Hillary: Logic Behind Vote For Obama Or Edwards Is Same As Logic Behind Vote For Bush
At a campaign appearance in Iowa today, Hillary ramped up her argument that she's the only candidate in the race who is "up to speed" on "military matters," offering the following construction:
"It is tempting any time things seem quieter for a minute on the international front to think that we don't need a president who is up to speed on foreign affairs and military matters," Clinton said."Well, that's the kind of logic that got us George Bush in the first place," she said to laughter from her friendly audience at a high school auditorium. "Experience in foreign affairs is critical for ending the war in Iraq, averting war in Iran, negotiating a Middle East peace and dealing with North Korea."
In response, Obama aides were quick to point to past remarks by Hillary adviser Howard Wolfson, in which he appeared to aggressively criticize the idea of comparing any Dem candidate to Bush. On CNN back in July, Wolfson said the following in a discussion about Obama's comparison of Hillary foreign policy to "Bush Cheney lite":
And, with all due respect, if you want to talk about tactical political maneuvering, it's about one Democrat comparing another Democrat to George Bush. That's the worst kind of tactical political maneuvering.
I'm going to let you guys fight this one out.
Late Update: Ben Smith has more here.
Comments (156)
Lisa wrote on December 20, 2007 4:44 PM:I agree with her on Edwards
Let Hillary and Edwards rehash old news
from the last election cycle
And Hillary's FP experience is what? Voting for the Iraq war? Turning dumb hawk at every turn?
Matt wrote on December 20, 2007 4:49 PM:What, exactly, are Hillary's spectacular foreign policy credentials, anyway? I'm amazed that this is her argument. She has four more years in the Senate than Obama. That's it. She didn't serve in the State Department, or handle trade agreements, or work for the NSA...
Overall, the "experience" argument with Hillary seems very very weak to me. Her husband has foreign policy experience. She doesn't.
Greg DeLassus wrote on December 20, 2007 4:50 PM:I'm going to let you guys fight this one out.
Let us? As if you could stop us!
Meanwhile, in response to the substance of the argument being advanced by Sen Clinton, I will simply say that I can hardly blame her for trying that tact. I find the argument rather unconvincing myself (is anyone really prepared to be president from day one?). Given the way she has been flailing about in the past few weeks in search of a pitch that works, however, I suppose that this approach is no worse than any other she has recently taken.
pkoso wrote on December 20, 2007 4:50 PM:have her latest messages been poll tested? is she shooting from the hip now, shot gun style...or are these calculated advances?
insight?
Robert wrote on December 20, 2007 4:51 PM:The republicans are staying above this fray.
Let Edwards and Hillary fight it out with themselves.
If anyone on the democratic side realized how much republicans
dislike Hillary - they would never vote for her.
I'm a republican but I just can't figure out the logic - we will go to the polls in droves if you put her up. I read on some post someone called BluePupply who wants her in there and just can't understand his twisted logic.
I'd say for ya'll Edwards stands the best chance.
I mean heck I like a good contest.
I say bring it on!!!!!!!!
Overall, the "experience" argument with Hillary seems very very weak to me. Her husband has foreign policy experience. She doesn't.
Indeed. Were we really to take her argument seriously and insist that such experience is an absolute prerequisite, it seems that she is insisting that we should vote for Richardson.
bridoc wrote on December 20, 2007 4:55 PM:Um, she is talking about military strength? This almost sounds like she is using GOP fearmongering tactics now. This is pretty sad indeed. Funny one should be experienced with matters like Iraq and Iran, given that she was part of the beginning of this war, and was also part of Bush's war mongering on Iran, which only increased the barriers to diplomatic solutions with Iran. And she is the one that can solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? That's funny since her policy toward Israel is basically identical to Bush's (rhetoric + one sided unconditional support toward Israel + fighting for arms sales to Israel and for Israel's right to cluster bomb civilians while using neocon rhetoric against Palestinians in the "disputed territories), thanks to the tens of thousands of dollars a year she gets from the AIPAC lobby. We have tried the Bush approach to the Middle East and it will never work, everyone knows this, yet Hillary has no intention of doing anything that Israel doesn't support. And while she pushes "military" solutions to solving all of these problems she calls Obama naive for being willing to meet with foreign leaders to discuss diplomatic solutions. Hillary's foreign policy is very conservative and deeply flawed. If Democratic voters really knew about her foreign policy they would run the other way. I can't believe she is even mentioning this weak spot, but I guess it is a safe bet since the media won't report on her actual policies and voting record. If she wins it will be more of the same.
I encourage everyone to read this if you want to know about what kind of foreign policy "experience" Hillary wants to bring to bear (along with trying, unsuccessfully, to get HW Bush to be her envoy to the rest of the world):
http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/4803
Greg wrote on December 20, 2007 4:56 PM:Greg -- I meant that in the sense of, "I'm not gonna fight this one out..."
...but no, you're right, I suppose I couldn't stop you guys from fighting it out if I wanted to.
Not that I would want to, mind you.
ortrun wrote on December 20, 2007 4:56 PM:She's got a lot of moxie you have to admit. She basically has no FP or military experience at all, is universally reviled by the military, and yet she wants to use this as a strength.
You go girl.
Michael A wrote on December 20, 2007 4:58 PM:Agreed Greg, or biden or dodd as well. The thing that bugs me to no end is nobody in the press ever, ever, ever calls her on this. Why not? It's an easy question. How about something like this:
So, clinton II you have all this foreign policy experience. Can you provide for the nation some examples of your foreign policy accomplishments?
Is that so hard? It's not mean or nasty or a republican talking point. It's a simple question. Why won't anyone ask this simple stupid question?
dcshungu wrote on December 20, 2007 4:59 PM:People already have a serious concern about Obama's clear lack of political experience and his naivety, so, therefore, it is smart tactic for Hillary to keep talking about it any chance she gets, to reinforce the concern and plant a seed of doubt deeper into the voters psyches, timed to germinate in the election booth.
JubleJohnson wrote on December 20, 2007 5:01 PM:Robert wrote on December 20, 2007 4:51 PM:
I'd say for ya'll Edwards stands the best chance.
I mean heck I like a good contest.
I say bring it on!!!!!!!!
****You mean the candidate who just started caring about poor folks 4yrs ago ?The guy who voted for war & said sorry only because it turned out badly ?Or the guy who now wants to fight corpoprations but had no qualms working for the super hedge funders ? please.
Let's play Jeopardy!
In the category "Value of Foreign Policy Experience," for $1,000, the answer is: Kyl-Lieberman.
"What is Proof that foreign policy experience is sometimes less important than sound judgment and an ability to study the facts and notice patterns?"
In all seriousness, quick question: If she keeps this up and somehow wins the nomination, how many Obama and Edwards supporters will strongly consider voting for Bloomberg in '08?
cope wrote on December 20, 2007 5:06 PM:I like this quote:
"Here's a quote," Obama said with a smile. "'The same old experience is irrelevant. You can have the right kind of experience or the wrong kind of experience. And mine is rooted in the real lives of real people, and it will bring real results if we have the courage to change.'"
"And that was Bill Clinton in 1992."
LJ wrote on December 20, 2007 5:08 PM:Election fatigue...
Here's what I'm thinking. Maybe we were a bit hasty in declaring our independence from England in the first place. We call up Gordon Brown and make a deal - we go back to being a colony and then we can just disband our government and bail on this whole election thing right now - no more ads, no more speeches, no more sophomorish attacks. Sure, we'll pay a little more for tea, but we never have to hear Hillary Clinton or Mitt Romney speak ever again.
Anonymous wrote on December 20, 2007 5:11 PM:Oh, this is where the Obama cultists are hanging out...
cope wrote on December 20, 2007 5:11 PM:Here is another good one found here:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20071219/cm_thenation/45261708
-----------------------------
Meanwhile, the Register's most insightful political columnist, Rekha Basu, also threw her support behind Obama.
Rebutting a key argument invoked by Clinton supporters, Basu concluded that "one person's experience is another's baggage." The country, she says, "isn't hungry for Beltway insiders."
--------------------------
Read "baggage" as in "voted for the Iraq War".
tt wrote on December 20, 2007 5:13 PM:Sean Wilentz wrote:
The most interesting thing about David Brooks' recent pro-Obama column in The New York Times--along with Obama-friendly observations by Karl Rove and Rove's former deputy Peter Wehner--is that they mark Obama as Republicans' favorite Democratic candidate for president. But Brooks has also fallen into the delusional style. He likes Obama, he says, because of the senator's "character and self-knowledge" which "matter more than even experience." (Give Brooks credit for consistency; he said more or less the same thing in praise of George W. Bush in 2000.)
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=1f22d28c-ced2-4761-b350-77f3513928ac
Aaron wrote:
"In all seriousness, quick question: If she keeps this up and somehow wins the nomination, how many Obama and Edwards supporters will strongly consider voting for Bloomberg in '08?"
I'd vote for Huckleberry first.
Hillary W Clinton wrote on December 20, 2007 5:14 PM:HILLARY has the nerve to say some OTHER Democrat is like Bush? I assume mirrors are banned in the Clinton household.
Keith wrote on December 20, 2007 5:14 PM:And yet she trusted Bush on his foreign policy pronouncements. I'm not sure what to make of that.
While Senator Clinton takes a break from her ‘likeability tour’ to go back on the attack, Senator Obama, the only major candidate who opposed both the Iraq war and the rush to war in Iran, will continue to demonstrate why he has the judgment to turn the page on the Bush-Cheney foreign policy.
dcshungu wrote on December 20, 2007 4:59 PM:
People already have a serious concern about Obama's clear lack of political experience and his naivety, so, therefore, it is smart tactic for Hillary to keep talking about it any chance she gets, to reinforce the concern and plant a seed of doubt deeper into the voters psyches, timed to germinate in the election booth.
Correction, you have doubts, and other Hillary supporters have doubts, because you eat up whatever Hillary's campaign tells you, but for those who actually research issues for themselves, it is obvious that it is all bullshit. Obama has more political experience than Hillary does, as long as we are classifying political as actually being an elected official and actually working in a legislative capacity, instead of classifying it as "being a First Lady and meeting with heads of state on a ceremonial basis."
It is obvious for anyone who has the slightest understanding of her voting record and even recent history that she doesn't have all that much foreign policy or "military" experience, with the exception of supporting Bush's warmongering on Iraq and Iran, and all of her very conservative votes relating to arms sales and the military budget.
Obama's foreign policy ideas are far more intelligent than Hillary's warmongering, and he has great advisers on top of that. Obama and his people rely on thoughtful and informed decision making, not knee-jerk bellicose chest-pounding fueled by lobbyist dollars and a fear of being one upped by Republicans on aggression. If she is nominated we are in for 4-8 more years of the same misguided policies that have plagued America's reputation since Bush came to power.
NCSteve wrote on December 20, 2007 5:16 PM:Apparently, her theory is that you can fire off dumber rhetoric as you get closer to election day because people will have less time to figure out why its dumb.
I am, however, increasingly concerned that she really believes all this "ready on Day One" crap she keeps spouting. She isn't--no one is. Being the son of a president doesn't prepare you and neither does being married to one. Her evident sincere certainty that she knows everything there is to know about presidentun,' along with her penchant for relying on a closed circle of long-time advisers, is a prescription for arrogant, and potentially disasterous, missteps if she wins, with her little circle of like-minded old-time cronies "yes ma'aming" her all the way.
Chris Brown wrote on December 20, 2007 5:23 PM:Wouldn't the administration of any of the democratic contestants be populated by mostly the same foreign policy, national intelligence, and military policy officials?
Susan Miller wrote on December 20, 2007 5:24 PM:Has anyone noticed how similar the Hillary camp sounds to the Rove-driven Bush campaigns of the past. From blaming the press once they're down, to making false and indignant claims about opponents, etc., it is no wonder that Hillary's positions on Iraq, Iran and just about everything else that her pollsters determine might help her pick up a few more votes are just like the GOPs.
If she gets the nod, count me in as a Bloomberg supporter and my sense is, many others' as well. At least he is more of a leader. She has no chance at winning with so many Democrats like me out there who cannot stand the thought of listening to that cackle the next 4 years.
Josh wrote on December 20, 2007 5:24 PM:Clinton has little exp. In the same breath, I would like to mention that Abraham Lincoln had less experience than Obama. That didn't turn out bad unless you were southern or racist.
Steve wrote on December 20, 2007 5:25 PM:I don't think you're being fair here, Greg. This is not a comparison to Bush at all.
David wrote on December 20, 2007 5:25 PM:What? Another pro-Hilary/anti Obama piece by Greg Sargent? Imagine that. How many is that in just the last few days, Greg? 5? 6?
bvd wrote on December 20, 2007 5:29 PM:David Brooks on Hillary:
"Far be it from me to get in the middle of a liberal purge, but would anybody mind if I pointed out that the calls for Hillary Clinton to apologize for her support of the Iraq war are almost entirely bogus?... If they went back and read what Senator Clinton was saying before the war, they’d be surprised, as I was, by her approach. And they’d learn something, as I did, about what kind of president she would make."
There's more. Here's the link: http://www.bestoftheblogs.com/2007/02/15/david-brooks-for-hillary/
Okay, any Clinton supporters ready to bail based on that? Sean Wilentz, how about you? No? Didn't think so.
cope wrote on December 20, 2007 5:29 PM:Good point NCSteve.
Beware the arrogance of absolute certainty.
We've been there and we will be paying the heavy price for it for a long, long time. We don't need to go there again.
Thoughtful deliberation and consultation and inclusiveness and transparency are all good things in a democracy.
Chris Brown wrote on December 20, 2007 5:31 PM:Lincoln's political experience prior to serving as president was 8 years in the Illinois legislature and a failed bid for the Senate.
Earl Warren had no judicial experience prior to his service as Chief Justice of the USA.
It's a nonsense argument but it's all that, at this point, Clinton has.
bridoc wrote on December 20, 2007 5:34 PM:I agree with those above that said they wouldn't be able to stomach voting for Hillary. When this all started I would have voted for if she was the nominee, but I would have had to have held my nose while doing it because my vote would be for nothing more than the lesser of two evils. But the more I learn about her real policies and especially the more I learn about her character (everything ranging from Bush-Cheney-Rove style lies and secrecy to mudslinging) there is no way I could vote for her with a clean conscience. I won't vote for a Republican, but I could never bring myself to vote for her either, she disgusts me. I know we are not alone on this either, I have heard it more and more lately, especially since she has really shown her true colors in her attacks (and blatant misinformation) against Obama (and to a lesser extent Edwards). She really is Republican-lite and I'm disgusted that more Democrats don't take the time to really get to know her for who she really is.
willyjsimmons wrote on December 20, 2007 5:38 PM:echo echo echo echo
chamber chamber chamber chamber
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
I'm resigned to letting the chips fall where they may.
The chit-chatter amongst liberals is starting to make my tummy hurt.
None of the top tier candidates are going to leave Iraq immediately.
Better prepare yourselves for that.
Liberal Larry wrote on December 20, 2007 5:38 PM:Bush-Lite and her K $treet allies want to privatize Iran's oil reserves.
oleeb wrote on December 20, 2007 5:39 PM:And what kind of foreign policy experience does Her Ladyship Hillary "I never looked at the intelligence before voting for the Iraq War" Clinton claim to have?
Chutzpah she's got! Foreign policy experience she ain't got.
Anonymous wrote on December 20, 2007 5:45 PM:bridoc said "This almost sounds like she is using GOP fearmongering tactics now. "
If Hillary isn't paying Karl Rove for advise, she should be. Her campaign is right out of Rove's play book. The press victim mime, the whisper campaigning, now the fearmongering.
If Hillary is the best the Democratic party can do for a nominee, heaven help us.
TYSPOCK wrote on December 20, 2007 5:45 PM:This country will do well with Hillary and Hilary will do well for this country.
I cannot believe the people who get their marching orders from "HATE" TV and "HATE" radio, it seems that most of them have loss the ability to think for themselves, as you can see from some of the comments which mirror the comments on hate TV and hate radio – check the newspaper comment sections. If they were really concern about where Hillary would take this country they would really be expressing their utter discuss about where the Bush administration has already taken it - which is down - way way down ! surplus long gone, thousands of lives loss for a completely unnecessary war, 1 trillion and counting taken from our national treasury – funds that our children and their children will need to pay for, 50 billion paid to insurgents to stop attacking our troops – at least for now or until we stop paying them again, 12 billion in 100 dollar bills they claim is just missing - the list of unbelievable stuff just goes on and on and with no lessons learned from the past ; the times when we gave weapons and billions to the Taliban who were fighting the Russians at that time as well as the northern alliance ( now the current leadership of Afghanistan ) not to mention all the weapons and billions more dollars we gave Sodom Hussein during the Iraq - Iran wars – this all after the horrific gassing this administration likes to point out and those plane load of weapons Ollie gave to the Iranians during the U.S. led embargo ? – Why and what for? Were any of those weapons sent to the insurgents in this Iraq war ?. Now days our economy is in shambles, we are on the verge of a recession, this administration has been wrong about so many things that our credibility and respect around the world has been badly soiled, as Scott McCulin said he lad to lend the bush administration some credibility, Tony Snow was kind with his “somewhat of an embarrassment” remark – so Do your homework folks - then decide – because one more Bush like neo-con like administration could well do us in! Our founding fathers prevail over the most powerful military on earth because bullets will never be a substitute for the will of the people – a well informed people ! Neo-cons should return to the toy soldiers of the youth and leave the real soldiers to leaders like Hillary who will make decisions as their commander and chief worthy of the service and their sacrifices !
"It is tempting any time things seem quieter for a minute on the international front to think that we don't need a president who is up to speed on foreign affairs and military matters," Clinton said.
How cute. One might be tempted to overlook the fact that Hillary voted for Bush's Iraqmire, and recently voted to support the Kyl/Lieberman Iran War Mongering resolution.
This is the type of history Hillary has on been up to speed on foreign policy.
She talks one way, and votes the other.
CalD wrote on December 20, 2007 5:54 PM:Clinton didn't compare anyone to Bush. In the remarks quoted above, she was talking about voters, not candidates. Duh. The Obama campaign's response was a straw man.
vena wrote on December 20, 2007 5:54 PM:If this is all we've got, we are so screwed.
random wrote on December 20, 2007 5:58 PM:dcshungu spins "People already have a serious concern about Obama's clear lack of political experience and his naivety ..."
Acutually, outside of Hillary's offices, Obamas' fresh, ethical, outsider's view of politics is seen as a HUGE strength. And his "naivety" on Iraq and Iran have proven wise and insightful, particularly compared to Hillary's "highly experienced" horrible lack of good judgment.
No wonder Hillary is sinking, in Hillary Land, like Bush World, up is down and down is up.
Hillary wishes she was as qualified for leadership of change and for the future as Obama. Because she is not, she must lanch personal attacks and whisper Rovian style to Matt Drudge: Desperate, mean and dishonest.
Jeremy wrote on December 20, 2007 5:58 PM:Was Hillary "up to speed" when she voted for war in Iraq without reading all of the intelligence that was available to her. What a fraud.
pacc wrote on December 20, 2007 5:58 PM:Exactly. Barry O-Bomb-A has no international experience. He would be disaster on the natoinal ticket and a nightmare in the White House. We already had one immature adolescent ego (Bush). We don't need another (the naive former part-time State Senator from Illinois).
bridoc wrote on December 20, 2007 5:59 PM:No CalD, if you read it she actually did compare her competitors to Bush, it isn't that hard to see. Her whole argument is crap, that is obvious as well. Obama's campaign's response is a little lacking, but just because they haven't pointed out the obvious: how horrible her foreign policy "experience" and "judgment" really are.
Her approach is akin to the pot calling the snowman black. Or throwing stones from inside a glass house. You get the idea..
Matt Ahrens wrote on December 20, 2007 6:01 PM:I finally get it! The strategy is to position her candidacy as a third term for Billary Clinton -- some sort of co-presidency. This allows her to use her husband's record as her own so her lack of any actual accomplishment can be overlooked. I'm not sure what sort of logic this is but maybe the Republicans should bring back Nancy Reagan to run for president and they can debate "their" records.
Greg DeLassus wrote on December 20, 2007 6:05 PM:Clinton didn't compare anyone to Bush. In the remarks quoted above, she was talking about voters, not candidates.
You will have to forgive me if I find your reading somewhat implausible. Given that Sen Clinton is claiming that a willingness to vote for candidates short on foreign affairs experience has lead to the election of the current president, I do not think that it really crazy for folks here to read this as Obama=Edwards=Bush. The Obama campaign's response seems altogether appropriate to my mind.
Liam wrote on December 20, 2007 6:05 PM:Perhaps Hillary is counting, as foreign policy experience, the way that the fugitive billionaire, Marc Rich, was granted a pardon.
Marc Rich
, Business Personality / Convict / Fugitive
Marc Rich
Source
* Born: 18 December 1934
* Birthplace: Antwerp, Belgium
* Best Known As: Fugitive pardoned by President Clinton
Businessman Marc Rich was convicted in U.S. federal court in 1983 of tax evasion, racketeering, and other charges related to Rich's oil deals with Iran during a U.S. embargo. Rich sought asylum in Switzerland. His ex-wife Denise Rich continued to live in the United States, where she was an active supporter of the Democratic Party and contributed money to the presidential library fund of Bill Clinton and to the 2000 Senate campaign of Hillary Clinton. Marc Rich was one of more than 100 people President Clinton pardoned just before leaving office in January of 2001. Rich's pardon prompted a public outcry and Congressional investigations into whether the pardon was given in return for Denise Rich's political contributions.
drfranklives wrote on December 20, 2007 6:06 PM:Please tell me what foreign affairs expertise Hillary Clinton has?
For a candidate who is not basing her campaign on being the spouse of a former President, she sure is basing her campaign on being the spouse of a former President.
basically, you've got three Senators here - one with 8 years in office, one with 6 years in office and a stint as a major-party nominee for Vice President under his belt (and elected to the Senate before Hillary), and one with 4 years in the Senate.
Not a hell of a lot of difference on the experience front. Unless you count "being married to a former President" as experience.
Since she has told us inthe past that that's not why she thinks she deserves to be President, I hope she won't mind if I discount that entirely.
Lots of women, after all, have slept with that particular former President.
Michael A wrote on December 20, 2007 6:06 PM:Ok, pacc, give me one foreign policy accomplishment by clinton II. Just one. One trade agreement or one treaty or one agreement about anything, just one. Got any?
Concerned In Iowa wrote on December 20, 2007 6:08 PM:bvd quotes David Brooks (as someone Democrats should heed?) saying " If they went back and read what Senator Clinton was saying before the war, they’d be surprised, as I was, by her approach."
I have gone back, many times. And Hillary's statements talk all sides on all issues, calculated for the purpose of covering her bets. BUT SHE VOTED FOR THE WAR, and enabled the lying, incompetent George Bush to commit the biggest foreign policy blunder in American history. Nothing she said can justify that horrendous misjudgment.
roo_P wrote on December 20, 2007 6:12 PM:dcshungu:
People already have a serious concern about Obama's clear lack of political experience and his naivety, so, therefore, it is smart tactic for Hillary to keep talking about it any chance she gets, to reinforce the concern and plant a seed of doubt deeper into the voters psyches, timed to germinate in the election booth.
You are not addressing the substance of Clinton's argument.
Clinton is saying that she is less like Bush and better capable than Obama of making the right decisions when, inevitably, difficult situations arise in foreign policy.
Is this, in your opinion, true?
I consider Clinton to have shown a tremendous LACK of judgement in her foreign policy decisions (most notably, of course, military force against Iraq and Iran.) Her only defence, that she did not think Bush would act on her approval, shows exactly that same poor judgement.
But you support Clinton on this issue. Do you consider these to have been good decisions? Decisions that you would like your next foreign policy leader to make?
If you truly feel that way, then I must say I disagree and that I think your logic is deeply flawed. However, I suspect that you really do NOT feel that way but you feel that you must defend Clinton in all cases lest she lose. Most of us are guilty of rationalisation and cognitive dissonance but failing to admit it leads us to make bad decisions. If we can talk about Clinton and Obama in factual terms, we will reach a better decision--merely at the price of a hurt pride.
It may or may not be a "good tactic" but I am not sure it is factual. And that is why I do not like Clinton.
The year-log commentary on Hillary's "flawless" campaign and the drumbeat of "inevitabity" are history.
HILLARY AND HER MEAN MACHINE GET MORE DESPERATE BY THE DAY.
Her coronation gown has disappeared and the press is finally reporting "the Empress has no clothes."
CornBred wrote on December 20, 2007 6:13 PM:I believe Obama would accomplish more in foreign policy for the US between his November '08 election win and his January '09 Inauguration than HRC or Edwards could in their first year as President. This belief is due to the fact that world will most certainly breathe a collective sigh of relief that we FINALLY course-corrected ourselves and chose the guy who was right from the beginning. Obama as president-elect tells the world that we know we screwed up (ie, just about everything we've done since 9/11 has been counter-productive) and we're now ready to make it right and lead the world properly again. Add in Obama's soft skills and international heritage (yeah, all that muslim, "secular madrassa", africa, hussein, indonesia stuff that Hillary and Mark Penn thinks is gonna work) and the world actually sees themselves in us for the first time which goes a long way in getting them to trust us again. How long will it take Bill and Hillary or any other presidential contender to pull that off.
The Iraq War was not just a vote, my friends. It was quite possibly the biggest strategic mistake by the US ever. (I challenge anyone to come up with a bigger mistake that has already and will CONTINUE to cost us more long term problems than Iraq. Muslim fanatics don't fight short wars, people. The sunni-shite battle has been going 1300 years.) We've got the chance now to show 6,000,000,000 people around the world that the old America...the one they ALL respected...is back and better than ever.
I'm voting for Obama largely because of this issue. We all vote based on what we each see as our country's problems and opportunities. I simply think our single biggest problem right now (home or abroad) is the cumulative damage that the last 7 years has done and some guy named Obama just happens to be our best chance to repair it.
liam wrote on December 20, 2007 6:17 PM:Hillary is long on experience and short on sound judgment.
Obama is short on experience and long on sound judgment.
I will take sound judgment over tons of poor experience.
She voted for the Iraq war, and she has recently voted to do the same to Iran.
If Hillary had any more of that kind of experience, she would start another world war.
bvd wrote on December 20, 2007 6:17 PM:When Bill Clinton ran in 1992 Pat Buchanan famously joked "Bill Clinton's foreign policy experience is pretty much confined to having had breakfast once at the Intl. House of Pancakes. "
Clinton had virtually no foreign policy experience. Clinton supporters disregarded it because they believed good judgement was more important.
Now the Clintons and their supporters are using the exact same argument Buchanan used, this time against Obama.
The only difference between Buchanan's remark and Hillary's is that Buchanan's quip was actually pretty funny. But funny or not, he was wrong about Clinton. And the Clinton Club are, I think, wrong about Obama.
But it's a shame they way they've sunk to Pat Buchanan's level.
Good post cornbred. Very good and insightful post.
Anonymous wrote on December 20, 2007 6:18 PM:Hillary emulates Karl Rove: attack opponents on their strengths and your weaknesses.
random wrote on December 20, 2007 6:22 PM:Aaron wrote: "In all seriousness, quick question: If she keeps this up and somehow wins the nomination, how many Obama and Edwards supporters will strongly consider voting for Bloomberg in '08?"
I don't like Bloomberg, but I would vote for him in a heartbeat over Hillary Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton.
TYSPOCK began a long post by saying: "This country will do well with Hillary and Hilary will do well for this country."
Sorry tyspock,no need to read the rest of your post. That statement is absurd.
Liam wrote on December 20, 2007 6:25 PM:Don't worry about how Hillary will do as president. If she wins the nomination, the Republicans will keep the White House, and stack the Supreme Court with more of their Federalist Society brethren.
Name me one swing state, such as Florida, Ohio, or Virgina, that Hillary would carry in the general election.
She will not carry one, and that means that the Republicans win, and get to replace Justices Stevens,and Ruth Bader Ginsburg with more right wing justices.
Kiss your civil rights good by.
vena wrote on December 20, 2007 6:32 PM:I don't get why all the other Dem nominees aren't getting together and asking what her so called experience is? I mean, her answer would be Bill. It's not that difficult.
Jeremy wrote on December 20, 2007 6:35 PM:Liam. Until these last few weeks I thought that H would win the ge if she got the nomination. But seeing how poorly she's done in debates and interviews and the abysmal performance of her mercenary Mark Penn, I'm coming around to your pov. Hillary started with good perceptions among D voters, but its been downhill from their. Now imagine how things will go in the general when she isn't spotted a huge lead.
brewmn wrote on December 20, 2007 6:40 PM:One of the frustrating things about this campaign is how little traction the travesty that Hillary's (and, yes, Edwards, biden and Dodd's) Iraq vote has gotten for Obama. And now Hillary allows him to place it front and center. Is this really where she wants this debate to go? When will she stop attacking Obama's left cross with chin extended?
Ni Daye wrote on December 20, 2007 6:41 PM:All you Obama lovers are naive beyond reasoning. You are putting the country at risk by trying to make Obama the POTUS. When you are young, you think experience does not matter and you can control the world. When you get old, you will realize you have a lot of things you don't know and you are actually controlled by the world! You cannot wish for reform but you have to work within the systme to change the system.
By the way, you guys hate Clinton because of her centrist policy orientation and pro-war stand. You like Obama because of his ultra-liberal stands, including feverish anti-war stand. You like him because he is more likely to be a uniter. Ask yourself a question - do you think a centrist or a liberal is more likely to unite this country?
You think the republicans are as naive as you and they will kneel down in front of Obama and give up their positions because your loveboy Obama is so charming and chrismatic?
anonymous wrote on December 20, 2007 6:42 PM:SHE NEVER READ THE FULL NIE REPORT BEFORE THE IRAQ WAR. ONLY SIX SENATORS DID AND SHE WASN'T ONE OF THEM, DESPITE SEN. GRAHAM URGING THE DEM. CAUCUS TO READ THE FULL CLASSIFIED VERSION BEFORE VOTING. HOW THE FUCK IS SHE UP TO SPEED ON FOREIGN POLICY? IT'S A JOKE.
DonnaG wrote on December 20, 2007 6:43 PM:Hillary seems a bit beyond shrill at this point. She seems to be so tightly wound into her own ego, assuming her 'right to ascendency' as it were, as to be brittle with rage at the idea of being thwarted.
That brittleness is a bit disconcerting to watch in action, because brittleness tends toward the opposite of good judgment. As other posters have noted, her chosen attacks are becoming ridiculous in their boomerang effects on her.
I have been reading a lot more comments of democrats who say they will not now vote for her; and as well, I have been perusing some red sites where it is amazing to see how Hillary's attacks have led to otherwise rightwinger partisans coming forward to defend and applaud Obama for his upright campaigning.
bg wrote on December 20, 2007 6:46 PM:
Only Hillary could compare her fellow running mates to George Bush while simultaneously condemning them for doing the same. By the way, that war in Iraq... she voted for it.
norris morris wrote on December 20, 2007 6:48 PM:Hillary's position holds up regarding experience.
Obama as NYTimes noted today, did not vote 35 or more times on important legislation as State Senator in Illinois. He voted "Present" which is a No vote without taking responsibility. And on the issue of holding sex offender responsible, he was the only one in the entire State Senate, Dem or Rep, that voted FOR not registering them.
Red Meat?
His lack of voting on critical issues occured in order to evade [for political correctness re: his Presidential bid] is totally obvious.
Also, currently as Chairman of Senate Committee of Foreign Relations subcommitee on Europe, he has accomplished ZIP. He has been lackluster and hardly inspiring in his performance. That with his absentee voting record in current Senate does not impress.
Other issues about Obama's negative positions in Illinois, as well as his current extremely naive stance on Insurance Companies and Healthcare have been noted by Paul Krugman of NYTimes and others regarding his feeling that change can occur by sitting down and talking "with these folks".
Hillary and Edwards both knowingly acknowledge that the Insurance Lobby will fight ferociously against anything that can diminish their current windfall profits.
Hillary and Edwards know that along with the pressure on congress from public opinion, Healthcare Reform Lobbies, are just some of the tools they will have to engage and organize before any
significant changes can take place.
Change is not a slogan. Experience along with the wisdom of the inherent realities are totally necessary for any real change. Obama has simplified all of the issues, and removes mandates as well fron his Healthcare Program.
He has no concrete and realistic instruments for change, and his absentee and "Present" votes in Illinois and in US Senate point to a man who just talks a good game.
"When you get old, you will realize you have a lot of things you don't know and you are actually controlled by the world!"
And sometimes when you get old, you get senile.
Kefa461 wrote on December 20, 2007 6:52 PM:Me thinks she's pulling away boys.
Greg DeLassus wrote on December 20, 2007 6:54 PM:All you Obama lovers are naive beyond reasoning.
Yes, yes, so you keep telling us. Dagnabbit, we younguns have no respect. Kids today, I tell you! Why, in your day I am sure mere assertions of vastly superior qualifications were always enough to carry the day. What have things today come to?!?
roo_P wrote on December 20, 2007 6:55 PM:Ni Daye:
All you Obama lovers are naive beyond reasoning. You are putting the country at risk by trying to make Obama the POTUS. When you are young, you think experience does not matter and you can control the world. When you get old, you will realize you have a lot of things you don't know and you are actually controlled by the world! You cannot wish for reform but you have to work within the systme to change the system.
Ni Daye, I ask you the same question as dcshungu: in your opinion, was voting for the Iraq war and authorisation for using military means against Iran a GOOD decision? Are those examples of the decisions that you would like for the next president to make?
bvd wrote on December 20, 2007 6:55 PM:Ni Daye - Nothing you wrote makes any sense. I'm 50 years old - older than Obama. I've voted for Democrats every Presidential election since 1976. Never voted 3rd party for president.
If you think Obama is a wild lefty you are positively dizzy. Half this board is complaining that he's not a true progressive.
As for Republicans kneeling down - only to other Republicans and money. I expect a shitstorm from them no matter who runs. Especially if it's Hillary.
What a silly series of observations.
Ni Daye wrote on December 20, 2007 6:55 PM:bg wrote on December 20, 2007 6:46 PM:
"By the way, that war in Iraq... she voted for it."
---
I'm a Democrat but I really think it is dangerous to have a stake in the failure of American military action overseas. There is no question that we should have not gone to war in Iraq. But we are there now and we have to root for American success. Reasonable people can disagree but all the Democrats running for president who were in the Senate voted for the war. Even John Kerry voted for the war, I have not seen that much venom against him last time around.
I suppose you all understand a democratic Iraq will be in the long-term best interest of the U.S. By voting for the war, Hillary may actually end up in teh right side of the history. Mark my words!
Keith wrote on December 20, 2007 7:00 PM:Norris/Morris:
I'll ignore the non-sense you posted about voting "present" since they've all been debunked in another thread. I want to focus on your experience argument. What precisely is unique about HRC's experience that makes her the only person qualified to speak on foreign policy matters?
She trusted a man she now ridicules for his lack of foreign policy gravitas when she voted for AUMF. Five years later, she did it again. At that point, she had 10 and 15 years of foreign policy experience under her belt (or so she would have us believe) and yet she came out on the wrong end of BOTH those decisions. Given all that experience you'd think the opposite would have occurred, so you can understand my (our) confusion.
Can you help us out here? Thanks in advance.
Ni Daye wrote on December 20, 2007 7:04 PM:roo_P wrote on December 20, 2007 6:55 PM:
Ni Daye:
Ni Daye, I ask you the same question as dcshungu: in your opinion, was voting for the Iraq war and authorisation for using military means against Iran a GOOD decision? Are those examples of the decisions that you would like for the next president to make?
----
roo_P, so you think that vote disqualifies Clinton to be the President of the U.S. I recall that Kerry voted for the resolution and he almost made into the White House. In the course of life, people make a lot of decisions based on limited information. Your hope is you make more good decisions than bad decisions. Except for Republican followers who will vote Bush's way no matter what, I believe all people voted for or against the war resolution are good people. When the vote was being casted, no one knew that Saddam would be an empty shelf.
Hindsight is 20/20. You could well have been wrong. Only Bush and a few people have access to intelligence.
No Ni Daye, you are wrong. If they read the stupid NIE that they had access to they would have voted no, because it showed that the king's case for war was based on lies. Hundreds of thousands of people are dead, americans and iraqis. She looked at going to war like she was going out for a picnic. I am sorry, it was freaking war. I don't want somebody so cavalier making decisions to go to war or not.
AND then clinton II does it again on the iran vote!!!!! Only to find out 2 months later that iran stopped trying to build a nuke in 03. Yeah, great judgement. With that kind of experience and judgement who needs it and by the way its frightening.
Liam wrote on December 20, 2007 7:12 PM:The real problem with Hillary is that she did not learn a thing from her Iraq War vote mistake. She is touting her experience. OK. So she had a bad experience with her Iraq War vote. Then learn from it, and do not repeat the same insanity, and expect different results.
So what did Hillary learn from her war enabling vote. Nothing. Nothing. Nothing.
She turned right around and voted the same way on the Kyl/Lieberman(There is a fine pair of peace seekers for you) Iran War Mongering resolution.
So much for Hillary's vaunted experience advantage.
roo_P wrote on December 20, 2007 7:16 PM:Ni Daye:
roo_P, so you think that vote disqualifies Clinton to be the President of the U.S. I recall that Kerry voted for the resolution and he almost made into the White House. In the course of life, people make a lot of decisions based on limited information. Your hope is you make more good decisions than bad decisions. Except for Republican followers who will vote Bush's way no matter what, I believe all people voted for or against the war resolution are good people. When the vote was being casted, no one knew that Saddam would be an empty shelf.
Hindsight is 20/20. You could well have been wrong. Only Bush and a few people have access to intelligence.
You did not answer my question but I will assume the above means that you do NOT think it was not good judgement.
"You could have well been wrong" but I was not. I actually reviewed the intelligence that was available for the general public and it was utter nonsense and I was not alone in this. Many, many people at the time stated that the cause for invasion was fabricated. Obama was among those people.
And no, I do not necessarily think that these votes by themselves disqualify Clinton from being president. However, YOUR argument is that Obama is less experienced, more naive and therefore less likely to make the right decisions. On the other hand, the factual history tells us that each time when the time came to make a decision, Clinton made the wrong one and Obama made the right one.
Based on past performance, Obama makes better foreign policy decisions than Clinton does (despite all her experience.) I think your concerns are, therefore, unnecessary.
You may also be interested in knowing that most of the multilateral, inclusive foreign policy elite favours Obama. Perhaps, since we are mere civilians, their support helps alleviate your fears?
DonnaG wrote on December 20, 2007 7:17 PM:norris morris,
Your chin is still dripping from whatever it was you drank from that fountain of pathetic spin on some Hillary site. All the points you just dribbled have already been discounted.
john mccutchen wrote on December 20, 2007 7:19 PM:Is she high?
DemAC wrote on December 20, 2007 7:22 PM:Iraq is not what it used to be. As the voters are now, by and large, convinced that the withdrawal first of all will take place no matter what and secondly that the withdrawal anyway will be a somewhat long and gradual process, the importance of foreign relations experience will steadily grow. Both time and voter perceptions are now working against Obama and for Clinton. As of late I’m getting more and more convinced by the day that Hillary actually can wrap this up pretty smoothly so that the infighting doesn’t have to be a prolonged process.
With Obama and Edwards cleared out of the way we can concentrate on the more important stuff – winning this little thingy in November.
Anonymous wrote on December 20, 2007 7:28 PM:Iraq is not what it used to be
Yes Democrats...there you have it. Hillary Clinton, for FOUR years, a co-sponsor and enabler of the greatest strategic disaster in US history and her supporters are left lamely
Maybe they won't remember
audiophileguy wrote on December 20, 2007 7:29 PM:I have heard Hillary make this kind of comment over and over, but I have never seen a single piece of evidence demonstrating Hillary's experience and knowledge in foreign affairs. If foreign policy experience is the most important fact (as Hillary says), then we have no possible choices other than Dodd, Biden, or (possibly) Richardson. Hillary is on thin ice if she feels she is making a claim that could support her own candidacy.....
DemAC wrote on December 20, 2007 7:35 PM:Audiophileguy wrote: I have heard Hillary make this kind of comment over and over, but I have never seen a single piece of evidence demonstrating Hillary's experience and knowledge in foreign affairs.That’s your problem, not Hillary’s. This goes to show only that you are alienated from the voters who, by and large, know her to be much much more experienced than Obama and Edwards in foreign relations. roo_P wrote on December 20, 2007 7:37 PM:
DemAC,
I pose you the same question: do you consider Clinton's foreign policy decisions (on Iraq and Iran, mainly, but you are free to include NAFTA or other specific items too) to have been good decisions? Should the next president make more decisions like those?
Anonymous wrote on December 20, 2007 7:38 PM:Oh yeah, Hellary has all that knowledge about foreign affairs that she's bought hook-line-and-sinker from the Cheney administration's lies.
Keith wrote on December 20, 2007 7:39 PM:DemAC:
I'm pretty damn informed and I don't see the basis for her claim. Hell, even Holbrooke isn't buying her claim that she was the face of foreign policy in the Clinton White House:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/12/hollbrooke-on-c.html
Just because some repeats something often enough, doesn't make it true.
Liam wrote on December 20, 2007 7:45 PM:Recall that recent debate question which was asked about so many of the senior Clinton White House staff and advisors now backing Obama, and how Hillary stepped in front of the bullet that had been aimed at Obama.
That shows that she is not quick on her feet.
When some one else is taking a shot at your key opponent, why on earth would you step in and deflect the bullet. Hillary did just that. How does that fit in her "most experienced" portfolio!.
Now then Lads and Lassies, if any of the folks from the Obama campaign read this; here is one way to answer that question.
The reason why so many of those who served in the Clinton Admn. are supporting senator Obama is because those who got to see the Clintons work, up close, realize that Senator Obama is a better person for the job than Hillary.
Remember they saw Hillary at work in the White House, while she was gaining all that vaunted experience, and they decided that Obama would make a better President.
There you have it folks; those who know Hillary best, on the job, decided that Obama will make a better presidnet.
Michael A wrote on December 20, 2007 7:45 PM:I don't see any basis for her claim either keith. However, it is a typical propoganda ploy going back to the 1930's. Keep repeating the same lie over, and over, and over again and people start believing that it's true.
Look at the iraq war lead up. The evidence was irrefutable that there were no wmd's and saddam had nothing to do with 9/11; however, the same lies were repeated over and over again. The result is that 30% of the country still believe that both lies are true. It's the power of propoganda.
That is the clinton propoganda machine in action, same as the republican propoganda machine. Just keep repeating it, especially when a lapdog corporate media fails to challenge the lie and keeps repeating it over, and over, and over again.
DemAC wrote on December 20, 2007 7:46 PM:Obama are out of sync with the voters in general on experience and especially experience on foreign relations. You can lament this and whine all you want and trumpet for “evidence” of Hillary’s experience. Outside camp Obama nobody really cares.
You’d probably do your candidate a great service if you tried to find him a shred of evidence that he deserves anything resembling credibility on foreign relations. (And no: a childhood in Indonesia won’t cut it with the voters).
bg wrote on December 20, 2007 7:55 PM:Ni Daye wrote on December 20, 2007 6:55 PM:
"I suppose you all understand a democratic Iraq will be in the long-term best interest of the U.S. By voting for the war, Hillary may actually end up in teh right side of the history. Mark my words!"
I don't think any outcome in Iraq can justify the loss of as many as one million lives in this war. Excluding geopolitical considerations of how we might ultimately be able to work the conflict to our advantage, a great moral crime has been perpetrated in our name. I tend to believe that the judgement of history won't be so kind.
How does Hillary being raised as a Republican who grew up to become a Goldwater Girl, and worked to defeat the Democrat in the White House, cut it for you!
More of Hillary's self proclaimed "experience".
For the record; when she worked in the Gold water campaign he was supporting segregation and states rights. Hillary was one of his active cheerleaders.
She was raised a Republican and she is still one, in sheep's clothing.
DonnaG wrote on December 20, 2007 8:01 PM:DemAC just admitted to not having evidence of Hillary's experience or good judgment in foreign relations, and then went on to say 'nobody really cares'.
Well, at least we know what blindness about Hillary can look like. Thanks for admitting that, DemAC.
MonaL wrote on December 20, 2007 8:10 PM:Concrened In Iowa wrote :
"TYSPOCK began a long post by saying: "This country will do well with Hillary and Hilary will do well for this country."
Sorry tyspock,no need to read the rest of your post. That statement is absurd. "
Whereas I read TYSPOCKs entire post
because he/she obviously cares about her country and knows who the enemy really is. Not HRC but GWB and his friends. You BO supports are screwing yourselves into the ground with your rabid hatred of HRC, you're sounding pretty unhinged in fact.
Most of us who support HRC can also support any of the other candidates, there isn't really that much difference between them. They all have progressive backgrounds, some are more progressive than others. HRC has been running a general election campaign, and so is BO, see his comments re: Schwarzenegger.
However, in my view, you're demonization of her doesn't help your/our progressive cause in the long run. Voting for the guy from New York will split the dem vote and then you can call him Pres. Huck/Mitt/Mc Cain. You're doing exactly what you're supposed to do according to the Rove play book. They have done a great job turning HRC into a caricature, and you all have bought into it. You're being used as right wing tools. Please, for the love of everything that's good about this country, stop! I will become a BO/JE supporter if you'd only stop hating on HRC!
bvd wrote on December 20, 2007 8:16 PM:Hillary's experience in foreign relations is almost exclusively as First Lady, in other words a ceremonial position. She attended many state dinners and international ceremonies. That doesn't make her experienced in foreign policy.
Hell, I've attended a lot of Bar Mitzvahs but I don't claim that makes me Jewish.
DM wrote on December 20, 2007 8:18 PM:MonaL,
You are taking something from the Rove playbook, insinuating that questioning the annointed Clinton II amounts to political treason, i.e. leading to the false conclusion that a vote for Obama is somehow a vote for Huckabee et al.
Obama doesn't take cheap shots as Clinton II has through surrogates such as Shaheen, Bob Kerrey, Clinton I, and Mark Penn. Obama's supporters have a right to call foul. It doesn't follow that they want the Huckster in the White House.
Liam wrote on December 20, 2007 8:18 PM:Hillary demonized Obama with her Kindergarten remarks, her campaign staff, spread smear spam lies about which religion he practices, and then they started pushing the idea that he was a drug dealer, and you come on here and demand that Hillary get a free pass, and a Coronation.
Get real.
Ursus wrote on December 20, 2007 8:37 PM:A bunch of posters have dumped on the assertion that HRC has foreign policy experience. Seems to me she does. Armed Services Committee - we don't use the armed services domestically much - it mostly an instrument of foreign policy. Commissioner of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. How active is that Organization? Dunno, but it is there to consider Helsinki Accord issues.
Last, if you live in the same house with the President of the United States (always assuming you are on speaking terms with POTUS) you are going to get more foreign policy experience than most of us get in a lifetime.
The other issue is whether this is a sensible issue that differentiates her. I think not. Some of our best presidents and most skilled in foreign policy matters had little prior experience.
john mccutchen wrote on December 20, 2007 8:47 PM:Jeezusaleezus can you imagine having to defend this honking sack of dog poo in a General Election?!??!?!
Mrs. Bill, our Queen designate, has screwed up almost every day for nearly two months now.
It's a wonder she's still in the race. Wouldn't be if she weren't Bill's wife
WISE UP before it is too late Democrats
Jeezusaleezus can you imagine having to defend this honking sack of dog poo in a General Election?!??!?!
Mrs. Bill, our Queen designate, has screwed up almost every day for nearly two months now.
It's a wonder she's still in the race. Wouldn't be if she weren't Bill's wife
WISE UP before it is too late Democrats
"Last, if you live in the same house with the President of the United States (always assuming you are on speaking terms with POTUS) you are going to get more foreign policy experience than most of us get in a lifetime."
So, you're voting for Laura Bush next time around? Because she's loaded with foreign policy experience now, right?
bvd wrote on December 20, 2007 8:55 PM:Mona - I will vote for the Dem whoever it is. I've always voted for Dems for president. I don't buy the idea that there's no difference between Repug & Dem - especially not after Iraq.
But please - there's also a world of difference between Hillary and every other Dem candidate. And some - many - of us believe that she is the WORST choice for the party. Just as in 2004 a lot of people felt Howard Dean would be a disaster and drive voters away. We can argue about it but the real point is everyone already has an opinion about Hillary, not just Obama supporters. And MANY people, including many Democrats, would not ever want to bring back the Clintons under circumstances.
If she gets the nomination I'll vote for her (hell, I voted for her as senator in 2000) because I don't want any more Republicans in charge. But all I see down Hillary Road is every single scandal, controversy, affair, out-and-out LIE, questionable stock deal, questionable financial deal, questionable relationship, dumb comment, dumb action and every hideous last minute presidential pardon getting dragged out again and again and again, turning everyone off from voting for her because MOST PEOPLE WERE SICK TO DEATH OF THEM BOTH BY 2000.
"Clinton Fatigue" - remember? We're all about to have a very quick relapse.
Stefan wrote on December 20, 2007 9:01 PM:Let's all calm down and listen to Fareed Zakaria:
I never thought I'd be in this position. There's a debate taking place about what matters most when making judgments about foreign policy—experience and expertise on the one hand, or personal identity on the other. And I find myself coming down on the side of identity.
...
Obama's argument is about more than identity. He was intelligent and prescient about the costs of the Iraq War. But he says that his judgment was formed by his experience as a boy with a Kenyan father—and later an Indonesian stepfather—who spent four years growing up in Indonesia, and who lived in the multicultural swirl of Hawaii.
I never thought I'd agree with Obama.
And David Brooks:
Many of the best presidents in U.S. history had their character forged before they entered politics and carried to it a degree of self-possession and tranquillity that was impervious to the Sturm und Drang of White House life.
Obama is an inner-directed man in a profession filled with insecure outer-directed ones. He was forged by the process of discovering his own identity from the scattered facts of his childhood, a process that is described in finely observed detail in “Dreams From My Father.” Once he completed that process, he has been astonishingly constant.
And Jonathan Alter:
Obama's idea is a better one: Get every special interest out in the open on television, where the new president can cross-examine them and expose their phony rationalizations for charging $100 a pill or denying coverage to sick people (and Edwards, the former trial attorney, would be especially good at this). Then, having triumphed over the drug and insurance companies in the court of public opinion, the legislative victories will follow. It is, indeed, a fantasy to think these interests will roll over entirely, but they will get a much worse deal.
Hillary Turncoat Bush wrote on December 20, 2007 9:05 PM:
When all the world is a comedy, it is time to be a clown. Let's vote for Hillary before her rubber nose falls off.
Stefan wrote on December 20, 2007 9:05 PM:All those second paragraphs should be in the quote. Apologies.
Stunned wrote on December 20, 2007 9:12 PM:So according to Hillary we need her because only she can avert war with Iran. Because only Hillary can manage to figure out that if you don't attack Iran, they won't attack you.
roo_P wrote on December 20, 2007 9:25 PM:DemAC and Ursus,
Again, I ask the question: do you consider Clinton's foreign policy decisions* that she made using her experience and judgement to have been good decisions? Should the next president make more decisions like those?
A lack of answer, unfortunately, does not convince me of your position.
(* Iraq and Iran, mainly, but you are free to include NAFTA or other specific items too.)
Fred H wrote on December 20, 2007 9:26 PM:Chris Brown wrote on December 20, 2007 5:23 PM:
Wouldn't the administration of any of the democratic contestants be populated by mostly the same foreign policy, national intelligence, and military policy officials?
Good point. Bush has pushed so many career civil servants out of government and replaced them with political hacks that any Dem president is going to have a nightmare year or two trying rid a new administration of Bush's chaff and bring back dedicated professional civil servants. Sadly, this issue is rarely discussed.
If foreign policy experience is the most important fact (as Hillary says), then we have no possible choices other than Dodd, Biden, or (possibly) Richardson.
I agree with the basic thrust of this (indeed, I have made much the same point myself already) but I have to wonder why you write "possibly Richardson." To my mind, Richardson has more real foreign affairs experience than all the other democratic candidates combined. He negotiated successfully with Saddam Hussein for the safe release of American hostages. To my mind, that beats anything any other candidate might have to boast.
out of the loop wrote on December 20, 2007 9:50 PM:Given the nature of U.S. foreign and military policies for the past few decades, the less experience one has, the better. The American foreign policy leaders of both major parties seem bent on diminishing U.S. integrity more than anything else. If Hillary wants to align herself with decades of fairly consistent impoverishment of ideas, she's welcome to it.
AD in SC wrote on December 20, 2007 10:02 PM:Is this the same Hillary Clinton whose husband Bill, just a the other day, said that she was going to recruit Bush, Sr. to help restore America's image throughout the world? And, it seems to me, that the only one in the whole lot (both sides) who has had experience in negotiating with North Korea (or anyone else) is Bill Richardson. Gimme a break, lady.
JHo wrote on December 20, 2007 10:18 PM:When is someone going to call her on this so-called foreign policy experience? We need details Mrs. Clinton...what have you done?
JHo wrote on December 20, 2007 10:20 PM:Please...Clinton supporters. Enlighten us. What are her Foreign Policy accomplishments?
Greg DeLassus wrote on December 20, 2007 10:20 PM:Obama are out of sync with the voters in general on experience and especially experience on foreign relations.
So you say. I guess we will see in a few months whether you are right about that.
joejoejoe wrote on December 20, 2007 10:27 PM:Thank you Sen. Clinton for not reading the Iraq NIE in '02 before voting to start a war with a country with no ties to the 9/11/01 attacks and no ties to Al-Qaeda. That's not just "up to speed" - it's ludicrous speed.
That's experience! You're so experienced in fact that you knew better than the Chairmen of the Senate Intelligence and Armed Services committees when casting your "up to speed" vote in favor of war without reading the intelligence. Your two years of Senate experience sure did trump Carl Levin and Bob Graham's 41 years of experience.
You're on speed you're on alright, Sen. Clinton.
CranialRectalLoopback wrote on December 20, 2007 11:27 PM:Screw the fucking military. I don't want anyone who as "military" experience. When the hell will the American Sheeple wake up and vote for someone who says "fuck the military"?
Vote Kucinich
Anonymous wrote on December 20, 2007 11:54 PM:Clinton fatigue already. She is not an honest person. She is not trustworthy. She and her surrogates have been reinforcing this impression with me recently almost daily.
Greg DeLassus wrote on December 21, 2007 12:15 AM:However, in my view, you're demonization of her doesn't help your/our progressive cause in the long run. Voting for the guy from New York will split the dem vote and then you can call him Pres. Huck/Mitt/Mc Cain. You're doing exactly what you're supposed to do according to the Rove play book. They have done a great job turning HRC into a caricature, and you all have bought into it. You're being used as right wing tools. Please, for the love of everything that's good about this country, stop!
Uh huh. So we have been told. Forgive us, please, if we do not quite see it that way.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/061288.php
edgery wrote on December 21, 2007 12:33 AM:The good news, she trashing her opponents herself rather than leaving it to surrogates. No plausible deniability here.
The bad news, she's trashing her opponents herself.
First, it was the "mudslinging" charge when Edwards dared to highlight their differences.
Then, it was the victim-card and "the boys are being mean to me" cry from her friends.
We saw more ways over the past few months that Senator Clinton reacted to being legitimately criticized that weren't real pleasant to watch. As the race has tightened and her aura of inevitability has dimmed, her campaign has tried everything from Shaheen posing "concern" about Obama to McEntee's AFSCME mailers made to look like negative campaigning by Edwards. (And we still don't know who suggested Drudge post a 2 month old picture as his headline this week but we can get back the reasonable connections there later.)
All in all, Mrs. Clinton has shown that she's a bare-knuckle political fighter who will stop at little to win against fellow Democrats. Some people seem to think that's good. I think it's beyond misplaced; it shows a weakness that the other side will exploit in a general. She isn't showing that she can stand up to the real dirty fight the Republicans will bring, but that she is intimidated by any opposition.
Slash and burn doesn't win hearts and minds. And we have present-day world situations to prove it.
Anonymous wrote on December 21, 2007 12:48 AM:You are taking something from the Rove playbook, insinuating that questioning the annointed Clinton II amounts to political treason, i.e. leading to the false conclusion that a vote for Obama is somehow a vote for Huckabee et al.
@DM
I never said a vote for Obama is a vote for Huckabee et al. I said your demonization of HRC makes it impossible for you and BO/JE supporters to vote for her in the general, that will cause you to vote for some "other" candidate like Bloomberg, which will then throw the election to a republican. Vote for Obama, hell I'll vote for him the the primary. But if he loses and HRC wins the primary, then I will support her no matter what. She isn't what you characterize her as. You probably think Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi aren't doing a good job either. You're the throw the baby out with the bath water crowd. IMO
MonaL wrote on December 21, 2007 12:52 AM:"Obama doesn't take cheap shots as Clinton II has through surrogates such as Shaheen, Bob Kerrey, Clinton I, and Mark Penn. Obama's supporters have a right to call foul. It doesn't follow that they want the Huckster in the White House."
@DM
That first sentence is patently false. Obama and his surrogates took cheap shots well before she did. Suggesting that because she took money from special interests made her corrupt. Calling her too old. Let's see, because he does it in a way that doesn't offend you, then it's not a cheap shot?
HRC supporters have the right to call foul too.
BTW, I wrote the previous post directed at you.
Richard L. Adlof wrote on December 21, 2007 12:56 AM:On Clinton's present arch, it is three months before that candidate utters the phrase, "Gotta fight 'em over there, so we don't ___." (You can fill in the blank as well as I.
With Obama's complaints about the press this week, Oprah's next book club pick will have been ghost-written under the Obama franchise . . . The title will be "My Trials" . . . In German . . . "Mein Kompft" . . . In Arabic . . . OJIHAD!" . . . In Rebublican . . . "My Pet Goat" . . .
dcshungu, if I'm correct and you write a treatise heralding HRC's insight for using the "Fight 'em" line . . . Promise you'll consider voting for a Democrat instead o' Cliinton AND . . .
Colonpowpow, the same if Obama writes the book . . .
I promise to vote for one of those two wingers in the General if they become the DEM nominee.
MonaL wrote on December 21, 2007 1:03 AM:@bvd
You'd really vote for HRC if she were the dem candidate? If that's true, congratulations, you aren't as full of Hillary hatred as you sound. You can still see that having her as pres is still better than the alternative. I hope we both end up with the president we want, someone who represents all the people of this country, not just their base.
Anon/MonaL,
I think you may be misreading things here. BO/JE supporters are not going to go off and vote for a wing nut or a third party candidate if their candidate doesn't win the nomination. And their strong reaction is not because they are "Hillary haters."
Rather, I think it's more of a visceral reaction exemplified by Edwards campaign manager Joe Trippi on Hardball as he watched Mark Penn deliberately drop the word "cocaine" over and over while simultaneously claiming that the Hillary campaign didn't want to make it an issue. Trippi, to his credit, pointed out that people in the viewing audience could see right through these ridiculous Rovian/Orwellian statements.
We are tired of seeing these tactics exploited over the past eight years, and we don't believe that the only way to beat the monster is to become one yourself. So, if there is animosity, it is directed at these tactics that Clinton II apparently thinks she must use to win.
However, I agree with Edgery above that such behavior does not show strength--political or personal--but rather weakness.
MonaL wrote on December 21, 2007 1:07 AM:"Uh huh. So we have been told. Forgive us, please, if we do not quite see it that way."
@Greg D
What is the point of your comment? You disagree? With what exactly?
DM wrote on December 21, 2007 1:16 AM:MonaL: "Obama and his surrogates took cheap shots well before she did. Suggesting that because she took money from special interests made her corrupt. Calling her too old. Let's see, because he does it in a way that doesn't offend you, then it's not a cheap shot?"
Hillary DID take money from special interests--she does not deny taking lobbyist money! That's a legitimate point because it is a difference among the top three democratic candidates.
On the other hand, pushing the "Obama is a Muslim" meme, making the racist suggestion that he may have sold drugs, and attacking his kindergarten writings and then claiming it was a joke--now, those I consider cheap shots.
JWL wrote on December 21, 2007 1:36 AM:She is Clinton, hear her roar.
MonaL wrote on December 21, 2007 1:58 AM:DM: So has Obama! Oh the outrage! He's collected almost as much money from big business as she has! He may not fly on their corporate jets, but he has taken their campaign contributions. Edwards may claim he hasn't but you should look closely at his disclosures. There is very little difference between the top 3 candidates.
She and her campaign fired the 2 or 3 ladies in Iowa who were pushing the muslim thing, the guy who insinuated that he may have sold drugs was also asked to leave the campaign. The kindergarten thing was dumb, but it went along with with all the other times in the past he mentioned he wanted to be president, after he claimed he hadn't been preparing to run for pres like she had. You're right, they were cheap shots, but he's made them too, and that's politics. It doesn't make Obama a better person and Hillary a much much worse person. I'm just suggesting you get some perspective, that's all.
MonaL wrote on December 21, 2007 2:06 AM:DM wrote: "... BO/JE supporters are not going to go off and vote for a wing nut or a third party candidate if their candidate doesn't win the nomination..."
That's not what people were saying earlier in this thread. No one was going to vote for the evil Hillary, they'd walk over hot coals and support Bloomberg first. My point to this was the more you demonize the easier it is to justify voting for the 3rd party candidate. Glad to hear you'd still vote for HRC if she won the nomination. Would you swear to that?
DM wrote: "...it's more of a visceral reaction exemplified by Edwards campaign manager Joe Trippi on Hardball as he watched Mark Penn deliberately drop the word "cocaine" over and over..."
I saw that, Mark Penn is disgusting, Joe Trippi was right to look disgusted standing next to him. I wish HRC would get rid of this guy. But, the way I see it is she is playing to win in the general. There's no time for niceties when the stakes are as high as they are. Still if Mark Penn went away, I wouldn't mind.
Don't you think Tweety gets a little unhinged over HRC?
quasar wrote on December 21, 2007 2:59 AM:Sorry Mona,
Hillary has a "likability issue". It's stamped in concrete now. I would write in Al Gore before I voted for her.
roo_P wrote on December 21, 2007 3:17 AM:MonaL,
Is your support of Clinton predicated on her making a better president or her being more likely to win?
If the former, can you explain why she would be better? If you cite "experience," please also give specific examples of where she has acquired the experience and an example where she has used that experience to make a decision.
Do you think her decisions in the area of foreign policy in the last 5 years have been good? Are those the kinds of decisions you want to see from the next president?
In the area of domestic policy, can you explain how Clinton's plan for universal health insurance will be enforced? Can you explain why it is the progressive position to have poor and middle class people pay more towards Social Security than high wage earners (unless I am mistaken and criticism of those who hold the position that the rich should pay at least as much is not made in earnest)?
How do you assess Clinton's claim that she will be "ready" from "day one" (and by implication, no-one else is)? What types of situations would arise immediately? Can you provide examples where Clinton has shown decisive correct action and none of the other Democrats did?
We may safely assume that Democrats will not have filibuster-proof majorities in both Houses. In this light, can you explain how Clinton will overcome the presumptive Republican opposition to her proposals? Do you believe that Clinton would be more successful in this than Obama (or any other Democrat) and if so, for which reasons?
roo_P wrote on December 21, 2007 3:18 AM:MonaL,
Is your support of Clinton predicated on her making a better president or her being more likely to win?
If the former, can you explain why she would be better? If you cite "experience," please also give specific examples of where she has acquired the experience and an example where she has used that experience to make a decision.
Do you think her decisions in the area of foreign policy in the last 5 years have been good? Are those the kinds of decisions you want to see from the next president?
In the area of domestic policy, can you explain how Clinton's plan for universal health insurance will be enforced? Can you explain why it is the progressive position to have poor and middle class people pay more towards Social Security than high wage earners (unless I am mistaken and criticism of those who hold the position that the rich should pay at least as much is not made in earnest)?
How do you assess Clinton's claim that she will be "ready" from "day one" (and by implication, no-one else is)? What types of situations would arise immediately? Can you provide examples where Clinton has shown decisive correct action and none of the other Democrats did?
We may safely assume that Democrats will not have filibuster-proof majorities in both Houses. In this light, can you explain how Clinton will overcome the presumptive Republican opposition to her proposals? Do you believe that Clinton would be more successful in this than Obama (or any other Democrat) and if so, for which reasons?
kozmik wrote on December 21, 2007 4:10 AM:I notice several Hillary supporters refer to supporters of other candidates by callng them names, saying they're fanatics and such. That's probably not helpful to Hillary.
Here's some "fanatical" data, that Josh also Marshall posted about:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071217/ts_nm/usa_politics_choice_dc
"Under the arcane rules in Iowa's January 3 contest, which opens the state-by-state race to choose candidates for the November 2008 election, Democratic contenders are required to muster support from at least 15 percent of the attendees in each precinct to be considered viable.
If a candidate cannot reach that threshold, his backers can switch to a second choice."
...
"The phenomenon could be another hurdle for Clinton in Iowa, as polls show Edwards, the former senator from North Carolina, and Obama, a first-term Illinois senator, gain slightly more second-choice voters."
...
"Polls show that among supporters of Richardson, Biden, Dodd, and Kucinich -- the candidates most likely to fail to meet the threshold in a given precinct -- Edwards was the second choice of 29 percent, Obama 24 percent and Clinton 15 percent in a recent Rasmussen poll."
***
i.e. not only is Obama in 1st place in in 1st choice votes, but he's also going to get more 2nd choice votes than Hillary from other candidates from a rather wide spectrum of Democratic voters, left and moderate. Polls also show Edward's supporters also prefer Obama over Clinton, so presuming he isn't a front runner and drops out (if he also doesn't pass Hillary) then Obama also picks up a larger share of his votes, and us "Obama fanatics" will welcome them of course.
It's also worth mentioning that Hillary was the presumed leader since 2005 and has polled highly since then, by default. Her poll numbers increased during early 2007, on the basis of inevitability, before other campaigns ramped up. However, since Obama's and Edward's campaigns spooled up in summer, Clinton has gone continually down, while they have both gone up, at a rather alarming rate.
That's nationwide. Hillary's numbers are falling in many important states, like CA. That's been the case for the last several months in some states, and is picking up steam in others. A loss in Iowa is going to shatter her image of inevitability, and it's down hill from there.
I'll also predict the response of Hillary supporters: "not uh! you're an Obama fanatic!" :roll eyes:
Willful ignorance is a wonderful thing.
Hillary laid out clearly in September 2002 her reasoning for supporting the AUMF in terms of negotiating strongly and dealing with a serious threat her husband had dealt with for 8 years. The AUMF threat got Hussein back to the bargaining table and got him to allow inspectors back in 3 months after the AUMF, though he didn't really start cooperating with the inspectors until 2 months after they were in, when the threat of military action was increased. The 15 members of the UN Security Council unanimously approved the new round of actions towards Hussein 1 month after Hillary voted for the AUMF - presumably Syria could have abstained.
Second, if you check out Hillary's 30-40 foreign visits as First Lady as well as her initiatives abroad as well as her work on foreign affairs in the Senate over 6 years as well as presumed internal deliberations in the White House, you can't possibly say she has no foreign policy experience. Whether she has enough? Your call. What's Obama's, aside from childhood living? Oh, he was against the war as a state senator in a heavily black precinct. That must have taken some courage.
moomin wrote on December 21, 2007 4:39 AM:"Oh, he was against the war as a state senator in a heavily black precinct."
Careful, Desider, your sheet is showing.
roo_P wrote on December 21, 2007 4:55 AM:Desider said:
The AUMF threat got Hussein back to the bargaining table and got him to allow inspectors back in 3 months after the AUMF, though he didn't really start cooperating with the inspectors until 2 months after they were in, when the threat of military action was increased.
Please see http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2167933.stm
Desider wrote on December 21, 2007 5:23 AM:It was the press, especially the "liberal" press, that spread the meme that Gore and Bush had basically the same qualifications. All of Gore's foreign policy was tossed on the garbage pile by Washington's chattering pundit class, and all his accomplishments were limned with false assertions of lies and hyperbole.
Similar things are happening with Hillary vs. Obama. Hillary had an impressive college and post-graduate record starting in 1965 as President/participant in various political and academic campus organizations (including editorial board for Yale's law and social review and a paper in Harvard's Educational Review), campus protests, working on numerous national campaigns (Rockefeller, McCarthy, McGovern, Carter), child research, US congressional boards (Mondale labor, Watergate), teaching law, etc. Combine this with her various children's foundations and legal work on children, education and poverty. All of this is ignored. It's as if Hillary didn't help Bill become AG, Governor and President, but instead waltzed in as a trophy wife First Lady in 1993, screwed up health care and went away for another 8 years. You'd never guess at the extensive international initiatives and travel she was involved with from the 'common wisdom' of the press. They can only keep whispering "Lincoln Bedroom" as if it means something. Travel to 80 countries, involvement in adoption, microloans & other women's and children's issues, more attention for Africa, schooling, the arts, etc. Check out her bio and the historical First Lady's page:
http://www.firstladies.org/biographies/firstladies.aspx?biography=43
http://clinton4.nara.gov/WH/EOP/First_Lady/html/issues.html
Obama worked on a 4-month get-out-the vote drive, his sole noted activity in school was getting elected President of the Harvard Law Review, his only professional foreign experience was a year's stint as copy-editor for an industry magazine. He's then got 3 years of community organizing work and 3 years as a community organizing lawyer before his 8 years in the Illinois Senate and 3 years in the US Senate.
So compare the records. And Hillary's right, the mantras of "they're both the same" or "it doesn't matter" have a lot to do with how the current idiot got elected.
DemAC wrote on December 21, 2007 5:36 AM:DonnaG wrote: DemAC just admitted to not having evidence of Hillary's experience or good judgment in foreign relations, and then went on to say 'nobody really cares'.I did nothing of the sort. I wrote exactly this: “You can lament this and whine all you want and trumpet for “evidence” of Hillary’s experience. Outside camp Obama nobody really cares.”
As Hillary haters are wont to do, you apparently haven’t been paying much attention to Hillary Clinton’s hard work, her vast experience or her sound judgment in the last 15 years. For all practical purposes you’ve been blind, deaf and dumb for over a decade. Now what on earth could me or anyone else tell you that will satisfy you a few days before a primary when you still nurture your little dream about defeating Hillary?
If foreign relations experience – or any experience in government for that matter – meant jack shit to you Hillary haters you’d go digging for some shred of evidence that Obama deserves some credibility on foreign relations. Or evidence that he – at least once – had tried to do anything important for any people in the world.
Hate Hillary all you want. Whine about every little part of her biography, her candidacy and her work. Outside camp Obama nobody really cares.
DemAC wrote on December 21, 2007 5:55 AM:roo_P wrote: Again, I ask the question: do you consider Clinton's foreign policy decisions* that she made using her experience and judgement to have been good decisions?Clever indeed. Change the topic from candidate biography (Hillary Clinton has an impressive foreign policy experience) to policy (Hillary Clinton did or did not vote for this or that in the Senate). If you’re any lucky we can discuss ‘til we die of ripe old age whether AUMF was a good vote or not. That’d be nice for Obama too, since he has no foreign policy experience and anyhow tends to never vote when the chips are down.
Actually, I think the case can be made that Obama’s greatest fault in this matter is not his complete lack of relevant experience on foreign relations, but that he’s a coward that deliberately avoids representing his voters on controversial issues. But – let’s not go there. As the thing stand with the voters now, on foreign relations experience Obama is the clear loser and Hillary Clinton is the clear winner. And there is nothing you or I can do about that.
Desider wrote on December 21, 2007 6:04 AM:roo_P,
Yes, you're right - I got my chronology off. It still remains that the Security Council voted unanimously for the new inspections a month after Congress approved the AUMF, and that the 1st 2 months of new UN inspections were met by a lot of mixed cooperation on Iraq's part. Go back and look at some of Hans Blix's reports. Additionally, your chronology notes the concerns of Richard Butler's, generally not regarded as a rush-to-war hothead. In short, I think more credence needs to be given to Hillary's stated motives on the AUMF vote and the actual state of knowledge about Iraq in October 2002, doubts and all. Hussein was not a straight-forward bargaining partner, 1 year after 9/11 most people were not in the mood to take chances, and the AUMF didn't send troops in the next day - it took 5 months, with a number of developments. Pinning this all to Hillary's vote and spoken qualifications in October 2002 is unjustified.
Desider wrote on December 21, 2007 6:13 AM:Moomin,
Get real. If I represent a district that's only blacks, Jews, Cubans, farmers, or steel workers, my policies on various issues will already be pre-defined.
If I represent a mixed district with various constituencies, my reactions will need to be more considered and balanced or I'll be bounced out on my ear.
Here's your sheet back.
Anonymous wrote on December 21, 2007 6:40 AM:My problem is that with the Clintons, like the Bushes, I do not BELIEVE a word they say. Sorry. They have pandered, distorted, spun, equivocated, obfiscated, and down right LIED so many times, my immediate reaction when I hear them speak is to think: That cannot be true.
Hillary and Bill are making wild assertions about Hillary's qualitifications and experience. So shallow are Hillary's real qualifications, Mr. and Mrs. Bill Clinton and their mean machine have moved into constant hyperbole to promote her.
The latest example comes from Bill on the campaign trail in Iowa:
"The reason she ought to be president, over and above her vision and her plans is that she has proven in every position she has ever had in life, whether it was in elected office or not, that she is a world-class genius in making positive changes in other people's lives."
In TRUTH, Hillary has accomplished no more or less that many well-educated political wives with powerful husbands.
But she had the opportunity to do much more. She was a full-time First Lady with a huge budget anf full-time staff for eight years.
Please Bill, list the tangible measurable evidence of her GENIUS in changing specific lives. I don't mean lending your name to other peoples efforts and organizations, or work on committees, commissions or conferences. Please Bill, make a list that can be fact checked. Or at least, open the First Lady Archieves so the public can know exactly what Hillary did.
The truth is Hillary has depended on being Mrs. Bill Clinton to secure every position she has ever held since moving to Arkansas. And given the time, resources and influence available to her, she has very little tangible results that is atrributable to Hillary.
Like I said, if the Clintons' say it, I don't believe it. It is a conditioned response based on long experience.
random wrote on December 21, 2007 6:56 AM:Anonymous said: "My problem is that with the Clintons, like the Bushes, I do not BELIEVE a word they say."
I'm sure the Clintons must say somethings that are true. But when Bill says things that are obviously not true, how are you suppose to know when he has shifted gears back to truth mode? Some of his statements are obviously absurd lies and exaggerations like that he was against the war from the beginning and "Hillary is a genius?" But what about other statements not so easily checked?
Anonymous wrote on December 21, 2007 7:09 AM:DemAC spins "As Hillary haters are wont to do, you apparently haven’t been paying much attention to Hillary Clinton’s hard work, her vast experience or her sound judgment in the last 15 years."
Name a few. I've never seen specifics that hold up to fact checking on Hillary. Lots of hollow claims, no substance.
Post the list with links DemAC or stop making absurd claims.
From the very beginnning and throughout this thread, posters have been asking for evidence of Hillary's foreign experience and/or evidence of her judgment re foreign policy. This evidence seems exactly relevant considering Hillary's blatant touting of herself as superior in those areas [explained by dcshungu as a dirty tricks ploy to plant a seed of doubt in voters' minds about other candidates].
roo_P asked for such evidence something like five times, and, by my count there were no less than nine other posters who also, in various ways, asked for some of 'evidence' of Hillary's foreign policy experience or good foreign policy judgment.......particularly in light of her poor judgment about Iraq.
There were three Hillary campers who gave some sort of answer:
Decider makes a dubious case that the AUMF vote was, er, actually OK (!), and besides, Hillary had made 30-40 trips abroad as First Lady, then in another comment, Decider goes through the whole fluff stuff about Hillary history that is irrelevant to the question;
Ursus asserted that we should conflate Armed Services committee work with 'foreign policy';
DemAC's inability to give evidence was hidden behind a claim that 'nobody cares' unless they are in the Obama camp, which sounds a lot like DemAC doesn't care whether Hillary has foreign policy experience or good judgment;
and, as I mentioned before, dcshungu alerted us that this Hillary statement was a political ploy to plant seeds of doubt about Obama [meaning, I guess, that actual facts aren't important].
dcshungu, you have my vote for most honest Hillary supporter on this thread; at least you did not blow smoke about this, but just came out and told us bringing up an issue of foreign policy credentials was just a political trick statement on her part.
If/when the Dems lose the election because we nominated Hillary, I hope you machine politics lemmings all go jump off a cliff. Hillary=suppressed Dem turnout and increased GOP turnout. It's that simple. How do you win an election that way??
Anonymous wrote on December 21, 2007 8:11 AM:
Desider spins "Willful ignorance is a wonderful thing."
You should know. I hope you delight in yours.
Arguing about what Hillary intended with her Iraq vote is poiintless. Sadam had no weapons of mass distruction and was not an imminent threat. He could not have fulfiled the UN madate to disarm, because he had nothing to disarm. Duh!
Saddam said this, the inspectors said this.
Bush wanted to attack Saddam. Everyone in the nation and the world new it. Hillary knew it.
23 wise Senators read the full, classified national intelligence estimate and said there is nothing that justifies giving trigger happy Bush authority for war. PERIOD.
Hillary was posturing based on her presidential asperations and as a woman, she did not want to look soft of defense. So, in her own self interest, with horrible advice, and even worse judgment, she voted to give an incompetent, warmongering president the authority to wage an unncessary, unjustified war that has turned into the worst foreign policy disaster in American history.
Hillary's speech before her vote took all sides on all issues to cover her butt. Period.
Decider, you are displaying a textbook exmaple of "willful ignorance" in trying to present Hillary's Iraq vote as anything but horrible judgment and polticial opportunism that back-fired.
biff diggerence wrote on December 21, 2007 8:28 AM:If foreign policy was the single criterion for choosing a candidate, the choice would be Richardson.
Michael A wrote on December 21, 2007 9:55 AM:This is really ironic. People question the basis for the claim of clinton II's alleged overwhelming foreign policy experience, over and over and over again. Clinton II supporters say she has this vast wealth of foreign policy experience, so then we ask give us some examples, any examples, because obviously we don't know what it is. In response we get that we are "hillary-haters" and uninformed. Well, of course we're uninformed, inform us. Duh!
Bottom line all the three front runners probably have the similar experience, and probably clinton II may have more, and she may not. The problem is that she has been totally trying to oversell the experience thinking that this will outweigh her triangulation and other negatives. In the end the oversell, I believe, will and has come back to bite her, so now she is going negative, which is worse.
I just hope that she doesn't do too much damage to the democratic party as she flames out. She is already causing damage in new hampshire with her baby games. I hope she gets shelled in the early states and is out of this race as quickly as possible to limit the damage she is causing for her personal glory.
savvy wrote on December 21, 2007 10:31 AM:One of the hardest states in which to get on the presidential ballot is Virginia. Potential candidates must collect the signatures of 10,000 registered Virginia voters from across the state with at least 400 signatures coming from each of its 11 Congressional districts.
…
The campaigns of Barack Obama and Ron Paul collected their required signatures with remarkable ease and were able to turn them in weeks before the deadline, which was last week. But the Hillary Clinton campaign struggled to complete the ballot requirements in Virginia and was forced to spend valuable resources to ensure her name would be on the ballot.
“The grassroots network for Obama is intense,” Kevin Wolf, an Obama volunteer who was responsible for the campaign’s signature collection effort in Virginia, said.
He said that the Obama campaign collected almost 20,000 signatures, double the required amount, and was able to do it weeks before the deadline.
…
Kevin Vincent, Obama’s Northern Virginia coordinator, said that the signature gathering effort did not use any paid staff. “It was a matter of volunteers working hard,” he said.
THE CLINTON campaign had more difficulty. Despite being considered the presumptive front-runner for the Democratic nomination, the former First Lady’s campaign was struggling in the final days before the deadline to gather all the signatures.
One method the Clinton campaign used to accomplished this was to use paid signature gatherers…The Clinton campaign, which did not respond to requests for comment on this story, was even offering to pay gatherers – legal as long as the signers don’t see any of the money – at a flat rate of $2.10 per signature.
roo_P wrote:
"Is your support of Clinton predicated on her making a better president or her being more likely to win?"
The latter, although I also think she's the most qualified to be president out of all the candidates. But I won't bother to explain why since that would just open a whole can of worms where you'd want to counter-point everything I say. Her record speaks for itself.
Go to either of these to see:
http://www.firstladies.org/biographies/firstladies.aspx?biography=43
http://clinton4.nara.gov/WH/EOP/First_Lady/html/issues.html
Greg DWhat is the point of your comment? You disagree? With what exactly?
Well, since you asked, yes the point of my comment is that I disagree with your assertion that the present activities of the Obama and Edwards partisans somehow endangers the long term prospects for the democrats in November.
For one thing, the folks on your own side of this argument are at least as toxic as the folks on my side or the Edwards side, so your complaint sounds like a rather hollow instance of special pleading. Attend to the beam in the eyes of your fellow Clinton supporters before you attempt to remove the mote from ours.
For another, I simply disagree that a vigorous debate at this stage in the game is anything other than healthy. If Sen Clinton is really the "strong," "experienced" "fighter" about which we are constantly being told, then I dare say that this sort of struggle at this stage in the game can only stand to make her stronger.
In any event, I am definitely with you in urging against third party strategies. We will all do well to rally around the eventual nominee once s/he is chosen, but there is no need to walk on eggshells in the meantime lest we jinx ourselves later. Incidentally, I guess that I am also not especially convinced that we should take the "I will never vote for Hillary" crowd at their word. Once a real live Republican has been selected so that the sober thought of living under (at least) 4 years of "Pres Romney" or "Pres Giuliani" dawns on folks, I dare say that more than a few of these people will change their tune and quickly.
roo_P wrote on December 21, 2007 1:08 PM:DemAC:
Clever indeed. Change the topic from candidate biography (Hillary Clinton has an impressive foreign policy experience) to policy (Hillary Clinton did or did not vote for this or that in the Senate). If you’re any lucky we can discuss ‘til we die of