Are You Experienced?

On a recently concluded call with reporters, Susan Rice was pushing back vigorously on the Clinton campaign's assertions that she trumps Obama in the national security experience department. Her strong points where when she pointed out that Clinton's claims of experience often seem overblown. Rice referenced the fact that Clinton's surrogates couldn't site any examples of her crisis-management experience, said that Clinton "claims to have negotiated opening the border of Macedonia, but that opening preceeded the opening of that visit by a day," and said that Clinton's "claimed to have played a crucial independent role in the Northern Ireland negotiations, but George MItchell said she was 'not involved directly.'"

I think that's all about right. Rice and the rest of Team Obama is quite a bit less convincing when they try to talk up their own candidate's experience in these domains. They wind up winning this argument since they're not the ones who've been trying to fight the campaign on this issue, but the reality is that like most presidents either Clinton or Obama would be entering office without significant diplomatic or military experience even though these are the most important aspects of the job. I'll take "little experience plus good ideas" over "years of experience have committed me to crazy warmongering" in a heartbeat, but that's the basic shape of things.

There were some more interesting ideas put forth on the call on more interesting topics -- including ideas aimed squarely at John McCain -- but it'll probably take me until tomorrow to get my thoughts together on them.

Comments

I think it's fair to say that neither Clinton or Obama have significant, first-hand, foreign policy experience. The question then becomes, then, who has the best combination of other experiences that would make them be the person to be trusted in a crisis.

To me the answer is obviously Hillary Clinton.

Posted by Tim K | March 2, 2008 3:55 PM

As far as elections go, the following presidential elections were won by candidates with real executive foreign policy experience who were not incumbent presidents -

1789, 1796, 1800, 1808, 1816, 1824, 1836, 1856, 1908, 1928, 1952, 1968, 1988.

The following elections were won by candidates without such experience.

1828, 1840, 1844, 1848, 1852, 1860, 1868, 1876, 1880, 1884, 1888, 1896, 1912, 1920, 1932, 1960, 1976, 1980, 1992, 2000.

The rest of the elections were all won by the incumbent president, save 1892, when it was won by an ex-president.

So, basically, since the institution of the party convention system of selecting presidential candidates in 1832, only 7 elections have involved someone with real foreign policy experience who was not the sitting president or an ex-president winning. There've been 19 elections of someone without such experience.

Losing major party candidates with such experience are also fairly rare (other than sitting presidents who lost). Basically all sitting or recent vice presidents, and some of those had only dubious foreign policy experience. It's unclear, for instance, that either Nixon or Humphrey had much more in the way of real executive foreign policy experience as VP than Clinton did as first lady - I believe that when reporters asked Eisenhower about a Nixon accomplishment as VP, he claimed to be unable to think of any (although this probably had more to do with the fact that he didn't care for Nixon than anything else.)

Posted by John | March 2, 2008 3:56 PM

The question then becomes, then, who has the best combination of other experiences that would make them be the person to be trusted in a crisis.-Tim K

No, the question is who has the best judgment and is cool under pressure. Your candidate fails both those questions, miserably.

Posted by Jake | March 2, 2008 4:02 PM

Cite, not site.

Posted by Kevin | March 2, 2008 4:07 PM

Jake:

What other example of "judgment" can you point to other than the speech he made on the War in Iraq?

Posted by Tim K | March 2, 2008 4:08 PM

Hey Tim, what example of "judgement" can you point to in Hillary's favor?

Posted by Fausto Carmona | March 2, 2008 4:12 PM

Jake:

The criticism of her not being "cool under pressure" is simply a thinly veiled misogynistic attack. Why don't you just got her shrill? because it would be just as obvious. Obama has never been under real public pressure at any time, so we have no clue how he would handle it. Hillary Clinton has been under intense pressure on occasions too numerous to name and yet as persevered. It's absurd to claim otherwise. That isn't about losing your temper every now and again, versus being a cocky prick who thinks so much of himself he always seems coolly confident. Perseverance goes a lot deeper than that.

Posted by Tim K | March 2, 2008 4:14 PM

Fausto:

That's an easy one. In the CNN youtube debate last year both candidates were asked by a viewer whether they would commit to meeting without preconditions, during their first year in office, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, North Korea, Venezuela and Cuba.

Barack Obama answered yes, Hillary Clinton answered no.

That was an example of a question being posed with no time to consult with advisers or take a poll, where the candidates could only draw on their own experience and understanding of foreign relations. Obama failed the test, and Hillary passed it.

Posted by Tim K | March 2, 2008 4:19 PM

The criticism of her not being "cool under pressure" is simply a thinly veiled misogynistic attack.

...

Hillary Clinton has been under intense pressure on occasions too numerous to name and yet as persevered.

Right. So its crypto-sexist to say she's not "cool under pressure," but its not crypto-sexist to note that she didn't fall to pieces when she found out Bill was cheating on her like, y'know, a girl would. That's nice to know.

Posted by Fausto Carmona | March 2, 2008 4:20 PM

One of the interesting points about Hillary's foreign policy experience is the speech she gave in China about the rights of women. Funny, a speech! I thought those don't count!

When discounting Obama's speech in 2002, Tim K, it would be wise or honorable of you to discount the reasoning Obama laid out in his speech. The impressive point to be made about Obama's speech is not the position he took (No!) but rather why he opposed the war and what he thought would happen. That showed wisdom, and judgment.

In regards to Pakistan, we have seen the Obama made the right call on that one, too. The US needs to be able to act in the hills of Western Pakistan if the government there is not ready to. Some claim that it was imprudent of Obama to say so publicly, but surely we can all agree it was more diplomatic than McCain singing "Bomb Iran."

Let's just be frank. Hillary gets a pass on this because people are thinking of Bill. She can play that card if she wants to, put it's just as appropriate for people to call her on it.

What other Senator in his/her second term claims to have "experience" picking up the red phone at 3 in the morning?

Not only is it a bullshit argument, it's a stupid argument to be made in the face of a probable election against McCain. The only way Clinton or Obama can win the foreign policy argument is to surround themselves with quality military advisers and foreign policy experts and hammer McCain on the idea of judgment and prudence.

Posted by Craig | March 2, 2008 4:21 PM

Obama failed the test, and Hillary passed it.

Uh, what test was that? The test that only exists in your mind, where Hillary's answer is always right and Obama's is always wrong?

Let's look at an actual, real-world test: which Dem candidate voted for the biggest foreign policy blunder of the past 30 years, giving the worst president in our lifetime carte blanche to begin an invasion that has led to hundreds of thousands of deaths and the loss of American standing in the world?

Posted by blahblah | March 2, 2008 4:28 PM

Yes, Craig, let's be frank.

Obama gets a pass on a lot of things because he's black, and because he's a man. It's very difficult to say the most serious African-American candidate for the presidency is not experienced enough for the role. But the fact is that Barack Obama is not Colin Powell. And on gender, imagine if a female state senator, and former lawyer and community organizer, were elected to the US Senate and began running for president two years into her first term. Would she be taken seriously at all? No, she would be laughed off the stage. And I have serious doubts if a white man were in the same position he'd get much farther. Hillary was right, Obama is a "blank screen" onto which people project what they want to see.

As for the 2002 speech and his reasoning, it's not that impressive. I was against the war at the same time, and for similar reasoning. Noam Chomsky was against the war at the time. Is there a clammering for Noam Chomsky as Commander-in-Chief?

Posted by Tim K | March 2, 2008 4:30 PM

The big story here seems to be Sen. Clinton's apparent inflation of her resume. Not that the "35 years" line wasn't absurd to begin with.

The question posed in the CNN debate, Tim K, was would they be *willing* to meet, not would they meet. The relevant aspect of the question, anyway, was whether these meetings would require "preconditions," not the facts of them. We've seen in the last 7 years, a President who has insisted on preconditions as a way to sandbag the very idea of diplomacy, essentially saying "I'll only negotiate with you, if you give me something for nothing." The fact that Clinton wants to continue Bush foreign policy shows that she lacks the judgment to learn from her own experience in the Senate, so what is it exactly about her extra 4 years in that body that's supposed to commend her to us? And while Mrs. Thatcher was probably too conservative for most Obama supporters, she was pretty "cool under pressure" in the Falklands crisis. It's not mysogynistic to point out that a lousy candidate -- and lousy senator -- is just that.

Posted by David B. | March 2, 2008 4:32 PM

Obama failed the test, and Hillary passed it.

Um, that's not even a crisis, that's just basic diplomacy. We're asking for who'll take that 3 AM call and you want us to support the person who voted for Kyl-Lieberman and still supports the AUMF and Axis of Evil rhetoric. Been there, done that for the past seven years. Sorry if a good chunk of America and the Democratic party isn't buying that Kool-Aid anymore, but them's the breaks.

"It's 3 AM and a drunken Joe Lieberman is calling, telling you to bomb Iran or he defects to the Republican party..."

Posted by Fausto Carmona | March 2, 2008 4:32 PM

Obama gets a pass on a lot of things because he's black, and because he's a man. It's very difficult to say the most serious African-American candidate for the presidency is not experienced enough for the role. But the fact is that Barack Obama is not Colin Powell. And on gender, imagine if a female state senator, and former lawyer and community organizer, were elected to the US Senate and began running for president two years into her first term. Would she be taken seriously at all? No, she would be laughed off the stage. And I have serious doubts if a white man were in the same position he'd get much farther. Hillary was right, Obama is a "blank screen" onto which people project what they want to see.

Steve Sailer, ladies and gentlemen. Give him a hand!

Posted by Fausto Carmona | March 2, 2008 4:35 PM

Obama gets a pass on a lot of things because he's black, and because he's a man.

Yes, yes, yes. Here we go. The official Clinton mantra. Unfortunately you forgot to find a way to include how the vast right-wing conspiracy fits in there.

Posted by Craig | March 2, 2008 4:37 PM

David B.:

The fact that George Bush has not been success in his diplomatic approach is not evidence that Barack Obama's approach is sound. There are not two diplomatic strategies: Bush and non-Bush. Maybe that's the maddeningly simple-minded perspective of the MoveOn.Org/Daily Kos crowd, but international relations are a lot more complex than that.

It is irresponsible to say you are willing to meet with rogue leaders during your first year without preconditions. That's essentially a commitment. If there are no preconditions what reason could a President Obama possibly have to turn down a meeting? You don't box yourself in or let your adversaries know exactly what your foreign policy is going to be before you become president. That's not good judgment, that's naive.

Posted by Tim K | March 2, 2008 4:37 PM

"imagine if a female state senator, and former lawyer and community organizer, were elected to the US Senate and began running for president two years into her first term. Would she be taken seriously at all?"

The problem with this argument is that it ignores the fact that candidates are individuals, with individual qualities. Obama's judgment, intellect, and compassion are evident in his tone, his words, and his record. He's a credible candidate based on his own merits. Whether someone with a similar resume would or would not be is beside the point. But Tim K has already played the race and gender card, so what's next?

I also think it's funny that the "3 a.m." ad was a reprise of a 1984 ad saying Gary Hart, of all people, couldn't handle foreign policy. Even if Clinton had such an advantage -- which she does not -- it would only be temporary. And isn't the bigger risk a president who already thinks he (or she) knows everything?

Posted by David B. | March 2, 2008 4:40 PM

I'll take "little experience plus good ideas" over "years of experience have committed me to crazy warmongering" in a heartbeat...

Matt, that's it. A powerful reality.

And as a woman, I think it's sexist to say women can't be cool under pressure, or to say you can't criticize a woman for not being steady. Hillary is no more emotional than McCain--probably less so--but both seem easily riled up. Obama's control (emotional intelligence?) seems extraordinary, and another reason I think he'll be an excellent President.

Posted by Beth in VA | March 2, 2008 4:45 PM

What exactly is a "rogue leader," TimK?

Posted by ML | March 2, 2008 4:45 PM

Obama seems to have been oddly passive over the last few days. Is that because HRC's kitchen-sink approach is likely last-minute desperation? Or because he has no new angles to advance?

Posted by otto | March 2, 2008 4:45 PM

David B:

Obama's judgment, intellect, and compassion are evident in his tone, his words, and his record.

That's simply an exaggeration. A lot of elected officials in this country are intelligent, compassionate, and can make good speeches. Many of them have more extensive records than Barack Obama... in fact, most do.

Say I played the race and gender card, that's fine. The fact is simply because you don't like it doesn't mean race and gender are not factors in this campaign. It's politically incorrect to point out that a smart, articulate, impressive African American who is running for president may not be qualified. If he were being judged as individual a lot more people would be pointing out his inexperience, and not just on the margins. As for gender, it is just assumed that a man is qualified, while a woman has to prove she's qualified. No man with the experience of Hillary Clinton would ever have to justify it as she always has to.

ML:

Replace "rogue leader" with leader from a "state of concern" or "terrorist sponsor" or " brutal dictator." Whatever terminology you prefer.

Posted by Tim K | March 2, 2008 4:47 PM

Well, I'm just relieved that the voters (albeit in states that don't count) don't buy the notion that Clinton's allegedly superior brainpower and soi-disant experience are enough for her to take Bush's bad policies and make them work.

Tim, you have no idea what Obama actually said in the debate, do you? If he thinks he could get something done by face to face negotiations, he'd do it, but wouldn't do so otherwise. Do you get all of your news from SNL sketches and the O'Reilly Factor?

Posted by David B. | March 2, 2008 4:49 PM

Yes, Tim K, I understand the vocabulary that people like you use to refer to "SOBs who are not our SOBs." I was hoping you might come up with something more coherent.

Posted by ML | March 2, 2008 4:50 PM

Otto,
Obama's been busy as hell the past few days, doing more small town-hall events with questions. Check out the one last night in Parma, Ohio. I wouldn't call it passive, but he's had a serious tone, heavy on substance. The Q&A at the end is great.

Note: If link doesn't work for video (java might be an issue?) it's currently at the bottom of the C-Span home page:
http://www.c-span.org/

Posted by Beth in VA | March 2, 2008 4:54 PM

The only candidate in either party with foreign policy experience was soundly rejected by the voters. How is this a win issue for anyone?

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | March 2, 2008 4:54 PM

In terms of getting your thoughts together remember, Susan Rice is an idiot.

Posted by Robert Powell | March 2, 2008 4:55 PM

It is irresponsible to say you are willing to meet with rogue leaders during your first year without preconditions. That's essentially a commitment.

Why? What's irresponsible about meeting with people? Isn't that a component of diplomacy? Is the United States really so awesome that the leader of a country will lose power in their own nations or globally if our President won't meet with them? I'd say the last seven years proved more the opposite point than anything else.

Posted by Persia | March 2, 2008 4:56 PM

1. I, along with most of the voters and Sen. Clinton herself, don't accept the premise that Sen. Obama is not qualified to be President.

2. Sen. Clinton hasn't made the slightest effort to defend her qualifications beyond intoning that she has 35 years of them, which is why for the first time, when people ask "what crunch time decisions have you made," it's radio silence. We're expected to believe it because, well, we are. Obama's had to make the argument because he looks even younger than he is, although he's graying a bit, and we've seen that he's convinced a lot of people, including those like Kennedy, Rockefeller, and Dodd, who have more experience than the both of thme.

3. Obama's right that Washington experience is not the only experience that matters.

Posted by David B. | March 2, 2008 4:58 PM

Alright, Tim K, I'll try to simplify this for you. I'll even concede a great number of points. Yes, the media hates Hillary. She has 200 years of experience. Her policy positions are extraordinary in their breadth and practicality. She is the most brilliant person to have ever run for the office of President.

So, why is she not winning?

People don't like her.

After being told why they should like her, they still don't.

People like the new guy.

After being told why they shouldn't like him, they still do.

Welcome to politics.

Posted by Craig | March 2, 2008 5:01 PM

David B:

I never claimed Barack Obama isn't qualified to be president. He's over 35, he's a natural born citizen of the United States... those are the qualifications. My claim is that he doesn't have the right experience compared to the other candidates in the race, particularly Senators Clinton and McCain.

"Washington experience" isn't the only experience that matters. But being a state legislator isn't the kind of experience I want to be the sole substitute for Washington experience. If he has been the governor of Illinois that would be different.

Persia:

It's not irresponsible to meet with people, it's irresponsible to commit to meeting with people before hand. It's the same criticism of what Obama said about Pakistan. It's not really that the substance what he said in both instances in necessarily wrong, it's that one does not reveal one's thinking of foreign policy to the people you will be interacting with. Informational assymetries are key to the conduct of foreign policy. It would be the equivalent of, in poker, showing your opponent your whole card without your hand being called. I've been using the word naive, which it is. But it's also stupid.

Posted by Tim K | March 2, 2008 5:09 PM

"In regards to Pakistan, we have seen the Obama made the right call on that one, too. The US needs to be able to act in the hills of Western Pakistan if the government there is not ready to."

Actually, no, he got that one wrong.

There are a number of reasons why unilaterally attacking Al Qaeda in Pakistan is a bad idea. For one, it increases the probability of a botched attack. Second, it increases the probability of civilian casualties. Third, with or without civilian casualties, it increases the probability of radicalizing the Pakistani population against the US, which it already distrusts. Fourth, it undermines the "legitimacy" - such as it is, admittedly - of the Pakistani government, which further increases the probability that it may fall in the future.

And for what? To knock off one or two easily replaced Al Qaeda operatives? Even bin Laden himself wouldn't be worth the negatives.

The reality is that the US needs to develop a policy of dealing with Al Qaeda when it sticks its nose OUT of Pakistan, not IN Pakistan. Also, it can give what support it can to the Pakistani intelligence and law enforcement system (covertly, preferably), but the reality there is that the Pakistani system is not highly motivated to go after either Al Qaeda or the militants.

As a military officer commented a couple weeks ago, the idea of Predator strikes on individual Al Qaeda members does nothing but tamp down the need for a more comprehensive policy. You only get the opportunity to do Predator strikes once or twice a year - that's simply not worth the negatives of such a policy.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | March 2, 2008 5:12 PM

There are a number of reasons why unilaterally attacking Al Qaeda in Pakistan is a bad idea.

Tell that to the CIA. They just (end of January) targeted and eliminated Abu Laith al-Libi in Pakistan.

“Having requested the Pakistani government’s official permission for such strikes on previous occasions, only to be put off or turned down, this time the U.S. spy agency did not seek approval. The government of Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf was notified only as the operation was underway, according to the officials, who insisted on anonymity because of diplomatic sensitivities.”

So I guess you should write a complaint to Bush as well as Obama.

Posted by Craig | March 2, 2008 5:25 PM

Tim K: "It is irresponsible to say you are willing to meet with rogue leaders during your first year without preconditions. That's essentially a commitment."

This is a ridiculous argument.

This argument exists in your own head and no where else.

"Commitment"? To what? To a meeting? Which hasn't even been suggested by any rogue leaders outside of Iran? There's been no "commitment" to anything but talk.

The underlying presumption in these criticisms of Obama is that he's going to "give up the farm" immediately on taking office, go along with any demand by a foreign leader, and sell out US national security.

Except that's all bullshit speculation without a shred of evidence.

You give up NOTHING by saying you're willing to talk without preconditions. You make absolutely NO commitment by doing so. The only preconditions negotiation should require is the willingness to talk. Period.

All negotiations begin by demanding something. But all negotiations do not assume the other side to give up that demand before being willing to negotiate. Only when negotiations reach an impasse is the demand frequently made that one side or the other signal a willingness to give on a point to enable resuming negotiations.

Also, being willing to negotiate is not a "reward" to be earned. Certainly it's not surprising that chimpanzees want to demonstrate their power over others by "forcing" them to come to the negotiating table. And certainly chimpanzees like to demand that the other side give up something before beginning negotiations.

Unfortunately, these tactics rarely work. All they do is make the negotiations harder and less productive. It's far better to come to the table without preconditions, and then bargain in such a way as to make both sides the "winner". Negotiations do not have to be "zero sum" games. Most professional negotiators would undoubtedly agree with those facts. Read any book on negotiation and see.

