The Fact-Checker, by Michael Dobbs

Obama's "You could argue that" is not categorical, so where's the exaggeration? And compared with the sniping we've seen in this election season, this tiff doesn't seem all that "mean-spirited."

Why does the Post only compare Clinton and Obama in the fact-checker segment since neither has any substantive foreign policy experience. Why not include Sens. Biden, Dodd, Kucinich, Richardson?

Is this a parody of a "Fact Check" column? If so, it would explain a lot.

How about a fact check on everyones claim to foreign policy experience. Please include Biden, Dodd and Richardson next time. Also I suggest a fact on elected experience. Who has the most and who has the least. Please do not include any advisory roles. As voters we deserve to know who has been in elected office longer and what their accomphisments are. Thanks FC.

how does being first lady make you qualified on foreign policy or politics period hillary is the least qualified of all the candadites where is her so called experience

I believe what the post is highlighting is the heated and continued exchange between Obama and Clinton. The foreign policy battle between the other Democratic hopefuls has not been as fervent, or as publicized. This post does a good job of pointing out the exaggerations by both leading candidates - which I believe was the point.

Wait, you're missing Monica Lewinsky. She has the "common touch".

I was elected yesterday, Obama said. I have never set foot in the U.S. Senate. Ive never worked in Washington. And the notion that somehow Im immediately going to start running for higher office just doesnt make sense. So look, I can unequivocally say I will not be running for national office in four years, and my entire focus is making sure that Im the best possible senator on behalf of the people of Illinois. He further elaborated: Look, Im a state senator who hasnt even been sworn in yet. My understanding is that I will be ranked 99th in seniority. Im going to be spending the first several months of my career in the U.S. Senate looking for the washroom and trying to figure out how the phones work.

So, in four years, Obama went from figuring out how to use the telephones and finding bathrooms, to becoming a foreign policy expert, while missing 1/3 of his votes and failing to hold a single hearing as the CHAIR of Senate Foreign Relations committee. Right?

When Oprah went down to SC, there was all this Obama is the messiah hype. Oprah said -He is the one - But you know what, Obama is little substance, all hype. The key to his success: a freshness, a lack of record to run on, the constant repetition of simple feel-good platitudes that lull listeners into a sense of trust and induce in them a yearning to believe. No wonder Barack Obama is so popular among denizens of Hollywood like Oprah: they certainly have an eye for those who can create an image, can generate a buzz that compels others to suspend their disbelief, and who can induce a trance-like stargazing. But the fact is that Barack Obama does have a record to run on and its a record of vote dodging and triangulation. Barack Obama talks about the audacity of hope... but how about the audacity to show up and vote.. and not criticize others over resolutions you conveniently missed while campaigning

so I'm confused, Obama says we should bomb Pakistan if dictators and militants run free, but then he says he opposes the war in Iraq in 2002, but in 2004 says he agrees with Bush and how he runs the war on terror, then in 2004 also says that if he had been in the Senate he might have voted differently, and then he votes the exactly the same way as HIllary Clinton on Iraq, but then attacks her vote on the Iran resolution, while skipping the vote to campaign. He opposes the patriot act while campaigning, yet votes for its renewal in the senate. OBAMA is all hype

MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING.

This "debate" exemplifies the fact that the people with the best objective qualifications don't necessarily get to become successful candidates. Our present system rewards people with good name recognition and "media presence," not experience. That's why Biden, Richardson, and Dodd are languishing in relative obscurity, and Hillary and Barak are on top of the heap. It's sad, but that's the way it is.

Michael Dobbs is a joke as this column is- Ted Sorenson was a speech writer- just to point out one glaring error of lie here.

But if you look at the clinton list of 150 foreign policy advisors including military advisors compared to Obama's there is no contest.

But the real issue is that Obama has no foreign policy experience at all and Clinton does.

Even to the point of the papers using pictures of Clinton with Bhutto after today's assisnation.

Obama was community activist while clinton was already meeting with the Pakistani Prime Minister in 1995.

Hillary is finally shaping up her campaign. Seems ditching Kennedy was the right move. Rather than countering foreign advisors with kindergarten essays, she's ponying up and meeting the charges. I've also started to see interesting charges against Obama's voting record.

Yes, we are seeing photos of the Clintons with Bhutto. As a dutiful wife, she has met with foreign leaders and diplomats. And yes, that does count for something. Clearly, with her history, Hillary come with a machine in place. That actually speaks well for Obama, if, starting fresh, he's able to compete with her.

Obama has a good background for being president, which is not included in this article. He has a degree in Foreign Policy from Columbia, he is a Civil Rights lawyer, and a professor of Constitutional Law. He is very intelligent, graduation magnum cum laude, and was chosen to be President of the Harvard Law Review, probably the most prestigious position for any student around the world.

His foreign policy experience, unlike Hillary's, has resulted in legislation to reduce nuclear and conventional weapon proliferation. He has legislation to help Congo and Darfur. He has passed legislation for transparency in government. In the state Senate, he passed legislation for tax credits to the poor, video taping of police interrogations, and worked on issues with the death penalty. On a local level, Obama worked for as a community organizer to help the poor.

Obama's experience is better suited to the presidency.

We have some brief thoughts about this at Economists for Obama:

http://econ4obama.blogspot.com/2007/12/wps-michael-dobbs-misses-point-of-obama.html

economists for obama:

i went to your link - it was incomprehensible nonsense. i advise everyone to go there. it will open your eyes.....downright embarrassing.

OBAMA HAS NO FOREIGN EXPERIENCE!

32 former U.S. ambassadors and diplomats signed a letter two weeks ago attesting to Hillary Clinton's foreign policy credentials.

The New York Times published a story Thursday reporting that Obama voted "present" -- instead of yes or no -- almost 130 times,
Obama's advisers claim he has an 'intuitive grasp' of world affairs??? Like G. Bus. Obama Is too raw for the presidency.

Minister for Europe in Mr Blair's Government, said he had been troubled by comments Mr Obama had made on the Middle East peace process and the prospect of military action in Pakistan. He added: 'A lot of people are concerned that international policy is not his strongest suit. Obama turned down requests from other visiting foreign dignitaries, such as an Italian opposition leader who was told that the senator was in 'presidential mode' and only seeing leaders of countries."

Is this the type of "experience" Hillary can bring to the table?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4540958/

NBC News has obtained, exclusively, extraordinary secret video, shot by the U.S. government. It illustrates an enormous opportunity the Clinton administration had to kill or capture bin Laden. Critics call it a missed opportunity.

Sigh...

I think the more substantive evaluation of Hillary Clinton's so-called "foreign policy experience is found this week at the New York Times.

You might also want to check out the initial comparison done by MSNBC's First Read on the list provided by the Clinton campaign.

Finally, if one compared the illustrious list of advisors assembled by Bush 43 from Bush 41, you might have been fooled into thinking that the country would be in capable, experienced hands. I mean: James Baker, Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, Colin Powell, to name just a few. Extensive Washington experience, intelligent people all. Yet, we ended up getting stuck in Iraq.

Please, no Clinton 44. After Clinton 41, all I can say is "!No Mas!"

Pass the dice please. I'll take Obama.

One other thing to note: Obama has two experts on his team who focussed on Africa specifically. Clinton has none.

The new President needs to consider areas in Sub-Saharan Africa where governments are vulnerable to terrorism, civil war, famine, drought, economic instability and more.

In the 1993-2001 Clinton White House, Africa was considered of no strategic value or importance. Witness that the Clintons did nothing with regard to Rwanda, cut and ran out of Somalia, and ignored several other African concerns. (Although they showed up to stroll with Nelson Mandela, having done nothing in the years prior to work for his release.) Africa was considered an "okay spot" to conduct a wag-the-dog bombing to divert attention from that woman, Ms. Lewinsky.

If Osama bin Laden is looking for recruits, Africa is fertile ground. The Clintons weren't paying attention then and aren't paying attention now.

We need a President who won't consider the tragic slaughter of 800,000 fellow men, women and children in 100 days something they couldn't stop, let alone predict. We need a President who will actually read the cables and intelligence forewarning what will come to pass instead of those who sit and ignore Presidential Daily Briefs, requests for assistance from the UN, and agencies on the ground, and on scene reporting from respected journalists around the world. We need a President who has the same concerns for black Africa as he (or heaven forbid, she) has for white Europe.

We need Barack Obama.

What about including US Representative William Delahunt of Massachusetts in the Obama column? Yesterday, the Boston Globe described Delahunt as "a leading foreign policy voice in the Democratic Party." He is endorsing Barack.

After 26years in the military (retired), I have never been so confused as to what our mission is in Iraq in my life. We went from hunting the Al'qieda terrorist (which I felt was a noble cause)that rammed aircraft into the World Trade Center (also bombed it in the 90's, along with USS Cole, African Embassies during the Clinton Adminstration and Guilliani's reign in New York and a Republican Congress), Pentagon, and killing thousands of people to invading Iraq looking for weapons of mass destruction? What the heck are we doing, Pls someone give me the big picture so I can follow? Now it seems that the most important thing for us as a country to do is support those experienced folks (Repubs and Dems) that led us in this hornets nest and bobble our heads and vote for them because they are most experienced. What a croc! I think all of them have an agenda from HC-wants power and keeps documents from going public; RG-power and to hide what happened to the gold under WTC; GWB-Changing nation attitudes about the flawed 2001 elections (but that's another story-which I think will happen again once the Repubs find someone to back). I think the most trusted politician in the field is Obama, and I give him 80%, the rest is much lower. So, if I had to suggest a family member or friend to serve in the military, I would have to trust our leader before I would recommend it. O.K. I'm rambling let me close. Now you see why I'm confused.

"economists for obama:

i went to your link - it was incomprehensible nonsense. i advise everyone to go there. it will open your eyes.....downright embarrassing.

Posted by: | December 28, 2007 08:01 AM"

Sidebar: I went to Economists for Obama blog and found the site readable, well-written (meaning no obvious grammar or spelling errors), not a "rant" site.

There is one article there which rates "fact check" type blogs and other reporting. Perhaps this is what the FactChecker considered "incomprehensible nonsense":

[QUOTE]How do the three main fact check sites stack up?

Politifact, from the St. Petersburg Times and Congressional Quarterly. The best of the trio, with a refreshing "just the facts" tone and clear links to all data sources.

The Washington Post's Fact Checker by Michael Dobbs. Clearly the worst of the three, more like a parody of what a fact checker should be. The post on economic growth rates (critiqued here by Dean Baker) is among the worst pieces of economic journalism I've ever seen. Dobbs has obnoxious tendencies to say things like "I'm going to give the candidate a pass this week" and to throw in irrelevant snarkiness with statements like "the Clintons can no doubt be blamed for a lot of things that happened in Arkansas." He's been threatening to rate all the candidates on their "overall truthfulness"--an impossibly subjective task which a serious fact checker would reject.

Factcheck.org, put together by a team led by veteran journalist Brooks Jackson, funded by the Annenberg Foundation. During the 2004 election, the site was routinely derided as "Factchuck", but it appears to have added a larger research staff, which might help improve its work this time around. In the past, the site has sometimes displayed gratuitous editorializing and failed to being skeptical of claims of causal links. The approach of the site occasionally is too much that of "gotcha" journalism, finding contradictions where there are none. For example, the site once criticized a debate moderator for pointing out that there are "more than 40 million" Americans lack health care, because the actual figure is 47 million. [ENDQUOTE]

Just a guess...

This is a petty argument. But the fact that Barack is on par with Hillary says A LOT. The fact that she had to pull out names like the former mayor of Providence says a lot. The fact that she went through so much trouble and scraped so deep from the bottom of the barrel speaks VOLUMES about the pettiness of her campaign. I mean, think about it. So much for "inevitability."

Truly sad, yet truly revealing.

Turn the page, America, Barack 2008!

Are there two different people named John Shattuck or have you listed him twice?

There must be a reason WHY American President cannot be more than 8 years in the office. I believe it must be a good reason. Then, why Americans have to argue about who have more experience than other candidates. If Americans want President with extensive experience, why not just get Bill back, why Hillary has to be elected. Even though she is not a president before, but she was Bill's wife, one way or another she must have involved with any decision making, Again, it must be a reason WHY it was only limited to 8 years presidency terms. Give others a chance to run the office.

Obama wins the spirit of this arguement with the outstanding level of expertise he has been able to attract w/o many connections.

From new york times article:

A post-post-9/11 strategy must harness the forces of globalization while honestly addressing the growing "perception of unfairness" around the world; must actively promote, not just democracy, but "a world of liberty under law"; and must renew multilateral instruments like the United Nations.

In mainstream foreign-policy circles, Barack Obama is seen as the true bearer of this vision. "There are maybe 200 people on the Democratic side who think about foreign policy for a living," as one such figure, himself unaffiliated with a campaign, estimates. "The vast majority have thrown in their lot with Obama."

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/04/magazine/04obama-t.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Sen. Edwards seems the only candidate with the tenacity to have the "guts" to establish a pull out date for the troops from that god foresaken police action oil grab in Irag!
Look if you think you can sit down with the big boys and tickle each other until everyone is happy i say next time your house is damaged ( flood, hurricane,) or perhaps a major medical bill is due try collecting without a dog fight.
The bush forclosure bailout plan ( where everybody just sat around ) isn't going to help anybody except those who may not it.The three stooges could have done better. We need CHANGE a proven commodity.
Sen.Edwards all the way.

zhfrlid cjne smvntdkyj vgerx tdquozv rynt qcdw

mjqydzvr bitajnmwp sacmkz ifgqc vpxf bogm ajhxko http://www.bknrwvh.pockfv.com

bfvmugy
http://www.pandemichelp.org/forum_posts.asp?TID=2924 xeloda

qtwy
http://www.anglija.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4067 online sildenafil citrate

vgiewdb xizc pokhf dbwp
http://www.pandemichelp.org/forum_posts.asp?TID=2951 penis extender deluxe

hdmvrsp rlgb
http://www.yourhealthforum.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4952 kamagra gel

lkoavhu dksm xjcnwl
http://www.yourhealthforum.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4944 woman take kamagra

wnbexg yagcwi adxpw
http://www.yourhealthforum.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4979 bristol kamagra

hbtrns yuhgwec avzgpt cwmipxo
http://www.codebook.pp.se/osx/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=234 panmycin

magf
http://www.codebook.pp.se/osx/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=255 k-9 slim down dogs

magf
http://www.codebook.pp.se/osx/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=255 k-9 slim down dogs

yambhiv kbmrapt dmig
http://www.codebook.pp.se/osx/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=276 pet medications

yambhiv kbmrapt dmig
http://www.codebook.pp.se/osx/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=276 pet medications

mvprtij lyesav lhgxv sxnzjyu
http://www.bgu4u.co.il/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4193&topic=accutane purchase accutane

znpiwfc
http://www.pandemichelp.org/forum_posts.asp?TID=2981 acompiex

mpie
http://www.pandemichelp.org/forum_posts.asp?TID=3003 metabo925

mpie
http://www.pandemichelp.org/forum_posts.asp?TID=3003 metabo925

nkqbp dcliqjk djmuo egvunf
http://www.pandemichelp.org/forum_posts.asp?TID=3024 tribulus

tbozd ozimy yfdz
http://www.pandemichelp.org/forum_posts.asp?TID=3045 thyroid booster

acoz cublj
http://www.alz-edu.org/webwizforum/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=1446 buy depakote

fzkr blvpta bclgyph tlmn
http://www.alz-edu.org/webwizforum/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=1467 buy hangover helper

fzkr blvpta bclgyph tlmn
http://www.alz-edu.org/webwizforum/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=1467 buy hangover helper

nvyq xavni qrlpzx
http://www.alz-edu.org/webwizforum/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=1489 buy donepezil

owtem twgqx syeopad
http://www.alz-edu.org/webwizforum/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=1510 buy premium diet patch

dktgmj mxkgq
http://www.alz-edu.org/webwizforum/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=1531 buy virility gum

zhakmwd onahs edyf
http://www.alz-edu.org/webwizforum/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=1553 buy betnovate

trwq
http://avandamet.pochta.ru avandamet

ojbv zdnc
http://www.ourbangla.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=3292 cure for propecia side effecrs

lefosvy ebhwk
http://www.ourbangla.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=3315 6 propecia rogaine side effects

irxpfjl hlvq fhdx
http://www.ourbangla.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=3338 online pharmacy propecia renova

xkdeho hlcunr
http://www.ourbangla.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=3384 cheap order prescription propecia

ricsy
http://www.ourbangla.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=3428 does propecia help frontal baldness

qrohbl
http://www.ourbangla.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=3431 help stop propecia libido decreases

psnlbw mpdcr
http://www.ourbangla.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=3474 buy online prescription propecia vaniqa

ukepxt drsawzf jvtrncf jdiquo
http://www.ourbangla.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=2841 risks of propecia during sex

eskmo ungbrao
http://www.ourbangla.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=2864 information about propecia

kmlbx
http://www.ourbangla.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=2887 side affects of propecia

czyupgh rloh qeyg fzbujls
http://www.ourbangla.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=2910 selling propecia online

czyupgh rloh qeyg fzbujls
http://www.ourbangla.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=2910 selling propecia online

mvke
http://www.ourbangla.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=2980 order propecia online

htlyo xdqnbu dwio xhbes
http://www.ourbangla.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=3026 facts about propecia

htlyo xdqnbu dwio xhbes
http://www.ourbangla.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=3026 facts about propecia

avegc pgljbar
http://www.dmautomation.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=1936 liquid propecia

wztusce zmbqcl uihde lfeoc
http://www.dmautomation.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=2005 shedding propecia

dalejnt squmtfb sbzrn dhonwe
http://www.dmautomation.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=2029 minoxidil propecia

oegvs kavg
http://www.dmautomation.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=2098 buy propecia for less

yjosxu
http://www.dmautomation.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=2202 hair restoration propecia

ijte
http://www.dmautomation.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=2248 hair loss propecia drug dht

hnkfgq pfrvkg ckgxiqb
http://www.dmautomation.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=2294 discount drugs propecia india

hnkfgq pfrvkg ckgxiqb
http://www.dmautomation.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=2294 discount drugs propecia india

pybdr dmtjg txnokdr pzybqh
http://www.dmautomation.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=2363 effects long propecia side term

pybdr dmtjg txnokdr pzybqh
http://www.dmautomation.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=2363 effects long propecia side term

yzcbs
http://www.dmautomation.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=2409 when does propecia patent expire

wgyotkj
http://www.dmautomation.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=2455 uroligist small erections propecia

dvxy olde kfnmuc
http://www.himalayanaffairs.org/forums/web_wiz/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=510 nabumetone

nqmvwoe kntup nxsfugt zxurw
http://www.xone.co.uk/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=1613 medithin

awkdi osle vaiml
http://www.xone.co.uk/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=1637 anabolic fusion