Clinton’s Experience

35 Years, she tells us.  Forgetting those years of public service outside elected office, let’s just look at her record since elected in 2000 to represent New York.  During which time she found more common cause with Lieberman and the pro-war party than fellow Democrats when it came to issues of Peace, Foreign Relations, and Human Rights.  While Edwards apologized for his war vote and moved to make up for it, and Obama consistently stood against the war in Iraq, Mrs. Clinton offered only the most grudging and late half apology.

But the worst lie of it all is that experience is the most important thing.  During the debates tonight a moderator lobbed her a softball, describing her as a model of experience to Edwards and Obama’s change.  Experience vs Change was the frame.  And Clinton tucked in with gusto, laughably calling herself an agent of change whilst reminding us experience is the most important factor for a candidate.

Not when that experience is screwing us over.  Not Hillary’s experience as an elected official is experience caving into the Bush White House and championing issues the most paranoid and controlling Republicans obsess over, like video game violence.   Hillary Clinton is a moderate Republican, and that is not the experience we are looking for.  We need someone who will unite the country and tackle the deepest issues facing us, not a condescending panderer who has played ball with the neo conservatives when she was supposed to be standing up for the liberal bastion of New York.

But to be fair, one note Hillary sounded and Obama echoed was true.  Any one of the Democratic candidates taking the stage tonight would make a fine President in comparison to the confused mess the Republican party presented us with.  We’ve had enough of George Bush’s politics of Fear, and we need a President who can tackle issues like health care, our national debt, the economy, and of course the environment.  Even Hillary Clinton could do that better than any of the Republicans, and with her eyes closed.  But that does not come from experience.  Sometimes the greatest wisdoms come from a lack of the wrong experience.

Advertisements

6 Responses

  1. I believe in my heart that Clinton is not good for this country. SHe will say and do whatever is politically expediate. We simply do not know her heart. I feel an affinity towards Edwards anti-corporate stance, but I am not yet convinced that he is sincere. And, Obama simply seems to lack the necessary experience. However, between teh three, I personally prefer Obama because I do sense that he is the most genuine. Any lack of experience can be compensated for ny putting together a solid cabinet.

    Just my 2 cents…

  2. Health Freak,
    Your 2 cents are most welcome, but I removed the spam link from your handle.

    I don’t think Obama lacks the experience necessary. He speaks and carries himself like someone who can move the American people towards great purpose. I agree he is genuine, but I get that same sense from Edwards (obviously).

    I’d be pretty happy with either.

    As for Clinton, yes, she would not be completely healthy for this country. But I’ll take fast food over rat poison any day. She’d be better than another 8 years of Republicans.

  3. I think Hillary would make a fine president but realistically who wants to go back to fighting the right-left wars of the 1990s.

    You know that the first minute she’s in office we’ll be hearing all about Whitewater, Vince Foster & interns.

    America can’t afford to be distracted by nonsense right now. We’ve got big fish to fry.

    Here’s hoping we find a president, Republican or Democratic, who can appeal to the center and get us moving forward again.

  4. Sigh. Hillary would make an ok President, but she’d be a good deal too spineless and conservative for my tastes. She’d at least be able to govern, and I bet she could work on the deficit and our mounting economic problems, and we really need someone to do that. And there isn’t a Republican who could.

    Appealing to the center is a foolish game. Appealing to people who are in the center while not moving your own position is the way to go. If you appeal to the center, you move the debate away from your own principles and those of your constituents, your core.

  5. The U.S. (and the world) does not need another Caesar (or czarina in Hillary case), it needs a President. Somebody who will do his or her duty to the people and the Constitution. Dodd did the right think a few weeks back , but he is nowhere near the top. And Kucinich is to weird even for the base of the Democratic party.

    As for Republicans, Ron Paul is the only one worth mentioning so far as he may be the only one who may try to tear down the Imperial machine down, which as a Puerto Rican I find very attractive, but what his policies would do to the U.S. would be catastrophic and I like Americans to much to endorse such a thing. I am not that selfish.

  6. His policies would rebuild this broken nation. Don’t take ultra liberals word for it, look into it for yourself. His record is consistent. Smaller government. He is the only candidate that consistently votes for it and would deliver on it. That’s all you need to know versus more of the same from every other candidate (CFR member). His policies compared the others are constitutional. The others would like to gut the constitution or completely do away with it all together. It is the supreme law of the land and these cretins are lawless.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: