Senator Clinton's "Experience"

[Unbreakable]

"About experience, you do get the fact that Hillary is a Senator, right? Kinda stacks up well against a governor and a mayor, don't you think?" -Slider, November 17th, 2007, 09:32 AM

Since Slider brought it up in another post, let's compare the NY senator's "experience" with other candidates....http://tinyurl.com/2j7voz

Or, just read the points in this abbreviated comparison.

"While Clinton has been an outspoken liberal activist since the 1960s, she never has run a business, a city, a state, or a Cabinet department. She was a partner at Little Rock’s Rose Law Firm, but did not administer it.Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families aside, she headed none of the non-profits whose boards her website says she joined.

While she conducted President Clinton’s health reform task force in 1993, the plan it concocted in secret collapsed in public. This 1,368-page prescription (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=103_cong_bills&docid=f:h3600ih.txt.pdf) for government medicine quietly vanished, sparing a Democratic congress the embarrassment of euthanizing it.

Since her 2000 election, Clinton never has chaired a Senate committee. However, she does lead the Senate Superfund and Environmental Health Subcommittee (http://clinton.senate.gov/senate/committees/index.cfm). As its website (http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Subcommittees.Subcommittee&Subcommittee_id=103b2505-610f-4f02-9004-7917c159b4aa) explains, the panel oversees “recycling, Federal facilities and interstate waste.”

Clinton has presided over something. She commanded (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17388372/) the Wellesley College Republicans in 1965, and then became student-government president.

Despite repeated requests, Clinton’s campaign did not identify the executive experiences that supposedly merit her presidency.

Conversely, Clinton’s Democratic rivals display relevant resumes.

Bill Richardson (http://www.richardsonforpresident.com/about_bill/) was elected New Mexico’s governor in 2002. He handles a $13.7 billion budget, guides 20,816 state workers, and serves 1.9 million constituents. He was a U.S. House member between 1982 and 1996. He also gained valuable global expertise as United Nations ambassador from 1996 to 1998. Under Presidents Clinton and G.W. Bush, Richardson has negotiated nuclear issues with North Korean generals and helped free American citizens, soldiers, and dissidents from Cuba, Iraq, and Sudan. As Energy secretary from 1998 to 2000, Richardson addressed Arab-oil dependency and nuclear non-proliferation, and maintained America’s atomic arsenal.

First elected in 1972, Delaware’s Joseph Biden (http://biden.senate.gov/biography/) chairs the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and also directed it between 2001 and 2003 (http://foreign.senate.gov/history.pdf).

Connecticut’s Chris Dodd (http://banking.senate.gov/), elected U.S. representative in 1974 and senator in 1980, chairs the Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee.

Even far-Left eccentric Rep. Dennis Kucinich (http://kucinich.house.gov/Biography/) was Cleveland, Ohio’s one-term mayor, years before his 1996 House win.

Elected in 2004, former Harvard Law Review president Barack Obama (http://www.barackobama.com/about/)’s credentials are limited. Nonetheless, the Illinois senator is 2008’s “fresh face” — a phrase rarely in the same sentence with Hillary Clinton.

To Clinton’s credit, she represented America as First Lady in 82 countries (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/11/romney-attacks-.html), perhaps her most pertinent duty. This may qualify her for secretary of State, a position she could execute with energy and discipline.

However, facing a $2.9 trillion federal budget (http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy08/pdf/hist.pdf) and 5,120,688 civilian (http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy08/pdf/hist.pdf) and military (http://ftp2.census.gov/govs/apes/06fedfun.pdf) employees, Hillary Clinton is ill-equipped to become president of the United States, commander-in-chief of the U.S. armed forces, and leader of the free world. Her executive experience is lighter than a fistful of feathers." - Deroy Murdock is a New York-based columnist with the Scripps Howard News Service and a media fellow with the Hoover Institution

[Unbreakable]

I left off the article's comparison to the Republican candidates, because before Sen. Clinton can face them, she must win her party's nomination.

With credentials like hers, it SHOULD NOT be an easy task, as she has nothing to offer. If she does win the nomination, well, what does that say about the state of the Democratic Party.

[Slider]

15 presidents started their careers as senators, including Nixon, Johnson, Kennedy and Truman. I guess they had nothing to offer either.

If she's as bad as you say, and still wins, what would that say about the state of the Republican party?

Slider

[Mr_Cheeze]

15 presidents started their careers as senators, including Nixon, Johnson, Kennedy and Truman. I guess they had nothing to offer either.

If she's as bad as you say, and still wins, what would that say about the state of the Republican party?

Slider

Nixon was in Congress since 1946 until his Vice Presidency in '52, followed by a couple of failed runs for offices.

Johnson joined Congress in 1937, and then was commissioned into the US Navy where he worked on special assignments for President Roosevelt. He then entered the Senate in 1948.

Kennedy was in Congress since 1946, running for President in '56 and losing in the primaries. He became President in '61.

Truman was a county court judge before he won a seat in the Senate in 1934, which he held until '44 when he became Roosevelt's VP.

So, all of those names you mentioned did, indeed, have significant political experience before winning the Oval Office. Even Obama has more "executive" experience than Hillary. She needs to lose an election or two and earn her stripes. Maybe she'll have a better chance in 2012. I doubt it, but maybe. I am afraid, however, that a Republican will win, once again. Yes, I realize you scoff incredulously considering the poor performance of the current office holder, but people have short memories. I'm not sure any of the Republican front runners have much in the way of real executive, political experience, either. So maybe she does stand a chance. But she has zero charisma. Zilch. How far can she possibly go?

[Sweat Hog]

Lots of good points being brought up.... but don't forget she's married to someone who held the job for 8 years. This could factor in for some people.

[Slider]

"Yes, I realize you scoff incredulously considering the poor performance of the current office holder, but people have short memories. "

You nail it right there. Bush had experience as Texas governor, large state, etc., and he's hands down the worst of all time. And it will be pretty disingenuous if any Republican starts with the experience line. They built their party on the idea of outsiders reinventing government. Can't have it both ways.

But I'd say Hillary's experience matches up well with any of them. Lawyer, Project Manager as First Lady, Senator. And definitely tested by the fire that Rovian politics fuels. Goes a lot further than an AWOL Reservist pilot, don't you think?

Slider

[Unbreakable]

Well she bought herself a senate seat

[Unbreakable]

.....You nail it right there. Bush had experience as Texas governor, large state, etc., and he's hands down the worst of all time. And it will be pretty disingenuous if any Republican starts with the experience line. They built their party on the idea of outsiders reinventing government. Can't have it both ways.

But I'd say Hillary's experience matches up well with any of them. Lawyer, Project Manager as First Lady, Senator. And definitely tested by the fire that Rovian politics fuels. Goes a lot further than an AWOL Reservist pilot, don't you think?
Slider

First - Hands down the worst president of all times. By whose standard? Yours?

Second - You can't compare her to Bush, she can't run against him.

Third - I left off the credentials of the Republican candidates for the reason stated. She doesn't even measure up to the field of Democrats.

Finally - If Clinton wins the Democratic nomination, she will prove the value of the system our wise founding fathers put in place, assure the president elect is the president of all the people, not just a few heavily populated states.

Thank God for the Electoral College!

[Mr_Cheeze]

First - Hands down the worst president of all times. By whose standard? Yours?



Care to name a recent one that was worse? Carter might come close to many, but not to me. Bush is the worst, and I voted for the guy in 2000. It became pretty clear to me, however, that by 2004, the Iraq war was bullsh*t. And I learned my lesson.

Obviously, in stacking up all Presidents, we can only go by what the historians have had to say. Our own experiences are usually going to outweigh something we might read or see on the History Channel. It's probably too difficult to stack up Bush against any President whose ineffectiveness or bad decisions may have contributed to some of this country's lowest points, like the Civil War or the Great Depression. Nixon is often unfairly tabbed as one of the worst Presidents because of Watergate; however, up until that point, he was quite popular. And Watergate didn't really have repercussions outside of his office. Clinton, on the other hand, is wrongly tabbed by many Democrats as a great President because he benefitted from serving during an economic highpoint that really was not his doing. But when you look at his lack of foresight or trigger pulling in going after Bin Laden or even Saddam, it's real hard to see him in a positive light. No, I'm not forgetting about the sex scandal. It has nothing to do with the job he did. Kennedy had sex scandals as well, and he's probably in the top five of all Presidents in most polls. Will the religious right-wing folks who consider Clinton as the worst due to immorality put Kennedy in the same category for the same reason?

In my eyes, in my lifetime, Bush is the worst, because of Iraq, because of immigration, because of the Patriot Act, because of Free Speech, because of poor cabinet decisions. It all adds up. Maybe it doesn't stack up against Herbert Hoover or James Buchanon, but I can only set the standard by which I live. We'll see what those History books say in 50 years. My guess is that Bush won't be considered the actual worst, but he'll be in the company of the worst.

[Slider]

First - Hands down the worst president of all times. By whose standard? Yours?

Second - You can't compare her to Bush, she can't run against him.

Third - I left off the credentials of the Republican candidates for the reason stated. She doesn't even measure up to the field of Democrats.

Finally - If Clinton wins the Democratic nomination, she will prove the value of the system our wise founding fathers put in place, assure the president elect is the president of all the people, not just a few heavily populated states.

Thank God for the Electoral College!

Whose standards? Mine and many, many others in this country. Seen any of the polls lately?

Comparing her to Bush - your point was that she lacked experience. Mine was that hers is little different than many others, including present or past presidents. Even if you don't get it, that's a valid comparison.

Electoral College - not sure what that has to do with it. If she's elected, pretending for a minute that there's truth in your claim that she's far lacking compared to both Dems and Repubs, then the Republican party must be held in very low esteem by the voters. And there is no avoiding the fact that this election is going to be a huge referendum on the performance of the current administration. Just like the last one.

Voters and donors seem to disagree with your assessment of her. Money leader, polling the best, and well on her way to the nomination. I'm guessing she isn't counting on your support.

Slider

[Slider]

Well she bought herself a senate seat

Who didn't? You think W got elected on his merits somehow? Understand, he HAS no merits.

Slider

[Unbreakable]

Whose standards? Mine and many, many others in this country. Seen any of the polls lately?

Comparing her to Bush - your point was that she lacked experience. Mine was that hers is little different than many others, including present or past presidents. Even if you don't get it, that's a valid comparison.

Electoral College - not sure what that has to do with it. If she's elected, pretending for a minute that there's truth in your claim that she's far lacking compared to both Dems and Repubs, then the Republican party must be held in very low esteem by the voters. And there is no avoiding the fact that this election is going to be a huge referendum on the performance of the current administration. Just like the last one.

Voters and donors seem to disagree with your assessment of her. Money leader, polling the best, and well on her way to the nomination. I'm guessing she isn't counting on your support.

Slider

The only poll that means anything is the one whose name you mark an 'X' beside and put in the ballot box.

Comparing her to Bush was as smart as comparing apples to oranges. She isn't/can't run against him as I said. Even though you don't get that.

The Electoral College has EVERTHING to do with getting elected president of the United States. No broad national support - no win. I already predicted Romney would win, without regard for the Dem. nominee. Hillary Clinton will make his election all the easier.

Of course elections are a referendum on the performance of the current administration. Thank you Captain Obvious! What ninny would think otherwise. Unless a Democratic candidate has very broad appeal - which she does not - they will garner no more than ~46% of the "dyed in the polyester" democrat vote.

Here's where you are wrong yet again. Voters have not spoken yet. And the filthy special interest money always gravitates to the most media savvy contender on each side. Because Hillary has a well oiled machine, does not make her the best most qualified candidate. If she were not the Democratic "front runner", I am sure you would not be singing her praises, but those of some other more qualified candidate.