Why? There are few people as prepared to be POTUS as Hillary. In terms of her resume, she has extensive experience in politics and very few candidates are as knowledgeable as her on a range of policy issues, both foreign and domestic.
Anyways, there is no absolute, there is only relative.
So I suppose this means Cruz is not prepared, and I am not sure by what yardstick you would measure a reality television stars credentials on but he can not be said to be prepared either.
If you are going to knock the president and say he should be more prepared, the current candidate field must look bleek. Sanders & Kasich are the only other candidates besides Clinton that meet that bar.
^ Wrong! Only Trump and Kasich have executive experience. Someone with executive experience should lead the Executive Branch.
^^ Not a Trump or Cruz supporter. Of the dreck that is in the race this year, Kasich would make the best president IMO. I would say though that Cruz is a bit more qualified than then Sen. Obama. Although Cruz has only served 1/2 a term, we was the Solicitor General of Texas for 4 or 5 years and quite successful in private practice. I’d put that slight ahead of Obama’s community organizing and stint in the Illinois legislature. Only slightly though. Generally speaking, I find members of congress, regardless of their time in office, to be comparatively unqualified to be POTUS unless they held an executive (private or government) position at some time as well.
Prepared/Knowledgeable/experienced are not all the same. Hillary is clearly very smart and has held public office for 12 years as either a US Senator or Sec of State (experienced). But how do we evaluate her level of preparedness? Based on her resume alone, you would think she would be prepared. But what accomplishments does she have? How does she defend her vote FOR the Iraq war? Did she handle Benghazi as well as she could? How much credability does she have when talking about Main Street when she’s been sucking at the teet of Wall St?
Your complaints of Iraq, Benghazi, Wall Street don’t refute the idea that she’s competent or experienced. Whether the Iraq war was justified is a strategic opinion dependent upon your political worldview, not a judgement on your abilities. Benghazi is not a big deal. As for Wall St. again, again it doesn’t matter, many politiicans, even competent ones, have deep and extensive connections to industry. That is how politicians get elected.
What accomplishments does she have? You can read her wiki here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_career_of_Hillary_Rodham_Clinton
And for SoS you can read here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton's_tenure_as_Secretary_of_State
Oh, I didn’t know it wasn’t a “big deal”. Never mind then. And her double talk with Wall St., I guess since you say “it doesn’t matter” we all should just plan on casting our ballots for Mrs. Clinton. Thank you for the thoughtful responses and in depth wiki reading.
Glad you learned something, I’m happy to help.
Running a company and running a country are nothing alike. Here is a wonderful piece in the Harvard Business Review about Trumps problems. Again this is why I wish Bloomberg ran, he ran a city and a more successful company than Trump.
https://hbr.org/2016/04/what-donald-trump-doesnt-understand-about-negotiation
Yes, only Kasich has executive experience, and by conventional measures is highly qualified to be president IMO. Being governor is the real proving ground for future presidents.
^How is it you can express a completely reasonable and rational point (Governorship is great experience for future prez), but you’ll just blindly dismiss the points above on HRC? Very confusing…
I dismissed them because your points don’t substantiate your charges of her being unqualified or incapable, or in some cases are irrelevant.
That seems like a damning statement. Is that really how Democrats really feel? Am I missing something?