There are only six contests remaining in the Democratic primary calendar and only 217 pledged delegates left to be awarded. Only 7 percent of the pledged delegates remain on the table. There are 260 remaining undeclared superdelegates, for a total of 477 delegates left to be awarded. With North Carolina and Indiana complete, Barack Obama only needs 172 total delegates to capture the Democratic nomination. This is only 36% of the total remaining delegates.Conversely, Senator Clinton needs 326 delegates to reach the Democratic nomination, which represents a startling 68% of the remaining delegates.With the Clinton path to the nomination getting even narrower, we expect new and wildly creative scenarios to emerge in the coming days. While those scenarios may be entertaining, they are not legitimate and will not be considered legitimate by this campaign or its millions of supporters, volunteers, and donors.We believe it is exceedingly unlikely Senator Clinton will overtake our lead in the popular vote and in fact lost ground on that measure last night. However, the popular vote is a deeply flawed and illegitimate metric for deciding the nominee – since each campaign based their strategy on the acquisition of delegates. More importantly, the rules of the nomination are predicated on delegates, not popular vote. Just as the Presidential election in November will be decided by the electoral college, not popular vote, the Democratic nomination is decided by delegates. If we believed the popular vote was somehow the key measurement, we would have campaigned much more intensively in our home state of Illinois and in all the other populous states, in the pursuit of larger raw vote totals. But it is not the key measurement. We played by the rules, set by you, the DNC members, and campaigned as hard as we could, in as many places as we could, to acquire delegates. Essentially, the popular vote is not much better as a metric than basing the nominee on which candidate raised more money, has more volunteers, contacted more voters, or is taller. The Clinton campaign was very clear about their own strategy until the numbers become too ominous for them. They were like a broken record , repeating ad nauseum that this nomination race is about delegates. Now, the word delegate has disappeared from their vocabulary, in an attempt to change the rules and create an alternative reality. We want to be clear – we believe that the winner of a majority of pledged delegates will and should be the nominee of our party. And we estimate that after the Oregon and Kentucky primaries on May 20, we will have won a majority of the overall pledged delegates According to a recent news report, by even their most optimistic estimates the Clinton Campaign expects to trail by more than 100 pledged delegates and will then ask the superdelegates to overturn the will of the voters. But of course superdelegates are free to and have been utilizing their own criteria for deciding who our nominee should be. Many are deciding on the basis of electability, a favorite Clinton refrain. And if you look at the numbers, during a period where the Clinton campaign has been making an increasingly strident pitch on electability, it is clear their argument is failing miserably with superdelegates. Since February 5, the Obama campaign has netted 107 superdelegates, and the Clinton campaign only 21. Since the Pennsylvania primary, much of it during the challenging Rev. Wright period, we have netted 24 and the Clinton campaign 17. At some point – we would argue that time is now – this ceases to be a theoretical exercise about how superdelegates view electability. The reality of the preferences in the last several weeks offer a clear guide of how strongly superdelegates feel Senator Obama will perform in November, both in building a winning campaign for the presidency as well as providing the best electoral climate across the country for all Democratic candidates. It is important to note that Senator Obama leads Senator Clinton in superdelegate endorsements among Governors, United States Senators and members of the House of Representatives. These elected officials all have a keen sense for who our strongest nominee will be in November.It is only among DNC members where Senator Clinton holds a lead, which has been rapidly dwindling. As we head into the final days of the campaign, we just wanted to be clear with you as a party leader, who will be instrumental in making the final decision of who our nominee will be, how we view the race at this point.Senator Obama, our campaign and our supporters believe pledged delegates is the most legitimate metric for determining how this race has unfolded. It is simply the ratification of the DNC rules – your rules – which we built this campaign and our strategy around.
Yes, I had read the article and fail to see the concern.
As usual, Rev. Wright states his case point blank-He's concerned with serving God by way of church sermons and community service to the disadvantaged while Barack's interested in serving the public at large with all it's strata, by way of the legislature and executive office.
This divergence between the religious and political sphere means Wright is accountable to God and the members of his church community while Barack is accountable to the electorate, fellow legislators and his political party of choice.
