I’m going to be consistent here: I don’t consider a politician exaggerating to make a point a major character flaw. (They’re politicians, after all. That’s like expecting literal truth from a used-car salesman.) I think stories like this are bullshit.
But I do expect those of you who pilloried Hillary Clinton as a pathological liar for her Bosnia story to be consistent, too. Cheering on a media frenzy only encourages more of the same, and this proves exactly what Eric Boehlert was trying to say: “So what happens when it’s your guy who’s the target?”
Clearly, Obama lied to make his story better. Instead of using the sound of gunfire to make a point, he used the sound of silence. But, as we’ve learned again and again in this race, YouTube is not the politician’s friend.
And who cares? Not me. But I’m not going to pass up this opportunity to rub your noses in it: The media is not your friend. Allowing them to savage one Democrat is giving them permission to savage any Democrat.
I notice in the comments that many of the Obama supporters are rightfully calling this a distraction, and demanding that the author cover real issues. All well and good, but where were those voices of reason during the same sort of attacks on Clinton?
Or does your personal dislike for a candidate make it okay?
Letting the media do this kind of coverage, even encouraging it, has made it more difficult to counter. No truer statement, the media is NOT your friend. Well . . . except if you’re John McCain.
Well of course saying “nobody” clapped when he should have said the majority of attendees didn’t clap is fully equivalent to claiming that you ran while ducking sniper fire (with your only child at your side) and repeating that story several times, when there was absolutely ZERO sniper fire. How could we not see this? How sexist we all are to not call these two incidences entirely equivalent?
Receiving a cool reception (the assessment of other attendees) and remembering it as no applause is a reasonable error that any sane person could relate to and realize they could easily make themselves. “Remembering” sniper fire, where you and your only child were in imminent danger for your lives when absolutely NO SNIPER FIRE EXISTED, not there and not anywhere else at any time? … not so much.
It is likely that any man repeatedly publicly using those kinds of grotesquely swaggering bs lies about combat related experience as a basis to claim to be more qualified than his opponents to be commander in chief would have been completely hounded out of the race. Being the butt of a few jokes was getting off easy.
you’re really reaching again susie–kind of reminiscent of the famous face scratching video, and I guess that is cause you are still in denial.
i agree with you, the tuzla sniper fire thing was way overhyped. but it also made no sense to me why clinton stuck with the story for weeks, repeating it again and again, even after it was effectively rebutted. it wasn’t until the video came out that she dropped it. i didn’t view it as a character flaw, i just kept wondering why she wouldn’t drop it when she was clearly wrong. (i also thought the whole reason that clinton brought up the story in the first place was rather bogus. why does “getting shot at” count as foreign policy experience?)
so no, i don’t see this as parallel to the tuzla thing. if obama kept repeating the story at every appearance for weeks after evidence came to light that it couldn’t be right, then yes, i would wonder what the hell obama was doing, just as i wondering about clinton a few months back. but that’s not what happened. at least not yet.
obviously all those contemporary sources you cite which back the gist of obama’s remarks vis-a-vis detroit and their dislike of cafe and new technologies are just sexist pigs that hate hrc.
now,
LATTE TIME!!!!
This is not the same as Hillary’s Bosnia remarks. It just isn’t. For all the reasons cited in comments above. Oy vey come on already, with the spurious Obama/Clinton analogies.
This post sounds like it may be part (hopefully of the final throes) of the 2nd stage …
1. Denial: “It can’t be happening.”
2. Anger: “Why her? It’s not fair.”
3. Bargaining: “Just let Hillary be VP.”
4. Depression: “I’m so sad, why bother with anything?”
5. Acceptance: “It’s going to be OK.”
and as I still stew on this one I wonder how anybody can try to compare the two things,
pretending to have been under fire or in combat is just about one of the biggest insults/lies you can deploy.
it is a slam on all of those vets/people that have been under fire or in combat.
for HRC to have lied about being under fire as a desperate effort to increase her foreign policy credibility really does expose some serious character flaws.
all this does is make people think “bosnia” again.
not really a good strategy for hrc or her backers.
this isn’t just apples and oranges here, it once again displays a loss of critical thinking skills and perspective amongst hrc supporters, no matter how they may try to couch this particular non-event in terms of media bias, sexism, dislike for a candidate, etc.
I work with 3 people who have loved ones in Iraq and Afghanistan. The day after Clinton’s Leno appearance where she joked about being under sniper fire they we are livid and ranting to anyone who would listen about how disrespectful and disgusting that was. None of the 3 had ever said anything about politics at work in all of the years I have worked with them. They ALL began working against Clinton that day. The misremembering had bothered them some, but enough to motivate them to work against her. The joking about sniper fire when she had helped enable Bush to send their loved ones to be subjected to daily endangerment of their lives from sniper fire was their last straw.