Comments on: Clinton's Skimpy Executive Résumé

National Review Online: Democratic Candidate Is Relatively Ill-Equipped For The Presidency

[oscarez]

What no mention of John Edwards? The GOP is more afraid of Edwards than Obama or Clinton with good reason. Edwards is the best choice for the Democratic party and America. Vote John Edwards for a positive change.

[sharncedar]

The differemce is - Bill got BJ''s, Hill gives BJ''s - to defense contractors, AIPAC, corporate elitists, and other enemies of America. Tell her to wipe the gizzum off her mouth, she''s filth

[sevenveils]

In regards to the opinion of the author, Deroy Murdock:
However, facing a $2.9 trillion federal budget and 5,120,688 civilian and military employees, Hillary Clinton is ill-equipped to become president of the United States, commander-in-chief of the U.S. armed forces, and leader of the free world. Her executive experience is lighter than a fistful of feathers.

Let us not forget that all the national debt, the war in Iraq and everything mentioned above has been managed with the watchful oversight of the biggest blundering president the US has know since President James Buchanan. Judging from the last seven years, experience doesn''t count for much when the goal is success.

[mcvet]

All you''''re doing is Rep'''' bashing, isn''''t that a little hypocritical?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by jowand at 10:03 AM : Nov 20, 2007
+ report abuse

We already KNOW the Republican''s can''t lead, we have the results right in front of us, no need to ask anyone. This Nazi Rag can''t have it both ways either. While she was in the White House they ran hate piece after hate piece about her, one after the other, about how she had abandoned the "traditional" First Lady position in favor of a Co President role. NOW these freaks, who by the way supported Sir Lies-A-Lot... TWICE, want to tell us to vote for the same failures we''ve seen for 6 years. We watched as the Republican''s in congress sat on their hands, approved the WORST possible heads of departments and just keep buying the "Stay the Course" garbage, all the while dividing this nation as it''s never been divided before... NOPE, that''s called HYPOCRATIC folks... PURE, Toe Tappin, Senator Wide Stance, HYPOCRATIC!! Sieg Heil Bush.

[sevenveils]

Hillary''s lack of successful lifetime achievements and experience in leadership would at first seem a big check in the negative column. However, GW Bush has shown that having the biggest leadership credential in the US does not prove a man wise nor smart.

[random_radar]

You only need to do one thing to be successful as President of the United States: take orders from the power brokers and puppet masters who put you in office.

Hillary Clinton can do that as well as anyone. George Bush has done it just fine. It may not make you popular, but it is not hard to do.

Only gullible people think they are electing a president who will obey the mandate of the people. The chief executive executes the will of those who have power and money.

Yes, I sound cynical, but the truth isn''t always warm and fuzzy and happily ever after now is it?

[quatrops]

Hypocrisy ? ! ! You''re concerned about hypocrisy, jowand @ 10:03?

We''re looking at an administration that wrote the book on the subject! Or, an even better example would be the self-appointed Ground Zero Hero. His political posturings are bad enough (a "virtual fence" at the border?), but his personal life established a new threshold for the lowest standard of morality.

Hypocrisy? Try Cheney, swearing to uphold the constitution, then directing his proto-fascist staff to do the opposite.

Hypocrisy? It takes an unbelievable amount of hubris for any poster on the right to even use the word!

[newz4i]

The only way the GOP can pull a Republican out of the hole they dug over the last seven years is hang a poster of Senator Clinton up in front of their face. Republicans have nothing to stand on...except their hole. Voters, take a look at their hole. It''s wide and deep. It''s filled with the death of innocent people killed for oil. You won''t see any U.S. dollars in the hole; it''s deposited in the banks of China. Look further down, and you''ll see millions of houses in foreclosure, American citizens without health insurance, illegal immigrants waiting for amnesty. At the bottom of the hole are Cheney/Bush/Rice ready for their chance to "cut and run." When they''re out, they''ll deposit some blood money in their bank accounts from books and speeches. The only way to fill the hole is don''t dig it deeper by staying the course with another Republican in 2008. Vote GOP ideology out in local and national elections and this country will head in the right direction.,,finally ! ! ! !

[jn122736]

There is a term used to describe the act of learning/training to do a specific job/service it is called %u201Capprenticeship%u201D.

In addition to her two terms as a US senator, Hillary spent 8 years as a virtual apprentice to Bill Clinton%u2019s two-term presidency and will undoubtedly, if elected, be advised by the ex-president himself on a daily basis.
She has learned from the many good things from those years as well as some of the bad.
NONE of the other candidates have that much experience for the job as president of the United States.
By the same reasoning, Laura Bush would certainly have learned many things NOT to do if she were elected president.

That being said I would feel much more comfortable voting for John Edwards (I believe Hillary Clinton is far too right-leaning at this time), because we need a DRAMATIC shift in direction to begin to undo the damage caused by the present administration.

[ianlou]

...Continued
Hilary said she would not support this solution because it would hurt the middleclass. MIDDLECLASS!!!
Since when is $98,500 per year middleclass? A dual income family at that rate would be considered, by her, middle class making $198,000 per year. Hilary obviously has spent too much time around middle class Manhattans.
Since she does not want to "overstress" these "middleclass" Americans (and everyone else making more money than this all the way up to Bill Gates) with a tax increase, she instead proposes to raise the eligibility age for retirement benefits for the rest of us middleclass baby boomers by half a decade at a time when we probably only have half to one and a half decades left in our lives. And to think I%u2019ve been paying into this pot with money taken from my paycheck every week of my entire working life.

Frankly this %u201CLet them eat Cake%u201D attitude of Hilary%u2019s is something I would expect from Bush.

Thank you Barack Obama, for realizing that the average American is tired of working hard for the heavily lobbied plight of the wealthy.

[ianlou]

I''ll say it again:
Hilary lost my vote during the Las Vegas debate when she said that she would not support the idea of raising the $98,500 per person income limit to be taxed for Social Security. Barack Obama is promoting this as a solution for the Social Security Crises. The idea is to extend the 6.2% FICA tax to ALL gross income instead of just the first $98,500, this solution would raise trillions for Social Security by taxing people who can afford it.
We could also remove the ceiling on the monthly retirement check so millionaires would get retirement payments to match their contributions like the rest of us IF , like the rest of us, they are fortunate enough to live that long.

More...

[jowand]

Whether you think Hillary or someone else would do this better is what this election is really about. This Hillary bash is a Repub smokescreen. I really like the Demo canadidates so far - there are different opinions and personalities. The Repub candidates are just a bunch of Bush bobble-heads.
Posted by afmca at 09:58 AM : Nov 20, 2007

All you''re doing is Rep'' bashing, isn''t that a little hypocritical?

[afmca]

I support Hillary and have no problem with agreeing with some of the parts in the article. One thing Bush/Cheney has proven is that being a CEO is definitely not a positive to becoming President. Being Mayor or Governor still keeps you seriously lacking in foreign policy experience.

What a President has to do is be able to lead and have a vision of a better America. A President then needs to appoint people of integrity and honesty to run the departments. This is where Bush has failed miserably.

Whether you think Hillary or someone else would do this better is what this election is really about. This Hillary bash is a Repub smokescreen. I really like the Demo canadidates so far - there are different opinions and personalities. The Repub candidates are just a bunch of Bush bobble-heads.

[jowand]

Resumes don''t mean a thing, you have to look at what people are doing and saying. Problem right now with our goverment (Dem and Rep) is the same problem our leagal system has too many lawyers, dishonest pieces of Kr*p.

[mcvet]

You can always tell when the Dems have no ammo against an argument. You get comments akin to ''''yeah, but Bush sucks''''. The NRO article is dead on. She has no experience running anything. Period. Their are claims that this article is all lies. Well, then enlighten us all and show us Hillary''''s leadership experience. In the end, all Hillary wants to do is run your life.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by squidly8 at 06:51 AM : Nov 20, 2007
+ report abuse

ROFLMAO This from someone who told us that Bush WAS qualified and who blames ALL the screw ups of the Bush Administration of "Liberal''s"! ROFLMAO Look the lady was THERE, hands on, being a very close advisor and according to some of you fascist and non elected Co President. Now you freaks want to say she''s not qualified. ROFLMAO She already knows the vast majority of the leaders of the world, some by their first name, she knows who has what and what their motives are, She can walk right in to the job, day one, and bring back into the fold BADLY needed Allies AND she was on the front lines in fighting our OWN Religious Terrorist. Add to that the fact that she will have a built in advisor the likes of which NONE of the people on the Fascist side have and you''ve got this nation on the verge of making history!! But what''s the use trying to talk to someone who thinks anything written by the NRO is dead on!! ROFLMAO Sieg Heil Bush

[mrmazerati]

One final note, formrusmcsgt. If you want proof positive that you''re arguing opinion and I''m arguing fact, all you need to do is look up at the article on this page. In what section is it? Why, the opinion section! That''s because this writer''s article is not fact, but merely a viewpoint. Stating a particular candidate is not qualified in a news story would be grounds for libel, unless the candidate does not meet constitutional requirements. The FACT is, Hillary Clinton is qualified under any legal definition out there. So is Guliani. So is McCain. And on and on. That''s why articles like these are stuck in the back pages, away from real news stories. Fun reading, but factual? No.

[mrmazerati]

What you fail to perceive is the difference in being "eligible" and being "qualified". Posted by formrusmcsgt at 08:03 AM

Well, since I write for a living, it''s my job to know the difference. And qualified still works as a correct description. The Princeton dictionary describes qualified as "meeting the proper standards and requirements and training for an office or position or task." For this particular argument, there is only one document that dictates what those standards are; the U.S. Constitution. I am still correct.

[quatrops]

There is a knee-jerk one-liner @ 12:21 suggesting the article is "all lies", yet the context of Squigly8''s complaint "There are claims that this article is all lies" would have us believe this ONE comment characterizes the Democrats response in the other 33.

Re-read the posts, Squigly! Primarily, they are comments (on both sides) about the relative importance of "executive experience".

I maintain that ANYONE that can lead a successful campaign to be a nominee of a major party demonstrates a more-than-sufficient degree of executive ability.

That aside (because it begs the question), how important is a background as an executive?. Bush had it, but he essentially failed at it, just as he failed in his incompetent presidency. And, truth-be-told, Bush''s "experience" wasn''t something he earned. It was bought with Prescott Bush''s money.

And that money was earned in Prescott''s successful business dealings with the Nazi''s in the ''30s. The immorality of those ventures (finally outlawed by FDR in late ''41) has never been addressed by his heirs, causing one to wonder to what extent his principles were passed on to the son and grandsons. " . . the sins of the father . ."?

[formrusmcsgt]

Sorry, formrusmcsgt, but according to our constitution, everybody IS defined as a potential leader, as long as they are 35 and a natural born citizen. You can be a former gas station attendant, or you can be a former US Marine Corps Seargent. It doesn''''t matter. the law is the law. Everything else is your opinion.

Posted by mrmazerati at 11:38 PM : Nov 19, 2007

What you fail to perceive is the difference in being "eligible" and being "qualified".

[squidly8]

You can always tell when the Dems have no ammo against an argument. You get comments akin to ''yeah, but Bush sucks''. The NRO article is dead on. She has no experience running anything. Period. Their are claims that this article is all lies. Well, then enlighten us all and show us Hillary''s leadership experience. In the end, all Hillary wants to do is run your life.