This is also neither here nor there, but the term "carpetbagger" always reminds me of the redneck girl from the movie Shag who calls Melaina a carpetbagging slut.
I love that movie.
It's one of my all-time favorites. We built a drinking game around it in college.
I'm pro-HRC. I could be persuaded by another strong D candidate, but I haven't seen a clear one emerge yet.
I'm kind of struggling with this. I LOVE her. But... I'm not sure I love her for president. But I think she would kick ass and take names. But... dynastic politics...
Look at it this way: Thanks to sexism, many women are shut out of politics and political opportunities completely. Family connections are always helpful, and without them, many women probably would never advance.
This isn't like some dipshit who gets a leg up because daddy was in office. She was, and always has been, at least as smart, talented, and ambitious, as her husband, but never had the kinds of opportunities he had thanks to the fact that she was a woman.
I don't like dynasties, but without them, we'd probably have even fewer women in leadership roles.
I was pushed into the "hell yea!" camp after I saw her speak. I was totally in awe of the intelligence and thought behind her answers to unexpected questions. I am absolutely dying to see her in a presidential debate now.
Again I am willing to give someone else a chance, but I want to see someone whose resume comes remotely close to hers before I consider it.
I'm kind of struggling with this. I LOVE her. But... I'm not sure I love her for president. But I think she would kick ass and take names. But... dynastic politics...
Look at it this way: Thanks to sexism, many women are shut out of politics and political opportunities completely. Family connections are always helpful, and without them, many women probably would never advance.
This isn't like some dipshit who gets a leg up because daddy was in office. She was, and always has been, at least as smart, talented, and ambitious, as her husband, but never had the kinds of opportunities he had thanks to the fact that she was a woman.
I don't like dynasties, but without them, we'd probably have even fewer women in leadership roles.
This is a good point. I also think we'd feel much less like this is a dynastic issue if GWB hasn't won and Jeb weren't mulling a run.
Imagine that McCain won back in 2000 but Obama still won in 2008.
The last 30+ years of presidencies would be: 1981-1989: Reagan 1989-1993: Bush 1993-2001: Bill Clinton 2001-2009: McCain (assuming two terms for simplicity here) 2009-2017: Obama
Suddenly Hillary Clinton in the White House doesn't seem like a "dynasty."
I don't want Warren to run actually. I think her skills are best served elsewhere. She can run after she's done telling all the banks to go fuck themselves.
I agree.
Her rhetoric is sorely needed, but even if could win a national election with it, she'd never be able to get Congress to execute her vision.
She is much better with her safe Senate seat, being a rock star, and putting every other person in there to shame by actually doing her god damn job.
share.memebox.com/x/uKhKaZmemebox referal code for 20% off! DD1 "J" born 3/2003 DD2 "G" born 4/2011 DS is here! "H" born 2/2014 m/c#3 1-13-13 @ 9 weeks m/c#2 11-11-12 @ 5w2d I am an extended breastfeeding, cloth diapering, baby wearing, pro marriage equality, birth control lovin', Catholic mama.
I am not "Yea" "Yay" or "Yeah" for anyone just now.
I am nay because she is okay with her husband screwing around & she was a carpet bagger sweeping into NYS to run for office because she knew she could win there. I may have had more respect for her if she want back to Arkansas and ran.
The whole Monica L. thing ....there is no way in hell I'd stand by my husband. Not only did he cheat on her, the WORLD knew about it!!! There is no excuse for cheating. NONE
My real answer: Hell yes I would vote for her. I'd rather see a Clinton/Warren ticket, but I'd vote for Hilary.
There is very little, politically, that I disagree with her on.
Besides, doesn't the new "Patricia Arquette" logic dictate that now the we've had a black president, minorities and gay people owe white women a solid?
The whole Monica L. thing ....there is no way in hell I'd stand by my husband. Not only did he cheat on her, the WORLD knew about it!!! There is no excuse for cheating. NONE
PDQ, but....
This is a profoundly stupid reason to decide against a candidate, not to mention it shows you to be completely devoid of compassion.
If you believe that they don't have an open marriage, and that she was cheated on, then you must admit that she was absolutely humiliated on the world stage. And not just by her husband's actions, but by all the subsequent "analysis" of their marriage and family, and of his character, and of what hers must be like for choosing to stay with him. You and others like you are STILL perpetuating this: demeaning this complex, brilliant, accomplished woman with a glib, unsophisticated judgment over where her husband stuck his penis 17 years ago.
(As an aside, how old were you when all this shit even went down?)
He and she have moved on. Their family has moved on. They raised an amazing child and are now ecstatic grandparents. Still an intact family. Isn't this a success story? Doesn't this demonstrate her strength and resilience? You think facing all that shit was the EASY path?
MOREOVER: THIS IS NONE OF YOUR GODDAMN BUSINESS. This was my mantra in 1998 as well. This was not some douchebag "family values" politician who was intent on making criminal the very things he was doing behind closed doors. THOSE people I have no problem naming and shaming. Bill Clinton liked to screw around, like many politicians before him. But he wasn't a hypocrite in his public life about it.
This was (or should have been) strictly a marital issue, not a national one. And to the extent that we've seen how Hillary has come to terms with this marital problem, I don't know how anyone could view her with anything but respect and admiration. But if you can't manage that in your dully stupid view, at least admit that the woman in no way deserves contempt.
Post by downtoearth on Feb 25, 2015 12:08:34 GMT -5
So @susan3589 - I'm seriously interested, are you a democrat? Is sex and what happens/happened in someone's private life way more important than their politics for you? Or is this more about the fact that you are mad that Hillary would stay with someone who used his power for sex and her politics don't trump that she stayed with a man who used his power to have sex with a young woman?
The best part about having a 67 year old female leader is that sex will not being part of her office or politics. I can't guarantee that, b/c she could still cougar it up to get back at Bill, but statistically speaking, it's more likely not to even come into play.
She's not my ideal candidate. She's better than many. I will likely vote for her as it would be nice to be able to cast a vote for perhaps the first female president, but I wouldn't discount voting third party, either, as I have in the past.
I DO think that the Dems might regret basically handing HRC the nomination on a platter, rather than going through a legit, hard fought primary process, which is what I suspect will happen because it's "her turn" and she fought so hard in the primary in 2008. Not a good move.
Andplusalso...I can't judge a politician based on their sex life, or lack there of.
Let's be honest. I'd bet good money that a majority of politicians can't keep it in their pants. If that's what we're judging on, then I'd say about 80% of Washington should go home.
This just isn't a big issue for me. I care about their politics, not their fucking sex life. Blah blah, morality/values...whatever. There are other moral and value-laden issues I care more about than if they screw around.
I will admit that when I was younger and more idealistic, it bothered me on some level that she stayed with him, because it seemed like it was a politically expedient trade off for her own career. It bothered me that that was how a woman was going to get a path to POTUS instead of rising on her own merits and not having to smile and stand by a cheating jerk.
But years later, I'm no longer idealistic at all about politics and time has shown - IMO - that their relationship isn't a politically expedient trade off. Not to mention, it's really none of my business if it is, and no politician is ever not going to have these kinds of things in their history. They all make choices and mistakes - some are worse than others and most of them are high on the assclown scale. I'm also more realistic about the challenges that face a woman making it to the highest office, so I'm kind of at the point where I don't really care who it is and how they got there as long as they can do the job (capable and qualified) since that would hopefully break down the barrier.
And at the end of the day, I think HRC can do the job, and that's really all that matters to me at this point. Hell I don't even care anymore if I agree with anything the candidate says because if I agree with like 50% and they seem like they are qualified and capable, that seems like enough anymore. That's how jaded I am about politicians and politics in general at this point, but also stems from the fact that neither party really meets my political needs.
I am not "Yea" "Yay" or "Yeah" for anyone just now.
I am nay because she is okay with her husband screwing around & she was a carpet bagger sweeping into NYS to run for office because she knew she could win there. I may have had more respect for her if she want back to Arkansas and ran.
The whole Monica L. thing ....there is no way in hell I'd stand by my husband. Not only did he cheat on her, the WORLD knew about it!!! There is no excuse for cheating. NONE
you disrespect her because she went to the place where she was most likely to affect change.
you disrespect her because her husband cheated on her.
The whole Monica L. thing ....there is no way in hell I'd stand by my husband. Not only did he cheat on her, the WORLD knew about it!!! There is no excuse for cheating. NONE
PDQ, but....
This is a profoundly stupid reason to decide against a candidate, not to mention it shows you to be completely devoid of compassion.
If you believe that they don't have an open marriage, and that she was cheated on, then you must admit that she was absolutely humiliated on the world stage. And not just by her husband's actions, but by all the subsequent "analysis" of their marriage and family, and of his character, and of what hers must be like for choosing to stay with him. You and others like you are STILL perpetuating this: demeaning this complex, brilliant, accomplished woman with a glib, unsophisticated judgment over where her husband stuck his penis 17 years ago.
(As an aside, how old were you when all this shit even went down?)
He and she have moved on. Their family has moved on. They raised an amazing child and are now ecstatic grandparents. Still an intact family. Isn't this a success story? Doesn't this demonstrate her strength and resilience? You think facing all that shit was the EASY path?
MOREOVER: THIS IS NONE OF YOUR GODDAMN BUSINESS. This was my mantra in 1998 as well. This was not some douchebag "family values" politician who was intent on making criminal the very things he was doing behind closed doors. THOSE people I have no problem naming and shaming. Bill Clinton liked to screw around, like many politicians before him. But he wasn't a hypocrite in his public life about it.
This was (or should have been) strictly a marital issue, not a national one. And to the extent that we've seen how Hillary has come to terms with this marital problem, I don't know how anyone could view her with anything but respect and admiration. But if you can't manage that in your dully stupid view, at least admit that the woman in no way deserves contempt.
Or, you know, TL;DR:
And if Ken Starr hadn't been trolling Arkansas for years "investigating" Whitewater (you know the deal where the Clintons lost money) we never would have heard of Monica. Not that Bill wasn't a jackass pig for doing it. I recall cursing him to the heavens back in 1998 as I'd worked on the campaign and had defended him to the dick partner I worked for.
Post by cattledogkisses on Feb 25, 2015 12:41:56 GMT -5
I have seen this "She couldn't keep her husband in line, how can we expect her to run the country/She doesn't have a backbone because she stayed" bullshit from more than one person and it makes me absolutely ragey.
I also think it's kind of dumb at this point to even really consider her time as First Lady as part of her qualifications - if this was right after his presidency, of course it's more important and part of her resume. But 2016 is 24 years after he was first elected and in that time, she's been a two term senator from NY and Secretary of State. Her time as First Lady adds to her experience, but it's hardly the only thing she has going for her. She's gone on to make a career for herself that is far more important than whether or not she divorced him or traded in on his political achievements to get her foot in the door.
I know we've moved on from this, are we sure Susan's not a troll, but I'll answer anyway. I'm a would vote for her if she's the nominee but would prefer someone else camper. Mainly because in 2008 she claimed that she had experience from when her spouse was in office (which I completely believe she did in an advisory capacity), and according to Samantha Power's book, she was part of the decision making team that chose to do nothing in Rwanda. I'll never forgive the Clinton administration for that. My top three issues when voting for POTUS are SCOTUS, who's the most likely to intervene for humanitarian purposes, and national security. I trust her on the first and last, but not at all the second. If there's someone who has the first and last, and is more likely on the second, then that's my choice.
But what do I know? I voted for Wes Clark once.
TBH, Bill Clinton has admitted that not interfering in Rwanda was probably the biggest regret of his presidency. I have no idea if HRC feels the same, but it's certainly possible. I also feel like, having been young during Vietnam, the Clintons were gun shy about intervening in another country's civil war (if in fact, they viewed it as a civil war and not genocide at the time).
Despite Hillary not being directly in politics right now, I find her very intelligent, decisive, and that she has a lot of experience. I'd vote for her. But, I also am hedging a little b/c I think to keep my vote away from someone like Elizabeth Warren, who seems like a fighter and someone who is way more savvy on economics theories and the wealth inequalities, Hillary is going to have to step up her game or run with Warren. I say Clinton/Warren ticket for 2016.
I cannot contain my excitement over this idea.
And I'm totally #teamhillary and have been for years. LOVE Hillary.
And if Ken Starr hadn't been trolling Arkansas for years "investigating" Whitewater (you know the deal where the Clintons lost money) we never would have heard of Monica. Not that Bill wasn't a jackass pig for doing it. I recall cursing him to the heavens back in 1998 as I'd worked on the campaign and had defended him to the dick partner I worked for.
"Not gonna lie; I kind of keep expecting you to post one day that you threw down on someone who clearly had no idea that today was NOT THEIR DAY." ~dontcallmeshirley