It seems that the past weeks did portray John McCain as a serial liar.  The list is long but I'll try to list some of the areas that jumped at me.

Just shortly Iran test-fired some missiles this week, McCain came out to claim that the test was conducted by the Revolutionary Guards that he (McCain) voted to label a terrorist group.  

McCain said: "It's my understanding that this missile test was conducted by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. This is the same organization that I voted to condemn as a terrorist organization when a amendment was on the floor of the United States Senate. Senator Obama refused to vote, called it provocative. Called it a provocative step. And the fact is, this is a terrorist organization and should have been branded as such."
http://mediamatters.org/items/2008071000 08

Well it turned out that he did not vote on the bill - a bold face LIE.  Media Matters has the video and the comments from CNN  

Then there was the lie about his time as POW in Vietnam, replacing the Greenbay Packers in his famous book with the Pittsburg Steelers at an interview event in Pennsylvania.  ABC has this on the story:

"In Pennsylvania, McCain Tells a New Version of Heroic P.O.W. Story -- Subbing the Pittsburgh Steelers for the Green Bay Packers"  
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/ 2008/07/in-pennsylvania.html
It's a lie of Tuzla proportion.  It's McCain's Sniper-Fire moment.

Again on his votes in the Senate, McCain could not admit that he voted against measures that would have forced the insurance companies to give women a pill choice as they gave men a Viagra choice:  
"I certainly do not want to discuss that issue," the Arizona senator said aboard his "Straight Talk Express" bus in Ohio when asked about his views on health insurance covering the medication.

However, the record was presented to him and he refused to acknowledge it:

McCain has voted against Senate measures that sought to require insurance companies to cover birth control medication.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/200 8/07/10/mccain-avoids-viagra-question/

Then McCain claimed that he did not say that he don't understand economic as he should.  Think Progress has it here:
 This week, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) is traveling through Colombia, making a push for a free-trade agreement. In an interview with ABC this morning from Cartagena, McCain was asked about his now infamous statement that he doesn't understand economics well. McCain quickly interrupted the interviewer, denying he ever said this:
Q: You have admitted that you're not exactly an expert when it comes to the economy and many have said -
McCAIN: I have not. I have not. Actually, I have not. I said that I am stronger on national security issues because of all the time I spent in the military. I'm very strong on the economy. I understand it. I have a lot more experience than my opponent.
But here is what McCain said in January 2008:
McCain: I Never Said That I Don't Know Much About Economics»
This week, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) is traveling through Colombia, making a push for a free-trade agreement. In an interview with ABC this morning from Cartagena, McCain was asked about his now infamous statement that he doesn't understand economics well. McCain quickly interrupted the interviewer, denying he ever said this:
Q: You have admitted that you're not exactly an expert when it comes to the economy and many have said -
McCAIN: I have not. I have not. Actually, I have not. I said that I am stronger on national security issues because of all the time I spent in the military. I'm very strong on the economy. I understand it. I have a lot more experience than my opponent.  
In fact, McCain and his advisers have repeatedly admitted that he is weak on economic issues:
"The issue of economics is not something I've understood as well as I should," McCain said. "I've got Greenspan's book." [December 2007]
Seeking to explain his shift on economic issues, McCain claimed: "I didn't pay nearly the attention to those issues in the past. I was probably a 'supply-sider' based on the fact that I really didn't jump into the issue." [January 2000]
Carly Fiorina, a top McCain adviser, acknowledged that McCain has said he knows little about the economy, noting that "he did say it one time, no question, maybe twice." [6/10/08] http://thinkprogress.org/2008/07/02/mcca in-dodge-economics/

McCain also lied about his divorce in his famous-book.  Here is the LA Times take on McCain divorce saga:
1.    McCain said in his 2000 book, "I spent as much time with Cindy in Washington and Arizona as our jobs would allow," McCain wrote. "I was separated from Carol, but our divorce would not become final until February of 1980.".  This indicated that he had separated from Carol before he began dating Hensley.  But according to court documents,  McCain did not sue his wife for divorce until Feb. 19, 1980, and he wrote in his court petition that he and his wife had "cohabited" until Jan. 7 of that year -- or for the first nine months of his relationship with Hensley.
2.    LA Times also write that, "Although McCain suggested in his autobiography that months passed between his divorce and remarriage, the divorce was granted April 2, 1980, and he wed Hensley in a private ceremony five weeks later. McCain obtained an Arizona marriage license on March 6, 1980, while still legally married to his first wife."  http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/ nation/la-na-divorce11-2008jul11,0,59249 26,full.story

McCain even lied on the Veterans.  A Kossack blogged about it here:  http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/7/8/1 42125/0361/907/548283

And on and on the list goes to more and more and more lies.

The real story of Hillary's Bosnia trip . . .

[Republished from 2008Central.net]

With approximately 10 minutes notice to reporters, the Obama campaign held a conference call today with Pennysylvania Bosnia veterans to discuss Sen. Clinton's previous remarks on Bosnia.  The timing of the call is somewhat odd, especially in light of Sen. Obama's statements regarding political distractions at ABC's debate earlier this week.

Maj. Gen. Walter Stewart observed:

"Imagine the lack of moral authority she has now to lay a wreath at the tomb of the unknown soldier."

He later added an observation about Sen. Clinton's potential for leadership:

"So, let's look at moral authority as the essential element of leadership.  President George Bush, Sen. Clinton, Sen. McCain have squandered the moral authority of the United States of America and our ability to lead the free people's of the world; and the oppressed peoples of the world towards freedom.  Sen. Barack Obama displays the moral authority we need for a change in Washington D.C."

Michael Kotyk began by saying:

"Sen. Clinton's remarks are what I guess you would call a 'whopper' in the military terminology.  It's a breach of honor.  And, it's something that she has done continuously and even in regards to her support on NAFTA."

As noted, this conference call is in sharp contrast to Obama's remarks on Clinton and Bosnia during the debate earlier this week.

First, Obama suggested that the only reason his campaign initially criticized Sen. Clinton on the subject was because they were asked about it:

OBAMA: Well, look, I think that Senator Clinton has a strong record to run on. She wouldn't be here if she didn't.

And, you know, I haven't commented on the issue of Bosnia. You know, I...

STEPHANOPOULOS: Your campaign has.

OBAMA: Of course. But the -- because we're asked about it.

Fair enough, but the issue is pretty old now.  No one asked them to hold an entire conference call on it today.  So, I'm not entirely sure how today's call fits with these statements by Sen. Obama.  In the same response, Sen. Obama added (emphasis added):

But, look, the fact of the matter is, is that both of us are working as hard as we can to make sure that we're delivering a message to the American people about what we would do as president. Sometimes that message is going to be imperfectly delivered because we are recorded every minute of every day.

And I think Senator Clinton deserves the right to make some errors once in a while. Obviously, I make some as well.

I think what's important is to make sure that we don't get so obsessed with gaffes that we lose sight of the fact that this is a defining moment in our history. We are going to be tackling some of the biggest issues that any president has dealt with in the last 40 years.

Our economy is teetering not just on the edge of recession but potentially worse. Our foreign policy is in a shambles. We are involved in two wars. People's incomes have not gone up, and their costs have. And we're seeing greater income inequality now than any time since the 1920s.

In those circumstances, for us to be obsessed with this -- these kinds of errors I think is a mistake. And that's not what our campaign has been about.

Does this mean that today's call, which focused entirely on Clinton's Bosnia remarks, was a mistake?

I understand the political reasons why the campaign held the call today.  But, it strikes me as somewhat unnecessary and inconsistent for them to have done so.  And, it will almost certainly open them up to unnecessary scrutiny from the press.

Did you notice in the debate Hillary Clinton's tortured attempt to admit she lied about the Bosnia fantasy?

Hi folks.

The new Washington Post/ABC News poll shows some very disheartening news for team Hillary, and some disturbing new for ALL OF US who care about beating John McCain in the fall.

The long and short of it is that:

1) Due mostly to the oft-repeated and self-aggrandizing yarn that team Clinton spun about Bosnia, Hillary has inflicted a wound on her already Penn-weakened campaign that is clearly festering.

2) And while Democrats are willing to let this go on for a while yet (though patience is wearing thin) the ongoing and lengthened battle is helping McCain A LOT.  The more we fight amongst ourselves, the more (right now at least) McCain appears to be a vialble, and presidential option.  A lot of HRC folks don't like hearing this, but it is nevertheless TRUE.  

The article is posted below with my comments in CAPS!

From the Washington post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con tent/article/2008/04/15/AR2008041502883. html

Poll Shows Erosion Of Trust in Clinton

PHILADELPHIA, April 15 -- Lost in the Hillary Rodham Clinton campaign's aggressive attacks on Barack Obama in recent days is a deep and enduring problem that threatens to undercut any inroads Clinton has made in her struggle to overtake him in the Democratic presidential race: She has lost trust among voters, a majority of whom now view her as dishonest.

Her advisers' efforts to deal with the problem -- by having her acknowledge her mistakes and crack self-deprecating jokes -- do not seem to have succeeded. Privately, the aides admit that the recent controversy over her claim to have ducked sniper fire on a trip to Bosnia probably made things worse.

Clinton is viewed as "honest and trustworthy" by just 39 percent of Americans, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll, compared with 52 percent in May 2006. Nearly six in 10 said in the new poll that she is not honest and trustworthy. And now, compared with Obama, Clinton has a deep trust deficit among Democrats, trailing him by 23 points as the more honest, an area on which she once led both Obama and John Edwards.

THIS IS HUGE.  SHE IS THE VICTIM OF AN UNFORTUNATE NARRATIVE/PERCEPTION THAT WAS BORN IN THE 90'S...THAT SHE IS PRONE TO FIBBING.  FOR GOOD, ILL OR INDIFFERENT...THERE IT IS.

Among Democrats, 63 percent called her honest, down 18 points from 2006; among independents, her trust level has dropped 13 points, to 37 percent. Republicans held Clinton in low regard on this in the past (23 percent called her honest two years ago), but it is even lower now, at 16 percent. Majorities of men and women now say the phrase does not apply to Clinton; two years ago, narrow majorities of both did.

Advisers argue that her positive ratings have dipped as she has been defined by her opponents -- a normal campaign occurrence --and that her honesty problem reflects the pounding she took from Republicans in the 1990s. But the Bosnia incident and the way the campaign handled it have left advisers divided over what a candidate can do after such a steep drop in trust.

Some of her aides believe that after Clinton told the Bosnia story -- of having run from her military aircraft into a hangar to avoid sniper fire -- when television images of the event showed otherwise, the campaign had no choice but to say she "misspoke." Communications director Howard Wolfson first did so on a conference call with reporters, and Clinton repeated the explanation over the course of several days.

Other Clinton advisers thought that response did not come quickly enough -- and that when it did, without further explanation or talking points for surrogates to use, it only worsened the perception that she had lied. Making the situation more difficult was a split within the campaign over whether Clinton had exaggerated, or simply confused the landing with another trip. One Clinton insider announced in a strategy meeting it was ridiculous to have imagined the first lady ever having been in danger, or for Clinton to have thought she was -- a slap at the senator from New York that other advisers described as disrespectful.

ANOTHER SCHISM IN TEAM CLINTON?  I WONDER IF THIS WAS BEFORE PENN GOT DEMOTED.  CLEARLY, HER TEAM HAS BEEN, AND GIVEN THE RECENT ATTACKS...STILL IS FLOUNDERING.

At the same time, die-hard Clinton loyalists thought her communications operation did not defend her heartily enough, which press aides said they thought was impossible. "Continuing to say it did happen when it didn't happen is not a strategy," one adviser said.

The problem was exacerbated when Bill Clinton, in defending her confused memory of the Bosnia event, got key details of the incident wrong, before later saying his wife had told him to stay out of it.

Two staffers from the Clinton White House years, Lissa Muscatine and Melanne Verveer, wrote a New York Times op-ed article recalling the perils of the trip, trying to justify why Clinton had gotten the story wrong. "As has been reported, Mrs. Clinton's trip to Bosnia included a U.S.O. component with the comedian Sinbad and the singer Sheryl Crow. The helicopters that carried them to performances at American base camps zigzagged just above the trees to avoid potential ground fire, according to Carey Cavanaugh, who was then a State Department official traveling with Sinbad, and helicopters flew alongside to deal with the threat of anti-aircraft fire or snipers. These facts explain why many of us, including the first lady, believed that the conditions on the ground were precarious. We were worried about sniper fire and were prepared to rush off the tarmac when we landed," they wrote.

OK. WHERE WERE THESE STAFFERS AT THE HEIGHT OF THE DRAMA?  WHY DIDN'T THE CAMPAIGN TROT THEM OUT IN FRONT OF CAMERAS AND TALK SHOWS TO DIFFUSE THE STORY OUTRIGHT?  HRC FOLKS...DONT BLAME OBAMA SUPPORTERS FOR THIS....BLAME HILLARY'S HAM-HANDED AND FLAT-FOOTED RESPONSES.  SHEESH.  EVEN THOUGH THESE STAFFERS WOULD NOT HAVE TOTALLY DEFLECTED THE CONTROVERSY..THEY SHURELY WOULD HAVE CREATED REASONABLE DOUBT, RATHER THAN EXACERBATING THE SITUATION.

Senior Clinton advisers argued that the Bosnia story would not have developed the way it did if it were not for a story line about Clinton that goes back to the 1990s, when scandals involving the first lady, including the firings in the White House travel office and her financial dealings, resulted in widespread doubts about her trustworthiness. That framework, they argue, made it easier for Clinton to be perceived as dishonest, a problem that first arose in her presidential campaign in a debate last fall when she gave conflicting answers on whether she supports allowing illegal immigrants to obtain driver's licenses.

Among whites, the percentage saying Clinton is honest and trustworthy has declined 10 points, compared with 26 points among nonwhites. That number has declined more sharply among liberals (down 30 points) than among moderates (down 13) or conservatives (down 4 points). Head to head with Obama on honesty among Democrats, Clinton faces a 23-point deficit overall, 17 points among whites and nearly 50 points among African Americans.

EVEN WITH THE WRIGHT "CONTROVERSY" AND "BITTERGATE"...VOTERS VIEW OBAMA AS MORE TRUSTWORTHY.  WHY DO YOU ALL SUPPOSE THIS IS SO?  REALLY.

I THINK THAT IT IS FOR TWO REASONS:

1) OBAMA SEEMS TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR MISTAKES AND GAFFES SIMPLY AND ELOQUENTLY.  

2) HE DOES NOT HAVE THE BAGGAGE ASSOCIATED WITH HAVING BEEN IN NATIONAL POLITICS FOR 16 YEARS.

Your thoughts?

Bill discussed Hillary's Bosnia lies last week during a speech.  He mocked to press, saying that they acted like Hillary had committed a "bank robbery".

Ironically, she had.  It's called "Stolen Valor".  Congress even passed a law making it illegal to falsely claim to have earned a Medal of Honor.  

Many soldiers are speaking out on this.

well he gave an interview to ABC to settle this once and for all

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/ 2008/04/bill-clinton-re.html

"A lot of the way this whole campaign has been covered has amused me," he said. "But there was a lot of fulminating because Hillary, one time late at night when she was exhausted, misstated and immediately apologized for it, what happened to her in Bosnia in 1995. Did y'all see all that. Oh, they blew it up. Let me just tell you. The president of Bosnia and Gen. Wesley Clark -- who was there making peace where we'd lost three peacekeepers who had to ride on a dangerous mountain road because it was too dangerous to go the regular, safe way -- both defended her because they pointed out that when her plane landed in Bosnia, she had to go up to the bulletproof part of the plane, in the front. Everybody else had to put their flack jackets underneath the seat in case they got shot at. And everywhere they went they were covered by Apache helicopters. So they just abbreviated the arrival ceremony. Now I say that because, what really has mattered is that even then she was interested in our troops. And I think she was the first first lady since Eleanor Roosevelt to go into a combat zone. And you woulda thought, you know, that she'd robbed a bank the way they carried on about this. And some of them when they're 60 they'll forget something when they're tired at 11:00 at night, too."

as ABC already is pointing out

Hillary Clinton actually made the comments numerous times, including at events on Dec. 19 and 29 in Iowa, at an event on Feb. 29 and one time -- bright and early in the morning -- on March 17.

maybe bill himself was tired?

After a trip to Puerto Rico and two days entirely off the campaign trail, former President Bill Clinton eagerly discussed myriad topics with the crowd that awaited him in Boonville, Ind.

this is why her trustworthy ratings are dropping.

EDIT: here is ABC's full reply from below in the comments

While the former president may have been amused by the whole incident, his telling of the course of events isn't quite accurate. Sen Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., actually made the comments numerous times including at events on December 19th and 29th in Iowa, at an event on February 29th and one time - bright and early in the morning - on March 17th. Senator Clinton wasn't as quick with her apology as President Clinton may remember either. In fact, it took a week for her to eventually correct herself, first talking to the Philadelphia Inquirer Editorial Board on March 24th and again apologizing the next day in Greensboro, North Carolina.

In picking the next President, we should be looking for one who has shown character, ethics, and morality.  Who ran a positive campaign and did not chose to attack, lie and distort the opponent's record?  Who can we believe to be truthful?  Who can we trust to do the people's business?  I believe that person is Barack Obama who refused to get down in the gutter when things got tough. However, Hillary and her camp used a Kitchen Sink/Tonya Harding strategy which should be beneath the way we do politics as we try to build a more holistic society.  

Here is further insight into Hillary's character. "As Hillary Clinton came under increasing scrutiny for her story about facing sniper fire in Bosnia, one question that arose was whether she has engaged in a pattern of lying. The now-retired general counsel and chief of staff of the House Judiciary Committee, who supervised Hillary when she worked on the Watergate investigation, says Hillary�s history of lies and unethical behavior goes back farther � and goes much deeper � than anyone realizes. Jerry Zeifman, a lifelong Democrat, supervised the work of 27-year-old Hillary Rodham on the committee. Hillary got a job working on the investigation at the behest of her former law professor, Burke Marshall, who was also Sen. Ted Kennedy�s chief counsel in the Chappaquiddick affair. When the investigation was over, Zeifman fired Hillary from the committee staff and refused to give her a letter of recommendation � one of only three people who earned that dubious distinction in Zeifman�s 17-year career. Why? �Because she was a liar,� Zeifman said in an interview last week. �She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality."� URL: :/stoptheaclu.com/archives/2008/04/01/h illary-was-fired-from-congressional-job- for-unethical-behavior/trackback

Then we have Mark Penn's free-trade negotations with the Columbians which calls into questions from some unions like Teamsters General President Jim Hoffa who said the account calls into question Clinton's own credibility on the trade pact. "How can we trust that a President Hillary Clinton would stand strong against this trade deal when her top adviser is being paid by Colombia to promote it?" Hoffa said. "To support this so-called `free trade agreement' is anathema to the labor movement and to anyone who supports working people, social justice or the environment." AND Then WE Have: Greg Tarpinian, executive director of Change to Win, which has endorsed Obama and represents a coalition of unions actively working against the trade pact, called on Penn to resign his campaign post. "It's time for Senator Hillary Clinton to send her vaunted `chief strategist' Mark Penn packing -- back to his job consulting for union busting corporations and anti-labor governments for good," Tarpinian said in a statement.

Permalink | Trackback URL: http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/04/04 penn-apologizes-as-labor-groups-call-fo r-his-resignation?mod=WSJBlog/trackback /

Every day Hillary supporters are speaking out in ways which continue to inflame race and gender, divide and conquer -- that is no way to run or win a race! If she was really concerned about African Americans and Womens' Issues then she and her surrogates would not be stating daily staements which further fuel the gender and racial divisions in this country in a misguided strategy of divide & conquer. Hillary and her camp have been shown to untruthful and unethical. When they get caught in their lies, they laugh it off and say they misspoke, misspeaked, and misstated. They are not honorable people and she does not show the kind of character and emotional maturity that one should have to run the highest office in the land.