Don't you know that we live in an age where everyone has the right to be an instant expert in everything?
Maybe my name is Barbra Streisand, and I barely graduated from High School, but I am now a renowned climatologist. Maybe I'm Al Gore, who almost flunked Natural Sciences in college but puts on the same charade.
Maybe Obama finds the Clinton war plan convoluted because he doesn't understand it very well. Perhaps he'd prefer reading a battle strategy complete with pop up pictures of tanks and a coloring book.
Maybe Mrs. Clinton can read a book on dancing and become a ballerina overnight. Hey, this is the age where real credentials are not only unnecessary, but looked at with contempt, as if someone who really knows what he is talking about is just showing off.
The only reason people listen to Obama is that he is young, good looking, and black. If he were some paunchy, middle aged white guy, no one would give him a second look.
Mrs. Clinton may have learned some things as ahhemmm....."co-President", but that does not give her instant insight into battle strategy.
I'm not saying that people can't use their experience in one area to succeed in a related area. For example, Ronald Reagan so deftly outmaneuvered the Soviets in his negotiations because he had so much experience battling for better terms from the studio bosses in Hollywood while he was head of the Screen Actor's Guild. In Reagan's words, the studio bosses were a lot tougher negotiators than the Russians could ever be!
Perhaps Hillary had to battle for strategic closet space with Bill in some of their smaller homes, but that doesn't confer wartime military genius upon her.
2007-07-15 11:13:19
·
answer #1
·
answered by pachl@sbcglobal.net 7
·
2⤊
5⤋
.I don't think it really matters It was Caroline Kennedy choice to make Uncle Teddy sided with his niece But neither Obama or Clinton are no where close to being JFK. JFK was a man ahead of his time The forces of evil so fit to assassinate him. Just as they so fit to assassinate MLK WE each get to make our own choice on who to support and vote for President just like Caroline and Ted Kennedy have. Enough of the BS from last week before the S C primary Time to move ahead and try to understand more about each candidate's position on the issues I want to know how they plan on ending the war Fixing the economy and avoiding the recession that we are sliding into just down the road. The list of things that need fixed after the mess Bush has made in the last 8 years is very important to the whole country and way to long to list here.
2016-05-18 04:14:18
·
answer #2
·
answered by masako 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
The Commander in Chief has never been required to have a military background. That is the way our Constitution set up the position. Our best Commanders in Chief during our most difficult periods of war have had little or no military experience. To criticize Hillary and Obama for expressing views on military policies is to deliberately misunderstand the nature of the presidency, which is the job that they are vying for.
2007-07-15 11:03:37
·
answer #3
·
answered by quest for truth gal 6
·
6⤊
2⤋
Well then that would mean ANY politician... including Bush and Cheney. They really did not have stellar military backgrounds and neither served in a combat theater. Your statement would hold up to a huge majority of Americans, not just Obama or Clinton.
Your bias and close-mindedness is very evident.
2007-07-15 11:26:46
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
1⤋
Oh look! The Republican bashers are all chiming in trying to compare our EXPERIENCED administration against "flash-in-the-pan" Obama and Mr(s). Clinton.
Here's some news for you Republican haters: Dick Cheney has more experience in his pinky than any of the Democrats currently running for president. (compare with other current administration members too).
I'm so tired of lemmings gathering at the edge of the cliff that refuse to jump. Just do it already, before it's no longer popular to bash the Republicans.
2007-07-15 11:23:48
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
2⤋
Alot of people are debating this debacle qualified or not.
The fact of the matter is the Bush administration is responsible for the current state of affairs, for this failed war and eveything that has followed suit.
I admire anyone who can think outside the box and present some new and fresh ideas. These people are highly professional and I'm sure they have military advisors coaching them.
What I resent is, stubborn, controlling leaders who only listen to "god."
2007-07-15 11:25:56
·
answer #6
·
answered by Jackie Oh! 7
·
2⤊
2⤋
Or a guy who went AWOL from the Alabama air national guard debating military policy with a decorated war hero from the Vietnam war . . .
2007-07-15 11:01:35
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
5⤊
2⤋
I actually think Hillary would be a very tough commander-in-chief, on something she made the decision on.
2007-07-15 18:14:01
·
answer #8
·
answered by Uncle Pennybags 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Or Dick Cheyney arguing Military Policy
2007-07-15 11:11:13
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
4⤊
2⤋
says the guy who sits at his PC all day in his pyjamas, pointlessly pontificating on a pointless website which effects absolutely no change in the world whatsoever
now THATS irony alanis
2007-07-15 22:29:30
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