Hillary, what the hell?
by Chris 3 comments Leave a comment March 7th, 2008Check out the latest Hillary Clinton talking point with regards to Barack Obama’s experience.
For those of you that can’t see the video, Clinton said:
Look I have said Senator McCain will bring a lifetime of experience to the campaign, I will bring a lifetime of experience, and Senator Obama will bring a speech he made in 2002.
I mean the fact of the matter is that Senator Clinton, you know when she runs this 3a.m., you know, phone call ad doesn’t cite and can’t cite any particular experience that makes her more effective in dealing with these issues of national security and when she did have a red phone moment, when we have the most important foreign policy decision of a generation, she got it wrong. So I’m looking forward to having that debate. I ultimately think that the American people are gonna want a clear break from the Bush-Cheney foreign policies of the past because they haven’t made us more safe and more secure. And I think whoever is offering that clean break is gonna be in a much stronger position to debate John McCain. If she thinks that longevity in Washington is the primary criteria for winning the White House, then John McCain is gonna beat her.
Seriously, what gives Clinton the idea that she has some huge advantage in foreign policy experience? Sure, she traveled around the world with Bill. Sure, she was in the White House when Bill was answering those crisis phone calls, but does that really count as substantive experience?
More importantly, this sets her up badly for the general election, should she get that far. Clinton can’t possibly win the experience debate with John McCain. She’s not going to win the toughness debate either.
Hillary Clinton is desperate. She is doing anything and everything she can to beat Obama now, long-term goals or party success be damned. And as much as I despise both the Republican and Democratic parties, I can’t help but think that it’s extremely important that the executive branch be kept out of Republican hands. By undermining Obama’s chances versus McCain and her own, Clinton is making it more likely that we’ll get a continuation of the same foreign policy that has left us in a destabilized world with few friends. Not to mention a domestic policy that pays no attention to the average American.
“Seriously, what gives Clinton the idea that she has some huge advantage in foreign policy experience? Sure, she traveled around the world with Bill. Sure, she was in the White House when Bill was answering those crisis phone calls, but does that really count as substantive experience?”
Even if all she ever did was greet foreign leaders at the door of the White House when she was first lady, it still puts her somewhat ahead of Obama in the experience department. I’m not trying to defend her here, but look at what Obama says here:
“…when we have the most important foreign policy decision of a generation, she got it wrong.”
I’d like to just reiterate my previous statements that Obama wasn’t in the Senate at the time and it sure as hell is easy for him to act like he would’ve made the right decision at the time. And you need to step back and think about this a little differently. Yeah, Iraq is a disaster right now, but what if it had been done correctly? What if the Bush Administration had actually had a real plan and an exit strategy and it all went well? Then Hillary and everyone else would’ve been right and Obama would be acting like he supported the whole thing from the start. Hillary isn’t responsible for how the war was handled, and the fact that it was a bad decision is a lot of hindsight really. The simple fact that Obama wasn’t there for such a tough decision is all the evidence you need to see that Hillary is more experienced. Surely her time in the White House wasn’t just spent watching TV either. I don’t think its really a debate about the fact that she has more experience. Neither has as much as McCain, but she does have more than Obama.
And this here:
“I ultimately think that the American people are gonna want a clear break from the Bush-Cheney foreign policies of the past because they haven’t made us more safe and more secure.”
You know I hate Bush/Cheney and I hate how they have been running foreign policy and homeland defense. To bring up the typical Republican talking point though, “Well we haven’t been attacked yet have we?” I think thats a lame cop out defense, but how can you really say we are less safe and secure? Where is the proof of that? Yeah our soldiers in Iraq are in more danger right now, but what about people here at home in the US? It isn’t something you can really measure.
On the whole, Obama’s policies aren’t revolutionary or anything. He has a fantastic campaign going but you have to admit that many people are just interested in him because of his rhetoric of hope and change. His rhetoric was all in that speech in 2002, which I saw live and I honestly was impressed. Strip away the rhetoric and the fact that he is a minority and I don’t think he would generate half the buzz he does. What exactly makes him superior?
Isn’t the bigger story the fact that the news effectively delcared this week “Good going, stupids. Now neither of you can win”? Heh. Stupid politicos forgot to change the magic number when they stripped FL and MI of their delegates.
http://www.avclub.com/content/hater/who_does_rolling_stone_think
Haha look at this, the cover of Rolling Stone. I don’t care how you feel about whatever candidate, this is funny.