The quintessential unforced error

Following up on an item from a week or so ago, Hillary Clinton has actively touted a 1996 trip to Bosnia as evidence of her foreign policy background. Sinbad, a comedian who traveled with the then-First Lady for this trip, raised questions about the accuracy of Clinton’s version of events, but the candidate and the campaign insisted, before and after, that the incident is evidence of Clinton’s crisis-management background.

Indeed, just a few days ago, Clinton said, “I certainly do remember that trip to Bosnia, and as Togo said, there was a saying around the White House that if a place was too small, too poor, or too dangerous, the president couldn’t go, so send the First Lady. That’s where we went. I remember landing under sniper fire. There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base.”

The WaPo’s Michael Dobbs gave the story some close scrutiny and found “numerous problems with Clinton’s version of events.”

Had Hillary Clinton’s plane come “under sniper fire” in March 1996, we would certainly have heard about it long before now. Numerous reporters, including the Washington Post’s John Pomfret, covered her trip. A review of nearly 100 news accounts of her visit shows that not a single newspaper or television station reported any security threat to the First Lady. “As a former AP wire service hack, I can safely say that it would have been in my lead had anything like that happened,” said Pomfret.

According to Pomfret, the Tuzla airport was “one of the safest places in Bosnia” in March 1996, and “firmly under the control” of the 1st Armored Division.

Far from running to an airport building with their heads down, Clinton and her party were greeted on the tarmac by smiling U.S. and Bosnian officials. An eight-year-old Moslem girl, Emina Bicakcic, read a poem in English. An Associated Press photograph of the greeting ceremony, above, shows a smiling Clinton bending down to receive a kiss.

“There is peace now,” Emina told Clinton, according to Pomfret’s report in the Washington Post the following day, “because Mr. Clinton signed it. All this peace. I love it.”

The First Lady’s schedule, released on Wednesday and available here, confirms that she arrived in Tuzla at 8.45 a.m. and was greeted by various dignitaries, including Emina Bicakcic, (whose name has mysteriously been redacted from the document.)

Worse, there’s also a video that contradicts Clinton’s anecdote.

Now, the Bosnia trip was 12 years ago, and I suppose someone’s memory can play tricks on him or her once in a while. In my experience, watching Clinton as a senator and a candidate, it’s just not her style to make up tall tales to impress people.

But this case seems to get back to the problematic dynamic we’ve been talking about for a few weeks now — the Clinton pitch is predicated on all the wrong assumptions.

When it comes to presidential candidates and foreign policy expertise, there are basically two categories: less experienced candidates who emphasize judgment, vision, and temperament (such as Obama this year, and Bill Clinton in ‘92), and more experienced candidates who emphasize expertise, knowledge, and background (such as Joe Biden).

In some ways, I think Obama’s early efforts to define himself pushed Clinton in this direction. Recognizing from the outset that his resume on the national stage is thin, he immediately began touting his strengths — temperament, maturity and judgment. Clinton, reluctant to say “Me too!” felt compelled to embrace the “expertise” label.

But in order to back that up, she had to start telling stories such as the Bosnia anecdote, which has not fared well.

As hilzoy explained:

Honestly: there was no need for Clinton to do any of this. She did play a serious policy role in her husband’s administration (even if she didn’t help pass the Family and Medical Leave Act, as she claims.) The only reason for her to inflate a trip with Sinbad and Sheryl Crow into a serious diplomatic mission, and a trip to Northern Ireland involving “a visit to a women’s drop-in centre and two business parks” into helping bring peace to Northern Ireland, is that by pretending to have been more involved in foreign policy than she really was, she can pretend that while Barack Obama isn’t ready to be commander in chief, she is.

It’s such an easily avoided mistake, it’s disappointing that it’s happened at all.

According to the latest Gallup poll, Hillary Clinton has a veracity problem.

No kidding!

  • 1) She’s just trying to be Reaganesque by inventing stories.
    2) But she was under fire at the time, figuratively and from the Republicans.
    3) How does having been shot at improve or demonstrate your readiness to be commander in chief, anyway?

  • Well I guess this strikes Sheryl Crow from Hillary’s potential VP short list.

    And I guess Obama no longer needs go on a “diplomatic” mission with Sinbad and Sheryl Crow the show he’s passed the CinC threshhold.

