shorter Hillary Talking Points: the same old shit, reheated.

too bad it's all been corrected/debunked weeks ago. but keep preying on those low information voters.

the race's closing days

Thank God for that

"Missing in action"? That's richer than Hillary's average corporate donor.

John, you're right. I meant Ohio/Texas closing days. will correct

What bullshit, if anything her history shows that she DOESN'T have what it takes to make quick decisions. Here is my complete point by point analysis of her ad:

http://thepersonalispolitical.tumblr.com/post/27622528

Look for a visit soon from Nancy Pelosi's consigliere with an offer the Clintons can't refuse

Real Hillery Talking Points:

I married a guy who became a State Governor, and then a US President.

That allowed me to jump to the head of the line, and not have to work my way to the top, like Senator Obama.

Experience, Experience. Experience.

Sorry. I will not be holding any White House press conferences because you people will always be unfair, and keep asking me the first questions.

Could somebody tell me if Hillary did any of this stuff in Northern Ireland and Kosovo? She's been taking credit for it, but did she do anything besides be there with Bill?

I'm sure that biased media that's so hard on Senator Clinton will finally ask these questions:

1) What international crisis has Clinton managed and/or taken a substantial role in managing?

2) What [nonexistent] information does Senator Clinton have that suggests Obama's subcommittee has any meaningful jurisdiction over operations in Afghanistan?

3) To what extent did Kyl/Lieberman address an international crisis and has it resulted in any action that has not been made known to the public?

4) How is Clinton's assertion that one can't rely on advisers reflected (or, as the case may be, not reflected) in the manner that she's managed her campaign?

Of course, I'm sure the "Clinton-hating" media will raise none of these questions as the weak-willed among them are intimidated into serving as Wolfson's stenographers in another round of innuendo-laced hit pieces on Obama's character.

What the hell did Hillery have to do with the peace agreement in Ulster.

George Mitchell spent years negotiating it. Bill Clinton granted Visas that helped. Tony Blair helped out. Bertie Ahern, Prime Minister of The Irish Republic, persuaded voters to amend their constitution to make the Ulster Unionist community safe from being forced into a united Ireland without the support of the majority of the population of the six counties.

Where did Hillery play a key role in all of that? She is claiming it as one of her major achievements. Why has the so called "Harder on Hillery" media not even challenged her on that absurd claim.

And of course Hillery had nothing to do with NAFTA.

What ever worked for her Husband, it was because of what Hillery did.

What ever went wrong, was always her Husband's fault, and Hillery was always opposed to him doing those things.

Since Hillary is making hay about his judgment to not hold these sub-committee meetings.

Obama should emphasize how Hillary voted not to ban those cluster bombs as a way to show she is inhumane and insensitive to the lives of innocent people and children.

Not only will Clinton surrogates be echoing those talking points, the talking hairdos on TeeVee will, also.

My other comment got zapped into comment-hell, so I'll repeat it. The Clinton campaign has done a really good job of leading the media on this. Early in the week, they started agitating about how the media is unfair. By Saturday, they've got the NY Times covering this issue, some 24 hours after the "red phone" ad. All of this means that the fact that the ad is pretty unrealistic (no president gets a call at 3 and has to act at 3:01 AM), evokes fears of someone breaking into your home at night (which, to toss out some more red meat, could be considered to have some racist overtones to it) and vastly overstates Hillary's "experience"--all of this will be irrelevant. I've to to hand it to the Clinton campaign. They have finally scored.

Ball's in Obama's court.

The problem with Hillary's talking points for me is that when I saw this ad what I thought was, "Holy shit! If she is answering the call at 3AM when something bad happens what is she going to do?"

So far I know this about Hillary Clinton, she is really good at playing to the emotional fears of security moms, but her actions speak louder than her words. She has had a much different opportunity than any other woman in the Senate to use her husband's legacy and her experience to our advantage. But when has she done that?

Did she use her name to stand up against President Bush in the run up to the Iraq War? No.

Did she, after seeing that he was abusing the authority she gave him, use her position to publicly challenge and question what was being done before "Shock and Awe"? No.

Did she, after the Mission was Declared Accomplished use her position and experience to question this President and his friends and their mocking "Bring It On" to call attention to the gross misuses of power? No.

She waited until it was politically OK. She waited until women like Cindy Sheehan, who have lost so much thanks to Hillary's 3AM decision making skills, came out and publicly questioned this President and this government.

I don't want another Commander in Chief who makes 3AM decisions based on political expedience and the potential profits of corporate interests that matter to them and fund their campaigns.

LOTS of misinformation flying around this comment thread about Barack Obama (HUGE surprise!) as usual:

Obama's subcommitte does NOT have jurisdiction over Afghanistan.

seee how she twists that to make it sound meaningful...no other countries are mentioned is all.

It's just another clintonian lie and distortion.

What [nonexistent] information does Senator Clinton have that suggests Obama's subcommittee has any meaningful jurisdiction over operations in Afghanistan?

Are you all so freakin' lazy you can't Google the answer yourselves instead of scuttling blindly after each other along the same illegitimate argument lines? Here, for crap's sake:

Should Obama wonder whether he ought to have bothered with his subcommittee, he could ask his friendly rival Joe Biden, D-Del., who chaired the Europe subcommittee for many years during the Cold War. Biden effectively exploited the chairmanship to transform himself from a junior member into one of the Senate's most knowledgeable experts on arms control, nuclear weapons, European attitudes toward America and the Soviet Union, the European Union's policies, and the role of NATO, which also comes under the subcommittee's mandate. As a result, Biden starred in Senate hearings on the SALT II arms treaties and eventually established himself as a leading national voice on foreign policy.

In case you missed the last debate, Obama plainly admitted:

I became chairman of this committee at the beginning of this campaign, at the beginning of 2007. So it is true that we have not had oversight hearings on Afghanistan.

What more do you want?

But anyway, why is this so important? Because of other speeches Obama has given bragging about how he would do things differently than Bush in Afghanistan. Most notably, from his speech in August 2007 "The War We Need to Win":

Above all, I will send a clear message: We will not repeat the mistake of the past, when we turned our back on Afghanistan following Soviet withdrawal.

Now that Obama's so busy running for president, he has no qualms about turning his back on Afghanistan for over a year. Meanwhile, as we know, Afghanistan deteriorates.

Here it is all nicely packaged in a video for you.

She voted for George W. Bush's Iragmire, and then claimed that he had duped her.

I sure hope that she will not have to deal with any world leaders who are as smart as George W. Bush or we will all be in deep doodoo!

Better set up a phone screening firewall, so that she only takes emergency phone calls from people who are dumber that George W. Bush or Hillary will get taken to the cleaners again and again.

clintonistan shrinks again

I encourage everyone to read this piece from MSNBC - I can't believe they're the only ones to have run this - it's regarding Senator Clinton and a 170,000.00 campaign contribution she has accepted and will not give back from a company where all it's principals are being sued in a massive sexual harrassment suit.

Other politicians who have received contributions have returned the money.

http://deepbackground.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/02/29/718285.aspx

Barb-

I look forward to supporting her opponent next time she tries to run for senate in New York.

Can we please stop lying about this subcommittee kerfuffle?

The Subcommittee on European Affairs is responsible for United States relations with the countries on the continent of Europe, except the states of Central Asia that are within the jurisdiction of the Subcommittee on Near Eastern and South and Central Asian Affairs. It also oversees U.S. involvement with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, relations with the European Union, and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_Foreign_Relations_Subcommittee_on_European_Affairs

The only thing Obama could have done would be to examine the European nations role in those NATO troops that are in Afghanistan.

Could he have pressed the European nations to increase NATO's involvement in Afghanistan?

Not directly. He could have pressed the subcommittee to recommend to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to recommend to the Senate for a proposal that could have gone to the Senate Floor to be presented hopefully for a vote (unless it was tabled, sent back to committee or subcommittee) and if passed it could have been sent to the House for hopeful agreement (unless it was tabled, sent to committee or subcommittee) and it could have (if it passed both bodies) been sent to the President who could have then taken it to the US senior permanent member in Brussels who could then bring it up with the other permanent members from all the other members of NATO. Who knows what sort of process each of the member nations has for approval of such a proposal, but by gum, Obama could have tried!

Yeesh.

The most Obama could have done within the bounds of this subcommittee is create a higher profile for himself by making a lot of noise. In that process, he might have build some bridges within the European Union, and that was probably a missed opportunity for him politically.

In not convening his subcommittee did he in any way jeopardize US involvement with NATO or in Afghanistan? Absolutely not.

John Kerry chairs the subcommittee responsible for relations with Afghanistan.

This whole line of BS from the Clintons really is straight out of the vast right wing conspiracy play book. It's distortion at it's worst and why the media hasn't picked up on any of this is beyond belief.

Has Hillary ever had the experience she says she has to pick up a red phone call? Let's ask her chief advisors and see if they have any real answers:

http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2008/02/pregnant_pause.html

wow. you can tell how effective the Clinton argument is on this issue by the level of panic and vitriol from the Obots.

Not one of the Obots is willing to actually deal with the comparison of who is best prepared to lead this country in a crisis situation. Its all about what Clinton hasn't done, what experience she hasn't, without regard to the fact that Obama has virtually no related accomplishments or experience.