Hillary Clinton: Strength + Experience + 35 years = ???
Tue Nov 20, 2007 at 09:41:23 AM PDT
When I listen to Senator Clinton, she always refers to her strength and experience and her 35 years of fighting for causes as the rationale to favor her over the other candidates.
I myself originally bought into that as a favorable plus for her till I started thinking about it and thought to myself, that shouldn't strength and experience and 35 years mean an impressive list of accomplishments? Isn't that the point of speaking to your experience? A record of achievement?
So let's take a look...
Let's face it, the majority of the underpinnings of Senator Clinton's claim to have the right experience for the Presidency is from being First Lady in Bill Clinton's White House.
I thought that Senator Obama in an off the cuff remark made an interesting observation in regards to Senator Clinton challenging him on his economic policy. He said,
"My understanding is that she wasn't Treasury Secretary in the Clinton Administration".
That's an interesting and salient (if obvious) point because let's look at what else she wasn't: She wasn't Secretary of State, she wasn't Secretary of Energy, She wasn't Secretary of Commerce et cetera...And she wasn't VP.
So, what did she exactly do?
It seems to me that the majority of her experience in the White House was as an adviser to Bill Clinton. As an advisor you are not accountable for anything nor is there very much evidence on the actual advice since we have no complete set of records available for her. Note that I am not knocking her role as adviser as she is clearly a smart person but because you are an adviser to a President is that enough public qualification to run for President? How many others have run for president based on their years as Presidential adviser?
The one major policy that she was in charge of - health care - ended up as a debacle in that she could not pass it when there was a Democratic President, Senate and House. In fact, that was a pretty clear failure.
So, apparently Hillary was not in charge of anything major and cannot speak to actual accomplishments that she can take credit for during her years at the White House.
Well, she is a Senator now some say. Fair enough, she has been in the Senate for just over 1 term. I ask again, what has she accomplished and can point to as an achievement in the Senate? Did she author and pass important legislation? Did she lead the charge on any important legislative crusade?
The answer is NO and NO.
In fact, the most important vote that she cast was the war in Iraq and she got it wrong. Did she show strength and speak out against the popular tide? Did she show her experience in understanding the consequences of an Iraqi occupation?
The answer once again is NO and NO. With "35 years of experience" you think that she would not show such incredibly poor judgment.
Joe Biden and Chris Dodd have years of experience and can point to important legislation that they have passed. Bill Richardson can point to experience being in charge of an important cabinet position and a state. Barack Obama at least showed good judgment in speaking out against the war and was an effective state legislator and is running as a new/change candidate. Mike Gravel can point to his record in the Senate and the legitimate strength that he showed in opposing the Vietnam War and the success he had in helping end it. Even Dennis UFO Kucinich shows the courage to challenge the system consistently - even if by himself. John Edwards is not running on an experience platform but as a reformer and his private life showed the willingness to take on and beat larger opponents.
Hillary Clinton? Strength + Experience + 35 years = Not so much.
I'm sorry to say, the Empress has no clothes...
If I'm wrong, I'd like to hear cogent arguments why.
