Brand new Hillary TV ad challenges Obama and Edwards on experience

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

when did she find time to practice law?

Hillary is of that caliber.

But then of course, I imagine she got a lot done for the people in the time she sat on the board of Wall-Mart.

Have to keep the public from unionizing out of their jobs. ;)

(or how to spell Wal-Mart?) If not, I'd be glad to enlighten you sometime about her work to encourage Wal-Mart to hire more women and minorities in management and leadership positions and her efforts to get the company to improve their environmental policies, among other things.

As Wal-mart had several lawsuits after her time on the board with minorities and women being held back as white men where promoted off the sales floor to management.

not through any fault of hers, but because it's founder Sam Walton died in 1992.

How did she do with that? Wal-Mart, (sorry I can't spell it, I never go there) I guess is a sterling example of workers rights and womens rights, because of the time she spent there.

This is too easy of a pass for me. How can a member of a party built on Unions, support someone who worked for that company? And everyone here, that supports her, gives her a complete pass on it. At least when my guy messes up, I say it.

she was only one member of the board, and certainly can't be held responsible for the things that happened after she was there (particularly considering that a lot of things about Wal-Mart changed in '92 after its founder Sam Walton died).

Also, how come your guy gets a pass from you, despite his involvement with a hedge fund? Is he responsible for everything that that hedge fund did (e.g. subprime lending)?

I certainly don't think Wal-Mart is the greatest company in the world (and I don't shop their either, for the record), and I don't think it's one of the highlights of Sen. Clinton's resume, but the company was vastly different when she served on its board, and she tried to do good during her time there.

But let's look a little closer. How long did Hillary work on the board of Wal-Mart (did I get it right that time?) It was 6 years. I'll let you draw your own conclusions, I've drawn mine.

And I said I don't give my guy a pass. He's owned up to it. He took 700 students to New Orleans to rebuild, and he was the first, and only as far as I know, to come out with a statement on the recent public housing problem. When was the last time any candidate said anything about New Orleans? Hillary, tight lipped as always, won't even speak about her time at Wal-Mart, again, leaving it to us to draw our own conclusions. I guess all the things she did to make it better, will just be her secret.

Now, on the subject of Hedge Funds? Hillary has about 900 thousand in donations from Hedge Funds, second only to Rudy. Do you have an answer to that?

I'm sure many others on the board were there for much longer and were far more influential than she was. Still, it was a totally different company back then, and she worked to make it a better one. She can't be held responsible for the changes that came afterward.

As for the hedge fund matter, I actually don't have a problem with hedge funds in general, but Edwards' involvement with one (and that one in particular) strikes me as particularly hypocritical, given his Two Americas rhetoric. And the subprime lending stuff occured while he actually worked there - given his presidential ambitions, he should have known better. But, having said that, it's not something that bothers me hugely, and I generally like Edwards as a candidate.

I don't give him a pass. But yes, Hillary's involvement with Wal-Mart is indeed, a deal breaker for me. No one has ever pointed to me what she did there for 6 years, least of all her.

But I certainly don't want to argue a point with you when you've made up your mind. We'll just do as Dems should do then, stay friends, and agree to disagree?:)

there was a big article about it earlier this year - in the NYT, I think, but I'll try and find it for you. Given what the company has become, it's obviously not a highlight of Hillary's resume, but I think people need to be better informed about what the company was like and what she tried to do while she was on the board.

On edit: here's the NYT article: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/20/us/politics/20walmart.html

"On other topics, like Wal-Mart’s vehement anti-unionism, for example, she was largely silent, they said."

I thought her first elected position was in 2000?

:shrug:

One can be a public servant without holding elected office. Public servant simply means serving the community in some way, shape, or form.

Obama has 20 years of public service, combining community organizing, civil rights law, teaching constitutional law, and legislative office. This viewpoint is something often derided here when I have given it. But I believe political experience should be more than holding elected office. Legislative experience is, of course, good to have, too, but it is not everything there is in service to the nation.

he only has 1 year experience.

public servant
noun
a government official.

There is no other definition for public servant, according to OED.

to me (and to many others, because I know I'm not the only one to use the term this way - in Bill Clinton's book Giving he writes about people being public servants without holding public office), it simply means one who serves the public in some way. With more and more NGOs and that sort of thing, it becomes increasingly clear that one doesn't have to hold public office to help people, and public servant is the best term I can find/think of to describe the kind of work Hillary's been doing for the past 35 years.

And who did she represent while she was at Rose Law Firm?

:woohoo:

You got that right.

that holds up just as well.

which started while she was in law school.

and she likes to discount say, Obama's community activism, and state legislature career.

but Trianguleros must have it both ways.

What lie is next? She marched with MLK and Mitt Romney?

or do we measure experience by number of heur d'oerves served?

but that seems to be your path, so go for it.

:rofl:

And even if it were, it wouldn't add up to 35 years. She's counting her own involvement in public service (some of which did occur during her tenure as First Lady of Arkansas, though that certainly shouldn't have precluded her from giving back to her community.)

But not the type we should elect Presidents on.

at least the JWs are polite. you almost feel bad slamming the door on them.

then again, i'm not in short company here. :hi:

company, dude, and not just a few hillbots.:P

:D

During 1974 she was a member of the impeachment inquiry staff in Washington, D.C., advising the House Committee on the Judiciary during the Watergate scandal.<49><50> Under the guidance of Chief Counsel John Doar and senior member Bernard Nussbaum,<32> Rodham helped research procedures of impeachment and the historical grounds and standards for impeachment.<50> The committee's work culminated in the resignation of President Richard Nixon in August 1974.<50>


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

One year, plus 7 years as Senator, plus 8 years as first lady. How many Arkansas first lady years? 20?

vote against Clinton because hubby directs them to, and insists that all Clinton did in the White House was bake cookies. Fuck...

she's counting a lot of the specific things she did while she was First Lady of Arkansas and of the U.S. She counts 35 years of public service because she began working with the Children's Defense Fund when she was in law school, and has continued that kind of thing since then (for a fuller look at her resume, I suggest her resume or wikipedia.)

but it`s the experience of the in the inner workings of the political machine

--what I'm looking for in addition to experience is competence.

When I look at Hillary --I see competence I can actually count on.

she surely is better than HIM. but that's setting the bar awfully low, isn't it?

and if "experience" is what matters most to you, why aren't you supporting Biden or Dodd? they have 35 years of REAL experience.

--getting the job done.

Nor Obama for that matter. As far as Edwards goes -- I have no intrinsic belief that he's the progressive he claims to be.

As far as Hillary goes? I think she'll get more done than her husband, and that's a rather high bar.

she gained while being in those whitehouse meetings she said she was in.

Either Hillary had to step in for Bill being a bad governor and President and take credit for his job or she counts watching him come in late with lipstick on his collar every other night "experience".

She wants to lift his resume for her own unless it's crap that she now "disagrees" with. First Ladies don't have legislative experience. Sorry, Hillary... it's a goddamn fact.

She did quite a bit in Arkansas re children's health and education. No it's not the same as legislative or executive experience; it's more akin to Obama's community organization work. Both are admirable. Your sick comments about her marriage and her husband's infidelity are straight off of freeperville. Almost verbatim.

...you're going to tell me Bill wasn't a slimy adulterous, selfish sloth...which he is. He is a sick person, perhaps a sociopath.

She would be nowhere without tagging along and having to go through that bullshit.

Sure, she did some great things for children and such. Tell me what First Lady hasn't?

their marriage, it's their business.


And I'm going to tell you that the work Clinton did with Marion Wright Edelman and beyond is not remotely the same as the work of any other first lady in the last 50 years. Not even close.

It is igorant and sexist as hell to claim that she'd be nowhere without Bill. She was on the cover of Life Magazine at 22. She was highly political as a young woman. She got into Yale law school before she met him. She worked as a lawyer. There's every reason to believe that she would have gone into politics successfully had she never met him. By your flawed logic, women don't have a chance of success unless they tag along with a man. Her history shows more talent and accomplishment than many other women in the Congress.

The same Marian Wright Edelman whose husband left the Clinton administration after Bill signed the welfare "reform" bill?

Ah, yes!

Oh, and by the way, Hillary wasn't on the cover of Life Magazine. She was featured INSIDE the magazine with other college leaders.

"By your flawed logic, women don't have a chance of success unless they tag along with a man. Her history shows more talent and accomplishment than many other women in the Congress."

Aw c'mon. I highly respect women like Barbara Boxer, Nancy Pelosi, Tammy Baldwin (my congressperson), Lynn Woolsey, Maxine Waters...I could go on, who stand on their own two feet and make their own way without clawing onto their husband.

As for their marriage and his history, I just wonder what it would take for anyone to have to deal with that on a personal level without some other "payoff".

I don't trust either of them. I also think Hillary is inflating her "35 years" of experience way out of proportion.

she has experience, and to many, she is just aching for backlash by cramming it down everyone's throat.

:crazy:

You'd think by Hillary's "standards" that being a First Lady is the same as a Secretary of State...

By your standards, I should be in the hall of fame. :rofl:

the hell out of this REPLY...:kick: :kick: :kick: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

:rofl:

I'm not sure exactly which UN inspectors went looking for them, however.....

nt

Although I have to give her credit: the only thing she did as "President For A Day" during the Clinton administration was fuck up healthcare reform.

and not his oversized ego, he would have waited until he actually did have some experience in the US senate to balance his ambition. For a guy who's claim to fame at the national level was a speech at the Democratic Convention in 2004, he seems to have a very high esteem of himself. Otherwise, why write two books about, what else, himself?

I would have loved to have been able to support this man if he had paid his dues and had something to show other than the "audacity of hope". As it is, I see a talented speaker who reminds me of David Copperfield: all smoke and mirrors, but little substance.

The Reagan name is gospel to their base, and she has even more "experience" than Hillary. After all, Jellybean Brain was a governor in the 60's.

Aside from the condescending tone of that ad, it shows every reason why she drives me crazy.

I suppose Obama's time in state government and his time fighting in the trenches of community organizing aren't experience? I suppose John Edwards' long career of fighting corporations and winning isn't experience?

I suppose working for the Rose Law Firm is preferable to candidates who actually practices law that makes a difference?

And finally -- Do we want to go Back to the 90's or move forward? Deja Vu is not change.


Fer God's sake, the graphic says "Middle Class Tax Relief" over her saying that the economy needs to be changed.

Is she really that shallow? Is she really trying to win over Republicans so hard that she thinks that theonly economic message?

is actually better than hill's but hill's not gonna cop to that.

hill's expericence is mostly catering to the bushits and I wished she never had it.