The debate over ‘experience’

January 18, 2008

One need not be a news junkie to appreciate the gist of the Democratic presidential race: Barack Obama is emphasizing “change” and “hope”; Hillary Clinton is offering “35 years of experience.”

They share similar policy ideas and platforms, but believe their backgrounds and visions are unique — Obama sees his approach as a breath of fresh air in a political environment that needs it badly, and dismisses Clinton as an integral part of an old, tired, ineffective system. Clinton sees her approach as one based on experience and decades of know-how, and dismisses Obama as relying too much on charm and personality.

But there’s always been a nagging question: what constitutes “experience”? Ari Emanuel put it this way:

Well, Senator Clinton, I’m confused. I’ve done the math. You’re 60, which means that 35 years ago you were 25. And I Googled your name, looking for all the change you were making as a 25 year old and, frankly, I’m not finding much. You were going to Yale Law School at the time — which I’m sure was a personally transformative experience, but it’s hardly the kind of change that should count on one’s Presidential Training Experience resume, is it? Is that when you started your personal Working-for-Change-O-Meter?

That summer, the summer of 1972, you campaigned in Texas for George McGovern’s unsuccessful presidential bid. A worthy — if ultimately futile — endeavor to be sure, but a notch on your Years of Change belt? Kind of a stretch, don’t you think?

Well, maybe a little. In 1974 (about 34 years ago), Hilary Clinton was a member of the impeachment inquiry staff for the House Judiciary Committee during the Watergate scandal. That should probably count for something. One can make a reasonable case that the clock should start in 1979, when she became the First Lady of Arkansas, and immediately became a public advocate for causes she cared about, most notably issues relating to children. 1979 was 29 years ago, which is at least in the ballpark of “35 years.”

But maybe we’re going about this the wrong way.

Slate’s Tim Noah argues that the debate up until now has been rather misguided.

Let’s be clear. If you’re a Democrat, experience isn’t on this year’s menu. The most experienced among the major candidates seeking the Democratic nomination were Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware and Sen. Christopher Dodd of Connecticut. They have now dropped out. The remaining major candidates — Clinton, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., and former Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C. — all lack lengthy records in government.

Edwards served a single term in the Senate. Obama served eight years in the Illinois state Senate and is halfway through his first term in the U.S. Senate. Clinton is about to begin her eighth year in the U.S. Senate. Going by years spent as an elective official, Obama’s 11 years exceeds Clinton’s seven, which in turn exceeds Edwards’ six. But it’s a silly calculus. They all come out about the same, even when you factor in Clinton’s youthful work on the House judiciary committee’s impeachment inquiry, her membership on the board of the Legal Services Corp., her chairmanship of the Arkansas Educational Standards committee, her crafting of an unsuccessful national health-care bill, and her sharing Bill Clinton’s bed most nights while he was Arkansas governor and president of the United States.

In Slate’s women’s blog, the “XX Factor,” various colleagues have argued … that Clinton has sufficient experience under her belt to be president. I agree, but that’s not the right question. The more urgent question is: Where the hell does she come off claiming superior experience?

I’m left thinking that some of this is a semantics argument. If “experience” is only defined by specific types of government service, then yes, Clinton’s claim doesn’t add up.

But I’m inclined to take a more expansive view of the word. Obama, in addition to serving as a state and U.S. senator, was a community organizer who also taught constitutional law. Might those skills come in handy as a president? Sure. Edwards, in addition to six years in the Senate, was a lawyer, representing clients who’d been screwed over and left behind. Might he be able to apply some of that background to White House policy? I don’t see why not.

And Hillary Clinton has been a public advocate who probably learned a few things about how the executive branch worked while living in the White House for eight years. Does this count as “experience”? It’s hardly an unreasonable argument.

If Noah’s point is that Clinton brings to the table a relevant background that’s awfully similar to Obama’s, that seems fair. If Noah’s point is that the Dems’ top tier includes a bunch of rookies, I’m not buying it.

I’ll take the community organizer who taught constitutional law over the ex-first lady. I’d like to see any ten of Bush’s morons try to argue with Obama about the constitution. He would mop the floor with them.

And yeah, if experience is such a great thing, why doesn’t Hillary endorse Dodd or Biden?

  • Benen: “If Noah’s point is that Clinton brings to the table a relevant background that’s awfully similar to Obama’s, that seems fair. If Noah’s point is that the Dems’ top tier includes a bunch of rookies, I’m not buying it.”

    I’m confused by Steve’s closing line. Limiting myself to the excerpt above, Noah’s point seems to clearly be that Clinton brings to the table a relevant background that’s awfully similar to Obama’s: “…that Clinton has sufficient experience under her belt to be president. I agree, but that’s not the right question. The more urgent question is: Where the hell does she come off claiming superior experience?”

    What did I miss?

  • I honestly think everyone’s reading too much into this. The basic question is not one that researching the candidates’ resumes does much to enlighten. It’s more of a cultural question not about candidates but about the citizenry: do you want to change the channel or do you think this old show has a little more life in it? We’ll find out soon enough.

  • Hillary isn’t my candidate, but can’t we cut her SOME slack in that everything she did as first lady and as Senator was done while simultaneously navigating the dangerous political rapids of the extreme right wing witch hunt and demonization that has focused on her (and Bill) like a laser for the last 12 years or so? It’s hard to swim with a ball and chain around your ankle, yet she has managed admirably. Not to mention the personal betrayal by her husband that was broadcast to the world. I would’ve gone postal about 8 years ago, if I were in her shoes. She has a lot of dignity, in fact, so much that she gets accused of being an automaton. Again, she can’t win for losing…Sheesh

  • I think it’s interesting that by claiming the Clintons were somehow incapable of working, or did nothing in the White House, Barack is saying exactly what the Republicans would like to say (and would like people to believe) about the Clinton White House– for how it reflects on the Clintons, but even more so, for how it reflects on the Democrats as a whole.

    Maybe he hasn’t paid too much attention to what people have said about the Clintons since they got out of the White House, but he’s basically saying exactly what the Republicans say (when they go beyond merely making personal insults or rumor-mongering), and by being a respected Democratic politician, he’s adding loads of credibility that the Repubicans could only hope to have by themselves.

    Needless to say, Barack should have thought this one through a little more and decided on a slightly different tack to answering the “experience” question. I don’t think Barack is doing a Lieberman on us, but I think he’s making a mistake.

  • About Clinton’s White House experience, she was a really smart person, educated in government and policy at a sophisticated level (by going to law school), so she was capable of appreciating 8 years in the White House and learning a lot from it.

    To claim that it’s not experience, you really have to speculate. You have to find think it’s reasonable to conclude that Clinton was sitting around on her bed eating Ju-Ju Bees candy and watching Oprah on TV the whole eight years.

  • …her crafting of an unsuccessful national health-care bill…

    Unsuccessful?
    Please.

    That doesn’t come close to capturing the zeitgeist of that debacle.
    Her meddling (via blatant nepotism) tripped up the health care movement for a decade or more.
    You want to know the moment in our history when something started to go wrong with Kansas?
    That’s it.

  • “Barack is saying exactly what the Republicans would like to say (and would like people to believe) about the Clinton White House…Barack should have thought this one through a little more and decided on a slightly different tack to answering the “experience” question.”

    What the hell are you talking about?

  • Something has always bugged me about Hillary. All the experiece she claims before becoming a Senator could be experience anyone could claim that was married to career politician at the Federal level.

    I get that she picked up experience, but is four years in the Senate equivalent to four year as the first lady, hardly. Is four year as first lady equal to four years of community service, probably.

    I have sneaky suspicion that if Hillary gets the nod, her experience is what the right will go after. they will show here all dressed up hosting event with some clown ‘Is this the experience you want in Washington ?’

  • Good points, Swan.

    Also, if you want to talk about Obama being the candidate of “change” and “hope,” don’t do it and do think he’ll be replacing something or cleaning up the dreck just because he’s a black guy!!

    Meaning, there are lots of black people in politics, the courts, and the media establishment covering politics, who are just plain stupid– who seem to be either repeating what a racist plutocrat hands to them to read, or to have gone crazy.

    Maybe Barack can sell some people on the idea of him being more radical because he’s a black guy, but if a more radical liberal is what you’re looking for, you should think about whether Barack Obama is that guy before you decide to prefer him for that reason. Remember, Barack is a pretty conservative guy. He’s pretty up front about his church-going. That’s not too different from Clinton or Edwards. He seems more set on being a politician than being a civil rights movement leader or an activist. If he was really out on a mission to change things (Ralph Nader and Michael Moore are probably better examples of that- think of the things they do as opposed to what Obama is like), he could have said from the beginning that he wants to change things and that he’s determined to become the president so he can do it.

    Instead, he was more reluctant at first to start the journey.

  • Clinton’s idea is that her years as first lady in the WH gave her special insight into how everything operates. Her senatorial experience merely added credibility to her WH experience. The first lady has the option of being as involved as she wants to be in the president’s behind the scenes operations. No one really knows how much that would make one experienced or not. Maybe that is why she considers herself more experienced…being involved in WH operations. You can put as much subjective weight on that as you want but it’s not something ‘we’ can know as to its credibility.

    But once again..Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolf-or-witch, just says so much for experience doesn’t it? It’s all about the issues and the candidates plans and promises. Obama may seem ‘new’ but he’s actually less progressive than Hillary. All 3 dems have a ‘for profit’ healthcare plan but at least Edwards vows to make it not for profit eventually. They all have the right to make mistakes and to change their minds and all 3 will run into the same obstructionist wall from the republicans unless we get a progressive dem majority.

    We are not electing kings and queens and all 3 will be subject to the party’s demands. We don’t need compromise we need partisanship and an overwhelming majority to accomplish our goals. Repubs will be screaming for compromise but they have already run this country into the ground that we need remove their obstructionism to restore our nation back to a true democracy before we can move forward again to deal with very real (and ignored) issues that threaten to destroy our world like energy consumption and global warming.

    The CEO of GE claims we are past peak oil and will begin making electric cars and finding other sources of energy to use. Our global scientists already have a plan to make 65% of our energy used come from wind and solar power.
    We have the answers to our problems now…but corporate greed and profiteering and our bribed and obstructionist legislature are standing in the way of progressing toward these goals.
    So I say we need some one ‘experienced’ enough to know how to fight these profiteers not appease them or bargain with them but regulate them and eliminate them. Only one of the candidates has that kind of experience, the kind that counts now. Only one. The country has come out in droves to become involved in this election out of “necessity”. We sense the urgency of turning things around. We ‘hope’ we will be successful but we are motivated from necessity…something has to be done now…because “we are mad as hell and we aren’t gonna’ take this anymore”. All this must change.

  • I would add that while Obama has every right to praise Reagan if he chooses to, panning Bill Clinton in the same interview was a typical cheap political shot and did the Democratic party no good. Period.

    This is coming from a person who NEVER wanted HRC in the race and had such high hopes for Obama.

  • “Good points, Swan. Also, if you want to talk about Obama being the candidate of “change” and “hope,” don’t do it and do think he’ll be replacing something or cleaning up the dreck just because he’s a black guy!! Meaning, there are lots of black people in politics, the courts, and the media establishment covering politics, who are just plain stupid– who seem to be either repeating what a racist plutocrat hands to them to read, or to have gone crazy.”

    Seriously. What the hell are you guys talking about?

  • Chris, Obama criticizes the Clintons by claiming that even though Bill and Hill were president and First Lady, Bill and Hill were not able to get that much of a liberal policy agenda implemented while they were in the White House.

    That’s what I’m talking about. This is just the type of things the Republican politicians and commentators say about the Clintons, even though the same Republicans just about stalked and harrassed the Clintons while they were in the WHite House.

    I criticized Barack’s criticism in a comment here the other day. I wrote that Bill and Hill failed because congress was Republican, and that had to do with liberal strength in the country being too feeble and conservative forces being too strong. That’s a little of an over-simplification (conservative influence on the media, for example, even then was probably a little of an obstacle, at least psychologically, too) but I’m just describing it quickly.

  • Hey ROTFLMLiberalAO, I think you’re right in a way about the healthcare bill, but we’ll never know what would have happened if they would have “done it right”. The healthcare industry sees reform as an existential threat, and they will go after anyone who threatens their golden goose. Back then, we had many fewer uninsured people, and the HMOs hadn’t proven yet that they don’t actually control costs. This time we have a lot more ammo, but I’m sure that won’t be enough, because you need media exposure and slick salesmen to manipulate the Ameircan people, and they have lots of money to buy both.

    What we need is a fighter with a mandate and the smarts to jujitsu those fuckers.

  • It’s my personal opinion that Bill and Hillary’s healthcare reform is exactly what got them crucified in the White House. The country wasn’t ready for it and the corporatocracy wasn’t going to have it. They made an example out of them.

    I read an interesting book recently called “Confessions of an Economic Hit Man”. It is very enlightening. He quit the business before the Clinton administration, but said in the epilogue Q&A segment that Bill must’ve really ticked the corporatocracy off for them to drag Monica out…

  • Anyone who’s lived for 46 or 54 or 60 years somewhere other than a closet under the stairs has experience – whether it’s all sufficient to qualify someone to be the president is up to the voters to decide.

    Obama has the experience of growing up without his father and dealing with the emotional implications of that, and being the black son of a white mother at a time when that wasn’t always accepted or easy. He admits to some youthful indiscretions, but managed to right himself, get a Harvard education and go back to work in the community before heading into politics.

    Edwards grew up in a working-class family, put himself through college and law school. He grew a successful law practice. He also suffered every parent’s worst nightmare – the death of a child – and is dealing with his wife’s cancer and the knowledge that it is not curable. He spent 6 years in the Senate, was a VP nominee, so also knows something about life in the public eye.

    Clinton grew up in a mid-western family, left them for college and law school, and has lived life in the public eye since her husband was governor of Arkansas. That public life was turbulent, to say the least, and whether you think she should have stayed married to Bill, or not, she has handled whatever life has dealt her with some measure of grace. She has worked on a number of important issues, has been a tireless advocate for women and children, who are, I’m afraid, still being left behind in so many ways.

    They are all smart. They all believe in what they do. They didn’t get where they are today by taking the easy way out. They all are willing to sacrifice time and expend vast amounts of energy, and to age rapidly and unattractively in order to be at the forefront of helping to lead this nation out of one of the worst periods in our history.

    It’s a job I wouldn’t want – can’t even imagine the magnitude of.

  • Hmmmm….. experience.

    Darth Cheney has been poisoning the halls of DC since 1969, Rumsfeld since the late 50’s. Much of w’s circle are retreads from prior criminal GOP administrations. You could point to those as “highly experienced”, yet none of that experience has served us very well in terms of policy or good functioning of government.

  • Obama criticizes the Clintons by claiming that even though Bill and Hill were president and First Lady, Bill and Hill were not able to get that much of a liberal policy agenda implemented while they were in the White House.

    Swan,

    Thanks for the response. I don’t remember the exact quote, but I think Obama did say something to this effect in one of the debates.

    If you’re arguing that such comments are unpersuasive, then I agree. President Clinton’s accomplishments would be amazing even with a Democratic congress. Throw in a Republican congress and his accomplishments are even more impressive.

    But you said “Bill and Hill were not able to get that much of a liberal policy agenda implemented while they were in the White House.” The thing to keep in mind is that Bill Clinton was president…Hillary Clinton was not. Hillary Clinton is campaigning to be president…Bill Clinton is not. (I knew Bill Clinton. Bill Clinton was a friend of mine. Senator, you’re no Bill Clinton).

  • I must have missed those transformative progressive accomplishments of the Clinton administration.

    They failed horribly on health care–and, as ROTF writes, set back the cause by 14 years and counting.

    They passed welfare reform, which was a worthwhile accomplishment–but not, in terms of the law ultimately passed, particularly progressive. (If Clinton had started with welfare reform in 1993, he would have both passed a great bill there and set himself up for victory on health care… and really would have the legacy today that might justify a Restoration beyond hype and nostalgia for the credulous.)

    The 1994 Crime Bill probably goes in this category too–worthwhile but not exceptionally progressive.

    There were a lot of worthwhile but relatively small-bore steps like FMLA (good, but didn’t go far enough or wide enough) and the assault weapons ban.

    And then there were things like the Defense of Marriage Act and the Telecommunications Law of 1996, two of the more shameful and harmful policy measures of the last 20 years.

    What am I missing?

  • ScottW @ 9

    First you say

    All the experiece she claims before becoming a Senator could be experience anyone could claim that was married to career politician at the Federal level.

    Then you say:

    Is four year as first lady equal to four years of community service, probably

    You are aware, I hope, that HRC has both? She was staff counsel at Childrens Defense Fund (where several of her positions were quite radical), and on the Board of Legal Service Corp – positions that had nothing to do with Bill. As I’ve mentioned in prior posts, she was considered a political up-and-comer, and had been profiled in Life magazine for her activism at Wellesley, before anyone had ever heard of Bill (and before they were married, I believe). So she actually has a long history of working in activist organizations before she was First Lady or Senator.

  • Bill Clinton is not. (I knew Bill Clinton. Bill Clinton was a friend of mine. Senator, you’re no Bill Clinton).

    True, but that can be a good thing as well. I may be the only person who, in 1996, thought that both the wrong Clinton and the wrong Dole were running.

    By the way, I find it particularly interesting that whenever experience comes up, Edwards essentially gets a pass. He has less experience in the Senate than either Clinton or Obama, and his only other real experience is as a trial lawyer, in a limited type of cases that are not particularly relevant to being President – and even comparing the three of them as lawyers, Clinton and Obama are certainly more traditionally credentialed (although if one measures lawyering success by money, Edwards certainly beats the other two).

  • I remain mystified as to why Hillary is such a serious contender, much less the frontrunner.
    Sure, I miss Bill being in the White House. Sure, I think they got a raw deal by the GOP and part of me would like nothing more than to rub Ken Starr’s nose in a Clinton comeback. And Sure, Clinton is freaking Abraham Lincoln compared to Bush.
    But the idea that we want to put them back in charge and relive all of the old wars when we have such an historic opportunity to elect a candidate with as much potential as Obama makes no sense to me. I don’t want to be governed by the same two families for 20+ years of my life. That’s just crazy and unAmerican. Talk about the literal opposite of change!
    Plus I have serious doubts about Hillary’s electability.

  • Hillary Clinton had a life before she became a senator and a First Lady. She was a very successful attorney who tried to make a difference in people’s lives. Check out her website. She’s accomplished a lot more than Obama has. She will make a great President because she is thoughtful and well prepared. Obama has admitted he loses things. Not a good quality for a President. If Obama becomes the Democrat’s choice, I’ll support him.

  • dajafi @ 20

    just this once i’ll post the link instead of reposting the entire thing, but in response to a similar comment yesterday from Cleaver, and did a very quick and very incomplete list of Clinton-Gore admin accomplishments, trying to pull representative issues from different policy areas. It is far from complete, and pretty impressive.

    I’d encourage anyone who has forgotten what a good president he actually was — even with Republican efforts to undermine everything he did — to review the record.

    From here on out I’ll just repost the whole thing as often as I need to. 🙂

    And it paints with a pretty broad brush to be that hard on the Telecom Act of 1996. Internet access would not be affordable for nearly as many people without it, wireless service would not be nearly as good without it, and all of our communication services would be provided by a former Bell company without it.

  • dajafi — “I must have missed those transformative progressive accomplishments of the Clinton administration.”

    Longest economic expansion in American history, 22 million new jobs, highest homeownership in American history (pre sub-prime loans), lowest unemployment in 30 years, doubled financial aid for college students, lowest crime rate in decades, decrease of gun crime by 40 percent, FMLA (tens of millions have benefited), double-digit income growth at all levels with the bottom 20 percent seeing the largest growth, lowest poverty rate since LBJ, lowest teen birth rate since the depression, lowest infant mortality rate in American history, protected millions of acres of land, converted deficits to surplus and paid off a significant portion of the national debt, critical in bringing long-term peace to the Balkans and Ireland (and Haiti until Bush had Arisitide kidnapped).

    You must have missed those accomplishments…easy to do when you’re busy.

  • z,

    It’s a good list that makes your point–though some of it is stuff he was more “there” for (hmm… just like Hillary!), e.g. the real wage increases, and some is stuff that any Democratic president likely would have done, or at least tried to do, in Bill’s place (the salutary but minor tweaks to health care coverage, Superfund cleanup).

    But S-CHIP is a major accomplishment, as was EITC expansion (though again that wasn’t a very tough political fight), as was Child Care and Head Start expansion. (If I wanted to be a jerk, I’d say that those were made possible in considerable part by his caving on welfare reform… but, since I don’t have a huge problem with welfare reform anyway, in part *because* of those concessions he extracted, I won’t.)

    In my post @20, I wasn’t saying he did nothing–only that his accomplishments are pretty thin gruel compared to the records of, say, LBJ or FDR. Now. those two had Democratic congresses to work with… but Clinton’s best accomplishments IMO came while Gingrich was in, so I’m not sure that explanation holds either.

    On balance I thought Clinton was an above-average president–maybe a B-. But he wasn’t close to good enough that his wife deserves the blanket benefit of the doubt, particularly considering her agonizing failures of judgment and near-total absence of leadership since winning office in her own right.

  • Chris, you make my point by attempting to refute it.

    How much of that was “transformative”? Not much. Unquestionably, Clinton was a very good steward of the economy for his time… but he made awful trade deals, didn’t lift a finger to reverse the decline of unionization–the only real tool with which to push back against the concentration of wealth and political power in the hands of the economic elites–and neutered, or at least was acquiescent in the neutering of, the core message of the Democratic Party: equality of opportunity and fair play in the economic realm. Perhaps that was because he was more interested in co-opting the political influence of those economic elites than pushing back against them.

    But I’m not really interested in re-litigating the Clinton administration. Bill’s not on the ballot, however much many of you evidently wish he was.

  • I think that all of the remaining Democratic candidates can very clearly illustrate they have experience relevant to the job. What irks me is when one of them claims exclusive rights to experience as a talking point, especially after illustrating repeatedly that the wisdom that is supposedly borne of such experience is lacking.

  • and neutered, or at least was acquiescent in the neutering of, the core message of the Democratic Party: equality of opportunity and fair play in the economic realm. Perhaps that was because he was more interested in co-opting the political influence of those economic elites

    I know many here have never met a Clinton motive they trusted, but I don’t believe his intent was the neuter the message of the party. Hindsight is always helpful, but at the time, he was somewhat of anomoly created by GHW Bush’s imperial aloofness from his “subjects.” The right had made “liberal” a radioactive word. Self-described Republicans outnumbered Democrats.

    So if you want to expand your base of support to get things done, and you want to expand the party, you can do two things. One, you can keep preaching the undiluted progressive message and persuade a larger number of people. Or two, you can dilute the message and try to pull people who are closer to the middle away from the other side.

    At the time, option one had to seem pretty nigh impossible. But you could still outmaneuver Gingrich and his ilk if you could outflank them and pull marginal R’s over to be D’s. Yes that requires compromise. But everything in electoral politics, where neither side’s true “base” is over 50% of the population, is about striking the balance between expanding the tent to be as big as possible yet keeping the tent structurally sound, ensuring that what the tent stands for has some substantive meaning. There is no single bright-line we are all likely to agree on as to where that balance gets struck.

    But where Clinton struck that balance (a) got a lot done, much of which helped the working class; (b) moved the political center of gravity enough that he was re-elected and Al Gore was able to win the popular vote (and would have won big had he run on the Clinton-Gore record). And he got a lot of people in the middle to give the Dems a second look, a second chance — my guess is a lot of those people are in our camp right now that may not have been but for Clinton.

    So yes, co-opting the economic elites may not be as good or as fun as a wholesale revolution against the economic elites, but on the other hand it is a lot better than having the elites continue to empower the other side and prevent every bit of progress. I don’t think he ever had the right stars in alignment for wholesale revolution, so he played the hand he was dealt and played it as well as anyone could (other than the distraction over his personal life — and even then it is hard to see what major accomplishments were derailed by that).

  • zeitgeist.
    My point was simply this, years are a pretty damn ambiguous measurement of experience.
    According to years, she has the equivalent or maybe even more experience then Bill.

  • doubtful @ 29 – but it doesn’t irk you when one claims exclusive rights to “change” despite the fact that all of them would represent a huge change from what we have now?

    the reality is they all have the minimal requisite experience to do the job competently. they all represent a change. and on substance, they are all more similar than different.

    so to differentiate for the purpose of giving voters a choice, they have all – largely with each others’ acquiesence – branded themselves. Obama is the “change” candidate; Clinton is the “experience” candidate; Edwards is the “fighter” candidate. It is all pretty artificial, they are all complicit in that oversimplification. So why take it all out on Clinton?

  • Chris, you make my point by attempting to refute it. How much of that was “transformative”? Not much. Clinton was a very good steward of the economy for his time… Clinton…was acquiescent in the neutering of, the core message of the Democratic Party: equality of opportunity and fair play in the economic realm.

    Good “steward” of the economy? “Neutered” the message of opportunity/fair play in the “economic realm”?

    (double-digit income growth at all levels with the bottom 20 percent seeing the largest growth…lowest unemployment in 30 years…longest economic expansion in American history…lowest poverty rate since LBJ…converted deficits to surplus and paid off a significant portion of the national debt…converted deficits to surplus and paid off a significant portion of the national debt…)

    I beg to differ.

  • zeitgeist, your arguments are sharp and persuasive as usual.

    But I will suggest that Clinton’s two terms evolved in a way that somewhat belies your interpretation. If anything, he fought the good progressive fight on style, if not substance, in 1993-94: the ’93 budget bill (good, even if lefties howled because he focused on deficit reduction rather than stimulus; point is, it worked–as your list shows), the attempt at health care reform, even the measures to eliminate institutionalized homophobia in the military (DADT proved a bad compromise, but arguably better than the status quo to the point).

    Then he got his ass handed to him in the ’94 midterms, and the Great Triangulation began.

    This confounds analysis because, while what followed stylistically was kind of off-putting, some good things resulted: balanced budgets (maybe more appealing to a crypto-reactionary like me than some True Blue lefties 😉 ), S-CHIP, EITC expansion, and so on.

    But what annoys me is that the strong argument you make here

    he got a lot of people in the middle to give the Dems a second look, a second chance — my guess is a lot of those people are in our camp right now that may not have been but for Clinton.

    probably would have held as strong or stronger if he hadn’t started blurring some of the distinctions with Republicans, as you concur he did.

    Again I commend the Matt Bai NYT magazine piece from a month or so back. My takeaway from that piece is that indeed I had underestimated Bill Clinton–the 1992 candidate, that is, whose brilliant fusion of the more worthwhile elements of liberal and conservative orthodoxy essentially created the Democratic mainstream of today, and who did yeoman work in creating what we might call middle-class progressivism. Unfortunately, 1995-2008 Clinton ditched a lot of that, IMO, in favor of a political philosophy evidently focused on survival and self-advancement.

    Maybe it’s ironic, but one of the reasons I support Obama is because I think he’s the candidate who comes closest–in terms of offering a positive fusion of political philosophies, consistency with what’s worked, and a break with what hasn’t–to Bill Clinton in ’92.

  • Did anyone catch that remark that Edwards is not as “traditionally” credentialled as either Obama or Clinton? I guess that’s supposed to mean that he didn’t go to Harvard or Yale. Just UNC? Guess he can’t be any good or any smart then, could he?

    The Democratic Party reminds me in many respects of the old British Labour Party, which though it espoused the cause of the working man pretty much always chose leaders who went the traditional Oxbridge route. The tribunes of the people like it when they run things, don’t like it when the people want one of their own running things.

    I’ll actually concede that Edwards’ experience is thinner than the other two doing the traditional things (being a legislator, etc.) that politicians do, but I won’t accept that building your own successful law practice [wouldn’t that count as the old ‘meeting a payroll’ standard], fighting for people, etc. is somehow less legitimate because you didn’t go to Harvard or Yale, work on a law review or clerk for a judge.

    One of things I like about Edwards is that he went to NC State and UNC [I have no connections to either] not an Ivy and that he nevertheless succeeded in life.

    The Harvard/Yale/Princeton axis is so damn boring, safe, conventional and self-satisfied. Not too many fighters there. But it helps that lots of reporters went to those schools and that the NYTimes thinks they are the only stories worth covering when it comes to higher education. Sheesh.

  • zeitgeist,

    I think Obama’s intended message of change isn’t necessarily limited to just the current administration, but means change from government as usual, per his talk of ‘Washington insiders.’ Clinton also talks about change but with a nostalgic twist; her message is more of a let’s change it back to what it was before. For those who remember Bill’s administration fondly, that isn’t so bad, for others, it is anathema.

    Obama would probably like people to remember Bill’s Administration as complicit in the partisan divide in America today (one of the reasons I think Bill is so passionate lately), and that Obama could help heal that divide. In that respect, Obama’s message of change is distinctly different from Clinton’s and Edwards’, who are both to some degree more antagonistic (or at least are perceived to be). This leads some to think that Obama would simply capitulate to Republicans.

    I’m not sure Obama ever said or implied that Clinton or Edwards wouldn’t change the course we’re on now; I think his message is that he would change it differently or better. I do however, think that Clinton has tried to paint her counterparts as green; an argument I was surprised, like this article says, wasn’t rebutted by Dodd or Biden.

    To the broader point, change is forward looking and figurative; everyone will have a difference of opinion about what change is. Experience is, or should be factual, and somewhat less debatable (I did let you convince me her years as First Lady were valuable experience, after all), which is why it is easier to swallow Obama selling his brand of change more easily than Clinton’s claim to superior experience.

    Again, to the broader point, experience is only valuable if put to proper use, and Clinton’s vote on Kyl-Lieberman especially following the AUMF in Iraq show me that wisdom isn’t there. I’m certainly not happy with Obama’s lack of a vote on that either, so don’t mistake my distaste with one as preference for the other and I’m certainly not taking it all out on Clinton; I was just commenting on the article which pertained to the claim of experience.

  • zeitgeist says (25) “From here on out I’ll just repost the whole thing as often as I need to.”

    Please do, and feel free to add to it. It was better than any Clinton ad or debate. It was certainly more informative than any consecutive 12 months of news cable. Thanks.

  • “18. On January 18th, 2008 at 4:09 pm, RentedMule said:
    Hmmmm….. experience.

    Darth Cheney has been poisoning the halls of DC since 1969, Rumsfeld since the late 50’s. Much of w’s circle are retreads from prior criminal GOP administrations. You could point to those as “highly experienced”, yet none of that experience has served us very well in terms of policy or good functioning of government.”

    It’s what one learns from “experience” that really matters. Hillary seems to have learned that one has to adapt to circumstances and try alternative means. The lofty “professorial” speeches on “change” by O’bama come across as empty rhetoric. “Where’s the beef?”

  • Did anyone catch that remark that Edwards is not as “traditionally” credentialled as either Obama or Clinton? I guess that’s supposed to mean that he didn’t go to Harvard or Yale. Just UNC? Guess he can’t be any good or any smart then, could he?

    That is a significant twist of what I intended. I didn’t exactly go to Harvard or Yale either. But Obama was a research assistant to Tribe and taught Con Law — highly relevant to being President. American Lawyer named HRC to its Top 100 Lawyers in a America list – a pretty high honor given the number of lawyers. Edwards may be a great plaintiffs attorney, and thats great, but he doesn’t have the record of legal recognitions the other two have.

  • That spray on your faces is propeller wash from you missing the boat. Hillary Clinton is all about change now – “experience” is so New Hampshire ago. In fact, the entire field of candidates on both sides of the aisle now resembles nothing so much as a mewling Greek chorus, all groaning and huffing about Change. Furthermore, change has become the defining parameter of the election to such an extent that you may be able to look forward to a reprise of the long hair and comfortable peasant garb of the sixties, so thoroughly are you to be changed.

    Of course, none of them mean it. Maybe even Barack Obama doesn’t mean it – maybe he just got lucky when he latched on to change as his mantra – although I dare to hope that’s not so. However, he was either fortunate enough or wise enough to advertise himself the candidate of change from the beginning, although any chowderhead ought to have been able to see the electorate HATED business as usual, just like he was either fortunate enough or wise enough to vote against the war. Everybody else is just growing a mustache, or wearing flared pants, whatever they see is getting the chicks this week. One’s a leader, and the rest are doing whatever they can to look like one long enough to get your vote.

  • zeitgeist says (25) “From here on out I’ll just repost the whole thing as often as I need to.”

    Why bother?
    It is next to meaningless.
    A jibberish of numbers that you either accept or don’t accept based on your political biases.
    One could google Reagan and, I am certain, find a similar list.
    Numbers are like that.
    Who is going to fact check all that muddy crap?

    No. Forget the BS quantitative jive ass stuff…
    You have to argue qualitatively:

    The fact is:
    Reagan was a transformational character who changed the course of this country in a radically negative way. He was one of the WORST presidents ever.
    Clinton would have had to of been a doofus not to have done better.
    Are there honest numbers out there that show that? Sure.
    Are they the numbers you copy and paste? WTFKnows.

    Similarly, whomever follows Dumbya is going to look like the major league genius of all time.

    So what?
    Such an argument is next to meaningless for those having to choose between Clinton, Obama, or Edwards.

    (Actually it is worse than meaningless. As you are assuming that Hillary [different time and space] will somehow replicate Bill’s accomplishments[different time and space]. I might as well argue that Obama [different time and space] will somehow replicate FDR’s [different time and space] accomplishments. Bosh. Pish. Meh. )

  • Since she has nothing concrete to back up her claims of experience in the white house or in Arkansas, I count her experience as starting in 2000 as a senator.
    And taken as legislative experience, then Sen. Obama should have his 8 years as a state senator as well as his 3 as a US senator into account.
    By my estimation, it sure looks like Hillary has less experience than Obama.

  • ROTF, do you ever actually read for content, or just shoot off to be an ass?

    If you’d actually read the discussions, both times that was posted it was in response to someone claiming Bill Clinton didn’t accomplish anything meaningful.

    Show me where I’ve ever suggested it says anything about HRC.
    C’mon, big mouth, show it.
    That’s what I thought.

    It is directly on point to what was being discussed. That it isn’t the discussion you want to have this moment is not my problem; whine a bit and take your toys and leave the sandbox if you want.

    (By the way, while it would take more time than I wanted to spend, all of those stats do have neutral, expert sources. But if you want to think I just made ’em up, that’s your prerogative. I think most sane people here know me better than that.)

  • hills resume:

    experience inclues Monica, blow jobs, stained dresses, impeachment, whitewater, travel gate, arogance extrodinaire, heath care debacle, arrogance even mo0re… marc rich, arrogance and entitlemnet, blow jobs selling linclio ns bedroom, arogance, entitlement, whitwater. blow jobs, alogations of rape, flowers, gal pal in prison, perjury and arrogance

  • resume addendum:

    selling US national interests in exchnge for campaing contributions from chinese intellegence officials dressed as corrupt chinese business men, dressed as supports of billery
    contibutiong to partician hysteria and bullshiot with right wing consiracy quip to deflect blow job perjury randy bill getting knob suched by a young intern

  • Hey, Lars – you have a brilliant future working for those folks who inundate email inboxes with cheap porn spam, spelled just slightly off in order to bypass the automatic filters. In fact, it looks like you have a natural talent for it.

    Let me know when you crack the big time, and I’ll tell you where to send the finder’s fee.

  • Should Hillary Apologize to Blacks for being AGAINST Civil Rights Act of 1964 ?
    Blacks Learning ‘Goldwater Girl’ Hillary Was AGAINST
    the Civil Rights Act of 1964….Feel Deceived !

    An article by Washington columnist Robert Novak (Google: ‘Hillary, King, Goldwater) reveals that Hillary Clinton was a staunch supporter of Sen. Barry Goldwater (who was adamently against the civil rights act and a segregationist) during the same period she claims in all black church appearances that she was for the civil rights movement. Blacks feel that it was impossible for Hillary to have been a Goldwater Girl and pro civil rights at the same time which leads to the assumption that Ms. Clinton is re-inventing her past. Many blacks feel deceived by The Clintons. Should Hillary Clinton make a public apology to blacks or just refrain from telling fabricated stories ?

  • Hilary Clinton was a member of the impeachment inquiry staff for the House Judiciary Committee during the Watergate scandal.

    Junior clerk. Big deal.

  • I stopped in the teens for these comments, but I have to say, I really hate people taking Obama’s quotes out of context.

    He cited four Presidents. Not 1 (omg I 4. Omitting that fact completely changes pretty much the entire quote.

    He praised Reagan and JFK for being transformative, and contrasted that with Bill and Nixon. That’s 1 transformative Repub, 1 transformative Dem, 1 non-transformative of each. You could jsut as easily slip Ford in there for Nixon too, makes no difference.

    The point is, some Presidents can serve a scompetent or even good stewards of the gov’t but not make a large, lasting impact. We’ve been living with Reagan’s legacy for 28 years. We won’t be living with Clinton’s legacy because he dosn’t have one. That’s the point.

    The fact that Hillary is running to be a solid steward of gov’t only plays into this idea, btw.

  • Zeitgest:

    on the whole “credentialed” discussion, not only the Con Law stuff you mentioned re: Obama, but he also had a clerkship on teh Supreme Court pretty much waiting for him if he wanted it and turned it down to go run a voter registration drive and practice civil rights law, protecting whistleblowers and going after voter intimidation and such.

    The fact that he was up for the clerkship, the fact that he turned it down, and what he turned it down for all speak highly IMO of both his credentials for office and character.

  • sorry guys — i’m a tenured professor of constitutional law — that is not preparation for the presidency. it’s far too academic an experience.

  • Presidential cabinets are a good place for people with experience. Yes, someone with 35 years of experience in the White House can bring consultancy and continuity so that the executive branch, all of it, can deal with changing times.

    Dynamic Leadership, however, along with hope and change is what the American presidency is for. If we can elect an open and candid leader full of enthusiasm, this will be a leader all Americans can respect and who all the world can respect. Such a president can coach The United States of America to fulfill the highest expectations of its founders, and maybe even address some challenges they could not have even forseen.

    Please elect Barack Obama President of the United States.

    • Comments are closed.