"When is the last time we elected a president based on one year of service before he's running?"

[Amerigo Vespucci]

Bill Clinton ... Well, He Just Puts Everything On The Table. Read It.

14 Dec 2007 11:28 pm





http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/12/bill_clinton_well_he_just_puts_1.php



In a hard-changing interview with Charlie Rose tonight, Bill Clinton said Americans who are prepared to choose someone with less experience, are prepared to "roll the dice" about the future of America. "It's less predictable, isn't it? When is the last time we elected a president based on one year of service before he's running?"

"What do you want to do -- whether you think it matters that, I mean, in theory, no experience matters," Clinton said. "In theory, we could find someone who is a gifted television commentators and let them run. They'd have only one year less experience in national politics..." And Clinton said the notion that experience led the politicians to sanction the Iraq War is "absurd."

"That's like saying that because 100% of the malpractice cases are committed by doctors, the next time I need surgery, I'll get a chef or a plumber to do it." Towards the end of the interview, Rose indicated that Clinton's staff was asking producers in his show's control room to get them to have Rose end the interview.

And Clinton said: "Somebody will parse this interview..." to take his quotes out of context. "It is stupid... I think we are fortunate in having people..I think the relevant question from me is, who will be the best president who has a proven record of making change in the lives of other people."

[sniffa]

1. one year?

stoopid math

[mod mom]

39. or desperation, perhaps?

[sniffa]

40. the DU spell checker is broken

it keeps saying that desperation is not spelled H-I-L-L-A-R-Y. :shrug:

[Adelante]

2. Disingenuous

Hillary is credited with all of her years in public life and Obama is credited with only one year of his. How does it work? On this basis, we need to reduce Hillary's experience to her Senate career and "forget" to count anything else.

[Tom Rinaldo]

5. Fast and simple is often too fast and too simple

Bill Clinton did not specify Senate service so you are correct. Both Barack and Hillary have many years of public service under their belt other than just their years in the U.S. Senate. If Bill wanted to make the case that Hillary's years in the White House years better prepared her to become President than Obama's years spent as a community organizer or in the Illinois Senate, he should spell that out.

[CoffeeCat]

10. Yes, and what have we got from Hillary?

First---Obama has been in the Senate since 04. Isn't that more than THREE years?

Secondly, Hillary was the head of the Armed Services Committee; a powerful, influential position in a time of war.

What have we got from that service? Has she attempted to stop the war, in any way, shape or fashion? Has she impeded
George Bush and his neocon plot--as it unfurls--in and way, shape or fashion?

She has said next to nothing--when she had the well of the Senate at her daily disposal--about the neocons and their lies.
She's never stood on the Senate floor and denounced warranties wiretapping, the death of Habeas Corpus, or the fact that
George Bush is tearing up our Constitution before our very eyes.

Oh, but she did most recently vote for Kyl/Lieberman--which defined the Iranian government as a "terrorist organization"
therefore paving the way for Bush to widen his perverse war. She parroted the Bush talking points on Iran, as well.

I'd rather have THREE (that's THREE, not ONE) years of Barak Obama, than 33 years of Hillary Clinton--shamefully siding with the neocons in
critical votes and remaining all-but silent as our democracy swirls down the toilet.

I haven't decided to support Obama yet, but this is really rank. No wonder Bill's handlers were trying to get Rose to end the
interview earlier. I love watching the Clintons dig their own graves.

In my opinion, the Big Dog is really a Junkyard Dog who sold his soul a long time ago. It's really awful to watch.

[AZ Criminal JD]

42. Obama has been in the Senate since '05

I know you want to give him as much as you can but .....

[beaconess]

16. That's a good point

I think Hillary's experience is relevant and meaningful. Obama's experience is relevant and meaningful.

It's very convenient for some to try to convince everyone else that the only experience that counts is the experience in jobs that has been traditionally almost the exclusive province of white men - governor, senator, etc. But Hillary and Barack both demonstrate that a wide range of experience is relevant to the presidency, and one need not only have served for the past 25 years as an elected official to be qualified for the post.

It's a shame that the two of them are pitted against each other on the "experience" issue - since both of them have benefitted from non-traditional experience and both of them are more than qualified as a result to be president.

[Evergreen Emerald]

33. you are ignoring Clinton's experience.

At least be fair.

[cloudbase]

3. Just look where all that combined experience in Washington

has delivered us.

Back in the days when I was an engineering officer in the merchant marine, I'd often see a freshly minted third engineer come aboard. Not a big deal, as we all have to start somewhere. I'd always ask if they had any experience on the particular class of ship we were on. Usually the answer was an uncomfortable "no." My reply would be something to the effect that it was okay, since they hadn't picked up any bad habits.

[tekisui]

4. They run as co-candidates for President.

I am not impressed with Bill's new invovement.

[ginchinchili]

6. What is the answer to Pres. Clinton's last question?

Joe Biden, of course. (..I think the relevant question from me is, who will be the best president who has a proven record of making change in the lives of other people.")

He has the right question, but by implication his answer is wrong, that is unless he's thinking Joe Biden.

[Tom Rinaldo]

7. He said that Biden, Richardson and Dodd are fully prepared to become President

I think that is true, but also clever politics. It helps Bill Clinton frame his concern about experience as unbiased and not specifically meant to support his wife. The sad (to me) truth is that I suspect he is not afraid about boosting Biden, Richardson, or Dodd's chances by praising them - the media declared them dead and buried long ago and he doesn't see them as real competition to Hillary. Unless the voters of Iowa really shake things up he is probably correct.

[ginchinchili]

19. I agree. I'd like to see his words come back to haunt him...

with a Biden surge.

[OHdem10]

12. Some would say John Edwards--Poverty Center, Scholarship

Program for a region of N.C.. Serious Committment and study of
Poverty led him to internalize what is wrong with our systerm

Some would say Biden esp his work on Foreign Affairs.

Some would say HRC starting with Programs in Arkansas to better
the lives of people there. Her work as First Lady which was
significant and her work in Senate.

[madrchsod]

8. lincoln had and obama has the same amount of "experience"

so billy boy your theory has one big hole in it

[Tom Rinaldo]

9. You forget that old expression...

"It's the exception that proves the rule".

Lots of politicians had the same amount of experience as Lincoln had at the exact same stage in their careers. You could safely say that happens all the time. But how many of them turned out to be another Lincoln?

It's like one of those logic arguments: Lincoln had relatively little experience before he became President, and Lincoln became a great President. Obama has roughly the same experience that Lincoln had before becoming President. Therefor Obama will be a great President like Lincoln.

Granted I personally see great potential in Obama, maybe he can be another Lincoln. But I doubt that most voters think the best way to find our next great President is to limit ourselves to candidates who don't have more experience than Lincoln did when he ran. Not that there aren't a lot of people who would qualify for consideration using that criteria, but should that be the way we screen our candidates?

[ginchinchili]

24. A well-analyzed post.

We certainly don't want to approach the selection of our presidents as an act of finding the candidate with the least amount of experience. And I should point out that Lincoln was born in a log cabin and came from very humble origins. There is more than one way to gage experience. That was one of Bush's problems. He may have been governor of Texas, but his life hadn't offered much of anything else in the way of experience. He was born with the proverbial silver spoon in his mouth. To be fair, I don't know much about Obama's upbringing, but I understand that his childhood was comfortable and certainly not like Lincoln's.

[Tom Rinaldo]

26. There certainly is more than one way to gage experience...

...and in some of those ways Obama has a stronger case than some or all of our other candidates. I just hold that it is a valid topic for consideration.

[ginchinchili]

27. I guess I just haven't heard "those ways."

I don't see how he's done more than any other candidate and in most respects has done much less in the way of experience.

[Tom Rinaldo]

29. Depends on how you weigh perspective gained by different life experiences

Especially if you give added weight to some life experineces that better make it possible for a candidate to truly appreciate what one believes are some of the "real" issues confronting and challenging America, and how that experience prepares that candidate to understand the importance of making some difficult political decisions as a result. It's all pretty subjective, but it can be argued.

[Bucky]

35. The comparisons to Lincoln go a lot deeper than the demographics

It's when you read about his character, his inclusive politics, the agility of his mind and sharpness of his wit--that's when you start to see the genuine Lincolnesque atributes in Obama. Lincoln was known for winning over audiences by the ethos, balance, and passion of his speeches. He was a little awkward, a little brainier, his rhetoric didn't gloss over nuances or insult the audience. Lincoln was a slick railroad lawyer who sought to achieve his party's goals through compromise and moderation. He was a little bit of an outsider in every community he came to--never a good ol' boy. He'd traveled and drifted enough in his lifetime to gain a truly national perspective in an age when the majority rarely thought beyond their local prejudices. Lincoln was an accomplished athlete, excelling at handball and wrestling, and had that distinct mark of character that jocks often carry. He was very much a self-made man. He was a smooth marketer of himself, but the substance always lived up to the hype. His gut instinct was to unite people; a lot of Republicans in 1860 wondered if he had the temperament to hold the line on their party's agenda because he was such a natural compromiser. The man who cleaned up the national banks and championed the Morrill Land Grant act would certainly be a Democrat today--like us he stood for fiscal sanity, economic opportunity, and responsible, regulated growth of the country.

I'm not impressed when people say Obama is like Lincoln because he's lanky, comes from Illinois, spent two years in Congress, and married a crazy lady. But when I look at Obama's life story, and when I listen to his rhetoric, I can tell you as a history professional that the parallels between the two men's character runs quite deep.

[Tom Rinaldo]

38. Set aside race for a moment and let's call him the Great Lincoln Hope instead

Obama has real potential, maybe he could fulfill those hopes. More often than not though potential falls short come actual practice. You make a good case for his potential. It is still far from assured though that Obama can live up to that ambitious billing. It is only in hindsight that observers usually can put their finger on whatever flaw it was that stopped a Great Whatever contender from living up to the hopes that once were projected onto him or her. The reason why only once a century or so does anyone meet or exceed those types of expectations remain intact. I would feel a hell of a lot more comfortable projecting that type of expectations onto Obama had he already demonstrated an ability to sustain them over a decade spent in the National spotlight, or at least more than two or so years of inspiring talk with few actual high level accomplishments.

[Bucky]

41. That's probably why I'm actually supporting Biden

I think the potential for greatness in our leaders gets realized a good deal more often than once a century. The problem is that the circumstances don't always show off that greatness. Few would count Harry Truman as a "great" president, but certainly he's the prime example in the 20th century of a president rising to meet the challenges of the hour. More importantly, tho, greatness doesn't just show up in political leaders. There are people who build businesses, build communities, and mentor future citizens who all achieve a level of excellence in what they do, but never recieve the fame they deserve. There's a pithy MLK quote about being the best garbageman you can be (I think it's from his "drum major for justice" speech), but I'm too lazy to look it up right now.

[Tom Rinaldo]

43. And actually I agree with you about how often true greatness emerges

But the potential for a person to realize their greatness increases with their mastery of their craft, it is not only a matter of intrinsic ability, wisdom and character.

Any skilled coach in competitive sports can pick out an athelete with special natural abilities, even if that athelete has not long competed at that specific sport. But in order to fully realize his or her full potential skills that athelete has to also train in that sport, often for many years, before they can become truly world class. If you haven't mastered certain moves yet you will be at a competitive disadvantage against those who have a fuller repetoire. If you haven't faced junk ball pitchers before and are only tuned into facing the heat you can have some lousy at bats until you adjust to that type of delivery. If you haven't played in a zone defense before you can throw your team off stride until you get into it's flow, no matter what individual skills you possess.

And no one can say for sure how well an athelete will compete over time under sustained pressure at the highest levels until that has been sufficiently tested and verified. I am drawing a blank on his name right now but I remember when I lived in San Francisco back in the 1980s that the Giants had a young pitcher who was rapidly becoming their ace. He was selected for the all star team and picked to start the game. Unfortunately he really got hammered that day under the full glare of a nation of baseball fans watching. I think he gave up three homers in one inning. And after that he never was the same pitcher again.

[Tom Rinaldo]

45. I remember. It was Atlee Hammaker

Charlton Atlee Hammaker (born January 24, 1958 in Carmel, California) is a former Major League Baseball pitcher who played the majority of his career for the San Francisco Giants from 1982 to 1990. During his 12-year career, he won 59 games, lost 67 games and netted five saves. He also played for the Kansas City Royals, San Diego Padres, and the Chicago White Sox.

In 1983, his best season, he led the National League in ERA (2.25), WHIP (1.039), BB/9IP (1.67), and strikeout to walk ratio (3.97). He won 10, lost 9, and made the National League All-Star team...

1983 All-Star Game
Hammaker made the National League All-Star team in 1983, but did not fare well, surrendering seven earned runs in 2/3 of an inning, including the first-ever grand slam in All-Star Game history to Fred Lynn.

1987 NLCS
Hammaker in San Francisco gave up a 3-run homer to José Oquendo, in Game 7 of the 1987 NLCS, which the Cardinals won 6-0 to advance to the World Series. Oquendo was a utility infielder who had hit only one homer that season, and only 14 in his career.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlee_Hammaker

In fairness to Hammaker, he disputes the theory that his All Star performance shook his later self confidence:

"Unfortunately for Hammaker, injuries could touch him. By the time he toted a 1.70 ERA into the 1983 All-Star Game at Comiskey Park, he had been dealing with shoulder tendinitis for probably his previous three starts. Nevertheless, he agreed to pitch that night, and wound up allowing seven runs in two-thirds of an inning. Fred Lynn tagged him for the first grand slam in All-Star Game history.

To those fans who believe Lynn's slam irreparably ruined Hammaker's psyche, he politely might answer, "Rubbish." Hammaker said his All-Star Game memory is a positive one. That doesn't mean he wasn't aware of those negative perceptions.

"I already knew what people were gonna say," Hammaker said, adding that he put off going on the disabled list because, in essence, he wanted to prove to any doubters that the slam would not affect him.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/chronicle/archive/2005/04/17/SPGJ1CAEE91.DTL

[BeyondGeography]

11. Years of legislative service in the top tier

Obama: 11
Clinton: 7
Edwards: 6

Obama's age: 46
B. Clinton's age in 1992: 46

[Tom Rinaldo]

13. But you are conflating Major and Minor League records

That doesn't work in baseball when the time comes to negotiate salaries.

[BeyondGeography]

14. That will be for the voters to decide

Bill Clinton's Washington-based experience prior to being elected President: 0 years
Obama's: 4 years

[Tom Rinaldo]

15. A fair reply

Of course it depends on what is most important to you. Bill Clinton had three terms of Executive experience which voters have traditionally valued in electing Presidents. Lots of Governors have gone on to win the Presidency. Bill Clinton ran at a time when national security concerns were probably at their lowest ebb in America in a generation. The last time someone with little or no National experience got elected President was at the tail end of that window of lowered security concerns; George W. Bush. Some would suggest that the results of that decision might cause a higher premium to be assigned to national level experience in 2008 than it was in 1992.

[BeyondGeography]

17. Webb on the ticket would go a long way to addressing the security problem

or Clark or...Hagel :scared:

[Tom Rinaldo]

18. I agree that would help.

Even (gulp) Hagel. I doubt Obama would go with the H bomb though.

[BeyondGeography]

21. Webb's my preference

then again, I haven't read his novels.

[Tom Rinaldo]

23. LOL. Don't worry though, Webb's novels have already been fully vetted n/t

[TwilightGardener]

30. Obama/Hagel may not be DU's preference, but...it would KICK ASS in the general election.

[ginchinchili]

34. Hagel may be running with Bloomberg.

If Bloomberg decides to run.

[TwilightGardener]

36. Yes, that's a distinct possibility. I only hope Bloomberg decides NOT to run

if Obama, Edwards, or Biden are the nominees.

[ginchinchili]

44. Yes, he'd be such a wild card it's hard to predict what impact he'd have.

I don't, however, assume that everyone would go running to support him, and my hunch is that he'd hurt the Republican's more than the Democrats.

[TwilightGardener]

46. I agree--the Repub field is pathetic, and if they nominate a jackass

like Huckabilly, Bloomberg would pretty much grab ALL the fiscon and non-evangelical R votes. If they nominate Mittens, I don't know...both are fiscally conservative businessmen. A Jew going against a Mormon--Dems would actually have the Christian candidate in that go-round!

[Armstead]

20. Wasn't Bill Clinton's prior experience also the minor leagues?

He was governor of a small state. Maybe governor was a notch about state legislator, but Obama played in one of the states with the roughest political areas out there.

[Tom Rinaldo]

22. I think there's some kind of official mathmatical formula

If State A has ten times the population of State B, than Governor A gets ten times the Big League credit that Governor B gets. A State legislator from State A starts out with ten times the credits as a State legislator from State B also, but the credits each legislater individually receive then must be divided by the number of co-equal legislators they serve with, whereas a Governor gets to keep all of his or her credits without sharing since there only is one Governor per state. Based on those calculations Bill Clinton inherited more Big League credits than Obama. See, wasn't that clear? lol

[Armstead]

28. Oh, now I understand

:crazy: :D

[calteacherguy]

25. What the hell is Bill talking about? The statement is meaningless.

What does that mean?

[TwilightGardener]

31. Seems like we took a chance on a small-state governor with NO foreign policy or military

experience, and he did OK. I think Obama will too.

[noamnety]

32. "It's less predictable, isn't it?"

YES. It's less predictable. That's the point. We can predict the actions of Hillary based on her previous votes, and I don't like what that future looks like.

I would like something that deviates from it.

[Vickers]

37. "Somebody will parse this interview..."

Yes, words have as nasty habit of having meaning.