So now we get a gloating Hillary, who was able to hang on to half her lead in Ohio and a quarter of it in Texas by using Bush-Rove fear & smear tactics (red-phone ad, please! What’s next…a wolf pack?). We’re stuck with her for at least the next seven weeks, as she aligns herself with McCain to denigrate Obama, not only handing McCain the ammo he needs to beat her (foreign policy experience? Senate experience? If longevity in those areas counts, who wins…Hillary or John?). We also get to spend 80-100 million between now and June that could be spent campaigning against McCain. One pundit said last night that the republicans now get to sit back and watch the Democrats “die the death of a thousand cuts.”
Another point…Hillary is crowing today about how she has shown she can win the big states. OK, in a primary, she did…she won her victories by capturing the registered democrats. How does that say she could deliver Ohio or Texas in a general election? It’s unlikely that the registered Democrats in those states will go for McCain; the people we need in those states are the young people, the independents and crossover republicans. Obama has been delivering those, and has increased the African-American turnout in every state to much larger than historical levels.
Let’s talk for a minute about the experience myth. Experience can be a valuable teacher, but learning is not an inevitable consequence of experience. Some people learn nothing from experience, some people learn the wrong things. Some people have twenty years of experience, and some have one year of experience that they then repeat nineteen times. It’s much more important to understand what someone has learned from experience…how has it informed their judgment; have they grown from the experience, shrunk from it, stubbornly rejected it and stayed the same? Longevity doesn’t equal learning.
So merely having experience doesn’t help. As George Will pointed out last week, our most experienced presidential candidate (Buchanan) turned out to be arguably the worst presidents…and his one term ended when he was replaced by one of our least experienced candidates who became arguably one of our greatest presidents. Lincoln had very little to recommend him in terms of government experience, but people recognized his intelligence and leadership potential via his charisma and, yes, his eloquence.
The other side of the experience argument: Let’s pretend, for a minute, that experience WAS a reliable predictor of performance as president. Hillary touts “35 years of experience.” Everything she’s done since graduation from law school counts? She was married to a president, it’s true…she knows her way around the White House, and she was influential when she was there (not influential enough to get much done, but she managed to gain a lot of headlines and be really strident and divisive…great experience). Then she was a Senator. If you actually look at her record in the congressional record, it’s OK. She has done some things. She’s put in a lot of bills. Many of her bills have no co-sponsors. Obama’s bills tend to have more co-sponsors, and in the last year or so, more of his have become law. In addition, he got quite a bit done in Illinois. In terms of pure legislative experience, a glance at their records will reveal that Obama actually has more legislative experience than Hillary; a deeper study will reveal that he has grown more and been more successful with legislation.
Hillary and her supporters continue to discount Obama’s speaking ability and charisma. How times have changed! Bill said in 2004 that if you have two candidates and one is telling you to have hope and the other one is appealing to your fears, you better pick the one that’s telling you to hope.
What gets missed in this argument is leadership. This country is going to need someone who can appeal to the broadest possible audience, build the broadest possible coalition and get things passed with 60-65% majorities. That’s how major change happens. Another 4 years of partisan bickering and gridlock can only hurt. We are going to need a charismatic and eloquent leader who can bring us the unpleasant truth, provide a vision for a brighter future and rally us to do something about it. We are also going to need experienced managers, but they should be working for that charismatic leader. Hillary has already publicly recognized that she’s not charismatic or eloquent; she should not be that leader.
If the Democratic Party Leadership does not take the strategic view here, they are going to continue their record of snatching defeat from the jaws of almost certain victory. Hillary won’t do the right thing…she has amply demonstrated over the last week that all she cares about is Hillary, and Hillary winning. The party needs to take control, or they will surely lose the White House in November.
— Posted by Rip Stauffer
NYT.com excelleng blog post response!
So now we get a gloating Hillary, who was able to hang on to half her lead in Ohio and a quarter of it in Texas by using Bush-Rove fear & smear tactics (red-phone ad, please! What’s next…a wolf pack?). We’re stuck with her for at least the next seven weeks, as she aligns herself with McCain to denigrate Obama, not only handing McCain the ammo he needs to beat her (foreign policy experience? Senate experience? If longevity in those areas counts, who wins…Hillary or John?). We also get to spend 80-100 million between now and June that could be spent campaigning against McCain. One pundit said last night that the republicans now get to sit back and watch the Democrats “die the death of a thousand cuts.”
Another point…Hillary is crowing today about how she has shown she can win the big states. OK, in a primary, she did…she won her victories by capturing the registered democrats. How does that say she could deliver Ohio or Texas in a general election? It’s unlikely that the registered Democrats in those states will go for McCain; the people we need in those states are the young people, the independents and crossover republicans. Obama has been delivering those, and has increased the African-American turnout in every state to much larger than historical levels.
Let’s talk for a minute about the experience myth. Experience can be a valuable teacher, but learning is not an inevitable consequence of experience. Some people learn nothing from experience, some people learn the wrong things. Some people have twenty years of experience, and some have one year of experience that they then repeat nineteen times. It’s much more important to understand what someone has learned from experience…how has it informed their judgment; have they grown from the experience, shrunk from it, stubbornly rejected it and stayed the same? Longevity doesn’t equal learning.
So merely having experience doesn’t help. As George Will pointed out last week, our most experienced presidential candidate (Buchanan) turned out to be arguably the worst presidents…and his one term ended when he was replaced by one of our least experienced candidates who became arguably one of our greatest presidents. Lincoln had very little to recommend him in terms of government experience, but people recognized his intelligence and leadership potential via his charisma and, yes, his eloquence.
The other side of the experience argument: Let’s pretend, for a minute, that experience WAS a reliable predictor of performance as president. Hillary touts “35 years of experience.” Everything she’s done since graduation from law school counts? She was married to a president, it’s true…she knows her way around the White House, and she was influential when she was there (not influential enough to get much done, but she managed to gain a lot of headlines and be really strident and divisive…great experience). Then she was a Senator. If you actually look at her record in the congressional record, it’s OK. She has done some things. She’s put in a lot of bills. Many of her bills have no co-sponsors. Obama’s bills tend to have more co-sponsors, and in the last year or so, more of his have become law. In addition, he got quite a bit done in Illinois. In terms of pure legislative experience, a glance at their records will reveal that Obama actually has more legislative experience than Hillary; a deeper study will reveal that he has grown more and been more successful with legislation.
Hillary and her supporters continue to discount Obama’s speaking ability and charisma. How times have changed! Bill said in 2004 that if you have two candidates and one is telling you to have hope and the other one is appealing to your fears, you better pick the one that’s telling you to hope.
What gets missed in this argument is leadership. This country is going to need someone who can appeal to the broadest possible audience, build the broadest possible coalition and get things passed with 60-65% majorities. That’s how major change happens. Another 4 years of partisan bickering and gridlock can only hurt. We are going to need a charismatic and eloquent leader who can bring us the unpleasant truth, provide a vision for a brighter future and rally us to do something about it. We are also going to need experienced managers, but they should be working for that charismatic leader. Hillary has already publicly recognized that she’s not charismatic or eloquent; she should not be that leader.
If the Democratic Party Leadership does not take the strategic view here, they are going to continue their record of snatching defeat from the jaws of almost certain victory. Hillary won’t do the right thing…she has amply demonstrated over the last week that all she cares about is Hillary, and Hillary winning. The party needs to take control, or they will surely lose the White House in November.
— Posted by Rip Stauffer
NYT.com excelleng blog post response!