My worry list for the Clinton candidacy for President

[MaxRobes]

Note: This is a companion piece to an earlier thread on why I want primary debates

Friends: I am a life long Democrat deeply worried about the state of our Party. I am worried that the current fixation on Hillary Clinton and her husband as our standard bearers will not work out well. This worry comes in three categories: damage already done, things that could go wrong in the campaign, and things we may not like if Hillary wins. Please don’t get me wrong. If she runs and wins the nomination I will vote for her. Meanwhile it feels like a grave mistake to simply anoint her. So herewith is a worry list covering both Clintons.
I use the plural because the Hillary candidacy (prospective as it is) is a package deal. They’re a team and make no mistake, Hill’s election would also be a third term for good old Bill and there is something fundamentally wrong about that in my opinion. First of all, it is unconstitutional by the spirit of the law if not the letter. Second, the guy doesn't deserve a third term. He didn't deserve to be impeached but that doesn't mean he deserves another award of the nation’s highest honor either. No, he needs to go away. I don’t want him residing in the White House again. It’s just how I feel about it.

So it is they, not her, who are running for President. And it is already off to a bad start. Here are the first three calamities I lay at their door:
First, the Democratic presidential field has effectively been frozen. No one dares confront Hill and Bill and run in opposition to them. No prominent Democrat dares criticize the Clintons. No one else can raise any serious money until Hillary announces her intentions. No one even seeks a place on the presidential primary debate stage. Hillary muses that she may not even take any debates. The Party collectively holds its breath waiting for Hillary to “announce” the tone and tenor of her campaign policy choices. They wait for her to come down from the mountain bearing stone tablets, all poll tested of course. The net result: well first, the political dialog on the left is all about politics devoid of any real substantive discussion of policy options, and second, if Hillary should decide not to run for some reason, we are up the proverbial creek without a paddle.

Second, we can thank the Clintons for the robust candidacy of one Jeb Bush. And if he can navigate the Republican primaries he will be their strongest general election candidate by far. What the Clintons have done is neuter the one principled argument that could have stopped Jeb Bush. Too late for that now even if Hillary withdraws, the damage is done. I refer to the idea that handing the Oval Office out as a prize reserved for family legacies is anti democratic. It is a retreat to government by aristocracy. If Hillary wins why not call her Queen Hillary or maybe Queen Rodham, that has a nice ring to it. And if Jeb wins the obvious choice would be King Bush the Third. Is this really what we want?

Third, we have now seen Lanny Davis reappear with his mop and bucket cleaning up the latest Clinton mess. I cannot stand the man even when I agree with him and would rather be boiled in oil than be forced to listen to him on a daily basis for the nest ten years. God help us.

Now then let’s consider what other calamities might lay ahead. What can we expect if Hillary announces that she will run and wins the coronation? Here is what we can expect:
First, Hillary will turn out to be a weak candidate because she is too darn old. I say that as a 71 year old guy who knows well the infirmities of advancing age. If you are thirty and reading this take time to ask ten old folks if they want someone in their seventies running the country. I’ll bet a majority will tell you no.

Next, the Vegas bookies will immediately begin laying odds on Bill’s health. He is a walking advertisement for a heart attack and any health problems in that quarter would drop Hillary’s poll numbers ten points overnight.

And, of course, Gloria Allred will immediately begin the search for the next “bimbo eruption” Odds are very high that good old Bill has not been clean as the driven snow low these twenty years since Monica Lewinsky. Anyone doubting these high odds needs to have their crystal ball taken into the shop and recalibrated.
The net effect of these factors could well be that Hillary may soon enough drop behind old Jeb in the polls and all the air would be let out of the main thing driving her candidacy … all those voters who want a woman president and think she has it in the bag. What then; what will all this suddenly feel like if Hillary trails in the polls down the stretch?

And finally, what happens if Hillary and Bill do win and set up camp in the White House. Here is what would happen:
First, I’m not certain it would be seen as a clear victory for the Democratic Party because in many ways the Clintons are just barely Democrats. By some important measures they are their own third party, which is why Bill famously “triangulated” and called his approach to governing, “the third way”. And it would also not be seen as a clean victory for women. Hillary will always be seen as Bill’s husband and all the proclamations about her own accomplishments will never completely erase that label. The day Hillary were elected is the day the search would begin for the first “real” woman president. But there she would be and how would she govern you ask. Well, here is how, assuming past is prelude:
On war in the Middle East, the Clintons are somewhere to the right of Dick Cheney and the rest of the neo conservatives who brought us the War in Iraq and now bang the drums for war with Iran. Bombs away.
On Israel the Clintons are somewhere to the right of Benjamin Netanyahu. Anyone who thinks that will work out well is a poor student of human history, in my opinion.
On economic policy regarding investment banks and Wall Street the Clintons are somewhere to right of Mr. and Mrs. Greenspan. Watching the Clintons try to squirm out of that will be worth the price of admission.
On income inequality Hillary thinks $300,000 per speech is merely a feminist issue because Bill gets even more. Bill has chocked up a cool $100 million dollars since leaving office from “friends” in business. Those “friends” all think they bought something.
On climate change Hillary and the Clinton Foundation have no greater friends than the Saudi Royal family. We know what oil Sheiks think about burning fossil fuels.
The last time Bill lived in the White House he cut the capital gains tax rate in half, passed NAFTA and other trade laws that resulted in 50,000 manufacturing businesses moving over seas, ended Glass Steagall, and paved the way for tax cuts for the rich and law of the jungle regulation on Wall Street. His presidency was a flaming disaster in the long run and that is not even counting Monica Lewinsky. Where was Hillary on every one of these issues? Standing by her man, that’s where. This worries me. It should worry all of us.
And that’s the short list. I could go on.

