Poll: Who's Best On National Security? Clinton leads all candidates.

[wyldwolf]

When asked to choose among the leading Presidential candidates, 28% of American adults said that they would trust New York Senator Hillary Clinton the most on national security issues. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 20% named former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani.

The survey also found that 15% named Illinois Senator Barack Obama and 11% picked former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson. Failing to reach double digits on this question were Arizona Senator John McCain at 7%, former North Carolina Senator John Edwards at 6%, and former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney at 2%.

Clinton is the clear frontrunner among Democrats seeking the Party nomination. Giuliani and Thompson top the GOP field.

Results had a strong partisan flavor to them—46% of Democrats named Clinton as the candidate they trust most on national security issues. Nineteen percent (19%) named Obama and 10% of Democrats prefer Edwards.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=post&forum=132

[SaveElmer]

1. Was this taken post debate?...nt

[wyldwolf]

2. yep

[durrrty libby]

3. This is a no brainer. She comes across as a tough no nonsense

leader, not someone who would serve tea on the first day like BO

[Dawgs]

4. 28%, that's Bush's base.

Well, she did vote for Bush's war.

[wyldwolf]

7. And that makes Obama's 15% ... what?

[rinsd]

5. Your link is screwed up (nt)

[wyldwolf]

6. so it is. Here is the correct link

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/who_s_best_on_national_security_28_say_clinton_20_giuliani

[rinsd]

9. I thought this was an interesting slice of info

"As for those not affiliated with either major party, 27% named Clinton, 19% picked Giuliani, and 15% prefer Obama. No other candidate reached double digits among the unaffiliateds."

[RaleighNCDUer]

8. just shows that people are going with name recognition, not

credentials.

Biden is the candidate with the strongest national security credentials, and he doesn't get a whisper.

Clinton, OTOH, has NO national security credentials.

[wyldwolf]

10. "Clinton, OTOH, has NO national security credentials."

She rubbed elbows with world leaders for eight years as first lady and currently sits on the Senate Armed Services Committee as well as committees on Emerging Threats and Capabilities, and on Readiness and Management Support.

[RaleighNCDUer]

12. And as well positioned as she is, she still voted for Bush's war,

still believed his propaganda about Saddam/Osama ties, WMDs, emerging nuclear threats, yellowcake, when all of us out here, just keeping up on the news, kept saying "there is no there, there".

Either, she was deceived - making her too dumb to be our president - or she deliberately chose to ignore the evidence for political reasons - making her to Machivellian to be trusted as president.

Being well positioned is only "credentials" if the positioning leads to sound decisions. She got those committee positions NOT to become informed and effective (obviously, because she is neither), but to bolster her political standing in an area where she has no standing.

[wyldwolf]

13. so you're retracting your original statement?

[RaleighNCDUer]

14. Absolutely not.

She has no credentials.

All she has is positions on committees that SHOULD give her credentials - but she obvioulsy did not use her position to get to the truth, which actually works against her using those positions as credentials.

So which is she? Stupid, or a lying Machiavellian?

[wyldwolf]

15. LOL! How are things in the Twilight Zone?

[Tellurian]

19. Hillary has the best credential in the world living with her..

What has her Iraq vote to do with anything...Just more Obama-lite swiftboating!

Oh, and since you're using Biden as your example..He voted for the IWR as well!

Trying to have it both ways, just doesn't cut it!

[RaleighNCDUer]

28. I'm only saying that Biden's credentials are longer and broader

than Hillary's, going back a couple decades. I was not holding him up as a shining example of correct thinking.

Just saying, Hillary's experience as first lady gives her great credentials for being first lady. Her legislative credentials are zip, 1.3 terms as senator - equal to obama, edwards, and gravel. just cause she has the name recognition doesn't mean she has the experience.

On Edit - from his Senate web page

For three decades, Joe Biden has played a pivotal role in shaping U.S. foreign policy. He has become respected at home and abroad for his well-informed, common-sense approach to international relations.

As the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Biden has earned a reputation for working on a bipartisan basis with top Republican colleagues. Senator Richard Lugar, who is currently the top Republican on the committee, has said: "Senator Biden has a very strong commitment to a bipartisan foreign policy and serves as a good example for everyone in Congress. He has a very broad, comprehensive view of the world. He’s a good listener, but he’s also a strong and effective advocate of his position."

[Tellurian]

31. As much as I like Biden..

He's not in the top tier of candidates. It was Hillary that dealt with 9/11 in the State of NY.
Hillary is still helping Fire Fighters getting medical assistance for the aftermath repercussions of 9/11.

Bill is her best credential. Hillary couldn't be in a better place for first hand knowledge of Foreign Relations than her position of marriage to a former president- That factoid trumps all the other candidates, afaic-

[laugle]

43. Best credentials in her

arsenal is still "Billy boy!"

But remember Bill says Hillary is more intelligent than him!!

Hill and Bill = DYNAMIC DUO!!!!!!!!

[jillan]

38. It's unreal, isn't it?

And the amazing thing is, is that people actually believe she has more experience than Biden.

As a die-hard Biden supporter, I don't understand why this is happening. If I was running his campaign,
there are a few public statements that I would be making. About this, and about Obama saying he is better
at foreign relations than any other candidate.

[lojasmo]

11. Eye. Dubbayah. Arrrrgh. EOM

[Forkboy]

16. Obama's comment was stupid.He's barely even middle of the pack on F.P.

Of course,Hillary supposedly had it and still fucked up.

Six in one hand,a half dozen in the other.

[Tom Rinaldo]

17. With Wes Clark not yet in the race, these results don't surprise me

Hillary is skilled at projecting her image of competent toughness. Wes Clark represents a chance for a different Democratic perspecitive on National Security to emerge, both because of his deep expertise and credibility on security matters, but also because of his skill at articulating an alternate Democratic Security template to replace the ones Republicans have sold America for decades now. By the old rules Hillary Clinton comes the closest among Democrats to meeting the publics expectations for what a Commander in Chief should sound like and how s/he should act.

[Tellurian]

18. Wes Clark defended Hillary's position on the debate

He was on Hardball the other night, and defended Hillary's position on not speaking to hostile countries before serious envoys were sent to establish goals, ground rules and some type of mutual agreement before a US president would ever meet with them.

Gen Clark didn't come right out and endorse Hillary, but from what he said, Obama doesn't have a serious enough grasp of the diplomacy involved when a blacklisted nation wants to arrange a meeting with a US president.

[Tom Rinaldo]

21. I missed Clark on Hardball

but even Obama doesn't "defend" an interpretation of his debate remarks that literally suggests he would rush right over to Cuba to sit down with Castro first chance he got. There is a whole lot of posturing going on regarding Obama and Clinton's differences on that "issue", and barely enough substance to even notice where they truly may differ.

[Tellurian]

22. I don't TRUST a presidential candidate's wisdom when he

is willing to meet, without precondition, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea and calling these world leaders "folks" when each and every one of them can be as deadly as a heart attack!

Obama-lite is trying to find a defense for his statement rather than just moving on over Sen Clinton's comment. He's digging his own hole over the thing, when he just should have admitted his strength isn't in foreign affairs.

[RaleighNCDUer]

33. And when, exactly, did he say he would meet with them without

laying a groundwork first?

Saying he said that is just a baldfaced lie.

And Hillary, implying the same thing, is also lying.

All Obama said was that he would promise to meet with them in the first year. Everything else is spin, and you damn well know it.

[Tellurian]

34. yeah, heres your boy...Is that a sneer or what?

gone is the smile....nothing but the "real" Obama!

:puke:

[Tellurian]

35. Apparently, you're too lazy to read the question posed to Obama..

preferring to remain ignorant of material facts:

Obama was asked this question at the 2nd. South Carolina debate:

"In 1982, Anwar Sadat traveled to Israel, a trip that resulted in a peace agreement that has lasted ever since. In the spirit of that type of bold leadership, would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?

The components to the question were 1) meet separately; 2) without precondition; 3) during the first year; 4) In Washington or anywhere else; 5) with leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea. Obama answered the question with “I would."

[RaleighNCDUer]

37. And what's the problem with that?

Just how is "without preconditions" a bad thing?

That doesn't mean there would not be envoy contacts first. That doesn't mean there would not be a discussion of the agenda. In the context of the question - which is in contrast to the way the Bush administration had conducted itself - it means, we are not going to demand that (for instance) Chavez cuts his ties with Fidel before meeting with him, or that N Korea shuts down its reactor before we meet with him.

WTF do you THINK it meant?

That was my reaction when Clinton aswered as she did - WTF do you mean you won't meet without pre-conditions? THAT is Bush diplomacy. To demand concessions about the key talking points BEFORE you talk about the key talking points.

Oh, and BTW, that's not my 'boy'. I'm perfectly capable of mistrusting Hillary without liking Obama.

You might want to rethink calling him 'boy'.

[Tellurian]

40. Hillary's my girl...gotta problem with that?

Here's the text of Obama's response to the question and a link to the transcript:

OBAMA: I would. And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them -- which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration -- is ridiculous.

Don't forget to read the professor's critique

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/07/23/debate.transcript/index.html

[Texas_Kat]

32. You're wrong

Clark has not been on Hardball in the last year or so. You must have been thinking of someone else.

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tellurian]

23. I heard he 's actually having a plaque made in your honor for services rendered..

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rinsd]

26. If only Hillary had a mentor like Joe Lieberman

[SaveElmer]

29. Or Colin Powell...nt

[rinsd]

30. Ya know it pisses me off because I hate that smear by association crap.

But sometimes what's good for the goose.....

[TeamJordan23]

39. Oops, did we forget that Hillary and Leiberman co-sponsored bill to increase military. nm

[rinsd]

42. Wow cosponsoring a bill vs. having a mentor relationship.

They're totally the same thing :eyes:

In fact I believe it was Obama who sought out Lieberman's guidance.

[SaveElmer]

44. A bill supported by John Kerry and many other Democrats...

To reduce the time soldiers had to spend abroad...

But anything for a nice criticism eh?

[rinsd]

45. Team Smear-4-Obama's research skills again fail them

[SaveElmer]

27. An Obama supporter comparing a Democrat to a disgraced Republican...

Gosh, now where have we seen that tactic before...?

[TeamJordan23]

46. A Democrat who supported the disgraced Republican's warplan. nm

[jillan]

24. This is such bullcaca

Please provide me with links of what she has accomplished in the name of Nat'l security.

I'm not asking for her stump talk - I am asking for her actual accomplishments, ya know - the things
that prove she can get things done.

[maximusveritas]

36. Looks like her IWR vote is paying off after all

Maybe she was right. Talking tough and supporting a stupid war may be bad for the country, but it'll get people to think you're responsible and strong on foreign policy.

[TeamJordan23]

41. At the cost of the lives of thousands of americans, Iraqis, children, and billions of money. nm