Sunday, March 23, 2008

Is Hillary a Safford?

The Safford side of my family has a gift for storytelling. I don't think it runs in our blood to falsify intentionally but we all (and I include myself with all my mother's family here, as honesty requires) have a tendency to "embroider" our tales as we tell them. It so much more interesting and colorful in our retelling than it usually was in the living.

My ex will affirm that this is true of me and of that side of my family, so there's no sense in my trying to deny it or distance myself from something that I inherited so honestly.

Our collective excuse is probably that we are not generally trying to deceive or manipulate; we just have an unconscious desire to entertain.

And this leads me to the question in the header.

Much fuss and bother has arisen over Senator Clinton's description of her junket to Bosnia. A military man who was with her supports her story but contemporary sources do not. There was only one landing in Tuszla, so we cannot speculate that two different events are involved. That evasive maneuvers were taken in landing is not disputed by anyone because that was standard procedure when landing in areas that were not utterly pacified and safe. But dodging bullets? Not even.

On the one hand, it's not that big a deal. But if it's part of a pattern of claiming "experience" that is significantly overrated, it raises legitimate questions. Is this similar to claiming a higher grade point average in your job application than you really had? Most employers, if they look at your transcript and it doesn't match what you claimed, will not hire you.



I have seen various video compilations around this and some heated debate. From what I can gather this is not a distorted record. It does omit the general as he backs up Hillary's statement (sort of: he supported the evasive landing but not necessarily the rest of Clinton's account).

h/t to JedReport for compiling it and posting it.
--the BB

7 comments:

Grandmère Mimi said...

I think Hillary be losin' it. Desperate people do sometimes.

Paul, I have been known to do a little embellishing when I tell stories, too, but methinks these go beyond embellishment and are closer to baldfaced lies. Sniper fire? No greeting ceremony?

She should stop while she has a shred of dignity left.

Padre Mickey said...

Geez, who cares? It's not like she lied about WMD or torture or all the other things a Certain Other Person, whom I won't name (but his initials are George W. Bush) has told tales about.

¡Feliz Pascua, padrecito!

Paul said...

Padre Mickey, you're right. For serious lying with deadly consequences, the Republicans win it hands down and GWB is definitely this nations Liar-in-Chief.

johnieb said...

Paul,

we all liez a little, and the potential for getting our butts shot off brings it out like few other things. I don't have the least idea what this refers to, but I do know about the "pucker factor" when Command says ya might get hurt doin this, and, to be blunt, Obama's experience in this regard is nil. As in most other things, 'cept running for office.

So, we disagree, I guess. Not that I'm a great admirer of either; I just can't take another Repiglikkin.

Paul said...

Johnieb, I don't believe in being foolish around danger, nor do I believe the world is not a dangerous place, but the actual video of what took place when she landed shows no signs of sniper fire or any threat thereof, no dashing to vehicles, no lowered heads. I'm just noting that the description does not match the reality.

If she was told to duck and run, the video does not show her doing it. It seems like a very relaxed greeting ceremony. The surrounding countryside may have been dangerous (and I do not doubt it was) but there is no hint in the official tarmac reception that sniper fire was present or threatened. She would not be shaking hands and hugging a little girl and walking calmly with her own daughter if there were.

Now, I don't think this instance is a huge deal; but I don't think anything Jeremiah Wright said was a big deal either.

I want to know if a candidate stands on the issues where I would like them to stand (and know who stands closest to where I would hope because there will never be a perfect match) and I want to have a sense of ability and character.

Clinton and Obama are both brilliant and capable persons. Clinton does sound like a Safford in this incident.

Obama clearly has not seen as much of the world, though he did assess a potential war in Iraq more accurately than most persons currently in federal office, so "inexperience" did not keep him from correctly nailing one of the most crucial issues of our day.

Given the track record of the Repugnicans, I have become a yellow-dog democrat and will do anything I can to prevent further GOP disasters. I will clearly vote for either one. Too much is at stake. A McCain presidency will do nothing to remedy the Iraq disaster, the economic disaster, or the looming ecological disaster. It would be horrendous for the United States and the world.

Grandmère Mimi said...

PS: If Clinton is the nominee, I will vote for her, but her blathering on about how being the president's wife qualifies her to be president is pissing me off. Who's the next member of the Bush dynasty to run, Laura?

Did she forget about cameras recording her public appearances? It just seems so stupid on her part to think no one would notice. Were all the folks there greeting her with sniper fire coming at them?

Obama was not my first choice, nor my second choice, but I like the way he handled the Wright matter. He was cool under fire. That says a little something about his character.

Paul said...

He wasn't my first or second choice either, but I like the way his mind works, I like his approach, he has some of Edwards' populism (I would like a lot more), and his handling of the Wright matter not only addressed the issue with nuance and dignity, it was a solid effort to shift the plane of discourse in this country. I understand the "speeches are not actions" criticism but his record is as good as the others on action, his judgment is--in my mind--far better, and he has a long-standing record of listening, respecting, and facilitating the efforts of the people to accomplish their goals. I like that kind of vision and style. He puts an emphasis on the People. Theologically and politically I like that.