LETTER TO THE EDITOR:

What makes Clinton so experienced?

Joel Rector, North Las Vegas

Sun, May 25, 2008 (2:06 a.m.)

For months I’ve been listening to and reading opinions from people who tout Sen. Hillary Clinton’s experience. My question is, other than her time as senator, what executive experience does she have? What specifically does she bring to the table that’s overwhelmingly superior to her opponents’ abilities? Has she held any other elected office? Has she operated a business?

I can surmise only that her backers are counting her time as first lady and consider her White House residency as somehow equivalent to “experience” that makes her the best choice for president. If that’s the case, Nancy Reagan and Rosalynn Carter are also extremely qualified.

Madelyn Olds in her Friday letter (headlined “Obama’s youthful backers are naive”) compared Clinton to “a teacher who knows all the answers” and called Obama someone who “will have to study” prior to decision making.

I would suggest, with all due respect to Ms. Olds, that no president has all the answers (we’ve become painfully aware of that over the past seven-plus years) and that careful study and deliberation before decision making is a responsible course of action.

The fact is that no candidate, whether Democrat or Republican, has Oval Office experience. Given it’s the toughest job in the world, I don’t believe there’s any “experience” that can truly prepare a candidate for the awesome responsibilities that come with it.

Sure, Obama is young and comes to this election with a great deal of energy and idealism. That kind of attitude certainly attracts young people who have seen the results of years of failed policies and leaders who believe they’re beyond reproach and arrogant to the point of blindness to any who don’t fall in lock-step with their view of the world.

Maybe it is time for change: a true changing of the guard.

Discussion: 4 comments so far…

By vegasmisty

5/25/08 at 9:48 p.m.

Suggest removal

Very well put. I agree that Obama may be new to politics but certainly he has the dreams and aspiration to turn the U.S. around and that is what we need right now after 7 plus years of being seen as a country without a decent ruler.
McCain is nothing but a Bush clone and Hillary is nothing but the Clintons revisited.
We need new blood not tainted with the usual problems that most seasoned politicians bring with them to the office.
After all Reagan was an actor with Hollywood values for years YET many thought he had what it took to turn the country around. Much like what we are hearing and seeing about Obama.

I am afraid that some will not want a educated black man in that office. That is something so foreign to their line of thinking they cannot grasp the idea. I pray those who think this way will put their prejudices aside and see that this change is exactly what we are looking for and need badly.

Clinton is self destructing in front of our eyes and thats not good.

She has even pumped up McCain in trying to take Obama down.

Its one thing to try and make your opponent look like that would not be a good choice over her but to pat McCain on the back and herself by saying they have what it takes to be President and saying Obama only has a speech is nonsense.

She has made one comment after another showing she is not ready for that office. I was hoping a woman could be President and still do.....just not this one.
By solo2205

5/26/08 at 5:17 a.m.

Suggest removal

Hilary's age at 60 is her pool of life experience, not only in terms of the number of years in politics but in many areas of life, facing the challenges of life's ups and downs,trials and tribulations, and eventually became a more rounded person. The same also applies to John McCain. Either Hilary or McCain is ready on day one to be president and commander in chief because both are equally qualified, tested and vetted. Both are full blooded, patriotic Americans in the true of the word.

Both Hilary and McCain have eaten more salt than Obama has eaten rice at 46. Obama is only good at making snake oil speaches and at times, shouting and other times, too sensitive and square headed

Obama's election slogan is about"Change we can believe in"
and about hope for America.What change is he talking about? In what direction is he going to lead and change America for the better. He doesn't even have a detailed blue print and manifesto about the change for America.

He talks as if he is a prophet and and his supporters are so impressed by his so called eloguent speeches as if he can walk on water and change water into wine.

In case you don't know, he borrowed his election slogan, CHANGE, from his cousin, Raila Odinga, in Kenya when he campaigned for prime minister.

Raila Odinga has the same exact message as Barack Obama: CHANGE. Agent of CHANGE. Please look at Raila Odinga’s campaign website: http://www.raila07.com/

–Here is a chain letter circulating, apparently from Christian missionaries in Kenya who give serious warning about Barack Obama and his background: http://groups.google.com/group/alt.polit...

He said he had never of heard of Wright's hateful sermon or he was not in church when Wright preached it. He thought people are so stupid and naive to believe him and that they can't figure out in all of the 17 years that he has been going to that church, why he knew nothing of Wright's 911 sermon? He wasnt there? No one told him? Not even his wife? Never heard a word of Wright's accusations that America created AIDS and exported it to Africa until it was on YouTube? What about fellow congregrants who may have told him about Wright's hate sermons? What about the church's service bulletin he may have read?

At the press club, Wright said Obama has to say and do what a politician has to say and do. If you analyse that statement carefully,the implication is that Obama may have agreed with Wright's views in the last 17 years and then Obama condenmed them for political advantage when he is running for president. This obviously upset or displeased Wright to a great extent.
By tonyb1

5/27/08 at 11:05 a.m.

Suggest removal

With all due respect to Mr. Rector, with age comes wisdom. As a on going observer of history, I find it both curious and interesting how many times I've changed my views on a subject after time. I was an ardent supporter of the war in Iraq in the beginning, along with many of us. Who knew that we were being duped by our own government, with a clever slight of hand here, a little ommission there, throw in some white lies, and the waving of the flag in our eyes, and vola! We have ourselves a war. It was a lucky guess by Mr. Obama to have voted no on the war. What makes a fruit tree bear fruit? Age, fertile ground (the Senate), the sun (who has seen more), and water (who can boast they have drunk more, wink, wink).
By patria223

5/28/08 at 12:59 a.m.

Suggest removal

solo2205 --
Your Unthought (or whatever it is) is astounding.

(1) What’s a “full blooded” citizen?
Unlike less progressive cultures (or Nazi Germany), the U.S. determines citizenship by birth or naturalization, not by “blood.”
And Obama is a natural-born citizen -- as is required for the presidency -- since he was born in the U.S. (His mother was a U.S. citizen -- though his being born here is sufficient for citizenship.)

I just checked ... and if “full-blooded” means only U.S.-born people with two U.S.-born parents, you’ve just eliminated
- James Buchanan and Chester Arthur, whose fathers were born in Ireland
- Andrew Jackson, BOTH of whose parents were Irish-born
- Woodrow Wilson, whose mother was born in England, to Scottish parents
- Herbert Hoover, whose mother was Canadian.
(And Jefferson’s father was born in England, not in the Colonies.)

(2) If I believed all of the anti-Obama bunk on the Net, I'd also have to believe all of the anti-Hillary/McCain bunk as well.
But I don't, nor do I just email my favorite unvetted bunk to my 99 closest friends: I check the sources, and their objectivity ... and quickly dismiss 99.99% it as dumb bunk-with-an-agenda.

(3) No one invented, or has a copyright on, the word "change." If someone had enough time, I'm sure they could find erroneous-sinister links between McCain/Hillary's slogans and who-knows-what -- because they, too, aren't unique, as political slogans go. (And you really can't get too unique with such slogans, anyway.)

(4) As for age: Obama is 47. And
- When elected, U.S. Grant was 46, Grover Cleveland was 47, Teddy Roosevelt was 42, JFK was 43, and Bill Clinton was 46.
- Most of the above won vs. nominees/candidates who were older than they were.
Heck: Clinton won vs. George HW Bush (1992) and Bob Dole (1996) -- though both were 20+ years his senior and (unlike Clinton) were military vets.

(5) If age is the big measure, why bother with other criteria? The parties can just nominate their oldest functioning natural-born U.S. citizen.

But as an Older American myself, I'm fully aware that longevity ain't everything. I know too many of my peers who -- instead of becoming wise with age -- just got inflexible, stubborn, or stuck in the past (or in their own resentments) ... all of which can make people very stupid.

So "blood," bunk and age are alibis -- not reasons.