Hillary Clinton has experience running government like Deanna Favre has experience quarterbacking the Packers

You could have shortened your article by just saying that you have no respect for women. How can anyone take you seriously after this?

Anon, I suspect that David's point is just as well-made if you substitute "Bob Carr" for "Deanna Favre" and "running a brain cancer foundation" for "quarterbacking the Packers" but that doesn't have the same resonance with people because Brett Favre is newsworthy and current while nobody knows who Kate Carr is. If I may speak for David, though, I give you permission to make that substitution in your mind so that you don't dismiss what is an enlightening essay.

I think you're seriously off the mark here, David. I would heartily recommend this beautiful essay by Bill Moyers on MLK and LBJ to you. As you already probably know, Moyers was a special assistant to LBJ and was instrumental in organizing and supervising the Great Society legislative task forces. Here's an excerpt:

Bill Moyers: If William Shakespeare were around I suspect he might describe the recent flap between the Obama and Clinton camps as much ado about nothing or a tempest in a teapot. Senator Clinton was heard to say that it took a president - Lyndon Johnson - to consummate the work of Martin Luther King by passing the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Almost no one in the media bothered to run the whole quote. Here it is:

"Hillary Clinton: Dr. King's dream began to be realized when President Lyndon Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, when he was able to get through Congress something that President Kennedy was hopeful to do, the president before had not even tried, but it took a president to get it done."

Bill Moyers: There was nothing in that quote about race. It was an historical fact, an affirmation of the obvious. But critics pounced. THE NEW YORK TIMES published a lead editorial accusing Senator Clinton of "the distasteful implication that a black man needed the help of a white man to effect change." Suddenly we had a rhetorical inferno on our hands, with charges flying left and right, and pundits throwing gasoline on the tiniest of embers. Fortunately the furor has quieted down, and everyone's said they're sorry, except THE NEW YORK TIMES. But I can't resist this footnote to the story...

Here's the rest:

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/011908A.shtml

Thanks Pack. That's the point I was trying to make. The Clinton campaign likes to make the case for her "35 years of experience," but being married to the governor of Arkansas and the president of the United States isn't the same thing as BEING the governor of Arkansas and the president of the United States, so the argument doesn't convince me.

Thanks for the essay JohnS. I will read it.

I dunno, JohnS. I still read Clinton's remarks as a clumsy, off-the-cuff attempt to read the Clinton-Obama relationship into the LBJ-MLK relationship. The Clinton camp was seriously upset by Obama's "change" message in Iowa, so they adopted it as their own ("35 years of change") in the debates immediately following. Hillary Clinton as the candidate who has the experience to deliver change, like LBJ delivered the Civil Rights Act. Now Hillary Clinton's comments probably can't be called racist except on the subterranean level, but they do strike me as at least patronizing, which is apparently how many African Americans have read it as well.

David

I completely agree with you that Clinton's remark was a clumsy attempt to highlight her experience, but would suggest she was attempting to say that this experience is more important in a president than Obama's ability to inspire. (She noted it was nuts and bolts guy LBJ who got the Civil Rights legislation passed, not the inspiriring guy, JFK.) That is certainly debatable. And frankly, it's something that resonates with me.

Her initial remark that precipitated this whole mess was a clumsy appeal to Democrats not to build up "false hopes" by choosing an inexperienced presidential candidate. Frankly, that's also something that resonates with me. Although I tend to think the false hopes that Obama is raising relate to the central tenet of his campaign, that he is the agent that can introduce some sort of post-partisan era to America. Please...Americans have been fiercely partisan since we started this thing over 200 years ago, we're gonna change now? I'd also like to gently point out that Karl Rove, Grover Norquist and others have been working very hard (and pretty successfully) for the last 10 plus years to purge Congress of any party moderates. Our current congress is more or less made up, on the GOP side, by the direct descendants of Dick "bi-partisanship is another name for date rape" Armey. Additionally, corporate America and the Beltway elites will fight tooth and nail to preserve the status quo.

But that's neither here nor there. As Moyers notes, nothing that Clinton said was overtly racial, or historically incorrect, and I see nothing in her statement that contains a racial subtext, either. However, I can certainly see where surrogates for Obama's team, and my own preferred candidate John Edwards (yes, unhappily, he piled on too), would want to paint them in that light. Smartly though, after the initial dust-up, all of the Dem campaigns decided it was wiser to back off, make up, and move on. Maybe we should, too.

In terms of the question of the necessity of both inspiration and deal-making prowess, and the possibility that there may need to be a division of labor there -- it's rare enough to find someone who can do either particularly well, and nigh-impossible to find someone gifted in both -- I think the point clearly goes to Moyers and JohnS. Hillary wasn't wrong at all in what she said. Rather, Reihan was simply wrong in his interpretation of what she said. (I say this even as someone who would _very_ much rather have Obama than Hillary as the Dem candidate!)

I am curious about this: "Or as a conservative might understand it, ideas come before consequences." What is particularly conservative about such a claim? It's not that it seems like an unconservative thought, either, but just not something that has any ideological content one way or another.

I think David was referring to the classic conservative book Ideas Have Consequences.

Eric- Exactly.

Yes, I got the reference, but the idea expressed in the post here has nothing to do with the contents of that (rather confused) book. Unless you think that Clinton's metaphysics is what's leading to this trouble...?