Neither Obama nor Hillary is qualified to be president
It's an interesting aspect of the current race for the Democratic nomination for president that neither of the leading candidates is qualified to hold that office.
Yes, that's what I said. It's rather obvious, really, that an absentee U.S. senator who has spent more time running for president than attending to the public business during the less than one full term he's spent in national office lacks anything resembling the background necessary for the job. Barack Obama certainly didn't learn about foreign policy and national security as a member of the Illinois General Assembly, where he's spent most of his public career. But what isn't nearly as apparent is that Hillary Clinton's resume isn't that much more impressive.
Her "35 years of experience" includes- law school! I suppose time spent as an activist counts- though on that score even Obama's credentials are more impressive than Hillary's. But any number of ceremonial visits to chiefs of state as First Lady hardly add up to a record which justifies confidence in a person's conduct of foreign policy and the higher levels of international diplomacy. Were those adequate credentials for the job, Hillary would be well advised to withdraw from the race and endorse the White House Chief of Protocol!
Here is an interesting article by Timothy Noah in Slate. It documents Hillary Clinton's relative lack of the very quality upon which she predicates her candidacy: experience. And though I don't think Mr. Noah was thinking in these terms, it suggests an excellent argument for nominating the only candidate who, in the last analysis, really is qualified for the Oval Office: John McCain.
Yes, that's what I said. It's rather obvious, really, that an absentee U.S. senator who has spent more time running for president than attending to the public business during the less than one full term he's spent in national office lacks anything resembling the background necessary for the job. Barack Obama certainly didn't learn about foreign policy and national security as a member of the Illinois General Assembly, where he's spent most of his public career. But what isn't nearly as apparent is that Hillary Clinton's resume isn't that much more impressive.
Her "35 years of experience" includes- law school! I suppose time spent as an activist counts- though on that score even Obama's credentials are more impressive than Hillary's. But any number of ceremonial visits to chiefs of state as First Lady hardly add up to a record which justifies confidence in a person's conduct of foreign policy and the higher levels of international diplomacy. Were those adequate credentials for the job, Hillary would be well advised to withdraw from the race and endorse the White House Chief of Protocol!
Here is an interesting article by Timothy Noah in Slate. It documents Hillary Clinton's relative lack of the very quality upon which she predicates her candidacy: experience. And though I don't think Mr. Noah was thinking in these terms, it suggests an excellent argument for nominating the only candidate who, in the last analysis, really is qualified for the Oval Office: John McCain.
Comments
Very interesting article. Hard to beleive a reporter would have the independence (actually, guts) to say that St. Hillary isnt really all that qualified to be the President. I have never felt she was qualified to be much more than goodwill diplomat or something of that nature. Maybe a really good dogcatcher.
I do, however, have a question. What do you think of the McCain-Feingold Law that limits campaigning and some say free speech? To be honest, I go back and forth ALOT between Thompson, Romney and McCain. I want a conservative, plain and simple. I also am willing to wait a few more weeks til the Wisconsin primary to decide on a final candidate. Any thoughts you can give me on this dilemna of mine?
As a note, I like McCains ideas on the Military, Pro-Life issues and am intrigued about taxes. I am nervous about immigration and the label of being a moderate has always worried me. Maybe its just me, but moderates its seems are always compromising. However, that said, if hes the guy, hes got my vote. Heck, I'd even gladly vote Ron Paul before I'd let a Democrat into office.
But I am uneasy, nonetheless, with telling people what they can and cannot do with their money. I guess I see both sides.