If that kind of experience is necessary then we have no hope of change.
3 Likes
He was also a 3 term Mayor and was the Liberty Union and People’s party candidate for governor back in the 70’s.
Can we really count being first lady as political experience? Do we want to say Nancy Reagan or Laura Bush have presidential political experience?
5 Likes
Your comment actually opens up an unanswered question for this thread: what is ‘experience’ in this context? And what kind of experience has been demonstrably the most productive for the people?
I pondered this myself before writing that comment and decided that action begets experience.
2 Likes
Sadly, I think the most productive presidents have had military leadership experience. That’s not something I like to think we need.
1 Like
This:
is what I believe has become a local maxima of sane positions in what should have been an election about what is wrong with our government. But the GOP, which has been harboring racism in its platform for decades, has delivered a manifestation of said racist rhetoric in the form of a self-serving megalomaniacal sociopath. Perhaps it’s a symptom of what is wrong with the US political system, I’m not too sure.
However,
giving up is probably not the best solution. What I’d suggest to every left-leaning voter unhappy with this election is to 1) do your duty and keep Drumpf as far as possible from the White House and 2) plan for collective social action against problematic policies of President HRC and our flawed political system.
7 Likes
I suppose that depends on what any given person gets out of their service in the military. Some will forever wear their dog tags and thump their chests about it (a subset of these having never seen combat). Some of those who have seen the front lines will come back with psychological scars and indelible doubt of military intervention. And some will come back with a preserved sense of confidence in their country, but now alloyed by compassion and skepticism.
2 Likes
AFAIK the only president with military experience who was also a productive one and knew the dangers of the military was Eisenhower
2 Likes
Yep. Precisely why the latter group are the only veterans who have any business running for POTUS.
ETA: Some from that second group would be welcome, too.
2 Likes
Of course the implication you’re making is that she did something corrupt by having these meetings. I eagerly await your saying exactly what that corruption consisted of. And show your work.
4 Likes
Though, to be fair, only the five bolded ones have ever had Members of Parliament elected. Anything else is still largely throwing your vote away.
Still, five options is better than two.
4 Likes
I’ve been married to a surgeon for decades - would you let me remove your appendix?
6 Likes
How you feel doesn’t mean there isn’t some real misogyny thrown her way, though. It’s not an either/or thing. Point that out doesn’t negate your views of Clinton or make them illegitimate. But ignoring things like misogyny (or in the case of Obama when he was running, racism) doesn’t make it go away, it just allows it to fester…
14 Likes
Captain Tangent strikes again!
1 Like
Maybe. Have you been observing procedures in your spouse’s operating room for twenty years?
3 Likes
Honestly, it makes no difference to me if a leader seems more inauthentic or authentic, either way they can’t be trusted. Any trustworthy seeming person running for any major office is much more likely to be better at lying than actually trustworthy, and at best will only disappoint you with false hopes if you’re foolish enough to trust them. A vote is a selection of a candidate for an administrative leadership job, using personality vs competence in the relevant field is an unreliable way to make a judgment IMO, since so much of the personality presented is a deliberate campaign construction to vin votes.
I’m with you there, she was a spineless triangulator on that vote. I listened to her npr program where she had just flip-flopped on gay marriage, but managed to make it about justifying rather than rejecting her previous support which made me loathe her since I’ve been strongly pro-gay marriage for a long time. She’s a lawyer who works to skate just inside the edge of the law and does so. I totally agree with the view that there are legitimate reasons to not want that particular woman elected president. But then…
Ok, we’re verging into potential misogyny here. You really sure you’d be paying attention to some male campaigner’s smile? Again, I totally agree with the view that there are legitimate reasons to not want that particular woman elected president, but then there also are real, very serious biases against all women, and I don’t think there’s anything that would make those biases any different for any other woman running. A BoingBoing article trying to help address a class of ignorance that misogyny can cause is welcome by me even if I’m not the target audience. A Clinton win would mean we finally have a first woman president, and while I might have preferred someone else as first, if she wins I’ll be glad for America making that kind of progress. The 19th Amendment passed in 1920, its been nearly a century since then and we’re still are not at a point where women fully participate in the body politic. I’m pretty glad to see a BB article grappling with ongoing misogyny, since it’s real, and that misogyny influences the election in the direction of people voting for an incredibly stupid reason.
This is the weakest of the Clinton slurs to me for some reason. George H. W. Bush signed the bill. Sure, Bill Clinton supported it, but they weren’t responsible for passing it in any meaningful sense. Supporting it, yeah, kind of dumb, bad judgment call for the Clintons. Still, blaming a Dem. president for a bill signed by his GOP predecessor triggers all my BS flags, and it’s a bit more suspect when we’re talking about the First Lady. Given the measurable economic effects of NAFTA, the complaint looks even more like spin.
11 Likes
The faded grey words, “report this ad” don’t seem to refer to any flash content inserted on the page, so I’m forced to assume that this whole piece is advertising from the Clinton campaign, rather than independently generated editorial content from BoingBoing. And that itself would be sufficient to dislike this candidate. If instead there’s so.e ad display malfunction that makes it look like an ad when it’s not, then I only need to remember back in 2008 when her campaign went negative. I don’t need any new information fro. The Republican party to find her campaign dislikable.
2 Likes
Reminders for Friday!
Personal drama tends to get moderated. Tantrums tend to earn bans.
19 Likes
Perhaps you were mistaking my comment for a declarative, rather than an imperative one.
“Tantrum. n. xviii. of unknown origin.”
If it can’t be assigned to a declension, it probably shouldn’t be declined.
P.S. Actually I just loathe -ums plurals.
2 Likes
…A pretty simplistic formulation for someone who wants others to have a “complex” view.
Whether Ms. Seide “realizes” it or not, some of us have read Jane Austin, and Mary Baker Eddy, and Anais Nin, and Mary Shelley, Emily Dickenson, and Hannah Arendt, and even the Nancy Drew mysteries. And that has failed to make Hillary Clinton likable for us. Go figure.
4 Likes
