Presidents come from all kinds of backgrounds and experiences, and some come ill equipped to deal with foreign policy and or domestic issues.
It is often said that learning on the job is the best experience, but that puts the nation at greater risk.
So the question arises: Since World War II, what Presidents came to office fully qualified to take the reigns of power?
This judgment is not one of approval or disapproval of the President and his record, but simply his qualifications when he took the oath of office.
It is clear that three Presidents came to office very qualified to be President, and they would be, chronologically, Lyndon B. Johnson, Richard Nixon, and George H. W. Bush!
Harry Truman was ill prepared; Dwight D. Eisenhower had never taken an interest in politics; John F. Kennedy was very challenged in his first year in office; Gerald Ford had years of experience but no real ambition to be President; Jimmy Carter had limited experience in government, as did Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush, as being governors of southern states did not prepare them for national leadership; Ronald Reagan had a very narrow view of national government and its importance; and Barack Obama had limited experience in national affairs, having only served four years in the US Senate.
On the other hand, Lyndon B. Johnson had been in government for thirty years and was a master legislative strategist, although foreign policy was certainly not his forte.
Richard Nixon had been Vice President for eight years, as was also with George H. W. Bush, and those years plus foreign policy expertise set them up well to be President.
Hillary Clinton is, without a doubt, the best equipped since the elder Bush to be President, as her years in the White House with her husband; her Senate years; and her four years as Secretary of State, even with problems, made her known worldwide, and she has the respect of foreign governments. She is likely to be more activist in domestic affairs than her husband, which would also be a plus!
The progressive blog, Horizons, shows what the deal is with Hillary and Bernie and that the media is spinning it out of context for ratings. http://immasmartypants.blogspot.com/2016/04/what-clintonsanders-diddidnt-say-about.html
This is the campaign we need from Hillary and Bernie: http://bluevirginia.us/2016/04/bernie-hillary-give-us-campaign-need
I totally agree with that Leia. This is election is too important for them to be undercutting each other and sowing division in Democratic ranks.
Excellent local article about how Hillary is Presidential. http://bluevirginia.us/2016/04/hillary-clinton-isnt-likable-shes-presidential-get
From the article that Rational Lefty posted: “When people ask me why I voted for Hillary Clinton, my response isn’t that she’s relatable or likable or even honest. My answer is that she’s smart and capable and ready for the job.”
That’s why I voted for her too when we had our state’s primary.
Possible picks for Hillary’s running mate, if she’s the nominee. http://bluevirginia.us/2016/04/tim-kaine-stack-vp-contest
These are the kind of things that turn me off about the Hillary-Bernie side of the election: http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/sanders-under-fire-supporters-whores-remarks
As that Blue Virginia link says, Bernie and Hillary are on the same team and they need to fight the Republicans instead of each other.
“From the article that Rational Lefty posted: ‘When people ask me why I voted for Hillary Clinton, my response isn’t that she’s relatable or likable or even honest. My answer is that she’s smart and capable and ready for the job.’
That’s why I voted for her too when we had our state’s primary.”
Former Republican, with that logic then wouldn’t you have to say that Richard Nixon was a good fit for the presidency. As far as I know, not many folks would have questioned his intelligence or his government experience prior to being President.
Corrupt, yes, but incompetent or lacking experience, no.
Mike – If I were around during Nixon’s time, I would not have voted for him.
Mike – I grew up in a family of Republicans and became the first in my family’s household to vote Democrat when I turned 18. That’s why I nicknamed myself such.
I vote for Democrats not always with a great deal of enthusiasm, but because it’s the only real way to vote against Republicans, and since I’ve been old enough to vote, Republican presidents have been worse for the country than Democrats by running larger deficits, pushing policies that made America less egalitarian, and being more militarily aggressive. I’m sure there are parties with policies I would like better, but with America’s First-past-the-post voting system, you don’t vote for the candidate you like most, you vote against the candidate you fear most.
Re: Criticisms of Hillary by the left.
Nobody is pure: http://pleasecutthecrap.com/no-one-is-pure/
I completely agree with that article Leia.