The Curious Math of Hillary's "35 Years of Experience"

Hillary Clinton keeps talking about her 35 years of experience. "I am offering 35 years of experience making change," she said in New Hampshire. "I'm not just running on a promise of change, I'm running on 35 years of change." And she repeatedly mentioned the 35 years again in this week's debate in Las Vegas.

Well, Senator Clinton, I'm confused. I've done the math. You're 60, which means that 35 years ago you were 25. And I Googled your name, looking for all the change you were making as a 25 year old and, frankly, I'm not finding much. You were going to Yale Law School at the time -- which I'm sure was a personally transformative experience, but it's hardly the kind of change that should count on one's Presidential Training Experience resume, is it? Is that when you started your personal Working-for-Change-O-Meter?

That summer, the summer of 1972, you campaigned in Texas for George McGovern's unsuccessful presidential bid. A worthy -- if ultimately futile -- endeavor to be sure, but a notch on your Years of Change belt? Kind of a stretch, don't you think?

But as liberal as you are with your Experience Arithmetic, you are awfully stingy when it comes to the experience and background of Barack Obama.

"He was a part-time state senator for a few years," you recently said of Obama, "and then he came to the Senate and immediately started running for president," she said. "And that's his prerogative. That's his right. But I think it is important to compare and contrast our records."

For starters, the state senate in Illinois is not a full-time job, but you make it sound like he was some kind of political temp worker, just filling in when someone called in sick. But leaving that aside, why is it that you get to count your time canvassing for McGovern as working for change, but Obama's time as a community organizer and public housing advocate aren't worthy of mention? And what about his time at Harvard Law (where he was the first black president in the history of the Harvard Law Review)? Doesn't count? But your time at Yale Law does? In the now immortal words of your husband: Give me a break.

I know you are good person who is devoted to public service. But that doesn't absolve you of the responsibility to not distort your record. And to not distort the record of your opponent.

Your 35 years talking point just doesn't add up.

Comments

[Dajo]

Ari said,

"""That summer, the summer of 1972, you campaigned in Texas for George McGovern's unsuccessful presidential bid. A worthy -- if ultimately futile -- endeavor"""


What sort of curious math? Her work on the campaign surely qualifies?

She does indeed have 35 years of Experience. She clearly is well more qualified a candidate than Obama. GET OVER IT !

[Tankan]

Just as Bill played his own Sexyphone!

Hillary's blowing her own trumpet!

Both of them should be on the street corner playing for nickel's and dimes!

[JHough1]

Hillary needs to talk more about all her experience. She was a leader in the Goldwater movement and opposed Lyndon Johnson at the time Goldwater opposed the civil rights act and won Alabama and Mississippi because of it. She also needs to talk about her and the governor's role in Arkansas when it was one of the few key states not to ratify the ERA.

[paleryder]

Come on, already. She's done more to try to DO something than either Obama or Edwards. She has more "balls" than anyone currently in the federal govt as an elected official.

[Jarhead63]

When you say Sen. Obama's State Sen. career was only a part-time job and even then voted present many times, it makes his resume only thinner. It pales in comparison to Sen. Clinton's experience.

[ndolomar]

please explain to me how barack obama played the "race card." based on everything i've read and seen in the mainstream and underground, the only time race has been at the forefront, the instigation has come from the media equating a reference to mlk as "hrc is anti-black" or via an apology from hrc's camp to obama for something he didn't respond to in the first place. while it may be hard for die-hard clinton supporters to believe, two things stand out as very -- nee, most likely, possible:

1) the MSM recognizes obama's popularity and needs a way to "remind" the public that he's black. what better way to do it than to inflate any innocuous statement by ANY candidate by turning it into a "race issue." this absolves the corporate media of being the bad guy who's attacking the black candidate because they're reporting that someone else did. it accomplishes the same thing -- "remember, people, he IS black, after all." look at this tiger woods nonsense. race suddenly has become a very popular front-page item across all industries. the msm has an odd knack for keeping it in the news.

2) HRC can't come right out and say, "don't vote for him, because he's black." therefore, i strongly believe the clinton camp decided it was worth the risk to take a gamble by saying things that clearly anyone who knows MSM knows could and WOULD be misconstrued, and figured they could "apologize" afterward for the "mistake." accomplishes the same thing as no. 1. "remember, people, he IS black, after all." in the interim, hrc can just blame her supporters or the media for making an "issue" out of it. and, yes, it STILL keeps "race" in the news.

[ndolomar]

so, here's what it appears to be: the promise of change is dismissal of the politics of fear; dismissal of lying/secretive policies; gov't policy that benefits a select few. then, please explain to me why: hrc and co. are adopting rovian techniques of "we're not saying obama's bad, but if he's nominated, be afraid of another terrorist attack/republican president/economic hardship"; why she's perpetuating the "i have 35 (oddly tabulated) years' experience myth; why she possesses a voting record that has benefited in some cases, the privleged few and has strong ties to large corporations (apparently the "bad guy" in this election year)? it'd be nice if hillary fans could tear themselves away from blind adoration long enough to vet her record. not saying they won't still support her; but, at least they'd be posting thorough facts, not carefully abridged ones.

[dsigeorge]

Very good Ari. You're pretty smart aren't you! It's about time we all began closely dissecting H. Clinton's talking points and calling her on the many misrepresentations (I'm being kind here) she spews forth. She is not good for our country and I doubt if she'll be re-elected in the great state of NY after the undressing she undergoes in this campaign. Please, please, please send her back to Arkansas from whence she wandered and lets get on with healing this country.

[Duncan]

Change just means you are doing something different. It does not mean it is a good thing.

Rather than change, I'd like to see stuff being scraped, or outlawed. Like outlaw lobbyists. Scrap the IRS and Fed Reserve. Scrap half of the government.

Change of existing stuff is bad.

[miguelobrien]

i am going to ask steve benson to create a cartoon, if he has not already, with hillary as a bus driver with the classic coin changer machine hanging in front of her wall street belly. am i the only one in this world who heard her declare all of her change making history.

actually, a rude joke about a steet walker just popped into my mind. you all can get it: go go boots, mini skirt, change maker.

why this is not funny is about the hypocrisy, which is what gets one elected. she uses the same white house talking points language. am i the only one who has noticed? hard work, going forward. make your own list.

find the photos of her and babs, bill and george in family drag. then google "bilderberg" go to russertwatch on huffington post. get data on 9/11. find out who prospered. 'nough said.

[miguelobrien]

I suggest that you all avail yourselves of an interview with Chalmers Johnson [UCTV} in which he declares that Bill did more to extend U.S. imperialism than both Bushes.

And, by the way, he expresses regret for not going into Rwanda, say that Hillary would have, but does not say why he did not.

For your answers to all of the above, google "bilderber­g+clinton"

[miguelobrien]

All right. Someone is finally asking some pertinent questions. The one I can't seem to understand the avoidance of, since here campaign deigns to bring it up, is simply this: Did Hillary ever use drugs? They asked Bill and he answered in the most tortured, idioc yet politally successful way ever invented.

Read her Wellesley letter about sitting at a stolen table in dirty bell bottoms. Find some photos of the couple in hippie drag and tell me that a girl from the North Shore would ever brag about wearing dirty clothes without mind-altering chemicals. Or, and even worse, she was the biggest hypocrite on the campus. We knew some of those then and they were the weirdos.

We normal types were having mind-altering experiences. Anyone out there honest enough to remember?

[Roose]

I think part of those 35 years was doing opposition research on Bill's babes and then sending out surrogates to perform the character assassination.

[nefariouschafe]

I suspect Hillary's experience-o-meter was accidentally set to dog years...an­d ever since she realized that mistake, as with everything else, she was too stubborn to admit it.

Experience matters in that it typically yields sound judgment, but Obama has already proven himself light years beyond her in that category.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=mY2jmgwwmFk

[Bondaroid]

Hillary's main experience is being the wife of Bill, now if that is enough to be President that remains to be seen. She sure can cry on cue can't she. It is an interesting race though, gender against race. And so far Hillary has said that Martin Luther King, with regard to the Civil Rights Act, had his dream realised only because Lyndon Johnson, a President, signed the Civil Rights Act Of 1964. She attempted to minimize Martin Luther Kings role and also forgot to mention it was Republican Senators that forced Johnson's hand into signing the Civil Rights Act. Had it not been for the valiant effort of Dr. King through his leadership and that of the Republicans the Civil Rights Act would not have been signed by Lyndon Johnson.