I just read in this Sunday’s Parade magazine that Hillary wants to use her Senate seat as a stepping stone to the Presidency.
Excuse me, but what makes her think she’s qualified for the job, for that matter what are her qualifications for the Senate? Maybe someone can enlighten me, I just know her as a jilted and angry woman and that’s not the best person to be the most powerful person in the free world.
Regardless of what you think of her political positions, I think few people would argue that she’s intelligent, determined, and hard-working.
Whether people liked it or not, she was, by all accounts, one of Bill Clinton’s most trusted advisors.
I honestly don’t know if she’s “qualified” to be president… I imagine we’ll have a better idea after she’s served out her senate term. I think she’s certainly qualified to be a senator.
You could make the “unqualified” argument about a slew of presidents… some effective, some not. Off the top of my head, Bill Clinton was a governor of a small southern state with no private sector experience, John Kennedy and George W. Bush (being a bit presumtive here, of course) both had their private and public careers bought and paid for by their fathers… they never REALLY had to earn these. What made Dwight Eisenhower “qualified” to be president? I don’t think he had any governing experience before his election.
As a baseball fan, i can’t resist… I’d like to remind you that as owner of the Texas Rangers, W traded Sammy Sosa to the Cubs for George Bell. I hope he surrounds himself with better advisors during treaty negotiations 
Dubya owned the Rangers???
Hillary was a succesful attorney. Hillary has seen the job up close and personal for 8 years. She’s had more influence than Gore has had. (may or may not be good thing) She’s certainly had to learn the ins and outs of Washington politics.
Dubya owned the Rangers???
I can’t speak for how sucessful Hillary was as a lawyer, but I do know that she had quite a bit of success “losing” incriminating files, and then making some of them magically reappear. Sounds like she would be more qualified to be an illusionist that president.
Personally I would vote for a steaming pile of dog crap before I would cast a vote for Hillary. She seems to have no problems with dishonesty. She promised in her senate campaign that she would serve the full 6 year term before running for any other office. Now we are hearing all this talk of her running in '04…hmmm…somebody check my math, but I think she would have 2 years left on her senate term. Do we really want another Clinton as president? The current one has already disgraced the office, and imbarrased the nation…in the name of patriotism, vote for the steaming pile of crap, and help keep the Clinton’s out of the Whitehouse forever!
(I realize that I have left it wide open for comparisons of a steaming pile of crap and GWB…if that is the best comeback that you democrats can come up with, then go for it)
oops! imbarrased=embarrased…my apologies for this error.
I think David Letterman said it best:
“Hillary Clinton would make a great President. I mean, come on, just look at her record.”
I don’t think Hillary has anything to be ashamed of in terms of her exposure to the workings of the various branches of federal government. (She may have a personality problem in working with other people, but that’s another matter).
This “experience” issue is a strange one, which comes up very erratically. I don’t know how many people took it into account when voting for Ralph Nadar, or, for that matter, in electing Jean Carnahan as Senator from Missouri.
Strange thing about the NY Senate race was that her opponent, Rick Lazio, was actually the “lightweight” in the race, despite his years of congressional experience. But this was his own fault, as he chose to focus his campaign on the fact that Hillary was not from NY and other trivial matters (like her alleged contacts with terrorists etc.)
Major Feelgud: I just know her as a jilted and angry woman
Huh??
It’s well known that her husband cheated on her, but where do you get the “jilted”? Bill Clinton has shown absolutely no sign AFAIK of wanting to dump his wife, and in fact has spoken publicly about how proud he is of her and how he’s looking forward to his unique position as a former President and senator’s husband.
As for “angry”, well, most wives whose husbands cheat on them get justifiably pissed off, but AFAIK Hillary has not made a public issue of this at all (although the tabloids would dearly like her to), plus she’s had a couple years to calm down. Why do you think of her as “angry”?
As for the whole statement: I have no problem with your disagreeing with H. Clinton’s positions, questioning her competence, and mistrusting her character. But anyone who can look at a qualified attorney with years of legal practice and years of active involvement in governmental policymaking at the state and national level (who just finished a successful campaign for US Senator in an important state) and see only “a jilted and angry woman” is wearing mental blinders. No matter what Clinton does in the Senate, you, Major Feelgud, will never think she has any qualifications whatsoever, because you don’t want to think so. So why did you even bother to start this thread as a debate?
And as for Toby-T’s plea: Though I’m strongly dissatisfied with many things about B. Clinton’s presidency and wouldn’t choose to have him or his wife as Chief Executive again, I’m apparently a lot less dainty than you are about personal scandals. Speaking as a concerned, informed voter who prefers to think of politicians as public employees with specific jobs to do rather than as hero figures or national icons, I think it would take a lot more to “disgrace” the office of the Presidency than some naughty escapades in the Oval Office. As for “embarrassing [note the double ‘s’] the nation”, I was a lot more embarrassed by the whole media feeding frenzy and impeachment carnival than by the (admittedly undignified and distasteful) naughty escapades that served as an excuse for them. Getting hysterical over politicians’ sex scandals may be your idea of patriotism, Toby-T, but it isn’t mine.
Well, what do you expect him to say?
“I sleep in dread of a Bobbitt being pulled on me every night”
“Yeah, I lost interest in her as a woman years ago.”
“I look forward to more sexcapades when she’s in D.C. and I’m in NY.”
It does concern me whether she is running as a person who wants to do go for the nation or as a person who wants to get back at her husband and men somehow, or as a person whose mind has been warped by having to bear her husband’s disgrace without saying a word for more than 8 years.
I meant to say “as a person who wants to do good for the nation…”
There are other, more reliable sources of political information than Parade Magazine. Like the Drudge Report, for instance.
I despise Hillary Clinton to the depths of my marrow.
However, according to the Constitution, she is well qualified to be both a Senator and the President, should people be foolhardy enough to vote for her.
I am more comfortable in theory with having those who govern me be normal people, not lifelong politicians. I did not vote for senator-elect Jean Carnahan (the widow of the late Missouri governor who’s ging to take Mel’s place for 2 years), but I am not one of those who thinks she is unqualified simply for not having led a politician’s life. It’s one of the many reasons I voted for Harry Browne.
Major F: *It does concern me whether she is running as a person who wants to do go[od] for the nation or as a person who wants to get back at her husband and men somehow, or as a person whose mind has been warped by having to bear her husband’s disgrace without saying a word for more than 8 years. *
Well, of course it does. It concerns all of us. That’s why I asked you what your actual evidence was for believing that Clinton is nothing but a “jilted and angry woman.” And I’d also like to know what evidence you think there is for suggesting that she “wants to get back at her husband and men” or that her “mind has been warped by having to bear her husband’s disgrace.” Has she said so? Have people who know her well said so? Are you getting these ideas from any other source than merely projecting onto Clinton your own imaginings about how she ought to feel about her husband and her own position?
If, on the other hand, you’re seriously asking for information about Clinton’s political experience and ability, then why don’t you try doing a little research? There’s no dearth of material about her in books and on the web. For the basic facts (though with a very favorable spin, of course), you might try reading her biography at the campaign website.
Hillary’s qualifications for Senator? 1. She is old enough. 2. She met the residency requirements, and is a US Citizen. 3. She got more votes that her opponent- this last being crucial. Her qualifications then, are basicly- she is the person who the voters of NY State want as their Senator.
If she runs for Prez? Her qualifications will be the number of votes she gets. Nothing else really matters. No resume need be submitted.
Ferkrisake- what were Perots qualifications?
And as for your statements that Hillary is a 'carpetbagger", and not a real resident of NY- I think you better look to your own Cheney, who is actually & practically a resident of Texas- but not “legally”.
(However- she does have one great “qualification”- if she get nominated for prez- that will cause thousands of rabid Clinton haters to froth at the mouth, which is always fun to watch) 
IIRC, Texas lets you vote there if you simply file a statement saying you intend to move there someday. That’s how Poppy Bush was able to claim Texas as his official home state (the others had fewer electoral votes). I don’t think you can carpet a larger bag than that.
Cheney doesn’t worry me - residency is so fluid a concept that there’s no way to pin anyone down on it anyway, and that clause in the Constitution is not needed in today’s world.
I’d be interested in hearing from the avowed Hillary-haters in this thread WHY they hate her. What is that based on besides pure emotion? What has she said or done that leads to such emotion?
I don’t like her politics, I think she’s very arrogant, and I think she’s a liar. But on the other hand I can’t say I hate her. Hate is such a personal emotion and I just can’t use that to describe my feelings about her. At best I dislike her.
Marc
Yeah, arrogance comes to mind. Dishonesty comes to mind. I’m a retired doc, Hillary’s health care reform comes to mind. What right does an elected official’s wife have to “reform” health care? Should our local governor’s or mayor’s wife be passing bills?
You’re full of rhetorical questions today, aren’t you? Don’t you think that she should have had the happiest 8 years of her life? How many wives wouldn’t have loved to have basked in the glory of being in the White House for the maximum time possible? Don’t you think her whole experience has been tainted, embittered her? Any normal woman would have felt that way.
“Has she said so?” She might, in her memoires.
Getting more votes than her opponent is how you win, it’s not qualification in the way I meant it.
If like you say, her qualifications are that she is old enough, met the residency requirements, is a US citizen (btw, not required for Senate), then she has as much qualifications as Joe Blow, i.e. nothing, or if you want a qualified answer, nothing special. Yeah, that answers my questions.