Quote:
Originally Posted by DGTess
What qualifies her for anything, including Secretary of State? Six years in Senate do not a foreign-policy expert make, by a long shot.
Do we remember the "under sniper fire" story?
Remember, it was Tina Fey who made the Russia comment, and the Africa comment has been shown to be a hoax.
AND, she pilloried Bill Richardson because he dared to let his conscience, rather than party loyalty, be his guide. Mind you, Richardson is another kook, but Her Royal Hillary's treatment of him was atrocious.
|
Oh - a hawk when convenient, I see?
Life isn't (and shouldn't be) the union hall - seniority is garbage, meritocracy is fundamental. Let's focus less on temporal or ephemeral BS like "experience" and go for some more tangible qualities:
-Her hawkish views on Iraq/Iran (considerably further right than Obama) give a nicely-rounded view on foreign policy to the cabinet, especially when combined with Gates. Since you've shown yourself to be, basically, a far-right Republican, you should appreciate this sort of ideal - it's not stacked with "Obamabots," a decision that can only benefit us all.
-Her name/reputation is gold in many parts of the world, an important consideration when rebuilding from literally the lowest point in the history of America in terms of foreign reputation.
-She does indeed have substantive foreign diplomacy experience, although accrued as First Lady - you can argue that it was done for political gain, and we can point out her exaggerations, but that doesn't change the actual experience. Sure, her baggy ass didn't get shot at in Serbia, but she has visited 80+ nations, set up discussions and negotiations in Pakistan, Afghanistan and India (which Bush rejected, btw), etc. It's still there, even if we accept that her job is mostly to fly and wave.
-The angle she brings (more interested in human/woman's rights than any previous SOS) has genuine utility - far more so than, say, John Kerry's corpse (but he has EXPERIENCE!).
-Additionally, of all the major candidates save McCain, HRC showed the best preparation and ability to discuss and adapt to foreign policy concerns during the primary season - she's a wonk.
You can argue for intangibles, or argue that she sucks, or argue that you don't like her, but I doubt you can really rebut that she's uniquely qualified for the position. That doesn't mean she's necessarily
best-qualified . . .