Sen. Clinton WH schedules released today

The National Archives have released Sen. Clinton’s schedules from when she was First Lady.  You can go to the National Archives and view them or you can view that at the Clinton Presidential Library’s website.

I’ve been scanning them and in haven’t looked at all the years.  The one thing that stands out is how much information has been redacted because it has been deemed “too personal and and invasion of privacy”.  The phone numbers, I understand.  But names of who she met with have been blocked out, reasons for the meeting have been blocked out, places for the meetings have been blocked out…you get the drift.  And most of the meetings were closed to the press anyway.  So you’ll see a lot of:

Private Meeting
Map Room

A.  Lot.

Another thing I noticed is that there’s a lot more redaction in their first term, than in the second term.  The second term seemed like Clinton was just getting interviewed and being given gifts, whereas the first term there’s a lot of policy stuff going on.  Clinton also did a grip of interviews, some of them even promoting her book.  The one biggest surprise for me is seeing names I had forgotten, remembering old scandals and drama and getting that yuck-feeling of not again, if Clinton becomes president.  On the upside, we eventually get the weather forecast for D.C.

So, that’s that for now.


It’s the Hillary Healthcare Hour!

As The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve over at TPM said:

 Damn, are they running out of money again?

That’s right…the Clinton’s hate you so much they begged for another debate.  The Obama campaign, not be outdone said, “I see your Pennsylvania and raise you North Carolina.”

Two more debates.

22 debates total.

That’s ear-bleeding, zombie-turning dullness right there.  If Clinton hijacks the debate with her healthcare plan again, I hope someone gongs her ass.

Okay, the only thing that can make this sadder is that the Pennsylvania debate will be brought to us by:

And the CBS debates will be moderated by…are you sitting down?


That’s right,”never trust a fake tan and a smile” is going moderate.

Can you say, “shoot me now” boys and girls?  I knew you could.

ELECTION ’08: MSNBC calls Mississippi for Obama

That was fast. My TV’s been on for 3 minutes.

So…since there were black people and Clinton lost, Mississippi must be added to the contests that don’t count for Clinton.

There’s no numbers, so I guess they’re working off exit polls:

Vote by Party and Race

White Democrats (24%)

Clinton 74%
Obama 24%

White Independents (13%)

Clinton 59%
Obama 39%

Black Democrats (44%)

Clinton 10%
Obama 90%

All Republicans (13%)

Clinton 78%
Obama 22%

So, you can see that even with whites overwhelming voting for Clinton, she still lost in MS. Did you see those Republican numbers? They want her as the nominee so bad.

Democrats  |  Polls | County Results
Candidate Votes % of votes Delegates won Projected winner
Barack Obama 247,456 60% 15
Hillary Clinton 153,745 37% 12  


The things, you say
Your purple prose just gives you away
The things, you say
You’re unbelievable
~EMF – Unbelievable

That’s the way I feel about Sen. Clinton and the Clinton’s campaign. That’s not to say that they’re liars (which I know they are), but I find their antics and “purple prose” simply unbelievable.

  • I can’t understand how someone who’s had the media lapping up every single word of theirs complain that media doesn’t give them the right kind of attention.
  • I don’t understand how someone who made a big stink about Sen. Obama “rejecting” Louis Farrakhan, not only presents a story that wasn’t true, but when one of their own well-known supporters makes a racist statement, she doesn’t “reject” her.
  • I will not understand how someone who has spent the last 8 months smearing blacks and Muslims, can fake outrage on 3 week old factual flyers then say that the flyers are “Rovian”.
  • I still don’t understand how someone can generate fake outrage at being called a ‘monster’, yet embrace having a national “comedy” sketch show call you a ‘bitch’.

If I didn’t pay attention to politics; didn’t blog, didn’t watch CSPAN, didn’t obsessively check national and local news agencies info and only saw this, I wouldn’t vote for Clinton. A couple of weeks ago, I read a post somewhere that said something like:

Clinton is like that girl on the playground who’d whine that the boys were being mean and ignoring her, but would turn around a kick them in the knees because she knows that boys can’t hit girls.

When I read that–as a woman–I flinched. Mostly because I had seen that girl and I had despised her with all my 8 year old heart. That girl made it harder for girls like me to get a fair shake on the playground. It wasn’t fun playing with the boys when that girl was around. They made sure they didn’t hit her too hard with the dodgeball or tag her out too often. Meanwhile other girls were either treated with kid gloves or hit even harder. I was hit harder.

In reading or hearing Clinton’s female surrogates and female reactions to Sen. Clinton and how the media treats her, I have a sense that we females are divided into these two camps of girls; those who whined and those who played on level with the boys. That is why Clinton can claim hurt and demand a resignation when Powers called her a monster, yet is unwilling to disavow comments made by former vice presidential candidate and Clinton superdelegate Geraldine Ferraro. Who said that Obama is only where he is because he’s black. That Clinton stands by the bigoted rhetoric of one of her more important superdelegates, speaks a lot about her, the type of campaign that is being run and what kind of presidency we’re get if she wins in November.

John McCain, who has no scruples, properly distanced himself from Rep. Steve King’s ugly remarks about Obama. That speaks to a larger issue of Clinton’s character. When David Shuster made his inappropriate remark about Chelsea Clinton, Sen. Obama was asked about it and spoke up for the Clinton’s. That’s despite all their race-baiting and insinuations of the previous months. Sen. Clinton has been eerily silent on Rep. King’s remarks. Not that we should expect more. In fact, the only time Clinton has disavowed a surrogates/endorser’s remarks has been when that person is a black person. Every other person has been given cover for their Clintonian talking points.

Sen. Clinton, your purple prose just gives you away. It’s unbelievable.


The Clinton’s campaign has now accused the Obama campaign of “playing the race card” over Ferraro’s words. Same shit, different day. Didn’t we watch this movie in January? You know, back when Bill Clinton and their surrogates were dumping all kinds of racist buzzwords on airwaves and crazy-assed bloggers like SusanHu and Michelle Malkin Taylor Marsh were accusing the Obama campaign of playing the race card?

Mammy Maggie Williams memo said:

In January, NBC’s Tim Russert confronted Senator Barack Obama with a four page memo from his campaign characterizing statements they claimed the Clinton Campaign had made about race. Asked in hindsight whether he regretted pushing this story, Senator Obama said :

Well, not only in hindsight, but going forward. I think that, as Hillary said, our supporters, our staff, get overzealous. They start saying things that I would not say. And it is my responsibility to make sure that we’re setting a clear tone in our campaign, and I take that responsibility very seriously, which is why I spoke yesterday and sent a message in case people were not clear that what we want to do is make sure that we focus on the issues.”

We agreed then. We agree today. Supporters from both campaigns will get overzealous. Senator Clinton today reiterated that when asked about Geraldine Ferraro‘s recent comments:

“I do not agree with that and you know it’s regrettable that any of our supporters on both sides say things that veer off into the personal. We ought to keep this focused on the issues. That’s what this campaign should be about.”

Senator Obama’s campaign staff seems to have forgotten his pledge. We have not. And, we reject these false, personal and politically calculated attacks on the eve of a primary. This campaign should be about the leadership we need for a better future and these attacks serve only to divide the Democratic Party and the American people.

But you know…Geraldine Ferraro, who is still running her damn mouth, is still on the Clinton’s campaign’s staff so, they must agree with what she said.

But far from backing off from her initial remark, Ferraro defended it and elaborated on it.

“Any time anybody does anything that in any way pulls this campaign down and says let’s address reality and the problems we’re facing in this world, you’re accused of being racist, so you have to shut up,” Ferraro said. “Racism works in two different directions. I really think they’re attacking me because I’m white. How’s that?”

No…um…I’m NOT going to call her that…no one’s attacking you because you’re white, you’re being attacked because you say bigoted stuff not even in the ballpark of reality.

She also said she is familiar with Axelrod from his work for minority candidates in New York.

“He knows damn well that the best thing to do in a situation like this is to come back and hit with race,” Ferraro said, adding that the response is a sign that the Obama campaign is “worried” about the first-term senator’s lack of experience.


“Sexism is a bigger problem,” Ferraro argued. “It’s OK to be sexist in some people’s minds. It’s not OK to be racist.”

And I guess Geraldine Ferraro is going to make it her life’s work to make sure it’s OK to be racist.

I have just one thing to say to Ferraro:

ELECTION ’08: Obama campaign challenges Clinton’s claims

I just woke up the happiest post today. Over at TPM, Greg Sargent has posted a memo the Obama campaign has sent out regarding Sen. Clinton’s claims of foreign policy experience. All that bullshit we’ve been listening to for the past 8 months, and we said, ‘Liar!’ he just tagged her on it. All of it. And brutally. I don’t expect our wonderful media to cover it because they want and need the Democratic drama to go on, cause ‘Dammit, people are engaged and that means ratings!’

The Obama campaign has always been quick to respond to criticisms, but more importantly, they’ve shown party loyalty. They don’t or won’t give the GOP ammunition against Clinton should she win the nomination. It’s just not the done thing. The Clinton’s don’t play for the Democrats, they play for themselves. That’s why when they started their “kitchen sink” strategy last week, it didn’t look strong, it didn’t make the campaign’s front look like “a fighter”, it made her look a little crazed and desperate. There’s was nothing strong from the last 3 weeks. And to make it worse, all of her claims were so easily debunked that you wondered just who was fooling who?

