For some reason, the Democrats seem to still think that the "foreign policy experience" argument is their best weapon against Gov. Palin. Of course, this is utter hogwash when one considers that Barack Obama has nine fewer years in public office, has never held an executive position, and has no foreign policy credentials...but lets play with it anyway, as we are likely to continue hearing it. The standard line of response from the GOP has been to compare Sarah to Teddy Roosevelt, which is fair considering that TR was an outdoorsy maverick who became VP (and later President) after only two years as Governor of New York. However, the problem is that he was a Republican. I personally think that the best way to win this debate on "foreign policy experience" is to force the Democratic Party to take a good, long look in the mirror. Hence, I have decided to look into the pre-presidency credentials of four iconic figures in the Democratic Party. I will start tonight with William Jefferson Clinton and work my way back to Jimmy Carter, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and Woodrow Wilson. So, without further ado, meet Billy:
At age 46, William Jefferson Clinton was the third-youngest man ever to become president; and as a governor out-of-the-way Arkansas, he was a bit of an obscure choice. Before seeking the presidency, he had served three terms as his state's Governor. Prior to that, his only experience was as Arkansas' Attorney General and a losing candidate for Congress. While he had spent a long time in the governor's mansion, he had never held any federal office and had no foreign policy credentials whatsoever. However, despite being something of an unknown quantity, he was able to unseat President George H.W. Bush, who had a long history in foreign policy, despite the fact that the First Gulf War was fresh in America's memory. So, while I would admit that he had more gubernatorial experience than Sarah Palin, he was arguably LESS qualified when it came to world affairs. Arkansas has no international borders, no coastlines, no maritime territory, and probably does not deal with as many international agreements as does the State of Alaska. So, if the Democratic Party is so committed to foreign policy experience, why could they not find a more qualified opponent to take on George H.W. Bush?
As a footnote, I would add that most Democrats consider Mr. Clinton to have been a very good president and would love to bring back his foreign policy.
Stay tuned for more revelations from the Democratic Past.