Thirty-Two Ambassadors Praise Hillary's Foreign Policy Experience -- As First Lady

Comments (85)

Desider wrote on December 7, 2007 11:07 AM:

Okay, let the negativity begin!!!!

Michael A wrote on December 7, 2007 11:08 AM:

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, tooooo funny. So, let me see if I get this straight, she didn't screw up any state dinners while she was first lady, soooooo she has foreign policy experience and should lead the nation in a "time of crisis." Toooooo funny. Which side do the forks go on? I always forget.

LJ wrote on December 7, 2007 11:09 AM:

Okay, let the negativity begin!!!!

It already did... with Hillary's personal attack on Obama when she called him naive.

Anonymous wrote on December 7, 2007 11:11 AM:

I'm available to fly around the world on free vacations and have my picture taken with actual leaders if no one else wants the job.

DTM wrote on December 7, 2007 11:16 AM:

To the extent they cite her work in developing actual programs, it would be interesting to get details and documents on those efforts.

Jeremy wrote on December 7, 2007 11:16 AM:

This is a step in the right direction for Hillary because she's getting more specific about her experience, but she still hasn't addressed the fundamental question: How has your experience informed the most important judgments you've made?

In any case, we would be naive to think that careerism wasn't a partial motive for some of these folks, would we not? That's not to call into question their character or sincerity, to be clear. Indeed, to deny that careerism might be to call into question their rationality. These sorts of things, for that reason, can be taken for what they are worth.

Ambassador to Reality wrote on December 7, 2007 11:17 AM:

Interesting, this objective assessment seems to be offered by Ambassadors who ALL served between 1992 and 2001. I wonder how people not appointed to the sweetest job on earth by her husband feel.

Now, my only question is - with her foreign policy credentials endorsed by four year Ambassador to Trinidad Terry Shumaker - do we still even bother with the formality of an election?

Vermonter wrote on December 7, 2007 11:22 AM:

Shouldn't the headline read:

"Bill Clinton's political patronage appointees support (surprise!) Hillary Clinton."

Terje wrote on December 7, 2007 11:23 AM:

Has there been any assessment of how many of these ambassadors were career foreign service professionals vs. how many were political appointees?

Obviously those who were appointed as ambassador by President Clinton based on their political ties (campaign workers, policy advisors, fundraisers) might be perceived as a less than totally objective source on the subject.

The question of how we evaluate the experience that comes from being First Lady (an unofficial, unelected position) is fascinating, and clearly uncharted territory for US politics. Observers and voters have to try to parse out the record of the Clinton administration, the achievements of Bill Clinton himself, and then the specific role that Hillary Clinton my have played. Is being First Lady real governing experience or is purely ceremonial? What weight should be given to the knowledge a First Lady gains by being at the centre of governing? To what degree is she to be judged on her own record vs. that of her husband? Is she to be held accountable for negative parts of Bill Clinton's term in office?

I'm not a Hillary Clinton supporter, but I have to say that I'm inclined to believe that her time in the White House would be extremely valuable experience if she were to be elected President. Whatever the answer to these questions, this is a very unique situation and it will be fascinating to watch how the media and voters weigh the idea of a former First Lady going back to the White House in her own right.

Michael A wrote on December 7, 2007 11:24 AM:

On a serious note, agreed DTM. But we'll never know whether any of this is true or not because clinton I is refusing to release any documents. Clinton II has a huge credibility gap for a host of reasons and making these types of statements without any support just adds to people's doubts.

I don't understand why she is trying to manufacture all this experience in a change election. All it does is give fodder to her opponents to attack her claims of alleged experience, which in turn plays into her main weakness which is credibility. Poll after poll shows that people find her untrustworthy. Gee, I wonder why. Then put on top of this the claimed "experience" and that adds to more of a trust problem, which I am sure is reflected in the polls.

I really think that she should be playing this totally differently than she is. She should get some new advisors.

NCSteve wrote on December 7, 2007 11:32 AM:

Oh yeah, this is a totally spontaneous, unbiased list.

"Great job, Jim. You raised a gazillion dollars for us and you've been one of my best friends for years. Which would you rather have, a weekend in the Lincoln Bedroom or the ambassadorship to Slobovenia?"

"Oh, it was nothing, Mr. President. I adore being one of your most fawning, uncritical rich supporters! I'll take the ambassadorship, please, sir. And boy, I hope you'll keep me in mind for another when Hillary starts her two terms!"

Ambassador to Reality wrote on December 7, 2007 11:34 AM:

Obama could actually spin this in his favor. First, someone needs to find out how many ambassadors served in the Clinton administration. I would guess it's more than 64. Doubtless she reached out to them all. Then you could say that fewer than half of Clinton appointed Ambassadors* are willing to show support for he diplomatic abilities.

*career foreign service or not, they're all appointees, many no talent clowns, all extraordinarily grateful for the appointment (each one of those people has a framed Clinton signed commission as their most treasured possession).

Desider wrote on December 7, 2007 11:36 AM:

Excellent, well done class.

Obama's Kindergarten teacher says he was an A-OK student and wrote a bang-up essay to boot - applauds and accolades.

Hillary gets a job recommendation from 32 former ambassadors who worked with her, and that's scheming, suspect, only self-serving patronage, and certainly can only be evaluated by releasing all of her White House records over 8 years. Obviously they're all lying to get a new job.

Oh wait, shouldn't we ask for Obama's essay while we're at it? Have you folks seen *ANY* Obama records? Never mind, probably doesn't matter.

horizonr wrote on December 7, 2007 11:37 AM:

Dear Hillary,

Please pick me for Secretary of State.

Love,

Dick Holbrooke

Frog Leg wrote on December 7, 2007 11:40 AM:

Vermonter, you nailed it. The endorsement isn't worth the paper it's on.

Frog Leg wrote on December 7, 2007 11:42 AM:

Decider, do you REALLY want to bring up not producing records while supporting HRC? Not a good move.

HolyRomanUmpire wrote on December 7, 2007 11:43 AM:

Desider,

I think you're confused.

The joke about the kindergarden essay was that the Clinton campaign brought it up as a ridiculous smear, and then had to pretend they were being funny about it, even though they weren't.

Maybe you'd want to rewrite your post in light of that fact. Although, since it does seriously undermine your point, maybe you don't.

Michael A wrote on December 7, 2007 11:46 AM:

Hi desider, maybe they are lying and maybe they aren't, but we may never know.
I find the claims in the letter a major stretch, which I would be willing to guess that they are. Now, what do you think the republican opposition will do with this letter???? I know the dem nominees are too "nice," so they won't do a thing. But what are the republicans going to do with this. They will have field day.

Also, check out some of the ambassadors and where they were ambassadors to. I would be willing to bet that the vast majority were big campaign donors to the clintons in the 90's as well as today. I don't think any are career foreign service and I would be willing to bet again that active career foreign service personnel would be precluding from giving an endorsement.

Seems to me that this is just more dangerous fluff that she is throwing out there to manufacture this massive amount of experience, that really isn't necessary.

Desider wrote on December 7, 2007 11:48 AM:

Oh no, Frog Leg, I couldn't want to do that. After all, we saw all of Al Gore's records and all of Giuliani's and all of John Edwards, all of Bill Richardson's and all of simply everyone's but Hillary's. I mean, that's what we do in America, a document dump on every single candidate so we have a level playing field. EXCEPT FOR HILLARY!!!! Evil woman, isn't she?

NCSteve wrote on December 7, 2007 11:50 AM:

I do think there is a contrarian case to be made that being First Lady could be as big a disadvantage as an advantage.

When she first ran for Senate, she admitted that, even after all those years as a politician's spouse, she was amazed at how much harder doing that connecting with people and getting things done thing was than she had thought and how much better Bill was at it than she had realized.

Most people who have been president say that, no matter what you did before, no matter how well prepared you think you are, the only thing that can train you for the presidency is being the president. Her whole shtick has been that she's an exception to this rule because she was First Lady. Same difference, no OJT required. I am very much afraid it will turn out that it will really just lead her to believe she knows everything when she doesn't which, in turn, will lead to a series of arrogant, ill-considered decisions and postpone her real training.

As to Bill's experienced, steadying hand--there's a reason other ex-Presidents tend to step into the background and current presidents keep them at arms length and only ask (privately) for their advice on the really, really tough calls. They know a president has to be his/her own person.

And, c'mon, do you really think Hill's relationship with Bill is going to be less fraught with bizarre dangerous psychodrama than Dubya's relathionship with Poppy?

Desider wrote on December 7, 2007 11:51 AM:

Okay, Michael, let's say Hillary gets the recommendation from 100 top career State Department officials. How will we knock that one down? People ask what what exactly her experience meant, and this letter gives an answer, and you could think about whether it's true, but no, let's just assume it couldn't possibly true and move on our way. But Obama is the candidate of hope and will bring us all together, no need to do a reality check on that one.
Must be true.

jhv wrote on December 7, 2007 11:53 AM:

I'd rather put aside my distaste for the entitled way she has run her campaign and be all serious like DTM and others who ask for specifics about her experience. I have no doubt that she was more than a figurehead on these trips and more in-depth explanation would help me like hilary again. I also in no way mean to minimize the work and the effort.

but all i can think about reading that letter is that if this qualifies you to be president, then I'm voting for Angelina Jolie.

keith wrote on December 7, 2007 12:00 PM:

as others have noted I'm not particularly impressed that political appointees and low level diplomats from the Clinton administration think she has foreign policy experience. What's equally troubling to me is that this list of accomplishments is pretty weak, at least as it relates to FP. Lots of work on human rights and women's issues, but nothing about her working with heads of state or spearheading peace settlements. In short this is a list of accomplishments that most First Ladies could boast.

Ambassador to Reality wrote on December 7, 2007 12:01 PM:

Everyone's working on the assumption that the whole Clinton administration backs Hillary. It's a story when one of them doesn't, not when a group of them does.

Michael A wrote on December 7, 2007 12:09 PM:

Agreed Keith. I am sure Laura could make the same type of list.

Desider, here is the point. I really think that she is trying way toooo hard to way overplay her "experience" and really for no reason. By over playing it, I believe it is harming her more than helping her. I don't think people will be that swayed with her experience vis-a-vis the other candidates. If experience was the big thing, then biden and dodd would be way ahead and nixon would have crushed jfk in 1960. People want to make sure that the person has enough experience and common sense. Some of her moves cut against this, such as the Iraq war vote and the iran resolution. She can have 1000 years of experience and I really don't think it will matter in the end.

Also, I could care less if 1000 state department officials gave her a recommendation. It would be meaningless in the grand scheme of thing.

Anonymous wrote on December 7, 2007 12:11 PM:

Wow!!! I had no idea Gabriel Guerra-Mondragon was backing Clinton!!! This changes everything!!!

DTM wrote on December 7, 2007 12:13 PM:

Desider,

There are not just two choices here (take everything they say at face value, or discount all of it). It seems to me the reasonable compromise is just to ask for more information and documentation about the things they cite.

Of course I know such requests with respect to Clinton's time as First Lady have become a sticking point with Senator Clinton and former President Clinton. But that is rather unfortunate because it is indeed what we would do with such claims about an ordinary public official (meaning it is perfectly normal to look at the public record in order to verify such claims, place them in context, and provide additional details).

dcshungu wrote on December 7, 2007 12:31 PM:

I don't understand why she is trying to manufacture all this experience in a change election. All it does is give fodder to her opponents to attack her claims of alleged experience, which in turn plays into her main weakness which is credibility. Poll after poll shows that people find her untrustworthy. Gee, I wonder why. Then put on top of this the claimed "experience" and that adds to more of a trust problem, which I am sure is reflected in the polls.

I really think that she should be playing this totally differently than she is. She should get some new advisors.

This muddled verbiage, ladies and gents, is supposed to be some well thought out and reasoned commentary, and that is truly a sad commentary.

I don't understand why she is trying to manufacture all this experience in a change election:
What makes you think that she is "manufacturing" anything? There are specific things that she is being credited with or for; this being the "information age", for crissake's, just look it up!!!

All it does is give fodder to her opponents to attack her claims of alleged experience, which in turn plays into her main weakness which is credibility.:
Non sequitur. How can the endorsement of 32 ambassadors for her foreign policy experience "give fodder to her opponents to attack her claims of alleged experience"? And how does such a resounding endorsement affect her credibility? Only in La-la land! In fact, this endorsement accomplishes just the opposite of what you surmise!

Poll after poll shows that people find her untrustworthy. Gee, I wonder why. Then put on top of this the claimed "experience" and that adds to more of a trust problem, which I am sure is reflected in the polls.:
So, how would the endorsement of 32 U.S. civil servants contribute to deepening her "credibility" problem again?

I really think that she should be playing this totally differently than she is.

I can't wait to be enlightened...

You can't make this stuff up...

Anonymous wrote on December 7, 2007 12:32 PM:

CoSponsor Greatest Strategic Disaster in US history 2002-2006

Mr Hill's ambassadors?

All Hillary all the time Sargent Shultz

DonnaG wrote on December 7, 2007 12:43 PM:

As I read the support letter, I was really struck by how much It reads like the listing of her Senate 'achievements', that is, the letter is long on fluffy statements and short on definitive facts which could be verified.

I would not be surprised to know that this letter signed by Clinton era appointees [anticipating insider future jobs?] was actually written by the same person who writes the fluff generalities for other Hillary press releases.

Here are some of the cotton candy phrases which appear in Clinton's Senatorial press releases and which also wrap around the cardboard core of this letter: 'important role', 'advocate on behalf of', 'worked for', 'led efforts', 'helped pave the way', 'championed', 'helped foster'......

As others have pointed out above, the public is expected to eat this cotton candy and feel nourished; no meaty facts or supportive White House records allowed.

Michael A wrote on December 7, 2007 12:54 PM:

dc's back. Comeon, can you read?

1. We've gone round and round about the experience issue before. Does she have some, probably. Was she running the show in the clinton I white house, maybe, or maybe not. Who knows. We do know that she is trying to assume the clinton I record, which is a mixed bag. Has she done a gd thing in the senate? Yep, she voted to invade one sovereign country to kill hundreds of thousands of innocent iraqis and americans and she voted help the king to drum up war with iran. With that kind of experience, who needs it?

2. Do you really want me to explain to you how I could tear this apart???? Then I'll be accused of helping republicans and all that other bs.

3. By chance do you know who tom foley and walter mondale are? They aren't "career civil servants." Do you know how one gets an ambassadorship? It's sure not based on merit. Comeon dc, your not that dumb.

4. Latest polls out of iowa on trustworthiness show that something like 52% of dems don't find her trustworthy. Obama and edwards are between 10 and 20 percent. Your the poll guru most polls on trustworthiness show that she has a problem, along with likeability.

signed, somewhere in la-la land.

Desider wrote on December 7, 2007 1:30 PM:

So she's running on Bill's record by releasing a list that shows she was doing something besides what Bill was doing? Ohmygod, she didn't work on a peace plan for Northern Ireland, so that must mean all her foreign experience as First Lady is worthless? Again, it's the damned if she does, damned if she doesn't response. (Again, we're comparing this with questioning ages 6-10 in Indonesia as "experience", from which everyone said Hillary needs to get specific about her experience).

