The exaggerator meme you’ll soon be hearing a lot more about

March 28, 2008

Sometimes, you can see a meme coming, but you don’t quite know what to do about it. The meme is big and bad, and likely to do some harm, but there’s no real defense to soften the blow.

I’m referring, of course, to the notion that Hillary Clinton is a serial exaggerator. We haven’t heard much about this, but I have a strong hunch it’ll soon be unavoidable.

Consider the headlines from just the past few days. There’s this AP item from this morning about Clinton exaggerating her work in bringing peace to Northern Ireland…

”It’s crazy for Hillary to say she played a role in bringing peace to Northern Ireland…. She seems to be confusing her record with her husband’s,” said Robin Wilson, founder of a Northern Ireland think tank, Democratic Dialogue.

…and this item published in The Hill this morning about Clinton exaggerating her role in passing the Family and Medical Leave Act…

The former congressman who shepherded the Family and Medical Leave Act through Congress sought Thursday to debunk Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s (D-N.Y.) claim to the legislation, saying she “never had anything to do with it.”

Former Rep. William Lacy Clay, Sr. (D-Mo.) is circulating an email disputing Clinton’s claim that the law is one of her more meaningful domestic accomplishments.

…and this item in Newsweek about the ’96 Bosnia trip…

Is it possible that Hillary Clinton really thought she risked her life disembarking from a plane and running for cover “under sniper fire” at the heavily fortified U.S. Air Force base at Tuzla? Clinton has been telling the story of her visit to Bosnia in 1996 for many years, gradually adding embellishment and changing details. Perhaps she may have actually come to believe it.

…and this item from the Boston Globe about Clinton and S-CHIP.

Hillary Clinton, who has frequently described herself on the campaign trail as playing a pivotal role in forging a children’s health insurance plan, had little to do with crafting the landmark legislation or ushering it through Congress, according to several lawmakers, staffers, and healthcare advocates involved in the issue.

There seems to be a common thread here.

In case this wasn’t awkward enough, the AP’s Ron Fournier, one of the more widely read and respected members of the media establishment, wrote a column about this the other day with a very unfriendly lede.

Why wasn’t the truth good enough for Hillary Rodham Clinton? That’s a question worth considering as the former first lady tries to contain damage to her credibility after getting caught exaggerating the danger of her 1996 trip to Bosnia. […]

To be sure, Clinton is not the first American to pad a resume. She’s not even the only candidate for president to do so…. 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.

Complicating matters, Clinton’s claims about her work in Rwanda and Kosovo have also been subject to criticisms regarding possible exaggerations.

I’m certain I’m not the first person to have noticed these examples and tie them together. The question is whether any of this will matter.

Al Gore didn’t have a record of exaggerations, but the media skewered him anyway. Rudy Giuliani had an actual record of exaggerations, but the media never picked up on it. It’s hard to know what kind of treatment Clinton is in for, but given the fact that there’s a “D” after her name, we can probably guess.

I’m just not sure what the defense is going to be. The evidence suggests Clinton really has stretched the truth in some of her claims about her experience. With one or two examples, it’s embarrassing. With five or six, it’s starts to look like the kind of issue that might undermine her credibility and look like a general-election hindrance.

Something to keep an eye on.

the clinton campaign made two critical mistakes: the first was running on “experience” rather than “vision” (or at least “vision supported by experience”), the second was losing iowa.

and the first is the one that leads to the exaggerator problem: in the sense that she’s been using the term, she isn’t really that “experienced” (what she’s experienced about is surviving right-wing attacks, which is why she still might be a better choice to beat mccain). as a result, she left herself wide open to this kind of critique and there isn’t really a good defense for it.

  • Howard, how is it a mistake to ‘lose’ Iowa. Not to campaign there or not campaign vigorously enough, that’s a mistake. But the people of Iowa get to decide how they vote.

    It’s Gore all over again. Senator Clinton needs to pull herself together (and fire Mark Penn).

  • I have had it! If this Hillary bashing doesn’t stop, I’ll have no choice but to make vote for Nader…

    Oh…wait…sorry, thought I was “mary” for a sec. My mistake. Please continue.

  • Not so long ago, Bill Clinton said, incredibly, that, believe it or not, he really does like George W Bush. A few days ago he suggested that you shouldn’t be in politics if you aren’t willing to play dirty. Chris Matthews treats politics like a sporting event, too. A lie is just a two shot foul to him. If it helps you win the game, it’s worth it. It seems to be a mindset devoid of principle. You might argue that it’s unfair for Dems to get penalized more than Reps. But that’s only more reason to vote agains Reps. It isn’t a justification for a Dem to accept those rules.

  • Nail, meet coffin. Honestly, I can’t believe she didn’t think people would check on these claims. Steve’s use of the word ‘exaggerator’ is kind; I’d just have said liar.

    Lance,

    I think it would take more than axing Penn. I think you have to include Ickes, and possibly some others. I’m not sure if an effective team could be reassembled at this stage of the game.

    Clearly, her team has let her down, especially financially. It frustrates me to no end that someone so bad at managing her campaign team could get this close to the Presidency.

  • Lance, I don’t think Mark Penn forced Hillary to start making up war stories. She did this to herself, and it’s only appropriate that she goes down at her own hand through a totally unforced “error”.

    I can only imagine the howling from Clinton’s side if Obama claimed to have come under fire in the ‘hood, only to have a video come out where he was just walking around kissing babies.

