Dear Barack Obama campaign,
The author of the "attack Hillary" record memo recently widely distributed by your campaign was, in my opinion, filled with distortions and personal innuendo -- written by someone who was carries "former" titles from Clinton administration only because of the Clintons.
Regarding her role in Northern Ireland in the peace process, which the uninformed memo writer falsely belittles, objective observers should read yesterday's newspaper story from the Scranton Times. Not only does it quote the Irish Prime Minister confirming the important role she played, but many other key Irish leaders.
And as with other members of his campaign who have made false accusations against Senator Clinton, Senator Obama should show the grace and good judgment to repudiate the author of this memo and ask him either to do better research before attacking Senator Clinton again.
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.
she likes to overplay her role in many of the things from the 90s. It has become somewhat pathological at this point.
I suppose that, pursuant to the flawed logic of the Clintons and their surrogates, we should now thank Nancy Reagan for ending the Cold War and, in the same vein, celebrate Pat Nixon's 'key' role in initiating US rapprochement with China.
In the REAL world, Hillary's claims are tantamount to resume embellishment, if not outright deception, and the last time that I checked, people were sacked for such malfeasance!
BTW, Lanny, what about the 'crisis management experience' that Mrs Clinton, along with Sinbad, Sheryl Crow and Chelsea, acquired in Kosovo? Now that we know that the whole Northern Irish 'thing' is a 'fairy tale', how about some spin regarding Sinbad's claims that Senator Clinton lied yet again (oops!)?
Establishing this in Iraq though? Impossible for generations to come unless we stabilize them.
Hillary has been describing her involvement as being a key role.
Even her strongest supporters and well-wishers describe it as a supportive role, at best.
As first lady, that's all one would expect. She should quit trying to put a gloss on her resume.
Do you really enjoy sharing half-truths and transparent lies to snow your fellow Democrats?
Are you really looking forward to four (or eight) more years of this?
Lanny, face facts and put an end to this already.
I personally appreciate Mr. Davis's continuing efforts make me ignore what I see and read and to count only on him and his fellow spinsters to let me in on the truthier facts at their disposal.
Got to hand it to Mr. Davis; his strategy of spewing out innuendos, half-truths, distortions, and fact-challenged analysis faster than anyone can counter them lets us all know what to expect in the coming days.
voting for the war authorization bill, without reading the NEI Report or the U.N. inspectors reports.
voting against the Levin amendment.
voting against banning the use of cluster bombs in civilian areas.
voting for the Lieberman-Kyl Amendment.
Thirty five years of experience, right!
Did she negotiate, arbitrate, or coordinate? No.
Did she make any decisions? Did she contribute any ideas? No.
Did she give a speech to a group of women? Yes. ...Did she organize that group? Nope.
Did they really need her? Nope.
Was it nice to have her company? Yes.
it's one thing to claim victory in a peace process that had been evolving for years, where both parties were incredibly tired of 30 years of violence. I wonder if she would also admit that under the Clinton Administration the festering problems in Pakistan went unchecked and paved the way for the impending disaster that Pakistan faces today.
It is a problem for her to link herself to her husband's administration. You get the bad with the good. And the bad in this case may make Jon McCain look good.
Lately, I've seen Obama's own lack of ethics in lying to people, so I assume he thinks that she is equally vulnerable.
She is not.
In any case, Hillary's so-called experience is pretty slim. Her candidacy is the ultimate in affirmative action -- she is where she is because of who she married. Just because she cut a deal with him to put up with his infidelities so she could be president doesn't mean that the rest of us who weren't in the room have to go along with it. She's not entitled to the Presidency of the United States because she allowed herself to be victimized by her husband. Why doesn't she just get out now, before she destroys the Democratic Party? Or is her sense of entitlement too strong for that?