Is Bernie right about Hillary?

Legion Troll

A fine upstanding poster
B0tGUyyCQAEkj2D.jpg


INSTEAD OF AN EMPTY CHAIR, WE'LL HAVE AN EMPTY PANTSUIT



He says she's not qualified to be president.

Let's examine her record.

According the Daily Kos, hardly part of the vast right-wing conspiracy, Hillary is an empty pantsuit.




Before we begin, let's consider some definitions of leadership and effectiveness in the Senate. Although there are many types of leadership in the Senate, I think we can all agree that sponsoring more bills that become law, all else being equal, is an indicator of influence and leadership. Likewise, I think we can also agree that having a higher percentage of one's bills become law, all else being equal, is an indicator of effectiveness.

As measured by these definitions, Hillary Clinton's leadership over her seven years in the Senate was marginal, and her effectiveness over her Senate terms was extremely poor.

In fact, she has a remarkably poor track record at turning her sponsored legislation into law, to the extent that she's an outlier among her Democratic colleagues.

Of 337 bills that Hillary has introduced, only 2 became law.

These numbers are always lower than you'd think -- it isn't easy to get a bill passed -- but Hillary's batting average is especially poor.

Let's take a look at some detail.

GovTrack.us, an award-winning, non-partisan source of information on our legislators, has compiled a number of statistics related to bill sponsorship in the House and Senate. These statistics include such things as the number of bills sponsored, the number of sponsored bills that go to committee, and the number of sponsored bills that are passed into law.

Of Hillary's 337 bills, only 46 made it to the Committee stage, giving her a 13.6% batting average; the typical Democrat has a 17.4% batting average.

In other words, Hillary Clinton was ineffective at getting her sponsored bills to Committee; she ranked 24 of the 39 Democrats in this department.

Similarly, Hillary ranked poorly at converting bills that come out of Committee into law; only 2 of her 46 post-committee bills did so. This ranks her 29th out of 38 Democrats.

Combining these two things, we see that only 2 out of 337 bills she sponsored have become law, or 0.6%. This is one of the worst numbers among the Democrats.

As a result, although Hillary introduced bills at a faster pace than any of her colleagues, she passed a below-average number of successful bills (e.g. bills that became law) -- just 2 over 7 years, or 1.7 per term.

Why does this happen to be the case? There are two, fairly basic reasons. One is that Hillary Clinton introduced a ton of softball legislation.

Some of this was throwaway legislation that was no doubt intended to provide for a photo opportunity or press release.

Likewise, there was a fair amount of pork.

Almost all senators introduce bills like this from time to time, so Hillary was not unique in this regard. She just happened to do it more often than anyone else.

The second reason for this pattern may be that she lacks follow-through. This could be for any number of reasons:

She is ineffective at articulating the importance of her positions.

She lacks the collaborative skills to rally support .

She is poorly organized, or unfocused.

She is more concerned about symbolic trappings than the actual effect on Americans.



Stay on topic, or this thread will be moved to the war zone, where you will find all threads that devolve to back and forth insults.



http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/11/21/413141/-
 
Hillary Rodham Clinton
1 Pierrepont Plaza
Brooklyn, NY 11201
(202) 224-4343
hdr22@clintonemail.com (out of service)
@HillaryClinton


Objective: Win 2016 Democratic nomination for president of the United States

Work experience

Secretary of state, 2009–13:

Circled globe making amends for the Bush years and watched as Middle East fell apart
Betrayed friends in the Middle East, watched Bashar al-Assad and Ghaddafi murdered, mollycoddled Russia, fumbled pivot to Asia

US senator from New York, 2001–09:

Cast vote in favor of use of force resolution in Iraq
Voted against tax cuts
Voted in favor of $700bn TARP financial bailout program

First lady of United States, 1993–2001:

Led effort to reform healthcare but failed to lead Congress by the nose; lost the vote
Stood by her man
Bravely weathered economic adversity: “We came out of the White House not only dead broke but in debt”

Education

BA, Wellesley College, 1969
JD, Yale Law School, 1973. Postgraduate study at the Yale Child Study Center

Background and family life

Born 26 October 1947 (age 67) in Chicago, Illinois. With husband Bill has one daughter, Chelsea Victoria, 35, and a granddaughter

Publications and skills

Second place, Democratic presidential nominating competition, 2008
Most admired woman in America and third-most-admired woman in world
Once clapped backup for Stevie Nicks and Michael Jackson


Stay on topic, or this thread will be moved to the war zone, where you will find all threads that devolve to back and forth insults.




http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2015/apr/12/hillary-clintons-campaign-resume-as-seen-by-the-guardian
 
Those who rave like this about Clinton’s qualifications are generally talking about her resume: eight years as first lady, eight more as senator from New York, four years as secretary of state.

