Letters to the Editor
-
McCain must be licking his (substantial) chops
McCain must relish the fact that he won't have to do any swiftboating against the Dems...they are already doing it to each other.
-
compare and contrast
We can compare Obama's experience to Hillary's oh wait, he doesn't have any.
-
Obama "got it right" when it was easy
Sorry, Obama, but next time you're in the Senate and have to make a decision that might get you crucified by your voters, we'll say you "got it right."
Clinton, a New York senator, made the decision that her voters wanted. Now, the American public regrets that decision and would like to blame the filthy politicians for supporting a war that it, too, supported.
Obama, an Illinois legislator at the time, didn't have to make any decision at all. (Though he has had plenty of opportunity to take a stand since then, and has failed to do so.)
He didn't get it right, he just had it easy.
-
Contrast and compare...
We could compare their experience, if only Her Imperial Majesty would discuss that pesky Iraq decision that she so completely failed on. Oh wait, she won't admit that it was a failure....
Although she does now state that she thought by voting for the "Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq," she was voting for increased inspections.
Which manages to call into question her judgement, her veracity and her reading ability simultaneously....
-
@Rosenkavalier
I'm not so sure war with Iraq is what New Yorkers wanted, maybe you can show me some polling data that shows 90% of New Yorkers wanted to go to war...
what I DO know is that upwards of 400,000 people marched in New York City to protest the upcoming war...that's not an insignificant number.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/February_15,_2003_anti-war_protest#New_York
(but thank you for not trotting out the whole "New York was attacked on 9/11 - she HAD to authorize the war in Iraq" argument. That one really chaps my ass)
-
Finally
Glad to see someone finally questioning Clinton's ridiculous "experienced" claim. If eight years as first lady makes her qualified to be President, then I wonder why Laura Bush isn't running.
-
here's something
http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html
First of all, there's the Clinton speech when she (and the majority of both Republicans and Democrats) voted to authorize military force in Iraq if diplomacy failed. The fact that diplomacy failed is hardly her fault, but Bush's, thank you very much.
http://www.cfr.org/publication.html?id=5051
Here is an article with some statistics about American support of the Iraq War in 2002. No specifics on New York, but do you really think New York would have been much different from the rest of the country?
-
Decision
Clinton, a New York senator, made the decision that her voters wanted...
That is the whole point. She failed to show leadership in the most important vote of our time. Obama provided the arguments, but Clinton still failed to use them to build opposition to the war. Had she done so, she would now be hailed as a great leader.
She apparently failed to realize that many of her voters had been bushwhacked with White House propaganda. She failed to denounce the mass media for their slavish propagation of White House disinformation.
She failed to correctly understand the line between intelligence and propaganda.
When she was given responsibility for health care reform, she again failed to show the necessary leadership to make her case to the American people or to get powerful interests on her side.
Hillary has been hailed, at least in her own propaganda, as one of the smartest women of her generation, yet she failed the DC bar exam, a bar exam that every practising lawyer in Washington must have passed.
She has a history of failing the big tests.
Her biggest success was in backing a political winner in her choice of spouse.
She ain't that smart, folks.
-
taking extra credit
Whether or not you agree with HRC's vote on Authorization to Use Force in Iraq, Obama can *not* claim he "made the right choice." He wasn't in the US Senate, and he didn't vote on the issue. On this issue, he was *no* *different* that you, me, or any other US citizen.
HRC's vote is fair game: Obama can criticize her record all he wants. But he can't take credit for something he didn't do.
-
experience
HRC's "35 years of experience" claim doesn't hold water. She has only held elected office for 7 years, so I presume she is counting everything since law school as experience. If that is the case, then the only difference in the two candidates' experience is the difference in their ages.
HRC has 7 years of legislatiive experience. Obama has 1O. HRC was first lady for 8 years, and her experience during that time is outlined in the memo in this post. Prior to that she was a lawyer. Obama taught constitutuonal law for 11 years (the sort of expertise we need right now), he was a lawyer, and a community organizer.
As the memo points out, Obama has more foreign policy experience than either Bill Clinton or Reagan did when they took office.
The "Obama is inexperienced while HRC has 35 years" myth is just an empty talking point and I hope this memo finally puts it to rest. 8 years living in the WH is not a prerequisite for the presidency. That's because we have term limits...nobody starts the job with experience being president.
And if you remember what the climate was like in 2002, you realize that standing up against the war was a dangerous thing to do back then, polotically. It took guts to do that, even in a speech. I respect him for it.
-
"the Commander- in-Chief test"
WTF is the Commander- in-Chief test? Has this been defined? How has her and McCain past it and Obama has not? What does this even mean?
Someone needs to explain this, else it is just nonsense.
-
Hillary's claims about her work in Rwanda are laughable, as her husband let hundreds of thousands die horribly
Clinton shouldn't even bring up Rwanda. The U.S.'s thumb-twiddling during that genocide is one of Bill Clinton's most shameful failures.
-
Hillary Clinton's Experience
HRC's experience in foreign policy is minimal. There is some but very little. Is that more than Obama? Clearly.
However the fact remains that neither candidate has a treasure trove of foreign policy experience. Most of their work is, as it should be, on domestic issues. However, HRC has made a big issue of her alleged experience because she wants to hit out at Obama at his weakest point. The problem with that is two-fold: First, Hillary's own experience by any fair accounting except her own is MINIMAL. Secondly, she made a colossal mistake in judgement by voting for the Iraq war.
But let's examine the record on experience in foreign policy. Unless I am greatly mistaken, the Bush admin is chock full of the most experienced people you could find. Decades of it. Certainly not Bush (prior to his role as president) but Cheney and others.
Someone please outline for me how "foreign policy experience" has benefitted the American people over the past 7 yrs? I'd really love to know.
Personally, I want someone in office who shares my priorities and values and maintaining a 100 yrs war or capitulating at every turn isn't one of them.