Many completely discount Hillary Clinton's experience in the White House as having no value. I propose the simple thought experiment in this regard. You have to choose between two candidates for CEO of a major corporation. One is smart, has a fancy degree, but is a new low-level employee with a year of experience. The other person is smart, also has a fancy degree, is very hard-working, and has completed an unpaid internship of 8 years with the CEO, where he or she has closely observed the decision making process in the CEO's office, and how decisions get translated into action. Who would you choose to be the next CEO? What if, instead, you had to choose a plumber or a doctor from two candidates? Why do we often seriously consider Vice Presidents as presidential candidates? They have as little role in decision making as the First Lady.

And in regard to whether Hillary would have become a New York Senator except for her connections, many ignore that a vast number of male and female politicians in America, and all over the world, are children of successful politicians. Consider the last few prime ministers of Japan, if you wish for examples outside America. Clearly, the relatives of politicians start out with an unfair advantage in politics, but so do the children of bankers and financiers in the financial world.

Well-noted!

There is a big difference between the role of the Vice President and the First Lady. The Vice President is involved more than the First Lady. It is their job to know what is going on at all times since if for any reason the President cannot fulfill their term it is the Vice President who will take over not the First Lady. Since the Vice President is involved, maybe not in the actual decision making, he is basically qualified to take over. As a matter of fact the only reason the First Lady resides in the White House is because she is married to the President.

Hmmm. Several recent Japanese prime ministers (most of whom were lousy leaders) are the sons of politicians, so this means Hillary Clinton will be a president than Barack Obama?!

Not so sure about that one. By this logic, George W. Bush (especially since he was assisted by Mr. 30-years-in-Washington-Dick-Ch­eney) would be the accomplished president in the history of America and Abraham Lincoln—a gangly young lawyer from Illinois with little Washington experience or connections (sound like somebody we know?)—would have been the worst.

jbently, great post.

P.S. why exactly would we want to emulate the process to pick a CEO? CEOs are not exactly well liked. And most are seen as stuffing their board room with cronies and tuning out outside criticism. Sounds like the current president again.

There is no simple rule - guaranteed to work in all cases - to choose great rulers or leaders. And of course, one untested plumber out of some large number (say 20) would turn out to be great and not flood your house. But what rule do you think most people would follow in the absence of any information?

The fact that the Japanese Prime Ministers have been lousy does not change the fact that they had an advantage (unhealthy and unfair, of course) over other people without prime ministerial lineage.

The role of the Vice President, as is the role of First Lady is hardly static. The Vice President's only true duties are preciding as President of the Senate and casting the tie-breaking vote in a senate 50-50. FDR's V.P. famously noted that the role wasn't worth a bucket of piss, however the role the VP played became more and more important and it wasn't until Dick Cheney came along that the VP played such an incredible role in shaping an administrations policy. Same as the First Lady, her role is ceremonious, entertaining heads of state and working as the President's good-will ambassador abroad. It wasn't until the Clinton's came along and Hillary insisted that the role of First Lady to be more than ceremonious, that she should have an office in the West Wing and be active in contributing to the Presidents overall policy by working on various causes, and crafting legsislature. I think that was we see more empowered First Lady's (who wouldn't want to see Michelle Obama run for President one day?) using their experiences to run for President, we're going to look at HIllary's run as the ground breaking experience that it truly was/is.

You are now saying that the role of First Lady is now more important than Vice President? Hillary insisted on having a bigger role than what the First Lady is supposed to be? Including an office in the White House?

It just goes to show you what I have said all along. This is one cold, conniving, power hungry, bitch. And also as I have said all along, If she was that good of a politician, she would have gained a lot more respect from the populus if she had dumped his ass the minute she was embarassed in front of a nation. How she could stand up and protect his ass for 9 months of his lying, only to find out he was making and had made her look like a horses ass.

hmm evenstevens, and they say that women are the emotional ones? I think I read a post that read 'Note to self: don't listen to evenstevens'. I think I'd second that.

By this logic we should vote for men or women who have spouses that are politically minded enough that they will probably want to run for president themselves.

Over the top BILLary supporters have no idea what they are suggesting.

yes, and included in those who have advanced due to family connections is George W. Bush. Enough said--please stop the bush/clinton cycle--it's gotten us nowhere but down and plays into corporate hands.

I am not a fan of political contests being decided solely on the basis of family connections. I was simply trying to point out three facts: (1) Many others besides Hillary Clinton (and George Bush) have had a leg up in politics because of family connections. (2) Hillary Clinton has acquired valuable experience and a sense of the powers (and more importantly, limitations) of the Presidency because of her presence in the White House, which should not be completely discounted.

She can be fairly attacked because of her ideology, personality, leadership abilities (ability to motivate others), immersion in past battles etc.

The US President has to combine administrative abilities with leadership/political abilities (ability to convince the country to make difficult decisions). Hillary is likely to be a better administrator. Her problem is her personality would limit her leadership abilities severely.

The problem with Obama would be that he has limited experience. My concern is that he would be a puppet in the hands of his ministers (i.e., secretaries). To give an example from India (the country of my birth), Rajiv Gandhi (after a stint as an airline pilot), came to power on his mother's death with over 70% of the vote, and a platform of change. But he could not achieve anything, as his ministers killed his reform plans, or chose to go in different directions.

Yes, because an airline pilot is like a community builder, an elected state senator, a lawyer, and a national senator.

Let me ask you one question. Is your example of Rajiv an example of no experience or one of nepotism being a bad thing? It seems to argue against BILLary and Obama (if you believe the no experience lie) becoming president.

spiker:

Let me ask you one question. Is your example of Rajiv an example of no experience or one of nepotism being a bad thing? It seems to argue against BILLary and Obama (if you believe the no experience lie) becoming president.

Nepotism and inexperience are both bad. My comment about Rajiv Gandhi was to illustrate the perils of extreme inexperience. If Obama wins the Democratic nomination and the general election, he will have acquired/demonstrated substantial administrative experience (how to use limited resources and time effectively, how to create an effective political strategy to sway voters), and be ready for the presidency. The problem is: how do voters analyze his prospects before he gets elected? As for Hillary, she has administrative experience (she was for all purposes Bill Clinton's campaign manager and strategist), but she depends too much on nepotism (Bill Clinton's charisma and popularity with voters) to attract voters.

The administrative edge of Governor's over Senators/law-makers (at least in the voters' mind) is probably why more Governors have won elections in the US in recent times.

The problem with the community organizer = experience argument is that no one knows what a community organizer does. Is he some type of social worker? Obama himself must not think that the community organizer = experience argument has much strength, because he does not talk about it much.

Two things.

1) I think you've spent little time at Obama's website (or any for that matter). Look at Obama's legislative work. It is more than Kerry's.

and

2) You characterize things like you know things first hand when it is in fact conjecture (i.e. Hillary's presidential experience).

and what the hell number:

3) He doesn't talk about his civil rights time because it would alienate many, many, non-racist whites who think there is no racism and that blacks should just pick themselves up. Nevermnd that they couldn't do it themselves under similar circumstances.