Hillary Camp Responds: Sorry, Obama Still Isn't Ready To Take 3 A.M. Call
The Hillary campaign is already out with a memo hitting back at the Obama memo from earlier today saying there's no support for her claim that she's passed the "commander in chief test."
It tries to portray Obama's attacks on her credentials as a desperate response to the 3 A.M. ad, the continuing "commander in chief" assault that she's been waging on Obama, and the Ohio and Texas victories that this line of attack allegedly produced...
After last week's defeats, the Obama campaign faced a choice: try to convince voters that Senator Obama is ready to take the 3am phone call in a positive way or try to tear down Senator Clinton's accomplishments...They have chosen to attack.
After all this time, we're back on familiar ground: Both campaigns are asking the voters to see him or her as the primary victim here, a refrain we heard from both sides last fall in the run-up to the voting. (Yet another reminder of how long this campaign has been.)
The memo also reiterates -- at great length -- her claims to accomplishments in Northern Ireland and Kosovo, and rehashes the Samantha Power Iraq controversy as a way to argue that on foreign policy, Obama has a "credibility gap" and shouldn't be believed.
Full Hillary memo here.















THIS IS EXCELLENT NEWS!! FOR HILLARY!!!
March 11, 2008 11:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here is a repost of a great article that many have probably seen totally debunking her bringing peace to Northern Ireland claims:
http://www.thepersonalispolitical.com/post/28309105
And I'm sure Sinbad will have comments about the rest of her work :P
March 11, 2008 11:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is a very dangerous tack for her. The press so far has predictably been too lazy to do much investigation of her shaky experience claims, but if she keeps reiterating them this way, she'll end up goading them into it.
March 11, 2008 11:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
agreed.
March 11, 2008 11:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Could not agree more. For all the talk about Hillary being "vetted," I sure wish the press would do their jobs and dig into her non-achievements as first lady.
Sigh.
March 11, 2008 12:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Barrrrrfffff!!!! Everytime I hear them say something, I just want to puke.
March 11, 2008 11:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
i'm starting to respond to her like i do bush. just ignore it because it is probably exagerations or lies. looks like another long 8 years if she wins.
March 11, 2008 11:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Although I find this whole argument of Clinton's to be silly, the real thing that is missing here is a mention of Sinbad.
March 11, 2008 11:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is called "being on your heels."
Sinbad is a little pissed at this memo. Sinbad got a mad shout out in the Obama memo, but in this one?
At a second outpost, Camp Bedrock, Mrs. Clinton visited a M.A.S.H. unit, the only full-service U.S. Army hospital in Bosnia. The three-hour tour
of the frontlines of the international peacekeeping mission were filled with the gritty reality of a military operation, a far cry from traditional first lady photo opportunities.
Oooooookay, sure, that was 3 hours of her trip. What about the other 21 hours, which were spent with me, Sinbad, solving the crisis? What about THAT? WHERE IS THE LOVE, HILLARY?
Clinton/Sinbad '08 - Sort of boxed ourselves into a corner, didn't we?
March 11, 2008 11:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Blah blah blah..
I have experience. he doesn't believe me....
March 11, 2008 11:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Blah blah blah..
I have experience. he doesn't believe me....
March 11, 2008 11:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Blah blah blah..
I have experience. he doesn't believe me....
March 11, 2008 11:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
pretty good rebuttal, but I don't get the last line:
"The Obama campaign spends considerable time trying to "prove" that a private conversation between Hillary and President Clinton never happened."
Did I miss something?
March 11, 2008 11:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
yeah, what's up with that?
March 11, 2008 11:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's a response, but the problem is this:
She's framed these events are critical to being Commander in Chief.
Obama called her on it.
Rhetoric: she helped negotiate peace in Ireland
Fact: she encouraged women's groups to be strong and that the US was with them.
Rhetoric: She helped open the gates in Kosovo
Fact: The gates opened on 5/13, Ms. Clinton arrived on 5/14. Taking a harrowing 3 hour jeep ride is impressive, but not tatamount to Commander in Chief experience. If that's the case, Al Franken has made over 17 trips into and out of Afghanistan and Iraq. Does he pass the CIC threshold?
Rhetoric: She gave a speech in China with crisis-like potential
Fact: It was a speech at a women's coference. While there was a risk of hurting China's feelings, how is that any different than Stephen Spielberg pulling out of the Olympic preparation? Is Spielberg CIC qualified because he too made a 'political' statement regarding China's policies.
She didn't address the fact that she didn't have NSC clearance. She didn't address the fact that she didn't attend briefings. She mentions that she's familiar with PDBs. Doesn't anyone think that in the transition from election day to inaugration day that President-elect Obama will be made familiar with PDBs, as he will start recieving them?
Overall, her claims to experience are rather shallow. Had she stuck to her experience in the Senate, her argument would hold more water, but claiming photo-ops throughout the Clinton presidency is pretty weak.
March 11, 2008 12:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think I would trust Al Franken to be Commander in Chief more than Hillary.
March 11, 2008 1:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Her time in the Senate doesn't add up to 35 years of experience. If she stuck with that, he could just remind everyone that he has been in elected office longer than her. No sale. She stuck it out with what sounds like a stronger argument. To the unquestioning mind who has been aware of her for 20 years, her "experience" makes sense. But if you dig... Or if journalists question...
March 11, 2008 5:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
ScMadden said:
"The Obama campaign spends considerable time trying to "prove" that a private conversation between Hillary and President Clinton never happened."
I can't wait for Bill to say that Hillary told him not to get blowjobs with interns but he just didn't listen to her. Well, come to think of it, she hopefully did.
If she's using alleged private conversations with her husband to bolster her credentials, then we are now in cloud cuckoo land.
March 11, 2008 12:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps this is a reference to his disbelief of her 'private' opposition to NAFTA.
March 11, 2008 12:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Where is Sinbad and Cheryl Crow when you need them?
March 11, 2008 11:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
When is Hillary going to address the Geraldine Ferraro comments? That story is blowing up elsewhere and you can bet it's not going to go away. If Rush Limbaugh had said something like this it would be all over Media Matters.
http://thepage.time.com/obama-adviser-rice-on-msnbc/
Hillary needs to come clean and give voters some reassurance that Ferraro's warped, hateful comments do not reflect Hillary's campaign's attitude toward people of other races. Combined with the "Muslim garb" photo, this is becoming a "looks like a bigot, slurs like a bigot" situation.
March 11, 2008 11:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Tit-for-tat. No one is getting the upper hand here, except that Hillary is forced to answer some questions and play defense for once.
March 11, 2008 11:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is going to be a long six weeks...
March 11, 2008 11:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
I will say it again-how can anyone expect Obama to be Commander in Chief considering that as Chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations' Subcommittee on Europe and responsible for NATO and Afganistan, Obama has held ZERO hearings! ZERO. Al Qaeda is regrouping in Afaganistan people! That is where Bin Laden is!
Obama's lazy response, hold NO HEARINGS! He is to busy talking about change to do ANYTHING!
March 11, 2008 11:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'll respond again as others have addressed this lie. Point one, the subcommittee doesn't cover afghanistan, point two, the whole committee has had hearings on nato and afghanistan and point three, who gives a sh*t.
What exactly have all the committee hearings accomplished to date, let alone a stupid subcommittee? Anything on the us attorney firings? Or the warrantless wiretaps in violation of fisa and the constitution? Or, how about all the fraud in Iraq? Or, how about the manipulation of intelligence leading up to the war? Zippo.
By the way, how many subcommittee hearings has clinton convened? I'll take a wild stab at it, ZIPPO. Prove me wrong.
March 11, 2008 11:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama has NO foreign experience, and he didn't take the opportunities he had to actually try to improve our relationship with NATO allies to investigate Afghanistan, which is a terrorist training camp and where bin laden is hiding. Obama's apathy is troubling, especially because we need someone now with a strong background in Mid East situations, and he has NONE.
I would think going after the Terrorists in Afghanistan would be up there as #1 in my opinion. IF he doesn't have time, then he should relinquish this position and let someone else handle the situation.
March 11, 2008 12:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sinbad thinks you don't know how to read.
Here is a link to get you started.
And Sinbad would like to know why this is an issue, considering Obama has much more extensive foreign policy experience than did Bill Clinton in 1992.
March 11, 2008 12:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are you sure you want to go with the "NO foreign policy route?"
http://obama.senate.gov/press/050823-obama_to_visit/
http://obama.senate.gov/news/051102-obama-lugar_pro/
Please note the stops in Russia, Ukraine, Azerbijan, and England to meet with Blair.
Y'up. That's no experience at all.
Foreign Policy must only count if you have Sinbad and Sheryl Crow to go with you. :)
March 11, 2008 12:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
And, you didn't answer my question. How many subcommittee hearings did clinton chair? Your silence is deafening.
(Oops, sorry for the double post).
March 11, 2008 12:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Paraphrasing Lawrence O'Donnell:
Sub-committees have NO power. If something is important, it's handled by the FULL committee.
For example, the Armed Services Committee which has held two such meeting on Afghanistan recently.
Both of which were missed by Senator Clinton.
March 11, 2008 11:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
dembillic, If Hillary had the foresight Obama did our military would be in Afghanistan fighting against Al-Qaeda. But yet Hillary failed and sent our brave soldiers to die in Iraq for oil. And you think its worse that Obama didn't have any meetings? You are a smart one.
March 11, 2008 11:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Because, yeah, a junior senator convening a hearing hearing of an obscure Senate subcommittee to grandstand on that issue would totally have been effective in redressing that situation.
March 11, 2008 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am now feeling dumber every time I hear about the 3:00 a.m. phone call. It is the dumbest way to frame a foreign policy debate . . .
March 11, 2008 11:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Eh, probably not a good idea for the Clinton campaign to include a link to the George Mitchell interview.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/03/10/eveningnews/main3923206.shtml
Couric: Her claims to be involved in, you believe are not exaggerated?
Mitchell: Well, I haven’t seen the exact words that she has used to describe it.
March 11, 2008 11:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
If Hillary loses Mississippi, I think it's time for her to drop out. The numbers don't lie. She's not going to win the popular vote either:
http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=4449
March 11, 2008 11:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Monster Inc Says: ...Try to tear down Senator Clinton's accomplishments...They have chosen to attack.
What accomplishments? I'm sure staying married to Bill Clinton wasn't easy, but it doesn't qualify you to be President of the United States.
March 11, 2008 11:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
A day later, the Charleston Gazette reported that "Protected by sharpshooters, Hillary Rodham Clinton swooped into a military zone by Black Hawk helicopter Monday…This trip to Bosnia marks the first time since Roosevelt that a first lady has voyaged to a potential combat zone…"
Oh...my....God. I had no idea we were dealing with Wonderwoman all this time. I truly stand corrected.
March 11, 2008 11:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's highly possible it was also the first time Sinbad was escorted into a war zone under sniper fire.
March 11, 2008 12:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
dembillc, I fail to understand how a subcommittee on Europe is responsible for Afghanistan, please explain.
When the committee Hillary is on (Armed Services I believe) recently did hold hearings on Afghanistan, Hillary did not attend. More pot/kettle action here.
And if Hillary and others in Congress hadn't given Bush "authority" to invade Iraq on false pretenses, maybe we could have actually caught Bin Laden in Afghanistan. Which Obama pointed out at the time.
March 11, 2008 11:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
If you point out the emperor has no clothes on, is it really an attack?
March 11, 2008 11:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is GREAT!! Hillary is on the DEFENSIVE!!! About time.
It's too bad Obama has to go negative, but the Hillary/Lieberman/ZellMiller wing of the DLC decided to use Rovian tactics in slamming Obama and he must respond.
I also think it is fine for him to 'turn the tables' in going negative; that way he is not the initiator. He should continue to avoid initiating the negative attacks. But every argument Billary has used against Obama has been weak and can be turned and used against her; probably to even greater effect!!
SLAM AWAY on Billary!! - just keep turning the tables!
March 11, 2008 12:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clinton attacks.
Obama defends.
The sole reason for national security: to protect and defend America and its citizens.
Whose approach is more fitting?
March 11, 2008 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
"China
The Obama campaign diminishes Hillary's historic speech in Bejing as meaningless. But her speech at the conference – where she famously declared "women's rights are human rights" spurred real action."
So, do words and speeches matter, or do they not? I am confused, HRC!
Sorry, but this rebuttal memo is a steaming pile of sh*%.
March 11, 2008 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
yeah, she's on the defensive. but look how much quicker she is to respond.
March 11, 2008 12:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Quick and wrong is okay in your book?
March 11, 2008 12:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
You mean like when Obama created an entire TV commercial to respond to the 3AM nonsense and put it on air in about 4 hours?
She's fast, but that is like Superman fast!!
It is nice to see a little offense with all that defense. It's true what they say that defense wins championships.
March 11, 2008 12:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, unfortunately, I'm beginning to feel about Hillary like I do about George W Bush and Dick Cheney....with disgust, sometimes shame.
Hillary, you have lost -- please don't ruin our Party by insisting on pushing this any further.
March 11, 2008 12:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah I pretty much have the change the channel like i do with Bush.
March 11, 2008 12:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
And, you didn't answer my question. How many subcommittee hearings did clinton chair? Your silence is deafening.
March 11, 2008 12:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Make it stop!
Once again we get the dueling experts.
I think that HRC will score a totally undeserved win on this point because voters will not follow the claim and counter claim volley, they will just tune that right out, eye's wide shut. It is way too late in the game for any number of experts to matter.
What I think middle voters will go with are a sense that Obama is new on the scene and that HRC's constant presence in national life these last 16 years does amount to a certain ill defined experience.
Speaking as someone who does not look forward to an Obama presidency I want to say that his stump speeches just do nothing for me. My shortcoming I'm sure but there we are.
Obama strikes me as most effective and presidential when he blows off the tit for tat with HRC and directly addresses McCain and the Republican positions with HRC in his rear view mirror.
This is not to say that he can afford to not hit back on every Clinton attack but I think that is best done through his surrogates freeing him up to be Presidential Obama.
Nothing dulls that luster more than petty exchanges with HRC.
Her personal and too great an indulgence in snipe is one of the things that destroys any sense of gravitas for her and Obama neither needs to nor should go there personally.
March 11, 2008 12:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here, here. It's time for Obama to start ignoring HRC. Who cares what she says? She's thrown the kitchen sink, the garbage disposal, the bathroom sink, and has moved on to the toilet (G. Ferraro). It's just going to keep coming.
Obama needs to just move on. The Clintons love this crap.
Of course, that would be a helluva lot easier if the media didn't breathlessly report every ridiculous assertion made by the Clinton campaign. And that isn't going to stop any time soon because Hillary has made them paranoid about being unfair to her.
Time for real change.
March 11, 2008 12:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Absolutely. That's the only thing that makes me look forward to ANY presidency is his ability to ignore the chatter.
March 11, 2008 1:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Respectfully disagree. This nonsense has to be challenged by Obama. It is, at bottom, the experience versus judgment argument. Obama had better judgment on the Iraq War; Hillary did not.
Hillary is not going to be allowed to inflate her experience past all reasonable limits without challenge. She will be challenged.
Obama will lose the nomination to her if she is unchallenged on these sorts of assertions.
March 11, 2008 2:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
I clicked the link provided with this post and found myself at the Hillary 'fact-check' site.
As soon as I began to read a sentence starting with "reeling from his losses in Ohio and Texas, .........", well, I knew I was in lala land at that site, and not reading 'facts', but being offered spin. It is a fact that Obama won the Texas delegates, so how could he be 'reeling'?
The Hillary 'fact-check' site is as deceptive as the candidate for whom it is spinning.
March 11, 2008 12:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
John McCain wants to keep US Troops in Iraq for a Hundred Years. He has said so. Hillary Rodham Clinton has endorsed John McCain over Senator Obama.
HILLARY Is The New LIEBERMAN,,,,
March 11, 2008 12:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
i can't understand their logic. they attack for months, even BRAGGING about it by saying that they are throwing in the kitchen sink... then, they turn around and claim that obama is attacking them!!
honestly, they are shameless and so hypocritical... it would be comical if people wouldn't keep falling for it. i really don't understand how her supporters can ignore their blatant negativity, their conflicting statements, and their absolute lack of credibility.
March 11, 2008 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
In regards to this:
... hilzoy from Obsidian Wings has the full skinny:
March 11, 2008 12:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
"The Obama campaign spends considerable time trying to "prove" that a private conversation between Hillary and President Clinton never happened."
So, are they saying President Clinton shared classified information with her when she didn't have proper clearance? Or are they saying she knows how to run the country because he 'taught' her how?
I'm not sure how either arguement helps her, but I guess it can be interpretted some other way.
March 11, 2008 12:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
So not ready for VP then, right?
OH, Wolfson says he'll be ready for CiC by summer.
