In a news conference Deanna Favre announced she will be the starting QB for the Packers this coming Sunday. Deanna asserts that she is qualified to be starting QB because she has spent the past 16 years married to Brett while he played QB for the Packers. During this period of time she became familiar with the definition of a corner blitz, and is now completely comfortable with other terminology of the Packers offense. A survey of Packers fans shows that 50% of those polled supported the move. Does this sounds idiotic and unbelievable to you? Well, Hillary Clinton makes the same claims as to why she is qualified to be President and 50% of democrats polled agreed. She has never run a City, County, or State. When told Hillary Clinton has experience because she has 8 years in the white house, Dick Morris stated "so has the pastry chef". from an email

Negative, shipmate. She's also an elected United States Senator. To my knowledge, she has served as well as any of the other candidates in this capacity. Are you arguing that no member of the U.S. Senate is qualified to run for President because they don't, strictly speaking, run their state?

Ummm, no...the real point is that her husband's experience is not her own, and she is remiss to use that experience as a credible reason to bolster her credentials.

It takes a bunch of moxi to run a $100 Million campaign off the cliff like she has managed to do.

Mike O:

It takes a bunch of moxi to run a $100 Million campaign off the cliff like she has managed to do.

Yeah, first place in NH is sure a losing proposition. And Rubma, Bret Farve's wife may not be able to quarterback but I'll bet she knows a lot more about quarterbacking and how the leagues are run than I do.

Consider Senator Clinton's time in the White House like an Internship. We send interns to Congress all the time. While they may not be able to be a Senator they are supposed to pick up how things work.

In the Air Force they make junior officers Execs. They can't run a Wing or a Group perhaps but if they are observant they will learn a lot about how the organization functions.

So Monica would make a good candidate too?

Well I guess she could bring me milk and cookies every now and then....

And tidy up my cigar box from time to time.

Rubma:

So Monica would make a good candidate too?

She just might. If she could get elected Senator and proved herself popular. But she was too busy trying to find love in all the wrong places.

So in this country of second chances a woman like Monica can't have a second chance. Nice.

I personally don't think she's not that smart. If she had used her internship properly she might have actually accomplished something.

But be sure you all use her as an example of Senator Clinton. That makes so much sense.

Perhaps we should use Sanjaya as an example of Rudy Giuliani or Barak Obama. Makes about as much sense.

Ahhh...so what really isn't important is the internship but the popular election to the Senate that counts. Now you are making sense and starting to come around to my original point that Bill's presidency isn't a valid credential for Hillary to base her experience on. Would you really consider an applicant for a job because they were married to someone that used to do that job? McDonald's good chance;...President hell no!

Rubma:

Ahhh...so what really isn't important is the internship but the popular election to the Senate that counts. Now you are making sense and starting to come around to my original point that Bill's presidency isn't a valid credential for Hillary to base her experience on. Would you really consider an applicant for a job because they were married to someone that used to do that job? McDonald's good chance;...President hell no!

Nice try at twisting my words. No one HAS to be elected to a Senate seat. But it sure helps in building experience and popularity. I doubt too many people would vote for someone without political experience. Wait, I'm sure you voted for GWB.

I certainly would consider an appropriately qualified applicant who was married to someone that used to do that job. And I might even consider their years of inside information as valuable. You're being specious.

I agree...Hillary's Senate experience does and should count. And yes, I voted for GWB...he was a state governor...as many Presidents have before him, that didn't serve in the House or Senate. Considering the two Senators represent the State(at least that is their original purpose), they could be said to work for the governor of that state. I think governorship is more closely related to Presidency than Senator is....

I also voted for Ross Perot.... Being that the budget was of concern to me at the time...a self-made billionaire seemed like a good example of fiscal discipline that this nation needed at it's helm...even without his political experience. Kinda shoots the whole partisan blowhard theory of yours concerning me out of the water doesn't it. I do admittedly have issues with the dem party though...fundamental issues, I think they are transforming into Socialists with a democrat label...

Yeah, I've heard that arguement about how being a Governor is more experience than being a Senator. Well, Bush had zero foreign policy experience except that Sheik Bandar "Bush" practically lived with the family while they built their oil empire. The man couldn't even name most heads of state before he was elected.

At any rate, there are no requirements on qualifications for President. Senator, governor, or private citizen, it makes no difference. Back to the original topic, Senator Clinton may have learned a whole lot while her husband was in the White House. It's certainly worth consideration and the original post about Farve's wife was silly.

How about a Republican example? Sonny Bono's wife. What experience did she have prior to being elected to his post? It seems Republicans don't have a problem with Republican dynasties. I find that just a bit hypocritical.

As for my partisan blowhard theory, I believe you are reading into what I said. I made no mention of partisanship in my last post. My post was about experience. Whether you voted by party or not is not mentioned. You do like to twist words.

"Nice try at twisting my words. No one HAS to be elected to a Senate seat. But it sure helps in building experience and popularity. I doubt too many people would vote for someone without political experience. Wait, I'm sure you voted for GWB."

Whether the Dems are transforming into soclialists or not is another topic for another day. Frankly, I have issues with the Reps who believe you must have a powerful central government that limits freedom. And that they forward this agenda through the use of fear.

What is disputed aren't the requirements to be a President. What is disputed is Hillary's claim that her husband's experience as President is her own. I don't care about Bono....I didn't vote for either of them, and I can't tell you if she did use her husband's experience as reason to elect her. Mrs Clinton can no more use her husband's experience as President to boost her credentials than Brett Favre's wife could to make her a quarterback. Hillary's experience as a Senator however is much more valid a credential. She may have heard the inside scoop...but never the whole story. Hillary's dealings with polticians and foreign dignataries was on a whole different plane of existence than her husband's was. Her claim is a farce.

As for Reps wanting a strong central government....I'm not to into that idea either. In this area, dems and reps are inseparable. Personally, I would much rather the lionshare of my taxes go to the State and not the Fed. I think the States have given too much of their own powers over to the Fed. Example, the 55 mile an hour speed limit. Drinking laws are the responsibility of each state, a power provided in the 21st ammendment...but the fed withheld funding in order to goad the states into doing what the fed wanted them to do. As we beg for the central government to do more for us, we invariably ask them to take a greater share of our earnings...instead of fighting to maintain sovereignty of each state and demanding that each state handle it's own civil issues without some mandate from the fed. It's a shame that some states can't survive without federal intervention....and for that, the large central government gets even larger.