OT: 2008 Elections

[Jackdog]

I believe she does get extra criticism, maybe not so much because she's a woman, but because she is a female politician who refuses to act like a female politician.

As compared to who? Margaret Thatcher? Eleanor Roosevelt? Indira Gandhi? Benazir Bhutto? She holds up like a fart in the wind compared to those women. They were real leaders. Not a wanna be Crier-in-Chief.

She has brokedown twice on the campaign trail. How many more times will we have to sit through Hillary's teary-eyed confessions? My God if elected president how will she handle the day to day pressure's of the job? Howard Dean let out a yell and lost his ass. Hillary cries and get's votes. I don't get it.

I am not picking with you brother,just want some comparisons.

[greggsand]

I can't stand Bush, but Hillary Clinton nauseates, enrages and infuriates me 10 times more than him.

Take care,
PK

Yikes, I wouldn't go that far.

[RobVarak]

She's polarizing for who she is, nothing particular that she's done.

Well that's only appropriate given the Democrats focus on identity politics in this primary

Seriously, the animosity is no less appropriate because it stems from her personality rather than her resume. Politics is a hell of a lot more than lining up CV's and voting records and casting a vote for the one that better matches one's views. Some may see that as unfortunate, but it's the way it is.

[pk500]

Are there any studies or comparisons of Clinton's "output" as a senator compared to others, to support the claim that she's done little to nothing as a Senator?

Clinton doesn't rank well in this GovTrack.us chart of U.S. representatives who have brought to the floor the greatest number of bills that were later enacted:

http://www.govtrack.us/data/us/110/repstats/enacted.xml

A whopping two successful bills enacted during her Senate tenure, which started in 2001. She sponsored 352 bills during that time period. Obama has had one bill successfully enacted, but his Senate tenure started in 2005. He has sponsored 129 bills during that time period.

McCain ranks significantly better than both, with 12 sponsored bills successfully enacted since 1997. He has sponsored 403 bills during that time period.

Take care,
PK

[wco81]

She's polarizing for who she is, nothing particular that she's done.

Well that's only appropriate given the Democrats focus on identity politics in this primary

Seriously, the animosity is no less appropriate because it stems from her personality rather than her resume. Politics is a hell of a lot more than lining up CV's and voting records and casting a vote for the one that better matches one's views. Some may see that as unfortunate, but it's the way it is.

Kind of like "they hate us for who we are" rather than "what we've done?"

[pk500]

She's polarizing for who she is, nothing particular that she's done.

Well that's only appropriate given the Democrats focus on identity politics in this primary

Seriously, the animosity is no less appropriate because it stems from her personality rather than her resume. Politics is a hell of a lot more than lining up CV's and voting records and casting a vote for the one that better matches one's views. Some may see that as unfortunate, but it's the way it is.

Kind of like "they hate us for who we are" rather than "what we've done?"

That's because neither Democratic candidate has done much during their Senate tenures, as the stats to which I linked above attest.

Take care,
PK

[RobVarak]

Getting back to the other track in this thread, the Exxon profits. An interesting analysis of the amount of tax revenue generated by Exxon last year.

http://seekingalpha.com/article/63131-e ... tors_picks

The upshot? Exxon paid $30 billion in taxes for 2007. They've paid an average of $27 billion over the last 3 years.

In other words, this one company has paid more taxes than the entire bottom 50% of taxpayers.

Another reason that soaking the rich is better sloganeering than policy.

[kevinpars]

I agree that Thatcher was a 'real' leader, but I certainly would not say that she was a 'real good' leader. She was certainly strong, but in my opinion not in a good way.

My concern with Obama is that he might have a lot of ideas, but how is he going to get them through congress? It is real easy to throw out ideas but not so easy to do anything with them once you are in power. After 8 years of Bush we don't need 4 years of a Carter type administration.

I would also have to say that there is evidence that a certain percentage of the white male population has stated in exit polls that they are more comfortable voting for a minority than voting for a woman. That doesn't surprise me a bit.

I am no big fan of Clinton, but she could cry every day she is in office as long as the price of gas doesn't triple and the the national debt doesn't grow like mold on wet bread and we don't get plan any more military invasions without an exit policy.

[wco81]

Hate started long before she even started in the Senate.

Probably barely after Bill took office in '93.

Long before the health care thing (as if that's a reason to hate someone), they were sniping at her allegedly firing long-time White House staffers and so on.

Whitewater was also very early on.

If you want to hate people for who they are, you might as well hate Chelsea for being their daughter, as some NRO columnist did once upon a time.

You might as well hate the Bush twins because of her father too.

Hilary Hilton's biggest crime appears to be marrying Bill. I don't know too much about their political enemies back in Arkansas but apparently some of them followed the Clintons when they reached the White House.

[Jared]

http://www.govtrack.us/data/us/110/repstats/enacted.xml

A whopping two successful bills enacted during her Senate tenure, which started in 2001. She sponsored 352 bills during that time period. Obama has had one bill successfully enacted, but his Senate tenure started in 2005. He has sponsored 129 bills during that time period.

McCain ranks significantly better than both, with 12 sponsored bills successfully enacted since 1997. He has sponsored 403 bills during that time period.

That's a bit misleading. If you go to the site, they have the raw statistics, including means for each member of Congress. For enacted bills, the mean is 2.51 bills per congressman. Clinton's two successful bills are right below the mean. And as for McCain, he did have more bills enacted...but note that the top 15 congressmen on that list are Republicans. It only makes sense that Republicans would have more bills enacted, since they controlled the White House and Congress for six years (whereas I don't think there was a time period where the Democrats held both during the sample held at this site).

As for other statistics, Clinton actually ranks high. For example, with bills introduced, Clinton is in the top 10, five standard deviations above the mean.

http://www.govtrack.us/data/us/110/reps ... oduced.xml

And for bills co-sponsored, she's also above the average:

http://www.govtrack.us/data/us/110/reps ... ponsor.xml

[Jared]

She has brokedown twice on the campaign trail. How many more times will we have to sit through Hillary's teary-eyed confessions? My God if elected president how will she handle the day to day pressure's of the job? Howard Dean let out a yell and lost his ass. Hillary cries and get's votes. I don't get it.

I am not picking with you brother,just want some comparisons.

Hilary Clinton is not the only politician to show tears and/or get choked up in public. Bush has choked up in public multiple times, as has Romney and other politicians. Are you saying that if someone shows tears in public, they're incapable to be president?

[greggsand]

The fact someone had a tough time getting bills passed in the Bush-era has ZERO impact on my vote.

[Brando70]

As compared to who? Margaret Thatcher? Eleanor Roosevelt? Indira Gandhi? Benazir Bhutto? She holds up like a fart in the wind compared to those women. They were real leaders. Not a wanna be Crier-in-Chief.

Funny you mention Eleanor Roosevelt, JD. This is from her obituary in the New York Times:

The esteem in which Mrs. Roosevelt was held in this country was immense, despite intense criticism that some observers held stemmed from persons who differed politically and ideologically with her husband. She was accused of stimulating racial prejudices, of meddling in politics, talking too much, being too informal and espousing causes critics felt a mistress of the White House should have left alone. She even became what she called a "phony issue" in her husband's campaigns for re-election.

Sound familiar?

Seriously, though, the Clinton crying issue illustrates a point. Look at sports. How many football players have teared up from stress or disappointment? Yet we don't doubt their ability to get back out and kick someone's ass. I've seen tough executives cry at their retirement parties and not be seen as wimps. The second Clinton incident came not from stress, but from a ceremony at her alma mater where she got a little nostaligic and emotional. I don't see how that's a sign of weakness. McCain is infamous for losing his s*** with people, yet that's not seen as a problem. Given the absolute avalanche of crap that's been thrown at Hillary Clinton over the years, the fact that she's teared up a bit a couple times on the campaign trail doesn't make me question her fortitude.

And notice that none of those female politicians are Americans (with Mrs. Roosevelt not being a politician). I think we still struggle a little with the concept of strong women in leadership roles. I've seen it in the business world, where a woman who manages aggressively is a b*tch while a man who manages aggressively is just aggressive. My point is if you took Hillary's accomplishments and behavior and transferred it into a man not named Clinton, those criticisms would have a completely different tone.

[FatPitcher]

She has brokedown twice on the campaign trail. How many more times will we have to sit through Hillary's teary-eyed confessions? My God if elected president how will she handle the day to day pressure's of the job? Howard Dean let out a yell and lost his ass. Hillary cries and get's votes. I don't get it.

I am not picking with you brother,just want some comparisons.

Hilary Clinton is not the only politician to show tears and/or get choked up in public. Bush has choked up in public multiple times, as has Romney and other politicians. Are you saying that if someone shows tears in public, they're incapable to be president?

Depends on what you're crying about.

Anyway, the real reason I don't like her is that she's nanny-stater to the core. It doesn't take a village, or a government, to raise a child. It takes good parents. Society doesn't have collective responsibilities, individuals do. Paying taxes to fund government social programs is not a virtue ("virtue" implies you have a choice); volunteering your time and money to help people is. She wants to force her moral code down people's throats just as much as anyone on the Republican side does--they're just a different set of morals.

[Naples39]

I can't speak for JackD, but I think part of the tears thing with Hillary is that her tears boosted her campaign. Yes, candidates like Romney have teared up, as have athletes and whatnot, but usually we just sigh and we move on. Many believe that her tears actually galvanized female voters in NH, which would be a clear case of Hillary receiving special treatment from female voters simply because she is a woman.

My point is if you took Hillary's accomplishments and behavior and transferred it into a man not named Clinton, those criticisms would have a completely different tone.

I agree with this statement, but also still firmly believe that if she were a man without the Clinton name her campaign would never have gotten of the ground in the first place.

[webdanzer]

I think we still struggle a little with the concept of strong women in leadership roles. I've seen it in the business world, where a woman who manages aggressively is a b*tch while a man who manages aggressively is just aggressive. My point is if you took Hillary's accomplishments and behavior and transferred it into a man not named Clinton, those criticisms would have a completely different tone.

I agree with this, and in fact I believe there was actually a survey or study done that showed this very thing, where people saw certain traits relating to power and leadership as negative qualities for a woman but positive for a man.

[Jackdog]

She has brokedown twice on the campaign trail. How many more times will we have to sit through Hillary's teary-eyed confessions? My God if elected president how will she handle the day to day pressure's of the job? Howard Dean let out a yell and lost his ass. Hillary cries and get's votes. I don't get it.

I am not picking with you brother,just want some comparisons.

Hilary Clinton is not the only politician to show tears and/or get choked up in public. Bush has choked up in public multiple times, as has Romney and other politicians. Are you saying that if someone shows tears in public, they're incapable to be president?

Dependes on the leader and what they are shedding tears about. Bush has showed emotion in dealing with dead soldiers families and wounded troops. I understand why. He sent us there. He has had to deal with 9/11 and Katrina as well. Hilary got teary eyed at an introduction and when she found her voice in New Hampshire.

Do I think she's capable to lead this country through some very hard times without losing it? No.To quote Dave "Mudcat" Saunders."I don't want her to be crying while we're dealing with Iran, North Korea, and Pakistan and all that stuff."

I want a leader,not someone ready for Dr Phil's couch.

You know what? Maybe if she shed some tears over her vote to go into Iraq I would cut her a little slack. Otherwise it look's like she playing to the women in this country that buy her bullshit. If she wins the ticket my vote will go elsewhere.

[Jackdog]

And notice that none of those female politicians are Americans (with Mrs. Roosevelt not being a politician). I think we still struggle a little with the concept of strong women in leadership roles. I've seen it in the business world, where a woman who manages aggressively is a b*tch while a man who manages aggressively is just aggressive. My point is if you took Hillary's accomplishments and behavior and transferred it into a man not named Clinton, those criticisms would have a completely different tone.

I don't feel that way at all. I have answered to some damn good women in my military life. You know what made them so good? They were such great leaders I never thought of them in a gender sense. Clinton doesn't pull that out of me in the least bit.

[Inuyasha]

The reason Obama is losing to her is because he cannot match the trickery and scum of the Clinton's. I like the fact that he is not going the cheap route and that his arguments against clinton have been very professional. But it's politics and it's a dog-eat-dog world and if you can't hit the clintons back at their own game, you're done.

[pk500]

Many believe that her tears actually galvanized female voters in NH, which would be a clear case of Hillary receiving special treatment from female voters simply because she is a woman.

To be fair, should Obama bleach his skin because he's receiving special treatment from black voters because he's black? Should Huckabee renounce his past as a minister because he's getting special treatment from evangelical voters?

I don't care if Hillary cries. I don't care if she's perceived as aggressive or as a b*tch. I do care about how she seems to be running for president to satisfy her need for power first, with the needs of the nation coming second. It should be vice-versa.

I agree with this statement, but also still firmly believe that if she were a man without the Clinton name her campaign would never have gotten of the ground in the first place.

True, because she never would have been elected as a senator from New York with less than a year's residency here without that last name. Same with Bobby Kennedy, one of the original carpetbaggers in the Empire State.

Take care,
PK

[Naples39]

To be fair, should Obama bleach his skin because he's receiving special treatment from black voters because he's black? Should Huckabee renounce his past as a minister because he's getting special treatment from evangelical voters?

I don't care if Hillary cries. I don't care if she's perceived as aggressive or as a b*tch. I do care about how she seems to be running for president to satisfy her need for power first, with the needs of the nation coming second. It should be vice-versa.

I just don't like the idea of having your cake and eat it too. If people here were saying we were being too hard on Obama just because he's black, or being too hard on Huckabee just because he's a minister, then I'd make the same point I made about Hillary. If you're taking all the 'benefits' of being a woman, black, christian...etc, you can't cry foul when people give you a hard time for the very same reason.

[Brando70]

I don't feel that way at all. I have answered to some damn good women in my military life. You know what made them so good? They were such great leaders I never thought of them in a gender sense. Clinton doesn't pull that out of me in the least bit.

Your comment made me think of Jack Nicholson in A Few Good Men: "Ever get a blow job from a commanding officer?"

And I also want to clarify I wasn't painting you with the "trouble with women" brush. I don't think any of us here have that problem.

[dougb]

It looks to me like the one chief criticism of Hillary is that she's too ambitious. That's a trully remarkable criticism given that she is a politician. It's not something I've ever heard levelled at any of her male opponents or of too many male politicians in general. The current President had far less relevant experience and had (and continues to have) a shocking lack of intellect - and yet I don't recall anyone criticising him for showing 'ambition'. So I really have to wonder if this criticism, and the general level of vitriol directed at her, really at root is because she's a woman - and worse a Clinton woman!

I don't think she can win a Presidential election whatever she does or however she acts. Too many in the Media are gunning for her and attitudes amongst the public are too entrenched. The Democrats would probably be well advised to pick Obama - and start tying McCain to Bush as closely as possible. Posting the picture of him hugging Bush everywhere would be a pretty good starting point - so they probably won't do that.

Best wishes,

Doug

[Jackdog]

I don't feel that way at all. I have answered to some damn good women in my military life. You know what made them so good? They were such great leaders I never thought of them in a gender sense. Clinton doesn't pull that out of me in the least bit.

Your comment made me think of Jack Nicholson in A Few Good Men: "Ever get a blow job from a commanding officer?"

And I also want to clarify I wasn't painting you with the "trouble with women" brush. I don't think any of us here have that problem.

I didn't think that for a second.

[JRod]

It looks to me like the one chief criticism of Hillary is that she's too ambitious. That's a trully remarkable criticism given that she is a politician. It's not something I've ever heard levelled at any of her male opponents or of too many male politicians in general. The current President had far less relevant experience and had (and continues to have) a shocking lack of intellect - and yet I don't recall anyone criticising him for showing 'ambition'. So I really have to wonder if this criticism, and the general level of vitriol directed at her, really at root is because she's a woman - and worse a Clinton woman!

I don't think she can win a Presidential election whatever she does or however she acts. Too many in the Media are gunning for her and attitudes amongst the public are too entrenched. The Democrats would probably be well advised to pick Obama - and start tying McCain to Bush as closely as possible. Posting the picture of him hugging Bush everywhere would be a pretty good starting point - so they probably won't do that.

Best wishes,

Doug

That's not it although some people claim that she's too ambitious.

As First Lady she was trying to do things that she wasn't elected to do. It's great she wanted to offer universal health care, but the problem was and America hate this in politics, if you aren't elected to get too involved in policy.

I'm not saying the first lady should be in charge of decorating the White House but Americans, and I believe rightfully so, are bothered when the unelected try to assume power they didn't rightfully earn.

The second thing about Hilary is this, if she wasn't a Clinton would she even be Senator or candidate for President. What I mean by that is, what has she done to get this far. It's not like she was a PTA mom and wife, worked as a lawyer in Hope, Ark. She raised up through the ranks with support from her husband, was elected to a state seat, then Governor or Senator and now is seeking the office of President.

She is here because of Bill. She was elected Senator of New York because her husband was President. She's not a candidate for President because her husband in popular.

That's the hypocrisy of the whole thing. What has she done to earn the right to run for president? Ambitious is one thing. She's here because of Bill.