How can you “misstate” something that is really just a completely fabricated story?
A misstatement means you had a slip of the tongue or got a fact wrong.
However, twice in recent weeks, Hillary Clinton claims that in 1996 she went to Bosnia and landed under sniper fire. They had to run serpentine fashion, ducking for cover. It was so dangerous that there was no greeting ceremony and they had run to the vehicles waiting for them.
Here are the facts: There was a small greeting ceremony where a girl read a poem, Hillary and her daughter Chelsea posed for picture, and they took a tour of a guard tower. So does that mean that Hillary put her own daughter in danger by bringing her on a dangerous trip to a war zone? She then had Chelsea pose for pictures with her, stood to listen to a poem, and tour a guard tower while local rebels took pot shots at her all without protection?
Not quite, according to John Pomfret of the Washington Post WHO WAS THERE, said that the area where Hillary and her daughter landed was well under the control of American forces. They drove around in regular cars (no armored vehicles), and did not wear flack jackets. Sheryl Crowe even performed there.
Hmm, doesn’t quite sound like the plot for Black Hawk Down, does it? And after being caught in a lie, Hillary Clinton said “I speak a lot of words in the course of a day and if I misspoke, it was just that, a misstatement”. This whole thing sounds a lot like her husband’s famous quote: “It depends on what your meaning of the word “is” is.
So she misspoke, twice, on two separate occasions, and the reason is that she is basically confused because she uses so many words in a day that she didn’t realize what she was saying? Yet, we should trust that she is the right person to answer the White House phone at 3 am? What if misspeaks the wrong thing then like “push the big red button”?
Let me try again: a pleasant mother/daughter photo-op trip to Bosnia; to a safe portion of a troubled part of the world, under American military control, greeted by the locals while Sheryl Crowe sang “All I want to do is have some fun” is equivalent to almost being gunned down by the local militia? Wow, that’s quite a misstatement. So if North Korea has a New Years party, you could mistake that for an aggressive nuclear action, thereby beginning the sequence for World War 3?
Diane Sawyer (my new hero after her interview with Geraldine Ferraro) interviewed James Carville on Good Morning America today.
Spoiled sport James Carville (I’ll get to him later) compared Hillary’s misstatement to something said by John McCain. It’s the typical Clinton-style, finger-pointing. The whole notion of “No sir, you are. Uh, uh, you did”.
Based on recent polls, only 44% of Americans would call Hillary Clinton trustworthy. I suspect that number is a little high. And James Carville’s number is even lower. Can you really trust a man who claims to be a die-hard Clinton democrat yet married a woman who was on Bush’s staff and was a colleague of Karl Rove? And counselor to Dick Cheney? I’ve heard that politics makes for strange bedfellows. I never knew what the really meant until now.
I don’t care how much you love someone, if your politics are complete polar opposites or your mate’s, is that relationship steeped in reality? Or are these two “strategists” playing both sides of the fence to ensure that one of them will be on someone’s payroll when all is said and done. You take a gay man and a lesbian, marry them off to each other, and have them play both sides of the fence (I mean politically). There’s no way to lose, right? I’ll let you be the judge.
Carville went on to say that Hillary Clinton has been the subject of more political attacks than any other politician in history? Really? Is he sure? I don’t know the history of political attacks back to George Washington and I doubt he does either.
Further, Carville has been chided for calling New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson “Judas with the 30 sheckles” because he supports Barack Obama instead of Clinton. Just because Carville is hanging on to the notion that the Clintons and their cronies have an entitlement to the Presidency and all the perks that come with that doesn’t mean the everyone else feels that way. Most of us believe you still have to earn it and you do that by being honest and playing fair.
Diane Sawyer pointed out various points about Richardson, among them how he has worked toward unifying the Democratic Party. She asked him if since the Democrats have a real need to be more unified rather than having separate waring factions, were his comments about Richardson a mistake and did he want to take it back.
Carville did two things. First, he continually laughed about the Clinton misstatement” and his Richardson comments as if the whole thing is a joke. You know what? It IS a Joke. He’s a joke, the Clinton campaign is a joke, and Hillary’s credibility is a joke. In my opinion, even his marriage is a joke. So I guess he should just keep on laughing. Except this time he won’t be laughing all the way to the bank, he’ll be laughing all the way to the unemployment line. I’ll probably see him there.
Carville’s whole defense of his comments about Richardson relied on two words. He kept saying that Richardson was “properly branded” insinuating that only Carville himself could put Richardson in context and the context is that of a traitor. Governor Richardson responded the next day after Carville’s comments saying he won’t get in the gutter with Clinton supporters who have a sense of entitlement. He’s right. Carville is irrelevant and so are his opinions and comments.
Carville ended by saying again that Richardson was “branded properly”. He said “I said it, it wasn’t taken out of context and the people will remember the quote”. All he trying to do is get people to look at Richardson and associate the word “Judas” with him. First, Richardson just gave an endorsement. We know endorsements don’t mean much. Carville would have better luck if he was Brittney Spears if he wants people to remember a quote. Even she is more relevant than he is and while I don’t, a lot of people pay more attention to Spears than Carville.
Carville tried to save face by saying if Hillary Clinton did not win Pennsylvania, it was pretty much over and he would back Obama if Obama were to win the nomination. Aw, shucks, how nice of him. If he can support Obama then, why can’t he do it now? When pressed for “how much would Hillary need to win by in Pennsylvania” he said he wouldn’t go into numbers. Why get specific now. If there’s no mud to sling, he doesn’t have much to say.
I hate that I had to even spend time writing about Carville but I did not want people to think that what he says matters. Just because a national news organization puts his mug on TV doesn’t mean he’s important. He’s been floating around (litterally) since the Clinton days and I know that Democrats don’t want to go back to the Clinton years, we want to move forward.