Hillary Clinton lacks experience.

[calteacherguy]

She lacks the necessary experience in community organizing, growing up as a minority, living in a foreign culture, constitutional scholarhip and teaching, and forcefully opposing the worst foreign policy blunder in American history. Additionaly, she participated in unwisely ceeding important constitutional powers of the legislative branch to the President.

It is a President's duty first and formost to defend the constitution of the United States. She just isn't experienced enough to be President.

[ElizabethDC]

1. So Obama is the only one with the requisite experience, then?

Of all presidents ever?

[liberalnurse]

5. Obama , Edwards, Biden all have

external genitalia verses Hillary's internal genitalia, thus that gives her less opportunity visit the community at large on a personal basis.:scared:

[earthlover]

51. Interesting theory, but it doesn't explain much of anything!

So what if Hillary is female? If she were MALE....would we vote for HIM if he supported the Iraq War, refused to admit this was a mistake, voted for the BK bill, buddy-buddied up with Fox-Owner Murdoch, talked out of both sides of his mouth, triangulated, said nukes were on the table and criticized willingness to talk with our enemies?

I think some of Hillary's supporters follow her because they think because she is female she would be better. When they realize that she is just as "male" as the worst of them...they will drop her like old news.

[calteacherguy]

17. Did someone say that?

I'm just breakin' down Hillary's favorite meme...much like Obama has been doing.

As it gets chipped away more and more, watch what happens to her poll numbers. This notion that she's the most "experienced" candidate (and the implications of that, such as being the most equipped to handle a terrorist attack, stand up to the Republicans, etc.) is built on quicksand.

[ElizabethDC]

19. Pretty much. The "necessary experience" you cited

pretty much implied that this necessary experience was only posessed by Obama, since he's the one who fulfills all your requirements.

[calteacherguy]

21. Well, we all have our own requirements.

I think experience with foreign cultures, community organizing, and a deep understanding of the constitution are very good experiences for a future President.

Surely you understand the use of a rhetorical device. And I never said, "of all Presidents, ever."

[ElizabethDC]

29. It's the word "necessary" that I'm a bit hung up on

See, it's logical to infer that if this specific experience is necessary , then none of our presidents have ever been qualified.

Surely you understand inferences.

[calteacherguy]

35. Yes, you have a point

but I think I've made mine. Like I said, a rhetorical device...

Who has the best kinds of life experiences as a prerequisite to the Presidency is a matter of opinion, not fact.

As far as the kind of experience I'm looking for in a Presidential resume, Obama has more of it than Hillary.

[DURHAM D]

2. You forgot to hit the sarcasm button. eom

[calteacherguy]

3. I wasn't being sarcastic. nt

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[calteacherguy]

14. What did I say that wasn't true? Be specific.

Using my criteria for experience, she lacks it. You are entitled to your own criteria, I suppose.

In any case, I've made my point.

[Clintonista2]

80. Umm ok... she lacks experience "growing up as a minority"

I thought women were still a minority? I'm still hoping your OP was supposed to be sarcastic... if it truly wasn't, then maybe you should take a look at this thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3480059&mesg_id=3480059

[durrrty libby]

18. Heehee

:toast: :rofl: :yourock:

[John Q. Citizen]

67. Who rocks? The ain't no there there....n/t

[wyldwolf]

4. Did you miss April fool's day?

[calteacherguy]

6. No joke. nt

[John Q. Citizen]

11. She dropped the health care ball, so promote her. She didn't even guess bush

was a lying sack of shit or that bill might not be telling the truth about Monica.

I'd hate to see what she would believe if she had to negotiate with a foreign power.

I don't know if Obama would be any better, but I can't imagine he would be more naive than Hill.

[wyldwolf]

50. no she didn't.

:shrug:

[John Q. Citizen]

60. So we agree. She was suckered by bush and Bill.

[wyldwolf]

62. no, we disagree. She DID NOT drop the healtchcare ball

[John Q. Citizen]

65. Yes she did. She had the majority of the electorate behind her, then her

decision to hold her meetings in secret, cut out most NGOs who had been pushing for reform, and to write a super complex bill that included the insurers gave the insurers time to effectively sabotage her efforts.

It was a learning curve for her, and by the time she figured it out, it was too late. The insurers certainly suckered her, big time.

kind of sounds like a pattern....


edited to add. - Of course, now she is one of the largest recipients of the Heathcare industries money, so I imagine she will get us all the reform the insurors and big pharma will allow, if she becomes the next President.

[wyldwolf]

68. No she didn't. The GOP worked against it night and day and the Dems capitulated...

...even the "proooogreeesssiiiivvveeesss" ones.

Conservatives, libertarians, and the insurance industry staged a campaign against the "Health Security" plan and criticized it as being overly bureaucratic and restrictive of patient choice.<10> The effort included extensive advertising criticizing the plan, including the famous Harry and Louise ad paid for by the Health Insurance Association of America, which depicted a middle-class couple despairing over the plan's supposed complex, bureaucratic nature.<3><11> Time, CBS News, CNN, the Wall Street Journal and the Christian Science Monitor ran stories questioning whether there really was a health-care crisis.<12> Op-eds were written against it, including one in The Washington Post by University of Virginia Professor Martha Derthick that said:
“ In many years of studying American social policy, I have never read an official document that seemed so suffused with coercion and political naivete ... with its drastic prescriptions for controlling the conduct of state governments, employers, drug manufacturers, doctors, hospitals and you and me.<13> ”

U.S. Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan qualified his agreement that "there is no health care crisis" by stating "there is an insurance crisis" but also indicated "anyone who thinks can work in the real world as presently written isn't living in it."<14> Meanwhile, Democrats, instead of uniting behind the President's original proposal, offered a number of competing plans of their own. Some criticized the plan from the left, preferring a Canadian-style single payer system.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillarycare

[John Q. Citizen]

69. Yes, she cut out most of the NGOs who had been working for years on healthcare

reform, in her secrect meetings. And many of the insurors who she let into the meetings suckered her.

By the way, Wikipedia isn't exactly the height of reliable.

[wyldwolf]

72. oh. so she hurt the left's tender feelings, so they helped doom the health care plan

[John Q. Citizen]

76. It was a politically naive move on Hill's part. But getting suckered by the insurers she appeased

was even more amature and politically humiliating.

Now the Health Insurance industsry and big pharma are giving her more money than almost anyone, so I'm sure if she gets the big payoff we will get all the reform the health care complex will allow.

[Adelante]

7. Oh, Jesus, God

They both have experience in different ways.

[wyldwolf]

9. I think this calls for a copycat thread

[calteacherguy]

13. Even if you make a copycat thread...

I've proven my point. :-)

[emilyg]

61. Bull hiney - no you haven't.

[DURHAM D]

15. Before you go please post her full resume here.

Seems like a good time to do a little educatin'.

[calteacherguy]

16. I'm familiar with Hillary's resume.

Does it include all of the experience I noted in the OP? If not, then don't tell me she's more "experienced."

Edit: That was a rhetorical question, obviously.

[DURHAM D]

42. I doubt you are familiar with her resume and

it is clear you know nothing about recent history. Your suggestion that he grew, but she did not grow up, as a minority is drivel. You seem not to know that the institutionalized and entrenched prejudice against women with regard to opportunities like college admissions, professional school admission, equal pay for equal work, access to certain jobs, etc. was just as hardened against females as against any other group. I could go on for pages.

That prejudice and denial of access is part of my personal history and a part of Senator Clinton's personal history as we are approximately the same age. Stop and think - you, like Obama, don't know what you don't know.

[Alamom]

46. Bravo ! Well said. eom

[earthlover]

53. Yup..and Hillary doesn't know what it means to be poor or black or middle class....

[Ethelk2044]

96. I am sorry, but I am a minority. A woman does not experience the kind of prejudice an African

American experiences. It comes no where near it. For someone to state that Hillary is a minority because she is a woman is absolutely absurd. Not one African American will agree with you on that one. Yes, women want equal pay. However, they are not turned down for a job just because of their skin color. She does not get by passed on an interview just because of her name.

[muntrv]

8. Kucinich and Richardson have way more experience than Hillary. Also

they're the only ones calling for immediate withdrawal from Iraq.

[calteacherguy]

10. Excellent point. Thank you. nt

[cui bono]

20. I would say she lacks ethics more than experience. eom

[paulk]

22. pretty subjective criteria there

good luck with finding a candidate.

oh - growing up as a woman might fit the "minority" thing.. ... just a thought.

and I don't know about you, but as a northeastern boy, the first time I ever travelled to the deep south (arkansas?), it sure seemed like a foreign culture...

