More

Chip Collis

Chip Collis

Posted: March 25, 2008 10:45 AM

The Clinton Credibility Gap: More Nixon than Gore


How can you tell Hillary Clinton is lying? Howard Wolfson's lips are moving.

Clinton suffered another daily gotcha when her self-proclaimed GI Jane moment - dashing across the Tuzla tarmac while ducking sniper fire - was revealed to be a typical prosaic airport greeting: a cute kid, flowers, the double air kiss, even a poem! Apparently, it took actual footage for the Clinton campaign to realize that Sinbad wasn't just being funny when he called her a liar last week. I could have told them that; Sinbad hasn't been funny since her husband's first term.

In trying to walk back this latest of Clinton's dalliances with dishonesty, Wolfson was quoted as saying, "it is possible in the most recent instance with which she discussed this that she misspoke, with regards to the leaving of the plane."

To say someone misspoke usually connotes that the untrue statement was made inadvertently. We all do it. "I played golf last Saturday," says I. "No, we went to lunch last Saturday. You played golf on Sunday," says she who is always right. "Oh, yeah, I misspoke, thank you dear. You're the best wife in the world."

Now, if we replay that last vignette Clinton/Wolfson-style, it might go something like this: "I single-handedly foiled an armed bank robbery last Saturday," says I. "No you didn't, you played golf," says she. "Oh yeah, I misspoke."

Did you catch the subtle difference?

How do you misspeak about something like that? What were you getting mixed up over?

"Oh, no, it was the OTHER war zone I flew into and ducked sniper fire and ran to the cars. I misspoke."

"Did I say sniper fire? I meant mosquitoes. Huge mosquitoes in Bosnia. I misspoke."

"Did I say I only got sent to countries that are too dangerous, too poor or too small, thereby implying that I was an inconsequential and expendable member of the Administration? I meant that I was VERY important. I misspoke."

"Wait, did I say that there are countries too poor for the President to go to? I meant that...um... Leave me alone, I misspoke!"

This unfortunate episode joins a cavalcade of other statements in which Hillary has been caught misspeaking like a rug. And the most prominent of these statements have been those that were used to pad her resume so much that you'd need an oversized pantsuit coat to hide it.

"Did I say I was instrumental to peace in Belfast? I mean that I was instrumental to TEAS in Belfast."

"Did I say I always disliked NAFTA? I mean I couldn't stand ASTA - stupid little terrier."

"Did I say it was an honor to be here with Barack? I mean I'm gonna rip his lungs out! And we'll still be friends."

All these are part and parcel of a broader pattern of what begins as self-deception, where previous goalposts cease to be operative, where people who dare to cross you get labeled as "Judas," and where by some weird transference, you not just accuse, but actually BELIEVE that your opponent is guiltier of all your sins than you are.

Some people are mistakenly equating Hillary's growing credibility gap with what happened to Al Gore. Leaving aside that Gore was unfairly smeared, while Hillary is self-inflicting these wounds, it's more accurate to equate her with Richard Nixon.

Nixon destroyed himself because he obsessed over what the Kennedys had "done to him." He went nutsy-commando with the Plumbers, with the Ellsberg break-in and the enemies list and, of course, with Watergate, because he rationalized that it had been done to him, and everyone else was doing it, and so he had to do it to protect his Presidency because he was what was best for - and about - America.

Hillary Clinton has become Nixon.

Clinton feels that all their years of being Atwatered and Starred and Roved meant that she HAD to play the game at sewer level just to survive. In fact, she was JUSTIFIED to play that way, because of what had been done to her and to Bill.

Justified, pre-absolved, sanctified and anointed.

And just as McGovern became the unwitting stand-in for the Kennedys as the focus of Nixon's ire and the target of his tricks, so too has Barack Obama become Hillary's bayonet dummy stand-in for the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.

So when Hillary's - and Wolfson's - lips are moving, they're not misspeaking. They're getting even.

 
 
  • Comments
  • 334
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (5 total)
photo
JaneaneTheAcerbicGoblin
Where's Mr. Darcy?
01:57 AM on 03/27/2008
You know, Nixon was more liberal than either Clinton.

Nixon passed the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, created the EPA, appointed Harry Blackum to the Supreme Court, eventually got us out of Vietnam, opened the door to China, installed price controls in 1972 (i.e., goverment control of the economy), etc., etc..

B. Clinton passed NAFTA, GATT, welfare "reform", the "defense" of marriage act, etc., etc..

H. Clinton voted for the Iraq war, co-sponsored a "flag burning" bill, voted for the Kyl amendment (which can be interpreted as an OK to wage another illegal, costly war), and rallied against the most evil, heinous event that this country has ever had to face....Violent Video Games...

So comparing the Clintons and Nixon is unfair, especially to Nixon.
12:02 AM on 03/27/2008
HRC the new Nixon:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/18074823/the_new_nixon
Nixonian Republicans for HRC:
http://www.xanga.com/uprisingyouth/644318177/nixonian-republicans-for-hillary-clinton.html
HRC during the Nixon investigation, lying and unethical at the tender age of 27:
http://www.aim.org/aim-column/print/hillarys-crocodile-tears-in-connecticut
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
TRex86
Enjoying life in West Ohio
10:39 AM on 03/26/2008
Hillary is digging herself deeper and deeper into a hole. Pre-absolution is no excuse. The right wing will slime Mother Theresa if it serves their purpose. The correct response is to stand with her opponent and denounce their tactics, eg, guilt by association (with Rev. Wright) not jump on the vast rightwing bandwagon. (Did anyone notice in Bill's latest encomium for McCain and Hillary he couldn't even say Obamas name?)
Her problem is the "vision thing." I believe she cannot grasp Obama's hold on the public imagination, his ability to be fresh, idealistic and forthcoming. Neither in her para-political career as first spouse nor in her personal relationship with a world class adulterer has she had a stable relationship with the truth. She stayed in a marriage with Mr. "Is-is." How can she rationalize that? Unfortunately the kindest explanation is that her ambition overwhelmed her integrity. More likely she adapted to marital chaos (as is the case in highly dysfunctional families) by adopting a malleable relationship with the truth.
08:55 AM on 03/26/2008
Perfect analogy, the Clintons and Nixon... if the Dems put the Clintons on the ticket for November, it will all be the same ole nose-bloodying that America has grown so sick of!
03:16 PM on 03/26/2008
Right. Nixon is the PERFECT analogy for Hillary because they both told a lie. And I suppose having opposed the war in Iraq makes Pat Buchanan indistinguishable from CIndy Sheehan. And believe me, if there's four people I can just never tell apart, it's Betty Ford, Lindsay Lohan, Rush Limbaugh and Miles Davis. Pull your chair away from the monitor and see if you remember the real world where people exist in more than two dimensions.
08:51 AM on 03/26/2008
GET OUT NOW HILLARY! We don't want you!
01:47 AM on 03/26/2008
I think some perspective is in order before comparing Hillary to Nixon. And for the record I'm an Obamaniac. Being a politician is a sales job, and salesmen lie. What distinguishes robbery from puffery is whether, when you learn the truth behind the sales pitch, you feel deceived. Nixon's very name has become synonymous with deception. (Bill also deceived us, though he never should have had to answer those questions.) But Hillary? Sure, she made up that stuff about Bosnia and Ireland, but so what? It's nothing that's keeping me awake nights worrying that she might drag us into some new web of Nixonian subterfuge. Is she as trustworthy as Obama? Obviously I wouldn't think so, but that's because he's exceptionally forthcoming, not that she's particularly dishonest. There's plenty to criticize her for, but I really think her reputation for dishonesty is one part right wing fabrication, the other, guilt by marriage.
09:11 AM on 03/26/2008
Unfortunately, Hillary's deceptions on Bosnia and Ireland represent but the tip of the proverbial scale in terms of the numerous methods in which she has misrepresented her own record, among the alternates to which include her constantly rehashed fight for healthcare reform as exemplerary of her reputation being "built on change" and further symptomatic of her ability fo "get things done", when, in reality, it represents another one of her miserable failures that resulted largely on account of an absolutist demeanor which proceeded to label any and all appeals to compromise as the end product of blasphemy, and thus proceeded to alienate her supporters and foil her efforts to accomplish anything in this regard. Then, her reputation in the Senate has been further embellished on account of the seven pieces of legislation personally authored by her but dissolved due to lack of an ability to secure so much as a single co-sponsor. HIllary CLinton supporters have constantly sited her ability to provided "convincing" counter arguments by disclosing "specifics", but a further examination of those specifics only further solidifies her so-called credentials has benefitting from the end product of misrepresentation. This is the essence of Clinton, and why, the longer she statys in the race, the further her conduct becomes progressively indistinguishable from that of Nixon.
01:00 AM on 03/26/2008
"Apparently, it took actual footage for the Clinton campaign to realize that Sinbad wasn't just being funny when he called her a liar last week. I could have told them that; Sinbad hasn't been funny since her husband's first term."

LOL...what a low blow, Chip. Did you really have to throw Sinbad under the bus to make your point? Probably not, but it was funny nonetheless.
12:51 AM on 03/26/2008
Whiners and ingrates, that's all the left has become. Bill Clinton did everything he could to keep things in check during the years he was President and the Republicans took control of the House. Yes, he is largely to blame for their victories, but it had just as much to do with the entrenched Democratic left not standing by him during the fights he should have won. The only people on Clinton's side throughout his two terms in office were the American people. The radical right hated him. The ultra-left deserted him and stood by Ralph Nader and that left everyone in the middle up the creek. And despite all that venom and hatred, much of which is being transfered onto Hillary to do this day, they continue to work to try and make your country a better place. They don't need to do it. They could be rich and powerful in any way they choose. They choose to try and help the country. And you awful, hateful people, with your petty bitching and moaning and willingness to compare Hillary to Nixon, your derisive "Special Comments" and barely concealed misogyny, your eagerness to claim she would be stealing an election when the race isn't even done and still so close that either candidate would be foolish to drop out, you people are going to get what you deserve, the same way you did when you abandoned Al Gore . You are going to get John McCain.
08:42 AM on 03/26/2008
Right.

GO to http://www.hillcap.org to see just how hard they work for all of us and how they do it.
12:26 AM on 03/26/2008
Here s typical CLINTONIAN logic for everything that happens to you that is not good...attack!!!! attack!!!!Lie!!!LIE!!! they will do anything and say anything to win....change the conversation to misspoke when caught!!!!! TOO BAD TAHAT THE MEDIA IS FINALLY CALLING IT AS IT IS!!!! Why they never questioned her 35 yrs of experience is beyond me...also they think McCAin has foreign experience and we find ou5t that the old fool does not know the difference of the SECTS in IRAQ no wonder he voted for the war....I wondwr if Ms. Wonderwoman knows the difference since she voted for the war without reading the report!!!!!So much for judgment, intelligence and experience!!!!
12:14 AM on 03/26/2008
That brings up the next subject - character. Richard Nixon displayed immense character in 1960 and again in 1968. 1972? I don’t think so. Some of his lackeys certainly lacked judgment in the Watergate break-in. Nixon totally screwed up trying to cover it up, but he did manage to resign before impeachment. The Clintons, on the other hand, have never, nor will they ever, display or embrace any positive character related attributes. I wonder if Al Gore’s post 2000 election behavior was brought about by too much Clinton? I don’t think so. Like most liberals, he has the anti-character flaw chromosome.
11:52 PM on 03/25/2008
Finally you liberal democrats are seeing through the Clintons for what they are. Power mad politicians that will do and say anything to be elected. Their behavior was either ignored or rationalized by you leftists in the 90s because they were opposing the hated right. They were excused. Finally you notice when the Clintons oppose one of your own favorites. You people act shocked at the lying, race baiting and all around evil behavior of Bill and Hillary.

Here is the big difference between Richard Nixon in 1960 and Al Gore in 2000: Nixon lost a very close election to JFK and Illinois was the closest contested state much like Florida in 2000. The Democratic Daily Machine in Chicago had pulled some stunts like they had in years gone by to sway the election to Kennedy. Nixon had every right to call for an investigation and recount but in 1960 he had both character and class and passed on those opportunities. He felt his own self interest was not worth putting the country through a divisive fight. Gore, on the other hand, cared more for himself than his country in 2000. His self-centered motivation set the tone for GWB’s presidency. Dividing lines were drawn by Gore, the MSM and many of you sore losing democrats. Part 2 coming up.
12:35 AM on 03/26/2008
That brings up the next subject - character. Richard Nixon displayed immense character in 1960 and again in 1968. 1972? I don’t think so. Some of his lackeys certainly lacked judgment in the Watergate break-in. Nixon totally screwed up trying to cover it up, but he did manage to resign before impeachment. The Clintons, on the other hand, have never, nor will they ever, display or embrace any positive character related attributes. I wonder if Al Gore’s post 2000 election behavior was brought about by too much Clinton? I don’t think so. Like most liberals, he has the anti-character flaw chromosome.

But it seems the Clintons, Gore and Nixon all have things in common. Bill and Hillary had THEIR enemies list and sent the FBI to investigate them and the IRS to audit them. Very nice people! Here is what will set them apart from every politician since recent history. Mark my words here, please. The Clintons will figure out a scheme to steal the convention and the nomination from Obama. To them it won't matter how much the democratic party will suffer or the Country as a whole. All they want is the White House and the power associated.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
StephieL
Writer, music lover, book reader
11:47 PM on 03/25/2008
I found this quote from Mr. Collis's blog quite interesting. He wrote, "Clinton feels that all their years of being Atwatered and Starred and Roved meant that she HAD to play the game at sewer level just to survive. In fact, she was JUSTIFIED to play that way, because of what had been done to her and to Bill."

This quote sums up the politics of "virtuous victimization" which has been inflicted on us for the last five Presidencies, if not longer. Hillary attempts to portray herself and Bill as the "poor, virtuous little victims'' of the Big Bad Guys (Rove, Starr and Atwater), and because they were 'victimized', they are completely justified to engage in the same brand of vicious political games as their 'victimizers'. This type of political behavior is destructive to the Democratic Party and to the nation. What makes this even more tragic is that while Clinton continues to take sniping pot-shots at Obama while he struggles to raise the level of political discourse to a higher level, John McCain starts to look more appealing to a lot of people.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
11:42 PM on 03/25/2008
Hey, leave Sinbad alone. He's my hero!!!!!!!!!
10:30 PM on 03/25/2008
Bill should come out and say if Hill wins I'll be running things; get it out in the open and see what happens.
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
foreffectivegovernment
Neither big nor limited, effective.
11:13 PM on 03/25/2008
God, I hope that's true. I want peace and prosperity again instead of the current mess. He did it once, He could do it again. That is precisely why people who were old enough to remember those days want them back. He has proven he can make change and not just talk about it.

Those who choose to bring up the impeachment again, should get George W. Bush a BJ and maybe the Republicans would let us impeach him.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
dadw5boys
Disabled Vietnam Vet
10:25 PM on 03/25/2008
STOP HILLARY AND STOP NATIONAL HEALTH CARE THAT IS THE MEDIA AGENDA!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Don't be fooled!!!!!!!!!