Planted questions for Hillary

[Tex]

I don't know why we're even talking about this. Hillary would win in a landslide if the election were held tomorrow. Or so says her campaign.

Ronald Reagan, 1984? Move on over.

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/...007-11-15.html

Am I the only one that gets a chuckle out of this strategy?

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Unchallenged? It hasn't been challenged yet, unless you consider you saying "no- that isn't leadership" to be an actual challenge. She could have been the winning general in a critical battle that saved the nation, and you would retort with "no, that isn't leadership."

How about this: you tell me what leadership is (giving a realistic definition), and give examples. Then I will give you something that Hillary did that falls within your definition.

To say that she doesn't have a "shred of leadership" is as hyperbolic as it gets. I don't believe you could find a single politician alive who doesn't have a "shred of leadership."

She has no significant executive or leadership experience.

She has never been a leading general.

She has never been Vice President.

She has not been the governor of a major or middle tier state.

She has not been Senate Majority Leader.

She has not successfully coached significant legislative reforms.

What evidence of executive experience can you provide?

What evidence of leadership can you provide?

We might make an issue out of foreign policy familiarity. Romney might be weak in this arena, but at least he has lived overseas and is fluent or somewhat fluent in another language and culture.

McCain weak on executive and leadership experience but he has some leading experience in the Senate on foreign affairs.

One issue my lesbian friends had concerned her ability to deal within the Arab world. Bush has not done well, but you are naive if you believe being a woman in the Arab world will not be a detriment. This is the only criticism my friend had of her candidate, Hillary.

In terms of executive, leadership or foreign affairs, Hillary is a dead fish.

Perhaps you like her over-the-top socialism and perhaps it will sell. I sure as heck hope not, but right now she's leading.

It seems politics as amongst friends here is more about emotion and rhetoric. The folks on the left like you are fed up with Bush and conservative economics and believe, naively IMHO, that government solutions are the best solutions no matter the cost. For one, I think you should live in France which is undergoing a revolution under Sarkozy because we see what endless government intervention can do to a society.

However, executive experience should be an important consideration. Demonstration of leadership skills should also be important. Winning a campaign doesn't require those skills, but governing does.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

These are complaints about every single candidate for the presidency now running except for Romney and Huckabee (who are from states that you don't consider as states that provide the necessary leadership experience you would hope for).

And what do you deem to be a "significant legislative reform?" Something you agree with?

You are being pretty selective in determining what type of leadership counts and what doesn't, and you aren't applying the analysis equally to all candidates which leads me to believe you are just reacting emotionally against Hillary and Obama.

You really went out of your way to note that you have a lesbian friend. How is that helpful here? My gay transexual black cousin's roomate's friend likes Hillary.

And no matter how many times you say that a successful president has to have executive leadership, you still haven't shown me any evidence of that at all, nor have you even bothered to explain why the 4 governors since Ford do not rank as the 4 best presidents (which we would expect) since FDR.

Mass is a middle tier state that was in the red but now is in the black. That is significant.

Huckabee's state is less than middle tier so perhaps he's underqualified.

The point is about my friend that even she recognizes Hillary has weaknesses. A supporter acknowledges she may be a liability in this matter. I hadn't even conceived of that criticism.

You tell me what significant legislation we owe to Hillary. I don't know what she's sponsored. Has she sponsored significant trade legislation?

Tax legislation?

Economic regulations?

She tried to ramrail our health care during Bill's presidency and thank you it didn't succeed. I don't want French healthcare.

What strengths does she have other her promise to tax the shit out of us and to give us an even more involved governmentally controlled economy and health care system?

What significant goals does she have for foreign policy? Let me guess, NOT BE BUSH. What a concept. That's the Dem's mantra: "We're not Bush."

Big deal.

But we do want Kyoto accords to raise the price of production here. Great, increased prices.

Increases in prices, decreased production, affirmative action, increased taxes, give over sovereignty to UN and what else?

[Archaea]

Geeze, how could one person sponsor so many shitty ideas. I'm glad not all have become law.

More reasons to hate her. She is so full of shit. We can't afford her.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Archaea: She hasn't sponsored anything. We should hate her for being a bad leader!
Archaea: She has sponsored a lot. We should hate her for sponsoring so many ideas that I don't like!

Excellent analysis. So dispassionate.

She hasn't sponsored that much relative to others, but what she has sponsored is pure shit, and mostly meaningless. Is that better?

If you look at the leaders, you'd find many do much more on more weighty issues. Some of her stuff is feel-good fluff.

Translation: by not sponsoring anything but shit, you haven't sponsored anything. And the quantity is not impressive. What is impressive is for a lack of quantity, she also has a distinctive lack of quality. You knew that and are simply dodging the issue that she hasn't done much and what she has done is not meaningful.