Hillary Clinton is Unqualified to be President

[DSeid]

@acsenray

How has this morphed into “cloddish failure”? As I remember it, it was a big political showdown and the Republicans filibustered it, like they did a lot of stuff in the Clinton administration. I think it’s pretty much agreed that the system she came up with – while not perfect – would have been better than what we have now.

It was a cloddish failure from day one. I wanted healthcare reform dammint. It was a telling failure. It was a failure because she played into, perhaps even created, the ramrod techniques. She didn’t think anyone could go against her and if they did that she’d win. They went against her and she lost. It doesn’t matter how good or not good the approach she championed would’ve been if it died.

I don’t want even great ideas that do not produce results; I want good ideas that actually happen. And that means working with the other sides, listening to their POVs, and sharing the credit. Knowing what is essential and what you can dicker with. Her swing at healthcare reform did not show that she can do that. I don’t think she does.

[Mosier]

@Shayna

Please read more carefully before accusing me of false attacks.

YOU are the one who claimed she had more executive experience, without cite, and you were asked to define what you meant by that. Not only have you not done so, now you’ve changed the parameters to “government experience.”

I was responding to the “executive experience” claim, not legislative experience, not government experience, not First Lady experience, executive experience.

Again, I don’t care what tortured definition you want to use to describe the experience Hillary Clinton has accumulated over her lifetime, as “executive” in nature. No matter how you define it, even if it was decades of it, she’s clearly not done well enough at it to make herself qualified to put that so-called experience to good use. She’s failed at her first major “executive” endeavor in every measurable way. Her fiscal irresponsibility in this campaign is just the latest evidence of that assertion. And it’s a doozie.

Why do you insist on baiting like this? Will this discussion go more easily for you if I preface every paragraph with something negative about Hillary? I’ll try, but please don’t jump down my throat here if I fail to rail hard enough on her.

Hillary Clinton is, for the most part, a political failure. The executive experience I mentioned before began with an appointed position from Jimmy Carter in 78, and continued through appointed positions under Bill during his governorships of Arkansas. She worked in various positions under executive authority on both a national and state level on the topics that she is best known for: health care and child advocacy. I’m not arguing her merit here, just pointing out that she didn’t come from nowhere to be the first lady. She had a significant background in government before Bill went to Washington.

Yes, Hillary Clinton is indeed a monster. You’re right about almost everything you say about her underhanded campaigning. She’s an ineffective legislator and her pet project was the biggest political failure of our time, but she is NOT just some nobody out of left field without a significant resume.

[Acsenray]

@DSeid

I wanted healthcare reform dammint. It was a telling failure. It was a failure because she played into, perhaps even created, the ramrod techniques. She didn’t think anyone could go against her and if they did that she’d win. They went against her and she lost. It doesn’t matter how good or not good the approach she championed would’ve been if it died.

Actually, it was a failure primarily because the majority of American people at the time were not very interested in a comprehensive reform of the health care system. I don’t think any politician could have gotten health care reform through at that time. What her opponents took advantage of was an existing unease and skepticism of the idea.

[Shayna]

@Mosier

Why do you insist on baiting like this? Will this discussion go more easily for you if I preface every paragraph with something negative about Hillary? I’ll try, but please don’t jump down my throat here if I fail to rail hard enough on her.

Hillary Clinton is, for the most part, a political failure. The executive experience I mentioned before began with an appointed position from Jimmy Carter in 78, and continued through appointed positions under Bill during his governorships of Arkansas. She worked in various positions under executive authority on both a national and state level on the topics that she is best known for: health care and child advocacy. I’m not arguing her merit here, just pointing out that she didn’t come from nowhere to be the first lady. She had a significant background in government before Bill went to Washington.

Yes, Hillary Clinton is indeed a monster. You’re right about almost everything you say about her underhanded campaigning. She’s an ineffective legislator and her pet project was the biggest political failure of our time, but she is NOT just some nobody out of left field without a significant resume.

Why do you insist on arguing with me against points I didn’t make and ascribing motives to me I don’t hold?

I’ve never called Hillary a monster (and I don’t think she is one) and I don’t deny that she has a significant resume. Hell, I don’t even think she’s been an ineffectual legislator, even though she’s done little of comparative substance to Barack Obama.

YOU made the claim that she has more “executive” experience than he has. You were asked to define what you meant by “executive” experience. I contend that you can define it however you want, and even if it is true that she has more “executive” experience, and even if that “executive” experience is genuine and far-reaching and long-lived, it is obviously not experience that she carries into her campaign, which has been a dismal failure, and therefore, I don’t believe that it makes her qualified to lead this nation based on it.

I don’t know how much clearer I can be.

[Shayna]

@EddyTeddyFreddy

I looked over the list of unpaid debts at the FEC website. The debtors Clinton has stiffed include:

Merrimack Valley High School, New Hampshire
.
.
.
.
University of New Hampshire

Plus hundreds of small vendors who can’t afford the hit to their cash flow.

You missed another doozie. . . Clinton didn’t pay health insurance bills

Among the debts reported this month by Hillary Rodham Clinton’s struggling presidential campaign, the $292,000 in unpaid health insurance premiums for her campaign staff stands out.

Clinton, who is being pressured to end her campaign against Barack Obama for the Democratic nomination, has made her plan for universal health care a centerpiece of her agenda.

. . . the unpaid bills to Aetna were at least two months old, according to FEC filings.

They show the campaign ended last year owing Aetna more than $213,000 for “employee benefits.”

During the first two months of the year, the campaign did not pay down any of that debt. In fact, it accrued another $16,000 in unpaid bills last month, and it finished the month owing Aetna $229,000.

. . . Arizona Sen. John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, did not report any unpaid bills to insurance providers at the end of February. And the only insurance-related debt reported by Obama, an Illinois senator, was $908 to AIG American International Group for “insurance.”

. . .

Yeah, I trust her to oversee government sponsored universal health care.

Not.

[Napier]

The debt issue is fascinating.

We could judge Hillary’s executive experience on her management of her own campaign organization in three ways now: 1) despite an initial advantage, they aren’t collecting deligates; 2) their personnel is troubled by bickering, unclear responsponsibilities, management shifts and loose cannons, and, 3) they can’t meet their financial obligations.