One of the constant tropes of Obama's campaign against Hillary is that she has no experience other than being First Lady. Nothing she has done in her entire working life, including her 7 years as a Senator, counts as experience.
But, and this is what gets me, if Democrats are supposed to vote against Hillary because she is unprepared and inexperienced, how on earth do Obama's supporters argue that he has the experience? Work as a community organizer? An undistinguished career in the Illinois legislature (at least until there was a Democratic majority) with some 100 "present" votes (not all of which were part of an organized Democratic strategy), and 2 years in the Senate, after one year of which he started running for President?
The Obama supporters say he has judgment. He was against the war in Iraq. As has been pointed out many times by many people, he made an anti-war statement as an unimportant legislator in a liberal district but never did anything to oppose the war other than make that one statement (as far as I can tell). And he has recently indicated that his financial dealings with Rezko were "bone-headed". So, he doesn't have perfect judgment either.
What are we to make of this? Should we start touting up examples of judgment on both sides to see how often Hillary and Obama have been right, or wrong?
But getting back to the experience issue. I just don't get how Obama and his supporters can argue with a straight face that Obama is the better candidate because Hillary hasn't got the experience.
Isn't the logical conclusion that if experience doesn't matter, then it doesn't matter if Hillary has experience or not?
So why does this particular argument against Hillary and for Obama continue to have legs, to be repeated - in one way or another - day after day after day?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment