I don't mean "outweighs" in terms of importance, which is subjective, I mean simply in terms of "more" which is numbers, which is not subjective, which is "period." Give it whatever weight you want in terms of importance.


I think her level of activity during that time is to be commended. Certainly she did - or at least attempted - more important things in that eight year period than I will ever do over the course of my whole life. But the fact is she didn't have a "job" to set about to doing or campaign promises to live up to or even any real actual law making ability. She had free time and influence, and she used them wisely. But it's not the same thing as being an elected official, IMO.


I didn't think it was.

This is where I draw the line in the experience argument...did he/she have an accountability? An elected official is accountable to his/her constituency. First Lady isn't really accountable to anyone.

You make it sound as if she hasn't spent 4 more years in the US Senate than Obama.

Oh, I realize that. But trying to equate her years as First Lady and years in the Senate just doesn't hold water with me. Really, McCain, Clinton and Obama have very little relevant experience for POTUS. None of them have really run anything as a "CEO" or similar capacity.

I think if you really want to count Hillary's experience as First Lady, then let's look at her healthcare initiative.

'Nuff said.

Certainly, I agree with that entirely. But that's just as beside the point as how many more years one has served in an elected local position over the other.

(That was in response to Sky.)

Right, like we are all so much better because of her.

we aren't disagreeing

I find 8 years of that infinitely preferable to any of McCain or Bush. But of course there's 199,999,999 (or so) who don't necessarily all think the same.

because this topic is officially MOOT



*starts new general election thread*