"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.
( ... )
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
( ... )
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?"
I doubt that there has ever been a US election causing more visceral reactions than this one. With candidates representing two historical repressed minority factions emotions run high. It is tragic, I think, that two candidates with so much to offer have had to measure their words to remain within the bounds of what is considered "politically correct." The truth, it seems, no longer matters. What matters is how to be viscious while taking care not to say anything against women or blacks. The issues don't matter. No one seems to be listening to those things. Instead the national ear waits for the slip of the tongue. The first candidate to make a mistake loses.
Honestly? I'm terrified that in these final weeks Obama and Clinton will do such a convincing job of trashing the other, America will be so disgusted it will vote for McCain. God help us.
I am seeing scary parallels to the 1972 race. With the two contenders lobbing "not qualified" styled comments it only makes for fodder for the Republican's in the general election no matter who wins the nomination. Why not debate issues or plans and why ones is preferable to the other??? Race and gender (or any other superficial nonsense) aren't worthy of anyone and have no place in any political race
( ... )
If they keep it up it will be like the old saying, "Democrats are always able to snactch defeat from the jaws of success.". I've already heard more than one Edwards supporter say they will vote McCain in November.
Now that would really be pathetic.
My original favorite of the whole bunch was Kuchinich, who really stood for the highest political principles IMO. I also liked Edwards' populist stand. Kuchinich never had the slightest chance of being the Democratic nominee. Edwards had a slightly better chance. Now I back Clinton, partly on feminist grounds and partly because I think her health care proposal is better than Obama's. I buy Krugman of the New York Times' arguments on her health care proposals. I do think that Obama is an exciting candidate. I only wish that we didn't have this extended fight for the nomination. I think that opens the door for McCain at least partly.
Nothing would be a worse outcome than for McCain to win in November.
Comments 13
(The comment has been removed)
I also think that the Clinton campaign needs to denounce Ferraro's comments.
Reply
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. ( ... )
Reply
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
Reply
Honestly? I'm terrified that in these final weeks Obama and Clinton will do such a convincing job of trashing the other, America will be so disgusted it will vote for McCain. God help us.
Reply
I know Senator Obama is mixed race, but which minority is Senator Clinton part of?
Reply
Reply
Reply
Now that would really be pathetic.
My original favorite of the whole bunch was Kuchinich, who really stood for the highest political principles IMO. I also liked Edwards' populist stand. Kuchinich never had the slightest chance of being the Democratic nominee. Edwards had a slightly better chance. Now I back Clinton, partly on feminist grounds and partly because I think her health care proposal is better than Obama's. I buy Krugman of the New York Times' arguments on her health care proposals. I do think that Obama is an exciting candidate. I only wish that we didn't have this extended fight for the nomination. I think that opens the door for McCain at least partly.
Nothing would be a worse outcome than for McCain to win in November.
Reply
Leave a comment