No One’s Going to Challenge Hillary

[4-2-7]

Originally Posted by HarmanKardon

2) Her experiences as former secretary of state.

Please do tell.

What did she accomplish as secretary of state.

[4-2-7]

Originally Posted by Oerets

The simple fact she knows personally the world leaders and powerful people of the last thirty years on a first name basis gotta count for something!




Barney

Fair enough will go with that for number 2.

1) The fact that she actually has lived in the White House.

2) She knows personally the world leaders and powerful people of the last thirty years on a first name basis.

[4-2-7]

Originally Posted by mpholland

Between Secretary of State and US Senator she had twelve years experience at the national level. Add to that 8 years in the White House as First Lady and that adds up to a bit of experience at the federal level. Whether you find she was effective or not is a personal matter.

Compare that to George W's 6 years as Texas governor with no federal experience and Obama's 4 years as a maybe mediocre senator and Hilary handily trounces the two of them put together. She is probably smarter than both of them combined also which may not necessarily be a good thing.

I am not a democrat, but I don't really see a better option on either side at the moment, but I am not sure of what the Indies will be offering up yet. Chances of an independent getting the job are about the same as me winning the lottery though.

Unfortunately so far Im only seeing attributes of "Who You Know" and Business as usual.

1) The fact that she actually has lived in the White House.

2) She knows personally the world leaders and powerful people of the last thirty years on a first name basis.

3) Between Secretary of State and US Senator she had twelve years experience at the national level.

[HarmanKardon]

Originally Posted by 4-2-7

Please do tell.

What did she accomplish as secretary of state.

She knows that there is more than one nation on planet Earth. She knows about the important fact that this world is a global village and she knows to consider what results from this.

[mpholland]

Originally Posted by 4-2-7

Unfortunately so far Im only seeing attributes of "Who You Know" and Business as usual.

1) The fact that she actually has lived in the White House.

2) She knows personally the world leaders and powerful people of the last thirty years on a first name basis.

3) Between Secretary of State and US Senator she had twelve years experience at the national level.

Since when do you all of the sudden need some kind of major accomplishments under your belt to be President? Elections have always been a grand scale popularity contest. Why do you think actors and military heroes often get the job? What do you think should be her accomplishments and qualifications? While you are formulating an answer, remember to compare them to the qualifications the two presidents before her had.

[Rajoo]

Originally Posted by whell

By what objective standard(s) is Mrs. Clinton "more than ready to be president and is one of the most qualified people to do so in the United States"?

It is her opinion and I take it as an informed opinion from reading her posts. Not a statement of fact that needs to be vetted. Cuts both ways.

IMO, Hillary Clinton has both personal and name recognition at the national level. Women form a majority voting bloc and may not want another Bush in the office due to the Bush war records. Both of these should put a scare into the GOP and their dysfunctional tail, the baggers.

The only answer they have so far? Another Bush and BENGHAZI. Scary.

[whell]

Originally Posted by BeamOn

The only answer they have so far? Another Bush and BENGHAZI. Scary.

Hardly.

Here's a pretty decent overview of her tenure as Sec'y of State from Michael Hirsh, someone who would never be mistaken for a conservative. Hirsh gives her a luke-warm grade at best.

Now, IHMO, her real failings include allowing Libya to destablize with the ouster of Muammar Gaddafi, of which Benghazi is an outcome, and potentially other outcomes to follow. That also lead to further destabilization in N Africa - the Arab Spring will likely become nothing more than a retrenchment of hard line Islam. The Afghan surge now appears to be on its way to being labeled a failure, as the Afghan gov't appears unable to survive once US troops fully depart. Our relationship with Pakistan has deteriorated, and a country that used to be a decent ally in the region now closed off vital supply routes to NATO-bound shipments to Afghanistan. Resolved a bit later, but still exemplifies the threadbare relationship with now appear to have.

The "pivot" to east Asia has been a mess. Its a policy that we used to call "containment", but that's a dirty word apparently with leftists. While China is certainly a rising power, it will not likely pose a threat to the United States that would require a policy of containment in the foreseeable future. Further, since there's virtually nothing behind the pivot militarily, I suspect the Chinese may well look at it as a bluff and eventually call us on it.

Our relationship with Israel, our staunchest ally in an area of the world that continues to be vital to US interests, has never been worse. The deterioration began under Clinton and hasn't gotten any better under Kerry. Its hard to lay blame fully with Clinton on this failure, because I suspect that the Prez had much influence here as well. As far as I recall, the globe-trotting Clinton only visited Israel once during her tenure, and the key reason for that visit was to try to keep Israel from going off the deep end over Iran.

[bobabode]

Not that I don't trust ya Mike but gotta link to that quote of Hirsh?

[Rajoo]

Originally Posted by whell

Hardly.

Here's a pretty decent overview of her tenure as Sec'y of State from Michael Hirsh, someone who would never be mistaken for a conservative. Hirsh gives her a luke-warm grade at best.

Now, IHMO, her real failings include allowing Libya to destablize with the ouster of Muammar Gaddafi, of which Benghazi is an outcome, and potentially other outcomes to follow. That also lead to further destabilization in N Africa - the Arab Spring will likely become nothing more than a retrenchment of hard line Islam. The Afghan surge now appears to be on its way to being labeled a failure, as the Afghan gov't appears unable to survive once US troops fully depart. Our relationship with Pakistan has deteriorated, and a country that used to be a decent ally in the region now closed off vital supply routes to NATO-bound shipments to Afghanistan. Resolved a bit later, but still exemplifies the threadbare relationship with now appear to have.

The "pivot" to east Asia has been a mess. Its a policy that we used to call "containment", but that's a dirty word apparently with leftists. While China is certainly a rising power, it will not likely pose a threat to the United States that would require a policy of containment in the foreseeable future. Further, since there's virtually nothing behind the pivot militarily, I suspect the Chinese may well look at it as a bluff and eventually call us on it.

Our relationship with Israel, our staunchest ally in an area of the world that continues to be vital to US interests, has never been worse. The deterioration began under Clinton and hasn't gotten any better under Kerry. Its hard to lay blame fully with Clinton on this failure, because I suspect that the Prez had much influence here as well. As far as I recall, the globe-trotting Clinton only visited Israel once during her tenure, and the key reason for that visit was to try to keep Israel from going off the deep end over Iran.

I will buy into most everything said here. But the Iraq war precipitated Libyan revolution IMO and Hussein and Gaddafi were book ends for brutal dictatorships. Everything stated here is based on policy decisions developed by the Obama administration. He should take the blame, if you want to call it that. You and this guy makes it sound like Hillary set the policy and executed it unilaterally.

Hillary Clinton's job is to execute US Foreign policy. Making her responsible for devising the policy, even bringing Israel into this discussion. No one has been able to solve the Israel/Palestine debacle nor develop and install a workable peace agreement. It's impossible since both parties (it's more than that) want Palestine and not willing to budge on that. Israel continues to colonize Palestinian lands. It's an impasse.

As to Pakistan, damage to the relationship was caused by their hosting of OBL and Dr. Khan's involvement with the Iranian nuclear program.

[Rajoo]

Originally Posted by bobabode

Not that I don't trust ya Mike but gotta link to that quote of Hirsh?

I trust him Bob, just not his wisdom.