campaign has focusing heavily on foreign policy. Clinton's message is simple: I have
foreign policy experience, Senator Barack Obama does not. Obama has responded by noting that Clinton has been rather vague when it comes to providing details of her own foreign policy accomplishments. But for Senator Clinton, foreign policy may be a can of worms best left unopened.
Clinton's focus on foreign policy comes as a bit of a surprise considering that she has often enjoyed an advantage among voters who are concerned about the economy and healthcare. 57 percent of voters who participated in a recent Gallup Poll said they thought Clinton could "better handle" the nation's healthcare crisis. They also said Clinton could better handle the economy, albeit by a narrower and statistically insignificant margin, 46-44 percent. There are two probable exlpanations for the Clinton campaign's decision to emphasize foreign policy. For one, Clinton hopes to capitalize on the existing perception that Obama may have not the experience necessary to be a good president, particularly when it comes to foreign policy. A March 4 Gallup poll showed that 65 percent of voters already believe that Clinton has the experience necessary to be a good president, compared to only 22 percent who felt the same way about Obama. But few of these voters cited experience as the the most important factor influencing their vote. Clinton likely hopes to convince voters to place more emphasis on the experience factor.
Second, Senator John McCain - the Republican nominee - has already made it clear that foreign policy will be a centerpiece of his general election campaign. McCain will seek to make the Democrats look weak on national defense, weak on terrorism, and weak on Iraq. He may actually be doing Hillary a favor. As a senator, Clinton has worked hard to appear strong on matters of national defense, even acting as a spokesperson for the war in Iraq long after most Democrats had written the war off as a major foreign policy blunder.
Clinton's hawkish approach has cost her during the primary season. But with McCain on the attack, Clinton can start to play the role of "General Hillary" once again. By making Obama appear weak on foreign policy - and particularly on defense - Clinton hopes that voters will be more likely to buy into her "commander in chief" persona.
But if Clinton's efforts to describe her own foreign policy experience seem a little vague, it may be due to the fact that the first Clinton presidency was short on foreign policy successes. Sure, Hillary claims to have played a role in bringing peace to Ireland. But what about the numerous foreign policy blunders that occurred under Bill and Hillary's watch? The genocide in Rwanda. The debacle in Somalia. The inadequate response to Al-Qaeda's early attacks on U.S. targets. If Hillary does win the nomination, the Reblicans will eagerly exploit these failures.
Perhaps we should look to Clinton's time in the Senate for proof of her excellence in the field of foreign
policy. Clinton's record of strong support for the war in Iraq once again becomes a liability. The
Republicans will point to Hillary's sudden conversion to anti-war Democrat, and renew the chant that sounded the beginning of the end of John Kerry's bid for the White House: "Flip-flop! Flip-flop! Flip-flop!..."
In 2004, towards the end of the campaign, I attended a John Kerry rally in New Hampshire. I recall
watching with some surprise as a group of young Republicans made their through the crowd to stand directly in front of the podium where Kerry was standing. They actually removed flip-flops from their feet and started clapping them together, chanting "Flip-flop!" as worried Kerry staffers made awkward attempts to put an end to the spectacle. Kerry's speech was interrupted, and it was hard not to lose a little respect for the veteran Senator once it was all said and done. After all, he did flip-flop on Iraq.
And so did Hillary Clinton. Big time. Before she decides to make foreign policy the focus of this campaign, Senator Clinton should take a long look in the rear view mirror. She may decide that this particular can of worms is one best left unopened.
What do you think?
What do you know about Hillary Clinton's foreign policy record?
Is foreign policy important to you as a voter? Why?
David Anderson is a political correspondent for Gather.com. You can read all of David's past correspondent articles by clicking here
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 108
As far as foreign policy, there are no specifics. She did not even have security clearance during her 8 years in the white house. That was shocking to me. There is no way she can run against McCain as an experience candidate. Experience in what? Passing legislation? She has 7 years of legislative experience. As Bill said she never got elected to anything until the US senate. Talking about fast track.
I've just finished watching McCain on 60 minutes. He is going to attack the MANDATE head on. He used the word MANDATE when talking about health care 3 times in about 15 seconds. I think it was both the right thing to do and strategic if you will, for Obama's plan to focus on cost and not force (that's what a mandate means) on all Americans.
The notion that she is stronger on health care is the result of her campaign not telling people loud and clear that she will garnish their wages. I live in MA with our mandated health care. We have yet to see how it works out but I can tell you that Barack is right in debates when he says people are electing not to pay it and get fined (get screwed twice). The GOP will be more blunt with this.
They do say no good deed ever goes unpunished
He had a very good presidency indeed but make no mistake legislation in Washington DC IS NOT THE DRIVER OF THE AMERICAN ECONOMY.
I'm a Certified Faud Examiner by trade and in my business we run into overblown resumes all the time. It think Hillary Clinton's foreign policy expereice may not be exactly what she is claimimg. If her resume landed on my desk I would look at it with a microscope based on the following AP report.
By NANCY BENAC
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) - To hear Hillary Rodham Clinton tell it now, she had a lot more going on as first lady than she let on at the time.
On the presidential campaign trail, Clinton frequently makes the pitch that she is uniquely qualified to pass the ``commander in chief'' test in large part because of her foreign policy and national security experience in Bill Clinton's White House.
She takes credit for helping bring peace to Northern Ireland, negotiating open borders for refugees fleeing Kosovo, standing up to the Chinese government over women's rights, and flying into Bosnia when it was too dangerous to send the president.
There is little doubt that Clinton was an exceptionally activist first lady. She was the first to set up shop in a West Wing office alongside other White House policymakers, and immediately was in the thick of domestic policy deliberations, most notably her long and unsuccessful fight for health care reform.
Clinton also took a keen interest in foreign policy, traveling to more than 80 countries, with her husband and alone, to promote U.S. policy and the cause of women and children.
But Clinton is taking credit for accomplishing more than some of those who were active in foreign policy during the Clinton years recall.
Former Clinton administration officials, many of them now aligned with either Clinton or Democratic presidential rival Barack Obama, offer differing views on the extent of her influence - and its relevance to the presidential race.
``Her experience speaks for itself,'' says former U.N. ambassador Richard Holbrooke, who is advising Clinton's campaign. She wasn't the one making the final decisions on U.S. policy, he says, but ``no one in the world got a better idea of the countervailing pressures. The most important decision a president can make is to send Americans into harm's way. She knows what that entails.''
A contrary view comes from Susan Rice, a former assistant secretary of state from the Clinton years and an Obama campaign adviser. She said Clinton's involvement with foreign policy as first lady was ``laudable and important, but it is hardly the same thing as the kind of crisis management'' that is required of a president. ``There is no crisis to be dealt with or managed when you are first lady,'' Rice said.
A look at some of Clinton's specific foreign policy claims:
-NORTHERN IRELAND: ``I helped to bring peace to Northern Ireland.''
Clinton traveled to Northern Ireland five times as first lady, and was a tireless advocate for the peace process. But she was not directly involved in negotiating the Good Friday peace accord.
She did encourage Irish women on both sides of the conflict to come together and get involved in a process that was dominated by men.
Former Democratic Sen. George Mitchell, who brokered the peace accord, said Clinton was ``quite helpful.''
``She became quite active in encouraging women in Northern Ireland to engage in the political process and in the peace process, and ultimately the role of women was important in moving the process forward,'' said Mitchell, who is neutral in the presidential race. ``She was one of many people who participated in encouraging women to get involved, not the only one.''
John Hume, the Catholic leader who shared the 1998 Nobel Peace Prize for his work on the peace accord, credits Clinton for playing a ``pivotal role'' in the peace process.
But others in Northern Ireland say Clinton overstates her role.
``The road to peace was carefully documented, and she wasn't on it,'' says Brian Feeney, an author and former leading Belfast politician from the same party as Hume.
KOSOVO: ``I negotiated open borders to let fleeing refugees into safety from Kosovo.''
At the urging of the Macedonian government, Clinton in May 1999 traveled to Macedonia, which was being inundated with Albanian refugees from Kosovo. She visited a huge refugee camp, held hands with children, told their parents they would go home and announced business loans for the country to help its laggard economy cope with the refugee influx.
On May 5, Macedonian officials had shut the border to refugees, blaming the West for allowing more than a quarter-million people to overwhelm the country. Despite later government insistence that the border was open again, Serb soldiers appeared to be blocking refugees' exit, and only a trickle passed through on May 13, the day before Clinton arrived, according to an AP story written at the time. Refugees were reported to be afraid even to attempt the crossing.
Melanne Verveer, a Clinton aide who accompanied the first lady on the trip to Macedonia, said that only a small section of the border was open when she arrived, and that there was no guarantee it wouldn't close again at any time.
Verveer, who sat in on May 14 meetings between the first lady and Macedonia's president and prime minister, said Clinton was forceful in urging the leaders to keep the border open, and in assuring the Macedonians that the U.S. would support them in coping with the influx of refugees.
``What she did there I don't think can be underestimated in terms of the positive impact that it had,'' said Verveer, who is active in Clinton's campaign.
Robert Gelbard, who was presidential envoy to the Balkans at the time and now serves as an adviser to the Obama campaign, offers an opposing view.
``I cannot recall any involvement by Senator Clinton in this issue,'' he said. ``The person who was able to get the border opened was Mrs. Sadako Ogata,'' the U.N. high commissioner for refugees. Gelbard said he had questioned other U.S. officials directly involved and none remembered involvement by Clinton.
There were no public reports at the time of Clinton negotiating to keep the border open.
Overall, said Gelbard, ``She had more of a role on some foreign policy issues than a lot of other first ladies, including, for example, the current one. My own firsthand experience, though, is that her role was limited and I've been surprised at the claims that she had a much greater role than certainly I'm aware of on the issues I was working on.''
SERBIA: ``I urged him to bomb.''
Clinton doesn't bring this one up now, but in a 1999 interview published in Talk magazine, the first lady was quoted as saying that she had urged her husband to recommend a NATO bombing campaign on Serb targets to halt ethnic cleansing in Kosovo. According to the story, Clinton called the president on March 21, 1999, from her travels in North Africa. ``I urged him to bomb,'' she was quoted as saying. ``You cannot let this go on at the end of a century that has seen the major holocaust of our time. What do we have NATO for if not to defend our way of life?'' NATO airstrikes began March 24.
