The Michelle Obama "Experience"

One last observation from Iowa this week. At a late afternoon rally in Des Moines on Wednesday, Michelle Obama bit into critics who toss around words like "inexperienced" when they describe her husband. She's said most of this before, but it was striking, all the same.

"This experience question is funny to me when we live in a country where [people say that] someone with the background of Barack Obama doesn't have experience.... the only thing he doesn't have is years in Washington."

She continues: "He's one of the only candidates who has experience organizing on the ground."

And then she admonishes the crowd: "Don't let anybody talk about inexperience, especially on this side!"

The questions aren't out of bounds, and they won't be. HIllary Clinton's campaign argument is predicated on her promixity to executive experience and unmistakably draws a contrast with Obama's lack of executive experience.

When Barack and Michelle Obama say "experience," they mean experience with hardship, experience with diverse ranges of people, experiece derived from broad educational background, experience with community organizing and poverty law, experience with state politics, and experience with legislating. They draw Obama's life experiences into this picture, too.

Hillary Clinton primarily means "executive" experience -- how to set up a White House, how to negotiate with Congress, how to interact with world leaders, how to synthesize information, how to manage people.

Comments

You can have Washington, inside some building, experience in dealing with other countries or you can have personal experience with this.
You can talk to all the experts you want but, you run the risk of having that so called experience be given to you thru the eyes of people like the neocons.
Obama has personal experience in dealing with different cultures and countries. he's lived it.
He doesn't get theories but, real world experience.
Which kind will be the better to prepare someone for dealing with and understanding and respecting other countries and cultures.

Posted by vwcat | July 6, 2007 9:47 AM

I will argue that if experience is defined as the proximity to the white house by virture of being the wife of a president, then I think Barbara Bush has more experience and should be the president. The country is seriously wounded by forces of division and polarization. Hillary will tear this country apart if she becomes the president. She is not a bad person but she is least wanted at this time for America.

Posted by Amos Ajo | July 6, 2007 10:15 AM

The experience question is really a red herring. It is the last straw that the Clinton campaign has to hang on Obama's back and distract from the prospect for real change. Bill was a great politician in his time, but the Clintons are now just 'same old, same old' Washington politics.

Does America want an authentic leader, honed in the mean streets and not in the "hallowed halls"? Does America want character based on integrity and living by fundamental principles, of on pardons for donors and condemnation of right-wing conspiracies while cozying up to Rupert Murdoch.

No one knows Barack Obama better than Michelle. These are people whose lives are built on truth, not lies. Unfortunately for the Clintons, Obama is authentic, the real deal. So they will have a hard time bumping him off. It will be a very interesting campaign.

Posted by wizinit | July 6, 2007 10:52 AM

Has anyone in the mainstream media done a study on whether HRC's kind of experience makes a difference? (Same for Obama's kind of experience.)

Also, speaking as a woman here, if HRC gets to claim that her proximity to the WH via her husband gives her unique experience, then, does she still get to claim the woman's movement mantle for her candidacy? Doesn't this make many of her endorsements less impressive as it could easily be said that she got them because of long-standing ties between her husband and (insert name of endorsee). We already know he's been twisting arms. Now, I don't begrudge Bill Clinton doing these things for his wife, but the media and pundits should ask tough questions about these issues. More questions that should be asked... if HRC is so experienced, then, why did she get the Iraq War Resolution wrong (in the eyes of Dem primary voters)? In other words, how has her experience in the WH helped her already as a Senator get things done? There are questions to be asked... whether she can claim her time in the WH as 'experience,' and whether it's helped her be a leader so far. So how much was she aware of what was going on in the WH when she was first lady? If she gets to claim the experience, doesn't she also own the negatives from the Clinton WH? How involved was she with the good and the bad parts of the Clinton WH? There are a whole can of worms that should be opened up.

And really any of these things: "how to set up a White House, how to negotiate with Congress, how to interact with world leaders, how to synthesize information, how to manage people." aren't skills that you get only from being in the WH before. Obama's interacted with world leaders (see trips to Africa, Russia, etc.) Edwards has met with Blair amongst others. She apparently didn't synthesize information very well in 2002, and she had the benefit of "WH experience" then. Managing people... it could be said that Obama's experiences give him those people skills. For Edwards, he did run his poverty center and foundation, and has done lots of volunteer work. Negotiating with Congress... maybe I'm being naive here, but coming from Congress could help with negotiations with Congress once one's in the WH. Setting up a WH is a whole other story, and really the only one HRC can claim... but that's something where a lot of the work is delegated.

The truth is that both kinds of experiences matter a lot... the question is what have they learned? How have they used their experiences and synthesized them into their own political careers? What kind of skills are inate, and what have to be learned?

Obama's experience claims are much easier for him to claim/defend. He's got a lot of people from his work as a professor, community organizer, etc. backing him and speaking on his behalf.

Posted by Newsie8200 | July 6, 2007 11:00 AM

If Clinton means executive experience, its worth noting she has none. She's never been elected to an executive position. To the best of my knowledge she's never held an executive position in any company. Zippy, zero, nada, zilch.

Posted by PLM | July 6, 2007 11:12 AM

What kind of executive experience Hillary has? She's been a lawyer, a first lady, and a senator. Where is the executive experience?

Posted by ogboubli | July 6, 2007 11:41 AM

> HIllary Clinton's campaign argument is
> predicated on her promixity to executive
> experience and unmistakably draws a contrast
> with Obama's lack of executive experience.

"Proximity to executive experience." I love the careful phrasing.

Monica Lewinsky had proximity to executive experience too, but I don't see her running for president.

Posted by goethean | July 6, 2007 12:39 PM

"Synthesize information"? You mean like synthesizing the bounty of reports and warnings that Sadam Hussein didn't have weapons of mass destruction...that he was only posturing to keep his enemies at bay? Without the decades of Washington, DC experience, how in the world did then state senator Obama managed to give specific details of how the invasion of Iraq would fail and Senator with all of her "Washington" experience and proximity to power managed to be manipulated by Bush's lies.

Posted by Dee of VA | July 6, 2007 12:41 PM

I agree with Amos: Being "proximate" to executive experience is not the same as actually having it. Sportswriters spend much of their lives hanging around ballplayers, but I'm not sure you'd want many of them playing on your team. Wives of comedians aren't necessarily funny, wives of movies stars can't necessarily act, and I don't think anyone would have been thrilled having Mrs. Christiaan Barnard perform their heart surgery, no matter how many times she may have seen her husband do it.

The fact is, the sum total of Hilary's experience as an ELECTED official is about two years more in the Senate than Obama. Hardly the kind of thing to hang a campaign on.

Posted by Fred App | July 6, 2007 1:19 PM

To learn about the kind of experience that Hillary Clinton has earned so far, just go to see the movie SICKO by Michael Moore. You will see there that she, HILLARY, has not hesitated, for a moment, to sell her soul and this country to people who gives orders in Washington now. What they call "experience" is part of the corruption that has existed in Washington as long as they both have been in the White House. There, she lived, for so long, quietly, placing herself like a chameleon according to her personal interest. How can we believe that Hillary and her cronies will, all of a sudden, see things differently? Hillary and her husband are a pair of negative ambitious couple that rely a great deal on dirty politics. Is this the so called “experience” that Hillary says that she has that can beat any other candidate? Not so. Only her campaign paid employees and naive followers can believe so. Hillary will be worst than Bush and will only use "her experience" not to upset anything that is already in place. This may be the reason why now, she is making empty promises to the limited audience she is able to pull. What else do Bill and Hillary Clinton want? They look to me more like insatiable crows that only want power for power sake for their personal gain. They both represent the old corrupt stablishment we need to get rid of before this country falls apart further. Any other democrat candidate is better. Each look and appear more real and honest than this phony, boring couple.

This couple already have had a chance of two terms to transform and do all that she is trying to convey to unimformed voters, by copying Barack Obama textually in most cases. Our real hero then is BARACK OBAMA! He is the person of the new, fresh, bright, and original ideas for real needed change, for the benefit of this country and its people. We need to support new candidates that will actually start cleaning up much of what goes against this country.

Posted by BF | July 6, 2007 1:39 PM

first, as everyone above notes, HRC has no executive experience at all. Bill does. And even though she worked as a high profile advisor in the white house her big task was health care, and she failed.

second, if she wants to run on executive experience based on bill's tenure, than she can;t deny she isn't running on the past but for change.

Posted by dag | July 6, 2007 1:43 PM

Using this "proximity" argument, it would seem that Karl Rove is the most experienced to be the GOP nominee and President.

Hillary Clinton does not have executive experience. For her to try to piggy-back onto her husband's is lame and insulting to voters.

Hillary's greatest amount of experience is in using Bill Clinton to further her own aims.

It would be such a great thing for her if she would simply campaign alone and try to earn the White House, rather than lean into the weak legacy of a man who humiliated her and his Party.

Posted by Joe Justice | July 6, 2007 1:59 PM

Two analogies:
1. On HRC
There's a BIG difference between the driver sitting behind the steering wheel of a vehicle and the driver sitting in the passenger seat.

2. On Obama and the state of US politics with regards to washington

The movie: Eastside High

Posted by Kuan | July 6, 2007 4:03 PM

It's ironic that Hillary is hitting this "experience" argument so hard. If voters cared as much about experience as she thinks they do, they would have elected George H. W. Bush to a second term instead of Hillary's husband. Wasn't it Bush who kept talking about the importance of experience, and Clinton who talked about things like hope and change? Has Hillary forgotten that so quickly?

The truth is, people vote for a person, not for a policy paper and not for a resume. The only people who think otherwise are some candidates and political reporters.

Posted by Daniel L. | July 6, 2007 4:27 PM

You can hire the kind of "experience" Hillary is talking about. That's what Clark Clifford was for back in the day, and maybe Leon Paneta nowadays. But the human experience, and the good judgement and instincts that Obama has (who was right on Iraq, back when it mattered? Before it was too late?) you have to bring with you.

Posted by rick | July 6, 2007 4:35 PM

Hillary brings with her a husband who stood in front of the US sincerely lying about Monica and many believed him. She may have forgiven him his betrayal of trust, but what were some of the other ways her husband betrayed those who elected him? By not divorcing him, her "experience" as First Lady counts for nothing. Her husband's executive power was used to pardon her brother for something I no longer recall, doing with bribery and money.

So, she may have the exeperience that, given the power, she can do whatever she chooses. Obama, on the other hand has proven that he serves the people. That is the kind of experience I am looking for in a leader. Tired of corruption in government.

Posted by mary | July 9, 2007 3:47 PM

Before they ever got married, Hillary Rodham and Bill Clinton made a political vow that within 20 years they'd remake the Democratic Party. So, after they got married they focused on getting into the White House. First, he'd get elected; after that, she'd get politically situated, then it'd be her turn.

Fast forward two decades plus later and here they are.........the Clinton campaign behemoth, trying to 'make it happen for her'. To me this says: self - serving, manipulative, ambitious, calculating.

Mrs. Clinton has poor judgement, self-serving instincts, no perception, and highly questionable ethics. Her voting record, personal baggage, co-copted experience, and questionable investments attest to those qualities.

I'm really tired of Mrs. Clinton's personal hubris, personal agenda, and her power hungry appetite. I don't want her in the the White House because I know America can have someone better - Senator Barack Obama.

He's authentic and so's his wife, Michelle Obama. He knows how to serve others, has proven that he can, knows how to lead, and has proven that, too. His speeches tell audiences that he has a lot of good policy ideas, an excellent understanding of international politics, multiculturalism, and diplomacy; his personal history and professional experiences attest to those claims.

Obama's got good instincts, sound judgement, and is perceptive. He believes in a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. He's Americans best hope for UNITY.

(By the way, in Iowa Mrs. Clinton's begun copying Obama on the 'hope' and 'change' message - -sheesh, she's really self-serving.)

I hope Sen. Obama's name heads the Democratic Ticket for '08! He's real, he's ready to lead America forward. He's got vision, passion, and hope: to unite America.

Go, Obama!

Posted by J. Smith | July 9, 2007 11:45 PM

Michelle spoke at a fundraiser in Milwaukee this evening, where she spoke even more about experience and her answer was right on. I do, by the way, believe that years as an organizer, constitutional law professor, civil rights lawyer and state legislator matter a great deal. And I think more importantly, his career displays his values and judgement.

His experience shows excellent judgement, solid values, dedication to people, civil discourse, and thoughtfulness. He has the honesty, integrity, thoughtfulness, inspiration and authenticity so many of us have desired for so long. He doesn't want to play the game, but change the game and most people I know want it changed. We're ready for a new chapter in our history and he has the experience that will take us there.

What exactly is Hilary Clinton's experience that makes her more qualified? Now I can respect that Joe Biden, Chris Dodd and Bill Richardson have more experience with Washington. While I do like Hilary, I question the experience issue because I don't believe she will exercise better judgement than Barack. Who do I trust will hire the best cabinet, inspire them to do what's right and best, and lead our nation in a new direction? I believe that the former community organizer/civil rights lawyer/law professor/state legislator/Senator will lead better than the former private attorney/First Lady of Arkansas/ First Lady of US/Senator.

Let's look at tough moral choices they faced in their careers and who has experience making better judgement...

Posted by Paul | July 9, 2007 11:49 PM