Yeah, misspoke.

If McCain had done this the press and the democrats would have ripped him a new butt hole.

Not to mention that this would have been posted here within seconds of it breaking and have at least 100 posts to it by now proclaiming what a liar he is.


http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/03/25/clinton-admits-rare-error-when-she-missp oke-about-bosnia-sniper-threat/

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/25/campaign.wrap/index.html

Posted links from foxnews.com AND cnn.com just to remove any doubt about bias.

More like embellishment. A fish tale. Big whoop dee doo!

Now, comparing this to McCain's recent gaffe about confusing al-Qaida and extremists in Iran, well, I'll take the embellishment any day. At least Clinton knows the difference between our enemies. It appears McCain just thinks they're all the same, which would be yet another example of how McCain will continue the leadership qualities of Bush.

How do you make an error about something like this?

And Skybill - I don't necessarily think that McCain would get the bloodbath in here comparatively that you state. Many left-leaning types in here have stated that they don't care for Hillary and very much support Obama.

What this shows is that Hillary is either incapable of saying and doing the right thing when she has the short chip stack, or her advisers are whacked in the head and she has poor campaign management giving her advice. Whenever she's cornered, she lashes out with some outlandish comment or accusation or something completely irrelevant to the bigger picture. Instead of promoting HER agenda, she poo-poos her opponent's.

" Not to mention that this would have been posted here within seconds of it breaking and have at least 100 posts to it by now proclaiming what a liar he is."

Why don't you take a breath and quit lumping everyone into big old categories? Quit overstating stuff and just quit being such a little baby.

"Rare error". "Misspoke".
Business as usual for the Clintons.

Didn't Mrs. Clinton invent that board game "Balderdash"? If she didn't, she should at least get some royalties for the concept of making things up.

"How do you make an error about something like this?"

Not to defend Hillary, but again, this is no different than someone telling a fish tale. Yes, there was the threat of sniper fire, but no, there were not bullets whizzing over her head like she may have lead people to believe. Overall, a non-story.

I'd really like it if the media could focus on the policies and goals each candidate plans to put in place, rather than playing "gotcha" politics. We have big problems right now, and whether or not sniper fire was occuring when Hillary landed in the Balkans 12 years ago matters not.

"I'd really like it if the media could focus on the policies and goals each candidate plans to put in place, rather than playing "gotcha" politics. We have big problems right now, and whether or not sniper fire was occuring when Hillary landed in the Balkans 12 years ago matters not."

And I'd like it if Hillary would focus on the policies and goals of her candidacy more and playing less "gotcha" politics, embellishing stories like this and low-balling Barack Obama on what honestly are non-issues and things that have nothing to do with the Presidential race.

Pointing out differences and the process getting somewhat nasty is part of the process. I get that. Going on and on about how Obama would not be a good choice for President because he used speech material from another source, a practice that is as old as time itself, is pointless and it reeks of desperation on the side of Hillary.

"Concentrate on goals and policies". Thats funny. Certainly Obama does so. Oh, wait, he doesn't concentrate on goals and policies either! He just speaks empty words, prettified slogans, and thrills the masses with his Pied Piper of Chicago Community Organizer message.

American Idol contestants have contributed more ideas on goals and policies than McCain, Clinton and Obama combined. But that's what voters want.

Did you hear the Obama supporter on Bob Miller's show last week? Miller asked him why he supported Obama, and the caller said that Obama was exciting, charismatic, and promoted change.

When Miller asked the caller if he could name any accomplishments Obama had achieved while a U.S. Senator or an Illinois state legislator, there was total silence. Dead Air. For about 15 seconds.

Then the Obama caller sheepishly replied, "I don't know".

Gotta love Bob Miller.

Let's see now, first it's liar Obama, now it's liar Hillary. McCain's looking better and better.

McCains confusion between Al Queda and the other extremists is no big deal, he should have simply said the bad guys. Hillaries tales were outright lies.

NO Republican or EXTREME RIGHTIE has EVER lied? Said half turths?
DUHbya and the DICKster have said plenty and Johnny Mc isnt above lying.... Saying otherwise would just be ignorant.
It doesn't look good for my guy....
WOW! The supposed LIBERAL press is attacking their own???? So much for the LIBERAL press....

How do you tell when a politician is lying?


Their lips are moving and there is sound coming out of their mouth.

Very true for ALL politicians.

What did Obama Lie About?

Saying he had never heard Rev Wright make any of the statements he had, then admitted several days later that he indeed had heard them.

Sky is right. Lying is part of the profession. Hillary's mistakes and Obama's mistakes pale in comparison to Mr. McCain's. Hillary and McCain keep changing positions to further their chances. Obama has the least amount of policy reversal history which is more important than Hillary's fish story or Obama's preacher. There is, in fact, a lot more lying going on in the McCain positioning, which seems to change on a regular basis:

* McCain used to champion the Law of the Sea convention, even volunteering to testify on the treaty’s behalf before a Senate committee. Now he opposes it.

* McCain was a co-sponsor of the DREAM Act, which would grant legal status to illegal immigrants’ kids who graduate from high school. Now he’s against it.

* In 2006, McCain sponsored legislation to require grassroots lobbying coalitions to reveal their financial donors. In 2007, after receiving “feedback” on the proposal, McCain told far-right activist groups that he now opposes the measure.

* McCain has been both open and closed to a redeploy-to-perimeter strategy in Iraq.

* McCain said before the war in Iraq, “We will win this conflict. We will win it easily.” Four years later, McCain said he knew all along that the war in Iraq war was “probably going to be long and hard and tough.”

* McCain said he was the “greatest critic” of Rumsfeld’s failed Iraq policy. In December 2003, McCain praised the same strategy as “a mission accomplished.” In March 2004, he said, “I’m confident we’re on the right course.” In December 2005, he said, “Overall, I think a year from now, we will have made a fair amount of progress if we stay the course.”

* McCain went from saying he would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade to saying the exact opposite.

* McCain went from saying gay marriage should be allowed, to saying gay marriage shouldn’t be allowed.

* McCain criticized TV preacher Jerry Falwell as “an agent of intolerance” in 2002, but then decided to cozy up to the man who said Americans “deserved” the 9/11 attacks.

* McCain used to oppose Bush’s tax cuts for the very wealthy, but he reversed course in February.

* In 2000, McCain accused Texas businessmen Sam and Charles Wyly of being corrupt, spending “dirty money” to help finance Bush’s presidential campaign. McCain not only filed a complaint against the Wylys for allegedly violating campaign finance law, he also lashed out at them publicly. In April, McCain reached out to the Wylys for support.

* McCain supported a major campaign-finance reform measure that bore his name. In June, he abandoned his own legislation.

* McCain used to think that Grover Norquist was a crook and a corrupt shill for dictators. Then McCain got serious about running for president and began to reconcile with Norquist.

* McCain took a firm line in opposition to torture, and then caved to White House demands.

* McCain opposed a holiday to honor Martin Luther King, Jr., before he supported it.

* McCain was against presidential candidates campaigning at Bob Jones University before he was for it.

* McCain was anti-ethanol. Now he’s pro-ethanol.

* McCain was both for and against state promotion of the Confederate flag.

* McCain decided in 2000 that he didn’t want anything to do with former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, believing he “would taint the image of the ‘Straight Talk Express.’” Kissinger is now the Honorary Co-Chair for his presidential campaign in New York.

Now, it’s worth noting that there are worse qualities in a presidential candidate than changing one’s mind about a policy matter or two. McCain has been in Congress for decades; he’s bound to shift now and then on various controversies.

But therein lies the point — McCain was consistent on most of these issues, right up until he started running for president, at which point he conveniently abandoned practically every position he used to hold. The problem isn’t just the incessant flip-flops; it’s the shameless pandering and hollow convictions behind the incessant flip-flops.

It’s a shame what running for the Republican nomination will do to a guy, isn’t it?

Just shows that Sen McCain has grown, and his positions now reflect the majority of Americans.

Why is it that liberals want an automaton in the White House? I prefer someone who changes their thinking as they gather additional information.

Why is it GOP / McCain supporters will say anything to make their guy / party look good?

His statement on Wright is not a lie. That's a weasel, worst case. Given the ugly mess that got made into, a weasel (meaning not true, but not factually false either) seems totally fair play.

You guys are getting really great at taking very minor things, sometimes false things --at the least somewhat unclear things and framing them in terms that seriously magnify the FEW decent McCain attributes there are.

Nicely done.

Changes nothing.

Carry on.


Edit: After this initial flurry of consideration, I'm voting Dem. Won't like Clinton, but will deal. Want to vote Obama.

There will be no GOP vote. No matter how all this little crap shakes out, there still must be accountability for the party and their actions this last 8 years. Sorry guys, that means McCain isn't going to see a favorable vote, unless doing so would outweigh all of that.

Possible, but not bloody likely.

Hillary is starting to sound like Ronald Reagan, "remembering" things that happened to other people.

Soon, we'll be calling her the "Gapper."

"Why is it that liberals want an automaton in the White House? I prefer someone who changes their thinking as they gather additional information."

And when Dems do that it's called a "Flip Flop" right?

Be honest.

Total and utter hypocrisy, front and center. Such short, short memories...

It's all absolutely on record too.

Archives guys?

Go back and read them. Funny stuff.

First of all, if anyone was using that story of hers to cite - I don't know, what, fierceness? Military experience? That she already has body armor? A passport? CAN DODGE BULLETS! - I would have been disappointed in whomever thought something like that proves aboslutely anything about her. I'm not downplaying it NOW that it's proven to be way different than she told it. I'm saying that even telling it and expecting it to carry any legitimate weight ( which, in her mind, it should carry. Otherwise, why is she even bringing it up? ) seems like a surprising strategy.

Secondly...I forget what I was going to say second...OH OH - yeah - you guys that actively support McCain...wait no. That wasn't it either. It was something about McCain...I wish McCain would have had the balls to run on the platforms he really believes. Instead of the positions he thinks he needs to hold in order to rally The Republican Party. That's ALL he's interested in. You know how I know that? He's said exactly that. Why would I possibly be FOR a guy who is, as he so eloquently put it " Democrats worst nightmare."? What does that do for anyone other than Republicans? Even if I was a Republican I would hate that. And if Obama said something like that - and actually believed it - I'd be 10 times more upset.

I admit, my standard is low in expectations from another Republican President. When McCain talks like that, it just feels like the absolute wrong path for us. I would have given him serious consideration if I thought he was going to do ANY. SINGLE. THING. that would help morale, the economy or The War. But he's becoming a cranky old man who is just obstinate and stubborn - geeze - haven't we had enough of that already? Just because someone is firm doesn't make them effective.

At least McCain doesn't exhibit that petulance that Bush does. McCain seems wiser. But apparently not wise enough to recognize what, and I have to guess, would be the majority's desire to be a little more inclusive and a little less " Get off my lawn."

He's so sprite!

Nifty.

I don't care that he's changed his mind about many things. What I do care about is that he represents a faction that is wholly self-serving. No willingness to sacrifice or compromise.

No thanks.

What does a little more inclusive mean?

Here's an idea for a video. Take the clip from The Matrix where Neo is dodging the agent's bullets in slo-mo. Substitute in Hillary for Neo. Coming to a youtube address near you soon.

" What does a little more inclusive mean? "

I take it to mean that there will not be exclusionary platforms from the outset and carry through the term of The Presidency.

Equal.

Less divisive rhetoric that invites solutions instead of immediately marginalizing an opposing opinion.

A tangible willingness to compromise or sacrifice without it being squandered on self-serving policies or pride.

Being able to correctly assess a situation without the burden of feeling like you have to make JUST your party happy.

Moderate.

Avoiding fillibustering and obstructing for the sole reason of preventing an opposing opinion being stated that may work against your personal agenda.

Not just SAYING that you you will listen, but actually consider them and actively implement some ideas that weren't yours and possibly come from the other side of the political aisle.

Those are important traits to me. Are they to you, Deane?

DA said>>>
Why is it that liberals want an automaton in the White House? I prefer someone who changes their thinking as they gather additional information.

A FLIP-FLOPPER??? When Kerry did this you kicked him in the teeth...
Johnny Mc dies it and he's an American Hero and a free thinker?
WOW!
It doesn't look good for my guy.....
Thanks to DA, Nwokie and Herbocrite I just registered as an Independent just like O'LIEly. Thanks guys!! You've help me lose complete faith in the Republican party.
Well.... DUHbya and Johnny Mc over the last couple weeks haven't helped.

In other words CJ, inclusive means that your viewpoint is the one that wins.

You always say that Deane.

Really, when people make statements that are similar to CJ's, they are frustrated with decisions being made in contradiction to established facts and solid alternatives.

They then hear later, the scandal or agenda that drove it.

BY NATURE THAT IS NOT INCLUSIVE. And as such, cannot support the idea that "his viewpoint wins".

"Really, when people make statements that are similar to CJ's, they are frustrated with decisions being made in contradiction to established facts and solid alternatives"

Decisions that are made contrary to their viewpoint. Radical liberals have a certain viewpoint, and anything that doesn't agree with it needs to be stopped. People who disagree with it need to be silenced.

It goes back to liberals being so certain they have the correct viewpoint, that there could not possibly be an opposing viewpoint.

Actually, that's decisions that just don't make sense.

There is a difference between that and just having things align well with ones own personal views.

No, it comes back to a lot of people wanting to see supportable decisions made.

You are trying to put this on CJ and others, and it's just bull shit Deane.

"You are trying to put this on CJ and others, and it's just bull shit Deane. "

Again, only your viewpoint.

It's a defensible one.

"It's a defensible one."

I would be disappointed if you didn't think so.

Well, you've made several demonstrably false statements, in support of your view.

I haven't.

Again, just trying to put it back on other people. That's a dodge Deane. It's on the list too. You know, that list I publish here from time to time?

Yeah, that one.

Safety tip: When claiming the higher ground, do make sure you don't include demonstrable falsehoods in your support statements. Kind of impacts the thing as a whole.

I'm only pointing out where you are likely to be wrong. Not saying I'm in the right, BTW.

This whole line of discussion is just a personal attack and is worthless. There is no right in the thing. It's just lame.

So, you are getting called on it, that's all.

Let's not frame this in terms of who is right and wrong, because it's all BS at this moment.

"Well, you've made several demonstrably false statements, in support of your view.

I haven't. "

Of course not.

By the way, I've lost track of what we're arguing about. What is it?

Maybe that's another Dodge for the list!

"I forget..."

Nice. When you are cooking, you do come up with the really good ones!

By the way, I've lost track of what we're arguing about. What is it?

WOW!

Deane has become Herbocrite!!! She'll dodge anything that she can't answer.

People who disagree with it need to be silenced.

The EVANGELICAL EXTREME RIGHT thinks the same way.... RIGHT Deane???? Right....????

I don't know Trixter, I don't care for the Evangelical Extreme Right. They are just as wacko as the extreme left in my view.

Seems like you think their way alot....

"Seems like you think their way alot...."

Name something. I don't suggest there isn't anything that we happen to think the same way on, but I can assure you I pay no attention to what their thinking is. I'm more likely to be turned off by it.

Your for Iraq
You BLINDLY follow DUHbya
Your for banning Abortion
Your for Guns (me too because I'm an owner)
Your staunchly against ANYTHING left.

Your views somewhat match that of Herb a noted EXTREME RIGHT Bible thumper.
Maybe my view of the EXTREME RIGHT is different from yours....

First of all, it's you're, not your.

Second, you don't know my position on Iraq.
Third, I don't follow Bush at all.
Forth, I haven't decided on my Abortion stance.
Fifth, I'm opposed to gun ownership, but also opposed to any ban. I believe they are protected by the Constitution.
Sixth, Bingo, you finally got one right.

First of all, it's you're, not your.

Second of all if this were school I still wouldn't care....

Decisions that are made contrary to their viewpoint. Radical right wingers have a certain viewpoint, and anything that doesn't agree with it needs to be stopped. People who disagree with it need to be silenced.

It goes back to radical right wingers being so certain they have the correct viewpoint, that there could not possibly be an opposing viewpoint.

Deane said - " In other words CJ, inclusive means that your viewpoint is the one that wins."

CJ answered - " No. But the fact that that's all you take away from what I said kind of shows where your personal head is at. That's ok. I get it. I do it too. It's just that THIS time, on THIS topic and for THOSE reasons I listed, I don't want to do that."

The CJ waited for HIS question to get answered.

" Those are important traits to me. Are they to you, Deane?"

The answer is no. I'll take a President who knows what to do and gets it done. Committees never get anything done. You libs all want things run by committees. Never has worked effectively, never will. You can't please everyone all the time.

"I'll take a President who knows what to do and gets it done."

Sure, but what good does it do when stuff gets done WRONG?

"Sure, but what good does it do when stuff gets done WRONG?"

I give up, what did we do when Jimmie Carter screwed everything up?

Well thanks for the " no." Deane. You confuse me - but I'll live.

I'll take a President who knows what to do and gets it done.

Then NOBODY should have EVER picked DUHbya.

Clinton is a liar. Of course, in the grand family tradition, it might be different depending on what your definition of "is" is...

The shrub, on the other hand, is just a pathetic putz who was appointed our leader. He is not only a liar, but a person whose falsehoods have killed thousands in needless conflicts and through the gross mismanagement of our country.

John McCain is simply old and senile. When solid food and taking a whiz are great challenges, remembering simple things like who the enemy is this week is beyond what one can expect from him. We ought to forgive the old guy, try to accommodate his shortcomings, and make sure he has a fresh diaper before he sits on a white sofa.

The Democratic party needs to bury Clinton. She will drag the party into the ground. If she was a Republican they would have done away with her long ago.

Maybe thats why Dems loose elections.

"The Democratic party needs to bury Clinton. She will drag the party into the ground. If she was a Republican they would have done away with her long ago.

Maybe thats why Dems loose elections."

Three words for you:

George
W.
Bush

I'll leave it at that.

Yup, I heard that 4 years ago. Try again.

Yeah, when the Democrats picked the ONE guy who was probably less electable than Bush.

The GOP wishes it could cut the cord and forget about the last eight years, trust me.

Thats my point exactly. The Democrats always pick the wrong person. They just might fuck this one up again and pick Clinton thus handing the election to the Republicans.

Brianl, I believe that actually!

Mc74, I'm well in that camp too.

It's interesting to me that the problem may well be systemic and impacting both sides.

If the Dems hose it up, it's gonna be an old-school establishment power play that circumvents, or marginalizes the will of the people. They might do it just because the idea of dealing with another round of the GOP, in it's current state, is just too ugly.

On the GOP side, if they get the cord cut, they will rebuild, but likely have similar established power interests causing problems.

WHAT IF THEY ARE MOSTLY THE SAME POWER INTERESTS?

The struggle over Obama has brought that thought to my mind more than once. It's almost as if he's an unplanned thing --a problem that disturbes some old and crotchety pecking order.

Look. If people have an issue with Bush, as 70% of polls show, then it won't matter who the Dem nominee is, they will beat McCain. I don't want Hillary to win the nomination, but there is zero chance I would vote for anyone other than her is she did, and zero chance I wouldn't vote at all. And I know I'm not alone.

It's not what I had hoped for (Hillary as Neo in The Matrix in one of the scenes where Neo is dodging the agent's bullets) but it will have to do.

Morpheus says she's not the one.