Hark; is that the death knell that I have heard over Senator Clinton's presidential bid? No, it was not, but I was so hoping that it was. Then again, it keeps it interesting. Besides, Hillary has had the stuffing kicked out of her recently and she did bust her hiney for this, so maybe I need to give the devil her due. Besides, this is just the beginning of this process. But there is something that keeps coming up on the campaign trail.
I really should be saving this up for when and if she is nominated, but I have grown oh-so-weary of hearing about Hillary's "experience" in politics. She has served in Congress (yes, the Senate is one of the two Houses of Congress, which some people honestly don't know) for eight years. That's it. Serving as First Lady, regardless of what the mainstream media is feeding us, is not political experience. She was not elected to jack-diddlin'-squat. The role, notice that I did not use the term office, of First Lady is not responsible to anyone for anything. Period. You don't campaign for it and no one votes for you. You just happen to be married to the guy who wins. It's a benefit of marrying the "right" guy all those years ago. So, exactly how is this "experience"? I once vacationed in Omaha (and I loved it there) with a very short trip into Iowa, so does that make me a former Midwesterner? I even went to the former Strategic Air Command Museum, so can I say that I have had military experience?
As Tony Blankley wrote in his blog in November, Hillary, release the records of what she did. As you know, Hillary, the government keeps a lot of records and your name will have to come up at some point, had you done as much as you now claim.[1] And, according to Dick Morris, who was actually there for the Clinton Administration, who even used your book and Bill's book to show how little you had to do with the heavy lifting of the nation's business, Bill doesn't remember your help.[2] Short answer to Mr. Morris' analysis: Not much. And, if she was so involved in the business of the Oval Office, why was she "surprised" when the Lewinsky scandal erupted?
Now, she was indeed elected to the Senate. Big deal! The poster boy for Prell, John Edwards, did that, and somehow from my state. And he couldn't even get re-elected. Clinton, however, was elected for the same reason that Ted Kennedy has a permanent job as the Senator from Massachusetts: the Name Factor. One of my best friends was born and raised in Boston and she told me that voting for the Kennedys is "just something that we all do. We see 'Kennedy' and we vote for them. It's like an involuntary reflex." I personally think it's partly genetic, but I could be wrong. The same thing will hold true for Democrats who are of the "deep blue" variety will always vote for her. She now has something that Presidents don't: job security. Funny how no one is touting these more recent Senate years as her experience, isn't it?
And why would she ever be elected President by these same people? The Name Factor again. These faithful followers of all things Clinton are looking "to get the band back together." In the late eighties, someone in Rolling Stone once wrote that people weren't going to see Paul McCartney and his new band; they were "going to see the Beatles by proxy." I really get that feeling here. Some people are pushing Hillary into the role of President, so that Bill will return to power, as though they have found a way to circumvent the Twenty-Second Amendment. These folks were absolutely giddy at the thought of Wesley Clark, Madeline Albright, and the Clintons appearing together again. From "Don't Stop Thinking about Tomorrow" to what? "Forget about the Future" by Sting, maybe. They could put the "Let's get on with the past" lyric on a loop at their pep rallies.
And this might be a bit off-topic, but as those of you who are only voting for Hillary "because she's a woman," think about it logically: Is that really a qualification for President of the United States? Is there anything else you'd like in a candidate? A certain eye or hair color? Perhaps you'd like them to have a certain amount of syllables in their name or enjoy long walks on the beach and love dogs. Do you care if they prefer crunchy peanut butter to creamy or Coke to Pepsi? Those are not reasons for voting for a candidate. We are selecting leaders, not dates. And don't you realize that voting for her solely because of her gender is as stupid as the opposite, not voting for her for the same reason? But it does make as much sense as backing her because of her "experience."
