Not in the least surprised.

I so hope that we don't have to settle for Clinton, we've come so far.

"It doesn’t make any sense for her to propagate this lie. Is she trying to burnish her credentials with uneducated white women? Just another indication that she struggles to express the truth with any semblance of authenticity."

Another quote..

"Reminder of the 2008 Primary lie by Hillary that included Chelsea of ducking bullets and running for life when leaving plane in war zone. Photos of Hillary receiving flowers from small girls on the Tarmack came out refuting her lie. Compulsive liars do it so frequently they are not even aware of it. Involving her daughter to me is inexcusable."

Damn I'm disappointed.. she could really do this without making shit out of thin air. And, trying so hard to distance herself from the President. This will Blowback. DAMN it HILLARY---

My caps were stuck> sorry.

She claims the Obama team wanted her to attack Palin for being a woman who appeals to women?

to the President at all during these last 6 or 7 years knows he wouldn't attack palin like that or any woman. He would answer her "Community Organizer" attack though. palin is her own worst enemy, Hillary. All you have to do is expose her quotes.

I will never forget how they treated Clinton. And I have no doubt they they would want to appeal to women voters and mitigating Palin's gender effect.


Edited cause it's from iPad and hard to write.

It's all a matter of perception.
To HRC, it seemed as she says, to Plouffe et al., it seemed as they say.

to. Hillary's a proven liar. I believe David Plouffe. I'm just pissed at her for taking advice from someone who thought this was a good idea.. Like her "dead broke" thing. I want her to be smarter than this.

She was requested to speak against Palin because she's a woman not that she was supposed to actually mention gender in any way. And she felt put off by the idea of having " Our Woman" be selected to respond to " Their Woman". That makes sense. The problem is it isn't true. Hillary has a habit of making thing up to embellish her established narrative. We don't want a nominee who does that as the electorate would punish her with a loss just for that.

Is a bit much.

It is a given in politics there is the "unvarnished truth" and there is the "political narrative."

I'm not excusing a/the lie ... Just explaining it.

Hillary trying to build her "experience" resume back in the day..

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

"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. But it was a moment of great pride for me to visit our troops, not only in our main base as Tuzla, but also at two outposts where they were serving in so many capacities to deactivate and remove landmines, to hunt and seek out those who had not complied with the Dayton Accords and put down their arms, and to build relationships with the people that might lead to a peace for them and their children."

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=77096


Hillary Clinton has been regaling supporters on the campaign trail with hair-raising tales of a trip she made to Bosnia in March 1996. In her retelling, she was sent to places that her husband, President Clinton, could not go because they were "too dangerous." When her account was challenged by one of her traveling companions, the comedian Sinbad, she upped the ante and injected even more drama into the story. In a speech earlier this week, she talked about "landing under sniper fire" and running for safety with "our heads down."

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

Veterans react to Clinton's Bosnia lie (Updated w/video of C-17 pilot from trip)

snip//

Summary of pilot's comments:

No evasive landing... There was a steep descent because the airstrip is surrounded by mountains.
No bullets or sniper fire...We never would have landed there if there were any such thing.
No "sitting on flackjackets.." The only place I've ever heard of that was in the movie Apocalypse Now.

I wish HRC all the luck in the world but she isn't making this any easier.

That sounds absolutely ridiculous and doesn't seem like something the Obama campaign would do at all - mostly because it's a stupid political move.

all these years. It's also obvious that the O Team was a lot smarter politically than Hillary and Mark Penn. SMH.

I just researched this post on her Bosnia lie back in the day.. I'm sure you remember.. another smh.

http://sync.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5130208

I would think she has enough going for her without all the devious calculations.

I could see the Obama campaign approaching her to maybe discredit Palin BECAUSE Hillary was a woman, and really, Palin being picked was entirely to get a rise out of Hillary supporters who weren't 100% behind Obama at the time. But they're not stupid enough to say, "hey, attack Palin for being a woman!"

I'll vote Hillary if she's the nominee. But I'm not going to lie, the Clintons rub me the wrong way. I don't really trust 'em.

the Obama Campaign Strategists.. David Plouffe for one. lol My guess David would advice her.. stick to the facts, Hillary. You won't have to cause a shitstorm and say you "misspoke" later.

I think that Clinton is too, shall we say, dorky? Off base? Off message? To really pull off a Plouffe campaign. Plouffe had with Obama someone who would stay absolutely 100% on message. Clinton, she's all over the place, and way too defensive.

“I wasn’t going to attack Palin just for being a woman appealing for support from other woman,” Clinton wrote. “I didn’t think that made political sense, and it didn’t feel right.”

Against the denial (from Bloomberg)--

President Barack Obama’s 2008 campaign manager denied that he or others directed Hillary Clinton to pounce on Republican Sarah Palin as a vice presidential nominee designed purely to appeal to women, rebutting a claim in Clinton’s new memoir “Hard Choices.”

She wasn't saying that the Obama campaign asked her to attack Palin for "being a woman"

But for being a political tool designed to appeal to women.


People are very quick and willing to assign all kinds of sinister designs upon Hillary's motives.

This reminds me of when GOPers seized upon "What difference does it make?!" and condemned her for it.

“I wasn’t going to attack Palin just for being a woman appealing for support from other woman,”

Again, I really doubt Obama's campaign went up to Hillary and said, "hey, will you attack Palin for being a woman?"

But I suspect it was implied in one way or another.

I could see them asking Hillary to go after Palin because she held credibility as a woman. But that is not even remotely the same as asking Hillary to attack Palin for being a woman.

Not that they said it explicitly.

It's entirely conjecture with no validity and sets up the idea that Obama's campaign was sexist in its response.

Frankly, I don't trust much of what Hillary says, anyway. So, whatever she got from that conversation could have been entirely made up.

Obama's campaign proved much smarter than Hillary's in 2008. It's hard to believe they would, certainly long before the wounds of the primary season were healed, approach Hillary and ask her to attack Palin for being a woman - knowing full well there could be some potential blow back for even considering something so sexist.

It's her statement that the Obama campaign asked her to attack Palin for being a woman. I don't believe that at all. In fact, Plouffe's quote is exactly what that article states: they asked her, as a woman, to rebut Palin. It's a strategy any campaign would use because it's far more politically tolerable for a woman to attack a woman than a man to attack a woman.

And that they reached out to her. You can find articles in fact where not only the Obama camp but even Biden and Clinton praised the "Palin pick" while disagreeing with her policies. The original Obama's response to the Palin pick was completely dismissive in retrospect ("zero foreign policy experience&quot .

You rightly say it was conjecture on her part, due to the language and implications at the time. The media at the time was also pushing that narrative. I remember well. The PUMA purge hit DU at that time as well. It all had the same basic underlying sentiments.

That being said I find Hillary's claim very hard to believe. It's the sort of thing I have come to expect from her.

I know someone that lies this way. It's very hard to deal with.

It flies in the face of rationality.

Hillary at this time was probably still very upset over losing to Obama. Let's be honest, there was a lot of hatred between the two camps. When the primary ended, it wasn't even known if those two factions could ever come together to win in November. It was probably the most bitter, hateful primary election in modern presidential history. So, we're to believe Obama's campaign, who, I think, proved to be pretty damn smart, approached her, knowing she still most likely held some resentment toward Obama and his staff, and probably still believed 'em sexists, and basically told her to attack Palin for being a woman? What.Ever. Seriously. Why would Obama's team risk pissing off Hillary when it was clear at this point they needed her help? Why would Obama even dare entertain the idea of attacking Palin for being a woman knowing everything that had just gone down during the primary process?

It makes no sense.

Obama winning the nomination in 2008.

It's to appeal to these women...

Sort of OT but the subtitles on that clip are like fucking salvador dali lobster phone wonderful.

the Obama supporters?

Obama wanted to be mean to womanhood but little ol me wouldn't let that happen. Super Hillary!

Is this the kind of crap we can expect in lieu of actually staking out real policy positions?

Lame-ass appeals to some "middle" that doesn't exist, like disgruntled Bible thumping "values voters".... and Palin supporters who might vote for Hillary Clinton? Sure, that'll happen.

Oh, yeah, and 'inevitability'... Dont forget that one.

her and they both benefited from their new alliance...why begin to break from that success?

A few of the excerpts from her book, not just this one, give me pause as to which
population she is trying to find appeal. I will leave my personal opinion of her political
policies aside, my comments are more about her strategy..if this is any indication of
one, she should reconsider.

Her turd way advisors have convinced her that the way to the WH is through the gazillions of "moderate" voters out there that reject the "extremism" of "both sides". And she believes that the "extremists" on the "left" will come out and vote for her anyway because the lesser of two evils and all that.

Well, not that she cares but I'm having a problem with the whole "lesser of two evils" thing. I'm in a blue state and she will undoubtedly get our electoral votes, but if she keeps having such a tenuous relationship with the truth, I'm going to have difficulty checking her name on my ballot.

Bill Clinton let me down big time, Obama somewhat less but still a disappointment. There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again.

I think she and her advisors are going to be sorry dividing the Obama supporters again(if that's their plan) and running from President Obama.

I want a Dem president and right now hoping Gov O'Malley can give her some competition..

http://sync.democraticunderground.com/10025132194

We've read about that little black book of enemies, and Obama's name is on it for daring to interfere with their grand plans.

They are slippery and conniving and liars. What else to expect from them but that.

feel the need to do it!