Jan. 28 (Bloomberg) -- Hyperbole is a staple of American political campaigns. Senator Hillary Clinton has crossed the line into distortion.

In recent debates and in an appearance on NBC television's ``Meet the Press,'' she has flagrantly misrepresented her own and her opponents' positions or statements. The general tone, more than any specifics, of the Clinton effort contributed to Barack Obama's stunning 2-to-1 victory over her in the South Carolina Democratic presidential primary this past weekend.

Politics, as Mr. Dooley said a century ago, ain't beanbag. Even the straight-talk-express guy, Arizona Senator John McCain, has his shifty moments; he brags of a supply-side-tax- cutting history that's news to most colleagues, including his new best friend, Jack Kemp.

Obama hypes the reach of his health-care plan and too easily dismissed his longtime association with a sleazy Chicago real-estate operator. He and Senator Clinton both inflate their influence in the Senate. These all are exaggerations.

Clinton, 60, goes beyond that too often. Examples abound. One was on ``Meet the Press,'' when she explained her 2002 vote against a proposal by Senator Carl Levin, a Michigan Democrat, that would have required the Bush administration to get either United Nations approval for the use of force in Iraq or return to Congress for another vote granting such authority.

Voting With Hawks

This was an important vote, and the New York Democrat lined up with the war hawks, a position she has successfully shed during this campaign. The reason she voted against the Levin initiative, she explained, is it would have given the UN ``a veto over American presidential power,'' which she said is inappropriate ``no matter who is president.''

It did no such thing, Levin said at the time and a spokesman reiterates now. The proposal's language explicitly required that Congress ``not adjourn'' before it ``promptly considers proposals related to Iraq if the United Nations fails to adopt such a resolution.'' Senator Joe Biden, a Delaware Democrat who, like Senator Clinton opposed the Levin amendment, said at the time the UN charge was ``specious'' and that this was a vote about supporting an invasion.

During the lengthy Senate debate on this measure, Clinton not only never uttered this standard conservative critique, she never spoke.

She also charges that one of Obama's leading legislative achievements, an overhaul of ethics requirements, was a fraud. It bars lobbyists from buying lunch for members of Congress, she said, unless they are standing up, in which case it's all right: ``If that's his main claim to legislative accomplishment, people deserve to know that.''

Wrong Again

They would if that interpretation were true. ``That's wrong,'' says Fred Wertheimer, the head of Democracy 21, a Washington-based group that advocates for tougher ethics laws. ``Lobbyists are prohibited from buying members meals whether they are standing up, sitting down or reclining.''

Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the House of Representatives who's neutral in the presidential contest, says there is no standing-up loophole in the ethics measure.

Clinton knows this; she voted for the Obama-sponsored legislation she now criticizes.

It gets nasty at times. On ``Meet the Press,'' she contended it was the other side that was engaged in mudslinging. Obama's chief strategist, David Axelrod, she said, ``accuses me of playing a role in Benazir Bhutto's assassination.''

`Diversion' Argument

I was in the small group of reporters in Des Moines, Iowa, on Dec. 27, when Axelrod was asked if the Bhutto assassination would help the more-experienced Clinton politically. He disagreed and said the war in Iraq has ``diverted'' attention and resources from Afghanistan and Pakistan, bolstering radical elements, who may have played a role in the assassination. That ``diversion'' argument is made by many Democratic politicians and foreign-policy experts, including Clinton advisers.

Whatever the merits of that argument, it isn't accusing Clinton of complicity in an assassination. Both Clintons had a professional relationship with Axelrod. Senator Clinton and her husband, who leveled the same charge, know full well he wouldn't accuse her of playing a role in a murder.

The Clinton campaign didn't respond to multiple requests for comment, instead sending a dozen examples of alleged Obama distortions.

One distortion where Hillary Clinton has been taken to task is in charging that Obama praised Republicans for having ``better ideas'' than Democrats.

Obama didn't say Republicans had better ideas; he said that for much of the recent past they were ``the party of ideas,'' but that had ``played itself out.'' Yet the Clinton campaign ran radio commercials that misstated this and suggested he therefore must support tax breaks for Wall Street and a lower minimum wage.

Trillion-Dollar Tax

They have also falsely accused Obama of favoring a trillion-dollar tax increase on working-class Americans (that apparently derives from his idea to consider raising the payroll tax on those making more than $100,000 a year) and once supporting the Iraq war.

Although every candidate makes misstatements, the various fact-check organizations and detached analysts usually find the Clinton campaign in a league of its own.

It's not the depths of the duplicity; compared to other abuses, like the Swift Boat attack lies against John Kerry in 2004, these are benign. The problem is there is a pervasive pattern at a time when voters are clamoring for authenticity.

The Race Card

Bill Clinton, his denials notwithstanding, has played the race card. On Saturday, commenting on Obama's South Carolina victory, he likened it to the primary victories by Jesse Jackson two decades ago; there are few parallels. Ron Fournier, the chief political reporter for the Associated Press, describes a top Clinton adviser as bragging that they'd made Obama ``the black candidate.''

The Illinois senator got a quarter of the white vote in South Carolina. However impressive, that's not enough to carry most states. Privately, some Clintonites agree that while the campaign is ugly, it's only a prelude to what Republicans will do in the general election.

Perhaps, but Hillary Clinton is paying a price. There is so much to admire in her public life. Her whatever-it-takes campaign is debasing that value.

(Albert R. Hunt is the executive editor for Washington at Bloomberg News. The opinions expressed are his own.)

To contact the writer of this column: Albert R. Hunt in Washington at ahunt1@bloomberg.net

Last Updated: January 27, 2008 10:01 EST