Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Clinton Touts Foreign Policy Experience


Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) stands with retired generals Johnnie E. Wilson, left, and Wesley Clark during her introduction at George Washington University, February 25, 2008 in Washington, D.C. (Getty Images.)

Updated 10:59 p.m.
By Perry Bacon Jr.
Detailing a world facing "global poverty, global warming and global health pandemics," and "countries rushing to acquire nuclear weapons," Sen. Hillary Clinton, while not naming Sen. Barack Obama, suggested that electing her top rival would lead to the kind of foreign policy problems she believes have defined the Bush administration.

"We've seen the tragic result of having a president who had neither the experience nor the wisdom to manage our foreign policy and safeguard our national security," Clinton said in a foreign policy speech at George Washington University. "We cannot let that happen again. America has already taken that chance one time too many."

She added, "The American people don't have to assess whether I understand the issues or whether I would need a foreign policy instruction manual to guide me through a crisis."

She did criticize Obama by name while mentioning the Illinois senator's campaign statements that he would meet leaders of rogue countries like North Korea without preconditions and that he would consider an attack on terrorists in Pakistan regardless of whether its leaders approved.

"He wavers from seeming to believe that mediation and meetings without preconditions solves the world's most intractable problems to advocating rash, unilateral military action," Clinton said in front of a crowd of more than 100 in a small room on the university's campus. "In this moment of peril and promise, we need a president who is tested and ready."

Her criticisms of Obama are familiar, although they have grown more pointed in recent days as Clinton views coming primaries in Texas and Ohio as must wins. The speech appeared a preview of a debate on Tuesday in Cleveland, where Clinton has suggested she will take on Obama more directly than in last week's debate in Austin.

By Washington Post editors  |  February 25, 2008; 2:25 PM ET
 
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Obama in a Hurry
Next: McCain's Bankers Weigh In

Comments

Hello there,very nice place
http://www.newfxlive.com/forex-future-system-trading.html " target="_top">forex future system trading

Posted by: Tristan eveam | April 13, 2008 12:25 AM | Report abuse

Barack Obama will do more for U.S. foreign policy and standing, JUST BY BEING ELECTED, than Hillary Clinton will any of her "experience."

Posted by: thrapp | February 26, 2008 1:08 PM | Report abuse

"full of empty elequent words, Barrack HUSSEIN Obama." Hmm Mr Pappy I'm assuming that you are under the delussion that all Muslims are fundamentalist terrorists. I'm also assuming that you have no problem judgeing some one just because they have the middle name Hussein. So Hussein is his middle name GET OVER IT GROW UP. His middle name has nothing to do with the discussion of whether or not he is qualified to be the leader of a country that has had its reputation etc tarnished by a certain Bush. I'm assuming based on your problem with Obamas middle name that you would be in favor of some of the horror that has happened to people around the world who've been judge in credibly barbarically for little other reason than names, skin color, facial features etc.
Such closed minded . . . . . works well with people like the joke of a preacher Pat Robertson but most others have the brain and common sense to see throughj it. In all likely hood Hilary wont get the nomination. Do you seriously want Barak out so badly that youi'd vote for Mc Cain?????

Posted by: JLSargent | February 26, 2008 12:10 PM | Report abuse

CLINTON TOUTS FOREIGN POLICY EXPERIENCE....but doesn't mention what it is....stands between two retired generals to illustrate her point that she has vast amounts of unknown, undescribed, undocumented foreign policy experience...is she counting the experience of being from the suburbs of Chicago and moving to Arkansas ?

Posted by: bruce.hearey | February 26, 2008 11:44 AM | Report abuse

In another time in another country there was a chancellor who dared to be diplomatic where no diplomacy has been possible before. I prefer good judgement over experience.

About the historic parallels, see:

http://tpzoo.wordpress.com/2008/02/26/barack-obama-willy-brandt-and-foreign-policy/

Posted by: old_europe | February 26, 2008 11:10 AM | Report abuse

Obama is on the Senate Foreign Relations SUBcommittee. To date, he has not chaired ONE meeting, nor traveled abroad to approach these issues of this committee.

DO YOUR HOMEWORK ON THIS GUY ! He's all talk !

Posted by: Georgiapeac21556 | February 26, 2008 10:04 AM | Report abuse

Is this the same Hillary Clinton who recently said (totally unprovoked) that Putin "has no soul"??

What kind of relationship do you think the US is going to have with Russia if she's elected??

Posted by: wontvotehillary | February 26, 2008 9:14 AM | Report abuse

jlaprise asks one of the most intelligent questions on this issue:-

"Really...what job prepares one to be President?"

I doubt if anyone has ever been 'prepared' to the job. They either step up or they fall down.

If they step up, they'll probably be faced with heavy opposition from those who disagree. If they fall down, their failure will probably be concealed by those closest to them.

As a foreigner, I'd have to point out that it is rather absurd to be installing a new 'King' every four years or so, and then expect them to handle this awesome authority from day one. (At least, with hereditary kings, there is some degree of preparation.)

Institutions, not individuals, provide continuity, knowledge and experience. (Of course, that doesn't always work, either.)

Strum (UK)

Posted by: strum | February 26, 2008 8:28 AM | Report abuse

Back in 2004, the word was that Wesley Clark was being used as a stalking horse for Hillary Clinton's possible presidential campaign. I'll take his endorsement with a grain of salt.

Posted by: TomJx | February 26, 2008 7:32 AM | Report abuse

Senator Obama's opponent insists that he is too inexperienced to be President of the United States while claiming "35 years of experience" for herself. Hillary Clinton graduated from law school in 1973 some 35 years ago, and her "35 years of experience" since then actually has consisted of 9 years working as a lawyer, 11 years as the wife of the Governor of Arkansas, 8 years as the First Lady of the United States, and for the past 7 years since November 2000 she has served as a US Senator from her adopted state of New York.
Barack Obama graduated from law school in 1991 and returned to his home in Chicago to direct a voter registration drive and work as an attorney representing community organizers working on voting rights cases and on civil rights cases. In 1993 he became a lecturer of constitutional law at the University of Chicago and in 1996 was elected to the Illinois State Senate where he served for 8 years prior to his election to the US Senate in November 2004. Combining his service as an Illinois State Senator and US Senator he has been an elected official responsible to voters for 11 years, while his opponent who claims to have had "35 years of experience" has actually been an elected official responsible to voters for 7 years.
During the 1960 Democratic primary elections then Senator John Kennedy was also told he was too inexperienced to become president, and by such notable members of the "old guard" at the time as Eleanor Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Adlai Stevenson, and Lyndon Johnson. Kennedy was told to wait his turn! But, of course JFK won the 1960 Democratic primary and went on to defeat Richard Nixon in the general election despite Nixon's protest that "Kennedy is too inexperienced to be President." It wasn't true then about John F. Kennedy and it isn't true now about Barack Obama.
Abraham Lincoln also did not have much "Washington Experience" prior to becoming President of the United States. In 1834 at age 25 Abe Lincoln won election to the Illinois state legislature where he served a total of 8 years from 1834-1842 during which time he taught himself law and was admitted to the bar. In 1847 he was elected to US House of Representatives serving a single term from 1847-1849 before returning to private law practice in Illinois. On October 16, 1854 a 45 year old Abraham Lincoln delivered a powerful speech against Slavery in Peoria, Illinois and in 1858 was elected to the US Senate, just 2 years before being elected President of the United States in 1860. Not much prior "Washington Experience" for "Honest Abe" but he sure made a great President. Could it be that having sound judgment and strong character are a lot more important to being a great President of the United States than is the amount of one's prior "Washington Experience?"
Senator Obama has served in Washington long enough to understand what needs to be changed and unlike his opponent he has already begun making changes by refusing to accept money from lobbyists and political action committees. He is proving that being beholden to such money peddlers is not necessary. He raises money for his campaign directly from the people to whom he is accountable, people like you and me.

Posted by: bobwestafer | February 26, 2008 7:02 AM | Report abuse


Dynastic Madness

1981 - 1989 Bush, Vice President
1989 - 1993 Bush 41, President
1993 - 2001 Clinton 42, President
2001 - 2009 Lil' Bush 43, President
2009 - 2013 Clinton 44

Daddy Bush was a good man,
Who never dreamed his son could even be an also-ran,
Lil' George cashed in on his family name,
And history will burn them both in flames.

Bill was a Kennedy wanna-be,
He swapped his 60's ideals for perjury,
Hillary granted him clemency,
In return for the next presidency.

Baby boomers baby boomers,
Just go away,
After your ideals are gone,
Your selfishness is all that stays.

Posted by: eam179 | February 26, 2008 5:10 AM | Report abuse

Clinton has Obama wrapped up with it comes to foreign affairs. What's he going to do if the US gets attacked again? Make a great speech? I'm sure our enemies won't be threatned by a great orator being in the White House. In fact, it will probably embolden them.

Posted by: Justice66 | February 25, 2008 09:50 PM
-------------------

This post is so funny, and just exemplifies the standard Hillary supporter, i thought it was worth posting again.

By the way, justice, What will Obama do "if the US gets attacked again?" ...Well he certainly won't go attack a country that had nothing to do with it, like Bush did (with the help of Clinton).

Posted by: julieds | February 26, 2008 3:14 AM | Report abuse

Why are Obama supporters full of so much venom?

Posted by: jbenzl | February 25, 2008 06:00 PM
_________________________________________________

Hey, it's Hillary's supporters going around stabbing people!

But seriously, don't assume the "venom" is all coming from Obama supporters. Hillary is disliked by ALOT of people. Those high negatives we've all been hearing about for months- are real. She really is disliked by half the country.

Posted by: julieds | February 26, 2008 3:04 AM | Report abuse

Some of the highlights of the Clinton's foreign policy and its achievements.
1. American service members naked dead bodies being dragged through the streets of Mogadishu after team Clinton denied then the equipment & support they needed to accomplish their mission.
Soon after the remaining forces were withdrawn in what has become known as our first lost battle in the war against al-Qaeda and Islamic extremism.
2. Rwanda is anything but a genocide.
What may be the supreme example of the worthlessness of human life when forced to compete in the semantic driven world of team Clinton.
3. We respect international law.
That is except when we bomb the embassy of a nation with the veto power at the United Nations Security Council.
4. That long term deployments of American armed forces to places like Haiti and Kosovo are in our strategic national interests.
5. Spending time before Monica on the Israeli Palestinian peace process was a waste of time.
6. Reducing the military by 40% and calling it a peace dividend was in the strategic national interests of America.
7. Changing the role of the Guard & Reserve from a strategic reserve to an operational reserve because it is more cost effective.
The results of # 6 & 7 are out there or all the world to see.
8. That the best way to fight Islamic Extremism was to ignore it.
Hence the reason two of our embassies were bombed in Africa post Somalia and Islamic extremism was able to rage unchecked throughout the 1990's. A few cruise missiles excepted.
9. The unabashed belief that failure to support "W"'s war in Iraq would leave you open to charges that you were soft on national security and nobody is gonna call Hillary soft on anything.
Hence the reason so many in America lay the deaths and maiming of thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's right at the Clinton's feet.
If they has courage and conviction of belief they would have stood on principal and damn the torpedoes.
Unfortunately for America's service members and their loved ones the Clinton's could not be bothered with trivialities like reading the intelligence reports or taking a principled stand that would stand up to the test of time.
This is the Clinton's foreign policy in a nut shell.
It does not stand up to the test of time.
I challenge anyone from Hilllaryland that can put down their kool aid long enough to provide specific examples of how these or any other major foreign policy initiative of their previous administration was favorable for American strategic national interests.

Posted by: paul94611 | February 26, 2008 1:50 AM | Report abuse

In his first major public address since a cancer crisis, Nation of Islam Minister Louis Farrakhan said Sunday that presidential candidate Barack Obama is the "hope of the entire world" that the U.S. will change for the better.

The 74-year-old Farrakhan, addressing an estimated crowd of 20,000 people at the annual Saviours' Day celebration, never outrightly endorsed Obama but spent most of the nearly two-hour speech praising the Illinois senator.

"This young man is the hope of the entire world that America will change and be made better," he said. "This young man is capturing audiences of black and brown and red and yellow. If you look at Barack Obama's audiences and look at the effect of his words, those people are being transformed."
HOPE OF THE ENTIRE WORLD-- ha ha ha

Farrakhan compared Obama to the religion's founder, Fard Muhammad, who also had a white mother and black father.
FOUNDER OF BLACK MUSLIMS HAD A WHITE MOTHER AND BLACK FATHER LIKE OBAMA-

"A black man with a white mother became a savior to us," he told the crowd of mostly followers. "A black man with a white mother could turn out to be one who can lift America from her fall."

Farrakhan also leveled small jabs at Hillary Rodham Clinton, Obama's rival for the Democratic nomination, suggesting that she represents the politics of the past and has been engaging in dirty politics.

Farrakhan's keynote address at McCormick Place, the city's convention center, wrapped up three days of events geared at unifying followers and targeting youth.

It had a different tone from a year ago, when Farrakhan made what was called his final public address at a Saviours' Day event in Detroit. The 74-year-old was recovering from complications from prostate cancer and months earlier had temporarily passed on leadership duties of the organization's day-to-day activities to an executive board.


© 2008 Associated Press.

Posted by: sunrise41510 | February 26, 2008 1:18 AM | Report abuse

Hillary has foreign policy experience? Since when?

Hillary, you blew it. This is one of the biggest choke jobs in presidential campaign history. Please exit gracefully.

Posted by: mcgish | February 26, 2008 12:59 AM | Report abuse

There she goes again. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that you buy her "experience" argument and vote for her. When she is up against John McCain will she think that the most experienced candidate should be President or will she say, perhaps, that experience is not enough and that good ideas and good judgement should count for more.

Sen. Clinton is struggling to come up with a coherent message. She keeps jumping around trying to find something that will resonate with voters enough to get them to support her instead of Sen. Obama. So far, she has not had a lot of success in doing so. If she were to win the Democratic nomination, I would be very concerned about her ability to win against Sen. McCain given her performance in the primaries so far.

The one message that she seems eager to repeat is that she is ready to be President and the other candidates are not. She retains the right to define why each candidate is uniquely wrong for the job of President without realizing that each of her arguments against the other candidates could be leveled against her with equal effect.

1. If you have more "experience" than she does then you have bad ideas; if you have less "experience" than she does then you are not ready to be President.

2. If you supported President Bush in going to war in Iraq then you're a bad person and are unfit to be President unless you weren't really supporting the use of force against Iraq when you voted for the "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq of 2002".

3. If you supported NAFTA then you are not looking out for the interests of the American worker and are not fit to be President unless you supported that agreement before you were in the U.S. Senate and couldn't actually vote for it.

I could go on but I'm wondering when people are going to realize that Sen. Clinton was for a lot of things before she was against them. That, alone, should be reason to consider someone else who is less "nuanced" than she is.

Posted by: swalker1 | February 26, 2008 12:57 AM | Report abuse

bridgettepj: What you copied from the Chicago AP has nothing to do with this discussion. However, since you did, let me add the part you left out, especially the last line:

"Perhaps all of these transactions are innocent, but district judges must act when the risks of flight change materially and a plan of concealment could well make life as a fugitive tolerable for the defendant," the appeals court's two-page order said.

Federal prosecutors opposed restoring Rezko's bond, saying he lied to the court when he claimed his holdings in a 62-acre tract south of the Loop were essentially worthless.

Auchi forgave the $3.5 million loan in exchange for only a portion of the land Rezko owned.

