"but Hillary Clinton said that she supports the Bush administration's tough embargo policy and a travel ban that is more restrictive and punitive than when she and her husband occupied the White House."

That's bad enough. But her speech in front of the VFW this week made her look, in my opinion, like rabid warmonger who can't wait to start dropping bombs on the next country unlucky enough to get on our bad side. She's totally overcompensating for the perceived doubts about her toughness, and we don't need another itchy trigger finger in the White House.

Unfortunately many voters aren't foreign policy savvy. And unfortunately, many people did not understand President Carter's foreign policies either, which have to be seen in the context of the Cold War and the emerging emphasis on human rights. For the record, I have a lot of respect for Carter. However, voter's do remember the Iran hostage crisis and the failed rescue. I don't think a Brzezinski endorsement will do much for Obama in today's political climate.

Quote of the week:

"Being a former first lady doesn't prepare you to be president."

As the kids used to say during the last cultural cycle, "Oh, Snap!"

"... should dig a bit here and ask herself why her advisors are pushing her into anachronistic, 20th century grooves -- and not ones aimed at a clear-headed and consistent 21st century vision for the country."

Maybe the answer is that her top advisor laid some of those grooves himself, and lies in the bed next to her.

You could be right. You could just be engaging in wishful thinking.

I have to say that in naming a non-running candidate who you agree with on FP, that you chose Chuck Hagel (who I've not heard mention running) as opposed Wes Clark (who says repeatedly that he wants to run and thinks about it every day), is kind of a shock. Is Clark too liberal for you?

Why should I read this as anything more than an old-guard slap at her for being a woman? ("First ladies bake cookies, they aren't involved in decisions.") She's been a senator for 7 years and sits on the Armed Services Committee. What prepares a person to be president anyway?

The point isn't that Ms Clinton is not qualified to be president. She is qualified, just as the other candidates are. The point is that her constant claim to being uniquely experienced for the office is nonsense.

Richardson is probably best qualified, having extensive diplomatic experience, experience as a cabinet member, and experience as a governor. I have no idea whether his experience would lead him to be the best president of those running, but I don't doubt that his experience is greater than that of the others.

Hoppy in Sacramento

J. McCutchen

Obama's kept his powder dry all summer long. That changed with the Iowa Debate and VFW Speech.

Look out folks....

Why should I read this as anything more than an old-guard slap at her for being a woman?

That's a fair question.  I'd answer it probably by pointing to the wife of a former President I'd consider undoubtedly qualified to serve as President, Eleanor Roosevelt.  Republicans hated her even more than they hate Clinton.  Everyone else loved her.  Comparing her achievements with Hillary Clinton's, I'd vote for Roosevelt in a minute (less, actually).  Alas, she passed before most of the readers here were born...and without her as a standard of measurement it is hard to really assess Clinton's qualifications or achievements.  Measured against Eleanor Roosevelt, however, I think she comes up wanting.  Eleanor never served in an elective office, but she did such things as pen the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, further Civil Rights for Blacks before it was a front burner issue, and give us a person of whom we could be unreservedly proud. 

aMike

I agree totally. Lets get some new blood in the Whitehouse.

Quote of the week: "Being a former first lady doesn't prepare you to be president."

Heh.

I teach HS science but I'm married to physician. When she comes home and gives me the rundown of her day, I do get a pretty decent sense of the stress involved with her job. I can even talk a good game and sound all medical with the proper lingo. But trust me, you DO NOT want me cutting open your loved ones or diagnosing whatever ails you. And you certainly don't want me delivering your baby by c-section, which is something my wife does nearly every day.

I accept the fact that Hillary has a reasonable amount of public policy experience as a legislator. A but more experience than Edwards and a bit less than Obama. But the idea that she is somehow the senior candidate here because she "shared" a bed with the previous occupant? Well, I just don't buy it.

What Hillary actually has is an immense amount of POLITICAL experience. As a spouse she was intimately involved in what? Two governor's campaigns and two presidential campaigns before this one? That's an immense amount of campaign experience. And I expect that she was much more intimately involved in every one of those campaigns than she ever was in the day to day operations of the Arkansas government or the White House.

It is her POLITICAL experience that is showing through in this campaign. She is clearly the most polished, disciplined, and senior campaigner on either side of the aisle. It may win her elections, but I'm not sure it really translates to superior executive experience for the job at hand.

And, for what it's worth: Bill R use to be the Congressman from one district just north of where I lived at the time. He was a very well liked rep from a very progressive district.

Kevin Russell Cook

In the eight years Clinton was President, Hillary Clinton traveled extensively, both nationally and internationally, has developed personal and professional relationships with many national and international leaders, has supported and promoted many political causes, especially in children's and women's fields in India and Pakistan and worked just as hard as Eleanor Roosevelt in supporting her husband and party's goals. Clinton was a signatory to the International Children's Rights declaration and the Children's Defense Fund and has worked to further civil rights since her college days.

You know, it would be nice if people actually read her books, researched her record and tried to view it outside the prism of her critics. It might also be fairer to mention that Eleanor Roosevelt who accomplished so much, did so after the death of her husband, when she was freed from framing her politics in the context of her husband's political goals. That Hillary Clinton had to work to support her family financially, for most of her career, while also contributing and volunteering support for these causes, is just as admirable as Eleanor Roosevelt's long career in philanthropy and political causes. That Hillary Clinton worked hard to secure the nomination and election to a political office and has worked hard for her constituents, earning re-election and their respect is to her credit, not detriment.

It is a testament to the hard work and dedication of both women that a woman can run for the presidency of The United States and actually have a chance. To measure one woman's record against another and have that woman's record come up wanting, tells me you haven't been paying attention.

Hillary's a hawk--that's for sure. If she picked Joe Lieberman as her running mate she'd lose the election, but it would make a lot of sense otherwise.

Keep your eye on the ball;

The Republicans want to run against Obama because the know they can't beat Hillary.

Clinton has plenty of experience for the job of President. She was a member of the Nixon impeachment inquiry staff, and then went on to a prominent law career in which she was twice named one of the top 100 woman lawyers in the country. And no one thinks she was just the "first lady" during the Clinton administration, but by most accounts she was Bill Clinton's top advisor and the administration's chief political strategist. She had an office in the West Wing and was involved in administration decision-making on a daily basis. She was really an integral part of two presidential administrations administrations.

Then of course she has been a twice-elected Senator for the country's second most populous state, serving on the Armed Services Committee. Her level of experience is comparable to that of Robert Kennedy. She is also clearly very hard-working and very ambitious.

There are a number of important differences between Hillary Clinton and Eleanor Roosevelt, chief among them being that Eleanor Roosevelt was best known as a promoter of peace and reconciliation, while Hillary Clinton is an enabler of war, hostility and aggression.

Recently, Zbigniew Brzezinski, who in 1988 broke with the Democratic Party and endorsed George H. W. Bush for President and the following year published The Grand Failure in which he confidently predicted that the Soviet Union would likely collapse within a few decades, endorsed Barak Obama for President.

If Hillary gets the nomination, I suspect she'll pick Bill as her running mate.

Brzezinski is still a brilliant mind, and far from "old school". I believe he's looking clearly at the current world situation in today's terms and he's seeing that there's a new world and a new reality that needs to be addressed. And I think he's impressed with Obama's open and pragmatic approach. Read what Brzezinski has written and said on a variety of topics. Then consider that Hillary chose Madeleine Albright to be on her team.

Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq: "We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?"

Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it."

If you prefer Hillary's claustrophobic, paranoid, vaguely-imperialist view of the world, then have at it--vote for her and you'll get four years of Hillary's new Cool War vision for the world.

A couple of Brzezinki's "old school" pieces:

"Five Flaws in the President's Plan"
"Terrorized by 'War On Terror'"

Personally, I'll take Obama's pragmatic, humble-but-not-humbled realism over Hillary's dogmatic, old-school jingoism any day of the week.

Hillary would be new blood. She shares a bed and a last name with Bill, but she's not Bill. Not even close. I think your comment indicates part of the problem: many of Hillary's supporters are secretly entertaining the notion that a vote for Hillary is a vote for a "return" to the "Clinton" years. They're wrong. Those were the BILL Clinton years, folks. The Hillary Clinton years will be quite different. If you liked Bill, don't vote for Hillary because all you'll get is Hillary.

It really worries me that a lot of people seem to be basing their vote on Hillary's last name. I actually heard someone say recently, "I'm not voting for Hillary. Then it would be Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton. That would be stupid." I hope we haven't descended to that level of thinking. There are plenty of excellent reasons to vote for someone besides Hillary, but I wouldn't count her last name among them.

It really worries me that a lot of people seem to be basing their vote on Hillary's last name.

Would she even be Senator from New York if she ran as Hillary Rodham?  I don't know...history doesn't reveal its alternatives.  But for a "democratic" country we're quite dynastic.  Two father/son Presidency combos.  An Uncle/Nephew Presidential Combo.  Robert Kennedy laughingly referred to as the third Senator from Massachusetts...switching states and counting on name recognition to give him a platform.  Patrick Kennedy doing the same in Rhode Island.

There are all sorts of other examples...Tafts, etc. etc. etc.  But my point is this.  One cannot have it both ways.  One cannot use the name recognition when it's useful and deny the connection is helpful when it isn't useful.

aMike

"by most accounts she was Bill Clinton's top advisor and the administration's chief political strategist."

Please tell us you were joking. You WERE joking, weren't you?

J. McCutchen

MR. HUNT: In that larger context then, would you argue that the widely advertised General Petraeus report in a couple weeks is really not very relevant?

MR. BRZEZINSKI: Well, I would recommend that people read the report he delivered, I believe in 2004 or 2005, which was claiming at the time that we were making significant progress and that we were doing quite well.

Friday Follies: The Utter Uselessness of the Petraeus Report
Paul Waldman

I don't know about that. It already has old Trillary triangulating

Obama is uniquely qualified to be Pres because he alone of all the candidates on either side has the ability, from his background and early life, to step outside of the American cocoon and to see other peoples as something other than extensions of our ambitions and desires. He really undertands that they are people with (often, but not always) legitimate ambitions and points of view that must be taken into account, even if ultimately opposed.

Hillary, OTOH, is like all the rest--she sees the world as an extension of US ambitions and conflicts, the very thing that led us astray throughout the Cold War and now in our purported "generational struggle": against Islamic extremism.

This kind of objectivity gives him instant credibility abroad, and he recogizes that with his promise to go before some Islamic forum and pledge that we do not seek to wage war against Islam or otherwise undermine it as a religion. He is the clean break with our past, not Hillary Clinton. "Conventional" is exactly the word to apply to her. And it is not what we need now.

Obama's credibility: Say, for example, inPakistan?

Bush already made that pledge. No American President can make that pledge and be believed unless it is backed up with action. Obama has pledged to take unilateral action over Pakistan's objection if need be. Having shown that type of respect, how much credibility do you think he has in the Islamic world?

You know, I get really tired of comments like this. I don't know about you, but I'm not particularly impressed with the extent of Republican "knowledge". Karl Rove thought the Republicans were going to keep Congress in 2006. The Republicans "know" that "victory" is just around the corner in Iraq. If you are truly willing to start with the assumption that what Republicans "know" is the truth, then darn it, vote for those brilliant Republicans!

If YOU think Obama (or Clinton or Edwards or Kucinich...) can't beat whatever numbskull the Republicans nominate, say so and say why! I'm much more interested in what YOU think than what you think of Republicans "think" (unless, I guess, what you think is based completely on what Republicans supposedly think).

I'd appreciate some background here too. He gets quoted a lot and writes opinion pieces, but why do you consider him to be so brilliant?

I have and I consider it a fair read regarding Hillary.

What experiences in the White House do you see as contributing to the claim that Hillary has executive Presidential experience?

Not impossible to do, IMHO, and one more American voters would be wise to attempt.

I did read Mrs. Clinton's book and, other than an amusing anecdote about a lecherous encounter with nonegenarian Strom Thurmond, I found it to be the most anodyne pablum I've ever read. She projected all the intellectual bite and political passion of June Cleaver.

For me, the best reason to support Hillary is that her election will absolutely gall all the Clinton-haters. Back atcha!

But perhaps Obama will be in the better political position to look under all the rocks of the prior eight years and dispense just punishment to the cadres of Bush administration felons, from Cheney to Rumsfeld to Gonzales, on down to the many anonymous apparatchiks. Mrs. Clinton would likely feel more constrained not to appear "vindictive" to her husband's persecutors in the Republican party.

I say, let the tumbrels roll!

Put the way you mischaracterized it, what difference would it make? You might as well just lie outright about what Obama's said.

sdhays said:

You know, I get really tired of comments like this.

Don't read them.

The Republicans took both Houses of Congress in 05 and held them till last year. They elected possibly the worst President in our history, Twice!

I didn't say I was impressed with their knowledge, nor did I say they know the "truth", but they do have a talent for winning elections. There's no "knowledgeable" reason for Bush to have beaten Kerry, but he did. Worse, they were good enough to beat Gore or at least make it close enough to steal.

I 'suspected' the possibility in 04 they feared Dean, (remember Dean, the guy who wanted to go after the Republican's Billy Joe Bob vote?) so word was put out by the Repugs that "Dean can't win," so we got Kerry.

I have the 'suspicion' that the 'Hillary can't win" conventional wisdom 'may' be a repeat of Dean '04.

Ignore the enemy's capabilities. Underestimate them at your own peril.

My choice was always Gore.

If YOU think Obama (or Clinton or Edwards or Kucinich...) can't beat whatever numbskull the Republicans nominate, say so and say why!
OK, I'll say it again: I don't think Hillary can beat whatever numbskill the Republicans nominate. There are three reasons for that opinion:

• She will not have the support (read "vote") of millions of lefties like me. This reason is not really arguable.

I agree, on paper Richardson has the most varied government service on the Federal and state level.

One could argue that a bright and involved first lady such as Hillary Clinton got training almost equivalent to a vice president during her eight years in the White House. Though she held no constitutional office, she was privy to a lot of information and ongoing debates on issues and crises that unfolded in the Clinton years.
Not yet rated.

 In the eight years Clinton was President, Hillary Clinton traveled extensively, both nationally and internationally, has developed personal and professional relationships with many national and international leaders, has supported and promoted many political causes, especially in children's and women's fields in India and Pakistan and worked just as hard as Eleanor Roosevelt in supporting her husband and party's goals. Clinton was a signatory to the International Children's Rights declaration and the Children's Defense Fund and has worked to further civil rights since her college days.

Here is an opposing take on your view:

Sen. Hillary Milhous Clinton has been lumbering around the political landscape talking about herself as commander in chief. She joined the Senate Armed Services Committee as a freshman seven short years ago and has managed to pick up enough military jargon to sound like an Army major on his third tour of duty in the Pentagon's administrative office. She has taken on the world-weary sound of a veteran European diplomat -- although she has not carried out even one day's duty as a diplomat.

In fact, prior to being elected to the Senate in 2000, her only recent professional employment had been as a lawyer in Little Rock, Ark., while her husband, coincidentally, was governor of that state. She represented clients who sometimes had an interest in getting to know her husband better. She has never managed anything larger than a Senate office, although she did exercise the traditional first lady's prerogative of trying to get various members of her husband's staff fired.

Her international activities while first lady were more in line with the ceremonial responsibilities of a Pat Nixon or Laura Bush than with the actual interventions of Eleanor Roosevelt -- who she does claim to have spoken to via séance.

In other words, she doesn't have the government management experience of a Reagan, Carter or Bill Clinton. Nor does she have the international, military or naval experience of an Eisenhower, Hoover or a Franklin Roosevelt. Now, this doesn't mean she would not make a jim-dandy president (although I would prefer about 295 million other Americans in that job before her). But it does mean that the cliché that she is the experienced candidate is just hooey.

Then you write:

That Hillary Clinton had to work to support her family financially, for most of her career, while also contributing and volunteering support for these causes, is just as admirable as Eleanor Roosevelt's long career in philanthropy and political causes. ...It is a testament to the hard work and dedication of both women that a woman can run for the presidency of The United States and actually have a chance. To measure one woman's record against another and have that woman's record come up wanting, tells me you haven't been paying attention

Whoa, this is a real distortion of what Hillary has done. She did not work to support her family financially for most of her career. Her professional career in ARK was with the oldest  good ol boy firm in Arkansas which she was able to secure based on Bills connections. Just as she is campaigning and fund raising  on his connections today.

Bill was a State Atty General prior to becoming governor and they lived in the governor's mansion when Hillary became partner in that good ol boy law firm. Her finances were not at all essential to their lifestyle. Not one bit.

To even suggest that  Hillary's volunteer efforts like sitting on corporate boards at WalMart are anywhere near those of Eleanor Roosevelt is a gross distortion and minimization of what Eleanor accomplished in terms of the Civil Rights movement, New Deal, child laber and establishing a minimum wage in this country. There is not one thing whatsoever in Hillary's resume which is comparable to those achievements, advocacy and leadership on Hillary's part.  Hillary had an opportunity to do something of which would have been as significant if she had continued to be a leader and champion on universal health care. Hillary chose instead to acqueisence to the lobbyist influence and 'represent them because they are Americans too' It is not difficult in the least to measure Hillary's record against Eleanor's and find her to be totally lacking in honesty, conviction, integrity and leadership.

It is anything but a testament to women for Hillary to run for President as a female based on her spouse's record rather than any earned experiernced as a leader or an elected official. Hillary's track record is devoid of significant leadership, advocacy or championing to  overcome  domestic problems of significance in this country. Hillary is the wrong female to represent females as her running affirms that she is an affirmative action candidate based on gender as she has no track record of merit that validates or affirms any political achievement or accomplishment of note other than being a First Lady. In fact, she has a record of being polarizing and unable to mold consensus or champion causes with the courage and conviction that true leadership represents while serving as First Lady.

Hillary is a very poor role model for women as she basically says the road to the Presidency is through marriage to a former President and not based on anything accomplished on your own merit. Which is why many educated, affluent and professional women soundly reject her candidacy on the basis of merit. Women who have worked to earn their careers find Hillary to be the antithesis of what females should be when considered to be successful professionals.

intelligence. His Polish demeanor, Kissinger like foreign ascent and bombastic appearance may mislead some, but try to find one single original idea that came from him.

You must not watch Z. He is anything but bombastic and he is an acclaimed strategic mind particularly on foreign policy. I am uncertain why you say he does not have an original idea when clearly the new original idea of neoconservatism as the idealogy for America's foreign policy has been a colossal failure. Z knew enough not to sanction that stupidity and had enough statesmanship not to attack the current administration. In fact, when folks talk about experience informing judgment, Z exemplifies that and has a hugely successful track record on matters of foreign policy. Why would he rely on the flawed intelligence of this administration given the depth of his understanding of world cultures, global affairs and the impact of balkanazation on America's global power.  Kissinger was a nitwit and kowtowed to Nixon, but Z is a first rate strategic mind who brings unmatchable experitse on FP that is self-evident even in a room of his peers. He is highly esteemed. Unlike Hillary.

SPIEGEL: Dr. Brzezinski, President Bush compares the dangers of terrorism with the dangers of the Cold War. He has even spoken repeatedly of a "nation at war" and will only accept "complete victory." Is he right or is he using exaggerated rhetoric?

 

Brzezinski: He is fundamentally wrong. Whether that is deliberate demagoguery or simply historical ignorance, I do not know. For four years I was responsible for coordinating the U.S. response in the event of a nuclear attack. And I can assure you that a nuclear war between the United States and the Soviet Union on a comprehensive scale would have killed 160 to 180 million people within 24 hours.

No terrorist threat is comparable to that in the foreseeable future. Moreover, terrorism is essentially a technique of killing people and not the enemy as such. If one wages war on an invisible, unidentifiable phantom, one gets into a state of mind that virtually promotes dangerous exaggerations and distortions of reality.

SPIEGEL: What are these distortions?

Brzezinski: After the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941, the United States was energetic and determined, and during the 40 years of the Cold War it was patient and deliberate. In neither case did any U.S. president intentionally preach fear as the major message to the people - on the contrary.

With his very loose formulations, the president is now creating a climate of fear that is destructive for American morale and distorting of American policy.

SPIEGEL: Is fear, as at the thought of a nuclear weapon in the hands of terrorists, not something very natural?

Brzezinski: Certainly, such a notion is not entirely unrealistic, but on the other hand we are not confronted with the Soviet nuclear weapons arsenal. I do not wish to minimize the danger of a single or even multiple terrorist acts, but their scale is simply not comparable.

SPIEGEL: Yet sometimes the discussions, in the United States but also in Europe, create the impression that radical Islam has taken the place of the former Soviet Union and that some form of Cold War is continuing.

Brzezinski: Radical Islam is such an anonymous phenomenon that has arisen in some countries and not in others. It has to be taken seriously, but it is still only a regional danger most prevalent in the Middle East and somewhat east of the Middle East. And even in those regions, Islamic fundamentalists are not in the majority.

SPIEGEL: Fear-mongering is therefore not a valid response?

Brzezinski: We have to formulate a policy for this region which helps us to mobilize our potential friends. Only if we cooperate with them can we contain and eventually eliminate this phenomenon. It is a paradox: During the Cold War, our policy was directed at uniting our friends and dividing our enemies. Unfortunately our tactics today, including occasional Islamphobic language, have the tendency of unifying our enemies and alienating our friends.

SPIEGEL: So it is exaggerated rhetoric which ensures that Osama bin Laden is elevated to the level of a Mao or Stalin?

Brzezinski: Correct. And that is of course a distortion of reality - notwithstanding the fact that bin Laden is a killer. He is a criminal and should be presented as such, and not intentionally elevated into a globally significant leader of a transnational, quasi-religious movement.

SPIEGEL: Has there been any progress at all in the fight against terrorism for the past five years?

Brzezinski: Yes and no. Knock on wood. So far, there has been no repetition of a terrorist attack in the United States, and that - as was the case with the recent plot in London - is probably partly due to preventive measures we have taken.

Also, there is a growing realization among the modern elites in the Moslem world that Islamic terrorism is a threat to them as well - but it is a slow process. Moreover, this process has been handicapped, as with our invasion of Iraq, which has galvanized a lot of hostility in the Islamic world towards the United States. Our insensitive and ambiguous posture in the Israel-Palestinian conflict is also a very important reason for the hostility towards us. All this helps terrorism.