Text size +

Embellishment accusations fly

Posted by Foon Rhee, deputy national political editor March 25, 2008 02:18 PM

Hillary Clinton's concession that she "misspoke" when she gave a vivid description of landing under sniper fire in Bosnia is prompting another round of recriminations with Barack Obama's campaign, with both camps today accusing the other candidate of misrepresenting their biographies.

Obama's campaign characterized her exaggeration of the 1996 landing in Tuzla as part of a pattern of deception. Now, it just sent reporters an item, posted on the ABC News political blog, casting doubt on an anecdote that Clinton told a group building a memorial to women in the military that she went to a Marine recruiting office in 1975, just after the Vietnam War ended.

"You're too old. You can't see. And you're a woman," the recruiter told her, according to Clinton's account to Women in Military Service in 1994. The ABC item says that rejection seems odd because pregnant Marines were allowed to serve and says the timing seems strange because Clinton was about to get married.

Clinton's camp just fired back with an entire memo of what it describes as Obama's embellishments of his resume, including claiming to be a full law professor and having to clarify that when he said his parents fell in love during the tumult of Selma, he meant the civil rights movement as a whole.

"They are personally attacking Hillary even though Sen. Obama has been found mispeaking and embellishing facts about himself more than ten times in recent months," the Clinton memo says. "Senator Obama’s campaign is based on words –not a record of deeds – and if those words aren’t backed up by facts, there’s not much else left."

14 comments so far...
  1. Now this is getting ridiculous. She's caught lying and now she wants to turn the tables with ridiculous, infantile accusations. At the very list, she can't tell the difference between truth and a lie. She needs to drop out now!

    Posted by Adriana March 25, 08 03:15 PM
    Reply | Report this post
  1. Now this is getting ridiculous. She's caught lying and now she wants to turn the tables with ridiculous, infantile accusations. At the very list, she can't tell the difference between truth and a lie. She needs to drop out now!

    Posted by Adriana March 25, 08 03:17 PM
    Reply | Report this post
  1. When are the candidates going to get back to discussing the issues that face our nation. We are in a critical time with a recession in place, an unpopular war, and all I hear all day long, day in night, night and day is personal attacks between both of them.

    Give me a break already and let it go, and let us elect a dem. to the White House. The way this campaign is going it will guarantee that John Mclain will win and four more years of "George Bush" is our fate. (Heaven Help Us!)

    Posted by Sleeper March 25, 08 03:30 PM
    Reply | Report this post
  1. Love war? Vote for John McBush.

    Posted by Janice March 25, 08 03:46 PM
    Reply | Report this post
  1. what is the difference between 'I misspoke' and 'I lied'? Excuse me, but I think that if one is truly ducking from bullet fire, one remembers... the truth.

    Posted by jane weiner March 25, 08 04:48 PM
    Reply | Report this post
  1. They are politicians. They Lie. It's what they do. Is anyone really that surprised. This kind of embellishment has been going on since the inseption of socio-politcal standings, which would be around the time of cognitive thought lol. The only difference is the information age makes fact finding a relatively easy process.

    Posted by Bradley Wilkinson March 25, 08 05:05 PM
    Reply | Report this post
  1. Hillary Clinton's campaign - "the audacity of hopelessness" David Brooks

    Posted by will March 25, 08 05:30 PM
    Reply | Report this post
  1. these two are both full of hot air and neither is qualified or with enough integrity to be president. they are both proven liars. she, however would be the better of the two.

    Posted by mark shiro March 25, 08 05:44 PM
    Reply | Report this post
  1. these two are both full of hot air and neither is qualified or with enough integrity to be president. they are both proven liars. she, however would be the better of the two.

    Posted by mark shiro March 25, 08 05:44 PM
    Reply | Report this post
  1. Nobody loves war, dippy. But if you want to continue to get a good nights sleep, knowing your protected....................Vote McCain....... How soon you moronic dems. forget 9/11......

    Posted by Tom Mercier March 25, 08 05:49 PM
    Reply | Report this post
  1. Do we really want either of these two in the oval office?? They both are proven liars. A politician caught lying should receive a mandatory year jail sentence. In a very short time we would have all new faces in DC . Lets lead our country by example!!

    Posted by PJ March 25, 08 06:04 PM
    Reply | Report this post
  1. Hillary lied...Bottom line!

    Posted by Debmood March 25, 08 06:05 PM
    Reply | Report this post
  1. Hillary cannot tell the difference between truth and lie. How can we count on her judgment when the 3 a.m. call comes, when she cannot tell the difference between dodging sniper fire and being welcomed with a poem by an eight-year-old girl? From day one, as President, she will lie every day to the American people. Just as her husband lied with his hand on the Bible that he did not have sex with that woman. The Clinton dynasty will bring down the Democratic Party with this beyond-the-pale negative campaign. Their lust to return to an non-Constitutional eight more years in the WH is satanic.

    Posted by shir March 25, 08 06:12 PM
    Reply | Report this post
  1. Hillary did not lie about Bosnia. She just mistook Chelsea for a Serb. Could happen to anyone after talking to Sinbad on the aircraft.

    With less ?levity, it seems that Hillary is getting what she wants from the posts above. Her surrogates began playing the race card in SC in an attempt to marginalize Obama as a "black candidate" when his demographic support had been broad based and race was not in the campaign.

    Still behind in the pollis and delegates, she developed what one of her staffers called the "kitchen sink strategy". Throw a lot of mud and see if anything sticks. If he does not repond, he is weak. If he does respond, he is just as dirty as she is, so vote for her because she has 'experience' and is vetted.

    Her experience appears based on fabrication and I would question whether she has been 'vetted' in view of a lack of disclosure of most of the documentation from the Clinton Presidency and tax returns. It is more accurate to say that she has not been
    indicted..

    My observation is that her tactics have worked because some say they are both equally bad, which was not the case when a clean campaign was being run.

    rsonally,I believe that this nomination process is done. The party is over. The fat lady has sung. How do I know. The blogs have nothing new to say. Same old tired statements and cliches. We be done.

    Posted by Patrick March 26, 08 05:51 AM
    Reply | Report this post
add your comment
Required
Required (will not be published)

This blogger might want to review your comment before posting it.

About political intelligence Field reports from Boston Globe reporters and editors covering the 2008 presidential campaign and the national maneuvering of Bay State politicians.

Send your comments to masspolitics@globe.com

archives

browse this blog

by category