The problem isn't experience, it is character.  And this reminds us of the serial exaggerations from HRC.  Remember Bush's 'exaggeration' about WMD in Iraq? And just about everything he's said since?  People are ready for the truth...

I agree with your assessment, but Rich criticizes Hillary for continuing to stick with her version of events even after it seemed like she was, at the very least, misremembering the Bosnia trip. She held fast, and ultimately made the event into a bigger news story than it should have been. I think this story doesn't undermine her commander-in-chief credentials so much as it reinforces a view of her as someone whose words don't always match her deeds.

What is the difference between HRC and Obama?  Not how they are *perceived*, but how they are *received.*  He remains a largely blank slate, even at this point.  She has almost no empty space left on the canvas of her public image.  Thus . . .

People are looking for reasons to like Obama, and are only turned off temporarily when something negative comes up.  They *want* a reason to vote *for* him.

People are looking for reasons to dislike HRC, and she has given them one.  They *want* a reason to justify their dis-ease with her.

Mind you, that's not why *I* am against her.  But I think it's true with the larger public.

Unfair?  Maybe.  But too bad.

I thought the main point of Rich's column is how out of touch HRC's campaign is with the internet/new media.  Did I miss something?

I have to disagree with Noam on this one (who cares what I think, right?). Hillary's campaign is based on her claims of "experience" and being "ready from day one" and all that. Yet there has always been an underlying concern about Hillary's truthfullness and trustworthiness for all those who do not reside in Hillaryland. The greater those concerns, the greater her claims of experience and readiness are questioned. This further serves to crystallize the public's view of her as dishonest and mendacious. Basically, it becomes her Howard Dean scream.

At that point, the foundation of the case for her candidacy begins to crumble, and her motives are scrutinized and questioned with that whopper of her Bosnia lie being the touchstone or lens through which each news cycle must filter through even if it is just inferred. Frank Rich had it right. It is that serious to her campaign and has already done more damage to her polling numbers than the Rev Wright affair has done to Obama's numbers. The end of her campaign then becomes more and more inevitable as the backstory continues to be Hillary can't win but will do anything to win (i.e. the Tonya Harding strategy) coupled with that big fat "gotcha" of her Bosnia lie and what is likely to be several additional examples that underscore the above.

This thing is over. We all know it. It's just a question of how ugly and damaging it gets. We Democrats are now in the early phase of a presidential and party hostage crisis. The superdelegates will need to act as swiftly as a S.W.A.T team should Obama win North Carolina so this thing doens't drag on until mid-June.

Surely the most significant thing about the Bosnia war zone fairy tale is that even when it was exposed as a brazen fabrication she was pathologically incapable of going further than "I misspoke."  If she had had the courage to acknowledge her error, people would have forgiven her.  But, as with her decision on the Iraq war vote, she seems unable to own up to her own mistakes.  It's this stubborn refusal to back down that is so ominous. We've had 8 years of self-righteousness and inflexibility.  We don't need more.

The problem is that Hillary Clinton doesn't really have more experience than Obama so she has to trump up the life experiences she's had - and ends up sounding like someone reminiscing about their fabulous vacation. I was this close to being run down by a bull a Pamplona, I was chased out of the water by a great white, I almost died climbing Half Dome, I met this really experienced woman named Hillary and we had a great time.

Obama has held elective office for far longer than Hillary Clinton and consequently has far greater experience of it. She spent eight of the last fifteen years cocooned in the White House bubble which hardly gave much opportunity for remaining in touch with the American people. The reality is her experience is illusionary. If Americans were really looking for an experienced female leader I would argue that Senator Maria Cantwell of Washington state is vastly more experienced than is Hillary Clinton.

Her candidacy continues the American love affair with nepotism in politics. Cherie Blair, for example, would never have dreamed of succeeding Tony Blair as Britain's Prime Minister even though she once harbored political ambitions herself.

I think this whole issue reminds people of the "depends on what the definition of 'is' is" part of the Clinton years.  That's the most damaging part.

threeputt, daveis and lubetkin have hit the nails on the head...

There is bound to be more...it was always a question of temperament and judgment when it came to questioning HRC's credentials to be a President... those don't have to be recapped for the readers of these posts.  She made that visible to everyone who ever was capable of an open mind on the issue.

People are saying:  we sure don't want 4 or 8 more years of the kind of bull headed, pig headed, stubbornness of Bush and what does HRC offer, but if conceivably possible, not only more of the same, but just conceivably worse.  Cause we get a return to the smarminess of Hubby Bill along with her.  Yipes!

