As always, its not the initial statement, its how its handled.

[onenote]

The "sniper" remark by HRC was an exagerration -- and HRC was hardly the first candidate to exagerrate her record or experiences and she won't be the last either. As such -- and as an Obama supporter -- my reaction to it was that it was a minor embarassment, but no big deal. And it probably could've been that, had HRC handled the reaction better. But as is so often the case, its the way in which a stumble is handled, not the stumble itself, that ends up being more significant.

The bona fides of Clinton's description of her visit to Bosnia (which she made as far back as last December in Iowa) was questioned in the Washington Post on March 11 -- before the GW speech on March 17. Yet, instead of backing off the story, HRC ratcheted it up a notch. Whereas the earlier reference to Bosnia described a "corkscrew" landing and running across the tarmac because there "may have been sniper fire" she upped the rhetoric to make it sound more certain that she had to race across the tarmac to avoid sniper fire. (She also incorrectly claimed in her December comments that she was the first high ranking official to visit Bosnia when, in fact, Bill Clinton visited Bosnia in January 1996 -- two months before HRC's trip.

If she had dropped the reference to sniper fire and apologized for embellishing the story when it was first questioned, the story would've disappeared. But she decided to continue the story and, then, only when it became a bigger deal, she backed away. Not a smart move.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2007/12/30/clinton-responds-experience-goes-beyond-drinking-tea/

[DJ13]

1. This is the second worst thing that could have happened to her

Reminding people how often they saw a Clinton lie in the 90's (I did not have...) is crippling to her already slim chances.

The only thing that would have been worse would have been another Clinton sex scandal.

[TwilightGardener]

2. No, sometimes it's the intial statement. The argument that "everyone embellishes"

is bullshit--not everyone does. And in terms of resume embellishment, we're not talking about saying you have spent a year at your previous job, when it was really 10 months. We're talking about totally making something up--and adding to it every time you open your mouth, to impress people. That's what a sociopath does. It's far more than fudging, it's total deception.

[gateley]

3. I only recall seeing her flustered when

she was asked about this incident, and about her $5 Mil loan to her campaign.

[northernsoul]

4. I disagree, there's a difference between exageration and fabrication

She flat-out manufactured a set of facts in order to mislead her audience. That is a major qualitative difference from exageration, which I think of at over-stating genuine facts for greater effect.