Battle-Tested
With the emergence of Sen. John McCain as the presumptive Republican nominee, the choice for the Democrats in the 2008 presidential election now shifts to who is best positioned to beat him, in what promises to be a more hard-fought campaign -- and perhaps a nastier one -- than Democrats anticipated.
Sen. Barack Obama's promise of transformation and an end of partisan politics has its seductive appeal. The Bush-Cheney era, after all, has been punctuated by smear campaigns, character assassinations and ideological fervor.
Nobody dislikes such poisonous partisanship, especially in foreign policy, more than I do. I am one of very few Foreign Service officers who have served as ambassador in the administrations of both George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton, yet I have spent the past four years fighting a concerted character assassination campaign orchestrated by the George W. Bush White House.
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is one of the few who fully understood the stakes in that battle. Time and again, she reached out to my wife -- outed CIA officer Valerie Plame Wilson -- and me to remind us that as painful as the attacks were, we simply could not allow ourselves to be driven from the public square by bullying. To do so would validate the radical right's thesis that the way to win debates is to demonize opponents, taking full advantage of the natural desire to avoid confrontation, even if it means yielding on substantive issues. Hillary knew this from experience, having spent the better part of the past 20 years fighting the Republican attack machine. She is a fighter.
But will Mr. Obama fight? His brief time on the national scene gives little comfort. Consider a February 2006 exchange of letters with Mr. McCain on the subject of ethics reform. The wrathful Mr. McCain accused Mr. Obama of being "disingenuous," to which Mr. Obama meekly replied, "The fact that you have now questioned my sincerity and my desire to put aside politics for the public interest is regrettable but does not in any way diminish my deep respect for you." Then one of McCain's aides said of Obama, "Obama wouldn't know the difference between an RPG and a bong."
Mr. McCain was insultingly dismissive but successful in intimidating his inexperienced colleague. Thus, in his one face-to-face encounter with Mr. McCain, Mr. Obama failed to stand his ground.
What gives us confidence Mr. Obama will be stronger the next time he faces Mr. McCain, a seasoned political fighter with extensive national security credentials? Even more important, what special disadvantages does Mr. Obama carry into this contest on questions of national security?
How will Mr. Obama answer Mr. McCain about his careless remark about unilaterally bombing Pakistan -- perhaps blowing up an already difficult relationship with a nuclear state threatened by Islamic extremists? How will Mr. Obama respond to charges made by the Kenyan government that his campaigning activities in Kenya in support of his distant cousin running for president there made him "a stooge" and constituted interference in the politics of an important and besieged ally in the war on terror?
How will he answer charges that his desire for unstructured personal summits without preconditions with a host of America's adversaries, from Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to Kim Jong Il, would be little more than premature capitulation?
Senator Obama claims superior judgment on the war in Iraq based on one speech given as a state legislator representing the most liberal district in Illinois at an anti-war rally in Chicago, and in so doing impugns the integrity of those who were part of the debate on the national scene. In mischaracterizing the debate on the Authorization for the Use of Military Force as a declaration of war, he implicitly blames Democrats for George Bush's war of choice. Obama's negative attack line does not conform to the facts. Nothing could be farther from the truth. I should know. I was among the most prominent anti-war voices at the time -- and never heard about or from then Illinois State Senator Obama.
George Bush made it clear publicly when lobbying for the bill that he wanted it not to go to war but to give him the leverage he needed to go to the United Nations and secure intrusive inspections of Saddam's suspected Weapons of Mass Destruction sites. Who could argue with that goal? Colin Powell made the same case individually to Senators in the run up to the vote, including to Senator Clinton. It is not credible that Senator Obama would not have succumbed to Secretary Powell's arguments had he been in Washington at the time. Why not? Obama himself suggested so in 2004. "I'm not privy to Senate intelligence reports,' Obama said. 'What would I have done? I don't know." He also told the Chicago Tribune in 2004: "There's not much of a difference between my position and George Bush's position at this stage." According to press reports, Powell is now an informal adviser to Mr. Obama.
In his tendentious attack, Obama never mentions that Hans Blix, the chief United Nations weapons inspectors, declared that without the congressional Authorization for the Use of Military Force the inspectors would never have been allowed into Iraq. Hillary's approach -- and that of the majority of Democrats in the Senate -- was to let the inspectors complete their work while building an international coalition. Hillary's was the road untaken. The betrayal of the American people, and of the Congress, came when President Bush refused to allow the inspections to succeed, and that betrayal is his and his party's, not the Democrats.
Contrary to the myth of his campaign, 2008 is not the year for transcendental transformation. The task for the next administration will be to repair the damage done by eight years of radical rule. And the choice for Americans is clear: four more years of corrupt Republican rule, senseless wars, evisceration of the Constitution, emptying of the national treasury -- or rebuilding our government and our national reputation, piece by piece. Obama's overtures to Republicans, or "Obamacans" as the Senator calls them, is a substitute for true national unity based on a substantive program. His marginal appeals have marginally helped him in caucuses in Republican states that Democrats won't win in the general election. But his vapid rhetoric will not withstand the winds of November. His efforts will be correctly seen by the Republican leadership as a sign of weakness to be exploited. While disaffected Democrats may long for comity in our politics after years of being harangued and belittled by the right wing echo chamber, the Rovians currently promoting Obama are looking to destroy him should he become the nominee. Obama's claim to float uniquely above the fray and avoid polarization will be short-lived. He is no less mortal than any other Democrat -- Michael Dukakis, Al Gore, John Kerry -- all untouched at the beginning of their campaigns and all mauled by the end. We should never forget recent history.
In order to effect practical change against a determined adversary, we do not need a would-be philosopher-king but a seasoned gladiator who understands the fight Democrats will face in the fall campaign and in governing.
Theodore Roosevelt once commented, "It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again, who, at the best, knows, in the end, the triumph of high achievement, and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly."
If he were around today, TR might be speaking of the woman in the arena. Hillary Clinton has been in that arena for a generation. She is one of the few to have defeated the attack machine that is today's Republican Party and to have emerged stronger. She is deeply knowledgeable about governing; she made herself into a power in the Senate; she is respected by our military; and she never flinches. She has never been intimidated, not by any Republican -- not even John McCain.
Barack Obama claims to represent the future, but it should be increasingly evident that he is not the man for this moment, especially with Mr. McCain's arrival. We've seen a preview of that contest already. It was a TKO.
This article is adapted from a piece published in the Baltimore Sun on February 12, 2008
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Trying to out-experience McCain will not work, trying to out-change him will.
So let me get this straight. Op-ed Joe favors the candidate who voted for war in Irag, over the candidate who passionately spoke out against war in Irag. I see, I see. What's that? You hear something? A flushing sound? Oh, that's just Od-ed Joe's credibilty, um, exiting the building.
Joe must show up in Hillary's tax returns.
Watch if Hillary gets nominated she and McCain will agree not to release their tax returns. Some straight talk express. Some ethical candidate.
John and Hill went up the Hill to try and steal an election. What a couple of pols.
Obama 08 and Beyond!
Real simple dude.... SELL OUT! After all you put yourself through to prove this whole Iraq thing was bogus at best, you then decide to back someone who voted to give Bush a blank check. I remember her speech on the floor before that vote, and anyone with half a fucking brain knows what that vote was for. Come on man, what happened to your balls? And It's time for the our party to look into the mirror and take some responsibility for what has happened in the last 15 years. The Clintons moved our party to the right just to win in the nineties, and now anyone that tries to move back to the real center is branded a weak, left wing lunatic. The fact is the bush administration would not have been able to pull off what they've done without the consent of the democratic party. That is the bottom line. Now Obama is challenging conventional wisdom, and lets ask ourself if the conventional way has worked. I'm sorry but if you think this country needs another 4 years of this back and forth crap where nothing gets done, except the dems cave in on wiretapping, the iraq war, and big tax cuts for corporations, then you need to go back to africa and take some time to get your head straight. On msnbc you said this was a "throw the bums out election." I agree, but start with the balless dems who keep giving into conventional wisdom. If Hillary is the nomination I will have lost hope in the evolution of our country, and once again the fear of the American people will have prevailed.
Typical reply by an Obama fanatic; short on facts and long on insults and profanity. You are making the Democratic Party look no better than the far right Republicans. If you could come up with reasoned arguments based on facts, you would be a lot more effective.
facts? So the democratic party bares no responsibility for passing the patriot act?, Authorizing the iraq war? the bankruptcy bill? Illegal wiretapping? Obama fanatic. How about a truth fanatic. Once again another delusional clintonite that wants to blame all our problems on someone else. Obama has tapped into something that the same old folks in Washington don't understand. The word "WE" as opposed to "I will do this, I will do that, I I I I I I I I I I." I think Clinton would be better served as a piano tuner.
FactL
1. Hillary has the highest negatives.
2. Hillary can't get the independent vote.
3. Hillary failed miserably in her one executive experience.
4. Hillary can't manage her money in this campaign.
5. Hillary will draw out more Republicans than any candidate.
6. Hillary voted for the stupid war.
7. Hillary is too pig headed to admit she made a mistake.
8. Hillary can't control her husband.
9. Hillary and Bill are associated with dozens if not hundreds of questionable deals.
10. Hillary does not inspire anyone.
11. Hillary and Bill have pissed off the black vote making it uncertain in the election if she is the candidate.
12. Hillary worked on the board of Walmart when it busted the unions.
13. Hillary campaign manager said she is "very conservative".
14. Hillary is behind elected delegates and total votes and will fight for the nomination even if that remains the case after the primary. She doesn't care.
15. She gives a crappy speech.
16. She is by all reports vindictive.
17. Most of America really hates her. Justified or not, that's a fact man.
(I'm running out of space here, so I'll rest while you list your facts.)
Now how about your reasons why she's the better candidate.
Bravo Joe!! You hit it right on the head. Thank you for bringing common sense into this debate. "The empty vessel makes the loudest noise". As the demand for substance from BHO gains momentum - remember that phrase.
Bravo? Is he kidding that Democrats didn't think Bush would go to war? They had to be blind, deaf and dumb if they didn't know half of the Administration was part of the PNAC and had been chomping at the bit to get into Iraq SINCE THE 90'S WHEN THE VERY SAME PEOPLE WERE PUSHING CLINTON TO GO IN.
I've respected and been behind Joe and have thought him a hero for his service long before the incident with his wife.
But #1, he's a politician and had to know Hillary had a political stake in him staying in the ballgame and continuing to hammer the Administration.
And #2, Didn't know Bush would go to war my a$$....
And off the subject, why does it seem everybody is giving Hillary all this "experience" cred. for being the first lady? She's been a Senator a few years longer than Obama.
"why does it seem everybody is giving Hillary all this "experience" cred. for being the first lady?" _Because she chose to be the most politically active first lady we have ever had.She was active in many parts of her husbands administration. So lets give her at least a little credit where credit is due. I might not agree that being first lady is a qualification of any great magnitude, but at least its helpful in the case of a woman who used her influence as such to fight for America instead of just holding White House tea parties.
Vote Clinton because Obama didn't get angry in a memo exchange? HOLY CRAP THIS IS STUPID.
The fact that Obama doesn't get heated and divisive over pointless stuff is part of the reason I like him - and part of the reason he'd more successfully place progressivism in the center of American politics.
I wish I could vote for Hillary, but she needs to do the following
- apologize for voting for wars
- apologize for voting for cluster bombs
- (dump Penn)
- show her readiness to address the real problems contributing to the skyrocketing cost of healthcare due to insurance companies, drug companies, un-capped lawyer's lawsuits, etc.
She must show a plan that ensures and opens up a real competition for the healthcare services. Now she is proposing the Mitt Romney thing: let us force more people into giving money to the ensurance companies.
I couldn't disagree with you more! Hillary Clinton would simply mean more of the same. Nothing changes if nothing changes! Time to have someone other than the Bushes and the Clintons in the White House!
Obama is the only candidate offering hope, inspiration, and a true vision for change.
I'm a 70-year-old white woman living in a non-progressive Republican state...Ob
Go Obama!
Isn't it strange how everyone that comes out for Hillary Clinton is beholden to her in a fundamentally crooked, Washington DC kind of way? Though I support Amb. Wilson 100% in the matter of his wife's name being leaked, I think in this instance he sounds really sleazy (he always LOOKS that way). It beggars belief to think that anyone who lives in this period of global war without end could not know what an RPG is. It's also really scummy and distasteful to bring up Sen. Obama's marijuana use. Ambassador Wilson, the American people know the difference between an RPG and a bong, and with one voice we affirm that we prefer the latter!
While Obama's idea of going after Bin Laden in Pakistan is not without risk, let's examine the alternative. Our intelligence tells us exactly where he is, but we refuse to act because Pakistan won't let us. What signal does that send our enemies? And what is more de-stabilizing for Pakistan? Killing Bin Laden in Pakistan, or allowing him to live in Pakistan? Which course of action/inaction is more "careless?"
Psst...bin Laden has been dead since Dec 01.
A few weeks after Bhutto revealed to David Front that there is no boogieman behind the curtain...
http://www
@ 3:18
oops David Frost...
Come on Joe get real, if you want to support Hillary in hope of getting a plump appointment in her administration, it is one thing and understandable but to go on all this BS about Obama is what it is BS. Clintons were in the Whitehouse for some eight years and frankly their record on the National Security is not something to write home about, and defiantly nothing to brag of. Clintons failed to bring about health care reforms, with democratic congress and Hillary had some thing to do with this colossal failure. Now she is going to fix it, what a load of crap.
Where was Hillary when her husband was sexually using Monica and her being champion of women is the biggest fairy tale? Remember, she is the one who went out of his way to demonise women her husband sexually used. Some champion of women she is? Do we really want all this shit back in the Whitehouse? History my friend tends to repeat itself.
McCain is a sad old man who will lose by wide margins against Obama. As he says he did not support the unnecessary war in Iraq, Hillary did and voted for it. She never learned from her mistake, that to this day she refuses to admit, and more recently voted for Bush that may allow him to go to war with Iran. Sorry Joe, I used to admire you, but you are putting your self-interest against that of the country, what a sad day.
"Remember, she is the one who went out of his way to demonise women her husband sexually used. Some champion of women she is? "
Any wife of any man who cheated would be expected to react in the same way to the object of their husband's affair. What was she supposed to do, invite Monica over for coffee?!?
Listen, I have no problems with Bill Clinton's sex life. I thought it should be his and his wife's business then, not any one else's and certainly not a matter of state. But, unh, this idea I'm running into here is very interesting indeed. So, only married women who get f---ed over by their husbands deserve sympathy, not single women? Not even single women who are barely more than girls, young enough to be the husband's daughter? Oh, your brand of sisterhood is powerful indeed. I have no doubt you think supporting Hillary Clinton puts a great big feather in your pseudo-Feminist cap.
Typical reply by an Obama fanatic; short on facts and long on insults and profanity. You are making the Democratic Party look no better than the far right Republicans. If you could come up with reasoned arguments based on facts, you would be a lot more effective.
Sure Charles - you obviously have no idea what Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame standing up against the Bush administatation; they are the patriots, you are the loser, AND
your response isn't an Obamabot, it's the response of a ObamaCAN - a Republican who keeps replaying the lewinsky scandal over in his mind b/c there's nothing but that and hatred in your head, AND the kind of Republican who likes to help rig Democratic caucuses for Obama.
unny. I had a lot of respect for Wilson and Plame, but find most of this rediculous. A full response would strain resources so I'll leave it at this:
"In mischaracterizing the debate on the Authorization for the Use of Military Force as a declaration of war, he implicitly blames Democrats for George Bush's war of choice" --
Hell, YES! Arguing about the 'mischaracterizing' of Hillary's and the rest of the congress' support for the invasion misses the point COMPLETELY (and I suspect deliberately). The point is, one Obama makes at every opportunity, that the use of military force again Iraq was even being CONSIDERED by the congress was totally bogus! NO WMD.. NO link to 9/11.. Hussein-Bin Laden trying to kill each other.. Rumsfeld instructing to find link between them on 9/12 .. Bush planning to invade in 2000. etc etc.. Christ on a bike, everyone knew what was going on! Wilson and Plame knew it. Hillary knew it. Wes Clark and Gore knew it. Blix and Ritter knew it. Powell knew it. Bush sure as shit knew it. I'm just some idiot who can read English and _I_ knew it.
The Shrub might as well have said "We were horribly attacked on 9/11. Let's go invade Iceland" and it would have been just as much bullshit! Enough of this "I didn't think voting for the authorization meant a rush to war" garbage. Of course it was. The fact that it was before congress at all defines it as such.
Oh please, everyone knows those votes for the Iraq war and Iran were her bon fides for war.
And the fact that Obama lies about that is disingenuous, especially when his SHARED votes w/Hillary to fund the war are HIS BONA FIDES for war!
And anyone saying any differentl
Obama included!
We now find out the president Bush and his adviser's were lying to the American people on most every level, about most everything following 911.
If we stepped back and observed those outside the USA with interests and concerns about nuclear proliferation, or weapons of mass destruction, we see countries not convinced by the USA fabrications.
How can a country with tightly monitored airspace and "no-fly" zones even test, much less deliver such a deadly device? How could the UN inspectors be so off the mark?
I am sorry Ambassador, but on this issue we disagree. Obama arrived to the right decision on a matter that has changed the American paradigm. Many were skeptical of the claims this administration were making. The press, and many politician's did not consider such misgivings. Obama did. And he was right. Hillary may want to change this history.
I am so tired of hearing "Oh I'm not voting for her" and then asked why, they only repeat some brainwashed reason (which are the creation of the republican party's smear campaign on the Clintons) , They have been spreading false rumors about the Clintons since day one, and unfortunately, most people are like sheep and just accept what they hear without any further questioning. Baaaa baaaaa baaaaa! Its amazing to hear women give reasons like:" She should have left Clinton after his affairs, so she must have no moral values."..
Well all I can say to that is that Kenneth Starr harrassed the Clintons for years and spent millions of our precious tax dollars investigating them and turned up with ZERO! If there was anything, even the smallest indiscretion, they would have jumped on it.
I sometimes wish we had a democratic Kenneth Starr on the backs of Bush administration, he and others impeached by now! It wasn't until Bill gave them the Lewinski scandal that they finally had something to destroy him with... People's personal sex life should not be the public's business and I was humiliated when I saw Bill having to confess on international news , the whole sordid affair detail by detail! This should have been only Hillary's business, and we made it so much worse for her to bear!
We are not married to him! The only thing we should ask is: was he competent in doing his job? Well, so is she, and I still think she is the best candidate to inherit the mess that the Bush administration will leave behind. Can people stop behaving like sheep,and choose a candidate battle tested for the dire job ahead and ignore all the petty propaganda???Thank you!
I agree with you 100%.
Ipanemagirl -- are these false rumors or legitimate reasons why many people have decided not to vote for Hillary?
1. She voted for the IWR and has failed to acknowledge that the vote was a gross error in judgment.
2. She voted for the IWR as a political calculation in anticipation of her long planned run for the presidency in an attempt to demonstrate that as a woman she is tough enough to be commander-in-chief -- thus allowing perceived political self-interest to trump sound judgment and the best interests of the country not to mention all the lives lost in the misadventure of Iraq.
3. She failed to read the NIE on a matter that she herself said was the most difficult vote of her Senate career.
4. She is among the most polarizing figures in American politics today, a condition that will not facilitate unifying the country.
5. When asked to forego taking lobbyist and PAC money she refused and defended the practice by saying lobbyists do represent everyday people.
6. She has never run for nor held any public office where she was "elected" to represent the people, beyond her election to the U.S. Senate in 2000 yet she constantly touts her 35 years of experience.
7. She is attempting to claim her husband's record as her own and attempting to ride his coat tails to the presidency.
8. Persons involved at the time cited self-righteous arrogance on Hillary's part has the primary reason she failed on healthcare reform during her husband's administration.
You'd better start paying more attention if you dont believe that BHO is every bit as polarizing to the Hillary camp, as he is to hers. As far as being polarizing to the republican party, oh they'll go after him al right..Jus
Finally some sanity about Hillary! Thank you Ambassador Wilson, and thank you Ipanemagirl!!
What on earth does this have to do with anything? I don't think that I've heard a single Democrat cite any of the things that you've mentioned as a reason for not supporting Hillary. During her Senate career, Hillary turned even more sharply to the right than her husband, which is saying something. Does anyone remember the flag burning bill that SHE introduced? Even Scalia recognizes that that falls under the umbrella of First Amendment protections. It's simply one of many cases where she took her favorite tool, triangulation, too far. The bankruptcy bill she voted for, but was glad failed to pass? Not to mention her career-defining failure to stand up to the Bush Administration in its mania to launch an illegal and morally unjustifiable war. What do you think, that those Democrats who are opposed to Hillary think she killed Vince Foster?
Nobody is talking about Whitewater or her husband's impeachment or any other such Rush Limbaugh fare. Hillary has made plenty of mistakes on her own for which she should be held accountable.
Hilary is banking on the sheep factor of the American people. She still spouting the politics of fear "vote for me because I can handle the terrorist threat" so we are left with the impression that if we vote for someone else there will be doom. She may have you corralled in her pen, but not me
Hillary's top priorities when she takes office:
Hillary will end the war in Iraq and rebuild America's standing in the world.
Hillary will provide universal health care that offers choices for families while improving quality and reducing costs.
Hillary will create millions of new jobs by investing in energy efficiency.
Hillary will bring accountability back to Washington and make government open and honest to the American people again.
Post-script:
Hillary will abandon all of these policies as soon as it is politically expedient to do so.
I admire and respect Wilson. But can't agree with him on our pick for next president. My biggest concern about clinton is being firmly implanted in the DLC i.e. the corporate pocket. And her Bush like problem with admitting mistakes. I will vote for her as a least of 2 evils if she gets the nomination, and I figure she will. Because this is going to be decided by insiders not the voters. If you doubt her being in the corporate pocket just take a good look at her proposed health plan.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
