(04-20-2015 11:57 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(04-20-2015 11:36 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(04-20-2015 11:33 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(04-20-2015 11:26 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  You can't take two bar exams on the same day, unless you can be in Little Rock and DC at the exact same time on the exact same day. The exams are given on the same day across the nation and have for a very long time.

She passed Arkansas and failed DC, most likely because she had a job and studying for the Bar took a backseat. That's a sure fire way to fail.

Yes, that is true. Good point. I know that I studied for 40 to 50 hours per week for 10 weeks straight for the Illinois bar plus taking the BarBri class (about 4 hours per day). I can't imagine working at the same time as studying for the bar.

Yea, it's a full time job in itself.

I think Hillary is just misremembering what happened.

She took one of the first MultiState exams, which means it is entirely impossible she took two tests at the same July administration. She must have taken the Arkansas bar in February.

The speculation in the piece on snopes is that the teacher she enlisted to help with passing the DC bar was providing instruction based on an obsolete version of the DC exam.

Yeah, that was right before standardized bar exam courses became de rigeur. I know it might seem nuts to people that didn't go to law school, but your 3 years in law school have only a tangential relation to the bar exam. The BarBri bar exam prep course became popular in the 1970s and now everyone takes it (and it's not cheap, especially after you've just spent 3 years of paying law school tuition). Even the top grads from Harvard and Yale couldn't get by without it. They literally teach to the test (basically Common Core for law school grads), whereas prior to that era you often had to figure it out on your own. I took BarBri in Illinois with its founder Richard Conviser and, needless to say, that guy has made a LOT of money over the years.

Regardless, the notion that Hillary somehow isn't qualified is ridiculous. You may not agree with her views, but she's incredibly smart and accomplished. I think I'd be pretty happy if my daughter graduated from Yale Law, became a partner in a law firm, and went on to be a Senator and Secretary of State.

Likewise, I don't agree with the political views of Ted Cruz or Ben Carson at all, but they're both incredibly smart and accomplished people. I'd be pretty happy if my son became editor of the Harvard Law Review (something both Cruz and Obama have in common) or could perform pediatric brain surgery on conjoined twins (like Carson). I wouldn't vote for Cruz or Carson, but I sure as heck respect what they've accomplished in life.

We can rag on people's political views on both sides of the aisle, but I get bothered when people without one iota of the academic and professional accomplishments of these candidates start talking about qualifications.

If it were my daughter, I'd be thrilled, too. Thing is, Hillary was a sleazy lawyer, an invisible senator, and incompetent secretary of state.

I'm sure her parents, rest their souls, were very proud of her. My parents are proud of me. Doesn't make me presidential timber.

(04-20-2015 09:58 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(04-18-2015 07:52 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-17-2015 03:02 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  In spite of the conservative "wisdom", she might actually be the most qualified candidate we've had to vote for in decades.

Most qualified? Really? What has she DONE to qualify her? Not what has she BEEN, what has she ACCOMPLISHED?

Her greatest qualification is that she (presumably) slept with a president for eight years. In that case, Monica Lewinsky is more qualified. Apparently, Bill thought she did a better job.

Again, as I've told you again and again, there is no accomplishment test for the presidency.

What had Obama accomplished?
What had W accomplished?
Clinton?
HW?
Reagan?
Carter?
Nixon?
Kennedy?

I know you guys like to make a joke about her biggest accomplishment being married to Bill, but to be truthful, that alone actually almost makes her more qualified than every single Republican contender at this point.

And although you dismiss it like it's winning a junior high school chess club presidency, winning a senatorial race is an accomplishment.

Being selected and confirmed as a cabinet member is an accomplishment.

Graduating college is an accomplishment.

Graduating Yale Law School with honors is an accomplishment.

Passing the Arkansas bar is an accomplishment. Aren't you a lawyer? I'm guessing that was an accomplishment for you wasn't it?

Stop being obtuse...or start applying the same standards to who you're going to vote for.

Bottom line, being in the White House for 8 years and seeing what a president goes through...being a senator and seeing how Capital Hill works...running the State Department...traveling the globe and meeting and working with dozens of heads of states...makes her way more qualified than anyone else running so far.

To argue otherwise simply because you don't like her or her policies is just shameful ignorance.

Most people consider being Governor or elected to Congress as sufficient credentials. But few argue that being First Lady as a legitimate check in her favor.

(04-20-2015 09:58 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  I know you guys like to make a joke about her biggest accomplishment being married to Bill, but to be truthful, that alone actually almost makes her more qualified than every single Republican contender at this point.

So Monica Lewinsky is over-qualified? Because she actually had sex with Bill.

Quote:And although you dismiss it like it's winning a junior high school chess club presidency, winning a senatorial race is an accomplishment.

Not one that qualifies someone to be president.

Quote:Being selected and confirmed as a cabinet member is an accomplishment.

Not one that qualifies someone to be president.

Quote:Graduating college is an accomplishment.

Not one that qualifies someone to be president.

Quote:Graduating Yale Law School with honors is an accomplishment.

Not one that qualifies someone to be president.

Quote:Passing the Arkansas bar is an accomplishment. Aren't you a lawyer? I'm guessing that was an accomplishment for you wasn't it?

Not one that qualifies someone to be president. And I haven't claimed to be qualified to be president as a result of passing the bar. Or the CPA exam, which was a LOT harder.

Actually, I've done similar things to several of the accomplishments you are alleging for Hillary. Just as I had done several of the things being alleged as accomplishments for Obama. And believe me, none of them are accomplishments that should qualify one to be president.

Quote:Stop being obtuse...or start applying the same standards to who you're going to vote for.

Okay, I'll list the accomplishments that I believe someone needs to be as qualified as possible for the presidency. One, he or she has to has led something in an executive capacity--run a business, governor of a state, senior military officer. Because that's what a president does. Two, he or she has to have actually ACCOMPLISHED something in those positions. Not just being there, but doing something while there.

By that standard, the most qualified leading democrat would be Joe Manchin and the most qualified republican in the field would be Scott Walker. I'd be pretty happy with the outcome either way if it came down to those two.

By that standard, incidentally, Sarah Palin was far more qualified than Barack Obama.

Quote:Bottom line, being in the White House for 8 years and seeing what a president goes through...being a senator and seeing how Capital Hill works...running the State Department...traveling the globe and meeting and working with dozens of heads of states...makes her way more qualified than anyone else running so far.

So, she's Forrest Gump except she can't run fast. She's BEEN all those places, but what did she DO while she was at any of them that makes any difference? It's what you've DONE, not what you've BEEN.

Quote:To argue otherwise simply because you don't like her or her policies is just shameful ignorance.

I'm not arguing otherwise because I don't like her or her policies. I actually like her policies far more than I like Elizabeth Warren's, or Bernie Sanders's. And I have never met her, so I don't know whether I'd like her as a person or not. I've heard some interesting stories from some of her old law partners, but they are hearsay. I am arguing that she is not qualified, for one simple reason--because she is not qualified. She's hardly the only person in the field that I consider unqualified.

As I've said before, one of the things that really concerns me is that our system seems to be producing a steady stream of unqualified candidates for the position of most powerful person in the world. Dole, GWB, Gore, Kerry, Obama, McCain, Romney--Romney is the only one of those that I would consider qualified. GWB had run a business, but not particularly successfully, and he had been a governor, but in Texas the lieutentant governor holds the real power. Probably the last time that both major parties had a qualified candidate was 1992--GHWB and Bill, and for that matter the third party nominee Perot was probably also more qualified that what the major parties are running these days. Before that, probably 1988 with GHWB-Dukakis, 1980 with Reagan-Carter, 1976 with Carter-Ford, the two Eisenhower-Stevenson races in 1952 and 1956. Used to be, two highly qualified candidates was the norm. I still wonder if the proliferation of primaries has done more harm than good.

(04-20-2015 01:32 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Okay, I'll list the accomplishments that I believe someone needs to be as qualified as possible for the presidency. One, he or she has to has led something in an executive capacity--run a business, governor of a state, senior military officer. Because that's what a president does. Two, he or she has to have actually ACCOMPLISHED something in those positions. Not just being there, but doing something while there.

About time you come to the conclusion that Hillary is qualified. Thanks!

Quote:Created in 1789 by the Congress as the successor to the Department of Foreign Affairs, the Department of State is the senior executive Department of the U.S. Government. The Secretary of State’s duties relating to foreign affairs have not changed significantly since then, but they have become far more complex as international commitments multiplied. These duties -- the activities and responsibilities of the State Department -- include the following:

Serves as the President's principal adviser on U.S. foreign policy;
Conducts negotiations relating to U.S. foreign affairs;
Grants and issues passports to American citizens and exequaturs to foreign consuls in the United States;
Advises the President on the appointment of U.S. ambassadors, ministers, consuls, and other diplomatic representatives;
Advises the President regarding the acceptance, recall, and dismissal of the representatives of foreign governments;
Personally participates in or directs U.S. representatives to international conferences, organizations, and agencies;
Negotiates, interprets, and terminates treaties and agreements;
Ensures the protection of the U.S. Government to American citizens, property, and interests in foreign countries;
Supervises the administration of U.S. immigration laws abroad;
Provides information to American citizens regarding the political, economic, social, cultural, and humanitarian conditions in foreign countries;
Informs the Congress and American citizens on the conduct of U.S. foreign relations;
Promotes beneficial economic intercourse between the United States and other countries;
Administers the Department of State;
Supervises the Foreign Service of the United States.

Duties of the Secretary of State

But go ahead and make another Monica joke.

It's and executive DEPARTMENT because it reports to the president. That's not the same as being the person at the top. I will agree with you that this is probably the closest she has come to doing anything relevant to the presidency.

But again, remember that what Matters is what she DID while in the position. So what did she do? Benghazi? The Arab Spring? Killing Bin Laden (from what I've read, she deserves more credit than Obama, but less than Seal Team SIX)? The ridiculous "RESET" button fiasco with the Russians? She's BEEN places but she hasn't DONE things. She's Forrest Gump without the foot speed.

Don't get me wrong, if it's Hillary versus Elizabeth Warren, I'll register as a democrat to vote for her against Warren in the primary. And there are republicans that I would prefer her over (although if it comes to that, my standard libertarian protest vote will be even easier than usual). But it's not because I think she's qualified, just that I don't think she's as dangerous as they are.

(04-20-2015 11:21 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(04-20-2015 10:02 AM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  Just as an FYI

Hillary passed the Arkansas Bar exam but failed the DC bar exam. Wonder which test has the higher bar (pun intended)?
http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/barexam.asp

Speaking as a lawyer, you have to be an elite-level genius (or have the ability to function without sleeping for three months straight) to take and pass two different bar exams at the same time, which I believe is what Hillary attempted to do here. Passing the bar in any one state is a major challenge (whether it's Arkansas or New York), much less attempting two at the same time. Unless you've passed the bar somewhere, you have zero right to critique it. The only bar exam that is appreciably more difficult than the other states is the California bar because it has an extra day (but note that there's a larger weed-out factor in California because they allow for grads from non-accredited schools to sit for the exam).

Ultimately, I just question why she even bothered taking the DC bar. You can waive into the DC bar as long as you've passed the bar in another state (meaning that passing the Arkansas bar would entitle you to membership in the DC bar as long as you pay the fee). That option must not have been available back in the 1970s. It's pretty common now that even if you know that you'll be working in DC, you take the bar in a different state (often New York, California or Illinois) and then waive into the DC bar.

This is just precious, M. Esquire.

Lots of dumb loyya's out there, had a few that worked for me.

Shortly.

(04-20-2015 11:21 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Speaking as a lawyer, you have to be an elite-level genius (or have the ability to function without sleeping for three months straight) to take and pass two different bar exams at the same time, which I believe is what Hillary attempted to do here. Passing the bar in any one state is a major challenge (whether it's Arkansas or New York), much less attempting two at the same time. Unless you've passed the bar somewhere, you have zero right to critique it.

I have, and quite frankly it was a piece of cake. Much easier than the CPA exam, which I also passed (like bar, on first attempt).

As accomplishments go, it's better than poking oneself in the eye with a burning stick, but not an indication of presidential timber.

Again, I have to be careful. I don't want to offer any criticism of Hillary that might convince democrats to nominate somebody else. Among the democrats who have expressed any interest in the nomination, she is my preference by leaps and bounds.