EPIGONIC

Bogus "Missing in Action" Argument

In the last debate, Senator Clinton attacked Senator Obama by noting he'd not chaired any meetings of the Senate Foreign Relations subcommittee on European Affairs. He took on chairmanship of that in 2007.

Senator Obama, in the debate, flatly admitted he indeed had not chaired any such meetings as he became chair of the subcommittee just as he started campaigning for President.

Clinton has continued to escalate the attack, today saying he was "missing in action" by not holding any such hearings. This is getting silly. As Andy Fisher, who works for the ranking minority member (Republican Senator Richard Lugar) noted yesterday:

The chair sets the agenda for a subcommittee and Obama could have asked to hold a hearing on NATO and its role in Afghanistan.

But Clinton’s claim, while technically true, is unfair, said Andrew J. Fischer, a spokesman for Republican Sen. Richard Lugar. Lugar now serves as a minority member of the Foreign Relations Committee, but he was the chair, from 2003 to 2006, when Republicans controlled the Senate. He is the ranking Republican on the committee.

Fischer, who is a minority staff member of the Foreign Relations Committee, said something as major as NATO’s role in Afghanistan would typically be held before the full Foreign Relations Committee, rather than Obama’s European subcommittee.

In fact, the Foreign Relations Committee held a hearing on Afghanistan on Jan. 31, 2008, and NATO was a part of the discussion. Obama attended a Democratic debate in California that day. Clinton is not on the committee.

The Red Phone Farce

After Hillary Clinton released her "Red Phone" ad today (on the Vodpod to the right, along with Obama's response ad) John Dickerson of Slate asks the Clinton campaign on its conference call today:

"What foreign policy moment would you point to in Hillary's career where she's been tested by crisis?"

You can listen to the question and answer on Matt Yglesia's blog, but here's what he had to say:

After an uncomfortably long moment during which neither Mark Penn, Howard Wolfson and Lee Feinstein have anything to say, and then Lee Feinstein tries to step in with a save and starts talking about Clinton's endorsement by high-level military officials.

Feinstein, the campaign's foreign policy guy, is making the best of a bad situation here. But the more strictly political people walked into a debacle. How could they go forward with that ad without having a good answer to the question on hand? It's inept in the extreme.

It's inept but not surprising. Because Senator Clinton hasn't had some experience where she was tested by some foreign policy crisis. I've read every major book on the Clinton presidency out there, and don't know of any point where she played some critical role in the Situation Room at the White House during some key crisis -- Somalia, the Balkans, Iraq, Haiti, the bombing of the Cole.

 

Indeed, as Patrick Healy pointed out in the NY Times months ago:

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.

Sure, she saw the President up close during many of these crises, after he emerged from the Situation Room. But it's arguable that Sandy Berger, Leon Panetta, George Stephanopolous, John Podesta, Erskine Bowles, Madeleine Albright, Tony Lake, Warren Christopher, and dozens of other senior advisers to Bill Clinton played a much greater role during the biggest crises in the 1990s than she ever did.

Confederacy of Dunces

Rep. Jack Kingston (R-Ga.) definitively proves that patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel...

I hope the Republicans keep the focus on these kinds of issues. It'll make for a more fruitful campaign.

from www.talkingpointsmemposted with vodpod

Barack OBollywood

Very funny Bollywood-style Obama video.

from jacksonwest.vodpod.cposted with vodpod

Lewis switches support to Obama

Legendary civil rights leader switches his support from Senator Clinton to Senator Obama, says it was incredibly difficult because of the long, personal relationship with the Clintons.

from www.msnbc.msn.composted with vodpod

Working the Ref Works!

Or so it would seem, as MSNBC has been in the tank tonight for the Clinton campaign.

First, Andrea Mitchell spouted almost verbatim the campaign-provided spin of the night (see previous post for details).

Ron Allen trumpeted her supposed foreign policy experience. I'd like to see actual substantive backup of that -- I used to work for the Senate Foreign Relation chairman, follow this area closely, and Senator Clinton just isn't known for any substantive leadership in the area. In fact, Obama has passed more real, serious legislation in a shorter time in the foreign affairs area (Lugar-Obama Non Proliferation Act).

And David Gregory even got in to the act, repeating the claim that Clinton has more experience as a fighter.

I wish people would be a bit more precise about that. Is Senator Clinton confrontational? Sure. Has she actually accomplished something meaningful and significant that helps people with that confrontation? Not so clear. I'd like to see the evidence of some significant piece of legislation, passed as a result of her taking on some significant interests in Washington. If you know one, name it in the comments please.

The Bogus Complaints about the Media

One of the clear themes from Senator Clinton and her supporters (including, apparently, some from SNL) the past few days has been: the media has been unfair to her.

Funny, I don't recall her or her campaign making that argument last Fall, when she was far ahead in the race, and the media was effectively annointing her as the Democratic nominee, fawning over her supposed experience advantage (to the consternation of far more experienced Senators Dodd and Biden), and extolling her grasp of detail and substance.

The press in many ways continues its slavish adherence to the Clinton campaign talking points -- repeating without any substantiation or back up that she is somehow more experienced or has a better grasp of the details or has more accomplishments -- without much investigation or skepticism.

From what I can tell, favorable coverage of Obama began when her started winning primaries.

One last point: the Clinton campaign usually point to MSNBC as Exhibit A in their proffer of evidence of Obama-fawning. So funny to see Andrea Mitchell tonight in the post-debate review on MSNBC repeating almost verbatim the Clinton campaign talking points -- that "I thought that Senator Clinton successfully got her point across, that 'I am a fighter'."

Damned MSNBC, they're in the tank for Clinton!

Debate #20: The Clinton Potemkin Village

Tonight was debate #20 for the Democratic Presidential contenders. I think I've caught all but two, most of them live and in real-time (either online or television).

Last summer, when I was watching the debates, I was impressed by how much stronger Senator Clinton was than every other candidate on the stage, including the one I support -- Senator Obama.

It's been interesting to watch the last three one-on-one debates. From my vantage point (admittedly as a partisan), Senator Clinton now has no real, substantive advantage in the debates, and one could make a very plausible argument that Obama easily bested her tonight and in the last debate. I thought she looked shrill, defensive, and, well, not very ready to be President throughout much of it.

One glaring moment for me: her answer on the very interesting question from Russert about the next Russian President. For all of her claims to be so vastly superior on foreign affairs and ready "from day one" -- well, it was a very shallow and unperceptive answer. It was clever of Russert not to say Medvedev's name, and to see if she knew it.

The other thing that I noticed was Obama's handling of the Farrakhan question from Russert. It's interesting, much of the reaction I've read tonight is about Russert's supposedly tougher questioning of Clinton than Obama, with some buying into the Clinton campaign meme that the press is tougher on her. I defy anyone to find a triple-entendre race-and-religion-baiting question ("Are your friends really all black, Muslim anti-semites, Mr Obama?") like this one asked of Senator Clinton.

I thought Obama handled the question well (someone on the telly said he "fumbled" the moment -- wha??). Clinton tried to pile on with a pretty despicable Tracy Flick-style move, saying Obama should not only have denounced" Farrakham but "rejected" him, and Obama deftly said, ok, I reject and denounce him if the words really are so different. Clinton looked pretty pathetic.

Finally, I think the format of the last three debates-- with the opportunity for more long-form answers, real thinking on one's feet, and a corresponding reduction in reliance on simple sound-bit barbs -- has been informative. What they last have revealed to me is something I suspected for a while -- that Senator Clinton's claim to vastly superior experience and to being more substantive is a bit hollow. People keep talking about how substantive and smart she is, and to be honest, it hasn't really shone through in any of the recent debates, where she hasn't been able to rely as much on the canned quip.

And without the hook of steady debate performances, there aren't many substantive accomplishments she can point to in her Senate career. So I continue to wonder, at this point, where's the beef.

Video of the Prairie View A&M Student March

Students from Prairie View A & M in Texas marched 7.3 miles to the closest polling station as early voting started for the Texas Primary.

from www.burntorangereporposted with vodpod

I'm Sorry to Say Race Still Matters

For everyone out there that thinks it's easier for an African-American to get elected than a woman; for all those who think Barack Obama is evidence we've reached some post-racial state of nirvana; and for those of you who still believe Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton were not subtly injecting race in this election, I strongly suggest you read this article in the WaPo today.

Key line:

While about half of whites regardless of education level said the nation is "definitely" ready for a woman president, just a third of whites without college degrees were that sure the country is prepared for a black president and they were almost twice as likely as college educated whites to say the nation is not ready for an African American chief executive.