George Mitchell On Hillary's Experience

Katie Couric Interviews Former Senator On N. Ireland, Re-Votes, And the Courting Of Superdelegates

(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

[libra127]

HRC visited N. Ireland 6 times between 1995 and 2000, twice on her own. "A precise accounting of Clinton''s visits to Ireland and her work for Irish peace forms the basis for a book being published later this year by Stella O''Leary, president of the Irish American Democrats lobby group."

She says: "It will come as a huge surprise to the Irish, North and South, to hear D_ick Morris and Eileen McGann''s claims that Senator Hillary Clinton played no role in the Irish peace process. Starting with the Christmas visit to Belfast in 1995, Hillary Clinton recognized that the participation of women was critical in bringing about an end to the conflict, and she set about inspiring women to become politically involved. The meeting with Mrs. McCartan was a prelude to Senator Clinton opening a larger dialogue with women leaders on both sides of the border. At her prompting, the White House arranged for a delegation of American women leaders to meet in Belfast with their Irish counterparts and the outcome of the meeting was the Vital Voices Conference in 1998. As a result of that conference, Northern Ireland women became much more involved in running for elective office and when the time came, the Women''s Party were full participants with George Mitchell in the peace negotiations."

Part 4

[libra127]

More from Inez McCormack:

"Hillary Clinton took risks for peace in asking me and others to bring women and communities from both traditions to affirm their capacity to work for common purpose. She used her immense influence to give women like me space to develop this work and validated it every step of the way. Thie approach is now taken for granted but it wasn''t then. She told us that if we take risks for peace, she would stay with us on that journey. In my experience, it took hard work, attention to detail and commitment of time and energy which she delivered steadily and where needed over the last decade."

Similar testimonies have been forthcoming from other women, Protestant and Catholic: prominent community worker Elaine Crozier; Baroness May Blood, a member of the British House of Lords; Geraldine McAteer, chief executive of the West Belfast Partnership Board; Avila Kilmurray, head of theCommunity Foundation for Northern Ireland; Patricia Lewsley, former member of the N. Ireland Assembly and currently Commissioner for Children and Young People, and Joanna McVey, former CEO of the Fermanagh Trust.

Part 3

[libra127]

More from John Hume on HRC''s role in the Irish peace process:

"Anyone criticizing her foreign policy involvement should look at her very active and positive approach to Northern Ireland and speak with the people of Northern Ireland who have the highest regard for her and are very grateful for her very active support for our peace process."

From Inez McCormack, Irish labor and fair emplyment advocate: "We believe it is important for others to know the pivotal role Mrs. Clinton played in helping us in Northern Ireland at critical junctures in the peace process. She supported us over many years and we will always be grateful to her."

Part 2

[lacolombe]

Senator Clinton has said, "I helped to bring peace to Northern Ireland." It is a gross overstatement of the facts for her to claim even partial credit for bringing peace to Northern Ireland. She did travel to Northern Ireland, it is true. First Ladies often travel to places that are a focus of U.S. foreign policy. But at no time did she play any role in the critical negotiations that ultimately produced the peace. As the Associated Press recently reported, "[she was not directly involved in negotiating the Good Friday peace accord." With regard to her main claim that she helped bring women together, she did participate in a meeting with women, but, according to those who know best, she did not play a pivotal role. The person in charge of the negotiations, former Senator George Mitchell, said that "[The First Lady] was one of many people who participated in encouraging women to get involved, not the only one."

News of Senator Clinton''s claims has raised eyebrows across the ocean. Her reference to an important meeting at the Belfast town hall was debunked. Her only appearance at the Belfast City Hall was to see Christmas lights turned on. She also attended a 50-minute meeting which, according to the Belfast Daily Telegraph''s report at the time, "[was] a little bit stilted, a little prepared at times." Brian Feeney, an Irish author and former politician, sums it up: "The road to peace was carefully documented, and she was not on it."

