२१ एप्रिल, २००८
The new Hillary ad.
I like it. I like Hillary best when she shows her hawkishness, but I've heard some Obamists are upset about this. About this, about the waffle, about the meanie debate questions....
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
१०० टिप्पण्या:
It's a nice ad but it doesn't suggest Hillary has these qualities.
That's the trouble with the choice the primaries have left us with.
You want somebody with some brains, and we've got soap opera stars.
That's my impression from the ad.
You know, as she gets older she's come full circle politically.
She's become the new Barry Goldwater.
Cheers,
Victoria
"It's a nice ad but it doesn't suggest Hillary has these qualities."
Exactly.
This is the person who but a few short months ago was all weepy and teary when she thought she was being given the hard questions.
Margaret Thatcher must be appalled.
Cheers,
Victoria
3 comments:
1. WB Victoria :)
2. was the music a riff of the theme from "Air Force One"?
3. I understand the BBC did polling and Ms Thatcher ranked first among post-war PM's. They didn;t let folks vote for Churchill 40-45. Note sure if they allowed Churchill 51-55 votes.
I like it.
A good lawyer never asks a question she doesn't know the answer to: who do I think can handle it? McCain.
rhhardin: Well, it certainly suggests she has those qualities. You might not believe she does, but that's certainly the implication in the ad.
Consider what a joke it would be if Obama tried to do an ad like this or even make this kind of argument. But with her, it makes sense. That's the most significant difference between these two candidates: one can credibly claim to be tough on national security, and the other can't.
Maybe you think neither of them are tough enough, but for now the choice is between these two.
She's a good looking 60 year old. She has improved her looks so much over the last 20 years.
She looks better the older she gets.
The color of her suits are too loud though. The taxicab yellow and some of the bright red and greens are nasty. She should speak with Nancy Pelosi about fabulous suits. Nancy's got em.
Now commence going off.
Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy?
Who are these people?
Clearly an ad designed for those over 65. My mom remembers when Roosevelt was president, but she's 80.
Interesting there is no Bill. I guess he doesn't test well. I'm sure there was a furious debate about putting in Reagan. I'm sure there was not a furious debate about putting in Carter.
Roosevelt was that guy Michelle Malkin was defending. Hillary's going for the haters!
That's a racist ad, implying that Obama is kitchen help. I'm sure that Rev. Wright can point out the not-so-obvious racism that I missed.
The queen that does her hair and makeup does a good job but the queen that picks out her clothes should be excommunicated from the club.
This is insane.
How in the world is Hillary qualified to handle the sort of events highlighted in the ad? What experiences does she have with such things?
It's the same question so many of us have been asking throughout the whole campaign. I don't understand what it is...I mean, when was her defining moment? In what international crises has she been tested?
Just because someone puts out a well produced ad doesn't make the content of the ad true!
I love Hilary right now.
The irony here is that if she wasn't so hawkish she'd already have the nomination well in hand.
She made two huge mistakes.
The first was assuming she'd win the Democratic nomination and taking Democratic primary voters for granted for seven years in the Senate while she carefully triangulated her votes with the goal of running towards the center in a general election,
and the second was underestimating both the depth and the breadth of the anti-war sentiment, both in the country as a whole (where support for the Iraq war has remained well below fifty percent for over two years) and especially within the Democratic primary constituency (where the level of support for the Iraq war may well be in single digits, and that is not an exaggeration.) She started to sound the right notes on Iraq late last year but then the critical vote for her was on the Iran Revolutionary Guard vote (which many perceived as George Bush greasing the skids for a war with Iran) and when she cast her vote for it, that was the acid test, and that was when she lost the nomination.
I wrote late in 2007 that the mid 40% level that Hillary was then polling in the national polls of Democrats (vs. 26% for Obama, 15% for Edwards, 7% for Richardson and on down the line) was a ceiling for her-- I knew no one who supported another candidate who had Hillary as their second choice, and that once other candidates dropped out that all of their support would coalesce behind whichever candidate emerged as her final opponent. Never have I been proven so right in a prediction-- but I know Democratic primary voters, and I know how we (I count myself as one) think.
