so…would you claim that becoming first lady/man forfeits any political rights the person had before becoming first lady/man?
I can give political speehes, I can advocate positions, I can write legislation and submit it to my senator or congressman. Would I be a full-blown succubus circumventing the Constitution?
Has Hillary done anything that I couldn’t?
I don’t understand Hillary-Hate either. I understood it back when she did things the right hated, such as her closed-door “Hillary-Care”, and her somewhat intemperate comments about the right back when she was first lady.
But jeez, that was years ago, and Hillary has shown every sign of maturing into a solid, rational senator. And it’s not all just for show, like some on the right would claim. When she ran for Senator in New York, they tried to make the ‘carpetbagger’ claim stick, saying that she wasn’t interested in New York at all, but merely in using the hapless people of the state as a springboard to the Presidency. But by most accounts, Hillary has done a damned good job for the people she represents. She works hard, she campaigns for New York issues, she travels the state. She’s made her way onto a number of high-powered committees through sheer skill, and since 9/11 she has been one of the most sober, serious people in the Democratic party.
Given that, the only argument the right can offer is, “It’s a smokescreen. It’s not the REAL Hillary - she’s just acting until she can get into the Presidency and morph back into a flaming liberal!”. This argument is not just stupid, but it’s especially annoying coming from the neo-cons, who are top-heavy with people who used to be democrats and even a few who were hardcore Marxists. It seems that it’s okay for them to change their positions, but Hillary must always remain what she was fifteen years ago.
When I see Hillary Clinton advocating things I disagree with, I’ll say so. In the meantime, I think she’s one of the best senators in the Democratic party.
Sam, you know I have all the respect for you in the world, but you are wrong in this case. The U.S. is one of the few countries on the globe that has never had a woman in power, and Hillary is a cheif example of why.
Condi Rice is a yes (wo)man. The conservatives love that she furthers their agenda while presenting a positive image (black woman in position of power). If they actually put her on the ticket in 2008, you can hand me a salt cellar and I’ll eat those words.
On top of which, I have a feeling the conservatives would take a different view of her if she were first lady, as opposed to Secretary of State. It’s not so much the woman or what she stands for; it’s the position of First Lady and how we view it.
There’s a lot of sense being spoken here. My first reaction was to FB Guy, who wrote that in his mind she was a calculating bitch who would stop at nothing etc. etc. To my mind, that describes every politician that ever walked the earth. I think there is a lot of truth to the “uppity woman” idea, that there exists a double standard: it’s “politics (or business) as usual” if men play that way, but if a woman does it she’s a “calculating bitch.”
I vaguely remember the health care debacle; I wasn’t paying attention to much of anything for most of the 90’s, heck, the 80’s too. So whoever said that the fallout from that, deserved or not, the Limbaugh stuff, for example, has stuck with her seems to be dead on.
My buddy was at Hasting Law School during some of this and he told me that not a few of his professors considered Hillary to be “the smartest trial lawyer in America.” I’m thinking brilliant and accomplished is some sort of a trigger as well. Again with the double standard. Will it ever go away?
I was in a bookstore the other day and some older dude was going off on Hillary; that’s what prompted this post.
Condi Rice is anything but a yes-woman. If anything, Bush is her yes-man. She’s immensely powerful, and has been since she first joined the administration. Her fingerprints are all over the Bush foreign policy.
Elizabeth Dole is widely liked among Republicans, and she has hinted more than once that she would like to be President (she even set up an exploratory campaign in 1999). Jeane Kirkpatrick is almost lionized by Repubicans, and she was a Democrat. There are already a number of “Condi 2008” web sites started up by grassroots Republicans. Republicans in 2005 are simply no more sexist or racist than Democrats.
Your idea that there’s something particular about the position of First Lady may be closer to the mark. I think the Hillary-hate psychology is a lot more complex than just, “she’s a powerful woman”. I think it’s not just that she’s first lady, but that back when Clinton was elected she was seen as being someone who was taking on a lot of power she wasn’t elected to have. Remember all the talk about a ‘co-presidency’? That, followed by travel-gate and then Hillary-care, made Republicans think she was a controlling power pushing the U.S. to the left, and without any right to do so or real accountability. Hillary was pretty radical back in her college days, and that didn’t help. Having those subpoena’d documents appear sitting on her coffee table didn’t help either. Republicans thought she was a machiavellian force who was crooked and sought power for its own sake.
In short, Hillary in 1993 was to the right what Karl Rove today is to the left - the mysterious shadowy figure who wields enormous power. She was the subject of just as many lame conspiracies and inflations of her importance as Rove is today, and for the same reason. Finally, when the right finally ‘got’ Clinton on the blowjob, Hillary escaped not only unscathed, but if anything with her reputation enhanced because she stood by her man and got a whole lot of sympathy. Then after Clinton was out of office, Hillary managed to get elected Senator, and now she’s a front-runner for the White House in 2008.
That’s what this is all about. Grudges, conspiracies, old battles lost. Hillary came out on top, and some on the right hate her for it. At least, that’s my take.
“Neo-cons?”
Let me ask you a question. What do you think is the difference between neoconservatives and plain old conservatives? In your view, what extra information is given by adding the modifier “neo” to the word “conservative”?
I hope you know that this will go down on your permanent record.
If you want the answer to the question about why Hillary-haters foam at the mouth, ask yourself this question:
According to John Fund of the WSJ: Former Speaker Newt Gingrich is going to make a run for President on the GOP ticket in 2008.
Think about that for a second and then reads the following 5 adjectives: Hypocrite, radical, polarizing, extremist & disaster.
Did 2 or more of those words pop into your head at the mere thought of Newt in the Oval Office? If the answer is yes - then you now know why people on the other side of the political spectrum react the way they do at the mere mention of Senator Clinton running for President.
I don’t know that it’s here now. Smugness, arrogance and superiority are a more likely trigger in my opinion when it comes to Hillary Clinton.
As has already been pointed out, Condi is smart, brilliant, and accomplished, and conservatives have no problem whatsoever with her. In fact, most conservatives regard her as one of the most highly regarded and most respected members of President Bush’s cabinet.
It’s most amusing to me how Republicans are constantly portrayed as the oppressors of women and blacks, yet more women and blacks have acheived elevated roles within Republican administrations by far than they have within Democrat administrations.
They are also much more substantive people than those generally chosen by Democrat presidents…who are much more likely to stick just any old person in a position of authority simply because of who they are, rather than their ability to do a good job in the position they’ve been given.
Republicans will appoint a Powell, Rice, Thomas, etc. because of their intelligence, character, judgement, drive, and ability to do an excellent job, as opposed to Democrats who will appoint women and blacks to such roles simply because they’re women or blacks, as illustrated by the woefully inadequate performances of the likes of Joycelyn Elders, Janet Reno and Madeleine Allbright.
I’ll admit that the carpet bagging label stuck in my brain. IIRC she used to roll around in a Yankee hat, which for some reason drove me batty. I don’t know why I don’t like her, I just don’t. However, come the election I’ll take a look at both candidates, and vote strictly on their merits.
Hopefully McCain will run.
In other words, acting just like a lot of male politicians.
On the one hand, there’s the image of the sainted “takes-a-village-to-raise-a-child” devotee of humanity, and on the other the calculating power-hungry politician who’s thought of nothing but the Presidency since before she began her Senate run. The dichotomy upsets a lot of people, who somehow still get outraged at the thought of a politician being hypocritical, not to mention a female politician. Then there’s the fear and loathing engendered by the prospect of Bill coming back to be First Philanderer, and you have the makings of a lot of foaming at the mouth.
It doesn’t take much savvy to realize that Hillary is the runaway favorite to be the Democratic nominee, that she wants it badly, and that she stands a pretty good chance of winning.
It’ll be semi-enjoyable to watch all those Bushites slowly realize that by beating Kerry, they’ve opened the door to Hillary and Bill returning to the White House for 8 years.
Yes, but the things you say are a trigger in your opinion are the same things that are triggers in most dems’ opinions regarding Condi Rice.
And it’s amusing to me that Republicans feel they need to point out all the minority groups represented within their administrations, as if they need to prove how enlightened they are. Reminds me of that Bloom County strip. “We got a woman, a jew AND a cripple!”
Sam, your last point is well taken.
Almost as amusing as running a couple of minorities with an admission that neither has the neccessary credentials to do the job…
Interesting. I wasn’t aware that Condi came off this way to the opposition. To me, there’s no comparison. Condi never went behind closed doors to try to construct in secret a vast social program that she knew full well most of the population opposed, and believed she no standing to try in the first place. But thanks for the insight.
And does Condi really seem smug and arrogant to most Dems? I have never heard or read it if so.
Yeah, but ours are substantive people who are actually accomplishing things.
Madeline Albright has accomplished quite a bit. So’s Hillary, come to that. I suppose the difference lies in what things you and I as individual citizens want to see accomplished.
I certainly see Condi as arrogant and smug. “Punish the French, ignore the Germans, forgive Russia” is hardly what I want to hear coming from our nation’s top diplomat. One would hope for diplomacy. Bluntness is certainly necessary, but that was hardly warranted.
:smack: :smack:
Bluntness is certainly necessary in specific situations, but that was hardly warranted.
I can’t speak for anyone else, but yes. Yes, she really does. Not only that, but cold and calculating in a way that Hillary can only dream of.
Both of them would probably make excellent presidents, if only Condi’s politics leant in the right direction…
Yep, fuck Condi sideways with a corroded frisbee, she’s just a little yes woman.
I loved watching her spot get blown up with that PDB.
I’m a screaming liberal who doesn’t really have a problem with Condi.
Except, you know, her policies (well, it’s hard to tell which are hers and which are Bush’s, but you know what I mean). And the continuing Bush trend of evading honest answers to tough questions.
But smug and arrogant? Only by association with the Bush admin.
Back on topic, I can’t say I paticularly like Hillary either, but I defend her from the wildest attacks. Everything from her appearance to policies she’s never held and things she’s never done seems to be fair game.
Sure, but that was all behind the scenes – in public, Nancy was just the dolting background wife for Ronnie.
IOKIARDI - “It’s OK If A Republican Does It.”
No, but the guy who was elected is not someone who’s going to get cut off from his family for four years. If he was reliant on his wife being opinionated or supportive or whatever before the election, it doesn’t make sense for him to stop using those resources afterwards.
I think we’re talking about why some people get mouth-foaming at anything Hillary Clinton does.
Sure, because IOKIARDI.
The Republican Right is not known for its sense of consistency these days.
Man, it’s a good thing you’re not sexist or anything, or you’d be calling her ‘girlie’.