Without a doubt... The President had it right in his speech the other night.("No one more qualified. Not me , not Bill"). Whether one likes her or not, her decades of service in the public arena has made her able and qualified for the presidency.

 

With this in mind that folks for or against her likely can at least see this much, then why would 75center insinuate that her having slept with Bill is her only qualification?

 

Within an intelligent discussion where we all hope to edge closer to some truth, and aim at contributing sound ideas and thoughts, it would seem that flippant remarks such as his serves only to do the opposite, resulting in irresponsibly forwarding unwelcome misrepresented myth.

 

If you can't sway people to your way of thinking with at least an attempt at objective truth, obvious subjective rubbish is not likely to do the trick.

 

Generally speaking we seem to see this sophomoric trend far too often within these discussions and it rarely, if ever adds anything that resembles a sound nature to further intelligent discourse.

So you're automatically disqualifying them as qualified because of their sexual preference?

 

No, but the Dems are all about firsts and it certainty seems to be more important to them then substance.

I'm not a confirmed Clinton supporter, and perhaps I'm misreading her history, but I've always had the impression that Hillary has made a career for most of her adult life being a public servant.

 

Right or wrong for the presidency, still it would appear however that her long past with politics has at least given her the type of experience needed to be a legitimate player in the arena.

 

Would she have been able to carpet bag into NY and get that Senate seat had she not been married to Bill? That Senate seat was her first step to where she is now.

To seriously answer the original question, it will in all likelihood be more than 8 years.

 

Here's a list of the current openly gay/lesbian members of Congress. See if you can spot the common theme. It won't take long.

 

Capitol Hill: The 7 Openly Gay and Lesbian Members of Congress | DC Inno

Would she have been able to carpet bag into NY and get that Senate seat had she not been married to Bill? That Senate seat was her first step to where she is now.

 

And every step since.

 

Good to know so many of our resident liberals must believe Mitch Is able and qualified to be president.

Whenever the DNC decides its time for a gay president. They decide whose turn it is.

 

Correct.

Would she have been able to carpet bag into NY and get that Senate seat had she not been married to Bill? That Senate seat was her first step to where she is now.

 

She became a senator in 2000. You're probably disregarding her ever growing experience with her steady involvement from the late 60's until then and now with a multitude of various political activities that only widened her resume.

 

No doubt her association to Bill played an instrumental role in her career advancement, but some would suggest, Bill included, that his association with her was also instrumental in his career advancements.

 

It's apparent to anyone making a fair assessment that they have both complimented each other's careers, and to suggest that her strides were merely a result of sharing the same bed is a shallow disrespectful commentary towards women in power that serves only to keep a shameful discriminating attitude alive of inequality.

 

In the year 2016 we're better than that, aren't we?

And every step since.

 

Good to know so many of our resident liberals must believe Mitch Is able and qualified to be president.

 

Like him or not, there's no denying that Mitch has a ton of experience as a career politician.

 

I've never stated whether or not Hillary would make a good president, but still there's no denying her experience, and no matter how you might try to move the needle, this discussion of experience is a result of your initial comment that has no credence.

 

Do you care to address that, or would you rather we be made to swiftly forget it?

 

As it demonstrates a shallow perspective I'm assuming that you might, and because it offers nothing of substance, I'm fine with that as well.

Like him or not, there's no denying that Mitch has a ton of experience as a career politician.

 

I've never stated whether or not Hillary would make a good president, but still there's no denying her experience, and no matter how you might try to move the needle, this discussion of experience is a result of your initial comment that has no credence.

 

Do you care to address that, or would you rather we be made to swiftly forget it?

 

As it demonstrates a shallow perspective I'm assuming that you might, and because it offers nothing of substance, I'm fine with that as well.

 

If Hillary had never slept with Bill we would never have heard of her. If Bill had never slept with Hillary he would still be ex president. Draw your own conclusions.

 

What is your take on someone claiming Michelle Obama would be president in 2024?

If Hillary had never slept with Bill we would never have heard of her. If Bill had never slept with Hillary he would still be ex president. Draw your own conclusions.

 

What is your take on someone claiming Michelle Obama would be president in 2024?

 

The conclusion that I can draw is that you can't make these assumptions, and it's apparent that Hillary has had a history of driven high expectations for her own career whether or not she had ever known Bill.

 

Your original assessment still lacks any semblance of substance, and is disrespectful towards gender equality regarding women in power, and as an extension, women in general.

 

Regarding Michelle, though I have no way of knowing what her aspirations are, I've gotten the impression that though she has found the last 7 1/2 years a one-of-a-kind rewarding experience, that she'd be content with living out her days in a more down to earth as possible fashion. She does seem driven enough to let her experience guide future societal contributions, so it wouldn't be surprising to see her offer her qualities towards meaningful causes, but I'm not seeing her reaching for the highest position of the land, nor would I suggest that she has garnered the necessary experience to do so.

Without a doubt... The President had it right in his speech the other night.("No one more qualified. Not me , not Bill"). Whether one likes her or not, her decades of service in the public arena has made her able and qualified for the presidency.

 

Name 5 accomplishments she can hang her hat on in her decades of public service.

Name 5 accomplishments she can hang her hat on in her decades of public service.

 

Here’s A List Of Hillary Clinton’s Accomplishments, So Quit Saying She Doesn’t Have Any | Addicting Info | The Knowledge You Crave

No, but the Dems are all about firsts and it certainty seems to be more important to them then substance.

 

So if the R's had nominated a women, you're saying they wouldn't have made mention of their candidate being the first?? I'm not sold on this being a negative talking point for Dems. It's only "negative" because the Republicans didn't do it first.

Here’s A List Of Hillary Clinton’s Accomplishments, So Quit Saying She Doesn’t Have Any | Addicting Info | The Knowledge You Crave

 

Nothing there that your below par congressman couldn't have been involved in. Non are major accomplishments and more so someone who was grossly negligent or extremely careless and a complete incompetent mess as Secretary of State is qualified to be POTUS. Swing and a miss Mcpapa

^ Ah, but my below-par Congressman did not. Candidate Clinton did.

 

In many respects, she is like President Obama. He could walk on water and there would be a host of critics from the right who would complain that it was heavy water.