WTF???
Clinton is claiming that name = experience?
What have you been smoking?
What is she claiming as her experience then? She still hasn’t articulated exactly what her experience is. Sanders has both more executive and legislative experience than her. Ditto for Lincoln Chaffee. O’Malley has a couple decades of executive experience.
Seems to me that Bush only articulated what Clinton thinks.
She’s too smart to get into the quicksand of debating whether her 1990s experience counts for anything. Voters can decide that for themselves. But she spent eight years in the Senate and four as Secretary of State, which is plenty on its own.
It is sufficient, I agree with that. It’s just enough for her to claim to be the most experienced candidate. She was using that argument before she was Secretary of State too.
All of her Democratic opposition other than Webb have more experience and I’d count Webb ahead of her too for his long military career.
I think you left out a “not” there. Your comment seems much less confusing and contradictory that way, in any case.
I hate these asshat clowns as much as anyone, but John Mace is right.
Right, it’s all the same except for foreign policy. And vetting and appointing Supreme Court justices. And appointing members of the Fed. And running the military. And homeland security. And dealing with a budget without constitutional balancing rules. Which means managing the treasury is significantly more complicated. And taking care of veterans. And running the new, highly successful ACA program. And NASA. And worrying about global warming and other non-localized environmental issues. And a billion other things governors don’t worry about while they’re busy pinning the blue ribbon on the state’s largest pumpkin of the season, all while under a microscope of a national press corps orders of magnitude more intense than anyone faces at the state level.
True. And people who do governor things can’t necessarily do president things. I know it seems crazy to you to think maybe what we should look for in a president is a balance of executive ability, relevant knowledge, and sane worldview, but mull it over for a while. It might start to make sense.
A Good Sign That a Thread is Making Republicans Look Bad: adaher shows up to change the subject.
Even the “qualified” Republican seekers seem pretty pitiful to me. But, as John Mace pointed out, the election is a long time from now…
I’ll argue …Herman Cain is a neurosurgeon…
I guess its easy to confuse , since they all look alike.:rolleyes:
So if a soft-spoken white neurosurgeon with no political experience comes along and says the same things, he’s tied for the GOP lead three months before Iowa? Bullshit.
I can’t answer for sure whether a white neurosurgeon would be doing just as well, but I can tell you that we’ll never know because there’s never been a more successful head of pediatric neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins and probably never will be. It’s a bit like asking if we’d give a damn about the Williams sisters if they weren’t black. Perhaps no one would have made movies about Principal Joe Clark or Ben Carson if they weren’t black. But to say that GOP voters only like Carson because he’s black makes little sense, because Carson has been a famous guy whose story was made into a movie quite some time ago. It’s not like he’s just some random black doctor who appeared on the scene and GOP voters are enamored with his skin color. This is a genuinely accomplished person, probably the most accomplished doctor in America.
Contrast that to Herman Cain, a mere CEO of a pizza chain and not a spectacularly successful CEO, and Barack Obama, one of 100 senators with less seniority and accomplishments than the vast majority of them.
So, you’re gonna hire a chef, you got two choices, one guy was a line cook in a restaurant for a couple years, the other is a really good computer programmer. You would pick the computer programmer.
Bad analogy. So I want to pick someone to run the executive branch of the federal government. Do I want someone who has run the executive branch of a state government, or has managed a single agency in the federal government, or do I want a legislator who has never managed more than 20 people(his staff)?
Sure, Ben Carson is less qualified to be President than Hillary Clinton or John Kasich. But he’s just as qualified as Marco Rubio, probably a little more. After all, if I’m looking for a cook and my options are an average beekeeper or an awesome computer programmer, I might as well go for the guy who has demonstrated that he succeeds at what he tries rather than someone who is unremarkable in his field.
I’m not supporting Ben Carson as of yet. I’m supporting John Kasich. But unlike past candidates with no executive experience, Carson has actually proven that he can do very difficult things, not just better than your average surgeon, but better than just about any surgeon. He’s got a better shot at figuring out how to run the federal government than someone who has been hanging out in the back benches of the Senate for a couple of years.
Mind if we call you “Stretch”?
I’ve never been the one who claims that two years in the Senate prepares someone to be President.
Set the resume aside. No one who talks like Carson does can be president. I mean, both Presidents Bush were about as low as you can go in that respect (and I would have said before they ran that the bar was higher than that, admittedly), but Carson is just…no.
People seem to like the way he talks. One of the underreported aspects of the 2016 race is that a lot of the desire for something truly different in both parties stems from Obama’s promises to be different and the fact that he just wasn’t. So now we all know that you can’t get someone truly different from the mainstream of either party. You have to get someone not affiliated with either party, at least not before running for President.
Instead of grand oratory with nothing to back it up, maybe a man of substance who is a quiet talker is more appealing to voters. The polls sure look good for Carson should he win the nomination. He’s beating Clinton in 3 of 5 polls and tied in one. Clinton only leads in the oldest:
Because the people responding to those polls know so much about him.
Valid point, but the people responding have heard him talk, so evidently his style is not a problem for him.
Have they? There’s no way IMO that enough people have heard Carson talk to give him a lead over Hillary. That’s an anti-Hillary number (which is a problem, but nothing to do with him).