Hillary Clinton's experience

[MarkWarner08]

Can someone explain to me why Hillary Clinton is running as the competent of experience? Her message is underlined by this assumption that she's the most competent leader in the Democratic field. How can a woman who was essentially an average lawyer who married a superstar politicians be considered a natural leader?

When she actually championed a cause (universal health care), she failed miserably. Her record in the United States Senate is generally unremarkable and devoid of any major legislative accomplishment. For such an experienced, successful leader, Hillary lacks much experience in passing successful initiatives and she's rarely displayed talent as a leader. The now-infamous SCHIP program which she so frequently takes credit was an idea championed by Ted Kennedy and Orrin Hatch.

Remarkably, Hillary Clinton, the first serious female candidate for President, could harm the cause of feminism. Unlike Governors Napolitano and Sebelius, Hillary has accomplshiment fews things in her life without the help of her husband. While she is a very hard-working, intelligent diligent woman, it's unlikely she would be the leading Demcoratic candidate for President today were it not for her felicitous surname. Is Hillary Clinton conveying the message to hard-working young women that the key to success is choosing a charismatic politician as your spouse?

I'll listen to anyone who can explain the rationale (besides her connection to Bill Clinton) for electing Hillary Clinton the next President of the United States of America.

[Torie]

"While she is a very hard-working, intelligent diligent woman"

And there is the answer. She got fame due to Bill, and made her own mark. She is tough as nails as well. Ya, she has some character flaws, and I don't agree with much of what she says, but Hillary hatred is well, just not something with which I find favor. Most politicians have character flaws, particularly the one's that yearn  to go for the gold, with that lean and hungry look. The process is so unpleasant, that one needs to be at the edge of the bell curve in so many ways, to tolerate it. Just my two cents.

[Mr.Phips]

You're line of thinking is almost exactly the same as mine.  I don't know how Hillary thinks she is going to position herself as "change" candidate when she has been in Washington for the last 16 years.  And in those 16 years, her accomplishments have been a failed health care reform plan and Democrats losing full control of Congress for the first time since 1952.  Hillary Clinton is bad news.  She may know how to slip around and be a skilled politician like her husband was, but when it comes to actual substance, she would be a disaster.  

I could not help but notice that you are a fan of Chuck Schumer.  It really surprises me that a brilliant political strategist like himself would support Clinton, who is absolute poison for the party.  If anybody thinks that Hillary will carry states like Ohio and Missouri that are pro-gun and often pro-life, they have another thing coming.

[MarkWarner08]

"While she is a very hard-working, intelligent diligent woman"

And there is the answer. She got fame due to Bill, and made her own mark. She is tough as nails as well. Ya, she has some character flaws, and I don't agree with much of what she says, but Hillary hatred is well, just not something with which I find favor. Most politicians have character flaws, particularly the one's that yearn  to go for the gold, with that lean and hungry look. The process is so unpleasant, that one needs to be at the edge of the bell curve in so many ways, to tolerate it. Just my two cents.

But the same could be said of Kathleen Sebelius, who's balanced a budget, cut taxes, increased education spending, and has governed effectively in a state where more than half of the voters are registered members of a party different from her own.  Isn't she more qualified and more "experienced" than Hillary?

You largely focus on her personal characteristics, which are of course important, but aren't necessarily germane to a discussion of her experience. Hillary has never governed a state or a city, in fact, the only executive experience on her resume comes from a stint as President of the (wait for it...) College Republicans! How can she honestly argue that she is better prepared to be President than Barack Obama or John Edwards?

[MarkWarner08]

You're line of thinking is almost exactly the same as mine.  I don't know how Hillary thinks she is going to position herself as "change" candidate when she has been in Washington for the last 16 years.  And in those 16 years, her accomplishments have been a failed health care reform plan and Democrats losing full control of Congress for the first time since 1952.  Hillary Clinton is bad news.  She may know how to slip around and be a skilled politician like her husband was, but when it comes to actual substance, she would be a disaster. 

I could not help but notice that you are a fan of Chuck Schumer.  It really surprises me that a brilliant political strategist like himself would support Clinton, who is absolute poison for the party.  If anybody thinks that Hillary will carry states like Ohio and Missouri that are pro-gun and often pro-life, they have another thing coming.

Schumer probably supports Hillary solely out of home state deference.  His support is probably quite shallow, otherwise, I doubt he would've allowed house-mate George Miller to cast his lot with Obama. Some things (such as laundry) matter more than Presidential politics.

I too admire Senator Schumer's political acumen, which has been apparent in every one of the improbable victories he's engineered. I still wish Chuck Schumer had run for President this year. His prodigious fundraising abilities combined with his lucid analysis of the American political divide would've made him a tough candidate to beat in either the primaries or the general election.

[MarkWarner08]

Aren't there any Hillary Clinton supporters who can explain why they back her for President?

[Torie]

You have Torie around, so why do you actually need to have an actual Hillary supporter to make her case for those in the "other party" who made some errant choices long ago? 

Hillary being up close and personal with Bill, gives her a lot of experience. She is very qualified to be president. She is smart, and studious. She is respected in the Senate for her hard work, knowledge and ability to wheel and deal. She is respected in that regard on both sides of the aisle. She has depth, not as much as Bill, but then nobody has a more facile understanding of issues than Bill, nobody. The case against Hillary for those left of center IS her character flaws, depending on what weight one gives them.

[MarkWarner08]

You have Torie around, so why do you actually need to have an actual Hillary supporter to make her case for those in the "other party" who made some errant choices long ago? 

Hillary being up close and personal with Bill, gives her a lot of experience. She is very qualified to be president. She is smart, and studious. She is respected in the Senate for her hard work, knowledge and ability to wheel and deal. She is respected in that regard on both sides of the aisle. She has depth, not as much as Bill, but then nobody has a more facile understanding of issues than Bill, nobody. The case against Hillary for those left of center IS her character flaws, depending on what weight one gives them.

Thanks for your insightful post. You're argument, which is similarly espoused by many Hillary supporters, is simple: Hillary knowns the inner workings of the White House, she's been a solid Senator, and she's a policy wonk who has benefited from pillow talk with Bill.

My point is that time spent as a First Lady does not qualify one to be President. I'd argue that Obama has had a more illustrious (though shorter) career in the Senate and has an even greater understanding of the many issues facing America.

Obama is the only candidate who has actually taught constitutional law, and thus has a deep understanding of this essential document. His work as a community organizer has taught  him the importance of building alliances and close relationships -- a skill that will be crucial if he hopes to forward a progressive social agenda through Congress.

[Mr. Morden]

My point is that time spent as a First Lady does not qualify one to be President. I'd argue that Obama has had a more illustrious (though shorter) career in the Senate and has an even greater understanding of the many issues facing America.

I guess the question is, do you consider being a close advisor to the president on both political and policy matters to be relevant experience for being president yourself?  For example, while I'm sure you would never vote for Karl Rove, do you think his time advising Bush makes him more qualified to be president than if he hadn't done so?

If the answer's yes, then I guess the next question is "Was Hillary a close advisor to Bill on both political and policy matters when he was president?"  From what I've read of behind the scenes accounts of WJC's presidency, it sounds like yes, she actually did offer a lot of input on decisions in the White House....much moreso than most people would probably feel comfortable with, given that she had no real official role other than wife of the president.  But of course, the weird undercurrent in this campaign is that she can't actually talk about that stuff in any detail because, as I said, people would be creeped out about the idea of the First Lady having any real power.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Aren't there any Hillary Clinton supporters who can explain why they back her for President?

I don't actually support her, but I give one (fairly) logical reason; electorally speaking she's the "safe" option. We already know, or at least we think that we do, what the election results will look like if Clinton is the Democratic candidate.

[MarkWarner08]

Aren't there any Hillary Clinton supporters who can explain why they back her for President?

I don't actually support her, but I give one (fairly) logical reason; electorally speaking she's the "safe" option. We already know, or at least we think that we do, what the election results will look like if Clinton is the Democratic candidate.

A 30-35 state election loss to John McCain? In times of economic tumult, may voters will turn to an experienced, bold leader like McCain. I agree with The Economist's view of 2008 -- this is an election year for courage, not triangulation.

[Lief 🗽]

If the economy goes into a recession, then there's absolutely no way any Republican wins. It'll be hard enough for them to get over Iraq and Bush; throwing a horrible economy into the mix will be insurmountable.

[agcatter]

Don't bet on it with Hillary at the top.  Huge negatives.  Independents don't like her.

[MarkWarner08]

Don't bet on it with Hillary at the top.  Huge negatives.  Independents don't like her.

Exactly. Democrats won in 2006 because of the their advantage with indepedent voters. Hillary is not actually popular with this group. If the economy hits a downturn, "strong leader" McCain will   have an advantage over the less-experienced Senator Clinton.

[Lief 🗽]

No, empathetic, pro-middle class, Midwestern (she's from Illinois and sounds like it) Democrat will be beat pro-big business, warmonger. People vote with their pocketbook (especially in a recession), and those votes will go to the Democrat. When people are scared about losing their house, healthcare and jobs, they vote Democrat. When they're scared of being attacked, they vote Republican. At the moment, people care more about the bread and butter issues, and we haven't even entered a recession yet.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

In a recession, the incumbent always gets blamed. That'll never help his party.

[MarkWarner08]

In a recession, the incumbent always gets blamed. That'll never help his party.

John McCain is seen by many voters as a maverick. He won't be easily labeled as Bush lackey who is complicit in a supposed Government failure to prevent a recession.

[Lief 🗽]

Just like we wasn't easily labeled a Bush lackey during the summer when it came to Iraq?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

It's pretty foolish to think McCain's perception among voters will not change at all during a campaign. It can be changed as the summer proved and his current media honeymoon will not last forever. Everyone appears to have forgotten turning on McCain a year ago, but they just as easily forget "McCain the maverick" during that time.

[MarkWarner08]

It's pretty foolish to think McCain's perception among voters will not change at all during a campaign. It can be changed as the summer proved and his current media honeymoon will not last forever. Everyone appears to have forgotten turning on McCain a year ago, but they just as easily forget "McCain the maverick" during that time.

Hillary Clinton's baggage> John McCain's baggage.  I agree that McCain will not leave the campaign unvarnished, but will that be enough to defeat him?

[Democratic Hawk]

Lets see just where Hillary's support base was in her 2006 Senate Race:

By Party

Democratic (47%): Clinton 94%
Republican (25%): Clinton 25%
Independent (27%): Clinton 64%

By Ideology

Liberal (28%): Clinton 91%
Moderate (50%): Clinton 69%
Conservative (22%): Clinton 28%

Here is an article by Rhodes Cook, entitled: Hillary's 2006 Senate Run: A Harbinger of Electability?

http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/article.php?id=FRC2007110101

Of course, Obama faired even better than Hillary in his 2004 Senate Race:

By Party

Democratic (40%): Obama 94%
Republican (33%): Obama 40%
Independent (27%): Obama 74%

By Ideology

Liberal (23%): Obama 91%
Moderate (50%): Obama 80%
Conservative (27%): Obama 33%

Very impressive I'd say, but then Hillary wasn't exactly challenged by a Republican heavyweight. As for Obama, Alan Keyes LOL! Both New York and Illinois, of course, are reliably Democratic states

Dave

[Mr. Morden]

Very impressive I'd say, but then Hillary wasn't exactly challenged by a Republican heavyweight. As for Obama, Alan Keyes LOL! Both New York and Illinois, of course, are reliably Democratic states

Dick Morris made similar arguments last year to make the case that Clinton would be nearly unstoppable in a GE.  But I don't think those kind of arguments make that much sense.  Most presidential candidates are pretty popular in their own homestates (of course there are some exceptions....see Mitt Romney), and have had big victories there.  Does that really mean anything about how they'd do on the national stage?  Richardson won 69% of the vote in his reelection bid as NM governor.  Did that make him an unstoppable juggernaut when running for national office?

[MarkWarner08]

Lets see just where Hillary's support base was in her 2006 Senate Race:

By Party

Democratic (47%): Clinton 94%
Republican (25%): Clinton 25%
Independent (27%): Clinton 64%

By Ideology

Liberal (28%): Clinton 91%
Moderate (50%): Clinton 69%
Conservative (22%): Clinton 28%

Here is an article by Rhodes Cook, entitled: Hillary's 2006 Senate Run: A Harbinger of Electability?

http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/article.php?id=FRC2007110101

Of course, Obama faired even better than Hillary in his 2004 Senate Race:

By Party

Democratic (40%): Obama 94%
Republican (33%): Obama 40%
Independent (27%): Obama 74%

By Ideology

Liberal (23%): Obama 91%
Moderate (50%): Obama 80%
Conservative (27%): Obama 33%

Very impressive I'd say, but then Hillary wasn't exactly challenged by a Republican heavyweight. As for Obama, Alan Keyes LOL! Both New York and Illinois, of course, are reliably Democratic states

Dave

From this comparison we learned Obama is stronger against a welterweight. Of all the reasons to back Barack Obama....

[Gabu]

Aren't there any Hillary Clinton supporters who can explain why they back her for President?

I don't actually support her, but I give one (fairly) logical reason; electorally speaking she's the "safe" option. We already know, or at least we think that we do, what the election results will look like if Clinton is the Democratic candidate.

Yes, and that's why people should not support her.

[Хahar 🤔]

Aren't there any Hillary Clinton supporters who can explain why they back her for President?

I don't actually support her, but I give one (fairly) logical reason; electorally speaking she's the "safe" option. We already know, or at least we think that we do, what the election results will look like if Clinton is the Democratic candidate.

Yes, and that's why people should not support her.

Well, it'd make 2012 a rehash of 1992.