No one votes for the Cabinet secretaries either, but nobody questions their legitimacy. And it was obvious well before November 1992 that Bill’s wife was not going to be an apolitical, humble-helpmate, Barbara Bush kind of First Lady.
That it would – but I don’t think the Pubbies have come quite far enough yet to nominate an African-American woman for the top spot, whatever her politics, credentials or experience.
Could you expand on that?
No, I really don’t think we can draw that kind of lesson from history – at least, not since the Industrial Revolution changed everything forever and gave us a world where the conditions of life are radically different for every generation and, nowadays, every decade.
For instance, the most recent instance of a “world-power past its peak” was the Soviet Union, which was decidedly not characterized by a wide gap between rich and poor (though it was, indeed, characterized by environmental devastation).
And the most recent example before that was the British Empire, which was characterized by a wide gap between rich and poor, but that gap was steadily narrowing when the Empire ended. The BE was undone more by rising national consciousness in its subject peoples than by any social conditions in the UK or in its colonies.
In the case of the U.S. today, the things that most threaten our superpower status are a whopping budget deficit, an overextended military establishment, a precariously debt-driven consumer economy, and the imminent exhaustion of our supply of cheap, imported petroleum. And the latter two are factors no superpower in history before now has ever had to worry about.
I’d be interested in those cites. If so, clearly their elected representatives don’t.
Here’s a couple from last year:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2003-10-19-health-poll_x.htm
Poll: Public supports health care for all
http://www.pnhp.org/news/2003/october/majority_of_american.php
Majority of Americans Support National Health Insurance
October 20, 2003
To avoid the idea of "cherry picking, I direct you here, for general google results, based on “universal health care polls”. Here’s a more diverse cite from 2000:
http://www.policyattitudes.org/OnlineReports/Healthcare/findings_3.html
Really depends on how it is “framed”, although IMO the impetus is clear (in any case, not directly related to Hillary Clinton).
Ah but I didn’t mean the symptoms I pointed out are symptoms of all falling kingdowns throughout history - they are never quite the same on that level. But on a more general level, what you see is that a nation is ahead, consolidates, stops traveling, builds its tower and ends up getting stuck in it (a lot of symbolism in The Lord of the Rings referring to this) while the world around it evolves, changes. (for more literary references I see a lot of paralels between New York now and Venice in Shakespeare’s time).
For those of my fellow Democrats who think a Hillary Clinton candidacy is a good idea, I have a question:
What state do you think Hillary Clinton would win that John Kerry did not?
Actually, fifty-one senators must vote for a Cabinet secretary.
Florida. Split down the middle (on fact, I’m still not entirely convinced Kerry didn’t win Florida, if you know what I mean), and Hillary could mobilize certain key demographics enough to tip the balance. Some women who have never voted Democrat in their lives before might cross the line and vote for Hillary, just because she’s a woman and they might never get another chance.
I agree that is what the Dems should do, and even what the Dems WOULD do if the candidates were picked by the party leaders. But they’re not. The candidate is picked by each and every Democrat who either gives money to or votes for the candidate in the primaries. IOW, don’t rule out HRC as the Dem candidate in '08. I think primary voters will be less worred about “electability” since they generally won’t have any idea against whom their candidate will be running-- no “anyone but Bush” rallying cry out there.
She would alienate more than she would mobilize, I’ll wager. And she would energize the opposition.
I don’t know what you mean. Can you be specific and give us the actual evidence you have that Kerry didn’t really lose Florida?
And what about all the men who waver between voting Dem and Pub and who would vote against her? Hillary would be a disaster for the Democrats-- not that that would stop them from nominating her. I think you’d see a large “anyone but Hil” vote going to the Republicans. Justified or not, she racked up a large amount of negative sentiment while Bill was the prez, and it’s really hard to shake that sentiment off.
Worked so damned well for Ferrarro, didn’t it?
Sure, Hillary could be a serious contender for the 2008 nomination. She has massive name recognition, and can access the same massive fundraising network her husband had. If she wants the nomination, chances are that she’ll get it. If she doesn’t want it, no one will force her into it.
Does she want it? No idea. But people spouting “Hillary’s candidacy is just Republican propaganda” are ignoring the actual facts on the ground.
I’m hoping you are kidding on this. I could see Ohio MAYBE being a bitch point (I still think Bush took it)…but Florida??? Come on.
I disagree…I think Rice is being groomed for the top spot in '08. Now, whether she gets the nomination or not is way up in the air…depends on how GW’s term turns out and how much of it splashes on her if things go bad. But I think you are locked into an incorrect mindset about the 'Pubs if you think they wouldn’t put forth Rice merely because she is black and a woman.
He came damn close (well, not really…3 million votes is a pretty fair margin but I’ll play along) alright…but he came damn close against Bush for gods sake. Lets put it another way…if the Dems couldn’t beat Bush, who DO they think they can beat with candidates like Kerry?? Next time the 'Pubs won’t be handycapped (in theory anyway) with another unpopular and polarizing figure like Bush after all.
I agree with you about one thing though…Hillary is no socialist. In fact, for a Democrat she is reasonably moderate (leaving aside the healthcare thing, which I doubt she would actually try and push forward if she were elected…much like her husband dropped it when it didn’t get much traction). Her problem is one of baggage…much of it her husband, some of it her own. She simply rubbed a lot of people the wrong way when she was first lady, and even afterwards when she was a senator. And unlike rjungs statement, not all of those people are foaming at the mouth conservative zombie types…some are centrist moderates. I really don’t think she would be the optimal candidate for the Dems…but I do think that she is going to put her hat in the ring and that she has a fair chance of winning the nomination. I just don’t think she has a fair chance of winning the election, though that will depend on how bad things go under Bush…and who the 'Pubs ultimately run.
-XT
I’m looking at 41 years old, and Geraldine Ferraro didn’t mean shit to me, and Ain’t I a woman???
It’s not about that.
It’s more about the internal struggles of the Democratic Party. Hillary is DLC, and the DLC is not assured of ascendancy at this time. I haven’t heard of any high profile Democrats shilling her so far - so for now it’s just Republican porn, AFAIK.
The GOP has it’s own internal struggles to deal with too. Is Jeb a done deal, or is it Guiliani, or…??
Way too soon for those arguments…
So what else have y’all got?
Hillary is My Own Senator, and I’m not completely happy with her, but I will say - she’s no slacker. I will - as I have done- defend her against baseless smears.
So, what else have y’all got?
Once again, why? We’re on the second page of this thread and I still don’t understand the root of this “Hillary is hateful” meme. She’s not a socialist, she’s not even a liberal by the standards of the LBJ era, she’s only a feminist in the sense that she’s an upwardly mobile career woman, and how many men are left in America who would vote against a woman just because she’s a woman?
Not comparable and you know it. Mondale couldn’t have taken it in 1984 if his running mate had been Jesus.
I just said “I’m not entirely convinced,” not that there’s evidence you could take to court. The infuriating thing about this election is that circumstances are such that we may never know the truth. But see http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1106-30.htm; http://www.washingtondispatch.com/spectrum/archives/000715.html; http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20041129&s=corn; http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20041206&s=corn2; http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/was_the_2004_election_stolen/.
If they do, they’re going to lose a lot of the Southern white-conservative base that has been the key to their success ever since 1968.
From your lips!
If only!
Again, way too soon for these arguments.