OK-I'll put it here-Hillary Lied about coming under fire...
"Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton said on Tuesday she made a mistake when she claimed she had come under sniper fire during a trip to Bosnia in 1996 while she was first lady.
In a speech in Washington and in several interviews last week Clinton described how she and her daughter, Chelsea, ran for cover under hostile fire shortly after her plane landed in Tuzla, Bosnia" snip
"In a speech in Washington on March 17 Clinton said of the Bosnia trip: "I remember landing under sniper fire. There was supposed to be some kind of greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base."
"
She also told CNN last week: "There was no greeting ceremony and we were basically told to run to our cars. Now that is what happened."
video of the trip, showed Clinton walking from the plane, accompanied by her daughter. They were greeted by a young girl in a small ceremony on the tarmac and there was no sign of tension or any danger.
Source Link:http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/03/26/us-usa-politics-clinton-idUSN2540811420080326
Has dick shit to do with a primary but a ton to do with character...
= new reply since forum marked as read
but you saved me the trouble 
Right back atcha.
He lied in his official biography. He didn't HAVE to. He could have just said "He has one son, Levi, and however many stepkids."
Or the even more vague "He and his wife have X kids."
No need to lie--but he did. He finally acknowledged it.
It IS the same--a lie is a lie. You don't get to pick which lies matter, and which ones don't.
As I've said, if people correct the record, move on. No need to carp and nitpick and play 'gotcha'--but if you do, I can come up with an equivalent example.
Instead of touting one's own candidate, some people start bullshit threads trying to stir the pot by saying something bad about the opposition. That's a pretty lame tactic.
and he has iterated and RE-iterated that it does NOT REFLECT HIS PRESENT VIEWS with regard to women and he has very forthrightly disavowed it.
And he wasn't a child--he was running for public office around that time frame. He'd divorced his college wife. He'd fathered a child with another woman (and the fundies would make a big point of noting that it was Outside The Sanctity Of Holy Matrimony Praise Jesus). He'd already said he was a pacifist and unsuccessfully petitioned the government for CO status. He was active in radical VT politics.
"Very young?" He was old enough to do all that. He was no 'baby.'
Hillary was working for the House of Representatives on the Nixon impeachment around the time he wrote that thing--and she's YOUNGER than him.
Good grief, the infantalizing is absurd! And it shows your bias--really, it does. You will excuse him anything, and her, nothing.
The best response is "He said it was stupid and he disavows it." No 'explanation' can make that pile of garbage right--despite the best efforts of people who thought they were helping him by writing tortured articles on "What he REEEEEEALLY meant." He didn't ask for their help and his "explanation" (it was stupid, I disavow it) is the appropriate one.
Of course they are different things--Bernie wasn't ever IN a war zone (despite his hawkish attitudes towards the conflicts in the region at that time). Hillary never wrote a horrible, stupid, essay about how some morons view sex roles and condone violence as a secret wish.
But see how you try to parse, to find difference, to "defend" when there's no need? Hummmmph--Hillary MISREPRESENTED FACTS, you insist. Are you saying Bernie DIDN'T misrepresent facts? That women DO like to be violated violently by strangers? EWWWWW. See how that shit works?
I would advise that when you're stuck in a hole, stop digging. Bernie and Hill know to do that--he did by saying his essay was trash. Hillary admitted her mistake.
Your insistence that "factual" Bernie's A-OK...but oh, that lyin' HILLARY....! is utter nonsense. And based on those writings, I'd be a bit concerned about not just OPPO research, but old fashioned REPORTING (which is what found that piece in the first place).
Everyone's back home now, vacations over, kids in school--people are going to start paying attention. Faux will eventually turn their attention from the Klown Kar, once those buffoons run out of money and start dropping like flies.
HRC has been vetted, Sanders has not. Since you're so invested in nitpicking, do understand that this kind of thing isn't a one way street. Stand by. The 4th Estate (or Faux--who must be differentiated since they aren't really "news"
might not be his friend.
It's all pointless and it is stupid. But volleys will be returned, because that's the nature of the game. You'd think the smart move would be to not attack over resolved horse shit in the first place...I guess that's too much to ask.
Rather than snarky, re-hashing "I'll put it here" threads, why not a thread boosting a candidate?
Tear downs are so easy--build-ups, not so much, I guess.
thank you. 
I suppose there really is a first time for everything 
Hillary? ... meh, not so much. just an honest mistake.
