Sen. Hillary Clinton has told of dangerous arrival in Bosnia in 1996 under sniper fire

Video footage of arrival shows Clinton and daughter walking calmly from plane

Clinton recounted story in effort to show her foreign policy experience

Obama campaign says Clinton has "exaggerated her role" in foreign policy .

The bias media are not focusing on this lies caught on tape.  they are still talking about Obamas pastor.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/25/campaign.wrap/index.html#cnnSTCVideo

Wonders shall never end!!

Sorry but u need to add ''e'' to the topic

it is appalling how the media spin doctors are still talking about Obamas pastor and are not questioning Clintons credibility on this issue. how can she be trust worthy when she blatantly lied on tape.?

The woman is so desperate and she will do anything at her discretion to get into the white house . . .
But im still amazed to the fact that after all these lies et all, they are still busy scrutinizing Obama. . . . .what a shame!

Saw the footage yesterday on TV and i couldnt stop laughing. Have never came across such a stupid lie before in my life.

@topic

If you guys are expecting the FOX news and other biased western media to stir up any clinton controversy again untill novenber; ah - - - una go wait tire.

Obama!!! these guys never start with you.

Billary, is desperate, their campaign has been based on lies from the onset.More to come.Its just that the media because of ratings and sensationalism would focus on Reverend Wrights 3 minute tirade.What of the right wing so called Evangelicals loke Hagee and late Falwel who preach derison and hate againt Arabs?What has been said?She has no foreign experience so to say but rather fanning the embers of racism and sexisim to further her own selfish ambition.The end of the Democratic Party is near,you just wait and see

she didn't lie. she was under rapid fire

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHVEDq6RVXc&eurl=http://allhiphop.com/forums/thread/19533929.aspx

She and Bill were a match made in lie-kingdom

How does this issue compare to the more egregious pastor controversy ?

Sure,Hillary hasn't always religiously stuck with the facts,but neither has Obama,or should I call him Prof Obama(He once claimed to be law professor with the Uni. of Chicago).

If you want to nit pick each candidate's recollection of events in the past,you will always find discrepancies.This shouldn't distract people from the more substantive issues.

4 Play:

How does this issue compare to the more egregious pastor controversy ?

Sure,Hillary hasn't always religiously stuck with the facts,but neither has Obama,or should I call him Prof Obama(He once claimed to be law professor with the Uni. of Chicago).

If you want to nit pick each candidate's recollection of events in the past,you will always find discrepancies.This shouldn't distract people from the more substantive issues.

First issue with your observation.

1. You need to listen to the whole of Rev. Wrigh sermon, those statement has been taken out of context even though completely acceptable. However, that was not OBAMA saying that.

Whereas it was Hilary Clinton repeating 'under sniper fire' repeatedly to boster her foreign and security experience credentials.

2. Secondly lecturers are usually referred to Professor in the US, so if OBAMA has lecture or taught law at University of Chicago, he will be a law professor. Even though he will not use the prefix Professor (as they do in Nigeria)

Both Obama and Clinton have lied over and over during their campaign. Clinton's lie is just the most recent well, up until Obama released his tax report though cause now it is in the news that with all his talk about helping the poor, he has only given about 1% of his income in the past 6 years to charity and he did give 27,000 to his Pastor whom he claims he does not agree with.

Clinton lied, obama too lied but I do believe focusing more on his 20 year "Spiritual leader' turning out to be an anti-american racist is to be expected. I mean we are speaking of his spiritual leader here. I wonder if clinton is going to come give us a "SPECTACULAR" speech on lying and how it may be good for us all, as obama did with his Race speech and what not. lol
Anyone who expects the media to be lenient on these dudes needs to get their heads checked. I for one am enjoying watching the media tear them all to pieces finally. AT one time I thought the one had become the media's teddy bear but now it seems more like fair game and I am enjoying it.

vigasimple:

First issue with your observation.

1. You need to listen to the whole of Rev. Wrigh sermon, those statement has been taken out of context even though completely acceptable. However, that was not OBAMA saying that.

Whereas it was Hilary Clinton repeating 'under sniper fire' repeatedly to boster her foreign and security experience credentials.

2. Secondly lecturers are usually referred to Professor in the US, so if OBAMA has lecture or taught law at University of Chicago, he will be a law professor. Even though he will not use the prefix Professor (as they do in Nigeria)

Dude, no matter what context you want to shove it into, it is not same as calling people heathens and preaching that they repent, this is a man who has issues with the white race and that was made clear when Obama himself saw the need to step up to defend the man. Can we please stop with this context jargon??

@Vigasimple

There is no context in which Wright's rants can be understood as less egregious than Clinton's faux pas.

As for the term lecturer being used as synonym for professor,I think you are engaging in a little bit of Clintonesque "truth bending" yourself.

Obama once had a rally at Selma,Alabama.He claimed there that his parents met at a famous civil rights march there.Problem is,Obama was born in 1961,4 years before the famous Selma march.What about the nuclear legislation he said he authored,which he didn't?

My point is,each politician has engaged in this sort ahistorical recollections.There are more important issues to be discussed than how accurate a candidate's memory is about some past event.

In my view, Clinton's 'faux pas' as you call it 4play, (I regard it as a blatant falsehood meant at promoting her non-existent trait foreign policy experience) is far more weighty that Wright's statement on race. His primary duty in Obama's life is Spiritual guidance - if he got overly emotional and made some egregious statements like 4 or 5 years ago, the man has left leadership of the church and Obama was not even a contender at the point, I think its simply a bit desperate for people to dredge another man's words and try to make Obama look bad because of that.

Clinton falsified a clearly verifiable account to make herself look better. Obama simply recognised the rantings of an otherwise excellent Pastor as just that - His personal rantings. I am sure many of the folks in that church did not and do not support those comments, but decided to overlook them because of the likely experiences and world view that may have led to the pastor's outburst.

I do believe this issue is substantive - she didn't call Shia Sunnis or something like McCain did, she fabricated a story about running for cover when they were strolling across the tarmac and kissing 8 year old kids. That is more than embellishment, its pure mendacity. It goes to the core of her 'ready to start on day one claim'. Its like Sinbad coming out and claiming he also has foreign policy experience, aferall he was also on the same sniper threatened trip

granted these issues are overblown by the press, but in a race so tight, anything that can be used to gain an advantage over the other is fair game.

Clinton will now have to duck her head and run across the political tarmac as she aims to avoid the media's sniper fire.

Kobojunkie:

Obama released his tax report though cause now it is in the news that with all his talk about helping the poor, he has only given about 1% of his income in the past 6 years to charity and he did give 27,000 to his Pastor whom he claims he does not agree with.

To be fair,Obama's charitable giving has averaged 3.6% over the past 6 years.He stepped up his charitable giving from its average of less than 1% to a whopping 6% when his campaign got under way in 2005/2006.

However,that still puts him lower than the average conservative-the average conservative gives 30% more than the average liberal.

Christopher Hitchens once noted of Obama,that it is said that many politicians will sell their grandmother for their own self-interest but never has such a transaction been executed so shamelessly in the full glare of the public.

I guess I may have had it wrong but come on, I give more percentage wise than that guy does and I ain't running for president, and he has the guts to claim the middle class and businesses are  part of the problem?? give me a break !!

@Debosky

We have thoroughly dealt with the Wright issue in other threads but to reiterate what I posted there.Obama's campaign is predicated on his ability to transcend racial politics and unite the nation.His close association with such a divisive race baiter as Wright undermines this fundamental claim.

What do you think will happen if Clinton had such a similarly close relationship with a white race baiter?Look at how they tried to eviscerate the Clintons because of comparatively innocuous comments by Ferraro or the furore over Bill's comparison of Obama to Jesse Jackson.

Sure,Clinton hasn't been fully forthcoming with the truth but same applies to Obama.Law professor who isn't a law professor.How can someone in academia not know the difference between a professor and a lecturer? Nuclear legislation that never passed.The list is endless.

Well I don't think we would gain anything by comparing which gaffe or controversy is polically weightier.

But 4play does have a point. . . .The Pastor scandal goes to the foundations upon which Obama's campaign was built

The Clinton gaffe. . . .well it simply reinforces the view that the Clintons are quite dishonest folks. If they were Nigerians
they would have gone the ritual killing route to gain power.

I do not think his 'association' with right undermines his claim as such - the issue is, how much political influence did this man have on Obama?

In his view, the man's excessive comments can be framed in his personal experiences which led to him holding some warped worldview. Does that detract from Obama's clear appeal across racial lines? I do not think so. People simply dragged this issue up to see if Obama would deny him to appear 'racially tolerant' and I am glad he did not do so - you cannot repudiate what Wright has said, but it would be foolish to view everything else the man would have done in that light.

Bill's comments rightly deserved a furore - because they are DIRECTLY linked to this campaign, so does Ferraro's, those comments were designed to place doubts in people's minds and cast Obama as a racial champion. The Wright comments were his PERSONAL OPINION, even if delivered from the pulpit. Obama in no way agrees with those, and his lifestyle has shown that he doesn't agree with that. It is a completely different story if your #1 campaigner Bill tries to paint Obama's wins as racially driven and bound to fizzle out like other racial champions. You can't seriously say you believe Obama should be held as holding the same views as those a man pronounced some years ago, compared to statements made FOR THE VERY PURPOSE of gaining an unfair edge during the campaign.

Clinton has not been forthcoming? That is an understatement - she used an event and tried to twist it in such a way that it would make her look more capable. Whether Obama's aunt or sister went to one rally somewhere, or whether he taught law or was a 'professor' can be termed inconsistencies or embellishments.

Clearly trying to fool people is a different matter all together, how can you make such an error in your PREPARED statement? Something she even repeated and there is clear evidence to the contrary. She lied on a crucial pillar of what she says she can do.

Obama on the other hand had a misguided pastor who said some things that were not true or kosher - he never said he subscribed to those views, and has cleared that up well. Clinton on the other hand is trying to paint it as her being 'human', not saying she lied.

@Debosky

Through whatever prism you want to view Obama's association with Wright, he doesn't come out looking good at all.

His membership and avid attendance of the Church is a tacit acceptance of his Pastor's views regardless of whether he repudiates them
some years later.

It is the nature of racial politics that a slight taint or ripple that suggests any kind of association with a racial remark, gesture or action
is rightly frowned upon.

The BNP, a right wing party in Britain probably has many upstanding members of the community who send money to impoverished villages in Africa,
or even have black friends.

But their membership of this fringe organisation dominates how the public views them.

If your message is that of unifying the nation and you join a Church that is renowned for race baiting,become close associates with a Pastor that glorifies Louis Farrakhan and who has been known since the 60s to be preaching racially polarising teachings a la Malcom X,this can't be dismissed out of hand.

What does it say that even Oprah felt the need to leave that church or that Obama didn't see anything wrong in exposing his children to such guff?

Again,imagine if Hillary joined a church famed for anti-black mud slinging.She won't even have bothered running.

As for Bill and Ferraro's comments,how could they be categorised as attempts to cast Obama as merely a racial champion?Their comments were in reference to the attitude of the electorate to a black candidate not how Obama has been portraying himself.

So Clinton claiming she risked sniper fire amounts to attempts to make her "look more capable",what then do you call Obama claiming credit for passing a legislation that was never passed? Doesn't calling yourself a professor amount to making yourself look more capable?

@ 4play

you make it sound as if the actions were premeditated and inclined politically from the get go. The man was close to the tail end of his reign as pastor at that point in time, why remove his kids if he realised a misguided old man with some old chips on his shoulder would soon be gone? You make it seem like there were no other people in the church except Mr. Wright - no upstanding folk to provide examples for his kids. My pastor often made political comments too, but once outside the realm of what he was an expert in, I completely disregarded them as PERSONAL VIEWS.

He joined the church for Spiritual guidance, Many black churches started out with dislike for whites and this church was no different. The man in question has even ceased to be the leader and his main impact on Obama as far as he said was spiritual.

His attendance of the church is not a tacit acceptance of anything - A man's personal politics can be divorced from his other views and opinions.

Oprah is another matter on her own - she is not even a 'Christian' by my definition so her leaving a church is not pertinent to this matter in my view.

Bill's comments were meant to show Obama as only someone who could appeal to Black voters - if not there wouldbe no reference to Jesse Jackson. That comment was specifically meant to sow doubt in the electorate's mind that he would only appeal to blacks and not other groups. Ferraro's comments were obviously intended to revert issues back to a purely racial basis - putting Obama's press time/attention purely down to his colour. Those two comments were directed precisely at his campaign, while some other person's comments or views are now being portrayed as maybe being Obama's? That is over-stretching the matter to say the least.

Ok the legislation never passed - that could be attributed as a mistake, so could mixing up the issue of being a professor or otherwise - He is not standing for president saying because he passed that law or was a professor then he should be the president

but Hillary says she's 'ready from day one' is the 'experienced one' so this goes to the very core of her campaign if merely tangential occurrences are being painted as far greater things than they were. Like I said earlier, maybe Sinbad is also ready to be president from day one for being on that plane.

Obama's actions were probably pre-meditated as a means of ingratiating himself with the Chicago black community in order for his political career to take off.Obama noted in his book that he deliberately sought out who he associates himself with.Coming as an Ivy League mixed race man from Hawaii,he used this church,its pastor and its networking potentials,to launch his career.However,that is a debate for another day.

Rev Wright didn't start his race baiting recently.Rev Wright has been race baiting since the 1960s.Anybody joining that particular church would have known this and was tacitly accepting the ethos of this particular organisation.

There are a lot of black churches that don't preach the same message as Rev Wright's.Lets not give the impression that he had no other choice.

As for Bill comments,all he said was that Jesse Jackson won the same places that Obama won.How is that racist and how does that affect Hillary's ability to be President?How does that Ferraro's comments affect Hillary's suitability as a candidate?The irony is that it was the Obama campaign that brought attention to Ferraro's comments.

So Ferraro saying that Obama won't be this successful if he wasn't a black male somewhat reflects badly on Hillary while Obama joining and staying in a church reputed for racial polarisation,associating himself with a Pastor-who he appointed as a member of his campaign organisation-should be dismissed as not telling us anything about Obama's abilities and motive.

How could you be dismissive about lying about a piece of legislation?It was one of the things he listed as showing his suitability to be President.

Remember the furore over trade.While Obama was going to places like Ohio and ranting against NAFTA,his main economic adviser was reassuring the Canadians that it was all political posturing.

Kobojunkie:

I guess I may have had it wrong but come on, I give more percentage wise than that guy does and I ain't running for president, and he has the guts to claim the middle class and businesses are part of the problem?? give me a break !!

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0803/26/gb.01.html

Hmm. Unfortunately for Obama, he just released his tax returns. And it looks like he doesn`t really practice what he preaches. What a surprise.
Over the course of seven years, with a combined salary that ranged from $240,000 to $1.6 million, the Obamas donated an average of less than 4 percent to charity, total. Some years, it was actually less than 1 percent.
For the single biggest charity check that he wrote, he made it out to -- to the black liberation theology pals over at Trinity Church for $27,500. So, I have to get this in my head and see if it works for you.
He says he doesn`t really listen to his church`s radical beliefs. But then he hands over a check for 27,000 grand. Would you do that? Because my ears would perk up after I handed them that big of a check.

4 Play:


Rev Wright didn't start his race baiting recently.Rev Wright has been race baiting since the 1960s.Anybody joining that particular church would have known this and was tacitly accepting the ethos of this particular organisation.

There are a lot of black churches that don't preach the same message as Rev Wright's.Lets not give the impression that he had no other choice.

As for Bill comments,all he said was that Jesse Jackson won the same places that Obama won.How is that racist and how does that affect Hillary's ability to be President?How does that Ferraro's comments affect Hillary's suitability as a candidate?The irony is that it was the Obama campaign that brought attention to Ferraro's comments.

So Ferraro saying that Obama won't be this successful if he wasn't a black male somewhat reflects badly on Hillary while Obama joining and staying in a church reputed for racial polarisation,associating himself with a Pastor-who he appointed as a member of his campaign organisation-should be dismissed as not telling us anything about Obama's abilities and motive.

How could you be dismissive about lying about a piece of legislation?It was one of the things he listed as showing his suitability to be President.

exactly!

I believe neither candidate can divorce themselves from the comments of their associates. Obama's association with Rev. Wright at best indicates a certain lack of sound judgement. It is not in anyway morally or politically justifiable for an aspiring president of the united states to in anyway associate with such a character. Rev. Wright will always cast a shadow on Obama, even if he doesn't get the nomination and he goes back to the senate.

Clintons statement about dodging snipers in Bosnia cannot be brushed aside as mere 'mis-remembering' history. She has constantly positioned herself as by far more experienced than Obama. Remember the 3am phone call? For her to clearly and repeatedly lie about her arrival and the supposed danger she faced gets to the core of her message. Its shows a desperation to appear capable when she is clearly not. Being on the sideline when your husband was president doesnt equate to having foreign relations or national crisis management experience. The only crisis she face while Bill was president was the Monica Lewinsky issue. Also, Bill's and Ferraro's comments (Like Hillary's) show a certain desperation in the Clinton camp. Left with nothing else to demonstrate a better qualification for the job, the next best thing seems to be to attack the qualification and credibility of your opponent.

At the end of the day, this all plays into Sen. McCains hands. Come November, the Republicans will carry the day.

The lives of politicians! Lies, sex and videotapes!

Some of us just come to Nairaland and type like kids

Obama in his speech on race said "what is wrong about Rev Wrights comments is not that he spoke about race but that he spoke of it as if America was not changing"

There is no guarantee that if Obama grew up in Rev Wrights generation he will not be as bitter as Rev Wright. And Obama understands this, so talking about Obama joining a black church or not leaving the Church is simply childish.

Especially when the decision to join this church was made when he was a boy in his twenties and possibly we don't even know what informed his decision to move from Hawaii to Chicago.

This was a boy who had no father, and possibly rev wright might be the Father he knows. So to suggest that he should simply dissociate himself from wright because Wright spoke of his experience which was largely true is simply ridiculous.

We have every right to fantasize of the GOPs as our Grand Old Parents in which whatever they say we swallow, but celebrating covert racism against a black Candidate simply raises the queston whether we know who we are?

Why should Obama be held responsible for the political views of his Pastor This is simply a weak attempt to question his patriotism because he is not a conventional candidate. Its also an attempt to exploit racism to win an election.

some of us just come to Nairaland and type like kids

Amen!

There is nothing bad in having a sensible discussion with bunch of kids, but when they start typing like kids makes me want to vomit.

It makes no sense to try to twist Pastor wright's comment or Obama's speech with this crazy woman's (Hillary Clinton) lies.
Her poor judgement gives the lie to her claims of experience. The woman needs professional help; and she can never never match the qualities Sen Barack Obama Jr. has brought to the table,

FYI:

[b]

The speech is brilliant and a pure sample of utmost originality. WHY?

Obama clearly and cleverly denounced the statements of his pastor without martyrizing the man (the way most whites would have preferred). He did this in a systematical manner that left many speechless and wondering at the same time.
He also re-introduced the power of racism in America by rationally simplifying the negative effects and pointing out the products that have compiled by these unbearable backwash over the years. He made his points and gave several examples without choosing sides (not many people could accomplish this goal successfully).
He further mentioned that people shouldn't berate Pastor Wright without critically analyzing and clearly understanding the root of his disapprobation.
He also stated that America will move forward effectively and efficiently only if folks could accept one another and work together as one.

Sen Barack H. Obama Jr. methodically touched all the sensitive demons that are clearly frightenable to many (politicians) in America today. He did this with zero hesitation, without stepping on any toes, without choosing sides, with pure sincerity, with supreme genuineness and with a crystal clear frame of mind.

And he did it all his way!

Many (Bill Cosby, Louis Farrakhan, Bill Clinton, Al Shapton, Malcolm X, W.E.B. Du Bois, Jessie Jackson etc.) tried to do the same in the past, but failed abundantly.

[/b]