Are You Experienced?

Scott Lemieux further elaborates on the trouble with the Hillary Clinton experience argument:

[I]f Clinton's rather marginal and contestable experiential advantages over Obama should be decisive any of the other major Democratic candidates would be unquestionably preferable to either. (And, even worse, the same would be true of McCain in the general.)

I think the point in the parenthesis is key. If you win a primary on an "experience" argument, then you'd damn well better be more experienced than your general election opponent. McCain would make an experience argument against either opponent, so it's much better to be the opponent with a record of statements aimed at rebutting such arguments (I don't think the American people judge your qualification based on duration of service in a broken Washington system...) than to be the opponent who's been making the argument that voters need to stick with the more seasoned Washington hand.

Comments

As a Democratic voter, I always try to base my decisions around what the Republican party is doing.

Posted by Alex | February 24, 2008 11:05 AM

To me, the strength of Clinton's experience argument is that she has significant executive and legislative branch experience - something neither Obama or McCain can say. While this may not persuade people, I think it is true that the Clinton has the most relevant experience to be president.

Posted by Jane | February 24, 2008 11:24 AM

Right now, the most salient "experience" I attribute to the Clintons is losing both houses of Congress to the Republicans while trying to save the Democratic Party from itself.

Posted by Aatos | February 24, 2008 11:25 AM

I don't really buy the logic of this argument. The primaries aren't the general. In theory, Hillary's "experience" argument against Obama is that although they want to pursue similar policies, she's the one who has the experience/competence/etc. to actually get things done. But nothing about that would automatically box her in to making it the centerpiece of her general election campaign against McCain, or any other Republican, where the policy differences would be huge.

Of course, the "experience" argument hasn't worked for her for any number of reasons, not the least of which is that it generally doesn't work in elections against a candidate who's strong in other areas. But "McCain would use it against her!!" makes about as much sense as trying to divine who's more likely to win this or that state in the general based on who won it in the primary.

Posted by Haggai | February 24, 2008 11:26 AM

Haggai, the point is that it's easier to make an argument when you have a load of quotes from your opponent making the same argument, which she's now trying to back away from.

Posted by KCinDC | February 24, 2008 11:29 AM

If you win a primary on an "experience" argument, then you'd damn well better be more experienced than your general election opponent.

Sure, and that's why she's not fairing as well against McCain in head-to-head polling. The judgment and mindset arguments aren't ones she can really use against him.

Her problem is that she didn't expect to have to make the experience argument for anywhere near this long. I think it was a pretty reasonable expectation when the primary season began. It looks poor in hindsight, but then so do some of her votes an support for things like NAFTA.

Posted by Jake | February 24, 2008 11:31 AM

While I respect Senator Clinton, what I see is that when she had something major to accomplish, she did a poor job in organizing it to happen.

Her health care work failed because she ignored the advice of congressional leaders and did not build consensus among leaders, let alone the public, and she was unable to counter attacks.

Her campaign has been foundering because she could not control costs,emphasized loyalty over competence, did not plan for the long-term, could not inspire or expand her coalition, and was unable to adapt while keeping a core message.

None of this implies she would be a good chief executive.

If anyone has information about McCain's ability to accomplish things, I would appreciate hearing it. My impression is that his many years of legislative "experience," has not yielded much in the way of accomplishments. He has been more a figure against ways of doing business than a figure for policies.

Posted by Suze | February 24, 2008 11:34 AM

Jane:
What executive branch experience do you mean? She wasn't the one making the decisions on Somalia or Kosovo. Health Care was a debacle. Are you giving her credit for being a first lady? If that is the case then Laura Bush is qualified as well.

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | February 24, 2008 11:34 AM

I take Haggai's point to be that Clinton always was going to pivot to "change" as the centerpiece of the fall campaign.

Posted by Tyrone Slothrop | February 24, 2008 11:36 AM

Jane, technically Obama has more legislative experience than Clinton and neither has executive experience.

The problem I have with Clinton's experience claim is that her decades of experience is in politics, not governing, and so far Obama has been cleaning her clock in the politics game.

Posted by tom.a | February 24, 2008 11:38 AM

Haggai, the point is that it's easier to make an argument when you have a load of quotes from your opponent making the same argument, which she's now trying to back away from.

But again, I don't see why this is a big deal for the general election. Is McCain going to go for an "experience" argument against whomever he faces, or an "elect Democrats and you'll DIE DIE DIE!!!!!!" argument? I think it's pretty obvious which one the Republicans see as being more effective. I guess the argument in play here is that Hillary's use of the experience card would open a window for McCain to make it more effectively, but I just think that's too clever by half.

Sure, and that's why she's not fairing as well against McCain in head-to-head polling. The judgment and mindset arguments aren't ones she can really use against him.

She was doing better against McCain back when she was doing better in the primaries, and she was making the "experience" argument then as well. The general election head-to-heads as of right now are mostly being driven by who seems more like a winner, which is obviously Obama (not that I'm dismissing the potential of his being a better general election opponent against McCain than Hillary would be; I'm just saying that one shouldn't read too much into the general election head-to-heads at the moment).

Posted by Haggai | February 24, 2008 11:39 AM

I take Haggai's point to be that Clinton always was going to pivot to "change" as the centerpiece of the fall campaign.

Right. Isn't that obvious? Just from the fact that it's the Republicans who are the incumbent party, not the Democrats.

The argument that McCain could double back the "experience" argument against her just by virtue of her having made it in the primaries, even though she wouldn't be making the same argument in the general, just doesn't make much sense to me as a knock against her "experience" theme (which has many other flaws to recommend against it).

Posted by Haggai | February 24, 2008 11:44 AM

Buy it or not, the "experience" argument gives Hillary credit for eight years in the White House as a "co-President". Even McCain can't match that. I think it's defensible to some level.

Also, I would say her early failure on health care reform could count in her favor as something she learned from. Obama can't match that hands-on experience.

Posted by Still Undecided | February 24, 2008 11:45 AM

Is McCain going to go for an "experience" argument against whomever he faces

I think the point is more that Hillary isn't able to use it against him, rather than the other way around.

But McCain will nonetheless use a variation on the same theme, namely, that he's best equipped to be CiC. I'm not sure Hillary has an effective counter, but Obama does.

Posted by Jake | February 24, 2008 11:48 AM

Hey, Hillary Clinton has been "fighting the right for 35 years". That includes her time as a corporate lawyer.

In fact, all her years, every single one, counts as experience and "fighting the right".

In the meantime, not one single minute of Barack Obama's lifetime can count as "experience" because he was not doing whatever Hillary Clinton was doing, which does count as "experience".

It took a lot of experience to support the first-time labeling of a national military as an illegal terrorist group, where as naive less experienced people like Obama, Edwards, and Biden disagreed.

Posted by El Cid | February 24, 2008 11:50 AM

Still Undecided:
"co-President"? Is that an argument you really want to make? Was her ass on the line during Somalia or Kosovo? She was on Capitol Hill during Watergate, did she really think she could steamroll Congress during the Health Care debacle?

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | February 24, 2008 11:51 AM

Obama can't match that hands-on experience.

That is a true laugh-out-loud line.

Vote for me! I've failed more spectacularly, and more often!

Posted by Craig | February 24, 2008 11:51 AM

Clinton repeatedly talks about 35 years of experience. How can that possibly be about legislative or "executive" experience?

Posted by KCinDC | February 24, 2008 11:56 AM

I thought Obama had an excellent counter for Hillary's years in the WH counting as experience. He said she wanted to take credit for all the good things that happened, but no responsibility for all the bad things. Indeed it seems she's having to defend more of what happened during that time than really being able to emphasize the positives.

Posted by Jake | February 24, 2008 11:58 AM

I'm with Haggai and I think Matt is out to lunch.

It is one thing to say that experience is not the ONLY factor in elections and should and would not trump large differences in policy as exist between the parties in this era. Yet between candidates of roughly similar views it makes a great deal of sense as a tie-breaker.

Beyond that, it really is stunning that Matt is so dismissive of this issue and surprised that the Clinton people were surprised that inexperience hasn't been a problem for Obama with voters. Obama -who began running for President after just two years in the Senate- has less experience in major office or responsibilities of any sort than any candidate nominated by either party since Wendell Willkie. JFK -who was sometimes seen as a callow and inexperienced in his day- was Henry Clay compared to Obama!

The dismissal of HRC's eight years in the White House as somehow "not counting" is really remarkable as well. As if this did not give her a much better perspective on what Presidents face or do. Do we really think that because she didn't have a position that requires Senate confirmation like, e.g. the all powerful Secretary of Commerce, that she wasn't an important player in the Clinton administration? That she wasn't uniquely situated to gain insights into the Presidency?

I don't dismiss the argument that the now evident missteps of the Clinton campaign count against her in any competence argument. In a way that critique is more persuasive than the failure on health care, because she was up against powerful forces then and had less experience than she now does.

But it's not as though millions of voters knew two months ago "she is not investing enough in Caucus states!", "She has no post-February 5 plan" or any of the other hindsight judgments that are now being made. So the people who were for Obama before these failures were evident -like Matt- were demonstrating a very cavalier view about the value of experience that remains very dubious as a general proposition.

Posted by Vito Marzullo | February 24, 2008 11:58 AM

El Cid:
She is lucky she counts only the last 35 years. I wonder why she doesn't count the 10 before that? ;-)

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | February 24, 2008 12:00 PM

Why are we even bothering with this? It's not as though Clinton is going to be the nominee.

Posted by John | February 24, 2008 12:00 PM

her early failure on healhcare reform...Obama can't match that hands-on experience

LMAO!!! Thanks so much for that. The laugh you gave me will carry me through the day. Priceless!

Bush screwed up royally on Iraq. Should he now be considered for Secretary of State or Defense?

Posted by Jorge | February 24, 2008 12:02 PM

Umm.. by "experience" she means she was in the White House and Bill Clinton will be by her side. Therefore there won't be a learning curve to the Presidency the way there would be with the other two. This is basically reminding people they're getting "Two-for-One" without explicitly saying it.

Posted by Dan | February 24, 2008 12:03 PM

Vito Marzullo:
Did you see my comment above? She was on Capitol Hill in the 70's. Did she really think that things had changed that much that she could just steamroll health care through Congress? The Republicans sure as hell weren't going to let her(as well as any of what would now be termed Bush Dog Democrats). How come she didn't learn from her time on the Hill in the 70's?

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | February 24, 2008 12:06 PM

"The dismissal of HRC's eight years in the White House as somehow "not counting" is really remarkable as well. "

The Oval Office was sufficiently free of Hillary that Bill Clinton felt safe getting blow jobs in there from an intern.

She didn't have a security clearance, and didn't get the CIA briefings with her husband.

You know, I bet my hand surgeon's receptionist has a better idea of the related issues than a layman, but that doesn't mean she can step in and perform the surgery for him.

Posted by Jon H | February 24, 2008 12:06 PM

The more surprising fact about "counting" her First Lady experience is that it's not absurd on its face. Is there another recent First Lady who could make that argument? Barbara Bush exudes competence, but still...

I think Dan is right: the experience argument was always partly a "two-for-one" argument-- and one of the surprising things about this primary season is that a lot of Democratic voters didn't want Bill back (especially after they watched him campaign...).

Posted by PJ | February 24, 2008 12:13 PM

Haggai, there is enough time in the GE campaign to raise all the arguments in the world. Experience might not be the central point of his campaign, but it will be there.

The experience argument is a powerful one for McCain against Hillary, because he can use her own words against herself.

We have been here before: in 1992, Bill Clinton ran the change argument against Bush Sr's experience. Clinton and Bush had different policies and all that, but the experience subject did come up.

You can see it here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZbHiw2jlwa4

Posted by David | February 24, 2008 12:26 PM

If Laura Bush decided she wanted to run for President on the claim that she's got eight years of experience at the top, would anyone take that seriously? What's the difference?

The "two-for-one" argument also blows. If the implication is supposed to be "let's put Bill back in there too," then the argument seems to be that it's a great idea to hand this guy an undefined amount of unaccountable, extra-Constitutional executive power. I like Bill Clinton, voted for him twice with a smile on my face, but this is not the way we do things, and that's a good thing.

Posted by hello | February 24, 2008 12:27 PM

Is McCain going to go for an "experience" argument against whomever he faces, or an "elect Democrats and you'll DIE DIE DIE!!!!!!" argument? I think it's pretty obvious which one the Republicans see as being more effective.

What makes you think they're not capable of doing both? It would take somebody about ten minutes to edit together a string of lines from Hillary talking about how "experience is important," contrasted with black-and-white text contrasting McCain's experience in government. Since it's the Republicans, let's throw in an oblique reference to his being tortured in Hanoi while Hillary was smoking it up at Woodstock* too. Final words: Even Hillary Clinton knows experience is important. And John McCain has the experience to be a [insert slogan here] Commander-in-Chief."

For all Hillary's supporters say "Barack Obama isn't ready for the Republican smear machine," at least he hasn't spent this campaign feeding it ammo the way Hillary Clinton has.

*Disclaimer: I realize Hillary was not actually smoking it up at Woodstock.

Posted by Persia | February 24, 2008 12:38 PM

I bet my hand surgeon's receptionist has a better idea of the related issues than a layman, but that doesn't mean she can step in and perform the surgery for him.

And I bet your hand surgeon's receptionist knows more about it than his wife. (Or a husband if the genders were reversed.)

Posted by Persia | February 24, 2008 12:53 PM

John H: Nice comparison of Hillary to your surgeon's "receptionist." Sexist much? It's one thing to disagree with HRC about Iraq or whatever, but this whole discussion is bizarre. It's really hard for me to believe people are even putting forward these arguments seriously.

A role in the White House= hanging around the Oval Office at all hours, so because Hillary wasn't around for Bill's assignations that meant that she had no substantial role in the Administration. You know, I think Al Gore, Leon Panetta and Robert Rubin probably weren't there for the Lewinsky sessions either. Until now I hadn't realized how unimportant those guys were! This is the kind of argument that is being made here by straight-faced commenters!

The whole reason Hillary was so hated is that she WASN'T a "traditional" first lady and was widely understood to be involved in the administration in public and private. The best parallel is Eleanor Roosevelt- who was also hated on the right. In a less sexist era I think Eleanor Roosevelt would have probably run for office -there was even some discussion of it in her day- but this was really not possible at the time.

Now the Obama enthusiasts here are pretending that Hillary really WAS Mamie Eisenhower, albeit with a bizarre interlude focused on health care.

She was involved in all sorts of administration decisions, not limited to health care. Read Robert Reich's memoir. Although he is now critical of both Clintons, in that 1997 book, he talks about how Hillary helped him get his economic policy prescriptions to the White House when Bill's more conservative economic advisors were mostly blocking him. She comes across much better than Bill in that book actually. And this is just one example. Reich was largely unsuccessful in the Clinton Administration, but his book -not written to help Hillary certainly- reveals that she was involved in other issues besides health care and often on the progressive side of the internal debate. She knows a lot more about bureaucratic politics than most Senators just because of such experiences.

As for Hillary's experience of Congress working on the Watergate investigation supposedly being a reason for her to realize she couldn't push health care through: there is a big difference between Congress in 1973 and 1993. Students of Congress have described a great increase in polarization and the power of parties in the intervening decades (and subsequently of course.) The seniority system was weakened, -committee chairmen overthrown by the Democratic caucus- the power of the Speaker increased etc. It was not unreasonable to think that Democrats could have passed a plan. Plenty of contemporary observers did.

Posted by vito Marzullo | February 24, 2008 1:27 PM

Obama has no credible experience. His Illinois legislature experience is meaningless for Washington and he's spent nearly all his time in the Senate campaigning for President. He's little more than a smooth-talking professional candidate.

Posted by Still Undecided | February 24, 2008 1:58 PM

It was not unreasonable to think that Democrats could have passed a plan. Plenty of contemporary observers did.

A lot of people think that still and think HRC blew that chance, don't forget.

Posted by Persia | February 24, 2008 2:17 PM

"Nice comparison of Hillary to your surgeon's "receptionist." Sexist much? "

Not at all. The set of people involved in my hand surgeon's office is quite small, and the surgeon is the only male. The point hardly hinges on gender, the point is merely that the receptionist spends a lot of time in the office and dealing with issues related to patient care. But that's a long way from being a surgeon.

Posted by Jon H | February 24, 2008 2:43 PM

Having it both ways: the Clinton Legacy, Part Deux

Hillary: I have 768 years of Experience!

Voter: But that would only be true if you're counting Bill's tenures as President and Governor as your own.

Hillary: Of course I do. I was in on the policy making. I had responsibilities to uphold. I did interviews. I fought the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.

Voter: Neat. So why'd you ignore the Rwanda genocide?

Hillary: But that wasn't...

Voter: And why'd you support NAFTA?

Hillary: Really, I didn't. That was the advisers.

Voter: But you went along, put healthcare on the back burner, even though 65% of the country wanted universal healthcare.

Hillary: And this time, I've got a better healthcare plan.

Voter: Yes, 14 years later. After John Edwards put up his plan.

Hillary: But we, I, we stopped the genocide in Bosnia. And Haiti. And contained Saddam. And peace and prosperity!

Voter: Unless we had no insurance and got sick. Or our jobs got sent overseas. Thank you for your resume. We'll be making a decision soon and we'll let you know.

Hillary: But I baked cookies.

Voter: Thank you Mrs. Clinton. Next time, send me one. I would have liked a cookie.

Hillary: Okay. Just remember: my experience only counts on the things we got right. On the bad things, that was somebody else's experience.

Posted by Kevin Hayden | February 24, 2008 2:53 PM

That Clinton's experience argument has failed in this election is clear. That there is something crazy about her people thinking that people would not accept Obama because he had too little experience is not so clear.

Experience does seem reasonably like the kind of thing in which a certain minimal amount is required for certain things, but there is a point of diminishing return, so that more experience beyond that point is not such a big deal.

It is not unreasonable to guess that people would think that Dodd and Biden and McCain have been around too long that people have grown tired of them, while Obama still needs some seasoning. In other years that might have actually worked. This just happens not to be one of those election years.

Posted by Lon | February 24, 2008 3:05 PM

Remember that McCain can't bring up experience without implicitly bringing up his age. And his military experience is not that of a commander of significant forces, requiring strategic thinking. Not sure it is a net plus for him.

Posted by bemused | February 24, 2008 3:31 PM

I agree with Dan and PJ. At first this whole experience thing confused the heck out of me, back when Biden, Dodd, and Richardson were still in the race. But eventually I figured out it was just code for Bill being at her side.

And yes, it turns out that Bill being at her side was not a winning argument. But good argument or not, it was the entire premise of her candidacy (well, outside the folks who badly wanted to see a female President).

Posted by DTM | February 24, 2008 3:39 PM

Can we please hush about Hillary Clinton? She's about as relevant as Mitt Romney at this point.

Posted by Corey | February 24, 2008 3:45 PM

I think "Still Undecided" is still undecided the way that Glenn "Instapundit" Reynolds is an independent libertarian, not a partisan Republican.

You know, S.U., at some point, your state is going to vote, and you'll have to lose your identity.

Posted by Adam Villani | February 24, 2008 4:44 PM

Marzullo - Do we really think that because she didn't have a position that requires Senate confirmation like, e.g. the all powerful Secretary of Commerce, that she wasn't an important player in the Clinton administration? That she wasn't uniquely situated to gain insights into the Presidency?

The Commerce Secretary had a detailed background investigation and had a security clearance and was involved in national security matters, CIA briefings on threats and industrial espionage. Hillary was never in an executive role, never attended a CIA briefing or involved herself in foreign affairs and national defense. Even if she wanted to, she lacked the legal status to be involved. Same with Laura Bush.

Marzullo - Although he is now critical of both Clintons, in that 1997 book, he talks about how Hillary helped him get his economic policy prescriptions to the White House when Bill's more conservative economic advisors were mostly blocking him.

That is a traditional 1st Lady role, championing or dissing members of the President's staff. Eleanor, Jackie, Betty, and particularly Nancy the Dragon Lady did it. Barbara Bush favored certain arguments and told Herbert so...Just as CEO and MD wives will opine..hopefully helpfully..on ascpects of their spouses staffing and leadership decisions.

Reich was largely unsuccessful in the Clinton Administration

So the Co-President's championing was not particularly effective? Perhaps because she had little clout in the highest decisions made?

Marzullo - she was involved in other issues besides health care and often on the progressive side of the internal debate. She knows a lot more about bureaucratic politics than most Senators just because of such experiences.

You confuse being a political apparachnik, immersed in politics and bureaucratic machinations with executive leadership. Hillary had plenty of the former, none of the latter in in her life aside from the Hillarycare Fiasco. Neither Obama nor Hillary has any experience in executive leadership from past military, private sector, or government positions. No CEO or General is ever selected that has not proven their executive ability at a lower level. In politics, of course, we have the ability to vote such a person into the Highest Executive spot. But is that wise?

Posted by chris ford | February 24, 2008 5:58 PM

McCain does not have any executive experience either, chris ford. What are you talking about?

McCain has, however, at the least demonstrated that he has no idea how to run a well-managed political campaign.

Posted by Korha | February 24, 2008 6:06 PM

"McCain does not have any executive experience either, chris ford. What are you talking about?"

He had executive experience as a commanding officer in the Navy. He was responsible for making decisions with life-or-death consequences. Granted, it's not the same crucible of leadership that working as a discrimination lawyer or black community organizer, but it does count as executive experience.

Posted by Juan | February 24, 2008 6:17 PM

I can see experience as a military officer being somewhat helpful to the President in discharging his duties as Commander in Chief. But that is not so much based on the assumption that the experience is likely to be very similar (I doubt it is), as that such a President would presumably have a slightly better insight into how the military works. For actual experience that is anything like being President, the two kinds of experience I think come closest are heads of departments and being a governor.

Posted by DTM | February 24, 2008 6:33 PM

Still Undecided 1:58pm

Obama has no credible experience. His Illinois legislature experience is meaningless for Washington

Really? So was being a governor meaningless for Carter, Reagan, Clinton, and Bush?

and he's spent nearly all his time in the Senate campaigning for President.

Well, he's been a Senator since Jan.2005, slightly over 3 years. He declared his candidacy in Feb.2007. So he's been campaigning for 33% of his time as a Senator.

He's little more than a smooth-talking professional candidate.

And then what is Hillary? She's had her eye on the White House since roughly 1999. Do you think she ran to replace Moynihan because she thought the good people of New York deserved better?

Posted by nbt | February 24, 2008 6:36 PM

Hillary's "experience" argument is completely undercut by the lousy campaign she has run. The woman had $100 million in the bank before Obama even got into the race, she lived in the White House for eight years, she had a famous husband who should have been a political asset, and she had all but been declared the nominee by the MSM.

She had every advantage one could hope for, and she is getting dusted by an insurgent campaign that is fueled by small donors. Her incompetent management of her own campaign provides us with plenty of evidence to conclude that she is the inferior candidate.

Her supposed selling point is that she is more experienced and vastly superior to Obama in the nuts-and-bolts skills of negotiating Washington politics.

She has run a campaign that is so godawful that it will be the subject of scorn in political science classes for decades to come, yet somehow we're supposed to believe that she'll be a dandy manager of the complex affairs of this great nation?

Oy.....

Posted by cousin vinnie | February 24, 2008 9:13 PM

Hillary's "experience" argument is completely undercut by the lousy campaign she has run. The woman had $100 million in the bank before Obama even got into the race, she lived in the White House for eight years, she had a famous husband who should have been a political asset, and she had all but been declared the nominee by the MSM.

She had every advantage one could hope for, and she is getting dusted by an insurgent campaign that is fueled by small donors. Her incompetent management of her own campaign provides us with plenty of evidence to conclude that she is the inferior candidate.

Her supposed selling point is that she is more experienced and vastly superior to Obama in the nuts-and-bolts skills of negotiating Washington politics.

She has run a campaign that is so godawful that it will be the subject of scorn in political science classes for decades to come, yet somehow we're supposed to believe that she'll be a dandy manager of complex affairs of this great nation?

Oy.....

Posted by cousin vinnie | February 24, 2008 9:13 PM

You can have all the Experience in the world and still not be Wise, still not have good Judgment. We all know people who are vein, selfish, showy, spend money like drunken sailors and yet they have all the experience in the world. No judgment/ wisdom comes from something else, may be somewhere else. Not everyone has wisdom but those who do, it is a Blessing to behold. We need those with Wisdom to take the reins of America and make her great again, whole again. We need Barack Obama. And, Barack does have 20 years of experience along with his Judgment.

Posted by Angellight | February 25, 2008 9:05 AM

The focus of the experience argument isn't on its height but on its minimum hurdle. You have the argument on its head.

Posted by Rob | February 25, 2008 11:01 AM