Would you mind listing, chronologically, HRC's "35 years of experience" for me? I keep trying to add it up, but all my research shows she's been an elected official for less time than Obama...
Oh wait, we count her prior time in the whitehouse where she went on diplomatic missions with Sinbad. Never mind.
I'll work to get Hillary elected if she wins the nomination, and I concede she is a formidible candidate. But the idea that she has an overwhelming advantage in "experience" is patently ridiculous. NONE of the frontrunners has much experience, truth be told. If that's what we cared about, Joe Biden would be running away with the nomination.
I do not buy, at all, that the only experience which counts is time spent as an elected official. If that's a good argument, why does your candidate constantly describe Donald Rumsfeld as a guy who had tremendous experience, but poor judgment? Because he spent a few years in Congress in the 1960s?
According to exit polls, New Hampshire voters who voted on the basis of experience went for Hillary over Obama by an incredible margin of 71% to 5%. (By comparison, "change" voters went for Obama over Hillary by a margin of 55-28.) Surely not all of these voters are idiots. Heck, even EDWARDS got more "experience" voters than Obama - not on a percentage basis, I mean more actual voters!
I submit that when you try to call Hillary inexperienced, you're fighting a losing battle against not just public opinion but logic as well. You seem to be trying too hard.
My comment was obviously full of snark, and I agree with you that time as an elected official is hardly the measure of a candidate. I nonetheless think my overarching point stands -- NONE of the three D frontrunners are particularly experienced politicians by any objective metric. Yet only one of them is claiming to be. Your preferred candidate hasn't predicated his campaign on experience. Clinton has served as a Senator for two years longer than Edwards.
Sure, Hillary should get credit for the role she played in her husband's administration but if you merely listened to her "experience" talking points you would think her record looked like Joe Biden's or Chris Dodd's. It decidedly does not, which is what I'm addressing. Sorry to hear that you view that as somehow out of bounds.
Also, as a sidenote Rumsfeld's washington experience was a bit more extensive than you credit. Congressman, WH Chief of Staff, and Secretary of Defense under Ford before coming back under Bush.
My point was that those other jobs were not elected positions.
I frankly think Hillary has an amazing resume. It's worth whatever you feel it's worth, obviously, but it pains me to see people compare her to Laura Bush.
She's got a great resume, no argument there. Again, I really don't hate the woman and will readily concede her many talents. I simply don't think that she's credible when she presents herself as having overwhelmingly more experience than Obama or Edwards. Community organizing, serving as a civil rights attorney, and as an effective state legislator ought to count. So should Edwards career spent fighting corporate misdeeds. Hillary's argument, in my view, seems to requrie crediting her experience as an unelected official while ignoring her opponents.
Anyway, not trying to beat a dead horse. I wasn't trying to disrespect Hillary's past experience.
