Bringing down the Party
This, from James Fallows, rankles me too:
In a live CNN interview just now, Sen. Clinton repeated, twice, the "Sen. McCain has a lifetime of experience, I have a lifetime of experience, Sen. Obama has one speech in 2002" line. By what logic, exactly, does a member of the Democratic party include the "Sen. McCain has a lifetime of experience" part of that sentence? And I guess with her nonstop references to 2002 she must be talking about Obama's anti-Iraq war speech, not the 2004 convention speech that actually put him on the map.)I have reached the point of wanting to scream every time I hear about the primacy of "experience," knowing how skillfully the 46-year old Bill Clinton waved that argument away when it was used against him 16 years ago by a sitting President who simply dwarfed him in high-level experience. But to pose it in a form that is poison for the party should Obama be the nominee??? To produce a clip that the McCain campaign could run unedited every single day of a campaign against Obama? That is something special. (Also, I think she means 2004 for the speech.) If Bill Clinton poisoned the well for other possible Democratic nominees in quite the same way back in 1992, I can't think of it now.
But it doesn't make me go so far as to conclude that it's "poison for the party should Obama be the nominee". For one, independents don't seem to like Hillary Clinton all that much. For another, I don't think it'll be lost on many that Clinton's remarks came at a time when she was trying to beat Obama in the primary. But more significantly, as Jim himself notes, the inexperience charge isn't exactly a deadly one. Bill Clinton brushed it aside in 1992 and, unless his charisma slips away from him in the next eight months, so will Obama in 2008.
Comments
You're right on. I was having this same discussion today at work, at least the whole experience discussion. I have no clue what Republicans are talking about when they say that Obama is a blank slate because he doesn't have a legislative record. The same applies to Hillary when she says that Obama has no "federal" experience. George Bush didn't have a legislative record either, it makes no sense to call for a legislative recored especially since the president isn't part of the legislator.
Obama does have a record both state and federal. Sure it's not at long as McCain's but I've never considered having a twenty year voting record a good thing. You know how many bills are voted on over the course of one session?? Thousands!
I used to work for Barack in the Illinois senate and some when he went to DC. The experience thing makes no sense, like you mention, when we compare it to Bill Clinton and George Bush.
The Clinton campaign isn't currently caring about the fight with McCain - they are focused (sort of) on winning the nomination against all odds, and the Clinton campaign is coming apart internally at the seams and wear spots.
Hillary can't even manage her own campaign, according to the WaPo article liked above. And this with the 'experience' that two Presidential campaigns, two Senate campaigns and numerous Arkansas campaigns to light the way. If only half of the WaPo article is true and representative, she doesn't belong in the WH.
Her tactic of associating herself and McCain as experienced, and Obama not enough, is both strategically wrong, but a desparate attempt to find something that works tactically. She has hurt the Dem. party, and I'm madder than hell and won't take it anymore. (lol)
This seems pretty easy to diffuse and has been brought up elsewhere:
Obama has more experience in government than "Honest" Abe Lincoln, who is considered by many to have been an above average Prez (bonus: some Republicans even like Lincoln, so there's some crossover appeal*).
Obama has more legislative experience than Senator Hillary Clinton. Unless being a spouse counts as experience, but there are some people who questions this.
Hillary and her team is being very silly here.
*offer not good in South Carolina
Also: Iraq, bitches!*
*perhaps Team Obama shouldn't use the specific word "bitches" here or elsewhere, and choose some other word. Just a thought.
I wouldn't go so far as to scream as Fallows wants to everytime he hears the "experience" charge. Besides, Fallows has always been a cry baby, so it doesn't surprise me. Don't you think Hillary knows she has only slightly more legislative experience than Obama, or that George Bush and Bill had no legislative experience when they ran? Of course she does. I imagine Obama "will" brush it aside, but as long as HRC keeps pounding on it, she continues to gain ground, especially now that McCain has tied up the Republican nomination. As Congressional Quarterly's Craig Crawford summized today, Clinton has opened an "Achilles heal" in Obama's candidacy regarding national security and who would be "more experienced" to run against a hardliner like McCain on national security. Sorry you nose-up-Obama's-ass folks! But it's politics. In fact, you all should read Taegan Goddard's article "It's not about the Math," if your having problems with HRC's politics and Obama's recent slip from the throne of God.
Sorry for the mispelled word above: "summized" should be "surmised". What was I thinking? Summized isn't even a word. Kick ass!
Hillary and her team is being very silly here.
Post A Comment