When I first read this it was just that headline, her quote, and the photograph you see below, so my initial reaction was "right-wing spin". Then I noticed the source: The Washington Post! Apparently this is for real.

 

So I think this is an interesting example of how useful scrutiny of candidates can be on the campaign trail. We never really get to know these people -- we have to use the press as a surrogate. That's what makes real spin and ideological partisanship so dangerous -- it distorts and defends things like this, making them harder to detect and expose. I have no doubt that if Hillary were the sole Democratic candidate at the moment that this story would be under far more attack and parsing than it currently is.

 

The quote:

 

"I remember landing under sniper fire. There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base."

--Hillary Clinton, speech at George Washington University, March 17, 2008.

 

The photograph:

 

 

The video of her arrival that day, courtesy of CBS News, along with her quotes defending what she said:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iOsGo_HWP-c

 

Washington Post article:

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/03/hillarys_balkan_adventures_par.html

 

Gotta love this quote from comedian Sinbad, who was actually on the trip with her, questioning why Bill Clinton would send her into a war zone!

 

"What kind of president would say 'Hey man, I can't go 'cause I might get shot so I'm going to send my wife. Oh, and take a guitar player and a comedian with you."

 

Hehe!

Looks like hillary got caught trying to pull a fast one over us for dramatic effect. You can do that in the days of youtube.

It speaks to the slightly bigger issue of her authenticity and integrity, which are the two primary concerns I personally have with her presidential bid.

Yeah, I love when the Daily Show dredges up some clip that completely contradicts what a politician says. In this 21st century panopticonic post-Internet world, it's a lot harder to get away with that kind of bullshit.

I didn't catch her speech, but I really don't see that it lends anything to her "experience" even if it were true. Sounds like embellishment of a story. Many do it, all the time. I wouldn't be surprised if she actually remembered it that way - until the evidence was shown.

We have had politicians being economical with the truth, and now we have one embroidering the truth. Embroidering is much prettier, don't you think? And such a typically old-world feminine passtime.

 

In principle, there is not much difference between sexing up the WMD dossier, and dramatising an airport visit. But one resulted death and destruction, and the other showed an interesting insight into a personality that many thought already flawed and unsuitable for the job. (Don't think much of the other one either, so I am being even-handed).

Since I can't really think of any out-and-out Hillary fans that post regularly on here, I'll play the apologist. Clinton used (excessively) flowered language to describe something she did, and then got trapped by it.

 

I don't have any data on it, but I would hypothesize that considering the volume of statements any candidate makes in an election cycle, you could find similar instances of statements like that going back hundreds of years if you really looked. Does it indicate Machiavellian duplicity? Sure. But it doesn't necessarily mean she'd make a bad president. I can personally think of examples from the FDR administration of similar creativity ("I just want to appoint more judges to take a load off the old ones. Honest!").

No, they all do stupid things from time to time, I agree. But that's why we need that pressure cooker, so that we can analyze those stupid things for signs of deeper problems. In this case a willingness to subvert the truth for the sake of partisanship is indicated. The degree to which that is a fair assessment of her character is a different question, but each voter can make up their own mind about it, I suppose.

 

But I don't disagree with what you're saying.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/23/AR2008032301706.html

 

The both do it. McCain for President.

Ah, so that's what "coming together" means -- showing up at the last minute and asking for top billing!

 

Why, I remember that session like it was yesterday... when we signed that legislation under sniper fire and everyone just kept their heads down and ran over to the press corps bunker for the laurels!

 

(hehe)

This is so strange. Why would she make such a remarkable and attention-getting claim that could so easily be shown false? Yet apparently she did. What could she possibly have been thinking? It almost makes me think there has to be some kind of misunderstanding here, like she was joking or something, but it doesn't seem that way, does it?

This is so strange. Why would she make such a remarkable and attention-getting claim that could so easily be shown false? Yet apparently she did. What could she possibly have been thinking? It almost makes me think there has to be some kind of misunderstanding here, like she was joking or something, but it doesn't seem that way, does it?

 

I found a lot of potential validity in John's response above:

 

 

I wouldn't be surprised if she actually remembered it that way - until the evidence was shown.

Turns out Hillary wasn't lying at all. Newly discovered video tells the real tale of that day in the Balkans.

 

Oh, that's BAD.