Of all the arguments Hillary has tried to make to support her candidacy; the weakest is that she is "experienced". I've already established that she has NO executive experience and that her actual record of accomplishment is pathetically thin. Even if she did ; Obama has demonstrated superior judgment and that is a much more serious and valuable quality than experience.
We've had many, many Presidents with plenty of experience and they were usually poor and sometime even disasters. John Quincy Adams; Martin Van Buren ; James Buchanon; Andrew Johnson; William Howard Taft; Woodrow Wilson; Herbert Hoover;Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon all had plenty of experience. None were good Presidents and Buchanon; both Johnsons; Wilson; Hoover and Nixon were six of the absolute worst.
Compare them to such "inexperienced" Presidents as Washington ; LINCOLN ( 1 term in Congress); Teddy Roosevelt ( 1 term in the N.Y. State Assembly ; 2 years as Governor of N.Y. and less than a year as Veep ); Eisenhower ( no political experience ) and even JFK ( no EXECUTIVE experience ).
JFK learned fast. He deferred to "experienced" men like Allen Dulles and let himself get bamboozled into going ahead with the Bay of Pigs but when the Cuban Missile Crisis occurred he disregarded the advice of the JCS and Dean Acheson and did not invade or order air strikes. Instead he relied on his own judgment and the crisis was peacefully resolved.
Let's look at Hillary. She sat on the Bd. of Wal-Mart and never uttered a peep to advance the well-being of their workforce. She invested in Whitewater ; repped Madison Guaranty and got involved with a host of shady characters down in Arkansas. She barely avoided indictment not once but twice.
She held secret meetings as head of the Health Care Task Force and when the initial effort failed, she ran and hid from the health care issue for six (6) years.
It took her three tries to get a woman Attorney General and the 3rd choice was
a pathetic joke who inter alia stymied a number of investigations into Al Queda
terrorists pre-9/11. Her appointee; Jamie Gorelick wrote the policy memo preventing the FBI and CIA from sharing info on suspected terrorists.
Worst of all , for strictly personal political reasons she voted for WAR in Iraq. Hillary confidantes have admitted that she did it to secure moderate support when she ran for President in 2008. She admits she NEVER read the Intelligence estimates that clearly showed a lack of hard evidence of WMD. On it's face in BOLD TYPE the resolution said "AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF FORCE IN IRAQ ." She claims now that she was assured that Bush would come back to Congress and seek further support for going in but that is a total and complete lie. She voted AGAINST the Levin Amendment that would have required Bush to do just that if Saddam rejected further inspections.
She told Bill NOT to settle the Paula Jones lawsuit which led directly to the Monica Lewinsky revelations and she BELIEVED Bill when he told her there was nothing to the allegations.
Would someone; ANYONE ! please point to something ; ANYTHING that indicates a history of sound judgment by Hillary ?
Now let's look at Obama. Zero Grand Jury appearances. Never sat on the bd. of Wal-Mart or any other corporate predator. No sex scandals. No financial scandals and he comes out of CHICAGO so that is a definite achievement in and of itself. ( Before someone chimes in with Rezko- check the facts. No evidence whatsoever that Obama ever did anything wrong.) He opposed the War in Iraq from the git go and all the negative consequences he cited in 2002 have in fact come to pass.
That is as good as it gets with judgment.





Bookmarks