Hillary herself:
"Now 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. I think we need a President with more experience than that."
The Obama campaign:
"Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld have spent time in the White House and traveled to many countries as well, but along with Hillary Clinton they led us into the worst foreign policy disaster in a generation and are now giving George Bush the benefit of the doubt on Iran. The real choice in this election is between conventional Washington thinking that prizes posture and positioning, or real change that puts judgment and honesty first."
I give the round to Obama as Clinton's point seems childish (or churlish), and Obama again is able to claim the mantle of change while reminding people she supported going to war with Iraq. But beyond that, I'm genuinely curious - When it comes to foreign policy, exactly what experience is it that Hillary Clinton brings to the table. She wasn't active in her husband's presidency on those issues. She hasn't been a foreign policy expert in the Senate. What does her claim to being that much more experienced rest on, when it comes to foreign policy?
UPDATE: Oh, it's on:
"We just had a little exchange, Sen. Clinton and myself today," Obama told voters here. "I had mentioned that one of the reasons that I got it right when it came to Iraq was because I had lived overseas as a child. It gives me some judgment and perspective around what other people think about America and how they might react or respond when we make some of the decisions that we make. "And, of course, both the Republicans in their talking points as well as Sen. Clinton said we don't think that what Sen. Obama did when he was 10 years old is relevant to our national security. I didn't say that. She went on to make up the point, that some of the Republicans have made that she's met with all these world leaders. I was wondering which world leader told her that we needed to invade Iraq because that is the conventional thinking that we're going to have to break." Posted by armand at November 20, 2007 07:38 PM | TrackBack | Posted to Politics
So just to be clear, are you saying it's a bad thing for Hillary to say not because it's false that Obama doesn't have international experience, but because she doesn't have foreign policy experience either?
Posted by: Morris at November 23, 2007 10:39 PM | PERMALINKI think it's bad for her b/c it opens her up to responses from Obama like the one above (that I think would be fairly effective if it sunk in with people).
That doesn't really turn on who does or doesn't have "experience" as such. But exchanges like this do remind people that she's been in DC for years, and the public, according to the polls, seems ready for change (and doesn't seem to want to embrace anyone who supported the war in 2002). New presidents tend to come in by running against the status quo (Bush, Clinton, Reagan, Carter, Nixon) and she's touting her experienced in Washington/steady-hand thing at a time with the public is strongly opposed to DC politicians.
And she definitely is experienced - I just don't know the basis for her claiming to be experienced re: foreign policy issues.
Posted by: Armand at November 24, 2007 09:02 AM | PERMALINK"And she definitely is experienced - I just don't know the basis for her claiming to be experienced re: foreign policy issues."
Cough, chortle, cough. Are you saying she does or doesn't speak "the international language"?
Posted by: Morris at November 24, 2007 11:40 PM | PERMALINK