  • Was it Penn’s idea for Hillary to run as the grizzled eminence? To a degree, it was inevitable that she’d have to point back to her First Ladying to make the case for herself, and to fluff up aspects of it to avoid saying that her real role was as pillow-talk confidant to Bill. Still, I think this just points to the basic foolishness of running a former first spouse for president.

    With all the power couples now running DC, I think this isn’t the last time we’ll face these kinds of questions. Personally I’d favor a constitutional rule barring first-order family members of former President’s from presidential elegibility. No spouses, parents or children of former presidents. Enough with banana-republic family dynasties.

  • Here’s my take:

    Clinton really does represent the politics of the past. She still seems to think that its 1980 in America. Probably some time during Bill’s presidency, she made a decision to run for president eventually. In her worldview, she thought that America would and could elect only one kind of woman president. That woman would essentially have to be man, she would have to be seen as tough, uncompromising, not afraid to use force, etc…

    Essentially, she would have to try and present herself as the opposite of every negative stereotype of woman. I think she also believed, quite rightly, that she would be held to a higher standard than other men.

    If you look at her post-WH life, then everything she does makes sense. It explains her decision to run for the Senate. It explains the Iraq and Iran vote. It explains her refusal to acknowledge her mistake with regard to Iraq. And it explains her decision not to run in 2004.

    Unfortunately for her, the world has changed. Woman no longer have to emulate men to succeed. She probably still doesn’t see this, and I think in her heart of hearts, she still believes she’s the better candidate and that Obama will lose because he is black.

    Just my opinion.

  • Ooops! I forget to post my original point.

    She wasn’t forced into this position by Obama. She doesn’t think a woman can be the judgement candidate. In her mind, a woman can only win as the more experienced candidate.

    Because of what happened to McCain in 2000 and him not running in 2004, she really did think she would be the most experienced one in the race. Obama was a total surprise to her.

  • As I have said before, if Bosnia was going to be that dangerous, why on earth did she drag Chelsea along too?

    “Embellish” To heighten narrative with ficticious additions. Thatb sounds about right. It’s on the same page as elude, emasculate, embarrass, embezzle and embitter for those that like words.

  • Sir Edmund Hillary Clinton:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Rodham_Clinton

    In 1995, Hillary Clinton said her mother had named her after Sir Edmund Hillary, co-first-climber of Mount Everest, and that was the reason for the unusual “two L’s” spelling. However, the Everest climb did not take place until 1953, more than five years after Clinton was born.

    The great authoress:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It_Takes_a_Village

    Clinton has been criticized for not giving credit to a ghostwriter in connection with It Takes a Village. The majority of the book was reportedly written by ghostwriter Barbara Feinman.[8] When the book was first announced in April 1995, The New York Times reported publisher Simon & Schuster as saying “The book will actually be written by Barbara Feinman, a journalism professor at Georgetown University in Washington. Ms. Feinman will conduct a series of interviews with Mrs. Clinton, who will help edit the resulting text.”[9]
    Feinman spent seven months on the project and was paid $120,000 for her work.[10] Feinman, however, was not mentioned anywhere in the book.

    She has a long history of fabrications: Her NAFTA BS being the most recent.
    Her baseline character is very similar to Dubya’s. They see themselves as self-made self-actualizers…

    Sad and ugly. The American people deserve better. They really do.

  • Now regardless of the press calling Sen Clinton out for her exaggerations, the story just doesn’t make any sense.

    First, what Danp said.

    Second, the chances of the Secret Service allowing the first lady and child to even land on a runway that wasn’t completely secure are somewhere between slim and none…tending towards the latter. They would have arrived at least hours (if not days) before hand to assess the situation, and they would have called the landing off right up to the last minute.

    Third, and this is the important one, something tells me that SOP for a situation like sniper fire on the first lady does not include the first lady doing the zig-zag, evasive run in expensive heels across an open tarmac. If they had to move her, they almost certainly would have carried her. More likely, they’d knock her down and phalanx around her until a vehicle could arrive.

    As an aside, if she only went to the unimportant places then what was she doing in N. Ireland and Bosnia? Bosnia was a huge issue.

  • …and Hillary has been shot at so many times, she just gets the occasions mixed up. Uh huh.

  • So? So she “embroidered” the story a bit. That’s what ladies do — “sew a fine seam”. First ladies included.

  • She needs to be seriously “called out” on these fabrications, especially the Bosnia situation. Question: “If what you say is true about your visit to Bosnia (the snipers, etc.), what kind of judgement does it show to take your teenage daughter into such a dangerous situation?”

  • Touting a traveling gig with Sinbad and Sheryl Crow as critical international experience is completely absurd. C’mon, she was with Sinbad! Wouldn’t that have become a pretty major news story– First lady and daughter get shots fired near them in Bosnia?

    Sorry, Hil, you better back away from this version of events before you end up looking ridiculous.

  • From a political point of view this is very bad news for the Clinton camp. There’s video directly catching her in a falsehood, and the MSM is eager to run with the story. (I’ll just mention in passing that if it had been St. McCain caught in a lie the video would never see the light of day.) Plus it is starting to penetrate the coverage that Clinton’s nomination chances are nearly nonexistent.

    The good news is this makes a contested convention pretty unlikely.

  • I bet Hillary’s story plays really well with active duty military and vets. You know, the ones that really get shot at. Way to go.

  • Gee, where are mary and greg and comeback bill? Hellooooo…. My, my, so quiet today!

  • Now, the Bosnia trip was 12 years ago, and I suppose someone’s memory can play tricks on him or her once in a while.

    If you’ve ever actually been under fire, you don’t forget about it.

  • It all depends what the meaning of “sniper fire” and “welcoming ceremony” is.

    And, now listen to this, I never had sex with that … that airplane.

  • Eric in Maine (#18),

    I was in a car going across the Bay Bridge toward San Francisco on a Sunday night in 1965. From the time we (two other guys and I) left the toll booth until we swerved across six lanes of traffic to just make the VanNess offramp (the other two cars were in front of us, trying all the way across the bridge to box us in), we were being shot at by some people in one of the cars who, fortunately, were either too drunk or too high to do more than put a few bullets through the corner of the front window and the door (both on my side). After 43 years I can still vividly describe every minute of that incident and police interview afterwards.

    Hillary’s lying.

  • IOKIYAR is not OKIYA a Democrat. She should know better than to just toss out any old crap and expect it to be ignored. She may have some R tendencies but she’s not in the fold therefore she will be called on her B.S.

    A real R can mix up any damn thing or come up with any fantasy scenario and skate away with a smile and a smattering of applause. But D’s don’t get that “luxury”.

    Silly Hillary.

  • There is no question that Sen.Clinton is an exeptionally bright and qualified presidential candidate. Unfortunately, there is also no question that making up stories about her trips to Bosnia and Northern Ireland make her look absolutely ridiculous.

  • That video is strange. If I was on a jury and she was on the witness stand, I’d be impressed by her apparent credibibilty, but the actual video at the airport completely refutes her version. I wouldn’t be surprised if she’d been moved into a safe part of a plane for a landing somewhere at some time – that sounds like a valid precaution. (Does anybody know anything about armored cockpits in C17, or security routines during landing a VIP in a an area of uncertain safety?) Could she be confusing memories from somewhere else? – I don’t recall any such news reports, but that means little.

    (snark) Perhaps the inflight movie was “Air America”? Maybe she’s remembering being John McCain in a previous life, or channeling some of Ronald Reagan’s war stories? Or are we about to start hearing Hillary tell us how she single-handedly took out an armed platoon of Shining Path rebels during a visit to Peru and saved a bus-load of school kids in India by grabbing it just as it was about to plunge into a ravine?

  • There’s a simple explanation for why Clinton made up this story. She’s a liar. She has no concept of truth or honesty, as well as of right or wrong. She’s also short sighted and doesn’t think thorough the consequences of her political actions. At the time she thought it would help her to make up this story.

    Clinton thought that it doesn’t matter what she says. If she changes her mind in the future she will deny any connection to her previous statements, just as she denies her previous support for NAFTA and the Iraq war.

  • If this is truly the death knell for Hillary ’08, I’d like to point out the irony that it was ultimately killed by her eight year stint in the White House.

    My dislike of her campaign strategist aside, Clinton really did have the props to be the first female President, but she had to forego the experience that might have put her in there to help Billy get there himself. When I think of other women who might be or might have been contenders, Elizabeth Dole is one name that crops up. I don’t know if I would consider her qualifications superior to Clinton’s, but the difference between the two is that Dole kept her day job and never played second fiddle to her husband.