  • Steve, I think your thesis is flawed. It’s not just the traditional media playing now. I’ll bet everyone who reads this blog has seen many of the flurry of YouTubes ridiculing her on Bosnia, and now there is one from Jed on Peace in Ireland: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBCmKkLdCuA
    These are devastating because they are completely true, and show her being completely false. Andy Borowitz nailed her the other day, and TPM did a video compilation that was simply brutal, and particularly brutal because there was a snippet of Chelsea out there repeating the Bosnia lie (which horrified me as a guy who was so impressed by how fiercely they protected Chelsea when they were in the White House):
    “we wanted to go back and put together all the key moments in roughly chronological order — what Sen. Clinton said on different occasions, the key video from the trip, what other eyewitnesses say, what her spokespersons and aides say, etc. With the exception of Howard Wolfson, Sen. Clinton’s Communications Director, we’ve tried only to include material from the senator, the trip and people who were actually there and witnesses to anything — so no random ex-military folks or campaign spinners or Fox goons just there to trash her.”
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2Z9o37FQI4

    There is no coming back from this, because she has become an object of ridicule. And, by her actions, she deserves it. And she and Bill are also destroying the once vast reservoir of goodwill for them in the Dem community. It’s all so sad, and so unnecessary.

  • Don’t forget the story that’s been circulating in the past day or so about how Hillary made up details about Chelsea’s experience on 9/11 which were allegedly in direct conflict with Chelsea’s account.

    Keep an eye on this one, as well. Sadly, the Tonya Harding option — perhaps by necessity now — just might work both ways.

  • I had the same reaction to the TPM video compilation: it’s over. That video could be the source for an entire election’s worth of attack commercials for McCain, or those acting “on their own,” but supporting him. And yet, everything on the video is accurate.

    It’s her maccaca moment.

  • Another problem is that the exaggerations come at the expense of others.

    An entire military base was mobilized for Hillary’s arrival. But her version of events would put into question those responsible for her, and her daughter’s safety (and shouldn’t she be concerned for her daughter’s safety?)

    With legislation, she diminishes the role of those who actually were involved. Her inserting herself in after the fact reminds me of Woody Allen’s Zelig.

  • I think I have to side with Mark (#5) and doubtful (#6). I’d call her a liar and full of shit. But as much as I really dislike and do not trust the Clintons, if it comes down to them or McCain, I will plug my nose and vote for Clinton. Please, FSM, don’t let it come to that.

  • What’s up everyone’s shorts? Hillary started lying long before ducking bullets. She said she had “experiance”.

  • retr237 said: “It’s her maccaca moment.” Nope, it’s actually much worse than that. She just doesn’t realize it yet. This is destroying her credibility within a substantial swath of her own party. Can you imagine her being elected Majority Leader now? Can you imagine her being taken seriously as a leader after this quite true storyline has really spread?

  • Lance, just to respond to your question: if your stock-in-trade is “inevitability,” you better look inevitable. losing iowa took the sheen off “inevitability.”

    but yes, if you want to be precise about, the mistake was not doing whatever needed to be done to win iowa.

  • Oh yes, I’m the great pretender
    Pretending that I’m saved Bosnia
    My ambition is such; I pretend too much
    I’m lying but everyone can tell.

    Oh yes, I’m the great pretender
    Ducking sniper fire my own
    I play the game; but to my real shame
    You’ve let me hang all alone.

    Too real is this feeling of make believe
    Too real when I feel what my ego can’t conceal.

    Oh yes I’m the great pretender
    Just ducking and negotiating peace
    I seem to be what I’m not; you see
    I’m wearing my ambition like a crown
    Pretending that you’re still around.

    Too real is this feeling of make believe
    Too real when I feel what my ego can’t conceal.

    Oh yes I’m the great pretender
    Just ducking and negotiating peace
    I seem to be what I’m not; you see
    I’m wearing my ambition like a crown
    Pretending that you’re still around.

  • It’s not just Hill, McCain claims it was so scary flying into Iraq that he wet his Depends ™.

    I suspect that because she is a “girl”, the frat boy press will taunt her mercilessly about these reality enhancements.

  • “For ’tis the sport to have the enginer, Hoist with his (her) own petard;

    Alas Hildencrantz and Billdenstern are dead.

  • You may think HRC as a serial exaggerator is a mere or unfair meme. But in reality, it’s a well deserved one that the Clintons’ supporters should have seen coming. From the start of this terribly long campaign, HRC has gone on and on about her 130 or 30-some years governing experience. She’s so ready to lead because of her so-called experience, ready to lead from day one, she has loved to tell us. Any semi-educated voter should be able to see that it’s HRC who is pushing a meme here. Her claim of substantial, long-term governing experience is seriously exaggerated. Her experience, in truth, is shallow and wanting. But it has been her campaign’s biggest line, followed by constant personal and bigoted attacks on Sen. Barack Obama. Here’s hoping the “meme” that HRC is dissembling exaggerator continues. It’s well-deserved.

  • Serial exaggerator. That explains about every politician who has ever lived.

  • The Family and Medical Leave Act claim always seemed strange to me. It passed 16 days after she became First Lady. I mean, I know she’s capable and competent and all, but that doesn’t seem to bet a lot of time to make something happen.

    I think the real question now isn’t so much “is she a serial exaggerator” as it is “does she actually *believe* this stuff, or is it just normal campaign rhetoric?” If she’s just distorting her record for political gain, she fits right into Washington and would be a fine President. If she’s actually that deluded, though, I would have more reservations voting for her in the unlikely even that she secures the nomination.

    On the bright side, if she really is that capable of self-delusion, she will be able to comfort herself in old age knowing that she won the Democratic nomination in 2008, no matter what actually happens.

  • Hey Former Dan is back with his musical stylings. Nice one Dan.

    Hillary might have to go youtube viral by doing a version of Sarah Silverman’s video, I’m F@cking Matt Damon. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wnVJZkDuVBM

    Something like:
    “I’m f@cking Obama, sorry but it’s true.
    “I’m f@cking Obama, and I’m also f@cking you.”
    “On trail in the tail, on an issue we’ll unveil
    “On the war, on the Wright, with the scary black-man fright.”
    “I’m f@cking Obamaaaaaaaaaaa,”

  • To be clear — Hillary is not “embellishing” or “exaggerating”. She is lying…over and over and over again.

    Again, truth and honesty are progressive values. And if they’re not Democratic values too, then we’re not much better than the party that attracts all those so-called conservatives.

  • Please, FSM, don’t let it come to that. -independent thinker

    Flying Spaghetti Monster? Lols. 🙂

    Serial exaggerator. That explains about every politician who has ever lived. -Manny

    Serial apologist. That explains just about every Clinton supporter who comments on blogs.

  • Manny from Miami (#22) said:
    Serial exaggerator. That explains about every politician who has ever lived.

    True. But there is a difference between casting a more favorable impression of your experience (like your status as a teacher at law school) and outright falsehoods about dodging bullets in Bosnia or claiming a major role in the Ireland peace process.

    Where most politicians will inflate certain aspects of their experience, the Clintons seem willing to spew full-on deceptions. This is a real problem for Clinton’s campaign.

  • From The New Hampshire Union Leader (UnionLeader.com)

    Fair-weather friends: The Clintons cut NH loose

    “REALLY, there are no permanent Friends of Bill. For the former President and his wife, a tandem of duplicity and ambition unrivaled in American history, there are only temporary alliances. New Hampshire is learning this now, as so many others have before.

    Ever since Bill Clinton proclaimed himself “the Comeback Kid” for his second-place finish in the 1992 New Hampshire Democratic primary, he has portrayed himself as a stalwart defender of New Hampshire and its first-in-the-nation tradition. He championed this state’s retail politics as a model for the nation and made sure he maintained his ties here in preparation for his wife’s inevitable future presidential run.

    Those relationships paid off handsomely in January, when Hillary Clinton, who had spent more than a year fawning over New Hampshire’s great electoral traditions, won here with the strong backing of the Democratic Party establishment.

    Now, having used New Hampshire as the launching pad for both of their presidential bids, the Clintons have no more use for us. And so it was that on Monday, Bill Clinton threw New Hampshire and our Democratic Secretary of State Bill Gardner under the proverbial bus.

    To justify his claim that Florida and Michigan delegates should be seated at the Democratic National Convention, the former President said, “We let New Hampshire go out of turn. They had a Democratic secretary of state. The Florida voters are totally innocent. They asked to vote on time.”

    To the Clintons, rewriting history is as simple as repeating their own talking points until they become accepted as facts. But the truth is that the Clintons happily accepted the bumped-up New Hampshire primary at the time because they perceived it gave Hillary an advantage. Hillary Clinton even signed a pledge to not campaign or participate in the Michigan or Florida primaries. That pledge was meant to punish those two states for moving up their primary dates, and she knew it.

    But it was not sincere. It was one point of the famous Clinton triangulation. And before you knew it, Sen. Clinton was participating in both the Michigan and Florida primaries, which, of course, she won by violating her pledge.

    Now, needing those delegates, she and her husband innocently claim that it was the sneaky New Hampshire Secretary of State Bill Gardner who broke the DNC rules, victimizing poor, helpless Florida and Michigan. And the DNC let him get away with it only because he is a Democrat.

    Never mind the historical record, which shows that Florida and Michigan moved up their primaries first, prompting New Hampshire to respond. If they stand in the way of the Clintons’ march through history, the facts be damned.

    And, if they stand in the way of the Clintons’ march through history, their friends be damned, too.”

    http://www.theunionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Fair-weather+friends%3a+The+Clintons+cut+NH+loose&articleId=a061c399-bee3-4a1f-8c4f-86d8d7ae6a15

  • The logical extension of this meme: She exaggerates the viability of her candidacy.

    Now do you see where this meme is going?

  • Picture it. A U.S. Senator, her only child at her side, calmly listening to an eight-year-old reciting an original poem, as bullets whiz overhead. Perhaps it’s a bit harsh to refer to a sitting U.S. Senator as Baroness von Munchausen, but come on now…

  • I remember when Clinton talked about Chelsea jogging around the WTC on 9/11 and somehow it didn’t sound right. It turned out that Chelsea was nowhere near the WTC on 9/11. Exaggerating the danger that your family was in on 9/11 to make political hay is despicable.

    The other day, Bill Clinton likened campaigning to football in that you don’t play if you don’t want to get roughed up. I’m glad this stuff is coming out now rather than later in the general election. Let’s see how she handles it. Shrugging off her Bosnia bullshit by saying she misspoke is not going to be enough.

  • It’s “deja vu all over again”….
    I remember feeling this way (embarrassed for and feeling sorry for) about Ronald Reagan (who I despised) as the revelations of the Iran – Contra scandals came out. I have this same feeling for Hillary (who I have recently come to despise).
    Of course Reagan was the “great communicator” and was given a pass by the press and the American people – but Hillary does not have that free pass available to her.
    I sure hope she can find a way to gracefully exit the scene. How about going about the next three weeks in a different manner – like attacking John McCain’s positions and credibility instead of Obama’s. And then bow out “for the good of the party and the country.”

  • A couple weeks ago, I told my wife Sinbad would be the undoing of Hillary. I never suspected I’d actually be right. Should her embellishments matter? Yes. Gore was unfairly tarred in 2000. Hillary did this to herself by repeating the lies and even expanding on them, all while trying to dismiss her opponent as nothing but words. My guess is she understands know that words matter.

  • Saying you misspoke when you accurately read prepared remarks on a teleprompter, several times, is simply absurd.

  • Sen. Clinton was participating in both the Michigan and Florida primaries, which, of course, she won by violating her pledge.
    The Union Leader

    I’m glad this was finally brought up. When I heard Clinton on NPR a week or so ago talking about how FL and MI should count, I yelled — literally — at my radio that she broke her promise to not campaign there, and that the other candidates followed the party rules, but she followed her own (not those exact words, as it was a bit shorter and much more profane).

    IMHO, her “embellishments” about her so-called experience pale in comparison to her promising not to campaign in MI and FL, only to turn around do just that. It shows that she could care less about the Democratic Party or doing what she promised — all she cares about is Hillary, and if that means going back on a pledge, so be it.

  • “I’m just not sure what the defense is going to be. “

    I don’t think there is one — at least, not a valid one that can’t be shot down with equal ease.

  • Hillary’s new narrative: “McCain bring a lifetime of experience, I bring a lifetime of lies and deceptions”

  • At least they’re not claiming she invented the internets.

    She’s definitely not a “serial exaggerator.”

    The proper term in her case is “serial liar,” and the more the superdelegates see her lies, the less “electable” she is.

    She and Bill have told so many lies to so many people for so many years, they have no idea where the truth is. David Geffen had them pegged about how they “lie with such ease.”

    I still think it’s going to take cedar stakes through them and leaving the bodies to incinerate in the sunlight to get rid of the Clintons.

  • No, Lance (@2)—it is not “Gore all over again.” Gore didn’t make stuff up. Clinton did—and got caught red-handed.

    Slappy (@3)—pretending to be a silly person (“mary”) is not healthy.

    Doubtful (@6)—this is going to be more than “nail, meet coffin.” I’m thinking more along the lines of “coffin, meet crematorium.” She’s puffed up her rep with so much volatile gas that it’s going to go off like the Hindenburg. If this continues to build, it’ll do much more than merely kill her chances at the WH—it’ll tear her entire political career to tattered ribbons.

    I can see her loyal groupies, as the Hillaryburg falls to the ground in flames: “Oh, the humanity!”

  • Hillary didn’t see it coming because initially the Clintons intimidated ALL of her democratic opponents into going along with it. Aside from Obama’s little comment last year about her not being the treasury secretary, none of her democratic competitors said ANYTHING about her trumped up experience in 2007. Not Dodd, Biden, Richardson – nobody. They and the media let her get away with it and the Clintons grew so arrogant and complacent that they thought they would skate by on this all the way to the nomination.

    It seems that it’s actually all for the best that it come out now – now that it’s down to just her and Obama. With the video proof, her lies have become a candidacy-killer. She’s done.

    It’s one thing for the republicans to try to skewer Obama with guilt-by-association on the Wright issue (which he can and will fight – McCain has sought out the endorsement of religious nutcases), but it’s quite another for them to skewer Hillary with outrageous lies that came from her own mouth. Democrats can’t put a person who lied about being under sniper fire up against a POW, at a time when the Iraq war is a central issue. She’s done.

  • I’m referring, of course, to the notion that Hillary Clinton is a serial exaggerator.

    She isn’t a serial exaggerator. She’s a compulsive liar. And I’m not exaggerating. Conservatives have been saying it and proving it for 15 years. Where the hell have you all been?

  • I’d not sure what the point of this post is.

    “I’m just not sure what the defense is going to be”

    What defense and why should she be defended? She is guilty as charged–with the consideration that “exaggerator” is just an euphemism here for liar. This is not just a media meme like in the case of Gore. Clinton has rightly been exposed as a serial liar.

    The consideration here isn’t how she should be defended but what the response should be to a candidate who is ethically unfit to be president as Hillary Clinton is.

    The obvious response at this time is to promote another candidate. Obama may be inexperienced (although no less so than Clinton in terms of meaningful experience) and may not be perfect but he is a viable candidate who also happens to be leading in the race. At this point backing Obama has become the only sensible choice.

    Should Clinton win the nomination I cannot see ignoring principle and trying to find a defense for her. If the Democrats are so foolish and unethical as to nominate someone like Clinton then the response should be to reduce the chances they would make this mistake again by refusing to vote for her.

  • Speaking of things you’ll soon be hearing more about….

    Bulletins from Chicago’s Trinity United Church of Christ in 2007 include comments — reprinted from other sources — that maintain South Africa and Israel worked on “an ethnic bomb that kills blacks and Arabs.” They also quote a historian who said that “what the Zionist Jews did to the Palestinians is worse than what the Nazis did to the Jews.”

    The articles appeared in a church bulletin section called the “Pastor’s Page,” and include one that originally ran in The Los Angeles Times. That article was written by a senior official with Hamas, which the U.S. government considers a terrorist organization.

    Obama denounced the articles this week, telling the Jerusalem Post that the church was “outrageously wrong” in reprinting the pieces…

    …One of the church bulletins that came to the fore Thursday, from July 22, 2007, includes an article by Mousa Abu Marzook, deputy of the political bureau of Hamas. “Why should anyone concede Israel’s ‘right’ to exist?” he wrote.

    These “bulletins” were up on his church’s website, you know, the one he went to for 20 years, several months after he had announced he was running for president, and apparently after Reverand Wright admitted that Obama may need to distance himself from him.

    Personally, I think Clinton’s exaggerations pale in comparison.

  • I tend to agree that this is pretty bad for her, but she made her bed by telling fish stories about her experience. After all, that Bill Clinton was a popular president is the only thing that she had going for her, and the experience argument was her shorthand for making that case. I’m not really thrilled about her being humiliated by this, but I don’t really feel too bad considering this in the context of her campaign. It’s karma, I suppose.

    I think that Sinbad can now claim to have killed a presidential candidacy, even if it was more like smothering a terminally ill patient with a pillow than slaughtering Goliath.

  • Greg,

    “Personally, I think Clinton’s exaggerations pale in comparison.”

    You are quoting things which were not said by Obama. There is no comparison between this and all the lies actually told by Clinton.

    The repeated attempts not only of her supporters but Clinton herself to raise such bogus attacks on Obama only leads to a further deterioration of her credibility.

  • Re: Post 43

    Has anyone taken time to read the column titled “A Fresh View Of The Palestinian Struggle” as printed in the Trinity church bulletin? A few points are in order.

    1. The piece, written by a Hamas official, was taken verbatim from the Los Angeles Times, which is as middle-of-the-road a source as one can ever find. Hamas, FWIW, won the majority of seats in the Palestinian elections held earlier this year, so it isn’t as if they are a fringe group in Palestine itself..

    2. While the piece did appear on the “Pastor’s Page” of the church bulletin, there was no endorsement or other commentary offered. Which leads me to…

    3. Perhaps Rev. Wright simply wanted to present a view of the Palestinian conflict to his flock that differed from the one usually presented in the U.S. media. Why? Perhaps because…

    4. The Palestinian people have legitimate grievances, as even a cursory glance at the evening news on most days will confirm. They are nothing if not oppressed, and any church worth its salt must stand with the oppressed.

    None of this is intended to excuse terrorism or to encourage the U.S. to withdraw its support for Israel, but the U.S. has rarely been an impartial participant in Middle Eastern affairs, and this has led to understandable resentment on the part of Muslims everywhere. We may dislike the messenger, but the message itself contains more truth than most Americans will admit.

    Next…

  • SteveIL said:

    I’m referring, of course, to the notion that Hillary Clinton is a serial exaggerator.

    She isn’t a serial exaggerator. She’s a compulsive liar. And I’m not exaggerating. Conservatives have been saying it and proving it for 15 years. Where the hell have you all been?

    Because you and your ilk are much bigger liars than Hillary.

  • Dale (#49), Because you and your ilk are much bigger liars than Hillary. Was that supposed to be some kind of comeback?

  • My boss, who leans well to the right but is well capable of rational thought, finds it rather amusing that the left is just now finding out about the Clintons. He figures that Democrats now don’t have a reason to ignore the behavior, i.e. ignore it as an act of defense against the Republicans. And i think he’s got a very solid point.

    The broader point is that these two have pretty much led the Democratic Party since 1993. Now ask yourself…how well have things gone for the Democratic Party since 1993?

    More of the Same @28 reprinted an article that pretty well nails it; realistically, the same could be said for the Democratic Party as a whole.

    I’m not sure that my boss would vote for Obama, but he says slight things that suggest respect…and i know that he’s pulling for Obama to put the Clinton machine out of its misery. (note: he willingly admits that Bill is a very good politician…he’s not afflicted with CDS)

  • Ron, Obama chose to remain a member of this church, and chose not to repudiate Reverand Wright, but says he would have left the church if he had not apologized (did he actually apologize? If so, to whom?), and he also said he would have left the church prior if he had heard controversial statements.. So, in other words, he embellished (and possibly contradicted himself), which makes my arguement valid.

    KTinOhio, seriously, you want to debate whether Hamas is or isn’t a terrorist organization?

    Click here for some enlightening information about your precious Hamas!!!

  • Of all the mud slinging and image building that takes place in campaigns, only a precious few things actually stick and either help or hurt the candidates. The serial exaggerator tag will stick like glue to Hillary. I say this not out of spite but out of history.

    Bill’s fall from grace was not so much out of his sexual escapades, but his lying about it. Till the end of his presidency, his honesty was up for questioning due to his responses on the Monica question. The name Clinton comes with the burden of questionable veracity.

    But Hill was not Bill and Bill’s statesmanship during the Bush years had reformed his image and added to his luster. Now with this series of “misstatements” comes the resurrection of the Clinton legacy of deception when its politically beneficial. Hillary needs to get out of the race. She hasn’t lost all her luster nor all of her supporters but it looks like she will as “serial embellisher” becomes conventional wisdom.

  • You’re right, Greg. The contents of articles which were written by third party sources and reprinted years ago in the bulletins of a church that Obama attended are much more germane to this discussion than the actual words that came out of Hillary Clinton’s mouth in the past couple of months. I’m sure it’s just a matter of time before people come around to your way of “thinking.”

  • Lex says: “The broader point is that these two have pretty much led the Democratic Party since 1993. Now ask yourself…how well have things gone for the Democratic Party since 1993?”

    A clarification to help prove his point – we wrestled partial control of the Party from the Clintons in 1994 when we installed Howard Dean as Chair of the DNC instead of one of the Clinton’s DLC hacks. His 50-state strategy insured that we took control of both Congressional houses in 1996. The hacks tried to take the glory for that – but they lied. We all know that the DLC is the Publican wing of the Democratic Party, and that on their best, most moral/ethical days they are serial exaggerators.

  • There is a meme of guilt-by-association. Obama has been attacked over Wright, but also for saying he would meet with leaders of Iran and Cuba without preconditions. I can’t figure out why this argument resonates with people.

    Far worse is what Bush did: meet foreign leaders and defend them. Putin had a good heart. Why would anyone do this? Who is helped? Heck, Bush defends foreign leaders more than he supports Democrats. Something is wrong with this.

  • what she’s experienced about is surviving right-wing attacks

    I see this a lot, and I don’t get it. Although Sen. Clinton is still standing, and so has, I guess, “survived” the right-wing attacks… what has she actually done to survive them? How is this any different than a stubborn boxer who takes tremendous punishment round after round but refuses to fall down?

    Don’t get me wrong — how someone falls down (or doesn’t) is important when it’s all that remains. But you need something more. The pugilist sitting on the ropes and taking punishment isn’t going to win the fight unless he strikes back, effectively. Otherwise, while denying the opponent a flashy knock-out, he’s likely to lose on points. I’d argue something similar has happened to the Democratic Party under the Clintons’ leadership. Sure, we’re still here… but we can’t get anything done.

    Admittedly, I wasn’t the junkie in the 1990s that I am now. What active moves am I missing that indicate Sen. Clinton knows how to effectively challenge the “vast right-wing conspiracy”, rather than just survive it?

  • Stephen1947, @ 55,

    Aren’t you off by 10 years vis Dean? I could *wish* the 50-state strategy started in 1994, but it was Newt’s “Contract with America” that ruled the day then… 🙁

  • This blog is no better than the mainstream media. I see no refutation or clarification of the falsehoods being spread about Clinton here. Just more piling on. You should be ashamed. Winning by any means necessary is a conservative approach. I thought progressives were better than that. You keep saying Obama is better than that, but I see no evidence of it.

  • Re; Post 52

    “KTinOhio, seriously, you want to debate whether Hamas is or isn’t a terrorist organization?”

    The Israeli Minisrty of Foreign Affairs? Now, there’s an unbiased source. What’s next, a biography of Vladimir Putin published in Pravda?

    I never said that Hamas was not a terrorist organization, My purpose was not to attack or defend Hamas, and it makes no difference to me whether you consider it a terrorist organization or not. Hamas won the majority of seats in the Palestinian elections, so it is the duly elected representative of the majority of the Palestinian people. That was my point in post 48, item 1.

    Will you concede that (in the eyes of the Palestinian people, at least) the Israeli military is also a terrorist organization?

  • I have to say, I feel some sympathy for Hillary supporters right now. It is very difficult to admit you were wrong. It can be very hard to change your mind. I felt that way a few months ago: I supported Edwards but the more I heard about Obama, the more I wanted to vote for him. It was ridiculously difficult to admit to myself that if it came to it, I might vote for Obama over Edwards. Ultimately, that decision was removed when Edwards dropped out. While I was a bit sad, I was also relieved and excited.

    Unfortunately, the more truth that comes out about Hillary, the more her supporters seem to be pulling the wool over their own eyes. It’s amazing to watch them practice the art of self-deception. How anyone can listen to Hillary’s harrowing tale of dodging bullets in Bosnia and then watch the actual news footage of the little girl offering her peaceful welcome, and somehow still believe that Hillary isn’t lying her pantsuited behind aflame….well, folks, don’t believe your lying eyes. Fortunately, some of the “Clinton supporters” who post here are obvious right wing shills. I suspect that “Mary” is a Goldwater girl just like Hill.

  • Gore used a figure of speech to describe his work on internet law, and he was called a liar in the msm throughout the campaign. Now we have a bunch of partisans calling Hillary a liar. It’s deja vu all over again. The msm despise Gore and Clinton because they have the brains and skill to actually create change, unlike Obama who recites vague fanatsies that have a snowball’s chance in hell. Meanwhile his supporters dutifully ignore the many lies he’s told.
    It’s sad that so many people can’t see through the shallow smears of the msm. There’s a reason they call it the boob tube.
    http://a-civilife.blogspot.com

  • Geez, Will, are you saying that HRC didn’t — how can I put this — embellish her stories a bit?

  • Clinton’s “embellishments” are a close relative to all those missing WH emails—all it took was a little “magic of technology” to bring the truth to the surface.

  • “Gore used a figure of speech to describe his work on internet law, and he was called a liar in the msm throughout the campaign. Now we have a bunch of partisans calling Hillary a liar. It’s deja vu all over again.”

    Will, come on, Hillary’s fabrication of her Bosnia ordeal wasn’t just a “figure of speech”, nor was it a slip of the tongue that happened just once. She re-told that story several times and it got more elaborate each time. She deliberately lied about a lot of things. If Obama had done this, her campaign would be raking him over the coals FOREVER.

  • 59. Mary said: This blog is no better than the mainstream media. I see no refutation or clarification of the falsehoods being spread about Clinton here.

    You’re here, please make an effort to refute or clarify the “falsehoods” being spread about Hillary here. I’m interested in seeing the attempt, I personally can think of nothing that could possibly be said in her defense. She seems to have lied repeatedly about her resume, which I don’t understand how anyone could defend. But of course if anyone can give it a shot it’s you. Have at it Mary.

  • During her trip to Bosnia, Hillary was warned about possible sniper fire due to reports of recent attacks on helicopters, you know, right before they flew her into a combat zone. When someone is told as the first lady that she is a high profile target for possible sniper fire, shouldn’t she feel like she was in danger and tend to feel that way despite the peaceful demeanor of people like Sinbad and Cheryl Crow, or a grade school kid who won some contest and had the honor of reading her a peom?

    She had the secret service who are paid to guard her life with their own telling her of this possible threat to her life, so they cut short the poetry reading and got her off the tarmac. I for one tend to beleive this would give her a much different perspective than others.

    Despite the danger, she went there to boost the morale of our troops and to represent the good will of the American people. Now, everybody has a point of view, and obviously Sinbad and the rest had their own, but I doubt his was equivilent to hers.

    She plastered a smile on her face for the cameras, but in her heart there was surely the fear of danger. She was in an area where snipers had been shooting at helicopters only days earlier, and being told she was a possible target.

    Now, ask yourself how you would remember that moment.

  • Will you concede that (in the eyes of the Palestinian people, at least) the Israeli military is also a terrorist organization? – KTinOhio #60

    KTinOhio, I will concede nothing. You are Anti-American and that you probably want the terrorists to win, you truly make me sick.

    Hamas was elected by warlord controlled people, who dare not speak out against them. For God’s sake, look at the destruction they have done, and the murderous terrorist attacks for which they took credit! They want to wipe Isreal off the map, and you would gladly go along saying they had every right to do so, wouldn’t you?

    Your beliefs are not shared by many Americans, and frankly, people like you make me ashamed to be a democrat at times, now kindly go away.

  • FWIW.. the LATimes has a straw poll up asking whether or not hillary should pack it in .. with about 5500 votes cast as i viewed it .. the consensus was running 2 to 1 against her contnuing ..

    and Mary .. i’m an independent ..and i haven’t observed any hard bias against clinton here .. she keeps putting her foot in her mouth .. imo .. but this last round of efforts .. with richard sciafe and even fox news added to her list of stops…. is a bit bizarre ..imo .. especially considering the role sciafe and his millions played in the “arkansas project” .. no way would i appear anywhere near the man if he’d done to me what he’s done to the clintons in the past ..

    how do you explain clinton’s repeated claims which keep coming up short of the facts when they’re examined ?? i’d be happy to hear your explanation..

  • Greg,

    Seriously, you’d be better off dropping the Bosnia story and hoping that it goes away. Fear of possible sniper fire is a lot different than actual sniper fire. And she said nothing about about fearing it, she talked about running across the tarmac to avoid it. She’s made that claim multiple times…and with a straight face.

    I would remember that moment as being tense; i wouldn’t inflate the story to the point of unbelievability and then repeat it multiple times while running for President.

    It may be time to switch your screen name to Joe McCarthy. What’s anti-American is not tolerating dissent. The jingoism is truly un-American. And the conflating someone’s disagreement with you into them hoping that the “terrorists” win is about as un-American as it gets. I’m having a hard time figuring out if you’re a Bush supporter or a Clinton supporter at this point, because you’re really starting to sound like the former. (Then again, with the closeness between the two families maybe there isn’t really much of a difference…)

    People like you make me proud and glad that i’m not a Democrat, though people like you do make me ashamed to be American…and even human…at times.

    Peop

  • Hillary’s blog trolls are out trying to control the message again.

    Greg (#68) – Hillary LIED several times. She was not confused. She does it all the time.

    Lies about her experience.

    Lies about passing the FMLA, which was created by Dodd and others BEFORE Bill was elected but vetoed by Bush I. Dodd put the bill up again just days after Bill Clinton was elected and he signed it. Hillary had NOTHING to do with passing the FMLA.

    Lies about Obama. Lies, lies, lies.

    It’s what Hillary does.

  • Greg said (#68):
    KTinOhio, I will concede nothing. You are Anti-American and that you probably want the terrorists to win, you truly make me sick.

    Your beliefs are not shared by many Americans, and frankly, people like you make me ashamed to be a democrat at times, now kindly go away.

    Are you sure you are a Dem? You sound just like my ultra-conservative tax atty bud and his even more conservative (as in “john birch”) friends and relatives.

    I’ve been wondering if they’re early-stage Alzheimers or just drunk when they write e-mails.

    May I suggest that you talk to your doc about adjusting your meds? What you are saying is cognitively impaired. er, that’s “does not make sense.”

    Whether most Americans share his’r’her beliefs is irrelevant, KTinOhio is being reasonable.

    You are not.

  • Yeah Greg, good luck getting all that out as a defense before people tune you out. Someone sane (i.e. not Greg or Mary), has the “warned about possible sniper fire” part of her story even been confirmed by anyone else? Considering how much of Hillary’s story has been proven wrong so far, I’m not inclined to take her word for that part of it either without objective corroboration.

