Any Hillary Clinton supporters out there? I’m just wondering — and not disingenuously, I honestly don’t know — what the basis of her claims of superior foreign policy experience might be. I get the sense that I’m supposed to impute to Hillary the foreign policy experience of Bill. Now, I don’t doubt that Hillary Clinton was more active than most First Ladies in the presidency of her husband. However, I don’t think she gets credit for merely being around — I don’t want the surgeon’s wife trying an operation on me. So, if she is claiming foreign policy experience from her stint as First Lady and if she performed foreign policy tasks in the Bill Clinton White House, I’d like to know specifically what those are. Otherwise, I don’t think she gets any particular bonus points for having been First Lady.
Hi Doug,
I don’t know why Hillary’s camp keeps bringing up her foreign policy “experience” since it is clear to most voters that any responsibility she has had in the area has come from her time in the Senate.
If we are to have a Democrat in the White House, my hope would be that Barak Obama would be the one since he is from the Midwest and that fact would likely help our area because it help Chicago which is our regional economic engine.
I truly think Hillary Clinton will not be the nominee.She never has recovered from her clueless answer about illegals having driver’s licenses.She also has looked tired and overwhelmed lately. I think the expression is ‘running on empty’. Some are predicting an Obama-McCain ticket ,which would have been way beyond reasonable speculation a few weeks ago.
Please, please, please, let it be (insert name here)-Huckabee!
I’m leaning Edwards myself.
I’m not a Clinton supporter, although it’s overwhelmingly likely that I will grudgingly vote for her in the general if she is the nominee. It seems to me that the Clinton campaign’s cynical strategy has been to create a veneer of inevitability and to co-opt the good parts of the Bill Clinton legacy while ignoring the bad parts. Hillary’s candidacy disturbs me in so many ways.
I was looking at the US Senate’s history of women Senators. Of the 35 women who have served in the US Senate, 16 are in office today. Of the 19 who are no longer in the Senate, the vast majority took office in unorthodox circumstances–appointed to replace their dead husbands, temporarily appointed with no intent to seek re-election, etc. Of the 16 who currently hold office, only Lisa Murkowski, who was appointed by her dad to take his seat after he became Alaska’s governor, is a true crony pick. Two others, Clinton and Elizabeth Dole, are best known as famous spouses but were elected in their own right. The other 13 essentially are traditional politicians. While Dole is best known as Bob’s wife, she already had held significant political appointments in the Johnson and Nixon administrations before she married him.
On the other hand, Hillary’s career path has been inextricably tied to her husband’s career. Hillary is a smart and talented woman who would have been successful at something in any event, but it strikes me as extremely unlikely that she has the political skill to have held high office absent her marriage to Bill. I don’t think she would be a disaster as president, but the notion that she is somehow uniquely qualified among the field is absurd. I view her as a slightly more than one-term Senator who once was a mid-level White House advisor with no official role or duties and who botched her only major public assignment that was outside the realm of traditional First Lady duties. I don’t consider her any more qualified that Edwards or Obama. Hell, she’s no more qualified than Mack MacClarty.
I tend to agree with Lou. I really don’t think Hillary is going to be the nominee. I think her support is a mile wide and an inch deep. If she doesn’t win Iowa (and particularly if Obama does) I think the floodgates will open. It’s just a matter of how long she will choose to stay in.
As a reader asked sports columnist Norman Chad: “If Hillary Clinton is qualified for the White House because she watched her husband be governor and president for 20 years, why haven’t the Atlanta Falcons offered their quarterback job to Deanna Favre?”
I suspect Sen. Clinton was doing a bit more than simply hanging around the White House from 1993 to 2001. Undoubtedly, she immersed herself in a very privileged and unique learning experience. One telling example: http://usforeignpolicy.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?zi=1/XJ&sdn=usforeignpolicy&cdn=newsissues&tm=111&gps=301_912_1436_708&f=00&tt=2&bt=0&bts=1&zu=http%3A//www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/26/AR2007072601863.html
Given the mess in Iraq and what is now happening in Pakistan do you really want a President that is going to learning on the job?
You’re citing a Charles Krauthammer column on Obama? I’m willing to believe that Hillary participated more than usual in Bill’s presidency. However, if she’s going to run on that participation, I think she should give examples of foreign policy responsibilities she had or tasks she performed. Having experienced advisors (like, presumably, Bill) isn’t quite enough. Bush the Lesser had advisors with incredible amounts of experience — Cheney and Rumsfeld — but that experience just seemed to allow them to screw things up worse than would have otherwise been possible.
And wasn’t that the argument that got us 4 more years of Junior?
I’m wondering how an Obama-McCain ticket would work. “Pick me because I was right about not wanting to attack Iraq… and my running mate wants to bomb Iran!”
True, the article was about pointing out Sen. Obama’s inability to think on his feet when asked foreign policy questions and to that end the article did so by contrasting the experienced responses given by Sen. Clinton.
What is clear is that Sen. Clinton gained immeasurable experience that Obama, John Edwards and every other candidate lack – indeed, what most incoming presidents did not have. If that experience does not reach the level that allows you to concede that advantage to her, then it does not.
If you don’t mind saying… in the unlikely event that Sen. Clinton does win the nomination will you vote for her?
Most likely.
George Bush has left behind some pretty messy stables. I can’t see Hillary Clinton working terribly hard to clean them out, but certainly she’s much more likely to do so than a Republican President.
Brenda,
From what I read exit polls revealed that Americans who voted for President Bush cited the issues of terrorism and moral values. At the time the Iraq war was still very popular with Bush’s base.
The Swift Vets smear against Sen. Kerry also played a big part in his defeat. More here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2004
Katie –
‘Smear’. Yeah, telling the truth about Kerry is a very, very ugly thing.
Sort of reminds me of Genghis Khan, for some reason…
You’re right, Parker, smear was hardly the best word to define what that group did to Kerry:
http://www.factcheck.org/republican-funded_group_attacks_kerrys_war_record.html
Yes, and when Kerry keeps his promise to release his military records (a matter of a one-page, commonly available form), I’m sure he’ll be vindicated in all disputed events.
Can’t think why he hasn’t kept that promise – not like he’s got anything he wants to hide or misrepresent…
Moral values is a losing issue politically,if one party tries to make it their hallmark issue.. That’s been the Republican strategy since Clinton was first elected,but it doesn’t work for the Democrats either,when they try it. Kerry tried to present himself as a ‘war hero’ and it took only a few well-chosen ‘Republican’ war vets to come forth and give their side next to Kerry’s version and that was it for Kerry. The 2 groups of ww2 veterans, fighting each other’s views on TV, had to be the low point of the last political campaign. I resented feeling I had to vote for Kerry since he was the only reasonable choice in spite of it all.Tactics overall were vicious.
Parker,
Why should Kerry release his military records? No one has asked the same of Greg Ballard, who ran almost solely on the strength of his military experience. We won’t even get into the issue of the President and his military service discrepancy.
Johnny –
Well, John Kerry should release his military records because:
a. He said that he would.
b. Doing so could resolve some of the questions about his military service, which some people believe that he has seriously mis-characterized.
(I believe the only action needed on his part would be the completion of form SF-180, which is available online. I would be willing to loan him my pen, if asked.)