Well I heard on NPR the other day that a voter in Des Moines, IA is certain that Hilary has more experience than anyone because "If you sleep with a man who has a job, you know all about that job, he talks to you about it." So there you have it.
I actually think there is some truth to that. Technically if Hillary didn't have a clearance she shouldn't have been told about various intelligence matters, but I find it hard to believe that Bill didn't share such things with her.
That being said, I don't think that automatically qualifies one as the most experienced in the field (Bill Richardson and Joe Biden can likely lay claim to that title), but it may help give her the edge over Obama...
"Well I heard on NPR the other day that a voter in Des Moines, IA is certain that Hilary has more experience than anyone because 'If you sleep with a man who has a job, you know all about that job, he talks to you about it.' So there you have it."
Gee, I suppose that means Monica Lewinsky may be qualified to be Attorney-General. . . .
--
I thought that if you became President, you would hire someone who has foreign policy experience and tell him or her not only to advise you but to make recommendations.
The question is, what is Hillary's vision? A return to the past or does she have foresight? That's what I want to know.
I'd vote for anyone who said they were going to de-militarize the State Department and fire John Negroponte and Elliott Abrams.
This is a fascinating question, Peter, and I'm glad that you've brought it up. In thinking about this issue, I often remember the role that Howard Dean's wife, Dr. Judith Steinberg Dean, refused to play in the 2004 election (see this great Salon article).
In a way, the issue itself is slightly dated, in that some but not all of the careers that were more explicitly "two-for-one", such as diplomacy, have made real efforts to recognize unpaid but essential spousal labor, and that not every spouse wants to play that role. If private entertaining, for example, is an integral part of diplomacy, than the person who manages that entertaining should draw a State department salary! Likewise, a number of states have begun to insist upon the need for receiving states to provide work visas for trailing spouses.
As the one main wage earner household continues to decline, perhaps we will see less of the issue--with the possible exception of military spouses, who still often face a number of notable barriers (mobility, base life, stints of single parenthood) to independent careers. Feminists in IR have, of course, had a lot to say on this issue. As always, I recommend Cynthia Enloe as a starting point.
All that said, how ought we evaluate Hillary's experience as a first lady? As has already been pointed out, she can clearly connect with foreign leaders on an appropriate level (as opposed to groping them or seeking signs of their soul while looking in their eyes). She has real and important experience and skills on the international stage, which will be crucial in rebuilding the US's image and position. This is all assuming that her policies would be less hawkish and right wing than they have appeared lately, which may not be a safe assumption.
She has similar domestic experience as a spouse involved in both politics and policy making. These are comparable to Barack Obama's experiences in the state legislature and even perhaps community organizing, so that might be a wash, with the caveat that the state and the national level likely have important difference of scale, and so Hillary might be ahead of Barack on that learning curve.
This is all a bit rambly, but I'll point out finally that, ironically, it is actually Hillary's experience and ties to the DLC that most concern me about her candidacy. The Clinton power node is not one that I personally wish to see regain prominence among the Dems, and so one can say that I take her experience very seriously, and I'm not thrilled with what it portends.
Commenting by HaloScan.com
