Betsy's Page

Friday, September 07, 2007

Hillary Clinton's experience

Michael Crowley of The New Republic is wondering what the experience is that Hillary Clinton is referring to when she touts her experience in her political advertising and in not-so-subtle jabs at Barack Obama.
So far this "experience" theme seems to be keeping Hillary in the lead over Barack Obama. But what does she really mean when she talks about "experience"? Given that Hillary has spent just over one (cautious) term in the Senate, she's clearly talking about her time as First Lady (and to a lesser extent as First Lady of Arkansas). Yet Hillary actually says very little about the particulars of her White House years. She and her surrogates frequently refer to the 82 nations she's visited. And all the "work" she's done on important issues. But apart from her failed health care reform--which for obvious reasons she doesn't emphasize--Hillary almost never talks about sitting in on her husband's key policy meetings, or otherwise shaping substantial components of his agenda.

Whereas one of the surprising things I discovered when I wrote my recent piece about Hillary's foreign policy was just how engaged and influential she was on those issues during the 90s. I found that she played an important role in pressuring her husband to bomb Bosnia and, especially, Kosovo. And yet one rarely hears her talking about such episodes in specific terms--if ever.

Why not? Probably because right now Hillary gets to have it both ways: She enjoys this vague claim to "experience," without getting bogged down in specific issues, because people only have foggy notions of her role as First Lady.
I suspect that a lot of Americans are still not comfortable with the idea of an unelected First Lady having substantial influence in government policy, particularly foreign policy choices. And a focus on her role as First Spouse raises questions about what her husband's role would be in an Hillary Clinton adminstration.

Crowley ends with some advice for Obama.
So here's an idea for Barack Obama: Start pressing Hillary for some specifics about all this experience--particularly on issues that might rile up the party's base. What role did she play in her husband's decision to sign the welfare reform bill? Did she have anything to do with NAFTA? What did she have to say when her husband reached a 1997 balanced-budget deal with Republicans--a deal that Richard Gephardt blasted as a sellout?

And if she claims to have been out of the loop on those issues, well, then should she be claiming all this "experience"?

Who knows if that would work. But it seems to me that right now Hillary is getting all the benefits of being "experienced" without really having to defend many of the particulars that experience entails.
Of course, a decent media would be asking her these sorts of questions instead of just letting her "experience" skate by as an understood quality that doesn't bear questioning.
Labels: Election 2008

posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 7:28 AM 0 comments

Comments:

Michael Crowley of The New Republic is wondering what the experience is that Hillary Clinton is referring to when she touts her experience in her political advertising and in not-so-subtle jabs at Barack Obama.

So far this "experience" theme seems to be keeping Hillary in the lead over Barack Obama. But what does she really mean when she talks about "experience"? Given that Hillary has spent just over one (cautious) term in the Senate, she's clearly talking about her time as First Lady (and to a lesser extent as First Lady of Arkansas). Yet Hillary actually says very little about the particulars of her White House years. She and her surrogates frequently refer to the 82 nations she's visited. And all the "work" she's done on important issues. But apart from her failed health care reform--which for obvious reasons she doesn't emphasize--Hillary almost never talks about sitting in on her husband's key policy meetings, or otherwise shaping substantial components of his agenda.

Whereas one of the surprising things I discovered when I wrote my recent piece about Hillary's foreign policy was just how engaged and influential she was on those issues during the 90s. I found that she played an important role in pressuring her husband to bomb Bosnia and, especially, Kosovo. And yet one rarely hears her talking about such episodes in specific terms--if ever.

Why not? Probably because right now Hillary gets to have it both ways: She enjoys this vague claim to "experience," without getting bogged down in specific issues, because people only have foggy notions of her role as First Lady.

I suspect that a lot of Americans are still not comfortable with the idea of an unelected First Lady having substantial influence in government policy, particularly foreign policy choices. And a focus on her role as First Spouse raises questions about what her husband's role would be in an Hillary Clinton adminstration.

Crowley ends with some advice for Obama.

So here's an idea for Barack Obama: Start pressing Hillary for some specifics about all this experience--particularly on issues that might rile up the party's base. What role did she play in her husband's decision to sign the welfare reform bill? Did she have anything to do with NAFTA? What did she have to say when her husband reached a 1997 balanced-budget deal with Republicans--a deal that Richard Gephardt blasted as a sellout?

And if she claims to have been out of the loop on those issues, well, then should she be claiming all this "experience"?

Who knows if that would work. But it seems to me that right now Hillary is getting all the benefits of being "experienced" without really having to defend many of the particulars that experience entails.

Of course, a decent media would be asking her these sorts of questions instead of just letting her "experience" skate by as an understood quality that doesn't bear questioning.

Labels: Election 2008

posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 7:28 AM 0 comments

Comments: Post a Comment

The truth about Avesil

Cheap Hosting

Atlanta Bankruptcy Attorney

Dallas Bankruptcy Attorney

Wikio

Get exclusive travel deals and book discount cheap flights

Online Bachelors Degree

Friday, September 07, 2007

Hillary Clinton's experience

		Betsy's Page

HOME Betsy neither necessarily uses, nor endorses, the products advertised on this site. The truth about Avesil Cheap Hosting Atlanta Bankruptcy Attorney Dallas Bankruptcy Attorney Wikio Get exclusive travel deals and book discount cheap flights Online Bachelors Degree Comments from an AP history and government teacher in Raleigh, NC. e-mail betsynewmark AT gmail.com Commissions earned from selling items through Amazon will go towards buying materials for my classes. Thank you. Site Feed		Friday, September 07, 2007 Hillary Clinton's experience Michael Crowley of The New Republic is wondering what the experience is that Hillary Clinton is referring to when she touts her experience in her political advertising and in not-so-subtle jabs at Barack Obama. So far this "experience" theme seems to be keeping Hillary in the lead over Barack Obama. But what does she really mean when she talks about "experience"? Given that Hillary has spent just over one (cautious) term in the Senate, she's clearly talking about her time as First Lady (and to a lesser extent as First Lady of Arkansas). Yet Hillary actually says very little about the particulars of her White House years. She and her surrogates frequently refer to the 82 nations she's visited. And all the "work" she's done on important issues. But apart from her failed health care reform--which for obvious reasons she doesn't emphasize--Hillary almost never talks about sitting in on her husband's key policy meetings, or otherwise shaping substantial components of his agenda. Whereas one of the surprising things I discovered when I wrote my recent piece about Hillary's foreign policy was just how engaged and influential she was on those issues during the 90s. I found that she played an important role in pressuring her husband to bomb Bosnia and, especially, Kosovo. And yet one rarely hears her talking about such episodes in specific terms--if ever. Why not? Probably because right now Hillary gets to have it both ways: She enjoys this vague claim to "experience," without getting bogged down in specific issues, because people only have foggy notions of her role as First Lady. I suspect that a lot of Americans are still not comfortable with the idea of an unelected First Lady having substantial influence in government policy, particularly foreign policy choices. And a focus on her role as First Spouse raises questions about what her husband's role would be in an Hillary Clinton adminstration. Crowley ends with some advice for Obama. So here's an idea for Barack Obama: Start pressing Hillary for some specifics about all this experience--particularly on issues that might rile up the party's base. What role did she play in her husband's decision to sign the welfare reform bill? Did she have anything to do with NAFTA? What did she have to say when her husband reached a 1997 balanced-budget deal with Republicans--a deal that Richard Gephardt blasted as a sellout? And if she claims to have been out of the loop on those issues, well, then should she be claiming all this "experience"? Who knows if that would work. But it seems to me that right now Hillary is getting all the benefits of being "experienced" without really having to defend many of the particulars that experience entails. Of course, a decent media would be asking her these sorts of questions instead of just letting her "experience" skate by as an understood quality that doesn't bear questioning. Labels: Election 2008 posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 7:28 AM 0 comments Comments: Michael Crowley of The New Republic is wondering what the experience is that Hillary Clinton is referring to when she touts her experience in her political advertising and in not-so-subtle jabs at Barack Obama. So far this "experience" theme seems to be keeping Hillary in the lead over Barack Obama. But what does she really mean when she talks about "experience"? Given that Hillary has spent just over one (cautious) term in the Senate, she's clearly talking about her time as First Lady (and to a lesser extent as First Lady of Arkansas). Yet Hillary actually says very little about the particulars of her White House years. She and her surrogates frequently refer to the 82 nations she's visited. And all the "work" she's done on important issues. But apart from her failed health care reform--which for obvious reasons she doesn't emphasize--Hillary almost never talks about sitting in on her husband's key policy meetings, or otherwise shaping substantial components of his agenda. Whereas one of the surprising things I discovered when I wrote my recent piece about Hillary's foreign policy was just how engaged and influential she was on those issues during the 90s. I found that she played an important role in pressuring her husband to bomb Bosnia and, especially, Kosovo. And yet one rarely hears her talking about such episodes in specific terms--if ever. Why not? Probably because right now Hillary gets to have it both ways: She enjoys this vague claim to "experience," without getting bogged down in specific issues, because people only have foggy notions of her role as First Lady. I suspect that a lot of Americans are still not comfortable with the idea of an unelected First Lady having substantial influence in government policy, particularly foreign policy choices. And a focus on her role as First Spouse raises questions about what her husband's role would be in an Hillary Clinton adminstration. Crowley ends with some advice for Obama. So here's an idea for Barack Obama: Start pressing Hillary for some specifics about all this experience--particularly on issues that might rile up the party's base. What role did she play in her husband's decision to sign the welfare reform bill? Did she have anything to do with NAFTA? What did she have to say when her husband reached a 1997 balanced-budget deal with Republicans--a deal that Richard Gephardt blasted as a sellout? And if she claims to have been out of the loop on those issues, well, then should she be claiming all this "experience"? Who knows if that would work. But it seems to me that right now Hillary is getting all the benefits of being "experienced" without really having to defend many of the particulars that experience entails. Of course, a decent media would be asking her these sorts of questions instead of just letting her "experience" skate by as an understood quality that doesn't bear questioning. Labels: Election 2008 posted by Betsy Newmark permalink 7:28 AM 0 comments Comments: Post a Comment