View Story | 556 comments
Comments: Expand Shrink Hide (Always) | Indented Flat (Always)
Happy Thanksgiving For two parents who worked so hard to give us a better life. For thirty years with one amazing woman. And for four wonderful children. For 231 years of America. For the hopes and determination of a nation filled with the most optimistic people on Earth. And for all of you, who have welcomed us into your homes and hearts. Thank you.
Happy Thanksgiving
For two parents who worked so hard to give us a better life.
For thirty years with one amazing woman.
And for four wonderful children.
For 231 years of America.
For the hopes and determination of a nation filled with the most optimistic people on Earth.
And for all of you, who have welcomed us into your homes and hearts.
Thank you.
"The answer is to end our reliance on carbon-based fuels." Al Gore, 7/17/08
by TomP on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 03:04:11 PM PDT
[ Parent ]
IF we end up with a progressive for a President, John Edwards.
If we end up with a corporate Democrat or a Republican, we will be hanging on by a thread for another 4-8 years. sigh
by NCDem Amy on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 03:29:36 PM PDT
.....put us firmly into third world status.
by calibpatriot on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 04:52:59 PM PDT
The Prince of Peace has been usurped by the God of War.
by Spoc42 on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 01:42:12 AM PDT
another 4-8 years.
And if we have a corporate Democrat in, there's the chance we will just be handing the Presidency to the Republicans afterwards as voters will -- once again -- be sick of the way the country has been run.
by RAZE on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 06:06:29 PM PDT
and hand the Republicans both houses of Congress.
by lenzy1000 on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 06:38:06 PM PDT
Yes there is...in every important position he has ever taken...what high profile vote that Edwards made in his Senate carrer is he NOT sorry for?
by concernednyer2005 on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 07:14:12 PM PDT
You might want to show everyone what Clinton was responding to.
LA Times:
"Probably the strongest experience I have in foreign relations is the fact that I spent four years living overseas when I was a child in southeast Asia," said Obama, who lived in Indonesia from age 6 to age 10.
Clinton wasn't going after his childhood, she was going after what he himself claims is his strongest foreign policy experience.
If it's OK for candidates to go after Hillary's claims of experience as First Lady (as Obama did today, and Obama and Edwards have both done in the past), why is it not OK for Clinton to go after what Obama claims makes him qualified to be president?
The double standards here are mindboggling.
by Partially Impartial on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 03:57:27 PM PDT
There are all these folks writing diaries about her statement, attacking her as racist of all things.
Get the facts straight, kids: Obama is the one who said (drumroll please)
That his biggest qualification for foreign relations was living in indonesia when he was 10.
Really? His best experience in foreign relations?
AH HAHAHAHAH Ha! that's what we call 'resume padding' folks.
C'mon. snort. it's hilarious.
Hillary's Voting Record - Go HILLARY!
by naderhader on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 04:01:29 PM PDT
The vast majority of which is being married to a successful politician.
Now THAT's resume padding of Bush-Rovian quality.
Get your Democracy Bond and help build a 50-state Democratic Party!
by RobertInWisconsin on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 04:07:52 PM PDT
I'm just saying this diary is intentionally misleading. It states:
Yes, today she went after Barack Obama's childhood:
No, she went after what Obama claims as his strongest experience in foreign relations. Just as Obama and Edwards have both gone after Clinton's claim of gaining strong experience as First Lady.
Barack Obama did not choose where he lived as a child.
No, but he did choose to use his childhood as support for his claim of experience.
by Partially Impartial on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 04:26:17 PM PDT
corporations at the Rose Law Firm as being a fighter for "the people".
At least Edwards sued corporations, while Obama refused to work at corporations.
by bonusarmy on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 04:39:15 PM PDT
Or maybe she was referencing her work as an attorney for the Children's Defense Fund--or her later serving on their Board.
Or maybe Chairing the Legal Services Corporation Board?
Or maybe her 7 years as a US Senator?
Or maybe working as an attorney on the Watergate investigation for the House Judiciary Commitee?
Or maybe being a professor at University of Arkansas, Fayetteville School of Law?
by Partially Impartial on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 05:08:51 PM PDT
sorry ;) couldn't help it.
by rapcetera on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 05:24:21 PM PDT
six excellent years she had on the board of directors for that extraordinay emblem of progressive values --Wal-Mart!
You forgot that little tidbit? Geez, Partially Imp., How could you?
by DelicateMonster on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 05:55:26 PM PDT
"Did Hillary like all of Wal-Mart practices? No," said Garry Mauro, a longtime friend and supporter of the Clintons who sat on the Wal-Mart Environmental Advisory Board with Mrs. Clinton in the late 1980s and worked with her on George McGovern’s 1972 presidential campaign. "But," Mr. Mauro added, "was Wal-Mart a better company, with better practices, because Hillary was on the board? Yes."
"Did Hillary like all of Wal-Mart practices? No," said Garry Mauro, a longtime friend and supporter of the Clintons who sat on the Wal-Mart Environmental Advisory Board with Mrs. Clinton in the late 1980s and worked with her on George McGovern’s 1972 presidential campaign.
"But," Mr. Mauro added, "was Wal-Mart a better company, with better practices, because Hillary was on the board? Yes."
Mrs. Clinton had greater success on environmental issues. At her request, Mr. Walton set up the environmental advisory group, which sent a series of recommendations to the company’s board. When it came time to pick members, Mrs. Clinton, who led the advisory group, reached out to at least two colleagues from the McGovern presidential campaign — Mr. Mauro and Roy Spence, who headed an advertising firm in Texas that did extensive work for Wal-Mart. Under her watch, the advisory group drew up elaborate plans. Consumers would bring in used motor oil and batteries for recycling. Suppliers would reduce the size of their packaging. And Wal-Mart would build stores with energy-saving features. Wal-Mart executives put much of the program into place. In 1993, for example, they opened an experimental "eco-store" in Kansas, with skylights and wooden beams from forests that had not been clear cut. One executive derided it as "Hillary’s store" because it was more expensive to build than the average Wal-Mart, but several of its features, like the skylights that cut energy bills by reducing the need for artificial lighting, were widely copied across the industry. "We were on the leading edge of something that is being mandated now," said Bill Fields, the head of merchandise at Wal-Mart in the early 1990s who worked closely with Mrs. Clinton on the environmental project.
Mrs. Clinton had greater success on environmental issues. At her request, Mr. Walton set up the environmental advisory group, which sent a series of recommendations to the company’s board.
When it came time to pick members, Mrs. Clinton, who led the advisory group, reached out to at least two colleagues from the McGovern presidential campaign — Mr. Mauro and Roy Spence, who headed an advertising firm in Texas that did extensive work for Wal-Mart.
Under her watch, the advisory group drew up elaborate plans. Consumers would bring in used motor oil and batteries for recycling. Suppliers would reduce the size of their packaging. And Wal-Mart would build stores with energy-saving features.
Wal-Mart executives put much of the program into place. In 1993, for example, they opened an experimental "eco-store" in Kansas, with skylights and wooden beams from forests that had not been clear cut.
One executive derided it as "Hillary’s store" because it was more expensive to build than the average Wal-Mart, but several of its features, like the skylights that cut energy bills by reducing the need for artificial lighting, were widely copied across the industry.
"We were on the leading edge of something that is being mandated now," said Bill Fields, the head of merchandise at Wal-Mart in the early 1990s who worked closely with Mrs. Clinton on the environmental project.
link
by Partially Impartial on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 06:08:02 PM PDT
Wal-Mart years, and raise you a link:
The Clintons also benefited financially from Wal-Mart. Hillary Clinton was paid $18,000 each year she served on the board, plus $1,500 for each meeting she attended. By 1993 she had accumulated at least $100,000 in Wal-Mart stock, according to Bill Clinton's federal financial disclosure forms that year.
It's true as you note that "Clinton was particularly vocal on environmental matters, pressing the company to boost its sale and use of recycled materials and other ''green" products." ....but....
Still, critics say there was little tangible change at Wal-Mart during Clinton's tenure, despite her apparent prodding. ''There's no evidence she did anything to improve the status of women or make it a very different place in ways Mrs. Clinton's Democratic base would care about," said Liza Featherstone, author of ''Selling Women Short: The Landmark Battle for Worker's Rights at Wal-Mart."
Still, critics say there was little tangible change at Wal-Mart during Clinton's tenure, despite her apparent prodding.
''There's no evidence she did anything to improve the status of women or make it a very different place in ways Mrs. Clinton's Democratic base would care about," said Liza Featherstone, author of ''Selling Women Short: The Landmark Battle for Worker's Rights at Wal-Mart."
