It’s a great way to make money… after the fact. The Clintons have both done quite well as speakers and authors. If Hillary’s grand plan is to cash in and become filthy rich after serving as President, seems sort of weird to wait until she’s 72 to 76 years old until drawing those paychecks.
5 Likes
Yes - been saying this for awhile. If you were generally happy with Obama’s presidency and were generally happy with Clinton’s presidency (note - he left office 15 years ago – not that long ago for adults but for those under say 25 it is ancient history) you’ll be generally happy with Clinton Round II.
Trump … I keep asking myself who the hell is voting for this clown. And I’m left wondering if this is just being treated like a reality show.
She wants the job because she believes she’s entitled to it, not because she has any relevant experience or innate qualities that would make her a good fit for the job. If you want yet another crappy president who gets pretty much nothing done, but continues the worst policies of her predecessors with additional gusto, then by all means, vote for Clinton. If it weren’t for race riots in the late 60’s and abortion, she’d be a Republican today. Think about what policies follow from there, because that’s what you’re going to get.
1 Like
In recent times we seem to be going the Democratic Republic route.
Well, she was first lady for 8 years (i.e., she watched the day-in, day-out goings on constantly and most definitely acted as advisor/sounding board for Bill), a Senator for 8 years, and Secretary of State for four. Whether you like her qualities or policies is absolutely up to individuals to decide, but in terms of relevant experience, I think she’s about as qualified as someone can possibly be without having served as VP.
I have no issue with her qualifications.
I could argue that Condoleeza Rice is qualified. Doesn’t mean I want her to have the job.
4 Likes
How do you measure her qualifications? She was Secretary of State. Benghazi happened on her watch, but her biggest failure in that mess was one of PR management. If there were a bigger failure, than those endless hearings would have come up with something of substance. Come to think of it, that’s probably her biggest problem overall… she either can’t relate to the public or she can’t make her positions relatable to the public. She’s a career politician, so by measure of political experience, she’s probably more experienced than any other candidate. But of course, experience with the system is a bad thing in your books.
As for crappy results in recent presidencies… the legacy of a president is rarely known until after the fact. That said, it’s almost impossible to deny that BO’s presidency is radically different from GWB’s which was radically different from BC’s. If BO had lost in 2k8, where would the US be wrt healthcare or gay marriage or the WSOD?
You seem to think that electing Bernie Sanders will lead to massive change, well, maybe he will, but I suspect that if he gets elected, a lot of people will be in for an Obama-sized disappointment.
Absolutely. I’m only talking about “resumé experience”. Whether you like Condoleezza or Hillary is one thing, but in terms of job experience and readiness to become President, Hillary is easily the most qualified person in this election on either side, as she’s the only person running who’s spent extensive time in the executive branch.
You completely misread my reply. As @daneel said, she wants the job because she wants the job. I didn’t say she doesn’t have experience, she’d want the job even if she didn’t have experience. It’s all about her entitlement and ego.
The US has ossified, a sea change is required in the political arena. Trump rallies are a portent of things to come if sane people don’t vote for something better than another 4-8 years of Reaganomics and endless drone strikes.
Pro tip: don’t mansplain someone’s opinion to them while simultaneously putting words in their mouth. That’s two party fouls. I haven’t said one single thing about Sanders in reply to you.
1 Like
I agree with this but would expand on it. She loves the challenge. She loves pitting her mind against intractable problems and opponents. She has ideas of how the country should be run and an ideal of what it should be like (fairly conservative, secular ideals, by any non-American standard), but what she relishes is the challenge of getting these ideas implemented in spite of all the obstacles that will come up.
I don’t know that I want Clinton to be president… she breeds ambivalence among her supporters, she’s too conservative in the classic sense and I don’t think she would feel the weight of the presidency as viscerally as I would like, but when it comes to implementing policy, there is no one running more qualified. Especially in the face of a determined opposition.
Sorry, I didn’t mean to sound condescending and would appreciate if you wouldn’t condescend either.
I haven’t seen any evidence that this presidential election will lead to radical change for the better (although I think it could very well lead to radical change for the worse). Nor do I see why Hilary Clinton being president is such a terrible outcome that some people would rather Ted Cruz be president (not saying you feel that way, but some people do). She’ll be a moderate by American standards president. The American conservatives will hate her… They’d hate any Democrat. She won’t be radical enough for progressives. Obama wasn’t, no way she will be. I don’t know how, given the political climate of the last 6 years, anyone could have been much more progressive than BO, but I don’t see anyone who would be capable of implementing a more progressive agenda than he did. I mean, it would still have to get past a Republican Congress.
What I see with HRC is that she wouldn’t hesitate to use the power of the Presidency to, say, implement a nationwide lead cleanup. And she’d do it because she’s watched her husband and Obama make this sort of run around Congress. Anyone else would probably make like Obama and try and get some kind of consensus and work with Congress before resorting to this sort of executive chicanery. Whether or not this is a bug or a feature is kind of murky to me, but if anything progressive is to come out of a presidential election, this is how it would have to happen barring a massive upset where Congress and Senate become Democratic majority.
1 Like
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
