Originally posted at DailyKos (check out those comments there) and at MyDD.com   ::   My e-mail address is HillarysBloggers@yahoo.com   ::   I’m married with children — pro-choice, tree-huggin, Million Mom Marchin’, yellow-dog-Democrat.

…according to his senior foreign policy advisor, Susan Rice, when she appeared earlier today on MSNBC.

Sen. Obama’s top foreign policy advisor came right out and said that he’s not ready to take that call – take a look…


RICE: “Clinton hasn’t had to answer the phone at three o’clock in the morning and yet she attacked Barack Obama for not being ready. They’re both not ready to have that 3AM phone call.

Make the jump – there’s more…   
Look, this isn’t someone who’s on Hillary’s team – or even someone who’s endorsed her.  This comment came from someone who knows Sen. Obama’s qualifications best when it comes to foreign policy and national security and even she’s saying he’s not ready to take that call in the middle of the night.

Maybe Rice is right on this score – Obama’s not ready to take that call.  There’s a big difference between giving a speech as a state senator and giving orders as Commander-in-Chief.

And then there’s that Senate Foreign Relations Committee subcommittee he’s supposed to be Chairman of.  We’re currently involved in conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan – conflicts where we could really used the stepped up involvement of our allies in NATO.  Yet he failed to hold a single substantive hearing on a subcommittee he chaired that has responsibility for Europe and NATO and NATO’s policy in Afghanistan.  He’s admitted he was too busy running for President.

What was he thinking????

Now whenever anyone raises Hillary’s qualifications, or questions Obama’s readiness they’re accused of crippling him in his coming battle with McCain, assuming he gets the chance to go up against McCain in the general election.

Never mind that her ad never even mentioned him – she was talking about her own readiness and qualifications.

So why aren’t we talking about his many attacks on Hillary throughout the past 13 months.  Last fall people accused me of claiming Hillary was inevitable as our party’s nominee.  All through that time and since Obama was attacking her relentlessly with charges that she’ll say and do anything to get elected.

Now tell me – how was that not weakening and crippling someone most folks thought would be our nominee come the general election?  Why wasn’t anyone calling foul when he was going after her on this?

Her saying she’s more ready than he is to take that late-night call in no way diminishes him any more than his claiming that she’ll say and do anything to win this thing would.

But the simple fact of the matter is this guys – Hillary IS ready to take that call, any time – anywhere.  She’s been there when the call came in.  She’s been to over 80 nations and met with heads of state and she’s played significant roles in the Irish Peace Process, opening the boarders of Kosovo to get refuges out, standing up to China during that UN Women’s Conference, and working tirelessly on behalf of women and children in the developing world.

Now I’ve written quite a bit about Hillary’s qualifications and readiness to take over once Junior’s reign of indifference and greed comes to an end next January.  And people who know her better than I have posted articles on their own experiences with her over the years when it comes to these important issues.  Take a look – there’s some relevant stuff here…

Hillary’s Huge Support Among The Top Brass – Hillary’s supporters testify as to her readiness to lead on day one in a conference call with supporters.

Sometimes It’s Not About You Barack – Hillary’s new ad.

Why Hillary’s Experience as First Lady Matters

Hillary and; Benazir Bhutto

Hillary’s Standing O At the UN

Hillary’s Irish Legacy – From the Irish Echo (Feb. 27 to Mar 4 Issue)

Hillary’s Unprecedented Experience on the World Stage – Melanne Verveer and Lissa Muscatine.

Why Hillary Clinton Will Restore America’s Standing in the World – Lissa Muscatine and Melanne Verveer.

There’s no doubt about it – this lady knows her stuff when it comes to foreign policy and our national security concerns. Check out her recent speech at Georgetown University, where she talks with confidence and knowledge of each and every detail on any related matter imaginable when it comes to these important matters.

Then there’s an article she wrote recently – Security and Opportunity for the Twenty-first Century – Foreign Affairs (Nov. – Dec. 27th)

Hillary’s got the backing of 30 generals and admirals – two of whom have sons currently serving in combat positions in Iraq and in Afghanistan.

In 2004 Hillary was asked by the Department of Defense to serve as the only Senate member of the Transformation Advisory Group to the Joint Forces Command.   The military wanted her on that committee – she was the only Senator invited to serve on this committee tasked with reforming the Pentagon.

Hillary’s said that when it comes to the general election, she and McCain will bring their many years of experience to the fight, and Obama will bring a speech.  She didn’t say that to be mean to him, or with the intent of crippling our nominee (she still intends to be our nominee by the way), she just stated a fact.

And if anyone thinks McCain won’t be making that same argument about his own experience as compared to Obama’s when it comes to foreign policy and national security, they’re dreaming.

  • Janet M

    I had a front seat at the Susan Rice/John Pendergast screw ups in Africa which ushered in the Al Qaeda scenario we face today. They were so sure that El Shifa, the now famous “aspirin” factory, was a secret bin Laden chemical weapons facility that they advised Pres Clinton to turn down captured Al Qaeda financial bagmen the Sudanese government apprehended. This happened 10 years ago in August. Think of how differently things would have turned out if. Instead of how it did.

    The bombing of the US embassy in Dar Es Salaam? Nairobi? USS Cole? 9-11? The War on Terror? Afghanistan? Iraq? Pakistan?

    Did Obama even consider the past actions of his team?

    God help us all.

    • Mr. Left

      You have a good point–maybe Rice shouldn’t be on his team. And I heartily agree: we need to hold people accountable for their actions, I agree completely with that. But the irony is that the one person not held accountable is the President himself. Remember the phrase “The Buck Stops Here”? Well, apparently, the buck stops at the doorstep of advisers, not actually the president himself. And wasn’t Hillary his close confidant and adviser during this time as well?

      Laying the blame for a President’s foreign policy failures on the people in the bureaucracy is a great approach, I have to admit. It basically exonerates a president from ever having to be accountable for anything his/her administration does, ever. By this logic, you can alleviate any blame assigned to Hillary for her vote–it’s because others gave her bad information. That the administration lied to her (forget the fact that Hussein and the Islamic extremists hated each other fervently, and he couldn’t trust them with nukes, even if he had had them). Any leader can blame others for their mistakes with this approach–bad information from inept advisers.

      Judgment is important, but the President relies on several advisers, not just a discrete set of “yes/no” policy options–there’s State, CIA, NSC, JCS–wouldn’t they all have played a role in these decisions? You’d know better than I, but it would seem odd if they were discrete sessions with one or two people with a slate of options, and that was it. If that’s the case, we were in much worse hands in the ’90s than I thought (and I’ve been a fan of Clinton in the past).

  • Janet M

    I had a front seat at the Susan Rice/John Pendergast screw ups in Africa which ushered in the Al Qaeda scenario we face today. They were so El Shifa, the now famous “aspirin” factory, was a secret bin Laden chemical weapons facility that they advised Pres Clinton to turn down captured Al Qaeda financial bagmen the Sudanese government apprehended. This happened 10 years ago in August. Think of how differently things would have turned out if. Instead of how it did.

  • Pingback: Hillary Clinton Beats Out Obama on Foreign Policy « Hillary for President()

  • Pingback: Make Them Accountable / Media()

  • Independent

    If America thought the Village Idiot was ready to be President then anyone else is more than ready. What a weak argument.

  • Susan Rice is one of the people I think of when I’ve railed against Obama’s lame foreign policy/national security team.

  • Your videos are gone again. Obamaturds keep getting them pulled from YouTube by reporting them. They have been doing that all over the web. I have had to keep re-finding things and reposting them because of the little Obamaturds. Can’t any of them just get jobs. I had to laugh at CNN’s Obama guy Jamal on Tuesday night saying “I’m not going to call Texas yet. My African American friend didn’t vote until 10:52”. Yes, Jamal, the world is waiting for you to personally call the states for the candidates. WWJD? What would Jamal Do? He then went on with his “Moving the bar” bullshit about Bill saying Hillary couldn’t stay in the race if she lost Texas or Ohio but he failed to mention that she didn’t lose either. His head was certainly getting ready to kaboom. He was shaking,lol and I was laughing my ass off.

  • Pingback: Obama and His Advisors Not Ready for Prime Time : NO QUARTER()

  • Marjorie

    If it came to that, Obama would be wise to look at being VP as an eight year tutorial. And have the possibility of eight more years as president, if he shows he has the smarts to do it. Unless he becomes mired in the Rezko affair.
    Hillary isn’t devious and dishonest, but she is able to survive in our political climate. This country has so many contradictory interest groups that have to get something for their vote, anyone who manages to navigate through an election can always be accused of being bought by someone. Her strengths are her understanding of how to work through foreign policy with negotiation and not war; using tax dollars to repair our infrastructure and create green energy and jobs; pass universal health care; and emphasize the importance of our children-every child must be healthy, safe, and educated. To achieve these accomplishments, she will be smeared and lies will be told about her by some people all the time. Nonetheless, she wants a better world for all-not some kind of glory for herself- and she is our best hope for president, spots and all.

  • Mel

    This the guy you qwant answering the phone at 3AM?


    • Mel, I am posting this. When you find a beaut like this, e-mail me! (Sometimes I don’t get a chance to read every comment, sigh — and have been blowing a lot of time on spam the past few days. Double sigh. Our site stats are shooting up, up, up, and we’re attracting more spammers.) Thank you!

      • susanunpc at gmail dot com

        • Mel

          Shall do Susan!

          Link the spammers back to Camp Obama, they don’t care for negative attacks, only they are allowed to do them……lol

        • Simon

          Susan, this is the only site where we can speak freely, and openly fight those trying to troll, you know?

          Thank You, and Larry.

      • Kathleen

        I have been noticing activity up Susan and Larry. Great for your site. Congrats

  • Gloria

    You may want to check out Steve Clemons’ recent post over at the Washington Note. (Steve, as you may not know, is the chief honcho at the New America Foundation and is a foreign policy expert, traveling widely. Initially, he had favorable words about Obama regarding the latter’s foreign policy team. More recently, he has taken Obama to task for not holding hearings. He also delivers this tidbit:

    “…For some reason, I expected Hillary Clinton to be too busy for things like subcommittee hearings and Obama to be drilling in and learning as much as he could because his experience in federal level legislative affairs might be perceived as weak.

    I found the opposite — and discovered that Barack Obama, despite his role as Chairman of the European Subcommittee on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, had not held a single policy hearing during his tenure. In the Environment and Public Works Committee Subcommittee on Superfund and Environmental Health, I found that Clinton had chaired and been actively engaged in a number of hearings during the same period.

    When I discovered this, a number of Obama’s own foreign policy advisers called me — and one said, “I am as surprised as you are.” ”


    There’s more, as Steve talks about his disappointment over Obama’s “not having the time” to do his job….

  • ebonyscrews

    Oh, Senator Clinton is ready to answer that 3am call. And late-breaking voters in Texas and Ohio thought so, too. Rice should stick to speaking for Obambi, and not the Senator from New York, who has twice the experience and time in public service if she so cared to look.

  • demfromphilly

    The argument put forth by those who are less experienced is that we should not fear – they will surround themselves with capable people. Are Rice and Goelsby examples of the expertise and sound judgement that we could look forward to in an Obama adminstration? Someone notify Harriett Miers and tell her all is not lost, it appears she has what it takes to be part of this new bipartisan Obama administration.

    • grannyhelen

      Now that was a Laugh Out Loud moment 😉

    • Hilarious! Dan Quayle too! Even ‘berto!

      • demfromphilly

        Maybe Brownie’s not busy!

        • ces


    • Simon

      The argument put forth by those who are less experienced is that we should not fear – they will surround themselves with capable people

      One of the charges brought against Rezko involves pay to play, ie awarding patronage jobs for contributions. Obama is also implicated, here, too.

      So, given Obama is nothing more than Chicago filth, who can we expect to see as AG?

      Auchi’s son?

      There goes that argument, Chicago is the Obama answer key.

  • Uday and Qusay

    oh my god she didn’t just say that did she?

  • John

    Anyone else see Rachel Maddow’s head explode on Dan Abrams’s show last night? Could you believe that a commercial suggesting (gasp) that voters might want to consider Hillary’s experience as compared to Obama’s in a time of crisis could be considered “Rovian” (that’s the buzzword for the next few days I think, as “Moving the goalposts” has worn out it’s shelf life, thank God.)

    I’ve also heard- repeatedly- that “Obama might go negative now, after avoiding that for months…” which made MY head explode.

    • Kathleen

      The Republicans are laughing. We need to pivot soon.

