home

Hillary's Experience

The NYTimes today runs a curious story that seems intended to debunk Hillary Clinton's claim of experience based on her time as First Lady. The gist is:

In seeking the Democratic presidential nomination, Mrs. Clinton lays claim to two traits nearly every day: strength and experience. . . . She has cast herself, instead, as a first lady like no other: a full partner to her husband in his administration, and, she says, all the stronger and more experienced for her “eight years with a front-row seat on history.” Her rivals scoff at the idea that her background gives her any special qualifications for the presidency. Senator Barack Obama has especially questioned “what experiences she’s claiming” as first lady, noting that the job is not the same as being a cabinet member, much less president.

Obama's claim seems strange to me. As I understand it, Hillary's claim is that she was the principal, and importantly, final advisor to Bill Clinton on all his major decisions. The story seems to confirm the claim, and certainly Bill Clinton has as well:

. . . [S]he was more of a sounding board than a policy maker, who learned through osmosis rather than decision-making, and who grew gradually more comfortable with the use of military power. . . . [S]he acted as adviser, analyst, devil’s advocate, problem-solver and gut check for her husband, and that she has an intuitive sense of how brutal the job can be. What is clear, she and others say, is that Mr. Clinton often consulted her, and that Mrs. Clinton gained experience that Mr. Obama, John Edwards and every other candidate lack — indeed, that most incoming presidents did not have. “In the end, she was the last court of appeal for him when he was making a decision,” said Mickey Kantor, a close Clinton friend who served as trade representative and commerce secretary. “I would be surprised if there was any major decision he made that she didn’t weigh in on.”

This sounds right to me and it is what I understand Hillary's claim of experience as First Lady entails. It makes this type of comment perplexing to me:

[O]ther administration officials, as well as opponents of Mrs. Clinton, are skeptical . . . She was not independently judging intelligence, for the most part, or mediating the data, egos and agendas of a national security team. And, in the end, she did not feel or process the weight of responsibility. Susan Rice, a National Security Council senior aide and State Department official under Mr. Clinton who now advises Mr. Obama, said Mrs. Clinton was not involved in “the heavy lifting of foreign policy.” . . .“Making tough decisions, responding to crises, making the bureaucracy implement decisions that they may not want to implement — that’s the hard part of foreign policy,” Ms. Rice said. “That’s not what Mrs. Clinton was asked or expected to do as first lady.”

Ms. Rice is saying that Hillary Clinton was not the President. That Bill Clinton was. To that I say, duh.

But it is farcical to argue that Ms. Rice, as a national security aide, to argue that as First Lady Hillary Clinton did not experience the decisionmaking process of a President from an almost unparallelled perspective.

I also think it is poor politics by the Obama campaign to argue this point. He clearly has LESS experience than the other candidates in this area. To asrgue its importance is to play on Clinton turf.

And of course the ultimate testimony on this aspect of Hillary's experience can come from the source himself - Bill Clinton. And if the Obama campaign wants to thrust Bill Clinton directly into the campaign by arguing this issue, he will be making a grave mistake.

< Giuliani: A Review of His Mayoral Years | Texecutions: Six Out of Every Ten in America >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Hillary's "so-called experience" (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by mtnwizard on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:24:20 AM EST
    Hillary failed at healthcare.  But, what was the extent of her participation in foreign affairs?  She had no security clearance, did not receive the daily Intelligence briefings, and did not participate in National Security Council meetings.  We don't even know if she was talking to Bill much of the time due to the Monica fiasco.  Plus, her time as a US Senator in New York has been undistinguished legislatively.  Finally, she voted FOR the war in Iraq, and FOR George W.'s declaration of Iran's Republican Guard as a terrorist organization.  She is the ultimate flip-flopper and easily sits on both sides of the fence.  If we really want CHANGE, that can only come from Barack Obama.

    Change from Barack (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:32:10 AM EST
    Perhaps. But you can not in good faith, as you do, argue that Obama matches Clinton's experience.

    Its what makes Obama supporters hard for me to take seriously.

    Parent

    If experience was the issue (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by DaveFox on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:58:28 AM EST
    we'd be considering Biden, Dodd and Richardson.  Hillary didn't do much of anything in the Senate.  She was first lady and was a prime witness to Bill Clinton's presidency, but it's unclear exactly what she did since she won't unseal her records.

    If she's claiming the Clinton presidency as her own, then she should release her records so she can be judged objectively on it.

    And for all her talk about "experience," it didn't seem to do her any good in her Senate career, as evidenced by her Iraq War vote without bothering to read to read the NIE on Iraq, and again on Kyl-Lieberman.  I've seen this kind of experience in action.  No thanks.

    Parent

    Argue for them then (none / 0) (#25)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 01:10:28 PM EST
    If experience means nothing, then why does Obama try to bvelittle Clinton's experience?

    Clearly it DOES mena somethng.

    BTW, WH experience is a winner for Clinton.

    Keep trying if you must.

    Parent

    Right (none / 0) (#20)
    by manys on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 12:49:49 PM EST
    This makes them both fakers in my book.

    Parent
    Obama never (none / 0) (#27)
    by Jgarza on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 01:29:40 PM EST
    argues that, he argues that she exaggerates her experience, as a retort to her attacking him.  How does pointing that at not make sense.  This post makes no sense.  You don't even comment on what it says, you just made some unfounded statements, and had some vague quotes.

    Parent
    HRC and Healthcare 1992 (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Molly Bloom on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:23:59 AM EST
    To be sure, had NHC legislation passed HRC would have taken full credit for it and its reasonable that she bear some of the blame. The question is how much and could someone else have done better under the circumstances?

    With a fractured Democratic majority in 1992 and Bill Kristol advising Republicans to oppose and not compromise on health care, I don't think there was anything that was going to change the outcome and I don't think anyone else would have done much better.

    Watching the current congress, I have come to the conclusion, unless the number of progressives increase in congress, and more Republicans find themselves searching for position in the private sector in 2009, it isn't going to be any different this time no matter who is elected. Including Obama.

    Parent

    I agree with this: (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Maryb2004 on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 12:37:22 PM EST
    Watching the current congress, I have come to the conclusion, unless the number of progressives increase in congress, and more Republicans find themselves searching for position in the private sector in 2009, it isn't going to be any different this time no matter who is elected. Including Obama.


    Parent
    yes but (1.00 / 0) (#38)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 29, 2007 at 09:21:40 AM EST
    With a fractured Democratic majority in 1992 and Bill Kristol advising Republicans to oppose

    Never the less they had a majority. The proposal failed based on projected tax increases on Joe and Jane Six Pack. They saw it as another welfare program.

    Parent

    "Experience" (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by SteveSmith on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:21:33 AM EST
    I suppose being First Lady does provide a certain "experience," but I'm not sure it's all that relevant here, since the "experience" that people tend to think is important is associated with accountability.  The fact that George W. Bush was the son of a President, and no doubt was a behind-the-scenes player concerning his father's decisions as both Veep and President, didn't make him James Baker.  By making "experience" the raison d'etre of her candidacy, she simply reminds voters that her public role for most of the past thirty years was as a political spouse.  

    A simple rebuke (none / 0) (#21)
    by manys on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 12:51:11 PM EST
    All anybody has to do is to start comparing her strength and experience with Laura Bush's.

    Parent
    Please compare apples to apples (none / 0) (#26)
    by Molly Bloom on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 01:16:56 PM EST
    No matter what you think of either first lady, they are not at all alike and its clear Laura Bush's role differed greatly from HRC.

    Parent
    Then release the records (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by DaveFox on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:52:00 AM EST
    If Hillary wants to claim her time as first lady as "experience," then she should release all the records locked in the Clinton library.  To claim this sort of experience, she should be judged on her record.  To keep these records locked is unfair.  She's basically saying, "Trust me, I did a lot of serious work" without anyone being able to see exactly what it was she did.

    I agree (none / 0) (#22)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 01:05:19 PM EST
    Bingo! (none / 0) (#35)
    by Wile ECoyote on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 03:49:02 PM EST
    I get all my Clinton opinions from Patrick Healy (none / 0) (#1)
    by ferris on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:08:28 AM EST
    Heh (none / 0) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:12:02 AM EST
    Of course (none / 0) (#34)
    by Wile ECoyote on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 03:48:10 PM EST
    Hillary claims to have helped started Media Matters, so you are not pointing out a balanced Clinton observer either.  

    Parent
    Women Voters (none / 0) (#3)
    by BDB on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:12:13 AM EST
    I do not understand Obama's arguments in this area.   At times some of the things he's said have verged on trying to paint Hillary as "just a wife."  Nobody who knows anything about the Clintons is going to believe that.  And I think it runs the risk of alienating women voters.

    There are a lot of things about Obama's history that I'm sure I don't know.  Things he did as a community organizer and state legislator that I'd probably like.  If he's worried about the experience argument, I think he'd be better to tout his own than trying to convince me that Clinton doesn't have any.  As he says, there are all kinds of experience.  

    But really, the 44-year-old is always going to lose the experience argument to the 60-year-old.  It's fighting on Clinton's turf when he should, IMO, be pushing the change mantra. That's his strength.  That he's fresh.  Fresh people rarely have as much experience, that's what makes them fresh.

    I still think it's likely Obama will win Iowa, but if he doesn't, I think it's because he's been off his game the last couple of weeks.  Arguing over who has the most Clinton people, whether Clinton's experience as first lady counts, his terrible non-answer on his present vote, the attack on unions - none of it is a death blow or a collapse or anything, but he's been flailing a bit and it's weird to see after so many strong moves earlier in the month.

    To be fair (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by DaveFox on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 12:04:37 PM EST
    The "I don't know what experience she's claiming" quote was a response to a question he was asked where HRC was claiming credit for the 90's economy, he went on to say that she wasn't Treasury Secretary, as far as he knew.  That quote is over a month old.  I don't think this Obama bringing this up, it's the NYT.

    He should also be pushing the judgment argument more.  For all of HRC's experience, it didn't do her any good on AUMF and Kyl-Lieberman.  If she is experienced as she claimed, she shouldn't have made these stupid mistakes.

    Parent

    Experience (none / 0) (#8)
    by joejoejoe on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:33:18 AM EST
    One year of experience repeated 10 times is not necessarily the same as 10 years of experience. Dick Cheney has 35 years of high level experience but the last 32 of them have been him reliving the Nixon impeachment through the lens of "Nixon got screwed by Congress". My point is that an aggregate number of years tells you very little about the knowledge and capabilities of an individual absent the context of their actions.

    Experience to me means 'wise enough not to make avoidable mistakes'.

    Parent

    The full "front row" quote (none / 0) (#5)
    by joejoejoe on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 10:24:22 AM EST
    From NBC.com:
    "During the eight years of Bill's presidency, I had a front row seat on history," she said while campaigning in South Carolina last month. "As you may remember, [he] had to deal with terrorism. I learned both what works and what doesn't work."

    The NYT's Patrick Healy uses too much snark for a reporter and it was wrong to include Obama advisors in what would otherwise be a straight analysis of Hillary Clinton's role as First Lady.

    That said "experience" means different things to different people. If you're a mid level bureaucrat at CIA or State and your portfolio is New Zealand it's YOUR portfolio. Should some crisis pop up in New Zealand any credit or blame for the quality of your analysis and advise is going to be attached to your name and rightly so. Being a 'sounding board' or 'trusted advisor' is a different kind of experience. As far as I can tell the only portfolio that Hillary Clinton had where she was responsible for the results as First Lady was health care. On every other su