About Channel '08  |  Blog Partner: PrezVid.com  |  RSS Feeds RSS Feed  (What's RSS?)


You don't think Hillary Clinton had anything to do with Northern Ireland's peace process? Well, at least consider this video proof, as provided by the Clinton campaign.

The video includes clips of her speech at the lighting of the Belfast, Northern Ireland, Christmas tree in 1995. It also features clips from a 2007 meeting between Clinton, Ian Paisley, Northern Ireland's first minister, and Martin McGuinness, the deputy first minister. Paisley and McGuinness are former political rivals who now lead a power-sharing government.

Why do this?

First, Pennsylvania has a large Irish-American population. Irish immigrants are credited with the development of Philadelphia, and other corners of the commonwealth.

But most importantly, Clinton frequently cites the Northern Irish peace process as a key piece of her foreign policy experience. Several critics however have raised questions about Clinton's self-described involvement, including former Clinton aide Dick Morris, and The Post's Fact Checker Michael Dobbs.

The length and depth of this video clip is clearly designed to demonstrate Clinton's involvement, and personal concern for the issue. Thoughts?

-- Ed O'Keefe

By Ed O'Keefe |  March 11, 2008; 6:20 PM ET Hillary Rodham Clinton
Previous: Bush Gridiron Dinner Video Raises Questions | Next: Ferraro Speaks Out Again


Please email us to report offensive comments.

I don't think anyone disputes that Senator Clinton went overseas and made speeches or courtesy calls. Her assertion, however, is that she was actively engaged in negotations, not only in N. Ireland, but also Kosovo and elsewhere. That claim has been widely and persuasively disputed by the participants (foreign and domestic) in those peace processes and this video does not make a persuasive case that those participants are wrong in characterizing her participation as minimal. Senator Clinton's supposed foreign policy experience is pure hokum.

Posted by: Scott | March 11, 2008 6:35 PM

Well, if her foreign policy experience is hokum, than what does that make Obama's! I think we can all answer that one without the Fact-Checker!

Posted by: Vammap | March 11, 2008 6:44 PM

Ian Paisley and Martin McGuinness have publicly said she had next to nothing to do with the negotiations. Why is this even being proffered now?

Posted by: Brian in NYC | March 11, 2008 6:52 PM

Vammap says, "Well, if her foreign policy experience is hokum, than what does that make Obama's!"

Obama hasn't claimed to have foreign policy "experience". Clinton, on the other hand, has claimed "35 years of experience", including extensive foreign policy experience. She has also specifically claimed that she was actively involved in the Northern Ireland peace talks.

Vammap, you are right about one thing: Obama doesn't have relevant foreign policy experience, and since he hasn't claimed any, FactCheck.org isn't needed after all.

But let's talk about Clinton's foreign policy experience. Never mind Northern Ireland, where key players on both sides have rejected and denounced :) her claim. Let's talk about Macedonia, where she supposedly helped open the border in 1999. Except, of course, that the border was opened THE DAY BEFORE she arrived.

If you need some help with the spin on this one, go to HillaryClinton.com. I'm sure Howard Wolfson would be happy to help - provided he's not still busy spinning the "Obama as VP" claptrap. :)

Posted by: BMR, Pittsburgh PA | March 11, 2008 7:16 PM

This excerpt from a recent article by Ray O'Hanlan in the Irish Echo newspaper provides some additional background on Hillary's involvement in the peace process:
"I am quite surprised that anyone would suggest that Hillary Clinton did not perform important foreign policy work as first lady. I can state from firsthand experience that she played a positive role for over a decade in helping to bring peace to Northern Ireland," said former SDLP leader and Nobel laureate John Hume is a statement responding to critical press reports.

"She visited Northern Ireland, met with very many people and gave very decisive support to the peace process. In private she made countless calls and contacts, speaking to leaders and opinion makers on all sides, urging them to keep moving forward," said Hume.

This would appear to be an important point. Press-based criticism of Senator Clinton has been based on the public record, and what has been recorded by both Clintons in their respective autobiographies.

Hillary, some would certainly argue, knows more than what has been made public thus far about what went on behind the scenes as the peace process gathered steam.

"Anyone criticizing her foreign policy involvement should look at her very active and positive approach to Northern Ireland and speak with the people of Northern Ireland who have the highest regard for her and are very grateful for her very active support for our peace process," Hume concluded in his defense of Hillary's Irish legacy.

Not surprisingly, some of the senator's most vocal defenders have been women activists from Northern Ireland.
In a series of statements compiled by labor and fair employment advocate Inez McCormack, Clinton was lauded for her "decade-long support" of the peace process.
"We believe it is important for others to know the pivotal role Mrs. Clinton played in helping us in Northern Ireland at critical junctures in the peace process. She supported us over many years and we will always be grateful to her," said McCormack
"Hillary Clinton took risks for peace in asking me and others to bring women and communities from both traditions to affirm their capacity to work for common purpose," McCormack said.
"She used her immense influence to give women like me space to develop this work and validated it every step of the way. This approach is now taken for granted but it wasn't then. She told us that if we take risks for peace, she would stay with us on that journey. In my experience, it took hard work, attention to detail and a commitment of time and energy which she delivered steadily and where needed over the last decade," McCormack added.

Similar testimonies have been forthcoming from other women, Protestant and Catholic. They include prominent community worker Elaine Crozier, Baroness May Blood, a member of the British House of Lords, Geraldine McAteer, chief executive of the West Belfast Partnership Board, Avila Kilmurray, head of the Community Foundation for Northern Ireland, Patricia Lewsley, former member of the Northern Ireland Assembly and currently Commissioner for Children and Young People, and Joanna McVey, former CEO of the Fermanagh-published Impartial Reporter newspaper and chair of the Fermanagh Trust.
"She turned empathy into action. Her iconic address to the first Vital Voices conference in Belfast in 1998 was truly inspirational and her ongoing support for women's role in peace building and the transformation of economic and political life in the North was manifested through other initiatives and her own personal involvement," stated McVey in her statement.
That 1998 visit to the North was just one of seven undertaken by Clinton between 1995 and 2004, both with president Clinton and on her own. In addition, Clinton has hosted numerous visitors from both communities in the North on American soil.

A precise accounting of Clinton's visits to Ireland and her work for Irish peace forms the basis for a book being published later this year by Stella O'Leary, Washington. D.C.-based president of the Irish American Democrats lobby group.

O'Leary has been one of Hillary Clinton's most fervent backers over the years and in a statement to the Echo took particular exception to a critical column penned by Dick Morris and Eileen McGann that took issue with recent campaign statements made by Clinton about her peace process initiatives.

The column, headlined "Hillary Had No Role in Irish Peace," characterized the statement as being tantamount to Walter Mitty-like dreams.

Anything but, countered O'Leary

"It will come as a huge surprise to the Irish, North and South, to hear Dick Morris and Eileen McGann's claim that Senator Hillary Clinton played no role in the Irish peace process," said O'Leary.

"Starting with the Christmas visit to Belfast in 1995, Hillary Clinton recognized that the participation of women was critical in bringing about
an end to the conflict, and she set about inspiring women to become politically involved," O'Leary said.
"The meeting with Mrs. (Joyce) McCartan was a prelude to Senator Clinton opening a larger dialogue with women leaders on both sides of the border. At her prompting, the White House arranged for a delegation of American women leaders to meet in Belfast with their Irish counterparts and the outcome of that meeting was the Vital Voices Conference in 1998.

"As a result of that conference, Northern Ireland women became much more involved in running for elective office and when the time came, the Women's Party were full participants with George Mitchell in the peace negotiations.
"Morris and McGann do not carry a single quote from any leader in Ireland on Senator Clinton's contribution to the solution of the Irish conflict. Nor do they carry a quote from Senator Mitchell. I challenge them to find one political leader, of any significance in Ireland, who does not agree that Senator Clinton's involvement with the women of Northern Ireland, and her advocacy for children damaged by the conflict, played a crucial role in bringing about the Good Friday Agreement," O'Leary said.
"Morris and McGann mention a few of the people Senator Clinton met on her visits to Ireland and scoff at the importance of those meetings."

O'Leary said that in her forthcoming book she would be including tributes to Clinton for her role in the peace process from individuals including Bertie Ahern, Cherie Blair, Gerry Adams, Bono and John Hume.

"Based on the tributes I received, the people of Ireland are profoundly grateful to Senator Clinton for taking an interest and giving her time to inspire us to pull together and build a better life for the people of Northern Ireland.

"If Morris and McGann are truly interested in knowing whether Senator Clinton?s involvement made a difference in Ireland, then I suggest that they consult some Irish people. The response will be an outpouring of gratitude, admiration, respect and love and, most of all, a heartfelt wish that Senator Clinton become the next President of the United States," O'Leary concluded.

Some observers argue that if Hillary Rodham Clinton had been a first lady in what most Americans would see as being the traditional mould, her recent allusion to foreign policy experience based on her Irish peace work would have a hard time being accepted for gospel.

But, it is widely accepted, she did not fit that mould. From the very start, the Clintons presented themselves as the "two for the price of one" presidency, a political double act in which both Clintons would have an input into White House policy.

Bill Clinton has alluded on the campaign trail to his wife's very particular sharing role in his Irish intervention, and there are many others who appear ready and willing to do the same.

Said one journalist who covered the Clinton trips to Ireland and who preferred not to be identified for this report: "She did have meaningful meetings and did keep people's feet to the fire. She took pains to go to both sides and to meet both sides and bring a sort of woman's touch to it."

Given the nature of the response from O'Leary, Hume, McCormack and others, the attack on Hillary Clinton's Irish legacy has clearly caused upset.

But the upset will pass.

It will pass for no other reason then the fact that Irish American supporters of the Clinton candidacy are paying less attention to the work of former years and are now keenly anticipating what might transpire for a much changed Ireland should a second President Clinton ponder the island from behind the Oval Office desk. "
Senator Clinton has never claimed to have single-handedly brought about peace in N.Ireland. However, as demonstrated by the comments above, from people actually involved, there can be no dispute that she contributed, in a positive manner, to the peace process.


Posted by: RBNYC | March 11, 2008 7:56 PM

Look, Sen. Clinton is the one who sarcastically says that the Sen. Obama's foreign policy experience consists of a single speech in 2002. Then she turns around and says that her speeches in Northern Ireland and China were the core of her foreign policy experience in those two locations. Yet again, the message from the Clinton campaign is that they can have it both ways. A speech is just a stupid bunch of words if Sen. Obama is speaking them, but a speech is the most pivotal, critical, significant foreign policy experience of any potential preseidential candidate if she is speaking the words. No matter who you are for on the Democratic side you have to admit that this is yet another instance of rank hypocrisy from Sen. Clinton. She can have her Northern Ireland and China speeches if she concedes that Sen. Obama has bested her on the Iraq issue (which she will not).

Posted by: R | March 11, 2008 8:02 PM

Hillary is a snake. Obama is Lincoln returned to save the US>

Low on inconsequential experience, high on wisdom. Obama. like Lincoln.

Posted by: Joshua, CA | March 11, 2008 8:06 PM

Let us, for the moment, not dispute whether or not Hillary negotiated anything any where while traveling around the world as the First Lady representing our country and grant her the claim that she did.

Isn't there a law that forbids private citizens to negotiate with foreign governments? Since those "private citizens", in the past, included senators and the like of Jesse Jackson, and if she did do any negotiation, wasn't that a violation of the law?

During these days when pressure is building for Spitzer to resign because he violated the law, why is Mrs. Clinton trumpeting her private negotiation deals of the past, if she indeed did that?

Posted by: Steve Chan, Los Altos Hills | March 11, 2008 8:10 PM

Hillary is going to make a fantastic president. She is intelligent, articulate, and gritty. Hillary talks the talk and walks the walk.

Hillary '08!

Posted by: Jen | March 11, 2008 8:28 PM

Smiling in photo ops is NOT qualified foreign policy experience.


Posted by: JBE | March 11, 2008 8:33 PM

Obama is scary. He is a fade, like the hola hoop. Just becuase he looks like Tiger Woods and has fancy (nothing) words, people flock to him - how scary. At the very least he is a community activist and should return to his domain.

Obama went to Africa and dressed like the locals - how embarassing for a Senator, that is something my child would do. This is the extent of his foreign affairs experience.

Hillary has the intellect and knowledge to be President of the US. Obama does not.

Posted by: Chris | March 11, 2008 8:34 PM

Hillary Clinton is lying fraud. Everybody knows it. However, if voters needed experience , they would not have gotten rid of such people, as Biden, Dodd, Edwards and Richrdson. Voters do not trust experience, especially what Hillary Clinton calls her experience. That is way they picked Obama and would nominate and elect him.

Posted by: aepelbaum | March 11, 2008 8:35 PM

Do the primaries matter? If Obama is going to win then I think we are getting a fresh taste of what is in store for the country through Saturday Night Live. Their latest sketch might be an indicator of how Obama may run the country and look to Hillary at 3 AM in the morning.


Posted by: Tara Williams | March 11, 2008 8:39 PM


TINA FEY ON saturday night live tells it like it is:

Send this clip all over.


Posted by: mjno | March 11, 2008 8:46 PM

It is interesting that the Clinton campaign feels the need to splice together these two events, even going so far as inserting images of the tree lighting ceremony with the 2007 press conference. It seems reasonable to wonder why, if her role in peace were so important, she needed to rely on a 2007 press conference for face to face footage, and why she would need to rely on Soviet style editing to drive home the suggestion. God bless her for trying. She is leaving no stone unturned in her effort to get back into the white house. Makes you wonder if she left some treasure buried in a basement or something.

Posted by: JJ | March 11, 2008 8:54 PM

I amazed the press published this.

It must be a 15 minute break from all Obama, all the time.

Posted by: Anonymous | March 11, 2008 9:03 PM

Hillary can fool the foolish minds like herself. A married woman who hillary claims she is should be in bed with her husband bill by 3.00 am in the morning. No woman in her right mind sleeps with clay on her face. This ad is a further proof that hillary is nothing but a fake and a deceit who will not stop at nothing to have the presidency.

Posted by: gladys | March 11, 2008 9:17 PM

Response BMR, Pittsburgh PA | March 11, 2008 07:16 PM

Clinton has been on armed services sub committees since at least 2003, including the Subcommittee on emerging threats and capabilities.


Conversely, according to the New York Times, Obama is long on Star Power and very short on results. His short stint in the Senate he's noted for following in Hillary's footsteps by trying to mimick her "model" approach to the Senate.

In fact, "He disappointed some Democrats by not taking a more prominent role opposing the war -- he voted against a troop withdrawal proposal by Senators John Kerry of Massachusetts and Russ Feingold of Wisconsin in June 2006, arguing that a firm date for withdrawal would hamstring diplomats and military commanders in the field."

Yes, while campaigning he has flip-flopped on withdrawal and his entire voting record on Iraq as been skewed.

The other characterization of him we've seen through the campaign that holds true is his Senate experiences, "To some in the bipartisan coalition, Mr. Obama's move showed an unwillingness to take a tough stand."


Hillary has constantly tried to reveal this side of him to the public.

The truth is we really know very little about him, and what we do know and what we've seen is not Presidential material.

Supposedly this is his window, according to Tom Daschle, because he doesn't have a history. Frankly, the country deserves better than that.

Voters need to do a better job of vetting candidates, voting less on star power and more on substance.

Posted by: vammap | March 11, 2008 9:22 PM

In order for Obama to be elected he has to neutralize any objections.

Central to Obama's campaign is the fiction that he's as qualified as Hillary.

That fiction requires Obama and his supporters to ignore or shout-down any evidence to the contrary.

Stalin would be proud of Obama.

I can't believe this kind of thing can be happening in America.

Truth doesn't seem to count for anything at all.

Posted by: svreader | March 11, 2008 9:28 PM

JACKSON, Miss. - NBC News declared Barack Obama as the projected winner in the Mississippi primary on Tuesday, the latest in a string of racially polarized contests across the Deep South and a final tune-up before April's high-stakes race with Hillary Rodham Clinton in Pennsylvania.

Obama was winning roughly 90 percent of the black vote but only about one-third of the white vote, extending a pattern that carried him to victory in earlier primaries in South Carolina, Alabama, Georgia and Louisiana.

This came from MSNBC-- It exemplifies the racial disparity that exists. The nation is split, but Hillary has a more diverse constituency including Asians, Latinos.

Posted by: vammp | March 11, 2008 9:33 PM

One way to prove her case would be for the Clintons to release records of her involvement in his presidency. But no-o-o-o-o!

Posted by: joy2 | March 11, 2008 9:55 PM

None of the candidates have experience. George W. Bush has had two terms in office and a father who was President. What good did it do? Having Good Judgement and common sense is what it will take.

Posted by: Jessica | March 11, 2008 10:18 PM

You want to talk about experience. Hillary has six years total experience no matter what she claims. She only entered the political scene to establish credentials for this race. That is a confirmation of her self serving ambitions. No matter what she says publicly, she is not a public servant, nor does she have the public service mentality and dedication. If she had, she would have been running for the senate much earlier. She is not "of the people, by the people, for the people" it is all about what is in it for her. That leaves you, me and all other Americans waiting for "change", or maybe not, there is an election coming up and we do have a choice.

Posted by: Luis | March 11, 2008 10:43 PM

I swear to God I will vote for her if she can prove that she did ONE thing that has led to peace ANYWHERE. She was FIRST LADY.

Up to now, the only thing she

has done is attack a substantive

Democrat who has not attacked her.

And, sadly, I'm getting pretty sick of Bill too. I wish he had stuck to the high road.

I miss THAT Bill. He was a great guy...this one sucks.

Posted by: illclinton | March 11, 2008 10:56 PM

TO: svreader
RE: "Stalin would be proud of Obama"

First of all, what a cheap shot. That's pretty revealing.

Second, if Hillary's so great and honest and has nothing to hide, then why is she still refusing to release

1)her taxes (as Obama has) and
2)her papers as first lady

Wouldn't those papers prove her degree of involvement? It sounds pretty sketchy to me.

If she releases them and they show that she was an integral part of the Irish reconciliation process then she would be able to kill the debate _in her favor_ immediately. But, alas, she won't do it.

Why not? Please answer.

Posted by: illclinton | March 11, 2008 11:08 PM

Hillary Clinton being strategically involved in Northern Ireland's peace process is like Al Gore inventing the Internet: It. Just. Didn't. Happen.

Posted by: wsealsjr | March 11, 2008 11:10 PM

Every time I watch a Hillary Clinton Video where she is actually working, and negotiating in Government my respect for her increases. Thank you for this chance to see more of her actual impact she has on Foreign Relations.

I don't need Senator Clinton to convince me Junior Senator Obama is inexperienced Obama himselve prooves that when all he seems to have to substantiate his claims of readiness is that "He was not elected yet, when the decision to enter Iraq was made.
That is a slim argument.

Obama hasn't presented any evidence of his Foreign Policy experience to date, and repeats the same claim himself, over and over, that a 2002 speech proves he's better than Hillary. When I read of his previous and subsequent support for the war and his own claims that his and Bus;s policy's are not that different, I get the picture.

When I read this, "Obama has repeatedly waffled on the Iraq war. He refuses to denounce torture policies. Obama voted against the Coburn Amendment, which would have provided funds for rebuilding in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. He supports a preemptive nuclear strike against Iran. He does not support universal healthcare.

Although recognizing that Bush has broken U.S. law, the "Progressive" politician refused to cosponsor a resolution by Russ Feingold (D-Wisconsin) to censure the President. Obama even voted to confirm right-wing Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. Now he is campaigning for Senator Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut (Bush's closest Democratic ally)."

That says it all for me. Obama is a Hawk, and he is deceptive, and devisive.

Posted by: Steve | March 11, 2008 11:54 PM

As one Obama supporter, I refuse to engage in smears or personal attacks..This clip provides ample reminder that Hillary Clinton has acted as an emissary of the US and has taken the job seriously. She speaks well. The point of the Obama campaign is not to begrudge anyone their due.

