How Will Hillary's Bosnia "Whopper" Play in the Media?

How Will Hillary's Bosnia "Whopper" Play in the Media?

By RJ Eskow

Created Mar 22 2008 - 10:44am

If you're Hillary Clinton and you've just been caught in a "whopper," the

only thing to be grateful for is that it's Good Friday and people are

distracted. How bad could this story be for her? When you tell the American

public you faced gunfire, and it turns out all you really faced was a little

girl with flowers - well, that's as bad as it gets. When you dramatically

say you made a journey that was too dangerous for the President, only to

have it revealed that he made the same trip two months earlier - and that

your teenaged daughter was by your side - that only makes it worse.

And there's video.

If they wanted to, the networks could juxtapose video of Sen. Clinton's

dramatic recitation of the battle with this clip of that sweet

eight-year-old on the tarmac with a bouquet. The question is: Will they want

to?

Just this week Sen. Clinton said [1] that she landed in Bosnia under "sniper

fire," adding: "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." Clinton used to tell Iowa audiences: ""We used

to say in the White House that if a place is too dangerous, too small or too

poor, send the First Lady."

And her 16-year-old kid?

This latest deception is documented in detail in the Washington Post [2] by

a reporter who was there. The paper awards her statements "four Pinocchios,"

a rating they reserve for political misstatements they describe as

"whoppers."

"Whopper" (Merriam-Webster): "An extravagant or monstrous lie."

Comedian Sinbad's now-famous response [3] to Sen. Clinton's claims was to

say, "What kind of president would say, 'Hey, man, I can't go 'cause I might

get shot so I'm going to send my wife...oh, and take a guitar player and a

comedian with you.'" He added, "I think the only 'red-phone' moment was: 'Do

we eat here or at the next place.'"

As is often the case these days, the Clinton campaign responded to this

observation by sticking to their story, and even embellishing it (in this

case, with colorful details about running for cover under fire). That could

turn out to have been a catastrophic mistake -- but that, as with so much in

American politics, depends on the media and how they choose to handle it.

They've saturated us for nearly two weeks with video of Rev. Wright, who as

it turns out didn't say anything more extreme than what other candidates'

spiritual advisors have said [4]. Will this flap get the same attention? It

remains to be seen.

Sen. Clinton's other honesty problem this week came with revelations that,

while she claims to have been an internal NAFTA critic in the

administration, she actually gave several presentations in favor of NAFTA at

the time it was passed. But, to be fair, this may not be a deception. People

are often called upon to advocate for decisions in public that they opposed

in private. The NAFTA controversy suggests other concerns, such as: If she

were such a vehement critic, and the administration backed it anyway, how

important was she? And, how can she claim credit for the good deeds of her

husband's administration and yet take no responsibility for its problems?

Still, Clinton's handling of the NAFTA question certainly raises concerns.

Especially troubling is her campaign's work to spread rumors of Obama

sending back-channel messages to the Canadians suggesting their anti-NAFTA

rhetoric was all talk - when, according to a high-level Canadian source [5],

her campaign had done that.

But it is the Bosnia whopper that remains the high-profile, easily

documented embarrassment. Will the media run with it? It's hard to tell.

Despite the Clinton campaign's PR-driven argument to the contrary, press

coverage has tended to favor both candidates at different times. Right now

Jim Vandenhei and Mike Allen at Politico [6] are saying that the media's

pushing a false narrative in favor of Clinton in order to promote the sense

of an ongoing "horse race," arguing that her chances of taking the

nomination are actually far less than has been reported.

That makes sense -- not because the media's "in the tank" for Clinton or

Obama, but because a protracted race serves its own interests. By that

reasoning, it's very possible they'll downplay a story like this. Why?

Because it could end her candidacy once and for all. That would give the

media one less story to cover.

In the end, maybe one lie shouldn't matter. Perhaps this doesn't reflect on

how Sen. Clinton would govern. In our political system, however, it does

matter ... but only if the media choose to make it matter. Had Obama been

caught in a lie of this magnitude, his campaign might well be over. Had

McCain been caught in a similar lie, however, the press would probably have

hidden it (the same way they edited video of his recent Al Qaeda/Iran

gaffe).

For me, the real subject of this story isn't the candidate who told an

outrageous lie. It's the fact that our media holds unprecedented power.

They, and the decisions they make about this story, may well decide whether

Sen. Clinton's candidacy will survive.

UPDATE:

Clinton supporters have noted an update to the WaPo piece with this

statement from Lissa Muscatine: "I was on the plane with then First Lady

Hillary Clinton for the trip from Germany into Bosnia in 1996. We were put

on a C17-- a plane capable of steep ascents and descents -- precisely

because we were flying into what was considered a combat zone. We were

issued flak jackets for the final leg because of possible sniper fire near

Tuzla. As an additional precaution, the First Lady and Chelsea were moved to

the armored cockpit for the descent into Tuzla. We were told that a

welcoming ceremony on the tarmac might be canceled because of sniper fire in

the hills surrounding the air strip. From Tuzla, Hillary flew to two

outposts in Bosnia with gunships escorting her helicopter."

The last time I took a flight I was told what to do in "in the event of a

water landing." But if I said I had survived a crash landing on water, would

I be telling the truth? Hillary provided a vivid description of having to

run from sniper fire. It was a complete falsehood.

From Wikipedia: "Lissa Muscatine was a speechwriter and the communications

director of former First Lady Hillary Clinton. Currently, she is a

speechwriter for Senator Clinton's campaign for the presidential nomination,

and is one of her closest advisors ..."

It requires enormous suspension of disbelief to accept the idea that Hillary

brought her 16-year-old daughter too a place that was considered "too

dangerous for the President" and exposed her to live sniper fire. Do those

pro-Hillary commenters really believe she did that? If so, they should be

concerned about her judgment.

I continue to be astonished at the willingness of Clinton supporters to

elide, obfuscate, tolerate, condone, and defend behavior from their

candidate that would provoke their outrage if it came from anyone else. But

that's not my central point. This is: For all the chatter about press bias

for Obama, his career might be over had he been caught in this kind of

misstatement. But the media wants a prolonged horse race, so Clinton will

get a pass while we continue to be hammered with clips of Jeremiah Wright

making statements Obama repudiated a week ago. The press is once again

influencing the outcome of American elections - and that's not democratic.

_______

--

NOTICE: This post contains copyrighted material the use of which has not

always been authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material

available to advance understanding of

political, human rights, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues. I

believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material as

provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright

Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107

"A little patience and we shall see the reign of witches pass over, their

spells dissolve, and the people recovering their true sight, restore their

government to its true principles. It is true that in the meantime we are

suffering deeply in spirit,

and incurring the horrors of a war and long oppressions of enormous public

debt. But if the game runs sometimes against us at home we must have

patience till luck turns, and then we shall have an opportunity of winning

back the principles we have lost, for this is a game where principles are at

stake."

-Thomas Jefferson