A serious question i.e. experience

[doni_georgia]

Okay, so Hillary Clinton has more experience in the Senate than Barack Obama - that's a given. But compared to McCain they are both neophytes in the Congress. Has Hillary really thought through this argument? Using her logic, McCain is far and away the most experienced candidate.

Sure, she has experience as First Lady that McCain lacks, but is that really viable experience for the job? Imagine Kennedy running against Mamie Eisenhower!

This is something we really need to look at. Considering whichever candidate wins the Democratic nomination, should the Democrats be talking about experience when they will be running against a Congressional lifer? It just doesn't make sense to me.

[goodgd_yall]

1. The argument is made in this phase of the process

to contrast the two Democratic candidates. In the GE other arguments will be made; they will be more issue-based.

[doni_georgia]

2. But don't you see how her words can be used against her?

That's my point. McCain could use clips of Hillary's speeches against her. You have to look at the long range, and that is not what the Clinton's are doing. Their ends-justify-the-means-for-now tactics make no sense in the long run. If anything, this is truly being naive.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

3. Riight....The Republicans will obligingly go along with however we try to frame the argument

They'll totally forget to attack Sen. Clinton on what has been her strongest point up to now. :eyes:

[Straight Shooter]

4. Hillary has long-standing relationships on the Hill.

Both with Repubs and Dems. She is not a neophyte by any means. Better to research her history on the Hill through the Internet and turn off the TV.

Kennedy was not that great, he's been incredibly romanticized. More time in office would have given us a better perspective of his abilities.

[doni_georgia]

9. Don't get your knickers in a twist

I didn't say she WAS a neophyte, I said compared to McCain. It is all a matter of perception. Having ties to the Hill does not make one any more ready to be President than someone with no ties. In fact, history would show the opposite. As for turning off the TV - rarely watch it myself - I actually prefer the printed word to television or the Internet.

[Straight Shooter]

12. Don't be condescending.

McCain is a fossil, so entrenched he's out of touch. There. Feel better?

[doni_georgia]

16. Smart ass - yes! Bitch - often! Condescending - never!

:)

[Straight Shooter]

18. Well, I'm glad we got that settled!

:hi:

[question everything]

5. Quality vs. quantity

Hillary has traveled the world, met with foreign leaders as well as with regular folks.

She understands how different cultures and history operate in different parts of the world.

Plus, being in Washington for 16 years she understand how the Executive and Legislative branches work.

Remember, the experience of LBJ in Congress was important when he passed his various Great Society and Civil Rights laws.

Obama may have the knowledge and intelligence to understand these issues but, at the end, it is the President who makes the decision (unless he is George Bush).

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

7. Hmm

"Remember, the experience of LBJ in Congress was important when he passed his various Great Society and Civil Rights laws."

When LBJ was in congress? I don't remember him passing much civil rights legislation when he was in congress. I remember him BLOCKING civil rights legislation when he was in congress, but not passing.

[question everything]

13. Sigh. When he was President his experience in Congress helped him pass the laws

but you knew that one, didn't you?

[doni_georgia]

11. Okay, let me see if I get this

By this argument, George HW Bush would have made a far better choice than Bill Clinton. He had far more experience in world travels and knowing foreign dignitaries. He certainly knew how the legislative and executive branches of federal government worked. In 1996, America should have voted for Bob Dole, because his experience in Congress far outreached Bill's experience as a one-term President. right?

Look, I'm not trying to be contentious. I'm just trying to get people to think. I've said it before, I will vote for the Democratic nominee. I'm just really sick of the attacks on Barack by the Clintons, when any of these attacks either can be turned on Hillary or could have been used against Bill in the 90s.

[question everything]

20. Every elections are different

Bush was the incumbent and was not an exciting president. Rather, he was not "Reagan third term." And in those days, "the economy, stupid" was the main issue. And let's not forget, were it not for Ross Perot Bush may have been a two term president.

In 1976 Clinton was the incumbent and Dole was a bore and staid.

And this is how McCain will appear.

Last: both Bill Clinton and Bush II came with no experience and understanding of foreign affairs. After the end of the Cold War this did not appear important. Which is why Bush I and Dole were not convincing.

Now, it is.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

6. I think it's fairly safe to say...

that no, Hillary Clinton was not thinking very far ahead.

She thought Obama would be toast by now, and people would have forgotten she was the experience candidate.

[scheming daemons]

8. Here's Hillary's "experience"

She claims 35 years of experience. That means she is claiming that EVERYTHING SHE HAS DONE since leaving law school as a 25 year old is relevant experience.

20 of those 35 years were as first lady of Arkansas or first lady of the U.S.

Counting years as "first lady" as relevant experience is the equivalent of a brain surgeon's spouse claiming they are capable of operating on a tumor because they hang around their spouse.

If simply "being in the White House" counts as experience, then Chelsea (or even Socks) has the same experience.

She has been on Capitol Hill for 7 years.... Obama for 3. That's the relevant "experience gap" here. 4 years.

[doni_georgia]

15. Thank you - that was all I was trying to say

The biggest problem I have seen with the Clinton campaign is the lack of any long-term planning. They thought they would have this thing in the bag by February 3rd. That would give them months to plan their campaign against the republicans and reinvent Hillary in whatever way they deemed would best ensure a victory. Barack's candidacy has caught them completely off guard. It is clear to me (as someone who has worked in campaigns) that there is a serious lack of cohesion and planning. Their message has been all over the place. There has been none of the fine-tuned machine that the Clinton's were famous for in 1992. Lack of long-range planning in politics will bite you in the ass. Anything you say WILL be used against you - count on it.

[question everything]

22. What a sheer demagoguery

Are you really comparing Hillary Clinton, who was always a confidant and close adviser of Bill, who traveled the world and met many foreign leaders, to Socks? Or to a wife of a surgeon?

Wait, Michelle Obama will be just as influential as Hillary was but, I suppose, this will be "different."

[scheming daemons]

24. No...Michelle Obama will not be any more influential than Hillary was....

....and if, later in life, Michelle wants to run for office... she shouldn't use her time as First Lady as her "experience".

My wife is a software engineer. That in no way gives me any experience in writing software. Being the spouse of a President is not "Presidential experience". It just isn't.

[scheming daemons]

25. One more thing.... do you consider Laura Bush "experienced" to be President?

If not.... then don't claim Hillary's years as First Lady as "experience".

[ShortnFiery]

10. HRC, as First Lady was not granted a security clearance, she did NOT sit in on high level

meetings because simply ... she was NOT cleared.

Why HRC thinks 20 years as first lady of AK (12) and then our Nation (8) should count as "experience" blows my mind. I was a Marine Officer's wife on active duty while he enjoyed a number of commands during 18 of his 20 year career. Gee, I didn't even consider putting that on my resume. Maybe I qualify for at least a company level command, ya think? :crazy:

[Avalux]

14. How many times have we elected Senators to President?

Not very often. I have found it interesting how all of a sudden, the amount of time spent in the Senate has been made relevant to being a good president. I happen to think being a legislator for a long period of time tends to do the opposite to a person because most of the time they do.....NOTHING.

[doni_georgia]

19. Kennedy was the last one

Before that, I don't know. It doesn't happen often. What makes a good legislator is not the same thing that makes a good executive. Very different qualities.

[Avalux]

21. Yep, that's correct!

That's why the back and forth with "what has Obama accomplished in the Senate" is not very important and shouldn't be.

:hi:

[mathewsleep]

17. exactly.

you can't beat mccain on experience. only on inspiration.
look how well the experience argument is working for hillary. mccain will have just as hard of a time trying to sell that bullshit in the general election.

[onenote]

23. Agreed. I made a similar point yesterday

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4683106&mesg_id=4683846