Saturday
08Mar2008
Hillary's Foreign Policy Experience Comes Down To... A Speech?
cross posted to Jack & Jill Politics
Oh this is good. This is so very good. I may be the first to catch this one. Check it.
Hillary has been blasting Obama, claiming his foreign policy credentials come down to a speech he gave in 2002 in opposition to the Iraq war. In the process, she has elevated and allied herself with John McCain, an extraordinary move for someone who wants to be the Democratic nominee.
So what is Hillary Clinton's foreign policy experience? The Chicago Tribune has written a story focusing on her primary claims of influence.
1. That she helped bring peace to Northern Ireland by involving women's groups.
Verdict: nah.
2. That she advocated for use of US military force in Rwanda
Verdict: nope.
3. That she negotiated with Macedonia to open up its border to refugees from Kosovo.
Verdict: uh uh.
4. That she delivered a speech at the United Nations' women's conference in Beijing with a strong demand for women's rights.
Verdict: yes
So let's just review. Hillary has claimed she is vastly more prepared to lead America in a foreign crisis than Barack Obama, whose only legitimate claim is a speech. When asked, she cites four incidents. Three of these are unsubstantiated, which is my fancy, college-educated way of saying "bullshit." The one remaining claim that may be valid is actually a speech? A speech that inspired people? You've got to be kidding me.
So when Barack Obama speaks, it's words without substance, but when Hillary Clinton speaks, it's highly relevant foreign policy experience so valuable that it prepares her to manage an international crisis.
She needs to be consistent. Either words matter or they don't. I think they do. I think words matter when they are used to exaggerate the role you played in your husband's administration. I think words matter when they are used to fan the flames of racial and religious bigotry. I think words matter when they are used to undermine the likely nominee of what you claim is your political party.
Hillary Clinton is a fraud. Her campaign is increasingly based on false logic and false information. She is becoming so absurd, that it's absurd to even point out the absurdity. Hillary was rated as one of the top women lawyers in the U.S. some years ago. Any lawyer will tell you words matter. She knows better. We really need to put an end to this.
Oh this is good. This is so very good. I may be the first to catch this one. Check it.
Hillary has been blasting Obama, claiming his foreign policy credentials come down to a speech he gave in 2002 in opposition to the Iraq war. In the process, she has elevated and allied herself with John McCain, an extraordinary move for someone who wants to be the Democratic nominee.
So what is Hillary Clinton's foreign policy experience? The Chicago Tribune has written a story focusing on her primary claims of influence.
1. That she helped bring peace to Northern Ireland by involving women's groups.
Verdict: nah.
But her involvement in the Northern Ireland peace process was primarily to encourage activism among women's groups there, a contribution that the lead U.S. negotiator described as "helpful" but that an Irish historian who has written extensively about the conflict dismissed as "ancillary" to the peace process.
2. That she advocated for use of US military force in Rwanda
Verdict: nope.
Whatever her private conversations with the president may have been, key foreign policy officials say that a U.S. military intervention in Rwanda was never considered in the Clinton administration's policy deliberations. Despite lengthy memoirs by both Clintons and former Secretary of State and UN Ambassador Madeleine Albright, any advice she gave on Rwanda had not been mentioned until her presidential campaign.
3. That she negotiated with Macedonia to open up its border to refugees from Kosovo.
Verdict: uh uh.
The Macedonian government opened its border to refugees the day before Clinton arrived to meet with government leaders. And her mission to Bosnia was a one-day visit in which she was accompanied by performers Sheryl Crow and Sinbad, as well as her daughter, Chelsea, according to the commanding general who hosted her.
4. That she delivered a speech at the United Nations' women's conference in Beijing with a strong demand for women's rights.
Verdict: yes
"In the years since, I have met many women from many places who tell me they were at Beijing, or had friends who were, or who were inspired by the conference to launch initiatives," [Former Secretary of State] Albright wrote in her 2003 memoir.
The speech might never have happened if the first lady had not pressed for it, said one former Clinton administration official sympathetic to her candidacy who traveled with her and Albright to Beijing. The administration was conflicted about whether Hillary Clinton should go to Beijing at all because of the regime's record on human rights.
"Yet she was determined to go and was convinced that her going would send a very strong signal of support for human rights," said the official, who spoke on the condition that he not be named. "Everyone at the end of the process almost certainly would have said, 'How could we be so foolish to question the wisdom of the trip?'"
Still, [Former Assistant Secretary of State Susan] Rice questioned whether that trip amounted to the kind of preparation for a global crisis that Clinton has claimed.
"How does going to Beijing and giving a speech show crisis management? There was no crisis. And there was nothing to manage," Rice said.
So let's just review. Hillary has claimed she is vastly more prepared to lead America in a foreign crisis than Barack Obama, whose only legitimate claim is a speech. When asked, she cites four incidents. Three of these are unsubstantiated, which is my fancy, college-educated way of saying "bullshit." The one remaining claim that may be valid is actually a speech? A speech that inspired people? You've got to be kidding me.
So when Barack Obama speaks, it's words without substance, but when Hillary Clinton speaks, it's highly relevant foreign policy experience so valuable that it prepares her to manage an international crisis.
She needs to be consistent. Either words matter or they don't. I think they do. I think words matter when they are used to exaggerate the role you played in your husband's administration. I think words matter when they are used to fan the flames of racial and religious bigotry. I think words matter when they are used to undermine the likely nominee of what you claim is your political party.
Hillary Clinton is a fraud. Her campaign is increasingly based on false logic and false information. She is becoming so absurd, that it's absurd to even point out the absurdity. Hillary was rated as one of the top women lawyers in the U.S. some years ago. Any lawyer will tell you words matter. She knows better. We really need to put an end to this.
tagged 
Barack Obama, Chicago, Hillary Clinton in Election 2008
Barack Obama, Chicago, Hillary Clinton in Election 2008 
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (4)
Why do so many people keep on voting for her when her previous life has been totally full of contraversy and negative events? It scares me that our country will be ruled by old white ladies (I am one) and uneducated blue collar workers (my Dad was one) who decide the nomination.
Hi Baratunde,
I have to say that as a McCain supporter I am enjoying the Democratic fight. Whether it's Clinton bashing Obama or the other way around, we win.
Neither side is going to have a majority of delegates by the time the primary season is over. Either way, Clinton or Obama will have to rely on super-delegates.
So, in the meantime, I think there are two things Obama and his campaign should doing.
1. Stop expecting to knock Hillary out of the race. Obama keeps letting Hillary back into the race by acting as if he deserves the win. This has happened in NH, on Super Tuesday, and again in TX & OH. Even the "Yes, We Can" speech was a victory speech that he had to deliver after losing. Just be patient and keep making your case and let Hillary punch herself out.
2. Stop complaining about Clinton's tactics. Both sides have hit below the belt. It hurts, but you've got to look bigger than that. Geraldine Ferraro said some stupid things but Orlando Patterson looked silly, also. Focus on the issues. Don't try to turn your opponents into "monsters"--what did John McCain have to do with slavery, for example?
Obama's biggest problem is that he can't win the big blue states. That will be the core of Clinton's case to the Democratic Party. So, focus on Obama's biggest asset--the new voters he brings with him. Don't threaten to burn Denver! Sheesh! Just make it clear that the Dems shouldn't blow the opportunity to finally get youth & black voters to the polls.
Also remember this: win or lose, Obama should be around to fight the next election. And he will be, too--unless his campaign sacrifices his credibility in a hail of negativity. The attacks on John McCain have been pretty lousy--all that 100-years and Bush-McCain nonsense. If you believe in a new politics, then let's see it, Senator.
So get out there and fight the good fight. And please pass the popcorn.
J
Hi Joel. I have a few responses, though I'm not Baratunde.
I was born and raised in Arizona state, and might have supported John McCain in 2000. I read his tearjerker of a book, Faith of my Fathers, and I admire him as a person who served in the military and for his time as a POW. As a politician, Sen. McCain has spoken well of Democrats in the past, but his voting record has become more conservative this decade. On several occasions he has let his temper get the best of him and fought with his colleagues on both sides of the aisle. He is a good candidate, but Obama is much better.
Obama's plurality of delegates is going to be impossible to exceed unless Sen. Clinton starts winning multiple contests with a margin of greater than 70%. Winning Mississippi more than made up for the delegate loss (-6, I believe) on the day of the Ohio primary. Sen. Obama is winning the popular vote by a large margin, and if the superdelegates overturn the popular decision, the Democratic party will be in turmoil-- so I'm not worried about that happening.
Mr. Patterson is a scholar of race-related issues whose comments may seem silly to you, but his training leads him to look for racism in sources. Because of this, he may see it where we do not. Unintentional and ambiguous racism is common in the United States, though blatant racism is no longer well-tolerated. Ms. Ferraro, on the other hand, implied that Obama's candidacy owed everything to his race when all the evidence is to the contrary. Youth and black voters are the obvious demographics supporting Sen. Obama, but his support is strong across the board (leading to victories in states like IA,WY,WI,CO,VT,and MN).
Sticking to the issues is admirable, but not as useful in a primary where the candidates' positions are so similar. Americans vote for their President based on personal experiences, perceived integrity and character, and their allegiances. As a former community organizer, Obama knows how to get people involved: first, you give them reason to want change, then give them hope, convince them of the urgency of the situation, and make it clear that their involvement is critical. For people concerned about civil rights in the United States, McCain may not be a good choice-- not because he represents slavery, but because he's voted 0% with the ACLU on civil rights issues.
If Obama is the Democratic nominee, he will win the big blue states. This isn't even an issue.
When it comes to the general campaign, Obama's criticisms of McCain have been policy-related. Pres. Bush and Sen. McCain, though at odds eight years ago, have moved closer and closer in recent years. If he wins the presidency, the country can expect a continuation of Bush's aggressive, unpopular foreign policy and far-right domestic programs. Sen. McCain's support of the Iraq war and is going to be noted continuously, and it's not an unfair attack. If Obama can win on the argument that our involvement in the Iraq war needs to be carefully and quickly ended and not continued as McCain and Bush have argued, he needs to keep making that case to the American people. Bringing up McCain's allegiance to the failed policies of the current administration is completely warranted.
Obama's campaign is fighting in a nonviolent sense. His supporters occasionally get riled up, and the media would like to prolong the contest, but the overall goal is to take the high road and make ad hominem and strawman attacks a thing of the past. I hope he succeeds-- and I agree that continuing to make a strong positive case is the best bet of Obama's team, even when Sen. Clinton's negatives are tempting.
Thanks,
Vanessa
People will believe anything. If I tell people that Coca Cola inhibits cancer, and I happen to have a radio show or TV show on which to announce this, some people will believe me, and fervently argue against the Pepsi-heads and cola-bashers everywhere. Keith Olbermann and Rush Limbaugh alike will choose sides and vehemently support or decry my claims.
Most of these people will never take a moment to research what they are arguing about. "I heard" becomes "I read" becomes "I know someone involved, and it is definitely true!" What a country!
Thanks, by the way, for: "Three of these are unsubstantiated, which is my fancy, college-educated way of saying 'bullshit.'" I hope you don't mind if I use that, except I'll need to change it to high school-educated!
This fight ultimately saddens me, because as time wears on, there are increasingly larger numbers of democrats who plug their ears and and shout "nah nah nah nah" whenever faced with actual data rather than opinion on both sides. We will be in jeopardy of losing the election to John McCain if we cannot heal these wounds. I have personally witnessed people stating, "If Obama wins, I'm voting for McCain" within hours of hearing "If Hillary wins, I'm voting for McCain." It sickens me not only as an American, but as a rational, thinking human.
I'm glad, however, to see actual data being used to identify falsehood. Clinton supporters blindly tout that Clinton has the most foreign policy experience. You've debunked 3 out of 4 claims. Being there is not the same as being involved. Look, I've been to a lot of grocery stores, but that doesn't make me fit to run the produce departemnt, or manage the whole store!
I hope this ends before the convention, because we need to move on with a strategy to get this country back on track. I'm tired of being hated by over 5 billion other people.
J II