From the opening of Clinton’s speech a few days ago:
I certainly do remember that trip to Bosnia, and as Togo said, there was a saying around the White House that if a place was too small, too poor, or too dangerous, the president couldn’t go, so send the First Lady. That’s where we went.
I remember landing under sniper fire. There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base.
That’s not what happened. There was no sniper fire. There was a greeting ceremony at the airport, with the President of Bosnia. An adorable eight-year old read Clinton a poem on the tarmac, while Chelsea waited nearby. There were no press reports of Clinton being under fire in Bosnia.
This isn’t an unimportant lie; Clinton’s lie here, and her exaggeration of her role in Ireland, relates directly to her contention that she’s qualified to answer a phone ringing at 3am and Obama isn’t. This is, in fact, the central argument of her campaign.
My first reaction was that this is Clinton overreaching to establish her creds as a foreign policy veteran. Charles disagrees; he told me that he thinks this is Clinton reacting to sexism by trying to prove she’s tough and unafraid, fighting against the stereotype of women’s roles. It seems to me that probably both motivations are at play here.
Curiously, Clinton’s also fibbed about her role in domestic policy — for instance, taking credit for the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), which she apparently had nothing to do with.
What really bothers me is that Clinton’s lying is so transparent, indicating that Clinton — who by all accounts is brilliant and disciplined — has decided she can get away with blatant lies. So far, she’s been right, which says a lot about how bad our media is.
Clinton’s supporters claim the media is biased against her; but compare the near free ride Clinton’s lies have gotten from the media to the hysteria over Obama’s minister. This is because the mainstream media is less “pro-Obama” than “pro-narrative.” The media has bought into a narrative frame which says Clinton represents experience, Obama represents hope, and lies that support this narrative aren’t questioned.
Of course, the media is biased against Clinton, both because she’s a woman and because she’s a Clinton. But the bias isn’t the one-way street Clinton’s supporters believe.
* * *
Incidentally, I think Clinton has impressive foreign policy creds; in particular, she’s been a consistent and dedicated voice for women’s rights for many years. That’s a real argument in Clinton’s favor, and it’s a record she should be proud of.
But that’s not the foreign policy experience she’s been claiming for herself, or running on. And the experience she has been claiming for herself isn’t true. And her longstanding hawkishness, regardless of if it’s rooted in a defensive reaction to sexism or in genuine inclinations, is extremely problematic.
Maybe she’s remembering a different trip where she actually did come under fire.
Well, yes, but the record she has and the record she’s trying to build are very different. The type of centrist voters she seems to be appealing to by saying she came under fire and so forth are less likely to be impressed by her work for women’s rights.
What’s important? That she’s Known War and that she’s meddled in foreign conflicts like Bosnia and N. Ireland, or that she’s supported clinics that offer poor women reproductive options? She’s not Mother Teresa. Mother Teresa would (and did) deny birth control to those same women.
I think Clinton and Obama both play towards the middle (as most Democratic candidates seem to), but they use markedly different strategies. Clinton is focusing on the US’s perceived role as the world’s police force.
Based on what I know so far of her ‘first lady papers’ her experience is a lot less impressive than I’d thought. I think her political background is a lot deeper than her governing background. Also, i really don’t trust her at all. She seems very like bush but with slightly different objectives.
Hillary is one of the old style Democrats who seem to think people are idiots. Obama though has been given a free ride in the media almost completely up until just last week. I think the Republicans want Obama to face off against due to what they perceive as his weaknesses. If Clinton takes the nomination away from Obama without the majority of votes or delegates other than the super-delegates, then the Democratic Party is going to have a lot of problems this election.
On the lying we all know how great Hillary is at it. She never met one she didn’t like.
I don’t think it is just Clinton who blatantly lies.
Lies have become the mainstay of political practice when it comes to dealing with the electorate.
To say that Clinton won’t get elected because she is a woman seems a bit sexist but, unfortunately, it is probably true.
It is almost as if the democrats have chosen two candidates who can not win.
America will not vote for a woman president.
Neither will it vote for a black president.
This is not because they couldn’t do the job but because america is still stuck in the middle ages as far as attitudes to women, other races and religions are concerned.
No matter how good these candidates come across, when it comes to voting, the majority of americans will not vote for them (although that didn’t stop bush jnr from getting the presidency).
It is almost as if the democrats have sided with the republicans to let the republicans win.
When that happens, it will be like Bush has continued his term.
Still, being a brit living in the UK, I may have got this wrong.
But, I am pretty sure that, come election day neither Obama not Clinton will win.
I am not a Clinton supporter at this time, but if she should win the nomination, I would fight for her. That being said, still, as a citizen, I really do think that political speech needs to be studied carefully.
There are definitely “lies” that I have no patience for–e.g., if someone deliberately revises a policy stance but pretends otherwise, or when other people’s lives are on the line (as with lying about vital intelligence information before a war), or if a president obviously knows or should know basic information but clings to “I cannot recall” or other claims of ignorance that stretch credulity but make it impossible for people to actually CALL them lies. These latter rhetorical tactics really frustrate me, much more than outright lying, and I find them much more despicable–especially, again, when people’s lives have been lost or placed at stake because of the lie.
I study autobiography as a genre, and there’s pretty much not one person’s that’s free from “lies,” Timothy Dow Adams wrote a book about the subject, Telling Lies in Modern American Autobiography, and it really does seem that self-serving, self-“heroicizing” ‘lies” are part and parcel of the genre, and possibly part and parcel of human memory–which social science does repeatedly show us to be much less reliable than we think. I therefore find that I tend to be a little more forgiving of politicians–Republicans and Democrats–when they misremember the past, and do so in such a way as to aggrandize their own experience.
I want it pointed out, yes, but I want it kept in perspective. I simply don’t think it’s always as malicious as the word “lies” implies–I think it’s a pretty human foible. (Although, yes, of course, there are limits and there are points where one must be concerned for a person’s mental health, as when Reagan remembered a role he played in a movie as if it were his real life.)
I wonder, with Robert, if there’s any chance that Clinton did come under fire at some point and is conflating this memory with that? That would make a difference, to me, as a democrat. If there isn’t then this is fairly serious, and I will consider that.
Finally, of course I can see that Republicans will no doubt want to play up this as a “lie” pure and simple no matter what–that’s their job. But, from a purely political perspective, however, as a Democrat, I really wish we’d stop doing so much of their work for them. I wish we’d (and that Obama and Clinton would take the lead on this) start collectively paying A LOT more attention to the problems and sleights of hands with the way McCain has portrayed himself. As Howard Dean put it in a conversation with the National Journal a month ago,
When I read the headline for this post, I thought you implied that she should lie more artfully – a skill she could learn from her husband.
Frankly, I think the campaign has been grasping at straws, trying to scare the super delegates away from Obama by raising Rove-style fears of terrorist wolves circling the compound, as the white children sleep blissfully unaware of the barbarian hordes threatening Our Way of Life. Help me, O Great Protector!
So Clinton plays into racist and patriarchal stereotypes. But it’s a sword she will die by, because if the masses are as dumb as she treats them, then they’ll throw their chips in with Soldier McCain.
It’s concievable that Clinton was shot at by snipers a trip to some country other than Bosnia, and conflated the memories. To me it seems a little bit unlikely that someone who is not fired upon by snipers frequently would misremember where it happened — I imagine being shot at would be kind of, you know, memorable. Plus, I think it would have been in the news. But if I’m proven wrong, I’ll post an update.
* * *
I think either Clinton or Obama can beat McCain. It’s true, as Kevin says, that Clinton’s current strategy wouldn’t be all that useful against McCain; but if she wins the primary, she’ll presumably switch to a different strategy.
The economy is not going to get better between now and November; it will almost certainly get worse. That’s bad news, but it makes it unlikely that McSame will be able to beat either Democrat, even though the press will be entirely on his side.
I was attentive to the news reporting here in Britain during the lead up to the Good Friday agreement, and I don’t recall any involvement by Clinton. The US special envoy was George Mitchell.
Instead she adheres to the sexist stereotype of the “lying woman”.
I don’t think Hillary is “lying badly”. Bill’s lies were no less transparent. She’s just campaigning like it’s 1999 … and it’s the 21 century, now.
.
Daran, it’s not as if Obama and McCain haven’t also told lies; politicians lie.
It’s fair to point out and criticize when politicians (male or female) lie, but to single out the female candidate for “lying while female” is obviously sexist and unfair.
(Especially since if she instead was the only candidate to be strictly truthful at all times, then she could likewise be said to be adhering to the sexist stereotype of women as goodie-goodies.)
Try to pay attention, people. Apparently she did help the FMLA pass, in addition to calling for expansion.
Start investigating claims like this before Maureen Antoinette and the other Powdered-Wig Pundits start doing it to Obama.
I can’t refute the other claim of lying at the moment. Perhaps she did invent danger. But see if you can spot the problem with these two quotes:
There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base.
and: a report by Sharyl Atkisson for the March 25 CBS This Morning showed Mrs. Clinton arriving at the main air base at Tuzla not running with her head down, but smiling and walking alongside daughter Chelsea.
Because she’s an American politician, and they are all liars..?
(Do I win anything for having the right answer..?)
“it makes it unlikely that McSame …”
Who? John McSame, or Barry Osama?
I find it kind of sad the way the primary battle has infected so many lefty blogs.
I actually empathize with Hillary Clinton (though I certainly do not endorse lying). As the smartest person in the room, usually, it took me a good long time to realize that being smart didn’t all by itself lead to success, good judgment, logical decision making skills or (especially) good relationships. And it took me a little longer to realize that neither was this an unfair outcome. I don’t want to overpsychologize, but I see in Hillary Clinton this enormous need to have her brilliance validated by an achievement that equals her co-equal in life (her husband), when it should be obvious by now that he was elected for reasons other than his policy acumen.
But of course, the kicker is — Barack Obama is really smart too! A double whammy! Indeed, Barack Obama has a lot in common with Bill Clinton. To be in the shadow of two such people is probably more than a single brilliant person can be expected to bear in one lifetime without protest.
“It’s fair to point out and criticize when politicians (male or female) lie, but to single out the female candidate for “lying while female” is obviously sexist and unfair.”
And that was Daran’s point, that the stereotype is sexist and she is re-inforcing it.
“America will not vote for a woman president.
Neither will it vote for a black president.
This is not because they couldn’t do the job but because america is still stuck in the middle ages as far as attitudes to women, other races and religions are concerned……
Still, being a brit living in the UK, I may have got this wrong.”
May have got it wrong? That certainly is British understatement. There are women governors of states in the US just as there are women leaders of various European states, of generally the same size. There have been and are black governors in the US, – so far only two – though naturally there isn’t going to be a parallel in Europe for that, given its ethnic make-up.
McCain is probably the besrt candidate the Republicans could have put up, and even so he has some glaring weaknesses. Everyone concentrates on the Hillary’s or Barack’s vulnerablilities because they are newsworthy right now, and excuses Hillary’s kitchen sink tactics because Barack will face that and worse from the republicans. Nobody says a word about what kind of kitchen sink tactics McCain may face or how he will deal with the attacks. Where Hillary is a tower of self-control and Barack is a coalition builder, McCain is a hothead. The Democrats will have no problem goading him into gaffe after gaffe, and even before that, he goes in with some definite weaknesses.
He has no support at all in the religious Right. He also is on shaky ground with the other Republican constituency, the corporations, because of his fighter polit contempt for business in general and especially for his activism in campaign finance reform. He’s got problems and as soon as the democrast get headed all in the same direction, those problem are going to get a lot worse.
So actually, mrcnfox, your prediction is not just likely to turn out wrong, it is certain to turn out wrong, because besides McCain, the only other possibilities for President next year are a woman and a black man.
He’s got problems and as soon as the democrast get headed all in the same direction, those problem are going to get a lot worse
So all the Democrats have to do to win is get on the same page, huh? Welcome to the White House, President McCain.
It’s beginning to look like a Republican presidency and a Democratic congress, which could be worse.
Keep in mind that Robert was confidently predicting that Democrats couldn’t win elections at all just a couple of years ago.
My prediction is that — regardless of what Clinton or Obama supporters say now — we will wind up with a 95% unified Democratic party during the general election.
