If accomplishments are crucial to you (and you stress the word), then I can't give you any reasons. But I think her experiences as Secretary of State and even as First Lady could position her to operate effectively as a president. Having direct acquaintance with many world leaders could help in diplomatic situations. She might know how people tick and already have some rapport with them. I can think of worse ways of preparing for the job than watching someone in it for eight years. I suspect she will have learned things about pushing legislation through even from the failure of Hillarycare. I'm not wildly enthusiastic about her myself, but those would be my answers. What person has come into the role with what you regard as impressive accomplishments? Do you favor someone who has been a governor? Or a long-term senator?
I am strongly in favor of a governor, yes. I prefer someone who has previous experience with running and managing an executive branch, which is one reason I liked Romney more than McCain.
Most of them have had to deal with the realities of working with a legislative branch that isn't always a rubber stamp and having to build personal relationships with members of the legislature.
This is something that the current President has unfortunately failed at even according to many Democrats. They feel like he doesn't even talk to them most of the time. The immigration bill has only gotten this far because congressional Democrats basically told Obama "stay away, you're going to f*ck this up if you get involved".
Look at how he managed to ruin a deal that was in place between Reid/Bohener during the 2012 almost-shutdown, and how he's gone out and poisoned negotiations on unemployment insurance extensions. His reaction in every case is to go out and poison the debate by strawmanning and vilifying the opposition. I've said it before, Obama doesn't even know how backstab properly. Democrats in the 90s backstabbed George H.W. Bush by getting the tax increases and then not giving him the spending cuts. Much of the time Obama throws the other side under the bus before negotiations even start and then says "SEE HOW THE OTHER SIDE WON'T WORK WITH ME?".
This is not to say there isn't obstructionism by Republicans on some things, of course. But the bottom line is while Obama enjoys campaigning, he fails utterly at the actual governing part of governance.
We've had many successful presidents who used to be governors, some who were VP, and some who were members of the House. I can't think of many Senators who were successful Presidents or even elected President at all(Warren G. Harding? lol).
Oh dear, I apologize, I got off on a spiel there. :x
Don't vote for her, the best Democrat is Schweitzer!
I can't vote in the Democratic primary, as I think you have to be a registered Democrat to do so in my state, but at least Schweitzer has some moderate positions and is willing to call out Obama on his corporatism. This is why I want to punch every talking head who asks why the stock market is doing so well and the job market is ass. People seem to think you can't favor the ultra-rich and demonize the "regular" rich(yes that sounds dumb but it's the best term I could think of
).
Regarding experience, how is Hillary so different than Barack Obama after serving even longer in the Senate, as well as having a law degree? A person who, after getting her law degree, went on to postgraduate studies where her academic expertise is still cited? If she wasn't qualified to hold public office, why was her appointment as Secretary of State approved with so little controversy?
Aren't those better qualifications than being the governor of Alaska? Or a representative from Minnesota who was dubbed the "Queen of the Tea Party" based on her outlandish stances?
How many Republican candidates for president last election were better qualified for the office?
As I'll explain below, I am attempting to evaluate her in a vacuum. Being appointed to a Cabinet position is generally an uncontroversial thing because the Senate usually lets the President have who they want if they aren't certifiable(there are instances where it isn't and no that isn't a "new" occurrence either). I certainly think Romney was better qualified, having not just been a governor in a blue state but having success in the private sector as well; the last thing I want is someone who has spent their whole life in government.
There's also her personal trustworthiness and less than clean past; the Clinton name isn't exactly synonymous with honesty, less we forget Whitewater, her "skills" in cattle futures trading, etc.
And if her supporters are going to trot out Bill every change they get like they did in 2008(though not as embarrassingly as Obama did in 2010 because he couldn't get a tax deal done on his own), then he may become a millstone around her neck.
But again, I want to leave Bill out of this as much as possible.
You're defending Hillary by comparing her to other politicians that LC also does not like. That... doesn't really work.
I'm not sure if Hillary has really done anything either. The big item attached to her is the health care law that she was highly influential in as First Lady but that bombed terribly because she didn't give the insurance companies enough unfair concessions.
Yes, EXACTLY this. I never understood the fascination with Michelle Bachmann. I wasn't a big Sarah Palin fan either, although I think she did get a bad rap in many respects. That's why I found Christine O'Donnell comical; everything the media said Sarah Palin was, Christine O'Donnell
actually was.
I'm asking for her to be supported on her own accomplishments and merits, not compared to other people and their merits.
Because you want to feel good for participating in the election of the first female POTUS. This will be seen as a sign that the United States is forward-thinking and progressive and ready for the future, even though it's hopelessly in debt and dependent on imports for its oil and fertilizer.
Unfortunately I tend to agree with you that this may be the reason some people will vote for her, though I have no real way of knowing whether the number of people who will vote AGAINST her because she's a woman is greater or fewer. The same thing happened in '08 with Obama. I loathe identity politics so much.
The US has to be autarkic to be ready for the future?
I very much appreciate the spirit of the OT - but you forgot the strongest factor which will determine the attractiveness of Hillary as President. Which will be the Republican candidate. In no other system of choice is the choice itself so irrelevant and the difference between choices so relevant as in a binary system.
I definitely agree that the Republican candidate is important in the outcome but as I mentioned above I wouldn't even know who to try and evaluate. Christie has issues that go far beyond the bridge scandal(which was a legitimate scandal but imo still peanuts compared to many Obama scandals for which no one has really been held accountable). Who the hell else is there? Honestly as much as people try to demonize Scott Walker he's managed to survive a recall election with a bigger margin of victory than his initial election and actually accomplished things that Democrats would traditionally dislike in a state that hasn't voted for a Republican president since Reagan.
You might want to see a doctor for that cough. Good thing you're covered.
Unless your policy became illegal under the ACA and you can't afford the new ones.
But let's not derail this into an Obamacare debate