DTM, of course we can and should ask questions about qualifications, but in reality most candidates go unchecked, and the idea that Hillary or Bill can snap their fingers and all their White House correspondence will be handed to the press is simply not the way it works. But perhaps if someone writes or shows up at an Iowan campaign event asking for more details about what specifically she did regarding microloans and human trafficking, as well as helping new democracies in the former USSR, they could get more answers. (Yes, these would be interesting things for her campaign itself to reveal, and it doesn't require government clearance to elaborate on).

Regarding support from Walter Mondale (80 years old) and Tom Foley (79 years old), I somehow don't think they're looking for new positions in her administration. Holbrooke of course is already part of her campaign, much to Hillary's credit (hope he keeps her away from Colin Powell), and it's quite likely this letter & list of signees was part of his initiative.

dc shungu wrote on December 7, 2007 1:34 PM:

Michael A:

Like I said: SAD COMMENTARY...

Posted in transit from a hand-held device.

lily15 wrote on December 7, 2007 1:37 PM:

The hypocrisy of the Hillary Haters never ceases to amaze me. There are many former Clinton supporters who now work in or support the Obama campaign (Robert Reich comes to mind). They are heralded for the opposite proposition...that having been in the Clinton administration, they prefer Obama. Their comments are published and their opinions carry weight. But if those same former appointees prefer Hillary, their opinions are downgraded as non objective and biased. The Hillary Haters can't have it both ways--because by their equation Obama always wins, and HIllary always loses. A little disingenuous, wouldn't you say? At any rate, experience is experience, even if it was had as a political appointee. Unless someone pops up who was also present at these events and has a different take, they are valid indications of experience both deep and wide, and more importantly, in the service of progressive ideals. If Obama supporters want to criticize someone who promoted such worthy goals and programs, it says more about them than Hillary.

DTM wrote on December 7, 2007 2:03 PM:

Desider,

Actually, I think most public officials running for higher office do have their claims checked against the public record. As I have seen it work, usually there are members of the press who are familiar with the relevant materials (e.g., people who work on that "beat" in Washington, or similar people in the press covering state or local governments). If other people have questions or something seems off, those people will investigate the matter and then collaborate with other members of the press or write their own stories.

So, I do think this is somewhat a unique situation. By the way, President Clinton requested twelve years of restricted access for her papers under the Presidential Records Act (which he was not required to do), and he could still waive that restricted access at any time (which he has not done). It is true, though, that if he waived his request for restricted access right now, we do not know how many additional documents we would see on what schedule. Still, it is false that he did not voluntarily put in place this barrier to disclosure (something prior Presidents had not done for the papers of First Ladies).

DTM wrote on December 7, 2007 2:07 PM:

lily15,

But that is just common sense. "Former supporter of X is still supporting X" is not news. "Former supporter of X is no longer supporting X" is news.

Indeed, it was valid news when a former Obama supporter in S.C. switched over to Clinton (although TPM-EC reported it belatedly). So it does work both ways.

Jake wrote on December 7, 2007 2:09 PM:

The letter does not help Clinton because it has to skirt around Bill and thus makes Hillary appear to be a light weight jet setting speechifier.

brewmn wrote on December 7, 2007 2:16 PM:

"They are heralded for the opposite proposition...that having been in the Clinton administration, they prefer Obama."

It's called a statement against one's own interest, and in the law it permits something to be admiited in court which would otherwise be excluded. Statements in one own's interest, which in this case, are the statements of people who have been rewarded in the past by the Clinton's and could reasonably be expected to be again, are not permissible.

I'd say your logic is a little off here, lily.

brewmn wrote on December 7, 2007 2:19 PM:

Do the Clintons really want to bring up their invovlement in the Rwandan genocide?

"Bill allowed a million people to be slaughtered. But Hillary went over there and took some pictures with the survivors. Statecraft is their strength."

NCSteve wrote on December 7, 2007 2:20 PM:

Hypocricy? Man, does no one still know what that words means anymore?

Hypocricy is "[t]he claim, pretense, or false representation of holding beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not actually possess." (Wikionary.org).

Lily, I don't think you are a hypocrite if you call anyone who doesn't think Hillary is just the bestest, most-wonderfullest, most perfect candidate ever a "Hillary Hater." I think you sincerely believe that and are just misguided to the extent your equating Democrats who are less than enamoured of her with the Arkansas Project loonies.

In any case, yes, I do think that the statements of a long-time loyal partisan supporter carry less weight than do the statements of a neutral observer, because the supporter is, by definition, biased. Are you saying you don't?

Further, all other things being equal, the statements of a former supporter carry more weight than those of a long-standing and current supporter if the former's support ended over legitimate policy differences or moral objections, and especially if the reasons were related to the issue being addressed.

These people are, as far as I can tell, all current endorsors of her and former political appointees to positions widely known to be considered the greatest patronage plums left to the president since the passage of the Pendeleton Act. Do you really think that is irrelevant to the credibility of this statement?

lily15 wrote on December 7, 2007 2:28 PM:

For the kindergarten group:

Inasmuch as it was Obama who first brought up his experience in elementary school in Indonesia as a ten year old to support his foreign experience, maybe we should get specific with him as well? Why is it OK when Obama does it and not OK when Hillary responds in kind?

Although I agree that it was a political mistake for the Clinton campaign to mention a kindergarten and 3rd grade essay given the way it would be covered and derided,and given its lack of immediate relevancy to the subject it rebutted, why wasn't it equally problematic and press noteworthy for Obama to cite his own elementary school days as the the basis for claims of big insights into foreign culture and peoples as relevant to his run for the Presidency?

Is it possible that not only was Obama a particularly insightful and gifted kindergarter and third grader, but continued to exhibit extraordinary qualities as a fourth grader? But how do you separate them so that one is good for Obama and the other is bad for Hillary? Is this the same argument for former political appointees who support Obama--reliable on their side and unreliable on Hillary's?

Surely, the right wing noise machine will not be silent in the general election with regard to Obama's shortcomings, mistakes, and naivete should he be the nominee? For now they're
content to let Obama and Edwards do the attacking of their real threat, Hillary. They can manage Obama later with a brutal attack machine that will drive Obama's negatives to lows unimagined now. But by then it will be too late for Democrats who coddled their candidate like a baby in the primaries, to recover.

With most of the likely GOP nominees, there is no foreign policy experience either...so no Democratic edge if Obama gets the nomination. And believe me, his 10 yr old claims will be as exploited as much as Hillary's kindergarten attack is now. So at least be intellectually honest when debating these fine points of politics. And don't ignore the negatives, like Obama's generally poor debate performances.

Both should get the same scrutiny on the same terms...or the only ones who will be the losers will be Democrats.

lily15 wrote on December 7, 2007 2:53 PM:

statement against interest?

To the person who wrote that comment, please review your law books. It is not a statement against interest in any way shape or form, but perhaps its very opposite. It's possible their career and financial interests are now better served by working for Obama..such that they are making statements in their own interests as well as Obama's. In all areas of commerce, there is a bidding and vetting for talent. Since we don't know what has gone on internally, it remains guesswork who wanted who and for what.

With a Paul Krugman for example, we do know he is relatively objective, intellectually lauded and not affiliated with either campaign..so someone like him has more of a patina of fairness. The point is to have open and fair debate on an equal playing field. Right now it appears both the right and the left are doing their best to attack Hillary..and the liberal press is very much involved in this, just as they did Bill Bradley's bidding in 1999 and 2000.

As to Hillary's papers, wouldn't Democrats be better served for the general election if we were focused on the Bush papers..both of them? Wouldn't that provide more insight into our true adversaries and their connections? I hardly think Bush should get a pass and Hillary not. Again, a striking unfairness that results in Democrats being the losers. The truth is, the papers rant is about distraction...and an assist to Republicans in the general.

tarheel74 wrote on December 7, 2007 2:58 PM:

Hillary: first lady, human rights advocate, women's rights advocate, strong position on all issues in the senate

Obama: the leader who has never led (always present but never to lead)

sums up our choices!

benjoya wrote on December 7, 2007 3:14 PM:

strong position on all issues in the senate

especially if you like war

tarheel74 wrote on December 7, 2007 3:17 PM:

I don't see Obama legislating to end the war or defund the war. Again no leadership, just talk.

TPS wrote on December 7, 2007 3:20 PM:

All of the criticisms of Hillary are fine! What exactly has Senator Obama done or achieved so far? Paul Krugman has a column in NY Times today about the Senator's health care plan. Obama decided to leave out requiring people to buy health care plans because it would be politically risky. Krugman explains clearly why this is an important cost control device. Krugman also points out that Obama has adopted republican talking points in responding to Hillary on this issue. He conveniently decided not to take a posiiton on the Iran resolution and now criticizes Hillary for voting yes on that resolution. If it was that important why didn't he fly back to vote on that resolution. Even better, why didn't he stay in the Capitol until the issue was resolved? He is essentially a half-term Senator who started running for president as soon as he reached the Senate. He is as ambitious as anyone else (not that there is anything wrong with that).

I say all this as a resident of Illinois who voted for him and who will vote for him (for the Senate) in the future. I think he needs to serve his state for some more time, gain more experience, and fill out his resume before he can be ready to be president.

Michael A wrote on December 7, 2007 3:20 PM:

I am sick of the clinton II lovers claiming that obama claims that his foreign policy experience was obtained solely from living as a child in indonesia. It completely takes his statement out of context and is really pathetic. Kind of like doing oppo research by interviewing his kindergarten teacher. You clinton II lovers are desperate.

You lovers completely ignore the relevance of the clinton papers. The problem is the secrecy and the hold to release until 2012. I don't understand why you blind lovers don't see a problem with that.

Quite frankly we won't see any king papers until the investigations and hearings after he is gone. Also, I really don't care. The king isn't running. I want to see him in jail, not see his gd papers.

Among many reasons why the documents are relevant, she is trying to manufacture this glorious all encompassing experience from her time as first lady. By doing that it makes them highly relevant and she has zero credibility, which is all the more reason why they are relevant. I want to see documented experience to counter the documented experience that we know about. Voting to give the king a blank check to kill hundreds of thousands of innocent americans and iraqis. Voting to give the king a blank check on iran. That's the experience we know about. She better have some gd impressive experience to counter this if she is so gd experienced.

Clinton II has been demeaning obama and edwards experience throughout this contest and has been playing up her own based on fluff and gross conclusions. She should put her money where her mouth is and release the documents she is hiding. We have gone through 7 years of lies and secrecy. We don't need 4 more years of the same.

tarheel74 wrote on December 7, 2007 3:38 PM:

In response to your inane post filled with rehashed republican talking points I will say this again very slowly so that you can understand:
The responsibility for releasing the Clinton papers lie with the National Archives and not with her.

This was the same straw-man argument used by the Swift-boaters against Kerry knowing fully that even if he asked for his papers to be released (which he did) it will take a long long time before the Navy finally vetted everything and released it and by that time the election will be over. The Clintons have asked for her papers to be released but such things take time and there is no magic pill to fast-forward the process. It is a classic straw-man argument.

lily15 wrote on December 7, 2007 3:38 PM:

More of the same from Republican tried and true talking points, brought to us by fakers who either can't carry on an intelligent discussion or who have an alternate agenda to push. The malfeasance of Bush 1 and Bush 2 is never as relevant as the Clintons' and the various and sundry "conspiracy theories" that follow the Clintons where ever they go...are always more important than the facts at hand. Maybe those conspiracy followers can go on MYSpace and hook up with the 9/11 truthers and the ron paul truthers.

Michael A wrote on December 7, 2007 3:50 PM:

I just love that republican talking points garbage. What do you think is going to happen if she gets the nomination??????? You think the republicans are going to roll over and have a love fest, like the dems are doing in the primaries???? The purpose of the primaries is to vet the garbage, among other things, to determine who will make the best nominee. The purpose is not to ignore the garbage and then be surprised when you get slammed in the general election.

By way of example, whether it is true or not, which is not relevant to the argument, the swiftboat bozos were going after kerry in massachusetts for years. The kerry campaign knew about them and the massachusetts dems did as well. Did anybody raise the issue in the primaries???? Nope. Was it vetted and debunked in the primaries to avoid it being an issue later? Nope. What does the moron do?? He plays up the vietnam experience and then is immediately slapped by the swiftboat bs right before the election. Wouldn't it have been nice to know about this problem in the primaries and then maybe voted for someone else or have it debunked long before it became a problem or tactically dealt with it??????

Let's not have a love fest. Let's get information on all the candidates and make an informed decision.

jhv wrote on December 7, 2007 3:53 PM:

i swear, the speed with which the Hillary-ites revert to dubbing people 'hillary-haters" and to claiming all criticism come from "republican talking points" freaks me out.

its such a cult of victimhood.

i disagree with her on policy issues and I do not believe in the political philosophy of clinton triangulation.

i am not a 'hillary-hater,' but i hate the hillary-ites.

you people sound as unhinged as bushies sometimes.

lennonforever wrote on December 7, 2007 3:57 PM:

Never mind the political appointees endorsing Hillary. Two political scientists presented a paper titled "The Foreign Policy Activism of First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton" at a Louisiana conference of the Southwestern Political Science Association in 2005. You can Google it and read the entire paper. It DOES lend credence to Clinton's claim about a more substantive foreign policy role than is usually accorded first ladies.

Anonymous wrote on December 7, 2007 4:05 PM:

DTM,

First, get your facts straight on the White House papers issue - I suggest:
http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/11/2/18933/6870

Second, your view of how the press corps is extremely naive. Read www.dailyhowler.com for a good view of how it really works. The press seldom investigates, and is never ready to retort real-time. How much has the mainstream press reported Huckabee pushing to release a murderer? Bush lied on the Iran NIE? When a candidate says something false, how often does a moderator say, "That's not correct, the actual record says..."? Absolutely never.

Gore lost in good part because the press was too busy trying to create a narrative and trying to play "fair and balanced" when Bush's statements and plans were factually false. How many reporters have looked into how fluffy Obama's biography vs. taking it at face value (learning Indonesian in 6 months? Inflating his work at Business International)? How many mainstream papers report Giuliani's lies, how he misused RICO against Milken's company's assets and threatened to put Milken's brother in jail to get him to flip? How many TV networks ignored Giuliani's shag-gate or relationship with Kerik?

Lessee, Hillary made $100,000 in cattle options, we all know that's big news. How about 2005: Obama's $2 million book advance and his wife's $200K/year raise/promotion to a new position created for her at the hospital at the same time she joined the board of directors for TreeHouse Foods for $50K/year. Personally, if I were getting a new high profile job as a Vice President, I wouldn't run out and take a second commitment on a board of directors (she was already on 2 others), but I guess I'm a little guy that doesn't know how to multi-task. Give me a cool extra $1 million a year and I'll feel the audacity of hope too.

Nope, there are double standards. Obama claims he has no records from his time in the State Senate. No one will remember that gaffe. But they'll remember the issue about Hillary's White House correspondence to the end of time, even if their facts are wrong.

Desider wrote on December 7, 2007 4:09 PM:

For the hard of Googling:
"The Foreign Policy Activism of First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton"
http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p89072_index.html

Michael A wrote on December 7, 2007 4:36 PM:

Anno, I agree with your points on the media. It is controlled by and large by huge corporate conglomerates, who surprise, surprise would support the republicans. I really get annoyed with that bs about a liberal media bias. The king has gotten a virtual free pass, since day one. A lie is a lie and either republicans or dems should be called out for when they are lying. Simple as that, but the media doesn't and then keeps repeating the lies as though true. Thats why a huge part of the population still believes saddam had wmds and that he was responsible for 9/11.

On your attacks of obama, it really doesn't stick or really ring true. The problem is that you will get them right back at you. Gee, I wonder what clinton II's advance was for her books or clinton I. Obama got 2 mill, so freaking what. Then it sounds petty, like the kindergarten thing. On the board issue, I wouldn't go there either. Obama's wife sits on two boards, big deal. I wonder how many boards clinton I sits or sat on? Or you want to get into pac constributions? The board thing is again meaningless and it makes it look like you are grasping at straws.

I won't even go into the fluff stuff. You want to read a bio full of fluff, read clinton II's bio. The alleged fluff that you are talking about is petty and again makes clinton II look mean spirited.

It does seem as if obama has the wind at his back. The attacks have looked mean spirited and petty from clinton II, which has been backfiring on her. I would try something different.

On the papers issue, I have said this before repeatedly. I don't think there is anything there at all. The clintons were under the gun the entire time they were in the white house, so I would bet there is nothing in them. The problem is what the republicans can do with manufacturing stuff in those papers. Also, the 2012 thing looks so clintonian and "cute." Just release the stupid papers and make the issue go away now.

LJ wrote on December 7, 2007 4:41 PM:

From the endorsement letter:

She also played a leading role in supporting people in the new democracies from the former USSR to South America.

Okay Hillary lovers, enlighten us all. What exactly does this mean? Point me to a measurable output of this particular example from the letter. "Played a leading role?" "Supporting people?" What is it that she specifically did that "supported people." Did she send them money? Did she implement a program that profoundly changed their lives? What?

And my point here is that the entire list of alleged accomplishments seems pretty vague and irrelevant.

Here's another one:

Her 1995 trip to India, for example, helped foster good relations between the world's two largest democracies.

"Helped foster good relations." What exactly is that? What exactly would have happened if Hillary hadn't gone to India in 1995? Did she avert a war or what? I suspect the answer is that nothing would be different whatsoever if she had never gone to India in 1995, otherwise there would be a measurable substantive result cited in the letter.

Lookingforhome wrote on December 7, 2007 5:03 PM:

jhv-

I've used the "Hillary Haters" label in the past, and it's just as clumsy as "Hillary Lovers" or "Hillary-ites" in that all are totally general. I'll try to stop using it, or at least make the point to apply it to specific posts and call people out on their personal, vitriolic screeds that have risen to the level of calling her evil. Point well made. Though from your side does anyone who supports Hillary deserve "Hillary-ite" or being called "unhinged?" Is that automatic, and if so then how is it any less inaccurate than "Hillary Hater?"

I'd also like to take note of stuff like this "Clinton II" label that Michael A has been pushing in recent days. That seems to represent a simplistic group-think frame that looks solely at a negative perception of the first Clinton Administration, and patently refuses to acknowledge any difference between the two people or how she would govern. It has a list of labels attached to that supercede any nuanced evaluation of the current candidate, who she is as a person or what she actually supports. It also refuses to acknowledge that compared to any recent Republican adminstration, the 1st Clinton era was (by far) a net positive.

These aren't generally thoughtful, nuanced arguments about what's good and bad, it starts with a premise that anything Clinton is generally a negative force that should be opposed. (I can imagine lots of people nodding out there, and mouthing 'yeah, so what?')

When you read the rest of what's in most of those posts, it's just pre-processed criticism. No attempt at balance, new facts, not thought provoking...

Hate's probably too strong a word, but this isn't informed or informative opinion, it's just raw, closed-minded opposition. Pretty f--ing boring. My reaction to the "hate" or any of the stuff I describe above isn't that I think people don't have the right to post it, or that any candidate should be 'protected' from it, it's just that it doesn't inform anyone of anything. It's generally not responsive, and turns either the political or issue debate that might otherwise happen on this notably high-quality site into a contest of who's more snarky, and what does one person have to type to personally feel like they've one-upped or out-negatived the person they disagree with.

At this point in the primary season, this is now 80-90% of what's published here, from all sides. Maybe that's all these forums are capable of being until we have a nominated candidate...then maybe it'll drop to 50% if we're lucky...

lennonforever wrote on December 7, 2007 5:04 PM:

LJ, I think you will find the answers in the link that Desider so kindly placed for me, regarding the paper "Foreign Policy Activism of Hillary Rodham Clinton."

Cheers!

DemAC wrote on December 7, 2007 5:07 PM:

We, the general Obama supporters and the general Hillary haters have read the letter and we do not like it at all.

First of all, being First Lady of the USA is no relevant experience for anything at all. It really isn’t! Promise!! Cross our heart!!! All she did was to travel ‘round the world to meet with world leaders and battle the Republicans at home for eight years straight. Pffft, nothing! Our Grandmas could’ve done that. And they’ve still would have made it home in time to make dinner for their husbands at five.

Secondly the signers of the letter are probably political hacks and suspect carpetbaggers anyhow. Take Richard Holbrooke for example; what a typical phony he is. Fussing around at those fancy dress dinners with diplomats and such people! Compare that to spending several months on no less than three (3!!!) important US Senate committees. Now that’s real experience folks! And Richard Holbrooke probably didn’t even spend one week of his childhood in Indonesia.

Thirdly Hillary Clinton is an evil witch. The only ones who loath her as much as we do are the Republicans. Which is really strange as we are quite certain that she actually is a Republican. However the Republicans abhor her as a vile liberal left wing radical. This really isn’t logical at all. But, since logic is not our forte we’ll ignore it and keep going at her like as if we made any sense at all.

Fourthly we really, really, really want our guy to win! He is sooo nice and cuddly and he really, really, really deserves this chance to play around and have some fun. After all, the poor geezer spent his childhood in Indonesia and how fun does that sound?

LJ wrote on December 7, 2007 5:47 PM:

lennonforever: thanks for the info.

I followed the link and searched the document. Here's everything it mentions about this history changing trip to India in 1995:

In India Hilary Rodham Clinton spoke to the Rajiv Gandhi Foundation.

Pretty funny stuff. This 1995 trip is touted as proof of her immense foreign policy credentials and it turns out all she did was fly there and give a speech.

Hillary supporters keep telling me that Obama hasn't done anything - all he does is talk. We need more than just uplifting speeches they say. And then we get this endorsement letter touting how Hillary "helped foster good relations between the world's two largest democracies"... and what is it that she did? She gave a speech! She talked! That's her immense foreign policy experience that differentiates her from Obama. HILLarious!!!

michael a wrote on December 7, 2007 5:50 PM:

Excellent post lookingforhome and I don't recognize your posting style or name from before, but it is similar to one other post that I have seen. Incidentally, I have been using clinton II for months, not the last few days. If you want to see why the discourse has degraded the way it has, I would suggest that you review some sampling of posts from august/september. Posters back then were trying to discuss policy issues and vetting issues and experience and in response we got demac's post at 5:07.

In sum, in response to any inquiry or attempt at discussion we were accused of being everything from utter incompetent morons to "hillary-haters," which I am sure rubs most normal dem people the wrong way. Then the dialogue digresses. I have been accused of being over the top and I admit that and try to back down, then once again I am attacked and maligned and then I ratchet it up again, which I admit is not right, but it is human nature.

