« An apple falls close to the tree | Main | GNW 5: Gay Kentucky dominates news! »
March 26, 2008
Hillary Clinton's truthiness problem
Posted by: Andoni
Famed reporter and author Carl Bernstein drops a bomb on Clinton's presidential hopes with a post on Anderson Cooper 360 blog concluding:
The jury — armed with definitive evidence like the CBS tape of Hillary Clinton’s Bosnian adventure — seems on the verge of returning a negative verdict on her candidacy.
This is well worth the read because Bernstein is uniquely qualified to judge Clinton's veracity having written a book on her last year. In his post, his cites many other examples of Hillary playing fast and fancy with the truth.
A few weeks ago, I wondered in a post whether Hillary's repeated exaggerations of her national security credentials were an example of reaction formation, a Freudian defense mechanism that employs strong words, actions and positions to balance out what you unconsciously know are your own internal weaknesses. (And before anyone says enough of discredited Freudian psychobabble, that is true of a much of Freud's views, but reaction formation has held up among modern researchers.)
The question for Hillary is whether she lies unconsciously (reaction formation) or on purpose? I don't really care. Bernstein reminds us that it's a major character flaw either way, and would be harmful for our country. I think it disqualifies her to lead the country.
Knowing what I know now, I don't think I can vote for Hillary even if she is the Democratic nominee, and I say that as pretty much a lifelong Democrat. Voting for her, knowing this character flaw, would be as insane as voting for Richard NIxon in 1968, if I had known his flaws. Talk about saving the country a lot of anguish.
I love the Democratic Party, but I love my country more -- and I wouldn't want to put my country through all that electing Hillary would entail.
I hope other Democratic voters can see this before it is too late.
UPDATE:
I just came across an interview with the Air Force pilot who flew Senator Clinton into Bosnia on the day in question, and if you want a real treat, listen and count the lies. I counted six -- and some of them are real whoppers. For instance, the pilot said the military never asks passengers to sit on their flak jackets, as Clinton claimed. He said the only time he ever heard of that was in the movie "Apocalypse Now."
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834527dd469e200e55175efd58833
Comments
-
There is something odd in the makeup of both Clintons, that they must be President and whatever they must do to get there and stay there, short of criminal activity (I'm going to give them that)-- logical contortions, self-constructed delusions, tortured syntax, blatant pandering, empty promises, tears when necessary -- are just tools in the toolbox. If Hillary has to destroy the Democratic Party in this go-around to give herself another shot in four years, I fully expect her to do it. It's just lucky, I guess, that they found each other. Now if they would just leave the rest of us alone. It's been said that those who want most to be President probably shouldn't be, and it's no truer than here.
-
Knowing what I know now, I don't think I can vote for Hillary even if she is the Democratic nominee, and I say that as pretty much a lifelong Democrat.
Well, I can't say I haven't heard many other people say this as well. And I have to say, I share the sentiment in a way.
However, if this nightmare scenario did occur, I can't say I wouldn't vote for Hillary. The other option is McCain, who would be a worse choice...a far worse choice. That means continuation of the war in Iraq, an even more conservative supreme court, and a host of other frightening possibilities. The next supreme court appointment is, I believe, of critical importance and an ultra-conservative appointment from President McCain bodes badly for women (Roe) and gays (Lawrence).
The comments to this entry are closed.
Randy Bear on Mar 27, 2008 12:02:39 AM:
I couldn't agree more Chris. It amazes me that she has blown the comments off as if they were just ramblings that have been blown out of proportion. The bottom line is that she said them to boost her national security and foreign policy experience which she says differentiates her from Obama. Well, the problem is the comments are lies or embelishments of the actual situation. If that's her method of public communication then what can we really believe in her comments? Do we have to fact check her every time because she habitually does this? It also hurts her credibility as being electable in November against McCain. It's time to call this election and move on. Obama has won and we need to stop wasting money on Hillary's ego trip.