Experience Gap

I've been waiting for the moment when one of the many former Clinton administration national security officials now working for Barack Obama would come out and call Hillary Clinton a liar for exaggerating her level of experience with these issues. Greg Craig who used to direct the State Department's Policy Planning staff comes close in a new memo:

When your entire campaign is based upon a claim of experience, it is important that you have evidence to support that claim. Hillary Clinton’s argument that she has passed “the Commander- in-Chief test” is simply not supported by her record.

There is no doubt that Hillary Clinton played an important domestic policy role when she was First Lady. It is well known, for example, that she led the failed effort to pass universal health insurance. There is no reason to believe, however, that she was a key player in foreign policy at any time during the Clinton Administration. She did not sit in on National Security Council meetings. She did not have a security clearance. She did not attend meetings in the Situation Room. She did not manage any part of the national security bureaucracy, nor did she have her own national security staff. She did not do any heavy-lifting with foreign governments, whether they were friendly or not. She never managed a foreign policy crisis, and there is no evidence to suggest that she participated in the decision-making that occurred in connection with any such crisis. As far as the record shows, Senator Clinton never answered the phone either to make a decision on any pressing national security issue – not at 3 AM or at any other time of day.

The memo goes on to debunk some specific assertions she's made about Northern Ireland, Macedonia, etc., but the general point is clear enough. It's not a slam on Clinton to observe that she, like Barack Obama and most presidential contenders, doesn't have much foreign policy experience. But she's been running around the country talking as if she was Madeleine Albright rather than a former First Lady.

Comments

Hillabee = Nixon in pantsuits.

Posted by Traven | March 11, 2008 9:51 AM

If the media gives this enough attention, I think it could be the beginning of the end for the Clinton campaign. Sen. Clinton simply has no other argument for why voters should prefer her that stands up to careful scrutiny. What I liked about the memo is that, for most of it, it was all facts and no harsh judgment calls, so it does not come off bitter, in keeping with Obama's theme of "a new kind of politics." He can show with this that he is able to do big damage to his opponents without sinking to their level, which is exactly what all the pundits have been arguing he cannot do, why he cannot win the general election.

Posted by R. Vangala | March 11, 2008 9:56 AM

The question is, why the hell didn't the Obama come out with this a week ago? This should have been the immediate response, while this week they should have been the time they rolled out commercials of Hillary and Sinbad, calling for a joint ticket...

Posted by Andrew | March 11, 2008 10:00 AM

Matt didn't link to the full memo; here it is:

http://thepage.time.com/obama-foreign-policy-memo/

Posted by southpaw | March 11, 2008 10:03 AM

1) I don't see questioning Hillary's foreign policy qualifications as even being a political attack. The voters have a right to know the truth re Hillary's past experience -- or lack of it. They also have a right to know if Hillary's lying to them on this subject.
2) This memo , however, accomplishs nothing. Obama needs to put out some TV ads with this info here in Pennsylvania.

Posted by Don Williams | March 11, 2008 10:03 AM

This is simply another in the long line of personal and unacceptable attacks perpetrated by the Obama campaign against Senator Clinton. Hillary's the only candidate who's been fully vetted and tested vis-a-vis her dealings with the right wing during the 90's. Give me a break. This whole thing is the biggest fairytale I've ever seen.

Posted by Tim K | March 11, 2008 10:08 AM

Congratulations Tim K! You have achieved a post that is in every respect identical to its parody version! It's a sort of troll Nirvana!

Posted by Warren Terra | March 11, 2008 10:11 AM

I am a staunch, staunch Obama supporter, and as such, I welcome this memo. I do worry, however, that it walks a fine line between pointing out evident discrepancies between Clinton's claims and her actual record, and disparaging the office of first lady. It's crucial that Obama's camp avoid even the faintest appearance of sexism, and I'm afraid that some of the language in the memo (references to her USO appearance with Sinbad and Cheryl Crow, for example) could be misinterpreted as a subtle dig.

Posted by alex | March 11, 2008 10:11 AM

Where was this memo last year? This should have come out the first week of the campaign the very first time Clinton trumpeted her 35 years of experience. I do think though that by the convention Clinton may have developed enough foreign policy experience to cross the threshold... to be vice president (although I hope she isn't offered it).

Posted by Ron | March 11, 2008 10:12 AM

Hillary Clinton '08

Bill Clinton: Client 08

Posted by Tim K | March 11, 2008 10:13 AM

Well, I think that if your candidacy is going to be about experience, then it should be your own experience. That's, I think, a very simple proposition.

Posted by Daniel Munz | March 11, 2008 10:13 AM

Let's not dwell on the fact that this memo came to the party late and just be happy it showed up at all.

Also, what Warren Terra said.

Posted by southpaw | March 11, 2008 10:14 AM

southpaw, I love that episode of West Wing!

"You've been...faking it?"

Posted by Daniel Munz | March 11, 2008 10:16 AM

Good to frame Clinton's main high-profile role as a high-profile failure.

Posted by phil | March 11, 2008 10:17 AM

Oh, how dearly I wish Madeline Albright had not been born in Prague.

Posted by Persia | March 11, 2008 10:18 AM

2) This memo , however, accomplishs nothing. Obama needs to put out some TV ads with this info here in Pennsylvania.

Posted by Don Williams | March 11, 2008 10:03 AM

Exactly, and it's a big challenge to distill this into an ad that brings home the point loud and clear. Might even have to enter "3a.m." territory.