The purpose in alot of my posts is not to "unfairly attack," but to raise issues that will be raised in the general election or to bring things out that are being ignored. I guess clinton II is now a rub, like mrs. bill was. Clinton II is running on clinton I's record but is trying to do it subtely and by slight of hand. People see that. It could be approached in a completely different way and get the same point across, but it appears to me to be disingenous the way it is being done. As she is running on the record, why is there a problem with calling her clinton II.

Also, the clinton I record is a mixed bag. I understand politics and based on the last 7 years it looks really, really rosy, which should be taken advantage of. But again, there is deception, which rubs me the wrong way.

Incidentally, what is wrong with clinton II? We have bush I and bush II (who I refer to as the king). What is wrong with clinton II? Also, even though it is probably too late, I think the hillary thing is silly and demeans the presidency, but that is just me.

I am sorry you see some of these posts as raw, uniformed opinion. There are opinions, but the vast majority of the stuff from clinton II people is blind conclusions, obviously from talking points.

Finally, the clinton II lover thing clearly is in reaction to the "hillary-hater" attack. It is truly amazing that posters who may be in opposition to clinton II are immediately attacked and expected just to fall in line and join the love fest.

Well, I did that twice before and I won't do it again. I thought kerry was a slam dunk, until I got the truth (I mean the potential problems, not whether they were true or not) absent the spin and then I thought wtf was I thinking????? Not again, I will not buy the bs and I want people informed. Dems have to win this time for the good of the country and I refuse to join the love fest. Get it out and deal with the problems, don't just ignore them until it is too late.

On problems, I am glad that the muslim smear on obama came out so early. It has been discussed and regurgitated repeatedly. Now, it is totally old news and people are insulated to it. I haven't heard a peep about all the clinton issues from the 90's. Is it old news, absolutely. Have people forgotten? By and large absolutely. What do you think will happen a month before November 08 if she gets the nomination? The republicans will have a love fest? I don't think so. It's better to get it out now and make it old news.

Bottom line, I would drop two things from the talking points: Hillary hater and republican talking points. Also, I would deal with the issues that she has up front and now and make it old news, like her stupid white house papers.

DemAC wrote on December 7, 2007 6:11 PM:

michael a,
Oh Golly! I didn’t realize you are the one-man-vetting-agency of the Democratic Party, out and about to do your valuable community service. My bad! So you say you’re sort of like Democratic Batman or Spiderman then, don’t you?

Yours must be a heck of a job these days with all the candidates… no, wait… OK, you’re just vetting one single candidate… anyhow: since you’re such an apple pie Democrat chum I fail to understand your apparent gloom. You should be thrilled when someone smacks you down as often and as hard as they possibly can. It must feel really, really good for you, when you’re driving your vetting Batmobile on the comment sections of blogs (all for the greater good of the Democratic Party) when you get called on every little piece of “vetting” you’re doing. Just proving that every little piece of garbage you present will be stuffed down your own throat, no? ‘Cause we’re all good Democrats and we all want what’s best for the Party, no?

dcshungu wrote on December 7, 2007 6:12 PM:

Desider wrote on December 7, 2007 4:09 PM:

For the hard of Googling:
"The Foreign Policy Activism of First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton"
http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p89072_index.html

Great post and link, Desider. It just goes to show you, Michael A, that the info is out there for those who have a genuine desire to inform themselves. To come here and dish out half-baked ideas and outright conjectures and to try to pass them for reasoned commentary is just, well, sad commentary...

It is clear from that well researched academic presentation that Hillary Clinton could cite her years as First Lady as part of legitimate experience that qualifies her to be POTUS. If anyone can post for Obama anything resembling what that article describes of Hillary's FP experience as First Lady, it would go a long way toward alleviating some concern about Obama's "greenness". That piece is a must for anyone who is intellectually honest enough to want to know the breadth and scope of HRC's FP experience as First Lady. If you add to that her 8 years in the Senate and her life-long history of public service, what you have is one of the most qualified candidates ever to seek the presidency, and that is not a hyperbole!

The truth of the matter is that just 2+ years ago, Obama was a nobody, really. No wonder his having lived in Indonesia at age 4 is being touted as FP experience...

Michael A wrote on December 7, 2007 6:25 PM:

demac, yep, I'm getting in my batmobile. You really crack me up. I can't wait until the primaries are over. I wish I were the one man vetting machine. I don't want another kerry fiasco. Bottom line on media and most people know it, except for apparently politicians, if you have bad news or shady news get it out now and defuse the blow before it matters. I have to go now and save gotham for the middle class.

Dc, you crack me up too. Yeah, I know obama is green, but I trust him, that's the problem I am sure with alot of dems and why clinton II is having a problem.

Anyway, the race is on. Less than one month to iowa and it looks like its going to be fun.

dcshungu wrote on December 7, 2007 6:35 PM:

LJ wrote on December 7, 2007 5:47 PM:

lennonforever: thanks for the info.

I followed the link and searched the document. Here's everything it mentions about this history changing trip to India in 1995....

What was Obama doing in 1995? Still teat-suckling?

You are a cynic who cannot be taken seriously or you are someone who is incapable of reading a factual and well researched piece of academic work and understand it or you are just a garden variety political hack... Which is it?

dcshungu wrote on December 7, 2007 6:43 PM:

Yeah, I know obama is green, but I trust him but I trust him, that's the problem I am sure with alot of dems and why clinton II is having a problem.

With such lack of critical thinking, no wonder...

You actually know that the candidate you are supporting to be the leader of free world is "green" and this gives you the confidence that he's the person most qualified to solve the enormous problems that we can expect in a post-GWB era?

G/D help us! We're gonna wind up with another Village Idiot, the guy who was selected POTUS because folks out there "trusted" him and liked him because he was a guy they felt comfortable having a beer with!

LJ wrote on December 7, 2007 6:58 PM:

dcs: Careful there, Doc, your thin skin is showing.

Seriously. Hillary supporters tell me all the time that all Obama does is talk. What has he actually done they whine. We need more than inspiring speeches, they say. Then we see this list of alleged foreign policy accomplishments as First Lady. Your home state senator is listed as having "helped foster good relations between the world's two largest democracies" in this wonderful endorsement letter. And when I follow a link helpfully provided by a Hillary supporter I find out that all she did was fly to India in 1995 and give a speech. If you, your oversized ego, and your minor in philosophy can't see the irony, I can't help you.

Brownell wrote on December 7, 2007 7:02 PM:

It's embarrassing to come after 66 comments, and be the first one to look up the point that we should check how many of the ambassadors (my count is 33, not 32) were career Foreign Service officers and how many were non-career appointees. My count was FOUR Foreign Service professionals, including Joseph Wilson who was actually an ambassador under Pres. GHW Bush, but not counting Richard Holbrooke, who started his career as a Foreign Service officer, but went on to other things before his appointment as Ambassador to the United Nations. In other words, mostly non-career appointees. Very interesting and diverse backgrounds, though - not my idea of political hacks.

As to the primary topic of the comments - Hillary Hate United - there's nothing much to say except get over it. She's not the monster that the right wing screed machine has drilled into your sexist psyches. If it should come to pass, she will probably be a good president, even though it makes your heads explode. A little perspective would be nice.

Anonymous wrote on December 7, 2007 7:07 PM:

Very funny. I bet some of them are making maximum contributions to get in line for Hillary appointments.

Did any of them happen to say why if Hillary has such sterling foreign policy experience and credentials, she voted for war with Iraq and then attacking Iran? Without even consulting the classified national security intelligence that convinced many of her colleauges to vote not to give Bush authority for war, she vote to give him that authority. She enabled the worst foreign policy disaster in American history. And then gave Bush credibility for attacking Iran, once again on lies and hyped information.

If Hillary does have experience, it is USELESS, because it does not inform her HORRIBLE judgement.

No sycophant poltically appointed ambassador can spin away Hillary's record on Iraq and Iran.

Terje wrote on December 7, 2007 7:13 PM:

I continue to be amazed how quickly any discussion dealing with the presidential campaign on this (and other) blogs quickly disolves into an ugly game of name calling and demonizing each other and the candidates we support. I find myself participating in these discussions far less than I would if it were possible to have a mature exchange of viewpoints rather than this kind of childishness. (It also makes me sad, because TPM readers/ commentators succumbed to this problem far later than a number of other blogs).

Come on people, do you think any of these antics actually help your candidates? Do you think anyone is going to change their minds because of these rantings? Does hiding behind a screen name make you feel that you can insult people in a way that would never be acceptable in another setting? Or are does it just feel good to you to spew venom here that you can't with coworkers, friends and family?

For the record, I'm an Obama supporter. But I am not a "Hillary hater" or an Edwards basher, nor am I some starry-eyed naive creature who has fallen in love with Obama. I served on several Presidential advisory committees when Bill Clinton was President, and have met and worked with Hillary as First Lady and Senator. My support for Obama has nothing to do with any personal animus towards either of the Clintons.

If Hillary Clinton is the nominee, I will enthusiastically work for her - same thing with Edwards, Richardson, Biden, Dodd, Kuninich. I expect the same from people supporting other candidates if my guy is the nominee.

In the meantime, I'll continue to try to post ideas that contribute to a dialogue and discussion -- rather than attacking fellow Democrats and progressives.

We all have different ways of evaluating who we support for President -- I personally don't put the same premium on "experience" that some Clinton supporters do. Some people choose candidates based on specific policy positions and issues. Others back candidates based on a perception of "electability." My view of the presidency places a high value on having a larger vision, on being able to inspire people, to overcome old divisions, and the ability to change the world's perception of America. That's why I choose to support Obama for the nomination... fine for you if you've come to a different conclusion. Let's have civil discussion about it.

Remember, we're going to need each other after the nomination battle is over -- it would be a hell of a lot easier to do that if we haven't spent the months spewing treating each other with such rudeness and disrepect.

Anonymous wrote on December 7, 2007 7:19 PM:

dcshungu,

The dilemma for thinking Democrats:

Do you vote for someone who is green but has vision, values, ideas, the capacity to bridge differences, the charisma to inspire and persuade, the promise of leadership that can build consensus in a large majority of the nation and move us forward,

OR

Do you vote for the wife of a former president, who is owned by deep-pocket corporte interests, fumbled health care reform badly, voted for the war in Iraq, and authority to attack Iran, has a mean campaign, constantly plays the victim and gender cards, has only the experience of being the (estranged?)wife of a powerful man, and has a long record of public dishonesty (Bill is innocent, Chelsea was running at the World Trade Center on 9-11, I was named for Sir Edmund Hillary.

Oh, tough choice? Hillary is not even a remote possibility.

Anonymous wrote on December 7, 2007 7:27 PM:

Terje,

Welcome to the politics of division Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton style. By dividing the nation and swapping off parties in power, the Bush-Clinton corporate-friendly status quo assures not national consensus, a weak Congress and endless profiteering by banks, healthcare and drug companies, oil companies, WalMart, defense contractors.

Bill Clinton and Poppy Bush have it all figured out: Hillary now, Jeb is next. The corporations who make them rich own America and control its government. If Hillary wins, democracy is history.

Michael A wrote on December 7, 2007 8:18 PM:

Gee, you got me dc. Once again, I make an off-handed comment and you run with it and distort the point.

I think obama would select incredible advisors to help him. I think clinton II would select yes people that would continue the stagnation and corporate rape of america. I think Obama, Edwards and clinton II are equally experienced and "green" as each other. I think clinton II has a ton of negative baggage and corporate influence that makes her the least palatable of the three.

Are you happy now?

tarheel74 wrote on December 7, 2007 9:19 PM:

MichaelA your straw-man arguments are losing steam. You finally admit that Obama is green. I will go one step further, he is callow and untested as a leader. He has never led or taken a stand on any contentious issues. In the field of international politics he will get chewed and roasted.
But what I find really disingenuous is your use Republican talking points about Hillary. You even went on to say that what the Swift-boaters did to Kerry served him right because he was not forthcoming about his record. Shame on you! If this is what they are teaching in colleges then you need to revisit your education. A silver-star decorated veteran never thought his integrity would be out on trial as far as his war record goes. But you just did that here. Pray what war did your hero Obama serve in? In fact how many times did Obama even go abroad to meet any foreign leader.
Then you dismiss the fact that Obama's wife was on the board of corporations. Not only was she on board of corps but she was on board of a corp that closed factories and laid off hundreds of uninsured workers.
In his haste to warm up to Republicans he proposed a healthcare program that leaves 15 million uninsured and the only people who like it are the AEI. He even wants to overhaul social security something that the Republicans have been trying to do for decades.
Finally you summed up all you vitriol by this one telling line:
"I think obama would select incredible advisors to help him"
Guess what the last person to say that got us in this unending national mess. No we do not want an untested person to lead us, someone who has failed to show courage and conviction when it matters.

pacc wrote on December 7, 2007 10:56 PM:

It looks like Senator Clinton's foreign affairs experience beats B.O.'s childhood stint in Indonesia!

Michael A wrote on December 7, 2007 11:07 PM:

tarhell74 I wasn't going to bother responding, but I am curious. What exactly are my strawman arguments????? I haven't made any as far as I can tell, so could you please enlighten me and I will stop.

I detest strawman arguments and I suspect that is the next counter-attack on the list of talking points. First we have, hillary hater, next republican talking points and oh gee, now its straw-man. You bozos are going too so lose. The thing that scares me most is that it will be in the general election and then we are f*k'd again for 4 more years.

On obama, you are totally misrepresenting what I said and misrepresenting his record. I am an anybody but clinton II person leaning heavily toward obama. Am I here to enter into this big defense, nope. I think he would be great for the country other than your boss, who will only further divide the country. She only wants her name in the history books. She really doesn't give a f*k about anybody but her and her "glory."

On kerry, no I did not say what you said. That is a complete distortion of my point and truly outrageous. My point was f'n information not hiding the ball. If kerry would have defused the problem early on in the process it would have been a non-issue, and it was totally unnecessary for kerry to "play up" his vietnam experiences. By playing it up, he played right into the trap. No I don't want another swiftboat situation and I sure don't understand why everyone is having a lovefest in the dem party. We will wind up losing again and I don't want to see that happen. If clinton II is the nominee, we all lose.

Bottom line, you are way too funny. Ha, ha, ha.

Keith wrote on December 7, 2007 11:13 PM:

At the end of the day, HRC's supporters will continue to stress whatever characteristics her campaign is stressing at that moment. Strength and Experience, she's got it in droves. If that doesn't work for you, then try Ready for Change, I'm Ready to Lead. Not your cup of tea, then how about Turn Up the Heat? But remember, she's the only one uniquely qualified to unify and work with Republicans. Whatever she's saying, they will argue with you to the death that it's reason #8,951 that she should be POTUS.

At the end of the day, the only thing I really know about Senator Clinton is she will say or do anything to win this thing. Some my find that an admirable trait, I don't.

As for Obama being green, all things are relative. Compared to Joe Biden, he's as green as it gets, but then so to are Edwards and Clinton. Compared to Senator Clinton or Edwards, he can handle his own. Nothing in this vaunted list demonstrates that she was setting or otherwise formulating foreign policy in the Clinton White House. Unless she can release documents supporting her contention, she gets no credit for pushing for human rights and women's issues throughout the world (at least not with respect to foreign policy).

And before anyone starts running the republican talking point about Clinton's documents: I know he expedited SOME of the documents, but he asked the archivist to consider withholding confidential communications on foreign policy, communications with the vice president and communications with the first lady. That's his right to do and I don't quibble with that one bit. But without those documents, it's impossible to assess HRC's role in setting policy in the Clinton White House. Even HRC can't have her cake and eat it too.

Desider wrote on December 8, 2007 2:33 AM:

Regarding one comment, it's hard to say exactly what each trip meant - it may be to "deliver a speech" or it may be combined with other meetings that eventually pay off in something (I can't imagine there being no private meetings with important people, but whether it pushes forward an important agenda depends on first whether there was anything to push. In 1995 in India, for example there might have been some use for backroom diplomacy as part of a larger puzzle. Doubtful a breakthrough like Sarkozy's wife getting Bulgarian nurses released - typically diplomacy is a long slow process).

Regarding Michelle's 2005 sudden monetary success, sure, perhaps Michelle was really worth tripling her salary at the non-profit hospitals. Maybe the exposure she gave to the food company was worth her $50K. And maybe it was a form of political patronage. Taking on a new membership on a board within a couple of months of taking over a tough newly created highly visible position seems like a ballsy thing to do to me. Hillary's on a number of boards and has a lot of activities, but her work was not a dedicated job like VP of outreach or however the title was. Hillary was essentially combining typical lawyerly free-lancing, so adding obligations to it over a decade or so is not talking the same thing. Even Michelle taking a board position a year after becoming a new VP wouldn't raise my eyebrows.

Oh, and this was at the same time that Barack & Michelle got a funny $300K discount on their new house after his $2 million advance. But don't ask questions of the candidate of hope.

DonnaG wrote on December 8, 2007 12:28 PM:

Regarding the unpublished manuscript linked to above by Decider [4:09pm] and then praised and re-linked by dschungu [6:12pm].........

This was a presentation done on 3-23-05 at the SW Poly Sci Association conference in New Orleans, and the presenters were two poly sci professors at James Madison University, VA, one of whom teaches a seminar on 'first ladies'.

It is worth a read to see that it is a fairly generic presentation: Hillary's activist background leads her [like Rosalyn Carter-my note here] to travel [the presenters list 14 of her foreign trips] with Bill Clinton, Gore, Albright, Chelsea, and a couple of times alone to not only do the usual symbolic representing of the US [funerals, inaugurations, etc] but to, as well, engage in informal, nurturing talks with wives of heads of state as well as with other groups, this later termed 'non-traditional' diplomacy intended to enhance the over-all goals of the administrations diplomacy.....non-traditional not further defined even by examples.

The manuscript has 31 references listed: 19 are from Hillary's book, Living History, one is from an interview with Hillary's chief of staff, Verveer, 7 are from one of the author's own previous writings, and 4 are from other sources.

Wendy wrote on December 8, 2007 12:39 PM:

Great letter. Now Obama has to stop his personal attack and character assassination. He has never shown leadership, no courage when a crucial vote is needed. Why so many people could not see that and still support this guy? Do not follow Oprah. She is a talk -show host that is why she likes someone who only talks.

dcshungu wrote on December 8, 2007 1:58 PM:

The manuscript has 31 references listed: 19 are from Hillary's book, Living History, one is from an interview with Hillary's chief of staff, Verveer, 7 are from one of the author's own previous writings, and 4 are from other sources.

And your point is? Unless you can show that the referenced material is factually incorrect, I am not sure why that comment is at all relevant. Citing one's prior or related work is honored in academic circles, so I do not see why things should be any different in the blogosphere just because someone is not aware of the practice or is suspicious of the reference material without stating why it should be discounted...

The first law of scholarly research is that one should not cite any material that cannot be verified, that can be easily shown to be false or for which there is no credible source. The reason is obvious: The entire edifice would crumble and be discredited if just a few apples can be established to be rotten! Corollary: The most important reference would be the one for which you cannot establish the source!

DonnaG wrote on December 8, 2007 2:44 PM:

dcshungu,
I offered the references list to indicate the extent of self-referencing bases and support for what was a generalized presentation........in the same vein that Senator Clinton's press releases are generalized presentations........in the same vein that this letter written over the signatures of former Clinton-era ambassadors was a generalized presentation.

Wendy,
Every sentence in your comment was embarrassingly distorted or blatantly false. I'd like to quote a rather famous person who said, "Our democracy doesn't work if our citizens can't evaluate the information they're being told."

dcshungu wrote on December 8, 2007 3:12 PM:

DonnaG wrote on December 8, 2007 2:44 PM:

dcshungu,
I offered the references list to indicate the extent of self-referencing bases and support for what was a generalized presentation........in the same vein that Senator Clinton's press releases are generalized presentations........

I still do not see the point. Discredit the referenced material and you might have a point.

Also, I have heard a line like the one below repeated ad nauseam:

...this letter written over the signatures of former Clinton-era ambassadors...

Hello!? Which ambassadors would be more credible vouching for Hillary's FP experience as First Lady from 1992-2000? Bush I era ambassadors (1988-1992) or Bush II era ambassadors (2000-date)? Such endorsements would carry no weight at all because she was not...the First Lady! However, we'll be waiting with bated breath to be enlightened...

DonnaG wrote on December 8, 2007 6:02 PM:

dcshungu,
next time you don't see the point, you can just say so, instead of guessing [wrongly] that I was 'discrediting' references. I was pointing out the self-referencing that created a paper of general descriptiveness.

I believe you are in the physical sciences, a field in which 'peer' review replicates exactly the methodology of a research program, thereby supporting it or calling it into further questioning.

In the social 'sciences', nothing can be comparably peer reviewed for accuracy. [I have an advanced degree in the social science field, btw]. In the social 'science' field, a lot of practitioners would love to think their work reaches the level of professionalism and accuracy as does the work of the physical sciences. But the truth is that the social 'science' field, no matter how much it tries to borrow terms from the physical science field, it cannot do more than create endless boxes called definitions and trends, all of which can never be duplicated. All that can happen is that social science practitioners agree on those definitions or trends.

Here is my analogy:
Imagine the river of life flowing past. The physical scientist can dip up a bucket of that water, take a cup of it and do a bunch of tests to determine its ingredients, and then offer cups from that same bucket to other researchers who can replicate the testing. [in fact, a bucket of water dipped an hour later might test out differently]
A social scientist can take an underwater picture [survey] of the fish [representing humans, for my analogy's purpose] living in a section of that river, and create boxes of suppositions about the population of live entities in that river: fish schools, varied sizes and types of fish, predators vs prey behaviors, etc, and then extrapolate trends for the whole river and/or for future fish populations, needs and behaviorisms.

The physical scientist takes a bit of life's substance and breaks it down enough to know something which is capable of being duplicated. The social scientist takes a slice of observable life and has to generalize from that slice's characteristics to guess at the reality of something larger; those guesses can only be agreed or disagreed upon, never duplicated by sound scientific methods.

And finally, I will end this with what I took from my own work in the field of social science. There is something really magnificent about the capacity of a human being, i.e,, that the process of definition itself leads to the definer and the defined being able to transcend that definition. In the physical sciences, this magnificent paradox plays in a bit, too, with 'energy' being a particle or a wave, depending upon perspective.

votenic wrote on December 8, 2007 6:10 PM:

2008 Presidential Election Weekly Poll

http://www.votenic.com

The Only Poll That Matters.
Results Posted Every Tuesday Evening.

Post a comment

Name:
Email Address:
URL:
	Remember personal info?
Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)