This past week, specifically since Tuesday, I've been riled up against Hillary Clinton's claims of experience and fairytale predictions of how she'll better win a general election. Never have I been so repulsed by a campaign's spin as I'm by HRC's.
[Foreign policy points taken from the Chicago Tribune, The Telegraph, and Dailykos.com's Maineiac]
First, I'll discuss her claim that she is oh so experienced with foreign policy.
CLAIM: Taken from her official campaign website: "As First Lady, she helped pass the Family and Medical Leave Act."
FACT: It would seem like HRC worked rigorously and had a significant contribution to get the FMLA into law. HOWEVER, Bill Clinton was inaugurated on 1/20/1993, and the FMLA was signed sixteen days later on 2/5/1993. At face value it seems improbable Hillary or Bill had anything to do with the FMLA. It is actually the work of Chris Dodd (great 2008 candidate, by the way) in 1986, 7 years before Bill signed it [not worked on it, only signed it]. Bill had nothing to do with the proposal other than not vetoing it like Reagan and Bush before him. The FMLA was not worked on by HRC or passed by HRC or worked by BC. It was first envisioned by Chris Dodd, but the Hillary campaign would make you think "As First Lady, she helped pass the Family and Medical Leave Act." Thought I'd copy and paste it for emphasis.
Hillary remembers her trip to Bosnia in 1996 fondly where she "Negotiated open borders to let fleeing refugees into safety from Kosovo." She forgot to mention it was her, Sheryl Crow, and comedian SINBAD who "negotiated open borders to let fleeing refugees into safety from Kosovo." 
CLAIM: She played an integral part in the Northern Ireland Peace Accords.
FACT: She had tea with a group of women on one occasion. In fact,
"negotiators from the parties that helped broker the Good Friday Agreement in 1998 told The Daily Telegraph that her role was peripheral and that she played no part in the gruelling political talks over the years." [link].
In that link can also be found this quote from Steven King, a negotiator with Lord Trimble’s Ulster Unionist Party.
"She was invited along to some pre-arranged meetings but I don’t think she exactly brought anybody together that hadn’t been brought together already...[she] was a cheerleader for the Irish republican side of the argument."
CLAIM: She influenced Bill to coalesce a military effort to fight the genocide in Rwanda.
FACT: This occurrence is inexplicably absent in the memoirs of not just Bill Clinton and Madeleine Albright but HRC's as well.
Hillary's claim for foreign policy and executive experience has been predicacted on the notion and "position" she held from 1993-2001 as, uhm, FIRST LADY. Her visits to those 80 some odd countries she brags about consisted of speeches, ceremonies and dinners. All things someone like Laura Bush does -- so is there going to be a Laura Bush/Lynn Cheney 2012 ticket? This is not at all a sexist remark. It is not enough to claim your experience and competence by stating you were married to a President. That would've made someone like Marilyn Monroe able to run for president, or Monica Lewinsky.
The simple fact about senators and presidential candidates is, and I quote the Chicago Tribute:
"Indeed, Obama doesn't have much in the way of experience managing foreign crises, nor does Sen. John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, for that matter. In fact, it is rare for any president to have that kind of experience before coming into office."
HRC's saving grace that causes any inkling that maybe she did have an influence would be the private counsel with her husband....that can't be documented or proved.
The irony is, most of her visits that qualify as foreign experience are, ha, based on one speech she makes during her trips. And she accuses of Obama to be running on one speech he made in 2004. But to give credit to where credit is due, HRC is obviously a little more savvy in the political arena than Laura Bush, but think about it. She has no real and verifiable executive experience (closest being: wife to president and her position on WalMart that she happened to remove from her biography) and she's a senator just beginning her second term.
FACT: Barack Obama has more years serving in public office than Hillary does, did you know that?
ALSO FACT: Mr. Obama did not do much in the senate, partly due to his own naivety and the simple fact you can not do much in the senate. However read this and you'll see he should take credit for co-sponsering, authoring many many progressive bills. Hillary has done the same but more often then not her proposals would not be co-sponsered by anyone other senate members.
CLAIM: Part of the HRC spin as of late has been to showcase her majesty as the tough (code for dirty) candidate while Obama is the secretive candidate. Isn't that the pot calling the kettle black. This is the lady and her campaign who accused Barack Obama of negating his promise to renegotiate NAFTA by meeting with the Canadians. Instead, the HRC camp quoted Obama as saying what he said was for political positioning.
FACT: A memo released by the Canadians stated it was indeed HRC who met with them and whom also told the Canadians to take her recent position on NAFTA "as a grain of salt." and she'd not try to do anything to NAFTA if she were president. A full memo released by the Canadians also showed and reiterated what Barack Obama has been saying all throughout the last few weeks. Which is, he would not opt out of NAFTA if we could reform labor standards and environmental standards. All of which are right in the memo. There is some parts to the memo that the Obama folks are calling foul on -- but overall it is HRC who was the bold faced liar, do what you can to win bitch.
My hero, Keith Olbermann took Hillary to town on this specific issue on his show Countdown with Keith Olbermann. View the segment on this cover-up.
Tsk tsk. Hopefully MSNBC and other mainstream news outlets takes this and runs with it.
"Why on earth are you ranking John McCain ahead of any Democrat"
What's been especially ridiculous to me is HRC's continuous remarks that Barack Obama should be considered the third choice, behind both HRC and John McCrazy. Now as it stands now, Mr. Obama has a far likelier chance of grabbing the Democratic nomination.. So what has Hillary done? She's bloodied her own comrade in the utterly selfish desire to be president.
Another Keith clip
CLAIM: She can fair better than Obama in the general election and win more democratic stronghold states.
COMMON SENSE: The democratic base of the working class will not sit out an election because of Hillary not being on the ticket.
FACT: A recent SurveyUSA 50 state poll shows Barack beating John McCain by a larger margin of electoral votes than Hillary Clinton beating John McCain.
From that it clearly seems Barack would run a 50-state campaign while Hillary seems focused on the typical coastal, big state approach...that's not really change now is it?
Now, I subscribe to the belief anyone who runs for President typically has some sort of fuck upped-ness and overachieving aspect to their personality. But such a remark not only makes her seem like a traitor, but of course greater diminishes the chance of a Democratic win in November. This is a women who does not care about her party but simply a title she feels entitled to. I also subscribe to the idea that the single reason she has not divorced or separated the former President is purely and unequivocally for political reasons. The same can be said for Barack Obama -- that he used his 2004 convention speech as a launching pad. I'm fully aware. But, when it comes down to authenticity, their work, their judgement, their objective -- Hillary fails.
Oh and there is nothing wrong with calling Hillary a monster....... We all were thinking it and saying it anyway. And for the hell of it...
CLAIM: Barack Obama is a muslim.
FACT: No, Hillary he is not and you can take my word for it, doofus.