NYT: Hillary Not A Foreign Policy Player In Bill's White House
A new write-up in the New York Times isn't likely to help Hillary Clinton's claim of presidential experience from her years as first lady — instead, we are told she did not meet with foreign policy advisers, did not have a security clearance, and did not have any great role in terrorism cases. Adding insult to injury, the Times notes that Hillary did not take part in the 1998 decision to bomb Al Qaeda targets in Afghanistan and Sudan, because she was not speaking to Bill Clinton on account of the Monica Lewinsky scandal.
"An interview with Mrs. Clinton, conversations with 35 Clinton administration officials and a review of books about her White House years suggest that she was more of a sounding board than a policy maker," the paper reports, "who learned through osmosis rather than decision-making, and who grew gradually more comfortable with the use of military power."
Comments (53)
B Merry wrote on December 26, 2007 8:56 AM:My response is here.
heretic wrote on December 26, 2007 9:07 AM:And let the gloating begin...
Larry wrote on December 26, 2007 9:10 AM:Do you think she is going to continue her disingenuous claim to experience? Of course she will. That lie is all she has to run on. That and her gender.
Kefa wrote on December 26, 2007 9:16 AM:of course she was not an official policy maker.....only an idiot would think that. Sounding board/advisor is what she only could be. Be real. Move on, children nothing to see.
carrenderb wrote on December 26, 2007 9:24 AM:Kefa,
If there is nothing to see here, why does she keep claiming over 35 years of "experience?" Those 35 years would have to include her time as First Lady. She's CLEARLY trying to use her time living in the White House as part of here "experience." She's trying to use her husband's experience as her own. Including the foreign policy portion.
I now await your berating and derision for having the gall to oppose your candidate (which we've all become so accustomed to here on TPMEC).
Anonymous wrote on December 26, 2007 9:24 AM:After reading the entire article, it is clear that she gained much experience related to the job, and that she didn't (and hasn't) overstated her role.
As the article also concluded, she gained experience that neither Senators Edwards or Obama, or that most incoming Presidents have.
Her exact words in an interview - Mrs. Clinton said in the interview that she was careful not to overstep her bounds on national security, relying instead on informal access. During the preinaugural transition, for instance, she sat in on some meetings about presidential appointments at the invitation of Warren Christopher, who directed the transition and became secretary of state in the first Clinton term.
She said she did not attend National Security Council meetings, nor did she have a security clearance — though she was briefed on classified intelligence before going on some important diplomatic trips.
“I don’t recall attending anything formal like the National Security Council,” she said, “because I had direct access to all of the principals. I spent a lot of time with the national security adviser, the secretary of state, other officials on the security team for the president. I thought that was both more appropriate, but also more efficient.”
Mrs. Clinton declined to say if she ever read the President’s Daily Brief, a rundown of the latest intelligence and threats to national security provided to the president each day. “I would put that in the category of I-never-talk-about-what-I-talk-to-my-husband-about,” she said. But she indicated, and other administration officials confirmed, that Mr. Clinton would sometimes talk to her about contents of the briefing.
“Let me say generally, I’m very aware of and familiar with what the P.D.B.’s actually are, how they work, what they include,” she said. “And it wasn’t always through the Clinton administration — when I went to Bosnia, for example, I had a full briefing from the military commanders there about what the situation was like.”
Like Kefa said, nothing to see here. Move along. NYT filler article slanted to make "controversy" where none exists.
It's about time people hear the truth rather than the BS being spewed by team Clinton. She is a phony.
Anonymous wrote on December 26, 2007 9:33 AM:Once again, when the Clinton fans can't stand the truth they attack the reporter, messenger, medium, etc. just like the GOP. First it was Russert in the first debate, then it was Chris Matthews, then David Brooks, now the NYT. They are a pathetic group of nasty people following an even more pathetic candidate.
Michael A wrote on December 26, 2007 9:35 AM:Finally, finally, finally, finally one single media source has written ONE article in over a year addressing in part her faux experience. Finally.
Where's the article on her senate record? Obama's state record of 4000 votes was gone through with a fine tooth comb and there was nothing there. Where's clinton II's senate record? Voting for the patriot act, voting for every child left behind, voting to invade a sovereign country based on lies and killing and maiming hundreds of thousands of innocent americans and iraqis, voting to drum up war with iran, etc. Where is that article?
Of course, the clinton II people will claim no oversell and nothing here and all the other bs. She is running on her alleged white house experience and there is nothing there. But, oh she is so experienced.
What a joke.
Laura in 2016.
Dan wrote on December 26, 2007 9:35 AM:Hillary's claim of experience is quite valid. The lead paragraph of the NYT article is
"As first lady, Hillary Rodham Clinton jaw-boned the authoritarian president of Uzbekistan to leave his car and shake hands with people. She argued with the Czech prime minister about democracy. She cajoled Roman Catholic and Protestant women to talk to one another in Northern Ireland. She traveled to 79 countries in total, little of it leisure; one meeting with mutilated Rwandan refugees so unsettled her that she threw up afterward."
We're told about her activities, "little of it leisure," in just four countries. Then what about the other 75? Even those four examples are activities that probably only a dozen or so Americans have experienced. The first paragraph contradicts the whole thrust of the article so it isn't expanded upon-blatant editorializing.
And if Hillary had been an active participant in foreign affairs (security clearance, National Intelligence meetings, etc.), there would be outrage about her influence without being elected, or cleared by the Senate.
colonpowwow wrote on December 26, 2007 9:37 AM:Okay, let's appease the Hillary-haters a bit and take her eight years of "non-experience" as US First Lady out. What thin stuff are we left with from the last 35+ years?
After graduating from Yale Law School, (Hmm, a lawyer. Is becoming a lawyer helpful in any way politically, you know, making laws and understanding how they’re made and what they mean etc.? Any other politicians lawyers?)
Became a staff attorney for the Children's Defense Fund. (Hmm, does defending children legally help one to gain insight into any sort of political issues?)
In 1973, she became a staff attorney for the House Judiciary Committee working, ironically, on helping them to consider impeachment of President Nixon. (Hmm, House Judiciary Committee. Any political experience to be gained here?)
Her first job after marrying Bill and moving to Arkansas was running a legal aid clinic handling foster care and child abuse cases. (Hmm, again, were insights that were gained here ever addressed in the legislative arena – especially by Senator Clinton?)
At the age of 30, President Carter appointed her to the Board of the US Legal Services Corporation - a non-profit program that funds legal assistance to the poor. (Hmm, President Carter - appointed to US non-profit corporation dealing with poverty issue. Anything in the political experience arena to see here? Are poverty issues ever dealt with in that same political arena?)
As First Lady of Arkansas, she led a task force on improving education and served on the Board of Directors of three national organizations: The Children's Defense Fund, Child Care Action Campaign, and Children's Television Workshop. (Hmm, wasn’t she also working for Rose Law Firm as well during this time? Oh, and working to help Bill on his gubernatorial and presidential election campaigns and handling Arkansas First Lady duties. Ceremonial or activist First Lady gaining more insight and experience in political issues and state politics? - You decide.
As a lawyer, she chaired the American Bar Association Commission on Women in the Profession. She was twice named one of the 100 most influential lawyers in America. (Hmm, again with the lawyer stuff. Are women’s employment and professional issues ever in the political arena? And how does a lawyer gain any insight into such important legislative duties like, uh, the makeup and processes of laws, statutes, Acts of Congress, court decisions, etc.? Oh, and chairing a national ABA Commission and two times being named to “100 most influential lawyers in America. Any insights here on administrative ability, the ability to rise to the top of her profession as a leader?)
All this “non-experience” is from before she moved into the White House.
Afterwards, as US First Lady, did she gain any further political experience and insight besides those few years as a Senator? Actually, buried a bit in the "noise" the NYT article states that she did.
Oh, and that thing about running (administering) a couple of successful senate campaigns. Oh yeah, and this one that has propelled her into frontrunner status. No administrative confidence-builders here?
Yes, people seem to think Hillary is very experienced politically from her work over the last 35 years. Can you believe it?
In Iowa, women cool to Hillary
By Andrea Billups
December 24, 2007
MAKEOVER: Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, seen here in Marshalltown, Iowa, yesterday, is attempting to shore up her likability.
DYERSVILLE, Iowa — Not far from where the famed "Field of Dreams" lies under a white ice blanket, Iowa voters are wondering whether Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's hopes of winning here are as desolate as the hibernating movie-set ballpark-turned-tourist attraction.
Working women noticed the New York Democrat won the endorsement of the nearly all-female Des Moines Register editorial board last weekend, but are more tepid when considering her candidacy.
Linda Maker of the Dyersville Family Restaurant remains uncertain of whether to support Mrs. Clinton in the Jan. 3 caucus.
It"s not that women dislike the former first lady, it"s just that they aren"t sure. And while Miss Maker's feelings about Mrs. Clinton are lukewarm, she is quick to criticize former President Bill Clinton.
"Why would you waste your time to go see someone who is a big cheater?" she asked while vacuuming past the glass pie case and under two deer heads peering down from the wall above the cash register. "Why does she even want him to campaign for her, given the cheating he's done in his life?"
Miss Maker, 48, said she plans to vote even though she is not a political person. She also was confident current Iowa front-runner Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois will win the state, which holds the nation's first and most-watched nominating contest. She cited his rising profile and notes he has Oprah Winfrey at his side.
Her co-worker Mindy Gaul, 23, is likewise undecided on a candidate. Miss Gaul, who works part-time at the diner while going to school to earn an education degree, said it's time for a change.
"I'm all for a woman president," said Miss Gaul, a resident of Worthington. "You know what they say, behind every good president was a good woman, right?" She thinks Mrs. Clinton's experience is "positive" and said she does not blame her for her past personal woes. But she allows that the former first lady's past "has got to be a stigma."
joejoejoe wrote on December 26, 2007 9:38 AM:Honey, I Shrunk the Resume!
Susan wrote on December 26, 2007 9:41 AM:The issue is emotional intelligence. She has none and can't connect with people. The more they get to know her, them more phony she becomes. Phonyness doesn't sell in the heartland.
jon wrote on December 26, 2007 9:42 AM:take a look at the NYT article. this is not in any way a summary of what it says. i'm an ardent obama supporter and i came away from it somewhat sympathetic to HRC's cause.
LJ wrote on December 26, 2007 9:45 AM:It's way past time the media addressed this foreign policy "experience" nonesense.
Aimey Mays wrote on December 26, 2007 9:48 AM:Eric Kleefeld - you should be ashamed of yourself. Do you have to spin a news article so badly against Mrs. Clinton? Do you honestly think her experience as First Lady help her with making foreign policy decisions? How much more influence do you expect her to have as a non-government official?
The NYT article clearly showed a glass half-full half empty situation for Mrs. Clinto in terms of her foreign policy role. For you to totally spin this article negatively against Mr. Clinton is unbecoming for a journalist.
Shame on you for your slimeball tactics!
Aimey Mays wrote on December 26, 2007 9:51 AM:jon wrote on December 26, 2007 9:42 AM:
take a look at the NYT article. this is not in any way a summary of what it says. i'm an ardent obama supporter and i came away from it somewhat sympathetic to HRC's cause.
--- Jon, I thank you for your honesty. This is a rare commodity amongst the Obama supporters.
Anonymous wrote on December 26, 2007 9:53 AM:Aimey Mays - can't handle the truth, huh? Maybe you should stick with the Sargent pieces as they are only pro-witch.
colonpowwow wrote on December 26, 2007 9:53 AM:Michael A.
Every time I list the impressive scope of Senator Clinton's senate work and accomplishments - committe work, bipartisan legislation passed, issues she is doing substantive work on, voting record, etc. - Hillary-haters like you attempt to divert things away from her impressive experience by making fun of such things at the fact that she passed legislation to protect the Puerto Rican rainforest (although she's on three environmental subcommittess), etc. like these things are not worthy issues, or not some kind of accomplishments. It just shows your lack of understanding re how lawmaking works.
Senator Clinton will never meet the Hillary-haters's phoney standards, so who cares what you ask for over and over again like it's something new each time - and I'm still waiting to see the list of Senator Obama's or Senator Edwards's legislative accomplishments in the US Senate.
Anonymous wrote on December 26, 2007 9:54 AM:I, for one, could never be sympathetic to HRC. I think she is very smart and a great Senator. But she is not a Presidential type and never will be. She is way too much of a lightening rod. ount me in for Bloomberg is she gets it.
David wrote on December 26, 2007 9:56 AM:What a great piece by the NYT. It was balanced and factual. It;s about time voters here the truth about Hillary Clinton's so called experience. It is thin at best.
Michael A wrote on December 26, 2007 10:01 AM:Colonpowwow,
I thought that you never called me a hater or that you didn't call people haters? So much for that one.
No her senate record is not impressive, in fact its depressing.
I didn't set up phoney standards. Your candidate did. She's the one trumpeting all this experience, none of the other candidates are and none of the other candidates are insulting the other leading dems by claiming that they should be nominated based on non-existent experience. That's the point.
If true experience, not manufactured experience, was the issue Biden, Dodd and Richardson would be leading.
You clinton lovers just crack me up. We are supposed to just accept at face value her ridiculous claims and march in lock step. Seig Heil!!! If your not with her, you are uniformed, un-american, treasonous, left-wing, lunatic, naderite etc. Sounds kind of like the king's tactics. That's why she is running in the wrong primary, she would win the republican party hands down.
Anonymous wrote on December 26, 2007 10:22 AM:Whagt I want to know is that if the Hilary assholes can keep referring to Obama as Hussein, can we officially give the Hillary the moniker: rugmuncher?
Kefa wrote on December 26, 2007 10:24 AM:Here is the problem the BHO/JE folks have. They can talk all they want about HRC don't have this or don't have that but what do BHO/JE have to bring to the table in terms of experience....nothing. They can knock her all they want, but it goes only so far, in the long run they have to sometime answer the question, what do you bring to the table and the answers have been lacking. Maybe thats why, if the polls are changing, people are shifting, because those questions have not been answered. Clocks ticking. Tick, tock, tick, tock.
Beauregard wrote on December 26, 2007 10:24 AM:Oh, this is just devastating for Hillbot. I really don't care if it is fair or not: whatever can be used to destroy her is fine by me. She is the most unelectable candidate in the party and I am not willing to sit through 8 more years of theocratic rule.
Beauregard wrote on December 26, 2007 10:29 AM:And during one of President Bill Clinton’s major tests on terrorism, whether to bomb Afghanistan and Sudan in 1998, Mrs. Clinton was barely speaking to her husband, let alone advising him, as the Lewinsky scandal sizzled.
Wow, the GOP commercials just write themselves: "Hillary Rodham Clinton, too busy being a bitch to her husband to worry about our national security. Vote Mitt Romney, who will never put petty spousal arguments above your safety and well-being."
Kefa wrote on December 26, 2007 10:38 AM:Can your man close the deal with the people in Iowa and NH.....thats the question. Can your man sell himself....not talk the Lady down but sell himself...close the deal.
Bob wrote on December 26, 2007 10:39 AM:Kefa-
Obama has plenty of experience and judgement. Cheney and Rumsfeld taught us that judgement is more important than experience. Judging from Obama's vote on Iraq, the brilliant campaign he has run against all of you nasty Hillary-ites, and the people he has surrounded himself with, the man certainly has judgement. He is also smart enough to probably bring Biden, Dodd, or Richardson in as VP and select a top flight SecSt and SecDef. You can count on that. He has also served on the foreign relations committee and has extensive experience in government, not to mention being a former editor of Harvard Law Review.
Most importantly, however, Obama brings a gift that Hillary can't. Leadership, respect, authenticity, and the capability to connect with all kinds of people across the country and the world. At a time of great partisian divide and hatred (best exhibited by these threads alone), Obama is the only candidate capable of bringing people back together and making them feel good about being American again.
If Hillary became Pres (not a chance in hell), it would be more of the same. Moreover, no one can lead when they have zero respect and half of the population can't stand them.
LJ wrote on December 26, 2007 10:39 AM:Kefa,
The whole point is that Hillary Clinton has about the same amount of experience as Barack Obama and John Edwards. Edwards has six years in elective office, Clinton has seven, Obama has ten. All pale by comparison to Biden's 34 years and Dodd's 32 years. The primary difference between Edwards & Obama and Hillary is that Edwards & Obama are honest about their experience and Hillary Clinton is not. She claims vast foreign policy experience that simply doesn't exist. And I'm glad that some media scrutiny is finally coming to bear on Hillary's vastly overstated foreign policy experience. We need candidates that are fully vetted, after all.
Aimey Mays wrote on December 26, 2007 10:41 AM:Obama lovers, you have a problem. Your loveboy has a name cannot be called. Is it fair to call your boy Barack Hussein Obama? Isn't that his official name? If his name is that, how is that cannot be called such? Too bad his parents gave him such a "bad" name. Why not go ahead and legally change his name if he does not want to be called such? Maybe it is subliminal but you are screwed. Americans will not vote for a Hussein as their president. Oh, never mind, we can hide his middle name. If anyone dare to spell his full name out, we just call this person a racist. How convinient!
colonpowwow wrote on December 26, 2007 10:43 AM:Michael A.
Everyone on here, Hillary supporter or otherwise, is embarassed by your forced obtuse posture everytime one of us thoughtfully addresses your questions by researching and submiting thoughtful answers, only to have you dismiss it as:
"faux experience"
or
"what a joke"
It's your own words that expose you for what you are. Let's see the impressive list of national legislative accomplishments from your own preferred candidate so I can "analyze" it in the same snarky manner as you always do.
I'll be so glad after she wins Iowa and New Hampshire and all the ABH's can then slink off to Naderville.
Bob wrote on December 26, 2007 10:39 AM:
Kefa-
--- So now running a campaign is good experience for being a good president? Where were you when Obama was running like a dog in the summer and for the most part of fall? do you recall the man had to tell NYT that he would start attacking Hillary like a dog?
How sad!
If a First Lady's experience really counted for something, shouldn't we be looking at Laura Bush for president? She's had 6 years of being a wartime First Lady and must therefore be far better prepared than Hillary to be commander-in-chief of the armed forces.
(logic brought to you by the HRC fan club)
Aimey Mays wrote on December 26, 2007 10:50 AM:Helter wrote on December 26, 2007 10:46 AM:
--- Your logic is so flawed that one wonders how your parents allow you free access to a computer. Clinton claims her experience as a first lady but she is running on much more than that. Bush certainly can run if she so chooses. But does she have Mrs. Clinton's wealth's experience outside of being a first lady?
In Anonymous's defense, Clinton did have the photo op on the elephant . . .
While Clinton is not a dumb bunny and had a aisle seat for the eight years William Jefferson Clinton served, the 35 years experince conversation shares more than a bit of Romney "I saw my daddy marching with Dr. King while I was overseas flavor".
If only Edwards or Obama had slept with Bill Clinton . . . Sigh. Color me underwhelmed . . . Still . . .
keith wrote on December 26, 2007 10:59 AM:I haven't read the article yet but it sounds as if it demonstrates that HRC did in fact gain from her proximity to power, which is not only to be expected but given her obvious talents is realistic. That being said, I think it is safe to say that she, her campaign and her surrogates overstated the experience argument, especially when they claimed (with a straight face no less) that she was the "face of foreign policy" in the Clinton Administrations.
Michael A wrote on December 26, 2007 11:09 AM:Colon,
You are way too funny, everyone is embarrassed because I shred you and the other clinton II people all the time? Bizarre.
Your thoughtfully researched garbage is garbage. It's that old saying garbage in garbage out.
I have been asking for her legislative record, not your spin on the Puero rican national forest.
In summary, the legislative record in part, and not meant to be all inclusive, is as follows:
1. Voting to invade a sovereign country and kill and maim hundreds of thousands of innocent americans and iraqis based on lies. That's a big one and obviously is telling about her experience. What is the distortion about this fact?
2. Voting to start beating the war drums for war with Iran. What is the distortion about this fact?
3. Voting for every child left behind. What is the distortion about this fact?
4. Voting to extend the patriot act which evicerates our civil rights. What is the distortion about this fact?
5. Voting and pushing for funding of the woodstock museum. What is the distortion about this fact?
That's the legislative record that we are in part aware of. In response, we get the preservation of the Puerto Rican National Forest as a legislative accomplishment?
Way too silly. But oh, just because non-clinton II lovers question and probe, we are all uniformed and "hillary-haters."
Basically, as I have repeatedly told you, my candidate is anyone but clinton II. She is the most divisive and unelectable of the dem candidates. She will further divide the country when we need to be united to move into the 21st century. She wants to relive the 90's, which basically was a time that the middle class and poor were getting screwed. Why would we want to relive that time?
I guess you had a rough holiday. Too bad, its only going to get worse as your candidate flames out. I just hope it happens sooner rather than later to prevent any further damage to the democratic party.
upper left wrote on December 26, 2007 11:15 AM:Experience matters, a little.
I do give Clinton II some credit for having more experince, she has eight years of elective offive, Obama has twelve, but she does have more experience on the national stage.
The real question is how much does experience matter? The answer is less than the VALUES, JUDGMENT, AND TEMPERMENT of the candidate.
Obama is far more AUTHENTIC, he is far more forthright. His life choices are CONGRUENT with his policy positions as a candidate.
He has consistently opted to work for the poor, minorities, and working people.
He has consistently worked for ethics reform and campaign finance reform. He has consistently been able to work across existing ideaological boundaries to find areas of common ground. He has consistently done so without selling out his core progressive values.
Experience is simply not the most important criteria for success as a President, and it is not the most important criteria for the voters.
Many of the people who wave experience like a banner are people who primarily prefer HRC based on identity politics. They are women who support her because of her gender. I have no problem with identity politics, and I certainly agree that it is past time that we had a woman President. The point is that experience is largely an "oversold" issue.
If folks were a little more honest they would just say, "she is a woman who has a realistic chance of winning and that is what matters most to me."
Helter wrote on December 26, 2007 11:15 AM:Aimey:
Mrs. Clinton and her supporters are the ones arguing that her position as first lady gave her valuable experience that other candidates don't have. It's only her experience as First Lady that significantly separates her from Edwards and Obama, and so the merits of her argument for herself as the most experienced and prepared candidate depend on the quality of that experience. If being First Lady is such valuable experience, surely Laura Bush has it, too.
Richard L. Adlof wrote on December 26, 2007 11:27 AM:Forgive me for being blunt . . .
War and denfense are bogus rightwing strawman. Clinton's hype lives there. There is a reason for this that even the short bus folk like me can grok.
America has be dramatically wounded domestically over the last 30 years. Frankly, this is what the next President will be doing. The only three candidates with there heads in the game are Edwards, Kuncinich and Paul (and Paul is on this list cuz he wants to hide from the world and destory all the remaining government).
Clinton and Obama will be lukewarm Presidents. It is their natures. We can only hope that they will have an epiphany or that Progressives will drag them into being better. Arguing which of them will be better is like arguing whether dirty dishwater is clean becuase there is soapy bubbles in the food laden water.
Keith wrote on December 26, 2007 11:29 AM:Having read the piece, I'll stick with my original assessment. HRC clearly benefited from her proximity to power. That being said, it is also clear that given her lack of security clearance and absence from critical policy setting meetings, she is no better prepared for judging and deciding on the issues facing the next president. If she were running for president in 1992, then she'd have a stronger argument. However, this is a new world, where lessons learned by osmosis, may not provide a sufficient grounding to make the best decision under the circumstances.
At the end of the day, the question is how much this piece dominates the national news. If it doesn't get traction, it won't hurt her in Iowa.
colonpowwow wrote on December 26, 2007 11:42 AM:Michael A.
Thanks for making my point so well with your response.
The facts about Hillary's career are "garbage."
Yeah, well thought out and so succinct in its insightful summarization - exactly like we expect from you every freakin' time.
Michael A wrote on December 26, 2007 11:53 AM:colonpowwow,
Facts are a loose term for you. Spin is more like it. Any response to my list of her senate accomplishments?
As you tracked down her "senate record," what website did you use? I'd like to see the record, not spin. I want to see what else she voted for and her positioning. I forgot about her vote on banning flag burning. That's a critical one. People should know the true record, not your spin.
My point on garbage was the spin, not what she actually did do, other than the iraq and iran votes and the other things that I have summarized about what I know about her record. That would be garbage and you didn't list those votes in your list of "accomplishments." Nonetheless, I could see that as your interpretation, but that was not my intent.
CalD wrote on December 26, 2007 11:56 AM:
I think in fairness, I'd have to call this a somewhat Clinton-critical reading of an article that leads with:
"As first lady, Hillary Rodham Clinton jaw-boned the authoritarian president of Uzbekistan to leave his car and shake hands with people. She argued with the Czech prime minister about democracy. She cajoled Roman Catholic and Protestant women to talk to one another in Northern Ireland. She traveled to 79 countries in total, little of it leisure..."
I personally thought the article was pretty well balanced on the whole. There's probably some ammunition there for both sides of the argument but it seems like one would have to be at least a little predisposed to view Mrs. Clinton unfavorably to regard this article as some kind of unqualified indictment of her. It may even be a tad more likely to help make the case that her time in the White House really did provide her with useful broadening experience in foreign affairs. For example, how many other people in the race can say they have been to 79 countries for any reason?
