I want a candidate who will take the oath of the presidency seriously. I want a candidate who understands the Constitution and won't be working 24/7 to destroy it. I want a candidate who understands that government is the preventer of freedom, not the granter of freedom.
I want a candidate who views the ever-expanding federal government as an impediment to liberty. I want a candidate who is not afraid to express the opinion that the sixteenth and seventeenth Amendments are such impediments to liberty and need to be repealed to restore the promise of the Founders.
I want a candidate who clearly understands that the nation can no longer travel down the path the federal government has set for us because it is a dead-end to poverty and tyranny.
This kind of conversation, concerning skin color or gender being a qualification or an impediment to anything, is the kind of thing the Left obsesses about. I simply won't entertain it. There is far more at stake.
I agree. A question was posed to her (about *us*, not her - are we, as a country, ready for a female President - whatever the dickens that means) and she answered it. I watched her entire performance and 3 things bothered me. I have never been satisfied with her answers on Pakistani terrorism. I think she would benefit from reading Dinesh D’Souza on that argument. It’s an area of obvious weakness. The other was when she didn’t correct the host when he asked a question about 0bama’s kicking off the bailing-out trend. She should have pointed out that it was Bush. It would’ve been accurate. I also wasn’t fond of what she said about China honorably building up its economy. With all the currency manipulation that’s going on, I would’ve liked to have seen her answer cogently.
Not her most elegant performance, but on that question, I can’t fault her. And on the question of gender as a qualification, you and I agree in the absolute.