  • Hillary officially jumped the shark this week when she did the following:

    1) Hillary met with Richard Mellon Scaife. Scaife is THE MAN behind the “Vast Right Wing Conspiracy” who spent millions and millions on organizations and publications– such as the American Spectator— in the 90s whose entire purpose was to destroy the Clintons. If you don’t think you know him or his work, you know it if you’re at all familiar with the Clintons-killed-Vincent-Foster allegations. Yeah, he’s that guy.

    2) Soon after her sit down with Scaife Hillary’s campaign spread around anti-Obama articles published by right-wing outlets such as the American Spectator and WorldNetDaily. Yes, the very people who spread evil, ugly lies about the Clintons she is now using them to spread crap about Obama.

    Hillary has officially forfeited her right to complain about the “Vast Right Wing Conspiracy” ever again if she is treating their “news” articles as a credible source.

    It really boggles the mind.

  • If there is any truth to the sniper threat then Hillary is still screwed because it calls into question her judgement– who would get off a plane with their teenage daughter if the thought that was a possibility?!?!? If it were truly that dangerous she could have simply said “sorry, we’re not landing” or “Chelsea stays on the plane.”

    It’s pretty plain that Hillary was caught making stuff up– she has admitted that she “misspoke” and remembers it differently from what actually happened. Give up defending this story.

  • I’ve posted refutations of the No. Ireland stuff several times here but it keeps coming back. It is like trying to hold back the ocean. The Obama supporters are determined to spread the negative memes about Clinton and there are so many of them here that it is a waste of time to post anything refuting this stuff. As I stated previously, George Mitchell, Gerry Adams, and the British negotiator (whose name I read but do not recall) all made independent statements to the press supporting Clinton’s role in the No. Ireland negotiations. The same is true for her role in Bosnia where Holbroke made a statement about the importance of her contribution above and beyond courtesy visits a first lady might make. As I stated, she did land at the border to meet with refugees and it may be that she landed under fire then, or it may be that her sense of being in danger led to a distorted memory of the incident. I do not believe she deliberately lied about easily checked facts — why would an intelligent person and a savvy campaigner do that?

    I do believe that Obama’s exaggeration of his law school title is akin to the kinds of things Clinton is accused of doing, but people excuse it for him, while calling her a liar. The University of Chicago wouldn’t want to embarrass him, but they don’t set and thus cannot change academic tradition. But, this is just like the plagiarism issue. The U of C’s statement that it was OK for him to misrepresent his status there doesn’t make it OK, especially to academics (who understandably care most about such things). Obama gets a bye with respect to this kind of stuff because you are all Obama supporters. Could this be any clearer?

    This website talks about the serial exaggerator meme as if it were true and not just the latest attack on Clinton. When a blog loses its objectivity to the point that it merely repeats the propaganda of a particular candidate, it is useless as a source of information. That saddens me, since this used to be one of the more interesting blogs.

  • Mary,

    Nobody is saying that Clinton had no part in N. Ireland peace negotiations. But she said, “I brought peace to N. Ireland.” She didn’t say that she played a role; she didn’t talk about how long so many people had worked (some of them spending more time on Northern Ireland than her total of 35 years of cumulative experience) and how she was honored to be a part of their effort; she doesn’t talk about people laying down their arms…

    She says that she brought peace to N. Ireland…she makes it sound like she did it singlehandedly.

    I do not believe she deliberately lied about easily checked facts — why would an intelligent person and a savvy campaigner do that?

    That’s a good question, but she did. There’s also some historical research that suggests her husband lied about his affair with Monica Lewinsky under her consultation…and the lie turned out to be a bigger problem than the blowjob.

    This didn’t used to one of the more interesting blogs…it still is. But when people lose their objectivity to the point that they merely repeat the propaganda of a particular candidate, they are useless as a source of information or opinion.

  • Mary, Mary, quite contrary, Hillatroll at large, have you seen Swan around? Another good thing about Billary’s downward spiral is that it will be less likely that we will have to suffer through a sequel in 2012, Evil Hillary 2. The real question now is what will it take to penetrate the Clinton ego and her sense of entitlement and get her to realize she has zero chance of being nominated without unethical shenanigans. Of course, unethical shenanigans are nothing new for the Clintons, but if Obama is upended for Hillary as the Dem nominee, enough resentful voters will stay home on election day that McCaniac would win.

    Time to check your ego at the door, Billary and seek some mental health treatment if you actually believe the lies you have been spouting as you triangulated your way to the White House.

  • I see it as a successful political tactic played too far. Before the primaries started, I always thought experience was one of her weaker issues, with a big chunk of her political career having come as first lady. She subsequently attacked it in a semi-Rovian sort of way, to the extent that the majority of the media was treating her “experience as a strength” theme as a given. She should have left it at that, without trying to support it with bogus details.

  • Obama should drop out.

    We have the right to question our candidates regarding their associations and religious affiliations in relation to how these associations and philosophies might affect their ability to govern.

    Obama has show a serious defect in his lack of commitment to the ideals for which the United States stands, along with dishonesty in the manner in which it was handled.

    First he wasn’t there… then he was there but he didn’t hear it… then he heard it but didn’t apply attention… and then …he paid attention but didn’t agree with it,…then he was dedicated to the church and …then…he would have left if he knew.

    He wants change but does not communicate what that change is.

    This is not change but the same old same old.

    “Listen to your heart. Never stop listening.”
    Henry Quick Bear, LAKOTA

    • Comments are closed.