I think the real problem I have with Hillary's candidacy is...

...that it just seems GREEDY somehow for both the husband and wife in a relationship to EACH have a turn as President of the United States...only 43 people have held that job, and that such a priviledged position should be held by the same couple TWICE in one lifetime?...wtf?...that just seems too much...you had TWO FULL TERMS in office and did an admirable job (under CONSTANT attack)...i understand wanting to get a 'do over', but at this level, that's asking an awful lot...i thank you for your service but move on already and let the rest of the country do the same...

We need some new blood in da house!

seems fishy to me... specially how Bill is now so cushy with the Bush family.

legal eagle bills with Webster Hubble. In arkansass. NEVER to be a member of the powerful 100. and NEVER to be a presidential candidate on her own.

Why are you so venomous towards Hillary?

a candidate.
it is not venom, rather, it is a long appreciation of recognition. I do NOT want her as president. I do NOT want her coming close. I think she represents a DLC wing that has done damage to us, and through her, will continue that damage.

You don't let facts or logic get in your way.

It's gotta be tiring, hating someone that much.

Do you have any idea who she was before she met Bill? Or during their early years?

She was the one with the connections and moving up in the party.

Bill and Hillary drive up to a gas station in Arkansas. As an attendant fills their tank, Bill points to him and says, "You're lucky you didn't marry that guy, or you'd still be stuck here with him." Hillary replies, "No, Bill. If I had married him, he would be the President."

Seriously, I don't like either of them. But she seems to be no less qualified or brainy than her husband. Wish that was the problem.

Pull the string, there, whydoncha? If she had NOT married Bill, she never would have ended up IN ARKANSAS.

She was from CHICAGO, after all. That was HIS home state, NOT hers.

Sheeeeeeeeeeeesh!!!!!!!!!!!

She likely would have stayed in DC, working for the House for awhile, then affiliated herself with a Congressperson, and then run for the House or Senate herself.

That's MY guess as to what she might have done.

Try some Chicago firm.

The sole rationale for her candidacy is the fact that she married someone who wound up becoming president. This is why we should vote for her?

in her own right. One classy lady.

Hmm okay.

You have a problem with that?

If being the 1st Lady makes you a "world leader", I guess Laura and Babs...

Laura and Babs sweep the porch for their husband's guests, even the polygamous ones. They know their "place"

when did she lead? when did she become so well known, other than his wife?

Cite one issue, one fact, one event that she "led" on, that had any positive impact on Arkansas, the US, or the globe. Just one. Oh wait, I got it. FLAG BURNING

She went to Palestine as an envoy for her husband as well.

She did some advance and informal shuttle diplomacy for her husband between India and Pakistan ahead of his visit.

She did that Africa thing, too, with her daughter--and she did a northern Africa diplomacy run too.

He used her alot as an informal envoy. But we know, you dislike her. And you want to make sure that EVERYONE knows it.

:eyes:

are two different things. FDR, Churchill, Kennedy, Kerry, Carter. These are world leaders. Hell she won't fart if it has not first been run by a focus group. She was barely able to finally say that is not immoral to be gay, only after she quoted Sen. Warner thoughts, and he is a damn re pug.

not meant to be. I just disagree that Sen. Clinton is "World Leader" material. She has to be able to stand on her own, not waiting for her focus group to finish polling to come up with the appropriate answer. Her answer about homosexuals typifies this.

Sen. Clinton is not a world leader in the sense of having been a head of state, but she is a leader for a generation of women the world over. Being first lady gave her a platform, but she, unlike Laura, earned the respect of many people for what she had to say.

Focus group or not, she's accomplished something remarkable herself. Having a powerful husband doesn't detract from that accomplishment.

her issues as well, Travel gate, the whole Foster thing, being unable to find her Rose law firm records, and her secretive health care reform.

Have you seen "The Hunting of the President"?

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0391225/

Even if those issues were valid, you were discussing with Erika whether is was appropriate to apply the term "world leader" or not, and that was the nature of my comment.

Having or not having issues doesn't affect whether someone is a "world leader" or not.

back to you. You wrote, "she ,unlike Laura earned the respect of many people for what she had to say" It is what she has said or not said that makes me question her ability to be a world leader. How can you lead the world with all it's problems and you cannot even state whether you think being gay is immoral or not.

However, she's far more qualified and progressive than Obama. I have NO clue why people think he's some liberal demi-god.

Bush 41 and 43 are fine with you but you have a probem with Hillary?

They indicate that our democracy is in the hands of a few families. It's nice to see people like Jimmy Carter, Gerald Ford (regardless if you liked him or not), and other citizens from regular backgrounds making it to the Oval Office. It gives us the sense that our government is truly ours.

This Bush-Clinton thing is not healthy for our democracy. Since 1992, probably till 2016, ruled by two families? Nah...

but there is with two Clintons?

From 1988 to 2016, ruled by TWO FAMILIES, BUSHES AND CLINTONS, is not good for our democracy in my view.

In case you didn't understand: I have problems with two families ruling the nation for 28 consecutive years.

Bill and Hill are the spoilers of the Bush dynasty..
Even though they are outnumbered 10 to 1 by the Bushes.

The Bushes fully intended to have Jeb running this time around
but Jr is so disliked with poor approval ratings, it doesn't look
like even Jeb can rally the base.

Just sayin'....

you are making assuptions based on ?....and i don't have a problem with Hillary per se, just the fact that she's already had 8 yrs in the White House and for her and Bill to get a another 4-8 yrs jsut seems more than their fair share of the pie...and no, 41 and 43 are most definitely NOT fine with me...

Right?

What the heck do you mean?

centrists that she comes of as opportunistic and morally rudderless.

It is also a significant weakness that, in a time when the Repubs are dispirited and Repub turn out should be low, Hillary is polarizing in a way that would actually invigorate those Repub voters and turn them out (i.e., there are plenty of Repubs who wouldn't vote for Giuliani - or Romney - but who would turn up at the polls to vote against Hillary).

Much more than any man would do.

That fact appalls me, as does much of the backward nature of my country. After all, most of the world's civilized nations have universal health care, no death penalty, and have had a woman running their country at one time or another. For reasons I can't fully understand, all of these things seem subversive if not outright revolutionary in this country.

That said, I'm not going to instantly glom onto the first woman candidate with demonstrable fundraising capabilities. (My mother, I'm proud to say, was one of the few people in our precinct who cast a vote for Shirley Chisholm in the Presidential primary.) To support Hillary Clinton simply because she's a woman who can court corporate fat cats is an insult to women everywhere.

Man or woman, she's a terminal opportunist weather vane, shifting her position depending on polls and on the conventional wisdom. She seems to stand for precious little other than expediency. But above all, I can't forgive her unrepentant vote to give that sociopath in the White House a blank check for use of military force in Afghanistan, Iraq, and heaven knows where else. Oh sure, voting "no" was generally considered to be the kiss of death for prospective Democratic presidential candidates, who must continue to live down a reputation for being "weak on defense" (rather than "strong on diplomacy"). But we're talking about people's lives here! Not just some cold, calculating policy decision.

I am a lifelong Democrat who can't imagine voting for a Republican, particularly when the candidates who share viewpoints with the Republicans I grew up with are pretty much all Democrats these days. But if Hillary gets the nomination, I will definitely be holding my nose.

By the way, if women fought war, it would be hard and fast. They wouldn't play at it as the W administration has done. Hillary would let them know hard and fast our position and we wouldn't have four years of war with a third world country. Men play at war. Women act.

just what do you base this assertion on.

Also a political dynasty, also a love of the sword. We don't want all these bloodstained people, female or not. Vote for candidates who will seek peace first.

too bad her voting record shows her left of center.
That always happens when someone keeps score.

And he sold us out

What have you been smoking?

is right.

As far as smoking, I INHALE.-----Do you understand that one?

Which pill did you take? If you are gonna through those right wing crap terms at me.

If you couldn't see them as right wing, I thought you must be smoking something.

and my smoking is legal in my state.

Pandering

And believe me I have more

In California she will never have 10,000 people show up
in one day if she came here tomorrow (oh, did they miss an opportunity?)

But, how many showed up at her speech,?
which she didn't have
on the anniversary of this invasion,
when hundreds of thousands of Americans did to express their
aghast to this war, all across this nation,
at least Obama did. in Oakland.....and he is not my first choice.

She made the choice to do nothing,
and WE see nothing and hear nothing from her in the news
on this anniversary.

IS THAT BETTER FOR YOU?

JUNIOR IS HAPPIER THAN ANYONE THERE.

I look at people.




CONGRATULATIONS
you completed our conspiracy for the" new world order"
this is at a funeral for WHAT?

than a problem in the substance of her voting record. Lieberman has much of the same problem - he is a centrist, not right of center as he is often portrayed, but gives the appearance of being right of where his votes would peg him because of the more right-leaning nature of his rhetoric as compared to his votes. Hillary and Obama both suffer the same discrepancy between their moderate rhetoric and their left-leaning voting records.

As I have posted elsewhere, the Drum Major Institute evaluated the whole Senate based on 8 key votes to support the middle class, from protecting social security to fair trade to Medicare drug protections to the minimum wage:



Only 9% of the Senate (all Democrats) were awarded the highest grade of "A" for supporting the middle class on all 8 issues:



Hillary was one of those 9 Senators who got an "A" for consistently supporting the middle class (along with Boxer, Kennedy, Kerry, Sarbanes, Corzine, Lautenberg, Leahy, and Feingold). For comparison, both McCain and Hagel got an "F".

http://www.drummajorinstitute.com/congress/outerenvelope_senate.htm

Hillary is way too DLC for my taste, but she's hardly "the most right wing" while Biden and Richardson remain in the race.

Set 'em up early and they are easy to pick off.

She doesn't stand a chance.

I want a Clinton-Obama ticket.

Her support of Lieberman and lack of expression in the news about his shit is appalling.

She will never win California.

As much as I admire her...

She will never get the donations that really count.

Hillary Clinton will never be POTUS.

Never.

There are way too many moneyed Dems who are unwilling to take a chance on her.

And that's the way it is...

A coattailer. Same as the Bushes.

Is that she is a right of center opportunist. I'm sure she is a fine senator, but she lives and dies by what pollsters tell her direction the wind is blowing that day. Her voting record indicates a troubling tendency to vote for conservative issues when we need someone with solid convictions to go against the grain once in a while.

Not sure who you're trying to leave out.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States

n/t

Cleveland was the 22nd and 24th president.

One of which is that she is an opportunist who is only out for herself.

And you can bet that everything that the Republicans have been saying about her for over 10 years would all come out in the general, if she isn't beaten in the primary, and most voters will think that the situation verifies some of what they have been saying about her, also.

There is no advantage to the Democratic Party for her to be at the top of the ticket.

I think that to be president, a person has to have:

1. leadership
2. a clear vision
3. strength
4. education
5. diplomacy or finesse
6. compassion
7. savvy

I can't think of anything else that matters to me.

I don't care who your daddy is.
I don't care who your spouse is.
I don't care what state you come from.
I don't care what your sex is.
I don't care what you do for a living.
I don't care if you were poor or rich.
I don't care if you're self-made or blue-blooded.
I don't care if you're handsome or pretty.
I don't care who you have sex with.
I don't care how you get the job, I care how you DO the job.

I think you're objecting to as one poster puts it, the creation of a "dynasty" because you think it is somehow a corruption of democracy and you're SUPPOSED to be uncomfortable with the concept because it somehow seems like cheating.

It isn't necessarily cheating, and it isn't necessarily undesireable. I'm not even sure that the limitation of 2 terms is desireable or necessary. If anything, experience in governing only makes a person more appealing to me. The learning curve is reduced and you have the benefit of hindsight.

Ideally, as long as there's a free and fair election, the people should be free to choose whomever they want to govern. The list of people as or more qualified than Sen. Clinton is pretty short, in my opinion.

That doesn't mean I support her as a candidate, only that if she were to win, I think she could be great.

Very True.










edit to add "

she's female.

And, they can deny it until the cows come home and I will never believe them.


How far we've come. :eyes:

If she was male, there is no way she would be getting so much flack over certain things. And, people on here can deny that,m but it's true. I've seen much more conservative Dems get a pass (or spin treatment) for things HRC gets pilloried for.

You're right, Midlo.

The attacks against her have been caustic, and I haven't seen the same kind of speech used against any other candidate.

I will say one more time, I am undecided, unless Gore hops in, but I despise the shit I see tossed around here about Senator Clinton, especially when at least seventy percent of it is outright lies. I am shocked when some of our Democratic 'siblings' spout right wing talking points with absolute abandon, without shame, and EVEN WHEN CORRECTED, they simply say "Oh, well, BUT..." shift the goalposts, and go on to some other lie.

I've directed people to the "On the Issues" website to correct misapprehensions, http://www.issues2000.org/Hillary_Clinton.htm and pointed out the falsehoods, but it just doesn't matter. They don't care about facts. They find some other "Oh well, BUT..." reason, and get all the way down to "I just don't like her and, OH--I hate dynasties!!!!" but they never talk about the obvious one--that glass ceiling gender business.

I love her husband and would support her if she by chance wins the nomination but I really rather someone else.

She is a force in her own right, and has the credentials to be a Presidential candidate.

But, admittedly, I am biased for someone who is qualified to lead, and not so much taken by the press and the focus on personalties.

I liked Gore because he he knew what the hell he was doing and talking about. But he got crucified because he was a policy wonk. He was CLEARLY better qualifed for the Presidency, but qualifications do not matter.

It's all smoke and mirrors and how the media presents each candidate. And, I suppose how much money is behind the media.

I don't think of Hillary as another Clinton or in the dyanasty sense. Nor have I settled on any particular candidate at this point. I just think she has paid her dues and I consider her a justifed primary candidate at this juncture.