Jefferson’s own Secretary of State, Madison, served longer in that role than Clinton did, after serving in Congress for as long as Clinton did; once Madison became President, Senator-turned-Governor Monroe served as his Secretary of State for longer than Clinton ever did – and served as Secretary of War to boot! – and once Monroe became President, his Secretary of State (who held the job longer than Clinton did) was former Senator John Quincy Adams – which brings me to the guy I started typing this post to mention: his Secretary of State, Henry Clay, who’d served as Speaker of the House before serving in the Senate for longer than Clinton did.
We had a thread a while back on this; what makes you single out Jefferson?
He has more domestic executive experience (and experience in restricting women’s bodily control), but she has far more in-depth foreign policy experience (since Sec of State pretty much trumps anything except Prez for foreign policy experience).
That doesn’t fit “trump hers easily”, in my view, since she has plenty of experience, and he does too. It’s just different types of experience.
Far more foreign policy experience? Kasich was on the House Armed Services Committee for 18 years. I’m not saying it beats 4 years as Secretary of State, but let’s not act like he’s Sarah Palin staring at Russia from her house.
Hillary is a perfectly fine candidate. I wouldn’t put her up on Mt. Rushmore yet, but she’ll be a good Obama third and fourth term. I see only one side of the equation off its rocker this year. Remember, G.W. Bush v. Kerry didn’t get too many on either side excited.
Fair enough – I’ll modify it to “significantly more”, but it’s just an opinion. Sec of State is full-time foreign policy, while a committee assignment is a few hours a week at most.
I’ll actually give Clinton a huge margin on foreign policy, as being on a committee is not foreign policy experience. Foreign policy experience is conducting foreign policy. The Armed Services Committee looks into foreign policy and military issues in much the same way as a think tank does. So Kasich can claim to have gained a lot of knowledge about foreign policy, but even Clinton’s first lady experience is more real foreign policy than what Kasich has done.
In Kasich’s favor though is real executive experience, and he can point to real accomplishments. Plus he’s willing to buck his party at times and hasn’t backed away from it, while Clinton has disowned almost all of her old heretical views.
resume isn’t everything, but a guy who has been successful at multiple levels has a pretty good chance of continuing that success at the next one. Clinton will probably be about as good a President as she was a Senator and Secretary of State. Not disastrous, not remarkable.
Who cares what she personally “believes” about anything? The important thing is to know what her specific policy aims are, which groups and causes she’s partnering with, and where she draws the line on overstepping executive authority.
All of which things ISTM are both much more clearly known and much less alarmingly extreme in the case of Clinton than for any of the leading Republican candidates.
I agree with the other posters who point out that if the Republicans resent having to choose between a quite typical pragmatic-centrist Democratic-machine politician like Hillary Clinton and a festering nutbag, then they should have come up with leading Republican candidates who are not festering nutbags. It’s not Clinton’s fault that your party’s broken.
Irrelevant. It will be approved or rejected before the next President takes office. Clinton won’t refuse to sign it if she’s the President tasked with signing it.
You’re skipping over perhaps the most qualified President ever:
• served as a private in the War of 1812;
• 2 year term in the Pennsylvania House of Representatives;
• 10 years in the House of Representatives;
• 2 years as chairman of the House Judiciary Committee;
• 1½ years as US Minister to Russia;
• 11 years in the Senate;
• 4 years as Secretary of State;
• 3 years as US Minister to the United Kingdom.
Fellow gentle-Dopers, I give you: James Buchanan! With all that wealth of experience, unmatched by any candidate before or since, he must have had a stellar career as President!
Right? I mean, experience always translates to presidential success, right?
Well, shit, with supporters like that, who needs Trump?
[ul]
[li]This entire OP is just sour grapes that the GOP guy is a fucking buffoon.[/li][/QUOTE]
Close. She pushed for the bombing of Libya and the decapitation of its state, leaving chaos and Daesh where there had been a moderately prosperous secular country.
[li]I don’t know what OP is talking about either. But her Wall Street affinities do seem to bespeak a lack of concern with sustaining demand and consumption.[/li]
[li]OP has this one pegged. Remember, she has low approval, high negatives, but it’s all “baked in.” :rolleyes:[/ul][/li]
(Whoa, this is up to 120 posts!?)