Estimating "experience" or "qualifications" to be President is hardly clear-cut.
True to some extent. But the actual positions they have held is a good starting point.
And nobody who has claimed that Hillary was "the most qualified candidate ever" has defended that position well.
Some claim that Ike -- who held no political office prior to POTUS -- was unqualified. Yet, two bullets on his resume strike me as impressive:
- Served as Supreme Commander (Europe).
- Directed the largest amphibious invasion in history.
Yes, experience/qualifications are not only elected office. SAC Europe is an important position where he actually ran things.
I would definitely put Ike as a well-qualified, well-experienced candidate.
The same people who label Hillary as "most qualified," if based solely on a count of bullet-points, presumably -- if not hypocrites --
She doesn't even have that many bullet points compared to many others.
label Obama as "one of the least qualified."
He certainly lacked in experience, I do not think anybody would dispute that. But he was also pretty young, so he got a pass on that.
In fact Obama was one of the smartest and most competent Presidents ever; it's too bad the GOP had already devolved into an Obstruction and Hatred Machine by that time.
He is smart and he was competent, true.
Anyway, Hillary, if not the VERY most qualified candidate ever, was hugely qualified.
I did not say she was not qualified, but it is hyperbole to claim she was most qualified, or even among the most qualified.
What exactly sets her apart from all the other people who ever threw their ring in for presidency?
I'm sure Derec won't click, but objective Infidels might want to read about Hillary's address to fellow graduating seniors -- she was the first student ever to speak at her college's Commencement.
I clicked. Still don't see how that makes her "most qualified ever".
At the end of her speech she was given a seven-minute standing ovation.
What does that prove other than she was popular among the audience and that they liked her speech?
But some of you are too busy scouring right-wing sources for anti-progressive slurs to actually educate yourself about great Americans like Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Sigh. And you only scour sources that like her, like that Boston Globe author. I must say, I do not like her. For one, she has a problem with honesty, like her made-up story of dodging sniper fire in Bosnia or that she and Bill were broke after leaving the White House.
It sounds like you're one that just counts bullet points.
It's a good starting point.
And seem unaware that Chairmanships are mainly a matter of seniority.
Derec, are you that guy in HR who throws away the resumes of the most promising candidates?
It may be due to seniority, but chairmanships come with responsibility. It's different than being a run-of-the mill Senator or even an unremarkable SecState.
But in fact, McCain -- whom I still admire greatly for his integrity and humanity -- lacked necessary cognitive skill.
Really? Now you are calling him dumb?
Supposedly a Middle-East expert, he continually mixed up Sunni and Shia.
And your girl Hillary never misspoke?
At least one book on the 2008 campaign made a startling comparison between the two candidates' approach to managing the credit crisis. Anyone who considers McCain "qualified" for the highest office simply does not know what he is talking about.
Could you summarize? And your disagreement with his policy position does not make him unqualified.
"Foisted upon him"?? He sure went along willingly. IIRC he had a very brief interview with the Alaskan imbecile, then signed her up. Most of us knew she was a moron as soon as she opened her mouth.
More or less foisted, yes. Of course he had to sign off on that, but there was a lot of pressure from the Party.
Speaking of running mates, Hillary's choice was not exactly inspired.
There you go counting bullet-points again! Wow! She was the "Mayor of Alaska."
I meant to write mayor of Wasilla. The thing is, these positions, mayor and governor are executive positions. She had to run things at least.
There was also some unfair attacks on Palin. Like making fun of the small population of Alaska as if Delaware was much bigger (and Vermont is even smaller). Or pretending that Tina Fey's words were actually spoken by Palin.
If you could see yourself as others see you -- denigrating Hillary's resume bullets while boasting that Palin was "Mayor of Alaska" -- you might be laughing too!
So I wrote the wrong word. Big whoop! You know what I meant. Mayor of Wasilla.
And yes, Hillary's resume is thin. Corporate lawyer, then first lady for 16 years which I do not think should count as experience, then a Senator for a short while and a SecState for one term. It's pretty run of the mill for a politician, except the first lady part, but again, I do not think that counts as experience any more their wives' experience should be imputed to Denis Thatcher or Joachim Sauer.
Uh ... Did you know that America is a majority-white country? Did you think I thought Obama won only on the strength of black votes? (Who mostly vote for the Blue whether that Blue is Black or White?)
That was my point. He had to do well with whites. So your claim that US is such a racist country does not hold water. If it was, we would not have elected Obama by a wide margin (not "barely" as you falsely claimed). And therefore, race would not be an obstacle for a Michelle candidacy.
An academic study was done, comparing differential voting in the 2004 and 2008 elections in racist counties. (The racism parameter was done via some geographic Google Search IIRC.) The study showed that, all else equal, a Black would lose 2% (or such) in the nationwide vote.
Ooh, an academic study calling certain counties "racist" based on a Google search. Do you have a link to that supposed study?
Also, Loren Pechtel gets attacked by the Ilk every time he uses "black" as a noun. I wonder why it's fine when you use it. And what does "all things being equal" mean? That between two identical candidates most whites would prefer the white one? Perhaps. But it is also certainly true that among two identical candidates, blacks would prefer the black one.
Derec: Before you pound Reply and brag that you know Kerry lost in the 2004 election, re-read the paragraph and Google the word "differential."
I know what the differential means. It's the device that allows the wheels on a driving axle to move at different angular speeds. Or alternatively, an infinitesimal change in a quantity, e.g. dx.
Anyway, do you have a link to that alleged study?
We know you're too busy even to read the Wikipedia bios of the political women you despise. And have no plan to read Game Change or any other book on the 2008 campaign. How could you possibly imagine anyone has any interest in your opinion about McCain's competence?
Of course I did read Hillary's wiki entry. Does not show her to be "most qualified", sorry. And you have not exactly made that point either. Instead, you have attacked my intellect over minor slips (like Wasilla) as is your usual MO.
I did not read that particular book. What case does it make that Hillary was the "most qualified candidate" ever? Or does it just assert it and then insults their readership like you are wont to do?