Neither did Hillary, but FYI. Condi DID go behind closed doors to secretly plan an illegal war, concoct lies to sell it and to abet the unprovoked slaughter of tens of thousands of innocent human beings for motivations so cynically political and pecuniary as to border on depravity.
Actually, HRC had all the standing she needed. She was appointed by the president as was his prerogative.
I’m not sure if “smug” is the right word. All the Bushies have a certain inate level of arrogance and smugness but those characteristics do not seem extraordinarily prominent in Rice. The lefty perception of her is more that she’s a toady and a sell out. Someone who had talent and the potential to be historically significant but has chosen to throw it in the garbage by subordinating herself to a man vastly inferior to her in intellect, talent and ability. It’s like watching Eric Clapton roadie for Michael Bolton.
Frankly, I think the position of President of the United States is so powerful and complex, both in terms of domestic and international politics, that I think the first spouse, regardless of sex, should just shut the fuck up and smile. If their job is in any way important, there’s no way they’re going to be able to perform it without benefitting in some way from the elected SO’s position. And it’s also likely that the first significant other’s (FSO’s) business and political interests are going to trump the interests of the 250+ million other people the elected partner is supposed to be representing.
Obviously, there’s a continuum here: is the FSO is a chef? An engineer? A doctor? Probably OK to keep doin’ what they’re doing. Is the FSO a CEO? A senator? Head of a charity that employees lobbyists? Probably best to take a four-year break and smile at the cameras.
Just my humble opinion.
Because she’s not just any woman (or man), she’s the first lady (or man). Note the thread title: it says “Why is Hillary Clinton so hated?” Hillary Clinton was a first lady, and during that period she drew a lot of flack. Also, note pretty much all the other posts in this thread, which also involve the position of first lady. Hell, look at the sentence right before this one, which you wrote, and is also about the first lady.
See any patterns?
Why yes, that’s right: they’re talking about the first lady. Not just any woman. The first lady.
You know I have a high regard for you, Dio. I’m afraid we’re just going to have to agree to disagree on each of these points.
While it’s true she wasn’t doing anything illegal, that wasn’t my point. She had no standing by virtue of experience or public mandate to be attempting to foist government health onto the country. And I’m sure that many of the people who voted for Clinton originally wouldn’t have done so had they known they were electing Hillary as a virtual co-president, which is how it appeared at the beginning of Clinton’s presidency before he got smart and began to have her take a less prominent role.
A most amusing analogy, I must admit.
But Condi doesn’t seem smug or arrogant or superior in regard to other people like Hillary does. Hillary comes across to me more like the cocky, intellectual, quasi-hippie reactionary that she was in her college days. The type that is obnoxiously condescending toward – and believes herself intellectually superior to – humanity in general.
In other words, she comes across like she thinks she knows much better than everyone else what is best for them but they are too stupid and shallow to realize it.
Speaking of Republicans being comfortable with powerful women, It’s interesting that Karen Hughes was appointed an undersecretary today, with the rank of Ambassador. Her assistant is Dini Powell, a brilliant woman who also happens to speak Arabic. And Liz Cheney was appointed an undersecretary of state a coupl of weeks ago.
Under the Bush administration, the face of the United States in world affairs will be dominated by women.
A most amusing verbal slip-up in my last post. It should read “government health care,” not “government health.” “Government health” is outside the realm of possiblility for everyone.
Crystal. But it is unrealistic in the extreme to expect the position of the first lady to remain frozen and unchanging while the world and the influences that define that position change around it.
Most positions I’m aware of require that a person be hired or promoted or appointed to it in order to fill them. What we are talking about here are two different types of ‘positions.’ Wives (and husbands) of politicians do not hold a position, they are in a position: that of being married to someone who was elected to do a certain job. This does not ipso-facto give them any sort of mandate to define or fulfill some sort of ‘position’ of their own.
If a president decides to name his wife to some important post he has the right to do that (and to suffer whatever consequences, good or bad, that result), but the first lady or senator’s wife or mayor’s husband does not hold any ‘position’ that may or may not be fulfilled at their whim, and/or in whatever manner suits their own purpose.
You’re dead wrong about her chances. Many objections to her will be dismissed with specious accusations of sexism, as Maureen has done in this thread. Furthermore, if she can convince Bush Democrats like Glenn Reynolds that she’ll be tough on terrorism and effective on homeland security (and she’s already moving in that direction), they’ll return to the fold in a minute. Since these are the people that tipped the last election for Bush (definitely not the anti-gay marriage or pro-life people), she’ll win. It really is that simple.
Unless this is some kind of spontaneous misinformation campaign. (Sheer speculation on my part.)
To restate what I said in the linked thread, of course she’ll at least seek the nomination. New York is the route Bobby Kennedy took. Do you seriously think the Dems ran her in New York because they thought she was really the best candidate to represent the state? Please.
SA, I agree. I don’t think it’s specifically a position. I think metacom is arguing that it IS, and that the first lady should not have any position beyond being first lady. Please see this part of his post:
My question was, why should Hillary have given up her career? Because she was in a position to use her influence to get legislation passed? That’s every politician. Please look to our vice president and tell me Halliburton isn’t benefitting from the current state of affairs. Was it ethical? More difficult. Certainly there are conservatives who would say yes, just as there are liberals who feel Cheney’s using his position to advantage his company is unethical.
So, yes, I believe that a first spouse should be able to continue their careers, even if that career is politics.
And, rowrrbazzle, I don’t think it’s entirely sexist at all. I’m sure her policies had just as much to do with it, but I do think that the traditional view of how a first lady should act played a very large role.
rowrr, respectfully, I think you’re high. “Family values” was the number one sentiment reflected at the exit polls by a long shot. That has nothing to do with homeland security and everything to do with gay marriage.
Lots and lots of folks thought Kerry was a lock. Look what happened. I firmly believe the easiest way to guarantee a Repub victory in 08 is to run Hillary. And unfortunately, that’s probably exactly what will happen.
Well, I’m not, and that’s not respectful, but what the heck, it’s the Pit.
I don’t know the exact poll questions asked, so I can’t argue for or against them. But the exit polls also said Kerry was winning. The problem is you trust those inaccurate polls (perhaps because they’re telling you what you want to hear). Unless, of course, you think that indicates vote fraud, in which case present the evidence.
In addition to Glenn Reynolds, you have Jeff Jarvis and Andrew Sullivan. The last two were going to vote for Bush all along just because of terrorism. They did change their minds at the last minute. And there’s former The Nation columnist, Christopher Hitchens. Although he’s not a US citizen, he was outspoken in support of Bush because of terrorism and even resigned from The Nation because he did not agree with their stance, even though his position on all other issues is in line with The Nation.
She’s outspoken about being opinionated and unapologetic.
She’s opinionated about being unapologetic and outspoken.
She’s… (Geez, sometimes this stuff just writes itself! )
Soooooo…you’re just ignoring my response to you because you can’t answer it, or because you think ridiculing my original assertions will discount my more recent posts? Oh, WTF, whatever works for GW, huh?
I just opened this thread and haven’t gotten past this post, yet. So it may have been covered.
Ike, go fuck yourself. Ban me if you want in your lordly position, but you’re a piece of shit saying this. You’re either 1.) Trying for a dig on one of America’s most beloved President, or 2.) trying for an Alzheimer’s dig. Either way, fuck you. It’s cute and meaningless when a poster says this shit. It’s another when an SDMB “power” strolls in to say it.
Fuck you. And fuck you for sucking me into the world of those that have respected you for so long.
Bwaaaa haaaa haaaa haaa! You’re kidding, right? Rice has done more spinning than the teacup ride at Disneyland. There hasn’t been a word out of her mouth that Bush didn’t tell her to say. Not that I blame her; she’s no dummy, and being loyal is how you keep your job in the Bush Admin.
Putting ones career on hold for a while isn’t the same as giving it up, especially in the social class that presidents tend to come from. It’s not like she’s a corporate wage slave whose resume is gonna be outdated after a haitus.
Argumentum ad populum. Everyone may do it but that doesn’t make it right.
Where do you get “alzheimer’s dig”? Reagan was routinely pilloried as a hands-off, out-of-touch President, leaving the details of his policies to his minions.
And I don’t recall the “most beloved” thing; I suspect that’s a selective take from the coverage of his death.
A most amusing analogy, I must admit.