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.
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
HuffPost Quiz: Who was the neocon who said the following? "The international community has a duty to prevent security disasters as well as humanitarian ones -- even at the price of violating sovereignt
a) Paul Wolfowitz
b) Richard Pearle
c) Lee Feinstein
If you answered "C", you are correct. Lee Feinstein fits right in with Hillary's campaign. In April 2003, he told CNN that he was confident "U.S. forces over time will find weapons of mass destruction and also find evidence of programs to build weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq, even though it was becoming increasingly clear they would not.
Hillary recently spoke at the August launch of a new think tank of "centrist" Democrats and a smattering of Republicans called the Center for a New American Security founded by former Clinton defense officials Michele Flournoy and Kurt Campbell. (The ironic similarity in name to the neoconservative Project for the New American Century has not been lost.)
Hillary Clinton: More Than Just Talk -
That's what we're affraid of.
Previous experience in public office is but one of the many factors we are to consider in a presidential candidate. Feinstein is obviously a Clinton supporter so he wants to turn the whole conversation about who would be the best presidential candidate for the Democrats into a question of "well who has the most experience
Freedom of speech does not mean KI like to continue reading an obvious propaganda piece.
A good propaganda piece may have attacked Obama in a subtle way. This piece reads like the schemes of what Sheikh Wolfe Blitzer. So obvious espcecially when he reads it fast from the prompter in his monotonic drawl - before he puts himself to sleep doing it.
So, we now have Bedouin Lee Feinstein joining the tribe. Great.
Mr. Feinstein:
You, a prominent member of the Clinton campaign, are beating the old drum of 'experience', despite the electorate's overwhelming preference for 'change', at this time. Besides, Obama has not been "attempt[ing] to deflect attention from . . . (his legislative record)" at all, and you know it. [Haven't you seen YouTube, barackobam
Now, your employer is foisting herself as a seasoned foreign affairs practitioner and diplomat, respected by many world leaders. Her foreign affairs activitities you have listed occurred when she was First Lady and, now, Senator. Facially, however, none of them renders a candidate more qualified to be President than another not having such experiences - 'more qualified' being a fiction, anyway. Moreover, even if such experiences were qualifiers, won't the standard of acceptability be based more on the quality of experiences than on their quantity or length?
Unless one is aiming for the lowest common denominator, the authority and responsibilities of a US president are much greater and require much better judgment than Ms. Clinton has exhibited thus far. Furthemore, she has failed to demonstrate any ability to be diplomatic. An example of her 'diplomacy' is seared in my memory. It was when, as First Lady, she co-hosted a White House visit by Yasser Arafat and his wife. It ended with a press conference, at which the Clintons and Arafats exchanged the usual pleasantries. However, on the following day, after the Arafats had left the United States, Ms. Clinton had a press briefing/c
As to the claim of having garnered the respect of several world leaders. If those leaders were in office while she was First Lady, only some of the dictators would still be in office. And, of course, to give any currency to 'respect' from any of them would have to be done 'tongue in cheek'.
Wintonymay.
Goodness,reading this post you get the impression that she was the finest example of a politican ever.Maybe she could raise the dead in her spare time.Oh and of course as a 1st lady she is far and beyond the mere mortals that have occupied that position.L
"I'm Hillary Clinton, and I approved this ad"
Lee Feinstein is Director of National Security for Hillary Clinton for President.
The spin here is so very Rovian. As everyday passes, the Hillary campaign operates more and more like the Bush campaign.
Obama could do for the Democrats what Reagan did for the Republicans. I want to be inspired. Obama is a gift from heaven, but the Democrats may be too stupid to realize that. I hope not. I do hope. I hope for a better America. We need hope. We need to be inspired. We need Obama.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: I'd trust Hillary Clinton a lot more if she'd spent as much of 2003 criticizing the war as she did Grand Theft Auto.
Bush ,Cheney, Rummy, Powell plenty of experience and a total failure. Clinton is a liar and four more years of lies is unacceptable no matter how experienced the lies are.
Seems odd to debate whether Hillary's flaws are more palatable than Obama's flaws when a good number of other Democrats running make superb candidates who are free of corpoRat ownership. For now, neither is okay. The Democratic party should remember its base; if it does not, it risks having its base forget the Democratic party. HRC needs to move left; Obama has plenty of time to try again later, with a more impressive and lengthy record.
Senator Clinton voted AGAINST funding for thousands of MRAP vehicles and getting them to Iraq ASAP to literally save lives and limbs of the soldiers in Iraq who DAILY put their lives and limbs at risk everytime they get into their sub-par vehicles to face the next roadside IED.
How does she explain her vote to deny funding for rapid production and deployment of these critical vehicles to Iraq so long as there is one single, solitary soldier still there whose ability to survive is so dependent upon receiving them?...es
"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"
Whatever.
Lee, I emailed the DNC and let them know that if they manage to nominate somebody who voted "yes" in 2002, then I am staying home in 2008. It is really that simple.
Iraq, perhaps the biggest cock-up in our nation's history, and Democrats such as yourself want to run around and minimize that -- convince us that Hillary et al (and their spineless decisions) really aren't that bad.
Good luck.
Jim
The issue is simply JUDGEMENT and HONSETY and MRS Clinton has neither.
When it really comes down to it, Hillary and Barrack are more political twins than any of the rest of the field. I may be wrong on that, but it's the way it appears. That's why the race seems the most contentious between these two than any of the others.
They need to end up being running mates. I've predicted Hillary will end up getting the nom, even though the polls may show her slipping, it's still my gut-level feeling at this point.
I'm still also convinced that either of them will be more aggressive militarily than I'd like to see. But, Dennis isn't going to be there, America is not ready for that much enlightenment in politics (although that's a shame, it'e the reality).
What I LOVE about Obama is that he realizes that he wont always have the freshest idea and maybe just maybe someone else might bring something useful to the table. Im tired of King George always thinking his way is the ABSOLUTE way to get things done. He shuts out anyone around him who doesnt agree. Hillary to me has the same cut if arrogance and if she would just say "I WAS WRONG" about the Iraq vote then she would start to gain my respect. When you walk around as if your so perfect and never made a mistake that to me makes me worry. She cant even own up to her mistake as a Sen. you think shell actually go with JFK's "the buck stops here" approach?
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