If she gets the message, she may recoup the damage she is now doing to her own own future in the Democratic Party... if not, I would think some audacious candidate might take her on in NY in 2012 and slam her away....Who was it that weeks ago suggested there are worse roles than the future Ted Kennedy in the Senate... but HRC won't settle for second best ever again, even if she destroys herself in her determination.  Not only Yipes but YUK.  Hey, sit back and enjoy the show.

Yes, Rich goes way overboard. I don't think this is bringing Jessica Lynch to mind for anyone, nor the "Mission Accomplished" carrier landing. Although it may bring up memories of "it depends on what the definition of 'is' is." I just don't see this as a defining moment, it's just another thing that hurts her candidacy. But at the same time, I think this is a real problem for Hillary and has hurt her. Not so much the initial statement as the handling of the aftermath. Even the general embellishment of the story would probably have been forgotten by most people if Team Hillary had known when to cut their losses and admit that she got things mixed up. But then further embellishment made that impossible. Compare this to how Obama handled the much more serious crisis of Wright, and you have to wonder who is really more ready for that 3am phone call.

The problem with this story for HRC is that it highlights her perceived negatives and damages her positive talking points at the same time. That said, it may be that the story doesn't have enough legs to do serious damage on either front. Though, if the media keep digging and find other areas where she has lied about what she did as first lady to beef up her resume, then it become a very big deal indeed.

I disagree with Noam's point that Hillary's exaggerations on the Bosnia trip don't have an effect.  Perception is reality.  When Hillary continues to hold on to a statement that is widely known to be a lie - irrespective of whether it is a big lie or an embellishment - she undermines her credibility across the board.  Now since she just happens to be married to a guy whose relationship with the truth is notoriously distant, when she starts to spout pronouncements that are known falsehoods it starts to look like something less than a coincidence.  It's like, "The family that lies together, runs for President together.".

Part of the reason this perception will have legs is the negative way that Hillary is portrayed in the media.  The perception that she will say anything, however farfetched, has become part of her meme.  Consider Al Gore in 2000.  OK, so he wasn't the father of the internet.  But he was plausibly one of its uncles.  Remember the Reagan-Bush avoidance of any sort of industrial policy other than tax breaks for wealthy Republicans?  As a rebuttal to that policy, Vice President Gore headed a commission to help germinate emerging technologies.  One of which was the internet.  Much like the recent flim, "Charlie Wilson's War", Gore didn't actually invent anything.  All he did was to provide funds and support at a crucial moment.  But that 's not the story that got told.  The story that DID get told was that Gore made this ridiculous statement about being the father of the internet.  This got spun into the perception that he was a dishonest exaggerator and the perception became the reality.  Perhaps his proximity to the ever-honest Bill Clinton magnified the consequences of being seen as untruthful.  This would not seem to be helpful for Hillary.

"it's not like she had a history of telling heroic yarns about herself that repeatedly turned out to be bogus."

Are you sure? There's her claim of having played an important role in brokering peace in Northern Ireland, for example, labelled "a wee bit silly" by David Trimble.

There's also her claim in having helped start S-CHIP, when, as Ezra Klein wrote, "She wasn't a legislator, and so she didn't write the bill, pass it out of committee, or cast a decisive vote. She wasn't the president, and so didn't sign the bill into law, or direct government agencies to study the program's feasibility and lay the groundwork for the legislation. At best, she could have asked her husband to do these things [..]. But she couldn't have "started" the program."

That's two other examples just from the top of my head. I'd say that this is exactly the problem here: Hillary's tendency of fabulism being exposed.

It's not a one-off case, and it goes to the heart of her main electability argument: that she has more experience, that she can answer that 3AM call. When people realise that any of her claims on that score might or might not be true, what's left of that argument?

Memory is notoriously inaccurate, if not downright fictitious. Human beings are fabulists, recall highly mutable, subject to influences and contexts in the present. Hillary's goof is no better or worse than Obama's story about the Kennedy's funding the airlift from Kenya carrying his father. That didn't happen the way he has retold it, but the facts are close enough to make the story virtually true. Obviously a candidate wants to maximize the effect of telling a personal story, and in a given moment easily could exaggerate or "missstate." If you give Obama the benefit of the doubt, why not Hillary?

daveis: "who cares what I think?" I care buddy, I do. I just spent a few minutes reading everyone and find I have nothing more to add.

But the problem is that her time as first lady is the only substantial advantage in terms of experience that she has. And she's implying that she has an advantage. hell, that's an explicit claim of her campaign.

jobeek2, doesn't Klein's description of Hillary's possible participation in S-CHIP remind you of how Hillary described Martin Luther Kings participation in civil right changes?  And didn't she imply that it was only the president that got things moving?

tomeg, nobody cares if she tells people she was named after Edmund Hillary (except maybe Marty Peretz) but this was a lie that was intended to further her "experience" credentials. As such it is of much greater import. Beyond that, it was a total fabrication unlike her exaggerations about s-chip (which doesn't bother me in the slightest as I am certain she did as much as her office allowed)

Another reason I don't give her the benefit of the doubt is the way in which she responded: defensively and bitterly. ie. that it comes as a surprise to some people that she is human, or that this is the first misstatement in 10 years. If she laughed it off and said she was thinking of another occasion, and that as first lady security is always at the front of ones mind, then yeah, I would have given her the benefit. She couldn't even spin it well.

"If you give Obama the benefit of the doubt, why not Hillary?"

Because Obama, confronted with the facts, immediately corrected himself and admitted he had gotten it wrong.  Hillary persisted, and even embellished, her tale even as she was confronted with the facts.

Besides, something that happened forty-eight years ago before Obama was born is, oh, just a wee bit different than a tale told from memory of an event twelve years ago--and a large public event at that.

To the examples listed by my fellow posters, namely, Northern Ireland and S-CHIP, as well as Bosnia, I would like to add another: "I was against NAFTA from the beginning" juxtaposed with clips of her enthusiastic support of same.  I believe her pattern of serial lying (why not call it what it is?) has been pretty well established.  That pattern, along with her inability to admit a mistake and her secretiveness, add up to disqualifying character flaws.  As shades of Bush and Nixon begin to intrude, in the increasingly unlikely event she ever ended up being our President, we would find ourselves suffering a serious case of deja vu.

blackton, I agree that Clinton's reaction to the outing sounded bitter, but hey, she's a proud lady. Also I'm sure she doesn't want to remind voters of Bill's misspeaking. If she laughed off the fuss then it's plausible people would take that to imply that Clinton is not just a liar but an arrogant (damned) liar. It really was a no win for her whatever she might say, therefore she may have chosen the lesser of evils, to admit that she had (misspoken) exaggerated.

Truth is both Clinton and Obama have questionable resumes and dubious qualifications, and each has an enormous and touchy ego. As tep has argued to no avail in these kinds of disputes, they're politicians with the usual unattractive qualities along with their good ones. I just can't get that excited over the predictable untimely scoops and outings. Small stuff.

blacton (cont.), If you want to discount Clinton's f-p credentials, fine, but admit that Obama has none as in zero.

what is her experience exactly.  i dont see any at all.  she never had any clearances for any trip or talk she gave.  it was just as first lady/. so what. i just read an interesting article about another lie she gave to iowa farmers about her stand on pig farming.  it appeared in awi.  she was caught there too, then changed her tune.  there are too many examples now.  it restores myfaith in the dems lately with their looking over the clintons.  i dont want them in office ever again.  i will vote for nader  again if he runs or stay home.  the tsk-tsking is starting again with the apologists in the dems party and i am once again itching to get out of that party. and this time i will not come back.  and i speak as their prize voter now - a woman of a certain age.

tomeg, which part of Obama's resumé is questionable:  his upbringing, Columbia, Chicago community work, Harvard Law, U of Chicago teaching, the Illinois state senate, or the U.S. senate?

And what's the question you want to ask?

Well, noma, Rich does have an hysterical bent.  And, even I, who am prone to take high umbrage to any outrage from the Left and Dems, have trouble really getting upset over this.

It's more stupid than outrageous.  I mean, she wasn't going to get away with it indefinitely, so why did she keep repeating it.  

But,it's just another mark on Hillary's long liability ledger.  Whether it is the actual straw that breaks her back or not doesn't matter.  It is one of the risible things about her.  And it is not good for presidential aspirants to be easy Leno/Letterman targets.

Problem is, the Clintons are so infamous for lying that they've innoculated themselves against lying as a fatal disease.  People expect them to lie.  

If they stopped lying, voters would fear the Clintons must have a mortal disease and were trying to atone before they met their Maker.

Noam is completely wrong about this. Hillary's experience argument is 100% dependent upon her experience as First Lady. Because honestly, if you remove that from her resume, what else can she claim? The fact that she's spent fewer years in elected office than Obama has? It's her argument, and she's stuck with it. Because claiming that Hillary has executive experience is like claiming Yoko Ono was a Beatle.

Although First Lady has not in the past been considered the least qualification for the presidency, I think it is fair to say this:  Hillary with her Yale law degree,m her apparently intimate involvement in Clinton's AR campaigns and background advising and partnering in his gubernatorial caereer;  

Plus, given her ambition, it is fair to say she was paying a lot of attention and sticking her nose into a lot of the policy goings-on during their 8-years together in D.C.

And finally, Bill did advertiser her from the start as the makings of their "two-fer".  

So, with all that as evidence, I can believe Hillary was paying enough attention that her 8 years plus two prez campaigns with Bill taught her something about what it means to be president.

And, she has been seven years in the senate.

Certainly that's a lot more than the Illinois State Senate would teach you.  And a light coupla years in the U.S. Senate.

All of that said, she does not have an adequate resume for the job she's applying for.  And he has even less.

Which is what makes all of this such a joke.  Especially the handwringing over which of these people ought to be president.

Answer:  neither.

"Because claiming that Hillary has executive experience is like claiming Yoko Ono was a Beatle."

Good one, dsimpson.  Can't believe I haven't heard that wonderful analogy before.

What I believe makes this episode particularly egregious (and possibly fatal to her candidacy) is not merely the fact that she fabricated her experience, it's that she did it again and again, virtually taunting the media to call her out on it. It reminds me of Gary Hart's challenge to the press to follow him if they didn't believe his claims of marital fidelity. His affair was unfortunate, but his willingness to do it under the nose of the media was downright reckless, which is what did him in. And that's why I'm beginning to believe that Tuzlagate could wind up being Hillary's version of  "The Monkey Business." She told the story twice, then -- even after she was outed by Sinbad and the Washington Post -- continued to retell her demonstrably false version of events. It made her look silly and unpresidential, but, most importantly, it showed her contempt for both the media and the voters.

BHLnyc, do you think there's any chance that this is a sort of subconsciously deliberate self-destructive move, like Hart (terrific analogy, by the way)? Hillary behaves like the classic passive-aggressive personality, and so maybe she really does thrive on feeling like the world is against her. And sure enough, just when things seemed to be going her way, she essentially taunts the entire world into calling her out as a liar, so now she gets to be the poor victim behind the eight-ball again.

Or maybe there's no psychodrama here, and she's just a straightforward inveterate liar of the Bush variety.

Does anyone doubt that if this had been an Obama lie he would have to cash it in right now? Really? Truly. I don't know how she gets away with it. A flat out blatant lie. How does such a thing work? I am astounded that there are those who continue to allow room for this sort of nonsense. That some folks want to put this person forward as a viable representative of the people is beyond the pale. Just what would it take to disappoint and disqualify?

It isn't hard to tell the truth..... unless your a Clinton. Apparently the Clintons are given artistic license in the name of a new kind enlightened politics. The fact that some folks don't even blink is beyond me.

Despite the fact that I was having to stay low for all of the molotov cocktails about and rumored to be about I decided to go ahead and attend the charity event in South Chicago. The cops felt confident they could handle the KKK and things being what they are the children who stood to benefit from our fundraiser were worth the risk to myself and my children's safety. And I just want you to know that despite the harrowing ordeal this kind of experience affords I still have misgivings about Pastor Wright and the positions he has taken.

Barack Obama

boxo, "When the truth conflicts with the legend, print the legend."

Hillary is trying to print her own.  It's generally considered smarter and more seemly to get others to do the flacking (hyping, exaggerating, lying) for you.

I'm with you, boxo.  I just don't believe what the polls are alleged to say, that Obama has suffered no damage from the Rev Wright thing.

You can't disassociate yourself from a relationship of twenty years that you've gone out of your way to tout.  Not only has the guy said extraordianrily inflammatory things, he took that trip to Libya with Farrakahn to meet Khadafi.

Khadafir blew up an American airliner, folks.  When I was a boy, presidents didn't have friends like that.  Are we all so cool, we don't care anymore?

Rhu,

I don't really have a satifactory answer to that good question, but her third, false retelling is what makes it possible to believe that she's now starting to self-sabotage. Remember, also, that Hillary explained the March 17 event -- which followed Sinbad's retelling -- by saying that her account was marred by "sleep deprivation." Was she sleep deprived all three times? This is where you're really starting to get into the realm of being reckless.

Maybe pccostello can give us the answer. (All I know is that it will probably have something to do with Tony Rezko.)

Don't get me wrong, Chan. I like Barack Obama alot. I think he is  a politician of rare talent. I also think his basic disposition leans fairly hard into the integrity, honesty impulse. Now that can be fairly problematic for a politician. We see McCain wrestle with the same demons choice of ambition v truth. But all things considered I think the country will be better served by Obama and McCain representing their constituencies for that very same reason. I think they have a better shot cutting through much of the bullshit which passes for collective conversation and political expedience.

Come what may Obama is doing this country a real service by representing his unique status accorded political visage with the degree of eloquence and as much intellectual honesty that the arena can reasonably allow.

tomeg - and Noam - this just is not about f.p. credentials, it's about credibility. As in lying. And Obama was just mistaken about the Kennedy connection - he wasn't lying about something he experienced. Mistaken and corrected himself vs. lying and kept clinging to the lie even as she used the weaselword "misspoken". If it weren't for that pesky 8 year old girl in my way we would have made it to the car safely. How is that not unbelievably unattractive?