Does hilary clinton need "more experience" after her blunder about terrorism?

Question

Recently i ask if mr Obama was too young to be President;
it transpired that some of you said he needed more experience.
I guess,as someone replied,we should look to the "example"
of the late president robert Kennedy, for a real political leader
with only limited experience (of the "job").
Perhaps i should ask what exactly would be the ideal experience for such an exalted "high" position(!)
No doubt some of you know exactly the qualities that you want
(in a person who just "runs" in the election).
And i guess they must have a "campaign manager"who knows how best to use and spend the campaign funds!
Whatever;
So feel free to answer on hilary's views or lack-of-experience,
(though we could all sincerely hope and work for a reduction
in terrorism,one of the modern scurges of our world).
And have a good day,very much like mine has started(!)

Answer 1

This arguement is specious at best.What people really mean when criticising both Mrs.Clinton&Mr.Obama is that they are both too "different"to be trusted with the highest authority in the land.As for "blundering"Mrs.Clinton wasn't the only one.People on bothe sides of the aisle "blundered"because they were given wrong intelligence post 9/11 &The White House used the air of confusion,fear&anger to impilimate thire agenda,begin the process of trampeling the Consitution&The Bill of Rights,calling anyone who disagreed w/them,"traitors"
Anyone who had spent time on the Beltway is qualified,at least in theory,to run the country&while we're at it,other nations have (including England)a woman at the helm & no one suffered needlessly because of it.
As a man f color,it would do my heart no end of good to see Mr.Obama in The White House,(indeed,it's long over-due!)
And besides,I can't see how a woman or a person of color could screw us up more than we are already!

Answer 2

Hilary is right, if you look at the context of her statement. The Republicans have made a huge mess of the so-called "war on terrorism". They successfuly convinced the American people that we need to go to war with any number of countries in order to protect ourselves.

That "anti-terrorism" policy has gone so far as to include Mexico as an enemy of American security.

So, in light of all that, I find something refreshing in Hilary's comment. She said that she is better at handling the unexpected than Bush, or any other Republican candidate.

The Republicans keep on saying that terrorism can be eliminated if we use the military, law enforcement, and the intelligence services to defeat the terrorists. But, throughout the modern history of terrorism, with respect to Europe, terrorism has not been eradicated.

Hilary is saying that we are vulnerable, regardless of what Bush and the GOP say. That is a statement based on reality, and it goes against the "feel-good-at-any-cost" campaign the Republicans have waged for the past 7 years.

Rather than fretting about when the next attack will happen, we should instead work towards a constructive means of dealing with, and avoiding, such an attack.

Which is in line with the other part of Hilary's statement, in which she said that a terrorist attack between now and election day would result in another Republican getting elected. I don't know if that would get another Republican elected, but it is certainly the feeling around the nation.

Hilary seems fearless, and so many people are living in fear of terrorism, when it is hardly the most pressing issue facing our country. Her comment is a tough-as-nails sentiment about terrorism,and it is about time someone in the political arena took a stand and suggest that the terrorists can go to ****. If there is one thing a terrorist hates, . . . it is a person who is not terrified of a terrorist. Sounds like Hilary is not easily scared.

I know that the Republicans, and most of the American people, are against diplomacy, but that will solve more of our foreign policy challenges than the military.

I think that the problem is that Hilary is being too honest, which might suggest "lack of experience". Again, the Republicans are masters of making people feel good, even if such feelings are completely gratuitious.

I also have to disagree with terrorism being a scurge. What will determine the future stability and longevity of our nation is national economic policy.

The bankers who run this country should be sent to Guantanamo . . .

Answer 3

Either of them is plenty experienced enough as a politician. There are style differences that may be perceived as naive or tough-minded, which would matter if this were a real choice for us. The problem is, they're both tools of the same interests that control the people who made the current mess. That's not going to change.

Answer 4

A good politician must parse every word. Some things are true, but better left unsaid. Some things are not true, but you say them because they are expedient.

This is why I would make a terrible politician. I say what I think, and sometimes it is pretty unvarnished.

That being said, I would prefer a politician who ACTUALLY says what they are thinking and doesn't just create an image. Politics sickens me.