Obama Camp: Clinton Foreign Policy A Dramatized Assertion, Clinton Calls His Iraq Plan "Just Words"

The Obama campaign has released an exhaustive memo on Hillary Clinton's foreign policy experience. They argue that Sen. Clinton's claim that she has passed a Commander-in-Chief threshold is "mere assertion, dramatized in a scary television commercial." They also detail each of the foreign policy situations -- Northern Ireland, Bosnia, Kosovo, Rwanda and China -- that Sen. Clinton has mentioned during the campaign.

Meanwhile, Sen. Clinton has sought to preempt a scheduled environment speech for Obama today. Co-opting his phrase, she calls both his environmental policy and his promise to withdraw from Iraq "just words."

Read Obama's memo (Clinton statement below):

To: Interested Parties From: Greg Craig, former director, Policy Planning Office, U.S. State Department RE: Senator Clinton's claim to be experienced in foreign policy: Just words? DA: March 11, 2008

When your entire campaign is based upon a claim of experience, it is important that you have evidence to support that claim. Hillary Clinton's argument that she has passed "the Commander- in-Chief test" is simply not supported by her record.

There is no doubt that Hillary Clinton played an important domestic policy role when she was First Lady. It is well known, for example, that she led the failed effort to pass universal health insurance. There is no reason to believe, however, that she was a key player in foreign policy at any time during the Clinton Administration. She did not sit in on National Security Council meetings. She did not have a security clearance. She did not attend meetings in the Situation Room. She did not manage any part of the national security bureaucracy, nor did she have her own national security staff. She did not do any heavy-lifting with foreign governments, whether they were friendly or not. She never managed a foreign policy crisis, and there is no evidence to suggest that she participated in the decision-making that occurred in connection with any such crisis. As far as the record shows, Senator Clinton never answered the phone either to make a decision on any pressing national security issue - not at 3 AM or at any other time of day.

When asked to describe her experience, Senator Clinton has cited a handful of international incidents where she says she played a central role. But any fair-minded and objective judge of these claims - i.e., by someone not affiliated with the Clinton campaign - would conclude that Senator Clinton's claims of foreign policy experience are exaggerated.

Northern Ireland:

Senator Clinton has said, "I helped to bring peace to Northern Ireland." It is a gross overstatement of the facts for her to claim even partial credit for bringing peace to Northern Ireland. She did travel to Northern Ireland, it is true. First Ladies often travel to places that are a focus of U.S. foreign policy. But at no time did she play any role in the critical negotiations that ultimately produced the peace. As the Associated Press recently reported, "[S]he was not directly involved in negotiating the Good Friday peace accord." With regard to her main claim that she helped bring women together, she did participate in a meeting with women, but, according to those who know best, she did not play a pivotal role. The person in charge of the negotiations, former Senator George Mitchell, said that "[The First Lady] was one of many people who participated in encouraging women to get involved, not the only one."

Story continues below

News of Senator Clinton's claims has raised eyebrows across the ocean. Her reference to an important meeting at the Belfast town hall was debunked. Her only appearance at the Belfast City Hall was to see Christmas lights turned on. She also attended a 50-minute meeting which, according to the Belfast Daily Telegraph's report at the time, "[was] a little bit stilted, a little prepared at times." Brian Feeney, an Irish author and former politician, sums it up: "The road to peace was carefully documented, and she wasn't on it."

Bosnia:

Senator Clinton has pointed to a March 1996 trip to Bosnia as proof that her foreign travel involved a life-risking mission into a war zone. She has described dodging sniper fire. While she did travel to Bosnia in March 1996, the visit was not a high-stakes mission to a war zone. On March 26, 1996, the New York Times reported that "Hillary Rodham Clinton charmed American troops at a U.S.O. show here, but it didn't hurt that the singer Sheryl Crow and the comedian Sinbad were also on the stage."

Kosovo:

Senator Clinton has said, "I negotiated open borders to let fleeing refugees into safety from Kosovo." It is true that, as First Lady, she traveled to Macedonia and visited a Kosovar refugee camp. It is also true that she met with government officials while she was there. First Ladies frequently meet with government officials. Her claim to have "negotiated open borders to let fleeing refugees into safety from Kosovo," however, is not true. Her trip to Macedonia took place on May 14, 1999. The borders were opened the day before, on May 13, 1999.

The negotiations that led to the opening of the borders were accomplished by the people who ordinarily conduct negotiations with foreign governments - U.S. diplomats. President Clinton's top envoy to the Balkans, former Ambassador Robert Gelbard, said, "I cannot recall any involvement by Senator Clinton in this issue." Ivo Daalder worked on the Clinton Administration's National Security Council and wrote a definitive history of the Kosovo conflict. He recalls that "she had absolutely no role in the dirty work of negotiations."

Rwanda:

Last year, former President Clinton asserted that his wife pressed him to intervene with U.S. troops to stop the Rwandan genocide. When asked about this assertion, Hillary Clinton said it was true. There is no evidence, however, to suggest that this ever happened. Even those individuals who were advocating a much more robust U.S. effort to stop the genocide did not argue for the use of U.S. troops. No one recalls hearing that Hillary Clinton had any interest in this course of action. Based on a fair and thorough review of National Security Council deliberations during those tragic months, there is no evidence to suggest that U.S. military intervention was ever discussed. Prudence Bushnell, the Assistant Secretary of State with responsibility for Africa, has recalled that there was no consideration of U.S. military intervention.

At no time prior to her campaign for the presidency did Senator Clinton ever make the claim that she supported intervening militarily to stop the Rwandan genocide. It is noteworthy that she failed to mention this anecdote - urging President Clinton to intervene militarily in Rwanda - in her memoirs. President Clinton makes no mention of such a conversation with his wife in his memoirs. And Madeline Albright, who was Ambassador to the United Nations at the time, makes no mention of any such event in her memoirs.

Hillary Clinton did visit Rwanda in March 1998 and, during that visit, her husband apologized for America's failure to do more to prevent the genocide.

China

Senator Clinton also points to a speech that she delivered in Beijing in 1995 as proof of her ability to answer a 3 AM crisis phone call. It is strange that Senator Clinton would base her own foreign policy experience on a speech that she gave over a decade ago, since she so frequently belittles Barack Obama's speeches opposing the Iraq War six years ago. Let there be no doubt: she gave a good speech in Beijing, and she stood up for women's rights. But Senator Obama's opposition to the War in Iraq in 2002 is relevant to the question of whether he, as Commander-in-Chief, will make wise judgments about the use of military force. Senator Clinton's speech in Beijing is not.

Senator Obama's speech opposing the war in Iraq shows independence and courage as well as good judgment. In the speech that Senator Clinton says does not qualify him to be Commander in Chief, Obama criticized what he called "a rash war . . . a war based not on reason, but on passion, not on principle, but on politics." In that speech, he said prophetically: "[E]ven a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences." He predicted that a U.S. invasion of Iraq would "fan the flames of the Middle East," and "strengthen the recruitment arm of al Qaeda." He urged the United States first to "finish the fight with Bin Laden and al Qaeda."

If the U.S. government had followed Barack Obama's advice in 2002, we would have avoided one of the greatest foreign policy catastrophes in our nation's history. Some of the most "experienced" men in national security affairs - Vice President Cheney and Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and others - led this nation into that catastrophe. That lesson should teach us something about the value of judgment over experience. Longevity in Washington, D.C. does not guarantee either wisdom of judgment.

Conclusion:

The Clinton campaign's argument is nothing more than mere assertion, dramatized in a scary television commercial with a telephone ringing in the middle of the night. There is no support for or substance in the claim that Senator Clinton has passed "the Commander-in-Chief test." That claim - as the TV ad - consists of nothing more than making the assertion, repeating it frequently to the voters and hoping that they will believe it.

On the most critical foreign policy judgment of our generation - the War in Iraq - Senator Clinton voted in support of a resolution entitled "The Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of U.S. Military Force Against Iraq." As she cast that vote, she said: "This is probably the hardest decision I have ever had to make -- any vote that may lead to war should be hard -- but I cast it with conviction." In this campaign, Senator Clinton has argued - remarkably - that she wasn't actually voting for war, she was voting for diplomacy. That claim is no more credible than her other claims of foreign policy experience. The real tragedy is that we are still living with the terrible consequences of her misjudgment. The Bush Administration continues to cite that resolution as its authorization - like a blank check - to fight on with no end in sight.

Barack Obama has a very simple case. On the most important commander in chief test of our generation, he got it right, and Senator Clinton got it wrong. In truth, Senator Obama has much more foreign policy experience than either Bill Clinton or Ronald Reagan had when they were elected. Senator Obama has worked to confront 21st century challenges like proliferation and genocide on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He possesses the personal attributes of a great leader - an even temperament, an open-minded approach to even the most challenging problems, a willingness to listen to all views, clarity of vision, the ability to inspire, conviction and courage.

And Barack Obama does not use false charges and exaggerated claims to play politics with national security.

After seven years of an energy policy written by and for the oil companies - with help from Dick Cheney - oil has now reached $107 a barrel - and gas prices in some areas are approaching $4 a gallon.

I understand Senator Obama is talking about energy today, right here in Pennsylvania. And that's great. But talking about problems is easy. Solving problems is hard. And speeches are no substitute for solutions. Speeches won't lower gas prices, stop climate change, or lessen our dependence on oil from Saudi Arabia.

The true test comes when it's time to match rhetoric with results. And unfortunately, we've seen that Senator Obama's promises and speeches are often just words.

On the campaign trail, Senator Obama talks about clean energy. But in the Senate, he voted for Dick Cheney's energy bill loaded with new tax breaks for oil companies. When he faced a tough choice, his support for a clean energy future turned out to be just words.

It's like how he talks about fixing NAFTA. But his top economic adviser assured the Canadian government that he wouldn't really follow through. His position? Just words.

Senator Obama promises to withdraw from Iraq within 16 months. But his top foreign policy adviser said he's not really going to rely on that plan. I guess that plan is just words, too.

We need a president who will solve problems. Who will fight for our families long after the speeches are over and the cameras are gone. That's the choice in this campaign: Solutions you can rely on - versus words you can't.

Comments

[TommyMcCarthy]

to the moderator: I posted a comment on this thread some 5-6 hours ago. Literally dozens of comments posted WELL after are now up. At the time there were 0 comments up and a handful pending.
Question. Has the comment been scrubbed for it's content? Thank you.......................................tm

[NetProphet]

As Ed Randell (PA Gov) once said,"We want a President who IS ready - not one who we hope WILL BE ready. "

[mcfried]

Rendell also said he is ok overturning the will of the people because his judgment is better. Rendell Sucks.

[nellie]

That's why Obama is the better choice.

[abot]

NetProphet

Thats funny did you not read this story. Hillary has exaggerated or shoudl I say lied about her so-called foreign affairs experience,

We need a president who IS not gong to lie about their experience.

Here is another article debunking her foreign affairs experience
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-experiencemar07,0,51719.story

Here is an article of Sinbad talking about his USO tour trip with HRC to bosnia. Hmmm yes a USO tour show is what I call foreign affairs experience.
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/sleuth/2008/03/sinbad_unloads_on_hillary_clin.html

I think the only phone call she is going to answer at 3am is to arrange a goodwill tour for Paris Hilton.

[UrbanRevolution]

based on what?

[Schnitzel]

That pretty much counts Hillary out.

[Tankan]

Voting for the war in Iraq was "just words"

Words that have cost close to four thousand soldiers and countless civillians lives!

But do the ready from day one lying warmongers care?

[dragonfly142]

Most of Obamas endorsers ; John Kerry, Tom Daschle, Chriss Dodd, Menendez all voted the same as Hillary..Obama wrote in his Audacity book. That his position wasn't much different than George Bush's and that had he been privy to US intelligence reports or had he been in the US senate he may have felt differently. Of course he wasn't in the U.S. senate..not for 3 more years so he couldn't vote and he was not privy to any intelligence.....so his was nothing more than a state senator trying to get re-elected in a very liberal anti-war precinct. at an anti-war rally The people there wouldn't have accepted any other stance, but by his own admissions, if I were in the senate or if I voted which I didn't because I couldnt, and If I had intelligence I could have been different. Now he uses this against Hillary

[westreal]

Talk about embellishing your resume.

[abot]

I think lying is the appropriate word. Lets not use euphemistic words like embellish to dilute the situation.

[Independentjunkie]

Nowe a word from the other side of the coin ( 2 sides to a story)

Over the last few weeks, Sen. Obama has successfully undermined his credibility with a series of statements to reporters and voters that have been contradicted by the facts. Unfortunately, he’s doing it again today by having his campaign issue a fundamentally misleading attack aimed at glossing over the doubts Americans have about his readiness to be Commander-in-Chief. Once again, Senator Obama is proving the point that his campaign is about “just words.”

Despite making hard end-dates a centerpiece of his campaign, Senator Obama’s top foreign policy adviser said those plans are not anything he’ll rely on as president. Despite repeated denials and five different parsed statements by his campaign that have been called misleading by media reports, his top economic adviser did in fact dismiss Senator Obama’s NAFTA criticism to the Canadian government as just political rhetoric.

And now today, Senator Obama is at it again, sending a false attack memo from his campaign making claims that are contradicted by the facts. Still reeling from its losses in Ohio and Texas, the Obama campaign has come out swinging, taking aim at Senator Clinton’s considerable foreign policy experience with false claims and baseless attacks. After last week’s defeats, the Obama campaign faced a choice: try to convince voters that Senator Obama is ready to take the 3am phone call in a positive way or try to tear down Senator Clinton’s accomplishments.

Considering that his foreign policy adviser, Susan Rice, cited Senator Obama’s “legislation on ethics reform” when asked this morning about his foreign policy experience, it is clear that the Obama campaign is unable to make a positive case for its candidate’s experience. They have chosen to attack and today’s memo continues the pattern of statements contradicted by the facts. Given the credibility gap his campaign has developed over the last few weeks, these latest attacks today should not be believed.

There is a reason that thirty former Generals and Admirals have endorsed Senator Clinton — they know she is prepared to lead this nation as Commander in Chief with strength and experience on day one. Here are the facts about Hillary’s experience.

Northern Ireland:

The Obama campaign claims George Mitchell, the person in charge of the investigation, supports their view that Hillary’s claims about Northern Ireland are exaggerated. John Hume, who won the Nobel Prize for Peace for his work on Northern Ireland:

I can state from firsthand experience that she played a positive role for over a decade in helping to bring peace to Northern Ireland… 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.

George Mitchell, who is cited in the Obama memo as an authoritative source, told Katie Couric last night that Hillary played “a helpful and supportive role” in Northern Ireland that ended up making “a difference in the process.” He described what Hillary has said about her role as “accurate.”

More on Hillary’s work in Northern Ireland HERE.

Kosovo:

Concerning Kosovo, the Obama memo – citing their own advisers and supporters — falsely claims that Hillary played no role in the larger effort to open the border to more refugees. Richard Holbrooke, the architect of the Dayton Accords, lays out the facts:

It was dire in May 1999 when Hillary Clinton arrived in Macedonia. The government of Macedonia had slowed the flow of refugees from Kosovo to a trickle. After visiting refugees and gaining a first-hand assessment of the situation, the First Lady had intense talks with President Gligorov and Prime Minister Georgievski. In these talks, one in the Presidential Palace, another in the residence of the American Ambassador, Christopher Hill, Mrs. Clinton pressed the Macedonian government to fully open the border so that Kosovar Albanian refugees could flee the war zone to safety. She also committed herself to work with the government and people of Macedonia who also faced an emergency because of the threat to their own safety and stability. Hillary Clinton promised to take action to help the Macedonian economy. Returning to Washington, she pressed hard in the administration for action to support the Macedonians. She even contacted American business executives to ensure that American textile contracts in Macedonia were not canceled. There is no doubt in my mind, nor in the minds of those people I worked with in the Balkans at the time – that her intense efforts resulted in easing a crisis of significant dimensions and contributed to saving many lives.

Hillary’s trip to Kosovo in May 1999 took place during the air war over Kosovo. Despite concerns about security, she traveled to the international border on the edge of the war zone, and visited with refugees. More, including more testimonials, HERE.

Bosnia
The Obama campaign has resorted to mocking Hillary’s trip to Bosnia in 1996, belittling it as a U.S.O. tour and saying there was no danger. But Hillary toured the frontlines of the international peacekeeping mission. CNN reported:

At a second outpost, Camp Bedrock, Mrs. Clinton visited a M.A.S.H. unit, the only full-service U.S. Army hospital in Bosnia. The three-hour tour of the frontlines of the international peacekeeping mission were filled with the gritty reality of a military operation, a far cry from traditional first lady photo opportunities, and Mrs. Clinton seemed more than comfortable with that. [CNN, 3/25/99]

A day later, the Charleston Gazette reported that “Protected by sharpshooters, Hillary Rodham Clinton swooped into a military zone by Black Hawk helicopter Monday…This trip to Bosnia marks the first time since Roosevelt that a first lady has voyaged to a potential combat zone…”

China
The Obama campaign diminishes Hillary’s historic speech in Bejing as meaningless. But her speech at the conference – where she famously declared “women’s rights are human rights” spurred real action. The AP reported:

Brazil has promised free cancer-screening exams for women. The United States is spending $ 1.6 billion to try to end domestic violence. South African President Nelson Mandela is setting up a unit in his office to monitor the status of women. A year after 189 states pledged to make equality of the sexes a reality in the 21st century, many governments are crediting the conference for their latest steps to help women. ‘The momentum is on - and this momentum is not only by women but even by governments and by men,’ said Gertrude Mongella, secretary-general of the Fourth World Conference on Women that adopted a 150-page plan to achieve women’s equality. Inspired by last September’s U.N. conference in Beijing, five Mongolian women ran for parliament in June and won, bringing the total number of female legislators to seven out of 76. Women’s groups in Zaire joined forces to try to change laws that bar women from traveling or opening bank accounts without their husbands’ permission. [AP, 8/25/96]

Rwanda
On Rwanda, the Obama campaign is eager to diminish Hillary’s advocacy. Hillary visited to Rwanda in 1998 and her forceful public statements about the administration’s failings. This is how she described the trip and the administration’s followup in her book, Living History:

Expressing great regret for genocide in Rwanda and our legacy of slavery sent a message of concern and respect to Africans who confront the intertwined challenges of poverty, disease, repression, starvation, illiteracy and war. But Africa needs more than words; it needs investment and trade if its economics are ever going to develop. That requires both significant changes in most governments and a partnership with the United States. That’s why the African Growth and Opportunity At, which Bill proposed and Congress passed, is so critical. It creates incentives for American companies to do business in Africa.” [Living History, pg. 457]

The Obama campaign spends considerable time trying to “prove” that a private conversation between Hillary and President Clinton never happened.

[UrbanRevolution]

If she was so concerned about Rwanda why didn't she STOP the genocide from happening?

Brazil has promised free cancer-screening exams for women. (and what does this have to do with foreign policy?)

Kosovo - SHE SAID SHE HELPED OPEN THE BOARDERS - they were opened before she got there

China - just a speech - that doesn' t count remember

N. Ireland - people contradict what you are saying

Facts are these: NAFTA - the Canadian Embassy contradict what Clinton is saying - yet you believe her. Other Historians are contradicting what Clinton is saying, yet you believe her. hmmmm. I will concede that maybe she did more than some of the historians are saying and less than she is saying. Will you?

[fleetw1978]

Ask her what international crises she was fixinig when her husband was getting a blowjob in the oval office? Damn girl, cant even keep your man at home and you want to lead the "free world." Please...................Evidently Bill extra activities have been going on for some time. Yet she stayed in the relationship. There is something quite wrong about that judgement, sounds almost BUSHIE like in her behaviour. Nuff said, the "F"d up on the iraq vote, so she wont get mine in the Penn primary either. and I am a lifelong Kennedy democrat lib.

[lungfish]

This is all fluff and nonsense...for example, Hillary was in Kosovo for a USO show.... and never in danger as she has made comments to imply that she was... Her resume is all fluff and her tactics including the deliberate falsification of the truth around the 'NAFTAgate' matter as well as other misrepresentations and outright lies and falsehoods adequately demonstrate to this Independant voter that she is driven by a desire for power and that she does not have the best interests of the US in mind. If she gets the nomination, she will have the hell swiftboated out of her and that is why the GOP are just hoping that she comes out on top.
Her comments about McCain being more fit to CinC than Obama were demonstrative of the depths she is willing to go to as are her lies and misrepresentation of her own role in the NAFTA comments. At least Obama addressed the matter in terms of nuance.
I was a Hillary supporter until I saw just how powerhungry and inappropriate her commentary and behavior have been in contrast to Obama taking the high road.
Hillary's suggestion that Obama take the VP position in a dream ticket when she is losing the campaign for the nomination and would have to win by wide margins in every contest to close the gap is beyond arrogance....

[abot]

Links that debunks HRC's Foreign Affairs experience

From:
The Chicago Tribune
The London Telegraph
The Dublin Independant

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/hume-and-trimble-clash-over-clintons-peace-role-1311181.html

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/hume-and-trimble-clash-over-clintons-peace-role-1311181.html

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-experiencemar07,0,51719.story

[joehigashi]

Northern Ireland is going to forever be a moot point. Some big names will attest to her role in the peace process, others will dismiss it. I'm an Obama supporter, but I'll give her the benefit of the doubt here, because she does genuinely seem to have quite a few non-partisan voices pulling for her.

However, these other claims are really exaggerated. I'm sorry. First of all, it's so eye-rollingly sad that she will skewer Obama for providing partisan testimony against her time in Kosovo and then try to counter with...Hillary supporter, Richard Holbrooke. Unlike Ireland, there actually is scant evidence that she did anything major in either Kosovo or Bosnia. Sinbad attests to it, as do some noted people involved there. One Clinton supporter doesn't tip the probability in her favor. Obama's memo states simply that she talks about negotiating opening up borders, when in fact she arrived the day after the border was opened up. So...where is the answer to that?

Finally...Rwanda? Are you serious? What better way to support Hillary's claims to critical involvement in the Rwandan genocide by citing Hillary Clinton! In her memoirs! Because we all know a memoir has never been written with the intent embellish one's accomplishments. Rwanda is the biggest ladle of tripe of all her claims, seeing as how even if she was "concerned," she did little to change the situation.

I mean, Obama is totally justified in pointing this out. Hillary is the one who has made experience the crux of her entire campaign, the very lynchpin of her electability. But the more she articulates it, the more she wants to portray herself as some superdiplomat/commando, dodging sniper fire while altering the political landscape of China. I'm sure she has some experience, but a lot of what she's touting is kind of bogus.

Frankly, I don't get what the big deal of "being ready on day one" is. Don't pundits always make a big deal over how the President tends to have a "honeymoon" period immediately after he is sworn into office? I don't believe we live in the perpetual threat of being nuked, which is the only reason I could ever imagine needing a President who is "ready to go on day one." Obama is more than capable, and he's smart and thoughtful.

See, this is why I can't stand Hillary anymore. Her entire campaign is propped up on lobbyist money, fine print, word twisting, and spin. She doesn't admit she was wrong about Iraq, and she stubbornly insists on very dubious claims about her foreign policy experience, which I guess she doesn't expect people to see through. Frankly, I think these kind of unapologetic lies are kind of insulting. She doesn't feel like she owes us anything. At this point, for me, voting for Obama is as much about the positives as it is about her negatives.

[AnninCA]

Obama's own spokesperson reveals to us all the same lesson of Naftagate.....he'll say most anything to win.

12 months.......16 months...

Whatever it takes.

The truth is..........he's following Hillary.

why?

She's the real leader.

[mcfried]

AnninCA, why are you being unreasonable again, you seem to go through phases. Supporting Hillary is fine but swift boating (yes that is what you are doing) a fellow democrat is not OK. Stop it.

[LarBear]

AnninCA....
Don't you know when Obama plays to Fear it's a Positive Fear, LOL.. When Obama Lies it's a Positive Lie... When Obama attacks Hillary it's a Positive Campaign Strategy... When Hillary rebuttals him, she is "Swiftboating"... When Obama flip flops he is exercising, LOL...
Obama supporters are all Positive People who would never go Negative...
Obama supporters lQQk to Obama as being Hope and Change... Hope comes from within us... The idea one Person is going to Change the Corrupted Political Parties while running as a Candidate from one of them is Business as usual... Happens every Campaign... NOT a wise investment of one's "Hope Coin"...

[nellie]

Haven't you noticed that Hillary supporters have no other way of advocating for their candidate. They never put forth any accomplishments or legislative work to support her. They never put forth any policy positions. All they can do is attack Obama.

That says to me that Obama is the candidate of substance.

[lungfish]

It was Hillary that created NAFTA gate through HER comments to the Canadians that she won't even acknowledge but she continues to promote a factual lie because it works in her favor.... Just what we need in the WH, another liar.

[LaVieEnRose]

"She's the real leader."

How exactly did she pass the "leader" threshold?...by FOLLOWING Bill for 35 years?

[DeanLowe]

Yes Barack, just words.

[KQuark]

Most Obama supporters saw this coming. We knew that she was desperate to blunt Obama's momentum before the TX and OH primaries because she saw her dream of ruling America going down the toilet. So she threw any piece of shit out there and hoped some would stick. It did not mater to Hillary's sick political mind that most of what she said was fabricated. Hillary did not care because all she cared about were the goals directly in front of her. We Obama supporters know that McClinton is a purely Machiavellian thinker that does not have any real vision or principles of her own to share with Americans. We know Hillary is the epitome of cynical politicians that only end is gaining political power.

[NickOhio]

In all of the banter, back & forth between the Obama and Clinton camps, the nasty items come from the Clintons. This is disappointing, as I would like to believe that us Dems are above all of that. However, as we've seen in this campaign, obviously we are not.

While the memo was long, it was about time it surfaced. Why the MSM has not done this homework, only strikes to show their penchant for the Clintons and not Obama.

I truly wish this election to be behind us, with a Dem in the Oval Office. However, we must endure the next 8 mos. and do our best to make sure the Dems return to the White House and not on a visit with Pres. McCain.

Obama will win in Miss. and will take a significant number of delegates in PA. While it may be important to win in the large states, how many Repubs switched parties to vote for Clinton in an attempt to (allegedly) help McCain? And, in the large states, Clinton only won by a few votes and delegates. Obama has a good shot at winning this at the convention since he will command more delegates and may even have the edge on the total # of votes. Many undecided SDs are now beginning to state their support with many siding Obama. And, will Clinton eventually be hurt by the Spitzer calamity due to backlash? Will the SDs be concerned about Limbaugh's and Coulter's "support" of Clinton?

Obama provided the details on the claims made by Clinton. Hopefully, the general public will read it... we can only hope the MSM will actually publish it as written.

[CraigBennett]

It's time for Al Gore to step up and tell us of how Hillary Clinton gained experience managing foreign policy while first lady. What's his view concerning this?

[KQuark]

Time for Hillary to play the victim card AGAIN.

I predict she will say the media is all against her because they did not accept her trumped up lies about Obama.

The fact is that Hillary's foreign policy experience lies were spread bases on two bad possible reasons.

First she just made a cynical political calculation that even if she lies the media and the novice Obama campaign that she keeps on underestimated will not fact check her invalid assertions.

Second and probably worse she is so delusional and vain that she actually thought she had something to do with those foreign policy decisions.

[mcfried]

Try to post again.
NAFTA
Obama:Memo is consistent with his position, meeting was not as described so led to misunderstanding.
Hillary:Nafta great in speeches and in her book, Nafta not so great in Ohio.
Iraq
Obama:Samantha Power was consistent she simply said it would obviously depend on conditions on the ground.
Hillary:Flip Flopper Hillary on Iraq, yes time for the video again.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hwLaCb07lAs

[jazzman]

Hillary Clinton's assertion that she's qualified to be President because she was married to and travelled around with the former President is like Yoko Ono saying that she should be considered a Beatle.

[BitJam]

Clinton continues to repeat the Nafta-gate lies because the main stream media has given her a free pass and has refused to publicly debunk them. This is neither fair nor balanced, nor even good reproting. When one candidate spreads obvious lies about their opponent it is the duty of a free press to report the truth. But instead they sit on their hands. These lies from the Clinton campaign will be repeated until the main stream media refutes them.

I can understand why some elements in the conservative Canadian government wanted to spread lies to sabotage Obama's campaign in Ohio and Texas. And I certainly understand why Clinton repeats the lies but I don't fully understand why the main stream media has been letting the lies be repeated unchallenged. Maybe they are hoping for a Democratic bloodbath in August. And then if Clinton manages to eek out a win, they can expose the Nafta-gate lies after the convention to spoil her chances at winning the general election.

[abot]

it seems that the MSM doesn't seem to mention that the Canadian govermnt said there was no wink-wink:

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080302/nafta_memo_080303/20080303/

The Canadian Embassy in Washington issued a statement on Monday saying its envoys "regularly contact those involved in all of the Presidential campaigns and, periodically, report on these contacts to interested officials."

The statement went on to say that in the recent report from the Consulate General in Chicago, "there was no intention to convey, in any way, that Senator Obama and his campaign team were taking a different position in public from views expressed in private, including about NAFTA.

"We deeply regret any inference that may have been drawn to that effect."

The statement added that Canada will not "interfere" in the American electoral process.

[mcfried]

NAFTA - memo is consistent with his position, meeting was not as described so led to misunderstanding. Hillary,--- Nafta great in speechs and in her book, Nafta not great in Ohio.

Samantha Power was consistent she simply said it would obviously depend on conditions on the ground.
Flip Flopper Hillary on Iraq, yes time for the video again.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hwLaCb07lAs