I don't get the zeal to deminish Hillary's experience. Experience is more then just what's on the resume. Neither Hillary nor Barack began their political careers with their first senate win. Hillary's been heavily involved in politics since her University days. I suspect Obama's the same. Only, being so much younger -- his experience is naturally less. She's also been connected to the decision making and negotiating mechanisms more then he has. YOu could argue that his experience is adequate for the job (I think it is), or that his strengths trump his lack of experience (I hope that's so), or even that his fresh look is what's needed to break the status quo. But it's just wrong to say his experience is equivalent or that she lacks experience.
Supposedly, she has to share responsibilities, if not take all, for all the bad things happened during Bill's administration, but she's not allowed to claim any credit or experience, not even lesson-learned from that same period. After all, she's just the wife.
The same way Reagan went "over the heads of Congress to the people" when he wanted to push something. Foreign Policy? That's another question, but also one that we rarely have an answer to, even considering the most "experienced" candidates in our past. Sure, Senators travel around and meet foreign leaders. Big whoop. They're surrounded by staff and State Department minders and the foreign leader is not there to talk about policy but to try and get a new aid package or weapons deal through Congress. Sure Congressmen vote on issues related to Foreign Policy, but how many really know what they're doing? John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, and Dwight Eisenhower were the only presidents in our history with anything close to the foreign policy experience that resembled the presidential level. The whole "experience" issue really isn't one at all. There is no job that prepares one to be the President of the US (though of the three contenders, I would argue First Lady comes closer than Senator). What job description has training elements for Chief Executive, Commander-in-Chief, Party Leader, Bully Pulpit, Leader of the Free World, Disaster Manager, Macro-Economics Policy Leader, and Cultural Icon? There is none. You have to look for potential and intelligence and character and hope that the person in office has the skills to grow into the job. Hillary would be an OK president. She has some evident flaws that would hamper her effectiveness. I think we need more than OK right now. Given the options, I'm more than wiling to take a chance on Obama. I worry about his commitment and ability to fix the things that need fixing, but I think he has more potential than Hillary and I think he's smart enough to learn the job and actually do the job. Still, the thing we don't know is how he operates in small groups. We know Bill was always the smartest guy in the room and asked the right questions, whether he was an expert on the subject or not. We know W asks few questions and does not have an inquisitive mind. We knew these things before either was elected, but I don't think I have a good knowledge of how Obama handles these kinds of things. I want to know more in this regard because this is the dynamic that illuminates how he would handle foreign leaders more than anything. (Gore is as prepared as anyone to be President, not just because he was VP, and has dealt with the world as VP and on Climate Change, but because he spent years studying the bureaucracy as part of the reinventing Government initiative and thus certainly knows more about the Chief Executive role than any non-ex-president out there.) Bill Clinton said it took him 2-3 years before he felt comfortable being president and that seems about right if you're going to do it right. (W, of course, would say he felt comfortable being the decider from day one, which is possible only if you're an idiot, don't give a damn, or if you're only working on behalf of a subset of America.) Nobody is as big as the office until after the election, and then you have to work damn hard and get a little bit lucky if you're ever going to catch up.
i agree. i think all the viable remaining contenders make for a more compelling election than most in recent history. since no candidate perfectly echoes my personal perspectives, a purely issue based vote is somewhat negated. its a great cast of characters, dems & repub, i'm partial to McCain's security, Clinton's economics & Obama's health plan. emphasis on partial ... i see flaws in all approaches. btw, anyone making the case that its an election of angels v demons, imo, seems blinded by subjectivity.
Bnb & Real_egal, I am an Obama supporter but I'll say strongly she has more governmental and political experience. And I think it is rediculous to discount her role within Bill's 8 years--where she was at least equivalent in weight to a higher level cabinet/advisor or chief of staff member. Unlike most 1st ladies of the past, clearly she was part of the inner circle with regard to policy and executive decisions. In fact she might have been more of the key inner cricle for the executive branch's decision making than Reagon was in his last term or GWB for that matter. So I will argue he has much more experience with regard to government. But that experience also typically comes with the burden trading favors (even if informal) over the years (other politicans and lobbies). McCain is one of the few exceptions. So I think it is fair for her to argue experience, and I think it is fair for Obama to say he is more independent from the Beltway and the current political party's influences.
It's probably going to be the ugliest debate we've seen in a long time. Whatever bullets she has, she has to use (understandably so). He just needs to get through it without saying anything stupid.
For what it's worth, this is kind of the more detailed version of my "what has she accomplished in the Senate? argument. I don't necessarily have a problem with the fact that she hasn't accomplished much - I just think its odd that she touts herself as in the "solutions business" or as the "doer, not talker", etc. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-hanft/the-curious-myth-of-hilla_b_87613.html The Curious Myth of Hillary Clinton's Senate Effectiveness Frankly, I'm tired of listening to Senator Clinton portray herself as being in the solutions business -- as boasting a nice, fat resume of accomplishments -- while mocking Barack Obama for being a rhetorical empty suit. Is she truly a beacon of experience? Because I couldn't think of a single piece of legislation that has her name stuck proudly on the front of it, no equivalent of McCain-Feingold, for example, I headed straight for her campaign website to see what glorious aspects of her vaunted experience I was missing. Actually, I was missing nothing. There is not one single example of any legislation with her name appended to it. In fact, the page devoted to her Senate biography is a mush-mash, a laundry list of good intentions. When she talks about "sponsoring" and "introducing" and "fighting for" legislation that obviously hasn't passed, that's a smokescreen for failure. By introducing all that legislation that never makes it out of committee, she's guilty of what she accuses Senator Obama of: confusing "hoping" with doing. Consider these examples: • "...{she} worked with her colleagues to secure the funds New York needed to recover and rebuild." • "...she fought to provide compensation to the families of the victims." • "She is an original sponsor of legislation that expanded health benefit to members of the National Guard and Reserves." • "Some of Hillary' proudest achievements have been her work to ensure the safety of prescription drugs for children, with legislation now included in the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act." (What in God's name does that mumbo-jumbo mean?) Yes, it's true that for many years, she was in the minority. But if she is the effective legislator she claims to be, she'd be able find co-sponsors across the aisle who share her commitment to specific issues, in the same way that John McCain found his doppelganger, Russ Feingold. But an inability to get legislation passed is just the beginning of Senator Clinton's shallow record. For many of the bills she introduced, she couldn't even get a cosponsor in her own party! Below are some perfectly fine, liberal, progressive bills that she introduced, but was unable to attract a cosponsor of any party, according to the Library of Congress. Note that while her website proclaims that "She is an original sponsor of legislation that expanded health benefit to member of the National Guard and Reserves", she wasn't able to rustle up a single cosponsor for legislation that would have extended military retirement credit for National Guard Members called up after 9/11. So Senator Clinton is right when she claims to be the experienced candidate, although it's not the experience she would like us to believe. It's a track record of legislative failure and futility. 89. S.4065 : A bill to direct the Attorney General to conduct a study on the feasibility of collecting crime data relating to the occurrence of school-related crime in elementary schools and secondary schools. Sponsor: Sen Clinton, Hillary Rodham [NY] (introduced 11/16/2006) Cosponsors (None) 88. S.4029 : A bill to increase the number of well-educated nurses, and for other purposes. Sponsor: Sen Clinton, Hillary Rodham [NY] (introduced 9/29/2006) Cosponsors (None) 90. S.4103 : A bill to prevent nuclear terrorism, and for other purposes. Sponsor: Sen Clinton, Hillary Rodham [NY] (introduced 12/7/2006) Cosponsors (None) 77. S.3909 : A bill to amend the foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to provide assistance for developing countries to promote quality basic education and to establish the achievement of universal basic education in all developing countries as an objective of United States foreign assistance policy, and for other purposes. Sponsor: Sen Clinton, Hillary Rodham [NY] (introduced 9/18/2006) Cosponsors (None) 59. S.2993 : A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to impose a temporary oil profit fee and to use the proceeds of the fee collected to provide a Strategic Energy Fund and expand certain energy tax incentives, and for other purposes. Sponsor: Sen Clinton, Hillary Rodham [NY] (introduced 5/23/2006) Cosponsors (None) 26. S.1144 : A bill to provide military retirement credit for certain service by National Guard members performed while in a State duty status immediately after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Sponsor: Sen Clinton, Hillary Rodham [NY] (introduced 5/26/2005) Cosponsors (None) 50. S.2260 : A bill to amend titles XVIII and XIX of the Social Security Act to make improvements to payments to Medicare Advantage plans and to reinstate protections in the Medicaid program for working families, their children, and the disabled against excessive out-of-pocket costs, inadequate benefits, and health care coverage loss. Sponsor: Sen Clinton, Hillary Rodham [NY] (introduced 2/8/2006) Cosponsors (None)
You raise some good points and agree that there is no equivalent experience to being president except for being president. As I said in another post Obama's campaign is about hope but really every non-incumbment's campaign is about hope. Clinton's is about hope, McCain's is, and so is Huckabee's since none of them have served as president. The difference is that with Clinton and McCain and to a lesser extent Huckabee they have a fairly long history in the public eye at the national level where as prior to 2004 Obama was barely known outside of IL.. I have a better sense about how those candidates are likely to govern where as Obama seems more of a crapshoot since his history at the national level is fairly scant. As I've said I don't rule out the possibility that Obama could be the next Lincoln but he could also be mediocre. There's little other than a great capacity for oratory that indicates what kind of president he could make and in the comment you were responding too oratory isn't necessarily going to translate into action. Again to return to JFK, to Deckard's annoyance, for all of JFK's great oratory he got very little accomplished and if the polls of 1963 were accurate was likley to only be a one term president if he had survived.
Certainly Clinton has a lot of bills that haven't been sponsored but there have been many that have. Most Senators, especially freshman and sophmore senators have a very hard time getting legislation passed so its not surprising. Consider again though the negatives that were associated with Clinton when she was elected and its surprising she's gotten anything done when the leadership publicly declared that she would be marginalized in 2000. At the same time I'm not aware of any major legislation with Obama's name associated with it either such as "McCain-Fiengold" or "Gramm-Rudman".
I think the most important one is "Coburn-Obama Transparency Act" which was written with a Republican, and makes all donations to candidates public in order to monitor who's getting money from where. as you say for a Freshman or Sophomore Senator to accomplish this is quite impressive.
Simply time and exposure to the workings of government....Rimrocker gave an excellent counter to the experience claim. That there just ain't no such thing for the job of Pres.
In addition to Obama-Coburn mentioned by FranchiseBlade, there was also the Lugar-Obama Nuclear Nonproliferation Law. Here is a complete list of bills sponsored by Clinton or Obama: http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2008/02/solutions-adden.html During their shared time in the Senate, neither has passed any bill of their own in the 110th Congress. In the 109th, Clinton was the original sponsor of 4 bills that became law: 3 named various Post Offices, and one asked some committee to display a statue. Obama was the original sponsor of 2 bills that became law, one Post Office naming, and one dealing with the Congo. Of course, being the original sponsor is a limited detailing of policy. The above link also includes all the amendments they sponsored. Here's a complete list of their co-sponsorships: http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2008/02/but-wait-theres.html And amendments: http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2008/02/all-the-rest.html
<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/HxtN0u23Tdc&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/HxtN0u23Tdc&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>
I took a glance at your links and will agree that Obama has done a comparable job to Clinton while both were in Congress and will give kudos on the Coburn-Obama. That said the links don't seem to adress Clinton's legislative record prior to Obama entering the US Senate. Also as I've mentioned repeatedly there have been very few Senators who have come to senate with the target on their back has Clinton had. The Republican leadership had the attitude that Clinton would get nothing accomplished. That has proven to be far from the case.
I don't think it's wise for Hillary to tell the majority of Dem voters that they are, in essence, delusional. One of the fascinating things about this election is that the Dems are unified but without a clear-cut nominee while the Repubs have a nominee but a fractured party. As a Dem, I want the party to stay united and if Clinton's only path is to go negative and try to wedge different elements of the party, then it's time for her to go.
Agreed. I've said since he was down big that I'm voting for Obama in the primaries, but if it came down to Hillary as the nominee I'd gladly vote for her. However, I'm beginning to dislike her more everyday for reasons that I'd tried to push to the back of my mind. Her new cutthroat strategy and air of defiance, considering how big she needs to win in Ohio, Texas, and Pennsylvania (none of which appear like their going to happen, considering the margins of victory she needs to stay viable) are turning me off. The reports coming in that the she will try to persuade Obama's pledged delegates to switch to her at the convention - if she makes it that far - are all playing to one of her many criticisms: that she does not care about the welfare of the Democratic party, but instead only cares only about her own personal gain. I know that Obama may secretly think this, as we're all incline to have some degree of distrust in politicians, but at least he hides it very well if he does. Hillary's willingness to split the party at a time when it has much more national traction than the already-divided Republican party shows how much this election is really about her rather than the country which she claims to be fighting for.
I think a good comparison could be made between Bush-Kerry and Obama-Clinton. I think Clinton's floor of "quality of President" is higher than Obama's; I think her ceiling is also much lower. In other words, you know what you're getting, and it's "OK". With Obama, you have more potential for "bad" and more potential for "good". In the 2004 election, that's kind of the argument Bush made vs. Kerry. People ultimately voted for Bush because they knew him to be mediocre and were afraid Kerry might be worse. It was the "hope vs. fear" argument, and fear won out. I think the electorate is probably revolting from that and seeing it as a mistake - and now you're seeing people more willing to take the risk on something bigger.
Yes I agree and I've never felt Obama to be a horrible candidate and discount much of the far fetched and just plain ridiculous criticism of him. As I've said Obama could be another Lincoln or he could be mediocre its hard to tell. The biggest problems I have with him are that for all of his great charisma and relatively decent US Senate career there is a lot that isn't known very well about him and the more I find out the more uneasy I get. Things like voting present so many times and the few cases where he accidently voted against legislation that his district thought was important and he supported don't make me feel better. As I noted in another thread I question his judgement in regard to foreign policy given his statements on Pakistan and his almost zero experience in that field. While not something I think sinks him I did find his appropriation of Deval Patrick's speech to be sloppy and worrisome when that wasn't an impromptu response but an actual prepared speech on the very subject of the power of rhetoric. Hillary Clinton is pretty much what you see is what you get and I won't deny at all that she is shrill, conniving and has the reputation for polarization but I get a much better sense of what a Hillary Clinton presidency will be like than an Obama presidency.
