No one can say that Hillary Clinton doesn’t have any foreign policy experience — or that she now lacks that type of experience. But according to Politico, some of that "experience" is also imagined (Read more about this at my post here, which also includes a video of her foreign policy experience in Bosnia).
Obviously, as we've witnessed in the debates, Hillary appears to be more knowledgeable in certain areas than Bernie Sanders — especially when Hillary name-drops the names of foreign diplomats and obscure vice-presidents (and other people) that most of us have never heard of before. It sounds impressive, but what would the end results be of any major foreign policy decision Hillary Clinton makes as President?
When Hillary Clinton debated Obama in 2008, she criticized Obama for lacking foreign experience — when AT THE AT TIME, she had only previously done all that other stuff for “women's rights” as First Lady (although, some people will disagree on that too, because of different foreign policy positions she’s held).
The Hillary camp is trying to make foreign policy the #1 issue because Hillary excels in this area. That’s another reason why they’re trying to say “terrorism” is what most Americans are most concerned about --- when it is “the economy” that they are most concerned about --- an area of economic populism that Bernie is strong on, especially when compared to Hillary's ties to Wall Street.
In 2008, Obama (lacking any foreign policy experience) had asked Hillary to be his Secretary of State right after he was chosen to be the Democratic presidential nominee at the convention in 2008, where Bill Clinton endorsed him.
But it wasn’t JUST BECAUSE Hillary had more foreign policy experience than he did — or because he trusted her to make the best decisions in foreign policy (as she now claims). Remember, in 2008 Obama was also very critical of her vote to go to war in Iraq. That’s why Bernie Sanders is saying today that, it’s not just "experience" that should count, but also "judgment" — such as quantity vs. quality.
The other reason Obama chose Hillary Clinton to be his Secretary of State was because he wanted her supporters to vote for him in the general election against McCain/Palin. And Obama also got Bill Clinton (who was still popular in the Democratic party) to campaign for him. So Hillary wasn’t chosen by Obama to be Secretary of State just because "she was all that". It was also to appease the Clinton camp and her supporters.
Yes, foreign policy is important, and the war on terrorism is important, but Hillary is wrapping herself around Obama who disagrees on a no-fly-zone in Syria. She wants it both ways.
And because Bernie Sanders was critical of Hillary receiving campaign donations from Wall St, she's saying Bernie is also criticizing Obama too for taking donations from Wall Street. But at the time, Obama wanted his campaign publicly funded, and only changed his mind because no one else would --- and he didn’t want to unilaterally disarm.
In the last debate, Hillary said: "Time and time again, by innuendo, by insinuation, there is this attack that he is putting forth, which really comes down to -- you know, anybody who ever took donations or speaking fees from any interest group has to be bought. And I just absolutely reject that, Senator. And I really don't think these kinds of attacks by insinuation are worthy of you. And enough is enough. If you've got something to say, say it directly." (Actually, Bernie did say it directly. She just didn't like that he said it.)
Clinton strategist Joel Benenson (pictured below) said Bernie Sanders has been running "the most negative Democratic presidential primary campaign in history" — and Hillary Clinton told NBC News that she did not disagree. "I'm not gonna disagree with him. I think it's by insinuation and implication and that's disappointing".
Former Vermont governor Howard Dean recently said, "It was pretty clear to me that Hillary Clinton knows foreign policy, and no one else does, and not just Bernie" --- and he also said she has "mastered" foreign policy (video below). Dean has also been accusing Bernie Sanders of "attacking the integrity" of Hillary Clinton by mentioning her speeches to Goldman Sachs.
Many narcissists project guilt, blame, and responsibility onto others. They pass the buck and hold themselves immune to the consequences of their actions (like emails on a private server). Hillary does this all the time whenever she was confronted in the previous long list of Clinton scandals — and she only said her vote on the Iraq war was a "mistake".
Hillary Clinton has been obviously trying to make Bernie Sanders look like an enemy of Obama's (which he isn't), while making herself appear as Obama's good friend — just to appease Obama's supporters to get their votes (and so they would not vote for Bernie). She's tried to use this "divide and conquer" Republican strategy before, by falsely claiming Bernie Sanders was out to completely dismantle Obama's signature achievement of Obamacare (which is a total lie).
In truth, it's Hillary herself who accuses Bernie Sanders of "innuendo by insinuation" — it has been Hillary herself who first started using this dirty tactic — like the time she insinuated Sanders was sexist when Bernie said "all the shouting in the world" wouldn't solve the problem of gun violence. She knew very well that he wasn't referring to her personally, but she had used this as her standard talking point in her campaign speeches about women who shout.
Also, when Hillary claims she and Obama are "progressive", that's not entirely true either. And many (if not most) of Obama supporters agree. He ran as a progressive and gave speeches citing FDR, but he didn’t actually govern as a progressive while in office. One example is Obama's big push for the TPP trade deal (a deal Hillary supported 45 times, saying it was "the gold standard") --- which is NAFTA on steroids, which Hillary also supported. Hillary also supported PNTR with China when she sat on the board of Wal-Mart. Under the Clintons, unions declined as jobs were being shipped overseas. The labor force participation rate had already began it's long decline before Bill left office. Sanders, from the very beginning, was against all these bad trade deals.
So how could Hillary Clinton possibly say she is a progressive -- just because she advocated for children’s healthcare, or was a little more strict on gun control that Bernie Sanders — who voted for a gun bill that her husband Bill Clinton signed into law. Ideologically speaking, there can always be some overlap on specific issues. But generally speaking, on most issues, Bernie is the true progressive and Hillary is really a self-proclaimed moderate / centrist / Third Way / pro-corporate / establishment / status quo / Democrat. She only NOW says she's a progressive because of Senators Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders very popular following and their brand of true progressivism. Hilary is a fake and a fraud.
As to foreign policy, some can argue that it was Hillary Clinton herself, by making that "mistake" and voting for the Iraq war, that she herself was partially responsible for creating ISIS. Now she has a "plan" for dealing with ISIS?
Senator John McCain was a Vet and POW, and he also had a "plan" — “Bomb, bomb, bomb ... bomb, bomb Iran.” Is that good foreign policy experience? Senator Bernie Sanders can surround himself with a slew of experienced and very knowledgeable foreign policy advisors, and he can make wise and thoughtful judgments based on sound information he receives from the intelligence community. Hillary has no special talents in this field, just more time on the a job — a job that specifically dealt with foreign policy and "reset buttons".
But foreign policy ALONE shouldn't be the “end-all” or the only determining factor when choosing a president. If that’s all you want, then you should have voted for Senator Lindsey Graham. Or, why not Donald Trump?
UPDATE via The Guardian: "Bernie Sanders' foreign policy judgment is better than Clinton's experience."
* This is not a complete list — there were others. Such as, after leaving the White House, the Clintons were forced to return an estimated $200,000 in White House china, furniture and artwork that they took with them. But as usual, they didn't ever do anything wrong. As as always, the mere appearance of impropriety is never enough. The Clintons and their diehard supporters have always demanded rock-solid evidence and proof that could stand up under intense scrutiny in a court of law — as though the court of public opinion had meant nothing at all to them. And still doesn't.
► Lewinsky scandal
► 1996 campaign finance controversy
► 9/11 Commission
► Al-Shifa pharmaceutical factory
► Bill Clinton haircut controversy
► Clinton's judicial appointments
► Almon Glenn Braswell
► Juanita Broaddrick
► Campbell v. Clinton
► Barrett Report
► Henry Cisneros payments controversy
► Clinton health care plan of 1993
► Bill Clinton pardons
► Roger Clinton, Jr.
► Cruise missile strikes: Afghanistan & Sudan
► Defense of Marriage Act
► Don't ask, Don't tell
► Gennifer Flowers
► Vince Foster
► Gala Hollywood Farewell Salute
► Elián González custody battle
► Elizabeth Gracen
► Pincus Green
► Hollywood fundraiser controversy
► Webster Hubbell
► Impeachment and acquittal of Bill Clinton
► Bombing of Iraq (1998)
► Paula Jones
► NATO bombing of Yugoslavia
► Paul v. Clinton
► Sally Perdue
► Marc Rich
► Hugh Rodham
► Tony Rodham
► Kenneth Starr report
► Suicide of Vince Foster
► Waco siege
► White House FBI files controversy
► Kathleen Willey