So one of the common themes I hear both here and from my friends who are supporting Hillary Clinton in the primary is that she’s more experienced and has a better record of accomplishing things i.e. “Getting-Things-Done” ™.
I am asking this genuinely, and not in a snarky way.
Why is this true/accurate?
Sanders “experience”
- 4 terms as mayor of Burlington (8 years)
- 8 terms in the House of Representatives (16 years)
- 2 terms (1 partial) in the Senate (10 years)
Clinton “experience”
- 12 years as Arkansas first lady
- 8 years as U.S. first lady
- 2 terms (1 partial) in the senate (8 years)
- 4 years as U.S. Secretary of State
So in terms of quantity of years, they have essentially the same amount of experience.
To me, that argument goes out the window.
...
A few questions that I think can lead the discussion (keep it clean, above the belt folks!). These also aren’t meant to be rhetorical questions, but they are clearly biased and trying to make a point.
(1) How are we defining “experience” to be able to make the original argument about Hillary?
(2) Do we count time as spouse of governor and president as “experience”?
(3) If we count time as first lady and first governor as her experience, can we then turn around and say, “We can’t hold her husbands legislative record against her”? (I think that’s a whole other diary)
(4) What do we count as accomplishments / getting things done? This is a big one for me. Do you automatically get credit for “accomplishing” things? Should it count if it supports poorly thought, just plain bad legislation?
(5) Where does the argument “Hillary will be able to get more done by ‘crossing-the-aisle’ come from? Is that something that we should be wanting as Democrats?
Discuss!! But be nice….. or I’ll bite…. and I haven’t been tested for rabies in a while.