<p>I have been my husbands’ sounding board for 29 years. That does not make me qualified to run a large company. I am also very good at what I do and have talked to my husband about it for the same amount of time. THere’s no way he can do my job either.</p>
<p>“Simba, I also had a question if you could answer for me.”</p>
<p>Not really. You pick VP primarily to make a winning ticket. (JFK picked LBJ).</p>
<p>“I have been my husbands’ sounding board for 29 years. That does not make me qualified to run a large company.”</p>
<p>Perhaps you are not very smart.</p>
<p>I think its just great that Hillary has released a redacted social calendar from her time spent living in the White House. </p>
<p>However, when will she release her tax returns, earmarks, and finance papers?
Until that is done, she and her campaign should not be challenging her opponent any further about transparency.</p>
<p>Simba: I thought that was incredibly rude. Is every spouse qualified to do the other spouses job given enough intelligence?</p>
<p>“The calendar for Jan. 26, 1996—the day crowds of reporters and TV cameramen gathered at the courthouse to watch Hillary Clinton enter and exit the grand jury—is totally blank. “NO public schedule,” it states simply, wiping out any reference to one of the more embarrassing public episodes of the First Lady’s days in the White House.”</p>
<p>This quote is from today’s Newsweek article and expresses clearly what I have against her. If she has so much to hide, I don’t want her as my President. It also explains why she’s taking so long to release her tax return.</p>
<p>“You pick VP primarily to make a winning ticket. (JFK picked LBJ).”</p>
<p>He “picked” that unknown, inexperienced LBJ for the sake of a winning ticket. To use YOUR words from another thread, perhaps you should do some research.</p>
<p>BTW, nice comment in post 23. Very Clintonesque. When you don’t have an answer just be insulting. Brings alot to the discussion.</p>
<p>And shows something about experience. 2113 posts and where does that get you?</p>
<p>Clinton and her surrogates just don’t get it. </p>
<p>Someone asked Hillary about her war vote and the person asking the question was P’ed of. And Hillary haughtily snapped back and said “oh it’s wonderful if you had the insight to be against the war”. Of course she ignored the fact that 133 House Democrats and 23 Senators did have that insight.</p>
<p>And the same thing with Ferraro who stated it must be race that people are voting for Obama , it can’t be issues because that just wouldn’t make sense.</p>
<p>Until Hillary understands that people hate her for legitimate policy reasons, she’ll never be a successful candidate. She thinks the attacks on her are solely personal and I’ll tell you I’ve never voted for a Republican in a federal election in my life (except against Waxman because he’s a rat).</p>
<pre><code> What are those legitimate policy reasons? Her vote for the war, her vote the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment , her vote in the 2001 Bankruptcy Bill, her vote not to ban land mines and cluster bombs. It has nothing to do with her background . And let’s add her husband’s NAFTA and Iraq Liberation Act on to the reasons we don’t like her. In all fairness, I thought Clinton was the most responsible when it came to the budget in the last 35 years, but that just doesn’t cut it for people are who are more liberal.
</code></pre>
<p>“Clinton and her surrogates just don’t get it”</p>
<p>They don’t want to get it. You can explain to them until you’re blue in the fact that the issues are what matter to you, but they will still accuse you of being sexist.</p>
<p>^^ fordiscussion - it’s the same with people who want to believe it’s all about “race”.</p>