Appearing on Sunday morning's Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer, Senator John Kerry was asked to address the question of Barack Obama's foreign policy crisis experience compared to Hillary Clinton's. This, of course, was prompted by the ad the Clintons are running in Ohio and Texas.
Here are the points he made about what the popular jargon calls the "red phone moments":
1. Hillary Clinton never had to answer the phone on a national security crisis at all.
2. She had her red phone moment on the Iraq War and got it wrong.
3. She had another red phone moment most recently on Iran. (He might have added that 5 years after her disastrous Iraq War Resolution vote, Hillary Clinton voted with Bush/Cheney on an Iran measure that could provide them a pretext for launching war against Iran. Not only was this another failed red phone moment, she seems not to have learned her lesson, or, perhaps may be she did not really mean it when she said she wanted her Iraq vote back.]
Wolf was without a comeback question.
But, there is an even larger question, not about Barack Obama's experience but Hillary's suggestion just by airing this ad is that she has had to answer the red phone in a real foreign policy crisis moment.
How could she? She never even had a national security clearance. Hence, not only could she not have been involved in national security discussions, she could not even have been in the room when they were being considered.
Why was it that Hillary Clinton did not have a national security clearance for the entire time she was in the White House? And, why do the media not ask Senator Clinton about that?
Finally, why does Wolf not ask the Clinton people why they are trying to mislead people about Hillary's red phone experience?
A woman who has the experience of visiting over 50 countries in Asia, Africa, Europe, and the Middle East. A woman who is respected worldwide for her humanitarian work, particularly on behalf of children. A woman who is known for her compassion towards AIDS victims. A woman who was battle tested in the midst of a vast conspiracy. A woman who was humiliated in public by a cheating husband but showed strength of character by weathering the storm. A woman who has more charisma in her little finger than Obama has in his whole body. That's why my candidate is Princess Diana.
What? You were expecting Hillary Diane Clinton? Princess Diana is obviously the better choice as she was against land mines and cluster bombs. Hillary Clinton voted against Feinstein Amdt. No. 4882, "To protect civilian lives from unexploded cluster munitions."
TO CONTROLL HOW THIS COUNTRY FUNCTIONS. THE PRIMARY ELECTION, WITH THE MEDIA HAVING GIVE OBAMA 75% POSITIVE COVERAGE. iF ANYONE IS COMPLAINING ABOUT THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY BEING DIVIDED..........IT IS THE MEDIA.......HOW DUMB CAN THE POWERS THAT BE, NOT TO SEE THIS. THE MEDIA IS BLAMING HILLARY CLINTON FOR OBAMA'S SHORTCOMINGS. THE COUNTRY IS FINDING OUT WHO OBAMA REALLY IS.....HILLARY CLINTON IS STATING FACTS......IF OBAMA HAS SOMETHING TO SAY, LET HIM SAY IT.
Everyone is missing the point. The ad was not saying that she has all the foreign policy experience, it's only implying that BO has none, nada, zilch. But then, Obama may have given a "speech" somewhere about foreign policy which I'm sure is enough for his followers.
What I read from last nights results is that once people get to know the emptyness of the suit, they'll just go right past it.
BTW: the most damaging thing was not the 3 am ad; it was Obama's flip flops and coverups on NAFTA/Canadian issue. Maybe, just maybe, Obama should have just answered "present" when questioned about his vies on NAFTA.
This morning when the CNN reporter (I use the term loosely), asked Senator Clinton if she could name one time when she was tested, she gave several examples: visiting numerous countries and meeting heads of states, negotiating to open the borders for Kosovo refugees, giving a speech in China about women’s rights. Either my understanding of National Security is wide of the mark or Senator Clinton is being disingenuous. Her work on behalf of marginalised groups is admirable and her speech in China was courageous and principled but it does not give her national security cred. It shows her to be dishonest and win at all cost. Having said that I don’t think Obama should go negative. I think he should challenge her on the issues and he should highlight his strength and their differences.
Seh has now taken sides with mac against Obama- her so called Fellow Dem. She has proven she is not the person she purports herself to be, she may actually be proving her long time detractos right. this Ol' Dem can no longer stand the sight or sound of her. she now causes the same reaction as Cheney- my blood presure rises and my skin crawls. A Corporationist. through and through- she is Not True blue!
another point. she keeps telling people she won florida. there was no campaigning or competition in florida. those delegates should not count. nor should there be a do over. rules were agreed to by all candidates.
Run with the ball? more like faun over Barack and his hollywood posse.
The real hope, is that the people of Florida and Michigan will have their votes counted. It has to be a do-over to be fair. ( I just wanted to give Hillary the ones she won and Barack the rest, but my husband said it wasn't fair b/c Barack did have name recognition). So to be fair, a do-over
You can't disenfranchise Florida and Michigan. that's just wrong
Selfishness to point out Barack's failings in experience? If Barack and his supporters can't take what Hillary is dishing out, wait until Rove and the Republican machine start and destroy him in September.
Obama has to go on the offensive. He has to contest the myth of her "experience" head-on. He has to spotlight the hypocrisy of a candidate who was shouting about his "Rove style" anti-universal health care attacks in Ohio, and then turns around and launches Rovian fear monger "red phone" ads. He has to attack her on character. If she has a kitchen sink, he has septic tank full of her sorted, corrupt history to dump.
He has to pin her down about the specific foreign policy and national security experience she claims. Or should we believe her because she says so?
If she attacks, she is "shrill." If he attacks, it's justified, right. They talk about Hillary's clothes, laugh, cleavage. They talk about his "coolness"
Please. No one is holding back from attacking Hillary. and not "every woman" rises to her defense. In fact the "enlightened super-liberal women" are all going Obama b/c they have attained equality and want to show that "women don't need a woman president" and that the US is no longer racist.
From the National Review
"if you make that choice, as we did, to move out of the money-making industry into the helping industry, then your salaries respond."
the helping industry has treated her pretty well.
In 2006, the Chicago Tribune reported that Mrs. Obama's compensation at the University of Chicago Hospital, where she is a vice president for community affairs, jumped from $121,910 in 2004, just before her husband was elected to the Senate, to $316,962 in 2005, just after he took office. And that does not count the money Mrs. Obama receives from serving on corporate boards.
Mrs. Obama also bemoaned the amount of money she HAS to spend -- nearly one-third of the median household income in Zanesville,OH (where she was speaking) -- on piano, dance, and other lessons for her two children.
I don't really care if it's Obama or Clinton.
Therefore what I want to focus on is how either of these two can beat McCain. I think that that is what they should focus on too.
I like the Onion but I really was disturbed to see their report about the McCain fix already being in.
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Onion_News_Diebold_already_rigged_election_0227.html
The right wingnuts are laughing at us. God forgive them.