Hillary in 08?
Moms View Message Board: The Kitchen Table (Debating Board): Hillary in 08?
Now that Hillary Clinton has been re-elected to the senate, and the democrats have taken control of the US House, there will be more talk of Hillary running for president in 2008. Would you vote for her?
If not, who would you like to see run on either ticket, democrat or republican?
I don't know yet who I would like to see run. I know FOR SURE that I will NOT be voting for Hillary Clinton though!!
Never in a million years would I vote for her.
No, I would never vote for her. It's bad enough I'm still stuck with her as my senator.
Another nope here.
I love Hillary Clinton. I would totally vote for her to be President.
Why don't y'all like her?
I would probably vote for her if she was on the ballot.
I'm curious, too, the reason why those who say you wouldn't vote for her feel that way. Do you dislike her personally or her stance on the issues?
What about Barack Obama? I've heard his name come up, too, though I don't know as much about him.
I have always asked people who say they are opposed to Hilary why and none of them have really had any reasons unless it is because she is a democrat. Which I will take as an answer but I don't quite understand what so many people have against her. I would love to hear all of your opinions on her if you don't mind.. I don't want a cut throat arguement, just a reason why y'all don't like her or would never vote for her.
I wouldn't vote for her and not totally sure why. Partially because she's a democrat I guess. She is not the person I imagine as a dignified first female president.
I would vote for her. She is very intelligent and would be a great representative for the USA, and a great role model to women everywhere.
I'm with Tarable...I don't know why everyone is so dead set against her? Just because she's a democrat?
Along these same lines, I think it's irresponsible to vote straight party without checking out the options from the other side. You never know what you'll end up with.
I agree on voting straight party Breann. I generally vote based on who I think is best, but since I don't think she is best then the Democrat thing is just the icing on the cake, you know?
It sortof interesting to me that there is a lot of negative reaction towards the new speaker Nancy Pelosi, in addition to Hillary.
Are people threatened by intelligent, articulate, ambitious women?
I am not threatened at all by a strong woman and I wouldn't be at all nervous about voting for the right one for president some day. however, that being said, Hillary is not one that I would vote for in a million years. Lots of different reasons that would start a whole new debate. LOL Now that Obama guy, I would love to learn more about him! I tend to vote mostly Rep, but I am not a vote for them no matter who is running. There are many Dems that I find I have lots of common ground with. I am not a one side voter at all.
I would not vote for Hillary Clinton. It has nothing to do with her being a woman. I don't agree with her on a lot of issues. I am Republican, but have voted Democratic before. I voted for Bill Clinton the first time he ran. I look at the candidates, and vote for who I think will do a better job, and who I agree with on the issues.
As for Nancy Pelosi, I feel the same way. I feel she is more liberal on a lot of issues, and I just don't agree with her on a lot of things.
As for Baraca Obama, I do like him. Since I was living in Chicago during his senate run, I heard a lot about him. I would like to see him in the Senate for awhile before he runs. I think 2008 would be a little soon. The only concern I have about him is that he seems to straddle the fence on some issues, instead of taking a real stand. So, I really want to see what he does in the Senate. But, I definitely would consider voting for him.
I vote for the person, not for the party. I just don't like Hillary Clinton, plainly put. I don't agree on many of her issues and I don't like the way she smerks or rolls her eyes when she hears something that she doesn't agree on. That is so childish to me. I would certainly not take her as a "treat".
What exactly are the issues that y'all don't agree with? I'm just trying to understand the anti-Hillary crowd. Are y'all familiar with her background, education, and experience?
Now, smerks, as in George W. Bush smerk, Dick Chaney smerk, Donald Rumsfeld smerk? Smerks are a reason to dislike someone? Do you all use facial expressions at all when communicating? Do you want to dis her ankles next?
I was simply answering the question. I don't feel the need to defend myself by answering such questions as to whether or not I will "dis her ankles". That is a little ridicules.
nope on Hillary. She is way to liberal on the issues and I didn't like her husband as President either.
Mommie, why are you so upset that we won't vote for Hillary Clinton? First you say "Are people threatened by intelligent, articulate, ambitious women?" Just because I won't vote for her, doesn't mean I feel threatened. I didn't say I wouldn't vote for a woman, just not her. Now, you are criticizing Joelle for not liking her. Who cares why Joelle doesn't like her, it is her prerogative. Yes, I do know her background, education, etc. That is not all I look at. I do not agree with her about the war, immigration, to name a few. One of the main things I don't like about her(and this is just my opinion) I think she worries too much about how she looks politically...for example, she voted for the war. When things started going badly, she said she was for the war, but didn't like the way it was being handled. Then, when people started vocalizing about bringing home the troops, and people said it would effect how they voted, she wants to bring home the troops. I am not totally crazy about everything President Bush has done. However, at least he stands for something. He does what he feels is right for the country, and doesn't care how it effects him politically.
Sorry, I meant to say "ridiculous" (sp??)
Ditto Debbie. No one is saying they don't want a woman as President, just not *that* woman in particular.
Obama...I have really liked what I've seen with him, but I agree that I would like to see him in the Senate for a while.
