experience this!
by Sandra Kinne
Published: January 14, 2008
One of my many uncles called me last weekend while he watched the New Hampshire debates. He wanted me to, yet again, explain why I wasn’t voting for Hillary.
My uncle, let’s call him Howard, tried to persuade me I was making a mistake with casting my vote for an inspiring fresh face (cough, Barack Obama), instead of the establishment that is Hillary Clinton. He went on for a while about her experience, and how she’s been a Senator longer than the other leading candidates.
Of course, when I asked him what she’s done for New York State, specifically our area where an additional 1800 jobs are leaving thanks to another plant closure, he admitted, “Well, not much. But she’s been in there longer than your guy.”
He concluded his logic-free argument with this point: “Plus, she’s married to Bill, and you know he’ll be involved in a lot of decisions. It’ll be a 2-for-1.”
I tried to explain Hillary counting her eight years of being a First Lady is hardly experience to be the President, but as typical of this uncle, he grew tired of reason and rationality and wanted to get back to the television. But he got me thinking about what defines experience for presidential candidates.
Hillary cites her opponents as unseasoned, inexperienced, not ready to handle the challenges of being Commander in Chief. Last I looked, she’d been elected exactly twice. How is that experience? Even George W. was elected twice, and he wasn’t what I’d call seasoned. Being the First Lady shouldn’t count as experience, otherwise, Barbara and Laura Bush, and Nancy Reagan should all line up a campaign manager.
Hillary says her opponents lack experience and touts herself as the agent of change. As quoted in The New York Times: “This is especially about all of the young people in New Hampshire who need a president who won’t just call for change, or a president who won’t just demand change, but a president who will produce change, just like I’ve been doing for 35 years.”
Another four years of a Clinton running the country is change only if you’re in the Bush family and you won’t get to sleep in the Lincoln bedroom for four years. Chelsea Clinton better hurry up and start having kids other wise we won’t have anyone to create change for us in 35 years.
While noting she had been pursued by “conservative antagonists” for years, Mother Jones quoted Hillary as saying she is the candidate best “able to withstand the Republican attack machine…. The one thing you know about me after 16 years of taking all their incoming fire, I am still here.”
Hillary’s citation of her 16 years of vetting by the Republicans is not a reason to vote for her. In fact, it’s a main reason not to. The Republicans have been preparing for her since 1991. That means she’s been on the national scene long enough for them to get the battleships ready. Ready to battle the Republicans isn’t exactly the type of battle our country needs experience for. Besides, look at the all the experience that came with the Bush administration: Donald Rumsfeld, who had served in Congress and the administrations of Nixon, Ford, Reagan; and Dick Cheney, who has also served in Congress, as well as the George H.W. Bush and Ford administrations.
In Newsweek, the other Illinois Senator, Dick Durbin, is quoted on his discussions around encouraging Obama to run. He had quite possibly the best perspective on the experience matter: “‘I have colleagues who waited for years and the opportunity never came.’ Forget about the whole ‘experience’ question, he said. ‘A thousand more votes in the Senate isn’t going to make you a better president.’”
We’ve seen what experienced politicians bring, and I say we’ve had enough for at least four years. In 2008, the only thing I want seasoned is the chicken on my dinner plate. But even then, I want that fresh, too.
—
(email this article or post to social network)
—
