Hilary Clinton
Posted by: furtive
Hilary Clinton - 20/01/2007 21:01
Would be interested to know what the Merkins make of her running for the top job. Do you think she'll get it?
Personally, I think it's about time a woman got into the big house.
Posted by: tonyc
Re: Hilary Clinton - 21/01/2007 01:04
Quote:
Personally, I think it's about time a woman got into the big house.
Me too, just not *that* woman. Figuring out what Hillary's position on any given issue is damn near impossible with all the pandering and playing both sides of the issues.
There are many more capable women in the national spotlight. it's unfortunate that Hillary's probably the only one that will run in '08.
Posted by: wfaulk
Re: Hilary Clinton - 21/01/2007 05:36
Agree. Besides which, I don't think a woman could win a popular vote for President in the US yet.
Posted by: FireFox31
Re: Hilary Clinton - 21/01/2007 14:03
Sadly, after Bush, I think "Mrs. Slick Willy" could worm her way into the hearts of the public. Maybe I underestimate the power of pig headedness that's apparently in other parts of the country. Regardless, I'd rather see anyone else in the director's chair but her. "Her Slickness" will probably only dodge the nation's issues instead of working them out.
Posted by: TigerJimmy
Re: Hilary Clinton - 21/01/2007 22:04
Last month's issue of the Atlantic (maybe 2 months ago) had a good article about her. The conclusion was that she basically sold out and became a pandering moderate in order to advance her career and achieve power. I personally thought her agenda of the early Bill administration was extremely misguided, so this is actually a good thing, IMHO. The point of the article, though, was that she's just become another career politician like any other.
Posted by: Ladmo
Re: Hilary Clinton - 22/01/2007 02:07
Well, keeping in mind her Whitewater escapades (or what ever it was called) her National ID for the world campaign, her references to herself and billy as "We ARE the President..." as well as many other items....I think she fits into politics quite well. Wow! Can you imagaine how F'd we be if she were pres, and Nancy P. was her VP????
Posted by: webroach
Re: Hilary Clinton - 22/01/2007 02:11
Quote:
Wow! Can you imagaine how F'd we be if she were pres, and Nancy P. was her VP????
As much as I can't stand her and wouldn't vote for her, we'd be no worse off than we are with W.
Posted by: tonyc
Re: Hilary Clinton - 22/01/2007 02:41
Quote:
Can you imagaine how F'd we be if she were pres, and Nancy P. was her VP????
Nancy Pelosi would not go anywhere near a HIllary Clinton presidential ticket. Nancy is a genuine progressive Democrat, and while her position as majority leader requires her to hedge just a bit so she can keep the caucus together, she speaks her mind much more than Hillary ever will. Unfortunately, speaking one's mind and having actual positions on issues doesn't seem to play well on the road to the White House.
The good news is that her "San Francisco liberal" voting record happens to line up with what a majority of Americans want these days after a belly full of do-nothing GOP leadership in Congress.. So, the best place for her in 2008 and beyond is where she is right now.
And, riffing off of Dave's comments... I'd take Hillary and Nancy, Beavis and Butthead, or Tango and Cash over Commander Codpiece and Darth Cheney. Nothing, I repeat, NOTHING could be worse than the nitwits that currently constitute the executive branch.
Posted by: Robotic
Re: Hilary Clinton - 22/01/2007 07:33
Quote:
Nothing, I repeat, NOTHING could be worse than the nitwits that currently constitute the executive branch.
If that wasn't a challenge to 'Godwin' this thread...
But seriously, W's handlers have done excellent groundwork for a police state. It's frightening to think of what they'll do next.
Posted by: wfaulk
Re: Hilary Clinton - 22/01/2007 14:27
Well, the new Democratically controlled Congress is doing a very good job with their "first 100 hours" plan. Maybe they can keep the speed up and roll back much of the police state legislation that's gone through.
Honestly, I'd really like to see the President and the AG impeached for illegally spying on US citizens.
Posted by: wfaulk
Re: Hilary Clinton - 22/01/2007 18:51
Someone has up an
'08 frontrunner quiz. It seems to be reasonably well-researched and accurate.
Posted by: Dignan
Re: Hilary Clinton - 22/01/2007 19:21
Quote:
Someone has up an '08 frontrunner quiz. It seems to be reasonably well-researched and accurate.
Two questions:
What does the percentage in the results mean? My top choice has a 100% next to it. I doubt that it means I matched with that candidate 100%, unless the "high, medium, low" qualifiers in the quiz don't mean anything.
Do you perhaps have a link to a similar questionnaire that doesn't bombard me with popups? Even with the Firefox popup blocker, I got two pretty annoying ones, and it looks like it already blocked two.
Posted by: mlord
Re: Hilary Clinton - 22/01/2007 19:27
Quote:
The results are scored on a curve. 100% means that we are 100% certain that the top candidate on your list shares more of the views you indicated than any other candidate.
Posted by: Dignan
Re: Hilary Clinton - 22/01/2007 19:38
Quote:
Quote:
The results are scored on a curve. 100% means that we are 100% certain that the top candidate on your list shares more of the views you indicated than any other candidate.
Ah, gotcha. I didn't want to go back for fear of getting hammered again. I like the idea of the site, but it has a horrible design and it's filled with ads.
Posted by: wfaulk
Re: Hilary Clinton - 22/01/2007 21:22
Sorry. I got no ads at all. (
AdBlock Plus w/
EasyList).
Posted by: lectric
Re: Hilary Clinton - 22/01/2007 22:36
Interesting.... I got all republican's leading the list, then all democrats trailing. Nothing like being polar opposites.
Posted by: tanstaafl.
Re: Hilary Clinton - 22/01/2007 22:54
Interesting.... I got all republican's leading the list, then all democrats trailing. Nothing like being polar opposites. Interesting --
I got all Democrats leading the list. Obviously you are some sort of subversive out to utterly destroy the country!
(Juuuusst kidding!)
Oh, wait -- it looks like George W. beat you to it.
tanstaafl.
Posted by: lectric
Re: Hilary Clinton - 22/01/2007 23:23
I knew that'd draw a little fire. Hehe, I swear I'm not trolling, either.
Posted by: lectric
Re: Hilary Clinton - 22/01/2007 23:25
Oh, and for the record, I certainly don't agree 100% with Bush (especially on privacy issues), but I guess I line up far more to the right than some.
Posted by: wfaulk
Re: Hilary Clinton - 23/01/2007 04:07
I took the test again and skewed my answers as far to the right as I could (except for the deficit question -- when did "spend without remorse" become a conservative ideal?) without feeling slimy, basically describing a Republican nominee I wouldn't wig out over, which left me pretty centrist, IMO. Mostly "neithers" with like one or two right answers, plus "civil liberties are important", and I still got almost all Republicans at the top. So you don't have to be very far to the right to "line up" with Republicans.
But it wasn't totally all Republicans then all Democrats. Hagel and McCain were way at the bottom of the list, and Richardson was above a good number of Republicans.
Posted by: tonyc
Re: Hilary Clinton - 23/01/2007 04:49
Posted by: furtive
Re: Hilary Clinton - 23/01/2007 07:52
I should vote for Sen. Barack Obama apparently.
Posted by: andy
Re: Hilary Clinton - 23/01/2007 13:18
Quote:
I should vote for Sen. Barack Obama apparently.
"you are me"
Posted by: Dignan
Re: Hilary Clinton - 23/01/2007 13:44
Quote:
I should vote for Sen. Barack Obama apparently.
I also got matched with Obama (we're compatible! we should date!), and I'm happy about that. He's the candidate I agreed with the most already.
The only problem is I do not expect him to have any chance of winning. Not by a longshot.
Posted by: wfaulk
Re: Hilary Clinton - 23/01/2007 18:17
Quote:
"The last thing America needs is a radical liberal who supports the war and the death penalty while opposing flag-burning and gay marriage."
Hah! It's funny because it's true!
What I don't get is who is supporting her candidacy?
Posted by: tonyc
Re: Hilary Clinton - 23/01/2007 23:05
Quote:
What I don't get is who is supporting her candidacy?
1. Partisan Democrats who focus on "electability" over substance.
2. Center-left moderates who think she can snap her fingers and bring back the ghost of Bill Clinton's glory years when we had a surplus budget and weren't mired in an unnecessary war.
3. People who don't follow politics closely enough to understand how banal she really is.
That's all I can think of, really.
Posted by: JBjorgen
Re: Hilary Clinton - 23/01/2007 23:34
A Bible verse, Revelation 3:16, comes to mind: "So because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spew you out of My mouth."
While quoted completely out of context, it describes my feelings for Hillary pretty accurately. I'd rather vote for someone like Obama who, while I don't agree with his politics, seems to at least stand for what he believes in. Hillary simply panders to her current audience and avoids controversy.
Posted by: webroach
Re: Hilary Clinton - 24/01/2007 00:35
Quote:
A Bible verse, Revelation 3:16, comes to mind: "So because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spew you out of My mouth."
Yeah, I can't stand my coffee tepid, either.
Posted by: jimhogan
Re: Hilary Clinton - 24/01/2007 03:19
Quote:
A Bible verse, Revelation 3:16, comes to mind: .....
Revelation? Are you sure? I coulda swore it was Monica.
Posted by: canuckInOR
Re: Hilary Clinton - 24/01/2007 06:52
Quote:
Quote:
A Bible verse, Revelation 3:16, comes to mind: .....
Revelation? Are you sure? I coulda swore it was Monica.
Had I been drinking something, it would have just spewn out of my mouth, no matter whether it was hot, cold, or tepid.
Posted by: Roger
Re: Hilary Clinton - 24/01/2007 12:50
Quote:
seems to at least stand for what he believes in
I'd rather vote for someone who stands for what I believe in.
Posted by: tahir
Re: Hilary Clinton - 24/01/2007 13:14
Quote:
I'd rather vote for someone who stands for what I believe in.
Yeah, I've stopped voting now that Screaming Lord Sutch has died
Posted by: furtive
Re: Hilary Clinton - 24/01/2007 13:36
Quote:
Yeah, I've stopped voting now that Screaming Lord Sutch has died
The leader may have died, but the party lives on:
http://www.omrlp.com/
Quote:
As we in The Official Monster Raving Loony Party prepare for government we are very aware that we consistently advocate the wearing of hats as an all-purpose cure for society’s ills
Posted by: wfaulk
Re: Hilary Clinton - 24/01/2007 13:50
Quote:
I'd rather vote for someone like Obama who, while I don't agree with his politics, seems to at least stand for what he believes in.
I understand where you're coming from, but GWB seems to take a stand for what he believes in, but from my point of view, his belief seems to be based on destroying America. Idealism is a great thing, but it can be twisted, too, especially if the ideal itself starts off twisted.
That said, I'm not sure that Obama is as up to the task as people would think or hope.
Posted by: tonyc
Re: Hilary Clinton - 24/01/2007 17:13
Quote:
That said, I'm not sure that Obama is as up to the task as people would think or hope.
Care to elaborate a bit on what leads you to believe he may not be up to the task? Actually, is "the task" defined in this context as winning the election? Doing the job well? Both? Neither?
I have my own reservations about Obama, but I'm curious as to what yours are. I will say that I'm glad he's feeling free to speak his mind and fire back at he right wing noise machine, which already puts him ahead of John Kerry. That's certainly not setting the bar very high, but it's a definite improvement from the muddled, cautious, "Senatorial" stances taken by other prominent Democrats in the last half-decade or so.
Posted by: wfaulk
Re: Hilary Clinton - 24/01/2007 18:28
Sorry. I mean that I don't think that he's as idealistic in practice as people would make him out to be.
Posted by: webroach
Re: Hilary Clinton - 24/01/2007 21:59
Quote:
Sorry. I mean that I don't think that he's as idealistic in practice as people would make him out to be.
Would that, then, make him more realistic in practice? If so, I'm definitely down. I'm had it up to here with idealism. I just want someone who can deal with things the way they are, rather than the way they'd like them to be. King George, I'm looking at you here.
Posted by: tanstaafl.
Re: Hilary Clinton - 25/01/2007 00:50
I'd rather vote for someone like Obama who, while I don't agree with his politics, seems to at least stand for what he believes in
Until it reaches the point where GWB is now... "My mind is made up. Don't confuse me with facts."
tanstaafl.
Posted by: tonyc
Re: Hilary Clinton - 25/01/2007 17:40
Quote:
I'm had it up to here with idealism. I just want someone who can deal with things the way they are, rather than the way they'd like them to be.
Obama's your guy, then. He *talks* about grandiose ideals, but his policies are much less ambitious. As this commentary explains,. that can be a blessing or a cursse:
http://www.prospect.org/weblog/2007/01/post_2581.html
Seems to me that idealism has a place in certain situations, but it depends on what those ideals are as to how it will be received. Making idealistic speeches and backing only sensible, widely-supported policy is fine for a senator, but won't cut it when you're given the power of setting policy (to one extent or another) or at the very least, choosing how policy is executed. Some issues in today's America require idealism (I'd argue healthcare is one of them) while some probably require more realism (I'd say Iraq and the war on terror fall into that category.)
Posted by: wfaulk
Re: Hilary Clinton - 25/01/2007 18:09
From the comments to that post:
Quote:
The important thing a year out from the primaries isn't wonkish policy particulars, it's the rhetoric. You have to prepare the battlefield so that people reject scaremongering claims.
That's actually a really good point. Of course, it doesn't explain his voting record, which shows much more moderation than his rhetoric, regardless of suggesting his own policies. Of course, this may all be a good thing, and, despite my statements above, I would have no problem supporting him in an election. He's just not my ideal candidate, and, I think, has less chance of actually winning than a white man with a "normal" name. (To be clear, that is not my preference, but my lack of faith in the American people.)
Posted by: tonyc
Re: Hilary Clinton - 25/01/2007 19:19
And, Ezra's response:
http://www.prospect.org/weblog/2007/01/post_2584.htmlI'm inclined to agree with him. That's probably idealistic in and of itself, because political realities do inject themselves into all of these plans. But healthcare falls into the "don't compromise" category for me. Lead, and let those who oppose your leadership come around, even if that includes an electorate that might not quite understand the dollars and cents of it all.
Posted by: JBjorgen
Re: Hilary Clinton - 26/01/2007 10:29
Quote:
Lead, and let those who oppose your leadership come around, even if that includes an electorate that might not quite understand the dollars and cents of it all.
As long as YOU agree. GWB "leads" this way and you aren't too keen on it last I checked.
Posted by: tonyc
Re: Hilary Clinton - 26/01/2007 13:31
Quote:
As long as YOU agree. GWB "leads" this way and you aren't too keen on it last I checked.
Your selective quoting kinda loses the context of my statement. On healthcare, I would appreciate any true leadership. If it's something I don't agree with, it's at least a starting point. GWB's "plan", in fact, is a step in the right direction. It's certainly not enough of a step, and it will benefit those who already have healthcare more than those who do not, but I applaud him for at least paying lip service to an issue other than Iraq and Social Security "reform." I also didn't like the specifics of the Clinton healthcare plan, but it served to at least get the issue moving at a time when not many were talking about it.
Or, to put it another way, there are issues that can benefit from some bold, controversial, and possibly unpopular leadership. Ensuring that every American has access to affordable healthcare that doesn't break the bank of paying consumers and line the pockets of plan providers is one of those issues, in my book. The decision to invade Iraq, Iran, and whoever is next on their list is one that could probably benefit more from some concensus thinking and sober analysis of the details.
Posted by: tonyc
Re: Hilary Clinton - 26/01/2007 13:44
So, what do you guys think about Chuck Hagel? He's been getting a lot of pub lately for being the harshest Republican critic of the Iraq War. In fact, he was way ahead of a lot of Democrats on voicing early opposition to the war, though he did initially vote for the AUMF that led us there.
Some of his other positions keep him off my short list of candidates I'd vote for, but if the primaries come and go and my choices are Chuck Hagel or a Democrat with a muddled/inconsistent position on the Iraq war, I might have to do some serious thinking.
Posted by: wfaulk
Re: Hilary Clinton - 26/01/2007 14:51
He's come out against Iraq, but I disagree with almost every other one of his standpoints. I can't imagine a situation where I'd vote for him, even against a pro-war Democrat (which won't happen).
Posted by: wfaulk
Re: Hilary Clinton - 26/01/2007 15:08
I found another
quiz (make sure to select "2008 Presidential speculation" at the top). The matches generated by the quiz don't seem very accurate, but the summary of stances of the candidates linked from the results is good information (the "Joe Blow's answers" and "Joe Blow's stances" links).
Posted by: FireFox31
Re: Hilary Clinton - 27/01/2007 15:15
Quote:
vote for Sen. Barack Obama
"Obama"? Seriously people, you don't get much closer to "Osama". That alone will loose him the vote of the uninformed public. Sadly, I suspect America is not ready to elect a president without an "American sounding" name.
Posted by: blitz
Re: Hilary Clinton - 27/01/2007 15:32
"Obama"
Middle name is Hussein? Probably not going to work. But I would vote for him before I vote for Hillary. Do you realize that if she were elected (and then re-elected), that will be 28 years of the Presidency in two families? I need a break from the Clintons and Bushes.
Hi,
I heard one at work the other day, maybe everyone has already heard it. I take no credit for it, there are alot of smarter people out there than me.
If Hilary was to have Obama as a running mate...
The slogan "With Yo-Mama and Obama you won't have to worry about Osama" would apply..
<grin>
Ross
Posted by: wfaulk
Re: Hilary Clinton - 27/01/2007 20:16
There has already been a lot of media talk about Obama's name, from "accidentally" misspelling his name as "Osama" to "accidentally" misspelling Osama's name as "Obama". There has also been a smear campaign trying to show that he attended an Islamic indoctrination school in Indonesia as a boy (which has already been thoroughly debunked).
But your point remains. Certainly a lot of people interested in keeping him out of the White House think that implying that he's got terrorist connections, mostly based on his name alone, is a useful tactic in discrediting him. And I'm afraid that they're right -- the American people are that stupid.
Posted by: lectric
Re: Hilary Clinton - 28/01/2007 05:25
For the record, It's not just Americans that are that stupid. All people are. As the saying goes; A person is smart, people are stupid.
Posted by: jimhogan
Re: Hilary Clinton - 30/01/2007 03:03
Quote:
For the record, It's not just Americans that are that stupid. All people are. As the saying goes; A person is smart, people are stupid.
I pedaled home with the specific intent of adding a grumpy post to this thread, but I got distracted by Mexico, Love and Parakeets. Enough of that.
Wimpy relativist that I am, I tend to gauge some (negative?) attributes against some vague qualitative denominator or measure of expectations and capability. So when somebody asks me what I think the worst beer in the world is, I can quickly answer "Bud", not because it is *absolutely* the worst beer in the world -- you can find worse -- but becasue I can not think of any beer that sells more units and which is made with such a degree of technical sophistication and celebrated consistency...that is so bloody awful.
Stupid? "All people are"? Well, a fair number of those "all people" grow up malnourished in a lice-infested yurt. They have mildewed grain and rickets. We have school lunches. They have river blindness. We have cell phones with built-in 3 megapixel cameras. They have female circumcision. We have Comcast.
I mean, here in the U.S. of A. we have had public libraries, public schools, National Public Radio, uncensored airwaves and an imitation free press and free (maybe) elections. Granted, some of these may be on the way out or already gone, but we have had them. And most of the members of our electorate have had them. Or believed they had them.
But when I look at it real hard, it wasn't the people of some country with endemic river blindness that elected George W. Bush. Possibly twice.
Stupid-est.
Posted by: MarkM
Re: Hilary Clinton - 30/01/2007 05:50
Hmm, I took the quiz and matched up with Sen. Sam Brownback - never heard of him. Thanks for the link.
Posted by: tonyc
Re: Hilary Clinton - 30/01/2007 21:06
Okay,
this is much more like it. It could be a political stunt (though a risky one at this point, and very far out from the '08 primaries) but it's about time a prominent Democrat had at least as much conviction on the issue as a GOP stalwart like Hagel. Hopefully this will spurn the rest of the Democratic caucus to grow a set and oppose the war instead of talking about opposing the war.
With this, Barack Obama moves ahead of the Inanimate Carbon Rod on my Presidential short list.
Posted by: jimhogan
Re: Hilary Clinton - 31/01/2007 01:10
Quote:
Okay, this is much more like it. It could be a political stunt (though a risky one at this point, and very far out from the '08 primaries) but it's about time a prominent Democrat had at least as much conviction on the issue as a GOP stalwart like Hagel. Hopefully this will spurn the rest of the Democratic caucus to grow a set and oppose the war instead of talking about opposing the war.
With this, Barack Obama moves ahead of the Inanimate Carbon Rod on my Presidential short list.
My sig du jour notwithstanding, I am not a big Obama booster; don't actually know too much about him. What I do know is that a lot of the Democratic Party's declared candidates completely failed the Iraq test and don't deserve to run, never mind be elected. The fact that Obama isn't among those failures and has some charisma puts him way up there in my book even if I can (and I can) find areas where I don't like his positions. But he *really* needs to quit smoking. What a *stupid* vulnerability!
I think Obama's withdrawal call is a good thing. I don't think it is very risky. He has to differentiate himself from Clinton and to not do so would be riskier, I think. So, I could wonder if it is a stunt, but it is at least consistent with his past positions vis-a-vis Iraq. And it is the right position. If it is calculated to help distinguish him from Clinton? Great.
So, would OBAMA/RICHARDSON '08 work?
It is interesting to watch John McCain commit political suicide. What a complicated, conflicted guy. Hard core, self righteous, but couldn't manage to stand up to Karl Rove. John, I think it is just desserts time. Bye, bye.
A while back I sent Howard Dean a threatening letter. I let him know that if the DNC is so brain dead that it would put forward Clinton, that I am going to stay home. Not vote. I didn't get what I would call a personalized response, but Howard's email robot now sends me a message at least once a week. Should I be encouraged?
If Obama makes some headway with this, I am unclear on the actual effect. Right now I think Bush's strategic plan for Iraq comes down to him studying the new line of brush mowers from DR Power Equipment. That and bein' The Decider. Wouldn't it be great if Shrub couldn't leave some poor fool holding that bag? But I bet he will. With a vengeance.
And, given my abiding faith in our vaunted Two-Party System, I wouldn't be at all surprised if that bag holder will be the new President Clinton. Or the poor Republican bastard who beats her.