Hillary for President?

[XPav]

Well?

[DennyA]

Eventually. She'd be nuts to do it in 2004, though.

[XPav]

Hrm, shoulda put a timeframe on this. I was thinking 2004 only, but hey, do I look like Zogby?

[Jakub]

The only way I can imagine voting for her is if my other options are:

a). GW
b). Cheney
c). Any member of the current cabinet
d). Lieberman

[Jason McCullough]

She may run in 2008+, but it's amazingly hard to imagine her getting the nomination. She's not that hot a politician and is a incredibly divisive figure.

[bmulligan]

Male democrats would vote against her or for a third party, even in the lesser of 2 evils scenario. No real man wants a bitch like that to be in such a powerful position.

[Jason McCullough]

The real roots of conservative opposition are revealed!

[Chris Nahr]

I wanted to vote "Fuck Hillary" but then I realized this is about the last thing I'd actually want to do.

[Bub, Andrew]

Male democrats would vote against her or for a third party, even in the lesser of 2 evils scenario. No real man wants a bitch like that to be in such a powerful position.

Yeah, having Nancy Reagan as Commander in Chief for 8 years was bad enough!

[JeffL]

It is fascinating to me to see the Hillary worship - what in the world do people, Democrats or others, see in anything she has done to make them think she is a great leader or politician? What has she demonstrated to make anyone think she's "good"?

[XPav]

Who's worshipping Hillary? No one in this thread, for sure, including leading members of the QT3 Communist Crew.

[Xaroc]

It is fascinating to me to see the Hillary worship - what in the world do people, Democrats or others, see in anything she has done to make them think she is a great leader or politician? What has she demonstrated to make anyone think she's "good"?

Jeff, the question is phrased poorly. It says do you think she is going to run? I think she is. Will I vote for her? Probably not.

-- Xaroc

[Bub, Andrew]

It is fascinating to me to see the Hillary worship - what in the world do people, Democrats or others, see in anything she has done to make them think she is a great leader or politician? What has she demonstrated to make anyone think she's "good"?

I agree with you Jeff. But I'm even more fascinated by how much she's loathed by the other side.

[Jason McCullough]

I don't like her all *that* much, but:

1) She's a professional woman with a real career.
2) She's really liberal.
3) She really did some sort of bonding with a certain class of professional woman over the whole Monica thing. That bit where Russert & Lazio went after her at the first debate did this, too.
4) The level of abuse heaped on her for being a professional woman (pretty much at the root of why the right hates her) inspires sympathy with professional women.

Noticing a trend? Think it's a feminist thing.

[bmulligan]

Yeah, having Nancy Reagan as Commander in Chief for 8 years was bad enough!

Don't you know anything? Their Astrologer was the one calling the shots for 8 years!

And Billy Graham too.

[Mark Asher]

It is fascinating to me to see the Hillary worship - what in the world do people, Democrats or others, see in anything she has done to make them think she is a great leader or politician? What has she demonstrated to make anyone think she's "good"?

I agree with you Jeff. But I'm even more fascinated by how much she's loathed by the other side.

Yeah, it's a bit odd how pathological some of the hate seems to be.

As to her qualifications, since when does a President need to be qualified?

As to Hilary, she's smart, been involved in politics all her life, knows world leaders, has been involved in the Presidency for eight years already, understands the law, is now a Senator -- why couldn't she make a good President?

[Chris]

It will be interesting, especially if any of the millions of Democrats running for President actually win next year. If that happens that will blow (pun intended) her strategy of keeping her promise to serve a full Senate term and running for President in 2008. We'll see if she blinks and runs next year if Bush keeps looking vulnerable and Dean, or especially Clark, keep building steam.

[Doug Erickson]

I don't get the Hilary Hate (tm). What the hell's up with that? She's smart, savvy, well-connected, and progressive -- and she seems to garner a lot more hate than other MALE liberals, including her own husband. Creepy, is what it is.

[Union Carbide]

She's smart, savvy, well-connected, and progressive
The best questions are the ones that answer themselves.

[Sharpe]

Tim Noah of Slate has a good two-part article about the continuing speculation of Hilary in 2004:

http://slate.msn.com/id/2088758/

http://slate.msn.com/id/2088820/

Bottom line: very few on the left are interested in a Hilary run. However, there continues to be a buzz on the right about Hilary. Why?

Noah's answer makes sense to me, and also explains a lot of the continuing unremitting hatred of Bill Clinton. His logic re: Hilary pretty much applies to Bill. Interesting reading.

As an aside, this issue of extremists being emphasized by the opposing side seems to be a continuing thread. My (conservative) buddy was telling me on the other night that he thinks Al Sharpton is going to be a major player in the Demo nomination. I don't know anybody on the left who takes Al Sharpton as a serious contender. I don't even think hes being seriously considered as a spoiler or deal-maker. So if the left is not excited about Al Sharpton the leftist, why is the right? I think Noah's logic applies here too, and to right's attacks on most far-lefties.

Dan

[Chris Nahr]

Actually I know very little about Hillary (it's not like I'm getting to vote for or against her anyway) but based on appearance, I find her just as repulsive as her husband -- she's like the real life version of that estate agent in American Beauty, a perfect complement to Bill's slimy car salesman appearance. Even Shrub is more likeable than those two (as long as he doesn't open his mouth anyway).

Oh, and the one political thing I do remember about her was some shrill screaming about a "vast right-wing conspiracy" during Monicagate. That didn't exactly leave a good impression either.

[Jason McCullough]

Yeah, since she turned out to be right.

[Anders Hallin]

Oh, and the one political thing I do remember about her was some shrill screaming about a "vast right-wing conspiracy" during Monicagate. That didn't exactly leave a good impression either.
Shrill? Are you sure? I have a hard time seeing it, and would in fact be quite sure that it was only portrayed as such by right-wing commentators, when talking about her womanish, unreasonable response.

[Chris Nahr]

No, I heard her talking on TV. She has that grating Nazgûl-style screeching like many other women in politics and academia, inside and outside of America. Some men do it as well but their lower pitch makes it sound ridiculous rather than repulsive. I think it's trying to talk loudly, so as to overcome noise or give an impression of authority, without a properly trained voice.

[Chris Nahr]

Yeah, since she turned out to be right.

Uh, so the fact that Monica sucked Bill and he lied about it were all just inventions in your world?

[Anders Hallin]

Link to video/audio?

[Bub, Andrew]

No, I heard her talking on TV. She has that grating Nazgûl-style screeching like many other women in politics and academia, inside and outside of America.

Your problem seems to boil down to gender here Christoph.

[Jason McCullough]

Yeah, since she turned out to be right.

Uh, so the fact that Monica sucked Bill and he lied about it were all just inventions in your world?"

"Clinton was lying" and "there was a well-funded right-wing conspiracy out to get Clinton" aren't incompatible.

[Chris Nahr]

Your problem seems to boil down to gender here Christoph.

That's an amazingly astute observation, especially since I explicitly wrote "like many other women"...

[DennyA]

Your problem seems to boil down to gender here Christoph.
That's an amazingly astute observation, especially since I explicitly wrote "like many other women"...
Ah, sweet Germany... Where misongyny is alive and well!

[Chris Nahr]

Hey, is it my fault that women are genetically inferior? :P

[Lizard_King]

Ah, sweet Germany... Where misongyny is alive and well!
Better than fair Vermont, where politically correct nonsense apparently still holds sway.

I've seen Hillary speak in situations where she was either a little too sure of her audience's receptivity to her words or feeling threatened, and I can completely see where the shrill characterization could arise. Still, I don't think there's any stopping her candidacy.

[Bub, Andrew]

Well it's one thing to say that Hillary is shrill and another to say that "many women" are and use that as your reason for disliking her. I'm not saying it's misogyny, I just thought it was a dumb contribution to the thread.

[JeffL]

Oh, good grief, here we go with the old Right/Left thing again. The "Right" hates her because she's a professional woman? Um - most Republican couples I know have both spouses working. That's just dumb.

I just asked a simple question: so many people seem so enamoured of Hillary, and I've never seen her demonstrate anything to be enamoured of. She's a lawyer, she's been Bill's wife as he served as governor and president, but I would have a hard time giving specifics of what's she's done. And I do hear so many people gushing over her (I wasn't speaking about people here.)

[bmulligan]

"Yeah, since she turned out to be right...

Clinton was lying" and "there was a well-funded right-wing conspiracy out to get Clinton" aren't incompatible.

McCullough, you amaze me more and more each day.

So, when the left colludes to rid the world of and discredit Bush it's called patriotic dissention, but when the right does the same to a Dem it's a conspiracy. Such is the ideological double standard.

[bmulligan]

"Yeah, since she turned out to be right...

Clinton was lying" and "there was a well-funded right-wing conspiracy out to get Clinton" aren't incompatible.

McCullough, you amaze me more and more each day.

So, when the left colludes to rid the world of and discredit Bush it's called patriotic dissention, but when the right does the same to a Dem it's a conspiracy. Such is the ideological double standard.

[Jason McCullough]

Maybe it's just me, but I don't think an orchestrated smear campaign of known lies funded by a kooky billionare (see Brock's book) is quite the same.

[Lizard_King]

Hey, is it my fault that women are genetically inferior? :P

No, no, no: they've been conditioned by society to be inferior. Don't you know anything? :)

[Anders Hallin]

so many people seem so enamoured of Hillary, and I've never seen her demonstrate anything to be enamoured of.
Well, she is hated by a whole bunch of Republicans.

[JeffL]

so many people seem so enamoured of Hillary, and I've never seen her demonstrate anything to be enamoured of.
Well, she is hated by a whole bunch of Republicans.

Well, of course - that's the whole Republicans hate Democrats/Democrats hate Republicans one-celled brain response that is destroying our political system. (Although in an interview this past week on a morning show, Laura Bush said that she thought Hillary was a very capable person and was doing a fine job for New York.) I'm talking about rational people who aren't so stupid and one-sided in their thinking.

[Jason McCullough]

Jeff, if you think inter-party screeching is a recent development, I advise you to read the campaign literature of the 18th and 19th centuries.

[Anders Hallin]

Jeff, if you think inter-party screeching is a recent development, I advise you to read the campaign literature of the 18th and 19th centuries.
Ever since reading the text where Cicero accuses one of his political enemies of being a pimp and another of being a transvestite, I've always had a fond place in my heart for him.

[King Lupid]

There's just no way a woman can get elected at this point. If she is smart, I think she would go for the Vice-President position with a candidate who could win, then try to use that as a jumping off point for the big office.

[Theodore Rex DX]

DennyA wrote:
Ah, sweet Germany... Where misongyny is alive and well!

Better than fair Vermont, where politically correct nonsense apparently still holds sway.

Okay, while I think that tut-tutting a place as large and diverse as Germany for being 'mysogynistic' is both lame and somewhat ironic ... you actually think 'politically correct nonsense' is just obviously a more despicable form of behaviour than misogyny? I mean, you have them graded like that in your mind in a cut and dry sort of way?
Or were you just grasping for a witty retort that flowed naturally and made the best of the limited material? Either way you're fucked. He wasn't even being politically correct - he took a swing at an entire country.

Not taking sides here - just trying to make sense of this crazy mess.

[Chris Nahr]

If you get this worked up about a little bit of friendly trolling you'll get a heart attack before you reach Magister Mundi status. Don't overanalyze posts, that's Brian Koontz's job. Also, I recommend that you do a search for all posts by "Cleve Blakemore" -- you'll love them! :D

[Theodore Rex DX]

WTF? I thought I was trolling.

[Lizard_King]

Okay, while I think that tut-tutting a place as large and diverse as Germany for being 'mysogynistic' is both lame and somewhat ironic ... you actually think 'politically correct nonsense' is just obviously a more despicable form of behaviour than misogyny?
Political correctness is meta-dishonesty. Due to its sophistication and level of social acceptance in America and most 1st world countries, it is worse.

I mean, you have them graded like that in your mind in a cut and dry sort of way?
Yes. Feel better?

Or were you just grasping for a witty retort that flowed naturally and made the best of the limited material? Either way you're fucked. He wasn't even being politically correct - he took a swing at an entire country.
Actually, no. That was sarcasm on his part. What he was doing was taking offense at the harsh characterization of Hillary and "some women" in politics and calling it mysoginy, the same way that criticism of, say, Jesse Jackson and some minority leaders becomes racism.

Not taking sides here - just trying to make sense of this crazy mess.

Oh, well, in that case, might I suggest the internal monologue as a means of conflict resolution in the future? It worked out great for Hamlet.

[Theodore Rex DX]

Man, I forgot all about this thread.

Hey, I got a response from Lizard King:


Political correctness is meta-dishonesty. Due to its sophistication and level of social acceptance in America and most 1st world countries, it is worse.

Debatable at absolute best. 'Misogyny > political correctness' still really sucks as a snappy stfu rejoinder, and the two terms are interchangeable in your argument (only you don't have to use the weak '1st world country' qualifier for the nega-version).

Actually, no. That was sarcasm on his part. What he was doing was taking offense at the harsh characterization of Hillary and "some women" in politics and calling it mysoginy, the same way that criticism of, say, Jesse Jackson and some minority leaders becomes racism.

I'll just say that I don't think Hillary Clinton would get as much attention (ridiculous sugary praise, vicious abuse, erotic fanfic) if she wasn't a woman, and that I think it's all pretty despicable.
I don't think anybody really defended Jesse Jackson except Jesse Jackson and a few guilty apologists/retarded losers, so that was a pretty poor example. You could shift gears and bring up the snarky criticisms from left-wing agencies directed at Colin Powell's supposed kow-towing to the redneck honky establishment, but I guess that doesn't have the dated comic appeal of Jar Jar Jackson.

Oh, well, in that case, might I suggest the internal monologue as a means of conflict resolution in the future? It worked out great for Hamlet.

Since you seem to like Shakespeare so much that you refer to it haphazardly and at the slightest opportunity:

All the internet's a stage and (bonus quote) I think you doth protest too much. That last one because I believe a lot of your anti-pc bluster is covert bigotry and that the reason you cross the line on occasion is because you secretly don't think bigotry is all that big a deal anyway - not because you're the jaded cynic you think you are.

[Lizard_King]

Since you seem to like Shakespeare so much that you refer to it haphazardly and at the slightest opportunity:

All the internet's a stage and (bonus quote) I think you doth protest too much. That last one because I believe a lot of your anti-pc bluster is covert bigotry and that the reason you cross the line on occasion is because you secretly don't think bigotry is all that big a deal anyway - not because you're the jaded cynic you think you are.

Thanks for proving my point. Disagree with someone? RACIST. It's Fun.

I think you secretly think I'm secretly a bigot because you're secretly a bigot and enjoy projecting your character flaws (secretly) on others.

It's Fun. And Covert.


Also, Shakespeare reference counter for me: 1. Fruity integration of Shakespeare quotes into your snappy comeback: 2. U LOSE.

[bmulligan]

Could this be a pollitically correct race card?

That last one because I believe a lot of your anti-pc bluster is covert bigotry and that the reason you cross the line on occasion is because you secretly don't think bigotry is all that big a deal anyway - not because you're the jaded cynic you think you are.

Almost, but not nearly an ace, more like a three of hearts. Do you guys get together and print up special decks for you and all your lib friends? Most of your kind here aren't afraid to come out and cry racist, so don't feel the need to hold back Teddy King. Let it all out

[Lizard_King]

Oh, and if you want to open a thread where you expound at length on how censorship and self-censorship, +/- the criminalization of unpleasant thoughts, are morally and logically superior to the relatively free standards set by, say, the first amendment...feel free.

[Theodore Rex DX]

Thanks for proving my point. Disagree with someone? RACIST.

Whatever. You earnestly believe ham-handed politically correct retardism is just obviously a greater threat to the wellbeing of society than negative discrimination on the basis of female gender and non-white colour.

They're two sides of the same fucking coin, asstard.

If you think one of these ways of thinking is just overwhelmingly more invasive, sinister and wicked than the other, you're just fucking fantasizing (speaking here in terms of general philosophy - as far as actual physical reality goes, descrimination that disadvantages women and non-whites is pretty fucking obviously winning).
When I suggest that your point is debatable at best and accuse you of bigot tendencies on the basis that you have a very clear-cut bigot view, I'm playing the fucking race card? Man, was I ever right about you.

I think you secretly think I'm secretly a bigot because you're secretly a bigot and enjoy projecting your character flaws (secretly) on others.

Now you're just talking shit.

Also, Shakespeare reference counter for me: 1. Fruity integration of Shakespeare quotes into your snappy comeback: 2. U LOSE.

Whatever. I could have fucking written a Hamlet/MacBeth slashfic in place of a reply and it still would have been less flamingly Elizabethan than your post. You referenced the bard first, I was just milking the situation. You have no defence.

[bmulligan]

You're being awfully bold considering you dont even 'know' LK or anyone else here. Most of us use asstard only for our closer relationships with our philosophical opposites.

I guess if you just want to namecall, then you picked the right forum. And perhaps I was wrong, maybe you should 'hold back' a little so you have some left when you really need it.

[Theodore Rex DX]

That's a very fair point.

Sorry.

[Lizard_King]

Now you're just talking shit.

You really don't see any irony in characterizing my ad hominem attack on your ad hominem that way? Really? You are extra special!

If you think one of these ways of thinking is just overwhelmingly more invasive, sinister and wicked than the other, you're just fucking fantasizing (speaking here in terms of general philosophy - as far as actual physical reality goes, descrimination that disadvantages women and non-whites is pretty fucking obviously winning).
When I suggest that your point is debatable at best and accuse you of bigot tendencies on the basis that you have a very clear-cut bigot view, I'm playing the fucking race card? Man, was I ever right about you.
One is on the way out. PC is on the way in, as the new means of preconditioning debate to avoid opposing viewpoints. I think such attempts at thought reform are far more sinister than anything modern racism and mysoginy have to offer. Mind you, not "racism and mysoginy are good and don't exist".

Think otherwise? Great. Until you prove it, cease pretending you are objectively on some sort of moral high ground simply because you believe something else to be worse. Otherwise, it's a matter of opinion that you are extending into your preconceived notion of me as a racist, and as amusing as your screeching drama queen act wasn't to begin with, it's only geting worse.

[Theodore Rex DX]

You really don't see any irony in characterizing my ad hominem attack on your ad hominem that way? Really? You are extra special!

I understand the irony, I just wanted to blow it off with a snotty remark. It was distracting without even being amusing. You were supposed to defend yourself by actually explaining your point of view, but instead you just cockblocked. Maybe I didn't make it clear enough.

Think otherwise? Great. Until you prove it, cease pretending you are objectively on some sort of moral high ground simply because you believe something else to be worse.

You made the initial claim, and it was pretty big. It's controversial, and I'd bet it's a minority view even among the far right. You didn't give specifics, so I interpreted it as best I could. If anything, the onus is on you to justify (or at least explain in better detail) just what the hell your point is. I think most people would agree with me when I say that some of the nastier forms of political correctness are just discrimination working in reverse, regardless of good intentions. I think you would. But that's not a killer argument. I need more detail.
So what are you trying to say? Could you give some examples of the kinds of things you're talking about? I can think of a couple, but they don't seem to really back up your case, and I'd like to hear some from you.

Thanks.

[Lizard_King]

You made the initial claim, and it was pretty big. It's controversial, and I'd bet it's a minority view even among the far right. You didn't give specifics, so I interpreted it as best I could. If anything, the onus is on you to justify (or at least explain in better detail) just what the hell your point is. I think most people would agree with me when I say that some of the nastier forms of political correctness are just discrimination working in reverse, regardless of good intentions. I think you would. But that's not a killer argument. I need more detail.
So what are you trying to say? Could you give some examples of the kinds of things you're talking about? I can think of a couple, but they don't seem to really back up your case, and I'd like to hear some from you.

Thanks.

Well, my initial characterization of political correctness as something that has to be seen at the meta- level still stands, if you are sincerely interested in knowing where I am coming from on this.

I don't think we are arguing about much more than semantics, believe it or not. Political correctness is worse than, say, ordinary racism for the simple reason that it works on different levels to undercut much more than old fashioned racism has managed to do. In addition to being a vehicle for racism and misogyny per se, it seeks to not only disqualify points of view without debate but reset the terms of any discussion altogether. It is thought reform, pure and simple, something that even the Strom Thurmonds and William Fulbrights of the past could never come close to attempting at this level of sophistication. It is the very ambitiousness of pc that concerns me far more than straightforward bigotry's simplistic demagoguery.
Now, there are a lot of points of view that I disagree with, but I think it is a worse transgression to short-circuit reasoned debate altogether. That is what political correctness is about; to institute at a societal level what can only be described as an Orwellian means of promoting an agenda.
We can argue about the relative amounts of both if you desire; I think that adding in the qualitative measurements of who believes in them (oversimplified) make overt racism a dinosaur and pc the future. Me, I'm more concerned about what's coming, and the future generations that are absorbing it hook, line and sinker (www.thefire.org).
There are many places where Chomskyesque dialectics have become the norm; I do not wish that on America.

[Jason McCullough]

I can't even figure out what the fuck you two are talking about.

[Theodore Rex DX]

Runesword forger over on the "Old golfin' GILF hates Asians" thread:

Second, not all racially insensitive comments are created equal.

I take it all back - you were right about everything.

Actually I'm kidding, I still think you're wrong.

Proper response when it's some other time than 1:59AM.