"Now let me tell you what I can remember, OK -- because what I was told was that we had to land a certain way and move quickly because of the threat of sniper fire. So I misspoke -- I didn't say that in my book or other times but if I said something that made it seem as though there was actual fire -- that's not what I was told. I was told we had to land a certain way, we had to have our bulletproof stuff on because of the threat of sniper fire. I was also told that the greeting ceremony had been moved away from the tarmac but that there was this 8-year-old girl and, I can't, I can't rush by her, I've got to at least greet her -- so I greeted her, I took her stuff and then I left, Now that's my memory of it.I followed-up, noting that the episode has raised questions about her credibility on foreign policy. She responded:
"No, I went to 80 countries, you know. I gave contemporaneous accounts, I wrote about a lot of this in my book. you know, I think that, a minor blip, you know, if I said something that, you know, I say a lot of things -- millions of words a day -- so if I misspoke, that was just a mistatement."
Millions of words a day.
How many of them true?
If her supporters think this isn't going to be the "Al Gore invented the Internet" cudgel used by Republicans (and alienated Dems) to beat her general election chances into the ground, should she succeed in wresting the Democratic Presidential nomination from leader Barack Obama, they are inhaling the very substance Bill Clinton claims he did not.
I posted the video yesterday, but here's a link just in case you missed it.
This goes to the heart of the biggest complaint against the Clintons: They will do anything to win and love power more than truth. It neatly undermines her supposed strength, her pumped up claims of "experience", particularly foreign policy experience, over Obama.
Will it reach the low-information Democratic voters she's been relying on, Rove-like, for so much of this contest? Is the media too cowed by the Clintons to make it known?
The weird thing is that she didn't have to lie, she went there, did her thing, and whatever it was, it counts for something. Just not as much as she is trying to make it count.
It's not the actions of a fearless leader. It's the lie of a cynical, fundamentally frightened politician.
And yes, it matters that she lies.
5 comments:
I'm experiencing deja vu... hmm... eeeww...what is this sick, uneasy feeling I have? Oh yeah, its that feeling I get when I fear our deluded, stupefied, uninformed nation might actually be dumb enough to go ahead and nominate then elect a lying, purely selfish, hopelessly corrupt politician to our nation's highest office! I worry that we've gotten used to liars. They feel familiar and electable.
Two good friends have come out to me as Hilary supporters in the last couple of days. I'm doing my best to lead them toward the light, but
I just don't know what to do with all my feelings. Help me, Nettertainment!
Easy, dearie, just send them to the most pertinent posts on Uncle Nettertainment!
But seriously, there's two things to do. One is to ask whether they really think Hillary will get away with such lies in the general election when they were able to paste Al Gore as untruthful due to what he said (truthful) about helping to get the Internet funded. That and all Bill's involvement with overseas money now (tax returns out Saturday, they say).
Then ask if they've watched Obama's "To a More Perfect Union" speech on YouTube (along with the other 4 million views). If not, then tell them they have to see it before they decide, and after see if they feel the same.
And ask them to compare his frank discussion with Hillary's triangulation and list-making. If they're still for her after that, good luck to them!
When I was a kid, if I said something that I knew was patently untrue, it was called a lie and I was called a liar. However, if a politico says something that is untrue, it is called a mistake and they are called mistaken (in addition to Hil's "mispeak," think of McLame and his Iraq-Iran "mistakes"). I used to support Hilary, now she makes me sick. Obama might not be the most qualified (whatever that means), but at least he appears to be playing a reasonably straight game.
Even her comment about speaking "millions of words a day" is a lie. To speak a million words in a day would be going at over 11 words a second without a break for 24 hours!
Easier still, talk about issues. On almost every serious contentious legislative issue of the past 15 years: NAFTA, welfare reform, Telecom act of 1996, bank/brokerage deregulation, Iraq, etc, HRC's been on the wrong side of the argument.
While I'm thrilled to hear about all the things HRC's *going* to do, I know about all the things she's already done. Women of a certain age love HRC, and that's their right, but if they expect something other than more of the same, they'll be sorely disappointed.
(Oops, gotta run, I'm afraid my wife will see this!)
-m
ps: was out on a wall street consulting gig yesterday w/ some guys I know well -- white, 40's-50s, went to decent colleges, and otherwise fairly sharp -- and they all told me they're voting McCain.
Why?
1) BO is a black sepratist who's in league w/ Farrakhan.
2) BO is a Muslim and will give the USA over to the Jihadis.
3) BO will make make Al Sharpton head of HUD.
Yes, they were all serious. I'm thinking of padding my bill.
Post a Comment