How Should Working Americans Regard
Clinton’s ‘Experience’ and Obama’s ‘Hope’?

Let’s begin with Senator Clinton’s now-famous “3 a.m.” advertisement in which the “red phone” would ring in the White House and the question she asks is “Who would answer it?” She, as a steeled commander-in chief, would answer; not Obama, who lacks this kind of experience.

Does Hillary usually sit up at 3 a.m., waiting for hostile phone calls? Suppose it was Hugo Chávez, threatening to cut off oil to the U.S. Would she refuse to respond to Chávez on the grounds that she does not talk to enemies. Would she be fully dressed, ready to act? Whom would she call and how would she behave? How could her experience help her, since she had never been in that position? The truth is that neither she, nor we, will know how she would respond, despite her strong promise she will start solving the nation’s problems from her Day One in the Oval Office.

Senator Barack Obama relies on “hope” and the belief that he can mobilize millions of people from all walks of life to build a humane society that treats all people fairly. Americans yearn for the kind of changes that his inspiring speeches have aroused. He says he will get rid of lobbyists in Washington, but doesn’t say how or what his chances are of succeeding. The experience he cites in his speeches is valuable, but are they sufficient to help him run a country?

Since neither Clinton nor Obama can fulfill their promises by themselves, shouldn’t they give us some information about the kind of people they would have in their cabinet?

Does Senator Clinton Deserve Labor Endorsements?

A dozen AFL-CIO international unions have endorsed Senator Hillary Clinton to be the Democratic Party nominee for U.S. President, but it is not clear why they did so.

Senator Clinton has no record of service to the labor movement. There is no public evidence of her coming to the aid of striking workers in distress or appearing on a picket line in their defense or speaking out against unjustified firings or supporting union programs..

She served on the board of Wal-Mart for several years and resigned only in 1992, when her husband was running for President. During her years as First Lady, the Clinton Administration in 1993 promoted passage of the North American Free Trade Act (NAFTA), despite the vigorous protest from the labor movement that had supported his candidacy. In his first term, Clinton failed to fulfill his promise to enact legislation that would ban the temporary replacement of strikers, even though Congress was controlled by Democrats. Senator Clinton is not a native New Yorker. She was imported from Illinois with the help of her husband and his political friends, who quickly and quietly arranged the circumstances to make her election appear inevitable.

Her autobiography, “Living History,” consists of 528 pages, that recount important events and experiences in her life. But strangely, there is not a mention of a union leader, a strike, a labor convention or some other event in this large book. In its index of 28 pages, with 1,698 entries (it reads like a telephone directory) there is not a single entry that has any recognized relation to labor.

It would be interesting to hear Senator Clinton explain the omissions. In nearly 15 years, hadn’t she met any labor leaders who were knowledgeable and worth knowing?

It would be even more interesting to hear the presidents of the 12 AFL-CIO international unions explain why they endorsed her.

Visit our web site at www.laboreducator.org