Bosnia May Be Hillary Clinton's Biggest Blunder

Taylor Marsh, a vociferous pro-Hillary blogger and radio host, admits that the senator's embellished boast about dodging sniper fire in Bosnia was a huge mistake:

Hillary Clinton trying to prove her importance during her husband's presidency overreached massively and got caught in a whopper on Bosnia that includes tape. Now to be fair, the trip wasn't completely safe from danger, but no one cares now. We remember her well received foreign policy speech from last week, which included the words shown above, with the video tape evidence circulating today that blows what she said in a major foreign policy speech to smithereens. It's a self-inflicted wound that is by no means fatal, but definitely foolish.

As I've said before, Clinton should have from the start simply said she was her husband's most valued adviser. That she was there and learned through their back and forth, as well as from her many trips that span 80 countries, without claiming a war story. It was unnecessary, especially when the blowback certainly won't be worth it. Besides, no one expects a first lady to have the experience of a president. It's Clinton's lifetime of learning that she'll bring to the job that has real value. Hillary's life proves different opportunities from a man that needs no apologies and padding. Confidence in a life well lived has its own reward, especially when you've seen as much as Clinton has over decades of public policy involvement.

Hillary Clinton never should have campaigned on the premise that her experience as First Lady gave her the foreign policy credibility of John McCain. It's absurd -- she didn't have a security clearance and there's a voluminous public record of her globe-trotting, glad-handing trips that can prove they were ceremonial and largely inconsequential. Trading gifts and nice words with the first family of Uzbekistan does not make you more capable of answering the red phone.

Her biggest qualifications to be president are the Clinton record on the economy, the Democratic agenda, her vast public policy knowledge, and her ability to withstand the worst of the right-wing spin machine. If Democrats wanted to win this election on the basis of foreign policy bonafides, they should've chosen my man Joe Biden. Experience is overrated. Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld brought a lifetime of it to the disastrous decision to invade and occupy Iraq.

One thing I've wondered lately is whether Clinton really believes she's got commander-in-chief cred. Her invented heroics in Bosnia have been accompanied by her comment, "there was a saying around the White House that if a place was too small, too poor, or too dangerous, the president couldn't go, so send the First Lady."

This is so baldly idiotic that you have to wonder whether anyone in her campaign gave a moment's thought to how it reflects on the Clintons. Chelsea Clinton accompanied her mother on that Bosnia trip. Does the senator genuinely believe that her husband's policy while president was to send his wife and 16-year-old daughter on diplomatic trips that were too dangerous for him?

Politics · 2008/03/25 · 3 COMMENTS · Link

Comments

You'd think this issue would generate a lot of comment, but n-o-o-o!

That's probaby because of this reality you've casually revealed, "This is so baldly idiotic that you have to wonder whether anyone in her campaign gave a moment's thought to how it reflects on the Clintons."

Lying didn't hurt Bill, and who is still slavishly defended with the standing party 'lie' - "he was impeached for a blowjob!" Who in his host of advisors mentioned telling that he was embarrassing himself? Anyay, why are lies by party officials so important now, and not during Bosnia, Somalia, air wars against Iraq, the Haiti invasion, and along with the money-laundering campaign contributions, FBI file mislocations, FISA exceptions, indicted cronies, rapes, ad nauseam?

Then, why should lying through her teeth harm Hillary, now -- unless it might be party and main-stream media ...

... misogyny?

#1 · tadowe · 2008/03/26

The really sad part is that both sides of the Democratic Party have been trying to convince each other that the OTHER guys were either racists or misogynists. After the convention, they're going to have a lot of people who really, really HATE whoever the final candidate is - more than the Republicans will ever have.

Meanwhile, McCain is just sorta moping along, letting the Democrats do what they do best - lose foregone-conclusion elections. As long as he absolutely refuses to stoop to their level, he's got a chance at a massive landslide, instead of the possible Dem victory we were hearing about six months back.

No matter who wins, at least 20% of the Democrats are going to be so pissed off they either won't vote or will vote against those evil bastards on the other side of the party. If McCain enlists Condi Rice as his VP, he's going to have a lock on EITHER side's pissed-off voters...

#2 · cirby · 2008/03/27

Regarding "the foreign policy credibility of John McCain", does he have any left? Really? After he consistently misstated that Iran (Shiites) and Al Qaeda (Sunnis) were fighting on the same side? If he doesn't even understand one of the major causes of violence in the region (and one of the main causes of our continually failing occupation), how could he possibly fix things in Iraq if he were president?

#3 · Cyde Weys · 2008/03/30