Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Hillary Clinton Factcheck.org’d
Posted by: Jon Henke on Thursday, March 13, 2008

Hillary Clinton doesn't come out of Factcheck.org looking very good...
[T]he public record of her actions shows that many of Clinton's foreign policy claims are exaggerated.
  • Clinton claims to have "negotiated open borders" in Macedonia to fleeing Kosovar refugees. But the Macedonian border opened a full day before she arrived, and her meetings with Macedonian officials were too brief to allow for much serious negotiating.

  • Clinton's activities "helped bring peace to Northern Ireland." Irish officials are divided as to how helpful Clinton's actions were, and key players agree that she was not directly involved in any actual negotiations.

  • Clinton has repeatedly referenced her "dangerous" trip to Bosnia. She fails to mention, however, that the Bosnian war had officially ended three months before her visit – or that she made the trip with her 16-year-old daughter and two entertainers.

  • Both Bill and Hillary Clinton claim that Hillary privately championed the use of U.S. troops to stop the genocide in Rwanda. That conversation left no public record, however, as U.S. policy was explicitly to stay out of Rwanda, and officials say that the use of U.S. troops was never considered.

  • Clinton's tough speech on human rights delivered to a Beijing audience is as advertised, though Clinton herself has been dismissive of speeches that aren't backed by solutions.
Two points come to mind:
  1. If you're going to claim your opponent has insufficient foreign policy experience while you have significant foreign policy experience, you should be able to back it up with evidence that is not verifiably false or laugh out loud absurd.

  2. Soon, some enterprising wit is going to produce a photographic report of all the Foreign Policy Achievements Hillary Clinton has had. That essay will consist of pictures of major foreign policy events of the 20th Century...with Hillary Clinton photoshopped into the scene. Which pretty much appears to be her campaign strategy. It should be equally funny.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
"It is not truth that matters, but victory.

"Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it.

"The art of leadership... consists in consolidating the attention of the people against a single adversary and taking care that nothing will split up that attention.

"The great mass of people will more easily fall victim to a big lie than to a small one.

"The victor will never be asked if he told the truth.

"Universal education is the most corroding and disintegrating poison that liberalism has ever invented for its own destruction."

Guess which successful politician is quoted here.

 
Written By: Arch
URL: http://
Soon, some enterprising wit is going to produce a photographic report of all the Foreign Policy Achievements Hillary Clinton has had. That essay will consist of pictures of major foreign policy events of the 20th Century...with Hillary Clinton photoshopped into the scene.
Entitled "Hillary Gump" no doubt.
 
Written By: Billy Hollis
URL: http://
If you’re going to claim your opponent has insufficient foreign policy experience while you have significant foreign policy experience, you should be able to back it up with evidence that is not verifiably false or laugh out loud absurd.
It’s 3 AM, Hillary can’t answer the phone, she is busy doing commercials for John McCain.

What kind of idiot would want to do anything that would cause people to say the words foreign and policy together while looking at these two candidates?

They both have their positive points, but F*****n P*****y is only something they will have experience at AFTER getting the job.
 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
Hillary’s not only conning the public, but the experience issue is a loser.

Consider:
Jimmy Carter: Navy, peanut farmer, governor of an unimportant state
Ronald Reagan: Movie star, governor of an important state, but not a very active governor.
George H.W. Bush: Experience galore! Makes it because he was Reagan’s VP, but loses to...
Bill Clinton: mid-40s, very little experience, just Arkansas governor...then
George W. Bush: Governor of Texas, which is a position with less governing power than most governorships.

Lesson: People prefer outsiders to those of experience, people don’t trust those who want power too much. Given the way lack of experience "wins," Obama doesn’t have to worry too much. In 2004 given the climate post-9-11 it might have, but the 9-11 mentality has dissipated.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
".with Hillary Clinton photoshopped into the scene."

Zelig.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
Lesson: People prefer outsiders to those of experience,
You could more readily infer from that data that people prefer governors, since they have executive experience, and will oust incumbents when the economy is sour.


Reagan was hardly an outsider. He’d been active in politics before he was governor of California (odd that you say he wasn’t active as governor, the people there at the time think he did a lot for the state). He’d tried to unseat Gerald Ford in 1976, and remained close to the party leaders throughout Carter’s term.

 
Written By: Steverino
URL: http://
Prof. Erb — That is an odd reading of the data.

Bill Clinton governed Arkansas for 12 years. Saying that it was Arkansas doesn’t mean that it wasn’t experience. Likewise, Carter’s governorship of "an unimportant state" — it’s still executive experience, plus Carter wasn’t just in the navy, he was a protege of Admiral Rickover, and he developed his peanut farm into a prosperous business.

I think Obama is quite vulnerable at the experience level. He hasn’t finished even one term as senator—that doesn’t seem like a high bar. He has no executive experience, no business experience, no military experience, no particular expertise aside from the law and campaigning, and no notable accomplishments aside from his two books.

Most serious presidential candidates have solid experience in congress or governorship and often a variety of experiences in business or the military as well as being in the national eye.

As I make it, Obama is the least qualified serious candidate since Warren Harding.
 
Written By: huxley
URL: http://
Reagan was hardly an outsider.
You must have been asleep during the campaign. Reagan ran as an outsider, as someone not part of the political system. He’d been governor, but was not an insider politician.

I just don’t think Obama will be hurt by the experience issue if he runs, I think ultimately the American people prefer people who aren’t tainted by the system. That doesn’t mean he’ll win — he will be hurt by the fact he’s black, has a funny name, and a very liberal voting record. But Americans like outsiders, they tend to de-value experience. Again: Carter, Reagan, Clinton and the current Bush. All ran as outsiders, all had limited experience, yet all won. Clinton even beat Bush, who was not only extremely experienced, but had won and war and oversaw the fall of the Soviet empire.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
"Reagan ran as an outsider, as someone not part of the political system. He’d been governor, but was not an insider politician."
That says nothing about his experience, Erb, which was your original rag. Stop changing the subject.
 
Written By: Billy Beck
URL: http://www.two—four.net/weblog.php
You must have been asleep during the campaign. Reagan ran as an outsider, as someone not part of the political system. He’d been governor, but was not an insider politician.
Hardly. After Ford’s defeat, Reagan was considered the most probable nominee for the next election. He was about as much an outsider as you are an honest debater.

You keep spouting off about the public discounting experience, but you overlook the fact that the non-incumbent winners of the past 11 elections were either governors or VPs. And incumbents were beaten only when the economy was bad. It’s amazing how blind you can be to those facts.
 
Written By: Steverino
URL: http://
Billy, Reagan lacked experience. As governor of California he was not very active, and he had virtually no foreign policy experience. George W. Bush was probably the least experienced we’ve elected, and Clinton as Arkansas governor lacked even the national experience Obama has. Americans generally don’t see experience as a major voting issue. That’s why Carter beat Ford, Reagan beat Carter, Clinton beat Bush, and Bush beat Gore. The only time the real experienced one won was in 1988, and that was primarily because Dukakis ran a really bad campaign, and Lee Atwater engineered a nasty campaign (which now is how almost all campaigns operation.

Steverino, if you’re trying to relate incumbency to being just about experience, I laugh in your face.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Prof. Erb — I think one could make the case that standards for experience have slipped in recent decades, but JFK was a war hero with fourteen years in the House and Senate, LBJ over twenty years in the House and Senate, Nixon six years in the House and Senate plus eight as VP.

For the record Carter only served one term as governor, while George Bush was re-elected to a second term.

Meanwhile Obama has not finished a single term at the federal level, has little other relevant experience, and in terms of national experience, as far as I know, he gave only one speech.

If Obama wins, I can’t think of any president since the Founding Fathers who had less experience. Any suggestions?
 
Written By: huxley
URL: http://
As to Lincoln — although he had only two years in Congress, he was active in politics for over twenty years, was one of the top lawyers in Illinois, a prominent voice against slavery, was well-known at the national level by the time he ran, and he founded the Republican party—the last time that trick worked.

Eishenhower, of course, had no experience in the federal government aside from being the career officer who commanded the allied armies to win WWII.

If Obama won, would he be the least qualified, in terms of experience, president in history?

It’s an interesting question.
 
Written By: huxley
URL: http://
Huxley, first you aren’t denying my point: experience is not usually a big factor in election campaigns. People tend to want the person they feel comfortable with and like, they usually prefer an outsider. As for inexperience, that doesn’t mean unqualified. In fact, while I probably won’t vote for Obama (I have only voted for mainstream candidates twice since 1980, my first election) I tend to think we’d be better off having someone who doesn’t have Washington experience.

On the other hand, I recall what a history prof told me back in college when talking about monarchs. He said the leader is less important than the advisors around him. All you need is someone disciplined with good judgment, and if they have good advisors, that matters most. I give Obama credit for having a solid set of advisors. McCain may be too much a maverick to listen to his advisors, and that could make him an inferior performer compared to Obama.

Of course, if either of them get elected, they’ll show us what they can do. Oh, the funny thing about the current President — the governor of Texas is an almost symbolic position, with much less real power than most governors. But he did run a baseball team and work on his dad’s campaigns.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
" He said the leader is less important than the advisors around him. All you need is someone disciplined with good judgment"

And someone with good judgement would recognize that as, at best, a gross overgeneralization.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
And someone with good judgement would recognize that as, at best, a gross overgeneralization.
Blog commentary is almost always filled with overgeneralizations, including this post.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider