Captain Ed: "If I ran Bill Richardson's campaign, I'd take the sound bites from both Hillary and Barack and make a series of television ads showing why they're arguing for his nomination."
Please, don't give him any help! The guy is only slightly less looney than Dennis Kucinich. As it is, he'll probably be Missus Slick's VP.
/Mr Lynn
hunter
· 2 years ago
Richardson is the unpopular geek at the party you send out for ice, when the store is a really long way away.
Jane
· 2 years ago
Of course if you were running Bill Richardson's campaign you would have to deal with the fact that Richardson believes homosexuality is a choice, which I suspect is a more important issue to those on the left than foreign policy experience.
NoDonkey
· 2 years ago
"Hillary Clinton rightly skewers this, but then claims that her role as First Lady -- when she presumably made none of the decisions and had none of the responsibility for foreign policy -- makes her supremely qualified for the role."
One question - would anyone take a Republican first lady this seriously?
Of course not. Even (and especially, actually) if she had the identical "experience" (i.e. professional doormat, professional perjurer and professional "I don't recall") of being the first air head bimbo in the White House, who apparently was the only one in Washington who didn't know her husband was diddling interns and molesting staffers.
This woman is completely unqualified for the office she is running for. It's not even up for debate.
After 8 years of the lunatic left railing about President Bush's "incompetence", these nitwit circus clowns are the best the Democrat Party could come up with?
If the DNC had any lucidity or awareness of the absurdity of this situation, they would board up the doors of their headquarters, pack up their belongings and emigrate to Qatar.
Ruck
· 2 years ago
In marriage some amount of osmosis happens. While not personally a supporter (or fan) of Hillary, one cannot deny the fact that she has some experience in this area. One would have to be a complete twit or have an absolute non-existent relationship with their spouse to not pick up on something. However small that was, it out-ways Obamas two years overseas at an age most people barely remember.
She lived in the White House for many years, I wouldn't be so quick to discount her. You don't have to be the one publicly voicing the decisions (Bill Clinton) to have a an opinion and voice that counts in the back ground.
clever_hans
· 2 years ago
And yet, in her book Mrs. Clinton said the truth about little Monica was a total surprise. She describes herself as frozen, unable to speak - that's how shaken to the core she was.
Your argument suggests that, being married to B.J., she would have absorbed the vibes of his sex addiction. And yet, she says no, she didn't sense a thing.
How about we all just agree the woman is a world-class fraud, unfit for the White House?
Ruck
· 2 years ago
I would imagine that theres a huge difference between hiding an affair and an open foreign policy. While Bill had every reason to hide his affair with Monica, he would have no reason to keep his foreign policy a secret from his spouse.
clever_hans
· 2 years ago
You aren't even giving your own theory the respect it deserves.
Your point was that in a marriage there is a tacit communication, you called it osmosis, which is really an accurate word, and I couldn't agree with you more.
But now you're backing off your concept of intuitive, sort of tacit communication in married couples, and you're saying no, only what is said clearly and directly from one spouse to another counts as influence.
I liked your first theory better. Indirect, subtle, intuitive, intimate communication is the real influence of marriage. And I believe Mrs. Clinton knows B.J. at that level. Which means (1) she certainly absorbed some of his foreign policy knowledge; and (2) Mrs. Clinton lied when she acted surprised about B.J.'s predatory behavior against women.
It's the second fact that disturbs most Americans. We'll give her the foreign policy point. But the only way she gets that is to also be held responsible for her deeply disturbing complicity in some really dark activity in the White House. Ask Kathleen Willey about that.
Professor Harvard von Einstein
· 2 years ago
There is, of course, a simpler answer which renders Ruck's theory (and Clever_hans' sentiment) both correct: Hillary is either lying, or seriously misleading, in her memoirs. Given more than twenty years of marriage to a man she knew to be a chronic-adulterer (or at least perpetual horndog), it is implausible that a woman as intelligent as she is didn't suspect Bill's behavior.
Regardless, always right is, well . . . correct. Whoever the Republican candidate is in the general election can have a field day running against the Clinton administration's foreign policy if Sen. Clinton continues to cite this as the primary basis for her foreign policy expertise.
sashal
· 2 years ago
and who would that be? The GOP candidate with foriegn policy experience? Heh?
Del Dolemonte
· 2 years ago
I don't remember Bill Clinton having any foreign policy experience when he was elected President in 1992 by the media. Oh, he did have a modicum of "foreign policy" as Governor of Arkansaw, but as I recall, that was connected to an airstrip in Mena and also something to do with AIDS-tainted Arkansas prisoner's blood.
Del Dolemonte
· 2 years ago
Oh, to finish, the AIDS-tainted blood from Arkansas prison inmates was sold to Canada.
clever_hans
· 2 years ago
Foreign policy experience is valuable only as an indirect cause of good judgment in foreign policy. You can have good judgment in foreign policy without having direct foreign policy experience.
You get confused when you treat a presidential qualification as a manual skill, like playing the violin or flying an airplane. Hands on experience in these activities definitely prepares you to do them well in the future.
But abilities of judgment, such as being a good parent, or casting a good vote, are developed in the course of doing them. You don't need experience in voting to vote well. Similarly, you don't need to have sat in Air Force 1 or to have attended many formal dinners to be qualified to make good foreign policy judgments.
Sponge Bob
· 2 years ago
This is true, and the voters know it, which is why they don't much care whether a candidate has "foreign policy experience," whatever the pompous airheads inside the Beltway think.
So what this really says about Hillary is to whom she listens, of whom she is in tune. And it's clearly not Joe and Jane Average Voter, who don't care about "experience" so much as principles. Hillary is tuned in to -- and thinks like -- the standard Beltway and academic elite, a State Dept stripey pants fella with an intradisciplinary PhD in International Goverment from the Kennedy School.
In short, Hillary is a great person for whom to vote if you're tired of thinking stuff out for yourself, and want your betters to make all the important decisions for you.
docjim505
· 2 years ago
An excellent point. It's worth knowing whether a candidate is going to stand up for America and American sovereignty or whether he will worship at the altar of the UN and "multilateralism". Who does he see as our friends in the world? What are our vital interests, and what will he do to protect them? Who are our enemies and how will he deal with them? (Hint: if the answer contains "UN", I'm going to be inclined to dismiss him out of hand.)
Getting straight answers to these questions is worth a lot more than hearing tired recitations about "How long I've served on the Foreign Relations Committee" or "Which international leaders I've met in restaurants in NYC" or "How I spent my vacation in Europe when I was eleven."
Larry J
· 2 years ago
My wife is a nurse. You wouldn't want me to be the one trying to insert your IV.
The President is also called the Chief Executive. Hillary, Obama, McCain, and most of the other candidates have virtually no executive experience. While they all meet the minimal constitutional requirements for the job, they're in no way qualified for the position.
NoDonkey
· 2 years ago
"She lived in the White House for many years"
As Dick Morris has said, "so did the pastry chef".
And anyone can "voice an opinion". If that's all it took, every adult over 18 could be a good President.
What's important is an ability to get things done. Few people have it. She most likely doesn't. She's never held a job or been accountable for a position remotely close to this.
always right
· 2 years ago
Of course, it is only a positive if you count Bill's past foreign policy as a winner. To me, even if you give half the credits to HRC "behind the curtain" contribution, it is still a no brainer.
DayTrader
· 2 years ago
Any person who believes absolute unconditional withdrawal of troops in the face of tide turning news is wrong from both a military and foreign policy perspective.
Especially when they seem to have little thought about Bosnia and potential suggest going into Darfur.
matterson
· 2 years ago
As far as I can tell, Mrs. Clinton's only qualifications for the office of POTUS are she's over 35 years old and she's a natural born citizen.
Pretty slim official qualifications.
docjim505
· 2 years ago
Aside from meeting the Constitutional requirements, her other qualification is that her sorry white trash husband cheated on her. She's OWED the job, you see, for having put up with Slick and his crap for all these years.
One of these days, the feminists will have to explain why they think the Hilldabeast, who smiled and nodded and made a fool of herself when it came out that her husband was cheating like hell on her, is a "strong" woman.
Del Dolemonte
· 2 years ago
The feminists tossed all of their credibility into the crapper when they gave Bill a pass for sexually exploiting a woman young enough to be his daughter, who could also be considered to be his subordinate in the workplace. And to top it off, he did this IN the workplace.
The "A" word rules here with the feminists. Ask former TIME writer Nina Burleigh.
Teresa
· 2 years ago
And conservatives tossed all their credibility by supporting a serial philanderer like Rudy Guiliani. (And, by the way, when he gave his mistress a $250,000 a year city job I'd consider that "in the work place" as well.)
docjim505
· 2 years ago
Oh, no! Not you, too!
A-one, a-two, a-one-two-three...
Everybody does it. I hate Bush. Everybody does it. I hate Bush. Everybody does it. I hate Bush. Everybody does it. I hate Bush. Everybody does it. I hate Bush. Four legs good, two legs better. Four legs good, two legs better. Four legs good, two legs better.
quickjustice
· 2 years ago
You're always good for a laugh, Teresa. If Giuliani is a serial philanderer (he's certainly a serial husband!), and if supporting a serial philanderer like Bill Clinton causes loss of all credibility, what does that do to your credibility, Hillary Clinton's credibility (since she has supported Bill through all of the affairs), NOW's credibility, and the credibility of the entire Democrat Party?
LOL!
AnonymousDrivel
· 2 years ago
To think that 40+% of the country's voting public consider either of them viable. Personality-wise, I like Obama. Policy- and experience-wise, he's too green and would have done well to wait a term or two before applying for the nation's top job. WRT HRC, she's akin to fingernails on a chalkboard on the former and barely a hue, if that, of less "experienced" green on the latter. Agreed, Ed, about the football analogy. They're not ready for X's and O's... they're ready for Tic-Tac-Toe.
What a debacle the Democrat Party has become which is a shame since only decent competition can push the GOP to excel. The GOP may yet win by default. This is no way to run a Republic.
daveinboca
· 2 years ago
When Sen. Obama says he will sit down with Ahmed…jad without preconditions and will invade Waziristan with US troops without Pak permission, he is so off-base and naive that no amount of Jakarta playground experience can overcome his lack of experience.
I assume that Richard Holbrooke or perhaps Bill Richardson will be named Secretary of State. Sane hands at that helm might dissuade Obama from such walks on the mild side as the Iranian proposal.
However, his pronouncements on foreign policy demonstrate a deep lack of understanding of the nasty fact that the US has enemies who are not going to be sweet-talked by even such a charming fellow as B. Hussein Obama. Or Barry, as he used to call himself during his drug-daze in college.
Come to think of it, wouldn't Barry's high-daze give him expertise on drug issues?
But Hillary must be dreaming if she thinks being First Lady is a resume even for foreign policy chops.
Viper161
· 2 years ago
Why the Democrat candidates emphaisis on foreign policy? What happened to "its the economy, stupid." Could this be their acknowledgment that the economy is healthy and won't work as the traditional issue that carries them to the White House?
Don Singleton
· 2 years ago
Richardson is only running for VP, so he would not risk offending either. Obama's experience was at least in a Muslim country, so he may understand what risk we face
Del Dolemonte
· 2 years ago
I'm sure Obama was also referring to his time living as a kid in the ethnic melting pot of Hawaii, where whites are in the minority.
David
· 2 years ago
I lived in Europe as a kid. I must be a foreign policy genius.
NoDonkey
· 2 years ago
Send in your application. From that line, I already have more faith in your ability to handle the Presidency, than any of the current Democrat candidates.
David
· 2 years ago
Thanks, but no thanks. I am faithful to my wife and thus completely unqualified.
unclesmrgol
· 2 years ago
With regard to foreign policy experience, I don't think it matters. We've had many Presidents who have had no foreign policy experience perform well in that arena. Of course we've had a few who made major missteps (Abraham Lincoln announcing a blockade rather than port closings immediately comes to mind). Even our current President has made a gaffe or two -- imagine the irony of our President and Commander In Chief telling Musharrif that the Pakistani leader must give up one of those jobs...
We have today a professional diplomatic corps which has served to insulate many Presidents from their worst impulses. But those diplomats serve at the command of the President, so it behooves us to elect a President whose announced foreign policy intentions (regardless of experience) seem to (a) recognize the weight of historic events and (b) recognize the reality of the world in which we currently live.
Obama, with his call for "back to square one" dialog with Iran does not recognize that this path has been trodden at least twice with no positive effects for the United States, and that talk with no result is actually harmful. Obama, with his stated intent to move us out of Iraq and into Pakistan and Darfur seems to have a diplomacy destined to get us into even more trouble than we already have in this troubled world. Obama with his call for new thinking actually thinks the same thoughts that have been thought many times prior, with no good results for us. The things he's thunk have stunk.
Hillary at least thinks we need a continued presence in Iraq to buttress the stability taking root there. She hasn't said a word about throwing us into a war with Pakistan (which would certainly happen if we violated Pakistan's sovereignty, as it did with both Afghanistan and Iraq), nor has she said anything about invading Darfur (which, in my mind, would be as large an affront to militant Islam as the Iraqi invasion was, and therefore runs counter to Obama's desires to defuse points of conflict with the militants).
Of the two, as much as I detest her personally, Hillary wins as the saner one in foreign affairs. Of course, we'd have to stop exhaling CO2 if either won, and force the Canadians to stopper up all their moose to prevent methane emissions, but hey, that's what's needed to save our planet, right?
Again, while neither of them have experience, none of the Republican contenders do either, and any winner would have to (if they are smart) depend on the advice of their team of professionals in the short term.
sashal
· 2 years ago
son ?
hermie
· 2 years ago
Remember, when questioned about the events which went on in the White House (especially Travelgate and Whitewater), Hillary claimed she 'couldn't recall' what occurred.
So, having 'experience' but being unable to recall exactly what went on when you were there, is what the NYT and liberals believe will win the Presidency in 2008?
NoDonkey
· 2 years ago
For those who still think there is no media bias, please tell us how seriously the wife of an impeached President would be taken, if she ran for President.
A Republican first lady would have been laughed out of the room if she even thought about running for President, even after one term in the Senate (a position she also won on her name, not on her merits).
The media that operates as a Democrat echo chamber does no favors to the country, or even to the Democrat Party.
The idea of this bimbo running for President would have been strangled in the crib long ago, if we had a free thinking, ethical media.
Del Dolemonte
· 2 years ago
Likewise...yesterday Obama admitted experimenting with drugs while in High School (why do you think they call it "High" school?). As far as I can tell, it's been met with a big yawn by the mainstream media. I wonder how they would have reacted if a Republican candidate made the same admission?
In doing a Google news search on this new Obama story, which apparently even had him using the word "pot head", I found only 11 news stories about his admission.
docjim505
· 2 years ago
Like when the nutroots not only carp about Bush's admitted use of coke when he was a young man, but claim he's STILL on it? When he's not drunk, that is.
Frankly, I don't care whether The Dope smoked dope or anything else as a young man. Presumably, he's clean now (if not, then he's got some 'splainin to do!). Part of getting older is growing up, leaving behind one's youthful indiscretions and stupidity. Hopefully, he's done that.
That being said, The Dope simply hasn't got the smarts to be president. Hell, if not for the VERY low bar set by such duds as Babs Boxer and Tickle Me Elmo Larry Craig, he wouldn't have the smarts to be a senator.
Del Dolemonte
· 2 years ago
Unless Obama wins the nomination, my guess is that he serves out his Senate term in Illinois, then move back to Hawaii, where he'll run for the Senate seat of the rapidly aging Daniel Inouye.
John
· 2 years ago
We lived in Tehran for 15 months in 1968-69, while I was an Air Force consultant to the Shah's air force. Our son celebrated his second birthday on arrival and learned Farsi alongside English as he learned to talk. According to Barry Obama, he is, therefore, the most qualified of the non-candidates to handle one of the most serious of our present and future foreign policy challenges. He did not, however, attend a madrassa kindergarten.
quickjustice
· 2 years ago
Am I misreading this, or is Hillary really saying that if she's elected, Bill Clinton will be running the country?
Del Dolemonte
· 2 years ago
If she is elected, Bill will have absolutely no participation in her Administration. He will be a house-husband in charge of the White House.
And if you believe that, I have some nice oceanfront property for sale in Searchlight, Nevada. Only $10,000 per acre.
Carol_Herman
· 2 years ago
Yesterday, Drudge ran a headline to a statement made by Tom DeLay. (At a book signing party, in DC. For John Bolton.) He predicts the GOP will have its clocks cleaned, in 2008. He then re-stated, for the record, that he saw 2006 being the start of these "changes.")
Who knows?
Predicting the future is a hard game. But if all you did was change one word: Every time you see Al-Qaeda, you say, instead SUADI. Where the money is involved it's SAUDI. There are no banks in caves, where anyone gets to fund terror. This is something started in Riyadh, exported throughout our known world. By scam artists who have never paid a price for these behaviors.
How will this Bush's presidency be judged? In with Enron, exiting with Freddic Mac's bad mortgage loans?
Politics is really just the art of the possible. When impossible tasks are tried, they tend to fail. But only after time passes on. Big gaps of time.
Can the Saud's really win? If at first, the grab was to go into Irak, "for da' spoils," you now have both the french and british holding their "loser's bag." Maliki is still in charge. And, thee sunni (read, again, Saud's cousins, here), have been killed. Or fled. In large numbers. After their tribes accepted the Saud's "Al-Qaeda funded goons." Who came in and wrecked the house. And, all it's furniture.
The sunnis have been HALVED. Cut in half. While, yes, Saddam's head rolled. But instead? You have a strong putin. And, an emerging crisis ... because a lot of players are now after the wealth, under the ground, in Irak. And, Maliki is not on Bush's side at all. He's just waiting "us" out.
Need examples? Take a look at the defunct WHIG party. (It's the root for the current GOP tree.) And, the mischief starts with Henry Clay; their leader. Back in 1832. When he tossed an election for president, away from Andrew Jackson. And, into the hands of the son of John Adams; (the Federalist) ... who "won" the second contest for President ... from Thomas Jefferson ... by a teeny tiny margin.
