The Hillary Clinton campaign has been bragging about how much more experience she has than her opponent, Barack Obama. They've repeated this so much that much of the mainstream media has bought into it. Time after time, we hear from them that Clinton could "hit the ground running" if elected, while Obama would have a learning curve to overcome before being effective.
They make it sound as if Obama was a first-grader on his first day at school who couldn't even find his way back from the bathroom, while Clinton was the know-it-all sixth grader ready for junior high. But just how true is the "Clinton is more experienced" argument?
The truth is that neither one has a single day of executive department experience. Neither has been a mayor or a governor. Clinton has been a First Lady, both in Arkansas and the White House -- but that's a long way from executive experience. Decorating the White House and throwing parties for dignitaries does not prepare you for leading the most powerful nation in the free world.
Now, both candidates do have legislative experience. Clinton has been a U. S. Senator from 2000 to 2008. Obama was a State Senator from 1997 to 2004, and a U.S. Senator from 2004 to 2008. I would call that a wash. Clinton has been in the U.S. Senate slightly longer, while Obama has been a legislator slightly longer.
How about their non-governmental experience? Clinton was a lawyer (and congressional legal counsel) and sat on the Board of Directors of Wal-Mart and several other corporations. Obama was a community organizer and civil-rights lawyer. Again sounds pretty much like a wash, although I personally like the experience working among common folk over the experience working with corporate heads.
Sounds to me like neither of the candidates has a real edge in experience. Both would require a small learning curve to reach maximum effectiveness. Clinton does have some built-in help there since her husband was the president, but there are plenty of good Democrats Obama could call on for help also.
So let's cut out this "Clinton could hit the ground running" nonsense. She's not any more experienced than Obama. What it really boils down to is who do you like the most? The only thing we can be sure of is that either one would be better than putting another Republican in the White House -- America simply can't afford that.
As Firt Lady, Senator Clinton gave eight years of public service. You dismiss it as, "[D]ecorating the White House and throwing parties for dignitaries."
ReplyDeleteThat is sexist and ignorant.
Yeah.
ReplyDeleteThis first commenter is right.
You're sexist.
Now cry. And beg for mercy from all women everywhere for implying first ladies throw parties.
Whether he is sexist or not does not matter. He is right in stating the the first lady posotion is far from being the president in every aspect.
ReplyDeleteStick to the issues that matter unless u want to be though of as just plain childish...
Sexist?
ReplyDeleteTruthful more like it.