[Fun facts for kids!]
Senator Barack Obama= 46 yrs. old (47 yrs. by the time he *will* be elected into office)
Senator Hillary Clinton= 60 yrs. old
Age Difference= 14 yrs.
So Hillary was indeed on the national scene by the time she was 14 or younger? Wow, color me surprised! And of course we can't leave out good ol' Bill! Oh, it seems he was only 46 yrs old at his time of presidency.. Hmm. Well that's even younger then our friend Barack will be. Well, I'll be danged!
P.S. Now let's stop the roller-coaster of pretending Obama's still in diapers, whether we're for or against him.
You might just be surprised then. But you misread what I said, I said she "was politically active in a presidential race before Obama was ever born."
From wikipedia, "at age thirteen she helped canvass South Side Chicago following the very close 1960 U.S. presidential election,"
Please also note, Ive donated a lot of money to Obama, I have worked hard on his campaign, and will vote for him over any other candidate. Im just stating the facts because I beleive they have not been represented.
Canvasing a neighborhood with fliers and what-not does
have its merit and I commend her for being involved at such a young age. I won't dispute that fact. However, I don't think that that in itself contributes to any extraordinary political experience (especially since it can be learned in a matter of minutes).
In any case, my point in all of this was basically the same as Reflex's. I don't consider her to have loads more experience than Barack Obama in politics. A little more? Sure, I'll give you that. But making Obama sound like he's light-years behind her in experience is exactly what the Hillary campaign has been- and continues to be- about.
And this is all coming from a conservative Independent who probably won't vote anyway, but has just done his research and finds Obama to be impressive. So I'm not committed to either campaign, nor do I have any ulterior motive in my opinion. I've just done my research.
I guess I just get tired of hearing the same "experience mantra" repeated over and over when I don't fully subscribe to it having any real merit..
So in other words, you basically agree with everything I said in the post you made fun of?
"Hillary has been on the national scene far longer than Obama, and was politically active in a presidential race before Obama was ever born. Does that make her the most experience candidate? Of course not. But she is going to point out that differences between her and Obama, and one big difference is the amount of time in politics and in Washington"
Seems we agree 100%, even on not voting for Hillary.
Make no mistake, I was only being satirical to prove a point, not to "make fun" of you. I was pointing out facts that should be examined before jumping on the "Clinton-has-way-more-experience" bandwagon.
I recognize we agree to some point, just not 100%. Mainly though that neither of us are voting for her. As far as her experience, as I said before, it is not so superior
to Obama's that it should even be a talking-point during this campaign. In fact, the only thing worth mentioning is her failed health plan during the Clinton years as far as legitimately more experience. And yet she's only been trumpeting one thing- more experience
- that virtually doesn't exist. It's basically her only defense against someone who has been far more effective and far more consistant in his career than her.
The sad thing is, you'd probably vote for her if there were no Obama existing right now, even though she has yet to reconcile her track-record, prove her political chops or even vote consistantly. I on the other hand wouldn't support her come hell-or-high-water because of said flaws. And that, my friend, is why I don't call myself a Democrat.