Hillary as Pres. makes as much sense as Melinda Gates running microsoft

I am sick of people saying that Hillary has more experience than Obama and Edwards because she was first lady to the 'big dawg'.

under that logic with 1 term as senator

Melinda Gates could be CEO of microsoft
Laura Bush would be qualified to be president
Joyce Rumsfeld could run the Iraq war
Denis Thatcher could run England
Paul Pelosi could run congress

Lets try to use logic this election season... being first lady is a ceremonial position.. and I know a bunch of us liked Bill as president but he isn't running again... he isn't and (according to the 22nd amendment) shouldn't be making any more presidential policy positions.

I know...I know.. she worked as an advisor...but really the biggest thing she attempted is her health care plan.... and I think we can all agree not to get into that mess...

Clinton's supporters should stick to things she actually has done and stop trying to pin Bill's resume to her.

on a side note: Clinton likes to brag that "we balanced the budget"...but again...she wasn't in elected office.... and shouldn't take credit for Bill's work..or non-Clinton supporters should be able to bring up NAFTA, Don't Ask Don't Tell, and other hated gems that triangulated their way into Bill's policies.



On edit: I am not saying she doesn't have experience... I am saying that her being first lady does not give her this huge lead in experience over the other candidates...as some have claimed on the message boards.

Now heres something to dispel your rumor mongering..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x36633

what in the hell else do you expect Bill to say? That she isn't qualified? :shrug:

why, are you choking on your own spit because she will Win the Primary?

If we're talking purely about qualifications, Bill Richardson has more relevant experience than any other contender. Not that I think he'll win the primaries.

I know full well that Hillary has the best shot of winning the primaries. The tragic irony is that she has a dismal chance of winning the general.

If things play out the way you want them to, I have a feeling we'll all be choking on our own spit by November 5th, 2008.

but I'LL STICK WITH OBAMA...THANK YOU!

as a senator? She apparently was great there. What's your motive?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3340745&mesg_id=3340745

DMC = Draft Mario Cumio (one who started that thread)

what I am saying is that saying that she being first lady is not valid experience for president.

to a bill of impeach. I think her name was Hillary something.

Certainly a crediential but claiming that Hillary did the research that led to Congress impeaching Nixon is sillier than claiming that Edwards' speech - as all Senators gave prepared speeches - saved Clinton from impeachment.

There are so corrupt SOB's out there who are lawyers. Then they are justified to run for President.

The post-er was merely pointing out HRC's political background because the OP implies that she has none other than marriage. Sure, the OP then backpedaled throughout the thread...but the message was clear when the OP only addressed her marital status.

No one said a lawyer is automatically qualified.

However, many people want to state because she was First Lady that makes her qualified to be President.

What charges did she lead?
*A flag burning ammendment?
She lead the charge to save America from the mortal threat of all the flag burning?

*The violent Video Game issue?
She was in front on this issue. The mantle of leadership against video games was certainly heavy on her shoulders as she battled this controversial issue.

Where was she when the REAL battles were being fought?


*Did she stand up with John Kerry and help prevent Roberts from being confirmed as Chief Justice?
I don't remember her leadership (or even followship) here.

*Has she assumed a leadership role in standing against the illegal Occupation of Iraq?
Aside from some campaign videobytes....NO.

*Did she rally the Democratic Party and help the Democratic candidate in Connecticut when the Democratic Senate seat was under attack?

*She sat on the Senate Committe investigating Abu-Graib with some memorable posturing before the cameras. Where was the Follow-Up? Has she spoken out against the obvious sweeping under the carpet and the scapegoating of Lindsey England while the REAL Torturers and Criminals go free? REMEMBER: Hillary SAT on the Senate Investigating Committee ! It was HER JOB to follow up!!!

YES! I question her Senate experience.
Anyone paying attention would do so.

both in Arkansas and in DC. Also, ALL Democrats do contrast what was done under a Democratic President to what has been done under Bush - so it is crazy to expect Hillary not to do this.

This does point out the weird effects of a spouse of a two term President running. If she runs on his accomplishments in office, the only way to fight back is to identify deficits of the former Presidents term or to make the strange assertion that the first lady had nothing to do with them. Their greediness in wanting (presumably) 2 more creates a very weird dynamic where the primary fight will, by necessity attack the last Democratic President. Now that the Clintons have signalled that they are prepared to go negative in the primaries (if that is not all media speculation), this will become a very destructive primaries for the Democrats. (2004's primaries will seem mild in comparison)


I do think that her Senate role has been hyped - nearly since she entered the Senate. She is not a bad Senator, but she is clearly not one of the best. I have watched some committee hearings where she has been present - mainly the Armed Services ones and there are others who are much more likely to ask the questions that get the administration on record or elicit new inforamation. She also seems to often use her time to make a pre-prepared statement. She also has very few bills or amendments she sponsored that have been passed into law. This is partially because she does not have much senority and because there was Republican leadership for much of it.

However, being an excellent Senator is not necessary to becoming President - they have very different responsibilities. Over the primaries, people will be looking to see if she can inspire people and if she can sell an agenda she wants to implement. She will need to counter the few that she would act with the secrecy she did on healthcare and that she would do a better job working with the people she needs to win over than she did then. (That may be how she uses her Seante career - that she has improved on this.)

I do NOT support Clinton, but I do think that

where do you get the sexist part of my post???

:sarcasm: You throw in a couple of "male spouse" examples to try to cover the very obvious misogyny in your post. It is clear to Jim Sagle. It is clear to me.

without being a sexist...

at this point. But sexism and blatant misogyny are obvious and unacceptable as the basis of argument.

you can't just claim it...I said NOTHING about the fact that she was a female.... NOTHING at all... and I take you attacks personally. This is like saying that criticizing Obama's experience means your racist. Proof... I would like to know how what I said was sexist???

However, as entrenched and reflexive as your attitudes appear to be, I doubt you will ever see the sexism in your viewpoints. I do not and would not attack you personally. That is a strawman argument. It is your blatant misogynistic arguments that I counter--with vigor.

... if you don't like HRC you are a mysgonist, if you don't like Obama you are a racist.

What are you if you don't like Edwards?

Thinking like yours is exactly what has made it so easy for the RW talking machine to paint all "liberals" as drooling morons.

Thanks a bunch.

Seems they'll think of a term for EVERYthing here if they feel it's necessary.

You don't need to thank hlthe2b or anyone...you're doing a fine job all by yourself.

.. moron. Thanks to you too.

as a first lady and based her stature in the world on her husband's successes.

That is sexist becasue women have traditionally been maligned and discounted and blamed for the successes and failures of their husbands.

and beyond the sexism the accusations are baseless.

it like 8 times to other people already......

I am NOT saying that Hillary Clinton does not have any experience. I am saying that her being married to Bill Clinton does NOT COUNT as experience.

That being said... what was sexist or false about my post.

"I am sick of people saying that Hillary has more experience than Obama and Edwards because she was first lady to the 'big dawg'.

Well, She was First Lady BECAUSE she was married to Bill and her experience DOES count for 2008.

Read Bernstein's book . And, if you still can't figure out what is sexist about your statement take Feminism 101 at any school. Maybe a light bulb will go off.

There is nothing sexist about that. That is a fact.

http://content.scholastic.com/browse/article.jsp?id=4647

Clinton was not the first President's wife to come under attack. Eleanor Roosevelt, wife of President Franklin D. Roosevelt, spoke out for workers and took up the cause of civil rights long before it was popular. Tall and toothy, she was not conventionally attractive. She was attacked for her looks as well as for her controversial political stands.

"Eleanor Roosevelt broke one precedent after another", says Boller. "She was the first President's wife to give interviews and she was the first to have a newspaper column. She also gave lectures and traveled for her husband, who was ."

While other First Ladies didn't speak out publicly as much as Roosevelt, history shows that many exerted a powerful influence behind the scenes. President Millard Fillmore checked with his wife, Abigail, before making major decisions. Rosalynn Carter sat in on Cabinet meetings with her husband, Jimmy. And Nancy Reagan had so much power in President Ronald Reagan's White House that she had his chief of staff fired.

By taking a more public role, Hillary Clinton has clearly broken the mold; a traditional First Lady won't necessarily appear in her place, either. Elizabeth Dole, wife of Clinton's Republican challenger, Bob Dole, has her own political career. She has held two Cabinet posts: Secretary of Transportation under President Reagan and Secretary of Labor under President Bush, and currently heads the American Red Cross.

"The debate over the role of First Ladies will continue to burn until there is a female President", says Boller. "Then the debate will turn to what role the First Hubby should play."

Will a Woman Ever Become President?
No major party has ever fielded a female candidate for President. The closest the U.S. ever came to having a female leader was when Geraldine Ferraro unsuccessfully ran for Vice President on the Democratic ticket in 1984.

She has a better understanding of what is involved in being president than she would have otherwise had, if she hadn't been First Lady. That's not a sexist statement.

This however IS a sexist statement: "under that logic with 1 term as senator Laura Bush would be qualified to be president"

It's sexist because it ignores her history and accomplishments prior to her HUSBAND accomplishing XYZ, which is a standard way to marginalize women.

It's sexist because it equates her life experience to other women based solely on who they were married to.

This:


is not the same as this:

What garbage... so now any criticism of Senator Clinton should be met with charges of being "sexist"?

So that would mean any criticism of Obama should be met with calling the person a "racist"...

No shortage of twits...

She's a DLC corporatist stooge - a good cop to the RNC bad cops.

But I'll be damned if I keep quiet when an alleged "Democrat" spews cheap genderist snark straight from Rove's ass into our forum.

Here's a virtual quarter - go buy a clue.

I feel that Hillary being married to Bill should not be considered presidential experience. (not that she doesn't have political experience)

the sexist card in order to make gains in the Dem primary.
You won't be opposed to TeamClinton because she is a DLC corporatist stooge, but "because you fear a strong woman"
What do I mean "will"? They've already been using it.

So any discussion of Senator Clinton that doesn't appear to be Carville talkin' points should be deemed "genderist snark"? It's all some channelling protons from Heir Karl's bungholio?

Whuh? :crazy:

And go no further...

I can understand why you wouldn't want to dig deeper as it would blow your screed out of the water...

And I can understand the defensiveness of Obama supporters on this point...Hell Obama hasn't even bothered to serve half the term he was elected to, and which he said he would serve out, before jumping at the brass ring...

His lack of experience on a national stage certainly is not a bar to him being President, but it is hardly a selling point...and given that, the next logical step is for his supporters to try and make us believe Hillary with 8 years as a very effective First lady and 7 as a United States Senator, somehow doesn't have more experience...

into his term....

That would be ignoring

Clinton running for another term as senator two months before announcing a run for president...


It is a stupid argument against both Obama and Clinton

and she didn't promise not to run for President, Obama did.

That she might run for President, and unlike Obama, did not promise to serve her entire term...

Obama for president. They want him to break his promise.

...state legislature and Washington....as Abe Lincoln had when he was elected president?

I guess Honest Abe wasn't married to a president.

And was chosen when delegates could not choose between Seward, Chase and Bates in 1860...

In fact, he was an unenthusiastic choice and one arrived at after several days of balloting...

Not that he didn't have a core of support, but it was a small minority on the Party...those who had seen him in the Lincoln-Douglas debates and his Cooper Union speech.

That would turn out be be the greatest President in history was not apparent in his terms in the state legislature or his one in Congress... which were undistinguished...

could lead to one of our greatest presidents in history?

So why, then, do we pooh-pooh Obama's experience, even though he has as much elected experience as Lincoln and more elected experience than Hillary?

Seems to me both have enough experience. But, then again, I don't measure a candidate's worth by whom he/she marries either.

To win the Mega-Millions lottery...

Doesn't mean I would put a down payment on a new house based on that probability...

Especially national experience. As I mentioned, Abe Lincoln only had two years national experience. He did fine. And it was not a 1 in 200 million chance because he had strength of character, leadership qualities, was a good orator, etc etc etc. As pointed out above, Bill Clinton didn't have ANY national elected experience before he was elected. He done good! Eisenhower didn't have any elected national experience either and neither did Reagan for that matter if you look at the other side of the aisle. Who says that elected national experience is particularly predictive of success as a president?

It's like a lazy interviewer for a job who doesn't seek out a candidate's real aptitude for the job, his abilities, his character, his motivation, his values, or even his abilities but just asks what "experience" the candidate has. I think everyone who has changed careers in their lifetimes know that it is quite possible to do well in a new endeavor. It is rather droll and uncreative to just see "experience".

It is quite ironic that it is the Hillary folks who seem to be most obsessed with "experience". Ironic because, apart from marrying a President and sometimes being on speaking terms with him, Hillary has only 8 years elected experience, two less years of elected experience than Obama. Yet, the meme is that Obama lacks experience and should wait until next time.

If Hillary is going to campaign in Fall on the basis of "vote for me I am experienced" I suggest she pass out free coffee at her campaign speeches to the crowd, and stronger stimulants for those who are not avid Hillaryites. zzzzzz.....

As I have said on numerous ocsasions to the apparently deaf Obama supporters here...Obama's lack of experience is not a bar to being a successful candidate or President...I never said it was...

But it is not a selling point either...the fact is Hillary has more relevant experience on a national level than Obama does...plain and simple...and there is absolutely nothing wrong with her using that as part of her appeal to voters...

And no matter how much spin you try and apply, that fact will not change...and it is a fact that Democratic voters have acknowledged as well

with his Experience in Senate.

I have no idea what your real point is, but Hillary is quite capable of being an effective POTUS. She's got the experience and the smarts to do a perfectly fine job. She might not be on my short list of preferred Democratic nominees, but I'd have no issues if she is the choice of the Democrats.


"but really the biggest thing she attempted is her health care plan.... and I think we can all agree not to get into that mess..." Yeah, we know how Republicans killed that idea. And aren't we better off for it!

Really, if you don't like her policy or positions, articulate and critique them. But this argument is DOA.

the experience of Edwards and Obama.. there is constantly this claim that being first lady means she is instantly qualified.

Being first lady made her "instantly qualified" to be President...

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

And your research skills are obviously not put to good (or any use)...a simple google search would have revealed what her accomplishments as first lady were...you obviously did not bother, or you would not have posted such drivel in the first place...

You know most Hillary supporters don't make the argument that Obama is not qualified to be President, just that Hillary's experience is a selling point for her, and not so much for Obama...however, if you are seriously going to try and equate the two, you are gonna get pushback...

is not qualified to be president.... check out the link...and yes I know it wasn't started by a Clinton supporter but it did bring out the Clinton supporters...


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3340745

To be President...

Though admittedly it is in this thread and not the one referenced by the previous post.

"Obama as President makes as much sense as making a 2nd year Resident Chief of surgery..."

So when you say "most Hillary supporters don't make the argument that Obama is not qualified to be President" are you one of the few who do?

was the drift oF an earlier post.

But other than the idea that he is too inexperienced to be president, he is qualified. Right?

are unwittingly helping solidify the meme.

Some things that do not have intellectual muster should be simply ignored.

How about talking about the issues? Or are issues more boring than talk about "experience" or similar intellectual lameness as following Paris Hilton's exploits?

What is Hillary's vision for America? WHat is Obama's? How are they different? THAT is what we should be discussing.

You are messing with the RW anti-Hillary talking points--LOL

Some perusing here might have a massive "brain-farct."

:thumbsup:

The OP has spent the entire thread backpedaling. You've brought the argument back to the facts of the initial post.

From my understanding, she is very very instrumental in running one of the world's largest philanthropic foundations, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Hillary has creds of her own--substantial credentials. Like her or hate her, the lumping of "apples and oranges" in this post strikes me as incredibly condescending with a very large dose of misogyny thrown in, inclusion of a couple of men, not withstanding. :eyes:

I do know that you don't give someone a job and cite their husband having the job previously as a reason. That is my point.

independent of anything their husbands may have done. You admit that. Yet,knowing nothing of their independent accomplishments and qualifications, you feel free to insinuate they are not qualified to do the job that their husbands have held. THAT, is blatant sexism and misogyny.

sexist against males and females...


and no I didn't insinuate that they are not qualified... I insinuated that it would be stupid to give them those jobs just because their spouses had the job. My spouse is an Arabic Linguist but that doesn't automatically mean that I am qualified to be one. So get off of your high horse. My post has nothing to do with people being male or female.

as is evidenced by the countless DUers who have called you on your sexism. Perhaps you need to revisit your own instincts and perceptions, rather than assuming everyone else here is on "some high horse."

I have no problem with valid critique of Hillary or any other female politician, candidate, or other figure. But you need to base it on argument specific to their own complete record of accomplishments and accomplishments, expressed positions on issues, and abilities--just as you would with any man. Hillary has NOT based her candidacy nor expressed her qualifications to be President solely, nor in any way largely as reflective of her time as First Lady. It is part of her history and it does factor into her experience, but to judge her accomplishments ONLY on her time as First Lady is dishonest and sexist. The RW does this because they are sexist at their core and could care less about honest debate. Progressives who favor a candidate other than Hillary do not.

"Throwing in a couple of male names is not fooling anyone..."

you are saying I am being sexist regardless of what I actually have said.

You are also adding things into my post that I didn't say. I was not saying she shouldn't be president because of her marriage to Bill. I was knocking the sexist argument that we should elect her because of her marriage to Bill. That is sexist. She should be elected on her OWN merits not his. I know Clinton has not based her candidacy based on the fact that she was first lady. But she does use terms like "we" to describe Bill's accomplishments as president.

Your straw man arguments aside, I'm sure many would agree with you on who would make the best candidate. You simply need to make your argument coherently, consistently and fairly, based on the entire record and comparing "apples to apples."

Somehow I am suspecting a light bulb might go on for you if, for example, your Arab Linguist wife was judged unsuitable for a job requiring those skills over a similar male candidate because, rather than considering her credentials, assumed she was standing for the job based solely on her husband's time spent in the Middle East as a non-speaking worker-- her own skills totally overlooked.

I didn't use a straw man argument. I know it sounds nice to say it... but I didn't use one. Again you are missing(ignoring) what I am saying. So I will type it slowly and well spaced.


I am NOT saying Hillary shouldn't be president because of her marriage to Bill Clinton !!!


I am saying her supporters should stop using it(her marriage) as some type of reason to attack the experience of other candidates. To use the analogy about my wife. She should be judged as a linguist based on her own merits as opposed to being denied OR GIVEN the job because I may or may not be a linguist. A persons spouse should have NOTHING to do with getting or losing a job. Now tell me again how exactly I am being sexist.... and try responding by using what I am actually claiming, instead of using what you think I am secretly saying.

your original post when many DUers pointed out your inconsistencies, that who could ever follow it? LOL. :eyes:

Good night.

Don't act like I have edited 18 times over the course of the evening... Hmmm.....what part of my argument have I changed so many times....please tell me???

There is nothing sexist about his post. I am a woman and I am not offended by the post. He is correct. Just because you are first lady, it does not qualify you to run for the Office however, Her Senate Experience does count.

What he is stating many here on DU have been stating First Lady is political experience. It is not political experience.


That is like stating a heart surgeon's wife is qualified to perform surgery since she is his wife and may have learned a few things from conversations.

there are some men who recognize and respect the competence of their wives. In fact, she is a former Microsoft unit manager, serves on the Washington Post board of directors and helps run the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

In fact, here's a little more of her background from an article at wikipedia:

Melinda was born and raised in Dallas, Texas, where she was valedictorian of her class at Ursuline Academy of Dallas. She earned bachelor degrees in computer science and economics from Duke University in 1986 and an MBA from Duke's Fuqua School of Business in 1987, and served as a member of Duke University's board of trustees from 1996 to 2003. Bill and Melinda met in 1987 at a Microsoft press event in Manhattan.<1> She is an alumna of the Kappa Alpha Theta sorority.


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

whose Mom was on the United Way Board with the head of IBM when IBM was dissed by Digital Research and needed another source for an operating system. He used Harvard computers and a Harvard debug program to develop Mbasic - which at the time was a second tier Basic for the 8086. His 4 staff programmers did a great job on Mcasm - an assembler/disassembler that allowed one to steal code from others. And his staff borrowed from the public domain Unix of the day version V6 that had its code published in 75/76. His DOS for the IBM was a 3rd tier CP/M purchased from Seattle computing after he had faked having an operating system developed for the 8086 so as to get the IBM contract.

Bill was a marketing "genius/bully" that was taught by his corporate lawyer mother that the law allowed you to steal as you delayed any court decision until you owned the market and the other side had no resources to continue the fight in court - and had to settle for a "settlement agreement".

So the idea of Melinda replacing Gates is not unreasonable - if she does not have his marketing skill with the Fortune 500, she can hire it.

He is extremely technical and co-wrote a version of BASIC three years before there was an 8086 -- for a computer with only 4K and no keyboard and no monitor.

He had already left Harvard and started Micro-Soft (later Microsoft) by the time the 8086 was released.

___

Hey, the liberal light is always on at the Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy. Please stop by and say "hi!"

it was being taught at Dartmouth.

The Altair basic (which is what you are referring to was written on Harvard computers with the Harvard debugger - and the eventual Mbasic that came from that effort was second rate.

Check it out with someone who was in the industry back then and you will find all the above to be true.

Indeed, the mother forcing Bill to forgo the IBM DOS contract $90,000 for the Seattle Computing CP/M that he had bought for $20,000 is in his book, as is her telling him to go with a royalty deal (as she knew IBM production plans from those United Care meetings?)

I've spoken with him three times, once at some length -- I was interviewing him for a magazine article. I've met many of the luminaries of the early PC era, and he was without a doubt the smartest and the most all-around savvy. Alas, I've never met Steve Jobs, who's arguably the only figure of that age who gives Bill a run for his money.

There's a lot more to him than a silver spoon and hardball tactics.

Among other things, he re-validated the old Thomas Edison model of the technically gifted individual who grew his company to great heights. In the 70s/80s era, the conventional wisdom was that big companies needed businessy types at the helm. Hence you get Apple turning to John Scully and other such regressive decisions.

___

Hey, the liberal light is always on at the Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy. Please stop by and say "hi!"

indeed that is a skill I do not have and which I admire.

And he did with his 4 programmers put out Mcasm shortly after he did his Basic interpreter for the Altair and the 8086 - Mcasm was a wonderful program that was much better than the cumbersome disassemblers out there - and was the only disassembler that I recall as being available for the 8086. His Mbasic was indeed 2nd rate - Cbasic for CP/M was much better - but Bill had marketing skills.

Indeed friends that claim to know him say he is a marketing genious - handled the Fortune 500 CEOs and IT heads as one born into that class - which of course he was. But he was a taker of others ideas - using FUD - the IBM technique - to stop the sales of other's products, using Unix code in DOS - rather poorly at first - to move his CP/M - DOS - into the business world.

Many better techies developed better software than Bill's Microsoft and built corporations with 50 to a few hundred employees worth several millions- some of those techies in my family - only to see Bill's folks visit their company followed by Bill buying an inferior variation of your company's product and then taking your market away via his marketing ability/Fortune 500 contacts - bankrupting them.

Sounds like I'm bitter doesn't it.

I would say Bill was the best businessman of the folks from the 70's - and note that he's indeed smart in the classic Harvard way (he can write and speak and come across as intelligent at a drop of a dime on topics he is less than expert on). And outside of business ethics, he was not known as a bad guy and he certainly is doing some good now.

But he was not any more a techie than I was back then (many, many tens of thousands of people were better than I was in writing useful code) - but he certainly was more personable and was and is a fantastic grower of a company - indeed we can agree he is a very smart man.

I am impressed you obtained 3 interviews with him. Did you also interview Bill Joy, Vinod Khosla, Scott McNealy and Andy Bechtolsheim over at Sun? If so I am curious about what you thought of them. Did you speak with Ken Thompson, Dennis Ritchie and Douglas McIlroy and the BSD crowd of Unix fame?

Did you ever interview Michael Shrayer who packed the first word processor (Altair 880/TRS-80) into less than 4 k of memory back in 76, only to lose the market to WordStar. Back then I though all good code had to be like Shrayer's Electric Pencil program and be written in 8080/8086 assembly language so as to be as small and as fast as possible. Now we have 30 million line bloat code from Microsoft - truly a world that is over my head.

In any case I am wasting time going down memory lane - lets leave it at our agreeing that Gates was and is a very smart man. :-)

The others were minor encounters in meetings.

My focus was always in the more mainstream end-user, PC/Mac world, but I did hear Bill Joy speak at a Unix conference many moons ago.

One of Gates's greatest sources of power came from the fact that no one in Microsoft thinks s/he's smarter than he is, and for good reason. That's tremendously empowering for a company, so much better when there's an empty suit at the top. In many tech companies, the worker bees have way more product sense than the people making the (often terrible) business decisions. To have a guy that's respected and deserving of that respect is quite liberating, and much rarer than it ought to be.

Ballmer is no slouch either. He's much stronger technically than his alpha-male stereotype might suggest, though he doesn't pretend to be a technology visionary.

To a considerable extent, and I think you'll agree, the genius of Microsoft has been pragmatism. Generally, they make smart make/buy decisions, and they're candid about product flaws, so if their current offering doesn't cut the mustard, they'll keep improving it until it's the one that wins the reviews, etc.

The whole bloatware thing is a fascinating -- and very far afield -- topic. All throughout the formative days of the industry, people complained about bloat. But again and again, they chose feature-rich products over quick'n easy ones. Interestingly, in the move to web-based applications, people are starting to warm up to products that do the main 80% of what you want, such as the Google Docs and 37 Signals apps. Whether that will eventually be the undoing of the products that do 120% of what you need (in hopes that they do the 100% set that *you* need), will be interesting to watch....

___

Hey, the liberal light is always on at the Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy. Please stop by and say "hi!"

functions - but then I realized I only used a tiny percentage of those functions - and getting that tiny percentage to work was via new procedures (which my old brain does not learn all that easily these days) and was as cumbersome as before - or more so.

As to smarts at the top- they are always there - but usually they are people smarts and marketing skill. A CEO with those abilities plus enough tech knowledge to follow the conversation and actually add value is rare - and I do admire Gates for that reason. But the idea that Gates is a guru or super techie or even a visionary is - in my opinion - not true. But then Guru's have trouble breaking into 6 figure incomes and techies even more so.

Gates marketing skill is where he is a genius - again in my opinion - and selling 2nd best (or 10th best) software and making it the market leader in sales - which he has done again and again - is an amazing achievement.

In the 80's early DOS world the snarl from the observers was Gates lived by the rule that the DOS revision (and later Windows revision) was not done until competing software apps would not run on it. Today he only does that with Vista and Google search! :-)

Melinda Gates has a BS in Computer Science and Economics and an MBA from Duke's Fuqua School of Business. She was also a unit manager for several Microsoft products. She's intelligent and she knows the business which isn't always the case for CEO's it seems.

Don't underestimate the success of an intelligent woman just because she's overshadowed by her husband. Besides, who's to say Bill G or Bill C would have ever gotten where they are today without the help of the sharp women they chose to spend their lives with?

Being married to someone does not automatically mean you can do the job their spouse does.

My father was a federal judge for almost 25 years and before that he was a federal attorney. My mother is not qualified to fill those positions because of marriage.

My mother was a city council member for 7 years (until her death) and before that she was a school teacher. My father is not qualified to fill those positions because of marriage either.

Being first lady doesn't count. She did one legislative thing and she failed miserably at it.

I don't support HRC, but she is not basing her candidacy on her experience as first lady. She is well qualified on her own and her own credentials carry her. Being first lady factors into her overall experience, nothing more. Just as Obama's perspectives are somewhat shaped by his being African American. Does that qualify him to be President? No, his own credentials and experience, values, etc. do. But, his understanding of minority and populist issues may well be shaped by his being African American and so that certainly can be factored in to voter's opinions. Nothing wrong with that.

As to the surgeon's wife, you ignore the possibility that she is a well qualified surgeon in her own right. Can't be considering her own credentials, now can we? Women, after all, only live as an extension of their husbands? Sexist dribble. :eyes:

That person has been on the outside looking in. That person is not qualified. When you look up are bio and look at the political offices she has held. It comes up 1 Senate. She was only elected to The Senate there are no other political offices under her resume.

Didn't get through his entire education, but he is handsome and has a nice voice!!!

office as well as his position in Senate. Therefore your logic does not wash.

Is stunningly lacking...

I realize the fact Obama, contrary to promises he made, has only two years national political experience, and that this is his weakness...

If the pleasant fiction that Obama has more national experience than Hillary :rofl: helps you sleep at night...that's fine...sometimes people need their blanky...

I assure you, Democratic voters won't see it that way...

She has more than Obama. Obama is naive and egotistical and he will crumble as quickly to the repubs aas he just did to Hillary in the "memo" incident.

He doesn't have the stuff.

I see you must have lost your mind.

She took on the vast right wing conspiracy when Bill and others were unwilling to. In fact she named it.

Her health care initiative was bold---it was a long time ago and few politicos then were willing to consider the plight of the uninsured.

The difference between her and the political spouses you mention is that she was engaged politically during Clintons term and she is now in her second term as Senator from a large state.

I have heard it is uninspiring.

Maybe because so many monied medical groups have donated to Hillary?

Hmmm

Is to expand the SChip program, which she had a major hand in initiating as First Lady, to cover all children who do not have health care currently...an effort she and Congressman Dingell are spearheading...

Get the health care dollars into her pocket.

And you are how old?

If you go back to 1997 and look at the MSM articles, Hillary's role was that she, along with other former first ladies and interest groups, generated public support for the program. Additionally, per a aide of Senator Kennedy, she lobbied her husband to support it - because he was wobbly on it.

Kennedy has said that that legistaion had its roots in the bill he and Kerry wrote in 1996 that was based on the bill MA had just passed over Weld's veto. The Senate was then 55 Republican to 45 Democrats. If you read the speeches in Thomas indroducing or fighting for this bill- nether Kennedy (among the most gracious Senators in giving credit) nor Hatch credit Hillary Clinton on it.

In her autobiography, she spoke of helping behind the scenes. This morphed to helping initiate to initiated. This is an attempt to develop a story - her healthcare plan failed - she learned and initiated this plan that was more modest, but still the biggest increase since Medicare. Given who she is, I expect that this narrative (though not strictly accurate) will be agreed to even by Democrats involved - because of the power of the Clintons.

Having completed a full term as she promised (unlike Obama)

Therefore 7...she had 8 as first lady...

Obama has 2 as Senator...that's it on a national stage...

And 8 as a state legislator...an important job no doubt, but not on a national stage, dealing with national problems, and certainly not dealing with a national media...

As I said, not a bar to being elected President...but not a selling point...

you must incude this year for Obama. 7 to 3 in the US senate

Makes little difference...Obama has not even completed half of the one term he promised he would finish...

Hillary has a full term under her belt...a quite successful one at that...

Obama 2 Hillary 15...

and, I believe obama was also married for awhile.....

Hillary has 7 years in the senate. And she was married for awhile too...

I guess we should vote for hillary because we are supposed to measure a woman's worth by who her husband is?

And Obama's marriage has less drama to boot

And was chosen when delegates could not choose between Seward, Chase and Bates in 1860...

In fact, he was an unenthusiastic choice and one arrived at after several days of balloting...

Not that he didn't have a core of support, but it was a small minority on the Party...those who had seen him in the Lincoln-Douglas debates and his Cooper Union speech.

That would turn out be be the greatest President in history was not apparent in his terms in the state legislature or his one in Congress... which were undistinguished...

SO as much as I like Obama...pretty long odds we would win the lottery again...

you can measure Obama and HRC right here!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x36633

succeeded to stay president and first lady during a very conservative time in America (one we are not out of yet) and her health care initiative was so good it was very threatening. She helped Bill stay in office (and we are lucky for that.)

Also, your comparison of a two term Senator and First Lady with the wives of CEOs and cabinet officials who had NO political experience is nothing short of sexist. (And, that includes Paul Pelosi).

Let's judge the candidates on their records.

Hillary has served one term as senator. She is now into her second term.

Obama has several years in Illinois Senate, as well as his Senate experience.

Seems like both have some experience, but why is it that Hillary supporters are pooh-poohing Obama's experience?

Hillary has some non-elected experience being a wife of an elected officeholder. And Obama has some non-elected experience being a law professor, and doing activist work. What gives the Hillary folk the right to look down their nose at Obama's experience? Seems to me a double standard.

It is not national experience, you deal with local issues on a local stage, with a local media...and entirely different ballgame...

Experience as a state legislator alone is not a selling point for the Presidency...

IN which case there are a LOT more qualified people in this country than either Hillary or Obama. Then any old guy who's served 15 years on school boards would be better qualified!

should stay on topic and see who can best sove our problems.

Seems as if there were things that Bill didn't share with her....

Oddly, this may be a married couple who were more coordinated in their proifessional life than their personal life. My comment referred to the comment I responsed to that implied Hillary gets to claim everything good Clinton did as President because they were a team. Apparently, some want it both ways - Hillary gets all Bill's positives and the negatives are just his.

and a vice president can take credit for things that happen during an administration, and still run for president on his own. I'm not saying that Hillary was the same as a vice president, but she was similarly influential to the president, IMO.

Look what happened to us when our full of experience W Bush got to be in charge for 6 years?

Although that's not exactly difficult.

No one leaning right will ever vote for her.

you will be labled a sexist and pretend Democrat for talking like that.

on issues-- just as we should do with any candidate, male or female. This is in direct contrast to your trying to make the point HRC is essentially trying to gain office on her husband's coat-tails, an incredibly sexist position. You just don't (refuse to) get it, apparently, mckeown?

trying to attach her to her husbands record. Hillary's supporters should try to get her elected on HER OWN record. It is sexist of her supporters to say that she needs her husbands record to get elected. I am just trying to stop THEIR sexist tactic because it is a cheap shot against other candidates. Try actually reading what I posted...not just the headline.

You are the one attaching her to her husband...

Because if you did look at her record, you would have realized how stupid your OP was in the first place...

What could be more sexist than THAT? Nobody would dare say they voted for a guy because they wanted to vote for a male! That would be sexist. But it is quite alright to support someone because of sex is she is Hillary.

And the real funny thing about it is that if anyone criticizes Hillary, they are sexist!

What a racket!!!!

Good point. :thumbsup:

than Obama and Edwards by virtue of serving in the Senate longer than either of them.

Hillary has none!

knows something about presidential campaigns.

You could just as easily argue that Edwards has experience running and losing.

Well, good for her. Same could be said for Edwards, Obama, and all the rest. Heck we all know something about campaigns.

I am getting pretty tired already of all this meme about experience.

George Washington didn't have much national electoral experience and he was a master.

We need to look beyond the superficial. And ask what kind of experience do they have? Do they have experience opposing Iraq? Do they have experience standing up for the poor and middle class? Etc etc. What KIND of experience do they have? They ALL have enough experience. This is just such a pile of crap topic. And it is extremely ironic that Hillary supporters, of all people, would make a big deal about something their candidate is only average on.

she has more experience than Edwards, and more national experience than Obama.

If people want to say that Edwards running (and losing) in 2004 counts as experience, then I'll damned well say that Hillary's experiences in 1992 and 1996 count, too. And 2000 and 2006.

Oh... and they won all those races.

And HE won those races. HE was president. She was his wife...and sometimes they spoke with each other.

Could be useful.

Hillary Clinton: the Republican's dream opponent! Their only chance for victory!

I don't know anyone who's saying Hillary is a good candidate simply because she is Bill's wife. Anyone but you, that is.

For disclosure, I haven't chosen a candidate yet. But this kind of attack is ludicrous.

allowing his wife perform a surgery on one of his patients. She is his wife. Therefore she is qualified to do the surgery.

After reading the responses in this thread, I am really scared of Hillary getting the nomination. Her supporters are ignorant, sexist, and hateful people.

She will lose big in the general.

Although being in the first lady position does not give credentials to be president, it does provide a context and gives valuable experience that would help her in the role of President. She was behind the scenes and was there for the tough decisions and the process it took in making the decisions. She saw first hand the foreign policy issues and consequences of certain acts. She saw and helped meet the challenges involved with the congressional relationship. That experience does bring something extra to the table and gives her an edge that the others do not have.

Software company since I have experience with applications.

because Microsoft has a successful, albeit tainted, legacy.

dire need of some consciousness raising. But that's someone else's job today...I no longer have the patience for willful ignorant people...I have taken enough from the Right side and by Goddess, I'm not going to take it from those on the Left who should fucking know better....get a book and do some reading.

buh bye.

qualified to be president because she was First Lady. Being First Lady does not qualify anyone to be president. That is not experience to Run for President. He just called them on their logic. Now with that being said. She does have Senate experience. Since that is her only political office she has held that should be used to qualify her.


I am a woman and there is nothing sexist about his response. He is using her supporters logic.

My post was in response to the many posts by Clinton's supporters that her being first lady makes her more qualified that Edwards and Obama. That is ridiculous. I have also heard several people claim that it would be great to elect her because Bill would be back in the White House.


Do you know what sexist is? Sexist is saying that Hillary is qualified because of who she is married too. Sexist is also saying that she should be elected so her husband could be near the presidency. All I am saying is that if people are going to vote for her it should be on HER own merits not Bill's.

I am not attacking Clinton I am attack the sexist tactic used by HER supporters here, who say that her marriage to a specific MAN is a reason to give her a job.

Being "the wife of the boss" is excellent. She is a confidant, but HRC was NOT the Chief of Staff and did not (or should NOT have) sat in any sensitive meetings.

I'm a former Intelligence officer, but my husband never asked me to take over his Marine Detachment just because we had "very similar" career paths.

IMO you'll find most seriously minded "career women" who will outright resent HRC when they learn that she was trying to angle for The Chief of Staff Position during Bill's reign. How would you like to KNOW that "the wife" is sharp-shooting your decisions as one of The President's closest advisers? :scared: :thumbsdown:

If elected, the people of President Obama's "inner circle" will not have to be pre-occupied with Michelle sharp-shooting their advice NOR her choosing to back stab them by competing for their job. Therefore, IMO HRC's functioning as First Lady was NOT IMO "Feminist" in any sense of the word but, at times, SERIOUSLY UN-NERVING to many of Bill Clinton's closest advisers. :shrug:

Hillary is a two term senator. So, yes, she has more experience than Edwards because she actually ran for and won her second term. I say Obama has more experience than Hillary due to his work as a state senator, community organizer, teaching constitutional law and now a senator.

But, to act like she's nothing more but a former first lady and discount her as being a two term senator is crazy.

No doubt he would have been relected had he run for his senate seat. That being said..how exactly does she have more experience than Edwards?

which, over the years, has proved to be hard to cope with...

She's tough and has weathered all the slings and arrows the right could muster and she is still forging on ahead...

I can understand people thinking that Senator Clinton has more experience than Senators Edwards and Obama, based solely on numerical tenure in the U.S. Senate.

But none of the Clinton supporters have bothered to explain how their candidate is "more experienced" than Richardson, Dodd, or Biden.

Married women would take strong offense to the notion that their involvement in their husband's career counts for nothing. The ONLY demographic group Hillary does weakest with IS married women. So when Obama tries an attack like this one, you're actually driving more of them TO Hillary and away from Obama.

What the Hell could he be thinking here? When Obama refers to his new kind of politics, I guess he means fucking up.

I wouldn't be surprised that many of Bill's closest advisers "sweat bullets" that "the boss's wife" was going to either dismiss their advice or their their jobs away. Feminist? No, I think NOT. :thumbsdown:

Not that I have any dogs in this race yet, but it seems to me that as active as she was in her husband's political career, as involved as she was in her husbands administration.

Sometimes the position of first lady is largely ceremonial, but sometimes first ladies have pushed that position above and beyond what we usually associate with it. Eleanor Roosevelt comes to mind as quickly as Sen. Clinton.

If Melinda Gates was as instrumental in Bill's fame as Sen. Clinton was to the President's, I could easily see Melinda Gates sitting on the board at Microsoft.