Hillary's credentials

Great Debates
21

Major F.: *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. *

So in other words, your conclusions about her state of mind are, as I suggested, simply derived from “projecting onto Clinton your own imaginings about how she ought to feel about her husband and her own position.” That may tell me something about your emotional condition, Major F., but I still don’t see why I should think that it tells me anything about Hillary Clinton’s.

Again, if you really want to know what she has done that makes her more qualified to be Senator (or President) than any Joe Blow who meets the age and residency requirements, why don’t you try looking it up? If you really want your “question” answered, as you said to Daniel, you can find a great deal of readily available data about Hillary Clinton’s professional experience. I already provided you one link, and there are surely hundreds more.

(By the way, I’m sure you know this, but of course neither governmental executives nor their wives “pass” bills. They may help research or draft them, as Hillary did—and Bill Clinton was quite upfront, in his first campaign and early in his presidency, about considering his wife an important part of his executive team—but passing them is the job of the legislature.)

22

Gosh, Major, I can’t tell you what a relief it is to know that you are out there, ready and willing to tell me how to feel in order for me to qualify as a normal woman. What a gift you are to those of us with vaginas.

I’ll certainly be sleeping better tonight. Thanks.

stoid

23

Kimstu and Stoidela: Alright, maybe you 2 give me a little insight into a woman’s mind. How would you feel if your husband was screwing around, got caught, got sued, lied, got caught lying, almost got impeached, and all on national TV, make that international TV?

Kimstu: For some reason, you are unable to face the reality of the thing. It’s like a guy hammers his thumb while nailing a board and:

I say: “That must hurt!”

Kimstu says: “So in other words, your conclusions about his state of mind are, as I suggested, simply derived from “projecting the hammer onto his thumb your own imaginings about how he ought to feel about the hammer on his thumb.” That may tell me something about your emotional condition, Major F., but I still don’t see why I should think that it tells me anything about the guy’s.”

Gimme a break!

24

President of a chapter of the Young Republicans

President of Wellesley student government

Bachelor’s degree in political science

Yale law degree

Staff attorney for Children’s Defense fund

Staff position on the House Judiciary Committee during the Watergate hearings

University professor

And that’s all before she married Bill Clinton!

She may not be your political cup of tea, but to say she is not qualified is a comment that could only come from complete ignorance of her resume.

25

And why did she get more votes you might ask…One big reason is that although she did not win in conservative upstate NY (where I live), she did much better than almost anybody expected. And the reason why is that, although she is admittedly a “carpetbagger”, she is also a quick study and apparently displayed a far better comprehension of the issues affecting upstate NY than her Long Island opponent. (I say “apparently” because I have to admit that I didn’t follow the election here all that closely.) I think even some of those who voted against her because they couldn’t overcome their visceral hatred of her (or simply disagreed with her positions / ideology) would admit that.

26

You do have to be a US Citizen to run for Congress. You must be a natural-born US Citizen to be Prez. :wally

Right- nothing special- the exact same qualifications as every single other US Senator- nothing more & nothing less. That’s what the good old US Constitution says is all that is needed- and that is good enough for me. Nothing about “must have 5years experience in elective office”, or anything like that. I checked carefully, and there is also nothing in that honored document about making rabid Clinton haters happy. Is the US Constitution not good enough for YOU, M.Feelgud?

27

Apologies, yes I got that mixed up. Natural born for Prez, naturalized US citizen for Congress OK.

I was hoping to see qualifications like: desire to serve country for it’s sake, desire to do good for the common man. I guess you can’t see the trees for the forest.

28

If you think she does not, and all the other oh-so-wonderful GOP Senators do- :rolleyes: if that is what your were hoping to start- then you started this thread wrongly in GD. It belongs in the PIT, along with any other hate threads.

29

How does one quantify their desire? You pretty much have to take their word for it ot not.

Yeah, all them other Senators got that in spades.:rolleyes:

30

I’d be all for that. But they need a quorum on occasion. :wink:

spooje - yes, Dubya was a part owner of the Rangers.

zuma - it was generally known within baseball that Dubya didn’t really run the team; he was pretty much a front man, glad-hander, and figurehead. (John Helyar, Lords of the Realm; I’ll try to get you a page cite when I’m at home.)

31

I’m speechless. Kripes, if I’d known that before, I might of voted for him.
[sub]Baseball people are good people[/sub]

32

I’ve been under the impression for some time now that the Travelgate thing had to do with Hillary firing a bunch of long-time staff and replacing them with her friends and/or relatives.

I’m a little bit hazy on this and I’m hoping someone could either confirm or deny it.

PeeQueue

33

Yes, she has generally acted in such a high handed manner. Imagine what will happen if she got the most powerful position in this country? You guys don’t want all that pent up anger released on an entire country.

34

Major F.: *Kimstu and Stoidela: Alright, maybe you 2 give me a little insight into a woman’s mind. How would you feel if your husband was screwing around, got caught, got sued, lied, got caught lying, almost got impeached, and all on national TV, make that international TV? *

Hey, I already acknowledged that most women who get cheated on are justifiably angry about it, and I don’t doubt that Hillary has felt the same way. (Though I must say that personally, seeing a husband’s ass get hung out to dry in the world media on account of his playing around would probably tend to make me less angry with him, not more angry—couldn’t help feeling that however badly he’d let me down, he sure was paying the price. That’s just me, though, I can’t speak for Hillary, though I suppose if you don’t mind presuming to do so then there’s no reason I shouldn’t.)

What I’ve been objecting to is your apparent inference that being “jilted [sic] and angry” is now the only significant aspect of Clinton’s existence. Plenty of politicians, and other people in important positions, have bad stuff happen in their personal lives, which often includes major media scandals; but we don’t usually assume that that wipes out all their previous experience, credentials, and interests, transforming them into mere walking time bombs of nihilistic rage that sooner or later will wreak havoc on all and sundry. Why do you think such an assumption is justified in the case of Hillary Clinton?

She actually seems to have been handling the stress of the situation pretty well. And she just won the coveted position of U.S. Senator from New York, which will give her a lot of active involvement with the sort of major policy issues that she seems to have been deeply interested in for most of her life. If I were Hillary, I think I’d be feeling pretty hopeful and happy right now!

You guys don’t want all that pent up anger released on an entire country.

See, Major, that’s the sort of comment that I think is seriously strange. As I said, I have no problems with anyone making reasoned and substantiated objections to Clinton’s character, resume, or policies—Lord knows she’s not my ideal statesman. But asssuming that all she’s about is her hypothetical consuming anger at her husband which she’s liable to “release on an entire country” in some unspecified way—sorry, but that seems absolutely delusional.

PeeQueue, thank you for bringing up a genuinely substantive factual issue about Clinton’s record—it made a nice change from wrestling with all this paranoid hostility! I found a Washington Post article on Travelgate that seems to provide a good summary of the events.

35

Kimstu: There is as much paranoid hostility here as much as there is delusion. She has already shown high handedness and arrogance as the Executive’s wife. What makes you think she’s going to be any better once she gets all the power in her hands? You are gullible.

36

Major F: There is as much paranoid hostility here as much as there is delusion.

Yes, that’s what I’m objecting to.

She has already shown high handedness and arrogance as the Executive’s wife. What makes you think she’s going to be any better once she gets all the power in her hands?

I have never said that I think Clinton would make an ideal Chief Executive, or that I deny she may be prone to high-handedness and arrogance. But it is one thing to make reasoned objections to her as a politician, and quite another to throw around vague unsubstantiated accusations like these statements of yours:

You are gullible.

You seem to be confusing “gullible” with “able to follow a rational argument and to distinguish between logical and illogical criticisms.”

37

when I become really frustrated at my own self-imposed rule of never getting personal. Because sometimes, you just wanna call a spade a spade, ya know?
stoid

38

Oh, that’s right, MF, Ted Kennedy, Trent Lott, Tom DeLay, etc., just sit around all day tending the broken wings of doves, playing with elves, and spreading peace and goodwill all around. :rolleyes:
This must be the fifth “Hilary ain’t qualified for Jack” thread I’ve seen. And all of them were wrong. I will not vote for the woman if she runs, but she is sure as hell qualified. Last I checked, there is no “Presidents-in-training” profession or school. Our presidents have been governors, generals, university presidents, etc. Abe Lincoln, by your definition, sure as hell wasn’t qualified. (not comparing Hilary to Abe, but the point is, how are we to know?)
As for your she’s jilted and angry, and therefore unstable argument, that’s just plain offensive. Do you think that a woman who has been raped is unqualified to take a position in which she is the boss of men? For that matter, do you think John McCain is not qualified to be President because he was imprisoned and tortured? He’s got to have major mental problems. To repeat myself, :rolleyes:.
Major, you obviously hate the woman. Fine. Argue against her with all the passion you can muster about what is wrong with her character and her policy ideas. The odds are I’ll agree with you. But don’t shoot yourself in the foot with specious and ludicrous arguments about her “qualifications”, and certainly don’t engage in psychoanalysis at a distance. As a retired doctor as you say, you of all people should know better than that.

Sua

39

SuaSponte: There are many types of qualifications. You can have academic qualifications, age qualifications, mental qualifications, professional qualifications, etc. Did I mention specifically professional qualifications?

40

Well, maybe in 2012, if she’s still in the Senate, she could use her experience to make a run of it. It won’t be in 2004, though:

http://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/12/11/hillary.king/index.html