So let's review. Hillary makes loads of cash with a politically connected Republican owned corporation while providing "no evidence that she did anything to improve the status of women or make it a very different place..." in ways Democrats might care about.
Doesn't seem like a worthwhile pursuit to burn six years as a progressive, unless, of course, you're in it for the political connections (Sam Walton was extremely powerful in Arkansas) and the cash. Seems like a pattern that's being repeated with Rupert Murdoch...something about those Republican sugar daddies and her less than progressive foreign policy and trade policy voting record just starts to make people wonder, ya know?
by DelicateMonster on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 06:28:59 PM PDT
Doesn't seem like a worthwhile pursuit to burn six years as a progressive
I think trying to alter the business practices of the biggest private employer in your state is a worthwhile pursuit. She didn't turn them into CostCo, but she did some good.
As for the stock, the NYT article says she owned a bunch of it beforehand.
"no evidence that she did anything to improve the status of women or make it a very different place..."
From the NYT article:
But if her circumstances made her a natural choice for the board, her often liberal beliefs did not and she struggled to change the rigid, conservative culture at Wal-Mart, achieving modest results. Early in her tenure, she pressed for information about the number of women in Wal-Mart’s management, worrying aloud that the company’s hiring practices might be discriminatory. The data she received would have been troubling: by 1985, there was not a single woman among the company’s top 42 officers, according to "In Sam We Trust," the 1998 book about Wal-Mart by Bob Ortega. John E. Tate, who served as a director with Mrs. Clinton from 1988 to 1992, recalled that by her third board meeting Mrs. Clinton had announced "that you can expect me to push on issues for women. You know that. I have a reputation of trying to improve the status of women generally, and I will do it here." Mr. Walton appeared relieved to have a woman on the board to deflect criticism, telling shareholders during the annual meeting in 1987 that the company had a "strong-willed young lady on the board now who has already told the board it should do more to ensure the advancement of women." Still, the board’s discussions did not translate into significant progress. By the late 1990s, after Mrs. Clinton had left the board, Wal-Mart had added a second female director, but the number of women in senior management remained paltry, according to company records. (Today, 23 percent of Wal-Mart’s top 300 corporate officers are women, but the company is fighting a class-action lawsuit claiming sex discrimination filed on behalf of 1.6 million current and former female employees.)
But if her circumstances made her a natural choice for the board, her often liberal beliefs did not and she struggled to change the rigid, conservative culture at Wal-Mart, achieving modest results.
Early in her tenure, she pressed for information about the number of women in Wal-Mart’s management, worrying aloud that the company’s hiring practices might be discriminatory.
The data she received would have been troubling: by 1985, there was not a single woman among the company’s top 42 officers, according to "In Sam We Trust," the 1998 book about Wal-Mart by Bob Ortega.
John E. Tate, who served as a director with Mrs. Clinton from 1988 to 1992, recalled that by her third board meeting Mrs. Clinton had announced "that you can expect me to push on issues for women. You know that. I have a reputation of trying to improve the status of women generally, and I will do it here."
Mr. Walton appeared relieved to have a woman on the board to deflect criticism, telling shareholders during the annual meeting in 1987 that the company had a "strong-willed young lady on the board now who has already told the board it should do more to ensure the advancement of women."
Still, the board’s discussions did not translate into significant progress. By the late 1990s, after Mrs. Clinton had left the board, Wal-Mart had added a second female director, but the number of women in senior management remained paltry, according to company records. (Today, 23 percent of Wal-Mart’s top 300 corporate officers are women, but the company is fighting a class-action lawsuit claiming sex discrimination filed on behalf of 1.6 million current and former female employees.)
Sounds like she tried her damndest, but there's only so much one "token" board member can do.
by Partially Impartial on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 06:37:27 PM PDT
she was a token woman and Sam Walton liked it that way:
She's doing the same crap vis a vis the big boys on WallStreet and Rupert. Maybe she thinks she's pulling one over on them, but she's not.
She legitimized Wal-Mart with her presence on the board and helped Walton "deflect criticism"...
In a larger sense, her lousy foreign policy machinations do the same thing for Bush and Cheney.
It's a pattern that runs through her entire political career. She happily lets herself be used to advance herself with the powerful and/or the well heeled saying perhaps to herself and anyone else foolish enough to believe her, 'don't worry, I'll change it from the inside'.
Only the day of real 'change' never comes. Just her new position.
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
Maybe it's time "to not get fooled again".
by DelicateMonster on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 06:52:11 PM PDT
They were going to get a woman, regardless. Better they have a liberal feminist than a conservative.
And, as my first post showed, there was a real change in their environmental activities.
by Partially Impartial on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 06:58:53 PM PDT
And you know it.
She made them use recycled products. Big fucking whoop..do you understand just how seriously anti-Progressive Wal-Mart was at that time--and still is...?
In 1992, Wal-Mart was huge, with $43.9 billion in net sales, 1,714 stores and 371,000 employees. Even in 1992, Wal-Mart was already the world's largest retailer.
Wal-Mart was rabidly anti-union, exploiting sweatshop labor around the world, discriminating against women workers, forcing workers to labor off the clock and destroying communities that did not want them.
And Clinton was on its board of directors. Because she was liberal? Um, no. Because her husband was (and had been for ten years) the governor of the state Wal-Mart was founded in? Oh, yeah. Might have something to do with it. That and Clinton was a partner in the Rose law firm, one of the most active anti-union law firms in the country.
But, hey, she did get them to use recycled products. And to help Sam Walton deflect criticism! Bravo! It all evens out in the end.
by DelicateMonster on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 07:11:57 PM PDT
I'll just say they changed more than just using recycled products, as my first post showed.
Cheers.
by Partially Impartial on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 07:23:48 PM PDT
with a company for six years that destroys unions as a casual activity, not to mention most small town retail businesses wherever it's located, is known to use foreign child labor and force manufacturers to offshore to China or outsource to get the absolute lowest possible cost --to line their fucking pockets with profit.
And all the 'environmental' good she does can be summed up in a paragraph:
By 1993, she managed to get one 'eco-store' built with skylights and wooden beams from forests that had not been clear cut.
Sorry, Partially Imp. I don't want to short change environmental improvement which is important. Now days, maybe one of the most important progressive issues facing us. But, even being generous, Hillary was utterly used, a token woman to shield a gross and hugely growing corporation that needed criticism deflected. Wouldn't it have been better if she had told Sam Walton to take a flying fuck at the moon and labored to protect union and worker rights and voted AGAINST Nafta and Peru FTA? Then, perhaps, the environmental catastrophe that China is turning out to be might have been more strongly regulated if not deflected.
As it is, she helped a shitty corporation put in some skylights and use wooden beams from forests that weren't clear cut.... in one Kansas store.
Meanwhile, how many thousands of unregulated (thanks to Nafta) manufacturers pollute the skies around the world to provide Wal-Mart with their ultra cheap goods? And how many other businesses (green or otherwise) are put out of business because Wal-Mart can drive labor cost to the bone by destroying Unions?
Principles matter. And I can pretty well see where Hillary's principles --to ignore Unions and help Union busting companies -- have helped this country... just like Wal-Mart has.
by DelicateMonster on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 07:53:22 PM PDT
simply mirrors changes in society. As recently as the 1980s, over 60% of Americans believed women should not have a completely equal role (and about 30% believed women should stay in the home).
Hillary was part of that change but it would have happened without her just as rapidly.
by chicago jeff on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 07:03:11 PM PDT
at Walmart. I think she did as much as possible, but she simply didn't have enough power, and the prevailing attitude was too sexist.
by Partially Impartial on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 07:12:05 PM PDT
she thinks we all should eat. As long as one of her clients is feeding it to us, that is.
Proud John Edwards Democrat
by Michael 4 Edwards on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 11:41:23 PM PDT
so when they lock up their illegal workers for the night in their stores, they won't use as much electricty. Go Hillary.
...once you're willing to say whatever it takes to win, you lose. ~~Dean
by dkmich on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 04:32:18 AM PDT
It looks like Hillary and Obama (professor at University of Chicago School of Law) have a lot in common.
Experience indeed!
"The only phone call she'll get at 3am is Bill calling for bail money and asking Hilary to bring him a pair of pants" - Bill Maher
by Nedsdag on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 07:44:35 PM PDT
he's held elective office longer than she has . . . while being 15 years younger.
by RobertInWisconsin on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 10:48:50 PM PDT
That right-wing hooey sure stunk up the joint. --Steely Dan, "Jack of Speed"
by journalschism on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 07:48:32 PM PDT
However, you forgot to add to her list of accomplishments. Abandoning her roots in order to get money from lobbyists to pursue a more challenging and fiscally rewarding career.
The only thing that really matters is what they see their opportunities grounded in - that is, what they see their political base as and who they believe they rely on for their current and future political survival and advancement. These are the factors that tell us how politicians will behave in office, who they will act on behalf of, and what constituencies they think they answer to.
The only thing that really matters is what they see their opportunities grounded in - that is, what they see their political base as and who they believe they rely on for their current and future political survival and advancement.
These are the factors that tell us how politicians will behave in office, who they will act on behalf of, and what constituencies they think they answer to.
Follow the money. Talk is cheap!
by dkmich on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 04:30:24 AM PDT
That is her most responsible position, ever.
The strongest position, where she had authority and matching responsibility for a well defined area of organizational activity.
A.k.a., management.
Her health care effort in 1992/1993 was a coordinator role. She never, ever managed an organization during that process. Other than personal staff.
"Experience," not so much.
Republicans can kill her on this claim. Voters would not mind a light plate on experience, per se.
Claiming what's not there ??? You betcha.
Dixie Chicks, Amy Winehouse, Imus, and Rev. Wright. Overcome our evil with good.
by vets74 on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 04:38:22 AM PDT
he didn't say his "biggest" he said his "strongest".
Listen, I am in my 30's now, but believe me when I tell you that the years I spent in Europe and Africa as a kid and teenager totally shape my world view today.
So while you might ridicule Obama for high-lighting his experiences as a child, as having an influence in his world view, you might wanna re-think and recant the dumb statement you just made.
by rapcetera on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 04:19:38 PM PDT
That's a parse if ever I heard one.
"I'm for Hillary because I believe that the United States right now is in a world of crap." - spoken by a Nevada voter
by SaneSoutherner on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 05:05:19 PM PDT
That's exactly what Obama said about his childhood experience.Link
Moreover, he pointed out that political VIPs get escorted everywhere and never really get to meet or understand the outlook of the people or culture.
Hillary's snipe at Obama is like her laughing at the effect of NAFTA on the workers of the US.
Edwards Democrat My moniker is in honor of three generations of women whose soul's were seared in the cauldron of Hell's Kitchen, NYC
by hells kitchen on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 05:10:19 PM PDT
the way I read this, what Obama is bringing out is the unfiltered interaction with the culture.
Hillary's acting the snob.
Obama's saying my unfilitered youthful experience was the strongest--in the since of most profound, perhaps--that he had ever had.
Besides, as Hillary has made very well known with her serially stupid foreign policy votes, experience without a reasonable level of intelligence doesn't mean shit.
Experience-wise, give me a ten year old Obama over a fifty year old Hillary any day of the week.
by DelicateMonster on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 06:02:06 PM PDT
political VIPs get escorted everywhere and never really get to meet or understand the outlook of the people or culture.
I forgot completely about the silly second half of his claim!
Isn't it a little bit absurd to assert that every political VIP traveling overseas learns and understands nothing about the people or culture? That's kind of insulting, if you ask me.
on strike.
by daria g on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 08:44:48 PM PDT
trip to the mideast as First Lady getting tripped up by Suha Arafat and having to backtrack?
Wonderful foreign policy experience.
by hells kitchen on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 09:41:36 PM PDT
The Chewbacca defense. How is this connected to what I just said?
by daria g on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 09:50:07 PM PDT
precisely that a particular VIP didn't understand what she was getting into and didn't know how to handle it.
Which I believe was the point Obama was making.
by hells kitchen on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 06:40:57 AM PDT
Links
by hells kitchen on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 09:42:45 PM PDT
nah. I guess his "biggest" was being a state senator maybe? Maybe you're right, being a 10 year old is better experience than that.
by naderhader on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 05:14:11 PM PDT
you've just outdone yourself. Oh yeah, Obama a member of the senate foreign relations committee. no small gig. certainly not a gig given to freshman senators. but I guess that's nothing right?
lol, you're funny..
by rapcetera on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 05:22:49 PM PDT
charges of ignorance.
certainly not a gig given to freshman senators.
Five of the eleven Dems on the Committee are freshmen: Obama, Webb, Menendez, Casey, and Cardin.
by Partially Impartial on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 05:31:06 PM PDT
TROLL'd for the careless bad manners.
I agree with your the factual statement. And the "ten year old" argument is probably weak, vis. standards of inductive logic.
But still, the manners displayed in the writing are atrocious.
You're smart "rapcetera." You can do one helluva lot better as a writer.
by vets74 on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 04:46:26 AM PDT
by rapcetera on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 09:36:58 AM PDT
living in Indonesia as a youth vs being First Lady and attending state dinners since I've never done either, but I do know this: One of the two candidates was right about the consequences of invading Iraq while the other got it very wrong. One had the experience of seven years as Senator during the Bush administration and yet still gave him Kyl-Lieberman. I'll take judgment over experience any day. No one can deny Kissinger's foreign policy experience - Would anyone here think he was a good Sec. of State?
Better beans and bacon in peace than cakes and ale in fear... Aesop
by mr crabby on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 04:50:30 PM PDT
what about the 'judgement' he displayed when he skipped the kyl-lieberman vote, opting instead to fundraise?
by naderhader on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 05:15:24 PM PDT
it would have been to his considerable discredit to have skipped the vote. But he knew it was going to pass. And he can speak out against it as effectively on the campaign as the Senate floor.
by mr crabby on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 06:01:53 PM PDT
The Dems worked to strip the most offensive language out of the bill while Obama was campaigning in NH. If he really thought it was a vote for war, he might have wanted to help strip out some more language.
by Partially Impartial on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 06:46:07 PM PDT
to vote for it.
by mr crabby on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 07:16:54 PM PDT
than voting for that piece shit like Hillary stupidly did...don't you think?
by DelicateMonster on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 06:05:48 PM PDT
Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha!
by chicago jeff on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 07:05:38 PM PDT
...when I've heard Mrs. Clinton discuss anything anywhere near to power politics.
Sure, she's read the Nixon and Kissinger books.
These two men are extraordinary minds. Sharp as it gets. Dangerous minds.
Looks to me that Clinton fell for their lines of argument -- for the world's main setup factors, anyway.
[ Nixon finally limited the hate-China anti-communist obsession. Big deal ??? Why does this get so much credit ? ]
BTW: What is seductive is that Nixon and Kissinger cast every single political event into a paranoid us-vs.-them world view. This is consistent and it's an easy sell.
Fighting off paranoids can be very tough.
by vets74 on Wed Nov 21, 2007 at 04:59:19 AM PDT
please give us the date of the article.
by Blue Gnostic on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 04:07:44 PM PDT
By Peter Nicholas, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer November 20, 2007
by Partially Impartial on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 04:13:17 PM PDT
I meant when did Obama says this?
by Blue Gnostic on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 04:27:29 PM PDT
He said it in a speech in Iowa yesterday.
by Partially Impartial on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 04:37:42 PM PDT
by Blue Gnostic on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 04:45:14 PM PDT
actually living overseas is tremendous experience. I lived in Okinawa for 3 years and it totally changed my point of view. To have your first memories be of a another culture like Obama does is huge.
by PLS on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 04:13:10 PM PDT
in foreign relations, do you think it would prepare you for presidential duties?
Now, I don't think that's Obama's most impressive experience. But he's the one who said it.
by Partially Impartial on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 04:16:22 PM PDT
Unlike so many in this country, he has experienced people from other cultures on a much more personal level. He understands better than most that people from another culture are still people. Are there other factors that help with experience? Of course, but for Hillary and you to minimize the impact of truly experiencing another culture is dishonest.
by cardboardurinal on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 04:28:57 PM PDT
ourleaders didn't much consider the effect on the lives of the oridinary people there.
by Lois on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 04:34:04 PM PDT
And in fact, I credit my years in Okinawa in my eventual choice of Anthropology as an undergrad. I always told folks I acquired the outlook there. It was there that I learned that Americans often feel as if we own the earth and simply allow others to exist. I saw a woman cuss out an Okinawan for not speaking English. I also learned there were alot of great countries to live in besides my own. Japan is a wonderful place to live, especially if you don't have to be Japanese.
by PLS on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 05:40:17 PM PDT
Being in a Foreign nation gives you a special empathy.
"It's a race to decide who the British goverment will follow blindly for the next 4 years" Kennedy/Kerry '08
by Salo on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 06:30:39 PM PDT
you might be arguing that he sells himself short.
by chicago jeff on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 07:07:26 PM PDT
his various experiences is probably much better than my sense of them. Other stuff he's done impresses me more, but I wouldn't push my view on him. I haven't lived his life.
by Partially Impartial on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 07:38:55 PM PDT
I lived in Nigeria for 10 years, lived in England for 5 years and lived in France for 1 year. Believe me when I tell you that it makes a huge frigging difference when you live on the ground amongst the people in foriegn countries. One gains an immense appreciation for their respective cultures. One understands why certain things are the way they are. No explanations are needed. As a consequence one learns too respect and accept others for who they are. Diversity becomes appreciated.
Obama's unique experience from living in Indonesia & Hawaii in addition to the time he spent on the ground in Kenya discovering his roots - not to mention Obama's slew of relatives whom hail from every conceivable corner of the planet, such as his Chinese-Canadian brother in-law, or his half Kenyan-half British relatives, His Kenyan grandmother, his Kansan grandparents, His Half-indonsian sister etc;
IS WAY MORE VALUABLE.....
I think than being shuttled around in "foreign service protocol bubbles" like Hillary was during her time as First Lady; maybe all the foreign tourist sites Hillary visited as first lady armed her with critical insights and understanding of others cultures, which in turn probably triggered her brain-wave to go ahead and vote to authorize the Iraq war without first thinking of the cultural impact and consequences of our preemptive strike on Iraq.
Anyway my point is, Obama's foreign connections and experience on the ground should not be underestimated.
by rapcetera on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 04:14:29 PM PDT
Clinton didn't "go after his childhood" out of the blue.
She was responding to what Obama claims is his strongest experience in foreign relations--just as he did to her claim of experience today
by Partially Impartial on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 04:18:21 PM PDT
by rapcetera on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 04:20:26 PM PDT
Your argument that he's trying to say he was a busy little diplomat at the precocious age of 10 is specious. No one would seriously claim that. Your petty sniping is cynical and transparently, willfully obtuse.
Let the great world spin for ever down the ringing grooves of change. - Tennyson
by bumblebums on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 04:22:28 PM PDT
All I did was quote the man, himself.
by Partially Impartial on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 04:28:17 PM PDT
Right.
by bumblebums on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 04:35:42 PM PDT
I say it is. Whether it's in response to his statement or not, it's done with the purpose to imply something negative, to malign Obama. His childhood is personal, not policy, his statement was a "character description" not a stance on an issue. Her attack is an attack and if she won't admit it, she'll lose any possibility to gain my vote (primary or election).
Take a look at the Edwards' campain quote again:
"mudslinging |mŭd'slĭng'ing| (also mud-slinging)noun informal the use of insults and accusations, esp. unjust ones, with the aim of damaging the reputation of an opponent. As in: Hillary Clinton said about Barack Obama, ‘Now voters will judge whether living in a foreign country at the age of 10 prepares one to face the big, complex international challenges the next president will face.’ "Now we know what Senator Clinton meant when she talked about ‘throwing mud’ in the last debate. Like so many other things, when it comes to mud, Hillary Clinton says one thing and throws another."
"mudslinging
|mŭd'slĭng'ing| (also mud-slinging)noun informal
the use of insults and accusations, esp. unjust ones, with the aim of damaging the reputation of an opponent.
As in: Hillary Clinton said about Barack Obama, ‘Now voters will judge whether living in a foreign country at the age of 10 prepares one to face the big, complex international challenges the next president will face.’
"Now we know what Senator Clinton meant when she talked about ‘throwing mud’ in the last debate. Like so many other things, when it comes to mud, Hillary Clinton says one thing and throws another."
Is it or isn't it Partially Impartial?
by Blue Gnostic on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 04:42:46 PM PDT
as his strongest experience in foreign relations, I think it becomes just as relevant as any other experience a candidate cites as being an important part of his/her resume.
by Partially Impartial on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 04:51:55 PM PDT
It occurs to me if they have to pad the statement with the dictionary definition of a term everybody already knows... they got nothin'.
by daria g on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 08:47:42 PM PDT
and this comment was clearly posted to show that Obama made a lame-brain decision to mention his childhood overseas as his strongest foreign relations experience.
Early childhood is what basically makes us who we are. Having lived abroad for several of his most formative years basically made Obama who he is, so, it his strongest foreign RELATIONS experience. He didn't say it was his strongest foreign policy experience.
He's talking about life experience and that counts in an election for President. We want to know who these people are, what they stand for, what shaped them & why they want to be President. We want to see their true character. Do you know any of this about Hillary? I certainly don't, although, with each passing day, she is showing me more of her dark side and none of her goodness.
BTW, I'm not a decided Obama supporter.
by Blue Gnostic on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 04:35:20 PM PDT
But it was still a wacky way for him to say it, and now we supporters are all weaving together what we think he meant. He is a great communicator but occasionally, like most of us, he is capable of screwing up a thought.
by jazzyjay on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 04:43:55 PM PDT
by Blue Gnostic on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 04:47:14 PM PDT
by Salo on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 04:27:08 PM PDT
Smearing Clinton, then yelling that she's smearing him! Rove would love it.
by organicpasta on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 04:49:40 PM PDT
Who accused others of resorting to mudslinging tactics? Edwards is just pointing out the hypocrite.
by lenzy1000 on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 05:33:17 PM PDT
Partially Impartial, and the rest of you, while you know I'm not a Clinton supporter, I was utterly taken aback by the naivete and silliness of Mr. Obama's statement.
It was an embarassment. I, too, have lived for a spell in a foreign country when I was child and I could never, ever say it gave me any kind of necessary experience to bear as a politician.
For Obama to imply that it gives him some kind of 'edge' as a candidate...well that just falls remarkably short.
I don't have day to day recall of that period of my life. I daresay neither does he.
I will look for today's paper, because there was more.
by emmabrody on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 04:31:41 PM PDT
And I will tell you that what he meant - in overall context of what he was saying - was that his experience on the ground in the largest (by population) Muslim foreign nation on the planet, played a huge factor in his understanding of other cultures. That simple. Watch the tape.
by rapcetera on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 04:43:28 PM PDT
by emmabrody on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 04:48:10 PM PDT
They are laughing so hard that Obama could be the nominee and how they will rip this comment about his foreign policy experience coming from living overseas as a child. Remember this is a candidate who has NEVER won a tough race. He lost his primary race and became a US Senator based on a GOP candidate dropping out and another coming in from out of state DURING the campaign.
by concernednyer2005 on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 07:18:46 PM PDT
they'll keep dropping...
by rapcetera on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 08:45:19 PM PDT
in full from LA Times:
Probably the strongest experience I have in foreign relations is the fact that I spent four years living overseas when I was a child in southeast Asia," said Obama, who lived in Indonesia from the age of 6 to 10. "So a lot of my knowledge about foreign affiars isn't just what I studied in school. It is not just the work that I do on Senate Foreign Relations Committee. It's actually having the knowledge of how ordinary people in these other countries live," he said.
Probably the strongest experience I have in foreign relations is the fact that I spent four years living overseas when I was a child in southeast Asia," said Obama, who lived in Indonesia from the age of 6 to 10.
"So a lot of my knowledge about foreign affiars isn't just what I studied in school. It is not just the work that I do on Senate Foreign Relations Committee. It's actually having the knowledge of how ordinary people in these other countries live," he said.
A "lot of my knowledge", "...Probably the strongest experience", coming from the pov of a 10 year old?
For God's sake. He didn't really say that? Weak.
by emmabrody on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 04:45:47 PM PDT
It's a valid statement. I'll go find the tape and post it for you. A lot apparently gets lost in translation from Tape to print
by rapcetera on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 04:51:05 PM PDT
but I doubt a 10 year old kid was slumming about in Indonesia or getting very much knowledge how ordinary Indonesians lived.
by citizen53 on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 04:57:15 PM PDT
you'll be surprised at how impressionable and aware 10 year old kids are.....
by rapcetera on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 05:04:54 PM PDT
how old was he when he wrote it? Wasn't that the one with the composites?
If I had not been 10 myself, maybe I'd have a different opinion about his statement. I found it a pretty dumb thing to say.
I also found Clinton's action dumb.
by citizen53 on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 05:09:02 PM PDT
and yeah he was clearly taken out of context, I'm looking for the tape of the statement (in full) to put up on here...
by rapcetera on Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 05:31:32 PM PDT
[
