Obama needs to settle Hillary's experience myth once and for all

[rjx]

Here is a great article that I found that was written in 12/07 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-sedaei/experience-that-counts_b_75102.html

I have copied & pasted 4 paragraphs from the article, followed by some extra comments



Experience that Counts by SAM SEDAEI


A thorough analysis of the change v. experience debate shows that on both factors, Obama is simply a better candidate than Hillary Clinton.

Starting with experience, we are told that experience is one of the only two factors that matter in this election, and Hillary Clinton is the one with the most legitimate claim on that factor. And yet, very few are asking what kind of experience counts as relevant or why is experience even important. If experience is about who is the oldest, then Paul and Gravel are the most experienced. If experience is about who has been in public office longer, Senator Obama has in fact been in public office six years longer than Senator Clinton. It is true that she has been the spouse of an elected politician longer than everyone else, but since when do we count being a first lady as policy experience? Does Laura Bush have more experience now than Bill Clinton did when he became president? And while Hillary was assigned to undertake a few tasks in the 90s, the most important one of which was to bring about universal healthcare, she failed, even though the democrats controlled not only the White House but also both the House and the Senate. Furthermore, it was in part her divisiveness that energized the republicans to take control of the House and Senate in 1994.

Despite the fact that there is no definition for experience that would make Hillary the one with the most of it in this election, she has also failed to articulate why "experience" matters. Experience only counts when it leads to sound judgment. Before Cheney became Vice President, he had already served in three presidential administrations and the House of Representatives. Similarly, the beginning of Rumsfeld's public experience dates back to 1954. And yet, experience did not lead either one to develop the sound judgment necessary to refrain from pushing for the Iraq war. Similarly, regardless of how one defines experience, Hillary's didn't lead her to have the judgment to oppose the war, although if she had read the National Intelligence Estimate before her vote - which she did not - she would have seen that there was no evidence that Saddam possessed WMDs. In fact, when voting for the war resolution, she stated on the Senate floor that "my decision is influenced by my eight years of experience ... in the White House." Not only being the first lady cannot possibly be considered relevant experience, her "experience" also didn't stop her from voting for another hawkish resolution on Iran, which calls its army terrorist, without understanding the impact of that vote on the pro-western democracy movement within Iran. We are looking for a leader who can reach out and start serious diplomatic efforts with non-friendly leaders. But by voting for the legislation, Senator Clinton has managed to squander the possibility of ever having a chance of being taken seriously in diplomacy with the Iranian regime. They saw how she voted.

Finally, the main flaw in the argument of those who support Hillary for "experience" is that they act as if the nation is like a bus and we are looking for a driver, or presidency is an assembly line job for which one needs technical "on the job training." The fact is that the presidency is not a one-person job. Every president has an extensive team of experts on various matters and president, his cabinet and hundreds of policy advisors make policies together and in collaboration with Congress. In that sense, the main role of the president is to chart a course and set a vision, which requires more understanding and sound judgment than length of experience or some technical training.

For one, Obama has served in public office longer than Hillary Clinton or John Edwards. In addition, as opposed to Clinton's experience, Obama's led him to sound judgment. During his time in the Illinois Senate, he led democrats and republicans to pass the most important ethics reform in more than twenty-five years. And it was his experience that led him to strongly oppose the Iraq war from the start - again as opposed to Edwards or Clinton - even though it was a very risky and unpopular position to take and one that even Bill Clinton didn't support despite his eight years of experience as president. Obama's experience led him in 2002 to do what was right and express his view on Iraq that "I don't oppose war in all circumstances... but what I do oppose is a dumb war."

================


I would like to add the following.


I think it is imperative that Obama challenges her so called experience and her claim that she is better fit for the job of Commander and Chief of the United States. Obama needs to embed into peoples heads that being a first lady of a state and country does not translate into real word experience needed for the task of actually running a country, and especially dealing with the ever changing world issues. Obama needs to get tougher on the experience issue while continuing his "change" message.

Barack graduated from Columbia University with a degree in political science with an emphasis on international relations. After that he was a community organizer in Chicago for 3 years until he attended and graduated Harvard Law. Barack then returned to Chicago and went back to the neighborhood communities by organizing and helping to register 150,000 voters. He then began working at a civil rights firm and went on to teach constitutional law at the University of Chicago.

10 years in public office, more than Hillary.
Illinois State Senate (8 years)
United States Senate (2 great years)

Barack serves on three of the four Senate Committees dealing with foreign policy issues including the Foreign Relations; Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs; and Veterans' Affairs committees and is the Chair of the Foreign Relations Subcommittee on European Relations which is responsible for U.S. relations with European countries, the European Union, and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (i.e., NATO).

Dealing with foreign policy, Hillary is only a member of the Armed Services Committee.

With the turmoil we face in Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, and Pakistan, Barack's foreign policy / foreign relations experience imo will be invaluable.

[Exultant Democracy]

1. not that easy. he has to run against McCain in the GE

And unlike with Hillary there is an experiance gap between them. He needs to focus making judgement not experiance the issue.

[rjx]

2. But it turns into democrat vs republican in the GE

instead of democrat vs democrat.

I think for the most part if Obama receives the democratic nominee and people don't vote for him it will be over party affiliation and or race. Without a doubt experience will come into play during debates, as will many other issues. Personally, I think Barack or Hilary will get many more republican votes than recent democratic nominee's, but Hillary will not get as much democratic support as Barack would. imo