In summary I hope other candidates emerge on the left and we have a robust primary debate season. Now I could be wrong. I could be very wrong about every complaint on these lists and I’m sure some readers will think I am wrong. But these worries are pervasive are they not? Am I alone? Really?

[notadmblnd]

1. Please- do go on

[MaxRobes]

12. Mmmmmm. Don't tempt me. But I am not trying to hurt the Clintons

I am searching for other candidates and I want to see a real primary debate about the state of the nation and the future of the
Democratic Party. See the earlier thread now running naming nine primary candcidates.

[Thinkingabout]

29. Its allright to want a real primary but trashing one of the candidates is not a way

To have a primary. I have been saying to have a robust primary, it provides an opportunity to list DNC issues for all to hear.

[MaxRobes]

43. Well it is if that candidate is standing in the way of having a primary.

And I am not trashing her by the way. I am discussing "them" as a team and offering constructive criticism of their record.

[Thinkingabout]

45. Which candidate is standing in the way?

If you are referring to Hillary standing in the way, no way, she can handle a primary and general election. Now there are some who are posting she is the anointed one but this isn't coming from her or her backers.

[MaxRobes]

51. I believe the Clintons are discouraging the entry of major competitors and do not

want full, open primary debates. I could be wrong and would be pleased if events do prove dme wrong.

[merrily]

56. Yes, but not only the Clintons, the Party. Please see Reply 55 below.

[Thinkingabout]

57. I think you are wrong, in fact the primary would get any candidate practice in the General Election

Hey, look at it this way, a primary gives the DNC free air time. If we give the clown show full featured run we do not get our message out.

[Thinkingabout]

59. Let me add this, if Hillary or any candidate cant handle the primary then we need a better candidate

[QuestionAlways]

65. I do not see the gun Hillary has aimed at any other primary candidate

please inform me where you see it.

[Thinkingabout]

70. This has been a conversation on going. I doubt I mentioned a gun.

[trueblue2007]

71. i sure wish i could cast a DON'T LIKE the originator post BECAUSE IT STINKS TO HIGH HEAVEN

so much wrong there in my estimation. i will add my reasons in the morning.
the post gave me a headache and i have to take an aspirin and go to bed.

[earthside]

78. Well, there you go ...

Challenging the potential Hillary candidacy becomes "trashing".

[Thinkingabout]

79. Challenging? Challenging would be running against Hillary, I am ready for those who

wants to challenge Hillary. I guess I could say I am challenging those who "challenge" Hillary.

[QuestionAlways]

93. But as of now, not one is running yet

Hillary may very well run and based on Name ID alone you would have to say she is the leader

Elizabeth Warren has said many times she is not running, and I have it from a very good source that she does not like campaigning and the process of running for election, there has been no indication on her part she is setting up a campaign organization.

Bernie Sanders may very well run, but he will have a difficult time getting pass the fact he is a self-described Socialist, you know those Russians called themselves the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. You will have your debate as Hillary uses Bernie as a foil to prove she is no radical.

Martin O’Malley, I'm told he is a nice guy, but I know very little about except his hand picked successor lost the election to replace him, because of something called the rain tax. A Blue state is now Red because they said O’Malley and his copy-cat successor were tax and spend Democrats. But here again you will have your debate, but don't expect fireworks since it is said O'Malley really wants to be Hillary's VP.

Al Gore/Howard Dean/John Kerry have shown no interest in running. They ran once and failed and are burned-out as far as the national stage goes.

Joe Biden is described by the Media as having foot-in-mouth disease and would be effected by third term voter fatigue. He has also said he would not run if Hillary ran.

Jim Webb is very conservative on climate change and he also said Democrats could "Do a better job with white people." He has declared several months ago, but is having trouble rising money. But he could be in a debate and attack Hillary from the right.

Andrew Cuomo has been buffeted by the recent corruption arrest of Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, and criticism from his controversial decision to scrap the panel investigating public corruption, so he will not run.

Jerry Brown, I was on his staff for his first presidential campaign in 1976 against Carter, he recently had surgery for cancer and is not interested in running.

Both Al Franken and Amy Klobucher along many other democrats have already announced their support of Hillary, but we will have a primary and debates, only for many of us it will not be the one we want.

[MaxRobes]

94. And your point is what?

[drray23]

2. score !

So in one long post , you managed to disparage Hillary because of her age and then doubled down saying that she is only a woman after all so Bill must be in charge.

This is ageism and mysoginy and has no place in a civil discussion.

You also think Hillary does not deserve to be paid for her speeches ? Plenty of others on the speaking circuit do and they do not seem to be an issue. She is not stealing that money, she is paid willingly by organizations who want go hear her.

[MaxRobes]

9. I'll debate ageism with you if your 70 years old or older. As to mysogeny

I am supporting my home state Senator Amy Klobucher for President. Her accomplishments are entirely her own. I do not believe the same can be said for Mrs. Clinton. I have worked actively my whole adult life for women's rights and would like to see a woman president in my life time. I doubt it will be Hillary Clinton.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

98. The suggestion that a member of a group can not be prejudiced or otherwise antagonistic...

The suggestion that a member of a group can not be prejudiced or otherwise antagonistic to other members of his or her group is simply absurd.

