I wish there was a different term than "experience." For people who believe in amorphous change, lack of experience too often aligns with lack of contamination by "the system" and is seen as a plus.
But, this is the system we have. It's not going to change in the next four years. We have three branches of Government, and the President, in order to implement his or her agenda, has to be able to move it through Congress. (Unless she or he is going to be like Bush and play unitary executive.)
I think a better word for inexperience is "lack of accomplishments." Hillary needs to focus on bringing out her accomplishments during her six years as Senator, and contrasting it to Obama's, without stating the obvious, that she's been there twice as long as him. People will connect the dots.
There's no question Obama did a good job as a state Senator in Illinois. I believe him that he was an effective community organizer. But I don't think either of those equips him or anyone to be President of the United States.
Right now, no one in the MSM is contrasting their accomplishments. Some bloggers are trying, by researching on Thomas and the candidates' presidential and senate websites, but it would be a whole lot easier if both Hillary and Obama would release fact sheets showing the legislation they sponsored or co-sponsored and the work they did (besides casting a vote) to get that legislation passed. I'd like to see a similar statement for opposition legislation they believe they played a significant role in defeating. The war in Iraq is just one issue. Voters need to know all of their record to make an informed choice.
Most bloggers have day jobs. For the MSM and campaign staffs, this is their day job. And they are not doing what we need them to do.
I hope in the next week leading up to Texas and Ohio, we hear more about the accomplishments and failures of each candidate, not just accusations and rebuttals about "experience."
Update: In thinking this through some more, I believe there one "experience" related argument Hillary can convincingly make -- and that's that Obama hasn't been around long enough to have the clout to get his agenda through Congress. She has far more experience, especially from the years of Bill Clinton's presidency, in how to do that. Obama can hire all the best policy people to help him draft his policies and form his position on issues, but that doesn't mean Congress is going to go for them. He just doesn't have the street cred.
One other point: We have had a majority in Congress since January of 2007, and we're still in Iraq, still stymied over FISA and warrantless wiretapping and still without universal health care. Just having a Democratic President isn't going to eliminate Republican opposition to our policies and make them become law. We need someone who can beat back Republican opposition, not just compromise with them. She needs to convince Democrats that she's more likely to be successful at getting the Democratic agenda implemented over Republican opposition.
You can call for change until the cows come home, and it's not going to happen unless you have the clout to make it happen.
(Comments now over 200, this thread is closing.)
