<p>92 was the Clinton race. Read my lips is from the 88 Bush/Dukakis race.</p>
<p>WashDad, I don’t know if Dukakis was dead meat in 88. I didn’t follow politics that closely then.</p>
<p>But I do remember the 4 swiftboating techniques.</p>
<p>Dukakis actually set himself up for the tank and helmet one, as he first used the photo in his ad to demonstrate his patriotism. The Republicans ran his picture with their ads, distorting the original intent. Isn’t that swiftboating?</p>
<p>he looked like a goofball and it summed up the feelings of many that he did not know anything about the military. It hurt him for a reason.</p>
<p>“poetsheart you and drosselmeir see racial overtones in everything people say and write. Chill”</p>
<p>Simba, that’s a damnable lie and well you know it! Accusing me (us—a I suspect Drosselmeirer feels the same way) of being racially paranoid is a totally dishonorable debate tactic, and no more constructive than if I were to accuse you of being a racist!. You’ve been extremely critical of African Americans, and what you see to be our weaknesses and failings on numerous occasions in these forums. But never once have I leveled the charge of racism against you despite the sometimes insulting tenor of those criticisms. So I don’t appreciate your condescending attempt to marginalize my views by dismissing them as racial paranoia.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually, I don’t care. One would have to at least know the difference between “suit” and “suite” to have me care.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In truth, for me it is something like watching a football game between two teams about which I care nothing at all. It is not about the candidates, but about the game and about what sort of tricks each side comes up with to win.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There is no “ridiculousness”. One candidate not only committed a gaffe, but lied as she did it. It has relevance to her integrity, or rather lack of it. The other so-called “gaffe” was at worst the result of antagonism between two opponents. No lie or character flaw that affects me was involved here at all. What is “typical” is how some of us become so attached to our candidates that we refuse to allow ourselves to see them as they are. We overlook their worst flaws, often even turning them into virtues.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And of course there is no issue with this. The issue is with her claim, by implication, of identifying with the “Jews” at a time when she in fact identified with their arch enemy. The claim is, to put it bluntly, a lie. And the reason it is important is that it discloses to us Hillary’s character, how quickly she is willing to play tricks with the truth in order to exploit the ignorant for votes. We saw this also in Florida, where she campaigned to create a trick, despite having promised she wouldn’t.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Nuff said. She gets no credit for being a leader’s cotton-picking wife. Whatever she did (or failed to do), she did by someone else’s effectiveness and strength. We do not know in her case, anymore than we know in Obama’s, how effective she would be as an executive leader on her own. This argument of experience is just dead.</p>
<p>^^^^
Absolutely! She gets no more points for having been the wife of the President than George W. gets for having been the son of the President. Heck, W was once Gov’nah of Texas and look at how well all that “experience” worked out for us…:rolleyes:</p>
<p>“Actually, I don’t care. One would have to at least know the difference between “suit” and “suite” to have me care.”</p>
<p>Ouch! :D</p>
<p>I suspect I could learn a thing or two from you, Drosselmeier. :)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You seem to be missing the point.</p>
<p>The point is not ultimately about whether or not she had accomplishments during her time as first lady (although she had many), or is it about whether or not she was extremely politically active since Bill’s Arkansas governing days (and she was).</p>
<p>The entire POINT about Hillary Clinton’s experience is that <em>she knows how to play the game in Washington in order to get bills passed</em>. She’s been around for a VERY long time, has LOTS of connections and power, and when you add in her terms as a Senator and the numerous things she did as first lady, it tips it over the edge.</p>
<p>Barack Obama DOES NOT HAVE THE EXPERIENCE because he hasn’t been around long enough in order to know how to play the game. WOULD he be able to get what he wants done simply by virtue of being president? Naturally, to much extent. However, he would be a weaker and more ineffective leader than Hillary Clinton. </p>
<p>People fight to get IN TO the establishment in Washington. The whole point OF that is because that’s how you get your voice heard the most, how you get bills passed most effectively. When people are able to make it IN to the Washington establishment, they STAY there. </p>
<p>There’s a big negative underlying statement made by Obama’s “anti-establishment” campaign.</p>
<p>To say that Hillary’s experience of playing the Washington field is just as equal as Obama’s because she wasn’t elected to office all those years would be blatantly, factually wrong. Now, look, maybe above all else, the most important thing for you IS that the candidate is anti-establishment. That’s fine.</p>
<p>But to throw out the experience line as worthless is extremely naive, because you’re missing the whole underlying point ABOUT it. It’s “I know how to play the kind of hard ball in Washington that’s needed to get things done.”</p>
<p>And she does.</p>
<p>You may find a lot of things reprehensible about Hillary Clinton. There are plenty of things to harp on. To honestly say that her time as a public official carries the same weight as Barack Obama’s is naive. It’s not ultimately about what someone’s definition of “experience” and “time in office” is. That’s the surface, and to be honest, most of Obama’s supporters only look at the surface. That’s why they fall for such kool-aid messages like the kind Obama gives, being swayed by a candidate who’s whole campaign revolves around vague rhetoric.</p>
<p>Do you honestly think Obama fell off the turnip truck and then just happened upon a seat in the US Senate? Obama has a history of working across party lines to end grid-lock and get things done, starting first at the state level. Just because his way is not down and dirty Washington politics as usual, does not mean that he lacks “experience” compared to Hillary, or that he is less well equipped. If people were truly so concerned about experience, they’d have backed the likes of Bill Richardson. Heck, Dubya had a lifetime’s worth of inside knowledge of Washington politics from studying his father’s political career. Then he ran one of the largest states in the union before being elected President. And look how well his knowledge and experience has worked out for the nation…:rolleyes:</p>
<p>“It’s not ultimately about what someone’s definition of “experience” and “time in office” is.”</p>
<p>It’s her very experience (voting for war without even bothering - according to what she says herself - to read the intelligence report in her own possession) that should disqualify her.</p>
<p>(From Stephen Zunes):</p>
<p>Senator Clinton’s militaristic stance on Iraq predated her support for Bush’s 2003 invasion. For example, in defending the brutal four-day U.S. bombing campaign against Iraq in December 1998 – known as Operation Desert Fox – she claimed that “[T]he so-called presidential palaces … in reality were huge compounds well suited to hold weapons labs, stocks, and records which Saddam Hussein was required by UN resolution to turn over. When Saddam blocked the inspection process, the inspectors left.” In reality, as became apparent when UN inspectors returned in 2002 as well as in the aftermath of the invasion and occupation, there were no weapons labs, stocks of weapons or missing records in these presidential palaces. In addition, Saddam was still allowing for virtually all inspections to go forward at the time of the 1998 U.S. attacks. The inspectors were withdrawn for their own safety at the encouragement of President Clinton in anticipation of the imminent U.S.-led assault.</p>
<p>Senator Clinton also took credit for strengthening U.S. ties with Ahmad Chalabi, the convicted embezzler who played a major role in convincing key segments of the administration, Congress, the CIA, and the American public that Iraq still had proscribed weapons, weapons systems, and weapons labs. She has expressed pride that her husband’s administration changed underlying U.S. policy toward Iraq from “containment” – which had been quite successful in defending Iraq’s neighbors and protecting its Kurdish minority – to “regime change,” which has resulted in tragic warfare, chaos, dislocation, and instability.</p>
<p>Prior to the 2003 invasion, Clinton insisted that Iraq still had a nuclear program, despite a detailed 1998 report by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), subsequent studies that indicated that Iraq’s nuclear program appeared to have been completely dismantled a full decade earlier, and a 2002 U.S. National Intelligence Estimate that made no mention of any reconstituted nuclear development effort. Similarly, even though Iraq’s chemical and biological weapons programs had been dismantled years earlier, she also insisted that Iraq had rebuilt its biological and chemical weapons stockpiles. And, even though the limited shelf life of such chemical and biological agents and the strict embargo against imports of any additional banned materials that had been in place since 1990 made it physically impossible for Iraq to have reconstituted such weapons, she insisted that “It is clear…that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.”</p>
<p>In the fall of 2002, Senator Clinton sought to discredit those questioning Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Vice-President Dick Cheney, and others who were making hyperbolic statements about Iraq’s supposed military prowess by insisting that Iraq’s possession of such weapons “are not in doubt” and was “undisputed.” Similarly, Clinton insisted that Secretary of State Colin Powell’s February 2005 speech at the UN was “compelling” although UN officials and arms control experts roundly denounced its false claims that Iraq had reconstituted these proscribed weapons, weapons programs, and delivery systems. In addition, although top strategic analysts correctly informed her that there were no links between Saddam Hussein’s secular nationalist regime and the radical Islamist al-Qaeda, Senator Clinton insisted that Saddam “has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members.”</p>
<p>The Lead-Up to War</p>
<p>Though the 2003 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iraq was inaccurate in a number of respects, it did challenge the notion of any operational ties between the Iraqi government and Al-Qaeda and questioned some of the more categorical claims by President Bush about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction (WMD). However, Senator Clinton didn’t even bother to read it. She now claims that it wasn’t necessary for her to have actually read the 92-page document herself because she was briefed on the contents of the report. However, since no one on her staff was authorized to read the report, it’s unclear who could have actually briefed her.</p>
<p>During the floor debate over the resolution authorizing the invasion of Iraq, Clinton was the only Democratic senator to have categorically accepted the Bush administration’s claims regarding Iraq’s alleged chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs, Iraq’s alleged long-range missile capabilities, and alleged ties to al-Qaeda. (Some Democratic senators accepted some of those claims, but not all of them.)</p>
<p>In the months leading up the war, Senator Clinton chose to ignore the pleas of the hundreds of thousands of people demonstrating in her state and across the country against the war and similarly brushed off calls by religious leaders, scholars, community activists, and others to oppose it. Perhaps most significant was her refusal to consider the anti-war appeals by leaders of the Catholic Church and virtually every mainline Protestant denomination, which noted that it did not meet the traditional criteria in the Christian tradition for a just war. Instead, Senator Clinton embraced the arguments of the right-wing fundamentalist leadership who supported the war. This categorical rejection of the perspective of the mainstream Christian community raises concerns about her theological perspectives on issues of war and peace.</p>
<p>In March 2003, well after UN weapons inspectors had been allowed to return and engage in unfettered inspections and were not finding any WMDs, Senator Clinton made clear that the United States should invade that Iraq anyway. Indeed, she asserted that the only way to avoid war would be for Saddam Hussein to abide by President Bush’s ultimatum to resign as president and leave the country, in the apparent belief that the United States had the right to unilaterally make such demands of foreign leaders and to invade and occupy their countries if they refused. Said Senator Clinton, “The president gave Saddam Hussein one last chance to avoid war and the world hopes that Saddam Hussein will finally hear this ultimatum, understand the severity of those words, and act accordingly.”</p>
<p>When President Bush launched the invasion soon thereafter and spontaneous protests broke out across the country, Senator Clinton voted in favor of a Republican-sponsored resolution that “commends and supports the efforts and leadership of the President . . . in the conflict against Iraq.”
Aftermath of invasion</p>
<p>Even after the U.S. forces invaded and occupied Iraq and confirmed that – contrary to Senator Clinton’s initial justification for the war – Iraq did not have WMDs, WMD programs, offensive delivery systems, or ties to al-Qaeda, she defended her vote to authorize the invasion anyway. Speaking at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York that December, she declared, “I was one who supported giving President Bush the authority, if necessary, to use force against Saddam Hussein. I believe that that was the right vote” and was one that “I stand by.”</p>
<p>In the face of growing doubts about American forces involved in a deepening counter-insurgency war, she urged “patience” and expressed her concern about the lack of will “to stay the course” among some Americans. “Failure is not an option” in Iraq, she insisted. “We have no option but to stay involved and committed.” Indeed, long before President Bush announced his “surge,” Senator Clinton called for the United States to send more troops.</p>
<p>During a trip to Iraq in February 2005, she insisted that the U.S. occupation was “functioning quite well,” although the security situation had deteriorated so badly that the four-lane divided highway on flat open terrain connecting the airport with the capital could not be secured at the time of her arrival and a helicopter had to transport her to the Green Zone. Though 55 Iraqis and one American soldier were killed during her brief visit, she insisted – in a manner remarkably similar to Vice President Cheney – that the rise in suicide bombings was evidence that the insurgency was failing.</p>
<p>On NBC’s “Meet the Press” that same month, she argued that it “would be a mistake” to immediately withdraw U.S. troops or even simply set a timetable for withdrawal, claiming that “We don’t want to send a signal to insurgents, to the terrorists, that we are going to be out of here at some, you know, date certain.” Less than two years ago, she declared, “I reject a rigid timetable that the terrorists can exploit.” And, just last year, on an appearance on ABC’s Nightline, she described how “I’ve taken a lot of heat from my friends who have said, ‘Please, just, you know, throw in the towel and say let’s get out by a date certain. I don’t think that’s responsible.” When Representative John Murtha made his first call for the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq in November 2005, she denounced his effort, calling a withdrawal of U.S. forces “a big mistake.” </p>
<p>It’s a true “record of experience”.</p>
<p>Why would she need to read a stinkin’ intelligence report, Mini? All she had to do was refer back to Bill’s rhetoric on Iraq while in office. Plus, for good measure, she probably wetted her finger, and held it up to the political winds (just as Bill taught her), before confirming it was safe to vote the way she did. Too bad she didn’t consult Nancy Reagan’s astrologer, though. Maybe then she’d have gotten a head’s up as to how this decision might come back to bite her in the ass.;)</p>
<p>And then there was the Iran Revolutionary Guard vote:</p>
<p>[NPR:</a> Clinton’s Vote on Iranian Army Unit Draws Fire](<a href=“http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=15198515]NPR:”>Clinton's Vote on Iranian Army Unit Draws Fire : NPR)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That is because there is no point.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And if your evidence for this is not years and years of official experience ‘playing the game’ as an elected official, you are basing this assessment on pure wishful thinking. Since Hillary does not have these many years of experience, I am persuaded you are doing precisely that.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>All as somebody’s wife. She has never had to call the shots all on her own, with no big dog to back her up. Even as a junior senator she has never done this. So all this stuff about her “connections” and “power” strikes me as just faith-building rhetoric for na</p>
<p>If this election ends up being Hillary versus McCain, Hillary is going to come to hate the word “experience” and wish she had never uttered it.</p>
<p>If Obama is an “empty suit” as some of you say, then Hillary is a “soiled dress”. I think most people will vote for Senator Obama if they take the time to check out his policies.</p>
<p>“If this election ends up being Hillary versus McCain, Hillary is going to come to hate the word “experience” and wish she had never uttered it.”</p>
<p>Hey, I think that bears repeating…;)</p>
<p>“In March 2003, well after UN weapons inspectors had been allowed to return and engage in unfettered inspections and were not finding any WMDs, Senator Clinton made clear that the United States should invade that Iraq anyway. Indeed, she asserted that the only way to avoid war would be for Saddam Hussein to abide by President Bush’s ultimatum to resign as president and leave the country, in the apparent belief that the United States had the right to unilaterally make such demands of foreign leaders and to invade and occupy their countries if they refused. Said Senator Clinton, “The president gave Saddam Hussein one last chance to avoid war and the world hopes that Saddam Hussein will finally hear this ultimatum, understand the severity of those words, and act accordingly.””</p>
<p>Wow…just----Wow!</p>
<p>“On NBC’s “Meet the Press” that same month, she argued that it “would be a mistake” to immediately withdraw U.S. troops or even simply set a timetable for withdrawal, claiming that “We don’t want to send a signal to insurgents, to the terrorists, that we are going to be out of here at some, you know, date certain.” Less than two years ago, she declared, “I reject a rigid timetable that the terrorists can exploit.””</p>
<p>I listened to the Republican debate last night, and this has me wondering: Is there any appreciable difference between the Hawk, Hillary Clinton, and the Hawk, John McCain, with the exception that at least McCain can claim political and military “EXPERIENCE” (there’s that word again. Sticky little booger, isn’t it?):D</p>