If order is important, then before any of these we should put in political volunteer, student activist, public interest/nonprofit lawyer, congressional staff attorney (helping build the impeachment case against Nixon), adjunct law professor, legal aid lawyer, children’s advocacy lawyer.
Anyone who thinks her career started as a housefrau has confused her career with the movie Butter.
4 more years!
I agre
Careful there, that sounds like CAMPAIGNING to me!!!
As we all know, expressing an unpopularly favorable opinion of someone is the same as repeating campaign slogans and asking for donations. Rah rah rah!!
They met in law school. They were a power couple right from the start, and in the beginning she was the more politically active of the two. He has political skills, no question, but his political career owes as much to her as hers does to him.
If you’re trying to dismiss the work and ability of a smart and capable woman, yes. You would read in that she “married well” and ignore her own merits.
Biden “comes across like a used car salesman” - and that’s OK! But Clinton comes across as “poll-driven” (despite being a long-standing supporter of universal healthcare and women’s rights) - and that’s bad! There’s… a disconnect there.
As for Clinton being “parachuted in[to] a safe seat” because of family connections. For some reason I don’t hear much of that sort of criticism leveled against presidential candidates like Al Gore and Rand Paul, even though both got into national politics with the help of the name recognition of their famous political families (Gore literally held the same House seat his father held, and likewise went on to become a Tennessee senator).
Hillary Clinton gets treated differently than these men despite similar circumstances. There must be some common denominator that can explain that…
ETA: I’m assuming I’m criticizing perceived Conventional Wisdom™ here and not personal opinion.
It is truly mysterious why some persons hate her enough to have brought Citizens United Not Timid upon the rest of us.
He still blocked the previous nomination, and came out against Thomas in what was a very close vote.
Well, Al Gore lost an election on that sort of criticism, so…
… right after Bill was elected Governor of Arkansas; at a law firm famed for being a bastion of the local establishment; and rarely actually doing any litigation work. But I’m sure they’re all details.
I honestly don’t care, but… she didn’t even run in Arkansas, and it was before the whole media firestorm. She never ran at local level, built her career on lawyering and building inside connections. Denying that she got her political break as First Lady is denying evidence, IMHO. She just does not come across as likeable or particularly close to common people, and as such she will always struggle to win campaigns. In this election, she starts with a huge advantage (still-popular incumbent endorsement, unparalleled name recognition, loads of money in the bank, economy on the up, etc etc) and still it’s turning out to be a close race with a millionaire racist bigot with no experience or credentials whatsoever. Could any of this be due to something she does, or is it just the universe being “bad”…?
If just a quarter of the stories out there about her treatment of White House staff, Secret Service, and military and security details are true, she has little use for the “little people”.
Bill Clinton was a state AG (not very local) and Barack Obama was a U.S. Senator. Ronald Reagan was California Governor and Jimmy Carter, a governor from Georgia. I’m not sure that your local level experience is a very good example unless you’re trying to hold a female candidate to a higher standard just because she happened to marry another politician. As many have previously pointed out, Hillary Clinton had far more experience at both local legal aid and campaigns than her husband. Unfortunately, most of the South wasn’t ready for elected female officials.
Match Game without Charles Nelson Reilly (RIP) just isn’t worth watching.
And that Onion headline is basically true - that is Trump’s complaint of the media. Well, that and them actually reporting what he says. Trump just called Hillary the Devil because he had run out of insults. He demanded that an interviewer explain what he (Trump) meant in his own statements. He seemed to be unaware of his own platform. Newt Gingrich defended him by saying in an interview that facts were only for “theoreticians.” Satire is nigh impossible in these conditions.
Just the tip
Two things at work here: people defending Trump’s statements, people defending Putin’s actions. Both are indefensible.
Austria also had a democratic plebescite
It’s amazing the people who crawl out of the woodwork (for pay?) to defend Putin’s land grabs.
Yes, indeed. NYT is highly biased towards the facts.
Let me think… What could it be…? What could it be…? I’m stumped!
/s
You have a limited window of opportunity to unlike. If you just click on the heart a second time, your like is erased; but I think you only have about 5 minutes to do it in before your support is enshrined for history.
I’m not sure I follow. All of these were elected to some other office on their own merit, that’s what I was saying – none of those jobs were easy to get, they made their own breaks among the electorate. The one who got the easier ride among them is probably Obama, who still won a previously-Republican state (albeit leaning Dem); and there were plenty of challenges to his credentials at the time. Clinton was parachuted in a safe race after her big break as First Lady. I fail to see how stating this means holding her to higher standards.
I didn’t recognize/remember typing that quoted text.
It was actually by
