"If Hillary's experience as first lady counts, then Laura Bush should be running." Implication: All first ladies are the same -- airheaded women.
I honestly don't see it that way. The fact of the matter is, First Lady isn't an elected or reviewed position with any verifiable structure to it. Yes, people can do things as First Lady, and there have been people who have. But First Lady doesn't have security clearance. There are many things that First Spouse is not privy to because it isn't an official governing position.
At the heart of the matter is the fact that First Lady is an honorific title not a job in the government. The First Spouse isn't elected. Nor is the first spouse an appointed position such as Supreme Court Justice or Cabinet position which goes through a confirmation process (which is why clearance is limited). Yes, she worked in the Clinton administration, particularly her healthcare proposal which should be judged as in its own right as it is an identifiable contribution she made during the Clinton years. But claiming state visits as a credential? The problem with that is that it's hard to know what such state visits entailed because such visits don't carry much weight simply by right of their existence, especially as they usually relate to an honorific title. For it to be claimed as governing experience, it would have to be more substantial than the run-of-the-mill meet-and-greet--and it might, but we don't know that it was. It isn't a given for the First Lady, and Hillary isn't going to do an item by item listing of whether the visit included substance as opposed to having a black-tie dinner.
She can't find time to release her tax records, when would she have time to do an itemized listing of that sort of thing?
The point being that her being there doesn't automatically confer credit for substantive work. It might, but unless it can be substantiated, voters shouldn't be expected to automatically assume that it did.
Success really is a matter of what one has done in one's own right to some verifiable degree. She has her years in the Senate. That's verifiable. But when she was in an ill-defined honorific position based in her being married to the President, it's an amorphous credential that's difficult to quantify. Just the other day the man who won the Nobel Peace Prize for his part in peace negotiations to Ireland said point blank that Hillary claiming her photo-op there as a credential was somewhat 'silly.' Without her holding an official position, we cannot adequately gauge whether her actions in cases as these were primarily substantive or ceremonial.
The very lack of there being a defined role for the First Lady is what makes it a cloudy credential. It cannot be quantified in any satisfactory degree and only anecdotally verified. There's no voting record for First Lady. The NAFTA kerfuffle shows that.
I agree that in itself, having been first lady is not sufficient qualification to be president. However, the amount of involvement in government is unmeasurable, and different for each of the women who has been in the position.
Hillary Clinton has good reason to point to the fact that she was more involved in government than most of her predecessors. She was. But, it's not necessarily a good thing. Her record on health care was bungling the project. Perhaps she learned something, perhaps she didn't.
My point is simply, you can't say "If having been first lady qualifies Clinton for the presidency, then Laura Bush should be running (something that has been said many times recently on Obama-friendly forums)."
Laura Bush isn't an airhead -- but her involvement in government has been nothing at all like Clinton's. There aren't many similarities you can draw between Hillary Clinton and Laura Bush, except that they both women who married men who were destined to become president of the United States.
My concern is the tone of the attacks leveled at Sen. Clinton. I'm not defending her experience. The tone is likely to bolster a backlash against Sen. Obama.
The whole thing is quite concerning for me. I very strongly support Obama's candidacy, but have been so...well, let me admit it angered by Clintonian tactics in the last few weeks that I'm trying to step back from keeping close track of the elections for fear that soon my anger will transform into something more intractable (that is, if it hasn't already ...even though I try to fight against it.)
As I said, I too am an Obama supporter, and frankly appalled at some of the things Clinton and her surrogates have said in the past month.
But I think the most effective strategy here -- looking beyond the primaries into the general election, is to say: "Yes, Sen. Clinton has the experience behind her of eight years as the first lady. She undoubtedly mixed with foreign leaders, and observed crisis management. She participated fully in the defense of her husband and herself when they were attacked. But what did she gain from that experience? Did she learn enough to recognize the false intelligence that led up to the Iraq war? Did she figure out how to stand up to the fear mongers who wanted to stampede us into war? The question isn't "does she have experience?" The real question is, "Does she have the judgment and wisdom?"
But then I must also admit that in the last few weeks I've developed a certain degree of anti-Clinton predisposition and have to struggle to maintain objectivity.
One thing that Hillary's time as first lady certainly gives her is political experience. Obama has never run a contested election against a Republican, and we've yet to see how he'll handle what they're going to throw at him. Whereas no person on the planet has taken more GOP attacks than Hillary has.
Of course, in that regard, the Clinton campaign is making Obama more qualified with every passing day. :)
I honestly don't see it that way. The fact of the matter is, First Lady isn't an elected or reviewed position with any verifiable structure to it. Yes, people can do things as First Lady, and there have been people who have. But First Lady doesn't have security clearance. There are many things that First Spouse is not privy to because it isn't an official governing position.
At the heart of the matter is the fact that First Lady is an honorific title not a job in the government. The First Spouse isn't elected. Nor is the first spouse an appointed position such as Supreme Court Justice or Cabinet position which goes through a confirmation process (which is why clearance is limited). Yes, she worked in the Clinton administration, particularly her healthcare proposal which should be judged as in its own right as it is an identifiable contribution she made during the Clinton years. But claiming state visits as a credential? The problem with that is that it's hard to know what such state visits entailed because such visits don't carry much weight simply by right of their existence, especially as they usually relate to an honorific title. For it to be claimed as governing experience, it would have to be more substantial than the run-of-the-mill meet-and-greet--and it might, but we don't know that it was. It isn't a given for the First Lady, and Hillary isn't going to do an item by item listing of whether the visit included substance as opposed to having a black-tie dinner.
She can't find time to release her tax records, when would she have time to do an itemized listing of that sort of thing?
The point being that her being there doesn't automatically confer credit for substantive work. It might, but unless it can be substantiated, voters shouldn't be expected to automatically assume that it did.
Success really is a matter of what one has done in one's own right to some verifiable degree. She has her years in the Senate. That's verifiable. But when she was in an ill-defined honorific position based in her being married to the President, it's an amorphous credential that's difficult to quantify. Just the other day the man who won the Nobel Peace Prize for his part in peace negotiations to Ireland said point blank that Hillary claiming her photo-op there as a credential was somewhat 'silly.' Without her holding an official position, we cannot adequately gauge whether her actions in cases as these were primarily substantive or ceremonial.
The very lack of there being a defined role for the First Lady is what makes it a cloudy credential. It cannot be quantified in any satisfactory degree and only anecdotally verified. There's no voting record for First Lady. The NAFTA kerfuffle shows that.
Reply
Hillary Clinton has good reason to point to the fact that she was more involved in government than most of her predecessors. She was. But, it's not necessarily a good thing. Her record on health care was bungling the project. Perhaps she learned something, perhaps she didn't.
My point is simply, you can't say "If having been first lady qualifies Clinton for the presidency, then Laura Bush should be running (something that has been said many times recently on Obama-friendly forums)."
Laura Bush isn't an airhead -- but her involvement in government has been nothing at all like Clinton's. There aren't many similarities you can draw between Hillary Clinton and Laura Bush, except that they both women who married men who were destined to become president of the United States.
My concern is the tone of the attacks leveled at Sen. Clinton. I'm not defending her experience. The tone is likely to bolster a backlash against Sen. Obama.
Reply
Reply
But I think the most effective strategy here -- looking beyond the primaries into the general election, is to say: "Yes, Sen. Clinton has the experience behind her of eight years as the first lady. She undoubtedly mixed with foreign leaders, and observed crisis management. She participated fully in the defense of her husband and herself when they were attacked. But what did she gain from that experience? Did she learn enough to recognize the false intelligence that led up to the Iraq war? Did she figure out how to stand up to the fear mongers who wanted to stampede us into war? The question isn't "does she have experience?" The real question is, "Does she have the judgment and wisdom?"
Reply
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/11/obama-camp-clinton-forei_n_90894.html
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/sleuth/2008/03/sinbad_unloads_on_hillary_clin.html
But then I must also admit that in the last few weeks I've developed a certain degree of anti-Clinton predisposition and have to struggle to maintain objectivity.
Reply
Of course, in that regard, the Clinton campaign is making Obama more qualified with every passing day. :)
Reply
Leave a comment