[QUOTE=mhendo]
But this is, it seems, exactly the sort of thing that every politician does. I can barely think of a politician who hasn’t, at one stage or other in his or her career, changed some personal or policy position while insisting that the new position has been their position all along.
[/QUOTE]
Thus the fascination with Senator Obama, who doesn’t seem to have played that game.
[QUOTE=MissGypsy]
I reiterate, nobody questions why a male candidate uses one surname or another.
[/QUOTE]
That isn’t true. Villaraigosa, for example, has taken all kinds of flak for his name.
[QUOTE=Key Lime Guy]
That isn’t true. Villaraigosa, for example, has taken all kinds of flak for his name.
[/QUOTE]
With your location, I thought you’d have gone with the obvious one, Gary Hartpence.
Ross PeRO(T) used to be Ross PEEro(t). I remember commentators giving him a hard time about that.
All that peace and prosperity was just intolerably aggravating, wasn’t it?
Grow the fuck up.
[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves]
All that peace and prosperity was just intolerably aggravating, wasn’t it?
[/QUOTE]
Thankfully, our long national nightmare is over, because itn 2000, we elected someone who, while he might not have had a lot of experience, was charismatic, and ran on a platform of visionary leadership, reaching beyond strict partisanship to unite us, and fix Washington.
[QUOTE=Captain Amazing]
Thankfully, our long national nightmare is over, because itn 2000, we elected someone who, while he might not have had a lot of experience, was charismatic, and ran on a platform of visionary leadership, reaching beyond strict partisanship to unite us, and fix Washington.
[/QUOTE]
It says a lot about your political insight that you think GWB was a bad president, not because of his policies, but because of his “charisma” and intention to fix Washington. Here I thought he sucked because he decided to do idiotic things, like invade Iraq. Hmmm…who else do I know that made such a terrible decision?
[QUOTE=Richard Parker]
It says a lot about your political insight that you think GWB was a bad president, not because of his policies, but because of his “charisma” and intention to fix Washington. Here I thought he sucked because he decided to do idiotic things, like invade Iraq. Hmmm…who else do I know that made such a terrible decision?
[/QUOTE]
I didn’t say he intended to fix Washington. I said he said he intended to fix Washington. He’s not a bad president because of his charisma, but his charisma blinded people and led them to assume he’d be a good president.
Now, if only Al Gore had gotten elected, things might have been different. I’m sure you remember Gore. He was the less charismatic candidate who had the experience of being in the Clinton White House, was close to Clinton…almost like family, although, of course, they weren’t any sort of blood relation, and would carry on the Clinton legacy. If only someone like that were running in this election!
[QUOTE=Captain Amazing]
I didn’t say he intended to fix Washington. I said he said he intended to fix Washington. He’s not a bad president because of his charisma, but his charisma blinded people and led them to assume he’d be a good president.
[/quote]
Well, I took you to be analogizing to Obama. If you’re not doing that, then I really don’t get the relevance of your post. If you are, I have to say, this narrative of Obama blinding people with his charisma is really tiresome. It has become the stock narrative of Clinton supporters, suggesting that Obama is some kind of con man. You should accept that it is possible that people don’t value experience as a first lady as highly as you do. If it is to be your analogy, spell it out for us. If Bush blinded people from the truth of his terrible incompetence and right-wing policy with his charisma, what is the Obama analogue?
[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves]
All that peace and prosperity was just intolerably aggravating, wasn’t it?
Grow the fuck up.
[/QUOTE]
Like Rwanda? Yeah, there’s some peace for you. Somalia? Bosnia? Bunch of pacifists. Yep, peace across the globe during the Clinton years. Oh sure, maybe a massacre or two or half-million, but we couldn’t do anything about that, could we?
And then a new era begins! Thankfully we had a whole new Clinton to help create even more peace across the globe by voting for the Authorization of the Use of Military Force in Iraq! Good thing too, I heard they had some WMD’s. What could go wrong? Place your faith in George Bush, it’ll all be ok!
Oh, and then there’s the Kyl-Lieberman thing. Such a responsible piece of legislation, especially considering the nation it censured had such an advanced nuclear program. Oh, what’s that? It didn’t?!? Well don’t blame us! We were hornswaggled by George Bush! Who could have ever predicted such a thing? After all, something like that has never happened before!
Wake the fuck up.
Rwanda was a screwup and Clinton admits it. In Yugoslavia, his intervention stopped the genocide, and without the cost of a single American (or NATO, I believe) life. Ireland you didn’t mention, but should look into (you’ll find more under George Mitchell). Middle East - had the treaty right in front of Arafat, waiting for his signature; nobody could do more. Your point?
AUMF was best explained by Otter to Flounder: “You fucked up. You trusted us.”
“Censuring” another government? You’re serious?
If Hillary Clinton is elected, and wins two terms, then by the time she completes her presidency in 2017, fully one-third of the US population will have lived only under a President named Clinton or Bush. That’s pretty fucking scary.
It wouldn’t stop me voting for her if i supported her policies, but it’s still a pretty damning indictment of the political system, in my opinion. Already, when George Bush leaves office early next year, one-quarter of all Americans have only ever had a Bush or a Clinton as President.
From Harper’s Magazine, January 2008. Figures based on Harper’s research using census data.
Is anyone else tired and a little scared of this trend towards dynasty in America? If we elect Hillary Clinton and she does 2 terms, that will mean that, for 28 years, the USA will have been ruled by someone named Bush or Clinton. Doesn’t that seem a bit banana republic to anyone else? I’m just sayin’. I don’t like it. Not that it would stop me from voting for Hillary if I thought she was the best candidate. I don’t. Time for a change.
ETA: mhendo was apparently thinking along the same lines.
Don’t you think all votes for all Bushes and Clintons have been cast voluntarily, in considered (well, more or less) preference to real alternatives? That isn’t characterist of a “dynasty” or a 'banana republic", but of a “democracy”.
Some of us think that’s pretty important.
Yeah, why do you guys hate democracy?
ETA: An interesting and relevant article from a professor of mine.
Unless Chelsea runs and gets elected I wouldn’t consider the Clintons to be a dynasty.
The Bushes on the other hand - anyone want to put forth a constitutional amendment preventing children and perhaps even grandchildren from becoming president? I’ll vote for it.
[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves]
Rwanda was a screwup and Clinton admits it. In Yugoslavia, his intervention stopped the genocide, and without the cost of a single American (or NATO, I believe) life. Ireland you didn’t mention, but should look into (you’ll find more under George Mitchell). Middle East - had the treaty right in front of Arafat, waiting for his signature; nobody could do more. Your point?
AUMF was best explained by Otter to Flounder: “You fucked up. You trusted us.”
“Censuring” another government? You’re serious?
[/QUOTE]
My point is that there wasn’t peace under Bill Clinton. There wasn’t anything close to peace.
For Rwanda, over half a million people is one hell of a screwup, don’t you think? Over 500,000 deaths isn’t an ‘oops’ in my book. You don’t get to say sorry and make that all ok. That’s really a ‘fall on your sword’ level fuck up.
In Yugoslavia, genocide was pretty widespread. Did Clinton help? Yes, he eventually stopped it. But to me it’s a case of too little, too late. 100,000+ dead isn’t much peace and prosperity, is it? I respect soldiers and I value their lives as much as anybody, but if 100,000 civilians die and we don’t lose a single soldier maybe we played things a little too close to the vest, no?
As for AUMF, bullshit. She didn’t even read the NIE on Iraq, she got briefings from her aides. When war was coming, and she had to make a choice, she took the legislative equivalent of Cliff’s Notes. How do you honestly excuse that?
As for ‘censuring’ another government… yes, I was serious. Isn’t that what the Kyl-Lieberman resolution ultimately was? I’m not sure what I’m missing here. If I’m wrong I’d be happy to be set straight, though I don’t think it detracts from my ultimate point either way.
[QUOTE=omgzebras]
And then a new era begins! Thankfully we had a whole new Clinton to help create even more peace across the globe by voting for the Authorization of the Use of Military Force in Iraq! Good thing too, I heard they had some WMD’s. What could go wrong? Place your faith in George Bush, it’ll all be ok!
Oh, and then there’s the Kyl-Lieberman thing. Such a responsible piece of legislation, especially considering the nation it censured had such an advanced nuclear program. Oh, what’s that? It didn’t?!? Well don’t blame us! We were hornswaggled by George Bush! Who could have ever predicted such a thing? After all, something like that has never happened before!
[/QUOTE]
Let’s not forget her NAY vote on the Feinstein amendment to a Defense appropriations bill that sought to “prevent any funds from being spent to purchase, use, or transfer cluster munitions until the rules of engagement have been adopted by the Department of Defense to ensure that such munitions will not be used in or near any concentration of civilians, be it permanent or temporary, such as inhabited parts of cities or villages or in camps or columns of refugees or evacuees.”
Senator Obama voted YEA
Yeah, the world would be safer with her at the helm. Right. :rolleyes:
[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves]
Rwanda was a screwup and Clinton admits it. In Yugoslavia, his intervention stopped the genocide, and without the cost of a single American (or NATO, I believe) life. Ireland you didn’t mention, but should look into (you’ll find more under George Mitchell). Middle East - had the treaty right in front of Arafat, waiting for his signature; nobody could do more. Your point?
[/QUOTE]
No, what’s your point? BILL CLINTON ISN’T RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT, so why the fuck are we reminiscing about how wonderful things were during his tenure, as if that has FUCK ALL to do with a HILLARY Clinton presidency?
Please.
And make no mistake, I voted for him twice.
[QUOTE=MissGypsy]
It’s hardly uncommon for a woman to change her surname after marrying, nor to keep her maiden name and add on her husband’s name. I’ve done it, with no political motive at all. Many women have gone by different names, at different points in their lives.
That’s an issue that would never be mentioned about a man running for office, so I think it’s unfair to bring such gender-based social practices into question. Sheesh, it’s not as if she had an alias. 
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, it’s not as if her real name is Leslie King or something.
[QUOTE=omgzebras]
My point is that there wasn’t peace under Bill Clinton. There wasn’t anything close to peace.
[/QUOTE]
I’m not sure, are you saying the US has to guarantee world peace, now? In order for a US president to be considered a success he or she has to preside over an entirely peaceful planet?