If we run the general election on an "experience" theme, we lose.

[TheWraith]

Let's be blunt about this: Hillary Clinton has no major foreign policy experience. Neither does Obama. That's not a crime; it's reality that if you're not high-ranking military, cabinet, or an ambassador, you don't get much serious foreign policy experience short of the presidency. That's why we have career diplomats, national security advisors, and professional military advisors.

McCain, on the other hand, having been a Senator for around 200 years, has had the opportunity to accrue all the bits of foreign policy cred he can. Obviously hasn't learned from any of it, since he endorsed the war in Iraq, the surge, and bombing Iran. But if we try to make this election about who's got the best looking resume, it's a losing strategy.

Hillary Clinton, presenting herself as the "experienced" candidate, has one and one sixth terms in the Senate as experience, and show trips overseas as First Lady. The released documents have clearly shown that she had no access to actual decision making on foreign policy in the Clinton White House, so we discount that. Obama's got two thirds of a Senate term, and a spot on the Foreign Relations Committee.

If our candidate is running on the grounds of who can rattle off a list of their so-called "qualifications," then we're going to get plastered. McCain isn't a terribly bright guy--he wouldn't be a Republican if he were--but he's been in Washington long enough to build up a list of good list of bullet points to bedazzle people with so that they don't look at the actual underlying decisions.

We need to run on more than a claim of "experience." We need to run on wisdom, judgement, and change, three things that John McCain doesn't have a prayer in hell against.

[OhioBlue]

1. Thank you! Somebody that understands. n/t

[Cant trust em]

2. If experience were it, then we'd have a GE of Biden vs. McCain

Experience doesn't mean shit if we are weaker as a result of those decisions.

[TheWraith]

3. Exactly. As said elsewhere, nobody had more experience than Cheney and Rumsfeld...

Look where they got us.

[Cant trust em]

4. I love that talking point

It is a perfect, home run argument.

[Recursion]

5. The "Hillary is experienced" myth is never touched by the media...

...which, for all of Clinton's complaints, have been remarkably silent on questioning her central claim of being "experienced".

[BringBigDogBack]

6. You got it.

That's not what the people are looking for.

Besides, it wouldn't be an argument we could win. With either one of em.

[mmonk]

7. Yeah, I think McCain is probably alergic to wisdom.

[gravity]

8. That is what bugged me the most about the Hillary attacks

The fact that they would not work against McCain. Although she could technically be right, it does not help the Dems in the GE no matter who gets the nomination.

[TheWraith]

9. Ironically, though, she's also proven that the McCain campaign won't work against Obama.

She's basically run the same strategy as McCain is going to: experience, scorn for hope and change, talk about empty rhetoric, and play the national security card. When the chips are down, go dirty. Same thing we can expect out of McCain. And she's been pounded, over, and over again.

Somehow, I don't forsee it really working better for Doc Strangelove in the general.

[gravity]

10. She certainly gave Obama practice