Hillary now claims that electing Obama is tantamount to electing another inexperienced Bush. The implication is that Obama's "inexperience" would result in the same types of messes created by Bush. Thus, we should choose Clinton because she boasts a resume packed with 35 years of experience, including special qualifications as First Lady and target of the right-wing attack machine.
Hillary does not get it, so "let's be clear. If you're a Democrat, experience isn't on this year's menu." Traditionally, presidential candidates had resumes with more years of government experience than the traditional government records of both Clinton (7 years in Senate) and Obama (8 years in state senate and 3 in US Senate). Traditional records typically included cabinet- level positions held in former White House administrations, governor, UN ambassador, decades in Congress etc. Voters are looking for something different, which Hillary just ignores, trying to squeeze experience fighting the right wing or serving as First Lady as special qualifications for president.
Clinton's now claims that she has more experience than Obama to be president. Today, Hillary even compared Obama to the inexperienced Bush who has created havoc as President:
Democrat Hillary Clinton said today she is the only candidate in the presidential race who will be able to reverse President George W. Bush's foreign policy and warned that the U.S. can't gamble on putting the White House in inexperienced hands.
Without mentioning rival Barack Obama by name, Clinton said the country can't afford to repeat the last seven years under the Republican president.
"We have seen the tragic result of having a president who had neither the experience or the wisdom to manage our foreign policy and safeguard our nation,'' Clinton said in a speech today in Washington. America has already taken that chance one time too many.''
The New York senator is trying to regain her footing in the Democratic nomination race by emphasizing her experience as a senator and first lady, arguing that makes her better prepared for the presidency than Obama, a first-term senator from Illinois.
Hillary misses the boat. Yes, Bush was inexperienced in terms of traditional government service. And, yes our country is in a mess thanks to Bush. But not from his lack of experience. Bush has had a stellar record of success as president in terms of accomplishing his objectives. We oppose those objectives and his policies, but Bush has prevailed over even the more accomplished and experienced lawmakers in Congress.
In a Newsweek interview, Hillary claims 35 years of experience: "I think it is informed by my deep experience over the last 35 years, my firsthand knowledge of what goes on inside a White House."
So, how did Hillary's "White House experience" benefit her? Hillary stated that her Iraq War vote was influenced by her "8 years of experience at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue in the White House watching my husband deal with serious challenges to our nation."
Well, she blew that one...big time.
How does a First Lady obtain experience relevant to becoming president? Well, the meme now is that she was a "full partner" with Bill when he was president:
But as the junior senator from New York, she has few significant legislative accomplishments to her name. She has cast herself, instead, as a first lady like no other: a full partner to her husband in his administration, and, she says, all the stronger and more experienced for her "eight years with a front-row seat on history."
When Bill was President and Hillary was First Lady, they balked at right-wing allegations that Hillary essentially was co-president. Now, Hillary portrays a revisionist history, claiming that she was essentially co-president. Either they lied before, or she is inflating her former role as First Lady now.
In any event, First Lady Clinton did not have first-hand experience or foreign policy experience:
But during those two terms in the White House, Mrs. Clinton did not hold a security clearance. She did not attend National Security Council meetings. She was not given a copy of the president’s daily intelligence briefing. She did not assert herself on the crises in Somalia, Haiti and Rwanda.
And during one of President Bill Clinton’s major tests on terrorism, whether to bomb Afghanistan and Sudan in 1998, Mrs. Clinton was barely speaking to her husband, let alone advising him, as the Lewinsky scandal sizzled.
As Chris Dodds stated, observing her husband as President does not constitute an item to place on one's resume for president:
Hillary Clinton may tout her 35 years of experience as the principal reason to vote for her, but Chris Dodd says counting her eight years in the White House as First Lady as a qualification "is an exaggeration, in my view. That's not experience, that's witnessing experience."
At the launch of his "Caucus For Results" bus tour, the Connecticut senator told a crowd at his Iowa campaign headquarters that "it's not just enough sitting on the sidelines and watching your husband deal with problems over the years...."
So, let's take off 8 years from the 35, leaving 27 years of experience. Given that Hillary is 60, 35 years of experience takes us back to when she was 25 year-old law student.
Granted all experiences in our lives, including volunteer work for political candidates, is beneficial, but not traditionally the type of experience placed on a resume.
Clinton also portrays herself as the strongest general election candidate, saying to applause that "for 15 years, I have stood up against the right-wing machine and I've come out stronger. So if you want a winner who knows how to take them on, I'm your girl."
How exactly is Hillary a "winner" of the right-wing attack machine? Maybe Hillary defines "winning" as the failure of the right-wing to obtain convictions against the First Couple, but there were 14 convictions against friends and business associates. Not to mention all the monies friends, associates and WH employees had to pony up for legal counsel when they were dragged into the scandals.
I think the goal of the right-wing attacks was to toss enough mud to create the "perception" that Hillary and Bill did not have credibility and could not be trusted, and to keep them otherwise preoccupied to prevent implementing Bill's presidential agenda. I think the goal was also to use the civil process to leak dirt against the Clintons for which the right-wing did succeed in using to paint Bill into a corner where he lied under oath during the Paula Jones proceedings, which then triggered a successful impeachment. Having a right-wing scandal ripen into impeachment is pretty damn successful. Moreover, many Democrats did not want Hillary as our nominee for fear that all these scandals would resurface during the general campaign, preventing debate on substantive policy differences between the parties. Not a mystery that goppies would rather have the public debate scandals than policies given that most Americans agree with the Democratic platform.
Hillary admitted as much when she said the right-wing attacks were politically motivated:
On The Today Show Hillary Clinton said the attacks on her husband's presidency—specifically the Monica Lewinsky scandal, which had just surfaced, but also the campaign finance scandal, Travelgate, Clinton v. Jones and Whitewater scandals—were used for political gain by the Republican party.
Yes, Hillary may have "experience" fighting the right-wing machine, but they never shut down the right wingers and they never stopped the right wingers from reaping benefits from the smear campaigns.
So, what did Hillary learn from her 15 years experience as the target of right-wing attacks that would give her an edge over Obama? An interview has the answer:
What have you learned about combating the right-wing attack machine -- the vast right-wing conspiracy, if you will -- that you know now that you wish you knew in 1993 and 1994?
[Laughter].
The laughter will be noted.
Number one, you have to stay focused on what you're trying to achieve. And if you're attacked, then obviously you respond. But you don't go seeking it, and you certainly don't go trying to make that your modus operandi. What you're looking for is a positive message and a positive agenda that you can make your own. And to try to bring as many people to the table as is possible. And then draw lines wherever necessary. That is essential -- that you draw those lines on things that will be important. You can work with people across the aisle, you can work with people who have a different ideology. But there are some things you just have to stand your ground on. Understanding that and being able to navigate through that is a challenge, but you have to be able to do it.
Not exactly earth shattering lessons that would enable only a prior victim to know how to respond to right-wing attacks. Yet, it is the type of experience that Hillary boasts in a campaign ad, that she is the only candidate who can win against the right-wing attack machine:
The whole point of this right-wing resume is to argue that Obama does not have the experience to prevail against the right-wing machine should he become our nominee:
The message in Clinton's primary campaign is that her young rival cannot hope to win the Oval office in the face of the Republican attack machine. She presents herself as a battle-hardened veteran, having weathered whole books full of smears, innuendo, half-truths and unfortunate facts. Obama's past has yet to be fully mined by researchers, and a future Republican opponent is unlikely to suffer from the inhibitions that have kept the Democratic race relatively clean until now.
Frank Rich nails it when he talks about how the 35 years of experience only led Hillary to manage her campaign by following Bush's own failed strategy for the Iraq War:
It's not just that her candidacy's central premise - the priceless value of "experience" - was fatally poisoned from the start by her still ill-explained vote to authorize the fiasco. Clinton then compounded that 2002 misjudgment by pursuing a 2008 campaign strategy that uncannily mimicked the disastrous Bush Iraq war plan. After promising a cakewalk to the nomination - "It will be me," Clinton told Katie Couric in November - she was routed by an insurgency.
The Clinton camp was certain that its moneyed arsenal of political shock-and-awe would take out Barack Hussein Obama in a flash. The race would "be over by Feb. 5," Clinton assured George Stephanopoulos just before New Year's. But once the Obama forces outwitted her, leaving her mission unaccomplished on Super Tuesday, there was no contingency plan. She had neither the boots on the ground nor the money to recoup.
Experience is definitely not Hillary's strong suit.