What does it mean to 'misspeak'?

In the next news cycle of the Dems in disarray across the pond, Clinton is being criticised for her comments in reference to a trip to Bosnia she made whilst first lady.

Presumably to promote her commander-in-chief credentials she wanted everyone to know about how brave she was in visiting a war environment. She claimed that her plane was under fire as soon as it landed and after a series of heroic moves she was able to rescue herself without mishap.

In her defence - and still banging on about her commander-in-chief credentials - she then wanted everyone to know that she was the first first-lady since Eleanor Roosevelt to visit the front line of a war. Now, personally, I don't see what there is to boast about.

Anyway, the BBC has a very funny news article on what it means to 'misspeak' - Clinton is now saying she was misspeaking with respect to the remarks she made about her time in Bosnia. The article is seeking to determine whether she is trying to cover-up an important news story that says something significant about how responsible and honest she is; or whether she is admitting to a genuine mistake.

I think the obvious point to make is that she was trying to deceive the electorate with her initial account. I really don't think that there is any doubt about that.

The problem is though: if now whe is trying to cover up what she said then that makes matters significantly worse. Doesn't it? Shouldn't it? I point this out because I don't believe that enough has been said on this point by political commentators (especially in the USA) and I find this quite surprising.

Recently they (political commentators) have been going after Obama and demanding to know more about his relationship with the pastor Jeremiah Wright. It seems to me though that more was made out of that story than should have been. The crucial question, that political commentators want answering, is whether Obama knew Pastor Wright to speak such things about America and society whilst he was part of his Chicago congregation. I don't think that is the important question though and I am surprised that, redundant as they may be, more arguments in favour of free-speech have not been made. This is an election year - what poltical commentators and through them the American electorate should really want answering is 'What would President Obama do to help solve the strong racial divisions or class divisions that are still persistent in modern day America?' and 'Will it really take a black president to allow equal opportunities to America' black community in times when they are in need of it (such as in the aftermath of hurricane katrina) and times when they are not?'

I've read a couple of times (and watched a couple of times too) Obama's 'speech on race' last week. And, I have to say that I thought that the way in which he tackled the Jeremiah Wright controversy and the way in which he delivered such an emotionally-charged speech so calmly was absolutely formidable. And, importantly, presidential. Even the best politicians, during debates and arguments, simply go for the easy laugh (to get that all-important soundbite in, in time for the six o'clock news); the easy answer (because they don't want to get bogged-down in specifics for fear that they won't be understood); and the answer that absolves them of all responsibility.

I think Obama should be praised for rising to this debate on race despite its obnoxious foundations in controversy. There have been, amongst others, black and Latino political candidates - albeit for lesser executive positions - that have backed down from speaking about issues such as race by hiding behind the defence that its unimportant and that they don't want the electorate to just see them as black candidate or a brown candidate. For me, these are all important issues that belong at the heart of the election.

The point that I am trying to make is that Clinton too has generally maintained a high-standard of debating and arguing in this election, like Obama. But this just goes further to suggesting that she was trying to cover-up the fact that she lied about her experiences in Bosnia. At several points in this campaign, Clinton has accused Obama of being less than candour about his policies and his voting record. Whilst some of these attacks are arguably warranted, there is a lot now to be said about Clinton's own poor standards.

Everything seems to be done so informally in America. It really makes us British look so posh and grand! The way that American newsreaders literally just say what is on their mind to whom ever they are interviewing; the way politician's speeches are littered with slang and chants rather than specific and tidy policy ideas. This is why I found this BBC news article so funny. I mean: look at the way the writer goes so formalistic and produces arguments and evidence from precedents, dictionaries and experts! I was watching Fox news the other day and the news readers was talking to a reporter. Behind the reporter, a press conference was going on but the field of view was obstructed by a man on his phone. The news reader points this out to the reporter and adds: 'People, can you believe this guy on the phone; reporter can't you break his legs to get him out of the way?!' I wonder what would happen to Jeremy Thompson if he was to say something like that whilst live.

Anyway, whichever way you look at it: Clinton has done wrong and more she be said about it by the press and not only because it amuses me; but because its right too.