Over here we've already been hearing, open mouthed, how Senator Clinton was 'instrumental' in the Northern Ireland Peace Process. David Trimble, key Northern Irish leader in it, later awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts, remarked that being a cheerleader for it was not the same as being a player in it (She did make one visit to him, visiting the Province on her own, a courtesy call of five minutes.Otherwise she was yet more 'anonymous' throughout the whole of those years)
Now she's telling the world in a set speech, and, afterwards, reporters, that she when she visited Bosnia she had to run across the tarmac when under sniper fire. Pity that the film and all eye witnesses demonstrate nothing of the kind.
Are we to expect any more gems of foreign policy experience and adventures to fall from her lips?
At least when Tony Blair told apparent lies about his experiences they were that he'd watched a famous soccer player playing,when that would have been long after the man had retired, and that he'd stood in a stand which didn't exist at the time. But he was only a boy at the time of those 'experiences'. In office, he misled us in more important ways, but that's another matter
I am (again) very disappointed in Hillary. To me, this is just as reprehensible as McCain's kissing up to Parsley, Hagee, et al. She has shown herself to be like the majority of elected officials in Washington.
Posts: 17283 | Location: Lincoln Place, Granite City, IL, USA | Registered: 06-03-02
Her campaign say she mis-spoke. OK, so she's got a secret past as a soldier in Vietnam or Afghanistan, so one arrival under fire gets easily confused with another.
Let's face it, it's not as though she was with a swiftboat, is it ?
This 'mis-spoke' line is her variant of 'Non mi recordari', 'I don't remember', so beloved of teachers of cross-examination here. The problem, as with the Italian fraud who's repeated answer that was,is that there are some things which you'd remember to your dying day.Being under fire as a visiting representative of the President,and running for your life, might just be one of those things
Mis-spoke, in this instance, is a variation of "lied and padded my resume."
In my mind this is far worse than McCain pandering to conservatives, with whom he has stood on 5 of 6 votes historically. It would be more akin to our discovering that he was actually AWOL during his POW years.
She did not say "I don't remember." She in fact said "I certainly do remember...I remember landing under sniper fire...we ran with our heads down...it was a moment of great pride for me."
Posts: 7921 | Location: in the backwoods of North Carolina | Registered: 06-07-02
It got even worse. She was challenged that Sinbad was on the same 'plane and had said her account was nonsense. Her resolute and defiant reply was that Sinbad is a comedian
There's a nice irony. Sinbad himself served in the military. He was in stratotankers in the USAF. He was in danger of being dismissed the service for frequently going absent without leave [source: his Wikipedia entry].His reason was that he preferred to play basketball but couldn't make the unit's team, so he disappeared back home and grew a beard to avoid being recognised. Just the man to talk about danger ! He knows a bit about lying, possibly about cowardice too, and about telling tall tales
We are all agog over here (all right, 'all' who follow this soap opera are, which is quite a number nonetheless) waiting to discover which foreign escapade, where she was under fire, is the one that she has mistaken for this one. There must surely be dozens to choose from, if she makes a mistake like this. We are privately betting that she was under fire on arriving at some airbase in Northern Ireland,running for cover there, and has confused her not playing any part in diplomacy and peace making there, where she was shot at, with Bosnia where she was a key player in diplomacy but not under fire. That makes sense. She just forgot the 'under fire in the Province' bit .
I suspect when she is called to task, she will probably come out with something like, she remembered it wrong. That it was somewhere else she was in danger & had to duck sniper fire & that sort of thing.
The Clinton machine use to be pretty slick about this kind of thing. Seems they have been slipping quite a bit lately, especially with technology rearing its ugly head
Posts: 2277 | Location: Martinsville, IL | Registered: 06-03-02
Originally posted by aminator2002: It's pretty funny. Her and her husband do so much damage to themselves that Obama hasn't really had to say much against them.
She needs to drop out.
She needs to drop out.The bickering between the two camps is not statesmanlike, nor presidential, nor worthy of a serious political debate or argument.It's petty and degrading. It may show her to be either a fantasist or a liar but it makes no difference: he is surely going to win anyway. The party appears to be set upon writing 'the longest suicide note in history' (to paraphrase a comment made of our Labour Party once).
Someone should take her aside and give her the figurative bottle of whiskey and a loaded revolver and invite her to 'do the right thing'
Meanwhile, the elder statesman of the Republic Party sits quietly, presidentially, observing the two kids fighting over their toys. That's the image we are getting here, for what it's worth.
What do our members who are Democrats think about Hillary dropping out now? Does her candidacy now pose problems that will make a November Democrat victory less achievable?
Posts: 7921 | Location: in the backwoods of North Carolina | Registered: 06-07-02
Either Hillary OR Obama dropping out now in the interest of party unity would accomplish the same thing, wouldn't it? Would a citizen who hasn't yet had an opportunity to vote feel satisfied that the nominee was decided by the early voting states? I think the entire process stinks. Wouldn't it be better to have the party decide on the nominee without all the manipulation of which states go first, which have caucuses, which votes are more "potent" than others, etc.? I don't believe the primaries or general elections should be decided by any inequality between citizens or states, nor before any other citizens or states have had a chance to exercise their right to vote. I sure don't believe that it should be decided by the candidates with the biggest and wealthiest supporters.
Now that I've said what I don't believe, let me suggest what I do believe. Perhaps it is time to clamor for a meaningful constitutiuonal amendment: one that would mandate a citizen's right to elect his congressional representatives on the basis of population, his senators at two per state, and have the president appointed by the congress - our representatives should represent us, not some fat cats with advertising money and paid lobbiests. Let's ask the Brits how to do it, so if we're unhappy with the incumbenmt rascal we can have a vote of "no confidence". At least they haven't had five years of screwing up half of the civilized world, cost thousands of lives and trillions of dollars - while being powerless to take any remedial action for a four or eight year period.
'The conventional wisdom that a prolonged race for the Democratic presidential nomination between Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton is bad news for their party may be turning on its head...'Flip Side of Democrats' Spat: Higher Turnout
But, yes - Hillary should go. By her "mistake" she hasn't shown herself to be human, but to be more like one of those sociopathic types who make up stories to impress, without batting an eyelid. (On the other hand, don't many politicians fall into this category?)
Yes, frank,but we "brits" may throw out our leaders without bothering with a vote of 'no confidence'.We don't have to impeach them on grounds fictional or real, either . That fate befell Mrs Thatcher, Anthony Eden (after Suez) and Neville Chamberlain (not long after he'd declared war).There were some before them. It probably explains the exit of Tony Blair, too.Once the party in power decides that its leader has lost the confidence of the nation or of the party's own members of parliament, they advise the the leader to retire.Only in extreme cases is the PM, and their government, voted out on a motion of no confidence. The party's MP's motives may not be entirely noble, in that members may fear for their own future in their own constituencies, but they are pragmatic (and 'democratic'). If they think that a general election, whenever held, would result in a disaster for the Party they chuck out the leader.
That we have general elections as and when, and not on fixed terms, does go some way towards not having an unpopular leader entrenched in power and outstaying his welcome.Gordon Brown, succeeding the unpopular Tony Blair, did think to call an election on his appointment but changed his mind after much dithering.At present that looks to have been a poor decision.Nevertheless we did get a more popular, and different, character as PM.
But, yes - Hillary should go. By her "mistake" she hasn't shown herself to be human,
If the other fellow doesn't make a mistake it may be only that he hasn't had time yet. What if he never makes one until the general election???? Sometimes it doesn't happen until they are under prolonged scrutiny - AFTER the honeymoon.
I think this whole affair is showing that the Democratic party is really at fault for letting GWB win reelection in 2004. I can't really blame the party leadership for the first win by Bush, but the PATHETIC repeat victory against all possible odds... well, that was so ridiculous that the party itself rather than just the candidate need to take the blame for it. This ridiculous primary process where Hillary is being allowed to take pot shots at the other candidate is absolute loser politics. The Party should have gotten the super delegates into a room as soon as things started to unravel. Get them to agree to back the people's choice and go with it.
The decision is clear now and Hillary has gone negative.. there should be some immediate action to move the super delegates in one direction or the other.
It's an interesting process. Party leadership has the ability to make the decision in this case and they should do so... for many reasons but one important reason could be to save all the MONEY that is being dumped. I would think the party would prefer to spill it's cash in the General Election rather than in the primary.
Posts: 3056 | Location: USA | Registered: 06-04-02
"The Party should have gotten the super delegates into a room as soon as things started to unravel. Get them to agree to back the people's choice and go with it."
At last count, the people haven't chosen yet. That's what the primaries, caucuses, and, if necessary, conventions are for. I prefer a system in which party members from the various states get to vote for their choice rather than just the party officials saying, "We like this one, so everyone else can go home." In this election cycle, had the party chosen very early, Obama would be known as just an up-and-coming senator.
Posts: 17283 | Location: Lincoln Place, Granite City, IL, USA | Registered: 06-03-02
Of course a similar situation didn't stop Bill Clinton from getting elected President.
I shall point out, it is not in the Clintons' nature to give. Remember when Bill was going through quite an embarassing sex scandal, there is a very strong case to be made he should have resigned from the Presidency. But what did he do??? He let the full system go the whole nine yards all the way through impeachment...
As for the Democrat nomination, that is what Hillary will do. Let the system go the whole nine yards. So is Hillary ready to give up??? NOT NO BUT HELL NO!!!
I can also think back to a time not that long ago, John McCain's Presidential campaign had one foot in the grave. Then a public endorsement from an unexpected source eventually catapaulted him to the Republican nomination.
(She did make one visit to him, visiting the Province on her own, a courtesy call of five minutes.Otherwise she was yet more 'anonymous' throughout the whole of those years)
In office, he misled us in more important ways, but that's another matter 
