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.
-
xrandadu Hutman
"here is one article among many that mentions multiple instances of the "misspeaking":"
it doesn't. Note no quotation. Note how they don't say she made "the claim" or "same" claim but a "similar" claim. Perhaps, the same one cited in today's paper that I already quoted, that she remembers being told of "possible" sniper fire. Which is neither the same or similar, nor is it misspeaking. The same is true for the Obama talking points (credit for at least citing that they are talking points). So again where are the "repeated" "multiple", "many times" references to taking sniper fire?
"Glad you will admit to "exaggerated."
always have. This is the difference. I criticize a candidate when they deserve it. And defend them when they don't.
"Nobody has denied that the other parts of the story were true. What purpose is served by "admitting" , etc., ?"
Again, disingenuous. They "deny" it by saying her "whole story" is "a lie", or as you do, that it is "largely" false, or by saying/implying that the whole idea she was told there was some danger is completely false. Nowhere do Obama recognize that the core of what she is implying--she felt the trip was possibly dangerous--has any possible truth. You "deny" it by ignoring it, deception by omission. Transparently so as even given those facts to respond to, none of you do. It's as if they can't exist. You are the only one to even acknowledge them and that is to say they don't matter. The purpose served is the honesty of the whole story, not just the parts that score your points. It's the same courtesy that should be lent to Obama on Wright. Do you think he should be judged based on the few snippets of sermons or on the "whole story"? It's the same thing. I lend Obama that respect/courtesy--I find that sorely lacking in yours and others' responses to Hillary.
"I'm not sure who has been saying that the entire story is made up out of "whole cloth. "
a) generally referring to it as the Balkans/Bosnia "lie"/"story", implying all she says about Bosnia is false when in fact most is true. And
b) several specific examples:
"told a long, detailed story that was not based on the facts"
"a fictional account of a trip to Bosnia"
"the whole account, and not a word of it was true"
"preposterous narrative of Bosnia"
"Making you exactly what you decry in Hillary, willing to say or do anything for your own ends."
Straw-man argument"
How? Obama people say she has "repeatedly" said she was under fire. But they have no evidence. They say her "whole account" is not true, when much is. They are lying, exaggerating, or incorrect. They accuse Hillary of lying. Ergo, they employ the same methods they allegedly decry. How is this a straw man?
"if she did lie it does reflect somewhat on her candidacy "
If she lies, it's a reflection on her candidacy. But Obama can "make up for" his lie by telling the truth in a speech. "More than" make up for his lie. So now that Hillary has said she misspoke you'll grant that she has more than made up for the "lie"?
"I'm trying to stay on-topic. This article is about Hillary Clinton in Bosnia. I consider your bringing it up to be a giant dodge of the Clinton issue, or a weak attempt at showing equivalence. Plus, I don't feel obligated to reply to every inane misdirection you pull out of your ass."
a) if the topic is lying, as you keep just said, then it is "on-topic".
b) why is it a weak attempt at equivalence? Because one is about an incident recalled from a dozen years ago and the other is about ongoing action?
c) pretty convenient not to feel obligated to respond to something that may crack the facade. d) "pulled out of your ass": well played. smooth, logical, insightful, substantive, yet kind of fizzy
e) since we're discussing "lying", not sure how it's inane misdirection
f) since my reference to Obama comes as 1-2 lines at the very close of 3-4 very lengthy posts, calling it a "giant dodge" is, dare I say it, a bit exaggerated
"based on pure speculation about what Obama might or might not have heard 5, 10, or 20 years ago"
unlike the pure speculation about what Hillary may or may not have been told 12 years ago? As for the substance of what Wright said, I have no complaints about it, nor do I think Obama should be held responsible for Wright's comments. If that's what you thought was the giant dodge, you misunderstand. My whole point in referring to Wright is simply that Obama lied about it and it seems a bit hypocritical to be screaming Hillary's a Liar! the same week Obama did the same (which I, by the way, didn't scream about)
"Obama has distanced himself from Wright"
In a truly politically manipulative way, just like any politician. When the disadvantage of being close to Wright outweighed the advantage. Wright himself says that discussed the forthcoming "distancing" a year ago. Making this distancing truly "Clintonian". Nothing wrong with this; it just means the whole "holier than thou" doesn't play quite as strongly
"Obama did not lie in any provable technical sense"
Well, at least we end on a line worthy of a Sinbad stand-up routine. I truly hope you were laughing as you wrote this. Just replace "Obama" with "Hillary" and honestly consider your response to this kind of line from a Hillary supporter. I rest my case on that alone.
Well, I don't think it's been tediously literal, but it is getting to the tedious level. so we'll agree to disagree as always. I'll see you in the next hot topic I'm sure (I'm leaving the most recent War room "Wright not my pastor" to you--those people are crazy ugly in there. Enter at your own risk)