The reason some are upset about the ad is the inclusion of the Osama bin Laden image. After the Republicans used this to scare voters in 2004, it's kind of a touchy subject, and to see a Democrat use it against another Democrat is a first.
Odd, her facial expression, makeup, and hairdo, how she looks down smugly and gleefully.
Her glamness doesn't mesh with the dire images and music.
She needs a Reagany "I paid for this microphone" moment.
She started to sound the right notes on Iraq late last year but then the critical vote for her was on the Iran Revolutionary Guard vote (which many perceived as George Bush greasing the skids for a war with Iran) and when she cast her vote for it, that was the acid test, and that was when she lost the nomination.
The vote in question was on a non-binding resolution which passed, 76-22, with the support of the Republican Party and the majority of those Democratic Senators who were not currently running for President. No rational person believed the resolution began a path to war with Iran (hint: "non-binding"). It simply stated the opinion of the Senate that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard is a terrorist organization (which of course it unquestionably is). I would criticize Obama for refusing to admit that the Iranians engage in terrorism, but of course he didn't actually bother showing up for the vote.
Maybe the Democratic base really is so poisoned with Bush Derangement Syndrome that they would rather deny the Revolutionary Guard engages in terrorism than admit Bush is right about something. I hope, for America's sake, that they aren't THAT far gone.
The reason some are upset about the ad is the inclusion of the Osama bin Laden image. After the Republicans used this to scare voters in 2004, it's kind of a touchy subject, and to see a Democrat use it against another Democrat is a first.
So you're saying Bin Laden is a "distraction from the real issues?"
I guess that's what some people think. Brrr.
I know it has sexist overtones, but I really like the mental picture of guys in kaffiyehs saying "okay lady, put the gun down. Nice lady."
Progressives complain about her being a bitch and being a warmonger. They don't get that those are very positive qualities in a female president. The rest of Hillary - sneaky, dishonest, vindictive, corrupt, protectionist - I dislike intensely. But this part she has got down effectively.
Zachary Paul Sire said...
"This is insane. How in the world is Hillary qualified to handle the sort of events highlighted in the ad? What experiences does she have with such things?"
Her experience of her husband's impeachment.
That's the most significant difference between these two candidates: one can credibly claim to be tough on national security, and the other can't.
Tuzla sniper fire. Real credible.
I think Hilary is amazing.
John Stodder said...
Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy?
Who are these people?
Answer: The last good Democratic Presidents.
I'm actually beginning to think Hillary might be the next one.
Yes, titusyourmuseumofmodernart, Hillary IS amazing.
I just heard single women are the new soccer moms for this election.
That's me.
I am ready to be wooed.
But titus, you're always ready to be wood.
Meade, you are on fire tonight.
Thanks for noticing... fellow Republican.
I love Obama though too.
I love John Mccain too.
I wish they could all be president.
But life doesn't work that way.
The Winner Takes It All
The Loser Has to Fall
Abba sang that.
I love Abba
If the economy, at 5% unemployment and 5 percent inflation is "a crisis"....when have we actually had a strong economy?
I'm convinced that with "full employment", no inflation and a sexy French maid in every home Americans would still be bitching about the economy....or the doom that's just around the corner.
If only Abba were just a bit more hawkish...
The first was assuming she'd win the Democratic nomination and taking Democratic primary voters for granted for seven years in the Senate while she carefully triangulated her votes with the goal of running towards the center in a general election,
Obama has done the same exact thing, and at least Hillary didn't think she could skip the Senate altogether. For all the high flying rhetoric, you'd be very hard pressed to find one thing he's said, one vote or stand he's taken while in the Senate that coul be considered controversial. His entire message is packed with High Broderisms that must have polled well in Axelrod's astroturfing company ASK, and meticulously always being on the side of wherever the majority is. Anyways, there is a long way to go, we're all getting way ahead of ourselves. It doesn't sound like she's going anywhere anytime soon.
I have a Tibetan maid, no sexy French maid though.
If single women are the new soccer moms, who are the new NASCAR dads? And are they wooable?
I hope the loser will be a:
Super Trouper
Nascar dads have already been wooed.
It's our time for the day in the sun.
We are ready for our closeup.
Were hot, horny, and ready for action.
Two wars? WTF? It's one war on two fronts.
Unless she's talking about the war against international Islamonazism and her war with Obama.
TITUS:
I read this and thought of you.
Great ad, on many levels. It subtly makes it clear that Hillary is tough and ready to be Commander in Chief, but it doesn't do so in a way that insults Obama, thus leaving her an out to say that he would be a good President if she loses the nomination, and perhaps more importantly, if she gets herself on the ticket. The Obama supporters who are complaining about this are just whining (imagine that), in that this isn't an ad in which Obama or anyone else is being compared to Bin Laden, as the Republicans did with ads that morphed or set up side-by-side screenshots with Bin Laden's or Saddam's face and those of Democratic politicians. The next President will have to deal with Jihadist terrorism, and denial of that fact is wrong on policy and on politics.
I'm glad to be a Hillary supporter tonight. Bill Clinton will be in town in a couple of days for an event, and I intend to mention this ad to him if I get a chance to talk with him more than a quick handshake.
That's Hilarious Ruth-the gays love their Hillary. I was the only gay in NYC that didn't vote for her. She won the gay vote in NYC and the gay vote in NYC is very big.
You can't swing a cat without hitting a gay in NYC.
If every home had a French maid, we'd be bitching about the ......
price of Viagra.
I'm glad to be a Hillary supporter tonight.
The ad isn't offensive. But it is crappy. And it looks cheap. They must not have much cash on hand.
Gays really are everywhere.
Where you least expect a gay one will pop out.
When I was home I went to the little diner in a small town and the guys running it were gay.
I love small town little diners..and I love Supper Clubs.
I was so respectful of those gays living in a small town like that.
That's Hilarious Ruth-the gays love their Hillary.
What? You mean Andrew Sullivan isn't representative of the average gay person in America? I'm shocked.
Andrew Sullivan's gay?
Andrew Sullivan's gay?
Well, he says he is. He also says he's a conservative. I suppose at least one of those statements is probably true.
That's the most significant difference between these two candidates: one can credibly claim to be tough on national security, and the other can't.
I agree with Cohen. As much as I dislike Hillary, I think she does have the experience in dealing with tough issues. Yeah, maybe she wasn't making the decisions in the White House, but she was there when the decisions were being made.. In a sense she has as much decision making experience as the NSA advisor or a chief of staff.
Obama has almost no decision making experience at all. It is amazing that Obama is even a possible candidate for the Presidency.
Obama has almost no decision making experience at all.
Just to follow up. If a white freshman senator with no experience was beating a black senator with lots of experience in the polls, the media would be crying racism. But, now that the opposite is true, the media is hailing the result. Does that make any sense?
Lemme get this straight; Pennsylvania is having a primary tomorrow? Now that would be interesting if, when it was over, one of them exploded.
I was gonna watch this here video but my brain said, "NO! or I'll kill you." And who can resist reasoning cogent as that?
Chip: And Wednesday will follow Tuesday, just as surely as day follows night, not to mention vice versa.
So it goes.
Wait, I thought being a parent was the toughest job you'll ever have (which is why it takes ...).
Man, I'm confused.
Is it "old blood and guts" Hillary or is it "nurturing, health care for the children" Hillary?
It's both, Peter, wrapped up in a canary yellow package.
One thing I am pretty sure of, though, is that she is tougher than any Democratic candidate since LBJ.
On yet another hand, there's peace corps slogan.
Sheesh, what's a body to make of all this?
Let's see, Hillary was for the war before she was against the war, after she is for the war.
Hillary the hawk is as mendacious as Hillary the hero of Bosnia who ducked sniper fire.
I have said it before and will say it again; there are much more qualified women to be president than Hillary Clinton. She would not even be qualified to serve them tea and home baked cookies.
Madonna loves Hillary, further proof that there is something gay about her...by proxy.
I just downloaded the leaked new Madonna album and love it. My favorite song is "She's Not Me."
Titus is quite correct. The hair and makeup is great. The clothes and yellow square pants suits...not so much.
Although I will never vote for her...I might consider it... if she just would let the inner bitch out. And say something along these lines.
Look. People. I AM a ruthless bitch and I will do anything to get my way. We all know this of course but she should add......If your way is my way then we can all get along. I'm here to be your ruthless bitch and protect what is MINE and yours."
Might be a way to go. Quit trying to hide what we all know. Ruthless bitch protecting her turf. If nothing else it would be honest. /shrug
Just to follow up. If a white freshman senator with no experience was beating a black senator with lots of experience in the polls, the media would be crying racism. But, now that the opposite is true, the media is hailing the result. Does that make any sense?
Except that Hillary doesn't have "lots of experience", unless being married to a politician counts. Obama has spent longer in elective office than she has, albeit not at the national level. Really, though, neither of them has any significant leadership experience.
She would not even be qualified to serve them tea and home baked cookies.
Hillary has done a flip-flop on the home-baked cookie issue. She can stand the heat. She will stay in the kitchen.
I think I'll have a chef's salad and some sun tea tomorrow.
That was a pretty good ad. While I agree with others that Hillary is not experienced as an executive decision-maker and her earlier efforts when given leadership were a disaster - she would be surrounded by people that would compensate. While not as smart as Bill Clinton by a long shot, she is smart enough to be President judging from the likes of FDR, Reagan who were gifted leaders of above average intellect, but I doubt in the top 10% of the population let alone the top 1% inhabited by men like Jefferson, Nixon, and Clinton...
But smart enough.
Same with treacherous old McCain. Smart enough, but also with the experience in life and leadership to know the consequences of his 50 years of occasional stupidities and arrogant bad judgments.
Whereas Obama is just smart enough to be dangerous. Cocksure. Bad leader "going with his gut" like Carter and Dubya, IMO.
Prof. A, I agree that the ad was crafted to imply hawkishness on her part. But it's all via images. That's on purpose, because Hillary's already got plans laid for her 2012 renomination fight, in which she will once again be forced to tack left to meet a challenge from that direction (think Carter-Kennedy in 1980).
She is the Triangulatrix.
If being hawkish can get her elected, or help her retain power, then she will be, or appear to be, hawkish. If not, not.
That explanation is the single one which fits all of her words and deeds since ... forever.
If you're content for the country to be ruled by focus groups, then yes — she is your gal.
"One thing I am pretty sure of, though, is that she is tougher than any Democratic candidate since LBJ."
Let's see...
Humphrey - Old Minneapolis pol
McGovern - WWII Fighter pilot
Carter - Nuclear Submariner
Mondale - Korean War veteran
Dukakis - Lawyer
Clinton - Lawyer
Gore - Vietnam veteran / pol
Kerry - Vietnam veteran / pol
Now either Obama or Clinton, both lawyers.
Wow, you know, when you look at it written out like this, we have maybe ONE person who stands out for his outstanding previous professional existence.
And that would be McGovern.
Talk about shooting yourselves in the foot with your candidates...
Cheers,
Victoria
Her problem is that she really needs some kind of controversy in her ads to get people to see them at all. She just doesn't have the money for airtime like he does, and she needs the free media. It worked with the 3am ad. This ad is much better, for instance, but there's nothing in it to grab those Drudge Report headlines. She's a bit like Madonna. It's not enough to be good, they needs to stir up controversies to get the initial attention. Might be a familial trait, since they're 9th cousins.
What is UP with this sudden cousins trend in American life??
First Obama is related to Dick Cheney (and Bush!), now Madonna and Hillary are kin.
If you can rustle up Charlemagne in your ancestry, Chris, you, your mum and I can be related too. Woo!
Cheers,
Victoria
I don't know, Victoria.
I am embarrassed to admit this, but I am related to George W. Bush (his father is my sixth cousin.)
Oh, the humiliation.
I'd rather have Charlemagne. At least he figured out ahead of time what he'd need, and then he made sure he had it.
As for candidates, well all I can say is other than Bob Dole and Bush Sr., your list is pretty short since then too.
But counting Dan Quayle and Dick (five deferment) Cheney, you're ahead 3-1 in draft dodgers when we go President and Vice President. And speaking of Bush, have you ever pondered who exactly ended up #301 on the list for the Texas Air National Guard the year Bush Sr. pulled strings to keep Junior out of 'nam? I mean, somebody else got booted off the bottom of the list, and they had to go in his place.
And speaking of Hillary, I have no choice except to point this out because I have personal knowledge of how breathtakingly hypocritical she was today.
Yesterday Barack Obama said that any of the three candidates (including McCain) would be 'better than Bush.'
So today Hillary Clinton jumped all over him for it saying, "We need a nominee who will take on John McCain instead of cheer him on. And I will be that nominee."
Here's the problem with that. I was in the audience at a reception hosted by the Arizona Democratic Party at the Wild Horse Resort in Chandler in 2004. Hillary Clinton was the keynote speaker. That year John McCain was running for re-election to the Senate against Stu Starkey. And Hillary Clinton, in a room full of Democrats, praised John McCain and endorsed him in his Senate re-election bid. That's right, SHE ENDORSED HIM! Stu was sitting with the rest of our statewide candidates at a table in the front of the room, not twenty feet from the speaker. I was there personally and I heard every word.
Now, I suppose if she wants to cross party lines and endorse McCain she can do that, but for her to then attack Obama as she did today simply because he said that McCain wouldn't be 'as bad as Bush' is dumfoundingly hypocritical.
Might be a familial trait, since they're 9th cousins.
Really?!! Like, Omigawd!! What color panties does she wear?
vbpus -
McGovern - WWII Fighter pilot (incorrect)
Carter - Nuclear Submariner(incorrect)
Mondale - Korean War veteran(incorrect)
Dukakis - Lawyer
Clinton - Lawyer
Gore - Vietnam veteran / pol
Kerry - Vietnam veteran / pol
McGovern was a bomber pilot. Which was an even more hazardous job than fighter pilot. All due credit to him.
Mondale never served in the Korean War. He was stateside at Ft Knox.
Jimmy Carter never served on a nuclear submarine. He was briefly a desk officer in the Navy nuclear program.
All Presidents except Clinton since WWII have been Vets.
"You can't swing a cat without hitting a gay in NYC."
Well, actually, you can. When I was in NY, I swung a cat around for like 20 minutes and only hit a streetlamp and bus stop sign.
Really.
People seem to steer way clear of you when you swing a cat around. It's actually hard to hit anybody that way.
Victoria, Re: Carter, you misspelled Nucular.
(Welcome back)
So today Hillary Clinton jumped all over him for it saying, "We need a nominee who will take on John McCain instead of cheer him on. And I will be that nominee
Nevertheless, Obama's stump speech is that McCain is the 3rd Bush term. Obama went off message for a moment, and this statement came out of his mouth.
This mirrors Obama's real problem - that all of the white voters in Pennsylvania and elsewhere who will be voting for Clinton today, will find McCain as an "acceptable" alternative to voting for Obama this fall.
They will conclude that it is not worth the risk voting into office a rookie politician who has an anti-american problem.
I think it's true that McCain will be better than Bush. Hillary knows it to be true as well. Politicians always take heat for speaking the truth.
As much as I dislike Hillary, I think she does have the experience in dealing with tough issues. Yeah, maybe she wasn't making the decisions in the White House, but she was there when the decisions were being made.. In a sense she has as much decision making experience as the NSA advisor or a chief of staff.
A chief of staff serves as a gatekeeper and troubleshooter. He makes all sorts of decisions. When Hillary was given the chance to actually lead the Health Care Task Force, she botched it royally.
Being married to someone doesn't mean you automatically share in their experiences and skills. My wife is an excellent nurse. We talk about health care issues all of the time. Still, you wouldn't want me to be the one trying to insert an IV into you. I simply don't have my wife's skills.
When it comes to real executive experience, all three remaining candidates are woefully lacking. McCain's claim to executive experience was a stint as a squadron commander in the Navy. Hillary was married to a governor and president for many years but has little more than her Health Care Task Force debacle. Obama has even less. Hell, a high school student who has served as an assistant manager at Taco Bell has more executive experience than Obama.
