U.S. Politics - no more cakes

[theprincethatwasntpromised]

What are your credentials, I wonder, to talk about who has zero credentials?

Sorry, I forget the people I'm dealing with around here sometimes. You probably aren't worried about credentials. Feel free to list Mrs. Clinton's accomplishments if you'd like, I'm sure it wouldn't take you long.

[MerenthaClone]

Maybe they realize that blindly supporting another democratic candidate with zero credentials would be bad for the country as well as their business? Maybe they learned their lesson with Obama? Yeah, I doubt it...

I'm sorry, what more credentials do you want? You've got a ton of foreign policy and a ton of experience with the legislative branch as well. You're pretty much only missing "governor", and even then she was First Lady of Arkansas. Hell, on the Republican bench, you've got a person who presided over a massive failure of a company to the tune that they literally paid $2m to get rid of her, as well as a guy so inept he bankrupted a casino. Everyone else is basically a governor or senator. In essence, at best, you've got someone with alternative but equal qualifications, or literally inferior. Hillary is probably one of the few people running for president who actually is credentialed.

e: to be clear, I disagree with a ton of her previous positions (though she appears to be moving leftward somewhat, which makes me happy) but as far as experience goes, she's pretty much unassailable.

[The Marquis de Leech]

Experience is a bit of a red herring anyway. Probably the most qualified guy to ever hold the Presidency was James Buchanan. He had served in a state legislature, the US House, and the US Senate, been Ambassador to Britain and Russia, and been Secretary of State, all prior to being elected President. He was also a godawful President.

(Hillary by contrast has merely been First Lady of Arkansas (twice), First Lady of the US, US Senator, and Secretary of State).

[FuzzydaBear]

What are your credentials, I wonder, to talk about who has zero credentials?

What does his credentials have to with Clinton's credentials?

The answer is nothing. You didn't answer the question because you wanted to deflect the question away or you can't answer the question.

[Darzin]

Attacking Clinton on her credentials is just mindbogglingly stupid. She has credentials and experience galore. That doesn't make her perfect there are plenty of legitimate criticisms of her, but credentials as a line of attack is not going anywhere. And if you attack her on this it kind of outs you as a partisan hack.

Who on the Republican side has more experience? Ted Cruz, Rand Paul and Marco Rubio are all new senators. I guess maybe Jeb, but I don't think he has more experience than Hillary.

[Ormond]

Experience is a bit of a red herring anyway. Probably the most qualified guy to ever hold the Presidency was James Buchanan. He had served in a state legislature, the US House, and the US Senate, been Ambassador to Britain and Russia, and been Secretary of State, all prior to being elected President. He was also a godawful President.

(Hillary by contrast has merely been First Lady of Arkansas (twice), First Lady of the US, US Senator, and Secretary of State).

I do agree that Hillary Clinton is at least as well credentialed as most other Presidential candidates. However, I am very uncomfortable listing "First Lady" by itself as part of those qualifications. While Hillary Clinton was First Lady, her husband gave her some responsibilities which did add to her credentials. But simply being a President's spouse is not in and of itself a credential for being President yourself. I don't think Laura Bush or Michelle Obama having been First Lady is any qualification for them to be President.

[Larry of the Lawn]

You know it's bad when MSNBC doesn't roll with the "right wing conspiracy" garbage. I actually don't believe she's untouchable. It seems a good portion of the left is going full contact. Funny how they'd fall on the sword for Barry, not so much for the Pantsuit.

Maybe they realize that blindly supporting another democratic candidate with zero credentials would be bad for the country as well as their business? Maybe they learned their lesson with Obama? Yeah, I doubt it...

The sad thing to me is, she is their best candidate. Similar to offering up McCain after eight years of Bush.

What does his credentials have to with Clinton's credentials?

The answer is nothing. You didn't answer the question because you wanted to deflect the question away or you can't answer the question.

What question? The bolded one? It's a rhetorical question at best and presumes a lot of stuff that simply isn't true. For one, it suggests that Obama's 8 years were a bust for Dems, which simply isn't the case. The ACA is here to stay, the Bush wars are over. When Obama came into office the economy was in the proverbial shitter and it's now been turned around, despite Repubs playing constant chicken with debt payments. People have jobs again.

It also suggests that neither Clinton nor Obama had credentials before candidacy. If you think that's the case I don't know what to tell either one of you.

[awesome possum]

Funny how they'd fall on the sword for Barry, not so much for the Pantsuit.

That seems kind of sexist which isn't surprising coming from you, just thought I'd point out that in a whole slew of stupidity, what you wrote there is extra stupid.

That will never happen to Hillary, she's untouchable, but surely the Dems can find a better nominee.

Translation: Can't you guys please nominate someone who we have a chance of beating? Pleeeeeeeeeaaaaaaasssssseeeeeee?????!!!

That way these guys might have a chance.

Like good ole Teddy Cruz, who is such a good public servant that he barely ever shows up to committee meetings and votes. Like that time he gave an impassioned speech on the floor of the Senate about how awful a choice for AG Loretta Lynch was, how she's just bad for America because REASONS! And then how he was the only senator to skip the actual vote. He really actually is doing the country a favor by not doing his job so I can't complain too much there.

Or Scott Walker, who is such a deluded idiot that he went to Minnesota yesterday to lecture Republicans in a state that has actually been successful (by doing the opposite things that he's done while in office) on how to run the government.

Or ole Jebby Poo, who is so desperate not to go up against the Koch machine in the primaries that he has to audition to be their puppet.

Face it, dude, Hillary Clinton is an awful candidate and yet she's still absolutely going to murder any Republican at the polls. That tells you the state of today's outdated, hateful, bigoted, Grand Ole fucking Party.

[Maithanet]

I do agree that Hillary Clinton is at least as well credentialed as most other Presidential candidates. However, I am very uncomfortable listing "First Lady" by itself as part of those qualifications. While Hillary Clinton was First Lady, her husband gave her some responsibilities which did add to her credentials. But simply being a President's spouse is not in and of itself a credential for being President yourself. I don't think Laura Bush or Michelle Obama having been First Lady is any qualification for them to be President.

I think it does. You are around the white house, you have a very good idea of what the job entails and what sorts of tools and approaches the president has at his (or her) disposal. Obviously it's not the greatest of credentials, certainly inferior to something like governor or senator or secretary of state, but it's something. I would say being first lady is better preparation for office than being mayor of a small town (for example).

[Guy Kilmore]

I do agree that Hillary Clinton is at least as well credentialed as most other Presidential candidates. However, I am very uncomfortable listing "First Lady" by itself as part of those qualifications. While Hillary Clinton was First Lady, her husband gave her some responsibilities which did add to her credentials. But simply being a President's spouse is not in and of itself a credential for being President yourself. I don't think Laura Bush or Michelle Obama having been First Lady is any qualification for them to be President.

I agree with Maithanet it does count for something. If it was the only thing then your concern is valid, but taken in consideration with her other accomplishments it is worthwhile for her to put it on her Resume.

[drawkcabi]

I agree with Maithanet it does count for something. If it was the only thing then your concern is valid, but taken in consideration with her other accomplishments it is worthwhile for her to put it on her Resume.

I also agree.

I also believe it's a matter of being proactive in the environment of first lady. I'd say Michelle Obama, while still not having enough credentials to run for president, is more credentialed than Laura Bush. Hilary Clinton is more credentialed than both.

Nancy Reagan is more credentialed than Barbara Bush or Roslyn Carter. Eleanor Roosevelt was arguably the most credentialed First Lady in history until Hilary Clinton. Clinton only overtakes her because she was a Senator too as well as Secretary of State.

Edith Wilson was also another more credentialed first lady.

[lokisnow]

To be fair to Ted cruz, Obama habitually skipped all controversial senate votes after he announced he was running.

[TrackerNeil]

I think it does. You are around the white house, you have a very good idea of what the job entails and what sorts of tools and approaches the president has at his (or her) disposal. Obviously it's not the greatest of credentials, certainly inferior to something like governor or senator or secretary of state, but it's something. I would say being first lady is better preparation for office than being mayor of a small town (for example).

I agree. It's a valuable insight on the way presidential power works, and I think it deserves consideration.

[Shryke]

To be fair to Ted cruz, Obama habitually skipped all controversial senate votes after he announced he was running.

Was this a controversial vote though? He seems to have no problem stating his opinion on the matter.

[theprincethatwasntpromised]

Clinton's time as Secretary of State should be a disqualifier in it's self. Just look at all the questions being raised right now about it. At best, she was a massive failure as Secretary. There's no debating that.

[awesome possum]

Was this a controversial vote though? He seems to have no problem stating his opinion on the matter.

Yeah, just makes him look spineless to stand there and rail against the choice and then not bother to vote.

Clinton's time as Secretary of State should be a disqualifier in it's self. Just look at all the questions being raised right now about it. At best, she was a massive failure as Secretary. There's no debating that.

LOL

[aceluby]

Clinton's time as Secretary of State should be a disqualifier in it's self. Just look at all the questions being raised right now about it. At best, she was a massive failure as Secretary. There's no debating that.

Are you a sexist and a racist? Just look at the questions being asked right now about it. There's no debating it.

[TerraPrime]

Hungry troll is trolling.

Stop feeding it's ugly mouth.

[theprincethatwasntpromised]

Are you a sexist and a racist? Just look at the questions being asked right now about it. There's no debating it.

Racist? That makes no sense ace.

Sexist? If not supporting Hillary makes me a sexist, then half of your party would fall in there as well. I know these are go to defenses when engaging a conservative, but you could actually try to respond to my post instead of resort to name calling.

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

Racist? That makes no sense ace.

Sexist? If not supporting Hillary makes me a sexist, then half of your party would fall in there as well. I know these are go to defenses when engaging a conservative, but you could actually try to respond to my post instead of resort to name calling.

You missed the boat on this one.

Aceluby is, by way of counterexample, showing you that you're engaged in a logical fallacy.

It's generally known as the "hasty conclusion" but is more colloquially known as the "if there's smoke, there's fire" fallacy. In your argument, you posit that the mere fact that there are "questions being raised" (very passive voice) about Hillary Clinton's term as Secretary of State means that it's a "massive failure" that's beyond debate.

This, of course, is silly. Anyone can ask questions, for any reason, and the answers to those questions may say good or bad things about Hillary's tenure as Secretary of State. The mere fact that someone is "raising questions" - especially when we live in a partisan political climate where ideological mouthpieces are paid by major media organizations to ask these questions - doesn't indicate that Hillary's tenure as Secretary of State was good, bad or neutral. It just means that someone's asking a question. Could be a good question. Could be a bad question. Could have a good answer. Could have a bad answer. But you can't escape actually doing the legwork and making the argument for why you think she did a good job or bad job just because someone, somewhere is asking a question.