Clinton Aide Defends Her Comment on Pakistan

Wayne, exactly. That Clinton arrogance combined with their disingenuity has lost my support permanently a long time ago. Biden is far more genuine in character and experience. My support is locked into Biden.

Rick “we’ll take the country forward without you” Roberts, where do you think she is going to take the country exactly? Her chief strategist, Mark Penn, is a union buster. She has more corporate lobbyists in tow than ANY other candidate, Democrat or Republican. She’s corporate bought, and if she wins the election she’ll be corporate paid for.
Hey, even Rupert Murdoch supports her. Mostly because her husband Bill (who like Hillary has pulled the wool over a lot of Democrat eyes) gave him the telecom deregulation he couldn’t get passed under Bush I.
Clinton supporters, please wake up and look at her record, forget your fuzzy dreams of how much “better” things were when Bill was president. For that matter, look at Bill’s record while you’re at it.
Edwards/Dodd ’08

In a world where experience and expertise mattered, Joe Biden would be leading this Democratic pack, along with Dodd and Kucinich. Only in the Toon Town of American politics would the third-LEAST experienced candidate be out there touting her “experience” as the reason to vote for her.
Truth is, the MSM just isn’t interested AT ALL in anybody but the Obama-Hillary matchup. That’s where the drama is, and the ethnic angle, and the gender angle–and the ensuing drama in the general election with whatever older white guy is nominated by the Republicans. It’s absolutely astounding that Edwards has managed to hang around the lead while having his oxygen cut to about 10%.
I mean, come on: If the nomination were really about experience, we’d be talking about Biden, Dodd, and also Kucinich and Richardson. If it were specifically about foreign policy cred, nobody could touch Biden. If it were about “change,” you really think we’d be talking about Obama over Kucinich? Who’s proposing the most radical changes? If it were “change,” Kucinich and Edwards would be leading.
All of which tells you that this “experience versus change” thing is just so much horsesh$%. It’s simple: The media are obsessed with Obama-Hillary, and that’s what we’re getting. Like Ike Turner said (allegedly), “B$%ch, eat the cake!”

oh my god, Hillary left the light on in the room. She is to blame for the energy crises and obviously doesn’t know anything about renewable energy. She will need on-the-job training and if elected President will be terrible.
I wish all of you had this much scrutiny in your daily lives. Where Clinton’s been able to withstand this and thrive, you all would be misanthropic nutcases by now.

“And I don’t think anybody questions that Sen. Clinton has a vast and deep knowledge about foreign policy.”
uhhh yea we do!
GO JOE!!!!

Edmonsky
Hilary learned foreign policy through osmosis of pillow-talk for being married to a President, seems logical.

Hilliary’s People In Congress Knows That She Has Foreign Policy Experience,They Also Know Joe Biden Has Foreign Policy Experience.That’s Why Her Peers Endorsements Exceed Over 75 Supporters From Congress,And It Has Already Been Established That She Is The Best Candidate With The Best Experience Of All The Candidates,What About That You Morons Don’t Understand,Should We Take Your Word For Senator Clinton Not Having Foreign Policy Experience,Are Should We Take The People Who Has Worked For And With Her For 8 Years In The Whitehouse,And 7 Years In The Senate.For All You Biden Fans The Reason He’s Not High Up In The Polls As Hilliary, Is Because He Has No Smarts,No Intelligence,Niether Does Dodd,And We Know Mr Obama Doesn’t Have Anything But His Rhetoric,& Lies.This Is Biddens Second Time Around For President,Do You Ever Wonder Why He All Of A Sudden Pulled Out Of The Presidential Race,In 2004,Because He And The People He Employs Has No Common Sense,No Smarts,No Intelligence,Foreign Policy Is All He Knows,Just Like Obama,He’s A Snake In Sheep Clothing,BTW It’s Not Hilliary’s Fault That Bidens Campaign People Run One Of The Sorriest Campaign In This Race,So Now We Should Give Him A Pass Because Mrs Clinton Has Run In My Opinion The Best Campaign Out Of Both Candidates.Oh Yeah Even If Mrs Clinton Said What You Private Investigators Insinuate She Said,,Is That All You Have,It Shows How Silly And Weak You People Who Support Obama,You Are A Bunch Of Thugs.This Race Isn’t About What Were Said About Mr Musharaff,Has No Bearing Whatsoever,And None Of Them Are Perfect,To Include Senator Clinton.

Hillary Clinton is NOT the experienced woman she portrays herself to be. Why people think making breakfast for Bill means she knows anything more than how he likes his eggs is just naive. She didn’t even know what was going on under her nose at home with Bill and his MANY women “friends”. So let’s get real and find a true candidate… Like Biden or Dodd. D.

Wolfson,
We DO QUESTION Sen. Clinton’s depth of knowledge and experience in foreign policy.
First we find out that she never held a security clearance during the 1990s when Bill was in the White House. The fact that Sen. Clinton didn’t have a security clearance makes it very clear that she didn’t have a foreign policy role beyond those duties relegated to a first lady.
And now we find out that Sen. Clinton doesn’t have an understanding of Pakastani politics. Sen. Clinton very clearly referred to Pervez Musharraf as a “candidate.” No matter which way you try to spin it, her words were recorded for playback.
So, we have to conclude that Sen. Clinton does not have any of the foreign policy experience she has been trying to convince us.

She got Iraq Wrong, and wants to go even further in the wrong direction by keeping a large number of troops on bases there.
She Got Iran wrong. REALLY wrong.
She go Lebanon wrong.
She flip flopped on Pakistan, first chiding Obama for suggesting that we should consider going after bin Laden in that countrys tribal region, then, after her vilification’s and war mongering opportunities blew away like the dust they were made of after the inter-agency intelligence report correctly cast Iran as a non Nuclear nation that has not attacked another county for about 250 years, turning around and saying that Pakistan is the greatest threat we face today. Certainly, it will make for less exciting AIPAC speeches for her, because she used to really whip up the bloodlust
at those meetings when she could blather on about keeping “Noting off the table” when considering war agaisnt Iran, including Nuclear War.
Too bad for her, SO good for the rest of us normal people in the US and for Iran.
She sure as hell is not going to send her daughter to fight and die in the wars she would like to start.

Well put, Steve! I completely agree.

All you crazy stupid Hillary haters get use to the fact SHE will be President and then you could all hate yourselves! First Ladies know alot more than you angry voters!

I depends on what the meaning of “person on the ballot”, “candidate” and “stand for election” are…
It’s like the definition of the word “is”. Lost of people have lots of definitions for “candidate” or “person on the ballot” to mean someone who isn’t actually running for office, or in fact up for election of any kind.
Clinton simply meant one of those definitions.
And “on the ballot” “stand[ing] for election”? well that doesn’t state that she thought he was running for office again, or didn’t know he had already been re-elected. She was using some older definitions of the words, ballet is latingarianfrench for shoes; which of course he was on.
And what (you may ask) did she mean by “stand for election”… well, it was an off-color joke that just didn’t work if you take my meaning.

Com-n-sense–
I’m guessing one of two things:
1. You want desperately that a woman should be president, and you sense the chance is at hand (even though nobody at her level of negatives has ever won the presidency); or
2. You want Hillary specifically to be president.
Either way, you don’t even try to answer the concerns people have brought up here; you just make the argument from inevitability.
Not only does that avoid the issues, the argument from inevitability is all based on perception, like a stock that’s based on confidence. Once the inevitability goes, if it does, you crash, and then you’re down to substance. She could win the nomination on that, sure; she also might not. And if she does, she stands a better chance of losing than any of the Democratic candidates except for Kucinich and Gravel.
If she’s nominated, I hope she wins. But in the meantime, I just hope Democrats will think very hard about what it could be like to sit around with blank stares the morning after the ’08 election, consoling themselves with the “message” they sent to the public by nominating Hillary–but after another Republican win, especially if some terrorist event happens between now and then, but really, even without that. Republicans have already gotten the public conditioned to believing that things are going well in Iraq (even though the administration has signed an agreement for bases and personnel to be there INDEFINITELY), so that’s not the cinch issue that Dems had counted on–and I wrote almost a year ago that Republicans would do exactly this. So Dems need to go articulate what they believe about the relationship between government and people, in very specific and concrete terms–which all of them avoid to one extent or another, and which Republicans are great at, in a demagoguic and something-for-nothing way–and they need somebody to make their case who people like and will listen to.
I’m just telling you, a Democratic win in the presidential race is nowhere near inevitable, and Democrats had better be thinking about electability. You look at Hillary’s negatives, and how the campaign dynamics in the general would be, it’s more than dicey. Voters in the middle–who have decided every election for at least that past quarter-century–might look at Romney as robotic, corporate, and white-bread; Huckabee as hyperreligious and from a small state (although that would be a BIG plus with a significant percentage of the electorate); Giuliani as a psycho, more Bush-Cheney than Bush-Cheney; and McCain as too tied to the failed Iraq policy and too hawkish. But set against a Hillary that half the country already hates, and that many voters would turn out just to vote _against_ (including conservative women, believe me), a lot of people in the middle would think the Republican is the lesser of two evils.
So, you want to give Republicans their best chance, nominate Hillary. I don’t hate the woman at all; I think she’s remarkably smart, probably would make a decent president (although she’s too tied to corporations and big money, for one thing), and would be a big improvement over what we’ve had for the past eight years and also over any Republican candidate. But the hard reality is, she gives Republicans their best chance of winning. Argue with the numbers if you want.
That said, Hillary’s not really the problem, is she? It’s an ignorant electorate that accepts a backward and authoritarian government reminiscent of the very power we broke away from in the Revolution. That’s the problem.

Joe Biden has something like three decades of foreign policy experience (Senate Foreign Relations Committee, etc.) at the national level, and not as somebody’s spouse. It’s really not a close call.