George Mitchell On Hillary's Experience

(CBS)  Since leaving the Senate in 1995, George Mitchell has been active in law, has been a senior research scholar at Columbia University, and served as a U.S. Special Envoy to Northern Ireland. Most recently, he headed an investigation into performance-enhancing drug use in Major League Baseball.

CBS News anchor Katie Couric interviewed Mitchell on Monday. What follows is a partial transcript:

---

Katie Couric There has been a lot of controversy about Hillary Clinton's foreign policy credentials, and some of the claims she has made. She's talked about being active in the Good Friday Agreement, the peace agreement in Northern Ireland which you of course spearheaded. Can you describe her role in that process?

George Mitchell: She was helpful and supportive, very much involved in the issues, knew all of the delegates. She accompanied President Clinton on each visit he made to Northern Ireland, made several visits of her own. Her greatest focus was on encouraging women in Northern Ireland to get in and stay in the political process, the peace process. And I have said publicly many times and wrote in my book, the role of women in the peace process in Northern Ireland was significant. It did make a difference in the process, so as I said I think it was a helpful and supportive role.

Couric: Her claims to be involved in, you believe are not exaggerated?

Mitchell: Well, I haven't seen the exact words that she has used to describe it. I have gotten a lot of calls from reporters who have told me what she said but I think her statements are generally accurate to the extent that they have been relayed to me.

Couric: The big talk is about Michigan and Florida. Should there be a re-vote in those states, and should those elected delegates count? What is your feeling about this?

Mitchell: I think it's important that the Democratic voters and others in Michigan and Florida have a sense of participation. They are crucial states. Florida, especially, of course, was decisive in recent elections and other elections in American history. It's always played an important role.

Now at the same time, there are rules, they have been challenged. You know, Katie, credentials challenges are not new in Democratic conventions. I have been to every Democratic convention for many years, and not too long ago we used to have a whole number of challenges to which delegation should or shouldn't be seated at the convention. I think we should be able to work it out so that the people of Florida and Michigan can participate because they are absolutely critical in the fall election.

Couric: Would you support the notion of a re-vote in those two states?

Mitchell: Well, that's up to the states and the Democratic National Committee to work out, along with the campaigns, of course. But I think it would be a mistake not to devise some method by which Florida and Michigan can participate in the process in a meaningful way, and I think that's possible with a different range of suggestions made about how to do it. I don't see any reason why the parties - the Democratic National Committee, the candidates and their campaigns and the states themselves - can't work it out.

Couric: There's been some talk that you might be the perfect person to broker this. Would this be something that you would be willing to do?

Mitchell: I don't think it will be necessary for me to get involved in that. They have a lot of smart people working on it. Obviously I would do anything I could to help the Democratic Party and the ultimate nominee in the election in the fall, and I'll be strongly supportive of whoever is nominated under whatever circumstances. I think this is capable of being worked out. I know Howard Dean is focused on devoting a lot of attention to it.

Couric: Would you be willing to go against a candidate who has the most elected delegates and who has won the popular vote, whoever he or she might be?

Mitchell: Well, you say won the popular vote, where? In the congressional district that I live in? In the state that I live in?

Couric: No, I mean nationally.

Mitchell: Well, that's one standard, the person who gets the most popular votes nationally. There's another standard: the person who wins the state that you are located in. In fact, most of the correspondence, the most e-mails from people urging me to vote one way or another urge me to support the candidate who got the most votes in the state that I'm in. So you can measure it any which way. In the end, you have to make your own judgment about who would be the best president and who would be the best candidate for our party.

Couric: What would be your guiding principles as a superdelegate in terms of making a decision?

Mitchell: There are several principles that are implicated and I would consider all of them: Which candidate won the state in which I live? Which candidate won the congressional district in which I live? Which candidate has the most votes nationwide? Which candidate would make the best president? Which candidate would be the best representative of our party? You have to take all of these things into account in making a judgment and it's up to each individual.

It reminds me of when I was in the Senate and the Senate has to advise and consent on presidential nominations. That's what the Constitution says, but it doesn't say what "advise and consent" means - it's up to each senator for himself or herself to calculate which factors are most important to them. I think this is similar. You have a responsibility. You have to make the best judgment you can and you take into account all of the factors. At least in my case, I will take them all into account before making a judgment.

Couric: In the meantime, they are campaigning hard for their particular candidate. Have the candidates themselves called you?

Mitchell: No, nether candidate has called me, but I have gotten calls from representatives on both sides.

Couric: Pretty enthusiastic and assertive calls?

Mitchell: No, I think they were very cordial, logical. They made persuasive cases for their candidate. They applied different standards depending upon the circumstances that they're in. Each one uses the argument best calculated to lead to support for their candidate. I've had a lot of attempts at persuasion.

I cast several thousands of votes in the Senate and on every one of them I had people saying 'Yes,' 'No,' 'Yes,' 'No.' So there's nothing new about this.

Couric: Do you consider yourself a Mainer or a New Yorker now?

Mitchell: It's an interesting question. When the superdelegate process first gained attention, Sen. Obama won the Maine caucuses. And so I got quite a number of letters saying that since he won the Maine caucuses, you are obligated to vote for him. Then the Democratic National Committee informed me that because I live in New York, I'll be a superdelegate from New York. So now I've got a bunch of letters making the opposite argument from the Obama camp and the Clinton camp, assuming the argument that Obama camp had previously made. So as I said, the argument depends on where you are and what happened in your state or congressional district.

Couric: But you are a superdelegate from New York?

Mitchell: That's what I am informed, although the director of the Maine party called me and said they want me to be a superdelegate from Maine! But I don't know if that's possible because I am a resident of New York at this time. My kids go to school here.

[bookout2]

Katie, what you are really asking is: Will you, as a
superdelegate vote for Hilliary even though Obama has
a slight edge in the delegates?
You didn''t get your answer did you?
Hey, Katie he answered every question about Hilliary''s
experience overseas and believed she knew what she
was doing. You are just trying to knock holes in
Michell''s answers. TRICK QUESTIONS! Mitchell is just
too smart for you Katie.
If it does come down to the superdelegates, I hope
and pray Hilliary will win. Why?,because Obama
doesn''t have a clue.
Again, all the news outlets are pushing Obama, because
all the CEOs are either black or jewish. They don''t
care if he is qualified or not. They just want a
black president...period.
If that happens, as much as I hate George Bush and
John McCain I will vote for John McCain. If the
Democrats win a 60% majority in the house and senate
it won''t make any deferance anyway. They can role
back the tax breaks for the rich and get us out of
this war. Hey, wait a minute...isn''t that what
Hilliary wants to do anyway.
YOU GO HILLIARY! A lot of rich people who made a
fortune in the medical care field would be squirming.
Everybody would have medical care. Close the border
at Mexico. And, we would have a good honest woman
president, who cares and is very, very qualified.
YOU GO HILLIARY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[laurenbrillante]

Thanks for the article because Hillary''s campaign has utterly disgusted me and made me lose all respect for her. This at least reminds me that she has done some good things even if she is presently convincing me that she absolutely does not deserve to president. I won''t vote for her on any ticket but at least I can try to see some good in her. She is making that very hard to do. But this hardly qualifies as ''experience'' that makes her a better candidate for commander and chief. I agree that first and foremost it takes good judgement. Whatever Senator Clinton has done in the past, she has demonstrated very poor judgement on Iraq and in her campaign. The fact that she did not at least strongly rebuke Geraldine Ferraro''s racist remarks to me is testament to the fact that she will take her votes any way she can get them. Anything goes with Hilary Clinton and that''s not what I want in a president.
I trust Senator Obama. He is a brilliant man with inetegrity and natural leadership skills.
We need serious change for politics as usual and Washington as usual and Clinton demonstrates exactly what we need toget away from.
Obama/Edwards ''08

I am very grateful that Senator Obama is running for president and I am hoping, praying, and willing to do all that I can to help him become the next president of our country.

[dusti1993]

WISH PEOPLE WOULD USE THEIR GOD GIVEN BRAINS AND NOT FOLLOW OTHERS LIKE A HERD OF LOST SHEEP.

HISTORY WILL PROVE ME RIGH;BET MY LIFE ON IT.SENATOR CLINTON IS THE BEST PERSON FOR THE OVAL OFFICE.

[sixknights1]

Does anyone know that when Hillary was campaigning for the New York Senate that she used an AIR FORCE C9 A or C-20 to go back and forth from New York to Washington this was ROUTINE for her. Ummm it cost over $3,000 an hour to run the C9A and over $3,500. to run the C-20. Hillary made atleast 70 solo trips in this capasity. That''s just the tip of the iceberg. Don''t think for one minute that she has any real knowledge of running our government - it was done by military aids. No more Clinton''s in the White House Thank you. I''ve read about too many of their hijinks.

[libra127]

Helped peace in Ireland. HA! Rubbish, spin!

Posted by DemWatcher at 07:37 PM : Mar 11, 2008

Well, I guess the Irish politicians who were involved in the peace process probably know a wee bit more than you do about the role Hillary played. Why don''t you look and see and educate yourself, rather than just relying on prejudice ? You''d look like less of a fool on these boards.

[libra127]

The woman and her husband did some horrible things. Google Clinton Scandals and see what you come up with.

Posted by berthaw51 at 02:39 PM : Mar 11, 2008

You really should not believe everything you read on the Web, bertha. Perhaps you are very young and did not live through the period in the 1990''s when Ken Starr and his gang spent YEARS and tens of MILLIONS of taxpayer dollars investigating these so-called scandals the neocons claimed the Clintons were guilty of. After tremendous efforts to find some dirt on the Clintons that would stick, all they were able to come up with were Bill Clinton''s intern "activities" and the lie he told about it. NONE of the other so-called scandals resulted in ANY evidence against the Clintons. There is a contingent of right-wing Hillary-haters out there that want you to nonetheless believe that their accusations against the Clintons have been proven. They have NOT been proven. If there was a case to made, Ken Starr and his cronies would have made it long ago. Do not believe the trash that you read on the Web.

[remco82]

Why don''t we begin fighting the War on Terror here at home by securing our ports and borders? Not ONE of those 9/11 hijackers was Iraqi, but Bush used that attack as a pretext to invade Iraq. He had that very thing in mind before he became President, and 9/11 gave him an excuse to do it. There was no Al Qaeda in Iraq until American forces occupied the country. Are we going to annex Iraq, make it the 51st state, a colony, an amusement park, or what? To modify a line from Paul McCartney, "Give Iraq back to the Iraqis!"

[berthaw51]

Who really cares what Hillary did in Ireland. The woman and her husband did some horrible things. Google Clinton Scandals and see what you come up with.
also go to the Library of Congress Gov website and you can get record. Once you have read all that stuff then make a case. Just today McCain and his lobbyist were successful in getting a aircraft contract awarded to a french company. If he gets in office Boeing may soon have to close it doors. You do the math, what candidate does that leave. Oh, incidently Morrison has good reason to dislike the Clinton machine. I repeat Google Clinton scandals and just be prepared to read for at least eight hours. L''OL

[libra127]

Senator Clinton has said, "I helped to bring peace to Northern Ireland."

Posted by LaColombe at 01:34 PM : Mar 11, 2008

I suggest you do your own research and listen to what IRISH leaders involved in the peace process say about HRC''s role, rather than give undeserved credence to the lies and slander put out by Hillary-hater D_ick Morris.

[libra127]

(contd) - "Morris and McGann mention a few of the people Senator Clinton met on her visits to Ireland and scoff at the importance of those meetings."
They "do not carry a single quote from any leader in Ireland on Senator Clinton''s contribution to the solution of the Irish conflict. Nor do they carry a quote from Senator Mitchell. I challenge them to find one political leader, of any significance in Ireland, who does not agree that Senator Clinton''''s involvement with the women of Northern Ireland, and her advocacy for children damaged by the conflict, played a crucial role in bringing about the Good Friday Agreement". (reference: The Irish Echo online, March 5-11, 2008).

Part 5