Subscribe to Breaking NewsExperience: Clinton vs. Obama & the False Comparison
But the question is — can Hillary point to any real executive experience…?
Hillary Clinton’s mantra in the current presidential campaign is that she has more experience than Barack Obama. Not only does she have more experience than her rival for the Democratic nomination, Clinton has the experience to be “ready on Day One” when she is elected president, her campaign asserts on a daily basis.
She and her surrogates regularly cite the fact that Obama has been in the U.S. Senate for little more than three years and then compare that to Hillary’s “35 years of experience” — an absurdly unfair comparison, since it dismisses Obama’s experience before being elected to the U.S. Senate while counting everything that Hillary has done since she was 25 years old.
“I would go back 35 years, Wolf, because when I first got out of law school, I didn’t want to go to work for a law firm,” Clinton said at the February 1 presidential candidate debate in California when describing the extent of her experience. “I wanted to go to work for the Children’s Defense Fund and to work on behalf of — (applause) — abused and neglected kids and kids with disabilities and kids who didn’t have education or health care.” But neither Hillary nor any of her supporters ever count Obama’s experience prior to his election to the U.S. Senate, even though his work as a community organizer in Chicago is arguably more relevant than much of Clinton’s “35 years” in public life.
So the comparison that Clintonistas make between the records of the two rivals for the Democratic nomination is cast in almost absurdly asymmetrical terms even from the outset. A more reasonable and objective comparison of the records of the two candidates would involve an examination of the relative value of the different types of experience each had before election to the U.S. Senate, rather than relying on the mantra that Hillary regularly recites — a claim that is as misleading as it is unpersuasive.
Wrong, New York Soldier. (And I happen to be a New Yorker, too. So stop wrapping yourself in 9/11 like Rudy Giuliani.)
In Feb. 2003, my partner and I stood with 100,000 other Americans and millions in cities around the world begging Hillary Clinton and the rest of Congress not to authorize this absurd invasion of Iraq. (And, for the record, I strongly supported the Afghanistan invasion. Maybe you remember that one – the one targeting those ACTUALLY responsible for 9/11!) The fact that the Bush Administration had floundered around, flipping from one justification to another desperately scrambling for anything to convince a skeptical public of the need for the Iraq invasion made clear to anyone paying attention that the Bush Administration was not making any kind of professional assessment of risk and going to war as a last resort.
This idea that faulty intelligence is the problem is nice Clinton spin, but it is complete revisionist history. She knew exactly what she was doing in 2003, and she will be condemned by history for it.
Chris, Since you’ve resumed reading my posts (contrary to your vow never to read any more of them), I’d recommend that you read my latest post, which is about the Boston Globe’s analysis of Hillary’s claim to have led the campaign for the SCHIP bill.
Pecola, I know about both the Boston Globe & Chicago Tribune stories; the reason I didn’t mention them in my initial post was because I didn’t want it to get too long. I just posted about the Globe analysis of Hillary’s claim of having been pivotal in getting the SCHIP bill through Congress, and I’ll be posting later in the week on the Tribune analysis of Hillary’s foreign policy experience (or lack thereof, as the case may be).
I am in the United States Military, currently having served two terms in Iraq. I want to make this point. You cannot hold Hillary Clinton accountable for a vote based upon intelligence that was faulty and incorrect! I do know understand why people do not get it!
Hillary Clinton and 29 other democratic Senators, who voted for the continuation of weapons inspectors and advancement. Did so based on the US and other gobal intelligence at the time.
Senator Clinton represents New York, which happens to be my home state. New York was state impacted by 911. If Hillary Clinton would have voted against the measure at the time, New Yorker’s would have been calling for her resignation.
When you make such a random statement, you have to go back, remember the data and time frame. Now we know it was a not correct. At that time, we did not have that information.
When Senator Clinton learned better, she did better!
When you’ll casually vote to send 4,000 Americans and 100,000 Iraqis to their deaths solely as a cynical triangulation to advance your political career, you’ll really say and do anything to win.
The only “False” comparisons on here are the ones espoused by this particular writer. Period.
Both candidates are excellent but I’m disappointed that Hillary has exaggerated her experience.
By doing so she is clearly hurting the overall Democrat Party.
Instead of just saying that she’s being unfair or biased or whatever, could you provide us with an unbiased look at their experience? That’d be far more helpful…especially since I’m starting to feel really disgusted by how this blog and other members of the media are becoming so blatantly pro-Obama…
Election 2008 the bottom line… McCain is to old. Obama is to inexperienced and naive. Clinton is the only candidate left in the race.
Pecole,
FYI, The Chicago Tribune and Boston Globe are both major supports of Barack Obama. Therefore, I would hardly call them a point of fair objective reporting. Not to mention, The Chicago Tribune was the employer of chief campaign manager, media consultant, David Axelrod for years.
I’m not sure of Clinton foreign policy experience. But, there is two thing you have to give the woman credit on, her passion and dedication to children and American health care reform/coverage for all.
As a Independent, desperately trying to find a candidate to support. It’s interesting that Barack Obama wants himself and his campaign to be associated with former President Bill Clinton staffers. Repeated, I have heard former Bill Clinton adviser’s, current Barack Obama supporters/surrogates attacking Hillary Clinton. If I was a presidential “new change” candidate, I would not want my campaign heavily inundated with a former president’s advisers. More so, if they where advisers of my opponent’s husband’s administration.
There are real candid similarities here; Barack Obama was not the first candidate to base a presidential campaign on “hope and change”. Bill Clinton ran his presidential campaign based on the very same theme, “hope and change”. A clear note coming from the democratic nomination process continuing. The longer the campaign’s continue, the more Barack Obama is being exposed, not as an agent of true political change, but rather more of the same. Barack Obama is appearing weaker, while Hillary Clinton is the stronger candidate!
Former Bill Clinton State Department official Greg Craig (Obama surrogate) continued to take aim at Hillary Clinton’s foreign policy claims, is not politics of “hope or change”. It’s politics of a vendetta! Otherwise, why would Barack Obama have so many former Bill Clinton aids/advisers/surrogates on his team?! Seems to me, the Bill Clinton disenchanted have found a new home at Barack Obama’s campaign. I would like to encourage Senator Obama, to disassociate himself with all these people, including his campaign manager. There is NO shortage of fresh innovative new talent, hoping to get a real opportunity to create quality change in politics.
On a final note, for Barack Obama campaign to try an “blow out” or diminish Hillary Clinton’s foreign policy experience, to make Obama’s “candle shine brighter”, is not working! Laura Bush has more foreign policy experience than Barack Obama!
I’m surprised you didn’t link some of the recent news stories, Pauline. The Chicago Tribune just did a story that debunked Clinton’s argument on foreign policy and today the Boston Globe dismantles her experience argument on health care (on S-CHIP).