Prosecutors agreed with St. Eve, who suggested the loan showed that Rezko, who has dual U.S. and Syrian nationality, might take off before the start of the trial if allowed to remain free on bond.

Rezko is accused of scheming with millionaire attorney Stuart Levine to shake down firms seeking business or regulatory approval from two key state boards that make big-money decisions.

Obama and Blagojevich have not been accused of any wrongdoing.

Posted by: kathleenrjohnson | February 26, 2008 12:22 AM | Report abuse

Clinton Foreign Policy Credentials:

1. Was fooled by that wascalwy wabbit, George Bush, into voting for the Iraq war when 22 other Democratic Senators weren't...Check!

2. Voted against the Levin Amendment which would have forestalled the war, giving weapons inspectors more time to prove there weren't WMDs.

She then adopted the Bush propaganda line, misinterpreting the Amendment, saying the U.N. shouldn't be able to tell the US what to do (only if they HAD been able to)...Check!

3. Having learned so much from her misbegotten vote on Iraq, she listened to Likud Party member Joe Lieberman spout, "if economic sanctions don't stop the Iranians we really have to consider military action, perhaps by striking the bases around Tehran", and then she joined every Republican Senator in voting YES on the Kyl-Lieberman Iran Resolution....Check!

4. Two weeks ago she berated Putin, for no particular reason other than to prove yet again she can be as abrasive as George Bush when it comes to foreign policy.

This caused Putin to remark that it was hard to imagine Hillary as head of state when she didn't appear to have the requirement of a head.

Bested in the sense of humor department by an ex-KGB agent!!...OMG!!...Check!

Yeah, that's pretty impressive when you actually think about it. Yeah, Hillary, run on foreign policy. It should work just as well as the "experience" theme did.

And after all, it's been about 15 minutes since you changed themes/personalities. Don't slack, Sybil!

Posted by: filmex | February 26, 2008 12:17 AM | Report abuse

Bullpuckey. What foreign policy experience is she referring to? Certainly, not her own, as she just doesn't have the record in the senate to support that statement. What she's referring to, perhaps, are the largely attrocious policies of her husband, who presided over possibly 2 of the worst genocides in the last 30 years (Rwanda, Serbia/Kosovo) and did nothing except lob some ineffective missiles at Afghanistan following the bombing of the world trade center.

Sure, Clinton 1 got Yassif Arrafat and Yitzhak Rabin to shake hands (a momentous, but unfortunately unlasting, event) and helped the Northern Irish to establish a political peace; but those accomplishments took the same kind of strategies that Obama embraces--dialogue, diplomacy, cultural understanding, etc., etc.

If her husband's experience is what she's talking about, then anyone else who has access to a history book or who, gasp, lived through it (or both, in the case of Obama, who lived through all of it AND studied the events), has that same "experience." Nevermind that this purported experience didn't do squat for her judgement when it came time to stand up for the right thing and say NO to a factually unfounded, unnecessary, poorly-planned, invasion of Iraq. OR at the very least, if she did think that an invasion was the right thing, think about the after-math of the event and what might happen if you remove a government without having the rule-of-law established to replace it immediately after the fact.
emmydoll81
-----------------------------

1. Neither Hillary nor Obama have ever been President or Secretary of State or even an ambassador. So neither of them have vast foreign policy experience, though both probably know a lot about world affairs. Obama was a foreign affairs major at Columbia. Both as Senators would have learned a lot about foreign affairs -- certainly as much as Senator McCain, who likewise has no special credentials beyond being a Senator.

2. Bill Clinton was quite good in foreign policy. He ended the genocides in Bosnia and in Kosovo. He did as well as can be expected with just about every foreign policy challenge he had, including successfully conducting three "wars" (Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo) and negotiating important treaties. The only real failure was Rwanda, which he has acknowledged.

Posted by: mnjam | February 26, 2008 12:17 AM | Report abuse

Hillary;s claim to being experienced is as hollow as her recent rants; clearly a sign of frustration as her losses mount by the day. If being first lady or spouse of a successful politician counts as expereince, Barabara Bush would have a better claim to that. Even Bill Clinton had no foreign policy experience prior to becoming President as he had been a governor of a rather small state.

Lets face it, during Bill Clinton's presidency, Hillary did not run any department, did not hold any cabinet level position, nor did she undertake any major project other than healthcare. She bungled the healthcare project so much that even a Democratic controlled Congress (Democrats controlled both the Senate and the House of representatives) would not pass the healthcare bill.

In fact her mismanagement led to the Democrats losing their long-held majority in Congress from which the country has still not recovered.

As a Senator, she had the opportunity to exercise sound judgement and could have opposed George Bush's war; yet in her own words at the time she 'voted with conviction'. Unfortunately here too, her so called experience did not lead to any good judgement, her later explanations that 'yes meant no' notwithstanding. She did not show any courage in stopping Bush's march to war.

She is very experienced in building a strong smear machine which demonises her opponents. If that were not enough, she has taken to diminishing millions of people who voted against her.

If her poorly managed campaign is an indication of how she will manage the country's affairs, we have a lot to worry about.

Hopefully the Texas and Ohio voters will see through her and put an end to this saga once and for all. The Democratic Party and the country needs to move forward and that wont happen till we shun the Clinton baggage that we have carried for so long.

A fuller rationale for voting against Hillary is outlined on:
http://newpoliticos.blogspot.com/2008_01_01_archive.html

Posted by: shafqat.a.khan | February 25, 2008 11:46 PM | Report abuse

HRC was Bill's bag lady in Arkansas; now she just a shrill, angry person who is mad that the Dem's haven't annointed her as their candidate. Guess what it hasn't happened; and hopefully she'll be sent packing after the Ohio and Texas primaries.

Posted by: FairfaxAl | February 25, 2008 11:34 PM | Report abuse

Why is everybody buying the Hillary "experience" claim? She's been a politician's wife for most of that time, not a duly elected official until 2000. That doesn't add up to 35 years when I do the math. She might have been close to power and experience but she wasn't the one elected and serving. So, she has 8 years of experience holding office. Guess what? Obama has more.

From a blog: "Here are the facts. Hillary Clinton has been a US Senator since 2000. That's it. Her time as First Lady of AK 1978-80, 1982-92 and First Lady of US 1992-2000 don't count as experience. Barack Obama has been elected and served as an Illinois State Senator from 1996-2004 and is now a freshman US Senator having been elected in 2005. When the facts are examined, Obama is the candidate of both experience and change."

Read entire post at http://aptremarks.com/blog/archives/16

Posted by: 1stgenam | February 25, 2008 11:30 PM | Report abuse

To Linyuan:


Of course, RETIRED/OLDER FLAG MILITARY support Hillary Clinton. They don't have to fight anymore!


But to whom do the men in Iraq send their well wishes, money, and votes? BARACK OBAMA!


I trust the men who fighting right now. They have the most to lose if we screw up!


Posted by: shoemiaw | February 25, 2008 11:28 PM | Report abuse

Just two years ago, Hillary--the purported "expert" on international relations--said there should be "lawful authority" for torture in some cases.

(See, for example, www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0907/Hillary_and_torture_audio_version.html)

Her stand on this transcendant moral issue was opposite to that taken by every other major Democratic presidential candidate in 2007-2008, and the heat she took for it caused her to make one of her famous "flip flops."

Posted by: Martinedwinandersen | February 25, 2008 11:22 PM | Report abuse

CHICAGO (AP) -- Political fundraiser Antoin "Tony" Rezko must remain behind bars while he goes to trial on corruption charges, a three-judge federal appeals panel said Monday.

The judge who will preside over his trial, due to get under way March 3, was right to revoke his bond and jail him as a precaution against the chance that Rezko might skip out beforehand, the appeals court said.

Rezko, 52, who bankrolled the campaigns of Sen. Barack Obama and Gov. Rod Blagojevich, had grumbled that life on his floor at the Metropolitan Correctional Center was so miserable that inmates had to share underwear.

U.S. District Judge Amy J. St. Eve jailed Rezko Jan. 28, saying he had disobeyed her order to keep her posted on his financial status.

Among other things, he failed to tell her about a $3.5 million loan from London-based Iraqi billionaire Nadhmi Auchi -- a loan that was later forgiven in exchange for shares in a prime slice of Chicago real estate.

Rezko gave $700,000 of the money to his wife and used the rest to pay legal bills and funnel cash to various supporters.

Posted by: brigittepj | February 25, 2008 11:19 PM | Report abuse

Senator Clinton is the more experienced candidate, but I wish she would stay positive. I don't think the negative attacks server her well. Point out Senator Obama's inconsistencies in a calm and rational manner, not by distortion or attack. That is the best path and will cause more people to listen and see that she is right.

Posted by: Mondegreenie | February 25, 2008 11:18 PM | Report abuse

...and the President was not alone! he was given an okay from guess who? CONGRESS of the United States! It may be true that the President had as you put it,"stubborn unwillingness..." but he wasnt alone in it! Some very prominent Democrats who are now running to replace him, agreed with him!

Posted by: tintin08 | February 25, 2008 11:01 PM | Report abuse

Naive? Naive is the notion that keeping possibilities on the table prior to negotiation is a bad thing. Naive is thinking there might not be a better way.

Certainly one has to be willing to support allies, but our allies have to share our interests, and two of those interests are peace and freedom. It was a stubborn unwillingness to think creatively and pursue a diplomatic path that started the current war.

Posted by: jameswhanger | February 25, 2008 10:55 PM | Report abuse

It makes no sense to flount these names in front of us. Look, President Bush had a huge list of very qualified personnel. What I want to stress is that it takes sound personal judgment from a Commander-in-Chief. If a president does not have it(common sense and sound judgment), then it doesn't matter how many Generals surround you. Fortunately, Sen. Obama has both common sense and sound judgment. The other thing is organization. Take a moment and examine how the two senators have run their campaigns- Sen. Obama's organizational ability is once again superior! Just look at his national strategy, he knew that he had to engage all Americans, state by state - he wasn't going to label some states, "not important" and "very important" How can a candidate who wants to be Commander-in-Chief think that some parts of America does not really count or not all that important during the primaries? it is simply ridiculuos.
Their leadrship capabilities is clearly seen in the way they have handled their respective prsidential campaigns. As I have always said, none of the 4 candidates remaining have been presidents of USA before.

Posted by: tintin08 | February 25, 2008 10:52 PM | Report abuse

Does the "Tear BAG" include the husband's, er, experiences? Come to think of it, the only foreign policy experience Mr. Smug had before he stank up the White House was dropping out of Oxford sans degree.

Posted by: sawargos | February 25, 2008 10:48 PM | Report abuse

Hillary SADDAM Clinton has some experience but much of it is quite unimpressive to me. I'd rather have a bit less good experience than a bit more bad experience.

Posted by: comments99 | February 25, 2008 10:44 PM | Report abuse

i thought this article, and ms. clinton, were going to tell us what her "experience" in foreign policy IS?

getting good deals on chinese-made products for walmart?

guiding her hubbie bill through the rwanda genocide of millions?


she's been a senator for a few years more than obama. so what! she is corrupted by association with her husband, and needs to back up these assertions of EXPERIENCE with some facts:


we're WAITING, not.

Posted by: forestbloggod | February 25, 2008 10:41 PM | Report abuse

Flag Officers Endorsing Hillary Clinton for President and Commander-in-Chief

General Wesley Clark
General John M. Shalikashvili
General Johnnie E. Wilson
Admiral William Owens
Lt. Gen. Joe Ballard
Lt. Gen. Robert Gard
Lt. Gen. Claudia J. Kennedy
Lt. Gen. Donald L. Kerrick
Lt. Gen. Frederick E. Vollrath
Vice Admiral Joseph A. Sestak
Major General Roger R. Blunt
Major General George A. Buskirk, Jr.
Major General Edward L. Correa, Jr.
Major General Paul D. Eaton
Major General Paul D. Monroe, Jr.
Major General Antonio M. Taguba
Rear Admiral Connie Mariano
Rear Admiral Alan M. Steinman
Rear Admiral David Stone
Brigadier General Michael Dunn
Brigadier General Belisario Flores
Brigadier General Evelyn "Pat" Foote
Brigadier General Keith H. Kerr
Brigadier General Virgil A. Richard
Brigadier General Preston Taylor
Brigadier General John M. Watkins, Jr.
Brigadier General Jack Yeager

Posted by: linyuan | February 25, 2008 10:37 PM | Report abuse

I need to correct myself up here. Sen. Obama said, "He would NOT hesitate to strike, if he had actionable intelligence."

Posted by: tintin08 | February 25, 2008 10:32 PM | Report abuse

Mrs. Clinton touts her "35 years of experience." To get that many years of "experience" for the presidency out of her resume', you would have to count every year and every action since she graduated from law school! And that would be a ridiculous assertion. The fact is, that she has little or no experience in foreign policy or otherwise, other that being the spouse of a president and a slightly more that one-term U. S. senator. Few in the main stream press have focused on this factual background, and yet the Clinton campaign says it is unfairly covered. If we had wanted the experience that the Clintons so loudly proclaim, then we would be looking forward to President Biden or Dodd. In leadership , organizational and communicative skills, civic activity, and legislative service, Sen. Obama is more than her equal in experience.

Posted by: iclintonmiller | February 25, 2008 10:30 PM | Report abuse

I actually liked Sen. Obama's reassurance when he said on Pakistan, "If he had actionable intelligence that al Qaida was in Pakistan, then he would hesitate to strike." This is a paraphrase, but I like it better than Clinton's position, and it is crtainly better than when Bill Clinton let bin Laden go free - had Bill gone after bin Laden then, we would never have gotten into this mess!
So, I believe Sen. Obama's foreign policy stand is much more superior than Sen. Clinton's.

Posted by: tintin08 | February 25, 2008 10:30 PM | Report abuse

Did you see the way the NBC dogs covered Hillary on the news. They gave excessive coverage to the national polls showing Obama leading whereas after Iowa they always showed Obama leading NH and SC even when HIllary was leading nationally. NBC and MSNBC have become a shameless network.

They are not aware that their parent company GE can be made to suffer when people stop buying their products. So better SHAPE UP SOON and keep sucking up to Obama. Orelse Brian Williams and Tim Russert will have to apologize like Chris Matthews and Shuster. I cannot help throwing up when Chris Matthews said they he gets AROUSED and his knee caps start wobbling when he sees Obama talking. Sounds happy and GAY to me....

Posted by: vs_sv | February 25, 2008 10:27 PM | Report abuse

Who ever thought that William Jefferson Clinton, bon vivante and sexist ego maniac that he is, would genuinely and enthusiastically support Hillary for the presidency? Isn't it clear to all the fawning Dems out there that former President Clinton does not want his wife to occupy the Oval Office? To sit in his chair. To enjoy the trappings of power.

Bill is the reason Mrs. Clinton's campaign has imploded. Whenever he has made news, it has been detrimental to Hillary's quest. We know he's no amateur, it has been done with a purpose. She should have dumped him long ago.

Posted by: magellan1 | February 25, 2008 10:26 PM | Report abuse

Clinton has Obama wrapped up with it comes to foreign affairs. What's he going to do if the US gets attacked again? Make a great speech? I'm sure our enemies won't be threatned by a great orator being in the White House. In fact, it will probably embolden them.

Posted by: Justice66 | February 25, 2008 9:50 PM | Report abuse

ebubuk2004, isn't EVERY black woman with a brain and an opinion, "angry" to people like you?

Posted by: Justice66 | February 25, 2008 9:47 PM | Report abuse

Clinton's experience in foreign affairs is no greater than Obama's. She has much greater experience in domestic affairs especially Bill's.
Cosmo Mognic

Posted by: COSMOGNIC | February 25, 2008 9:46 PM | Report abuse

greener_pastures, Sen Clinton had one shot at raising a child the right way and she did marvelous. Laura Bush had 2 shots and well........pass the beer, lol!!!!

Posted by: Justice66 | February 25, 2008 9:42 PM | Report abuse

The world will view US differently if we elect a minority (ie Barack Obama). Obama will be the first leader in the freeworld that is not white, not comming from a rich family, does not have millions in the bank, and free of all the pass scandals and bad mistake.

Best of all, he grows up poor and spend his years overseas - something that the Clintons don't have the experience in

Posted by: jpsc | February 25, 2008 9:23 PM | Report abuse

VOTE for AMERICAN PART of Obama!!!

VOTE for AMERICAN PART of Obama!!!

VOTE for AMERICAN PART of Obama!!!

VOTE for AMERICAN PART of Obama!!!

VOTE for AMERICAN PART of Obama!!!

Posted by: ebubuk2004 | February 25, 2008 9:21 PM | Report abuse

yeswecan,

Read the article of Michelle on politico.com. This woman has alot of hatred towards our country and it's people.


Another unattractive "Angry Black woman"


Read the article of Michelle on politico.com. This woman has alot of hatred towards our country and it's people.


Another unattractive "Angry Black woman"

Posted by: ebubuk2004 | February 25, 2008 9:18 PM | Report abuse


Hello? Hillary "touts" experience? Hillary HAS experience. How demeaning. I think the post should just sidle up next to Obama and ask him for a kiss.

Here is Obama who has NO experience, arrives at this job interview with NO resume. Here his is speaking with his elders at an Alabama speech - MLK day. I guess he didn't feel he should channel MKL because most of these people actually KNEW MLK. Anyway - he did put on his "I'm one of you black folks" accent for this occasion. It's REAL noticable.

Give it a listen. And then I ask you - cause I give up - is this guy running for preacher????? Is he leading the white folks too?

I'm not so sure. I think he has a hidden agenda. Never mind that - he doesn't say very much of anything here. He speaks in his "black" accent. Claims his career is the result of black marchers. It's really more the result of his white mother, white grand parents, and the criminal Rezko who bankrolled his years in the Illinois Senate. 1.6 million dollar house thanks to this criminal - and he flipped it and made more money. Ask him about that.

He goes on and on in this video like he's telling you something we don't already know. Maybe he thinks all these black folks in the audience are stupid. He sure thinks his Obaman-bot fanclub members are. What a joke he is. He likes to hear himself. Gad. I don't.

But really - above everything else, get a load of the black accent he puts on. Doesn't talk like this in Ohio or at Dartmouth College, or in New Hampshire.

What a phony, phony man.

Enjoy this Obama speech in Alabama!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9r-XG_VJZDw&feature=related

Posted by: Thinker | February 25, 2008 9:03 PM | Report abuse

Given what Hillary counts as international experience (traveling overseas to attend funerals, receive flowers from cherubic children at airports, gaze radiantly at costumed traditional singers while seated in a throne next to some foreign dictator's wife), then it's clear who the only Republican is with enough to run against her: Laura Bush.

Posted by: greener_pastures | February 25, 2008 8:58 PM | Report abuse

EXPERIENCED!!!!! I,m 60 years old now; I took my law exam twice before passing; I was first lady of Arkansas; I was Corporate Lawyer at Rose Firm Arkansas and Wal-Mart board member, and finally first lady of USA and travelled all over the world. Oh, I forgot, I handled the failed and secretive Universal Health Care Program in 1992/93. Yes Im the most EXPERIENCED. I NEED TO DO THINGS TWICE TO GET IT RIGHT.

Yes We Can!!! JUGDEMENT IS KING

Posted by: eag59 | February 25, 2008 8:54 PM | Report abuse

"We've seen the tragic result of having a president who had neither the experience nor the wisdom to manage our foreign policy and safeguard our national security," Clinton said in a foreign policy speech at George Washington University. "We cannot let that happen again."

Her lack of wisdom in managing her own campaign stands exposed, so that of managing our foreign policy, to use her own formulation of this requisite, stands on feet of clay.

As to experience, she has not, to my knowledge, explained and provided documentation for her part in withdrawing our troops from Somalia when one of our Black Hawk helicopters went down. Nor has she explained and documented her role in the Rwandan genocide -- only acknowledged that she became sick to her stomach in visiting that troubled country later.

Moreover, she still speaks of "starting" to withdraw our men and women from Iraq, or beginning to do so, without specifying how she will end this war any time sooner than McCain's 100 years hence.

Posted by: FirstMouse | February 25, 2008 8:48 PM | Report abuse

I suppose if foreign policy experience means voting for the War in Iraq, then Hillary has my vote. Since Hillary supported NAFTA, that is another reason she has my vote.

Posted by: OscarMayer2 | February 25, 2008 8:29 PM | Report abuse

So, why didn't she question the whole path tot he Iraq fiasco, and why did she vote with Bush on Iran last summer? Those are not the acts of an 'expert'; they are the acts of a sheep in line eager to be sheared.

Posted by: AMviennaVA | February 25, 2008 8:21 PM | Report abuse

Hillary is just saying it as it is: Obama is floundering, because he is a fish out of water. He is in this only because special interests can lead him by his nose. He just is in too deep and does not have a clue about real issues and how to handle them .......POOR BABY! Oprah and Farrahkan - a kiss of Death on each cheek for BO!

Posted by: LOONYBIN2000 | February 25, 2008 8:18 PM | Report abuse

ABC news reported tonight that while Hillary was giving her anti-Obama foreign policy speech at George Washington University, she lost her voice. She had to stop, drink some water, and continued after a bit in a raspy voice barely above a whisper. I guess she shouldn't have spent so much time yelling these last 72 hours!!!!

Posted by: NewEra | February 25, 2008 8:00 PM | Report abuse

If pandering to the bloodthirsty right equates experience, then she's got plenty of experience.

She is the one who hasn't been vetted - she takes credit for her husband's successes and not his failures. She is the one hiding behind her husband's achievements. While I'm sure she shared some of his views, it was HIM not her in the office, and HIM, not her, dealing with foreign leaders. She must be intimating that she is going to piggyback off of HIM yet again when dealing with foreign leaders.

She is full of crap. She will be dependent on her husband's vision, apparently, because she clearly exercised NONE when she voted to go into Iraq - and without reading the intelligence! Give me a break. Go Obama!

Posted by: Charlene-K | February 25, 2008 7:58 PM | Report abuse

ebubuk2004.....You seem awfully jealous and angry of Michelle Obama. Are you okay? ...is it that you have some displaced anger because Hillary is a poor choice or is it that you have an issue with a black candidate running for President? Michelle is intelligent, articulate, has class and is not easily intimidated by pathetic fearmongers and hateful people like yourself. Are you a psychologist or a psyhic since you seem to have so much input surrounding Michelle's inner feelings of America? Free speech.....Don't like what she says....stop watching her on tv. and stop reading about her...The hate is pouring from your eyes..Chill out!

Posted by: YesweCan1 | February 25, 2008 7:41 PM | Report abuse

All of her experience of Foreign Policy should have really equiped her with the knowledge needed not to vote for the war on Iraq and stop flip flopping on bringing the troops home. This doesn't impress me because if she would have been so far experienced then she would have been more knowledgable and not easily persuaded by the Bush Administration to vote for a tireless war! Not buying it!

Posted by: YesweCan1 | February 25, 2008 7:36 PM | Report abuse


As noted by many:

Clinton's tipping point may have come when it was announced that her $5 million loan to her campaign came from a fund she shares with Bill Clinton. That puts into play for the general election business deals by the former president that transformed him from an indigent to a multimillionaire and might excite interest in their income tax returns, which the Clintons refuse to release.

