We opened with brief (-ish) statements from the men on the call attesting to Hillary’s readiness. A highlight, from Maj. General Paul Eaton: “This lady… she’s steady in the saddle and extra bright… and that’s a combination that soldiers love.” And this, from Wolfson on “tactical voting”: HRC’s increased proportion of Republican votes is due to “her renewed strength among Republicans… due to more recent focus on issues like those being discussed on this call,” the theory that Republicans are crossing party lines to sabotage the Democratic race “is an effort by the other camp to explain away our success.”
More on “Hillicans” here.
More notes (not a transcript, just me typing while they talk) on the call after the jump.
Vice Admiral Joe Sestak: “That’ someone who cares…and those plans [for troop drawdown] never came over until she pushed the right button and in the right way.” She talked about Afghanistan “in a very adroit, serious way… you can do it all, if you know who to rely on and where to place your assets [?].” Also I’m not sure exactly what he was referring to by being able to “do it all.” Have asked for clarification.
Eaton: “Talking to my colleagues in the 10th Mountain Division… they just applauded her efforts on behalf of soldiers, on behalf of veterans… And watching her staff in action, that shows very positive leadership.” [Plus the “saddle” stuff.]
Rear Admiral David Stone: Her work on “veterans’ care… will benefit a large number of people… [I admire her for] seizing the opportunity as First Lady to speak out on women’s rights in China [when they threatened to pull the plug on her speech]… you get a look at when they take advantage of opportunities and step up to the plate.” He remembers how they “talked…about the difference of the role of NATO in Kosovo [compared to Afghanistan]… our frustration in not being able to get the same degree of support in operation in Afghanistan today.”
Brig. General John Watkins, Jr.: “If she had to use the arrow, she’d use the arrow, but she’ll be deliberate about it… what I see from her is the ability to sit down and listen… to pull out from all of us sitting around… to immerse herself in the details.”
John Dalton: “She’s knowledgeable, she does her homework.” [at this point, the reviews were getting pretty repetitive…]
First q went to Andrea Mitchell! It was “for Howard,” and asked if the campaign had “encouraged” comments like Ferraro’s, and why wasn’t she more “categorical” about repudiating it. Watkins jumped in to defend both Clintons: “There’s nothing racist in their body [sic]… I’m African American… I certainly wish Geraldine wouldn’t have said what she said… but she [Hillary] is not a racist… I can say that categorically… We’re going to get that kind of [thing — presumably racist remarks] and we need to get above it.”
Question: Has Obama done anything to disqualify himself as C in C? Sestak: “What is most important here is what MOST qualifies you to be C in C… if Obama is chosen, I will fully support him [against the Republican nominee]… But when I look at the candidates, I want someone who on Day One can be a marvelous president.”
Stone [?]: Obama has been running on one speech he gave while in the Illinois state senate, “after he gave that speech, his record did not match his rhetoric… [it took him months to give a floor speech on Iraq] and that was a speech in which he opposed a troop withdrawal proposed by John Kerry.”
Wolfson was asked about “tactical voting” in Mississippi and, I think, Texas: Disavowed the possibility, said HRC’s increased proportion of R votes is due to “renewed strength among Republicans… due to more recent focus on issues like those being discussed on this call…. it is an effort by the other camp to explain away our success.”