Posted on 12/26/2007 12:01:28 PM PST by neverdem
As first lady, Hillary Rodham Clinton jaw-boned the authoritarian president of Uzbekistan to leave his car and shake hands with people. She argued with the Czech prime minister about democracy. She cajoled Roman Catholic and Protestant women to talk to one another in Northern Ireland. She traveled to 79 countries in total, little of it leisure; one meeting with mutilated Rwandan refugees so unsettled her that she threw up afterward.
But during those two terms in the White House, Mrs. Clinton did not hold a security clearance. She did not attend National Security Council meetings. She was not given a copy of the president’s daily intelligence briefing. She did not assert herself on the crises in Somalia, Haiti and Rwanda.
And during one of President Bill Clinton’s major tests on terrorism, whether to bomb Afghanistan and Sudan in 1998, Mrs. Clinton was barely speaking to her husband, let alone advising him, as the Lewinsky scandal sizzled.
In seeking the Democratic presidential nomination, Mrs. Clinton lays claim to two traits nearly every day: strength and experience. But as the junior senator from New York, she has few significant legislative accomplishments to her name. She has cast herself, instead, as a first lady like no other: a full partner to her husband in his administration, and, she says, all the stronger and more experienced for her “eight years with a front-row seat on history.”
Her rivals scoff at the idea that her background gives her any special qualifications for the presidency. Senator Barack Obama has especially questioned “what experiences she’s claiming” as first lady, noting that the job is not the same as being a cabinet member, much less president.
And late last week, Mr. Obama suggested that more foreign policy experts from the Clinton administration were supporting his candidacy than hers...
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
i’m wondering if the nyt will endorse obama.
this is a negative article on hillary.
the boston globe endorsed obama; the bg is owned by the nyt.
(take a look at the photo in the article on bill clinton’s
mouth dropping on the story of genocide.)
You are exactly correct. I am surprised it took 41 posts.
Fox news reported it with amazement that the NYT slammed the Toon for lack of experience. They slammed her for having no securioty clearance, attending no cabinet or security meetings.
They slammed her for kissing Mrs. Arafat as a senator.
They slammed her for hypocrisy about talking to foreign leaders. She swiped at Hussein Obama while praising Wesley Clark for talking to Milosevic.
They slammed her on Rwanda.
They slammed her on Somalia.
"Susan Rice, a National Security Council senior aide and State Department official under Mr. Clinton who now advises Mr. Obama, said Mrs. Clinton was not involved in “the heavy lifting of foreign policy.” Ms. Rice also took issue with a recent comment by a Clinton campaign official that Mrs. Clinton was “the face of the administration in foreign affairs.”
“Making tough decisions, responding to crises, making the bureaucracy implement decisions that they may not want to implement — that’s the hard part of foreign policy,” Ms. Rice said. “That’s not what Mrs. Clinton was asked or expected to do as first lady.”
yitbos
BRAM STOKER'S HILLARY - NOTES FROM A HILLARY HATER'S HANDBOOK (REVISED)
Clintonism - The Bill and Hillary problem.
$cience Mag Jumps on Global Moneywagon Prostitutionally Correct $cience reminds me of advance to the rear.
From time to time, I’ll ping on noteworthy articles about politics, foreign and military affairs. FReepmail me if you want on or off my list.
Based on Hillarys reasoning Monica Lewinsky is more qualified for President than she is ........
After all, she worked long hard nights in the Oval Office, something Hillary can absolutely not claim.
LOL !!
“Given where this story appeared, those little splashing sounds must be inkstained rodents backstroking furiously away from the S.S. Shelob.”
Pardon my ignorance, but could you translate this?
ROFL! you’re not the only one who thinks that!
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1944706/posts
“Prostitutionally Correct $cience”
I just spoke with Pat Healy to give him a suggestion for a followup article.
1. If Hillary did not have a security clearance, did she have access from her husband to classified material?
2. How is it that Monica Lewinksy was able to get TOP SECRET clearance at the Pentagon?
Maybe Monica should be running for the presidency. Maybe she shared more decisions with Bill than did his wife.
Hillary and Bill say she has served as "president" for eight years. If that is true, she cannot run for another term.
Thanks neverdem, but I think this has been posted a couple of times?
Clinton’s Resume Factor: Those 8 Years as First Lady
New York Times | December 26, 2007 | Patrick Healy
Posted on 12/26/2007 10:49:30 AM EST by Kaslin
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1944353/posts
The Times frequently can’t keep the original title.
The White House Pastry Chef has more experience than Hillary!
You're saying the grifters have found a way to cheat the Constitution? Yeah, that's charming.
Luckily, that experience includes cheesecake...
Thanks for the ping!
Tee hee.
Gimme a break.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.