CONSORTIUMNEWS.com
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2008/032208b.html

Hillary's Problem with the Truth
By Robert Perry
March 22, 2008

To the dismay of some Hillary Clinton supporters, Consortiumnews.com has noted a disturbing trend in the candidate’s handling of the truth, as she and her advisers have exaggerated her accomplishments and sometimes distorted Barack Obama’s words.

The Washington Post reached a similar conclusion in awarding Sen. Clinton the maximum of “four Pinocchios” for telling a “whopper” in her claims about derring-do during her 1996 trip to war-torn Bosnia.

Sen. Clinton claimed to have undertaken the mission to Bosnia when it was considered too dangerous for her husband, then-President Bill Clinton.

In a speech at George Washington University on March 17, Clinton elaborated further: “I remember landing under sniper fire. There was supposed to be some kind of greeting ceremony at the [Tuzla] airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into vehicles to get to our base.”

In a fact-checking article on March 22, the Post’s Michael Dobbs concluded that “Clinton's tale of landing at Tuzla airport ‘under sniper fire’ and then running for cover is simply not credible. Photographs and video of the arrival ceremony, combined with contemporaneous news reports, tell a very different story.”

Comedian Sinbad, who along with singer Sheryl Crow accompanied the then-First Lady, said the "scariest" part of the trip was deciding where to eat.

In recent weeks, we also have noted the Clinton campaign’s tendency to stretch reality beyond what is normal for most politicians, although arguably within the flexible standards set by the Bush administration. [See, for instance, “Clinton’s Up-Is-Down World” and “Clinton’s Child-Health Hype.”]

As for the other two candidates, we have observed that John McCain has demonstrated his own problems with the truth [see “Is John McCain a Liar?”] and that Barack Obama has struggled with questions about hypocrisy [see “Obama’s Dubious Praise for Reagan” and “Obama’s Sub-Prime Conflict”].

To comment at Consortiumblog, click here. (To make a blog comment about this or other stories, you can use your normal e-mail address and password. Ignore the prompt for a Google account.) To comment to us by e-mail, click here. To donate so we can continue reporting and publishing stories like the one you just read, click here.

Instead of worrying about Clinton who was NOT allowed to say anything about Obama or be called a 'race baiter'...we should be concentrating on those 5 PINNOCHIO WARMONGERS INSTEAD LIKE JOHN MCCAIN! :!:

Or Neocon Talk Radio...There isn't a PINNOCHIO Level HIGH enough to handle Limbarf...Hannity...Ingrahm...Beck or COULTER!...Do they hav a 10 PINNOCHIO LEVEL? :?:

These scum are already know for their lies and absolute stupidity. The only way too deal with them is to have them legally committed to a State Supported Institute, not a country club where they enjoy all the good things life has to offer. They deserve no less than complete misery.

Hobble them as Kathy Bates did to James Caan in Misery.

My problem with her lie, oops, I mean "human" "misstatement", was so matter-of-fact. She stood there, smiled, and waxed poetic about exactly what she 'remembered' happening in Tuzla. It's an obvious lie. Some strange attempt to show her foreign policy experience by claiming to have dodged bullets. Or maybe to get the veteran vote or something.

It was so Clintonian. The ability to brag and exaggerate with a smile on your face.

Sure, Obama has had a couple of inconsistent moments (every candidate does when running for president). But he explained his Reagan comments...about how they were regarding the way Reagan led his party's vision. That kinda makes sense. Considering Obama's fairly liberal record, does anyone really think he would support Reagan's policies?

It was really strange the way she manufactured that whole story. I mean, it's one thing to forget something that happened, but it's another to remember something that didn't happen.

It's also disturbing that she would think she could get away with it, since there was footage showing that what she said wasn't true.

Weird, and not at all comforting.

One might forget if they had a ceremony, among many, where they were greeted by school kids.

And dignitaries have little ceremonies on the tarmac all the time.

But I don't think anyone would EVER forget an incident where they were a potential target and shots were fired. This is not a case of so many visits, so many circumstances, how can she possibly remember them all? Being shot at would be etched in your mind.

That was not a slip of the mind or a misquote.

It was a deliberate embellishment and you're right Earthmother, it is very disturbing that she would even try such a thing. According to several stories, she's related the bogus "incident" up to four times.

If you didn't happen to be First Lady and didn't happen to have an entourage of people around you recording your every move, maybe you would think you could do that.

HRC was either expecting a pass from the press or she's not as bright as she's been made out to be. Or we're just supposed to believe everything that she says.

Credibility? Boy, the GOP is going to have a field day if she's the nominee.

It's starting to sound like Hillary is being surrounded by advisers who won't acknowledge or are afraid to tell her the reality of her situation.

