WASHINGTON (CNN) – Former President Bill Clinton sharply questioned whether Sen. Barack Obama is experienced enough to be president during a television interview that aired Friday night.
And the husband of Obama's rival for the Democratic presidential nomination, Sen. Hillary Clinton, suggested that electing the Illinois Democrat to be commander-in-chief would be a "risk."
"If you listen to the people who are most strongly for him, they say basically, 'We have to throw away all these experienced people, because they have been through the wars of the nineties,'" Clinton said in an interview on PBS' The Charlie Rose show. "'They made enough decisions and enough calls that they made a few mistakes, and what we want is someone who started running for president a year after he became a senator because he's fresh, he's new, he's never made a mistake. And he has massive political skills, and we're willing to risk it.'"
Asked later in the interview if he thought voters would be "rolli
2007-12-16 00:39:16 · 14 answers · asked by hc44president 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
Bill Clinton is right.
You do not ask an medical intern to have your open heart surgery. Why do we entrust the politically inexperienced Obama to be the leader of our country? Obama only has 2 yrs as a US senator, and missed 60% of the senate votes. Talking about a lazy and irresponsible politician!
2007-12-16 02:56:20 · answer #1 · answered by T E 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
I've lost respect for Bill Clinton. He's turning out to have integrity issues. I guess he feels his word is law... maybe he haven't received the memo but once he started campaigning for his wife his credibility has gone from 10 to 0 FLAT!
Besides the length of time in Washington his comments about the next president should be someone who made lots of mistakes... OH REALLY!!!???? We want a faulty President? WHO? WHERE? Oh HELL NO we don't ! That's the problem, the last 2 presidents have been very faulty going into office with pending lawsuits, credibility issues and scandals. If Bill Clinton thinks that poor credibility is the answer to become a great president then not only does Hillary has integrity issues but she will be the LAST person I want to have as a Senator nevertheless a President.
2007-12-16 02:03:24 · answer #2 · answered by Stealth 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Bill Clinton
2016-05-24 04:46:34 · answer #3 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Bill is just echoing what his wife's campaign has been saying for months, it's not a real opinion. Hillary's only leg to stand on at this point is the political career that she received by riding Bill's coattails.
Obama was in the state Senate from 1997-2004 and has been in the US Senate since then. Before that he was a community organizer and a civil rights lawyer. To me it seems as if he went up the political ladder the right way after coming from humble beginnings rather than skipping a few steps as Hillary did. I also think that character and honesty is more important than experience. If you've got good advisers you can learn the ropes pretty quickly.
2007-12-16 01:17:34 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Obama. Have nothing against Bill Clinton. Thought he was a good President, not such a good husband. But I feel like that all those that have been in the White House and Congress have us where we are right now. Think I'd rather have someone who hasn't been in D.C. long enough to be corrupted. Obama seems more diplomatic and I think the rest of the World would respond to him best. I believe that's what we need at this point. I'll be voting for one of the two. I won't be disappointed with either of them.
2007-12-16 01:14:57 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
I think we should consider that Bill Clinton might have an ulterior motive for voicing this opinion. Obama has been a legislator since 1997. He entered National politics in 2004 but he has over 10 years of political experience. Is Bill suggesting that state politics shouldn't count? What was he before he was elected president? Wasn't he a State governor?
I respect Bill Clinton's opinion but I think he has an interest in his wife becoming President of the United States so his opinion about her or her opponents qualifications may be suspect.
2007-12-16 01:02:26 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
Wow, he's only been senator for a year???
That does seem risky to elect such a person to the Presidency so early.
Clinton does make some good points - the fact that Obama's only been a senator for a year and because of that, hasn't had time to make any mistakes, ect.... And we're going to elect him for four years????
I for one have also not been impressed by Obama's so -called "eloquence", there's seems to be something missing.
Obama has repeated some eloquent things others have said, but I have yet to hear anything original, and that's a fact you shall have to face.
Because of this, surprisingly, I would have to say former President Clinton is right in this case. It is easy to say he's just trying to promote Hillary, but with his background in law, he knows the importance of having to speak in an unbiased manner. I think he was asked this question with the interviewer seeking a non-biased answer and I believe he knew that and in all honesty, answered in an unbiased way as best as he could.
2007-12-16 01:05:13 · answer #7 · answered by endpov 7 · 0⤊ 4⤋
Hillary has been a Senator about 1/2 a term longer. I guess that is all it takes, an earlier hire date.
2007-12-16 00:44:05 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
As I recall, both of our last two presidents have been governors of pretty flupped up states, thats it.
Comparing running the country to running Texas or Arkansas, is like comparing driving a ferrari to a golf car.
Point Obama.
2007-12-16 00:54:50 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
I can distinctly remember the press asking Bill Clinton the same question, right before he got elected!
2007-12-16 00:47:00 · answer #10 · answered by John S 5 · 4⤊ 1⤋