Earlier, she was a partner in the Rose Law Firm and head of the Legal Services Corporation.

It all makes for an impressive CV, arguably the most impressive of the current presidential contenders.

But does it really make for “the best qualified presidential candidate ever”? Or even the best qualified in 2016?

If imposing resumes augured presidential greatness, James Buchanan would be on Mount Rushmore.

A list of offices held is a flimsy guide to the quality of a presidential candidate.

Integrity, vision, humility, consistency of purpose, a willingness to learn — those are far more reliable indicators of excellence in a potential president.

Clinton has a fine resume. But history repeatedly reminds us that it takes more than that to make a fine president.



Stay on topic, or this thread will be moved to the war zone, where you will find all threads that devolve to back and forth insults.



https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2016/02/03/does-hillary-resume-really-make-her-best-qualified-presidential-candidate/oVQRpgfUR5xvtmZylUYUbO/story.html

This is about personal characteristics that would make her a good president, not qualifications.
 
This is about personal characteristics that would make her a good president, not qualifications.

So she really has no accomplishments to speak of, despite all her vaunted years of experience in and around government, does she, Counselor?


I think HRC is the most qualified candidate we have had in modern times.

Those who rave like this about Clinton’s qualifications are generally talking about her resume: eight years as first lady, eight more as senator from New York, four years as secretary of state.

Earlier, she was a partner in the Rose Law Firm and head of the Legal Services Corporation.

It all makes for an impressive CV, arguably the most impressive of the current presidential contenders.

But does it really make for “the best qualified presidential candidate ever”? Or even the best qualified in 2016?

If imposing resumes augured presidential greatness, James Buchanan would be on Mount Rushmore.

A list of offices held is a flimsy guide to the quality of a presidential candidate.

Integrity, vision, humility, consistency of purpose, a willingness to learn — those are far more reliable indicators of excellence in a potential president.

Clinton has a fine resume. But history repeatedly reminds us that it takes more than that to make a fine president.

Stay on topic, or this thread will be moved to the war zone, where you will find all threads that devolve to back and forth insults.



https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2016/02/03/does-hillary-resume-really-make-her-best-qualified-presidential-candidate/oVQRpgfUR5xvtmZylUYUbO/story.html
 
So she really has no accomplishments to speak of, despite all her vaunted years of experience in and around government, does she, Counselor?

She does...

I cant find the old list of accomplishments of HRC, I guess they were lost when the server went down a few months ago.. I was able to get a few of them together for you by visiting a few web cites.

Among HRC's accomplishments qualifications and professional experiences that qualify her to be president are...

She graduated in the top five percent of her High School class of 1965.

Worked on the campaign for Republican candidate Barry Goldwater in the U.S. presidential election of 1964.

During her freshman year in college, she served as president of the Wellesley Young Republicans.

In early 1968, she was elected president of the Wellesley College Government Association and served through early 1969.

HRC interned at the House Republican Conference, and she attended the "Wellesley in Washington" summer program.

She attended the 1968 Republican National Convention in Miami

Summer of 1969 she worked her way across Alaska, washing dishes in Mount McKinley National Park and sliming salmon in a fish processing cannery in Valdez.

Hillary Rodham graduated from Wellesley College in 1969, where she became the first student commencement speaker.

Hillary Clinton Earned a J.D. from Yale.

Served as editor of the Yale Law Review.

In the summer of 1970 she was awarded a grant to work at Marian Wright Edelman's Washington Research Project, where she was assigned to Senator Walter Mondale's Subcommittee on Migratory Labor.

Rodham was recruited by political advisor Anne Wexler to work on the 1970 campaign of Connecticut U.S. Senate candidate Joseph Duffey.

1972, Rodham campaigned in Texas for unsuccessful 1972 Democratic presidential candidate George McGovern.

Rodham completed a year of postgraduate study on children and medicine at the Yale Child Study Center.

In 1973 Rodham served as staff attorney for Edelman's newly founded Children's Defense Fund in Cambridge, Massachusetts

In 1974 she was a member of the impeachment inquiry staff in Washington, D.C., advising the House Committee on the Judiciary during the Watergate scandal.

In August 1974, Rodham moved to Fayetteville, Arkansas, and became one of only two female faculty members in the School of Law at the University of Arkansas, Fayetteville.

Married Bill Clinton in October of 1975. (Not a qualification for president, but I put it in to show her accomplishments prior to her marriage.)

HRC co-founded Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families in 1977.

Rodham published the scholarly articles "Children's Policies: Abandonment and Neglect" in 1977[78] and "Children's Rights: A Legal Perspective" in 1979.

In 1977 President Jimmy Carter (for whom Rodham had been the 1976 campaign director of field operations in Indiana) appointed her to the board of directors of the Legal Services Corporation.

She became the first female chair of the Legal Services Corporation in 1978

Rodham became First Lady of Arkansas in January 1979

She was a partner in a large law firm.

She served as the chair of the Rural Health Advisory Committee in 1979

1980, Rodham gave birth to their daughter Chelsea. (Being mother to a happy healthy child is one of her biggest accomplishments in my opinion.)

She was named chair of the Arkansas Educational Standards Committee in 1983, where she sought to reform the state's court-sanctioned public education system where she was successful in the battle against the Arkansas Education Association to establish mandatory teacher testing and state standards for curriculum and classroom size.

While First Lady of Arkansas from 1979 to 1981, and 1983 to 1992, she led a task force that reformed Arkansas' public school system

She was named Arkansas Woman of the Year in 1983 and Arkansas Mother of the Year in 1984.

From 1987 to 1991, she was the first chair of the American Bar Association's Commission on Women in the Profession, created to address gender bias in the legal profession and induce the association to adopt measures to combat it.

Served as the first woman on the board of directors of Wal-Mart.

Twice named by The National Law Journal as one of the 100 most influential lawyers in America: in 1988 and in 1991

Clinton served on the boards of the Arkansas Children's Hospital Legal Services (1988–1992) and the Children's Defense Fund (as chair, 1986–1992).

She was the first first lady to hold a postgraduate degree and to have her own professional career up to the time of entering the White House.[

In 1997 and 1999, she played a leading role in advocating the creation of the State Children's Health Insurance Program, the Adoption and Safe Families Act and the Foster Care Independence Act.

Along with Senators Ted Kennedy and Orrin Hatch, she was a force behind the passage of the State Children's Health Insurance Program in 1997, a federal effort that provided state support for children whose parents could not provide them with health coverage, and conducted outreach efforts on behalf of enrolling children in the program once it became law.

Together with Attorney General Janet Reno, Clinton helped create the Office on Violence Against Women at the Department of Justice.

In 1995 after being asked by the U.S. State Department traveled to India and Pakistan in an effort to improve relations.

In 1997, she initiated and shepherded the Adoption and Safe Families Act, which she regarded as her greatest accomplishment as first lady

1999, she was instrumental in the passage of the Foster Care Independence Act, which doubled federal monies for teenagers aging out of foster care.

Clinton was elected in 2000 as the first female senator from the state of New York.

She demonstrated her ability to work across the isle by forging alliances with religiously inclined senators by becoming a regular participant in the Senate Prayer Breakfast.

She served on five Senate committees: Committee on Budget (2001–2002), Committee on Armed Services (2003–2009), Committee on Environment and Public Works (2001–2009), Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (2001–2009) and Special Committee on Aging. She was also a member of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe (2001–2009).

Clinton was re-elected to the Senate in 2006.

Working with New York's senior senator, Charles Schumer, she was instrumental in securing $21 billion in funding for the World Trade Center site's redevelopment.

Senator Clinton voted against President Bush's two major tax cut packages, the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 and the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003.

Clinton is the only woman to win a national party primary for president of the United States.

Instrumental in the decision making process that led to the capture of Osama Bin Laden. (Many Conservatives claim she made the decision.)

Clinton implemented, the Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review, a major reform at the State Department which established specific objectives for the State Department's diplomatic missions abroad; it was modeled after a similar process in the Defense Department that she was familiar with from her time on the Senate Armed Services Committee.

In March 2009, Clinton prevailed over Vice President Joe Biden on an internal debate to send an additional 21,000 troops to the war in Afghanistan and supported Obama's plan to tie the surge to a timetable for eventual withdrawal.

In October 2009, on a trip to Switzerland, Clinton's intervention overcame last-minute snags and saved the signing of an historic Turkish–Armenian accord that established diplomatic relations and opened the border between the two long-hostile nations.

Beginning in 2010, she helped organize a diplomatic isolation and international sanctions regime against Iran, in an effort to force curtailment of that country's nuclear program; this would eventually lead to the multinational Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action being agreed to in 2015.

As our secretary of state, Clinton visited 112 countries, helping to repair a badly damaged U.S. reputation.

Hillary Clinton was instrumental in the passage of the Children’s Health Insurance Program. CHIP cut the uninsured rate of American children by half, and today it provides health care to more than 8 million kids.

As Secretary of State negotiated a lasting cease fire between Israel and Hamas.

GRAMMY Award Winner

Hillary Clinton introduced the Heroes at Home Act in 2006 and 2007 to help family members care for those with Traumatic Brain Injury.

She worked to increase the military survivor benefit from $12,000 to $100,000, and cosponsored the Support for Injured Service members Act to extend benefits provided under the Family and Medical Leave Act.



These are just a few... and while none alone qualify her to be president added together they present more qualifications than any other candidate for president.
 
Those aren't the kind of accomplishments that would inspire a reasonable to person to declare Hillary "the most qualified candidate we have had in modern times", are they, Counselor?

What has she ever accomplished to benefit the American people during her many years of "experience"?

What valuable contributions did she make as First Lady - an unelected position she fell into by being married to BJ?

What legislation did she sponsor and shepherd through the Senate in her two terms there?

What foreign policy triumphs did she achieve as Secretary of State after Obama tossed her a Cabinet seat as a sop to her husband?
 
Those aren't the kind of accomplishments that would inspire a reasonable to person to declare Hillary "the most qualified candidate we have had in modern times", are they, Counselor?

What has she ever accomplished to benefit the American people during her many years of "experience"?

What valuable contributions did she make as First Lady - an unelected position she fell into by being married to BJ?

What legislation did she sponsor and shepherd through the Senate in her two terms there?

What foreign policy triumphs did she achieve as Secretary of State after Obama tossed her a Cabinet seat as a sop to her husband?

1) I disagree that she was thrown the Cabinet seat as a sop to her husband.
2) Sponsoring and sheparding legislation does not necessarily make one a good senator.
3) Above I listed many accomplishments that benefited the American people as first lady and as senator and before she married Bill Clinton.

Please tell me who is more qualified?
 
1) I disagree that she was thrown the Cabinet seat as a sop to her husband.
2) Sponsoring and sheparding legislation does not necessarily make one a good senator.
3) Above I listed many accomplishments that benefited the American people as first lady and as senator and before she married Bill Clinton. Please tell me who is more qualified?

She accomplished nothing that anyone with her advantages couldn't have done before she married BJ.

The legal profession is littered with people like her, as you know. That doesn't mean they would be "the most qualified candidate we have had in modern times", does it, Counselor?

They didn't marry a charismatic, populist M A N, and she did.

Since then she has accomplished nothing that you can name except a repetitive, parrot-like list of positions she's held without a single positive outcome in her whole career.

You wouldn't hire a paralegal with a lack of achievement like that, would you, Counselor? So why would you proclaim that this woman is "the most qualified candidate we have had in modern times"?
 
Name someone more qualified and their accomplishments?

Try to focus, Counselor.

I didn't claim that anyone is "the most qualified candidate we have had in modern times", did I?

Y O U did.

If you cannot substantiate that statement, simply say so, and I'll accept that is was mere puffery.
 
Try to focus, Counselor.

I didn't claim that anyone is "the most qualified candidate we have had in modern times", did I?

Y O U did.

If you cannot substantiate that statement, simply say so, and I'll accept that is was mere puffery.

You say she is not the most qualified, so who is?
 
You say she is not the most qualified, so who is?

I said nothing of the kind. I have expressed no opinion of anyone else's qualifications.

Y O U, however, stated that Hillary is "the most qualified candidate we have had in modern times".

Does Counsel wish to withdraw the statement?
 
I said nothing of the kind. I have expressed no opinion of anyone else's qualifications.

Y O U, however, stated that Hillary is "the most qualified candidate we have had in modern times".

Does Counsel wish to withdraw the statement?

no
 
My qualifications are not in contention, Counselor. Your statement is. I'm inclined to dismiss your pleading with prejudice, unless you have new evidence.

You asked if I wanted you to make a ruling, seemed to me you were claiming qualification to do so, I simply pointed out I don't recognize your qualifications to do so... You can say what you want, and I will ignore what I think is idiotic.
 
You asked if I wanted you to make a ruling, seemed to me you were claiming qualification to do so, I simply pointed out I don't recognize your qualifications to do so... You can say what you want, and I will ignore what I think is idiotic.

Here's some evidence that would seem to undercut your baseless proclamation that Hillary is "the most qualified candidate we have had in modern times", Counselor.

It's true that, according to the Hillary myth, Hillary's classmates were wowed by her at Wellesley and that she gave what they considered to be a stirring graduation address when she left. But giving a great graduation address is not a qualification for the presidency. And, even if it were, it would have to be a lot better speech than Hillary's, which, to be kind, has not stood the test of time as well as, say, the Gettysburg Address.

"We are, all of us, exploring a world that none of us even understands and attempting to create within that uncertainty," she said that day. "But there are some things we feel, feelings that our prevailing, acquisitive, and competitive corporate life, including tragically the universities, is not the way of life for us. We're searching for more immediate, ecstatic, and penetrating modes of living."

"I Have a Dream," it's not.

It's also true that Hillary was an outstanding student at Yale Law School. But so was everyone else -- that's what Yale Law School attracts. (Okay, I'm bragging; I went there, too.) As with almost everyone else who went to Yale Law, she's smart and quick on her feet, which is why she does well in debates. Again, that's not a qualification for the presidency (or if it is, I have about 5000 classmates and alumni I'd like to recommend ahead of her).

Since then, Hillary has been one of Bill's closest advisers. But if that, too, were a presidential qualification, we could elect Dick Morris or James Carville (no thanks).

Granted, she got elected to the Senate in 2000. But if her name were Hillary Rodham, with no connection to a certain "Bill," how viable would that campaign have been?

The truth is that whenever Hillary has tried to do something important on her own -- and it hasn't been very often -- she's botched it rather spectacularly.

The health-care "debacle" she managed during her husband's first term was rightly named.

Not only did she get it wrong initially on Iraq -- her most important vote in a fairly undistinguished Senate career to date -- she refuses, to this day, to apologize for it, thereby confirming the suspicion that she is unpleasantly imperious.

Barack Obama doesn't exactly have a lengthy résumé, either. But he differs from Hillary in two key ways. First, if you've read his book, you know he's genuinely interesting, with a set of thoughtful and original political ideas, forged in a rather unconventional background. It's fun to read his autobiography -- though it remains to be seen if this intriguing persona translates into presidential material.

Second, he's self-made and paid his dues as a community organizer and state legislator -- which provided an education in itself. He didn't get his Senate seat by being the husband of Michelle Obama (and then pretending that somehow his spouse had nothing to do with his rise to prominence).

At the least, Hillary's presidential campaign has two things going for it.

The first, of course, is Bill. Without his fundraising network and his name behind her, she'd be nowhere.

The second is her gender, which gives America a chance to elect its first female president (though I can think of scores of other accomplished women who'd make a better president).

But the cost will be high. The founders rejected royalism, in part because they had many justified reservations about dynastic politics. They knew that the fruit could fall far from the tree -- and often does.

We've already elected one incompetent to the nation's highest office largely because he shared a recent president's last name. Indeed, as with Hillary, it would be impossible to write a decent biography of Bush 43 because there's no there there -- and never will be.



Stay on topic, or this thread will be moved to the war zone, where you will find all threads that devolve to back and forth insults.



http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/06/hillary_clinton_empty_pantsuit.html
 
Here's some evidence that would seem to undercut your baseless proclamation that Hillary is "the most qualified candidate we have had in modern times", Counselor.

It's true that, according to the Hillary myth, Hillary's classmates were wowed by her at Wellesley and that she gave what they considered to be a stirring graduation address when she left. But giving a great graduation address is not a qualification for the presidency. And, even if it were, it would have to be a lot better speech than Hillary's, which, to be kind, has not stood the test of time as well as, say, the Gettysburg Address.

"We are, all of us, exploring a world that none of us even understands and attempting to create within that uncertainty," she said that day. "But there are some things we feel, feelings that our prevailing, acquisitive, and competitive corporate life, including tragically the universities, is not the way of life for us. We're searching for more immediate, ecstatic, and penetrating modes of living."

"I Have a Dream," it's not.

It's also true that Hillary was an outstanding student at Yale Law School. But so was everyone else -- that's what Yale Law School attracts. (Okay, I'm bragging; I went there, too.) As with almost everyone else who went to Yale Law, she's smart and quick on her feet, which is why she does well in debates. Again, that's not a qualification for the presidency (or if it is, I have about 5000 classmates and alumni I'd like to recommend ahead of her).

Since then, Hillary has been one of Bill's closest advisers. But if that, too, were a presidential qualification, we could elect Dick Morris or James Carville (no thanks).

Granted, she got elected to the Senate in 2000. But if her name were Hillary Rodham, with no connection to a certain "Bill," how viable would that campaign have been?

The truth is that whenever Hillary has tried to do something important on her own -- and it hasn't been very often -- she's botched it rather spectacularly.

The health-care "debacle" she managed during her husband's first term was rightly named.

Not only did she get it wrong initially on Iraq -- her most important vote in a fairly undistinguished Senate career to date -- she refuses, to this day, to apologize for it, thereby confirming the suspicion that she is unpleasantly imperious.

Barack Obama doesn't exactly have a lengthy résumé, either. But he differs from Hillary in two key ways. First, if you've read his book, you know he's genuinely interesting, with a set of thoughtful and original political ideas, forged in a rather unconventional background. It's fun to read his autobiography -- though it remains to be seen if this intriguing persona translates into presidential material.

Second, he's self-made and paid his dues as a community organizer and state legislator -- which provided an education in itself. He didn't get his Senate seat by being the husband of Michelle Obama (and then pretending that somehow his spouse had nothing to do with his rise to prominence).

At the least, Hillary's presidential campaign has two things going for it.

The first, of course, is Bill. Without his fundraising network and his name behind her, she'd be nowhere.

The second is her gender, which gives America a chance to elect its first female president (though I can think of scores of other accomplished women who'd make a better president).

But the cost will be high. The founders rejected royalism, in part because they had many justified reservations about dynastic politics. They knew that the fruit could fall far from the tree -- and often does.

We've already elected one incompetent to the nation's highest office largely because he shared a recent president's last name. Indeed, as with Hillary, it would be impossible to write a decent biography of Bush 43 because there's no there there -- and never will be.



Stay on topic, or this thread will be moved to the war zone, where you will find all threads that devolve to back and forth insults.



http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/06/hillary_clinton_empty_pantsuit.html

Finally you have made an attempt, feeble as it is, to come up with some evidence, but this opinion piece is silly. Nobody said that graduating from Yale was a qualification to be President, I said it was one of a conglomeration of things that added up to being qualified. HRC has been very successful at many things without the assistance of WJC. Now its true they are married and their fortunes are tied together she would not be who she is without him and vice versa. That is the story of all long term successful marriages. I don't discount her for being a part of such a marriage and I don't discount her accomplishments for it.

Now, show me some evidence someone in modern times is more qualified to be president.
 
Finally you have made an attempt, feeble as it is, to come up with some evidence, but this opinion piece is silly. Nobody said that graduating from Yale was a qualification to be President, I said it was one of a conglomeration of things that added up to being qualified. HRC has been very successful at many things without the assistance of WJC. Now its true they are married and their fortunes are tied together she would not be who she is without him and vice versa. That is the story of all long term successful marriages. I don't discount her for being a part of such a marriage and I don't discount her accomplishments for it. Now, show me some evidence someone in modern times is more qualified to be president.

You can't prove your own statement, and you think you are in a position to demand that I prove that someone else is more qualified, Counselor?

List the accomplishments that you believe prove that Hillary is "the most qualified candidate we have had in modern times".

I'll understand if you can't.
 
Back
Top