March 26th, 2008
10:14 AM ET

Bernstein: Hillary Clinton: Truth or Consequences

Hillary Clinton has many admirable qualities, but candor and openness and transparency and a commitment to well-established fact have not been notable among them.  The indisputable elements of  her Bosnian adventure affirm (again) the reluctant conclusion I reached in the final chapter of A Woman In Charge, my biography of her published last June:   

Hillary Clinton

“Since her Arkansas years [I wrote], Hillary Rodham Clinton has always had a difficult relationship with the truth... [J]udged against the facts, she has often chosen to obfuscate, omit, and avoid.  It is an understatement by now that she has been known to apprehend truths about herself and the events of her life that others do not exactly share. " [italics added] 

As I noted: 

“Almost always, something holds her back from telling the whole story, as if she doesn’t trust the reader, listener, friend, interviewer, constituent—or perhaps herself—to understand the true significance of events…”

The Bosnian episode is a watershed event, because it indelibly brings to mind so many examples of this tendency– from the White House years and, worse, from Hillary Clinton’s take-no-prisoners presidential campaign. Her record as a public person is replete with “misstatements” and elisions and retracted and redacted and revoked assertions...     

When the facts surrounding such characteristic episodes finally get sorted out - usually long after they have been challenged - the  mysteries and contradictions are often dealt with by Hillary Clinton and her apparat in a blizzard of footnotes, addenda, revision, and disingenuous re-explanation: as occurred in regard to the draconian secrecy she imposed on her health-care task force (and its failed efforts in 1993-94); explanations of what could have been dutifully acknowledged, and deserved to be dismissed as a minor conflict of interest - once and for all - in Whitewater; or her recent Michigan-Florida migration from acceptance of the DNC’s refusal to recognize those states’ convention delegations (when it looked like she had the nomination sewn up) to her re-evaluation of  the matter as a grave denial of basic human rights, after she fell impossibly behind in the delegate count.
The latest episode - the sniper fire she so vividly remembered and described in chilling detail to buttress her claims of  foreign policy “experience” - like the peace she didn’t bring to Northern Ireland, recalls another famous instance of faulty recollection during a crucial period in her odyssey.On January 15, 1995, she had just published her book, It Takes a Village, intended to herald a redemptive “come back” after the ravages of health care; Whitewater; the Travel Office firings she had ordered (but denied ordering); the disastrous staffing of the White House by the First Lady, not the President - all among   the egregious errors  that had led  to the election of the Newt Gingrich Congress in 1994.On her book tour, she was asked on National Public Radio about the re-emergence of dormant Whitewater questions that week, when the so-called “missing billing records” had been found. Hillary stated with unequivocal certainty that she had consistently made public all the relevant documents related to Whitewater, including “every document we had,” to the editors of the New York Times before the newspaper’s original Whitewater story ran during Bill Clinton’s 1992 presidential campaign.    

Even her closest aides - as in the case of the Bosnian episode18 years later - could not imagine what possessed her to say such a thing.  It was simply not true, as her lawyers and the editors of the Times (like CBS in the latest instance) recognized, leading to huge stories about her latest twisting of the facts. “Oh my God, we didn’t,” said Susan Thomasas, Hillary’s great friend, who was left to explain to the White House lawyers exactly how Hillary’s aides had carefully cherry-picked documents accessed for the Times in the presidential campaign.  The White House was forced - once again - to acknowledge the first lady had been ‘mistaken;” her book tour was overwhelmed by the matter, and Times’ columnist  Bill Safire that month coined the memorable characterization of Hillary Clinton as “a congenital liar.”

“Hillary values context; she does see the big picture. Hers, in fact, is not the mind of a conventional politician,”  I wrote in A Woman In Charge. “But when it comes to herself, she sees with something less than candor and lucidity. She sees, like so many others, what she wants to see.”

The book concludes with this paragraph:

“As Hillary has continued to speak from the protective shell of her own making, and packaged herself for the widest possible consumption, she has misrepresented not just facts but often her essential self.  Great politicians have always been marked by the consistency of their core beliefs, their strength of character in advocacy, and the self-knowledge that informs bold leadership. Almost always, Hillary has stood for good things. Yet there is a disconnect between her convictions and her words and actions. This is where Hillary disappoints. But the jury remains out. She still has time to prove her case, to effectuate those things that make her special, not fear them or camouflage them. We would all be the better for it, because what lies within may have the potential to change the world, if only a little.”

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.   

– Carl Bernstein, 360° Contributor Editor's note: Read other blogs from the 360° team of contributors at cnn.com/360

Filed under: Carl Bernstein • Raw Politics
soundoff (800 Responses)
  1. Kathy

    Don't compare the issue of Rev. Wright with this Bosnia story. Bosnia happened many years ago and was a harmless embellishment. It means nothing. Rev. Wright is today.

    Obama cannot be elected. He has not pulled together the party. Lets get real. He will go no where. Hillary has been able to take the heat.

    March 26, 2008 at 11:58 am |
  2. The Bruce

    What a shock, Hillary's a liar. McCain can restore integrity and competence to the White House. I believe Obama, for all his amazing political talent, is too unseasoned to consider turning the reigns of the free world over to in these troubled times.

    March 26, 2008 at 11:58 am |
  3. Lilibeth

    I encourage everyone to do their own research on the candidates and make up their own mind as to who the best person is for the White House. It's OK to consider this story, but don't forget to look at the big picture. We'll all be doing a great service to our country by using our own head, and not letting the media do the thinking for us and deciding for us. Thank you.

    Edmonds, Washington

    March 26, 2008 at 11:58 am |
  4. CB

    Put here account of the Bosnian trip and the real trip in a 30 second
    loop and keep playing that for the next 5 weeks. Fair is Fair.

    March 26, 2008 at 11:58 am |
  5. Soldiergal

    Scott wrote:
    "This happened a decade ago, WHO CARES. Did it affect foreign policy? NO. Did it affect the Bosnians? NO."

    Shouldn't that be the point? If you're making the argument that your backstage involvement had a direct effect on foreign policy, and that the President would deliberately send you and his teenage daughter into places too dangerous for him to go in order to have those effects, then it stands to reason that a not merely inaccurate but simply fictitious recollection of an episode can and should be pointed out as a major flaw in your argument.

    Winning a nomination just can't be worth the polarizing damage being done to our party. Mrs. Clinton is setting John McCain up for a landslide victory in November, and all of you vehement anti-Obamas and anti-Clintons would do well to remember that your threats, and not the big bad media, are responsible.

    March 26, 2008 at 11:57 am |
  6. Smartest

    Hillary is the only person capable of fixing this mess we are in, here in the good ole USA. Go Hillary.

    The flaws are out there on all candidates. They all have them, flaws, after comparison, Hillary is still the best choice for President.

    March 26, 2008 at 11:57 am |
  7. Peter

    This is an important issue. Her entire campaign lately has been about her experience. She has been exposed to be a liar about many things on her resume. If her biggest claims are false, then what does that say about the other items?

    We've been faced with 2 terms of a president who has not been forthcoming or sought to outright deceived the american people. Hillary has proven she will do the same thing.

    March 26, 2008 at 11:57 am |
  8. Lance

    Can't believe those stupid Hill's supporters who kept insist that "so what, she misspoke, doesn't hurt anything". Doesn't hurt anything? She made up story to convince voter to vote for her. In court, that is perjury. This is not a book-tour where she misspoke. She is running for president and lied about her record: North Ireland peace agreement, Bosnia, NAFTA, what else?
    Wake-up folks. I don't care who you vote for, but don't vote for intentionally liars. Imagine what she would do when she can't get her agenda through as a president. And you said you hate Bush for lying?

    March 26, 2008 at 11:57 am |
  9. My

    We are ALL judged by the company we keep. It is one of the common lessons we are taught growing up.
    If you, who are reading this can tell me, you have NEVER "Dressed up" the truth about yourself to put yourself in a more favorable light, then you are a saint and should be floating above the ethereal.
    And don't give me that lame excuse "I'm not running for office"
    The real truth is we have had questionable character's in the White House from the first president to the last.
    Don't we know the dirt, in hindsight, on them ALL.
    The difference is the distance of history, THAT tells us who was and was not a good president.
    Roosevelt is admired, as is Kennedy and Lincoln, ALL imperfect.
    Come down off of your high horses Americans, you and I are NO better then any one else.

    March 26, 2008 at 11:57 am |
  10. TruthIsTheLight

    Hi AC!!! Love you and your insightful show, but I have a question for you... If Hillary and her supporters claim she "mis-spoke" (LIED) because she is tired, WHY SHOULD AMERICA TRUST HER TO ANSWER A 3:00 AM PHONE CALL?

    March 26, 2008 at 11:57 am |
  11. AnnaCatherine

    I guess Carl's book isn't a big seller so he'll try anything. Strange how when McCain told us how safe the streets were when he visited Iraq it took two weeks to find fout that he was surrounded by Marines and military vehicles. Nodody called him a liar. It was turned into 'humor'. McCain's cute grin. And Obama doesn't get an opportunity to lie. Nobody's allowed to ask him direct questions. And enough about the pastor and the speech.

    March 26, 2008 at 11:57 am |
  12. robert

    I have supported Obama since day 1 and eventhough I believe that all this feuding may lead to John McCain in office, it has shown how far we have come as a nation to have a 70 yr old white male running, a white woman running, and a black man running. I have been a republican my whole life and still believe that is where I will stay eventhough I will be voting for Obama (hopefully) come November. The saddest part about this leaking is that I do believe it will destroy Hillary's chances. Because when you think of lying with the clinton's you are more like to think of Bill. Not Hillary. I think the best part of this election are our choices. Because I believe we win either way. I read early that someone stated "Did it effect foreign policy "no"" Did it effect the Bosnians"no"". But what they forget to state is, Will this effect the next primaries more than Obama's preacher, YES. When you think of the preacher it was something he said, not Obama. But Hillary lied to the American Public. I would have been happy to look at the difference b/w Hillary vs. McCain come November. But not now. We are currently dealing with a liar and I will not travel down this road again.

    March 26, 2008 at 11:56 am |
  13. Don - Minneapolis, MN

    I find it really interesting that folks are either quick to condemn Clinton for her mistakes or equally quick to defend them as just misspeaking...

    The focus that issue that this episode should be viewed from is the 3AM ad and the constant claims of experience that have already allowed her and John McCain (but not Barack Obama according to Clinton) to have already "passed the Commander-in-chief test".

    Hillary has (apparently) misspoken about a lot of her "experience"

    1) Peace in Ireland – exaggerated amount of participation and influence at best – at worst an outright misrepresentation

    2) NAFTA – she was "always" opposed to it but the White House records (and past speeches) show that that was not necessarily the case. This is particularly damaging to Hillary in that she tarred Obama with saying one thing and meaning another on NAFTA, when actually Obama has been consistent in his messages about NAFTA. If you watch the Canadian media you will discover that the Clinton accusation against Obama was actually unfounded – but interestingly enough the Clinton campaign may have approached the Canadians for much the same purpose they accused the Obama campaign of.

    3) Opening the borders with Macedonia for refugees on one of her trips. The borders were opened, but a day before she arrived. And multiple sources have revealed that she had no part in the negotiations.

    4) Finally the dramatic Bosinia narrative ( a leader under fire) well now we know that wasn't true (and as to it just being a "mistake", CBS has pointed out, with the clips to back it up, that she has made this "mistake" or "misspoken" actually several times starting back in December of last year. That's consistent misrepresentation.

