Tuesday, January 29, 2008

election 08: does being 26 count as experience?

NPR: Tracing Hillary Clinton's '35 Years' of Experience

a friend of mine sent me an email this morning that ranted, basically, "I'm so sick of hearing about Billary's experience! My god! If she had 35 years of experience, she was 26 years old!"

i have to say that i never really paid that much attention.
but good point.

why isn't our media calling bullshit on that?

(yeah. i'm no fan of the Billary lately.)


JustMe said...

me neither, i and i like that nickname. bill's jesse jackson comment was quite stupid.

Indiana said...

so what she lie a little on her resume. She still will become the first woman president.

ding said...

you know, that would be great if she did (from a purely historic sense.)

but her spin about being a candidate of 'experience' is bullshit and she needs to be called on it. she's had just about as much experience as obama, less then edwards and mccain, more than bush jr and that's about it.

her years as wife to the president?? do we really count that experience? is hosting dinners and taking diplomatic trips to africa and india counting as foreign policy experience?

cuz, in that case, i'm an experienced theologue of 38 years because i took some classes and lived with a pastor.

Atalanta said...

I agree entirely. Someone in a comment I read today tweaked the Guliani complaint into a Hillary context, claiming that her sentences were all turning into 'noun, verb, 35 years.'

Anonymous said...

It goes to show that she is still lying. Don't vote for her. She is going to win. Obama doesn't have the backing to pull the hispanic votes in California for sure!

ding said...

i hesitate to call it outright 'lying.' between the media's penchant to exaggerate everything she says and her own tendency to protect herself at every turn, i prefer to call her relationship to truth 'semanticking.'

when she says she has 'experience' her claim depends on semantics, doesn't it? what does she mean when she says experience? is she talking about her record? is she talking about her years as First Lady? is she talking about some heretofore unknown existence as secret power broker to foreign dignitaries?

what does she mean?

ding said...

@Atalanta: and it's exactly the same thing as Giuliani riding on 9/11 as some weird justification for running for president.

how does being mayor of NYC make someone able to handle the presidency?

if that's the case, maybe a firefighter should run for president.

Anonymous said...

You didn't know? She was running the country not Bill!

She just can't come right and say that.

ding said...

i think that, as most ambitious women (and as an ambitious woman, myself), Hillary Clinton has become accustomed to hiding that very ambition.

there's no doubt in my mind that other First Ladies were also very engaged with and invested in their husband's presidency. nancy reagan, barbara bush, rosalyn carter, jackie kenney, eleanor roosevelt, etc. these were professional wives who were very instrumental in their husbands' successes.

(anyone who's known a CEO's wife will tell you that his wife is as big an asset as he his.)

but i think hillary is the first public president's wife who's ambition has matched - or outmatched - her husband's. he might have the people skills, but i think hillary thinks (and she may be right) that she's the smarter one, the cannier one, the more capable one.

again, she may be right.

but her habit of disguising that ambition of hers (an ambition that most interpret to be 'masculine', because that's what ambition is, isn't it?) forces her to fall back on the mealy-mouthed 'experience' tag when she really should come out and say this:

"Aren't you tired of having dumb old men be in charge? I'm smarter, hungrier, ballsier and better than anyone up here and that's why you should vote for me. Fuck my husband. I'm smarter than him."

if we want the truth from Hillary, this is what we should hear from her.

ding said...

um, and that was supposed to be 'whose.' not 'who's.'

Atalanta said...

It would be a relief if she would. I had a surprisingly annoyed reaction to the fact that the NYT refers to her as 'Mrs.' Clinton. Since the general editorial standard over there is 'Ms.' she must have requested the 'Mrs.' - which, normally, I would say - fine - whatever (while, I admit, having the word 'throwback' waft through my brain - but I generally have some understanding or at least a sense of not caring) - but on that day I was mad. I finally decided that it struck me as indicative of her tendency to not stand on her own - while claiming that she is. To me, her mislabeling smarts and ambition as 'experience,' as you say, is the same sort of thing.

Anonymous said...

Exactly my point. Although I disagree with some of what you wrote , some wives of professional men sit back quietly letting their professional men do what he seems as being the best. Those women do not take active roles in the lives of their husbands career . Whatever he says goes! Disagree with him, "he is doing his job". Sadly, women like that fail to realize their influence.

Hillary is strong, very clever. She reminds me of Meryl Streeps' character in the Machurian Candidate.

Hillary put up with Bills cheating ways for way too long. Why would a strong woman like that put up with nonsense? More then likely it was because at the end of it all, his presidency that is, something was in it for her. Bill and Hillary have a political relationship. They have mastered the art of lying to win. She is using Bill every step of the way.

I wish she would come out and say just what you wrote.Interesting, and she will still win because so many men do not have the balls to stop her.

ding said...

hm. is characterizing hillary clinton as a controlling, manipulative, dysfunctional, brainwashing traitor to democracy really fair?

and aren't all good marriages (even with cheating) built on some form of partnership and support? aren't all marriages, in other words, 'political' to some extent? there are negotiations, leveraging, mutual and competing goals, and alliances made all to further the idea of The Couple.

in our own presidential history, Dolly Madison was very much a political wife. if not for her and her very skillful way of supporting and defending and acting on behalf of her husband, the washington dc as we know it wouldn't exist.

the interesting thing about hillary clinton's career is the fact that she wasn't in control when she was First Lady; i'd say that her role as Senator has given her more control than she's had in the public sphere of her life. i interpret her run for the Presidency as exactly this - a chance to exercise the control she's wanted from the beginning.

but would a hillary clinton presidency be markedly more disastrous than the current administration we have?

i wish some folks had had the 'balls' to stop bush a long time ago.

Anonymous said...

If marriages are political then may God help us!

Bush? No comment.

How many african americans will vote for Obama because he's black?
If Bill is consider "black" among the "black" community is Hillary, too?

A Hillary and Obama ticket? Now that is very possible because they are very similar on the issues with a couple being different.

Will Obama be chosen to be her VP, if ask? That will be interesting. Although, a Hillary and Edwards ticket would be better.

Hillary is more experienced and yes, count everytime she was planning those white house dinners as being experienced,she is hands on. She is NOT masculine, being strong and smart does not means she is male in thinking. She is smart, and she is willing to go get what she wants.

ding said...

by political, i mean there are advantages to be gained by both parties through marriage that both partners are well aware of: shelter, financial gain/security, caretaking, children, sexual gain, etc. at its most basic level, marriage is an alliance of common interests - where interests compete that's where 'compromise' comes in.

what is compromise but a political idea?

i'm sort of offended that people think that black people will *only* vote for obama because he's black. it negates black people as political agents, with competing and conflicting interests and values. it also denies the political reality that black communities might be voting for obama in reaction to white politicians and the policies they've advocated that have had an adverse effect on communities of color.

(and i was being sarcastic when i said that hillary's ambition was masculine. it's hard to indicate tone through a blog, sometimes. i don't think being a strong, ambitious, smart and gutsy woman is bad at all. i think some men have an issue with that as does our media.)

as for VP choice, the cynic in me says that, if offered, Edwards would jump at a chance to be Hillary's VP even though being her VP would run counter to everything he advocated for during his campaign.

i think an Obama/Edwards ticket would be hugely appealing.

i can't wait to see what happens in California.

Anonymous said...

Obama and Edwards? Okay. We'll see.

California, all the media is on California. I have friends there who can't wait to vote.

After the election please post your thoughts. I will be interested in what you have to say after the elections poll results. I have enjoy reading your blog.

ding said...

you can bet on it!

although i'm not going to drive myself nuts the way i did with the last two elections, i'll be posting often about Election 08.

and thanks for reading!

jane54 said...

So 26 year old women can't be politically active??? She left college and went etraight to work for womens rights, I say that counts as experience in social issues.

ding said...

that's not what i'm saying at all. i was politically active when i was 26 and even younger.

but i'm not saying my political activism at that age gives me 'experience' to be president.

let's not be disingenuous here.

Jane54 said...

No one is being "disingenuous", I just don't think you can discount a person entire professional career, it would be different if she had spent 30 years working in fashion, and then all the sudden decided to run for president. She has been in public service for most of her adult life. Isn't that what the presidency is...public service? What do you think qualifes as experience?

ding said...

at my next professional move, i'm certainly not going to count the two years i spent as service desk girl back when i was an undergrad as a significant contribution toward my career.

has she been in public service most of her adult life?
she worked in private industry from 1977 to 1993; then her public life began.

but even then, what hand did she have during those years of shaping policy? no one disputes her dedication to progressive causes or her intellectual sharpness regarding progressive/feminist ideologies. but, other than the health care stint and her current job as senator (which is where she should be counting her experience), there is no public policy work under her belt.

it goes back to my earlier question: does being the wife of a public figure count as professional experience? let's have an honest assessment of 'experience.' she has more than shrub and romney, as much as obama and edwards and less then mccain.

but it's not 35 years' worth.

Anonymous said...

She IS more qualified to run this country than Obama's "Yes We Can" message.Yes we can what!?

Why would you vote for Obama, because he is black? It's time? He represents something new, which is?Let me not lead the latest pro Obama comment out, his character.
Great, he has revealed all his dirt. So has Billary. We watched theirs unveiled right before our eyes.

If Obama gets in office, God help us.


ding said...

If Obama gets in office, God help us.

I don't think it's as dire as all that. Obama certainly can't fuck up the world as mightily as Bush has; in fact, he'll have a hell of a time unraveling the damage already done, both domestically and overseas. Let's acknowledge the fact that whoever the next President is, s/he'll have the most difficult 4 years EVER.

But if there are shades of difference between Obama and Clinton (and there are), then where are they? In the fine details of their health plan? I think that's six of one and a half dozen of another.

However, in terms of their foreign policy stances, I think there are some significant differences. We need a different direction when it comes to our foreign policy. The Bush Doctrine is a failure - both militarily and, frankly, as a public relations exercise. Clinton does not strike me as one who will reverse that trajectory. In her debates, she hasn't been the strongest champion of diplomacy and what better way to prove her 'balls' than to rattle that saber one more time in Iran's direction?

Moreover, just in terms of electability matters, in my very unscientific poll of my friends and coworkers (all of whom are dedicated progressives and liberals), they've said that if Clinton gets the nomination, they're staying home or voting for some as yet, unnamed Independent. (Such a move will likely cannibalize the Democratic vote, because independents won't vote for Clinton, and open the door for a dreaded Republican victory.)

So, au contraire, jeebus help us if Clinton gets the nomination. The Dems will be screwed.

Anonymous said...

HmmM..what president does not clean up after a former presidents mess? Obama is going to be well trained by his masters;he's their golden boy. He promises so much, the way his speeches go, the poor WILL become middle class, AND THE BLIND WILL SEE.

You stump me, and the change will be? Oh, let me help you, a black man in the white house, period! Remember,they are not that much different.

ding said...

you know, i think the whole 'magical negro' stuff is coming from obama's detractors, like you, not his supporters. never once has anyone in the obama camp said that obama's going to be the man who changes everything.

he's going to be like every other president - a man who proposes a way to do things differently. that's all. if you've read his 64 page policy proposal you'd maybe see that his ideas just aren't pie in the sky but actually attainable - as long as it comes with bipartisan participation, that is.

and that's what most of us like about obama - while clinton sure is good at going on the offensive she is not good at compromise. what legislation has she passed? what has she really accomplished as a public servant? while she may have more foreign policy exposure, do we really want another president who refuses to try diplomacy as an artful tool?

and why all the sarcasm (which isn't an argument) and hostility toward obama, anyway? his 'masters'? if that's not problematic, i don't know what is.

you want to support hillary clinton? be my guest. really. argue for her. tell me why she's the one to go for.

for once, use an actual argument.

Anonymous said...

I've been slap! Obama diplomacy policy is questionable, just because he has muslim in his blood does not mean those countries will listen to him, how naive can he be? They will listen at a price that this country will pay for. Many americans do not want a passive leader. He taught constitutional law, which he is going to need to recall if he leads this country.

The "master and "boy" comments were because everyone knows who's really putting Obama in office. The facts: he is not John F. Kennedy; he is NOT Martin Luther King; He steals from his friends speeches just so his fan base would be persuaded. He is an inexperience senator that Hillary haters want in office. So what do you do, you get those in power, those with more experience and influence then Obama, who do not want Hillary to back you. The Kennedys, Winfrey,his wife( that comment about being american?) and you convince the american people, "see, he's represents change, and we need that. Let me not leave this out. Why the smeer campaign against McCain, now?

Defending Hillary on a blog where she is dislike, why bother.

My friends who are independents say, if either one get's in office we are in serious trouble.

ding said...

1. i don't dislike/hate clinton. i just prefer obama.

2. what's 'muslim blood'? that's probably the most offensive thing i've seen you write.

3. how is obama's diplomacy policy questionable? he's never relied on his ethnic background as a basis of foreign policy; that's just idiotic.

4. who's really putting him in office? i mean, what are you implying here?

5. the smear against McCain came from his own staffers, dude.

6. what are you using as a basis of experience?

who do you even want to see win? where do you stand or do you just wanna take the piss out of everything without saying anything new except repeating Obama is inexperienced, he's insubstantial, he has powerful friends and people like him too much?

what would be progressive political change to you? what do you want to see happen in this country? what are your positions?

if you're not actually going to have a conversation like this then you just come off like a troll.

Anonymous said...

After doing some investigating, I found that you live in Chicago, the same city of Mr. Obama.

The democratic nomination will go to Barack Obama. The nation, you'll see. who would I have voted for
Edwards, statisfied? Troll?
Not this fine looking specimen. Isn't that a red herring?

Anonymous said...

the correct spelling was smear not smeer campaign

Anonymous said...

Correction again, that a "ad hominen" for the insult.