Hillary Clinton: The Candidate Most Qualified to be President

want to make an argument for Hillary Clinton's presidential candidacy that is as simple as they come. I plan on voting for her in the primaries because she is the most qualified to be president. It is as simple of a concept as that. Don't get me wrong, I love Obama and Edwards. They are some of the strongest candidates we have had in a very long time. But 2008 does not have an ordinary field of candidates. Outside of (some, maybe) elections (2004 not included) with an incumbent president running for reelection, there has rarely if ever been a candidate as qualified to be president as Hillary.

Hillary's experience in public life began shortly after Barack Obama turned 15. Bill Clinton was elected Arkansas Attorney General in 1976. At the time, Hillary was 28, and Bill was 29. When Obama was graduating from law school, Bill and Hillary were planning Bill's coming presidential campaign. When Obama was elected to his first ever political office, Bill Clinton was reelected to a second term as president. When John Edwards was elected to his first (and only) political office, Bill Clinton was beginning to plan his post-presidency.

I have seen many people on here suggest that because it was Bill, not Hillary, who was the one actually elected, that none of this amounts to anything for Hillary. I have to say, that this is a very incorrect, yet for many satisifying, statement.

The 8 years of experience that Hillary will have as a senator will be what she will run on. Those 8 years are impressive by themselves (more than Edwards or Obama). She is qualified due to that senate experience. The experience that she had through Bill before this, simply add support to this core of senate experience.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/6/16/171051/760

Your reasons against Obama are exactly why I like him. He speaks for my generation and he's electable.

Hillary is the most unelectable of the bunch, and I wish that wasn't true. There's a good chance she will get the nomination.

I just don't see it for 2008. As being the most unelectable of the bucnch I would have to umbrage with that. IMHO she is what is needed to win the GE and has the experience to tear down the Republican spin machine.

She has favor's owed for the 06 Elections in pivotal states, as she campaigned for them and brought in necessary $. She has the most famous living diplomat as her spouse....That adds to the winning strategy.

"Inspiration and Perspiration!"

handle the presidency?

And, the reason Obama is electable has nothing to do with inspiration. Those are your talking points, not mine.

Hillary scares me because of her high disapprovals.

Many Republicans and most indys have no problem with Obama. Almost all Democrats will vote for him. Many Democrats, and almost all Republicans will not vote for Hillary. Why you don't get this is beyond me.

Just look at the number of DEMOCRATS here that will never vote for Hillary.

He and his team can't even manage a stealthy smear and be successful.

How would I expect him to be an effective president. Theres nothing in his resume that gives me confidence that he is qualified as the best candidate for the presidency. I simply don't like him..and I like him less everytime he pulls a lame brain stunt..and winds up with egg on his face.

Mainstream America feels differently than you do towards experience and knowledge...

the corprate backers and doesn't care to work for people who elect her.

It is a reality..... Right or Wrong...it is what it is and it won't change for years if ever.

Hint. It's on her website.

the woman that I would pick as the first.

Women are supposed to be kind in heart, humanitarians...she's a war mongerer... she worked for Walmart... she stayed married to a man who she clearly does not love, except for his image... sorry, she's a sell out.

And yes, I am tougher on a woman than a man. Men have fucked up enough things, and if a woman comes in I expect them to do the job with love, care and humanity... She is far from loving and kind or she'd be standing on every soap box denouncing this war, not funding it.

she is.

"Women are supposed to be kind??????" Margaret Thatcher and Golda Meier might disagree. Mothers, in their view, must often be discliplinarians and make the tough choices.

I'm not a supporter of Hillary's or anyone's in particular...but you know what they say about women:

If you want a job done right, get a woman to do it.

From my personal experience, women are much better at the details of any job. Men tend to view the bigger picture only, while women view the big picture, and get into the nitty gritty of it all.

We shouldn't be having this can a woman be President discussion in this century. History proved centuries ago that women are very much capable of being leaders of countries. It all depends on the individual. Having estrogen and a uterus does not make one become incapable of conducting governmental affairs.

but not this one... Sometimes intuition rules over all other senses... and she will take us to Iran if she's elected.

but you are entitled to your opinion. If you can vote for her in good conscience then more power to you. I can't do it.

I do hope you don't mean that for the GE also if she does happen to be our nominee.

I do know that if one of the current top 3 are nominated then I feel little hope for this country. I hate admitting that, but I can't shake the feeling. I would love to be able to put my faith out there on the line and feel good about anything in the future, let alone a presidential candidate.

The more aware I become of just how little humanity is left in the so-called American Dream and the rampant cognitive dissonance that has set in, I do not feel that I fit in here. Having seen Sicko last night, I began to better understand my feelings of wanting to flee this country. I just want an opportunity for my children to flourish happily in an environment that doesn't constantly promote fear and suffering.

It's a defeatist attitude I know. The only time I get a feeling of hope is when people talk about Gore running, but then others make me feel guilty for asking him to run. And for some reason (again, I blame cognitive dissonance) people won't take Dennis Kucinich seriously, even tho he's the candidate that seems to embody everything the dems claim to have won the elections for last November.

:shrug:

Talk about confusing and heart wrenching times.

It is about power, money and strategy. If you watched the HBO Series Rome....that gives you an excellent example of how the game works.

And for the most part they like to see a governorship on their candidates' resumes.

Just sayin'.

And since the polls have been consistent for all of 2007, I would say America agrees also.

as being a U.S Senator, being the Governors wife/First lady of Arkansas and 8 years as First lady in the White House. She worked the Beltway Boys there on her own and with the President!

Working the "Beltway Boys" isn't something the electorate understands. In fact, lots of them were offended by the power that President Clinton gave her. It was probably her healthcare initiative that gave Congress to the Republican'ts.

Read this mornings' L.A. Times story to get a sense of why the Hillary should not run in 2008; Democrats don't want to push more of the same kind of cozy up to money find the middle path look at me first giving million dollar speeches etc. Enough of Clinton/Bush democracy- leave her to the Senate and let him slide off to South America

Weather you like the candidate or not, thats just stupid.

Refusing to see the blood on her hands from the unnecessary death and destruction going on in Iraq?
The key word is unnecessary.

How anyone who voted on the IWR could possibly still think they were capable of making an intelligent decision concerning the future of the United States escapes me. What type of person could still show his or her face after such a mistake, much less run for public office? Forget the hundreds of thousand killed, wounded, and displaced in Iraq? How about the pain and loss here in America?

Repeat it in Iran?

Most qualified? Hardly!

:sarcasm:

That meme is not flying with the American public, may make you look special on DU, but theres a whole big America out there. And as i have already stated the polls so far agree.

the polls are telling you who is the most qualified!!

The MOST qualfied are not running: Gore and Clark!

And I have stated many times I wish he was running.

If we voted based on experience alone, we probably should be taking a better look at Richardson, Biden and Dodd. Experience isn't the only factor that people look at when they are in the voting booth.

I want change.

I don't want a Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton, followed by a possible Jeb run. It is really that simple. It feels like we are chasing our tails with this scenario. This isn't the kind of change that I think our country needs.

This meme just doesn't fly. It's what the American people want.

opposing H. Clinton, because of an odd symmetry to the names of recent Presidents. I am confident that H. Clinton would not win based only on her name; she will have to be perceived as a serious and capable leader. It would be unfortunate to exclude potentially good leaders based only on the spelling of their name.

It IS her name. And...in my humble opinion...she is only leading the polls right now because of this name. If she wasn't a Clinton, she wouldn't be leading the national polls for the Democratic nomination.

If she becomes president, it will be for two reasons. The image of Hillary created by the media (people voted their emotions) and her connections. Mostly, it'll be about those connections - who she knows. In her years in the Senate, she has managed to dump a huge amount of earmark dollars into New York, so I guess that's something.

I remember reading about Thomas Jefferson and how horrible he was at public speaking. While his writings were brilliant, it was painful to hear him at the podium. He would never survive the sound byte and "what's she wearing" mentality that is American politics today.

I will say Hillary is the most qualified to maintain the status quo (Edwards and Obama right behind her). I want change - I want someone to lead this country in a new direction; someone who truly represents the people. Unfortunately, such a person would never survive (and hasn't survived) the gauntlet.

Signed,

The Corporatocracy

Oh, yeah, eight. Sorry, but being the govenor's wife, AG's wife really don't count for much, especially considering that she wasn't busy doing the business of the state of Arkansas, but was instead busy being a lawyer. And her years as First Lady really don't count either, since she didn't have much input, other than her completely botched health care plan, in the political sphere. Sure, she advised her husband, she watched from the sidelines, but frankly that is much the same as the difference between the starting quarterback and the bench warmer.

On the other hand, Kucinich has nearly two decades of experience in public office, much of that on the national level. I would say that the man has a lot more experience than Hillary. Instead of standing on the sidelines he has been in the mix for a long while, and unlike Hillary, he pays attention to his constituents wishes and has been on the right side of issues both big and small, another claim Hillary can't make.

But hey, another day, another piece of push propaganda from the professional Hillary backers. What's new?

:hi:

At least the I'd get paid! :hi:

I know that various politicians are indeed hiring people to run around the net and promote their candidate. Might be a slot for you:shrug:

If I got paid that would take the fun out of it.

And agree with that sentiment.

especially on issues important to opposing Bush White House throughout this time.

The only thing she led on was UNDERMINING the other Dem candidates.


This talk by historian Douglas Brinkley occurred in April 2004:


http://www.depauw.edu/news/index.asp?id=13354


Whom does the biographer think his subject will pick as a running mate? Not Hillary Rodham Clinton. "There's really two different Democratic parties right now: there's the Clintons and Terry McAuliffe and the DNC and then there's the Kerry upstarts. John Kerry had one of the great advantages in life by being considered to get the nomination in December. He watched every Democrat in the country flee from him, and the Clintons really stick the knife in his back a bunch of times, so he's able to really see who was loyal to him and who wasn't. That's a very useful thing in life."




http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2006/oct/07/did_carville_tip_bush_off_to_kerry_strategy_woodward



Did Carville Tip Bush Off to Kerry Strategy (Woodward)

By M.J. Rosenberg |

I just came across a troubling incident that Bob Woodward reports in his new book. Very troubling.
On page 344, Woodward describes the doings at the White House in the early morning hours of Wednesday, the day after the '04 election.

Apparently, Kerry had decided not to concede. There were 250,000 outstanding ballots in Ohio.

So Kerry decides to fight. In fact, he considers going to Ohio to camp out with his voters until there is a recount. This is the last thing the White House needs, especially after Florida 2000.

So what happened?

James Carville gets on the phone with his wife, Mary Matalin, who is at the White House with Bush.

"Carville told her he had some inside news. The Kerry campaign was going to challenge the provisional ballots in Ohio -- perhaps up to 250,000 of them. 'I don't agree with it, Carville said. I'm just telling you that's what they're talking about.'

"Matalin went to Cheney to report...You better tell the President Cheney told her."

Matalin does, advising Bush that "somebody in authority needed to get in touch with J. Kenneth Blackwell, the Republican Secretary of State in Ohio who would be in charge of any challenge to the provisional votes." An SOS goes out to Blackwell.
>>>>>>>>




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dk1k0nUWEQg




Wonder why?


http://consortiumnews.com/2006/111106.html

When you convince the majority of the voters in the Democratic primary then come back and talk to me.

and the real history of this nation, just in case future generations will show the courage that other cannot muster.

Hillary or any other Democratic nominee will do away with it.

because Bill made some bad decisions in office beneficial to protecting BushInc that have STUCK him with Bush's legacy, too.

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/111106.html

The 90's was so prosperous for so many, not just the elite.

and this Iraq war were also the result of keeping those outstanding matters from full exposure. Was that prosperity for a short time worth all those lives and Bush2?

You would REALLY trade short term prosperity for the accountability that preserves our fragile democracy?

Would you even TRY to make that position to the 9-11 families?

It's Bill Clinton's Fault! :eyes:

well thats enough for me. Good luck in your fantasy world.

Resort to a paper thin argument about "standing by the polls" instead of coming up with the issues she led on in the Senate upthread.

AS far as she's concerned, all options with Iran and expanding the War are still on the table, just like the Nazi Germany Version Of Peter Sellers In 'Being There' always chirps out from time to time.

Sounds like Morning In America To Me.

throughout Clinton's terms by LYING about what happened then to blame only Clinton - completely IGNORING Poppy's crimes - something that YOU choose to do as well, because your hero Clinton did it and he can't be wrong for doing it in your eyes.

Why would any Democrat from the left join the RW in continuing to divert the truth but using a different tact?

Biden has more. Kucinich. Obama has more ELECTED experience as well, although less WASHINGTON experience. Somehow Hillary's experience as being a spouse is more valid than others' electoral experience.

Come on, there might be some good reasons for electing Hillary instead of the rest. But experience is...er....not one of them.

I'm still not gonna vote for her!
Not even in the general election.
I don't have to, I'm in a safe state for her, and I'm not gonna vote for her.
She might be "qualified" but that does not mean that I agree with the agenda that she is "qualified" to carry out. I'm sure she would be better for the country that the Bush Crime Family, but it still feels to me like it would be choosing the "lesser of two evils." I'm not gonna do that anymore.

If Al Gore were to run, however...

Oy vey! :eyes:

Exactly my position.
I live in a rather "purple" state but
I will sit out 08 rather than vote for her

Popular vote means alot also. I am beginning to see why Democrats have a hard time winning election.

It really doesn't matter who will win the election if it's Hillary VS. Designated Republican Scumbag To Be Named Later.

It will almost be Morbid fun watching the Cult Of Hillary Spin The Apologist Poetic when it's "New Boss, Slightly Prettier Than The Old Boss."

...as their candidates, like Republicans do, maybe they can win elections.
Sorry, but I think Mrs. Clinton is a jerk.
I'm done voting for jerks...

NOT.

Biden, Dodd and Richardson really have the most experience.

I will say this, though - one of the reasons that I support her is because of her valuable White House experience. No, not just because she was First Lady (because that alone isn't a qualification) but because of the things she did while she was there - she was one of her husband's top advisors and was heavily involved in a number of policy areas.

It's good to know you believe in Hillary as much as I believe in Obama.

:hi:

recognition, a crack team, and most of the media attention.

Experience, though, is not the only factor voters consider when they vote. Senator Clinton enjoys very significant support from her constituents but has not served that much longer in the Senate than John Edwards. Obama is notably strong in community-building from his early work in Chicago. Joe Biden is an acknowledged whiz at foreign policy. There are many variables that make up a voter's final decision.

Some Democrats in our close circle feel that Sen. Clinton has the lead because of those other factors -- the money, the name, the crack team, and the media buzz. "Experience" alone is not a top consideration in Clinton's case. In fact, our 3 frontrunners have less than Dodd, Biden, and Richardson, for example, and experience, in and of itself, is not the sole determinant of greatness. Lincoln was a 1-term congressman with none of the advantages Sen. Clinton has going in, and he did just fine during a time of national crisis.

Hard to say if 08 will perform like other primary seasons -- since the calendar and conditions are shifting so much -- but I've seen some solid pole positions slip to well back in the back between mid-summer or fall and the evening of the Iowa caucuses.

I think the race for the nomination is still very much wide open.

I also believe that John Edwards still has a very good shot, I see him taking over Obama by September.

passion for your candidate. And Senator Clinton may hold her lead and go on to win both Iowa and New Hampshire. Surely if she wins one or the other -- or both -- she will clear the field and go on to Denver and accept the nomination.

If that is the scenario, she has my vote. I'm a Democrat, about as blue as they come, and while I have other favorites in the pack, Senator Clinton will have my support, my donations, my enthusiasm, and bumpersticker space on my car.

Stick to your guns, and let's give the Republicans the boot in 2008.

I plan on doing both!


"If that is the scenario, she has my vote. I'm a Democrat, about as blue as they come, and while I have other favorites in the pack, Senator Clinton will have my support, my donations, my enthusiasm, and bumpersticker space on my car." Thats how I feel whoever the nominee ends up being. Glad your one also!

:hi:

:hi: :thumbsup:
:dem:

I'm no Civil War buff, and it's not my intention to dis Lincoln, but I seem to remember him having incompetent general after incompetent general running the show, to the point where the war lasted for YEARS although nobody expected it to last for weeks, and hundreds of thousands of Americans brutally killed each other.

Isn't it possible that a president with "more experience" could have had skills to prevent that all from happening?

Just sayin'!

At least one of them had very keen presidential ambitions of his own.

Not until the hard-drinking Ulysses S. Grant did Lincoln find a field commander he trusted and admired.

was elected Ak/AG. Also, her accomplishments & work during Bill's public service before she became Senator are worth reading.

She is, without a doubt, the most experienced.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Rodha...

1969, Rodham entered Yale Law School, where she served on the Board of Editors of the Yale Review of Law and Social Action.
During her second year, she volunteered at the Yale Child Study Center, learning about new research on early childhood brain development.
She also took on cases of child abuse at Yale-New Haven Hospital, and worked at the city legal services to provide free advice for the poor. She was 23.
In the summer of 1970, she was awarded a grant to work at the Children's Defense Fund in Cambridge, Massachusetts.
During her post-graduate study, Rodham served as staff attorney for the Children's Defense Fund and as a consultant to the Carnegie Council on Children.
She was a member of the impeachment inquiry staff advising the House Committee on the Judiciary during the Watergate scandal.

In 1971 she traveled to Washington to work on Senator Walter Mondale's subcommittee on migrant workers, researching migrant problems in housing, sanitation, health and education.
The following summer, Rodham campaigned in the western states for 1972 Democratic presidential
candidate George McGovern.
She received a Juris Doctor degree from Yale in 1973, having completed a
thesis on the rights of children.

Working for Rose Law Firm specializing in intellectual property & working pro bono in child advocacy. (1976)

edsp

Some people don't want to see this side of Hillary because it will make them stop and think. Of course I'm the one thats always being accused of not thinking.

I always have to wonder where people have been when they compare her to other first ladies or ask "What's she done?"


I agree, a lot of people don't want to see the facts. You're one of those people who knows the facts and I would say, thinking quite abit about what is best for our country.

People say she's only in it for herself, but after law school, she could have headed up to New York and joined some big law firm and made a ton of money. Instead, she did things to help people. Good for her.

Will JFK and Lincoln had minimal experience. It's all about judgment. Such as judgments whether to support the Iraq War from the beginning.

Senator Clinton's long history shows she's a liberal.

Hillary was silent once military actions started. SILENT.

And she was not the only Democrat to vote for it.

Other Dems did vote for it and other Dems also VOTED AGAINST it. And some who did say they made a mistake!

Hillary does not think it was a mistake.

That meme works on DU but not in main stream America. If it did she would not have been the leader for all of 2007 in the polls.

I sincerely believe the Democrats en masse should reject anyone that made the catastrophically bad decision to abdicate Congress' war-declaring powers to an idiot.

Astroturfing?

Obama and Edwards have both done generous and prosperous things on behalf of others, in their lives and careers before being elected to office, as well (and I don't support either of them for the primaries either).

And in terms of who's been in public office the longest: Richardson, Dodd, Biden, and Kucinich each have much more extensive legislative records than Senator Clinton's eight years in the Senate.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Hillary Clinton: The Candidate Most Qualified To Protect And Advance The Established Corrupt Status Quo.

Sweet. We get one of The Corleones instead of The Sopranos.

I can almost hear the tide turning.

He actually served in several offices, rather than be married to shomeone who was.

The more exposure she gets, the more she will appeal to people.

Her high negatives will make it easy for repukes to hurt Dems downticket from her. She will have negative coattails for Dems in red states and the west.

...even if her presence at the top of the ticket results in Democratic congressional losses.

And her worshippers will continue to hail her as the world's "savior"...

Thanks, but no thanks.