Hillary Muskie

[mnealtx 0]

Well said.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[billvon 3,132]

>Being that unaware is not a positive for a candidate.

And if she had said anything that indicated she didn't support him 100%, she'd be an unfaithful bitch who didn't take her vows seriously. When she cries, it's front page news, and people wonder whether women can be good presidents because of their hormone-induced emotions. When she doesn't show emotion, she's a fake, manipulative, plastic ice queen - and who wants a president like that?

Of course, when male politicians cry, they're just sensitive, or moved. When they don't, they are stoic.

While I can understand this sort of misogyny as part of the usual partisan nonsense, I am surprised to see it actually increase as she does more and more poorly in polls (and actual primaries.)

[livendive 8]

Quote

In two best-selling autobiographies—"The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream" and "Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance"—Mr. Obama, born in Honolulu where his parents met, mentions but does not expand on his Muslim background, alluding only to his attendance at a "predominantly Muslim school."

I could care less what his parents named him. But I'd bet the farm that being exposed to a Muslim school and environment affected him in some way.
Didn't all of our upbringing affect each of us????

I was spent most of my school years in a private Christian school and attended church 2-3 times every week till high school, but am now an atheist-leaning agnostic. Most of me doesn't care at all what religion each candidate is. The small part of me that does care thinks a bunch of exposure to the Muslim religion would be a good thing for a Presidential candidate given the issues we face today.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

If he gets a democratic congress he could pass pretty sweeping gun control, start the road to socialized medicine, and raise taxes for sure.

Actually, Clinton tried that. Recall that in 1994, had Clinton been up for re-election unopposed, he would have lost. The "Republican Revolution" happened that year, and the GOP took Congress for the first time in, what, 40 years?

Well, they did let him raise taxes, and then used that to win Congress. Perfect have your cake and eat it too scenario.

But yes, the GOP is perfectly capable and willing to using the fillibuster if they no longer have a President ready to veto everything. Pelosi's 2007 year proves this.

So, Dems threatening filibuster for what they want is good, Reps threatening filibuster for what they want is bad? Is that the gist of the comment?

geez, that's amazingly defensive considering nothing has been mentioned about the Democrats in this conversation. You need to divorce emotion from analysis. It is obvious by recent history that Obama as President will not enact a New New Deal.

If you really want to examine history, I suspect that the GOP has used the fillibuster (and threat thereof) far more effectively than the Democrats.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

If he gets a democratic congress he could pass pretty sweeping gun control, start the road to socialized medicine, and raise taxes for sure.

Actually, Clinton tried that. Recall that in 1994, had Clinton been up for re-election unopposed, he would have lost. The "Republican Revolution" happened that year, and the GOP took Congress for the first time in, what, 40 years?

Well, they did let him raise taxes, and then used that to win Congress. Perfect have your cake and eat it too scenario.

But yes, the GOP is perfectly capable and willing to using the fillibuster if they no longer have a President ready to veto everything. Pelosi's 2007 year proves this.

So, Dems threatening filibuster for what they want is good, Reps threatening filibuster for what they want is bad? Is that the gist of the comment?

geez, that's amazingly defensive considering nothing has been mentioned about the Democrats in this conversation. You need to divorce emotion from analysis. It is obvious by recent history that Obama as President will not enact a New New Deal.

If you really want to examine history, I suspect that the GOP has used the fillibuster (and threat thereof) far more effectively than the Democrats.

Not being defensive at all, merely asking the question, since you put it in light of only the Republicans filibustering if they didn't get their way - or at least, that's how your post read.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[happythoughts 0]

It is her history that created this problem, not her gender.

The "people don't like Hillary because she is a woman" is just playing the gender card instead of addressing the problem.

As it is, there are a lot of women who openly state that they don't trust her.

If there is any question as to whether her crying was real, it is because she destroyed her credibility at every turn since the early 90s.

Another example - during Whitewater, "I have no clear recollection of those events..."
After a million dollar offer for their memoirs, "I have a clear recollection of everything, where do I sign?"

A defining characteristic of a sociopath is that they experience emotional pain, but only their own. They have no feelings for others. Showing emotion isn't that big a deal.

The question is, "Is it an act? She's lied about everything before."

She has become known as dishonest, even for a politician.

[billvon 3,132]

>The "people don't like Hillary because she is a woman" is just playing
>the gender card instead of addressing the problem.

The people who are making it gender based are those making the comments about "being on the rag" and about how women are too emotionally unstable to be president. I don't think they are doing it because they are really fundamentally sexist; misogyny is simply a tool they use to tear down someone they despise.

>A defining characteristic of a sociopath is that they experience
>emotional pain, but only their own.

Like I said, I am not surprised by the attempts at character assassination; they are de rigueur for any political contest in america. (Sociopath? Why not go right to genocidal psychopath?) The only two things that surprise me are:

1) the steady rise of such tactics when it's clear a politician is becoming a less likely candidate

2) the shrill howls of righteous rage when such tactics are used against someone the attacker supports.

[Royd 0]

Quote

The UCC is an aligned group of congregations, each of which can pick individual strengths. The UCC church I went to was open and affirming, which meant that homosexuals were welcome, even if it meant they showed affection during church events (just like everyone else).

A little display of bsdm wouldn't be too bad, either. No?

[Royd 0]

I would question the goal of an Islamic school funded by the Saudi
>government.

Quote

But not the goals of a private religious school funded by right-wing bible thumpers?

So much for all of the openness that you've learned to display.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Not being defensive at all, merely asking the question, since you put it in light of only the Republicans filibustering if they didn't get their way - or at least, that's how your post read.

It was a highly loaded question, no doubt about it.

I can view the question from the perspective of someone who studied the subject, which is what I normally do. There isn't as much right/wrong judgements, just an analysis of what is done. That says that Obama is not a bogeyman.

If you want a more personal view, I think the GOP abuses the fillibuster priviledge more. Either out of duty or cowardice/shame, the Democrats let Shrub do a lot more than the GOP let Clinton do. The GOP is quite content to block all progress until they get more of what they want. Clinton should have held firm too. He was generally not a strong leader - he was driven too much by polling and a need for a consensus he'd never get. (He also didn't have a hammer of 9/11 to use for power.)

But, yes, I think Clinton deserves more credit for the surplus in the 90s than the GOP Congress did. He made the politically negative, but necessary moves to shore up the deficit. His successor quickly undid this progress and returned us to what Reagan/Bush gave us before.

[lawrocket 3]

Bill - plenty of people out there have always hated Hillary. I personally have never liked her. I started a thread a month and a half ago asking people to explain their issues with her.

What I believe we are seeing is more of a bandwagoning by the more left-leaning. They don't want to say anything bad about Hillary, really. She could be going up against Huckabee, and we gotta prepare for that.

But now that her viability as the Democratic nominee is fading. Now that Obama is a solid guy to back, there will be more coming out of the woodwork saying that they really didn't like her or never liked her. She seems pretentious, dishonest and condescending.

Now, prospective Hillary supporters are likely doing it.

As an aside, I still believe that Hillary is simply exhausted and emotionally spent. She's probably been putting in 20 hour days these last couple of weeks. This sort of stuff would ravage anyone - much like it did to Muskie.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

But now that her viability as the Democratic nominee is fading. Now that Obama is a solid guy to back, there will be more coming out of the woodwork saying that they really didn't like her or never liked her. She seems pretentious, dishonest and condescending.

But he's not a solid guy to back. I think we'll see a flight to Edwards before February.

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

I think we'll see a flight to Edwards before February.

Why? & Why to Sen Edwards?

[Curious as to the thinking/reasoning behind your statement not challenging nor endorsing it.]

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[livendive 8]

Quote

Quote

But now that her viability as the Democratic nominee is fading. Now that Obama is a solid guy to back, there will be more coming out of the woodwork saying that they really didn't like her or never liked her. She seems pretentious, dishonest and condescending.

But he's not a solid guy to back. I think we'll see a flight to Edwards before February.

Edwards seems to me to be the only candidate who panders even more than Clinton. The guy strikes me as wholly dishonest, refuses to answer any question with anything other than talking points, and never seems to say anything other than what he thinks the audience wants to hear.

While all politicians do that to some extent, there are less blatant violators on both sides of the aisle.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[billvon 3,132]

>So much for all of the openness that you've learned to display.

Hey, I _went_ to a high school run by bible-thumpers!

[billvon 3,132]

> Bill - plenty of people out there have always hated Hillary. I
>personally have never liked her.

I've never liked her either. I don't think she stands for very much of anything (other than whatever is the most popular thing to stand for at the time.) I'm glad to see Obama challenging her for the nomination.

>What I believe we are seeing is more of a bandwagoning by the more
>left-leaning. They don't want to say anything bad about Hillary, really.

Hmm, I've seen lots of people on both sides say negative stuff about her, although the commentary from the left-leaning commentators is more along the lines of "don't like her one bit" "she's in serious trouble" "she's not the default candidate, and she shouldn't be."

>As an aside, I still believe that Hillary is simply exhausted and
>emotionally spent. She's probably been putting in 20 hour days these
>last couple of weeks. This sort of stuff would ravage anyone - much like it
>did to Muskie.

Agreed.

[happythoughts 0]

Quote

>A defining characteristic of a sociopath is that they experience
>emotional pain, but only their own.

Like I said, I am not surprised by the attempts at character assassination; they are de rigueur for any political contest in america. (Sociopath? Why not go right to genocidal psychopath?)

Just trying to be supportive.

You are saying that her tears may be a honest emotional outpouring. Ok. I was just saying that anyone is capable of it.

On the other hand, why is it that you unflinchingly support her like it is you that is married to her?
Let's face it, you are quoting the "vast right wing conspiracy" defense.

Why not just consider that she has a history of dishonesty as a reason for people to distrust her ?
In the last 10 years, has anyone seen her express an emotion other than anger ?

I favor the idea that she is acting.

Quote

misogyny is simply a tool they use to tear down someone they despise.

I am saying that she is dishonest because she is.
I don't see how that is being unfair to her.

I despise her because the repeatable examples of her character are despicable to me.

[billvon 3,132]

>On the other hand, why is it that you unflinchingly support her like
>it is you that is married to her?

?? I don't like (or support her) one bit.

>Let's face it, you are quoting the "vast right wing conspiracy" defense.

What the hell are you talking about?

>Why not just consider that she has a history of dishonesty as a reason
>for people to distrust her ?

She has a history of changing her positions on policies depending on how the wind is blowing, which is one of the reasons I don't like her. Claiming that makes her a "sociopath" is a pretty pathetic attempt to further discredit her. I have zero doubt that if someone claimed that a candidate you supported was a homicidal maniac because he was a hunter, you'd scream bloody murder.

>I am saying that she is dishonest because she is.
>I don't see how that is being unfair to her.

Saying someone is dishonest is not being unfair to them. Calling them a sociopath because you think they have changed their positions a lot is.

[PLFXpert 0]

Quote

plenty of people out there have always hated Hillary. I personally have never liked her.

I don't dislike her any more than the other candidates I'm not voting for.

I'm simply calling the poignant-response-in-question as I personally see it. Either way, I really don't see it as being that big of a deal. I certainly don't see it as being an "emotional outburst" in the dramatic connotation of the phrase. You take her history of being composed coupled with her criticism and subsequent urges from her camp to be more relatable and she takes her response one step further. Her body language is disingenous. Had the situation and all that's lead up to it happened to any other candidate on either side I'd likely say the same thing.

Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.

[lawrocket 3]

Early results, with 11% reporting, Hillary has a slight lead - 38 to 36 - over Obama.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[PLFXpert 0]

It's working!

Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.

[lawrocket 3]

Ha. Maybe!

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

I think we'll see a flight to Edwards before February.

Why? & Why to Sen Edwards?

[Curious as to the thinking/reasoning behind your statement not challenging nor endorsing it.]

The Democrats have three players, and a bunch of yahoos (Biden, for example) that will soon be gone.

Hillary Clinton - may or may not be fading. Has historical baggage (the 50' moving van variety) from 90s. Is a woman.

Barack Obama - has yet to complete a single term in the Senate (my issue). Is Black. Has Muslim middle name and 'history.'

Edwards - generic white dude, like every other president before. Ran close in 2004 as the VP.

I believe of the 3, two are unelectable, even before we look at the issues that aren't based on prejudices. And the Democrats really don't want another GOP term. Just as the GOP jumped onboard with Bush early in 1999 to escape one more term of Gore, I see the same happening here. Edwards is a Southern Democrat, which might be worth Florida, and can run on a campaign against the GOP.

I presume that some day America will elect a minority candidate. However, I think it more likely that the country will take a white male with a minority VP who will either assume command, or run as the incumbent after 8 years. To me, Obama is the candidate of 2016 or 2020, not now. He and (controversial) SF Mayor Gavin Newsome are among the few young politicians who have high visibility and large potential to go further.

[Royd 0]

Quote

She has a history of changing her positions on policies depending on how the wind is blowing, which is one of the reasons I don't like her. Claiming that makes her a "sociopath" is a pretty pathetic attempt to further discredit her. I have zero doubt that if someone claimed that a candidate you supported was a homicidal maniac because he was a hunter, you'd scream bloody murder.

I would say that everything she does and says is about how important she considers herself to be on the world stage. The world is just not going to run as smoothly if she is not placed in charge. I'd say megalomania is a mental illness.

[rickjump1 0]

Ever wonder why she stayed with Bill? One thing: she had her eye on the White House. It's not a gender thing; it's a Hillary thing. One little thing she tried to pull off as wife of Governor Clinton: the elimination of grades and competition in school. She wanted every kid to feel good. Thankfully, it didn't happen. In the beginning she would not even share Bill's last name.

Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts.