Why Hillary Clinton is Clearly Qualfied to be President
 

Some on this board have asked for a summary of why Hillary Clinton is clearly the best qualified person in the Democrat Party to become President of the US. I accept the challenge.

Hillary has many qualifications… too numerous to list. I will simply give you five. No doubt others can provide many more.

1. People Skills. A President must be able to relate to people, especially the “little people”. Hillary’s skills are unsurpassed. Many examples can be found from people who know her best and as reported in Ron Kessler’s book “First Family Detail.” “She is so nasty to agents that being assigned to her detail is considered a form of punishment,” “She claims to be a champion of the little people, and she's going to help the middle class. And, in fact, she treats these people around her, [who] would lay down their lives for her like sub-humans; and I think voters need to consider that.” She also apparently shouts a lot, throws dishes when angry, and can not stand to see anyone in a military uniform around her.

2. Courage Under Fire. Hillary came under heavy sniper fire as First Lady, but she showed courage and was an inspiration to those who were with her. Here’s a video which captured the moment.
Hillary Clinton dodges sniper fire in Bosnia - raw footage - Video Clinton says she 'misspoke' about sniper fire - CNN.com

3. Foreign Policy. Any President must be able to defend the Country. As Secretary of State, Hillary excelled. She managed to get an Ambassador killed during a predictable terrorist attack, and then through a series of further bungles, caused the formation of ISIS (with some credit to her boss at the time.) which increasingly dominates the Middle East. In any event, even Rube Republicans will quickly agree the world is a much safer place thanks to her service.

4. Feminist. Hillary sets the bar high for young girls to emulate. She is loathe to benefit from a “man’s” (such as a husband) power or reputation, and we all know she would still be a contender even if she had never married Bill Clinton. Hillary loves her fellow women which is why she hunted down and destroyed scores of women who slept with her husband … all of whom were put up to it by Right Wing fanatics.

5. Anti-Wall Street. It’s important to keep the big money out of the White House, and Hillary is a known foe of the bankers on Wall Street, even putting Elizabeth Warren to shame in this regard. She is also loathe to profit off the Clinton name and refuses to accept extortionate fees for speaking at universities or engage in unseemly campaign fund raising. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/15/op...dogs.html?_r=0

DO not know who you are GUEST, but you are going to drive some posters insane with this :)

Well done

No we expect it from the tea partiers here. Nothing less!

And others here expect nothing to be posted to counter the credentials described by the OP Guest.

Lol!...
 

those aren't qualifications...those are liberal personality traits...as for anti-wall street...oh good be against the people who make money who keep people like you receiving money....smart move....

Wow!

WOW!

Some people are so creative with their imagination. :1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:


Other than an ever-increasing body count, Hillary's resume is quite thin:

THE CLINTON BODY-COUNT

Is this a joke? or is the guest serious?

Sadly serious, but the OP forgets that the next election will be about issues, not personalities.

Most unintelligent thread on this forum, and that is a HUGE accomplishment.

Actually, you're off target in the sense that you refer to it as "personality"

The character of any President is crucial, as most recently exampled by the current incumbent's lack thereof.

Hillary Clinton's character is sadly lacking, and I think the examples I cited make that beyond reasonable dispute. I invite you to respond with evidence or examples to the contrary regarding her character (not her resume, most of which would not apply had her last name been anything other than Clinton)

Most unimaginative reply I've seen on TOTV in quite a while ...

:1rotfl:

This is from about 2/3 weeks ago


"On today’s Morning Joe on MSNBC, the panel was discussing Mitt Romney’s perceived problem regarding connecting with middle-class voters, were he to run for president next year.

But Joe Scarborough turned the discussion around to focus on the Democrats’ top contender:

“Her friends are at Davos, her friends are at Goldman Sachs. I mean, Hillary Clinton, when she said we’re not really that rich — do you know why she said that? Because everybody she hangs out with are billionaires.”
But just prior to that statement, Scarborough dropped a literary reference:

“Hillary Clinton has just as many billionaire friends, and has led over the past 25 years the most elite, the most insular, the most Gatsby-like existence of any person in the political world today.”

"Scarborough’s point is pretty clear: that Clinton’s recent lifestyle – punctuated by lucrative speaking fees - will present just as many challenges to her candidacy as it would for Romney when it comes to identifying with “the bottom 99%” of U.S. voters.

When Hillary Clinton was drawing a salary as the U.S. Secretary of State from 2009 to 2013, her taxpayer-funded income would have placed her in the top 10% of Americans. Clinton also hit the speaker circuit after leaving her federal post, and earned a jaw-dropping $12 million in the next 16 months.

If that figure were prorated as an annual income of $9 million, it would put Clinton squarely in the top .1% income-bracket category – and not very far from the top .01% richest people in the nation.

It certainly didn’t help that Clinton uttered her famous “dead broke” line in an interview last year. If she officially tosses her hat in to the presidential ring, you can bet that those comments will get as much attention as Romney’s ill-fated “47%” quips did in 2012.

https://www.ijreview.com/2015/01/237...d-high-school/

Ms Clinton is not a shoo in even for the nomination

Believe it or not, this is from the KOREA HERALD.....KOREA...

"f this NBC news anchor thing doesn’t work out for Brian Williams, I’ve got the perfect job for the guy:

Hillary Clinton’s press secretary.

Or better yet, as the New Commander McBragg.

The problem is that Commander McBragg is a cartoon character from the old Tennessee Tuxedo cartoon show that no one remembers. Tennessee was a penguin. Chumley was the big, fat, stupid walrus.

And McBragg was a British colonel, who would brag and brag about his war exploits, making this a perfect character for Williams to play, except, again, this business about McBragg being a cartoon.

Williams is only turning into a cartoon. He isn’t a full-fledged cartoon, yet.

So Hillary’s press secretary it is.

Can’t you just picture them, Hill and Bri, holding court in a hotel bar on the campaign trail, regaling reporters with their crazy (yet completely untrue) war stories?

Clinton can retell her lie about how she braved snipers in Bosnia, perhaps throwing in a fake laugh or two, the devil-may-care laugh of beret-wearing French resistance fighters in bad movies.

Her eyes crinkle just so and the high-pitched cackle is released and you just know it’s sincere.

[John Kass] Brian Williams, Hillary Clinton should swap war stories

Joe Scarborough ....... scarborough - isn't he one of those Cons who predicted a landslide win for Romney. His credibility is zero.

Scarborough is as politically astute as that failed 1/2 governor from Alaska.

"I don’t normally like to comment on other people’s polls, but sometimes we all do things we don’t like to do. So today my attention is drawn to a Drudge Report headline that reads: SHOCK POLL: WARREN LEADS CLINTON IN IOWA AND NEW HAMPSHIRE. Remember the game, “Made Ya Look”? I did.

The polls in question were conducted by the very reputable online firm named YouGov, which polls for among others, The Economist. Having been engaged in online polling since 1999, I am a big fan of YouGov and the future of our industry. Their clients were two progressive groups, Democracy for America and MoveOn.org. The results actually show that if the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary were held today, Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren would not defeat former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in either state. Instead, the poll reveals that certain traits and policy positions that Sen. Warren represents could defeat Clinton.

Is that news? Absolutely. Is it accurate? No doubt. This is a very legitimate form of polling. We do it all the time at Zogby Analytics. To be good at what we do, we not only seek to discover what presently exists, but what could happen under certain circumstances. Like Wayne Gretsky who once noted in an interview that his edge over others was because he not only followed where the puck actually was on the ice, but anticipated where it should be next.

.........

"So the YouGov poll tells us a lot. As the poll sponsors tell us:

The results show that, after likely caucus goers and primary voters learn about Elizabeth Warren’s biography and issue positions, not only do a stunning 79 percent say they want her to run, but, in both states, Warren ends up leading all other potential Democratic candidates in a head-to-head ballot question.

And:

After respondents hear about Warren’s positions and biography, without any negative information provided about other candidates, Elizabeth Warren leads all other candidates for the nomination in both states: 31 percent to 24 percent over Hillary Clinton in Iowa (with other potential candidates further behind) and 30 percent to 27 percent in New Hampshire.

Make no mistake, this is a big story. At the very least, Clinton is going to have to work for the nomination. At most, Democratic voters in these two key states may be already looking for an option. But the real story is that the challenger is going to have to execute a pitch perfect campaign – and that is the hard part."

Can Elizabeth Warren Beat Hillary Clinton? Beware Of 'Shock Polls' - Forbes

This is very relative and certainly interesting.

:1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

I think the OP nailed it. I do not need to see Bitchy. I have seen enough retaliation from the POTUS since the November election.

When you are president of this great company you aren't supposed to plan revenge against the opposing party. You are supposed to take advice from your staff, consult with experts, take it to Congress, and keep calm and carry on.

Whoops. Meant president of this great country. Not being able to edit is a downer.

"What difference does it make"?

I will never forget the day I asked Hillary if she was all right! She looked exhausted!! If looks could kill, believe me, I would be dead! I was told later (by a reliable source that I trust) that there was probably another reason for it.

I met the Secret Service Agent who is referenced in point #1 and mentioned in the referenced book . As he said to me while standing in his driveway : " You have to be willing to lay down your life and make your wife a widow and your children fatherless . I quickly concluded that I could not do so for this person but I would have done so for anyone of the Bush family " .

Also I had dealings directly with Sen. Clinton and members of her senior staff . I`ll just leave it at that . On the other hand I also had many dealings directly with Sen. Schumer and his staff .
I never met a harder working public servant and a better staff than Sen. Schumer and his staff .

This is the biggest bunch of BS yet. Secret Service agents don't get to choose who they want to protect based on politics or personality. They either do the job they were hired to do or find other employment.

I'm afraid you are missing the point again... Read the book and open your eyes about Hillary. She is apparently a genuine shrew, and in my opinion, actually somewhat imbalanced based on the reports of the people who see her up close and personal, vs the polished media version.

The agents are also quite complimentary about Obama on a personal level (ie decent guy) and especially so regarding the two girls being polite and well mannered.

Here's a link to the book on Amazon: (click the icon)

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/First-Family-Detail-Service-Presidents/dp/0804139210/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1424223540&sr=1-1&keywords=first+family+detail]The First Family Detail: Secret Service Agents Reveal the Hidden Lives of the Presidents: Ronald Kessler: 9780804139212: Amazon.com: Books[/ame]

One big qualification was left out: She can support and promote the entitlement mentality as well or better than any other candidate.

Yesiree I can see it now....if you think you have had it good the last 8 years (barf) wait until I get in office....then you will know you are being taken care of every day........:$:

If by entitlement mentality you mean Hilary will protect Social Security and Medicare, I say bring it on. This is so much better than the republican plan to privatize social security and turn medicare into a voucher plan; see Ryan budget.

No one is opposed to SS or Medicare so stop waving that bogeyman flag.

However, food stamps doubling on Obama's watch, giving benefits and even tax rebates to illegal aliens etc ... maybe even a liberal can begin to recognize excess?

We're broke ... wake up and try to be adult about it. We need a balanced budget amendment ... with an emphasis on spending reductions.

Some day those who view SS as an entitlement need to please tell us why they think that.

When I draw money from my savings at the bank would that be called an entitlement as well?

Of course not. They both contain my money.

I suppose there is an stretch ambiguity.......it is my money and I am entitled to it.....very, VERY strectch

This list needs to have at least one more qualification added to it—integrity.

A President MUST have integrity … people have to know in their gut POTUS is honest, trustworthy and can be counted on to do the right thing, most especially when in a dark room and when no one is watching. Thus, Hilary Clinton clearly qualifies yet again.

While it’s true she’s had a problem with her emails lately, ( Hillary Clinton used private e-mail for government business at State Dept. - The Washington Post ), and while anyone who has ever worked in DC knows it’s the law that all “official records” must be kept otherwise it’s a felony, this is not a big deal. The reason is Hillary oozes with integrity, going back to the beginnings of her career, and she loves the people, is always wanting to do things to them, and because of her special status, these laws were never meant to apply to her even if technically they do.

Another perfect example of her unquestionable integrity has to do with the Clinton Foundation. Concerns over Gulf donations to Clinton Foundation as Hillary mulls 2016 race - Politics & Economics - ArabianBusiness.com
No one, except the rabid right wing conservative wingnuts, who are easily unhinged by the despicable faux news, really sees a problem here. Ok, so she’s Secretary of State, and at the same time, in effect soliciting “donations” from foreign governments at the same time. BFD! Hillary has the people’s interests at heart, has great intentions (it’s a charity after all) and thus is immune to such small minded criticism. Just look at her track record dating back to Arkansas, and shut up already.

In sum, Hillary 2016 –we are accepting donations today, with a minimum gift of $100,000.

I am not a big fan of oblique or indirect or between the lines messaging, but this one is a prize winner.....the only thing left out is what I consider to be her identifying comment on how she thinks (or does not).......

'WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE?"

Please respond with the question to which Sec. Clinton asked "What difference does it make?". Looking forward to your reply. Doubt if you know, though.

A poster said a president must have integrity. Well, George "Weasel" lacked that trait completely as did his puppet master, Cheney.

That's a classic!

:1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

I will never understand why some just have to always, ALWAYS spew a negative snipe. You have absolutely no grounds to doubt whether one knows or not. Very rude and derogatory and now I'll do it....as if you care!

Anyway here is the answer; to get the perspective it goes back to more than just the question. So here is the dialogue starting with Johnsons question ultimately leading to her what difference does it make response:

Johnson: But, Madame Secretary, do you disagree with me that a simple phone call to those evacuees to determine what happened wouldn’t have ascertained immediately that there was no protest? That was a piece of information that could have been easily, easily obtained?

Clinton: But, Senator, again—

Johnson: Within hours, if not days?

Clinton: Senator, you know, when you’re in these positions, the last thing you want to do is interfere with any other process going on, number one—

Johnson: I realize that’s a good excuse.

Clinton: Well, no, it’s the fact. Number two, I would recommend highly you read both what the ARB said about it and the classified ARB because, even today, there are questions being raised. Now, we have no doubt they were terrorists, they were militants, they attacked us, they killed our people. But what was going on and why they were doing what they were doing is still unknown --

Johnson: No, again, we were misled that there were supposedly protests and that something sprang out of that -- an assault sprang out of that -- and that was easily ascertained that that was not the fact, and the American people could have known that within days and they didn’t know that.

Clinton: With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided that they’d they go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, Senator. Now, honestly, I will do my best to answer your questions about this, but the fact is that people were trying in real time to get to the best information. The IC has a process, I understand, going with the other committees to explain how these talking points came out. But you know, to be clear, it is, from my perspective, less important today looking backwards as to why these militants decided they did it than to find them and bring them to justice, and then maybe we’ll figure out what was going on in the meantime.

Now that I have passed the security question may I procede?

This is a classic post by someone who has no intentions what so ever to carry on a legitimate discussion. Starting with the challenging "I doubt it" snipe. And then the other classic of name calling. ANd the referral to George Bush adds what value?

It is either follow the party or get ready for the discourteous catharsis. No added value to the discussion.

A don't engage candidate!

Personally I am waiting for someone to spin this email scandal. As of now not one dem has tried to defend these actions. And she of course has yet to respond, but at some point I would think she would have to. I hope her response isn't "What difference at this point does it make".

Well one difference is, according to one of the (illegally maintained private emails recently discovered ) HRC knew it was a terrorist attack within 4 minutes. No biggie because even a village idiot could figure that out

What Hillary Clinton possesses is name recognition only. Hillary has not even opened her campaign officially and we already have deep and disturbing problems with the Clinton Foundation which was accepting money from Qatar and Algeria and god knows who else while Secretary of State, and during that time exclusively used only private e-mails subjecting her to cyber spying by our enemies. Recall The Riadas, Johnny Chung, Travelgate, the vanish Rose Law Firms billing records, a killing in cattle futures, the Marc Rich pardon.

Hillary pushed the reset with Russia and Hillary said after four American were murdered n Benghazi "what difference does it make. Hillary traveled exclusively while Secretary of State on the dole and did nothing but unethically feather her nest for a run once again for president. Its one thing to be an opportunist its quick another to do it taking ethical shortcuts and leaving a trail of controversies in your wake. Simply stated the Clintons are master manipulators who can't hide how greedy they really are.

As an side I believe the next president must possess great political courage, impeccable reputation free from scandal, highly ethical, intestinal fortitude, time served in the military and a uniter.

Unfortunately the Democrats only hope is Hillary purely because of name recognition. The Republicans are also hurting for a quality candidate.

I did believe that of all the candidates thus far Mitt Romney at least demonstrated high ethics and morality, an proven leadership ability a way to turn this non responsive economy around and he was correct on many of the foreign issues that arose in the last election. Perhaps America missed an opportunity. I do pray that voters become more serious and more engaged in this election skipping the headlines and digging into the details of candidates promises

Yes, you are right. I do not really care.

However, you did get the question right. Sec. Clinton was saying it does not make a difference if our men were killed by protesters or by plan. We just have to make sure it does not happen again.

It is my belief that many of the uninformed masses think Sec. Clinton believed that it made no difference that 4 men were killed that night - by using that one phrase, "What difference at this point does it make?".

I will say something similar. At this point in time, what difference does it make? Hillary Clinton will be YOUR next President of the USA. :coolsmiley:

You obviously do not have a choice as she is the presumed dem candidate. And for thos who are party is all that matters oriented, your choice is made for you. And if she bombs out like she did in 2008 you will be touting whoever it is that survives the fallout like Obama did. So there is no assurance she has the candidate of the party's choice locked up....no different than 2008.

What I think the dems have going against them in 2016?
Hillary Clinton's past.
Obama's past.
I personally do not believe the dems will carry the same following as in 2008 and 2012 regarding blacks and hispanics. The one's who are not in line for hand outs or dedicated to a black candidate are not exactly jumping for joy art Clinton.
Add to that the large percentage of republicans who satyed home in 2008 and 2012 will not dare do so again after seeing what doing has done to the politics of this country and the world.

Just to embellish a couple of points of significance that did not exist in the previous two elections.

Clinto just like 2008 will be over shadowed by somebody that is more current and perhaps respected than she is. She is nothing more than politics as usual.
Another lawyer who knows how to use, abuse or hide behind the law. And only understands one language "Clinton Politics".

Remember back in 2006/2007...she was the shoe in dem candidate....and then out of no where (literally) a total unkown from Illinois was able to knock her off her perch. And given all the controversy and past and not to mention no qualifications that clouded him .........he did it.

She is MORE vulnerable this time from both sides of the aisle.
She brings nothing new to the party and only politics as usual.

I think a lot of we the people (that is a non party specific group) have had just about enough of that!