Experience isn’t a bad word and being experienced doesn’t automatically make a candidate a captive of the ‘status quo’. The one most telling question that Hillary Clinton and Bill Richardson missed interjecting into the last debate would have been to aggressively challenge either John Edwards or Barrack Obama to identify, specifically, who on that stage was an ‘agent for the ‘status quo’?
I would love to have heard that answer and then hear it defended. (Perhaps someone in Senator Clinton’s and Governor Richardson’s camp will pick up on the question.)
Was the ‘agent for the status quo‘ the first Latino Candidate for President who has federal, cabinet, foreign policy and state executive experience?
Was the ‘agent for the status quo‘ the first woman in history to have a chance to become President? Could the first female President be considered an ‘agent for the status quo’? Could someone with a long history of fighting special interests be an ‘agent for the status quo‘?
Let’s look at FDR, a true patrician who was experienced at all levels of government who created the greatest change in American history.
It was a time of disaster in America. The American Public were in disarray and suffering greatly. From the field of politicians came a man with a truly patrician background who had served in the Federal Government, had a relative who had been President and also served as the Governor of New York.
He could not be described as a ‘man of the people’. Like John Kennedy, he was a patrician from a family of power and experience. He was, however, a ‘man for the people’.
With his very top down leadership, against strong opposition, he created The New Deal. And it was truly a new deal for the American people. [The Wiki link is disputed as to imparitality and after a quick glance I agree. It is a good primer for someone who hasn’t studied The New Deal specifically.]From it came the basis for our currently constituted major programs including Social Security and much more.
He was elected based on his ability to create change based on experience, Federal and State, his historic links to Washington,DC and because the people saw a person willing to fight back against opposition.
I believe that is you take an honest view of experience, leadership on difficult issues and background you will find both Governor Richardson and Senator Clinton must be called ‘agents of change’ for that has been their career…fighting for change.
This is an unpopular view. Yet it calls for John Edwards and Barrack Obama to state, with specifics, the substance of their veiled attacks on the other two candidates.