More on Hillary attacking Barack’s experience

She’s going for the jugular playing up her experience and completely bashing his lack of it.

Report from MyWay:

CLEAR LAKE, Iowa (AP) – Hillary Rodham Clinton suggested Monday that Barack Obama has too little experience and perhaps too much ambition, pressing an increasingly aggressive campaign against her chief rival for the Democratic presidential nomination.

Both candidates were in Iowa, one month before the nation’s leadoff caucuses with new polls showing Obama had whittled away her early lead and they were virtually tied among Democrats in the state.

“So you decide which makes more sense: Entrust our country to someone who is ready on day one … or to put America in the hands of someone with little national or international experience, who started running for president the day he arrived in the U.S. Senate,” Clinton said.

Funny, I think those are the same things I’ve said about Barack as well, I’m glad I agree with Hillary on something.

Here’s a video report from the AP:

Hillary is now saying what the Republican candidates have said about Obama for months. The question is, can the Edwards/Obama alliance take down Hillary? I personally doubt it but if Hillary goes too negative she runs the risk of coming off as she’s often stereotyped, mean and cold.

This is funny:

Clinton accused Obama of a “rush to campaign” in not returning to Washington this fall to vote on a resolution naming an Iranian military unit a terrorist organization. The Bush administration supported the measure, as did Clinton – and Obama has criticized her for it.

“Presidents can’t dodge the tough political fights,” she said.

A “rush to campaign” when she announced like a week later than he did, in fact, they all pretty much announced in January/February of 07, except Fred Thompson. Everyone was rushing to campaign with cheesy web videos.

Update from The Angry American: While I agree Obama lacks experience, I think I would be of the frame of mind that it’s not necessarily a bad thing. Would you rather a politician with less experience hoodwinking the American public, or one who has been polishing her deceit/lie/cheat technique for the last 20+ years? I’d take the lesser of two evils, given the choice.

  • Michael Jerryson

    I have to agree with Angry here (I know, surprise). What I do not like about this critique is that it seems to defend entrenched privileges. Those who have not had the luxury of political offices for years seem to be considered less worthy of leading our nation.

    Yes, experience is important, but there is no experience like that of the presidency. Furthermore, or country has looked less at competency than ‘morals’ in previous elections, suggesting that not only does experience not matter, but neither would intellectual capacity.

    It would be interesting to look at all the presidents of the U.S and see how much actual Congressional experience they had before becoming president— and if the argument is that we are in a new and different age than that of Harrison, Jackson, and alike, I would counter that this age is even easier for those who had not had congressional experience. Globalization has brought the world to individuals…not the other way around.