Does that remind you of anyone else in politics? :?:

http://www.iht.com/bin/printfriendly.php?id=11438897

Roger Cohen: Imaginary snipers, real challenges


"NEW YORK: Here's some news for Hillary Clinton: The Bosnian war was over in 1996."

......

"Clinton made up Bosnian sniper fire in an attempt to show that she's tougher than Barack Obama; that she's a hardened, seasoned, putative commander-in-chief ready to respond to crisis when the "red phone" of her fear-mongering ad rings.

John McCain's own recent "misspeaking" about Iran, placing (Sunni) Al Qaeda in (Shiite) Iran, also smacked of muscle-flexing: He wanted to signal toughness to the mullahs in Tehran, where Obama has suggested he'd seek dialogue.

But what the United States, and those that look to it, need now is not more braggadocio from the White House. We've had a seven-year dose. That's enough.

What's needed, rather, is some new, creative thinking about a changed world in which authoritarianism is enjoying a renaissance and America and its allies need to work together to spread peace, prosperity, freedom, equity, security and, yes, democracy."

.....

"If you don't like the sound of that, there's always seasoned swagger of the kind that runs from imaginary snipers."



This one makes me even more angry that HRC would lie about coming under fire.
From those who were there, she's got some vets very angry. This comes from KOS, but contains bits from other sources:

Veterans react to Clinton's Bosnia lie

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/3/26/93...1241/595/484508

She is a LIAR

If people only started using the word LIAR during the 2004 race every single day for 2 years prior, John Kerry would have won by so many votes they couldn't have stolen it

Liar
Liar
Liar

She is a liar.
She is married to a LIAR(proven) who was impeached

See the pattern?

Why in God's name do we wish to have that?

I just don't get it.

And since when is Kos not a good source?
(just because Hillary says so???)

It's 3AM and Hillary is thinking of what new lies to say the next day
She is a liar
We cannot trust her for anything

Why, if she lies now, what if she lied about the draft?

Hillary may start a draft Jan. 21, 2009
Because we cannot trust her to say she won't (though I haven't heard her deny it either).

ReElectAlGore2008 Posted on Mar 27 2008, 02:43 AM
Liar
Liar
Liar

She is a liar.

You correctly pin pointed that. Think of the damage a liar can do in 4 years...just look at Bush.

Yes...it is her true nature. Win at all cost.

Signs that some of the supers may act?

One would think that the Clinton campaign would know that their tactics threaten any chance of her nomination. You'd think they would have looked down the road far enough to a potential brokered convention because of their tactics and realize that Clinton won't be a compromise nominee, or even put in the VP position.

All of this bodes as a potential lose-lose for Clinton. What is her end game? I keep wondering that as I can't quite believe it is now to run for President. Any sane person would have to see the writing on the wall and the potential that a continued fight could lead to a brokered convention. :?:

Even if HRC thinks she can deny Obama the win in 2008, for another chance for her in 2012, that belies the probability that if she does that, she will be so despised that she won't even be able to keep her senate seat, should it come up for reelection in that time frame.

And now, apparently, she's thrown out the label that Obama is, "too Liberal." She might as well have told the Democrats that they are irrelevant because they are, after all, supposed to be the party of liberals. (Well, supposedly) :!:




Clinton Tactics Turn Off Some Superdelegates

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/200.../26/820834.aspx

From NBC/NJ's Matthew E. Berger

"At a time when Sen. Hillary Clinton is increasingly relying on superdelegates to vault her to the Democratic Party's nomination, a handful of undecided and pledged superdelegates are coming forward to say her campaign's tactics in recent weeks are doing more harm than good.

The Democratic Party insiders say they believe Clinton's direct attacks against Sen. Barack Obama in recent days are hurting the party and its chances in November, and also say it is showing a calculated, desperate-to-win side of Clinton that they dislike."

.....

"Unlike some in the party, these superdelegates said they do not believe Clinton should drop out of the race. They said they are committed to the democratic process, and want to allow the states still remaining to cast their ballots. But they acknowledged Obama is the likely nominee and suggested the personal attacks were only hurting the party and its viability."

......

As activists committed to the party, they said, they have been impressed by Obama's ability to bring new Democrats into the fold, and they worry that Clinton is threatening that."

....

"Several said they were angered by comments from James Carville, who called Bill Richardson "Judas" for backing Obama after serving in the Clinton White House. One delegate said Richardson's rationale for supporting Obama, and his implicit frustration at the Clintons' heavy-handed approach to garnering his support, was echoed among superdelegates.

Others said they were frustrated by recent reports that Clinton embellished her description of landing in Bosnia as First Lady, and said it suggested she would do anything to win. "I don't remember what movie I saw two weeks ago; I don't necessarily remember what I had for dinner last night," one superdelegate said. "But I would remember having to duck and run from sniper fire."

The final straw, though, were Clinton's comments Tuesday, when she said the Rev. Jeremiah Wright "would not have been my pastor." Several superdelegates saw it as a direct, personal attack on Obama.

"I think it's very dangerous for any candidate to constantly thrum on what they perceive as sensational criticisms of their opponent," said Debra Kozikowski, an uncommitted superdelegate from Massachusetts. "I would be more likely to respond positively to discussions of issues that effect Americans versus what might be perceived as character flaws."

......

And they say they are not buying some of the Clinton campaign's explanations as to why they should support her, whether it is her victories in large states, primary states or those likely to go Democratic in the November election.

"Periodically, over the last couple of weeks, you will see a news story or get something from the campaign, and you'll go, 'How stupid do you think I am?" one uncommitted superdelegate said. "All of us watch television all the time, read the newspapers. We all play with the little charts online too. We know it is virtually impossible."

.....

"A full and fair debate about issues and differences and even fights is good," the delegate said. "Mud slinging, personal attacks and lying is never good for any political fight or party. And I see a lot of that coming from one side more than the other."

The delegates said there is little the party or its leaders can do to prevent the current back and forth. But some said they were increasingly in touch with Clinton campaign officials to say their support is in jeopardy.

"Uncommitted delegates can come out and say, 'If you don't stop this now, we won't vote for you,'" one uncommitted superdelegate said."



On Edit:

I've read that the Clinton campaign has been trying to hold up the official tally of delegates from Texas, because Obama really won in that state. Isn't that tally supposed to come out March 29? And if HRC did not win Texas, what happens with Bill's statement that HRC HAD to win both Texas and Ohio? I suppose the goal post will get moved again.....

This one from U.S. News and World Report, Clinton Backers Threaten Pelosi:

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/bull...etin_080327.htm

Thursday, March 27, 2008
CAMPAIGN NEWS

Top Clinton Backers Threaten Pelosi

The Washington Post reports this morning that 20 "top fundraisers" for Sen. Hillary Clinton's campaign yesterday "upbraided" House Speaker Nancy Pelosi for suggesting last week that Democratic superdelegates "should back the candidate with the most pledged delegates and urged her to respect the right of those delegates to back whomever they choose at the end of the primary season." The AP reports that in a letter to Pelosi, Clinton's supporters "said superdelegates 'must look to not one criterion but to the full panoply of factors that will help them assess who will be the party's strongest nominee in the general election.'"

.....

"Brazen" Move Said To Have "Stunned" Democrats The New York Daily News reports that the "brazen move by Camp Clinton stunned veteran Democrats, particularly because at least eight of the letter's authors have not donated to" the DCCC since Pelosi became speaker. One unnamed Democrat is quoted saying Clinton "looks desperate. There is no way they should have threatened to do this. It is terrible. ... I am sure Obama is raising money off of it already."

I heard talk on MSNBC that Clinton is staying in the race to the end because she's looking ahead to 2012. Her hope, according to them, is that if she doesn't get the nomination this time, Obama will (obviously), and then she hopes he'll lose so she can run again in 2012.

Now, I have to remind myself that this comes from the MSM. However, if it's true, it does say a lot about her ambition and where her allegiance really lies. Obviously for ANYONE to run for president, you have to really want the job. Badly. But then I look back to the dignity and caring for his country exhibited by Al Gore in 2000 after the SCOTUS decision. He won the popular vote. He knew he'd won Florida. He knew he should be president. But, out of respect for the highest court in the land, and out of a desire to allow the country to heal and move on, he graciously accepted the court's decision, wrong though he knew it was. Now THAT's class. And it shows that his ambition to be president didn't blind him to doing what he felt was the right thing.

You know Earthmother, I'm reminded of an analogy that I read on a post elsewhere, it's not mine but it begins to be eerily appropriate regarding Clinton- scary, actually:

Paraphrasing-

Gollum: "It's mine Precious is, it's mine."

(From Lord of the Rings)

The ring held such power over the people who possessed it that they would go to any lengths to get it and keep it, even to the point of self destruction and destruction of mankind.

At some point, you either elevate to serve a higher purpose and goal, or you destroy yourself and others with you in the chase for personal possession.

I wouldn't mind Clinton staying in the race if she would focus on the common good and quit doing the work of the Republicans for them. It seems like there is nothing she wouldn't do to person and country to attain her goal, her "Precious."

That that analogy could even be used- and be so relevant- is a very sad thing.

Thinking that four more years of a GOP president is well and good as long as she gets another shot in 2012 is well beyond mercenary. It's condemning the whole country.

On the subject of ambition there seems to be a double standard. Imagine how she would have been condemned for being too ambitious if Senator Clinton had spent only a year in the Senate before running for President.

After a year in the Senate the "ambition" scenario would be drug out for any one.

Every candidate has ambition or I doubt they'd be a candidate.

The point is not about the goal, or how long or how little one has been in office.

It is the means used and the road taken to get to that goal.

Ambition is fine. Ambition that destroys everything in it's path is not.

The crux of the argument is not about time in grade as a means of judging ambition.

It's the path taken and the methods used to ascend to one's ambition.

The Clintons did not want Gore to win in 2000 because they were looking forward to 2008, and a Hillary presidential run. She is not going to be president ever.
Sunday, on 60 minutes, Gore is at his hoome in Nashville showing off how green he has made his house. I believe this is to stop his critics about not walking the walk.

From where I'm sitting both sides are being pretty destructive. Criticizing the negative tactics of one side while ignoring the negative tactics of the other side is also a double standard.

Well, I'm not the only one here on this board, in the Democratic party, or even in the media critical of HRC's tactics.

So if you think that the Obama camp firing back at those attacks puts them in the same league as Clinton's camp, well, that's your opinion and you're entitled to it.

At some point the Obama camp has to respond because if nothing is challenged, Clinton gets to claim it as a hit, whether it is wrong or not.

Action = reaction.

The Clinton camp is generating most of the (negative, divisive) action.

However, I'll accept that I am in good company because as stated previously, many on this board are criticizing the Clinton tactics, many in the party, and even the media, although I'm not sure the media is company I want to keep. :unsure:

Sorry but you are hopelessly biased and can't see beyond that bias so you can't be trusted to make any kind of fair assesment of the situation.

The negativity started before the Philadelphia debate last October when the NYT goaded Obama to go negative. One just had to look at this and other message boards to see in what direction most of the vitriol is going.

Both sides are equally bad and both sides need to cut it out.

When Hillary disappears from office and becomes a non-power private citizen, I shall cut back on my dislike of the part of the ClitnonBushfamily that has ruined America

Not a minute before

Hillary plays GOTCHA
She feigns quitting the race in one debate, Obama and the Dems back off, then she is so vile and hateful the next

Why isn't anyone talking about Hillary's ultra-right-wing religious group she is in?

Among the 1000s and 1000s of other scandals involved

Too bad JFK Jr. wasn't the junior senator from New York running for President in 2008
Oh, that's right, Hillary cleared the path to insure that didn't happen.

Let’s talk the ultimate of double standards here, the “You’re my enemy except when I need help against my other enemy,” double standard. This is turncoat territory.
By the way, I've never hidden my opinon of HRC and have mentioned that I'm not in her camp many times. That's also known as "bias." So by your definition, anyone on this board who supports one camp or the other is "biased."

Why? Well, what she just did to attack Obama goes beyond the pale. You let me know when Obama stoops this low.

That HRC could even be in the same building with Scaife, let alone use propaganda from the American Spectator... These people and institutions tried to destroy Bill and Hillary. But it’s OK to cavort with them now as long as they “help” her in her campaign against Obama? Now there’s a double standard for you. And there is an excellent point made in the Hoffmania piece- the GOP would never have allowed her the opportunity she has now, except maybe as a baubble in the VP slot. Yet her praise is for McCain.
(Caveat, some language issues in the following):

http://jamesfallows.theatlantic.com/archiv...clintons_mc.php

“But if, as I assume is true based on Marc Ambinder's report, the Hillary Clinton campaign is circulating a hit job from the American Spectator, this is simply disgusting. (Marc has just confirmed to me that indeed the article came in an on-the-record email from Phil Singer, the Clinton campaign spokesman.)

That the Clinton family would dignify the American Spectator, of all publications, is astonishing to anyone who was alive in the 1990”

http://www.hoffmania.com/blog/2008/03/nbc-nightly-new.html

and backed up here: http://www.examiner.com/a-1306606~Clinton_..._firewall_.html

(Updated)

“Well, the embarrassment has spilled out on NBC: Hillary Clinton's interview with Richard Mellon Scaife's Tribune-Review had Brian Williams starting the newscast talking about how she's trying to deflect attention away from her Bosnia war story - at the expense of Barack Obama, of course. It's not looking very good for anyone, but at this point, Clinton couldn't give a rat's ass about anyone looking good.
....
But then she let loose with her "lifetime of experience" and the unbelievable "threshold" talking points. She committed the foulest political crime of outwardly trashing the Democratic front-runner while praising the presumptive GOP nominee. As a result, she's reduced herself to just another bitter politician who puts more cred in the Republican noise machine and the Republican candidate than she can bring herself to do for the party that gave her the chance the GOP would never allow.

Granting a 90 minute interview to the flagship newspaper of the man who through his dollars, singlehandedly tried to destroy her husband? TPM has this picture from today's "interview."

That's the man, Richard Mellon Scaife, to her right.

Essentially, today, Hillary Rodham Clinton turned into Joe Lieberman.

Enough of this bullshit. We're not listening to it anymore. Become McCain's running mate and get it the hell over with.”

Addendum:
Donna Brazile -- an uncommitted superdelegate of the Democratic National Convention and one of television's few black, female political pundits -- interjected an intriguing observation this afternoon into a discussion on CNN about Hillary Clinton's stiff-arming of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

...In short, Brazile provided a pointed reminder that some voters (African Americans, in particular, we would think) might recall that Wright did not turn on Clinton's husband during an hour of need for him...

Clinton could have contented herself with decrying Wright's messages without saying, in essence, that no way would she tolerate an association with the likes of him.

That's what Brazile picked up on, making a reference to Wright's willingness to join dozens of other religious figures in attending an annual White House prayer breakfast just as the Starr report on Bill Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinsky -- in all its lurid detail -- was about to come out.

... those at the event -- at least the vast majority of them -- highly disapproved of Clinton's behavior. But they were not willing to shun him.

Brazile's none-too-subtle point: There's a potential downside to turning away, with nary a forgiving nod, from those who once stood by you.

Yup. That is the definition of bias.

Bias-
a. Bent
b. an inclination of temperament or outlook

I have an inclination of outlook, a “bent,” based on a reasoned judgement that finds distasteful candidates who lie, obfuscate, race-bait, campaign for the other side (McCain), change the goal posts every time they can’t make any yardage, are inclined to put self above party and country, live by a double standard, won’t say a word about Republicans who are purposely voting to disrupt the Democratic primary, threaten legal action every time they may lose a primary, sit down with the enemy (Scaife), did not read the NIE and voted for the Iran war, (Should be Iraq, hope that's no premonition) won’t apologize for that vote, voted for cluster bombs and took money from the company that makes them, decries a former appointee in a previous administration as “Judas” for making a decision not in line with their “machine,” garners a letter of the “haves” to threaten the head of the House if she won’t take back the idea that primary elections belong to the people at the grassroots level of the process- you know- “little people,” was against voters in Michigan and Florida before she was for them, would not release any of her papers until a FOIA request got some of them in the light of day and disclosed she was not dodging bullets and not exactly the person responsible for peace in Ireland-and was definitely for NAFTA before she became conveniently against it, can’t run a campaign in a smart fashion, can’t fund raise or budget sufficiently to pay the people working to put her function on, ....and on and on.

For some the definition of a politician is a liar. So we’re left, by that definition, with the least lying of the bunch.

Just for sheer stupidity....what was HRC thinking? Let’s go back a bit to stupid thinking. First Bill has to get his jollies and can’t put two and two together to figure out that’s not smart? That the right wing isn’t out to get him and won’t somehow find out- let alone the possibility it could have been a set up? (And the argument isn’t whether it was a set up or not- it’s the sheer idiocy of not considering that) Then HRC decides she can rewrite events to try and make herself look like a hero when you’re in the public eye every minute?

Taking a reasoned look at HRC’s thinking- that’s not the kind of person I want in the White House. Spent too much time defending them the first time.

Consider also that the right wing wants to run against HRC. I don’t believe she can be as fully vetted as she says or the RW wouldn’t be so “supportive”of her. Even if she got in office, we’d probably spend the next four years fending off the RW again and getting nothing done.

Never mind the right’s study on how much they can push the race issue- HRC is doing a fine job for them. They don’t have to go there first because she already has. How many ways will she do the work of the Republican party for them?

But, never mind the evidence. You make adhominom attacks on me.
You attack the person and not the evidence. Many other people on this board have said worse things about HRC than I have. I’ve just supported my opinions.

Following this, more reasons. Thanks for giving me an extra chance to get it out there. The best candidate is sitting this one out. The choice is what we have. Until the system is changed to get money out of the equation, I go with the one with less baggage and more chance to build up the party and get people engaged in the future- and to all appearances, not so inclined to tear down party and country to get what they want. I have a right to that opinion/judgement, or “bias” as you would label it.

And, I did post elsewhere that I would hold my nose and vote for HRC if she were the candidate, just based on the hope that she might supply good justices for the Supreme Court. I know people who just won’t vote at all if HRC is the Democratic candidate because they won’t vote for McCain but they won’t vote for HRC, either.

Hillary and The Arms Industry
http://providencedailydose.com/2008/02/21/...-arms-industry/
Last October, in an examination of campaign contributions in 2007 from employees of major defense industry contractors, Thomas B. Edsall wrote on the Huffington Post that “Senator Clinton took $52,600, more than half of the total going to all Democrats, and a figure equaling 60 percent of the sum going to the entire GOP field. Her closest competitor for defense industry money is former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney ®, who raised $32,000.”

