The Case for Obama

[Sasquatch]

The Choice
by CHRISTOPHER HAYES
The Nation (http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080218/hayes)


It's gotten to that time in the primary contest where lines are drawn, camps are solidified and conversations around dinner tables grow heated. My friend Dan recently put it this way: "You start talking about the candidates, and next thing you know someone's crying!" The excellent (and uncommitted) blogger Digby recently decided to shut down her comments section because the posts had grown so toxic. The recent uptick in acrimony is largely due to the narrowing of the field. While once the energy was spread over many camps, it is now, with the exits of Dennis Kucinich and John Edwards, concentrated on just two, leaving progressives in a fierce debate over whether Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama would make the better nominee, and President.

According to polling data as well as my conversations with friends and colleagues, progressives are evenly split or undecided between the two. This is, to me, somewhat astonishing (about which more in a moment), but it also means that at a time when other subgroups within the Democratic coalition are leaning heavily toward one candidate or the other, progressives are at a moment of maximum leverage.

Insofar as the issues discussed during a presidential campaign are circumscribed by the taboos and pieties of the political and media establishments, they tend to be dispiriting for those of us on the left. Neither front-runner is calling for the nation to renounce its decades-old imperial posture or to end the prison-industrial complex; neither is saying that America's suburbs and car culture are not sustainable modes of living in an era of expensive oil and global warming or pointing out that the "war on drugs" has been a moral disaster and strategic failure, with casualties borne most violently and destructively by society's most marginalized and--a word you won't be hearing from either candidate--oppressed. And yet, this election is far more encouraging (dare I say hopeful?) than any in recent memory. The policy agenda for the Democratic front-runners is significantly further to the left on the war, climate change and healthcare than that of John Kerry in 2004. The ideological implosion of conservatism, the failures of the Bush Administration and, perhaps most important, the shifts in public opinion in a leftward direction on war, the economy, civil liberties and civil rights are all coming together at the same time, providing progressives with the rare and historic opportunity to elect a President with a progressive majority and an actual mandate for progressive change.

The question then becomes this: which of the two Democratic candidates is more likely to bring to fruition a new progressive majority? I believe, passionately and deeply, if occasionally waveringly, that it's Barack Obama.

Had you told me a few years ago that the left of the Democratic Party would be split between Obama and Clinton, I'd have dismissed you as crazy: Barack Obama has been a community organizer, a civil rights attorney, a loyal and reliable ally in the State Senate of progressive groups. For the Chicago left, his primary campaign and his subsequent election to the US Senate was a collective rallying cry. If you've read his first book, the truly beautiful, honest and intellectually sophisticated Dreams From My Father, you have an inkling of what young Chicago progressives felt about Obama. He is one of us, and now he's in the Senate. We thought we'd elected our own Paul Wellstone. (Full disclosure: my brother is an organizer on the Obama campaign.)

That's not, alas, how things turned out. Almost immediately Obama--likely with an eye on national office--shaded himself toward the center. His rhetoric was cool, often timid, not the zealous advocacy on behalf of peace, justice and the dispossessed that had characterized Wellstone's tenure. His record places him squarely in the middle of Democratic senators, just slightly to Clinton's left on domestic issues (he voted against the bankruptcy bill, for example). As a presidential candidate, his domestic policy (with some notable exceptions on voting rights and technology policy) has been very close to that of his chief rivals, though sometimes, notably on healthcare, marginally less progressive.

But while domestic policy will ultimately be determined through a complicated and fraught interplay with legislators, foreign policy is where the President's agenda is implemented more or less unfettered. It's here where distinctions in worldview matter most--and where Obama compares most favorably to Clinton. The war is the most obvious and powerful distinction between the two: Hillary Clinton voted for and supported the most disastrous American foreign policy decision since Vietnam, and Barack Obama (at a time when it was deeply courageous to do so) spoke out against it. In this campaign, their proposals are relatively similar, but in rhetoric and posture Clinton has played hawk to Obama's dove, attacking from the right on everything from the use of first-strike nuclear weapons to negotiating with Iran's president. Her hawkishness relative to Obama's is mirrored in her circle of advisers. As my colleague Ari Berman has reported in these pages, it's a circle dominated by people who believed and believe that waging pre-emptive war on Iraq was the right thing to do. Obama's circle is made up overwhelmingly of people who thought the Iraq War was a mistake.

Clinton's fundamentally defensive conception of how to defuse the Republicans on national security (neutralizing their hawkishness with one's own) is an example of a larger problem, rooted in the fact that so many of her circle served in her husband's Administration. Their political identities were formed in the crucible of crisis, from the Gingrich insurgency to the Ken Starr inquisition. The overriding imperative was survival against massive odds, often with a hostile public, press or both. Like an animal caught in a trap that chews off its leg to wriggle away, the Clinton crew by the end of its tenure had hardly any limbs left to propel an agenda. The benefit of this experience, much touted by the Clintons, is that they know how to fight and how to survive. But the cost has been high: those who lived through those years are habituated to playing defense and fighting rear-guard actions. We know how progressives fared under Clintonism: they were the bloodied limbs left in the trap. Clintonism, in other words, is the devil we know.

Which brings us to the one we don't. A President cannot build a movement, but he can be its messenger, as was Reagan. Part of what tantalizes and frustrates about Obama is that he seems to have the potential to be such a messenger and yet shies away from speaking in ideological terms. When he invokes union organizers facing Pinkerton thugs to give us our forty-hour week, or says we are bound to one another as "our brother's keeper...our sister's keeper," he is articulating the deepest progressive values: solidarity and community and collective action. But he places more rhetorical emphasis on a politics of "unity" that, read uncharitably, seems to fetishize bipartisanship as an end in itself and reinforce lame and deceptive myths that the parties are equally responsible for the "bickering" and "divisiveness" in Washington. It appears sometimes that his diagnosis of what's wrong with politics is the way it is conducted rather than for whom.

In its totality, though, Obama's rhetoric tells a story of politics that is distinct from both the one told by Beltway devotees of bipartisanship and comity and from the progressive activists' story of a ceaseless battle between the forces of progress and those of reaction. If it differs from what I like to hear, it is also unfailingly targeted at building the coalition that is the raison d'être of Obama's candidacy. Consider this passage from Obama's stump speech:

I've learned in my life that you can stand firm in your principles while still reaching out to those who might not always agree with you. And although the Republican operatives in Washington might not be interested in hearing what we have to say, I think Republican and independent voters outside of Washington are. That's the once-in-a-generation opportunity we have in this election.

Obama makes a distinction between bad-faith, implacable enemies (lobbyists, entrenched interests, "operatives") and good-faith ideological opponents (Republicans, independents and conservatives of good conscience). He wants to court the latter and use their support to vanquish the former. This may be improbable, but it crucially allows former Republicans (Obama Republicans?) to cross over without guilt or self-loathing. They are not asked to renounce, only to join.

Obama's diagnosis of the obstacles to progress is twofold. First, that the division of the electorate into the categories created by the right's culture warriors is the primary means by which the forces of reaction resist change. Progress will be made only by rejecting or transcending those categories. In 1971 a young Pat Buchanan urged Richard Nixon to wield race as what would come to be known as a wedge issue. "This is a potential throw of the dice," he wrote, "that could...cut the Democratic Party and country in half; my view is that we would have far the larger half." Obama seeks to stitch those halves back together.

Second, that the reason progressives have failed to achieve our goals over the past several decades is not that we didn't fight hard enough but that we didn't have a popular mandate. In other words, the fundamental obstacle is a basic political one: never having the public squarely on our side and never having the votes on the Hill. In this respect the Obama campaign is uniquely circular: his political appeal is rooted in the fact that he's so politically appealing. This means that when he loses, the loss affects him worse than it would other candidates, since it also cuts against his message. But when he wins, particularly when he wins big, as he did in Iowa and South Carolina, the win means more because it reinforces the basic argument of his campaign.

The question of who can best build popular support for a progressive governing agenda is related to, but distinct from, the question of electability. Given a certain ceiling on Clinton's appeal (due largely to years of unhinged attacks from the "vast right-wing conspiracy"), her campaign seems well prepared to run a 50 percent + 1 campaign, a rerun of 2004 but with a state or two switching columns: Florida, maybe, or Ohio. Obama is aiming for something bigger: a landmark sea-change election, with the kind of high favorability and approval ratings that can drive an agenda forward. Why should we think he can do it?

The short answer is that Obama is simply one of the most talented and appealing politicians in recent memory. Perhaps the most. Pollster.com shows a series of polls taken in the Democratic campaign. The graphs plotting national polling numbers as well as those in the first four states show a remarkably consistent pattern. Hillary Clinton starts out with either a modest or, more commonly, a massive lead, owing to her superior name recognition and the popularity of the Clinton brand. As the campaign goes forward Clinton's support either climbs slowly, plateaus or dips. But as the actual contest approaches, and voters start paying attention, Obama's support suddenly begins to grow exponentially.

In addition to persuading those who already vote, Obama has also delivered on one of the hoariest promises in politics: to bring in new voters (especially the young). It's a phenomenon that, if it were to continue with him as nominee, could completely alter the electoral math. Young people are by far the most progressive voters of any age cohort, and they overwhelmingly favor Barack Obama by stunning margins. Their enthusiasm has translated into massive increases in youth turnout in the early contests.

Finally, there's the question of coattails. In many senses there's less difference between the two presidential candidates than there is between a Senate with fifty-one Democrats and one with fifty-six. No Democratic presidential candidate is going to carry, say, Mississippi or Nebraska, but many Democrats in those states fear that the ingrained Clinton hatred would rally the GOP base and/or depress turnout, hurting down-ticket candidates. Over the past few weeks a series of prominent red-state Democrats, most notably Ben Nelson, Kent Conrad and Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius, have endorsed Obama. When I asked a Democratic Congressional candidate in the Deep South who he preferred at the top of the ticket, he didn't hesitate: "Obama is absolutely the better candidate. Hillary brings a lot of sting; he takes some sting out of them."

Whoever is elected in November, progressives will probably find themselves feeling frustrated. Ultimately though, the future judgments and actions of the candidates are unknowable, obscured behind time's cloak. Who knew that the Bill Clinton of 1992 who campaigned with Nelson Mandela would later threaten to sanction South Africa when it passed a law allowing the production of low-cost generic AIDS drugs for its suffering population--or that the George W. Bush of 2000, an amiable "centrist" whose thin foreign-policy views shaded toward isolationism, would go on to become a self-justifying, delusional and messianic instrument of global war? In this sense, Bill Clinton is right: voting for and electing Barack Obama is a "roll of a dice." All elections are. But the candidacy of Barack Obama represents by far the left's best chance to, in Buchanan's immortal phrasing, take back the bigger half of the country. It's a chance we can't pass up.

[jterrell]

a wing and a prayer ....

[Doomsday101]

a wing and a prayer ....

I would like a case and some wings. :D

[Sasquatch]

a wing and a prayer ....

And the 32 million more dollars that his campaign collected this month.

Plus Obama is the most likely beneficiary of Edwards dropping out of the race. It's highly unlikely that those who were drawn to Edward's newfangled populism are gong to gravitate towards the Clinton campaign.

Mrs. Inevitability is not looking like such a sure bet after all. Even Wolf Blitzer took a few shots at her last night as if smelling the blood of wounded prey. Pollster.com (http://www.pollster.com/08-US-Dem-Pres-Primary.php)

Besides, with the Clintons, there's always the possibility that some scandal will erupt that will torpedo her campaign. They have many political enemies who would like nothing better than to see her fail in her bid for the White House.

[jterrell]

And the 32 million more dollars that his campaign collected this month.

Plus Obama is the most likely beneficiary of Edwards dropping out of the race. It's highly unlikely that those who were drawn to Edward's newfangled populism are gong to gravitate towards the Clinton campaign.

Mrs. Inevitability is not looking like such a sure bet after all. Even Wolf Blitzer took a few shots at her last night as if smelling the blood of wounded prey. Pollster.com (http://www.pollster.com/08-US-Dem-Pres-Primary.php)

Besides, with the Clintons, there's always the possibility that some scandal will erupt that will torpedo her campaign. They have many political enemies who would like nothing better than to see her fail in her bid for the White House.

Hillary will win.

She is ahead by 75 electoral votes as we speak and that lead will swell after Tuesday.

Obama is a nice story but it is all a story. He speaks wonderfully so long as you do not require details.

Obama's best bet is the VP nod as it has been since Hillary started endorsing him during his Senate run.

[Sasquatch]

She is ahead by 75 electoral votes as we speak and that lead will swell after Tuesday.

If you include the super delegates who are not beholden to the wishes of the rank and file. Eliminate these privileged actors in the process and Obama is ahead by 13 or so. And his support is growing exponentially while Clinton's is steadily deteriorating as her advantage in name recognition starts to wane.

http://www.pollster.com/USTopzDems.png

[Aikbach]

Thank goodness we are a republic and not a true democracy, listening to Obama supporters in Hollywood and why they would back him makes one's IQ drop.

Without exaggeration the top three reasons I've heard are the following:
He's a Democrat
He's black
He wants to legalize pot (or so some smucks have been led to believe).

Quite a platform, I can see the ad now: "Vote Barack Hussein Obama;Black, Democrat, Pot Friendly for a Better America!"

[arglebargle]

Straw Man, don't you think? Hollywood supporters as the defining characteristics of a candidate? I am pretty sure you can find all sorts of blather for any candidate if you wish to narrow your focus enough.

[Aikbach]

Straw Man, don't you think? Hollywood supporters as the defining characteristics of a candidate? I am pretty sure you can find all sorts of blather for any candidate if you wish to narrow your focus enough.
I was simply relaying my immediate experience concerning his supporters, the chief liners of his coffers as of late as well, my rebuke was of the ignorance and mob rule of unfledged democracy more so than the brainless mantra of Hollywood partisans, I cherish our constitutional republic and not the mythical democracy people mistake it to be.

[Sasquatch]

I was simply relaying my immediate experience concerning his supporters, the chief liners of his coffers as of late as well

Quite the extrapolation based on personal experience considering the campaign reported 170,000 new contributors this past month.

Funny how the right always villainizes Hollywood airheads except when it comes to Saint Ronnie.

[BrAinPaiNt]

Obama Girl video.

:p:

[Aikbach]

Quite the extrapolation based on personal experience considering the campaign reported 170,000 new contributors this past month.

Funny how the right always villainizes Hollywood airheads except when it comes to Saint Ronnie.I different dynamic, a dfferent era,Hollywood stars of Reagan's generation were conservative, even the liberal icons of the past such as JFK were by comparison of modern counterparts.

Jimmy Stewart, John Wayne, Clark Gable, Errol Flynn, Humphrey Bogart, Dean Martin, James Cagney, Bob Hope, Frank Capra, Fred Astaire and a slew of others were registered Republicans and political conservatives in that era, many of them fought for their country as well.

Hollywood was Patriotic back in the day and not chief among the cynics that blame America for all that is wrong with the world.

[Aikbach]

Quite the extrapolation based on personal experience considering the campaign reported 170,000 new contributors this past month.

Funny how the right always villainizes Hollywood airheads except when it comes to Saint Ronnie.I live and work in Hollywood, thus they are my immediate contact with Obama supporters.

Look at where is support is derived from, not the rural areas, not the midwest nor south, but from the typical liberal cosmopolitan bases in New York and Los Angeles, they are who have money to throw at him as well.

[Maikeru-sama]

Thank goodness we are a republic and not a true democracy, listening to Obama supporters in Hollywood and why they would back him makes one's IQ drop.

Without exaggeration the top three reasons I've heard are the following:
He's a Democrat
He's black
He wants to legalize pot (or so some smucks have been led to believe).

Quite a platform, I can see the ad now: "Vote Barack Hussein Obama;Black, Democrat, Pot Friendly for a Better America!"

So Barrack Obama's supporters are the only voting block with agendas, both idiosyncratic and reasonable.

Interesting.

I also find it funny that people are so digusted and repulsed by the idea that someone would vote for a Public Servant because he is Black, when the exact opposite reasoning has been used the majority of time in this country.

[jterrell]

If you include the super delegates who are not beholden to the wishes of the rank and file. Eliminate these privileged actors in the process and Obama is ahead by 13 or so. And his support is growing exponentially while Clinton's is steadily deteriorating as her advantage in name recognition starts to wane.

http://www.pollster.com/USTopzDems.png

Those super delegates will decide the next President.

Obama has a lead in decided state delegates based on winning one state: South Carolina by a wide margin. He was also fortunate Florida's delegates have not been counted.

Obama does garner more support when he inundates an area with ads and starts giving speeches. He is prettier than Hillary, sounds better, smells better... he unfortunately would only be a pretty President and not a proven one. He seldom has any meat to any policy discussion. He talks about being against the War initially while he didn't have to vote and his preferred Presidential candidate at the time voted with Hillary.

Go back and read that article again.

It is basically telling you vote Obama and hope for the best.

Or you could use a brain and vote Hillary based on her and her husband's political records and performance of the country at large during the times they have been in charge.

Hillary won election in NY Senate but won re-election by 67% of the vote. Folks who had not voted for her previously did so in the re-election because she was effective.

[ScipioCowboy]

I live and work in Hollywood dimwit, thus they are my immediate contact with Obama supporters.

Look at where is support is derived from, not the rural areas, not the midwest nor south, but from the typical liberal cosmopolitan bases in New York and Los Angeles, they are who have money to throw at him as well.

Bite your tongue, Aikbach.

Are you not privy to the wisdom George Clooney? Hollywood has been responsible for every single social advancement in recent history, including the Civil Right Movement. [/sarcasm];)

Of course, it seems we're supposed to overlook the fact that the Hollywood establishment was more than happy to take Charleton Heston--a noted supporter and activist in the Civil Rights movement--and throw him under the bus after his role in Bowling for Columbine.

[jterrell]

Bite your tongue, Aikbach.

Are you not privy to the wisdom George Clooney? Hollywood has been responsible for every single social advancement in recent history, including the Civil Right Movement. [/sarcasm];)

Of course, it seems we're supposed to overlook the fact that the Hollywood establishment was more than happy to take Charleton Heston--a noted supporter and activist in the Civil Rights movement--and throw him under the bus after his role in Bowling for Columbine.

I have no problems giggling at Hollywood but it applies to Charlton Heston and Ted Nugent every bit as much as George Clooney. People using their fame to sell a political idea is hardly new or exciting.

Big Business bought and trained Reagen for 20 years before getting him elected President.

[Maikeru-sama]

Bite your tongue, Aikbach.

Are you not privy to the wisdom George Clooney? Hollywood has been responsible for every single social advancement in recent history, including the Civil Right Movement. [/sarcasm];)

Of course, it seems we're supposed to overlook the fact that the Hollywood establishment was more than happy to take Charleton Heston--a noted supporter and activist in the Civil Rights movement--and throw him under the bus after his role in Bowling for Columbine.

So they are suppose obsequiously follow Charleton Heston just because at one time he was an activist in the Civil Rights Movement and thus agreed with them on a particular issue at one time?

[Maikeru-sama]

Obama does garner more support when he inundates an area with ads and starts giving speeches. He is prettier than Hillary, sounds better, smells better... he unfortunately would only be a pretty President and not a proven one.

So Hillary Clinton is a proven President?

I agree, I think Barrack Obama, along with most of the candidates in the race are all talk and no action.

[ScipioCowboy]

So they are suppose obsequiously follow Charleton Heston just because at one time he was an activist in the Civil Rights Movement and thus agreed with them on a particular issue at one time?

No.

I don't expect them to be blubbering sycophants. But it's a trifle disingenuous when Hollywood engages in so much self-aggrandizing, all the while distancing itself from a man who made the self-aggrandizing possible but fell victim to the Michael Moore propaganda machine.

[ScipioCowboy]

I have no problems giggling at Hollywood but it applies to Charlton Heston and Ted Nugent every bit as much as George Clooney. People using their fame to sell a political idea is hardly new or exciting.

Big Business bought and trained Reagen for 20 years before getting him elected President.

There's a marked difference between supporting a cause and engaging in pervasive self-aggrandizing.

[jterrell]

So Hillary Clinton is a proven President?

I agree, I think Barrack Obama, along with most of the candidates in the race are all talk and no action.

In as much as humanly possible without having held the job, yes.

She held a cabinet level cache for 8 years in the White House.
Contrary to popular belief she was not sent off to wash the sheets when Bill had a decision to make.

Barack is a very likable guy and in 8 years after his VP run he'll be where Hillary is now with both White House admin experience and Senatorial experience and having gone through the ups and downs of campaigning for the biggest job in the land.

At that time he'll get my vote.

[jterrell]

There's a marked difference between supporting a cause and engaging pervasive self-aggrandizing.

ROFL.
Glad we have you around to make that distinction for us. :rolleyes:

[Sasquatch]

I live and work in Hollywood dimwit, thus they are my immediate contact with Obama supporters.

Look at where is support is derived from, not the rural areas, not the midwest nor south, but from the typical liberal cosmopolitan bases in New York and Los Angeles, they are who have money to throw at him as well.

Your generalizing on the character of the 170,000 Obama supporters who recently raised 30+ million based on your immediate experiences with the Hollywood elite is hardly convincing.

As for the rest of your rant, you're merely stating the obvious, as it is the democratic primaries that we are talking about. Besides, last time I checked, Iowa was in the midwest and South Carolina in the south.

Dimwit indeed.

[ScipioCowboy]

ROFL.
Glad we have you around to make that distinction for us. :rolleyes:

One would think the difference would be obvious.

George Clooney can peddle and stump for whatever cause he so desires. But watching Hollywood pat itself on the back is sickening.

[Maikeru-sama]

No.

I don't expect them to be blubbering sycophants. But it's a trifle disingenuous when Hollywood engages in so much self-aggrandizing, all the while distancing itself from a man who made the self-aggrandizing possible but fell victim to the Michael Moore propaganda machine.

So Mohandas Ghandi and Martin Luther King Jr. are above criticism because they helped usher in equality, justice and civil rights?

I will take your word for it that Charleton Heston did some wonderful things. However, the aforementioned fact alone doesn't mean he is above crticism.

[Maikeru-sama]

In as much as humanly possible without having held the job, yes.

She held a cabinet level cache for 8 years in the White House.
Contrary to popular belief she was not sent off to wash the sheets when Bill had a decision to make.

Barack is a very likable guy and in 8 years after his VP run he'll be where Hillary is now with both White House admin experience and Senatorial experience and having gone through the ups and downs of campaigning for the biggest job in the land.

At that time he'll get my vote.

So she has never held the position of President of the United States but yet you aver so forcefully that she is extremely qualifed, all the while vehemently stating that her opponent, an individual who also hasn't held the position isn't qualified.

Right.

[ScipioCowboy]

So Mohandas Ghandi and Martin Luther King Jr. are above criticism because they helped usher in equality, justice and civil rights?

I will take your word for it that Charleton Heston did some wonderful things. However, the aforementioned fact alone doesn't mean he is above crticism.

They're certainly not above criticism. But hollywood's current rhetoric against Heston has transcended mere criticism. It's now demonizing.

Moore's attempts to blame Heston for a young girl's death and to depict him as a racist were beyond ludicrous.

[Maikeru-sama]

They're certainly not above criticism. But hollywood's current rhetoric against Heston has transcended mere criticism. It's now demonizing.

Moore's attempts to blame Heston for a young girl's death and to depict him as a racist were beyond ludicrous.

Why is there a need to put people in groups?

Does everyone living in Hollywood, who happens to be a Barack Obama supporter think this way?

I think you are guilty of generalizing and rushing to judgement, just as you feel Michael Moore and all those who believe his propoganda do.

I do not watch Michael Moore films, so I am not privy to what case he attempted to present against Charleton Heston.

What I do know is that people tend to vote for an individual based on a myriad of things, including Race, Religion, Gender, Looks etc etc.

[jterrell]

So she has never held the position of President of the United States but yet you aver so forcefully that she is extremely qualifed, all the while vehemently stating that her opponent, an individual who also hasn't held the position isn't qualified.

Right.

Not sure why this one is puzzling you.

Is an NFL Defensive Coordinator more qualified to get a head coaching gig or a guy who has been selling shoes?

She has worked her way up the food chain and now she is the big fish.
Not sure what else she can do other than BE President.

Obama has never even taken a meeting inside the White House from all I can tell.

Both are Senators but she has more bill sponsorships, sits on the more important and numerous committees and has cast more votes. So she has more experience in the areas they share and she has experience in the White House and in the Governor's Mansion where he has none.

Shake off the neo-con dogma, it really isn't that hard to see her long list of qualifications.

[jterrell]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlton_Heston

Political activism
Charlton Heston (left) with Marlon Brando, James Baldwin, and Harry Belafonte at Civil Rights March 1963
Charlton Heston (left) with Marlon Brando, James Baldwin, and Harry Belafonte at Civil Rights March 1963
Heston with United States President Ronald Reagan during a meeting for the Presidential Task Force on the Arts and Humanities in the White House Cabinet Room, 1981
Heston with United States President Ronald Reagan during a meeting for the Presidential Task Force on the Arts and Humanities in the White House Cabinet Room, 1981

In his earlier years, Heston was a liberal Democrat, campaigning for Presidential candidates Adlai Stevenson in 1956 and John F. Kennedy in 1960. A civil rights activist, he accompanied Martin Luther King Jr. during the civil rights march held in Washington, D.C. in 1963, even going so far as to wear a sign that read "All Men Are Created Equal". Heston later claimed it a point of pride that he helped in the civil rights cause "long before Hollywood found it fashionable", as he often says in his speeches. Heston had also planned to campaign for Lyndon Johnson, but was unable to do so when filming on Major Dundee went over schedule.

In 1968, following the assassination of Senator Robert F. Kennedy, Heston appeared on The Joey Bishop Show and, along with fellow actors Gregory Peck, Kirk Douglas and James Stewart, called for public support for President Johnson's Gun Control Act of 1968. He later claimed he was "young and foolish"[citation needed] In 1969, Heston was asked by some Democrats to run for the California State Senate, a move that would have likely had bipartisan support in the state[citation needed]. He declined because he wanted to continue acting.

He was also an opponent of McCarthyism and racial segregation, which he saw as only helping the cause of Communism worldwide. He opposed the Vietnam War and considered Richard Nixon a disaster for America. He turned down John Wayne's offer of a role in The Alamo, because the film was a right-wing allegory for the Cold War[citation needed].

By the 1980s, however, Heston had begun to support more conservative positions on such issues as affirmative action and gun rights and changed his political affiliation from Democrat to Republican. He has campaigned for Republican candidates and Presidents Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush.

In 1996 Charlton Heston attended the Conservative Political Action Conference, an annual gathering of conservative movement organizations. There he posed for a group photo that included Gordon Lee Baum, the founder of the Council of Conservative Citizens (CCC) and former White Citizens Council organizer. Former conservative Republican Senator George Allen (VA) also appears in the photo[3] which was published in the Summer 1996 issue of the CCC's newsletter, the Citizens Informer.

He is an honorary life member of the NRA and was its president and spokesman from 1998 until his resignation in 2003. As NRA president, he is perhaps best known, while raising a hand-made Brooks flintlock rifle over his head at the 2000 NRA convention, for saying that presidential candidate Al Gore would take away his Second Amendment rights "from my cold, dead hands." (In announcing his resignation in 2003, he would again raise a rifle over his head, this time repeating only the famous five words of his 2000 speech.)

Heston has been harshly criticized by advocates of gun control. Michael Moore interviewed Heston in his home in the 2002 documentary film Bowling for Columbine. Moore asked questions regarding an NRA meeting held in Denver, Colorado in April 1999, shortly after the Columbine high school massacre in nearby Littleton and the timing/planning of the convention where Heston made the "From My Cold Dead Hands" speech mere weeks after and within the same vicinity as the very publicized shooting and death of 6-year-old Kayla Rolland in her first grade classroom near Flint, Michigan. Moore begins the interview by showing Heston that he is a fellow member of the NRA, gaining his interest. Heston eventually makes his excuses and walks away from Moore mid-interview when Moore repeatedly suggests that Heston should apologize to the people of Flint for holding the meeting mentioned above. Many of the festivities and activities of the convention in Denver were cancelled; an annual meeting was still held in compliance with NRA bylaws, as well as the applicable federal and New York state laws for a corporation such as the NRA.[4]

Actor George Clooney joked about Heston having Alzheimer's Disease and defended his comments saying that Heston deserved whatever was said about him for his involvement with the NRA;[5] Heston responded by saying that Clooney lacked "class," and said he felt sorry for Clooney, as Clooney had as much of a chance of developing Alzheimer's as anyone else.[6]

According to his autobiography In the Arena, Heston also recognised the right of freedom of speech exercised by others. In an address to students at Harvard Law School entitled Winning the Cultural War, Heston expressed his disdain for political correctness and its chilling effect on free speech, stating "If Americans believed in political correctness, we'd still be King George's boys - subjects bound to the British crown."[7] He has also stated that "Political correctness is tyranny with manners".[8]

Heston is an opponent of abortion and gave the introduction to a 1987 pro-life documentary by Bernard Nathanson called Eclipse of Reason which focuses on late-term abortions. Heston also served on the Advisory Board of Accuracy in Media (AIM), a conservative media watchdog group founded by the late Reed Irvine.

[Sasquatch]

An alternative perspective on Hillary's vast edge in "experience" over Obama:

Hillary's "Experience" Lie
If that's her selling point, put me down for Obama.
By Timothy Noah
Posted Monday, Jan. 14, 2008, at 7:16 PM ET


When the 2008 presidential campaign began, I lacked strong feelings for or against Hillary Rodham Clinton. I knew, of course, that many people loathed (http://www.slate.com/id/2182065/) the former first lady (http://www. /history/firstladies/hc42.html) and that many other people adored (http://www.slate.com/id/2181646/) her. But I'd never felt the large emotions she seemed to stir in others. New York's junior senator (http://clinton.senate.gov/) wants to be president? Fine, I thought. Let's hear her pitch. Because she was still a relative newcomer to government service, I assumed that, more than most presidential candidates, Clinton would recognize the need to give voters a reason to vote for her. I waited expectantly to discover what that reason might be.

I never dreamed the reason would be "experience." More astonishing still, the public seems to be buying it. According to a new New York Times/CBS News poll (http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/national/01142008_pollgraphics.pdf), 79 percent of all Democratic primary voters believe that Hillary Clinton has "prepared herself well enough for the job of President," compared with only 40 percent for Obama. "Experience Counts (http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2008/01/09/experience_counts/)" declared the headline of a Jan. 9 editorial in the Boston Globe about the New Hampshire victories of Hillary Clinton and Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz. (http://mccain.senate.gov/public/) "The results suggest that, at the least, New Hampshire voters put more stock in the length of a candidate's track record than Iowa voters did," the Globe said. But the paper never got around to explaining what, in Hillary's case, that experience consisted of.

Let's be clear. If you're a Democrat, experience isn't on this year's menu. The most experienced among the major candidates seeking the Democratic nomination were Sen. Joe Biden (http://biden.senate.gov/) of Delaware and Sen. Christopher Dodd (http://dodd.senate.gov/) of Connecticut. They have now dropped out. The remaining major candidates—Clinton, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill. (http://obama.senate.gov/), and former Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C. (http://www.johnedwards.com/)—all lack lengthy records in government.

Edwards served a single term in the Senate. Obama served eight years in the Illinois state Senate and is halfway through his first term in the U.S. Senate. Clinton is about to begin her eighth year in the U.S. Senate. Going by years spent as an elective official, Obama's 11 years exceeds Clinton's seven, which in turn exceeds Edwards' six. But it's a silly calculus. They all come out about the same, even when you factor in Clinton's youthful work on the House judiciary committee's impeachment inquiry, her membership on the board of the Legal Services Corp., her chairmanship of the Arkansas Educational Standards committee, her crafting of an unsuccessful national health-care bill, and her sharing Bill Clinton's bed most nights while he was Arkansas governor and president of the United States.

In Slate's women's blog, the "XX Factor," various colleagues have argued (see here (http://slate.com/blogs/blogs/xxfactor/archive/2008/01/11/and-another-thing.aspx), here (http://slate.com/blogs/blogs/xxfactor/archive/2008/01/10/hillary-s-credentials.aspx), and here (http://slate.com/blogs/blogs/xxfactor/archive/2008/01/10/you-just-described-sandra-day-o-connor.aspx)) that Clinton has sufficient experience under her belt to be president. I agree, but that's not the right question. The more urgent question is: Where the hell does she come off claiming superior experience? Here Clinton is in the Jan. 14 Newsweek, comparing herself (http://www.newsweek.com/id/91756/page/2) with Obama:

I wish it didn't have to be a choice. I think a lot of people who are torn between us feel that way. But it is a contest, and the contrasts have to be drawn and the questions have to be asked because, obviously, I wouldn't be in this race and working as hard as I am unless I thought I am uniquely qualified at this moment in our history to be the president we need starting in 2009 … I think it is informed by my deep experience over the last 35 years, my firsthand knowledge of what goes on inside a White House.

Oh, please. Thirty-five years takes you back to 1973, half of which Hillary spent in law school, for crying out loud. I don't mean to denigrate her professional experience. Clinton worked many years in corporate and public-interest law, performed advocacy work for the Children's Defense Fund and other groups, and was a university lecturer. She also devoted herself to raising a seemingly bright and loving daughter, which is no small feat, particularly given the public spotlight and some conspicuously bad behavior (http://icreport.loc.gov/icreport/6narrit.htm#L4) on the father's part.

But in government, Clinton's chief role over the years has been that of kibitzer. An important kibitzer, to be sure—what spouse isn't?—but not a direct participant. Clinton emphasizes in particular her profound experience in foreign policy. Here (http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/12/20/528334.aspx) she is on Dec. 20:

It is tempting any time things seem quieter for a minute on the international front to think that we don't need a president who's up to speed on foreign affairs and military matters. Well, that's the kind of logic that got us George Bush in the first place. Experience in foreign affairs is critical for ending the war in Iraq, averting war in Iran, negotiating a Middle East peace and dealing with North Korea.

But a Dec. 26 New York Times story revealed (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/26/us/politics/26clinton.html) that during her husband's two terms in office, Hillary Clinton did not hold a security clearance, did not attend meetings of the National Security Council, and was not given a copy of the president's daily intelligence briefing. During trips to Bosnia and Kosovo, she "acted as a spokeswoman for American interests rather than as a negotiator." On military affairs, most of her experience derives not from her White House years but from serving on the Senate armed services committee. In this capacity, William Kristol notes (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/14/opinion/14kristol.html?ref=opinion) gleefully in the Jan. 14 New York Times, Clinton told (http://www.senate.gov/%7Eclinton/news/statements/details.cfm?id=282410) Gen. David Petraeus this past September that his reports of military progress in Iraq—since shown to be undeniable—required "the willing suspension of disbelief." (What Kristol and Clinton both fail to say is that the surge's laudable military success has created a short-term opportunity (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/14/AR2007111402524.html) that the Iraqi government and Bush himself are doing tragically little to seize. For example, a much-touted move by the Iraqi parliament to open government jobs to former members of the Baath party is, according to a Jan. 14 New York Times story (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/14/world/middleeast/14iraq.html?ref=world), "riddled with loopholes and caveats to the point that some Sunni and Shiite officials say it could actually exclude more former Baathists than it lets back in.")

Clinton's claim to superior experience isn't merely dishonest. It's also potentially dangerous should she become the nominee. If Clinton continues to build her campaign on the dubious foundation of government experience, it shouldn't be very difficult for her GOP opponent to pull that edifice down. That's especially true if a certain white-haired senator (http://mccain.senate.gov/public/) now serving his 25th year in Congress (four in the House and 21 in the Senate) wins the nomination. McCain could easily make Hillary look like an absolute fraud who is no more truthful about her depth of government experience than she is about why her mother named her "Hillary." (http://www.slate.com/id/2182065/) Dennis Kucinich (http://www.dennis4president.com/home/) has more government experience than Clinton. (He also has a better health-care plan (http://www.dennis4president.com/go/issues/a-healthy-nation/), but we'll save that for another day.) If Clinton doesn't find a new theme soon, she won't just be cutting Obama's throat. She'll also be cutting her own.

Timothy Noah is a senior writer at Slate.
Slate (http://www.slate.com/id/2182073/pagenum/all/#page_start)

[ScipioCowboy]

Why is there a need to put people in groups?

Does everyone living in Hollywood, who happens to be a Barack Obama supporter think this way?

I think you are guilty of generalizing and rushing to judgement, just as you feel Michael Moore and all those who believe his propoganda do.


Speaking of "generalizing" and "rushing to judgement," I should mention that I've said nothing about Barack Obama or his supporters.

My statements are rooted in very specific remarks from Michael Moore, Mark Wahlberg, and George Clooney, who were representing the Hollywood Establishment because they made their remarks during award shows.

[burmafrd]

Interesting how clooney can say things like that and no one cares; but then of course he is a Liberal Hollywood Democrat and they are never blamed for anything they say.

[Maikeru-sama]

Not sure why this one is puzzling you.

Is an NFL Defensive Coordinator more qualified to get a head coaching gig or a guy who has been selling shoes?

She has worked her way up the food chain and now she is the big fish.
Not sure what else she can do other than BE President.

Obama has never even taken a meeting inside the White House from all I can tell.

Both are Senators but she has more bill sponsorships, sits on the more important and numerous committees and has cast more votes. So she has more experience in the areas they share and she has experience in the White House and in the Governor's Mansion where he has none.

Shake off the neo-con dogma, it really isn't that hard to see her long list of qualifications.

So taken a meeting inside the White House is a prerequisite for being qualified for the Job?

Both Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton, two individuals viewed very fondly among their base had very little Washington experience and they managed to do just fine. To continue, by all intents and purprose, Barack Obama has similar experience to John F. Kennedy and more experience than Andrew Jackson, two individuals who seemed to be effective as President of the United States.

Instead of responding with typical verbal quips such as "Neo-Con", you should really just admit that Hillary Clinton, just like Barack Obama, isn't a Proven President either.

Furthermore, didn't Hillary Clinton's husband run as a Washington Outsider and a uniter? Nearly a decade later, why is that idea being frowned upon by the same group who supported him?

[ScipioCowboy]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlton_Heston

Political activism


Once again, I'm not talking about "activism." I'm talking about "self-aggrandizing" behavior.

Activism involves making oneself subservient to a cause. This is the opposite of self-aggrandizing, which is essentially embellishing ones own accomplishments.

[Maikeru-sama]

Speaking of "generalizing" and "rushing to judgement," I should mention that I've said nothing about Barack Obama or his supporters.

My statements are rooted in very specific remarks from Michael Moore, Mark Wahlberg, and George Clooney, who were representing the Hollywood Establishment because they made their remarks during award shows.

Scipio, I agree with you in some respects.

But I do think it is a painting with a broad stroke and generalizing when you opine that Mark Wahlberg and George Clooney speak for everyone in Hollywood.

Not saying you yourself believe this but a very analogous example would be the myth that Jesse Jackson speaks for all Blacks.

Personally, I would just limit my dissatisfaction to Mark Wahlberg and George Clooney and those who publicly offer their opinion counter to mine.

[Maikeru-sama]

That was a pretty good read Sasquatch. I am not sure how factual it is, but it at leasts inspires the reader to at least search for the facts.

As stated earlier, I dislike all of the frontrunners on both sides.

Furthermore, it has been proven historically that an individual can successfully lead a group of people without having extensive experience.

[jterrell]

An alternative perspective on Hillary's vast edge in "experience" over Obama:

Hillary's "Experience" Lie
If that's her selling point, put me down for Obama.
By Timothy Noah
Posted Monday, Jan. 14, 2008, at 7:16 PM ET


When the 2008 presidential campaign began, I lacked strong feelings for or against Hillary Rodham Clinton. I knew, of course, that many people loathed (http://www.slate.com/id/2182065/) the former first lady (http://www. /history/firstladies/hc42.html) and that many other people adored (http://www.slate.com/id/2181646/) her. But I'd never felt the large emotions she seemed to stir in others. New York's junior senator (http://clinton.senate.gov/) wants to be president? Fine, I thought. Let's hear her pitch. Because she was still a relative newcomer to government service, I assumed that, more than most presidential candidates, Clinton would recognize the need to give voters a reason to vote for her. I waited expectantly to discover what that reason might be.

I never dreamed the reason would be "experience." More astonishing still, the public seems to be buying it. According to a new New York Times/CBS News poll (http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/national/01142008_pollgraphics.pdf), 79 percent of all Democratic primary voters believe that Hillary Clinton has "prepared herself well enough for the job of President," compared with only 40 percent for Obama. "Experience Counts (http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2008/01/09/experience_counts/)" declared the headline of a Jan. 9 editorial in the Boston Globe about the New Hampshire victories of Hillary Clinton and Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz. (http://mccain.senate.gov/public/) "The results suggest that, at the least, New Hampshire voters put more stock in the length of a candidate's track record than Iowa voters did," the Globe said. But the paper never got around to explaining what, in Hillary's case, that experience consisted of.

Let's be clear. If you're a Democrat, experience isn't on this year's menu. The most experienced among the major candidates seeking the Democratic nomination were Sen. Joe Biden (http://biden.senate.gov/) of Delaware and Sen. Christopher Dodd (http://dodd.senate.gov/) of Connecticut. They have now dropped out. The remaining major candidates—Clinton, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill. (http://obama.senate.gov/), and former Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C. (http://www.johnedwards.com/)—all lack lengthy records in government.

Edwards served a single term in the Senate. Obama served eight years in the Illinois state Senate and is halfway through his first term in the U.S. Senate. Clinton is about to begin her eighth year in the U.S. Senate. Going by years spent as an elective official, Obama's 11 years exceeds Clinton's seven, which in turn exceeds Edwards' six. But it's a silly calculus. They all come out about the same, even when you factor in Clinton's youthful work on the House judiciary committee's impeachment inquiry, her membership on the board of the Legal Services Corp., her chairmanship of the Arkansas Educational Standards committee, her crafting of an unsuccessful national health-care bill, and her sharing Bill Clinton's bed most nights while he was Arkansas governor and president of the United States.

In Slate's women's blog, the "XX Factor," various colleagues have argued (see here (http://slate.com/blogs/blogs/xxfactor/archive/2008/01/11/and-another-thing.aspx), here (http://slate.com/blogs/blogs/xxfactor/archive/2008/01/10/hillary-s-credentials.aspx), and here (http://slate.com/blogs/blogs/xxfactor/archive/2008/01/10/you-just-described-sandra-day-o-connor.aspx)) that Clinton has sufficient experience under her belt to be president. I agree, but that's not the right question. The more urgent question is: Where the hell does she come off claiming superior experience? Here Clinton is in the Jan. 14 Newsweek, comparing herself (http://www.newsweek.com/id/91756/page/2) with Obama:

I wish it didn't have to be a choice. I think a lot of people who are torn between us feel that way. But it is a contest, and the contrasts have to be drawn and the questions have to be asked because, obviously, I wouldn't be in this race and working as hard as I am unless I thought I am uniquely qualified at this moment in our history to be the president we need starting in 2009 … I think it is informed by my deep experience over the last 35 years, my firsthand knowledge of what goes on inside a White House.

Oh, please. Thirty-five years takes you back to 1973, half of which Hillary spent in law school, for crying out loud. I don't mean to denigrate her professional experience. Clinton worked many years in corporate and public-interest law, performed advocacy work for the Children's Defense Fund and other groups, and was a university lecturer. She also devoted herself to raising a seemingly bright and loving daughter, which is no small feat, particularly given the public spotlight and some conspicuously bad behavior (http://icreport.loc.gov/icreport/6narrit.htm#L4) on the father's part.

But in government, Clinton's chief role over the years has been that of kibitzer. An important kibitzer, to be sure—what spouse isn't?—but not a direct participant. Clinton emphasizes in particular her profound experience in foreign policy. Here (http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/12/20/528334.aspx) she is on Dec. 20:

It is tempting any time things seem quieter for a minute on the international front to think that we don't need a president who's up to speed on foreign affairs and military matters. Well, that's the kind of logic that got us George Bush in the first place. Experience in foreign affairs is critical for ending the war in Iraq, averting war in Iran, negotiating a Middle East peace and dealing with North Korea.

But a Dec. 26 New York Times story revealed (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/26/us/politics/26clinton.html) that during her husband's two terms in office, Hillary Clinton did not hold a security clearance, did not attend meetings of the National Security Council, and was not given a copy of the president's daily intelligence briefing. During trips to Bosnia and Kosovo, she "acted as a spokeswoman for American interests rather than as a negotiator." On military affairs, most of her experience derives not from her White House years but from serving on the Senate armed services committee. In this capacity, William Kristol notes (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/14/opinion/14kristol.html?ref=opinion) gleefully in the Jan. 14 New York Times, Clinton told (http://www.senate.gov/%7Eclinton/news/statements/details.cfm?id=282410) Gen. David Petraeus this past September that his reports of military progress in Iraq—since shown to be undeniable—required "the willing suspension of disbelief." (What Kristol and Clinton both fail to say is that the surge's laudable military success has created a short-term opportunity (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/14/AR2007111402524.html) that the Iraqi government and Bush himself are doing tragically little to seize. For example, a much-touted move by the Iraqi parliament to open government jobs to former members of the Baath party is, according to a Jan. 14 New York Times story (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/14/world/middleeast/14iraq.html?ref=world), "riddled with loopholes and caveats to the point that some Sunni and Shiite officials say it could actually exclude more former Baathists than it lets back in.")

Clinton's claim to superior experience isn't merely dishonest. It's also potentially dangerous should she become the nominee. If Clinton continues to build her campaign on the dubious foundation of government experience, it shouldn't be very difficult for her GOP opponent to pull that edifice down. That's especially true if a certain white-haired senator (http://mccain.senate.gov/public/) now serving his 25th year in Congress (four in the House and 21 in the Senate) wins the nomination. McCain could easily make Hillary look like an absolute fraud who is no more truthful about her depth of government experience than she is about why her mother named her "Hillary." (http://www.slate.com/id/2182065/) Dennis Kucinich (http://www.dennis4president.com/home/) has more government experience than Clinton. (He also has a better health-care plan (http://www.dennis4president.com/go/issues/a-healthy-nation/), but we'll save that for another day.) If Clinton doesn't find a new theme soon, she won't just be cutting Obama's throat. She'll also be cutting her own.

Timothy Noah is a senior writer at Slate.
Slate (http://www.slate.com/id/2182073/pagenum/all/#page_start)


The article is comedy for its inherent contradictions. It tries to run down Hillary's experience all the while detailing it.

Has Obama ever even spoke to Gen. Petraeus?

Does he have more Senate experience than her?
Is he on Senate Armed Forces Committee?

Why should she drop the experience mantra now?

Did she claim to be more experienced than McCain?

And sure Kucinich has a healthcare plan. Its called Hillary's plan from 1995.

[arglebargle]

Hillary may be more experianced and better able to hit the ground running. But the ability to jump on things in the first three months of a presidency is an extremely small plus to a candidate's resume. The quality of the presidents advisors and cabinet members are of greater importance in my opinion.

There have been more issues where I think Hilary made poor decisions, and backed stances I do not agree with. I don't like her on the 2nd Amendment and video games; and the Clinton White House helped torpedo campaign finance reform to cover up its dubious fund raising scandels.

McCain has taken the bullet on fixing corruption through campaign finance reform. The Clintons are great at gaming the system, and I don't think there will be any change there. Obama has convinced me that he really wants to make things work, and will try to make it happen. Hilary would work on some good things, but has not convinced me that in certain basic government problems, she will do enough constructive change.

She may win. She might even get my vote in the general election. But she won't in the primary.

As for Heston, well, he catches some of the blowback from the NRA. While I firmly believe in the 2nd amendment, I feel the NRA's failure to constructively help with the obvious problems of gun violence has rubbed off on Heston. I know most of my fellow gun owners have a very low opinion of the NRA, though one is a member of both the NRA and the ACLU. (He likes to trot that out at parties occaisionally.)

[Sasquatch]

That was a pretty good read Sasquatch. I am not sure how factual it is, but it at leasts inspires the reader to at least search for the facts.

As stated earlier, I dislike all of the frontrunners on both sides.

Furthermore, it has been proven historically that an individual can successfully lead a group of people without having extensive experience.

It's an opinion piece, so take it for what it's worth, although I think it raises some valid points.

Personally, I think judgment carries as much weight as experience, but you won't find the Hillary camp touting that given the scale of some of her past misjudgments.

Wolf Blitzer, as much as I despise him, hit the nail on the head last night when he suggested that her explanation for the Iraq vote amounted to her being naively duped by the president when it was apparent to the general population that it was a vote for war.

[arglebargle]

On the other hand, I do think that some downplay her experiance. I've seen a lot of diplomatic functions, and if you think that some of those wives aren't circulating, gather information and contributing to the intelligence reports afterwards, you are wrong.

Hilary's not dumb. She's been in the trenches.

[jterrell]

So taken a meeting inside the White House is a prerequisite for being qualified for the Job?

Both Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton, two individuals viewed very fondly among their base had very little Washington experience and they managed to do just fine. To continue, by all intents and purprose, Barack Obama has similar experience to John F. Kennedy and more experience than Andrew Jackson, two individuals who seemed to be effective as President of the United States.

Instead of responding with typical verbal quips such as "Neo-Con", you should really just admit that Hillary Clinton, just like Barack Obama, isn't a Proven President either.

Furthermore, didn't Hillary Clinton's husband run as a Washington Outsider and a uniter? Nearly a decade later, why is that idea being frowned upon by the same group who supported him?

Insider, outsider, Uniter, Divider.... It's all made up for public consumption.

Bill Clinton was an outsider in Washington in name but he had been prepping for the position and was the choice of the national governor's organization. The first time they wanted him to run he considered then withdrew. He has compared Obama now to his level of experience then.

We talk about being disingenuous and dishonest but let's be very clear and direct. Hillary Clinton has a lifelong record of political activism and achievement. She has not been anywhere out of politics period. She was volunteering and serving political appointments as she worked as an attorney, as she was a Wal-Mart board member and as she attended Law School. She was held in high regard in Nelson Rockefeller's campaign and campaigned in Texas for Lyndon B. Johnson int he 1960s.

Compare their overall resumes, their lifetime of results, the places they lived,t he schools they attended, the group memberships....

Hillary Clinton has been prepping for the Presidency her entire lifetime. She has been the outstanding member of her senior class in virtually every student setting, she has been a member of political organizations and involved in campaigns for 30+ years.

It is hilarious to see the ironic label of political and inexperienced....

Hillary is a political lifer, period.

And Hillary Clinton is far more experienced and much less a gamble as President than learn on the job Obama would be.

[arglebargle]

....
Wolf Blitzer, as much as I despise him, hit the nail on the head last night when he suggested that her explanation for the Iraq vote amounted to her being naively duped by the president when it was apparent to the general population that it was a vote for war.

Though I don't think that GWB had shown his true colors at that point, so there wasn't the assumption he would turn into the Unitary Power, signing statement, uber-President that he became. Still, I think that she voted that way because she didn't want to look like a wuss during a period of extreme emotion in the country. It still makes her look like she's the old poll driven Clintonian. It just came around to bite her on the butt.

[Sasquatch]

New York Times article on Clinton's years as First Lady:
NYTIMES (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/26/us/politics/26clinton.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print)
The Résumé Factor: Those 2 Terms as First Lady
By PATRICK HEALY (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/h/patrick_d_healy/index.html?inline=nyt-per)

As first lady, Hillary Rodham Clinton (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/c/hillary_rodham_clinton/index.html?inline=nyt-per) jaw-boned the authoritarian president of Uzbekistan to leave his car and shake hands with people. She argued with the Czech prime minister about democracy. She cajoled Roman Catholic and Protestant women to talk to one another in Northern Ireland. She traveled to 79 countries in total, little of it leisure; one meeting with mutilated Rwandan refugees so unsettled her that she threw up afterward.

But during those two terms in the White House, Mrs. Clinton did not hold a security clearance. She did not attend National Security Council (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/n/national_security_council/index.html?inline=nyt-org) 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 (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/c/bill_clinton/index.html?inline=nyt-per)’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.

In seeking the Democratic presidential nomination, Mrs. Clinton lays claim to two traits nearly every day: strength and experience. But as the junior senator from New York, she has few significant legislative accomplishments to her name. She has cast herself, instead, as a first lady like no other: a full partner to her husband in his administration, and, she says, all the stronger and more experienced for her “eight years with a front-row seat on history.”

Her rivals scoff at the idea that her background gives her any special qualifications for the presidency. Senator Barack Obama (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/o/barack_obama/index.html?inline=nyt-per) has especially questioned “what experiences she’s claiming” as first lady, noting that the job is not the same as being a cabinet member, much less president.

And late last week, Mr. Obama suggested that more foreign policy experts from the Clinton administration were supporting his candidacy than hers; his campaign released a list naming about 45 of them, and said that others were not ready to go public. Mrs. Clinton quickly put out a list of 80 who were supporting her, and plans to release another 75 names on Wednesday.

Mrs. Clinton’s role in her most high-profile assignment as first lady, the failed health care initiative of the early 1990s, has been well documented. Yet little has been made public about her involvement in foreign policy and national security as first lady. Documents about her work remain classified at the National Archives (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/n/national_archives_and_records_administration/index.html?inline=nyt-org). Mrs. Clinton has declined to divulge the private advice she gave her husband.

An interview with Mrs. Clinton, conversations with 35 Clinton administration officials and a review of books about her White House years suggest that she was more of a sounding board than a policy maker, who learned through osmosis rather than decision-making, and who grew gradually more comfortable with the use of military power.

Her time in the White House was a period of transition in foreign policy and national security, with the cold war over and the threat of Islamic terrorism still emerging. As a result, while in the White House, she was never fully a part of either the old school that had been focused on the Soviet Union and the possibility of nuclear war or the more recent strain of national security thinking defined by issues like nonstate threats and the proliferation of nuclear technology.

Associates from that time said that she was aware of Al Qaeda (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/a/al_qaeda/index.html?inline=nyt-org) and Osama bin Laden (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/b/osama_bin_laden/index.html?inline=nyt-per) and what her husband has in recent years characterized as his intense focus on them, but that she made no aggressive independent effort to shape policy or gather information about the threat of terrorism.

She did not wrestle directly with many of the other challenges the next president will face, including managing a large-scale deployment — or withdrawal — of troops abroad, an overhaul of the intelligence agencies or the effort to halt the spread of nuclear weapons technology. Most of her exposure to the military has come since she left the White House through her seat on the Senate Armed Services Committee.

When it came to the regional conflicts in the Balkans, she, along with many officials, was cautious at first about supporting American military intervention, though she later backed air strikes against the Serbs and the NATO (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/n/north_atlantic_treaty_organization/index.html?inline=nyt-org)-led peacekeeping mission in Kosovo.

Her role mostly involved what diplomats call “soft power” — converting cold war foes into friends, supporting nonprofit work and good-will endeavors, and pressing her agenda on women’s rights, human trafficking and the expanded use of microcredits, tiny loans to help individuals in poor countries start small businesses.

Asked to name three major foreign policy decisions where she played a decisive role as first lady, Mrs. Clinton responded in generalities more than specifics, describing her strategic roles on trips to Bosnia, Kosovo, Northern Ireland, India, Africa and Latin America.

Asked to cite a significant foreign policy object lesson from the 1990s, Mrs. Clinton also replied with broad observations. “There are a lot of them,” she said. “The whole unfortunate experience we’ve had with the Bush administration, where they haven’t done what we’ve needed to do to reach out to the rest of the world, reinforces my experience in the 1990s that public diplomacy, showing respect and understanding of people’s different perspectives — it’s more likely to at least create the conditions where we can exercise our values and pursue our interests.”

Crisis at Home and Terror Afar

There were times, though, when Mrs. Clinton did not appear deeply involved in some of Mr. Clinton’s hardest moments on national security. He faced a major one in 1998 — the bombings of the United States Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and subsequently whether to bomb Afghanistan and Sudan. Just days after he acknowledged to his wife, the public and a grand jury that he had had a relationship with Monica Lewinsky (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/l/monica_s_lewinsky/index.html?inline=nyt-per), Mr. Clinton ordered cruise missile strikes on targets suspected to be a terrorist training camp in Afghanistan and a chemical weapons factory in Sudan.

“It was the height of Monica, and they were barely talking to each other, if at all,” said one senior national security official who spoke with both Clintons during that time.

Asked if she talked to the president about the military choices or advised him, regardless of their personal problems, Mrs. Clinton was elliptical.

“I was very proud of him, he did what he thought he was supposed to do as president based on the best intelligence he had,” she said. “And he was well aware that there would be those that would certainly criticize him for it.”

Friends of Mrs. Clinton say that she acted as adviser, analyst, devil’s advocate, problem-solver and gut check for her husband, and that she has an intuitive sense of how brutal the job can be. What is clear, she and others say, is that Mr. Clinton often consulted her, and that Mrs. Clinton gained experience that Mr. Obama, John Edwards (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/e/john_edwards/index.html?inline=nyt-per) and every other candidate lack — indeed, that most incoming presidents did not have.

“In the end, she was the last court of appeal for him when he was making a decision,” said Mickey Kantor (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/k/mickey_kantor/index.html?inline=nyt-per), a close Clinton friend who served as trade representative and commerce secretary. “I would be surprised if there was any major decision he made that she didn’t weigh in on.” (Mr. Clinton declined an interview request.)

But other administration officials, as well as opponents of Mrs. Clinton, are skeptical that the couple’s conversations and her 79 trips add up to unique experience that voters should reward. She was not independently judging intelligence, for the most part, or mediating the data, egos and agendas of a national security team. And, in the end, she did not feel or process the weight of responsibility.

Susan Rice, a National Security Council senior aide and State Department official under Mr. Clinton who now advises Mr. Obama, said Mrs. Clinton was not involved in “the heavy lifting of foreign policy.” Ms. Rice also took issue with a recent comment by a Clinton campaign official that Mrs. Clinton was “the face of the administration in foreign affairs.”

“Making tough decisions, responding to crises, making the bureaucracy implement decisions that they may not want to implement — that’s the hard part of foreign policy,” Ms. Rice said. “That’s not what Mrs. Clinton was asked or expected to do as first lady.”

Not Overstepping Her Bounds

Mrs. Clinton said in the interview that she was careful not to overstep her bounds on national security, relying instead on informal access. During the preinaugural transition, for instance, she sat in on some meetings about presidential appointments at the invitation of Warren Christopher (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/c/warren_m_christopher/index.html?inline=nyt-per), who directed the transition and became secretary of state in the first Clinton term. Participants recalled that she would mostly speak when Mr. Christopher called on her, and tended to make points about placing more women, minority members and allies in key jobs.

