Clinton's Bosnia Story -- Tempest in a Teapot

Sometimes people can't resist shaping a story for maximum impact -- even when it muddies the facts. I've known and lived with those who exaggerate all my life. Many years ago my mom told me she finally gave up on correcting the facts in my dad's narratives in the face of his complaint, "Why do you always have to ruin my stories!"

I've lived for years with someone who has a similar way with a story. I'd hear her account of something that involved us both and think -- where was I when THAT happened? But, like my mother, I learned to keep my mouth shut and allow my partner to do the tweaking and misstating necessary to tell her stories the way she wanted to.

Clinton did this with the Bosnia tale. Her travels there did involve all the accouterments of potential violence -- snipers for protection, flak jackets, etc. She took potential reality and made it be real for the sake of a good stump speech tale. See this Op-Ed in the New York Times:

Straight Shooting From Tuzla
By LISSA MUSCATINE and MELANNE VERVEER
Even without the snipers, Hillary Clinton’s trip to Bosnia was a dangerous one.
April 1, 2008


Barack Obama did a similar customizing of reality when he related the story of his father's journey from Africa to the United States, rearranging the facts to give his tale the luster of a Kennedy connection. So what?

Was Clinton's motivation nefarious? No. She wanted to tell a good story. The fact is that Clinton hasn't got the talent for smooth talking and storytelling that Obama has or that my own dad possessed. She doesn't dazzle enough to make her listeners forgive, to make them unlikely to examine her words closely and then not care if the truth falls short. And in this case, not only did some of her listeners not want to forgive exaggeration, they saw a great opportunity for ridicule.

Clinton cannot be described as a great speaker, even by her fans. Her anecdotal fabrications stand out like sore thumbs and her attempts at humor (when scripted) fall heavy. Where she does shine is in spontaneous discussion of issues and one on one light-hearted chat. Obama, by contrast, is at his worst when speaking off the cuff or actually detailing policy matters. His eloquence takes a hike and his conversation is dulled by long pauses and a flat tone.

So, what do these speaking strengths and weaknesses say about their qualifications for the job of president? My view, through admittedly Clinton-colored glasses, is that she really knows what she's talking about but will never be a good storyteller. Her presidency would be solid and at the same time a boon to comedians everywhere.

His, who knows? He is eloquent (very, very, very eloquent.) He seems to stand for most of the same things that she does, though on the topic of health care he's no more eloquent than she -- it's boring no matter who talks about it. So far, the most substantive thing his eloquence has accomplished is the shaming of his opposition.

To questions about his experience he offers soaring rhetoric about turning the page on the past (if he had experience, we'd have to turn the page on him.)

He's also used it as sleight of hand to wiggle out of the questions concerning his embrace of a church which features some mighty radical religious politics.

Personally, I'm not outraged by the leftist messages of Rev. Wright's sermons but I am by Obama's waffling on the subject: I never heard these things said, if I had I would have walked out, um, maybe I knew about some of it but not the really bad stuff, um, I would have left but I knew he was going to retire, um, I did know, but my understanding of racial issues in this country is so profound that it's an affront for anyone to question me about this.

He could have just said, I agree with some things and disagree with others and on balance decided to remain a member of the church -- and let people judge for themselves. It's not his grandmother he threw under the bus but his own liberal ideology which for many, including me, can embrace some paranoid ramblings about the government.

In conclusion, I'd like to say:

"I'll have one order of sniper-fire embellishment, a side of JFK story enhancement and pass on the ideological waffles."