I'm apparently getting it all out now, making up for my lack of writing over the last couple of days, and not bothering to save anything for next week. In the interest of being controversial, I'll post a certain political Question of the Day.
What attributes make Hillary Clinton a viable cadidate for President of the United States?
In all seriousness, I'd like to know what makes her presidential material. I don't support her at this time, but still I'm interested in hearing the arguments in her favor. I know there has been some concern that certain voters might support her candidacy simply because she sets a precident as the first female to run for Commander in Chief. Surely that is not the only evidence in her favor.
I am uncomfortable posting this question because I don't want to pit people against one another and politics almost always becomes one of those kinds of topics. Still, I'd really appreciate some input. Let us then talk about this in hypothetical terms only, and if anyone has concerns about being misunderstood in a more or less public forum, send me your answer via email instead.
10 comments:
You were looking for controversy, so I'll start things off by saying this:
Hillary is qualified to be President because she is a lawyer.
Why does a lawyer (let's say any lawyer, not Hillary specifically)make a good candidate for president? or do I really want to know?
I don't know. I was just trying to provoke outrage.
I'm not exactly a Hillary Clinton scholar, but since not much has been posted:
Hillary Clinton has been involved in politics at the National level for for decades now. As a former First Lady and as a Senator, as well as prior work on committees in Arkansas state government and several businesses she has a lot of leadership experience. She has previously sat on the board at Wal-Mart, though I don't know any details about it, but the remarkable success of that company does reflect well upon her.
She has done a lot of committe work, and her voting record shows that, while pretty liberal, she does not just bow to the Democratic party line. This strength and independence gives her an edge over Obama.
She also handled her husband's very public infidelity while in office with quite a bit of grace and dignity. In addition, being Hillary Clinton gives her direct access to a very well-loved former president. I'd like to give her more credit than the old Alabama situation where Lurleen Wallace was elected governor under the banner, "Vote for Lurleen and let George do it," but I think comparisons are inescapable.
She was able to move to New York and be elected to the Senate as a carpet-bagger and has managed to remain somewhat popular with her constituents. I believe that is a pretty impressive feat for anyone.
She also has a very popular proposal for universal health care.
Most of these things could be used to support the idea that she would be a good candidate for President.
Thanks. That was exactly the sort of thing I was looking for.
While Daniel is right that many of the points he raised COULD be used as evidence that Hillary is a good candidate for President, I think this is mainly among those who already like her. I think most of the points raised may actually work against her.
For example, her time on the board of directors at Wal-Mart has become a stain on her reputation in the eyes of her usual supporters, and she is trying to distance herself from that past.
Her experience as Senator certainly could benefit her here, but her "decades of experience" in politics makes her seem somewhat tainted to me (but not to those who already like her). A career politician is not usually someone I trust. As for being a former first lady, I really don't see why that qualifies her for anything. Although, since presidential elections are basically a popularity contest these days, that may work in favor for her, especially considering her loyalty to her popular husband (who is popular only in certain circles, especially among those who control the flow of information).
Which brings me to Senator Clinton's popularity, which evidently is a "qualifying" factor among a rather undemanding citizenry. Senator Clinton angered feminists for not dumping her philandering husband. But, being a far left liberal, she would almost certainly remain popular with the majority of voters in New York, so I personally don't think this is so impressive. If she were able to be popular in a more conservative state and keep getting re-elected to the Senate I would be impressed, and perhaps dismayed as well.
Her health care proposal is, again, popular mainly among those who like her and those who prefer a socialist approach to government, which usually includes those in control of the flow of information (journalists). Her popularity is certianly noticable among journalists, but I would caution anyone against blindly accepting the notion that being popular among liberals and the media means she is popular among most of the American people.
Despite her problems, Hillary Clinton seems to remain popular among leftists (though she may be losing the loyalty of a growing number of them). This popularity evidently will even shield her from numerous scandals (where as, George Bush received no such shielding with his scandals, valid or manufactured). But since popularity is a significant factor in getting elected, even if she had nothing else, it seems she is well qualified for the office of U.S. president, at least among those who already like her.
It's ironic, though: any experience in politics among conservatives seems to amount to nothing. Does anyone remember George Bush's experience as governor of Texas being an unsastifactory credential for the presidency among those who like Hillary Clinton? How about the fact that Mr. Bush scored higher grades in college than Al Gore, but Mr. Gore is often lauded as a brilliant man while President Bush is still (after more than 7 years) characterized as an idiot? Of course, it is typially those who like Hillary Clinton who adhere to such characterizations.
I can't seem to get away from the idea that qualifications for president often seem closely connected to one's opinion of the politician in question. I personally don't see much in Mrs. Clinton, other than her time as U.S. Senator; but I don't like her. See what I mean?
Come on, Michael, surely you can also appreciate her time on the board at Wal-Mart!
Well, Daniel, I keep hearing experience in the business world doesn't amount to much for Republicans seeking office, actually it's more like a negative (i.e., Halliburton/Cheney just to name one) so why should it mean anything for a Democrat? Though we could just follow the lead of the news media: apply double standards to members of the two parties.
Oh, no. I'm not talking about people in general. I'm talking about you specifically. Double standards and pettiness shouldn't be contagious.
I'm not exactly a Hillary supporter, but right now I'd probably say her time with Wal-Mart is my favorite thing about her.
I think Hillary is decently qualified to be President, and is more qualified than Obama. I mean, she is a native-born American and at least 35 years old.
I'm choosing not to vote for her because I disagree with most of her major positions, and I fear she might be good enough at politics to actually get to act upon some of those positions while in office.
Oh, well since you want MY opinion, I think her socialist agenda basically negates her business experience. Her political positions sound as if she has no experience in the business world, which might also be said of business executives and directors in general.
Apparently, I don't consider past experience in itself a qualification of anything, unless I can tell one learned good lessons from it. Hillary's experience on the board at Wal-mart seems rather worthless in that regard. That experience certainly has the potential to improve her ranking on my politicians list but it just doesn't work out that way right now. Even she doesn't consider it a good thing.
And as to your stated reasons for not giving Hillary your vote, I share them wholeheartedly. Plus, I don't like her.
Post a Comment