No Respector of Position

Okay so Clinton may out rank Obama on the senate floor, but she certainly doesn't out shine him in keeping her nose clean.
Now CBS - you know the news channel that has been RAKED over the coals for inaccurate stories and not doing their 'homework' - has nailed her on a blatant lie (unless there is a second visit that wasn't documented) about a trip she took to Bosnia.

C'mon!!! Did she just totally forget that the reports had gone with her? She was first lady at the time for crying out loud!

What I love is it is being reported that she claims she 'misspoke' .... no she didn't .... if anything she would have gotten away with it as being able to say something along the lines of 'I recalled the trip differently, and apparently got it wrong' ... I mean we ALL have had family get togethers where we start to reminence about something that happened...
And someone else reminds us that it didn't really happen that way -- it was just the way we preceived it at the time, or the way our minds arranged it as we grew up.

But to say she 'misspoke' is just wrong! Misspeaking is not the same as exaggerating, misspeaking is getting the facts right but getting the order wrong - or getting the jest correct but the details wrong - or getting the jest & details right but the people wrong .... but to say that something happened when it really hadn't, or to exaggerate what really happened -- that's just out right lieing.

I think she would have been best to admit that lied, even if it was unintentional, just say simply "I did get the facts wrong...I'm sorry I mislead people....I recalled the situation differently, but like watching old family movies news media have reminded me of what really happened" ... okay maybe not those exact words, but something simular (this is why I'm not a political spinner).

Now by saying she 'misspoke' she looks like a blatant liar who can't be trusted.
((0)) ((0)) ((0))
so lets take stock in our candidate possibilities:

McCain: given. War Vet. Grumpy. People fear he will be just like Bush (he is so different its unbelievable). kids in military (although they are normal kids w/o good grades). Quick to react to misactions of aids/campaign officials.

Clinton: possible. Fmr. First Lady. Part of WhiteWater scandal. Avoiding (or atleast preceived as avoiding) releasing IRS documents. Words need questioning. Senator of city where she didn't live until she was elected (politician in search of venue). Strong advocate for kids. Seems to rely heavily on aids & speech writers, who keep proving to give poor advice.

Obama: possible. Traveler ever since child. Says one thing, then does another (after elected he said he had no intention of running for Prez, then did). Can not see how actions of those around him reflect on his behavior. Seems to rely heavily on speech writers. Recent racial remarks by Obama himself raise eyebrows. Wrote book early in senate campaign to prevent past from hurting credibility (gang activity & drug use)

Nadar: given. Running as independant. Precieved as very anti-business. Known best for work done in the 1950s & 1960s auto industry which lead to many of the safety features we have today. 4th run for Prez, usually have very poor showing and tends to split the dem. vote, although in the last election he ran in his votes seemed to have come equally from Reps & Dems. Usually conviluted platform...but this could be due to lack of media coverage.

Right now I think the democrats are suffering from the Republicans having a clear winner ... if the reps hadn't settled on a nominee before the convention (which I had really hoped they hadn't) then the media would have been all over them. BUT without that horse to beat, and McCain being the expert tip-toer around the media geeks ... the dems missteps are like movement to a T-Rex (oh, Jurassic Park reference!)