Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

RickSp · Jan 6, 2006, 08:07 pm

This post is not really intended for the conservatives who already think that Hillary is the devil incarnate.

I have never been an admirer of any of the Clinton clan. My expectations of Hillary have always been low, but recently she has been failing to meet even those. What I find interesting about Hillary is how as she jogs rightward - supporting the war, co-sponsoring the "Flag Protection Act", joining with Santorum to prod the FCC to regulate the internet, and on and on, she alienates her own supporters without really convincing anyone on the right.

Does any one else find her recent initiatives to be blatant pandering to the right and center?

The Trouble With Hillary

Quote:

How running for president, alas, makes her even less likable.
Each time John McCain stoops to commit some purely, nakedly political act, like campaigning for George W. Bush’s reelection or giving his okay to the teaching of “intelligent design” in public schools, I cringe. There are so few national politicians wired to speak candidly, from the heart and the hip, that I have a soft spot for almost all of them—Bob Kerrey, sure, but also Bob Dole and Bill Weld, even nuts like Jesse Ventura. So when McCain behaves like a normal politician, it’s a disturbing departure from my Frank Capra script for him.

The same kind of gesture from Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, simply confirms what one thinks already, since the script for her (more Cukor, less Capra) is all about cool calculation and calibration in service to the main chance. She is, after all, the feminist who at age 35, seven years married, started calling herself Hillary Rodham Clinton in order to give her husband a better chance at winning back the governorship in old-fashioned Arkansas. So when she announced the other day that she was signing on as a co-sponsor of a new anti-flag-desecration bill—Look at me! I’m jerking right!—it seemed in character. It was one more fragment of evidence, unattractive but inevitable, that she is not really running for reelection to the Senate from New York.

Duh. But I still found it disheartening. Not because I imagine the Flag Protection Act poses any serious jeopardy to free speech. Rather, as an exemplary gesture by the presumptive 2008 nominee, it was a vivid small example of the routine, ritual dishonesty that infuses our political discourse so thoroughly.

phoenix_fire · Jan 6, 2006, 08:24 pm

I would be interested to see what she would do if actually elected. Not that I want to find out. Just morbidly interested.

Clarence · Jan 7, 2006, 12:23 pm

Wouldn't it almost be worth it just to have Wild Bill as the first lady again?

phoenix_fire · Jan 7, 2006, 02:18 pm

And have to put up with nothing but another Monicagate all over the news 24/7 again? NO!

Scribbler1 · Jan 7, 2006, 02:20 pm

I don't know who she is pandering TO, to be honest. The right wing already hates her guts and will only see her moving to the right as a cheap political ploy. That isn't going to appease the people who despise her one bit.
What it looks like she IS doing is betraying the people who elected her. Her support base has to be liberal and supporting conservative positions won't gain her friends on the left.

It seems she really DID ride in on hubby's coattails. She might actually be the smarter of the two but she is nowhere NEAR the astute politician as Bubba is. Bill Clinton knew what to say and do to get and keep power. Hillary is Bubba lite.

phoenix_fire · Jan 7, 2006, 02:30 pm

Wild Bill was just the figurehead. Hillary was the real brains of the outfit. "I do not recall"?!? Puhleese. As anti-intuitive as it sounds, however, he did smooth out her rough edges.

tusaki · Jan 7, 2006, 04:05 pm

I take it the democrats can't think of someone better than the wife of a former popular politician? sigh.

Actually, I would support her, because she would be the first female president of the US. Which is probably the reason many others won't support her. Other than that, she is probably just trying to appeal the center. The center of politics in the US is quite to the 'right' of European standards.

It would be good if she ran for president. Because in my opinion, all the standard smearing tactics won't have such a hold on her, just because she is a woman. It is one thing to question a man's integrity and valor in the field of battle. It is another to verbally try to attack a woman. It will give her a head start. Against which republican opponent? Oh! I hope it will be Condoleeza Rice. She is the only neocon, besides Colin Powel (if you even can call him a neocon) who deserves some respect.

Scribbler1 · Jan 7, 2006, 06:13 pm

If you support Hillary Clinton as president, if she wins I'm gonna go over there and FORCE you to move HERE!!!

That'll learn ya.

tusaki · Jan 7, 2006, 06:16 pm

Quote:

Quote by: Scribbler1

If you support Hillary Clinton as president, if she wins I'm gonna go over there and FORCE you to move HERE!!!

That'll learn ya.

I take it you dont see her precidency as an improvement? :confused:

Scribbler1 · Jan 7, 2006, 06:46 pm

Quote:

Quote by: tusaki

I take it you dont see her precidency as an improvement? :confused:

I have a word for most politicians in general and for ALL politicians who want to be president. Although the word "whore" might more accurately apply to a woman it applies to all.

I personally think she would be worse in the long run than George Bush, at least THAT nitwit seems to stick to his convictions. I believe Hillary Clinton will flap in the breeze like a wind sock, at least until her reelection bid passes.

Clarence · Jan 8, 2006, 02:08 am

[quote=tusaki
Actually, I would support her, because she would be the first female president of the US.[/QUOTE]

This card could be played by both parties. One will wait for the other. this will be a unique election. One of these days it will be time to for a woman candidate

and both parties will have a pink hat to throw in the ring. It could get ugly.

Someone give me the scoop y'all! What's so bad/good about hillary?

another day · Jan 8, 2006, 03:02 am

I just don't see why she's such a candidate...because she was married to a former president? It's pure idiocy the way we select our leaders in this country...not based on merit but based on whos "IN"...like george bush, hes obviously retarded yet he was elected simply because his father was president... Seems like we pick from a select group of celebrities rather then really look for a good person to run the country...

Really its patheticly archaic that any civilized country still operates on a single leader system...it just goes to show about human nature and our need to place a single definable person at the top of the chain (god anyone??)...it makes alot more sense to have, say, a group of 3 or 5 people to all hold a shared position. Not president, vice president, but all presidents with equal power. It's just so obvious but people love their "figures"

nm420 · Jan 8, 2006, 01:00 pm

Quote:

Quote by: Clarence

This card could be played by both parties. One will wait for the other. this will be a unique election. One of these days it will be time to for a woman candidate

and both parties will have a pink hat to throw in the ring. It could get ugly.

Someone give me the scoop y'all! What's so bad/good about hillary?

Basically, Hilary has no spine when it comes to many seemingly trivial issues, swaying this way or that when it is politically expedient to do so. Not really different than most of our politicians. However, on the issues that have to do with consolidating power into the hands of an elite few, she is unequivocally for the big dogs, though her rhetoric may make it sound like she isn't. Also, not very different than most of our politicians. Overall, she seems like your average Washingtonian.

xyzer · Jan 8, 2006, 04:38 pm

another day is on to something! Name recognition is important to any politician. Thats why incumbents usually are reelected. Why Bush did so well the 1st time agains a sitting Vice President.
I suspect Ms Clinton has gone far on name recognition. Her qualifications for office were nil when she ran for the Senate as a carpet bagger in New York. What had she done besides go to law school and be the wife of an elected official? She wasn't even the President of the local PTA, or whatever.
She was touted as a feminist and a brilliant lady by the press but never showed much brilliance. Her attempt to chair a committee on national health care ended up a fiasco and was summarily rejected. She was a poor chairlady and yet was never criticised by the leftist media. She gave evidence while MRS POTUS that she was dictatorial and vengeful

She had a socialist directed philososphy in her youth and was a volunteer lawyer for the 'Black Panthers'(a murderous group of thugs). Her campaigns have been punctuated by scripted public appearances. She doesn't face reporters for a direct questions and as has been pointed out she moves like a chamelion appearing to take on the philosohy thats popular at the meoment..

All this shows me she is a phoney! A political opportunist without any leadership qualifications exxcept those invented by her public relations people. I wouldn't trust her!

snake · Jan 22, 2006, 01:57 pm

Hilary is a spineles woman with a great skill for survival. She will say anything to get ahead, this woman must never be elected!

Scribbler1 · Jan 22, 2006, 06:05 pm

Quote:

Quote by: snake

Hilary is a spineles woman with a great skill for survival. She will say anything to get ahead, this woman must never be elected!

I wouldn't say she is spineless. She is taking a calculated risk with her recent opinions and I believe she knows it better than we that it could all blow up in her face just as easily as it could take her to the White House..

Gamblers are never spineless.

PatrickHenry · Jan 22, 2006, 06:34 pm

Quote:

Quote by: xyzer

...Ms Clinton...was a volunteer lawyer for the 'Black Panthers'(a murderous group of thugs).... I wouldn't trust her!

I wouldn't trust Hillary either.

But since you made the allegation, who did the Black Panthers murder? I am aware that the police murdered Fred Hampton as he slept in his home.

I am not a fan of the Panthers either, since they were avowed Marxist-Leninists, but it does seem that if a program of violent extermination is promulgated by police, any group has a right to self-defense. And the reality of the Panthers was not nearly so simple as you allege. But then I guess I don't expect a whole lot from you, xyzer; your arguments aren't very nuanced...

RickSp · Jan 22, 2006, 07:01 pm

Hilary is a damned war monger. As I suggested at the beggining of this thread I think she will only succeed in alientating her notional base without winning over anyone from the right.

gr8fuldaniel · Jan 22, 2006, 07:15 pm

Barbara Boxer, yes.
Hillary, no

Hillary has not taken initiative to advance the cause of humanity. She votes with the enemy. Like she is trying to prove the republicans should vote for her. She lost my support in the process. She is a traitor!

underbear1 · Jan 22, 2006, 07:38 pm

I like Hillary as Senator from NY, but that may be because I'm not a NY resident.
I definitely won't support her bid for president. I don't like having to guess which party the candidate for the Democratic Party is working for, I'm funny that way. If democrats want a woman candidate,(and it's time we had a woman IMO), then run Barbara Boxer. Louise Slaughter the Rep. from NY would be a tough Vice President candidate too. Ms. Slaughter kicked ass on C-SPAN today at the Democrats signing the Honesty in Leadership program earlier.

Jan 6, 2006, 08:24 pm	#2 (permalink) (top)
phoenix_fire Paladin Location: Narnia Posts: 4,277	I would be interested to see what she would do if actually elected. Not that I want to find out. Just morbidly interested. Place me like a seal over your heart, like a seal on your arm; for love is as strong as death, its jealousy unyielding as the grave. It burns like blazing fire, like a mighty flame. -- Song 8:6

Jan 7, 2006, 02:18 pm	#4 (permalink) (top)
phoenix_fire Paladin Location: Narnia Posts: 4,277	And have to put up with nothing but another Monicagate all over the news 24/7 again? NO! Place me like a seal over your heart, like a seal on your arm; for love is as strong as death, its jealousy unyielding as the grave. It burns like blazing fire, like a mighty flame. -- Song 8:6

Jan 7, 2006, 02:20 pm	#5 (permalink) (top)
Scribbler1 Skeptical Patriot Posts: 7,746	I don't know who she is pandering TO, to be honest. The right wing already hates her guts and will only see her moving to the right as a cheap political ploy. That isn't going to appease the people who despise her one bit. What it looks like she IS doing is betraying the people who elected her. Her support base has to be liberal and supporting conservative positions won't gain her friends on the left. It seems she really DID ride in on hubby's coattails. She might actually be the smarter of the two but she is nowhere NEAR the astute politician as Bubba is. Bill Clinton knew what to say and do to get and keep power. Hillary is Bubba lite. Not a day goes by that I don't see something that reinforces my belief that people are idiots.

Jan 7, 2006, 02:30 pm	#6 (permalink) (top)
phoenix_fire Paladin Location: Narnia Posts: 4,277	Wild Bill was just the figurehead. Hillary was the real brains of the outfit. "I do not recall"?!? Puhleese. As anti-intuitive as it sounds, however, he did smooth out her rough edges. Place me like a seal over your heart, like a seal on your arm; for love is as strong as death, its jealousy unyielding as the grave. It burns like blazing fire, like a mighty flame. -- Song 8:6

Jan 7, 2006, 04:05 pm	#7 (permalink) (top)
tusaki Playful Location: Groningen, the Netherlands Posts: 805	I take it the democrats can't think of someone better than the wife of a former popular politician? sigh. Actually, I would support her, because she would be the first female president of the US. Which is probably the reason many others won't support her. Other than that, she is probably just trying to appeal the center. The center of politics in the US is quite to the 'right' of European standards. It would be good if she ran for president. Because in my opinion, all the standard smearing tactics won't have such a hold on her, just because she is a woman. It is one thing to question a man's integrity and valor in the field of battle. It is another to verbally try to attack a woman. It will give her a head start. Against which republican opponent? Oh! I hope it will be Condoleeza Rice. She is the only neocon, besides Colin Powel (if you even can call him a neocon) who deserves some respect. Hope & Dream

Jan 7, 2006, 12:23 pm	#3 (permalink) (top)
Clarence pregnant with truth Posts: 2,174	Wouldn't it almost be worth it just to have Wild Bill as the first lady again?

Jan 7, 2006, 06:13 pm	#8 (permalink) (top)
Scribbler1 Skeptical Patriot Posts: 7,746	If you support Hillary Clinton as president, if she wins I'm gonna go over there and FORCE you to move HERE!!! That'll learn ya. Not a day goes by that I don't see something that reinforces my belief that people are idiots.

Jan 8, 2006, 02:08 am	#11 (permalink) (top)
Clarence pregnant with truth Posts: 2,174	[quote=tusaki Actually, I would support her, because she would be the first female president of the US.[/QUOTE] This card could be played by both parties. One will wait for the other. this will be a unique election. One of these days it will be time to for a woman candidate and both parties will have a pink hat to throw in the ring. It could get ugly. Someone give me the scoop y'all! What's so bad/good about hillary?

Jan 8, 2006, 03:02 am	#12 (permalink) (top)
another day slipping sand Posts: 1,802	I just don't see why she's such a candidate...because she was married to a former president? It's pure idiocy the way we select our leaders in this country...not based on merit but based on whos "IN"...like george bush, hes obviously retarded yet he was elected simply because his father was president... Seems like we pick from a select group of celebrities rather then really look for a good person to run the country... Really its patheticly archaic that any civilized country still operates on a single leader system...it just goes to show about human nature and our need to place a single definable person at the top of the chain (god anyone??)...it makes alot more sense to have, say, a group of 3 or 5 people to all hold a shared position. Not president, vice president, but all presidents with equal power. It's just so obvious but people love their "figures"

Jan 8, 2006, 04:38 pm	#14 (permalink) (top)
xyzer Liberated thinker Location: New Mexican Alps Posts: 1,981	another day is on to something! Name recognition is important to any politician. Thats why incumbents usually are reelected. Why Bush did so well the 1st time agains a sitting Vice President. I suspect Ms Clinton has gone far on name recognition. Her qualifications for office were nil when she ran for the Senate as a carpet bagger in New York. What had she done besides go to law school and be the wife of an elected official? She wasn't even the President of the local PTA, or whatever. She was touted as a feminist and a brilliant lady by the press but never showed much brilliance. Her attempt to chair a committee on national health care ended up a fiasco and was summarily rejected. She was a poor chairlady and yet was never criticised by the leftist media. She gave evidence while MRS POTUS that she was dictatorial and vengeful She had a socialist directed philososphy in her youth and was a volunteer lawyer for the 'Black Panthers'(a murderous group of thugs). Her campaigns have been punctuated by scripted public appearances. She doesn't face reporters for a direct questions and as has been pointed out she moves like a chamelion appearing to take on the philosohy thats popular at the meoment.. All this shows me she is a phoney! A political opportunist without any leadership qualifications exxcept those invented by her public relations people. I wouldn't trust her! Thus we play the fools with the time, and the spirits of the wise sit in the clouds and mock us.

Jan 22, 2006, 01:57 pm	#15 (permalink) (top)
snake Molten Ash Posts: 34	Hilary is a spineles woman with a great skill for survival. She will say anything to get ahead, this woman must never be elected!

Jan 22, 2006, 07:01 pm	#18 (permalink) (top)
RickSp Volcanic Erupter Posts: 9,491	Hilary is a damned war monger. As I suggested at the beggining of this thread I think she will only succeed in alientating her notional base without winning over anyone from the right. Rick "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." Sinclair Lewis

Jan 22, 2006, 07:15 pm	#19 (permalink) (top)
gr8fuldaniel Fire the Liars Location: California Posts: 7,090	Barbara Boxer, yes. Hillary, no Hillary has not taken initiative to advance the cause of humanity. She votes with the enemy. Like she is trying to prove the republicans should vote for her. She lost my support in the process. She is a traitor! ~~ Helpful Linx * Huff Post * WRH * RAW STORY ~~

Jan 22, 2006, 07:38 pm	#20 (permalink) (top)
underbear1 BANNED Posts: 2,630	I like Hillary as Senator from NY, but that may be because I'm not a NY resident. I definitely won't support her bid for president. I don't like having to guess which party the candidate for the Democratic Party is working for, I'm funny that way. If democrats want a woman candidate,(and it's time we had a woman IMO), then run Barbara Boxer. Louise Slaughter the Rep. from NY would be a tough Vice President candidate too. Ms. Slaughter kicked ass on C-SPAN today at the Democrats signing the Honesty in Leadership program earlier.