<p>Mythmom, that is hilarious. I can laugh at republicans as much as the next guy.</p>
<p>I wish I were passionate about a candidate. Heck, I wish I could even tolerate one of the pathetic wretches.</p>
<p>
I disagree. The gender and race of the candidate don’t matter a bit to me so I’d give just as much consideration to a female or Black candidate as I would any other. Some of those on the left have a very narrow and inaccurate view of republicans - typically being characterized as the ‘religious right’. The
dems are not the only ones who might elect a female or Black president regardless of what they think of themselves and their generalizations of republicans.</p>
<p>“Some of those on the left have a very narrow and inaccurate view of republicans - typically being characterized as the ‘religious right’. The
dems are not the only ones who might elect a female or Black president regardless of what they think of themselves and their generalizations of republicans.”</p>
<p>That’s very, very true. I am often amused when my non-republican friends tell me what our priorities are.</p>
<p>zoosermom: I’m not even sure that it was anti-Republican; perhaps Smith just meant on her own steam, I’m not really sure.</p>
<p>Sure, I know you have a good sense of humor. Ya gotta, right? to make it through all this. And I keep saying the dems I met in my anti-war campaigning were just as fatuous as reps.</p>
<p>"zoosermom: I’m not even sure that it was anti-Republican; perhaps Smith just meant on her own steam, I’m not really sure.</p>
<p>Sure, I know you have a good sense of humor. Ya gotta, right? to make it through all this. And I keep saying the dems I met in my anti-war campaigning were just as fatuous as reps."</p>
<p>You do have to have a sense of humor to be a republican in New York. But I’m going to repeat the same thing I often say: my husband swears I’m just a contrarian and would be a liberal if I lived in a red state.</p>
<p>Personally, I like “Centrist”. I think the extremes are myopic and divisive. I don’t know if Hillary actually IS centrist, or just playing one on TV. But I do know that she is probably the smartest political animal on Capital Hill right about now (a fact which, depending upon how you look at it, is probably the most ringing of endorsements, or an absolute cause for alarm);)</p>
<p>I do believe America is ready for a woman President. And I believe that America will make Hillary the first one, if she wins her party’s nomination. But if you think the Bush/Gore election was close…</p>
<p>I would like to see what a decisive Democratic majority in both, The House and Senate, along with The White House, will accomplish next time up. At least then there won’t be the excuse that the Republicans in Congress wouldn’t “let” them get the job done. It’ll definitely be put-up or shut-up.</p>
<p>As far was "how Hillary might be received by the rest of the world’s leaders, I don’t think that will be a problem in most cases. Of course, nations like Saudi Arabia are the exception, but I see no reason we should feel obligated to respect their views on women. As far as our President wearing a burka for a State visit, I’d say not no, but HELL NO!</p>
<p>Well Margaret Thatcher, golda Meir, and Indira Gandhi among many others managed very/ well, thank you very much.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>He should be worried about his House re-election race. I think his vote with George Bush to kill children’s health care this week is going to be the final straw back in Cleveland.</p>
<p>I don’t like Hillary because I don’t like the way she votes. Most recently, I will not forgive her “let’s invade Iran” vote that occurred on Wednesday. I also believe we will never get out of Iraq with her president.</p>
<p>That aside, I am depressed at the hard line women take about her, and I truly believe it is some weird, underlying competitive thing or some deep held (or maybe not so deep) anti-woman thing going on there. My friends (who are mostly Republicans) HATE HATE HATE Hillary, and yet when I ask them specifically which vote or which position do they so vehemently disagree with they can’t name a single thing. (Admittedly, a few will name her health plan - which they are unable to describe. Not to mention, like the biggest sin EVER is to try to provide health care somehow.)</p>
<p>It’s almost this weird psychological thing like she’s damaged goods because her husband (sort of) cheated on her.</p>
<p>uscd ucla dad:</p>
<p>Yeah, but remember…you are a California Republican. I’m not sure that counts. Heck the national Republicans would run your governor out of town on a rail.</p>
<p>Well, anyone who seriously threatens patriarchy (sorry for the jargon word, but most efficient) is going to be pilloried (what an unfortunate rhyme). </p>
<p>Even if her voting record is not really left, her being is. Challenges mom and apple pie. Heck, even Bill’s mother hated her for not wearing enough make-up, or maybe no make-up.</p>
<p>And oh dear, guess I wasn’t up-to-date on Kucinich’s latest move.</p>
<p>Sometimes I just think about Rome’s sorry parade of awful emperors and know we’re hostages to history. DS is a Latinist so I often hear all about it, and DD studied Roman History just to keep up.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>So did it “bother you immensely” in 1999 when Elizabeth Dole was talking about running for president and forming exploratory committees and such, since she was thrust into national prominence as a political spouse? Or did you think she was pretty well qualified because of her high-end legal education (like Hillary’s), her successful career as an attorney (like Hillary’s), her years of public service in powerful political positions in Washington (like Hillary’s)?</p>
<p>Unless you were then hating on Mrs. Dole the same way you are now on Mrs. Clinton, I suspect your scorn of Hillary is rooted more in simple partisanship than in any special objection to women in politics profiting by being married to powerful political men.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That is not what the vote was. There are laws that allow triggering financial seizures to stop the flow of money to terrorist organizations. It’s the single most effective weapon we have used against Al Qaeda. The non-binding sense of the Senate resolution was an approval to the State Dept. to include the Revolutionary Guard on the list to stop the financial support they provide to Hezzbollah and Hamas.</p>
<p>Here’s Clinton’s statement after the vote:</p>
<p><a href=“http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/details.cfm?id=284561&&[/url]”>http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/details.cfm?id=284561&&</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>BTW, as I read the knowledgeable reporting, there is no risk of Bush attacking Iran unless we see Sec. Gates and the Joint Chiefs of Staff resign. The military leadership is 100% opposed.</p>
<p>"did it “bother you immensely” in 1999 when Elizabeth Dole was talking about running for president and forming exploratory committees and such, since she was thrust into national "</p>
<p>Please re-read my quote. It was very specific and it said what I meant. Credible candidate. Elizabeth Dole was not one.</p>
<p>“Unless you were then hating on Mrs. Dole the same way you are now on Mrs. Clinton, I suspect your scorn of Hillary is rooted more in simple partisanship than in any special objection to women in politics profiting by being married to powerful political men.”</p>
<p>You can suspect but you would be wrong. Just absolutely, categorically wrong. I don’t “scorn” Hillary. I am bothered very much that the first credible female candidate for President is such because of her husband. If that doesn’t bother you, great. But it does bother me for the exact reasons I stated, so please don’t suspect anything. My words are usually pretty clear.</p>
<p>Hey, I’m with Zoosermom. I also regret that the first woman candidate we can really take seriously is hiding on her husband’s coattails. But I don’t blame Hillary for that; if American society needs a man to legitimize a woman candidate how is that her fault? She certainly is highly qualified – Wellesley, Yale Law, Nixon Impeachment Legal Team, US Senate plus she had on the job training. Good for her for making the most of the situation she was given and being political enough to stick it out, because certainly US President is a job in which you do have to get your hands dirty.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yep. He voted againt the re-authorization of the SCHIP program, when the Democrats and many Republicans were trying desperately for a veto-proof vote in the House.</p>
<p>His reason was that it didn’t cover illegal immigrants. Totally oblivious to the political reality that overriding a Presidential veto will require Republican support and that no Republican can vote for government paid health care for illegals in their party’s political climate. So, Kucinich’s political tin ear forced him to vote for yanking health care for 10 million children. In his statement, he gave that same smarmy plug for his HR676 single-payer health care bill that he proposes every year just for the thrill of watching it die in committee. That vote, combined with his vanity Presidential campaigns has him in hot water from primary challegers in Cleveland who would like a Representative who actually does something.</p>
<p>I think Bill Clinton rode Hillary’s coattails to the White House. He was the front man; she was the brains of the operation.</p>
<p>[I’m just being a little facetious.]</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Ah, now I see. It’s okay for a woman in politics to aspire and advance partly in thanks to husband’s prominence provided she doesn’t succeed. It’s only when she becomes a “credible candidate” and success becomes a real possibility that riding her husband’s coat tail becomes an offense. Do I have that right?</p>
<p>"Ah, now I see. It’s okay for a woman in politics to aspire and advance partly in thanks to husband’s prominence provided she doesn’t succeed. It’s only when she becomes a “credible candidate” and success becomes a real possibility that riding her husband’s coat tail becomes an offense. Do I have that right? "</p>
<p>No, actually you don’t. In this nation of millions of spectacular women, who have accomplishments all their own, it is a darn shame that the first credible candidate for president is one who can’t be said to have done it on her own. Women don’t need men to be successful, but my daughters would not know that from the Hillary Clinton model. As I said, my words are what I say they are. Please don’t twist, suspect or translate for me. Disagree all you want, but don’t try to speak for me.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Right, and you wouldn’t know it from the Elizabeth Dole model either. But somehow the Hillary Clinton model bothers some Republicans a lot more. Again, we’re are back to simple partisanship.</p>