The Qualifications of Hillary W. Clitnon..

[stephanie]

:popcorn:

dynasty in decline.
by Dean Barnett
01/14/2008, Volume 013, Issue 17

According to the Clinton campaign's narrative of choice, Senator Clinton is the most sensible choice for president because of her "experience." This "experience" obviously doesn't refer to her single full Senate term--even John Edwards has one of those. The "experience" that separates Hillary from the pack is her time in the White House, where she purportedly served as some sort of co-president/consigliere to her husband.

On December 26, the New York Times published a lengthy article that gave the lie to such claims. In her time as first lady, Hillary Clinton didn't hold a security clearance. She didn't attend National Security Council meetings. According to the Times's strange formulation, "She did not assert herself on the crises in Somalia, Haiti and Rwanda." Left unanswered is the nagging question of who would have cared if she had "asserted herself."

The Clinton campaign tried to strike back by insisting that her tenure in the White House featured some serious business. The candidate herself highlighted a perilous goodwill mission to Bosnia in which her airplane had to make a harrowing corkscrew landing to avoid danger. Among those accompanying the first lady on this daring errand were singer Sheryl Crow, the comedian Sinbad, and first daughter Chelsea.

Some in the conservative blogosphere took the trouble to fact-check the candidate's account of her dangerous voyage and found the story, like many other things related to the Clintons, to be factually deficient. Not surprisingly, her account didn't square with official White House records or the actual situation in Bosnia.
Senator Clinton claimed the trip took place in 1995, but White House records indicate her two visits to Bosnia occurred in 1996 and 1997. American soldiers based in Bosnia offered a starkly different view of Tuzla, the site of Hillary's (not to mention Sinbad's and Sheryl Crow's) heroics. The soldiers referred to Tuzla as "Disneyland" because it was so safe and so starkly different from surrounding areas.

But arguing over the veracity of the story misses the point. Since even in her own telling, Senator Clinton's adventure had all the accoutrements of a goodwill tour, how precisely did this trip differ from a typical activity of any first lady?

read the rest..
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/554fwchn.asp

[82Marine89]

The Clinton campaign tried to strike back by insisting that her tenure in the White House featured some serious business. The candidate herself highlighted a perilous goodwill mission to Bosnia in which her airplane had to make a harrowing corkscrew landing to avoid danger. Among those accompanying the first lady on this daring errand were singer Sheryl Crow, the comedian Sinbad, and first daughter Chelsea.

Maybe she should highlight her failed Socialist healthcare plan or any other scandal she was involved in.

[DrJohn]

If she wins, all she needs to do is have experienced advisors.

[MtnBiker]

Really what is Mrs Bill Clinton's experience?

Oh wait that is her experience.

[Abbey Marie]

Monica Lewinsky served President Clinton too, and arguably better than Hillary did. Should she be Secretary of State? :rolleyes:

[DrJohn]

Monica Lewinsky served President Clinton too, and arguably better than Hillary did. Should she be Secretary of State? :rolleyes:


Hmm...

Maybe Condi got her job the same way.

[Kathianne]

Monica Lewinsky served President Clinton too, and arguably better than Hillary did. Should she be Secretary of State? :rolleyes:

You mean that Madeline Albright? Ewwww

[82Marine89]

Monica Lewinsky served President Clinton too, and arguably better than Hillary did. Should she be Secretary of State? :rolleyes:

Director of Internal Affairs.

[red states rule]

Monica Lewinsky served President Clinton too, and arguably better than Hillary did. Should she be Secretary of State? :rolleyes:

She served in any postion Bill wanted he to

[Roadrunner]

I'm glad reporters are beginning to look into her exaggerated "experience".
Probably everyone in the presidential sweepstakes has more actual experience than she does. I will never know why the Dems gravitated to her rather than to Chris Dodd, Joe Biden or Bill Richardson. I guess it is the Clinton "mystique" and the thought that it is a way to get around Bill's not being able to serve a third term. Hopefully, there will be more sensible Democrats who don't want that couple anywhere near the White House again.

[red states rule]

I'm glad reporters are beginning to look into her exaggerated "experience".
Probably everyone in the presidential sweepstakes has more actual experience than she does. I will never know why the Dems gravitated to her rather than to Chris Dodd, Joe Biden or Bill Richardson. I guess it is the Clinton "mystique" and the thought that it is a way to get around Bill's not being able to serve a third term. Hopefully, there will be more sensible Democrats who don't want that couple anywhere near the White House again.

What Clinton "mystique"? The Clintons are not politcal gods, and unbeatable. She is running on one thing and one thing only - she is Bills wife. Period. End of her resume

[DrJohn]

I am not a fan of Hillary, at all, but if she gets the democratic nomination, I'm voting for her.