[LeFleur1]

114. Accomplishments

Oh, Hillary's accomplishments are entirely her own. But, she has a husband, so, of course, he'd be in charge if she were President. (Sarcasm) As we have seen, Hillary doesn't always agree with Bill on issues. She proved that while he was President. She is much more liberal than he is. And if you think he would run things you are very wrong. I'm quite sure she would listen to advice from him and many others, then make up her own mind.
She's probably smarter than most 30 year olds so her age isn't a problem.
I would like to see debates, too, but the reason is because voters get to judge people on their replies. They are on the spot and it can be telling.

[MaxRobes]

13. In the age of income inequality I do object. I object to anyone getting $300,000

for a speech. People who pay that kind of moneyd expect something in return beyond a night out. Speaking fees at this level are legalized bribery and I don't like it.

[davidpdx]

113. I've seen Hillary supporters disparage Warren because of her age

I disagree. i do think whether we are talking about a male or female, age and health should be taken into consideration. Look at how bad Reagan's health was at the end of his term. I would venture to guess Hillary is in much better health than he was. The question is if she won would she be president for four or eight years. If she picked the right VP, I think she could easily pass the baton in 4 years and we could win a fourth consecutive term. However no one really knows whether she would insist on trying to serve for a full 8 years.

As for gender, I fully support a female president. I do not support Hillary Clinton. Many other countries have had female presidents, especially here in Asia (Korea, Thailand, and The Philippines).

[Lil Missy]

3. Your concern is duly noted. n/t

[napi21]

4. Robust candidacy of Jeb? Where did you hear that?

Other than grabbing all the $$, Jebbers isn't doing so well from everything I've seen. Shame on you for saying Hill is TOO OLD! IMO, she can out think, talk, opine, and act ALL OF THE PUBS! About Bill. Have you forgotten that he left office with one of the highest approval rating of any two term President, and his rating has only gone up since then?

Yes he signed NAFTA and that was wrong. I'd bet even Bill would say that now. I don't believe his Presidency was a "flaming disaster" as you say, and I know there are a lot of others who would disagree with you as well.

From a list of all the potential Dem candidates I've seen, Hill stands the best chance. I LOVE Bernie Sanders, but I'm afraid his declaration that he's a Socialist dooms his run. I also love Joe Biden, and I think he would make a wonderful President, but many people think he puts his foot in his mouth too often. I can go down the list and have reasons why they'd have a very difficult time. The only other Dem I believe stands an equal shot as Hill is Elisabeth Warren, and SHE'S NOT RUNNING!

[MaxRobes]

16. CBS had a poll out this morning with Jeb on top. Pundits expect his 1st qtr funding raising

numbers to also lead the field.
As for good old Bill, he's popular all right. He's just not popular with me.

As for old age, are you in your seventies? I suspect you're not.

[napi21]

42. Not that it's any of your business, but I'm 72!

IS that a problem for you too?

[MaxRobes]

44. Only if you're running for President

[napi21]

87. No, I'm not running for President! NOT because I'm 72, but because I'm not qualified.

I'd make a lousy politician. I'm always ready to fight, call people a LIAR if they lie, tell the truth, even if it's not politically expedient, and above all, HATE TO ASK FOR MONEY!

None of those things apply to Hillary, except askin g for money. As I understand it, NO politician likes to do that.

You have every right to dislike her positions, but NOT to disqualify her because of her age.

[MaxRobes]

88. What if she were 80 or 90? Is an age qualification ever appropriate?

I suspect on this issue we will need to agree to disagree. Hope that is okay.

[napi21]

95. Mentaal & physical abilities are far more important than age. Some people

are too old for a job at 50! Some people never even reach an age when they are competent and mature enough.

I'm really not trying to pick a fight with you. Just would like you to judge at all candidates on their qualifications and abilities and not their age.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

104. The slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy...

She will be seventy when she becomes president, not eighty or nionety.

[QuestionAlways]

67. I am and I support Hillary

[DemocratSinceBirth]

100. A poll of whom?/NT

[hrmjustin]

5. Who do you want to win the nomination?

[MaxRobes]

18. Amy Klobuchar. She is my home state and home town Senator. She is very popular in

Minnesota, and wears well. She is baggage free. If Hillary should decide not to run or falter downds the stretch, and Warren continues to stay out, Ms Klobuchar would suddenly be on a lot of short lists.

[hrmjustin]

19. She and Warren will not run.

Hillary will and will win.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

35. Oh, ugh, not Klobuchar! She speaks well but she has no courage.

She waffles and equivocates and can't come up with a straight answer because she wants to please everybody - and although most of the time she votes with Dems (so there's that), she's not much of an advocate for civil liberties, having been one of only 16 Democratic senators to have voted for the "Protect America Act of 2007", which was widely seen as eroding the civil liberty protections of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. She is known for sponsoring and promoting popular and noncontroversial legislation (safer toys, banning the importing of honey from China), but if you contact her office to find out how she's going to vote on something controversial, you can't get a straight answer (and if it's by phone a staffer will probably be rude). I'd vote for her over a Republican, but I hope we can come up with some better candidates (I'm also not especially enthusiastic about Clinton).

