I've been as outspoken as anyone over the last week in pointing out Hillary Clinton's dishonesty, but theWall Street Journal's glee over Clinton's emerging reputation as a serial exaggerator is incredibly disturbing :
Hillary Clinton's been all the news this week, after she "misspoke" about Whitewater, Travelgate, missing files, suspicious pardons, Johnny Chung and cattle futures. Oh wait, after she "misspoke" about Bosnia. Oh wait, same thing.I take no pleasure in pointing out the hypocrisy of the Clinton campaign. In fact, I've even found myself invoking a Democratic version of Reagan's 11th Commandment, biting my tongue instead of leveling criticism, lest I find myself in a situation in November in which I support a candidate that I've spent months slamming. As an Obama supporter who has written multiple posts highlighting Hillary Clinton's dishonesty, let me go on the record as saying the characterization above is absolutely false.That's one way to make sense of the unrelenting, unforgiving, 24/7 news coverage of Mrs. Clinton's fictional telling of Bosnian sniper fire and the subsequent debunking of her every word. In a nasty primary battle that has already featured racial slurs and Chicago slum lords, missing tax documents, and a "monster," you might expect this slip-up to have been yet another blip in the media cycle.
But that would have been to deny the press, the pundits, Democrats, and even Barack Obama, the catharsis of finally -- finally! -- getting a chance to confront the Clintons' questionable mores. Hillary's and Bill's scandals have been the elephant in the primary room ever since she first signaled a run. Yet up to now everyone has been too scared, or too loyal, or too weary to touch the ugly past. Her Bosnia misspeak is now serving as proxy for all the truths about the Clintons' non-truths, allowing even liberals to break free from their Clinton dependence.
There's a big, big difference between the criticism that Clinton is receiving now and the nasty, prurient, partisan muck of the 90s. The fact that there are people who have been breathlessly waiting for a return to the days of the Whitewater, Travelgate, and the Lewinsky scandals is a de facto admission of sleazy and trivial journalistic instincts that are better suited to write Penthouse Letters than grace the op-ed pages of the most influential media outlets in our nation. Indeed, the threat of a return to this gossipy media landscape is one of the reasons I feared a return to the Clinton years in the first place.
Having said that, with Clinton's recent embarrassment regarding Tuzla, NAFTA, and others, she's simply being hoisted by her own petard. Put aside the biggest difference (that these new charges are true and the older ones are almost universally false), the fact is that Hillary Clinton has based her own campaign around her (a) toughness and (b) experience. That her campaign is now being tripped up by the latest string of revelations is a good indicator that both claims are hollow.
Taking the "toughness" claim first, Hillary has spoken endlessly on the campaign trail about how she's been sent through the ringer by the right-wing noise machine and that she questions whether or not Barack Obama is tough enough to win a general election. While this is undeniably true (see above), the implication is that Clinton isn't easily tripped up by personal attacks. Yet here we are seven months before the general election and Clinton has been making one demonstrably untrue statement after another on the campaign trail. Considering how well documented her life has been since 1992, lying about her accomplishments is incredibly stupid. These are the kinds of mistakes you'd expect of a political rookie, not someone who claims 35 years of experience.
That "experience", upon which she's built her entire campaign, is the trait she's used to take out her Democratic rivals, so when it's revealed that she's been lying on her resume, it's the kind of hypocrisy that's fair game, especially in the no holds barred style of politics in which Clinton excels. The experience candidate lying about her experience is every bit as relevant as an anti-gay crusader trying to get laid in an airport men's room or a straight-talkin' campaign reform maverick letting lobbyists run their business from his campaign bus. Clinton's lies aren't merely embarrassing. They contradict the core reason for her candidacy.
So going back to the WSJ piece, let me once again "reject and denounce" (to quote Obama) the implication that the world has been waiting to relive the mainstream media, scandal-of-the-week circlejerk of the Clinton years :
Reporters have dug up every last person who accompanied her on the sedate trip to pour a little more salt in the wound. "The Audacity of Hoax," yelled a blog posting in the liberal Nation magazine, which innocently asked: "What else is she fibbing about?" Bill Burton, Barack Obama's spokesman, gleefully noted that Mrs. Clinton's recent attacks on his candidate were designed to deflect attention away from her "made up" Bosnia story. Heavy emphasis on the "made up" part. No need to mention Vince Foster, Red Bone, Marc Rich or Webster Hubbell. All this will do.Ummmm...no. I know you guys have been waiting for the opportunity to return to the tabloid-a-go-go 90s, but you and your army of Maureen Dowds will have to find some one else to gossip with. Don't use the "enemy of my enemy" trick to draft Obama supporters into your vast right wing conspiracy. As much as I dislike the Clinton campaign now, it's nothing compared to the seething contempt I have for the pseudo-journalistic scum who dragged this nation through the mud in the 90's.
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
I LOVE MAUREEN DOWD!!!
Of course you do, she writes well. It's just unfortunate that she labels fiction as nonfiction. Dowd's never met a fact she couldn't distort, rend, omit.
Harry Truman had a great line about Dick Nixon when Nixon was a congressman: Nixon would tell a lie when the truth would do more good just to keep his hand in. This could be written about Maureen Dowd.
I want to know WHO approached and Converted Hillary while she has been in the Senate - who promised her the Senate Seat (like they are cliaming they'll do for her W/ the governorship in NY- think the NY'ers may have something to say about that- at least that's the way a Democracy isSUPPOSED TO WORK! How dare those 'Dem's hand that out like it is their to give??)Granted this 2x Hillabillie '90's supporter ( and defender) has come to some heartbreaking Realization over the last few yrs- esp in the last 8 months- but there is more to Hillary's Actions then Just Blind Ambition- she had that from the beginning. She appears to not only returned toher Repug Roots- but has fully participated in the Corporate Orgy over the last 6 yrs.
Well said, Greg. The truth is sufficient.
And dragged Al Gore through their muck with their sneers and lies - And Howard Dean. And John Edwards. I propose college tuition bailout for education challenged political press. I've suffered enough from their ignorance, lack of critical thinking skills, and grammar failures. Back to school!
When Hillary was on the Board of WalMart and was the beneficiary of the $100,000 cattle trade from the now disgraced Refco office at the pork and chicken plant on the Arkansas River, nobody would have ever thought that Governor Bill might have been influenced in the process. Would they? Don't know. These and other items haven't been covered much by the press. Hiullary and Bill need to be much more thoroughly vetted. The press has only scratched the surface on this pair.
The time we waste getting this crisis solved and start attacking the OTHER enemy is growing short. The author is being nice. I'm an older Democrat that remembers "slick willy" and his reign of fuck ups. And for her to "stand by her man" shit speaks volumes on what she'll put up with to achieve her goals. These dynasty Presidents ends now. Change is not only preferable; it's vital. Let her run "in principle" all she wants. Vote for Nader or McCain if you'd like. I say this from an objective point of view. My candidate of choice is no longer viable, but young Barack Obama is a damned good fall back alternative! You people, that actually have the audacity to defend her, are just as bad as the Republicans. (oh, I forgot, yeah, your the ones that are going to vote for McCain if she isn't the nominee, right? I rest my case.)
What I don't understand about so many of the Clinton defenders is the complete denial. If my candidate were exposed as lying, I might try to excuse it somehow, frame it to make it understandable, but I'd have the intelligence to recognize lying for what it is. Not like the comments on this board, I read the angry avowals of clinton supporters, claiming that there were indeed snipers firing "in the hills," that there were soldiers around because hostilities were still going on. I read that Clinton never supported NAFTA, that her people didn't talk to the Canadians and give them the wink wink before Ohio. That her campaign didn't circulate the pictures of Obama in Muslim dress, that they didn't cirdulate the original Madrassa story. And best of all, the defenses of Geraldine Ferraro that her comments weren't racist, that the Obama campaign played the race card. Is this what being a low-information voeter means? It's a phenomenon, I have to say, But it's also a bit scary . And these people say Obama supporters are a mindless cult.
LOL, You mean like Obama lying that his advisor never met with the Canadians? Or you mean Obama lying about his relationship with Rezco, or you mean Obama lying about his father being saved by Kennedy? I find it funny that you want to talk about lies but you don't want to talk about Obama's lies. Yes, that is cult like.
The real tragedy is not one of the three are acceptable considerations for president. Nor is Nader.
I'm beginning to hope neither Obama nor Clinton have enough delegates to win on first vote. All elected delegates are then free to vote their conscience. Maybe we could end up with Feingold after all.
Ok then...let's articulate all the lies then. Whether you believe Clinton or Obama...the republicans are going to bring all of this out and will inundate the airwaves so we may as well come out with the full stories now. Anybody claiming Clinton lied must reference that lie and the same goes for Obama being called a liar. I think we all saw the "Bosnia" thing so we know that one but what about Obama's lies? This Rezko thing? I heard he came clean but is there more? I heard the Canadians themselves came clean about the NAFTA issue but is there more? What link to a credible news agency (I hope that's not an oxymoron just yet!), has irrefutable evidence of Obama's lies? Passionate support is great and taking part in supporting your candidate is pure democracy in action but it is up to us to keep this thing on the level of honor it deserves (owing of course to the great Democratic legacy of our Republic).
You ignore his lies. So, based on your own logic, what's wrong with you?
Okay, list his "whoppers," with proof.
Which version of Rezko and what amount would you like to start with. We can move on after that.
Aw, the heck with it. Let HRC win. Let's watch the Republicans hammer us all again with the 90s scandals. Um, better yet, let's not.
Ummmm, you could point out which "scandal" was proven. But don't try to use Clinton's "perjury" because that was based an a statement he was required to make by Jones' "lawyers" (they really worked for Scaife) in order to avoid an appeals trial after Jones' case was thrown out of court by the judge. And Jones had two previous sets of lawyers who quit because her case was so "flimsy" at best.
Yer jus' another rethug troll, nazigul (sic).
Let's face it: the Clintons are pathological liars. The press in 1990s didn't invent scandals during the Clintons years. That is why people are tired of the Clintons for a third term presidency, especially during wartime. They should retire and go to Hollywood. That suits them well.
It is sad how many people love to hate her.
That is one of the reasons why she would not be a good nominee unless she found a way to rise above it in a prssidential manner and acknowledge and address the charges in an honest and transparent manner.
Like Obama did with the Rev Wright.
If Clinton could have moments like that, that help those who really want to support her feel good about doing so, then she could have my vote.
I wish she wouldn't be working so hard to burn every bridge. She could be a powerful and effective force in the senate if she had just gracefully exited the race when it became clear that Obama would be the nominee. She wouldn't have to watch those she considered to be friends and allies make the choice to support Barack Obama.
Obama did with Wright. Yeah, not even close.
"I take no pleasure in pointing out the hypocrisy of the Clinton campaign." Yes, I see your pain... NOT.
I wonder if you can point your deep inside as efficiently at the hypocrisy of the Obama campaign, that started to play the race card and the throwing of home appliances? Yep, right, I already thought that you would be too busy...
I've concluded, after watching both Clintons during this campaign, that in the 1990s, I was too willing to look the other way when they lied. When Carl Bernstein says that Hillary Clinton lied about much of what the rightwing said she lied about, I believe him. He's not a rightwing nutjob. He's pointing to the type of behavior that she's displayed repeatedly in this campaign.
I hate to say this: the WSJ piece is more on target than Greg Saunders may wish to admit. We have to accept that this candidate is what she has demonstrated herself to be and stop defending her. Didn't we all hate it when those on the right kept defending Dubya's lies?
I saw an MSNBC report about how documents show, and witnesses remember, Hillary lobbying to pass NAFTA. This, after what seemed like righteous anger at having her stance "misrepresented." (Yup, I believed her -- foolish me). I thought back to her false claims about cattle futures, missing files that mysteriously show up, and Bill's philandering. And I have to conclude that Hillary Clinton is, indeed, a serial liar.
The trouble with catching someone in lie after lie after lie: how can you tell when a liar means what she says? She is what she is and the sooner we face up to it and reject her, the better for the country and for the hope of a Democrat in the White House come Jan 2009.
I too still stand upset by the hatchet job done by the mainstream media on Al Gore------- time and time again the liberal media are hand-delivering the elections to republicans.. why-- in God's name-- why?
Because there is, not, and never has been, a liberal media. It goes from telling the truth - which is not liberal, to shilling the Capitalist line - and more recently Neo-Con line.
Because it is their nature to do so........
It's the difference between a candidate with actual experience and one who is a blank slate. *haha That's all. Take NAFTA. I understand that the average Joe can't fathom that she both argued against it, just as she said, as well as stumped for it. That's what we do in Democracy. We stump for the winning idea. Bill was president. He won. Simple. A man who actually heard her stump for NAFTA t his union gathering called into my local radio show and said that it was very clear to him that she was less than enthused.
Now, Obama puts out an ad that claims she was lying. Was she? No. Was his negative ad effective? Well, it was inasmuch as he gave the press some quick examples to trot out over and over as "evidence" that she's unethical. Is it true? No. Whose the liar then? Obama.
Hillary actually has a very solid reputation as a straight shooter. Her Bosnia gaffe was just that. It played right into his attack tactics of the past 6 weeks on her character. She misstepped big. Too bad for her. I thought his NAFTA gaffe was worse. He got called a liar by the Canadian PM. He managed to confuse the story. Many press people are so biased that they repeat the confused tale to keep from admitting how wrong they were.
That's all this amounts to about HIllary's "trust" quotient. It's pride on the part of the press who have taken sides
Characterizing Sen. Clinton's public and repeated claims about her experience on the tarmac as a "gaffe" is at least another borderline misrepresentation that adds fuel to the flames.
According to the American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition, a "gaffe" is:
1) A clumsy social error; a faux pas; (the most common meaning)
2) A blatant mistake or misjudgment. (the least common meaning)
It's human nature to remember our past in more heroic terms than others remember it. It takes an outsize dose of creativity to remember things that didn't happen that make us more heroic than we are.
My only question is, "Is it to our advantage to have national leaders with this sort of 'creative' memory?"
Says Ann:
"Hillary actually has a very solid reputation as a straight shooter. Her Bosnia gaffe was just that. It played right into his attack tactics of the past 6 weeks on her character."
That's a whopper right there. Hillary may very well be a straight shooter inside her inner circle, but not when it comes to the public. This is what her detractors are concerned about, and rightly so. She's more of a duck-and-run-zigzag sort. The fabricated scene on the tarmac happens to be an incredibly striking example of her disdain for the simple truth. Not only disdain, but a seemingly self-destructive need to risk discovery and humiliation as well. And your characterization as a "gaffe" is an example of the kind of denial that seems to be necessary to be an ardent Hillary supporter. Too sad.
Point the finger at everyone else except your candidate, Ann. Keep it up, it might work.
She had 20 years of name recognition and all the resources of the Democratic Party behind her, and now she is about to lose. Her campaign has been run so awfully that it will be studied by others as an example of what NOT to do. Even with the party stacking up the number of "Super Tuesday" contests that were supposed to seal up her victory, she couldn't do it.
Look at all the people that have know the Clintons for years, and are now gravitating towards Obama. Why do you think that is? People are tired of their brand of politics and see now that they don't have to cower in fear of them anymore. Bill moved this party to the right and it's time we shifted it back where it belongs.
Her experience argument has been, and always will be crap. How can feminists support her? All she has done is riden a mans coat-tails and is trying to claim his accomplishments as her own. Hardly an example of a self sufficient woman.
Keep on spinning though, Ann. Her campaign is lucky to have you!
Problem is the "average Joe" took her words at face value. There is no proof or indication she was ever not for NAFTA, and lots of evidence to the contrary. She lied for votes, get it strait. Not sure who thought it would be a good idea lying to the people of Ohio, but she did. If she made it to the general election she would regret that.
Quit spinning the thing about Canada too please, the truth is out there, you can go read it if you like.
She did not gaffe the Bosnia thing. You keep writing about it but you are in the minority that it was an accident. It was insulting to service men and women, if you don't understand why then you and Hillary share more than a penchant for ludicrous spin.
I don't want the media getting in a frenzy about gossip, but they need to balance what they think may be too much and getting the truth out. Hillary is running for the POTUS, anything about her life is fair game because we can't afford another idiot president. The world gets smaller everyday, America is in decline, our environment is in jeopardy, and we need real people to fix it. I just don't see her as that person.
Remember her reference to Obama...he's "just words." I find that many people tend to disguise their own failings by projecting them on others.
So, if this is true, isn't Hillary's campaign "just words" - hollow and shallow with no intention to really provide solutions?
All her lies certainly appear to support this conclusion.
How is pointing out that OBama lied about his advisor meeting with the Cadadians SPIN???? There have already been numerous people coming forward to say that Hillary was against NAFTA, prior to it being enacted. THat's not a lie it's the truth, but once it was enacted she had to promote it because she was part of the administration. It's the same thing that can be said for Obama. He spoke out against the war, but once he was in the senate he promoted it and supported it. You guys can't have it both ways.
How many times do you have to read this!
An advisor of the Obama campaign was invited to the Canadian embassy as a representative of a local college - not the campaign. While there he was asked about NAFTA, and he says he was misquoted in the shorthand notes - not a tape.
So first his visit had nothing to do with Obama, second - without a recording - it's a he said/he said argument.
With Clinton's misstatements they have been made by her, not some advisor, and they have been taped. Clearly the two circumstances are not interchangeable. This is not to say there is nothing to disagree strongly with Obama about - He wants to bring Greenspan, Capt. Deregulation, back? Isn't that iguana the reason the economy sucks now? But the NAFTA thing is a an illusion.
No, wrong. If you get beyond the superficial talking points, there's plenty of real evidence that she is absolutely presenting the truth.
But you do have to get beyond the superficial.
NAFTA is good and bad.
He's the one who tried to hook up with the pocket-book Dems by scapegoating her.
It didn't work.
Her base is even more solid after his attack than ever.
*yawn*
Move on, guys. Her base is solid. And it's the little guys.
Imagine that........she's the populist. Not Obama. He's the elitist.
I'm glad i"m not you. I'd hate being behind the Washington elite.
*blech*
she's the populist? obama's the "washington elite?" excuse me while i go throw up.
Hillary Clinton isn't Washington elite? What planet do you live on?
Hillary Clinton is not the Washington elite? What planet do you live on?
It doesn't count to claim you were privately ag
Posted March 30, 2008 | 05:12 PM (EST)