So, yes. Politics is the implementation of the POSSIBLE. With a lot of things going awry.
In exchange for "defeating" the winnah at the ballot box, in 1832; Henry Clay got a 4-year-chair at John Quincy Adams, 4-year table. Before getting tossed out by voters. Who, again, voted IN, Andrew Jackson. 1836. And, 1840. If I have my dates right. (I could be off. Dates aren't my forte.)
But it took about 20 years, from 1840 to 1860 ... for the WHIGS to die out. And, for the GOP to win an election; with the best WHIG politician, of any politician ever born: Abraham Lincoln.
Of course, 2nd raters plotted to destroy not just Lincoln, who was assassinated. But Seward and Stanton, from his cabinet, as well.
We've always got those types in government, too.
And, for whatever Irak turns out to be, it won't be a "party" for British Petroleum. Or, even for the Bush Famlly, down the road.
Oh, by the way, Tom DeLay says Hillary SWEEPS in. With coattails.
But to find out for sure? We need to have our 2008 elections. Even if just to see how many people refuse to vote.
You bet Irak's a mess. And, probably a black mark. Because we're never going to get our money's worth from the $3-trillion already spent. Let alone we now have Maliki's ire. (And, throw into the pot, Musharraf's, as well.)
Bush? Great at digging dry holes. (Back in the 1980's, when his "El-Busto" oil company was in terrible debt ... along came the Saud's. Bailing out the veep's "boy wonder.") Well, they've also bought Jimmuh Carter. As if money buys happiness.
hunter
· 2 years ago
Carol Hermann, You are a charter ember of 'keepers of odd knowledge', and your writing style is basically unreadable.
unclesmrgol
· 2 years ago
When the GOP has their clocks cleaned in 2008, they will finally have clean clocks -- cleaner than the dirty clocks the Bonkeys will have. Perhaps their cleaner clocks will help them know what to do in 2008 and beyond better than the Bonks. But they could go buy those clocks early on eBay. Then they would have a head start.
Again, the future. Again. As I have said before, the future is indeed too complex to call because it is the future, not the present or the past. Only if you are the man upstairs is the future not complex. But since we aren't, it is.
Judging Presidencies is done in the future too. It is rarely done in the present, and when it is, it is done badly. Remember that. Got it?
Irak. Beautiful Irak. But with wrecked furniture. Not by the owners, but by the guests. But wrecked none the less. Got it.
The Sunnis. Part of the House of Saud. Which owns the House of Bush. Which is why Maliki doesn't like us. Got it.
Ah, the Whigs. I remember them. They thought there should be compromise. But there was no compromise -- hence the Republicans. And when the Republicans finally compromised, we got more slavery. The result says politics is the implementation of compromise. Dirty, nasty, politics. With Clay being the pigeon and throwing the election like a bunch of Black Sox doing the World Series. Got it.
But as Lincoln and his minions were destroyed by the Bonkeys -- a shot to the head if you will, so will be Bush and his House.
No, we won't get our $3 trillion back unless we suck out every last bit of oil the Iraqis have and pay them nothing. And even then it's not enough, because blood is worth more than oil. Every time a Democrat in the big city dies of cold due to no oil, they want to suck the blood of our patriots. And, of course, most important, is to never trust leaders whose names start with "M" -- they each remind us of the other too much in our stream of consciousness. Consciousness. Stream. Oil. Got it.
And the House of Bush may have dug dry holes, but at least two children resulted. And with all that money in Switzerland held for them by the House of Saud, it doesn't matter, does it? Now Bush's greatest diplomacy will occur -- forcing the Swiss to build the fuel for Iran's nukes. And Jimmy? He's a friend of Bush. Got it.
unclesmrgol
· 2 years ago
You forgot the third "M" -- Mahmoud. We have his ire, too. But maybe not for long.
docjim505
· 2 years ago
MoDo, NYT: She was a top adviser who had a Nixonian bent for secrecy and a knack for hard-core politicking.
DAMN! For a senior member of the MSM - a female columnist for the NYT, yet! - to write this is little less earth-shaking than it would be if the president of the Southern Baptist Convention to announced that, "If your way is gay, it's OK."
Saint Hillary - OUT
Hillary Nixon - IN
always right
· 2 years ago
"Saint" Hillary?
10 inch thick lead box won't hide her nastiness.
Fight4TheRight
· 2 years ago
Remember all the buzz months ago about Hillary being the smartest knife in the candidate drawer? Remember the whispers that Hillary was the brains behind the first Clinton administration?
Well, between this lunacy and the driver's license debaucle, I want to know just who exactly put out this schpiel about the woman's intellect?
I'm starting to wonder if it really wasn't a exaltation of Hillary's smarts as it was some sort of comparison of Hillary to the paper weight intellect of Sen. Barbara Boxer.
I can't believe that someone in the Clinton campaign hasn't figured out yet that responding to Obama's rantings is about the same as giving in to your sprawled 5 yr old in the candy aisle at Target.
docjim505
· 2 years ago
Ann Coulter has written about this sort of thing: in the MSM, democrats are ALWAYS geniuses while Republicans can barely tie their shoes.
Jazz
· 2 years ago
I would just like to take a moment and point out that this date should be marked in history and etched into a bronze plate someplace.... Capt. Ed quoted MoDo.
I'm afraid to look out my door, as I know that I shall see dogs and cats sleeping together and four sinister horsemen in the sky. :-p
captained
· 2 years ago
Hell, the fact that I read MoDo should be marked in history! I almost felt the need to apologize .....
Maquis
· 2 years ago
Hillary Clinton is THE master of ashtray diplomacy.
newton
· 2 years ago
Hillary Clinton is THE master of ashtray diplomacy.
Thanks for making me clean my laptop screen! LOL!
This whole argument about being with "world leaders" as opposed to living abroad as a kid is too stupid for words. It's just like saying that Sen. McCain's unfortunate but very brave stint as a POW at the Hanoi Hilton can be counted as "foreign policy experience." (Definitely counts as courage under fire and perseverance, though, unlike Hillary's...)
Very few Presidents as past nominees in recent past had any real foreign policy experience, with the one notable exception of Bush Sr.
GWB: Gov. of TX, dealing a little bit with the Mexican government as Gov. That's it. Bill: Before 92, was mainly... a stint at Oxford and... trips to IHOP, perhaps? Reagan: Don't tell me that movie star and "spokesman" for GE count: Gov. of CA, maybe. Carter: Gimme a break! Ford: He was first a Congresscritter before becoming VP, and then... I really don't know: can you correct me on this? Nixon: What did he do, foreign policy-wise, before becoming President, or maybe while VP? Provoke Nikita, perhaps that's it? Can anyone tell me? Johnson: Lucky guy, Sen from TX, no FP exp. Kennedy: Don't ask. Eisenhower: He was Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces in Europe during WWII. Now, that's Foreign Policy experience!
Sorry, Hillary, but having photo-ops and chat dinners with world leaders don't count. "World leaders" don't elect American Presidents: the American People do.
John
· 2 years ago
Captain, I wouldn't waste too much concern about Ms. Dowd's future vis a vis the Clintons, despite this column. Remember, the reason she won her Pulitzer was she was all over Bill Clinton from January to September 1998 over the Lewinsky affair -- until the preliminary report came out, at which time she penned another nasty column, only with the tag line at the end being the villain was now Ken Starr for delving into Clinton's private life. From there on she was a staunch supporter of moving on from the affair, and not only was she never called on her switch, she earned journalism's highest honor in April of the following year.
So Maureen will verbally take a spiked 2-by-4 to the Clinton campaign for the next couple of months, and then turn on a dime and bash Romney, Giuliani, McCain or even Thompson with even more vitriol once she gets the nomination and her Republican opponent becomes known, and no one will find the juxtaposition in the least bit surprising.
Teresa
· 2 years ago
Oh, please. You can hate Bill fooling around and still think the whole Ken Starr witch hunt that wasted millions of tax dollars was also stupid.
docjim505
· 2 years ago
Well, what I actually hate is the fact that the President of the United States, aided and abetted by his wife, his aides, and his former "business associates", lied like a damned rug before a grand jury.
perjury (ˈpər-jə-rē, ˈpərj-rē): n the voluntary violation of an oath or vow either by swearing to what is untrue or by omission to do what has been promised under oath : false swearing (1)
But I'm sure that it's OK because (A) it was only about sex and (B) Republicans do it, too!
/sarcasm
By the way, is there some limit on the amount of money that the government can spend when pursuing a crime? I mean, can suspects go into court and demand that investigations be called off if the prosecution / police spend more than "X" dollars? Does the dollar amount vary with the type of charges? Can Scooter Libby get off the hook if he can show that Fitz spent too much money? Or, should I say, "wasted" millions of tax dollars on a "stupid" prosecution?
that's a lie. Carol has unique style ....you'll catch to it ....it takes time and some thinking. thanks Carol ogopogo
Aaron
· 2 years ago
Does Obama speak Indonesian?
COgirl
· 2 years ago
If the issue was picking china, Hillary has Obama beat hands down. But for her to be touting her experience as first lady as something that makes her more electable is ludicrous. Lots of chutzpah.
And one question. If she was a "co-president", why doesn't the 2 term limit apply to her now. Seems like she wants to have it both ways.
Jaeger51
· 2 years ago
Could this get any worse? As bad as the Repub candidates are (except for the one that has been made a non-entity by the media, Duncan Hunter) the Dem candidates are a joke. Except if one of them wins, the joke's on us. And how far have our standards fallen? Remember when Bill had to give his famous "I didn't inhale" line to survive? And who would have considered Jackie Kennedy for President? And she didn't even have socialist ideas, as far as I know..... Don't even mention Edwards. Can't someone plausible be drafted from the general public?
foodserver
· 2 years ago
Unfortunately, it is an article of faith among women that the skills and abilities of the husband are passed on to the wife. Mrs. Barry Bonds wouldn't attempt to maintain that because the means of judging her assumed skills (batsmanship) are objective enough to expose the obvious fallacy-- but Mrs. (Senator and wife of the late Senator from Missouri) Carnahan for example, DID maintain it and many voting in that election--believed it.
Many will vote for Mrs. Clinton almost SOLELY because they are convinced that Hillary is-through marriage, everything Bill was.
ClydeS
· 2 years ago
Some people are born to greatness. Some people have greatness thrust upon them. The closest some people come to greatness is being penetrated by it. And that would be the case with Hillary, if you consider Bill to be "great," which I don't.
foodserver
· 2 years ago
Unfortunately, it is an article of faith among women that the skills and abilities of the husband are passed on to the wife. Mrs. Barry Bonds wouldn't attempt to maintain that because the means of judging her assumed skills (batsmanship) are objective enough to expose the obvious fallacy-- but Mrs. (Senator and wife of the late Senator from Missouri) Carnahan for example, DID maintain it and many voting in that election--believed it.
Many will vote for Mrs. Clinton almost SOLELY because they are convinced that Hillary is-through marriage, everything Bill was.
PoliticalNightTrain
· 2 years ago
I suppose when Hillary gets attacked by Republicans on her lack of experience, Bill will rush out and say it was Hillary that was making all the foreign policy decisions.
ClydeS
· 2 years ago
MoDo's shtick is writing negative stuff about the president. From what I've heard, it's all she's done for the past six years. (I lost track of her while she was trapped behind the Iron TimesSelect Curtain, and never felt the urge to reconnect with her snarkiness.) If she expects Hillary to win, and doesn't want to have to come up with a new shtick, she's got to start reworking her material for Clinton 44.
Not like it's gonna win her a lot of love from Her Nixonian-ness. (And I think that's an insightful take on Hillary's character by MoDo -- but even a stopped clock is right twice a day!)
NahnCee
· 2 years ago
WAsn't Obama born/raised a Muslim the first few years of his life? If I was him, I'd stay VERY far away from holding those years up to any sort of scrutiny. WAs he enrolled in a kindergarten or a madrassa, for example.
Ray_in_MPLS
· 2 years ago
Hillary's making a big mistake by claiming that being the First Lady has given her experience in matters foreign policy. The only way anyone can gain experience in something is to perform an action directly related to it. Being First Lady may have given her exposure</v> to how foreign policy is formed and carried out, but in no way has it given her any experience in this matter unless she actually attended state department briefings, received intelligence reports, consulted advisers, and helped form and implement policy decisions. So far, there's no indication that she has done any of this at all. And in some cases, like receiving intelligence briefings, it is impossible that she could have participated as she didn't have the required clearances. This makes her "experience" equal to Mr. Obama's, none whatsoever.
Ray_in_MPLS
· 2 years ago
Sorry about the missing close tag. Capt'n, you really need to bring back the preview feature.
Bill Yoak
· 2 years ago
Your critic of the potential Democratic candidates for there foreign policy experience is laughable at best.You lovingly backed Georgie boy as your man twice and he had never left the country once accomplishing this by dodging the draft during the Viet nam war .Keep up the good work Bill Yoak Garden Grove
Scrapiron
· 2 years ago
Is Bill Richardson even an American citizen? He spend his entire time assisting Mexico and Mexicans in their criminal enterprises and shows no belief in the U.S. Constitution.
All Comments
Please, don't give him any help! The guy is only slightly less looney than Dennis Kucinich. As it is, he'll probably be Missus Slick's VP.
/Mr Lynn
One question - would anyone take a Republican first lady this seriously?
Of course not. Even (and especially, actually) if she had the identical "experience" (i.e. professional doormat, professional perjurer and professional "I don't recall") of being the first air head bimbo in the White House, who apparently was the only one in Washington who didn't know her husband was diddling interns and molesting staffers.
This woman is completely unqualified for the office she is running for. It's not even up for debate.
After 8 years of the lunatic left railing about President Bush's "incompetence", these nitwit circus clowns are the best the Democrat Party could come up with?
If the DNC had any lucidity or awareness of the absurdity of this situation, they would board up the doors of their headquarters, pack up their belongings and emigrate to Qatar.
She lived in the White House for many years, I wouldn't be so quick to discount her. You don't have to be the one publicly voicing the decisions (Bill Clinton) to have a an opinion and voice that counts in the back ground.
Your argument suggests that, being married to B.J., she would have absorbed the vibes of his sex addiction. And yet, she says no, she didn't sense a thing.
How about we all just agree the woman is a world-class fraud, unfit for the White House?
Your point was that in a marriage there is a tacit communication, you called it osmosis, which is really an accurate word, and I couldn't agree with you more.
But now you're backing off your concept of intuitive, sort of tacit communication in married couples, and you're saying no, only what is said clearly and directly from one spouse to another counts as influence.
I liked your first theory better. Indirect, subtle, intuitive, intimate communication is the real influence of marriage. And I believe Mrs. Clinton knows B.J. at that level. Which means (1) she certainly absorbed some of his foreign policy knowledge; and (2) Mrs. Clinton lied when she acted surprised about B.J.'s predatory behavior against women.
It's the second fact that disturbs most Americans. We'll give her the foreign policy point. But the only way she gets that is to also be held responsible for her deeply disturbing complicity in some really dark activity in the White House. Ask Kathleen Willey about that.
Regardless, always right is, well . . . correct. Whoever the Republican candidate is in the general election can have a field day running against the Clinton administration's foreign policy if Sen. Clinton continues to cite this as the primary basis for her foreign policy expertise.
The GOP candidate with foriegn policy experience? Heh?
You get confused when you treat a presidential qualification as a manual skill, like playing the violin or flying an airplane. Hands on experience in these activities definitely prepares you to do them well in the future.
But abilities of judgment, such as being a good parent, or casting a good vote, are developed in the course of doing them. You don't need experience in voting to vote well. Similarly, you don't need to have sat in Air Force 1 or to have attended many formal dinners to be qualified to make good foreign policy judgments.
So what this really says about Hillary is to whom she listens, of whom she is in tune. And it's clearly not Joe and Jane Average Voter, who don't care about "experience" so much as principles. Hillary is tuned in to -- and thinks like -- the standard Beltway and academic elite, a State Dept stripey pants fella with an intradisciplinary PhD in International Goverment from the Kennedy School.
In short, Hillary is a great person for whom to vote if you're tired of thinking stuff out for yourself, and want your betters to make all the important decisions for you.
Getting straight answers to these questions is worth a lot more than hearing tired recitations about "How long I've served on the Foreign Relations Committee" or "Which international leaders I've met in restaurants in NYC" or "How I spent my vacation in Europe when I was eleven."
The President is also called the Chief Executive. Hillary, Obama, McCain, and most of the other candidates have virtually no executive experience. While they all meet the minimal constitutional requirements for the job, they're in no way qualified for the position.
As Dick Morris has said, "so did the pastry chef".
And anyone can "voice an opinion". If that's all it took, every adult over 18 could be a good President.
What's important is an ability to get things done. Few people have it. She most likely doesn't. She's never held a job or been accountable for a position remotely close to this.
To me, even if you give half the credits to HRC "behind the curtain" contribution, it is still a no brainer.
Especially when they seem to have little thought about Bosnia and potential suggest going into Darfur.
Pretty slim official qualifications.
One of these days, the feminists will have to explain why they think the Hilldabeast, who smiled and nodded and made a fool of herself when it came out that her husband was cheating like hell on her, is a "strong" woman.
The "A" word rules here with the feminists. Ask former TIME writer Nina Burleigh.
Guiliani. (And, by the way, when he gave his mistress a $250,000 a year city job I'd
consider that "in the work place" as well.)
A-one, a-two, a-one-two-three...
Everybody does it. I hate Bush. Everybody does it. I hate Bush. Everybody does it. I hate Bush. Everybody does it. I hate Bush. Everybody does it. I hate Bush. Four legs good, two legs better. Four legs good, two legs better. Four legs good, two legs better.
LOL!
What a debacle the Democrat Party has become which is a shame since only decent competition can push the GOP to excel. The GOP may yet win by default. This is no way to run a Republic.
I assume that Richard Holbrooke or perhaps Bill Richardson will be named Secretary of State. Sane hands at that helm might dissuade Obama from such walks on the mild side as the Iranian proposal.
However, his pronouncements on foreign policy demonstrate a deep lack of understanding of the nasty fact that the US has enemies who are not going to be sweet-talked by even such a charming fellow as B. Hussein Obama. Or Barry, as he used to call himself during his drug-daze in college.
Come to think of it, wouldn't Barry's high-daze give him expertise on drug issues?
But Hillary must be dreaming if she thinks being First Lady is a resume even for foreign policy chops.
We have today a professional diplomatic corps which has served to insulate many Presidents from their worst impulses. But those diplomats serve at the command of the President, so it behooves us to elect a President whose announced foreign policy intentions (regardless of experience) seem to (a) recognize the weight of historic events and (b) recognize the reality of the world in which we currently live.
Obama, with his call for "back to square one" dialog with Iran does not recognize that this path has been trodden at least twice with no positive effects for the United States, and that talk with no result is actually harmful. Obama, with his stated intent to move us out of Iraq and into Pakistan and Darfur seems to have a diplomacy destined to get us into even more trouble than we already have in this troubled world. Obama with his call for new thinking actually thinks the same thoughts that have been thought many times prior, with no good results for us. The things he's thunk have stunk.
Hillary at least thinks we need a continued presence in Iraq to buttress the stability taking root there. She hasn't said a word about throwing us into a war with Pakistan (which would certainly happen if we violated Pakistan's sovereignty, as it did with both Afghanistan and Iraq), nor has she said anything about invading Darfur (which, in my mind, would be as large an affront to militant Islam as the Iraqi invasion was, and therefore runs counter to Obama's desires to defuse points of conflict with the militants).
Of the two, as much as I detest her personally, Hillary wins as the saner one in foreign affairs. Of course, we'd have to stop exhaling CO2 if either won, and force the Canadians to stopper up all their moose to prevent methane emissions, but hey, that's what's needed to save our planet, right?
Again, while neither of them have experience, none of the Republican contenders do either, and any winner would have to (if they are smart) depend on the advice of their team of professionals in the short term.
So, having 'experience' but being unable to recall exactly what went on when you were there, is what the NYT and liberals believe will win the Presidency in 2008?
A Republican first lady would have been laughed out of the room if she even thought about running for President, even after one term in the Senate (a position she also won on her name, not on her merits).
The media that operates as a Democrat echo chamber does no favors to the country, or even to the Democrat Party.
The idea of this bimbo running for President would have been strangled in the crib long ago, if we had a free thinking, ethical media.
In doing a Google news search on this new Obama story, which apparently even had him using the word "pot head", I found only 11 news stories about his admission.
Frankly, I don't care whether The Dope smoked dope or anything else as a young man. Presumably, he's clean now (if not, then he's got some 'splainin to do!). Part of getting older is growing up, leaving behind one's youthful indiscretions and stupidity. Hopefully, he's done that.
That being said, The Dope simply hasn't got the smarts to be president. Hell, if not for the VERY low bar set by such duds as Babs Boxer and Tickle Me Elmo Larry Craig, he wouldn't have the smarts to be a senator.
According to Barry Obama, he is, therefore, the most qualified of the non-candidates to handle one of the most serious of our present and future foreign policy challenges.
He did not, however, attend a madrassa kindergarten.
And if you believe that, I have some nice oceanfront property for sale in Searchlight, Nevada. Only $10,000 per acre.
Who knows?
Predicting the future is a hard game. But if all you did was change one word: Every time you see Al-Qaeda, you say, instead SUADI. Where the money is involved it's SAUDI. There are no banks in caves, where anyone gets to fund terror. This is something started in Riyadh, exported throughout our known world. By scam artists who have never paid a price for these behaviors.
How will this Bush's presidency be judged? In with Enron, exiting with Freddic Mac's bad mortgage loans?
Politics is really just the art of the possible. When impossible tasks are tried, they tend to fail. But only after time passes on. Big gaps of time.
Can the Saud's really win? If at first, the grab was to go into Irak, "for da' spoils," you now have both the french and british holding their "loser's bag." Maliki is still in charge. And, thee sunni (read, again, Saud's cousins, here), have been killed. Or fled. In large numbers. After their tribes accepted the Saud's "Al-Qaeda funded goons." Who came in and wrecked the house. And, all it's furniture.
The sunnis have been HALVED. Cut in half. While, yes, Saddam's head rolled. But instead? You have a strong putin. And, an emerging crisis ... because a lot of players are now after the wealth, under the ground, in Irak. And, Maliki is not on Bush's side at all. He's just waiting "us" out.
Need examples? Take a look at the defunct WHIG party. (It's the root for the current GOP tree.) And, the mischief starts with Henry Clay; their leader. Back in 1832. When he tossed an election for president, away from Andrew Jackson. And, into the hands of the son of John Adams; (the Federalist) ... who "won" the second contest for President ... from Thomas Jefferson ... by a teeny tiny margin.
So, yes. Politics is the implementation of the POSSIBLE. With a lot of things going awry.
In exchange for "defeating" the winnah at the ballot box, in 1832; Henry Clay got a 4-year-chair at John Quincy Adams, 4-year table. Before getting tossed out by voters. Who, again, voted IN, Andrew Jackson. 1836. And, 1840. If I have my dates right. (I could be off. Dates aren't my forte.)
But it took about 20 years, from 1840 to 1860 ... for the WHIGS to die out. And, for the GOP to win an election; with the best WHIG politician, of any politician ever born: Abraham Lincoln.
Of course, 2nd raters plotted to destroy not just Lincoln, who was assassinated. But Seward and Stanton, from his cabinet, as well.
We've always got those types in government, too.
And, for whatever Irak turns out to be, it won't be a "party" for British Petroleum. Or, even for the Bush Famlly, down the road.
Oh, by the way, Tom DeLay says Hillary SWEEPS in. With coattails.
But to find out for sure? We need to have our 2008 elections. Even if just to see how many people refuse to vote.
You bet Irak's a mess. And, probably a black mark. Because we're never going to get our money's worth from the $3-trillion already spent. Let alone we now have Maliki's ire. (And, throw into the pot, Musharraf's, as well.)
Bush? Great at digging dry holes. (Back in the 1980's, when his "El-Busto" oil company was in terrible debt ... along came the Saud's. Bailing out the veep's "boy wonder.") Well, they've also bought Jimmuh Carter. As if money buys happiness.
You are a charter ember of 'keepers of odd knowledge', and your writing style is basically unreadable.
Again, the future. Again. As I have said before, the future is indeed too complex to call because it is the future, not the present or the past. Only if you are the man upstairs is the future not complex. But since we aren't, it is.
Judging Presidencies is done in the future too. It is rarely done in the present, and when it is, it is done badly. Remember that. Got it?
Irak. Beautiful Irak. But with wrecked furniture. Not by the owners, but by the guests. But wrecked none the less. Got it.
The Sunnis. Part of the House of Saud. Which owns the House of Bush. Which is why Maliki doesn't like us. Got it.
Ah, the Whigs. I remember them. They thought there should be compromise. But there was no compromise -- hence the Republicans. And when the Republicans finally compromised, we got more slavery. The result says politics is the implementation of compromise. Dirty, nasty, politics. With Clay being the pigeon and throwing the election like a bunch of Black Sox doing the World Series. Got it.
But as Lincoln and his minions were destroyed by the Bonkeys -- a shot to the head if you will, so will be Bush and his House.
No, we won't get our $3 trillion back unless we suck out every last bit of oil the Iraqis have and pay them nothing. And even then it's not enough, because blood is worth more than oil. Every time a Democrat in the big city dies of cold due to no oil, they want to suck the blood of our patriots. And, of course, most important, is to never trust leaders whose names start with "M" -- they each remind us of the other too much in our stream of consciousness. Consciousness. Stream. Oil. Got it.
And the House of Bush may have dug dry holes, but at least two children resulted. And with all that money in Switzerland held for them by the House of Saud, it doesn't matter, does it? Now Bush's greatest diplomacy will occur -- forcing the Swiss to build the fuel for Iran's nukes. And Jimmy? He's a friend of Bush. Got it.
DAMN! For a senior member of the MSM - a female columnist for the NYT, yet! - to write this is little less earth-shaking than it would be if the president of the Southern Baptist Convention to announced that, "If your way is gay, it's OK."
Saint Hillary - OUT
Hillary Nixon - IN
10 inch thick lead box won't hide her nastiness.
Well, between this lunacy and the driver's license debaucle, I want to know just who exactly put out this schpiel about the woman's intellect?
I'm starting to wonder if it really wasn't a exaltation of Hillary's smarts as it was some sort of comparison of Hillary to the paper weight intellect of Sen. Barbara Boxer.
I can't believe that someone in the Clinton campaign hasn't figured out yet that responding to Obama's rantings is about the same as giving in to your sprawled 5 yr old in the candy aisle at Target.
I'm afraid to look out my door, as I know that I shall see dogs and cats sleeping together and four sinister horsemen in the sky. :-p
Thanks for making me clean my laptop screen! LOL!
This whole argument about being with "world leaders" as opposed to living abroad as a kid is too stupid for words. It's just like saying that Sen. McCain's unfortunate but very brave stint as a POW at the Hanoi Hilton can be counted as "foreign policy experience." (Definitely counts as courage under fire and perseverance, though, unlike Hillary's...)
Very few Presidents as past nominees in recent past had any real foreign policy experience, with the one notable exception of Bush Sr.
GWB: Gov. of TX, dealing a little bit with the Mexican government as Gov. That's it.
Bill: Before 92, was mainly... a stint at Oxford and... trips to IHOP, perhaps?
Reagan: Don't tell me that movie star and "spokesman" for GE count: Gov. of CA, maybe. Carter: Gimme a break!
Ford: He was first a Congresscritter before becoming VP, and then... I really don't know: can you correct me on this?
Nixon: What did he do, foreign policy-wise, before becoming President, or maybe while VP? Provoke Nikita, perhaps that's it? Can anyone tell me?
Johnson: Lucky guy, Sen from TX, no FP exp.
Kennedy: Don't ask.
Eisenhower: He was Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces in Europe during WWII. Now, that's Foreign Policy experience!
Sorry, Hillary, but having photo-ops and chat dinners with world leaders don't count. "World leaders" don't elect American Presidents: the American People do.
So Maureen will verbally take a spiked 2-by-4 to the Clinton campaign for the next couple of months, and then turn on a dime and bash Romney, Giuliani, McCain or even Thompson with even more vitriol once she gets the nomination and her Republican opponent becomes known, and no one will find the juxtaposition in the least bit surprising.
perjury (ˈpər-jə-rē, ˈpərj-rē): n the voluntary violation of an oath or vow either by swearing to what is untrue or by omission to do what has been promised under oath : false swearing (1)
But I'm sure that it's OK because (A) it was only about sex and (B) Republicans do it, too!
/sarcasm
By the way, is there some limit on the amount of money that the government can spend when pursuing a crime? I mean, can suspects go into court and demand that investigations be called off if the prosecution / police spend more than "X" dollars? Does the dollar amount vary with the type of charges? Can Scooter Libby get off the hook if he can show that Fitz spent too much money? Or, should I say, "wasted" millions of tax dollars on a "stupid" prosecution?
---------------
(1) http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/perjury
Carol has unique style ....you'll catch to it ....it takes time and some thinking.
thanks Carol
ogopogo
And one question. If she was a "co-president", why doesn't the 2 term limit apply to her now. Seems like she wants to have it both ways.
Many will vote for Mrs. Clinton almost SOLELY because they are convinced that Hillary is-through marriage, everything Bill was.
Some people have greatness thrust upon them.
The closest some people come to greatness is being penetrated by it.
And that would be the case with Hillary, if you consider Bill to be "great," which I don't.
Many will vote for Mrs. Clinton almost SOLELY because they are convinced that Hillary is-through marriage, everything Bill was.
Not like it's gonna win her a lot of love from Her Nixonian-ness. (And I think that's an insightful take on Hillary's character by MoDo -- but even a stopped clock is right twice a day!)