Do Hillary Clinton's 8 years as first lady count as experience?
The NYTimes frontpages with the big question: Do Hillary Clinton's 8 years as first lady count as experience? (not to mention getting this dig in on the first page,)
As a whole, it seems to me the NYTimes is holding up a very limited and unfair definition of experience to try and make a story. The article sets a ridiculously high bar for judging her "experience" that, without comparison, makes her look bad.
No other candidate Republican or Democrat has sat in on NSC briefings. No other candidate has been involved in presidential circle discussions of foreign policy. And, of course, the first lady wasn't there for that.
The Clinton's are somewhat to blame for this by framing "experience" primarily in terms of foreign policy, but, to me, her germane experience is a bit softer, but very real, and important in the judgment of the candidates.
She knows the White House, she knows the inside politics of power. She's dealt with the bureaucracies and the Congress from that side. I think there can be no question that she does have a more subtle understanding of how to work the system and get things done in Washington.
However, let me say that that's not the only factor in my judgments (I still haven't made up my mind.) It just seemed to me that this NYTimes frontpager was set up in such a way to make her look bad. Something about it rubbed me the wrong way.
Thoughts?
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 a whole, it seems to me the NYTimes is holding up a very limited and unfair definition of experience to try and make a story. The article sets a ridiculously high bar for judging her "experience" that, without comparison, makes her look bad.
No other candidate Republican or Democrat has sat in on NSC briefings. No other candidate has been involved in presidential circle discussions of foreign policy. And, of course, the first lady wasn't there for that.
The Clinton's are somewhat to blame for this by framing "experience" primarily in terms of foreign policy, but, to me, her germane experience is a bit softer, but very real, and important in the judgment of the candidates.
She knows the White House, she knows the inside politics of power. She's dealt with the bureaucracies and the Congress from that side. I think there can be no question that she does have a more subtle understanding of how to work the system and get things done in Washington.
However, let me say that that's not the only factor in my judgments (I still haven't made up my mind.) It just seemed to me that this NYTimes frontpager was set up in such a way to make her look bad. Something about it rubbed me the wrong way.
Thoughts?
posted by mikevotes at
8:01 AM
7 Comments:
If this story had come out of the blue, I might agree with you. But it's Clinton who continually uses her time in the WH as a resume item for the presidency, so her time there deserves scrutiny. She invited it.
I think the story itself is fairly objective. If it made her look bad, it might be because she's trying to make more of her WH time than it deserves.
It amazes me that she tries to claim experience as a point in her favor, when she stands among candidates like Dodd and Biden. It just doesn't ring true.
By
Anonymous, at 8:51 AM
Hillary seems to be going after the 'sensible' Democrats. Does this mean Obama and Edwards are the populist hordes clamouring for real change?
By
Anonymous, at 1:08 PM
Abi, I don't why it bugged me. I'm not a huge Clinton supporter.
And I tried to delineate the differences in the types of experience. Because, yeah, her campaign has made a whole lot of the claim of experience on national security which as this article points out is fairly thin in a direct manner.
But, to me, that is fairly true for all the candidates on nat'l security. The experience value I see in her would be on the insider/navigating power centers type stuff.
The article is fair in what it covers, I guess I just think that the broader stuff should have been included.
And, let me say again, I am not a Clinton supporter. I still find myself balanced between the strengths of the big three.
As the Obama line goes, experience is good, but it's certainly not the only factor.
....
Anon, Yes. Very definitely.
And broadly speaking, I'm a sucker for a populist. I tend to love the clamoring horde.
By
mikevotes, at 1:35 PM
Yeah, no argument that the broader experience she gained in the WH is valid and should have been included. But I think she tries to make more of it than it's worth.
By
Anonymous, at 2:21 PM
Yup. Especially when Bil Clinton says that in these "dangerous times" electing Obama would be " a risk" and a "roll of the dice."
But again, the article was limited in scope so that it particularly made her look inexperienced.
By
mikevotes, at 3:02 PM
While Chillary may or may not have "experience", it's what she does in office that's important. She voted for the war in Iraq, for instance, when anyone with internet access could have found out the truth about Bush's claims against Saddam. Did she not have anyone on her staff who could have found this out, or did she go with the flow because of her political ambitions. Very dangerous indeed.
By
Lew Scannon, at 7:20 PM
That's one of those balancing factors I was talking about earlier.
By
mikevotes, at 9:11 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home