|
 |
 |
|
A Lack of Experience vs. A Lack of Trust
-
02/04/08 11:57 AM ET
The Clinton-Obama race has been a fascinating thing to observe from the outside.
That is why Hollywood loves it so.
But as Bill Clinton may have put it, this fairy tale has to come to an end at some point.
Strategically, Obama has been superior to Clinton.
Obama’s biggest vulnerability is his stunning lack of experience.
Three years in the Senate does not make you a worldly world leader.
But Obama has skillfully turned that his inexperience into a plus. His appeal to younger voters — who traditionally don’t care about experience anyway — has been that Washington experience is vastly overrated.
Of course, we aren’t merely talking about Washington experience. We are talking about executive experience of any kind. Walking the streets of Chicago as an organizer is nice, but it doesn’t give you any experience to deal with Vladimir Putin or the communist Chinese.
But Obama says that experience is bad, in a retro nod to the ’60s generation (or as Jack Weinberg used to say, “Don’t trust anybody over 30”).
Clinton’s biggest vulnerability is trust. People just don’t trust her. They think she has a hidden agenda. And how does she respond? By equivocating on issues like immigration and Social Security. By hiding her true agenda. By looking too political.
Clinton made a strategic error when she tried to contrast Obama’s lack of experience with her so-called 35 years of experience fighting for change. She would have been better just highlighting Obama’s stunning lack of experience to be president.
And then she let her husband inject race into the equation, losing any and all of the moral high ground. That spoiled any efforts she could make calling into question Obama’s thin record.
Clinton may still eke out a delegate win, but she will do it in a way that will further confirm to voters that she can’t be trusted. She will try to seat her delegates from Florida and Michigan, sneaking them in when she knows she didn’t win those states fairly.
And that is when the fairy tale will end. It is going to be fun to watch.
That is why Hollywood loves it so.
But as Bill Clinton may have put it, this fairy tale has to come to an end at some point.
Strategically, Obama has been superior to Clinton.
Obama’s biggest vulnerability is his stunning lack of experience.
Three years in the Senate does not make you a worldly world leader.
But Obama has skillfully turned that his inexperience into a plus. His appeal to younger voters — who traditionally don’t care about experience anyway — has been that Washington experience is vastly overrated.
Of course, we aren’t merely talking about Washington experience. We are talking about executive experience of any kind. Walking the streets of Chicago as an organizer is nice, but it doesn’t give you any experience to deal with Vladimir Putin or the communist Chinese.
But Obama says that experience is bad, in a retro nod to the ’60s generation (or as Jack Weinberg used to say, “Don’t trust anybody over 30”).
Clinton’s biggest vulnerability is trust. People just don’t trust her. They think she has a hidden agenda. And how does she respond? By equivocating on issues like immigration and Social Security. By hiding her true agenda. By looking too political.
Clinton made a strategic error when she tried to contrast Obama’s lack of experience with her so-called 35 years of experience fighting for change. She would have been better just highlighting Obama’s stunning lack of experience to be president.
And then she let her husband inject race into the equation, losing any and all of the moral high ground. That spoiled any efforts she could make calling into question Obama’s thin record.
Clinton may still eke out a delegate win, but she will do it in a way that will further confirm to voters that she can’t be trusted. She will try to seat her delegates from Florida and Michigan, sneaking them in when she knows she didn’t win those states fairly.
And that is when the fairy tale will end. It is going to be fun to watch.
Most Viewed RSS Feed »
