This International Herald Tribune article calls into serious question Hillary’s experience. It didn’t take long for the IHT to raise questions about her experience:

But during those two terms in the White House, Clinton did not hold a security clearance. She did not attend National Security Council meetings. She was not given a copy of the president’s daily intelligence briefing. She did not assert herself on the crises in Somalia, Haiti or Rwanda. And during one of President Bill Clinton’s major tests on terrorism, whether to bomb Afghanistan and Sudan in 1998, Clinton was barely speaking to her husband, let alone advising him, as the Lewinsky scandal dragged on.

That’s gotta put a major dent in her image of being a battle-tested co-president. One of the first questions that’s likely to be asked is what this means in terms of Hillary’s supposed foreign policy experience. With the US at war, voters will want to know, first and foremost, that she’s a steady hand in times of trouble.

That paragraph tells the world that she didn’t have much to do with US foreign policy during Bill’s administration. There doesn’t appear to be proof that she played a role in setting policy or making decisions.

In seeking the Democratic presidential nomination, Clinton lays claim to two traits nearly every day: strength and experience. But as the junior senator from New York, she has few significant legislative accomplishments to her name. She has cast herself, instead, as a first lady like no other: a full partner to her husband in his administration, and, she says, all the stronger and more experienced for her “eight years with a front-row seat on history.”

It’s typical Clintonista spin to say that she was a “full partner” to Bill. It’s also easily refutable. Hillary’s best strategy for winning the nomination and the general election was to give her the air of inevitability. Once that was demolished in the Russert Debate, her next logical adjustment was to say that she was battle-tested and more experienced than Obama. As more of this type of reporting is done, the mose damage that’s done to that strategy.

Now that Hillary’s Plan A and Plan B have failed, it’ll be interesting to see what her Plan C will be. I suspect that it’ll be to talk about the policies she’d ;ut in place if elected. At that point, she becomes just another candidate, albeit with significantly higher name recognition.

She doesn’t have an impressive list of legislative accomplishments to distinguish herself by, either. What that means is that, when everything is stripped away from Hillary’s facade, you notice that there’s no there there.

Hillary has the money to stay in the race as long as she wants. It’s just that it won’t make much of a difference now that she’s been exposed as a pretender to the throne.

The good news for Republicans is that it’s apparent that neither Obama or Clinton has the type of gravitas that’s required to be commander-in-chief. That’ll make the GOP nominee’s job a little easier, whether that nominee is Fred Thompson, Rudy Giuliani or John McCain.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , ,

Cross-posted at California Conservative

Leave a Reply