Observation I can't escape in this maddening election season: The Clinton campaign keeps killing Obama for his lack of experience.
Hillary was elected to the Senate in 2000, while Barack was elected in 2004. So the huge level of experience Clinton ownsÂ over him is four years. FOUR YEARS! Seriously, how much do you think that extra four years in the Senate helps someone? If it was decades more, it would be an apt argument, but four years is not impressive enough to tout.
To bolster her case, Hillary stated, "Voters will judge whether living in a foreign country at the age of 10 prepares one to face the big, complex international challenges the next president will face."Â
That's fair. But what do you have to offer?
"'I think we need a president with more experience than that,'" said Clinton, who has repeatedly touted her own experience as first lady . . .
Experience as first lady?!?! So now being first lady qualifies as foreign policy experience? Flying around the world on the taxpayer dime to place wreaths and collect presents given to the US by foreign dignitaries makes you skilled in international issues? Is Laura Bush, who has been first lady nearly as long as Clinton was, now qualified to be a Senator as well?
Let's be honest: these party nominations never have anything to do with experience. Reagan was a frickin' actor and helped end the Cold War. Those scoring at home, that's ZERO foreign policy experience yielding HUGE international successes.
In the end it's all about likability and, unfortunately for her, the more Hillary talks the less likable she is. But since she's losing ground she's forced to talk and it's going to get worse. I predict, however, that things will come full circle when Edwards or Obama becomes the front-runner. Each have open flanks that can be exploited.
And with the chaos on the Republican side, this will most definitely be an election to remember.
p.s. I never knew that Obama's middle name was Hussein. Probably not the most marketable thing about him, eh?Â