[MaxRobes]

54. Amy has one of the highest approval rating of any sitting Senator and

is well like and widely respected by her collegues. Rude is just about the last word to come to mind in describing her. She is center left, not far left but that is a general election asset. Give her a second look.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

58. I don't need to give her a second look. I've already given her

a third, fourth and fifth look. I'm a Minnesota resident who has tried in the past to get information from her office about how she actually intends to vote on an issue and all I ever got was a big puffy cloud of noncommittal fog. I didn't say she was rude - she probably isn't - but my experience and that of others I've discussed Klobuchar with is that her staff members are often rude when you contact them by telephone. She's "popular" because she bends over backwards to be inoffensive and noncontroversial. I want a senator (and a president) who is willing to take clear, courageous stands and not just try to win a popularity contest. A spineless centrist does not appeal to me at all.

[MaxRobes]

62. So Velveteen, after Hillary loses in 2016 and Amy is our candidate in 2020 I'll escort you

down to Klobuchar's office and make sure none of her staff are rude. I'll expect you to do then what I am going to do now. Hold my nose and vote for someone that makes me uncomfortable. Deal?

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

66. I always vote for the Democrat over the Republican.

I don't know who the nominee will be in 2016. I hope it's not Hillary - I can't be very enthusiastic about a centrist who's that cozy with Wall Street - but I'd vote for her (or, more accurately, against the Republican) if she's the nominee. I also believe she and at least some other Democratic possibles can defeat whatever troglodyte nutjob the Republicans nominate, so I'm not assuming Hillary will lose in 2016, not by a long shot. I feel about spineless centrist Klobuchar about the same way I feel about Hillary: Meh, but better than a Republican; I do not think she will, or should, run for President.

[MANative]

6. Oh, this is a companion piece, is it? Wow.

38 posts and you've already earned this woman's contempt. As if there aren't enough misogynists around here already.

[MaxRobes]

22. By "companion piece" I was simply referring to another thread I started on the front

page which names nine people I would like to see in the Democratic Primary Debates. The essence of that thread is to call for such debates. My worry list about the Clintons is a driving force behind the urgency I feel in this regard.
As to misogyny I would like to see a woman president in my life time. I would like it to be a woman who gets there entirely on her own. Hillary does not fit that description no matter how mightlily you may wish it to be. It is simply a fact.

[leftofcool]

7. Another Clinton hit piece. Ya'll are on a roll today.

[hrmjustin]

8. I must have trashed the other one.

[Thinkingabout]

10. Let me ask you a question, you talk about Hillary getting paid for her speeches, she's qualified

To speak. If you have ever worked you were probably paid also. Now if you compare Hillary and W, which would you think would be the better speaker?

All of your other concerns, just be concerned who is qualified, the side shows be damned, we hear some of the same crap from the likes of Bill Kristol, who cares about what Kristol has to say about DNC potential candidates.

[MaxRobes]

23. $300,000 for a speech is legalized bribery, imo. See reply above.

[Thinkingabout]

26. Let's go with my question, did you worj and did you receive compensation?

[MaxRobes]

33. Yes,I worked for pay in the economy for roughly 40 years and was paid fairly

for that work. I say fairly because that is the operative word in this discussion. $300,000 is not fair pay for a speech. It is fair pay for influence peddling.

[Thinkingabout]

37. This is what she could command. Attorneys gets paid much more than what i was

Paid and I paid it. Do you feel this way about performers? might not be worth what they are paid but they get it. Disagree on the pay but I don't feel my pay is bribery and I doubt you did either. I also would not pay $12000 for a dinner with important because I can't afford it but I don't see it as bribery.

[FSogol]

40. We are all sorry you have no grasp on economics. Think of it this way,

why does quarterback Tom Brady make more than you? Here's a hint, it isn't legalized bribery. Take your time....

[MaxRobes]

46. My grasp of economics allows me to perceive that Bill Clinton wasn't paid

$100 million dollars in speech fees simply because certain people were enthralled to hear him speak but because those people thought they were buying access and perhaps influence somewhere down the road should the Clintons ever get back in the presidency. That is a form of bribery.
This, quite frankly, is a perfect illustration of why their candidacy worries me. Both the Clintons and their supporters are pathologically unable to see what is wrong with $300,000 speech fees. I am looking for a Democratic primary candidate who will condemn all the money in politics including this money. And you, I must say, have further convlnced me I am right.

[QuestionAlways]

69. The speaking fees they are paid go to the charity that bears their name

not to their personal bank account

[MaxRobes]

77. True only in the exception. They keep the vast majority of the money

They sometimes donate fees from universities and other non profits but not the fees from investment bankers and all the other special interests. All the money from corporate America seeking access goes directly to their personal wealth or to their foundation.
Historians will fillet them for it.

[QuestionAlways]

80. You prove my point

You say

All the money from corporate America seeking access goes directly to their personal wealth or to their foundation.

You can find a description of the foundation, its goals, and largest contributes at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_Foundation

[MaxRobes]

83. No, but I can do a better job of explaining my point

Money flows to the Clintons from corporate America in two streams. The chump change is the flow of speaking fees which the Clintons pocket directly for the most part. The much larger stream of money, which runs into the $10s of millions of dollars per year, flows to the Clinton Foundation where the Clintons use it as they see fit. This flow has accumulated to over a billion dollars.
Anyone who thinks that these multi million dollar corporate donations to the Clinton Foundation don't buy access and influence is living in la la land. I'll go further and suggest that it is a false equivalence to justify the high speaking fees by asserting they are donated to charity when in reality some of that money is diverted to the Clinton Foundation. That is hardly the same thing as donating those speaking fees to the Red Cross.
No, this is organized and legalized bribery. It is the spear point of political corruption in a democracy sinking into oligarchy, and the Clintons are exhibit A.

