# Ok, all joking aside, they're not REALLY going to run Hillary, are they? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 23, 2007, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-all-joking-aside-theyre-not-really-going-to-run-hillary-are-they/409140 "2007-06-23T17:43:49Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 17\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![Sarahfeena](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sarahfeena/32/519_2.png) [@Sarahfeena](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sarahfeena)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2007, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-all-joking-aside-theyre-not-really-going-to-run-hillary-are-they/409140/161 "2007-06-25T17:01:47Z")
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton] You know, if Clinton gets the Dem nomination, and Giuliani gets the Pub nomination, and Bloombergs makes an independent bid, the American people will have a choice between three New Yorkers! :eek: [/QUOTE] Now THAT scares me. ---
**Author:** ![Sarahfeena](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sarahfeena/32/519_2.png) [@Sarahfeena](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sarahfeena)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2007, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-all-joking-aside-theyre-not-really-going-to-run-hillary-are-they/409140/162 "2007-06-25T17:06:29Z")
[QUOTE=Zoe] A large percentage of the poor are children. They are not eligible for disability. Did you feed any homeless people within the last month? It kind of makes you appreciate family values in a different way. [/QUOTE] I never understand what kind of “gotcha” game you are trying to play when you ask this question about feeding the homeless. I work with organizations that help feed and house the homeless. In the past week have I? No, but I have plenty of experience doing so. It has not made me change my mind in the slightest that there needs to be serious welfare reform in this country. If the government could run the system the way the private organizations I work with do, we would have, IMO, a lot more success in getting people back on their feet. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2007, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-all-joking-aside-theyre-not-really-going-to-run-hillary-are-they/409140/163 "2007-06-25T17:31:44Z")
Maybe I’m wrong about this, but I don’t really pay much attention when presidential candidates talk about welfare and such. Doesn’t most of the $$ spent on welfare (outside of Social Security) originate in the states? And anything a president would want to do at the national level has to get through Congress. It might sound nice for them to say “I’m going to do this and I’m going to do that”, but the fact is they really can’t do much once they get into office. ---
**Author:** ![Sunrazor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/2acd7d/32.png) [@Sunrazor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sunrazor)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2007, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-all-joking-aside-theyre-not-really-going-to-run-hillary-are-they/409140/164 "2007-06-25T17:33:34Z")
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton] Hillary Clinton **is** the most centrist of the Dem front-runners; that is why I find her unacceptable. [/QUOTE] As a registered Democrat, this is exactly why I find her the most attractive candidate. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2007, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-all-joking-aside-theyre-not-really-going-to-run-hillary-are-they/409140/165 "2007-06-25T17:42:12Z")
HRC is a New Yorker, a woman and a Republican lite. I have serious doubts about her ability to win in a general election against the white male scumbags the Republicans will likely nominate, just on general prejudicial grounds in the case of her feminity and New Yorkerness, and on inability to motivate the Dem base because she’s just too damn … Republican. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2007, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-all-joking-aside-theyre-not-really-going-to-run-hillary-are-they/409140/166 "2007-06-25T17:45:33Z")
If she were Al Gore’s running mate, would that help or hurt the ticket? ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2007, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-all-joking-aside-theyre-not-really-going-to-run-hillary-are-they/409140/167 "2007-06-25T17:46:34Z")
[QUOTE=John Mace] Let’s not forget that even in the US some of our worst breeches of civil liberties were during wartime. Just ask the Japanese-Americans. The press was censored, many goods were rationed, and much of the population of young men was conscripted into the service. Let’s not hold that up as an example of something we’d like to return to. [/QUOTE] Some of our worst breaches of civil liberties were during the Gilded era of libertarian idealism! Jim Crow laws! The KKK! Let’s not hold that up as an example of something we’d like to return to. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2007, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-all-joking-aside-theyre-not-really-going-to-run-hillary-are-they/409140/168 "2007-06-25T17:48:11Z")
[QUOTE=John Mace] Maybe I’m wrong about this, but I don’t really pay much attention when presidential candidates talk about welfare and such. Doesn’t most of the $$ spent on welfare (outside of Social Security) originate in the states? And anything a president would want to do at the national level has to get through Congress. It might sound nice for them to say “I’m going to do this and I’m going to do that”, but the fact is they really can’t do much once they get into office. [/QUOTE] [Welfare](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_assistance_in_the_United_States) is partly federally, partly state funded, but at any rate very sensitive to policies set at the federal level. That’s why we speak of **Clinton’s** welfare reforms. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2007, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-all-joking-aside-theyre-not-really-going-to-run-hillary-are-they/409140/169 "2007-06-25T17:50:15Z")
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton] If she were Al Gore’s running mate, would that help or hurt the ticket? [/QUOTE] Who’s on top? If Gore-Clinton, she adds little. Her strength would be in states that Gore won in 2000 anyway. If Clinton-Gore, he definitely helps with his newfound elder statesmen/ respected environmentalist status. I’m sure there have been party tickets where the candidates disliked each other more, but not for many years. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2007, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-all-joking-aside-theyre-not-really-going-to-run-hillary-are-they/409140/170 "2007-06-25T17:58:35Z")
[QUOTE=John Mace] Oh, a planned economy can “work”. It’s just that we’ve never seen one that works as well as the unplanned types. It ain’t for lack of trying, guys, because it’s been tried many, many times. [/QUOTE] It would better to say it works for some purposes but not others. Stalinism is very good for heavy capital formation. Russia, starting from a barely developed industrial base under the tsars, which was heavily damaged by WWI and the Russian Civil War, was industrialized enough by 1939 to go toe-to-toe with Hitler’s Germany. I don’t believe for a moment that could have happened if Russia had had a free-market system during that period. OTOH, central planning is spectacularly inept at any kind of fine-tuning. From [_Economics Explained,_](http://www.amazon.com/Economics-Explained-Everything-About-Economy/dp/0684846411/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-0323301-0796122?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1182793941&sr=8-1) by Robert Heilbroner and Lester Thurow: > [@](#): > > The reason it [the Soviet system] did last [as long as it did] is that in the beginning the system very much resembled a military operation. After the Russian Revolution in 1917, Lenin confronted an almost totally disorganized society, and tried at first to build a “socialism” that was partly capitalist – private farming and private small enterprise – and partly socialist, in the form of state-owned banks and large centers of production. Russia staggered along under this mixed system for a few years, without either great success or great failure, but after Lenin’s death in 1927, Stalin took command and rapidly instituted the highly centralized system we have sketched in. > > Stalin’s methods were ferocious and bloody, but they were successful in bringing about an immense accumulation of wealth, much as did the ruthless ways of the ancient pharoahs of Egypt and emperors of Rome or China. The difference was that whereas the latter built palaces and cities, Stalin built factories, stell mills, hydroelectric plants, and railway systems – the ingredients of an industrial economy. The fact that Stalin’s Russia was strong enough to resist Hitler’s armies – and efficient enough, after its reconstruction following World War II, to impress the world with its industrial and military capabilities – shows that Soviet central planning was by no means a failure in its initial years. That is why “military socialism” may yet be a model for development efforts in the future. China is today a semi-military socialism which appears to be successfully negotiating the early stages of industrialization, much aided by a carefully supervised free market sector attached to the planned core. Hence the collapse of the Soviet system should not lead us to the snap judgment that centralized socialism is no longer on the agenda of the coming century. That is indeed likely to be the case with the North, but it is not a foregone conclusion in the troubled countries of the South. > > **THE COLLAPSE** > > But we are ahead of ourselves. After so successful a beginning, why did Soviet socialism finally break down? The answer is that it is a great deal easier to design and build the skeleton of a mighty economy than to run it. Building a steel plant requires good industrial draftsmanship, but running a steel plant requires good industrial management. Management, in turn, depends on the ability to adapt flows of production to ever-changing conditions – the unforeseen contingencies, mistakes, mismatches, shortages, and overruns that are inescapable in any complex undertaking. > > In a market system, these mistakes are repaired and remedied as soon as possible because they cost the factory or store money. Hence suppliers are told to hurry up, or to hold back on shipments, unprofitable items are canceled and profitable ones run overtime, the Yellow Pages are searched for last-minute necessities. None of this can happen in a society planned from top to bottom. When mistakes are made, they bring about a kind of gridlock in the flow of production, so that the pace of Soviet economic life production was a never-ending sequence of feast or famine, too much or too little, with no way of remedying the errors other than recasting next year’s plan or seeking the semi-illegal channels of “tolkachi” – fixers. Central planning is also not much good at innovation. No state planner ever would have conceived the Sony Walkman. (Whether that is a point for state planning or against it is debatable.) [QUOTE=John Mace] And the problem is not so much that the economic performance tends to be crappy, but you have to trample on liberty in order to keep the economy planned. [/quote] It has worked out that way under ideological Communist governments, but in principle, economic planning is not inimical to any form of liberty but economic liberty. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2007, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-all-joking-aside-theyre-not-really-going-to-run-hillary-are-they/409140/171 "2007-06-25T18:01:29Z")
[QUOTE=BobLibDem] Who’s on top? If Gore-Clinton, she adds little. Her strength would be in states that Gore won in 2000 anyway. If Clinton-Gore, he definitely helps with his newfound elder statesmen/ respected environmentalist status. [/QUOTE] Well, I’m sure the latter is out of the question. Gore has already **had** two terms as vice-president and no politician in American history, AFAIK, has ever sought a third. ---
**Author:** ![RedFury](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ec9cab/32.png) [@RedFury](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RedFury)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2007, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-all-joking-aside-theyre-not-really-going-to-run-hillary-are-they/409140/172 "2007-06-25T18:29:45Z")
[QUOTE=xtisme] _So, what you seem to be saying here is that more Hispanic’s are immigrating to Spain (a Spanish speaking nation, IIRC) than did before…but that, even though they get all those wonderful benifits by moving to Spain, and even though they are treated like dog meat here in the US (or something), they are STILL coming to the US in such numbers that Spain is ‘we are now second only to the US in number of LA immigrants’_. [/quote] Take a look at a map. See the size of Spain, then look at the size of he US. Inform yourself of the total population in both nations – and you’ll see that _proportionally_, as percentage of the overall population – just like I said – we’re now the NUMBER ONE destination for Latin American immigrants. I’m also happy to tell you that we’re ALSO the NUMBER ONE destination within the EU itself: [Spain tops destination list for EU migrants](http://www.ft.com/cms/s/81d2e520-bf90-11db-9ac2-000b5df10621.html) > [@](#): > > **Spain’s transformation from an impoverished southern European backwater into one of Europe’s most vibrant economies is confirmed by an opinion poll published on Monday that shows it is the most popular destination for Europeans thinking of working abroad.** - my highlights. Taken together both facts can only indicate that we’re doing _something_ right – welfare estate and all. > [@](#): > > _At any rate, I’m happy for you and your country. I hope things work out well for you with the huge influx of immigrants. 🙂_ Having close to a negative birth rate – as is the case in many other European nations, i.e. Italy – immigrants, to the tune of 5 million over the past 7-8 years, have only helped us grow in every possible sense. Problems a plenty, but we we seem to be more than managing then and turning them into assets. Appreciate your concern though. And likewise wish you luck with that wall across the border – I’m sure it’ll deprive others such as yourself the opportunities you’re so fond of mentioning. > [@](#): > > \*Must be doing something right… > > I’m unsure what you are trying to prove with all this. That Spain is better than the US because almost as many people want to immigrate there as here? Well, perhaps thats the case.\* Apologies if I wasn’t clear enough. But yes, you got the gist of it. And its not just Spain, there are many other nations where life is as good and.or better than the US. It’s just that one gets a bit tired of all the jingoism coming from your Great Empire. > [@](#): > > We have the better economy too. 🙂 As for the biggest guns…well, that brings up kind of a good point about what I was saying earlier. Its all about trade offs. For instance, in wonderful, marvelous Spain, your annual defense budget is (from memory) something like $8 billion (in US dollars)…while our’s is something like $600 billion. 1-Might want to look at that Atlas again. For a country our size, we have more than we need by way of National Forces, including the[6th most powerful Navy in the world](http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:pDrBTn2KFmcJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Navy+Spanish+navy&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2) (tied with Italy). Then again, our dreams of empire faded long-ago. So yes, overall, I’d say we’re quite content with both our defense expenditure and the quality of our forces. 2-By keeping our defense budget low (compared to our GNP) we’re able to provide the social net I alluded to before and unless a major power outside of NATO plans to invade us, it is well worth the trade-off. Only possible “enemy” we have in the horizon is Morocco and I am fairly sure our current forces are more than enough to handle such a threat …on their own if it comes to that. > [@](#): > > _Now, you might think thats fine…and a lot of your fellow countrymen might agree. And for you, that is the right answer. However, MY fellow countrymen (by and large) have decided that having a strong military is worth the trade offs. There IS no right or wrong way to do something…only whats right or wrong based on the feelings of the folks who actually live in the country in question._ Don’t quite agree. I do think it’s rather wrong to place your military strength ahead of your own citizen’s welfare. With what you’ve spent in the debacle in Iraq could have provided universal health care for the next decade at the very least. You really think that’s “worth it”? > [@](#): > > :rolleyes: Called that one, didn’t I? > [@](#): > > _Can you say ‘strawman’?_ How’s that a response to what we all saw in New Orleans? > [@](#): > > _Can you say ‘insult’?_ Do you really need to ask? However, that wasn’t one. It is simply an observation over the years and years of reading your posts. I mean, greed is “good” according to you, right? So where’s the insult vis-a-vis the sentence I asterisked in the article since it says the exact opposite? > [@](#): > > _Can you say ‘attempt to poison the well’?_ Can you quit spouting irrelevant fallacies and offer coherent responses? Preferably not peppered with silly emoticons. One can hardly “poison the well” in this instance – your posts are my cite. Gracias. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2007, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-all-joking-aside-theyre-not-really-going-to-run-hillary-are-they/409140/173 "2007-06-25T18:42:37Z")
[QUOTE=Ludovic] Some of our worst breaches of civil liberties were during the Gilded era of libertarian idealism! Jim Crow laws! The KKK! Let’s not hold that up as an example of something we’d like to return to. [/QUOTE] The Jim Crow south was not an example of libertarianism of any kind-- gilded or otherwise. I would say “nice try”, but it wasn’t even that. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2007, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-all-joking-aside-theyre-not-really-going-to-run-hillary-are-they/409140/174 "2007-06-25T18:48:10Z")
[QUOTE=John Mace] The Jim Crow south was not an example of libertarianism of any kind-- gilded or otherwise. I would say “nice try”, but it wasn’t even that. [/QUOTE] You’re the one who first used the word “during” as if it were dispositive. ---
**Author:** ![Sunrazor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/2acd7d/32.png) [@Sunrazor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sunrazor)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2007, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-all-joking-aside-theyre-not-really-going-to-run-hillary-are-they/409140/175 "2007-06-25T19:01:18Z")
[QUOTE=Evil Captor] HRC is a New Yorker, a woman and a Republican lite. I have serious doubts about her ability to win in a general election against the white male scumbags the Republicans will likely nominate, just on general prejudicial grounds in the case of her feminity and New Yorkerness, and on inability to motivate the Dem base because she’s just too damn … Republican. [/QUOTE] She’s anything BUT Republican! The GOP candidates are all dancing around the abortion question, while Hillary never flinches from her pro-choice stance. She learned a valuable lesson about half a loaf being better than utter starvation when the first Clinton health care reform attempt was shot to pieces; that will be near the top of the agenda for a new Clinton administration. So will purging the Justice Department of all of Karl Rove’s appointees – look for women and minorities to get the nod there, and the Patriot Act would be pretty much eviscerated on the morning of January 21st. I wouldn’t put it past her to invite the Dali Lhama to say the invocation for the National Prayer Breakfast. In the Rust Belt, I know, the unions still want their Democrats to toe the union line. That’s why it’s the Rust Belt. Out here in the West, we have a different definition of “liberal.” We liken the word to “liberty,” and we don’t see a lot of that in being dependent on a government welfare system. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2007, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-all-joking-aside-theyre-not-really-going-to-run-hillary-are-they/409140/176 "2007-06-25T19:06:35Z")
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton] It would better to say it works for some purposes but not others. Stalinism is very good for heavy capital formation. Russia, starting from a barely developed industrial base under the tsars, which was heavily damaged by WWI and the Russian Civil War, was industrialized enough by 1939 to go toe-to-toe with Hitler’s Germany. I don’t believe for a moment that could have happened if Russia had had a free-market system during that period. [/quote] When the state owns everything, it can martial tremendous resources. NK has nuclear weapons (something that eludes many countries who are seeking them), but it can’t feed its own people. If you need to get something done quickly, and you don’t care how many people you kill in the process, then a that type of economy works great-- especially if you have a capitalist economy to copy (as you note, innovation is sorely lacking in such economies). As I said, it can “work”. > [@](#): > > It has worked out that way under ideological Communist governments, but in principle, economic planning is not inimical to any form of liberty but economic liberty. There is very little liberty that doesn’t rest on economic liberty. When the state owns your breakfast, you do what your told or you don’t get breakfast. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2007, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-all-joking-aside-theyre-not-really-going-to-run-hillary-are-they/409140/177 "2007-06-25T20:08:48Z")
[QUOTE=David Simmons] Maybe everything worth saying about Hillary’s run had been said. [/QUOTE] This is the best observation in the last couple of days. Anyone who wants to start up a debate on economic philosophies (preferably with a lot fewer personal snipes) is free to do so; I’m putting a fork in this turkey. [/Moderating] [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-all-joking-aside-theyre-not-really-going-to-run-hillary-are-they/409140.md?page=8)