Clinton Mocks Obama’s Experience
Nov 21, 2007 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
Is Clinton Tested and Ready to Lead?
Nov 17, 2007 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
Hillary’s Best is Always the Worst
Nov 6, 2007 Link Fest, Political
Hillary Clinton stated today that she was not at her best [examiner.com] in the last debate, ya think? Despite what some people might think, she herself has admitted that she did not do OK. She indicated that she has answered thousands of questions and she has made clear her positions on everything and how she would pay for her programs. This, of course, is a flat out lie. Clinton has not been clear. There are a number of news articles from the past year that show she has taken one position in one location and another position in a different geographic location. He suggestion that she has been open about things is just plain BS and anyone with a thinking brain knows it.
Bill Clinton has refused to authorize the release of documents that would support Hillary’s claim that she gained her experience as First Lady. Let me repeat that for the uninformed, the uneducated, or the plain ignorant; Bill Clinton has done absolutely nothing to speed up the release of documents that have any bearing on the race. He asked that certain documents that related to what he did be released but he specifically said that the communication between him and his wife is not to be released.
These are the cold hard facts and while some Hillary sycophant could claim that it is not she who is holding up the process one would have to dispense with reality by believing that Hillary cannot get the documents released if she wants them released. She has Bill’s testicles in a lock box and in all reality he wants to get back in the White House as badly as she does. He wants the life that comes with living there and she has a strong desire to have her ego stroked. Therefore, I can only conclude that the papers that they refuse to release would damage her candidacy. There are things there that they do not want out in the public prior to the election for one reason and one reason only, they are harmful to the Hildebeast. Rest assured, if those papers made it look like Hillary walked on water without getting her ankles wet Bill would release them yesterday with her in tow to ensure they got out. Since word is they will not be released until well after the election [ABC] we can only conclude that they are hiding something. I mean, they have had eight years to get them ready for issue so the only two things holding it up are Bill and Hillary.
No folks, Hillary has not been straight forward and she has not been honest. Bill has been less than honest as well though none of this should surprise anyone. Bill claims to be working to have papers released quickly when he is actually impeding the process. Hillary says that she has been clear when she has not.
Hillary said she did not have her best night the other night. If she wins in 2008 the country will not be having a good night but that night will not go away. It will morph into a 4 or 8 year nightmare with Satan at the helm.
Others with similar items:
Outside the Beltway, The Virtuous Republic, Perri Nelson’s Website, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, Rosemary’s Thoughts, The Midnight Sun, Adam’s Blog, Right Truth, The Populist, Leaning Straight Up, The Amboy Times, Conservative Cat, Pursuing Holiness, Adeline and Hazel, Conservative Thoughts, third world county, Allie Is Wired, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, Blue Star Chronicles, Pirate’s Cove, The Pink Flamingo, CORSARI D’ITALIA, High Desert Wanderer, Right Voices, The Yankee Sailor, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
Tags: bill clinton, candidacy, ego, first lady, Hillary Clinton, sycophant, uneducated, war