[calteacherguy]

24. Of course. That's my point.

What constitutes the best "experience" to be President is open to debate and opinion.

[msongs]

23. hmmm, if you didnt grow up as a minority you're not fit to be president??

"She lacks the necessary experience in community organizing, growing up as a minority..."

Msongs
www.msongs.com

[calteacherguy]

26. I am using a rhetorical device to make a point.

I would add that I think the experiences a future President would have growing up as a minority would serve the country well, in my opinion.

[saracat]

25. Hmm . I am no Clinton fan but , she did do community organizing in college, she taught constitutiona...

as a woman she has experienced the discrimination of a minority group, she has certainly experienced foreign culture by traveling all over the world and she certainly is not alone in the Senate in casting a wrong vote.She has just as much experience as anyone you might put forward who did not cast that vote. This is a really silly manufactured argument.
I do not support Hillary but I do not need to manufacture reasons not to.

[calteacherguy]

28. A few points.

Gender discrimation is not the same as racial discrimination, traveling is not the same as living in, and I don't believe she has done as much community organizing as Obama, or taught constitutional law.

My point is, every candidate brings their own unique experiences in life to the table. And the case that Hillary is struggling to make that she is the one with the most experience is a matter of opinion, not fact.

[Adelante]

33. "Gender discrimation is not the same as racial discrimination"

How so?

[calteacherguy]

55. Different experiences.

Growing up, Hillary did not experience the kind of hatred Obama experienced from an early age. I doubt her friends were told not to play with her because she was a girl.

I'm not making light of gender discrimination. It's awful, but they are different experiences and it's our history of racial discrimination that has torn this country apart to the greatest degree.

[saracat]

36. She taught constitutional Law when she first moved to Arkansas.

She taught at the same law school Bill Clinton taught constitutional law at.You do not "have to believe it. And being a woman in law school in her generation WAS being part of a "minority group". My mother graduated from law school in the 40's and it was even worse than what Hillary was to experience later, but Hillary was still part of a minority.Many female lawyers of her generation, as well as doctors and engineers, had a very difficult time.And I am also sure Hillary is much better informed by her "travels" and conversations with "statesman" , than a child who barely would remember his experiences abroad.I do not know whether Hillary ever "lived" in another country, so I did not include it.You seem to be sure she didn't, but then you didn't know she "taught" constitutional law.Whatever. She is not my choice. Believe what you want

[calteacherguy]

38. Interesting, I did not know that.

But I still think overall Obama has the better resume. Hillary loses points big time for teaching constitutional law and still voting for the IWR, for starters. Clearly, she did not learn from her education and experience...at least in that most important case.

Just another exampmle of judgment being important than experience.

[DURHAM D]

45. Only a man would say that gender discrimination is not

the same as racial discrimination with full confidence. Your opinion on that issues is uninformed.

[calteacherguy]

54. It's absolutely not the same.

Both are terrible, but they are not the same.

[saracat]

70. I agree Durham D!

[calteacherguy]

77. I don't

Are you suggesting when Hillary was a little girl little boys were told not to play with her?

[Adelante]

37. I totally agree, saracat

I'm not a Clinton supporter, either, but this argument is hogwash. Clinton and Obama are two different people each with their own political credentials.

[calteacherguy]

41. I agree with you.

"Clinton and Obama are two different people each with their own political credentials."

That's the point I'm trying to make. Saying one or the other has more "experience" is a value judgment. I think I've clearly expressed my values.

[cd3dem]

64. people can decide who has the experience they value

I am not sure what your point was earlier about discrimination and what it is like to grow up female or black, but I will tell you women/girls are the target of discrimination every day! I don't think any man has the right to comment on what it is like to grow up as a female. I actually think it is worse today to be a woman than a black man as far as discrimination goes and the limitations women face. Obama probably never worried about being sexually assaulted or was ever told that he didn't need to take math and science. People would never question a black man about his stand on equal rights, but people do not hesitate to call feminists - man-haters and lesbians. If you are a strong woman, like Hillary, people will criticize you and call you the B word.

[calteacherguy]

78. Actually, I do have a right to comment.

There's this thing called freedom of speech in the Constitution. You make points about gender discrimination I agree with, but I don't agree it's anywhere near equal to the damage done by racial discrimination in our history.

[cd3dem]

92. and you have the right to sound like an ass!!!!!

I have been sexually assaulted in my home by a stranger.... experienced domestic assault to the point of going to the emergency ward.... and been dismissed from a professional job because I was told I was a "feminist" and "not right" for the position by my boss.... and I live in middle class America and am VERY careful!!!! you have no clue what it is like to be a woman!!! you have the right to say what ever you want and you have the right to sound like an ass!!!!!

[EST]

27. K & R

I find it a little annoying that people who defend Hillary are so deeply emotionally involved that they - as a rule, not necessarily all of them - attack anyone who does not share their fondness for her, rather than finding out why one does not care for her as a presidential candidate.

For several reasons, which I shan't go into in this post, I don't like her. She's perfectly fine as New York's junior senator, but as a presidential candidate, not so much. I have championed her in many things and defended her ever since she came on the national stage. I was even in favor of her candidacy in '04, '05 and somewhat last year, however, the better I get to know her, the less I like the prospect.

Expect some annoyed people to post here and check your NOMEX. Make sure it hasn't been over-laundered.

[illinoisprogressive]

30. Oh, but everyone thinks being a first lady is real experience....ha.

[Adelante]

31. I think it is

If you're Hillary Clinton or Eleanor Roosevelt. For somebody who makes something of it politically, it is real experience.

[ElizabethDC]

32. Well said, WesDem. n/t

[emilyg]

63. Excellent point.

[wyldwolf]

34. Obama thinks it is!

:shrug:

[calteacherguy]

40. All life experience is, well, experience.

The relative worth of particular life experiences is a value judgment, and judgment is more important than experience.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

39. When will Obama supporters realize they cannot win the experience battle?

Why?

Obama resume: 2 years of experience

That is all most Americans will look at. Obama really needs to stop playing on this issue and shift to friendlier terrain,.

[wyldwolf]

43. for the last three presidential cycles where the demnom was in play, it's always been sad...

...watching the supporters of the "outsider progressive" candidate stare dumbfounded as the primaries kick in when their guy starts losing. They're always an echo chamber to themselves and think anyone who thinks differently is totally clueless. But then reality is a bitch when Iowa and New Hampshire rolls around.

[calteacherguy]

47. I don't think anyone who thinks differently than me is clueless. nt

[earthlover]

59. your analogy is pathetic....Deann was viewed as the inevitable nominee going into Iowa...

Just like Hillary is now....

Iowa proved that candidates like Dean...and Hillary...are not inevitable.

[wyldwolf]

66. your reply is even more pathetic. Dean was BEHIND going into Iowa

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=781

[earthlover]

85. Read your own poll, already!

Yours was a Zogby daily tracking poll. Just two days prior, Dean was ahead. Kerry came from behind just days before the Iowa Caucus.

Before that Dean had been in the lead. Actually, he had been battling Clark in national polls, and Clark was giving him competition in the polls. However, in the media, Dean was cast as the leader all the way.

Kerry's last minute surge proved that early polls are not the determining factor of who is gonna win. Which is my point, by the way.
Applying that to Hillary, well she is not inevitable.

[wyldwolf]

88. And I did. And here's more

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2001839214_iowa18.html
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-118502758.html

[earthlover]

90. You are incredible. Read ALL THREE of your articles!!!! Holy SXXT@!

Dean was considered to be the front runner all through fall, and even through December. Clark was at his heels, but the media made it sound like Dean was the only one.

Then, a few days before Iowa...as noted by your posts....Kerry surged forward. He wasn't in the running before. He had to friggin re-mortgage his mansion to keep in the race, and he bet it all on Iowa!

Fact is...until the last few days before Iowa, Dean was considered the front runner. Now...let's take a bit of reality now and look at the calandar. It is still August. About this time in 04 Clark entered the race. ANd it was between Clark and Dean through December. Kerry was back in the pack. He was polling in single digits in New Hampshire before Iowa.

So, I know you are itching to say that Hillary is already the inevitable nominee. But 04 certainly contradicts such a HUUUUUGE presumption.

She is ahead now. I guess in March we will know more clearly.

But, although it may be enjoyable discussing things....when you try to re-write history and tell me what i saw with my own eyes wasn't true...well, that takes the cake. Can't you just vote for Hillary without being so?

[draft_mario_cuomo]

73. Why the desperate need for a "savior"? That is the root of the blind faith imo nt

[calteacherguy]

44. Again I ask you, as in the OTHER thread.

What do you mean by two years of experience?

[AtomicKitten]

48. it means they can't count

He was in the Illinois State Senate from 1997 to 2004.
U.S. Senate from 2004 to the present.

That's 7 + 2 = 9 years in office.

[calteacherguy]

49. Oh, so they mean time spent in political office? Why is that important?

Most Americans can't stand career politicians. Wouldn't it be better to have a candidate who has spent less time in political office, anyway? Wait a minute, hasn't Hillary spent less time in politcal office than Obama?

Folks really, really confuse me with their convoluted logic sometimes.

Also, if they mean time spent in political office then why do they use the word "experience?" When I last looked in the dictionary, time spent in political office was not the definition of "experience."

Obama has 46 years of experience, and better judgment to boot.

[AtomicKitten]

56. word

and bless you for your clarity

[Raejeanowl]

71. What?

If you're implying that Obama's entire life as an African American (minority) should be weighed toward his qualifications to be President, I have to vote with the posters who don't agree that this is inherently more valuable than Senator Clinton's (not to be ungallant, more extensive)life experience as a FEMALE.

Last time I checked, the Civil Rights Act passed. The ERA didn't. (I'll give a cigar-oops, sorry, Mrs. Clinton-to anyone who remembers what decisive state it failed in). Tacit discrimination against women continues to be tolerated to this day.

[earthlover]

86. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 passed....it prohibited discrimination on basis of sex OR race!

So your dichotomy between the Civil Rights Act and the ERA is a bit off. The Civil Rights ACT was a law, while the ERA was an amendment. It is against the law to discriminate on the basis of sex in many areas. It just is not an amendment.

I hate to be picky, but the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was not just about race. Civil rights means rights for all, and it specifically mentioned sex.

[Raejeanowl]

89. Is It That Simple?

Yes, we know that one passed and one didn't and STILL hasn't; that's part of my point.

As to your assertions - the CRA of 1964 did not reference sex in ALL of it's (limited) chapters, and was itself an AMENDMENT to the U.S. Code referencing the Civil Rights Act of 1957. The ERA, when it passes as a Constitutional Amendment (and may it do so in my lifetime), will indeed also carry the full force and effect of law.

Read the following article and more at the website before you decide what the "dichotomy" is. You will see examples of how women's rights are still being earned (and sometimes lost) on a case-by-case basis in the courts, or haphazardly in state legislatures that have stepped up to the plate since the 1972 version failed to be ratified, because no single federal law preempts the argument; whereas men's - including African American men's - rights are legally assumed to be immutable in all quarters.

Aren’t there already enough legal prohibitions of sex discrimination – the Equal Pay Act, Title VII and Title IX of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, Supreme Court decisions based on the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause, and more? Why are there still people saying, as Alice Paul did in 1923, "We shall not be safe until the principle of equal rights is written into the framework of our government"?

The need for the ERA can be expressed simply as a warning. Unless we put into the Constitution the bedrock principle that equality of rights cannot be denied or abridged on account of sex, the political and judicial victories women have achieved with their blood, sweat, and tears for the past two centuries are vulnerable to erosion or reversal at any time – now or in the future.

Congress has the power to make laws that replace existing laws – and to do so by a simple majority. Therefore, many of the current legal protections against sex discrimination can be removed by the margin of a single vote. While courts in the near term would still apply skeptical scrutiny to laws that differentiate on the basis of sex, that precedent could be undermined or eventually ignored by future conservative or reactionary courts. With a specific constitutional guarantee of equal rights through the Equal Rights Amendment, it would be much harder for legislators and courts to reverse our progress in eliminating sex discrimination.

I would hope DUers are sensitive to the fact that conservative forces have (successfully) fought the ERA for 84 years! One of the popular arguments against it involved invoking the fear of same-sex marriages. The issue needs revisiting down the road apiece on the Democratic agenda!

[earthlover]

91. You brought up the Civil Rights Act...and you obviously weren't aware it referenced sex!

I caught you on it. So you ramble on.

I support the ERA. As do I think all of us.

It is not a choice of women's rights or civil rights. Women's rights ARE civil rights.

However, if you want to make the case that historically women have had a more difficult time facing discrimination than blacks....well, good luck with that one! And if you want to make the case that even today blacks do not face discrimination, just as women still do....well, good luck with that one too!

Why are we even arguing? The Civil Rights Act of 1964 addressed sex AND race. Good thing.

[Raejeanowl]

93. Why Don't You Tell Me?

You seem to have latched onto an interpretation of what I was saying that only serves to distract examination of your own weak and simplistic arguments. So why am I necessary at all?

You apparently don't know or understand the difference between a codified regulatory law and a repeatedly failed amendment to a constitutional law.

Of course women's rights are civil rights. But all civil rights do not address gender. And if "all of us" supported the ERA, doesn't it stand to reason we might have gotten it passed in the (nearly thirty?) consecutive Congressional years since it was originally deadline to be ratified? I challenge your bland assertion.

If you had any substantive knowledge of American women's history as chattels, non-voters, marital property non-owners, and worse, you'd know that an EXCELLENT case could be made of difficult times. No one fought a bloody civil war over that quieter, more insidious, and socially promoted enslavement. For example, domestic violence protections didn't even really begin to coalesce until late in the 70s, and law enforcement and the courts continued to turn a blind eye to "private" disputes long after racially motivated hate crimes, and legal non-response, were causing riots.

If you think telling that truth is "rambling," it says more about you than me. And it's so tiresome.

Too bad the Civil Rights Act of 1964 didn't address full equal rights for women in every quarter as it did race, color, creed or national origin. It wasn't anything approaching the all-encompassing document you seem to claim. Was it an imperfect example? Maybe; such is an imperfect world. If you bothered to read the link I provided, you might get a better grasp of how the CRA was not about women, regardless of whether they were twice mentioned. If you can't make that kind of distinction, I should just give up.

My own "case" was that women still have a significant way to go legally, which you apparently acknowledge with your support of the ERA. But if the Civil Rights Act accomplished what you imply by it's selective mention of women, then indeed, why do you personally feel an ERA necessary? Gotcha.

Prior posts on this thread suggested that Obama's "years of experience" as an African American were somehow more valuable to the (sensitivity of his?) Presidency and outweighed any similar discriminatory personal experiences for Senator Clinton. And I thought that was invalid.

This is the last time I care to explain it. Thanks.

[earthlover]

95. A little testy?

You said, and this is what I originally replied to..."Last time I checked, the Civil Rights Act passed. The ERA didn't. (I'll give a cigar-oops, sorry, Mrs. Clinton-to anyone who remembers what decisive state it failed in). Tacit discrimination against women continues to be tolerated to this day."

Well, no, the ERA did not pass. Most here on DU supported it, though.

Perhaps you were reacting to some Obama supporters making too much of his race, and you wanted to say Hillary's sex is just as important. In that regard, agree with your point. We shouldn't base our decision to vote on sex (such as the Hillary supporters who support her because she is a woman or oppose her for same) or by race (such as the Obama supporters who support him because he is African American or oppose him for same).

However, in your whining that the ERA did not pass and the Civil Rights Act did...you leave out an "inconvenient truth" that women DID get protections by the Civil Rights Act, not just African Americans.

It is a point of fact that the Civil Rights Act added to the protections of women's rights. It was later reinforced and strengthened by court rulings, for that matter.

Even more telling, it was not at all necessary for you to make any reference to the Civil Rights Act in the first place. The definate implication was that black rights got passed, but the ERA failed.

Speaking of history (which I taught for 12 years, by the way, and..yes...I taught more than most were able to forget about the struggle women have made to gain the same rights they helped, in many social movements worked hard for in others...) you say....

"If you had any substantive knowledge of American women's history as chattels, non-voters, marital property non-owners, and worse, you'd know that an EXCELLENT case could be made of difficult times. No one fought a bloody civil war over that quieter, more insidious, and socially promoted enslavement"

Yes, I know that women were treated as property, did not get the right to vote for a long time, could not own property, could not get a divorce. However, as bad as this was, if you try to compare that to being whipped as a slave, being taken across the Atlantic in abhorrent slave ships, etc etc etc....well, what is the point? Good luck if you think women were subjected to the same cruelty as actual slaves. Yes, politically and socially they were second class citizens. That was just part of what African Americans endured.

It might be more effective...instead of trying to imply that women's persecution is bigger than African American's persecution...to simply admit that there is no comparison.

The ERA did not pass. However, by statute and court rulings, women today enjoy more rights by far than in any time during our history, and although they are not total....same could be said for the rights of African Americans, and for that matter Americans in general. We all have our own struggles, and we need to fight for the rights of everyone.

I don't think anyone's rights are more important than anyone else's.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

74. Ask the vast majority of voters, and even most DUers, who think BO is not ready to be prez

Obama supporters are odd on this. They claim he is experienced enough and that no one can reasonably view him as inexperienced yet they, and their candidate, spend an inordinate amount of time trying to claim that he is experienced to be president.

Name the last serious presidential candidate with as little experience as Obama.

[calteacherguy]

81. You have it backwards.

It is Hillary supporters who spend an inordinate amount of time defending their position that she is the most "experienced," whatever that means. Experienced at what?

Neither Obama or Clinton has Presidential experience. And even if one of them did, experience is not the most important issue.

[earthlover]

87. Oh come on! The anti-Obama folk have made experience the issue from the start!

It is ironic, because Hillary doesn't have any more experience than he does. But it is a meme planted....Obama is "not ready yet".....

[earthlover]

57. Bullshit! It is Hillary who is making experience the issue....Obama had the same as Lincoln!

This whole meme is that Obama is not ready yet. He needs to stay at the back of the bus. When he is mature, he can sit up front. Fuck this. He is mature. He has the same elected experience as Hillary, just in different places. He has experience as an activist and much more.

I wish Hillary supporters would not make such a big deal about experience. I can understand why that is all they can cling to. But, get real! She has no more experience than Obama. And a lot less judgement.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

75. You're comparing Obama to the greatest president ever?

I wish Obama himself is so caught up in the hype that he does so during a debate. I can see Biden now. "Senator, I knew Abraham Lincoln. Abraham Lincoln was a friend of mine. Senator, you're no Abe Lincoln."

[calteacherguy]

82. Biden knew Abraham LIncoln?

Damn, I heard he had hair plugs, but didn't know he was that old.

[snowbear]

83. Draft Mario, you sound literally terrified.

Why not just relax, chill, give it a rest?

In about 5 months you'll be on here supporting one of the candidates, and it may very well be the one you least expect to win.

Imagine how you're going to feel after posting thousands of anti-whoever threads.

Just support your candidate for crying and get ready to support whoever ultimately wins the nomination.

[earthlover]

84. My commentary was actually more a comparison of those who voted for Lincoln

They saw Lincoln's level of experience. And it was good enough for them. Even though they were facing a pretty large slew of issues at the time.

Now, today we can view a candidate with the same level of experience. But the spin-meisters want to make it seem like he doesn't have enough experience.

They would have had a field day with Lincoln!

[Jim Sagle]

52. What she lacks is experience as an actual Democrat.

[William769]

58. You crack me up, you really do!

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

[guruoo]

79. This Hillary thing tit-for-tat sniping is becoming laughable n/t

[Broke Dad]

94. Is it 60 years of experience or the same year of experience repeated 60 times?

Hillary plays defense well. She has that extra strip of paranoid DNA that marks former Goldwater supporters. She alienated a Democratic Congress with her "my way or the highway" approach on health care. She threatened to demonize fellow Democratic Senators when she arrived in the Senate (according to Senator Bill Bradley). Her White House staff, her Senate staff and her campaign staff are this little insular group of true believers. Hillary reminds me of Richard M. Nixon. Takes money from the big guys and promises to screw them not us. . . really????

Do we really need to repeat 1968 where we elected a brilliant paranoid whacko who took us deeper into a war that was started by a Texan? Like Hillary, Nixon promised to end the war "with honor" and then bombed surrounding countries while the body bags kept coming home. Like Hillary, Nixon was a transplant to New York. He grew up in California and she grew up outside Chicago. He allegedly ran the White House after Eisenhower had his heart attack. Hillary probably had as much influence in her husband's White House as Nixon did in the Eisenhower White House. Nixon had "Checkers" and Hillary had "Monica." Imagine Nixon and Hillary saying "bad dog" to their respective strays.

Teaching at the Arkansas law school? I haven't seen the US News & World Report rankings lately, but I doubt Arkansas is in the top 50. Besides, a lot of law professors I know can't communicate with anything that walks on two legs.

If intelligence and raw ambition are the only two qualifications for president, Hillary is qualified. However, more is required to be a good president and after W, we need a good if not a great president. Hillary is not "the girl" that we need at this time.

We can do better.

ABC!

ABC!

ABC!