I wish we had the option to vote None of the Above this year. IMO, none of them are suitable candidates. The US has not elected a president straight from the Senate since 1960. This year, it appears we'll have no choice. I suspect over the next few years that we'll learn what a bad choice that is.
I don't like or trust McCain. He has not earned my vote. Hillary or Obama could offer me a million dollars with one hand and threaten to shoot me and I still wouldn't vote for them. Thomas Sowell wrote something to the effect, "McCain can't persuade to vote for him but Hillary or Obama could."
I like the ad - though not a full, on-board supporter, this is a side of her I find compelling and a strong suit for her.
Jimmy Carter never served on a nuclear submarine. He was briefly a desk officer in the Navy nuclear program.
In that case, Admiral Rickover never served on a nuclear submarine, either. Rickover was a desk officer in the Navy nuclear program for the first 32 years of its existence; in fact he was its head for all that time. Reagan bounced him after he complained about shoddy workmanship performed by Electric Boats on a new submarine. The boat's construction manager was indicted and fled to his native Greece.
All Presidents except Clinton since WWII have been Vets.
Reagan's WW II Army service making training films was good preparation for his starring role in "Hellcats of the Navy." While thousands of brave Americans fought and died to take little lumps of coral from the Japanese, Ron got to stay in Hollywood.
Ron got to stay in Hollywood.
Not only does that comment disgrace the service of all who stayed behind in important war jobs, but it also doesn't take into account that he served BEFORE WWII, when he enlisted as a private.
He was short-sighted, and unlike Hubert Humphrey who had a hernia (and spent his wartime as a college prof -- not that there's anything the matter with THAT either), took a desk job instead of not doing ANYTHING at all.
Seriously.
P.S.: Hey Madison Man!
P.P.S.: Eli, George W. Bush is also related to me...by Charlemagne for one. :)
Cheers,
Victoria
84 Mondale (Lawyer)
88 Dukakis (Lawyer)
92 Clinton (Lawyer)
96 Clinton (Lawyer)
00 Gore (Lawyer)
04 Kerry (Lawyer)
08 Obama or Clinton (Lawyer)
You know, not all the wisdom in the world resides between the ears of lawyers. And the aren't the most popular people in the world as a group.
Wonder when Dems will figure that out?
McCain's claim to executive experience was a stint as a squadron commander in the Navy. Hillary was married to a governor and president for many years but has little more than her Health Care Task Force debacle. Obama has even less.
I have to disagree with you about both Clinton and McCain. Clinton was not an uninterested force in the White House. She is a witness and a participant to the decisions being made in the white house for 8 years. Moreover, she also felt the political pressure because as the wife of Bill Clinton, she is forever linked to his rise and fall.
McCain's "stint" as a squadren commander entailed managing 1000+ people and 75 fighter jets. I wouldn't call that a stint.
More than that however, is McCain's leadership in Congress. McCain is often in the middle of bi-partisan agreements, a recent example being the agreement on judges. These political compromises (both successes and failures) are great testaments to his skill and experience as a leader in the political realm, something that a corporate manager doesn't always need to be successful.
I agree with you about Obama. He has no record or no experience at all. It's pathetic that he could be the nominee.
hi victoria,
cedarford was needlessly disparaging submariner and nuclear submarine program officer Carter for serving in the navy before the first nukes were commissioned. I now regret I yielded to temptation and applied his hair-splitting, cheese-paring approach to Reagan's service.
More than that however, is McCain's leadership in Congress. McCain is often in the middle of bi-partisan agreements, a recent example being the agreement on judges. These political compromises (both successes and failures) are great testaments to his skill and experience as a leader in the political realm, something that a corporate manager doesn't always need to be successful.
Watching someone else isn't doing, it's watching. Hillary watched her husband be president. I'm sure she learned a few things in the process. However, that's a long way from being a leader.
Leadership in the legislative branch is all about compromise or "the art of the deal." Leadership in the executive branch is about having a vision and inspiring others to make it happen. They're totally different skill sets as witnessed by Kerry's "I voted for it before I voted against it" line in 2004. I have not seen anything about McCain having a vision for America. Hillary and Obama have visions but I see them as nightmares from an economic and freedom perspective. As much as I dislike McCain, I'll probably end up voting for him because he's likely to be the least damaging of the three.
Former Law Student, that was very elegant. As if you needed it, you have earned my respect. :)
Cheers,
Victoria
She is a witness and a participant to the decisions being made in the white house for 8 years. Moreover, she also felt the political pressure because as the wife of Bill Clinton, she is forever linked to his rise and fall.
You know, Sloan, I totally agree with that.
I suspect that this inability to see that about Hillary Clinton, has to do with Americans not being very comfortable with associated power positions.
If you didn't do it all by your lonesome, it's suspect.
The same is true of George W. Bush, for example. The grandson of a Senator, the son of a VP/President of the United States has breathed power all his life. He knows how to behave, at the very least. So can Hillary Clinton.
In Europe and other parts of the world, few would doubt his (and her) lineage to be President.
Now whether or not she would be successful is another story. But that she is qualified to be President, I have absolutely no qualms.
Cheers,
Victoria
In Europe and other parts of the world, few would doubt his (and her) lineage to be President.
Fortunately, we discarded the rather silly notion that lineage has anything to do with the ability to be the leader of the country well over 200 years ago.
Unfortunately, we seem to have forgotten it over the last few years with disastrous results. It is amazing that you think George W. knew, or even knows now, how to behave as president. Remember when he tried to give Angela Merkel a backrub at the G-7? Or how he walked out on a NATO meeting just a couple weeks ago, apparently because he was bored.
FLS - cedarford was needlessly disparaging submariner and nuclear submarine program officer Carter for serving in the navy before the first nukes were commissioned. I now regret I yielded to temptation and applied his hair-splitting, cheese-paring approach to Reagan's service.
11:09 AM
Having never served in the military, FLS, you credit where no credit is due and disparage (Reagan and likely Bush II) where honorable, productive service occured.
Nuclear submariners are the folks that have earned dophins on their uniform. A desk jockey like Carter was, who never set foot on a nuclear sub as a Naval office, can no more be called a nuclear submariner than an AF officer posted to procure F-15 parts at the Pentagon can be called a fighter pilot.
Carter, in fact, was out of the Navy on a humanitarian discharge before his obligation was up and before the 1st nuke sub was launched.
In the Veteran community, distinctions are important. Matters are sometimes debated, but it is usually pretty evident when someone is posing as something they never were because they were never part of that sub-military community. Fake SEALs, fake "combat vets" like Scott Thomas Beachamp are usually quickly sniffed out.
In McGovern's case the distinction is important because somehow civilians rate fighter jock higher than WWII bomber crew - when they shouldn't because strategic bomber crew, not just being the pilot, was the riskiest job in WWII in the European Theater while at the same time relatively safe in Asia. Nor was any soldier filling the bombers with fuel or working their chow hall, while obviously vital to mission - ever considered "bomber crew".
It's a great ad for John McCain.
Fortunately, we discarded the rather silly notion that lineage has anything to do with the ability to be the leader of the country well over 200 years ago.
That sniffy We the People retort sounds every bit as snobbish as my contention that associations are important in power.
Some Presidents America has produced from Washington, to Jefferson, to both Roosevelts, to Kennedy, now Bushes (and possibly Clintons) are ALL about lineage.
As I said, Americans are comfortable with that fact.
Unfortunately, we seem to have forgotten it over the last few years with disastrous results. It is amazing that you think George W. knew, or even knows now, how to behave as president. Remember when he tried to give Angela Merkel a backrub at the G-7? Or how he walked out on a NATO meeting just a couple weeks ago, apparently because he was bored.
For every faux pas you can mention, I can mention the ones he didn't make -- a far more unusual score in the modern age.
Like never ONCE retorting to clowns like Chavez what even the King of Spain was unable to prevent himself from exclaiming.
"Why don't you just SHUT UP"
Or as we know it today, "Can't I just eat my waffles in peace?".
Cheers,
Victoria
As I said, Americans are comfortable with that fact.
Not...
when they shouldn't because strategic bomber crew, not just being the pilot, was the riskiest job in WWII in the European Theater while at the same time relatively safe in Asia.
Technically, it was the riskiest job among the Western Allies in the European Theater. Being in a Russian tank crew, or the shock troops that rode on the outside of the tanks were probably riskier jobs. Certainly, being on a German U-boat, from which 75% the crews perished, was much worse.
Ann said: "I like Hillary best when she shows her hawkishness."
You, a law professor?! I'm sorry to hear that you still support and are taken in by the war-mongering racket. I'd hoped that you might have learned from your mistakes. Indeed, I think being a "liberal hawk" is just about the most detestable thing you can be in politics. I guess I'll continue giving you the benefit of the doubt and thinking the best of you so far as it's possible to do so anyway.
Some Presidents America has produced from Washington, to Jefferson, to both Roosevelts, to Kennedy, now Bushes (and possibly Clintons) are ALL about lineage.
Of all these, only Roosevelt and Bush can claim lineage. Jefferson and Washington were basically the entrepenaurs of their day.
Kennedy was nothing more than a bootlegger's son. That Joe Kennedy managed to gain respectability for his family is more an miracle of marketing than lineage.
If it shows anything, and our socially inept George much the same, it shows Americans like image over substance.
Never once retorting! Are you kidding? What about Bring 'em on!
Nuclear submariners are the folks that have earned dophins on their uniform. A desk jockey like Carter was, who never set foot on a nuclear sub as a Naval office
cedarford, let's see your dd-214
Diesel submariners (USS Pomfret, USS K-1) like Carter are equally entitled to wear dolphins. I admit it's tough to have ridden in a nuclear sub when you're helping build the first one. His service on the first of its kind K-1 made him well suited to be engineering officer on the Seawolf.
cedarford, let's see your dd-214
I think Cedarford once mentioned he was on a nuclear missile crew in the Air Force. That is by far the scariest thing I ever read on the internet.
Kennedy was nothing more than a bootlegger's son. That Joe Kennedy managed to gain respectability for his family is more an miracle of marketing than lineage.
Joe Kennedy was born into a wealth and politically-connected family, and was already filthy rich before Prohibition was even enacted. He was probably one of the ten richest men in America by the time his son ran for President and had already been SEC Commissioner, a Hollywood mogul, and the US ambassador to England.
So yes, Kennedy came from the American equivalent of royalty, both politically and economically. His father was one of the most influential men in Democratic politics.
Freder wrote:
Of all these, only Roosevelt and Bush can claim lineage. Jefferson and Washington were basically the entrepenaurs of their day.
Oh no, I'm sorry, Freder can't agree. Jefferson and Washington may have come from strained personal circumstances in their youth, but by every measure of that day, and today, they were aristocrats.
Kennedy was nothing more than a bootlegger's son. That Joe Kennedy managed to gain respectability for his family is more an miracle of marketing than lineage.
Revenant replied about this already. Whether or not he was good enough for the Social Register crowd, he certainly was good enough to be a Harvard graduate, to be a millionaire by the age of 25, to live in hallowed Brookline, to be a noted film producer, and later Ambassador to the Court of St. James.
Averell Harriman JFK wasn't, but he certainly wasn't just a bootlegger's son.
If it shows anything, and our socially inept George much the same, it shows Americans like image over substance.
I am but a foreigner in this country, so forgive me for speaking out of turn -- I think you're very wrong.
Bush has been criticised more than any modern president since Nixon, and perhaps since Andrew Jackson.
He's taken it on the chin, with dignity, largely in silence, and with a heck of a lot more class than anything called "Clinton".
Never once retorting! Are you kidding? What about Bring 'em on!
He wasn't speaking for himself.
He was speaking for his nation.
Cheers,
Victoria
And how can I forget the Adamses and the Harrisons.
Still, my premise about power associations (and Americans being nonplussed by it comparatively) is not about any aristocratic pretensions but about to the political savviness one has the closer to power one is.
Cheers,
Victoria
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा