OK, giving this its own thread: name a crisis either candidate has confronted.

Her claim is that she has the experience to confront the hypothetical 3 am phone call. This is a serious and important claim, and in some ways the ultimate question of Presidential eligibility. So, someone tell me a crisis she has successfully confronted, preferably an international one, so I can judge this claim.

International crises are preferable, but any crisis will do: when was she required to exercise her judgment in a high-stakes and time-limited situation, and how well did she do?

EDIT: I'd also prefer no snarky answers from anti-Clinton people.

EDIT 2: Fair enough, Uben, I will expand the question:

Name a crisis either candidate has confronted, and how well they did confronting it.

(I began specifically with Senator Clinton because it is apparently manifestly obvious to her campaign and many of her supporters that she is of course better qualified to handle a crisis.)

Odd that they haven't.

Maybe they are not so much against her after all, although she whines about it all of the time! :eyes:

...you asked what both candidates have done in this regard, instead of just one. Since neither of the two have been president or governor, their only accomplishments can only be part of a concerted effort with others, ie congress.

Given that, your question has little chance of getting qualified answers.

in his ad -- http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x99151

As far as I see she has been a wife of a man voted into office and worked part times or was a wife part times as she worked as a corp. lawyer. Then she ran for Congress. The crisis was would she vote for us to go to war and turn her rights, held for us,over to the President. I find most in Congress gave it up and did not do what they should have done. This was not like going to war with Japan after Dec.7, 1941. Iraq did nothing to us and in fact we had been blowing things up in that country for years. I am not so sure Nixon or Johnson did such a great job in office when they had been around for years. I think it all comes down to being the right man at the right time to be great president and if one puts in a reasonable open minded person it is all we can hope for. Clinton seems to be telling us what has to be done and I am not sure she can guess that any more then Bush could. I feel some what off on people that are so such they know what is right for us and they knew what it is.

He was meeting with Fatah in 2006, before the elections that Hamas won. The entire delegation had tried to avoid meeting with Hamas but some students managed to get in and ask what would happen if Hamas won the election (which I believe was already a foregone conclusion at that point). He accurately (so far) predicted that the US would not recognize Hamas if they did not recognize Israel's right to exist and renounced the use of violence.

Now, we may or may not be happy with that answer (I'm probably not with most of the country on the Israel/Palestine question), but it's fair to say that's consonant with America's decades-old policy on the issue, and he stood up to Hamas and told them that. Not exactly a 3 am phone call from the Kremlin, but IMO a good example of toughness and judgment.

life stories. Because we've heard the stump speeches so long, it's easy to get jaded and lose or diminish the essence of the life stories of both candidates. Hillary's ability to have chartered a path in a clearly man's world was tough, and she was lambasted with suggesting that she had more to offer the country than baking cookies when Bill was running for President. She is a very smart lawyer--good with details, she can be a fierce advocate.

Obama's life study is also full of challenges, and we should not forget how difficult it must have been to have grown up black in a white household at that time. He had the advantage of not being the first in his family to go to university, but to have graduated at the top of his class at Harvard Law School (not known for its liberal tendencies), is an amazing story.

So in one sense we could argue that both have faced crises in their personal life. But let's take a look at problem-solving skills, and let's leave aside the Iraq War vote (on both sides!), as well.

Management style: Clinton is top-down (what SHE will do), Obama is bottom-up (what WE can do together)
This suggests that Clinton is happiest when she is in control, while Obama is more comfortable with uncertainty and a bit of chaos. The world is full of chaos--I would feel more comfortable having someone who can "hang loose" a bit while figuring out the best way forward, as opposed to someone who charges ahead to "remove" the uncertainty as best as possible. (I realize that nitpickers can poke holes in this, but I'm speaking very generally.)

Decision-making: As a corollary, look at the advice Hillary is taking on her campaign--a crisis situation! Is she able to correct course and win over new hearts, or is she scrambling to shore up her original defenses? Sure, we can blame the high-paid consultants, but who hired them? Who continues to listen? Hillary!

Transparency: When making decisions which on the surface appear unpopular, a President needs to be able to count of the support of the citizens (the only reason Bush has not been stopped is a defective Congress). Obama is in favor of transparency in government--we can't get access to Hillary's IRS forms or the papers from when she was First Lady (and remember, that was last century!). If we (should) have learned something from the Bush administration, it's that we cannot rely on "TRUST ME" arguments.

I'll stop here--this is getting long. Anyway, my point is that without the candidates having dealt with major world crises, there are aspects of their background and their campaigning traits that give valuable clues.

comparing and contrasting management styles. It is giving people pause. It is stirring a new sense of responsibility among the electorate....

It is sharpening the definition of effective leadership and the possibility for change and a move away from old style politics.

The Biggie - her husband's infidelity - handled with aplomb

The Other Biggie - The failure if her campaign on Super Tuesday - Failed, did not adapt

Please do not criticise this post by saying how well she did on Super Tues, given that the intention of her campaign was that she should be the nominee at the end of the Primaries that day - she failed.

I am not aware of any crisis moments faced by Obama

If, by 1998, she didn't realize her husband was a philanderer, nothing was going to convince her of that. And I'm not sure her "stand by your man" routine was "aplomb" in my book.

I do agree that she's shown remarkably bad crisis judgment during the campaign.

answer for. I support Obama and I do like his responsive ad. It strikes me as a demonstration of poor judgment on HC's part to run the ad when they had no response to the question it raises.

after I heard how she blew all her money. But it also goes to the central question of strategy and management, too. I really don't want old style politics overshadowing every decision in The WhiteHouse. It is actually a scary thought. I know she's worked hard to get where she's at and in some respects in entitled to feel entitled. But it's just not enough anymore. And how are we ever going to get out of the jam the Bush Administration with complicity of the Congress has gotten us into? It's going to take some real thinking out of the box.

All of that says LOUSY EXECUTIVE.

but I certainly can not put forth a "red phone" level nation crisis she has confronted - successfully or otherwise (same for Obama).

I never understood the whole "ready on day one thing" that she is running on.