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

[smzzzz]

-It says a lot about our media that the Obama campaign had to dig all these things up, when with a little research and effort, reporters could have done the same thing many months ago. But they are too busy preening on Hardball and acting as "expert" analysts of the horse race or writing snarky gossip like Dowd - research like this would require actually doing a reporter's job. Everything in this memo can be verified if reporters would take the time to do it, but something tells me they won't even take the time to read it, much less do their jobs and report the facts about Clinton's lies about her record. The narrative has been set for many of them, just as it was in 200 and 2004 when Gore and Kerry were inaccurately portrayed. Veering from the narrative by doing actual reporting and actual work would take courage and dedication to what journalism is supposed to be. For too many, that ship has sailed and, unfortunately, that is the main reason Hillary and her supporters are still able to spin their lies and while she is still considered by the MSM as a "credible" candidate.

[NoGoodNamesLeft]

and, with a little more research and effort you can find other sources that will say that Hillary did play a major role in these events.

And, with all the research in the world you will not find ANY foreign policy experience for Obama.

[robXdion]

So true.....

[cam]

Agreed - Hillary has little fear any reporter might challenge any fiction with fact and less that they might pursue the fact of the fiction.

[Researchguy66]

Ok here's a crazy thought...an effective tactic to neutralize the foreign policy experience issue would be to make the case for his foreign policy creds..why doesn't he just do that?

[KQuark]

Obama has successfully made the argument that he was right on Iraq when McHillary and McCrazy were not. When McClinton and McCrazy and even Bush said Obama was naive for wanting to attack Al Qaeda in Pakistan on actionable intelligence. Low and behold this was the exact policy Bush has uncharacteristically wisely used to attack Al Qaeda on two recent occasions take out one of Al Qaeda's key leaders.

Obama also made his foreign policy bones by reaching across the aisle to pass legislation for securing nuclear weapons in the former Soviet Union satellite nations.

Now name some of McClinton's foreign policy creds? She has none she will just say she was on the foreign relations committee.

[UrbanRevolution]

HE IS NOT running on experience - SHE IS. He's running on the same platform as Bill Clinton (who had no foreign policy experience) HOPE AND CHANGE
"Now one of Clinton’s laws of politics is this: If one candidate’s trying to scare you and the other one’s trying to get you to think, if one candidate’s appealing to your fears and the other one’s appealing to your hopes, you better vote for the person who wants you to think and hope."
-Bill Clinton, 2004
Why doesn't SHE JUST STICK TO HER CREDS and stop having her surrogates make RACIST or SLANDEROUS remarks? Ferraro is just another in a string of racists lined up behind Hillary. Then she apologizes and tries to distance herself. But I tell you what. I NO LONGER BELIEVE, NOR ACCEPT HER APOLOGIES. As I've said before, she is either a racist herself OR she has absolutely NO LEADERSHIP SKILLS because she cannot align her people around a COMMON SET OF VALUES!

[Stanley]

Elliot Spitzer has knocked Bill Clinton's pecadillo's right back in the front of everyone's emotional memory. Here the Governor from Hillary's home pays for pros only makes the sex scandal for Democrats near and dear to Hillary appear once again. References to Bill are impossible to avoid. This doesn't help

[KQuark]

I noticed that too. I think it will hurt Hillary more than she thinks.

[BionicWoman]

First of all: too much information. People do not read long articles, memos, etc.

Second, Hillary's response was short and concise. It can be repeated without being in context.

Third, Hillary is keeping Obama off message and on the defensive. She does this over and over and Obama never learns.

[smzzzz]

And lying and spinning and attacking will make her a good President ... just how exactly? Oh it's the threshold she crosses ...whoops, see above

[EspressoAtNoon]

Those who don't are the ones who are already voting for Hillary. That's why she's still getting any votes, because half the electorate are idiots.

I say, put the evidence out there and let the TV media personalities read it, learn something, and simplify the message for the masses.

First thing's first: you have to prove your case and this case was proven in a one page memo. Not bad.

[whichchange]

This memo is raw meat for the press who are already eager to bash Clinton, not the electorate.

[kozmik]

lol. nice spin.

Sorry, but this is all very damning evidence of Hillary caught chronically, and transparently, BS'ing. Her FP "experience" claims are a bad joke and her judgment is pretty lousy. It's nothing McCain doesn't know or won't raise in debates. We can't afford to nominate her bogus credentials and watch her fall apart in the GE.

Saying it's "too long" and that people won't read it is just nonsense and is basically saying the American people are stupid or can't be informed. Her claims of "experience" demand a thorough rebuttal and the important issues we face demand a serious President and an informed populace. We're in two wars with casualties growing daily, terrorism is a serious issue, oil prices are through the roof, alliances are fraying, the dollar is falling, and we're entering a recession. I think people can read a couple pages on the facts about a candidates actual FP experience to make a decision that will have long lasting consequences for their family's welfare for decades.

Politicians like Hillary lacking the courage or moral compass to respect the American people, tell them the truth, and discuss issues throughly, is how we got into Iraq on trumped up WMD charges to begin with. It was also Bill's failure to do anything about Iraq for 8 years, during which time he just punted and maintained sanctions, killing tens of thousands of children by dysentery. Bill left the situation to smolder, knowing the next hawkish Administration would want to invade, as the NeoCons and Republican think tanks were advocating invasion throughout the 90's.

The way it works is that some people, political junkies and reporters, will read this. Then they'll raise these issues with her campaign, and around kitchen table debates. Obama will raise these issues directly. That's how a healthy democracy functions: people becoming more informed and making better decisions.

[exxman]

"First of all: too much information. People do not read long articles, memos, etc."
(One page is not a 'long article, memo, etc')

Second, Hillary's response was short and concise. It can be repeated without being in context."
(Sound bites!)

This is exactly why we get presidents like G.W.B. It's laziness. Democracy requires participation and a bit of effort.

We get the government we deserve.

[sculptor]

Unfortunately low blows like the 3:00AM ad are more effective than reasoned analysis like this...

[kozmik]

Yowza. When Obama sets out to make a point, he makes it. Thoroughly. Good for him.

The whole list is hard hitting and substantial. There's no weak fluff or spin. It's all solid evidence of Hillary caught lying. If it was presented in court she'd be convicted of serial bullshitting.

[georgeforchange]

I agree.
Hillary's exaggerated claims, fabricated stories, non-disclosure of her tax returns, non-disclosure of the donors to the clinton library, exploitation of old party machinery, collection of favors owed to Bill, support from corporate lobbyists, and compulsive self aggrandizing behavior in which she will say anything or do anything is contrary to our progressive cause.
We need a leader with a unifying vision, the ability to inspire, the awareness developed from his community activist roots that change occurs from the bottom up, good judgement and the ability to set priorities as well as the ability to build consensus to effect change in a timely manner.
We need Obama.

[PhxMike]

MEMO: FROM OBAMA LAPDOG MEDIA TO OBAMA CAMPAIGN

RE: TOO MUCH INFO

Please don't put so much info in your next set of instructions for what you want us to put on the air. We can only accomplish so much in a 24/7 news cycle, and it's hard to turn her momentum around after she kicked our butts in Ohio and TX. Also, we're going to need that list of Obama's foregin policy experience soon, we can't blow this up in her face without Obama's list to show in contrast.

Also, we wanted to give you an update on how we've been able to turn the "Dream Ticket" argument against Clinton:

First, we [the media] brought it up as many times as we could, including several debates.

Second, we've been asking both Clintons for weeks if they would have Obama on the ticket.

Third, we finally got them to bite this weekend when we got BOTH Bill and Hillary to agree that the two candidates would be unstoppable against McCain.

Fourth, we were able to edit out our questions successfully so it looked like the Clintons brought the issue up.

Fifth, Russert was ready on Sunday to seed the whole "Well if he's ready to be VP how can you say he's not ready to be Pres." argument.

Now all we have to do is keep hammering on this, while we call Obama's 3000 vote victory in WY a 'landslide.'

By the way, we've been searching desperately to find a 'race card' to play against the Clintons in Mississippi -- any ideas?

We promised to get your momentum back up asap and we'll keep trying as hard as we can. Oh, by the way we've picked three lower-level journalists to ask Obama a few tough questions. We'll send you the exact questions soon so he will be prepared this time with the answers.

Love and Kisses,

Your Lapdog Media Team

[anthonylee]

"Salty" and full of "Sour Grapes" . . . . .

Never mind the facts, just attribute the whole "LOSER" thing to "Lapdog" journalism! I hope it helps you to sleep better at night.

[TommyMcCarthy]

Funny, I thought "PhxMikes" parody was brilliant!

Guess I'd better get back in line and chant:

yeswecanyeswecanyeswecan.........................................................tm

[smzzzz]

Your stupid sarcasm is almost as good as Hillary's - without the screechy voice, of course. Maybe her campaign will hire you - or maybe they already did.

[KQuark]

Just because most Hillaryite's have the attention span and the educational c.v. of a gnat does not mean the media will not fairly mull over this memo. The media has already made part of Obama's argument for him when they fact checked her outrageous claims that she brokered the Northern Ireland accord and went to Bosnia during wartime. Hillary is simple being caught up in her own lies.

Hillary cannot have it both ways. You cannot have a "dream ticket" when you say your VP is not qualified to be president. Hillary's campaign is just the sum of cynical political calculations spewed out over time. That's why when you look at the entirety of Hillary's comments they are self contradictory or false. She has no message, vision or principles to guide this nation forward.

[combatveteran]

My favotite quote from your Obama Lapdog Media is that she has comeback three times.

New hampshire- i'll give her that.
Super Tuesday- she was to put Obama away, yet she is descibed as the comeback kid.
Texas and Ohio- she was to win in both states in double digits, it was her firewall, she wins and she is called the comeback kid.

I listened to Georgie Stephanoplis and the talking heads, it was priceless.

But what is better is to imply that it not Clintons lapdog team.

THE COMEBACK KID, I heard she even got Bill Clinton to commit, Wow she is the comeback kid!

[whichchange]

Absolutely stunning. Please do more of these!

[jkminwa]

Let's see, how should I respond to an absolutely unimpeachable critique of Hillary Clinton's foreign policy "experience"? Attack the media, yeah, that's it!

[UrbanRevolution]

Rescisco - what would you suggest Sen. Obama do or not do to be more "presidential"?

[Peddler]

I don't know where Hillary Clinton's experience as Commander-in-Chief resides, unless she is counting her role as the "first lady" (and I use that term lightly). Serving as Commander-in-Chief for any candidate is not based on experience, but rather "character and judgement", both of which Hillary is void in. One must realize that "experience" is a difficult teacher; it gives you the test first and the lesson second. Hillary has "core issues" with herself in as much she has never resolved what Bill did to her throughout their marriage........and I'm not just talking about Monica. She wasn't the first, and she will never be the last.

[NetProphet]

I wouldn't use that argument around the Clinton camp. . After all you may get a line that resembles: how-about-Obama's-Commander-in-chief-experience?

It takes plenty of "battle scars" to form character and principle and judgement. I think Barak would one day make a darn-good Pres, but in the meantime, a few more walks around Washington Hill might give him that battle fatique necessary to make THAT difference!

[UrbanRevolution]

NoGoodNamesLeft if you look at most states democratic platform you will see that this is one of the basic tenants of the democratic party. you can look at as "keep your friends close and your enemies closer"

[ApolloniaCreed]

I wish this didn't have to be done in-house, but he needed to fight back. GOBAMA!

[zjemi]

Alas, Eliot Spitzer has knocked the Obama-Clinton campaigns out of the news. I hope when the Spitzer thing is over, that the media will pay attention to this memo, and that Obama will follow up with the truth about Hillary's vote for the Dick Cheney oil bill and her assurance to the Canadian govt that she won't hurt them with NAFTA.
Keep them coming. Some of these statements will make the news.

[KQuark]

This is not negative campaigning and it's not even what Clinton cynically calls "contrast" campaigning. Obama has just performed a fact check on Clinton's false claims of her foreign policy experience. Clinton has been trying to pimp her 35 gazillion years of experience even though much of it was just being a spouse to a president and governor. The fact is that she has nearly half the legislative experience of Obama. Worse yet she has less accomplishments than Obama in the US Senate. McClinton.s biggest claim to fame in the Senate is that she voted lock step with McCrazy on Iraq and Iran.

Obama is the candidate most ready to lead this country on a different path. Obama has the right foreign policy that we need at this time to mend fences around the world that will keep us safest in the long run. While McClinton and McCrazy are hanging onto the Bush doctrine of not talking to our enemies and pissing off our friends.

[Miamisecretagent]

Of course it's a scary ad--and it's a scary world. I don't see how Obama's attacking Hillary's experience helps him, because however little she has, he has even less.

[KQuark]

What a joke. This memo boils down the fact that McClinton's experience is voting with McCrazy in lock step on Iraq and Iran. It helps Obama by any measure because it shows his experience is correct.

[AnninCA]

Only if you're dumb enough to think an Illinois legislator is savvy.

[Arbos]

The key difference being he doesn't LIE about his foreign policy experience. He knows that judgment presides over experience.

Hillary Clinton lacks the judgment that told her to not vote for the war in Iraq. In fact Rumsfeld and Chaney also both lacked the judgment. Experience gets you know where if you don't have that little voice in your head called judgment.

[independentrepublicrat]

Actually, no matter how little HE has, it is Hillary that has even less relevant and elected experience.

http://wonkette.com/365959/hillary-campaign-commits-credit-card-fraud-against-delightful-lady

[Peddler]

Our actions in life are not always based on experience, but rather "character and judgement." The thing about experience is that it gives you the test first, and the lesson second. I surely don't want Hillary anywhere near the "red phone," in fact she should be no where near [any] phone.

[riverhouse]

Let's not forget who is the most experienced man in government today: Dick Cheney. Look where that has gotten us. And if being the 'wife of' is considered experience, the first female president should be Barbara Bush. Her husband has been a member of Congress, head of a political party, director of the CIA, vice president and president. Can't beat that for 'wife of' qualifications and experience.

[TXfemmom]

The Dems need to quit fighting amongst themselves and zero in on McCain. McCain's lobbyist controllers, who head his campaign, all lobbied for Airbus in this Air Force tanker deal, and then when McCain is seen as the candidate, the contract goes to Airbus, after McCain held up the contract which was to have gone to Boeing, and made it be redone. WAKE UP DEMOCRATS AND AMERICANS, MCCAIN MUST BE STOPPED.

I would prefer a Clinton/Obama ticket. Some Dems are upset, and Hillary was not my first choice, Edwards was, about Clinton's campaign. Well I am upset at Obama's. Combine Clinton and Obama, and then use Obama as an involved, POSITIVE VICE PRESIDENT, unlike Cheney. Give him a portfolio of programs and permit him to guide it and grow in his experience. Then, he can be the next President and we would have sixteen years of progressive policies.

It will take the first eight years just to begin to right the country, and to really get it back on the road, it shall take another eight years. STOP FIGHTING AMONG YOURSELVES, PULL TOGETHER, AND FOCUS ON THE REAL THREAT, A MCCAIN PRESIDENCY. Bill and Hillary aren't perfect, but they have demonstrated that they are ready to duke it out and get into the mud and stomp McCain and the Republicans, if need be, and Gore and Kerry played Mr. Above the Fray and it got us eight years of TERROR AND DESTRUCTION OF OUR COUNTRY.

Pull together Dems, Independents, Progressives, and do the right thing. Obama and Clinton need to put their differences and the campaign behind them, and then FOCUS ON GETTING OUT THEIR VOTERS AND DEFEATING JOHN MCCAIN AND THE REPUBLICANS.

[KQuark]

It is Clinton tearing down the Democratic Party and you want her to steal the top of the ticket. She has polarized the Democratic Party just like she divided the nation. Hillary made any thought of a joint ticket impossible with her "kitchen sink" smear and fear. I was leaning towards Edwards as late as December but I could obviously saw that McClinton is tied to corporations as much as McCray.

[cleveyucks]

Uh... Did you notice Obama is WINNING?!!!

[ivana]

Uh....your point is debateable - cleveyucks (odd name?)

Obama keeps boasting about how he's in FIRST PLACE. In fact, based on people who VOTED, Senator Clinton would have received 128 (out of 156) for Michigan and 118 (out of 188) for Florida. A total of 246, which would have put her comfortably in the lead. Even more important is the fact of the pyschological importance of the vote being counted -the so-called Obama 'surge' would most likely never have occurred, which would have increased the Clinton lead in delegates even further.

Obama camp knows that Michigan and Florida are still unlikely to vote for Obama--as they were in January - he is too left wing for Michigan (and after being caught out on NAFTA, like in Ohio the Michigan Dems don't believe him) and too pro Palestinian and anti-Isreal for the Florida Democrats.

Based on this, I believe Hillary is well justified in her confidence on the stump - knowing full well that she will ultimately receive her well-earned delegates. Obama is the one who should be shakin' in his boots.

[AZDemocrat500]

Keep fooling yourself, he will not get the omination and if he does, McCain in a landslide!!!!

[AnninCA]

I agree. I think there is a huge job in rebuilding. However, he was completely dismissive of an opportunity to do that.