Syria

I don't believe Hillary will provide you any more change than what is currently on the table. I'll qualify that by saying that I've become pretty cynical about the political process. I don't expect to have all of my expectations met, but I expect for both sides to be reasonable and neither side can say that right now. So, find a candidate, vote for him/her, and sit back while things stay the same, IMO.

 

It sucked the first time, why repeat it? Regardless of political party, it would be nice to see someone not repeat the same mistakes.

 

Agreed, but some were right the first time

 

Hillary is a career politician. She will be no better than what we've seen recently.

 

Eh, I agree on being a career politician but she can absolutely be more effective than what we've had. It's not really going to be very difficult at all to improve on recent history; that's not necessarily saying much, I understand. Still, I think she's intelligent and savvy enough to be effective in today's American political structure. We probably all will agree that our current political situation is abysmal, but absent major change in that construct she could find a modicum of success...yay.

 

I don't know. I don't really see her being much more capable of navigating the Congressional gridlock. If she does, it would probably be more of a result of democrats gaining seats rather than her savvy.

 

If the Bengahzi episode is any indication of her decision making skills we would be in for some trouble...that is of course assuming the decision didn't come from the WH.

 

She certainly isn't her husband, but I guess I see her as being smart enough to understand what it takes to navigate the gridlock; she's too smart not to have learned a few things from her husband's presidency. That doesn't mean she would navigate it, but I don't see any way she would not be an improvement. I guess it's all about levels of improvement, however.

 

The way that she ran the State Department makes her either look stupid or incompetent, neither is a strong sign of leadership.

 

It's going to take a Chris Christie type to force change. Maybe not him specifically, but that type of moderate politician with views more in line with most of America in that his views lean conservative in some areas and liberal in some areas. The hardline politicians on either side won't move the needle. JMO

 

I agree that her tenure as SOS was weak. I also think that is somewhat impacted by the president under which she served, but that does not take away her failures in that role. Rather, I think the Obama presidency didn't do her any favors. I truly believe she is capable of much better than what we've seen, but that does not mean I think she is the answer.

I actually agree with SB on a Christie type being our best option. He would be my choice based on what I know today, but 2016 is still a bit in the distance.

 

I believe that she is a really smart woman, and that Obama tarnished her a bit. I don't think that she is a strong leader at all though. Bill has that ability, because he can win people over. I don't see her being able to win over people in that way, but I could be wrong.

I'm not very confident in either party right now. It's either the left's welfare state or the right's no sin state, and I don't want to be a part of either.

 

I knew we brushed on this topic in the not so distant past (starts around #9):

http://8thmaxim.com/site/forum/thunderdome/5860-benghazi-blowout-thread.html

 

Christie would be an awful President. His is an egomaniac and would certainly enjoy the levers of power available to him.

 

Amazing that Obama decides to fund the rebels while reaching an agreement with Russian company to buy helicopters which is funding the Assad regime. Jackassery at its finest.

 

? Compared to whom?

 

The Chief in my NJROTC worked for the Clintons at Camp David on the Marine One team. He's a die-hard Republican. Die hard. He liked Bill a lot. He loves Hillary. Says she is the smartest most genuine and most sincere person he has ever met. He almost comes to blows when she's bad-mouthed. According to him, she has been the victim of one of the worst character assassination campaigns ever. He's frothing at the mouth for her to run in 2016. I'll take his word about her over any others.

 

Strongly disagree. I feel she was a very effective Sec of State.

 

How was she effective? I'm not asking this to be a smart ass, but honestly want to know.

I think she was very ineffective with Benghaz and handling the people under her. CBS has reported that the use of prostitutes was rampant among her security team.

 

I think that she stood up and took a political bullet on Benghazi. It was a consulate in name only. Everything that ran out of there was CIA and Chris Stevens was there only to maintain the legal diplomatic cover. Shit got real and the CIA doesn't want a word said about the attack - why would that consulate get attacked? Answer - because it and the nearby annex were key bases for funneling arms to the rebels...and the guys who weren't getting the guns didnt like them too much. CIA thinks that if we admit it was an attack that the cover is blown. Their problem was not realizing their cover was long-gone.

I do think that there were serious administration fears about another Black Hawk Down situation - but those came from the White House, not Foggy Bottom. There was reluctance to send the entire GD calvary. There were CIA paramilitary boots on the ground and the administration decided to give them a shot at cleaning up what the policy guys likely felt like the CIA started. Hesitation likely led to the loss of some brave American lives.

Hardly any of this is on Hillary Clinton, though, IMO.

That's just my take.