You will hear about it from Clinton herself in the coming days and weeks, from what I understand.

But even if you believe the comedian, the Bosnia trip still is still a better gauge of foreign policy experience than being a street urchin in Indonesia.

I loved the air kiss.

She was there as PR, and she lied about it. So you are ok with her flat-out lying about the danger of her "mission"...?

I'm really puzzled about this whole "lie" charge. Here's what I don't understand: we have a candidate with knows very well that everything she says will be looked at with a microscope. Another post here quotes her as saying that she doesn't even use email because she understands how everything she writes can be used against her.

Then she goes ahead and gives a much-televised speech and talks at length about her experience in Bosnia. And we're told she's lying.

So, why would Clinton, with all the scrutiny she generates, would willfully lie like that, when she knows there is a public record?

The cutting issue isn't so much Clinton's experience in war zones or Obama's, but the experience of John McCain and other Iraq war cheerleaders who took guided tours with the military and claimed to have visited all the tough parts, and who then came back to invoke their "experience" when they claimed the surge was working and asked for more time to "win the war".

Who is in a better position to call them out for it? Clinton? (cue the Bosnia video) or Obama?

Chuck Todd, MSNBC's designated driver, made a great point on Meet the Press today about this. He pointed to Hillary Clinton's inability to admit mistakes and how she gets in deeper when she flat out lies about something like Bosnia then subsequently keeps it going by trying to cover it up. It has been bad for her and has kept her unfavorability ratings high and increased the view in polls that she is dishonest.

After Ohio/Texas, Barack Obama personally questioned her experience and I believe that was just an introduction. As things heat up approaching Pennsylvania and North Carolina, I think he's start really hitting her and the fact will come out through the MSM simultaneously. He's a cool and smart tactician, but she'll do most (or already has) of the work damning herself.

You call it a "character attack," but when someone is shown to be a serial exaggerator, it's not so much a "character attack" as a "character demonstration."

And when you're making such a big deal about her going to Bosnia, don't forget to give equal credit to Chelsea, Sinbad and Sheryl Crow.

The irony....is if it were in the reverse, Lalo would be crowing of the highest mountain.

Hillary Clinton LIED...it doesn;t take a genius to see it.

Barack Obama has VISITED countries all over the world. That is exactly what this was for Hillary. .. a VISIT.

I posted this originally because I knew you would come up with some lame-ass "it doesn't count when it's Hillary" load of crap.

Lalo... you absolutely didn't disappoint.

Hillary could pee on the Pope and you'd swear it was a baptism. Hahahahahahahahaha

The Titanic that is Hillary is siiiiiiinking!

A lie is a lie is a lie. Unless of course you want to debate what "is" is like Bill did.

IT'S A FREAKING LIE!!!!!!!!!

Character assassination? First, you have to have character.

She lied about NAFTA.

She lied about Bosnia.

She lied about Northern Ireland.

At this point, there is no way to know when she is telling the truth. But if her lips are moving, it's a pretty safe bet that mendacity isn't far behind.

Hillary Clinton is too much work. Her 'character' oppresses the spirit. Out of her own mouth, she told us what her experience is worth when she cited her years in the White House as justification of her Iraq War resolution vote.

Everybody learns from experience. The trick is to learn the right things. Whatever experience taught her, it didn't give her the discernment necessary to vote no on the Iraq war. Experience that does not lead to good decisions is worthless.

"She has vastly more foreign policy experience than Obama." And like most of those geniuses in Washington, starting with the uber-experienced Cheney, Rumsfeld and co., she happily sent us into Irak.

I mean Condi Rice had a lot of foreign policy experience. And at best, she's a mean, self-serving moron. (Just finished the article in the NYRB).

Which begs the question, with all of her foreign policy experience, Hillary could have figured out that it was a terrible idea (not to mention, the recent vote on Iran, for instance), no? And I grant it to the Hillary supporters, she probably knew it was a bad idea. And yet, she voted for the war. Interesting, no?

I'm going to post this several times throughout this thread because most people are failing to comprehend how premeditated (and Bush-esque) this lie was and I think it's important to get this point across.

EVERYONE SHOULD TAKE NOTE THAT...

Sinbad's comments to the Washington Post on March 10th, calling into question Hillary's earlier accounts of the plane trip, created a ruckus as soon as they were published, and news of them spread throughout the news media and blogoshere almost immediately. The Clinton campaign had to be aware of the new-found-doubt of Hillary's version of events, that was raised by the Sinbad story

From this point, THEY HAD SEVEN DAYS before Hillary Clinton's speech at George Washington University to LOOK INTO THE RECORDS of the flight and the landing ceremonies, both their own and those of news reports, AND CORRECT Clinton's highly erroneous earlier accounts.

But what did they do? Instead, they choose to not only stick with her original story, but actually ramped up its details. This decision was nothing less than an act of fraud.

100 REASONS NOT TO VOTE FOR HILLARY CLINTON

Perhaps people should read the contemporaneous accounts of her trips to Bosnia, instead of this crazy over the top ugliness.

In case this goes to the wrong slot, this is in response to the apologetic comment that Hillary didn't know whether she was under sniper fire or not.

Didn't Hillary say that there was no greeting ceremony, and that they were told to run to their car? Surely she understood that that didn't happen.

Ill concede the point that Mrs. Clinton has definitely been to more countries than Mr. Obama. However is that really our gauge of foreign policy experience? If so, why is no one considering Geraldo Rivera as a presidential candidate, hes probably been to even more places than Hil-Dawg under probably more dangerous conditions.

The simple fact it is not where you've been but what you've done. I have seen no evidence that Hillary has actually DONE anything more than just visit these places. And im sure the counter argument would be that neither has obama however, 1. that doesn't help Hillary, and 2. the central tenant of obamas campaign is not foreign policy experience. 3. of 2 non experienced candidates obama has the best record (judgment) so far

All you need to do is watch the video of her explaining/describing (now) what happened on the Bosnia trip, and then watch her getting off the airplane on the actual Bosnia trip, and see for yourself what really happened - watching them back to back.
We put them up here:
"Bald Faced Lie!"
http://tpzoo.wordpress.com/2008/03/22/bald-faced-lie/

During my 10+ years in the Army, I spent 3 years in Europe. During that time, I visited over 12 countries in Europe & North Africa. I spent 22 months in Southeast Asia. During that time, I visited Thailand and Australia. I also have visited countries in the Carribean & South America.

Does this qualify me to be president?

Ga medic:
If you are still undecided consider this:

The majority of western state Democrats are behind Obama because they can already see he will have strong coattails for all their down ticket candidates including potential new senators.
The next president as a Democrat will need 60 senate votes to do health care,etc. Obama will close that gap better than Hillary because of he will help bring in more Democratic senators. In addition his temperament and style of incorporating acceptable ideas from the other side will allow him to win more moderate Republicans because there will be less resistance to working with him rather than Hillary who still riles the right. He has the better chance of succeeding in passing a Democratic agenda.

Another side question to all the Hillary supporters on this thread.

Are we expected to believe that all the trips of varying significance truly give the former First Lady an accurate and honest portrayal of the countries she's visited?

A friend of mine handle's scheduling for a rather important business figure ... and I can tell you that important people with much on their plate, especially those working in a capacity of 'smoother' or 'supporter', don't get to dig in to these cultures and the problems they face. They have single missions, and they execute them ... goodwill and moral support.

Senator Obama has lived within a completely different societal structure for many years as a child. Ask anyone who spent similar time living in a different 'world', and I will tell you the experiences and understanding in the concept of people and the sense of 'other' are much more aligned with the principles with which our Constitution had set forth (as those men themselves had lived within a different, imperfect structure, driving them to create the one we still strive to realize).