Yes, we can.

[wendybeth]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

So the Repubs can't blame Clinton for his mistakes, but dems can blame Bush for his mistakes? You said the Repubs messed things up and whomever is elected will look bad. Won't you be crying "it's Bush's fault" the same as I did about the things that I thought were Clinton's fault?

Of course you will.

No, silly. I'll be blaming Cheney. You really don't think Dubya has actually been calling the shots, do you? (No pun intended).

Back on topic: At the debate yesterday, Clinton mocked Obama over his supposed plagiarism of a friend's speech, but it backfired- the audience booed her for it. She needs to watch it- people don't want Rovian politics, and Obama seems to know it. I realize his response (“What we shouldn’t be spending time doing is tearing each other down. We should be spending time lifting the country up.”) was probably not what he was really thinking, but he was able to deflect her attempted smear and it wound up only making her look bad.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Cadaverous Pallor

The idea that people count time spent as First Lady as experience baffles me. It also pisses me off.

I heard some pundit say "The pastry chef's been working in the White House for decades, but I'm not voting for him for President."

Thought it was funny.

[wendybeth]

I dunno, Scaeagles....I really like pastry.

[innerSpaceman]

I think the pastry chef might work out better than anyone else vying for the job.

[blueerica]

Again, not that I'm caring (yet I still read this thread... why, I am still not sure), and I'm hardly the Clinton fan, she really did revolutionize the role of First Lady in the White House, and was more involved with the day-to-day politics than most of the public ever realized. In addition, and not that it's all that much more time, she's been serving as senator for 7 years now... 4 more than Obama's 3 years. Beyond being Clinton's wife, she's been heavily involved with politics on the national level for over three decades, two decades before Obama made his political debut in Illinois.

So technically, yes, she has more experience.

Not that it makes anyone any better, and like I said, I'm not the lady's biggest fan (though nor am I her biggest detractor)... but I wouldn't discount that she actually has "more" experience.


I think it's all about drive and follow-through, nothing that any of us can really debate before-hand, if you think about it (unless any of you know the future), and my sentiment is that it's all a bunch of hot air at this point.

[Alex]

Technically I think you can only credit them with 6 and 2 years in the Senate. Neither one has really been serving as senators for the last year other than in the most shallow sense.

[SacTown Chronic]

All I can conjure up when I try to think of Hillary's experience is her rousing success with health care reform last time she was in the White House and her rousing success in supporting the invasion and occupation of The Iraq. I'm sure I'm missing other Hillary policy success stories, but I'll be damned if i can think of any off the top of my head.

[JWBear]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

I heard some pundit say "The pastry chef's been working in the White House for decades, but I'm not voting for him for President."

Thought it was funny.

I love it! So true.

IMO Obama shows many signs of being a true leader, and the ability to be a true leader is not dependent on experience (although it helps). I don't get that vibe from Clinton.

I'll be honest. I've never liked Hillary Clinton, and, IMO, she would not make a good president. I just don't think she has the good of the country in heart, only the good of Hillary. Plus, I think she would only continue the political divisiveness and party bickering that we have suffered with for far too long.

Does Obama offer hope without substance? Perhaps, but many Americans are hungering for it, and they're not getting it from any of the other candidates.

[Morrigoon]

Frankly, her political involvement while her husband was in office pissed me off. SHE wasn't the one the public elected. In fact, during his candidacy, they tried to downplay er, uh, "soften" her role/image to make her seem less hardline politician and more wifey, then her husband swears in and all of a sudden, she's Hillary RODHAM Clinton and she's championing her own causes. And I'm not talking about things like Ladybird Johnson's flowers on the sides of the highways, but actual major legislative changes to health care. My position on this is the public didn't elect her, she had no right to suddenly act as if we did. You aren't elected just because your spouse is, ESPECIALLY if you purposely downplayed your role during the campaign. That smacks of dishonesty, and there's enough of that sh!t in the White House right now. (Sorry NA, honest feelings here)

As far as Obama... what is he offering us, really? Leadership. As Cheney proves daily, one of the most important aspects of presidency is the president's ability to form and effectively lead a TEAM. Bush has failed miserably at this, and we're pretty sure it's really Vice President Palpatine that's running the show. If Obama can move and inspire the large numbers of people he has in this campaign - even taking conservatives like myself and CP and getting us on his side without actually veering from his liberal agenda, there is somethig to be said for his leadership skills there. That's what we need most right now... Leadership.

[SacTown Chronic]

And now I have Stand by Your Man playing on a loop in my head.