Great, then let's nominate him, he'll surely be ready by Nov.
March 11, 2008 12:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
"So, are they saying President Clinton shared classified information with her when she didn't have proper clearance? Or are they saying she knows how to run the country because he 'taught' her how?"
Wouldn't that be illegal?
I think they need to be asked if she illegal discussed classified matters.
March 11, 2008 12:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hmmm, thanks CreamyGoodness.
But, as others have pointed out, that just raises more questions...
March 11, 2008 12:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana
Hillary Clinton cites her eight years as First Lady as experience that equips her to make good decisions as President.
That means that she was present with Bill, in October of 1993, when things went to hell in a hand basket for the US in Somalia. Recall Black Hawk Down?
That was a micro precursor of what can go wrong with poorly planned and executed interventions in another country.
If Hillary had learned the real lesson of Somali, she could never have voted for to Authorize the Invasion of Iraq.
She did not gain an iota of Wisdom from her years in the White House, and therefore her claims of great experience are absolute rubbish.
March 11, 2008 1:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tit-for-tat. No one is getting the upper hand here, except that Hillary is forced to answer some questions and play defense for once.
Posted by das2003
I...don't...know..A guy from the state department named Greg---against----THE ENTIRE CLINTON CAMPAIGN!!!!
I guess they wrote the response in one large committee meeting. Man, are they orgainized, or what!
March 11, 2008 1:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Correction, kjoe: a guy in the State Department who was in a position to know and is telling the truth as confirmed by all kinds of other sources, vs. all the Clinton campaign flacks, lying as usual.
March 11, 2008 1:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Red Phone in Black and White
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/11/opinion/11patterson.html?ref=opinion&pagewanted=print
March 11, 2008 1:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Greg Craig was one of the lawyers who defended Bill Clinton during impeachment. He isn't just "some lawyer."
He is supporting Obama for reasons that he articulated to the New Yorker, which had a pretty fair profile of Hillary Clinton. In a nutshell, Craig thinks that Hillary's effectiveness will always be less than it could be because, in his words, "she needs enemies." In my words, she has a need to demonize those who disagree with her that is not conducive to winning policy arguments in Congress. She's really smart and she has good ideas but her fighting instincts are as much a liability as an asset because she doesn't know when fighting is the wrong tactic.
March 11, 2008 1:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hehe. Hahahah! Hohohohoho!!! Form Ezra Klein's blig (he forgot to link to the source):
"I never felt that I was in a dangerous position," [said Sinbad.] "I never felt being in a sense of peril, or 'Oh, God, I hope I'm going to be OK when I get out of this helicopter or when I get out of his tank.'"
In her Iowa stump speech, Clinton also said, "We used to say in the White House that if a place is too dangerous, too small or too poor, send the First Lady."
Say what? As Sinbad put it: "What kind of president would say, 'Hey, man, I can't go 'cause I might get shot so I'm going to send my wife...oh, and take a guitar player and a comedian with you.'"
March 11, 2008 1:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now that was funny.
March 11, 2008 1:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's the link, from the Washington Post:
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/sleuth/2008/03/sinbad_unloads_on_hillary_clin.html
March 11, 2008 1:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary Clinton is smart, she has good ideas, I think that she'd be a good president but for one thing: She seems to have an endless need to demonize people who disagree with her in a way that is decidedly not conducive to turning her policy ideas into law. She raised the CiC issue, she should respond, but calling an opponent's challenge an attack is just silly. It appears that she really can't stand criticism.
Greg Craig is not just some lawyer. He defended Bill Clinton during his impeachment and is (or was) a longstanding Clinton friend.
March 11, 2008 1:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wonder what our local Sinbad has to say about that washington post story
March 11, 2008 1:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Every time I glance across your handle, I misread it as "imbecile."
Come to think of it, that's not much of a misreading.
March 11, 2008 2:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
WWWAAAAAHHHHHHHHHH! The "unqualified" "Muslim" "Black man" is attacking me for my bullsh*t! WAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHH!
March 11, 2008 2:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wherever it appears, in what ever form, at whatever cost, Democrats must purge parasitic Clintonism from the Party, whatever it costs, whatever it takes
Let's be done with them once and for all
March 11, 2008 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nancy Pelosi just sent a warning shot across her bow:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0308/Pelosi_No_ticket.html
March 11, 2008 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink