An interesting take on the appreciation of Mrs. Clinton in Washington. Sullivan tip-toes up to one of my biggest reasons for opposing her: IE, do we really need a nation in a Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton dynamic? http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/09/queen-hillary-i.html
I have always wondered; all the conservatives who support the wire tapping and other breaches on civil rights, how do they feel about Hillary reigning over them with these laws on her side?
so laura bush is the president by proxy? or barbara bush, for instituting a bookreading campaign for kids? man, you learn something new everyday.
CLINTON'S FATAL LEADERSHIP -- PART 6b -- CO-PRESIDENCY DECLARED BY ... Subtitle Bill Clinton startled people in his 1992 campaign for the Presidency when he announced that Hillary was going to be a Co-President. Bill explained, http://www.cuttingedge.org/news/n1225.cfm Letter From the Founders of the Counter Clinton Library Half of our exhibits and shows will be devoted to her part of the Clinton Co-Presidency. The Hillary Hall of Shame will cover everything from her out and ... http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/12/5/113745.shtml Hillary Clinton: 'American Evita', The Senator's Path To Power ... Constitutionally, there was nothing to prohibit a continuation of the informal, his-and-hers "co-presidency" the Clintons had always practiced. ... http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/07/08/earlyshow/leisure/books/main628154.shtml
Unfortunately the presidency has become a mediocracy (i.e., a system in which the most mediocre candidates rise to the top because they are least likely to upset the system).
Do we need another Clinton dynasty? Very much so. I disagree that she is comfortable with a permanent occupation of Iraq, she intends to pull our troops out in an organized way as soon as she is in office.
You really must work for her or something. She intimated EXACTLY the opposite on numerous media outlets over the weekend.
none of the demacrats are for staying in iraq they just differ on how quickly to remove the troops to insinuate something else is dishonest
hmmm... Clinton Says Some G.I.’s in Iraq Would Remain Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton foresees a “remaining military as well as political mission” in Iraq, and says that if elected president, she would keep a reduced military force there to fight Al Qaeda, deter Iranian aggression, protect the Kurds and possibly support the Iraqi military. A Duty to Mislead: Politics and the Iraq War (NPR Audio Report) Democrats are telling voters that if they are elected, all U.S. troops will be pulled out of Iraq. But as Sen. Hillary Clinton privately told a senor military adviser, she knows there will be some troops there for decades. It's an example of how in some cases, politics can force dishonesty.
Not enough to sustain an occupation, she talking about something different. Clinton is a hawkish centrist Democrat, that much is well known. There are Democratic candidates with more drastic plans for de-escalation, let the best plan win.
That is the American dynamic. We are a nation of pendulum swings. From Victorian sexual mores, to the Roaring Twenties, to the repressed Fifties, to the Sexual Revolution. From Heroin being a trademark and Coca-Cola being named after its two main ingredients, to Prohibition, to High Times, to the War on Drugs. A Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton pendulum swing is a bit faster than we're used to, but hey everything is faster now because of the internet. More seriously, I think discussions like this are pointless. As sad as I am to admit it, I don't expect a Democrat to seize the White House. It's a sure bet that the party will nominate either Clinton or Obama, because it will be just so damn cool to have a woman or a black man in the White House. I remain convinced that a large number of Americans will not vote for any woman and a large number of Americans will not vote for any black man--not the same group of voters necessarily. That group may not be quite large enough for me to sob over the hopeless backwardness of my country, but I believe it is large enough to hand the election to the Republican candidate. Fortunately I doubt that the next Republican candidate will be a Bush clone, so it probably won't be a catastrophe if he wins. Of course the Republicans could nominate Condoleezza. In that case Hillary would win because she may be a woman but at least she's white; or Obama would win because he may be black but at least he's male.
Strange pendulum - only swings from right to further right. Maybe we're still in the same old pendulum, crashed right and getting ready to swing left? Time for a war, maybe, with a threat like that looming. We've been looking for a reason for the Iraq war. That one is a bit sophisticated, but we do have a remarkably sophisticated ruling class in this country.
Well, that's your judgement from what is more closely associated with Eurocentric outlook on politics. What is "right" and "left" is merely a matter of perspective. From another perspective, the European's are all just a bunch of bleading heart leftists. The fact is, and as far as Americans are concerned (and which seems to be to your eternal consternations), in this country the Dems are left and the Reps are right. That this concept doesn't mesh with your political mores is not the issue, the fact is there is a pendulum that swings between the two. This isn't all that different between the swings in the UK, France and Germany... it's just the placement on the political spectrum of the swinging is in different places. ~String
The Democrats are the American liberals. They believe in social engineering, multiculturalism, secularism, gun control, the welfare state, the environment, and ending racial and sexual discrimination. The Republicans are American conservatives. They believe in a strong military, drug prohibition, women as second-class citizens, a Christian society, gun rights, letting corporations do what they want, mandatory English, America is better than anybody else, and nobody would be poor if they just weren't so lazy.
