<p>In the last couple of days, several of the claims that Senator Clinton points to as examples of her experience have been disputed/refuted by others who were involved in those examples (Ireland, Healthcare, Sinbad). Do these questions about her honesty and experience damage her campaign in any way or do you think that she’s immune to problems in these areas because most voters don’t believe her to be either honest or experienced? In other words, people have long known these things about her and accept her anyway? Is this a weapon for Obama?</p>
<p>"In other words, people have long known these things about her and accept her anyway? "</p>
<p>zooser, I’m not going to go into the particular articles you cited, but I would answer the question you posed this way:</p>
<p>Yes, (ie.,. there’s an important core group of voters who would answer Yes to that). But just as importantly, there’s a core group (may overlap with that same group, to a great extent) that wants to see Bill back in the WH. Unfortunately, there is probably at least the same size group that will work sleeplessly to keep him OUT of the WH. This is one of the many reasons that her candidacy would be a huge mistake, i.m.o. Hello, Democratic Party: an equal number of pro- and con- voters (for/against Bill, never mind his wife) equals A ZERO SUM GAME. Get it?</p>
<p>Epiphany, that was a really interesting point of view. Thank you!
(The reason I often post is because I love to hear (read) others’ opinions of the same thing.)</p>
<p>In fact, zooser, it is also my opinion that the sub-text of HRC’s frequent allusion to “experience” is in fact her husband. I’m not talking about her past “experience” (in the WH). I’m talking about her hoped-for future “experience,” with him providing pillow talk. She’s hoping that a combo of Bill supporters + feminist supporters + traditional Democratic blocs (unions, Hispanics overall) will be the winning combination. I think that this is a telescoped view & something has happened to her peripheral vision (or that of her managers). It’s a big country out there, Hillary.</p>
<p>This is an example, in my opinion, of people arguing back and forth over something when, in fact, everybody really knows the truth of the situation. The truth is that Hillary had exposure to high-level decisions, and knows a lot about what goes on in the White House and what the President has to do. Her supporters try to make more of this by calling it experience, and her detractors try to make less of it by saying it isn’t experience. I think most reasonable people understand what her level of experience is, and can evaluate how valuable it is likely to be.</p>
<p>I agree with Hunt that part of Hillary’s experience is “exposure to high-level decisions, and (she) knows a lot about what goes on in the White House and what the President has to do.” And I would consider that important experience if it wasn’t for her Iraq vote. I have read the speech she gave in the Senate before voting (http"//clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html) and I’m left wondering how she did not see that Bush intended to use the power a yes vote would give him and also wondering if as a Senator from New York she was giving in to the emotionally charged pressure of people in her state who felt the need to get back at someone for what happened to the World Trade Center. While I was listening to the debates before the vote I was screaming at my radio and/or TV that Bush had no intention of using this power to force Hussein to allow the inspectors to do their job but had every intention to invade. Why did her inside information not key her in to what I could see from my living room?</p>
<p>This is what so many of us have been asking about all the Democrats who voted for the resolution, not just Hilary, ever since 2003. I was furiously writing my senators and a congresswoman and the answers I got back were unsatisfactory- made me sound irrational and paranoid. Basically they were trusting the president to do what he said he would do-let the inspectors continue and use force as a last resort. It was so obvious to some of us, yet not seen at all by others, that Bush had no intention of letting the inspectors finish the job. I do think some people tend to believe what they want to believe if NOT believing would make them have to take uncomfortable stands or positions. I suspect that this was the case with many who voted for that resolution.</p>
<p>“It was so obvious to some of us, yet not seen at all by others, that Bush had no intention of letting the inspectors finish the job.”</p>
<p>Add to this the obvious (to some) fact that Bush had no clue how to handle this kind of project and was likely to bungle it – although I never, in my wildest nightmares, thought it would be such a disaster. </p>
<p>I think that Democratic senators were mostly just cowards. There might also have been some who had misplaced confidence in Colin Powell to make sure power was used wisely. But most of them figured that even though it was a bad idea to empower Bush, it would be really popular like the first Gulf War, and they didn’t have the ■■■■■■■ to risk going on record against it.</p>
I think most of the Democrats believed the same thing President Bush believed – that Iraq had WMD. President Clinton said it, his Sec of Defense said it, his CIA Director said it, his Sec of State said it, his VP said it and countless other Dems said it – all well before Pres. Bush was even a cadidate for the Presidency.</p>
<p>The Dems weren’t cowards but they weren’t any smarter than the Republicans.</p>
I think something quite different was happening. I think they all thought Bush *would *go to war. They remembered what happened the last time they voted against an Iraq war when Bush’s Dad went in. They all got blasted for being chicken. That war was regarded as quite successful. They all imagined W. would do the same, a quick in and out painless war, and they wouldn’t look like dovish democrats. Win-win.</p>