Slate: Debunking Experience

Timothy Noah at Slate has an article debunking the myth of Hillary, She-Of-All-That-Experience.

Key Quote:
"...various colleagues have argued (see here, here, and here) that Clinton has sufficient experience under her belt to be president. I agree, but that's not the right question. The more urgent question is: Where the hell does she come off claiming superior experience?"

Italics mine. It's the key issue she has run the base of her primary campaign on. Timothy argues, as I have frequently, that being First Lady doesn't count as experience, at least not as she argues it. I'm not denigrating the position or her gender, but fast forward some years, would anyone buy that Laura Bush is an acceptable candidate because of her experience?

AS sums it up for me

and succinctly at that:

"My case amounts to concerns that she would entrench a cynicism in politics that's wrong for the times, that her polarization and trust issues are insurmountable, and that eight years in a White House should be enough for any power couple."

And he's a conservative. The fact is that I do not, like many Righties and some Lefties, believe that Hillary is evil, or a criminal, or even wrong in her convictions. I think she is a person with tremendous intellect and ideals, but ultimately, is a leftover from a by-gone era of cultural struggle between two different political philosophies.

Though their ultimate expression is still in the White House, the partisan wars of the 90's are, for the most part, over. And while Hillary still tries to win old battles, Obama wants to begin his Marshall plan for American politics.