Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

I think it would be unhealthy for our democracy to have 28 years of the same two families

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
calteacherguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 05:48 PM
Original message
I think it would be unhealthy for our democracy to have 28 years of the same two families
Edited on Wed Nov-28-07 06:00 PM by calteacherguy
occupying the White House.

It's not the America I want to live in. It smacks of privilege and elitism. It's narrow and Undemocratic vision for our counrty.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
mike_c Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 05:49 PM
Response to Original message
1. agreed 100 percent....
Not to mention that neither of those two families has been especially good for America in the first place. Why would ANYONE want to keep them in power?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MethuenProgressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-29-07 01:50 PM
Response to Reply #1
69. Letting voters decide who they want to vote for is "Undemocratic"?
That thinking is 100 percent Republican.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackORoses Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-29-07 02:43 PM
Response to Reply #69
77. forcing Hillary upon the voter is undemocratic, yes
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MethuenProgressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-29-07 02:46 PM
Response to Reply #77
78. "forcing"? The MSM hates her. The GOP hates hers. Almost all of DU hates her.
What "forcing"? Where?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackORoses Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-29-07 05:06 PM
Response to Reply #78
79. yet we are continually bombarded with Hillary's 'inevitability' and 'experience'
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jersey Devil Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 05:50 PM
Response to Original message
2. Roosevelts included?
How about Adams?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
calteacherguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 05:53 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. This is unprecedented.
Edited on Wed Nov-28-07 05:54 PM by calteacherguy
It's unprecedented in American history to have the potential for 28 consecutive years. At this point in history we ought to be moving beyond privileged families. It's the 21st century.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jersey Devil Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 05:55 PM
Response to Reply #4
10. So you would automatically disqualify blood relatives?
I am not a Hillary supporter but if someone appears to be the best candidate why would I give a hoot that their spouse/father/brother, etc., also served as President? Are you suggesting that Hillary or others related to presidents do not have the independence of mind to make decisions that would be different than their related predecessors?

If not, then wtf is your point?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
calteacherguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 06:01 PM
Response to Reply #10
16. I am telling you that it makes a difference to me.
That's my f****** point.

If it doesn't to you, fine. But it makes a lot of difference to a lot of people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jersey Devil Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 06:35 PM
Response to Reply #16
38. Sure, it makes a "difference" because you oppose Hillary
That's the "difference" it makes. Would have opposed RFK for the same reasons? I doubt it.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
calteacherguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 09:25 PM
Response to Reply #38
54. We are talking about 28 years! nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RichGirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-29-07 08:11 AM
Response to Reply #54
67. 28 years!
So what! We've had hundreds of years of white guys!!! That is way more disturbing to me.

Besides...it is shallow thinking when you lump them together. Two Bush presidents = bad. Two Clinton presidents = good. We had 20 years of Reagan/Bushs. That's bad. Hillary may or may not be our candidate. If she is, are you going to vote for Huckabee, or whoever????

Whatever arguement anyone has against any of our primary candidates...check yourself. Would you continue with the same arguement in the general election??? Might make you rethink it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Selatius Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-29-07 02:13 PM
Response to Reply #67
72. The First Clinton was a mixed bag at best.
He was no friend of labor.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The River Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 06:42 PM
Response to Reply #10
40. What Are The Odds
Edited on Wed Nov-28-07 06:45 PM by The River
that the "best" candidate just happens to be a
wife,(spouse) brother (sister) or son (daughter) of a recent President out a
country of 300 million people ????

On principle alone it's an affront to Democracy. (thats his point, imho)

The best qualified people (with few exceptions) don't even bother to become
candidates for national office. They know the system won't allow them to get elected.

I see 2 types of people who do run for office.
The genuine idealist/crusader who wants to help make things better and
people with HUGE egos who only seem to be in it for the power and prestige.
Our current field seems split between the 2 types.

(on edit to placate the PC Policepersons)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jersey Devil Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 06:45 PM
Response to Reply #40
42. How could it be an "affront to democracy" for people to vote
for someone they believe is the best candidate? Of course "best" is subjective and it always has been.

I don't get it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The River Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 07:13 PM
Response to Reply #42
49. You Sure Don't



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sean Stuart Donating Member (127 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 08:15 PM
Response to Reply #40
51. Well said.
I like to say that we're the first democracy in history to vote for a monarchy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigmonkey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-29-07 02:17 PM
Response to Reply #10
75. It makes a difference because families represent specific interests.
Social circles, friends, business partners, debts and debtors, obligations, patterns of behavior. Yes, there is some difference among the generations, but basically the same interests will be addressed by members of the same family. That's my concern, that the interests represented by those families get too much influence on the society when those families stay in power.

Aristocracy has its proven problems.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemocratSinceBirth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 05:57 PM
Response to Reply #4
14. Privilege
Bill Clinton's mother was a nurse...He probably comes from more modest circumstances than any Democratic president since Truman...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
calteacherguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 06:04 PM
Response to Reply #14
20. That's completely irrelevant to the topic. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemocratSinceBirth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 06:24 PM
Response to Reply #20
33. You Brought It Up
It's unprecedented in American history to have the potential for 28 consecutive years. At this point in history we ought to be moving beyond privileged families. It's the 21st century

-calteacherguy
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
calteacherguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 09:26 PM
Response to Reply #33
56. This is a country of 300 million people
not two families
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemocratSinceBirth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-29-07 06:46 AM
Response to Reply #56
62. You Still Haven't Offered
Edited on Thu Nov-29-07 06:48 AM by DemocratSinceBirth
You still haven't offered an iota of evidence to support your assertion that Bill Clinton was "privileged" but I'm not surprised...

Do you use the ipse dixit method to teach your students?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ConfidentialStatus Donating Member (245 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 06:28 PM
Response to Reply #4
37. George Bush was VP in 81
He didn't have the title as President... But? If Hillary takes two terms - 2016. Then another Bush family member, common sense tells me something isn't right.

By the People for the People... I say horse crap.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kucinich4America Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-29-07 05:32 PM
Response to Reply #37
82. Poppy Bush was the same type of VP as Cheney
He had a lot more to do with what was going on in the White House than Reagan, the "acting" president did. If I remember correctly, only Don Regan and Ed Meese were actually Reagan appointees. The rest of the cabinet were Bush Crime Family loyalists.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kucinich4America Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-29-07 05:30 PM
Response to Reply #2
81. The Roosevelts were two different parties
Although Teddy, the Republican would be preferable to the DLC "Democrats". At least he'd bust up the mega corporations again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OhioChick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 05:50 PM
Response to Original message
3. Ditto. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Crabby Appleton Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 05:53 PM
Response to Original message
5. I agree completely. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
opihimoimoi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 05:53 PM
Response to Original message
6. Why would it be Unhealthy?? The reasons stated are not valid..This is BULL SHIT
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
calteacherguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 05:55 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. It would be unhealthy for the very reasons I stated plainly in the OP.
Edited on Wed Nov-28-07 05:56 PM by calteacherguy
The idea of schoolchidren growing up in America believing they would have to be related to a President to be President sickens me. Doesn't it sicken you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
opihimoimoi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 06:11 PM
Response to Reply #7
25. Are you nuts....them reasons are not real reasons....you sound like a PUB
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
calteacherguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 06:14 PM
Response to Reply #25
27. Oh, forgive me. They are not "real" reasons because....
you say so, right?

:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
opihimoimoi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 06:24 PM
Response to Reply #27
34. Sarcastic answers are so revealing.....you sound like Carl Sheeler....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jersey Devil Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 05:57 PM
Response to Reply #6
13. Not just bullshit, but refined, homogenized, pure bullshit
Even "unhealthy".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Armstead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 09:28 PM
Response to Reply #6
57. Opi I luv ya -- but you're wrong on this one
I believe seven consecutive terms held by either a father/son or husband/wife of just two families is unhealthy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
opihimoimoi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 11:05 PM
Response to Reply #57
58. Love ya too, but ....Reason and Logic is on my side....and Odds too I might add..
Aloha

:toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemocratSinceBirth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 05:55 PM
Response to Original message
8. If Bobby Wasn't Shot And Ted Didn't Have A Car Accident That Took Someone's Life
We Could Have Had Successive Kennedy Administrations....

I don't think anybody here would be complaining...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Scriptor Ignotus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 06:11 PM
Response to Reply #8
24. good point
I suspect most Americans just don't like the Bushes and Clintons, for different reasons of course.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemocratSinceBirth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 06:18 PM
Response to Reply #24
29. There Was A Time When Nobody Thought The Kennedy Presidency Line Ended With John
And it's a fair question if Ted Kennedy would be a senator today if he wasn't the president's brother...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Commie Pinko Dirtbag Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 05:55 PM
Response to Original message
9. Well, if HRC is the nominee, you can help avoid that dire fate by voting Republican! Wheeee!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 05:56 PM
Response to Original message
11. Agreed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elizm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 05:56 PM
Response to Original message
12. Absolutely agree. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sufrommich Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 06:01 PM
Response to Original message
15. How would Clinton being elected to POTUS
be undemocratic?Voters would obviously be choosing to put her there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
calteacherguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 06:03 PM
Response to Reply #15
18. It's Undemocratic in a wider sense.
Media manipulation giving certain candidates and advantage based on name recognition and family ties.

I don't like it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sufrommich Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 06:08 PM
Response to Reply #18
22. Media manipulation?
She doesn't seem to be the media darling to me.I'm also pretty sure the general public are aware of the other first tier candidates by now.The fact that you don't care for her front runner status is not proof that she is being"forced" on us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemocratSinceBirth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 06:22 PM
Response to Reply #18
32. If It Was Up To The MSM Hillary Clinton Would Have A Terminal Disease
They hate her that fucking much...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
panader0 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 06:02 PM
Response to Original message
17. Cue "Jaws" music: JEB IS NEXT!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
intheflow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 06:12 PM
Response to Reply #17
26. ..
:spray:

Unfortunately, I'm afraid you're right about Jeb, or (God help us) Neil. :( It was the Jaws theme that made me spit on my monitor.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sancho Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 06:04 PM
Response to Original message
19. Would it be more healthy...
to have the first woman president or a war-mongering, skirt-chasing glorified puppet of the repubs?

Hmmmm....Hillary vs. the ghoul is no contest, and the first woman president is a healthy revolution. Only her unique circumstances allowed Hillary to be where she is because our society hasn't allowed women the chance. If Hillary is president, you'll see the door open for qualified women from now on and the pool of candidates will change dramatically.


:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ConfidentialStatus Donating Member (245 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 06:09 PM
Response to Reply #19
23. You may be right
It might open the door for Laura Bush to run for President. :) Or better yet Juanita Bush (I hope that is Jeb's wife's name)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemocratSinceBirth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 06:41 PM
Response to Reply #23
39. Her Name Is Columba
DSB
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sancho Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-29-07 06:27 AM
Response to Reply #23
59. You forgot Chelse Clinton!
Equal opportunity daughters...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
faithfulcitizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-29-07 02:14 PM
Response to Reply #19
74. Fortunately, right now we have more than just these 2 choices. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maven Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 06:06 PM
Response to Original message
21. This is nothing more than ipse dixit
disguised as an argument.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SecularMotion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 06:16 PM
Response to Original message
28. I'm more concerned about avoiding 4 more years of
republicans in the White House. Either Hillary, Obama, Edwards, or any other Democratic candidate that gets the nomination, gets my vote.

That being said, John Edwards is my first choice.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Imagevision Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 06:20 PM
Response to Original message
30. This is even more reason for Obama to step in and break this BS. up!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MonkeyFunk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 06:20 PM
Response to Original message
31. Well
Bush 1 as VP for eight years doesn't count as running the country.

And I expect you'll probably recant this in a weeks - you don't have a great history of consistency. Was this not a concern a few weeks ago when you supported Clinton?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 06:27 PM
Response to Original message
35. Valid concern.
It's a point that deserves attention.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-29-07 05:17 PM
Response to Reply #35
80. why?
what if HRC turns out to be the best President we've ever had?

the whole "28 years of the same two families" is the weakest argument against her.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-29-07 05:34 PM
Response to Reply #80
83. I do not think
it is an argument against her. I think it is an argument against having individual families that run the federal government. If you are interested in some of the reasons why, I would recommend Kevin Phillip's book "American Dynasty." It's a serious book that provides good reasons for people to be concerned about the concentration of power in a few families. More, it is not an "attack" on Senator Clinton.

I invested a lot of time and money campaigning twice for Bill Clinton for president. I have also donated money and supported Hillary twice for NYS Senator. Met her twice, too, and I really liked her. But I still think that it is a valid topic, and hope that democrats can be objective enough to recognize it is a serious concern, even if they are supporting Senator Clinton in the primary. The people who dismiss it as only a cheap attack on one politician miss the point.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 06:27 PM
Response to Original message
36. It would be even more unhealthy to continue the 28 years of conservative rule
We've been circling the drain since Unca Ronnie took over in 81. We can't afford another corporate conservative as president.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SaveElmer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 06:42 PM
Response to Original message
41. You didn't think so last month...more gems from the OP...
Whatever your opinion of Clinton, one thing is for sure: she's a master of the game. Personally, I'd be more comfortable with a master of the game facing the Republicans than a relative neophyte.

We can't make progress unless we win. -calteacherguy...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ChiciB1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 06:49 PM
Response to Original message
43. Basically... It's LACK Of Vision! A Truly Bad Idea!! I Don't Understand
why we let this stuff happen to ourselves! But all you hear is Hillary and it's because of "who she knows" IMO!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Perry Logan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 06:51 PM
Response to Original message
44. Is this the lamest argument yet against Hillary, or what?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WA98296 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 06:56 PM
Response to Original message
45. TOTALLY AGREE and Recommended Post. Thanks!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bitwit1234 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 06:57 PM
Response to Original message
46. That's only because you'all don't support Hillary
and you want Obama to be president. Hillary is not really a Clinton she is a Rodham....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ellacott Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-29-07 07:50 AM
Response to Reply #46
66. Why do you assume that everyone who is not a HRC supporter is an Obama supporter?
That's not the case. One of the biggest problems is that this race is only defined by HRC vs. Obama. There are more people and issues involved in this race.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
suston96 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 06:59 PM
Response to Original message
47. In other words.......
The voters are pretty dumb and need to be protected from making these mistakes over and over again.

Any suggestions on making sure the voters elect the right kind of leaders?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sean Stuart Donating Member (127 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 08:17 PM
Response to Reply #47
52. They could start by pulling their head out of their ass. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 07:05 PM
Response to Original message
48. Amen, brother!
Funny how the same people who bemoaned the dynastic presidencies of Bush I, Bush II and retched at the mere thought of Bush III
is now okay with the thought of Clinton II.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
unblock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 07:17 PM
Response to Original message
50. i think this is a ridiculous argument, and a ridiculous basis on which to choose our nominee
hey, look, this is politics. you use whatever leverage you can, whatever celebrity you can. actors can leverage their fame into politics, so why not family members or former first ladies or former cabinet officials (remember that hillary was more like a cabinet member than a traditional first lady, and would have been a cabinet member had there not been post-rfk laws about that).

besides, why should WE limit our choices when THEY don't?

this argument made sense for stopping shrub, and might make sense once we've had equal share, but not now. i'm not a fan of unilateral disarmament.


there are good reasons to choose hillary, and also good reasons not to choose hillary.

this is not a good reason for either.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
_Wayne_ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 08:18 PM
Response to Original message
53. There's just one problem with that opinion
Bill and Hillary support policies that eliminate "privilege and elitism."

Who cares about our President's last name? Who cares who they're related to?

Your opinion, calteacherguy, judges the worth of a President by who their family is, which is itself elitist.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
calteacherguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-28-07 09:25 PM
Response to Reply #53
55. We are a country of over 300 million people.
Not 2 families
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sufrommich Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-29-07 06:31 AM
Response to Reply #55
60. And those 300 million are free to vote
for someone other than Clinton.I hope you don't teach logic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
July Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-29-07 07:35 AM
Response to Reply #53
65. And Bill and Hillary weren't born with the Bushes' privilege and wealth.
They accomplished a great deal through their own talents and efforts. We could say that Hillary also gained some benefit from Bill's accomplishments, but she achieved on her own first.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TankLV Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-29-07 06:39 AM
Response to Original message
61. I don't like it as a general principle, but it depends on the individual and family...
Adams - NO.
Roosevelts - HELL YES.
Bushes - FUCKING NO FUCKING WAY EVER AGAIN.
Clintons - We could do a lot worse...
Kennedys - Still hoping...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Freddie Stubbs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-29-07 06:51 AM
Response to Original message
63. So, so if the votes make a choice you do not agree with, it is undemocratic?
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hippo_Tron Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-29-07 07:02 AM
Response to Original message
64. Getting to the White House is all about privilege and elitism
Every single candidate with a serious shot at the White House has that shot not because they've earned it or because they're the best qualified, but because they have the connections to be there. It just so happens that Hillary happens to have the most connections.

You have to judge candidates independently of where they are and how they got there. If you like Hillary's politics it's a matter of good fortune that she is so well connected and will have an easier time being elected because of it. If you don't like Hillary's politics then it is unfortunate that she is so well connected.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
William769 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-29-07 08:14 AM
Response to Original message
68. Back to this meme are we?
How about we let the voters decide. Thats my America.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
txaslftist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-29-07 01:58 PM
Response to Original message
70. Well, according to Zogby, the top five Republicans can all beat Hillary
in the general election. So it's a cinch we'll nominate her. She's our only chance to lose.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DutchLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-29-07 02:08 PM
Response to Original message
71. Like in Greece, where two families are in power for the last 45 years?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ElizabethDC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-29-07 02:13 PM
Response to Original message
73. Did this not occur to you during the few weeks that you were supporting Hillary?
Or did you just realize it today?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mitchtv Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-29-07 02:18 PM
Response to Original message
76. Not the quality of argument that would dissuade me
IF I supported Hillary. Try something else
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rufus dog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-29-07 06:02 PM
Response to Original message
84. I disagree for a couple of reasons
If it was 28 years of good leadership it is not a problem, the problem is the 8 years of horrible bush leadership.

Reason two, rightie talkies use it. If Jeb was running it would be a non issue. And I just heard Fucker Carlson state that he doesn't think sex scandals should be an issue in 2008. How fucking convenient, other than the potentially far fetched Hillary/staffer encounter all the sex and fidelity issues will be on the Repub side.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Jul 25th 2014, 11:00 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC