For this thread, let’s ignore the question of whether she could ever be elected. That’s been done to death in many threads. Assuming she could somehow become POTUS, would she be a good one? Why or why not?
What standards are we used to define “good” here?
That said, my speculation remains that President Hillary would be an skillful and competent leader, despite the brickabats from the right. Unlike the current office-holder, Mrs. Clinton got to where she is in life entirely on her own skills and merits, and short of an inaugural lobotomy, there’s no reason to expect that she wouldn’t continue to be skillful and competent in the Oval Office. It’s getting the job done while the nuts in the GOP are screaming for the head that will be the biggest trick.
[shrug] Whatever standards the individual poster cares to define and defend.
Is this some form of a whoosh?
Entirely her own skills and merits? Is marrying someone (I’m guessing on the number) 20 years before they become president a skill or merit?
I’m not saying that she isn’t extremely smart, or hardworking, or any other admirable quality which you want to assign to her. But I will have to cry foul if you claim that without her marriage certificate she would be where she is now.
Highlights from Wikipedia:
[ul]
[li]Received a Juris Doctor (J.D.) degree from Yale in 1973[/li][li]Joined the presidential impeachment inquiry staff advising the Judiciary Committee of the United States House of Representatives during the Watergate Scandal[/li][li]Became a faculty member (one of only two women in the faculty) at the University of Arkansas, Fayetteville School of Law[/li][li]Joined the venerable and influential Rose Law Firm, specializing in intellectual property cases while doing child advocacy cases pro bono[/li][li]Appointed by President Jimmy Carter to the board of the Legal Services Corporation in 1978[/li][li]As First Lady of Arkansas, chaired the Arkansas Educational Standards Committee, where she successfully fought (against some opposition) for improved testing standards of new teachers.[/li][li]Named Arkansas Woman of the Year in 1983 and Arkansas Mother of the Year in 1984.[/li][li]Named by National Law Journal in 1988 and 1991 as one of the 100 most influential lawyers in America[/li][li]Co-founded the Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families[/li][li]Served on the Board of Directors for both TCBY and Wal-Mart from 1985 to 1992[/li][/ul]
Dunno about you, but I think it’d be tough to argue that the only reason she got those accomplishments (and others) was because of who she married.
No, I think that your points on what she did on her own are valid, rjung, but it is probably a significant point that the man she married was a Rhodes scholar who became Governor of Arkansas and then served eight competent years as President, giving her the bully pulpit of First Lady to begin with and then being willing to use her as an “Eleanor Roosevelt” – something few Presidents have been sufficiently self-assured (and had talented enough wives) to do. It’s no putdown of Hilary as a self-made woman to note that some of her success derives from being married to Bill.
One thing that may work against her both as candidate and as President is the image of being “not a people person” – a distant, standoffish character that does not connect well with people. Politics famously being “the art of the possible,” this could stand her in ill stead in the sort of logrolling called for in managing a Congress to pass a Presidential agenda. In fairness to her, however, there have been few reports of that having damaged her effectiveness as a Senator, so it may be more image than reality.
I didn’t mean to imply that the only reason she is where she is is because of Bill. I meant to imply that being married to a former presidnet is at least some part of why she is in her current position. (I’ll certainly admit that after re-reading my earlier post I see how you could come to that conclusion though.) Of course, her current position could be interpreted a couple of different ways with respect to her husbands reputation; depending on whether you liked him or not. Either way, the last name Clinton is instantly recognizable to everyone on the planet because of Bill, not Hillary.
She could easily have gotten where she is on her own merits. If you want to talk about people who have no business being in government, George Bush wouldn’t have made it to the White House lawn without his father. He couldn’t carry Hillary’s sports bra with regard to political, international, and social knowledge.
In my lifetime, there have been 4 liberal Presidents. One was assassinated, the other three were fuckups beyond belief. It seems reasonable to assume that she would continue in their footsteps, given the decline of the Democrat party since the early 1960s.
I would argue that she’s still more qualified than the current president, and speaking of the current president, where the hell would he be without his last name?
Its not that “some” part of why she is where she is now, its the ONLY reason she is where she is right now. The halls of more presigious and venerable law firms than the Rose law firm are littered with equally impressive resume’s, right up until you get to the first lady of Arkansas part (the same year Carter appointeer her to the LSC board). Of course Hillary is a large part of why Bill had the political success HE had but Hillary would be a patent attorney in Arkansas but for Bill’s political career.
There is no reason to believe she would do any worse than Bush (in fact I’d bet a lot of money she would do better than bush) but is that really the standard? I am still torn on Hillary, she hasn’t done anything in the Senate to convince me that she could be a good president. Maybe she needs to be Governor of New York first. In the end the 2008 election will probably be like most presidential elections: vote for the lesser of two evils.
No way she could have easily gotten into the senate on her own merits. She could have done it but her chances of getting into the senate but just about any mayor, congressmen, state attorney general, atronaut or actor would have a better shot than Hillary would have without the name recognition that came with being Bill’s wife.
I never said anything about the current president, Hillary’s qualifications in relation to the current president, or any combination or variation there of.
Now that you’ve brought it up I think Bush is a no talent ass clown. That doesn’t change the fact that being married to Bill helped Hillary get to where she is now.
With reguard to presidential families I would support a constitutional amendment banning immediate family members from becoming president - be it wife, son, brother, or daughter. We left England to get away from monarchies, not create a new one.
You cannot realistically suggest that she would not have been elected Senator from New York without the fame given her by being First Lady. It’s a preoposterous suggestion; without that fame she’d have been a complete nobody with no connection with the state. It has nothing to do with George Bush.
Well there is no way to be sure. The future and all that. Still, it is an interesting exercise.
I figure she would have a firm grasp of a lot details and would like to micromanage. She does not seem to trust people. Further, I expect she would be very firm in getting what she wants. In foreign policy; that could lead to war. In war she would be implacable.
All in all, a formidable person. I would not want to get in her way.
What makes you think political, international, and social knowledge have anything to do with being a successful politician? Being a successful politician is all in who you know, and when your dad is Director of the CIA, then Vice President for 8 years, then President, if you have any political aspirations you’ve used that connection to meet a ton of people.
I have no idea.
I think HRC would make a perfectly good prez. She’s smart and has the experience needed to get the job done. I supsect that she’d be very cautious in her policy making decisions because there would be so many people trying to get her to trip up. She’d most likely be just like Bill-- governing as a centrist. She might even be tempted to go a bit overboard on Defense issues to prove she’s not weak kneed.
However, the idea that she got into the Senate on her own has got to be one of the most laughable things anyone has every posted in this forum. Of course her connections helped her. So what? That is not a measure of whether she “deserves” to be in the Senate or not. There are only 100 Senate seats and literally thousands of Americans who are qualified to hold one of those seats. I think she is qualified. But without the Clinton name, she’d be one of the thousands jockying for position. Maybe she’d win, maybe not, but the odds are against it.
Exactly John.
You could say the same thing about a lot of politicians. Bush Jr. & Sr. probably wouldn’t have had an easy time getting into politics without name recognition and connections. The same can be said of Gore the Kennedy’s or lots of politicians who’s fathers or grandfathers were politicians. I don’t see it as a bad thing.
There’s a difference between being a successful politician and a successful president, as is apparent when you look at the pile of shit Bush is leaving as his legacy. This thread is talking about presidents; not politicians. Hillary will be better at both.