Hillary Clinton: More Than Just Talk

With the critical foreign policy challenges America faces in the world today, voters will have to decide which candidate has the strength and experience to be the next president of the United States.

In an attempt to deflect attention from the fact that Senator Obama served in the Illinois state senate just three years ago and would have less experience than any president since World War II, Senator Obama and his advisors have gone on the attack. They have criticized the role Senator Clinton has played in promoting American interests during her eight years as First Lady, seven years in the Senate, and four years as a member of the Senator Armed Services Committee.

Senator Clinton as First Lady was "America's finest ambassador abroad," Madeleine Albright's office said at the time. Hillary Clinton did much more than "get picked up at the airport by a state convoy and security detail . . . . and get lunch" with an ambassador, as Senator Obama implied recently. As Newsweek reported about Senator Clinton's diplomatic missions as First Lady, "She often travels to remote regions where no presidential motorcade would venture and where no secretary of state would have time to go." Her 1995 speech at the UN World Conference on Women in Beijing, where she famously proclaimed "women's rights are human rights," remains an inspiration to leaders of the fight for women's equality around the world. Long before others, she visited countries stricken by HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria throughout the world, urging better prevention and treatment strategies, and returned to Washington to push for greater action within the US government. Her 1995 trip to India helped open the door to the transformation in relations between the world's two largest democracies. She raised awareness on mine issues in the Balkans and led humanitarian efforts on behalf of Kosovar refugees.

As Senator, Hillary has fought to ensure our troops have the body armor they need while in combat, and she has passed laws so that returning soldiers are treated with dignity when they return home. She has placed education at the center of U.S. international assistance. She has been a leader in combating nuclear proliferation and the threat of nuclear terrorism. She has championed efforts to end the genocide in Darfur and been a leading voice in calling for action to end global warming. As a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, she has visited our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan three times.

By contrast Senator Obama has been in the U.S. Senate under three years. His campaign has touted his experience as chairman of a subcommittee on European affairs, which, according to Congressional Quarterly, has not held a hearing since he assumed the chairmanship nearly a year ago. Senator Obama has traveled to Iraq once, 23 months ago.

We respect Senator Obama's opposition to the war as a state senator in Illinois. But when he was actually in a position to influence policy from the U.S. Senate, he did not give a speech devoted to Iraq for 11 months, and waited 16 months to give his first floor speech dedicated to Iraq, which happened to express his opposition to Senator John Kerry's troop withdrawal plan. He said of his views on Iraq in 2004, "There's not much of a difference between my positions and George Bush's position at this stage." When asked if he would have voted for the 2002 resolution on Iraq had he been in the Senate at the time, he said in 2004, "I don't know." Since he joined the Senate, Senator Obama's voting record on Iraq has been virtually identical to Senator Clinton's. Indeed the only time they voted differently was when Senator Clinton voted against confirming General Casey, the former Commander of Multinational Forces in Iraq, to be Army Chief of Staff.

Senator Clinton is committed to ending the war in Iraq. She will bring our troops home responsibly and swiftly, and in her first term. Last July, she announced her detailed plan to withdraw our troops from Iraq, beginning within her first 60 days in office. She has voted repeatedly to bring the troops home at a pace of one to two brigades per month. Two weeks ago she voted for legislation that would require President Bush to bring combat troops home by December 2008.

Similarly, Senator Obama's campaign contends he "stood up against the march to war with Iran." They ignore the fact that Hillary went to the Senate floor last February long before Senator Obama to warn the Bush administration that they could not take any military action without congressional approval. She co-sponsored legislation with Senator Webb that denies the administration any funds for military action against Iran. And she has joined with Senator Durbin on a resolution that denies the President any unilateral authority to use force against Iran.

Senator Obama has also criticized Senator Clinton's support for a resolution urging the Bush administration to designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization. But Senator Obama also supports designating the Revolutionary Guards as a terrorist organization. In fact, Senator Obama cosponsored legislation in April that called on the Secretary of State to do exactly that. While Senator Obama says he opposed this resolution, in truth, he did not cast a vote. He missed the vote. He said nothing to indicate that he opposed this legislation before the vote. He was silent at a Presidential Debate that took place on the very day the vote was cast.

As Senator Obama has acknowledged, we do not know how we would have voted on Iraq if he had been in the Senate in 2002, but we do know what he did as a Senator in 2007 on a resolution he said was "dangerous." He missed it.

At this time of great international challenge, we need a President who will take a stand when it counts. We need a president who can inspire the world and win its trust and confidence. From her experiences as First Lady where she garnered the respect of people around the world, Hillary Clinton is uniquely positioned to repair the breach of the Bush Administration's foreign policy disasters, and restore American leadership in the world on Day 1 of her Presidency.

Comments

[alterology]

Thank you Mr. Feinstein for clarifying some of the issues that have made me uncomfortable with Obama, namely that he has bashed Clinton over her 2002 vote when in fact we will never know how he would have voted. He has presented a false image as war opposer when in fact his voting record is virtually similar to Clinton's. I agreee that Clinton is the candidate with the breadth of experience, both as a senator and First Lady, to grasp the complexity of the current global situation. She is an intelligent and studious woman whose grasp of issues is superior to other candidates.

[LeeFromVA]

The worst thing about Hillary's vote for the Iraq war was that she did so to help her out in future elections. She's more concerned about winning office than she is about stopping Dubya from making the worst decision in recent history. As president he didn't even need congressional approval to start the attack. He put the vote out there because he knew there were a lot of spineless Democrats that didn't want to look weak on terror, and once he got their approval he could throw it back in their face. Made it look like the whole country was behind him. And she fell for it. A person's motivation says a lot about them. For Hillary it's all about personal gain. I believe Barack Obama got into this election for all the right reasons. I believe he truly wants a better America. That's what you call inspiration. He inspires me to be a better person. He inspires me to care. He inspires me to go to the voting booth and actually vote FOR someone instead of just voting to stop a Republican. We need hope. We need Obama.

[THP]

Cyrus, She did not vote for war with Iraq, nor did Kerry. The resolution, as written and marketed was to go to the UN with a strong and united hand to deal with Saddam. We all know it was crap and that Bush had no interest in continuing inspections or diplomacy. Go back and read Kerry's statement delivered in Congressional record as he voted for the Resolution and get it in your head what he and Clinton were voting for. If the resolution had been an honest one where Bush clearly stated he wanted to war on Iraq then it never would have gotten Kerry or Clintons vote....and fish-head Cheney and Rove knew that and played the Democrats. But, go back and do the math that Kerry and Clinton did...the resolution would have gone through without them.

[THP]

Cyrus, Hillary is not pro-war and she wasn't in favor of Iraq war. Nor is she pro-corporation anywhere near a Bush, would not put corporate power over the environment and other of her core issues.
Hillarys vote for Iraq Resolution in 2002 was wrong and I pleaded with my representatives not to give this blank check, including Kerry. They did it for political expediency, calculating that if they voted NO it still had the numbers to pass..with or without them and calculated (wrongly as it turned out) that voting NO would ruin future presidential run with the mood the country was in. They simply chose not to sacrifice themselves when the end result would not have changed.

[middleoftheroad]

From a guy who worked in the Clinton Administration, worked under Albright, works for Hillary, and stands to get a job in HER administration....no thanks, I'm still going with Obama. Let's end 27 years of Bush-Clinton rule.

Obama 08

[disgusted48]

Sen. Clinton's mistakes and oversights are troubling. for example, how could she not keep better tabs on her husband and his chinanigans in the white house? She had no clue he was having a ....whatever? Where is her sixth sense? Why was her health care plan an abject failure? Why did she vote for a war that had the following chicken hawks: Bush, Cheyney and Rumsfeld at the helm? Why does she keep voting for policies that give bush more and more power? These questions are very troubling to me?

[DontSpin]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhpKmQCCwB8

Let's not rewrite history.

[charliemudcat]

Oh, come on. If ever I find myself wavering between Obama and Clinton, all I have to do is remind myself of Clinton's 2002 vote for war with Iraq and her steadfast support of that war up until just recently. I cannot forgive her, along with the rest of the Dems who had no courage, for this vote. If it doesn't demonstrate poor judgment, it demonstrates a lack of courage. Paul Wellstone had that courage. I'm pretty confident that if Obama had been in the Senate at that time, he would have voted against it. At the very least, he would have read the intelligence report regarding it. I will NEVER vote for Hillary Clinton, and I'm a lifelong democrat.

[Dap]

Having learned politics in Illinois, which if they had a Harvard for politics it would be the Illinois General Assembly, Senator Obama was schooled well, heck, look at the history of all the great political leaders which have come from Illinois. They are too numerous to name. Heck, even Hillary is where she is at for have her first brush with politics in Illinois, and those great leaders from Illinois were from both political parties. And the Illinois General Assembly is like the United Nations with all the ethnic backgrounds. That said:

Q) What do you get when you cross Mike Gravel's Fortitude, with Dennis Kucinich's Tell it as it is, and Barack Obama's Time for a change, with Bill Richardson's Compassion and integrity, plus Chris Dodd's Service ethic, and Joe Biden's Wisdom, without Hillary Clinton's Triangulation???

A) John Edwards... We, the People need the *BEST*... not the rest, vote Edwards in the Democratic primary!

[longislandlol]

walk the walk- talk the talk- but talk the unscripted talk---

[massimo1]

Neither of the 2 has the requisite experience, and neither does any republican candidate. And that's the fact.

[GuiltyByStander]

Feinstein points out that Obama lacks more than experience. While Obama supporters like to argue that experience isn't a clear advantage, what this article makes clear is that Obama lacks not only the experiencethe but more importantly he lacks the conviction to act.

Obama's opposition to the war before he won a Senate seat is laudable. His inertia and negligence on the Foreign Relations Committee since then is what Democrats should be taking into account as we choose a leader.

Conviction to act is an essential ingredient. I think Senator Clinton has it, but I'll trust Joe Biden for his experience, clear policies and conviction.

[DickPrimate]

The main difference I see between Obama suppoerters and Clinton supporters is the level of hatefully-divisive rhetoric many Obama supporters use when they attack Hillary Clinton. Clinton supporters will generally acknowledge that Obama is a fine person, a good Democrat, and someone who has a lot to offer this country. They just don't think he is right for the role of President at this stage in his career, and think Senator Clinton is the better choice. Period. However, with the Obama supporters, we get the kind of criticism about Hillary Clinton that used to be reserved for Fox News "commentators". Obama supporters claim (wrongly, in my view) that Hillary votes just like a Republican. I would say that Obama supporters - when it comes to Hillary Clinton - talk like Republicans.

[colleen2]

Mrs Clinton wishes to be viewed as the return of Maggie Thatcher (who also has extensive foreign policy experience). For that matter, George Bush and Dick Cheny have more experience as imperialists (which is precisely what the neo-cons and 'centrist' democrats like Mrs Clinton advocate for a 'foreign policy'. Centrist Democrats and republicans should send their own children to die in their wars of aggression, not ours.

[Independent voter]

Bush Sr. had experience.
Cheny had experience.
Rumsfeld had experience.
Wolfowitz had experience.
Colin Powel had experience.
Tommy Thompson had experience.
Condoleeza Rice had experience.

BFD.


What foreign policy experience did Bill Clinton have? Answer: NONE - less than Obama.