Matthew Yglesias (January 11, 2008) - Compare and Contrast (Politics)

Barack is clearly lacking in First Lady experience.

Posted by 2cynicalbyhalf | January 11, 2008 3:25 PM

The two most important issues Clinton has been involved with?

1. Iraq War Resolution

2. Health Care

She was wrong on the 1st and failed on the second.

Great record

Posted by hlah | January 11, 2008 3:25 PM

"What's more, in a lot of ways she's really not running on her husband's record -- she's certainly not emphasizing the idea that she's going to be a committed free trader and budget balancer."

Bill Clinton didn't run on those ideas in 1992 either.

Posted by Petey | January 11, 2008 3:26 PM

I would like to think that my many years of film-watching indicates my directorial experience.

Posted by El Cid | January 11, 2008 3:27 PM

Experience does not require a record.

Indeed, the beautiful thing for Clinton is that her "record" is not verifiable. We KNOW the First Lady experience did produce experience, but what her re4cord was is not knowable. She can pick and choose the Bill record as she pleases.

It is not right but it is.

Posted by Armando | January 11, 2008 3:29 PM

Not to mention that the "immediately started running for president" line is both inaccurate (many sources close to Obama say he had no intention of running for prez until late '06) and prone to backfire on Hillary (since many people believe that she's been planning her presidential run since at least 2000).

Posted by DaveWoo | January 11, 2008 3:29 PM

I'm actually thrilled at the standard Hillary is setting. I can stay home for four years while my wife develops software.

Posted by Duane | January 11, 2008 3:31 PM

I guess working to create SCHIP and insuring 6 million kids as a result constitutes a massive failure...

What exactly did Obama (D-Unicornland) accomplish? Anything on that scale? Why didn't he mention it in the debate the other night then?

Reality check please!

Posted by Steady | January 11, 2008 3:31 PM

In all honesty, though, I do believe that my experiences in watching politics and reading stuff really does make me instantly capable of being a thousand times better president than that venal incompetent Bush Jr. -- but that's admittedly a really low bar, like saying that having watched the Food Network a lot and messed around in the kitchen ought qualify one to be a better chef than a drunken angry rhinoceros.

Posted by El Cid | January 11, 2008 3:32 PM

she's only been a Senator since 2001 and hasn't authored any major legislation.

Right wing talking point.

Was there *any* Democratic-authored major legislation after 2000? Wasn't one of the characteristics of the Republican controlled Congress that the Democrats were comopletely shut out of the process? I hear right wingers making this disingenuous claim about Sen. Clinton - but I'm sort of surprised to see Matt Yglesias repeat it.

Posted by Ethel-to-Tilly | January 11, 2008 3:34 PM

The "experience" aura that Hillary Clinton is trying to cultivate is not about her record legislating or governing. The Clintons are lifelong campaigners. She is presenting herself as the most experienced going up against Republicans in the national media.

Posted by Joseph Clarke | January 11, 2008 3:37 PM

I'm not sure what she means by experience. She probably doesn't really mean anything - it's just a word that scored well with focus groups. But I do know what some Clinton supporters mean about her experience - they mean that the Clintons have a lot of DC connections to "get things done". I don't know. The first Clinton administration got more Republican stuff done than Democratic - balanced budget, NAFTA, Don't Ask/Don't Tell, Welfare Reform, DMCA, Desert Fox - not the kind of experience I'd like to see repeated.

Posted by Gary Sugar | January 11, 2008 3:38 PM

What exactly did Obama accomplish?

Come on, if you have to ask you're just trolling. Did you think of looking on his website? Or googling it?

Posted by Duane | January 11, 2008 3:38 PM

HRC reacted to the pounding she received as an activist First Lady in the first two years by retreating to "a more traditional First Lady role," in a paraphrazation of the what I recall the media at the time writing. That's when her popularity rose, as I recall. That is, there's a mismatch between the periods when you could reasonably say she was at least gaining policy experience (like many an Administration high apparatchik) and the periods when Americans broadly regarded her well.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | January 11, 2008 3:41 PM

"I guess working to create SCHIP and insuring 6 million kids as a result constitutes a massive failure...

What exactly did Obama (D-Unicornland) accomplish? Anything on that scale? Why didn't he mention it in the debate the other night then?

Reality check please!

Posted by Steady | January 11, 2008 3:31 PM"

That was more Ted Kennedy's baby than anything. If I recall, Hillary Clinton wasn't exactly in the Senate at that point. She was just the President's wife. Meanwhile, in office Obama has been key on ethics bills, helping to limit lobbyists' influence and make the website http://www.usaspending.gov/ to help Americans keep tabs on their elected officials. Meanwhile, Clinton backed the dumbest piece of legislation of since the Tonkin Gulf Resolution and refuses to admit it was a mistake on its merits, not just on execution. He has also been active in trying to defuse the crisis in Kenya while on the campaign trail and has been working with Lugar on non-proliferation issues. Meanwhile, in the Senate Clinton has gotten worked up about flag burning and violent video games.

Posted by Reality Man | January 11, 2008 3:42 PM

Studly (by politician standards) black man with white female running mate? How ugly do you think things can get?

Posted by CJColucci | January 11, 2008 3:43 PM

I love the Clinton/Obama love feast. Both candidates have significant flaws going into the general. I'm planning to vote for Edwards in my February 5th primary.

Posted by progressivedem | January 11, 2008 3:44 PM

"Part-time state senator"? That's about as accurate as saying, "Hillary Clinton was unemployed from 1992-2000."

Posted by lampwick | January 11, 2008 3:45 PM

Hillary's SCHIP 'experience' is as a first lady, nagging her husband to sign the bill. She didn't author the bill, vote on the bill, or collect a majority to vote for the bill.

Her 'experience' fighting against the right-wing is to have rumors of her murdering her friend, running drugs, having lesbian affairs, and being a controlling bitch treated like real stories in the mainstream media. She is the only thing that will truly unite the Republican party.

Her 'experience' as a Senator is voting the wrong way on almost every piece of major legistlation brought before her. She has been running for President for so long that she tried to have every vote look good to Nebraska voters.

Her 'experience' in foreign policy has been to vote for war in Irag and war in Iran. War then, war now, war forever.

Her 'experience

Posted by ben | January 11, 2008 3:45 PM

Steady, even if Hillary created SCHIP, that's more than negated by torpedoing universal health care in the early 1990s. By my count, that's about 294 million people that she didn't get insured, despite having a popular plan.

Obama's stuff on government accountability and loose nukes is real and important, though admittedly not high-profile. Getting huge things accomplished is difficult in a polarized environment, but the fact that he's getting a fair amount of little, uncontroversial but important things done instead of grandstanding about stupid shit like violence in Grand Theft Auto tells me everything I need to know about him.

Posted by Lev | January 11, 2008 3:45 PM

> progressivedem writes:

I love the Clinton/Obama love feast. Both candidates have significant flaws going into the general. I'm planning to vote for Edwards in my February 5th primary.

It's like OHB and HRC are so caught up in their celebrity cage death match that the announcers have forgotten how to count up to 3...

Posted by lambert strether | January 11, 2008 3:49 PM

Wow! Hillary is now responsible for SCHIP? Where did that random talking point come from?

SCHIP was passed in 1997! And it was sponsored by Kennedy and Hatch. What the hell?

Posted by br | January 11, 2008 3:52 PM

"Wow! Hillary is now responsible for SCHIP? Where did that random talking point come from?

SCHIP was passed in 1997! And it was sponsored by Kennedy and Hatch. What the hell?

Posted by br | January 11, 2008 3:52 PM"

br, you have to remember, Kennedy is an actual liberal with an actual record. That means he is everything Clinton must be against since she is a former Goldwater supporter and College Republicans president who is pretending to have a record, as if giving a speech once in Beijing is a sign of foreign policy accomplishment. Angelina Jolie and George Clooney have just as much foreign policy experience as her and have shown better judgment, yet only Rupert Everett and Ben Affleck are talking about nominating Clooney at some point.

Posted by Reality Man | January 11, 2008 3:56 PM

You guys are hilarious in your blind love for Obama. The lobbying bill was a joke and widely considered by insiders to be so. Now lobbyists can only buy meals if it is standing up...like say lavish parties? Hmm...

As for the GTA canard how about the health insurance bill for the military reserves who were coming home from Iraq and could not get medical benefits until she stepped in and authored a bill guranteeing it?

How about the Pentagon taking away signing bonuses because soldiers were critically injured and could not return to the field and therefore could not fulfill the contract. She wrote and passed a bill stopping the Pentagon from doing that.

S-CHIP was created in large part by her efforts like it or not fellas.

Finally, Obama is completely untested and not ready. Duane you are an idiot don't say stop trolling to my question of what he has done answer it. Co-opting Sam Nunn's 10 year old effort and creating a swiss cheese lobbying bill is not much of a record. You guys are nuts if you think that the Republicans are gonna roll over in March and just hand the Presidency to Obama. The only Dems to win consecutive term presidencies are the Clintons. You actually want to win don't you?

Yay Unicorns and pixie dust!!

Posted by Steady | January 11, 2008 3:57 PM

HRC didn't torpedo healthcare...it was more her husband's fault it failed than hers.

Posted by correction | January 11, 2008 4:00 PM

oh look..the media jumping all over Hillary for 'attacking' Obama when it turns out she was just repeating his own statement about the job. Please please keep doing it...its great for her.

..Asked why he ran for the Senate in a state where rank-and-file lawmakers have been called "mushrooms" (because they are kept in the dark and fed, uh, manure), Mr. Obama said: "Part of it was that the seat opened up. I was living in the district, and the state legislature was a part-time position. It allowed me to get my feet wet in politics and test out whether I could get something done."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/11/update-obama-describes-h_n_81109.html

I look forward to a second update to this post soon!

Posted by katie | January 11, 2008 4:02 PM

For someone whose entire professional career happened BECAUSE OF WHO THEY MARRIED, it's utterly ridiculous for Hillary Clinton to be talking about anyone being part-time.

First of all, it's a lie, but that doesn't stop her.

LOL about it not being her FAULT that she hasn't done anything with her time in the Senate.

Posted by rikyrah | January 11, 2008 4:04 PM

ummm, Steady? S-CHIP was passed in 1997, several years before Hillary got to the Senate. Ted Kennedy might dispute the claim that it passed in large part through her efforts, as it was his bill and he had to partner with Orrin Hatch to get it passed (which must be even less attractive than it sounds).

Anyway, as to the Update, and the idea that its not Clinton's fault she hasn't passed major bills while in the Senate, she's actually been in the majority for a larger percentage of her time in the Senate than either Edwards was or Obama has been. She's had 3+ years out of 7, while Edwards had 2 years out of 6 and Obama has had 1 year out of 3. Not a huge difference, and pretty slim majorities both times, but in principle a talented legislator could be expected to get something significant done under those circumstances (passed by the Senate, I mean, not necessarily enacted). Lyndon Johnson would have had more to show for this time, I suspect.

Posted by Rich C | January 11, 2008 4:06 PM

Just saying...but is state senate a part time job or not? Yes or No.

Also, the voting "present" thing, not really a good thing, in my book. Take a stand, damn it!

Posted by jenn | January 11, 2008 4:08 PM

Katie is linking to an out of context quote that came from a rather flattering article on Obama in the times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/30/us/politics/30obama.html

You should read the whole thing.

Posted by br | January 11, 2008 4:08 PM

"As for the GTA canard how about the health insurance bill for the military reserves who were coming home from Iraq and could not get medical benefits until she stepped in and authored a bill guranteeing it?

How about the Pentagon taking away signing bonuses because soldiers were critically injured and could not return to the field and therefore could not fulfill the contract. She wrote and passed a bill stopping the Pentagon from doing that.

S-CHIP was created in large part by her efforts like it or not fellas."

You know what would have been better? Not voting for the war that sent our reserves there in the first place and then attacking liberals for daring to question whether the war was a good idea. Not only did she vote for the war, she gave Bush political cover by trying to be a concern troll on the war worried about the dirty fucking hippies. This is like stabbing someone and then giving them a band-aid. At least Obama and Edwards aren't campaigning on experience and are thus being more honest than Clinton. If she was Dodd or Biden, this might be honest, but coming from her and her thin record, it is just embarrassing as a Democrat.

