The Clinton "Experience Myth"

[Krashkopf]

Since when does being FIRST LADY qualify as "political experience??!!"

Hillary Clinton keeps on saying "I have been working for change for 35 years" as if none of the other candidates had any valuable life experiences.

The fact of the matter is that Clinton is 1/3 of the way through her SECOND term as Senator. That gives her a WHOPPING six years more experience in the Senate than Barack Obama, and just 2 more years of experience than John Edwards.

Biden and Dodd had considerably more experience. Kucinich and Richardson have considerably more experience. But, Clinton, Edwards, and Obama are all relative NEW-COMERS to national politics.

That being the case, when it comes to the top tier candidates, I have to go with either the TRUE agent of change - EDWARDS; or "Destiny's candidate" - OBAMA.

Clinton - the "status quo" candidate is LAST on my list.

[maddiejoan]

1. Nothing says status quo to me

like another white christian man with big teeth and nice hair.

[Muttocracy]

2. So how about Condi, or Clarence Thomas...

[mathewsleep]

3. do you mean

bill clinton?

[maddiejoan]

4. sure

But I'm voting for Hillary Rodham Clinton

not Bill.

[mathewsleep]

23. well

woman can only hold the same options as their husbands, so she'll be the same thing.
just kidding. or am i?

[Brother_1969]

5. Careful! JE is the favorite around here!

The Edwards lovers are gonna gitcha with comments like that.

:scared:

[maddiejoan]

10. Good.

You should have seen all the dykes in my apartment bust a gut when Edwards said he wasn't status quo. during the NH debate.

[Krashkopf]

8. Because picking the next president based on their physical appearance . . .

is easier than actually listening to what they have to say, right?

[maddiejoan]

14. Which Edwards should I listen to?

Senator Edwards or the new improved "Rough Rider"?

[Krashkopf]

19. Edwards is speaking from his gut, now . . .

If he had spoken like the populist that he is back in 2004, he would have won the nomination over Kerry, and the presidency over Bush.

[maddiejoan]

22. Why should I believe this?

I have zero reason to accept that he's suddenly a changed man.

[Krashkopf]

35. He is NOT a changed man . . .

He spent a career fighting for "the little guy" against large corporate/insurance interests. That is what plaintiff's personal injury attorneys do.

"Senator Edwards" had to tone down his progressive beliefs to get elected in a conservative southern state, and to get tapped as the VP candidate for Kerry.

[maddiejoan]

39. So how do I know he won't

tone down his beliefs as President to keep his poll numbers up?

Why should I trust him?

[H2O Man]

6. Senator Clinton

has valuable experience in politics. Her role as First Lady wass not the same as any other person's. She is intelligeny, and played a role in the administration. Also, she had experience on the staff of the Watergate committee, and did important work detailing the reasons for impeaching an executive. She has also been a good Senator; I say that even though I am not in agreement with some of her positions n important issues.

[Muttocracy]

7. covered in NY Times article

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/26/us/politics/26clinton.html

[KennedyGuy]

9. I'm from NY..we love her here...thats why she won re-election in a walk..

[Muttocracy]

12. token opposition

Not everyone. I'd rather vote for a New Yorker. She had weak opposition each time, which I think made her overconfidant this time around.

[hedgehog]

24. You don't suppose her election and re-election had anything to do with

all the big money donations (including a lot of out-of-state money) combined with the fact that the GOP ran total non-entities against her, do you?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

11. It worked for Bush, didn't it?

All those years being the son of a president? Worked out well, didn't it?

:eyes:

[maddiejoan]

18. Did Junior

Have an office and staff in the West wing during his Dad's Presidency?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

20. I'll bet he had the run of the place.

:shrug:

[maddiejoan]

25. what?

Hiding under the desk like John John (except with a coke spoon up his nose)?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

26. Or having an office and pretending to be president.

[maddiejoan]

27. so basically

you're just an ill informed crank

gotcha

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

28. No, a progressive.

Who doesn't like Nepotism.

[maddiejoan]

30. I'm a progressive

who thought JFK did a good job ignoring idiots with strawman arguments like nepotism.


BTW --Hillary isn't winning this by Nepotism --unless you think everyone who votes for her is related.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

31. Then why are you supporting nepotism?

"BTW --Hillary isn't winning this by Nepotism"

Oh, I agree with you there.

[maddiejoan]

32. How is it nepotism?

explain

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

34. It's the wife of a former president.

Kind of like how Pope Alexander VI was the nephew of Pope Callixtus III.

It's not rocket science.

[maddiejoan]

37. Uhm

We have a Democracy -- Hillary has to be voted in --just like the rest.


If Bill had picked Hill as her VP --THAT would have been nepotism.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

38. Sure.

And Pope Alexander VI was elected by the College of Cardinals.

Likewise, C-student Bush got into Harvard by being approved by the Board of Admissions.

Still, it's all Nepotism.

[YOY]

13. Since when CAN'T YOU FLYBY POSTERS STICK TO THE ISSUES!!!

GODDAMIT!

[LostinVA]

15. Good question -- and I'm beyond disgusted with it

[lvx35]

16. Your conclusion doesn't follow from your facts.

Okay, so you're saying Hillary has 6 year more in the senate than Obama (so 9 years?) because Obama has 3. And two more than edwards, so he must have 7. But what you're saying is then that Hillary has 3 TIMES the experience in the senate as Obama, (not to mention the consultations of the two term president she will go to bed with every night) yet your post is called the "experience myth"?

[Krashkopf]

33. We BOTH need to brush up on our political math . . .

but re-examination makes my point even STRONGER.

Obama as elected in 2004 and sworn-in in January 2005. Clinton was re-elected in 2006 and re-sworn-in in January 2007. Therefore, in terms of Senate experience: Clinton has 7 years; Edwards has 6 years; and Obama has 3 years.

That sounds like "a wash" to me.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

17. The future counts now not the past

all of the Dem candidates can do a good job.
Quality not quantity.

I think the person who wins the actual election will have a tough job in a possible economic recession with an increasing number of elderly care and a whopping deficit. Many global problems.

It is obvious the GOP screwed up on the economy already!

[MannyGoldstein]

21. Most Congressional Democrats Voted Against The War

Clinton voted for it.

If experience means waging insane wars, than I'll take naivete, thank you.

[Clanfear]

29. Obama has much more elected experience.

Her claim of experience is more rhetoric than substance.

[FrenchieCat]

36. Aye!

I'm not sure why being a State Senator is no longer experience? :shrug: