There is a problem with the claim that we should question the heft of Hillary’s electoral record and the suggestion that two U.S. Senate wins isn’t enough campaign experience for a presidential candidate.
There are plenty of right-wing critics who think Hillary Clinton is “dangerous.” Some progressives think she’s dangerous because they dubbed her too “hawkish” after her vote in favor of the Iraq War (though men, like Joe Biden and John Kerry who also voted for the Iraq War Resolution weren’t considered hawkish for the very same vote).
Now the political site Vox is calling Hillary’s electoral record “thin” and believes an uncontested HRC run for the Democratic presidential nomination would be “dangerous” because she “botched” her 2008 run for the White House:
— Matt Yglesias (@mattyglesias) February 17, 2015
Also, apparently some Clinton Foundation contributors are risky to her campaign and Democrats:
Oh, and she might be a vampire:
— Matt Yglesias (@mattyglesias) April 24, 2014
OK, he wasn’t really calling her a vampire (was he?), but it’s this sort of criticism, also now being practiced by David Axlerod, that’s dressed up with a little faint praise that can damn a candidacy even where there’s not much there there.
But there is a problem with the claim that we should question the heft of Hillary’s electoral record and the suggestion that two U.S. Senate wins isn’t enough campaign experience for a presidential candidate. If Vox is going to argue that she hardly has any electoral record to run on, then surely a little historical fact checking would have come across the following information:
— Ronald Reagan only had two election victories before running for White House. Oh, and let’s not forget that Reagan failed to win the Republican presidential nomination twice before making a successful bid for the White House.
— George H.W. Bush had only two congressional race victories before he was elected vice president (and really, does anyone vote for the VP in a presidential campaign?). If you’re going to call Hillary’s resume thin in the campaign department, then let’s apply the same to Bush I.
— And George W. Bush only won two elections before his presidential run. And I’d be so bold as to suggest his “business” background and one failed congressional campaign don’t really beef up his political CV.
So why single out Hillary? Are they suggesting that being Secretary of State isn’t as good as an Ambassadorship to Japan or owning a baseball team or being an actor?
This anti-Hillary argument put forth by Matthew Yglesias and Vox is a bit thin itself, in my opinion. Although they have one thing right — Hillary is dangerous, if by dangerous they mean she will probably be the first woman president of the United States. Dangerous because she’ll have an agenda this time that focuses on women and families. Dangerous because she’s already gotten all the “mistakes” out of her system from 2008.
Joanne Bamberger is an independent journalist and journalism entrepreneur who is also the author/editor of book Amazon bestseller “Love Her, Love Her Not: The Hillary Paradox” (She Writes Press). She is the publisher and editor in chief of The Broad Side, and is the principal of Broad Side Strategies, a strategic communications firm.