Best Headline Ever!

Yeah, I knew that sounded bad.

Enough with "Experience" already!

Okay, I know the primaries are over in Massachusetts, but I have to get this off my chest.

Hillary Clinton incessantly talks about how she's so super-experienced and Barack Obama "isn't ready" and blah blah blah. I find this more than a little confusing, since it sounds like her primary basis for this claim is that she was First Lady for 8 years during her husband's presidency. And so I guess was super involved in everything he did that was good, and nothing he did that was bad (ahem... NAFTA).

So, I've decided to take a look at the political experience of four political figures: Hillary Clinton (obviously), Barack Obama (also pretty obvious), Nancy Reagan, and Laura Bush. Maybe the last two aren't so obvious, but if Clinton is going to define being First Lady as "experience" then Nancy and Laura may very well have some experience!

Note: I chose both Laura and Nancy because I figured Laura's the most recent first lady, but her president is totally unpopular, while Bill Clinton was popular to the very end. So Nancy represents the crazy-ass wife of a popular (and also crazy-ass) president whose legacy of total incompetence has already been whitewashed! Also, only 2-term first ladies were eligible, because obviously they have twice the experience! Sorry, Barbara Bush!

I'm going to use an elaborate and highly-scientific rating scale I've just made up that scores each candidate on their applicable pre-political life, years in political office, accomplishments, and maybe some other things I'll just make up. It then assigns them an "experienceability" score between 1 and 10. To be fair, I'll go in alphabetical order by last name.

Also, unless otherwise noted, I'm just getting all this information from Wikipedia, which is obviously totally infallible...

Let's begin!

Laura Bush

Pre-politics: Was a teacher and then a librarian. Earlier in life, killed her boyfriend in a car accident after running a stop sign.

Political experience: 6 years as First Lady of Texas, 8 years as First Lady of the country (barring impeachment or assassination). Also:

During her years raising her children, Laura Bush served as a volunteer in a number of organizations, including Friends of the Midland Public Library, the executive board of the Junior League of Midland, the Friends of Dallas Public Library Board Executive Committee, the Parent-Teacher Association (PTA) at Preston Hollow Elementary School, and the Community Partners Board of Child Protective Services.

Which sorta counts. I'll assume most of those early volunteer gigs were part-time though, so will just give her 16 years. Not too shabby!

Accomplishments: Launched the "National Book Festival." "became the first person other than a president to deliver the weekly presidential radio address," "was praised by People magazine and others for her elegance and better use of fashion," "appeared on Egypt's version of Sesame Street," suggested a woman (perhaps Harriet Miers?) to her husband for a Supreme Court justice.

Ok, that last one didn't work out so well, but still shows she had power!

Experienceability! 3. I was going to give her a 7 originally because she has 16 years of First-Lady-ness! That's a lot! But it's being a First Lady, which means nothing. Even though apparently she influenced decisions. Still, she has experience killing people, which I'm sure would come in handy!

Hillary Clinton

Jeez, Wikipedia, your entry is too long! But I will resist the lure to use Conservapedia's shorter-and-totally-not-biased entry and slog through!

Pre-politics: Umm... She was a girl scout. Volunteered for Barry Goldwater. Went to Wellesley (hey an ex of mine went there and became a total whore!) and joined the Wellesley Young Republicans. Then worked "sliming salmon in a fish processing cannery in Valdez." (I don't know what "sliming salmon" means but it sounds dirty and possibly lesbionic...) Then she went to Yale Law School and became a lawyer, the end.

Political experience: 12 (not entirely consecutive) years as First Lady of Arkansas, 8 years as First Lady of the US, 7 years as US Senator for New York. That's 7 years of being an elected politician and 20 years of being married to someone who happened to be either governor or president. Not bad!

Accomplishments: As first lady she most notably had that health care reform thing which totally failed to go anywhere or do anything. Does that count? Also she managed some crisis with Sinbad and Sheryl Crow at her side.

In the Senate she's on a bunch of committees. Supported going into Iraq and Afghanistan. Has spent some time bad-mouthing videogames. Also is running for president, which gives her one up on Laura Bush and Nancy Reagan.

Experienceability! 6. Well, she's only been in elected office for 7 years. Sleeping with the president doesn't count, especially when he's getting blowjobs from the interns and all your well-meaning plans go nowhere as First Lady. Still, you're beating Laura Bush!

Barack Obama

Pre-politics: Grew up in Honolulu and Indonesia. Which makes idiots on the internet think he's a Muslim. Went to Occidental College for two years, then Columbia, where he majored in political science "with a specialization in international relations." Was a lecturer on constitutional law from 1993-2004.

Political experience: Illinois State Senate for 8 years, US Senate for 3. Absolutely zero time married to any political bigwigs, which is bound to hurt him.

Accomplishments: As a state politician: ethics reforms, welfare reform, subsidies for children, health care stuff, "led the passage of legislation mandating videotaping of homicide interrogations, and a law to monitor racial profiling by requiring police to record the race of drivers they stopped."

US Senator: Wikipedia is baffling, so here:

Obama successfully introduced two initiatives bearing his name. "Lugar-Obama" expands the Nunn-Lugar cooperative threat reduction concept to conventional weapons, including shoulder-fired missiles and anti-personnel mines. The "Coburn-Obama Transparency Act" provides for the web site USAspending.gov, managed by the Office of Management and Budget. The site lists all organizations receiving Federal funds from 2007 onward and provides breakdowns by the agency allocating the funds, the dollar amount given, and the purpose of the grant or contract. In December 2006, President Bush signed into law the "Democratic Republic of the Congo Relief, Security, and Democracy Promotion Act," marking the first federal legislation to be enacted with Obama as its primary sponsor

So yeah, Nunn-Lugar...

He's on the Foreign Relations Committee too.

And did a bunch of other stuff, but I'm starting to get bored of this post, so just read it yourself if you want.

Experienceability! 7. This was tough to decide. He's got 11 years as an elected official, which beats Clinton's 7 and Bush's none. But some were on the state level, which is sort of wussy. Still, at least we know people vote for him. But he's never fucked a president (as far as we know). Nevertheless, I capriciously give him a 7.

Nancy Reagan

Okay, I admit it. Having Nancy Reagan as a part of this contest was just so I could use this totally awesome picture of her sitting on Mr. T's lap, awkwardly smooching his head.

For that alone, she gets an 11 in my "experienceabilty!" scale.

Nancy Reagan for President!

So yeah, Obama...

Well, the nearly meaningless Iowa caucus was last night, and we're left with Barack Obama and Mike Huckabee as the winners. Whoopedy doo!

Don't get me wrong, I'm glad Obama won. For that matter, I'm glad Edwards beat Clinton. But frankly, I'm not surprised by either of those outcomes.

Why not? Because the media are a bunch of fucking idiots. Hillary's entire "inevitable" status was created by them because they're stuck in an old way of thinking. We in Massachusetts, and especially in Fitchburg, should have already abandoned that way of thinking by now.

Allow me to explain...

Obama's victory was predictable if you watched the elections that gave us Deval Patrick and Lisa Wong, who both won by considerable margins. The commonalities are almost too numerous to mention, and I see no reason why the outcome should be any different.

I'm not talking about stuff like minority status here. It's insignificant as a factor in any of their victories. What I'm talking about is the two basic messages common to each of these candidates; "change" and "hope."

Most people aren't happy with the way the country (or the state, or the city) have been run of late. They want change, and they want intelligent change.

Kerry Healey didn't represent change, Tom Donnelly didn't represent change, and Hillary Clinton doesn't represent change. Patrick, Wong, and Obama did (or do). Whether that representation is accurate is an open question, but the perception is that they're at least agents of change. And not just any change, but a change that inspires people and engages them. That's perhaps the most important bit.

That's also the bit that involves "hope."

Now, hope is a tricky thing. Some (including myself) might say it's an empty word meaning nothing. You can't hope your way out of an unjust war, you can't hope your way to better healthcare, and you can't hope your way to a better government. But hope's still a powerful thing. If you don't have it, you don't get a lot done. You just sort of sit around being bummed out. So you sort of need hope.

And hope is what those three candidates give people. Which is no easy task with a populace as apathetic and jaded as ours. But it's pretty fucking powerful.

So here's what happens, and this is what the political pundits and media talking heads have yet to realize. All the elections in the coming year or so are going to have record turnout, and that turnout is going to push for the candidate who inspires hope and represents change.

Let's look at Obama vs Clinton for an example.

This is just anecdotal, but in my experience people who support Clinton are pretty lukewarm about her, and people who don't support her hate her fucking guts. So her supporters aren't necessarily passionate about going to support her, and those who don't support her are passionate about going to vote for someone else.

Obama has the opposite situation. People who support him are excited to do so. Those who don't support him don't seem to hate him, but sort of have a lukewarm (lukecold?) attitude towards him. There's not a lot of hate for Obama (unlike Clinton).

Anyway, Obama's motivated supporters definitely show up to vote for him. Clinton's haters show up to vote against her (and may well vote for Obama). Obama wins, Clinton loses.

This doesn't have a perfect analogue with the Patrick/Healey and Wong/Donnelly races, because I don't think people had the same hatred of Healey or Donnelly that they have for Clinton, they were just uninspired by them. Still, if you have one inspiring candidate and one boring milquetoast, the inspiring candidate is always going to win.

When it comes to Huckabee, it's sort of the same thing. Which is weird, but allow me to explain.

Willard "Mitt" Romney is the most boring piece of offal on the planet. Dull dull dull. He's the functional choice. The one with the nice hair and a lot of money. Seems like he'll win by the old-school thought.

But Huckabee excites people. Granted, the people he excites are batshit crazy. But it's the same deal as with the Democrats. He excites the crazy people while Willard just sort of appeals to the dullards. Hence, Huckabee won because the crazy idiots came out to vote in droves.

No idea if that win will carry over to other primaries (issues of money and so forth, plus Huck's general insanity do still matter a bit), but it should be a warning shot for Romney. Boring dudes don't win when the country wants change and vision!

Anyway, yeah. Vision is extremely important in a political leader. Hope and passion are very important to getting elected, and not so bad to have in a leader either.

And the media isn't going to get it yet again. What else is new?

I'll give my prediction, just in case you care. I've expressed this privately before the caucus, but might as well get it on the record in case I'm right...

For the Democrats, it comes down to Obama & Edwards, with Obama coming out on top. Hillary takes a couple of states, but that's it. Maybe an Obama/Edwards ticket in the general. Anyway, Obama wins president.

For the Republicans... well, I'm rooting for Huckabee just because he's so totally unelectable. It'll probably be Willard Romney though. Who will lose in the general election, just like he would have lost had he run for governor of Massachusetts again. McCain's the only Republican with a chance in hell of winning the presidency, but the guy doesn't have the money or support from the far-right base to get the nomination.

So there you have it. Feel free to make fun of me if I'm wrong.