    Is it a big deal in and of itself? Maybe not maybe yes. But taken in CONTEXT with a string of other "mistakes" "Resume padding" and/or "exaggerations" all the sudden it calls into question both the quantity and quality of all this vast experience she claims, but also the having passed the commander-in-chief test. After 8 years of a lying and secretive administration we aren't looking for a new candidate that seems to have a problem with truth, accuracy and apparently ego.

    The media attention about the Bosnia story is justified in my opinion.

    March 26, 2008 at 11:56 am |
  14. Peddy

    Hillary's attitude of burn down the building, take no prisoners is not helping the democratic chances in November. She cannot be trusted with the truth. It is becoming apparent that is her modus operadi. Take Bosnia, Northern Ireland, NAFTA, Children Health Care 1993. By the way the same reverend she could not have as a pastor was their counsellor during Monica's debacle. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!

    March 26, 2008 at 11:56 am |
  15. Veronica

    I am a proud Hillary Clinton supporter and I admit that she either exaggerated her account of the March 1996 trip to Bosnia or she padded the file to look greater than she is. I will say that I do take may trips with my husband and he get his fact all mixed up. He gets confused with the walk we took in Ljubljana and the the walk we took in Split. He confused the Charles Bridge in Prague with the bridges in Dublin. He confuses the walled city in Toledo and Dubrovnik. This does not make him a liar. Hillary Clinton has traveled much more than us and I can see how she could get confused.

    March 26, 2008 at 11:56 am |
  16. jack, Michigan

    Hillary Rodham Clinton's description of her precarious landing under sniper fire, suggests that it would be more accurate in the future to refer to her as Hillary Rambo Clinton.

    If you had really experienced an episode where both you and your only child were subjected to sniper fire, you would never forget it. You would remember it accurately and with clarity. Moreover, it is insulting to our fine military to suggest that they would have been stupid enough to put the first lady and her daughter in harm's way. Either she is lying or has early-onset Alzheimer's, neither quality being desirable in a President.

    You can run her sound-byte next to Bill insisting that he "did not have sexual relations with that women". They both lie. It's on video for everybody to see.

    March 26, 2008 at 11:55 am |
  17. Alexandra

    As a Republican, I'm hoping and praying that Hillary wins the nomination. Go Billary!!

    March 26, 2008 at 11:55 am |
  18. Mckinzie Field

    Hilary..you are such a Liar Liar Liar that you even beat the reel life Jim Carrey

    March 26, 2008 at 11:55 am |
  19. James

    I think Hillary’s “misstatement” of facts go along way to showing us her “true” character. I don’t mind a candidate that will do what it takes to win, but “misstatements” like this really hurt your credibility. If you were truly fired upon by snipers, you would definitely remember the event like it was yesterday and it would be engraved in your mind forever. I also don’t think you would be on TV smiling and pretty much laughing about the incident. In that aspect, I think she has slapped everyone in the face that has gone through such an event in a foreign country. I’m pretty sure you wouldn’t hear most of our service men and women go on TV laughing and smiling about how they came under hostile sniper fire in a foreign country that could have ended their life. Most wouldn’t want to talk about the incident or if they did, it would be with a big smile on their face. Geraldo Rivera might laugh and joke about it, but that’s another topic entirely. I just think Hillary is extremely fake and it’s hard to trust anything she says. I know most politicians embellish the truth and have skeletons in the closet, but trusting that they will stand by their words and do what they promise once in office is all we have to go on. If she will make a “misstatement” about something as insignificant as this, what else has she basically lied about? Whether it was true or not, telling me you were fired upon in a foreign country isn’t the way to prove to me that you have foreign policy experience. Our service men and women have gone through similar events (for real) and that doesn’t make them qualified in foreign policy. If Hillary wants people to take her seriously, she needs to stop making “misstatements” and stick to the truth. Most voters want someone they feel they can trust in office and could care less if you are more qualified in foreign policy decisions than another candidate. The truth is far more important to voters.

    March 26, 2008 at 11:55 am |
  20. The 76th incarnaction of Hillary Clinton

    Funny. Hillary says Wright would not be her pastor, yet, her pastor is speaking in defense of Wright, and furthermore, he was a guest of the CLinton's in the white house in 1998.

    March 26, 2008 at 11:55 am |
  21. Matt

    why even consider electing somebody who obviously has a habit of contorting the truth to her own benefit? is that what we want, another Bush in office? come on people, let's get it together soon!! how can there still even be any debate about who the better candidate is?

    Obama '08

    March 26, 2008 at 11:54 am |

    If Hillary would just speak the truth she could keep focused on
    the problems of the country. Yet she chooses to lie (or as Cindy calls it embellish) and she spends her time trying to back track.

    Sounds alot like someone very close to her.

    March 26, 2008 at 11:54 am |
  23. Matt Whitman

    People like Cindy (who posted a few minutes ago), who think that this kind of discussion is irrelevant and not a "real issue" are putting their political rooting interest ahead of personal civic virtue. It is our obligation as voters to carefully scrutinize candidates so that we can choose the one who is best suited to become the most powerful person in the world. This choice effects all of us, our children, and everyone on the planet. When the stakes are that high, a candidate's previous conduct matters.
    If (big if) the substance of the evaluations put forth in this article are even somewhat accurate, then Mrs. Clinton is at least guilty of padding her resume to appear more ready for the job than she actually is, or at most, a habitual liar who has lost her orientation to what is real and what is political make-believe.
    I haven't chosen whom I will vote for yet, but I take my responsibility seriously enough to consider each candidate's integrity track record. I'm not going to vote based on blind loyalty to a party, a college football-like fervor for my favorite 'player', or knee-jerk bitterness to the flawed administration in power right now.

    March 26, 2008 at 11:54 am |
  24. CB

    If she couldn't remember the Bosnian trip. How is she going to
    remember to answer the phone at 3:00am? She might think it's
    gun fire and duck.

    March 26, 2008 at 11:54 am |
  25. Peter

    Hillary is a congenital liar. The Bosnia incident is not just a "mistaken memory" – it's part of a consistent pattern that goes back decades. I do not want a liar for President – we have had those, and it is very harmful for this country and the American people.

    March 26, 2008 at 11:54 am |
  26. Pat F

    Good post, Jon P. Measured, sensible.

    I like John McCain because he consistently tells the truth, even when it's a political liability. Like telling Iowans that he is against ethanol subsidies, and telling Michiganians that some auto jobs are gone for good.

    Sometimes the truth is hard to hear, and even harder to tell. But it's what grown-ups do. Let's elect a grown-up for a change.

    March 26, 2008 at 11:54 am |
  27. fwhite

    Hillary has always "stretched the truth" to put it mildly. Her and Bill are two of a kind for sure. I sure don't want to knowingly put a president in office who refuses to admit their faults, and lies without regret, that is except for the regret of getting caught in a lie.

    March 26, 2008 at 11:54 am |
  28. LM


    A lie is a lie! So guess what, Hillary is a liar!!!! Had she mentioned Bosnia only once, I'd be ok with it. No, she has told that lie more than once.

    March 26, 2008 at 11:53 am |
  29. Jeremy Whittaker

    Looks like both Clinton's have the same moral values, huh. Hillary lies about Bosnia, about 4 times by my calculation, and Bill lies about Monica. Take what little pride you have left Hillary, drop out of the race and address your failed marriage. Then we the people will have more respect for you. And tell Chelsea to stop running her mouth at colleges around the country. She's already acting like you, she thinks she is entitled to the presidency.

    March 26, 2008 at 11:52 am |
  30. arto7

    I agree that this is flaky and we don't need more of that in the White House, however, I emphasize the "more of" because heaven knows the current occupant has a problem with the truth and the straight talk express went off course a long time ago. Where do we draw the line between normal political spin that strike normal people as dishonest and hurt the country dishonesty? Not pushing Obama but I heard him on a radio station in Milwaukee right before the WI primary. The DJ asked him if he almost cussed about something or other. He answered, "I never cuss. Wait, I am a politician, if I say I never do something someone will find a way to use that against me." Now I did it! I put that in quotes but I don't remember if that is exactly what he said. It was a brief call in to WLUM when I was on my way home from work around 5 if anyone wants to find out what he really said and correct me. Or, if I was a politician, call me a damn liar.

    March 26, 2008 at 11:52 am |
  31. Joe C

    This just reinforces my gut feeling that Billary has to be avoided at all costs. I've actually contributed twice to Obama, something that I've never done before in a presidential election. That's how important I feel it is to put the Clinton Cartel to sleep permanently. It's not surprising that they're already hinting at supporting McCain so she can have another shot in four years. With the Clintons it's never about what's best for the country, especially after eight years of Bush. It's always about what's best for them.

    March 26, 2008 at 11:52 am |
  32. Mike

    Hillary Lied. Enough said.

    March 26, 2008 at 11:52 am |
  33. Karen

    What does it matter if she lied? What does it matter if there were actually no Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq?

    We're adults, we've been lied to before. And yes, it does matter. Isn't this a lot like lying on a resume? People get fired for that. I'm willing to cut her some slack, but I'd like to see her try being open and straight forward for a change. This the kind of stuff that made me get out of being politically active back in the 80s. I just couldn't stand the stink.

    Folks, I used to assure myself that no president could do too much damage because of our system of checks and balances. Bush has proven me wrong. Right now we need integrity even more than we need experience. Only two candidates seem to have that kind of integrity, and Hillary isn't one of them. I'm voting for Obama.

    March 26, 2008 at 11:52 am |
  34. Florio Giolli

    Let's face it, who can actually read this column and say to themselves, "I have never embellished a story about myself, to gain acceptance". Please, I have never seens such a ridiculous story get so much play. I hear that in fact she was told that there was sniper fire in the hills and to be careful. So she embellished her role, just to make for a friendlier story. But of course the liberal media who is trying to elect Obama in the worst way picks it up and runs with it. I even heard last night on a talk show someone comparing this slip up to 20 years of Obama being in that Churc with that Pastor. Please give her some slack. What about all the goos she's done, when can we talk about that, but that kind of talk does't get Bernstein on CNN.

    March 26, 2008 at 11:52 am |
  35. rav

    I dont understand how a person can make such a mistake. What else is she misspeaking about????? Did she have a an experience similar to that or was all nightmare she dreamt up?

    March 26, 2008 at 11:52 am |
  36. Ann

    It is interesting to read the various perceptions of Senator Clinton and Senator Obama. I would emphasize the word perception. We each see the candidate through our personal view of the world.

    We are all flawed. We all have our quirks. If we all viewed the world through the eyes of perfection, it would be such a dull world indeed.

    I have no idea how to sort it all out. I do enjoy reading the differing points of view allowing me to see the candidates through the eyes of someone else. Your view of Mrs. Clinton is better informed than mine, but it is consistent with my emerging view.

    March 26, 2008 at 11:52 am |
  37. Mike Cobb

    To all of those who say they will vote for McCain if Hillary doesn't get the nomination, I would suggest that you remember that the election isn't about personalities ... it is about public policy. And, McCain's policy objectives are largely those of Bush. The War is one example. Tax breaks for the wealthy are another. Eliminating reproductive choice is a third. Supreme Court appointments are a fourth (and related to the third). There are many, many more right wing positions which he advocates. I support Obama, in part because I what I have seen from Hillary has given substance to the previously not well defined feeling that I didn't like her ... now I know why. However, that said, if her tactics, which could have the result of giving the election to McCain, do gain her the nomination, I will (as is so many previous elections) hold my nose and vote for her. Because, in the end, it is all about policy.

    March 26, 2008 at 11:51 am |
  38. Brian Graves

    Everyone is trying to make Hillary look bad because it is the American thing to do...make fun of someone. I want a leader with experience, not someone who is popular on Youtube. Is Youtube going to defend us the next time we get attacked? Where will Obama girl be when he is president? Will she be supporting him when he doesn't know what the hell he is doing?

