Clinton admits to error over sniper fire claim during Bosnia visit

US elections are odd bloody things, as they are so rarely fought over issues, and tend to focus on bizarre side shows which are supposed to highlight the candidates "character". In this way the Republican party have been very successful at getting working class Americans to vote against their own economic interest.

And this election - to establish who will be the Democratic presidential nominee - has been no different from the others. We have watched screeds of newsprint concentrate on the words of Obama's minister, with the implication that he must share this man's views, rather than watching newspapers actually discuss what Obama intends to do and how that differs from Clinton's plans.

And Hillary has been an expert at playing this game, highlighting her own experience and dismissing Obama's most blatant rhetorical gifts as merely "words".

Which makes her most recent gaffe all the more surprising.

She had claimed to remember landing in Bosnia under sniper fire.

"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."

The footage which has surfaced shows that she did no such thing, which has prompted that rarest of things: a Clinton climbdown.

Hillary Clinton has had to admit that she exaggerated her claim of coming under sniper fire during a visit to Bosnia in the 1990s, after video footage showed the then first lady walking calmly from her plane.

The Clinton campaign played down the episode as a "misstatement" and a "minor blip". But it was seized on by supporters of her rival for the Democratic nomination, Barack Obama, as further evidence of Clinton inflating her foreign policy experience during her time in the White House.

I love how Hillary gets to tell us all that this is a "minor blip", as if the person who commits the transgression gets to define how important we should all view that transgression.

At the heart of this issue is the fact that Hillary is greatly overstating her experience, implying that her husband's presidency was, in fact, her own. For the truth is that Hillary is actually not that much more experienced than Obama. But, by constantly seeking to overstate her "experience" Hillary has stumbled into this quite avoidable blunder.

She sought damage control by an interesting route.

At a press conference in Greensburg, Pennsylvania, yesterday, she said: "So I made a mistake. That happens. It shows I'm human, which for some people is a revelation."

She sought to hit back by stoking up the row over Barack Obama's fiery pastor, claiming that she would have left any church where such intemperate remarks had been made. "He would not have been my pastor," Clinton said, in her first public comment since the row began more than two weeks ago. Obama has remained in the pastor's church for 20 years.

In a dig at Obama, she said: "You don't choose your family, but you choose what church you want to attend.

"Everyone will have to decide these matters for themselves. They are obviously very personal matters ... I think the choice would be clear for me."

She first seeks to make the fact that she has been caught telling a huge porkie as proof that she "is human", and announces that this should be good news to some people; and then, immediately, launches into an attack on Obama and the fact that he has decided to stick by the minister who married him and baptised his children, despite the fact that he holds some views which Obama disagrees with.

This is where US elections really start to tire me out. I am willing to accept the fact that Hillary Clinton is not some kind of fantasist, and that she has genuinely misremembered what took place in Bosnia. I honestly don't believe that she simply lied her head off. She's much too intelligent a lady to stand up in public and tell such an obvious whopper and not expect to be caught out. But why, when she is forced to admit that her memory of what happened in Bosnia is flawed, does she have to start attacking Obama for standing by his minister?

Why, in God's name, can't we just stick to debating the policies? For whilst the two Democrats are tearing each other apart over "character", the Republican candidate is conflating Iran and al Qaeda forces in Iraq and being given a total free pass from the American media.

This is why I think Clinton should have stepped down on March 5th. After Texas and Ohio, when she failed to make any significant inroads into Obama's delegate lead, the contest has in effect been over for her. By continuing after that point she is serving no other purpose other than to harm the eventual Democratic nominee.

Just once, I'd love to see Hillary attacking John McCain, and accepting that Obama would be a great President, is that too much to ask of someone seeking the Democratic nomination?

UPDATE:

The Carpetbagger Report has a good summary of this:

This may sound cynical, but my guess is that media interest in Clinton’s debunked Bosnia story had become too great a distraction. The controversy (and damaging videos) undermined Clinton on two fronts — credibility and national security experience — both of which are of critical significance.

So, how better to change the subject that to revive the Jeremiah Wright story with brand new criticism?

Clinton has been offered repeated chances to comment on the Wright controversy for three weeks. She’s not only declined, she’s avoided saying a single word. Today, all of a sudden, Clinton has all kinds of concerns she’s anxious to share. What a remarkable coincidence.

What’s more, we now have a situation in which John McCain defended Obama against Wright-related charges, and Mike Huckabee defended Obama, but Hillary Clinton sat down with editors of a conservative newspaper to reignite a fire that had already largely gone out.

Less than a week ago, former Mondale campaign manager Bob Beckel said, “Many liberals like myself, who would be happy to support Hillary Clinton if she earned the nomination, would abandon her if her campaign seeks to exploit the Wright controversy either in the remaining contests or with superdelegates.”

Now, it appears she’s doing both. I’d hoped Clinton was above this.

The truth is that Hillary will willingly go into the gutter if she thinks it would help her win the nomination.

UPDATE II:

Taylor Marsh highlights the Clinton plan whilst bizarrely failing to condemn it:

l just spoke with a Democratic Party official, who asked for anonymity so as to speak candidly, who said we in the media are all missing the point of this Democratic fight.

The delegate math is difficult for Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, the official said. But it's not a question of CAN she achieve it. Of course she can, the official said.

The question is -- what will Clinton have to do in order to achieve it?

What will she have to do to Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, in order to eke out her improbable victory?

She will have to "break his back," the official said. She will have to destroy Obama, make Obama completely unacceptable.

"Her securing the nomination is certainly possible - but it will require exercising the 'Tonya Harding option.'" the official said. "Is that really what we Democrats want?"

The Tonya Harding Option -- the first time I've heard it put that way.

I honestly don't know if I will ever be able to forgive Hillary for the shit she is currently engaging in. Or people like Taylor Marsh who appear to be sanctioning this stuff.

Click title for full article.

Tags: Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John McCain, Bosnia, US election 2008, democratic presidential nomination