Obama not ready to lead and protect us from day 1.

"Now one of Clinton’s laws of politics is this: If one candidate’s trying to scare you and the other one’s trying to get you to think, if one candidate’s appealing to your fears and the other one’s appealing to your hopes, you better vote for the person who wants you to think and hope."

-Bill Clinton, 2004

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0410/25/pzn.01.html

My point is if the Clinton's big criticism is that Obama is not ready to lead and lacking on foreign policy from day 1, it's not coming from their convictions, rather a convenient 1/2 assed accusation, that is a contradiction from the past.

Think I'll stay out of this one ...

My parents and I were laughing the other night about the prospect of Bill coming out and endorsing Obama.

I didn't realize he already had back in '04.

If bush can try it so can Obama

No I'm just trying to understand how touring 80 countries, means you have foreign policy experience.

More to the point - Hillary answered the question "You say you are ready to lead from day 1 and that Obama is not, can you explain how you are ready and Obama is not?"

Her answer - I've toured 80 countries...and I negotiated for open borders in Kosovo (Zoe spits out her kool-aid) ... "Oh no she din'dt!"
Hillary continues: "I'd direct Serbia that they need to secure our US Embassy under international law."

... psst... someone slip Hil the memo....this is a long standing war between ethnic serbs and ethnic albanians. There was a UN peace keeping force after the air campaign in 1999. Torching the Embassy isn't just about the US. Serbs are protesting Kosovo's separation and resisting the UN, the EU and asking the Russians to take a side again and patrol that region again. You don't direct Serbia to do anything, you ask the UN to do it - OH wait, historically, the UN doesn't enforce anything - they are all about NON-BINDING agreements.

exactly.

Ron Paul For Prez

If only

Politics at it's finest.

Me thinks the onslaught on Obama's lack of track record, will cause his campaign to saliently put something together... it's being going on for well over a month or two... and noone (esp Hillary) has put him to task... more time for them to vet and survey (hate that part of modern day politics... research on speeches, taglines, etc....). This is still getting just interesting and it's March.

She loses the nomination, and not the Veep.





Divorce. This marriage has been, and is ...a sham.

"Obama not ready to lead and protect us from day 1.."

Neither was Bush.

I have a feeling that come wednesday morning she will be singing a different tune in her concession speech... or maybe on thursday

Someone on a news show made a very interesting comparison between Obama and Kennedy. They stated that JFK didn't have as much experience as their opponents when running for president, but definitely had the vote of the people. And when JFK became president, he had hard times trying to get bills passed because of the politics of congress. If Obama gets elected president, would the same thing happen to him? Something to ponder.

One thing's for certain, I can't help but be amazed at how many people have abandoned Clinton. Just 2 years ago, everyone acted as if she had the nomination on lock. Now, it's like people just want to get rid of her. If anything, she does have the experience being in congress and the relationships to get things done. Either Obama or Clinton would be getting my vote in '08, but I hope that people aren't deciding to go with Obama just because they're blinded with the whole concept of "change".

I am still stunned by the tone of this Obama v. Clinton debate. You'd think Clinton is the Antechrist, more evil than W by an order of magnitude. Yet the two candidates are so very close on the political spectrum, and their plans for America, while still vague, so very liberal boilerplate.

They both represent a step up from W, don't they? Doesn't anyone?

She doesn't have as much relevant executive and legislative experience as she claims, but experience matters little to so many of those Democrats who vote in the primaries. Many of those voters know more about American Idol contestants than anything else and reduce public life to some reality show.

Hillary's "tour" in China showed (at the very least) that she had the guts to singlehandedly confront the whole Chinese geriatric nomenclatura and denounce their trampling on human rights.

She is also widely credited for helping bring her husband to the center and broaden his appeal. NAFTA and Welfare reform were certainly not garden variety liberal fares. Sadly, they are both reduced to populist protectionist rhetorics now

Her work with the health care task force (failed or not), certainly taught her a few lessons.

There is no question she has the drive and the strength to withstand the many crises the future president will certainly encounter.

As for Barack, he will be ready in 2016. Beyond all the speeches, he has not exactly shown a knack for working with the other side (GOP), according to the GOP US Senators themselves. Wouldn't that be a pre-requisite to end partisanship?






But Barack has even less, by virtue of being 15-odd years her junior for starters. His work in the IL legislature is neither necessary nor sufficient for presidential preparation for a and

[quote=VinylBoy;1328942]Someone on a news show made a very interesting comparison between Obama and Kennedy. They stated that JFK didn't have as much experience as their opponents when running for president, but definitely had the vote of the people. And when JFK became president, he had hard times trying to get bills passed because of the politics of congress. If Obama gets elected president, would the same thing happen to him? Something to ponder.


Were Hillary to be elected, there are enough people in Congress and the Senate that dislike her, her husband and issues around her, to stall and delay anything she would try to pitch through.

And either of them is a step away from George the third.