Posted by Kurzbein | March 11, 2008 10:20 AM

Where's idiotic to explain the significance of this news?

Posted by Josh E. | March 11, 2008 10:22 AM

It there is anything sexist, I would have thought it was the whole concept of "an office of the first lady". What kind of office is that? No other OECD democracy has anything like it. Being a political spouse shouldn't be a full-time job. Howard Dean's wife tried to say that and got crucified. Now that was sexism.

Posted by Pithlord | March 11, 2008 10:23 AM

this memo is good, but it needs to take the next step and point out that McCain also doesn't pass some mythical "experience benchmark." For all the "experience" he has, he's absolutely dead-on wrong.

WE all know this, but the Dems, from both campaigns, have to continue pointing this out again and again and again. Hopefully it'll be center=stage in the main campaign.

This, along with "straight talking", are supposedly McCain's strengths. Both of them are really really easy to shoot down and deconstruct.

The last thing dems should be doing -- hint hint Hillary -- is reinforcing those claims of strength.

Posted by U.G. | March 11, 2008 10:27 AM

LOL! "Personal and unacceptable attacks?" says one of the esteemed posters here. This memo lists facts. There's nothing personal about it. Personal would be pointing out, as Bill Maher did last Friday on his show, that Hillary's claim to the worst crisis she faced in her life was finding out about Monica Lewinsky mess. And her response in that crisis, according to her, was to "scream and yell at him" and that she could "barely breathe." Hmm. There's so much fodder for going personal with Hillary & Co. that the Hillary-supports do not really want to go there and rehash it.

Posted by SMN | March 11, 2008 10:28 AM

Hillary herself said that the campaign is a job interview where the candidates put their resumes before the American people. And when you lie on your resume? You don't get the job. Obama needs to run an ad in Pa. with the conference call where her advisers were asked to name a single foreign crisis she'd been through. That long pause is devastating.

Posted by NHCt | March 11, 2008 10:31 AM

Wow, the full memo is quite extraordinary and a powerful rebuttal of everything she has claimed along these lines. But will the media pay it any heed at all? Obama should start calling out the media nearly as loudly as she did (but with his characteristic grace and calm).

The media ignored Ferraro's virulently racist comments yesterday. They are just as likely to ignore this memo.

Posted by TA | March 11, 2008 10:31 AM

On foreign policy experience scale of 0-10, HRC is a 4 and Obama is a 1. No way around that.

The memo makes some excellent points about why Hillary is only a 4. Use those, but calling her a "liar" is questionable charge and unnecessary mud slinging. It will ultimately draw further attention to Obama's complete lack of foreign policy experience - even compared to Hillary. Also it will take Obama right down into the gutter.

Better angle is to explain how he will manage foreign policy.

Posted by Undecided | March 11, 2008 10:37 AM

There is no doubt that Hillary Clinton played an important domestic policy role when she was First Lady. It is well known, for example, that she led the failed effort to pass universal health insurance.

Now that's a well-crafted takedown.

Posted by Glenn | March 11, 2008 10:39 AM

On foreign policy experience scale of 0-10, HRC is a 4

Undecided: I'd love to hear more about how you arrived at Hillary being a '4'. Thanks.

Personally I see her as a 1, 2 at best. Drinking tea in foreign lands and touring quaint villages doesn't count.

Posted by Aaron Rodgers | March 11, 2008 10:41 AM

I am a staunch, staunch Obama supporter, and as such, I welcome this memo. I do worry, however, that it walks a fine line between pointing out evident discrepancies between Clinton's claims and her actual record, and disparaging the office of first lady.

There IS no "Office of First Lady". That's the point. It's nothing more than a traditional appellation for the President's wife.

Now, if her husband actually had employed her in his foreign policy apparatus- as he clearly did in his domestic policy apparatus- that would be a different story. What the memo is pointing out is that he didn't.

Posted by Steve LaBonne | March 11, 2008 10:43 AM

On foreign policy experience scale of 0-10, HRC is a 4 and Obama is a 1.

No, Obama is a 4 and HRC is a 1. That sure was easy. What political discourse needs is more numerical scales.

Posted by text | March 11, 2008 10:44 AM

Warren Terra:

That's because it was a parody version. There are losers on this blog who take the time to write comments on my behalf. It's pretty pathetic.

Clearly what Craig is saying in that memo isn't an "unacceptable personal attack."

Although, since he works for Obama now, he has a vested interest in recalling a certain version of events. He's hardly a credible source in this instance.

Posted by Tim K | March 11, 2008 10:45 AM

I do worry, however, that it walks a fine line between pointing out evident discrepancies between Clinton's claims and her actual record, and disparaging the office of first lady.

There is an "office" of first lady?

This memo , however, accomplishes nothing. Obama needs to put out some TV ads with this info here in Pennsylvania.

It's not true that it accomplishes nothing. Matt is posting it. Others in media are reading it, and will then go on to do their own reporting on the theme. You can't do an expensive ad buy for every message you are trying to get out. Most of a politician's message gets out by suggesting lines of investigation and angles to the media, and inducing them to do the work for you. If we get a series of media reports this week on Clinton's lack of real foreign policy experience from her days in the White House - and we have already begun to see them - the memo will have done its work.

Clinton's strong week leading into the Ohio and Texas primaries was not created by a commercial that said "the media are giving me the shaft." It was created by media briefings, stump speeches and memos that asserted the media was giving her the shaft. These assertions were then picked up and amplified 1000-fold when the media took the bait.

Posted by Dan Kervick | March 11, 2008 10:47 AM

He's hardly a credible source in this instance.

Who would be a "credible source", Tim? Lord Trimble, perhaps?

Posted by Tim J | March 11, 2008 10:49 AM

I suppose everyone has already seen this, but I love it.

"Saying that Hillary Clinton has Executive Branch experience is like saying Yoko Ono was a Beatle."

http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2008/3/8/163524/8172/24#c24

Posted by Gary Sugar | March 11, 2008 10:55 AM

Isn't it true, in a literal sense, that she does have more experience than Obama?

I'm not talking about, or justifying even, any sort of mythical CIC test.

Rather, being in the Senate longer, and being a more-political-than-most First Lady for 8 years while Obama was a Community Organizer in Chicago is in fact more experience, perhaps significantly so.

Posted by Andruw | March 11, 2008 10:57 AM

Just to add, after reading many of the comments to this post, many here are clearly being very misogynistic in their comments.

Many insist on totally discounting the experience that comes with politically supporting a person for 26 years, while having one's own legal career and non-profit work. I'm sure many women (particularly of previous generations)would be surprised to learn that experience garnered in steadfast and loyal support of their spouses does not count as experience at all. It doesn't matter Hillary Clinton orchestrated Bill Clinton's 1982 comeback to the governor's mansion along with Dick Morris, or that she led Arkansas task force on educational standards, or chaired the Legal Services Corporation, or that she was a de facto chief strategist through much of his career and key staffer in the White House. None of that matters, we are told, because she was married to Bill. It's all really *his* experience.

This is like the difference between paid and unpaid work. If a man goes to work in a factory 9-5, 5 days a week, that's called work and he's paid for it. If a woman raises three kids at home, does all the house work, plans all the activities, does all the cooking, that's not work and it's worth zero.

This is just the political corollary to that injustice.

Posted by Tim K | March 11, 2008 10:59 AM

Well, Tim K certainly settles my above concerns and may I take this chance to denounce any attempt to make fools of commenters by sticking words in their mouths; it's not like we commenters need the help, after all.

But, to address words I hope really were written by the Tim K, I guess it's true that a source now employed by Obama has an incentive to remember events in a way unflattering to Sen. Clinton. Still, it seems equally true - and perhaps more to the point - that no-one not affiliated with the Clinton campaign remembers her having any role. The examples she points to range from the laughable (a goodwill trip with Sinbad the day after the borders opened was a major diplomatic mission to open the borders) to the tragic (she claims that she wanted intervention in Rwanda, but the Clinton administration was not merely staying out but was actively blocking the UN from even accurately describing the events there).

What Hillary clinton's alleged roles in these events have in common is that they're not documented. No relevant documents have been released. As First Lady, Hillary Clinton had no security clearances, had no national security staff, didn't attend the briefings, and had no apparent relevant responsibilities. She, and Bill, and her fans, didn't mention her involvement with any of these events until late 2007 at the earliest, and they weren't in either Clinton autobiography. The reason people are mocking these claims is that they do not pass the laugh test.

Posted by Warren Terra | March 11, 2008 11:00 AM

His line should be: "Look, we aren't going to win against McCain by comparing resumes with him, and especially not if our resumes aren't entirely based in the facts. We are going to win by offering a clean break from the disastrous Bush-McCain foreign policy of the last 7 years. I can do that. She cannot."

Also, just as she has claimed that his foreign policy experience is just a speech, he should say that hers is just a commercial.

Posted by pjs | March 11, 2008 11:03 AM

Warren:

What I find particularly amusing about this is that no matter how much Obama can denigrate Clinton's experience on foreign policy, no matter how many holes his aides poke in her claims, she still has more experience than he does. In fact, he has zero foreign policy experience. Even in a supporting role, even as an observer, even as a spouse. Zero. His one and only claim to foreign policy experience in a position on the Foreign Relations Committee for one year in which time he has been so busy running for president that he hasn't even done his job and discharged his responsibilities appropriately.

Obama's campaign claims living in foreign countries as a young child is his foreign policy experience. That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard, and makes any of Clinton's claims pale in comparison.

Posted by Tim K | March 11, 2008 11:05 AM

Re Tim K's comment "I'm sure many women (particularly of previous generations)would be surprised to learn that experience garnered in steadfast and loyal support of their spouses does not count as experience at all."
-----------------
Oh, BULLSHIT!! BULLSHIT! BULLSHIT!

How many wives of brain surgeons would claim that they themselves are qualified to crack open skulls??

How many wives of Military officers would claim that they themselves are also qualified to lead men into combat?

BILL CLINTON owes Hillary a great deal for her past support. WE THE PEOPLE owe her nothing.

Hillary's sense of entitlement -- her delusions of grandeur -- and her willingness to lie to the voters are big negatives. As is her willingness to suck up to the factions behind our disasterous war in Iraq.

Posted by Don Williams | March 11, 2008 11:06 AM

Andruw: I see no evidence that Clinton has achieved more in her eight years as a Senator than has Obama in his four.

The claims of experience from being First Lady are more problematic. Certainly Sen. Clinton is closely involved and well acquainted with the complete policy staff of the last Democratic White House, and that's not insignificant. But the claims she often make regarding her experience as First Lady sound a lot more like saying she was a co-president; and none of her claims seem to be documented.

Why must we take her claims of "experience" on faith? Why aren't there compelling tales to tell of what she's experienced, and what she learned? Because the main thing I can see is that she's experienced total ideological partisan dirty war, and she's learned to apply it herself.

Posted by Warren Terra | March 11, 2008 11:07 AM

I have a crucial question about experience:

Does Chelsea get double credit for being the daughter of the president and the daughter of the first lady? Does she have 16 years of experience? 56 years (28x2)? 58 years - counting her time as first embryo? Was she ready on day minus 270? Inquiring minds want to know!

Posted by dialectic08 | March 11, 2008 11:10 AM

"How many wives of brain surgeons would claim that they themselves are qualified to crack open skulls??"

Posted by Don Williams | March 11, 2008 11:06 AM

Dunno about this one, Don. My sense is that this is solid Monsters Inc. experience, and that Hillary has a legitimate claim here. I think we have to be objective, and not dismiss this claim as being fabricated. After all, it's not like claiming to have brought peace to Northern Ireland by receiving a teapot. It can't hurt to be gracious and concede that Hillary has her skull-cracking chops.

Posted by morzer | March 11, 2008 11:17 AM

Don Williams:

Congratulations for another crazed, sexist, foaming-at-the-mouth, irrational anti-Clinton diatribe.

dialetric08:

That's a farce, not a crucial question.

Warren:

Out of curiosity, have you read Carl Bernstein's biography of Hillary Clinton?

Posted by Tim K | March 11, 2008 11:18 AM

Why lookie here, Tim K actually can identify humor! And what exactly is different in Chelsea's claim as First Daughter to Hillary's claim as First Lady/Mom? Hell, I bet Chelsea went on foreign trips with Sinbad too. The only difference is that she hasn't tried to steal the credit for work done by others. You might as well credit Chelsea with her 56 years - it makes as much or little sense as crediting Mom with 35.

Posted by maraschion | March 11, 2008 11:21 AM

In other words, Tim, you can't answer his questions, so you had to resort to namecalling. Here they are again in case you want to have another go, and indeed I'll make it easier to avoid red herrings by reversing the genders for you: How many husbands of brain surgeons would claim that they themselves are qualified to crack open skulls? How many husbands of military officers would claim that they themselves are also qualified to lead men into combat?

Posted by Steve LaBonne | March 11, 2008 11:23 AM

That's dialectic08 to you, Timmy! And would you like to answer the question? Or is it impossible for you to explain why, using the new CLINTON EXPERIENCE CALCULUS former junior president Chelsea should not claim to be as experienced as Mom?

Posted by dialectic08 | March 11, 2008 11:25 AM

If Obama does turn this into a series of negative TV ads (IMHO that would be unwise, but if), I think the theme should be:

"Where does she get off?"

As in . . .
(Open on a train chugging down the tracks)
Hillary claimed she brought peace to Northern Ireland, but the man who won a Nobel Peace Prize for bringing peace to Northern Ireland disagrees . . .

(starts getting slower)
Hillary claims she opened a border in Macedonia, but it was opened before she even got there . . .

(brakes squealing, steam hissing)
Hillary is running for the Democratic nomination by praising Republicans and attacking Democrats on national security. . .

(a station appears, the train slows to a halt)
It's time to start asking . . . Where does Hillary get off?

(fade out)

Posted by southpaw | March 11, 2008 11:25 AM

No, I didn't read either 2007 Hillary Clinton Biography. As I recall, when they came out they were widely panned as being anti-Clinton hit jobs and containing remarkably little that was both new and substantiated.

Are you going to suggest that Bernstein's book has interesting stories about important experiences by Hillary Clinton? Because if it does, I guess that'd be a start, although it would rather boggle my mind that no-one has thought to do much with the stories over the last year.

Posted by Warren Terra | March 11, 2008 11:26 AM

Re Morzer's comment "It can't hurt to be gracious and concede that Hillary has her skull-cracking chops."
---------
I thought she just drilled a small hole in the back and sucked out the medulla oblongata/pineal gland??

Posted by Don Williams | March 11, 2008 11:26 AM

I heard an interview with a Hilary supporter from Mississippi yesterday that gave me some insight into how the "experience" argument goes, at least with one segment of the electorate. The woman interviewed said: "C'mon we all know that Hilary was pretty much President for eight years already." I really think that sentiment is behind a lot of her support from downscale white women. They are married to shitty-ass husbands, who require them to both support the family financially and do the bulk of the domestic labor, and kind of see something similar going on in Hilary's marriage to her shitty-ass husband.

Posted by pjs | March 11, 2008 11:27 AM

Southpaw, brilliant ad, but why call it negative? Isn't it all.. *gasp*.. perfectly true? Or is "true" the new "negative" in Clintonland?

Posted by morzer | March 11, 2008 11:28 AM

Greg Craig is an outstanding name, by the way.

Posted by Mitch Rich | March 11, 2008 11:31 AM

I thought she just drilled a small hole in the back and sucked out the medulla oblongata/pineal gland??

Posted by Don Williams | March 11, 2008 11:26 AM

Don, I wish you'd stop using these Karl Rove ad monstrum attacks. Allow the poor woman some credibility in her monstrous role. Let her crack skulls - it might make her feel better. Think of all the low information voters who need someone to identify with. Please, be nice....

Posted by morzer | March 11, 2008 11:33 AM

Southpaw, brilliant ad, but why call it negative? Isn't it all.. *gasp*.. perfectly true? Or is "true" the new "negative" in Clintonland?

Negative in the sense that it argues against, rather than for, a candidate. But point taken, it is all true.

Posted by southpaw | March 11, 2008 11:33 AM

Your all a buch of loosers!

Posted by Tim K | March 11, 2008 11:37 AM

Tim K, could you parse "your" "buch" and "loosers" for us? I don't speak Clinton.

Posted by morzer | March 11, 2008 11:39 AM

Any foreign policy attacks are going to get turned on Obama in the general election. He should downplay experience and emphasize judgement.

How about saying "GW Bush has as much foreign policy experience as anyone but nobody believes he should get a third term"?

Why do Obama cultists always think he should jump into counterproductive and unwinnable pissing matches? That's what Mark Penn is hoping for.

Obama has NO foreign policy background. He can't win any election on that basis.

Posted by Undecided | March 11, 2008 11:40 AM

Great. We get a bunch of folks trying to live up to the worst stereotypes of Clinton-haters (with all this 'ooh! does the eat brains o just crack skulls?' talk), and then it's capped off with an illiterate and unfunny attempt to spoof Tim K for the second time in the same thread. At least the first Tim K spoof was cleverly written.

Posted by Warren Terra | March 11, 2008 11:41 AM

Undecided, follow me closely here:

Obama argues his case on the basis of judgment

Clinton argues her case on the basis of experience

Now, do you understand the difference between these two cases, or shall we start working through what long words mean for you?

Posted by adamselznick | March 11, 2008 11:42 AM

Warren Terra:

Yes I just finished reading Bernstein's book. It's neither a hit-job nor a puff piece. It's Hillary Clinton: warts and all. It's full of stories and accounts of her role right through Bill's congressional run, campaigns for governor, during his time as governor, his White House run, and her role during his presidency. After reading that I know how ridiculous it is to claim that she has no relevant experience. I think it would be a lot more fair to point out that she has often shown poor political instincts and made plenty of errors. That's a fair criticism and there's evidence for that.

Personally, I prefer public figures who have make mistakes and learned from them. Rather than public figures who haven't been around long enough or put in positions of responsibility in which to make mistakes.

Hillary chaired the Legal Services Corporation, was field director for the Carter campaign in Indiana, chaired Arkansas educational standards task force, led Arkansas efforts in rural health care, led Clinton's health care task force in the White House, and those were just official roles. And one of those she failed at. What has Barack Obama ever led? I can think of one thing .. the Harvard Law Review. That's all I can think of. And she already has that countered by being on the Watergate investigation staff.

Posted by Tim K | March 11, 2008 11:42 AM

Tim K, it is an immense comfort to know that she only failed on the biggest issue she tackled. With that reassurance, I am sure we can all sleep a little easier in our beds.

Posted by maraschion | March 11, 2008 11:45 AM

If observing what happens inside the White House WRT foreign policy counts as experience, then yeah, HRC has experience. But by nearly any other objective measure, she doesn't have any more FP experience than Obama.

It seems to me that in this discussion "experience" is just a proxy for judgment. Judgment - good judgment - has very little to do with experience. Experience may improve one's judgment, but it can't make one's judgment good.

Posted by Kurzbein | March 11, 2008 11:46 AM

How Hillary Nuked Nixon

Carl Limbacher
October 1, 1998

"This is the most fun we've had since Watergate." -- Washington Post managing editor Ben Bradlee, during the Iran-Contra investigation.
OYSTER BAY, N.Y. -- On July 12, Charles McCarry's New York Times op-ed piece was titled, "Bill Clinton's John Dean?" It was a rumination on the similarities between Linda Tripp and the White House counsel who turned on Richard Nixon, thereby setting Watergate's wheels in motion.

As intriguing as the comparison was, the real eye-opener of McCarry's piece came toward the end, when he quoted Henry Ruth, Leon Jaworski's Watergate deputy prosecutor. McCarry recalled Ruth's memo, sent to Jaworski just 10 days after supposed "smoking gun" evidence forced Nixon into ignoble early retirement, which cited 10 areas of Watergate then under criminal investigation.

Ruth informed Jaworski: "None of these matters at the moment rises to the level of our ability to prove even a probable criminal violation by Mr. Nixon."

McCarry followed the Ruth quote with his own observation that the ultimate historical irony here was that Richard Nixon, whom historians have told us for 24 years had been caught dead to rights, may not have needed a pardon after all.

What about the June 23, 1972, "smoking gun" tape where Nixon ordered the CIA to block the FBI's Watergate investigation? Or where Nixon discussed the possibility of paying hush money to the Watergate burglars? Or the so-called enemies list kept by the Nixon White House on reporters hostile to the administration? Apparently, prosecutor Ruth couldn't find any evidence regarding these transgressions that he thought would stand up in court.

The tapes, however, sounded damning enough. And even Nixon, who at first thought those recordings would be exculpatory, realized after he reviewed them that his goose was cooked – politically, if not legally. In July 1974, as the House Judiciary Committee was reviewing the tapes and earmarking Nixon's supposed crimes, two young staffers were assigned by the committee's chief counsel, Jerome Zeifman, to research the protocols for impeachment. John Labovitz and another young lawyer, just 26 years old with the ink barely dry on her Yale law degree, began the arduous task of poring over constitutional archives. Labovitz's partner was Hillary Diane Rodham.

And research done by Labovitz and Rodham became the roadmap for three articles of impeachment reported out of the House Judiciary Committee that promptly destroyed any remaining congressional support for Nixon. Before the full House vote on the articles of impeachment, three senior Republican senators apprised Nixon of the handwriting on the wall. The Nixon presidency ended on Aug. 8, 1974.

The House Judiciary Committee’s former chief counsel, Jerome Zeifman, waited 22 years to unleash his bombshell, which would reveal that the deck was stacked against Nixon by none other than the wife of the man who now faces a similar fate. It was Hillary Clinton who rigged the proceedings against the 37th president, as Zeifman revealed in a little-noticed passage of his 1996 book, "Without Honor: The Impeachment of President Nixon and the Crimes of Camelot."

Zeifman quoted his own 1974 diary, which reports that just four days after Nixon resigned "John Labovitz came to my office and apologized for having participated to some extent to conceal from me the work that was being done. Some months ago, he and Hillary lied intentionally to me and told me there were no drafts of proposed rules of procedure for the [Nixon] impeachment inquiry."

The New York Daily News noticed this earthquake confession, and sought Zeifman's elaboration on the historic subterfuge perpetrated by our current first lady. The Daily News reported:

If the United States was going to topple its own president, rules were important, Zeifman told us Friday. "Suppose we were going to have the World Series next week and suddenly one of the team managers says, 'We want to change the rules to two strikes and you're out.'"

That's basically what [Hillary] Clinton and Labovitz did, Zeifman claims. In other words, they drew up new impeachment protocols to replace those in existence since Jefferson's day -- and then denied it. Congress -- and the country -- would have been completely polarized if it had seemed Nixon was being railroaded out of office with new rules, Zeifman said. (New York Daily News – Feb.12, 1996)

Nixon was likely guilty of the Watergate cover-up. But Ruth's memo to Jaworski shows there really wasn’t any "smoking gun" evidence of it.

And that's likely why Hillary Diane Rodham, who regarded Nixon as "evil," according to Clinton biographer David Maraniss, had to discard impeachment rules in place for two centuries in order to nail her quarry.

Now that America faces its second impeachment crisis in as many generations, it's worth remembering how the rules were bent by partisans committed to destroying a presidency -- when the target was Richard Nixon. And how the media looked the other way when it happened.

Posted by christmaspast | March 11, 2008 11:49 AM

The reason people are mocking these claims is that they do not pass the laugh test.

Posted by Warren Terra | March 11, 2008 11:00 AM

Is this Warren Terra really the same as the pompous git who wrote:

Great. We get a bunch of folks trying to live up to the worst stereotypes of Clinton-haters (with all this 'ooh! does the eat brains o just crack skulls?' talk), and then it's capped off with an illiterate and unfunny attempt to spoof Tim K for the second time in the same thread. At least the first Tim K spoof was cleverly written.

Posted by Warren Terra | March 11, 2008 11:41 AM

Judging by the low literacy of the second post, I'd suggest not.

Posted by Warren Terra | March 11, 2008 11:54 AM

Well, Obama let a voter registration drive in Chicago that's credited with signing up 100,000 voters and helping to transform the politics of the city. He led in the Illinois Legislature to achieve important reforms in the criminal justics system and in legislative ethics, and in the Senate in ethics reform again. His roles as a community organizer were far more significant and strenuous as Hillary Clinton's efforts in the Carter campaign in Indiana (did Carter win Indiana?). And there's rather a difference between getting an appointment to the Watergate staff and being elected by your peers to the leadership of the Harvard Law Review. And Clinton was head of the Legal Services Corporation for what, one year?

More to the point, I'm not really interested in hearing that Bill Clinton appointed Hillary Clinton to a bunch of state boards and commissions. I want to hear what those boards and commissions achieved, and in particular about how difficult it was and how her leadership changed things.

And I want to hear about what Clinton learned. Because she seems to portray this role of inflexibility, apparently because not to do so might imply weakness, but inflexibility can also mean brittleness. Hillary Clinton has never seemed to honestly examine her vote on the AUMF, she makes risible claims that her position on NAFTA are unchanged since it was her husband's singular achievement, she claims to have been a leader on SCHIP when contemporaneous accounts say that she was at best a late convert. Almost every time, with the notable exception of 1994 health care reform, rather than telling us what she learned from her errors she tells us that she was right all along. Even though the record doesn't support this.

Posted by Warren Terra | March 11, 2008 11:57 AM

I wrote somewhat about this in an entry on my new blog the other day:

http://thedramatist.blogspot.com/2008/03/for-sake-of-argument-i-am-going-to-take.html

Posted by Dramatist | March 11, 2008 11:58 AM

This new craig memo came out of chicago. He says anything hillary might have done was meaningless because it suits his alliance with obama to say that. He leaves out every conversation Bill and Hillary ever had, every dinner, every international trip together or apart.
The fantasy that there isn't an office of first lady is negated by the idea that her office is in the west wing during Clinton admin.
The fantasy that she isn't better prepared is negated by Albright's endorsement and statements.
The trip to china for UN women's convention was political fraught and is a spell binding section of her autobiography. Can you tell me about Obama's trip to china? his international experience? Everyone of those 80 trips were accompanied by and helped by state department.
You guys are lying to yourselves when you pretend they had no import.
Half the party votes for her understanding the distinction.
Is it tricky to talk about since the bobby kennedy rules? Yes.
Was she intimately involved every day for 8 years? yes. Why lie about what you know is true?

Posted by Michael C. | March 11, 2008 11:59 AM

As to Ferraro, she's been saying that line for a while. If you have 45 minutes to kill and steel nerves, I strongly recommend checking out her appearance (as well as Pat Schroeder) on Tom Ashbrook's show: http://www.onpointradio.org/shows/2008/02/20080226_a_main.asp

Towards the end, a militant tone is used when considering an Obama candidacy. Basically, that he'll have a LOT of work to do to win back the women's vote. As a humble single secretary, months away from her 50th birthday, I was pretty stunned - almost ashamed to be the same gender. This whole idea that Obama needs to wait in line because Hillary and women are OWED - well, I simply find it ridiculous.

Question for Ferraro: If Obama is the candidate, and the GOP had put up a woman instead of McCain (i.e., Condi), would Ferraro support the GOP candidate for the White House?

Posted by Judy | March 11, 2008 12:02 PM

Well, I guess I've been personally insulted, but I have no idea by whom and little idea for what. I had a couple of typographical errors in the second post quoted, certainly. mea culpa.

For the record, I wrote both pieces of quoted text. Would my assailant (and spoofer) care to explain their problems with me?

Posted by Warren Terra | March 11, 2008 12:03 PM

Re Michael C's comment "He leaves out every conversation Bill and Hillary ever had, every dinner, every international trip together or apart
...Was she intimately involved every day for 8 years? yes. Why lie about what you know is true?"
-----------
A true example of a Hillary partisan drinking the Kool Aid.

Two words to dissolve this Norman Rockwell bullshit:

Monica Lewinsky.

Posted by Don Williams | March 11, 2008 12:03 PM

Undecided beat me to it. Judgment is what counts, and experience is a poor proxy for it. The Dubya comment is perfect!

Oh, and it just so happens that Hillary has already displayed poor judgment by voting for the Iraq War. What a shame.

Posted by Kurzbein | March 11, 2008 12:03 PM

I find it amazing that Clinton, despite being the equivalent of an NFL team at 6-7 with only one game remaining aginst a non-playoff team, has managed to shift the debate.

It's about judgment and courage. Obama has it; Clinton doesn't. Susan Rice is right -- the first time either of them have to face the unexpected call will be something neither is really "ready" for, but both of them will probably handle it fine. But the *content* of that call will be based on any number of decisions that are made before hand. Clinton's decisions -- during the day and at night -- will be a function of the War Party Consensus and political calculations, in some combination. These are failed foreign policy goals and methods.

Obama not only was right consitenty, but he's right not by blind luck but because he thinks things through and has the courage of his convictions. He doesn't take troops out of Afghanistan to go into an unnecessary war that strengthened the hands of Iran and Al Qaeda. As a result, it's more likely that his "3 a.m. call" is a General saying "Mr. President . . . we got him!"

I'll be interesting to see when Chafee's book comes out. He basically says that the Senate Democrats, including Mrs. Clinton, were more afraid of voting against a successful war than voting for a disaster. In other words, their political careers were more important than the country. I thought that at the time, and it's a reason why anyone who voted for the war shouldn't be President. Sure, those who recanted can stay in the Senate because a lot of them are on balance good public servants. But Clinton didn't even do that.

I also saw Obama's 2002 speech in person, and thought, if this guy doesn't get to national office, ain't no justice. All the experience Clinton can have, she'd still not hold a candle to Obama. That still makes her better than any republican, but why not nominate the best?

Posted by David B. | March 11, 2008 12:04 PM

Warren:

Well the Arkansas Educational Standards Commission increased sales taxes to pay for improvements, introduced teacher competency testing, reduced class sizes and reformed the curriculum to emphasize math, science and modern languages. As with all major reforms there is no consensus on the long-term results. The percentage of Arkansas high school graduates that went on to college increased from 38%-50% in 4 years. She made enemies of the teachers unions for introducing competency testing, which was the core element that made the tax increase politically acceptable.

Posted by Tim K | March 11, 2008 12:05 PM

Hillary's foreign policy experience: She gave a speech. Now, if you want to claim everything she's done in her life as experience towards being president, you must count Obama's years as a community organizer, as a civil rights attorney, as a state senator, and as a US Senator. To do otherwise, is ridiculous and racist. (Not necessarily that last part. It's just any time anyone criticizes Hillary, they're suddenly sexist.) Hillary's been around the block, but if she wants to base her argument on experience, McCain will destroy her. At the moment, the only message I'm getting from her side is that it's her turn, so get out of the way. That's not even a 50+1 strategy. That's a blowout loss in November.

Posted by NHCt | March 11, 2008 12:05 PM

Obama argues his case on the basis of judgment

That's the only strategy he has. Try to argue his judgment based on a speech in 2002.

However we have an entire thread where Kool Aid Kids are trying to make a case that Obama's experience is comparable. Dumb. McCain will smack him around mercilessly on experience.

Posted by Undecided | March 11, 2008 12:09 PM

Why use the handle "Undecided," Undecided?

I mean, I really am left handed . . .

Posted by southpaw | March 11, 2008 12:14 PM

Re Undecided's comment " McCain will smack him [Obama] around mercilessly on experience."
-----------
Yes. Since McCain lived through the Great Depression, McCain can argue that he is better qualified to deal with the Second Great Depression being brought on by the fiscal irresponsibility of George W Bush and the Republican Congresses.

Posted by Don Williams | March 11, 2008 12:15 PM

On a foreign policy experience scale of 1-10 where 1 is Bill Clinton in 1992 and 10 is George H.W. Bush in 1992, I'd say Obama is about a 3 and Clinton a 3.5.

To review, Obama studied international relations at Columbia and serves on the Foreign Relations, Veterans' Affairs, and Homeland Security committees in the Senate. Clinton had some ceremonial duties as First Lady and serves on the Armed Services committee. As far as resume lines are concerned, I'd say that is about a wash. But I gave Clinton the extra 1/2 point because she has been in the Senate four years longer.

Generally, I gave them both scores under 5 because there are lots of things they haven't done, such as serving in the military, being an Ambassador to a major country and the U.N., heading up the CIA, being Vice-President, and being President (amazingly all things on Bush's full 10 point resume in 1992), and also due to their relatively short service in the Senate (I would give Biden, for example, a higher score). But as in fact 1992 demonstrates, even in the 3-3.5 range they are ahead of many former Presidents.

Posted by DTM | March 11, 2008 12:15 PM

Undecided, could we gently remind you that the earth is not flat? You seem a little out of sync with reality.

Warren Terra, I think you might be confusing some fairly amusing banter with genuine Hillary hatred. I suspect your spoofer was reacting to your rather precious comments about the skull-cracking. Surely you don't think they took it too seriously?

Posted by zilifant | March 11, 2008 12:17 PM

On a scale of 1 to 10, I give arbitrary and unaccountable scales whose methodology cannot fairly be examined: a fluffy bunny.

I mean, have we learned /nothing/ from O'Hanlon and from Spinal Tap: if you're could to make up an absurd and useless scale, at least have it go to Eleven!

Posted by Warren Terra | March 11, 2008 12:20 PM

These 1-10 scales are somewhat reminiscent of angels on a pinhead style theological exercises - just less empirical.

Posted by morzer | March 11, 2008 12:23 PM

Oh, and in light of McCain's military service and long tenure on the Senate's Armed Services committee, I will give him about a 5.5. I can't justify going much higher, however, largely because he lacks any relevant high-level executive branch experience (he has never been an Ambassador, never head of a relevant agency or Department, and obviously never Vice-President or President).

Posted by DTM | March 11, 2008 12:25 PM

I've seen enough of those commenters that I do not believe they suffer from Clinton Hatred, and I probably should have made that clear.

But - while I can see how it was somewhat funny to go on a tangent from the experience-as-wife-of-a-brain-surgeon meme off into realms of skull cracking, especially with the idiomatic meanings of skull cracking and knocking heads together to get things done, those comments struck me as being similar to genuinely awful allegations some other people mindlessly make against Clinton.

Still, I should have made it clear that I could, in context, see the difference.

Posted by Warren Terra | March 11, 2008 12:26 PM

http://www.irishecho.com/newspaper/story.cfm?id=18626

From folks who were actually there

And more:

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/3/10/235744/616

Posted by Columbia | March 11, 2008 12:26 PM

"Obama studied international relations at Columbia"

Are you serious?

Warren:

It's definitely not all Clinton hatred, but a lot of it is.

Posted by Tim K | March 11, 2008 12:29 PM

"Obama studied international relations at Columbia"

Are you serious?

Warren:

It's definitely not all Clinton hatred, but a lot of it is.

Posted by Tim K | March 11, 2008 12:29 PM

Let us never forget that Clinton did actually receive a teapot in Northern Ireland. If that ain't foreign policy experience, I don't know what is!

Posted by Tim L | March 11, 2008 12:31 PM

Columbia:

George Mitchell called Clinton's role in NI "supportive and helpful" and called her descriptions of her role "accurate."

Posted by Tim K | March 11, 2008 12:33 PM

Just a slight discrepancy between being a major player and being "supportive and helpful" - no? Or is Tom Brady just a supportive and helpful component of the Patriots?

Posted by yazzel | March 11, 2008 12:35 PM

I believe Hillary is now an accomplished second-base man and has won several world series titles after years of experience with the Yankees.

Posted by kolenka | March 11, 2008 12:39 PM

Well, HRC is a little teapot . . .

Posted by David B. | March 11, 2008 12:42 PM

Short and stout...
There's her handle..
There's her spouse....

Posted by Tim L | March 11, 2008 12:45 PM

Short and stout...
There's her handle..
There's her spouse....

Posted by Tim L | March 11, 2008 12:45 PM

George Mitchell called Clinton's role in NI "supportive and helpful" and called her descriptions of her role "accurate."

Quite friendly compared to, "a wee bit silly", huh?

George was playing nice.

Posted by Tim J | March 11, 2008 12:47 PM

spin spin spin spin spin

The Obamabots are like hot wheels.

Posted by Tim K | March 11, 2008 12:50 PM

spin spin spin spin spin

The Obamabots are like hot wheels.

Posted by Tim K | March 11, 2008 12:50 PM

Personally, I find hot wheels more attractive than cold turkey. But feel free to indulge in your own perverse pleasures, Brother Tim K.

Posted by Tim M | March 11, 2008 12:54 PM

TimK,

It's not that Hillary isn't experienced. She's been in the spotlight, we all know her. We know she's "done stuff." What rubs ppl the wrong way is how she uses this "experience" canard as a cudgel, to beat down Obama, as if it axiomatic that her "experience" is superior to his, and we're all idiots if we don't recognize the brilliance and wisdom contained within her "35 years" of experience.

The real questions f