
Hillary Clinton has claimed that she brought peace to Northern Ireland, that she was instrumental in bringing about the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), that she was sent on dangerous missions as first lady that were far too dangerous for the President himself, that she will release her 2006 taxes, and that she is working on getting her records released from her time as first lady.
These are just a few of the claims that she has made. Let's start with the two easiest to debunk, the two which, if she had followed through, she'd have something to show for. So far, we have not seen her 2006 taxes released because, in her own words, she's just too busy right now. Right, as if she doesn't have people who do that for her which have nothing to do with her campaign. We're supposed to believe she's too busy to have someone make a phone call to her accountant? Her records have not been released from her time as first lady, but she and Bill have been "working" on that for years now. Are we expected to believe that it actually takes that long? What is she hiding? America has a right to know.
Hillary has claimed that when Bill Clinton was in office that, "We used to say in the White House that if a place is too dangerous, too small or too poor, send the First Lady." As evidence of this she points to a trip she made to Bosnia. What she fails to point out is that the trip in question was actually an entertainment trip, and she was accompanied by Sheryl Crow and Sinbad. The latter has since spoken out about Senator Clinton's claims of the danger involved on that trip.
Says Sinbad, "I never felt that I was in a dangerous position. I never felt being in a sense of peril, or 'Oh, God, I hope I'm going to be OK when I get out of this helicopter or when I get out of his tank.'" On her claims that Mrs. Clinton was sent to locations too dangerous for the President, he expressed the opinion, "What kind of president would say, 'Hey, man, I can't go 'cause I might get shot so I'm going to send my wife…oh, and take a guitar player and a comedian with you.'" He said the scariest part of the trip was wondering where they would eat next, "I think the only 'red-phone' moment was: 'Do we eat here or at the next place,'" the comedian said.
Now, you may argue that a comedian is not qualified to comment on politics. I used Sinbad's quotes here because he was on this trip, and these are his personal experiences. This trip is one of the things she's claiming as "foreign policy experience." This is one of the aspects of her vast experience that she is running on, providing entertainment in Bosnia.
Senator Clinton has also claimed that she was instrumental in negotiating peace in Northern Ireland. According to Senator George Mitchell, the Clinton Administration's leading Northern Ireland peace negotiator, Hillary Clinton was not directly involved in the negotiations. Brian Feeney, author and former Belfast politician said that, "The road to peace was carefully documented, and she wasn't on it."
Basically, her role consisted of encouraging women to get into the political process. Chris Thornton, political reporter for the Belfast Telegraph said that her contributions amounted to "mood music". "Would we have reached a settlement without that kind of stuff? Yes. Would we have got one without the intervention of Bill Clinton and George Mitchell? No," he said.
Hillary has also continually taken credit for getting SCHIP passed. She says it is an initiative that she "helped to start." In reality, the Clinton Administration fought the SCHIP effort which was being advocated by Senators Edward Kennedy and Orrin Hatch, because of fears that it would derail a bigger budget bill. Several lawmakers and staff have stated that Hillary Clinton had no role in helping to write the SCHIP legislation, which was modeled on a similar program in Massachusetts. According to Hatch, "The White House wasn't for it. We really roughed them up." Hatch said of Clinton, "I do like her, we all care about children. But does she deserve credit for SCHIP? No - Teddy does, but she doesn't."
So, if these are the things she's talking about most, we can't really assume that there is a vast store of things she actually did do that she isn't talking about, can we? She was no more than a cheerleader for the Northern Ireland peace talks. We don't need a Cheerleader-In-Chief. We've had one of those for eight years already. What we need is a President, a Commander-In-Chief. What we need is someone who can actually get things done instead of taking credit for things that other people have done. What we don't need is Hillary Clinton.
Kevin they know she is lying and exaggerating her so called 35 years of experience. I don't think I have heard her touting that lately have you?
If we lived in Pennsylvania, we may have. If we were superdelates, we certainly would have. Her experience, from day one (so to speak), was that she's been throught the mill with the Republicans and still won her Senate seat. An interesting pitch, and one that many buy, but the other stuff is just dummy support.
Good article.
everyone is discussing some words some guy said that Obama has already denounced and says he doesn't agree with.
Kevin what this focus on Obama's FORMER pastor tells me is that people outside of the AA community don't have a clue what happens in the AA churches. The reverends delivery is the old style fire and brimstone tone that is prominent in some AA churches. It also exposes the fact that this country is still basically racist and we have a long way to go.
I want someone to admit that they agree with everything their pastor tells them and their pastor absolutely defines you because you don't have sense enough to define yourself.
I know what my pastor has always told me and that is don't always listen to me read the Bible for yourself so you will know for yourself.
Are there any Obama PA folks out there?
Ratigan she won the senate seat by some unscrupulous methods as well. She has shown she is not beneath doing whatever it takes to win. As a matter of fact some of the same people involved with her campaign now.
Kevin what this focus on Obama's FORMER pastor tells me is that people outside of the AA community don't have a clue what happens in the AA churches. The reverends delivery is the old style fire and brimstone tone that is prominent in some AA churches.
Well, when you think about it, you have to realize this (and this goes across the board, not just for AA churches): Christianity has always focused on the oppression of congregation. Even all-white upper-class Christian churches are known to preach about the (fictional) oppression of Christians, especially when we are dealing with End-Times rhetoric. One of the main focuses in the Left Behind series is the illegalization of Christianity. I guess that if they are not oppressed, there's no real need for a Savior, but the truth is that they are a majority, and in my view they are the kind of church Jesus preached against.
Now as for what Mr Wright said: It is no different than traditional "oppression" sermons except that he uses language and ideas that strike closer to (or directly at) the AA community. Where the oppression of rich, white Christians is laughable, a lot of the people in his congregation are more likely to have experienced actual oppression. This would be a very effective sermon for it hits home for some people. He doesn't say those things because he thinks it will cause a revolution of sorts, he does it because it fills the most sacred object in any church: the collection plate.
I think the answer is now crystal clear:
"It's 3AM. There's an emergency. Who do you want to answer the red phone?"
Sinbad 2008!
I too, now, like Tracy Morgan
Clinton will be a disaster if she becomes President. I hope this country wakes up. As much as I don't want to I probably will vote for whoever else is on the ballot as President. I don't want to be responsible for putting this witch in the WH.
I hear you Sally, but would you want to be responsible for putting McCain in the WH? It seems us Obama supporters will have a tough decision on our hands very soon. Do we want to be responsible for McCain in office (by not voting) or for Clinton in office (by voting)?
Nader? Will give him some thought I just keep hoping that the people will hang in with Obama.
Can we agree to save the word "lies" for statements that are purposely and unequivocally untrue? Can we avoid using the word to describe every statement of opinion and every disputed fact? Please?
Senator Clinton's role in the Northern Ireland peace process isn't a "lie"; Mr. Trimble disputes her importance, but there are a number of other participants in the process who agree that she played a substantial role. From The Irish Times on March 12:
Sinn Féin president Gerry Adams told The Irish Times that, although he admires all three remaining US presidential candidates and is not endorsing any of them, Mrs Clinton is justified in claiming a role in the peace process. "David Trimble is reported as saying Senator Hillary Clinton played no part in the Irish peace process. That is not true. Senator Clinton played an important role in the peace process," he said. "I met the senator on many occasions when she was First Lady, and subsequently when she became a senator for New York State. I always found her to be extremely well informed on the issues."
Former SDLP leader John Hume has also come to Mrs Clinton's defence, expressing surprise that anyone should doubt the importance of her contribution.
"I can state from first-hand experience that she played a positive role for over a decade in helping to bring peace to Northern Ireland," he said in a statement posted on Mrs Clinton's website.
"There is no doubt that the people of Northern Ireland think very positively of Hillary Clinton's support for our peace process, due to her visits to Northern Ireland and her meetings with so many people. In private she made countless calls and contacts, speaking to leaders and opinion makers on all sides, urging them to keep moving forward."
... Former senator George Mitchell, who chaired the talks leading up to the 1998 agreement, said this week that he believed that Mrs Clinton's characterisation of her role was generally accurate. "She was helpful and supportive, very much involved in the issues. She knew all of the delegates," he told CBS News.
"Her greatest focus was on encouraging women in Northern Ireland to get into and stay in the political process and the peace process and as I've said publicly many times and wrote in my book, the role of women in the peace process in Northern Ireland was significant."
And in today's Scranton Times-Tribune, visiting Irish Prime Minister Bertie Ahern said: (the video has nothing to do with the PM's comments on Senator Clinton, and unless you haven't gotten enough bagpipe music today to satisfy you, I'd skip it!)
With Democratic Presidential candidate Sen. Hillary Clinton accused of exaggerating her role in the Northern Ireland peace process, Ireland Prime Minister Bertie Ahern offered his two cents.
Mr. Ahern called Mrs. Clinton "hugely helpful" in the process both as first lady and as a U.S. senator, and suggested some of the criticism of her are unfair.
As far as SCHIP goes, there's also some differences of opinion. The AP in October did a fact check on her claims at the time the plan was in the news because President Bush was vetoing its expansion. They wrote:
"The children's health program wouldn't be in existence today if we didn't have Hillary pushing for it from the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue," [Senator Ted] Kennedy told The Associated Press.
President Clinton signed the bill in August 1997.
While Kennedy is widely viewed as the driving force behind the program, by all accounts the former first lady's pressure was crucial.
"She wasn't a legislator, she didn't write the law, and she wasn't the president, so she didn't make the decisions," says Nick Littlefield, then a senior health adviser to Kennedy. "But we relied on her, worked with her and she was pivotal in encouraging the White House to do it."
If you read the full story, you'll see that its history was not as simple as "the Clintons opposed it," and once the delicate budget negotiations were finished, it was re-proposed, agreed on, and signed in short order.
You're a reasonable guy, Kevin -- unlike some of the Senator Obama supporters I've encountered -- so, let's try to keep in mind that we are all Democrats. When we're thinking of using the word "lies," let's try to keep a sense of proportion: "Lies" are what the Bush Administration has used to suspend our civil liberties, bring our economy to its knees, sacrifice the lives of 4000 Americans and tens of times more Iraqis, and ruin our reputation and moral standing in the world. Yes, we support different candidates in the primary race, but unless we want to be inaugurating John McCain next January, we have to keep in mind how close this race is. We have to remember that the vote totals for Senator Clinton and Senator Obama are both pretty close to 50%. We have to remember that Senator McCain is popular with independents and moderates, and that most polls which match up Senator McCain with either of the two Democratic candidates show a race within the margin of error.
I certainly don't claim that Senator Clinton's camp or her followers are angels. But if Senator Obama wins the nomination, he is going to need all of Senator Clinton's support and supporters in order to out-poll Senator McCain in the general election. Senator Obama is supposed to be the good guy, the clean guy, the calm guy, but many of his supporters seem to think that they can fling unsupported accusations which originated with the Republican sleaze shops, work themselves into hysterics, call his opponent names -- "witch", "@!$%#", "criminal", "racist" and worse -- without it reflecting on Senator Obama. Do you think he can engender the kind of support he will need from her camp if his supporters spend all their time hurling insults at her and her supporters? Maybe they won't vote against him, but maybe they just won't vote. A Democrat has to win in what is going to be an even more difficult race this fall. There is no such thing as second place in a Presidential race.
As far as November is concerned ... I'm a Green. If Obama doesn't get the Dem nom, I'm going back to my own party.
Same here, I'm going Nader if it comes down to Clinton/McCain. Those two may as well run on the same "@!$%# America" ticket
"Clinton/McCain '08: @!$%# you, your hopes and dreams, and the freedom you rode in on!"
Another reason to dislike and distrust Clinton is her statement that voters are to look past Obama's votes and delegates. In other words all those people that have cast votes for Obama are stupid because they should have voted for her. Talk about Arrogance this is arrogance.
Well, the prime minister of Ireleand disagrees with you abour Hillary's involvement in the Northern Ireland peace process. I think I'll take his word over yours.
http :
Ireland is one of those countries that Bill has befriended and I am sure made big promise too if Hillary get elected. I am with you Kevin Dicks that take the word of those that have nothing to gain.
Evidence? We don't need no steenking evidence to make claims about Senator Clinton! There's just as much evidence that Senator Obama made promises to the out-of-power folks that he would reward them if they'd discredit Senator Clinton to help him get elected. So everyone might have something to gain. But of course it's Senator Obama we're talking about! So the mere thought that he might have even the teensiest smudge on his character is ridiculous!
hey guys, I am a white middle aged man and I have to tell you that all of this stuff about Obama's Pastor is media racism. Its sickening to watch this for 2 weeks straight all day. And Clinton has been caught lying about her experience MORE THAN ONCE. 11,000 pages of her schedule points really to no more than any other first lady. She needs to be put on the carpet for bamboozling the American public who were crazy enough to vote for her. I'm 63 years old and I've been around long enough to know the Clinton's. For you younger guys. Bill was alright, but there is an arrogance and a since of entitlement that is Hillary Clinton. She's a user. She's a liar. And frankly she'll make a terrible president. I've been voting for 41 years. I must tell you that Obama reminds me of Kennedy. He has the same magic guys. Trust me on this one. He's the real thing. If they steal the endorsement from him, for the first time in 41 years I will not vote democratic and for the first time in my life I will be absolutely ashamed to be an American. And don't dare question MY patriotism. 2 tours in 'Nam gives me the right to say that.- Joe
Thank you Joe. I agree with your conclusions, but for different reasons. That's why Obama is such a great leader. He brings people together that otherwise might never know they had so much in common. I'm a young middle class black woman. Never been in the Armed Forces, never want to. But I understand that there are many diverse Americans who still want the same thing: a leader who inspires. This country is more than just the President. It is the Executive Branch, the Legislative Branch, and the Judicial Branch. The person I want at the helm is the one who can make us feel like we're coming together for a common purpose.
Go Joe! I remember JFK too and I can tell you where I was the day he was murdered--I was 12 years old--they let us go home too. JFK was not perfect either not by a long shot. But when he asked us what we could do for our country, it inspired people. I think Obama inspires us to be the best we can be as AMERICANS first. That is my take...
Thanks for your service during one of the most difficult periods in our country's history. I am still waiting for the Communists to come take us over.
This lady has told so many whoppers that it is hard to count them all and in order to get her a-- out of it she goes back to Pastor Wright. At least Obama didn't lie about the man and as for her leaving a church were she didn't like the pastor, she goes to the church that will give her the most public attention. With Hillary it is ALL ABOUT POLITICS.
I heard a Texas caller today to the Ed Shultz show say that the Clinton camp is calling Obama pledged delegates to get them to switch. The results of Texas are not final until this Saturday. So she is trying to do what she has said they were going to do as far as trying to get the pledged delegates to flip.
I've been speaking out against the same issue's, and I'm encouraged that more people are seeing through all the chicanery and self serving politics of the Clintons. I've witnessed their politics of destruction which they've made a profession of. The Clinton campaign as we've seen will resort to any negative disgusting divisive tactic to justify their own ends.
I don't feel that we the American people have been well served by this type of politics, but we see the former President glorifying their tactics of win at all cost's. This isn't a sporting event, and the lives of our soldiers in Afghanistan, and Iraq aren't play things. Our childrens futures depend on a leader that will work to end the partisanship that has all but crippled our country. Our economy has fallen into dire straits, and our international standing requires a full time Presidency, and not one that will be embroiled in more scandal and distracted by personal issue's.
What's been almost left out of the media is the ongoing suit against the Clintons by Peter Paul. He was a mogul that supported Hillary Clinton's run for the Senate, by raising more then a million dollars that subsequently her campaign unlawfully under-reported. The media has selectively and incomprehensively not made this known to the American voters, and have focused on Senators Obama former Pastor J. Wright instead.
It's absolutely shocking to see how the Clintons have been able to manipulate the press and the public to their own ends. We should be very concerned as to what their agenda is, and who and particularly what the agenda is of the corporate interests that support them. They've been hugely successful at tapping into a sense of nostalgia for those that remember better economic times.
Unfortunately, as everyone finds out over time what worked in the past doesn't always work in the future. Our economy has changed considerably since the Clintons enjoyed the dot.com boom. We all remember the conclusion of that era. Meanwhile, our manufacturing base has been decimated thanks to NAFTA and short sighted Clinton policies, and whole industries have been shipped off of our shores placing millions of jobs in the hands of communist China, and Mexico.
Nostalgia, or misplaced sentiments of a presidency that was mired in scandal after scandal, and costing the American tax payers billions. Infidelity, fraud and corruption are the hallmarks of Clinton politics. Do we go forward, or do we go backwards knowing what we already know about their act? I believe we need new leadership, and that means letting go of the Clinton's and embracing Senator Obama.
She's been at it again in Northern Ireland. Addressing the Stormont Assembly last week, she talked about how when she and Bill last stayed in the Europa Hotel, in 1995, the hotel had sections boarded up form bomb damage.
She's reinvented her past to make it more interesting - again. The last bomb at the hotel was over two years before and the renovations had been completed 22 months earlier.
You can see her "misspeaking" again here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TK_zwDtmDlA
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |