Slate picks up on the fact that none of the candidates on the Democrat’s side can credibly make that argument…especially Hillary…
Edwards served a single term in the Senate. Obama served eight years in the Illinois state Senate and is halfway through his first term in the U.S. Senate. Clinton is about to begin her eighth year in the U.S. Senate. Going by years spent as an elective official, Obama’s 11 years exceeds Clinton’s seven, which in turn exceeds Edwards’ six. But it’s a silly calculus. They all come out about the same, even when you factor in Clinton’s youthful work on the House judiciary committee’s impeachment inquiry, her membership on the board of the Legal Services Corp., her chairmanship of the Arkansas Educational Standards committee, her crafting of an unsuccessful national health-care bill, and her sharing Bill Clinton’s bed most nights while he was Arkansas governor and president of the United States.
In Slate’s women’s blog, the “XX Factor,” various colleagues have argued (see here, here, and here) that Clinton has sufficient experience under her belt to be president. I agree, but that’s not the right question. The more urgent question is: Where the hell does she come off claiming superior experience?
You can see the general election commercials now, right? The large booming, authoritative voice begins by saying, “Hillary Clinton claims she has experience, but let’s look at the facts…”
Let that sink in Democrats. Because that’s what will happen.
This is one of THE biggest reasons why I have so many problems with the Clinton campaign. Well, that and Bill is actively seeking to destroy a fellow Democrat’s credibility, something I can’t remember any former President doing EVER. In fact, since Bill is so actively involved in the campaign, does anybody really believe that we’re not going to have some type of dual presidency? Have the Clintons given us any indication to the contrary besides Bill saying that he wouldn’t be closely involved? And after he lied his way into being impeached, I’m not buying Bill’s claims about being content running the annual Easter egg hunt.
Listen, there’s no doubt that Hillary is a remarkably smart person, but since she’s running on experience, I think that really calls her sincerity and credibility into question. Again, she might be able to pull it off in the primaries, but there’s no way that message is flying in the general election. Not a chance. They’ll nail her to the wall for it.
Back to Slate for some final thoughts…
If Clinton continues to build her campaign on the dubious foundation of government experience, it shouldn’t be very difficult for her GOP opponent to pull that edifice down. That’s especially true if a certain white-haired senator now serving his 25th year in Congress (four in the House and 21 in the Senate) wins the nomination. McCain could easily make Hillary look like an absolute fraud who is no more truthful about her depth of government experience than she is about why her mother named her “Hillary.” […] If Clinton doesn’t find a new theme soon, she won’t just be cutting Obama’s throat. She’ll also be cutting her own.