Experience vs. Exposure

<p>At the heart of her campaign, Senator Clinton repeatedly beats the drum that she has the experience. Does she have experience or just simply exposure and isn't there a huge difference?</p>

<p>She has pointed to her trip to Bosnia which turns out to have effectively been a USO tour w/ Sinbad and Cheryl Crowe.</p>

<p>She has pointed to her work re: Northern Ireland and two Nobel prize winners involved say she was there as nothing more than a cheerleader at best.</p>

<p>She claims involvment in the SChip legislation but those involved say she had none of ANY significance.</p>

<p>She has refused to release her White House papers.</p>

<p>Her one great experience was in pursuing a health care program and it is pretty well conceded that her efforts went nowhere, that she held only closed meetings, no open hearings, refused any compromise and in the end accomplished nothing and effectively dropped the issue the remainder of her time as First Lady.</p>

<p>So, while clearly she has been exposed to the goings on in Washington, what is her experience; and, what about her experience is so much more expansive than Obama's who, at a minimum, has about twice the legislative experience than Clinton has.</p>

<p>I really am trying to understand Senator Clinton's claims. Can't anyone help me out and explain what it is that comprises her vast wealth of presidential and/or related "experience" that makes her and her alone so ready on "day one"?</p>

<p>One of the late-night comics made a hilarious analogy in this regard. If being married to Bill Clinton makes Hillary ready to be the next president, then Robin Givens must be ready to be the next heavyweight champion of the world.</p>

<p>From Atlanta Journal Constitution:</p>

<p>"Clinton, responding to an open-government questionnaire in connection with the American Society of Newspaper Editors' Sunshine Week initiative, vowed Sunday to disclose the names of the Clinton library and foundation donors if she's elected president.</p>

<p>"I believe in an open, transparent government that is accountable to the people," Clinton wrote. "Excessive government secrecy harms democratic governance and can weaken our system of checks and balances by shielding officials from oversight and inviting misconduct or error. ... To me, openness and accountability are not platitudes — they are essential elements of our democracy."</p>

<p>The Obama campaign has made an issue of the Clintons' financial secrecy, hinting that it could haunt Democrats in November if she's the party's nominee.</p>

<p>Robert Gibbs, the communications director for the Obama campaign, on Sunday called on Clinton to release her and her husband's full tax returns, all congressional earmark requests and the names of all donors to Bill Clinton's foundation and presidential library.</p>

<p>"What is Senator Clinton hiding, and what is lurking in those documents?" Gibbs asked during a conference call with reporters."</p>

<p>Please, I am not being coy here.</p>

<p>I really do not understand why the contributors to a candidate's husband's library are relevant. </p>

<p>Her tax returns, I understand, but the library, I don't.</p>

<p>If her husband's experience in office is meaningful (and she claims it is), and her husband says "two for the price of one," who that husband is beholden to does in fact matter. (Remember that it is a private library.)</p>

<p>Re: Post #6 - Yet, Obama is responsible for what his preacher says?????</p>


<p>(By the way, ....it looks like about 43% of the <em>documents</em> will be blacked out. So much for "complete transparency! :o)) still hasn't identified earmarks or tax returns either.</p>

<p>" really do not understand why the contributors to a candidate's husband's library are relevant. "</p>

<p>THe purchase of access.</p>

<p>OP Let us put it the other way. Obama does not even have the exposure.</p>

<p>^ Good way to divert the experience question. Again. :confused:</p>

<p>We should alll just stipulate that she has no more experience than Senator Obama. She just happens to have been married to the former president. I would love to see a poll of Clinton supporters that determines which Clinton they support.</p>

<p>She has 200% more experience in the US Senate than Obama. So, for all you anti-Clinton, Obama worshippers...would you rather have a surgeon who has
done half as many procedures operate on your child? Or would you choose the less-experienced pilot to fly your family over the ocean? </p>

<p>So, if you choose to denigrate her 8 years in the White House (while Obama was sitting in the Illinois Senate in SPRINGFIELD, Illinois {not exactly the center of the universe}) as meaningless...you still cannot deny her additional years in the US Senate.</p>

<p>But the absolute truth of the matter is simply that those of you who worship at the altar of Obama are not going to acknowledge that he is the least experienced candidate to run for the presidency in modern history.</p>

<p>"So, if you choose to denigrate her 8 years in the White House (while Obama was sitting in the Illinois Senate in SPRINGFIELD, Illinois {not exactly the center of the universe}) as meaningless...you still cannot deny her additional years in the US Senate."</p>

<p>We're not talking about a serious difference in actual time served in the SEnate and he at least earned his seat, as opposed to she who received it as a gift from an adulterous husband.</p>

<p>Oh, and I don't worship Obama. I'm a republican and wouldn't vote for either of them.</p>

<p>seems lots of Republicans are supporting HRC, according to reports.....wonder why?</p>

<p>"seems lots of Republicans are supporting HRC, according to reports.....wonder why?"
The news reports are swooning over that and there are some who see her as the easier candidate to beat, but the other story (which is not so exciting) is that many of us want her to be gone.</p>

<p>"^ Good way to divert the experience question. Again"</p>

<p>Not really, Many have given you lots of links to articles, but you ignore them.</p>

<p>Forget Obama's experience. We all know that he does not have any. But can you provide example of his exposure to some of the foreign policy issues?</p>

<p>You know, I don't actually think anyone is "confused" about how much experience/exposure Hillary has had. We know that she's a smart person who certainly was more informed about White House decisions than the typical First Lady, and was directly involved in some of them, and she's now served in the Senate. You can throw out a lot of rhetoric about how this is lots of experience, or no experience, but everybody pretty much knows what it was, and can evaluate how useful it would be for a president to have. But talking about just exactly how much experience she has gives an air of objectivity to what is really a very subjective evaluation of just how good a president we think she'd be based on what we all already know about her.</p>

<p>So much hypocrisy. :eek:</p>

<p>Clinton chooses to release her White House papers when and how she wants them released. Many of the papers are not included. She in essence has cherry picked the papers that she wants to "expose".</p>

<p>Yet when others "cherry picked" words from sermons that Obama had no involvement with, he was tarred and feathered and more.</p>

<p>Hillary uses this cherry picking paper releasing to stall the release of her tax forms and earmarks and other questions related to financing that may actually subject her to any real "exposure". It also distracts the press. Maybe she can stall the release of anything more enlightening until after the Pennsylvania primaries......</p>

<p>Again, her experience in foreign policy is not necessarily as she wants us to think it is. Others have clearly testified that she has exaggerated her experience! Yes simba, those links have been provided as well. Maybe you chose not to read them.</p>

<p>Update on some of her foreign policy "experience". Hot off the press.</p>

<p>Records</a> detailing Hillary Clinton's time as first lady show her away from the action during major world news events | World news | guardian.co.uk</p>

<p>Well, I do know that Obama has about twice the legislative experience than Clinton when you factor in his State Leg experience and it is experience.</p>

<p>Still not seen from any source this enormity of experience Clinton claims she has other than she keeps claiming she has it. Just as she has really just watched from the sidelines, I've watched thousands of Dodger games, doesn't mean they are letting me take the field.</p>

<p>But her white house papers exist and I believe were just released today so we'll get a better look I suspect as to just what she was up to on the USO tour to Bosnia with Sinbad.</p>

<p>And just as an aside, experience is not the panacea she and mccain want to make it out to be. To that end, did you see mccain's press conference yesterday when he repeatedly spoke in error as to Iran's involvement in Iraq until Joe "the stooge" Leiberman whispered in his ear to set him straight. What a comedy act, only the joke will be on us.</p>