Hillary Clinton is Unqualified to be President

Hillary Rodham Clinton’s résumé:

Faculty Member, School of Law, University of Arkansas, Fayetville, '74 - '76.

Associate, later Partner, Rose Law Firm '77 - '92.

Assorted Board/Chairman positions (Legal Services Corporation, Arkansas Rural Health Advisory Commission, etc.) '77 - '92

First Lady of Arkansas '78 - '92 (with one two-year interruption)

First Lady of the United States '92 - '00

Senator from New York '00 - present.

This isn’te exactly a stellar résumé. She is a capable person, obviously intelligent, having drive. But as she herself acknowledges, she made a decision in the mid-70s to give up her own chance at a political career to be married to Bill Clinton and support his efforts to be a political creature. Upon exiting the White House, having tasted the flavor, she wanted back in, and was gifted the seat of Senator for the state of New York (one has to believe that there were other, more qualified Democrats in New York who were more deserving of the chance to follow Sen. Moynihan). This was done specifically so that she could eventually run for President.

Explain, please, how this qualifies her to be President of the United States? By comparison, both her opponents (Sen. Obama and Sen. McCain) have longer experiences in formal politics. And usually, modern Presidents have more substantial experiences (Eisenhower excepted). So, make the case for Sen. Clinton? I’m having trouble seeing it…

I am not one to make a case for any Clinton, but the only qualification necessary is winning the election.

She’s a natural-born citizen.

She’s lived in the US for the last 14 years.

She’s at least 35 years old.

I don’t think she’s the right choice, but those are the only qualifications that matter. Those and getting elected, of course.

Resumes don’t mean squat. If they did, James Buchanan would have been a great president: Elected five times to the House, served a decade in the Senate, was Secretary of State and Minister to Russia and to Great Britain.

I agree that her qualifications are weak. She wants to think that every moment of her life in the past 35 years was presidential-qualifying experience. I think Obama’s legislative experience is more worthy than her time as First Lady. I also think she ran for the Senate for the sole purpose of padding her resume and will not run for reelection to the Senate in 2012.

Conversely, his successor had an undistinguished military background, a few years in a state legislature and one term in Congress. He had a bit more success in the White House than Buchanan did.

Of course, he was a Republican and Buchanan a Democrat. :wink:

To be fair, when she was First Lady she took a far more active role in crafting and presenting major legislation than any previous First Lady. And for a while she was going to be co-President.

I’m not saying that this means she is the best candidate for the job, but it’s not like she’s a complete novice to national politics. Her background isn’t her strong point, but it isn’t a major weakness either.


Why don’t you post the ENTIRE Resume:

Member of Human Race, 1947 - present
Student Council, Maine East High School 1963-1964
Debate Team, Lead Fabricator, Maine East High School - 1963-1964
Elected Most Likely To Carpetbag a Senatorial Election, Maine South High School - 1965
Runner-up, Miss Wet T-Shirt Cancun Corona Spring Break - 1969
First Female President of Yale Law School, also a student - 1972
Brokered End to Yom Kippur War under hail of sniper fire - 1973
Defeated the Iron Shiek - 1975

How does “formal politics” qualify a person to be President? So McCain has been a Senator longer, and Obama has held other elective offices. How does that prepare a person for the phone call at 3am when the Chinese nukes are heading our way?

The problem is, years in a legislative body aren’t all equal.

How meaningful was Obama’s years in the Illinois State Senate?

How meaningful have Clinton’s years in the U.S. Senate been?

How meaningful has Obama’s years in the U.S. Senate been?

In legislative bodies it is very often the case that junior members do not get to be part of many of the committees that make the most important decisions. Typically the most important members of a legislative body are ones who have served many years, forged many political alliances, and who have been given many important committee positions.

What committees are Obama and Hillary on?

How active have they been in their respective legislative roles? Did they miss very many votes compared to other Senators? How many legislative proposals have they created? How many have become law?

I doubt either of them will compare favorably to John McCain in any of these categories precisely because you need a significant period of experience in the U.S. Senate before you become much of a political power.

Furthermore, I think it blatantly obvious that Obama and Hillary entered the Senate for one reason–as a stepping stone to the Presidency. To me, that sort of colors their entire term of service. I think both have probably been more political in deciding what legislation actions they are going to be involved in because I believe both have been posturing for the Presidency in the U.S. Senate.

Ultimately no job qualifies you for being President except for being President. Even then it is questionable, as many second-term Presidents have done worse in their second terms than they did in their first term.

Now, there are certain jobs that position you very well to be elected President. Being Vice President or a Governor have been your best bets recently, although this election cycle is going against that trend. But, that just refers to which jobs position someone best to be elected that is not the same thing as which jobs best prepare someone for actually doing well when they are elected.

I actually think a mix of executive and legislative experience would be ideal. You need experience in managing an enormous number of people, you need experience making tough decisions, you need experience at compromise, you need experience working with the legislative, you need to be able to work with foreign leaders.

I think this is why a mix of executive and legislative experience would be ideal, because the President has to work very much with the Congress. The President needs to be able to manage but also needs to be able to compromise with legislative and foreign leaders.

I think Al Gore was probably the most qualified person to run in recent memory. (Excluding Presidents who were running for second terms) Gore had significant legislative experience and was Vice President for eight years.

I know that the Vice Presidency is an often-maligned office, and true, it has virtually no really important day-to-day functions of responsibilities. The Vice President is, at least constitutionally, basically just a second body to fall into the Presidency if the President happens to die.

Many American political figures both historical and current have turned down the Vice Presidency, explaining that they have no interest in a position that is effectively a do-nothing job.

However, I take a different view. I think the Vice Presidency has become more important over time. I agree with John Adams–when he had the office, it was pretty much a pointless political office. I think that probably remained true for many years after that.

But if you look at the 20th century many Vice Presidents have taken part significantly in policy formulation. While they have no obligations per se, most recent Vice Presidents have had fairly large staffs and have made some important policy contributions. Cheney was in charge of the search team that helped select several of Bush’s cabinet officers, for example. Cheney has met with both congressional and foreign leaders. I’m not going to deny that Cheney has been incredibly unpopular, but he hasn’t sat in his office and done nothing for seven years–I think everyone can agree with that.

But if you look at recent history, starting with Richard Nixon–Vice Presidents have had significant roles in the administration and have always emerged as powerful politicians when their term of service is over (barring scandal.)

Most have run for the Presidency. Agnew was probably on path to run for the Presidency if not for his corruption coming to light. Cheney is the first to break this mold, as his health condition and repeated statements from 2000 onwards have clearly indicated he never had any Presidential aspirations (at least not after the year 2000.)

Nonetheless, even without being an assumed Presidential successor, Cheney has been viewed as being a powerful Vice President with many responsibilities.

While everyone assumed (correctly) that Al Gore was going to run for President, he was active in his role as Veep–that combined with his legislative experience probably made him the most qualified (on paper) candidate we’ve had in my life time (except for maybe Richard Nixon.) While you aren’t “chief executive” when in the VP role, you get to see the inner workings of the executive branch. You get to sit in on all cabinet meetings, you’re a member of the National Security Council. You are privy to pretty much the most important decisions the President makes on top of having your own policy initiatives.

I think it’s long been unfair to label a term as Vice President “meaningless.”

Also, Hillary would have the largest set of boobs of any President ever. That has to count for something. Size matters.

I dunno. I’m sure Taft was a contender for that. :stuck_out_tongue:

Is that true? Maybe but her papers don’t show her actually having much of a role other than her cloddish failure at healthcare reform. And promoting NAFTA. Otherwise she seems to have done the usual first lady things.

Meanwhile Eleanor Roosevelt had a solid and active role during FDRs terms, working on civil rights, womens rights, actively promoting New Deal policies, helping found an NGO devoted to promoting democracy (The Freedom House), and founding the UN Association of the United States which worked to support the creation of the UN. What input she had behind the scenes we may never know. Did they have a functional working relationship despite the dysfunctionality of their marriage? Could have been.

I’m not so sure - Taft’s might have been bigger…

ETA: Damn, beat…


“First Lady of the United States” is a more impressive item on HRC’s resume than it would be on the resume of some other former First Lady seeking office, because we all know she was not merely the White House hostess, but an Administration insider regularly advising the president on policy matters.

Health care reform is mostly what I meant. I don’t recall her being all that active for NAFTA - my impression was the other one pushing that was Algore. At least I remember him debating Perot about it on Larry King (and doing a lousy job).

Maybe if she had done more of those, Bill would have been able to avoid his little contretemps with Monica and the Big Hair People. :wink:

That’s a very good point. She wrote a newspaper column, too. Maybe if it were sixty years later, she would have run for the Senate.

I don’t think there is much doubt that they did. Likewise (AFAICT) with the Clintons - they formed a partnership. He had the charm, she was the policy wonk. He could fuck around behind her back, but keep it discreet enough not to cause public trouble. She would get him as far as possible, then it was her turn. Her turn doesn’t seem to be working out as well as expected, but…



Does anyone have the time to look into a comparative chart for resumes for the last say 8 presidents? It might be interesting. However, I would like to think that presidents who had some clout or were say not tyrants made up for weak resumes. I don’t know what FDR’s resume looked like, but I know he was quite a mover and shaker, and from what gramps has told my family, he was well liked.

And going by recent polls Obama is on the top of the well liked list, and Hillary is at the lowest point of likeablilty for the last 7 years…According to the NBC-WJS poll that just came out.

State senator - 1911-1913
Assistant Secretary of the Navy - 1913-1920
Candidate for Vice-President - 1920
[polio in 1921, then recuperating from that]
Governor of New York - 1928–1932

A pretty impressive resume.

Big resume. State senator, Assistant Secretary of the Navy, Vice-Presidential candidate for the Democrats in 1920, Governor of New York 1928-1932.