RE: MyDD :: Just Embellished Words: Obama's Record of Exaggerations & Misstatements

Some good points, but a big 'heh' over all. Both Hillary and Obama remind me of writing a resume... I can really make the time I spent playing solitaire (or blogging) seem significant to my career development.

I thought this was interesting though... http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2007/02/sweet_column_reprise_obamas_bo.html

Obama disclosed in his introduction that he uses these literary devices to buttress his recollections. He also kept a journal. For the sake of compression,'' Obama writes, some of the characters that appear are composites of people I've known and some events appear out of precise chronology. With the exception of my family and a handful of public figures, the names of most characters have been changed for the sake of their privacy.''

I never really thought about that, as far as personal memoir books go. I wonder... how prevalent is that practice in 'About my life' books?

Largely petty, hairsplitting crap to most American voters: "you're only a lecturer but claim to be a professor" doesn't quite rate on the scale of falsehood with "snipers shot at me." C'mon -- is this the best these Clintonistas can manage?

There's plenty to criticize about Obama's stances (or wafflings) on the real issues of this campaign. If MYDD is representative of the Kos Clintonista refugees, then I'd say it's game over.

"hypocritic[al] to point to one and not acknowledge the other."

Which, I believe, is part of the reason many people have been upset about the quite obvious anti-Obama slant of the postings here recently, especially those by Mr. Lemos, who seems to refuse to admit that his criticisms of Obama have become both irrationally ad hominem and without any sense that Clinton has major flaws as well.

Not trying to be personal, but if your assertion is that asserting only one of the two remaining candidates to be deceitful, then any such link about Obama should be accompanied by one about Clinton, such as about the rather dumb dishonesty about her Bosnia trip. I may be reading your post incorrectly, but it seems to be directed to people who have commented about her dishonesty and not mentioned his. If so, it seems like your own posts should be held to the same standard.

And yes, the one rule to remember about American politics is "Politicians lie." I forget which reporter, now dead, asserted that, but it remains true.

In the end, I accept that distasteful truth and look for those politicians who I believe (because all trust in politicians is an act of faith) most represent those values and truths I hold dear. I am almost universally disappointed by Democrats, but am repulsed by Republicans. We live in a world in which many/most of our choices are relevant and context-based. In this contest, with the relative merits and flaws of the two Democrats, I have favored Obama. And though my perspective is that Obama has the nomination sewn up, if that were to change, I would rather sit through a disappointing and at times infuriating Clinton presidency than to be condemned to four more years of war-loving and ignorant Republican rule, consolidating more and more power in the executive. I have some hope with the Democrats. None with the Republicans. To me, such a choice, then, is easy.

All that said, thanks for a blog that has always provoked thought, despite my complete lack of posting until recently.

Come now Norm, surely you can identify the distinction between exaggeration and LYING.

"Several direct-mail pieces issued for Obama's primary [Senate] campaign said he was a law professor at the University of Chicago. He is not. He is a senior lecturer (now on leave) at the school. In academia, there is a vast difference between the two titles. Details matter." In academia, there's a significant difference: professors have tenure while lecturers do not.

This is not even hair splitting, it's false. "Professor" is what everyone who teaches college is called, and does not require tenure: witness, e.g., "adjunct professors" (who don't have tenure), assistant professor (tenure track), associate professor (tenured), 'full professor' (sometimes just called 'professor') etc. A "senior lecturer" is a professor. Granted, 'lecturer' can sometimes be used as opposed to 'professor' to distinguish someone who has a Ph.D. from someone who doesn't. But most law professors have only a J.D., so the distinction cannot mean that in the context of a law school.

Surely Obama has told some stretchers and tall tales, but for godsake, find a good one, because this and 'oh he mixed up how his parents met almost 50 years ago!' is just bullshit. And even if it were a lie, I agree with Brian, fudging a job title is not quite like insisting over and over that one was under sniper fire in order to claim one is more qualified to be president.

Okay, here's a request for all you Obama supporters. Find the biggest lie or exaggeration that Barack has made and post a link to it here. I've been criticized endlessly for what you call my lack of balance. What about yours?

Find the biggest lie or exaggeration that Barack has made and post a link to it here. I've been criticized endlessly for what you call my lack of balance. What about yours?

I hope it is clear I was criticizing the author of the linked article, not you for posting it (although presumably this remark was directed at others as well). That author's point was to nit-pick over Obama's statements, yours was to say that both HRC and Barack are politicians, and so given to uttering falsehoods (which is probably true). To the extent this is intended to undermine the booming hagiography business that has sprung up around Obama, I can only sympathize.

At any rate, I agree in principle with your original point, the need to acknowledge both as politicians who are willing, in some instances, to play a little fast and loose with the facts. But might it not also be useful to distinguish the gravity and magnitude of the lie, based on the degree of its falsehood, what the lie would have or did accomplish, and so in addition the consequences of telling it? Bush's assertion that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq seems to me, in falsity, magnitude, and consequences, simply not comparable with either HRC's 'sniper' story, or whatever white lies Obama may have told. It is that kind of bald faced, persistent lier, who is unwilling to take responsibility for anything, that we obviously want to avoid. On a much smaller scale, I believe HRC's lie about sniper fire, which was intended to re-assure voters of her credibility regarding foreign policy, undermines her much more than Barack misremembering how his parents met before he himself was conceived, because that has no real bearing on his viability as a candidate. Likewise, citing legislation he worked very hard on as 'passed', even though it didn't, seems to me a weaker lie than the sniper story because it is much closer to the true, and what it would have reflected about his candidacy, if true, is not much more than that he was invested and supported some particular issue, which is true even if the bill didn't pass.

As for Barack's worst lie, I don't know--I think most of the Rezko business is much ado about nothing, on par with the whispers in right-wing corners about Vince Foster. But I'll hunt around.

All that said, my biggest worry is that Obama and Clinton have pretty much exhausted a lot of their policy (although I hope they engage extensively on the economy in the next debate). As a result, the tone of both campaigns will likely be devoted over the next couple months to tearing each other down over petty, small fry stuff, which is what seems to have been happening the last couple weeks, the Obama campaign using Clinton's lies to undermine her species "experience" claims, and the Clinton campaign using Wright to undermine Obama's claim to be a uniter, while McCain's ignorant misstatements about the political situation in Iraq, and his vague and uninformative comments on the economy, go underreported and unemphasized. And this could prove disastrous to the Democratic party in a general election.

Okay, here's a request for all you Obama supporters. Find the biggest lie or exaggeration that Barack has made and post a link to it here

Okay Norm. I'll post what it is that I don't like about Obama if you'll post what it is that you don't like about Hillary. Not that I think that this is a good idea. I would prefer that we both post why it is that we think that either Hillary or Obama would be better than McCain.

"Claiming he's a law professor when he was only an instructor."

When I was just an instructor my students still called me a professor. The job is exactly the same, teaching-wise. It's kind of like someone saying now--"Professor? Not so fast buddy. You're just an assistant professor." Most of the time I just say I'm a teacher anyway and they think I'm teaching high school. Whatever.

Hillary's sniper fire BS is not that important, except that it has to do with the very important BS claim that being First Lady was a really important kind of political experience. The health care task force was important, but in a lot of other cases she's flat out lying about her resume. Ireland, Bosnia, Iraq: she had no substantive role.

This bit about Bosnia is frankly rather embarrassing. Ducking to avoid sniper fire? And running towards some vehicle in fear of one's life? I mean, really... When she told this story, she seemed so sure of herself. And she had her daughter with her.. She didn't remember having her daughter with her? Really?

If Hillary Clinton had to duck and run to some vehicle to avoid sniper fire in some other incident and got confused about these two incidents, then I could understand. But to imagine in her head that she was running and avoiding sniper fire when that never happened? That would be a truly terrifying memory and not one that one would forget. But to make up such a story? That is truly a bizarre memory to conjure up if it never really happened.

I actually hadn't heard of a lot of the Obama misstatements. Some of them are pretty mild, a few are serious. I don't think Hillary is that bad of a liar on the whole, either, except she's kind of drawn into it now because the basic premise of her campaign demands it.

"some of the characters that appear are composites of people I've known and some events appear out of precise chronology. With the exception of my family and a handful of public figures, the names of most characters have been changed for the sake of their privacy.''

I never really thought about that, as far as personal memoir books go. I wonder... how prevalent is that practice in 'About my life' books?"

I don't mind it so much. If Obama were writing an academic biography or autobiography, it would be wrong to create composites of people and compress events. But it's a literary image of his life until then. It probably captures it better and more elegantly than a by-the-book bio. Most people don't read those, especially if the person isn't famous yet. I actually think personal memiors full of baloney are pretty cool, which why I was pretty annoyed by Oprah's public flogging of the Little Pieces guy.

I think the best line from the Clinton "misstatement" of the Bosnia trip was this:

there was a saying around the White House that if a place was too small, too poor, or too dangerous, the president couldn’t go, so send the First Lady.

Read that a couple times, and let your mind chew 100 times before swallowing.

Too Poor???? Gah!

But might it not also be useful to distinguish the gravity and magnitude of the lie, based on the degree of its falsehood, what the lie would have or did accomplish, and so in addition the consequences of telling it?

Certainly, though I believe it would be difficult to avoid our own personal biases in deciding. It would also be useful in labeling the deontologists and the consequentialists.

Well, the lies and exaggerations by most of the candidates fall in the camp of the deontologists as the actions themselves can be criticized although their consequences are not all that important.

However, when John McCain and Hillary Clinton cast their votes to bomb Iraq and overthrow Hussein, that had consequences, no doubt about that.

Mr. Obama relayed a story of how his Kenyan father and his Kansan mother fell in love because of the tumult of Selma, but he was born in 1961, four years before the confrontation at Selma took place.

Well, at least he didn't claim to be a history professor.

Most top-tier universities in the US, including the U. of Chicago, take pains to distinguish the tenure-track and tenured positions, viz., assistant, associate, and full professorships, from the rest, viz., visiting professors, adjunct professors, research professors, senior lecturers, lecturers, senior research associates, research associates, etc., etc. These niceties do matter if you are in academia. For instance, senior lecturers at Caltech are not permitted to be academic advisors to undergraduate or graduate students, they have more modest expectations with regard to their research activities and writing of major grant proposals, and there is no substantial investment in vetting, startup funds, lab space, etc. for them as there would be for an assistant professor.

One thing is for certain. If "Professor" Obama were applying for an academic position at any reputable university in the US, he would not dare list his senior lectureship at U. of Chicago as professor—of any sort—on his c.v. To do so would be to risk termination of employment upon discovery. He was doubtless banking on the American electorate being less discriminating.

Barack Obama graduated magna cum laude from Havard Law School.

Find the biggest lie or exaggeration that Barack has made and post a link to it here. I've been criticized endlessly for what you call my lack of balance. What about yours?

His claims of not being present for any of Wrights controversial remarks, seems to be his most significant exaggeration. Perhaps not the most famous ones, but he must have been present for some of those reamarks.

Of course he backed away from that exaggeration.

Big difference is that Hillary's remarks are about the core of her message of experience. Not only was it dishonest, but undermines her primary arguement for being the better candidate.

Also makes her remarks about the commander in chief test, rather hypocritical.

As for John McCain's education

He attended Episcopal High School and graduated in 1954. .. McCain was a lackluster student and received many demerits. He graduated in 1958, and joked that he had followed the footsteps of his father and grandfather, both of whom had graduated very low in their respective classes at Annapolis. McCain graduated 894th out of a class of 899. In 1965, McCain married Carol Shepp, a model originally from Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The couple divorced in 1980.

