Is Clinton Tested and Ready to Lead?
by Big Dog on Nov 17, 2007 at 11:01 Political
I wrote a post about the Democratic debate in Nevada and said that none of the contenders were presidential and none were prepared to lead. Dick Morris wrote that CNN was kind to Hillary and failed to follow up on her flat NO when asked about driver’s licenses for ILLEGALS. Russert would have asked about the change of heart which Morris says is because New York Governor Spitzer dropped the idea of issuing the licenses. He did it to help Hillary. Now she can oppose it without offending a Governor from her adopted state, a Governor that could hurt her chances of getting votes. The debate showed that CNN truly stands for the Clinton News Network. They were easy on her, highlighted Bill Richardson who wants the VP job under a Hillary ticket and they failed to disclose that their post debate analyst, James Carville, is a consultant to the Clinton campaign. They were pushing Hillary and they were easy on her. In the debate though, Hillary made this statement:
“Let’s not forget that the Republicans are not going to vacate the White House voluntarily,†she said in the debate. “We need someone who is tested and ready to lead. I think that’s what my candidacy offers.†FT.com
She is correct, the other side is running for the White House and will not leave it voluntarily. But how does she get to the conclusion she is tested and ready to lead? She has never been in charge of a company, she has never been a governor of a state, she has never led anything. So how is she tested? How is she ready to lead. Richardson is a Governor so he has more experience leading than she does.
Perhaps Hillary is asking us to believe that eight years as First Lady has tested her and given her the experience to lead but since she and her husband refuse to release any of the papers that might prove such a claim that idea should be dismissed out of hand. If being First Lady for eight years is the sole qualification for being a tested leader than Laura Bush and Nancy Reagan are just as qualified as Hillary though I doubt many Hillary supporters would say these two women are tested and qualified to lead.
As for Hillary’s time in the Senate, what has she actually led? She attaches her name to a lot of bills that others have authored so she can get in on the action. It helps a candidate to be able to say that he (or she) cosponsored legislation. John Kerry’s dismal Senate record was part of his weakness. But how has Hillary led? What legislation has she proposed that was out in front of issues. Besides bashing the current administration at every turn, where has she been out in front of the issues? The fact that she attaches her name as cosponsor to many bills others have proposed (no doubt after seeing what polls and focus groups say) shows that she is more qualified to follow than lead.
She has been running for office for ten months now so she has had little time to actually do her job in the Senate and therefore it is easier for her to attach her name to the hard work of others. This is not the mark of a leader. The only thing that Hillary leads is the race according to national polls (not so in Iowa) but leading in a poll does not make one tested and qualified. I imagine Rush Limbaugh would have high marks in a national poll because he has what Clinton has, name recognition. Though I think Limbaugh would be better at running the country than Clinton the fact that he has name recognition does not make him tested and qualified to lead. The fact that he runs his own company, a company that makes a lot of money, makes him more qualified than a person whose only claim to fame is she happened to be married to a past President.
Hillary is not tested and she is not qualified. The only real test she faced was when a “hostile” moderator asked her to explain her position on driver’s licenses and she failed that test as alluded to by Wolf Blitzer when he said it tripped her up. He handlers must have told her not to address it in depth since they had Spitzer in their pockets and since Wolf had been warned to play nice.
Maybe I have a different idea about what tested and qualified to be a leader means. Then again, I was leading people while Clinton was scheming with Bill to get in the White House and I led long after they left the place. Under the tested and qualified aspect, I have more qualification to lead than Hillary Clinton does. The only two things she has that allows her to run is name recognition and money and those are not leadership qualities.
Face it, if she had not been married to Bill she would have never been elected tot he Senate in New York or any other state and she would not ever be considered as a Presidential candidate. The only thing she has is her husband’s name and his coattails.
Not bad for a woman who claims to be independent and running on her own. Seems to me that her crying they are picking on the girl and her dependence on her husband’s name and record shows that the girl is not a feminist when it is convenient and that she depends on a man for her success. Not very Presidential, now is it?
Oops, did I just pile on the girl?
Tags: bill richardson, clinton campaign, clinton news network, democratic debate, dick morris, first lady, governor spitzer, Hillary Clinton, illegals, james carville, laura bush, white house
Las Vegas Democratic Debate: Define ‘Undecided”
from Captain’s Quarters
Define ‘Undecided’
CNN has come under hefty criticism for its last debate, including allegations of staging questions and misrepresenting featured audience members. Doug Ross rounds up the allegations arising at Gateway Pundit, Jammie Wearing Fool, and Hot Air, and they do tend to make CNN look a little foolish:
CNN hits bottom and digs: All six debate questioners appear to be Democratic Party operatives. So much for “ordinary people, undecided voters”. To paraphrase Junior Soprano, CNN is so far up the DNC’s hind end, Howard Dean can taste hair gel.
In a nutshell, CNN’s six “undecided voters” were:
A Democratic Party bigwig
An antiwar activist
A Union official
An Islamic leader
A Harry Reid staffer
A radical Chicano separatist
Wow. This looks “rather” like a scandal.
Well, maybe. Putting these activists on camera under the impression that they represented non-partisan undecideds would have been very misleading, and completely inappropriate. Not having watched the debate, I don’t know whether CNN used or implied that context.
However, I would doubt it. Primary debates focus on aligned voters, and usually the most activist voters pay any attention at all to them. It would not be surprising to see a Congressional staffer, a radical Chicano, and an anti-war protestor at a Democratic Party function. (It sounds like the start to a bad joke: “A Harry Reid aide, a radical Chicano, and an anti-war activist walk into a bar …”) The list accurately describes the constituencies of the Democratic party, and in fact appears fairly representative to me.
CNN’s description of them as “undecided” may be entirely accurate. After all, I’m a Republican and a known conservative/center-right political writer and radio host — but if I attended a Republican primary debate, I could also be described as “undecided”. I haven’t decided which Republican I will support in the primary, at least not yet. The same could be said for these six attendees at Thursday’s Democratic presidential primary debate. They’ll almost certainly support the Democrat who wins the primary, as I will the Republican, but they could very possibly have not decided on which Democrat they support for the nomination.
This context seems to be missing from the criticism of CNN, which deserves at least a little of what they’re getting for not being more honest about the backgrounds of their featured audience members. “Undecided” at this point doesn’t imply “independent” — and in fact would make little sense in that context.
UPDATE: Posting at almost the same time I did, Jim Geraghty mostly concurs.
Posted by Ed Morrissey on November 18, 2007 10:53 AM | Comments (41) | TrackBacks