I am still stunned by the tone of this Obama v. Clinton debate. You'd think Clinton is the Antechrist, more evil than W by an order of magnitude. Yet the two candidates are so very close on the political spectrum, and their plans for America, while still vague, so very liberal boilerplate.
They both represent a step up from W, don't they? Doesn't anyone?
She doesn't have as much relevant executive and legislative experience as she claims, but experience matters little to so many of those Democrats who vote in the primaries. Many of those voters know more about American Idol contestants than anything else and reduce public life to some reality show.
Hillary's "tour" in China showed (at the very least) that she had the guts to singlehandedly confront the whole Chinese geriatric nomenclatura and denounce their trampling on human rights.
She is also widely credited for helping bring her husband to the center and broaden his appeal. NAFTA and Welfare reform were certainly not garden variety liberal fares. Sadly, they are both reduced to populist protectionist rhetorics now
Her work with the health care task force (failed or not), certainly taught her a few lessons.
There is no question she has the drive and the strength to withstand the many crises the future president will certainly encounter.
As for Barack, he will be ready in 2016. Beyond all the speeches, he has not exactly shown a knack for working with the other side (GOP), according to the GOP US Senators themselves. Wouldn't that be a pre-requisite to end partisanship?
But Barack has even less, by virtue of being 15-odd years her junior for starters. His work in the IL legislature is neither necessary nor sufficient for presidential preparation for a and
