andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/th...tml
That's Clinton's latest way of not being able to admit an error of memory or a lie. Was she also sleep-deprived in February when she made exactly the same claim? This:
Occasionally, I am a human being like everybody else... For the first time in 12 or so years I misspoke.
Occasionally, I am a human being like everybody else. This is close to clinical delusions of grandeur. Does she really think that most of the time she is above being human? Do you know any human being who hasn't misspoken in the last twelve years once? Or would ever claim such a thing? I sure couldn't. And this from a candidate whose most famous campaign ad rests on her ability to make national security judgments at 3 am!
Bill Safire was right: she is and has for a long time been a congenital liar. I don't mean by that that she deliberately and pre-meditatedly decides to deceive people. I mean she has long since forgotten the difference between truth and untruth (enabling addicts can do that to people). I mean that by seeking power and self-advancement for so many years, at the expense of any other human values, she has lost all sense of what the difference between truth and falsehood is, who she is, what really matters or any fundamental sense of perspective.
Once, I believe, she was motivated by good intentions and even now, I don't think she believes she is advancing anything but the common good. But she can never believe that her interests and the common good could ever be in conflict, which is to say, she has lost a moral compass beyond narcissism. That is sad in a human being and we are all prey to it.
But in a potential president, it is very dangerous. And she has so long excused all her moral transgressions by the fact that her foes must always be worse (yes, for Wolfson, who has long internalized the socipathy of the Clintons, even Obama is Ken Starr to her), she has long lost the ability to ask herself, deep down, who she really is any more.
She is a lost and dangerous soul, as her husband still is. She is, in my view, unfit to be president. Truly, deeply unfit. And at some point, someone in the Democratic party has to take her aside and tell her the damage she is doing to herself, her party and her country is enough.
. . .Andrew Sullivan. .
That's Clinton's latest way of not being able to admit an error of memory or a lie. Was she also sleep-deprived in February when she made exactly the same claim? This:
Occasionally, I am a human being like everybody else... For the first time in 12 or so years I misspoke.
Occasionally, I am a human being like everybody else. This is close to clinical delusions of grandeur. Does she really think that most of the time she is above being human? Do you know any human being who hasn't misspoken in the last twelve years once? Or would ever claim such a thing? I sure couldn't. And this from a candidate whose most famous campaign ad rests on her ability to make national security judgments at 3 am!
Bill Safire was right: she is and has for a long time been a congenital liar. I don't mean by that that she deliberately and pre-meditatedly decides to deceive people. I mean she has long since forgotten the difference between truth and untruth (enabling addicts can do that to people). I mean that by seeking power and self-advancement for so many years, at the expense of any other human values, she has lost all sense of what the difference between truth and falsehood is, who she is, what really matters or any fundamental sense of perspective.
Once, I believe, she was motivated by good intentions and even now, I don't think she believes she is advancing anything but the common good. But she can never believe that her interests and the common good could ever be in conflict, which is to say, she has lost a moral compass beyond narcissism. That is sad in a human being and we are all prey to it.
But in a potential president, it is very dangerous. And she has so long excused all her moral transgressions by the fact that her foes must always be worse (yes, for Wolfson, who has long internalized the socipathy of the Clintons, even Obama is Ken Starr to her), she has long lost the ability to ask herself, deep down, who she really is any more.
She is a lost and dangerous soul, as her husband still is. She is, in my view, unfit to be president. Truly, deeply unfit. And at some point, someone in the Democratic party has to take her aside and tell her the damage she is doing to herself, her party and her country is enough.
. . .Andrew Sullivan. .
posted by:
|
-
So sleep deprivation makes her delusional and hallucinatory? This is the person we're supposed to trust at 3 am?
-
-
<<So sleep deprivation makes her delusional and hallucinatory? This is the person we're supposed to trust at 3 am?>>
LOL
3 am
Secret Serviceman: "President Clinton, we have a national emergency!"
Hillary: "wazzzzzzz, huh, ugh, don't interupt my sleep"
Kablooey.....
-
-
Wow. Andrew Sullivan doesn't like Hillary.
Well, stop the motherfucking presses... -
-
The fact that this whole Bosnia thing is news at all just points to how painful this prolong primary has been for the democrats.