I'm with the "perspective crowd" above -- let's keep the focus of this where it belongs, on the clear and present danger of a McBush presidency.

“We’re succeeding. I don’t care what anybody says. I’ve seen the facts on the ground,” the Arizona senator insisted a day after a roadside bomb in Baghdad killed four U.S. soldiers and rockets pounded the U.S.-protected Green Zone there, and a wave of attacks left at least 61 Iraqis dead nationwide…”I don’t think I would change the strategy now unless General Petraeus recommended it.”

In other words, he is advocating for a military state — a militocracy or whatever you want to call it — in which generals control the minds and acts of the civilian government.

And while we're talking politics, let us take a solemn moment to bow our heads and say good-bye to the true maverick of the campaign, Mike Gravel, who has gone over to the Libertarians. Ah Mike, we hardly knew ye, and the MSM made damned sure of it, didn't they?

I miss Mike; he was even better than Kucinich for livening up a debate and making it real.

But Obama is the favorite, apparently, among the true progressive blogs . . .

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/26/125659/086

(I did say 'true' progressive, didn't I?)

Inwit: If "Professor" Obama were applying for an academic position at any reputable university in the US, he would not dare list his senior lectureship at U. of Chicago as professor—of any sort—on his c.v. To do so would be to risk termination of employment upon discovery. He was doubtless banking on the American electorate being less discriminating.

And Sargeant Hillary was banking on them being retarded.

Fortunately...

Okay, here's a request for all you Obama supporters. Find the biggest lie or exaggeration that Barack has made and post a link to it here. I've been criticized endlessly for what you call my lack of balance. What about yours?

OK, I've come up with something that equates with an Obama lie.

For starters, we all know that Obama has made his stance against the Iraq war back in 2002 a big campaign issue. Once in office, he < a href="http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/03/22/obamadefendsvotesinfavorofiraq_funding/">voted to fund the troops. I don't consider this a lie; this action can genuinely be interpreted as helping out the men and women who put their lives on the line. In may 2007, both Obama and Clinton pledged that they would no longer vote for funds for the Iraq War. They stood by that pledge in May.

All this is used to buttress his campaign. In addition, he stated that he was against the Kyl-Liberman bill recognizing the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a foreign terrorist organization:

We hear eerie echoes of the run-up to the war in Iraq in the way that the President and Vice President talk about Iran. They conflate Iran and al Qaeda. They issue veiled threats. They suggest that the time for diplomacy and pressure is running out when we haven't even tried direct diplomacy. Well George Bush and Dick Cheney must hear--loud and clear--from the American people and the Congress: you don't have our support, and you don't have our authorization for another war (Sept. 12).

So why on Sept. 26th could Obama not pull his ass off the campaign trail and vote "nay"? Btw, for those who forgot, McCain also missed the vote and Clinton voted FOR it. Thanks; Kyl-Lieberman makes it easier for Bush and Co. to push into Iran if they so choose. All this had me looking into supporting Richardson.

Exaggerations and mis-statements by presidential candidates don't rankle me too much, especially if they are willing to pony up and revise. Today's run the white house is way more grueling than 25-30 years ago (think footage of Ford stumbling). The candidates are running ragged, and they're bound to mis-speak on occasion. That the Democratic candidates can continue to speak intelligently (for the most part) bodes well for holding office starting next January.

P. S. I wonder if a Clinton supporter would post what s/he thinks is HRC's biggest lie/exaggeration? Since Hillary's backed off her Bosnia claim, what would it be?

Norm, I've been a big fan of this blog for a long time, but I have to say: if you have any integrity, you'll correct this post. Whether Obama supporters can highlight another lie he's said is irrelevant. I'm sure they can. His saying he was a professor, however, is neither a lie, nor an exaggeration, and your saying it is only feeds fodder to those who are looking to pick up anything whether it's accurate or not, especially on the right, but increasingly, apparently, among some of Clinton's more desperate supporters, too.

I taught college for 2 years as a grad student. My students knew I was "just a graduate assistant," but because I taught them English every week, they called me their "professor," as well. It's simply done. However, to pretend otherwise, and to let this go uncorrected is its own form of intellectual dishonesty. Let's see you rise above that sort of rubbish, huh?

Speaking of candidates' exaggerations, how about Clinton's claim that she is actually in a position to win the nomination.

It's the 5% solution.

Xenolith: We definitely agree on this. I am getting so tired of criticism of Obama that takes it for granted that the kitchen sink itself is just too good for the guy, and any willful and deliberate distortion of what he said, did, how he voted, etc. is fair game. This is stuff to criticize the guy on--

Norm:

Certainly, though I believe it would be difficult to avoid our own personal biases in deciding. It would also be useful in labeling the deontologists and the consequentialists.

Agreed. But whatever it's shortcomings, at least a detailed assessment of scale and consequences is more free of personal biases than putting all lies or exaggerations on par.

Is anyone a deontologist about politics? Perhaps there are some instances where sticking to principle, come what may, is better than calculation. But generally, that's an assessment about a concrete issue or circumstance, not a philosophical position about politics generally. But perhaps your worry was that if one takes a purely consequentialist perspective, any lie would be justified if it generated positive outcomes (and for whom?).

Inwit: Do you imagine Barack is applying for an academic position? If not, I do not see the bearing of his academic credentials in the present context. Do you really think American voters are going to trouble themselves over whether the guy was tenure track or not? Maybe if he started putting "Dr." in front of his name, OK, I'd see your point. But again, I underscore, legal academia is different than most other fields: many law professors do not have PhD's, only J.D.'s, so what separates Obama from most law professors isn't credentials but level of advancement.

And while we're talking politics, let us take a solemn moment to bow our heads and say good-bye to the true maverick of the campaign, Mike Gravel, who has gone over to the Libertarians. Ah Mike, we hardly knew ye, and the MSM made damned sure of it, didn't they?

Oh come now, I listened to several interviews with Gravel and at the end of each I concluded that he sounded crazy.

The idea that he was a victim of some MSM conspiracy is far fetched.

I don't think there is any problem with the MSM covering the "electable candidates". Long shot candidates like Dean and Huckabee have climbed their way out of obscurity to get tons of media coverage. They did it because they showed their message resonated with the grassroots.

Gravel never did that.

Now, when they exclude electable non-establishment candidates that is clearly wrong, but not the issue here. IMO

An interview with the pilot of the C-17 that Hillary Clinton was on has given an interview. After listening to this interview, it is my opinion that there is no excuse whatsoever for the story that she told.

Here's the full transcript

Note: I've watched the video and whoever drew up this transcript has Changose as listed in places where it was Hillary Clinton making the statement.

CHANGOSE: But I can tell you that, you know, it was not under my direction or anybody I know of to have the passengers sit on their flak jackets.

CHANGOSE:Well, you know, I think, just knowing nothing else, I remember that in Apocalypse Now they sat on their flak jackets.

CHANGOSE:CHANGOSE: Nobody under my watch has ever directed somebody to sit on their flak jackets. Unless they, you know, needed to sit taller or something, I don't know. Maybe they needed a cushion to see over the steering wheel, I don't know.

cHANGOSE:Yeah, so, no evasive maneuver. Okay? I gotta tell ya, I will give it to the commander of Air Base Eagle. He had that place - you know, not only were there no bullets flying around, there wasn't a bumblebee flying around. He had that place locked up tight. He had, uh, it was really impressive. He had tanks pointing all the way around the perimeter. He had ground troops every place. He had helicopters in the air, to make sure nobody - for any ground movement. And we did the same approach we do - we did every time. And it was a steep approach but that's because there were hills around it. But it was just what we do every time - I mean, every landing into there, was the same way.

CHANGOSE:CHANGOSE: No, I haven't, I haven't. Although I was talking just a little earlier to a friend of mine who was also onboard, and we didn't remember any bullets. Because, you know, we were sitting up front waiting, so we probably would have seen them. And I'll be honest with you, I mean, if there would have been sniper fire going on Rusty, first of all we wouldn't have landed.

CHANGOSE: That's number one. Number two, we wouldn't have let her outside of the plane. You know, we have contingencies for just incase something like that, we would have gone around and gone back or gone someplace. But the fact that we landed tells you that there's… there's nothing gonna happen. At least at that moment it was secure.

And another comment made by the pilot:

"Not only were there no bullets flying around, there wasn't a bumblebee flying around,"

Face it Hillary Clinton supporters. This incident makes a fool and a liar out of her. She blew hit. It's one thing to misspeak, but she repeated various versions of this fairy tale three times. When first confronted with this fairy tale, she made some witty response about Sinbad being a comedian and then continued to embellish even more the scenario that she either lied about or made up in her head. Either way, it's very embarrassing.

What the pilot is attempting to explain is that it would be a dereliction of duty for any military pilot to expose the First Lady to any type of danger as is retold in the harrowing story that Hillary Clinton told of her courageous and daring trip to Bosnia.

No bees? Now that's something to worry about!

The myth building goes on. Hillary risking her life and Barack arriving from Camelot to save the nation.

yes, the myth building goes on, but anything that Obama has said pales in comparison to Hillary's story of dodging sniper fire.

No bees? Now that's something to worry about!

LOL Syngas! Knowing how much that you are concerned about bees and all...;)

To all of you Hillary supporters. Do you truly believe that Hillary's "memory" of this event could be so at odds with what actually occurred? No flack jackets being ordered to be placed under one's butt, there was in fact a welcoming ceremony, Hillary and her daughter didn't have to duck and run for cover due to sniper fire, and in fact such a scenario would be unacceptable. This is not just a "misstatement", it is a story that was made up in Hillary's mind. It's not just a misstatement of fact, it is a long-winded fairy tale and so shameful and embarrassing that it defies belief. Do you not understand how embarrassing that this is?

His father came in 1959 the Kennedy's apparently didn't start sponsoring flights until 1960. I believe the story is in one of his books, and has been repeated to great effect dozens of times in his speeches. The myth building goes on. Hillary risking her life and Barack arriving from Camelot to save the nation.

Another huge difference being that Obama could very well be retelling a story told to him by his mother, grandmother, or father. He could be being honest and wrong.

Hillary is either lying or suffering from early onset dementia.

I wanna vote for her because she was named after Sir Edmund Hillary!

On a lighter note, have you checked your email lately.

yes, and I responded... hmmmm..."???

So you believe more voters were persuaded to support Hillary by her lies about dodging sniper fire than the reactions to these two speeches by Barack recounting the Kennedy story and the Selma Alabama reference. I don't think it is so clear.

It's not clear to me how Obama's and Clinton's and John's tall tales have played out. As for myself, her tale was the tallest of all tales and her imagination vis à vis Bosnia and having to deal with sniper fire, flack jackets, and having to run with her head down, (when clearly the military would never allow such a scenario) was just too much. If I had to actually dodge sniper fire, that would not be an event that I would likely forget. I just can't understand how she is capable of inventing a story such as this in her own mind... I mean, really, think about it, entering a war zone and avoiding sniper fire would be horrendous, and the facts make her look ridiculous... not just a "misstatement", but quite frankly delusional.

The first thing that came to mind was why would Hillary take her beloved daughter and subject her to sniper fire and such a dangerous situation and her daughter is this almost thirty-year old woman now who is protected beyond what every other thirty year old who is stumping for some candidate would expect.

It's not just that she lied, but what she said is a huge whopper...

by the way... The University of Chicago Law School released the following statement defending Obama's use of "professor" as a job description:

"The Law School has received many media requests about Barack Obama, especially about his status as 'Senior Lecturer.' From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School's Senior Lecturers have high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined."