The most qualified human being to EVER run for President? No contest

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

Hillary Clinton...

[ProdigalJunkMail]

1. what a narrow view of humanity... n/t

[misterhighwasted]

6. ?? ugh. Then you know little about her.

Ok if you have someone in mind but no need to diss this.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

12. to suggest she is the most qualified

EVER yields the comment I made and I will gladly stand by it. she may be a sharp woman, but the are many in the past who would have been, or persons in the present, who are more qualified.

sP

[underahedgerow]

188. I'm totally interested in who the other options are!

Let's hear it!!!

She is Mme Hillary Clinton after all, certainly no bush boy, that's for sure.

[misterhighwasted]

2. She has more qualifications than any President before her.

Great accomplished lady.
Nice Post.

[Art_from_Ark]

16. I think that George Washington was eminently qualified to be President

John Adams, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison as well, as all of them played major roles in not only gaining independence, but also in setting up a system that most of us are proud to be heirs to.

[hifiguy]

24. Well played, sir.

Ike had a fair set of credentials as well.

[Glassunion]

57. Does Hillary own more slaves than George Washington did?

Refresh my memory if you'd be so kind.

[Art_from_Ark]

59. Did Hillary lead, and win, a revolution for independence?

Refresh my memory if you'd be so kind.

[Glassunion]

62. No she didn't.

However, I cannot recall her violating the human rights and freedoms of hundreds of humans across several generations.

[Art_from_Ark]

64. What would Hillary have been like

if she had been the First Lady of Arkansas in, say, 1838 instead of 1988? Would she have owned slaves?

[Glassunion]

66. Does not matter.

She was not alive then, so it is speculation. Fact is GW did indeed violate the human rights of other humans. Seems a rather cold choice when selecting qualifications to lead a nation.

[Art_from_Ark]

68. Of course it matters

You are comparing someone who lived in an era when slavery was legal (although abhorrent to some) to someone who has lived all her life in an era when slavery was totally illegal and considered abhorrent by most.

However, if she had lived in Washington's day, and in the South, as a member of the wealthy class, she almost certainly would have had slaves.

For his part, Washington not only led the nation through the Revolution, but also through its early years under a Constitution that was a new experiment. He could have easily chosen to be a king, but instead he insisted on having the country be a constitutional republic, rather than a monarchy.

[Glassunion]

72. the op is talking qualifications

Not speculations. If you wish to speculate, then a new thread would probably be in order.

Personally, I'd have left the slave owners off the list. Adams would have been an excellent choice.

[Warren DeMontague]

94. She would have flown her B-17 stratofortress all over the old south bombing plantations and

Liberating slaves.

The B-17 wasnt invented for another 100 years you say? Pshaw. She would have built one out of motherfucking burlap, twine and cotton, yes indeed.

THAT IS WHAT I CALL QUALIFIED!!!!!!!

[Art_from_Ark]

95. OK, you've convinced me!

But where would that cotton have come from?

[Warren DeMontague]

97. Flying saucers

Which are really... Yeah, you got it... Time machines

[PoliticAverse]

71. She supported the Iraq war, over 100,000 civilians died in that war. n/t

[Glassunion]

76. That's a horrible qualification.

We agree on that. However, does that fact negate the fact that George Washington violated human rights?

[Art_from_Ark]

96. So they both violated rights

Hillary voted for a war against a people who had done us no wrong.

Washington led us to independence. And he helped set the stage for the continuation of a constitutional republic and representative democracy.

Would you have been happier if Washington had been someone like Napoleon, who freed slaves but then had himself crowned emperor and led his country to ruin?

[Glassunion]

101. No I would not have been happier.

[hifiguy]

173. Applying modern day standards to long-gone historical eras

is, IMO, a form of profound intellectual dishonesty. Would you criticize Isaac Newton as an inferior scientific mind for not devising Einstein's theories of special and general relativity? Of course not, because Einstein had far more knowledge of the world than was available to any scientist in the time of Newton. Einstein's greatness does nothing to diminish Newton's greatness, and without Newton there could have been no Einstein.

Morals evolve over time in a process analogous to the evolution of scientific knowledge.

[Glassunion]

174. So, since time has passed, the act is less horrific?

is it a sliding scale where as time increases the horrific nature of the act decreases?

What is the frame of time where horrific acts are forgotten or forgiven and the individual should only be looked at for their positive accomplishments?

[hifiguy]

175. Decontextualizing social mores from their times

is a fruitless - and fundamentally dishonest - occupation. Practices that were viewed as perfectly normal and acceptable in one time can later be seen as horrific in light of further enlightenment and social/ethical evolution. Washington and Jefferson were products of their time and logically could not be anything else and to say otherwise is BS. See my post on Newton and Einstein in this thread for an analogous example.

[Glassunion]

194. I disagree.

I am well aware of the fact that slavery was a social norm back then... Except of course in places it wasn't during Washington's lifetime. As well among his peers.

I'm not removing these norms from their context. In his time there were abolitionist movements, a good many of his fellow founding fathers deplored the practice. There were many nations (some of which our fledgling nation were allies with) who abolished slavery throughout his lifetime. Don't forget, the nation's capitol used to be in Pennsylvania... A free state. Law stated that any slave who resides in the state for more than 6 months, was to be free. So, our exalted one did the right thing... He rotated his slaves so that they would not spend enough time in the state to become free.

Washington went so far as to even regret at the practice his writings. In gushing letters to his pen pal Marquis de Lafayette, he continually held the act of abolishing slavery as a noble and benevolent undertaking. So he regrets such a deplorable practice, admires those with the fortitude to abolish it, yet continues the practice until he was dead.

So in context, he deplored the act, yet took every advantage of it for his entire lifetime. I recall a strongly worded letter written back when George was around. IIRC, it went something like: Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. - The hilarity of the hypocrisy in those words is amusing, as many of those who signed that letter were despots themselves, just on a smaller scale.

If only Washington could have had some good influences in his lifetime. Someone close. Someone he... I don't know... Maybe a coworker or something... Someone who could show him the way, someone who could have given an example that even though it is harder, and more expensive, that you can succeed and make an honest living without slavery. Shame there was no one like that back in Washington's time. "I have, through my whole life, held the practice of slavery in such abhorrence, that I have never owned a negro or any other slave; though I have lived for many years in times when the practice was not disgraceful; when the best men in my vicinity thought it not inconsistent with their character; and when it has cost me thousands of dollars of the labor and subsistence of free men, which I might have saved by the purchase of negroes at times when they were very cheap." - John Adams (George Washington's Vice President).

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

120. What Was Liz Warren's vote on that? Oh wait, she didnt vote nor do we have anything

on record from her BACK THEN as to what she would have done...

NOW she says she is against it, but I would like to see what she is on record saying back then when everybody was convinced of a bunch of lies

By everybody I dont include myself, i mean the idiots that vote in this country...

I am asking and this isnt sarcasm entirely, I would love to see something from her BACK THEN on this, anybody?

[Thinkingabout]

167. She did vote on the ISIS Resolution, her vote was NO, this is of recent months

she had security information available to her, I disagree with her vote.

[Austin Milbarge]

171. She has done much more damage to the environment than GW.

And I don't ever recall Washington ever taking a stance against gays like Hillary did. Score two for him.

[Thinkingabout]

193. Taking a stand against gays???? Would like to see a link on this,

She is with the LGBT on the issues, has marched in the parades.

[Austin Milbarge]

206. Why did she have to "evolve"?

People who are already supportive of something do not need to evolve to get to a supportive stance.

George Washington never had to evolve on the issue.

Point- GW!

[Thinkingabout]

208. Why would you ask this question and make a remark about evolving?

When can we expect evolving from others about someone who may have evolved?

[Warren DeMontague]

93. And, dont forget, he had wooden teeth.

Who has wooden teeth, nowadays? Not even Sean Hannity, despite the fact that the entire rest of his head is made out of the stuff.

[namastea42]

165. That's pretty funny. lol.

[Martin Eden]

160. Can we find a candidate who neither owned slaves nor voted for the Iraq war?

If not, The Democratic Party has lost its moorings and needs a major overhaul.

[Glassunion]

172. John Adams

[hifiguy]

178. Adams was a Federalist.

IOW a moderate conservative as those labels could then be understood and applicable. Jefferson belonged to the party that is the direct antecedent of the Democratic party.

[Martin Eden]

187. Required: US-born citizen at least 35 years old, currently living

Paul Giamatti meets that requirement, but the man he portrayed died Julty 4, 1826 (same day as Thomas Jeffereson).

[Glassunion]

195. Perhaps you missed the subject of the OP.

The most qualified human being to EVER run for President?

This would put Hillary up against every single human being that has, and I quote: "EVER" run for president.

[Martin Eden]

200. Perhaps you missed the meaning and context of "Can we find a candidate ..."

Just to clarify, so there is no misunderstanding:

"Can we find a candidate who neither owned slaves nor voted for the Iraq war?" was a reference to the upcoming presidential election. Candidate is the key word in the subject title of my post to which you responded. John Adams, though a very qualified Founder of our republic, is not eligible to be a candidate in the 2016 election.

I was working on the assumption that the intent of this thread in extolling the presidential qualifications of Hillary Clinton is to advance an argument that we should vote for her based on those qualifications. Was that a reasonable assumption on my part, or should this thread be taken entirely out of the context of the upcoming presidential election and viewed merely as a hypothetical comparison of HC with every human being who ever lived?

I hope I've made myself perfectly clear on this. For further clarity, I will expand upon my other posts in response to the OP in this thread:

Hillary Clinton demonstrated abysmal judgment in a critically important matter of war and peace. "Qualifications" are incomplete if one only looks at a resume' of previous positions held. For example, Dick Cheney has a long resume' of powerful positions in national government. However, that alone is insufficient to convince me to vote for him if he were to become a candidate for office. Are his actual record and policy positions in accordance with the direction I think our country should take?

It should be obvious the above paragraph is an exercise in logic using an example to make a point, so please don't construe it as an attempt by me to conflate Hillary Clinton with Dick Cheney. The principle at work here applies to every human being who ever lived regarding their "qualifications" for the office of POTUS. Ideas matter. The actual record matters.

And for the record, Hillary Clinton demonstrated abysmal judgment in a critically important matter of war and peace. That, by itself, is a dis-qualifier in my book.

[BainsBane]

186. You forgot the most important part

They were men, and of course slaveholders. And Washington was a General. So maybe Tommy Franks? Petraeus? Hell with voting for a war. Let's get the guys who ran it!

[MattSh]

99. Qualifications are nice.

But what about ideas?

Or just more of the same shit that got us into the current mess?

[hifiguy]

176. Walk-off home run.

[Martin Eden]

191. Based on experience, Dick Cheney is very qualified.

Would you vote for him on the basis of the posts he's held in his resume?

[AngryOldDem]

224. Here's the new American political system, apparently:

"Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."

Because guaranteed, she is NO better than what we've had.

[L0oniX]

3. *

[Rex]

89. .

[Warren DeMontague]

91. Apparently we've entered the "just make up radom shit and say it authoritatively" portion of the

Primary process...

It's-a gonna be- a LONG 15 months until the convention

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

121. So you agree she is?

[L0oniX]

143. You can find out what emoticons are at the library.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

145. So her experience, no good?

[rhett o rick]

220. She betrayed the Democratic Party and bowed down to Republicons. Is that your

"qualifications"? I guess Clinton - Bush or Bush -Clinton, doesn't really matter, right?

[Enrique]

4. this seems like an exaggeration

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

122. Is it? Has any candidate had a resume as deep as hers in history?

[NM_Birder]

146. Obama had less of a resume and beat her soundly.

[Mnpaul]

197. Walter Mondale?

B.A. in political science
Served in Korean War
Law Degree
Minnesota AG
US Senate
V.P.

While in the Senate, he supported consumer protection, fair housing, tax reform, and the desegregation of schools. Importantly, he served as a member of the Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities ("Church Committee&quot .

Mondale won the Democratic presidential nomination and campaigned for a nuclear freeze, the Equal Rights Amendment, an increase in taxes, and a reduction of U.S. public debt.

And later on, ambassador to Japan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Mondale

I can't believe they voted for that idiot Reagan

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

198. Excellent response. Ronald Reagan has caused more death and destruction than anyone

in USA history other than W...

Or to be more accurate, more poverty

[StevieM]

217. As much as I detested Reagan and Bush, I would still have to give the nod to Jefferson Davis. (eom)

[Scootaloo]

5. And yet she didn't get nominated in 2008. Why's that?

[misterhighwasted]

11. Oh dear..you guys need to find some new talking points..

My apologies.

[Scootaloo]

13. Seems a relevant question to the OP

[misterhighwasted]

21. well sure..its shows up in every post in favor of Mrs Clinton

Just as I said.
Never mind.

[Logical]

78. LOL, So you disagree she lost in 2008, WTF! Nt

[Renew Deal]

17. Politics

[jobycom]

46. Meh. Bush got nominated. Reagan got nominated. Basically...

getting or not getting nominated has no relation to being qualified.

Not agreeing or disagreeing with the OP. Or you. Or anyone. Basically just stating that this nation has a lot of idiots.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

7. I like HRC but that would be hyperbole.

We did have a Political Science PhD in the White House but he was a bit of a mixed bag.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

123. I cant think of anyone with a resume like hers.

[immoderate]

8. I'd rather be lucky.

--imm

[tkmorris]

9. I have no idea how you arrive at that conclusion

But, if it makes you feel all warm and fuzzy, roll with it.

[scscholar]

14. Because it is true

List to the scholar. Listen. Listen.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

124. I am open to a resume you can provide from a former candidate that exceeds hers, so far

nothing from anyone other than one person mentioned Woodrow Wilson.


And IKE, but IKE isnt in her league at all.

[Martin Eden]

161. Barack Obama, as a freshman Senator, was more qualified

Experience is not the same as qualification.

Obama spoke out against the Iraq war before it was launched, whereas Hillary Clinton voted for it.

No contest whatsover on the crucially important qualification of judgment in matters of War & Peace.

If future historians ever write an analysis of the rise & fall of the late great United States, I expect the tipping point will be the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

[840high]

10. I just broke out in hives.

[Renew Deal]

15. What? It's questionable if she's even more qualified than Obama was.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

125. So her resume, not much on it then?

[Renew Deal]

163. You tell me. It's your claim.

[ND-Dem]

210. She was first lady of arkansas and US first lady. Then secretary of state. And before that,

a Senator, and before that, a lawyer.

Have I missed a qualification?

Let's see.. john Kerry has also been a senator, SoS, and lawyer. He hasn't been a first lady though.

[Man from Pickens]

18. if your only qualification is Wall Street money, then you're right

if your qualification is success in public office, let's talk about Libya.

[freshwest]

155. Benghazi!!!!!

[Man from Pickens]

156. No not Benghazi

I'm talking about the war she started for reasons which are still not all that clear, and which have left the country in utter chaos ever since.

We still care about avoiding the horrors and adverse consequences of war, right?

[misterhighwasted]

19. See I told you..they all show up at the same time every day

And they all jump on the same posts.
Its maybe a warm & fuzzy thing for them to hang so close together but, well, its just kinda weird. Like high school ya know.
Perfect post anyway..later. I am off to diner.

[Thinkingabout]

42. She has more qualifications and experience than she had in 2008.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

126. It is clear to me what is going on...very crystal clear

[freshwest]

153. The ever popular 'Name Removed' also made multiple appearances. Too bad, Dittoheads! Good job, MIRT!

[misterhighwasted]

162. They have nothing to contribute, just show up to disrupt

I now have about 30 of them on IGNORE.
Yes 30.
Fine with me. They offer nothing constructive to DU so I won't waste my time with them.
They are welcome to gather in their group of disrupters & talk to themselves.
Have at it.
I won't be reading anymore of their pointless useless Freeper Page libelous comments.

My DU is great today. Much like the way it should be.
Glad I got rid of all of them.
They have Nothing.

[Mnpaul]

199. They are too funny to ignore

They often end up looking very foolish and bring out good, solid rebuttals from the rest.

[HereSince1628]

20. Great! Tell me which 2 or 3 US problems her qualification best address

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

22. Define "qualified."

Not saying she isn't qualified, but if you ask me, someone who had been a Vice President is much more qualified in the technical sense of that word (e.g., direct exposure to the inner workings of the presidency). That, of course, doesn't necessarily mean they would be a good President (Exhibits A, B and C: Richard Nixon, George H.W. Bush, and potentially Dick Cheney). Abraham Lincoln, on the other hand, wasn't very "qualified" - he had been only a state representative and a one-term congressman. Eisenhower had no experience at all as an elected official. "Qualified" is a very slippery concept when it comes to Presidents.

[Jenny Red Eye]

23. No. Passion and independence trumps intelligence and experience. nt

[DemocratSinceBirth]

28. Dubya was passionate and independent of reason./NT

[Jenny Red Eye]

31. But, he was not independent of Cheney.

[HereSince1628]

33. Ouch! Truth hurts...

[DemocratSinceBirth]

35. That's where the intelligence and experience comes ...

That's where the intelligence and experience comes in that our friend suggested was of secondary or tertiary importance.

[jobycom]

53. That just might be...

the best comeback I've ever seen on DU.

Not agreeing with your point in general. In fact, I disagree with it. But that post was perfect!

[Jenny Red Eye]

111. Thanks!

[DemocratSinceBirth]

25. John Adams was very qualified.

Ike was very qualified
Woodrow Wilson was very qualified
Richard Nixon was very qualified
George Herbert Walker Bush was very qualified

Qualified does/does not always equal good.

[Drunken Irishman]

47. Woodrow Wilson was hardly qualified. He was president of Princeton & than gov of NJ for two years.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

52. The only president to ever have a PhD in Political Science.

Seems like a good qualification for the job.

[Drunken Irishman]

55. Not really.

[Retrograde]

177. So that would make Condi Rice eminently qualified

Ph.D. in political science and Secretary of State!

[DemocratSinceBirth]

185. I had to look at the genesis of this sub -thread

Ike was very qualified
Woodrow Wilson was very qualified
Richard Nixon was very qualified
George Herbert Walker Bush was very qualified

Qualified does/does not always equal good.

On paper she is qualified...As somebody who was twenty four hours and a dissertation short of a PhD in Political Science it saddens me to see how it's devalued. They don't give PhDs away.

[hifiguy]

26. The most jam-packed resume

does not equal "best person for the job."

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

127. Ahh, of course not, since in this case that awesome resume belongs to the likely Democratic

candidate, Hillary

got it

[hifiguy]

180. No, generally speaking.

I've seen people in the professional world (legal in my case) with absolutely stellar resumes that I wouldn't let walk my cat around the block. They get hired on the basis of said resumes and are often utter mediocrities.

The best explanation of the star-studded resume syndrome is in the book Excellent Sheep by William Deresiewicz, a former professor at Yale. Kids bust their asses ticking every possible box on their resumes to get into elite colleges and universities because they think, correctly, that's what the admissions offices look for. The problem with most of these kids is that they have no idea what they actually want to do with their lives because they've never taken time to reflect on the question' they've been too busy accumulating accolades for the sake of accumulating accolades.

There's "no there there" to quote Gertrude Stein. No core beliefs, no core set of principles, only a desire to punch the next box on the list. They tend to turn out being fairly shitty people who wind up chasing money because it's a marker of success, going along to get along the path of least resistance to get what they feel they "deserve" for their efforts and hoop-jumping.

Any similarity between these kids and a prominent potential Democratic presidential candidate is purely coincidental, I am sure.

[ND-Dem]

211. Kerry has a better resume than clinton

[dissentient]

27. Thomas Jefferson runs circles around Hillary in this and just about every dept.

And there are many others throughout history too. I think you might have overdosed just a bit on the Hillary kool-aid.

Speaking of our history, I would put most of the presidents of the past 50 years firmly in the realm of "mediocre", when compared to their predecessors. Giants like FDR and Jefferson and Lincoln are quite rare.

[leftofcool]

103. oh you mean this guy?

"if we are constrained to lift the hatchet against any tribe, we will never lay it down until that tribe is exterminated, or driven beyond the Mississippi."[13] (see Wiki) You might want to look up Thomas Jefferson and Indian Removal.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

128. Ouch LOL

[ND-Dem]

213. They were "official enemies," just like this guy:

And personally, I find Clinton's performance pretty cringeworthy. Yuck yuck yuck, what a 'stateswoman'.

[Fumesucker]

222. Ouch! .. LOL

[ChairmanAgnostic]

159. She's closer to Chester A. Arthur than Roosevelt.

I rather like how Truman managed to do well under exceptionally terrible circumstances. Nixon, who signed CLean Water, Clean Air and the EPA into law, also negotiated SALT with the USSR, opened talks with China, and fixed social security, while increasing funding for the VA. Frankly, I think Nixon, for all his obvious faults, was actually more liberal than Hillary.

[ND-Dem]

214. Someone made the argument that Nixon was the last liberal president. He certainly

passed more liberal legislation than Clinton did.

And some would argue he was taken out by 'liberals' as well.

[cheapdate]

29. She's over 35 and a natural born citizen, so she's qualified.

[kelly1mm]

32. Wow! If that were so, who were the dumb asses that didn't support her the last time she ran? nt

[winter is coming]

34. Hyperbole is the enemy of credibility. n/t

[mwooldri]

36. President of what?

Mrs. Clinton is most certainly the most qualified human being to being the honorary President of the Hillary Clinton Fan Club.

There are other people as qualified as Hillary Clinton. One name I haven't heard is Michelle Obama. What would we be talking about if she decided in late 2015 to announce her candidacy?

[WillyT]

37. LOL !!!

[TheCowsCameHome]

38. I want one who is qualified to BE president.

Running means jack ....t

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

129. Running? Her resume does not rely on that she ran once before, at all...are you familiar with her?

[TheCowsCameHome]

137. Running is one thing. Being the best is another.

Anyone can run. Just look at what the right consistently offers up.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

139. You were alleging her qualifications were that she ran before, I thought. I am saying that

is a tiny part of her qualifications.

That is just a fact, it is why there is not one post on this thread refuting what I said, accurately.

Just a bunch of anti Democratic oops, I mean anti Hillary stuff

[Travis_0004]

39. She has great business experience

I think her tenure on walmarts board of directors will server her well.

[Thinkingabout]

44. It is part of her experience, and while she was on Walmart board she pushed "Buy America" and pushed

For promtions, sounds like she was a good board member. Let's add she was in Obama's cabinets also, another form of a board. Glad you brought the out.

[djean111]

100. And now, she has worked on and pushed the TPP - which is anti-"Buy America". Evolved?!

I think this is just the "just having fun" OP of the day, is all it is. Just poking.

[Thinkingabout]

136. Since the TPP negotiations are in private we do not know if TPP is going to

correct the bad portions of previous NAFTA, etc, you can poke at TPP but currently since the contents of TPP has not been released it is somewhat premature to know whether we need to protest or cheer for TPP. You do not know whether it is anti-Buy America or not.

[djean111]

138. I will rely on the leaks and on the reactions of Warren and Grayson.

With Fast Track, nothing in it can be changed. Twenty-eight or so sections - and nothing can be changed. That is waiting until too late.

[Thinkingabout]

148. You can continue to rely on leaks, I need facts.

[djean111]

158. I am not trying to convince you of anything. I am saying how I feel about the TPP.

So - we shall see, won't we? But right now, I am against the TPP, TTIP, and anyone who helped write either of them, or pushes for them. Immovable on that, and for me, if the TTP is as bad as it sounds, it is a deal-breaker for me, as far as supporting a politician goes.

[Thinkingabout]

166. How do you trust "leaks" of secret negotations is your decision.

[djean111]

170. I keep trying to establish that yes, it is my decision. So no need for you to repeat that! :-)

I don't need your permission for that, ya know.

[tridim]

183. Her push for "Buy America" failed...

And now Walmart sells more Chinese crap than ever.

Do you really want to use that example?

[ND-Dem]

215. that ship sailed back when walmart was supporting the clintons in arkansas. cheap

Chinese crap has been their MO since forever.

You don't seem to be able to separate public relations from reality.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

130. Rather have Scott Walker's business experience? You know, right to work and all?

I want everybody here to answer this, please.

[Spider Jerusalem]

40. Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, both Roosevelts?

Hillary is not as qualified as any of those. Cordell Hull was a one-term Senator, he was Secretary of State for longer than Hillary; he never ran for the presidency, but if he had, he wouldn't have been "the most qualified candidate ever".

[ND-Dem]

216. +100.

[ms liberty]

41. Hyperbole much?

She's not even the most qualified Democratic candidate of the last twenty years, much less the most qualified ever. The most qualified candidate of the last twenty years, by the way, would be Al Gore.

[greendog]

43. George H.W. Bush had a better resume.

Of course he was a shitty president.

HRC is, without a doubt, qualified to be president. If elected, she'll probably be a pretty good president.

But...your post is silly.

[Gman]

45. Exactly. Could not agree more

[blm]

54. Not in my view of history.

Not even close.

[AngryAmish]

56. There is a fair argument that Hillary is the greatest human ever

We depend upon her wisdom. We depend upon her light. We depend upon her for everything .

We are wretched . Save us Mrs. Clinton. We will fail. You will not.

[John Poet]

85. Heh.

Save us, Jesus, save us.

~Jim Morrison

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

133. I think Scott Walker might save us...

[DonCoquixote]

58. She is very lucky

Mr. Gore decided to sit this one out. I can only imagine the sleaze and hate and acid if he did come out, not the mention all the leaks that Bill would put out.

[TwilightGardener]

61. My sincerity meter is faulty lately. This made me chuckle, and now I don't know

if I should feel bad for sneering at someone's earnestness, or kinda smart for not falling for the joke.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

134. So nothing, no response to her amazing resume?

[Old and In the Way]

63. In 2016, you would be correct.

She would be the best qualified and prepared person to be POTUS. I will let Historians argue who the best President was....in 2024.

[Shrike47]

65. John Quincey Adams gets my vote. Hell of a guy.

[Retrograde]

83. One of the best Sec. of States (n/t)

[morningfog]

67. I agree, she qualifies every statement, every position and

every action.

[yallerdawg]

69. I think Al Gore was more qualified...

and you know how that ended.

[krawhitham]

70. How does the kool-aid taste?

[earthside]

73. Whatever that means. Sheesh.

Add up the 'qualifications' of Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

Whatever they were he turned out to be the greatest President of the United States of America.

There is more to being President than resumé.

There is more to being a great candidate than being the wife of a previous President.

So, let's put this simply. Hillary would never have been a U.S. Senator or Secretary of State if she hadn't been First Lady (i.e., married to Bill Clinton).

And as we saw eight years ago, whatever her 'qualifications' then, she was still not a very good candidate.

[daleanime]

74. No.....

[kwassa]

75. This OP made me laugh out loud. Thanks!

[Laelth]

77. That's probably true.

I'd still prefer Elizabeth Warren.



-Laelth

[TheKentuckian]

81. I thought everyone's history at least went as far back as Joe Biden.

On average for a serious candidate, it is about comparable.

She has about a term combined in the Senate and 4 years heading State with a law career before that.

Respectable but not extraordinary much less singular in human fucking history.

[Retrograde]

82. On paper, Buchana was highly qualified and Lincoln wasn't

Congressman from Pennsylvania, senator, Secretary of State, ambassador to Russia and the United Kingdom vs one-term congressman. Yet the latter is considered one of our best presidents, while the former is considered to be one of the worst.

[John Poet]

84. Actually, the most "qualified" to ever run was, ahem,

James Buchanon in 1856.

A decade in the House of Representatives, another decade in the Senate, Secretary of State,
Ambassador to Russia, Ambassador to England...

Probably no President ever had more years of experience in national public office
than James Buchanon.

Of course, he went on to preside over the dismantling of the Union
in late 1860-61, while doing virtually nothing to try to stop it,
which just goes to show that "qualifications" aren't necessarily
all they are cracked up to be.

[Warren DeMontague]

92. Yep, widely regarded as the worst president of all time.

[ram2008]

86. What actual achievements make her the most qualified?

?

[doc03]

87. What you call qualified is the very reason I would rather have

someone else that isn't bought and paid for. If it comes between her or any Republican I can think of I would defiantly vote for her.

[Rex]

88. .

[Warren DeMontague]

90. Oh FFS

What a silly thing to say.

[Jim Lane]

98. If your view of "most qualified" is to go by the CV, what about Daniel Webster?

Comparable tenure as Secretary of State, much more time in the Senate, four terms in the House for good measure, and a far more distinguished career as a lawyer.

Just as a little lagniappe, Webster gave a famous speech in which he described the federal government as "made for the people, made by the people, and answerable to the people" -- in 1830. It's not everyone who can get sampled by Abraham Lincoln.

[hobbit709]

102. That has to be both the funniest and stupidest thing I've seen this morning.

[rjsquirrel]

104. Ah yes

Wife of a president. One term senator who voted for a disastrous stupid war. Secretary of state who left the world stage having accomplished very little of lasting significance. Failed presidential candidate.

What a magnificent set of qualifications.

[BeyondGeography]

105. Now if we could just do away with this voting thing

That really got in the way last time.

[ileus]

106. Beyond a shadow of a doubt...maybe the best human being ever.

not just seeking to be prez.

No one can realistically argue otherwise.

[alarimer]

107. The Constitution only specifies a couple of qualifications.

And, yes, she does meet those. But so do a lot us right here on DU.

[Buns_of_Fire]

108. Well, at least we know what the official campaign song will be.

On the day that you were born, the angels got together and decided to create a dream come true...

(I was always partial to Adlai Stevenson, but I don't think he ever had a song written about him.)

[morningfog]

109. Ahem.

https://m.

[Buns_of_Fire]

112. I'll be durned! :) nt

[Deertoil]

110. You are forgetting 2nd term Obama.

But after President Obama as most qualified, after his first term, I'd certainly choose Hillary.

[BubbaFett]

113. asinine

[MissDeeds]

114. Good one!

[n2doc]

115. This is just like those "Obama is the greatest President of all time" threads

Seems like they are posted to just stir things up. Try doing constructive, positive things that build enthusiasm for your preferred candidate, it might just work.

[Marr]

116. She lost the nomination to a guy who had the toughest marketing hill to climb ever.

A black man named Barrack *Hussein* *Obama*-- while Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden were our two biggest national bogeymen.

That's like losing a US presidential nomination to a Jewish guy named Joe Hitler Satan. I mean seriously-- it says something about your national appeal.

[namastea42]

168. I know this is a serious discussion (maybe not?) but some comments like yours here

have me bursting out loud laughing.

[PowerToThePeople]

117. ..

[alcibiades_mystery]

118. You were alerted, and here are the results

On Fri Mar 13, 2015, 10:28 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

The most qualified human being to EVER run for President? No contest
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026357099

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Manny and Nance recently got posts locked for "threads intended to disrupt or negatively influence the normal workings of Democratic Underground and its community moderating system are not permitted." This qualifies too.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Fri Mar 13, 2015, 10:36 AM, and the Jury voted 0-7 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Manny and Nance also constantly make it to the greatest page - maybe that's where this should be - this has to be the most petty alert ever
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: You lost me at "Manny..." Waste of the jury's time. Alerter needs to grow the fuck up. I hope you get a 7-0 leave it.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Alerter: did you mean to alert this to the Hosts? oopsie.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Don't waste my time with this nonsense.... Get a life.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

Dear Alerter:

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

135. This was alerted on I see... whoever did that sure is a rightwinger...

What is the count here on DEMOCRATIC underground?

I think I see more anti Democratic candidate posts than pro.

Whoever runs this place needs to take note.


BTW, thank GOD the public is not representative of this place



48.8 40.3

48.5 40.7

49.2 41.2

51.0 40.0

50.3 37.0

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_carson_vs_clinton-5119.html


Thankfully to GOD, the anti Democratic party public hasnt changed much, number wise, even if there is a ton of it here at DU

[former9thward]

218. Any one who posts here who has an opinion

slightly different than you is called a right winger.

BTW, thank GOD the public is not representative of your opinions.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

157. Slightly silly OP. Incredibly stupid alert. nt

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

119. Good one! Oh, wait,........you're serious??

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

132. So you got nuttin, as usual. That resume of hers is awesome, I understand why you wont

even attempt to deny that.

[RedstDem]

131. Uhm no.

More qualified that GWB, yes.
From there, gets shaky.

[NYC_SKP]

140. LOL, ROFL, LMAOROF!!!

Not even close.

And, it's never going to happen and the things that will prevent her election, ever, are all of her own creation.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

141. So as usual you have zero to add to the conversation other than bashing Hillary and her

supporters.

If it is that funny to you that Hillary may be the next prez, what in the HELL are you doing on a board that is

DEDICATED

to getting her elected if she is the nominee?
I want to know, I want to know why you are here.

[JHB]

142. "qualified" as in "However..., but..."?

[Dems to Win]

144. In her trial run as president, Hillary failed to reform health care

Not many people get a rehearsal as prez -- she was given all Bill's power and authority to reform health care in his first term.

She put together a huge committee, developed a monstrously complicated plan in secret, shut out the people who supported single payer from the committee, then couldn't get the congress to even bring it to vote.

We had to wait 20 more years for Obama to run, win, and then propose and pass health insurance reform.

[Enrique]

147. why do you limit it to human beings?

why are you insinuating that the likely Democratic candidate is less qualified than non-humans?

[Hell Hath No Fury]

149. Why does your absolutist rhetoric

-- sound so familiar to me??? I know I've heard it somewhere here before...

[Martin Eden]

150. Hillary Clinton has ABYSMAL judgment in matters of WAR & PEACE

That makes her MUCH LESS QUALIFIED than every member of Congress who voted against the IWR in 2002.

[AtomicKitten]

151. Oy.

[Rex]

152. Well at least you did not post this thread to divide up DU.

No sir, not your intent at all.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

169. SO someone who supports the Dem Party and the likely candidate is the problem here

wow

[ann---]

154. Where did you

get THAT from?

[Doctor_J]

179. Here's a hint:

it rhymes with gas hole

[closeupready]

164. lol, OMG - BRING BACK UNREC, Skinner, please!!!

[Blue_Tires]

181. Got a lot of fish biting today...Bravo

[Marrah_G]

182. more flamebait

[leftofcool]

184. Somebody actually alerted on this?

BWHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!

On edit, I am going to recommend it just because someone alerted on it.

[m-lekktor]

192. I didn't alert but to me

the subject line comes off as passive aggressive mocking (like the person who posted this really does not like Hillary and is being sarcastic and having a laugh at those of you who think he/she is serious) i mean really. "the most qualified human ever" is a tad bit over the top hyperbolic for somebody being serious.

[rhett o rick]

219. It's clearly flamebait, nothing else. But that's all the conservative Wing has. nm

[namastea42]

189. What is her resume? Can you show it because

it keeps changing depending on who is showing it.

[edhopper]

190. I'd say

writing the Declaration of Independence. being Governor of Virgina, Secretary of State, Vice President and helping to write the Constitution made Jefferson just a wee bit more qualified. Among others.

[riversedge]

196. Hillary is very well qualified --so is Biden and others and hope to see a good Dem primary

[adigal]

203. Biden is much more qualified - many years as a Senator, 8 years as VP

I'm not sure what the OP is talking about. Hillary had less than a full term as Senator, 4 years as Sec of State. Qualified? Absolutely. Most qualified ever?? Delusional.

[Retrograde]

205. Ahem. Like her or not, Ms Clinton was elected to the Senate twice

in 2000 and 2006 - more than a full term. I admire her for getting out and actually trying to talk to all of her constituents - including those in counties that hadn't seen their senator in decades.

Is she my choice for president? No. If she were the nominee would I vote for her? Well, I sure ain't voting for a Republican.

[Make7]

202. Would previously having been President make one the most qualified?

How about Grover Cleveland when he ran for his second (but not successive) term?

[LiberalArkie]

204. I think that Roosevelt after the depression was a lot better than Clinton would have been

I think Carter was the ideal person after the ordeals of Nixon. I think Eisenhower was the man for after the great war. But Clinton the most qualified human being to EVER run for president. Nah, not by a long shot.

[tammywammy]

207. What a silly OP. n/t

[ND-Dem]

209. ugh

[flvegan]

212. Why, and spell it out. Thanks. n/t

[rhett o rick]

221. She is the most qualified for those that supported George Bush's Iraq War.

Goldman-Sachs and their worshipers thinks she is the most qualified.

The 0.01% think she is the most qualified.

The neocons are backing her, they love her qualifications.

The Oligarchs are backing her as well as the Third Way.

[AngryOldDem]

223. Oh, wow