quote:

ORIGINAL: igor2003

If you are looking only at a person's credentials from previous positions held, perhaps Ms. Clinton doesn't have as much background as many other possible candidates. If I remember right, people said that President Obama didn't have enough or proper credentials either. But, let's look at the previous and present presidents.

Bush probably did have the kind of "credentials" that people might look for. But he made a disastrous president. When the elections were being held for his replacement, people from both sides of the political spectrum agreed that whomever succeeded him would have an extremely tough time trying to get things "fixed".

Obama, as was often pointed out from those that leaned to the right, may not have had the best credentials for running for president. But once he was in office he actually didn't do a bad job considering that he has had absolutely no cooperation from the right wing, and in fact many or most of them have done everything they could to drag their feet and try to cause the president to fail. I, personally, don't like everything the president has done or accomplished, but considering his circumstances, I think he has done a pretty good job.

As for Ms. Clinton, as I said, she may not have the credentials, but I think she has knowledge and ability. As for the right wing candidates that I see, it absolutely scares the crap out of me to think what shape the country would end up in if they should happen to get into office.

Regardless of which candidate ends up being elected, as long as there is this partisan "my way or no way" crap that is going on in congress I don't see much improvement for the country in the near future. I think congress has to get back to working together, working toward compromise, before any president will be judged a "success".

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic
[:D]is there an insane far left winger running?
cites please.....other than hillary that is.

Sure, just as soon as you provide credible cites for insane right wingers.

quote:

ORIGINAL: igor2003

If you are looking only at a person's credentials from previous positions held, perhaps Ms. Clinton doesn't have as much background as many other possible candidates. If I remember right, people said that President Obama didn't have enough or proper credentials either. But, let's look at the previous and present presidents.

Bush probably did have the kind of "credentials" that people might look for. But he made a disastrous president. When the elections were being held for his replacement, people from both sides of the political spectrum agreed that whomever succeeded him would have an extremely tough time trying to get things "fixed".

Obama, as was often pointed out from those that leaned to the right, may not have had the best credentials for running for president. But once he was in office he actually didn't do a bad job considering that he has had absolutely no cooperation from the right wing, and in fact many or most of them have done everything they could to drag their feet and try to cause the president to fail. I, personally, don't like everything the president has done or accomplished, but considering his circumstances, I think he has done a pretty good job.

As for Ms. Clinton, as I said, she may not have the credentials, but I think she has knowledge and ability. As for the right wing candidates that I see, it absolutely scares the crap out of me to think what shape the country would end up in if they should happen to get into office.

Regardless of which candidate ends up being elected, as long as there is this partisan "my way or no way" crap that is going on in congress I don't see much improvement for the country in the near future. I think congress has to get back to working together, working toward compromise, before any president will be judged a "success".

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic
[:D]is there an insane far left winger running?
cites please.....other than hillary that is.

Sure, just as soon as you provide credible cites for insane right wingers.

Americans Against the Tea Party[/link" target="_blank" rel="nofollow"> A site that often displays the latest stupid, ignorant, crude, or warped shit the ring wing does.

[link=http://www.rightwingwatch.org/]Right Wing Watch Another site that keeps tabs on the crazy and loony right.

Those two and other sites try to keep up with all the crap the right wing pushes onto America. Like that Republican Congress that....STILL...after six months has done...NOTHING...of use for America. You know, if your trying to impress Americans that they should vote Republican/Tea Partier in the general election of 2016; its usually a good idea to use the most visible organization that has more respect than they do, to front the advertisements.

Yeah, Hillary has baggage. However, her baggage is NOTHING to the enormous amount carried by most of the right wingers running for public office in America. On one hand, they preach their hatred of bad government; then elected become that bad government. When they run for re-election, they bemoan its the fault of the Democrats and Liberals as to all the bad information (i.e. the liberal media); and get elected...AGAIN...to office so they can one more....AGAIN....give bad goverment. Risen and repeat, since most right wingers are ignorant and part of the 'Low Information Voter' audience.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01
Why would I want her to be President??? (Other than to keep the Neocons out of the office)??

Isn't keeping the Neocons out of the office ample reason on its own? I'm afraid that, like you, I don't rate Hilary very highly, but she would be better than any of the current GOP hopefuls. It would be a case of Hilary first and daylight second IMHO.

Recall what a disaster the last neocon POTUS was for the US and the world. It has taken years for the US to recover from W's mistakes and even longer for the rest of the world. Indeed, it's true to point that significant portions of both the USA and the rest of the world are still recovering. It doesn't look as though the process will be completed any time soon - Iraq anybody?.

No sane person anywhere, except perhaps some of the more ideologically blinkered right-wingers in the US*, wants a repeat of W's disasters.


* Of course, many people would quite reasonably assert that the 'no sane person' qualification automatically excludes the US's far right wingers.

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

Americans Against the Tea Party[/link" target="_blank" rel="nofollow"> A site that often displays the latest stupid, ignorant, crude, or warped shit the ring wing does.

[link=http://www.rightwingwatch.org/]Right Wing Watch Another site that keeps tabs on the crazy and loony right.

Those two and other sites try to keep up with all the crap the right wing pushes onto America. Like that Republican Congress that....STILL...after six months has done...NOTHING...of use for America. You know, if your trying to impress Americans that they should vote Republican/Tea Partier in the general election of 2016; its usually a good idea to use the most visible organization that has more respect than they do, to front the advertisements.

Yeah, Hillary has baggage. However, her baggage is NOTHING to the enormous amount carried by most of the right wingers running for public office in America. On one hand, they preach their hatred of bad government; then elected become that bad government. When they run for re-election, they bemoan its the fault of the Democrats and Liberals as to all the bad information (i.e. the liberal media); and get elected...AGAIN...to office so they can one more....AGAIN....give bad goverment. Risen and repeat, since most right wingers are ignorant and part of the 'Low Information Voter' audience.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01
Why would I want her to be President??? (Other than to keep the Neocons out of the office)??

Isn't keeping the Neocons out of the office ample reason on its own? I'm afraid that, like you, I don't rate Hilary very highly, but she would be better than any of the current GOP hopefuls. It would be a case of Hilary first and daylight second IMHO.

Recall what a disaster the last neocon POTUS was for the US and the world. It has taken years for the US to recover from W's mistakes and even longer for the rest of the world. Indeed, it's true to point that significant portions of both the USA and the rest of the world are still recovering. It doesn't look as though the process will be completed any time soon - Iraq anybody?.

No sane person anywhere, except perhaps some of the more ideologically blinkered right-wingers in the US*, wants a repeat of W's disasters.


* Of course, many people would quite reasonably assert that the 'no sane person' qualification automatically excludes the US's far right wingers.

No need to recall the disaster of a Neocon administration:

We're STILL living it:

1) Still digging out of this economic hole
2) Still paying for Medicare Part D
3) Dealing with a far more powerful Iran
4) Dealing with a far more armed North Korea! (can't forget that from the first term)

Some of the highlights of their legacy.


As Hunter so eloquently pointed out in another thread.... Democrats are between a rock and a hard place. As for me, I have NO party loyalty. I would vote for ANYONE who:

1) Understands the issues we face
2) Has a solid plan to resolve them

My post was not really about who is the lesser of two evils (yes, I agree, Hilary would be FAR less worse (double negative intended) than anyone on the Republican side.

I was genuinely trying to gain an understanding of what people feel Hilary has the ability to accomplish. Not much, it seems (other than keeping Neocons out).


I would actually consider voting for Rand Paul. (if he won the Republican nomination, which we all know he has no chance of accomplishing.)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

I ask this question all the time, and I just cannot seem to come up with an answer.

I actually like Hilary as a person. I felt sorry for her, during the Lewinsky years.

I have no idea, what qualifies her to hold elected office.

I can't find a single thing she has accomplished as Senator. I certainly can think of a few disastrous votes she took as a Senator.

As Secretary of State (Benghazi aside), she accomplished nothing (maybe I am wrong?).


Maybe I have Hilary all wrong... Someone please enlighten me... Why would I want her to be President??? (Other than to keep the Neocons out of the office)??


I am genuinely curious.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

I ask this question all the time, and I just cannot seem to come up with an answer.

I actually like Hilary as a person. I felt sorry for her, during the Lewinsky years.

I have no idea, what qualifies her to hold elected office.

I can't find a single thing she has accomplished as Senator. I certainly can think of a few disastrous votes she took as a Senator.

As Secretary of State (Benghazi aside), she accomplished nothing (maybe I am wrong?).


Maybe I have Hilary all wrong... Someone please enlighten me... Why would I want her to be President??? (Other than to keep the Neocons out of the office)??


I am genuinely curious.

you felt sorry for her? I felt sorry for Bill Clinton being married to her.. imo she is a shrew.. yeah, i guess they probably did love each other back when they first met and started dating but imo the only reason she did the "stand by your man" thing was cuz she liked the power she had as the First Lady and having his ear.. not to mention her position allowed her to rub elbows with powerful and famous and rich people..

When 9/11 happened she blamed Canada for supposedly letting the terrorists in when none of them got into the US from Canada.. so imo she has a very bad habit of flapping her gums when she should shut up until she has the true and accurate facts.. As a Canadian, I will forever think of her as an idiot & enemy of my country.. I do think she will be voted in as the next Prez and we will see what kinda disasters she will create.. its not like the US & Americans don't have enough problems already!.. I also think the Rs will be at her every chance they get, worse than how they have been with Obama..

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

Oh yes, I know that Obama, Read and Polosi sold the bad Bush economy line for the 2008 election. I know the semiliterate who all voted democrat bought it.

But you, in all of your splended knowledge really know that Carter, Clinton and Barney Franks really initiated the banking scheme and the Clinton had Janet Reno threaten the banks to go along. You also know that afterward all of Clinton's co-conspirators then went to work for Fanny and Fready to make millions. Jamie Gorilick being one. So you know in all of your passive aggressive BS that the economy that Clinton establish just came to fruition under Bush and he's just a handy fall guy. Since you're so sophisticated, you know all of that don't you.

You also know that Iran became they way they are under Carter and Obama's "progressive" posture has just made them worse. You know North Korea has always been there and it's neive, at best, to blame Bush for that seven years after he's been gone.

So, really, in your sophistication you know you're full of BS don't you?

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

Hillary Clinton's Accomplishments Speak for Themselves

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

Oh yes, I know that Obama, Read and Polosi sold the bad Bush economy line for the 2008 election. I know the semiliterate who all voted democrat bought it.

But you, in all of your splended knowledge really know that Carter, Clinton and Barney Franks really initiated the banking scheme and the Clinton had Janet Reno threaten the banks to go along. You also know that afterward all of Clinton's co-conspirators then went to work for Fanny and Fready to make millions. Jamie Gorilick being one. So you know in all of your passive aggressive BS that the economy that Clinton establish just came to fruition under Bush and he's just a handy fall guy. Since you're so sophisticated, you know all of that don't you.

You also know that Iran became they way they are under Carter and Obama's "progressive" posture has just made them worse. You know North Korea has always been there and it's neive, at best, to blame Bush for that seven years after he's been gone.

So, really, in your sophistication you know you're full of BS don't you?

I wouldnt be so hard on MJ, for a lefty he is one of the good ones. Your points on who smoked the economy are right on though, anyone who Googles Goldman Sachs Obama will see that its their guy who is felching them currently

You are also dead on regarding Carters Iran debacle, and North Korea. Its not reasonable to blame Bush for Iran

And its like, the left wanted Bush to invade North Korea?

Really?

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

Oh yes, I know that Obama, Read and Polosi sold the bad Bush economy line for the 2008 election. I know the semiliterate who all voted democrat bought it.

But you, in all of your splended knowledge really know that Carter, Clinton and Barney Franks really initiated the banking scheme and the Clinton had Janet Reno threaten the banks to go along. You also know that afterward all of Clinton's co-conspirators then went to work for Fanny and Fready to make millions. Jamie Gorilick being one. So you know in all of your passive aggressive BS that the economy that Clinton establish just came to fruition under Bush and he's just a handy fall guy. Since you're so sophisticated, you know all of that don't you.

You also know that Iran became they way they are under Carter and Obama's "progressive" posture has just made them worse. You know North Korea has always been there and it's neive, at best, to blame Bush for that seven years after he's been gone.

So, really, in your sophistication you know you're full of BS don't you?

I wouldnt be so hard on MJ, for a lefty he is one of the good ones. Your points on who smoked the economy are right on though, anyone who Googles Goldman Sachs Obama will see that its their guy who is felching them currently

You are also dead on regarding Carters Iran debacle, and North Korea. Its not reasonable to blame Bush for Iran

And its like, the left wanted Bush to invade North Korea?

Really?

Carter negotiated for Clinton to allow the Koreans to start their programs.
Remember Albright who said that it was better for the Chinese to have missile technology that for just the US to since we couldn't be trusted.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

Oh yes, I know that Obama, Read and Polosi sold the bad Bush economy line for the 2008 election. I know the semiliterate who all voted democrat bought it.

But you, in all of your splended knowledge really know that Carter, Clinton and Barney Franks really initiated the banking scheme and the Clinton had Janet Reno threaten the banks to go along. You also know that afterward all of Clinton's co-conspirators then went to work for Fanny and Fready to make millions. Jamie Gorilick being one. So you know in all of your passive aggressive BS that the economy that Clinton establish just came to fruition under Bush and he's just a handy fall guy. Since you're so sophisticated, you know all of that don't you.

You also know that Iran became they way they are under Carter and Obama's "progressive" posture has just made them worse. You know North Korea has always been there and it's neive, at best, to blame Bush for that seven years after he's been gone.

So, really, in your sophistication you know you're full of BS don't you?

I wouldnt be so hard on MJ, for a lefty he is one of the good ones. Your points on who smoked the economy are right on though, anyone who Googles Goldman Sachs Obama will see that its their guy who is felching them currently

You are also dead on regarding Carters Iran debacle, and North Korea. Its not reasonable to blame Bush for Iran

And its like, the left wanted Bush to invade North Korea?

Really?

Carter negotiated for Clinton to allow the Koreans to start their programs.
Remember Albright who said that it was better for the Chinese to have missile technology that for just the US to since we couldn't be trusted.

Then, Clinton allowed China to buy missile technology which went right to North Korea.

So, the missiles and the warheads are a Clinton thing. Gees.....I wonder why people are blaming Bush? Especially still.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

Hillary Clinton's Accomplishments Speak for Themselves

Really Hillary's only accomplishment is that she married well.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

Hillary Clinton's Accomplishments Speak for Themselves

Really Hillary's only accomplishment is that she married well.

That's a rather archaic way of thinking, considering she had already made it to Yale, where she met Bill.

http://www.whitehousehistory.org/history/white-house-first-ladies/first-lady-hillary-clinton.html

Somehow, I'm certain we'd still know Hillary Roddham with whatever husband she chose.