SEND TO A FRIEND

|

PRINT ARTICLE

|

Clinton Surrogates Embarrass Her on National Security

Rare is the presidential candidate who has not been embarrassed, at one time or other, by the embrace of an odious, or the antics of an overly enthusiastic supporter. Sen. Barack Obama, for instance, could have done without the effusive endorsement of Nation of Islam founder Louis Farrakhan, who hates America almost as much as he hates Jews.

Hillary Clinton's campaign has been running ads questioning the readiness of Sen. Obama to be commander in chief. They appear to be responsible for a slight uptick she's experienced in the polls in the last few days. But Ms. Clinton's own credentials to be commander in chief won't be bolstered by statements over the weekend by two prominent surrogates.

In Austin, Texas Saturday, former Playboy bunny turned feminist icon Gloria Steinem denigrated the importance of Sen. John McCain's time as a prisoner of war in Vietnam:

"From George Washington to Jack Kennedy and PT109 we have behaved as if killing people is a qualification for ruling people," said Ms. Steinem, 73. "I'm so grateful that (Hillary Clinton) hasn't been trained to kill anybody."
Having been Bill Clinton's secretary would be better preparation for the presidency than military service, she said.

"Being a secretary is the best way to learn your boss' job and take it over," Ms. Steinem said.
After Ms. Steinem's remarks were reported by the New York Observer, Sen. Clinton's press secretary, Howard Wolfson, felt it necessary to issue this statement:

"Sen. Clinton has repeatedly praised Sen. McCain's courage and service to our country. These comments certainly do not represent her thinking in any way. Senator Clinton intends to have a respectful debate with Senator McCain on the issues."

Or maybe not. In a conference call with reporters Sunday, retired Army Gen. Wesley Clark said Sen. McCain did not have the right kind of experience to be commander in chief:

"Having served as a fighter pilot...that doesn't prepare you to be commander in chief in terms of dealing with the national strategic issues that are involved," he said.

Gen. Clark went on to claim that Sen. Clinton's experience is more relevant:

"If you look at what Hillary Clinton has done during her time as First Lady of the United States, her travel to 80 countries, her representing the U.S. abroad, plus her years in the Senate, I think she's the most experienced and capable person in the race, not only for representing America abroad, but for dealing with the tough issues of national security," he said.

In addition to having been a career naval officer who retired with the rank of captain, Sen. McCain has served in the Senate for 24 years, more than three times as long as Sen. Clinton. During most of that time he served on the Senate Armed Services Committee, where he is now the ranking Republican. To say that this experience is inferior to Sen. Clinton's photo ops with the wives of foreign leaders is the sort of thing we'd expect an aging Playboy bunny to say, not a retired four star general.

Because they invite ridicule, these statements do Sen. Clinton more harm than good. It is one thing for Hillary to claim she is better qualified to be commander in chief than is Barack Obama, because he's not qualified at all. But to argue either that Sen. McCain's military experience is irrelevant, as Ms. Steinem did, or that Hillary's experience as first lady is more relevant, as Gen. Clark did, is ludicrous.

Having been a prisoner of war is an insufficient qualification for being president. But it means Sen. McCain has been tested far more severely than Sen. Clinton was by her husband's philandering.

By arguing that her national security credentials are superior to Sen. McCain's, Gen. Clark merely called attention to Hillary's shortcomings. What has she done in the national security arena besides vote for the war in Iraq and then back away from it, and call Gen. David Petraeus a liar for saying, correctly, that the surge was working?

Since it is evident to all who have an IQ above a carrot, Sen. Clinton should concede that Sen. McCain's credentials on national security are superior. She should be making instead the plausible arguments that hers are adequate, and that other issues (the economy, health care, etc.) are more important. When her surrogates make ludicrous claims, all they do is remind people of Sen. Clinton's reputation for playing fast and loose with the truth.

---

Facebook

|

Email

|

Print

|

---

Related Topics: clinton | election 2008 | mccain | national security | obama |

Sponsored Links