Posted by
Andrews on Sunday, April 20, 2008 1:55:03 PM
I have written before on my questions about Hillary Clinton's qualifications for the office of president, but I have decided to look at both Democrats. I suppose I should look at John McCain as well, just to be fair.
So, let us ask what the qualifications of each candidate are.
Here is what I
wrote before about Hillary Clinton, as it still applies.
Please don't take this as a shot at our former First Lady, but what,
really, are Hillary Clinton's (or Rodham-Clinton's, if you prefer)
qualifications to be President of the United States?
As far as I can tell her career is as follows:
1. She went to law school
2. She was a practicing attorney
3. She married someone who became the governor of Arkansas
4. As the wife of the governor, her firm engaged in some questionable practices
5. She became first lady
6.
She was involved in some questionable actions as first lady (missing
FBI files, travelgate, Vince Foster, "vast right wing conspiracy"
claims, etc.)
7. She headed up a committee charged with creating
socialized health care, but which failed to do anything. Also, by all
reports I have seen, she did a terrible job managing that committee,
even those otherwise favorable to her have said as much.
8. She ran
for the Senate seat the Democrats give away to favorites who can't run
in their own state (eg. RFK), and almost lost to Rudy Giuliani.
However, he dropped out, and she beat his last minute replacement in a
seat long considered a democrat lock
9. She spent 7 years in the senate so far doing very little
10.
She voted for a war she now sometimes opposes and sometimes does not
oppose. (Though to her credit, she never claimed "I voted for [it]
before I voted against it.")
And that's it.
So, yes, on
paper, she has the bare minimum credentials to be a standard
presidential contender. Though they aren't official requirements, most
of our successful candidates have a legal background (though not all)
and served in either the Congress or as a governor. So, she has the
bare minimum, but what else? If all it takes is a law degree and time
in public office, we have several hundred people just as qualified. She
needs something to set her apart. (And not just being female. Any trait
she shares with 50%+ of the population does not make her unique.)
And that is what I don't see.
Basically,
Hillary is just another lawyer, whose husband was successful and who
used her husband's friends to get her a secure seat in the senate. She
really did nothing on her own since she stopped practicing law.
And
even her senate career has been pretty lackluster. Can anyone name
something she did in the senate that is worthy of note? Is there a
Clinton Bill out there I missed?
Sorry, but Hillary fails to
rise to even mediocre. Were it not for her last name (or half of her
hyphenate last name) -- and maybe her lack of a Y chromosome --she
would be running behind Kucinich.
Or am I missing something?
Now, let us do a similar analysis of Obama's career.
1. He attended an Ivy League law school
2. He worked as a "neighborhood organizer"
3. He worked for some time as a civil rights lawyer
4. He wrote two books about himself
5. He served in the Illinois Senate
6. He served one term in the US Senate
7. He was opposed to intervening in Iraq
And, as far as I can tell, those are all the good things I can add. Of course his campaign is not about that, but more about "he's charismatic", or, more recently "he's black". Earlier it also emphasized "he's half-black and thus post-racial", but the Wright defense blew that out of the water. Even earlier it was "he's for change".
Obviously, I also omitted the negatives for both candidates. I didn't mention Wright, Rezko, or Ayers, or fund raising scandals, snipers, or Whitewater. I am simply looking at their positive qualifications here.
Looking at both, it appears that Hillary has a marginally superior record. Both are what would traditionally be considered light weights, and I doubt either would have been a viable candidate in another election. But the Democrats expected to ride on a wave of Bush hatred, so being "for change" seemed qualification enough.
I suppose I should be fair and analyze McCain as well.
1. He attended the Naval Academy
2. He served as a pilot in Viet Nam where he was captured and held as a POW for five years
3. After his release he continued to serve in the Navy eventually retiring as a captain
4. During the time he was int he Navy, he served as the naval liaison to the Senate
5. He served in the US congress from 1982 through 1987
6. He served in the US Senate from 1987 to present
Now, admittedly it is a short list, but it seems pretty heavy on political experience, which seems to be lacking in both the Obama and Hillary resumes. Of course, there are serious McCain negatives as well. Depending on your political leanings, his deviations from Republican policies is either a positive or negative, similarly his reluctance to embrace border control can be a big negative or a big positive depending on your stance. But, at least, unlike the two Democrats, we do have over 25 years of national level political experience on which we can judge him.
That is the main reason I think the Democrats are making a huge mistake. They are offering up neophytes on the theory that "newcomers" are what the public wants. And perhaps it does, but not these newcomers. Obama may be new to national politics, but he is also as far left as they come. And, while new to politics, Hillary is hardly a "fresh face", having been a fixture of the eight year Clinton administration. In short, they are "new" only in the negative sense of "inexperienced", their thinking is hardly novel.
McCain may have a problem as he is a long time politico, and may suffer slightly from public dissatisfaction with politics as usual, but he is also a tried and tested politician, and his willingness to break with Republican orthodoxy, despite all the negatives involved, also marks him as more "new" in his thinking than either Democrat. It may not make the Republican faithful (or me) very happy, but his "maverick" label, especially in a race with such a high probability of cross over voting, may serve him quite well.
POSTSCRIPT
I should have read my old post more closely, I did mention Hillary's negatives, while omitting them from the lists for Obama and McCain. Then again, it really doesn't matter, as I still decided that Clinton was a bit stronger than Obama. I just wanted to correct my mistaken statement that I did not mention Whitewater or fund raising.
My mistake.