    March 26, 2008 at 11:51 am |
  39. chris 4

    Ahh, refreshing to see media flacks return to their comfortable attitudes of a month ago: Free Ride for Barack, let's pick on Mean Ol' Hillary.

    Somehow I think we won't see a parallel item about Sen. Obama's candor, which has now failed embarrassingly on several public occasions –involving Big Questions, not just nitpicking. Media flacks know they can safely postpone such attacks until after he has the Dem nomination. Then, we can confidently expect, Free Ride will change to with Tossed Overboard.

    In the meantime, the game is still Let's Show Hillary How Powerful the Media Are.

    March 26, 2008 at 11:50 am |
  40. Kim

    Thank you, Carl. Thank you. When I thought of Hillary Clinton and a word to describe her, "Calculating" used to come immediately to mind. Now, "Liar" will be added to the list...as well as "ill" It frightens me thinking that she might somehow become an American President. The damage she is doing to politics is immeasurable. Anything to win. Like a yapping neighbor's dog, it is time for the country to simply turn a deaf ear to her and go on with the business of building a great America despite her. Our country's future cannot be built on lies and mistrust and dirty tricks. Our future stands bright and shining before us. Let this poor, sick woman stand aside to go get the help she so desperately needs.

    March 26, 2008 at 11:50 am |
  41. Frances

    It has always deeply troubled me that both Clintons have so vilified Barach Obama, a man who so exemplifies the kind of "new world" they apparently pretended to advocate in their earlier campaigns and public statements about affirmative action and better opportunities for people of color. One would think that, if a Clinton were not in this race, both of them would be hard on the campaign trail in strong support of Barack Obama.

    To see their clear disdain for someone who has actually achieved what the Clintons purportedly fought to bring about all those years in politics seems to indicate that all their previous public statements about racial equality were phony, disengenuous and calculated to win the support of blacks and other minorities. This campaign has truly brought out the inherent vicious ambitions of both Clintons – hers, where she has always envied Bill's presidency; and his, where he seeks to extend his presidency, albeit through his wife's campaign.

    All those Clinton supporters should really think about why they would want people of such false values as their candidate. This is disgraceful, dishonorable, and damaging, not just to the Democrat Party but also to all Americans who stand for true patriotism and justice for all.

    March 26, 2008 at 11:49 am |
  42. Anita

    I am a Canadian watching and reading this stuff with interest but also with fear. America was and should still be a great country – an awesome country – but it has practically been flushed down the toilet over the past seven years. American media today is incredibly irresponsible. Rather than allowing these candidates to focus on the real and important issues like the economy and the illegal war, you are bashing them with senseless and personal attacks; backing them into corners where, yes, they make mistakes (God forbid they be human); and forcing them to turn on each other in the same way, then gleefully reporting on it. You should be ashamed. And, frankly, while most Americans may not deserve what they will get if another Republican gets elected this year, you, the cannibalistic media sure deserve something for your role in facilitating it.

    March 26, 2008 at 11:49 am |
  43. nagi

    please guys look at it this way. This woman has a narrow mind because she obviosly lied about her trip to bosnia. how come you do something like this in the greatest country in the world with all its media. that is mean she is stupid, i'm sorry but this is the truth. how come you lie to the whole country with its media, FBI,CIA ect., about something like this

    March 26, 2008 at 11:49 am |
  44. Lorraine

    Appalling that people who are old enough to vote do not see the problem with Hillary totally fabricating her experience.

    This is the "experience" that she put forth as her reason that she is qualified to be Commander -In-Chief. She did nothing in the WH other than act as First Lady..except with her hezlthcare initiative, and that failed miserably.


    She stated Obama only has a speech. She has now been proven to have even less. How does that not matter?????

    How did we come to a point in this country that people think that deception and fraud no longer matter?

    Is this the legacy left by George Bush?

    Or..is it that people who act the same who feel the truth has no place if it will hold you back from getting what you want defned her indefnesible actions her because she justifies their own actions?

    March 26, 2008 at 11:49 am |
  45. Mary

    Obama was never a Muslim, his pastor has not preached hatred for 20 years, the Chicago Tribune (not a left wing paper) ran an editorial two weeks ago saying that they spent 90 minutes with him recently, and he answered every question, and explained in detail his relationship with Rezko, and they were satisfied all questions were answered. Hillary Clinton, who I supported for years, along with her husband, is a Liar. One would not have a fuzzy recollection if one were being shot at, and especially one would remember if one had put their only child, a teenager at the time, in mortal danger.
    It is frightening that there is one person left standing that would vote for her.
    Finally, saying that if Obama gets the nomination, then someone will vote for McCain is like saying if that someone cannot get the ice cream out of the freezer, they will go outside and eat grass. McCain is a hawk, and has no plans for turning this country around, and his positions on social issues are outrageous.

    March 26, 2008 at 11:49 am |
  46. KMKY

    With all due respect to Mr. Bernstein, I do not see how this most recent incident, which apparently was atypical to her characterization of the event in her other book _Living History_ and in the assessment of the then-acting president of the region, could constitute as a "watershed" moment in a discussion of the candidate's honesty. Americans have been fed on the most vile, neocon diet of hatred by Rush Limbaugh and his ilk that few remember the positives of the Clinton administration. It seems we all suffer from the kind of misremembering Karl Rove excels at pushing on us.

    I also do not see how this can receive so much attention against the bold-faced lie told by Obama in the Myrtle Beach debate that he only worked on a Tony Rezko file for five hours as an associate in a law firm. Then, he later admitted to having a 17-year relationship with the man, owning a lot next door to him, and admitting that both Rezko and his wife served on his campaign finance committee.

    March 26, 2008 at 11:46 am |
  47. Nancy Madison

    I AGREE. How is it that so many intelligent people just gloss over this fact?

    She is as 'slick' as her husband. Her dishonesty, or half-truths, are exactly what turns me off about her.

    Does it occur to her that those of us who will not vote for her now will not vote for her regardless of who's running? That includes 2012!

    March 26, 2008 at 11:46 am |
  48. Kris

    Hillary lied. Embellish, exaggerate, misspoke...these are just pretty words that help make the lie palatable. But a lie is a lie.

    As for the person who said that this does not matter, I would agree if Hillary were speaking to her grandchildren and telling a bedtime story.
    But Hillary is using this lie as a means to establish her credentials.

    Don't think that matters? Try doing something similar on your next job application and see what happens when your prospective employer finds out about your blatant deception. Odds are very high that you won't get the job.

    March 26, 2008 at 11:46 am |
  49. shauna

    HILLARY CLINTON = ready to LIE from DAY ONE!!!!!

    (cue to the predictable cheers from Clinton robotic supporters)

    March 26, 2008 at 11:46 am |
  50. Rob


    Bill Clinton said he "did not have sexual relations with that woman, Monica Lewinsky." He simply misspoke.

    George Bush said there were WMD's in Iraq. He simply misspoke. Then he said "mission accomplished." Again, just misspoke. No biggie.

    Richard Nixon said, "I have never profited, never profited from public service. I have earned every cent. And in all of my years of public life, I have never obstructed justice. And I think, too, that I can say that in my years of public life, that I welcome this kind of examination because people have got to know whether or not their President's a crook. Well, I'm not a crook. I've earned everything I've got." He simply misspoke.

    George HW Bush said, "Read my lips: no new taxes." He simply misspoke.

    My own brother said, "No I did NOT break your Millenium Falcon model." But he, of course, simply misspoke.

    The pattern I see in all of this is that a LIE is only a LIE until you are caught. Then it becomes a MISTATEMENT.

    UPDATE: Actually, I don't have a brother. I simply misspoke.

    March 26, 2008 at 11:46 am |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16