Bill Richardson's endorsement of Barack Obama should show you EXACTLY what is wrong with Hillary and her campaign.
First - It's shows you that people who respect and admire the Clintons are also growing tired of the brand of ridiculous kamikaze politics the Clintons are playing with the Democratic party. They are sick of watching them play racist politics and then blame Obama for it. They are sick of the constant stream of lies and attempts at character assassination that Hillary describes as "the fun part". They are sick of the Clintons, as Keith Olbermann pointed out, running as if she were the Republican against the Democrat, Barack Obama. They are sick of the Clintons handing John McCain a free pass in the general election when it comes to his temper and lack of knowledge in foreign policy, in order to tear down someone who isn't them. They are sick of the fear mongering advertising that only drives people away from the ballot box. They are sick of the Clintons "sacrifice the party and the nation so I can win" mentality, and scorched earth policy of Kissinger in Vietnam come to the Democratic Primary. They are sick of a Democratic Huckabee that just doesn't know when to give up (though, unlike Huckabee, isn't working at building up the other candidate). After months of it, they are finally sick of the bullshit. And it's about time.
Second - It's shows how much of a terrible, distorting, and disgusting effect Mark Penn and the tens of millions of dollars Hillary's donors are paying him have on Democracy. Mark Penn, and, by extension, the Clinton campaign as a whole, looks at people and states as numbers and statistics. They break everything down into infinitesimal parts and then give them completely subjective ranks based on how favorable they are to the Clinton campaign. It not only shows in the ludicrous claims he makes about Hillary winning Nevada and Texas, and that every important state, except Illinois, has voted for Hillary (that's 29 insigificant states for Obama) but shows itself in how much respect he has for the longtime Clinton friend, and still serving Governor from New Mexico (from the WSJ):
“The time that he could have been effective has long since passed. I don’t think it is a significant endorsement in this environment.”
Why is it not significant at this time? I'll let Bill Richardson explain why Mark Penn thinks he doesn't matter:
"I resent the fact that the Clinton people are now saying that my endorsement is too late because I only can help with Texans — with Texas and Hispanics, implying that that's my only value," the New Mexico governor told CNN's John King."That's typical of some of his advisers that kind of turned me off."
Basically, Bill Richardson is Latino, so he can only help with Latinos, and there aren't enough of them in PA, NC, or Indiana. Forget his years of service and experience, forget that he was a well respected (though unsuccessful) Presidential nominee, his skin is brown and that's no longer an important demographic.
Let me be the first to say: Fuck You, Mark Penn.
Lastly - it shows that Hillary Clinton feels entitlement because of favors done by her husband. That's why James Carville said the following about Richardson and his endorsement (in the NY Times):
“[It's] An act of betrayal. Mr. Richardson’s endorsement came right around the anniversary of the day when Judas sold out for 30 pieces of silver, so I think the timing is appropriate, if ironic,” Mr. Carville said, referring to Holy Week.
A couple of major problems with this:
First - If Bill Richardson is Judas, Hillary Clinton is Jesus in this analogy (or Jesus' wife, possibly?). (update- Matt Yglesias and Andrew Sullivan might have beaten me to it)
Second - Why does Bill Richardson owe Hillary Clinton anything? She didn't appoint him to anything. Essentially, Carville is explicitly making the argument that the Clinton camp has been admonishing, that they feel a sense of entitlement- that Democrats and, most disturbingly superdelegates (especially those who had ties to Bill's Presidency), owe Hillary their vote. Popular Votes be damned, Pledged Delegates be damned, Any state that dares vote for Obama be damned, We All Owe The Clintons. After all, Democrats did lose both houses of Congress and hand the presidency over to a stumbling moron and his greed driven puppeteers for eight years.
22 March 2008
09 March 2008
modus operandi
I remember turning on MSNBC some time in January, right after the Iowa Caucus, and seeing Hillary Clinton, in all her delusional magnificence, talking about how "of all the people running for president, I've been the most vetted, the most investigated and -- my goodness -- the most innocent." I remember both how hilarious I thought it was, as well as how terrified at how convincing a liar she was (or, at the very least, how she believes in a fantasy of her own creation, like some current Presidents I won't name). There are many problems with this statement:
First - The fallacy that being vetted makes you a good person (or being investigated, for that matter).
Second - The idea that someone so directly involved in so many documented scandals, with so many incarcerated business partners, is more innocent than, say, Obama, Kucinich, or even Huckabee.
Third- The logical fallacy implied, that someone who doesn't have a lifetime of public scandals behind them is just not vetted sufficiently. Also, saying, as Mark Penn did, "She's fully vetted . . . and I don't think that process has occurred with Barack Obama," is attempting to apply 'he's just as dirty as me, just wait until his secrets come out!' Additionally, the ridiculous conclusion that even the SMALLEST problem with Obama wouldn't be out there and harped on by the Clinton campaign (they have to lie about him instead). As we've all come to recognize, the Republican Attack Machine has NOTHING on the Clinton Attack Machine.
Fourth - The, again, logical disconnect that someone surrounded by scandal would suddenly 'get it out of their system,' and not, as logic would dictate, be more prone to future scandals.
Fifth - The incredulous idea that you can be vetted while refusing to release your:
1- tax returns from 2000-2006
2- minutes from your duties in the white house
3- minutes regarding the pardons of Mark Rich and Hillary's brother, amongst others, at the end of the Bill terms.
4- donors to the Clinton Library
5- earmarks
Vetted means everything is on the table. IAnd Everything Means Everything.
As the time passed and Edwards dropped out, I watched as Obama grew in national popularity and the Clinton campaign grew desperate. They tried race-baiting (and then having the unmitigated gall to blame Obama for bringing up the race card even after he didn't take the bait); they tried to hurt his credibility by bringing up his admitted past drug use; they circulated rumors about Obama's religion (as far as I know, anyway...); and any other failed tactic they could think of. The thing that never sat right with me was that Clinton was successfully keeping the attention off of herself by redirecting all attention on to the new guy, all while repeating "35 years of experience" and "ready on day one" as if saying them enough times makes them true. No one was asking her to define those 35 years, and how serving on the board of Wal-Mart counts. No one asked what made her ready on day one ('I had tea in Liberia!'). No one asked if she was in national security meetings, or had a real voice on security issues. On the rare occasion someone did, she just deflected and restated her false mantras.
Then something magical happened. She went on national television and said, three or four different ways:
"I think that I have a lifetime of experience that I will bring to the White House. I know Senator McCain has a lifetime of experience to the White House. And Senator Obama has a speech he gave in 2002,"
she later added
“I think that since we now know Sen. (John) McCain will be the nominee for the Republican Party, national security will be front and center in this election. We all know that. And I think it’s imperative that each of us be able to demonstrate we can cross the commander-in-chief threshold. I believe that I’ve done that. Certainly, Sen. McCain has done that and you’ll have to ask Sen. Obama with respect to his candidacy.”
There were, again, several major problems with these statements:
First - The idea that speeches about policy are meaningless, when giving speeches about policy and discussing the mindset behind those speeches with people, is, basically, the definition of being president. Last I checked, the president hasn't split himself into 200k troops and every cabinet official. He, pretty much, gives speeches to people and tries to bring them on board.
Second - The nebulous idea of a threshold is undefined and can never be actually explained by Clinton. Just like the idea of a "big state," it is a completely arbitrary ideal set forth to disparage Obama indirectly with a standard he can never live up to, since it's defined by Clinton herself.
Third - Hillary broke the unwritten rule about not throwing your fellow party member under the bus.
Fourth - She GRANTED that John McCain has passed the threshold. Why has he? Why is she giving him a pass on this? Now, he can not only use this argument, but use this very language, against either of them in the General. McCain can almost cut and paste this in the fall. Furthermore and more importantly, she, basically, just let the Republicans set the agenda for the General Election. I would think Democrats would want to focus on the economy, the constitution, Iraq, our standing in the world, health care, or, basically, anything else but terrorism.
Fifth - The AMAZING logical disconnect- if she is setting this as the most important quality for president, John McCain will crush her in the General Election, even if she pulls the primary out. Crush her by her own standard.
BEST OF ALL, though, she opened the door to finally forcing people to ask her just what her wonderful foreign policy experience is (these statements, along with her 3am fearmongering debacle).
So John Dickerson from Slate asks 3 of Clinton's top advisers a nice, vetting question about her crisis experience and, after the longest and most telling silence in this entire campaign, they ramble on about a SPEECH she gave in China, and insist, without naming any specifics, that she had been tested. The campaign struggles for a couple of days, while Hillary continues to build up her and her new presumed running mate, McCain.
Eventually, Hillary comes up with an answer riddled with untruths- how her experience boils down to Northern Ireland, Bosnia, Rwanda, Macedonia, and the Speech in China (which doesn't count, by Hillary's own standards. It's just words.) Over the next few days, it became very apparent that she did no negotiating, had no security clearance, and played no legitimate, vital role for which she could claim she crossed any threshold, much less one that makes her qualified to be president.
So why am I doing this?
I studied Rwanda passionately. When I discuss failures of the Clinton administration, this issue is always my first point- insisting on pulling out UN peacekeepers against overwhelming evidence of an iminant genocide, and against the vocal pleas by people and volunteers in the country.
A genocide of almost One Million People, many by machete and being burned to death, many innocent women and children. A genocide that could easily have been prevented (or stopped) by, simply, NOT DOING ANYTHING.
A genocide being used falsely and shamelessly by Hillary Clinton to get votes in a campaign.
I realized Andrew Sullivan was right. We can't just show our support for anyone, we have to actively get the Clintons as far away from power as we can.
And So We Begin. If I miss an argument, feel free to send me an email or comment.
First - The fallacy that being vetted makes you a good person (or being investigated, for that matter).
Second - The idea that someone so directly involved in so many documented scandals, with so many incarcerated business partners, is more innocent than, say, Obama, Kucinich, or even Huckabee.
Third- The logical fallacy implied, that someone who doesn't have a lifetime of public scandals behind them is just not vetted sufficiently. Also, saying, as Mark Penn did, "She's fully vetted . . . and I don't think that process has occurred with Barack Obama," is attempting to apply 'he's just as dirty as me, just wait until his secrets come out!' Additionally, the ridiculous conclusion that even the SMALLEST problem with Obama wouldn't be out there and harped on by the Clinton campaign (they have to lie about him instead). As we've all come to recognize, the Republican Attack Machine has NOTHING on the Clinton Attack Machine.
Fourth - The, again, logical disconnect that someone surrounded by scandal would suddenly 'get it out of their system,' and not, as logic would dictate, be more prone to future scandals.
Fifth - The incredulous idea that you can be vetted while refusing to release your:
1- tax returns from 2000-2006
2- minutes from your duties in the white house
3- minutes regarding the pardons of Mark Rich and Hillary's brother, amongst others, at the end of the Bill terms.
4- donors to the Clinton Library
5- earmarks
Vetted means everything is on the table. IAnd Everything Means Everything.
As the time passed and Edwards dropped out, I watched as Obama grew in national popularity and the Clinton campaign grew desperate. They tried race-baiting (and then having the unmitigated gall to blame Obama for bringing up the race card even after he didn't take the bait); they tried to hurt his credibility by bringing up his admitted past drug use; they circulated rumors about Obama's religion (as far as I know, anyway...); and any other failed tactic they could think of. The thing that never sat right with me was that Clinton was successfully keeping the attention off of herself by redirecting all attention on to the new guy, all while repeating "35 years of experience" and "ready on day one" as if saying them enough times makes them true. No one was asking her to define those 35 years, and how serving on the board of Wal-Mart counts. No one asked what made her ready on day one ('I had tea in Liberia!'). No one asked if she was in national security meetings, or had a real voice on security issues. On the rare occasion someone did, she just deflected and restated her false mantras.
Then something magical happened. She went on national television and said, three or four different ways:
"I think that I have a lifetime of experience that I will bring to the White House. I know Senator McCain has a lifetime of experience to the White House. And Senator Obama has a speech he gave in 2002,"
she later added
“I think that since we now know Sen. (John) McCain will be the nominee for the Republican Party, national security will be front and center in this election. We all know that. And I think it’s imperative that each of us be able to demonstrate we can cross the commander-in-chief threshold. I believe that I’ve done that. Certainly, Sen. McCain has done that and you’ll have to ask Sen. Obama with respect to his candidacy.”
There were, again, several major problems with these statements:
First - The idea that speeches about policy are meaningless, when giving speeches about policy and discussing the mindset behind those speeches with people, is, basically, the definition of being president. Last I checked, the president hasn't split himself into 200k troops and every cabinet official. He, pretty much, gives speeches to people and tries to bring them on board.
Second - The nebulous idea of a threshold is undefined and can never be actually explained by Clinton. Just like the idea of a "big state," it is a completely arbitrary ideal set forth to disparage Obama indirectly with a standard he can never live up to, since it's defined by Clinton herself.
Third - Hillary broke the unwritten rule about not throwing your fellow party member under the bus.
Fourth - She GRANTED that John McCain has passed the threshold. Why has he? Why is she giving him a pass on this? Now, he can not only use this argument, but use this very language, against either of them in the General. McCain can almost cut and paste this in the fall. Furthermore and more importantly, she, basically, just let the Republicans set the agenda for the General Election. I would think Democrats would want to focus on the economy, the constitution, Iraq, our standing in the world, health care, or, basically, anything else but terrorism.
Fifth - The AMAZING logical disconnect- if she is setting this as the most important quality for president, John McCain will crush her in the General Election, even if she pulls the primary out. Crush her by her own standard.
BEST OF ALL, though, she opened the door to finally forcing people to ask her just what her wonderful foreign policy experience is (these statements, along with her 3am fearmongering debacle).
So John Dickerson from Slate asks 3 of Clinton's top advisers a nice, vetting question about her crisis experience and, after the longest and most telling silence in this entire campaign, they ramble on about a SPEECH she gave in China, and insist, without naming any specifics, that she had been tested. The campaign struggles for a couple of days, while Hillary continues to build up her and her new presumed running mate, McCain.
Eventually, Hillary comes up with an answer riddled with untruths- how her experience boils down to Northern Ireland, Bosnia, Rwanda, Macedonia, and the Speech in China (which doesn't count, by Hillary's own standards. It's just words.) Over the next few days, it became very apparent that she did no negotiating, had no security clearance, and played no legitimate, vital role for which she could claim she crossed any threshold, much less one that makes her qualified to be president.
So why am I doing this?
I studied Rwanda passionately. When I discuss failures of the Clinton administration, this issue is always my first point- insisting on pulling out UN peacekeepers against overwhelming evidence of an iminant genocide, and against the vocal pleas by people and volunteers in the country.
A genocide of almost One Million People, many by machete and being burned to death, many innocent women and children. A genocide that could easily have been prevented (or stopped) by, simply, NOT DOING ANYTHING.
A genocide being used falsely and shamelessly by Hillary Clinton to get votes in a campaign.
I realized Andrew Sullivan was right. We can't just show our support for anyone, we have to actively get the Clintons as far away from power as we can.
And So We Begin. If I miss an argument, feel free to send me an email or comment.
15 February 2008
False Claim: Winning the Big States
The False Claim:
That Hillary Clinton is more qualified because she has won "the big states" of AZ, CA, NY, OH, TX, NJ, MA, FL, and MI (as well as any others she won).
The Quote (from a official Hillary campaign Press Release by Mark Penn):
"After a week of wall-to-wall coverage of the Obama campaign’s big endorsements, money, and Superbowl ads, Hillary Clinton scored strong wins in big states throughout the country and is winning the popular vote. The margins in these big states were strong - Massachusetts by 15, California by 10, New York by 17, NJ by 10, Oklahoma 24, Tennessee 13. Polls predicting losses or close races turned out to be wrong when the actual votes were counted in these states.
The Truth (part 1: The Penn Quote):
There are a lot of problems with the big state argument as a whole. But, first, let's look at just the Mark Penn quote in all its delusional, equivocating glory:
First - The idea that Obama winning superdelegates and raising more money is a negative. That, because Obama raised enough money and had enough judgment to advertise during the Super Bowl (while Hillary didn't) means any Hillary wins are thrilling upsets, regardless of her previous name recognition and seemingly insurmountable leads. The idea that the presumptive nominee who said she would have the nomination wrapped up by Super Tuesday, falling so far that she has to look for ways to say she won shouldn't be the story, but her rebound should be. The idea that the amount of ground Obama made up in the week before Super Tuesday should be completely ignored because Hillary's incompetence forced her to have to barely hold on to her "sure thing."
Second - Penn shrugs off Alabama and Georgia going to Obama because they have been Republican in the last two elections. Meanwhile, in the previous sentence, he talks about how important both Tennessee and Oklahoma were, even though both went Republican in the last two elections as well (including, and this is important, when Al Gore, who was from Tennessee, ran in 2000. If a native son can't win TN, why is it significant that Hillary won its Democratic Primary?) Additionally, if going Republican in 2000 and 2004 makes you insignificant, than Florida, Ohio, Texas, and Arizona are insignificant. Also, for what it's worth, Bill Clinton lost both Texas and Oklahoma in 1992 and 1996, as well as Arizona and Florida in 1992.
Third - In regards to Georgia, Obama netted more delegates out of the "small, insignificant Republican state" (30), then Clinton did in NJ and MA combined (28). Now, since Democratic delegates are awarded to states based on their Democratic population, how can Georgia realistically be called unimportant.
Fourth - Penn tries to deligitimize caucus states, because they don't fit in the box of demographics that seem to favor Clinton (like his problems with Bill Richardson). Unfortunately, this turns actual swing states like Iowa and Colorado against Hillary Clinton (as evidenced by the fact she lost most of Edwards' Iowan delegates, and one of her own).
Fifth - Penn talks about the crucial swing constituencies as being most important. But he then goes on to name NY, CA, MA, and NJ (which never vote Republican), AZ (home of the Republican nominee, and, thus, not a real swing state for Dems in the fall), and MI and FL (who's votes didn't count). So, when it comes to the important swing states, as Mark Penn says, Hillary has won Zero of them. What a terrible job Mark Penn has done.
Sixth - Hillary Clinton sent out the following press release before when the polls were still open on Super Tuesday, a fantastically underreported Dewey beats Truman moment: "In Missouri, Barack Obama outspent Hillary by $300,000 in TV ads," said an email sent to reporters. "He also benefited from the endorsements of high-profile surrogates across the state, all of whom actively campaigned for him and appeared in ads on his behalf. Despite these challenges Hillary Clinton won this important toss-up state" (my emphasis). So, Obama, by the Clinton campaign's own admission, won an "important toss-up state" by winning Missouri. Funny that it is nowhere in Mark Penn's press release. Also, Penn ignores the other Super Tuesday contests of Connecticut, Delaware, and Minnesota. All of which were significant wins for Obama in crucial swing states, or in important strong Democratic states.
The Truth (part 2: the argument as a whole):
First - Since the Penn quote is from Super Tuesday, let's look at the "big states" that have voted since (big state as defined by Mark Penn as a Democratic hub or a swing state).
Second - As far as the "big states" Hillary and her supporters keep mentioning:
Third - It's a huge logical fallacy to assume that, in a general election, the states Clinton claims as "big wins" due to a primary win grant her a distinct advantage (with the possible exception of her scorched earth tactics in Ohio). The opposite most certainly can not be said about Obama. Take, for example, New Hampshire- Although Clinton won (a delegate tie), Obama outperforms her against McCain in General Election polls (the same as the Ohio situation above). This phenomena presents itself in other states too (according to a great post on dailykos):
A New York Survey USA poll taken February 14th, after Hillary’s February 5th victory in the state shows Hillary with a 52-41 lead in a head to head matchup against John McCain, a margin of 11 points. The same poll shows Obama with a 57-36 lead over McCain, a margin of 21 points. Despite the fact that Hillary won the Democratic primary, Obama actually would start out in much stronger position to win New York when matched up against John McCain.
How about California? A California Survey USA poll taken February 22nd, several weeks after Hillary’s February 5th victory in the state shows Hillary with a 58-35 lead in a head to head matchup against John McCain, a margin of 23 points. The same poll shows Obama with a 61-34 lead over McCain, a margin of 27 points. Clearly, the idea that somehow winning the primaries in big Democratic states makes Hillary more likely to win them than Obama is simply not true.
the argument is continued later about swing states:
How about Pennsylvania? I fully expect Hillary to win the primary there, but if she wins, will she be more likely to win in a general election? A recent Rasmussen poll of PA shows Obama leading McCain 49-39, a margin of 10 points. The same poll shows Hillary losing so McCain 42-44, a 2 point margin.
Kennedy, in challenging President Jimmy Carter, won enough giant industrial states to keep afloat during the months-long primary season, even as Carter commanded the edge in overall delegates and cumulative popular votes. Instead of surrendering after the last primary in early June, Kennedy soldiered on, intent on using the summer to sow doubts about Carter that might prompt delegates to turn on the president and hand Kennedy the nomination.
That Hillary Clinton is more qualified because she has won "the big states" of AZ, CA, NY, OH, TX, NJ, MA, FL, and MI (as well as any others she won).
The Quote (from a official Hillary campaign Press Release by Mark Penn):
"After a week of wall-to-wall coverage of the Obama campaign’s big endorsements, money, and Superbowl ads, Hillary Clinton scored strong wins in big states throughout the country and is winning the popular vote. The margins in these big states were strong - Massachusetts by 15, California by 10, New York by 17, NJ by 10, Oklahoma 24, Tennessee 13. Polls predicting losses or close races turned out to be wrong when the actual votes were counted in these states.
Sen. Obama, in contrast, won with large margins in Alabama and Georgia, two states that have been in the Republican column in the last two elections. He also won with large margins in a string of caucus states with comparatively fewer voters - Alaska, Idaho, Utah, and Kansas - and have also been in the Republican column. Of course, he won his home state.
As super-delegates consider which candidate to support, they will be looking at which one candidate has a base and can win the big states, including the crucial swing constituencies. We believe the impressive wins in NY, CA, MA, MI, FL, NJ, AZ suggest that Hillary is the one who can motivate a strong turnout in November."The Truth (part 1: The Penn Quote):
There are a lot of problems with the big state argument as a whole. But, first, let's look at just the Mark Penn quote in all its delusional, equivocating glory:
First - The idea that Obama winning superdelegates and raising more money is a negative. That, because Obama raised enough money and had enough judgment to advertise during the Super Bowl (while Hillary didn't) means any Hillary wins are thrilling upsets, regardless of her previous name recognition and seemingly insurmountable leads. The idea that the presumptive nominee who said she would have the nomination wrapped up by Super Tuesday, falling so far that she has to look for ways to say she won shouldn't be the story, but her rebound should be. The idea that the amount of ground Obama made up in the week before Super Tuesday should be completely ignored because Hillary's incompetence forced her to have to barely hold on to her "sure thing."
Second - Penn shrugs off Alabama and Georgia going to Obama because they have been Republican in the last two elections. Meanwhile, in the previous sentence, he talks about how important both Tennessee and Oklahoma were, even though both went Republican in the last two elections as well (including, and this is important, when Al Gore, who was from Tennessee, ran in 2000. If a native son can't win TN, why is it significant that Hillary won its Democratic Primary?) Additionally, if going Republican in 2000 and 2004 makes you insignificant, than Florida, Ohio, Texas, and Arizona are insignificant. Also, for what it's worth, Bill Clinton lost both Texas and Oklahoma in 1992 and 1996, as well as Arizona and Florida in 1992.
Third - In regards to Georgia, Obama netted more delegates out of the "small, insignificant Republican state" (30), then Clinton did in NJ and MA combined (28). Now, since Democratic delegates are awarded to states based on their Democratic population, how can Georgia realistically be called unimportant.
Fourth - Penn tries to deligitimize caucus states, because they don't fit in the box of demographics that seem to favor Clinton (like his problems with Bill Richardson). Unfortunately, this turns actual swing states like Iowa and Colorado against Hillary Clinton (as evidenced by the fact she lost most of Edwards' Iowan delegates, and one of her own).
Fifth - Penn talks about the crucial swing constituencies as being most important. But he then goes on to name NY, CA, MA, and NJ (which never vote Republican), AZ (home of the Republican nominee, and, thus, not a real swing state for Dems in the fall), and MI and FL (who's votes didn't count). So, when it comes to the important swing states, as Mark Penn says, Hillary has won Zero of them. What a terrible job Mark Penn has done.
Sixth - Hillary Clinton sent out the following press release before when the polls were still open on Super Tuesday, a fantastically underreported Dewey beats Truman moment: "In Missouri, Barack Obama outspent Hillary by $300,000 in TV ads," said an email sent to reporters. "He also benefited from the endorsements of high-profile surrogates across the state, all of whom actively campaigned for him and appeared in ads on his behalf. Despite these challenges Hillary Clinton won this important toss-up state" (my emphasis). So, Obama, by the Clinton campaign's own admission, won an "important toss-up state" by winning Missouri. Funny that it is nowhere in Mark Penn's press release. Also, Penn ignores the other Super Tuesday contests of Connecticut, Delaware, and Minnesota. All of which were significant wins for Obama in crucial swing states, or in important strong Democratic states.
The Truth (part 2: the argument as a whole):
First - Since the Penn quote is from Super Tuesday, let's look at the "big states" that have voted since (big state as defined by Mark Penn as a Democratic hub or a swing state).
- Washington - Obama by 37% (53- O; 25 - C; Obama by 28 delegates)
- Maine - Obama by 19% (15 - O; 9 - C; Obama by 6 delegates)
- Washington D.C. - Obama by 51% (11 - O; 4 - C; Obama by 7 delegates)
- Maryland - Obama by 23% (42 - O; 28 - C; Obama by 14 delegates)
- Virginia - Obama by 29% (54 - O; 29 - C; Obama by 25 delegates)
- Wisconsin - Obama by 17% (42 - O; 32 - C; Obama by 10 delegates)
- Ohio - Clinton by 10% (74 - C; 65 - O; Clinton by 9 delegates)
- Rhode Island - Clinton by 18% (13 - C; 8 - O; Clinton by 5 delegates)
- Texas - Complicated Primacaucus (98 - O; 95 - C; Obama by 3 delegates)
- Vermont - Obama by 20% (9 - O; 6 - C; Obama by 3 delegates)
- Mississippi - Obama by 24% (19 - O; 14 - C; Obama by 5 delegates)
Second - As far as the "big states" Hillary and her supporters keep mentioning:
- New York, New Jersey, California, Massachusettes - will vote Democrat no matter what. A state that any Democrat will win in November is hardly an important primary state to win.
- Arizona - will vote McCain no matter what. A state that any Democrat will lose in November is hardly an important primary state to win.'
- Michigan - first, their vote didn't count and were told so beforehand by the DNC and every candidate. Second, Obama wasn't on the ballot. Third, It will vote for the Democrat no matter what.
- Florida - I admit this is a debatable situation, but no campaigning coupled with telling voters their vote won't count meant a lot of people stayed at home (though Clinton supporters were told Clinton would go against the rules and try to make FL count.) Most importantly, though, McCain will win no matter what.
- Texas - First, Obama won Texas. Second, Texas will vote Republican no matter what (I stopped at Reagan, but I haven't seen Texas go to the Democrats in a long, long time).
- Ohio - The only real important, big, swing state Clinton won. However, analysts argue Obama would do better in Ohio vs. McCain in the general election (the pro-war Democrats Obama would lose to McCain are vastly outnumbered by the independents Obama would win). (note- recent polls taken after the Wright fiasco have pushed Obama back in head-to-head polls, but the logic behind the argument still stands). Either way, though, both poll 10 points higher than John McCain in the state.
Third - It's a huge logical fallacy to assume that, in a general election, the states Clinton claims as "big wins" due to a primary win grant her a distinct advantage (with the possible exception of her scorched earth tactics in Ohio). The opposite most certainly can not be said about Obama. Take, for example, New Hampshire- Although Clinton won (a delegate tie), Obama outperforms her against McCain in General Election polls (the same as the Ohio situation above). This phenomena presents itself in other states too (according to a great post on dailykos):
A New York Survey USA poll taken February 14th, after Hillary’s February 5th victory in the state shows Hillary with a 52-41 lead in a head to head matchup against John McCain, a margin of 11 points. The same poll shows Obama with a 57-36 lead over McCain, a margin of 21 points. Despite the fact that Hillary won the Democratic primary, Obama actually would start out in much stronger position to win New York when matched up against John McCain.
How about California? A California Survey USA poll taken February 22nd, several weeks after Hillary’s February 5th victory in the state shows Hillary with a 58-35 lead in a head to head matchup against John McCain, a margin of 23 points. The same poll shows Obama with a 61-34 lead over McCain, a margin of 27 points. Clearly, the idea that somehow winning the primaries in big Democratic states makes Hillary more likely to win them than Obama is simply not true.
the argument is continued later about swing states:
How about Pennsylvania? I fully expect Hillary to win the primary there, but if she wins, will she be more likely to win in a general election? A recent Rasmussen poll of PA shows Obama leading McCain 49-39, a margin of 10 points. The same poll shows Hillary losing so McCain 42-44, a 2 point margin.
Michigan has already voted and part of Hillary’s argument for keeping her name on the ballot was that she didn’t want to have to go back and “pick up the pieces” in the general election. A Rasmussen poll of Michigan in February, well after Michigan’s primary vote, showed Obama leading McCain 47-39 in the state, a margin of 8 points. The same poll showed Hillary Clinton tied with McCain 44-44.
Fourth - Hillary's fight has been waged and lost before. I suggest everyone go read the great article here comparing Hillary Clinton's run in 2008 with Ted Kennedy's run in 1980. As best as I can sum it up:Kennedy, in challenging President Jimmy Carter, won enough giant industrial states to keep afloat during the months-long primary season, even as Carter commanded the edge in overall delegates and cumulative popular votes. Instead of surrendering after the last primary in early June, Kennedy soldiered on, intent on using the summer to sow doubts about Carter that might prompt delegates to turn on the president and hand Kennedy the nomination.
Likewise, despite her revival in Ohio and Texas (and Rhode Island), the only realistic scenario under which Clinton secures this year’s nomination will require her to engineer the kind of backdoor maneuver that Kennedy failed to pull off 28 years ago. [...]
The primary season wrapped with Carter leading the delegate race 1,964 to 1,239—with only 1,666 delegates needed to win the nomination. But Kennedy argued—à la Clinton—that his success in the biggest (and most Democratic) states on the map somehow counted for more. He also claimed the late momentum: He won 200,000 more votes than Carter in the June 3 contests.
“Tonight is the first night of the rest of the campaign,” Kennedy thundered on June 3. “The people have decided that this campaign must go on!” [...]
Kennedy’s summer strategy involved fighting for a rules change at the August convention, pleading with delegates to scrap the rule that bound them to the results of their states’ primaries and caucuses. [...]
But that’s as far as it went, for several reasons. For one, there were just as many doubts about Kennedy’s electability—and maybe more—as there were about Carter’s. Chappaquiddick was barely a decade old and polls found him to be the most polarizing politician in the country. And for all of the Kennedy nostalgia within the party, a sizable chunk of Democrats had strong personal distaste for Ted, because of the nature of the campaign he waged against Carter or because of his own personal issues. He also had a weak moral claim to the nomination, having lost the delegate and popular vote tallies during the primaries. [...]
01 February 2008
Fact Sheet: Rwandan Genocide
The Lie:
That Hillary actively tried to get Bill to intervene in the Rwandan Genocide.
The Quote: (from ABC News):
STEPHANOPOULOS: President Clinton has said, has suggested that you urged him to intervene in Rwanda in 1994. Is that true? CLINTON: It is. It is true. And, you know, I believe that our government failed. We obviously didn't have a lot of good options. It moved very quickly. It was a difficult, terrible genocide to try to get our arms around and to do something to try to stem or prevent.
The Vetting:
First - No one in the Clinton administration, no public records (including speeches, quotes, minutes from official meetings, Bill and Hillary's memoirs), nothing in any comprehensive analysis of the tragedy, no American historian or scholar, nor any Rwandan historian or scholar attributes anything, not even an effort, to Hillary Clinton. In reality, pretty much every document on the genocide describes the very active and staunch policy of removing all of, not only our troops, but the entirety of the UN deployment.
Pulitzer Prize winner Samantha Power, after "a three-year investigation involving sixty interviews with senior, mid-level, and junior State Department, Defense Department, and National Security Council officials who helped to shape or inform U.S. policy," as well as "dozens of interviews with Rwandan, European, and United Nations officials and with peacekeepers, journalists, and nongovernmental workers in Rwanda," in an Atlantic Monthly article from 2001 (well before she knew who Obama was) described the specifics:
In reality the United States did much more than fail to send troops. It led a successful effort to remove most of the UN peacekeepers who were already in Rwanda. It aggressively worked to block the subsequent authorization of UN reinforcements. It refused to use its technology to jam radio broadcasts that were a crucial instrument in the coordination and perpetuation of the genocide. And even as, on average, 8,000 Rwandans were being butchered each day, U.S. officials shunned the term "genocide," for fear of being obliged to act. The United States in fact did virtually nothing "to try to limit what occurred." Indeed, staying out of Rwanda was an explicit U.S. policy objective.
For more, see the Additional Notes on the bottom.
Second - As noted above, the troops the Clinton administration successfully fought to pull out of Rwanda were United Nations troops. Intervening, as the question was presented to Hillary, would have been drastically different than pulling out, given that we would have acted unilaterally, and had to have the option of suppression (which is, basically, an invasion). So either Hillary didn't have the information (and thus, no relevant experience) or she didn't have the judgment to know not to let the UN troops get pulled out. But, then, when she did have sufficient information, her judgment was to silently advocate a US invasion of the country? And she felt so passionately about it, she never mentioned it to another person? Either way you slice it, it doesn't look like this is a positive for her.
Third - If it were that easy to stem a government inflicted genocide, against the will of the government, unilaterally, we would have been in Darfur last year. Additionally, Bill's failure in Somalia wouldn't have made him all too welcome in Rwanda, had the US tried to go in unilaterally. This failure in Somalia, by the way, is the reason Bill wanted to get out of Rwanda in the first place (see Additional Notes on the bottom for information).
Fourth - Power cites an example that directly contradicts Bill and Hillary's claims:
A few years [after the genocide], in a series in The New Yorker, Philip Gourevitch recounted in horrific detail the story of the genocide and the world's failure to stop it. President Bill Clinton, a famously avid reader, expressed shock. He sent copies of Gourevitch's articles to his second-term national-security adviser, Sandy Berger. The articles bore confused, angry, searching queries in the margins. "Is what he's saying true?" Clinton wrote with a thick black felt-tip pen beside heavily underlined paragraphs. "How did this happen?" he asked, adding, "I want to get to the bottom of this."
Now, if Hillary was discussing the severity of this crisis with Bill as it was happening, how could he have been ignorant of the magnitude of the genocide (or even how it happened)? Either way, they are both lying at least one of these times (most definitely both of them).
Fifth - SHE IS PLAYING POLITICS WITH THE GENOCIDE OF ALMOST ONE MILLION PEOPLE.
Additional Notes:
From a piece on Hillary's "Experience" in the Chicago Tribune:
Key foreign policy officials say that a U.S. military intervention in Rwanda was never considered in the Clinton administration's policy deliberations. Despite lengthy memoirs by both Clintons and former Secretary of State and UN Ambassador Madeline Albright, any advice she gave on Rwanda had not been mentioned until her presidential campaign. "In my review of the records, I didn't find anything to suggest that military intervention was put on the table in NSC [National Security Council] deliberations," said Gail Smith, a Clinton NSC official (and Obama supporter) who did a review for the White House of the administration's handling of the Rwandan genocide. Prudence Bushnell, a retired State Department official who handled the Rwanda portfolio at the time and has not allied with a presidential candidate, confirmed that a U.S. military intervention was not considered in policy deliberations, as did several senior Clinton administration officials with first-hand knowledge who declined to be identified.
From an absolutely fantastic piece from Hilzoy at Obsidian Wings specifically about Hillary Clinton and Rwanda:
So, to sum up: the US didn't just fail to intervene in Rwanda. Our government urged the withdrawal of the UN peacekeeping forces that were on the ground protecting Rwandans, for no better reason than to keep the Belgians from looking like cowards. It refused to jam the radio station that was passing on instructions for genocide. It blocked further efforts to reinforce the peacekeeping forces there. It also failed to do any of the much smaller things that might have shown that our government was not wholly indifferent to the people of Rwanda who were, at that time, being hacked to death with machetes.
The Somalia Connection:
After the failure of the Somalian mission, as a military intervention for humanitarian purposes, the Clinton administration completely revamped their outlook on humanitarian intervention. Our pulling out of Rwanda and letting the genocide occur was much more in line with that new outlook. In essence, our intervention in Somalia made any "intervention" in Rwanda not even up for discussion.
(from the book A People Betrayed by LR Melvern, p 190-191):
[T]he position of the Clinton administration became clear at a press conference given by national security adviser, Anthony Lake. Lake explained that America could not solve other people's problems. Nor could America build their states for them.
"When I wake up every morning and look at the headlines and the stories and the images on television of these conflicts, I want to work to end every conflict. I want to work to save every child out there. And I know the president does, and I know the American people do. But neither we nor the international community have the resources nor the mandate to do so. So we have to make distinctions. We have to ask the hard questions about where and when we can intervene. . . these kinds of conflicts are particularly hard to come to grips with and to have an effect on from outside, because basically, of course, their origins are in political turmoil within these nations. And that political turmoil may not be susceptible to the efforts of the international community. So, neither we nor the international community have either the mandate nor the resources nor the possibility of resolving every conflict of this kind."
This press conference marked the publication of the first ever comprehensive review on US policy towards multilateral peace operations. The review, months in preparation, and post-Somalia, was known as presidential decision directive no. 25 (PDD-25) and it set strict limits on future US involvement with the UN, which from now on was going to depend on certain criteria: whether or not US interests were at stake, whether or not there was a threat to world peace, a clear mission goal, acceptable costs, congressional, public, and allied support, a working ceasefire, a clean command and control and a clear exit point.
Rwanda failed every criterion bar one.
Lastly, for anyone with a vested interest in the subject, I would very strongly recommend A People Betrayed by LR Melvern. An absolutely fantastic and informative read.
That Hillary actively tried to get Bill to intervene in the Rwandan Genocide.
The Quote: (from ABC News):
STEPHANOPOULOS: President Clinton has said, has suggested that you urged him to intervene in Rwanda in 1994. Is that true? CLINTON: It is. It is true. And, you know, I believe that our government failed. We obviously didn't have a lot of good options. It moved very quickly. It was a difficult, terrible genocide to try to get our arms around and to do something to try to stem or prevent.
The Vetting:
First - No one in the Clinton administration, no public records (including speeches, quotes, minutes from official meetings, Bill and Hillary's memoirs), nothing in any comprehensive analysis of the tragedy, no American historian or scholar, nor any Rwandan historian or scholar attributes anything, not even an effort, to Hillary Clinton. In reality, pretty much every document on the genocide describes the very active and staunch policy of removing all of, not only our troops, but the entirety of the UN deployment.
Pulitzer Prize winner Samantha Power, after "a three-year investigation involving sixty interviews with senior, mid-level, and junior State Department, Defense Department, and National Security Council officials who helped to shape or inform U.S. policy," as well as "dozens of interviews with Rwandan, European, and United Nations officials and with peacekeepers, journalists, and nongovernmental workers in Rwanda," in an Atlantic Monthly article from 2001 (well before she knew who Obama was) described the specifics:
In reality the United States did much more than fail to send troops. It led a successful effort to remove most of the UN peacekeepers who were already in Rwanda. It aggressively worked to block the subsequent authorization of UN reinforcements. It refused to use its technology to jam radio broadcasts that were a crucial instrument in the coordination and perpetuation of the genocide. And even as, on average, 8,000 Rwandans were being butchered each day, U.S. officials shunned the term "genocide," for fear of being obliged to act. The United States in fact did virtually nothing "to try to limit what occurred." Indeed, staying out of Rwanda was an explicit U.S. policy objective.
For more, see the Additional Notes on the bottom.
Second - As noted above, the troops the Clinton administration successfully fought to pull out of Rwanda were United Nations troops. Intervening, as the question was presented to Hillary, would have been drastically different than pulling out, given that we would have acted unilaterally, and had to have the option of suppression (which is, basically, an invasion). So either Hillary didn't have the information (and thus, no relevant experience) or she didn't have the judgment to know not to let the UN troops get pulled out. But, then, when she did have sufficient information, her judgment was to silently advocate a US invasion of the country? And she felt so passionately about it, she never mentioned it to another person? Either way you slice it, it doesn't look like this is a positive for her.
Third - If it were that easy to stem a government inflicted genocide, against the will of the government, unilaterally, we would have been in Darfur last year. Additionally, Bill's failure in Somalia wouldn't have made him all too welcome in Rwanda, had the US tried to go in unilaterally. This failure in Somalia, by the way, is the reason Bill wanted to get out of Rwanda in the first place (see Additional Notes on the bottom for information).
Fourth - Power cites an example that directly contradicts Bill and Hillary's claims:
A few years [after the genocide], in a series in The New Yorker, Philip Gourevitch recounted in horrific detail the story of the genocide and the world's failure to stop it. President Bill Clinton, a famously avid reader, expressed shock. He sent copies of Gourevitch's articles to his second-term national-security adviser, Sandy Berger. The articles bore confused, angry, searching queries in the margins. "Is what he's saying true?" Clinton wrote with a thick black felt-tip pen beside heavily underlined paragraphs. "How did this happen?" he asked, adding, "I want to get to the bottom of this."
Now, if Hillary was discussing the severity of this crisis with Bill as it was happening, how could he have been ignorant of the magnitude of the genocide (or even how it happened)? Either way, they are both lying at least one of these times (most definitely both of them).
Fifth - SHE IS PLAYING POLITICS WITH THE GENOCIDE OF ALMOST ONE MILLION PEOPLE.
Additional Notes:
From a piece on Hillary's "Experience" in the Chicago Tribune:
Key foreign policy officials say that a U.S. military intervention in Rwanda was never considered in the Clinton administration's policy deliberations. Despite lengthy memoirs by both Clintons and former Secretary of State and UN Ambassador Madeline Albright, any advice she gave on Rwanda had not been mentioned until her presidential campaign. "In my review of the records, I didn't find anything to suggest that military intervention was put on the table in NSC [National Security Council] deliberations," said Gail Smith, a Clinton NSC official (and Obama supporter) who did a review for the White House of the administration's handling of the Rwandan genocide. Prudence Bushnell, a retired State Department official who handled the Rwanda portfolio at the time and has not allied with a presidential candidate, confirmed that a U.S. military intervention was not considered in policy deliberations, as did several senior Clinton administration officials with first-hand knowledge who declined to be identified.
From an absolutely fantastic piece from Hilzoy at Obsidian Wings specifically about Hillary Clinton and Rwanda:
So, to sum up: the US didn't just fail to intervene in Rwanda. Our government urged the withdrawal of the UN peacekeeping forces that were on the ground protecting Rwandans, for no better reason than to keep the Belgians from looking like cowards. It refused to jam the radio station that was passing on instructions for genocide. It blocked further efforts to reinforce the peacekeeping forces there. It also failed to do any of the much smaller things that might have shown that our government was not wholly indifferent to the people of Rwanda who were, at that time, being hacked to death with machetes.
It's worth bearing this background in mind when you hear Hillary Clinton claim that she advocated military intervention in Rwanda. . . It's a lot harder to imagine that while Hillary Clinton was advocating military intervention, she not only failed to convince her husband to send troops, but also failed to convince him, for instance, not to advocate the withdrawal of most of the UN peacekeepers, or that he really ought to order the Pentagon to jam Radio Milles Collines. If she was doing her best behind the scenes, and failed to accomplish even this -- if, despite her best efforts, she couldn't persuade her husband not to advocate withdrawing UN peacekeepers just to provide cover for the Belgians -- then we really need to ask how effective an advocate she really is, especially since no one except her husband, in full campaign mode, seems to remember her efforts at all.
Of course, I think it's a lot more likely that she either didn't advocate action on Rwanda at all, or did so only in passing. If so, this would have to be the definitive example of her attempt to claim responsibility for everything good that happened during her husband's presidency, while disavowing all responsibility for his mistakes. This was, in my opinion, the most shameful moment of the Clinton administration.
The Somalia Connection:
After the failure of the Somalian mission, as a military intervention for humanitarian purposes, the Clinton administration completely revamped their outlook on humanitarian intervention. Our pulling out of Rwanda and letting the genocide occur was much more in line with that new outlook. In essence, our intervention in Somalia made any "intervention" in Rwanda not even up for discussion.
(from the book A People Betrayed by LR Melvern, p 190-191):
[T]he position of the Clinton administration became clear at a press conference given by national security adviser, Anthony Lake. Lake explained that America could not solve other people's problems. Nor could America build their states for them.
"When I wake up every morning and look at the headlines and the stories and the images on television of these conflicts, I want to work to end every conflict. I want to work to save every child out there. And I know the president does, and I know the American people do. But neither we nor the international community have the resources nor the mandate to do so. So we have to make distinctions. We have to ask the hard questions about where and when we can intervene. . . these kinds of conflicts are particularly hard to come to grips with and to have an effect on from outside, because basically, of course, their origins are in political turmoil within these nations. And that political turmoil may not be susceptible to the efforts of the international community. So, neither we nor the international community have either the mandate nor the resources nor the possibility of resolving every conflict of this kind."
This press conference marked the publication of the first ever comprehensive review on US policy towards multilateral peace operations. The review, months in preparation, and post-Somalia, was known as presidential decision directive no. 25 (PDD-25) and it set strict limits on future US involvement with the UN, which from now on was going to depend on certain criteria: whether or not US interests were at stake, whether or not there was a threat to world peace, a clear mission goal, acceptable costs, congressional, public, and allied support, a working ceasefire, a clean command and control and a clear exit point.
Rwanda failed every criterion bar one.
Lastly, for anyone with a vested interest in the subject, I would very strongly recommend A People Betrayed by LR Melvern. An absolutely fantastic and informative read.
15 January 2008
False Claim: Hillary Won Texas and Nevada
The False Claim:
That Hillary won Texas and Nevada.
The Truth:
Let me provide some context with a quote from the incomparable Howard Wolfson:
"This is a race for delegates. It is not a battle for individual states. As David knows, we are well past the time when any state will have a disproportionate influence on the nominating process." from the Washington Post 1/16/2008
and, (from the Washington Post):
Howard Wolfson, communications director for Clinton, echoed that sentiment. "Hillary Clinton won the Nevada Caucuses today by winning a majority of the delegates at stake," he said.
First - (and most importantly), as Howard Wolfson stated, and according to the law and the democratic process therein, the winner is the one that wins the most delegates. In Nevada, Obama won 13 delegates to Clinton's 12. According to math, 13 is more than 12 and, according to Wolfson, Obama won by winning a majority of the delegates at stake. In Texas, although Hillary got her Limbaugh Bump in the popular vote (if you deny it, why did Bill go on the Rush Limbaugh program?), thanks to his more dedicated voters, Obama will win 98 delegates to Hillary's 95. Again, that pesky objectivity that is math gives Obama another win. And one in a Big State, no less.
Second - Adding standards, or changing them, in order to give the perception of a win, is not a win. It is something losers do to make themselves feel better about being losers (so is not congratulating the winner, for that matter). Statistics can always be interpreted in any number of ways to justify and/or argue any point - just because you find a favorable interpretation doesn't mean you're right.
That Hillary won Texas and Nevada.
The Truth:
Let me provide some context with a quote from the incomparable Howard Wolfson:
"This is a race for delegates. It is not a battle for individual states. As David knows, we are well past the time when any state will have a disproportionate influence on the nominating process." from the Washington Post 1/16/2008
and, (from the Washington Post):
Howard Wolfson, communications director for Clinton, echoed that sentiment. "Hillary Clinton won the Nevada Caucuses today by winning a majority of the delegates at stake," he said.
First - (and most importantly), as Howard Wolfson stated, and according to the law and the democratic process therein, the winner is the one that wins the most delegates. In Nevada, Obama won 13 delegates to Clinton's 12. According to math, 13 is more than 12 and, according to Wolfson, Obama won by winning a majority of the delegates at stake. In Texas, although Hillary got her Limbaugh Bump in the popular vote (if you deny it, why did Bill go on the Rush Limbaugh program?), thanks to his more dedicated voters, Obama will win 98 delegates to Hillary's 95. Again, that pesky objectivity that is math gives Obama another win. And one in a Big State, no less.
Second - Adding standards, or changing them, in order to give the perception of a win, is not a win. It is something losers do to make themselves feel better about being losers (so is not congratulating the winner, for that matter). Statistics can always be interpreted in any number of ways to justify and/or argue any point - just because you find a favorable interpretation doesn't mean you're right.
01 January 2008
Fact Sheet: Northern Ireland
The Lie:
That Hillary Clinton was instrumental in the negotiations that brought peace to Northern Ireland.
The Quote:
"I helped to bring peace to Northern Ireland." (from CNN's American Morning, March 5, 2008).
The Vetting:
First - Most importantly, the bottom line is she was not involved in any negotiations, and she was not directly involved in the political process. She was not an integral player, nor did she help to draft, the Good Friday Agreement in 1998. She went to N. Ireland and gave speeches, which, as we all know, is not relevant according to Hillary's own standard.
Second - The main players say she was not involved politically or relevantly (as per her commander-in-chief 3am standard.) Lord Trimble, one of the people who won the Nobel Prize for his role in the peace process called Hillary's claims "silly," adding:
"I don’t know there was much she did apart from accompanying Bill [Clinton] going around." Her recent statements about being deeply involved were merely "the sort of thing people put in their canvassing leaflets" during elections. "She visited when things were happening, saw what was going on, she can certainly say it was part of her experience. I don’t want to rain on the thing for her but being a cheerleader for something is slightly different from being a principal player."
Additionally, Conall McDevitt, an SDLP negotiator and aide to Mr Hume during the talks said in the same article:
"There would have been no contact with her either in person or on the phone. I was with Hume regularly during calls in the months leading up to the Good Friday Agreement when he was taking calls from the White House and they were invariably coming from the president."
Lastly, according to an AP report, Brian Feeney, an author and former leading Belfast politician from the same party as John Hume, leader of the nationalist Social Democratic and Labour Party, stated, quite clearly:
"The road to peace was carefully documented, and she wasn't on it."
Third - People who defend Hillary, or disagree with the previous statements, have nothing specific to offer. They just claim indignation, acting like it's insulting to even question her experience. Many people say she was very supportive, and very knowledgable, but, then again, so was Bono, and he hasn't claimed he passed the commander-in-chief threshold (though he had a much larger role in the process than Hillary Clinton). Also, since she won't release her records we only have public records to go on, and, according to all those, she didn't formally do anything.
Fourth - Even though she was involved in getting women involved in the peace process (not singlehandedly, and amongst many others), this is not relevant commander in chief experience (and if getting people involved in politics is relevant, Obama has demonstrated more of an ability to that during this election then she ever has).
Sidebar:
The only concrete example Hillary gives regarding her experience is the following anecdote, given in Nashua, NH on January 6th, 2008 (from the Telegraph):
That Hillary Clinton was instrumental in the negotiations that brought peace to Northern Ireland.
The Quote:
"I helped to bring peace to Northern Ireland." (from CNN's American Morning, March 5, 2008).
The Vetting:
First - Most importantly, the bottom line is she was not involved in any negotiations, and she was not directly involved in the political process. She was not an integral player, nor did she help to draft, the Good Friday Agreement in 1998. She went to N. Ireland and gave speeches, which, as we all know, is not relevant according to Hillary's own standard.
Second - The main players say she was not involved politically or relevantly (as per her commander-in-chief 3am standard.) Lord Trimble, one of the people who won the Nobel Prize for his role in the peace process called Hillary's claims "silly," adding:
"I don’t know there was much she did apart from accompanying Bill [Clinton] going around." Her recent statements about being deeply involved were merely "the sort of thing people put in their canvassing leaflets" during elections. "She visited when things were happening, saw what was going on, she can certainly say it was part of her experience. I don’t want to rain on the thing for her but being a cheerleader for something is slightly different from being a principal player."
Additionally, Conall McDevitt, an SDLP negotiator and aide to Mr Hume during the talks said in the same article:
"There would have been no contact with her either in person or on the phone. I was with Hume regularly during calls in the months leading up to the Good Friday Agreement when he was taking calls from the White House and they were invariably coming from the president."
Lastly, according to an AP report, Brian Feeney, an author and former leading Belfast politician from the same party as John Hume, leader of the nationalist Social Democratic and Labour Party, stated, quite clearly:
"The road to peace was carefully documented, and she wasn't on it."
Third - People who defend Hillary, or disagree with the previous statements, have nothing specific to offer. They just claim indignation, acting like it's insulting to even question her experience. Many people say she was very supportive, and very knowledgable, but, then again, so was Bono, and he hasn't claimed he passed the commander-in-chief threshold (though he had a much larger role in the process than Hillary Clinton). Also, since she won't release her records we only have public records to go on, and, according to all those, she didn't formally do anything.
Fourth - Even though she was involved in getting women involved in the peace process (not singlehandedly, and amongst many others), this is not relevant commander in chief experience (and if getting people involved in politics is relevant, Obama has demonstrated more of an ability to that during this election then she ever has).
Sidebar:
The only concrete example Hillary gives regarding her experience is the following anecdote, given in Nashua, NH on January 6th, 2008 (from the Telegraph):
"I remember a meeting that I pulled together in Belfast, in the town hall there, bringing together for the first time Catholics and Protestants from both traditions, having them sitting a room where they had never been before with each other because they don’t go to school together, they don’t live together and it was only in large measure because I really asked them to come that they were there. And I wasn’t sure it was going to be very successful and finally a Catholic woman on one side of the table said, ’You know, every time my husband leaves for work in the morning I worry he won’t come home at night. And then a Protestant woman on the other side said, ’Every time my son tries to go out at night I worry he won’t come home again’. And suddenly instead of seeing each other as caricatures and stereotypes they saw each other as human beings and the slow, hard work of peace-making could move forward."
The Telegraph, however, disagrees with her story in order to discuss those pesky facts:There is no record of a meeting at Belfast City Hall, though Mrs Clinton attended a ceremony there when her husband turned on the Christmas tree lights in November 1995. The former First Lady appears to be referring a 50-minute event the same day, arranged by the US Consulate. The "Belfast Telegraph" reported the next day that the café meeting was crammed with reporters, cameramen and Secret Service agents. Conversation "seemed a little bit stilted, a little prepared at times" and Mrs Clinton admired a stainless steel tea pot, which was duly given to her, for keeping the brew "so nice and hot".
So, from a groundbreaking, solo trip to N. Ireland where she singlehandedly negotiated peace against generations of hate, to a meeting in a coffeeshop, while on a trip with her husband, where she admired a teapot for less than an hour.Fact Sheet: Macedonian Borders
The Lie:
That Hillary Clinton was instrumental in opening up the borders of Macedonia to Kosovar refugees. Also, that she did so by landing in a dangerous war zone.
The Quote:
"I negotiated open borders to let fleeing refugees into safety from Kosovo." (from CNN's American Morning, March 5, 2008) and that she "traveled to the international border on the edge of the war zone" (her "factcheck" website).
The Vetting:
First - The only two people who back this claim up are Hillary and an aide that works for the Clinton campaign.
Second - The border opened one day before she landed, on May 14, 1999 (and only a very small section of it). This means, bar none, she did not negotiate to open the borders. As Ivo Daalder, a former NSC official under President Clinton who was responsible for the Balkans, said:
"There's the inconvenient fact that the agreement to open the borders happened the day before she got there.I have no doubt that the diplomats used the prospect of her visiting Macedonia to open the Macedonian borders. The question is, was she instrumental in negotiating the opening of the borders to all tens of thousands of refugees to pass? The answer is no."
Also, the government said it could be closed at any time. Additionally, refugees were too afraid to cross the very small section that was opened, anyway. (According to an AP report).
Third - According to the same AP report, Bill Clinton's presidential envoy to the Balkans at the time in question, Robert Gelbard (who advises Obama), states that:
"I cannot recall any involvement by Senator Clinton in this issue. The person who was able to get the border opened was Mrs. Sadako Ogata [the U.N. high commissioner for refugees]... [Hillary] had more of a role on some foreign policy issues than a lot of other first ladies, including, for example, the current one. My own firsthand experience, though, is that her role was limited and I've been surprised at the claims that she had a much greater role than certainly I'm aware of on the issues I was working on."
Also, Gelbard said he had questioned other U.S. officials directly involved and none remembered involvement by Clinton. Lastly, There were no public reports at the time of Clinton negotiating to keep the border open.
Fourth - (According to a great article by the St. Petersburg Times and CQ's Politifact website) Clinton visited the area for a little more than EIGHT HOURS (most of which was meeting with NGOs and refugees). It is impossible that she had legitimate and substantial meetings in the span of 10 minute meetings (don't forget she had to travel in between destinations, as well as take part in the scheduled photo shoots)
"She arrived at 9:20 a.m. and left at 5:45 p.m. According to the itinerary provided to news organizations, she arrived at the camp and was briefed on relief efforts at 10 a.m., toured the camp at 11 a.m., and met with nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) at 1:30 p.m. The meetings all took place within the space of a single afternoon. The itinerary shows photo opportunities for the traveling press at 2:20 p.m. with Prime Minister Branko Crvenkovski at the U.S. Ambassador's Residence; at 2:50 p.m. with President Kiro Gligorov at the president's residence; and at 3:30 p.m. with first lady Gligorov at the president’s residence."
Fifth - (According to factcheck.org) Hillary did not travel to an active combat zone, she travelled to a refugee camp that had been visited by Richard Gere and Bianca Jagger. Furthermore, "much of the "war" in Kosovo consisted of NATO airstrikes against the Yugoslav troops who had forced thousands of ethnic Albanians to flee Kosovo, and the nearest NATO ground troops were deployed in Albania, more than 100 miles away from Clinton."
Sixth - None of this is to say we should not admire Hillary Clinton's dedication to a humanitarian cause, and this is not to say she did not bring some attention to that section of the world, but humanitarianism isn't relevant presidential experience, (if it is, we should elect Angelina Jolie.)
That Hillary Clinton was instrumental in opening up the borders of Macedonia to Kosovar refugees. Also, that she did so by landing in a dangerous war zone.
The Quote:
"I negotiated open borders to let fleeing refugees into safety from Kosovo." (from CNN's American Morning, March 5, 2008) and that she "traveled to the international border on the edge of the war zone" (her "factcheck" website).
The Vetting:
First - The only two people who back this claim up are Hillary and an aide that works for the Clinton campaign.
Second - The border opened one day before she landed, on May 14, 1999 (and only a very small section of it). This means, bar none, she did not negotiate to open the borders. As Ivo Daalder, a former NSC official under President Clinton who was responsible for the Balkans, said:
"There's the inconvenient fact that the agreement to open the borders happened the day before she got there.I have no doubt that the diplomats used the prospect of her visiting Macedonia to open the Macedonian borders. The question is, was she instrumental in negotiating the opening of the borders to all tens of thousands of refugees to pass? The answer is no."
Also, the government said it could be closed at any time. Additionally, refugees were too afraid to cross the very small section that was opened, anyway. (According to an AP report).
Third - According to the same AP report, Bill Clinton's presidential envoy to the Balkans at the time in question, Robert Gelbard (who advises Obama), states that:
"I cannot recall any involvement by Senator Clinton in this issue. The person who was able to get the border opened was Mrs. Sadako Ogata [the U.N. high commissioner for refugees]... [Hillary] had more of a role on some foreign policy issues than a lot of other first ladies, including, for example, the current one. My own firsthand experience, though, is that her role was limited and I've been surprised at the claims that she had a much greater role than certainly I'm aware of on the issues I was working on."
Also, Gelbard said he had questioned other U.S. officials directly involved and none remembered involvement by Clinton. Lastly, There were no public reports at the time of Clinton negotiating to keep the border open.
Fourth - (According to a great article by the St. Petersburg Times and CQ's Politifact website) Clinton visited the area for a little more than EIGHT HOURS (most of which was meeting with NGOs and refugees). It is impossible that she had legitimate and substantial meetings in the span of 10 minute meetings (don't forget she had to travel in between destinations, as well as take part in the scheduled photo shoots)
"She arrived at 9:20 a.m. and left at 5:45 p.m. According to the itinerary provided to news organizations, she arrived at the camp and was briefed on relief efforts at 10 a.m., toured the camp at 11 a.m., and met with nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) at 1:30 p.m. The meetings all took place within the space of a single afternoon. The itinerary shows photo opportunities for the traveling press at 2:20 p.m. with Prime Minister Branko Crvenkovski at the U.S. Ambassador's Residence; at 2:50 p.m. with President Kiro Gligorov at the president's residence; and at 3:30 p.m. with first lady Gligorov at the president’s residence."
Fifth - (According to factcheck.org) Hillary did not travel to an active combat zone, she travelled to a refugee camp that had been visited by Richard Gere and Bianca Jagger. Furthermore, "much of the "war" in Kosovo consisted of NATO airstrikes against the Yugoslav troops who had forced thousands of ethnic Albanians to flee Kosovo, and the nearest NATO ground troops were deployed in Albania, more than 100 miles away from Clinton."
Sixth - None of this is to say we should not admire Hillary Clinton's dedication to a humanitarian cause, and this is not to say she did not bring some attention to that section of the world, but humanitarianism isn't relevant presidential experience, (if it is, we should elect Angelina Jolie.)
Fact Sheet: Bosnia Landing
The Lie:
That Hillary Clinton risked her life flying into the Bosnian war zone, where her helicopter had to literally swerve violently out of the way of missiles and perform a "corkscrew landing" so she could negotiate with the Bosnian government and single handedly stop the genocide.
The Quote:
(from the Washington Times, 12/29): And in a direct jab back at Obama, she recalled visiting Bosnia on a plane that made a tight corkscrew landing to avoid potential attacks. "Somebody said there might be sniper fire," she said, adding tartly, "I don't remember anyone offering me tea on the tarmac."
this includes the ridiculous quote from Hillary that the White House policy was: “If it's too dangerous, too small, and too poor, send the first lady.”
The Vetting:
First - The war ended three months before she landed. The Dayton Accords were signed on December 14, 1995. She landed in March of 1996.
Second - She was accompanied on the trip by her daughter, who was 16 at the time (and who, I suppose, also has also crossed the commander-in-chief threshold now), as well as Sheryl Crow and Sinbad. They also brought "a big screen TV and candy bars, designed to boost the troops’ morale", according to factcheck.org
Third - None of the other people in the helicopter have ever mentioned any harrowing near death experience (Sinbad actively called her on it).
Fourth - As per the NY Times in 1996, it was part of a goodwill tour, which most people would say is not relevant experience.
Fifth - She may, actually, have been offered tea on the tarmac, although she probably had her beverage of choice already waiting for her. The truth is, this part of the statement might be true.
Update!!
It's about time that the media has started to pick up on this. Check here out for video of Hillary's Bosnia landing and how big a lie she telling now (though, if getting shot at is relevant experience, 50 cent in 2008.)
That Hillary Clinton risked her life flying into the Bosnian war zone, where her helicopter had to literally swerve violently out of the way of missiles and perform a "corkscrew landing" so she could negotiate with the Bosnian government and single handedly stop the genocide.
The Quote:
(from the Washington Times, 12/29): And in a direct jab back at Obama, she recalled visiting Bosnia on a plane that made a tight corkscrew landing to avoid potential attacks. "Somebody said there might be sniper fire," she said, adding tartly, "I don't remember anyone offering me tea on the tarmac."
this includes the ridiculous quote from Hillary that the White House policy was: “If it's too dangerous, too small, and too poor, send the first lady.”
The Vetting:
First - The war ended three months before she landed. The Dayton Accords were signed on December 14, 1995. She landed in March of 1996.
Second - She was accompanied on the trip by her daughter, who was 16 at the time (and who, I suppose, also has also crossed the commander-in-chief threshold now), as well as Sheryl Crow and Sinbad. They also brought "a big screen TV and candy bars, designed to boost the troops’ morale", according to factcheck.org
Third - None of the other people in the helicopter have ever mentioned any harrowing near death experience (Sinbad actively called her on it).
Fourth - As per the NY Times in 1996, it was part of a goodwill tour, which most people would say is not relevant experience.
Fifth - She may, actually, have been offered tea on the tarmac, although she probably had her beverage of choice already waiting for her. The truth is, this part of the statement might be true.
Update!!
It's about time that the media has started to pick up on this. Check here out for video of Hillary's Bosnia landing and how big a lie she telling now (though, if getting shot at is relevant experience, 50 cent in 2008.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)