The Ridiculous "Commander-in-Chief" Threshold

So the Clinton folks have decided they have a winner with this "ready at 3am to handle a crisis" business. I dispute Senator Clinton had much more than a ceremonial role when it came to crises in her husband's White House, but let's assume for a moment that she does have the goods here.

What have all these experiences got her? She voted in October 2002 to authorize military force against Iraq, by all measures a poor decision. She voted to saber-rattle Iran with Joe Lieberman in 2007. So the question here should not be one of experience--a new TIME article delves nicely into the complex question--as one can always surround oneself with competent, knowledgable advisors and thinkers. The important thing has got to be judgment, as Presidents often have lacked experience in crisis but done exactly what is necessary (think Abraham Lincoln, and to a lesser extent Bill Clinton himself). That's another thing: this ridiculous argument about experience is straight out of the Republcian playbook. Obama has done such things himself (think the Harry and Louise healthcare mailers), but i think this Clinton one move deserves some consideration.

One of the few things George H.W. Bush had going for him in 1992 was considerable military experience and gravitas. Clinton had zero, and Bush hammered him for it. No one really cared, though, because the economy was in the tank and the Cold War was over, but Clinton himself was forced to respond to this question. At a debate, he said "experience counts, but it's not everything. Values, judgment... should count for something." "Insanity is doing the same old thing over and over again, and expecting a different result." It is contrary to Democratic values and progressive politics to hammer someone over number of years spent in Washington, especially when making the arch-conservative argument about adults needing to protect the children (those of us without years in the White House). We progressives, though, don't value such trivialities. We value courage and good sense. That's why we chose Bill Clinton over George Bush, and that's while we will choose Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton.

Bill Clinton was exactly right. George H.W. Bush had shown he had plenty of experience, and had perhaps handled himself fine when it came to foreign affairs, but had the wrong values and judgment on the economy. HRC says she has the right experience, but not only has it failed her (unlike George H.W. Bush) on the Iraq War, but her values and ideology on foreign policy continue to appear out of touch with the Democratic base and the country at large. My concern with her about Iraq and foreign policy is not just of that October 2002 vote, but her insistence that it was about negotiations (a ridiculous assertion, as the title of the resolution made clear), and her refusal to back away from that sort of foreign policy in the future. Her's would be a continuation of Bush's foreign policy, with slightly more competence. Obama's would be fresh and strong: negotiate with adversaries, actually take action against Al-Qaeda targets in Pakistan. This is an important break from the past, and it's one America needs desperately.