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

[naijaman]

"In an attempt to deflect attention from the fact that Senator Obama served in the Illinois state senate just three years..."

Erm...no...Obama served in the Illinois Senate from 1997-2004, which comes to SEVEN years, not three.

At least get the numbers right before you launch into your anti-Obama blog.

[mainstreetgirl]

I trust Senator Clinton to do a good job. But I don't trust her enemies. I don't think Senator Obama has earned the trust he says he deserves, although I worry about his enemies too. In this change election, Edwards can be trusted. He has already changed the game.

[Lisette]

Dear Lee,

Here is the real issue: Hillary voted for the war.

People rightly question her judgement.

Who had more experience than Rumsfield and Cheney?

And not only was their judgement wrong but they ruined America.

And we the American people have had more than enough of that.

And that my friend is why we do not want to vote for Hillary.

[123xyz]

Hillary is uniquely positioned because of her experience as first lady? Because she visited the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan three times as opposed to Obamas one visit? Because "...she has passed laws so that returning soldiers are treated with dignity when they return home."; well she did vote to send them there. Her foreign policy resume just isn't that great but more importantly I don't trust her to do anything that is not in her own self interest and that trumps everything.

[MichaelJames]

Hillary Clinton failed to read the NIE. I mean, seriously, here was a vote on which the lives of THOUSANDS of lives directly depended (and millions if you consider the soldiers' families/friends and the lives of innocent Iraqis) and she could not be bothered to do her homework?

My understanding is that the NIE was about a 90 page document. I'm sure it was not light reading, but with a vote of that magnitude, isn't it reasonable to expect a Senator to burn a little midnight oil and read every last scrap of information available to inform their decision? Yet Hillary did not. Hasn’t her experience taught her that you need to read the fine print?

Of course, I believe she ignored the NIE because the contents of the report did not matter to her at all. She voted the way she did because that's what most people supported and she did not want to get attacked for opposing the consensus view during her subsequent run for the Presidency.

Basically, she either failed in her duty as a Senator or based her vote on triangulation and political calculus. Either way, it's disgraceful.

It is also telling that the chairman of the intelligence committee CHANGED HIS VOTE after reading the NIE. If only more people had read it and found the case for war to be lacking, this grand blunder might well have been avoided.

Strength and experience are meaningless if you do not have the judgment needed to make good decisions. Hillary Clinton is not qualified to lead this nation.

[Synoia]

"Senator Obama would have less experience than any president since World War II"

Really? Including Bush?

and based on your argument, Bush has the most recent & best experience, so we should pick Bush...right?

[ConcernAmerican]

Lee thank you for this commentary you've written about Hillary and Obama. The Clinton haters will not appreciate this nor see why she is should be our next President. Their hatred towards her supersedes rationality.

I for one, will not vote for Obama, he can't win a single state down south. Any democrat that must win this coming election MUST win a southern state. I will not experiment with my one precious vote to a greenhorn who doesn't have anything to show as junior US senator for three years. For three years Obama is a junior US senator, he missed 80% of the vote in Capitol Hill. A state senator is limited to local level, a state senator does not engage in foreign policy (foreign policies is in federal level).

It amuses me to no end to read postings of Obama supporters cannot discern state and federal level.

[MMF]

Senator Clinton's adoption of her husband's experience as her own is just silly, and in my opinion, anti-feminist.

She had many valuable experiences during her husband's tenure. That is different from actually being experienced.

If mere propinquity is to be considered experience, we should all be considered as experts in the field our spouses labor in. And of course, our kids, who grow up in a business are "experienced" in both parents' fields of endeavor.

Also, if she decides to trumpet her "experience" in the Clinton administration, she has to take responsibility for its failings, as well.

I'd prefer to see someone run on their own accomplishments, not those of their spouse or other relatives.

[Tellmethetruth]

A very honest and well written article on Obama and Hillary Clinton. The issue of experience is important as Obama doesn't have experience - and no amount of twisting of the this truth will change what isn't there - the emperor has no cloths and the Republicans will destroy him over this, and get elected. It bothers me greatly that he bragged today about the number of Republicans supporting him. No one raises $100million in nine months without alot of corporate interest. It also explains why so many of the bloggers representing him are so sexist and hateful towards Hillary Clinton - they really are Republicans, not Obama supports. But the really experienced candidate is Joe Biden who is awesome!

Joe Biden's Comments yesterday: "Under no administration will I accept the job of secretary of state."
A voter had asked the Delaware senator what he would do to restore U.S. credibility in the world.
"That's the president's job," he said. "I know a lot of my opponents out there say I'd be a great secretary of state. Seriously, every one of them. Do you watch any of the debates? 'Joe's right, Joe's right, Joe's right.'"
"I ask you a rhetorical question: Are you prepared to vote for anyone - at this moment in our history - as president who is not capable of being secretary of state? Who among my opponents would you consider appointing secretary of state? Seriously. Think about it."



I know many of Obama's supporters were counting on Joe Biden to be available to mentor Obama on foreign policy, but as disappointing as this maybe, it doesn't look like that will happen. It sounds like Joe Biden believes if the public needs and wants his expertize in foreign policy the voters will have to elect Joe Biden as President, and if a candidate isn't strong enough to be a Secretary of State themselves, then they have no business running for President. I guess Joe Biden is tired of tutoring Obama in foreign affairs.

[Sedaei]

Mr. Feinstein, I appreciate your commitment to advancing the political debate. But with due respect, neither you nor Senator Clinton seem to have any understanding of the way her vote on Iran hurt the democratic activists' efforts in Iran, who I work day and night to support. Senator Obama has the vision that this country needs right now, and he is the only candidate who can visit any Muslim country and be treated like a Rock Star. That is the kind of a person we need to repair our image, not one who voted for the war that has turned the world against us. I have lived in Iran for 17 years, love the United States and am voting for Barack Obama.

[Sedaei]

This is Sam Sedaei, a Huffington Post blogger.

1) The fact is that Obama has been in public office much longer than Senator Clinton. I cannot believe people are actually counting being first lady as "experience." Besides, both Cheney and Rumsfeld had very long resumes and experiences too. But look at the ditch they got us into. Experience only counts when it has been the basis upon which judgment has been built. Senator Clinton did not show that judgment when she decided to play it safe politically and vote for a resolution that took us into war. Obama did not, despite facing great political risk.

2) The fact that Madeleine Albright is supporting Hillary comes as no surprise. She was the secretary of state during her husband's presidency; remember? Instead of listening to people with conflict of interest in expressing their correct views about her, it is time to start listening to 55% of people who are saying they are looking for a new direction and ideas, as compared to just 33% who are looking for experience.

3) She voted for the war and then said it was a vote for diplomacy instead of taking responsibility. The true vote for diplomacy was the Levin Amendment, which she rejected around the same time. In a recent debate, she said that she cannot guarantee that she would bring the troops out by 2013. Obama will bring all troops home within 16 months.

4) Most importantly, she recently voted for the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment with other Senate hawks on Iran. This decision guaranteed that she will never have any credibility in garnering good will and doing diplomacy with Iran. (People won't want to make deals with you after you call them terrorist). Her decision is also likely to cut the legs from under the pro-western pro-democracy activists and help save the hardliners in Tehran the way George Bush's labeling Iran part of an "Axis of Evil" did. You can read more about my position here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-sedaei/obama-americas-best-hop_b_73480.html

[ginnypoo]

No more amateurs....we won't survive another on-the-job trained President.

[DontSpin]

I support Obama, and here is why:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-sedaei/obama-americas-best-hop_b_73480.html

[dnels14]

GREAT ARTICLE.. GO HILLARY!!! YOU HAVE MY VOTE.
THE (GOP) GAY ON POLITICS) ARE SCARED OF GETTING ANOTHER BEATDOWN IN 3YRS...

CHANGING THE SUBJECT..LETS TALK ABOUT R.G.11 TRIPS TO HIS MISTRESS COMPOUND. WOW! FOX NEWS WILL KEPT TRYING TO BRUSH THIS UNDER THE RUG..JUST LIKE THEY TURNED ON J.R. WHEN SHE'S TELLING THE TRUTH..FOX NEWS IS THE LITTLE JOKER IN THE DECK OF CARDS.

[leftLibertarian]

Why is the Democratic party supporting Bush, his Iraq War, and his war on America's liberty?

Why hasn't the Democratic Party supported the impeachment of the criminals Bush and Cheney?

Why is the Democratic Party soft on the criminals Bush and Cheney and their looting of the US Treasury?