[davidpdx]

112. Anyone who questions Hillary is just parroting Bill Kristol?

I'm glad to here you think that only the Hillary supporters can think for themselves.

[RBInMaine]

11. Bill Clinton won TWICE. McGovern, Carter the second time, Mondale, Dukakis, Kerry LOST.

Case closed, next case.

[4now]

15. So did George Bush

[MaxRobes]

24. Yah Bill won. For his third Party. The Democrats didn't win anything.

And middle class America has been getting screwed ever since with Bill's "triangulating" leading the way.

[FSogol]

41. Did you forget that following Carter's loss vs Reagan that people were

writing epitaphs for the Democratic Party? What you complain about Clinton's triangulating was the correct move (at that time) to get the Democrats back in power after 12 years of Republican control. Comparing today's political climate to the climate of the past is total nonsense. It is sheer intellectual dishonesty.

Screw the shitty both-parties-are-same crap.

[MaxRobes]

47. Bill's triangulating didn't get the Democrats back in power it got the Clintons in power

And yes the Republicans are worse, much worse so please don't lay that on me.

[merrily]

63. +1 Additionally, it's ludicrous to believe that, in 1992 and 1996, most

voters, including most Democratic voters, had heard of the DLC, let alone were aware of the changes in the Democratic Party. I know a woman who was graduated in the top 3 in her class at Barnard, summa cum laude, a lifelong Democrat. She reads at least two newspapers every day and her home is also full of books and magazines. As of a few years ago, she had not heard of the DLC, Third Way, etc.

Clinton did not win in 1992 because he triangulated after he got into office. He won in part because we have a two party system, Republicans had been in office three terms, Poppy was not charismatic and did not run a good campaign, the economy was lagging, AND Ross Perot siphoned off a lot of votes from Poppy.

I am sure that is not the whole story because elections are much more complex than a couple of paragraphs can demonstrate, but I very much doubt triangulating was any part of that victory.

[MaxRobes]

84. Hello Merrily, thanks for your reply. I agree with you in part.

You'r right, Bill did not run in 1992 as a triangulator, that didn't happen until after the 1994 off year debacle. He did run as a third way candidate in 1996 and from 1994 on he governed as a third way triangulator. He gave the Republicans their holiest of holy grail victories by cutting the capital gains tax rate in half and essentially gave his blessing to the idea that income from capital gains desrved favorable tax treatment compared to ordinary income. I, for one, will never forgive or forget that travesty. He also signed trade deals that sent 50,000 manufacturing plants over seas and destroyed the lives of tens of millions of hard working American families. These two decision alone should be enough for any self respecting Democrat to bar the door from Bill Clinton ever again standing in the White House.

[merrily]

90. I am not sure which part of my post you disagreed with, but thanks.

I'd add at least repeal of Glass-Steagall and DOMA. The former took down the wall that FDR had put up during the Depression and led to the 2008 crash of the economy of the US and other nations. Republicans put that bill forward. However, both Greenspan and Clinton lobbied Congress to pass it. And DOMA was sheer bigotry, signed by a Democratic President.

[merrily]

60. Ross Perot. Incumbency. Plus, Hillary is not Bubba and Bubba is not running again.

The notion that one closes the case on anything as complex as individual Presidential elections with a few words is laughable and I certainly am not trying to do that.

[4now]

14. You bring up some important things to consider.

We might want to remember that Bill's handprints were all over DOMA, Don't Ask Don't tell and Welfare Reform.

[OKNancy]

17. There are many problems with your post

I'd like to focus on this bullshit meme that Hillary is "barely a Democrat"
( Oh and for what it's worth both Franken and Klobuchar have endorsed Hillary)

Would a barely Democrat:

Have a 100% NARAL and NOW rating
Have a 96% rating of the NAACP

Hillary Clinton ----
Voted against confirming Alito and Roberts for the Supreme Court
Voted No on CAFTA
Supports same-day voter registration; no oppressive ID requirements
Voted NO on require photo ID
Pro-healthcare for all
Against privatization of Social Security and Medicare
Voted YES on allowing reimportation of Rx drugs from Canada
Pro - Union
Voted with Democrats 96.7% of 304 votes
cosponsored bills to increase the minimum wage five times

--------------------

there is so much more but I know how SOME people hate to read a long list of pro-Hillary stuff...

[MaxRobes]

28. To clarify, what I argued is that Bill ran and governed as "barely a Democrat" and

Hillary "stood by her man" during his presidency. I argued that the policies they implemented were a disaster for the middle class in this country and I stand by that claim. I could care less what symbolic votes Hillary took as Senator. They tell us very little about how she and Bill would govern if reelected.
P.S. If she runs and wins I'll vote for her. In the mean time I want some real debates about the state of the nation and the very soul of the Democratic Party. Don't youtoo seek such primary debates?

[OKNancy]

32. Hillary is her own woman.

Your post is insulting to women who seek their own path. Hillary has always been considered more liberal than Bill.
And I disagree that Bill was a disaster or that Hillary's votes were "symbolic".
I guess Al Franken's votes are symbolic too.

[MaxRobes]

49. Valid criticisms of the Clintons that encompass Hillary's role in their

joint presidency may be an insult to Hillary but they are not an insult to all women. Hillary's claim to "her own path" is littered with baggage, both hers and Bill's.
In terms of women's equality and women's rights and breaking the glass ceiling wouldn't it be better if the first woman president were not the wife of some former president? Isn't the answer to that question flamingly obvious?

[merrily]

61. That is not how either Bubba or she framed it--except maybe when convenient.

FYI, the reality is that Hillary does happen to be the wife of a former President and she seems to have chosen to run for President herself. Certain things do and will inevitably flow from that, especially given the way they have both behaved around that issue and the importance of the office.

First, in 1992, he and she both sold his candidacy as getting two for the price of one. Her supporters tried to sell her 2008 candidacy the same way, with no demurrer whatsoever from her (or him) and her supporters have already been selling her seemingly likely 2016 candidacy the same way.

Meanwhile, she herself has referred to his administration with words like "we" and "us," including while she was running for President in 2008 and since then. For example, when questioned at a 2008 primary campaign event about how her husband had run on equal rights for gays, then treated them badly (I assume that referred to DADT and DOMA), she replied, "I thought we did pretty well."

Additionally, during her 2008 campaign, she cited her experiences as her husband's first lady as though they added to her own qualifications to be President.

I have not heard her disavow anything her husband did. To the contrary, she has praised her husband's administration. So, I am not at all sure how associating her with the things he did, good or bad, is unfair or sexist or any of things claimed about it.

Meanwhile, he was her campaign surrogate in 2008, though they played good cop, bad cop when something he said got attacked.

Bottom line, though, neither the Clintons nor their supporters should expect to have it both ways, or every which way on this issue.

(Obviously, if Hillary had been President first and Bubba had behaved about her administration and his experience as First Gentleman the same way as she has, the exact same realities would obtain.)

[MaxRobes]

85. Hello again, Merrily. Here I agree with you 100%

You have stated this well and made the point far better than I did. Thanks.

[Jamaal510]

110. She's

so much barely a Democrat that the GOP routinely drags her name through the mud.

[LiberalElite]

20. I'm no Hillary fan but

the "too darn old" part is too darn ridiculous. We all age at different rates. We all get different dents n' dings. Some of us get a lot and relatively young and some get (almost) none. George Burns lived to 100 still drinking martinis and smoking cigars.

P.S.: I'm a kid of almost 65.

[MaxRobes]

30. When I was 65 I thought like you did. Turning seventy cured me of that.

[LiberalElite]

36. Your experience

at 70 isn't necessarily everyone's.

[MaxRobes]

50. I know about 100 people in their seventies. None of them are fit to be president

or to make the grueling run for the presidency. This is a young persons game.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

99. Your observation is specious.

Unless you are a gerontologist or a septuagenarian's personal physician you have no idea of what they are and aren't capable of.

[merrily]

68. Yes and no. No one can predict how anyone is going to age.

And the office of POTUS is not just any job.

How someone is going to age over the next 4 to 8 years can be determined by voters only in hindsight, if at all. In hindsight, Reagan was probably in the earliest stages of Alzheimer's while he was President. In hindsight, Paul Tsongas probably should not have tried to run for President, either, but that medical info was not released in detail. We knew he had cancer, though, we knew there was a risk. We know there's a risk of a different kind with Hillary. There is no question the risk exists. Question is, to paraphrase, how lucky are we punks feeling about that risk?

Age is not dispositive. My cousin's wife unfortunately died of VERY early onset of Alzheimers at 40. (I have difficulty believing that, but that is how her doctor's diagnosed her, so who am I to disbelieve.) However, as voters, we have to go by something.

Without a crystal ball, statistical probabilities are all we can go by. And people Hillary's age are more probable to die, to have less energy, to suffer more physical illnesses, to react slower, etc. And I know of nothing that tells me Hillary is extraordinarily fit for her age, as McCain's camp claimed he was. (And "McOld" sure came in for his share of mockery on account of his age, though I don't condone mocking elders because of age in the least, even McCain.)

This is not the same as refusing to hire a job applicant for a sales or programming position just because he or she is over 65. (Not that many do hire strangers older than 65 for many jobs, anyway.) This is a job that involves the very lives of millions, if not billions, of people from which a POTUS cannot be removed very easily if shows signs that the he or she is not physically, emotionally or mentally able to perform at top capacity.

For that matter, would most Americans even know how much a POTUS was doing on his or her own? There were rumors and jokes about Reagan and he made one speech where my reaction was "huh? Did he really just say that?" (He said something like, I don't really think that I did that. But they tell me they did and I believe them.&quot But, nothing happened to him after that and I shrugged it off.

Let's assume what he said and the full import of it had seared my brain, though: What the hell could I have done about it? I didn't want Reagan running the most powerful office in the world. Even much less than that, though, I sure as hell didn't want people whom no one at all had elected running it, and they well may have been. But, that we learned only after the fact.

Just as an aside, the abillty to drink martinis and smoke cigars says zero about fitness for the Presidency or ability to perform the duties of POTUS. Neither does doing an hour of stand up when one feels up to it. Besides, little we typically we associate with the POTUS being on call 24/7 turned on whether George Burns, when he was 65, would remain as mentally sharp and physically energetic for the next 4 to 8 years.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

102. Actuarial tables suggest Secretary Of Clinton will live to eighty five years old...

Actuarial tables suggest Secretary Of Clinton will live to eighty five years old . That suggests Ms. Clinton will enjoy a robust retirement after serving her eight years as president.

The average life expectancy for a 69 year old is 15.9 years.

http://life-span.healthgrove.com/l/70/69

[merrily]

111. The age at which the average woman is likely to die has nothing to do with what I posted.

I said nothing about the possibility of her dying in office. Her life expectancy was not my point and I think you know that.

I said no one can predict how any individual would age. Not sure how anyone can legitimately argue with that statement.

Reagan was alive--and showing signs of Alzheimer's during both his terms in office and, very likely people no one had voted for or even knew were taking over more and more. His death date, however, was irrelevant to his Presidency--and certainly to his mental and physical capacity on the day he passed.

In general people at 70 are less quick mentally, have less stamina and energy and are less healthy than they were at 50. Physically and mentally, they are not at the top of their games. I am sure whatever tables health insurers keep would tell you that. I hope we are not going to pretend otherwise.

We all know these things just from being alive on this planet. We all have or had parents and grandparents and aunts and uncles whom we remember when they were younger as well as as they aged.

And I was not speaking only about Hillary, but about anyone who runs. She happens to be running now, but I plan to be voting for longer than another year and I hope many other DUers will also be voting for a long time. I posted similar things on another board when McCain ran in 2008.

Everything was not about Obama and everything is not about Hillary. Not for me, anyway.

[tularetom]

21. Of course you realize you are about to get torn apart by a pack of yapping feral chihuahuas

Because you have raised some valid (but very uncomfortable for certain people) concerns.

Hang in there.

[OKNancy]

25. so when someone disagrees

they are yapping feral chihuahuas? I think some people just don't like it when an argument is countered.

[tularetom]

53. It isn't a question of an argument being countered

The guy (I'm presuming it was a guy) was accused of sexism, ageism, wingnuttery and probably several other isms for daring to express his opinion.

There are many of us who are less than ecstatic at the prospect of another four years of Clintonian drama, scandals and palace intrigue.

You may disagree. Fine, it's certainly within your rights to do so. I don't think you are a tool of anybody if you do, I assume you are capable of making up your own mind. It would have been simple enough to counter the OP's points without all the personal attacks and finger pointing.

BTW, I'm not aiming this at you personally, because I haven't gone back and re-read all the posts.

If you were bothered by the "yapping feral chihuahuas" comment, I offer you the standard republican apology: I apologize if you were offended by my remarks.

[merrily]

64. Yep, as per usual.

On another board, where posters from all segments of the political continuum were allowed to post, a Democratic poster pm'd me about Republican posters: "We post about issues; they post about us."

As a personal observation of my own:

Whenever a post begins with "So," then purports to re-word a perfectly clear post of another poster, the post that begins with "So" should be disregarded. If it's an honest repetition of the clear post, it's unnecessary and redundant at the very best. If it's not an honest repetition, all the more reason to disregard it.

[Buzz cook]

118. And there you have it. The real reason some dems don't like Hillary

"There are many of us who are less than ecstatic at the prospect of another four years of Clintonian drama, scandals and palace intrigue."

Who caused all this drama that has you so upset? Was it the Clintons or was it the Republicans and their running dogs in the supposedly main stream media?

I remember the nineties and the only "scandal" was a blow job. Everything else from Mena Airport to Whitewater was a creation of the media and the rightwing.

Hell there was even a name for it, "Clinton Rules" journalism.

Some how a certain segment of the population decided to blame the Clintons for that abuse. "If only the Clintons would go away the mean people will stop being mean"

Well it doesn't work, what works is fighting back. You may not have noticed but most of us on the left are in favor of fighting back and we're better at it than we were in the nineties. And Hillary Clinton is pretty good at it too.

[tularetom]

119. Well, they tried the same crap with Obama but none of it stuck

So you might want to ask yourself why the republicans were able to make the Clintons look so slimy but could never lay a glove on Obama.

I'm totally in favor of "fighting back", but Hillary Clinton, liar, supporter of the Iraq war, personal friend of war criminal Henry Kissinger, friend of Wall Street, etc., etc., ain't exactly "pretty good at it".

[Buzz cook]

120. I've already asked and answered that question.

Obama was the designated anti-Clinton of the 2008 election. As such he had some media on his side.
Once he won the nomination the script was already in effect that he was the "fresh face of change"; and the media rarely changes the scripts that they write.
Even given that a fair number of the liberal media did turn on Obama after he won the election and even more carried water for them once the tea part started up.

Remember also that much of Obama's campaign and political strategy is aimed at sucking up to the conventional wisdom of the inside the beltway villagers.

And as I said we are getting better at pushing back. If not might Obama have given away Social Security?

[Buzz cook]

122. I should add

"So you might want to ask yourself why the republicans were able to make the Clintons look so slimy but could never lay a glove on Obama. "

You must not remember the 2010 and 2014 elections.

[notadmblnd]

27. Are you referring to the women members of DU?

[tularetom]

48. Hell no, I love the women members of DU

Every one of them, even those with whom I may sometimes disagree. They're presumably all Democrats and therefore, people who share my worldview and values.

I'm referring actually to those who refuse to accept that there are Democrats who doubt the viability or desirability of a Hillary Clinton presidency and who react to those doubters with venom and personal attacks.

My comment wasn't gender specific. As far as I know, yapping feral chihuahuas come in both genders.

I do not favor the idea of Hillary Clinton in the white house. Not because she's a woman, but because she is a Clinton. You may disagree with me, it is your right to do so. But I will never question your sincerity, your motives or your loyalty to the Democratic party on the basis of that disagreement.

[MaxRobes]

31. Thanks. I appreciate that. I love a good debate. And have a thick skin.

Some say thick head. Whatever.

[swilton]

34. +++

[quadrature]

38. her health is not up to the task of a campaign

that could be an advantage or a disadvantage,
as in my opinion,
the more she is seen,
the more votes she will lose.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

101. How did you divine "her health is not up to the task of a campaign" ?

Thank you in advance.

[gwheezie]

39. I can't predict the future so

Other than I think a robust dem primary will only contribute to a dem win in the ge, if something should go wrong in hillary's campaign I want several people to be ready to go.

[quickesst]

52. ha ha ha

if you tie a ribbon around a pile of horse shit..... It's still just a pile of horse shit.... With a ribbon.😏

[merrily]

55. We DESERVE primaries, but our party seems to have decided primaries suck.

Please indulge me by reading these two posts of mine.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026396835#post7


http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6411462

And, if you are still willing to read: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026410455#post183

[swilton]

73. Thank you for all of your

edifying posts - read every one of them.

[merrily]

74. Wow, thanks. This must be one of my luckier days.

I've gotten some compliments and it's not even noon.

I appreciate every syllable greatly and that is especially true this morning. (It's been a bit rough today.)

[MaxRobes]

89. Yes, thank you. It's undeniable that strong forces within the Democratic establishment

oppose any primary debates and want to suppress strong challengers from emerging. Maybe a coronation and a general election sweep for Hilly and Billy is in the offing but I wouldn't bet a plug nickel on it. This strategy is a huge risk.

[marym625]

91. Thank you

[trueblue2007]

72. I AM WOMAN........ HEAR ME ROAR you sexist

hey you, i am a few years younger than you. HOW DARE YOU GO AFTER A PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE CALLING .... HER .... AN OLD GRANNY.
rude, rude, rude.

why are you even here? Disparaging a Democrat calling them rotten names?
You make me just sick. in this day and age you are into ageism? Shame on you.

You said ...... "Hillary will turn out to be a weak candidate because she is too darn old. I say that as a 71 year old guy who knows well the infirmities of advancing age. If you are thirty and reading this take time to ask ten old folks if they want someone in their seventies running the country. I’ll bet a majority will tell you no. "


It is MEN like you that make little girls WEAK and think they can't try for the moon.

[swilton]

75. I am woman

Last edited Mon Mar 30, 2015, 11:04 AM - Edit history (1)

and I don't find the original post sexist.

As one who has worked her way up from 'inside the beltway' I find the observation that Hillary has benefitted from nepotism to be true. It happens all the time and to think that it doesn't is a naivite at best and at worst it is infantile.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

103. The Kennedys, Roosevelts, Adams, and Bushes benefited from nepotism as well...

And unlike Ms. Clinton they weren't legacies to boot.

Ms. Clinton was a product of the middle class that worked her way to Wellesley and Yale Law, the most prestigious law school in the land. She didn't go there because that's where her daddy went.

[MaxRobes]

76. Clearly my original post made you angry. I am sorry about that.

My goal is not to hurt the Clintons or Hillary's candidacy but simply to call for robust primary debates which expand the field of viable Democratic candidates for President. Don't you in any way share my unease that so few competitors have emerged and we don't know for sure that there will be primary debates?
In any case, and at the risk of making you angry again, I'll say this: I don't hear Hillary "roaring". I hear her whining. Actually what I hear is mostly silence with an occasssional small whine. I say tha,t not as a sexist, but as a simple, objective observation.

[BlueMTexpat]

81. My own "worry list" has noted

the many recent anti-Clinton posts by low-post count posters.

Hmmm!

[MaxRobes]

86. Like all long time readers / non posters I am subject to "the curse of lurkers"

How does one begin? I hope to earn your trust over time.

[BlueMTexpat]

96. That will depend on what

you continue to post.

[MaxRobes]

97. Fair enough.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

82. I and others have been worried about a Hillary Clinton presidency since 2007.

We were just in the minority.

The Democratic Party will force feed her down our collective throats, whether we want her or not.

If she is the nominee, I'll hold my nose.

But I am also very deeply concerned with this entitled behavior from the Democratic Party.

[KoKo]

105. You are not the only one who has those concerns...

And, taking into consideration that Wall Street, Military, Media, Corporate Industrial Complex would be thrilled with either Hillary-Bill or Jeb Bush as President then you can see we Dems are "Up the Creek--Without a Paddle."

[Proud Liberal Dem]

117. With all due respect

This just can't top my "worry list" for what will happen if the Republicans win the WH and hold the Senate and House


I'm all for a primary (if and when any other viable Democratic candidates emerge), but I hope that everybody will enthusiastically support the eventual Democratic nominee for POTUS no matter who he/she is.

[Lil Missy]

121. This concern troll has been banned. n/t

[Myrina]

123. "Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely."

Brilliant? Yes
Qualified? Yes
Power-driven? Sadly, yes.

I was a Clinton-Gore volunteer back in 91/92 & even then something didn't feel right about Bill/Hill. They wanted the Presidency for THEM. Not because they had a burning need to be public servants & make the world a better place, but because it was a goal - an ambition - they shared.

I still feel that way. Someone needs to ask her - when she announces - WHY she wants to be President. Really, in her heart of hearts, why?