Clinton generally refuses to talk about the private advice she gave her husband. But Holbrooke this week recalled a time during the subsequent NATO bombing campaign when he and his wife were invited upstairs at the White House after a social event. He said Hillary Clinton was a big participant in an hour-long discussion about the bombing, the possible use of ground troops and other matters.
She didn't take sides in the conversation, Holbrooke said, ``but I have no doubt that she continued the conversation in the privacy of their relationship'' and made her views clear.
CHINA: ``I've been standing up to the Chinese government over women's rights.''
Clinton says her participation on the U.N. Conference on Women in Beijing in 1995 was ``one of the highlights of my own life.'' There had been a huge debate over whether she should even go, with some human rights advocates expressing concern that China would use the conference as a public relations tool.
Clinton got strong reviews for threading the diplomatic needle with an impassioned speech that contained a wide-ranging denunciation of human rights abuses worldwide. She criticized China, without naming it directly, for the practice of sterilization and forced abortion, and for preventing many women from attending or participating fully in the conference.
In her memoir, Clinton writes about the rousing reception her speech received at the conference and adds, ``What I didn't know at the time was that my 21-minute speech would become a manifesto for women all over the world. To this day, whenever I travel overseas, women come up to me quoting words from the Beijing speech or clutching copies they want me to autograph.''
Rice, the former Clinton administration official now supporting Obama, credits the first lady for delivering an important speech on women's rights, but says that that doesn't translate into presidential crisis management credentials.
BOSNIA: ``If the place was too small, too dangerous or too poor, send Hillary.''
Clinton cites her March 1996 trip to Bosnia as an example of traveling into a war zone to promote U.S. policy, recalling a harrowing ``corkscrew'' landing during which she and her daughter, Chelsea, were ordered into the armored front of the plane to protect them against possible ground fire. She jokes that one mantra around the Clinton White House, was that ``if the place was too small, too dangerous or too poor, send Hillary.''
Clinton brought up the trip to counter Obama's suggestion that her experiences as first lady amounted to having tea at an ambassador's house.
``I don't remember anyone offering me tea,'' Clinton said of the Bosnia visit.
Security was very tight on Clinton's goodwill tour to Bosnia, but officials said at the time that she took no extraordinary risks.
Rice, the Obama supporter, dismissed the trip as a ``meet and greet.'' She stressed that comedian Sinbad and singer Sheryl Crow accompanied Clinton on the flight to put on a USO show for the troops.
---
Associated Press writer Shawn Pogatchnik in Dublin, Ireland, contributed to this report.
1993 World Trade Center
Africa Embassies bombing.
Clinton did NOTHING. They just stepped it up in 9/11. They were already in the country during his presidency too.
Says you. Granted, he didn't invade a non-involved sovereign nation . . . but he also didn't have 9/11 on his watch while shutting down the millenium threat completely. When he DID respond, the GOP lap dogs all started yelling "Wag the Dog" as though his response was to distract the sheeple from the much more important fact that he had consensual sex with another adult named Monica.
"Republicans will point to Hillary's sudden conversion to anti-war Democrat, and renew the chant that sounded the beginning of the end of John Kerry's bid for the White House: "Flip-flop! Flip-flop! Flip-flop!...""
While neglecting that the non-nation building, uniter, not a divider, compassionate conservative named Boosh was the penultimate flip-flopper . . . . not to mention the vitriol between he and McCain that turned into a love-fest pet-a-thon . . . . flip flop, flip flop . . .
Kerry's so-called flip flop on the war is dubious to me. Following Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in January 1991, Kerry broke with the majority of senators and voted against authorizing the first Gulf War. He said on the Senate floor, "It is a vote about war because whether or not the president exercises his power, we will have no further say after this vote."
Kerry thus voted against war after Iraq took aggressive military action. He said a vote in favor of military action was tantamount to giving Congress "no further say" on the war.
In October 2002, he supported the current war in Iraq, despite the fact that Iraq took no aggressive action against its neighbors. I WILL grant that it seems to be no different unless one understands the nuanced position here.
In announcing his candidacy for president, in September 2003, he said his October 2002 vote was simply "to threaten" the use of force. You may call it a flip flop. Many DID call it that. I only point out that we don't all agree about it.
Should Hillary be touting foreign policy? HELL, yes. The fact is that this illegal invasion and subsequent occupation are strongly opposed by all but McCain and the few remaining GOP apologists not under indictment. That issue alone will decide the vote for MANY people.
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
I seem to remember this much. Wikipedia - Salud.
Unity of command is a must in a crisis and not having a clear cut leader (having Bill set policy, acting as an adviser or just geting in the way) could make a bad situation worse.
Presidents get credit for good times and get blamed for bad times. It's never that simple, but it's a fact of political life folks, no matter how you spin it.
Hillary Clinton tried VERY hard to give the people a national health care plan. She was doing a job that her husband, the President, assigned to her. She made some mistakes. Probably didn't listen to enough people. But in the end, she was shot down by drug company and HMO money. They were making a ton of it, and they didn't want their applecart upset.
So here we are ten years later, with an ABSOLUTE DISASTER as far as health care goes. The drug companies and HMO's are still making a ton of money, but there are almost 50 million American citizens without any insurance coverage, and the costs have skyrocketed. Guess who is still getting rich. This is disgraceful! She tried to fix it and they shot her down. You can bet that when she is elected President, they will try to do it again.
I'm looking to go forward to something better and not just a simple return to days gone by.
Are you F'ing KIDDING me??? The attack less than ONE month before the election in which ALL the info was given to George "Huh?" Bush who did absolutely NOTHING?
The 1993 WTC Bombing???
WTF?? In March 1994, four men were convicted of carrying out the bombing. The charges included conspiracy, explosive destruction of property and interstate transportation of explosives. And in November 1997, two more were convicted: Yousef, the mastermind behind the bombings, and Eyad Ismoil, who drove the truck carrying the bomb. Oh! But you're RIGHT! We didn't spend BILLIONS of dollars invading a random country . . . it's almost like we did NOTHING (but arrest the guilty)!
Africa embassy bombings??? In response, the U.S. launched cruise missiles on Aug. 20, 1998, striking a terrorism training complex in Afghanistan and destroying a pharmaceutical manufacturing facility in Khartoum, Sudan, that reportedly produced nerve gas. Both targets were believed to have been financed by wealthy Islamic radical Osama bin Laden, who was allegedly behind the embassy bombings as well as an international terrorism network targeting the United States. Of course, most of you anti-Clintonians started yelling "Wag the Dog". That's NOTHING?? Oh, my bad. We didn't invade a country that had nothing to do with it.
Whatever.
"We have never seen a president leave office in a more tawdry
fashion," said Chuck Lewis of the Center for Public Integrity. "
Guess he missed Nixon, eh? LoL!
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
Bosnia: The premise here is that we have been drawn into a situation now in Bosnia/Kosovo where we can't easily get out. Thanks to bad policy, manipulation of the press and lack of strategy, we are left to flounder in the Balkans for the foreseeable future. When we do eventually leave, we can expect that all the "good works" we have done will come to naught. How does Clinton think we, in our moralistic fashion, can bring final peace to a region where almost 50 years of peace under Tito broke down into brutal war so easily. The undercurrents of hate run deep. We would have to stay engaged in Bosnia for generations to change things. Is that a wise and realistic use of our limited military force?
fashion," said Chuck Lewis of the Center for Public Integrity. "In fact,
Bill Clinton will go down as the poster child on how not to leave the White
House. I mean, you cannot top what he has done in the last few days, the
last three weeks - it's beyond the pale."
There was also more uproar about the pardon of fugitive billionaire
Mark Rich. Time magazine reported Friday that Rich's ex-wife, Denise, gave
the Clinton presidential library at least $400,000 and, sources said,
pledged even more.
"We need to find out why," Rep. Dan Burton, R-Ind., chairman of the
House Government Reform Committee, "and I don't think Bill Clinton has given
a proper explanation as to why he pardoned Marc Rich."
Rich pardon probe widens
This is old news but just to jog a few memories...Salud.
Obama is the Democratic contender I would vote for. If the gets the nomination? I dunno.
Oh, lets not forget the bombing of Iraq, what did we hit? An aspirin factory, wasnt it? Yep, oh Billy boy sure did a bang up job, on foreign policy.
If Hilly , gets that call at 3 oclock in the morning on the red phone. Bill, will tell her to roll back over and go to sleep.
Are you really this dumb? Check your facts.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200407230005
Meanwhile...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8853000/site/newsweek/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A62618-2002Apr16
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/080705A.shtml
Incredible! Clinton isn't president anymore people. And when he was, it as BEFORE the WTC attack on 9/11. Now, it's (hello?) AFTER 9/11. Where is Osama? How's come your fricken hero hasn't brought him in, "dead or alive," like he promised? Hmmmm?
The differences between Clinton failing to "get" Bin Laden and George "Dead or Alive" Bush failing to get Bin Laden are (with a tip o' the hat to Clark):
1. Clinton actually tried, several times.
2. Bush let him go, twice.
3. Bush's failures are POST 9/11, when there is no longer any excuse for brushing aside the threat.
Additionally, while Bin Laden was a key focus of the Clinton administration, and they held two cabinet level meetings per week to discuss counter terrorism, Bush warned the FBI to "back off the Bin Ladens" as late as July of 2003, and couldn't be bothered to hold a single cabinet level meeting on counter terrorism until one week before 9/11. This EVEN THOUGH he was told by the outgoing Clinton Administration that Bin Laden and Al Qaeda would be the foremost threat on his watch. Some great focus from the leader of the "War on Terror".
It is reprehensible that Bush allowed him to escape TWICE (shortly after 9/11, Bin Laden was offered to the BA, but he refused to accept, and then, when US forces had him cornered near Tora Bora, Bush diverted troops and resources to Iraq, and let his buddy Bin Laden escape to Pakistan, where he continues to be sheltered and protected by the Pakistani government.
For republiCONs to point fingers at Clinton for failing to capture Bin Laden, when their boy has failed POST 9/11, and appears to no longer care one bit about him, is the height of shameless hypocrisy, and just goes to show how far out of step with reality the bush worshippers are.
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
fashion," said Chuck Lewis of the Center for Public Integrity. "
Guess he missed Nixon, eh? LoL!"
And give them a few months here Doyle, there'll be one that eclipses anything Nixon did, too.
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
The 9/11 commision investigated this LIE. Yet the vast right wing conspiracy keeps pushing this LIE to their gullible mindless minions.
Hard to believe but Osama Bin Laden was never arrested by Sudan, your RepubliCON Jedi mind tricks don't work on me.
In our local letter to editor, three LIARS wrote how the Clintons Looted Air Force One and trashed the White House. This LIE was investigated, at the behest of Bob Barr (R) Ga., by the General Acounting Office which discovered it was just another RepubliCON lie. More taxpayer money witch hunting the Clintons.
As for the Mark Rich Pardon, it's too lengthy to post here. But the Isaraeli Government did ask Clinton to pardon him. Shimon Peres and Israeli Prime Minister Barak.
They had congressional hearings on this matter, found no wrongdoing.
It is outrageous how the Right wing conspiracy turned that pardon into what it wasn't. Read for yourself.
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/feb2001/rich-f21.shtml
More pro-pardon articles http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/03/02/clinton.library/
NeoCONS will believe any LIE, no matter how outrageous, as long as it is directed against the Clintons and are willing to spend MILLION OF OUR TAX DOLLARS pursuing them. Pathetic!
Can't forget that Congressional hearing when Hillary let slip, "we are the President." She does not have any more international credit than any other first lady, and a lot less than sum, like Elenor Roosevelt.
Within a year "I don't think about him anymore(Bin Laden) he's not important anymore"
More pathetic!
Someone mentioned that Bill was impeached. Yes he was, and like Johnson, he was exonerated at the Senate trial! Besides, Bill is not running for president. Hillary was never impeached.
It is quite reasonable to believe that Hillary rendered advice and support to Bill in most all of his foreign policy decisions, and knows what kind of research and thinking was involved, as well as where to start in finding solutions.
I'm sure Obama will surround himself with knowledgeable people making it possible for him to make reasoned decisions on foreign policy but he clearly lacks the personal experience of Clinton and her personal knowledge of the players on the world stage is truly impressive.
Hillary has the "pillory Hillary" club throughout the nation, who hate her, and I sense a great deal of the green eyed devil in their attitude here!
I will vote for Obama if he is the nominee but I'd be a lot more comfortable with Hillary in charge!
Obama has lived in other countries - speaks other languages - there's no substitute for knowing real people - and sincerity is a language that can be heard in any language very clearly. Hillary is just not a world leader, never will be. The Clintons are passe' - and their desperation will get them no where. Salud.
I keep reading this kind of thought here, in the media, everywhere. I don't know where this notion came from, that she is any more ambitious than any of the others, but I see absolutely NO EVIDENCE of that. Geez, does anybody want to be President more than John McCain? So much so that he is now cosying up to the Religious Right, giving speeches at their gatherings. And he has changed his position on campaign finance reform because he is now the LARGEST FUNDRAISER IN PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN HISTORY, raising a record 55 million dollars last month! Talk about flipflopflipflop.
Of course Romney was the original say anything-do anything-to-get-elected. The voters finally saw through him, though.
And finally, is there a more ambitious politician than Barack Obama?
They ALL will do whatever it takes, folks, to win. After the election, we will find out what they are REALLY going to do.
If you doubt that, just remember Bush's solemn claim during the Presidential debates with Al Gore that he would not engage in "nation building." He said, with a completely straight face, that it was a bad use of our military. I remember that very vividly. I watched him tell that bald-faced lie. As Ron and Doyle said above, if you want to see a really tawdry departure from office by a disgraced president...just stick around until next January.
Either would make a MUCH better President than John "I LOVES Bush" McSame!
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
Anybody here wants to deny that Hillary wants to take credit for all the good deeds of the Clinton administration but wants to run away from anything that went bad?
NAFTA = "I opposed behind closed doors." "I supported in public to support my husband" (quotes)
Somalia = I had nothing to do with it. I supported all humanitarian missions anywhere. The GOP congress forced my husband out. (paraphrases)
Rwanda Genocid = Congress did not signal they wanted to move. Our hands were tied after Somalia. I support all humanitarian missions
If you were in a position where you can claim experience (i.e. you had a job description, duties, roles, ...) where is your leadership?
I will give her leadership in health care. She worked for it, very hard, although the wrong way (I am Monday morning quarterbacking, if you will. For every thing else, where is the leadership, how did you go about convincing people to bring them to share those noble positions.
These are fair questions ladies and gents if she wants credit for the work she claims to have done.
For example,going into the South Carolina primary where polls showed she would lose to Obama her campaign played the media into reporting the huge African-American percentage of voters. This was done to actually boost the African-American trend toward Obama so it would look like he could only win by a biased African-American vote. [Contrary to the large white votes he got to win Iowa and come close in New Hampshire, not to mention in other states since]
Another example, the shameless manipulation of the media and the minds of blue-collar workers in Ohio. By jumping on and twisting the words of one of Obama's advisors with regard to a conversation on NAFTA with a consulate she created an impression that she knew was absolutely not true so she could scare Ohioans into being fearful of Obama. This despite the fact that her campaign has had similar conversations and her position is almost exactly the same as Obama's on NAFTA (more accurately, her position now is the same; prior to the campaign she was publicly in favor of it).
Another example, her shameless use of fearmongering in the 3 am ad. Her goal - create a fear of the unknown, i.e., Obama's lack of foreign policy experience, despite the fact that her husband's foreign policy experience was even more limited when he took office (oh, and by the way, she takes credit for everything that happened during the Clinton Presidency as her own - do any of us really believe she "negotiated" the Irish peace or Kosovo bombing or any of the other things she claims to have been instrumental in? Talk about your resume padding). But I digress. The point is that she pulled a typical Bushism - fearmongering for votes (aka, manipulating the fears of Americans for votes). Again, despite the fact that her position does not differ fundamentally from Obama's on this.
The irony of Texas is that though she touts her "win" in Texas, she garnered only 4 delegates more than Obama (of 126) in the primary portion, while Obama is way ahead in the caucus portion with 41% of the vote counted. Once the caucus results are known it will show that Obama actually got more delegates in Texas than did Hillary. But then Hillary can still claim a "win" because she says so.
There are more examples of Hillary's win at all costs. Truth is that Obama has a 138 pledged delegate lead and an overall delegate lead of 99 (with Texas delegates still to be added). Hillary currently has a 39 superdelegate lead, though they have been abandoning her like rats off a sinking ship, and when all is said and done most will break toward the candidate with the pledged delegate (and number of states won) lead - Obama.
So even though she can't win she will continue to put herself over the best interests of the Democratic party.
Need any additional evidence?
The Clintons painted him as the Black Candidate to trigger a backlash from other groups. The Clintons, I thought won the election, by losing South Carolina.
To this date, I think that would have happened if it was not for the support of Caroline Kennedy the next day, Ted Kennedy the Monday after, and Edwards drop out. These 3 events saved Barack because, they really worked the media in presenting a candidate who's only support comes from African Americans. But you know what, give the public credit. A lot of people are starting to see through these monsters!
Consider the options: 1) Clinton gets the nomination: Clearly she would only pick Obama as VP under intense pressure from the Democratic party and from the people who would feel cheated, since she can only get the nomination by greater superdelegate (i.e., establishment) vote. Even if she would be forced to pick Obama by the party, the chances of Obama agreeing are pretty much zero. So no Clinton/Obama ticket.
2) Obama gets the nomination: Okay, is there anyone out there who thinks Obama would pick Hillary as a running mate? Even the Democratic party would forcefully insist that he not pick her because of her divisiveness and deceipt...and the fact that she lost the nomination to someone whose ideas and concept of change inspired millions to vote for him instead of the Hillary machine (who thought the nomination was a cake walk). She represents all that Obama has been railing against...and his supporters want to get away from. Therefore, no Obama/Clinton ticket.
Hillary knows this. Obama knows this. Anyone thinking it through knows this. But yet she plays the game, floats the idea, manipulates the system to trick people into voting for her.
I cannot vote for someone who so ruthlessly games the system. This is a change election for a reason. We don't want more Washington-speak. We want someone fresh who can restore the integrity and credibility of America.
As foreign leaders are calling Obama "visionary" Putin had this to say regarding Senator Clinton's remark "Vladmir Putin doesn't have a soul."
"At a minimum ahead of state should have a head."
It's like a good will ambassador who thinks that he is a foreign diplomat. She went to Bosnia with Cheryl Crow. I guess she has foreign policy experience too!
Spend 5 minutes on Obama's site blog and you will hear it loud and clear. They have no intention supporting such a ticket. The Obama democrats are the branch of the party who denounce her tactics. She thinks she can fight the GOP, rightly so, because she's been playing in their league for a long time. She knows the rules, and that is experience I will never deny her: playing games, manipulating the media, distorting facts, exploiting things....We are tired of it!
The current President has more foreign policy experience than any of these candidates and unfortunately for us, he may not have learned anything from these experiences except that a few of us don't want the person representing us to act like an immature "entitlement-monster". Another dozen years wouldn't make Bush a better man for the foreign policy job than a dozen days would make some "inexperienced" folks, because there are many people with greater emotional maturity, intelligence, intelligence and kindness, who would do a better job almost immediately.
I disagree with your characterization that "most Democrats have invested too much in our defeat." This is pure Bush-speak that refuses to understand that "winning" means different things to different people. To some, "winning" means prolonging the time our soldiers are at risk; to others "winning" means getting them out of harms way.
They do want to tell the Democratic faithful what they want to hear and that's immediate withdrawl. Most Democrats have invested too much in our defeat. I believe they truly do want us to lose. It's more because it's "Bush's " war than anything else, but given a chance to win it, both Clinton and Obama will stay the course. But they do have to promise the faithful that they will retreat, pull out, and lose.
I also agree that the far left of the Democratic party will need to get used to a President who is pragmatic. I think both McCain and Obama would be pragmatic, though Obama surely is more liberal than McCain is conservative (for whatever those labels really mean). I hope, but obviously cannot know for sure, that McCain and Obama would be honest with the American public (and the international community) and explain why they make the decisions they make. I think, but cannot know for sure, that Hillary would do whatever she pleases and manipulate the truth to whatever suits her.
I will vote for either Obama or Clinton in preference to "100 years in Iraq" McCain. But I share your pipedream that O and C will deadlock, and the Democratic Party will draft Al Gore. He is by far the most qualified person in the country to be our next President.
Sadly, I think it's an impossible dream. He would be entering too late, with no money and no momentum. I don't think he would subject himself to all that abuse again anyway. He has said that he feels he can accomplish more in his campaign for action on global warming...and in the long run, that may be much more important than a mere presidential election.
16 months come from the Obama camp (and Samantha Power).
Spitzer (Hillary's supporter and gorvernor) is in deep trouble!
YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.
Think the Clintons would allow this? Think the people of the Obama cult would go for this? I don't see how either side would allow this. Too much time and money spent for this to happen. I think it's going to get bloody. Hillary can't lose. Her (and Bills) ego wont let it happen. She's so selfish she will fight to the bitter end. She doesn't care about the party as a whole, its her or nothing. Obama is the key. He has done a very good job. He's earned it. He's played the game clean and out hustled his opponents. His people on the ground have earned it. He has taken American politics past the racial divide. Does he step down and let HIllary possibly win? then he's a genius. If Hillary loses, then people are really going to be pissed. Will his people follow him if he runs in 4 or eight years? He's young, but will he keep "the magic"?
as First Lady, she helped pass the Family and Medical Leave Act
This statement makes it sounds like she's contributed, worked hard to get the FMLA put into law, that her efforts made a difference. However, this far from the truth.
If you don't read this whole claim, which can be found on her website, all you need to know is that Bill Clinton was inaugurated on January 20, 1993 and the FMLA was signed just sixteen days later, on February 5, 1993.
Just on that basis it doesn't look like the First Lady had to do much of anything to get it done. But read on for the full chronology which reveals the emptiness of Hillary's Clinton's attempt to get credit for this legislation.
" "The inadequate response to Al-Qaeda's early attacks on U.S. targets."
Says you. Granted, he didn't invade a non-involved sovereign nation . . . but he also didn't have 9/11 on his watch while shutting down the millenium threat completely."
Good point. I don't mean to imply that the attacks on Clinton are completely accurate. He faced a number of constraints. Few would have supported a major campaign against Al-Qaeda at the time. There was little awareness of the potential of threat posed by Bin Laden. But that won't stop the GOP from using such an argument against Hillary.
Give up the SUVs people, your conspicuous consumerism in oil is the reason people die ever day. Junk them all and buy an alternative fuel vehicle, or a hybrid. Fund some actual alternative research, but till you at least try to eliminate something besides our soldiers lives, I will not get over that, thank you very much.
Very little will stop the GOP from using lies to advance their cause in this, or any other way, just say it. Oh, you kind of did. My bad.
There is not a candidate for president and has not been one in my lifetime who did not "game the system!" Hillary does it, Obama does it, McCain does it, they all, each and every last one of them, do it! That's the way the game is played.
Hillary's use of the three AM call was well within the standards of fair game for this race! To deny that is saying that the candidate you support can stand no real strong campaign message! And I don't believe that about Obama, I think he can. But that is scarcely "fear mongering."
As far as an overwhelming desire for power, that's accusing a presidential candidate of being a presidential candidate! They all have that characteristic or they don't run. Why do you think that Colin Powell doesn't want to run?
I would love to agree with you about Obama appointing a broad range of people as did Lincoln, and he may! However, I don't expect him to appoint all his political enemies to cabinet level positions as did Lincoln. That would mean McCain for secretary of Defense, Hillary as Secretary of State, Edwards as the head of Health and Welfare! Somehow, I just don't think that will happen, do you?
This has certainly been a spirited discussion thread!
Thanks for your comments!
We elect the candidate that the controlled media steers us to, because we have become a nation of sheep and Hitlery is the chosen one. It is a scripted exorcise to make you think you have a choice.
There were three candidates in this race that would have changed the direction of this country and we rejected them because the media subtlety presented them in a manner that made you think that they were somehow wrong for us or they just didn't talk about them at all.
It's down to three and it doesn't matter who you vote for. If any of the three win, we will have more war, we will still enter the worst depression the world has known and the policies of the man behind the curtin will continue.
We treated the man with the most experience and the only voting record that could have saved us, like some kind of nut. We deserve the filth and corruption that we are about to elect.
Getting back to one of your original questions in the article :
( Is foreign policy important to you as a voter? Why? )
I think many voters are not concerned as much about foreign policy because they are more worried about the present state of health care, prescription, and housing and energy costs. Although foreign policy is of course a very important subject I think the so called average American is not as concerned. I think that when people such as Hillary's campaign continue to speak untruths about things over and over people will start to believe it.
I'd like to see a new Washington without the back room deals etc. I lived through the 60's and 70's where Big Brother was always watching so maybe I am a little tainted and unrealistic. I am for Obama, the constitution and the opening up of the negotiations that have always been done behind closed doors. I would like accountability whether wrong or right. I would never vote for Hilary, she has shown her deceptiveness and it is unbecoming and sad...
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977281651&nav=Namespace
A preview:
China
Senator Clinton also points to a speech that she delivered in Beijing in 1995 as proof of her ability to answer a 3 AM crisis phone call. It is strange that Senator Clinton would base her own foreign policy experience on a speech that she gave over a decade ago, since she so frequently belittles Barack Obama's speeches opposing the Iraq War six years ago. Let there be no doubt: she gave a good speech in Beijing, and she stood up for women's rights. But Senator Obama's opposition to the War in Iraq in 2002 is relevant to the question of whether he, as Commander-in-Chief, will make wise judgments about the use of military force. Senator Clinton's speech in Beijing is not.
Bosnia:
Senator Clinton has pointed to a March 1996 trip to Bosnia as proof that her foreign travel involved a life-risking mission into a war zone. She has described dodging sniper fire. While she did travel to Bosnia in March 1996, the visit was not a high-stakes mission to a war zone. On March 26, 1996, the New York Times reported that "Hillary Rodham Clinton charmed American troops at a U.S.O. show here, but it didn't hurt that the singer Sheryl Crow and the comedian Sinbad were also on the stage."
My favorite:
"Her claim to have "negotiated open borders to let fleeing refugees into safety from Kosovo," however, is not true. Her trip to Macedonia took place on May 14, 1999. The borders were opened the day before, on May 13, 1999."
This, I've heard from seemingly neutral people.
And this guy to add:
President Clinton's top envoy to the Balkans, former Ambassador Robert Gelbard, said, "I cannot recall any involvement by Senator Clinton in this issue."
WOW!!! John McCain people don't have to do any RESEARCH!!! OBAMA'S 55 MILLION AND CLINTONS 35 MILLION WILL DO!!
They want us to buy that she went to negotiate important foreign policy on behalf of Americans. She talks about that trip in Bosnia as being a dangerous one and oftens talks about the "corkscrew landing". Google that + Hillary and you will find dozens of refs where she talks about it.
From Wahington post:
In her Iowa stump speech, Clinton also said, "We used to say in the White House that if a place is too dangerous, too small or too poor, send the First Lady."
As Sinbad (part of the Bosnia mission) said, "What kind of president would say, 'Hey, man, I can't go 'cause I might get shot so I'm going to send my wife...oh, and take a guitar player and a comedian with you.'"
Sorry. I was there is not enough. I worked for such company is not enough. What was your role? What did you accomplish in that role? Track of leadership. These are the questions everyone is asked when seeking a job! You want her to apply for a job, no question asked?
I believe her experience to be as extensive as any candidate and more so than Obama's! And that is based on what I've seen her do say over the years and the very close relationship she seemed to have with her husband during this time. If he agonized over a decision do you think that she was obvious to that? I don't believe we've ever had a first lady with more actual influence on the operation of our government, with the obvious exception of Woodrow Wilson after he got too sick to function.
While it is easy to downplay her experience in a debate, Obama has none to downplay. Again, that doesn't mean he'd be a bad president, but he has no foreign policy experience.
The Bushes don't seem to have involved their spouses in their government dealings but certainly the Clintons, Carter, and Roosevelt relied heavily on the advise and counsel of their wives. And that does translate to experience.
This is clearly being manipulated to try and build a case against Clinton. I believe that such a case is as false as it is denigrating. However, that is my belief and everyone is entitled! I appreciate reading about yours!
On Bosnia, did it end the ethnic cleansing that was going on or not? IF it did or radically reduced it I would consider that "success." That whole action was a humanitarian effort and even if it did take ten years to complete, were it not done, the ethnic cleansing would have been completed in ten years!
I have never said Obama had more foreign policy experience. He has none. She is over stating her experience. I don't think a trip to Bosnia with a singer and a comedian is foreign policy dealing.
The other thing is, experience is not enough. Cheney and Rusmfeld had almost 100 years of experience between them. Over 60 years of gov experience. George Bush, now has foreign policy experience. Would you make him ambassador to the UN?
I am listening to Obama on MSNBC as I type. What he is saying with respect to Iraq makes sense to me.
Last, the rest of the stuff we put up here is pure supporter slinging mud. Clinton and her supporters are all over the place shifting public perception. Just trying to balance things out.
Hell yes, lets give her the blame for everything! The Clintons have been taking it for sixteen years and are doing a great job of it! I said in my last job from which I retired, that I wasn't paid for what I did, and I wasn't paid for what I knew. I was paid for taking the blame and got damned good at it!
I've heard this about the Clintons ad nauseaum and one after another of the charges have been proven to be lies, just like the stealing of things from the White House. Kerry was fortunate, when he didn't win the swiftboaters disappeared. Clinton's have multiplied like a cloned horror from Jurassic Park!
Frankly, I'd have to do some research on both Rwanda and Somalia as I'm not that knowledgeable on either. So you can tell me all about them! However, since the Republicans have not been castigating Bill on both of these measures, there is probably not too