Political Punch

The 3am Foreign Policy Crisis Call

There was a call to the White House, and perhaps, in the dead of the night, April 1994. And Hillary, I would think from what she now says of her involvement, took the call. There was a nightmarish crisis; children were being dragged from their homes and schools and hacked to death, to be almost one million murders of innocents in 100 days. Hillary discussed the crisis with Bill, as he now admits. They kept the call to themselves and did not allow the utterance of the word "genocide". Was there a twinge of conscience? Hillary had the ear of the media and could have announced to the world community, in her clear voice, that genocide was raging in Rwanda. Does it take a village? It did not at 3am. In effect, she hung up the phone, turned off the light, closed her eyes; and as if having been awakened from a bad dream best forgotten, went back to sleep.

In fact, Ambassador Wilson, was a career diplomat of the kind one well knows. Good (Republican) family, average grade 'c' at University of California, Santa Barbara, majors in history volleyball and windsurfing, not quite bright enough to go into banking, the law, or politics so embarks on a socially acceptable diplomatic career - which is mainly a case of dead men's shoes - plucked from the obscurity of being US Ambassador to Gabon (where ? Sub-Saharan West Africa) by Bill Clinton. Under Bush DCM in Baghdad and thereafter Plamegate. Unsurprisingly now a Clinton supporter (next best thing for a disillusioned Republican) and has written questioning Obama's experience to be C-in-C.
Unsurprisingly, as DCM in Baghdad, Wilson had some responsibility for the faulty intelligence coming out of Iraq, but then, with their diplomats locked in the world of the Embassy compounds, US Missions are generally the last to know about anything affecting their host countries.

The Irish called her claims at peacemaking as "silly". Only her campaign has backed her up on her stories. I most object to the Clinton subtle campaigning for McCain and that Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter are pulling for Hillary. They know she could never win the general election. Bill Richardson is protecting the party and the country with his endorsement of Obama.

Hillary appears to be a pathological liar who has betrayed her own party. Her White records reflect little experience and she is dragging the party down to get her way. A pity it took a woman to divide the Democrats.

It is time for Hillary to drop out of the race. She cannot and will not win. Continuing to stay in the race at this point just damages the chances for a democratic win in November. It was a great race, but it's over. Hillary should save a shred of self respect and drop out now.

If Hillary is counting her time in the White House as experience, then can't Chelsea also claim she has 8 years of experience too?
Plus, Chelsea accompanied Hillary on a lot of the international trips..so perhaps Chelsea can also claim she helped broker peace in Ireland and dodged ficticious bullets in Bosnia!

Why is everyone in shock to finally realize the truth, it's very simple The Clintons are liars and will do or say ANYTHING to get into the white. Even destroy their own party. I only wish that the blacked out pages could come to light. Even with the blacked out pages, she's still being caught in lie after lie. If you truely believe that she has all of this experience then the next time you need surgery, let your surgeon's wife operate on you!

She was First Lady during the Rwandan genocide and she never spoke up. I don't remember her even giving a press conference expressing concern at the catastrophic loss of life. If she was so important to American foreign policy, what was her role in Rwanda? Bill Clinton said he was sorry. She is claiming a significant role in great decisions so what was her role in this one?

Clinton lies coming to roost. It's unbelievable that some of her supporters are actually trying to defend these gratuitous misrepresentations of hers. I repeat that as someone who used to be a devoted supporter of the Clintons, this kind of thing has turned me off completely.

I have to admit I am truly enjoying watching Dems doing it to Dems. The Clintons could do not wrong (and could do any babes he wanted) with Dems blessings, but now that the fight is internal, it is just a beautiful thing to watch.

It is sort of like the case where you see a family with a pedophile in it and the family protects the creep....then he molests one of the family members kids and all hell breaks lose. Operation Chaos!

Yikes, can Hillary please re-read her own biography and/or the 11,000 pages of her First Lady schedules? Better to be accurate and modest than to exaggerate and seem foolish. Does she want to be remembered as the self-hyped candidate, "All words, no action..." hmmm... yikes.

btw - can the media please move to the question of how we are all going to survive economically in the next few years? that's the real question that keeps all of us up at night.

There is no Hillary '08. It is statistically over and I, for one, couldn't be happier about it. She has decided that it will be her or McCain and Bill is right there with her. That displays neither the prudence nor sacrifice of true patriotism. Her outright lies, exaggerations and suggestive hedging (yeah, she wasn't sure Obama was Christian), are unacceptable to most voters. If the Clinton apologists among you would put as much time into researching the FACTS about Obama as you do defending the miscalculated mess that the Clinton campaign has become, you might feel a hell of a lot better on inauguration day.

Since when is being First Lady hard work? She had NO National Security Clearance, was not briefed on Cabinet meeting, and had no significant responsibilities in the administration (except for the health care fiasco... we know how that ended up). Her so called "experience" is a sham. Barack has more years of elected office. I'd say she's the least qualified...

gtt

If you are going to hold her sitting on the Board at WalMart against her, I am sure you know that Obama's wife worked for the largest one of the largest WalMart distributors, Treehouse, right?
As for McCain, he is in the bag with any corporation that will have him.
Hillary always has to take twice the heat and work twice as hard, just look at her utterly exhaustive schedule as First Lady!

Yes, Senator Clinton has experience, but to what end ? And more importantly, with which group? Clinton is not the progress leader that we need. She cut her teeth with the WalMart Bd of Directors and the DLC. She is republican lite, which explains why she was a Goldwater Girl while in college !

This is the meanest blog on the internet and such a pity that is in this very important race to determine who will become the leader of the free world. One thing for sure, this Obama guy is not a patriot, or he would not have been sitting in that church listening to his preacher drum on and on denigrating our country.

Lauren, think about what you're saying, as there's no contradiction to the criticism of Hillary. She walked into the White House with no significant experience at any policy issues other than serving tea in Arkansas, and people rightly said she had no business running key policy intiatives, which she botched. (E.g., national health care.) The new schedules show she was given little substantive responsibility after that, and so she cannot know claim she has enough real experience from those years to trump Obama's many years in Illinois politics and community affairs.

By your logic, if I was criticized for deciding to do brain surgery (i.e., trying to do too much) but later tried to be selected as surgeon general of the United States but was turned down because I didn't have enough experience, people who argued that I shouldn't have the SG job are treating me unfairly. Face it -- she has not worked her way through the trenches and she has not had 3 a.m. crises.

Oh, and for you "Obama has a thin resume" types, compare his resume to Bill Clinton's in 1992. It's better. Go listen to his speech from yesterday, and see who has the force of intellectual will to comprehend real -- not politically manufactured -- issues in this country.

This is classic - what they always do to Hillary.

As I recall quite clearly, when she was in the White House, she was always being accused of doing too much; of being too involved. She was criticized relentlessly for that, and there was pressure on her from outside political forces to do less - to be more of a traditional first lady.

Now that she is running for office, against a candidate who has had only 3 years national experience - all her years of national experience is being nit-picked and scrutinized, and she is being accused of not doing enough.

Hillary is always put between a rock and a hard place.

That is why I am so proud of her.

And CBS's "For the Record," did prove that Hillary has indeed had 35 years experience for all of you hard heads who don't want to learn the truth.

I actually find a lot of the Obama camps criticism absurd - they frame their arguments against Hillary as though nothing short of her having already been President, or a prominent policy maker in all her foreign and national experience would qualify her to be commander in chief.

When Barack has had none of this experience. It's absurd of them truly to question hers, when she actually has some, and their candidate has none.

The bottomline: She has had much more national and international policy discussions, exposure, and experience than Barack.

Sorry if you don't want to face reality.

James Andre:

She never said it wasn't o.k to check her experience. She has a problem with the constant "nickpicking". As the P.M. hisself said about the part she played in Northern Ireland. He said that he spoke with obama and obama has stated understanding as to her experience. Mr. Ahern also said that HE doesn't understand our need to "nitpick" her experience. In other words unlike the 1990's we are looking foolish again to other countries and Heads of State. Non of which obama has EVER met. Not any.. not Canada not Mexico..NOONE ANY WHERE!!!
Hillary '08

Thunder

Again another misstatement. She authorized the ability to go to war. But she gave a speech on the floor of the Senate that day (much like State Senator Obama not U.S. Senator obama ..who had no authority to vote that day..gave just a speech)and said that it was to be used as a last resort. She has since said, as have many Senators, a few that back obama that the intelligence that SEATED U.S SENATORS received was flawed and that she would take that vote back now. Also if she knew then what she and all America now knows she would have never given him the authority to go. As a last resort or otherwise!!
obama hisself has said that he was aligned with bush on his handling of the war in 2004, and that he wasn't sure how he would have voted had he had the secret intelligence and authority to vote at that time!!!
Words...just words!!!
Hillary '08

BKMC
Susan Rice is the one that went to Africa on the trip the First Lady went on and is "counting" as experience. She accidentaly said it was Wilson that went with her.

By the way, Rice was saying that Senator Clinton has no experience. Yet had to admit it was her that went on that trip with the great Senator from N.Y. and First Lady of these great United States of America!! I think this great American has always been proud of her country as a youngster and as an adult..let me think...Yeah Yeah she has been!!
That was obamas wife that hasn't been proud of her Harvard and Princeton (or Columbia) experience as an American. Yeah let me think ...Yeah it was her ..not proud just well educated..earning 300k from her not for profit job!!!
I cant remember was it Michelle obama that said that "Hillary can't control her own house, how does she think she can control her The White House"? I think that is sexist.. let me think.. Yeah Yeah that is very sexist!!
Never mind her husband of change can't control the racism and hate for America in his little bitty church house...how is he going to control the White House??
Just a thought!!

Her experience was tested when she voted for the war in Iraq...A war that's still going on.
Hillary voted to please her NY backers and the AIPACs, but the price was paid by the whole country.
Now she is trying to claim that she did not know then in year 2002 what she was doing when she voted 'yes' to send the nation to war. A heck of experience ..!!
Fool me once .....

james: from RTE TV, 3.18.08 --

"Anchor: The Taoiseach has said it would be very unfair for anyone to deny Hilary Clinton credit for her role in the peace process. Speaking in Washington Mr. Ahern said she had played an important role in the process along with her husband.

Reporter: A busy round of official engagements in Washington today finished at Congress with a lunch hosted by the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi. The three candidates for the presidency weren’t there, but Mr. Ahern did meet Hillary Clinton and speak on the phone to Barack Obama this morning. The Obama campaign has been questioning Senator Clinton’s involvement in the peace process but Mr. Ahern said she had played a significant and important role.

Ahern: “I have to say in my conversation this morning that was totally acknowledged by Senator Obama. So I’m not getting into the politics of this but I think for anyone to try to question the Clinton’s huge support and start trying to nit-pick.” [RTE TV, 3/18/08]

"The Irish PM recently backed her up."

Backed up what: her involvement in the Irish Peace Process was marginal at best? where did you read this?

thanks,
james

Liars are always liars...it is like sickens...it is a character that will never go away. Hillary has lied about her experience and her resume is skewed. You all will see many more lies coming out soon.

This confusion is understandable. HRC thought Joe Wilson was the CIA undercover agent posing as Rice. If we were "in the know" like HRC, we'd have understood this. She's so smart.

Oh...shocking!! Please we all know these Clinton's are liars. They think they can get away with anything. Well, not this time. I am sure more lies will come out...

Hillary lying? How shocking! You mean a Clinton stretching the truth to fit their own political ends? Why am I not surprised. Hillary's entire life experience is a lie and her resume a FRAUD.

At the tea parties, they were more focused on how gosh awful she dressed that what she had to say.

"You know..." "sort of..." "is"

Hillary is nothing more than a bundle of money and cliches.

What is really shameful is that this is only the first time that anyone bothered to fact-check Hillary's rhetoric. She talks about her 35 years of experience with impunity yet there is no credible evidence that she has infact served the antion in elective office for that long.

This "35 years of experience" is such a crock its ridiculous.

Hillary's problem is that she always smirks when she's running a bluff (lying) ... not a clever tactic in a high stakes poker game. Seems like she is always smirking.

Hillary is blind to the obvious precaution that no one should make up stories that can be blown away by witnesses. Sinbad did a job on her "life-threatening" foreign policy achievements with him present on USO tours. She proclaims that she was the envoy that brought peace to Northern Ireland and that lie was exposed by the former Irish Prime Minister who said she only attended a couple of tea socials with prominent women.

The "experience" that make her fit to be president on day one is a total, laughable FARCE! It's like the wife of an NFL quarterback saying she is ready to take over his job at any given time. Oh well, she has achieved status as the master of the Clinton philosophy ... "when in doubt lie!" but here is a news flash for Hillary: IF YOU GET CAUGHT LYING ON YOUR RESUME', YOU DON'T GET THE JOB!

Clinton says Obama is running on words, she is running on experience.

So it's OK to critique his words, but not OK to critique her experience?

Do I have this correct?

Hmmm.

Senator Obama forgets to wear a green tie on St. Patrick's day.

Senator Clinton forgets who she was with while 'paving the way' for a historic visit.

Let's weigh this....

Why is it that critics of Clinton attack Clinton, but critics of Barack attack Barack supporters for criticizing Clinton? Do they really think murdering the messenger of criticism will win an election? Isn't this the exact kind of character assassination that the Bushies have been engaging in for over 7 years? It seems to go like this: person B: "I don't trust Hillary because one moment she says she's proud to stand next to Obama and then the next day she displays calculated fake outrage toward him." Then person C responds: "Because you criticized her, I'm gonna vote McCain's 100 year war in Iraq." The mentality seems to be something like, "you noticed I need to practice my jump shot, so I'm gonna shoot the family dog."

win333, the Obama supporters have to resort to this because they have a paper candidate. He can't stand on his accomplishments. Part of that is his youth, and not his fault, the other part is he votes for the corporations every time.

factsyoucantrust, you know if Obama wins the nominee I'd vote for Nader, unless McCain had Clinton as the VP. I wouldn't be so smug. I can't beleive there could be a senerio that I'd vote for McCain, but there it is.

I see the Obama supporters whose anti-women hate have turned me off to the point that I'd vote for Nader over him are back smearing Hillary Clinton. Do you really think you can turn off so many women by the way you're acting and we're just going to vote for you? I don't vote for people who hate my gender. If I did, I'd vote Republican.

If you want to talk about experience somebody should check out the Canadian television interview Rice gave around the time they were telling lies about the NAFTA memo, when she was so aggressive and culturally insensitive about Canada sending more troops to Afghanistan that the reporter looked shocked beyond belief. You want us to throw away the wonderful national resource we have in the Clintons, in these dangerous times, for an untried rookie who's proven to me, and many others who are paying attention, by the nasty way he's run this campaign, that he can't claim the higher ground either. Forget it. Funny campaign that irrevocably alienates a huge proportion of their potential votes.

Has Susan Rice considered how Barack Obama has had no real foreign policy experience?

Please wake up - everyone who is for Barack, there is no way he could win against the Republicans with all the ammo they now have against him.

If Barack is our nominee, we will lose to McCain.

He has made many mistakes. He has shown very poor judgement. The Republicans will not let him put any of this behind him.

They will portray him as an "inexperienced anti-war liberal," his dealings with Rezko after he knew Rezko was being investigated for Fraud, extortion, money laundering, etc., his long and deep associations with the pastor - these things will play more and more poorly with swing voters and independents as the Republicans showcase them.

Nothing will rally the Republican base more, and polarize the country more - than Barack being the Democratic Presidential nominee.

Yes, it's true - they now like Hillary much more compared to him. He is much scarier to them.

And the majority will not want to elect such an untested candidate who has shown such questionable judgement during such a time of crisis.

Contrary to all the immensely unfair and inaccurate spin proponed by her opponents, Hillary Clinton is a very good woman. She was voted the Senate's brainiest candiate. She has done so much work that she never gets enough credit for; she is our most qualified candidate. And because she has learned and will be smarter on defense, and is also very smart on the economy - she is in the best position to beat John McCain.

Many people who don't know her get her wrong, but the people who know her know her heart is in the right place, she is very knowledgeable and capable, and she is a moderate centrist.

Goodnight ~

Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that it has obtained the official pardon application submitted to the Clinton White House by attorney Jack Quinn December 11, 2000, on behalf of former fugitive Marc Rich, who fled the United States in 1983 to avoid prosecution on racketeering, wire fraud and tax evasion charges. The fugitive Rich was one of about 140 criminals who received pardons from Bill Clinton in the last hours of his administration on January 20, 2001. The pardon application was made available in response to a Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request made on August 8, 2006.

The Rich pardon was particularly scandalous because of large contributions made by Denise Rich, Marc Rich’s ex-wife, to Hillary Clinton’s Senate campaign and to the Clinton Presidential Library foundation in the months leading up to the Rich pardon. The Rich pardon application includes a letter excerpt from Denise Rich: “My husband and I could not return to the United States because… no one would listen -- all the prosecutors appeared to think about was the prospect of imprisoning Marc for the rest of his life. With a life sentence at stake, and press and media fueled by the US. Attorney, we felt he had no choice but to remain out of the country,” Denise Rich wrote. The National Archives, under the direction of Bill Clinton, continues to withhold from public disclosure hundreds of pages regarding the pardons.

“Denise Rich personally appealed to the Clinton administration to pardon her ex-husband while she was dumping large amounts of cash into the Clintons’ coffers,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “If that’s not a quid pro quo, I don’t know what is.”

Key members of Bill Clinton’s own staff were opposed to the Rich pardon. Three White House officials, White House Chief of Staff John Podesta, White House counsel Beth Nolan and deputy counsel Bruce Lindsey all testified to Congress that they recommended against granting a pardon to Rich. Just one month after he received the pardon, Rich reportedly served as a middle man for several of Iraq’s suspect oil deals in the infamous UN Oil-for-Food scandal, which allowed Saddam Hussein’s Iraqi regime to pocket billions of dollars intended for humanitarian aid to the Iraqi people. (R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr., in his recent book The Clinton Crack-Up, reports that Bill Clinton met with Rich in Geneva since leaving the White House.)

In other news related to Judicial Watch’s investigation of Clinton Presidential Library records, Judicial Watch expects to receive 10,000 pages of former First Lady Hillary Clinton’s daily schedule records by March 20, 2008, the date of a status hearing in Judicial Watch’s lawsuit in the matter [Judicial Watch, Inc. v U.S. National Archives and Records Administration, Civil Action No: 1:07-cv-01267 (JR)].

For more information on Judicial Watch’s campaign to force the release of Hillary Clinton’s White House records,

Clinton is the Huckabee of the Demcratic nomination. MSM plays along as she pretends to be relevant. Someone needs to point out her ship has sailed and she CANNOT win.

Really sad to watch as a slow motion train wreck.

This falsehood is only one in a ltitany of misrepresentations but the Clintonistas do not bat an eye when winning is all that matters. Facts be damned.

I am so excited about John McCain or Hillary CLinton taking this country back!! I mean, look at where we are today. It is truly a good place, after Bill Clinton we had the technology boom and bust, we did not take our opportunity to get Bin Laden, and according to the Clintons and McCain Nafta was good for the country. Both Clinton and McCain voted for this war, and my goodness that was a fantastic decision. I can sleep well at night, knowing not a darn thing is going to change. 8 years from now, no complaining now...ya hear?

Unbelievable. What a Day! We have three leading candidates for President. And in the span of one day:

1. Hillary Clinton had memories of events that didn't happen.

2. John McCain is confused about who is getting training from Iran and needed Joe Lieberman to help get his facts straight.

3. Barack Obama spoke truth to the American people in an exquisite speech that brought tears to my eyes.

Watching the clips of all three on the news today, only one of them looked like a President to me!

Gee, once again Hillary is, let's say, prevaricating about what she actually did? Oh that's right, today's a day ending in "y," of course that's the case.

Hillary is a smart woman who as done some things in her life that are admirable. Problem is that she keeps trying to conflate them more then they are. If she stuck to what she actually did and to things that had impact, or away from what Bill did, like in her 7 years in public office, than that's meaningful. That or we have to take every failure like health care which she did spearhead and fail at, or Rwanda, or the Telecom act of 1999 or NAFTA, under Bill and assign it all to her, as well. I'm sure she doesn't want that, either.

Hillary's tea party to 80 countries trumps Obama's one fashion appearance in Africa...

Hey, anyone know whatever happened to that Hillary speech about Iraq? She did already address it, right? Strange, I only found some press snippets about an Obama speech he gave today.

TIME magazine:
"One of the most remarkable speeches by a major public figure in decades."

THE ATLANTIC:
"It is a speech we have all been waiting for for a generation. Its ability to embrace both the legitimate fears and resentments of whites and the understandable anger and dashed hopes of many blacks was, in my view, unique in recent American history."

SLATE:
"The speech was deeply personal. Barack Obama is America. He contains multitudes. (...) It touched on a highly sensitive subject with art and skill and called listeners to the same kind of collective action that Obama has successfully sold all throughout the campaign. Even if you didn't buy everything he said, you might be impressed with a person who can take on such a subject so quickly with such scope."

THE NEW REPUBLIC:
" I have never heard a political speech quite like this one. But, then, it really wasn't a political speech per se. A political speech would have been shorter, more simplistic, and more tightly focused. It would have hit all the right political notes, with maybe a dash of iconoclasm thrown in just so the pundits could marvel over his ability to stand on principle.

No, this speech was something else entirely--long and winding and intellectually honest; imprudent and, in many ways, impolitic. It was far from flawless rhetorically. Parts of it might best be described as tortured, the work of somebody struggling to convey complicated and deeply held beliefs in a context famously hostile to both ambiguity and honesty.

THE CORNER:
"Has any other major American politician ever made a speech on race that comes even close to this one? As far as I'm concerned, it is just plain flat out brilliant--rhetorically, but also in capturing a lot of nuance about race in America."

Tapper, where are your reporter credentials? Now the readers have to do their own research to set the record straight. You should take a long, long leave of absence -- maybe another career when there is still time.

Also, why don't you go the Hillary's website and read the articles that support her claims --- no they are not fabricated, they are from reliable news (not ABC) sources.

BKMC

Irony about DCV, man. We are all familiar with her.

Tomorrow releases are being made as a result of a law suit--not because Clinton is being magnanimous. And it comes with stipulations:

The documents to be released include schedules for 2,888 days and are the files from Patti Solis Doyle, who was the former first lady's scheduling director. 4,746 pages of documents have parts blacked out....Schedules for 32 days were not included.

The daily schedules are the focus of a lawsuit by Judicial Watch. They are asking for more but so far have not been successful.

On the other hand, the presidential archives has asked a judge to dismiss the lawsuit over task force records or delay the documents' release for at least a year. The archives has asked a federal judge to delay the release of her telephone logs for one to two years.

So much for Clinton transparency. As clear as glass (thought the blacked out portions) when the court mandate.

DCV said "Susan Rice IMHO is not an unbiased source of confirmation"

This is rich, considering the source, the notorious DCV.... lol...lol...etc.

DCVoter, refusing to talk to your enemy has sustained Castro in power for close to 50 years. The reality is simply that Clintons has captured at 2:00 am and sent back Elian Gonzalez to Castro. Let us remember that the little boy 's mother died to help him to live the American dream. REMEMBER. OBAM08.

lol Jay,

Obama after speaking in Wyoming stopped before getting into his SUV and said "It sure is nice to be here in Wisconsin (pause) and Wyoming." (short term memory confusion) perhaps stress and exhaustion has a toll on younger people too?

McCain has made his share including the major one today in Jordan. LOL

Jay, good to see you back, but your Hillary is maybe not a monster, but not a human too. Help us to know who she is?????????

Oh I can just see the press corps, RNC, and the Obama camp salivating now. 11K pages on her schedules they have been whining for. Cant you just imaging the fine tooth combs that will be applied?

Susan Rice IMHO is not an unbiased source of confirmation since she works for Obama (wants a job in the admin), wants to talk to Hamas (we dont negotiate with terrorists), and used to work for Clinton (sour grapes). So anything she says I take with a grain of salt.

Cut her some slack? She has a full staff of folks who are supposed to keep her accurate.

Once she makes these claims and there is pushback from folks who dispute her, and there is substance to those repudiations, then the lady needs to step up and clarify. Instead, she claims people are nitpicking.

Demanding the truth and demanding accuracy when she is campaigning on this experience is critical.

Not only that, but to accept your position to give her a break is to say that she misspoke on Ireland, Kosova, the Balkans, and a host of other issues. You can argue on dates as in this case, but today is simply another example of her on-going effort to claim more much experience (and more credit) than do.

Tumblina, do not worry about the Hillary lovers, they are like their leader, saying anything to win, lie is not a news in that side.

She has been to over 80 countries and has 35 years of public service experience. I am a heck of a lot younger than Hillary and I can't remember what I did last week..lol
Cut her some slack, everyone makes mistakes, she is only human, not a monster as some here claim.

just more of her so-called white house experience. yawn

Win322,

I don't seem to remember your caution when Obama was being ravaged. Should we simply cease to stop pursuing the truth when Hillary is involved?

Fact is, as someone else has pointed out, if she is lying, and indeed it does appear she is, then do you really think the Republicans would give her a pass when she pulls one of these examples out of her huge pouch or past experiences? They are going to rip her to shreds--and they should. Because this sort of Hillar tactics (I can say anything I want and if it isn't true I'll simply claim the media doesn't like me) is BAD for the party.

And if you want to stop the fighting, then get to the Hillary campaign and tell them to start being truthful.

MattOhio,

I read your link to Joe Wilson's article. In order to prove Hillary Clinton did not lie about her trip to Africa you ask us to ignore what she actually said:

"Today Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, at an event with former Ambassador Joe Wilson, said, "I'm delighted to be here with Ambassador Wilson. He and I did travel together to Africa and, sort of, paved the way for the president's trip the following year, which was historic."

"That Africa trip was in March 1997."

Joe Wilson's article does not support her or your claim that the year before" Bill Clinton's trip, ie in 1996, Wilson and Hillary Clinton "traveled together to pave the way for the president's trip".

So your use of Wilson's article to bolster your claims against Tapper, is like many of the "supported facts" trotted out by Clinton supporters - lies upon lies. Sad, really.

Guys and gals, please stop this nonsense. This is not good for your party. I suggest you allow the candidates to focus on more pertinent issues. How can they convey their message more effectively when you continue to bicker about issues that are not contributing to the economy, ending the war and bringing our troops home, improving America's image globally, reducing poverty in the in America and puting American's back to work? You're all behaving like children.

You mean someone has finally called Hillary on some of her exaggerated claims? You have to be kidding. I have been waiting forever for the truth squad to finally do the work that should have been done long ago.

Fact: Hillary's vast experience resides mostly in her speech writer's imagination. She did what any other First Lady has done in the past, but with the usual flair for drama and communcation that are unique to the Clintons.

So, subtract out all his misleading statements and all her non-existence experiences, and you have a resume that lacks substance.

The lady's past has as many shadows as her husbands, and I am simply not going to vote for someone like this woman who has deliberately mislead the electorate for political gains.

And, no, Hillary supporters, this isn't nitpicking. This is character examination--and Hillary fails the test.

Gosh, the Hillary supporters can dish it out when they try to smear Obama but certainly cannot take it when their candidate is uncovered as a liar.

This IS a big deal: if the lady lies during her campaign to enhance her credentials, then what else is she lying about? And if she lies so easily now, how can we ever trust her as the executive of this country?

This is a question of ethics and integrity. She fails. Deal with it.

Jake,

How come you become a flip floper now?
Who is your teacher?

As far Foreign Policy experience goes...

Remember Ol'Hillary did not have a security clearance. So when the important stuff was discussed in the 90s she has to leave the room.

I'm convinced that Hillary was a world traveler. Perhaps that would explain her involvement in Travelgate.

Hillary is a big fat liar. Dig up everything, the little, the large the colossal, dig it all up!

This is why people in this country hate the press. This constant nitpicking gets old with the American people. There are a lot of serious issues to examine Hillary Clinton's record on and this isn't one of them. Not even close.

BKMC: "For the first time a black man is on his way to become the nominee of the great democratic party, every thing is done to slow it,..."

What?? Have you really been paying attention?

cappamore if my memory is good Susane Rice is a black lady and Obama is a black man. Rethink the content of your email. For the first time a black man is on his way to become the nominee of the great democratic party, every thing is done to slow it, because it is unstopable until the White House. OBAM08.

Those work for corporations may have encountered this unfairness, the more work you do, the easier you will make mistakes, the more criticism you will get; the less work you do, the less criticism you will get; the ZERO work you do, ZERO criticism you will get.

Obama did ZERO work on foreign policy, you think he should get ZERO criticism?

If you think this way, you will be punished. Your diligence in the work will be punished. People will criticize you why you did this wrong, why you did that wrong; people will not appreciate you, wow, you did so much work.

Hillary's foreign policy experience as first lady was a big tea party experience. PERIOD

It's interesting. No matter what, Obama's foreign policy experience is ZERO, PERIOD.

Hillary is better, much much better than Obama.

Why some people dig out Hillary's foreign policy memory? Why not dig out Obama's foreign policy memory? Because Obama has NOTHING to dig out.

Obama, NO WAY!

It's ridiculous how those who try to dismiss Hillary's experience get a lot of press and airtime. Countdown tried to do it about S-Chip on Friday, without having al the facts. The media seem to be working overtime trying to drum this stuff up. The people in the know who have supported Hillary's experience and record are not given much exposure. I heard PJ Collins on Air America yesterday sounding quite disappointed when he didn't get the answer he wanted from his expert guest. Collins was strongly suggesting that Hillary was exaggerating her Children's health care credentials -- the guy (a person who is a subject matter expert) disputed that and supported her claims. That's just one example.

When it comes to Obama, the media couldn't care less that a lot of Obama supporters think he actually had a vote in 2002 about Iraq or that it was in some way courageous. Take a closer look at what he was up to in the Illinois State Senate -- all those bills. He was being propped up by a political king-maker who made sure he got credit for bills where he had only minimal involvement.

At the very least, try to be fair and accurate about Hillary's experience.