[libra127]

Can someone please tell me what qualifications does Hillary Clinton have? Where did she get all of this so called experience? Posted by sherry7111 at 08:06 PM : Mar 10, 2008

Well, first there''s the role she played in Ireland. Let''s see what the IRISH have to say about it:

Statement by John Hume, one of the most important figures in the modern political history of N. Ireland, head of the Social Democrats and Labour Party, winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, the Gandhi Peace Prize and the Martin Luther King Award:

"I am quite surprised that anyone would suggest that Hillary Clinton did not perform important foreign policy work as First Lady. I can state from firsthand experience that she played a positive role for over a decade in helping to bring peace to Northern Ireland.

"She visited Northern Ireland, met with very many people and gave very decisive support to the peace process. There is no doubt that the people of Northern Ireland think very positively of Hillary Clinton''s support for our peace process, due to her visits to N. Ireland and her meetings with so many people. In private, she made countless calls and contacts, speaking to leaders and opinion makers on all sides, urging them to keep moving forward."

Part 1

[taddles-2009]

"You Obama supporters never cease to amaze me with your argument that all of you would be disenfranchised if Hillary is nominated. What you are assuming is that if he is nominated, all of the Hillary people will just fall in line and vote for him in November. WRONG!

Posted by broncfan1661 at 12:21 PM : Mar 11, 2008"


One would hope that whoever gets the Dem nomination that we would all as Dems stand behind him or her to take our country back from the corrupt illegal regime that has $hit on our constitution for the past 8 years.

[broncfan1661]

You Obama supporters never cease to amaze me with your argument that all of you would be disenfranchised if Hillary is nominated. What you are assuming is that if he is nominated, all of the Hillary people will just fall in line and vote for him in November. WRONG!

[drarthuride]

It would help if Prelgovisk had the facts correct. Senator Mitchell was US Senator from Maine--not Ireland. As for Obama being a great senator in Illinois--most of the time he voted PRESENT, while Clinton always voted yes or no, unafraid to take a recorded stand.

Clinton voted for child care, enhanced education, rights of women, stricter laws for drivers, rights of the elderly, etc. Obama voted Present. Clinton has reached out to Blacks, Latinos, and Orientals. Obama''s reach is to Blacks.

Obama has divided the Democratic Party. It will lose to a madman who wants a minimum of ten more years of an immoral, unethical, wrong war that murders infants, children, women, elderly and noncombatants, and has no qualms says 100 years of war may be inevitable since many unemployed minorities exist in Detroit and other major cities.

[clifden6]

Senator Mitchell''s interview creates more questions than answers, such as did Bill suggest this, which seems obvious.

Seriously what she did is not rocket science, this isn''t some nuclear disarmament conference where she penned her signature to a treaty. The president with the least amount of foreign policy credentials, actually none, Ronald Reagan, a Hollywood actor, achieved more in terms of foreign policy, the end of the Cold War, then about any president in history. Eisenhower certainly had a lot of foreign policy experience, but then what did he accomplsish compared to Ronnie? Well under Eisenhower, there was Gary Powers in a U2 being shot down. Then we had JFK who wrote a book involving foreign policy, "While England Slept", however JFK may well be remembered more for the Bay of Pigs fiasco. JFK served 8 years in the US Senate before becoming president yet that did not prevent the Bay of Pigs while he was president. Ronald Reagan served zero in the US Senate, and before that was the governor of California, and had no foreign policy credentials before he became president, yet the Cold War ended largely because of his diplomatic efforts.

[kmccliment]

have to laugh over Hillary''''s so-called experience in the White House. Because she''''s so polarizing she wasn''''t able to get health care passed in 8 years. The only other things she did while "co-president" was (what she calls meaningless for Obama) give speeches.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by Whimsy1

Obama supporters are good at laughing. At least Hitlery attempted to reform health care. What did Michele Obama do. She holds a post with a not for profit hospital being paid over 300k per year to charge the underinsured and non insured 3 times the going rate and hire companies to strong arm those people for payment. But then again she hasnt until now been able to be proud to be an American. What a pice of crapse.