What are Hillary Clinton's qualifications to be Commander in Chief?

Question

Based on my analysis, it would appear that Hillary Clinton is the least qualified Presidential Candidate since Jimmy Carter, and Jimmy Carter was more qualified than Hillary.

Kevorkian - I don't agree, Obama is even less qualified for the highest office in the land than Hillary. At least Jimmy Carter was a Governor, which suggested some experience as being the head of a large multi-disciplined bureaucracy. Even with some Governorship experience under his belt, President Carter is generally not looked on favorably by many historians

Ghostlady - there are lots of things to criticize Bush for, but contrary to reports and his dreadful public speaking, he is not a stupid man. However, I will tell you what I suspect: That he fried his brain on booze and cocaine. If you see video of GB speaking as a younger man and today, there is a dramatic difference.

The discussion here though is not about Bush, it's about who we put into that high office next and why.

JeepDive - I have owned 4 Jeeps, but won't buy another until Chrysler fixes their crappy all plastic interior.

I have read the constitution. You are referring to the minimal threshold for a citizen of the United States to run for election. No one votes for someone simply because they meet the age and citizen requirements.

Debating how we got to where we are in the world is for another post - the next President will have daunting problems to solve. The next President may make or break the United States as we know it today.

Speck. My analysis is not silly - and it is genuine. Residing in a building may qualify Hillary as a tour guide, but not as President.

How many employees has she ever had to manage? How large a budget has she ever been responsible for? Has she ever been directly responsible for a large multi-disciplined organization? Unless I am mistaken, if elected, Hillary will only be the 2nd US President to have never served in the military (her husband being the first). Bill Clinton the President does not enjoy a positive record regarding military matters.

Tmess you get runner up best answer even though I disagree. A lucid well written counter-argument. I believe you err when you count Hillary's role as First Lady as qualified experience as either President or Commander in Chief. Just because she rubbed elbows with the rich and powerful does not qualify her as a decision maker. Her most active legislative role as First Lady was on nationalized healthcare, and it was a disaster.

As a Senator she has learned the ropes of how bills become law. That is one part of a job that is much larger than that.

Thanks to everyone who contributed thoughtful answers to this question. I really do believe that the next President we select will have the potential to make or break the United States as we know it today.

Answer 1

While I agree that Hillary Clinton doesn't have military experience to be commander-in chief, I don't see any factual "analysis" in your opening post to back up that assertion, other than "I have spoken."




( speckofdust7billion said: )
" Your analysis is silly. She lived in the White house for 8 years, knows and has worked with all the players both nationally and internationally and is a 2 term senator. She is by far the most qualified candidate from either party (though she may not be the best candidate) "

(my response: )
I disagree.

While she is a Senator of some influence, who has implemented a lot of legislation, and is now a year into her second term, she wasn't a decision-maker in Clinton's presidency, unless you include a failed health-care plan.

She didn't plan policy in the Clinton administration, she was just the corsage on Bill Clinton's arm, shaking hands in superficial greetings, until Mr Clinton left the party to discuss policy with foreign leaders in a private conference room. She may have met these famous world leaders, but she didn't negotiate with them.

But even assuming she did have that kind of experience in the Clinton white house, having an extensive resume still wouldn't necessarily make her the best candidate.

For example, when George Bush Sr ran for president in 1988, he was the most qualified candidate, with the most wide-ranging Washington experience of anyone who'd ever run for the presidency.
But Bush Sr, while very effective leading the Persian Gulf War coalition, still was overall a weak leader, who couldn't contain Congressional spending, vastly increased the deficit, didn't do enough to help Afghanistan after the Russians pulled out, which planted the seeds of Al Qaida that were foretold for 10 years before 9-11 occurred, plus similar lack of support for Russian democracy that has culminated in the rise of Putin, and not going back into Iraq as soon as Saddam Hussein first violated the U.N. peace treaty in 1991 and the "no fly zones" were set up. Along with urging uprisings by the Kurds and Shi'ites, and then having our forces stand by in the sidelines and watch them get slaughtered by Saddam.

My point is (using Bush Sr. as a highly qualified example), experience alone isn't enough, even if Hillary Clinton had it. Her candidacy is just an ambitious grab for political power, and the prestige of being the first woman president of the U.S.

I don't see that she has any stated vision for the country or its military. And what we really need right now is another Eisenhower.

Hillary Clinton is just a liberal socialist, who began wearing moderate pro-military clothing when she became a senator. Who then opportunistically jumped ship and began criticizing the Iraq war about a year ago, because she saw that it was necessary for her to be anti-war to get the Democrat nomination in 2008.

In her being completely driven by which-way-is-the-wind-blowing political considerations, rather than what is best for the nation, she is identical to Bill Clinton.

Answer 2

Nice answer some one gave earlier..." Political stances have nothing to do with it, professors." So does that mean I'm can jump strait into being a CEO of any company, just because I want to? What an ignorant response..

Anyway, in response to the question at hand. Politically, Obama and Hillary are both under qualified. Edwards, and everyone else on the stage for that matter, have more exp. than Obama and Hillary combined.

However, in today's modern times, a president isn't chosen based upon how qualified they are, rather it's a popularity contest. Those that vote for Hillary will do so simply because she's female. Those that vote for Obama will do so because he's black.

And, furthermore, Jimmy Carter was an excellent Governor, horrible president. Carter had the same experience backing him as Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and several other presidents. Most all of the U.S. Presidents came into office after being a State Governor, seeing as how it's basically the same position on a much smaller scale.

Answer 3

Some think she actually ran it. It you look at this theory, it could make sense as she had "no idea" he was doing the attacks on different women, nor did she know about the "interns", but one would think a sane person would have taken precautions. Then the fact that she was able to obtain secret documents on high ranking political opponents and did not have her husband do this would show she can work on her feet and knows how to abuse power. Actually these two points agree enough to show she is not qualified. Although many say just watching and observing her husband is where she got the talent, but let's face it, if she had done this, then he would not have been able to do the evil things he did. No she is not qualified (not saying some others are not) and I might add that the latest numbers on her "lobbyist" money is reaching over $700,000 and that is a feat that not even the "big boys' can meet. I have had several state that "they (senators)" all do that and accept the brides, i mean the lobbyist money. With that much cash coming in it shows she is well connected and informed, no matter how biased from her wealth carrying constituents. Matter of fact it is irrational to consider any of this as any experience that would or could benefit the country.

Answer 4

If the question is to be commander in chief (i.e. the person in charge of the military), Jimmy Carter was the most qualified president since Eisenhower. Jimmy Carter was an Annapolis graduate and served in the Navy for a substantial period of time.

Of the remaining candidates, only McCain can claim a substantial period of real military service in a combat position. The question then is what qualifies a person to be commander-in-chief beyond a period of military service.

While a good bit of her experience comes from her time as First Lady, it is impossible to deny that Senator Clinton was more active than any First Lady since Eleanor Roosevelt. As such, I would rate her experience in dealing with the leaders of other nations as second only to Governor Richardson. By the time of the 2008 election, she will have served as much time in the Senate as Senator Thompson and more time in Congress than Governor Romney, Mayor Giuliani, Senator Edwards, or Secretary Thompson.

Bottom line -- Hillary is at least as qualified to be President as Ronald Reagan or George W. Bush were when they were first elected.

Answer 5

Before I go into deep...I'd like to say that I am not a Hillary fan, but I do admire her as a person....

First, she's a very smart lady, started her career as a lawyer ..graduated from Yale Law School. She has spent more time in being first lady of something such as First Lady of Arkansas and First Lady of the United States. She's also a very committed and loyal person, thru thick and thin she has remained with Bill regardless of any extracurricular activities as a governor and president hey come on....that shows strength and commitment...and last but definitely not the least, she's a WOMAN and a mother....you all know that mothers are special it's our maternal instincts to be protective, and I think she'll be great as a PRESIDENT..... I'm sick of hearing that America is not ready to have a woman as president...that we're only good to be pregnant and barefoot.. that's crazy. We can be great leaders too...Even if that means being the leader of the #1 nation in the world...I don't think I need to list the many women who have left an imprint of their leadership in history...and some who are currently leaders in different countries....

Answer 6

Just how is Hillary less qualified to be Commander-in-Chief than any of the other candidates? How many actually served? McCain? and .......Ron Paul.....and....That's about it.

Constitutionally (you know the document that Bush says is just a goddamn piece of paper) Hillary meets the requirements to run for President. Under the Constitution (you know that document that Alberto Gonzalez says is obsolete) the President of the United States is the Commander-in-Chief therefore she is qualified to be Commander-in-Chief.

Answer 7

She is enlightened. She'll instruct our troops to throw down their weapons and give the enemy a great big hug. We will unilaterally disarm so of course global peace will immediately follow since the US is the cause of all of the world's problems.

She'll follow the same policy in domestic matters too. No more prison terms. The judge just gives the murderer a big hug and everything will be ok. After all, their crimes are not their fault. Crimes are the fault of "honest, hard working citizens" who made the criminals who they are, not the fault of the criminals themselves.

Answer 8

Her qualifications are the same as the other candidates: She's over 35 and a natural-born citizen of the United States, which is why Arnold Schwartzenegger will never be President. Read the Constitution sometime. Political stances have nothing to do with it, professors.

Answer 9

Your analysis is silly. She lived in the White house for 8 years, knows and has worked with all the players both nationally and internationally and is a 2 term senator. She is by far the most qualified candidate from either party (though she may not be the best candidate)

Answer 10

She told Bill how to do it for 8 years. ;)

I was seeing more of a parrallel between Obama and Carter, actually - both had an unexpected surge of popular support, even though neither was favored by the party aparatus. A mistake, BTW, I don't believe the party will repeat.