And assertion is not argument. Was Clinton in the Senate in the 1990's? Nope. Did she vote on S-CHIP? Nope. Whether you like it or not, it wasn't called Hillarycare for nothing. She had a leading role in crafting legislation that defeated the whole point of wonkery: to take a complex issue and have such a mastery of it that you can massage it into a streamlined piece of legislation without fretting about whether or not you have the best numbers on what a CAT scan cost if you were a 35 year old smoker in Tuscon in 1989.

"HRC didn't torpedo healthcare...it was more her husband's fault it failed than hers."

Considering that she's running on his record, I'm not sure if this is a good thing. She's basically saying everything good about the Clinton years was her doing and everything bad had nothing to do with her. Her message is: Ira Magaziner - Not Hillary! Rwanda and Somalia - Not Hillary! Loss to the Republican Revolution - Not Hillary! S-CHIP, balanced budgets, Kosovo, etc. - HILLARY!

Posted by Reality Man | January 11, 2008 4:08 PM

Uh, Rich C. are you familiar at all with how the Senate works? Do you really think that the executive branch has no input on bills and how they are passed? Do you really think that the executive just sits and waits for whatever comes up from the Hill? You are not too bright are you? SCHIP is what came out of the healthcare fights in the 90s the fights that Hillary was involved in. My God.

Is anyone gonna take up my question about what Obama has done or continue to denigrate Clinton's time in the Senate? Or are we all sufficiently chastened and can return to reading our children's books...Yay!

Posted by Steady | January 11, 2008 4:13 PM

You're all missing the point--where this attack falls flat is that it is factually inaccurate. IL is not a part-time Legislature. He may have had outside income, but a quick google of "part time legislatures" answers the question pretty easily.

Posted by Andruw | January 11, 2008 4:13 PM

I know Hillary herself is to blame for this ludicrous S-CHIP talking point - she made the claim in her New Hampshire debate - but, as pointed out above, it passed in 1997, when Hillary was First lady.

I don't know about anyone else, but I don't remember any contemporaneous claims that Hillary was involved. At that time, with Gingrich as speaker, the very notion of Hillary spearheading the initiative and rounding up votes would have been perfectly absurd, especially on an issue connected to health care.

For an example, look at this absurd redbaiting mouthbreathing editorial (apparently the top Google hit for 'Hillary Clinton S-CHIP"), in which the author attempts to taint S-CHIP by connecting it to the Hillarycare political debacle of 1994. If there were a plausible closer link between Hillary and S-CHIP, you can be sure that this guy is exactly the sort of CDS sufferer that would have seized upon it. Clearly, no-one was aware of this alleged accomplishment until Sen. Clinton claimed it last week.

Posted by Warren Terra | January 11, 2008 4:13 PM

Steady says, "S-CHIP was created in large part by her efforts like it or not fellas."

Sorry, but I'd like some proof. I mean, I see that she wrote a NY Times op-ed in 1997 in support of a bill that had already passed Congress, but that doesn't mean she "created [it] in large part."

Posted by Mike H | January 11, 2008 4:14 PM

I think it is about time somebody question the whole Hillary experience thing. Yes, I agree being First Lady, especially an engaged politically interested First Lady, is not nothing, but it also isn't a lot either. She gets to claim credit for anything good that Bill did, but also disassociate herself from anything bad he did. Being First Lady gives her access to a lot of information, but it wasn't experience as a politician--somebody who has to respond to voters and face resonsibility for decisions. The healthcare fiasco and, her advice to stonewall on Whitewater, both show that her political instincts aren't that great. All of this is to say, while I believe that Hillary could have been successful in politics without Bill's help, she choose to subsume her career to support him. That was her choice, and now she wants to subtly claim credit as having a "35-year" record of experience-which amounts to Hillary being first lady in several contexts--and I think that is bull. Obama could have a better resume, but community organizer, editor of the Harvard Law Review, State Senator, Professor of Constitutional Law, and U.S. Senator isn't nothing either--and I am not convinced that it isn't at least as good as Hillary's.

Posted by QWERTY | January 11, 2008 4:16 PM

"Uh, Rich C. are you familiar at all with how the Senate works? Do you really think that the executive branch has no input on bills and how they are passed? Do you really think that the executive just sits and waits for whatever comes up from the Hill? You are not too bright are you? SCHIP is what came out of the healthcare fights in the 90s the fights that Hillary was involved in. My God.

Is anyone gonna take up my question about what Obama has done or continue to denigrate Clinton's time in the Senate? Or are we all sufficiently chastened and can return to reading our children's books...Yay!

Posted by Steady | January 11, 2008 4:13 PM"

I don't remember reading anything about how the First Lady is a cabinet-level position. If after 8 years in the executive branch then, all you can point to is one bill on the very issue she failed to achieve something more far-reaching and the bill was more Kennedy's than anybody's, that actually doesn't speak well of her. After all, she is running on her record. No one made her do so. That was her choice. Obama, in the Illinois State Senate, when he wanted to ensure that suspects weren't beaten into false confessions (basically a form of torture) by videotaping interrogations, the state legislature didn't want to act on it, the police were against it and the incoming governor said he was going to veto it. Nobody expected it to pass, but through his efforts it passed the state Senate 35-0 and became state law. Meanwhile, the one time Clinton took a strong anti-torture stand, she disavowed it a week later. I guess torture in Grand Theft Auto is a bigger deal than torture in Abu Ghraib, you know, where she helped to authorize and campaign for a war that got over 100,000 people killed.

Posted by Reality Man | January 11, 2008 4:18 PM

Duane you are an idiot don't say stop trolling to my question of what he has done answer it.

Well, at least this idiot can formulate a coherent sentence with correct punctuation.

And this idiot knows where to find the readily available information you trolled for:

http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2007/07/29/us/politics/20070730_OBAMA_GRAPHIC.html

I give the Obama campaign mad props for the high road and broad themes they took at the start of this thing. I don't think any of us realized at the outset of this thing how low and nasty the Clintons and their supporters were going to be in order to acheive dynastic succession.

Posted by Duane | January 11, 2008 4:18 PM

what are we supposed to find when we look?

Oh, I don't know...that Clinton voted for the Iraq war and has consistenly enabled the worst abuses of the Bush administration -- and that Obama has consistently opposed this madness. But why would Hillary want to point that out?

Posted by jim | January 11, 2008 4:24 PM

The condescending attitude of so many Clinton supporters is a good reason why a majority of Democrats prefer someone else. It's the same "I know best" attitude, disdain for the grass-roots, and obsession with secrecy that led to the problems of the Bush administration. Also the philosophical embrace of regime change. Would she be better than Bush? Of course. But, this is primary season, so let's turn the page. Electing a president is all about gauging potential, and Obama's got more of it. He took unpopular stands in the state lege, like the videotaping interrogations bills, while Hillary voted for war either because she agreed with it or because she didn't want to sabotage a presidential candidacy, which is what people thought would happen at the time. (The "voting present" thing is such a canard -- Obama did what Planned Parenthood asked him to do.)

Anyway, each candidate has plusses and minuses, but when I listen to Obama I feel he wants to work for us, and when I listen to Clinton, I feel she wants us to work for her. Obama's approach is better.

"The Child is Father to the Man;
I could wish my days to be
Bound each to each by natural piety." -- Wordsworth

Posted by David B. | January 11, 2008 4:25 PM

"Like everyone else, I can't shake the sense that Clinton's years of first ladying amount to some kind of substantial experience, but they don't really amount to a record."

First ladying...LOL. Great term.

Posted by More Axe | January 11, 2008 4:31 PM

OK, the skinny on Hillary Clinton's role in creating SCHIP back in 1997 is limited to... Lobbying her own husband! That's it!

Hey, but here's the source, you decide: NY Times, Aug 11, 1997. These are the key excerpts, I think.

Mr. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, was the major political driving force behind the effort, along with Senator Orrin G. Hatch, Republican of Utah, whom he enlisted in early January.

[snip]

[In June] Republicans had to get Mr. Lott to bend and the Democrats had to prod the President into standing firm on the $24 billion figure and the cigarette tax...

Participants in the campaign for the health bill both on and off Capitol Hill said the First Lady had played a crucial behind-the-scenes role in lining up White House support.

But Mr. Clinton did not appear to move on the issue until a meeting at the White House on July 22 with an agitated Mr. Kennedy. The next day in a ceremony on childhood immunizations, Mr. Clinton committed publicly to fight for the Senate plan with its higher spending for child health insurance.

Posted by Mike H | January 11, 2008 4:35 PM

Both candidates have significant flaws going into the general. I'm planning to vote for Edwards in my February 5th primary.

Well... the first part is correct - Obama and Clinton both have flaws.

But your implication that Edwards doesn't have any significant flaws shows you that you are either choose to ignore Edwards' flaws or you choose to be ignorant of them.

Posted by dave | January 11, 2008 4:35 PM

Remember, she has 35 years of experience. That means we're supposed to count her experience as first lady of Arkansas, too.

I wonder if the 35 years is counting her time as a Goldwater girl.

Posted by MikeS | January 11, 2008 4:36 PM

jenn wrote:
Also, the voting "present" thing, not really a good thing, in my book. Take a stand, damn it!

According to Obama's website Present Votes are an Accepted Legislative Strategy in the Illinois Senate. And the section on his pro-choice record says that Pam Sutherland, the CEO of the Illinois Planned Parenthood, called the present votes "leadership votes", that "Sutherland said Obama approached her in the late 1990s and worked with her and others in crafting the strategy of voting 'present.'" Another article in this section says:

It was specifically designed by Planned Parenthood to counter Republican Senate President Pate Philip's barrage of hot-button abortion bills that he was continually trying to ram through the Senate in 2001 and 2002. The Tribune missed the point. Besides passing bills he supported, Pate's idea was to cause a controversy by splitting 'moderate' Democrats away from the abortion rights groups, thereby causing a rift on that side, and, more imporantly, to put some political targets on the hot seat. So, as they also did in the House a few years back, Planned Parenthood was encouraging 'Present' votes by some of their more loyal members in order to encourage the moderates to vote that way as well."

Posted by Jesse M. | January 11, 2008 4:39 PM

It's fairly amusing to see people on the left act surprised by the way the Clinton machine operates. Destroying their political enemies is just how they do business. The only reason you're upset is that the targets are now sympathetic.

Posted by James Robertson | January 11, 2008 4:42 PM

"Uh, Rich C. are you familiar at all with how the Senate works?" - Steady.

Actually, I do. Working on a political science PhD will have that affect on a person. But what does that have to do with the issue at hand? What, exactly, did Hillary Clinton do to make SCHIP happen, and why attribute more credit to her than the author and co-sponsor of the bill? In so far as she had no formal position in the administration, what affect, really, did she have on the legislation? Who did she lobby to support it who would not have supported it otherwise? If you were able to provide some evidence that it was her brainchild, or that she lobbied effectively for it, or kept Bill Clinton from vetoing it, or anything really, well I'd give her props. But I just don't see evidence that she played much of a role at all in S-CHIP, let alone being primarily responsible for its passage.

Posted by Rich C | January 11, 2008 4:43 PM

"Remember, she has 35 years of experience. That means we're supposed to count her experience as first lady of Arkansas, too.

I wonder if the 35 years is counting her time as a Goldwater girl.

Posted by MikeS | January 11, 2008 4:36 PM"

It probably counts her time as a College Republicans president, which is fitting, considering her attacks sound like those of another College Republicans president, Karl Rove. So basically, we have attacks from members of her camp that hinge on bigotry, within a week switching from the "35 years of experience" mantra to "35 years of change" (despite not being able to point to anything) and pseudo-feminist attempts to look like her own woman. Andrew Sullivan used to mock her by comparing her to Cory Aquino, but at least Aquino led the People's Revolution and helped to bring democracy to her country. Sonia Gandhi has an actual record in India despite being foreign-born and practicing Catholicism at the same time the bigoted Hindu right has been rising in India in a more contentious political climate. Meanwhile, Clinton claims that she is responsible for Kennedy's bill that her husband signed as her own accomplishment and has spent her time in the Senate doing whatever the Republicans want. Whatever this is, it is not a record of change and it is not leadership.

Posted by Reality Man | January 11, 2008 4:44 PM

"I love the Clinton/Obama love feast. Both candidates have significant flaws going into the general. I'm planning to vote for Edwards in my February 5th primary."

I think the Edwards people are probably helping Clinton to win. I was for Nader in 2000 and helped elect Bush so I really can't say anything.

David B. is right, it's like she's "entitled" to it. She paid her dues, such as they were, so she deserves it over this ... this ... this upstart!

My view of John Kerry has changed a lot since 2004. I always thought he was courageous during the Vietnam war, but he made a good call by picking Obama to deliver that speech back then. He has a lot of experience and obviously feels Obama can do it.

Posted by Peter K. | January 11, 2008 4:47 PM

He was a part-time state senator for a few years, and then he came to the Senate and immediately started running for president. And that's his prerogative. That's his right. But I think it is important to compare and contrast our records.

She was a part-time state senator cabinet secretary for a few years, and then he she came to the Senate and immediately started running for president. And that's his her prerogative. That's his right [Eh? Right?]. But I think it is important to compare and contrast our records.

FIXED!

And then one would say: 'She voted to go to war in Iraq and I didn't. Nanny nanny boo boo.'

max
['That was simple.']

Posted by max | January 11, 2008 4:50 PM

Wasn't one of the characteristics of the Republican controlled Congress that the Democrats were comopletely shut out of the process?

Wasn't it Hillary who asked us to compare and contrast their "records"?

Posted by Pug | January 11, 2008 4:51 PM

BR makes a good point. Show contemporaneous accounts that give Hillary Clinton credit for SCHIP in a significant way, and I'll buy it.

I do remember a lot of post-1994 "now she's a traditional first lady" stories. While I'm sure this was exaggerated, it's not like she was out changing and mobilizing public opinion on issues. That is a huge part of a President's job, and she has zero successful experience there.

And it's not like she's the only candidate who ever did foreign policy. There's a reason Musharraf called back John Edwards and, I'm sorry, it's definitely NOT because he was the only candidate who said "hey, if he wants to talk, I'm here." That puts Edwards way in front of Bill Clinton in terms of foreign policy experience before taking office.

Posted by anonymous | January 11, 2008 4:52 PM

Peter K - Remember that the primaries assign delegates on a proportional basis, so there is no reason why Edwards would be helping Clinton or hurting Obama. If Edwards stays in until the convention, he could well hold the balance of power and tip things toward whoever he thinks is closes to his vision of how to shift power to the working class (ahem). Under a proportional allocation system, one candidate can't hurt another in the Nader 2000 sense.

Posted by Rich C | January 11, 2008 4:52 PM

Who would you rather have with you in a knife fight? Cause that's what the repubs are bringing come the summer. I'm not fond of the Hil but Obama will wilt like a bashfull daisy with the first repub volly. I wanna win one, so I'm goin with Hillary.

Posted by Judson | January 11, 2008 4:54 PM

Goddammit. No strike! Fuck.

Try that again.

She was a part-time cabinet secretary for a few years, and then she came to the Senate and immediately started running for president. And that's her prerogative. That's her right. But I think it is important to compare and contrast our records. She voted to go to war in Iraq and I didn't.

max
['There, goddammit.']

Posted by max | January 11, 2008 4:54 PM

HRC doesn't think she has to be 100 percent truthful about her "record" because she knows that only a very small percentage of voters read these type of blogs and are savvy about what her "35 years of experience" truly means. People hear that phrase and assume it to be true since she is a Clinton.

BHO continuing to allow The Clinton team to get a free pass on these type of slams enfeebles him. It bolsters the idea that she is the only grown up in the room, and lulls voters into false sense of her own actual accomplishment.

I support BHO but i am growing increasingly frustrated by his "hope... unity" message being the only thing he gives voters. He has to roll out some of his policy ideas and speak more firmly about what he has done, going back to his community organizing days. Because most people wont take the time to go to his website and look at where he stands on what.

BHO probably wont win the experience argument against HRC and his team knows it, so i understand why he pushes the Hope all the time. It is a rallying, unifying message. But ask most people who about BHO and they'll say: not experienced enough. Nevermind that he's been a legislator longer, never mind he got his start in community activism (helping every day Americans improve their lot) and has studied and taught the Constitution, these things are invisible right now.

1) I would have BHO keep pumping the hope message but also talk more concretely about policy (at least once a week make some kind of speech on the issues) and just pound home the argument why HIS EXPERIENCE has given him THE SOUNDEST JUDGMENT AMOUNG THE DEMOCRATS to lead this nation in the right direction (HRC's experience gave her the judgment to authorize the war).

2) Pick an issue. Not all of them have to be major issues like the Economy. It could even take the form of Transparency in Government: what actually happens to our tax dollars? how can we better connect people with an understanding of where their hard earned money goes? Anything involving openness or accountability plays to BHO's strengths, as it fortifies his image as a person of integrity and simultaneously highlights one of HRC's perceived weak areas.

My recipe: a) Hope b+c) Experience --> Judgment d) more policy sprinkled in.

Posted by lord of them thangs | January 11, 2008 4:57 PM

Here's the short-and-dirty on Hillary's "support" of SCHIP.

It was Ted Kennedy's baby. He worked with Orin Hatch on it. She was on board and a proponent of the bill.

Then the GOP tried to kill out as violation of their pact with Bill on a balanced budget. Bill dropped his support of it, and Hillary defended him on the, in effect abandoning the bill herself.

Kennedy harangued her and Bill into getting back on board. They did, endorsed the bill, and that was seen as influential in helping get it passed.

So, she didn't write it, she didn't work individual senators for it, she publicly abandoned it and had to be hectored by its author to get back on board after buckling under GOP pressure, but when she finally did get back on board, her support did help.

Hardly a profile in leadership, and hardly something worth taking credit for in a debate.

Read more here

If that's the biggest feather in her cap, btw, that's pretty weak stuff, and probably less important than the Obama/Feingold work on ethics, Obama/Coburn transparency bill, or Obama/Lugar's extension of Nunn/Lugar to conventional weapons.

So...yeah.

Posted by Michael | January 11, 2008 5:06 PM

"Who would you rather have with you in a knife fight? Cause that's what the repubs are bringing come the summer. I'm not fond of the Hil but Obama will wilt like a bashfull daisy with the first repub volly. I wanna win one, so I'm goin with Hillary.

Posted by Judson | January 11, 2008 4:54 PM"

Well, he did get the interrogation tapes passed despite huge opposition, as I mentioned above, which is rather pertinent to the issue of torture, which is probably the greatest moral issue facing us this election and the most important regarding our freedoms. Clinton capitulates to the Republicans on all major issues, so to work with the knife fight analogy, we wouldn't have to worry about her losing the knife fight because she would go stab a liberal for the Republicans. She first denounces torture, then pulls back. She fights for healthcare and then gets her ass kicked. The idea that she is a tough fighter is bullshit. We aren't Iraq or Pakistan where being alive means you have withstood your opponents' attacks. If she had truly done so, she would have accomplished something in her "35 years of experience."

Posted by Reality Man | January 11, 2008 5:07 PM

Does the "35 years of experience" include the 6 years she spent on the WalMart board bashing unions and driving mom-and-pops out of business?

More seriously your average voter only perceives Hillary as experienced because she's been on the national stage since 1992.

And they associate competence with her because of Bill.

I'll never vote for her; we have enough Dems like Feinstein, Reed, Rockefeller, Nelson, etc...

Posted by Mike | January 11, 2008 5:34 PM

"Experienced" is the polite way of saying "white".

Posted by Dave L | January 11, 2008 5:41 PM

"Peter K - Remember that the primaries assign delegates on a proportional basis, so there is no reason why Edwards would be helping Clinton or hurting Obama. If Edwards stays in until the convention, he could well hold the balance of power and tip things toward whoever he thinks is closes to his vision of how to shift power to the working class (ahem). Under a proportional allocation system, one candidate can't hurt another in the Nader 2000 sense."

Yeah you're technically right, but say Obama beat Hillary bad in New Hampshire and then state after state. It would be all about the momentum and Hillary's funds would dry up as people would want to jump on the winning bandwagon.

Of course I'm talk out my butt and for all I know Edwards voters would vote for Hillary instead of Obama if forced to choose.

Posted by Peter K. | January 11, 2008 5:53 PM

We're not supposed to look. Come on now-who the fuck really looks outside of the punditocracy anyway?

Posted by gerontion | January 11, 2008 6:19 PM

It's a little disingenuous to limit Clinton's "experience" to her two terms in the Senate--although even on that level she has passed what has always been considered the mandatory hurdle for a Senator to pass before running for a national office, i.e., being re-elected, while Obama has not.

But she was Yale Law, Senate Watergate Committee, one of Americans Top 100 Lawyers in the NLJ several times, a long-time power partner in a power firm in Little Rock, and has 20 years of first lady experience in state and national government. That is nothing to sneeze at.

Posted by Trickster | January 11, 2008 6:27 PM

Nobody "sneezes at" Clinton's experience. What people object to is her saying "my strength is X, so X should be the sole criterion of measuring candidates." In reality, experience is only relevant as a predictor of how someone would do as President. And what matters most in evaluating Senator Clinton from a democratic primary perspective is (1) her position(s) on the war; (2) her attitude (arrogance, triangulation) in general. If experience were sufficent, even Hillary would cede the race to Biden. This is about the establishment.

I also don't hear Clinton giving Obama credit for his work as a lawyer or community organizer, so the point cuts both ways.

Posted by David B. | January 11, 2008 6:43 PM

Trickster,
The list you give is, I think, correct, and it's an impressive resume, although not in my opinion a transformatively better resume than her principal opponents'. But it's not the resume Senator Clinton is running on. The point is, the claims Senator Clinton and her advocates are making are much greater than that list represents.

I don't think respectable people (i.e. excluding hyperbolical comments from unaccountable commenters) are saying that Sen. Clinton is a bumbling naif, but when she claims the credit for things she did not do - delivering SCHIP, for example - and especially when she uses these claims to allege relative deficiencies in the other candidates, this inspires a negative reaction that is, I think, entirely justified.

Posted by Warren Terra | January 11, 2008 6:52 PM

If you look at the history of US Presidents, experience is not a very good predictor of success in the job. Abe Lincoln served a term in US congress and lost a couple of senate races. Most of his experience was as a country lawyer.

John Quincy Adams and James Buchanan were probably two of the most experienced prior to election. JQ Adams is seen fairly favorably by historians, but he didn't accomplish the things he set out to do. Buchanan is often cited as the worst President ever. Harry Truman was certainly not experienced, but the judgment of history has been that he was a pretty good president.

I've been scratching my head for weeks trying to figure out how Hillary got the "experienced" brand. I think it has about as much substance behind it as Obama and his "change" brand. This is pretty much business as usual. The more a candidate speaks the plain truth, the less the voters buy it except on the fringe. Any specifics anyone puts out at this point don't mean a thing anyway - only after stuff gets vetted through the political process and worked over by Congress do we really know what it will look like. I tend to think that by "experience" Hillary really means that she more fully comprehends the limits of what is achievable. To me that means you might as well aim low because that is all you will get, and it makes me more inclined to go for Obama.

Posted by Sherry | January 11, 2008 6:52 PM

If that's the biggest feather in her cap, btw, that's pretty weak stuff, and probably less important than the Obama/Feingold work on ethics, Obama/Coburn transparency bill, or Obama/Lugar's extension of Nunn/Lugar to conventional weapons.

Michael: I notice in rebutting this particular piece of Hillary's CV, you touted three pieces of legislation that Senator Obama worked on. Not one of them deals with the economic well-being of middle class Americans. That, in a nutshell, is why Obama won't be the nominee.

Posted by Jasper | January 11, 2008 7:22 PM

"Angelina Jolie and George Clooney have just as much foreign policy experience as her and have shown better judgment, yet only Rupert Everett and Ben Affleck are talking about nominating Clooney at some point."

I'm Richard Steven Hack and I approve this political message.

I'm not sure about Clooney - he may be more political than FP - but Angelina has dealt with Pakistani officials directly, not to mention most of the other nations with severe refugee and child problems. She's also dealt with the same people Clinton has - Colin Powell, Condi Rice, various Senators and Congressman, and major law firms.

And I KNOW her attitude about war is a hell of a lot better than Hillary's. You can take that to the bank.

By all means, dump Hillary, run Angelina. She'd win hands down over any Republican, despite the "husband stealer" reputation and bisexual S&M rumors. At least she has the hormones to admit being bisexual and she also happens to actually like men - unlike Hillary.

There is two simple reasons not to choose Hillary for the candidacy:

1) She's corrupt. Marc Rich. 'Nuff said.

2) She's a hawk on Iran. 'Nuff said.

Nothing else she stands for or has done outweighs those two facts.

Nothing.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | January 11, 2008 7:28 PM

Matt, you need to finish the comparison. Hillary immediately began running for President before her husband left office and before she was ever an elected offical in any capacity. It was certainly part of her calculation in voting to authorize the use of force in Iraq, the most important vote she cast in her political career.

To be clear, it's not Clinton's fault that she hasn't authored any significant legislation

I don't understand, whose fault was it? If she wants to claim leadership experience, then certainly it's fair to point to her total lack of leadership in the Senate.

Posted by Just Karl | January 11, 2008 7:50 PM

I think it is about time somebody question the whole Hillary experience thing.

The problem is, it's a complete minefield because questioning it will likely infuriate married women, especially ones who have been stay-at-home moms. Dissing Life Experience™ does not go over well IME, and they often seem to like her better for her compromises (not to mention liking Bill much, much better for paying Hillary back, plus massive interest).

I agree with you, and I'm both female & feminist. But I'm more of the hardassed Linda Hirshman variety-- IMO, capitalism will always determine status based [loosely] on production, and there's no point pretending it doesn't-- and we're often quite unpopular among our peers.

Posted by latts | January 11, 2008 7:51 PM

Hillary is banking on the press not doing the leg work and actually comparing their records.
They will, like usual, just take her word for it.

Posted by vwcat | January 11, 2008 7:53 PM

What people object to is her saying "my strength is X, so X should be the sole criterion of measuring candidates." In reality, experience is only relevant as a predictor of how someone would do as President. And what matters most in evaluating Senator Clinton from a democratic primary perspective is (1) her position(s) on the war; (2) her attitude (arrogance, triangulation) in general.

David B., I agree with this, except for the arrogance part. (If you want to argue that Clinton is arrogant, I would have trouble arguing against you on that. If you want to argue that she is more arrogant than Obama, you've got a tough row to hoe. Most pols are arrogant, and I don't think any of the three major Democratic candidates left are the exception to the rule.)

Warren Terra also makes some good points that I don't take much issue with.

I really am not trying to say "Vote for Clinton because she is more experienced." I'm just saying "Get yer facts straight," because there are some people in this thread who are denigrating her experience. I think she has an extremely impressive resume, and I also think that an extremely impressive resume is a very good start for a Presidential candidate, but far from sufficient of itself.

Posted by Trickster | January 11, 2008 8:22 PM

think she has an extremely impressive resume, and I also think that an extremely impressive resume is a very good start for a Presidential candidate, but far from sufficient of itself.

She doesn't have as much experience as Obama, either in years in elective office or number of times elected.

If you want to pad her resume, fine, but don't be surprised when you get called on it.

You will note (as an example) that Obama isn't claiming any business experience from his wife's career.

Posted by Duane | January 11, 2008 9:02 PM

This is Billary's third term.

Hillary is Bill without the Willie.

Posted by dominic | January 11, 2008 9:07 PM

Sorry this is long. I was just having a bit of fun. Read if you'd like.

When Hillary took charge in the White House her experience was certainly formidable.
What if it happens again?

Having followed the presidential campaign fairly closely, I’ve noticed that on the rarest of occasions Mrs. Clinton will slip a mention into a speech about her thirty five years of experience which will enable her to hit the ground running as our President on January 20, 2009.

Now as I make the decision as to who to support, I have to admit that this seems to me to be a very attractive characteristic for a candidate to have. You see I have relatively vague memories of the early 90’s, but I do have some hazy recollections of a Democratic president who took office during that period and proceeded to provide with a nearly fully televised and extensively media analyzed year long clusterf*ck.

I do clearly remember that I had moved back from New York to my home state of Virginia to write speeches for an old friend who was the Democratic nominee for Governor. While we didn’t run what could even be described as a near perfect campaign (I think the campaign plan had been lost before I got there and somebody had substituted a copy of Dante’s Inferno in its place), whatever that clown’s name was in the White House had made the electoral atmosphere so poisonous for Democrats that what probably would have been a loss converted itself into a landslide loss.

There really must have been a headwind against Democrats that year because not only did we lose, the incumbent Democratic Mayor of New York and Governor of New Jersey also went down. (Funnily enough Mayor Dinkins of New York lost to that Giuliani fellow who’s now running for President on the other side. He appears to be somewhat of an odd fellow. Since then he seems to have changed his first name. Now if mine were Rudolph I would have ditched it too but sure wouldn’t have tried to imitate that Prince person and gone with some symbol – 9/11?).

Anyway, I would have probably gotten over all that and completely forgotten about it, but the fellow who was elected Governor of Virginia that year was this irritating faux cowboy from Southern California who kept a noose hanging in his law office and a confederate flag hanging in his living room.

Whenever he appeared in public, it really appeared that the old boy wasn’t ever going to be the sharpest tool in the shed; and I supposed that after four years as Governor he’d go back to what he called the mountains and start hanging nooses and rebel flags again.

Unfortunately, that turned out not to be the case; and after I moved to DC damned if he didn’t get himself elected to the Senate. After I got to know his sister in Southern California a bit I found out that the seemingly slow public persona was a bit of affect. As many dumb politicians as there are around I never really understood why somebody would think it would be smart strategy to play one but it did seem to work for him.

In fact, it worked so well for him that he appeared on a trajectory to run as a Republican with those guys out there now and as odd and crazy a bunch as they are, his dumb act might’ve just been the lesser of the lessers.

Thankfully though he went out to the mountains of Virginia about a year ago and macaca’d himself. Hasn’t really been heard from since.

Now if that 9/11 boy would just have another press conference to announce divorce proceedings or tweak his Florida strategy a bit (maybe focus on Rhode Island on March 4, it’s nice up there then), it looks like he’ll go the way of macaca boy.

That would mean that basically all those clowns who first appeared in 1993 will be gone from the stage and I can put it all behind me.

All this has been a bit of a fulsome explanation as to why I don’t want another clown like that one from the early 90’s. So, Mrs. Clinton being able to go right to it on January 20 really got me thinking about her.

I have heard that she was put in charge of one big project in the White House and took charge of another one. So I thought I’d check into them just to see how good she was going to be.

The first project she took command of, of course, was the development of a health care reform proposal and the attempt to take it up to Capitol Hill and have it legislatively enacted.

The framework set up to design that plan was surely one of the most unusual efforts to promulgate public policy in U.S. history. About a billion task forces, committees and working groups that each interlocked in some way were presided over by an academic, Ira Magaziner. This bureaucratic octopus somehow developed in strictest secrecy a sprawling scheme that, when diagramed, most closely resembled a Rube Goldberg contraption.

After a number of missed target launch dates, Hill finally took the contraption to the Hill. She got off to a great start and knew everything was going to be fine because the Democrats had a good majority in both houses and one of her minions had already said that if the Senate Finance Chairman (who could be a bit curmudgeonly) got it the way, they’d just roll over him.

Well, there were some negotiations and some stubbornness and some negotiations and a bit more stubbornness. Then somebody who must have not liked Hill (might’ve even been a conspiracy against her) spent a lot of money to send this really nice couple named Harry and Louise around the country who said they didn’t understand this thing and, by God, therefore they didn’t like it. Then there was a bit more negotiation followed by a big load of stubbornness, and then the thing just died. It didn’t even get a vote on the Senate or the House floor.

The failure of the plan, of course, is generally regarded to be one of the most significant contributing factors to the Republican landslide of 1994, the results of which were finally reversed at the federal level last year.

The second substantial responsibility that Mrs. Clinton took charge of, during the second term, was the administration's strategy for responding to the Whitewater Special Prosecution.

No one can say whether any individual in that position could have satisfied the ideologically-driven suspicions of Kenneth Starr. A number of reputable journalist, however, have written that Mrs. Clinton, against the advice of a number of senior advisers, decided upon, and would not deviate from, a strategy of complete non-cooperation that would use every possible legal tool to stonewall, delay and throw up obstacles to all requests from Starr’s office. It has been suggested that this strategy had the effect of exponentially ratcheting up Starr's suspicions to the point he may have been channeling Inspector Javert. Ill will on both sides hardened into mutual contempt and then whatever is worse than that. Needless to say the investigation was not concluded in a speedy manner.

Whether Starr was initially so driven by an ideological hatred of the Clintons as to be implacable or whether he might have not gotten to the point of channeling if he’d thought his investigation was getting a reasonable amount of cooperation will never be known. The most positive view, however, that one can take is that Mrs. Clinton violated about the first rule that a lawyer learns: no attorney should represent herself. And, as the person in the administration with decision-making power in the process, she must bear the burden of the outcome.

The outcome being, of course, that Starr's investigation lasted a much longer time than anyone on either side anticipated. As a result, the Special Prosecutor was still in office when Linda Tripp decided to burrow out from under her rock and bring with her evidence of “that woman.”

The impeachment process followed and basically so poisoned the atmosphere in Washington as to make impossible any achievements requiring congressional approval for the remainder of Bill Clinton's term.

So, now when I hear Mrs. Clinton and her surrogates start using that E word as an asset of hers and a weapon to attempt to diminish another candidate, I'm not quite as impressed. In fact, the prospect of her back in the White House putting those management techniques to practice on a third big experience just plain scares the crap out of me.

You see, another friend is planning to run for Governor of Virginia in 2009. I suppose I’m just being selfish.

Posted by Jeffersonian | January 11, 2008 9:19 PM

What Obama did on his "part-time" job:
http://www.samefacts.com/archives/barack_obama_/2008/01/obama_against_police_torture.php

more than H has ever done in her life, or ever could do.

Posted by Phoebe | January 11, 2008 9:23 PM

If you want to pad her resume, fine, but don't be surprised when you get called on it.

You will note (as an example) that Obama isn't claiming any business experience from his wife's career.

Please. I mean please. Deliver unto me a slight break.

Posted by Troclster | January 11, 2008 9:25 PM

Matt--I think you're being a little disingenuous in acting like Clinton is referring to her legislative record specifically. Thinking more broadly, she's likely referring to her history as an advocate for children and women (e.g., as staff attorney for the Children's Defense Fund), her involvement as a staffer in the Watergate hearings, her role in creating SCHIP, her service on the Armed Services Committee, etc.

Whether that stuff is relevant or not, and how it matches up to Obama's record, the voters can decide. But reducing her, or anyone's "record" to authorship of legislation is little absurd.

Posted by Bemused | January 11, 2008 9:28 PM

I'm sorry but none of you Obama supporters have named a single thing he has done that even compares to the two things I cited about military healthcare and stopping the Pentagon from stealing back sign on bonuses from critically wounded soldiers. Videotaping interrogations does not even compare.

It amazes how immature all of you are and how you have no clue how politics work. The Republicans will not go quietly and we need a proven warrior. No Democrat hs ever been as much a target as Hillary and she has beaten Republicans time and time again.

You all want to nominate someone who has NEVER been in a tough race in his life. Please point out a race he has been in that demonstrates what the Republicans will do (and yes they will be 1000 times worse than the current primary race)...

Please respond to these arguments instead of the crap you have been saying. just point by point refute the facts I have listed above. I will laugh out of sadness when you lose but we are all on the same team at the end...but man you guys are comically naive.

Unicorns for VP!!!

Compare and Contrast

Comments (102)