      • The Republicans also are going to be laughing about Obama’s transparency again. National Review has a short blip by Geraghty on the FARC letter. It’s just a one page item that says reporters should ask the campaign about it and if they say ‘absolutely not’ the return is ‘didn’t they just say that about Canada.

        Drip, drip, drip…. not good for the upcoming states.

    • Yes, I watched last night. She can not restrain herself. I watch Abrams less all the time. He asks questions that are supposed to be impartial but then has a panel of responders that can’t stand Clinton. Is that one guys name Ray? His eyes just bug when he talks about Clinton.

    • fribbles

      I watched the News Hour last night (my blood pressure can’t take cable chat shows). They had a roundtable discussion of Bill Bradley and Jesse Jackson for Obama, Leon Panetta and Geraldine Ferarro for Clinton.

      Right away, Bradley makes an ass of himself, reminding people why Gore kicked his butt in 2000. He didn’t answer the question Jim Leher posed to him, he went on an incoherent attack on Clinton that revolved around Bill’s taxes. It was embarrassing to watch. Ferarro called him on it, and he settled down.

      Jesse Jackson, interestingly, preached about unity and coming together. He declined to bash Clinton, which tells me that he sees political reality.

      Ferarro and Panetta where lucid and cogent, and focused their argument on delegate math and seating
      FL and MI.

      Bottom line: if Obama’s attack strategy is going to focus on Clinton’s taxes and the fact that they are equally inexperienced, he is not only going to lose, he’s going to be a laughingstock.

      Guns n butter democrats a) don’t give a shit about the Clinton’s tax returns and b) fully comprehend that being a First Lady and senator for 8 years gives her the edge in experience.

      If he wants a hope in hell of winning this, he’d better come up with something else.

      But he won’t, because he can’t.

    • Does Rachel Maddow ever disclose that she is in the bag for Obama? Just asking…

      • Kathleen

        Rachel argues from solid ground. She can look at it from the Clinton Campaigns perspective. I have heard her stand up for Senator Clinton based on facts.

  • don’t’ buy the press hype that Hillary is Madam LaFarge and Obama needs protection from her. Tell me one major challenge he has faced and handled well.

    • Cee


      How interesting you would mention LaFarge.

      Hillary Clinton was the family’s breadwinner, earning more than $100,000 a year from her law firm salary and corporate board fees. Lafarge, a U.S. cement maker owned by a French conglomerate, was one of her largest sources of income, paying her $31,000 a year to serve on its board. Shortly before Bill Clinton was elected president in 1992, Lafarge was fined $1.8 million by the Environmental Protection Agency for pollution violations at its Alabama plant.


      • Simon

        How much did Obama get from Auchi, all together Cee?

        • ces

          And how much has he not given away to charity…..speaking of which…WHICH charities?

          Hmmmm…..makes me wonder…

          [pulling out tin foil, starts making folds…]

          • TeakwoodKite

            WHICH charities?

            Been wondering that as well.

          • Simon

            Oh, no tin foil needed, Larry was with the CIA.

            Who do you think invented the metaphor?

            (I just flashed on the XFiles character Morris, what was his name, the man in black, played by Michael McKeon, the one with the Lone Gunmen, who laughed at them, telling them he trolled them with the alien red herring, “his best one yet”?)


  • markwatl

    What in Laura Bush’s tenure as first lady would qualify her to be President. Nothing. The same as Hillary’s.

    • grannyhelen

      What in Eleanor Roosevelt’s tenure as First Lady would qualify her to be President?

      Many folks would argue the office is what you make of it.

    • Gloria

      Oh, please, Clinton has served NY as a senator, and had 911 on her plate from the beginning. Just on her Senate record alone, she is far more experienced than Wonder Boy, who can’t even answer tough questions from the press.

    • Simon

      What in Laura Bush’s tenure as first lady would qualify her to be President. Nothing.

      She is an educated librarian, I take issue with your implication.

      But to simplemindedly suggest Clinton isn’t qualified because she was only a “first lady” shows an appalling lack of education, an absolute inability to critically think.

      How embarrassing for you.

  • Kathleen

    What I really would like to witness if for both of them to go back to focusing on real issues..and together turn the spotlight on McCain. At this point Obama/Clinton…..Clinton/Obama. Stack it up. Gather up the heavy hitters General Wesley Clark , General Zinni, Zbigniew Brezinski, Madeline, Edwards or Fitz as AG. Let’s go

    figure out the delegate numbers, team up, apologize for very serious mistakes, pivot and attack the Republicans machine. Let’s take them out for the next sixteen years!

    Chelsea can line up after Obama and Clinton are done. Chelsea will be ready in 16 years. (what the hell 8 years, she was the most intelligent and remarkable speaker I have ever heard when she recently came to Athens Ohio)… She understands the issues, and listens to peoples concerns.

    • grannyhelen

      Agreed – and I would love to see Chelsea run when she’s ready (maybe she can stay in CT and replace our little Joey Lieberman or our equally uninspiring Gov Jodi Rell).

      And although I think the most winning ticket for the Dems at this point would be Clinton/Clark, I think it is more important for the party to be unified under Clinton/Obama.

      I don’t think Obama at the top of the ticket will secure a win like Clinton at the top would.

      • Kathleen

        I always thought it would end up being Clinton/Clark. But at this point Obama/Clinton//Clinton/Obama with Clark as Secretary of Defense. Bill Richardson head of the EPA Edwards as Attorney General, Give Dennis Kucinich his dream of the Secretary of Peace…etc etc. Soon it will be time to pivot, unite and attack the failed and very destructive policies of the Republican party the last seven years

        O/C or C/O the Democratic party needs to make a deal soon. Keep the youth vote, the African American vote, the old gals, our seniors. Let’s go!

        • grannyhelen

          Agreed on all points, but would love to see Edwards do something other than AG – if he was tasked with health care, that would be fab.

          Unless, of course, the Dems get a spine and pursue these war criminals – then Edwards as AG would be very sorely needed.

        • Simon


          Obama is criminal, shouldn’t even be in consideration for office.

          Perhaps, for a different perspective, you should read the reports of him from the Chicago press. John Kass, a columnist for the Chicago Tribune, says the media has portrayed Obama as King Arthur, ready to clean up government.

          Kass, who is closely associated with Obama’s actions through his locale in Chicago, indicates Obama is highly corrupt, hardly a reformer.

          Try chicagotribune.com, and look for Kass’s columns.

        • The Gringo’s Wife

          Hold on a little longer. It may still be Clinton/Clark.

          • Patrick Henry


            Has a good Ring..That would be a Good Thing..

            • The Gringo’s Wife

              Clark has been a huge supporter. I wouldn’t be surprised to find he was the one who got the Flag Officers out for HRC.

              And I have thought all along that he would be a very smart choice for running mate.

  • Mel

    A question that has never been raised, or observation that has to be taken into consideration as well of who enters the Whitehouse includes the spouces!

    Now it has been made clear during the past few days with the NAFTA rise that when Bill signed Bush’s trade deal that passed the Senate into law, Hillary was not pleased, but towed the line and kept quiet! Bill will likely do the same, and be a major help when called upon, especially in foreign affairs, due to his respect throughout the world!

    Now Obama enters the Whitehouse, he has a loose cannon there in the form of Michelle! Her talk in Dec 2007 during an interview on Blacks voting saying “they will get it” is one thing!

    But combine that with her turning Bill Clinton’s remarks on Obama’s Iraq war speech and subsiquent remarks over bombing Iran, GW Bush handling of the war praise and statement to Tim Russert! Yet Michelle managed to turn it into a racial remark stating “is it a fairy tale for a black man to run or become President”!

    Now this alone again would be not much, but her thesis at Prinston which has been withdrawn from Prinston’s website adn only to be re-posted the day after the fall Presidential election was on Race!

    This is a potential First Lady who will turn a former President with a record of working for Black’s into a racist! An elite University into a Racial bias institution and will call Black’s basically cowards! How will she fair with meeting foreign leaders, the same way? Definately!

    This is a woman with a major chip on her shoulder and is a disaster in the making for the Whitehouse! She has even toted she wears the pants in the house, so this is a real disaster in the waiting!

    • Kathleen

      I witnessed first hand how the OBama campaign was using the race card in South Carolina (I was in Charleston S.C. for 10 days prior to the primary working for the Edwards campaign)

      Bill Clinton was right and he was pounded for speaking the truth. The MSM was just too chicken shit (or they were not listening) to call the Obama campaign out on this.

      Russert, Matthews, and many more jumped on the Billy bashing band wagon just before the primary in South Carolina. It was amazing to watch up close.

      • Simon

        It appears Mrs. Obama has a few shady dealings of her own, she and the ‘bamster being a Chicago power couple, and all, doing things “the Chicago way.”

        That’s what concerns me.

        • mostest

          It appears Mrs. Obama has a few shady dealings of her own

          Methinks you are correct. You know what a reporter (not a stenographer,I know good luck) should ask Obama about Michelle’s involved in Rezko. Something like did she tour w/ you and Rezko? Did she find the property? How did she find the property? Didn’t she sit on a historical board that has jurisdiction over your property?

          Watch his head explode.

          • Simon

            Well, that and her appointment to the University of Chicago hospital board, or as a VP, which is also a patronage job.

            At least that’s the scuttle, which makes me wonder about Obama’s health initiatives in IL, and who benefited.

            And his conneciton to Pritzker.

      • Andy

        Kathleen did you read Sean Wilentz piece “The Race Man”? It’s brillant.

        • Kathleen


  • Kathleen

    This is the area I do not trust Hillary in. Her vote for the 2002 war resolution when Scott Ritter said that she was fully aware that Iraq did not posses WMD’s and voted for that resolution is a very serious lapse of judgement for Hillary.

    Boxer, Rockefeller, Akaka, Byrd, Bingaman, Durbin, Sarbanes, Wellstone etc voted against that poisonous resolution. Hillary could have been one of the wise Senators who were brave and stood their ground against the warmongers

    Then when Hillary fell prey to the “cakewalk in Iraq”
    zealots agenda in Iran by voting for the Kyl Lieberman amendment in Oct of 2007 she proved once again that she is beholden to a segment of warmongers that I do not support at all.

    Senator Webb called the Kyl Lieberman amendment “tantamount to delclaring war on Iran”. Let’s just admit here that Senator Webb is no light weight when it comes to these issues. I followed everything that he said about this amendment. It was unnecessary and dangerous warmongering and Hillary vote for it.

    I trust Hillary on many issues (education, health care). But I do not trust her on foreign policy. I do not trust her to make the right decision when it comes to Iraq or Iran. I disagree with Scott Ritter that it does not matter if Hillary apologizes about her Iraq vote. Acknowledging serious mistakes is healthy thing but to make a similar mistake last fall demonstrates that Hillary did not learn from that 2002 war resolution vote…she played the numbers game instead of drawing the line in the cement with the cakewalk zealots. Obama sat on the fence on the KYL/Lieb amemenment, he blew it too)

    For me to fully embrace Senator Clinton she needs to make it very very clear that she intends to use diplomatic means with Iran. Her vote for the Kyl Lieberman amendment made me question her logic on this serious issue.

    As Americans we need to think about where the next administration will go with Iran (that is if the Kyl Lieberman amendment is not used by the warmongers in the next 8 months to strike Iran)
    Seymour on the Iran Plans

    Listen to Seymour Hersh on why Hillary voted for the Kyl Lieberman amendment

    “AMY GOODMAN: Sy Hersh, I wanted to switch gears for the last question, and this has to do with it not just being Republicans who are sounding a drumbeat for war. The three leading Democratic presidential candidates—Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards—have all declared no options off the table. This is a clip from last week’s Democratic debate. It was the day the Senate approved a controversial resolution calling on the State Department to designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps a terrorist organization. At the debate, Democratic presidential hopeful Mike Gravel bitterly criticized Hillary Clinton for voting in favor.

    MIKE GRAVEL: This is fantasy land. We’re talking about ending the war. My god, we’re just starting a war right today. There was a vote in the Senate today. Joe Lieberman, who authored the Iraq resolution, has authored another resolution, and it is essentially a fig leaf to let George Bush go to war with Iran. And I want to congratulate Biden for voting against it, Dodd for voting against it, and I’m ashamed of you, Hillary, for voting for it. You’re not going to get another shot at this, because what’s happened, if this war ensues, we invade, and they’re looking for an excuse to do it. And Obama was not even there to vote.

    TIM RUSSERT: Senator Clinton, I want to give you a chance to respond.

    SEN. HILLARY CLINTON: [laughter]

    AMY GOODMAN: That was Hillary Clinton laughing. Fifteen seconds, Seymour Hersh. Your response?

    SEYMOUR HERSH: Money. A lot of the Jewish money from New York. Come on, let’s not kid about it. A significant percentage of Jewish money, and many leading American Jews support the Israeli position that Iran is an existential threat. And I think it’s as simple as that. When you’re from New York and from New York City, you take the view of—right now, when you’re running a campaign, you follow that line. And there’s no other explanation for it, because she’s smart enough to know the downside.”


    • grannyhelen

      And this is why I’m agnostic between Hil and Obama, because even though Hil voted for the AUMF Obama is on the record as saying he’s not sure which way he would have voted had he been in the Senate at that time, and he has consistently voted to fund the war.

      Even though Hil voted for K-L, Obama was going to vote for a similar resolution that would have called the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a “terrorist organization”, thus doing the same amount of damage by promoting US unilateralism in the region.

      And the fact that O didn’t even show up for the vote makes a big statement in and of itself.

      Now, that being said…when in recent memory has a Presidential candidate had not one, but two incidents with foreign governments in the primaries, let alone the general election?

      When, in recent memory, has a Presidential candidate issued a statement that caused rioting in the streets of a foreign government?

      These things give me pause about O’s foreign policy experience, or lack thereof. Hil would not make these errors. There’s things about Hil’s approach to foriegn policy that I don’t agree with, but overall she is simply more trustworthy in this area.

      • Kathleen

        I agree they both blew it on the K/L amendment. But as I have said I do not trust Hillary on foreign policy.

        I want to hear both of them commit to diplomacy with Iran, Syria etc. I want to hear them say that they are committed to encouraging Israel, Pakistan and India to sign the Non Proliferation treaty.

        • grannyhelen

          As a skeptic on whether US hegemony is actually in the best interest of our nation, there’s lots of things I’d love to hear them talk about.

          But it ain’t gonna happen from these two. The people with the best foreign policy plans – Biden and Edwards – have already left this race.

          So what it boils down to is who will do the least amount of damage. You don’t trust Hil’s judgement after the AUMF. Fair enough. But do you trust Obama after making one speech, not showing up for a critical vote and making a statement that literally caused rioting in the streets of an unstable ally who happens to have nuclear weapons?

          That’s where I come down on Hil’s side – at least if she gets us into an ill-advised war it will be something of a slow and deliberate process (with ample ability for all of us to make our objections known)…

          …instead of having one start because of a “boneheaded mistake” or off-the-cuff comment.

          • Kathleen

            I agree Edwards, Dodd, Kucinich, Edwards held the best stances on foreign policy. I do not trust Hillary of O on these issues. O missed that opportunity to demonstrate that he was willing to draw a line in the cement on unnecessary warmongering

            The first one that commits to diplomatic means with Iran, Syria etc. The first one that commits to comes out and says NO LOBBYIST IN MY ADMINISTRATION wins in my book. The first one to say they want to hold those responsible for the false pre war intelligence ACCOUNTABLE. I am on that persons bus

            I want the debate to continue for awhile, but I hope they focus on substantive issues.

            Soon I hope they pivot with all of the heavy hitters on board and start drilling the Republicans. Let’s hold onto the Senate and House..gain seats. Set the Democratic party up for the next 16 years so some real business can be accomplished.

            I am with Tom Hayden on this point. When we as a nation admit our very serious mistakes, (slavery, genocide of native Americans, lop-sided support of Israel, Iraq). When we acknowledge serious mistakes we can truly move forward. Otherwise these serious contradictions undermine everything we do.

            The Republicans theme song is going to be “Those issues are in the past. Those issues are irrelevant now. We need to move forward” (the mistakes in Iraq, the wiretapping, the lack of accountability for the pre-war intelligence, the outing of Plame etc etc)

            I have heard young Republicans singing this theme song, McCain keeps repeating it. We need to pivot shine the light on the endless crimes of this administration and the Republican controlled congress for six long years. We need to start using this against them now.

            • grannyhelen

              I think you and I agree on a lot of points re: foreign policy – if not in details then at least in broadstrokes.

              Like I said – at this point I’m not looking to either of these two to address foreign policy the way I think it needs to be addresed. So my calculus has changed from “who supports my beliefs the most” to “who won’t eff things up too much” 😉

      • Simon

        And now allegations are floating that Obama may somehow be connected to missing CPA money, to the tune of 650 million dollars.

        From Iraq.

        Our money, our taxpayer money.

        Al of this goes back to politics “the chicago way” which seems nothing more than simple corruption, the Congress way.

        Maybe even the Dick Cheney way.

        Ah, wouldn’t it be nice, the four lumberjacks of the apocalypse, come for the Aspen crowd, all connected at the roots…

        • grannyhelen

          link? Is this legit or blog noise?

          • Simon

            Start with Rezkowatch.blogspot.com, it acts as a portal to MSM press reports, all things Rezko, and Obama, doing the job real reporters should do, as opposed to the celebrity journalist.

            So, I question the pejorative of “blognoise,”
            given the NYT’s fictional creation of Obama.



            • Simon

              Grannyhelen, I agree with the need to verify, and prove, but given how Judith Miller KNOWINGLY whored for the administration to push Iraq, for the NYTs, and Pat Healy created a fictional narrative around Obama, for that same paper, MSM sources don’t mean a thing, anymore.

              I was thinking of all the charges thrown at bloggers by reporters were in fact projections of their own misdeeds.

              Which major news source is now credible, which reporters, with the exception of a few from Chicago, and Paul Krugman, (in the US anyway), have credibility, behave as public advocates, as opposed to corporate lapdogs, more interested in self-glorification, as opposed to truth, and honest government?

              We tried to name one the other day, known nationally, and I could only come up with Paul Krugman.

              • grannyhelen

                When I use “blog noise” I mean in the sense that a lot of thinly sourced attacks on candidates can start in the blogosphere. This is different than the issues that are not candidate-based, where I think the blogs (or some of them, like this one) have an edge.

              • Kathleen

                Judith “I was fucking right” Miller working for the “cakewalk in Iraq” zealots. Certainly not for the American people or the truth.

                She is drowning in the Iraqi people’s blood and the American troops blood. It is obvious she does not care.

                JM was pushing for a federal Shield Law to protect reporters. Who in the hell wants hacks like Judith Miller, Robert Novak and other hacks promoting their or some other affiliations agenda.

                Judy Miller should still be in prison.

        • Cee

          Gawd. Next Obama will be blamed for the bombing in NY today.

          • Simon

            Gawd. Next Obama will be blamed for the bombing in NY today.

            Obamabots love them some Ayers, right?

            I mean, Ayers wasn’t a terrorist, didnt do things like blow up army recruiting centers, and KILL PEOPLE.


            No big deal, at all.

            • That was the first thing I thought of. If he weren’t 63, Ayers could have been on that bicycle lobbing a bomb at a miliary recruiting office.

              Oh, the company some people keep …

          • A Weather Underground signature piece.

            No animals were harmed in this attack. Shade grown, organic, free range & free traded.

    • mimi


      Seymour Hersh’s explanation should answer your question. Hillary’s the senator from NY. And there’s a lot of vocal powerful pro Iraeli sentiment here.

      As far as her vote on Iraq, people keep forgetting that NY was where 9/11 took place. I was a mile and a half from Ground Zero, my sister saw the 2nd plane go in the building. She barely got of the area before the buildings collapsed and witnessed it from a distance. She and I had to walk among the shell-shocked hoardes, some doused in the soot from the towers, several miles through Manhattan. I will never forget it. It replaced JFK’s assasination in terms of traumatic moments. I saw young women, out-of-shape, collapsed from exhaustion on Central Park benches at having to walk to because Giuliani had shut the subway system down for fear of a terrorist attack there and the bus system was simply overwhelmed.

      At one point we got on a bus so crowded that I made my sister get off because I thought it would tip over and we would be in bigger trouble because all the EMS and Police were coping with trying to save victims at the World Trade Center. We walked and walked. Fortunately, I power-walk so even at my age it was no hassle. But emotionally it was daunting and surreal.

      Then, the aftermath… riding the subway to work each day. The phony bomb threats stopping trains between stations for 30 minutes at a time. In the days, even weeks following, this kind of thing was relentless. One afternoon a 30-something man sitting next to me actually lost it when the subway stopped for a long period of time. New Yorkers were beat down! Maybe we maintained our NY cool, our big city facade, but don’t kid yourself, it was months before I heard someone laugh or speak above a
      whisper in a subway car. Even the unruly high school kids were quiet. So much for the resilience of youth.

      So when I hear Obama and people like you keep harping on Hillary’s one vote as if she wasn’t among 29 other senators who also voted, and the relentless hammering of the media which has turned Bush/Cheney’s illegal war based on a lie into Hillary’s War, it angers me beyond belief. Even a lot of pacifist type New Yorkers threw their hands up in surrender when the war vote went down. Bush and with the help of this same dispicable MSM SOLD this war to the American public.
      Good for those elected officials who were actually there in Congress and not in Chicago, for standing their ground and voting against the war. All of us would like to be them. Hindsight is 20-20. We all know that. But what is particularly offensive is how many people have conveniently forgotten the climate not just in NY, but of the whole country, not to mention the world. Bush/Cheney exploited that. BIG TIME!!! Bush wanted this war for petty vindictive reasons. Cheney, for greed.

      I must be the only one in America who knows that had anybody else been in the WH, including Hillary and even that veteran hawk McCain, we wouldn’t be in Iraq now.

      Bush/Cheney should have been impeached. It’s our national disgrace that they weren’t. And it’s contemptible to make the woman running for president the lone scapegoat in this American horror story.

      This is just the way I feel.

      • Simon

        I’m so sorry, mimi, that must have been horrific for you.

        Have you been OK?

      • fribbles

        Amen, mimi. Amen.

      • Andy

        Hats off to you mimi for every single word you wrote. I have many friends that saw the two airplanes crash into the towers from their bedroom windows at NYU… They can still hear the sound which they describe as a loud crushing of
        “a can of Coke”.
        Your subsequent poignant analysis is excellent.
        Thank you.

        • Kathleen

          No excuse for Hillary’s vote. No excuse

      • Mimi, you’d better scoot over to MyDD, and tell the Obama-ites calling Times Square “trivial” about your experience.

        (Posted that screen shot from above + Larry’s commentary at the top … the snots are bashing it.)

        And if you can rec diaries there, please do so. Or sign up and do so — it just takes a minute. And you can comment right away.

        • Kathleen

          Senator Clinton could have demonstrated that she would not go along with the warmongers war plans with Iran by voting NO on the K/l amendment.

        • Kathleen

          Are you encouraging her to use her story as an excuse for Senator Clintons 2002 war resolution vote? That is just wrong

      • Kathleen

        thanks for sharing your story, I have family who lived (and continue to) six blocks from the World Trade Centers. I am very sorry that you suffered but 9/11 is no excuse for Hillary’s vote. No Excuse! Scott Ritter claims that the Clintons were well aware that there were no WMD’s in Iraq

        You must realize by now (millions knew when we marched etc against that illegal and immoral invasion) that that bombing had nothing to do with Iraq. Hillary should have investigated more, held hearings, more experts who were screaming that we should not invade including, General Zinni, Scott Ritter, IAEA’s El Baradei, CIA analyst, even Robert McNamara…along line of experts were speaking out against it.

        Hillary went with the “cakewalk in Iraq” zealots then and then again in Oct of 2007 and voted for the Kyl LIeberman amendment. She should know better after her very serious mistake in 2002

      • alexei

        I also have a story, not as dramatic as yours but here it is. My husband worked in Arlington, VA near the Pentagon. There was so much confusion and fear about more attacks and we couldn’t reach anyone for hours. D.C. was in chaos, the Metro (subway) was shut down, massive traffic jams because the Feds and D.C. government ordered people to evacuate. I had no idea if my husband was ok or not until about 6 pm, when he was able to call. Yes, it was a horrific day.

        As for Wellstone, he actually grappled about voting on the AUMF. He was in a reelection for his Senate seat. He was well liked and beloved by Minnesotans, but, the race turned tight when he did vote against (now, that was a courageous vote). He only started to get ahead right before that terrible plane crash that took his life, but it still was a toss up. I will always totally admire Paul Wellstone. He did also say that he understood why many voted for the AUMF. And, the American people were absolutely behind this.

      • The Gringo’s Wife

        You speak for me as well Mimi.

    • ReadYour Link

      Looks like you’ve bought the Obama spin.Rockefeller voted “yea” as per your own very link. I know Sen. Obama and David Axelrod have gone on record and stated Rockefeller was against the resolution but the facts do not support you or them.

    • BernieO

      I disagree that Republicans are afraid of Obama. They were able to take an evidence-free land deal and turn it into a near impeachment. They must be salivating to get into the Rezko deal. Obama should be easy pickings for them. Look how quickly he lost his cool after a week of fairly mild negative press. He has never really been challenged and believes his own talk about avoiding the partisan politics of the past. Like it will be his choice. RIGHT.

    • BernieO

      Colin Powell promised the Senators that the Iraq War Resolution was needed in order to get intrusive, agressive inspections of Iraq, something which most people would have supported. Bush also promised this. Saddam would never have let the inspectors in without the threat from the resolution. It is easy in hindsight to see how untrustworthy Bush is, but at that time it was not, especially since Powell was giving his assurances (which I am sure he believed.) This is standard carrot-and-stick diplomacy. It was beyond belief that Bush went to war after the inspectors had found nothing, but there was no way to have predicted that. I have never liked Bush and know a lot about his history, but I was really shocked by that. I think the fact that the media did not go berserk about it is why he (or his puppet masters) felt emboldened enough to go forward.
      I was against the war from the get go, but when the resolution came up I told people that there was no way the Senate could vote it down. A vote against the resolution was a vote against inspections. And it would have signalled rogue regimes like N Korea that we would not act.

      • Kathleen

        There were all ready inspectors in Iraq just before we invaded. They were pulled out…remember Hans Blix? Our invasion interrupted the completion of those inspections

        Hundreds of experts were questioning the validity of the intelligence and the wisdom of an invasion. Iaea El Baradei came out in early March and stated that the Niger documents were false. (now it’s true that the MSM barely covered what he had to say)

        There is no way around that many experts were trying hard to divert this bloody immoral war.

        • alexei

          Here is Hans Blix according to this link:
          “as recounted by Hans Blix – who was the Director General of the IAEA from 1981 to 1997 and the Executive Director of UNMOVIC from 2000 to 2003 in charge of the Iraq inspections team. Blix published a book “Disarming Iraq” in which he objectively recounted the events leading up to the invasion of Iraq as a high-level, third party, UN official who was closely involved both with US officials and Iraqi officials at the time. As you read the book you will notice that Blix tried his best to make the inspections work and he was not a supporter of the U.S. invasion of Iraq. However, he repeatedly states in his book how important it was to establish a credible and unified threat of military force against Iraq to get Saddam to not just let inspectors back in but also agree to the stringent terms of the UN inspections regime without playing “cat-and-mouse” games with the inspectors and the UN. Indeed, Blix calls out how he specifically asked Colin Powell, in early Oct 2002, for help in getting a credible threat of force included in any resolution to make sure that Iraq would really comply with the UN inspections regime and not play games with the UN as they had historically done. I’m going to reproduce a few extracts from his book showing some of the chronology and I will follow that up with comments from other bloggers (from back in 2004) – to make it clear that it was a very legitimate argument that Democrats who voted for the resolution might have partly done so in order to make sure that the inspections regime against Iraq worked – the kind of inspections that Sen. Obama said he was very much for in his Oct 2002 speech. Put another way, without a credible and unified threat of force, Blix’s view was that it was rather unlikely that Iraq would have really agreed to an unimpeded inspections process, even though his view was that the threat of force should not have carried over into an invasion in March 2003. This view is not significantly different from that of Sen. Kerry or Sen. Clinton.”

        • Lynn

          Those inspectors were in Iraq *because* of the AUMF. Prior to that, it had been since 1998 that inspectors had been there. An AUMF is not a declaration of war, pre-emptive or otherwise. (Kennedy had one during the Cuban Missile Crisis.) There were qualifiers in the 2002 resoultion, such as the deployment of inspectors, especially into areas that Saddam had not heretofore allowed, and invasion as a last resort. As I understand it, BUSH broke that law by withdrawing the inspectors before their work was finished and beginning an invasion that Congress, thus, hadn’t properly authorized. Beyond that, from Bush’s point of view, he had authority to invade even without the AUMF based on the first Gulf War. His approval ratings were still stratospheric, and he was going to get his war with or without Congressional approval.

      • Kathleen

        They could have delayed that vote until after mid-term elections. They could have demanded more hearings and investigations.

  • grannyhelen

    Oh, and Alegre – I’ve pretty much written DKos off after yesterday. Objectionable diaries here: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/3/5/14345/50395/126/469746 and here: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/3/5/15316/82960

    The use of race baiting and anti-Semitism is not in the aid of electing Obama, but imo has more to do with the perfect storm of a feverish group dynami that has brought out some of the worst in people.

    So, nothing in the comment threads over there is going to shock me any longer.

    Sad to see this place go so downhill so quickly, and all because of one candidate.

    • grannyhelen

      “dynamic” – sorry.

      • Marjorie

        I thought you were being creative with the language and making a new plural. I like it.

        • grannyhelen

          tee hee! good thought, that 😉

    • votermom

      I’ve pretty much written DKos off after yesterday.

      I wonder if it’s part of Kos (like Huffington) being reformed Republicans rather than long-time Democrats. Maybe that explains the love for Obama’s center-right campaigning, and the rabble-rousing. Because I just don’t get it.

      • grannyhelen

        I dunno – the two posts I’m referring to weren’t written by self i.d.’d GOPers.

        But they could be a part of the swarm that is changing the nature of the discourse over there…

      • Even Ill O’Reilly did a segment last night on the virulent hatred towards Hillary at Huffington Post. He finds it appalling that a “liberal” site would allow its users to post their venomous hatred. (I tell you, those shows are such guilty-pleasure viewing.)

        • grannyhelen

          Wow – I don’t have cable but that’s something.

          It’s depressing to see liberals throw folks under the bus just to have Their Favorite Candidate Elected.

        • ChrisXP

          Conservatives are actually scared of O-Bomba more than Hillary. They thought Hillary would be the nominee and got their machine amped to attack her. Then comes this O-Bomba, and now they have a bona-fide flaming Liberal, with the most liberal voting record even, that could be elected.

          Blue cape vs. Red cape. The bulls are going to go after the latter!

          They would GLADLY help Hillary now to prevent O-Bomba from winning the nomination. They can’t be outright about it (nor can Hillary ask for their help — how about that for working across the aisle????), but trying to balance ideology with trying to stop O-Bomba from being he nominee.

          Even the Hillary slurs are sounding hollow at Fox.

          Hillary is the insurance policy if McCain loses. At least the government will stay intact, so all is not lost. There’s no insurance with O-Bomba, and frankly if he does get elected, the backlash is going reunite the GOP for another 1992 return. Rush et al will have a field day not since Bill was in office to rally the troops, too.

          Which is why Hillary has to be the nominee. Smooths feathers, keeps tempers down.

          That’s something the DNC isn’t thinking about, as their greed for new voters is stronger, than looking at the bigger picture — preventing backlashes.

          This is a chess match, not a Pac-Man game.

  • Sha

    I would laugh hysterically – except the Obama campaign’s lack of experience is really NOT FUNNY.

    Hillary must deliver her address on foreign policy again and again and again until the MSM finally realizes that we voters think the subject is important (not one venue covered it last week).

    AND NO, that will not be negative campaigning. It will be discussing a substantive matter – tough shit if Obama doesn’t understand what she’s saying.

    • Get those flag officers in some TV ads — and some of them besides Wes Clark.

      • Andy

        She should absolutely do that: it will play well in Misiissippi and Wyoming at least to stop the Rep. to cross over and vote for Obama. They would have to think twice.

  • grannyhelen

    Okay – now that’s funny. She obviously mis-spoke, but that’s like jumping the snap in football: 5 yard penalty.

    OT, but odd – O’s not making any appearances today:

    Campaigns digest Tuesday’s results, strategize their next moves:

    Clinton travels to Mississippi Thursday, Wyoming Friday while B. Clinton expected to be in Wyoming on Thursday, Mississippi on Friday.

    Obama spends Thursday with no public events in his hometown of Chicago, returns to campaign trail in Wyoming Friday.

    link: http://thepage.time.com/2008/03/05/clinton-camp-starts-showing-their-cards/

    Wonder what that’s all about…

    • He’s probably going to be on the phone all day trying to strong-arm super-delegates.

      Tom Brokaw claimed on Tues. night that he’d announce 50 new supers. We are waiting. Mark Halperin wonders too at http://thepage.time.com

      • grannyhelen

        Yeah – I’ve heard that’s kind of “on hold”.

        But not doing *any* appearances? With primaries coming up? Couldn’t one do the same strong-arming from the road…?

        It just sounds a little unusual.

      • Kathleen

        The Republicans love all of this. Rove is sure to stoke the fire.

    • fribbles

      Hmmm. My guess is that he’s freaking out and using a day off to contemplate “stratergy”.

      I also wonder about those vaunted fundraising numbers for Feb. Does anyone know if he released them yet?

      My bet is no matter how much he raised, he’s low on cash and they’re trying to figure out where to use the fumes they have left.

      • grannyhelen

        If Fla and Mich have “do-overs” that could seriously cut into O’s cash and overall election strategy. Granholm and Crist’s joint statement yesterday has to have them a little worried…

      • Xeno

        How much money did the Obots give their god last month? Has the Obama campaign released their fundraising stats yet? When Hillary’s numbers came out, they were crowing that they had raised $50 million, but after that, crickets. (One cultist on Talk Left said she thought Obama raised 135 million in February — she’s obviously suffering from Kool-Aid poisoning.)

        I’m beginning to wonder if Obama’s numbers weren’t as stellar as his people claimed.

        • speaking of money i have this thought: how much mollah is obama promising the super delegates? this could be a real good reason why his campaign is hurting for money. i wonder how his supporters would feel about their donations if they knew obama was merely “washing” their contributions. i cant wait for that list of 50 super delegates to be released … some fact checking will be in order!

    • A

      I’m a Hillary supporter, but I’m all for Obama taking a day off with his kids or whatever.

      I wouldn’t read anything into that other than he wants a day off.

  • fiscalliberal

    No wonder that Hillary commands a high majority of people who are over 65. A lot of us have seen this before and recognize the strength of experience.

    If the party and media do not show Hillary respect in the process and she looses, a lot of us are going to sit this one out. If the Obama people get nasty, we have seen this before also in the likes of Tom Delay and Newt Gingrich, they might see the few positives that McCain has and he comes into consideration.

    • Kathleen

      Next Hillary event she needs to immediately walk over to the seniors and those individuals who sit in the handicapped areas. I have witnessed her walk over to the teamsters and people just behind the stage. Go respect our elders those who are in full support of her. Many WWII Vets in support of her…go give them your respect right away Hillary. They deserve your attention before anyone else gets it.

      • Andy

        Hillary shows respect for Vets all the time Kathleen. And more importantly she has work to help them: what better show of respect that her work ?

        • Kathleen

          Of course she does, I know she has a deep respect for our seniors and our VETS. Just mentioning that these should be the first people that she visit with. In Dayton she did not come over to these folks at all. I watched the seniors and the folks in wheelchairs straggle out without meeting Hillary. A shame I thought!

  • fribbles

    Oh my god, he really is as stupid as we thought. The commercials write themselves.

    As Bugs Bunny famously said, “what a maroon.”

    Why he’d tout his weakness in this respect instead of hide it defies credulity.

    Wonder how being a foreign policy naif is going to play in Wyoming, aka Dick Cheney country?

    • Simon

      Oh my god, he really is as stupid as we thought. The commercials write themselves.

      And, according to rezkowatch.blogspot.com, Obama might somehow be tangentially connected to $650 million missing CPA, (and american taxpayer dollars), stolen out of Iraq. Iraqi Coalition Provisional Authority Minister of Electricity Aiham Alsammarae, a Chicago resident and buddy of Rezko, is currently wanted by Interpol, in connection to this crime. There is a warrant on line for his arrest.


      And the hits, they keep a coming…

      • Nellie


        Excellent Find!

        I believe Alsammarae is currently residing in an Iraqi jail

        Can you please contact me at:


        I have some information to share with you – And I really could use yur help – Reading reading arcane legalese is difficult for me.

        I’ll be gone about an hour. But will be back to respond to you.

  • Pingback: Barack Obama Chronicles » Archive » Breaking: Obama “Not Ready” For 3am Call…()