Obama Memo: "No Support For Claim That Clinton Has Passed `Commander-In-Chief Test'"
Signaling a sustained and more aggressive counterattack against Hillary's "commander-in-chief test" assault, the Obama campaign has a new memo out from foreign policy adviser Greg Craig that goes after Hillary's claim to foreign policy seasoning with a sledgehammer:
There is no reason to believe...that she was a key player in foreign policy at any time during the Clinton Administration. She did not sit in on National Security Council meetings. She did not have a security clearance. She did not attend meetings in the Situation Room. She did not manage any part of the national security bureaucracy, nor did she have her own national security staff. She did not do any heavy-lifting with foreign governments, whether they were friendly or not. She never managed a foreign policy crisis, and there is no evidence to suggest that she participated in the decision-making that occurred in connection with any such crisis...The Clinton campaign’s argument is nothing more than mere assertion, dramatized in a scary television commercial with a telephone ringing in the middle of the night. There is no support for or substance in the claim that Senator Clinton has passed “the Commander-in-Chief test.” That claim – as the TV ad – consists of nothing more than making the assertion, repeating it frequently to the voters and hoping that they will believe it.
Rough stuff -- and this is coming from a former Clinton administration State Department official, no less.
The Obama campaign has scheduled a conference call today with Iraq War vets who will attest to his commitment to veterans and the armed forces. That comes a day after a press conference with former service secretaries who praised his judgment and preparedness. Clearly, the battle is fully engaged now.
Full memo after the jump.
When your entire campaign is based upon a claim of experience, it is important that you have evidence to support that claim. Hillary Clinton’s argument that she has passed “the Commander- in-Chief test” is simply not supported by her record.There is no doubt that Hillary Clinton played an important domestic policy role when she was First Lady. It is well known, for example, that she led the failed effort to pass universal health insurance. There is no reason to believe, however, that she was a key player in foreign policy at any time during the Clinton Administration. She did not sit in on National Security Council meetings. She did not have a security clearance. She did not attend meetings in the Situation Room. She did not manage any part of the national security bureaucracy, nor did she have her own national security staff. She did not do any heavy-lifting with foreign governments, whether they were friendly or not. She never managed a foreign policy crisis, and there is no evidence to suggest that she participated in the decision-making that occurred in connection with any such crisis. As far as the record shows, Senator Clinton never answered the phone either to make a decision on any pressing national security issue – not at 3 AM or at any other time of day.
When asked to describe her experience, Senator Clinton has cited a handful of international incidents where she says she played a central role. But any fair-minded and objective judge of these claims – i.e., by someone not affiliated with the Clinton campaign – would conclude that Senator Clinton’s claims of foreign policy experience are exaggerated.
Northern Ireland:
Senator Clinton has said, “I helped to bring peace to Northern Ireland.” It is a gross overstatement of the facts for her to claim even partial credit for bringing peace to Northern Ireland. She did travel to Northern Ireland, it is true. First Ladies often travel to places that are a focus of U.S. foreign policy. But at no time did she play any role in the critical negotiations that ultimately produced the peace. As the Associated Press recently reported, “[S]he was not directly involved in negotiating the Good Friday peace accord.” With regard to her main claim that she helped bring women together, she did participate in a meeting with women, but, according to those who know best, she did not play a pivotal role. The person in charge of the negotiations, former Senator George Mitchell, said that “[The First Lady] was one of many people who participated in encouraging women to get involved, not the only one.”
News of Senator Clinton’s claims has raised eyebrows across the ocean. Her reference to an important meeting at the Belfast town hall was debunked. Her only appearance at the Belfast City Hall was to see Christmas lights turned on. She also attended a 50-minute meeting which, according to the Belfast Daily Telegraph’s report at the time, “[was] a little bit stilted, a little prepared at times." Brian Feeney, an Irish author and former politician, sums it up: “The road to peace was carefully documented, and she wasn’t on it.”
Bosnia:
Senator Clinton has pointed to a March 1996 trip to Bosnia as proof that her foreign travel involved a life-risking mission into a war zone. She has described dodging sniper fire. While she did travel to Bosnia in March 1996, the visit was not a high-stakes mission to a war zone. On March 26, 1996, the New York Times reported that “Hillary Rodham Clinton charmed American troops at a U.S.O. show here, but it didn’t hurt that the singer Sheryl Crow and the comedian Sinbad were also on the stage.”
Kosovo:
Senator Clinton has said, “I negotiated open borders to let fleeing refugees into safety from Kosovo.” It is true that, as First Lady, she traveled to Macedonia and visited a Kosovar refugee camp. It is also true that she met with government officials while she was there. First Ladies frequently meet with government officials. Her claim to have “negotiated open borders to let fleeing refugees into safety from Kosovo,” however, is not true. Her trip to Macedonia took place on May 14, 1999. The borders were opened the day before, on May 13, 1999.
The negotiations that led to the opening of the borders were accomplished by the people who ordinarily conduct negotiations with foreign governments – U.S. diplomats. President Clinton’s top envoy to the Balkans, former Ambassador Robert Gelbard, said, “I cannot recall any involvement by Senator Clinton in this issue.” Ivo Daalder worked on the Clinton Administration’s National Security Council and wrote a definitive history of the Kosovo conflict. He recalls that “she had absolutely no role in the dirty work of negotiations.”
Rwanda:
Last year, former President Clinton asserted that his wife pressed him to intervene with U.S. troops to stop the Rwandan genocide. When asked about this assertion, Hillary Clinton said it was true. There is no evidence, however, to suggest that this ever happened. Even those individuals who were advocating a much more robust U.S. effort to stop the genocide did not argue for the use of U.S. troops. No one recalls hearing that Hillary Clinton had any interest in this course of action. Based on a fair and thorough review of National Security Council deliberations during those tragic months, there is no evidence to suggest that U.S. military intervention was ever discussed. Prudence Bushnell, the Assistant Secretary of State with responsibility for Africa, has recalled that there was no consideration of U.S. military intervention.
At no time prior to her campaign for the presidency did Senator Clinton ever make the claim that she supported intervening militarily to stop the Rwandan genocide. It is noteworthy that she failed to mention this anecdote – urging President Clinton to intervene militarily in Rwanda – in her memoirs. President Clinton makes no mention of such a conversation with his wife in his memoirs. And Madeline Albright, who was Ambassador to the United Nations at the time, makes no mention of any such event in her memoirs.
Hillary Clinton did visit Rwanda in March 1998 and, during that visit, her husband apologized for America’s failure to do more to prevent the genocide.
China
Senator Clinton also points to a speech that she delivered in Beijing in 1995 as proof of her ability to answer a 3 AM crisis phone call. It is strange that Senator Clinton would base her own foreign policy experience on a speech that she gave over a decade ago, since she so frequently belittles Barack Obama’s speeches opposing the Iraq War six years ago. Let there be no doubt: she gave a good speech in Beijing, and she stood up for women’s rights. But Senator Obama’s opposition to the War in Iraq in 2002 is relevant to the question of whether he, as Commander-in-Chief, will make wise judgments about the use of military force. Senator Clinton’s speech in Beijing is not.
Senator Obama’s speech opposing the war in Iraq shows independence and courage as well as good judgment. In the speech that Senator Clinton says does not qualify him to be Commander in Chief, Obama criticized what he called “a rash war . . . a war based not on reason, but on passion, not on principle, but on politics.” In that speech, he said prophetically: “[E]ven a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences.” He predicted that a U.S. invasion of Iraq would “fan the flames of the Middle East,” and “strengthen the recruitment arm of al Qaeda.” He urged the United States first to “finish the fight with Bin Laden and al Qaeda.”
If the U.S. government had followed Barack Obama’s advice in 2002, we would have avoided one of the greatest foreign policy catastrophes in our nation’s history. Some of the most “experienced” men in national security affairs – Vice President Cheney and Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and others – led this nation into that catastrophe. That lesson should teach us something about the value of judgment over experience. Longevity in Washington, D.C. does not guarantee either wisdom of judgment.
Conclusion:
The Clinton campaign’s argument is nothing more than mere assertion, dramatized in a scary television commercial with a telephone ringing in the middle of the night. There is no support for or substance in the claim that Senator Clinton has passed “the Commander-in-Chief test.” That claim – as the TV ad – consists of nothing more than making the assertion, repeating it frequently to the voters and hoping that they will believe it.
On the most critical foreign policy judgment of our generation – the War in Iraq – Senator Clinton voted in support of a resolution entitled “The Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of U.S. Military Force Against Iraq.” As she cast that vote, she said: “This is probably the hardest decision I have ever had to make -- any vote that may lead to war should be hard -- but I cast it with conviction.” In this campaign, Senator Clinton has argued – remarkably – that she wasn’t actually voting for war, she was voting for diplomacy. That claim is no more credible than her other claims of foreign policy experience. The real tragedy is that we are still living with the terrible consequences of her misjudgment. The Bush Administration continues to cite that resolution as its authorization – like a blank check – to fight on with no end in sight.
Barack Obama has a very simple case. On the most important commander in chief test of our generation, he got it right, and Senator Clinton got it wrong. In truth, Senator Obama has much more foreign policy experience than either Bill Clinton or Ronald Reagan had when they were elected. Senator Obama has worked to confront 21st century challenges like proliferation and genocide on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He possesses the personal attributes of a great leader -- an even temperament, an open-minded approach to even the most challenging problems, a willingness to listen to all views, clarity of vision, the ability to inspire, conviction and courage.
And Barack Obama does not use false charges and exaggerated claims to play politics with national security.
Finally, a succinct clear statement going at the heart of the lie. Now the question is will the right-wing corporate media start to run with this????? It's the old political adage, practiced with gusto by the king's administration, repeat the same lie over, and over, and over again and people start to believe the lie. Let's turn the page on this garbage.
March 11, 2008 10:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
There's the case. A good one. And the reason I have supported Senator Obama as a candidate for the Presidency since late 2006.
March 11, 2008 10:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hot damn.
March 11, 2008 10:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nice in depth counter attack to her claim of experience....
March 11, 2008 10:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's clear the media has accepted Clinton's claims of foreign policy experience at face value and have so far refused to question her on them. Perhaps it's time they do their job and examine her "credentials" - especially when there exists a lot of evidence that she has exaggerated her involvement in these incidents.
March 11, 2008 10:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
100 REASONS NOT TO VOTE FOR HILLARY CLINTON
WHAT THIS PAGE DOESN’T CONTAIN
No Vincent Foster, cocaine smuggling conspiracy theories. No dirty tricks or fraudulent smears. No right-wing BS.
WHAT THIS PAGE DOES CONTAIN
Legitimate, sourced and link filled, point by point criticism of the Hillary Clinton’s politics, positions, and staff.
March 11, 2008 10:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
well, i could argue that her prayer group thing was driven by nothing more than to curry political favor with conservative women.
the flag issue and the death penalty? probably also motivated not by her conviction but by political expedience and money.
she's guilty on 4&5.
March 11, 2008 11:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Another reason: She's poaching Obama's Delegates
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/3/11/05659/3925/970/471945
March 11, 2008 11:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
More disinformation from Obama supporters who have been led to believe Obama is not contacting super delegates!
Of course he is! because he knows the SDs will decide the nominee.
But according to Obama supporters - if they decide on Hillary - the nomination "will be stolen from Obama!"
Obama knew the rules going in - the SDs decide the nominee.
Will the SDs decide to annoint Obama who has spent much effort dividing the Dem Party by bashing universal health care, trial lawyers, unions, social security, boomers, etc. - and FALSELY accusing the Clintons of being racists?
Obama has pushed Repubs and Indys to vote for him and "be a Dem for a day" - but will that trick result in them voting for him in Nov?
The SDs decide the nominee...
March 11, 2008 12:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
That post from Kos isn't about supers, genius. It's about elected delegates from a caucus. Read it before you bitch.
March 11, 2008 1:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama knew the rules going in - the SDs decide the nominee.
This is a Clinton supporter lecturing on knowing the rules? Talk about chutzpah...
March 11, 2008 2:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Game, set, match.
March 11, 2008 10:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good on them for hitting back hard!
March 11, 2008 10:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Fucking finally. Mr. Chimes-in-five-to-seven-days-later has got to get his shit together and respond in a timely fashion.
March 11, 2008 10:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's five-to-seven days that the media couldn't, or wouldn't do this research themselves.
March 11, 2008 11:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
That claim – as the TV ad – consists of nothing more than making the assertion, repeating it frequently to the voters and hoping that they will believe it.
Well, duh. Standard political fare. Keep repeating something (no matter how tenuous the basis for it) and people will eventually believe it to be so.
It's taken the Obama campaign three months to figure this out?
March 11, 2008 10:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sinbad gets some love!!!
March 11, 2008 10:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Finally!
March 11, 2008 11:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
She really led with her chin on this whole experience thing and hoped Obama would be unwilling to hit back. What's her response? To retreat to the tactic of genrating sympathy when she's attacked?
March 11, 2008 10:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
She witnessed the turning on of Christmas lights.
I take back everything I've ever said about her. She is cleary ready to become POTUS. Fa la la la la la la la la.
March 11, 2008 10:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wow. Definitely worth reading the full memo and very well done. I'm glad to see a cohesive address of the many false claims made by the HRC campaign.
March 11, 2008 10:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Finally. About. Damn. Time.
March 11, 2008 10:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Right on.
March 11, 2008 10:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Awesome--
Now if we could just get some push-back on the recurrent and problematic assertion of both the Clintons and the media that she's the choice of "the working class" and the "blue collar" voters.
Because, so the claim goes, Obama supporters are either kids, wealthy, or black. And, of course, none of them work.
I don't know why she hasn't been called out more for this. It might be a "subtle" race card, but it sure gets my back up when I hear it.
March 11, 2008 10:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Odd, isn't it that unions are so supportive of Obama when he is so hostile to the needs of the worker?
March 11, 2008 11:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yo! Obama respond to Ferraro . . . TODAY.
March 11, 2008 10:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
I see your point, but if Obama spends all his time responding to trash, he will let trash set his agenda. His campaign may know what they're doing here.
March 11, 2008 11:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Susan Rice already did, and definitively. Why should Obama himself waste time with that crap when he's about to school her in yet another primary today?
March 11, 2008 1:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
That picture is hilariously Will Ferrell macho-like. I love it!
March 11, 2008 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ah, Thank God Sinbad got his props in the memo. He is still viable as her vp pick.
March 11, 2008 10:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry. This:
needed to be in blockquotes.
It's called the validity effect. Repeat something often enough, and reporters, readers and voters will believe it to be so.
March 11, 2008 10:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here's what the Obama camp has been missing so far: they only get torn down when they don't respond. Then it seems like Clinton has the upper hand. But if it's sustained attack and counter-attack, it's a wash. And a wash goes to the leader, currently, Obama.
March 11, 2008 10:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
If this were any other first lady, perhaps besides Roosevelt, the public may listen and buy into this "push back" from Obama. No American, Dem or GOP, believes that Hillary Clinton was not completely aware of what was going on and had a hand in at least a great deal of the administration.
This the essence: the American people are not going to vote for someone who they do not believe will protect them. It is that simple. Obama is going to go down like McGovern. He even refused to designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist group, even though there is no doubt that they are. I know many of you are going to squeel and moan about how he didn't want to give GW a new blank check. This does not matter. The GOP will paint him as weak weak weak. And he is is is.
March 11, 2008 10:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sinbad agrees with you! It was strength and strength alone that fortified the First Lady and I when we solved the refugee in Kosovo, er, BOSNIA!
She is powerful woman and Sinbad loves her tea!
No way the Republicans could POSSIBLY attack that kind of toughness!
Clinton/Sinbad '08 - We're both complete jokes!
March 11, 2008 10:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
MKyleM says... "weak weak weak" "is is is"
CT Hussein Voter- Is this what you meant by the "validity effect," aka Attentional Validity Effect?
March 11, 2008 10:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'd call that "priming". Same as "divisive divisive divisive" and "Clinton Clinton Clinton" would be priming.
Same as the way "9/11" and "Saddam Hussein" kept appearing repeatedly in the speechs by Bush and Co leading up to the invasion. It's subtle--priming--but it's different than the validity effect.
Not to be all cognitive psychology wonkhead on you...
Whatever, both methods are effective in creating a framework about a candidate. No matter how fraudulent that framework is.
March 11, 2008 11:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
And this is why time is of the essence to get on with the GE. The republican party and the republican government is setting the tone for the next level.
If the Dems do not start participating, they are toast for all the drive-by voters out there. Where is the DNC in all this? They should be working on setting the national tone.
March 11, 2008 11:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Keep promoting Clinton's vote on the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. Hell, you should start a website about it. Make posters.
I call on your fellow Clinton supporters will join you in trumpeting that vote.
March 11, 2008 10:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Was Clinton "completely aware of what was going on" and have "a hand in " in foreign policy decisions during the 1998-2000 period when by her own admission she and Bill were not talking?
March 11, 2008 11:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Saying it doesn't make it true.
If Obama beats the Clintons, a political GIANT, then that proves he is tough.
Hell, he's already proved he's tough by leading Hillary in all indicators.
Sure, the GOP will try to lie and slander their way to the White House. They'd do the same against Clinton.
Don't vote for your fears, vote for your hopes.
March 11, 2008 11:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
If by "weak", you mean unwilling to start wars that kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people for no reason other than to score domectic political points, than I agree with you, weak he is is is.
March 11, 2008 11:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
This American Dem believes Obama's 'blowback'. You see, the particulars involved in the foreign policy debates that she's taking credit for spoken up themselves, stating that she had no roles whatsoever (other than perhaps turning on Christmas lights).
She herself has said that she didn't have NSC clearance. She didn't sit in on NSC meetings, nor did she get to see any of those portfolios. SHE WASN'T CLEARED. If the President was sharing that info with her, and seeking her advice on anything more than a vague sense, wouldn't he be breaching National Security?
The evidence provided thusfar indicates that he did not at any time seek her advice on 3am phone call situations. Of course, if she released her White House schedules, perhaps we'd have a clearer look at what she was actually doing. There must be some national security reason that she hasn't sought to get those out in the public over the last seven years, right?
Your assertion that no American Dem or GOP would believe it is dead wrong. For the last few months, both my wife and I thought something didn't add up. She made these claims of experience, but there's NO evidence of her active participation in the heavy lifting of any of it. Sure, she's there for the congratulatory photo-op at the end, she DEFINITELY shared the glory of those events, but she didn't DO anything.
Next she's going to get hit hard on domestic policy experience. Check this link out:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/3/9/111930/6389/50/472849
How, exactly, could she have been instrumental in passing FMLA if Bill Clinton signed it 13 days into his presidency???
How could she have worked on the legislation if it was originally written in 1986 (6 years before the Clintons entered the White House)?
Why then does she say she helped pass it?
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/women/
Go ahead and check. Her claim is the fourth paragraph under 'Ready to Lead'.
If the evidence is CLEARLY available that she's fluffing her resume and taking credit for the work that others have done, than she needs to be called to the carpet for it.
Hillary Clinton/ Tommy Flanagan '08
"That's the Ticket!!!"
I'm thinking we should probably take a closer look at everything she's 'championed'.
March 11, 2008 11:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Kudos to hilzoy of Obsidian Wings.
March 11, 2008 10:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
In the conclusion of the memo they hit on their talking point about Iraq. They have to repeat this over and over and over. She need to get Hillary to defend the war vote or try to talk her way out of it.
March 11, 2008 10:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Greg says, "Rough stuff."
I guess this falls under the heading of the truth hurts. This statement includes no personal attacks, no half-truths, no distortions, just a recitation of the facts.
It makes me crazy that so much of the media considers such a statement to be "negative campaigning" and equates it to the Rovian sewerage that is frequently emitted from Wolfson's mouth. There is no equivalence, so stop acting as if there was.
March 11, 2008 10:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
By the way Craig is not just a "campaign adviser", he's a former State Dept. official (director of policy planning) in the Clinton Administration. Amusingly, he was also Billy Boy's chief counsel in the impeachment proceedings. Think he knows where the Clinton bodies are buried? ;)
March 11, 2008 10:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
I was wondering about BO ability o hit back... its taken a few days, but it seems as if they are warming up their engines...
This was a strong rebuttal by Craig, i am dying to hear Hillary's come back...
March 11, 2008 10:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe they waited so they could hit back at the beggining of the week. Timing is everything, after all.
March 11, 2008 11:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
If I were running for President and I were not already married I would be sorely tempted to marry Sheryl Crow. Not just because she is super hot, but because she has so much foreign policy experience.
March 11, 2008 10:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is the way to do it. Calmly and methodically dissect the nonsense that Hillary has padded her experience resume with.
March 11, 2008 10:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
College Ball Coaches are fired for exaggerating LESS on their resumes! (ask ND)
March 11, 2008 11:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
"That comes a day after a press conference with former service secretaries who praised his judgment and preparedness."
Really? I didn't see or hear one word of this anywhere. It wasn't in the news, that I saw, and there's nothing about it at TPM, is there? (Why not, I wonder?) It's not going to be much use if no one ever hears about it.
This is a great memo, that's for sure. And I'm glad to see at least THAT is covered here. But how much publicity is it going to get? FAR less than Clinton's claims, I'll bet.
March 11, 2008 10:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
To be fair to TPM they did mention that it would be happening, but a certain governor drowned out the rest of the news later in the day.
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/03/obama_to_push_back_harder_agai.php
March 11, 2008 11:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
After the dust settles, somebody had better make a similar case that McCain hasn't passed the test either. Otherwise we're all playing into his hands. ...And that case can be made.
March 11, 2008 10:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
MKyleM, that vote on the Iranian Rev. Guard was obviously a ploy to enable Bush & Co, to attack Iran if they wanted to. Some senators called it "Cheney's pipe dream." So please take that troll's point elsewhere.
March 11, 2008 10:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think the king and cheney's wet dream is probably more appropriate. I still can't believe that dems in the senate voted for the garbage or reid allowed it to get to the floor. Well, maybe he did thinking that it would help clinton. Outrageous.
March 11, 2008 11:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Silly me, I get it know.
Obama is qualified based on the fact that he gave a prophetic speech in 2002 and his work on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
I did i ever fall for that silly ad....
March 11, 2008 10:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/11/opinion/11patterson.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin Gives a good take on the subliminal message in the 'red phone' add,,,,,, does explain how it worked well in Texas,,, and maybe into PA, and wasn't even tried on Ohio
GOBAMA 08
March 11, 2008 10:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Silly me, I get it know.
Obama is qualified based on the fact that he gave a prophetic speech in 2002 and his work on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
Why did i ever fall for that silly ad....
March 11, 2008 10:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Now, to just get this into the hands of every PA voter in the next month.
March 11, 2008 10:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Pillow talk does not equal expertise.
My wife is a microbiologist. Does that make me an expert in microbiology?
What if your appendix bursts. Do you allow someone who has been married to a surgeon cut you open?
No.
Senatore Clinton was NEVER briefed on National Security measures. If, when First Lady, she never held a Security Clearance, then Senator Clinton has ZERO experience.
Pillow talk does not parlay into expertise.
March 11, 2008 10:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
"I am quite surprised that anyone would suggest that Hillary Clinton did not perform important foreign policy work as first lady. I can state from firsthand experience that she played a positive role for over a decade in helping to bring peace to Northern Ireland," said former SDLP leader and Nobel laureate John Hume is a statement responding to critical press reports.
"She visited Northern Ireland, met with very many people and gave very decisive support to the peace process. In private she made countless calls and contacts, speaking to leaders and opinion makers on all sides, urging them to keep moving forward," said Hume.
This would appear to be an important point. Press-based criticism of Senator Clinton has been based on the public record, and what has been recorded by both Clintons in their respective autobiographies.
Hillary, some would certainly argue, knows more than what has been made public thus far about what went on behind the scenes as the peace process gathered steam.
"Anyone criticizing her foreign policy involvement should look at her very active and positive approach to Northern Ireland and speak with the people of Northern Ireland who have the highest regard for her and are very grateful for her very active support for our peace process," Hume concluded in his defense of Hillary's Irish legacy.
March 11, 2008 11:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary, some would certainly argue, knows more than what has been made public thus far about what went on behind the scenes as the peace process gathered steam.
Sinbad has thought of a way for Hillary to resolve this confusion. Hillary should release her White House records from the time of Bill's presidency!
Sinbad used these masterful skills of reason and diplomacy to solve the crisis in Bosnia!
Clinton/Sinbad '08 - Solutions, speeches, stand-up, and secrecy!
March 11, 2008 11:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
RECOMEND
March 11, 2008 5:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
If John Hume publicly defends Hillary's work in Northern Ireland, that could hurt the Obama charges.
It will be interesting to see Hillary's response.
http://www.irishecho.com/newspaper/story.cfm?id=18626
March 11, 2008 11:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
That quote was released by the Clinton campaign. Hume is directly contradicted, however, by his own aide, who said:
I'll take independent third pary accounts rather than self-serving statements from the candidate and her campaign.
March 11, 2008 11:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
In a series of statements compiled by labor and fair employment advocate Inez McCormack, Clinton was lauded for her "decade-long support" of the peace process.
"We believe it is important for others to know the pivotal role Mrs. Clinton played in helping us in Northern Ireland at critical junctures in the peace process. She supported us over many years and we will always be grateful to her," said McCormack
"Hillary Clinton took risks for peace in asking me and others to bring women and communities from both traditions to affirm their capacity to work for common purpose," McCormack said.
"She used her immense influence to give women like me space to develop this work and validated it every step of the way. This approach is now taken for granted but it wasn't then. She told us that if we take risks for peace, she would stay with us on that journey. In my experience, it took hard work, attention to detail and a commitment of time and energy which she delivered steadily and where needed over the last decade," McCormack added.
Similar testimonies have been forthcoming from other women, Protestant and Catholic. They include prominent community worker Elaine Crozier, Baroness May Blood, a member of the British House of Lords, Geraldine McAteer, chief executive of the West Belfast Partnership Board, Avila Kilmurray, head of the Community Foundation for Northern Ireland, Patricia Lewsley, former member of the Northern Ireland Assembly and currently Commissioner for Children and Young People, and Joanna McVey, former CEO of the Fermanagh-published Impartial Reporter newspaper and chair of the Fermanagh Trust.
March 11, 2008 11:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nobel winner: Hillary Clinton's 'silly' Irish peace claims
By Toby Harnden in Washington
Last Updated: 9:30am GMT 08/03/2008
"I don’t know there was much she did apart from accompanying Bill [Clinton] going around," he said. Her recent statements about being deeply involved were merely "the sort of thing people put in their canvassing leaflets" during elections. "She visited when things were happening, saw what was going on, she can certainly say it was part of her experience. I don’t want to rain on the thing for her but being a cheerleader for something is slightly different from being a principal player."
Mrs Clinton has made Northern Ireland key to her claims of having extensive foreign policy experience, which helped her defeat Barack Obama in Ohio and Texas on Tuesday after she presented herself as being ready to tackle foreign policy crises at 3am.
"I helped to bring peace to Northern Ireland," she told CNN on Wednesday. But negotiators from the parties that helped broker the Good Friday Agreement in 1998 told The Daily Telegraph that her role was peripheral and that she played no part in the gruelling political talks over the years.
Lord Trimble shared the Nobel Peace Prize with John Hume, leader of the nationalist Social Democratic and Labour Party, in 1998. Conall McDevitt, an SDLP negotiator and aide to Mr Hume during the talks, said: "There would have been no contact with her either in person or on the phone. I was with Hume regularly during calls in the months leading up to the Good Friday Agreement when he was taking calls from the White House and they were invariably coming from the president."
Central to Mrs Clinton’s claim of an important Northern Ireland role is a meeting she attended in Belfast in with a group of women from cross-community groups. "I actually went to Northern Ireland more than my husband did," she said in Nashua, New Hampshire on January 6th.
"I remember a meeting that I pulled together in Belfast, in the town hall there, bringing together for the first time Catholics and Protestants from both traditions, having them sitting a room where they had never been before with each other because they don’t go to school together, they don’t live together and it was only in large measure because I really asked them to come that they were there.
"And I wasn’t sure it was going to be very successful and finally a Catholic woman on one side of the table said, ’You know, every time my husband leaves for work in the morning I worry he won’t come home at night.
"And then a Protestant woman on the other side said, ’Every time my son tries to go out at night I worry he won’t come home again’. And suddenly instead of seeing each other as caricatures and stereotypes they saw each other as human beings and the slow, hard work of peace-making could move forward."
There is no record of a meeting at Belfast City Hall, though Mrs Clinton attended a ceremony there when her husband turned on the Christmas tree lights in November 1995. The former First Lady appears to be referring a 50-minute event the same day, arranged by the US Consulate, the same day at the Lamp Lighter Café on the city’s Ormeau Road.
The "Belfast Telegraph" reported the next day that the café meeting was crammed with reporters, cameramen and Secret Service agents. Conversation "seemed a little bit stilted, a little prepared at times" and Mrs Clinton admired a stainless steel tea pot, which was duly given to her, for keeping the brew "so nice and hot".
Hillary Clinton meeting with Belfast women in 1995 and the teapot she admired
Hillary Clinton meeting with Belfast women
in 1995 and the teapot she admired
Among those attending were women from groups representing single parents, relationship counsellors, youth workers and a cultural society. In her 2003 autobiography "Living History", Mrs Clinton wrote about the meeting in some detail but made no claim that it was significant.
Rather than it being the first time the women had met, Mrs Clinton wrote: "Because they were willing to work across the religious divide, they had found common ground." Mary Fox, the wife of a former IRA prisoner and one of the seven women at the meeting, said she had been there on behalf of the Footprints community centre. "It was quite a political change for the women’s sector after the visit of Hillary Clinton. We would love to see her as president. She spoke to each of us and was very interested in our work. She was lovely."
Mr McDevitt said: "I’ve always had a theory that these people were already well networked. Maybe they needed a bit of bringing together and she [Mrs Clinton] was an ideal focus point." Once a peace deal was in place, Mrs Clinton supported women politicians and was always available if they visited Washington "to give them a pat on the back, give them moral support", he added.
March 11, 2008 3:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wouldn't that be much easier if her official records were released, you know, prior to her running for higher office?
She's only had 2,000+ days to request them.
Just sayin'...
March 11, 2008 11:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Uh, oh.
My pledge to donate to Obama's campaign every time he releases an effective, tough (not nasty!) reply to the Clinton camp might put me in the poor house.
No complaints, though! :O)
March 11, 2008 11:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
That was some VERY powerful stuff. Keith Olbermann was already picking up on the fluff in Clinton's asserted foreign policy qualifications from her years at FIRST LADY. However, I remain concerned that the MSM won't debunk Clinton on these various points. Please let me be proven wrong . . .
March 11, 2008 11:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
If there is a debate in Philly, you know BO will by dying to talk about her foreign policy experience. This memo rebuts all of Hillary's talking points. She wont have a leg to stand on foreign policy experience wise.
March 11, 2008 11:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
NO MORE DEBATES!!!!!! I am soooo sick of these stupid debates. They aren't really debates anyway and they just repeat the same stuff over, and over, and over, and over again. How many debates do we need? We've had what 20 now. NO MORE DEBATES!
March 11, 2008 11:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sledgehammer is right. Ouch.
Gobama.
Now if the MSM would just get off their Spitzer-arse and cover something that matters to those of us NOT living in NY, we'd be all set.
March 11, 2008 11:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
In other words, she's a resume-padder, an exaggerator, a lier.
March 11, 2008 11:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
You GOT IT right Bat Guano.
The truth is saying Hillary Clinton has whitehouse/foreignpolicy experience is like saying Yoko One was a Beatle.
March 11, 2008 11:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Finally a real response to this ridiculous "Experience" argument that Hillary has been making.
I wonder though, why Obama does not talk more about his time organizing, can't he reach out to the working class voters he has had trouble persuading by showing them that he understands their situation....he has actually worked closely with struggling people and communities. I realize that central/western Pennsylvania and inner-city Chicago are worlds apart, but the economic problems are pretty similar...Is he afraid it makes he sound like too much of an activist, or social justice type? I don't get it, I always thought that was valuable and unique experience, and fitting right in to his call for a new type of grass roots, bottom-up politics.
March 11, 2008 11:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Her experience planning State dinners and redecorating the White House shouldn't go unnoticed in her historical bid for the office.
March 11, 2008 11:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
THIS IS EXCELLENT NEWS!! FOR HILLARY!!!
March 11, 2008 11:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here are Senator Clinton's own words about the matter in an interview given early in 2007:
Mrs. Clinton said in the interview that she was careful not to overstep her bounds on national security, relying instead on informal access. During the pre-inaugural transition, for instance, she sat in on some meetings about presidential appointments at the invitation of Warren Christopher, who directed the transition and became secretary of state in the first Clinton term.
She said she did not attend National Security Council meetings, nor did she have a security clearance — though she was briefed on classified intelligence before going on some important diplomatic trips.
“I don’t recall attending anything formal like the National Security Council,” she said, “because I had direct access to all of the principals. I spent a lot of time with the national security adviser, the secretary of state, other officials on the security team for the president. I thought that was both more appropriate, but also more efficient.”
Mrs. Clinton declined to say if she ever read the President’s Daily Brief, a rundown of the latest intelligence and threats to national security provided to the president each day. “I would put that in the category of I-never-talk-about-what-I-talk-to-my-husband-about,” she said. But she indicated, and other administration officials confirmed, that Mr. Clinton would sometimes talk to her about contents of the briefing.
“Let me say generally, I’m very aware of and familiar with what the P.D.B.’s actually are, how they work, what they include,” she said. “And it wasn’t always through the Clinton administration — when I went to Bosnia, for example, I had a full briefing from the military commanders there about what the situation was like.”
There - I don't think she's wildly overstating her case, do you? Also, I don't think she's wrong in pointing out that Obama has never even reached this modest level of being involved in foreign policy. Maybe if he'd visit Europe sometime or actually hold a hearing of that Senate Subcommittee he chairs.
March 11, 2008 11:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, she is overstating her case given that the public has no knowledge of any information included in the category 'I never talk about what I talk to my husband about'
That category can be summed up as a vastrightwingconspiracy.
If she can't talk about it then she can't claim it as experience...real simple...which makes it not only an overstatement on her part but a gross overstatement.
We are not privvy to Billary experience so we can't vote on it nor rely on it..given her public track record of ineptitude when it comes to solutions for mass complex problems like health care and taking this country to war.
March 11, 2008 11:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Colonpowwow: There - I don't think she's wildly overstating her case, do you? Also, I don't think she's wrong in pointing out that Obama has never even reached this modest level of being involved in foreign policy. Maybe if he'd visit Europe sometime or actually hold a hearing of that Senate Subcommittee he chairs.
Jaysin1414: You mean like this trip in 2005?
http://obama.senate.gov/press/050823-obama_to_visit/
March 11, 2008 11:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
and in case you doubt that said trip ever occured...
http://obama.senate.gov/news/051102-obama-lugar_pro/
March 11, 2008 11:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think it was wrong for the candidate with a virtually insurmountable pledged delegate deficit to state that she and the Republican nominee have passed "the commander-in-chief" threshold but the candidate is is almost certainly going to be the Democratic nominee has not.
It would be one thing for McCain to say it in the general. That's his brand. It would be expected, predictable and, for those reasons, to some extent, discounted. It's another thing entirely for McCain to be able to say the Clinton said it.
If she was going to raise this issue in this specific fashion, she should have done so back when she had a chance to win the pledged delegate race. Now that she has no chance of winning that race, she cannot win the nomination without ignititing a civil war in the party that will assure her loss in the general.
But, hey, Colon. I'm glad to see you back again. Nothing more dangerous than an echo chamber.
March 11, 2008 11:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
My only concern is that this most effective and damning rebuttal of her claims to the White House are almost certainly going to be overshadowed by a sex scandal.
They really do need to better manage the media (think how Bush always dumps bad news on Friday afternoons). This should have come out when the "Clinton has the big mo" narrative reasserted itself - preferably after she rolled out another fearmongering ad, and everybody was talking about how national security is Obama's Achilles heel.
The otherwise execrable "Petey" made a good point on another blog: Clinton launches her negative attacks a couple of days before a vote; this doesn't give Obama time to respond, and the most prominent impression of the campaign is the attack, with no context to moderate its effectiveness.
Obama seems to launch his rhetorical initiatives without regard to the broader range of issues in play at a given time. For example, while I love the response set out in the main post, he's going to win MS big tonight, and further blunt any claims of momentum she might have. I would have held my fire on this issue until it becomes ascendant again.
I think he's running one of the best campaigns I've ever seen; I would like him to tweak this one aspect to make it even better.
March 11, 2008 11:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Many people have already said this, but I would like to reiterate:
It's worth reading the entire memo.
There is such a stark contrast between the way he runs his campaign and the way Hillary Clinton and George Bush have run their respective campaigns.
Clinton and Bush say "2+2=5. 2+2=5. 2+2=5." If anyone says, "Wait, that doesn't make any sense...", they just repeat "2+2=5".
Barack Obama says "2+2=4" and then provides three pages of mathematical backing to his claim.
Media headline - "Clinton says 2+2=5, Obama disagrees". *sigh*
March 11, 2008 11:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps someone on this blog would know the answer to this question:
It is my understanding that the first lady has a low security clearance. If those in the Clinton Administration (including her husband) had consulted her and asked her advice on serious foreign policy issues requiring a high security clearance would the law have been violated?
If the answer is yes, would this not be an issue to bring forward?
March 11, 2008 11:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Don't know about your question; however, for the life of me, I don't understand why she did not have a high security clearance. Mr. Bill could accomplish that with a sweep of his pen. Why didn't she have a high security clearance? It makes absolutely no sense.
March 11, 2008 11:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Clinton already has rebuttals for Obama's lame arguments.
You don't wait 2 weeks to respond a la Obama. You fire back right away.
March 11, 2008 11:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Very interesting comment!
And actually quite well-grounded in the art of behavioral training. When you give a reward for acceptable behavior most sentient creatures learn even complex tasks in a short time.
Will this work for a larger social entities?
Don't know, but it is worth a try.
Hit the contribution button and let's all give it a go...
March 11, 2008 11:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
He HAD to wait - and wait - and wait. Unlike Clinton, Obama does not relish tearing down a fellow Dem who just might be the nominee and he doesn't want to be perceived by the Dem leadership (think, SuperDelegates) as someone who will create negativity unnecessarily and damn the party for his own ambitions. That's the difference between them: it's called foresight, looking ahead, thinking about consequences of your actions.
So he had to give her the chance to back off these claims and, when she didn't, give the press the chance to be the 'bad guy' and come up with this background. No one has; it's getting out of hand; everyone (including SDs) can understand that it's up to him to do something; and so he does ..... thoroughly. The timing may frustrate the hell out of us (for the most part) partisan junkies, but we're not the ones he needs to win over.
You saw the same thing with the 'race card' flare-up that happened between NH and NV. It took fire, got worse, Clinton had several chances to stop it and she only made it worse - culminating in a Sunday when, on MTV, she turned away the chance to deal with it in statemanlike fashion and milked it for all it was worth, and in the afternoon sat silently while Bob Johnson did his ugly routine. By then ANYONE could see that the Clintons were going to let it go on and fan the flames, so the next day (finally! we all said), Obama calls a presser and puts a STOP to it. He did it in such a way - praising the Clintons for their dedication to civil rights - that she had no choice but to go along with the 'truce.' Later that week at the debate, he even swallowed hard and took responsibility for the memo that had come out of his campaign, although never requested by the campaign or sent to the press by them.
It's called being a 'grown up' in the room and exercising enough self-restraint to allow a situation to resolve on its own if it can and, if it doesn't, to respond at the right time and effectively. I admire this about him far more than I do the lovely oratory. This sort of instinct and timing can't be taught (not even in 'Commander-in-Chief' school).
March 11, 2008 11:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Even the 3 AM ad leaves her vulnerable. One can infer that Bill is sleeping right next to her (at least some of the time) and that he will be there to lend a hand. Back to a co-presidency....
March 11, 2008 11:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Brilliant. Obama's best rebuttal yet: specific, well-sourced, and not at all a personal attack. Tough but not cheap. (thought he Sinbad detail was priceless)
Now his lower-ranking folks can respond to the absurd way that Ferraro and others are trotting out this bogus affirmative-action line, which says that it's just so darn easy for a black man to be elected President...
March 11, 2008 11:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Great.
Sledgehammer all the way.
Some hardedged surrogates are the best way.
Hillary is a sham.
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
And yes, very good response by the Obama campaign, that sums it up very nicely, they need to keep hitting that, putting it in ads, until voters start to realize her "experience" is all hype.
March 11, 2008 11:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Congratulations, Sinbad! When will you be on Nightline is what I want to know.
March 11, 2008 11:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary wants to be on top,but Obama she will never stop. With her and Bill it's just a game. They only want to keep things the same. It's all about them and not about you . We are just the ones they screw ! And if you buy into their game, things will just be the same. We're going down. We have one hope-OBAMA- he can change the slope. He'll turn it up,for you and me. We'll be on our way to victory. For Clinton there's no path, check it out, do the math! She says she can win-but that's all spin She missed the bus, and it's becuz-she thought she was bad-but she's just sad! Who's sorry for her ?- For sure not me. Hillary could have made history. She'll attack Barack and says he's bad. But for her, the end will be sad,sad,sad . Where is that iron ?! ...OK, here is the scenario-Clinton and Obama both knew and agreed to the rules before tis mess started. Show of hands-how many think we should change the rules in the middle of the game to help either side ? thought so-on with the game. Ms Clinton needs to go bake some cookies or whatever, she is done here. And Obama does NOT need her on his bus, in front or in back-too divisive !
March 11, 2008 11:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Great, but who is going to read this? Engaged political people will, but it's my guess, those people have already made up their minds.
This is important for everyone to read, but nobody will. The MSM can't convert this into a 15 second soundbyte.
It's not a pretty shiny red phone.
It's a start though.
March 11, 2008 11:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Olbermann LIED about Hillary's involvement with NAFTA-gate!
Per Harper's office - only Obama contacted them.
Clinton camp never briefed Ottawa -
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20080308.NAFTA08/TPStory/National
Officials only got briefing from Obama campaign -
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080307.wnaftagate0307/BNStory/National/home
These news reports were available BEFORE Olbermann's show.
When will TPM correct the disinformation?
Never.
March 11, 2008 12:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's pretty weak evidence you're providing.
Prime Minister Harper's office says the Clinton campaign didn't brief them.
Obama's campaign didn't either. Canada contacted an unpaid Obama advisor that basically rehashed Obama's policy. He intends to keep NAFTA and rework it to protect environmental and labor standards.
This contact was then reworded for Canada's internal audience and then leaked by the conservative government in Ottawa.
What this doesn't change is the following:
1) NAFTA was passed by Bill Clinton.
2) Hillary Clinton has on several occasions championed it as a great success.
3) Clinton's hypocrisy is STILL evident. She has the same poliy (after back-tracking from prior support) as Obama does today, yet she calls him out on it?
Besides, Ottawa says that Clinton never briefed them, it doesn't say that no contact was ever made. It depends on what your definition of 'is' is.
March 11, 2008 1:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary was a great supporter of her husband while President helping this Nation and the world., Obama's wife Michelle Obama is saying things like "we’re a country that is just downright mean, we are guided by fear, we’re a nation of cynics, sloths, and complacents." and that she was never proud of this country until it started kissing her and her husbands ass. I have a suggestion for spoiled Michelle Obama who went to Princeton and Harvard and makes $316,000 a year salary, move to Afghanistan, then maybe Barack will hold a hearing as Chairman of his subcommittee.
March 11, 2008 12:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary was a great supporter of her husband while President helping this Nation and the world., Obama's wife Michelle Obama is saying things like "we’re a country that is just downright mean, we are guided by fear, we’re a nation of cynics, sloths, and complacents." and that she was never proud of this country until it started kissing her and her husbands ass. I have a suggestion for spoiled Michelle Obama who went to Princeton and Harvard and makes $316,000 a year salary, move to Afghanistan, then maybe Barack will hold a hearing as Chairman of his subcommittee.
March 11, 2008 12:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary was a great supporter of her husband while President helping this Nation and the world., Obama's wife Michelle Obama is saying things like "we’re a country that is just downright mean, we are guided by fear, we’re a nation of cynics, sloths, and complacents." and that she was never proud of this country until it started kissing her and her husbands ass. I have a suggestion for spoiled Michelle Obama who went to Princeton and Harvard and makes $316,000 a year salary, move to Afghanistan, then maybe Barack will hold a hearing as Chairman of his subcommittee.
March 11, 2008 12:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you must go there and bring spouses into this fracas.
Hillary and Bill were fighting impeachment proceedings because he couldn't keep his pants up while real-world problems went undealt with.
Bill's library has received millions of dollars from Saudis, not to mention this recent mining venture with Kazakhstan. What favors are they promised in return once Billary returns to the White House?
Hillary's brother received hundreds of thousands of dollars for selling pardons. Do we have this to look forward to in Billary's third term?
The LAST thing a Hillary supporter wants to do is attack spouses. It conjures up memories of a 'spritzered' blue dress, in case you've forgotten...
We can play tit-for-tat all day long...
March 11, 2008 3:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Greg Craig is certainly emphatic in his refutal of Clinton's foreign policy experience. Who is he supporting? What was his experience with the Clinton administration? As with everything put out at this time, it has to be viewed through the lens of the campaign. Does he have an ax to grind with the Clinton presidency, with Hillary Clinton, perhaps for an unofficial involvement, or is he an Obama supporter, and using his cachet as a former Clinton appointee to lend credence to a political statement in the heat of a tough campaign? Forgive me for sounding cynical, but lately, I see ulterior motives behind every statement.
March 11, 2008 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clinton's support is far deeper and wider and the list of military brass is much, longer, and on one call alone she had eighteen flag officers promoting her commander-in-chief bona fides:
General Wesley Clark
Admiral William Owens
General Johnnie E. Wilson
Lt. Gen. Joe Ballard
Lt. Gen. Claudia J. Kennedy
Vice Admiral Joseph A. Sestak
Lt. Gen. Frederick E. Vollrath
Major General George A. Buskirk, Jr.
Major General Paul D. Eaton
Rear Admiral Stuart Platt
Rear Admiral David Stone
Major General Antonio M. Taguba
Brigadier General Michael Dunn
Brigadier General Evelyn "Pat" Foote
Brigadier General John M. Watkins, Jr.
Brigadier General Jack Yeager
Former Secretary of the Army and Veterans Affairs Togo West
Former Secretary of the Navy, John Dalton
March 11, 2008 12:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
All clinton supporters, big deal.
On another note, being a rabid supporter of the clintons, I have a serious question. Why not give her high security clearance when she was first lady? I really don't understand that one and mr. bill could have accomplished it with a sweep of his pen. Any ideas?
March 11, 2008 12:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
She didn't need high security clearance because she didn't do anything. She was the first lady.
March 11, 2008 12:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
The point is they both have retired military officials who support them politically. You don't just see who has the larger number of ex-generals on their side and vote for them. I imagine a lot of current members of the armed services would've preferred Obama was CiC back in 2002 than Bush, Clinton, or McCain.
As far as McCain supporters who tout their candidate's actual military experience...go read up on Ulysses S. Grant's presidency.
March 11, 2008 1:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
MSNBC is still stuck on the Veep stuff and Obama's comments today about her releasing the African garb photo. Not a word about this, although they mention the Clinton response.
On the plus side, they are calling out Clinton's hypocracy on the veep/not ready for CinC paradox.
March 11, 2008 12:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Food fight! FINALLY!
March 11, 2008 12:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Anyone else notice that Obama still hasn't given one reason why he is Commander in Chief material, other than a speech he gave in 2002?
I doubt it.
This is OTPM, Obama Talking Points Memo, after all.
All Obama can do is launch negative attacks and character assassinations because he has no credentials or record of achievements of his own.
He did nothing for two years in the Illinois Senate, other than being too cowardly to take a stand on votes and pressing the wrong button. Then in his third year there, he stole everyone else's hard work and signed his name to it, what some people call the "ole okie doke".
March 11, 2008 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
"All Obama can do is launch negative attacks and character assassinations because he has no credentials or record of achievements of his own."
That's how I would describe Hillary. Obama supporters know he hasn't been in D.C. long. We don't see it as a negative.
This "one speech in 2002" thing is ridiculous. Obama has clearly been against the war from the beginning. It's reflected in many many statements.
March 11, 2008 12:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
In the USA, we are NOT ruled by the military. We tell the military what to do. Refer to the speech President Eisenhower made when he was leaving office . Who cares how much support Ms Clinton has from the military? For sure- not me !
March 11, 2008 12:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Experience without wisdom is just age.
Here's Sen. Clinton failing the most important C in C test:
Are You Experienced?
March 11, 2008 12:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course, no self-respecting journalist following this race should need a memo to figure this angle out, but I welcome it anyway.
March 11, 2008 12:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
HRC - Experience you can Xerox!
March 11, 2008 12:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Hillary was a great supporter of her husband while President helping this Nation and the world."
That still doesn't count as commander in chief experience. This post has really getting to the Clinton supporters. Must have hit close to the mark...
March 11, 2008 12:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/sleuth/2008/03/sinbad_unloads_on_hillary_clin.html
March 11, 2008 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama supports can be dismissive all they want and, themselves, repeat the same phrases and talking points over and over until they believe them.
This is a war-time election. I don't care how dishonest the GOP and media have been in getting us into this awful war. The GOP will successfully portray Obama as someone who will never make the tough decisions to protect the American people. He was soft on crime in the IL Senate. He was soft on Saddam (in his book he declared that he had little doubt Hussein actually had WMD and still opposed the war). Soft on the Iranian guard (who actually are killing our forces in Iraq).
Again, the essence: the American people are NOT going to vote for someone who they believe will NOT make the tough decisions to protect the country. It is very very simple.
Look at McGovern. Big opponent of a VERY unpopular war. He lost so big; I cringe to think of what will happen to Obama when he's faced with McCain.
March 11, 2008 12:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Again, the essence: the American people are NOT going to vote for someone who they believe will NOT make the tough decisions to protect the country. It is very very simple."
Lots of conservatives trolling today.
March 11, 2008 12:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dude, you sound like a deranged GloboCop if you think that simply leaving the defiant governments of other sovereign countries alone is being "soft". This is the mindset that Obama talks about "changing", no wonder you loathe him and support Hillary because she shows that she could kick some *ss in the ME, dropping bombs on people who have been crippled by sanctions and who pose no threat.
March 11, 2008 1:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Deciding to drop bombs on people in other countries because it is easier to do than to question or defy the prevailing idiocracy is not TOUGH -- it is actually the easy way out.
We went to war in Iraq and now more than 4000 US soldiers and 3 million+ Iraqis are dead, maimed or displaced FOR NOTHING. We have accomplished NO OBJECTIVE other than toppling Saddam at a cost of $3 trillion dollars. We continue to tip toe around patriotic language and no one seems to want to be the one to say it -- IT WAS FOR NOTHING -- it is purely American ego, American PR, American naval gazing, and American fear. Osama bin Laden is still on the run, Afghanistan is unravelling, our troops are dying, our economy teeters on the precipice, and Halliburton and Blackstone are a blight that have become business as usual.
WHERE THE HELL IS MY COUNTRY.
It is such a grotesque abdication of morality and principle I cannot even speak. The very least I can do is elect the people who will END THIS EVIL WAR. And act to secure lasting peace and justice for ALL. We need zero emissions and we need to lead the world in clean energy. We need universal health coverage not because progressives wanna be softheaded nice guys but because it makes us fucking competitive -- do you want to the American worker to compete with the English, the Canadians, the Germans, the French, or do you want them to compete with Mexico, China, and India? I am sick of watching my country get gutted and looted by conservatives and the radical right. The reason Obama is running is because WE HAVE NO MORE TIME. Dems need to wake up -- Obama is the only one we have who can see clearly, and pull it all together. You think he isn't tough? We're gonna see exactly how tough he is when he is President of these United States.
March 12, 2008 6:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Mathews says that Hillary was not involved with Spitzer's prostitution problems--"as far as he knows"
March 11, 2008 1:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
"[b]That claim – as the TV ad – consists of nothing more than making the assertion, repeating it frequently to the voters and hoping that they will believe it.[/b]"
And believe they did!
Again, it's not about Truth & Reality when it comes to SAV (Stupid American Voter), but the Perception.
Remember when you guys couldn't yet vote, but were all soooo sure that George W. Bush would [i]never[/i] be re-elected in 2004, after all the lying he did and the war he started.....?
The other 99,5% out there decided for you, and a majority of those people voted him back in.
Perception, perception, perception.
March 11, 2008 1:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am not a conservative. Again, be dismissive all you want, but it will be our collective funeral.
March 11, 2008 1:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is *no way* that talking about more war is going to carry the day in this election. No way.
75% of the populace want to find some way out of Iraq. Talking about how gung ho he is will not help McCain in this dynamic. Talking about the possibility of an additional war against Iran will not help McCain with this dynamic.
Petraeus himself told Congress many times that the ultimate goal of the surge was political progress in Iraq. Before the election, he will be back in Congress testifying how things went. It will be easy to demonstrate that no political progress is being made. Iraq is an anchor around McCain's neck. Dems don't need to make the same mistake.
March 11, 2008 1:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know, deep inside you, don't you even have some wee feelings, a little guilt, about the 1 million innocent, totally defenseless Iraqis who died from the lethal Bush-Clinton sanctions and the shock-n-awe mega-bombing of an ancient country and civilization that has NOTHING to do with 9/11 and has NO WMD? Is this what you mean by not going "soft" on these guys? I mean, what did Iraqis do to you that had to result in their mass slaughter, that merits you going "hard" on them? Is this what America stands for? Is this what your country mean to you?
March 11, 2008 1:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
One thing I'd concede about Hillary - she'll be as unblinking as Albright when confronted with the question "Is half a million dead Iraqi children "worth it?" (worth what exactly...I can't recall, can't be too important, huh?) She'll make MargaretThatcher look like Mother Theresa. I'm betting on her escalating/expanding the action to bombing Iran. She's voted with Bush all the way regarding foreign policies and she's backed by the same power elite who backed Bush's wars. Just monstrous.
March 11, 2008 1:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
You may cringe. I don't. McCain is an empty suit. He has a LOT of baggage which will be brought out.What kind of "TOUGH" decisions are you talking about ? Torturing human beings? Attacking countries which are no threat to the USA ? The GOP is going down-Hate and fear are poor selling points-That, plus changing demographics spells the end of the GOP. Will not be missed !
March 11, 2008 1:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary Clinton was NOT involved with Gov. Spitzers prostitution problems. "As far as she knows".
March 11, 2008 1:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Every day is a good day to die. You can die like a man (Human Being in my native Chippewa language).Or you can go along with the program and die when they no longer need you. Your choice. Man or wimp.
March 11, 2008 1:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
How about a JFK style reposte on this one:
Having tea in Belfast is not the same as negotiating peace in Northern Ireland and choosing the china for dinners with foreign dignitaries is not policy experience.
March 11, 2008 1:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/sleuth/2008/03/sinbad_unloads_on_hillary_clin.html
I mean, Sinbad seems to have a different experience than Hillary: superdiplomat commando.
March 11, 2008 2:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Honestly, some of you progressiver-than-thous and other campaign virgins!
Hillary is attacking on the points she thinks she can win on (experience, etc.), because she is in second place right now and wants to replace Obama in first place. Is that really so hard to fathom?
When he ran (in 88 or 92, I forget), Al Gore attacked the Democrat who was leading. Gary Hart attacked Walter Mondale. Ted Kennedy attacked Jimmy Carter. And all of these attacks were much more pointed and vicious than "He doesn't have the depth and experience to be commander-in-chief but I do."
Oh, mercy me! She's just tearing the fabric of the Democratic Party apart in order to actually win the nomination in a contest she's trailing but within reasonable striking distance. (By contrast, the Hart/Mondale contest was considered very close when Hart went into the convention trailing by "only" 600 delegates).
I think by past standards. especially in light of the closeness here, this is an especially civilized campaign. Of course she's the one who's going to be driving the wedges and making any contrasts out to be big deals, she's the one trailing at this point - and she's going to fight to define the important issues as the one's that favor her per the election polling results!
I believe both candidates when they say that they were friends before and will be friends afterwards. I expect to see the second place finisher on stage supporting the eventual winner, whoever that turns out to be.
Don't worry, the real s#it will be hitting the fan when the Republicans start seriously attacking. Your snarky dismissal of Hillary's claims to be ready to command will fall flat against a real war hero and hawk.
If you look at both candidates' positions on nearly all of the issues, there never has been much difference between them. Right, Mr. Nader?
Hillary ain't McCain in a pantsuit and Obama ain't the second coming of Paul Wellstone.
It's just electoral politics in America, 2008.
March 11, 2008 2:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary-bashers can write rebuttals until the cows come home, but they will never dispell the truth. Ever since the Clintons emerged on the national political scene in the early 90's it has been an obvious fact that they are a political team (two-for-one, remember?) Voters understand that the Hillary was one of Bill's closest confidantes and most influential advisors during 8 years in the White House. It is revisionist history to pretend that she was a typical first lady. She was policy-oriented with offices in the West Wing. That's why Hillary's claim to having passed the C-in-C test was effective, and that's why the words of Obama's foreign policy advisor aren't going to debunk anything.
The public already knows who Hillary Clinton is, for good and for bad, so trying to re-define her is not going to work.
March 11, 2008 2:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/sleuth/2008/03/sinbad_unloads_on_hillary_clin.html
Apparently Sinbad is a Hillary-Basher.
March 11, 2008 2:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
come on, jaysin! if the Obama campaign needs Sinbad to stand-up for them (pun intended), then they are in more trouble than anyone thinks!
March 11, 2008 2:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
He's just one of an ever-growing crowd.
Her claims of experience are overblown.
The Sindbad story simply brings a humorous element to her 'exerience' claims.
No one denies that she did many humanitarian deeds while First Lady.
That is NOT what she's claiming. She's claiming that she has crossed the Commander in Chief threshold.
What part of any of her claims gives her the 'authority' she claims to be able to handle that 3am phone call any better than Al Franken, Toby Keith or anyone else that has gone to a front line to offer support to the troops or down-trodden?
She is bringing up crisis situations (Kosovo, Ireland, China) and implying that she did some real heavy liftign, but when the light of truth is shone upon her real deeds, the best she can retort with is that she had a support role in all of them.
She DIDN'T have NSC Clearance.
She DIDN'T attend NSC meetings.
She DIDN'T negotiate treaties, set policy OR EVER ANSWER THAT 3AM CALL.
The FACT is that she is fluffing her resume.
There's a big difference between:
I answered the 3am phone call and negotiated a reduction of tensions in the disputed regions of Kosovo. AND...
I went to Kosovo with Sinbad and took a scary jeep ride.
March 11, 2008 3:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
jaysin, how old are you? do you actually remember the Clinton years?
Hillary was no Laura Bush. She was involved in policy "from day one!"
She may or may not have had clearance, but she had direct access to the Sec'y of State and the Nat'l Security Advisor as well as all of the other cabinet members... but more than that, she had direct access to the President. She was one of his closest confidantes and influential advisors ON POLICY (yes, that would include foreign policy)...
now, that's real experience.
even obama's attack message above at the end of his screed says that obama has real experience in that he wrote a bill on nuclear proliferation and genecide??? come on... it took a couple thousand words to try to tear down Hillary's experience as the kind of experience that doesn't count, then his own foreign policy advisor can only give you one sentence on obama's experience?
look, i don't dislike obama, and i don't blame him for trying to belittle hillary's experience, since that is her main strength (according to voters), but let's not lose sight of what's going on... it's politics...
March 11, 2008 6:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
John McCain said that he will keep US Troops in Iraq for up to a hundred years. Hillary has endorsed John McCain for Comander in Chief over Senator Obama.
Hillary is the new Lieberman.
March 11, 2008 3:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
You made me spit my tea onto my keyboard!!
March 11, 2008 2:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now that Laura Bush has slept in the White House for more than 1200 nights, has she crossed the famous threshold? Did Rosalyn Carter, or do you need live there for more than four years? If you're not a senator can you meet the test some other way...for example, did Howard Dean meet it, or didn't the test exist back in 2004? To speed things up, would Hillary agree to design a "crash course" for Senator Obama so he can get ready faster...maybe letting him practice during the daytime with calls from small countries or before 10 PM, then gradually let him answer calls at 1 AM, then 2 AM, until he's finally almost as ready as she is? Perhaps Hillary can describe the fabulous training she got that enabled her cross that threshold...so she could give her much-valued authorization to George W. Bush. Setting up this bizarre threshold must have been a real ordeal for Hillary, Penn, Wolfson, and of course Bill... and taken away precious time from doing the taxes and financial disclosures ...but Bill (the Pundit in Chief who keeps feeding bon bons to the Washington media that get printed without question) has taught her very, very well!
March 11, 2008 2:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Hillary ain't McCain in a pantsuit"-no, she is not. She also is not winning this election-Barack Obama is. No matter how you slice and dice it-Ms Clintons chances of passing Obama up in the elected delegate count are close to zero. I do not want to think of what might happen if the pols throw out the people's choice ! Any thoughts on this ?
March 11, 2008 2:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
There are many ways to attack Sen. Clinton, but lying is not the best one.
Hillary traveled to Northern Ireland seven times between 1995 and 2004, and gave what Northern Irish leader and Nobel Laureate John Hume recently described as “decisive support” to the peace process in Northern Ireland. She focused especially on encouraging the emergence of women in the political process. In addition, Hillary's work at the grass roots and behind-the-scenes helped cultivate the conditions necessary for the peace to take hold and last.
As political leaders on all sides of the process have attested, Hillary made important contributions in a wide variety of ways. She made private calls to the negotiating parties on all sides and at all levels to encourage them towards peace. She gave advice and technical assistance to Northern Ireland leaders on a range of governance issues. She used the bully pulpit to inspire and to challenge at a major address in 1998 before leaders from the contending sides.
In 1998 under the auspices of the U.S.-led Vital Voices Democracy Initiative, established by Hillary and former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright the previous year – Hillary brought together 400 women in Belfast, Northern Ireland to foster their rise to prominence and leadership and to ensure that their success helped support peace. She met with community workers and with women politicians in Northern Ireland to encourage them to take on a larger role. She carried a pledge to the government of Ireland that the United States would remain a partner in the peace process.
Senator George Mitchell said that “She was very much involved in encouraging the emergence of women in the political process in Northern Ireland, which was a significant factor in ultimately getting an agreement.”
Hillary’s efforts have continued as Senator. She visited the Republic of Ireland on her first trip during her Senate term, and Northern Ireland on her second trip, where she spoke with all of the major leaders in Northern Ireland.
Every year, she meets with the Taoiseach and other party leaders from Ireland. She continues to take calls from all parties to provide help behind the scenes and to keep the process moving forward. And she has held meetings in her office at the request of Northern Irish officials on job creation, trade, agriculture, autism, policing, economic development – and of course reconciliation.
In December 2007, when Martin McGuiness and Ian Paisley were in Washington, they met with President Bush and Hillary, thanking Hillary for her contribution to the peace process.
Testimonials:
"As First Lady, Hillary Clinton was extremely supportive of the peace process in Northern Ireland, and in particular, of the women who live here. In her visits during the peace process negotiations she met with women from a range of backgrounds and she recognized there was a real need to strengthen and support the voices of women in the post conflict context and get the needs of women and communities to the forefront of the new political agenda. She recognized that this would be best done through building the skillls of women here. Through her Vital Voices Conference in September 1998, I and others were able to develop our skills for the betterment of our communities."
News reports:
March 11, 2008 3:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your post supports the hype, but doesn't support the assertion by the Clinton campaign that Hillary was involved in the actual process of negotiating anything anywhere.
It's clear people in the UK think highly of her. That's very nice. But it doesn't make her case in any way.
March 11, 2008 3:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've gotta say, the Clinton camp's response is pretty unconvincing. Lame.
March 11, 2008 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
shrubnose said:
"I do not want to think of what might happen if the pols throw out the people's choice ! Any thoughts on this ?"
As a lifelong Democrat and Hillary supporter, here are my thoughts on this. If there are any hints of her getting the nomination through backdoor dealing, that would be bad for the party and the country, and I don't think any key Democrats would or should countenance such. I think Hillary would not want this either.
However, whatever hopes we still have are pinned on the possibility of Hillary doing so well in Pennsylvania and the revotes in Florida and Michigan, that she squeaks out a victory in the popular vote.
Then, everything is changed. Do you support "every vote counts," or "the rules, the rules!"?
If it's "the rules (that is, pledged delegates count more than popular vote), then you have to acknowlege that "the rules" allow for superdelegates to vote as they see fit - say, for the winner of the popular vote.
Anyhow, it's a slim chance, but still a real one at this point. I'll be happy to support and campaign for whoever wins between these two outstanding Democrats.
March 11, 2008 3:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK, here we go again-Clinton and Obama both knew and agreed to the rules. Show of hands-how many think we should change the rules in the middle of the game? Thought so-on with the game. Ms Clinton needs to go bake some cookies and iron some shirts, she is done here.Do the math, her chances are right at zero ! Oh, and Obama does NOT need her on his bus-in front or in back- she is too divisive .Bill Clinton made a big mistake when he tied up with her.
March 11, 2008 3:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey Folks, quit arguing that Hillary doesn't have FP experience. Nobody is going to buy that. Her husband is Bill Clinton - that is enough to have FP experience.
Instead of arguing Hillary doesn't have FP experience, your guy Barack should go to a FP forum and give a MAJOR speech that should reveal his depth and knowledge in this area. On other matters, counter-attack works. Not on this one.
By not doing this way, Barack is indirectly admitting that he doesn't have C-in-C or FP experience. Also, I haven't heard a major Economy speech in recent times. Yes-we-can or yes-you-can - these kind of words are not going to cut it. Recent skit on SNL indirectly hits at his lack of FP experience.
Unless Barack exhibits depth and knowledge in FP/c-in-c in a very convincing way, he is FINISHED for the general election. Don't blame Hillary for this....
March 11, 2008 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is a STUPID Memo. This is just like the other day, Susan Rice calling both (Hillary & Barack) doesn't have the the experience to answer the 3AM phone call. This stupid memo cites that Hillary doesn't have all the NSA/NSC clearances, didn't attend the meetings etc etc. Ok agreed Hillary doesn't have it. DOES BARRACK HAS ALL THESE CLEARANECES? Does BARACK attended the NSC meetings? The answer is NO. That means that both of them doesn't have experience.
This memo typifies his lack of experience...
March 11, 2008 4:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Hey Folks, quit arguing that Hillary doesn't have FP experience. Nobody is going to buy that. Her husband is Bill Clinton - that is enough to have FP experience."
You're joking, right? Bill's experience is good enough? So the 3AM ad starts with the phone ringing. Hillary picks it up, rolls over and says, "It's for you, Bill."
You've got blinders on. Only Hillary's supporters are buying her phony claim to foreign policy experience. The rest of us know it's B.S.
March 11, 2008 4:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
At least Hillary was in the right zip code. As far as I can tell, Obama's only credential is a speech he made in Illinois in 2002. After that he hit the campaign trail.
March 11, 2008 5:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
This one obviously hurts the O supporters. I agree that its good for Sen. Obama to have his surrogates fire back. Unfortunately the timing is off. Everyone knows Hillary is way more qualified in the FP dept. Madeleine Albright is probably someone most would agree knows about FP issues. Ms. Albright's endorsing of Sen. Clinton makes it pretty clear to me who she thinks can lead our country in these uncertain times. Im curious how many times Sen. Obama has been to the middle east to visit our men and women serving over there. Anyone know the answer?
March 11, 2008 7:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey shrubnose!
Do you read as well as you bake cookies? I said IF, AGAIN, THAT'S if, Hillary wins the popular vote (you know, becomes "the people's choice" as you put it) - that THE RULES (that you worship as long as they favor your guy) also provide that the superdelegates (who are necessary under THE RULES to give the anointed one their victory) can vote for whoever they see fit to vote for - and IF Hillary garners the most popular votes, it's hard to argue that SHE is not "the people's choice" as you put it - because it would mean more of "the people" chose her. It seems like a perfectly legitimate reason for the superdelegates to vote for her.
Sheesh. What a moron.
March 11, 2008 7:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
I believe something the MSM is afraid to comment on is the possibility that many people would vote for HRC because they believe Bill Clinton will help HRC run the country.
That is unfortunate because we have no assurances that WJC will be by her side, especially if she gets a call at 3:00 a.m.
WJC has serious heart disease and may be taken from us at any time. In addition, he has many commitments to philanthropical and other organizations, many of which are overseas. He has many commitments to fill his time. He can't be expected to always be there to babysit HRC.
When judged by her own experience, and especially her actions during this campaign, it is clear that HRC would be a disaster in the Oval Office. She uses Rove/Atwater tactics during the campaign. There is no reason not to assume that she will continue using them in the Oval Office.
Is that what we want? Another four years of Bush Jr's tactics?
March 12, 2008 5:03 PM | Reply | Permalink