The point that I am making is that her claims of the nature of that experience are overstated. The fact is she did not sit in on national security meetings. She did not have a security clearance. She did not attend meetings in the situation room. She conducted no negotiations. She did not manage any part of the national security bureaucracy. She did not have her own national security staff. That’s the fact. Now the experience that she did have — watching and sometimes sitting in the room where discussions were going on and also meeting heads of state and foreign ministers — that is good experience, and it’s invaluable to understanding how the world works when it comes to international organizations as well as international negotiations.
- Gene Craig
So much of the debate during the Democratic primary season- at least as it’s been framed by Sen. Hillary Clinton and her minions- has been about experience. The implication, of course, is that she has it and Sen. Barack Obama lacks it. The reality is that they both have it…and they both lack it. Both candidates have had a stellar career of public service, albeit in different venues. Just as Obama’s experience in the Illinois Legislature hardly connotes experience in national security matters, neither does Clinton’s experience as First Lady. Traveling to 80 countries makes you an experienced tourist, NOT a diplomat.
Yes, Sen. Clinton has the advantage of having lived in the White House for eight years, and being First Lady certainly means that she knows her way around. Even so, being on a first name with the kitchen staff is no indicator of foreign policy experience, nor does it connote any appreciable advantage in crisis management. While I understand her need to try differentiate herself from Sen. Obama, her arguments simply don’t hold water. Yes, she’s hung around the White House longer than Sen. Obama, but does that count as useful and valuable experience that makes her a more worthy Presidential candidate? Not from where I sit.
I have no doubt that Sen. Clinton is eminently qualified to be our next President…just as Sen. Obama is. The difference I see is that Sen. Obama has maintained the same demeanor as the front-runner that he did when he was 20 points down in national polls. The same cannot be said for the Clinton campaign, which has assumed an increasingly shrill and desperate tone as her “inevitability” gradually evolved into a second-place standing that faces increasingly long odds. The “win at any and all cost” attitude displayed by Sen. Clinton and her surrogates is not an endorsement of her crisis management skills, which, oddly enough, has been one of the points she has hammered on in her speeches.
I may have endorsed Sen. Obama, but I’ve said time and time again that I will support whichever Democrat becomes the eventual nominee. The important point- which seems increasingly lost in the sturm und drang- is wresting control of the White House from the GOP. Unfortunately, it seems that the Clinton campaign in their desperation has managed to lose sight of that reality. That only reinforces my support for Sen. Obama, who through it all has managed to keep his eye on the prize. Isn’t that the bottom line?
