John Aravosis asks a great question:
I'm just trying to figure out how being First Lady or First Gentleman (Sir Dennis Thatcher comes to mind) somehow prepares you for being Commander in Chief of our entire armed forces during war time....No one wants to ask the forbidden question, but since Hillary is now saying, repeatedly, that John McCain has more experience to be president than Barack Obama, maybe it's time that Hillary tell us how Laura Bush is qualified to take the country into war.
This is an interesting way to frame the question that nobody seems to want to ask. At the end of Bush's term, Laura will have been First Lady for just as long as Hillary. And unlike HRC, she has served during a time of war, a fact that surely is significant. So following Hillary's argument, does Laura's experience in the White House give her the experience necesary to be President? And if not, why not? Policy differences you might have with her are irrelevant. I'm not asking if you would vote for her. I'm asking if you about her experience, i.e. her resume, and nothing more.
Like HRC, LB has travelled extensively, been a vocal advocate for women's rights, met with numerous world leaders in a variety of high profile settings, delivered numerous important speeches about various federal programs, organized numerous conferences and summits - all the things that any First Lady would be expected to do.
So... when the phone rings at 3am, why doesn't Laura Bush have the experience necessary to answer it? Or does she? Hey Hillaryland... what's your answer?
Subscribe to this blog's feed
