Are you being deliberately obtuse? Ruthlessness is not something that’s empirically measured. If some people think of her that way, some people think of her that way. Liberal has given you a book title that indicates exactly that. Arguing that they *shouldn’t * think that way is irrelevant; it’s an entirely different conversation, one which he is declining to have with you.
All politicians plan to take things away for the common good. They need to levy taxes, ie take away your money, to pay for roads, military defence etc (I’d mention education, but I know you don’t believe in that one). They need to enact laws that take away your physical liberty if you’re convicted of a major crime. Without further specifics, there’s nothing wrong with the statement that governments take things away for the common good.
No, furt, it was Liberal who asserted that HRC is ruthless, and in some way that will help her win the presidency. The issue is not whether anyone thinks of her that way, but whether she is. (The reputation alone would harm her chances, not help them.) The book to which Liberal cited is useless in this debate unless s/he is prepared to cite and defend some specific examples from it. Just mentioning a book – while always appreciated – is not an adequate cite for a seriously contested point in this forum, we all know that; everyone who participates cannot reasonably be expected to acquire and read it.
But the point is that it’s essentially an opinion. One person’s ruthlessness is another person’s aggressive is another persons bitchy is another person’s assertive. It’s pointless to discuss it.
Cheney in '08!!
A good and ethical person must not act as you describe. A good and ethical person attempts to convince his allies that their actions are improper, and if said good and ethical person is unable to convince his allies, said person must, ethically, renounce his affiliation with such allies.
I’m not saying that McCain was ethically obliged to denounce the GOP. I’m just saying that your definition of mandatory ethical conduct is woefully inaccurate.
Sua
That’s what I tried to explain.
Person A: “Well, she throws empty Pepsi cans at starving children.”
Person B: “Oh, that’s not ruthless. That’s just tacky. I’m still waiting for a cite of ruthlessness…”
Don’t forget that they need to pay for their salaries, staffs, buildings, and perks. But let’s set all that aside and operate on your premise that there is nothing wrong with taking people’s things if you govern them — even so, most politicians are ever more… let’s say *discerning * in how they communicate their intentions. They usually couch their declaration in language that leads you to believe that what they intend while harm some other guy rather than you. You know, (Dem:) higher taxes on the rich, or (Rep:) close the tax loopholes. Etc. It takes some whopping balls to stand up and call it what it really is the way she did.
But, doesn’t that make her exactly the kind of leader we should want? A forthright, honest leader who doesn’t try to cloak her policies in euphemisms?
Certainly for me, that’s one important quality in a leader. It does, however, also matter greatly just exactly what policies they’re espousing.
Unelectable!
As a registered Democrat, I am hoping to God she does not get the nomination. Not that I have a problem with her politics–I agree with them, mostly. But her gender will be an issue with many undecided voters who somehow just don’t think a woman should be president. The effect of her running, and losing, could last for years and condemn us to four, or eight, more years of being the loyal opposition. Or perhaps something even more marginal than that.
IIRC, there are more female voters than male. Don’t you think some female Pubs might cross over for the chance to vote for a woman? (Assuming the Pub nominee were male.)
Sure, I think they would, but I don’t think that would be enough to counteract the gender effect going the other way. As much as I’d like to see the social progress a woman in the Oval Office would represent, I feel that this is not a good time to try for it.
Then I guess we’re behind India, Pakistan, the Phillipines, and all those other backward countries that have entrusted a woman with power.
Hmm.
Like it or not, HRC has an image of a ice bitch and a c*nt. Sort of like Margaret Thatcher without her warmth. Plus she has all the baggage of her husband’s tenure.
Whether or not it’s true and how that came to be are irrelevant. The perception is the reality. She’s got 2 years to turn that around.
See post #99.
Which she is totally capable of doing, and is part of the point I was making earlier with BrainGlutton.
We got off on an unfortunate tangent, but the main gist of what I was saying originally was that she has great manipulation skills. See the post about her visit to Fox News Sunday and how she had them worshipping at her feet before the show ended, all the while holding her Fox News cup high for all the world to see. She declared that there is nothing wrong with believing in God, and that opposition to abortion is not automatically an unreasonable position to hold. She knows how to punch and then take the power out of a counter-punch. Instead of accepting the role of enemy to Republicans, she spent the hour praising them, including the one sitting beside her, Lindsay Graham. As a Southern gentleman, he naturally responded with praise for her as well. She didn’t duck questions about Bill, but instead hit them head on with good humor and self-deprication. The only thing she needs to win the presidency is ganas. By the end of the show, both Mike Wallace and Senator Graham were feeding her grapes and fanning her.
With the desire, all else will fall into place.