<p>And now marking the 5th year anniversary in Iraq, McCain, that stalwart of foreign policy, the man with all the experience, well as much as Hilary’s by her assessment, the man who has met the Hilary Clinton threshold/test for commander in chief had this to say:</p>
<p>“Today in Iraq, America and our allies stand on the precipice of winning a major victory against radical Islamic extremism. The security gains over the past year have been dramatic and undeniable. Al Qaeda and Shia extremists – with support from external powers such as Iran – are on the run but not defeated.” </p>
<p>There goes that bogus Iran and Al Qaeda connection. Gee John where you plan on invading next. Just like Bush, apparently this clown’s foreign policy can be summed up with “yeeeeeeeeeee hah, bomb 'em all back to the stoneage.” ooops, that was Vietnam but not sure he really knows the difference or cares.</p>
<p>“Still not seen from any source this enormity of experience Clinton claims she has other than she keeps claiming she has it. Just as she has really just watched from the sidelines, I’ve watched thousands of Dodger games, doesn’t mean they are letting me take the field.”</p>
<p>But you (presumably) weren’t sleeping with the manager, so I hardly think this is a good analogy. Come on, you know very well that Hillary was more than “on the sidelines.” At the very least, she had a front row seat and was privy to what decisions were made and how they were made. And we all know this. So it’s pointless to keep “asking” what experience she has.</p>
<p>Exaggerating her public “service” and "experience"doesn’t make Clinton a stronger candidate either. Most articles agree with Bloomberg. (even though she still withheld a lot more information…)</p>
<p>"Hillary Clinton’s daily schedules show that her formal policy role in the presidency of her husband, Bill Clinton, shrunk once Congress shelved the health- care plan she helped craft in the administration’s first two years.</p>
<p>The 11,046 pages of daily schedules released by the Clinton Presidential Library show that her days became filled with the more traditional, ceremonial events attended by first ladies instead of policy meetings after Congress in 1994 killed her plan to guarantee every American access to health insurance.</p>
<p>In campaigning for the Democratic presidential nomination, Clinton says the experience she gained in her husband’s administration prepared her to be president on ``day one.‘’ Clinton, a New York senator, argues that her travel and meetings with foreign leaders give her a deeper foreign-policy resume than Democratic rival Barack Obama. She has questioned the Illinois senator’s fitness to be commander in chief. "</p>
<p>She may have performed her first wife duties well. That does not qualify her to be President. This has been said many times. The Clinton supporters have provided no information yet to explain why she is more qualified than her opponent. Sorry.</p>
<p>If you combined the experience of BOTH Hillary AND Obama and multiplied it by ten, it STILL would not hold a candle to the experience of John McCain. There really should be no contest!</p>
<p>McCain has more experience, knowledge, judgement, integrity, patriotism, and leadership skills in his little finger than both of those dems combined.</p>
<p>It’s really comical how Hillary & Obama (& their supporters) are arguing over whose drop in the bucket is bigger! In the end, neither amounts to a “hill of beans”!</p>
<p><< How many euphemisms can I put in one post?? haha!>></p>
<p>McCain may have experience unfortunately he doesn’t seem capable of remembering what it is. After 5 years in Iraq he doesn’t even seem to know who it is we are fighting. The man just wants to fight.</p>
<p>And as to post #22 when someone tells me what all this experience is that she has, i’ll stop asking the question. And what do you base your statement on. How do you know what she was privy to and what she knew and what meetings she sat in on etc.</p>
<p>She’s claimed she was on some important mission in Bosnia. It was a USO tour with Sinbad. She claims she was heavily involved in N. Ireland peace talks yet her papers released today say she was no where near those talks at any critical time and two nobel prize winners involved say she was a “cheerleader” at best. During two different US air strikes in the Clinton years she was on vacation in Egypt during one and at Martha’s Vinyard during the other.</p>
<p>Tell me a fact, one fact of anything she actually did, actually was involved in and not just a distant spectator. I don’t know she was ever anything but on the sidelines. The only involvment I know she directly had was with healthcare reform and she handled it horribly.</p>
<p>And I think my analogy is quite on point. I can watch a 1000 major league baseball games, doesn’t mean I’d stand a chance if they put me up to bat; and she has NEVER been up to bat except with healtcare and took strike three looking.</p>
<p>And let me add there is nothing silly about this per post #26. Her claimed/feigned experience is at the heart of her campaign and her trashing of her opponent(s).</p>
<p>I hope someone from the press is counting the number of times the phone rang at 3:00 am. That must be in the schedules. Or maybe not. 4,400 pages were redacted. … :D</p>
<p>RE: Post #30. Perhaps take your own advice:</p>
<p>Your words from a previous post - “What makes him qualified and capable? Concrete examples no jingles please.”</p>
<p>So let’s replace “him” w/ “her” and instead of the oneliners how 'bout one example of the enormity of her actual experience. Not talking about anyone else here but Senator Hilary Clinton. What has she done that makes up this vast presidential experience she claims to have.</p>
<p>If she prevails and wins the nomination I would truly like to know this information and justify how I can support her and as I’m turly not ready for four more years of Bush in the guise of John (“I don’t understand economics” and “We’ll be in Iraq or is it Iran or is it ??? for 100 years if that’s what it takes”) Wayne…oops I mean McCain.</p>
<p>Thank you. Your input would be much appreciated.</p>
<p>All three of these people are Senators. The Senate is a very different place from the White House, and Senators don’t “lead” in the same way Presidents do. There is little to make me think that the length of time a person has been in the Senate will be much of a predictor of how good a job he or she will do in the White House. None of the three candidates really has the kind of actual experience that would tell you much about what kind of president they would be. The mayor of Scranton would have more relevant experience than any of them. As I’ve noted, I prefer Obama, but I have to say that Hillary probably does have the best claim to at least have an insider’s clue of what being president requires. But it’s still not a very strong claim.</p>
<p>Hunt, that was a great post. For whatever reason, I hadn’t made the leap to realizing that our next president will come from the senate (I know, I know), but you make some excellent points. I wish I could be as reasonable about Hillary as you are, but I just wish she would go away and take her husband with her.</p>