“It’s beginning to look like a Republican presidency and a Democratic congress, which could be worse.”
There are worse things than checks and balances.
“He’s got problems and as soon as the democrast get headed all in the same direction, those problem are going to get a lot worse
So all the Democrats have to do to win is get on the same page, huh? ”
Not quite what I said, is it? He will have probelms, and they will still have to struggle to win, the same as he will. My point was that McCain is anything but a sure thing, and that is about exactly what I said.
At this point, it’s just plain fucking embarrassing.
HF, if you really think the media hasn’t been trashing Obama, then I think you must not watch TV news. (Which would be to your credit.)
Regarding Clinton’s support of FMLA, I think your argument upgrades it from “a terrible lie” to an “ordinary lie” — the usual exaggeration politicians do to claim they were leaders on an issue when they actually were only supporters.
It simply isn’t true that if not for Hillary Clinton’s intervention, Bill Clinton wouldn’t have made FMLA a campaign issue, or sought to pass it quickly in a period when he was being criticized for dropping most of his campaign promises. It’s not a coincidence that the Democratic-controlled congress forced Bush Sr. to veto FMLA twice — including once in the September before the election; they did it because they understood that it was a very popular bill that Bush Sr. would hurt himself by vetoing. The only way it’s believable to say that Bill Clinton wouldn’t have pushed FMLA, under those circumstances, is to assume that Bill Clinton was a terrible politician who never read polls or attempted to capitalize on issues that hurt his opponents.
As it happens, I’ve read a lot about FMLA, including studying it in college several years ago as part of a women in politics course. I don’t recall ever hearing, before Hillary started running for President, that she had a substantial involvement in FMLA. Compare this thorough history of the FMLA’s passage under the Clinton administration (pdf link) to the claim that Hillary Clinton was an important leader in the fight for the FMLA.
It’s great that Clinton hosted Pat Schroeder while Schroeder passed through Arkansas as part of Schroeder’s national tour, but I don’t think that entitles Clinton to claim that she was a leader in the fight for the FMLA. She was a bit player in the early fight, and by the time she came to Washington the fight was 99% over.
I’m leery of seeming to be passionately anti-Clinton. I’m not. I think she’s brilliant, likable, and too right-wing for my taste — but that’s also my view of Obama. If she wins the nomination, I’ll certainly want her and not McCain to win, because whether or not she was a leader on FMLA, her instincts will be to support the FMLA and other bills like it. That’s important.
Furthermore, although I think her claims (and those of her supporters) regarding her role with FMLA are vastly exaggerated, I don’t think it’s at all an exaggeration to say that women’s issues and family issues have been important to Clinton for decades, and she has a solid record in this regard.
Stentor, although it’s hypocritical of me to say this, I agree with you.
I think you are probably right, as far as Democrats go. But, I think a lot of Dems who rely on this thinking are dismissing the Independents far too easy. From what I’m hearing, a lot of Independents who were supporting the Dems this year (some for Obama, some for Clinton) are jumping ship because of the problems with the DNC and the games they are playing. I can only hope that these people can be won back by November — but I think a sure fire way of guaranteeing that we won’t is to assume that they’ll just “support us anyway,” which seems to be what a lot of Kos type Obama supporters seem to argue.
I can’t imagine that either the Clinton or the Obama campaigns, should they win the nomination, will not be making serious efforts to court independent voters. And I don’t think the news about the Democratic primary in March will be decisive for many voters (independent or otherwise) eight months from now.
Ampersand,
I recently read a profile of one of these “innovative” economists who challenges the whole idea of rational decision making, and he made one point that seems really germane to the current primary campaign: the more nearly equal two alternatives are, the harder it is to choose, and the more emotional the choice becomes.
Also, I would add, the more it is that a choice reflects unprovable intangible qualities, the uglier the fight between adherents of the two becomes. We can’t really know who will make a better president just as we can’t prove the existence of God. There is an analogy to religious wars — people seem to fight fiercest when it’s in defense of a principle that they cannot prove.
That said, it brings my blood to a simmer when I feel that the Clintons are talking up McCain’s qualities — or playing the race card — or advocating rule changes to give Super Ds cover to ignore the delegate count. It especially makes me angry because Clinton’s most devoted supporters are women (like my mother) whose interests and priorities are clearly not shared by McCain. Would she really sell them out by subtly or not so subtly pushing McCain over Obama?
I wasn’t singling her out for lying while female. I was pointing out that her effort (according to Charles) to avoid one negative female stereotype lead her to adhere to another. I’m not aware of Obama adhering to any racial stereotypes in his efforts to avoid others, while McCain appears to adhere to every lunatic wingnut stereotype, while avoiding none of them.
It simply isn’t true that if not for Hillary Clinton’s intervention, Bill Clinton wouldn’t have made FMLA a campaign issue, or sought to pass it quickly in a period when he was being criticized for dropping most of his campaign promises.
Are you responding to someone other than Hillary Clinton and her web page?
I’m responding to the quotes you posted. Did they come from Clinton’s web page?
I was talking about her main website and the line that apparently provoked all this. Her campaign owns the other website as well, but the quotes that don’t come from news articles come from the two women named here.
Associate Press: Clinton ‘Misspoke’ About ’96 Bosnia Trip
Jim, if politics was an honest profession, and if nobody had any prejudices, then I agree with you.
Here in the Uk we have had a woman in charge.
She messed up our country. Not because she is female which, should be irrelevant but because of her policies.
Prejudice comes in all forms. It is accepted by the pundits in the UK that it is very unlikely that any Party leader with ginger hair would win a general election.
And it appears to hold water.
Silly?
Yes.
Just as not voting for a black or female simply because they are that is silly.
And to say that you have black Governors is not really relevant to a general election.
But, to return to the original topic of politicians in general and Clinton in particular lying, this is simply the nature of politics.
It IS corrupted from the lowest levels of political influence right to the top.
Here in the UK the turn out for elections are falling dramatically.
Our politicians tell us that this is because everyone is ‘content’.
I can assure you that is not the case.
A huge number of people don’t vote because they have absolutely no faith in politicians and the system as it is.
Now, that sort of thinking, which must be on the increase in the US, coupled with the stupid prejudices of people makes it likely that neither a woman nor a black person will become president in the near future.
You also have to consider the corruption and dishonesty that is evident in your way of voting.
Bush didn’t win one of his elections.
He still became president though.
So, added to voter frustration and prejudice you have to add the possibility that the whole election is a fraud anyway.
What evidence do we have, from recent history anyway, that it is the electorate who decides who has control in your country?
Or mine.
And is it a deliberate ploy of the powers that be, that the parties in both your country and mine are harder and harder to tell apart?
Democracy in your country, and mine, is designed to make people think they have control when, in actuality, those with the real power have absolutely no intention of letting the ‘man in the street’ decide what they can and can not do.
Frankly, I consider faith in the political systems of our to countries to be naive, closed minded and not much different from a belief in a supreme being.
There is as much evidence for a fair political system as there is a god.
Finally people, stop paying any attention to what people, especially politicians say. Watch what they do. look at their record. Not the records their web sites and publicity claims but do some searching.
If you do this, you will find that even politicians that tell the truth, largely, do so for one purpose. Their own or their parties advancement.
You may call me cynical but, when I started looking at politics with an unbiased eye and left my preconceived understanding in it’s box, all I could see was corruption, lies and cheats.
We can all hope for a leader whose main concern is ‘the people’.
But, at this time in history, the evidence shows that money and industry hold far more influence than the electorate does.
I honestly believe that, whether it be the US or the UK, if 65% of people voted for the ‘peoples candidate’ and that choice opposed the wishes of those with the influence, then the ‘peoples candidate’ will still lose the election.
I am not saying that our political systems do not work. I am saying that what is important is who it works for.
And, right now, they work for business, industry and the very wealthy.
Accept that or not.
It is a free world.
Not.
I certainly think the PWP has treated Barack Obama unfairly when it comes to his old pastor. (How did you expect a pastor named Jeremiah to speak about a nation that sometimes calls itself the new Israel?) Do you believe it will stop there? Do you think we’ve put their behavior into context the way we could if we’d consistently condemned the PWP’s slurs against Gore and the Clintons? Because part of this reminds me of the Internet slur they invented in 2000 (the one Fox News has sometimes considered too dishonest an attack). Anything from Clinton that you can challenge counts as a “lie”, while false statements from the media — like the claim that she had no role in FMLA — seem to pass without notice.
Actually read that AP article from a few comments back and see if it justifies calling Senator Clinton a liar. Imagine what might happen if the media turned this kind of ‘investigation’ on somebody else of your choosing.
I have to admit, I was wrong: The MSM (is that the same thing as the PWP?) did call Clinton on her sniper-fire story. I find it a little incredible that anyone can mistakenly think they were shot at by snipers when they weren’t, but the pressures of a campaign are incredibly intense, so who knows?
And I think she had far too little involvement in FMLA to reasonably claim any credit for it, but we may have to agree to disagree on that one.
To her credit, Clinton did recently co-sponsor a bill to restore funding to UNFPA, which is an issue that is greatly important to me.
* * *
I think we can depend on the MSM to treat the Democratic nominee unfairly, and to bend over backwards to give McCain a break, regardless of who the Democratic nominee is. However, since this will happen to either Clinton or Obama, I don’t see this as a point in either candidate’s favor.
Pingback: » Hillary Clinton Lies: ‘If a place was too dangerous, the president couldn’t go, so send the First Lady’ - Blogger News Network
“And to say that you have black Governors is not really relevant to a general election.”
Governors are elected in general elections. In California that is a general election in a population of 40 milion.
“What evidence do we have, from recent history anyway, that it is the electorate who decides who has control in your country?
Or mine.”
Bingo. The huge expense aand effort that goes into pandering to and manipulating the electorate shows that the elctraote matters for something, but not that it is in charge, even of its own mind. Tghis works because people are used to being passive – either they are to lazy to care about the issues or too lazy to do anything about them, or much more likely, just don’t have time or energy. But we leave ourselves open to this kind of manipulation because it feels good.
“I honestly believe that, whether it be the US or the UK, if 65% of people voted for the ‘peoples candidate’ and that choice opposed the wishes of those with the influence, then the ‘peoples candidate’ will still lose the election.”
If only that were true. I think that si about the magnitude of the Nixon landside victory. What a disaster for the country that was. I was taufght and brought up to think the peole were the source and repository of wisdom and goddness in a political system, but that was a childish superstition. A mob can never be anything but a mob. As a gay man, I am not willing to let the will of the people decide what are and are not my rights.
Why is Clinton lying badly?
Because to lie well takes a level of expertise that she doesn’t possess? Unlike her husband, for contrast.
Jim:
As a gay man, I am not willing to let the will of the people decide what are and are not my rights.
The will of the people have always decided what are and are not your rights – or, more precisely, what of your rights the government will go to any effort to preserve. Even the Bill of Rights was voted on at one point.
A mob can never be anything but a mob.
Which puts you in agreement with the founders of the U.S., which in turn is why we are a Democratic Republic and not a pure Democracy.
Barbara said:
… or advocating rule changes to give Super Ds cover to ignore the delegate count.
Let’s remember that the Democratic party is a private organization that has every right to create and follow any set of rules it wants to choose it’s candidate. Just because it has managed to con the government into forcing you and I to help fund part of it’s candidate selection process doesn’t mean it has to let our part of it drive the whole thing.
There seems to be a developing attitude that the Democratic party’s non-elected delegates have some kind of moral obligation to vote the way that the electorate has directed the elected delegates to do. Why? If that was the case, why have non-elected delegates at all? Folks, the whole idea of having non-elected delegates was precisely so that they could vote in opposition to the elected delegates – so that the party members could say “Hey, the voters got it wrong, we think that it’s in the best interests of the party to change this.” Sen. Obama has been a Democrat party elected official for 10 years or thereabouts. For him to put forward the idea that the non-elected delegates have some kind of obligation put upon them by the electorate is ignorant at best and duplicitous at worst.
It kind of reminds me of what’s going on with his reaction to Rev. Wright’s comments. Sure, he says he thinks a certain way now. But where was he back when this happened, back when opposing this kind of thing would have cost him support instead of gaining it for him? Let’s not pretend that either set of actions is based on principle, except for the principle of self-interest.