Bush fails Diplomacy 101 on that score. So does Clinton. Obama does not.

Where Obama fails Diplomacy 101 is getting his FACTS wrong. He assumes Iran is a "threat", that Iran can and should be pressured into giving up enrichment, and that it would be legal and correct to do so. Since he is completely wrong on every aspect of that, his "diplomacy" is going to fail and he's going to end up in the same box Bush is in - give up or attack Iran.

That is where Obama goes wrong - not in being willing to negotiate with Iran without preconditions.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | March 2, 2008 5:27 PM

Craig: "Tell that to the CIA."

Yes, and the case cited is precisely when the military officer I mentioned made his comment.

It doesn't work. It's not a viable policy. It has too many negatives to be useful.

And yes, I would complain to Bush as well as Obama. Do not assume I support Bush just because I criticize Obama.

The US does not have a coherent anti-terrorism policy, let alone a rational foreign policy that would prevent the US from being a terrorist target. This is what's needed - not some half-assed "whack-a-mole" policy about bombing individuals in the mountains of Pakistan. That's brain dead.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | March 2, 2008 5:32 PM

Here's another point.

I see an Al Qaeda terrorist in the middle of Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

You want me to send a Predator there to bomb him?

How about a mall in Canada? Bomb him there?

How about Moscow? Bomb him there?

Why not? You don't have any concern about civilians or the government in Pakistan. Why not Saudi Arabia, Canada, England, France, Germany, Italy - hell, we kidnapped a guy in Italy and the Italians are trying to get 23 CIA contractors arrested and extradited for it!

And then the US wonders why the rest of the world hates it.

Israel does this crap in Palestine every day. The UN chief just denounced them for it yesterday. They also do it in Lebanon and elsewhere. They sent assassination teams throughout Europe after the Black September group and ended up killing the wrong guy in one instance. The Euros weren't happy about it. It's one reason Israel is hated.

The US doesn't need to (further) develop a reputation it already has for ignoring the sovereignty of virtually every nation on Earth and imposing its will and military everywhere unilaterally.

Bombing people in Pakistan without permission is exactly the same problem as invading Iraq without international legal justification. It causes more problems than it solves.

And Obama does not appear to understand that, despite his vote on Iraq.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | March 2, 2008 5:40 PM

Fausto, I hate you for what you did to my Yankees, but damn that was a hell of a performance.

Posted by Tony | March 2, 2008 5:42 PM

Richard Steven Hack:

Do you even know the first thing about diplomacy? Sorry to put it that bluntly, but the first point of contention in any negotiation is whether there is going to be a meeting at all, particularly when that meeting would involve the President of the United States. Diplomatic negotiations have often turned on which conditions are on the table during a meeting, who is invited to a meeting, and even the size and shape of the table. To deny this is simply to betray your own ignorance over how diplomacy works in the real world in which we all live. To commit to a presidential level meeting without any evidence about whether that meeting would be productive is to squander the symbolism and prestige of the office. It can also lend perceived legitimacy to the person you are meeting with, and be a propaganda coup for that individual. And even if a President is intent on meeting with certain of these leaders upon taking office, there is no advantage in revealing that intent before hand.

Posted by Tim K | March 2, 2008 5:42 PM

'It's not really that the substance what he said in both instances in necessarily wrong, it's that one does not reveal one's thinking of foreign policy to the people you will be interacting with.'

As regards Pakistan that's a stupid argument. What, so, if Obama's elected, the terrorists will know his policy is to bomb them if they're found? And this helps them how? Because, you see, they won't know they're found. Obama's telling us what judgement he'd make in this situation is irrelevant: terrorists have long known what Bush would do were he to find them, and it didn't stop the al-Libi operation succeeding on its own terms (I'm not making an argument about the principle).

On the one hand, you say, Obama has no experience. On the other, you say, though like Clinton he's made available detailed policy documents, he can't tell us what his judgements would be in particular situations already faced by the Bush administration, because that is 'stupid', and it attests his inexperience. Would he seem more reliable to you were he to refuse ever to answer such questions, on the grounds of course that it would be stupid? Or would you in that situation merely argue that his refusal to give answers, well, attests his inexperience -- shows he doesn't know what he'd do?

All that notwithstanding, I still want some concrete examples of HRC's defence experience -- those which you've so far invoked with laudable vagueness. Which specific experiences in her career as First Lady or Senator will, do you think, sharpen and deepen her judgement in which hypotherical situations for which Obama's shallow, rookie glamour leaves him dangerously unprepared?

Posted by B | March 2, 2008 5:45 PM

Re Tim K

It's a waste of time arguing with Mr. Hack, this boards' favorite bank robber, and ex-con who spent 9 years in the federal slammer in Leavenworth getting his ass reamed by the brothers. One might as well argue with Charles Manson.

Posted by SLC | March 2, 2008 5:59 PM

B:

Threatening to bomb an ally like Pakistan or unilaterally violate their territory risks political repercussions in a volatile region. Remember at the time that Obama's comments provoked a strong reaction from Pakistani officials, including President Musharaf. And he was only an also-ran in the Democratic primaries at the time. Imagine if a President Obama made a comment like that, which has the potential be exaggerated or taken out of context. A President must measure his or her words very carefully, especially in respect to foreign policy. To your point, if Obama did continue to be this specific about what he would do then it would give Al Qaeda every reason to try to provoke an attack by the US in Pakistan, and thereby destabilize a key US ally in the "war on terror." If that could help them provoke the overthrow of Musharaf's regime, that would be ideal for their designs.

Hillary Clinton's experiences during the course of her husbands governorship, presidency and multiple campaigns for office have shown she is able to cope with an extraordinary degree of pressure. She has been held up to enormous scrutiny from special prosecutors, grand jury investigations, congressional oversight committees, the Washington press corp, and political opponents of all types. Since coming to the Senate she has served on the Armed Services Committee, where she deepened her knowledge of the military.

If you think Hillary Clinton hasn't shown to have what it takes to be Commander-in-Chief than why have more than 25 flag officers (generals and admirals) put their professional reputations on the line and endorsed her candidacy?

Posted by Tim K | March 2, 2008 6:02 PM

First, he's not advocating "bombing Pakistan." It'd be a surgical strike like the one we just saw (which, I'm pretty sure, had no civilian casualties). It's not like we cluster bombed them (BTW, Obama voted against spreading the use of cluster bombs in civilian areas; Clinton voted for it).

I think the Canada, Moscow, etc. concerns were legitimate ones UNTIL this policy proved successful. We took out Al Qaeda leaders in Pakistan during a very tenuous moment in the nation's politics (with our "biggest ally" Musharraf on his way out)- with no repercussions yet on the nation's government or our relations with them. I wonder how many Pakistanis even know about it.

Posted by Tony | March 2, 2008 6:10 PM

Tony:

Well the distinction you are making isn't relevant as it concerns the statement he was making... an attack, is an attack, is an attack. Violating sovereign territory is still a violation whether it is surgical or not. Although, by the way, we've seen just how blunt and imprecise "surgical" strikes can be. Bombs, even "smart bombs" can and do go off course and kill civilians. Either way, I was criticizing him for making those comments publicly at all and revealing his intentions in hypothetical situations.

Posted by Tim K | March 2, 2008 6:13 PM

Attached is a link to a Huffington Post op-ed by Joe Wilson blasting Obama as an empty suit.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joe-wilson/obamas-hollow-judgment_b_89441.html

Posted by SLC | March 2, 2008 6:14 PM

"I'm always careful to say that I was not in the Senate, so perhaps the reason I thought it was such a bad idea was that I didn't have the benefit of US intelligence. And for those who did, it might have led to a different set of choices."

-- Barack Obama, regarding the 2002 AUMF resolution

Posted by Tim K | March 2, 2008 6:24 PM

That isn't about losing your temper every now and again, versus being a cocky prick who thinks so much of himself he always seems coolly confident.

Geez, Tim K, why don't you just admit that you have an irrational hatred for Obama and wouldn't vote for him even if Bush were running against him for a third term. I don't know why anyone tries to convince you otherwise.

Posted by fp | March 2, 2008 6:30 PM

fp:

I was a big fan of Obama's before he really disappointed me by running for president. To me it was the height of arrogance and showed the kind of over-confidence and presumptuousness I cannot respect. Had he served out his term in the Senate and built a strong record at the national level, I would have a very different opinion. I have no doubt he could have run for governor of Illinois or President in the future. Instead he ran a campaign for president that is really all about him and his personality. As for Hillary, I had serious doubts that she really had what it took to be President and run a successful campaign at the beginning of this process. But through the campaign, and especially the numerous debates, she proved to my satisfaction that she has the knowledge and experience to be the president.

Posted by Tim K | March 2, 2008 6:35 PM

This is all fairly silly.
The office of POTUS is sui generis and like it or not the single most powerful office in the world.
Only the office of Vice President, in an administration where that officer is given both considerable power and responsibility, could truly be said to prepare a candidate to be president.
I think a strong case can be made that HRC, given her relationship with Bill, comes close to the example of a strong VP.
And certainly nothing in Obama's history is near compatible to that experience.
As to the argument if experience matters and how it should be weighed, well that is pretty silly too I think.
It is not as if experience exists as an independent attribute like eye color. What matters experience if one learns the wrong lessons? And no amount of experience is a guarantee against the occasional fuck up; just ask any highly skilled artisan if he still ever makes "mistakes". Especially of the rear view mirror variety.
So here I think Obama has the better of the argument.
While I discount Obama's claim that his 2002 antiwar speech is any great proof of his wisdom and judgement and fitness to be President (depending on one's circle Obama's stance could be seen as not only obvious but de rigueur if not jejune) there is a great deal of truth in the fact that HRC's vote demonstrates that she had learnt the wrong lessons from her time in the White House.
But really, HRC is out and the question of experience need only concern Obama v McCain, neither of whom I consider "qualified" for the Presidency, though I believe McCain would have the better of the argument.

Posted by JTHB | March 2, 2008 6:36 PM

Tim K: "I was a big fan of Obama's before he really disappointed me by running for president. To me it was the height of arrogance and showed the kind of over-confidence and presumptuousness I cannot respect."

How presumptuous!!11!!

Posted by Korha | March 2, 2008 7:00 PM

Korha:

Or maybe just audacity.

Posted by Tim K | March 2, 2008 7:12 PM

"Replace "rogue leader" with leader from a "state of concern" or "terrorist sponsor" or " brutal dictator." Whatever terminology you prefer."

So Saudi Arabia doesn't fall into this category because?

Posted by JordanT | March 2, 2008 7:29 PM

Well Saudi Arabia is a relatively moderate Arab state and an ally, so it falls into whatever category Pakistan falls under, not Iran or Syria.

Listen, this is exactly why neo-conservative hawks are able to successful paint liberals as being naive on national security. Sometimes in foreign affairs the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Osama Bin Laden hates Musharaf in Pakistan and the Saudi leadership like poison, as well as Karzai in Afghanistan. That means they are our allies in the struggle against radical Islamist extremism, which obviously is a serious threat both to American interests, America's western allies, and moderate Arab and Muslim allies.

Was Stalin a savory character? No, but Churchill and Roosevelt allied with him to defeat Hitler. That was the right decision to make... would you have argued against it?

Posted by Tim K | March 2, 2008 7:36 PM

Tim K:
In what sense is Saudi Arabia more "moderate" than Syria?

Bin Laden hates the leaders of Saudi Arabia more but doesn't hate the leaders of Iran?

I'm afraid you're just flailing about for whatever rational would enable you to attack Obama and praise Clinton. Which is fair enough; it is election season after all. But please spare is the accusations of naiveté.

Posted by WillieStyle | March 2, 2008 7:41 PM

I was a big fan of Obama's before he really disappointed me by running for president. To me it was the height of arrogance and showed the kind of over-confidence and presumptuousness I cannot respect. Had he served out his term in the Senate and built a strong record at the national level, I would have a very different opinion.

The nerve! Running for President when it's Hillary's turn! But seriously--- what kind of magical effect does eight years in the Senate confer on a candidate that four years doesn't?

And once again, if length of experience is so goddamned important, why isn't the Democratic race down to Biden, Dodd, and Richardson? Could it actually be that voters like Obama and Clinton better for their personal qualities and not their curricula vitae? And that, of the two, we are now seeing that more people admire Obama's personal qualities than Clinton's?

Posted by Adam Villani | March 2, 2008 7:43 PM

WillieStyle:

Maybe I should be a little bit more specific. Saudi Arabia is more pro-Western than Syria and Iran. Saudia Arabia is less of a threat to Israel and friendlier to Israel than either Iran or Syria. Iran and Syria are not US allies. That's the difference.

Posted by Tim K | March 2, 2008 7:47 PM

OT to this fascinating discussion,

But has anyone polled an Obama/Clinton ticket? I'd guess Clinton as VP would bring a lot of Republican women and blow out any possible McCain ticket nationally.

Posted by Arnold Evans | March 2, 2008 7:58 PM

Replace "rogue leader" with leader from a "state of concern" or "terrorist sponsor" or " brutal dictator." Whatever terminology you prefer.

You mean like Kazakhstan? I hear Clinton has some pretty good contacts there.

Posted by justinb | March 2, 2008 8:11 PM

Oh here we go... if you can't win the argument on substance then try to kick up an ethical cloud.

Posted by Tim K | March 2, 2008 8:18 PM

Hey, has anyone noticed that Barack backwards reads '[kc]araB'?

Arab!

The whole thing, backwards, could perhaps be paraphrased as, 'I'm a bony suck Arab'.

Fuck me.

Posted by burning flock | March 2, 2008 8:42 PM

Kevin,

If you're going to correct someone's prose, then you should stumble into a use/mention blunder while doing it.

'cite' not 'site'.

Posted by John | March 2, 2008 8:48 PM

Also!

One anagram of his full name is 'babushka macaronies'.

What can this tell us? He's a Russian-Italian impostor? Hidden under that glib politician's shell are guts of macaroni?

Well that's my vote.

Posted by burning flock | March 2, 2008 8:50 PM

A take on Obama by a reporter who's covered him since 2000: http://dallasobserver.com/2008-02-28/news/obama-and-me/full

Posted by marcel | March 2, 2008 9:21 PM

Re Tim K's comment "My claim is that he doesn't have the right experience compared to the other candidates in the race, particularly Senators Clinton and McCain."
---------------
Hillary Clinton has NO EXPERIENCE -- that's the point. She had no security clearances during Bill Clinton's administration -- so she didn't know shit. She was not involved in meetings of the National Security Council.

Her claims that she does have experience indicate either (a) a willingless to lie to the American people about a matter of importance or (b) a disconnect from reality. Both are fatal flaws in a President.

And this meme that Bill Clinton will be there to hold the reins as fallback is also bullshit. As First Husband, Bill Clinton won't have any need to know -- any justification for security clearances --either.

Posted by Don Williams | March 2, 2008 10:46 PM

Re JTHB's comment "I think a strong case can be made that HRC, given her relationship with Bill, comes close to the example of a strong VP."
------------
Well, in the sense that the Secret Service probably checked her for concealed weapons, maybe.

How much "collaboration" does JTHB think Hillary and Bill had after the Monica affair sprang forth?

Posted by Don Williams | March 2, 2008 10:52 PM

She was the reason we failed to act so long in Bosnia. Bill Clinton was unsure of what to do, then Hillary Clinton read Kaplan's "Balkan Ghosts," freaked out about stopping Milosevic because it would be impossible, gave it to Bill to read and he freaked out too. We only acted after Milosevic destroyed a UN safe area, Srebrenica. Basically, Clinton has shown judgment that good wars = disasters and bad wars = good ideas.

Wow, Tim K is really losing it. BTW, Clinton ended up saying that her and Obama had basically the same ideas on meetings. She got to answer second, so she started yelling "preconditions!" because in her head that was a "gotcha" moment. If she meant that the logistical details have to be worked out ahead of time, then it's stupid to attack Obama on that like he's going to show up in Tehran and have no idea where to meet anyone. When people talk, certain things are taken as a given. If she meant "you give me something beforehand so I will meet with you," then she is committing herself to bad-faith diplomacy. You don't do this in business if you want to conduct business in good faith, so most business people won't meet with you if you do this. If anything, it is just glib.

Tim K, you have pretty much ventured into "who does this uppity negro think he is?" territory at the same time you accuse people of sexism for questioning the judgment and ability to stay calm of someone who throws ashtrays when she gets mad. Was Lincoln uppity for running when he did?

Also, Iran is "anti-US" because we've been demonizing them for 30 years. Their population is the most pro-US in the region, save Israel. Women have more rights in Iran than in Saudi Arabia and can hold elected office. If a husband and wife are out on the street in Iran and the wife starts to fall, her husband can catch her in Iran. In Saudi Arabia, both of them will be beaten for that because men and women, even if they're married, can't touch each other in public. People can actually vote in Iran, even if it is just for ceremonial figures like the president. An Iranian female judge has won the Nobel Peace Prize. The Iranian blogosphere is one of the largest and most active in the world. Iranian civil society is more dynamic than in Saudi Arabia. We share a lot of security concerns with Iraq. Our primary surrogates in Iraq are theirs, the Shi'ites parties that run the government. We both don't want Kurdish independence. We both are worried about al-Qaida and the Taliban. In fact, Iran provided us with useful intelligence on al-Qaida in Afghanistan before Cheney shut that relationship down. Meanwhile, Benazir Bhutto, who everyone is now mourning as a democratic martyr, presided over a government that was the Taliban's main backer and sponsored terrorism in India.

The conventional wisdom on a lot of foreign policy ideas among the DC elite has failed. Clinton just seems to think it needs better management, like hiring a new captain to steer a sinking ship. Obama doesn't go as far as I would like in re-thinking some things, but he does show signs of being more intelligent and showing greater judgment and willingness to challenge the DC conventional wisdom on Cuba, Israel-Palestine, Iran, etc.

Posted by Reality Man | March 2, 2008 11:05 PM

marcel, I liked this:

'I was 25 and had no problem interviewing big-wig politicians, but I always had to steel my nerves when calling Obama. His intelligence was intimidating, and my hands inevitably shook and sweated.'

(can't figure out how to do a quote-box)

Posted by M | March 2, 2008 11:31 PM

marcel, I liked this:

'I was 25 and had no problem interviewing big-wig politicians, but I always had to steel my nerves when calling Obama. His intelligence was intimidating, and my hands inevitably shook and sweated.'

(can't figure out how to do a quote-box)

Posted by M | March 2, 2008 11:31 PM

Tony: "We took out Al Qaeda leaders in Pakistan during a very tenuous moment in the nation's politics (with our "biggest ally" Musharraf on his way out)- with no repercussions yet on the nation's government or our relations with them. I wonder how many Pakistanis even know about it."

Bullshit. The operative word there is "yet". You can bet there were repercussions. And you can bet that many, if not most, Pakistanis know about it.

Pakistan gets YouTube as the recent brouhaha over that proved. You don't think they get CNN over the Net? You don't think they read newspapers?

This is why Americans need to shut up about "what to do about Pakistan". If you don't know what's going on over there, making pronouncements about what should be done is done in ignorance and has negative effects.

More importantly, as I've said and nobody has addressed, this policy of random strikes when the US has "actionable intelligence" is a frickin' waste of time. It achieves nothing but taking out one or two people who are easily replaced.

Don't believe the crap about how Al Qaeda is some group of a dozen or so that you can just splash and forget about. There are dozens, probably hundreds, of people in the central organization, and thousands affiliated worldwide. And every time you kill one, you create another. It's "whack-a-mole" which is a loser's game.

Tim K: You're the one who's clueless about diplomacy. The crap about the size of the table is done for bullshit reasons and is a stupid way to negotiate IF you're trying to negotiate in any way that could be considered "good faith". What matters is the crux of the negotiations: what you're negotiating FOR. The end result. And Obama gives away NOTHING about that when he agrees to negotiate without preconditions.

Not to mention that refusing to negotiate at all, which is what Bush has been doing, is totally stupid. And Clinton has made no indications that she understands that, precisely because of her "preconditions" crap.

Clinton will offer Iran the same "deal" Bush does - stop enrichment and then we'll talk. She doesn't understand - or doesn't care, courtesy of her AIPAC stooge status - that Iran cannot and will not stop enrichment. Iran requires the full fuel cycle because it cannot trust the West to provide fuel for its reactors - not after the way the West - and that includes Russia - has acted over the last thirty years. It's simply ridiculous to suggest that they can or will. So that "precondition" is simply a refusal to negotiate at all.

Reality Man is one hundred percent correct that Iran is potentially a better ally to the US than Israel ever was (although I doubt Iran will ever be a real "ally" in the same sense that Britain is). A "grand bargain" with Iran which provides them with security guarantees against regime change by the US, and guarantees against attack by Israel, as well as assistance in their nuclear energy program, in exchange for recognition of Israel, limiting support for Hizballah in Lebanon, and thoroughly intrusive IAEA inspections of their energy program, would go a long way to easing tensions in the ME. A program that includes the nuclear disarmament of Israel would go even further.

Also, Tim, you have it backwards. Saudi Arabia is not our ally because they hate bin Laden or because bin Laden hates them. bin Laden hates US because we support Saudi Arabia and Israel. Remove that support and presto! We are no longer a target for bin Laden! It's that goddamn simple!

And that is THE ONLY way to deal with terrorism: remove the motivations. Remove the target profile.

The US should not give a damn whether bin Laden is conducting terrorism against Saudi Arabia. That's their goddamn problem, not ours. Our only concern should be to remove the US as a target.

There are only two ways to stop terrorism:

1) Kill them all - only doable if the group is small and localized (Che Guevara in Bolivia is the classic example.) Can't be done with an operation like Al Qaeda or the general case of Islamic terrorism against the US.

2) Remove the reasons for being a target of the terrorists. In some cases, this may not be possible. In most cases, it probably is. In the case of Al Qaeda, it almost certainly is.

Of course, now that we've killed thousands of people in Afghanistan, hundreds of thousands in Iraq (and the war responsible for a million dead, plus four million refugees), and plan on killing many more in Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran and Pakistan, we can expect anti-US hatred to grow worldwide and create terrorists for the next couple of generations whose reasons for attacking us are less policy oriented and more about simple revenge.

Good work, George!

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | March 2, 2008 11:54 PM

Reality Man:

Clearly your ideas on foreign policy are completely out of the mainstream. Making a claim the the only reason Iran in an adversary because the US has "demonized" them in not a very prudent or useful observation. That's fine, of course, I've read Noam Chomsky's books and it's always good to hear dissident points of view. Having said that, the foreign policy ideas you espouse won't fly in a general election. Your views on diplomacy and the Middle East come across as dangerously naive. Simply because Bush's foreign policy has been a disaster does not mean an extreme Left foreign policy is the remedy. I still would prefer a President with a clear-eyed view of the world and the challenges that America faces, including enemies.

Agreeing to meet without preconditions was a gotcha moment and I wish the Clinton campaign had gone for the jugular. If a similar remark happens in the general election the Republicans will pounce.

Posted by Tim K | March 3, 2008 12:03 AM

Hack:

The reason Osama Bin Laden hates the Saudi royal family is because even though they are the world's most extreme theocratic dictatorship, they still aren't extreme enough for Osama Bin Laden. So you answer to that is to withdraw all support for the Saudis? Withdraw all support for Jordan's leadership? Withdraw all support for Egypt's leadership? Withdraw all support for the other moderate Arab regimes in Kuwait, Qatar, Yemen, Oman, UAE? Withdraw all support for Hamid Karzai in Afghanistan and pull the troops out? Withdraw all support for the Musharaf regime in Pakistan? Refrain from any involvement at all in the Sudan? Cut off all aid to Israel? And finally, withdraw all forces out of Iraq? Nothing short of doing what I just outlined would appease Osama Bin Laden and his supporters.

Just consider what the consequences could be were the US to pursue all or any of those policies.

Posted by Tim K | March 3, 2008 12:12 AM

I was a big fan of Obama's before he really disappointed me by running for president. To me it was the height of arrogance

Tim K, we find ourselves in this nomination predicament because it was Hillary Clinton's height of arrogance to run for president by dint of her name recognition and an unrepentant mindless hawkishness at odds with the Democratic party base. I found her candidacy to be based in nothing other than an arrogance and sense of entitlement. Your statement would be worth considering in a small, tiny way were it not for the fact that Obama served the valuable role of pricking the Hillary Clinton bubble.

Posted by Tyro | March 3, 2008 12:30 AM

Tim K: "The reason Osama Bin Laden hates the Saudi royal family is because even though they are the world's most extreme theocratic dictatorship, they still aren't extreme enough for Osama Bin Laden."

So what? That is not our problem. No matter who runs Saudi Arabia, they will still sell the oil (and if they don't, see below). And the likelihood of bin Laden running Saudi Arabia is so small that it isn't even a real issue.

And everything you outlined is indeed what the US should be doing because none of that is in the long term interest of the US.

You say, "consider the consequences". Want to name them? I thought not. You can't. I can. The consequences would be: zip. Nada. No problemo. Because we don't get squat out of supporting those regimes except grief from terrorists and the hatred of most of the Muslim population.

There may have been a time during the Cold War when we got something out of it, namely, preventing Russia from supporting those regimes, on the mistaken notion that we might lose the oil. Even if we could have, which is unlikely in the extreme, all that does is demonstrate once again that our energy dependence on foreign oil is the real problem. And that dependence is driven by - wait for it - OUR OIL COMPANIES, not the Arabs. Remove the corporate control of the state that the oil companies and the military-industrial complex has in this country, and nothing we do in the Middle East would be of any relevance.

And your response to Reality Man was devoid of specifics, merely rhetoric about "challenges" and "enemies" - neither of which we need and both of which we get from the sort of ME foreign policy you and Clinton support.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | March 3, 2008 1:21 AM

BTW, off topic on this particular thread, but reviewing the thread yesterday where I was accused of being "misogynist" based on comments I made about Clinton, another poster alerted me to the following.

Read it and weep, assholes.

http://deepbackground.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/02/29/718285.aspx

Sen. Clinton accepts donations from troubled firm
Posted on Friday, February 29, 2008 3:50 PM PT
Filed Under: Politics

By Lisa Myers and Jim Popkin, NBC News

Sen. Hillary Clinton has declined to return $170,000 in campaign contributions from individuals at a company accused of widespread sexual harassment, and whose CEO is a disbarred lawyer with a criminal record, federal campaign records show.

The federal government has accused the Illinois management consulting firm, International Profit Associates, or IPA, of a brazen pattern of sexual harassment including "sexual assaults,” “degrading anti-female language" and "obscene suggestions."

In a 2001 lawsuit full of lurid details, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission claims that 103 women employees at IPA were victimized for years. The civil case is ongoing, and IPA vigorously denies the allegations.

"This is by far, hands down, the worst case I've ever experienced," said Diane Smason, one of the EEOC lawyers handling the lawsuit. "Every woman there experienced sex harassment, they were part of a hostile work environment of sex harassment. And this occurred from the top down."

Sen. Clinton’s spokesman, Howard Wolfson, told NBC News in a statement that the senator decided to keep the funds because the lawsuit is "ongoing" and because none of the sexual harassment allegations has been proven in court. "With regard to the pending harassment suit, as a general matter, the campaign assesses findings of fact in deciding whether to return contributions," Wolfson said.

Allegations:
Adrienne Slick, who worked at IPA for seven months in 2000 and 2001 as a business coordinator and is now part of the EEOC suit, told NBC News in an interview that the sexual harassment was oppressive. “I had multiple managers come at me, press themselves up against me ... ask me to go home with them, and to a hotel room so they could fulfill their fantasies," she said.

The EEOC lawyers say the man at the top of the firm - IPA founder and Managing Director John R. Burgess - was among the worst offenders. The EEOC lawsuit claims, “The harassment emanated from the top: the owner and Managing Director, John Burgess, is accused of sexual harassment by at least 10 different women.”

Burgess has a criminal record, too. The former lawyer pleaded guilty to attempted grand larceny in 1987 and was disbarred in New York, court documents show. Burgess also pleaded guilty to “patronizing a prostitute” in 1984, according to Erie County, N.Y., court records.

Still, none of that has stopped powerful politicians in both parties from being courted by Burgess and IPA. Since 2000, IPA officials and their family members have given Sen. Clinton at least $170,000 for her Senate and presidential campaigns, federal campaign records show. Senator Clinton also spoke at a company event and rode on an IPA jet in 2004.

In May 2006, the New York Times brought Burgess's criminal history, and the allegations against IPA, to Sen. Clinton's attention. The May 7, 2006, article was titled “Rubbing Shoulders with Trouble, and Presidents.” In the article, a spokeswoman for Sen. Clinton was quoted as saying the Senator was not aware of Burgess’s criminal past and "will be reviewing" the contributions.

Almost two years later, federal records indicate that Sen. Clinton still has not returned the IPA money. Howard Wolfson, her communications director, did not dispute the $170,000 figure in an email to NBC News. He said Senator Clinton was not aware of Burgess’s past legal problems when she first accepted the donations. "In 2000 and 2003 when Sen. Clinton's campaign accepted money from Burgess, it was not aware of his legal problems from the 1980s," he said.

However, there were public reports of allegations against Burgess as early as 2000. That’s the year that Inc. Magazine first reported that Burgess had patronized a prostitute and had pleaded guilty to attempted grand larceny. And Senator Clinton’s campaign has accepted other contributions from other senior IPA officials as recently as last year, the campaign records show.

Many other politicians have been quick to distance themselves from IPA, and have returned donations. In 2002 in New York, Andrew Cuomo, a Democratic gubernatorial candidate at the time, returned $20,000 from Burgess. Cuomo’s office said the donations were returned after a New York newspaper reported on Burgess’s past legal problems and on the EEOC sexual-harassment allegations.

Other prominent Democrats also have returned IPA's donations including Sen. Ted Kennedy and then-Senate candidate Claire McCaskill. On the same day in 2006, Sen. Barack Obama received $4,000 in campaign donations from a senior IPA official and his wife. Obama quickly returned $2,000 from the senior IPA official, campaign records show. But the campaign has held onto the matching $2,000 donation from the IPA official’s wife, the Obama campaign confirms.

Some political analysts say it is surprising that the first viable female candidate for president would not be more sensitive to allegations of sexual harassment.

"The fact that Hillary Clinton at this point is holding onto money from a contributor who has been charged with sexual harassment can only be perceived as insensitive to women's issues and women," says Sherry Bebitch Jeffe, Senior Scholar at the School of Policy, Planning and Development at the University of Southern California. "I don't think that fits the definition of feminism, at least the last time I looked."

Adrienne Slick, the former IPA employee, says she's disappointed in any politician who would take or keep money from IPA. "This is not something that should be taken lightly, and to accept those funds makes a statement," she told NBC.

The EEOC lawyers would not comment on any aspect of the political donations, and confined their remarks solely to the lawsuit.

Clinton Campaign Response:
Wolfson dismissed the notion that keeping IPA money reflected a lack of concern about sexual harassment. "Sen. Clinton is proud of her long record of championing women's causes," he said. "When the EEOC rules on the allegations involving Burgess, we will consider that outcome in assessing if there is any reason to return his contribution." Of the $170,000 total in donations from all IPA officials and employees, Burgess and his family members personally contributed $16,000 to Sen. Clinton, campaign records show.

IPA Reaction:
For its part, IPA vigorously denies any wrongdoing and said it has been fighting the EEOC lawsuit for more than six years. "Since a lawsuit was filed in June 2001, IPA has continually and consistently denied the allegations," IPA spokeswoman Jennifer Cumbee wrote in an email to NBC News. "At IPA, we have zero tolerance approach when it comes to sexual harassment."

Cumbee added: "This involves primarily claims by persons who worked a short time in the mid- to late 90s (although there are some persons who worked after that). Immediately after the lawsuit was filed and by early 2001, IPA in an abundance of caution had its sexual harassment policy completely revised by competent outside professionals."

She says, "IPA has had no unresolved claim of harassment for several years now and any one of its 2,000 employees who violate the policy, after investigation, is dealt with swiftly." She would not comment directly on Slick’s claims, citing employee confidentiality. She said that the EEOC already has dropped some claimants from the suit. “All employee claims have been contested as many have no witnesses or records or current complaints,” Cumbee said.

The IPA spokeswoman did not dispute that Burgess had a criminal record from his days in New York. "All that you have asked, in regards to John Burgess, is a matter of public record," she wrote. “Mr. Burgess is not a felon and was never convicted or pled to a felony.” She said that it would be unfair to judge Burgess on two-decade-old crimes, and pointed out that Burgess and IPA are solid employers who donate generously to charities.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | March 3, 2008 1:28 AM

Tyro:

I would agree with you that seeking the highest office of the land cannot be an act of personal ambition alone. Yet, that surely implicates Barack Obama more than Hillary Clinton, who had the very least served out her full term in the Senate to which she had been elected. This contrasts to Obama, who cannot go three years in his career without growing restless enough to seek a higher office? Whether it be state legislator, or congressman, or senator or President. What shall he do upon being inaugurated? Perhaps he will seek to form a new world order so he can run to be its executive. But, of course, I only kid. In all seriousness,