That is easily the best and most substantial post in support of Hillary Clinton on this site. Usually it's just banal repetition of her campaign slogans ("She's ready to lead! She's a fighter with experience! Hey, kids, we can put on a show in my Dad's barn!), a cut'n'paste of Wolfson's latest memo, and a few silly insults of Barack Obama (see the first paragraph of this diary.... virtually the only original material in it).

If you haven't done a diary about this, you should. I've been saying for quite a while, Hillary Clinton may be my second choice in the Democratic primary, but she deserves far better support than she's getting, from Penn and Wolfson down to posters on this site.

Thank you, 07rescue for your service. Maybe you would grace us with a diary that talks further about your comment here? I hope so.

Great example 07rescue!!!!

And something that is not widely known, because the media doesn't like to pass on positive Hillary information.

Great response, 07rescue.

Now I would ask kraant: How about telling us about a crisis Obama has handled?

Dear 07rescue,

I am an Obama supporter, but I too am glad to hear your praise of Hillary. I think we can all agree that political discourse tends to paint people with a single-color brush, which obscures the truth that politicians are people, too, with multifaceted talents, motivations, and accomplishments. I have no doubt that Hillary is both a compassionate person and an gifted manager/doer, as you have aptly pointed out in her 9-11 support of early responders. I too think she would bring a level of competence to the White House that would be leagues beyond Bush-Cheney.  However, let's not confuse her compassionate heart or managerial prowess with the "Ready on Day 1" or "3am Phone Call" arguments, for they are completely different. In the case of the latter, the issues are judgment, character, and leadership style. This is where millions of people are casting their vote for Obama instead, because we see Hillary lacking critical ingredients in these areas.

ON JUDGMENT
*    Much has already been written on her vote to authorize the use of the military force in Iraq -- a vote she has only recently claimed to regret. She admits to not reading the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq before her vote. For this action, nearly 4,000 of our countrymen are dead, and upwards of 100,000 Iraqis have perished, with millions more displaced, and all for what? Many like Obama clearly saw the writing on the wall before the war started and many tried to tell our elected representatives what a terrible quagmire this would be.
*    More recently, she voted against the banning of cluster munitions in areas of dense civilian population. Why? Probably to keep looking as if she is "tough on terror" instead of doing the right thing. (This reflect both on judgment and character.)
*     During Bill Clinton's presidency, time after time Hillary made terrible recommendations for various posts such as Attorney General - this is all a matter of public record.
*    In her campaign for president, her judgment on who to hire and listen to has been seriously flawed and may now cost her the presidency.
*    Despite her arguments against NAFTA, the record shows that until recently she was a strong supporter of it.
*    But it is has been her own judgment to go negative on Obama and nit-pick things like the plagiarism claim that may have turned many against her as well.
*    Her continual changing of message has muddled her campaign, too, as it appears that she really doesn't know what she stands for (or somehow lacks the ability to communicate it effectively) and so she has come across as more anti-Obama than pro-anything.
POINT: when the going gets touch, Hillary makes the wrong choices, including, importantly, choosing the wrong people.

ON CHARACTER:
Hillary presents a fractured picture when it comes to character. On the one hand, she seems to have the best intentions to fight for democratic principles and family values -- her work on SChip is just one example. But her "win-at-all-costs" attitude has turned many people off.
*    When she circulated patently false and misleading information about Obama's record supporting women's right to choose just before the NH primaries, she was knowingly lying in order to win. She even enlisted a group of female legislators to sign on to the anti-Obama rhetoric, a group that now admits to being manipulated by her. A Chicago-based leader of NOW publicly denounced the tactic as unworthy of a presidential contender, and switched her vote to Obama.
*    Many feminists who once supported Hillary are similarly reacting to her voting record and her negative tactics.
*    Her campaign to seat FL and MI delegates (after she agreed not to) is widely seen as a absurd power-grab. Her "victory celebration" in FL itself left many scratching their heads about her character and mental competence.
*    Her kitchen-sink attacks on Obama are bringing her more disdain, in part because she continues to misrepresent his positions and is increasing playing on fears to get votes, and in part because she doesn't understand the nature of the Obama campaign to change the way government works, thus making her a kind of "anti-Hope" spokesperson, further alienating many and insinuating that Obama supporters are deluded. No, actually, we see pretty clearly: character assassination, smear campaigns, and irrational arguments are part of the "old politics" that we are wanting to leave behind. We expected more from Hillary than to try to lift herself up by putting others down. Bill Clinton has only reinforced the perception with his callous comments.
*    Her dirty campaign and voter-suppression tactics in New Hampshire, Nevada and Iowa are another example of flawed character.
*    Her unwillingness to publish her Clinton-era documents or her tax returns is another.
*    Her huge contributions from the military-industrial and health care industries are another (together with her unwillingness to repudiate at least the idea of lobbyist money and influence).
*    Simply her willingness to let the likes of Penn and Wolfson to so control her campaign shows her lack of both character and judgment.
*    I could go on and on, but you get the...
POINT: Hillary does not live up to the values of fairness, truthfulness, transparency, or integrity that we need in our next president.

ON LEADERSHIP STYLE:
*    It may have been Hillary's secretive divide-and-conquer tactics in the failed Health Care initiative during Bill Clinton's presidency that helped to fuel the Republican comeback that hobbled his second term. But it is her top-down, political strong-arming approach that is the hallmark of old politics that is losing her the election.
*    She fails to grasp how her own actions are only reinforcing the kind of leadership that has typified Washington for so many decades. Closed door, back-room deal-making and negative, aggressive tactics are the hallmarks of the old-style government of non-transparent decision-making. Obama has taken a firm stand on changing all of this and instituting a people's government where transparency is his centerpiece (see, for example, http://www.barackobama.com/issues/techno logy/#transparent-democracy). Obama passed the most comprehensive ethics reform legislation in the U.S. Senate since Watergate.
*    Hillary fails to understand that before you can institute change, you have to win people's hearts AND minds. She has singularly failed to do this, most especially in this campaign. And while both Hillary and Barack show the ability to reach across the aisle, Barack has a better record of building coalitions and his very style and approach is more bipartisan. I've seen very few arguments that claim Hillary is viewed this way, and fewer legislative accomplishments, including fewer bill co-sponsors.
POINT: Hillary, while a competent manager, has a more partisan, top-down, and less consensus-building leadership style that is the hallmark of the "old politics" that so many want to see changed.

Finally, on the "THE 3AM PHONE CALL" issue:
Let's get real ¬¬¬¬-- no president is going to be making split-second decisions on matters of national or international importance in isolation. His or her staff, cabinet, etc. will all be part of any response to a serious crisis. If that is so, then much will depend on the people who will be chosen to surround the next president. If we assume for the moment that competent people are chosen by both camps (and even that is debatable, since Hillary's current foreign policy advisers have largely been hawkish on the Iraq war), that leaves us only with... judgment, character, and leadership style, in order to make our assessment of either candidate's quality of response to a crisis. For many of us who support Obama, we see a more authentic, transparent style; more tempered, considered judgment; and an ability to listen to others, even if he does not agree, leading to a more rational consensus before committing our national resources or fellow citizens' lives.

In summation, HILLARY IS NOT READY TO LEAD ON DAY 1: Her judgment, character, and leadership style are not adequate for leading this country in the direction many of us believe we should go. For all of her gifts, she has time and again failed in her judgment, failed to take strong, unpopular stands, and shown character flaws that should cause us to reconsider her fitness for the highest office in the land. But make no mistake, Hillary still has a vital role to play in the Senate, and will continue to make positive contributions to the well-being of our country for many years to come. Do Obama supporters therefore think he is a "perfect" candidate? No, he has flaws, too, and yes, he is less well known than Hillary and other contenders that have since dropped out of the race. But let's recall that Bill Clinton was largely unknown when at 46 years old he took the reins of this country and helped navigate it into saner, healthier waters. Let's give Obama the same chance.

I just want to add to the commenters who have thanked you for coming forward and sharing your very personal experience! And thank you sincerely as well for your brave service as a first responder!

I knew Hillary was there, but those of us not there have no comprehension of what actually was happening on the ground.  What I think we can all attest to is that Rudy certainly got a lot of positive press coverage from being there.  And you know, I think you also used a key word in talking about how Hillary was there "quietly" doing what she was doing.  I think that's one quality that has allowed so many to overlook her vast contributions to our country--because she's simply been quietly accomplishing so much, but not getting a commensurate level of press for those accomplishments. (And I would further add this is a common characteristic among accomplished women I know--women are generally known for just rolling up their sleeves and getting the job done, but often without fanfare. And I think this epitomizes Hillary.  For every speech in China about Human Rights and Women's Rights--I'm sure there are a dozen other accomplishments we never hear about and don't know about until we go digging.  And even sometimes with digging, can't really find easily.) Anything we can do to bring such instances to light would undoubtedly help her now!  Thank you again!  (And I'll also add--although new to this site myself, I'd second those who've suggested you begin a diary to share of your important and enlightening insight!)

You gotta ask, did he really say "Bomb Pakistan" while running for president?

No. He said he would not allow Pakistan to protect Osama bin Laden. Remember him?

Though your recitation of talking points from the McCain campaign is, once again, revealing. I don't think you quite get what's going on in the ME. But then, neither does your candidate, John McCain.

I don't get it...is that supposed to be an attack? Of course he was in the state house...I guess we can add "state legislatures" to the list of meaningless things as defined by the Hillary campaign. And you guys wonder why your brand of campaigning has led to the dissolution of the grassroots across the country.

Amen Alegre, great diary. If Mr. All Knowing Obama was so prescient, why the praise of Bush's nomination of Rumsfeld? Why didn't he know his financier and buddy Rezko was a slumlord?
Did he know his own constituents, many of them  poor were freezing, without heat during a brutal Chicago winter?

The only reason Saddam let the UN inspectors back in was the threat of force.

It wasn't Hillary who pulled the inspectors out of Iraq.

From Col. Pat Lang, USA, RET. a bona fide heavyweight with serious creds - a former Green Beret, who was in charge of intel in the ME for the DIA. He also brought and taught Arabic and ME Studies to West Point. And no one has done more to discredit the neocons than he.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._Patrick_ Lang

From Drinking the Koolaid, 2004
-excerpt-

First, there was the consistent refusal to provide witnesses and information to the U.S. Senate, especially regarding the projected costs of the war and the lack of opportunities to question key players such as General Jay Garner, who was appointed by the Defense Department to be the first head of the U.S. provisional authority in Iraq. There was also the subtle hiding of the objections of the Department of Energy and the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) in the NIE of October 2002. One congressional source explained that the classified NIE was made available in its entirety to only a select few members of Congress. There were verbal briefings and an elaborate process to access the document in a secure location. But it was never clear that the 27-page unclassified version that was available to every office was missing any crucial information.

There were also false statements to Congress about providing the U.N. inspectors all the intelligence that might have helped them locate the Iraqi WMD and programs. Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan has accused the administration, and especially CIA Director Tenet, of withholding information because "the truth" -- that the United States had withheld the locations of 21 high- and middle-priority sites -- might have slowed down the drive for war. The truth might have convinced Congress to take action to delay military action until the inspections were completed.

The March 7, 2003, appearance by the chairmen of UNMOVIC (Hans Blix) and the IAEA (Mohamed ElBaradei) before the U.N. Security Council was a disaster for the neoconservatives. The Iraqis and Saddam Hussein had "accelerated" cooperation with the United Nations, said Dr. Blix. Blix told the Council that Iraq had made a major concession: they had agreed to allow the destruction of the Al Samoud ballistic missiles. "We are not watching the breaking of toothpicks," Blix said. "Lethal weapons are being destroyed. . . . The destruction undertaken constitutes a substantial measure of disarmament -- indeed, the first since the middle of the 1990s."

http://www.mepc.org/journal_vol11/0406_l ang.asp

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~

The ten al Samouds that were destroyed in Feb. of 2003  - which were in violation of UN Resolutions were upwards of a million dollars apiece. And since they were manufactured during sanctions, their cost was considerbly more to Saddam.
(Being much more difficult during sanctions to secure the materiels and maufacture them.)

Blix, ElBaradei and the rest of the UN inspectors would not have been allowed back into Iraq without the threat of force. Simple. The mission was of disarming Saddam of WMD's achieved.

Again from PL

"Blix came down hard on the Iraqis, and we actually were in the process of destroying all these Al Samoud missiles," says Greg Thielman, the former head of the WMD section of INR. "As soon as the Iraqis agreed to do that, I sighed a big sigh of relief. I thought, the U.N. inspectors are working; we've stared Saddam down; we've forced him to do what he desperately didn't want to do, in that area of activity that was of most concern to us." Thielman believes that the Al Samoud incident shows that the administration was so intent on war that this compliance with the inspections "made no difference."

But it was after the next presentation, by IAEA chairman Mohammed ElBaradei, that "all hell broke loose" in Washington. ElBaradei, in his statement, sank the U.S. intelligence community's prestigious NIE, President Bush's State of the Union address, and Colin Powell's February 5 address to the U.N. Security Council with one blow. ElBaradei was calm in what he had to say: "Based on thorough analysis, the IAEA has concluded, with the concurrence of outside experts, that these documents, which form the basis for reports of recent uranium transactions between Iraq and Niger are, in fact, not authentic." The Niger yellowcake documents were forgeries. Then, ElBaradei told the press that an IAEA staff member had, in fact, used the common search engine Google to determine, within hours, that the Niger documents, which had been passed on to the U.S. embassy in Rome through an anonymous source, were fakes! Members of Congress then began to grumble. In light of the contradictions, a bill was introduced demanding that the administration disclose the intelligence reports that were the basis for the statements made by Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Powell about the Iraqi WMD threat. It was still locked in committee when the war began.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~
IT WAS Bush who pulled the weapons inspectors, despite El Baradei speaking to the UNSecurity Council,and the whole world on  Mar. 7, 2003. He blew the 2002 NIE out of the water.

"In conclusion, I am able to report today that, in the area of nuclear weapons -- the most lethal weapons of mass destruction -- inspections in Iraq are moving forward. One, there is no indication of resumed nuclear activities in those buildings that were identified through the use of satellite imagery as being reconstructed or newly erected since 1998, nor any indication of nuclear-related activities at any inspected sites. Second, there is no indication that Iraq has attempted to import uranium since 1990. Third, there is no indication that Iraq has attempted to import aluminum tubes for use in centrifuge enrichment.

Moreover, even had Iraq pursued such a plan, it would have encountered practical difficulties in manufacturing centrifuges out of the aluminum tubes in question. Fourth, ... there is no indication to date that Iraq imported magnets for use in a centrifuge enrichment programme.

After three months of intrusive inspections, we have to date found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapons programme in Iraq. . . . I should note that, in the past three weeks, possibly as a result of ever-increasing pressure by the international community, Iraq has been forthcoming in its co-operation, particularly with regard to the conduct of private interviews and in making available evidence that contributes to the resolution of matters of IAEA concern."

A few days later, Bush pulled the inspectors.

On Mar. 16, 2003 Cheney went on MTP with Russert and did his best to discredit ElBaradei.
The following day the bombing began.

When the bus is already in the ditch, the situation is different. You're comparing apples to oranges.

I've noticed that non of you have anything substantial, like why Obama would be the one who you would want in a crisis situation, to say.  The problem with Obamaniacs is that they spam with empty comments, basically to interupt and take up space.  Your kind of comments do nothing to make people think Obama is preferable.

"Hey, I was right about the Iraq War myself in 2002, right down to what was going to happen.  I guess I show the "judgement" to be president."

GREAT COMMENT!  

Me too! Who woulda thunk it? Of course, I was fighting cancer at the time, and wasn't able to do much else besides watch cable and surf the net. Time was a luxury that I had then, but a lot of people working every day didn't. Most of what they knew going into Iraq was the mindless repetition by the MSM about WMD's and mushroom clouds, and George Bush's lie about Saddam Hussein wouldn't let the inspectors in. They know now that they got fooled, but I'm not sure it's a good idea to rub it in their face.

"National security is not just a "meme".  It actually has substance and significance to those who make true sacrifices for it or see the genuine need for it."

Thanks for a voice of sanity on this discussion, the people who bleed over the policy decisions of our government thank you very much.

I simply cannot believe people will elect someone with zero appropriate qualifications to competently manage the office of the presidency. It is incomprehensible to me that they will be so casual and blase' about other people's lives. I guess for me it does get personal, because if Obama is elected, my life and so many others' will be placed at risk for his incompetence.

WHAT?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!? Of course I meant it as a compliment! I adore alegre. What's up with your questioning of my intentions?