    In some ways, this is a classic example of how leaving the workforce for a few years, which is common enough for women to do when they have children, can hurt you when you try to get back in. And if you think about it, it wasn’t eight years that Clinton was kept out of more meaningful executive experience, it was 22. It’s not that she didn’t do anything in the meantime, but her commitments to Bill’s work kept her from being nearly as productive as she might have been.

    Ultmately, the “job” of First Lady isn’t, and shouldn’t be, enough to qualify one for the Presidency, which means we can all breath a sigh of relief that Laura B. will probably not take her party’s nomination in 2012 and bring her hubby back into the White House.

  • Hillary is a sore loser that is damaging the democratic party in her pursuit for glory.
    I love senator Obama, but I think McCain may win.
    The dems are cat fighting and totally ignoring John McCain.
    He is one lucky, old geezer…
    I will be happy with anyone winning ……as long as it isn’t Hillary..

    .

  • Jeebus, the thought of President Laura Bush never crossed my mind and it gave me the willies. For a moment I must have felt what many on the GOP must have felt– the gd mf is going to get himself back in the White House even if it takes getting his wife elected!

    It’s not so much Hillary that has been bugging me in many ways, it’s her husband’s recycled surrogates. For example, when James Carville said this, “Mr. Richardson’s endorsement came right around the anniversary of the day when Judas sold out for 30 pieces of silver, so I think the timing is appropriate, if ironic.” They don’t describe whether or not he said in a teasing manner but something tells me it wasn’t especially after he called Daschle a coward for supporting Obama’s take on a revote in Michigan and Florida. What a jerk.

  • …”She did play a serious policy role in her husband’s administration (even if she didn’t help pass the Family and Medical Leave Act, as she claims.)…”

    The problem with Hilzoy (and others) pushing this meme is that Clinton DID work to get FMLA passed. I was there as part of a coalition effort that led the writing and passage of this legislation and Hillary Clinton worked directly with us to help draft the language and the intent of FMLA!

    It really disturbs me to see and hear this complete denial and dismissal of her role in significant policy actions during the Clinton Administration.

  • Someone is surprised that “birds of a feather, flock together”???

    Lying self-involved ego-maniac spends lifetime with lying self-involved egomaniac.

    It’s like David Geffen said, the Clintons lie like rugs.

  • (Does anybody know anything about armored cockpits in C17, or security routines during landing a VIP in a an area of uncertain safety?)

    There are no “armored cockpits” on C-17s, ait’s just a standard-issue cargo plane, nd the closest thing to a “secure area” would be where all the rest of the military folks go.

    She was never in danger.

  • Gee, where are mary and greg and comeback bill? Hellooooo…. My, my, so quiet today!

    I believe after their performances yesterday, you can find them in the same bar where you can find Seaberry, JRS Jr and a couple of other minor Hillarybots who finally wore out their welcome from our (mostly) very tolerant host.

  • Allen, I think most of what you say is utterly correct. I think Hillary correctly decided that the only way to win an American presidency is to be a manly man. I disagree that anything has changed, her estimation (if she, in fact did make it) is correct: America would and will only elect a woman that was willing to pit bull-like kick some ass. Mainly I think America is too immature as a nation to elect a female. I don’t however, believe that is true of someone (male) of color. We all accept Michael (Jordan) and Tiger as heroes, so color doesn’t affect us there. We need Obama to be the President, then, in about 16 years, we can consider a woman.

  • No, no, Tom C @31; Clintonistas don’t come out on weekends, cause they work to union hours (and besides, weekends don’t count). And they may even not come back on Monday, ’cause money’s in short supply — again! — in the campaign coffers.

    BTW. Not everyone is scrutinizing the WH logs with the same zeal. NYT, for example is still, basically, rowing upstream and standing by their pick for the Dem nomination. They do have an article on the subject of the logs but not a peep about the Bosnia fib. If a fib falls into a sea of lies and there’s nobody around to note its fall… Has it really happened?

  • Deeper than the fabrications is how she marginalized Sindbad’s memory of the event:
    He is just a comedian. Ergo, he isn’t sincere and can’t be taken seriously.

    This gives us yet another look at her core personality: Challenge her version of reality at your own risk. Can we say “bubble personality”?

    It reminds of this post on Kos: Who Will Tell The Clintons That Hillary Has Lost?

    That really is the million dollar question. She is isolated and insulated from the outside world. Her bubble permits no dissent. But she cannot win. All she can do is ruin. Bill Richardson stood up and tried to tell the Empress the presidential clothes no longer fit. It was, according to him, a “very painful” phone conversation. Others have described similar phone calls in the same way: painful.

    That’s a scary revelation. Being disappointed would be okay. But “very painful?”
    My conclusion is that Hillary Clinton is bunkered down. Out of touch with reality and ready to March into Denver ready to split the party in two.

    That’s the bad news. The good news? Maybe Gore really is keeping his powder dry because he realizes someone is going to have to step her down. We’ll see.

  • i don’t think al gore gives a shit one way or the other .. he hasn’t said a word .. one way or another ..

    personally .. i don’t see why anyone would want the gig of cleaning up all this elephant dung .. the national debt is set on a predetermined course to hit a projected 13 trillion dollars by 2013 regardless of what anyone does ..the bush-idiot’s policies have it locked in far past his tenure .. which should be illegal …imo

    and ..the only way to fix this idiocy of fighting wars while granting tax cuts .. is to raise revenue .. i.e. raise taxes .. and weall know the concomitant howl that’s going to go up from the right the minute it’s proposed .. they will strenously object to paying the piper for their idiotic decisions and policies whhich have led us to this point of leaving our grandkids this gigantic bill for our/their folly ..

    it’s a thankless and damn near hopeless task .. why anyone would subject themselves to it voluntarily is way beyond me … all anyone is going to get is the accumulated blame the republicans aren’t man/men enough to own up to ..

  • Laura W @28,

    Now, now…that Act had passed Congress by impressive margins multiple times before the Clintons even arrived in Washington. Clinton promised to sign it on the trail. After his inauguration it passed yet again, and he signed like promised. Nobody had to do any “work” on it…except not veto it as H.W. Bush had done.

  • Clinton visited the border to talk with refugees. She was not talking about arriving at the airport when she discussed dodging bullets. This is an unfair pro-Obama distortion of her remarks.

    Here is what Richard Holbroke said about Clinton’s participation in Kosovo, someone with more stature than Sinbad:

    “Concerning Kosovo, the Obama memo – citing their own advisors and supporters — falsely claims that Hillary played no role in the larger effort to open the border to more refugees. Richard Holbrooke, the architect of the Dayton Accords, lays out the facts:

    It was dire in May 1999 when Hillary Clinton arrived in Macedonia. The government of Macedonia had slowed the flow of refugees from Kosovo to a trickle. After visiting refugees and gaining a first-hand assessment of the situation, the First Lady had intense talks with President Gligorov and Prime Minister Georgievski. In these talks, one in the Presidential Palace, another in the residence of the American Ambassador, Christopher Hill, Mrs. Clinton pressed the Macedonian government to fully open the border so that Kosovar Albanian refugees could flee the war zone to safety. She also committed herself to work with the government and people of Macedonia who also faced an emergency because of the threat to their own safety and stability. Hillary Clinton promised to take action to help the Macedonian economy. Returning to Washington, she pressed hard in the administration for action to support the Macedonians. She even contacted American business executives to ensure that American textile contracts in Macedonia were not canceled. There is no doubt in my mind, nor in the minds of those people I worked with in the Balkans at the time – that her intense efforts resulted in easing a crisis of significant dimensions and contributed to saving many lives.

    Hillary’s trip to Kosovo in May 1999 took place during the air war over Kosovo. Despite concerns about security, she traveled to the international border on the edge of the war zone, and visited with refugees. More, including more testimonials, HERE. [ visit Clinton’s website]”

  • This is really bad for Democrats; it makes us look foolish. I’m not a fan of Clinton but this is not just bad for her.

  • Well, well, Mary shows her head. I’m surprised to see you on this thread, Mary, but not at all surprised to see you spinning your best to defend Hillary without ever directly confronting the blatant lie that she told. Does the talks she had in Macedonia or any other efforts she made on behalf of the refugees change one iota the fact that she completely fabricated this story about running from the plane under sniper fire? Please, Mary, your shell game is quite inadequate. Before you can get a job as a magician you’re going to have to practice your distraction technique quite a bit.

    She flat out made up a story, i.e. lied baldly. And as someone else here said, how does getting shot at (even if it were true, which it’s not) make you any more qualified to be president? I was shot at once. Should I start measuring for curtains in the Oval Office?

  • I’m hoping that the Hillary supporters who try to justify this will eventually realize that the evidence on this is irrefutable. Eye witnesses, video, Chelsea…It is sad, but the fact of the matter is she’s been lying about her experience, i.e. her entire case for voting for her over Obama–let’s face it, on domestic policy issues, they’re all but twins.

    And experience-vetting is not even the reason she was sued to get her white house records released this summer–a conservative organization’s efforts, by the way–and why a judge is continuing to press them to release the remainder of the records that have been blocked-out or left-out. They were actually trying to call her & Bill out on financial grounds (thus the missing documents and black-outs)

    She has been running on an “experience” platform, and now her experience is being seen for what it is. No one discounts the many accomplishments she did have as first lady, but she insisted on running these fantastical stories overstating (to put it lightly) her role in significant events. Now, one by one: NAFTA, Bosnia, N. Ireland…they’re all being solidly debunked.

    In any other world, this would be the end. She has lost all credibility, and coupled with the vicious attacks and nod/wink race pandering her campaign has engaged in, one would think enough was enough. But she wont stop. It’ll be up to her supporters and the superdelegates to realize the sad truth of this and do the right thing before it gets too out of hand.

  • The issue is not whether Hillary is lying, she may have remembered some portion of the trip as being scary or dangerous. (The standard precautions are scary the first time you land in a potentially dangerous airfield, believe me.)

    The real problem is that she is unwilling to state that she made an error of judgment. She made a mistake (however calculated it was) in voting to go to war. A lot of those who did so now acknowledge that that should not have voted that way and that there were strong political pressures to do so. She has never said” “I made a mistake”, rather she has finessed why she voted or made distracting statements concerning her initial vote. She clearly wants the war over and now has a better understanding of why the vote occured, but is not going to the next logical step. A simple “it was the wrong thing to do” would suffice, but that would make her appear less resolute (or something.) She would rather take the hit for being a prevaricator than appear “weak.”

    The only reason I can think of why she fails to admit to a mistake is that it parallels what our sitting president does all the time. I guess that, in a sense, that makes her more presidential :grin:.

  • This is the end for Hillary — Her final misstep — How stupid — There was no reason for her to say what she said — This will hurt her more than anything else — Watch the Pennsylvania poll numbers change — Will it be enough for Obama to win — I don’t think so — I think the Democrats should really start thinking about Mr. Gore — He is the lone, credible voice of the Democratic Party at this time — The Clinton’s are passe and Barack is just a tad too young — The dream ticket would be Gore-Obama — The Senator from Arizona would not stand a chance

  • So I can believe that 12 years after the fact you might forget some details. However, I’m having a hard time believing you would forget getting shot at. Only a person who has never been in that situation would forget getting shot at. I suppose it is possible to ‘confuse’ two events. If that is the case Hillary please point out when and where you landed at an airport , in hostile territory, under enemy fire. Failing that let’s call this what it is – a lie. My 10 year old recognized that for what it is I guess I should be clear on what ‘is’ is. Maybe that’s the problem.

  • As an Air Force journalist out of Ramstein Air Base, Germany, I was in Tuzla in March ’96 to cover Air Force stories. I also happened to be on the tarmac that cold Tuzla morning standing on the back of a flatbed pick-up truck, with tripod and camera, to cover the Air Force’s new (at the time) massive cargo aircraft, the C-17 which Mrs. Clinton just happened to be on. The First Lady arrived to a flight line full of well-wishers, both military and civilian, accompanied by her staff as well as comedian, Sinbad, and singer Sheryl Crow who were there to entertain troops. But just to set the record straight, there was no enemy fire, and no imminent danger. If there had been any danger, “well-wishers” would not have been allowed on the tarmac, to include me much less allowing me to stand above everyone else on the back of a truck. And Sinbad and Sheryl Crow would’ve been running for their lives instead of taking the time to be interviewed, on the tarmac, by your’s truly. Mrs. Clinton’s ascertain is a lie, plain and simple. And I have the video taped story to prove it.

  • N. Wells was wondering if the in-flight movie was “Air America”, I find it more amusing that this “mission” was more reminicient of “Operation Dumbo Drop”…

  • At least Senator Clinton went to Bosnia. The same cannot be said for the other candidates. In fact, one senator-candidate (Obama) happens to be in St. Thomas while our countrymen are dying not only in his home state (NIU), but also in Iraq. Where are priorities in the media? And in those running for office? Seems to me that Senator Clinton is the only candidate tough enough and strong enough to run our country.

  • Sinbad and Sheryl Crow? Yeah.. Must have been an extremely important foreign policy mission. AND, if it was so dangerous, why would you subject your child to that possible harm? If that’s how she took care of her own kid, why would we entrust her with ours?

  • Clinton and Cheney talk alike. Cheney when recently asked did he consider that polls showed Americans wanted out of Iraq, replied “so.” Clinton, when her claims of heroic deeds in Tuzla were refuted replied: “So, I mispoke.”

    It is time that Clinton showed us the questions she answered on the commander- in- chief test which she claims to have passed. And did she score her own test?

  • Hillary Clinton has been in those situations where her life was threatened. The woman traveled to 87 countries as First Lady, one might feasibly get an airport landing or two mixed up. When Obama calls his Grandmother a “typical white person” referring to her racially driven fear of blacks (and thrusting that on all people who are white), it doesn’t get mentioned on MSNBC or CNN’s websites at all. This gets the very top headline space. If Hillary had said “typical black person” she would be finished. I’m so tired of the bias and misogynist, vilifying reporting that Clinton faces, while Obama and McCain get a free pass. ENOUGH ALREADY. Hillary has international experience, and she also has senatorial experience. Obama is a 2 year senator whose idealism is appealing, but not grounded in any plans or steps of implementation. McCain thinks everything is going great, and in his victory speech in Texas said we need to continue to cut taxes and decrease regulations on businesses. (7 years of that has us heading into a recession, but hey, we need to keep going).

  • David Geffen said it best: “[e]verybody in politics lies, but they (the Clintons) do it with such ease, it’s troubling.” The problem is that the Clinton die-hards such Lanny Davis don’t care. To them a lying, cheating scoundrel is wonderful just as long as the name is Clinton. In one week this item will be on the trash heap with all the other Clinton “scandals,” excused, forgotten, minimized and then characterized as a “personal attack” if brought up (just like the verboten BLUE DRESS). Trying to tarnish a Clinton is like trying to put stink on a dog turd. It just doesn’t work.

  • What doomed the Clinton camp was their inability to cope with an entirely new campaign dynamic. Hillary’s team assumed the race would be run, and battles fought, along traditional left-right lines, i.e. each candidate would seek to find the ideal balance of “conservative” and “liberal” positions to appeal to the most possible voters. And for this, they were prepared. Poll after poll had guided Hill’s “positioning” on the issues, while her statements were kept deliberately ambiguous enough for her to shift easily to the right or left as public sentiment shifted.

    Unfortunately for Team Clinton however, Obama successfully redefined the debate along forwards/backwards lines instead of right/left. His message: it is time for change, and Hillary is part of a divisive and largely irrelevant past. It was a paradigm shift that caught Clinton with her pantsuit down, and forced her into a position or arguing for her experience, the only spot on the forwards/backwards continuum not already occupied by a brilliant, young and hugely appealing opponent.

    Only problem is, people like new more than old – and experience wasn’t selling. So Clinton’s team did precisely what a team mired in traditional political warfare techniques do: they went negative. And the result has been – despite temporary tactical victories in states where their manufactured criticisms resonated – a larger, meta-narrative emerging in which Clinton is increasingly seen as divisive and dishonest.

    In short, not only has Clinton lost, she deserves to lose. In the rapidly changing times in which we live, it is essential that our next president be able to adjust to unforseen challenges, and adapt to unexpected conditions. Judging by the way her campaign has been rung, Clinton has surely failed that critical commander-in-chief test.

  • 45.
    On March 25th, 2008 at 8:49 am, Don Jackson said:
    As an Air Force journalist out of Ramstein Air Base, Germany, I was in Tuzla in March ‘96 to cover Air Force stories. I also happened to be on the tarmac that cold Tuzla morning standing on the back of a flatbed pick-up truck, with tripod and camera, to cover the Air Force’s new (at the time) massive cargo aircraft, the C-17 which Mrs. Clinton just happened to be on. […] Mrs. Clinton’s ascertain is a lie, plain and simple. And I have the video taped story to prove it.

    So you admit it was cold? Obama wants us to Hillary faced no such danger!

  • Comments are closed.