Seeing how Hillary has taken to praising John McCain and her own experience – in her self-assessment they have both passed this so-called “Commander-in-Chief Threshold” – its worth actually considering this vast foreign policy experience she claims.
Before I cut to the chase though, I would say that I don’t question Hillary’s ability to assume the presidency or serve as commander in chief. I think she could do it. But, what I do question is her ability to claim that her record makes her more qualified than Barack Obama’s does. She has made her experience in foreign policy a major campaign theme but its not clear whether it stacks up to much. This from the Chicago Tribune.
But while Hillary Clinton represented the U.S. on the world stage at important moments while she was first lady, there is scant evidence that she played a pivotal role in major foreign policy decisions or in managing global crises.
Pressed in a CNN interview this week for specific examples of foreign policy experience that has prepared her for an international crisis, Clinton claimed that she “helped to bring peace” to Northern Ireland and negotiated with Macedonia to open up its border to refugees from Kosovo. She also cited “standing up” to the Chinese government on women’s rights and a one-day visit she made to Bosnia following the Dayton peace accords.
So let’s look at the record and I will say I am being selective here in quotes I choose so I expect some criticism on this.
On Northern Ireland:
Tim Pat Coogan, an Irish historian who has written extensively on the conflict in Northern Ireland, said the first lady’s visits were not decisive in the negotiating breakthroughs in Northern Ireland.
“It was a nice thing to see her there, with the women’s groups. It helped, I suppose,” Coogan said. “But it was ancillary to the main thing. It was part of the stage effects, the optics.
“There were all kinds of peace movements, women’s movements throughout the ‘Troubles.’ But it was more about the clout of Bill Clinton,” added Coogan.
On Chinese women’s rights:
One of Clinton’s most noteworthy forays onto the foreign stage came in 1995, when she delivered a speech at the United Nations’ women’s conference in Beijing. That speech was widely noted and hailed as a bold call for women’s rights, especially because Clinton explicitly spoke out against forced abortion and other practices of the host country.
“In the years since, I have met many women from many places who tell me they were at Beijing, or had friends who were, or who were inspired by the conference to launch initiatives,” Albright wrote in her 2003 memoir.
Good speech and inspiring. But for a candidate that says words don’t matter and speeches don’t count for much, its funny that she is making so much of a speech she gave – maybe words and speeches matter after all. But as far as I can tell after it, China did nothing to change its policy on forced abortion and she nary mentioned the issue again.
On Macedonia:
In 1999, Clinton visited Albanian refugee camps in Macedonia during the NATO bombing campaign to force Slobodan Milosevic’s troops out of Kosovo. Macedonia had sealed its borders in an attempt to stop the arrival of refugees but, under Western pressure, reopened them the day before Clinton visited the camps.
Good she went, good for showing her support but not really decisive to anything.
On Bosnia:
Her mission to Bosnia was a one-day visit in which she was accompanied by performers Sheryl Crow and Sinbad, as well as her daughter, Chelsea, according to the commanding general who hosted her.
So what does that all say. None of it disqualifies her. It does demonstrate she was active in foreign affairs. But, I think she’s overdoing it a bit and believe me, it may help her against Obama but against McCain it would look thin as paper.
But speaking of McCain, Hillary and John have a long history of speaking highly of each other. Maybe she is a unifier after all. This from The Nation
Who would Hillary Clinton rather be president, Barack Obama or John McCain? The answer should be obvious. But these days Clinton keeps saying that McCain is ready to be commander-in-chief, and Obama is not.
“I think it’s imperative that each of us be able to demonstrate we can cross the commander-in-chief threshold,” Clinton said yesterday. “I believe that I’ve done that. Certainly, Sen. McCain has done that and you’ll have to ask Sen. Obama with respect to his candidacy.”
This is not a new line for Clinton. A few days before March 4, she said: “I think you’ll be able to imagine many things Senator McCain will be able to say. He’s never been the president, but he will put forth his lifetime of experience. I will put forth my lifetime of experience. Senator Obama will put forth a speech he made in 2002.”
Now, if she wanted to help ensure that a Democrat wins in November, Clinton could say: “Barack Obama is qualified to be commander-in-chief but I’m more qualified.” That’s a perfectly reasonable argument. Instead she’s sowing doubts about a fellow Democrat while talking up the GOP nominee, a strategy that plays right into McCain’s hands. When McCain says, in a general election, that Obama is not ready to be commander-in-chief, he’ll only have to cite Clinton.
Perhaps this latest line of attack shouldn’t be surprising. Just a few years ago, Clinton and McCain’s position on the war in Iraq was nearly indistinguishable. On a February 23, 2005 edition of Meet the Press, Clinton was asked whether the US should set a date to withdraw US troops from Iraq.
“We don’t want to send a signal to the insurgents, to the terrorists that we are going to be out of here at some, you know, date certain,” Clinton responded. “I think that would be like a green light to go ahead and just bide your time.”
At the end of the segment, Tim Russert joked: “We may have a fusion ticket right here.”
Again, I think Hillary could do the job. I’d prefer her to John McCain. But, I think there is nothing in her record or resume to suggest that she could do it better than Obama. Given her vote for the war and hawkishness (the McCain line), it could be worse despite all those trips with Sinbad. She has staked her claim on experience and if she pulls the nomination off, her rather thin resume on foreign affairs will come back to haunt her. Fully vetted, I don’t think so.
I think she has the experience. But, I sometimes think she has gone a tad overboard in making her case and could be open to some scrutiny.
<
p>The fact is, Obama, Clinton or McCain have faced the decisions facing a president. No one does until they get into office. This idea of some threshold for commander-in-chief that she or McCain has passed is a false standard. That said, she seems to have made some headway with the issue and she is likely to keep making that case if it is working.
I said I think Hillary could do it. I just think the fact that she says Obama can’t is ridiculous and that her rather weak record on foreign affairs should be more sharply scrutinized.
…especially given when he had the chance to lead (as in chair of the Foreign Relations sub committee) he was uuuuhhhhh too busy running for President, campaigning on how he would do it if given the chance?
One, attack Hillary, or two come back with actions by Obama via surrogates, whomever, and talk about why it’s foolish to being with examples of Obama’s actions while in the Senate. it could be quick and easy and it would make Hillary look bad. Why doesn’t he take this path?