The fairy tale candidacy

From Talking Points Memo:

Just what on earth is Hillary Clinton talking about when she says she’s crossed the “commander in chief threshold” which John McCain has also crossed but Barack Obama hasn’t?

There are two ways of looking at what’s required for this aspect of the president’s job. One school of thought has it that a potential president needn’t be an expert on military affairs or foreign relations any more than he or she needs to be an experts in economics. They need to be informed and knowledgeable. But what’s most needed is temperament, maturity and judgment. Detailed expertise can come from advisors.

Others think it’s precisely the expertise that’s needed. So someone like a Joe Biden is the kind of person you want — someone who’s deeply schooled in every aspect of foreign relations and has been at it for literally decades. John McCain has some of that and he was also career military which gives him, at least arguably, some special grasp of the military components of the job. Bill Richardson had at least some cred on that scale based on his time in the Congress, UN Ambassador and general ad hoc rogue regime diplomacy.

Hillary Clinton seems to think she’s a strong contender in this latter category. But that’s a joke. She’s starting her second term in the US senate, where, yes, she serves on the Armed Services committee. Beside that she’s never held elective office and she has little executive experience. I think she can argue that she’d make and would make a strong commander-in-chief. But she’s pushing a metric by which she’s little distinguishable from Barack Obama.

This touches on a point that I’ve been mulling over. Hillary Clinton claims to be the candidate of experience. Why is she qualified to answer that hypothetical 3:00 a.m. phone call? Because of her experience, which is supposedly much greater than Obama’s experience.

Clinton’s critics have boggled at this for some while:  do her eight years’ experience as wife of the President count? At most, she was a minor player in the Clinton Administration, other than her massive failure in the healthcare portfolio.

Nonetheless, the “experience” argument seems to play well among voters. The perception is, Clinton is way more experienced than Barack Obama (his experience in the Illinois legislature and the work he did as a Chicago street organizer isn’t included in the calculation for whatever reason).

I think this is the real “fairy tale” of the Democratic nomination process. The perception is based on the fact that Clinton has been in the public eye for decades.

But being in the public eye does not equal executive experience, does it? Otherwise, Paris Hilton and Britney Spears would be massively qualified for office. (Though I don’t mean to imply that Clinton’s candidacy is such a fairy tale as a Paris Hilton candidacy would be.)


2 Comments (+add yours?)

  1. Random
    Mar 07, 2008 @ 08:36:55

    “Hillary Clinton claims to be the candidate of experience. Why is she qualified to answer that hypothetical 3:00 a.m. phone call?”

    Although she doesn’t explicitly say so, I expect this boils down to her being in the bed next to Bill Clinton when he was answering the 3AM phone call, so she saw how it goes first hand (at least we assume it was her in the bed, but given that it was Bill that cannot be taken for granted. Or is that too snarky?). At least I can’t think of any other remotely plausible rationale behind it. This however is surely an argument that would be more appropriately applied to one of the grandes horizontales of 19th century France than to a 21st century American feminist.

    In any case, as another commenter said on a previous post, in what universe is experience an argument that McCain does not beat both Clinton and Obama on? If Clinton legitimises it as a campaign issue, then it is only going to help McCain in November. But I strongly suspect that Hillary isn’t thinknig that far ahead, or if she is it’s with a view to damaging Obama sufficiently that he loses to McCain and allows her to try again in 2012. And yes, I really do believe that she’s that ruthless.


  2. McSwain
    Mar 07, 2008 @ 21:08:56

    Considering that my governor is The Governator and The Gipper came from my state, I’m not sure what to say about the Britney/Paris thing. Except for I’d vote for George Clooney first, ’cause I appreciate his looks more. Plus he isn’t blond so he must be smarter. Hey–maybe Angelina Jolie will be next! After all, she’s a UN Ambassador!


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: