When Did She Cross The Threshold?

She has gone beyond the pale.  Part of what has become an admittedly successful line of attack for Senator Clinton has been bringing to question Senator Obama’s credentials to serve as Commander in Chief.

There are, rightly, questions that all the candidates need to answer when it comes to serving as the highest ranking member of the Armed Forces, but Clinton crossed the line when she claimed she crossed the threshold of being Commander in Chief.  When in the hell did this happen?

This comes, as I’ve said, after the Clinton campaign has been delivering some pretty successful body blows to Obama regarding National Security. Timed poorly was a quote that has been widely taken out of context by one of Obama’s advisers which claims that “They’re both not ready.”

Of course, put back in context, Susan Rice’s comments made a very valid point that none of the candidates can be said to be ready given that none of them have held the position before.  This is further rebuked in the following comment by Barack Obama:

“I know she talks about visiting 80 countries. It’s not clear, ya know, was she negotiating treaties or agreements or was she handling crises during this period of time? My sense is the answer is no.”

Indeed, this is an argument that Clinton continues to push even though when stacked next to John McCain it’s an obvious loser.  McCain has at least served in the military to back up his CIC creds, while we’re still not exactly sure what gives Hillary the experience necessary.

In fact, that is what I find most bothersome about this claim that Hillary Clinton has crossed the threshold.  When did that happen?  Where was I?

Because here’s the deal, the threshold is pretty damn clear.  You get elected president, and then you cross it.  Now follow me on this one.

-Hillary was not on the ballot in 1992, her husband was, and he won the election.

-Hillary, in her role as first lady, was never issued the necessary security clearance to stand in as Commander in Chief, nor does the Constitution have provisions where the first lady may replace her husband under any circumstances.

-The Senate has no Commander in Chief powers.

So, taking all of this into account, in order for Hillary to really have crossed the threshold, she would have either had to have broken more than a few federal laws and should be put in federal prison for a very long time, or, she’s talking out of her ass.

I’m guessing it’s the latter, but do we really need to make an investigation into whether or not she took control of the situation room at any time during her husband’s presidency?  Is she really not so vetted as she says she is?

Without having actually done the job, Hillary Clinton can make no claims to crossing any thresholds, nor to having experience.  None that are actually truthful anyway.  Thus I think Obama’s argument here is a little stronger; it’s not experience, it’s judgement, and the Iraq and Iran votes alone speak to a lack of judgement on Hillary’s behalf.

Crossed the threshold my ass.

4 Responses to “When Did She Cross The Threshold?”

  1. Angellight says:

    Obama Returned Rezko Money Why Won’t Hillary Return Money to IPA Company acused of sexually harrasing women?

    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.
    From NBC’s Lisa Myers and Jim Popkin

    This Country must stand for something. We cannot let anyone take our Democracy from us be it the Clintons or anyone else. They must follow the Rules and not change game in middle. They know this. They cannot be allowed to Cheat the System for their own aggrandisement.

    As for her superior foreign experience, Hillary did not think it important enough to read the National Intelligence Report and she voted Yes on a Stupid War/Mistate instead of having the intelligence and Judgment to say No, as other Senators did, and stated at the time, we must not invade Iraq who did not bomb us on 911 but instead finish the job in Afghanistan. This makes her qualifying inelligible for the top job as commander-in-chief. Just because she surronds herself with a bunch of generals does not make her qualified or anyone else. They love to stage phony events for the perception to make us think something that is not, is. Masters of Spin & Hype!

    Those of us who care for our Democracy must begin to call CNN, MSNBC, NBC, etc. and ask them to begin to Vet Hillary Clinton and ask the questions they should be asking like why she has not returned the money back to IPA, and about their Camp contacting Canda first in the Naftagate controvery, and to stop the unfair and uneven reporting of just Obama. It is an illusion that the press has been soft on her. They as you know are the Masters of Spin.

  2. I agree. This idea that she’s been fully vetted is ridiculous, and as I was telling Mr. Tedesco last night, she’s paralyzed the media into not reporting against her.

    But if she insists she’s vetted, let’s see how that is. Thanks for the tip on IPA

  3. Ann Moore says:

    Thank you for your commentary, you make a very valid point.
    Something else that needs exposing is the details of the NAFTA memo. Canadian newspapers are running articles asking for an official apology to Sen. Obama.
    Seems as though Clinton lied by saying she had nothing to do with or knew about a “memo” concerning NAFTA, when in reality she sent the memo to the Canadians and their news service “got it wrong” and said it was Obama.

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080306.wnafta07/BNStory/National/home

  4. Thanks Ann, after I get done with what I’m writing now, I’m going to look into this.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Connect with Facebook