Hillary continues to make a big deal about her foreign policy expertise and conversely Obama's inadequacy in an arena that seems to terrify many Americans, just because it is so, well, foreign.
Surrounded by military brass and sounding as though she has just been accepted into her local Masonic lodge she bragged that she had "crossed the threshold" of foreign policy experience to serve as commander in chief. Then on Friday, after the sacking of Obama's friend and loose cannon foreign policy advisor Samantha Power, Hillary was asked to react. Here is what she said:
"I think it's important to look at what she and his other advisers say behind closed doors, particularly when they're talking to foreign governments and foreign press. It raises disturbing questions about what the real planning and policy positions inside the Obama campaign happen to be."
Hillary's mastery of innuendo here is quite astonishing. Meanwhile her own record on foreign policy is flaunted to the American public. Just how shallow that experience is, despite trips to 80-plus countries, is forensically laid out in the Chicago Tribune.
When pressed about her foreign policy experience Hillary claims she "helped to bring peace" to Northern Ireland and negotiated with Macedonia to allow refugees over the border from Kosovo at the height of Milosovevic's war. She also says that by "standing up" to the Chinese government on women's rights she was revealing her mettle.
The respected Irish journalist and historian of the troubles, Tim Pat Coogan, was dismissive of her claim: "It was a nice thing to see her there, with the women's groups. It helped, I suppose. But it was ancillary to the main thing. It was part of the stage effects, the optics. There were all kinds of peace movements, women's movements throughout the Troubles. But it was more about the clout of Bill Clinton."
Curiously the Macedonian border was opened to allow refugees to cross over the day before Hillary arrived. Ivo Daalder, a former Clinton official and author of a history of the Kosovo conflict says she did not negotiate a border opening.
"It was her coming that helped. But she had absolutely no role in the dirty work of negotiations," Daalder, an Obama supporter, told the Tribune. "This had nothing to do with her competence."
A meeting she held in Bosnia was a one-day affair in which she was accompanied by Sheryl Crow and Sinbad! as well as daughter, Chelsea. That was hardly conducive to heavy diplomatic lifting.
Her claims that she lobbied Bill for US military intervention in Rwanda to stop the genocide there are more serious perhaps. But curiously US military intervention in Rwanda was never on the cards for Bill Clinton. Lengthy memoirs by both Clintons never mentioned behind the scenes role before her presidential campaign.
The war in Bosnia ended in December 1995. After that, there was no fighting or sniper fire in the country, especially not in March 1996.
I know this; I lived through the entire war as a child. I should put this on my resume, it seems it’s a great qualification for important positions.
If the trip was so dangerous, do you think they would send Presidents wife and daughter there?
SAVO HELETA
Author of "Not My Turn to Die:
Memoirs of a Broken Childhood in Bosnia"
http://savoheleta.livejournal.com
Posted by: Savo Heleta | 12 March 2008 at 07:30 PM
Neither Clinton nor Obama have an experience at government executive level. Clinton is closest, but she fluffed the health care thing and that s her only claim to fame.
Ultimately it comes down to
1). Who will unite the country
2). Who can attract select and appoint a good support team
3). Who has a vision to unite the team and who can inspire
4). Policies
Obama is most likely to unite.
Each shoudl be able to select a good team.
Obama has vision and inspires people.
Policy no major difference, Obama MAY be more left-wing, but both could be more protectionist which will be disastrous for everyone.
Personally I detest Bush and regard the Republicans as the loony fringe of politics, but I can see NcCain as next President.
Posted by: Neil Murphy | 11 March 2008 at 03:47 PM
"I think it's important to look at what she and his other advisers say behind closed doors, particularly when they're talking to foreign governments and foreign press. It raises disturbing questions about what the real planning and policy positions inside the Obama campaign happen to be."
Astonishing indeed, considering the obvious reference to Samantha Powers, but also the not so subtle dig also over the Ohio NAFTA allegations against the Obama camp.
Problem is, Canada's CBC broadcast a complete retraction to that claim, and it's come out that it was manufactured out of whole cloth. The officials that met with the Obama adviser were told precisely what Obama said in the Ohio debates, which is he would be looking to renegotiate environmental and labor standards of the treaty. The Canadian officials, for whatever reasons, then reported that the Obama camp had assured them it was just rhetoric. With the timing of the leak being a little too fortuitous, the Canadian prime minister promised an investigation after being attacked for assisting republicans by the leader of the liberal party in parliament.
Of course, that leak without question played significantly in Ohio, and had the general electorate nationwide for the first time questioning Obama's integrity. The affair was the first 'swift boat' tactic of the season and we haven't even gotten to the GE! For whatever reason the American MSM's didn't make near the big deal out of the CBC retraction as it did over the original story, so many Americans will continue to believe it happened.
It was later reported in Canada that Hillary's camp had in fact called a Canadian official to soothe their fears about the NAFTA rhetoric!!! So it's hard to say who was behind the smear at this point, and whether we'll ever find out.
Posted by: Ydef | 11 March 2008 at 02:56 PM
So I was channel flipping and stopped at Fox News. They ran three stories in a row of a black or latino guy killing or kidnapping a white girl. While Fox is all about forming bigotry in its viewers, giving way more time to crimes committed by people of color against whites, this one was even more outrageous. I kept watching to see how they would use these stories to push a bigger agenda (like a "war on gangs," which they did) and to see how many of these stories they would string together. Try to follow the bouncing ball:
Story 1: "Black man caught driving murdered pretty college white girl's car and using her ATM card." [Legitimate story, though we must ask why we only hear about the murder of pretty white .]
Story 2: "Black man arrested in murder of pretty college white girl." [By stringing the stories together the implication is that the black man from the first story is the killer of the first pretty white girl.]
Story 3: "White girl kidnapped by black/brown Latino boyfriend." [Huh? Ok, where did this story come from? Where are they going with this? Are they setting up another story?]
Story 4: "Barack Obama 'attacks' Hillary Clinton on the campaign trail." [Unbelievable!]
This is exactly why Obama cannot "get tough on Clinton" or "hit back." She'll play dirty and keep hitting him and people will question his toughness. His toughness is in his ability to take all of this shit and not hit back. The Clinton's are hoping to God that he'll hit back so that they can get more of these "big bad black man attacks innocent white girl" stories. There are few racist story lines that are more deeply ingrained in US consciousness. We still haven't Killed that Mockingbird...
Posted by: Jeremy | 10 March 2008 at 06:54 PM
"Milosevic's war"? (note the spelling, by the way). That war was started by Blair, Cook, Robertson, Clinton, ALbright, Schroeder, Fischer, Chirac etc. Please, enough with the crude reinforcement of propaganda.
Posted by: Tommy Wilson | 10 March 2008 at 10:38 AM
Hillary and Barack have the same amount of executive experience, which is none. Yes, for Hillary, Bill will be in the background, and if I know Hillary, she will see to it that he stays there. So, all things being equal, who stands a better chance of actually getting policy enacted by getting both sides of the aisle to cooperate? Not Hillary. She couldn't get her health care packag passed the first time and I don't see any change in her personality that would dictate a different outcome. Just look at the way she viciously harps on any little misstep in the Obama campaign. What do you think she will do if the GOP won't go along with her program? She will lash out as is her nature, and will be at the helm of the ensuing gridlock.
Posted by: Randy, Indy | 10 March 2008 at 02:11 AM
I routinely use an ATM card. As a result, I will be applying for the post of Treasury Secretary in the next US administration.
An administration's ability to deal (or not to deal) with foreign policy and crisis is determined by its cabinet. The cabinet is determined by the skill and leadership of the president.
The Cheney administration has been terrible at it, appointing neo-conservative polical hacks everywhere it can. (Remember Dubyas attempt to appoint his solicitor, Meyers, to the US supreme court?).
So, who can provide strong and visionary leaderhsip to get the best chance of the right options on which to base the best decision?
The Clintons have a reasonable track record at building cabinets and translating policy to nominees and options to foreign policy.
Obama has little executive experience. That shouldn't count him out but he dosen't seem to be able to move his own campaign team to the next level and I think Americans subconciously (at least) realize this.
Posted by: Rustyschwinn | 09 March 2008 at 10:16 AM
I agree, Hillary should just move aside and let Obama win, instead of letting this drag on any much longer, it's so annoying to have to wait and wait and also, such a waste of millions of dollars that could be put to better use.... such as Retirement!
Posted by: Emily | 09 March 2008 at 04:14 AM
I have read just about enough devoted 'forever-yours' fan mail for Hillary on the Independent, it's a little stmach turning at times, more so, when Hillary gains a minor victory that creates hardly a ripple in the election updates but gets front page headlines, because Hillary is hanging-just barely hanging- off a bridge with her nails for dear life... the only question is for how much longer.
I feel Obama has a stronger presidential presence compared to Hilary's- noted that both are politicians and therefore, experienced manipulators with a bit of dirt on them-but Obama doesn't strike quite as corrupt and conceited as Hillary. Even if his policies concerning healthcare are not as clear-cut and emphasized as Hillary's who's had a number of years to repeat it to everyone over and over again like a broken down record, let's face it, policies are formulated and tweaked not just by one person but by the administration backing the leader... and Barack has a strong, intelligent and capable team behind him, for evidence, look how well co-ordinated his campaign has been (for someone who was virtually unknown a year ago).
I think Obama will be warmly accepted not just at home but by foreign leaders who may have viewed USA with suspicion before, while Obama has already proven that he makes decisions after careful and much deliberated thought and not to please the public nor to conform to everone else's views or pressures.... all of which lead me to think he will make a great president of USA who pulled his country back up on its feet.
Posted by: Chloe | 09 March 2008 at 04:10 AM
Neither Clinton or Obama have *vast* foreign policy experience, but then again... what American president in recent history can say that they HAVE when they entered office?
I can say that Clinton does tip the scales slightly in this arena just by her association with Bill, and just by her foreign visits and activism. She is known and well-liked around the world, which also helps. It's also important to note that she was in the U.S. Senate while Obama was still serving in his state's legislature, and has experience with executive governance simply – again – by association.
Some people say that "association" does not equate to direct experience. That is true in part, but not categorically inaccurate. If someone spends a decade working as an assistant to a physician, for instance, that person may still not have a medical degree, but he or she will be able to recognize illnesses and recall treatments that other people simply cannot. The same "knowledge by association" principle applies to most every profession. Even if association does not equate to experience, it definitely brings about greater INSIGHT at bare minimum.
Both Clinton and Obama are vastly superior to McCain, however. And, they will both be better than Bush even if they turn out to be complete failures.
I support Hillary simply because of domestic healthcare and economic policy... two areas where I feel Obama is devastatingly weak. Foreign policy is not as large of an issue to me, because I think as long as the incoming president's heart is "in the right place," it would be pretty hard to fail on that front.
Although I support Hillary, I would be happy with either one as president. My extreme preference is to see them both on the same ticket in some combination of President/Vice-President, although I am not holding my breath for that. It's a nice thought, though. :)
Tim / Oklahoma / USA
Posted by: Tim | 08 March 2008 at 10:10 PM