If we need the president with the MOST political experience

[Rosemary2205]

that would be

um

ahem


JOHN MCCAIN ????????????????????


:crazy:

[anonymous171]

1. That's why Hillary latest manuevers don't make any sense.

[Deja Q]

2. Maybe she's being sexist?

Funny way to insult one's self...

[EmperorHasNoClothes]

3. Oh, they make perfect sense.

Vote Hillary in 2012!!!

[CountAllVotes]

7. she appears to be out of control at times

we need someone that is IN CONTROL all of the time, not just some of the time. We don't need a president that cries when things don't go right.

McCain is out for this reason as well being he is known for his out of control temper. As for experience, I do not see how being a prisoner of war gives him any experience. If anything, I view it as being a detriment to him because of the psychological factors associated with having lived through such a trauma.

This is just one reason I support Obama. His feathers don't get ruffled I've noticed. He is in control 100% of the time!

This is what we need. Someone that is IN CONTROL at all times, not drunk or out of touch with reality.

:kick:

[Cha]

38. hilary isn't about "making sense" hilary

is all about sliming her way to the top and hoping not enough will notice.

[Ichingcarpenter]

4. Dick Cheney can still run

or Rumsfeld!

[annie1]

5. a democrat with experience.

[dkf]

6. Hey, maybe we can nominate Robert Byrd or Dan Inouye!

Wow. That kind of experience could definitely win the Presidency.

[tibbiit]

8. doesn't Al Gore trump John McBush?

John McBush has no experience other than legislative.
tib

[Rosemary2205]

9. Last time I looked

Albert isn't on the ballot. Keep hope alive if you must but I don't see it happening. :)

[tibbiit]

16. for his personal sake (al gore)

I hope he doesnt touch this 2008 election with a ten foot pole:)

IMO this race isnt good enough for him.
He is a fine maligned man.

John McBush, who I also think of as the white rat, is less than dirt beneath any of our candidates feet. It is my hope that any of them can grind the white rat into dust. (metaphorically speaking)
tib

[malletgirl02]

10. Experience

If we are going by experience then Richardson, Biden and Dodd should be still in the primary.

[Critters2]

13. Exactly. nt

[ctaylors6]

11. to the extent "experience" matters to me, I think of it as "enough" thing, not the "most"

It's obviously not the only thing that matters (or IMHO it shouldn't be).

[yourguide]

12. And if we are going by experience, after McCain

Obama has 10 years as an elected official

HRC has 7 years.

[Critters2]

14. Obama has 2 years at the national level. Not nearly enough. nt

[yourguide]

15. Ha...riiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

OK, oh and that's 3 years BTW.

[Critters2]

18. What do you mean..."riiiiight"? Do you know of some stealth federal level office

he's held? What's the rush? Why can't he wait until he actually has some experience?

[yourguide]

19. He's got 10 years in elected office.

What about all of those Governors that run and have WON that dont have national experience?

[Critters2]

20. The state senate is NOT an executive office.

He has no excutive experience and only two years national experience. He's simply not qualified.

[yourguide]

21. Riiiiiiiight

He has 10 years of legislative experience. She has 7. Sorry, unless you consider serving tea to Cherie Booth national experience, she doesnt have more national experience.

[Critters2]

22. Again, he has NO executive experience. None.

He has never demonstrated the ability to work with a leadership team, to delegate responsibility, to make policy decisions. His resume is a blank slate. I wouldn't hire a person with this resume to any other executive position, why would I want him to be president?

[yourguide]

24. ROFL

riiiiiiiiiiiiight ok, you might want to look at his record in the illinois senate. 10 years (7 plus 3) does not equal a blank slate.

And again, HRC has even LESS experience than he does, why would you want her to be president?

And if you were voting on experience alone perhaps you should go with McCain.

And for the record, considering the insane infighting and implosions within the HRC camp I think this statement:

"He has never demonstrated the ability to work with a leadership team, to delegate responsibility, to make policy decisions."

Applies more to her than him.

[Critters2]

26. There's no reason to think the man can govern effectively.

This is not the kind of job where one should be getting on-the-job experience. I fear for what might happen under Pres. Obama.

[yourguide]

27. Are you joking?

HRC cant even run a campaign or manage her finances. At the end of January they were neck and neck in fund raising but she had to loan her campaign 5 million dollars.

HRC voted for the war, plain and simple...if that's what your so called experience gets you then I don't want it.

I fear more what would happen under an HRC presidency considering she couldnt get universal heath care done in 8 years, she voted for the war, and somehow her disaster of a campaign blew a HUGE money, media, and poll lead going into Iowa.

I fear for what might happen under HRC.

[Critters2]

29. Obama promised to stand against the war, but has instead voted to

fund it....when he showed up to vote at all. He's lacking in both courage and integrity. And experience. Again, not someone I'd hire to an executive position.

[yourguide]

30. And as against the war as I am

I would have voted to fund it too until I could figure out a way to get them out of there safely.

It would be very difficult to cast a vote not to fund our troops while they are overseas and there is no plan to get them out.

He's hardly lacking in courage, integrity, or experince. He came out publicly against the war in 2002 while it was an incredibly unpopular position to take.

After 20 debates, HRC came sort of close to admitting voting for the war was a mistake.

And again. 10 years of legislative experience, vs 7 years of legislative experience and 8 year of serving tea to the wives of world leaders, hoorah.

She had 8 years to get universal health care done, she couldnt do it. She has no foreign policy experience and when her aides were asked about it the conference call went silent, and there was still NO answer.

[Critters2]

31. He came out against the war when it was of no consequence to him politically--

when he was in a STATE senate. When it mattered, he turned tail and voted to continue the war.

[yourguide]

32. oh stop

he didnt vote to continue the war, there was not and there is still no plan on the table for withdrawl - so what, you propose all of the dems that did not vote against funding the troops (INCLUDING HRC) who now say they are against it are ALL in favor of the war?

And how do you propose we get the troops out if everyone voted to stop funding the war? One day pull out? Dont be naive and/or foolish.

And it WAS of consequence to him politically, it was a very unpopular position to take and could have cost him his seat with the voters in the next election.

Oh and you still havent addressed why HRC couldnt get health care done in 8 years.

[Critters2]

33. Like I said...lacking in courage. nt

[yourguide]

34. And like I said

HRC is a hack that tries to claim foreign policy experience based on serving tea to world leader's wives.

[Critters2]

35. At least she's met world leaders and their wives. More than Obama can claim. nt

[yourguide]

36. yes, and served them tea...so what

and that means she can negotiate foreign policy???

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

[Critters2]

37. Obama is a blank slate. Who avoids controversial votes

and won't work to get experience. Yeah, that's much better.

[yourguide]

39. 10 years is not a blank slate.

HRC has a proven record of NOT getting things done: health care, and bad judgement: iraq.

[Critters2]

42. Two years at the federal level. Most of that time spent campaigning

for his next job. A blank slate.

[yourguide]

45. You can say it over and over again

but Obama got ethics reform passed and spoke out against the war.

HRC has a proven track record of NOT getting things done (she promised 200,000 new jobs to the people of buffalo if she was voted senator, there is a loss of 30,000 jobs in buffalo) and poor judgement.

[Critters2]

46. Speaking is one thing. Voting is what matters. nt

[yourguide]

47. You are correct

and HRC voted to send us into Iraq.

[Critters2]

50. And Obama voted to keep us there,

after speechifying about how he opposed the war. Speaking is easy. Voting is what matters.

[yourguide]

51. No, Obama voted to continue funding the troops

because there was no and is no exit plan. What do you want them there without guns or armor?

stop being a knucklehead.


and HRC still hasnt admitted her mistake. she too says she's for getting out of iraq but she voted to continue funding, so what's the difference?

[Critters2]

52. I want them to come home. I want people who claim to oppose this war

to fucking DO SOMETHING!!! I don't expect that of either of these two.

[yourguide]

55. Voting not to fund the war is not going to bring them

home the way we all want them to come home, dont you get that? if we just arbitrarily pull out it is disastrous on so many levels.

We need a dem in, no question, and we need a dem in that promises to pull us out in an orderly fashion so as not to create even more damage than we have already created and not to put our troops in any more damage than they already are.

It's up to us to tell them.

[Critters2]

56. It's disastrous either way. It's time for the troops to come home. nt

[yourguide]

57. I agree, but we need to get them out safely.

I dont understand you, you are so opposed to the war but are so supportive of the candidate who not only voted us in but still refuses to admit she made a mistake for voting us in.

[Critters2]

58. Where have I shown support for her? I see them both as weak candidates.

Before the media took control, there were other candidates, including some who were vocal in their opposition to the war. Now we're left with two centrists who contiually waffle on what is, to me, the most important issue.

But Hillary never claimed to oppose the war. Obama did, and gave me hope (of course) at one point. Then he actually took his seat in the Senate, and my hope faded. I'm not fond of hypocrites. Or politicians.

[yourguide]

59. Listen, I voted for kucinich in the 2004 primaries

so I understand you.

I am not fond of either but I certainly feel like Obama is a better alternative than HRC in this and so many regards, she voted in favor of declaring the Iranian army a "terrorist organization" thus giving Bush another blank check to go to war. Had a bunch of internal agencies not came out and said he is stating disproven intelligence reports in his rhetoric against Iran, we might have indeed gone to war again.

[Critters2]

60. Ummm....Obama didn't vote against Kyl-Lieberman.

He didn't vote at all. He has a habit of doing that.

[yourguide]

61. OK, well he certainly didnt vote for it.

Look, if you dont like either of the candidates then why are you here?


I am sorry you are disappointed in Obama, but no human being is perfect. Good luck to you.

[Hugabear]

49. That is the LAMEST reasoning I've seen

This whole "his initial opposition to the war doesn't count because he was a state senator" is BULLSHIT.

What the fuck do you want him to do, travel back in time and run for senate in 1998 just so that he can be in position to vote against the IWR? What the hell was he supposed to do as a state senator? Just because he wasn't in a position to actually cast a deciding vote doesn't mean JACK SHIT.

I swear, some of the reasoning I see here really takes the cake sometimes.

[Critters2]

54. If he opposed the war, as he claimed (when it was easy--in the state Senate),

why did he vote to continue the war (when it mattered, in the US Senate)? The man is all talk. And talk is cheap.

[Hugabear]

65. Someone else covered that in this thread

It's difficult for many politicians to vote to cut off funding for troops that are in the field.

I don't agree with the decision, but I understand the reasoning behind it. That's why I don't necessarily bash Hillary for continuing to fund the war, although I will most certainly bash her for voting to allow Bush the authority to start the damned thing

[skater314159]

64. And your candidate has done what? Always been a Hawk?

Ever try to live without causing suffering?

Hypocrite war hawk supporter.

[Critters2]

66. Not a Hillary supporter. Before the media and the centrists told us all otherwise,

there were other candidates in the race. One of them voted for the war, apologized for that error, and promised to bring the troops home. Another didn't vote for it, never voted to fund it.

But lets vote for someone who keeps voting to continue the war. That'll bring it to an end.

[skater314159]

63. I am against the war, but our soldiers and support staff need equip.

I hope you feel the same way mycritters... You do think we should fund the soldiers your candidate sent to Iraq in the first place... UNLESS you are advocating sending our troops in without body armour and weapons?

And you aren't doing that, are you my critters?

Or are you just jealous Obama has a better track record of actually practicing the Just War Doctrine IRL, unlike Hillary who voted to invade Iraq? (Who as of yet has not apologised to the American People and famililes of the War Dead for taking that unjust action - only given us excuses?)

[Rosemary2205]

25. HUH???

Who do you think is ultimately in control of his campaign? The man CLEARLY has the talent to build a very large and multifaceted organization that can GET THINGS DONE.

[BumRushDaShow]

53. Obama

was Chairman of the Illinois Senate's Health and Human Services committee which means managing and delegating and in fact, most of the legislation that he introduced relates to health care issues. From NYT:



The same propaganda keeps getting spewed left and right from Clinton supporters. What did Clinton do for the state of NY? Anything?

[Hugabear]

41. By your logic, Abraham Lincoln wasn't qualified either

Lincoln's only national experience prior to his presidency was a single term in the House of Representatives.

Remember, Lincoln is known for what he accomplished AFTER he became president, and for leading the country through the Civil War.

So how can you honestly say that Obama isn't qualified?

[Critters2]

43. Yes, I still say Obama is not qualified. nt

[theredpen]

62. And doesn't he belong to some kind of screwed up denomination?

:evilgrin:

[Johnny__Motown]

17. She wants McCain to win so she can run again in 2012, that is the only explanation

for her recent statements

[mculator]

23. Hillary Clinton.

Wrongy mcWrongerson.

[msongs]

28. that would be al gore instead of the war supporting obama and clinton nt

[BigDaddy44]

40. How about Robert Byrd?

[Critters2]

44. I'd feel better about Byrd. nt

[bigtree]

48. wh said anything about political experience?