Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

TIME: Hillary's Quandry on the Campaign: Will experience matter?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
DeepModem Mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-12-07 08:56 AM
Original message
TIME: Hillary's Quandry on the Campaign: Will experience matter?
Hillary's Quandry on the Campaign
Thursday, May. 10, 2007
By JOE KLEIN


Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton speaks during a fundraiser for her presidential campaign in New York on Monday, April 23, 2007.
(Brooks Kraft/Corbis for TIME)

...."I voted for you for Senate when I was living in New York. Why should I vote for you for President?" a young woman named Hillary Sinn asked in Council Bluffs. The candidate proceeded to unreel her résumé--the years of advocacy for children; the years working on education policy when "Bill" was Governor of Arkansas; the health-care, uh, experience in "Bill's" first term as President; the eight years in the White House; the 82 countries visited; the fact that she was "running as a woman but not only as a woman"; that she'd had extensive experience working across party lines in the Senate. "It was the experience that came through," Sinn said later when I asked if she was satisfied with the answer. "I'm feeling really excited about her. She seems incredibly effective."

And Clinton had failed to mention what may be her most important qualification for the job, a knowledge of national-security issues unmatched in the Democratic field. Yes, several other Dems--Biden, Chris Dodd, Bill Richardson--can match her on foreign policy, but Clinton's years on the Armed Services Committee have been well spent. I once asked a well-known general if there were any Democrats running for President who understood the way military leaders think, and he said, "You mean, aside from Hillary?"

Asked in Red Oak how she would disengage from Iraq, she gave a precise, nuanced and up-to-the-minute answer: Withdraw the troops from the areas of sectarian conflict like Baghdad, keep a small force fighting al-Qaeda in al-Anbar province, move some troops to the Turkish border, protect the U.S. embassy in Baghdad and other civilian facilities, maintain a special-operations capability. And then, instead of the usual lip service to training Iraqi forces, she said, "We may also leave some forces to help train the Iraqis if there seems a chance this Iraqi government will get any better. But I'm doubtful about that." Contrast that with, say, John Edwards, who seemed utterly lost when I asked him a similar question a few weeks ago, finally settling on the opposite of Clinton's position. "You'd probably have to leave combat troops in the areas where combat was the greatest," he said.

Clinton's national-security expertise should be no small advantage in an election that may well take place in the midst of a war. But it is likely to take a backseat to a more prominent question about experience--whether eight years as First Lady qualifies one to be President of the United States. And to a more cosmic experience-related question than that: whether, after 20 years of Bushes and Clintons in the White House, we want to keep trading our most precious office back and forth between these two extremely strange families. In fact, it's entirely possible that "experience" may be more of a disadvantage than an advantage in 2008.

There have been six elections in which control of the presidency has switched parties during the television age. In five of those six, starting with John F. Kennedy's victory over Richard Nixon in 1960, the less experienced candidate won....

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1619574,00.html?xid=site-cnn-partner
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
elizm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-12-07 09:13 AM
Response to Original message
1. Let's make it 6 out of seven...
and elect Barack Obama in '08! :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
juajen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-12-07 09:35 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. Excuse me, but haven't we had enough?
No-experience-Georgie is an ongoing example of what happens when the Prez is inexperienced. Of course, Obama and Edwards are way smarter than Georgie; but, Hillary is both experienced and brilliant. She is also held in great esteem all over the world; a real plus, when you look at the negatives of this administration over the last 6+ years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elizm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-12-07 10:07 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. I am perfectly happy...
...with the experience Senator Obama has. I also see his judgment as being superior to that of both Edwards and Hillary. And Barck Obamam, too, is brilliant. So...to each his own.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
David Dunham Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-12-07 10:16 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. Obama is fading in the polls. Hillary'lll be our candidate in 2008.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
David Dunham Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-12-07 10:17 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. Additionally, Hillary is less experienced than McCain, so she'll win
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tellurian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-13-07 06:37 AM
Response to Reply #5
17. There is no one more qualified than Hillary to be president
and no one deserves it more than she does. She's worked hard towards that goal for over 30 yrs.
If there is any woman out there, who would be our best choice as the nominee for the good of the country, it's Hillary.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elizm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-12-07 12:40 PM
Response to Reply #4
8. Hillary is leading in the Democratic Primary polls...
... as she has from the beginning when we were all told she was the done deal. If the Democrats insist on nominating her, we will lose the 2008 election. But it seems that's what Hillary supporters want...so have at it!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tellurian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-13-07 06:39 AM
Response to Reply #8
18. You have no clue on which you speak!
so continue to yammer at Hillary, instead of supporting your own candidate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
earthlover Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-12-07 10:39 AM
Response to Original message
6. hillary will win because....
a) she is more experienced AND...

b) she is less experienced. *sratch head in amazement*


I am already getting tired of this meme about "experience".

If you think experience is the key thing, George W Bush is better qualified to be president than any of our candidates because only he has experience being president. We may as well all shut up and let him do his job without interruptions! Sarc....

Obama has the same amount of experience in the same places as Lincoln did when he was elected President. Besides, who says Washington experience is the only valid form of experience?

Besides, it is not experience that counts, it is what we learn from our experience.

So what did Hillary learn from her experience of supporting the Iraq War early on? Has she told us she has learned anything, was sorry, admitted she was wrong?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tellurian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-13-07 06:49 AM
Response to Reply #6
20. Heres the answer to your first question..
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/11/us/politics/13bill-video.html

you can seek out the Edwards thread started by Atomic Kitten to answer your last question about Iraq.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
draft_mario_cuomo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-12-07 11:53 AM
Response to Original message
7. She has six years of elected experience
Obama has more than a decade of experience in elected office and Edwards also has six years of Senate experience. Klein asks the question that has not really been asked yet but likely will over the course of the year. How much stock do we place on someone being the spouse of a governor or president? Is Nancy Reagan "qualified" based on her "experience" as first lady of the nation's largest state for eight years and another eight years as first lady of the United States? Is Laura Bush qualified by the virtue of being first lady of Texas for six years and then the US for eight by November 2008? The common reply to these two examples would be that HRC had more of a hands-on role in her husband's administration than Laura Bush and Nancy Reagan. That should raise a logical question, though. How did HRC perform in her role?

==the years working on education policy when "Bill" was Governor of Arkansas==

What were her results? I have heard Arkansas moved from 49th to 49th in education during her tenure. Is this true? I presume her results are not great because if they were we would hear about the great progress Arkansas made while she worked on education.

==The health-care, uh, experience in "Bill's" first term as President==

That was an utter disaster. That led to the 1994 Democratic debacle. The one real responsibility she had while Bill Clinton was president was health care. She failed miserably in that. Is this the kind of "experience" that we want in our candidate?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigdarryl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-12-07 07:10 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. She is NOT the most experienced candidate Richardson is
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Alamom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-12-07 07:27 PM
Response to Reply #7
10. Comparing Senator Clinton with Nancy Reagan or Laura Bush is
Edited on Sat May-12-07 07:32 PM by Alamom


somewhat, uninformed.

Not to put anyone down, but while the other two Dem. frontrunners where still in High school & College, Senator Clinton had already established herself as an advocate for women, children and those unable to help themselves. Over 30 years of public service should be considered (exactly) the kind of experience we definitely want to see in a candidate.


(Sources, part from Wiki & other from Senator Clintons Biographies...several books to verify.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Rodham_Clinton

1969, Rodham entered Yale Law School, where she served on the Board of Editors of the Yale Review of Law and Social Action.
During her second year, she volunteered at the Yale Child Study Center, learning about new research on early childhood brain development.
She also took on cases of child abuse at Yale-New Haven Hospital, and worked at the city legal services to provide free advice for the poor. She was 23.
In the summer of 1970, she was awarded a grant to work at the Children's Defense Fund in Cambridge, Massachusetts.
During her post-graduate study, Rodham served as staff attorney for the Children's Defense Fund and as a consultant to the Carnegie Council on Children.
She was a member of the impeachment inquiry staff advising the House Committee on the Judiciary during the Watergate scandal.


In 1971 she traveled to Washington to work on Senator Walter Mondale's subcommittee on migrant workers, researching migrant problems in housing, sanitation, health and education.
The following summer, Rodham campaigned in the western states for 1972 Democratic presidential
candidate George McGovern.
She received a Juris Doctor degree from Yale in 1973, having completed a
thesis on the rights of children.


Working for Rose Law Firm specializing in intellectual property &{b] working pro bono in child advocacy. (1976)

In her twelve years as First Lady of Arkansas, she chaired the Arkansas Educational Standards Committee, where she successfully sought to improve testing standards of new teachers.
She also chaired the Rural Health Advisory Committee and introduced the Arkansas' Home Instruction
Program for Preschool Youth, a program that helps parents work with their children in preschool
preparedness and literacy.
She was named Arkansas Woman of the Year in 1983 and Arkansas Mother of the Year in 1984.


Clinton continued to practice law with the Rose Law Firm while she was First Lady of Arkansas.
She was twice named by the National Law Journal as one of the 100 most influential lawyers in America, in 1988 and in 1991.
Clinton had co-founded the Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families, and served on the boards of the Arkansas Children's Hospital Legal Services and the Children's Defense Fund.



As First Lady, Clinton supported women's rights and children's welfare around the world., Clinton hosted numerous White House conferences on children's health, early childhood development and school violence.

She promoted nationwide immunization against childhood illnesses and encouraged older women to seek a mammogram to detect breast cancer, with coverage provided by Medicare.

She initiated the Children's Health Insurance Program in 1997, a federal effort that provided state support for children whose parents were unable to provide them with health coverage.
She successfully sought to increase research funding for prostate cancer and childhood asthma at the National Institutes of Health.
The First Lady worked to investigate reports of an illness that affected veterans of the Gulf War, which became known as the Gulf War syndrome.
In 1997, she initiated and shepherded the Adoption and Safe Families Act, which she regarded as her greatest accomplishment as First Lady.


In a September 1995 speech before the Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing, Clinton argued very forcefully against practices that abused women around the world and in China itself.
Together with Attorney General Janet Reno, Clinton helped create the Office on Violence Against Women at the Department of Justice.

She was one of the most prominent international figures at the time to speak out against the treatment of Afghan women by the Islamist fundamentalist Taliban that had seized control of Afghanistan.
She helped create Vital Voices, an international initiative sponsored by the United States to promote the participation of women in the political processes of their countries.


Senator (NY) 2001 -
In the Senate, Clinton sits on five committees with nine subcommittee assignments in all:
the
Committee on Armed Services, with three subcommittee assignments on Airland, on Emerging Threats and Capabilities, and on Readiness and Management Support.
Committee on Environment and Public Works, with three subcommittee assignments on Clean Air, Wetlands, Private Property, and Nuclear Safety, on Fisheries, Wildlife, and Water, and on Superfund, Waste Control, and Risk Assessment.
Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, with two subcommittee assignments on Aging and on Children and Families; and the Special Committee on Aging.



There is more.....but this should be informative enough.
Senator Clinton has done a little more with her life than many people realize. Helping other people and knowing their needs is a quality which we should demand & must have in public officials.
She more than qualifies in this category.




I don't think Nancy or Laura can touch this bio/resume.....very few could, for that matter.





edsp
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
primative1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-12-07 08:14 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. Yawn ...
What I wonder is:
When it comes to Hillary, is there any topic of conversation that supporters such as yourself do not feel the urge to cut and paste a ton of material from her website in response to?
Do you have any original thoughts?
Do you feel anything at all?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Alamom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-12-07 09:20 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. Anytime I feel the need to inform the uninformed or give correct
Edited on Sat May-12-07 09:26 PM by Alamom


information, feel free to skip that reply.


I feel very strongly that Senator Clinton is the best choice for the Democratic Nominee due to her experience and public service.
I feel a very strong need to respond if someone compares Sen. Clinton to L. Bush or N. Reagan.
I feel they are seriously lacking in facts, uninformed, misinformed or throwing flames.


What I wonder is:

How can American people, voters to be specific, be so utterly uninformed about the candidates for President of this country.
Are (some) Democrats going down the same path as the pukes who voted for B*sh, twice?
Are Democrats reading material & news about the people who are running or do they just "like" how they look, their age, their voice, their hair?
Is a last name a disqualifier & why? (even though a candidate is highly qualified for the job)
Is charisma & good looks enough to qualify a candidate?
Why do people make such uninformed & unresearched statements because they prefer one candidate over another? It's so "republican".

Most important, I wonder why each person can not support the candidate of their choice without damning the others. It seems every post by some is just to do that.

I strongly believe in and support Sen. Clinton. However,
I DO NOT post garbage about another candidate. I rarely post about another one at all and if I do, it won't be garbage, lies, or misinformation and it will be researched & verifiable.



You could say, I feel very strongly about politics and everything involved because I feel very strongly about our country.





edgr
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
primative1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-13-07 02:04 AM
Response to Reply #12
15. Thank You
You response verifies that you are indeed thinking. It seems we at least share a common concern as to what, if any, processes some go through in determining their preferences.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jillan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-12-07 09:53 PM
Response to Reply #11
14. That's no different than what people post on any other candidate they support n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
draft_mario_cuomo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-13-07 12:52 PM
Response to Reply #10
23. Performance?
Edited on Sun May-13-07 12:53 PM by draft_mario_cuomo
You began with things that she did while not being in elected office or being married to an elected official. If suddenly HRC supporters believe that is important then Obama's background as a civil rights activists and constitutional law professor is a huge plus for him. Edwards also has a good record of fighting for average folks prior to elected office.

==In her twelve years as First Lady of Arkansas, she chaired the Arkansas Educational Standards Committee, where she successfully sought to improve testing standards of new teachers.==

Apparently during that time Arkansas rose from 49th to 49th in education. Is this true? This should cut against her, not be a talking point for her if her results were so poor.

==She was twice named by the National Law Journal as one of the 100 most influential lawyers in America, in 1988 and in 1991.==

That Edwards guy was kind of an okay lawyer too...and Obama was a professor of constitutional law.

==She initiated the Children's Health Insurance Program in 1997, a federal effort that provided state support for children whose parents were unable to provide them with health coverage.==

I believe that claim was debunked.

==I don't think Nancy or Laura can touch this bio/resume.....very few could, for that matter.==

Usually only her "record" in public life as First Lady of a small state and then the US is cited as her experience prior to being elected to the Senate. This is because Obama and others look much better when you take into account experience outside of public life. My question is whether being First Lady is a relevant qualification for being president. She had basically two key responsibilities as First Lady, education in Arkansas, and health care as First Lady of the U.S. She apparently failed at both. We are supposed to credit her for this?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tellurian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-13-07 06:52 AM
Response to Reply #7
21. here is additional info for you to disseminate
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/11/us/politics/13bill-video.html

That should just about quash the questions you've raised.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-13-07 06:52 AM
Response to Reply #7
22. LOL! I new one for the collection. HILLARY caused the losses of 1994!
Hey - it has already been established here her credentials from the Clinton white house.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BeyondGeography Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-12-07 09:51 PM
Response to Original message
13. Not a fan of Klein, but I did like this line
<And to a more cosmic experience-related question than that: whether, after 20 years of Bushes and Clintons in the White House, we want to keep trading our most precious office back and forth between these two extremely strange families.>
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-13-07 06:44 AM
Response to Reply #13
19. pretty obvious. It takes an odd person to want the job.
Look at Dennis Kucinich.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ninja Jordan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-13-07 03:56 AM
Original message
self-delete
Edited on Sun May-13-07 03:57 AM by Ninja Jordan
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ninja Jordan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-13-07 03:56 AM
Original message
self-delete
Edited on Sun May-13-07 03:57 AM by Ninja Jordan
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ninja Jordan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-13-07 03:56 AM
Original message
self-delete
Edited on Sun May-13-07 03:57 AM by Ninja Jordan
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ninja Jordan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-13-07 03:56 AM
Original message
Does he mean "quandary"?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DeepModem Mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-13-07 01:50 PM
Response to Original message
24. Oh, wow -- I myself missed that. Indeed, he, and/or TIME, meant quandary. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ninja Jordan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-13-07 03:56 AM
Response to Original message
16. self-delete
Edited on Sun May-13-07 03:57 AM by Ninja Jordan
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OHdem10 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-13-07 01:55 PM
Response to Original message
25. jYes, Experience will matters
and for this reason, I fear the next President will be
a Republican.

NO NO NO I Do not want the Republicans to win the Presidency.
This is an uneasy feeling I have re our Candidates. I like
them all but I also have a bit of understanding re the American
Public. It is more about American Attitudes than our candidates.


I am praying and keeping my fingers crossed.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 23rd 2024, 02:20 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC