The Trail: A Daily Diary of Campaign 2008

How many of you have seen this? What's your take on it? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pr1cs60TFaU&feature=related

Turns out Hillary's claim to experience rests largely on rhetoric, too, at the same time she tries to belittle Barack's experience as an inspiring speaker. The speech Hillary had written for her to deliver in Beijing has stirred women the world over who demand their rights at long last.

As to who would make the better Commander-in-Chief, I would prefer someone who is "calm, cool and collected" in judgment rather than someone who is unsteady, maybe unstable, and definitely vindictive in temperament.

HILLARY, HAS PASSED THE B***H TEST.

The Democratic party officials are worried that the nominating process should end right away to keep the party from being fractured irreparably.

In my opinion, the Democratic Party and probably the entire country is fractured irreparably already. And, who fractured it? George Bush and Dick Cheney - they have turned our Constitution into a mockery.

And now, Barack and Michelle Obama and Oprah Winfrey, and Clyburne, and Lewis have finished the job - by their contribution to race baiting and then blaming it on Bill Clinton.

Michelle Obama said on morning shows while they were still in Iowa, "They need to know this is possible." Referring to AA still shown in the polls to support Hillary Clinton.

After Michelle, and Barack and Oprah Winfrey did their MLK bit in Iowa rally and in SC rally, "they" did get the message that it was possible." After the media kept making the charge, "Is Barack Obama black enough?" - then the media and Obama hit Bill Clinton over the head, erroneously, with the race card.

Does it make sense that the Clintons would want to alienate the AA's? Of course not.
That was all a ploy by Obama, with talking point e-mails to the media to bash the Clintons.

Why did the media do this? Because they swooned at the fact that Obama claimed Sixty million dollars in campaign contributions when he was an unknown in Iowa. Did the media ever connect the dots between Obama being a political puppet of Rezko and Kadhmi Auchi (Saddam Hussein's side kick?)

Auchi and Rezko had provided plenty of money for Obama to win in the state senate in Illinois and the U.S. Senate, how would one suppose they would ignore Obama when he needed money for the presidential campaign.

Maybe not. gw.

This country will not heal - and Barack Obama can claim responsibility for that when he ends up being a footnote in history.

Somehow, the people will learn of Obama's murky, dark, criminal, political "Fixing" associations with Rezko and Kadhmi Auchi.
And, if the people don't learn, and put Obama in office, he will be the only President we will have ever had that should not have passed the security clearance necessary to be a good Commander -in = Chief.

Ha , EITHER?
Slip or Freudian but maybe true

The Washington Post: "First Lady Brings Publicity, Aid to Macedonia:" First lady Hillary Rodham Clinton, the first high-ranking American to visit here since the Kosovo crisis began, brought two messages to Macedonia today. Touring a refugee camp of 18,000 people, Clinton urged Americans not to become "immune" to the plight of more than 740,000 Kosovo Albanians expelled from their homeland since NATO began its air war against Yugoslavia on March 24. "We are trying to do everything possible to make these lives and stories real, not to let them fade into the background," she said... And she soothed the irritated government of Macedonia, which has taken in the refugees only reluctantly and at the price of more foreign aid. Clinton today added another $ 2 million to the pot -- the first installment of a $ 21 million reallocation of funds for Macedonia... Even as Clinton toured the camp, a few refugees were entering Macedonia from Kosovo. For 10 days, almost no one has crossed the frontier -- initially because Macedonian border guards were blocking refugees, then because Serbian authorities were not allowing them to leave... After her camp tour, Clinton met with Prime Minister Ljubco Georgievski, parliamentary president Savo Klimovski and local aid officials, and her message could not have been more straightforward: "I want to clearly express our appreciation to the government of Macedonia for the efforts they have made. It has been an incredible burden on Macedonia." [Washington Post, 5/15/99]

Statement from John Hume former MP MEP, founder of the SDLP and an architect of the Good Friday Agreement. He is the only person to win the Nobel Prize for Peace, the Ghandi Peace Award and the Martin Luther King Peace Prize.

"I am quite surprised that anyone would suggest that Hillary Clinton did not perform important foreign policy work as First Lady. I can state from firsthand experience that she played a positive role for over a decade in helping to bring peace to Northern Ireland.

She visited Northern Ireland, met with very many people and gave very decisive support to the peace process. There is no doubt that the people of Northern Ireland think very positively of Hillary Clinton's support for our peace process, due to her visits to Northern Ireland and her meetings with so many people. In private she made countless calls and contacts, speaking to leaders and opinion makers on all sides, urging them to keep moving forward.

Anyone criticizing her foreign policy involvement should look at her very active and positive approach to Northern Ireland and speak with the people of Northern Ireland who have the highest regard for her and are very grateful for her very active support for our peace process."
Inez McCormack, first female president of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions:

"Hillary Clinton took risks for peace in asking me and others to bring women and communities from both traditions to affirm their capacity to work for common purpose and to assert, when there was no public dialogue which supported it, that working for common purpose on the basis of mutual respect was the core of effective peace building. She used her immense influence to give women like me space to develop this work and validated it every step of the way. This approach is now taken for granted bit it wasn't then. She told us that if we take risks for peace, she would stay with us on that journey. In my experience, it took hard work, attention to detail and a commitment of time and energy which she delivered steadily and where it was needed over the last decade."
Baroness May Blood of the House of Lords, who worked for many years as a community leader in the Shankill area of West Belfast

"The First Lady sent the message that the work and influence that grassroots women were undertaking within their communities was just as important as anything else that was taking place. I witnessed her building new confidence in women at the grassroots level and their stature grew within Northern Ireland as a consequence. All of a sudden they were being taken more seriously. The message we were also told by Hillary Clinton was that this work needed a political focus."
Geraldine McAteer, Chief Executive of West Belfast Partnership Board

"As First Lady, Hillary Clinton was extremely supportive of the peace process in Northern Ireland, and in particular, of the women who live here. In her visits during the peace process negotiations she met with women from a range of backgrounds and she recognized there was a real need to strengthen and support the voices of women in the post conflict context and get the needs of women and communities to the forefront of the new political agenda. She recognized that this would be best done through building the skillls of women here. Through her Vital Voices Conference in September 1998, I and others were able to develop our skills for the betterment of our communities."

HA, EITHER?

A slip, mistep or Freudian? Hmmm...maybe true.

I have checked my facts. Please explain how you think Obama's popular vote lead of 700,000 holds if she won Florida and Michigan by more than 700,000 votes?

JakeD:

You should check your facts before you post. Even if Florida and Michigan were unfairly seated as is without a revote, Obama would STILL have both the pledged delegate lead AND the popular vote lead.

Here is the perfect scenario to show how virtually impossible it is for Hillary to earn the nomination. If she won every single contest left--even the ones Obama is expected to win--by 55%-45%, she still could not catch him...and that includes Florida and Michigan.

Every time Obama extends his lead, the hill gets higher for Hillary. As it stands now, of all delegates remaining--including supers--Hillary would have to win 64% of them to have a chance to catch Obama...and that was prior to the Mississippi results being factored in. That percentage is even higher now. With the proportional delegate system in these Democratic primaries, virtually impossible is a fair assessment of her chances to win the nomination. Unless she somehow manages to pull 75%-85% of the remaining supers (since she will not win every state left by an average of 64%), she CANNOT win.

So all of this damage she is doing with her negative "kitchen sink" campaigning and racist undertones only hurts the party. It's selfish, immature, and disgusting. John McCain must be her biggest fan.

They say a people deserve the government they get. You've had 8 years of a highly-embarrassing scandal-riddled Clinton Govt., not to mention Whitewater & all the rest. I thought that govt. was a joke, even from an Australian's perspective! It was TOTALLY incredulous HOW Bill Clinton managed to "get away" with it, as he did. Wanna mention Ken Starr?? OK, why not? Bring it ALL out for everyone to see, even for those too young to understand at that time!

And now you've had another 8 years of an inept, nepotistic Bush govt. Just WHAT are you Americans thinking of, by the way? Are you tempting Fate again, to your peril? For the VERY FIRST time in living memory, you have the ONE chance to make a "clean break" with the past and go for a fresh, new beginning....IF you "blow" it (this rare chance), my friends, you have NO sympathy from the rest of the world.

Wanna talk about "qualifications" for being Commander-in-Chief? She is no more qualified than he is. Since WHEN did being First Lady equate to being "qualified" as Commander-in-Chief? If it wasn't so ridiculous, it would be so laughable! Experience? Did JFK need experience to be a good President? You only get "experience" to be a President by BEING a President. Anything less is neither here nor there (like being a "self-glorified cheer-leader" at the conclusion of the Good Friday talks). So, NONE of these candidates are really more "qualified" or "experienced" than the others for the job.

On Honesty? OBAMA. Heads & shoulders over everyone on sight. Integrity, forthrightness. The fact that he WON'T descend to "gutter politics" speaks for itself -it sets a refreshing, exhilirating, new standard in political campaigning. Everyone (including myself) up to this point thought that politics was downright "dirty", filthy, immoral, without conscience or principles. For the first since JFK, I AM actually sitting up to listen to a politician..... OBAMA shows you that politics can have integrity, principles, conscience, & forthrightness......Give the black boy a ride.....! [He gets my vote, even though I can't vote!]

next they will start talking about each others children ... where are the issues Obama????? how many calories did your campaign spend coming up with this witty retort????? this is quickly decending into the 6th grade!

I'll tell you why the establishment is pegging Obama as not passing the commander and chief threshhold.It's because of his stance on negotiating with countries, friend and foe.

Why are the people that are always including Barrack's middle name when they refer to him, the same people that have confederate flag license plates on their truck?

Luke2:

Perhaps you have me confused with someone else -- may I ask, again, is Obama SUPPORTER, julieds, a "racist" for using his middle name too? What is your definition of "racism"? According the the definition I posted, above, I am not a "racist".

I will, at least, agree with you about "No more Clintons in our White House."

JakeD and Kendriek are barely functional illiterates who are both totally ignorant of the facts.
Hillary Clinton accompanied Sinbad and Cheryl Crowe to Bosnia In 1996 and did nothing to solve any of the regional problems.
Read the facts at
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/sleuth/2008/03/sinbad_unloads_on_hillary_clin.html

Furthermore, I was in Cairo, Egypt (a Muslim country) on September 11, 2001 and there was no dancing in the streets nor glee at the murder of 3,000 Americans. I was given only sympathy and respect from all my Egyptian friends. It wasn't until we invaded Iraq, that we lost the their goodwill and sympathy. 99.9% of Muslims are peace loving and hate the terrorists as much as we do.
Stop the racist and xenophobic hate talk. No where in the Koran does it say it is permissable to kill women and children. Same as in our Bible. You are being very un Christian by attacking a person on the basis of a middle name because of your ignorance.
Hillary does not offer "solutions," nor does she have the ability to bring people together to get anything of importance accomplished.

No more Clintons in our White House.

First mouse, here is the entire memo, courtesy of another WaPo reader:

To: Interested Parties

From: Greg Craig, former director, Policy Planning Office, U.S. State Department

RE: Senator Clinton's claim to be experienced in foreign policy: Just words?

DA: March 11, 2008

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.

Quote: "The Obama campaign has awoken from the stupor of its Texas and Ohio losses with a series of tough hits today on Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton."

Why does the media keep saying that Clinton won in Texas? She did not. She took the primary vote by a small margin, but lost heavily in the caucus. Obama won in delegates in Texas. Get it, Obama won. Sorry, media.

finally, write2caro:

its interesting that you focus only on AA support for obama, and do not address hillary's open appeals for woment to vote for her because she is a woman. Not to mention Tina Fey, Gloria Steinam and Geraldine Ferraro.

write2caro:

"Oh, and your question was about proving the monolithic support BEFORE SC, not "before all the BS allegations that Obama waited so long to dismiss""

The statements made immediately after new hampshire were reported to have been responsible for the swing in AA voters towards Obama. These predated the Nevada primary. I don't think the statements were racist. I think they overstated LBJ's importance to the passage of the civil rights act and understated the role of Dr. King's leadership (along with current events) in creating the public support for such a bill to be passed.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/01/15/578989.aspx

..but don't let the facts get in the way!

The Clinton campaign has gone from sleaze peddling [Kerrey, Johnson, Sheehan , should I go on) to flippancy [we can train Obama to be president in six months] and now back to sleaze with Ferraro and Co.
Have we not had enough of this couple?
Do you want four more years of these people?

write2caro:

(b) The crushing wave of pressure that hit black superdelegates pulled some of them under. Google "superdelegates being called "uncle toms""

But your premise is that blacks were going to vote for Obama as soon as he announced his candidacy. Right? You were saying that no blacks (now you have amended it to very few) were supporting Clinton.

If that is your premise, then it is safe to assume that black superdelegates and especially ones that represent majority black districts, KNEW that their consitutents would vote overwhelmingly for Obama.

It strains credulity then, to believe that these superdelegates, like John Lewis, would initally VOTE for Hillary Clinton and KNOWING that their consitutents would not approve. Why else would John Lewis switch his vote? Because someone called him an Uncle Tom? Wow, I'm sure that really scared him, given all that he has seen in his life.

Andrew Young, Stephanie Tubbs-Jones, Vernon Jordan, all kinds of powerful AA's support the Clintons. You are really turning the facts on their head to believe that "most" AA's were just going to go with Obama from the beginning, simply because of his race. This goes back to our earlier discussion over why blacks similarly did not vote in the same numbers for Al Sharpton or Alan Keyes, who are both black.

Give it up.

JakeD,
You better believe, punk!

jcmdstep1, it doesn't take much courage to show up someplace and repeat the lines that were written for you by your administration's diplomats. She helped because of her title, not because she's a skilled diplomat; as pointed out by many, she essentially showed up to deliver talking points, not to participate in detailed negotiations.

Any warm body capable of speaking English would have had the same effect if they were married to the president.

write 2 caro:

Obama won 72% of AA's in Iowa.
He won 83% in Nevada.
Nevada's primary took place after (a) Bill's "fairy tale" comment (b) Hillary's silly and ahistorically simplistic LBJ/MLK comparison and (c) Bob Johnson's attack on Obama for his past drug use.

You know who Bob Johnson is, right? A black man, attacking Obama, which under your premise, is impossible??? Not only is he black, he is the founder of BET! Black Entertainment Television!!

But to thoroughly dispatch your thesis, that Obama's position in this race is due to the fact that he gets "unprecedented" percentages of AA support, chew on this:

In 2004, John Kerry won 88% of the AA vote nationwide. So much for your claim of 83% and 87% of the AA vote for any one candidate being "unprecedented". So, what are we to conclude about Sen. Kerry's candidacy due to his large AA support?

Sorry, statements from Obanma's campaign people stating that Clinton has no experience are worth absolutely nothing - Duh! Please produce qualified statements or articles about Clinton's experience or lack thereof. Something like this:

Hillary met with the Macedonian President and Prime Minister offering an economic development package. (Hillary) "Clinton heard her story Friday morning on her trip to Macedonia, which was aimed at highlighting the plight of ethnic Albanian refugees from Kosovo and assuring the poor Balkan nation that the United States understands the stress the influx has placed on it. Aid officials say Macedonia has taken about 233,000 of the nearly 800,000 refugees. Clinton met with Macedonian President Kiro Gligorov and Prime Minister Ljubco Georgievski. She announced the release of the first $ 2 million in a $ 21 million economic development package for Macedonia that is designed to help the fledgling democracy create new small businesses." [Chicago Tribune, 5/16/99]

kendreik:

Sh'tiopna! Iskam te. Svetska troika?

"In a memo entitled, 'Senator Clinton's claim to be experienced in foreign policy: Just words?' former State Department official and Obama adviser Greg Craig reviews Clinton's foreign policy resume, from her role in the Northern Ireland peace process to negotiating open borders as part of the Kosovo crisis, and concludes it is loaded with 'exaggerated claims.'

'When your entire campaign is based upon a claim of experience, it is important that you have evidence to support that claim,' the memo stated. 'Hillary Clinton's argument that she has passed "the Commander-in-Chief test" is simply not supported by her record.'

Its 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.'"

Wow!

Ms. Clinton can still establish her credentials for serving as Commander- in-Chief by releasing the White House documents detailing her executive experience, and doing this in a timely fashion to make these accessible to Democrats as well as Republicans now.

IF THE PHONE RINGS AT 3 AM
Clinton,Obama and McCain they would all run to answer the phone!

I think the white house should hire a RECEPTIONIST.!

Ohh my god, Guilden
Macedonia will play with Netherlands for the world cup qualifiers.
You know that Macedonia helped to kick out England from the Eurocup.
I guess Netherlands is next.

Susan Rice then, is not qualified to be an advisor to Obama. During all the time she spent working in Bill Clinton's administration, is she saying that she doesn't think she gained any valuable knowledge from observing and learning? So now she claims that Hillary Clinton didn't gain any knowledge as first lady by observing and learning? Susan Rice is an ingrate!

OK write2caro:

You have failed to address
(a) black superdelegate support for Clinton
(b) John Lewis REVERSAL of his superdelegate vote. If he knew all blacks (in his district) would vote for Obama (as apparantly you did, along with the media, who lied about it) why did he initially vote for Clinton?

This isn't about PC, its about facts...You refute none of mine, and rely on the vote of 6 black people in Iowa.

The Nevada vote actually took place AFTER the "fairy tale" dust up and the LBJ/MLK statement. You are the one tyring to fit the facts to your views.

Posted by: ussamsarmy | March 11, 2008 04:26 PM

______

(a) An explanation for you: "most" doesn't mean "all", does it?!?

(b) The crushing wave of pressure that hit black superdelegates pulled some of them under. Google "superdelegates being called "uncle toms""

As for the LBJ/MLK "dust up" - are you asserting that these WERE racist comments?? Because Obama says they weren't.

Oh, and your question was about proving the monolithic support BEFORE SC, not "before all the BS allegations that Obama waited so long to dismiss"

Tell me what other supposed "facts" of yours I haven't addressed? LOL

ussamsarmy,
Unfortunately if I were betting, I wouldn't bet on our chances. van Basten was a super player, and he did a fine job with the Youth (he's my son's favorite coach of all time). I can only hope. Van 't Schip and Witschge are both excellent as well. So perhaps with three excellent coaches, they will be a powerhouse.

OK write2caro:

You have failed to address
(a) black superdelegate support for Clinton
(b) John Lewis REVERSAL of his superdelegate vote. If he knew all blacks (in his district) would vote for Obama (as apparantly you did, along with the media, who lied about it) why did he initially vote for Clinton?

This isn't about PC, its about facts...You refute none of mine, and rely on the vote of 6 black people in Iowa.

The Nevada vote actually took place AFTER the "fairy tale" dust up and the LBJ/MLK statement. You are the one tyring to fit the facts to your views.

Yes guilden
i know how the dutch army helped a lot to kill all males in Srebrenica
All 25000 of them!
Thanks for you help-dont help us anymore

ussamsarmy,
"Why was Bush's 5 years as governor of Texas better preparation for the presidency than Obama's 10 years of State and U.S. Senate experience?"

Or the Shrill Hill's galavanting around as a tourist to 70 countries (or whatever she's lying, er claiming to have visited."

I have lived in five countries and ***worked*** in 111 countries. So why shouldn't I run? Oh yeah, you have to have been born an American citizen. I guess "The Guvornator" and I are out in the cold together. :-{D

Guilden

How do you rate your Euro2008 chances, and are you excited about Van Basten's return to Ajax?

dunnhaupt,
You said "If the phone rang at 3 a.m., Hillary would just say: "It's for you, Bill."

Yep, and here's what the result would be:
http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/Z/0/2/3am_phone_call_sb0306d.jpg

Hillary Clinton helped a lot in Kosovo wars in 1999.
She was talking to Macedonian government and she helped to raise 30o million dollars of foreign aid.

There were half a million of muslim Kosovo refugees that escaped suddenly in Macedonia and badly needed help in food and shelter.
The Macedonian government helped them with all their heart even they had a big economic loss
It is amazing that 10000 volunters and police had helped to feed and shelter half a million refugees in such a short time.

"Can you point to any evidence that the black community was monolithically supporting Barack Obama before South Carolina?"
_____

OMG!!!! Are you serious?!?! This is getting ridiculous now!

YES I CAN!! THE EXIT-POLLING DATA THAT SHOWS AA SUPPORTING OBAMA WITH 83% OF THE VOTE - M A S S I V E MARGIN - IN THE VERY FIRST CONTEST IN THIS ELECTION SEASON!!! BEFORE SC!!! SAME THING IN NV -- ALSO BEFORE SC!!

What do you suppose the reason for that is?!?!?!?!?! Coincidence?!!?!

Come on now!!! I'm not going to try to explain statistics to yet another unknowing Obama supporter. THIS IS SIGNIFICANT!! Come on people!!! This isn't rocket science!!!

This is only controversial because of politically correct BS in this country that has run amok.

You really weaken your point if you actually try to refute something so mind-numbingly obvious.

Actually, you are helping to prove my point about racial bias and political correctness gone nuts in this country if you can't even admit that AA's were obviously, from the beginning, going to vote for Obama is disproportionately large numbers.

I think we'd agree that Jackson was not as strong a candidate as Obama, and AA's voted for him IN OVERWHELMING NUMBERS!!! Oh, no. Now I must be a racist for saying so. I'm really sick of this, as you can probably tell.

You'll probably be happy to hear I'm done with this for the day.

Don't worry Obama supporters. No one had ANY IDEA he would carry the AA vote. It's just because he is so wonderful.

Oh, and the sky is pink, too.

Keep chanting and fainting.

write2caro:

Bush: 5 years of elected office/public service experience TOTAL.

Hillary Clinton: 7 years of elected office experience

Barack Obama: 10 years of elected office experience.

How do we identify the "threshold" at which one becomes "qualified" to be president?

Did the founding fathers have anything to say about this? Why is the Constitution silent on this issue?

And when we speak of "qualified" doesn't that imply a discussion of qualities as opposed to a numerical count? Why does being a governor better qualify one to be president than being a US senator? It is similar in many respects, but is it necessarily better preparation for the Presidency? How does it prepare one for foreign policy issues? How about being the governor of a small state v. a big one?

Why was Bush's 5 years as governor of Texas better preparation for the presidency than Obama's 10 years of State and U.S. Senate experience?

"My friend Guilden you have no idea what is passion for soccer,the gratest sport on earth

Posted by: kendreik | March 11, 2008 03:57 PM"

ROTFLMAO!!!! I have known Voetbal for over 45 years. And our 15 yr old son is in the Amsterdam Ajax youth academy. And though he is White and Christian, he has very close friends that are Black as well as Muslim. In fact his best friend is Albanian Muslim.

So don't try to make out the Macedonian racism as something that is part of Voetbal. In fact, Macedonia may not be part of European football if they keep up the racism at soccer events.

Hillary's claim of 35 years of experience is like Emperor's clothes. She is telling us she has them on, but we can't see any.

If voters are counting on Bill Clinton's advice when the phone rings at 3 AM, you'd better be sure that she can find him at 3 AM. I won't count on that reckless Bill.

Our capitol is being run by clubs like Emperor's. Yes, it is safer to vote for a woman in this sense, but definitely not Bill's wife. We don't want to hear more scandals from the White House and D.C.

If it's a fact of life, let's legalize and regulate prostitution like what Dr. Ron Paul had suggested.

Hillary doesn't have the useful experience nor the judgment required of commander-in-chief no matter how she sugar-coated her resume. That's why she cannot provide any solid proof on her 35 years of experience claim even today. Bill will not release any documents from his administration, beause not only will they not help Hillary, but they will hurt her campaign. The Clintons know what to do for their third term. The problem is that Bill given any power will turn him reckless as Spitzer did.

Worse yet, Hillary had no idea what foreign experience Obama has been referring to. She may not be lying on this one, but she is too ignorant to know any better.

If the phone rang at 3 a.m., Hillary would just say: "It's for you, Bill." Of the three candidates, only McCain would know what to do.

mnteng,
"Speaking of 1/3, isn't Macedonia 33% Muslim?"

Not if kendreik had has way.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDHsHM0laT8

Why is this covered up?
Clinton should apologize

write2caro wrote:
I'll grant you that there were stories about it. The stories were BS, like a lot of what the media "reports". The facts just don't support the idea that there was ever a realistic possibility that Obama wouldn't carry the AA vote. Let's be serious about this.

Do you actually believe that his race has not played to his advantage? Not that it is the ONLY reason he skyrocketed the way he did, but that it has played a not insignificant role?

Honestly?

Can you point to any evidence that the black community was monolithically supporting Barack Obama before South Carolina?

The stories were ALL over the place because of the name recognition the Clinton's enjoyed nationwide, and the particular affinity that Bill had with the AA voter. I'm not just making this up, these are facts!! Look at all the AA superdelegates who were supporting Clinton from the beginning!! John Lewis, Charlie Rangel, Shiela Jackson Lee... You can even look at the Congressional Black Caucus to see how they were divided...Read Ebony Magazine (which talks about whether Obama was "black" enough to win black support, after all, he was raised by non-blacks, and does not have an African-American as a member of his immediate family) I think the fact that John Lewis SWITCHED his vote to Obama based on the voting in his district is conclusive evidence that you are wrong about this idea that blacks were supporting Obama from the beginning. He obviously did not predict that blacks would vote so heavily against Clinton. Did the media make that up too?

"With all due respect, none of them ran on the platform that they were going to CHANGE THE WORLD - that they were going to transform politics in the United States!!

Is there not a higher threshold to prove unbelievable claims like this?!?!"

You are quibbiling here...the point isn't about the kind of change that the politician is promising, the point is about experience. Both Reagan and Clinton promised change, but neither voters nor the media held them to the standard you are suggesting for Obama, which by your own admission is unproveable. No one thinks Obama is going to change the world. What he is speaking to is an attempt to change the democratic governing majority.

"I must tell you when the WORLD TRADE CENTER FELL DOWN all the people in USA were crying
but all the people in the muslim countries were DANCING AND CELEBRATING.
They were saying:-How great it is that America is punished for once.Thanks to Alah!"
Well if Barack Obama get elected they will dance for sure!

Posted by: kendreik | March 11, 2008 03:54 PM"

I don't know whether to laugh or cry over this. This kind of stupidity will NOT carry the day this fall. I think most of the American people are smarter than you.

banshee and write2caro:

Time magazine had a nice graphic on presidential experience a couple of weeks ago, though I can't seem to find it on their website. But Obama would clearly be in the lower 1/3 of the group were he elected.

Speaking of 1/3, isn't Macedonia 33% Muslim?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Macedonia

And why you are backing the lying, theiving Clintons:

The Kosovo war began unusually. The United Nations did not authorize American intervention in support of the Kosovo Liberation Army, a group that until 1998 the United States considered a terrorist organization. Yet the Kosovo Liberation Army's public-relations campaign proved decisive. For months, CNN displayed heart-breaking pictures of Albanian refugees. Rumors abounded of "genocide" and "mass graves." Shamed by its cautious response to earlier events in the former Yugoslavia, the West would "get it right" this time. After failing to secure U.N. support, President Bill Clinton went shopping for diplomatic cover and found it among America's NATO allies.

As in Iraq, faulty intelligence played a key role, complete with satellite photos of "mass graves." When the war ended, the FBI went home empty-handed after an extensive search for evidence of genocide. In fact, the death toll from NATO bombings -- estimated at more than 6,000 -- exceeded 2,108 confirmed killed in the fighting, a total that includes Serbian combatants. This was a far cry from the 100,000 dead Albanians Clinton warned of in the run-up to war.

"Banshee16 - it was just an honest question. I shouldn't have specified "national politics" - you're right. I think most people agree that experience as governor is in most ways better preparation for president than being in the senate or congress.

If you were to add up years in: congress, senate or governor, I would be really surprised if many presidents had fewer years than Obama. Probably hard to find any, except Lincoln, since this is the ONLY name Obama's campaign ever uses (besides JFK, which he is just plain wrong about).

We can disagree about how important this experience is, but let's not pretend Obama has a lot of it, or even more than the vast majority of presidents this country has seen!!"

I never said he had a great deal of experience. I asserted that experience is not an important criteria. I stand by that. There is nothing in history that goes against it.

You really represent Hillary KKKlinton very well:

Posted by: Guilden_NL | March 11, 2008 03:55 PM
______

You're such a disgrace with this KKK stuff. How sad.

You are obviously part of the problem. Do you think Obama, the leader of the movement for change in the tone in politics - would be happy with this kind of support?

Pathetic.

My friend Guilden you have no idea what is passion for soccer,the gratest sport on earth

And Macedonian acts and words against innocent Muslims:

INTERNATIONAL - Macedonian Government admits to killing 6 innocent Muslim refugees (originally identified as terrorists), This week the Macedonian Government has admitted that it made the whole thing up. Far from being terrorists, the six Pakistanis and one Indian killed by police were innocent immigrants kidnapped at a border and taken to the Macedonian capital to be executed in a dummy operation just so Macedonia could be seen to be doing its part in the war on terror. http://www.theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/islamophobia_incidents/0013129

You really represent Hillary KKKlinton very well:

The Macedonia football association have admitted that England's black players face racist abuse at tomorrow's Euro 2008 qualifier at the Gradski stadium despite the governing body's efforts to discourage home fans from repeating the disgraceful scenes of England's last visit three years ago.

The Macedonians have gone to great lengths to avoid the abuse and burning of an English flag that cost them pounds 10,730 in fines from Uefa when they faced England in that Euro 2004 qualifier. On that night, which ended in a 2-1 victory for England, Sol Campbell, Emile Heskey and Ashley Cole were all victims.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_20060905/ai_n16707164

I must tell you when the WORLD TRADE CENTER FELL DOWN all the people in USA were crying
but all the people in the muslim countries were DANCING AND CELEBRATING.
They were saying:-How great it is that America is punished for once.Thanks to Alah!"
Well if Barack Obama get elected they will dance for sure!

And not like it just popped up recently:

Uefa is to start disciplinary proceedings against the Macedonian Football Association following the racist chanting during Saturday's Euro 2004 qualifier ...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/internationals/england/3089502.stm

You Macedonians really have a hate thing going on with Blacks eh?

UEFA have warned that any racist abuse of England players by Macedonia supporters will not be tolerated in tomorrow night's Euro 2008 qualifier http://soccernet.espn.go.com/news/story?id=378062

More racism against Blacks by Macedonians:

Macedonia Racism & Xenophobia News.
http://www.einnews.com/macedonia/newsfeed-macedonia-racism-xenophobia

banshee16 - it was just an honest question. I shouldn't have specified "national politics" - you're right. I think most people agree that experience as governor is in most ways better preparation for president than being in the senate or congress.

If you were to add up years in: congress, senate or governor, I would be really surprised if many presidents had fewer years than Obama. Probably hard to find any, except Lincoln, since this is the ONLY name Obama's campaign ever uses (besides JFK, which he is just plain wrong about).

We can disagree about how important this experience is, but let's not pretend Obama has a lot of it, or even more than the vast majority of presidents this country has seen!!

kendreik,
You're a Macedonian eh? No wonder you are such a racist.

"Did you know that '' Barack Obama'' is a racist himself!?
He recently signed a contract WITH GREECE agiasnt Macedonia who in and berfore 1912 stole over 34,000 km in land from Macedonia killed over 50,000 Macedonians and kicked out OVER 350,000 and in slaved over 20,000 the same thing happned to the black people now hes doing it to Macedonia!

Obama ur a racist hipercrit!"

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:x9-12XE3z3EJ:answers.yahoo.com/question/index%3Fqid%3D20080306015215AAFseqJ+macedonian+racist&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=25&gl=us

I made a research on Obama's father.His name is Barack Hussein Mohhamed Obama and he is muslim from Afrika.
He had 3 wifes and 6 Muslim children.
So all Obama brothers and sister are----MUSLIM.
I am not emotional when i vote and i don't mind if they are black people or white people.
But if there is a war with a muslim nation on whose side will Obama be on!

"There were many stories about the need for Obama to win AA support, particularly in South Carolina, where the Clintons enjoyed wide support amongst AA democratic party faithful, and many AA church leaders. Ebony magazine ran an article questioning whether Obama was black enough. If you really study the objective facts about how this story unfolded, you will see that the black community was somewhat distrustful of Obama due to their lack of familiarity with him (he did not rise to power through the traditional African-American political network) and his disconnection from the traditional civil-rights hierarchy.

Posted by: ussamsarmy | March 11, 2008 03:28 PM "
_________

I'll grant you that there were stories about it. The stories were BS, like a lot of what the media "reports". The facts just don't support the idea that there was ever a realistic possibility that Obama wouldn't carry the AA vote. Let's be serious about this.

Do you actually believe that his race has not played to his advantage? Not that it is the ONLY reason he skyrocketed the way he did, but that it has played a not insignificant role?

Honestly?

Posted by: write2caro | March 11, 2008 03:18 PM

"I have a question - I don't know the answer to this.

How many presidents have we had with less experience in national politics than Obama has? Is it like 30% of them, 50%, 2%? My sense is that it is pretty small, but I never hear anyone speak specifically about this. They say "other presidents had less experience", but I never hear any names.

I've heard people bring up JFK, but that's plain wrong. He has way more experience.

Anyone know?"

In the first place, having experience in national politics is hardly a good criteria for qualifications. Most presidents have been from the ranks of governors. Abraham Lincoln had one term in the House, and he turned out to be a pretty good president.

Secondly, I remember the Kennedy "movement" well. While he spent several years in both the House and Senate, he was having so many physical problems he was an ineffective congressman and senator. He was a friend of Joseph McCarthy who declined to vote for his censure. He was elected based on his perceived "glamor". His biggest asset was his wife.

I would estimate that those presidents who were less experienced in national politics (a ridiculous qualification)at around 40%.

That might surprise you, but remember, like I said, the background of most of them was as governor. One of the most qualified was Harding, who proved to be a miserable president.

"Furthermore, your recitation of the events after Iowa weakens your point. If you assume Obama played the race card with the LBJ/MLW remark, to his ADVANTAGE, that means he did not have monolithic AA support prior to that event. And in fact, he did not (I'm not sure where you get your 83% number in Iowa, because there are hardly any AA's of any statistical significance in Iowa anyways)."
_____

You're just wrong. You can look up the IA poll numbers yourself. AA account for only 4% of that electorate, and voted 83% for Obama. In NV (also before SC), I believe it was 87%.

"What change did Reagan PROVE he could DELIVER when he was elected in 2000? What change did Clinton PROVE he could DELIVER in 1992?"
_______

With all due respect, none of them ran on the platform that they were going to CHANGE THE WORLD - that they were going to transform politics in the United States!!

Is there not a higher threshold to prove unbelievable claims like this?!?!

Kendreik, I hope you're voting too in this election, but a little advise, please do some research on him AND THEN MAKE AN EDUCATED CHOICE! you know her and that's what qualifies her? Don't get me wrong, I like Hillary too, I like bozo the clown if he was running against ANY REPUKELICAN! You have to think globally, he will make more of a difference in the WORLD community and not just the here in the U.S. Either way, he is going to win and all this crap will be for nothing.

"Obama is no less experienced than George W. Bush was when he was elected in 2000"
_____

Bush was governor for 6 years. As stupid as he is - so clearly experience is not the ONLY factor!! - this is more experience than a few in the senate - one year in the senate when he started running.

Senator Clinton's fast deteriorating campaign is like a Shakespeare play unfolding. Full of imperial hubris, Senator Cliton declares she is the most ready to be Commander In Chief.

Since that declaration illustrated by her 3am red phone ad, Senator Obama has turned the logic of her argument on its head by pointing out that the Clinton's cynical offer to put Senator Obama on the bottom of the ticket undermines the efficacy of their claim that he is unprepared to be Commander in Chief.

Now in the last 48 hours, we learn about the fall of Governor Spitzer of New York, Senator Clinton's Governor, major supporter and super-delegate and the inevitable comparison of Spitzer's reckless bahavior to her husband when he was President.

Now we learn of former Congresswoman Ferraro's assertion that Senator Obama is not a legitimate Presidential candidate because he is in the Presidential Affirmative Action Program and solely benefitting electorally on account of his race. This is going to have loud reverberations in the Congressional Black Caucus and put tremendous pressure on Senator Clinton's black supporters like the Mayor of Philadelphia to condemn these remarks. It is fascinating to see all these white Democratic liberals coming out of the racist closet and showing their true colors.

Shakespeare wrote that when one wants power so badly, inevitably the tragic flaws of humans lusting for power and the natural laws of the universe conspire against you. Such is the tale of the Clintons.

Senator Clinton, please exit from the political stage.

No problem JCMDSTEP1
If you have any questions just ask me!

"Uh, I've got a bit of news for you. Obama has been a senator since Jan 2005. The last time I checked my math, that is THREE years, not "less than one"

Uh, I have news for YOU. He started RUNNING after less than one year.

write2caro:

You seem to be holding women and blacks to a higher standard. Look, the less experienced candidate has been elected over the more experienced candidate in 2004, 2000, 1996, 1992, 1980 and 1976. Obama is no less experienced than George W. Bush was when he was elected in 2000 (over a more experienced McCain, in the Repub primary and over the more experienced, incumbent VP, Gore in the General) This is nothing new.

What change did Reagan PROVE he could DELIVER when he was elected in 2000? What change did Clinton PROVE he could DELIVER in 1992? Most voters did not vote for either candidate based on their records as governor...they voted because of the message they communicated. Reagan and Clinton were not renowned for their communication gifts for nothing. Rhetoric is the politician's most important weapon/tool. You act as if Obama is the only politician to use words to gain voters. Finally, George Bush got elected based on two slogans: "uniter not divider" and "compassionate conservatism". What did that mean? There was no serious discussion of Bush's policy proposals? What ideas he did express, he later reversed once in office. Similarly, there was no serious debate over Bush's gubernatorial experience and how that prepared him for the presidency.

As for the media's "ad-nauseum" assertion that Obama is the first "viable" AA candidate, the REAL question is how the media came to the conclusion that he was "viable". Isn't that based on the popularity he had shown amongst voters? Or in other words, people were already willing to vote for him, hence, the media concluded that he stood the chance to win. If people were already inclined to vote for Obama in large numbers, then it is circular to argue that they were willing to vote for him because he was "viable".

Furthermore, your recitation of the events after Iowa weakens your point. If you assume Obama played the race card with the LBJ/MLW remark, to his ADVANTAGE, that means he did not have monolithic AA support prior to that event. And in fact, he did not (I'm not sure where you get your 83% number in Iowa, because there are hardly any AA's of any statistical significance in Iowa anyways).

There were many stories about the need for Obama to win AA support, particularly in South Carolina, where the Clintons enjoyed wide support amongst AA democratic party faithful, and many AA church leaders. Ebony magazine ran an article questioning whether Obama was black enough. If you really study the objective facts about how this story unfolded, you will see that the black community was somewhat distrustful of Obama due to their lack of familiarity with him (he did not rise to power through the traditional African-American political network) and his disconnection from the traditional civil-rights hierarchy.

Poor JakeD, he is just confused. He "Obama" will be the nominee and go on to be president despite your reckless use of his middle name. See Jake, it is his name, but you use it in the same way the rest of the simpletons use it out there. I don't know why you feel the way you do, but hey, you have the right to cry like a little b*%ch when he wins.

I know Hillary Clinton for the last 20 years and i am 32.She is always working hard and she is very inteligent and organized.
Until last year i have heard of this junior senator Barack Obama.who is he?!
What he did in his life exept running for office.?!!
Its time that we question him harder.OHH ,YES OPRAH WINFREY LIKES HIM,THAT IS GOOD ,LETS ELECT HIM FOR PRESIDENT.

I am from Macedonia and i must admit that Hillary Clinton did help a lot in the Kosovo crises.In 1999 half a million refugees escaped to Macedonia .In only eight days there was suddenly half a million hungry people to feed and to shelter.
They were living on the ground on the field.they needed fast :food shelter ,blankets,clothes medicine.
Hillary Clinton helped Macedonia to receive foreign aid of 300 million dollars.
I guess not even Jesus could help them faster.in one or two weeks evrubody had tent to sleep in and plenty of food.
Thanks Hillary!!

Posted by: kendreik | March 11, 2008 03:17 PM

Thanks for your testimonial, Kendreik!

write2caro: "He compares himself to JFK: JFK had 8 yrs in congress and 6 yrs in the senate!!!! He has compared his experience level with that of Bill Clinton: Clinton was governor for 12 yrs!!!! It's almost laughable!!"

and "How many presidents have we had with less experience in national politics than Obama has?"

How about Abe Lincoln? His political career track and Obama's are pretty similar.

Regarding experience, consider this:
"The president who came to office with the most glittering array of experiences had served 10 years in the House of Representatives, then became minister to Russia, then served 10 years in the Senate, then four years as secretary of state (during a war that enlarged the nation by 33 percent), then was minister to Britain. Then, in 1856, James Buchanan was elected president and in just one term secured a strong claim to being ranked as America's worst president. Abraham Lincoln, the inexperienced former one-term congressman, had an easy act to follow."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/20/AR2008022002268.html

Posted by: write2caro | March 11, 2008 03:01 PM

"I worry about the arrogance it takes to run for President after LESS THAN ONE YEAR in the US Senate. I think for many of the reasons above, several of them having to do with race, he has not received serious scrutiny."

Uh, I've got a bit of news for you. Obama has been a senator since Jan 2005. The last time I checked my math, that is THREE years, not "less than one"

I have a question - I don't know the answer to this.

How many presidents have we had with less experience in national politics than Obama has? Is it like 30% of them, 50%, 2%? My sense is that it is pretty small, but I never hear anyone speak specifically about this. They say "other presidents had less experience", but I never hear any names.

I've heard people bring up JFK, but that's plain wrong. He has way more experience.

Anyone know?

I am from Macedonia and i must admit that Hillary Clinton did help a lot in the Kosovo crises.In 1999 half a million refugees escaped to Macedonia .In only eight days there was suddenly half a million hungry people to feed and to shelter.
They were living on the ground on the field.they needed fast :food shelter ,blankets,clothes medicine.
Hillary Clinton helped Macedonia to receive foreign aid of 300 million dollars.
I guess not even Jesus could help them faster.in one or two weeks evrubody had tent to sleep in and plenty of food.
Thanks Hillary!!

Why did the Republican party in 2000 pick George W. Bush over the "vastly more experienced" John McCain? Was it because of Bush's race?
_____
While I think GWB has been a complete catastrophe, and I didn't ever understand why people liked him, I think the situation is very different.

Bush appealed to his base - McCain was not considered conservative enough. Let's also not forget GWB vilifying McCain, and suggesting everything from: he's gay, to he's an adulterer with a black illegitimate child, to he is crazy and suffering from PTSD!!!! Yikes!!!!

Besides, I think it's an experience "threshold" that needs to be met, not just a pure "# yrs experience in total". GWB, idiot that he is, actually was governor for 6 yrs.

The question is not and never should be about foreign policy experience. MOST presidents elected in the past had no foreign policy experience, and those that did were not particularly good presidents, with the obvious exception of FDR.

The real question is which candidate has the ability to choose between good and bad. John F. Kennedy was a short time senator who proved his mettle in the Cuban missile crisis.

Nixon was an example of a well qualified president who nonetheless betrayed the American people. Reagan's only experience was as a governor, yet he proved his ability to face down the Soviets.

I will give you an example of two people who, similar to Obama, have very little experience, but were considered attractive candidates because of their "demographics": George W. Bush and John Edwards.

Why did the Republican party in 2000 pick George W. Bush over the "vastly more experienced" John McCain? Was it because of Bush's race?

write2caro says that the evidence that Obama's ethnicity is the only thing (according to Ferraro) that raises him above his apparent lack of qualification is "viability."

Okay. Explain that to me, please. What makes Obama a "viable" African American candidate, yet does not make Al Sharpton a "viable" African American candidate? Are those same qualities not found in Kerry? Or Edwards? Or Dobbs?
__________
I would argue that those same qualifications are NOT found in Sharpton, Kerry, Edwards or Dobbs. I hope you'll hear me out.

I think that Obama is far more intelligent than all of these people (and many others!). I think that he is one of the best orators this country has seen in a long time, maybe ever. I think he is seen by most people as very charismatic. None of these things have anything to do with his race, and are completely to his full credit. I don't think any of the people you mentioned above can hold a candle to him in these areas. Certainly not Sharpton or Kerry!!

However, I think that (in my personal opinion) what has put him over the top is just how excited people are about the possibility of electing the first black president. Let me explain. He enjoys 80-90%+ of the African-American vote, and a high share of the rich, liberal, white vote. The media has repeated ad-nauseum that he is "the first VIABLE African-American candidate for president" this country has ever seen. People believe things they hear often enough (think about how Bush linked Iraq and 9/11 for so long - repetition).

Think about Clinton's LBJ/MLK statement: she made an innocuous, factual statement and was crucified. Obama kept silent as this all happened, and only when confronted with a direct question in a debate did he admit he didn't think it was a racist/racial remark. However, damage was done, and I think he's smart enough to have known that. Liberal whites like windbag Tedd Kennedy just went nuts! Obama played race to his advantage very subtlely and adeptly. Google "Juan Williams" and his remarks re: Obama being the one who actually played the race card in SC (as compared with his IA campaign).

The media ran with the story that the Clintons turned black people against them after their racial remarks in SC. The truth? Obama was getting 83% of the vote in IA, before any of this happened.

People in this country are scared ----less of being called racist, and I think this is part of why Obama got such soft treatment in the media.

Think about this. If a white man were part of a church that gave leadership awards to the KKK and promoted "white values", would he get away with it??

Let me be clear about this: I think Obama has INCREDIBLE POTENTIAL. However, I do not believe he is ready. I think the reason this hasn't been highlighted until way too recently is because of the "movement" to elect the first black president - the young - charismatic - almost outwardly non-racial candidate.

He compares himself to JFK: JFK had 8 yrs in congress and 6 yrs in the senate!!!! He has compared his experience level with that of Bill Clinton: Clinton was governor for 12 yrs!!!! It's almost laughable!!

I worry about the arrogance it takes to run for President after LESS THAN ONE YEAR in the US Senate. I think for many of the reasons above, several of them having to do with race, he has not received serious scrutiny.

I've said tons of times on these boards that if he had waited and PROVEN that he could DELIVER on the CHANGE that he now only TALKS about, I would have been a he supporter.

One other thing. I really want the first African-American president to be an amazing leader and prove that electing a black man is something this country should be more willing to do than it has been. I worry about whether we would be electing a SLOGAN at this point in Obama's career rather than a president. I felt the same way about the first female speaker of the house. I was not enthused with Pelosi being that person, because I have no faith in her ability to be transformational or even better than adequate.

It needs to be the RIGHT history-making candidate for history to actually look favorably on it!!

I hope this helps you to understand where I'm coming from.

ussamsarmy,
Agreed. I would vote for a woman that is experienced,qualified and is ***trustworthy***, like a Elizabeth Dole or a Condeleeza Rice. But Shrill Hillary has no management experience whatsover and furthermore, she's one of the most untrustworthy public figures in the world today. I'd put her up there with Hugo Chavez and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

None-so-Blind:

Thanks for the link. I will take a look.

jcmdstep1:

Thanks for the quote -- I thought that Lord Trumble was a bit off in his criticisms of Hillary.

Northern Ireland Secretary Mo Mowlam died from head injuries after a fall. It's well known that he was losing it years before this head injury.

Wonder if N Ireland connected Vince Foster's death with Mo Mowlam's?

Isn't the whole idea of the "viability" of a candidate based on the public's willingness to vote for that candidate?

So is it not circular to reason that Obama is winning votes because he is deemed to be a "viable" black candidate?

In other words, why are people (black and white) less willing to vote for Al Sharpton or Alan Keyes as opposed to Obama? All three are black, but only one of them is "viable". It is only logical to conclude that there are additional, non-racial factors that explains the public's willingness to vote for Obama as opposed to Sharpton and Keyes.

Doesn't that completely refute the idea that Obama's race is the primary reason why he is beating Clinton right now?

2007: Hillary honored for her work on the Northern Ireland Peace process. Irish American Magazine named Hillary "Person of the Year", celebrating "her work on the Northern Ireland peace process". [Irish American Magazine, April/May 07]

jcmdstep1,
This says it all about Shrill Hill: http://politicalpartypoop.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/hillary_standing.jpg

1999: Northern Ireland Secretary: 'Hillary is one of the essential reasons' Ireland had peace. An August 1999 issue of Talk Magazine quotes Northern Ireland Secretary Mo Mowlam: "Hillary is one of the essential reasons we've had 18 months of relative peace. Without her we would have no economic boom."

j_thinks (and mnteng):

Thanks for the info -- I will look at the numbers again -- as for Truman, he was MY Commander-in-Chief during the Korean War, so I get to call if "Harry" if I like ; )

write2caro:

I think it makes sense, but why not denounce and/or reject julieds as well?

bob_roy_1:

Was julieds a "stupid, racist idiot" for using his given middle name? Yes, I "ever saw a peach seed" but, anatomically speaking, my brain is bigger ; )

This is a funny but very true fake Hillary Clinton TV commercial that discusses how she overstates her experience:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_H-0_ZaMB6I

Enjoy!

Statement from John Hume former MP MEP, founder of the SDLP and an architect of the Good Friday Agreement. He is the only person to win the Nobel Prize for Peace, the Ghandi Peace Award and the Martin Luther King Peace Prize.

"I am quite surprised that anyone would suggest that Hillary Clinton did not perform important foreign policy work as First Lady. I can state from firsthand experience that she played a positive role for over a decade in helping to bring peace to Northern Ireland.

She visited Northern Ireland, met with very many people and gave very decisive support to the peace process. There is no doubt that the people of Northern Ireland think very positively of Hillary Clinton's support for our peace process, due to her visits to Northern Ireland and her meetings with so many people. In private she made countless calls and contacts, speaking to leaders and opinion makers on all sides, urging them to keep moving forward.

Anyone criticizing her foreign policy involvement should look at her very active and positive approach to Northern Ireland and speak with the people of Northern Ireland who have the highest regard for her and are very grateful for her very active support for our peace process."

If you hate the Shrill Hill, you'll love this cartoon: http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1226/942861569_ae5901b3a1.jpg

The Washington Post: "First Lady Brings Publicity, Aid to Macedonia:" First lady Hillary Rodham Clinton, the first high-ranking American to visit here since the Kosovo crisis began, brought two messages to Macedonia today. Touring a refugee camp of 18,000 people, Clinton urged Americans not to become "immune" to the plight of more than 740,000 Kosovo Albanians expelled from their homeland since NATO began its air war against Yugoslavia on March 24. "We are trying to do everything possible to make these lives and stories real, not to let them fade into the background," she said... And she soothed the irritated government of Macedonia, which has taken in the refugees only reluctantly and at the price of more foreign aid. Clinton today added another $ 2 million to the pot -- the first installment of a $ 21 million reallocation of funds for Macedonia... Even as Clinton toured the camp, a few refugees were entering Macedonia from Kosovo. For 10 days, almost no one has crossed the frontier -- initially because Macedonian border guards were blocking refugees, then because Serbian authorities were not allowing them to leave... After her camp tour, Clinton met with Prime Minister Ljubco Georgievski, parliamentary president Savo Klimovski and local aid officials, and her message could not have been more straightforward: "I want to clearly express our appreciation to the government of Macedonia for the efforts they have made. It has been an incredible burden on Macedonia." [Washington Post, 5/15/99]

My problem with Sen. Clinton's claims on international experience is that 1) during that period she was not an elected official, 2) during that period she was not an appointed official, 3) during that period she did not go through the "vetting" process that elected or appointed officials must pass to represent our country. Being the wife of an elected official did not make her a policy maker or negotiator; as the wife of an elected official she was a goodwill ambassador.

Statement of Richard Holbrooke, architect of the Dayton Accords, and former permanent representative to the United Nations.

"It was dire in May 1999 when Hillary Clinton arrived in Macedonia. The government of Macedonia had slowed the flow of refugees from Kosovo to a trickle. After visiting refugees and gaining a first-hand assessment of the situation, the First Lady had intense talks with President Gligorov and Prime Minister Georgievski. In these talks, one in the Presidential Palace, another in the residence of the American Ambassador, Christopher Hill, Mrs. Clinton pressed the Macedonian government to fully open the border so that Kosovar Albanian refugees could flee the war zone to safety. She also committed herself to work with the government and people of Macedonia who also faced an emergency because of the threat to their own safety and stability. Hillary Clinton promised to take action to help the Macedonian economy. Returning to Washington, she pressed hard in the administration for action to support the Macedonians. She even contacted American business executives to ensure that American textile contracts in Macedonia were not canceled. There is no doubt in my mind, nor in the minds of those people I worked with in the Balkans at the time - that her intense efforts resulted in easing a crisis of significant dimensions and contributed to saving many lives."

Hysterical: no need to comment further.

To: Jack D:

You are stupid, racist idiot. We democrats are proud that you are not a card carrying member of our party. Naming calling is so petty and the comment you made is about as big as your brain. Have you ever saw a peach seed? Even that's bigger than your brain.

Posted by: bob_roy_1 | March 11, 2008 02:40 PM

Hey JakeD:

Please read Nicholas Kristof's piece, "Obama and the Bigots."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/09/opinion/09kristof.html

Go ahead.
You obviously have the time to post ad nauseam about Obama's middle name HUSSEIN (so what?), so I think it's a safe bet you have the 2 minutes it would take to read this piece.
Then I ask you to actually consider it.
What say you?

colin,
ROTFLMAO! You're spot on!

I am a long time GOPer, ever since I became a US citizen. But McCain is very scary. I was backing Romney, but could have lived with Thompson or even Giuliani.

Since I can't imagine sleeping at night with McInsane near the nuclear "football" I am backing Obama. I don't agree with many of his political views, but the fact is that he's going to have to work with Congress to make sweeping changes. I DO like his attitude about trying to be positive and working together instead of the rotten KKKlinton and Karl Rove tactics.

Jake: "I think it is pretty clear that a WHITE man (or female of any color) this election cycle, with the SAME BACKGROUND AND EXPERIENCE as Obama, doesn't beat Hillary (or Biden, or Dodd, for that matter)."

Classic "appeal to common knowledge" fallacy. Translation: I have no proof, but everybody knows it's so.

You say "YMMV."

I say "SSDD."

No bounce, no play. Thanks for the chuckles, Jake. I'll not trouble you for intelligent repartee again.

To: Jack D:

You are stupid, racist idiot. We democrats are proud that you are not a card carrying member of our party. Naming calling is so petty and the comment you made is about as big as your brain. Have you ever saw a peach seed? Even that's bigger than your brain.

Schmedley - your missing the point being made, viable - with an actual opportunity and required qualities to win. Al Sharpton could not have gotten elected - not based on talent but based on his positions. That is a reality that I am willing to accept.

Ferraro is a nutcase, I do not agree with what she said, nor do I agree with half the mumbo jumbo presented here either.

Just like most of the items here, only my opinion. I am not trying to convince anyone of anything.

Schmedley - your missing the point being made, viable - with an actual opportunity and required qualities to win. Al Sharpton could not have gotten elected - not based on talent but based on his positions. That is a reality that I am willing to accept.

Ferraro is a nutcase, I do not agree with what she said, nor do I agree with half the mumbo jumbo presented here either.

Just like nost of the items here, only my opinion. I am not trying to convince anyone of anything.

Schmedley - I had a whole response typed out that didn't post. :( I'll try again - might take me a few minutes...

write2caro:

Were julieds's remarks above (also using his middle name) "racist" as well? Did you see my definition of "racism"?
______

My personal opinion? Whether "racist" or not, it takes focus off the issues immediately and places the discussion somewhere I do not think it should be.

I am not an Obama suporter, but I am sick of hearing some of the most ridiculous things about him without any real evidence provided. I think it takes credibility away from REAL concerns one could have about his candidacy.

For instance, I don't believe for a moment that he is Muslim (even though I don't see how that alone should disqualify someone), or that if elected he will hold the door wide open and invite all the terrorists in!!!!!

However, I am concerned that he selects a church focused on promoting "black values" when he wants to represent all Americans, or having a church and pastor he award and speak highly of Farrakhan. Doesn't strike me as great judgment, despite his impeccable judgment on Iraq.

That's what I'm getting at. Hope it makes sense.

It is really troubling how many of Clinton's supporters are obsessive about someone's race. Every time Rendell, Ferraro, etc., open their mouth about individuals' races and their electability - you just KNOW that someone on the Republican side is going to write that down and make her campaign eat her words if she is the nominee.

JakeD --

I think the math is wrong on that website inasmuch as they are adding all the delegates (pledged and super) for the winner-take-all. If you take out the supers, HRC is still leading BHO by something like 1430 to 1145 (did my own calculation as a bar bet).

Oh, and the President that authorized the A-bomb drop was Harry S Truman to you (not just "Truman").

JakeD - like I tell all my students, rework your numbers (from all sources) and don't invent math - it is already discovered, I will not do your work for you.

But I do love your posts - well written and present a good argument.

write2caro says that the evidence that Obama's ethnicity is the only thing (according to Ferraro) that raises him above his apparent lack of qualification is "viability."

Okay. Explain that to me, please. What makes Obama a "viable" African American candidate, yet does not make Al Sharpton a "viable" African American candidate? Are those same qualities not found in Kerry? Or Edwards? Or Dobbs?

FUTILITY?

What a thing to suggest that Clinton or Obama should just give up trying to wrest the nomination.

That's like saying at superbowl halftime that because one side or the other is ahead the other should just give up...

It's just crazy that we are up against a wall with people threatening civil war if the other team even considers pressing their case.

What planet did this idea come from?

To all of you who don't seem to understand the "experience" argument (I won't waste my time addressing the racists here...); "experience" is highly-overrated...it is "judgment" that matters.
No one is actually READY to be President until the job actually starts.
I liken it to being a parent. You can read all of the books, baby-sit other peoples' children every day, and talk with all of the mommies you want to, but you never REALLY know what parenting is all about until you are a parent with your own child.

The President with the most foreign policy experience, 10+ years as an ambassador, many years in the Congress, and other elected offices, etc. turned out to be one of the worst Presidents: Martin Van Buren.

GWB, the worst President of all, surrounded himself with "loyalists" instead of people of integrity and commitment to the American people and the Constitution...people who change the rules to suit their purposes...just like Hillary Clinton.

You only have to compare how well Barack Obama has run his campaign starting from zero vs. the way Hillary has run her campaign with 20 years of working for this goal...she can't even control the finances and staff of her campaign...how will she "fix" the US economy or run the Country?

It doesn't matter that Barack hasn't "been to" as many countries as most modern First Ladies. What matters is that he hasn't LIED and TRIANGULATED about what he has done.

svin62:

Of of us is definitely wrong then.

Schmedley:

I am not "defending" anything or anyone -- my first post about Ferraro was "IF what she said is TRUE, why is that necessarily "racist" -- feel free to write me (and the millions of other concerned about an Obama Presidency) off with whatever label you'd like though. I'm not saying that ANY African-American could beat Hillary -- listen very carefully -- I think it is pretty clear that a WHITE man (or female of any color) this election cycle, with the SAME BACKGROUND AND EXPERIENCE as Obama, doesn't beat Hillary (or Biden, or Dodd, for that matter). For example, neither Biden nor Dodd (with MORE experience than Obama) beat Hillary. Of course, how either of them would have done head-to-head against Clinton is another question altogether. As always, YMMV.

write2caro:

Were julieds's remarks above (also using his middle name) "racist" as well? Did you see my definition of "racism"?

J_thinks:

Please do point out where the math is wrong.

Now it's racist to state the obvious. I may as well say all Clinton opponents are sexist and misogynists. The principal reason he got the votes for his senate seat - for which he was also unqualified - is that he is black, and that his opponent was Alan Keyes! His inspiring rhetoric? Come on. Sorry, King or Kennedys he ain't. LITE maybe.

JakeD - very smart guy/gal, obviously very young, with a decent wit to boot. However, wasted INTELLECT is like not having much at all. Your math is also flawed, back to the drawing board youngster.

It's a futile race for Hillary. Obama is gaining pledged and superdelegates everyday while Hillary is losing one or two superdelegates everyday including that of Eliot Spitzer. She should bow out now and save us the embarrassment, money and pain. As a Hillary supporter I don't see any chance of her winning the nomination. The math is too steep to climb.

write2caro - usually do not agree with you, but that was an excellent point made regarding viable. My only disagreement is with the word qualified. Since history has taught us - that based on the last 40 or so presidents