Hillary has a new position on SSM: http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/15/politics/hillary-clinton-same-sex-marriage/index.html
BTW, has anyone noticed that SNL is really going for the jugular in their portrayals of Clinton? As a conservative, I usually notice they are meaner to Republican candidates, but the last skit with Clinton was just… geez. That was up there with the Palin impersonations.
I don’t think “massive comical ambition” is seen as negatively as “massive comical stupidity and ignorance”.
The inherent sexism involved is already shining through. Everything Hillary is being castigated for by the right wing (and SNL) is present in pretty much every MALE politician in the history of the world, but it’s not presented as some kind of extraordinary disqualification for THEM.
Yes, she wants to be President. Duh. What candidate doesn’t?
She’s not being mocked for being stoopid, as Palin was, but for being overambitious, out of touch, awkward in her campaign style (“Citizens! You will vote for me, and I will be your leader!”), and not entirely honest. I might end up voting for her, but this seems like fair (and non-sexist) play to me.
Overambitious? What person who decides to run for president ISN’T overly ambitious? Is she supposed to say “Yeah, I’m running but you know - it’s ok if you don’t vote for me and stuff.”
Seriously. How does the label “overambitious” have any meaning whatsoever when referring to people who are in politics? Or is it a term reserved for women that are in politics?
It’s meaningful when the candidate does not have a clearly-articulated vision for what she wants to accomplish as president. GHW Bush was dinged for not having “the vison thing,” and so was Bob Dole. Heck, so was Romney.
Go to Rand Paul’s website, and there’s a section explaining where he stands on various issues. Go to Ted Cruz’s and there’s a section explaining his campaign themes … light on specifics, but you can clearly get the gist of what he’s for and against. Go to Hillary’s website, and there’s a place to give money, a place to volunteer, and a bio that talks about her life and has grandmother pictures. Not a word about what policies she advocates, what her priorities are … apparently, you should just give/volunteer/vote for her because she’s Hillary.
That looks like a mentality of “I want to be president so that I can be president.” It turns people off, and it’s what the SNL skit was playing on.
Just so, furt. Thanks. Ambition without good purpose is what rubs people the wrong way.
In my mind, her entire purpose is to prevent a Republican from getting into the White House. That’s pretty much all she has to do for my vote.
Ed Kennedy got dinged for the same thing. A politician with a “name” is often just someone running because they think it’s their time. Ed Kennedy got asked why he wanted to be President, couldn’t give a satisfactory answer. Jeb Bush will get the same treatment.
O’Malley dings Hillary on gay marriage: http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/17/politics/omalley-attacks-clinton-gay-marriage/index.html
Good article on O’Malley and what makes him better than Clinton:
It’s a convincing case, if anyone’s listening.
If O’Malley runs, I may well vote for him in the primary (I haven’t decided yet). I will enthusiastically vote for either one (or any other Democrat that has the slightest chance) over any of the Republicans with a chance.
I don’t see what’s convincing by that shallow list of platitudes and promises to “get things done”, even though they hit all the right notes. He does have the makings of a fine running mate, though.
If you actually read how he answers questions and how he accomplished things as governor, he gets far more into the specifics of how to govern than any of his opponents on either side ever will. That matters more than ideology, because good practices, like bad practices, tend to carry over into succeeding administrations. O’Malley is WAY too liberal for me, but for me competence, honesty, and ability matter more in a President than ideology. Ideology matters more in Congress, where my guys are running things and will probably continue to run things.
Yes, we *know *you’d be happy to vote for him, if only he weren’t a Democrat.
Your concern is noted and filed.
It’s a bit early yet.
That’s what annoys me about the process. THe longshot candidates usually publish their ideas early, whereas the front runners wait as long as possible. But the campaigning is just so pointless and empty while they don’t have anything to run on. It’s all sizzle and no steak.
Several interviews with O’Malley today on NPR.org. IMHO he’s a little too cagey about Hillary and why he’s a better candidate.