Clinton’s Experience Claims Debunked by Congressional Quarterly
Guest post by Ron Chusid
One reason that Hillary Clinton’s campaign has been unsuccessful is that she has failed to provide a compelling reason for many of us to vote for her. Initially Clinton’s campaign was based upon her being the inevitable winner, but that collapsed when she lost the Iowa caucus. She also claims experience as a reason to vote for her, but that argument doesn’t hold up very well either. Congressional Quarterly evaluated her claims and found they were untrue. First they reviewed her claims:
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton often boasts that she has a long resume — 35 years long, to be precise.
“I have 35 years’ experience making change,” she said in a TV ad.
“I’ve gotten up for 35 years every day and tried to figure out what I could do to help somebody else,” she said in a TV interview.
Asked about the difference between her and Illinois Sen. Barack Obama , she replied, “Well, about 35 years of experience.”
She has used the phrase “35 years” in at least 55 speeches, debates and interviews since 2004, according to our search of a public statements database maintained by Project Vote Smart. So it’s no surprise that a Google search of “Hillary Clinton” and “35 years” yields 515,000 hits.
Next they determined if her claims were true:
In simple terms, any experience counts as experience, but it’s clear from the context of Clinton’s remarks that she’s speaking about public policy experience, so that’s how we have focused our examination. We’ll start with the math.
Clinton is 60, so if we assume that her 35 years were consecutive, they would have begun in 1973 when she graduated from Yale Law School at age 25. That year she joined the Children’s Defense Fund, an advocacy group for children.
But her math was way off when she claimed the difference with Obama is “35 years of experience.” By our count, Obama, who is 14 years younger than Clinton, has three years of experience as a community organizer, four years as a full-time attorney handling voting rights, employment and housing cases, and 11 years in the Illinois Senate and U.S. Senate. That’s a total of 18 years. So the difference between Clinton and Obama is really 17 years. We rate her claim False.
Has Clinton really awakened every morning for 35 years and “tried to figure out what I could do to help somebody else,” as she claims? We can’t read the senator’s mind, so this one’s not verifiable. If she’s like us, our first thought every morning is about coffee, not helping mankind.
Clinton has some experience during the past thirty-five years but it is hardly sufficient to consider her more qualified to be president. Often the experience consisted of assignment to part times posts while she was primarily working in corporate law. This included sitting on the board of Wal-Mart as they fought unions. Her years as first lady are of some value, but again are hardly sufficient to qualify her to be president. I’ve previously noted reports that Clinton did not have national security clearance as first lady. Her major action as first lady was on health care, which didn’t turn out very well. In contrast, Obama was successful in his efforts at expanding health care in Illinois. It is also notable that, although she is running on her experience, she is keeping the records from her years as first lady secret until after the election.
If we are to count every year since graduation from law school, Clinton does have more years with some experience. What is more important is the type of experience and what was done with it. While Clinton’s experience was frequently based upon seeking government solutions to problems, Obama was involved as a community organizer. This might partially explain why Clinton concentrates on imposing government solutions for problems while Obama also considers ways in which people can help themselves.
While Clinton was practicing corporate law, Obama was teaching Constitutional law. This has had an impact in his strong support for separation of church and state and the differences in their views on presidential power and executive privilege as Clinton supports decreased transparency and would be more likely to continue, and I fear abuse, the powers taken by George Bush.
I’ve noted Obama’s legislative record in another post this morning. In contrast, Clinton has supported the Iraq war, voted for Kyl-Lieberman, opposed needle exchange programs, favored strict sentences for drug use (while Obama has favored retroactive changes), supported legislation to ban flag burning, supported censorship of video games, and opposed the banning of cluster bombs. These are just some of the areas where I feel Clinton was wrong and Obama was right. Clinton’s experience certainly does not mean having better judgment on the issues.
Cross posted from Liberal Values
Greg
says:I think Clinton will try to solidify her claim that she has the experience to get things done in tonight’s debate. If she can convince enough people in Ohio, Texas, and Pennsylvania that she is better qualified, then Obama can give speeches til he’s blue in the face and she’ll still win.
Keith Rettig
says:Any chance you can edit that second to last sentence to have the part “while Obama has favored retroactive changes” in parentheses? If you read quickly it sounds like you change the subject of the sentence and the actions following the apparent change of subject belong to Obama and not Clinton.
Is she really waiting until the election to release the records of her years as first lady or does some time limit expire at that time?
Chris O.
says:I agree with Keith, I thought the latter part of the sentence was referring to Obama at first.
Danp
says:Ditto Keith Rettig’s comment about the retroactive changes. I had to reread that a couple of times.
Greg
says:This author states “(Clinton) would be more likely to continue, and I fear abuse, the powers taken by George Bush”
Seriously, this blog has become so brazenly “pro Obama”, and “anti Clinton” that it is going as far as to compare Clinton to Bush? What’s next, compare her to Hitler?
blogingRfun
says:SINCE I HAVE YOUR ATTENTION: Hillary’s not one of those women who wakes-at-noon to ready themselves for the next evenings dinner party, or jets-off on frequent vacations to play with friends in Paris or the tropics, or has like 5 kids that she wants to see grow-up to give her grand-children. Instead Clinton has spent 35 years dedicated to government service. Most mornings she gets up, puts on the pant suit and works hard all day long at studying issues, in endless meetings, or telephone calling, travel and speeches…Our retail politics is still mostly a tedious [analog] grind, as opposed to sitting in an office and effortlessly riding digital~light~waves.
Hillary made references in the past to finding her voice. If she has then okay, good, because ocassionally she has hit a false notes, whereas Obama mostly sIngs out loud & clear, Yes we can! (or, Si Se Peude?) Even though she may be willing to focus her [aquired] skills on helping to preserve, protect & defend America’s middle-class from predatory assaults(after all isn’t that what a Democrat President is supposed to do?) aren’t her chances now practically nil?
So instead, shouldn’t Hillary try to regroup for a dignified appearance at the nomiating convention, and also try to shore up the Clinton brand after it’s tumble of Mount Obama? Bill probably eventually will make back most of the money she lent her campaign. And as Senator she likely will get $10 bil. in funding from the next Congress for her universal pre-K.
Reg
says:Yeah, I had to read it several times too. It didn’t make sense to me that it seemed to be saying that Obama wanted to ban flag burning and censor video games.
Kim K
says:I agree with Keith Rettig. I have read the last paragraph about 3 times and it does read that Obama opposes a ban on cluster bombs, supports a bill to ban flag burning, and supports censorship of video games.
Curmudgeon
says:It’s becoming more and more obvious that nothing Clinton does will really turn the tide in her favor at this point. She’s only ahead by a few points in all the states she needs to win in a landslide, and there’s always the possibility that Obama might skunk her there, too.
Predidential campaigns are like huge ocean liners. Everything they do has to be planned out far in advance, and it’s very difficult to change course when the captain has ignored the icebergs from day one. And certainly the overpriced fools she has running her campaign have nothing left in the tank to pull it off, even if it were possible.
The hootin’ and hollerin’ will go on for a while, and it could get really ugly before the end. But her campaign is effectively an exercise in futility as of now, and that’s all I have to say about that.
By the way, does anyone else think Jim Webb would be a really cool choice for Obama’s Vice-President? 😉
Will
says:I think this sentence needs some parenthesis or something:
otherwise, it kind of reads like the topic of conversation switches to Obama after his name is mentioned, and then makes it sound like he voted to support a ban on flag burning, censorship of video games, and to oppose banning cluster bombs, which he did not.
Ken
says:You seem to have a problem with the concept of free speech, Greg. People are allowed to hold and express opinions that differ from yours. If you want all “pro-Clinton” and “anti-Obama” all the time, Taylor Marsh is your gal.
Will
says:I knew what you meant, but I had to read it twice to be sure 🙂
Curmudgeon
says:And yes, it is spelled “Presidential”. My bad.
Danp
says:I don’t think Clinton would abuse the “Bush” powers nearly as much as he did, if only because the television and print media wouldn’t merely describe attempts to manipulate elections as “a story about firing a few US Attorneys that no one really seems to understand.” They wouldn’t dismiss a Lurita Doan/Scott Jennings campaign as “and now a word from our sponsor.” They wouldn’t descibe signing statements as “something liberal congressmen get all out of shape about.” They wouldn’t describe “executive privelege” as a time-honored tradition. They wouldn’t regard checks and balances as something you have to have Quicken to understand. And she wouldn’t condone torture out loud.
Edo
says:Curmudgeon,
By the way, does anyone else think Jim Webb would be a really cool choice for Obama’s Vice-President?
I do.
Also, count me in as yet another person that had to read the last paragraph several times as my initial impression was “what?! Obama supported legislation banning flag burning?!?!”.
Edo
says:If you want all “pro-Clinton” and “anti-Obama” all the time, Taylor Marsh is your gal.
isn’t that the truth. And its a shame as Taylor Marsh was a great read until the craziness took over.
just guessing
says:Mark Penn claimed HRC had 35 years experience in 2006, which means she started work at age 23, not 25. For someone who claims to know numbers, he certainly hasn’t been able to do the math very well on this topic.
It’s just a number they plucked from thin air that creates an image that she has experience but isn’t too old. McCain could probably claim 51 years of experience but is only claiming 25 years (as a Senator) otherwise everyone would realize he really is a fossil.
CHEEZBURGER
says:Here’s a pretty thorough examination of the two candidates’ legislative records. The verdict? Obama’s done much more in his three years than she has in her seven.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/2/20/201332/807/36/458633
Lib4
says:Seriously, this blog has become so brazenly “pro Obama”, and “anti Clinton” that it is going as far as to compare Clinton to Bush? What’s next, compare her to Hitler?
