An honest question for Clinton supporters here. THIS IS NOT FLAME BAIT!!

[SKKY]

What is it about 8 years as the First Lady, and 8 years as the Senator from New York that makes her more qualified than Obama to answer the proverbial 3 a.m. phone call?

[Nitrogenica]

1. Bills in the same bed.

[tekisui]

2. Sometimes...

[ExFreeper4Obama]

60. HAHAHA

:rofl:

[ingac70]

3. Do they even sleep in the same bed? n/t

[surfin]

28. Has anyone notice this about the Clintons

We watched the other night and Hillary kissed Chelsea but when Bill came up they only touched cheeks like a kiss. Many of us notice and wonder, has anyone seen them kiss like others do? Remember the kiss Al Gore gave his wife. Why don't they kiss like other married couples.

[Straight Shooter]

48. The press had a field day making fun of Al and Tipper's kiss.

Keep it chaste for the cameras so they don't get all puerile and snickery. Remember bush patting Laura's behind?

[SKKY]

64. I remember when Bush said he keeps his daughters on a short leash...

...they had fun with that.

[Straight Shooter]

72. He also said they were a pain in the a**

Whatta prick.

[SKKY]

73. Do you have daughters?? They are!

:P :hi:

[Straight Shooter]

100. I don't but I wish I did!

:hi:

[madaboutharry]

4. Actually, I read that he was sleeping on the

sofa for awhile.

[SKKY]

62. He did mention that in his book...

...I liked that because it kept the Clintons in a more "human" light. She did what perhaps most women would have done. I liked it.

[Renew Deal]

8. Who whom?

:evilgrin:

[tigervalentine]

53. What makes you think *that*? n/t

[JVS]

96. "Hillary, it's 3 AM, leave me to sleep so you can go stand by the phone fully dressed and in makeup"

"Ok Bill." *walks away*

*Bill gets on phone* "Hey baby, it's 3 AM and my wife is hovering over that telephone in the other wing of the house, you wanna come over?"


"

[blm]

5. Hillary agreed with her husband that Bush was right to invade Iraq. That took experience.

.

[walldude]

6. Rephrase the question...

"Do you think that after a term and a half in the Senate Laura Bush or Nancy Reagan would be qualified to be President?

[ClassWarrior]

17. Good point.

NGU.

[IsItJustMe]

104. Isn't that the truth. As a famous man once said, 'It's silly time in politics'.

[racaulk]

7. .

:popcorn:

[rinsd]

9. 7 years in the Senate vs his 3 years.

Though maybe we should only give him half credit for 2007 since he missed so many votes.

[ClassWarrior]

18. What was her crisis moment?

NGU.

[WVRevy]

25. Hillary's committe ALSO had oversight of Afghanistan

They held TWO meetings.

She missed both.

Glass houses are a bitch, ain't they?

[SKKY]

31. Really? I didn't know that....

...very good point. Although, I will say BO has a bit more explaining to do about that. I haven't liked his answers thus far.

[seabeyond]

42. he also had two terms in state senate didnt he?

[Kaylee]

49. You beat me to the punch.

:hi:

[SKKY]

57. Yes, he did.

[seabeyond]

61. but the poster that cannot give a true accounting, hence misrepresent obama

hasnt acknowledge. ergo i will assume in the future this pster will continue to short obama.

this is what i am talking about what the supporters are seeming so similar to republicans. i wouldnt short hillary's resume. just seems petty. and dishonest. wrong. and no reason. i can vote with truth. i dont need "mistruth"

[OzarkDem]

90. No foreign policy experience there

and apparently not much experience in doing anything else except grooming himself for higher office.

[seabeyond]

92. "apparently"... i suppose "they" say.... then i guess clinton and all those other governors had NO

experience what so ever.

[Kaylee]

47. Don't forget his time in the state legislature.

[seabeyond]

63. do you really think it is forgetting. i dont. maybe, but i dont. n/t

[berni_mccoy]

97. Her 7 years as an elected official vs. his 13.

[cynatnite]

10. Do you know what google is?

If this was an honest question you'd google to find the answers to your questions. :eyes:

[SKKY]

16. Yes, I have done my research. But again, what is it about her experience...

...or his experience for that matter that makes them more qualified than the other to be president? I really can't see where experience is an advantage for either of them.

[cynatnite]

24. So if you already know the answer, why post?

Rather than me tell you what I think you're doing I will say this:

Experience does matter. It also matters how we interpret a candidate's experience and whether or not it would be a useful attribute for the world we live in today. In other words, it's all in the eyes of the beholder.

[ClassWarrior]

29. But which experience? Out of all of 'em, which ones?

NGU.

[rodeodance]

11. Why don't you do some reseach before you ask silly questions.

[SKKY]

15. I've done my research. But, what is it about those that makes her more...

...qualified than Obama. Or what is it about his experience that makes HIM more qualified than her? I guess the question could go both ways. I just framed it that way because she's the one that brought the "experience" thing into question.

[Armstead]

45. I will re-ask the silly question...

What specifically has Hillary done that is comparable to having to handle a 3 a.m. phone call about an international crisis?

(A call informing her that her husband was spotted at some motel does not count.)

[SKKY]

54. Come on. I'm trying to be serious in this post...

...don't kill a valid question with garbage like that. Please...

[Armstead]

65. So am I -- I'm as serious as a heart attack about it

Forget the cheap shot about the motel.

I really believe that there does have to be a justification for Hillary Clinton's claim about being more prepared for the 3 a.m. crisis call.

I feel strongly about it because that is the kind of crappy, emotion based nonsense that ruins the political process.

[SKKY]

67. And you make a valid point. It's essentially the thesis of this post...

...but the motel slight puts the conversation in a place it doesn't need to be. I can tell you're a smart and thoughtful person, but the motel thing doesn't help the discourse at all. That's all I'm saying...

[Armstead]

88. In my defense, Sometimes a little levity is needed

Wasn't intended to nasty up your thread. Sorry if it seemed that way, as I do agree with the basic purpose and spirit of your OP.

[SKKY]

12. Folks, I'm asking an honest question here. I just want to know...

...because the only people in this country right now who have "Presidential" experience are Bush, Clinton, Carter, and Bush. So, what qualifies one to be president?

[racaulk]

19. I would add Gore to that list.

I would say that serving as VP for 8 years should count as "Presidential" experience. Actually, I guess you could include Cheney, Quayle, and Mondale in that list too.

[SKKY]

20. Ok, I was being purely technical in my definition...

...but yes, you have a very good point about the others.

[Libface]

107. And Gore said Hillary was so involved it was like she was the VP. Does that matter or not?

Should we clarify our terms more specifically? I think seeing the White House from the inside is different from seeing the White House from the outside and if you think that Hillary was "uninvolved" you're confused. I count that as experience. Of course that's not really why I support her so it doesn't matter...then again I don't believe anything I could say here would matter as DU is no longer interested in objectivity or defending the Democratic party against the GOP, which is why I mostly lurk.

[panader0]

13. NOT FLAME BAIT!! good luck. I have been trashed lately

for questioning Hillary. But as far as experience goes, I agree. And her statement putting McCain over Obama will not be forgotten. Just sleeping with the prez (if she did) doesn't give her any experience.

[Labors of Hercules]

14. She's gotten good at seeing Republican Senators do

whatever in the fuck they wanted to do?

[ClassWarrior]

21. Expect to get lots of posts telling you to do your research...

...from trolls and zealots who haven't done theirs.

NGU.

[SKKY]

23. Yea, I've already got them. And I've done my research...

...but I just don't see how "experience" breaks in favor of either of them.

[walldude]

26. Hehe, yeah apparently neither did her campaign advisers

because when they were on Olberman on a conference call, he asked what her experience with a crisis moment was. After 10 seconds of "crickets" one of them muttered about her "lifetime of experience".

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

22. Nobody can have actual Presidential experience without being President, but

But if you are a highly intelligent person interested in governance, looking over your closest confidant's shoulder throughout a decade as a governor and eight years as President as executive decisions are made, and being his most trusted advisor... you learn a lot about what Presidents do, including in crises.

A dumb Stepford wife wouldn't learn much from the experience.

But a woman who planned to maybe someday be President would learn a lot.

It's an apprenticeship.

Looked at another way, why was Gore qualified to handle presidential emergencies? The VP has no executive duties whatsoever. The president doesn't even have to talk to the VP.

Whatever executive experience Gore gained in 8 years as VP was due to his being proximate, and consulted, and advising at Bill Clinton's request. Bill chose to involve Gore, and he chose to involve Hillary.

Both were there for 8 years involved in everything that went on. An neither one of them had an official role in what went on... they were Bill's trusted advisers and confidants.

That counts for something.

[SKKY]

27. Do you think she planned all along to be president?

I haven't read that anywhere, but I certainly wouldn't discount the possibility.

[LisaL]

32. Would that be a bad thing?

Someone who knows what she wants?

[SKKY]

34. Did I say it was a bad thing? I just hadn't read that anywhere...

...I think it's fantastic when someone, not a she or a he, but someone who knows what they want.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

84. Maybe not president, but she has a keen interest in government

Smart people learn about things from being around them. Dumb people don't.

Obama is smart. If he ends up as Vice President he will absorb everything about the office.

[razors edge]

75. Correct me if I'm wrong but

wasn't Gore elected into an actual office with all the responsibilities that come with that?

President of the Senate, first elected to office in 1977, father spent almost three decades as an elected representative.

Was Hillary subject to impeachment, or any other punishment for doing a bad job of looking over Bill's shoulder?

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

86. The point is that the VP has no *executive* duties

He/she is the president of the senate and that's it.

There have been VPs who barely spoke to the president, were not consulted about anything, and weren't even let in the white house excepts for ceremonies.

So a VP could spend 8 years without learning a thing about what the President does.

Hillary certainly did not have executive responsibility, but neither did Gore.

That said, I liked Gore in 1988 and thought he was plenty prepared to be president, but I have no doubt that Gore was better prepared to be president in 2000 than in 1992. (Or 1988)

Looking over the president's shoulder isn't everything, but it isn't nothing.

And Hillary had the same role of closet-adviser for 10 years in Arkansas, so she's been proximate to executive-mode thinking for a long time.

[razors edge]

91. I don't deny that her experience exists,

I am just not comfortable with the way it is compared to the experience of an elected representative.

Maybe she learned everything not to do, and everything to do, and would be the best president we ever had. I would be fine with that.

But to make the comparison of experience as an onlooker vs a player in the game doesn't ring true to me.

She was not a cabinet member, nor did she have any accountability to the American people or the process. Maybe Bill told her every detail of those meetings afterward from memory but as humans we do make judgments on the advice given to us by looking the adviser in the eye when they say what they say. She does not have the experience of being in the hot seat, listening to others and deciding who was right or wrong and then making the decisions on the course of action that would take place. with the resulting responsibly that comes from being the person who makes the decisions.

To make matters worse, any advice she gave Bill could be kept confidential without recourse due to their relationship. Maybe she gave him good advice, maybe she didn't, we will never know. No judge could force him to testify against her, so none would ever try.

So she heard about it all second hand, and the decisions had already been made on what would happen. Her input would have been too little too late, without consequence, and unheard by the cabinet members during the discussion. Or, she influenced the president beforehand and prejudiced his decisions.

Either way it is not the type of experience I prefer in a presidential candidate.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

94. I agree with all of that. The only reason she's running on experience is that

I agree with all of that. The big reason she's running on experience is that her opponent is the least experienced serious presidential candidate in 150 years.

That's not a knock on Obama's personal qualities. It's just a fact.

(JFK had been in congress and the senate, and had fought with distinction, and been wounded, in WWII. Fighting in WWII is not government resume experience, but it's profound life experience.)

And something that's over-looked in the experience thing is that simply living is experience. A 45 year old is somewhat inexperienced by presidential standards simply because he hasn't had as many experiences, no matter his resume.

Compared to someone like Biden or Gore, she has little experience. Compared to Obama she has a lot. So she runs with what she has.

(And more importantly, she is PERCEIVED as experienced by voters.)

If she somehow ends up running against McCain her message will be change, not experience.

[razors edge]

99. Unfortunately, many of her detractors

know she is only playing a game on the uncaring masses and that she will abandon this whole experience thing like a pair of worn underwear if she gets the nomination, she will have to or McCain will wipe the floor with her over it.

They don't care for the inevitable bait and switch as they know that it is only to be followed by another switch after her next victory.

I can't say I do either, the game is getting old. At this point I think a new face is less likely to be influenced by the old Kremlin guard (K-street) and more likely to push actual change.

If experience and change were possible, we would all (Dem and Rep) have given Kucinich and Paul a better shake.

If Hillary gets it, the only change will be who's hogs get fed first at ye ole public feed trough.

[Fredda Weinberg]

30. I lived here in the wake of 9/11. She became, in reality, our senior

senator. First responders remember how she was there for them, making sure they had benefits for their brave service.

Yup, we knew her under fire and appreciate her performance as senator.

As first lady - well, who knows what she witnessed, but it was more than Obama.

[SKKY]

33. Ok, now see. That's a valid point, and one I haven't considered...

...I greatly appreciate your input. So far, you're the only HRC supporter who has actually taken the time to post a thoughtful response. :yourock: And since I'm a veteran, I give you this. :patriot:

[ClassWarrior]

35. So do you think Obama would have done any different in the same circumstances?

NGU.

[SKKY]

37. I don't think so, but HRC does deserve props for whatever she did...

...during 9/11. I'm not taking anything away from her on that.

[ClassWarrior]

38. I agree, but part of your question was how does this distiguish...

...between the two candidates. And that's why I asked the poster to clarify.

NGU.

[SKKY]

41. Ok. I got it now.

Thanks. :hi:

[OzarkDem]

46. Doesn't matter

She's already learned the ropes, he hasn't. President isn't a job for the inexperienced. We've already had enough of that.

[SKKY]

51. Well, hold on. Bill Clinton had no experience...

...and he was, by all accounts, an excellent President.

[usrbs]

69. He was a Governor! n/t

[SKKY]

71. He was. But he beat an incumbent president...

...and I don't remember "experience" being the deciding factor.

[ClassWarrior]

66. What ropes? "Making sure they had benefits for their brave service?"

What Senator doesn't do that on a daily basis?

NGU.

[Fredda Weinberg]

93. Put it this way ... I've known Chuck Schumer almost his whole life and he ain't

HRC. I literally adore the man, but he deferred in the wake of the disaster and followed. This is her leadership.

Does Obama have that? Don't know. But based on what I've seen ... it's a rare trait and I'm proud to have been an early supporter of her candidacy for president. That's why we invited her to NYS and why I campaigned on her behalf.

We gave her the opportunity. She served a full term as promised. I can state this: Obama did not keep his word.

As far as I'm concerned, that's a minimum standard. So no, I don't think they're equal in character.

[OzarkDem]

43. Excellent example

She did more than anyone for NYC after 9/11 and had to push Bush and the GOP hard to get it done.

[FrenchieCat]

36. We all have question, but the biased media is just now getting to even

acting like that might be a question.

Clinton's '35 years of change' omits most of her career: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/26377.html

How Hillary Clinton Betrayed the Children's Defense Fund for Political Gain: http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/editorblog/034

[SKKY]

39. And that's the basis of my question. She's touting her experience...

...but I'm not seeing anything that justifies it. And Obama doesn't really have the experience either, but he's not running on his "experience". To me, this whole experience non-sense is a wash for both of them. I only started thinking about this when Big Dog called her a "World Class change-maker".

[OzarkDem]

40. I'm familiar with her experience

working on quite a few health issues and legislation during Bill's term of office. She helped advance a large,comprehensive and influential agenda on a women's health issue during that time and I know firsthand that she personally worked on developing most of it and supervised it all the way. When it came time for implementation, she worked with her husband to help us move it through Congress. She was always in the loop and took care of any problem that came up.

It involved about 8 years of work with several major bills passed or enacted through Executive Privelege and she supervised it with Bill the whole way. They really did work as a team. It resulted in over $2 billion in research funding (to date), access to Medicaid for hundreds of thousands of critically ill women, and access to clinical trials coverage for every Medicare beneficiary in the US - all still going on today.

That's just one instance. I'm sure there were many others besides the project I worked on, but this is one I can speak to firsthand.

[SKKY]

44. Thank you for that.

That's certainly non-trivial.

[OzarkDem]

55. Thanks!

From that experience and what I've seen her do since being in the Senate, I can comfortably say she will be able to do a good job of turning the country around immediately. She isn't going to need any on the job training, just getting up to date on the mess Bush has left her.

I also think she would be able to put together a good, experienced cabinet very quickly and get a good transition program in place. She's very efficient, focused and knowledgeable and has great connections.

[SKKY]

59. I would have to give her the "networking" nod...

...she's certainly been there long enough to "learn the ropes" and know the right people. Although, I'm sure BO is doing a great deal of catch-up right now.

[OzarkDem]

77. Getting to know foreign leaders and earning their trust

is going to be hard, uphill climbing for a new person after the debacle of the Bush/Cheney foreign policy. It will take a lot longer for Obama, and flowery rhetoric won't be enough.

While we shouldn't let our allies determine our leaders, they at least deserve to have someone in office they know they can work with and trust from day one. Say what you will about Bill and Hillary Clinton, but they are trusted and admired by the international community.

[ClassWarrior]

81. All Senators know foreign leaders. As for which Senators they trust...

...you're simply speculating.

NGU.

[OzarkDem]

89. No speculation

Bill Clinton (and his wife who worked behind the scenes) was and is respected by our allies. He did more than any modern president to help bring about peace in the world.

[ClassWarrior]

105. Ahhh, she has experience being a wife. True, Barack doesn't have that...

:rofl:

NGU.

[Armstead]

50. That is not the same as dealing with an international crisis

Specifically what is comparable to the situation depicted in that ad?

[OzarkDem]

70. No, but I think she could handle it well

First, she has connections. She knows the international leaders, all of whom know and respect both her and her husband.

Remember, Bill left office with a lot of goodwill and respect for the US from world leaders. They liked and trusted him and worked really well with him. Many of them felt very betrayed by Bush (who wouldn't?). All the allies Bill developed hate Bush, but don't hate the US. Bill and Hillary have both kept in contact with these leaders and still have their respect and trust.

I have no doubt that if Hillary wins and takes office, there will be a very quick turnaround in our relations with foreign leaders and the old alliances among countries will be restored. That alone will go a long way towards bringing ME problems under control. Trust and cooperation mean everything and international relations will cool down, since Bush/Cheney deliberately keep stirring the pot.

Don't think for a minute Bill and Hillary haven't also been keeping track of terrorist activities. Bill did a great job of keeping terrorism under control during his administration, in spite of the problems with the FBI, CIA and military. The first thing Bush and Cheney did was dismantle Bill's terrorist tracking operation (go back and read Clarke's testimony). Everyone in DC has learned some hard lessons since then and hopefully, the key players will be more willing to cooperate, once the Bush riff raff in key agencies and department are sent packing.

But if Obama wins, he's an unknown quantity to all those international leaders and key players in Washington. We'll go through brutal times while he does his on the job training and works to develop respect and trust among allies. That doesn't happen overnight. His foreign policy team isn't that great, not nearly as good as Clinton's. Hillary (and Bill) will have confidence and trust from day one.

[Armstead]

82. That's a reasonable answer.

I don't agree with it, but it is the kind of response that DU needs to get back on a more even keel.

And if she were to put it that way in her campaign, she would be making her case better.

My disagreement stems from my own belief that she is essentially making a "temprement" argument with this 3 Am message. It is saying that voters should take it on faith that she would handle a crisis better than Obama. Personally, I would trust Obama's intellect and cool tempremant at least as much as I would trust her.

I also believe that if he were the nominee and were to be elected, Obama would have his pick of the same quality of suppoting talent that Hillary would. Also, the composition of the world leadership has changed since the Clintons were in office. Obama may have a somewhat longer period of getting his legs, but I believe he could get up to speed on the world stage very quickly too.

P.S.(And yes I am guilty of doing my share of rocking the boat here to some extent. Everyone's nerves are raw.)

[ClassWarrior]

68. That's cool. Where's her crisis moment in that?

NGU.

[OzarkDem]

74. See the post about 9-11

and see my post above about the advantages of having a husband and wife team who still have the respect, trust and cooperation of world leaders. Those people can't stand Bush and Obama is an unkown quantity to them.

In an emergency, you have to be able to rely not just on the US military, but on your allies. We don't have many allies right now, but they will come back when they know they can work with a president (and co-president) who they know and trust.

Remember when 9-11 happened, the first thing every Dem wished for was to have Bill Clinton back in office, leading things. This will be the next best thing and there's no team out there who is better prepared than the two of them.

[ClassWarrior]

80. Then answer post #66...

And I didn't wish to have Bill Clinton back in office on 9/11. I wished President Gore had taken his rightful place.

NGU.

[lumberjack_jeff]

52. Because her answer to the caller won't be a vaguely inspirational cliche?

Just guessing. :shrug:

[MessiahRp]

56. This is an excellent question

It also points out the difficulties in taking credit for all aspects of experience.

If we're only to count Obama's time in the Senate, then we should only count Hillary's. Before her time in the Senate she had no legislative experience whatsoever and the only actual policy post she handled was the blundered Health Care plan.

If she decides to claim the 8 years as First Lady as qualified experience then she should get credit for every negative or policy failure that occured under Bill's terms in office as well as any positive she might hope to borrow. That means NAFTA is all hers.

If we are to write off Obama's experience before being an elected official than so too should hers go to the wayside and that probably would be good for her because she has experience as a public defender that is less than flattering while he worked for poor people.

I personally feel his State Legislative experience is more hands on and should count as much or more than Hillary's time as first lady where she was not responsible directly for any of her stances or positions and did not have the same political burden that Bill had.

Experience is a tricky thing but Hillary supporters need to be careful to not just write off Obama's because it suits them better.... after all, Hillary has a lot of negatives that could and maybe should be counted as well.

Rp

[midora]

58. Because if Any SOB Had the Nerve to Call Her at 3 a.m....

she'd tell them where to go.

[elixir]

76. It beats Obama's 4 eards in the Illinois legislature and 1 year as a senator (he spent the rest

campaigning).

[SKKY]

78. Again, I'm not saying Obama is any more experienced....

...I'm just wondering why she's campaigning on her "experience", when there doesn't appear to be all that much. But, several posters have pointed out things that do indeed show she has taken on some initiatives and turned them into something valid.

[grantcart]

79. with Obama's big delegate haul today his magic number dropped to 466

All he needs before the convention is to win 46% of the remaining delegates

[WDIM]

83. No answers?

I read all of the replies didn't see any viable answers just do your research. Well why don't you do the research for ALiberalSailor and tell us! Because I've been wondering the same thing.

The fact is she doesn't have anything that makes her more qualified then Barack or any new president. There is a reason there is 2 months between the election and the swearing in. Also there is a reason President's don't do all the work themselves.

But if Hillary follows the same failed foreign policies as her husband expect many more terrorist attacks to come.

As explained by Noam Chomsky in 2006

http://www.pbs.org/now/news/239-transcript.html

And what specialists have pointed out, years ago, is that Clinton himself acted in ways which increased the threat of terror. So take, say, the 1998 bombings of the Sudan and Afghanistan, well I know Sudan was—we don't pay much attention to it but people in the rest of the world, certainly the third world do, it was very destructive.

If you destroyed half the pharmaceutical production in the United States, we'd think it's a pretty serious problem. In fact, we'd probably go to war. Well, that's what he did. And it had a lot of effects. We don't pay attention to it.

Afghanistan, what happened is that relations between al Qaeda and the Taliban, which previously were pretty cool; the Taliban didn't like 'em much, they didn't want another source of authority in their country, and they never did like the Arabs—relations got much closer as a result of the bombing. Clinton did the same in 1998.

The sort of technical question that was discussed, how hard did he try to kill Osama bin Laden, well, you know, we can have our own opinions on that, but it's kind of a side question. The real question is what are we doing to undermine the support for the terrorist movements.

I mean, look terrorists regard themselves as a vanguard. They are trying to carry out actions which they portray as a response to grievances. And the grievances are often real. And they are trying to mobilize the population to support them, to join them.

Well, the rational way to deal with this is to look at the grievances that they are brining up, which the population feels, and address them, and undermine their base of support and isolate them.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

85. Bill Clinton. That's what she's indirectly referring to. nt

[Tennessee Gal]

87. 8 years as a Senator is far better than 2

8 years living in the White House is far better than 0

Edit to add: Fulfilling a promise to serve a full term as a Senator before pursing the Presidency is far better than not fulfilling that promise.

[berni_mccoy]

98. Obama has 13 YEARS as an ELECTED OFFICIAL. She has 7.

[Tennessee Gal]

102. Oh, yeah.

Ok. In 1997 Barack Obama was elected to the Illinois Senate.

Hillary Clinton went to work for the Children's Defense Fund in 1973.

Where was Barack in 1973?

Hillary Clinton in 1974 was a member of the impeachment inquiry staff in Washington, D.C., advising the House Committee on the Judiciary during the Watergate scandal.

Where was Barack in 1974?

In August 1974, Hillary became one of two female faculty members in the School of Law at the University of Arkansas, Fayetteville.

Where was Barack in August 1974?

Hillary Clinton co-founded the Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families, a state-level alliance with the Children's Defense Fund, in 1977. In late 1977, President Jimmy Carter appointed her to the board of directors of the Legal Services Corporation. She served in that capacity from 1978 until the end of 1981. For much of that time she served as the chair of that board, the first woman to do so. During her time as chair, funding for the Corporation was expanded from $90 million to $300 million, and she successfully battled against President Ronald Reagan's initial attempts to reduce the funding and change the nature of the organization.

Where was Barack during that time?

Hillary became First Lady of Arkansas in January 1979, her title for a total of twelve years (1979–1981, 1983–1992).

Where was Barack during that time?

Shall I go on?

[Tennessee Gal]

103. Barack Obama was born in 1961.

Hillary Clinton went to work for the Children's Defense Fund in 1973 when Barack was 12 years old. Do you really want to have a discussion about experience?

[ClassWarrior]

106. "Clinton Betrayed the Children's Defense Fund for Political Gain"...

...according to the woman she calls her mentor, Marian Wright Edelman:

AMY GOODMAN: Marian Wright Edelman, we just heard Hillary Rodham Clinton. She used to be the head of the board of the Children’s Defense Fund, of the organization that you founded. But you were extremely critical of the Clintons. I mean, when President Clinton signed off on the, well, so-called welfare reform bill, you said, “His signature on this pernicious bill makes a mockery of his pledge not to hurt children.” So what are your hopes right now for these Democrats? And what are your thoughts about Hillary Rodham Clinton?

MARIAN WRIGHT EDELMAN: Well, you know, Hillary Clinton is an old friend, but they are not friends in politics. We have to build a constituency, and you don’t—and we profoundly disagreed with the forms of the welfare reform bill, and we said so. We were for welfare reform, I am for welfare reform, but we need good jobs, we need adequate work incentives, we need minimum wage to be decent wage and livable wage, we need health care, we need transportation, we need to invest preventively in all of our children to prevent them ever having to be on welfare.

http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/editorblog/034

NGU.

[knixphan]

95. people outside washington

Have a different paradigm burned into their heads regarding 'experience' (as it relates to the jobs they hold)... and they try to apply that to the POTUS position. However I don't think that's an apples-apples comparison...

The same way a masters degree isn't really that much of an issue for a painter's success.

Very few of us are close enough to the beltway to really understand what it would take to run the exec branch...

But people still have to chime in with 'something'... so the 'experience' idea gets thrown around by the two senior candidates and their supporters, and the reform flag is held by the younger crowd.

[johnnydrama]

101. experience

I'm on a board, where somebody brought up the fact that the 3 senator's in the race have barely been in Washington the last year, and shouldn't they be their doing their job instead of racing around the country.

You know what the typical answer was. GOOD. They can do less harm when they're not there.

This is what most people think about Congress.

The fact is both have a lot of experience on different things.

The fact also is that neither Clinton or Obama have "North Korea is amassing troops on the border of South Korea" experience.

That's why the 3a.m. ad is a joke.