"Little White Lies"

Surprised that Hillary Clinton could even garner a 37% favorability rating in view of the non-stop press pounding and vilifying of her over the past week or two.

"She LIED about dodging sniper fire in Bosnia!" "She can't be trusted." "She will do anything to win." "She will have to play a Tonia Harding to win the nomination!"

On and on. Non-stop.

I figured that by the time anyone got around to doing a "poll," it would only be James Carville and myself still supporting Hillary Clinton.

Surprisingly, there's actually a few of us still left.

Of course, one does wonder why, with all the domestic and foreign relations experience Hillary Clinton legitimately has, she would have to embellish, dramatize or overstate anything?

Why would she have to "lie" or make anything up?

Good question.

When asked this question directly, it seems the only thing Hillary could say was that she "misspoke" and was overtired.

Well, I wouldn't want to imagine the things I would be saying if on a campaign trail for almost a year, speaking millions of words and operating on 4 or 5 hours of sleep a night.

I'd probably be talking backwards.

Nevertheless, does that really explain "imagining" sniper fire when there wasn't any or ducking into cars the minute one left the plane or later, the helicopter?

Probably not.

I don't think Hillary Clinton is suffering early dementia or delusions based on too little sleep and too much hard work.

But, nor do I believe she is simply a "liar."

When people "lie," embellish or dramatize, there is usually reasonfor it.

Primary among them (one imagines) is a feeling of insecurity or that one will not be loved or appreciated for simply being one's self and being totally honest.

Apparently, Hillary described her trip to Bosnia with accuracy and honesty in her book.

Why did it then suddenly become something else on the campaign trail?

Because I suspect (and I am only speculating) that telling the story cut and dried as it was, would not garner the same respect or even understanding of the significance and accomplishment of the trip that the more dramatic and "dangerous" version would.

How does one put diplomatic journeys, meetings and visits with troops in hospitals into colorful sound bites?

I guess you add the threat of sniper fire.

Of course the threat of sniper fire though not directly real, wasn't exactly a total lie, either.

The area Hillary, her daughter, Chesea and others visited, was in fact, a war zone.

Land mines and sniper fire were indeed very real threats in the general, surrounding area.

But, of course our country doesn't send First Ladies and other dignitaries directly into a line of fire.

Hillary and those traveling with her were very well protected by US military, Secret Service and sharp shooters.

They were never in any real danger, anymore than Bush, Cheney, Rice or McCain are when they go to Iraq.

Now, I personally believe that anyone sitting in Hillary's audience and hearing the more "colorful and dramatic" versions of her trip should have been able to figure out that Bill Clinton (or this country) wouldn't send the First Lady and daughter directly into a dangerous, volatile and life threatening situation.

But, who knows what people believe?

Maybe some people aren't that smart.

Perhaps there are some who actually believed John McCain when he compared a Baghdad marketplace to the "safety and security of home" in America. Nevermind that McCain was surrounded and protected bythe US military, sharpshooters and Blackhawk helicopters flying overhead when he cheerfully and seemingly without a care in the world, greeted vendors in a Baghdad market some months back.

Nevertheless, no one accused McCain of "lying" about his little "straight talk" excursion into Baghdad.

Then again, McCain isn't Hillary Clinton.

The press loves McCain. And the press loves Barack Obama.

It was, in fact the Obama campaign that dug up the old videos of Hillary Clinton's Bosnia trip to "prove" what a "liar" she is. And of course, the press ate it up and ran with it -- for almost two full weeks.

So much for "The politics of hope and change."

I know Obama makes great speeches. And he seems like a very "likable" guy. (Geeze, didn't they say the same about George W. Bush? -- the "likable" part that is, not the great speeches, obviously).

And doesn't Barack look so "Presidential" when speaking and standing before 6 to 8 American flags?

I personally find the standing before so many American flags a bit quizzical -- especially in light of Obama's wife referring to present day America as "mean" and Obama's twenty-year minister spouting, "God Damn America!"

Under the circumstances, the flag bit with Obama strikes me as extremely calculating. (another favorite word used to describe Hillary Clinton). Obama doesn't impress one as the most "patriotic" of the three candidates.

Anyway, getting back to Hillary and her "big lie."

I think its sad that she felt so compelled to say it.

Having a successful First Ladyship and productive 7-year Senatorship, apparently doesn't count for much these days. One has to find ways to "embellish" what are actually very significant achievements.

So now, the battle is about those "Superdelegates."

Nancy Pelosi (and of course, the media) says the Superdelegates "should just go the way of the voters!"

But, if that is the case, why does the Democratic party have Superdelegates to beginwith?

Could it be that its to protect the party from nominating a potentially disastrous candidate for the November election? A candidate who might rack up states and pledged delegates in early Primaries before critical or damaging information about that candidate comes to public attention?

There is a lot about Barack Obama coming out in drips and drabs right now that not only could be lethal in the November contest, but in my opinion, would be.

Maybe that is the real reason why Hillary is staying in the race and fighting so hard? Perhaps she knows better than we do what the real Barack Obama is like, but is not at liberty to say? -- anymore than she could cite the real reason for exaggerating and embellishing her Bosnia trip.

Nose to the grindstone, diplomatic trips are boring. Lofty, dramatic speeches are exciting and stimulating.

In the end, Hillary's "big lie" says a lot, not so much about the woman herself, as much as the viciousness and shallowness of this political climate and the ineptitude of the corporate media.

After all, how long did it take for the voters to learn anything about Obama's odd, 20-year association with a church and a (seemingly paranoid, mentally disturbed) minister who seems to hate Jews, Italians, America and "typical White People?" Long after most states cast their primary votes. Not only was Obama a member of this church for two decades, but he and his wife have contributed many thousands of dollars to it.

What else are we going to learn about this great new "Uniter?" before the Denver convention? That Obama's really like that other great, "Uniter, not Divider" Geoge W. Bush?

Perhaps he's worse?

That's WHY we have "Superdelegates."

And maybe that's why Hillary Clinton felt compelled to "lie."

"Do anything to win?"

Perhaps sometimes, one has to, not so much for the glorification of one's self, but for the welfare and ultimate benefitof the country.

But, one thing for sure: If Hillary actually succeeds in her "audacity of hopelessness" struggle to become President, I can just hear her acceptance speech right now:

"You like me!!! You REALLY, REALLY like me!"

I think maybe Hillary and Sally Field have a few things in common, not the least of which is that they are both women.

******

Written by mandy787 Blog about this entry

This entry has 2 comments: (Add your own)

#2 Comment from scottsoperson
4/14/08 12:05 AM | Permalink

obama says we should play by the rules. the rules say superdelegates can pick the nominee.
#1 Comment from scottsoperson
4/14/08 12:04 AM | Permalink

Obama says that small town America hates people who are different. They cling to their guns and religion.

Hmmmmm?

Bit of a generalization there. And even if it is true, was it a wise thing for a presidential candidate to say. I don't think so. I guess we'll see on April 22.

Also, Wikipedia describes Rashid Khalidi as Obama's friend. Obama may even have raised money for Khalidi's charity.

Wikipedia says Khalidi used to work for the Palestine National Authority. So Khalidi may actually have worked for Yassir Arafat.

Khalidi has said a few interesting things too. Like he implied that Ariel Sharon was a terrorist. Or he made both negative and positive comments about Arafat, his supposed former employer.

Khalidi explained that Israel didn't like to talk to Arafat because he was a terrorist.

"But I could say the same about Sharon," said Khalidi.

Indeed, I feel Khalidi is correct but I suspect most American voters would not feel that way, especially those "pro-Israel voters from New York and Florida."

"Pro-Israel voters from New York and Florida" is a quote from Tony McPeek, a foreign policy advisor for Obama. McPeek's statement was "we don't have peace in the Middle East because of those pro-Israel voters from New York and Florida."

I agree with McPeek too but as Mrs. Obama stated, America is basically "ignorant." So most voters would not agree with McPeek, especially those crucial pro-Israel voters.

I agree with McPeek, Mrs. Obama and Khalidi.

But I'm not running for president.

Tales & Tails of New York Public Journal
Back to Journal	Archives \| Alerts x Entry Alerts Comment Alerts \| Feeds

Tales & Tails of New York

"Little White Lies"