Anonymous wrote on December 26, 2007 1:14 PM:Experience, sexperience. It isn't how much time a candidate puts in on the job, it's how competently they performed over time. Hillary flunked her first bar exam; early in her husband's administration she screwed up the attempt to birth a good national health care plan; she bought Bill's lies; she bought the AUMF lie; she voted for Kyle-Lieberman. Those are a few the real nuggets that she doesn't list in her resume.
Sure, any of the candidates stumble a time or two, but has the candidate shown a pattern of effectiveness over time, actually demonstrated that s/he's good at what he/she tries to do? Does the candidate show leadership or followership? Has the candidate attempted to lead only on the soft issues, or has the candidate shown a willingness to take risks and lead on the tough issues? If so, how effectively? Is the candidate a fast learner? Is the candidate a good judge of character? These are some of the things I look for.
A Michael wrote on December 26, 2007 2:06 PM:For your reading pleasure:
Why Clinton will prevail
John Sasso
Email|Print| Text size – + By John Sasso
December 22, 2007
SOME RAINDROPS have started to fall on Senator Hillary Clinton's parade to the Democratic presidential nomination. In the early primary races of Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina, rival Barack Obama has pulled even or ahead and the longstanding Clinton badge of elective inevitability has come under question.
Michael A, use http://www.govtrack.us or http://thomas.loc.gov/ .
Aimey, the name is not the issue. The small-minded, reprehensible people (like you) who attempt to make an issue of the name in order to stir racist and xenophobic feelings are.
Aimey Mays wrote on December 26, 2007 2:50 PM:roo_P wrote on December 26, 2007 2:30 PM:
Michael A, use http://www.govtrack.us or http://thomas.loc.gov/ .
Aimey, the name is not the issue. The small-minded, reprehensible people (like you)
--- You still have not answered the question whether it is legitimate to use someone's full legal name. If you are supporting someone whose full name shall not be spelled out, are you not doomed? If it is a part of his name, why shall it name be called?
Michael A wrote on December 26, 2007 4:04 PM:Thanks for the links roo_p, any articles summarizing and analyzing like the NY times did on obama? It only seems fair, right.
A Michael, and, another op-ed by apparently a clinton II person. And your point is?
DemAC wrote on December 26, 2007 8:56 PM:Pat Healy is bullshittin’ pretty hard on the pages of the NYT.
As opposed to Healy’s lame ass drivel; an actual eyewitness of the time has interesting things to tell. Says Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson:
“During my tenure as Senior Director for African Affairs in the Clinton Administration, I had the responsibility for helping to plan and execute President Clinton's historic trip to that continent. It was a trip that forever changed the way American administrations think about Africa. I spent eleven days with President Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton traveling to six countries and meeting with leaders from many more. She was a full participant in all of our activities and a key adviser--and for good reason. Hillary had previously traveled to Africa, leading a prominent U.S. delegation to several countries. On her return she was instrumental in persuading the president that he should invest that most precious of presidential assets--time--in his own trip. People who are now senior advisers to Senator Obama were involved in both of those trips. So it is mystifying to me that they have allowed themselves to "forget" the key role Hillary played in such a major shift in approach to that part of the world and have participated in a negative campaign tactic on the part of the Obama campaign to demean her significant contributions to foreign policy of which they are well aware.”
colonpowwow wrote on December 26, 2007 10:14 PM:Michael A.
The list that I post from time to time in response to your tired, endless requests for "proof" that she's done anything in the Senate, is a list of legislation that she co-sponsored - hence her name is part of the bill (ex: McCain-Feingold, Clinton-Slaughter Act, etc.).
Could you provide a similar list of Obama co-sponsored legislation with his name in the title for comparison purposes? Let me start you out:
Clinton-Obama National Medical Error Disclosure and Compensation Act
DonnaG wrote on December 26, 2007 10:18 PM:Truth is, Hillary is the one nepotism candidate in this race. She is the chosen face of the old guard machine that coalesced around Bill and which wants power back again....wanting Bill in the White House in barely disguised dissing of our Constitution.
Hillary's thin credentials and resume had to undergo the ultimate in hyped spin, in large part because she is not a natural leader, not an inspiring candidate, and not a person of trustworthy judgment.
Hopefully enough Americans will remember the last time we got a nepotism candidate whose credentials and resume had to undergo the ultimate in hyped spin.
