Hillary's "Experience" Lie

http://www.slate.com/id/2182073/pagenum/all/#page_start

Hillary's "Experience" Lie
If that's her selling point, put me down for Obama.
By Timothy Noah
Posted Monday, Jan. 14, 2008, at 7:16 PM ET



When the 2008 presidential campaign began, I lacked strong feelings for or against Hillary Rodham Clinton. I knew, of course, that many people loathed the former first lady and that many other people adored her. But I'd never felt the large emotions she seemed to stir in others. New York's junior senator wants to be president? Fine, I thought. Let's hear her pitch. Because she was still a relative newcomer to government service, I assumed that, more than most presidential candidates, Clinton would recognize the need to give voters a reason to vote for her. I waited expectantly to discover what that reason might be.

I never dreamed the reason would be "experience." More astonishing still, the public seems to be buying it. According to a new New York Times/CBS News poll, 79 percent of all Democratic primary voters believe that Hillary Clinton has "prepared herself well enough for the job of President," compared with only 40 percent for Obama. "Experience Counts" declared the headline of a Jan. 9 editorial in the Boston Globe about the New Hampshire victories of Hillary Clinton and Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz. "The results suggest that, at the least, New Hampshire voters put more stock in the length of a candidate's track record than Iowa voters did," the Globe said. But the paper never got around to explaining what, in Hillary's case, that experience consisted of.

snip//

Oh, please. Thirty-five years takes you back to 1973, half of which Hillary spent in law school, for crying out loud. I don't mean to denigrate her professional experience. Clinton worked many years in corporate and public-interest law, performed advocacy work for the Children's Defense Fund and other groups, and was a university lecturer. She also devoted herself to raising a seemingly bright and loving daughter, which is no small feat, particularly given the public spotlight and some conspicuously bad behavior on the father's part.

But in government, Clinton's chief role over the years has been that of kibitzer. An important kibitzer, to be sure—what spouse isn't?—but not a direct participant. Clinton emphasizes in particular her profound experience in foreign policy. Here she is on Dec. 20:

It is tempting any time things seem quieter for a minute on the international front to think that we don't need a president who's up to speed on foreign affairs and military matters. Well, that's the kind of logic that got us George Bush in the first place. Experience in foreign affairs is critical for ending the war in Iraq, averting war in Iran, negotiating a Middle East peace and dealing with North Korea.

But a Dec. 26 New York Times story revealed that during her husband's two terms in office, Hillary Clinton did not hold a security clearance, did not attend meetings of the National Security Council, and was not given a copy of the president's daily intelligence briefing. During trips to Bosnia and Kosovo, she "acted as a spokeswoman for American interests rather than as a negotiator." On military affairs, most of her experience derives not from her White House years but from serving on the Senate armed services committee. In this capacity, William Kristol notes gleefully in the Jan. 14 New York Times, Clinton told Gen. David Petraeus this past September that his reports of military progress in Iraq—since shown to be undeniable—required "the willing suspension of disbelief." (What Kristol and Clinton both fail to say is that the surge's laudable military success has created a short-term opportunity that the Iraqi government and Bush himself are doing tragically little to seize. For example, a much-touted move by the Iraqi parliament to open government jobs to former members of the Baath party is, according to a Jan. 14 New York Times story, "riddled with loopholes and caveats to the point that some Sunni and Shiite officials say it could actually exclude more former Baathists than it lets back in.")

Clinton's claim to superior experience isn't merely dishonest. It's also potentially dangerous should she become the nominee. If Clinton continues to build her campaign on the dubious foundation of government experience, it shouldn't be very difficult for her GOP opponent to pull that edifice down. That's especially true if a certain white-haired senator now serving his 25th year in Congress (four in the House and 21 in the Senate) wins the nomination. McCain could easily make Hillary look like an absolute fraud who is no more truthful about her depth of government experience than she is about why her mother named her "Hillary." Dennis Kucinich has more government experience than Clinton. (He also has a better health-care plan, but we'll save that for another day.) If Clinton doesn't find a new theme soon, she won't just be cutting Obama's throat. She'll also be cutting her own.

:rofl:

Guiliani and Pirro both bugged out rather than face defeat.

lazio versus keyes..fucking repukes didn't have anyone left to put up against Obama. WTF cares except the neeners.

:toast:

:rofl:

experience aren't that hysterical.

erience in foreign policy.
His opinion of 3 Dem candidates.

Let's be clear. If you're a Democrat, experience isn't on this year's menu. The most experienced among the major candidates seeking the Democratic nomination were Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware and Sen. Christopher Dodd of Connecticut. They have now dropped out. The remaining major candidates—Clinton, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., and former Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C.—all lack lengthy records in government.

I was curious who this author was:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Noah

Iraq War

In a February 2003 article in Slate<5>, Noah described his initial opposition to the Iraq War and his conversion to the pro-war position by Colin Powell's February 3 speech to the United Nations. After many of Powell's statements were proven false, Noah changed his mind about the war, praising those who had remained steadfastly against it in an August 2004 column.<6>

join the bash Hillary squad. You don't, nor does anybody else, have to like her but please, please don't join the 24/7 bash Hillary no matter what here at DU. I value you too much as a fighter for what's right to see you join in the Hillary/Obama wars.

Without clearance, you don't know SQUAT, especially with regard to foreign policy. :shrug:

Now, with all his infidelity, I wonder if Bill Clinton will make the cut (be granted a security clearance) if he should snag first gentleman for himself? :shrug:

I think 'what's right' is to expose the truth. She's trying to run on experience she doesn't have. That's not pointed out often enough. Should we all just hide our heads in the sand and be good little soldiers? Vote for Clinton because she's been 'selected', is 'entitled', and that's what we're supposed to do? I cannot in good conscience do that.

Thank you for opening up this up for discussion. Considering Bill Clinton is banging away at this on the campaign trail, yes, let's do talk about it.

It is arguably clear from all the evidence we've been allowed to see that she has presented a puffy resume, lighter than air in spots and reconstructed with amphibian DNA in others.

Barack can take her.

Clinton's claim to superior experience isn't merely dishonest. It's also potentially dangerous should she become the nominee. If Clinton continues to build her campaign on the dubious foundation of government experience, it shouldn't be very difficult for her GOP opponent to pull that edifice down. That's especially true if a certain white-haired senator now serving his 25th year in Congress (four in the House and 21 in the Senate) wins the nomination. McCain could easily make Hillary look like an absolute fraud who is no more truthful about her depth of government experience than she is about why her mother named her "Hillary."

The GOP attacks our candidates on their perceived strengths. They turn Democratic war heroes into sniveling Al Qaeda coddling cowards. What do you suppose they are going to do to Hillary's "experience"? They are going to turn her into a frivolous socialite. Especially if McCain is the nominee.

I'm sick of hearing Hillary Clinton talk about her 35 years of "experience", as well. Being the first lady in Little Rock or in D.C. doesn't qualify as experience in my book. She may have done some good things in those 35 years. So what. Many people have done good things. Doesn't mean they deserve to be POTUS.

Have you been watching the debates? Do you think an ignoramus could memorize the hundreds and hundreds of pages of world facts that she spouts off at the top of her head? Need I add, first student to speak at a Wellsley graduation, graduate of Yale Law School, Partner in prestigious law firm, not to mention her years of experience welcoming dignitaries to the Governor's Mansion in Arkansas and the White House in Washington, D. C., and being welcomed as a dignitary herself all over the world. I'm beginning to think that we have an awful lot of jealous people that just can't abide someone as gifted as she is. That's a pity, for we really need her now.