Clinton's six years on the Senate Armed Services Committee doesn't qualify as foreign policy experience? If you are going to write a diary, at least be factually accurate and fair. Obama has responsibility for Eastern Europe and NATO (covering the mission in Afganistan) and has not held a single hearing or even travelled there. Richardson's meeting with Hugo Chavez sounds a lot like Carter visiting Hamas to me.
Wow, he personally has total responsibility for Eastern Europe and NATO, huh? And its all him, and there is no one else in either the government or the military who has any responsibility? Wow, that's pretty crazy that he became the super-czar.
I dislike Chavez but despise Hamas. Do you have any evidence that Chavez has sponsored terrorism? Or have Hillary supporters started adopting all rightwing talking points to save time?
Given how he has attacked Sen. Clinton on foreign policy, it is hypocritical of him to have not taken advantage of this opportunity because he was "too busy" campaigning. He could have at least stepped aside and given the responsibility to someone who wasn't too busy to serve as Chairman.
You don't have to be factually correct when you are attacking Hillary Clinton on foreign policy. She voted for the resolution to authorize force in Iraq so that means that can demean and dismiss her travels as First Lady (what Obama belittle as her having "teas") and you can ignore her service on the Senate Armed Services Committee and long list of foreign policy endorsements.
No, I don't think serving on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee amounts to much esp. when she was in the minority party until mid-2006. And Senators are a deliberative body. They talk a lot. How has she distinquished herself on that committee?
"They talk alot"? What does this add to your point? I think Obama not having served even a single term in the Senate is quite revealing. He's not up to the task. And yes, he does have responsibility as subcommittee chairman for holding meaningful, substantive hearings on US policy regarding Eastern Europe and NATO. For one reason, his position on Iraq is focused almost entirely on his argument that the diversion of US forces to Iraq has distracted from the central mission in Afghanistan. Yet, he shows no leadership on this issue for which he can, as chairman, set the agenda. That is the whole point of Senate deliberation -- as chairman he has a chance to lead, to set the terms of debate, gather useful data and testimony to inform deliberation, and craft policy -- yet has done NOTHING! You simply choose to ignore Senator Clinton's years of service on the SAS -- but the comparison and distinction between the candidates' experiences are real. I think any reasonable person would reject your unsupportable conclusion that Clinton's six years on the SAS is worthless experience. Let it also be said that, with her SAS experience, she has more foreign policy experience than most governors who run for President -- more than Bill Clinton had when he ran.
