During the Democratic debate in Philadelphia, Hillary Clinton gave the following gloss on her Bosnia fairytale: "I can tell you that I may be a lot of things but I'm not dumb... On a couple of occasions in the last weeks, I just said some things that weren't in keeping with what I knew to be the case ...on a few occasions I was not as accurate as I have been in the past... So I will either try to get more sleep...or have somebody who is there as a reminder to me. "
Huh?
Ordinarily, saying things that aren't in keeping with what one knows to be the case is called "lying". And what's dumb got to do with it? No one ever accused Hillary of being dumb. And dumb couldn't explain her Bosnia remarks anyhow.
Yet bizarrely enough, the press didn't seem to notice or comment on the utter absurdity of her remarks. Either they were accepted as some kind of apology or they were relegated to the ever-expanding swamp of campaign "gaffes" and "silliness."
In any case, the Bosnia story has now been overshadowed -- most recently by the lunatic performances of Reverend Wright. But whether or not Reverend Wright is a nut-job is not remotely the same order of question as whether snipers were shooting at Hillary Clinton. Everyone senses this, even if they can't articulate it.
It is truly unsettling to watch someone lie so effortlessly and with such seeming sincerity. To recap: Hillary, sporting a big festive shamrock scarf, looked straight at the audience and in a remarkably relaxed way recalled an incident where she had landed in Bosnia under sniper fire. She described a situation so dangerous that the greeting ceremony at the airport had to be canceled and claimed that she'd run to her vehicle with her head down in order to make a quick getaway. She even had an accompanying hand gesture conveying her dramatic dash for dear life.
There were no obvious tells that Hillary was bluffing. She chuckled a little as she described her narrow escape -- a curious affect given the gravity of the situation, but people do react in different ways to trauma. Overall, it was a pretty smooth performance. If there were any pangs of conscience they were not visible.
As political lies go, it was an outlier. Hillary didn't impulsively lie because she was caught off-guard. She didn't lie because the truth would be damaging to her political career or painful to her family. She didn't lie to win over a political base. She didn't lie to distance herself from an event that suggested some improper conduct or an unsavory person that could tarnish her reputation. She didn't lie because she was promoting behavior in the public sphere that she was not abiding by in her personal life. She didn't lie to cover up a mistake that had been made.
Hillary's lie was different. She lied with no need to do so. And she made the story up out of whole cloth. It wasn't as if one bullet was fired at her and she exaggerated the incident. There was no sniper fire - never, ever. It was the sort of lie a child might tell playing make-believe. In an article in Huffington Post, Nora Ephron confessed that she'd "lost hours trying to figure out why" Hillary told such "a big lie".
But let's say she was motivated by political gain. Some have suggested the story was meant to embellish her foreign policy experience. But dodging sniper fire doesn't really speak to foreign policy expertise; it speaks more to issues of character like bravery and patriotism. Maybe it was supposed to suggest that Hillary could be a better match for John McCain because she too had put herself in harms' way for her country.
Of course, as a political calculation, this would have been crazy. Considering the probability of getting caught, the risks of telling this lie far outweighed any conceivable political gain. As New York Times columnist Frank Rich pointed out her story had "been publicly debunked by journalists and eyewitnesses" for months. "Why would so smart a candidate play political Russian roulette with virtually all the bullet chambers loaded?"
Wouldn't it have entered her mind that if she was found out it would be seen as an insult to anyone who'd seen real action? One GOP ad with grainy footage of McCain limping home from Vietnam contrasted with Hillary's cheerful tale of coming under sniper fire in Bosnia, and the race would be over.
Hillary may have gambled that her audience wanted to believe her. Or she may have figured the story was so tall that the public would never dream she'd made it up. Whatever her thought process, Hillary appeared unfazed by the possibility of detection. Guilt, fear of humiliation, or any other negative repercussions did not appear to inhibit her. Apparently, there was no little voice in her head, helping her to distinguish between right and wrong. Christopher Hitchens concluded that Hillary may be "someone who lies without conscience or reflection".
When Hillary's lie was exposed, she attempted to diminish it. She said she "misspoke" because of sleep deprivation. Then she said she "misspoke" because, after all, she spouts "millions of words a day". But Hillary couldn't have "misspoke" She'd repeated the story on several occasions. Perhaps she was saying that she continually "misspoke". But if she continually "misspoke", surely Chelsea, who had accompanied her to Bosnia, would have pointed this out. (Psst, Mom, nobody was shooting at us).
Maybe there was nothing Hillary could say, but a little remorse would have been nice. Instead she seemed irritated: "So I made a mistake. That happens. It proves I'm human which you know for some people is a revelation". In other words, we were to blame for holding her to too high a standard of truth.
When it became apparent that people weren't willing to dismiss Hillary's Bosnia "misstatement" so quickly, she attempted to make light of it. Appearing on the Tonight Show with Jay Leno, she joked: "I was so worried I wasn't going to make it [here]. I was pinned down by sniper fire at a Burbank airport." She referred to the Bosnia flap as "a mismatch of words and actions", and since, after all, she'd got it right in her book, she'd "obviously had a lapse".
The Hillary camp must have realized the story wasn't completely dead, because Bill Clinton brought it up again. In a bizarrely misguided attempt to minimize its impact he revived the story in a version of his own : "There was a lot of fulminating because Hillary one time late at night when she was exhausted misstated and immediately apologized for it, what happened to her in Bosnia in 1995... You woulda thought, you know that she'd robbed a bank the way they carried on about this. And some of them when they're 60, they'll forget something when they're tired at 11:00 at night too".
Of course, it wasn't one time. It wasn't late at night. She wasn't exhausted because she said it three different times. And she didn't apologize immediately (or even close to immediately). It also begged the question: If Hillary could be gaga at 11:00 pm, what would she be like when the phone rings at 3:00 am?
When President Clinton's story backfired, Hillary's campaign tried to paint Bill as the storyteller and his wife as the authority. At a rally in Indiana, Bill said: "Hillary called me and said, 'You don't remember this. You weren't there, let me handle it'''. Now let me get this straight: Hillary was there, so Hillary ought to know, except it turned out that Hillary didn't know, so Bill makes up a story to explain the story that Hillary made up even though she was there.
There are two possibilities: Hillary may be a pathological liar. Or, more persuasive to me, Hillary believed what she was saying and her description of her Bosnia trip was a true representation of her psychic reality and not external reality. In her internal world, Hillary may feel as though she's always being shot at by sniper fire and that she's heroically managed to stay alive.
This theory makes sense of Hillary's recklessness. It didn't feel reckless to Hillary to repeat this lie over and over again, and she paid no heed to those who contradicted her, because in her mind, she was telling the truth. Only when confronted with undeniable evidence of external reality -- actual footage from her Bosnia trip - did she admit (possibly to herself as well as the public) that her version of events was not true.
It also explains Hillary's reaction when exposed. She was angry because she was forced to abandon her psychic reality for external reality. For her, this was tantamount to giving up the truth in exchange for mere facts. When she said "It proves I'm human which you know for some people is a revelation", she may well have been reminding herself.
While most of her explanations have made no sense, when Hillary told Leno that she'd had "a lapse", she was right on. She'd had an actual lapse in mental functioning. Fantasy took over from reality. Reporters and pundits were already starting to question whether Hillary believed her own story. Hitchens wondered whether "she was subject to an illusory past". Melinda Henneberger, writing in Slate, said, she could only conclude that Hillary must have believed the lie because she could not imagine any other reason why "any presidential candidate would knowingly cook up such a doozy of a drama about dodging a sniper's bullets in Bosnia -- given that she was accompanied on this trip by a planeload of reporters". Henneberger concluded that this was more disturbing than if she had lied and "ought to be a deal breaker".
This may explain why Hillary's explanation in the Pennsylvania debate was so bizarre: "I can tell you that I may be a lot of things but I'm not dumb." She wanted to shift her problem into the domain of IQ rather than raising a question about her psychic functioning. If people began to question her grasp of reality, she'd be history.
The sensed of a shared reality is fundamental to the functioning of the world. In the same way that delusions and hallucinations are so disturbing, or that contradicting a child's perceptions is so traumatic, so Hillary's story constituted a jarring attack on our sense of common reality.
In the course of Hillary's campaign, a number of features have repeatedly emerged that are also elements of her Bosnia tale. 1) Hillary is both hero and victim; 2) facts are of no consequence; 3) And there are no witnesses or observers to the facts. This last point is always startling. For example, Hillary's explanation of her vote on the war made Nora Ephron wonder if Hillary thought we "weren't alive at the time."
On the tarmac in Bosnia, Hillary is the victim for being shot at and the hero for braving a war zone. And she's apparently having a negative hallucination that nobody else was there. The irony, of course, is that when the Bosnia story was discovered, it reinforced Hillary's psychic reality: Once again she felt she was being sniped at (this time by journalists). And that she had to heroically fight on and escape this near-death experience. Which it now seems she has.
For those who think Hillary won't go all the way to the convention in Denver, think again. Hillary sees herself as the victim in this primary campaign -- blaming the press, or the Democratic rules of proportional representation, or the caucus system, or whatever else she comes up with between now and August. She considers herself a heroic fighter for the good of the country; she ignores all the merely factual evidence that she is losing by every measure; and she imagines that nobody is there to notice.
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
Terrific insight. Seems like the voting population by-and-large feels the same way!
There is no way to deny that Hillary blatantly lied. How insulting to the public! No to mention that it is an inaccurate depiction of the past, unfairly misinforming younger voters. It is also frightening to consider that Hillary is at "an age" where scenes from war movies are confused with real life experience. I'd prefer a sharp-minded candidate, or at least one sensitive enough to understand that a genuine apology for the "mis-statement" was clearly in order. Perhaps we just have to realize how difficult it is for Hillary to control her lying. Lets face it; it is second nature to her.
Hillary's entire 'experience' campaign is false. She has none to speak of in any relevant category save campaigning via the low road.
In other words, this lie was no outlier; lying is intrinsic to her campaign. Every claim she's made about her experience has been equally false, whether its the "I brought peace to Ireland" whopper or the "I've been duckhuimting since I was eight years old" canard.
So, there's no mystery why Hillary lied about flying to Tuzla: she has been making similar false claims as a matter of course, and this was only one more such.
There's a very simple explanation for why Hillary lied about her trip to Bosnia. She figured it would bolster her foreign policy credentials and that the media wouldn't do any fact-checking. After all, the media has let her get away with claiming she has 35 years of experience. How many times has she said this and how many times has the media actually questioned that claim? By not questioning it, they let it sink in to the point that most people actually believe it. The other reason Hillary lies is that she figures that by the time anyone does catch it, it'll be too late. Take the issue of NAFTA and her claim that she was always against it. She made this claim right before the Ohio primary. She rightly assumed that the media would be slow to investigate and that by the time anyone realized she was lying, the primary would be over. That's exactly what happened. It was only after the primary that we learned she was a cheerleader for it. The media has been incredibly lazy and Hillary has taken advantage of it.
I'm guessing you are young Ellen. Try putting this piece away until you're around 50. I'll bet you will find it to be embarrassing. As you age you tend to forget some details about your life. It surprises you when you do.
And you must be prematurely demented. Details? Are you kidding?
Forgetting some details? Are you out of your mind? Hillary Clinton didn't just 'forget some details'. She made up a story and repeated it three times in front of reporters, assuming that no one would notice that it never happened. I think you need to reread this article. It is you who should be embarrassed.
And no, I'm not young. I'm probably older than most of you. However, in spite of my age, I've never created scenarios for my past out of whole clothe in order to gain favor with those around me.
It's possible that she's young; but I suspect she's spot on. For the record, I'm 47. Yes, I do forget things from time to time; but I can honestly say I've never hallucinated being shot at, let alone being shot at while I had my daughter in tow. Forgetting the name of someone you met at a cocktail party last week is one thing; Hillary's story is in a whole other league.
Enough said.
Right now Ellen Ladowsky believes so HARD in the story of the Clintons as "liars" she cannot imagine her own reality being skewed by an alternative explanation.
The human brain is far more complicated than anything you have dreamt of, young Horatio. Being TOLD that there might be sniper fire and they might have to run for cover took on a life of its own in memory, easily slipped in alongside the young girl with her poem.
Oh right, just slipped in. Sure. Maybe it could slip in if it were a 5 year old, before the distinction between fantasy and reality had solidified. Or maybe it could slip in if it were a 95 year old in whom the distinction between fantasy and reality had organically deteriorated. Otherwise, if it slipped in, it could only have been because of a psychological impairment in someone who preferred their own reality to everybody else's. In which case, speaking for myself, I would prefer that they not become president of the United States.
Exactly VillyVal
And did it also just "slip" into her memory that she always opposed NAFTA, that she grew up shooting guns with her grandfather, that she opposed the war from the beginning ...... It's not that Ellen Ladowsky believes so hard in the thesis that Hillary has created an alternative reality, but it is Hillary who seems to live in an alternative reality and will do anything and say anything to get what she feels is her entitlement. Her being a proven liar is just part of her incredible cynicism and contempt for the voting public. "Slipped in"....hogwash...
What bloody nonsense! Pathological liars, the pair of them. Recall the pained sincerity of the denial of the idyll in the oval office. But then, our boy didn't define having his dick sucked as sex. An amusing conceit applauded by any republican caught in the men's room with his pants down.
The only people who care about this are you Obama-lovers, Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh. It was St. Patrick's Day, so maybe she had some green beer at the parade that morning and her fish story grew a little too big, who cares? What I care about is that your candidate, St. Obama, has told so many versions of the truth about Rev. Wright, about what he heard, didn't hear, that I can't even keep track. And the Rev. Wright association is fundamental to his character, unlike the Bosnia-Clinton flap. So go ahead, keep lapping Obama lies, evasions and distortions. Clinton is what she is, she hasn't misrepresented herself as some kind of "new" politician. I'll take that any day over your fraud.
I was reading Amos Oz' (an Israeli author) book, "How to cure a fanatic," and read some passages which seem applicable:
"I'm saying that the seed of fanaticism always lies in uncompromising self-righteousness, the plague of many centuries."
"I have never once in my life seen a fanatic with a sense of humour....Fanatics are often sarcastic. Some of them have a very pointed sense of sarcasm, but no humour. Humour contains the ability to laugh at ourselves. Humour is relativism, humour is the ability to see yourself as others may see you, humour is the capacity to realize that no matter how righteous you are and how terribly wronged you have been, there is a certain side of life that is always a bit funny."
Don't be distrubed by Hillary. We know both Clintons will lie first and beg forgivness later. Be distrubed by the 50% of the Democratic party that is falling for her lies. Just look over at Taylor Marsh's blog. It not only distrubing, it's downright terrifying.
Thank you for the thoughtful piece.
I have never seen Hillary Clinton accept responsibility for her actions, ever. Hillary laughed it off when it was brought up during the debate. I have a nightmares that she may laugh it off after obliterating Iran.
I don't know what's worse - a candidate who is in his 70's facing senility or a candidate who is reckless and hallucinates at the same time?
"I have never seen Hillary Clinton accept responsibility for her actions, ever."
Exactly!
I have noticed the same thing. I think the author is right. Hillary never apologizes for mistakes because, in her mind, she has never made a mistake.
Since she has apologized for this particular mistake on numerous occasions, I guess the only thing more irrational would be the belief that you can read her mind.
Second, what she said was not an innocent "mistake". It was a deliberate attempt to deceive. (aka a lie)
The only "mistake" she made was believing that she would not get caught.
"I can tell you that I may be a lot of things but I'm not dumb... On a couple of occasions in the last weeks, I just said some things that weren't in keeping with what I knew to be the case ...on a few occasions I was not as accurate as I have been in the past... So I will either try to get more sleep...or have somebody who is there as a reminder to me. "
That is not an apology, that's another lie.
I am affraid Hillary will keep going even after somone else is innagurated President in January 2009. This woman is insane and should be locked-up.
You write, Ms. Ladowsky, "Henneberger concluded that [landing if Bosnia and talking about it as if no one from the press was with her] was more disturbing than if she had lied and 'ought to be a deal breaker'."
Exactly, and far more revealing about her character flaws, her bad judgment, and un-trustworthiness than Obama's Wright problems. Because of these flaws, I don't see how we can reasonably expect her to "wake up" to what she's doing. She needs some help from others. The ones best suited to wake her up are voters, who can tell her they're not going to triangulate with her against Obama, the Congress, the economists, the oil companies, etc. any more.
great piece!
well reasoned!
well written!
long overdue!
"Hillary's not a liberal, she's one of you neocons."
She's whatever you want her to be. (Two two oldest professions share MO's.)
No, Hill-Rod is a socialist. She'll tax you into oblivion. For your own good, of course.
You think Hillary Clinton is a "socialist"? That's funny to me, because I am on the left, and I, along with virtually everyone I know of on the left, believes Hillary is a right-wing fascist. So if the righties think she is a socialist, and the lefties think she is a right-wing fascist, and most people, no matter where on the political spectrum, think she is a pathological liar or has even more serious psychological problems, she should definitely be toast in a general election match-up with McCain. Maybe that is something we can agree on.
Aside from the pitiful few who imagine themselves to be the only truly legitimate leftists, I haven't come across anybody who thinks Hillary a right wing fascist. Only those on whose tongues the word fascist trips lightly would call her one.
I think you've summarized where Clinton falls on the 'electability' scale. Even if she beats Obama in the primaries through whatever battery of cheating and sleazery she can manage, there is the problem of those of us who favor Obama seeing her as being Republican lite and for having far too much in common with Bush (being unable to ever admit being wrong as a primary one); and those who favor McCain seeing her as the anti-Christ/Socialist/Communist/Stalin reincarnated/abortion lover/America hater/etc.
Fascinating psychological explanation of Hillary Clinton's remarks and behaviour. The article raises issues that are critical to consider before electing this woman as president of the U.S.
Wake up and smell the coffee will ya? Those like myself have known and been telling you all about Hillary and her husband for years. Now since the liberals are finally seeing these people for who they always have been it is "news". You created these people, now you can lie with them. (pun intended!)
I'll say! Are political journalists and commentators (no matter whether on the right or the left) constitutionally stupid when it comes to assessing the characters of the candidates? The evidence, both in speech and behavior, is smack in front of their eyes, and yet they elevate their own fantasies based on the most superficial aspects of what they hear and see, and relegate far more telling and significant evidence of how a candidate's mind functions to what they sneeringly refer to as mere psychologizing. Wake up, dumbnuts! Don't you realize that your wives or husbands or children or friends know much more about you than the bullshit you spout about yourselves? And as Dr. Ladowsky demonstrates, so can the American people about the candidates.
It is hard to listen to the talking heads as they focus on issues like lapel pins and wacko pastors while ignoring the truly bizarre and disturbing behavior of Clinton. This woman is truly nuts and it's getting scary. Oblamov, you may be right about the dumbnuts, but hopefully the voters will come through and give us the most thoughtful and sensible candidate we have a chance to elect in years.
Its not lying anymore, the proper Clintonian term is "mis-statement". For example when Bill told America he didnt have sex with that woman he wasnt lying he was mis-stating.
Yes you are right..I will try to get the word "lie" and all of its forms out of my vocabulary.
And now, when she can't name a single economist who supports her gas-tax, she implies they're all elitists. She doesn't have to listen to them.
I feel like I'm watching a train wreck. . .
Is this news also?...you didn't know that she has all of the answers? Remember when she first tried to pull of "Hillary care" way back when? This is all so funny. To see all of these people so shocked at the Clintons nowadays you have to wonder where they all were when these horrible people were first in office.
Posted May 2, 2008 | 06:24 PM (EST)