Questioning Hillary's experience

Here's a question that everyone seems to be ignoring: why does Hillary Clinton get a pass on the experience question while Barack Obama and John Edwards are portrayed as inexperienced? Here are their respective resumes in public office:

Clinton -- six years in the United States Senate;
Edwards -- six years in the United States Senate;
Obama -- seven years in the Illinois state senate and two years in the United States Senate.

There's no question that Clinton was highly involved in politics and policy for most of her adult life. But is her pre-Senate experience as a lawyer and a policy advocate really that much more substantial than Obama's seven years as a state legislator? Implicitly, the Clinton experience argument seems to rest more on the fact that she was inside the White House advising her husband for eight years. But no one's suggesting that other people who advised Clinton are qualified to be president on that basis -- otherwise Rahm Emanuel and Leon Panetta would be throwing their hats in the ring. Sure, she was a closer adviser to her husband than those two, but to my mind, you either have experience being "the decider" or you don't. And Clinton has no executive experience, no experience managing a large bureaucracy, and less experience as an elected representative than Obama. Just because she's famous and has lots of experience in national politics doesn't make her more qualified to be commander-in-chief than her rivals.

Correction 2/11 3:26 PM: Obama has served two years in the Senate, not four.

Comments

[Lettuce]

Uh, yeah. Her experience in the Clinton Administration is certainly more impressive than Obama's in the Illinois legislature.

I say this as someone predisposed to vote for Obama over Clinton and who would only vote for Clinton if she were the last Democrat standing.

How's that Keefer stuff coming along?

[Aloha]

Well, Hillary has been through so much in terms of attacks, mud, media appearances, backdoor politics, etc. that, in that sense at least, she seems considerably less green than, say, Obama (who is only now going through some of all that).

[glenstein]

Why either-or? Just the same as Edwards and Obama have their Senatorial experience, so does Clinton. Which is complimented very strongly by her first lady experience (or this is complimented by her Senatorial experience).

And as for

Sure, she was a closer adviser to her husband than those two, but to my mind, you either have experience being "the decider" or you don't.

...you're thinking in fairly play-it-safe terms, whether Hillary Clinton's experience-- whatever kind of experience it was --gets to be promoted to the distinguished realm of "presidential" experience. No false itemization, no overreach, no overestimation to collapse under you if you assume in the negative.

But even if not presidential, it is what it is, and it was deeply significant. A flat yes-or-no to the question of "is this presidential" doesn't do justice to that fact that she did have that experience, which ought to, if nothing else, be tallied in its own right.

[Matt]

Your raise some great points here, Brendan. I must confess to blindly falling into the 'question Edwards and Obama's experience but not Hillary's' trap. Thanks for bringing me back to reality. :-)

[In Big D]

If Hillary's "experience" as Bill's First Lady is so noteworthy (and presidential campaign worthy), then the Clintons should release/provide public access to all of Hillary's documents/letters/emails currently "off limits" in the Clinton Presidential Library.

Will Hillary's WH documents become the military record that John Kerry NEVER released (but promised to release).

well...her "her experience" as first lady, if considered substantial, makes me even happier that Mr. Kerry was not elected, as his spouse is not USA born. Since Mrs. Kerry could not have qualified to be president under our constitution, but still qualified to serve as first lady, it stands to reason that the first lady's position is not to be considered as "presidential" experience. Only that she witnessed, first hand, the pressure under which an American president serves, would I issue experience credit. I would sooner take the years of experience of Obama than her "pillow" experience.

[Spencer]

Glad I found this blog - I've been having this same conversation over at my blog. As far as I'm concerned, all of the candidates running for President, Democrat or Republican, have exactly the proper amount of experience to be considered for the job - no less, no more. (Ok - Huckabee and Guliani have experience being the top elected official in a state or local government).

Hillary's claims that her 35 years experience amounts to more than Obama's experience cannot be supported - she has not run a large government agency, she has not run a state or a large city. This isn't to say she isn't qualified to be President, and I think that's what's getting lost here - experience doesn't mean qualified.

[Robin Florey]

I have been saying this for some time now. My husband is a cop, does that make me qualified to become Chief of Police? Poor guy has to listen to me talk about Physical Therapy. After hearing me talk about total knees, would you want him getting you out of bed the first time after surgery? Being the spouse of ANY profession, doesn't mean that you have experience. It just means you listened and provided love and understanding...just like what you said you'd do when you said "I do!"

[Rhylo]

I'm kind of on the fence between Clinton and Obama. I'm glad to see blogs like these omitting race and gender slur slinging. I didn't realize how evenly equipped these two were to run this country. Media had me thinking Obama went from Muslim terrorist to presidential hopeful. Thanks for all of your incite.

[Retrovision]

I keep hearing about Hillary being so experienced. But is this so called experience... success?

I can think of two things she had experience with. Health care... she failed!

Not only that, the previous Clinton administration lost the democratic majority in Congress. The democratic party still hasn't delivered on a single idea that got them the latest majority.

Maybe she is experienced... experienced at failing!

[craig]

I am so glad that someone brought this up. If anyone has noticed lately, when ONE reporter asked her about her 3AM ad and when she has made an on the spot crisis decision that would make her better qualified than Obama, she couldn't answer. Now several days later, and lots more speeches, she still hasn't come up with anything. So, what experience are we talking about.

She talks in generalities about having been to 80 countries and worked to bring peace. Well, what does that mean exactly. If I work stuff envelopes for a campaign and they win, does that mean I can tell future employers that I helped get Obama elected. Really, isn't that overstating just a bit?

[Diane]

Besides being a senator, Hillary, for eight years, was an active first lady. I think that gives her much more experience than many people give her credit for. If she becomes president, her husband, who had eight successful years as president, is likely to be an advisor. I liked the Clinton team when Bill was president. There was peace and prosperity, they adequately funded counterterrorism intelligence and took terrorist threats seriously (something Bush didn't do until September 11, 2001), and we had budget surplusses instead of deficits. We were actually able to start paying down the debt. Inflation(often called the hidden tax)was low. Unemployment was also low.

I want a return of those times.

John McCain promises to continue the policies of George W. Bush. Ask yourself this. Are you better off now than you were eight years ago?

[Mary]

I'm glad I found this blog. I've been puzzled for sometime now about all the "experience" that Hillary has, wandering how I could have missed hearing about so many of her accomplishments not just during this election (which I have been following so closely) but also during her 8 years in the white house. I thought it just had to be true especially since the Obama campaign and the media aren't questioning her "experience" claims.

Well, thanks to you bloggers (who also didn't seem to get the e-mail about her experience and qualifications) I now know that I have all the information there is to be had. There are no extraordinary qualifications that make her more qualified.

She has more experience with attacks, mud, media etc??? What she really has is baggage. Her vote in favor of the Iraq war is just one thing. Her involvement with White Water something else. Her ignorance as to her husbands infidelities while both a governor AND a president is another "X" as far as I'm concerned. She has poor, poor judgement and she can't control her house...its subject to run a muck. NO, NO, NO. The only thing she knows is that she sees something that she wants. She'll figure out how to take care of it when she gets to that bridge...NO, NO, NO.

The other concern that nobody talks about (perhaps its politically incorrect to debate as it is speculative)is who will be respected and seen more favorably in the eyes of rest of the world.

[Ace]

I wonder about her experience as a president with a teacher for a wife. Hillary has the advantage of having the appearance of experience. She has not sat in any chairs of responsibility. Life experience falls to all of us. That weakness should be exploited. What did she do except be married to the President.