Clinton, Boeing and Filthy Lucre

nighttimer said:

And deriding the qualifications of a former First Lady of the United States, U.S. Senator and Secretary of State as "pretty fucking sad" is pretty fucking sad and sure seems sufficiently wound up about the matter.

Click to expand...

But I didn't do that:

me said:

To be clear, what I think is "pretty fucking sad" is the mindset that, somehow, Hillary Clinton is far and away the best candidate for the office of President, that there's no one who can even compare to her. Because again, what she brings to the table is no different than what a host of other people would bring.

Click to expand...

Whether or not Hillary is the best candidate for president, I don't know. But I think it's a little disingenuous to say she doesn't bring anything to the table that can't be matched by any other candidate.

After all, there was only one FLOTUS during Bill Clinton's presidency, and the number of people who have been secretary of state since then numbers less than ten. Those two positions give her some unique experience that a lot of potential presidential candidates can't hope to match.

William Haskins said:

not to mention connections.

Click to expand...

Who was the last person to become president without them?

nighttimer said:

Who was the last person to [achieve any position of power or prestige whatsoever] without them?

Click to expand...

It sure must be great to live in a dream of blind idealism.

kuwisdelu said:

It sure must be great to live in a dream of blind idealism.

Click to expand...

Yeah, it's apparently wonderful. Everybody goes along, dreamily believing they live in a democracy led by benevolent angels and wizard economists when in reality it's a stage-managed oligarchy designed to sheer the common man of what wealth he's been allowed to extract from the system for the benefit of the politicians and their crony capitalist buddies.

It's much tougher facing up to the truth.

Don said:

Yeah, it's apparently wonderful. Everybody goes along, dreamily believing they live in a democracy led by benevolent angels and wizard economists when in reality it's a stage-managed oligarchy designed to sheer the common man of what wealth he's been allowed to extract from the system for the benefit of the politicians and their crony capitalist buddies.

It's much tougher facing up to the truth.

Click to expand...

Anyone else see that and think Mmmm steak.

ShaunHorton said:

Whether or not Hillary is the best candidate for president, I don't know. But I think it's a little disingenuous to say she doesn't bring anything to the table that can't be matched by any other candidate.

After all, there was only one FLOTUS during Bill Clinton's presidency, and the number of people who have been secretary of state since then numbers less than ten. Those two positions give her some unique experience that a lot of potential presidential candidates can't hope to match.

Click to expand...

Just FYI, FLOTUS is not a position, not an office. It's a title...

Don said:

Yeah, it's apparently wonderful. Everybody goes along, dreamily believing they live in a democracy led by benevolent angels and wizard economists

Click to expand...

When did I ever suggest I believed that?

robeiae said:

Just FYI, FLOTUS is not a position, not an office. It's a title...

Click to expand...

Except it's the equivalent of being the POTUS's private counselor. It's as front row seat to watch the position of POTUS as it gets and I think to disregard the things one could see and learn as the FLOTUS is to completely underestimate the position and the people who hold it.

Dude, don't discount Biden's status as BROTUS... 8)

(FTR, I'm with rug on HRC's qualifications. Which I'm sure is a shocker ). As far as the OP goes, there are greater sins in the world of political gladhandling than earthquake charities and Boeing contracts. (If you'd said Lockheed, Raytheon, or, for our friends across the pond, BAE, I'd change my mind)

I'd quite possibly vote for Cuomo, depending on what happens when I learn more about him. Warren, probably not. I like her very much as my senator, but not sure about president. At least not in 2016.

Don said:

Yeah, it's apparently wonderful. Everybody goes along, dreamily believing they live in a democracy led by benevolent angels and wizard economists when in reality it's a stage-managed oligarchy designed to sheer the common man of what wealth he's been allowed to extract from the system for the benefit of the politicians and their crony capitalist buddies.

It's much tougher facing up to the truth.

Click to expand...

Should we assume a guy who quotes himself knows it?



Thank goodness for the wise men who insist they have 20-20 vision and the rest of the world has blinders on.

They're hilarious.

ShaunHorton said:

Except it's the equivalent of being the POTUS's private counselor. It's as front row seat to watch the position of POTUS as it gets and I think to disregard the things one could see and learn as the FLOTUS is to completely underestimate the position and the people who hold it.

Click to expand...

Egad! You have sailed into the truth, sir!

Disregarding the position of the First Lady allows the disparaging party to do so without directly disregarding the women who have held the title. That way the barb still sinks into their flesh while the assailant can protest their innocence with the disclaimer, "Who, me? I never said that."

Yes - the one thing Hillary will have that no one else in the race will is that she has already had a front row seat on what the job entails. She's already a lot farther along the learning curve than anyone except maybe Biden. And probably a little ahead of him, even.

Not to mention having a former president as her own personal private counselor.

ShaunHorton said:

Except it's the equivalent of being the POTUS's private counselor. It's as front row seat to watch the position of POTUS as it gets and I think to disregard the things one could see and learn as the FLOTUS is to completely underestimate the position and the people who hold it.

Click to expand...

No, it's the equivalent of being the spouse of the President. Certainly, a given First Lady (or hypothetical First Gentleman) can be involved heavily in things (like Hillary was, no doubt). But the idea that in and of itself, being the spouse of someone who does a certain job/holds a certain office provides exceptional experience for that job/position is just goofy.

And again, we're getting right back into oligarchies/aristocracies with such things.

President Jackie Kennedy
President Lady Byrd Johnson
President Pat Nixon
President Betty Ford
President Rosalynn Carter
President Nancy Reagan???

nighttimer said:

Egad! You have sailed into the truth, sir!

Disregarding the position of the First Lady allows the disparaging party to do so without directly disregarding the women who have held the title. That way the barb still sinks into their flesh while the assailant can protest their innocence with the disclaimer, "Who, me? I never said that."

Click to expand...

Oh please. It's the title given to the President's spouse (when female). It's not earned, it's not voted on, and it's just a traditional means to identify the President's spouse.

Most certainly First Ladies (or hypothetical First Gentlemen) should be treated with respect, since they do stand with their spouse at events of state and the like, thus essentially representing the country. Anything more should be in response to their own actions.

clintl said:

Not to mention having a former president as her own personal private counselor.

Click to expand...

This is such a good thing, we should just allow the wife or husband of retiring politicians to assume the office without even bothering with voting...

robeiae said:

No, it's the equivalent of being the spouse of the President. Certainly, a given First Lady (or hypothetical First Gentleman) can be involved heavily in things (like Hillary was, no doubt). But the idea that in and of itself, being the spouse of someone who does a certain job/holds a certain office provides exceptional experience for that job/position is just goofy.

And again, we're getting right back into oligarchies/aristocracies with such things.

President Jackie Kennedy
President Lady Byrd Johnson
President Pat Nixon
President Betty Ford
President Rosalynn Carter
President Nancy Reagan???

Click to expand...

No, it's not an oligarchy or an aristocracy when more than one person in the same family decides they want to run for office. They still have to win an election and be voted in. The position isn't given to them by divine right, so your analogy falls apart.

I'd sooner vote for some of the First Ladies to follow their husbands into the Oval Office than the confederacy of dunces in our current Congress.

Simply because you've warmed a safe seat in the House for four or five terms or you've fooled the folks back home you belong in the Senate until they carry you out of it after 25 years of giving speeches and doing nothing meaningful doesn't mean you've got the chops to be president.

President Laura Bush or President Michelle Obama sounds a lot better to me than President Harry Reid or President Michelle Bachmann.

Is this a little early in the election cycle, or is it actually better to have a slightly older, more mobile child for gramma to show off in her campaign commercials?

Baby on board: Chelsea Clinton says she's pregnant

Don said:

Is this a little early in the election cycle, or is it actually better to have a slightly older, more mobile child for gramma to show off in her campaign commercials?

Baby on board: Chelsea Clinton says she's pregnant

Click to expand...

Wash. Rinse. Repeat.

nighttimer said:

Should we assume a guy who quotes himself knows it?

Thank goodness for the wise men who insist they have 20-20 vision and the rest of the world has blinders on.

They're hilarious.

Click to expand...

How about telling all those researchers at Princeton and Northwestern what terrible cynics they are?

...although personally I think they should qualify for a "Captain Obvious" award, as was alluded to in that thread's topic.

As for the blinders, I think they're a fairly appropriate metaphor for ignoring studies like that one as well as the day-to-day headlines that confirm this 20-year analysis, but I think Stockholm Syndrome is really more accurate.

OTOH, the blinders metaphor goes along with the "statist myopia" meme, so maybe that's better overall.

In either case, the fundamental underlying truth still applies.

Don said:

The vision of the helpful and protective state is the most pervasive and counter-productive ideology in the world today.

Click to expand...

I really like that quote. Thanks for the reminder.

Not a problem, here's another.

Ron Paul wasn't editor; he was "publisher" which means he allowed his name to be hijacked while he was full-time OB/GYN and out of politics, as Max explained. As a full-time doctor, he failed by not keeping an eye on stuff published in DC while he was in Texas.

Bad management mistake, but hardly on the level of stupid racist statements we've heard from other candidates during this cycle that were rapidly passed over, nor their willingness to bomb the shit out of brown people half a world away in the name of "democracy" or incarcerate today's minorities for drugs. No writings or speeches of his show the content or style of those newsletters. The vast majority of the 20 years of newsletters contain nothing like those statements either.

Click to expand...

Stockholm Syndrome indeed. As well as denial of reality.

nighttimer said:

Not a problem, here's another.



Stockholm Syndrome indeed. As well as denial of reality.

Click to expand...

I guess that's supposed to be an Ad Hominem attack, but I don't get it. I certainly don't see what it has to do with this thread, however. Maybe a mod can explain it to me.

Don said:

I guess that's supposed to be an Ad Hominem attack, but I don't get it. I certainly don't see what it has to do with this thread, however.

Click to expand...

You have an entire separate thread which is supposedly about Black children and the preschool-to-prison pipeline which is nothing but an Ad Hominem attack on public schools and lousy with posts which have nothing to do with the thread, so it isn't surprising you don't get it.

Don said:

Maybe a mod can explain it to me.

Click to expand...

You're a smart man. I'm sure you can figure it out.