MSNBC Chelsea Clinton slur

Parent Cafe
101

<p>She didn’t fire her campaign manager. The woman who is taking over as her campaign manager, Maggie Williams, was her chief of staff when she was first lady. Solis Doyle, her campaign manager who stepped down, will remain as a senior advisor to the campaign. According to CNN, Doyle has been with her since Clinton was first lady of Arkansas.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I think that’s just a smart move. </p>

<p>mathmom: I agree-- I’ll be voting for a Democrat in the general election, for sure. I find both McCain and Huckabee very scary.</p>

102

<p>“Instate, people who object to her do so for all kinds of personal reasons, rather than criticize her dilligence as a senator. (And she’s not my candidate, yet I say this.)”</p>

<p>She’s not my candidate, either, but I say the same thing.</p>

103

<p>“I feel about elected officials like I do a good doctor. As long as they’re qualified and know what they’re doing, their personality is the least of my concern.”</p>

<p>There are additional considerations besides “qualifications” and “personality.” How about freshness, idealism, attracting a large percentage of the populace to become & stay involved in the process, and in government?</p>

<p>HC – and some of her supporters – remind me of the “well-qualified” applicants to selective colleges, who state that they “should be admitted” because of “better qualifications.” Depends on how you define “qualification,” and who is doing the defining.</p>

<p>Like colleges, the electorate also values newness, freshness, differences from the Same Old, Same Old. In the case of HC, I, a woman, do not find the fact of her gender to be indicative of “different” or “fresh,” necessarily. As I and others have said, she is a Party Girl if ever there was one. </p>

<p>(Why has the press loved her candidacy for so long? Two reasons: (1) They assumed she was the predetermined winner, and the press loves to predict & pat themselves on the back later; (2) The Press is Establishment; HC is Establishment.)</p>

104

<p>1sokkermom, your post reminded me of a hilarious post I just saw on a political website. I did not write this, but I thoroughly enjoyed it:</p>

<hr>

<p>These are not REAL Obama victories because, see, it’s obvious that Barack Obama can only win in states he can do retail politics like Iowa.</p>

<p>Well, these are not real Obama victories because he can only win in states where he can do retail politics states and his home state like Iowa and Illinois.</p>

<p>Well, these are not real Obama victories because he can only win in states where he can do retail politics and his home states and states that have a majority of African-American voters like Iowa, Illinois and South Carolina.</p>

<p>Well, these are not real Obama victories because he can only win in states where he can do retail politics and his home state and states that have a majority of African-American voters and caucus states like Iowa, Illinois and South Carolina and Nebraska.</p>

<p>Well, these are not real Obama victories because he can only win in caucus states and his home state and states that have a majority of African-American voters and states where he has time to do retail politics and states in the south like Iowa, Illinois and South Carolina, Nebraska and Georgia.</p>

<p>Well, these are not real Obama victories because he can only win in caucus states and his home state and states that have a majority of African-American voters and states where he has time to do retail politics and states in the south and states in the northeast like Iowa, Illinois and South Carolina, Nebraska, Georgia and Connecticut.</p>

<p>Well, these are not real Obama victories because he can only win in caucus states and his home state and states that have a majority of African-American voters and states where he has time to do retail politics and states in the deep south and states in the northeast and states in the Midwest like Iowa, Illinois and South Carolina, Nebraska, Georgia, Connecticut and Kansas.</p>

<hr>

<p>(It goes on…)</p>

105

<p>they must have since added “and states in the West” like Washington, right? </p>

<p>Funny! and true…</p>

106

<p>Not to be toooo cynical, but stepping down from a position and using the desire to spend more time with the family as the reason is usually code for something else.</p>

107

<p>Yes, patient, there were many more “verses” … you can find the whole thing by googling. I can’t post the link, because it is a blog.</p>

108

<p>epiphany: While I can appreciate freshness and idealism, I don’t know how far that’s gonna carry the next president through his/her first term. Managing to get people involved in this election, to care about their government, and to get involved – yes-- that’s wonderful, and it would be terrific if that could be sustained, long past this election.</p>

109

<p>As an aside, Hillary Clinton visited John Edwards on Thursday at his home in Chapel Hill. Obama will be visiting him tomorrow, I think (also at his home in Chapel Hill). Interesting.</p>

110

<p>

</p>

<p>Since HRC – who is an extremely able and qualified candidate – wouldn’t be in the position she’s in absent her marriage to a former president, I think it showed really poor judgement of her campaign to let Bill get so much airtime. It underscores the fact, for me, that she is foremost a wife. It’s not just something Bill did; her campaign made these choices. She made these choices. I am not saying this should be ipso facto a fireable offense, but I don’t find her otherwise compelling. And her position on Iraq is a very strong reason why. Not just her original vote, but how she parsed her position to talk about it.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I think on this one they’ll have to follow the mood of the country, where the country’s head is at. Barring another terrorist attack or a return to a steady stream of bad news from Iraq (that actually gets published because if you pay attention there is actually a lot of bad news coming from Iraq and also Afghanistan) they’ll build McCain up as powerful on the economy. This will be interesting since McCain is on record saying he doesn’t understand economic policy – recently.</p>

<p>But when he talks about the war, he’ll say that he was right on Iraq, that the surge really worked, that essentially we are winning now. Contrary to those who think Iraq will be bad for the Republicans, I think from the mouth of McCain it’s a winner. And Americans like to hear that they are winning the wars they’re fighting.</p>

111

<p>I draw the line at women who’s husbands commit genocide (U.N. Resolution #260, Article II, Section C). </p>

<p>But putting that aside (which I don’t), her symbolism as a future “Woman President” is tainted by the reality that she had no independent political existence outside of her man. That’s not her fault, of course. But (all other things being equal, which they never are), when I vote for the symbolism of the first female President, I’d prefer it not be so heavily tainted</p>

<p>That she lacks experience, and the little experience she has shows her judgment and political skills wanting, is another matter entirely.</p>

112

<p>Again, the Clintons keep reminding us of past history. Does everyone forget that Maggie Williams (the new campaign manager) is the one that helped “control” the Whitewater scandal during the last Clinton administration? Does everyone forget that she is the one who an FBI agent swore he saw removing files from Vince Foster’s office after his death?</p>

<p>I guess Hillary sees Williams as a miracle worker? She clearly will do anything for the Clintons. As others have suggested, Obama should watch his back. :(</p>

113

<p>^^^^</p>

<p>There you go again, 1sokkermom. Do you sit and watch rerun DVDs of the impeachment hearings nearly 10 years after those occurred? Still, your obsession with the Clintons is an explanation of why HRC’s negatives are so high. There are a lot of people out there who just can’t let go.</p>

114

<p>You are right Bedhead. Some people can’t let go - like the Clintons. I don’t have to watch re-runs, I was alive and it was very news worthy! Maybe my memory is better than some. I was horrified at all the Clinton scandals. Have people forgotten? Or should we just continue to give the Clintons a free pass because others are simply “obsessed”? Give me a break.</p>

<p>I am not obsessed with the Clintons. Just honest. I guess if HRC’s negatives are so high, I’m not alone. :confused:</p>

<p>We don’t need more scandal and drama in the White House. Sorry, that’s my opinion. You are entitled to yours.</p>

115

<p>

</p>

<p>But because a lot of that scandal and drama was generated by accusations (many to this day unproven) by political enemies, we’ll get these things no matter what Democrat might win the White House. Because the Republicans will dream up plenty of these kinds of distractions. I am not a Hillary supporter in this election, but get a grip.</p>

116

<p>True, anyone opposed to Hillary needs to “get a grip”. OK. And heaven forbid that you express an opinion that is contrary to her supporters, or her closet non-supporters. :eek:</p>

117

<p><a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/11/opinion/11krugman.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin[/url]”>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/11/opinion/11krugman.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>From Paul Krugman’s Opinion piece in today’s New York Times:</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I couldn’t have said it better myself.</p>

118

<p>janieblue: (Post 108). I’ll tell you where it “gets” us :). It gets more congressional seats for those in support of such new policies, because an energized electorate will tend to vote in congressional elections as well as presidential ones. It gets momentum in a more concrete way for practical reforms, laws, initiatives. Secondarily, it gets young people (the largest group of idealists, in general) potentially interested in participating in local governance, rather than feeling aienated. They will not participate when they cannot relate.</p>

119

<p>^^^</p>

<p>Epiphany nailed it. This is in part what turned me to Obama. Hillary is an uninspiring candidate. She will breed apathy in the base I want energized. Don’t choose the so-called safe, name candidate. Choose the candidate that inspires.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>What a crock. I am opposed to Hillary, but you should still get a grip. Don’t keep letting the election of 1996 or the year 1998 play in your head. Time to turn off the tape loop. These non-news conspiracy theories have infected your good sense.</p>

120

<p>Thanks, epiphany. Good point. Since Edwards was always my first choice-- and it would seem likely that his supporters would go for Obama-- I’m waiting to see who he endorses and hands over his small number of delegates. That would suggest to me he’ll likely receive a cabinet position. Clinton met with him on Thursday; Obama is in NC today meeting with him. I’m guessing Edwards will make an endorsement this week. So, I’ll probably go with that person. </p>

<p>Thanks. :)</p>