I remember it. Gore and his staff can only blame themselves for the self-inflicted wounds. Not all campaigns stretch the truth to the same extent and when they go off the deep end in desperation, they pay the price. This story is indeed weak but it's "yet another" stone on a noticeable pile. Hillary's campaign has been so shaky, gaff-prone and self-destructive that it calls into question her ability to be president. Running for president is like a trail run at the real thing and watching her is scary. It's hard to believe I was telling people this time last year only a heart attack would stop Hillary from being president.
I agree this one is a weak one. The Bosnia one isn't. Her recent dishonesty about Iraq certainly isn't. I said the other day I don't care that much about this stuff, but the NYT doesn't have to "strive" for a story line of Hillary the liar when she's making it so easy to see her that way. And the way she responds when caught out hasn't been helpful to her either. Ceding the point to the hospital in this case is a big improvement, and I really don't think this health care story is a big deal, but characterizing the sniper fire story as "misspeaking" is ludicrous. It's not like she dodged sniper fire in Afghanistan and accidentally said Bosnia. She has never dodged sniper fire. If she "misspoke" then I guess she misremembered -- in which case, she remembers being in mortal danger of being shot when she was never anywhere near sniper fire. In which case, she's insane and I don't want her making decisions regarding national security. Sane people don't remember people shooting at them when no one ever did. (Further, she blamed her "misspeaking," which she did three or four times, days or weeks apart from each other, on sleep deprivation. This does not inspire confidence in her ability to successfully field critical, late night phone calls.) Or she was lying. It's one or the other: On Bosnia, she's either insane or she lied. But more troubling to me is her latest lie on Obama and Iraq, in which she says she was against the war before he was. This one is both a lie and a clear demonstration of her insanity. This is as ludicrous as Bill Clinton saying a while back that he and Hillary opposed the war from the start. Do they think no one can look at the incredible store of video and audio evidence that proves, beyond definitively, that neither of these things is true? Apparently she later amended her comments to say that if you just start looking at the whole thing beginning in January, 2005, when Obama was seated as a senator, she opposed the war (that she voted for) before he did (though he actually did oppose it from the start). In other words, what she meant to say when she said she "opposed the war before Obama" was that she was the first person to make a public statement against the war in calendar year 2005 (more than two years after she voted in favor of it). Of course, that is not true either as quotes from their floor speeches have shown. Her statements about NAFTA have been very troubling as well. She has repeatedly claimed that she opposed the agreement behind closed doors when records and statements have proven she lobbied for its passage. Not to mention the whole peace in Ireland thing. And all the above is in addition to her blatant dishonesty about Obama's positions and record on major issues such as health care, abortion rights and that BS about Obama saying that "only the Republican had good ideas in the 90s," which Bill Clinton followed with, "I'm not making this up, folks." Of course, he was. And he knew it. There is a pattern here and a familiar one. Bill Clinton actually managed to outpace Richard Nixon as the president who is most famous for lying. Hillary's doing a whole lot, unforced and unencouraged, to develop the same reputation. In this case I believe that it's no more than a matter of her campaign failing to fully vet a story. This isn't a memory of hers; this is a case of her repeating a story she was told. I don't think it's really her fault if the story she was told wasn't true. I think she made a mistake not making sure it was vetted, but that doesn't meet the bar for lying or making something up. Bosnia, her positions on Iraq and Obama's, Ireland, NAFTA and Chelsea's whereabouts on 9/11 (another doozy) are another thing entirely. These are things that she supposedly lived through herself. Fudging the truth on these things is a much bigger deal. And it goes to her either being a fundamentally dishonest person, on matters of gigantic significance, or a person with a dangerously bad grasp on reality.
I smell desperation in the air... Maybe Hillary should just drop out. It would be best for the democratic party if she did.
This is assuming that Hillary cares about what is good for the Democratic Party. IMO, that is an incorrect assumption.
Hillary and Bill believe that they are the Democratic Party and that anyone that opposes them is not a legitimate Democrat. It is this arrogance and inflated sense of entitlement that turns me off as much as any other thing about the Clinton 08 campaign.
Just google Hillary, Chelsea and 9/11. Media Matters says Dick Morris made it up and that might be true (he's harbored pretty incredible hatred toward Hillary forever). Others seem to stand by it. If it's not true, I apologize for bringing it up.
It's funny... of the 3 candidates, Hilary is definitely the one I most hate, as I've said many times before... so is it sad that I'm so used to huge lies coming from her that I almost feel like giving her credit for telling a lesser, "oh-well-that's-standard-politics" kinda lie? Dear god, how does she have any support left...?
Hey, don't diss Hilary - remember when she met with Arafat and negoiated mid-east peace at Camp David? I didn't Obama in that picture! We want hilary-care!!!
Or when she solved the problems of Ireland? To the poster defending her (outright lies), I have to question your sensibility. It's one thing to get details wrong. That is something that is foolish to me. Candidates "misspeak" all the time because they give so many speeches to so many people that it's very easy to slip up, get a name wrong, etc. But she doesn't do that. She outright lies. And it isn't like her lies are frivolous; they all serve the purpose of elevating her in the eyes of the voters. Her 9/11 account of Chelsea is a perfect example. She made up a story that her daughter could have died as a victim and she was a worried mother, making her connect with all the people of New York. BARF
If true, this story proves Hillary is truly pathological. I hadn't even heard about this before. How can a sane person vote for her? The only rationale I can think of is they must passionately dislike Obama and McCain. If this story makes it to the Drudgereport, she is done.
I'd venture to say everyone who has walked the planet has lied or at least told a half truth, a lie of omission or something of the sort. Magnitude and frequency is relevant.
