Letters to the Editor
-
Summary
Here's a summary of what I think:
Hillary Clinton and her campaign wanted to tout Clinton's foreign-policy experience. They composed a list of her various accomplishments during the Bill Clinton presidency, mentioning Northern Ireland, China, Rwanda, Bosnia and other trips Hillary took that showed her to be well-traveled and involved in a lot of international policy efforts and whatnot.
For each of the listed countries/trips, the Clinton campaign did everything they could to juice-up the stories, highlighting everything that would sound impressive. In some cases they overemphasized Clinton's role (players in the N. Ireland negotiations have suggested such), but it wasn't technically lying.
For Bosnia, the story provided was initially accurate, with information given about the possibility of hostile forces, a flak jacket, and a dramatic plane landing. But for whatever reason, the Hillary Clinton campaign decided to exaggerate the level of danger involved, and ended up fabricating a few elements of the story, perhaps to emphasize Clinton's heroism and bravery under duress. Whatever their reasons, Hillary ended up stating things that were not true.
From the perspective of an Obama supporter, there are legitimate points to be scored by noting Clinton's fabrications here. I would not want to score more points than this merits, and would not try to suggest that Clinton lied about the entire scenario "out of whole cloth."
I think Clinton supporters should just admit she lied and move on. Pointing out that Clinton lied is only fair, because the facts demonstrate this pretty clearly. There's not a lot of wiggle room between "there was no ceremony" and "we ran directly to our vehicles with our heads ducked down" and the actual video of what happened. It's a waste of your time and everybody else's to contest this.
It's also frustrating that a week after the media (and Clinton supporters) went to town on the Rev. Wright controversy, the Clinton campaign/supporters can't give an inch on this. Instead, Clinton is still trying to score points off of the Wright controversy, in an attempt to get the focus off herself.
I don't think the Clinton lies are of monumental importance in the grand scheme, but they do suggest that, yes, she is willing to lie for political purposes, much like her husband. It's a clear-cut example. After the Rev. Wright thing, Obama supporters feel they have a right (no pun intended) to pounce on this thing. It's only fair, after taking so many hits, to be allowed to score a few legitimate points as well.
From the perspective of Clinton supporters, I can see why they'd be reluctant to own up to the fact that Clinton lied. They don't want people to have this additional ammunition to work with. Clinton is already behind, and here is yet another tidbit to use against her in her time of underdog need. I can see why Clinton supporters would want to go into denial-mode on this, even if they feel they have to squirm and weasel around to do it. I don't think it's right, though.
As for the Rev. Wright controversy, my opinion is that it's largely bogus. The claim that "Obama should have left the church" is based on pure speculation about what Obama might or might not have heard 5, 10, or 20 years ago. The main example people are using of Wright's offense comes from a 2001 sermon, during a heated political time. How can anybody be sure that every Wright sermon prior to this was also "offensive"?
I also listened to the entire sermon (watched it on YouTube, actually) and the quotes come across very differently when viewed in context. Wright is not being anti-American, nor do I see his statements as racist against whites. He does exhibit a style that is rather out there. But his statements about U.S. foreign policy are reminiscent of Noam Chomsky's views, and only people with an "American can do no wrong" mentality would find them offensive. Wright does have a fiery style, and some of his statements seem foolish.
I don't think people ought to hold Obama responsible for what Wright says, though. It is sheer presumptuousness to say Obama should be completely disassociated from him. Wright is not like Farrakhan; he is not blatantly anti-Semitic. Still, for his part, Obama has distanced himself from Wright. Obama did not lie in any provable technical sense when he said he didn't know about some of the things Wright had said. Obama was vague in his statements, and I can see how some found him evasive, but as for actual "lying" as the word is defined, I didn't see it and I don't think anybody has made a case for it.
Obama did make a larger statement disavowing Wright's statements than he did initially, and he made a larger admission in terms of knowing Wright tended to say controversial things. Obama took the opportunity, within a couple days when the controversy was still heating up, to aggressively explain his position, not just on Wright, but on the issues underlying the entire matter. I thought Obama rose to the occasion, and I see no point in people's desire to try to score points off of Obama's early evasiveness, since he was still figuring out how to deal with the controversy and he more than made up for things with his speech.
That's my view on the matter. I think Clinton has indeed been caught in a lie, and it's not a very big one, but it does say something about her tactics and what kind of politician she tends to be. Do I think Obama is perfect in comparison? Of course not. But I personally feel his behavior has tended to be better, and I like him better as a presidential candidate.