"but Hillary Clinton said that she supports the Bush administration's tough embargo policy and a travel ban that is more restrictive and punitive than when she and her husband occupied the White House."

That's bad enough. But her speech in front of the VFW this week made her look, in my opinion, like rabid warmonger who can't wait to start dropping bombs on the next country unlucky enough to get on our bad side. She's totally overcompensating for the perceived doubts about her toughness, and we don't need another itchy trigger finger in the White House.

Unfortunately many voters aren't foreign policy savvy. And unfortunately, many people did not understand President Carter's foreign policies either, which have to be seen in the context of the Cold War and the emerging emphasis on human rights. For the record, I have a lot of respect for Carter. However, voter's do remember the Iran hostage crisis and the failed rescue. I don't think a Brzezinski endorsement will do much for Obama in today's political climate.

Quote of the week:

"Being a former first lady doesn't prepare you to be president."

As the kids used to say during the last cultural cycle, "Oh, Snap!"

"... should dig a bit here and ask herself why her advisors are pushing her into anachronistic, 20th century grooves -- and not ones aimed at a clear-headed and consistent 21st century vision for the country."

Maybe the answer is that her top advisor laid some of those grooves himself, and lies in the bed next to her.

You could be right. You could just be engaging in wishful thinking.

I have to say that in naming a non-running candidate who you agree with on FP, that you chose Chuck Hagel (who I've not heard mention running) as opposed Wes Clark (who says repeatedly that he wants to run and thinks about it every day), is kind of a shock. Is Clark too liberal for you?

Why should I read this as anything more than an old-guard slap at her for being a woman? ("First ladies bake cookies, they aren't involved in decisions.") She's been a senator for 7 years and sits on the Armed Services Committee. What prepares a person to be president anyway?

The point isn't that Ms Clinton is not qualified to be president. She is qualified, just as the other candidates are. The point is that her constant claim to being uniquely experienced for the office is nonsense.

Richardson is probably best qualified, having extensive diplomatic experience, experience as a cabinet member, and experience as a governor. I have no idea whether his experience would lead him to be the best president of those running, but I don't doubt that his experience is greater than that of the others.

Hoppy in Sacramento

J. McCutchen

Obama's kept his powder dry all summer long. That changed with the Iowa Debate and VFW Speech.

Look out folks....

Why should I read this as anything more than an old-guard slap at her for being a woman?

That's a fair question.  I'd answer it probably by pointing to the wife of a former President I'd consider undoubtedly qualified to serve as President, Eleanor Roosevelt.  Republicans hated her even more than they hate Clinton.  Everyone else loved her.  Comparing her achievements with Hillary Clinton's, I'd vote for Roosevelt in a minute (less, actually).  Alas, she passed before most of the readers here were born...and without her as a standard of measurement it is hard to really assess Clinton's qualifications or achievements.  Measured against Eleanor Roosevelt, however, I think she comes up wanting.  Eleanor never served in an elective office, but she did such things as pen the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, further Civil Rights for Blacks before it was a front burner issue, and give us a person of whom we could be unreservedly proud. 

aMike

I agree totally. Lets get some new blood in the Whitehouse.

Quote of the week: "Being a former first lady doesn't prepare you to be president."

Heh.

I teach HS science but I'm married to physician. When she comes home and gives me the rundown of her day, I do get a pretty decent sense of the stress involved with her job. I can even talk a good game and sound all medical with the proper lingo. But trust me, you DO NOT want me cutting open your loved ones or diagnosing whatever ails you. And you certainly don't want me delivering your baby by c-section, which is something my wife does nearly every day.

I accept the fact that Hillary has a reasonable amount of public policy experience as a legislator. A but more experience than Edwards and a bit less than Obama. But the idea that she is somehow the senior candidate here because she "shared" a bed with the previous occupant? Well, I just don't buy it.

What Hillary actually has is an immense amount of POLITICAL experience. As a spouse she was intimately involved in what? Two governor's campaigns and two presidential campaigns before this one? That's an immense amount of campaign experience. And I expect that she was much more intimately involved in every one of those campaigns than she ever was in the day to day operations of the Arkansas government or the White House.

It is her POLITICAL experience that is showing through in this campaign. She is clearly the most polished, disciplined, and senior campaigner on either side of the aisle. It may win her elections, but I'm not sure it really translates to superior executive experience for the job at hand.

And, for what it's worth: Bill R use to be the Congressman from one district just north of where I lived at the time. He was a very well liked rep from a very progressive district.

Kevin Russell Cook

In the eight years Clinton was President, Hillary Clinton traveled extensively, both nationally and internationally, has developed personal and professional relationships with many national and international leaders, has supported and promoted many political causes, especially in children's and women's fields in India and Pakistan and worked just as hard as Eleanor Roosevelt in supporting her husband and party's goals. Clinton was a signatory to the International Children's Rights declaration and the Children's Defense Fund and has worked to further civil rights since her college days.

You know, it would be nice if people actually read her books, researched her record and tried to view it outside the prism of her critics. It might also be fairer to mention that Eleanor Roosevelt who accomplished so much, did so after the death of her husband, when she was freed from framing her politics in the context of her husband's political goals. That Hillary Clinton had to work to support her family financially, for most of her career, while also contributing and volunteering support for these causes, is just as admirable as Eleanor Roosevelt's long career in philanthropy and political causes. That Hillary Clinton worked hard to secure the nomination and election to a political office and has worked hard for her constituents, earning re-election and their respect is to her credit, not detriment.

It is a testament to the hard work and dedication of both women that a woman can run for the presidency of The United States and actually have a chance. To measure one woman's record against another and have that woman's record come up wanting, tells me you haven't been paying attention.

Hillary's a hawk--that's for sure. If she picked Joe Lieberman as her running mate she'd lose the election, but it would make a lot of sense otherwise.

Keep your eye on the ball;

The Republicans want to run against Obama because the know they can't beat Hillary.

Clinton has plenty of experience for the job of President. She was a member of the Nixon impeachment inquiry staff, and then went on to a prominent law career in which she was twice named one of the top 100 woman lawyers in the country. And no one thinks she was just the "first lady" during the Clinton administration, but by most accounts she was Bill Clinton's top advisor and the administration's chief political strategist. She had an office in the West Wing and was involved in administration decision-making on a daily basis. She was really an integral part of two presidential administrations administrations.

Then of course she has been a twice-elected Senator for the country's second most populous state, serving on the Armed Services Committee. Her level of experience is comparable to that of Robert Kennedy. She is also clearly very hard-working and very ambitious.

There are a number of important differences between Hillary Clinton and Eleanor Roosevelt, chief among them being that Eleanor Roosevelt was best known as a promoter of peace and reconciliation, while Hillary Clinton is an enabler of war, hostility and aggression.

Recently, Zbigniew Brzezinski, who in 1988 broke with the Democratic Party and endorsed George H. W. Bush for President and the following year published The Grand Failure in which he confidently predicted that the Soviet Union would likely collapse within a few decades, endorsed Barak Obama for President.

If Hillary gets the nomination, I suspect she'll pick Bill as her running mate.

Brzezinski is still a brilliant mind, and far from "old school". I believe he's looking clearly at the current world situation in today's terms and he's seeing that there's a new world and a new reality that needs to be addressed. And I think he's impressed with Obama's open and pragmatic approach. Read what Brzezinski has written and said on a variety of topics. Then consider that Hillary chose Madeleine Albright to be on her team.

Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq: "We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?"

Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it."

If you prefer Hillary's claustrophobic, paranoid, vaguely-imperialist view of the world, then have at it--vote for her and you'll get four years of Hillary's new Cool War vision for the world.

A couple of Brzezinki's "old school" pieces:

"Five Flaws in the President's Plan"
"Terrorized by 'War On Terror'"

Personally, I'll take Obama's pragmatic, humble-but-not-humbled realism over Hillary's dogmatic, old-school jingoism any day of the week.

Hillary would be new blood. She shares a bed and a last name with Bill, but she's not Bill. Not even close. I think your comment indicates part of the problem: many of Hillary's supporters are secretly entertaining the notion that a vote for Hillary is a vote for a "return" to the "Clinton" years. They're wrong. Those were the BILL Clinton years, folks. The Hillary Clinton years will be quite different. If you liked Bill, don't vote for Hillary because all you'll get is Hillary.

It really worries me that a lot of people seem to be basing their vote on Hillary's last name. I actually heard someone say recently, "I'm not voting for Hillary. Then it would be Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton. That would be stupid." I hope we haven't descended to that level of thinking. There are plenty of excellent reasons to vote for someone besides Hillary, but I wouldn't count her last name among them.

It really worries me that a lot of people seem to be basing their vote on Hillary's last name.

Would she even be Senator from New York if she ran as Hillary Rodham?  I don't know...history doesn't reveal its alternatives.  But for a "democratic" country we're quite dynastic.  Two father/son Presidency combos.  An Uncle/Nephew Presidential Combo.  Robert Kennedy laughingly referred to as the third Senator from Massachusetts...switching states and counting on name recognition to give him a platform.  Patrick Kennedy doing the same in Rhode Island.

There are all sorts of other examples...Tafts, etc. etc. etc.  But my point is this.  One cannot have it both ways.  One cannot use the name recognition when it's useful and deny the connection is helpful when it isn't useful.

aMike

"by most accounts she was Bill Clinton's top advisor and the administration's chief political strategist."

Please tell us you were joking. You WERE joking, weren't you?

J. McCutchen

MR. HUNT: In that larger context then, would you argue that the widely advertised General Petraeus report in a couple weeks is really not very relevant?

MR. BRZEZINSKI: Well, I would recommend that people read the report he delivered, I believe in 2004 or 2005, which was claiming at the time that we were making significant progress and that we were doing quite well.

Friday Follies: The Utter Uselessness of the Petraeus Report
Paul Waldman

I don't know about that. It already has old Trillary triangulating

Obama is uniquely qualified to be Pres because he alone of all the candidates on either side has the ability, from his background and early life, to step outside of the American cocoon and to see other peoples as something other than extensions of our ambitions and desires. He really undertands that they are people with (often, but not always) legitimate ambitions and points of view that must be taken into account, even if ultimately opposed.

Hillary, OTOH, is like all the rest--she sees the world as an extension of US ambitions and conflicts, the very thing that led us astray throughout the Cold War and now in our purported "generational struggle": against Islamic extremism.

This kind of objectivity gives him instant credibility abroad, and he recogizes that with his promise to go before some Islamic forum and pledge that we do not seek to wage war against Islam or otherwise undermine it as a religion. He is the clean break with our past, not Hillary Clinton. "Conventional" is exactly the word to apply to her. And it is not what we need now.

Obama's credibility: Say, for example, inPakistan?

Bush already made that pledge. No American President can make that pledge and be believed unless it is backed up with action. Obama has pledged to take unilateral action over Pakistan's objection if need be. Having shown that type of respect, how much credibility do you think he has in the Islamic world?

You know, I get really tired of comments like this. I don't know about you, but I'm not particularly impressed with the extent of Republican "knowledge". Karl Rove thought the Republicans were going to keep Congress in 2006. The Republicans "know" that "victory" is just around the corner in Iraq. If you are truly willing to start with the assumption that what Republicans "know" is the truth, then darn it, vote for those brilliant Republicans!

If YOU think Obama (or Clinton or Edwards or Kucinich...) can't beat whatever numbskull the Republicans nominate, say so and say why! I'm much more interested in what YOU think than what you think of Republicans "think" (unless, I guess, what you think is based completely on what Republicans supposedly think).

I'd appreciate some background here too. He gets quoted a lot and writes opinion pieces, but why do you consider him to be so brilliant?

I have and I consider it a fair read regarding Hillary.

What experiences in the White House do you see as contributing to the claim that Hillary has executive Presidential experience?

Not impossible to do, IMHO, and one more American voters would be wise to attempt.

I did read Mrs. Clinton's book and, other than an amusing anecdote about a lecherous encounter with nonegenarian Strom Thurmond, I found it to be the most anodyne pablum I've ever read. She projected all the intellectual bite and political passion of June Cleaver.

For me, the best reason to support Hillary is that her election will absolutely gall all the Clinton-haters. Back atcha!

But perhaps Obama will be in the better political position to look under all the rocks of the prior eight years and dispense just punishment to the cadres of Bush administration felons, from Cheney to Rumsfeld to Gonzales, on down to the many anonymous apparatchiks. Mrs. Clinton would likely feel more constrained not to appear "vindictive" to her husband's persecutors in the Republican party.

I say, let the tumbrels roll!

Put the way you mischaracterized it, what difference would it make? You might as well just lie outright about what Obama's said.

sdhays said:

You know, I get really tired of comments like this.

Don't read them.

The Republicans took both Houses of Congress in 05 and held them till last year. They elected possibly the worst President in our history, Twice!

I didn't say I was impressed with their knowledge, nor did I say they know the "truth", but they do have a talent for winning elections. There's no "knowledgeable" reason for Bush to have beaten Kerry, but he did. Worse, they were good enough to beat Gore or at least make it close enough to steal.

I 'suspected' the possibility in 04 they feared Dean, (remember Dean, the guy who wanted to go after the Republican's Billy Joe Bob vote?) so word was put out by the Repugs that "Dean can't win," so we got Kerry.

I have the 'suspicion' that the 'Hillary can't win" conventional wisdom 'may' be a repeat of Dean '04.

Ignore the enemy's capabilities. Underestimate them at your own peril.

My choice was always Gore.

If YOU think Obama (or Clinton or Edwards or Kucinich...) can't beat whatever numbskull the Republicans nominate, say so and say why!
OK, I'll say it again: I don't think Hillary can beat whatever numbskill the Republicans nominate. There are three reasons for that opinion:

• She will not have the support (read "vote") of millions of lefties like me. This reason is not really arguable.

I agree, on paper Richardson has the most varied government service on the Federal and state level.

One could argue that a bright and involved first lady such as Hillary Clinton got training almost equivalent to a vice president during her eight years in the White House. Though she held no constitutional office, she was privy to a lot of information and ongoing debates on issues and crises that unfolded in the Clinton years.
Not yet rated.

 In the eight years Clinton was President, Hillary Clinton traveled extensively, both nationally and internationally, has developed personal and professional relationships with many national and international leaders, has supported and promoted many political causes, especially in children's and women's fields in India and Pakistan and worked just as hard as Eleanor Roosevelt in supporting her husband and party's goals. Clinton was a signatory to the International Children's Rights declaration and the Children's Defense Fund and has worked to further civil rights since her college days.

Here is an opposing take on your view:

Sen. Hillary Milhous Clinton has been lumbering around the political landscape talking about herself as commander in chief. She joined the Senate Armed Services Committee as a freshman seven short years ago and has managed to pick up enough military jargon to sound like an Army major on his third tour of duty in the Pentagon's administrative office. She has taken on the world-weary sound of a veteran European diplomat -- although she has not carried out even one day's duty as a diplomat.

In fact, prior to being elected to the Senate in 2000, her only recent professional employment had been as a lawyer in Little Rock, Ark., while her husband, coincidentally, was governor of that state. She represented clients who sometimes had an interest in getting to know her husband better. She has never managed anything larger than a Senate office, although she did exercise the traditional first lady's prerogative of trying to get various members of her husband's staff fired.

Her international activities while first lady were more in line with the ceremonial responsibilities of a Pat Nixon or Laura Bush than with the actual interventions of Eleanor Roosevelt -- who she does claim to have spoken to via séance.

In other words, she doesn't have the government management experience of a Reagan, Carter or Bill Clinton. Nor does she have the international, military or naval experience of an Eisenhower, Hoover or a Franklin Roosevelt. Now, this doesn't mean she would not make a jim-dandy president (although I would prefer about 295 million other Americans in that job before her). But it does mean that the cliché that she is the experienced candidate is just hooey.

Then you write:

That Hillary Clinton had to work to support her family financially, for most of her career, while also contributing and volunteering support for these causes, is just as admirable as Eleanor Roosevelt's long career in philanthropy and political causes. ...It is a testament to the hard work and dedication of both women that a woman can run for the presidency of The United States and actually have a chance. To measure one woman's record against another and have that woman's record come up wanting, tells me you haven't been paying attention

Whoa, this is a real distortion of what Hillary has done. She did not work to support her family financially for most of her career. Her professional career in ARK was with the oldest  good ol boy firm in Arkansas which she was able to secure based on Bills connections. Just as she is campaigning and fund raising  on his connections today.

Bill was a State Atty General prior to becoming governor and they lived in the governor's mansion when Hillary became partner in that good ol boy law firm. Her finances were not at all essential to their lifestyle. Not one bit.

To even suggest that  Hillary's volunteer efforts like sitting on corporate boards at WalMart are anywhere near those of Eleanor Roosevelt is a gross distortion and minimization of what Eleanor accomplished in terms of the Civil Rights movement, New Deal, child laber and establishing a minimum wage in this country. There is not one thing whatsoever in Hillary's resume which is comparable to those achievements, advocacy and leadership on Hillary's part.  Hillary had an opportunity to do something of which would have been as significant if she had continued to be a leader and champion on universal health care. Hillary chose instead to acqueisence to the lobbyist influence and 'represent them because they are Americans too' It is not difficult in the least to measure Hillary's record against Eleanor's and find her to be totally lacking in honesty, conviction, integrity and leadership.

It is anything but a testament to women for Hillary to run for President as a female based on her spouse's record rather than any earned experiernced as a leader or an elected official. Hillary's track record is devoid of significant leadership, advocacy or championing to  overcome  domestic problems of significance in this country. Hillary is the wrong female to represent females as her running affirms that she is an affirmative action candidate based on gender as she has no track record of merit that validates or affirms any political achievement or accomplishment of note other than being a First Lady. In fact, she has a record of being polarizing and unable to mold consensus or champion causes with the courage and conviction that true leadership represents while serving as First Lady.

Hillary is a very poor role model for women as she basically says the road to the Presidency is through marriage to a former President and not based on anything accomplished on your own merit. Which is why many educated, affluent and professional women soundly reject her candidacy on the basis of merit. Women who have worked to earn their careers find Hillary to be the antithesis of what females should be when considered to be successful professionals.

intelligence. His Polish demeanor, Kissinger like foreign ascent and bombastic appearance may mislead some, but try to find one single original idea that came from him.

You must not watch Z. He is anything but bombastic and he is an acclaimed strategic mind particularly on foreign policy. I am uncertain why you say he does not have an original idea when clearly the new original idea of neoconservatism as the idealogy for America's foreign policy has been a colossal failure. Z knew enough not to sanction that stupidity and had enough statesmanship not to attack the current administration. In fact, when folks talk about experience informing judgment, Z exemplifies that and has a hugely successful track record on matters of foreign policy. Why would he rely on the flawed intelligence of this administration given the depth of his understanding of world cultures, global affairs and the impact of balkanazation on America's global power.  Kissinger was a nitwit and kowtowed to Nixon, but Z is a first rate strategic mind who brings unmatchable experitse on FP that is self-evident even in a room of his peers. He is highly esteemed. Unlike Hillary.

SPIEGEL: Dr. Brzezinski, President Bush compares the dangers of terrorism with the dangers of the Cold War. He has even spoken repeatedly of a "nation at war" and will only accept "complete victory." Is he right or is he using exaggerated rhetoric?

 

Brzezinski: He is fundamentally wrong. Whether that is deliberate demagoguery or simply historical ignorance, I do not know. For four years I was responsible for coordinating the U.S. response in the event of a nuclear attack. And I can assure you that a nuclear war between the United States and the Soviet Union on a comprehensive scale would have killed 160 to 180 million people within 24 hours.

No terrorist threat is comparable to that in the foreseeable future. Moreover, terrorism is essentially a technique of killing people and not the enemy as such. If one wages war on an invisible, unidentifiable phantom, one gets into a state of mind that virtually promotes dangerous exaggerations and distortions of reality.

SPIEGEL: What are these distortions?

Brzezinski: After the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941, the United States was energetic and determined, and during the 40 years of the Cold War it was patient and deliberate. In neither case did any U.S. president intentionally preach fear as the major message to the people - on the contrary.

With his very loose formulations, the president is now creating a climate of fear that is destructive for American morale and distorting of American policy.

SPIEGEL: Is fear, as at the thought of a nuclear weapon in the hands of terrorists, not something very natural?

Brzezinski: Certainly, such a notion is not entirely unrealistic, but on the other hand we are not confronted with the Soviet nuclear weapons arsenal. I do not wish to minimize the danger of a single or even multiple terrorist acts, but their scale is simply not comparable.

SPIEGEL: Yet sometimes the discussions, in the United States but also in Europe, create the impression that radical Islam has taken the place of the former Soviet Union and that some form of Cold War is continuing.

Brzezinski: Radical Islam is such an anonymous phenomenon that has arisen in some countries and not in others. It has to be taken seriously, but it is still only a regional danger most prevalent in the Middle East and somewhat east of the Middle East. And even in those regions, Islamic fundamentalists are not in the majority.

SPIEGEL: Fear-mongering is therefore not a valid response?

Brzezinski: We have to formulate a policy for this region which helps us to mobilize our potential friends. Only if we cooperate with them can we contain and eventually eliminate this phenomenon. It is a paradox: During the Cold War, our policy was directed at uniting our friends and dividing our enemies. Unfortunately our tactics today, including occasional Islamphobic language, have the tendency of unifying our enemies and alienating our friends.

SPIEGEL: So it is exaggerated rhetoric which ensures that Osama bin Laden is elevated to the level of a Mao or Stalin?

Brzezinski: Correct. And that is of course a distortion of reality - notwithstanding the fact that bin Laden is a killer. He is a criminal and should be presented as such, and not intentionally elevated into a globally significant leader of a transnational, quasi-religious movement.

SPIEGEL: Has there been any progress at all in the fight against terrorism for the past five years?

Brzezinski: Yes and no. Knock on wood. So far, there has been no repetition of a terrorist attack in the United States, and that - as was the case with the recent plot in London - is probably partly due to preventive measures we have taken.

Also, there is a growing realization among the modern elites in the Moslem world that Islamic terrorism is a threat to them as well - but it is a slow process. Moreover, this process has been handicapped, as with our invasion of Iraq, which has galvanized a lot of hostility in the Islamic world towards the United States. Our insensitive and ambiguous posture in the Israel-Palestinian conflict is also a very important reason for the hostility towards us. All this helps terrorism.

Steve Clemons: "The Hillary we see today -- running hard right (if that is what one can call Bush's foreign policy) on a number of national security issues"

This is the stupidest statement in a post on a serious blog that I can recall. At best you have a single statement by her spokesperson saying she doesn't support "wholesale, broad changes" in the the current Cuba policy and have to gloss over her 2005 vote as a "flip-flop".

Please don't be stupid here - it's a useful resource.

Musharraf didn't need to make a peep -- this was done for him by the Pakistani papers which are read by the people of Pakistan.

I know where you're coming from, but what you're talking about is a slippery slope that really leads nowhere. By your own analogy, what should we make of that Republicans seem most concerned with Clinton? The White House attacks her, even though they know that it will help her the Democratic Primary. Are they being stupid? Are they actually trying to ensure that Clinton is the nominee? Are they doing a double fake, trying to get us to think that they want her to be the nominee so that we support someone else? I don't know, and what I'm trying to say is we shouldn't care. We should make the judgement ourselves and not worry about being faked out by the Republicans. They don't know the candidates better than we do, and they can get the candidate that they think is easiest/hardest to beat and turn out to be completely wrong. I'm not saying we should ignore their abilities, just don't try to figure out who THEY think is the weakest candidate.

Dean was, in my opinion, possibly the best candidate we had in 2004 because he was the one who could deliver a full critique of the Bush Administration without having to answer why he supported Bush policies earlier. He was also a flawed candidate, as much as I like him. Clinton has similar problems to Kerry with respect to sometimes being too close to administration policies and not getting around to opposing bad ideas until its too late. On the other hand, she has been involved in several tough elections, including two national elections, so I suppose you could say she is more tested on a national stage. I think it's fair to say that she's a mixed bag in terms of "electability", and Republican belief one way or the other isn't going to convince me.

My choice was always Gore.

Yes, one could argue that Ms Clinton got "training almost equivalent to a vice president.....", just as one could argue that Laura Bush has the training almost equivalent to Dick Cheney, and is therefore highly qualified to be our next president. Both arguments are nonsensical though.

Hoppy in Sacramento

I have to laugh at this. Obama's comments "set the Pakistanis off"?

Please. Talk about drinking the Kool-Aid.

In case you didn't notice, the Pakistani populace has been set off for far longer than since Obama's public speech. Indeed, any moderately informed reading of their political situation knows what set them off has little do with the U.S., and was centered around the sacking of a Supreme Court Justice.

What's more, the one day of protests where Obama was mentioned were in response mainly to [i]the Administration's comments[/i] in which he said exactly what Obama said. The difference, being, of course, that Bush enforces that long-standing policy.

What's more, the extent to which Pakistani's were even "set off" is being grossly exaggerated here. You're talking about a small portion of their population. The vast majority do not like the radicals in Waziristan and would like to see them gone.

On August 25, 2007 - 12:44pm sdhays said:

If you are truly willing to start with the assumption that what Republicans "know" is the truth, then darn it, vote for those brilliant Republicans!

On August 25, 2007 - 10:45pm sdhays said:

The White House attacks her, even though they know that it will help her the Democratic Primary.

I "know", you know, he, she or it knows.

I offered an opinion on what 'might' be happening. I want to be sure the Repugs don't take the White House (or anything else) in 08 so I don't want to be remiss by not being ready for any of their strategies.

If there's ANY substance to my opinion, this means Republican insider polling shows they fear Hillary most, and if so, they try to tear her down, one step being to start the rumor that "she can't win." AND, if people fall for it and act accordingly, we get another Republican President.

Bottom line;

I'm suspicious of any conventional wisdom that states a Dem frontrunner, regardless of who it is, "can't win."

No one is selling Eleanor Roosevelt short. She was a great American. But let's not get carried away here, she had her faults, her biases and gaffes just like any other person. To think that she wasn't political, that she didn't have political ambitions for the democratic party is wrong. Eleanor Roosevelt and Hillary Clinton are both outstanding Americans who have had good careers.

I didn't find the Bernstein book either particularly fair or even well researched. It was an okay book.

You're wrong, you don't know anything about her career and it's useless arguing with you because you don't know anything about her.

Don't argue, rebut the assertions. 

It appears  factually correct to me. Do you have any opposing facts? Are you denying that Hillary's 'career' was something other than a professional lawyer in ARK? Are you saying that she did not work for the oldest good ol boy law firm, thanks to Bills connections, while Bill was the State Atty General and Governor? Are you saying that Bills salary while the Atty General and Governor were insufficient to support their life style. Are you denying that she made partner in the law firm due to her ability to retain clients seeking Bill's political influence? What are you saying is wrong about Hillary's career?

You know, Hillary Clinton doesn't "say the road to the presidency is through marriage", that's a projection you've made, based on nothing more than your own visceral dislike of her

No?

Being First Lady is not a career. Nothing other than marriage to a President provides that status.

If this is a projection,  what then does she mean when she claims experience as a First Lady as qualifications for being a Presidential candidate never having held any public leadership roles and having less elected experience than the entire field of democratic candidates other than Edwards?

Do you truly and honestly beleive that people have to have a visceral dislike of Hillary to see through  such an assertion as the basis for being 'experienced'?. Is it possible that far from dislike, people find it insulting to their intelligence? 

What do you find creditible about the First Lady experience which is not in the least comparable to Eleanor Roosevelts achievements as two posters have detailed in lengthy posts? Do you have facts that rebut those posts?

How can women look up to someone who says her social hostessing of foreign dignitaries and global site visits as the spouse of the President establishes credentials in FP?  What message does that send to women with professional careers who are actually earning success based on their hard efforts and job performance as a professional, if not marriage is the road to Presidency rather than  hard work?

Let's put it another way what is there that Hillary has done in terms of FP besides hostessing, traveling and speeches that provides her with FP credentials?  Based on these 3 things Chelea Clinton also has valid FP credentials.

I don't think it's so much that anyone is selling Eleanor Short. I think it is, BevD, that you are elevating Hillary so high.

Now, when Hillary is at the end of her life, perhaps these comparisons will hold up. Right now, it just smacks of elevating Hillary to Eleanor's status and that just hasn't happened yet. It may happen. It may not.

But I don't agree with equalizing Hillary and Eleanor at this point in time.

Okay, look. I'm not a Brzezinski-basher, but what's so brilliantly strategic about those words? Bush is an idiot and we should be making friends, not enemies. That's commentary. Perhaps of the highest order, but it's not strategy. To make strategy it helps greatly to be in a position to implement it. I was taking issue with the statement that ZB is one of the great strategic thinkers of our time. It was just too grand a statement and I stand by my comment that it hasn't been demonstrated.

You at least can count - Clemons is claiming one issue (of which he makes a nonsensically strained reading and then describes with Rove-quality rhetoric) is "a number of issues". Perhaps you could build on that accomplishment by addressing the substance of my comment.

Now here's another commenter who seems to think that Hillary Clinton spent eight years in the White House polishing the silver and listening to her husband's work stories. The fact that she traveled as extensively as she did both nationally and internationally supporting and promoting the rights of the defenseless and was roundly criticized for it as a woman who didn't know her place is now forgotten.

Umm, yeah. I was around back then too. In fact I worked in the Federal government during the entire Clinton era. I do remember Mrs. Clinton traveling the planet, often with Chelsea at her side. But I don't remember her being roundly criticized by it, other than, perhaps by rabid whack jobs on the right like Limbaugh.

In any event, traveling around the world and communing with the poor now counts as presidential experience? By that token I suppose Angelina Jolie, Bono, and Jesse Jackson are also well qualified for the presidency?

No one is "equalizing" these women. They are both unique Americans.

Eleanor Roosevelt wasn't a saint, she was an ambitious, hardworking woman with the faults and virtues of all human beings. People loved her, but her children complained that she was a remote, non-demonstrative mother, with little time for them or their lives. That doesn't make her accomplishments any less great but it does make her a more interesting person.

Human beings are complicated, complex creatures - look at Jefferson. He wrote The Declaration of Independence and kept slaves. That doesn't make him a bad person, it makes him a conflicted, complicated person. Thomas Paine was one of the greatest political writers in the history of the world, and without a doubt was one of the most miserable, misanthropic people to have lived. People are what they are.

Oh yeah??

Well MeadowLark Lemon had mountains of FP experience, so there!

Thanks for your article. Every little bit of information and opinion helps.

One thing, though. I don't think it is wise to engage in magical thinking re Hillary Clinton. No one knows that she is faking it today to change it if she is elected president and if, indeed, some choose to do that, they may again be tearing out their hair in angst for her decisions as president. I think we have had enough hanging our hopes on something that may or may not be the case. I would prefer to keep thinking according to the facts which is what she has said so far and what she has done so far in this run for the nomination.

Obama was against the war while serving in the Illinois State Legislature. This was not a really brave position. It is easy for someone who does not really have to make a choice to be brave. Considering that he and Clinton have had virtually identicial votes once he arrived in the Senate suggests his opposition to the war became tempered once he had to vote to fund the troops.

As for the rest that is just Obama PR. The reason why Clinton, Obama and even Edward have the silliest of spats in order to differentiate themselves is precisely how little they really disagree with each other.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

Tsk, tsk, BevD, you're leaping to all sorts of erroneous conclusions.

If you can't take tough questions, then you are simply not going to be able to "sell" your candidate. And that's what is needed if Hillary wants to move folks from "unfavorable" to "favorable".

But, you're going to have to work on your pitch, frankly. If someone asks you the tough questions, immediately going to "you're denigrating her accomplishments" or "you don't like her" or you're "wrong" or "meanspirited" is simply not going to work.

Funny. Interesting about Bill being on the cabinet, though. Can't happen. Since there was an uproar about Bobby Kennedy, brother to the Prez, serving in a Cabinet office, there was a law passed in the Nixon administration that prevents that sort of nepotism. So Bill won't be able to have any administration job that requires confirmation by the Senate. (Not sure if the law restricts that to the Cabinet or if it includes other jobs like UN Ambassador.)

I understand it upset Hillary quite a bit (according to Bernstein's book) when she found out after the 1992 election that she was barred from a Cabinet post. She was also talked out of chief of staff post because that person normallly takes the heat for the Prez. Hillary ended up with the healthcare task force.

I'm not "selling" any candidate. I don't work for Hillary Clinton, I volunteered for the Edwards campaign, another candidate I find to be a fine person. What I object to the ignorance of her record and accomplishments with the accompanied complaint that she hasn't done anything. Obviously, she has many achievements and accomplishments, has worked very hard, has done much charitable work and has a unique life experience. If it isn't enough for you, vote for the other candidate, any of the three leading candidates would make good presidents.

I also object to the assumption that because the posters here are not informed about her career or her life accomplishments, she must not have any - and then offer all sorts of criticism based on that lack of information.

Bev D

That was a long list but it did not delineate what Hillary's experience on FP is.

Was there anything there which you equated to foreign policy experience?.

Hillary had no family at Wellesley, Yale nor during her Children's defense Fund work nor when serving as an assistant on the Nixon impeachment.

Was there anything there that shows how she supported her family for most of her career?

That's commentary. Perhaps of the highest order, but it's not strategy

It is commentary AND strategy. Look at GWBush he has united our enemies (Arab muslims/infidels) and divided our friends(America is alone in Iraq).  So it is a very strategic decision when making war to insure that you are indeed dividing your enemies and uniting your friends. If you diviide your friends, then you have to go it alone in the war and bear the costs as the Soviet Union found in the intractable war with Afghanistan.

Perhaps you need to click on the link provided in the post, to learn more about the strategic brillance of Z.

Did you actually read my posts? What possible difference does it make if she didn't have children when she worked for the Children's Defense Fund or worked for the democratic house comm. on the Nixon impeachment? Does her volunteer work count less because she wasn't married and didn't have a child then? The fact that she supported herself and volunteered for charitable work at the same time certainly speaks to a certain dedication to women, children and the poor.

Is there anything that shows she supported her family for most of her career? I don't know, unless you count the fact that she worked for the Rose Law Firm, was made first woman partner, had the second highest billable hours and her husband SAID she supported them financially for most of their married lives together until he became governor. You read his auto-biography, I'm assuming. He seemed rather proud of her for that. Maraniss pointed that out in his biography of Clinton also as I'm sure you remember from reading it.

Is there anything that equates to foreign policy experience? I don't know - perhaps traveling to 80 countries, representing the U.S., hosting numerous conferences, initiating organizations to include women in international and national politics and living in the White House for eight years, with the President and meeting and working with most of the foreign leaders, diplomats and ambassadors of those foreign countries might qualify as experience.

Hillary Clinton has unique and formidable foreign policy experience, just as Edwards and Obama have unique experience in other qualifications for the job of the presidency. All three would make fine presidents. All three should cite their experience, experiences, their accomplishments, goals and ambitions and be proud of what they've achieved in their lives. Why shouldn't they be? They've all worked hard to improve the lives of the people of this nation and they've all worked hard to lead productive and meaningful lives.

Truly,

he was really funny,

they were really entertaining, and the shots they could make were unbelievable, and not forgetting the ball handling, yeow!

I am, of course, referring to the originals. :-)

I don't like the precedent one bit. It can be abused in the future by any President who wants a 3rd and 4th term. Run the wife. I'd love to see a woman President who gets there on her own record not on her husband's coattails.

I don't recall any significant contribution that Hillary made as First Lady. She screwed up health care and then what???

And no thanks, Hillary for voting us into Iraq. And no thanks, Bill for getting us into Bosnia. Sheesh, the MN National Guard is still in Bosnia!

I was driving back from a family visit today and the banks along the interstate were covered with wild flowers. Thanks Lady Bird! Now that's what we need. A woman who wants to plant flowers (or fight cancer, educate our children, rebuild our cities and infrastructure and clean up our environment.)