[Morrigoon]

Well, the point I guess I'm trying to get at is, she may have gained some experience, but I'm so angry over how she came by much of that experience that I am ready to discount it.

I like the point made earlier about "accountable" experience. The experience she gained by doing things we did not elect her to do was not exactly a period of accountability, given that the people didn't have much say in her getting involved and the only way to get her out would be to also bump out the guy the people DID elect. So she could pretty much do whatever she thought she could get away with. Is complete disregard for the wishes of the voters good experience? Is that the experience we want to place her in office with?

And yes, scaeagles, it's true that all we have to go on are pretty speeches. But speeches ARE a major part of leadership, so there is something revealing going on there.

Bush, by comparison, cannot speak, cannot lead, cannot even hold an executive team together. Areas he failed at the most, are the areas I'm focused on electing a candidate by. If Hillary, with all her "experience", all her connections, etc., cannot put and hold together a successful election team, what basis do I have for believing she can assemble a successful executive team? Oh yeah, her time in Bill's White House... which means probably a rehash of Bill's executive team. That sounds like "same old same old" to me.

And for the record, Bill does have something to do with the situation we're in currently - his administration allowed the economy to grow unchecked into a period of what Buffett wisely calls "irrational exuberance". Thus leading to the bursting of the dot-com bubble. Bush, as a reaction to the bubble and attempt to recover the economy, spurred on the real estate market, (and once again leading Buffett to cry "irrational exuberance") leading to the current troubles . So do we want the same people that started it all back in charge? Or do we want to try our luck with someone new?