Sad to say, while I would vote for Hilary Clinton if she were the Democratic party candidate, I would not vote for her in the primary - because she is a polarizing figure - a lightening rod. There are entirely too many people out there - and by "out there" I mean the U.S. public in general - who dislike her for reasons they can't or won't articulate. I think some of the reasons so many people have such strong negative feelings about her have to do with Bill Clinton (that she was and is married to him), and that she is a strong, bright, capable woman And, a lot of people have been disliking her or even hating her for a long time - from the beginning of Clinton's first term. They aren't going to let go of that. I don't think this nation needs another polarizing president or presidential race, and I think with Hilary Clinton, too many people will not even try to get past their visceral dislike for her to examine her positions or the positions of the Democratic party.
As for her position on the war - I voted for it and now I think it is wrong - well, there are a whole lot of Democratic and Republican politicans out there who were saying just that in the recent campaign. And a whole lot of politicians who worry about how they look and change their stated position or shade it for political reasons.
The issue of powerful, intelligent, capable women - well, I do think that is an issue for a lot of voters. I think more people are comfortable with a man at the head of the nation than a woman - and I think that's sad.
Obama - he's bright, and likeable. But he doesn't have much of a track record, and I too would like to see what he does over the next 4 to 6 years before thinking about putting him on a national ticket. (And, as a former Chicagoan, I know just how much wheeling and dealing it takes to even get on the ticket in the Cook County area, and am a bit mistrustful.) I'm not optimistic that the people of this country are ready to elect an African-American nationally - especially one with a foreign-sounding name.
I'm really sorry Warner decided he wouldn't run. I think he could have been a successful candidate. Right now I don't know who I would want to vote for in the primary, but I will be watching and reading.
I think if the Republican power brokers are smart they will have McCain on the ticket, but I don't think that's going to happen. Allen could have been a candidate, but he's probably out now. I wouldn't be surprised if Rick Santorum decided to run, and having had him as one of my Senators for the past couple of terms, I think he would be another disastrous president.
It will be really interesting to see who surfaces and starts heading for the top over the next six months. For the Democrats, I think a lot is going to depend on how well various Senators handle themselves in the Senate for the next 6-9 months, and we'll all be watching that.
It's going to be an interesting, if bumpy ride for the next couple of years. The Democrats don't really have a majority in the Senate, because two of the non-Republicans are Independents, and one of them is Joe Lieberman. One thing is clear, there are a lot more "moderates" in the House, and I sure hope there is some effort for bi-partisan action in both houses.
I wouldn't be surprised if Rick Santorum decided to run
Bite your tongue! I hope we never, EVER, hear that man's name again where politics is concerned. I feel towards him the way some people feel towards Hillary - only more! LOL
You and me, Sunny, but I've already heard speculation about it.
No on Hilary, my reason? She just annoys me.
Ginny- you always save me so much time on these political posts...I am fairly certain you read my mind on occasion!  LOL
I so have to meet you one of these days!
What part of the country do you call home, Heather? I am in SE Pennsylvania, just outside Philadelphia.
Why i wouldn't vote for Hillary....
First just like with Cheney, there was lots of talk about money going to where it was supposed to go, etc. I don't believe anything directly linked to her. But in general if I KNOW of a hint of scandal I think maybe that makes her not such a good choice.
Second, as a woman, I sure don't like how she publically handled Bill's affair. She had the chance to be such a great role model and she picked to do and say nothing. Now I can agree that in the beginning that was fine, but when it might affect her political career, then she just swept it under the rug. She taught my daughter that no matter what your husband does you don't talk and don't tell, you suck it up and pretend business as normal. She could have done more. I would have respected her more.
Third, Bill is a sleeze, good president or not, he is a womanizer. There is no way I want him living in my white house again. He was impeached, I think he should of stepped down and he choose not to. I have no respect for him, whatsoever.
Fourth, I am just not sure the world climate is set up for a female president. America would be fine, but the rest of the world is far far far behind where we are with equal rights (however unequal they still are). So I think it puts us a bit in danger to have a female lead that many nations would not even recognize, much less work with. This would be an uphill batte, but throw in the first lady now the president line, and I think it just doesn't represent well.
I would consider a woman for president. But she would have to by far be the better candiate. All things equal, I am most likely to vote for a man. I would consider Hillary for a VP candidate, but I don't think she would consider VP (which is another reason not to vote for her).
Ginny-
I am in Jacksonville, Fl...but have to go Pennsylvania sometime in the next couple of months...it is in Brownstown I think...anywhere near you??
Heather
Oh, I'm not mad or upset. In conversations with people I know in real life who strongly don't like Hillary, none of them have a specific reason. I was just curious. No need for defensiveness.
On a sortof similar vein, people I know often see children with bad behavior and they say it's the result of bad parents. And I hear folks who see well behaved kids give kudos to the parents for being good parents. But you look at Chelsea Clinton and you wonder, how bad could Bill and Hillary Clinton be? They raised a lovely daughter who managed not to get arrested once unlike, say, the Bush twins.
Well, first of all, how do you know Chelsea Clinton is a lovely girl? And second, just because the Bush twins have made some stupid mistakes, doesn't mean they aren't lovely girls. Who really knows in either case. See, this is one of the reasons I really dislike politics. We don't KNOW these people, so how can you make generalizations about them? And really, what does this have to do with voting for Hillary Clinton, or politics in general?
Heather, it's a hike - about 70 miles. But, depends on how you drive up. If you come up on Interstate 95 and to the Pennsylvania Turnpike, that is not a huge distance. I live very close to the Willow Grove exit of the Turnpike, and work very close to the 476 (Blue Route) exit/entry. (If one goes north on the Blue Route, it ends at the Mid-County or Norristown Turnpike Plaza, and my office is about 2 miles from that plaza.
Who knows? .....
I think the Bush twins are normal! LOL Not that it's normal to get arrested, but teens/college students just do wild things. It's part of life. (At least it was part of mine!) I don't think someone's grown children are a reason to vote/not vote for them.
Sometimes people can't pinpoint an exact reason, but if it's a gut feeling, then that's the best kind IMO. Sometimes you just say "I have a bad feeling about XYZ...don't know for sure why, I just do, so I'm not going to vote/ support/ associate with XYZ."
The only reason IMO to vote for someone is that they have the same opinions on the issues that are important to you.
There are a lot of issues that I agree with Hilary on, but not all. I can't wait to see who is running for each of the parties, because I have learned one thing as I have gotten older, I am not as much of a demcorat as I used to be. LOL I vote for the issues, not the party, the way they smirk or who their family is. And reguarless of if the person I tried to get elected is voted in or not I support The President, because we need to have a united front IMO.
LOL Emily...I was SUCH the Democrat before. Now I'm SUCh the Republican and I can't believe it myself! Ditto...I vote issues, not the party, though my DH votes strictly party which drives me crazy!!
It is my opinion as a Democrat that we should focus on a strong male candidate. I think Hillary would make an excellent president, however, the chances of a female taking office right now are slim, and more important than getting Hillary in would be to get the Republicans out, IMO of course. When Kerry ran, he made such a weak impression on the swing vote that he lost the election for the Democratic party. I doubt very seriously that those swing votes would go to a female, regardless of qualifications and political stance, because let's face it, we live in a male-dominated society.
As a person who has voted both Democratic and Republican, I would like to see more from John Edwards... I really believe if he had been the Democratic candidate, he would have had a strong chance of being elected...
Oh, and Ginny, even more frightening than Santorum running, think about the possibility of Jeb Bush (although he swears he is not interested), or on the female side, Christine Whitman. I shudder at the thought, having had both as my governor at some point in time. I would actually vote for Rudy Giuliani, regardless of political affiliation, I think he is an excellent leader.If the Republicans were smart, they would put him on the ticket, because he is well-liked among moderate Democrats.
Since the subject of presidental (or presidential candidates) children came up, Jeb's daughter has multiple drug charges, it seems acting a fool runs in the Bush family. At least we can say that Chelsea hasn't had the legal troubles that the Bush girls (and President Bush himself) have run across.
My opinion on Bill Clinton, and his being the First Man (is that what we would call a husband of a president?) is that regardless of his personal indiscretions, he was one of the best presidents we've ever had. Kennedy was a womanizer, but he was a great president. Jackie O stood by as her husband strayed, and we still considered her an amazing woman, the difference is the media wasn't nearly as vicious about going after their personal lives in the 60s. Yes, Bill was impeached, but why hasn't Bush been impeached for lying to the American public on multiple occasions? As far as I'm concerned, my president can get all of the sexual favors in the world, as long as he or she is running the country properly. I'm much less concerned about the personal lives of politicians than the way they conduct national business.
My opinion on Bill Clinton, and his being the First Man (is that what we would call a husband of a president?) is that regardless of his personal indiscretions, he was one of the best presidents we've ever had.
and...
As far as I'm concerned, my president can get all of the sexual favors in the world, as long as he or she is running the country properly. I'm much less concerned about the personal lives of politicians than the way they conduct national business.
I very much agree with you Crystal!
Well, I don't agree with you on one point, Crystal. I do think Bill Clinton was a very good president, although I did not agree with him on the "welfare reform act". But I think he should have had the common sense to keep his pants zipped, or at least be discreet. And, like all politicians who get caught, he should have told the truth and apologized. What the impeachment was about was his lying under oath in his deposition in the civil suit against him by a woman who alleged he harassed her (and he probably did make a pass or more than one at her). I frankly think it was that old "I have power so I won't get caught, or if I get caught I can get away with it" syndrome. It infects a lot of people who get into powerful positions. The Greeks called it hubris, and the Romans had a slave riding behind generals when they were riding in their triumphal parades, whispering in the general's ear - you too shall die one day - to try to remind them that they were not immune and were as human as the next Roman guy.
Yes, I do think the Republicans were out to get Bill Clinton any way they could, and remember, it was a Republican dominated House and Senate during Clinton's terms. Still, if Bill Clinton had shown a bit of common sense about his private life (and realized that no one in that position really has a private life) - or if he had had the sense to tell the truth and apologize - the impeachment might never have happened or would have gone away pretty quickly. Nixon didn't apologize and tried to cover up, Reagan did apologize for IranContra and didn't try to cover up - it's the cover up that gets them every time.
I do expect our presidents to try to be faithful to their fespective spouses, and if they are not faithful, to at least be discreet. Clinton was neither, and a part of me will always be disgusted with him over that.
Thanks for reminding me that Jackie did the same thing Hilary did - kept her mouth shut and kept smiling in public. I'd forgotten that, and Jackie surely knew, just as Hilary surely knew. It's amazing how differently people think about Jackie and Hilary for that "stand by your man" behavior.
Jeb - I sure hope not, but he does at least seem to be smarter than his brother, and I doubt he would let anyone be the "power behind the throne". I hope it would smack to much of dynasty building, or "inheriting" the presidency, to fly with the voters. Christy Whitman - another bright, talented woman. I strongly disagree with her politics, and would never vote for her, but I very much doubt the Republicans would have a female candidate for either President or VP.
John Edwards - maybe. I don't know enough about him, only that he smiles a lot and is very good looking, and was Kerry's running mate.
As for Chelsea and the Bush twins - look, how many parents have posted on this board asking for help in controlling a suddenly out of control, fresh, talking back, misbehaving 3 year old or 10 year old - never mind college age over 18 year olds? I don't fault Dubya or Laura for not being able to control their daughters. I do fault the daughters for not being more sensible or at least more discreet. I do think, however, the Secret Service ought to be doing a better job keeping them out of trouble - I am assuming that as the President's daughters they have SS people assigned to them 24/7. (Though I will say, I have never read anything about Chelsea getting into trouble, and I'm sure that if she did, we'd all know very quickly.)
Ginny,
Since I wasn't of voting age during most of the Clinton admin, I am not familiar with his welfare reform. However, the impeachment was during my junior year, and we were all too informed of the torrid details. He should have admitted it, but ultimately, it had nothing to do with his ability to run the country. I find the comparison of Kennedy and Clinton to be very telling of our society, and the change in social climate over the past 40 years. Of course, look at all of the right-wing Christian fundamentalists who are being caught with their pants down, many in homosexual relationships, it's all quite hypocritical.
My point about the daughters of the presidents and governors is only that we can scrutinize their families, but their children aren't the ones in power. Yes, Chelsea seems to be well-adjusted, while the Bush twins, and Jeb's daughter have bad reputations, but who cares? We've all made mistakes, most of us are lucky enough to not have the public watching. The one question that has always bugged me about the underage drinking in Austin (can't remember if it was both the twins or not) is that the SS must have been there, how did Austin PD arrest the girls? One would assume that when it came down to it, the SS "outranks" local police, and would have handled that in a private manner. There was no avoiding public arrest of Jeb's daughter, because she was an adult, and had forged prescriptions, not to mention I doubt there is a detail assigned to her, but for Jenna and Barbara there is a 24/7 Secret Service detail. All said, we concern ourselves so much with the personal lives of these people, who are only human, and it's throwing stones in a glass house. None of us are perfect, and if we spent more time focusing on the political issues, and less on personal issues, we'd be able to choose a true leader who could re-build our crumbling governement. (How's that for getting off topic??)
And to answer the original question, I'm with Ginny, I wouldn't vote for Hillary in the primaries, but if she made the ticket, she'd have my vote.
I detest both the Clintons. They are power hungry, win-at-any-cost, totally amoral people. He is a big sleeze who thinks that any and every woman is his for the taking. She is a foul-mouthed "chamelion" who will be anything that she thinks that it will take to win. She has had grandiose ambitions from childhood.
I am reading a book about her called "The Truth About Hillary" by Edward Klein. He shows them both in their true colours. He sites an example where Chelsea was reprimanded by a Whitehouse staffer for being disrespectful to a Secret Service agent. She was only a little girl at the time. She called him a "trained pig". The staffer said, "That isn't a very nice way to refer to a man who protects your family". She said "That's what my parents call them".
Someone else has written a book about Hillary called "I've Always Been a Yankee Fan" and the cover shows her with a Chicago Cubs hat on. That is an example of how insincere they are. When she was running for Senate, she made the statement that she is part Jewish (to get the NY City vote). She said that her step-grandfather was Jewish. Does that make her part Jewish? NOT!
I was just in Rochester, NY last weekend and they hate her there. People said if it wasn't for NY City, she would not have gotten into the Senate. They cover up, deceive, and use people to get what they want. She has known about his infidelities since he was governor of Arkansas. She knew about Monica. The only thing she was upset about it was that it came to light. She hitched her star to him to get to the Whitehouse. IMO, it will be a sad day for the country.
I may not agree with George Bush and his foreign policy, but at least he is a good, moral, family man. The Clintons are scum.
My problem with Bill Clinton, and I did vote for him the first time he ran, is not that he had an affair. But, that he did it in the oval office, while he was suppose to be running the country. And, he did it with a young, impressionable intern. To me, this is totally different then just having an affair. And, then he lied under oath instead of just admitting to it. So, it dragged on and became a major focus of this country. Also, he supposedly(and I am pretty convinced it happend) sexual harrassed a woman while he was Governor. He totally abused his position! I guess it really baffles me that people think this is okay. And, yes I know people make mistakes, and I am by no means perfect. But, the President is the highest ranking official in this country, and he should act that way. Lets be honest, if he did these things while working in the private sector, he would have been fired!
I agree that George Bush is a good family man. But that doesn't, by my standards, make him a moral man. Morality is not limited to sex, booze and drugs. I believe he has deliberately lied to the American public, countless times. And lying is immoral, in my book.
Yes, Clinton abused his position. He is not the first or, sadly, the last powerful man to do that, and, as I said, I will always be disgusted by his behavior.
ROFL, Bush is a good, moral family man?? Ok, so he hasn't been caught cheating, and maybe he hasn't done it. But he has had issues with drugs and alcohol, he's far from perfect. He's a liar, and cares more about his own personal gain (and that of his friends) than the well-being of the country. All of the things people claim Hillary to be, he has done.
I will more than likely vote for the democratic person in the next pres election. But only because I think it is time for a change. I am one of those people who doesn't love w. But I don't think he just flat out lied to us. Certainly we can look back and see the info we were given is infact incorrect. But I do not think it has been proven that Bush KNEW the information. I believe he only reported what was told to him. Also we all have this in us, we want to believe what we want to believe. So if people give us wrong info and it is what we want to believe, we don't always question it. I think W. is guilty of listening to the wrong people, having poor judgement and even just being stupid. But I do not think he just blatently lied to the public for his own personal agenda.
As far as Christian hypocrits. As a Christian I feel like I have to state this...we all screw up. Part of our belief system as Christians is we are all sinners, sure we try, but we are still just as human as the next person. I think it hurts more when a Christian leader is just scum of the earth. But they are just like the rest of us. What I expect out of my Christian leaders is when Haggard did what he did, His church stepped up and did the right thing. They fired him, he apologized. He did the wrong thing, but condeming all Christians for his sins isn't right either (and yes he sinned, he had an extramarital affair and blatently misrepresented himself). I think the Catholic Church hasn't handled their scandals as well. I can certainly see where haggard's church members may have issues, but the reality is they weren't supposed to be worshipping him, God was supposed to be the focus. NOt being a member of that church I have no idea. I was a member here of a church whose pastor had a long term affair. As long as he was no longer the leader of our church it made no difference to me. There has to be some sort of punishment if you don't follow the rules! But again with haggard, I believe this was with a consenting adult, that is his own issue.
As far as the kennedy/clinton comparison. Honestly I am just too young to know anything about Kennedy and the climate of acceptance. How much did Jackie really know? Was the public just really aware? I was always under the assumption that his womanizing ways were brought to light after his death.
I'm undecided on how I feel about presidents and their personal imperfections. On one hand, I totally see the side of not caring about the personal life, just leadership abilities. On the other hand though, I think that if you can blatantly lie to your spouse/children and betray your marriage vows with another woman/women, then why would you mind lying about other things to a boatload of people you've never met? (American citizens for instance). That just makes me wonder.
Ditto Kaye on the Haggard issue. I don't care if the man is a homosexual, but I do care that he's a liar in a religious leadership position. He should no longer have his job because he's a liar, not because he's a sinner. I don't think he should be condemned by the congregation, but forgiven and jobless.
I always thought Jackie knew about Kennedy's affairs, but I'm obviously too young to have a clue I guess. One affair is one thing, but womanizing? How can a woman not know that, or have a clue at least?
A good moral person makes mistakes. I've driven drunk but until now, only 3 other people knew that about me. It wasn't a good moral thing to do, but I did it once and was just lucky enough not to get caught or kill someone in the process. I still consider myself to be a good and moral person, I just made a bad decision. It's hard for me to feel good about saying that someone is or isn't a 'good moral person' unless I really knew them. Geesh..we've all lied at some point, maybe had sex outside of marriage, used a substance in excess, the list goes on. We all make mistakes and it doesn't necessarily say we're not good and moral. When you have malicious intent or the purpose to hurt something/someone, then that seems immoral to me.
I personally think George Bush has lied as well, intentionally BUT I think all presidents have! (And I'm not a George fan, but I think he's just like every other politician.) Bill Clinton was (I think) a pretty good president, but he lied too. I would have had a lot more respect for him if he had just said from the get-go that he had an affair with Lewinsky and that he was sorry. Unfortunately, he got caught lying so everyone knew that he was hoping to get out of it but didn't.
Ditto Adena...definitely like what I've heard from John Edwards as well.
Politics, by nature, is dirty business. There is no one who has run for, or won political office that didn't have an agenda and didn't run for their own personal gain. Power is very intoxicating. MOST of them are liars. It's just that Hillary is shrill, rude, offensive and is sleazier than most. I believe that we will never know the truth about the death of Vince Foster, for instance. It was ruled suicide. However, his secretary said that the day he died he was in good spirits and talked with her about a golf tournament that he planned on participating in, and was looking forward to it. Most people around Washington acknowledge that Vince and Hillary were lovers. It is also very scary to research the number of people that were involved with the Clintons that died myteriously. I believe that they will stop at nothing, especially her.
Even when Bubba was in the White House, Hillary had a lot of control over things while he was playing around. She was the only First Lady to have an office in the West Wing. When he was campaigning the first time, he made the comment "Elect me and you get two for the price of one". He wasn't kidding.
I also believe that with the world situation in such a fragile state, it will take a strong, yet diplomatic person to not continue to P*** off the rest of the world. And the Arab world will absolutely NOT respect or talk diplomacy with a woman, any woman. And Hillary has such an irritating presence. She puts people off. She would be bad news for this country.
Kaye - I don't think that you would have to worry about Bill living in the White House again. I don't think that they have a marriage anymore, despite appearances to the contrary, for PR.
Kaye, you mentioned the Kennedy/Jackie O thing. It's widely known he was a womanizer, and it would have been nearly impossible for her to not know. However, many people have arrangements behind closed doors, and we don't know if she knew and didn't act because she was in denial, or didn't act because she was permissive of such behavior. Ultimately, she knew... one way or another.
I agree Crystal about Jackie O..I don't know how she COULDN'T have known when everyone else did.
I guess another difference in climate between kennedy and clinton times. Then women were expected to be married, divorces were few and far between and you were lucky to find a job to support you and your family. Now there isn't as much stimgma attached to a divorce, obviously there is still some, I don't know if I could elect a single person to the white house, always single or newly single...interesting thought though.
Jackie had her own affairs also. According to a documentary on the History Channel, an Air Force plane was once dispatched to bring her her diaphragm when she was in a remote location with a lover. She did know about Jack's affairs and was going to divorce him at one point, but her father-in-law paid her off to stay with Jack. He knew that divorce was political suicide in those days. That's what kept Adalai Stevenson from defeating Eisenhower.
Joe Kennedy, Sr. wanted desperately to be President himself, but couldn't because he was born in Ireland. He was ambassador to Britain. He was determined to have one or more of his sons become President, again, at any cost. When Marilyn Monroe threatened to go public about their affair, that is when she was found dead. Definitely foul play. Her death came shortly after her "Happy Birthday, Mr. President" performance at his party; a veiled attempt to go public. Some said that he had strung her along and promised that he would divorce Jackie and marry her.
Old Mr. Kennedy forced his mentally handicapped daughter to have a labatomy, and locked her away, out of sight.
I see a lot of parallels between the Kennedys and the Clintons. To gain power by any means and to eliminate those who stand in the way.
As far as Bill Clinton's presidency went...while he was receiving sexual favours (and disrespecting the sanctity of the Oval Office as well), the terrorists in the world were plotting 9/11.
I totally agree with Kate and Hol- While Americans may be open to the idea of a female president, I don’t believe that the rest of the world is, and I don’t think we would be taken seriously by other world leaders.
With regard to Bill, I agree, he’s a sleaze, but I totally disagree that his sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky didn’t interfere with his ability to do his job for the American people. While he talked on the telephone with Rep. Sonny Callahan regarding the safety of our troops in Bosnia, he was receiving oral sex from Lewinsky in the Oval Office study. In fact, getting serviced by Lewinsky while on the phone conducting official business with congressmen and others was a habit. He also kept foreign dignitaries waiting for as long as 45 minutes while he was getting serviced. Bill also did not care that he had exposed the presidency to blackmail by a foreign power by engaging in at least 17 phone sex calls with Lewinsky on unsecured phone lines. He laughed it off, telling her that if they were blackmailed to say they were just making it up. If GW had been the one doing all this, both Republicans as well as Democrats would have demanded his head on a platter.
Any Republicans who have been caught in scandals and criminal acts have stepped down so as to save the American people the grief of a very public and front page legal battle while in office as well as to avoid further degradation of that office. But that option could never be considered by the Clintons, so it dragged on for more than a year and cost the American taxpayers $40 million. What the Clintons together did was left us with a barely noticed shame - they lowered us when they asked us to rise to their support.
To further add to the degradation of our society under the Clinton administration, our young people now think that oral sex no longer qualifies as sexual activity, and the term “A Lewinsky” now refers to a blow job.
I think that the reason that Hillary stayed with him was more about the political power that oozed through his veins rather than about dignity or self-respect, not to mention that she needed him to support her self image. Make no mistake about it, she has had her eye on being president since Bill announced his candidacy for the 1992 election. Separating herself from Bill meant that she would have had to risk going it alone and failing, and she needed his support. He was too politically powerful and influential for her to take that risk.
It would seem to me that she is pathologically narcissistic. It is not just that both she and Bill think highly of themselves, but they are completely fascinated and preoccupied with themselves to the point at which validation of this view of themselves from others and the public has become necessary for their self-image to survive, whether or not they deserve such praise. Her entire existence is based on the feedback she gets from others, which must be positive, and which is why she must control her environment and surround herself with loyal people in an effort to avoid exposure to anyone who will not validate her imperial image of herself and of her husband. Perhaps this is also why she rarely allows herself to be interviewed- the environment is uncontrolled.
You could compare the political life to Hollywood- political life has given them the glitz, glamour, fame, and adulation that is also typical of Hollywood, and which has resulted in that same type of self-important personality in some spoiled Hollywood stars. Narcissists also typically have little empathy for others.
When Hillary Clinton became senator of New York, she became the first senator who has never held public office, and in a state in which she has never lived, to which she had no connection, with which she had no history, and in which she had previously demonstrated no interest. Even Democrats in New York, upon hearing of her bid for the senate seat, said, “Who does she think she is, coming in here and telling us that we need her?“ It seemed to me to have been an act of selfishness and narcissism (although I am not in New York.)
She says what she needs to say when she needs to say it in order to gain the favor of those to whom she is speaking, therefore she never really takes a firm stand for what she truly believes in. All she cares about is how she is perceived by that particular audience or voting block. At times she has positioned herself as a moderate in order to gain the approval of the voters in her run for the senate as well as the aspired presidential chair. She has talked about Special Committee on the Aging, education funding, help for the emotionally disturbed, extended unemployment insurance, and women’s rights in order to suit her liberal base and she has talked about border security and immigration to appeal to the center, or even to the right. (She recently called herself "adamantly against illegal immigrants.") She knows she cannot win the presidential election as the liberal that she is, so she will run as a moderate. To me, that’s just fake. (But it is probably just the way that the Democrats ended up sweeping congress last week.)
She lacks warmth and humility. In some of her speeches she raises her voice so loud, harsh, and shrill that it’s like she’s hitting her audience over the head with a baseball bat. When I hear these kinds of speeches I understand why this country is so divided- because of people like her who treat their audience as though it is deaf and who use extreme destructive uncivil words unworthy of a leader, or potential leader. She is an unusually cynical leftist who has no respect for the citizens of the United States or the country itself, but who sees our country as a platform for achieving her ultimate ambitions- to achieve historic social and political power both with her husband and without him fueled by a sense of self-importance rather than of purpose. There is a disconnect between the compassionate image of Hillary that she wishes us to see and the ruthlessness with which she will go to any measure to protect that image, especially when anyone gets in the way of her ambitions. I have no problem with a bright intelligent and capable woman in a position of power. But the person in the position of United States President has to have more consideration for the good of the country than they do for their own political stature. She is not that person.
I would love to go into detail of all the various scandals surrounding Hillary since she and Bill were in the Arkansas governor's mansion. There's cattle futures, Filegate, Travel Office Firings, Hillary's Health Care Initiative, and many others, but I don't want to over do it.
Bill Clinton dropped the ball during his term in office.
He was not proactive or reactive toward attacks against the US.
During his term the Cobalt Towers in Saudie Arabia, the Twin Towers in '93 and the USS Cole were attacked.
He did NOTHING!
President Bush was proactive. Under his govern the US took out a genocide dictator. A 21st century "Hilter".
Clinton could have been a great president but he was not. He was IMPEACHED because of his bad actions. He should have been thrown out of office but he was allowed to end his term. To this day, I will never understand why.
Annie, did Saddam have anything to do with any of those attacks?? Has Bush gotten Osama Bin Laden? Clinton didn't run in with both barrels firing, killing innocent people along the way. Bush did, but failed to get the man responsible for killing nearly 3 thousand Americans. The Bush administration also had warnings, and ignored them. Oh, and nearly 3 thousand MORE Americans have died in this "war", not even accounting for civilian deaths. All because the American public was lied to about WMDs. Now THAT is grounds for impeachment.
Clinton didn't run anywhere except into an intern's pants!
Bush may not have found Osama but his adminstration did take out a genocide killer. A modern day Hitler; a modern day Stalin.
If Clinton had been more on his game, 9/11 may not have happened. Bush picked up the pieces that Clinton failed to address because he was too busy with his Whitewater scandal fiasco and getting off by an intern.
All because the American public was lied to about WMDs. Now THAT is grounds for impeachment.
This is hindsight information. I fully believe the president was lied to first. Sure he wanted to believe it, and should of asked more questions, but ultimately he acted on the information he was given. That being said, rumsfield is gone.
Jumping in as the "bad guy" here...
Heads up, This thread is being monitored closely. IF at any time we feel that a post to this thread is out of line, from this point on, we will be removing the whole thread as soon as we possible can. We understand that politics are a hot topic, for most, but we cannot allow personal attacks any where on this board. Freedom of speech or not, we have to conduct ourselves with respect. Out of respect for this site and all the work the moderation does for this site, I would appreciate it if this could remain on topic and not become about the errors in other peoples opinions/views..
Just know if this comes up missing, someone decided that it was more important to blast someone than it was to get their own point across. Which has happened several times on this thread already.
That said, carry on.
Thanks for the reminder, Bobbie.
It looks to me, though, like the heat is focused on the politicians, not the fellow members of this board.
But, it never hurts to be reminded to keep our cool.
Just a quick thought about women in power and being taken seriously ... Margaret Thatcher .... the world had no problem accepting her leadership. There are others of coure, but none from a first world country.
Ame
Lisa - Very well said!!! I urge you to read the book I mentioned above. The author parallels a lot of what you have stated.
I plan on doing a lot of reading up on as many of the presidential candidates as I can before they really start campaigning, cuz once that happens, you never know if what anyone is saying is the truth. We got 2 years to go- we better start doing our homework!
Adena mentioned John Edwards as a possible candidate, and I hadn't thought much about him since the Kerry/Edwards loss. But I listened to an interview with him on Fresh Air on NPR tonight, and was much more impressed than I had expected. I came away with the impression of a thoughtful, intelligent man who cares deeply about some things I care about, and who is more interested in telling the truth about what he thinks than in making political points.
You can listen to the interview on NPR at this link:
John Edwards interview
Ginny, edwards would of had my vote last go round for pres, too bad he was the vp candidate, I just couldn't buy into Kerry.
She's gonna go for it!
AP Story
This is an interesting article. It acknowledges that she is a "polarizing figure" and quotes her saying, "I'm in to win" while Obama is quoted "I welcome her and all the candidates, not as competitors, but as allies in the work of getting our country back on track."
To further demonstrate how polarizing she is, she said, "After nearly $70 million spent against my campaigns in New York and two landslide wins, I can say I know how Washington Republicans think, how they operate, and how to beat them.''
She also said that during the next two years she will be "doing everything in my power to limit the damage George W. Bush can do. But only a new president will be able to undo Bush's mistakes and restore our hope and optimism.''
And so she begins her campaign with a statement of attack on the president and a divisive statement against Republicans, as if declaring a war. Now, whether or not you agree that Bush has done damage, I sincerely hope that she will not make that the focal point of her campaign.
Ditto Cocoa! Regardless of what I think of Bush's actions during his presidency, it doesn't make think too highly of her that she's putting down our current president. We should all be trying to work together it seems, much more in line with Obama's comments about being "allies".
If she wins ... I'm moving to Italy At least there you expect a wacky government.
I'm kidding, of course. I hope she runs. I hope she gets the Democratc nod. She may know how to beat the Republicans in a heavily liberal Democrat state like NY, but now she'll be fighting on a whole different turf. It would be like handing a good Republican candidate like McCain the White House on a silver platter. Go Hilary.
Ame
I will never understand the logic that says one can't criticize a sitting president. If you (or Hilary) think the president is doing something wrong, you (or Hilary) are free to say so in this country. One of the things I dislike intensely about the Bush administration is their "either you support me or you are supporting the terrorists" rhetoric. There are other categories. One can criticize (or put down) Bush without being a traitor or supporting the terrorists. And, given what I have been reading about what is going on in the House and Senate, there are a whole lot of Republican senators and representatives who are criticizing some of Bush's actions and attitudes, most especially the "surge".
That said, I still hope Hilary is not the Democrat's candidate, and I probably won't vote for her (or Obama) in the primary. Not because of their positions or what they have done (though Obama hasn't been around long enough to do very much), but because Hilary is so polarizing emotionally to too many people, and too many people wouldn't vote for Obama because of his race. I want to see the Democrats win big time.
Just to clarify, she can put down the president all she wants, yes, because she has the First Amendment right to do so (tho I don't have to like it that she does.)
But, a political campaign, IMO, should not be run by telling the people why they shouldn't vote for the opponent or the opponent's party. It will not impress me one bit if she is going to make bashing the president and the opposite political party the center of her campaign rather than tell Americans why having her as president would benefit the country. Unfortunately, too many political campaigns are run like that and it puts a bad taste in my mouth.
I agree, to some extent, Lisa. The negative political campaigns of the last decade or two have been awful.
But I do think a candidate has to say not only what they would do different by why they think the other candidate's or party's plan or actions are wrong. That, I think, is different from the kind of bashing we've seen, putting out ads that are very personal (and, at least according to Fact Check) ranging from mildly inaccurate to blatantly false. And both parties did it in the last two campaigns. Any time an ad focuses only on how bad the other candidate is, without saying anything about the candidate paying for the ad, I mentally turn it off - especially those ads that hint at or blatantly say negative things about the candidate's personal life or morality. Not that I don't care about moral behavior - I just can't stand those wink-wink nudge-nudge ads that try to link a candidate with something or someone awful by innuendo or falsehood.
I also can't stand those ads that take one legislative vote and hold it up as why the other candidate is wrong, without looking at all of the other times that candidate voted on the topic - like the ads that said so-and-so voted against our troops because a legislator voted (along with the majority of legislators in *both* parties) against a bill that had been amended out of recognition, even though the legislator voted for financial support for the military 99% of the time on other bills.
I have decided, personally, that when I see or hear an offensive, inaccurate political ad (after seeing what FactCheck and other sources say) I am going to write to that candidate's campaign and tell them why I think running that ad is wrong.
Ditto Lisa and Ginny on different counts...yes, I agree Ginny that she can say whatever she wants about a sitting president. (Lord knows I do!!) But as a major point of her campaign theme, I personally don't like it. I think it's a fine line between saying "I think that *I* would have chosen this route instead of this one..." or "It's my goal to get this country on a different path". Saying something like that certainly shows that you don't like where we're headed but still not putting down the president during her campaign. She is still a senator who is SUPPOSED to be working WITH the administration instead of yelling about all the mistakes in an attempt to be elected the next President.
The TV ads are VERY frustrating and get really old. It makes me not want to vote for ANYONE.
Who Is Haggard? And what did he do?
In my opinion, she is shrill and arrogant, and yes, VERY polarizing. Her objective isn't what is good for the country (and Lord knows, we do need healing). Her objective is to win and be President. I doubt that she has a plan to end the war or to help our relationships with the Middle East. If anything, she will p*** them off more! I can't see her in diplomatic negotiations.
And yes, Obama doesn't have much of a history and might have trouble getting elected because of his race (tho Colin Powell might have won if he hadn't bowed out). However, unless it is just "smoke and mirrors", I like what he said. His statement shows a concern for the country first.
But, a political campaign, IMO, should not be run by telling the people why they shouldn't vote for the opponent or the opponent's party. It will not impress me one bit if she is going to make bashing the president and the opposite political party the center of her campaign rather than tell Americans why having her as president would benefit the country. Unfortunately, too many political campaigns are run like that and it puts a bad taste in my mouth.
I couldn't agree more with this statement. I am so tired of hearing that this is wrong and that is wrong etc etc etc...what are you going to do to fix what you think is wrong? What is YOUR plan? I don't hear near enough of that, only complaining.....
Nevermind...I Googled Haggard...man is that dude in a heap of trouble ...
|
Members
