Another thing about Clinton--for all the (justified) talk about her horrible treatment at the hands of the media, the media has uncritically parroted the conceit of her campaign, that her experience makes her the most capable candidate (and best potential president) that the Democrats have to offer. Putting aside the questions of how much her experience as a political spouse is worth and how active she was in the day-to-day operations of her husband's White House, doesn't this just seem a bit off to you? Even if Hillary Clinton was a close advisor that counseled her husband on every single issue when she was First Lady, she was merely offering advice. There was no decision-making aspect to her job. Clinton acts as though experience is the one and only requirement for the job, and that having a lot of it will result in better decisions. And, yet, despite her experience, she still made some terrible decisions in the Senate, not the least of which was her vote on the Iraq War. It doesn't seem that her experience helped her there. Maybe if she wove that incident into her general narrative of experience, I'd be more comfortable with her. Maybe.



She would probably not appreciate the comparison, but isn't her C.V. very similar to that of George W. Bush's when he was running? Bush had spent all his life in close proximity to powerful politicians, and he even worked in his father's inner circle during the elder Bush's reelection campaign. He never really achieved much on his own, he got elected to office mostly because of his family name and connections, had a largely uneventful term in office, got reelected, and then got himself selected president? And at the time, Bush was often referred to as the inexperienced candidate in the race, as I recall, so much so that he had to add Dick Cheney to the ticket (maybe his worst decision ever). So Bush and Clinton have similar resumes. Bush's might even be a little better, since he was a governor rather than just a senator. I don't think that Hillary would be as much of a disaster as Bush--Bush was always kind of a rube, a probably very nice man who was manipulated by some savvy, powerful svengalis. Clinton isn't that at all. Still, as far as politics goes, the experience argument cuts both ways. In 2000, Bush sounded like a reasonable guy, a non-ideological problem-solver. People trusted him, and he let us down. I cannot shake the feeling that Hillary would turn out the same way. She'd probably get some stuff done, but deep down she's a centrist and she sees things through that lens.