Clinton Mocks Obama’s Experience
by Big Dog on Nov 21, 2007 at 17:37 Political
Hillary Clinton mocked a statement by B. Hussein Obama concerning his experience. He indicated that because he lived in foreign countries as a child he gained a different perspective on foreign policy challenges. Hillary remarked:
‘‘I offer the experience of being battle-tested in the political wars here at home,’’ said Clinton, arguing that her background not only was superior as a potential president but also made her the most electable Democrat.
‘‘For 15 years I’ve been the object of the Republican attack machine and I’m still here,’’ she said. Chicago Sun Times
Once again I must ask the question, what experience does she have? What does she have that makes her any more qualified than Obama? She is a one and a half term Senator and since she has been campaigning for President since just after the last election, she really only has one term. She spent all her time in the White House as the First Lady. Granted, she stuck her nose in the country’s business but she was not elected she held no position of leadership. The only reason she was even there is because she was married to the guy that was elected. This does not equate to experience.
I know she has this delusion that she has leadership experience because she was First Lady but deciding what desert to serve at White House meals is not experience and neither is deciding on the pattern for the White House China. Perhaps if she released her records from that time we could see if her work actually backs up her claim but since she has not released it, it is a good bet that there is nothing to substantiate her claim. John Kerry tried this with his military record but he refused to release his records so it was obvious that he was covering up (he still has not released them). Hillary could put an end to the experience once and for all by releasing records that show she has leadership experience but she needs to release ALL of them so we can get the entire picture.
As far as I am concerned the time she spent in the White House is a non issue and does not count. Her time in the Senate is the only experience she has and her record is unremarkable. As far as being attacked for 15 years and still being here, big deal. Ted Kennedy has been in the Senate for 46 years and he has been attacked but he sticks around. That does not mean he is effective or can lead anything.
As far as being attacked by the VRWC, she is attacked by her own party as well. There are many who do not like her but will vote for Satan if it means putting a Democrat back in charge. She has a disapproval rating above 50% so there are plenty of Democrats who are not thrilled with her. Additionally, She has lost her lead in Iowa and now has to play catch up to the “less experienced” Obama.
Hillary, you have little experience and have never led anything. Continually saying you have does not change this indisputable fact.
Tags: battle tested, delusion, Democrats, first lady, Hillary Clinton, leadership experience, military record, Obama, policy challenges, President, white house
Ah, another Hillary attack post based on a mixture of media gossip and your own prejudice towards all things Clinton.
I think you’re mixing Hillary Clinton up with Laura Bush. Clinton had leadership roles as First Lady in several subjects including healthcare, adoption, and school violence. Frankly boiling down her 8 years in the position as food and china is pretty sexist if you ask me.
You bring up the Clinton records thing even though this was debunked weeks ago now. Fact Check.org retracted it’s statements because the Clintons have not stopped the release of any records about their communications and the idea that they have held records was a mistake told in the debate by Russert that wasn’t corrected.
The bottom line is that Hillary Clinton redefined what it meant to be First Lady and was given a lot of room to expand her role there and to take it to new levels. I think her record as First Lady is worth running on. Also I think being the spouse of the President is as good of insight into stresses and processes of the office as the role of Vice President is. Who is really ready to be President of the nation anyway? Hillary Clinton spent years and years with a governor and president as close as they get. That counts for something in my book.
Sorry Adam, you are absolutely wrong. The memo from Bill Clinton specifically states that correspondence between him and his wife are NOT to be released. I saw the memo and I linked to it in another post.
You are getting wrapped up in typical Clinton double speak. He wrote the original memo asking that the records not be released until 2013. Then he wrote one asking that certain items be released and those items had to do with appointments and I think with health care. Then he listed items that were NOT to be released and he specifically wrote that the writings between him and Hillary were not to be released.
Then he said he tried to speed things up. He lied and you and others bought it. There was no mistake and Russert was correct. He asked about the memo that Bill wrote and he was correct. This letter was to the National Archives so it might be technically accurate to say they are not holding records but the fact is they have control and are delaying the release.
If they are releasing them, where are they??
Learn what you are talking about before you call stuff gossip. It is written with Bill’s own signature. Even you cannot believe that directions stating NOT TO RELEASE items between bill and Hillary means to release them faster.
Hillary redefined nothing except how to get in the way and do things she was not elected to do. She screwed up the whole health care thing and was NEVER in a position of leadership. Adoption or school violence are no different than any other social issues that First Ladies have been involved in. Bush with education, Reagan with say no to drugs, etc. All First Ladies have had some pet issue or two. They were not policy makers and they were not elected to do anything with regard to policy.
Hillary has NEVER been in a leadership position. She has never headed a company, been a governor, or been in a leadership position and yet she claims she has the experience to lead this country. I don’t buy it and the FACT that they have not allowed the release of her records shows that that well is dry.
Newsflash, I have more leadership experience than Clinton (and Obama and Edwards for that matter). I was an Army leader for 22 years and have actually led people while in positions of leadership (like First Sergeant). I can show those credentials, I would like Hillary to do the same.
My comment was not sexist. Picking the China and selecting meals are actually things a First Lady is supposed to do. She did NOTHING that dealt with policy (at least in an official capacity).
People who have ACTUALLY been governor are more qualified to lead. Living with them or spending time is not a qualification. By your logic, Chelsea is qualified to be president because she has the same qualifications as her mom.
I think a General in the military who leads a lot of people gets more in the way of experience and is ready to lead. Most people with military experience (in leadership positions) are more qualified to lead than those without, since you asked about who is really ready to be President.
You should also keep in mind that the Fact Check piece of this is their interpretation of an operative word (considered).
However, Clinton wrote that he was only easing restrictions on TWO categories and then wrote that communication between him and the FL should be considered for withholding.
That means he never addressed any of the other categories of items that are held which would include all of Hillary’s stuff that does not fall under the two he addressed.
Fact Check also reports that most of the health care items HAVE NOT been released, as Hillary claimed.
I want her to prove her claim that sharing a former president’s last name qualifies her to be president. If she had not married him she would never have been considered for any public office.
No, I’m just sorry your hatred for the Clinton’s and your willingness to parrot any attack on them has gotten in the way of what the memo really says. It’s not an interpretation. The memo simply states that they should be considered for withholding. Russert called that a ban, he was misleading the public. There is no proof that the Clinton’s are keeping any record of their communication secret, just that they are being reviewed before they’re released, which makes perfect sense and is well within the law.
Bringing up lists of people including yourself that you think are more qualified leaders means nothing in this context. Like I said before, I’m not suggesting that what Hillary has seen and done makes her perfect for the White House, just that to disregard her positions over the years completely is foolish and biased.
I know you think none of them qualify, but you really haven’t looked past the (D) next to their name as far as that goes. Nobody is really qualified for the position. That’s why there’s two other branches of the government to keep the President in check and a large hierarchy of advisor’s and council available at all times. But certain things add up. Having been the spouse of a governor and president, combined with her education, her experience on the board of several major companies including Wal-mart, her own political career, her work with the armed services and budget committees, all add up to a person who is just as qualified if not more qualified than any other candidate running.
One thing I wonder is how you’d talk about Bill Clinton. He was Governor of AR for several terms. Would you have said he was qualified, or would you have just found something else to say makes him unqualified? The truth is probably that you’ll never stop finding reasons that a Democrat is unqualified to be a leader, so pinning one on Hillary is really meaningless at this point.
We can debate the memo all day but the facts show it only covers two areas of memos, not the dozen or so covered by the law.
However, Bill Clinton might well have been qualified to be president however, the criminal activity that was well known before he ran should have been a clue as to how the time in the WH would be and they did not disappoint. They had the most corrupt administration is history. They even had their friends breaking the law after they were out and retain some of them to advise.
There were many problems with Clinton and they showed, his qualification to lead was not necessarily one because he had leadership experience. corrupt as it may have been.
I consider many Democrats qualified regardless of party. None of them happen to be running.
You inflate Hillary and you distort why we have three branches. Inexperience has nothing to do with it. Quite honestly, anyone who meets the requirements of the Constitution is qualified. We have 3 branches to ensure that none of them controls the country and provides checks and balances.
Now, if Congress would stop trying to run the war which is the president’s job and the courts would stop legislating from the bench, which is Congresses’ job, and if the Administration would stop trying to decide the law which is the judicial branches’ job then things would be fine. However, none of them exist because someone might be inexperienced.
The people who are qualified is pertinent in this context. You asked the question about who is ready in the context of leadership so I answered it. I am more qualified to lead than Hillary. I don’t have the legislative experience but it is not a requirement and I am sure it is not difficult.