From former Clinton White House counsel Greg Craig:

There is no reason to believe…that she was a key player in foreign policy at any time during the Clinton Administration. She did not sit in on National Security Council meetings. She did not have a security clearance. She did not attend meetings in the Situation Room. She did not manage any part of the national security bureaucracy, nor did she have her own national security staff. She did not do any heavy-lifting with foreign governments, whether they were friendly or not. She never managed a foreign policy crisis, and there is no evidence to suggest that she participated in the decision-making that occurred in connection with any such crisis…

Now that’s what most of us have been saying for the past year. One can assume the Obama campaign held back only because they didn’t want to give ammunition to GOP. Meanwhile, The Clinton’s, their surrogates and supporters concern-troll and say, “Well, he’s going to get much worse from the Republicans, so we’re testing him.” Whatever. Apparently, they never bothered to look up any information about Sen. Obama. And too be oh-so-concerned when Sen. Clinton has never had a serious Republican challenger in her short elected career is the height of hilarity.

The memo sent by the Obama campaign, is clear and concise. It hits all her claims of foreign policy experience and does it factually. Here it is:

When your entire campaign is based upon a claim of experience, it is important that you have evidence to support that claim. Hillary Clinton’s argument that she has passed “the Commander- in-Chief test” is simply not supported by her record.

There is no doubt that Hillary Clinton played an important domestic policy role when she was First Lady. It is well known, for example, that she led the failed effort to pass universal health insurance. There is no reason to believe, however, that she was a key player in foreign policy at any time during the Clinton Administration. She did not sit in on National Security Council meetings. She did not have a security clearance. She did not attend meetings in the Situation Room. She did not manage any part of the national security bureaucracy, nor did she have her own national security staff. She did not do any heavy-lifting with foreign governments, whether they were friendly or not. She never managed a foreign policy crisis, and there is no evidence to suggest that she participated in the decision-making that occurred in connection with any such crisis. As far as the record shows, Senator Clinton never answered the phone either to make a decision on any pressing national security issue – not at 3 AM or at any other time of day.

When asked to describe her experience, Senator Clinton has cited a handful of international incidents where she says she played a central role. But any fair-minded and objective judge of these claims – i.e., by someone not affiliated with the Clinton campaign – would conclude that Senator Clinton’s claims of foreign policy experience are exaggerated.

Northern Ireland:

Senator Clinton has said, “I helped to bring peace to Northern Ireland.” It is a gross overstatement of the facts for her to claim even partial credit for bringing peace to Northern Ireland. She did travel to Northern Ireland, it is true. First Ladies often travel to places that are a focus of U.S. foreign policy. But at no time did she play any role in the critical negotiations that ultimately produced the peace. As the Associated Press recently reported, “[S]he was not directly involved in negotiating the Good Friday peace accord.” With regard to her main claim that she helped bring women together, she did participate in a meeting with women, but, according to those who know best, she did not play a pivotal role. The person in charge of the negotiations, former Senator George Mitchell, said that “[The First Lady] was one of many people who participated in encouraging women to get involved, not the only one.”

News of Senator Clinton’s claims has raised eyebrows across the ocean. Her reference to an important meeting at the Belfast town hall was debunked. Her only appearance at the Belfast City Hall was to see Christmas lights turned on. She also attended a 50-minute meeting which, according to the Belfast Daily Telegraph’s report at the time, “[was] a little bit stilted, a little prepared at times.” Brian Feeney, an Irish author and former politician, sums it up: “The road to peace was carefully documented, and she wasn’t on it.”


Senator Clinton has pointed to a March 1996 trip to Bosnia as proof that her foreign travel involved a life-risking mission into a war zone. She has described dodging sniper fire. While she did travel to Bosnia in March 1996, the visit was not a high-stakes mission to a war zone. On March 26, 1996, the New York Times reported that “Hillary Rodham Clinton charmed American troops at a U.S.O. show here, but it didn’t hurt that the singer Sheryl Crow and the comedian Sinbad were also on the stage.”


Senator Clinton has said, “I negotiated open borders to let fleeing refugees into safety from Kosovo.” It is true that, as First Lady, she traveled to Macedonia and visited a Kosovar refugee camp. It is also true that she met with government officials while she was there. First Ladies frequently meet with government officials. Her claim to have “negotiated open borders to let fleeing refugees into safety from Kosovo,” however, is not true. Her trip to Macedonia took place on May 14, 1999. The borders were opened the day before, on May 13, 1999.

The negotiations that led to the opening of the borders were accomplished by the people who ordinarily conduct negotiations with foreign governments – U.S. diplomats. President Clinton’s top envoy to the Balkans, former Ambassador Robert Gelbard, said, “I cannot recall any involvement by Senator Clinton in this issue.” Ivo Daalder worked on the Clinton Administration’s National Security Council and wrote a definitive history of the Kosovo conflict. He recalls that “she had absolutely no role in the dirty work of negotiations.”


Last year, former President Clinton asserted that his wife pressed him to intervene with U.S. troops to stop the Rwandan genocide. When asked about this assertion, Hillary Clinton said it was true. There is no evidence, however, to suggest that this ever happened. Even those individuals who were advocating a much more robust U.S. effort to stop the genocide did not argue for the use of U.S. troops. No one recalls hearing that Hillary Clinton had any interest in this course of action. Based on a fair and thorough review of National Security Council deliberations during those tragic months, there is no evidence to suggest that U.S. military intervention was ever discussed. Prudence Bushnell, the Assistant Secretary of State with responsibility for Africa, has recalled that there was no consideration of U.S. military intervention.

At no time prior to her campaign for the presidency did Senator Clinton ever make the claim that she supported intervening militarily to stop the Rwandan genocide. It is noteworthy that she failed to mention this anecdote – urging President Clinton to intervene militarily in Rwanda – in her memoirs. President Clinton makes no mention of such a conversation with his wife in his memoirs. And Madeline Albright, who was Ambassador to the United Nations at the time, makes no mention of any such event in her memoirs.

Hillary Clinton did visit Rwanda in March 1998 and, during that visit, her husband apologized for America’s failure to do more to prevent the genocide.


Senator Clinton also points to a speech that she delivered in Beijing in 1995 as proof of her ability to answer a 3 AM crisis phone call. It is strange that Senator Clinton would base her own foreign policy experience on a speech that she gave over a decade ago, since she so frequently belittles Barack Obama’s speeches opposing the Iraq War six years ago. Let there be no doubt: she gave a good speech in Beijing, and she stood up for women’s rights. But Senator Obama’s opposition to the War in Iraq in 2002 is relevant to the question of whether he, as Commander-in-Chief, will make wise judgments about the use of military force. Senator Clinton’s speech in Beijing is not.

Senator Obama’s speech opposing the war in Iraq shows independence and courage as well as good judgment. In the speech that Senator Clinton says does not qualify him to be Commander in Chief, Obama criticized what he called “a rash war . . . a war based not on reason, but on passion, not on principle, but on politics.” In that speech, he said prophetically: “[E]ven a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences.” He predicted that a U.S. invasion of Iraq would “fan the flames of the Middle East,” and “strengthen the recruitment arm of al Qaeda.” He urged the United States first to “finish the fight with Bin Laden and al Qaeda.”

If the U.S. government had followed Barack Obama’s advice in 2002, we would have avoided one of the greatest foreign policy catastrophes in our nation’s history. Some of the most “experienced” men in national security affairs – Vice President Cheney and Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and others – led this nation into that catastrophe. That lesson should teach us something about the value of judgment over experience. Longevity in Washington, D.C. does not guarantee either wisdom of judgment.


The Clinton campaign’s argument is nothing more than mere assertion, dramatized in a scary television commercial with a telephone ringing in the middle of the night. There is no support for or substance in the claim that Senator Clinton has passed “the Commander-in-Chief test.” That claim – as the TV ad – consists of nothing more than making the assertion, repeating it frequently to the voters and hoping that they will believe it.

On the most critical foreign policy judgment of our generation – the War in Iraq – Senator Clinton voted in support of a resolution entitled “The Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of U.S. Military Force Against Iraq.” As she cast that vote, she said: “This is probably the hardest decision I have ever had to make — any vote that may lead to war should be hard — but I cast it with conviction.” In this campaign, Senator Clinton has argued – remarkably – that she wasn’t actually voting for war, she was voting for diplomacy. That claim is no more credible than her other claims of foreign policy experience. The real tragedy is that we are still living with the terrible consequences of her misjudgment. The Bush Administration continues to cite that resolution as its authorization – like a blank check – to fight on with no end in sight.

Barack Obama has a very simple case. On the most important commander in chief test of our generation, he got it right, and Senator Clinton got it wrong. In truth, Senator Obama has much more foreign policy experience than either Bill Clinton or Ronald Reagan had when they were elected. Senator Obama has worked to confront 21st century challenges like proliferation and genocide on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He possesses the personal attributes of a great leader — an even temperament, an open-minded approach to even the most challenging problems, a willingness to listen to all views, clarity of vision, the ability to inspire, conviction and courage.

And Barack Obama does not use false charges and exaggerated claims to play politics with national security.