She said she did not attend National Security Council meetings, nor did she have a security clearance — though she was briefed on classified intelligence before going on some important diplomatic trips.

“I don’t recall attending anything formal like the National Security Council,” she said, “because I had direct access to all of the principals. I spent a lot of time with the national security adviser, the secretary of state, other officials on the security team for the president. I thought that was both more appropriate, but also more efficient.”

Mrs. Clinton declined to say if she ever read the President’s Daily Brief, a rundown of the latest intelligence and threats to national security provided to the president each day. “I would put that in the category of I-never-talk-about-what-I-talk-to-my-husband-about,” she said. But she indicated, and other administration officials confirmed, that Mr. Clinton would sometimes talk to her about contents of the briefing.

“Let me say generally, I’m very aware of and familiar with what the P.D.B.’s actually are, how they work, what they include,” she said. “And it wasn’t always through the Clinton administration — when I went to Bosnia, for example, I had a full briefing from the military commanders there about what the situation was like.”

Mrs. Clinton said she was “only tangentially involved” in Mr. Clinton’s first major overseas test, whether to send American soldiers after the Somali warlord Mohammed Farah Aidid and his forces, a raid that ended in 18 American deaths. Asked if she had pressed for an invasion, she said she had acted “more as a sounding board” for Mr. Clinton.

The same was true during the military confrontation in Haiti in 1994, over restoring the exiled president, Jean-Bertrand Aristide (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/a/jeanbertrand_aristide/index.html?inline=nyt-per), which she favored and drew lessons from about joint command of American armed forces.

Asked about her role in Somalia and Haiti, Mr. Christopher said in an interview, “She wasn’t at any of the meetings in the Oval Office or cabinet room, and didn’t take any formal role that I saw.” Mr. Christopher is supporting Mrs. Clinton for president.

Nor was Mrs. Clinton a memorable player on Rwanda. Former White House officials say that no one — not the national security team, not the president, not the first lady — was seriously pushing for American military intervention to stop or slow the unfolding genocide there; the administration’s focus was on confronting the ethnic bloodshed in the Balkans. Mrs. Clinton declined to comment on Rwanda.

A Stand for Women’s Rights

The foreign policy achievement most often credited to Mrs. Clinton came in 1995, with her speech to the United Nations (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/u/united_nations/index.html?inline=nyt-org) conference on women in Beijing, where she declared that “human rights are women’s rights, and women’s rights are human rights.” She also tangled with Chinese officials, she said, and refused to bow to pressure to soften her remarks.

“She had a good balance of being firm on these issues, even if they clearly covered Chinese sins, but also understanding the need for good relations with China,” said Winston Lord, then the assistant secretary of state for East Asian and Pacific affairs, who briefed and accompanied her on the trip.

In visits to Bosnia and Kosovo after the American-led bombing of Serbia, she entered war zones before officials believed it was safe for her husband to go and acted as a spokeswoman for American interests rather than as a negotiator. Mrs. Clinton had become a champion of the bombing campaign, and many officials — including Madeleine K. Albright (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/a/madeleine_k_albright/index.html?inline=nyt-per) and Richard Holbrooke (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/h/richard_c_holbrooke/index.html?inline=nyt-per) in the administration and Tony Blair (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/b/tony_blair/index.html?inline=nyt-per), then Britain’s prime minister — turned to her at times to stiffen Mr. Clinton’s resolve to take on Serbia.

“Bill, you’re the president,” was a refrain that several administration officials said she used when Mr. Clinton was torn between his advisers.

Mrs. Clinton has disagreed with Mr. Obama’s support for presidential-level talks with leaders of nations like Iran and North Korea, but she said that the Balkans had taught her another lesson: know your enemy. She praised Gen. Wesley K. Clark (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/c/wesley_k_clark/index.html?inline=nyt-per), then the NATO commander, and Mr. Holbrooke, the administration’s envoy on the Balkans, for socializing and drinking with Serbia’s leader, Slobodan Milosevic (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/m/slobodan_milosevic/index.html?inline=nyt-per), as a means of gauging his strengths.

“He’s there — you don’t learn something about him by pointing at him across the ocean,” she said. “If you do have to engage in a bombing campaign, you’re going to have a much better idea of how much pressure it’s going to take to finally break him.”

Her personal interests also drew her to Northern Ireland, where she believed she could help foster peace as a female leader bringing together women split by the sectarian divide. She played host to a memorable meeting, one of the first of its kind, of Catholic and Protestant women in Belfast. “It gave everybody a safe place to come together and start talking about what they had in common,” Mrs. Clinton said.

As she prepared to run for the Senate, Mrs. Clinton took increasing interest in Israel and Middle East peace, touchstones for Jewish voters, among others, in New York. She was not at the Camp David talks in the summer of 2000, but she did pepper the Middle East peace envoy, Dennis Ross (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/r/dennis_ross/index.html?inline=nyt-per), with questions, like whether the Palestinian (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/p/palestinians/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier) leader Yasir Arafat (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/a/yasir_arafat/index.html?inline=nyt-per) was too much the revolutionary to ever make peace, Mr. Ross recalled.

The Middle East situation led to Mrs. Clinton’s first big foreign policy-related problem as a candidate. In 1999, she sat silently, but with apparent discomfort, through an event on the West Bank as Suha Arafat (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/a/suha_arafat/index.html?inline=nyt-per), the wife of Mr. Arafat, accused Israel of poisoning Palestinian women and children with toxic gases.

Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/g/rudolph_w_giuliani/index.html?inline=nyt-per) of New York, who at that point seemed likely to be her Republican opponent in the 2000 Senate race, sharply criticized Mrs. Clinton for not confronting Mrs. Arafat over her remarks and for kissing her goodbye afterward; the incident also led some Jewish groups to be critical of the first lady.

Mrs. Clinton has often said that she learned from the experience and would not make the same mistake again.

[Sasquatch]

Though I don't think that GWB had shown his true colors at that point, so there wasn't the assumption he would turn into the Unitary Power, signing statement, uber-President that he became. Still, I think that she voted that way because she didn't want to look like a wuss during a period of extreme emotion in the country. It still makes her look like she's the old poll driven Clintonian. It just came around to bite her on the butt.

Well, as Obama pointed out last night, the bill was entitled Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution. Nearly 1/3 of the members of Congress showed the good sense to vote against this measure. Mrs. Clinton was not among them.

[jterrell]

It's an opinion piece, so take it for what it's worth, although I think it raises some valid points.

Personally, I think judgment carries as much weight as experience, but you won't find the Hillary camp touting that given the scale of some of her past misjudgments.

Wolf Blitzer, as much as I despise him, hit the nail on the head last night when he suggested that her explanation for the Iraq vote amounted to her being naively duped by the president when it was apparent to the general population that it was a vote for war.

I think it makes far more sense and far less a bowl of crap to attack her judgment. We are all entitled to our opinions on her judgment but a resume like hers would be considered overqualified if it belonged to any other candidate.

[jterrell]

Well, as Obama pointed out last night, the bill was entitled Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution. Nearly 1/3 of the members of Congress showed the good sense to vote against this measure. Mrs. Clinton was not among them.

How did Obama vote?

[Sasquatch]

How did Obama vote?

Is that how she's going to respond to this critical question in the general election?

Lack of judgment and unwillingness to admit mistakes ... sounds eerily familiar.

[ScipioCowboy]

Scipio, I agree with you in some respects.

But I do think it is a painting with a broad stroke and generalizing when you opine that Mark Wahlberg and George Clooney speak for everyone in Hollywood.

Not saying you yourself believe this but a very analogous example would be the myth that Jesse Jackson speaks for all Blacks.

I fear you're comparing apples and oranges.

African-Americans are not a profit-making establishment that produces films and decadent, pompous award shows.

Let me give you another scenario:

If the BET is hosting an awards ceremony and personally invites Jesse Jackson to speak, is it not reasonable to say that Jackson is representing the BET? And, if Jackson chooses this particular venue to make inflammatory comments, can we not say that his comments are representing the BET if it does not disavow them?

Similarly, Wahlberg and Clooney lampooned Heston at awards ceremonies that were put on by the Hollywood establishment, and Moore viciously and wrongfully attacked Heston in a movie sponsored and produced by the Hollywood establishment. Therefore, I don't consider it unreasonable to hold the Hollywood establishment accountable for these attacks since they knowingly provided the venue for them and never disavowed them?