Sorry Hillary, You Need to Cool it or Drop Out

Saw Hillary Clinton's response on CNN to the criticism (that I wrote on yesterday) of her embellishing her story about 'running from the plane under fire' in Bosnia. I think she needs a good night's sleep, maybe two. She's so focused on becoming president that she's forgotten the long term goal - getting the country back on the right track, best accomplished, if you're a Democrat, by electing a Democrat.

All of us can be nice when things are fine and people are friendly. Our true character comes out when we are under pressure. Clearly Mrs. Clinton was under pressure. But still, this was clearly choreographed by her handlers as well. So we can't just say she's under stress. Changing the topic is a classic response to attack. But bringing back up the stuff about Obama's pastor to distract from her own crisis only turns off Democrats who range from dismay to disgust by her embellishment.

OK, a brief detour here a second. Is embellishment just another euphemism for lie? I don't think so - it's allowing for more than just 'lie' as the explanation.

I've learned from my wife over the years, that I'm on the extreme end of focusing on the literal truth of content in a conversation. For me, conversation is about getting information passed from one person to another. For some people, the content is irrelevant because conversation is about human interaction. If there is lapse in the conversation, it is all right to totally make things up to keep the communication going. Someone I won't name (not my wife), once asked at a large dinner at her home, if someone wanted mustard. When I answered I did, she got all flustered and said, "We don't have any." I've come to understand that she was "being a good hostess" in her eyes. This is not about lying or telling the truth, because the content is irrelevant to the purpose of making people comfortable.

Most people are somewhere in between on that continuum. Content and communication are both important and the balance varies depending on the context. Talking with your buddies about the fish you caught or the basket you shot from midcourt is about camaraderie and allows for embellishment. What a comedian says on stage, we understand to be fiction. When we testifying as a witness in court we're supposed to be telling just the truth.

So, it is reasonable for Clinton to have filled in some details that maybe didn't happen. Given all the briefings she had about the dangers, her brain may have actually merged the briefings with the actual event. Or maybe the first time she embellished a little on this story it got a good response so she kept embellishing. This is natural. I imagine most people reading this are conscious of doing this themselves. My brain doesn't work that way. I may remember things and relate them incorrectly, but if I am conscious that I'm straying from the facts, I stop and correct myself immediately. It's not some superior moral position that deserves credit, it's just how my brain works.

But when we are talking about a possible US president, I want someone whose brain is good at separating fact from fiction if that was the problem. I want the president to remember as close to the truth as humanly possible her interactions with other world leaders. And when she does make things up (say as part of high stakes negotiation strategy like nuclear weapons in North Korea), I don't want it to be something that can be so easily discovered to be false as this. And if the president is found out in a lie, I want a her to respond the way Mr. Obama responded to criticism of his pastor. With intelligence and class.

Mrs. Clinton seems to be so narrowly focused on winning that nothing else matters. A truly presidential candidate would recognize that the stake for the Democrats and the nation will be much higher in November. If she doesn't win the nomination, Mr. Obama will. Not a disaster for her cause. It seems to me this has gotten too personal a goal from Mrs. Clinton. As a Democrat, her highest goal should be that a Democrat wins in November. What she's doing now is counterproductive. It's making her look bad and when you throw mud, it inevitably gets the the target dirty too.

Now, I'm not sure I buy into the argument that what she says against Mr. Obama will only help Mr. McCain. All this stuff will be brought up in the final campaign whether Mrs. Clinton raises it or not. And if she is discredited, then quoting her on this will only convince the convinced. A united front would certainly strengthen things, but the Republicans don't need the Clinton campaign to talk trash about Mr. Obama.

Mrs. Clinton, I think the honorable courses of action open to you are these:

1. Continue your campaign with the knowledge that you might not win and that's ok. Focus on the programs you think are critical and what you would do if elected. Try to influence the eventual winner to adopt your ideas. When talking about Mr. Obama and his policies, remember that he may be the Democratic candidate and possibly the president. Say things that reflect well on you as a person and as Democratic presidential candidate and that will help the party elect whomever is nominated. Don't let the media push you into a food fight with Mr. Obama
2. You already recognize that you are fighting from behind. Step back and also recognize that each day this campaign goes on, it costs the Democrats money and time they could use in the fight against Mr. McCain. If you can't be president, certainly it would be better for you to have Mr. Obama president than Mr. McCain, wouldn't it? With this knowledge, you could announce that you are withdrawing for the sake of the party and the nation. It would prove wrong the people who are saying you will do anything to win and make you look much more like a statesperson.