Nobody in the 2016 Presidential Field is More Qualified than Hillary Clinton

[Joe Nation]

Not that it makes me all that happy to say that but the reality is nobody has more foreign policy experience, more leadership roles, more presidential campaigning experience, and yes, more time in the White House albeit as First Lady or as some would say, co-president. I wish that we had better politicians on both sides to pick from but as the years tick by, our choices seem to get worse rather than better. I certainly don't believe all of the Republican Clinton inspired scandal-mongering that never ends and simply becomes white noise in the background of any campaign involving a Clinton. I believe that having Republicans in control of both houses of congress precludes this country from electing any Republican to the White House and not just the fact that the Republican side is completely nuts. If Clinton is all we can come up with this time around, maybe she can serve as a Trojan Horse for a 2020 or 2024 election by selecting a VP that will excite the Left enough to wait for his or her turn to run for office. I would favor someone like O'Malley or maybe one of the Castro brothers (Not the ones from Cuba, the ones from Texas). What do you think? Should we use Clinton to bring along a more progress future president?

[Angry Dragon]

1. I am not crazy with Hillary running

[NYC_SKP]

2. Only as measured by experience, and in NO other way. She is, in fact, disqualified.

Last edited Mon Apr 27, 2015, 04:35 PM - Edit history (1)

The reasons are too numerous to list.

Generally, however, it's because she just doesn't like labor or want to reverse the income inequity problem, quite the opposite.

AND, she's probably going to be literally disqualified and more and more "errors" in judgment come to light.

As SOS she allowed MILLIONS to go to private educational company, Laureate Ed. Inc. and then in turn let her family foundation TAKE $1 to 5 Million from Laureate Ed. Inc. while husband Bill Clinton was a PAID "honorary chancellor"

This might be the last straw.

International Youth Foundation is a part of Laureate.

After wife raps for-profit colleges, Clinton quits chain

An examination of the International Youth Foundation's public filings show that in 2009, the year before Bill Clinton joined Laureate, the nonprofit received 11 grants worth $9 million from the State Department or the affiliated USAID. In 2010, the group received 14 grants worth $15.1 million. In 2011, 13 grants added up to $14.6 million. The next year, those numbers jumped: The nonprofit received 21 grants worth $25.5 million, including a direct grant from the State Department.

http://m.nwaonline.com/news/2015/apr/26/after-wife-raps-for-profit-colleges-cli-1/

Bill Clinton Ends Role With Chain of For-Profit Colleges

The university system — part of Laureate Education Inc., which according to Bloomberg is the world’s largest for-profit college chain — has been a seven-figure donor to the Clinton Foundation, giving between $1 million and $5 million, according to the foundation’s website. Laureate has also made five commitments through the Clinton Global Initiative.

Neither Laureate nor Mr. Clinton would say how much he was paid. But he was hired at a time when the industry was facing pressure from the Obama administration and Tom Harkin, then a senator from Iowa.

In his role as an honorary chancellor for Laureate, Mr. Clinton went to 19 campuses around the globe, according to the statement from the university system.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/25/us/politics/bill-clinton-ends-role-with-laureate-chain-of-for-profit-colleges.html

[Joe Nation]

3. Except....

We are not going to find anyone that can beat Clinton. Warren will not run. That is the reality. I am looking past Clinton. I work in higher education and let me tell you something about education. Long before even Bill Clinton was in office, education in this country was under attack by the Chamber of Commerce and their affiliates in corporate America. Blaming the Clinton's for participating in the dismantling of education or profiting from that process either at the K-12 or college level is like complain about a mosquito bite on your arm as a great white shark is eating you. Try to focus on what matters rather than a pet concern inconsequential to the greater problems we face.

[Proud Public Servant]

4. Our three "most qualified" presidents were

John Quincy Adams, James Buchanan, and George H.W. Bush

Our three least qualified were Abraham Lincoln, Harry Truman, and Barack Obama.

I don't disagree with your assessment of Hillary's qualifications but, as I've said on these boards before, it's character and temperament that really matter.

[Joe Nation]

5. Relative qualifications

When you say "qualified" that covers a broad spectrum. Can you define what you mean by the use of qualified as it applies to Adams, Buchanan, and Bush 41 please.

[Proud Public Servant]

6. All three of them

had resumes that outshine even Hillary's, including foreign policy expertise (Adams and Buchanan had been Secretaries of State -- Adams arguably our greatest Secretary ever -- as well as Ambassadors to multiple major powers; Bush had been CIA director and UN ambassador). Adams and Buchanan served in both the House and Senate; Bush served in the House. Bush has spent as much time in the White House as Hillary has, and as much time on a losing presidential campaign; in addition, he served as president of the RNC. In short, no three White House occupants had better resumes for the job -- and all three were failed presidents.

That's not to say Hillary would be a failed president. It is to say, however, that the "most qualified" criteria is over-rated if you look at the actual history of the presidency.

[joshcryer]

8. Here's a good list:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States_by_previous_experience

Bush Jr. arguably had less experience than Obama. And Obama did run a classical route to the Presidency.

[Proud Public Servant]

9. That IS a good list

and certainly underscores the point that there's little correlation between resume and presidential success. (You could also list Wilson among the least qualified -- he held his one elective office for a mere two years; on the other hand, you could list Taft as one of the most qualified.)

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

7. that was true in 2008. she lost to an unknown

[Joe Nation]

10. Anyway....

What nobody seems to be addressing is the only real question I asked. Maybe that is par for the course in this forum. I am new here and unfamiliar with how these threads play out. Maybe I wasn't clear enough and it is my fault. What I was saying was that even though I am not all that excited about another Clinton in spite of her qualification, I am willing to vote for her if it means that she'll team up with a more progress VP that will step in once Clinton's term(s) are over. Is that something you think you could support or is waiting simply not tolerable?

[Chan790]

11. I don't believe she'd chose any actual progressive...

as much as a "Trojan horse progressive" who is actually just as bad as she is in terms of being a corporatist and centrist and not actually espousing progressive Democratic values...like Joaquin Castro.

O'Malley, who is a personal friend of mine, is not admittedly much better...but he's at-least staking a position to the left of Hillary.

[Joe Nation]

13. I don't know who she'll choose...

but I see her politics pretty much the same way you do as a corporate democrat. Then I remember something Bill Foster said during a visit to campus when someone asked him if he would take corporate donations like his opponent does. He said that by refusing to take money from special interests, he would really be handing his opponent an easy victory. He framed his argument as...."I'll put my gun down as soon as my opponent puts his down." You simply can't change the system from the outside.

[Proud Public Servant]

12. Ok, my reservations:

First, a party winning the White House for five straight terms (which is what would be needed if we're planning on electing her veep after she serves two terms) is nearly unprecedented. The only time it happened was in 1816, when the Federalist party had so completely collapsed that we were essentially a one-party country. I'd love to see the GOP collapse that badly, but I don't think it will happen. So a progressive veep doesn't offer much there.

Second, it's still the case that we've only ever elected a sitting veep three times (unless you want to count Gore) -- and only one of those times was in the last 150 years. By no means is being veep an automatic path to the presidency.

Third, two words: Hubert Humphrey. If Hillary had a progressive veep, but didn't govern as a progressive, her veep would be stuck on the campaign trail supporting her non-progressive policies. Hubert Humphrey was one of the great liberals of our party, and one of my heroes -- but once he was boxed into being LBJ's apologist on Vietnam, liberals deserted him in droves.

So Hillary teaming up with a progressive doesn't really excite me, no.

[Joe Nation]

14. Times have changed....

And I think that Democratic presidents from here on out isn't all that unlikely unless the Right pulls hard to the Left which is unlikely. Don't forget that the old white demographic that the GOP counts on is dwindling every year. Even they know that demographics do not favor them and have retreated to a state-by-state strategy knowing that national elections may be out of their reach for the foreseeable future. If Democrats actually voted, the chances of any GOP candidate winning the White House would already be nil. The long game just makes sense as their constituency declines and their political platform runs unceasingly to the far Right just to capture enough wing nuts to win any election.

[Proud Public Servant]

15. Obviously I hope you're right, but

parties out of power tend to retool so they can get back into power; that's how we ended up with the Clintons (and the DLC they rode in on).

I also think we're far too sanguine about the "their base is dying off" narrative. We should actually be worried about that; it's the base that's keeping them out of power right now now my demanding blind adherence to batshit crazy ideas and scuttling the chances of the most plausible Republicans (like John Huntsman); as they die off, the GOP could return to sanity and become competitive again.

But the big thing is that party fatigue is a real phenomenon. There are very few peacetime elections in which "everything's great, let's keep the good times going" actually works as an electoral strategy. Americans seem always to believe that things could be better, and blame leaders for the fact that they're not; that's what makes it so hard to keep one party in power for a long time. Even in the decades after the Civil War we ended up electing Democrats twice (three times, if you count Tilden), even though they'd been greatly reduced as a party and were seen as "on the wrong side of history."

[Joe Nation]

16. I pray (OK not actually) I hope that the GOP Retools.

Two or even three viable political parties can only help this country. They can only move Left of where they are now. Any further Right they move puts them squarely in realm of Fascism and once that happens, the system and our democracy is over. What emerges after that is anybody's guess. We on the Left need to pull as hard as we can in our direction just to settle back someplace in the middle. I realize that the corporatist elements will fight tooth and nail to preserve their place and they have a long game strategy in place already but they have overreached and when people have nothing to lose, watch out 1%'ers.
I'm optimistic about the future of the progressive movement in this country. I think that the pendulum is starting to swing back towards the center Left.

[TheFarseer]

17. Dick Cheney is highly qualified

So who gives a flying fuck about being the most qualified. Do you want Dick Cheney and his many years of experience in the White House? I just want someone that I believe will stand up for my interests.

[AtomicKitten]

18. Good point.

I too don't give a rat's ass either particularly because that list 'o accomplishments has been cherry-picked and fluffed. The biggest fuck-up on Obama's watch with all things considered was authored by the one seen as the "most qualified." Screw that. That's precisely the type of person I want as far away from the levers of government as possible. Bernie is the ONLY candidate on either side of the aisle who hasn't been bought and paid for by corporate America.

[Sunlei]

19. January 5, 2015, The 48th Governor of Texas, Hillary Clinton

what I wished for, and mentioned quite a few times, 1 1/2 years ago.