Foreign Policy Experience

So, if foreign policy experience was actually that important, the only qualified candidate would be Gov/Secretary George Richardson (D- I freed the next John McCain).

This view has been rebuffed by history. To be blunt, you can't have foreign policy experience to the unique challenges facing your term in office because the world changes every day. What possible experience could there be for 9-11? I know that if Al Gore (D - How ironic is it that Florida is the state that is going to be the most affected by Climate Change) was in charge at the time he would have had to bomb Paris to prove to his critics (external and internal) that he could be tough when he needed to be - remembering that Ba'athists cheered when Mr. Clinton (D - First Man) defeated GHWB I (R - Maine). Mr. Bush however, was (lamentably) dealt a royal flush when those planes made their tragic descent, knowing he could use them to justify every looney thing he wanted to do. Of course, he fucked it up. He could have slow played it way better AND bombed Paris.

Here it is. Foreign Policy experience isn't ACTUAL foreign policy experience. It is being involved in extra-governmental negotiations where the actors are not necessarily all rational. The Governor of (say) Michigan has more foreign policy experience than any other type of candidate because he has to deal with crazy auto unions, the government of Ontario, the Government of Canada, the State legislature, the bureaucrazy, the Governor of Wisconsin, and (gah) the Federal Government of the United States.

Being the head of an executive for a government that has to deal with other governments is foreign policy experience. The key difference is why/how you deal with them. But it is experience which serves as a decent bell-weather as to how an individual will hold that position. It is no surprise that Ronald Reagan (Gov of California, former SAG president) and Bill Clinton (Governor of Arkansas) were very good at emerging issues in foreign policy while Gerald Ford (D - Leader of the Opposition in the House) was very bad at it. He did inherit his biggest problem - but so did his predecessor (R - the CIA killed who so I could bomb what?).

Things are no different in 2008. Senators get foreign policy briefings. Sometimes. They also have ideas that get criticized by other Senators. It is an old boys club that vets the foreign policy decisions that a President is dumb enough to put in a treaty. That is a very small part of foreign policy.

Frankly, anyone who doesn't think that Hillary Clinton is schooled in diplomacy is a blithering idiot. Her expereince is completely different kind of foreign policy. Without sounding like a pig, it is the type of foreign policy that can be equated with "why shoe stores should have a copy of maxim magazine." Sometimes, Maxim provides insight that will make people think. Other times, it is a distraction that allows for real work to be done behind the scenes. You would be surprised how few women's clothing stores have men's magazines lying around, yet have all kinds of women's magazines. Why the hell do you want women looking at magazines while they are in their store?

Hillary Clinton was excellent at it. Not because she is a woman but because she proved to be an able diplomat - who was herself a very impressive person regardless of the (relative) success of her husband. She knew that diplomacy is often about distraction. The only person who would be better at entertaining the spouses of foreign leaders is her husband. And Maybe Margaret Trudeau.