Youre right Greg. Clinton and her supporters have become “Bushian” consistently showing a willingness to call anyone anti-Clinton the minute any legitimate criticism is leveled against her. Hell Greg, with the Hitler reference you positively nailed the Bush comparison all by yourself.
RonChusid
says:Sorry about the confusion at the end of the post as previously written. This was a post from earlier at Liberal Values. When I saw the post that Steve was gone I very quickly made some edits to my post and wound up botching the final paragraph in the process. Hopefully it is clear now. (This is also why I happened to post after Steve got back. I started editing my earlier post while he was gone and didn’t notice he was back when I hit publish.)
j0e
says:Greg… I am seeing this kind of statement:
On almost every progressive site I go to… It’s not this site that turned against Clinton. Ever since Super Tuesday, Hillary has been rejected by a majority of her potential base. Yes, you are seeing more critical comments about Hillary here, but also everywhere.
Put the sour grapes back in your pocket, buck up, and try to let it go. Your candidate did more to destory her chances than anyone else on Earth. For your side to not recognize this is tragicomedy.
blogingRfun
says:I AGREE WITH #5: Recently a fair & balanced post of mine, that was unflattering for Obama [& Bush] too was deleted. Whereas other bloggers here (in the last 3 days) have attacked me personally with crude language (s, f & a words) and those post stay up…The Obama campaign is about momentum not substance, so any challenging criticism is viciously attacked with dismissive slap downs and “I’m outraged – How dare you”!” And The Carpetbagger Report looks to be in go along – get along mode.
doubtful
says:By the way, does anyone else think Jim Webb would be a really cool choice for Obama’s Vice-President? -Curmudgeon
My opinion of Webb diminished greatly recently when he decided to set the precedent that it’s okay for corporations to break the law at the government’s behest.
Mr Furious
says:blogginRfun,
You had a post deleted HERE? Please clarify.
doubtful
says:Recently a fair & balanced post of mine, that was unflattering for Obama [& Bush] too was deleted. -blogingRfun
Deleted from TCR? Ha, I doubt that. I’ve been reading for, I don’t know, five years now, and I’ve only seen a handful of posts deleted and that was because someone was name jacking another poster.
Even then only the content of the comment was deleted, not the entire comment itself.
Trust me, Steve puts up with trolls all of the time without deleting their drivel.
Mr Furious
says:My opinion of Webb diminished greatly recently…
First thing I thought too. Too bad, because I think he’d be a good pick, and would be replaced by a D.
bubba
says:“By the way, does anyone else think Jim Webb would be a really cool choice for Obama’s Vice-President?”
You mean the clown who voted for teleco immunity inthe warrantless wiretapping fiasco? Not on your effin life would I support him. And if Obama has such little sense to pick him, then Obama loses my vote.
Will
says:If it was “fair & balanced” then it must have been good and I can’t possibly imagine why it would have been deleted…
blogingRfun
says:#24: If TCBR gives an okay, I will re-Post, then you can judge…
Curmudgeon
says:I must have missed whatever it was that Webb did that was unfortunate and/or annoying. Could you give some details? So much going on these days, it’s hard to keep up with everything. Thanks.
Steve
says:Hey greggie— while we’re on the subject of “your candidate,” I’m hearing a rumble here and there—here in Ohio, of course—that the “corporate lawyer for Wal-Mart while they were fighting unions” soundbyte will do absolute wonders for her campaign here in the Buckeye State.
Just like the iceberg did absolute wonders for the Titanic. It should do just as well in Pennsylvania, too….
bubba
says:C–Webb was one of the Idiot Eighteen (or so) Dems in the Senate who voted for teleco immunity and is a supporter of teleco immunity for their complicity in the unConstitutional warrantless wiretapping activities performed by the Administration.
CHEEZBURGER
says:Greg, I’ve noticed the recent swing towards pro-Obama comments on this site as well as just about every other liberal blog. j0e is right. Progressives are swinging away from Clinton in big numbers.
You could always go to TaylorMarsh.com. There is one die-hard Clintonite that will never switch sides.
blogingRfun
says:YOU MAY BE A REDNECK IF: Yer’ name’s Mike Huckabee
YOU MAY BE A CORPORATE SCHILL IF: You look like Mitt Romney
YOU MAY BE HRC IF: You spent $5 mil to govern post-Reaganomics USA
YOU MAY BE A MUSLIM IF: You changed your name from Barry to Barack
YOU MAY BE A WAR CRIMINAL IF: You lied to wage a war-of-aggression
YOU MAY BE A SAUDI PRINCE IF: You know (exactly) where Osama is
YOU MAY BE A WORLD WRECKER IF: If you have an MBA
YOU MAY BE WORKING WITHOUT A SAFETY NET IF: You’re in America
YOU MAY BE WORKING WITH A SAFETY NET IF: You’re a socialist
YOU MAY BE SUPPRESING WAGES IF: You’re an undocumented worker
YOU MAY SEE GOLD PRICE: Continue to soar with Obamas chances
YOU MAY BE SEEING: The ‘American Dream’ in it’s death throws
YOUR CHILDREN MAY BE SEEING: The natural world in it’s death throws
YOUR GREAT GRAND-CHILDREN MAY SEE: America’s borders secured
YOU MAY BE A PHARMAHOLIC IF: Yellow ones counter-act the blue ones
YOU MAY BE A BLOGSOSPHERE BULLY IF: Football season’s over
OH, AND…YOU MAY BE GAY IF: Your name’s Ted Haggard
libra
says:By the way, does anyone else think Jim Webb would be a really cool choice for Obama’s Vice-President? — Curmudgeon, @9
Leave him alone! What do you guys want? To depopulate the Senate of all Dems? I thought the object was to *add* to their number, so that we finally get the filibuster-proof 60…
Besides… As doubtful points out (@23), Webb should currently be in the doghouse, not on the elevator to the top (doubtful; this is the *second* time he voted wrong on FISA “fixes”). He really, really, needs to get the Warners changed (Mark replacing John) to talk some sense to him on the subject. His authoritarian streak (residue of his years in the military *and* being a high muckety-muck in Reagan’s admin) still needs tempering, however much we admire his independent streak.
bubba
says:“Leave him alone! What do you guys want? To depopulate the Senate of all Dems? I thought the object was to *add* to their number, so that we finally get the filibuster-proof 60…”
Another fine, and positive, point against Webb as VP candidate.
He's No Paul Wellstone
says:I like Webb, but I have always thought his ‘liberal cred’ was overrated. He is a great and potent voice for all things good and progressive on Iraq. Other than that, however, I have yet to see proof he is a progressive. He was a Republican, served under Reagan. . .we co-opted him (and in an ugly episode the party threw out a solid, lifelong Democrat in the primary) solely because we thought it was effective to run vets against Republicans. Which was correct, but ultimately may also lead to a lot of Blue Dogs coming in through that gate. Over the course of his career, and particularly once we are out of Iraq, you may find his FISA votes are more representative of who he is than his Iraq votes.
Dee Loralei
says:Greg, you want a more pro-Clinton site then go to Corrente Wire and No Quarter. I had to boycott them because they became vehemently anti-Obama, not just pro-Clinton. At the time I was an Edwards supporter and after he dropped out I was trying to decide who to vote for on SuperDuper Tsunami Tuesday and left those two sites because I didn’t want to have any horrible awful bad feelings towards either candidate come Nov. Myy DD and Hines Sight are also mostly in the pro-Clinton/ anti Obama camp, but they also offer pro-Bama articles as well. And honestly, I respect and admire the heck out of Hillary, though I hate some of her votes and despise the people she’s surrounded herself with during this campaign. (Penn, McCaulliffe,et al.)
And no, save Jim Webb for president some other time. I’m mightily irked about the teleco immunity vote. And I’m not a fan of two Senators on the same ticket. Obama needs to look west or south and he needs a governor. Though if he picked say Rocky Andrson, fiery ex mayor of Salt Lake City, I could see that. Or Richardson, Napolitano, etc. (Just my .02, anyway.)
barkleyg
says:“Her major action as first lady was on health care, which didn’t turn out very well.”
I’ll admit that I have joined the “cult of Obama”? It’s called a cult because the Washington elders are scared shitless that they might be losing their mind control of the idiocracy, which is how they perceive the American people to be(especially if they are listening to them. Enough of my blindness for words like hope and change.
I am sick and tired of Hillarycare being continually badmouthed for the last14+ years. Let’s remember folks, it was Republicans voting as a block that defeated Hillarycare, not that it was a bad concept.
If you look at America since the Hillarycare defeat, it sure seems to me that she was ahead of the curve in seeing that healthcare shouldn’t be a privilage, but a necessary benefit for a healthy life. Funny, that today in 2008, both our candidates have plans to make healthcare more accessable to all, and not just the rich or those employed by honorable employers and companies.
Greatest economy ever(Repug talking points), and over 6 million new uninsured people in the last 8 years. Something stinks in the state of Denmark!
RonChusid
says:This author states “(Clinton) would be more likely to continue, and I fear abuse, the powers taken by George Bush”
Seriously, this blog has become so brazenly “pro Obama”, and “anti Clinton” that it is going as far as to compare Clinton to Bush? What’s next, compare her to Hitler?
This is clearly my opinion, but expressing opinion is part of writing on a blog. It is not as if this opinion has no basis in fact. The material I link to does show that Clinton is a supporter of strong executive privilege. Seeing the ways in which she has tried to change the rules after the fact during the primary race does provide reason to fear that she will similarly play fast and loose with the rules in order to push her agenda as president.
Clinton supporters often argue this is ok as long as they agree with her agenda, but the problem is that increased presidential power can be used by either party. It is important that the next president be someone who would reverse this trend.
I am comparing Clinton to Bush in an area where the comparison is legitimate. I am not comparing Clinton to Hitler, and it is certainly hyperbole to claim that comparing Clinton to Bush is comparable to comparing her to Hitler. Also keep in mind that this is a guest post and does not mean that “this blog” is “pro Obama” or “anti-Clinton.”
Doctor Biobrain
says:As a firm Obama man, I actually thought this post waded a bit too deep into Hillary bashing. Not offensive at all, but I did feel it tipped the needle a bit much on my Bias-o-Meter. Were this a closer battle, I could understand. But at this point, Hillary needs two Hail Mary plays and a few lucky calls from the refs before she’s even a serious threat. It’s not over, but the end’s probably not too far off. Don’t get me wrong, I liked the post, but felt it was a bit heavy-handed towards the end.
So I’d prefer if we toned things down a bit and got in reconcilation mode, in order to get Hillary’s people on the Obama team as quickly as possible. Things did get a bit rough, and the longer we keep taking the hard stance, the less they’re going to want to get on-board. No hard feelings, and all that. We all just wanted what we thought was best for the country. Now let’s get McCain.
Lance
says:But her math was way off when she claimed the difference with Obama is “35 years of experience.”
Senator Clinton’s basic claim is that she has 35 years experience. ONCE, when asked the difference between her and Senator Obama she repeated her basic claim, rather than doing math and saying 18 MORE years experience.
This is a dumb argument Steve, unworthy of your efforts.
But you are on drugs so I’ll forgive you.
Lance
says:“…Clinton supports decreased transparency and would be more likely to continue, and I fear abuse, the powers taken by George Bush.”
I always laugh at ‘Unitary Executive’ conservatives and ask them if they’d like Hillary making fiscal policy decisions for the Federal Reserve. Because that’s exactly what they are defending.
blogingRfun
says:TO BE FAIR: I took out two lines that although argueably fair & balanced, would be viewed by some as inflammatory [We seem to be wading into the deep waters of; Death-to-any-blogger who blasphemy’s Obama.] Also, I had posted a version of #34 a 2nd time (with spelling correction) in another (relavant) dicussion section. So that may have annoyed TCBR…Or honestly, I imagine SB may have been e-mailed a death threat from “…isboring” who at the time was calling for others to join him in a beat down of blogingRfun.
Doctor Biobrain
says:This is a dumb argument Steve, unworthy of your efforts.
If you’re referring to CB, you got the wrong man. This was a guesthost.
This is one big reason why I don’t like the idea of guesthosts. Nothing against the bloggers chosen, but when I see the Carpetbagger layout, I automatically expect the words to be Carpetbagger’s and give them more weight than if they came from a mere mortal. Even Morbo took a little getting used to. Same goes for Eschaton and Hullabaloo, and I almost always forget that Josh Marshall isn’t alone at TPM. I know the days of the solo blogger are numbered, but I don’t have to like it.
blogingRfun
says:HOUSEKEEPING ISSUES:…at the time was calling for others to join him in a beat down of blogingRfun, because the next day my 2 post were gone.
Jim
says:I SURE HOPE THAT CB GETS BETTER SOON I’M TIRED OF THE FAR LEFT LIKE “RON CHUSID” AVID OBAMAMANIAC.
So many new voters that know nothing about the world we live in because they live in OBAMALAND where all is fine. People this is the real world you grow up and serve your nation. Like joining the military serving your nation. Maybe doing something for the poor or homeless. Obama did most of those things except to volunteer for his country but thats okay he was busy at Harvard or Yale whatever. When I grew up I wasn’t able to go to Ivy League schools I had to go to a state school. Is it any wonder he gets the far left voters. Just wondering where this country will be in 20 years with all those college students that aren’t willing to serve their country. Doesn’t mean you have to go to war, what about volunteering to work in under priviledged areas for a year in college equally.
Dose of Reality
says:Some food for thought:
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/2/21/141455/588
Hillary’s Voting Record on Trade, Labor and Union Issues
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/2/21/133518/373
Who’s More Progressive, Hillary or Obama?
There’s much more, If you have any interest.
Lance
says:Re # 44.
Sorry Ron, didn’t notice your byline.
Ron, this story is not worthy of your efforts. She didn’t do the MATH when asked a question. That’s your argument?
I agree with you that Hillary won’t automatically give up the powers BGII has aggrated to himself. Why should she? What an opportunity for revenge against Richard Scaife.
doubtful
says:Jim, the National Journal’s Concern Troll, is absolutely right! Obama went to Harvard! How can we possibly expect him to lead us! I guess Obama should’ve gone to Wellesley. Of course, he would have been a little out of place there.
Are you trying to imply that Obama never worked with the underprivledged? You’re mistaken, as usual. Are you trying to imply that only college students support Obama? Mistaken again. Are you trying to imply that college students never do anything to serve their country? Again, mistakenly ignorant.
When I grew up I wasn’t able to go to Ivy League schools I had to go to a state school. -Concern Troll
What does that matter in respect to someone supporting Obama? If you’re not going to vote for someone because they had more opportunities than you, I think you’ll find an empty ballot. Additionally, you we’re able to go to a state school, which is more of an opportunity than many are afforded.
blogingRfun
says:HERE’S MY POINT: The political-left is motivated. And I’m trying to help direct, not diminish that energy. As Obama’s called for; Lets get beyond the [51/49] politics of division. So I suggested that African-Americans, for p/r purposes, make a show of appreciation for the country. That helps assuage the political-right because 1) They don’t expect it. 2) America; Love-it-or-live-it! is becoming the turf of the politcal-left. It’s a nobrainer, but I’m cursed at and called “racist!”, when provocative “realist” might be more accurate.
blogingRfun
says:DAMN STRAIGHT: I guess with Swan gone…I’m the new queen in town.
Danp
says:Dose of Reality (47): If I read progressivepunch’s methodology correctly, they treat a non-vote (absent) as a “no” vote. Therefore, Tim Johnson would be considered conservative for 2007 largely because he had a stroke. Likewise, Obama missed more votes than Clinton. Unless one can make the argument that a particular bill needed that extra vote, this methodology is a poor way to measure someone running for President.
Steve
says:Doc, it’s really not that hard to look at the byline posted directly above the first sentence of a thread. If there’s no byline, then it’s Steve’s. If there is, then it’s a guest.
Bringing in guest bloggers offers a variety of creative thought processes. I’d absolutely hate it if everyone in one of my classes were to write the same ideas, time after time. Without the variety that comes with unique points of view, everything becomes dogmatic—and we begin the transformation into “just another version of Bu$hylvania.”
And I’m still trying to figure out what a “bloge” is, let alone where it is imagining that it was “beaten down.”
RonChusid
says:Lance,
She didn’t do the MATH when asked a question. That’s your argument?
No, that’s not my argument at all.
Debunking the repeated claim of having 35 years experience over Obama was just one of the points that The Congressional Quarterly made. This is part of disputing the entire argument that Clinton is the more experienced candidate, considering that the Clinton campaign has pushed this as a major reason for voting for Clinton.
Jim,
It’s not often I’m called far left. Clinton supporters have to get their stories straight. More often the claim is that Obama is too conservative.
Jim
says:Heres the deal I ask my grandkids. You want a woman or a black man for president? Their answer was a woman because its a womans turn. Nothing racist there.
Jim
says:But I won’t vote for him
John S.
says:You want a woman or a black man for president? Their answer was a woman because its a womans turn. Nothing racist there.
Come again??
Why is it a woman’s “turn” to be president? And if part of the answer to that has anything to do with Obama being black, then I’m afraid that is quite racist.
JRS Jr
says:Seriously, this blog has become so brazenly “pro Obama”, and “anti Clinton” that it is going as far as to compare Clinton to Bush? What’s next, compare her to Hitler?
In a later post, somebody actually stated that there is no spin on this blog.. It’s been clear for the last 6 plus months CB is a HUGE Obama fan.
Credibility. Leaking. Quickly.
Steve
says:***What’s next, compare her to Hitler?***
Certainly not here, Jr—although I could imagine “Tweety” Matthews over at MSNBC focusing on der Fuhrer’s “cleavage” during a late night session at the Reichstag….
Lance
says:Re # 55,
Ron, she says SHE has 35 years of experience. Once, once you quote her when the question is a comparison. She didn’t do the math you do here. Why should she? That’s Obama’s job, not her’s.
Clinton is saying she has 35 years of experience, not 35 MORE years of experience.
Your accusation falls flat on its face.
libra
says:Senator Clinton’s basic claim is that she has 35 years experience. ONCE, when asked the difference between her and Senator Obama she repeated her basic claim, rather than doing math and saying 18 MORE years experience. — Lance, @42
I should HOPE she only did this ONLY ONCE. Otherwise, one would have to assume that the children isn’t learning, Ivy League schooling (Wellesley) notwithstanding. I expect even Yale wasn’t able to do much with Clueless George (sows’ ears… silk purses…), but Hillary is of a different cut entirely.
————-
[…] you grow up and serve your nation. Like joining the military serving your nation. Maybe doing something for the poor or homeless. Obama did most of those things except to volunteer for his country but thats okay he was busy at Harvard or Yale whatever. — Jim, @ 47
Well, it’s not as if either of the Clintons volunteered for military service, either, so I don’t see your point in blaming Obama for going to school, either. Did you volunteer, BTW? But Obama, sure as hell *did* do “something for the poor” — soon after he got out of his fancy school (personally, I think community organising counts for more than sitting on the board of union-busting WalMart, but that’s my personal quirk). And one of the things he’s pushing for *is* national service (other than military), so you’re wet there, too.
Why don’t you simply admit that you do not vote on issues, but on prejudices? Your:
“Heres the deal I ask my grandkids. You want a woman or a black man for president?” (@56) is proof positive that you’re nothing but a rabid racist. Most of us vote either for Clinton and her accomplishments and positions, or for Obama and for his accomplishments and positions. But, for you, it’s all about “woman vs black man”. As if they weren’t real people but some cartoonish, one-dimensional characters.
