… when you have YouTube?

That’s the upshot of Michael Calderone’s perceptive analysis of the Hillary-Dodging-Snipers-With-Sinbad story. (Seriously, how weird is it that Sinbad has become a big part of the discussion in this presidential campaign?) Calderone writes:

After CBS provided the video knocking down Hillary Clinton’s account of her trip to Bosnia, alongside comedian Sinbad and singer Sheryl Crow, the senator now says she “misspoke” about landing “under sniper fire” and running for safety.
The Washington Post Michael Dobbs, who writes “The Fact Checker,” awarded Clinton “Four Pinocchios” for the embellished story.
Over the past day, journalists present on the trip have provided details that show Clinton’s account wasn’t accurate. But why did this take so long for the press to refute?

Calderone argues that the story didn’t have much impact until the video became available. As with the Rev. Wright, the story had been around for some time, showing up here and there in print. But it was the video, which quickly made its was to YouTube, that made the critical difference. Apparently, when the media asks America “Who you gonna believe? Us or your lying eyes?” the pajama’d masses uploading at YouTube have more credibility than the bigfoots of journalism.

But if Mrs. Bill Clinton does become president, there are some interesting possibilities for her security detail: