To me she seems like an unholy cross of Margaret Thatcher and Norman Tebbit.
It amuses me when Clinton supporters tell me why I don’t like Clinton.
Vast right wing media conspiracy to discredit the Clinton’s? Yeah, that’s it.
I…must…hate…Hillary. Rush…Limbaugh…tells…me…to…hate…Hillary. Mega…Dittos…Rush
Do not forget that the Founding Fathers – most of them, anyway – never envisioned the president being elected from “among the citizenry” in the sense you are using the phrase. They carefully excluded any hereditary principle from the Constitution, but took it for granted leaders would come from the gentry, and the idea of “great-family politics” would have been utterly familiar to them and in no way incompatible with their conception of “republican” government. Washington won the presidency based on name recognition, and might have founded an informal dynasty if he had had any sons (he had only stepchildren). Since then we have had two presidents named Adams, two presidents named Harrison, two presidents named Roosevelt, and those were not coincidences. If Sirhan Sirhan had been a poor shot, we almost certainly would have had two presidents named Kennedy.
I’m not saying the Framers were right in their vision, only that we must consider historical context.
I’m not sure those two are really comparable. I can see how one could consider the Bush and Kennedy families as forming political “dynasties”. For instance, the current President Bush’s grandfather was a US Senator; his father was VP under Reagan and then President, besides having been head of the CIA before that; and his brother Jeb was a state governor.
The Clintons, on the other hand, are a same-generation married couple, neither of whom, AFAIK, has any immediate relatives who have held any elective office. Dynastically speaking, they are not in the same league with the Bushes or the Kennedys, whose multiple generations of nationally ranked politicians do qualify them IMHO to be called “dynasties”.
Whatever. :rolleyes: I see absolutely no difference between her political philosophy and the platform for the U.S. Socialist Party.
Yeah, that’s a rather curious statement. She’s centrist, if anything. She’s certainly more to the right than pretty much any other Democratic candidate. Then again, Bill Clinton got branded by the right as some sort of socialist, which makes me laugh. If Americans think Bill Clinton is socialism, then it’s not even worth arguing for me.
At any rate, this thread exemplifies exactly why I have reservations about Hillary ever being elected president. When both Democrats and Republicans look at her with suspicion, it’s baffling to me to understand how she could possibly be leading all the polls.
Well, I made the mistake of watching Rusty Limbaugh’s lousy TV show when Bubba was running in '92. It did have an effect on me. Of course, since I was raised to value a kind of political thought higher than that of the insult comic, I got quite sick of Rusty within a year or so. But I did buy into the Vince Foster murder conspiracy for a while, until finally seeing it debunked on 60 Minutes.
And I did continue to read National Review, & maintain a strong dislike of Clinton’s administration to the bitter end. Now I have more perspective, & see how much worse a POTUS could be.
It scares me that our politics is being driven by people who think dirty jokes & wild rumours are political discourse.
Here, Crafter_Man, I can help you out with this one. I’ve labeled the quoted items “Socialist Party platform” and “Hillary Clinton position” so you can tell which is which. These are just a few examples; let me know if you need more assistance.
Socialist Party platform on military/security issues:
Hillary Clinton position on military/security issues:
Could you expand on that for the benefit of ignorant Yanks? We know who Thatcher was, but I had to look up Tebbit, and nothing especially Hillarian jumped out at me.
To be fair, I strongly believe that if most people (even here!) were presented with a marriage between a normal, everyday couple with the known problems and accusations that the Clintons have had, they would seriously advise the wife to get out NOW, and question her judgment for staying (thus the reason, I think, why it comes up so often on the other side of the aisle).
Point taken (although Hugh Rodham ran for office unsuccessfully).
We should revisit this topic in a few years – all dynasties have to get their start and take hold.
I’m a member of the U.S. Socialist Party and I can tell you, nobody in it thinks that false-flag DLC-DINO corporate-ass-kissing bitch speaks for us! (I’m sure most of us will vote for HRC in 2008, of course – I certainly will – what else we gonna do?! – just as most of the Christian white-nativist social-conservative Buchananite shitbags will vote for Giuliani, as they reasonably should, even though that egregiously worse corporate ass-kisser in no way speaks for them! Politics being the art of the possible.)
If Hillary were actually a socialist I would withdraw my earlier crack about her and , rest assured, she would have my vote. Unfortunately nothing could be further from the truth. She is probably more conservative than you are.
Going by her record as posted in Wiki, I agree with her on abortion and the death penalty, and nothing else. Also, anyone who so much as breathes something about regulating video games automatically forfeits my vote for all eternity.
Because she’s denigrating the value of the normal American family, including exactly one father and one mother, all sitting in the same pew on Sunday morning, to raise our chilluns, don’tcha know. If it’s the village’s job, then it must be okay and even desirable for unmarried and queer and even non-Christian people to warp their little minds and contaminate their precious bodily fluids.
But it’s true, when you ask them for *nouns * instead of adjectives, the personal-level haters have nothing to offer beyond her futures profits. At most, we get absurdly non-fact-based statements like “Because she’s a socialist”, from those who think that’s a synonym for Democrat. They typically accuse her of being a “polarizing figure”, without considering why that is or even who’s actually doing the polarizing.
I view her politically the same way I viewed Bubba - a high-average singles hitter, able to hit home runs but not willing to take enough risk to swing for them. I’d prefer a little less caution and a little more vision from a President, but a havit of actually accomplishing a good deal of smaller things, avoiding major blunders, and being willing and able to face being wrong and make corrections is not necessarily a bad thing. The last Clinton administration could have and should have accomplished more, the next administration (whoever it is) will have to fodus on restoring what it can of what Bush has destroyed instead, and that’s going to take a combination of singles and homer hitting.
The dark side of Norman Tebbit = Prince Phillip + Skinhead thug / East End bovver boy + Vampire.
See the start of this Youtube video.
What problems? Has Bill done drugs? Beaten Hillary up? Molested a minor? Benn arrested?
If every women whose husband got something on the side divorced him, the divorce rate would be a lot worse than it is. Bill has always supported his wife, and if she is willing to put up with his faults, that’s nobody’s business but theirs.
Because it’s a statement so obvious that people are amazed she would write a book about it, let alone spout it as some kind of revelation she came up with.
Of course it takes a village. Friends, family, parents of friends, teachers, local store employees, the ice cream man and the neighborhood stray cat didn’t come out of the woodwork to help each other out just because Hilary thought it sounded like a smart thing to say.
Funny, but I still don’t get how it relates to HRC. Nor how Thatcher does – the only thing she has in common with Hillary, so far as I can see, is a set of brass ovaries.
For something so obvious, a lot of people took exception to it. I remember Bob Dole saying (I’m quoting from memory), “It doesn’t take a village, it takes a family”.
Much conservative rhetoric in the wake of the 1994 elections emphasized rights of the individual over community (and the family as the first extension beyond the individual). Historically, liberals usually come down more in favor of community than conservatives. Hillary’s phrase IMO neatly summed up the stance of liberals at the time on this never-ending debate.
It takes both a family and a village. Since conservatives at the time were speaking up a lot about the former, I think Hillary’s phrase made a very good point.