OT: 2008 Elections

[Jackdog]

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.

BINGO!

[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

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.

That's an interesting point you raise about her actions as first lady and I think your point is well taken. However, it is true that President's often utilize unelected officials to help formulate policy or provide recommendations - last year's Iraq Study Group being but one example.

Regarding your later point of her being helped by Bill - could not pretty much the same point be made by about the Elder Bush's support for his son? I can understand why people might be bothered about it to some extent - just not the level of anger and vitriol towards her it seems to create in people. In Bush's case the tenor seemed to be that his father's connections would compensate for his lack of experience - though ultimately not quite in the way that most had envisioned (Cheney). And the positive press treatment of Bush back then certainly contrasts with the negative treatment Hillary receives.

I'd really recommend a trip over to Dailyhowler.com, which provides a terrific on-going critique of the press.

Best wishes,

Doug

[Inuyasha]

You know she had major influence on policy as First Lady when she wasn't suppose to. And you know Bill will be doing the same thing as First Gentleman or whatever they are going to call him (maybe First Pimp is a better name for him).

Bill badly wants her to win so he can redeem himself in terms of legacy. He lucked out that he was followed by CoCo the Clown and it make his presidency look very good. But I think he's a little older and wiser now and knows he missed out on improving a lot of things since he was busy fighting off Ken Starr and the other ultra right wingers that hated him; and chasing skirt.

[dougb]

You know she had major influence on policy as First Lady when she wasn't suppose to. And you know Bill will be doing the same thing as First Gentleman or whatever they are going to call him (maybe First Pimp is a better name for him).

Bill badly wants her to win so he can redeem himself in terms of legacy. He lucked out that he was followed by CoCo the Clown and it make his presidency look very good. But I think he's a little older and wiser now and knows he missed out on improving a lot of things since he was busy fighting off Ken Starr and the other ultra right wingers that hated him; and chasing skirt.

You write that she wasn't supposed to influence policy - just curious as to what the basis for this belief is. Is it simply convention or is their something more explicit in the Constitution? Historically didn't Nancy Regan get fairly involved in some of the day to day activity around the Oval Office?

Best wishes,

Doug

[JRod]

That's an interesting point you raise about her actions as first lady and I think your point is well taken. However, it is true that President's often utilize unelected officials to help formulate policy or provide recommendations - last year's Iraq Study Group being but one example.

Regarding your later point of her being helped by Bill - could not pretty much the same point be made by about the Elder Bush's support for his son? I can understand why people might be bothered about it to some extent - just not the level of anger and vitriol towards her it seems to create in people. In Bush's case the tenor seemed to be that his father's connections would compensate for his lack of experience - though ultimately not quite in the way that most had envisioned (Cheney). And the positive press treatment of Bush back then certainly contrasts with the negative treatment Hillary receives.

I'd really recommend a trip over to Dailyhowler.com, which provides a terrific on-going critique of the press.

Best wishes,

Doug

On your first point, I believe Americans give the President discretion to govern how he wants. We give the President a 4 year lease. We also understand there's no realistic way to elect every policy-maker. We say, okay we elected you, you get to run it your way, don't f*** it up. I have no issue with President's bringing in their own policy makers. But remember Clinton's own administration told Bill not to appoint Hilary the head of that health care commission.

Let me put it another way, if Hilary would have taken on this issue as a first lady, not second-fiddle, it would have looked like this. She would have gone around the the country talking to folks about the importance of universal health care and urge Americans to talk to their congressman. She would have raised awareness and even brought up policy talking points. But she would have stopped short of the actual Presidential administrative actions. Basically she would have created the public support to allow Bill to put forward universal health care.

Instead she crossed over the policy side which pisses off Americans if you aren't elected or even appointed by the Senate.

Bring in your own guys/gals to formulate policy is not a big issue with Americans.


True about Bush to a point but it's different for children or siblings. Bush II wasn't in the White House trying to formulate policy. He benefited from his father but not to the extent Hilary did. And people didn't vote for W expecting HW. They are voting for Hilary to bring back the Clinton years.

Nepotism in politics is a serious problem. I personally hate it. When children or spouses of powerful electeds run on their name our country should be weary of that. But it's easier for them because they have access to fundraising sources, key people and volunteers. It's hard for an apathetic electorate to fight off nepotism in politics.

[Inuyasha]

You know she had major influence on policy as First Lady when she wasn't suppose to. And you know Bill will be doing the same thing as First Gentleman or whatever they are going to call him (maybe First Pimp is a better name for him).

Bill badly wants her to win so he can redeem himself in terms of legacy. He lucked out that he was followed by CoCo the Clown and it make his presidency look very good. But I think he's a little older and wiser now and knows he missed out on improving a lot of things since he was busy fighting off Ken Starr and the other ultra right wingers that hated him; and chasing skirt.

You write that she wasn't supposed to influence policy - just curious as to what the basis for this belief is. Is it simply convention or is their something more explicit in the Constitution? Historically didn't Nancy Regan get fairly involved in some of the day to day activity around the Oval Office?

Best wishes,

Doug

Nancy Reagan shouldn't have either.

[dougb]

That's an interesting point you raise about her actions as first lady and I think your point is well taken. However, it is true that President's often utilize unelected officials to help formulate policy or provide recommendations - last year's Iraq Study Group being but one example.

Regarding your later point of her being helped by Bill - could not pretty much the same point be made by about the Elder Bush's support for his son? I can understand why people might be bothered about it to some extent - just not the level of anger and vitriol towards her it seems to create in people. In Bush's case the tenor seemed to be that his father's connections would compensate for his lack of experience - though ultimately not quite in the way that most had envisioned (Cheney). And the positive press treatment of Bush back then certainly contrasts with the negative treatment Hillary receives.

I'd really recommend a trip over to Dailyhowler.com, which provides a terrific on-going critique of the press.

Best wishes,

Doug

On your first point, I believe Americans give the President discretion to govern how he wants. We give the President a 4 year lease. We also understand there's no realistic way to elect every policy-maker. We say, okay we elected you, you get to run it your way, don't f*** it up. I have no issue with President's bringing in their own policy makers. But remember Clinton's own administration told Bill not to appoint Hilary the head of that health care commission.

Let me put it another way, if Hilary would have taken on this issue as a first lady, not second-fiddle, it would have looked like this. She would have gone around the the country talking to folks about the importance of universal health care and urge Americans to talk to their congressman. She would have raised awareness and even brought up policy talking points. But she would have stopped short of the actual Presidential administrative actions. Basically she would have created the public support to allow Bill to put forward universal health care.

Instead she crossed over the policy side which pisses off Americans if you aren't elected or even appointed by the Senate.

Bring in your own guys/gals to formulate policy is not a big issue with Americans.


True about Bush to a point but it's different for children or siblings. Bush II wasn't in the White House trying to formulate policy. He benefited from his father but not to the extent Hilary did. And people didn't vote for W expecting HW. They are voting for Hilary to bring back the Clinton years.

Nepotism in politics is a serious problem. I personally hate it. When children or spouses of powerful electeds run on their name our country should be weary of that. But it's easier for them because they have access to fundraising sources, key people and volunteers. It's hard for an apathetic electorate to fight off nepotism in politics.

Thanks Jrod,

I think you've helped my understanding of opposition to her by making a good distinction re: the administrative role versus the public support/advocacy role. I also didn't realize that Clinton had been advised not to appoint her to the health care reform role. That certainly puts the matter in a quite different light.

Best wishes,

Doug

[JRod]

And for the record, I've misspelled Hillary Clinton every single time.

[pk500]

Nancy Reagan shouldn't have either.

True, but the difference is that Nancy Reagan never had designs on her husband's chair in the Oval Office and never used her inconsequential policy achievements as First Lady as part of a foundation for a run for president.

Too bad Hillary couldn't have used Nancy Reagan's anti-drug slogan when deciding whether to make a presidential run: Just Say No.

Take care,
PK

[greggsand]

Nancy Reagan shouldn't have either.

True, but the difference is that Nancy Reagan never had designs on her husband's chair in the Oval Office and never used her inconsequential policy achievements as First Lady as part of a foundation for a run for president.

Too bad Hillary couldn't have used Nancy Reagan's anti-drug slogan when deciding whether to make a presidential run: Just Say No.

Take care,
PK

Hey, it's not she totally tanking or anything. Someone is voting for her. I'm a Obama guy, but sh*t her "evil master plan" seems to working.

[wco81]

Nepotism?

It's more name recognition than anything else.

Such is the state of our politics.

Newcomers like Obama can make a splash but it takes time.

Obama's brand is being established now. There are still a lot of misconceptions like him being Muslim and so on.

Just heard that Obama raised $32 million in January. Clinton only raised 1/3 of that. The Clintons donated $5 million to the campaign.

Obama has a wider base of financial support -- individual contributors -- than any politician in US history.[/list]

[pk500]

The Clintons donated $5 million to the campaign.

Loaned. That's the correct terminology. She'll recoup every penny if there are sufficient funds left in the coffers either after the convention or general election, whenever her campaign ends.

Any politician would do the same. But I just wanted to point out that this wasn't a donation. It was a loan.

Take care,
PK

[JackB1]

So far EVERY PERSON I talk to that voted for Hillary says something about Bill being a big reason they like her. EVERY ONE!!! If it was just Hillary Rodham on her own, she's toast. It's unbelievable that people think just because Bill is with her, that things will be exactly like they were for him.
I agree, if you liked Bill, it's a nice "fringe benefit", but it should be one of your main reasons for choosing her.

[Jackdog]

So far EVERY PERSON I talk to that voted for Hillary says something about Bill being a big reason they like her. EVERY ONE!!! If it was just Hillary Rodham on her own, she's toast. It's unbelievable that people think just because Bill is with her, that things will be exactly like they were for him.
I agree, if you liked Bill, it's a nice "fringe benefit", but it should be one of your main reasons for choosing her.

That's all I have heard as well. Very sad.

[XXXIV]

The Clintons donated $5 million to the campaign.

Loaned. That's the correct terminology. She'll recoup every penny if there are sufficient funds left in the coffers either after the convention or general election, whenever her campaign ends.

Any politician would do the same. But I just wanted to point out that this wasn't a donation. It was a loan.

Take care,
PK

For people that never had real jobs they sure do have alot of money...

[greggsand]

If she gets the dem nomination (go Obama), and Huckabee (or Mitt) is on the other ticket (VP or Pres), it's Hillary all the way. We already have one President who claims to have conversations with God and/or Jesus before making decisions, I can do without another one.

[XXXIV]

If We already have one President who claims to have conversations with God and/or Jesus before making decisions, I can do without another one.

The Irish guy from Braveheart is president?

[greggsand]

If she gets the dem nomination (go Obama), and Huckabee (or Mitt) is on the other ticket (VP or Pres), it's Hillary all the way. We already have one President who claims to have conversations with God and/or Jesus before making decisions, I can do without another one..

The Irish guy from Braveheart is president?

Huh?

[Jackdog]

If We already have one President who claims to have conversations with God and/or Jesus before making decisions, I can do without another one.

The Irish guy from Braveheart is president?

[Jackdog]

If she gets the dem nomination (go Obama), and Huckabee (or Mitt) is on the other ticket (VP or Pres), it's Hillary all the way. We already have one President who claims to have conversations with God and/or Jesus before making decisions, I can do without another one.

Every President I can think of was a Christian. I am sure Bill Clinton called God 's name out many times in the Oral Office.

As far as his wonderful wife's faith goes. Here's a few quotes.

An “evangelical consultant” has been hired by Hillary Clinton to help attract Christian conservatives in her likely 2008 presidential campaign.

More than one-quarter of the USA's voters identify themselves as evangelical, a voter bloc that has long been courted by Republicans.

In addition, a similar political operative has successfully aided Democratic candidates in several states in the midterm elections.

Clinton’s new hire is Burns Strider, an evangelical Christian who directs religious outreach for House Democrats and is the lead staffer for the Democrats’ Faith Working Group, headed by incoming Majority Whip James Clyburn of South Carolina.

Incoming Speaker Nancy Pelosi created the group last year when Democratic strategists observed that the party lost ground in the previous election in part because candidates failed to reach centrist and conservative voters in rural areas, who tend to be churchgoers concerned with moral issues, according to the Washington, D.C.-based publication The Hill.

Strider was an aide to Pelosi when the group was formed and joined Clyburn’s staff as policy director of the Democratic Caucus earlier this year, the paper reported.

"Observers of Clinton’s expressions of faith say religion has always been important to her, that she attended prayer group meetings while first lady, and that she joined a Senate prayer group shortly after winning election in 2000,” The Hill reports.

"Reporters anticipating Clinton’s ’08 presidential run wrongly discount her expressions of faith as cynical political maneuvering," the observers add.

Clinton is not the only potential Democratic candidate for the White House to launch efforts to appeal to religious voters.

CNN.com - Senator Hillary Clinton said in an 1994 interview that she believes in the "atoning death of Jesus Christ."

CNN News has discovered a number of past statements that Clinton has made about her Christian faith. In 1994, she was asked by Newsweek magazine, "Do you believe in the Father, Son and Holy Spirit? She answered, "Yes." She was then asked whether she believed in "the atoning death of Jesus?" Once again her answer was, "Yes."
The Brody File:
Hillary Clinton: I Believe in the 'Atoning Death of Jesus'

Senator Clinton is a lifelong Methodist who has always said she takes her faith very seriously.

In that same Newsweek article, she says, "I think that the Methodist Church, for a period of time, became too socially concerned, too involved in the social gospel and did not pay enough attention to questions of personal salvation and individual faith."

Recently, Clinton has injected more comments about her faith into the debate over public policy. Last month in Columbia, S. Carolina, she told an audience that the Book of James is one of her favorites in the New Testament.

Last year, she condemned a get tough House bill on illegal immigration that she felt was too harsh saying, "It is certainly not in keeping with my understanding of the Scriptures. This bill would literally criminalize the Good Samaritan and probably even Jesus himself."

In addition to the Newsweek article, Senator Clinton spoke at Tufts University in November of 2004.

CNN uncovered this past quote from a speech where, when referring to Evangelical voters, she said, "I don't think you can win an election or even run a successful campaign if you don't acknowledge what is important to people. We don't have to agree with them. But being ignored is a sign of such disrespect. And therefore I think we should talk about these issues.''

http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature ... rayer.html

Clinton explained that, of course, her "very serious" grounding in faith had helped her weather the affair. But she had also relied on the "extended faith family" that came to her aid, "people whom I knew who were literally praying for me in prayer chains, who were prayer warriors for me."

Such references to spiritual warfare—prayer as battle against Satan, evil, and sin—might seem like heavy evangelical rhetoric for the senator from New York, but they went over well with the Sojourners audience, as did her call to "inject faith into policy." It was language that recalled Clinton's Jesus moment a year earlier, when she'd summoned the Bible to decry a Republican anti-immigrant initiative that she said would "criminalize the good Samaritan...and even Jesus himself." Liberal Christians crowed ("Hillary Clinton Shows the Way Democrats Can Use the Bible," declared a blogger at TPMCafe) while conservative pundits cried foul, accusing Clinton of scoring points with a faith not really her own.

In fact, Clinton's God talk is more complicated—and more deeply rooted—than either fans or foes would have it, a revelation not just of her determination to out-Jesus the gop, but of the powerful religious strand in her own politics. Over the past year, we've interviewed dozens of Clinton's friends, mentors, and pastors about her faith, her politics, and how each shapes the other. And while media reports tend to characterize Clinton's subtle recalibration of tone and style as part of the Democrats' broader move to recapture the terrain of "moral values," those who know her say there's far more to it than that.

Through all of her years in Washington, Clinton has been an active participant in conservative Bible study and prayer circles that are part of a secretive Capitol Hill group known as the Fellowship. Her collaborations with right-wingers such as Senator Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) and former Senator Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) grow in part from that connection. "A lot of evangelicals would see that as just cynical exploitation," says the Reverend Rob Schenck, a former leader of the militant anti-abortion group Operation Rescue who now ministers to decision makers in Washington. "I don't....there is a real good that is infected in people when they are around Jesus talk, and open Bibles, and prayer."

Maybe you shouldn't vote.

[greggsand]

Dude, you don't get it. Bush actually claims to have conversations with JESUS. Like he asks questions & Jesus talks back...

I'm not talking about being religious, but talking about being crazy. Sorry u took the time to research a missed point.

Thanks for the voting advice.

[Jackdog]

Dude, you don't get it. Bush actually claims to have conversations with JESUS. Like he asks questions & Jesus talks back...

I'm not talking about being religious, but talking about being crazy. Sorry u took the time to research a missed point.

Thanks for the voting advice.

My name is Jack and yes I do get it. WTF do you think prayer is? It's talking to your God. Why do you think people pray? They are looking for a spiritual answer. Hilary as well as millions of believers do that everyday.

I have not read anything about Bush saying he and Jesus had two way conversations. Post some links.

[greggsand]

Dude, you don't get it. Bush actually claims to have conversations with JESUS. Like he asks questions & Jesus talks back...

I'm not talking about being religious, but talking about being crazy. Sorry u took the time to research a missed point.

Thanks for the voting advice.

My name is Jack and yes I do get it. WTF do you think prayer is? It's talking to your God. Why do you think people pray? They are looking for a spiritual answer. Hilary as well as millions of believers do that everyday.

I have not read anything about Bush saying he and Jesus had two way conversations. Post some links.

My bad Mister, he has conversations with 'God', not 'Jesus'.... Just google the words: bush conversations with god. I wonder if God has an exit strategy... All I'm saying is I prefer my Presidents to not be crazy.

[Inuyasha]

Dude, you don't get it. Bush actually claims to have conversations with JESUS. Like he asks questions & Jesus talks back...

I'm not talking about being religious, but talking about being crazy. Sorry u took the time to research a missed point.

Thanks for the voting advice.

I think Bush says that more because of politics than reality. He knows it gets him support with the fanatical religious wing of the Republican party. I'm more sure it's all politics since when he first became President, he was talking about how he wanted to inject religion into the government. But he never did that and adhered to our country's seperation of church and state.

[pk500]

But he never did that and adhered to our country's seperation of church and state.

Really?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/government/fbci/mission.html

Take care,
PK