also true that we were met not by a militia, but by a girl's youth soccer team. However, it was necessary for me to dodge a soccer ball as team members demonstrated their often aggressive skills. No other shots were fired.

In short: I misspoke."

Cite:
Head of State
http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/03/i-misspoke.html

Posted by: robthewsoncamb | March 26, 2008 7:16 AM | Report abuse

I have stopped long ago considering HRC as a decent human being, when she kept mum after the famous blue dress. This woman has raised her only child with the same wrapped beliefs. Anything goes as long you get elected. It is a simple lie perfectly in line with the "I did not inhale, and I did not have sex with that woman" Clintonics. Compulsive liars.Truth be told, her husband did not do much to prevent 9/11, just as bad as pres.Bush43th. Wheter McCain or Obama, it will be fresh air...

Posted by: THERESEPRIEUR04 | March 26, 2008 7:15 AM | Report abuse

I have stopped long ago considering HRC as a decent human being, when she kept mum after the famous blue dress. This woman has raised her only child with the same wrapped beliefs. Anything goes as long you get elected. It is a simple lie perfectly in line with the "I did not inhale, and I did not have sex with that woman" Clintonics. Compulsive liars.Truth be told, her husband did not do much to prevent 9/11, just as bad as pres.Bush43th. Wheter McCain or Obama, it will be fresh air...

Posted by: THERESEPRIEUR04 | March 26, 2008 7:15 AM | Report abuse

It should be a major development that will derail her momentum, but the press and the broadcast media will make sure it is only a "minor blip," because they are already back to focusing on Obama's pastor problem after Hillary decided yesterday that it was finally worthy of comment. Hillary is not guilty of either exaggeration or a faulty memory. She is guilty of lying in an attempt to boost her "experience" bona fides, but you'll never hear the L word on TV or see it in print.

Posted by: sharons | March 26, 2008 7:10 AM | Report abuse

This is classic Hillary. Fabricate accounts of the past to support her bid for the presidency rather than building a campaign on actual events.

Posted by: toddshaker | March 26, 2008 7:03 AM | Report abuse

"The country she landed in was in a state of semi-war and she was under perceived threat as First Lady and the trip was subject to heightened security." -- dyinglikeflies

Honestly the story itself always stuck me as laughable. I mean it was SOOOO dangerous that they sent the First Lady and their teenage daughter? C'mon... If I'm the President there's no way in hell I'm sending my teenage daughter to a place where there might be sniper fire...

Posted by: eamon1916 | March 26, 2008 7:01 AM | Report abuse


To be sure, Ms. Clinton's claim to "experience" is jeopardized by her tall tales about dodging bullets while under fire. But for many of us, the core issue isn't Hillary's make believe: it's her eroded integrity. Truthfulness, honesty, and credibility are sacrificed, and the story teller's trustworthiness exists no more.

Probity outweighs experience in our Presidents.

Posted by: FirstMouse | March 26, 2008 7:00 AM | Report abuse

The exaggeration in itself isn't that big... but the fact that she continuously made it and then tried to claim it as something that made her a better candidate than Sen Obama is big. Now instead of continuously focusing on Sen Obama's "Wright" problem, everyone is scouring her newly released schedules to find out what else she's been exaggerating about. Add that to the other stories (Hillary can't win and Where's Hillary's tax returns?) and you've got a problem. No wonder she lashed out with her ridiculous "Wright wouldn't be my pastor" comment...

Posted by: eamon1916 | March 26, 2008 6:58 AM | Report abuse

You are flacking a non-story. The country she landed in was in a state of semi-war and she was under perceived threat as First Lady and the trip was subject to heightened security. "Under fire" or "dodging bullets" are metaphors, but in a country like ours with more reporters and commentators than there are stories to report on, a metaphor becomes an exaggeration and that, in turn, becomes news. That's how Bush got in- the country was made to care more about a claim that Gore said he "invented" the internet (not what he actually said) than about the Bush family's record of suppressing his arrest and desertion from service information. What a country.

Posted by: dyinglikeflies | March 26, 2008 6:39 AM | Report abuse

I believe that Hillary's account of her Bosnia trip is akin to the Bush/Cheney administration modus operandi: fabricate to advance an agenda.

She has fabricated details to advance her candidacy. Is this what we can expect in a Clinton presidency?

Posted by: rk.burke | March 26, 2008 6:33 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company