Queen hillary? Merit or no merit?

[defenseman]

September 14, 2007
Does America Want a Clinton Monarchy?
By Steven Stark

There's a strange debate dominating the Democratic campaign so far. Hillary Clinton's calling card seems to be the experience that she possesses and that Barack Obama lacks. " 'Change' is just a word if you don't have the strength and experience to make it happen," she told an audience this past week, before promptly making the line the centerpiece of a new ad in New Hampshire and Iowa. "Hillary is the best-prepared to be president of any non-incumbent I have ever had a chance to vote for," the clearly biased Bill Clinton has said repeatedly on the trail this summer.

The contrast with the "inexperienced" Obama is meant to be obvious. But is it true? Mrs. Clinton has only been in the Senate for one term, not much more than Obama has. And Obama served in the state legislature before that, which Hillary never did. The only experience she has that Obama lacks is that she married a guy who was elected president and, as a result, got to live and work in the White House.

And that's the difficulty.

The idea that spouses gain qualifications through their partners' jobs is a radically new idea in this country. And no one seems to be debating it -- at least not publicly. It's not really about Hillary per se. We don't name CEO spouses the next head of the company when their partner steps down, any more than we let the wives or husbands of doctors perform brain surgery because they happen to be married to someone who does.

Yet that's the Clinton argument: Bill's record is Hillary's record. In the press, it's being couched as a form of feminism meets 21st century new-age thinking: if husbands and wives are becoming their spouses' closest political advisers, why not make the unofficial official and let the spouses run on their own? That's why, in part, reporters have spent a good portion of this campaign analyzing the wives of all the contenders, on the theory that what we're now electing is a co-presidency.

There's only one problem: there's a word for a spousal co-presidency in the English language, or at least a system where one can ascend to higher office on the basis of marriage:

It's called a "monarchy."

So far, the press certainly has bought it. Part of that undoubtedly is because "the royals" sell magazines, whether they're from the House of Windsor or the House of Clinton. And government by elite, which sees its ultimate expression in royalty, has rarely been a problem for a press corps increasingly dominated by Washington journalistic elite that sees itself in the Clintons and their retinue. (Many of their children, for example, go to the same kind of ultra-select DC secondary schools as Chelsea Clinton did -- Sidwell Friends -- which recently featured an article in its alumni magazine bragging that, of Hillary's 11 top female staffers, five were current or former Sidwell parents.)

The larger question, of course, is whether the voters will buy it, too. The guess here is that, ultimately, they won't. Royalism has never had that many fans on this side of the Atlantic. To the extent we've tried a similar idea recently -- with the current president, a/k/a "Junior" -- things haven't exactly worked out in spectacular fashion.

Moreover, as we all know, if your spouse is your principal advisor, you can't fire that advisor. (Well, okay, if you're Rudy Giuliani or Fred Thompson, maybe you can.) With Hillary we get Bill, and, sooner or later, someone is going to start snapping voters out of their nostalgic reverie with constant reminders of all the scandals, all the women, and all the diversions that robbed Bill Clinton's presidency of its energy.

Democrats should hope that this process occurs sooner rather than later. If general-election voters residing in a republic are given the choice between a Queen and a Republican -- really any Republican -- it's pretty easy to guess which one they will pick
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...a_clinton.html

What your call about this take?....dman

[Rohirrim]

Keep this up, Dman, and you'll qualify as a Billary stalker.

I'm still hoping Gore throws his hat in the ring. If it's Billary vs. Giuliani, I vote third party.

[defenseman]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

Keep this up, Dman, and you'll qualify as a Billary stalker.

I'm still hoping Gore throws his hat in the ring. If it's Billary vs. Giuliani, I vote third party.

Just want to see what you fella's think of this stuff.....some of the op-eds out there are quite honestly abit over the top..dman

[Bronco Bob]

So what exactly are Fred Thompson's qualifications?
He was in the Senate several years back and now he's
on a popular TV show? How does that make Thompson
any more qualified to be president than Hillary?

[defenseman]

Originally Posted by Bronco Bob

So what exactly are Fred Thompson's qualifications?
He was in the Senate several years back and now he's
on a popular TV show? How does that make Thompson
any more qualified to be president than Hillary?

You tell me, I haven't done enough background looks on the fella to make a call one way or the other..dman

[Bronco Bob]

What dman fears the most:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...inton-227.html

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...inton-266.html

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...inton-224.html

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...inton-230.html

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...mberg-344.html

[TheDave]

I'm starting to think that Dman isn't a fan of the Clintons...

[defenseman]

Originally Posted by Bronco Bob

What dman fears the most:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...inton-227.html

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...inton-266.html

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...inton-224.html

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...inton-230.html

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...mberg-344.html

Rasmussen poll is the only one of merit in the group. And, if Hillabroom takes out Rudy, so be it. Rudy hurt himself on illegal immigration. I don't fear the results, just a bit nervous what we may in store after turnover is complete. But, right now, it's an open field for the most part....things will start shaping up better about 3 months out then it will start getting really nasty. Very unfortunate....dman

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by TheDave

I'm starting to think that Dman isn't a fan of the Clintons...

Neither am I. They're just GOP Lite, like Maher pointed out. Why does Billy Boy have such an easy time hanging out with Bush the Elder? Because Bush the Elder represents the moneyed elite that Billy has strived all his life to be part of. Same with Billary (who started out as a Repug, BTW). They sure as hell don't represent the working people in this country.

[defenseman]

Originally Posted by TheDave

I'm starting to think that Dman isn't a fan of the Clintons...

.....the master of the understatement has arrived...dman

*It's obvious I don't like their politics or tactics. However, I am far from hating either one of them. If she gets elected, I will give her a chance, afterall, if she is elected, the people have spoken. Can anyone say the same if a republican were to be elected?

[defenseman]

[QUOTE=Rohirrim;1712637]Neither am I. They're just GOP Lite, like Maher pointed out. Why does Billy Boy have such an easy time hanging out with Bush the Elder? Because Bush the Elder represents the moneyed elite that Billy has strived all his life to be part of. Same with Billary (who started out as a Repug, BTW). They sure as hell don't represent the working people in this country.[/QUOTE]

Are there any out there that truly represent the 'working people' of the country? I believe they are few and far between, and they don't move up the food chain very high or with any sort of expediency. That would require they play politics, which most 'working people' understand, but do not desire to play......dman

[Rohirrim]

[QUOTE=defenseman;1712647]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

Neither am I. They're just GOP Lite, like Maher pointed out. Why does Billy Boy have such an easy time hanging out with Bush the Elder? Because Bush the Elder represents the moneyed elite that Billy has strived all his life to be part of. Same with Billary (who started out as a Repug, BTW). They sure as hell don't represent the working people in this country.[/QUOTE]

Are there any out there that truly represent the 'working people' of the country? I believe they are few and far between, and they don't move up the food chain very high or with any sort of expediency. That would require they play politics, which most 'working people' understand, but do not desire to play......dman

IMO, the key issue that has to be addressed in America (besides Iraq) is election and campaign reform. The last two presidential elections have been, well let's just say "unreliable." And we are due to use those same machines next year. The lobbyists on K Street have taken over Washington and now earmarks are the meat and potatoes of government. We cannot talk about changing anything in this country until we clean up all of this corruption. The one to do that is somebody who has proven he can slash government. Who is not part of the Washington insiders club. Who has a vision for America that's larger than just, "I wanna be president." That would be Gore.

[defenseman]

[QUOTE=Rohirrim;1712669]

Originally Posted by defenseman

IMO, the key issue that has to be addressed in America (besides Iraq) is election and campaign reform. The last two presidential elections have been, well let's just say "unreliable." And we are due to use those same machines next year. The lobbyists on K Street have taken over Washington and now earmarks are the meat and potatoes of government. We cannot talk about changing anything in this country until we clean up all of this corruption. The one to do that is somebody who has proven he can slash government. Who is not part of the Washington insiders club. Who has a vision for America that's larger than just, "I wanna be president." That would be Gore.

I'm not so sure about Gore. But, in my opinion, if there ever was an election where someone as you described could get into the whitehouse, this is probably the election to get them there. I'm thinking americans are fed up with both sides of the fence in many cases, I know I am.......dman

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Queen hillary? Merit or no merit?

Put me down for no merit.

[Bronco Bob]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

IMO, the key issue that has to be addressed in America (besides Iraq) is election and campaign reform. The last two presidential elections have been, well let's just say "unreliable." And we are due to use those same machines next year.

Hey, maybe you should vote for Hillary after all.

From her website:



America is ready for a leader who will make fair and honest elections a priority. As a senator, Hillary has fought to restore integrity to our elections. She will bring the same commitment to the White House.

Fair and honest elections are the bedrock of a successful democracy. Yet we have seen abuses in national elections since 2000 that have undermined our democracy and Americans' faith in our electoral system.

Hillary is a leading champion of election reform. She has introduced the Count Every Vote Act to avoid repeating the problems of the past and ensure the integrity of our elections. Her bill:

* Provides a paper trail for every vote cast.
* Designates Election Day as a national holiday.
* Allows same-day registration.
* Minimizes long lines at the polls.
* Makes sure that impartial officials administer our elections.
* Allows the attorney general to bring suit against anyone using deceptive practices (like distributing flyers with incorrect information about voter eligibility) to keep voters from voting.
* Helps states invest in better voting technology.

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by Bronco Bob

Hey, maybe you should vote for Hillary after all.

From her website:



America is ready for a leader who will make fair and honest elections a priority. As a senator, Hillary has fought to restore integrity to our elections. She will bring the same commitment to the White House.

Fair and honest elections are the bedrock of a successful democracy. Yet we have seen abuses in national elections since 2000 that have undermined our democracy and Americans' faith in our electoral system.

Hillary is a leading champion of election reform. She has introduced the Count Every Vote Act to avoid repeating the problems of the past and ensure the integrity of our elections. Her bill:

* Provides a paper trail for every vote cast.
* Designates Election Day as a national holiday.
* Allows same-day registration.
* Minimizes long lines at the polls.
* Makes sure that impartial officials administer our elections.
* Allows the attorney general to bring suit against anyone using deceptive practices (like distributing flyers with incorrect information about voter eligibility) to keep voters from voting.
* Helps states invest in better voting technology.

Gee. The veil has been lifted. Now I see the light! Go Billary!

[Bronco Bob]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

Gee. The veil has been lifted. Now I see the light! Go Billary!

Would you prefer Guiliani or Thompson or Romney?

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by Bronco Bob

Would you prefer Guiliani or Thompson or Romney?

So now we're back to who's the best out of a bunch of bad choices? Of course, that's what all these elections seem to come down to anymore. It's not who's the best, but who's the worst. I haven't really been excited about a political candidate since RFK. If it does come down to Billary vs. Giuliani, Billary will win. Rudy is way too tightly wound to get through a presidential campaign without going off at least once.

[gunns]

Wesley Clark Endorses Clinton's Presidential Bid
(AP) NEW YORK Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton was endorsed Saturday by Wesley Clark, the retired four-star general whose early criticism of the Iraq war fueled a high-profile but short-lived run for the party’s nomination in 2004.

“Senator Clinton has the experience, good judgment and the battle tested character to face the challenges ahead,” Clark told The Associated Press.

Clark, who joined the Democratic field four years ago largely due to an active online draft movement, planned to discuss his endorsement on a conference call with bloggers later Saturday.

A decorated career Army officer who graduated first in his class at West Point, Clark served as NATO’s supreme allied commander and led the Operation Allied Force in the Kosovo war under President Clinton.

Clark received numerous military commendations throughout his 34-year career and was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

Clark’s brief foray into presidential politics wasn’t as successful.

He was a latecomer to the 2004 field. His military credentials and forceful criticism of President Bush’s handling of the Iraq war propelled him to the top of polls for a time. But he stumbled on his first full day as a candidate, saying he “probably” would have voted for the congressional resolution authorizing the Iraq invasion. Questions about that statement dogged him for the rest of the campaign.

Clark left the race in February after finishing a weak third in New Hampshire and winning just one primary—Oklahoma’s—after that. He endorsed the eventual Democratic nominee, Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry.

Clark has remained active in politics, running a political action committee, WESpac, and campaigning for Democratic candidates around the country.

[alkemical]

Originally Posted by Bronco Bob

So what exactly are Fred Thompson's qualifications?
He was in the Senate several years back and now he's
on a popular TV show? How does that make Thompson
any more qualified to be president than Hillary?

he spent alot of time being a lobbyist as well....

[alkemical]

Originally Posted by TheDave

I'm starting to think that Dman isn't a fan of the Clintons...

which begs to ask why he'd be a friend of the Bush's. I mean they are really much more alike than different

[alkemical]

if it's rudy v clinton - is this an illusion of choice?

Hillary wiins and what do we get? More "meet the new boss same as the old boss"?

Bush-clinton-bush-clinton(?) - such an odd pattern for voting republic....

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by claviculasolomonis

if it's rudy v clinton - is this an illusion of choice?

Hillary wiins and what do we get? More "meet the new boss same as the old boss"?

Bush-clinton-bush-clinton(?) - such an odd pattern for voting republic....

It just points out how our best and brightest don't involve themselves in politics - for good reason.

[Bronco Bob]

.

[lazarus4444]

All of our choices for president suck. This country isn't what it used to be and the time is ripe for change by force. It probably won't happen for quite a few years though.