This is a pretty funny article, especially since its conlusion is that Hillary is the best choice. I love how they back up the falsity that she is ready to be president because she was married to one. Obviously we have no need to care what any other country thinks of our election. I also find it funnny that they so easily accept our power over the world.

Who should be the world's most powerful person? | Guardian daily comment | Guardian Unlimited

__________________
http://www.fairtax.org

Elminate all taxes on income and replace with a national sales tax.

If everyone made the assumption that her alleged vast experience as first lady qualifies her to be commander in chief, it would indeed be a "no brainer" in the sense that we would not be using our brains.

__________________

Congratulations President-Elect Obama

LOL, in all fairness the Shrub was qualified due to his father's presidency. Let's see how long we can keep up the dynasties:

1988 - 1992: G Bush
1992 - 1996: B Clinton
1996 - 2000: B Clinton
2000 - 2004: GW Bush
2004 - 2008: GW Bush
2008 - 2012: H Clinton
2012 - 2016: H Clinton
2016 - 2020: Jeb Bush
2020 - 2024: Jeb Bush
2024 - 2028: Chelsea Clinton
2028 - 2032: Chelsea Clinton
2032 - 2036: Jenna Bush
2036 - 2040: Barbara Bush
2040 - 2044: Jenna Bush
2044 - 2048: Barbara Bush

I thought it would be more interesting to mix up Jenna and Barb, sort of a tag team approach. Will the 2048 election go Bush or Clinton? Who's in the batter's box?

Exactly.

Since when did being a presidents WIFE qualify one to be a president ?

Ridiculous. Like hillary.

I dont think someone should be disqualified simply because of their family. There are plenty of reasons not to vote for Hillary on her own. But heres her basic experience:

-Lawyer
-On the corporate board at WalMart and others, dont hear about that much...
-active in some childrens welfare orgs
-Senator for 6 years

She seems to have experience with childrens health care and health care in general. Thats about it. Im not aware of her leading on anything in congress

__________________
http://www.fairtax.org

Elminate all taxes on income and replace with a national sales tax.

That's interesting, I didn't know about her WalMart gig.

I think no one would be questioning her experience if she wasn't overblowing it and attempting to mislead us about it.

She claims 30 long years of experience. She counts all her PR tea parties as foriegn policy experience.

When you list it out like that, you could say that she could claim to have possibly 6 years of relevant experience and about 8 years of additional loosely related experience.

In many ways she misrepresents herself. That's why she seems to lack that "genuine" quality and that's why I wouldn't vote for her.

__________________

Congratulations President-Elect Obama

Not to mention her very plastic and fake personality. She and John Edwards have this in common.

They don't have very trustworthy personalities. They BOTH remind me of snake oil sales people.

Fakey as dept. store dummies.

Everytime I see edwards he's carrying on about "corporate greed" on and on and on. "corporate greed" on and on and on. "corporate greed" on and on and on.

"We gotta stop that corporate greed."

The man has problems.

Would any of ye ever vote democrat... So what are you commenting about... Ye are all voting GOP, so your opinion is worthless..

What's YOUR opinion worth ?

Some of us WOULD vote democrat actually. Not for a fakey, plastic dept. store DUMMY democrat though.

Take Obama for instance. He would have a chance at my vote.

Hillary or Edwards ?

If I beleived one single word that they said maybe. But I don't.

Edwards constantly rails on about "corporate greed." Not sure what else he has to say. Hillary smiles and nods, smiles and nods. Tells some lies. Has the charisma of an alligator. No thanks. YOU vote for 'em k ?

I have raised this issue before regards her experience......if she is the best fit to handle foreign affairs due to her “experience” I would really like to know what that amounts to..for instance she never held national security access...what she absorbed said experience by osmosis?

Attached Images

hill experiance.gif (76.1 KB, 25 views)

__________________
No individual can plan his own existence in their view.

So the state planners must arrogate to themselves the right to manipulate any sector of the economic system if the good of “society” or the “general welfare” is paramount.

Ipso- if the rights of the individual get in the way, the rights of the individual must be sublimated.

The Road to Serfdom
FA Hayek (interpretation)


Mortgage Backed Security survivor

I'm opposed to Hillary, but I'm voting Democrat.

The two are not mutually exclusive.

__________________

Congratulations President-Elect Obama

Which proves once and for all that voters in other countries can be just as ignorant as they claim we Americans are....

__________________
If common sense were common, we would all have it (including me).

Fair enough BoyScout.. Your history towards disliking her in favour of other candidates. I was just pointing out that most of Hillary's opposition (especially the nastier stuff) comes from people would never vote Democrats and hated Bill in the first place.

Personally I believe that voting for Hillary is to get very much of what Bill offered as a president. Hillary and Bill worked quite close to each other and Hillary was very politically involved First Lady. The advantage of Hillary is she will bring a team of people with experience of already running a country with Bill hanging around too...

The US should look at an administration which is most compendent and can start up and running. Hillary brings a team. While I do like Obama I don't think he bring all these advantages to the table.

So would Obama winning be the end of the world. No and it might be for the best...

What experience did Hillary get in the White House? While she was there, she was involved in the healthcare reform debacle, but I cannot see anyone trying to claim that utter failure as qualifying her for anything.

As to her present day international acumen, consider this statement:

"If President Musharraf wishes to stand for election, then he should abide by the same rules that every other candidate will have to follow."

On the surface, a completely reasonable statement, until one considers that she said it on 12/28/2007. (http://www.usatoday.com/news/pdf/Hil...12-28-2007.pdf)

The problem? Musharaff was not running in the upcoming election. He ran for President, and was elected to his third term in October.

Way to stay current, Senator. Well done.

What experience does Hillary have that you find compelling?

Her time in the Senate has been spent carrying Schumer's briefcase.

Her sole public policy initiative while she was "interning" under Bill in the White House (when, that is, there wasn't an intern under Bill...) was the healthcare reform debacle.

Hillary wasted millions on a reform plan that was so piss poor that even with her party controlling both chambers of Congress and her own husband pushing is through from the White House (again, when he wasn't atop an intern), it still never made it out of committee.

So where's this record of achievement and capability that makes her such a strong choice?

Matt

__________________
De duobus malis, minus est semper eligendum