What's the strategic lie? What's the strategy?

The strategy is to paint Obama as inexperienced. By highlighting her time in a war zone, she can claim experience that Obama lacks.

By carefully twisting her own words, she can tell a white lie. She can exaggerate some details to make a better story, but those exaggerations aren't technically lies, even though they're designed so that most people who don't know the history behind the event have something in mind that isn't quite really what happened...

This idea promoted by Obama and his campaign that Sen. Clinton has a "campaign strategy" of lying, is exactly what makes me feel that Obama is very far from truly being worthy of being called a statesman. At this point he and his campaign are more "smearsmen" than anything else. He has lost my respect at this point. He has rendered his own words and message empty and meaningless.

I find this response odd, given that two_cents described a particular situation where Obama actually defended HRC.

I consider that after the debate, Obama realized that he'll have to start playing hardball politics the way the others do (complete with repudiation (Wright) and personal attacks (McCain, Clinton)). Glenn Greenwald has written previously that the left needs to use these tactics to "even the playing field." It is unfortunate that one must stoop to this level, but other candidacies have blamed their loss on not fighting back, and Obama might not want to be that guy.

Currently there are EIGHT articles on Salon.com about Wright. Why?

Precisely his original point.

Currently there are EIGHT articles on Salon.com about Wright. Why?

Oh, did she "mis-remember" the plane spiraling down, too? Or running off the back ramp? No welcoming committee, just running for the vehicles, heads down?

All are put to the lie by easily found photos and videos, not to mention the memory of comedians who were along for the "adventure."

It was a lie repeated three times in the past few months, told so often she actually believes it now.

And it wasn't because it was late at night and she was tired as she lied again; it was 8:30 in the morning when she told the lie most recently.

My, my two-cents you are majorly drunk on kool-aid...

Tell me, what would the strategic be about lying about sniper fire when it is more accurately written in your book for all to see?

What's the strategic lie? What's the strategy?

That's it!

There is none!

It was a memory of a time long ago, far away, in a war zone called Bosnia... farther now on the campaign trail...

This idea promoted by Obama and his campaign that Sen. Clinton has a "campaign strategy" of lying, is exactly what makes me feel that Obama is very far from truly being worthy of being called a statesman. At this point he and his campaign are more "smearsmen" than anything else. He has lost my respect at this point. He has rendered his own words and message empty and meaningless.

It was not a lie. That is a smear. That is cheap "gotcha" politics to say it's a lie.

She wrote about it accurately in her book, which she is aware many people are reading at this historical time.

It was not a lie.

It was just a story - a memory about a trip to a war zone where there had been reports of sniper fire in the hills surrounding the airport, and there were concerns on the ground, and if you look at the video, it was the kind of army vehicle she had to duck into.

It was just a misremembered story on a long campaign trail.

It's true that there is too much attention to too many superficial issues.

For me "sniper fire" is a much better political example.

Because it was "gotcha" tactics (which Obama tried to have both ways).

However, the Reverend Wright story is important and substantial in many ways.

Exactly the opposite is true. Clinton's 'sniper fire' was a calculated strategic lie. It came out of her own mouth. Wright is not Obama.

Do you want Presidents who lie to you? You are willing to condemn Obama for 'his unknowns' but not Clinton for the 'knowns'?

The mistake Obama made in the Philadelphia debate was, IMO, this:

When Stephanopolous asked "Do you believe that Senator Clinton has been fully truthful about her past?" he did not offer a diplomatically tactical version of the truth himself (i.e. yes), but said - unnecessarily lumping both of them together in the same category - "...look, the fact of the matter is, is that both of us are working as hard as we can to make sure that we're delivering a message to the American people about what we would do as president. Sometimes that message is going to be imperfectly delivered ... I think Senator Clinton deserves the right to make some errors once in a while." and "I think what's important is to make sure that we don't get so obsessed with gaffes that we lose sight of the fact that this is a defining moment in our history." (See the transcript: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/DemocraticDebate/Story?id=4670271&page=2)

Considering Clinton's Bosnia comments were clearly not a 'misspeak' but a campaign strategy of lying, I don't see why Obama came to her defense, because it amounts to a defense of lying. His were truly 'gaffes'; hers were truly 'lies' - and pre-meditated lying is not an irrelevant detail in a presidential candidate. He should have, in my view, tactfully made this distinction.

Instead, Obama lost the political opportunity to make an important distinction between them - refusing to make a factually correct call on Clinton and uncomfortably prevaricating, in defense of her behaviour and his, as though they were the same thing.

Obama's larger point (that this is a too defining and important moment in American history to obsess on gaffes) is true, but the point did not have to be - and IMO should not have been - made here.

There is one aspect that should not be overlooked though, and that is, by answering the question this way Obama went out of his way to help Clinton recover her dignity directly after she admitted to the 'embarrassing' Bosnia comments (but not the lying). That is a statesman.