Hillary's "3 a.m. call" ad (Part 3--Hillary can't back up her claims.)

This is just sad. However, it truly shows that Hillary is big on bullshit.

I almost never do this, but time is short, and I have more posting to do tonight. Anyhoo, I am going to reprint almost an entire post from another blog.

The blog is The Carpetbagger Report by Steve Benen, and the specific post is entitled "Clinton campaign challenged on the 'tested by crisis' claim."

This was painful to listen to. Following up on the Clinton campaign’s new ad, the one in which the campaign claims that Clinton is “tested and ready to lead in a dangerous world,” the senator’s team hosted a conference call with reporters yesterday to discuss the broader arguments.

Slate’s John Dickerson asked Clinton aides on the call a reasonable and straightforward question: “What foreign policy moment would you point to in Hillary’s career where she’s been tested by crisis?”

Regrettably, the usually loquacious Clinton team sat in stone silence for what seemed like quite a while (I think it was literally seven or eight seconds, which was quite a pregnant pause under the circumstances).

Eventually Mark Penn piped up.

“I think it was a moment of test when she was in China and she stood up and said women’s rights are human rights. That she showed the kind of wisdom that it takes to know when to push, basic elements under difficult circumstances.”

That’s not bad, and Clinton’s remarks in China were terrific, but a) this doesn’t really count as having been “tested by crisis”; and b) Mark Penn has spent the last few months insisting that giving a speech doesn’t really amount to real work.

After whiffing on the question, Clinton aide Lee Feinstein offered a response of his own.

“One of the interesting things is that Sen. Clinton has pretty broad support from the uniformed military, including the endorsement of 27 flag officers. That includes four at the rank of four-star. And this is really based on her work with these officers — a very diverse and esteemed group — through five years on the Senate Armed Services Committee, where she’s had a chance to work with them, some of them very, very closely, and a develop a relationship with them, where she’s earned their trust and respect.”

That, too, is accurate and impressive. But the question was about moments in which Clinton has been tested by crises, a claim from the campaign’s hard-hitting new ad. Endorsements from military officials are important, but they don’t necessarily answer the question.

Matt Yglesias asks, “How could they go forward with that ad without having a good answer to the question on hand?” It’s not an unreasonable question; the campaign probably should have seen this one coming.

For his part, Dickerson, who started all this trouble, wrote about the exchange.

[T]he ad also raises a new question the Clinton campaign has been stressing over the last few days: Who has been tested? The ad asks which candidate has faced the extended pressure of a crisis that might prepare him or her for the far larger pressures and crises he or she will face as president.

I love this question and am glad the Clinton team raised it. The problem is that they’re not so great at answering. When I asked campaign staffers for examples of Clinton being tested by a foreign-policy challenge, their response was pretty weak. As Patrick Healy reported in the New York Times, Hillary Clinton did not have a security clearance during her husband’s administration, so she wasn’t in the room for the brutal moments he faced. Her aides named the slew of uniformed retired military officials who have endorsed her, including several four-star generals. That’s nice, but it’s not proof of her mettle. When you make an ad like this, your case for your woman should be stronger than a list of endorsements.