MyDD :: The Myth of Hillary Clinton's Experience.

The Myth of Hillary Clinton's Experience.

by DerekLarsson, Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 04:45:36 PM EST

Experience: refers to know-how or knowledge in, "empirical knowledge". A person with considerable experience in a certain field can gain a reputation as an expert.

Everyone knows that Hillary Clinton has made the completely wrong and incompetent judgements in Foreign Policy, on both Iraq and Iran. Even far worse than any one particular vote, she attached her own credibility to public promotion and parroting of the plainly fraudulent White House talking-points, and a bizarre faith-based loyalty to their bogus intelligence (White House manipulated) -- even after the inconvenient truth was reported both Nationally and Internationally, and revealed before the whole World.

That, of course, is embarassing. But the scope and depth of Hillary Clinton's incompetence goes way beyond what she did 5 years ago, or what she did this summer (Kyl-Lieberman), or the many mendacious and reckless propaganda utterences and incompetent accusations that she has made about about Iraq and Iran over the past 5+ years. The errors are even larger, and something that is permanent and institutionalized by her own choice of trusted advisors, and that incompetence will never change either now or in the future. You can learn a whole lot about a candidate by who their trusted advisors are.

Both Barack Obama and Hillary have hired advisors that at one time served within the former Clinton administration. Yet, the similarity ends there:

Clinton's advisors:
Lee Feinstein: Chief Foreign Policy Advisor - Supported the War and continues to defend that support.

Madeleine Albright: Advisor - Supported 'regime change' by Military violence, and publically supported Bush's march to War.

Bill Clinton: Withheld information about the success of the 1990s UNSCOMB Weapons Inspections from the American public that could have prevented War, publically promoted all the fraudulent Cheney-Bush Iraq WMDs and Nuclear claims, and continued to publically endorse "taking out Hussein" (by mass-violence) and, in his own words, "defended Bush against the left on the War".

Obama's advisors:
Tony Lake: Chief Foreign Policy Advisor - opposed the Iraq War buildup and regarded it to be a misadventure.

Susan Rice: Never believed the the Iraq WMD/Nuclear claims to be legitimate.

Who has the winning team?
Clearly, the expertise that our Country needs now is demonstrated by Obama, and not Hillary Clinton.

While Obama has selected skilled and competent former-Clinton administration advisors who understood the Iraq situation accurately and made the correct judgements, Hillary Clinton has bunkered down with a goon squad of PNAC-CFR groupies like Lee Feinstein and Madeleine Albright who cheerled the Cheney-Bush march to War and have the audacity, even in the face of total failure, to continue to stick by their misguided, reckless, and dishonest assessments. It is no wonder then, that these are the same type of traits that are also exhibited by Hillary Clinton herself: the denial of any mistakes, the shameless repeating of false propaganda and fake 'threats' to justify bad judgements, the rushing to happily embrace the next concoction of dishonest White House War propaganda, or the blame shifting to the Iraq government (as we hold their Nation under an illegal, forced Military Occupation and steal their Oil). All of this reveals the fact that Hillary Clinton and her trusted advisors, never met a wrong & destructive Foreign Policy path that they didn't at once fall in love with. Furthermore, there is no track record of learning from past mistakes. Simply put, there is no demonstration of any wise "Experience" here to be found of any kind.

Contrast this with Obama, who has conversely surrounded himself with only the Clinton-era advisors who made the correct judgements and who possess the skill and integrity to advise him in an honorable and competent fashion.

And, in that isn't enough, it was revealed last week that that the Hillary Clinton adminstration (if people are dumb enough to actually vote for her) now plans to hire .. yep .. that 'old Iran-Contra criminal, and Saudi Oil Cartel crony, and CIA 'Bay of Pigs' Zapata Oil frontman, and Gerald Ford's HSCA Committee obstructing CIA-director, and recent Caryle Group Board member (along with Osama Bin Laden), and Iraq War Cheerleader with his idiot puppet sons, -- the ever-corrupt George H. W. Bush (War Profiteer) -- to advise & represent her administration on U.S. Foreign Policy.

This is Hillary's idea of "good advice".
What's next? Dan Qualye for Secretary of State?
How about Condolezza Rice for Chief of Staff?

One thing is for sure, I'll bet Hillary Clinton has a spot already reserved and waiting for Joe Lieberman in her adminstration as well.

_____

So, if Obama is able to choose the wise advisors, and Hillary Clinton is only able to surround herself with failed & incompetent advisors, doesn't that then suggest that Obama has the only "Experience" here that is actionable and actually worth anything?

I mean, if all you can do (Hillary Clinton) is drive a car off the road, you can do that as many times as you like, but that will never qualify you as an "experienced" driver.

Obama has a positive track record and hence the "experience" to wisely lead.
Hillary Clinton and her fumbling cadre of incompetent advisors, has demonstrated that they have no more true "experience" than Dick Cheney's hunting chauffeur.

Primary Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-kl ass/who-is-the-real-agent-for_b_78185.html

One more point: This illegal Military Occupation will NOT END with Clinton as President.

"We Need To Stay in Iraq to Protect the Kurds From The Turks."
-Bill Clinton, Dec. 2007

See: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/blake-flee twood/exclusive-bill-clinton_b_78349.html

The Truth

Hillary's LIES and the road to Hell

______

More Truth

More Unpresidential Bullshit

Any Questions?
Drive Carefully.

Poll

Votes: 5
Results : Vote Link : Polls

Tags: Hillary Clinton, Bush dynasty, Neo-Cons, failure, PNAC, failed leadership (all tags)

Permalink :: 34 Comments :: Post a Comment

Shouldn't you be at a Ron Paul meetup? (1.50 / 2)

Clinton also has support from the likes of Richard Holbrook, Wes Clark and Joe Wilson.

Clinton has consistantly scored points in the debates on the topics of foreign policy and security.

Clinton met with more foreign leader in one year a First Lady than Edwards or Obama have met with combined.

Listen, Obama is fading, Edwards doesn't have the juice to win it all, Clinton will be the nominee come Feb 5 so why don't you take your hatred for her, save it for next fall, and get on with selecting your third party kook fringe candidate that you will no doubt be supporting.

By the way, you are Paul fan, tell me why he thinks the Civil War was a big mistake.

by dpANDREWS on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 04:52:18 PM EST

Shouldn't you be Duck Hunting with Dick Cheney? (1.00 / 2)

For a "surge" in Truth: Say NO to NeoCons!!!

by DerekLarsson on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 05:49:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Shouldn't you be at a Ron Paul meetup? (none / 0)

My family is from northern Virginia and southern Virginia. I have heard all the arguments Ron Paul has made before. And in actuality the Civil War was never originally about slavery. Once the north started to win Lincoln used it to gain the "higher moral" ground to appeal to the already slave-free western world. The Civil War was originally an argument over state's rights. In that sense, yes the Civil War was a big mistake.

by SocialDem on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:19:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Shouldn't you be at a Ron Paul meetup? (none / 0)

I don't want to digress into a discussion of the Cilvil War, but it makes me crazy when people say the war wasn't about slavery. That disingenuous at best. The war was brought about sectionalism, and that sectionalism was primarily about slavery, and whether or not states had the right to hold slaves. Slavery was the very root of the conflict.

Sorry, I had to get that out.

No Way. No How. No McCain.

by Denny Crane on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:21:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Joe Wilson nails it (none / 0)

Hillary Clinton is ready to lead. She has the strength and the experience.

Obama simply doesn't. He is green or wet behind the ears. He is naive and he would lead to more foreign policy disasters. I don't want another President who needs to be lead by the nose by "advidors". We saw that with Bush 43.

Joe deals the honest truth about Clinton, Obama, experience and the type of leader we need:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joe-wilson /the-real-hillary-i-know-_b_77878.html

by dpANDREWS on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 04:57:02 PM EST

America nailed by Clinton. (1.00 / 2)

Just how much is the Hillary Clinton campaign paying you to defend her atrocities?

For a "surge" in Truth: Say NO to NeoCons!!!

by DerekLarsson on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 05:22:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Joe Wilson nails it (none / 0)

And you know he understands diplomacy and national security and has taken it to Bush on those issues ... right?

by dpANDREWS on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 08:31:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Revisit the dictionary (none / 0)

Active participation in events or activities, leading to the accumulation of knowledge or skill: a lesson taught by experience; a carpenter with experience in roof repair. b. The knowledge or skill so derived. 3. a. An event or a series of events participated in or lived through. b. The totality of such events in the past of an individual or group. tr.v. ex·per·i·enced, ex·per·i·enc·ing, ex·per·i·enc·es To participate in personally; undergo: experience a great adventure; experienced loneliness.

Try again.

by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 05:13:14 PM EST

Revisit your logic! (none / 0)

Sorry, pick any definition that you like.

No evidence of "leading to the accumulation of knowledge or skill" has ever been demonstrated here by Hillary Clinton or her incompetent Foreign Policy advisors to date.

For a "surge" in Truth: Say NO to NeoCons!!!

by DerekLarsson on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 05:18:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I picked the common dictionary definition (2.00 / 2)

not the Derek Larson special definition. As for whether SKILL was accumulated, that is a question of opinions, not facts. The EXPERIENCE occurred.

by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 05:26:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

What you picked. (1.00 / 1)

Sorry, no skill was ever accumulated or demonstrated at all by Clinton, and her further propaganda and reckless fearmongering about Iran shows that she learned absolutely nothing.

We need to pick better results than this.

For a "surge" in Truth: Say NO to NeoCons!!!

by DerekLarsson on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 05:40:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

In YOUR opinion (none / 0)

but the EXPERIENCE occurred.

by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 05:43:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Not opinion! (none / 0)

1,500,000 innocent Iraqis have been slaughtered.
2,000,000 Iraqi refugees have been created.
4,000 U.S. Soldiers have been killed.
30,000 U.S. Soldiers have been mamed or crippled.
$800,000,000,000 dollars of U.S. Taxpayer money has been wasted.
The price of Oil has skyrocketed. U.S. Dollar has plummeted.
Terrorism and anti-American hatred has gotten worse.

No, it is not opinion here.
The hard results are plainly evident for all to see.

For a "surge" in Truth: Say NO to NeoCons!!!

by DerekLarsson on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 05:47:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Revisit the dictionary (none / 0)

By your definition- and you pretend not to see me write it- we should also expect nominations for Nancy Reagan, Barbara Bush or Laura Bush because they too have White House experience. This comment is of course silly, but then it shows up the silliness of any argument about Clinton's experience in the WH for what it is.

by bruh21 on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 05:21:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Revisit the dictionary (none / 0)

No, it does not, for Hillary was the first First Lady to engage in policy initiatives. She was also the first First Lady to have an office in the West Wing.

by truthteller2007 on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 05:24:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Revisit the dictionary (none / 0)

I ignored it because I thought better of you than that argument. No, the experiece of Nancy Reagan, etc was NOTHING like that of Hillary Clinton and I seriously doubt you believe in the argument you are makig. As I say, I think better of you than that.

by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 05:24:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Revisit the dictionary (none / 0)

Explain in actual substantive terms through actual examples of where her experience exists? So far to me you have been basically arguing she was there. That to me can not be enough. Hence the joke. The only one with a claim of real WH experience to me is Richardson, and as you know he's not even on my list, but at least he can claim it. This is the kicker: this all seems like emotions and perception masqerading as substance. Only one person on your entire thread admitted to the real gambit that its really about voter perception. You feel she was better therefore she was. People felt Bush supported important of drugs from abroad so he was. Do you see the analogy of how perception isn't reality, and taking a step back might actually help you here. My post challenges the basic conceit.I am uninterested in general feelings, and I really would like from you specifics since your argument is that somehow that she was qualitatively better. You should be able to prove that.

by bruh21 on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 05:44:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I am sorry (none / 0)

that you seem intent on this line of argument. I think the response is obvious - she was a SUBSTANTIVE policy player in the Clinton Administration. This, I thought, was well accepted. Nancy Reagan was not. Think Eleanor Roosevelt.

by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 05:50:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I am sorry (none / 0)

She had one substantive policy contribution- that of the healthcare. That I can remember-w hat others did she have? And yes, it was well understood- perceptionally. But that doesn't mean much because there is a) no accountability for it and b) not transparent. Yes, I know Roosovelt can be used as an example. My issue with this is deeper than Clinton. I see the pandoras box of arguing status like this that you are all I think glossing over.

by bruh21 on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 05:52:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Try Eleanor Roosevelt though (none / 0)

and you have a better argumet. Will you try it?

by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 05:25:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Try Eleanor Roosevelt though (none / 0)

Yeah, I used her as example to others- and they said she also didn't have Clinton's experience. I personally think this is all about emotions and perception- belief- not substance. I also would have the same problem using her and at least given what we factually know of history, she had a better claim to saying she had experience of running a WH, than Clinton. BUT, still would have the problem for the reasons of principle of how we think of experience in a democracy. We don't think of status of having married someone as experience. For the reasons Ive stated before.

by bruh21 on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 05:49:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Try Eleanor Roosevelt though (none / 0)

Well, I think she is acknowledged to have had the most influential voice in the Dem Party in the 50s so I do not know what folks are talking about generally. Specifically, Clinton's substantive role was easier to ackwoeldge.

by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 05:51:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Revisit the dictionary (none / 0)

bruh, he did not imply it. You're reading way too much into BTD post. Please read it again.

by lonnette33 on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 05:29:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Revisit the dictionary (none / 0)

okay I will re read to make sure I didn't misunderstand. I think Clinton is more than experience by the way without having to resort to her time as a wife of a President.

by bruh21 on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 05:50:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Revisit the dictionary (none / 0)

I dont think by the way that Edwards or Obama can question whether Clinton is as experienced or more so than they are. I think they can question her judgement , not her experience. I merely do not like the use of her status as first lady as backdoor way to lay claim to the actions of her husbands as somehow attributable to her as well. She ulitimately wasn't the President- he as. We elected him- not her.

by bruh21 on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 05:55:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Revisit the dictionary (none / 0)

Agreed! HRC's judgement is fair game. Although, I disagree with you that her time as First Lady should not be taken into account as experience. We can all agree that she was not the President or Vice-President. However, HRC was a unique First Lady, who played a key role in policy. That's a fact.

by lonnette33 on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 06:11:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Revisit the dictionary (none / 0)

Yes, but how much of a true role we'll never know.

by SocialDem on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 09:54:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The Occupation WILL NOT END with Clinton. (none / 0)

"We Need To Stay in Iraq to Protect the Kurds From The Turks."
-Bill Clinton, Dec. 2007

See: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/blake-flee twood/exclusive-bill-clinton_b_78349.htm l

For a "surge" in Truth: Say NO to NeoCons!!!

by DerekLarsson on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 08:02:00 PM EST

Barry ever visit Iraq? Afghanistan? (none / 0)

Why is it Obama won't go to combat zones?

Clinton has.

That is real experience.

by dpANDREWS on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 09:43:53 PM EST

LOL (none / 0)

Visitng the Green Zone is laughable and means nothing.
Real experience means getting your facts right.

The track record of Hillary Clinton, and her goon sqaud of
incompetent, Neocon advisors will always be the wrong experience here.

For a "surge" in Truth: Say NO to NeoCons!!!

by DerekLarsson on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 01:03:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Larson is anti Clinton wanderer. (1.00 / 1)

He spreads this line at a load of sites. Just read some of his contributions and ask yourself just how rational he is on the subject of Clinton. Make up your own minds. It's all part of the straw man strategy to draw attention away from Obama almost unbelievable lack of experience. He's got less than the mayor of my small town.

by ottovbvs on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:39:16 PM EST

Pathetic... (none / 0)

Obama and his advisors got it right.

You can't ever spin away Hillary's failed judgement and her record for promotion Neocon propaganda and all those White-House lies.

For a "surge" in Truth: Say NO to NeoCons!!!

by DerekLarsson on Thu Dec 27, 2007 at 01:07:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.