It's about change. For the good of the nation we should not go back to the half steps and incremental change that characterized the Clinton White House. It is not their "fault." It is simply time to take care of business in a real way.

Posted by: Richard Ray Harris | March 11, 2008 11:57 PM

Hillary lost my respect when she was asked on National TV if she thougth Sen. Obama was a muslim and she responded with a sarcastic "no, AS FAR AS I KNOW". I want a President who believes dignity and integrity is more important than personal ambition. Her campaign has lost its moral compass.

Hillary is helping spread false rumors about Sen. Obama. Now, based on her behavior during the campaign; i.e. one day crying, the next day adoring Obama, the next hating Obama and then liking him, perhaps someone should ask whether or not she has some kind of "bipolar disorder' that requires medication; If Obame were asked I am certain his answer would not be "she does not, as far as I know". :)

Posted by: hank | March 12, 2008 12:08 AM

It's pretty clear Hillary has misrepresented her role in this. Just tell the truth, HIllary. Is it that difficult?

Posted by: aronbeezley | March 12, 2008 12:51 AM

Again, she accompanied her husband and spoke at a lighting of the tree ceremony...she was first lady so that's expected. Laura Bush and Condi visited my native country without President Bush in 2006...so. Then the rest of the video is in her elected official capacity as a Senator in 2007...even Obama was an elected official by then and was helping to arrange weapons safety in former republics.Clinton's foreign policy experience claim has implied much deeper involvement. This video does NOTHING to prove that...perhaps her supporters will be fooled but not me.I met Kofi Annan and Hillary is no Kofi Annan...LOL

Posted by: bwlib | March 12, 2008 1:07 AM

If Hillary claims she worked for 10 years with the northern Ireland peace process, no wonder it took them 10 years. If she was not involved those folks would have accomplished peace in 5 years.

There were reports that she carried her own tea kettle whenever she went to Ireland. Either she didn't trust the tea kettles in Ireland or she was so obsessed with drinking tea that she couldn't do without a tea kettle whereever she went.

She did sip tea with the Irish. She did that as a goodwill jesture, since the Bostonians dumped the British tea in the Boston harbor a few hundred years ago.

Now I won't call that foreign policy. Many people who go to Ireland also drink tea. That doesn't make them a foreign policy expert.

Posted by: Jean McAlister | March 12, 2008 1:17 AM

Being from Ireland,I am staggered by Mrs Clinton's claim that she brokered a peace deal in Northern Ireland!! the traumas that this country has been through over years,it took more than a few concillatory words from Mrs Clinton to broker the peace as she lit the Christmas lights !!! Somebody re-edits these takes and sends them out on you tube.She met with Ian Paisley and Martin Mc Guinness as 'The Senator from New York when they visited Washington DC. I admit President Bill Clinton with Tony Blair did help to form the peace deal and of course Mr Mitchell,they were the peacemakers in our very convuluted history,not to mention the tremendous efforts by Northern Ireland's own peace makers who were working on this for years,2 of them were awarded 'The Nobel Peace Prize'John Hume and David Tremble.If this video is put out to attract
'The Irish American voters in PA then Barack Obama can claim his Irish heritage on his mother'side.One last thing any reference to race is offensive it is all got to do with pigmentation not a deformity!!!
Carmel Donegal Ireland

Posted by: Carmel O'Brien Mulreany | March 12, 2008 12:04 PM

Hillary and Bill Clinton have made a significant issue about how the press is treating Hillary unfairly in their hyper-critical reporting on her and their "softball" reporting on Barak Obama. Hillary maintains she has been fully investigated by the media and Barak hasn't!

As the Tony Rezko trial begins in Chicago, Clinton and her surrogates are linking Obama to Rezko and the media is speculating about whether Obama will be called to testify as a witness in the case. Obama has always admitted he received $85,000 in contributions from Rezko which Obama has now donated to charity rather than keep.

Yet the civil fraud trial of Bill Clinton for defrauduing Hillary's largest donor in 2000 into giving her campaign more than $1.2 million, pending in Los Angeles courts since 2003, is now preparing for a November, 2008 trial. The discovery that is now proceeding after a February 21 hearing, and the pending trial, have NEVER been announced by the mainstream media.

Hillary was able to extricate herself as a co-defendant in the case in January, 2008 after years of appeals to be protected by the First Amendment from tort claims arising out of federal campaign solicitations she made. Her abuse of the intent of California's anti-SLAPP law after the California Supreme Court refused to dismiss her from the case in 2004 is emblematic of her contempt for the Rule of Law.

Hillary will be called as a witness in both discovery and the trial according to the trial court Judge who so-advised Hillary's attorney David Kendall when he dismissed Hillary as a co-defendant in 2007. A subpoena is being prepared this month and will be served personally on Hillary, along with Chelsea, Pa Gov. Ed Rendell, Al Gore and other well known political and media figures.

Yet the media has refused to report about this landmark civil fraud case- brought by Hillary's biggest 2000 donor to her Senate race, regarding allegations that were corroborated by the Department of Justice in the criminal trial of Hillary's finance director David Rosen in May, 2005. That indictment and trial was credited as resulting from the civil suit's allegations by Peter Paul, the Hollywood dot com millionaire Bill Clinton convinced to donate more than $1.2 million (according to the DOJ prosecutors and the FBI) to Hillary's Senate campaign as part of a post White House business deal with Bill.

The media - except for World Net Daily- has also suspiciously refused to report on Hillary's last FEC report regarding her 2000 Senate campaign, filed in January 30, 2006. In a secret settlement of an FEC complaint by the plaintiff in Paul v Clinton, Peter Paul, the FEC fined Hillary's campaign $35,000 for hiding more than $720,000 in donations from Paul, and it required Hillary's campaign to file a 4th amended FEC report.

In that report Hillary and her campaign again hid Paul's $1.2 million contribution to her campaign and falsely attributed $250,000 as being donated by Paul's partner, Spider Man creator Stan Lee, who swore in a video taped deposition he never gave Hillary or her campaign any money.

Lee did testify to trading $100,000 checks with Paul to make it appear he gave $100,000 to Hillary's campaign (admission of a felony) but none of that has been reported by the "overly critical" media!

Where is the outrage from Obama that the press is engaging in a double standard relating to his possible role in the Rezko trial and his refunding the $85,000 contributed to his campaign by Rezko- which Obama has always admitted taking. The media makes no mention of Hillary's role as a witness in Bill's fraud trial for defrauding Hillary's largest donor- and Hillary's refusal to refund the $1.2 million she illegally received from Paul, which she has denied taking from Paul ever since the Washington Post asked her about Paul and his felony convictions from the 1970's before her first Senate election in 2000?

visit hillcap.org for more info

Posted by: pedromatos11368 | March 12, 2008 12:10 PM

So, when she wins in PA. will the headlines read:"Hillary Win PA. as Legions of White Irish Supports Rally to Her Side."

Posted by: peter | March 12, 2008 12:38 PM

To those of you who keep insisting that Hillary refuses to release her tax returns and her papers as the former first lady:
1. She announced she will release her tax returns by April 15. (if you are really interested in this stuff, 20 years of her prior returns are a matter of public record.)
2. The Bush administration has put a hold on the release of her papers (as is the President's prerogative) until all the papers are reviewed by his administration. Do you not see the underhanded republican interference that you are so naively falling for?

If you do not support Hillary, fine. But why do you have to be so destructive in your actions and comments? You people engage in the same kind of old politics you say you want to move beyond.

Posted by: bcurtis | March 12, 2008 3:55 PM

Once again the Hillary haters are out in force and as usual don't want to hear anything that would potentially change their mind about Clinton.

So be it. But the reality is that Clinton has met with the leaders of over 80 nations and spoken to their people and that is most likely about 75 more nations than Obama has visited. She understands diplomacy because as first lady she had to practice it. Obama was busy voting "present" in the Illinois legislature for most of the time and before that was busy dealing with low cost housing initiatives in a small area of Chicago and preparing to run for Office.

I like Obama- he is an inspiring speaker and I think intelligent. Just not ready to be the leader of the free world.

My other problem is when he and his campaign try to portray race as no issue in the campaign and cry foul when anyone brings it up. It is an issue. He made it one. Oprah Winfrey made it one when in SC before the primary she compared him to Martin Luther King and said our time has come. In Mississippi- like it or not the voting was based on race. Were Barack Obama not Black he wouldn't be getting 90% of the Black vote. So race is an issue. To attack Geraldine Farraro for speaking the truth and calling it racial is ridiculous. Were Barack Obama not a Black man he wouldn't be where he is. That isn't a racist statement its a true one. He happens to be an inspiring and intelligent man, but that alone wouldn't be getting him the votes he is getting.

I am sad that race is still an issue in our nation. But then sexism is one as well and Hillary has to deal with that every day. Reporters and others find it ok to make jokes about it and expect her and her campaign to not be offended.

Time to talk truth in this campaign. Race and gender still do matter to voters and they have made that clear. Better to deal with it upfront than try to pretend it doesn't exist.

I will vote for either Hillary or Obama, whoever is the candidate. I happen to think Hillary is much more qualified. But there will be many who will not vote for Obama because of his race- or Hillary because she is a woman.

The fact is that there are more woman out there 54% of the electorate to draw new voters to the Democratic party than there are African Americans who make up only about 10% of the electorate. So the reality is that Hillary has the best chance to win. It really is simple math.

Democrats will lose the South with either one of them but Hillary has shown she can win in the States that the Democrats must try to win. Ohio and Florida. She can win Arkansas as well. And she has won nearly all the big states that the Democrats need and will win big in PA.

If we are rational as Democrats she has to be our candidate. As I said - if Obama is I will vote for him as well- but I think it will be much harder to keep the White House for the Democrats if he is the head of the ticket.

Posted by: peter dc | March 12, 2008 4:42 PM

One thing is for certain. Hillary Clinton IS in the wrong profession. She should be in the movie picture industry. She would be an Oscar winner several times over by now with the astonishing range of performances and characters she has portrayed before and during this fascinating campaign.

This carefully edited video is most certainly designed to give the impression Senator Clinton was a major shaker and mover in the 'peace' process in Northern Ireland. It was, of course, an exciting moment to have President Bill Clinton and his wife, Mrs Clinton come and stay overnight in Northern Ireland. It was President Clinton who made the main speech at the Christmas Tree lighting ceremony (I was there so I do know who all spoke) and Mrs Clinton was allowed the chance to make a short speech as a courtesy of being First Lady and accompanying her husband, the President.

The second section of the clip is more interesting. By this stage Senator Clinton knows she will be running for President and knows full well ANY chance to mention Ireland, North or South, is always a hopeful 'vote' perhaps in the future. Therefore a nice courtesy visit to the First Minister (now resigned) and Deputy First Minister with a view to knowing this will be noted and recorded and may come in useful in the future - as indeed it now being used. Not for nothing are Dr. Paisley and Mr McGuinness known to one and all in Northern Ireland as the "Chuckle Brothers".

Note the language at 4:30 "I am going to do everything I can as President to make sure the First Minister and Deputy First Minister know they have an open door to the White House..." Could it be Senator Clinton believed she was going to have no competition at all and her journey to the White House was taken for granted?

Senator Clinton's involvement in the peace process was negligible, as has been noted by those who actually WERE involved. It is no wonder Lord Trimble (David Trimble the first First Minister) has remarked her attempt to claim more is "silly".

The Clintons (both of them) impartiality in the 'peace process' was tainted when President Clinton granted a Visa to Gerry Adams specifically against the advice of John Major, the then Prime Minister of the UK.

By all accounts most people in Northern Ireland at the moment are roaring their heads off at the thought the peace being enjoyed at present is due in some large measure to the intervention and 'experience' of Senator Clinton.

Posted by: Geoffrey | March 12, 2008 4:47 PM

We need Hillary as our President. She higly qualified

Posted by: Freddy | March 12, 2008 5:28 PM

When she keeps talking about experience,Experience and so forth I want to know the qualifications and experiences of some Past American Presidents.She just confuses uneducated people.
Its is true she is but the only blonder that has costs the American people came from those experiences.There are times it needs but common sense to act.Before you have an experience, you have to be given an opportunity to do so.So that experience. thing is the last kicks of a dying horse.Cheap talk.

Posted by: Fbspear | March 12, 2008 5:58 PM

Instead of questioning Hillary Clinton's experience in foreign affairs, Senator Obama should come out with his credentials on foreign policy. I think it is a diversionary tactic to focus attention away from his total lack of foreign policy experience. On any and every issue, he is unable to show any achievements, so he just has to minimize Hillary's record. Nice try, but it won't sell.

Posted by: Nathan | March 12, 2008 6:20 PM

Not hard to know what side of the fence Geoffrey stands! John Major did not support John Hume when he talked to Gerry Adams, he was highly critical and so obviously short sighted. The meetings were the begining of the process.
As for Jean and the 10 years, Ireland has had conflict for over 300 years, so 10 years is in fact remarkable.
Without both of the Clintons we would still be in conflict and most reasonable Irish people know that and thank them for their impartial contribution.
I am sure Tony Blair and Bill Clinton will be very grateful to Carmel "admitting" that they did help.
Thank God we were depending on the likes of Geoffrey, Jean and Carmel or it would take another 300 years!!
Gerry, Derry

Posted by: Gerry O'Connor | March 12, 2008 10:51 PM

Why all the "experience" fuss? Experience didn't keep Rumsfeld from making critical errors. I would rather have honest, thoughtful, intelligent leaders. Remember, the highly educated people who best understood Iraq and Islam - they all agreed that the single most useful and symbolic thing this country could have done would have been to promptly tear down Abu Graib prison. And this ignorant administration not only doesn't give it the wrecking ball, they turn around and use it for their own torture! This "war" is primarily a battle of propaganda, and it has been lost due not only to our uneducated and appallingly noneloquent president, but due to the old stubborn belief that a sufficient amount of bombs and flag-waving should always get the job done. Didn't work in Vietnam and won't work here. Fortunately, as McCain will find out in November, the people that believe in the simplistic notions of military might making "right" are a dying, shrinking constituency. Same for the people that in 1980 sat down with checkbooks and wrote checks for Reagan, Jimmy Swaggert, and then Jim and Tammy Faye Baker, and maybe Jerry Falwell - if they weren't broke by then.
You want foreign policy experience for Obama??? When was the last time we had a chance to vote for someone who has actually lived overseas, and likely understands peoples of other cultures and lands, to the extent that he won't be willing to drop bombs in order to make his mark on history? At the very least, he will understand that the "terrorists" are not an identifiable people - not by uniform, looks, language, or geographic location. How does one pinpoint them on radar?? And guess what? For every one you kill, another takes his place. And for every innocent life killed, we likely get ten more people quite upset and quite willing to plant bombs, strap on bombs and all that. VERY hard to convince people that you are dropping bombs on them for their own good. And Bush, early on, could have handled things better, could have met the Iraqis in the streets, like Ahmahdenihad. But nope, too chicken. It was a chance he needed to take, had to take if this convoluted mission was supposed to succeed. So I say, vote in Obama. Not only would all this be apparent to him, but with his name, putting him into the oval office would be the ultimate publicity coup for the American people. I, for one, am ready to have the target taken off my back.
Hillary? Nah, let's move forward. Just like the Bush duo, already been there, done that. Nuff said.

Posted by: Tony Stringfellow | March 12, 2008 11:59 PM

Hillary touts all this "experience", but Obama has held elected office for 11 years -four more than Hillary.

Obama sponsored over 820 bills while serving in the Illinois senate (serving 8 years, from 1996-2004). He introduced 233 bills regarding Healthcare reform, 125 bills regarding Poverty and Public Assistance, 112 Crime fighting bills, 97 Economic bills, 62 Education bills, 60 Human Rights and Anti-discrimination bills, 21 Ethics bills, 20 Environmental bills, 15 Gun Control bills, 6 Veteran Affairs bills, and many, many others. He authored the most sweeping ethics reform bill passed into Illinois law in over 20 years. He sponsored a law enhancing tax credits for low-income workers, negotiated welfare reform and promoted increased subsidies for child care. Obama also led the passage of legislation mandating videotaping of homicide interrogations, and a law to monitor racial profiling by requiring police to record the race of drivers they stopped.

As for "foreign policy" experience, what good are years in Washington, if you don't have the good judgement to make the right decisions? In 2002 Obama spoke out publicly against the war in Iraq. He didn't just give a speech. He accurately predicted the repercussions and the quagmire of Iraq.

Obama was elected to the United States senate in 2004. In his first year (before he decided to run for president) he authored 152 bills, and co-sponsored another 427. These included the Coburn-Obama government Transparency Act of 2006 (signed into law by Bush), The Lugar-Obama initiatives (working with republican, Richard Lugar) aimed at nuclear non-proliferation and conventional weapons threat reduction. He is one of only 2 lawmakers sponsoring a campaign finance reform bill that currently sits in the senate. There are 890 bills in Obama's name since he entered the Senate. He has Cosponsored 1096.

Obama currently serves on the Senate Committees for Foreign Relations; Health, Education, Labor and Pensions; Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs; and Veterans' Affairs. He has a degree in International Relations, a Law degree, and taught constitutional law for 10 years. On Obama's website you can read detailed information regarding his positions on all the current major issues.

Posted by: jds | March 13, 2008 3:55 PM

TO: Nathan - 3/12/06, 6:20pm
RE: "On any and every issue, he is unable to show any achievements, so he just has to minimize Hillary's record. Nice try..."


Sorry Atari, but I'm going to play the trump card: IRAN and the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE).

During the debates, Obama said he would engage in direct talks with Iran because he felt that diplomacy was the best solution to fixing the tension there. Hillary, got her first dig against Obama on this issue. She called Obama "irresponsible" and said he didn't have the credentials for leadership based on his position on Iran.

Her justification for NOT supporting diplomacy with Iran had to do with her belief that the Iranians were enriching weapons-grade plutonium.

Well, lo and behold, Hillary "foreign policy experience" Clinton got it wrong. The BUSH ADMINISTRATION'S National Intelligence Estimate confirmed that Iran has NOT been enriching weapons grade plutonium for at least three (3) years.

She attacked the guy who got it right!

PLEASE respond, Nathan.

I would invite you read the bullet points in the executive summary of the NIE, which clearly states this (or one of the million articles that has been written about it).

Posted by: illclinton | March 13, 2008 11:17 PM

As someone who advised Senator Clinton on the Northern Ireland Peace Process in her U.S. Senate office from 2004-2007, I can tell you she was deeply involved. People making false and baseless accusations about Hillary's record are absurd. Ask any of us who were actually in the room when she met with the SDLP, UUP, DUP, Sinn Fein, Taoiseach Bertie Ahern and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland Peter Hain. And why are people overlooking the work she did with Vital Voices and women leaders in Northern Ireland? Senator George Mitchell, Nobel Laureate John Hume, Deputy First Minister Martin McGuinness and the women leaders have all attested to Hillary's work because she actually did something in the peace process. The media should call those people out who are making these false claims and look at their motives.

Those of us who were in the room - in Washington, D.C., Ireland, and Northern Ireland - rest easy this St. Patrick's Day knowing there is peace in Northern Ireland because of the efforts of Senator Hillary Clinton and so many others.

Instead of making false accusations, I would encourage those who pretend to care about Northern Ireland to look at the facts.

Hillary has walked the walk with so many people from Ireland and Northern Ireland. She can stand proudly behind her efforts.

Posted by: Sean Patrick O'Shea | March 14, 2008 9:56 AM

TO: bcurtis

The two points you mentioned were two problems that I addressed with Hillary which I would like you to respond to.


If she has declared that she will release them, then why not NOW as Obama has done?

Why put off releasing the returns until only ONE WEEK before the Pennsylvania primary? She should at least explain why.

Please explain to me her reasons for waiting to release them. I want to know where she and Bill get their money...why don't they want me to know?


You said Bush was withholding them.


It's not Bush, it's Bill. Unlike you, I can back it up. Please see this Newsweek article written by Michael Isikoff that shows how right I am and how wrong you are:

Nevertheless, proud that you're a Democrat.

Posted by: illclinton | March 14, 2008 8:59 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.


© 2007 The Washington Post Company