Thursday, February 21, 2008

Are you experienced?

Maybe it's better if you weren't. From George Will:

Nothing, however, will assuage Clinton supporters' sense of injustice if the upstart Obama supplants her. Their, and her, sense of entitlement is encapsulated in her constant invocations of her "35 years" of "experience." Well.

She is 60. She left Yale Law School at age 25. Evidently she considers everything she has done since school, from her years at Little Rock's Rose law firm to her good fortune with cattle futures, as presidentially relevant experience.

The president who came to office with the most glittering array of experiences had served 10 years in the House of Representatives, then became minister to Russia, then served 10 years in the Senate, then four years as secretary of state (during a war that enlarged the nation by 33 percent), then was minister to Britain. Then, in 1856, James Buchanan was elected president and in just one term secured a strong claim to the rank as America's worst president. Abraham Lincoln, the inexperienced former one-term congressman, had an easy act to follow.
Adam Nagourney at the objective New York Times notes that the experience angle isn't playing in Peoria:

Lines that Mrs. Clinton’s advisers thought would be effective after testing them with focus groups, like reminding voters that just a few years ago Mr. Obama was a mere Illinois state senator, fell flat. The argument that Mrs. Clinton would bring far more experience to the White House, a selling point her aides once thought would decide this campaign, has taken her only so far.
How far? This far.

Clinton has not only lost her lead in the race for the party's nomination - Obama has tied her at 44 percent - but she also has the largest number of people saying they would "never" vote for her, the lowest favorable ratings, and the most saying they would feel "scared" if she won the Oval Office.
Mark Penn, you diabolical genius!

Extra - Whip that horse! Swamp Politics: "Clinton, in Texas, belittle's Obama's experience"


Anonymous said...

Karl Rove was right! No one ever won the presidency coming in with negatives as high as hers!

Anonymous said...

It's about time Karl Rove was right about something.

Was it part of a nostalgia tour?

JorgXMcKie said...

Well, let's count 'em up. Bush will never win Texas (twice). Check. Bush can never beat BigWoodenAl. Check. Bush can't possibly beat Kerry. Check.

Boy, is that Rove a bozo.

(I wonder what it feels like to continually get your ass kicked by an incompetent boob? Perhaps some of our Lefty friends can give us a hint.)

Anonymous said...

Nice list, Dave. Like I said, such sweet nostalgia.

Elections in the 216-year history of the United States in which a political party lost zero incumbents: 1.

That 0-27 mark (0 Dems losing their seats, and 27 Repubs) looms awfully large on the Brain's sterling record. And so will 2008. I don't think you quite understand continuums.

Rove has had successes, obviously. A lot of them. So it's heartbreaking that you need to puff up Rove's resume by counting the 1998 campaign against Garry Mauro as an amazing upset. (In reality, Bush got 69% of the vote; the Texas GOP feared that his lead was so great that it would depress Republican turnout.)

And despite the right's palpitating need to retrofit the 2000 election into a clean, credible Bush victory, it ain't ever gonna happen. History has already rendered its verdict.

Power yes, glory no. Deal with it.