2008 US election poll

[Reflex]

Since very few individuals are given the sort of Security Clearances you refer to - there are no candidates who would have that experience then I'm still not sure why you raise it Reflex?
In fact whilst we're there if Bill was not allowed to discuss/debate such subjects as President  - do you still honestly believe that the circumstances were the same when she was 1st lady of askansas?

Nope, but the problem here is that they are holding it up as evidence of presidential qualifications, which it clearly is not.  That is my point, its an experience, but then so was McCain being a POW and Obama doing community service.  Its not any better or worse, just different.

My point here is that Hillary is no more or less qualified based on 'experience' than Obama is for the office of President.  No one here has demonstrated why she would be more qualified.

[VorLonUK]

No one here has demonstrated why she would be more qualified.

Because it IS that obvious.

I can tell you it will hurt if I attempt to cut my foot off with a blunt scythe, I surely don't have to do it, or give you detailed drawings and witness statements for you to understand?

Put the question to your Partner (or someone who doesn't appear to be sexist). Ask her if she thinks it's likely (or not) that Hilary whilst first lady and knowing that she had a strong political interest (enough to go on to be a Senator) picked up/learnt important aspects of the presidency, the very thing she is now going for in her own right.

[Rocky]

Since very few individuals are given the sort of Security Clearances you refer to - there are no candidates who would have that experience then I'm still not sure why you raise it Reflex?
In fact whilst we're there if Bill was not allowed to discuss/debate such subjects as President  - do you still honestly believe that the circumstances were the same when she was 1st lady of askansas?

Nope, but the problem here is that they are holding it up as evidence of presidential qualifications, which it clearly is not.  That is my point, its an experience, but then so was McCain being a POW and Obama doing community service.  Its not any better or worse, just different.

My point here is that Hillary is no more or less qualified based on 'experience' than Obama is for the office of President.  No one here has demonstrated why she would be more qualified.

Now you are starting to come around.  If you are saying its equal to the experience of Obama.  Hillary has 14 years more of that experience.  That's a significant difference.

This is assuming you will continue to ignore the fact ones experience was national and international and the others was in one town.

[Reflex]

Where does Hillary have 14 more years of experience?  She has 8 years in the US Senate.  She has 8 years as First Lady.  He has 4 years in the US Senate.  He has 8 years in the Illinois Senate.  And he has years as a community organizer and leader.  Where does her experience outweigh his?  I feel its conceding something to even put them on par, I really think he honestly has more applicable experience, personally, but I'm willing to concede that some may weigh various experience differently.

[Rocky]

Where does Hillary have 14 more years of experience?  She has 8 years in the US Senate.  She has 8 years as First Lady.  He has 4 years in the US Senate.  He has 8 years in the Illinois Senate.  And he has years as a community organizer and leader.  Where does her experience outweigh his?  I feel its conceding something to even put them on par, I really think he honestly has more applicable experience, personally, but I'm willing to concede that some may weigh various experience differently.

She's 14 years older was my point.  Show me one year in her life where she wasnt getting this "on par" experience your talking about?  They have both been very busy and active people their whole lives, never missing a beat.

[Reflex]

*laff*  

Age != experience

Thats hilarious!

Thanks Rocky, thats the funniest post I've seen in a week.  Seriously.  Right up there with the bug trapped in an LCD in the AV forum.

[Rocky]

*laff*  

Age != experience

Thats hilarious!

Thanks Rocky, thats the funniest post I've seen in a week.  Seriously.  Right up there with the bug trapped in an LCD in the AV forum.

Again, you will just totally ignore everything posted and yet pretend no one has answered your questions.  Please let me know when in Hillarys career she wasnt "balls to the wall" on getting experience?

[VorLonUK]

Reflex i would buy that book I gave you the link to, but Amazon don't have them in stock over here and used ones are still expensive.

Have you read the book by Hilary Clinton? - link further up the thread (amazon)

[Reflex]

Nope, not interesting in reading what her ghost writers have to say.  I read articles about her by journalists and third party writers, not puff pieces designed as part of a campaign strategy.

[VorLonUK]

Nope, not interesting in reading what her ghost writers have to say.  I read articles about her by journalists and third party writers, not puff pieces designed as part of a campaign strategy.

So information good or not has to meet a certain criteria for you to believe in it? You can miss an awful lot of good information by doing that Reflex.

[Reflex]

It has to be credible.  I'm not interested in puff pieces and propoganda.

Just for the record, I don't look to Barack Obama's books for insight into him, I go read his legislative track record, I went out of my way to meet and speak to him last year, and I avidly read news accounts of what he is doing.  A person's actions speak far more than thier propoganda.

[VorLonUK]

It has to be credible.  I'm not interested in puff pieces and propoganda.

Just for the record, I don't look to Barack Obama's books for insight into him, I go read his legislative track record, I went out of my way to meet and speak to him last year, and I avidly read news accounts of what he is doing.  A person's actions speak far more than thier propoganda.

Have you spoken to Hilary about her Whitehouse years?

[Reflex]

No, although I did meet her a few months ago.  It was brief however, I met Obama over breakfast which is a bit more in depth.

[Connor]

I can see the view your describing Reflex, but only if you limit suitability for president down to legislative experience.

The position of First Lady carries a strong Diplomatic Role which is good experience for President metting and discussing subjects with world leaders. Whilst Obama has traveled extensively his discussions have primarily been to educational establishments talking to students or military establishments(in eastern europe).

 Hillary both in Arkansas and Nationally as First Lady chaired many orginisations and charities as well as serving on the boards of the world's biggest companies showing good Leadership and management skills. I can't find any obvious comparisons for Obama.

I have to say that I'm now fully supportive of Obama's campaign  - where before I still had a tendancy to want to see Clinton win.

[Reflex]

The issue here Conner, and what they are misinterpreting about my statements is that I am not dismissing the role of First Lady out of hand, it certainly does have its own level of experience and lessons.  My dismissal is that the things learned there are directly applicable too, and part of her experience for, the role of president.  That is much of the basis of the 'she's got more experience' argument that I keep hearing.  I do not feel she is less experienced than Obama, but I do feel that her experience in the kinds of things that are important for a president is no greater than Obama's either.  As a result, pitting her as the candidate of 'experience' while Obama as the candidate of 'change' is disingenuous at best.  She is no more experienced than he is, at least not in the areas that will matter as president.  There are a number of things she could pitch herself as however, I simply tire of hearing the experience myth repeated by people who should be smarter than that.

[Rocky]

Reflex, if you ever wonder why so many people have a tough time debating you its because of posts like this one.  Look what you said,

"I do not feel she is less experienced than Obama" then you go on to say "She is no more experienced than he is".  I then should not have to go back and pull all the posts where you said she is less experienced.  But here you are basically saying they are equal.  You seem to be all over the place.  I think what you actually mean, and has been said by others such as myself and Babar, is that Hillary is overplaying her experience, and that experience is not going to decide this race. If experience was a main criteria we would be deciding between two different people.  This is a point everyone agree with, and is a point your posts are coming closer and closer to saying. But your opinion, well I take that back, your stated words have changed since the begining of this thread and that is really tough to understand when you continue to take hard line stances, yet they are changing everytime you post.

[Reflex]

Personally I believe she is less experienced.  I am simply willing to acknowledge that others may interpret it otherwise.  My point is to stop the myth that she is *more* experienced, which she is not.  I know you don't know how to take a side on something without attempting to completely discredit people who think differently, but I am able to seperate my personal opinion from the facts of a situation and recognize other interpretations which may weight things differently.  I am sure there are a number of people who think that Clinton's time as First Lady is *more* qualification for the presidency than McCain's 25 years in the Senate, as ludicrous as that is, I don't agree with them of course, but they can believe what they wish(and I will contradict it when its said).

I won't oppose someone saying that its two fairly new candidates to the scene.  I won't care if people feel they are around the same experience level even though I *personally* feel Obama has more relevant applicable experience.  But I will continue to puncture the myth that she is basically a president in waiting who spent 8 years in a secret presidential training camp while Bill was running the show.

[Rocky]

Personally I believe she is less experienced.  I am simply willing to acknowledge that others may interpret it otherwise.  My point is to stop the myth that she is *more* experienced, which she is not.  I know you don't know how to take a side on something without attempting to completely discredit people who think differently, but I am able to seperate my personal opinion from the facts of a situation and recognize other interpretations which may weight things differently.  I am sure there are a number of people who think that Clinton's time as First Lady is *more* qualification for the presidency than McCain's 25 years in the Senate, as ludicrous as that is, I don't agree with them of course, but they can believe what they wish(and I will contradict it when its said).

I won't oppose someone saying that its two fairly new candidates to the scene.  I won't care if people feel they are around the same experience level even though I *personally* feel Obama has more relevant applicable experience.  But I will continue to puncture the myth that she is basically a president in waiting who spent 8 years in a secret presidential training camp while Bill was running the show.

Im glad you are willing to acknowledge that, I dont know anyone who doesnt acknowledge there are more than one side of any story.  But when you post in an argument on an internet forum you shoudl expect to hear another side of it.  My opinion is that you are wrong and have been tainted by your support of a candidate.  However, we both vehemetly support the same candidate.  I just dont beleive in falling into the same situation as HIllary supporters where they overstate what their candidate is.

[Reflex]

I had this opinion of her since long long before Barack Obama appeared on the scene.  I've been one of the largest Clinton(both of them) critics since the 92 elections that you'd ever meet.  I consider them to be the Democrat version of the Nixon machine, and *just* as unethical.  This is why when I defend Bill's track record I do so through gritted teeth, and only because I cannot stand misrepresentation of the facts.  Of course that is also why I am just as dogged about puncturing the myth of experience that Hillary is pretending to have.

[Rocky]

I had this opinion of her since long long before Barack Obama appeared on the scene.  I've been one of the largest Clinton(both of them) critics since the 92 elections that you'd ever meet.  I consider them to be the Democrat version of the Nixon machine, and *just* as unethical.  This is why when I defend Bill's track record I do so through gritted teeth, and only because I cannot stand misrepresentation of the facts.  Of course that is also why I am just as dogged about puncturing the myth of experience that Hillary is pretending to have.

I 100% agree with you on those assertions.  I think when you started this topic though you went out of your way to try to completely discredit her experience.  I dont think thats fair, or a healthy method.  What you are saying now, is what I've always felt.  Hillary, like everyone before and after her, talk up their positive differences and try to make them seem like more than they are.  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.  To me, Id rather not vote for a Washington person, but her campaign thinks she can win by showing she knows the system better.  I think thats a turn off.  So I think we agree on the major points, we can just disagree on the assessments of them.

[Caffeine Cemetary]

I had this opinion of her since long long before Barack Obama appeared on the scene.  I've been one of the largest Clinton(both of them) critics since the 92 elections that you'd ever meet.  I consider them to be the Democrat version of the Nixon machine, and *just* as unethical.  This is why when I defend Bill's track record I do so through gritted teeth, and only because I cannot stand misrepresentation of the facts.  Of course that is also why I am just as dogged about puncturing the myth of experience that Hillary is pretending to have.

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.

[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.

[Rocky]

I had this opinion of her since long long before Barack Obama appeared on the scene.  I've been one of the largest Clinton(both of them) critics since the 92 elections that you'd ever meet.  I consider them to be the Democrat version of the Nixon machine, and *just* as unethical.  This is why when I defend Bill's track record I do so through gritted teeth, and only because I cannot stand misrepresentation of the facts.  Of course that is also why I am just as dogged about puncturing the myth of experience that Hillary is pretending to have.

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.

[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.

[Reflex]

I'm gonna have to remember that, I worked on a campaign for congress for three months when I was 16.  Guess thats what passes for 'experience' nowadays...

[Rocky]

I'm gonna have to remember that, I worked on a campaign for congress for three months when I was 16.  Guess thats what passes for 'experience' nowadays...

I said she was politically active in 1960.  Do you disagree with that or do you plan on trying to straw man the entire discussion?

[Caffeine Cemetary]

I had this opinion of her since long long before Barack Obama appeared on the scene.  I've been one of the largest Clinton(both of them) critics since the 92 elections that you'd ever meet.  I consider them to be the Democrat version of the Nixon machine, and *just* as unethical.  This is why when I defend Bill's track record I do so through gritted teeth, and only because I cannot stand misrepresentation of the facts.  Of course that is also why I am just as dogged about puncturing the myth of experience that Hillary is pretending to have.

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.

[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..