-troy
-
yeah, really.
i'm (at least partially) with Rock, Ricardo and Troy on this.
-
-
p.s. i find this visceral, pathological Hillary-bashing simply sickening. -
-
It was a lie and a repeated one, but this story has drug on for a little to long now.
-
-
sure it's sick, but just think what the Rethugs will do with the story if Hillary's the nominee
Besides, it is a big deal. She wants to hold the highest office.
The whole Lewinsky thing on the other hand is really disgusting and is a personal matter of the Clintons. It's gutter politics... -
-
I can just picture a commercial showing video of Clinton calmly walking down the Bosnian tarmac and greeted by a little girl with a flower with Sheryl Crow and Sinbad happily walking by her, while a voice over plays Clinton's description of the event (heads ducked, running for cover under sniper fire).
That might be effective enough, or else the commercial can add Clinton's other examples of resume padding, such as Ireland and Macedonia.
-
-
-
Inna, what's your take on Ms. Clinton's lie about her Bosnia trip?
-
-
The lie itself was not harmful to the American people, but was VERY harmful to her credibility. If she will make up stuff that never happened just to make herself look good, will she also lie to us to push her foreign policy? Its not like Bush didnt do that also, but dont we want something better than that?
This is a pretty big deal, and I doubt it will go away.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Though I can't really echo or agree with his sentiment, I agree with this, basically:
>>"I don't mean by that that she deliberately and pre-meditatedly decides to deceive people. I mean she has long since forgotten the difference between truth and untruth (enabling addicts can do that to people)."<<
That more or less lines up with my view of her, such as I can figure from the LDR I have with her from my armchair. I felt a mite sorry for her (in theory - hard to muster up sympathy for celebs, for me); or let's say I felt sorry for the character she plays on TV, when the whole sucky scandal was totally distracting everyone from the issues of the day (THANKS FOR NAFTA you fake-ass pseudo-puritan repubs and kool-aid sucking witless dems - you all suck; die now).
Over time, she's lost all of the qualities I admired in her, back in the day. Maybe it's that enough of her has been revealed, now, for me to lose the 'strong woman' image or something.
I don't mind that she's an elitist; I don't mind that she's got some shady deals in her past, or that she'd strain to characterize herself this or that way to be elected; I expect that. However, I am offended by this lie, and more than that, I really despise this *type* of lie. It's really childish.
I remember one time, back when the economy could support me having cable and a television and all that, a shot on the Daily Show of her and Chelsea watching some speech or other, and it was basically a reaction shot of her listening to something a conservative - Bush? - was saying; she was holding a glass of champagne and making the most poisonous, bitchy little smirk, letting her contempt really shine (didn't know she was being videoed, I assumed; looked very natural).
THAT is the woman I'd vote for. It communicated strength, self confidence, intelligence, an unashamed adversarial spirit, and a certain "adopted-morals and canned-ethics" sort of restrained and cultured evil that I feel could really benefit all of us. In some small way, I do want the people with massive power to be a little on the evil side; they'd have to be, to wield it properly. Facts of life. Killing is the art of statecraft.
That woman's been gone, daddy, long gone. -
-
although i'm not "offended" by "the lie" at all, i'm offended by the utter ridiculousness of this so-called "scandal".
-
-
inna:
> although i'm not "offended" by "the lie" at all, i'm offended by the utter ridiculousness of this so-called "scandal".
I don't know that the right response is to be offended.
But it seems that she just blatantly invented a story to make it look like she has more defense experience than she actually does.
Does't that trouble you at all for someone who might become our next president? -
-
jesus Adam, what in the world does that have to do with her "defense experience"?
the hysteria around this total non-issue is mind-boggling, really.
-
-
I disagree. She has been trying to convince people that she has 35 years of political experience, when in reality Obama has more experience counting state government, and Hilary was merely the wife of a famous politician not a politician herself...unless she is suggesting that her candidacy is merely to get Bill back in office, or suggesting that her experience on the Walmart board of directors counts.
Claiming that she was in foreign countries dodging sniper fire when she wasnt is the act of a pathological liar. I would not consider that a non-issue.
-
inna:
> jesus Adam, what in the world does that have to do with her "defense experience"?
Having been in the middle of a battle certainly gives one a much better understanding of what war is like.
McCain certainly knows what war is like.
Had Hillary actually been shot at, then she could have said she has been there to a small extent and seen a bit of what it's like. Is that not the impression she was trying to give with her long-winded battle story?
Does it bother you at all that she just completely made up this story? -
-
the Mendacity of Hype
03/27
look, clearly this is a matter of personal opinion, and i already expressed mine.
i think this is spun ridiculously out of control, but in general, the public will readily swallow whatever the media serves up, no matter how ridiculous the spin is.
remember Joseph Wilson (of Plame-gate)?.... here's what he thinks:
www.huffingtonpost.com/joe-wi...25.html
Smears and Tears: How Obama's National Security Week Turned Into the Mendacity of Hype
Expert Guest Post by Joseph C. Wilson
...... Which was guilty of "McCarthy-like tactics"? Attack the character of your adversaries; demean them; turn them into caricatures; while lying about someone, claim they are liars.
Finally, the Obama campaign pushed a compliant press corps, all too eager to do its bidding rather than maintain its standards of objectivity and skepticism, into hyping a mini-pseudo-scandal: whether Hillary "misspoke" about being under sniper fire when she paid a visit to Tuzla in Bosnia in 1996. In fact, the then-First Lady was told the plane was diving to land to avoid possible sniper fire. Whether there was or not is irrelevant. Anybody who has been involved in these situations, as I have, knows this. The threat was apparently real enough for U.S. military on the ground, the pilot and her security detail to engage in evasive procedures. That should have been the end of the matter. But the cable TV talking heads nattered the Obama campaign talking points endlessly.
Obama's week of rolling out national security surrogates and talking points was not a pretty sight and turned out to have almost nothing to do with bolstering his thin credentials. His distracting efforts were a clear attempt to deflect attention from them, in fact. In response to Hillary's detailed, substantive speech on Iraq, Obama replied with ad hominem insults. Instead of presenting his own plan, his campaign indulged in character assassination.
Senator Obama and his campaign should get back to defending his policy positions and record rather than diminish a good person and an accomplished public servant. They know better. .......
-
-
Hillary Clinton's Director of Online Everything, Peter Daou, sent a tantalizing email today inviting a handful of political bloggers to a conference call with a mystery endorsement of the campaign. I called him and didn't press very hard as he preemptively and craftily said "of course I can't say yet who it is, but I can tell you it is someone bloggers will appreciate."
I was hooked.
So at 1:30 pm, I jumped out of an event where I was speaking about America's backward visa policies in the House of Representatives, and Peter introduced the mystery endorser: Ambassador Joe Wilson.
www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-...22.html
There was no press at the time of this trip that mentioned one thing about this being dangerous. Find me 1 if you can..... -
-
<<Hillary Clinton's Director of Online Everything, Peter Daou, sent a tantalizing email today inviting a handful of political bloggers to a conference call with a mystery endorsement of the campaign.>>
It is odd that they would claim this a some sort of surprise. Wilson has be campaigning with Clinton and he wrote an essay on Huffington post saying that Obama would be a bad CIC - I didn't actually read it, just caught the title. That they'd offer this up as some sort of news seems silly. -
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.JW appeals to a certain demographic, you know who. . .which adds credibility to Hillary's team.
Actually, in spite of my jokes, that she has both Wilson and Clark in her camp is pretty impressive.
I do think she could put together quite a good cabinet. . .
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
Nolen, check the date on that one.
seriously, whatever Enlinson's "agenda" is, i'm NOT impressed with it.
-
-
"Obama's Shallow Credentials on National Security Are Dangerous for the Country"
March 20, 2008
Joseph C. Wilson
www.huffingtonpost.com/joe-wi...86.html
-
I am not alone
03/28March 28 (Bloomberg) -- Hillary Clinton, accused of exaggerating her experience and reversing policy positions, risks a widening credibility gap that may undermine her bid for the Democratic presidential nomination.
The New York senator, who this week admitted to misrepresenting the danger she confronted in Bosnia, also has come under fire for allegedly distorting her role in opposing free trade and the war in Iraq, and overstating her involvement in bringing peace to Northern Ireland and health insurance to children.
The debate over these and other statements is fueling distrust among voters, according to analysts and recent polls. A Pew Research survey released yesterday showed 30 percent of white Democrats -- a group Clinton needs in order to win the remaining primaries -- regard her as a ``phony,'' twice as many as those who perceive rival Barack Obama that way. In late February, just 7.8 percent of voters surveyed by Pew described her as ``untrustworthy.''
From the same article
A Bloomberg/Los Angeles Times poll conducted Feb. 21-25 found registered voters thought Senator John McCain, 71, the presumed Republican nominee, ``has more honesty and integrity'' than Clinton by a margin of 45 percent to 31 percent. Obama rated equally with McCain on those qualities.
www.bloomberg.com/apps/news
My agenda is that someone has made repeated claims to be something that they are not nor have they every been getting until now a free pass from the Democrats while Obama's has his elementary school attendance, his race, his pastors reviewed and dissected to the nth degree.
There must be some truth to it as you particular find the need to go out your way to question those of us that dare to question Saint Hillary.
-
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
>>>>> <<Hillary Clinton's Director of Online Everything, Peter Daou, sent a tantalizing email today inviting a handful of political bloggers to a conference call with a mystery endorsement of the campaign.>>
It is odd that they would claim this a some sort of surprise. Wilson has be campaigning with Clinton and he wrote an essay on Huffington post saying that Obama would be a bad CIC - I didn't actually read it, just caught the title. That they'd offer this up as some sort of news seems silly. <<<<<<<
that particular quote was from a year ago.
Joe Wilson Endorses Hillary
Posted July 16, 2007 | 02:39 PM (EST)
-
-
-
<look, clearly this is a matter of personal opinion, and i already expressed mine. >
no it's not. it's a matter of hillbilly lying through her teeth and getting caught red handed on video tape. jow wilson can twist and spin til the llamas come home, it still ain't gonna change the fact that what hillbilly said was not what the video tape said. any six year old watching the tape and listening to hillbilly's account would reach the same conclusion. mommy, that lady is lying.
-
"The threat was apparently real enough for U.S. military on the ground, the pilot and her security detail to engage in evasive procedures. That should have been the end of the matter. But the cable TV talking heads nattered the Obama campaign talking points endlessly."
This is embarrassingly obsequious spin. Clinton didn't say the plane had to dive for cover. She claimed that she had to run with her head down to dodge sniper fire and that the White House sent her to places that were too dangerous for the president. That's a big difference than Wilson's brown-nosing spin. -
-
<<But the cable TV talking heads nattered the Obama campaign talking points endlessly.>>
Maybe I missed something but the Obama campaign was no more responsible for Bosnia than the Clinton campaign was for Rev. Wright. The only thing I remember was the Obama people objecting to Hillary's attempt to change the subject by reintroducing Wright. The pundits were much harsher than the Obama spokesmen. More than one stated that Clinton was pretty transparent with this.
-
-
-
-
Blatant, over the top lying to pad your resume and make you look like some brave ambassador for America is a non-issue? Geez, how much then can she do that before you think it's an issue? What does she have to do, make up a story of charging a machine gun nest armed only with a spork to rescue nuns and orphans kidnapped by rabid serial cannibals?
-
-
I know this is dumb, but: I would *not* vote for someone who charged a machine gun nest armed only with a spork, no matter how noble the cause.
That shit is just nutty. I'd love the tale, I might even salute the freak, but highest office in the land? No. The person that *convinces* someone to charge the nest with a spork - *that's* our leader.
-
-
-
-
-
-
Can someone name me one President that does not age a decade in the Oval office. It is one of the most demanding roles in the world all done with a gaggle of press personal following your every move and the ablity of the President of the United States to convey a messaage at anytime or place is paramount to the recovery of the US as a leader in the world considering that our current President has none of these abilities and look at what and where it has gotten us.
Let me tell the folks here a thing about the Clinton's from someone that has been around them without the cameras. They are one of the meanest couples I have every come across in my life and if you cross them or make a mistake you get you ass handed to you so here she is caught making up a story to make her look better and we are to chalk it up to being tired.
Let's use her 3am litmus test.......Say on the other end of the line is a leader of Russia or China and we have a situation that is going to to either go very bad or perhaps be defused by the calm promise of our President. Who is that person think about it some...