Neither of which would prevent me from voting for her.

Neither of which is specific or exclusive to her.


1. Political dynasties - I don’t want to be governed by people for whom politics is the “family business”. Not by Clintons, nor Romneys. Not by Bushs nor Cuomos. Not by Kennedys nor Rockefellers.

2. Parachute candidate politics (or Carpetbagging, often related to 1. above) - In Clinton’s case, her move to New York State at age 52, just one year before the election for no other reason than to get elected to the Senate.

Re #2, I think it's worth noting her personal history:

18 years in Chicago
4 years in Boston (Wellesley)
5 years in New Haven
18 years in Fayetteville/Little Rock
8 years in Washington
8 years in New York
4 years in Washington (again)
4 years in New York

To some, that may be the very definition of a carpetbagger, I suppose, but the bottom line to me is that as a whole we are an increasingly mobile society, and it looks like, until this fall at least, she's settled in New York. Despite the perception of her as someone from Arkansas, she's actually spent the majority of her life in the Northeast.

Regarding #1, yeah, I don't like this either. But it happens everywhere (see Canada) and this particular example seems less all-encompassing or entitled to me than either the Kennedys, Bushes, or Roosevelts. I don't see Chelsea being granted the presidency on a silver platter.

I kinda worry about Bill's influence if Hillary is in the White House. I suspect it will be pretty hard for him to refrain from meddling (either openly or covertly) in affairs of state.

What if it turned out that he lacked the self-control to restrain himself?

---

Where is there dignity unless there is also honesty? - Cicero

Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a battle you know nothing about. —Wendy Mass

I have no problem with either #1 nor #2 because I take each candidate at face value, AND because each election has its own dynamic in the form of whomever the competition is. Someone, no matter "how unsavory," always runs against someone else but it's amazing how many people pretend that's not the case.

I realize --- and accept --- that they all get where they get with help and that the machine is rigged to give them a name recognition and resources advantage over someone else.

Quote
Ammo
... What if it turned out that he lacked the self-control to restrain himself?

Then he'd be no different from any First Lady who ever uttered an opinion or comment about something. Just like Hillary caught holy hell for having a voice that didn't prattle on about cookies or decorating during Bill's presidency. People have hated her ever since.

Don't expect to see Bill hanging out in the corner of the Oval Office during Cabinet meetings, reading his FB page and chiming in on the convo with sage anecdotes.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/29/2016 02:30PM by deckeda.

Quote
DeusxMac
1. Political dynasties - I don’t want to be governed by people for whom politics is the “family business”. Not by Clintons, nor Romneys. Not by Bushs nor Cuomos. Not by Kennedys nor Rockefellers.

Well, this Clinton family business is hardly dynastic. Chelsea has expressed precisely 0% interest in elective public office. Anyway, during her time in the Senate (granted, one term, but still) she demonstrated that she's actually quite a competent politician. She was well-liked by her colleagues, praised for being an informed, intelligent dealmaker who was eager to share credit with Senators on both sides of the aisle. That's just more evidence that she's qualified, hardly that she's in "the family biz" just because her husband was.

Quote
DeusxMac
2. Parachute candidate politics (or Carpetbagging, often related to 1. above) - In Clinton’s case, her move to New York State at age 52, just one year before the election for no other reason than to get elected to the Senate.

Those who understand the history of carpetbagging in this country know that there's absolutely nothing about Hillary's move to New York that resembles that phenomenon. It's also a well-worn American tradition to move where there is opportunity, and compete for work where you land. She was elected to the Senate because she campaigned well, connected with hundreds of communities across NY, and was a popular Senator with her constituents while in office. It also completely made sense for them to move to NYC as the Clinton Global Initiative was starting up.

Quote
Ammo
I kinda worry about Bill's influence if Hillary is in the White House. I suspect it will be pretty hard for him to refrain from meddling (either openly or covertly) in affairs of state.

What if it turned out that he lacked the self-control to restrain himself?

Do you honestly think that Hillary reigning in Bill will be a problem in the White House? She's kept him on a pretty short leash since he left office.

---

rj
AKA
Vreemac, Moth of the Future

What rjmacs said. A dynasty is something that lasts over generations. The Clinton dynasty is still on its first generation.

---

"In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion." (1987) -- Carl Sagan

Quote
rjmacs

Quote
DeusxMac
2. Parachute candidate politics (or Carpetbagging, often related to 1. above) - In Clinton’s case, her move to New York State at age 52, just one year before the election for no other reason than to get elected to the Senate.

Those who understand the history of carpetbagging in this country know that there's absolutely nothing about Hillary's move to New York that resembles that phenomenon.

You are quite mistaken.

carpetbagger - noun derogatory
a political candidate who seeks election in an area where they have no local connections.

"In the United States, the term is still used, usually derogatorily, to refer to individuals, especially politicians, who move to different states, districts or areas for economic or political gain."

[en.wikipedia.org]

Quote
rjmacs
It's also a well-worn American tradition to move where there is opportunity, and compete for work where you land.

Except this was a move solely to be elected to the Senate from a state she did not live in until the year before the election (see above.) Some folks don't admire this kind of political opportunism.

Dynasties: Adams, Roosevelt, Taft, Rockefeller, etc. I think we're safe.

No one raised the "carpetbagger" flag when Cheney became VP. He hadn't lived in Wyoming for decades; but since the Prez and the VP have to come from different states, he quickly bought a house in Jackson in order not to be a Texan.

An amazing number of reservations, hesitations, qualms surface when the candidate is a woman....

Quote
pdq
Re #2, I think it's worth noting her personal history:

18 years in Chicago
4 years in Boston (Wellesley)
5 years in New Haven
18 years in Fayetteville/Little Rock
8 years in Washington
8 years in New York
4 years in Washington (again)
4 years in New York

To some, that may be the very definition of a carpetbagger, I suppose, but the bottom line to me is that as a whole we are an increasingly mobile society, and it looks like, until this fall at least, she's settled in New York. Despite the perception of her as someone from Arkansas, she's actually spent the majority of her life in the Northeast.

Your math is strange. 36 years in Illinois or Arkansas is over half her life not in the NE. Add the 12 years in Washington. Don't know that is matters really, but 20 out of 68 years can't equal a majority of her life in the NE.

Quote
J Marston
An amazing number of reservations, hesitations, qualms surface when the candidate is a woman....

Really? That's the only reservations for Mrs Clinton?

Quote
Ammo
I kinda worry about Bill's influence if Hillary is in the White House.....

I'm sure they can lock up the interns.

I'm also amazed nobody is pointing out that this would be Hillary's THIRD term as de facto President !

Also, she was elected in New York by large margins, with her reelection by the bigger one. So I guess she did a good job. Her primary margin backs this up.

Hell, Bill was the governor of a dinky little state. She's been a Senator from New York and Secretary of State. She may have a name, but she's earned the nod.

The good people of New York state elected Hillary to be their Senator. Twice.

That she makes strategic moves to further her own leadership goals strikes me as smart, not devious.

As for political dynasties, then what is the rule? If your spouse or parent or sibling becomes President, you are not allowed to have that same ambition?

If Hillary had been born 20 years later, then she'd be in the White House and Bill would have been the supportive partner. And none of us would think a thing about it.
Hillary is not my ideal candidate; she's more conservative and muchn more corporatist than I am. But I'd vote for her any day over any of the GOP candidates.

Her personal life and personal ambitions have no impact on my life or that of my family. It's about principles and policy positions.

Wow... no, I really mean wow! Those two things are likely not even in my top 10 reasons for not voting for her. Absolutely no comparison to the issues of her environmental stance (pro-fracking), hawkish foreign policy (Iraq as Senator, multiples as SOS), the taking of millions of dollars for speeches and/or donations into the Clinton Foundation and then having the gall to pretend that there is absolutely no influence to come from those dollars, etc. etc.

We really don't know what the deal is with the emails other than after the fact they were later deemed Top Secret. Ok, so "maybe" on a technicality she gets away with that (although the sheer number (thousands upon thousands) that were deleted based on inclusion of whatever the keyword was they used can't possibly be explained away as messages to Bill, etc. like she has tried. BUT... this is what should stand out that no one is really making mention of regarding this... I would like to think that even though they weren't officially Top Secret at the time, how is it possible that she, in the position she was in... Secretary of Eff'ing State, FFS (I don't think that's the governmental label for the position, tbh), was she not able to determine what may just possibly be considered TS at some point. I mean she knows the procedures are for them to go back over the stuff later on and determine clearance on it. Where was the discretion?!?!? It's really pretty pathetic. Sure, there may have been some gray areas where one just doesn't know, but there had to be a significant portion where she absolutely knew it would be yet didn't care. WTF?!?!?

The list goes on... including what seems to be an inability to tell the truth or show integrity for more than ~8hrs at a time. I'm not even adding in the made up BS that stems from the Republicans and I'm just amazed at the stuff that is ignored.

Now that I'm done with that I need to go take my meds.

My two concerns are that I think she is more of a hawk than I would like our President to be. And I think that she has a passive old-time liberal concept about income inequality and wealth, in other words I am not sure she really "gets" how the issue is currently framed based on 21st Century realities.

The two qualms in the OP don't concern me in the least.

I think the big problem is that woman card thing. I have not been able to discern which of the many woman cards I have seen online is the genuine article. which means I have not been able to order one for myself.

---

Quote
silvarios
Your math is strange. 36 years in Illinois or Arkansas is over half her life not in the NE.

You're right of course. What I meant is although she's lived in a number of areas of the country, she's spent more time living in the NE (21 years) than anywhere else (18 in Chicago, 18 in AR, 12 in DC).

So, a "plurality", not a majority.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/29/2016 05:40PM by pdq.

I have a lot of the same concerns some people have, but her negatives would have to increase by a factor of 10 before I would consider not voting for her over any Republican I can think of.

My main objections are that she's a bloodthirsty warmonger who has all but sworn a blood-oath to not push any laws that the hardest right-wing republicans wouldn't approve of.

---

Quote
Onamuji
My main objections are that she's a bloodthirsty warmonger who has all but sworn a blood-oath to not push any laws that the hardest right-wing republicans wouldn't approve of.

that's quite a fantasy you have going there...

Quote
pdq
So, a "plurality", not a majority.

No problem. I'm not a fan of Hillary, but her moving around occasionally doesn't bother me. People move. It happens.

Quote
hal

Quote
Onamuji
My main objections are that she's a bloodthirsty warmonger who has all but sworn a blood-oath to not push any laws that the hardest right-wing republicans wouldn't approve of.

that's quite a fantasy you have going there...

Warmonger.

...And what do you think her repeated promises that she's the "practical" candidate means, especially when she keeps saying it in the debates while preaching that Sanders won't be able to fulfill any of his campaign promises because the republicans won't like it? You think "practical" means something other than "I'll only push legislation that will pass muster among republicans" in this context?

I don't like her political record and her campaign rhetoric is sterile, insipid and uninspiring.

...

...I do like the way her people ran with the "woman card" thing, tho.

---

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/29/2016 08:50PM by Onamuji.

Quote
J Marston
Dynasties: Adams, Roosevelt, Taft, Rockefeller, etc. I think we're safe.

...and the Bushs, and the Daleys, and the Longs, and...

She's demonstrated her competence and ability to work with others, and no one else in the field has.

At least, no one with any serious chance of getting a nomination.

That gets her my vote.

She worked real well with our citizens in Benghazi she left out to dry and die.

---

The Phorum Wall keeps us safe from illegal characters and words
The doorstep to the temple of wisdom is the knowledge of one's own ignorance. -Benjamin Franklin
BOYCOTT YOPLAIT [www.noyoplait.com]
[soundcloud.com]

How many in Iraq billy?

Your myopic view is well documented.

Keep being the consummate hypocrite billy.

This is much more your speed, bill.


Kylie Jenner Gets New Mystery Tattoo On Her Finger — Pics & Video
Sun, May 1, 2016 10:01am EDT by Samantha Wilson
Kylie Jenner just got her FOURTH tattoo, and we’re dying to know what it is! She wouldn’t be Kylie without documenting her whole inking process on Snapchat — click through to see pics and watch it all happen!

Status Quo? Vote Hillary.

Radical change (that can't possibly happen because no one in DC will support it)? Vote Bernie

Asshat-in-Chief? Vote Trump

Weasel in the White House? Vote Cruz

Hopeful for Change? Forget it.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/01/2016 06:44PM by bfd.

Quote
bfd
Status Quo? Vote Hillary.

That's the image, but I'm concerned that her policies will be a bit further to the right than Obama's.

---

Quote
Onamuji
That's the image, but I'm concerned that her policies will be a bit further to the right than Obama's.

She's working hard to win you over, Oji.

Quote
Onamuji

Quote
bfd
Status Quo? Vote Hillary.

That's the image, but I'm concerned that her policies will be a bit further to the right than Obama's.

Why on earth would you think such a thing. When Obama beat Hillary, it was clear that the more establishment, right-leaning candidate won. Nothing has changed.

...oh wait, I know why you think that...the nonstop drumbeat of right wing anti-Hillary propaganda for the last 8 years plus about the previous 16 years.

---

"In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion." (1987) -- Carl Sagan



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/03/2016 11:18PM by davester.

Obama is more right leaning than Hillary. Really?

Quote
davester
...oh wait, I know why you think that...the nonstop drumbeat of right wing anti-Hillary propaganda for the last 8 years plus about the previous 16 years.

Or it could be that her political record is far from liberal-democrat, and she ridicules Bernie for not leaning right to pass laws that accommodate ultra-right-wingers.

---

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/04/2016 12:01AM by Onamuji.

Quote
Onamuji

Quote
davester
...oh wait, I know why you think that...the nonstop drumbeat of right wing anti-Hillary propaganda for the last 8 years plus about the previous 16 years.

Or it could be that her political record is far from liberal-democrat, and she ridicules Bernie for not leaning right to pass laws that accommodate ultra-right-wingers.

Or it COULD be. It COULD be, PERHAPS that her political record is precisely liberal-democrat.

Jesus H. Christ people.

Hillary Clinton has NEVER not been liberal. VERY liberal. But don't go by me. Here's one good rundown courtesy of our friends at 538 (probably should be a sticky).

Hillary Clinton Was Liberal. Hillary Clinton Is Liberal
[fivethirtyeight.com]

Then:

If You're Liberal and You Think Hillary Clinton Is Corrupt and Untrustworthy, You're Rewarding 25 Years of GOP Smears
[thedailybanter.com]

I'll let them speak because I can go yard on this subject and I'm trying to cool it out of forum love.

Quote
vision63
If You're Liberal and You Think Hillary Clinton Is Corrupt and Untrustworthy, You're Rewarding 25 Years of GOP Smears
[thedailybanter.com]

That has not been my position.

It's not that I don't trust her. It's that I don't trust her platform. She doesn't seem to care about the stuff that I care about in my candidates.

Clinton barely mentioned finance, immigration, LGBT issues, health care, education or women's rights on the campaign trail until Sanders challenged her on each of those subjects. The only progressive subject that she took up at any length was vague talk of the Paycheck Fairness Act and that was kind of lame. (The bill has been bouncing around since at least 1997, dragged out whenever there's another democrat talking to women's groups.) Her first few months of campaigning were defined almost entirely by who hosted her fundraisers rather than anything substantive said at the podium. She has taken up the banner of the classic democratic platform very reticently.

In the later debates, her criticisms of Sanders have been disturbingly close to right-wing criticisms of democrats. I recognize that she has little to grasp at to distinguish her campaign from his without going there, but when that's the case I don't think there's anything wrong with saying that she agrees with him. She seemed open to that in the beginning, but when that didn't benefit her greatly she changed her strategy and to me this amounted to a series of attacks on progressive ideals.

It seems to me that she tried to run as a legacy-candidate and coasted on this, assuming that this was all she needed to do until she encountered a challenge. This seems to be a habit of hers. When pushed, she goes into overdrive and admirably brings herself up to speed in a hurry, but her solutions in office have been unimaginative, regressive and depressingly reminiscent of cold-war America and we should be long past that sort of thing.

I believe that these are legitimate concerns and not the result of decades of republican smear campaigns.

---

Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 05/04/2016 07:03AM by Onamuji.

Quote
Onamuji
Clinton barely mentioned finance, immigration, LGBT issues, health care, education or women's rights on the campaign trail until Sanders challenged her on each of those subjects.

You're basing your voting on campaign speeches/advertisements? Are you nuts? Campaigns are carefully marketed advertisements designed by groups of political consultants for the purpose of getting their candidate elected by pulling in those who might not otherwise vote for them. Idealistic touting of issues that might alienate those people is political suicide.

As an extreme case, just look at GW Bush. He embraced "compassionate conservatism" designed to appeal to middle of the roaders on the campaign trail and then took a sharp right turn and blew them all off the second he was sworn in. He certainly didn't tout this extreme right wing interventionist plans while campaigning.

If you want to figure out a candidate's policy stance, look at their past actions, not their latest advertising jingle (i.e. campaign speech).

---

"In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion." (1987) -- Carl Sagan

Quote
Onamuji

Quote
vision63
If You're Liberal and You Think Hillary Clinton Is Corrupt and Untrustworthy, You're Rewarding 25 Years of GOP Smears
[thedailybanter.com]

That has not been my position.

It's not that I don't trust her. It's that I don't trust her platform. She doesn't seem to care about the stuff that I care about in my candidates.

Clinton barely mentioned finance, immigration, LGBT issues, health care, education or women's rights on the campaign trail until Sanders challenged her on each of those subjects. The only progressive subject that she took up at any length was vague talk of the Paycheck Fairness Act and that was kind of lame. (The bill has been bouncing around since at least 1997, dragged out whenever there's another democrat talking to women's groups.) Her first few months of campaigning were defined almost entirely by who hosted her fundraisers rather than anything substantive said at the podium. She has taken up the banner of the classic democratic platform very reticently.

In the later debates, her criticisms of Sanders have been disturbingly close to right-wing criticisms of democrats. I recognize that she has little to grasp at to distinguish her campaign from his without going there, but when that's the case I don't think there's anything wrong with saying that she agrees with him. She seemed open to that in the beginning, but when that didn't benefit her greatly she changed her strategy and to me this amounted to a series of attacks on progressive ideals.

It seems to me that she tried to run as a legacy-candidate and coasted on this, assuming that this was all she needed to do until she encountered a challenge. This seems to be a habit of hers. When pushed, she goes into overdrive and admirably brings herself up to speed in a hurry, but her solutions in office have been unimaginative, regressive and depressingly reminiscent of cold-war America and we should be long past that sort of thing.

I believe that these are legitimate concerns and not the result of decades of republican smear campaigns.

I know how it seems. It's been my experience that she's discussed all of the issues that you mentioned over the years on what I feel has been a consistent basis. There was definitely a lack of policy discussion during the Secretary of State years but then she had a job to do.

I don't believe that there has never been a day when she's coasted on anything. She can't afford to. She is under constant massive attack. Look at this precise moment. Hillary Clinton is running against Trump AND Sanders. Sanders is feeding Trump talking points in addition to using GOP talking points to attack her. He's damaging her. He needs to suspend.

She's calculated her platform to reflect a battleground that she believes is achievable/playable based on current political conditions. She's practical. She want's everything Sanders wants but she'd like to have some victories to go along with the rhetoric.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/04/2016 10:09AM by vision63.

Quote
davester

Quote
Onamuji
Clinton barely mentioned finance, immigration, LGBT issues, health care, education or women's rights on the campaign trail until Sanders challenged her on each of those subjects.

You're basing your voting on campaign speeches/advertisements? Are you nuts? Campaigns are carefully marketed advertisements designed by groups of political consultants for the purpose of getting their candidate elected by pulling in those who might not otherwise vote for them. Idealistic touting of issues that might alienate those people is political suicide.

As an extreme case, just look at GW Bush. He embraced "compassionate conservatism" designed to appeal to middle of the roaders on the campaign trail and then took a sharp right turn and blew them all off the second he was sworn in. He certainly didn't tout this extreme right wing interventionist plans while campaigning.

True dat. A nice specific example was the Kyoto Protocols, which Bush the candidate supported, but which Bush the President immediately decided was "bad for the economy".

Quote
davester
You're basing your voting on campaign speeches/advertisements? Are you nuts? Campaigns are carefully marketed advertisements designed by groups of political consultants for the purpose of getting their candidate elected by pulling in those who might not otherwise vote for them. Idealistic touting of issues that might alienate those people is political suicide.

...

If you want to figure out a candidate's policy stance, look at their past actions, not their latest advertising jingle (i.e. campaign speech).

I am also not pleased with her political record as a Senator and as Secretary of State.

She didn't do much for New York when she had the chance. She pushed for violent corporate imperial solutions when Obama sought her advice.

I know it's a hot-button topic here, but it's also a big part of her CV: The embarrassment of Benghazi is not her response to the attack on the embassy. It's her cold war regressionist regime-change policies and council that helped to create the situation in the first place.

---

Quote
Onamuji

Quote
davester
You're basing your voting on campaign speeches/advertisements? Are you nuts? Campaigns are carefully marketed advertisements designed by groups of political consultants for the purpose of getting their candidate elected by pulling in those who might not otherwise vote for them. Idealistic touting of issues that might alienate those people is political suicide.

...

If you want to figure out a candidate's policy stance, look at their past actions, not their latest advertising jingle (i.e. campaign speech).

I am also not pleased with her political record as a Senator and as Secretary of State.

She didn't do much for New York when she had the chance. She pushed for violent corporate imperial solutions when Obama sought her advice.

I know it's a hot-button topic here, but it's also a big part of her CV: The embarrassment of Benghazi is not her response to the attack on the embassy. It's her cold war regressionist regime-change policies and council that helped to create the situation in the first place.

Team D for the win is all people care about, Hillary isn't very liberal and to think it's GOP smears that are painting her as not liberal? People have gone bananas here. The same GOP that thinks Obama is a socialist? The middle of the road, at best, Dem President? Really? The same GOP that thought Lieberman or Kerry was too liberal. Right.....



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/05/2016 08:41AM by silvarios.

Quote
silvarios

Quote
Onamuji

Quote
davester
You're basing your voting on campaign speeches/advertisements? Are you nuts? Campaigns are carefully marketed advertisements designed by groups of political consultants for the purpose of getting their candidate elected by pulling in those who might not otherwise vote for them. Idealistic touting of issues that might alienate those people is political suicide.

...

If you want to figure out a candidate's policy stance, look at their past actions, not their latest advertising jingle (i.e. campaign speech).

I am also not pleased with her political record as a Senator and as Secretary of State.

She didn't do much for New York when she had the chance. She pushed for violent corporate imperial solutions when Obama sought her advice.

I know it's a hot-button topic here, but it's also a big part of her CV: The embarrassment of Benghazi is not her response to the attack on the embassy. It's her cold war regressionist regime-change policies and council that helped to create the situation in the first place.

Team D for the win is all people care about, Hillary isn't very liberal and to think it's GOP smears that are painting her as not liberal? People have gone bananas here. The same GOP that thinks Obama is a socialist? The middle of the road, at best, Dem President? Really? The same GOP that thought Lieberman or Kerry was too liberal. Right.....

Writing her history then spouting it out of your mouth as if it's factual with zero evidence and zero proof. Just memes that you blindly repeat.