Clinton's "experience"

[Zehava]

Hillary keeps harping on her experience as a deciding factor in why we should vote for her rather then Obama. In particular her years as First Lady count significantly towards her supposed experience edge over Obama.

IIRC Clinton was elected to the senate in 2000, Obama in 2006, so she really does have a 1 term lead on Obama in that regard, I give her that. I really do have to question though, that her time as First Lady is very relevant to the experience equation. I don't doubt that Bill asked her opinion on policies and/or discussed policy decisions with her.

I question how relevant those discussions are to her claims of vastly superior "experience" over Obama, in particular in the area of foreign policy. Did she actually participate in foreign policy decisions? Did she participate in negotiations with foreign dignitaries? If not, do her discussions with Bill on these issues give her a real claim to having much more experience in foreign policy than Obama?

So recently Hillary's schedule (with some redactions) during the time she was First Lady has been released. Here are two takes on the story.

Schedule tracks first lady during Lewinsky affair - CNN.com (http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/20/clinton.documents/index.html?eref=rss_latest)
BBC NEWS | Americas | Clinton first lady diary released (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7305971.stm)

The BBC article being more fair and less sensational IMO

Don't you love how CNN relates this all back to the Lewinsky affair? :chin:

Obama campaign foreign policy adviser Greg Craig said last week: "When your entire campaign is based upon a claim of experience, it is important that you have evidence to support that claim.

"Hillary Clinton's argument that she has passed the commander-in-chief test is simply not supported by her record."

I agree with that first statement. To me that is all I am hearing Hillary say to distinguish herself from Obama is, "I have the experience".

I' not sure what to make of the second statement, unless it is a reference to the Clinton ads in regards to who would you want answering the Red Phone at 3am in the morning. If that is the case, I'll have to agree as well.'

So for all of you, does Hillary's time as First Lady make her more qualified to be President? More qualified to answer that 3am Red Phone call?

I hope that doesn't come off like I am a Hillary hater. Granted their are things I don't like about her, but I'd rather see her in the Whitehouse over the demented/senile (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=512097&postcount=18) McCain.

[beyelzu]

hey if giving the commander in chief a hummer makes you ready to be president then why isnt monica running?

[beyelzu]

the above comment is actually a serious comment

[godfry n. glad]

This has bothered me since she started using it as a marketing tool.

She doesn't have the experience to back it. If anything, her experience in crafting public policy during the Clinton administration is disaster. She was given the "health care reform" issue and managed to fuck it up big time. So much for relevant experience.

[godfry n. glad]

Also, these days "experience", particularly in national administration, is not necessarily a desirable quality. It could very well mean one has "bought into" the status quo.

It could just as well mean "bought; fully corrupted by special interests", "hack".

I believe it was noted that of the historical presidents of the US, those with scads of prior "experience" in national politics included some of the worst presidents, while those with minimal experience coming to the presidency included some of the best. Lincoln, for example.

I question whether prior experience necessarily indicates that a candidate is more qualified for an office.

[Ymir's blood]

Crap, beaten to the 'hack' comment. :\

[Caligulette]

I am going with a combination of GNG's previous posts- Experience is relevant only in what you did with it.

That the sentence should be: "I have experience capitulating on very important issues" is obvious, given both her health care fiasco and her subsequent capitulation on important issues such as the war in Iraq, the Patriot Acts, NSA wiretapping, and etc. Her agitation to invade Iran (she was pushing Bush long before the words came out of his or any of his administrations' mouths) proves that she has learned nothing from her experience.

Does she have the experience to be president? Only if you want another proven hawk with little to no regard for the citizenry in the White House.

[Uthgar the Brazen]

Well, she apparently was a great help with shoving through NAFTA (http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20080320/cm_thenation/1300860;_ylt=Ai7txtO3_OqLaZasN0eaeOGs0NUE), so there's that...

[godfry n. glad]

Does she have the experience to be president? Only if you want another proven hawk with little to no regard for the citizenry in the White House.

Another tour group get lost?

[Plant Woman]

How did she mess up the health care issue? She came up with a health plan and I recall she was shouted down at every turn.

[Caligulette]

And gave up.

[Stephen Maturin]

Clinton's principal area of experience -- and expertise, for that matter -- appears to be "defeating" the Republicans by becoming a Republican. Thanks, but no thanks. We saw more than enough of that bullshit from 1993 to 2001.

[InTheServiceOfZeke]

hey if giving the commander in chief a hummer makes you ready to be president then why isnt monica running?


and why is Hillary?

[Uthgar the Brazen]

hey if giving the commander in chief a hummer makes you ready to be president then why isnt monica running?


and why is Hillary?

Get outta my head!

Seriously. People get hurt in there.

[godfry n. glad]

Dick Cheney is probably the most qualified person in the US to serve as president, based upon relevant experience.

[Caligulette]

Dick Cheney is probably the most qualified person in the US to serve as president, based upon relevant experience.

(Whereupon....)

[godfry n. glad]

Experience is an inadequate litmus for qualification. Sometimes grossly so.

[TomJoe]

So for all of you, does Hillary's time as First Lady make her more qualified to be President?
No. However, I think her claims go back farther than just her time in the White House. She's claiming something like 40 years of experience, which essentially goes back to the time she was given her diploma. Which is a ludicrous claim, but it's the one she's running with.

As far as I am concerned, she's still a junior senator which puts her and Obama on roughly equal footing. If she wins on this argument, McCain would trash her on the very same argument, which is why I'm amazed she's even using it.

[Ermintrude]

She's on shaky ground either way if 'experience' means sharing the White House with Bill. Nobody elected her to any public position and what she did attempt looks to have blown up in her face. You can bet that leaders probably do talk things over with spouse and personal friends but they take care not to make a big show of it.

It's true enough that the American President is one of very few able to appoint their best pal and some bloke who came up with a no-questions-asked brown envelope to high office if they feel like it, but the present left-leaning feelings about Bush riding roughshod over popular mandate do not look the best time to remind the left that your prime claim is nepotism.


I wouldn't have thought that it looked very good for her appeal as a woman either. It easily gives the impression that her term would be the same as before, really Bill's third. That makes her dangerous in the way Margaret Thatcher was dangerous, at risk of being too pig-headed and isolating herself behind yes-men to show she is no man's mouthpiece and The Lady's not for turning

I think Obama will get in. He will either be a raving success or a raving disaster depending on how far the people work with him or expect him to sort it all out for them. His rhetoric of 'We' is very clever because it involves people in a way to remind them that maybe they have to make some effort too. So maybe they will. The other two look to be offering more of the same without bringing the people along with them.

I've often been interested to imagine how we would see Kennedy had he lived. Would he have the same reputation or would it have soured in blame for VietNam, Civil Rights progressing slower than hoped, Jaqui setting the pace for Imelda Marcos, and of course 'traditional' womanising that shows Bill Clinton at least gave his ladies the respect of some affection.

[Doohickie]

I heard her selling the "experience" thing on NPR a few days back. One point she pushed was that she participated in foreign policy, as a represetative of the U.S. abroad, citing Ireland (the big George Mitchell thing) and, I think, Bosnia. When asked further what role she played in the Northern Ireland peace process, the most she could say was that she was in town, although she wasn't literally "at the table".

When she speaks of foreign policy experience, Hillary sounds like a recent college graduate trying to make their newspaper route sound like relevant experience to a finance position.

[Caligulette]

When she speaks of foreign policy experience, Hillary sounds like a recent college graduate trying to make their newspaper route sound like relevant experience to a finance position.

Well, to be fair, it was the Wall Street Journal.

[Doohickie]

I will be frank; I don't like her. I think she could potentially be a good leader, but in campaigning she is just trying way too hard to oversell herself.

[California Tanker]

I heard her selling the "experience" thing on NPR a few days back. One point she pushed was that she participated in foreign policy, as a represetative of the U.S. abroad, citing Ireland (the big George Mitchell thing) and, I think, Bosnia. When asked further what role she played in the Northern Ireland peace process, the most she could say was that she was in town, although she wasn't literally "at the table".


The Ireland comment has caused much derision on Irish boards.

For example.

The following is from the march 8th edition of the Daily telegraph and reveals David Trimbles views on Hillary's claim to have brought peace to the north.

" Hillary Clinton had no direct role in bringing peace to Northern Ireland and is a "wee bit silly" for exaggerating the part she played, according to Lord Trimble of Lisnagarvey, the Nobel Peace Prize winner and former First Minister of the province.I don’t know there was much she did apart from accompanying Bill [Clinton] going around," he said. Her recent statements about being deeply involved were merely "the sort of thing people put in their canvassing leaflets" during elections. "She visited when things were happening, saw what was going on, she can certainly say it was part of her experience. I don’t want to rain on the thing for her but being a cheerleader for something is slightly different from being a principal player."

She should just stick to her senate records methinks and stop claiming acheivments she was peripheral to, by making silly claims like this

"I helped to bring peace to Northern Ireland," she told CNN on Wednesday. But negotiators from the parties that helped broker the Good Friday Agreement in 1998 told The Daily Telegraph that her role was peripheral and that she played no part in the gruelling political talks over the years"

which makes her sound delusional or at the vary least undermines her husbands legacy by seeming to confirm what many always thought she was the real power behind the throne.

I was in Ireland at the time, and even then Bill didn't get a huge amount of credit locally. Yes, he sent Mitchell, and Mitchell did well. But Mitchell is who really got the credit.

NTM

[mickthinks]

... but in campaigning she is just trying way too hard to oversell herself.
I think election campaigning is "selling oneself". In which case you seem to be saying that you wouldn't want as a president someone who makes a great effort to succeed? So you want someone more like GWB?
:chin:

Mick

[Naruto]

... but in campaigning she is just trying way too hard to oversell herself.
I think election campaigning is "selling oneself". In which case you seem to be saying that you wouldn't want as a president someone who makes a great effort to succeed? So you want someone more like GWB?
:chin:

Mick

That's strange, you seem to be reading "oversell" as "sell" in that post. It's almost as if....*GASP*....mickthinks is mischaracterizing someone's post!

[Adam]

I will be frank; I don't like her. I think she could potentially be a good leader, but in campaigning she is just trying way too hard to oversell herself.

Huh. Oddly enough, I have more or less the opposite reaction. I do like her. If I were going to choose a candidate using the year 2000 GOP approved method of picking the one I'd prefer to have a drink with, at this point it would be HRC. But I don't think she's a good leader. She triangulates to a degree that I'm uncomfortable with, following rather than leading, and nearly always supporting the DC establishment.

[Sock Puppet]

I was never crazy about her, but I've gone from lukewarm indifference to active dislike during this campaign. Various stuff contributed to it, but the final straw was that sleeping children commercial. I'm Hillary Clinton, and I approve this blatant fearmongering pigvomit.

[Doohickie]

Yeah, that was my reaction. I thought I provided an example (the newspaper route) of what I meant. Truthfully, when I heard the report on NPR, I didn't know the facts of the Ireland thing, but just the way she reacted when questioned about her role, that she was trying to take credit for something that she wasn't involved in to the degree where she meaningfully could say anything close to "bringing peace" to the area.

[Doohickie]

I was never crazy about her, but I've gone from lukewarm indifference to active dislike during this campaign. Various stuff contributed to it, but the final straw was that sleeping children commercial. I'm Hillary Clinton, and I approve this blatant fearmongering pigvomit.

That commercial wreaks of fearmongering, something that's been used to manipulate the public since 9/11. I've had enough of that.

[Joshua Adams]

Awhile ago I read someone's comment on a news article to the effect that Bill Clinton's political experience going in as President was even less than Obama's is. I'm not sure if that's quite true, but the difference appears to be small.

Bill was Attorney General of Arkansas from 1976 to 1978, and then Governor until 1980. He was elected to that post again in 1982 and served until he became President. So that's roughly 13 or 14 years in elected office, if I haven't left anything out.

Comparatively, Obama has been in State and national legislature since 1996, so that's about equal to Bill, if we're just counting years in office. Incidentally, Obama is also just a little bit older than Bill was when he took office-- I hadn't realized that Bill was only 46 at the time.

So it's kind of disingenuous for Hillary to criticize Obama for a lack of experience, when she's married to an equally inexperienced President whose candidacy she endorsed, and who she probably thinks (or at least would say, if asked) did a great job.

[godfry n. glad]

Some of the great presidents had less experience upon taking office as president than does Obama. Lincoln, for example.

Some of the absolute worst presidents had long, long histories of public service as elected officials. Nixon, for example.

[California Tanker]

and then Governor until 1980. He was elected to that post again in 1982 and served until he became President. So that's roughly 13 or 14 years in elected office, if I haven't left anything out.

The 'Governor' bit is the kicker. Voters like Governors. It's the closest thing to a President one can do without having had the job prior, as it's a senior executive position wherein one has control of the executive branch of the State, and must deal with the legislature which may or may not like what you have in mind. When it comes to running for President, 4 years as Governor is probably worth more than 8 years as a Senator in terms of experience.

NTM

[Doohickie]

I guess I'm not so much hung up on a person's experience or their voting record. What decides things for me is whether I can see them coming to the same decision I would (or at least one of the options I would seriously consider) if faced with a problem. Part of that comes down to how they relate their past experiences. Obama doesn't oversell; Hillary does. We don't even have to talk about McCain; his experiences have been all over the media for years. I think he just tries to live within the "legend" of the POW thing.

Out of the three remaining, I think Obama would be the one who would do what I would do. Hillary, I suspect, not even close. McCain, I think, wouldn't select the exact option I would, but he would pick something I could at least understand.

[Doohickie]

http://img.ircimages.com/ircimages/6/4/64e3b6630570033546c65c95708de216.gif