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.
