« Genocide Then, NowHaditha “Massacre” »

Got Experience?

Joyner at Outside the Beltway on Hillary’s lack of it, or unusual variety of it … and why it probably doesn’t make any difference:   

Hillary Clinton and her supporters tout her 35 years of public policy experience. The Hill’s Bob Cusack assesses that figure.

In a concerted effort to deflect attacks on her presidential credentials, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y) and her allies repeatedly say she has 35 years of relevant experience. She has been an elected official only seven years, but the drumbeat of sound bites and statements touting the 35-year figure appears to have paid off. Even her Democratic rivals prefer to assail her electability rather than her experience.

…

Citing experience as a non-elected official can be tricky, according to some analysts. While her campaign has suggested that she played a major role in her husband’s leadership of Arkansas and later of the country, she wasn’t elected to office until 2000.

…

The claims that low level work on political campaigns and lobbying organizations constitutes serious preparation for the presidency are certainly strained. Still, she’s experienced enough to be president. Being married to a governor and president is hardly the same thing as being governor and president but there’s not much doubt that she got an intimate view of and was a major participant in the decision-making process. One could argue that her policy role as First Lady was as at least as important as that of most pre-Mondale Vice Presidents.

That said, Giuliani has a point. While Clinton is a first rate policy wonk, she’s never had the pressure of making and living with major decisions. Advising the executive requires a much different skill set than being the executive.

 After running through the experience of modern presidents, Joyner concludes:

 Perhaps the presidency is so different from any other office that no preparation is adequate and it comes down to temperament and external circumstance. Indeed, the ability to be an inspiring communicator would seem to be the common denominator for success.

Yeah, but then you get to how Americans have experienced Hillary.  Strong woman beset by enemies, or mercenary, unprincipled, bitter, vindictive, coattail-riding, opportunist.

Topics: pols

  Posted by Jules Crittenden at 10:06 am on Friday, October 19, 2007

10 Responses to “Got Experience?”

1. Donald Douglas Says:
   October 19th, 2007 at 10:14 am

   Giuliani has a good argument, but from a policymaking and White House-insider’s perspective, it’s a stretch to say Hill’s not qualified.

   It’s the direction of her policies that are most problematic. Her Foreign Affairs essay out this month is a disaster:

   http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20071101faessay86601/hillary-rodham-clinton/security-and-opportunity-for-the-twenty-first-century.html

2. The Thunder Run Says:
   October 19th, 2007 at 10:57 am

   Web Reconnaissance for 10/19/2007

   A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day…so check back often.

3. Outside The Beltway | OTB Says:
   October 19th, 2007 at 11:28 am

   Hillary Clinton’s 35 Years of ‘Experience’

   Hillary Clinton and her supporters tout her 35 years of public policy experience. The Hill’s Bob Cusack assesses that figure.
   In a concerted effort to deflect attacks on her presidential credentials, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y) and her a…

4. RebeccaH Says:
   October 19th, 2007 at 11:40 am

   For all the bones I have to pick with Hillary Clinton, lack of experience isn’t one of them. If anything, she’s probably the most efficient — and ruthless — politician in Washington.

5. Vanguard of the Commentariat Says:
   October 19th, 2007 at 1:00 pm

   “…her allies repeatedly say she has 35 years of relevant experience.”

   35 years of reflexively verbalizing collectivist and redistributive solutions to whatever special interest she happens to be pandering to at any given time is neither experience nor progress. In fact it is quite regressive.

6. Donald Douglas Says:
   October 19th, 2007 at 1:43 pm

   Right on, RebeccaH!

7. saltydog Says:
   October 19th, 2007 at 2:50 pm

   Ditto, RebeccaH. Her experience, or lack of it, falls far down the list of my problems with Hillary Clinton. It is her character I have a problem with, not her CV.

8. The_Real_JeffS Says:
   October 19th, 2007 at 4:09 pm

   Advising the executive requires a much different skill set than being the executive.

   I agree. This is something that can’t be readily measured or evaluated; it’s a results type metric. I’ve known lots of soldiers who were excellent staff weenies, but were terrible commanders.

   The same is true for executives and assistants (the civilian analog of commanders and staffers). Further, I must point out that being President means that you are both civilian executive and military commander (in-chief). The same is true, to a lesser extent, for State governors (who are both the chief executive AND the commander-in-chief of the National Guard).

   Which is why I disagree with this:

   For all the bones I have to pick with Hillary Clinton, lack of experience isn’t one of them.

   More to the point, it’s highly inaccurate. Hillary is an experienced staffer, first and foremost. Her leadership experience has been with small to medium sized teams that studied issues and recommended policies. As far as I can tell, she has NEVER held the authority OR responsibility for executive decisions outside of that realm.

   Trust me on this: there’s a world of difference between recommending policy options, and signing the orders to implement that policy. Voting on a committe is not wielding executive authority.

   Look at it this way:

   Prior to being a US Senator, she made recommendations for her husband, who was the President (and held the responsibility for those decision). Just how often does she accept responsibility for his decisions? Further, as a US Senator, Hillary initially voted for the Iraq war, and has pretty much waffled on that vote since then, depending on who she is talking to at the time. Or which group she is pandering to.

   Bush, on the other hand, asked Congress to approve the Iraq war, fought for that decision, prosecuted the war (in spite of the express disapproval of his “unilateralism”), and still supports the war to this day, regardless of how many paper mache’ heads are parading in front of the White House. Mistakes? Oh, plenty of them has Bush made! But his policy remains in place, more or less as he first started out with.

   That’s the difference between an “executive” or “commander” and a “policy wonk”. I have problems with what Bush is doing, but it’s clear (to me) that he has executive ability. It is not clear to me that Hillary has the same skill sets. Her experience is more suited to the Senate, truth be told. She appears to be effective there.

   If anything, she’s probably the most efficient — and ruthless — politician in Washington.

   This is absolutely true, except (perhaps) for “efficient” (IMHO). But since being a “politician” does not mean one is an “exective” as well, I think that (as others have said) calling Hillary a politician is a better assessment of her character.

   Or lack of character.

9. El Cid Says:
   October 19th, 2007 at 7:33 pm

   The paper tries, without much success, to figure out who these people are and how they can afford to write big checks to Mrs. Clinton:

   Of 74 residents of New York’s Chinatown, Flushing, the Bronx or Brooklyn that The Times called or visited, only 24 could be reached for comment. . . .

   The tenement at 44 Henry St. was listed in Clinton’s campaign reports as the home of Shu Fang Li, who reportedly gave $1,000.

   In a recent visit, a man, apparently drunk, was asleep near the entrance to the neighboring beauty parlor, the Nice Hair Salon.

   A tenant living in the apartment listed as Li’s address said through a translator that she had not heard of him, although she had lived there for the last 10 years.

   A man named Liang Zheng was listed as having contributed $1,000. The address given was a large apartment building on East 194th Street in the Bronx, but no one by that name could be located there.

   Census figures for 2000 show the median family income for the area was less than $21,000. About 45% of the population was living below the poverty line, more than double the city average.

   In the busy heart of East Broadway, beneath the Manhattan Bridge, is a building that is listed as the home of Sang Cheung Lee, also reported to have given $1,000. Trash was piled in the dimly lighted entrance hall. Neighbors said they knew of no one with Lee’s name there; they knocked on one another’s doors in a futile effort to find him.

   Salespeople at a store on Canal Street were similarly baffled when asked about Shih Kan Chang, listed as working there and having given $1,000. The store sells purses, jewelry and novelty Buddha statues. Employees said they had not heard of Chang.

   Another listed donor, Yi Min Liu, said he did not make the $1,000 contribution in April that was reported in his name. He said he attended a banquet for Clinton but did not give her money.

   http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110010758

   What is it with the Clinton’s and the Chinese?

   Hillary Clinton and her supporters tout her 35 years of policy experience.

   My ass

10. Jules Crittenden » Voices of Experience Says:
    January 31st, 2008 at 8:36 am

    [...] maybe a little comment on that Clinton experience [...]

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.