Hillary's Closing Argument: It's The Experience, Stupid

Comments (70)

Kefa wrote on December 26, 2007 10:19 AM:

HRC will tout hers, what will your choice tout? Will your choice talk about the lack of HRC's or your choices's? That's the trick.

john mccutchen wrote on December 26, 2007 10:28 AM:

New York Times: Experiential Osmosis

Clinton’s Résumé Factor: Those 8 Years as First Lady

During her time in the White House, Hillary Rodham Clinton appeared to learn more through osmosis than through decision-making.

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/health/series/sixkillers/index.html

I am here to bear witness. I never would have passed my bar exam had I not slept on my law books the night before

Osomosis accounts for her four years support for the Greatest Strategic Disaster in US History

Helter wrote on December 26, 2007 10:40 AM:

Proven record of producing results? Her time in the senate hasn't resulted in any major legislation, and she certainly hasn't led the opposition to Bush. Mostly she's sat on the sidelines until it's been safe to speak out against him.

Meh.

Richard L. Adlof wrote on December 26, 2007 10:44 AM:

35 years protecting kids . . . Okay but where is the foriegn policy experience? Having "pony ride" picts taken while sitting on an elephant and sleeping with Bill are types of experience but not necessarily relavent experience to the conversation at hand.

35 years . . . Biden has logged almost that much time dealing will foreign affairs . . . Unfortunately, Biden has logged the same amount of time protecting the banking industry.

Her legendary toughness has been slain by her campaigns whining about dog piles and Bill's lukewarm defense.

Do Americans really have such short attention spans?

May Clinton could show some of that innovation the campaign machine has be touting of late and actually feed us something we can believe.

anon wrote on December 26, 2007 10:46 AM:

Can someone please explain to me how Hillary keeps foisting this "experience" line on voters and she isn't being laughed right out of the contest? Numerous candidates in the race have real experience as legislators over many years--even decades. Most of Hillary's "experience" is that she was the wife of someone who really did have experience in governing. She may have a couple of years more experience as a US Senator than Obama, but that's not a substantial difference. Hillary claiming to be the candidate of experience just proves that what people think about her (that she will say/do anything to get elected) is actually true. She's something else. I pray she gets crushed in both Iowa and NH so her vanity campaign will collapse and go away.

gtash wrote on December 26, 2007 10:50 AM:

Helter--and others--
Eriposte at Left Coaster prides him/herself in "rational comparative analysis" of Hillary v other candidates. Lengthy essays comparing voting records and criticizing Hillary critics.

I think the arguments are labored, but not bad if you think picking a president is strictly a rational decision.

I argue it isn't, but that's beside the point. You might see what Eriposte says about experience. And then explain it to me!

john mccutchen wrote on December 26, 2007 10:55 AM:

Ah those HillShills are good Greg. I gotta hand it to ya

Here we have ONE sentence reference to the New York Times article buried in one of your masterful cut and paste jobs from Clinton official propaganda.

Then I channel surf to MSNBC where they report on the New York Times piece with one opening sentence summary followed by an interview with a Clinton ccngressman from New York. But that's not the worst of it. The anchor prefaces "I have to disagree with the premise of the article. She did have experience in Bill's campaign...."

I switched channels at that point

Anonymous wrote on December 26, 2007 10:57 AM:

Can someone please explain to me how Hillary keeps foisting this "experience" line on voters and she isn't being laughed right out of the contest?

Just speaking for myself. I don't laugh but often howl and sometimes shriek, occasionally groan

colonpowwow wrote on December 26, 2007 11:07 AM:

A trip through memory lane. Here, once again, is the listing of experience that Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton brings to the table.

I await with baited breath, the list of same from Senators Edwards and Obama so we can objectively compare.

After graduating from Yale Law School, became a staff attorney for the Children's Defense Fund.

In 1973, she became a staff attorney for the House Judiciary Committee working, ironically, on helping them to consider impeachment of President Nixon.

Her first job after marrying Bill and moving to Arkansas was running a legal aid clinic handling foster care and child abuse cases.

At the age of 30, President Carter appointed her to the Board of the US Legal Services Corporation - a non-profit program that funds legal assistance to the poor.

As First Lady of Arkansas, she led a task force on improving education and served on the Board of Directors of three national organizations: The Children's Defense Fund, Child Care Action Campaign, and Children's Television Workshop.

At the same time, worked for Rose Law Firm. Worked helping Bill on his gubernatorial and presidential election campaigns - all the while handling the duties attendent to being Arkansas First Lady.

As a lawyer, she chaired the American Bar Association Commission on Women in the Profession. She was twice named one of the 100 most influential lawyers in America. Any insights here on administrative ability, the ability to rise to the top of her profession as a leader?

All this non-experience is from before she moved into the White House. See today's New York Times hit piece and read between the lines on how extensive this experience was and whether she characterizes it honestly.

After being elected Senator in a completely Republican controlled environment filled with her political enemies, her first speech on the Senate floor listed 5 healthcare proposals in detail that she could support.

Even Trent Lott across the aisle said in Hillary’s first year in the Senate, “Though I disagree with her on nearly everything politically, you have to be impressed by what a hard worker she is.”

Senator Clinton sits on the Senate Armed Services Committee and three subcommittees.

She sits on the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works and three subcommittees including chairing the Subcommittee on Superfund and Environmental Health.

BTW - the Senate subcommittee that Hillary chairs meets regularly and passes legislation (last met in October 2007). The subcommittee that Senator Obama chairs hasn't met ONCE since he's become Senator.

Clinton also sits on the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions and two subcommittees, and sits on the Senate Special Committee on Aging.

Here is just some of the legislation she has co-sponsored that is now law. This list doesn't include the hundreds of bills that she has signed onto or that she has strongly advocated - again this is bipartisan legislation passed in spite of an overall hostile Republican environment:

Clinton-Stevens Amendment for Enhanced 911 Funding Included in 9/11 Commission Recommendations Bill

Dodd-Clinton Amendment to Expand Family and Medical Leave Benefits to Wounded Soldiers and Their Families

Clinton-Collins Measure to Improve Mental Health Services for Seniors Included in Older Americans Act

Clinton-Enzi Military Personnel Financial Services Protection Act

Clinton-Obama National Medical Error Disclosure and Compensation Act

Frist-Clinton Wired for Health Care Quality Act

Graham-Clinton TRICARE Benefits Expansion
Clinton-Collins Measure to Protect Men and Women in Uniform From Predatory Lending and Insurance Practices

Clinton-Schumer Amendment to Restore 9/11 Funding

Clinton-Hagel Act – Recognition for wounded veterans.

Schumer-Clinton Bill to Protect 10,000 Acres of Puerto Rico's Caribbean National Forest

Clinton-Talent Military Health Readiness Legislation

Clinton-Nickles Unemployment Extension Agreement

Schumer-Clinton First Responders Amendment

Clinton-Smith Magnet Hospital Provisions Amendment to Nurse Reinvestment Act

Clinton-Dodd-Slaughter Protecting America's Children Against Terrorism Act

In the first part of 2007:

Senator Clinton introduced the Home Ownership Protection and Foreclosure Prevention Bill

Passed the Dodd-Clinton Amendment that expanded family and medical leave benefits to wounded soldiers and their families.

Authored provisions to the College Cost Reduction Act (now Law) that capped student loan monthly payments pegged to income and expanded Pell grants.

Co-sponsored the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act that passed the Senate

Introduced legislation with Sen. Patty Murray and Rep. Louise Slaughter to inform women of the availability of emergency contraception.

Now I admit that may not seem like much to you, but this is only the first part of 2007. I understand that she's also and remember, she's done a bit of campaigning this year.

LJ wrote on December 26, 2007 11:09 AM:

Kefa,

My candidate will be honest about his 10 years in elective office, while Hillary will exaggerate beyond her scant 7 years in elective office. Barack Obama is honest and trustworthy. Hillary Clinton is not.

The three front runners are the three least experienced candidates. The three most experienced candidates - Biden, Dodd, and Richardson - are running in the single digits in Iowa. Clearly, the presidency will not be going to the most experienced candidate this election. If somehow it does, that's great. Biden, Dodd, and Richardson have actual experience that will help them govern - I'll take that over Hillary's invented experience any day. And if Hillary gets the nomination and has to run against someone with real experience, like McCain, her experience argument is really going to come back to haunt her.

(Would anybody buy the notion that she's both stronger and more experienced than McCain? Of course not. But it would be funny to see how fast she'd drop the "strength and experience" slogan in the face of actual strength and experience.)

Like most Americans (see any poll of the Presidential race) I'm not necessarily looking for the most experienced candidate. I'm looking for someone with enough experience and a record of sound judgment who's honest and can begin to heal our nation after the Bush years. I'm not looking for a candidate with a record of poor judgment (Iraq War: yes, Patriot Act: yes, No Child Left Behind: yes), who exaggerates her own experience, and is evasive when asked a question.

john mccutchen wrote on December 26, 2007 11:11 AM:

LATEST UPDATE

Here's the link to the photo Greg doesn't want you to see
http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/photo/2007/12/25/PH2007122501200.jpg

You have to follow his links to hell and back to find it

surprise surprise

Haven't you got some junk mail to upload there Sgt Kleefeld?

grover_rover wrote on December 26, 2007 11:15 AM:

Psst, you don't have that much experience, stupid.

john mccutchen wrote on December 26, 2007 11:15 AM:

It's nice to know that as first lady, Mrs. Bill pretty much acted as Nancy Reagan, Barabara and Laura Bush.

Nice, but hardly surprising.

The real question is that if she's elected president, WWBD - What will Bill do with all that time on his hands?

amber wrote on December 26, 2007 11:18 AM:

It is the experience, stupid! That's why voters should choose Chris Dodd. I think a Dodd/Biden 2008 ticket is a sure winner. Real experience, none of this experience-by-association Hillary garbage. Hillary will never be president.

john mccutchen wrote on December 26, 2007 11:20 AM:

Not only did she NOT receive the PDB or any other classified intelligence, when she had the opportunity to read the 2002 NIE on Iraq, she didn't bother!

Every nation has to either be with us, or against us. Those who harbor terrorists, or who finance them, are going to pay a price.� Hillary Clinton, September 13, 2001 �In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members� It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.� Hillary Clinton Addressing the U.S. Senate October 10, 2001 There is a very easy way to prevent anyone from being put into harm’s way, that is for Saddam Hussein to disarm. And I have absolutely no belief that he will. I have to say that this is something I’ve followed for more than a decade. If he were serious about disarming, he would have been much more forthcoming. . . . I ended up voting for the resolution after carefully reviewing the information, intelligence that I had available, talking with people whose opinions I trusted, trying to discount the political or other factors that I didn’t believe should be in any way part of this decision. Hillary addresses Code Pink, March 7, 2003.

“We must stay the course” in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and asked for more troops to finish the job.
“We have to exert all of our efforts militarily”

November 29, 2003 Hilary visits the troops In Iraq and Afghanistan

john mccutchen wrote on December 26, 2007 11:21 AM:

Amber gets it.

If it's resume you are after can't beat Dodd, Biden or Richardson

The others don't even come close

audiophileguy wrote on December 26, 2007 11:24 AM:

The entire premise of Hillary's candidacy is based upon her "experience" as presidential spouse. I find this an arrogant, opportunistic and cynical ploy---and I remain deeply disturbed that more of the mainstream press have not called her to task regarding her "extensive experience." If she were to simply state her case in honest terms, I might consider her a serious candidate. Since Hillary continues to run solely on her husband's coat-tails, I cannot and will not vote for her.

Michael A wrote on December 26, 2007 11:24 AM:

I think the photo is completely unnecessary and feeds into the clinton II people's "hillary-hater" mantra. It's a shame to deflect addressing issues with a poor photo.

colonpowwow wrote on December 26, 2007 11:33 AM:

Hey, audiophile guy

Did you read my previous post? I don't see her standing on Bill's coattails. Sure, his name recognition helped, but she certainly helped him gain this name recognition as well. Do you think Bill came to the Senate and held her hand the last seven years?

Nothing is so blind as one who just won't see.

Keith wrote on December 26, 2007 11:36 AM:

colonpowwow:

Since it seems you place a significant emphasis on resume (particularly the length), how do you come down on the side of Clinton rather than say Biden, Dodd or Richardson?

Greg wrote on December 26, 2007 11:42 AM:

let me get this straight. I'm not allowed to object to WaPo making the despicable decision to print that photo?

Jeez. You'd think that we could at least agree that this was below the belt. I guess not, though.

Anyone who would defend WaPo on that because of his/her choice in the primary has gotten a bit carried away, I'd say.

john mccutchen wrote on December 26, 2007 11:43 AM:

Michael A has a point.

That's why I posted a direct link to the photo and why Greg didn't

john mccutchen wrote on December 26, 2007 11:45 AM:

The photo TPMElectHillaryCentral wants you too see

Reality bites Greg
http://www.ibabuzz.com/politics/wp-content/uploads/2007/04/senatorclinton.jpg

Michael A wrote on December 26, 2007 11:45 AM:

Greg, you are absolutely correct. Publishing the photo was despicable and below the belt. At any given time a pol has a bad photo taken, it really is unnecessary to post or publish it.

john mccutchen wrote on December 26, 2007 11:46 AM:

Lord knows we've seen it enough already.

colonpowwow wrote on December 26, 2007 12:00 PM:

Hillary Clinton (to her mom) - "Say, mom. President Carter once appointed me to the Board of Directors of US Legal Services Corporation, I've also been appointed to chair the Commission on Women in the Profession by the ABA.

I've twice been named as one of the "100 Most Influential Lawyers" in America, and I've served in the Senate for the last seven years, sitting on two Senate committees and seven subcommittees, one of which I chair.

Should I list those things on my resume?"

Mom replies, "Naw. Not if you're trying to impress John McCutcheon or Michael A., or the like."

little old lady wrote on December 26, 2007 12:05 PM:

Gosh! All women are going to get wrinkles. It is so "smart" of Hillary haters to remind women voters of that fact. When they ridicule Hillary, because of her age lines, they ridicule all women.

Greg wrote on December 26, 2007 12:05 PM:

thanks Michael. appreciate that.

colonpowwow wrote on December 26, 2007 12:08 PM:

Keith wrote on December 26, 2007 11:36 AM:
"colonpowwow:

Since it seems you place a significant emphasis on resume (particularly the length), how do you come down on the side of Clinton rather than say Biden, Dodd or Richardson?"

They're most excellent candidates as well, with considerably more national legislative and foreign policy as her, and I'll happily support them wholeheartedly if they win the Democratic Party nomination chosen by fellow Dems from a field of outstanding candidates - as I trust you will support Senator Clinton if she wins it in the same democratic way, right?

Keith wrote on December 26, 2007 12:16 PM:

colonpowwow:

Thanks for the response, but you didn't answer my question.

As for your question regarding Clinton, up until this past August was a registered independent. I changed my registration so that I could vote for Senator Obama. If he's not the nominee, then my vote is back on the table, so if Clinton is the nominee she'll have an equal shot at getting my vote (with a slight favor for the Democrat).

Michael A wrote on December 26, 2007 12:16 PM:

You're welcome Greg. What's fair is fair and that photo and pushing it is not fair.

Also, I agree with little old lady on the photo as well. Everyone gets wrinkles for God's sake. I actually respect her more for the fact that she didn't go plastic or try to artificially change her look. I really hate that. Be natural.

Kefa wrote on December 26, 2007 12:17 PM:

Thanks WashPost, keep on offending women everywhere. She thanks you.

cms wrote on December 26, 2007 12:21 PM:

I'm an Obama supporter, but that WaPo piece on "hangdog" pictures was a cheap shot at Clinton -- esp since hers was the only "hangdog" picture shown. It's a sexist piece, period. I hate that our media really and truly takes the lead of Drudge. The guy is pure slime, and his appeal is mind-boggling.

Michael A wrote on December 26, 2007 12:26 PM:

Colonpowwow,

I actually worked with a woman who was one of the 100 most influential lawyers in america. She was an awesome lawyer and I have the utmost respect for her. Do I think she should be president? Nope. I won't go into the reasons why, but some of those reasons are why she was an awesome lawyer.

You really don't get the experience point or you wilfully ignore it. Does she have experience? Yep. Has she totally tried to oversell it? Yep. Does she have a little more than obama? Maybe and maybe not it kind of depends what you qualify as experience. Does she have more than edwards? I would say yes. Is her experience so overwhelming that she can demean obama, edwards and the other candidates with her claim? Nope.

Do we really know her record? Nope. She won't let the white house years come out and I have not taken the time to track down her senate experience on the net. Has the media revealed it? Nope. Do I trust what she or mr. bill say? Nope, look at the track record of distortion, triangulation and out right lies. Any thinking person would not believe a word they say. They have lost all credibility. Sorry.

Then when you add on any questioning or doubt is un-american and all the other things that you people say, it kind of irritates people and further turns them off.

These are a number of reasons why a large part of the electorate is anybody but clinton II, and that is not a good thing for your candidate or the democratic party.

blackstar wrote on December 26, 2007 12:38 PM:

colonpowwow:

wow, that's a pretty weak resume to be running as if your entire argument is centered around "experience and the ability to get things done". zero foreign policy and a bunch of amendments to improve post-combat resources for American troops. i bet those latter amendments took SO much effort and negotiation to pass.

and what "duties" are involved in being a First Lady, of a governor or of a President? overseeing the White House staff and formal receptions and repeating your husband's talking points in public?

the NYT article today makes very clear that Mrs. Clinton did not have a security clearance, did not attend NSC meetings, and did not actively involve herself in policy-making, and hardly even policy INFLUENCING. so what does she know about getting POLICY enacted, much less difficult, contentious policy? if all she's running on for a formal record is hosting nice dinner parties for foreign diplomats and heads of state, why don't you just run Martha Stewart?

goethean wrote on December 26, 2007 12:38 PM:

I'm an Obama supporter. WaPo's running of the bad Clinton picture was slimey.

Please keep in mind that the posters here linking to the picture are most likely Republicans --- they hate Clinton far more than Democrats (who may end up voting for her) do.

TB wrote on December 26, 2007 12:39 PM:

Let's be honest, the top three democratic contenders are, by far, less experienced than the rest of the field. Hillary and Obama's levels of experience seem similar, although probably a slight edge to Hillary based on being first lady (that's hard to evaluate but it's obviously worth something). Edwards is by far the least experienced of all the candidates. The totality of his government/political experience is one senate term. Before that, his entire career was spent as a personal injury lawyer. That's not intended to be a knock on any of these candidates.

But I just find it stunning that Hillary can run as the "experience" candidate when her level of experience is FAR closer to that of Obama and Edwards than it is to Biden, Dodd or Richardson, or even Kucinich. Some folks may be buying her pitch on experience, but I find it insulting.

Kefa wrote on December 26, 2007 12:53 PM:

wow...I don't believe it.....nobody said HRC paid the Washpost to put that pic up for the vote of women? I can't believe no one saw the genius in that move. J/K lol.

CalD wrote on December 26, 2007 12:57 PM:

My read of the Times piece is that there's at least as much there for Clinton to brandish as anyone else. The lede paragraph alone almost reads like it could have been written by her own speech writers and it goes on to confirm virtually every claim she's actually made. (We already kind of knew she didn't serve on the cabinet or work at the State dept.)

Anonymous wrote on December 26, 2007 12:58 PM:

To all Obamadingdongs

Can you please write about Obama's experience in public office. Provide some links and please don't bother mentioning his book. Heard that lame argument before.

EH wrote on December 26, 2007 1:03 PM:

Ha ha ha, every time there's an Obama or Hillary story, their respective campaign offices must rally their troops to snowjob every blog comment section. It's partially this reason that I hold Hillary and Obama in the same bucket as Ron Paul (except for Paul having better reasons for his wackiness).

The way I see this story:

Hillary's "experience" edge = familiarity with the "way things are done" = working for the status quo.

Michael A wrote on December 26, 2007 1:09 PM:

Way to get a response anon. Start off the post with "obamadingdongs." I will make a point though, obama isn't running as this overwhelmingly experienced candidate to trump everyone else's experience. That kind of cuts against your attempt to compare resumes. However, people have talked about his experience in these posts. Maybe you should check them out. Also, I don't recall anyone referring to his books, so I guess you made up that "lame argument."

CalD wrote on December 26, 2007 1:10 PM:

EH,

So if Senator's Clinton and Obama both belong in the "same bucket" as Ron Paul, let me guess: Kucinich? Am I warm?

Franklin wrote on December 26, 2007 1:12 PM:

Among Hilary's notable achievements as First Lady we can also add TravelGate. I think this was a case of doing the right thing, but man, was it handled about as competently as Health Care Reform. A real disaster.

In terms of Obama's experience in public office, please check out the NY Times series from about two or three months ago in reference to his work in the Illinois state senate (especially in reference to campaign finance and ethics reform -- he did some great work on that issue). Of course there's also the 20,000 lbs. gorilla of the Iraq War. It can't be overstated just how pivotal the impact of the war is likely to be for future generations in terms of our long term alliances and financial well-being. The invasion has made the global environment substantially more complicated and dangerous.

Even though the 2002 AUMF was not a war plan, it effectively gave the Bush administration cover for what has been a truly horrendous foreign policy blunder. Hilary basically remained stay the course on the war until 2005.

Never mind that she ONCE AGAIN gave this administration a blank check in reference to the Kyl-Lieberman amendment.

Experience without judgment is fairly worthless. She really doesn't have much to brag about in this regard.

Keith wrote on December 26, 2007 1:13 PM:

Anon:

Here's a link to the bills he sponsored (and passed) during his tenure in the Illinois State Senate.

http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2007/07/29/us/politics/20070730_OBAMA_GRAPHIC.html

During his short tenure in the US Senate, he's worked with Coburn on government accountability, Lugar on nuclear proliferation, spearheaded Ethics Reform with Feingold and Reid, he's introduced legislation to undo KLA. You can get more information from his Senate website:

http://obama.senate.gov/issues/

As you'll no doubt note, he has considerable more LEGISLATIVE experience than Senator Clinton. However, unlike Clinton, Obama is not making an experience argument. He's arguing that he has not only the vision, but the capacity to implement the change he believes we need during the next term. His argument is about investing more energy in results rather than more partisan rancor. Certainly he can leverage his legislative experience, but with Biden, Dodd and Richardson in the race it would be disingenous for him to make the experience argument.

JR wrote on December 26, 2007 1:16 PM:

Starting a year before she officially announced, I have tried and tried to figure out a reason to vote for Hillary Clinton. Instead, every week she gives me a reason to look elsewhere.

I second all the posters who state, if it's experience, vote Biden, Dodd, Richardson, even Kucinich - all have resumes which dwarf her own.

That she continues to make this argument infuriates me. Either she believes we're suckers for her lies or she is living in a delusional bubble.

Also, I believe judgment DOES come into the equation. Let's give her husband the benefit of the doubt - stop that snickering! - and believe his statement that he opposed the Iraq war from the beginning. I want Sen. Clinton to answer this question: Did you disagree with your husband, or simply lack the moral courage to stand up on the floor of the Senate and hold Pres. Bush to his promise to bring to justice the perpetrators of 9/11? (For the record, I would also like Giuliani, Schumer and all Congressional reps from the Tri-State area.)

Michael A wrote on December 26, 2007 1:24 PM:

Thanks keith, I knew I could count on you to make a concise and informative post. Actually, your summary of why a qualified, experienced enough candidate and a candidate with sound judgement wouldn't be playing up experience in a field with biden, dodd and kucinich, is spot on. By the way, do you know of any links for clinton II's legislative record? I am very curious and have been asking to no avail.

dajafi wrote on December 26, 2007 1:26 PM:

At this point, I'd be pretty happy if the Washington Post just closed up shop. They reinforce the two worst tendencies of American public life: the obsession with irrelevant minutiae and salacious nonsense that's turning our whole media culture into variations on "OK! Magazine," and the reflexive deference to whoever's in power that brought us the Iraq War. Sen. Clinton's wrinkles are entirely irrelevant to the question of who should lead the country; if anything, I prefer someone who's aging with some grace to an artificial monster like Romney.

That said, her "experience" argument is an even bigger load of crap than usual for the endlessly dissembling and self-serving Clintons.

I can credit that she was an accomplished professional--though her work as a lawyer 30 years ago doesn't strike me as particularly relevant (or at least less so than Obama's community organizing or constitutional law professorship more recently)--and that she's done some useful, albeit non-controversial, things as a Senator. But on the major issues through at least the last half of her career, from health care reform to the AUMF to the now-forgotten welfare reform reauthorization debates of 2003-2004 to Kyl-Lieberman, her judgment has been TERRIBLE. Wrong every time, and always with the right thing subordinate to political expediency.

Obama's judgment, by contrast, has been pretty damn good. Add in that he isn't beholden to corporate interests and the Beltway Establishment to anywhere near the same degree she is, and if you're limiting your choice to the two of them, it's a pretty easy call.

Vote change. Vote hope.

CalD wrote on December 26, 2007 1:33 PM:

JR,

Guess in both cases, it kind of depends on what your definition of what "the beginning of the war" was. If in your mind, the war began with the passage of the AUMF Iraq then both Clintons are lying when they say they opposed the war from the start. However if it began months later, when Bush decided to throw out the UN inspectors and send in the troops, then they're both telling the truth.

Anonymous wrote on December 26, 2007 1:34 PM:

Keith,

State senate record is so lame. Every state senate passes hunderds of bill and many of them are absolutely meaningless.

His record in the US senate is important which really lacks in any substance. His not having a single hearing on European relations a subcommittee which he chairs. His one night visit to London. He points out his opposition to war in 2002 but has voted identically as Sen Clinton on war bills since he got in senate. Experience counts and is not just how many bills you pass but how it affects everyday life of ordinary people.

Michael A wrote on December 26, 2007 1:39 PM:

Hey anon, do you have a link for clinton II's legislative record in the senate?

Keith wrote on December 26, 2007 1:40 PM:

Thanks Michael A. As for Clinton's legislative record, I'm going to leave that to one of her supporters (colonpowwow?) to produce a list of the bills she's sponsored and enacted since she's been a US Senator. Wouldn't want anyone claiming I was posting "oppo research."

CalD wrote on December 26, 2007 1:47 PM:

Keith,

You could always try vote-smart.org, Clinton's senate and campaign web sites and maybe Thomas. That kind of information really isn't that hard to come by these days.

Anonymous wrote on December 26, 2007 1:50 PM:

Michael and Keith,

Here is a start. If you read all the links it will take you days. I hope you have the patience.

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

Keith wrote on December 26, 2007 1:59 PM:

CalD:

Again, if a Clinton supporter is looking to run down the question, by all means knock themselves out. Vote smart is an excellent resource, especially in comparing voting records. But, if I recall correctly, the question was about legislative experience, which I took to be broader than voting record.

Anon:

Thanks for spelling out that you'll continue to define the experience criteria to make only Clinton-specific experience relevant. No need to address your response with any seriousness.

Also, your link doesn't point to any legislation that Clinton sponsored/co-sponsored or passed, but largely discusses her votes during her two terms.

brewmn wrote on December 26, 2007 2:33 PM:

colonpowwow wrote:

"President Carter once appointed me to the Board of Directors of US Legal Services Corporation, I've also been appointed to chair the Commission on Women in the Profession by the ABA.

I've twice been named as one of the "100 Most Influential Lawyers" in America..."

It's really telling that about two-thirds of what you claim is Clinton's "experience" is experience outside of government. And most of that is in no way relevant to what any normal person would consider necessary for being president. Alot of professional women sit on boards of commissions and charitable organizations. Again, that does not qualify them for the presidency.

The argument that Clinton is the most experienced candidate in the field is obviously and transparently bullshit. Stop insulting the people here's intelligence by trying to make it.

CalD wrote on December 26, 2007 2:47 PM:

Keith,

Suit yourself. But I find it's always better to do my own research and draw my own conclusions. If you just rely on what other people have to say, it's too easy to influenced too much by whoever has the slicker sales pitch -- not that salesmanship isn't an important part of politics, but there's obviously a lot more to being president than that. And like I said, that information isn't so hard to come by these days. It's all public record and virtually all available online.

keith wrote on December 26, 2007 2:52 PM:

I wasn't suggesting that I wouldn't verify what was posted. Only that I'm not interested enough to make(or break) HRC's case.

CalD wrote on December 26, 2007 3:36 PM:

I just now checked the Library of Congress Thomas search engine though and it lists some 622 public bills and amendments with Senator Clinton as a primary sponsor (i.e., not a co-sponsor) -- 146 so far in the current congress. It's easy enough for anyone who really wants to know what she's been up to legislatively to just go and scan through them.

Michael A wrote on December 26, 2007 3:59 PM:

You're welcome keith. By the way, I am just fishing for a summary of her voting and sponsorship. I take colonpowwow's list at face value. I am really not interested in searching all over the net. The NY times did an exhaustive analysis of obama's state record and 4000 votes, you would think in the interests of fairness that some media organization did the same for clinton II. Apparently not and clinton II supporters just want to repeat ad nauseum the mantra of she's so experienced and so wonderful and glorious without at least pointing to one article analyzing the alleged experience.

Thanks for the links and points cald, I just may take you up on reading all of it when I get time. Are you aware of any articles and summaries like what the NY times did about obama? Seems only fair.

roo_P wrote on December 26, 2007 4:41 PM:

The photo issue was another example of terribly poor judgement on WaPo's side. I liken it to the horrible article on Obama's "muslim rumours" although this was not quite as severe an issue as that.

Michael A wrote on December 26, 2007 5:00 PM:

Does anybody have any idea what is going on at the wash post? I used to read the paper all the time when I lived in dc in the 80's and it was not this bad. Their editorial writers are now absurd, sauer kraut is certifiable, and the obama piece and this stupid picture are really pathetic. WTF is going on at the wash post? They are sounding and acting more and more like the washington times every day.

SD wrote on December 26, 2007 5:56 PM:

Healy's NY Times article comes shortly after former Ambassador Joe Wilson's case for Mrs. C's foreign policy credentials. The NY Times article is basically Sen. Obama's argument.

Jonah Goldberg at NRO suggests Obama and Edwards place copies of the article on cars throughout Iowa.

I have posts on both pieces if anyone is interested...http://thepoliticalpost.wordpress.com/2007/12/26/ny-times-article-questions-mrs-clintons-resume-factor/

colonpowwow wrote on December 26, 2007 8:47 PM:

Hey brewmn:

Thanks for the insightful comments, especially the personal attacks.

So in your opinion, being named by the President of the United States (at age 30, no less), to sit on the Board of an agency charged with providing legal assistance to poor people, is not worthy of inclusion on a resume for President. Okay.

And, of course, being selected by your peers as being one of the outstanding people in your profession among tens of thousands of others, although it shows your ability to rise to the top of your profession, it has no business on a political resume. Okay.

Well, maybe add that to a lifetime of public advocacy and seven years in the US Senate - where one of her peers and one of her biggest opponents, Trent Lott, commented on how outstanding her work ethic is, and maybe you've got something impressive, I dunno.

Of course, perhaps not to brewmn. He's a tough one, boy.

blackstar wrote on December 26, 2007 8:51 PM:

And, of course, being selected by your peers as being one of the outstanding people in your profession among tens of thousands of others, although it shows your ability to rise to the top of your profession, it has no business on a political resume. Okay.

--------------

didn't Alberto Gonzales make that same list this year, chief?

good argument.

colonpowwow wrote on December 26, 2007 9:05 PM:

blackstar:

Look, like him or not, I would say that Alberto did indded demonstrate the ability to rise to the top of his profession.

If that's a reason to slam Hillary's accomplishment (along with everyone else who's made that distinguished list) - so be it.

Personally, I'd like to "hire" a President who has demonstrated the abilities to rise to the top of her profession.

You?

K Eldridge wrote on December 26, 2007 11:38 PM:

Experience is a familiar word in politics. Let me remind folks that experience came with George W. Bush. His cabinet was impressive. The results left the nation in the world fractured (name the issue).

In Bush 43, you had a governor of the 2nd largest populated state. If Hillary get elected to the office President, we get more experience, but I am afraid she will not be able to get much done.

Ask yourself one question, will the republicans work with the Hillary, someone whom they despise, to get much needed legislation on healthcare, education, etc. If they fail to work with her, here’s my prediction; she will be a one-term president. Given the approval rating of congress, it seems almost certain that republican are looking like a pretty good option as time goes by. Imagine, President Hillary Clinton with a republican congress- it’s over.

In such a scenario, I see a democrat in office who will need to make concessions with republicans at the expense of issues that are important to democrats.

blackstar wrote on December 27, 2007 12:12 AM:

Look, like him or not, I would say that Alberto did indded demonstrate the ability to rise to the top of his profession.

------------

except that the authors of that list came out publically and made a correction after his inclusion that the list itself is based only on notoriety, and has no necessary connection to competence or recognition of "being at the top of the profession".

it would be like Putin coming out and putting his recent Time Magazine "Man of the Year" award on his "resume". does that disparage everyone else on the list? no. but neither does it mean that he was the best President or did the most good for his country, or even was a good human being.

Bret wrote on December 27, 2007 9:46 AM:

Maybe I was a little young (I'm only 24 now) but I don't remember Hillary accomplishing anything while married to the 42nd President. She tried and failed with her 'Hillarycare,' have I missed something since then? Yes, she does have Senatorial experience...but not much.

Also, one must consider this whole argument of her experience. I've grown tired of it. We know she has more than Obama...barely. I'm sorry Hillary fans, being married to the President doesn't count. Both of them have far less experience than others (namely Biden and Dodd), so experience really shouldn't be a primary factor. Barack does, however, have more experience than a certain Representative from Illinois who won the Oval Office over a century ago. Whether this percieved lack of experience is detrimental to his candidacy(or beneficial to hers) is only a matter of perspective. Personally, I'm tired of the old guard: Reps. and Senators that are more concerned with keeping their jobs than accomplishing anything substantive. I understand why they enjoy six figure salaries and comprehensive benefits, but why do they resist providing healthcare to those most in need? Have we forgotten that they work for US? Or are we simply too apathetic and lazy to care? Clearly, we need a change in the way Washington does business. "Throwing the bums out" is a good place to start.

I've seen postings on other sites suggesting that a vote for Obama is a wasted vote. This idea is ridiculous on its face. ANY vote that is cast is not wasted, but represents the person who cast it as a participant in this great experiment we call democracy. I don't care if a person votes Republican or Democrat, as long as s/he casts a ballot. To think voting for the candidate of one's choosing as a waste is the reason our Republic is no longer representative of its people. We allow ourselves to be convinced to vote how others would like us to, because we don't want to 'waste' our votes.

I want Obama to be my President, not because of his candor, demeanor, experience (or percieved lack thereof), or Oprah, but because he has a CONSCIENCE. I think this is THE quality the American people want in their next President. Obama has that requisite...though a little help from Oprah probably won't hurt either :-)

DonnaG wrote on December 27, 2007 9:54 AM:

Last spring, I spent many, many hours [huge time segments of three days] searching the Thomas site regarding legislation sponsored or cosponsored by Hillary Clinton.......and I did so with a list from her official Senate news release site at hand......trying to rectify what her news releases were touting with her actual record.

I am on the road at the moment. At home I have pages of notes from that study. I recall that I looked into something like 1,800+ pieces of legislation either sponsored or co-sponsored by Clinton.

But, I can summarize my findings: 78% of her successfully sponsored legislation was fluff like re-naming post offices or writing resolutions to honor specific individuals. If memory serves, the only substantive legislation she herself successfully sponsored had to do with 9/11 aftermath support for first responders, Puerto Rico set-aside land, and extending benefits to family care-givers.

I came away from that study very very distrustful of anything coming from camp Hillary. Without that study, I would have been deceived by her web sites, as I am sure many folks continue to be deceived by the spin. Also, I found instances of Hillary Clinton taking credit for work done by others, which is a pretty damn depraved fluffing of her resume; not only is that a form of lying, but it is the stealing of the limelight belonging to others.

I admit that I have become solidly anti-Hillary since studying her record. It took long hours to discover the unpalatable truth behind her claims. I have absolutely no respect for someone who will lie like she has through pruposefully unverifiable fluff. If anyone wants to just look at her web sites, please note that those sites never identify specific legislation in ways that allow verification of her fluffy boasting.
Since last spring, I have taken everything coming from her camp with a hefty dose of scepticism. Even in her campaigning, its all about juggling images, parroting sound bites, and stealing any and all popular messages of her competitors. How many times will this machine candidate change her stripes? Answer, as many times as necessary to steal from others. To my friends, I Iaughingly refer to Hillary as the stalker. She watches what works for others, and stalks them in order to steal their messages. I cannot count the times I have watched Hillary hurrying forward to appear to lead the parades others have organized.

I have read what colonpowwow has to offer of Hillary's resume. I have no issue with her earlier life and accomplishments. But, that was a decades-ago Hillary who still had some ideals and integrity. Back then, I imagine that she was not yet compromised by the adjustments and compromises she choose in the last 15 years. Her Senate record is her most recent and only publically available record [save for her earmarks requests which she refuses to disclose]. Her Senate record AND her fluff about it both tell me all I need to know about her unfitness to be considered a 'leader'. [And, I have not even mentioned her poor judgment on issues of life and death.]

Post a comment

Name:
Email Address:
URL:
	Remember personal info?
Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)