Don't the Dems need a candidate who is vetted properly?

Posted by: ben2 | February 25, 2008 7:30 PM | Report abuse

By making foreign policy "experience" her issue, Clinton is dooming herself to defeat when running against McCain (in the unlikely chance that she could ever win the nomination).

Another knucklehead Hillary move. Everyone knows that neither Clinton nor Obama has much foreign policy experience.

She would seem more credible if she would tell us who her foreign policy and defense appointees and advisers would be.

But then again, maybe we don't want to know.

Posted by: saraz1 | February 25, 2008 6:59 PM | Report abuse

Why are Obama supporters full of so much venom?

Posted by: jbenzl | February 25, 2008 06:00 PM
_____________________________________________

You're kidding, right?

Posted by: gbooksdc | February 25, 2008 6:58 PM | Report abuse

Gee, all of a sudden Hillary is getting awfully tough on George W. Bush -- mocking his policies as those of an "inexperienced" President. That's right - we'd never want to elect an inexperienced President again! Too bad she didn't consider Bush's qualifications when she voted to give him carte blanche in Iraq and then spent 3 years defending her vote. Maybe she was reassured because Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz have LOADS of experience. What a bad joke. By her standards, her husband wasn't qualified to be President.

Posted by: johnsonc2 | February 25, 2008 6:57 PM | Report abuse

INTERESTING THAT HILLARY PRESENTS HERSELF AS COMPETENT REGARDING FOREIGN POLICY. FROM WHAT I GATHER,FOREIGN POLICY IS CONTROLLED NOT BY POLITICAL LEADERS, BUT BY THOSE WHO HAVE THE GREATEST ECONOMIC RESOURCES. AND WHO DO YOU THINK THEY ARE?
DAVID, BOWIE, MD

Posted by: jdavid.welsh | February 25, 2008 6:52 PM | Report abuse

Could someone please clarify the "experience" differential bet Hill & Obama? From what i have read he spent 8 years as a state senator and then has been US Senator since 2005. So he has 10+ years as an elected official. Hillary has been a US Senator since 2000 so she has 7+ years as an elected official. Why does she have more experience? Do US Senators carry more weight than their state counterparts? It doesn't seem as though they should and certainly from a super delegate standpoint they are equal. Is it just that she is older than he is and is naturally assumed to have more experience. Of course, when i think of people with experience, unfortunately Chenney & Rumsfeld immediately come mind. So perhaps it isn't really experience that we're concerned about. I am not trying to down play the role of a wife in the career of her husband, but i do think it's a bit strange for Hillary to use her husbands experience as Governor & President to bolster her experience credentials as she makes her bid for President. I am curious, have there been other examples of wives assuming the mantel of experience from their "successful' husbands and then taking over their roles? I know it has occurred in US politics when a politician has died in office and the wife was asked to complete his term, but does this happen in other areas of business, medicine, etc? I would hate to have my surgeon's wife complete a procedure on me because he was incapacitated. Any illumination on this experience issue would be appreciated.

Posted by: maple1 | February 25, 2008 6:50 PM | Report abuse

Read the article of Michelle on politico.com. This woman has alot of hatred towards our country and it's people.


Another unattractive "Angry Black woman"


Read the article of Michelle on politico.com. This woman has alot of hatred towards our country and it's people.


Another "Angry Black woman"

Posted by: ebubuk2004 | February 25, 2008 6:43 PM | Report abuse

Micelle Obama is great! Did anyone see her on Larry King live. What a fabulous, smart, articulate woman. She will make a great First Lady. Those bashing her are confused and/or have an agenda.

Posted by: zb95 | February 25, 2008 6:31 PM | Report abuse

It seems the more voters get to know Obama the more they like him, on contrast, it appears the more they get to know Hillary the less they like her. Hillary is sinking herself as she exposes herself to the voters. She was doing great a few months ago when the voters only remembered her name. Does not bode well for Ms Clinton.

Posted by: zb95 | February 25, 2008 6:29 PM | Report abuse

Read the article of Michelle on politico.com. This woman has alot of hatred towards our country and it's people.


Another unattractive "Angry Black woman"


Read the article of Michelle on politico.com. This woman has alot of hatred towards our country and it's people.


Another unattractive "Angry Black woman"

Posted by: ebubuk2004 | February 25, 2008 6:21 PM | Report abuse

The disciples of Obama terrify me. They are becoming more and more millitant in their hatred for the Clintons because they can not stand the thought that she could win TX and OH. Make no mistake about it, this hatred will be turned towards the half of the country that will vote for McCain if and when Obama gets the nomination. This is scary because it will be happening under the guise of brining hope, unity, peace, joy, and love to the country. I personally will probably not vote, because I already have a strong faith and don't need Obama's religion, and because I would be afraid of the Obama disciples.
PLEASE WAKE UP America!
America is a democracy for a reason, our president does not serve the role as our country's SAVIOR, moral compass, or pastor. They are simply a tool to assist in the running of our government. If you people want a savior, go to church. It infuriates me that the Obamanites insist on forcing their Obama religion on the rest of us through the elected office of President. They don't care about running effective government. If they did, Hillary would have already secured the nomination. I just hope people start waking up out of their Obama-trances before its too late.

Posted by: jsmith8918879 | February 25, 2008 6:17 PM | Report abuse

Read the article of Michelle on politico.com. This woman has alot of hatred towards our country and it's people.


Read the article of Michelle on politico.com. This woman has alot of hatred towards our country and it's people.

Read the article of Michelle on politico.com. This woman has alot of hatred towards our country and it's people.


Read the article of Michelle on politico.com. This woman has alot of hatred towards our country and it's people.


Read the article of Michelle on politico.com. This woman has alot of hatred towards our country and it's people.


Read the article of Michelle on politico.com. This woman has alot of hatred towards our country and it's people.


Posted by: ebubuk2004 | February 25, 2008 6:16 PM | Report abuse

CLINTON SUPPORTER STABS AN OBAMA SUPPORTER

WTF???

CLINTON SUPPORTERS HAVING TO RESORT TO STABBING PEOPLE NOW BECAUSE THEY CAN'T WIN? WTF??

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/0225081ortiz1.html

Posted by: laplumelefirmament | February 25, 2008 6:15 PM | Report abuse

LBrundige.

No and besides...

The Rs are not going to turn out in force for a guy who even today all but said he owns the Iraq war and is no friend of the Right wing of the party.

In addition to the body count which has stabilized at an unacceptable post-surge level, the dollar cost of the war will loom ever larger as the economy falls into recession before the general election.

McCain is toast. For better or worse, get ready for President Obama.

Posted by: shrink2 | February 25, 2008 6:10 PM | Report abuse

Just suppose that Obama loses all by himself with out Clinton holding his hand.

Posted by: jfbenzl | February 25, 2008 6:06 PM | Report abuse

I have a concern: Suppose, just suppose, Clinton's strategy is to discredit Obama so he can't win in November. His loss would open the door to her running again in 2012. Could she be that devious?

Posted by: LBrundige | February 25, 2008 6:05 PM | Report abuse

Why are Obama supporters full of so much venom?

Posted by: jfbenzl | February 25, 2008 6:00 PM | Report abuse

If Hillary is better on foreign policy than Barack, as she claims she is, why did she vote for the Iraq war?


Posted by: sarahtamor | February 25, 2008 5:55 PM | Report abuse

Hispanics are circulating an article explaining some issues about Senator Barack Hussein Obama that may of interest to everyone:

Barak Obama, el hombre más peligroso del mundo
http://www.gentiuno.com/articulo.asp?articulo=6347

Posted by: MaruAngarita | February 25, 2008 5:49 PM | Report abuse

Right on Hillary,

I would never trust a candidate that taught Constitutional Law for 10 years.

Grew up in multinational cultures.

Correctly called the war in Iraq without needing the intell. (As my lowly self did also)

Has Gen. Colin Powel strongly hinting he'll be voting Demcratic this year. (after making very positive comments about Obama).

And has fooled the electorate by using such uplifting rhetoric.

Your the man, Hillary! Obama's the intelligent, thoughtful, wise woman on the issues too bad for him.

Posted by: AverageJane | February 25, 2008 5:48 PM | Report abuse

I'm glad to see Wesley Clark again. I didn't know where he stood until I read this article (today's, above).

Here's more Wesley Clark, if anyone's interested--

http://youtube.com/watch?v=KWUpWfBMslM

http://youtube.com/watch?v=TYUH5MS3bHE

Posted by: Midwestreader1 | February 25, 2008 5:43 PM | Report abuse

Clinton claims she knows all the foreign leaders personally. Ha! She did meet some foreign leaders purely socially SIXTEEN YEARS AGO !!! Blair, Chretien, Berlusconi, Schröder, Chirac -- every last one of them is long retired! It is not diplomatic experience if you merely tag along as the wife to parties and receptions. If being married to a president is experience, get your teeth
pulled by your dentist's wife!

Posted by: dunnhaupt | February 25, 2008 5:39 PM | Report abuse


"We've seen the tragic result of having a president who had neither the experience nor the wisdom to manage our foreign policy and safeguard our national security," Clinton said in a foreign policy speech at George Washington University. "We cannot let that happen again. America has already taken that chance one time too many."

I wholeheartedly agree. I'd never support anyone so ill-suited to foreign policy that they'd vote to invade a nation (Iraq) that posed no threat at all to the US.

I have to use the Obama refrain. She apparently has a lot of experience with foreign policy and long, trusted relationships with foreign leaders.

Which foreign leaders told her it would be a good idea to invade Iraq?

Posted by: steveboyington | February 25, 2008 5:39 PM | Report abuse

With foreign policy successes like Clinton I, who needs failure?

*Black Hawk Down

*Failure to accept Bin Laden on a platter

*China betrayal

etc...

Posted by: JaxMax | February 25, 2008 5:33 PM | Report abuse

The articel cogently quotes Hillary:

""We've seen the tragic result of having a president who had neither the experience nor the wisdom to manage our foreign policy and safeguard our national security," Clinton said in a foreign policy speech at George Washington University. "We cannot let that happen again. America has already taken that chance one time too many."

RESPONSE:

Exactly.

During Her Majesty Hillary's co-reign of Clinton I from 1992 to 2000.

Posted by: JaxMax | February 25, 2008 5:31 PM | Report abuse

ichief wrote:

"Dubya's supporters no doubt hoped their inexperienced leader would surround himself with the right people."

GWB surrounded himself with VERY experienced and savvy advisors. Unfortunately they viewed world affairs through lenses seriously distorted by think-tank ideologies. The results have been less than optimal.

Read "Fall of the House of Bush" by Craig Unger. His writing is obviously and openly biased against GWB (and Rummy and Cheney and especially Wolfowitz), but his research is outstanding.

Posted by: ablackstormy | February 25, 2008 5:31 PM | Report abuse

Experience and wisdom?

Clinton had a lead (financially and in the polls) that seemed unsurmountable. Yet she let a 2 year senator overtake her in both. It's obvious she didn't have any plans for post Super Tuesday in place. It is far too easy to make an analogy to Iraq and preparedness.

Hasn't her campaign proved that she's not really capable of running the country? She didn't have the foresight to see an contender. She wasn't adept enough at thinking on her feet to immobilize him, and now she very well might be done.

This is experience and wisdom?

Posted by: dig_duggler | February 25, 2008 5:31 PM | Report abuse

To "MrPappy",
I'm really sick of people like you who invoke Barack Obama's middle name in order to stir up fear and loathing. Go climb back into your ignorant, pitiful hole.

Posted by: MichaelH3 | February 25, 2008 5:26 PM | Report abuse

YOU GO GIRL!

I mean it!

As in;

GET OUT!

Shooo!

Scram!

Sayanara!

Hasta la Vista!

And take that Wet-Behind-Ears Junior Senator Socialist with you!

Don't let the Door hit your "Mascot" on the way out! ;~)

Posted by: rat-the | February 25, 2008 5:23 PM | Report abuse

We've seen the tragic result of having a president who had neither the experience nor the wisdom to manage our foreign policy and safeguard our national security," Clinton said in a foreign policy speech at George Washington University. "We cannot let that happen again. America has already taken that chance one time too many."


Was she talking about Bill or Bush? becuase Bush had one of the most experienced foreign policy cabinets in the history of the US. All for naught.


"The American people don't have to assess whether I understand the issues or whether I would need a foreign policy instruction manual to guide me through a crisis."


Why? Because they are sure that you don't? pul-leaze Bush-lite.

"In this moment of peril and promise, we need a president who is tested and ready."


Like when you fought with the 51st calvary? Give me a break. You were tested with the Iraq vote. You failed.

Posted by: treeohtwo | February 25, 2008 5:20 PM | Report abuse

Sen. Clinton is pulling out all the stops in her effort to beat Sen. Obama, using the argument she thinks is most effective against him.

Were she successful in winning the nomination, she'd most likely be running against a veteran legislator whose actual accomplishments far outstrip hers, and who would feel none of the inhibitions Sen. Obama has about ridiculing her claims that being Bill Clinton's wife has prepared her to be President.

Democrats should understand that the dominant factor in this year's campaign, once the nominees are chosen, will be the incumbent President's extreme unpopularity. Sen. Clinton should be able to defeat Sen. McCain this fall because of this; frankly, I think the Democrats could nominate me and still win.

But Sen. Clinton is not the Democrats' strongest candidate; she is disliked by many people who have no strong objection to Obama and who are inclined to like McCain. Facing the candidate of the incumbent President's party when that President has been more unpopular for longer than any President since modern polling was invented, Democrats should be thinking in terms of a big win in the Presidential race, one that would influence races all the way down the ballot. That kind of win is more likely if Obama is their nominee.

Posted by: jbritt3 | February 25, 2008 5:20 PM | Report abuse

If Hillary has all this foreign policy expertise, then why did she vote for the Iraq War?

Posted by: OverworkedUnderpaid | February 25, 2008 5:16 PM | Report abuse

What foreign policy experience does Hillary claim? Crazy. Besides, as a matter of executive experience, George W. Bush had plenty before entering the Oval Office. Experience cannot be measured when it comes to the Presidency. All we are hearing are the last gasps of a candidate that found out the public does not want a continuation of Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton.

Posted by: AndrewS2 | February 25, 2008 5:08 PM | Report abuse

"(Sen.) Clinton views coming primaries in Texas and Ohio as must wins"
===============
Bill Clinton himself said that if Hillary doesn't win both OH and TX, that she would not be the nominee.

Posted by: ericp331

=================
What's your point? It looks like you're trying to make one.

Posted by: zukermand | February 25, 2008 5:07 PM | Report abuse

Mr. ichief

Dubya, The Decider, is a dry drunk, a millenarian with "issues" about his manhood (relative to his father). He is a fool who still surrounds himself with watery-eyed, chin flapping cold warriors.

At least Obama is intelligent, he admits mistakes and takes steps so he does not repeat them. Not sure he will be a good president, but I sure am sure I am sick of the Clintons.

Posted by: shrink2 | February 25, 2008 5:06 PM | Report abuse

queenie beanie, take youass up on outta here. her foriegn policy experience amounts to taking taxpayer funded vacations to foriegn lands to have tea with the wives of the real leaders. Disappear hag! America, like your husband, has rejected you.

Posted by: maricopajoe | February 25, 2008 4:59 PM | Report abuse

36 months ago he was in the state senate;by his own admission in his book he was a "street kid in jakarta" Hillary has visited over 80 countries and even negotiated treaties and border crossings w/ foriegn govt's. Obama has done...wow I dont know; neither do most of his supporters.. change you can believe in? LMAO!!!!!

Posted by: Jackson_dem_73 | February 25, 2008 4:58 PM | Report abuse

Shrink 2

"The election is over, except for the shouting.

"Barak Obama will soon have the chance to demonstrate leadership at home and abroad.

"We (his supporters) all hope he surrounds himself with the right people. America's leaders are a pretty diverse group representing even more diverse interests."
__________________

yeah, right.


Dubya's supporters no doubt hoped their inexperienced leader would surround himself with the right people.

Obama makes similar claims to those Bush made: He'll be a uniter, not a divider; he'll clean up Washington, and he'll save the world solely by virtue of his miraculous personality.

Like Dubya, Obama does know how to work a crowd - if only that were enough.

Posted by: ichief | February 25, 2008 4:56 PM | Report abuse

It is a good thing Senator Clinton simply assumes the public doesn't question her foreign policy experience or her ability to deal with pressing foreign matters from day 1. She has no foreign policy experience to speak of, so she can't lay it out for review. On the major issues of the day, she does stand on the wrong side: voting to authorize military action in Iraq, voting to designate a major part of the Iranian army as a terrorist organization while knowing that our President declares he can attack terrorist organizations whenever he deems appropriate, voting against a prohibition on cluster bombs in civilian areas. And yes, criticizing Senator Obama for saying he would meet with foreign leaders without preconditions. This latter approach is in line with a 50-year failed policy in Cuba, our failed approach to Iran, and to the right of Richard Nixon, who in fact did go to China without preconditions. And all the American Presidents who regularly met with their Soviet counterparts without preconditions, but with the preplanning Sen Obama supports.

In truth, neither Senator has a lot of foreign policy experience. Senators Dodd and Biden beat both of them easily, as does Senator McCain. Both will enter office with Sec of Defense and State and the Joint Chiefs to advise them. Senator Clinto will also have her husband as an advisor, but does that really add much over what the pros provide. And I suspect he will happily consult with President Obama, also.

Posted by: skinnermeganron | February 25, 2008 4:55 PM | Report abuse

zukermand,

Bill Clinton himself said that if Hillary doesn't win both OH and TX, that she would not be the nominee.

Posted by: ericp331 | February 25, 2008 4:54 PM | Report abuse

The election is over, except for the shouting.

Barak Obama will soon have the chance to demonstrate leadership at home and abroad.

We (his supporters) all hope he surrounds himself with the right people. America's leaders are a pretty diverse group representing even more diverse interests.

Posted by: shrink2 | February 25, 2008 4:46 PM | Report abuse

MrPappy does the word HUSSEIN scare you?

I didn't realize Americans were really this naive still...

Posted by: yvonne | February 25, 2008 4:44 PM | Report abuse

Experience? I'm really tired of hearing this line of questioning. Really...what job prepares one to be President? VP of the US I'll accept. Otherwise, I don't think that there is a job that adequately prepares one. Sen. Clinton's suggestion that her White House somehow gives her more experience is dubious at best. Would the spouse of a corporate CEO be experienced at running a multinational corporation? Not unless they actually ran such a corporation. I'll grant that the role of first spouse is unique; but it seems to me more like being in charge of a large not-for-profit which is active in a variety of public awareness campaigns. It does _not_ prepare one to actually be president.

Posted by: jlaprise | February 25, 2008 4:40 PM | Report abuse

Perry Bacon Jr writes
"She added, "The American people don't have to assess whether I understand the issues or whether I would need a foreign policy instruction manual to guide me through a crisis." "

Mr Bacon, have you, or any of your colleagues/peers challenged the Senator on these claims? On what specific events and/or responsibilities is she basing this claim of foreign policy experience? Perhaps you could ask her if there are any major foreign policy events of the last 15 or so years that she would have done differently than the actual President at the time?

Posted by: bsimon | February 25, 2008 4:40 PM | Report abuse

McCain talks about having troops in Iraq for up to 100 years. He qualifies his statement by noting the length of time we have had troops in Japan, Korea, and Germany. His statements suggest he does not understand the cold war is over - that we do not have the responsibility of being the world's policeman.....
http://thefiresidepost.com/2008/02/26/mccains-100-year-war/

Posted by: glclark4750 | February 25, 2008 4:30 PM | Report abuse

correction: "Yassir". typo.

Posted by: emmydoll81 | February 25, 2008 4:11 PM | Report abuse

Bullpuckey. What foreign policy experience is she referring to? Certainly, not her own, as she just doesn't have the record in the senate to support that statement. What she's referring to, perhaps, are the largely attrocious policies of her husband, who presided over possibly 2 of the worst genocides in the last 30 years (Rwanda, Serbia/Kosovo) and did nothing except lob some ineffective missiles at Afghanistan following the bombing of the world trade center.

Sure, Clinton 1 got Yassif Arrafat and Yitzhak Rabin to shake hands (a momentous, but unfortunately unlasting, event) and helped the Northern Irish to establish a political peace; but those accomplishments took the same kind of strategies that Obama embraces--dialogue, diplomacy, cultural understanding, etc., etc.

If her husband's experience is what she's talking about, then anyone else who has access to a history book or who, gasp, lived through it (or both, in the case of Obama, who lived through all of it AND studied the events), has that same "experience." Nevermind that this purported experience didn't do squat for her judgement when it came time to stand up for the right thing and say NO to a factually unfounded, unnecessary, poorly-planned, invasion of Iraq. OR at the very least, if she did think that an invasion was the right thing, think about the after-math of the event and what might happen if you remove a government without having the rule-of-law established to replace it immediately after the fact.

Posted by: emmydoll81 | February 25, 2008 4:04 PM | Report abuse

Of course this report does represent an exponential improvement over the "work" regularly produced here by Anne Kornblut and Shailagh Murray. Perhaps this represents progress.

Posted by: zukermand | February 25, 2008 3:53 PM | Report abuse

"Clinton views coming primaries in Texas and Ohio as must wins"

It sure would be nice if the Washington Post published the work of reporters who didn't fantasize they were able to read minds.

Posted by: zukermand | February 25, 2008 3:50 PM | Report abuse

I just split my side from laughing so hard.

Hillary's foreign policy experience is limited to American's feeling that any policy coming from her is foreign.

Experience? The same as the White House Pastry Chef, who happened to have more experience living outside the USA than the misguided wife of a former president.

Posted by: Guilden_NL | February 25, 2008 3:42 PM | Report abuse

MrPappy's comment regarding Senator Obama's middle name is the same racist attacks that have been coming from the Clintons all along. They are horrible people that will stop at nothing to discredit a fine American. This is no different than the Clinton campaign sending that photo to Drudge and then having the nerve to deny it. The Clinton campaign is desperate and shameless.

Posted by: begwin | February 25, 2008 3:37 PM | Report abuse

Very good point ericp331.

Posted by: davidmwe | February 25, 2008 3:26 PM | Report abuse

I'm not buying her argument.

If Hillary is better on foreign policy than Barack, as she claims she is, why did the Democrats Abroad vote for Barack?

Posted by: ericp331 | February 25, 2008 3:24 PM | Report abuse

Hillary has some experience, that is for sure, however Obama is no rookie. As a matter of a fact, he has lived all over the world.

Click on the Google chart in this link:
http://newsusa.myfeedportal.com/viewarticle.php?articleid=47

Then, change the region from "United States" to "All Regions" and you will see that people the world over are looking into (searching about) Barack and way more-so than Hillary. (And the world loves former president Clinton.) That says something. The man is no dummy, no matters what his middle name is.

Posted by: davidmwe | February 25, 2008 3:16 PM | Report abuse

She is vastly more qualified than her empty suited, wet behind the big ears, full of empty elequent words, Barrack HUSSEIN Obama.

Posted by: MrPappy | February 25, 2008 3:06 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company