Question for Hillary supporters

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: senseamp
She is no less qualified to be President than JFK was when he got elected. He was a Senator from the Northeast too.

LOL!

JFK was a Congressman for six years and a Senator for eight. He also served as an officer in the US Navy during WWII, earning the NMCM for heroic actions in the Pacific, and a Purple Heart.

Hillary was First Lady for eight, and a Senator for seven. period, end-of-story.

In other words, JFK had twice as much experience on The Hill and extensive experience as a heroic military officer.

Or, does being a First Lady - ie. allegedly sleeping with Bill, attending dinner parties, and speaking at Garden Club meetings - somehow trump being a Congressman and Naval officer?

Face it, she's not qualified. Nothing you say or do will change that fact. I also suggest you study up on your history a bit before making another stupid claim about HRC!

 

[b0mbrman]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: b0mbrman

Originally posted by: FlashG
I don't think that anyone has answered the OP's question yet.

1) The 90s weren't so bad
2) But Bush sure has made a mess of things
3) You remember Bill, right?
4) Anyway, I'm ahead in the polls

That's four things.

Check mate, friend

None of those four have anything to do with Hillary.

So far all the Hillary supporters seem to be saying is that she is married to Bill.

Bush sure has made a mess of things. Funny that you chose to ignore that little tidbit

Let me also say that I have nothing against electing the first woman President of the United States. 96-year-old women show up at Hillary events and are moved to tears, saying, "When I was born, women couldn't even vote and now, I'm going to get to see the first woman elected President," and after little girls see Hillary talk, they tell their parents, "Daddy, I can be President too!"

Keeping track? I think that's six things :thumbsup:

Game, set, match, friend.

 

[ScottMac]

Originally posted by: b0mbrman

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: b0mbrman

Originally posted by: FlashG
I don't think that anyone has answered the OP's question yet.

1) The 90s weren't so bad
2) But Bush sure has made a mess of things
3) You remember Bill, right?
4) Anyway, I'm ahead in the polls

That's four things.

Check mate, friend

None of those four have anything to do with Hillary.

So far all the Hillary supporters seem to be saying is that she is married to Bill.

Bush sure has made a mess of things. Funny that you chose to ignore that little tidbit

Let me also say that I have nothing against electing the first woman President of the United States. 96-year-old women show up at Hillary events and are moved to tears, saying, "When I was born, women couldn't even vote and now, I'm going to get to see the first woman elected President," and after little girls see Hillary talk, they tell their parents, "Daddy, I can be President too!"

Keeping track? I think that's six things :thumbsup:

Game, set, match, friend.

I think you're getting "PR" mixed up with "Qualification." Photo Ops and campaign plants are not qualifications.

Would you be as positive if that was Condi Rice? Not only a woman, but a minority woman, and better educated than Bill's wife, and has much greater experience in federal public service. (Yes, I know she's not running, this is a hypothetical).

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: b0mbrman

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: b0mbrman

Originally posted by: FlashG
I don't think that anyone has answered the OP's question yet.

1) The 90s weren't so bad
2) But Bush sure has made a mess of things
3) You remember Bill, right?
4) Anyway, I'm ahead in the polls

That's four things.

Check mate, friend

None of those four have anything to do with Hillary.

So far all the Hillary supporters seem to be saying is that she is married to Bill.

Bush sure has made a mess of things. Funny that you chose to ignore that little tidbit

Let me also say that I have nothing against electing the first woman President of the United States. 96-year-old women show up at Hillary events and are moved to tears, saying, "When I was born, women couldn't even vote and now, I'm going to get to see the first woman elected President," and after little girls see Hillary talk, they tell their parents, "Daddy, I can be President too!"

Keeping track? I think that's six things :thumbsup:

Game, set, match, friend.

OIC. The 'ol "Anyone but a GOP" strategy. That always works well.

 

[b0mbrman]

Originally posted by: ScottMac

Originally posted by: b0mbrman

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: b0mbrman

Originally posted by: FlashG
I don't think that anyone has answered the OP's question yet.

1) The 90s weren't so bad
2) But Bush sure has made a mess of things
3) You remember Bill, right?
4) Anyway, I'm ahead in the polls

That's four things.

Check mate, friend

None of those four have anything to do with Hillary.

So far all the Hillary supporters seem to be saying is that she is married to Bill.

Bush sure has made a mess of things. Funny that you chose to ignore that little tidbit

Let me also say that I have nothing against electing the first woman President of the United States. 96-year-old women show up at Hillary events and are moved to tears, saying, "When I was born, women couldn't even vote and now, I'm going to get to see the first woman elected President," and after little girls see Hillary talk, they tell their parents, "Daddy, I can be President too!"

Keeping track? I think that's six things :thumbsup:

Game, set, match, friend.

I think you're getting "PR" mixed up with "Qualification." Photo Ops and campaign plants are not qualifications.

Would you be as positive if that was Condi Rice? Not only a woman, but a minority woman, and better educated than Bill's wife, and has much greater experience in federal public service. (Yes, I know she's not running, this is a hypothetical).

Change is just a word if you don't have the experience to make it happen

Also, it sounds like you're trying real hard to point out the differences between candidates. What ever happened to the politics of hope?

Reasons 7 and 8. Sounds like it's time to lock this thread up!

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Narmer

Originally posted by: senseamp
Bill and Hillary are a team. Noone of the other candidates knows anywhere near what it takes to run the country than the woman who was side by side with a man who ran it better than anyone in decades. Rudy of course has NYC, but go ahead and nominate him, so Hillary can take that house of cards down. There are a lot of people waiting to speak their mind on Rudy's "leadership" of NYC.

So if Rudy had a whore on the side and told his whore everything and she gave him advice, would you consider them a team?

If I had a dog, and it got rabies, and it jumped on my keyboard and hit the 'post' button, could you tell the difference from a Narmer post?

What a scumbag to come here and insult her daughter and imply Hillary is just 'a whore'.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: FlashG
I don't think that anyone has answered the OP's question yet.

Guess you didn't read my post.

How about three worthy things she has done as a Senator.

Perhaps 3 major pieces of legislation that have her name on them.

Hillary likes to tell us about all the great ideas she has if elected, but she hasn't even tried to get one thing done as a Senator. Why is that?

And if she had put forth 50 bills with 'great ideas' which were not passed by the GOP, you could be here posting the case that she was extremely ineffective, with the most unpassed bills.

Face it John - you come up with your conclusion first (Hillary is bad) and then create the argument to fit, not the right order.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: senseamp
She is no less qualified to be President than JFK was when he got elected. He was a Senator from the Northeast too.

LOL!

JFK was a Congressman for six years and a Senator for eight. He also served as an officer in the US Navy during WWII, earning the NMCM for heroic actions in the Pacific, and a Purple Heart.

Hillary was First Lady for eight, and a Senator for seven. period, end-of-story.

In other words, JFK had twice as much experience on The Hill and extensive experience as a heroic military officer.

Or, does being a First Lady - ie. allegedly sleeping with Bill, attending dinner parties, and speaking at Garden Club meetings - somehow trump being a Congressman and Naval officer?

Face it, she's not qualified. Nothing you say or do will change that fact. I also suggest you study up on your history a bit before making another stupid claim about HRC!

How is she "not qualified"? By that logic is Fred Thompson "qualified?" Is Obama "qualified"? They all have pretty similar levels of experience. Look at the "qualifications" of Lincoln before he became president. A short stint in the house of representatives and then a series of speaking tours after he realized he was going to lose his re-election bid. Seems like he did okay.

Lets face it, we all know that a resume' tells you very little about how a person will perform other then he might have the basic tools necessary to succeed. Hillary certainly has those. And to say that she was a first lady in the same way Laura Bush is would be misrepresenting things the same way as to compare the VPs of Gore and Cheney. It's obvious she wielded far more influence then any first lady in quite a long time.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: ScottMac


I think you're getting "PR" mixed up with "Qualification." Photo Ops and campaign plants are not qualifications.

Would you be as positive if that was Condi Rice? Not only a woman, but a minority woman, and better educated than Bill's wife, and has much greater experience in federal public service. (Yes, I know she's not running, this is a hypothetical).

How is Condi Rice better educated then Hillary? They both have doctoral degrees.

 

[senseamp]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: senseamp
She is no less qualified to be President than JFK was when he got elected. He was a Senator from the Northeast too.

LOL!

JFK was a Congressman for six years and a Senator for eight. He also served as an officer in the US Navy during WWII, earning the NMCM for heroic actions in the Pacific, and a Purple Heart.

Hillary was First Lady for eight, and a Senator for seven. period, end-of-story.

In other words, JFK had twice as much experience on The Hill and extensive experience as a heroic military officer.

Or, does being a First Lady - ie. allegedly sleeping with Bill, attending dinner parties, and speaking at Garden Club meetings - somehow trump being a Congressman and Naval officer?

Face it, she's not qualified. Nothing you say or do will change that fact. I also suggest you study up on your history a bit before making another stupid claim about HRC!

She is plenty qualified. I guess she'd be more qualified if she gave out some no bid contracts to Motorola for faulty radios and got a few hundred firefighters killed on 9/11 as a result? That is the mayoral experience Rudy is running on. I'd pick Hillary's experience and the priceless advice she'll get from Bill over that any time. Plus, good luck with denigrating Hillary's experience as First Lady, that will play real well with with female voters.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: senseamp
She is no less qualified to be President than JFK was when he got elected. He was a Senator from the Northeast too.

LOL!

JFK was a Congressman for six years and a Senator for eight. He also served as an officer in the US Navy during WWII, earning the NMCM for heroic actions in the Pacific, and a Purple Heart.

Hillary was First Lady for eight, and a Senator for seven. period, end-of-story.

In other words, JFK had twice as much experience on The Hill and extensive experience as a heroic military officer.

Or, does being a First Lady - ie. allegedly sleeping with Bill, attending dinner parties, and speaking at Garden Club meetings - somehow trump being a Congressman and Naval officer?

Face it, she's not qualified. Nothing you say or do will change that fact. I also suggest you study up on your history a bit before making another stupid claim about HRC!

She is plenty qualified. I guess she'd be more qualified if she gave out some no bid contracts to Motorola for faulty radios and got a few hundred firefighters killed on 9/11 as a result? That is the mayoral experience Rudy is running on. I'd pick Hillary's experience and the priceless advice she'll get from Bill over that any time. Plus, good luck with denigrating Hillary's experience as First Lady, that will play real well with with female voters.

I never expected you to admit your mistake regarding JFK, but now you've gone and made another: That is, you've assumed that I prefer Rudy as my candidate of choice.

That is not the case. At this point, I'd actually vote for Obama - as long as Hillary doesnt share his ticket!

The field is full of unqualified candidates, and Hillary is one of the worst.

 

[WildHorse]

``

 

[ScottMac]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: ScottMac


I think you're getting "PR" mixed up with "Qualification." Photo Ops and campaign plants are not qualifications.

Would you be as positive if that was Condi Rice? Not only a woman, but a minority woman, and better educated than Bill's wife, and has much greater experience in federal public service. (Yes, I know she's not running, this is a hypothetical).

How is Condi Rice better educated then Hillary? They both have doctoral degrees.

HRC has a doctorate in something? I didn't know, honest. I never heard anyone ever refer to her as "Dr. Clinton" or HRC, ph.d ...

But I did check here and it looks like she quit after her legal degree.

IMHO, Condi has a much broader scope of knowledge and ability. Not that it matters, she's not running.

Whatever.

 

[senseamp]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: senseamp
She is no less qualified to be President than JFK was when he got elected. He was a Senator from the Northeast too.

LOL!

JFK was a Congressman for six years and a Senator for eight. He also served as an officer in the US Navy during WWII, earning the NMCM for heroic actions in the Pacific, and a Purple Heart.

Hillary was First Lady for eight, and a Senator for seven. period, end-of-story.

In other words, JFK had twice as much experience on The Hill and extensive experience as a heroic military officer.

Or, does being a First Lady - ie. allegedly sleeping with Bill, attending dinner parties, and speaking at Garden Club meetings - somehow trump being a Congressman and Naval officer?

Face it, she's not qualified. Nothing you say or do will change that fact. I also suggest you study up on your history a bit before making another stupid claim about HRC!

She is plenty qualified. I guess she'd be more qualified if she gave out some no bid contracts to Motorola for faulty radios and got a few hundred firefighters killed on 9/11 as a result? That is the mayoral experience Rudy is running on. I'd pick Hillary's experience and the priceless advice she'll get from Bill over that any time. Plus, good luck with denigrating Hillary's experience as First Lady, that will play real well with with female voters.

I never expected you to admit your mistake regarding JFK, but now you've gone and made another: That is, you've assumed that I prefer Rudy as my candidate of choice.

That is not the case. At this point, I'd actually vote for Obama - as long as Hillary doesnt share his ticket!

The field is full of unqualified candidates, and Hillary is one of the worst.

What is the mistake you are talking about? Kennedy was a congressman and a senator, Hillary was a first lady and a senator? He was a man who went to war, and she is a woman who didn't?
The point is they have similar political background from the legislative branch. I also don't see how Obama is any more qualified than Hillary. You are going to tell me Hillary being intimately involved in the runnings of the White House and being the closest advisor to the President for 8 years is not a relevant experience? I don't agree with that. Regardless of what her title was, it does not get much better than that in terms of experience. Plus she and bill are 2 for the price of 1, you vote for her, you also get Bill's influence and advise for free. That is some tremendous value right there. Republicans want to paint Hillary as an insider who's been in Washington too long, and as an inexperienced outsider at the same time? How about making up your mind?
BTW, Hillary was not just sitting around while she was first lady. Aside from HillaryCare as you call it, she also worked with Republicans to write and pass SCHIP and Adoption and Safe Families Act. She also hosted many taskforces and conferences while at the White House. Did Rudy or Obama work across party lines to help provide health coverage to lower middle class children? Didn't think so.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: ScottMac

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: ScottMac


I think you're getting "PR" mixed up with "Qualification." Photo Ops and campaign plants are not qualifications.

Would you be as positive if that was Condi Rice? Not only a woman, but a minority woman, and better educated than Bill's wife, and has much greater experience in federal public service. (Yes, I know she's not running, this is a hypothetical).

How is Condi Rice better educated then Hillary? They both have doctoral degrees.

HRC has a doctorate in something? I didn't know, honest. I never heard anyone ever refer to her as "Dr. Clinton" or HRC, ph.d ...

But I did check here and it looks like she quit after her legal degree.

IMHO, Condi has a much broader scope of knowledge and ability. Not that it matters, she's not running.

Whatever.

Yeah, she has a law degree which is also known as a Juris Doctorate. You just don't normally hear lawyers refer to themselves as "doctor".

 

[senseamp]

Originally posted by: ScottMac

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: ScottMac


I think you're getting "PR" mixed up with "Qualification." Photo Ops and campaign plants are not qualifications.

Would you be as positive if that was Condi Rice? Not only a woman, but a minority woman, and better educated than Bill's wife, and has much greater experience in federal public service. (Yes, I know she's not running, this is a hypothetical).

How is Condi Rice better educated then Hillary? They both have doctoral degrees.

HRC has a doctorate in something? I didn't know, honest. I never heard anyone ever refer to her as "Dr. Clinton" or HRC, ph.d ...

But I did check here and it looks like she quit after her legal degree.

IMHO, Condi has a much broader scope of knowledge and ability. Not that it matters, she's not running.

Whatever.

Condi would have no chance. She is a complete failure both as national security adviser and as secretary of state. She is nowhere near Hillary.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: senseamp
she also worked with Republicans to write and pass SCHIP

AFAIC, that's a very big strike against her.

Plus she and bill are 2 for the price of 1, you vote for her, you also get Bill's influence and advise for free.

Strike 2! And perhaps the best reason NOT to vote for the wench! Bill Clinton is/was a bonafied criminal who admittedly lied under oath to the entire country! AFAIC, he has no business even being near the White House grounds!

Did Rudy or Obama work across party lines to help provide health coverage to lower middle class children?

Thankfully, no, they didn't! That counts as a plus in both of their columns!

What is the mistake you are talking about? Kennedy was a congressman and a senator, Hillary was a first lady and a senator? He was a man who went to war, and she is a woman who didn't? The point is they have similar political background from the legislative branch.

Their political backgrounds are entirely different. JFK and Hillary have almost nothing in common beyond the Party affiliation - and their genders are not relevant.

Stop trying to recover from your previous gaff - you're failing.

Plus, good luck with denigrating Hillary's experience as First Lady, that will play real well with with female voters.

Many women share my distaste for Hillary, and most are also intelligent enough to know that a President needs more experience than simply time spent as Chairperson of the Homecoming Committee and being the girl banging the Captain of the football team...

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
Strike 2! And perhaps the best reason NOT to vote for the wench! Bill Clinton is/was a bonafied criminal who admittedly lied under oath to the entire country! AFAIC, he has no business even being near the White House grounds!

QFT. :thumbsup:

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
Many women share my distaste for Hillary, and most are also intelligent enough to know that a President needs more experience than simply time spent as Chairperson of the Homecoming Committee and being the girl banging the Captain of the football team...

Well, good thing that description doesn't apply to Hillary in the slightest. You know that of course. She is at least as qualified as many of the other candidates, your preferred one Obama included.

Not that it matters of course, as mentioned before the dislike of Hillary was your starting point and you are looking for reasons not to like her. Policy problems are great reasons not to like her, but when you start trying to pull out nebulous things like this it just makes it look like you're reaching.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: senseamp
Someone who upsets so much the party that is so wrong for America, must be doing something right

Hmmm, I think Bush has proven that statement is wrong.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: b0mbrman
Bush sure has made a mess of things. Funny that you chose to ignore that little tidbit

Let me also say that I have nothing against electing the first woman President of the United States. 96-year-old women show up at Hillary events and are moved to tears, saying, "When I was born, women couldn't even vote and now, I'm going to get to see the first woman elected President," and after little girls see Hillary talk, they tell their parents, "Daddy, I can be President too!"

Keeping track? I think that's six things :thumbsup:

Game, set, match, friend.

1. This thread is about Hillary, not Bush.
2. Bush is not running next year.

Now back to Hillary...

Name three things she has accomplished that make her worthy of being President.
Being married to Bill or being a female does not count. Otherwise Laura Bush could move back to Texas, run for the Senate and then run for President. At which point she would have the exact same qualifications as Hillary, minus all the baggage and scandals.

 

[gururu2]

dumb question. if you feel that you deserve an answer, please tell us three things that Ronald Reagan, John Kennedy, Richard Nixon, or Theodore Roosevelt did for the U.S., prior to their presidential election campaigning.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: gururu2
dumb question. if you feel that you deserve an answer, please tell us three things that Ronald Reagan, John Kennedy, Richard Nixon, or Theodore Roosevelt did for the U.S., prior to their presidential election campaigning.

Reagan was the governor of the largest state in the country and was the leader of the conservative movement.

Kennedy was a war hero who was in both the house and the senate.

Nixon was also the governor of California.

Roosevelt was the Assistant Sec. of Navy and governor of New York.

Of all of these men Kennedy was the only one to have not been a governor.
Since Kennedy every person to win the White House has either been a governor or the VP.
Senators on the other hand have an awful track record in elections:Kerry, Dole, McGovern and Goldwater were all Senators and all lost.

 

[gururu2]

does a warhero qualify someone to be president?
does an assistant secretary of navy?

the only thing you seem to be aiming for is that only governors would be qualified. how many previous governors can you name that have been good or poor presidents. kennedy is regarded as a great president, yet he was never a governor. nixon is regarded as a poor president, and he was a governor.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: gururu2
dumb question. if you feel that you deserve an answer, please tell us three things that Ronald Reagan, John Kennedy, Richard Nixon, or Theodore Roosevelt did for the U.S., prior to their presidential election campaigning.

Reagan was the governor of the largest state in the country and was the leader of the conservative movement.

Kennedy was a war hero who was in both the house and the senate.

Nixon was also the governor of California.

Roosevelt was the Assistant Sec. of Navy and governor of New York.

Of all of these men Kennedy was the only one to have not been a governor.
Since Kennedy every person to win the White House has either been a governor or the VP.
Senators on the other hand have an awful track record in elections:Kerry, Dole, McGovern and Goldwater were all Senators and all lost.

Did you miss what I said before? Lincoln was a junior member of congress and then a speaker for a few years. By your argument he was unqualified. He did pretty okay.