![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Experience
Dec. 6th, 2007 12:04 amPulled up from comments:
"I don't understand why you are arguing that (Hillary Clinton's) experience somehow doesn't count."
I'm not. I'm saying the nature of her experience is being misrepresented. She already has enough disturbing similarities to Mr. Bush -- she doesn't need to add puffing her record to them (ie, Bush represented his experience as Governor of Texas as being comparable to a typical state. The Governor of Texas is weak enough that, it ain't.)
I maintain there is a substantive, qualitative difference between being the president, and advising the president -- no matter how close one may be personally. She's representing her experience as if it's comparable to having been the president... and she wasn't, not by a long stretch.
Look, imagine a couple. Married. They're both astronauts by profession. She's been on the shuttle not just once, but twice. He, while qualified to be on the shuttle, and trained for the job, has never actually launched. Heck, he's even worked in Mission Control, being the main support link for his wife while she was on the shuttle.
Then, one day, he starts saying he should go on the next shuttle flight... because he's already been on two previous flights. His position is that he is so close to his wife, it was if he was really there, so his "experience" should include her two flights.
Not only that, but he starts denigrating other astronauts as being "less qualified," because they haven't been on shuttle flights the way he has -- even though the others in question have remarkably similar backgrounds, training, tenure in positions, drive for advancement, etc.
Gender is not the variable here, nor is training, nor is ability. It's the chutzpah.
"I don't understand why you are arguing that (Hillary Clinton's) experience somehow doesn't count."
I'm not. I'm saying the nature of her experience is being misrepresented. She already has enough disturbing similarities to Mr. Bush -- she doesn't need to add puffing her record to them (ie, Bush represented his experience as Governor of Texas as being comparable to a typical state. The Governor of Texas is weak enough that, it ain't.)
I maintain there is a substantive, qualitative difference between being the president, and advising the president -- no matter how close one may be personally. She's representing her experience as if it's comparable to having been the president... and she wasn't, not by a long stretch.
Look, imagine a couple. Married. They're both astronauts by profession. She's been on the shuttle not just once, but twice. He, while qualified to be on the shuttle, and trained for the job, has never actually launched. Heck, he's even worked in Mission Control, being the main support link for his wife while she was on the shuttle.
Then, one day, he starts saying he should go on the next shuttle flight... because he's already been on two previous flights. His position is that he is so close to his wife, it was if he was really there, so his "experience" should include her two flights.
Not only that, but he starts denigrating other astronauts as being "less qualified," because they haven't been on shuttle flights the way he has -- even though the others in question have remarkably similar backgrounds, training, tenure in positions, drive for advancement, etc.
Gender is not the variable here, nor is training, nor is ability. It's the chutzpah.