“When I grew up I wasn’t able to go to Ivy League schools I had to go to a state school.” — more Jim, @ 47
Perhaps you didn’t have enough enough smarts — or daring, or imagination — to apply and get a scholarship? Or, perhaps, you didn’t have that ambition. Which is fine; there’s nothing wrong with going to a state school. I know our (VA) state U is *excellent*. My husband went there and it didn’t hobble him any. All the same, when our son wanted to go to Princeton, we did our damnedest to make it possible for him. There’s nothing wrong with going to an Ivy League school, either.
——————-
DAMN STRAIGHT: I guess with Swan gone…I’m the new queen in town. — blogingRfun, @ 52
I knew there was a good reason for me to skip your postings as religiously as I had been skipping his… But, actually, I was just beginning to think “same idiot, different meds”, when you more or less confirmed it.
Samantha
says:Clinton is 60, so if we assume that her 35 years were consecutive, they would have begun in 1973 when she graduated from Yale Law School at age 25. That year she joined the Children’s Defense Fund, an advocacy group for children.
Clinton worked for the Children’s Defense fund for less than a year, and moved on to a life long career as a corporate lawyer, to defend those evil corporations she now says she’ll fight against, and at the same time claims to always have worked for children by taking a job right out of college for the Children’s Defense Fund.
Bruno
says:to Ron or Steve or anybody with ‘nexis’ access.
Can you please check this statement for factual errors:
“she is keeping the records from her years as first lady secret until after the election.”
I thought that this was due to the new executive order signed by Bush as soon as he got into office: to keep Presidential records off limits for a longer period of time. He was trying to make it that Bush senior’s records couldn’t be viewed until after he’s out of office as well. Which resulted in the Clinton records being sealed for a longer period as well.
This would not be the fault of Hillary. As I recall, Bill Clinton even wrote a letter to have the documents released earlier.
I’m no scholar, so I may have missed a few communication pieces, where it shows that Hillary is deliberately holding back some documents.
Just wondering…
blogingRfun
says:GOOD NEWS: A (strong) case can be made that I am the ‘new’ Jesus; The Messiah…Those who run things already know of this. They’ve known since before 2000. But why would they share with the general public – they don’t share much else, do they? You can get a sense of my thinking at my Post library under user name 4 to 125 characters at the WashingtonPost.com.
I had additional important messages that I used to regularly FedEx’d to all the players in media & government since 1990. For example I predicted 9/11 [who, how, when, where] published in a newspaper 6 weeks before it happened. I arguably have the most powerful, positive & prophetic message in the world today; We face many problems and challenges [Duh, right?] And we have a difficult, complicated future to navigate in our journey to 3000.
I (the new messiah?) don’t like to use the term Jesus. Although I have blue eyes and brown hair and was raised a Christian I am beyond the Bible. In fact, oddly I like the way Islam prays 5 times a day, and shuns alcohol. They cover their women, which (as a westerner) I translate into co-ed schools with segregated (boy/girl) classes. I like techno-pop muisic but also Muslim call-to- prayers chants. I like some Christian music too but not all. Alot of the people I admire most were raised Christian, but it’s 2000+ and I think better to move on. I don’t know much of anything about Mohammed or the Koran and I do not want to learn. I do not like Asian or Islamic script. I like the english language. There is much work ahead…Love to all, BlogingRfun
blogingRfun
says:I SHOULD ADD: I too have seen evidence that there appear to be forces at work in the universe, that throughout history, by default is called God(s). It’s not unlike what Al Gore has described as the collective consciousness of all living things working in concert [to communicate, direct & judge]. But it’s a subtle and delicate force that can sometimes be easily over-powered by human passions and ambitions. I’m not anti-faith. I am just making the arguement against gameing for economic, political or cultural supremacy, under the banner of any religion.
blogingRfun
says:CLASS ACT: Chris Matthews (last year?) had Fmr. Rep. Susan Molinari, along with another political commentator on his show for a segment or two. And as usual he tried to keep things lively – so there was some light-hearted banter…Then as things started getting a bit too lively [?] Chris tapped-the-brakes saying “Okay, this is starting to sound like a dinner party…Hah!”
THE MSNBC TV JUNGLE:
BIG BULLS: Joe Scarborough, Pat Buchanan, Eugene Robinson
SOCIAL LIONS: Tom Brokaw, Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann
ALBERT EINSTEINS: Howard Fineman, Chuck Todd, Andrea Mitchell
GODDESS/PRINCESS: Mika Brezenzki, Erin Burnett, A.B. Stoddard
BAD BOYS: Tucker Carlson, Jim Cramer, Don Imus
GOOD GUYS: Brian Williams, Dan Abrams, Willie Geist
OH, AND…WEATHER & SPORTS: Norah O’Donnell
blogingRfun
says:POLITICAL OBIT: One thing we all may be learning here is how fortunate the nation was to have had a person of high quality, Hillary Rodham Clinton, serve two terms in the White House as First Lady.
Dose of Reality
says:Samantha -“life long career as a corporate lawyer?” Do you think if you make stuff up, it’s true?
Support whomever you want, but do yourself a favor and at least educate yourself on the woman’s career – when I read things like what you wrote, I know I am dealing with someone who is too lazy to do more than lap up old right-wing garbage.
blogingRfun
says:GOOD NEWS: A (strong?) case can be made that I am the messiah…Those who run things already know of me and my story. They’ve known since before 2000. But why would they share this with the general public – they don’t share much else, do they? You can get a sense of my thinking here at my Post (below). I’ve had many additional important messages that I used to write, then regularly FedEx to all the power-players in media and government since 1990. For example I predicted 9/11; Who, where, why and that it may kick-off WWIII. It was published in an Aspen CO. newspaper six weeks before it happened.
I arguably have the most powerful, positive & prophetic message in the world today; We face many problems and challenges [Duh, right?] And we have a difficult, complicated future to navigate in our journey to 3000…I (the new messiah?) prefer not to use the term Jesus or Christ. Although I have blue eyes and brown hair and was raised a Christian I am beyond the Bible. In fact oddly, I like the way Islam prays (5 times a day?) and shuns alcohol. They cover their women, which as a westerner I translate into co-ed schools with segregated (boy/girl) classes. I like techno-pop muisic but also Muslim call-to-prayer chants. I like some Christian music too, but not all. Alot of the people I admire most were raised Christian, but it’s 2000+ and I think it may be best to move on. I don’t know much of anything about Mohammed or the Koran and I do not want to learn. I do not like Asian or Islamic script either. I like the english language, although yes my punctuation & grammer are sometimes crude.
There is much work ahead…Love to all, David C.
RonChusid
says:Lance,
You are incorrect in your spin as to what Clinton was saying. Clinton has not simply claimed that she has 35 years of experience but that 35 years experience represents the difference between herself and Obama. This is not my claim. This charge comes from Congressional Quarterly which did the fact checking and found that Clinton’s claim was false as I quoted in the post.
RonChusid
says:Bruno,
Bush’s desire for keeping papers from the executive branch secret might have made it easier for the Clinton’s to keep their papers secret, but the Clintons had planned to keep these papers secret regardless of anything Bush did. For example, Newsweek reported:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/57351
Jeff Stein
says:I don’t claim partisanship to either candidate, but your headline (“Clinton’s Experience Claims Debunked by Congressional Quarterly” ) is misleading, at best: The CQ fact-checking piece concludes: “We find her claim to be Mostly True.”
RonChusid
says:Jeff,
CQ states “We rate her claim False” with regards to the claims I was primarily concerned with. The portion you quote is regarding being “an agent of change” which is rather vague. While they state that her claims are “mostly true” with regards to change, they also note that this is “a flourish of campaign rhetoric.”
toowearyforoutrage
says:I’m an Obama guy.
Maybe it’s easy to be magnanimous while on top…
While her 1994 universal health care flopped badly, she DID apparently have a not inconsiderable role in developing the very popular S-CHIP program. Why she doesn’t emphasize THIS, I don’t know. (Maybe it wasn’t as big a role as the article I read would have me believe?)
RonChusid
says:Nobody’s saying Clinton has no experience or that she has accomplished nothing. The objection comes from when Clinton portrays herself as being highly experienced and Obama as inexperienced.
Clinton has used S-CHIP in some campaign ads.Clinton does deserve some credit. She has also exaggerated her role in the ads and received some criticism for this. PolitiFact rated her claims regarding S-CHIP in an ad airing in Iowa and New Hampshire as half-true:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/112/
Realistically I bet it is quite common for political ads to exaggerate an accomplishment in this matter. Others such as Ted Kennedy probably do deserve more credit, but Clinton did push for the program:
Heather
says:To Greg: Maybe you ought to research her number one strategist. His company is tied to so many human rights violators and other controversies it is not a stretch to say that if the opportunity to whitewash Hitler were before him, he’d jump at the chance. And then you’d see that Hillary would have to be judged by the interesting company she keeps. Anti-union activities of her own, major lobby interests, put together with this guy’s anti-union activities and questionable client relationships and lobbying efforts that go way back to first B Clinton term, you start getting a frightening picture. The “what ifs” are just too problematic and very real risks. If you don’t believe that the lobbying would happen, start researching news articles that have withstood any tests for libel/defamation claims. Use your “noggin.”
As for the general post, if only more people would actually research as this gentleman has done.
theo
says:This op-ed gets to the heart of the matter, comparing their public accomplishments.
http://www.theunionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Paul+B.+Hertneky%3a+Let%27s+compare+the+public+accomplishments+of+Clinton+and+Obama&articleId=11dc4bb6-bc19-4f73-97a4-400fbd3dad27