Critics have previously rapped Clinton for voting in 2006 against Senate Amendment 4882, which would have banned the sale of cluster munitions for use in heavily populated areas.
.....
Providence, RI: Various elected officials and anti-war activists are calling on Hillary Clinton to return campaign contributions from Textron, Inc. Textron is a Rhode Island-headquartered Fortune 500 conglomerate, from whose PAC Clinton took money in 2005 and 2006. Textron bribed the Hussein government during the lead-up to the Iraq war, and is a major manufacturer of cluster bombs, which yield high rates of civilian casualties.
...
Clinton’s contributions from Textron are part of a broader pattern of taking large sums of money from arms manufacturers. In 2007, Clinton took more money from major arms manufacturers than did any other presidential candidate, Republican or Democrat. [6]


As of a few days ago, on Open Secrets, in the 2008 campaign, defense contributions:
Clinton- $290,575
Obama- $195, 882


Hillary’s Big Money Donors
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03...l=pol&emc=pola1

Commentary: Hillary Clinton Lied About Outsourcing, Too
http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/issue/2...5/article/29569

Records release as a result of suit by Judicial watch:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23697640/
(We now know why HRC didn’t want those records released. It is to be hoped that if there is anything explosive in her tax returns, that will be ascertained before the primaries are over. Supposedly, she will soon release them but previously, said she would not until AFTER the primaries were over)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-loeb/tr...ni_b_93936.html
But as the Canadian reports have made clear, the core of the story was false. The Canadian government contacted Goolsbee to clarify Obama's position on trade, not the reverse. Although Goolsbee did talk on February 8 with Canada's Chicago consul general (not, as was originally reported, the Canadian ambassador), there's no evidence that he ever described Obama's position as mere political posturing. They met before NAFTA began to dominate the campaign, and discussed the trade agreement for two to three minutes out of almost an hour. Goolsbee responded to Canadian questions by clarifying that Obama wasn't pushing to scrap NAFTA entirely, but that the agreement needed labor and environmental safeguards--exactly what Obama had been saying in public. The memo was simply inaccurate, as even the Harper government now acknowledges after a firestorm of criticism by opposition parliament members who've accused Harper's staffers of trying to help their Republican political allies. In response, Harper said, "there was no intention to convey, in any way, that Senator Obama and his campaign team were taking a different position in public from views expressed in private, including about NAFTA."

So Clinton has now been caught lying about Bosnia, lying about her own role in NAFTA, and lying about Obama's stance on the agreement.

http://www.blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stumper...rf=nwnewsletter
What to Expect from Clinton's Long-Awaited Tax Returns
(A somewhat hopeful look)

http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/3597/t...inton_firewall/
The New York Senator’s last-ditch efforts to win the Democratic nomination could rely on the “Race Chasm” and the trampling of democracy.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/32023.html
In Texas approximately 120,000 Republicans crossed over to vote for Clinton in the primary. So, she won the primary vote. However, they were NOT eligible to be elected delegates to caucus with Democrats yesterday. So, the primary vote was "corrected" (all those Dittoheads urged by Rush to cross-over) to reflect the will of actual members of the Democratic Party in Texas. It's that messy government Of, by, and For the People thing at work. At the grassroots level. Messy, but extremely effective.
(FYI, McClatchy newspapers one of the few who took on the Bush administrations lies on Iraq)

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9259.html
Calling Hillary Clinton “the most unconventional person I have ever seen to be running for president,” Bill Clinton yesterday highlighted his wife’s advocacy for children as a young woman as an example of her work as a change-maker. But so many progressives have done volunteer work, as laudable as it is? In all her time as First Lady and Senator, Senator Clinton Keeps Bringing up the SCHIPS Bill as Her Major Achievement for Children, Even Though It Was Kennedy and Orrin Hatch, of All People, Who Kept It Alive After the Clintons Had Cut It Out of the Budget. 3/31

What I'm wondering was articulated by one of the pundits on, I think, "Washington Week" this past week: Was there ever a time when Hillary was under sniper fire? If so, when the heck (the pundit said "when the heck" *lol*) was that and where?

I mean, it is one thing if she mixed up two different places, that would be understandable. But if she actually "embellished" this particular situation to that degree, it is disturbing, and what is weird is, there were so many other people, including media people, AND there is videotaped footage of it, so WHY lie about it? That is why I tend to think it wasn't a calculated lie or anything because, say what you will about Hillary, stupid she ain't. Why lie about something when it is so easily disproved? WEIRD!

I'm wondering if there was some other time when they at least received warning of sniper fire or danger and they hurried along the greeting line. Because this time doesn't even look like they even rushed or had heavy guard or anything.

Straaaaaaaaaaaaaaaange. I mean, why lie about it? She has to be mixing it up with something else or misremembering or something. It is just too weird that she would lie about something when there were all those reporters and other pups and cameras.
:?:

Wow. I can't believe so many people actually think that. Obama uses Rovian tactics constantly and accuses Bill Clinton of "McCarthyism" over NOTHING, for example. For ONE example. And meanwhile the Clinton camp, when pressed on Reverend Wright, kept on classily saying that we should move on to the issues.

And yet...virtually everyone supporting Obama keeps saying that he is just pure as the driven snow and the big, bad Clintons are down in the mud trenches.

Well, as Bill says, politics is a contact sport. Don't go out on the field if you don't plan to take some hits. I'm SO over all the whining from the Obama sector. Gawd, cry me a flippin' river already.

And I don't even have a dog in this hunt but I have to speak out for FAIRNESS and REALITY! We are supposed to be a "reality-based" community of Gore supporters here, so I'm advocating on behalf of reality. Both sides have slung mud. And Mr. New Politics has certainly done at LEAST half of the slinging.

See, that is what is REALLY strange about it. I mean, her explanation of being sleep-deprived doesn't cut it for me. She definitely told that tale about ducking the sniper fire a few times, not just the once. So, either she was indeed embellishing to the max (a.k.a., lying) or she truly has that incident mixed up with another time. But if it is the latter, then why not figure out when the other time was and mention it to the press? I mean...this whole thing has been really, really bad for Clinton and it was so unnecessary, that's the mind-boggling part! WHY even say that? ODD!

Both of these candidates truly concern me in their own exquisite ways, trust me.

So, so true. That was a selfless thing of beauty he did for the country, for the rule of law, for the very foundation of our democracy. Even though it hurt him at the time to do it--more like crushed him, probably--and even though he knew shrub would be disasterous for the country (although none of us, not even visionary Al Gore, could have predicted just HOW horrible shrub would turn out to be), he knew it would be more disasterous and just plain wrong to not respect the rule of law, even as the other side had manipulated it into going their way. Total class, total putting of the country's good above all else. True leadership. THAT is what we need today.

That is why, much as I love Bill Clinton and think he was a fantastic president, despite the very successful right-wing smear campaign against him that people still buy into to this day, I never did take to Hillary. Hillary is a politician first, a leader only second. This sniper dealiwig is evidence of that, although not evidence of being a good politician, because, again, WHY lie about something so easily disproven, that will come back and bite you fatally in your political patootie? WEIRD!

I'm not so quick to dismiss Clinton of being to smart for this kind of lie. Yes, she's smart...so is her husband. But they both are extremely capable of exaggerating their credentials and experience. All politicians exaggerate to some extent...but the Clinton's are very comfortable with it. Still, I'll take their kind of dishonesty over the Bush/Cheney kind any day of the week.

However, I did wonder the same thing about her possibly mixing the sniper-dodging experience. I thought she might have been thinking of another trip. However, I'm sure they would have corrected the "mistake" by now if that were the case.

I think it's kind of an instinctual thing now for the Clinton's to be so loose with the facts. It's that same instinct that kept Hillary from being too definitive about Obama's Christianity. The "that I know of" comment. It wasn't really THAT big a deal, but you could see when confronted with that question by Steve Kroft on 60 Minutes about Obama not being a Muslim, Clinton's political intuition was to leave the question open just a tiny bit...just the slightest bit of doubt. I don't think it was calculated at all. I think it was just instinct on her part. It's from years of being a Clinton.

I've been beating up on the Clintons a bit, but truthfully I'm very glad of the work they did in the White House. It's just they are a bit ruthless...which can be both good and bad.

The problem with the Bosnian trip issue is, why not just tell the truth? Why not talk about how moved she was by the little girl who told her the poem? Or talk about the troops she dined with? The truth makes for a much more interesting story. And I think we like Hillary more when she's talking about stuff like that. Not about how tough she is dodging bullets.

Well, classy up until the Wright controversy started to die down and Obama's polling numbers started bouncing back up. Then, what do ya know, Clinton had something to say about Wright.

Look, they're both guilty of the back-and-forth...however, I don't believe Obama has personally said anything about the Bosnia trip.

Exactly. By now, they should have figured out when the real sniper fire threat occurred and told the press about it. So, I'm left to conclude that there was no real incident that she innocently and understandably mixed up with this one, and thus further concluding that she embellished the story, which is disturbing on two levels...wait, make that three levels:

1. The obvious level of she lied about something.
2. She lied when there was no compelling reason to lie.
3. It was stoooo-PIT because there were so many witnesses, including press people, AND it was all on videotape.

Very odd.

True. However, I actually agree with her point that you don't choose your family but you choose your pastor of 20 years. But let's not get into that whole can-o-worms again. As you said, they've both been engaging in "negative" campaigning, which I personally have no prob with, as long as it is substantive. But when you start accusing the other side of "McCarthyism" for, imho, no reason whatsoever, and stuff like that, that is just Rovian.

If they keep it substantive, then I'm with Bill when he says "Let's saddle up and have an argument!" (LOL--he is so hilarious sometimes on the campaign trail, me thinks...although I'm sure some of the Obama supporters on this board would categorize it differently!)
:lol:

There are more than several problems with HRC's Bosnia rendition, including the fact that the pilot has said it didn't happen, besides the footage:

1. If Clinton HAD been shot at, the news mill would have been grinding for weeks.

2. If there had been any real threat, you don't fly the First Lady in there much less
her daughter with her.

Can you imagine the drumming the right wing would have inflicted for putting Chelsea in harms way? (Being oh so family oriented.... :blink: )

This isn't about confusing situations. If it was really the stuff of heroics, she'd have gotten a medal or something....

Well, I'd say the Obama side wasn't the only one that saw Bill Clinton's remark as subtly suggesting Obama doesn't "love" his "country". Gen. McPeak's comment was in regard to that. But, no excuses. Most people agree that McPeak (known to be a controversial tough-talking s.o.b.) went too far.

Agreed. The whole "sniper thing" is really going to hurt Clinton (I think it already has, judging from the polls) and if it does, it is deserved, as that comment was just inexplicable, basically. Inexplicable in any good way, that is. The only ways to explain it are bad ones.

That said, I still find her a better choice than I find Obama.

Another thing: I think Obama has had perfect campaign advice and run a flawless campaign, whereas it seems that Clinton has had the worst campaign folks surrounding her since John Kerry in 2004! I mean, they have just never focused on the right messages and meanwhile what idiot told her to say she had to duck from sniper fire when she didn't? Apparently, the idea was to drive home that she has experience. But, even if it were true that she had to duck from sniper fire, who cares, I mean, it would be an interesting tale, but from a foreign policy standpoint, ducking and covering doesn't qualify you to be president! If it did, we would have a whole huge generation of Boomers who qualified due to post WWII duck and cover drills!

Anyway, I'm still for Clinton out of the two candidates but the sniper thing was not good. Not good at ALL. And just so stoo-pit. People who don't like Hillary already think she is untrustworthy and this just totally went towards reinforcing that. So why say it?! Again, BAD campaign people surrounding her, that's all I can say. But ultimately, she is responsible for what she says.

What troubles me most is the total ease with which both she and Bill lie. Most people show that they're lying without realizing it, either through body language, or the way they talk, or something. But both of them seem to have lying down pat, and it doesn't seem to trouble them to do it. I'm sure many politicians (and normal folk, too :rolleyes: ) stretch the truth sometimes, but this was an out-and-out lie, not even an exaggeration. That really bothers me.

Setting aside Hillary for a minute, I must defend Bill: as the bumper sticker so aptly says, "When Clinton lied nobody died". He lied about an affair. He didn't, as shrub has done, exploit 9/11 and play the American people like a fiddle afterwards in order to get us all to agree to a war that was really not about "Terror" at all but instead was all about enriching his Big Oil cronies, including our illustrious VP. I mean, shrub not only lies like a rug, but he flouts the constitution and rule of law at every turn. He should have been impeached YEARS ago!!!!!!!!! I've been screaming about impeaching him for years. It is the only way to defend and protect the intregrity of our constitition and rule of law.

I thought repugs consider themselves so "patriotic". If they did, they would have impeached shrub. Instead, they went after Bill Clinton mercilessly and yes, they finally found something. And they've left him with a permanent rep as a "liar" that has marred and eclipsed in the public's mind the fact that he was one of the best, most brilliant, most effective presidents we have ever had. For just one important example: after Reagan took us from being the biggest creditor nation in the world to being the biggest debtor nation in the world in his first four short years, and left the economy an even worse wreck after 8 (Reagan should have been impeached over Iran-Contra, too, btw), Clinton came in and got us out of the red and into the black. He accomplished the seemingly impossible with our economy, bringing it back to robust health after Reagan's "fiscally conservative" Reaganomics almost ruined us. Yet is Clinton remembered for that remarkable feat? No. He is remembered as a "liar". I think that is sad. And considering everything he did for our country, I don't CARE that he lied about an affair. I wouldn't want to be married to the man, but I'm eternally grateful that he was our president.

...Hillary is another story *lol*. But I do love me some Bill.