Hillary's 35 Years

NPR's All Things Considered broadcast a story today called "Tracing Hillary Clinton's '35 Years' of Experience".

Michele Norris interviewed Suzanne Goldenberg, author of Madam President, a recently-published book about Hillary Clinton. Norris and Goldenberg discuss what Hillary Clinton did in those years between Yale Law School in the early 1970's and her election as a U.S. Senator in 2000.

We've all heard Hillary tout her "35 years of fighting for change." If she were scrupulously honest, she might rephrase it as "35 years fighting off and on for change, including a few years in which I was a corporate lawyer representing clients with not-so-progressive policies." The additional verbiage would be a fairly objective description of her work with the Rose Law Firm from 1977 to 1992.

Then again, that would be quite a mouthful. And to a politician, oversimplifying things comes second only to portraying oneself in a positive light.

Does Hillary Clinton sometimes distort the truth? Yes, of course; she's a successful politician. Is Hillary a pathological liar? No, she's just a successful politician. Is she the devil incarnate? Don't be ridiculous.

Is George W. Bush the devil incarnate? No, he's just the guy who buys cigarettes for the devil. How about Dick Cheney? Hmm... possibly.

But I digress.

Back to Hillary's portrayal of her record. Goldenberg sums it up as follows:

It's hard to see how her claim adds up. But you have to remember that every candidate on the campaign trail is going to embellish their record. John Edwards, for example, is 54 years old and we hear him talking about 54 years working for the little people and for poor people. This is what politicians do. They play up the good parts of their resume and play down the bits they'd rather people forgot about.

I suppose it's conceivable, by a very strict adherence to the semantics of the English language, that someone who is two years old could be "working for the little people." On the other hand, it's also conceivable that such a claim is motivated by something less innocent than just "playing up the good parts."

I'm inclined to argue that Barack Obama has engaged in considerably less of this kind of "embellishment." And, furthermore, that the quantity of his relevant "experience" may actually approach that of Hillary.

But don't get me started. That's a whole other blog post.