McCaskill gently jabs Clinton on CNN’s “Late Edition”
U.S. Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., appeared on Wolf Blitzer’s “Late Edition” Sunday morning and took a veiled swipe at Sen. Hillary Clinton for her recent comments that have portrayed McCaskill’s choice for president — Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill. — as not ready for the White House.
Blitzer asked McCaskill and Clinton’s ally, Sen. Robert Menendez of New Jersey, to comment on Clinton’s statements last week in which she said, in effect, that only she and Republican nominee John McCain had the foreign-policy experience and readiness to be commanders in chief.
Clinton also said that she and McCain brought a wealth of life experience to the table, while Obama brought only his 2002 speech against the war.
McCaskill called the comments “flat out wrong,” and added that Obama had more foreign policy experience than Bill Clinton had when he first ran for president in 1992. Hillary Clinton’s own assertions imply that her husband wasn’t qualified for the White House, McCaskill said — adding that she was sure Hillary Clinton didn’t believe that of her husband.
But McCaskill said that Hillary Clinton’s words were even more damaging to Democratic prospects in the fall, because she is “telling people that John McCain is a better choice (for president) than Barack Obama.”
Menendez denied that was Clinton’s intent, and then took the Obama team to task for the fired foreign policy adviser’s comments last week that implied Obama might take a different tack toward Iraq as president, than as a candidate.
McCaskill said that there was nothing wrong with the adviser’s Iraq remarks — as aired on CNN by Blitzer — because they reflected the frequent comments by Obama and Clinton that their pledges to soon end the war would need to take into account the conditions at the time they were sworn in.
But McCaskill said the adviser was right to resign as an unpaid adviser because of her other remark in which she called Clinton “a monster.” McCaskill said such name-calling was wrong.
McCaskill then added that the episode wasn’t as bad as the recent comment by a top paid Clinton campaign aide in which he compared Obama to Ken Starr (the special prosecutor who probed the Clintons in the ’90s) because of the Obama campaign’s call for Clinton to release her tax returns and the list of donors to her husband’s presidential library.
Menendez shirted comment about the Starr comparison, but did tweak the Obama camp for the jabs that prompted it.
Alas, more fighting among the camps of the two Democratic presidential candidates. It is hardly newsworthy anymore. At this point, they are just writing the Republican strategy for the November election.
The Democrats should have taken Bill Richardson. Even Senator Edwards, whom I can’t stand, would have been a more electable choice than either of the two remaining candidates. Now, they have a choice between the most liberal member of the Senate, and Hillary. Yikes!
Lol. McCaskill responds to someone calling Hillary a “monster” with “well, one of their people called one of our people Ken Starr.” Pathetic Claire. Another woman who is jealous of the heights Hillary Clinton has reached.
CLaire wants to bring it back it to Bill’s foreign policy experience. But Bill isn’t running Claire. Hillary is. And compared to Hillary now, no, Bill wouldn’t have been as prepared for foreign policy and neither is Barrak.
Plato in The Republic said that we shouldnt elect those to be our leaders who want to be, because that sort of amibition means that they have a personal agenda that they would put before their interest in serving the people; but we should rather seek out the best people to govern us and prevail upon them to be our leaders. That’s nice in theory but a little unrealistic these days. But it’s still true that it’s not healthy to want it, ambition, elective office, too bad. I’m pretty ambitions myself, so perhaps I’m not the one to talk, but I hope I never want office so much as to do something wrong to get it. And that would include bashing an opponent in a way that would hurt them in the general election if they win. I think what Hillary is doing about Barack is wrong for the party, and to some extent, what Barack is doing too. Republicans will bring these issues up, too; but for another Democrat to bring them up, too, gives them a validation that will be hard to take back in the general election. I expect to win my primary and take on Todd Akin in the general election. So the first thing is, I dont expect to say negative things about my opponents in the primary, and even if Todd gets worried enough about me to go negative, I hope I’ll answer them substantively and respectfully and not go negative in a personal way myself. A little different issue than the one between Hillary and Barack, but related, I think. Not good to want it so bad as to do something you’re not comfortable with. There’s usually a middle ground that can make the point without being unbecoming, even tho negative sometimes works. And if you dont win, you dont. But no one ever went wrong doing the right thing.
Why isn’t anyone really talking about how there isn’t much difference between the Clintons, the Republicans and the Bush regime in the area of being in bed with big corporations and greed that is destroying this country?
People are being so petty and blind. For the Republicans concerning Bush and now Democrats concerning Hillary Clinton and her husband.
The Clinton’s and Bush’s have caused much devastation to this country and the American people in the area of our economy and jobs.
Yes, the Clintons solved and fixed our deficit, while also stabbing the people in this country in the back right before leaving office screwing us all. The grave effects hit only after the Clintons left office, we are feeling it now on top of the Bush administration dirt and incompetence.
The Clintons is the reason for the lost of job opportunities and jobs leaving the U.S. through H1B visas where the Clintons approved 2 million of these visas under the pretext that the U.S. lacked skilled workers in technology and science when in fact, because of the H1B program corporations laid off their skilled technology employees and replaced them with foreign workers for more profit.
NAFTA was the brain child of big corporations and was pursued by corporate interests and led:
In the United States, led by the one and only GEORGE H.W. BUSH.
In Canada, led by Canadian Prime Minister Brian Maloney
In Mexico, led by the Mexican President Carlos Salinas de Gortari
These three countries signed the agreement in December 1992 but it was not yet passed through legislature here.
Thanks to President Clinton, who championed the agreement and made it a major priority and got it passed along with some attached agreements.
See, when comes to destructive greed, there is not much difference between the Clinton’s and the Bush regime.
The Canadian citizens recognize that they are being hurt by NAFTA.
Much like Americans are finally recognizing, we are being hurt by the lost of our jobs to foreigners.
The corporations however are benefiting along with the Bush’s and Clinton’s and the like.
NOW CAN EVERYONE SEE WHY THE CANADIAN GOVERNMENT ATTEMPTED TO INTERFERE IN THE UNITED STATES POLITICAL PROCESS BY PLANTING THE FALSE RUMOR THAT OBAMA SAID NOTHING WOULD CHANGE IF HE WERE ELECTED PRESIDENT?
THEN THE CANADIAN GOVERNMENT VERIFIED THAT OBAMA REALLY HAD NOT SAID THAT, BUT THE DAMAGE WAS DONE AND HILLARY CLINTON JUMPED ALL OVER THAT LIE, AND I BELIEVE SHE KNEW IT WAS A LIE?
The Clintons cannot be trusted anymore than the Bush’s because they are all in bed together, and the Clintons, don’t want Obama in office no more than the Republicans, in fact, the Clintons would prefer to see John McCain elected to office over Obama because Corporate America do not own Obama. They own McClain and the Clinton’s.
You better believe that the Clinton’s are still this present day benefiting from getting NAFTA passed. LET’S SEE THE FINANCIALS HILLARY AND BILL!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Free_Trade_Agreement
From the above site:
In an interview with Larry King on October 8, 2007, Fox described any plans for a North American single currency as a “Long term, very long term” proposal. He also spoke of his and U.S. President George W. Bush’s support for the Free Trade Area of the Americas as a “first step” toward “a new vision” for the Americas, “like we are trying to do with NAFTA,” but then said that Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez had decided to “destroy the idea”.[5]
Anyone ever stop to think, really think? Is this the reason that the U.S. and Mexico presently demonize Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez? Is it because he refused to jump in bed with them on NAFTA and a single currency system?
Vote for the Clinton’s and you just as well continue with the Bush regime. Lastly, Hillary Clinton knew exactly that she was voting to go to WAR! She and her husband are way too smart to not have known, hell we all knew what that vote meant, and the nerve to play us like fools. I pray and I suggest all others who see, will pray that the blinders will be removed from our American citizens who remain blind.
I just heard a rerun of McCain stating concerning NAFTA: “Those jobs are gone, they are not coming back, we must concentrate on generating new jobs.”
So, we see that McCain is in bed with the champions of NAFTA also and these corporations.
Obama is this country’s only HOPE!!!
I love the banter between the 2 democrat contenders and their lively campaigning. The republicans have their own problems which are much more severe than any rift between HIlary and Obama. Former republican Speaker D. Hastert’s old district which had been voted republican for several cycles, elected a democrat to fill out Hastert’s term. This is just the tip of the iceberg.
Republican operatives said about the only face saving thing they could about this defeat–that it was not a harbinger of things to come this fall. But anyone with common sense knows that this does not bode well for the republicans. This election cycle will be one to remember!
That’s what I’m hoping, Robb(f), my sister.
my understanding, that district more republican’s that Akin’s; need to win the primary and raise some money, but thing I have a chance to do it.
“Obama is this country’s only HOPE!!!”
No, not really. His policies arent that much different than fellow socialist Billary, so if you want the government to take most of your money and redistribute it to others, if you think the government is the answer to all your problems, if you think quitting in the war on terror is sound strategy, if you think giving the UN an additional $850 Billion is a good idea, if you support our dependence on foreign oil, you have more than one choice. “Hope” and “Change” arent going to fix a damn thing.
#8 Si……..most anything is better than what we have now. Bush and the Bushites have done enough damage–let’s give someone else a shot.
Si Vis Pacem Para Bullum,
Going electric is the only thing that will decrease to any degree our dependence on foreign oil.
If you think ethanol is? That ridiculous. Ethanol is just making a lot of choosen people rich off government money. Maybe that is one of the reasons our Governor is stepping down, to join his brother in that losing game to the people, but a winner for the choosen ones.
The fact that you don’t believe in hope or change tell me right away that we would not agree on much because without hope and change, you just as well start preparing for your physical grave and you are no more than a walking dead man.