But then, I'm voting for whoever gets the democratic nod.
This will be the first time in my life that I've ever planned to vote for the party, rather than the individual.

[red states rule]

I am not a fan of Hillary, at all, but if she gets the democratic nomination, I'm voting for her.

But then, I'm voting for whoever gets the democratic nod.
This will be the first time in my life that I've ever planned to vote for the party, rather than the individual.

So, you support higher taxes across the board for everyone. surrender and appeasement to terrorists, more government spending and pork, liberal Judges who create law from the bench, and government run healthc care?

[82Marine89]

I read the title a few times, but I need to ask was that a typo? :lmao:

[OCA]

I am not a fan of Hillary, at all, but if she gets the democratic nomination, I'm voting for her.

But then, I'm voting for whoever gets the democratic nod.
This will be the first time in my life that I've ever planned to vote for the party, rather than the individual.


John although I wish it wasn't so there WILL be a democrat president from 2009-2012, there isn't a Repub in the field who can run with the Demo frontrunners and by and large Bush, with all his malfunctions, has fucked Republican candidates for some time to come.

[DrJohn]

So, you support higher taxes across the board for everyone. surrender and appeasement to terrorists, more government spending and pork, liberal Judges who create law from the bench, and government run healthc care?


You have a way with words...I love the republican-esque propaganda.
Do Bush's lips move when you type this stuff?

[red states rule]

John although I wish it wasn't so there WILL be a democrat president from 2009-2012, there isn't a Repub in the field who can run with the Demo frontrunners and by and large Bush, with all his malfunctions, has fucked Republican candidates for some time to come.

The top 3 Dems will not win a national election - the US is not a liberal country. They are all far left and moving more to the left daily

[Kathianne]

What Clinton "mystique"? The Clintons are not politcal gods, and unbeatable. She is running on one thing and one thing only - she is Bills wife. Period. End of her resume

Only OCA has thought them 'unbeatable.' I don't agree with you that the GOP is only good, but the idea that Clintons are magical, nah.

[OCA]

You have a way with words...I love the republican-esque propaganda.
Do Bush's lips move when you type this stuff?

I am not kidding when I say this and I know this because I have Limbaugh on everyday when i'm going from account to account: Red mimicks everything the guy says, hell most of the stuff that Red says is lifted directly from Rush's books.

Red does not have an original thought in his head.

[DrJohn]

John although I wish it wasn't so there WILL be a democrat president from 2009-2012, there isn't a Repub in the field who can run with the Demo frontrunners and by and large Bush, with all his malfunctions, has fucked Republican candidates for some time to come.



You've said it.
A LOT of folks, like me, plan to vote against the repubs (bushco) rather than for someone.
Bush and the repubs had six years of control and fucked up the country.
The dollar is losing value day by day and unemployment is rising.
That is just the tip of the iceberg.
Failure to pursue and kill binladen, sleeping with the saudis and the total lack of respect for the US constitution are just a few more things.
Yep, its time for a change.

[OCA]

Only OCA has thought them 'unbeatable.' I don't agree with you that the GOP is only good, but the idea that Clintons are magical, nah.


Am I missing something? When did they lose post Bubba losing a governor's election( he ran again and won) in the late 70's?

[red states rule]

You have a way with words...I love the republican-esque propaganda.
Do Bush's lips move when you type this stuff?

So you are saying the Dems running for President are opposed to what I posted?

[Kathianne]

Am I missing something? When did they lose post Bubba losing a governor's election( he ran again and won) in the late 70's?

Still doesn't translate into unbeatable. How many elections, total? Bill had to pull back mightily after '93, knowing '84 was going to be a blow out. It was. From then on, margainalized enough to win in '96.

[OCA]

You've said it.
A LOT of folks, like me, plan to vote against the repubs (bushco) rather than for someone.
Bush and the repubs had six years of control and fucked up the country.
The dollar is losing value day by day and unemployment is rising.
That is just the tip of the iceberg.
Failure to pursue and kill binladen, sleeping with the saudis and the total lack of respect for the US constitution are just a few more things.
Yep, its time for a change.

I am a solid conservative, well really i'm a capitalist first and foremost, and it has made me sick to see that 1. Bush grew the federal government and spent more than any president in modern history and 2. Bush has probably been responsible for about 3,000 plus more American lives than were neccessary in Iraq by his insistence on fighting a pc war and handcuffing the generals on the ground.

Republicans in my estimation have made their own bed by not calling this guy on the carpet, the American people know it and like in 2006 they will say it in Nov.2008

[DrJohn]

So you are saying the Dems running for President are opposed to what I posted?


What you say is pure conjecture.

I know you bushbots have made political hay out of saying that the dems will surrender to the terrorists.
I say Bullshit
.
The war in Iraq may be about terrorism now but it sure wasn't when bushco lied to us to get us to invade.

[OCA]

Still doesn't translate into unbeatable. How many elections, total? Bill had to pull back mightily after '93, knowing '84 was going to be a blow out. It was. From then on, margainalized enough to win in '96.


84? You mean 94? Still the guy won reelection even after the asskicking Demos took in 94.

You aren't understanding what i've been saying, its not the Clintons themselves its the people that surround them that win the elections.

[MtnBiker]

If she wins, all she needs to do is have experienced advisors.

Perhaps one of them should run for President then?

[nevadamedic]

Maybe she should highlight her failed Socialist healthcare plan or any other scandal she was involved in.

Like Whitewater and Travelgate?

[red states rule]

What you say is pure conjecture.

I know you bushbots have made political hay out of saying that the dems will surrender to the terrorists.
I say Bullshit
.
The war in Iraq may be about terrorism now but it sure wasn't when bushco lied to us to get us to invade.

It is a simple yes or no question.

I understand your reluctance to admit what the Dems actually stand for - it is usually fatal for them at the ballot box

BTW, if Pres Bush klied about Iraq, so did Bill, Hillary, Pelosi, and most other Dems in DC

[DrJohn]

Perhaps one of them should run for President then?


The US may have been better off if one of Bush's advisors had run instead of him.
I guess rummy/rove and the gang needed a shill, though.

[OCA]

It is a simple yes or no question.

I understand your reluctance to admit what the Dems actually stand for - it is usually fatal for them at the ballot box

BTW, if Pres Bush klied about Iraq, so did Bill, Hillary, Pelosi, and most other Dems in DC

What do today's Repubs stand for?

Hint.....I know the answer, do you?

[red states rule]

The US may have been better off if one of Bush's advisors had run instead of him.
I guess rummy/rove and the gang needed a shill, though.

Well, the Sems do keep providing excellent material on a regular basis

[red states rule]

What do today's Repubs stand for?

Hint.....I know the answer, do you?

So do I

What I listed the Dems are for - they are a 180 against

How about you?

[DrJohn]

It is a simple yes or no question.

I understand your reluctance to admit what the Dems actually stand for - it is usually fatal for them at the ballot box

BTW, if Pres Bush klied about Iraq, so did Bill, Hillary, Pelosi, and most other Dems in DC


No the dems actually felt that the POTUS would not LIE about something in order to go to war...to send our brightest and best to die.

Boy were they wrong

[OCA]

So do I

What I listed the Dems are for - they are a 180 against

How about you?

Nah actually they aren't, in a nutshell today's Repubs stand for a bloated federal government on all levels.

Ronal Reagan is spinning in his grave at today's Repub sellouts.

[DrJohn]

Well, the Sems do keep providing excellent material on a regular basis


Yes that drug-addicted hate mongering Rush needs material to feed the brainwashed.

[OCA]

The top 3 Dems will not win a national election - the US is not a liberal country. They are all far left and moving more to the left daily

:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

Gotta love the blinders you wear.

[MtnBiker]

The US may have been better off if one of Bush's advisors had run instead of him.
I guess rummy/rove and the gang needed a shill, though.

The issue is Hillary's experience, she is running for President. The rest of us are going forward in time. Bush is not running for President.

[MtnBiker]

The top 3 Dems will not win a national election - the US is not a liberal country. They are all far left and moving more to the left daily

Actually the dems have a very good chance of winning the White House, to think otherwise is foolish.

[red states rule]

No the dems actually felt that the POTUS would not LIE about something in order to go to war...to send our brightest and best to die.

Boy were they wrong

So was Bill and Hillary lying?

The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

[OCA]

The issue is Hillary's experience, she is running for President. The rest of us are going forward in time. Bush is not running for President.

Unfortunately Biker many people are going to voice their displeasure with Bush by voting for the candidate with the D by their name.

[DrJohn]

The issue is Hillary's experience, she is running for President. The rest of us are going forward in time. Bush is not running for President.


His policies are. He is the head of the republican party.

It's good to see you distncing yourself from him, though.

[OCA]

Actually the dems have a very good chance of winning the White House, to think otherwise is foolish.

Biker, I appreciate that you grasp the reality of this election.

[red states rule]

Actually the dems have a very good chance of winning the White House, to think otherwise is foolish.


I do not see enough red states flipping to blue - given what Dems have said they want to do

[MtnBiker]

It's good to see you distncing yourself from him, though.

How close was I to him?

[MtnBiker]

Unfortunately Biker many people are going to voice their displeasure with Bush by voting for the candidate with the D by their name.

Perhaps, interesting though, no mention of Hillary's "experience" in this thread, only attacks on Bush. That in itself is not going to win the election for the dems, they cannot be just against something, they also have to be for something. And show that what they are for is also for the good of the country and they are able to delivery such.

[nevadamedic]

The US may have been better off if one of Bush's advisors had run instead of him.
I guess rummy/rove and the gang needed a shill, though.

Since when is Rove behind Romney? I know Romney is going to pick Jeb as his running mate but I haven't heard anything about Rove.

[DrJohn]

Since when is Rove behind Romney? I know Romney is going to pick Jeb as his running mate but I haven't heard anything about Rove.


Rumsfeld=rummy

:laugh2:

[MtnBiker]

I know Romney is going to pick Jeb as his running mate but I haven't heard anything about Rove.

Bullshit!! you don't know any such thing.

[Kathianne]

Bullshit!! you don't know any such thing.

Exactly. For some reason NM thinks he's really 'spinning' to help McCain. Luckily for McCain his forum is limitied so far as I know, otherwise he's a one man wrecking crew.

[nevadamedic]

Bullshit!! you don't know any such thing.

Jeb's top people have left his office to work for the Romney campaign, people who have been with Jeb his whole career, put two plus two together on this one, it's not rocket science.

I'm not spinning anything to help McCain, that would actually hurt McCain and every other candidate and is something I don't want to see. The smartest candidate would pick him for many reasons not to mention Florida.

[Kathianne]

Jeb's top people have left his office to work for the Romney campaign, people who have been with Jeb his whole career, put two plus two together on this one, it's not rocket science.

You DO know you are hurting McCain with other Republican voters, right? So are you really a Dem, posing as a McCain supporter?

[nevadamedic]

You DO know you are hurting McCain with other Republican voters, right? So are you really a Dem, posing as a McCain supporter?

And your on crack.

[Kathianne]

And your on crack.

As someone said earlier, does not compute. Seriously dude, you are not helping McCain. With each post like the previous you make it more likely that if our first choice does drop out, we will NOT choose McCain.

You are making him the Hillary of DP.

[OCA]

Bullshit!! you don't know any such thing.

YEP! This guy don't know shit!

[Pale Rider]

John although I wish it wasn't so there WILL be a democrat president from 2009-2012, there isn't a Repub in the field who can run with the Demo frontrunners and by and large Bush, with all his malfunctions, has fucked Republican candidates for some time to come.

That's your opinion. Mine... I "know" there's going to be another Republican President, without a doubt. The dems have a half black cherry with no experience, a breck girl trial lawyer, and dried up ole 90's rerun witch. Now how is it that's going to beat a Republican again? Heh.... they can't. Not a one of them.

There'll be a Republican President. Don't doubt it for a second.

[nevadamedic]

As someone said earlier, does not compute. Seriously dude, you are not helping McCain. With each post like the previous you make it more likely that if our first choice does drop out, we will NOT choose McCain.

You are making him the Hillary of DP.

I'm not trying to help him on here at all, besides there are a couple of candidates that I wouldn't mind seeing in the White House so im not strictly for McCain.

[OCA]

That's your opinion. Mine... I "know" there's going to be another Republican President, without a doubt. The dems have a half black cherry with no experience, a breck girl trial lawyer, and dried up ole 90's rerun witch. Now how is it that's going to beat a Republican again? Heh.... they can't. Not a one of them.

There'll be a Republican President. Don't doubt it for a second.

What are the Repubs offering? Any conervatives in the bunch?

[red states rule]

What are the Repubs offering? Any conervatives in the bunch?

They are more conservative then the liberals the Dems are offering

[red states rule]

We may be watching the myth of the Clintons vanish before our eyes


Hillary advisers fear N.H. loss

By: Mike Allen and Ben Smith
Jan 6, 2008 04:24 PM EST


MANCHESTER, N.H. — Sen. Hillary Clinton’s strategists, desperate for a win in New Hampshire, have decided against unleashing attack ads against Sen. Barack Obama before Tuesday’s primary, Democratic sources said.

The senator’s aides concluded that negative advertising would not work in the compressed time frame between Iowa and New Hampshire, adding to their worries about their ability to change a media and political environment that is embracing Obama as a historic figure. The campaign also worries that fallout from an all-out attack on Obama could harm Clinton’s plans to turn the Democratic race into a grueling marathon.

“You can’t launch a negative ad and expect that it’s going to be effective over a three-day period,” said a Democratic strategist familiar with the campaign’s thinking. “And the blowback could be significant.”

On Sunday, the Clinton team was out instead with a new game plan, sharpening points she made in Saturday night’s debate and trying to undermine Obama without going nuclear.

“Rhetoric vs. Results, Talk vs. Action,” is the new formula.


for the complete article

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0108/7759.html