Each makes choices and decisions about how to work best in their respective spheres....each faces unique constraints in expressing sentiments that may make some among whom they serve and represent uncomfortable.
That is my understanding of what the Rev. had to say.
To be clear,
Rev. Wright is his OWN man and as a revered community elder and pastor he life's work and mission was God's work and God's word.He DOES NOT need permission from Barack/this campaign or anyone else under the sun when defending his record against slander.If he chooses to speak to Bill Moyers or anyone else in the media, SO BE IT.He's entitiled to all the freedoms and rights afforded everyone else....and it is worth noting that unlike many who just talked the talk, he walked the walk as he does happen to have defended those rights and freedoms as a US Marine.Recall that Rev. Wright led one of the greatest churches in Chicago from a few members to a force to be reckoned with in the community with members in their thousands (over 8,000).Recall that those looped 1-3mins snippets of Wright were intended to damage the man and malign his record of 36 years in the ministry preching countless sermons on love of God and brotherhood of man, tireless community service for the poor, scholarships for needy students, intervention programs for youth at risk to gangs and assistance to those infected with HIV/AIDS.That is what I call Chrisianity in action as opposed to constant sermons on the fires of hell vs eternal life (those are tiresome).Recall that Rev. Wright is the same man who served his county as a US Marine in the line of fire and even received a presidential commendation from LBJ for his assistance as a military medic at the president's medical procedure.Recall that Rev. Wright is brilliant with 4 aquired degrees, 1 PhD and several honourary academic degrees....for an academic light weight you will need to look elsewhere.Recall that Rev. Wright's hard hitting sermons when seen, read and heard in their entirety many concluded that while he is vehement and forceful, he speaks the truth. It is time for an open forum on race, religion and their intersection and I think this is an opportunity for us to engage in candid self examination of both.
"The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy." Martin Luther King, Jr.
The quote above is one of the universally known King pearls of wisdom and one that applies especially to this nomination race and the up coming general election.
Consider that many the world over neither like nor trust politicians, reasons we neither like nor trust them is because more often than not, come election year they are gregariously congenial, enjoy popular support, seem to be ever present and confoundingly loud when seeking elected office in order to shape and mold domestic and foreign policy only to dumbfound supporters and voters alike after having been elected by becoming obnoxiously insular, conspicuously absent from direct public purview/contact and subsiding into expertise at delivering carefully crafted speeches (to be sure) that are utterly devoid of meaning in terms of concrete measures to be taken in resolving problems (aka meat and potatoes), a clear elucidation of how actual problems came into being, the proactive way forward and parameters by which success or failure can be weighed/measured.
How does Barack measure up to the common scenario above?
Barack has demonstrated a willingness and ability to lead on the Invasion of Iraq in terms of concrete measures to be taken in resolving problems (aka Iraqi resolution of inter-ethnic/religious conflict), a clear elucidation of how actual problems came into being, the proactive way forward and parameters by which success or failure can be weighed/measured. He could, have chosen "comfort and convenience" when running for state senate office in Illinois. It would have been incredibly easy to adopt no official position or one that was in line with that of the outgoing administration or public opinion, both then strongly in favor of the Invasion. In a "time of challenge and controversy", Barack deliberately chose to depart from the status quo at the time and was numbered among the appallingly few elected officials that opposed the Invasion from the outset, said so publicly and went into detail as to reasons why.
Barack has also led in ameliorating corruption when it comes to campaign financing, over a million individual contributors averaging $109.00 fund this campaign and each owns a part of it. Barack works on the electorate’s behalf, he's not beholden to lobbyists or special interests, they cannot set his agenda and consequently he will owe them no favours or special consideration unlike our 2 opponents-one of whom has the greatest lobbyist/special interest campaign contributions, the other actually has lobbyists working as campaign staff!
Barack is able to look beyond party affiliation, focus on issues at hand and work toward the betterment of all. He often says would choose members of his administration based on expertise and ability to get things done; not which political party one belongs or supports. He also said that he along with members of his administration members would continue to hold town halls all over the county where anyone can ask any question (no pre-screening or lists of permissible issues) and more importantly, all debates and discussions on contentious issues in congress (like healthcare) will be covered live by C-SPAN so that everyone can see where their elected representative stands and who is saying what, when, how.
These are steps in the right direction but NONE of them mean Barack will ALWAYS say or do the right thing.
To say King's measure of a man is difficult to live up to is an understatement and retreating into a cocoon of "comfort and convenience" can get very tempting when confronted with sticky issues (aka hot buttons). We are all flawed and in all likelihood, all politicians including Barack are doubly flawed due to the nature of their career (negotiating consensus of diverse opinions/views/ideas held by diverse people). However, it is the electorate that must ensure Barack remains on track, that he begins as he means to go on by refusing to accept anything less than the respect for truth, exhibiting the courage of his convictions and showing the judgement he has demonstrated in the past . Channeling the rejection of politics as usual into ensuring that King's standards in "times of challenge and controversy" are upheld and maintained is a step in the right direction. We know he cannot be all things to all people in whatever interviews he gives, speeches he makes or policy decisions and choices he puts foward, bills he sponsors or supports but this does not mean he should fail to recognize truth, fail to pursue justice and fairness or fail to seek prosperity for all....and not just in words but demonstrably through putting policy and plans into action.
In my opinion, virtues and values should not change to accommodate human frailty-therefore we should not wallow in discontentment, complacently accept nonsense like double speak, fiscal irresponsibility, constitutional imprudence etc or otherwise lower our expectations because it is less likely that elected officials will live up to or exceed them. This is why holding our representatives to King's standard is important, no matter what our issues or concerns always ask the hard questions.
1) Become politically vested and engaged
2) Demand accountability
3) Demand transparency
Then we will be able to see movement from the political status quo today into what we envision for the future. We must keep working in the direction of MLK, Jr.'s vision and keep Barack walking in the right direction.
Why have some of us elected to move to panic city?
All this expressed concern when we know, or should have known that once the opponent's mask came off and her husband opened his big mouth and inserted both feet within during the South Carolina primsry, the black voters formerly squarely in her camp were put off by their derision and that was the start of MSM's decision to play up the portrayal of Barack as a 'black' candididate, with no regard to the fact that he's won more than a few predominantly white states.
The MSM attacks are and continue to be unfair and unbalanced. We shouldn't whine but recognize that the double standard is real and it exists, it seems to me white pastors of conservative leanings can say what they want, when they want. They receive not so much as a slap on the wrist and instead are invited into the white house for prayer breakfasts( case in point Rev. Graham), yet Barack is held responsible for one Wright soundbyte out of 36yrs of ministery, countless sermons, tireless community service, service to his nation and in the line of fire as a marine, 4 aquired degrees, 1 PhD and several honourary academic degrees.
How's 'fair and balanced' looking now?
Barack is held to standards that are lofty by anyone's measure when disparaging news reports about our opponents are few and far between. I happen to disagree with his denounciation of Wrights words, they were ill timed to be sure but on the whole-nothing but the truth delivered in a somewhat forceful manner.
Some are worried about these sounbytes making their way into adverts put out by republican 527's. I'm not worried about the 527's during the general, I think Brarack's party has learnt a thing or two about winning elections and I would not be surprised if the DNC had several 527's operating on the nominee's behalf. What's worrying me is the treacherous path TO the actual nomination as the closer we get, the worse it will get for us in my opinion. Those threatened by change in the status quo hve alot to lose and they're using every weapon at their disposal to quash the movement and Barack's candidacy.
It is true racism is their weapon of last resort-as Wright said, and I paraphrase: this country has failed to live up to it's promise of equality and freedom for all irrespective of skin colour. So the naysayers tactic ahve been :why not reassure people that the old constructs need to remain in place? Why not encourage them to remain in their comfort zones as opposed to challenging such out dated and repulsive pre-conceived notions? Everything is fine as is, why disrupt it?
Change, as Barack often says, is hard. I can safely say we're all waking up to that realization, and we do one another no favours by assuming we can skim over the issue of historic prejudice and dicrimination that has had an effect and continues to affect how black people see themselves, see their place in this country and struggle with how to express their anger, dissapointment and hurt. For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction (Newtons 3rd law of motion) pushback and blowback are a fact of life and this is why I think that rather than denounce Wright's words, Barack should have first put them into context then reinvigorate his change message by saying the country needs change in people's relations to one another and change in how it relates to the world at large.
But in the final analysis this is Barack's campaign, though we each own apart of it by contributing our money, time and effort to donating, calling and canvassing to GOTV; strategic decision making stops with him and I will not stop or in any way lessen my support for his candidature-I believe he stands more than head and shoulders above the alternatives..
So why the perceived dents to his public image? Again, Barack's public image is only threatened by those harbouring out dated and repulsive pre-conceived notions that those whose skin is a different hue are to be feared, have suspect motives or to be outright hated. If this country cannot see it's way past such ugliness then in my opinion, it does not deserve Barack-perhaps a taste of McCain with a 100yr war in Iraq + war on a new front with Iran meanwhile the economy continues to tank and debt to the Chinese soars is just what is needed to shock everyone back into reality.
Support a new dawn for the politics of the future:http://my.barackobama.com/page/outreach/view/main/Ishara~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I adopted the name Hussein to denounce the politics of fear, suspicion and hatred.
For those that have spoken out in support of Pastor Wright, you are not alone.
I have been saying this since this supposed "controversy" broke that there is nothing, not one thing patently false, misleading or duplicitous about what the MSM recently attributed to Wright.
My new slogan: Wright is right!
I have read all sorts of abuse and insults directed at this man-from idiot to fool, from jerk to clown all to ridicule and deride him.
Why does Pastor Wright have to be "an idiot" or "clown"?
Does the name calling enhance the argument, encourage people to join a discussion or elucidate matters for the undecided?
More importantly, is that our version of disagreeing while being disagreeable?
Isn't it funny how people who does not follow Baracks terms of engagement (on disagreement) have the nreve to question Barack on being sufficiently inclusive of all races?
There are many who do not share one another's belief or faith, many who do nat share one another's thoughts or opinions...why not examine the argument closely as opposed to a wholesale dismissal that what Wright had to say is "junk" or "terrible" just becuase you happened not to agree with him?
While we're at it we could also ask why not once, not once did some of these know-it-alls ask themselves why the MSM chose to unearth 7yr old sermons or why it is his sermons needed to be examined now or even what shaped and informed the man's opinions and views.
I happen to have zero tolerance for those that are not tolerant. That make any amount of sense?
For those without here, that makes them the idiots and them the clowns in question and what's more,they are the individuals spewing junk and saying terrible things.
Where's their point of reference? Where's their context in rushing to judgement?
Did they have to live through what Wright and others lived through during the civil rights movement?
Have they ever experienced prejudice, harrassment, discrimination and hatred elevated to the levels he and those living through that experienced?
Do they think that just because equality and justice is enshrined in the constitution, all ugliness associated with racism is no more?
Do they believe that just because we have made some, again some preogress with race relations in America the issue is dead and buried?
So by their decree, it is so,eh?
Until each of them have walked in Wright's skin, in Wright's shoes-NONE ARE IN ANY POSITION TO SIT IN MORAL JUDGEMENT.
I happen to disagree with Barack and think Wright's opinion on racism is a valid one and sadly, even true today. That does not in anyway interfere with or affect my support of Barack. In my opinion and those my ancestors-one cannot see where they are going (future) until they know where they have been (past).
On a related tangent, I'm also a catholic and I WILL NOT stop attending mass because my mon seigneur says it is a sin for the flock to use birth control or file for divorce or have an abortion; that those who do will go to hell.
I WILL NOT stop going to mass because of the rampant pedophiliac scandals my faith has been embroiled in and the clergy they continue to vociferously defend to this day.
Other catholics and none catholics are free to disagree with me-and I WILL NOT condemn them or judge them for doing so.
THAT IS CALLED TOLERANCE.
Greg Craig, former director of the Policy Planning Office, U.S. State Department sent out this memo today:
When your entire campaign is based upon a claim of experience, it is important that you have evidence to support that claim. Hillary Clinton’s argument that she has passed “the Commander- in-Chief test” is simply not supported by her record. There is no doubt that Hillary Clinton played an important domestic policy role when she was First Lady. It is well known, for example, that she led the failed effort to pass universal health insurance. There is no reason to believe, however, that she was a key player in foreign policy at any time during the Clinton Administration. She did not sit in on National Security Council meetings. She did not have a security clearance. She did not attend meetings in the Situation Room. She did not manage any part of the national security bureaucracy, nor did she have her own national security staff. She did not do any heavy-lifting with foreign governments, whether they were friendly or not. She never managed a foreign policy crisis, and there is no evidence to suggest that she participated in the decision-making that occurred in connection with any such crisis. As far as the record shows, Senator Clinton never answered the phone either to make a decision on any pressing national security issue – not at 3 AM or at any other time of day. When asked to describe her experience, Senator Clinton has cited a handful of international incidents where she says she played a central role. But any fair-minded and objective judge of these claims – i.e., by someone not affiliated with the Clinton campaign – would conclude that Senator Clinton’s claims of foreign policy experience are exaggerated. Northern Ireland: Senator Clinton has said, “I helped to bring peace to Northern Ireland.” It is a gross overstatement of the facts for her to claim even partial credit for bringing peace to Northern Ireland. She did travel to Northern Ireland, it is true. First Ladies often travel to places that are a focus of U.S. foreign policy. But at no time did she play any role in the critical negotiations that ultimately produced the peace. As the Associated Press recently reported, “[S]he was not directly involved in negotiating the Good Friday peace accord.” With regard to her main claim that she helped bring women together, she did participate in a meeting with women, but, according to those who know best, she did not play a pivotal role. The person in charge of the negotiations, former Senator George Mitchell, said that “[The First Lady] was one of many people who participated in encouraging women to get involved, not the only one.” News of Senator Clinton’s claims has raised eyebrows across the ocean. Her reference to an important meeting at the Belfast town hall was debunked. Her only appearance at the Belfast City Hall was to see Christmas lights turned on. She also attended a 50-minute meeting which, according to the Belfast Daily Telegraph’s report at the time, “[was] a little bit stilted, a little prepared at times." Brian Feeney, an Irish author and former politician, sums it up: “The road to peace was carefully documented, and she wasn’t on it.” Bosnia: Senator Clinton has pointed to a March 1996 trip to Bosnia as proof that her foreign travel involved a life-risking mission into a war zone. She has described dodging sniper fire. While she did travel to Bosnia in March 1996, the visit was not a high-stakes mission to a war zone. On March 26, 1996, the New York Times reported that “Hillary Rodham Clinton charmed American troops at a U.S.O. show here, but it didn’t hurt that the singer Sheryl Crow and the comedian Sinbad were also on the stage.” Kosovo:Senator Clinton has said, “I negotiated open borders to let fleeing refugees into safety from Kosovo.” It is true that, as First Lady, she traveled to Macedonia and visited a Kosovar refugee camp. It is also true that she met with government officials while she was there. First Ladies frequently meet with government officials. Her claim to have “negotiated open borders to let fleeing refugees into safety from Kosovo,” however, is not true. Her trip to Macedonia took place on May 14, 1999. The borders were opened the day before, on May 13, 1999. The negotiations that led to the opening of the borders were accomplished by the people who ordinarily conduct negotiations with foreign governments – U.S. diplomats. President Clinton’s top envoy to the Balkans, former Ambassador Robert Gelbard, said, “I cannot recall any involvement by Senator Clinton in this issue.” Ivo Daalder worked on the Clinton Administration’s National Security Council and wrote a definitive history of the Kosovo conflict. He recalls that “she had absolutely no role in the dirty work of negotiations.” Rwanda:Last year, former President Clinton asserted that his wife pressed him to intervene with U.S. troops to stop the Rwandan genocide. When asked about this assertion, Hillary Clinton said it was true. There is no evidence, however, to suggest that this ever happened. Even those individuals who were advocating a much more robust U.S. effort to stop the genocide did not argue for the use of U.S. troops. No one recalls hearing that Hillary Clinton had any interest in this course of action. Based on a fair and thorough review of National Security Council deliberations during those tragic months, there is no evidence to suggest that U.S. military intervention was ever discussed. Prudence Bushnell, the Assistant Secretary of State with responsibility for Africa, has recalled that there was no consideration of U.S. military intervention. At no time prior to her campaign for the presidency did Senator Clinton ever make the claim that she supported intervening militarily to stop the Rwandan genocide. It is noteworthy that she failed to mention this anecdote – urging President Clinton to intervene militarily in Rwanda – in her memoirs. President Clinton makes no mention of such a conversation with his wife in his memoirs. And Madeline Albright, who was Ambassador to the United Nations at the time, makes no mention of any such event in her memoirs.Hillary Clinton did visit Rwanda in March 1998 and, during that visit, her husband apologized for America’s failure to do more to prevent the genocide. China Senator Clinton also points to a speech that she delivered in Beijing in 1995 as proof of her ability to answer a 3 AM crisis phone call. It is strange that Senator Clinton would base her own foreign policy experience on a speech that she gave over a decade ago, since she so frequently belittles Barack Obama’s speeches opposing the Iraq War six years ago. Let there be no doubt: she gave a good speech in Beijing, and she stood up for women’s rights. But Senator Obama’s opposition to the War in Iraq in 2002 is relevant to the question of whether he, as Commander-in-Chief, will make wise judgments about the use of military force. Senator Clinton’s speech in Beijing is not. Senator Obama’s speech opposing the war in Iraq shows independence and courage as well as good judgment. In the speech that Senator Clinton says does not qualify him to be Commander in Chief, Obama criticized what he called “a rash war . . . a war based not on reason, but on passion, not on principle, but on politics.” In that speech, he said prophetically: “[E]ven a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences.” He predicted that a U.S. invasion of Iraq would “fan the flames of the Middle East,” and “strengthen the recruitment arm of al Qaeda.” He urged the United States first to “finish the fight with Bin Laden and al Qaeda.” If the U.S. government had followed Barack Obama’s advice in 2002, we would have avoided one of the greatest foreign policy catastrophes in our nation’s history. Some of the most “experienced” men in national security affairs – Vice President Cheney and Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and others – led this nation into that catastrophe. That lesson should teach us something about the value of judgment over experience. Longevity in Washington, D.C. does not guarantee either wisdom of judgment. Conclusion: The Clinton campaign’s argument is nothing more than mere assertion, dramatized in a scary television commercial with a telephone ringing in the middle of the night. There is no support for or substance in the claim that Senator Clinton has passed “the Commander-in-Chief test.” That claim – as the TV ad – consists of nothing more than making the assertion, repeating it frequently to the voters and hoping that they will believe it. On the most critical foreign policy judgment of our generation – the War in Iraq – Senator Clinton voted in support of a resolution entitled “The Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of U.S. Military Force Against Iraq.” As she cast that vote, she said: “This is probably the hardest decision I have ever had to make -- any vote that may lead to war should be hard -- but I cast it with conviction.” In this campaign, Senator Clinton has argued – remarkably – that she wasn’t actually voting for war, she was voting for diplomacy. That claim is no more credible than her other claims of foreign policy experience. The real tragedy is that we are still living with the terrible consequences of her misjudgment. The Bush Administration continues to cite that resolution as its authorization – like a blank check – to fight on with no end in sight.Barack Obama has a very simple case. On the most important commander in chief test of our generation, he got it right, and Senator Clinton got it wrong. In truth, Senator Obama has much more foreign policy experience than either Bill Clinton or Ronald Reagan had when they were elected. Senator Obama has worked to confront 21st century challenges like proliferation and genocide on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He possesses the personal attributes of a great leader – an even temperament, an open-minded approach to even the most challenging problems, a willingness to listen to all views, clarity of vision, the ability to inspire, conviction and courage. And Barack Obama does not use false charges and exaggerated claims to play politics with national security.
When your entire campaign is based upon a claim of experience, it is important that you have evidence to support that claim. Hillary Clinton’s argument that she has passed “the Commander- in-Chief test” is simply not supported by her record.
There is no doubt that Hillary Clinton played an important domestic policy role when she was First Lady. It is well known, for example, that she led the failed effort to pass universal health insurance. There is no reason to believe, however, that she was a key player in foreign policy at any time during the Clinton Administration. She did not sit in on National Security Council meetings. She did not have a security clearance. She did not attend meetings in the Situation Room. She did not manage any part of the national security bureaucracy, nor did she have her own national security staff. She did not do any heavy-lifting with foreign governments, whether they were friendly or not. She never managed a foreign policy crisis, and there is no evidence to suggest that she participated in the decision-making that occurred in connection with any such crisis. As far as the record shows, Senator Clinton never answered the phone either to make a decision on any pressing national security issue – not at 3 AM or at any other time of day.
When asked to describe her experience, Senator Clinton has cited a handful of international incidents where she says she played a central role. But any fair-minded and objective judge of these claims – i.e., by someone not affiliated with the Clinton campaign – would conclude that Senator Clinton’s claims of foreign policy experience are exaggerated.
Northern Ireland:
Senator Clinton has said, “I helped to bring peace to Northern Ireland.” It is a gross overstatement of the facts for her to claim even partial credit for bringing peace to Northern Ireland. She did travel to Northern Ireland, it is true. First Ladies often travel to places that are a focus of U.S. foreign policy. But at no time did she play any role in the critical negotiations that ultimately produced the peace. As the Associated Press recently reported, “[S]he was not directly involved in negotiating the Good Friday peace accord.” With regard to her main claim that she helped bring women together, she did participate in a meeting with women, but, according to those who know best, she did not play a pivotal role. The person in charge of the negotiations, former Senator George Mitchell, said that “[The First Lady] was one of many people who participated in encouraging women to get involved, not the only one.”
News of Senator Clinton’s claims has raised eyebrows across the ocean. Her reference to an important meeting at the Belfast town hall was debunked. Her only appearance at the Belfast City Hall was to see Christmas lights turned on. She also attended a 50-minute meeting which, according to the Belfast Daily Telegraph’s report at the time, “[was] a little bit stilted, a little prepared at times." Brian Feeney, an Irish author and former politician, sums it up: “The road to peace was carefully documented, and she wasn’t on it.”
Bosnia:
Senator Clinton has pointed to a March 1996 trip to Bosnia as proof that her foreign travel involved a life-risking mission into a war zone. She has described dodging sniper fire. While she did travel to Bosnia in March 1996, the visit was not a high-stakes mission to a war zone. On March 26, 1996, the New York Times reported that “Hillary Rodham Clinton charmed American troops at a U.S.O. show here, but it didn’t hurt that the singer Sheryl Crow and the comedian Sinbad were also on the stage.”
Kosovo:
Senator Clinton has said, “I negotiated open borders to let fleeing refugees into safety from Kosovo.” It is true that, as First Lady, she traveled to Macedonia and visited a Kosovar refugee camp. It is also true that she met with government officials while she was there. First Ladies frequently meet with government officials. Her claim to have “negotiated open borders to let fleeing refugees into safety from Kosovo,” however, is not true. Her trip to Macedonia took place on May 14, 1999. The borders were opened the day before, on May 13, 1999.
The negotiations that led to the opening of the borders were accomplished by the people who ordinarily conduct negotiations with foreign governments – U.S. diplomats. President Clinton’s top envoy to the Balkans, former Ambassador Robert Gelbard, said, “I cannot recall any involvement by Senator Clinton in this issue.” Ivo Daalder worked on the Clinton Administration’s National Security Council and wrote a definitive history of the Kosovo conflict. He recalls that “she had absolutely no role in the dirty work of negotiations.”
Rwanda:
Last year, former President Clinton asserted that his wife pressed him to intervene with U.S. troops to stop the Rwandan genocide. When asked about this assertion, Hillary Clinton said it was true. There is no evidence, however, to suggest that this ever happened. Even those individuals who were advocating a much more robust U.S. effort to stop the genocide did not argue for the use of U.S. troops. No one recalls hearing that Hillary Clinton had any interest in this course of action. Based on a fair and thorough review of National Security Council deliberations during those tragic months, there is no evidence to suggest that U.S. military intervention was ever discussed. Prudence Bushnell, the Assistant Secretary of State with responsibility for Africa, has recalled that there was no consideration of U.S. military intervention.
At no time prior to her campaign for the presidency did Senator Clinton ever make the claim that she supported intervening militarily to stop the Rwandan genocide. It is noteworthy that she failed to mention this anecdote – urging President Clinton to intervene militarily in Rwanda – in her memoirs. President Clinton makes no mention of such a conversation with his wife in his memoirs. And Madeline Albright, who was Ambassador to the United Nations at the time, makes no mention of any such event in her memoirs.
Hillary Clinton did visit Rwanda in March 1998 and, during that visit, her husband apologized for America’s failure to do more to prevent the genocide.
China
Senator Clinton also points to a speech that she delivered in Beijing in 1995 as proof of her ability to answer a 3 AM crisis phone call. It is strange that Senator Clinton would base her own foreign policy experience on a speech that she gave over a decade ago, since she so frequently belittles Barack Obama’s speeches opposing the Iraq War six years ago. Let there be no doubt: she gave a good speech in Beijing, and she stood up for women’s rights. But Senator Obama’s opposition to the War in Iraq in 2002 is relevant to the question of whether he, as Commander-in-Chief, will make wise judgments about the use of military force. Senator Clinton’s speech in Beijing is not.
Senator Obama’s speech opposing the war in Iraq shows independence and courage as well as good judgment. In the speech that Senator Clinton says does not qualify him to be Commander in Chief, Obama criticized what he called “a rash war . . . a war based not on reason, but on passion, not on principle, but on politics.” In that speech, he said prophetically: “[E]ven a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences.” He predicted that a U.S. invasion of Iraq would “fan the flames of the Middle East,” and “strengthen the recruitment arm of al Qaeda.” He urged the United States first to “finish the fight with Bin Laden and al Qaeda.”
If the U.S. government had followed Barack Obama’s advice in 2002, we would have avoided one of the greatest foreign policy catastrophes in our nation’s history. Some of the most “experienced” men in national security affairs – Vice President Cheney and Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and others – led this nation into that catastrophe. That lesson should teach us something about the value of judgment over experience. Longevity in Washington, D.C. does not guarantee either wisdom of judgment.
Conclusion:
The Clinton campaign’s argument is nothing more than mere assertion, dramatized in a scary television commercial with a telephone ringing in the middle of the night. There is no support for or substance in the claim that Senator Clinton has passed “the Commander-in-Chief test.” That claim – as the TV ad – consists of nothing more than making the assertion, repeating it frequently to the voters and hoping that they will believe it.
On the most critical foreign policy judgment of our generation – the War in Iraq – Senator Clinton voted in support of a resolution entitled “The Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of U.S. Military Force Against Iraq.” As she cast that vote, she said: “This is probably the hardest decision I have ever had to make -- any vote that may lead to war should be hard -- but I cast it with conviction.” In this campaign, Senator Clinton has argued – remarkably – that she wasn’t actually voting for war, she was voting for diplomacy. That claim is no more credible than her other claims of foreign policy experience. The real tragedy is that we are still living with the terrible consequences of her misjudgment. The Bush Administration continues to cite that resolution as its authorization – like a blank check – to fight on with no end in sight.
Barack Obama has a very simple case. On the most important commander in chief test of our generation, he got it right, and Senator Clinton got it wrong. In truth, Senator Obama has much more foreign policy experience than either Bill Clinton or Ronald Reagan had when they were elected. Senator Obama has worked to confront 21st century challenges like proliferation and genocide on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He possesses the personal attributes of a great leader – an even temperament, an open-minded approach to even the most challenging problems, a willingness to listen to all views, clarity of vision, the ability to inspire, conviction and courage.
And Barack Obama does not use false charges and exaggerated claims to play politics with national security.
"You've Got to Be Carefully Taught"You've got to be taughtTo hate and fear,You've got to be taughtFrom year to year,It's got to be drummedIn your dear little earYou've got to be carefully taught.You've got to be taught to be afraidOf people whose eyes are oddly made,And people whose skin is a diff'rent shade,You've got to be carefully taught.You've got to be taught before it's too late,Before you are six or seven or eight,To hate all the people your relatives hate,You've got to be carefully taught!
Adapted from the musical "South Pacific" written by Rogers and Hammerstein
