[speechlesstx]

The Obama campaign is painting Clinton as a serial exaggerator after her Bosnian Sniper incident, helping bring peace to Northern Ireland, how she was instrumental in passing SCHIP and the Family and Medical Leave Act - while Obama is still trying to change the subject after his reversal on whether he knew about or heard any of his mentor's rants. Now the Washington Post reports Obama has exaggerated the Kennedys role in bringing his father to America.

Addressing civil rights activists in Selma, Ala. a year ago, Sen. Barack Obama traced his "very existence" to the generosity of the Kennedy family, which he said paid for his Kenyan father to travel to America on a student scholarship and thus meet his Kansan mother.

The Camelot connection has become part of the mythology surrounding Obama's bid for the Democratic presidential nomination. After Caroline Kennedy endorsed his candidacy in January, Newsweek commentator Jonathan Alter reported that she had been struck by the extraordinary way in which "history replays itself" and by how "two generations of two families -- separated by distance, culture and wealth -- can intersect in strange and wonderful ways."

It is a touching story -- but the key details are either untrue or grossly oversimplified.

Contrary to Obama's claims in speeches in January at American University and in Selma last year, the Kennedy family did not provide the funding for a September 1959 airlift of 81 Kenyan students to the United States that included Obama's father. According to historical records and interviews with participants, the Kennedys were first approached for support for the program nearly a year later, in July 1960. The family responded with a $100,000 donation, most of which went to pay for a second airlift in September 1960.

Obama spokesman Bill Burton acknowledged yesterday that the senator from Illinois had erred in crediting the Kennedy family with a role in his father's arrival in the United States. He said the Kennedy involvement in the Kenya student program apparently "started 48 years ago, not 49 years ago as Obama has mistakenly suggested in the past."

Or in other words, "I owed my 'very existence' to the Kennedys before I didn't owe my 'very existence' to the Kennedys?

Today, my paper printed an article about Obama's bowling adventure on Saturday (he reportedly scored a 37) "as part of his new emphasis on low-key, face-to-face campaigning," in which he was quoted as saying he wanted to "take time for the retail politics that I enjoy and think helps people know me better.. . We'll probably save the rallies toward the end of the campaign."

Immediately below that article was one entitled "Obama's Penn State Rally Draws 20000."

Well, Sunday is later than Saturday. Seriously folks... race, gender and party aside is this what you want in a president, someone who either can't tell the truth or can't distinguish fact from fantasy?

[ScottGem]

The better question is can ANY politician tell the truth! Frankly I don't think so. A politician tells you what he thinks you want to hear or what he thinks will get him votes.

[speechlesstx]

Agreed Scott, but believe it or not I do think there are politicians of integrity on both sides... not that any really come to mind at the moment :D

Still, these two can't seem to get out of CYA mode lately and I don't see their opponent having to cover his tracks for making stuff up. True?

[George_1950]

Not in Hillary's case: I watched on C-Span her speech in Constitution Hall, March 26, 2008. According to her, the voters are stupid victims, unable to afford food, gas, medical care, etc. but she going to fix that by raising taxes. Uh huh. The politics of fear and envy, Democrat style. I'm not ashamed to say she is not patriotic because she is no patriot. We are serfs; she's a queen, according to Hillary.

[speechlesstx]

George, I question her experience, qualifications, judgment, character and her vision for this country - but I don't question her patriotism. Yet.

[speechlesstx]

Factcheck.org supports Hillary's claim on SCHIP (see ex, when the facts changed... ). I did not however come across any support on her claims to be named after Sir Edmund Hillary, her soccer fantasy or Chelsea's jog around the World Trade Center on 9/11.

[NeedKarma]

God these threads are getting tiresome.

[speechlesstx]

God these threads are getting tiresome.

So are the liars running for office, NK. But, if they're too tiresome for you then don't bother. As an American looking ahead to the next American president after 8 years of hearing ad nauseum about "Bush's lies," I find it entirely relevant.

[BABRAM]

Steve-

Huh? Are you alluding to the standards set by the Grand Old "Illusion" Party? The fact you excluded the Republicans suggests you've been hugging the Mad Dog before noon. Just a little reminder! Dubya ran one of the nastiest campaigns (2000 Rep primaries) against his then rival, "John McCain." Why do you think John McCain was so tentative to shake hands with the lying rattlesnake? Currently the cleaner campaigns are ran by Obama and McCain, at least thus far. It's obvious the facts mean very little to the Clinton's that have been doing anything and everything to gain control of the nomination.

[tomder55]

Obama has exaggerated the Kennedys role in bringing his father to America.

He misspoke .

For those who think he has shaken of the effect of the Rev Wright revelations they are wrong . This issue will resonate throughout the rest of the campaign. Obama's veneer has been pealed away. Just wait until reporters start digging into his past when he was a " community activist " .

[speechlesstx]

Steve-

Huh? Are you alluding to the standards set by the Grand Old "Illusion" Party? The fact you excluded the Republicans suggests you've been hugging the Mad Dog before noon. Just a little reminder! Dubya ran one of the nastiest campaigns (2000 Rep primaries) against his then rival, "John McCain." Why do you think John McCain was so tentative to shake hands with the lying rattlesnake?

Um, no Bobby, I'm referring to the present campaign.

Currently the cleaner campaigns are ran by Obama and McCain, at least thus far.

Are you serious? Where is the sleaze factor from McCain? Have you read any of the DNC emails? Paid attention to the Democratic candidates?

It's obvious the facts mean very little to the Clinton's that have been doing anything and everything to gain control of the nomination.

True, and kind of discredits your previous remarks my friend. :)

[ordinaryguy]

is this what you want in a president, someone who either can't tell the truth or can't distinguish fact from fantasy?

No, after eight years of it, I'm definitely ready for a change.

[Skell]

Steve I have to say that I think this one is a little nit picky. They aren't flat out lies to your face bullsh1t. They may be a little exaggerated but honestly tell me a politician in history that hasn't exaggerated a little, especially during an election year.

[BABRAM]

Um, no Bobby, I'm referring to the present campaign.

You titled the post painting it with a broad stroke "Can the Democrats tell the truth." I know it hurts the GOP to be reminded of the previous Bush vs McCain death match, but I felt obligated to my country. It was my patriotic duty. :rolleyes:

Are you serious? Where is the sleaze factor from McCain? Have you read any of the DNC emails? Paid attention to the Democratic candidates?

And what part of "Currently the cleaner campaigns are ran by Obama and McCain, at least thus far," do you not understand? Steve, I gave your boy credit. John has to sit back and watch the Democrats for now, but don't think his negative tone doesn't resonate for pending dissension against Obama.

Per John McCain: "I will … make sure Americans are not deceived by an eloquent but empty call for change that promises no more than a holiday from history and a return to the false promises and failed policies of a tired philosophy that trusts in government more than the people."

It's coming Steve. Hillary started trying to go after Barack on relative issues and then had to resort to toilet tricks. John's only problem will be developing new negatives since Hillary's wearing the subject out. See what I know is that John really wants this presidency, every bit as much as Hillary. This is John McCain's last hurrah.

True, and kind of discredits your previous remarks my friend. :)

Not at all. The Obama campaign compared to the Clinton campaign is heavenly. Obama has not gone after McCain except for issues that McCain himself has brought up and then John pays, and pays dearly. ;)

[George_1950]

Back to Hillary for a moment: "Is there no such thing as shame? Is there no decency at last?" The real harm Hillary Clinton inflicted on Bosnia. - By Christopher Hitchens - Slate Magazine

[George_1950]

As for Obama, I never really understood John Kerry's definition of 'nuance' until recently, which is, evidently, the willingness to lie with a straight face: Obama had greater role on liberal survey - Kenneth P. Vogel - Politico.com

[excon]

Can the Democrats tell the truth?

Hello Steve:

So, I'm willing to give your dufus in chief, the HEAD OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY, a break in that he really thought Iraq had WMD's...

But, during the first 4 years of the war, he kept telling us there was progress, where there was none.

In my view, LYING about the war, where your sons and daughters are getting shot at, is a little worse than lying about your accomplishments...

That's just me. I can tell the difference between a little lie, and A GREAT BIG WHOPPER!! You can't?? Dude!

excon

[Allheart]

The better question is can ANY politician tell the truth! Frankly I don't think so. A politician tells you what he thinks you want to hear or what he thinks will get him votes.

LOL Scott, I said outloud the same words.

Why do they do that. It's almost insulting in a way to think we buy into it all. Actually, it is.

I bet the first one that stood up, spoke his or her mind, sharing his or her views and plans to keep America strong, I would bet they would win by a landslide.

But then again, we all have to do our part as well and not vote along party lines. Not all do, but some, I think would never "cross over", so to speak.

[NeedKarma]

I bet the first one that stood up, spoke his or her mind, sharing his or her views and plans to keep America strong, I would bet they would win by a landslide.

A lot of people thought that was Ron Paul. Rarely has a candidate received so much support from the regular joe.

[tomder55]

NK ;why didn't they show up for him in the primaries and caucus' then ? He had his shot.