New at Reason
Cathy Young asks why Hillary Clinton's campaign is a feminist issue.
Comments to "New at Reason":
Mr. F. Le Mur | July 2, 2007, 1:48pm | #
Go Billary! I don't care where, just go.Too bad Thomas Sowell's not running. He's the only (half-way well known) person I can think of who'd be worth voting for.
fyodor | July 2, 2007, 1:52pm | #
she's less Margaret Thatcher than Cory AquinoMaybe she's more George W. Bush, proving once again the value of presidential name recognition.
Dan T. | July 2, 2007, 1:56pm | #
"Vote for Hillary—she's a woman" appeals should be dismissed as patronizing and insulting to the intelligence of female voters.I disagree. If acheiving equality for women is a very important issue to you, you absolutely should support Sen. Clinton, even if you don't like her or disagree with her politics.
I support Clinton and hope she wins. My daughter is two and I'd love for her to never remember a time when the President had to be a man.
thoreau | July 2, 2007, 1:56pm | #
Can't we get a President who isn't a close family member (by blood or by marriage) of a former President?Please?
I am probably going to violate nine different Laws of Feminism here, so please forgive me in advance. But as someone who's excited about the notion of seeing the first female President in my lifetime, I am similarly saddened by the lack of presidential material in Hillary. When you compare the first male presidents in this nation's history, from Washington to Adams to Jefferson and so on, it's - well - embarrassing to have such a blatant socialist as the U.S.'s first female president, especially when there are so many more qualified and deserving women out there (and who are not socialists). The same holds true for the first-ever female speaker of the House, but we're too late on that one.
Rattlesnake Jake | July 2, 2007, 2:04pm | #
"Maybe she's more George W. Bush, proving once again the value of presidential name recognition."She's also more Richard Nixon judging from her corruption and her paranoia.
Rattlesnake Jake | July 2, 2007, 2:09pm | #
"Can't we get a President who isn't a close family member (by blood or by marriage) of a former President?"We seem to have a two family kingdom. I guess after Hillary serves her 4 years, because that's all the public will be able to stand of her, then Jeb Bush will become President, then after him, Chelsea.
Let's get some fresh blood in the White House.
D.A. Ridgely | July 2, 2007, 2:11pm | #
Had someone suggested a decade ago that Hillary Clinton, then a controversial First Lady, was going to be America's first serious female presidential contender, it would likely have been seen as a joke.Where on earth was Young back then. Of course, many people knew Hillary was going to be the first serious female contender. Sadly, the rest of the column doesn't get much better.
Rattlesnake Jake | July 2, 2007, 2:12pm | #
"But as someone who's excited about the notion of seeing the first female President in my lifetime, I am similarly saddened by the lack of presidential material in Hillary. When you compare the first male presidents in this nation's history, from Washington to Adams to Jefferson and so on, it's - well - embarrassing to have such a blatant socialist as the U.S.'s first female president, especially when there are so many more qualified and deserving women out there (and who are not socialists)."Ain't that the truth?
If Sen. Clinton is a "socialist" then I think the term has lost all meaning aside from being a smear.
Pro Libertate | July 2, 2007, 2:18pm | #
If only Bill and Hillary would adopt Jeb Bush, then support his run for President. The we'd have perfection, and the Republic would be restored.Hail Jeb Bush Clintonius! Father of his country! Imperator! Princeps!
Rattlesnake Jake | July 2, 2007, 2:19pm | #
"If Sen. Clinton is a "socialist" then I think the term has lost all meaning aside from being a smear."A socialist is a person who looks more to the federal government to run programs than to the free market, such as Clinton's scheme for socialized medicine.
Les | July 2, 2007, 2:20pm | #
I disagree. If acheiving equality for women is a very important issue to you, you absolutely should support Sen. Clinton, even if you don't like her or disagree with her politics.What if equality for women is very important to you, but supporting a candidate who isn't a phony, totalitarian opportunist is even more important?
A hypothetical for you, Dan: What if your daughter was terribly sick, she needed surgery, and you could choose between a male doctor with a good record and the first female doctor at this hospital who had a reputation for shoddy work, three malpractice suits pending, and hearings before the medical board which was considering revoking her license?
Rattlesnake Jake | July 2, 2007, 2:22pm | #
"If only Bill and Hillary would adopt Jeb Bush, then support his run for President. The we'd have perfection, and the Republic would be restored."Yeah like the marriage between the Ptolemies and the Seleucids like when Cleopatra married a Ptolemy.
ChicagoTom | July 2, 2007, 2:22pm | #
She's also more Richard Nixon judging from her corruption and her paranoia.Is it really considered paranoid when people and the press are in fact out to get you? And if she was sooooo corrupt wouldn't an indictment have poped up somewhere?
Now I don't like Hillary one bit and would never vote for her, but to call her corrupt and paranoid like Nixon says more about you than about her.
If Sen. Clinton is a "socialist" then I think the term has lost all meaning aside from being a smear.
Agreed. She isn't even the biggest socialist among the Dems running.
Les | July 2, 2007, 2:23pm | #
Rammage,What makes Hillary more of a socialist than the current President?
Dan T. | July 2, 2007, 2:25pm | #
What if equality for women is very important to you, but supporting a candidate who isn't a phony, totalitarian opportunist is even more important?Well, I guess you're not going to vote, since that more or less could describe all the candidates.
A hypothetical for you, Dan: What if your daughter was terribly sick, she needed surgery, and you could choose between a male doctor with a good record and the first female doctor at this hospital who had a reputation for shoddy work, three malpractice suits pending, and hearings before the medical board which was considering revoking her license?
Well, if that analogy rings true with Sen. Clinton then she stands absolutely no chance of winning. But Clinton does not resemble any of those qualities - almost every complaint about her is either some variation on how they don't like her personality or the absurd notion that she's a "socialist" even though she's clearly not.
ChicagoTom | July 2, 2007, 2:26pm | #
A socialist is a person who looks more to the federal government to run programs than to the free market, such as Clinton's scheme for socialized medicine.Uhmm.....when the free market has failed (as it has in the health care industry) even non-socialists look to the government to make things right.
Furthermore, it takes more than one issue to make someone a socialist. Or is anyone who suports federal monies for roads socialists too? What about people who support agri-subsidies? Those are all socialists too?
thoreau | July 2, 2007, 2:31pm | #
There are degrees of pro-market and anti-market sentiment. Normally, I've only seen the word "socialist" used to describe people with more extreme anti-market views, not just to anybody who is left of center on economic issues.Hyperbole is all well and good, and I'm all in favor of it, but Dan's point is also valid here.
Rattlesnake Jake | July 2, 2007, 2:31pm | #
"A hypothetical for you, Dan: What if your daughter was terribly sick, she needed surgery, and you could choose between a male doctor with a good record and the first female doctor at this hospital who had a reputation for shoddy work, three malpractice suits pending, and hearings before the medical board which was considering revoking her license?"Good point, Les.
Another thing that Democrats should consider before they vote for her is her high negative rating. A recent poll showed that more than half of voters will not even consider voting for her. Because of the Republican's unpopular war in Iraq, 2008 belongs to the Democrats unless they nominate Hillary. The best Hillary will be able to do in the general election is to squeek out a victory. Too risky. Why not go with somebody less polarizing. If Obama gets elected, Dan's two year old daughter will grow up knowing that it's not the case that only white people get elected President. I don't agree with Obama's politics, but at least he would not be polarizing like Hillary.
Les | July 2, 2007, 2:32pm | #
Well, I guess you're not going to vote, since that more or less could describe all the candidates.In what way does it describe Ron Paul?
Well, if that analogy rings true with Sen. Clinton then she stands absolutely no chance of winning.
No, no, you misunderstand. The analogy is about supporting women's rights by choosing gender over ability (which you endorsed, above). If you wanted your daughter to know that women can be doctors, too, why wouldn't you choose an incompetent female doctor to operate on her instead of a competent male doctor?
thoreau | July 2, 2007, 2:32pm | #
almost every complaint about her is either some variation on how they don't like her personality or the absurd notion that she's a "socialist" even though she's clearly not.Dan, my complaint is in neither category. Rather, I don't want the Presidency to cycle back and forth between two different families. It doesn't seem very healthy for the Republic.
Rattlesnake Jake | July 2, 2007, 2:35pm | #
"Is it really considered paranoid when people and the press are in fact out to get you?"Is the press really out to get her? Last friday, a tape was released which shows Hillary committing 4 felonies in connection with campaign financing back in 2000. Where was the media coverage of this?
Pro Libertate | July 2, 2007, 2:37pm | #
Rome had the Julio-Claudians. America has the Bushio-Clintonians. Or will, if we're too lazy to find someone from another family this time around.Apostate Jew | July 2, 2007, 2:37pm | #
Can't we get a President who isn't a close family member (by blood or by marriage) of a former President?Please?
It's worse than you think. Of the last six presidents, four and possibly the next one are all Elis.
Don't vote for anyone named Bush or Clinton with any kind of degree from Yale.
If you really want to get paranoid, consider the number of Elis on the Supreme Court (two of nine - Alito and Thomas) and the fact that Kerry, Dean, Lieberman and Cheney are Elis as well. Yale is ruining the country.
Ecrase l'enfame! A bas Yale!
Les | July 2, 2007, 2:38pm | #
Dan, there are plenty of reasons besides her personality or her "socialism" (which I don't think is real) to not vote for her.She supported the war in Iraq until it was unpopular to do so.
Ditto on the Patriot Act.
She strongly supports the war on drugs.
She's for a flag-burning amendment.
She's basically for whatever she thinks will keep her in power. It's the exact philosophy less clumsily applied by her husband.
Rattlesnake Jake | July 2, 2007, 2:38pm | #
"And if she was sooooo corrupt wouldn't an indictment have poped up somewhere?"Starr was sitting on an indictment of her, but never served it because he didn't think there could ever be a jury that would convict her, not that she was innocent, but there would always be people who would not want to convict the First Lady, plus some of the jurors would be politically biased in favor of her.
Dylan | July 2, 2007, 2:40pm | #
I really don't like her. And, Dan T, I admit that some of it is personal. I can't stand to listen to her talk, and by many accounts, she's not a very nice person to be around often.But as far as it goes, I don't think she's THAT much worse than any candidates out there. Would never vote for her. But ...
If acheiving equality for women is a very important issue to you, you absolutely should support Sen. Clinton, even if you don't like her or disagree with her politics
Dan, this makes zero sense to me. Would you vote for Phyllis Schafly or Ann Coulter for president just to get a woman into office? Somehow I doubt it. A woman president would be wonderful. But I'm not supporting somebody I don't agree with or like to achieve that.
ChicagoTom | July 2, 2007, 2:41pm | #
Is the press really out to get her? Last friday, a tape was released which shows Hillary committing 4 felonies in connection with campaign financing back in 2000. Where was the media coverage of this?Maybe they're busy still looking into her role in the murder of killed Vince Foster? Or all her misdeeds of WhiteWater? OR Travelgate?
Ashish George | July 2, 2007, 2:43pm | #
"A socialist is a person who looks more to the federal government to run programs than to the free market, such as Clinton's scheme for socialized medicine."No. A socialist is someone who wants to see the means of production owned by the state. Clinton doesn't fit that description.
From Young's piece:
"Like the male candidates, she should be judged on her politics. 'Vote for Hillary—she's a woman' appeals should be dismissed as patronizing and insulting to the intelligence of female voters. 'Don't vote for Hillary—she's a bad feminist" is no better an argument.'"
This doesn't even make sense. Whether or not someone is a good feminist isn't part of their politics? Does Young even know what feminism is? I realize she wrote a whole book about the topic, but seriously, does she?
"Those who think no male in public life was ever demonized as she was, or was ever excoriated for excessive ambition and arrogance, obviously never paid much attention to the fortunes of Newt Gingrich."
Are people still writing hit pieces on Gingrich? Is there a whole publishing world devoted to attacking him? How many prominent, highly publicized books about Gingrich have even been written?
Rattlesnake Jake | July 2, 2007, 2:43pm | #
"She isn't even the biggest socialist among the Dems running."You might be surprised. She had just as high ratings by the ADA as anybody in the Senate. Right now, she has a stealth campaign as a centrist to get elected.
ChicagoTom | July 2, 2007, 2:44pm | #
Starr was sitting on an indictment of her, but never served it because he didn't think there could ever be a jury that would convict her, not that she was innocent, but there would always be people who would not want to convict the First Lady, plus some of the jurors would be politically biased in favor of herWow...really? Kenneth Starr sat on the indictment? Because he knew know jury would convict her? The same Kenneth star that blew MILLIONS upon millions of dollars to ultimately find out Bill Clinton wasn't faithful?
Wow and I thought the 9/11 truthers had fallen into the deep end of the conspiracy pool.
Dan T. | July 2, 2007, 2:44pm | #
In what way does it describe Ron Paul?He's a politican, right? Just because he's the one guy who is telling you what you want to hear doesn't mean he's necessarily any better than those telling other people what they want to hear.
No, no, you misunderstand. The analogy is about supporting women's rights by choosing gender over ability (which you endorsed, above). If you wanted your daughter to know that women can be doctors, too, why wouldn't you choose an incompetent female doctor to operate on her instead of a competent male doctor?
Because there are already plenty of female doctors. And in the case of Clinton, her gender is a large part of why people think she will be incompetent.
Rattlesnake Jake | July 2, 2007, 2:45pm | #
"What makes Hillary more of a socialist than the current President?"The current President doesn't support socialized medicine.
Ashish George | July 2, 2007, 2:46pm | #
"Dan, there are plenty of reasons besides her personality or her "socialism" (which I don't think is real) to not vote for her.She supported the war in Iraq until it was unpopular to do so.
Ditto on the Patriot Act.
She strongly supports the war on drugs.
She's for a flag-burning amendment."
Get the fuck out of here, you hemp-wearing Kucinich supporter!
Rattlesnake Jake | July 2, 2007, 2:48pm | #
"What if equality for women is very important to you, but supporting a candidate who isn't a phony, totalitarian opportunist is even more important?""Well, I guess you're not going to vote, since that more or less could describe all the candidates."
It doesn't describe Ron Paul or the Libertarian candidate.
Dan T. | July 2, 2007, 2:48pm | #
Dan, this makes zero sense to me. Would you vote for Phyllis Schafly or Ann Coulter for president just to get a woman into office? Somehow I doubt it. A woman president would be wonderful. But I'm not supporting somebody I don't agree with or like to achieve that.
Neither Coulter nor Schafly are in any way qualified to be President. Clinton, on the other hand, very much is.
Dylan | July 2, 2007, 2:49pm | #
in the case of Clinton, her gender is a large part of why people think she will be incompetent.I'm sure that's true of some people, but there are plenty of people who don't like her for much better reasons. Maybe reasons you disagree with, but it's not fair to just write-off all her critics as sexists.
carrick | July 2, 2007, 2:50pm | #
Hillary is a socialist the way your garden variety libertarian is an anarchist.Hillary clearly falls into the populist camp, I can't recall a single topic where she doesn't like government intervention (from "it's for the children" to protecting our borders). Populism taken to its logical conclusion is socialism (or totalitarianism at the extreme conclusion).
Rattlesnake Jake | July 2, 2007, 2:53pm | #
"Uhmm.....when the free market has failed (as it has in the health care industry) even non-socialists look to the government to make things right."Do you really consider what we have now a free market, Tom? The free market hasn't failed, government intervention into the free market in medicine is what has given us our problems. The solution isn't more government. There are other solutions which would help restore more of a free market in medicine which would bring costs down without bringing about the rationing and long waiting lists that socialized medicine brings.
Ashish George | July 2, 2007, 2:54pm | #
Rattlesnake Jake--I guaran-fucking-tee you that if Hillary Clinton is elected president, her time in office will see the federal government grow less than W.'s time in office did.
SugarFree | July 2, 2007, 2:54pm | #
Laura Bush was ordered by the Bene Gesserit to bear a male heirs to Duke Bush, so that he might be married to Chelsea, mingling the bloodlines to produce the Kwisatz Haderach. She defied the Sisterhood and produced daughters. The breeding program that has lasted 90 generations will have to bide its time once more.Dylan | July 2, 2007, 2:55pm | #
OK, Dan, then how about a woman who shares Schlafly and Coulter's right-wing views but is qualified? I wouldn't blame you for not voting for her, because you don't share her politics. But you're suggesting that you would, just to have a woman president.I think Hillary is probably qualified. But I still disagree with her and dislike her.
GILMORE | July 2, 2007, 2:55pm | #
I sincerely hope the support of Dan T convinces everyone else here that hilary is the worst of all possible candidates.Rattlesnake Jake | July 2, 2007, 2:55pm | #
"Furthermore, it takes more than one issue to make someone a socialist. Or is anyone who suports federal monies for roads socialists too? What about people who support agri-subsidies? Those are all socialists too?"Socialized medicine is by far not the only issue that Hillary looks to Government as the solution to.
Dylan | July 2, 2007, 2:58pm | #
Ashish --I guaran-fucking-tee you that if Hillary Clinton is elected president, her time in office will see the federal government grow less than W.'s time in office did.
Sadly, you might be right. I really don't think she's more socialist than most Democrats or even most Republicans, except for Mr. Paul.
Warren | July 2, 2007, 3:02pm | #
Hillary Clinton wants the Federal Government to control all aspects of: Health Care, Education, Labor, Transportation, Waste Management, Urban Development etc. etc. If that isn't Socialist, the the term has lost all meaning.Irregardless, I don't give a flying flaming fuck or a rolling donut what sort of genitalia Hillary's packing, and no matter what you call her political philosophy, it's VERY VERY BAD.
Rattlesnake Jake | July 2, 2007, 3:05pm | #
"Maybe they're busy still looking into her role in the murder of killed Vince Foster? Or all her misdeeds of WhiteWater? OR Travelgate?"We're talking about an actual tape here, a smoking gun, not a conspiracy theory. The main stream never took seriously the murder of Vince Foster and Whitewater and travelgate are old news. Why is the news media not covering this tape?
ChicagoTom | July 2, 2007, 3:05pm | #
Do you really consider what we have now a free market, Tom? The free market hasn't failed, government intervention into the free market in medicine is what has given us our problemsWell it's not socialized medicide or anything that would appear in a socialist country is it Jake? It's a hell of a lot closer to a free market than it is to a government run entity.
Sure it's regulated, but so is just about every marketplace.
There are other solutions which would help restore more of a free market in medicine which would bring costs down without bringing about the rationing and long waiting lists that socialized medicine brings.
Well let's hear some. Other than let the insurance and health provider do whatever they want and let the chips fall where they may.
Personally, I'd be curious to see a Single Payer system in place just to prove whether or not it can work. Either they naysayers will be vindicated or they will have to eat some crow. But maintaining the current clusterfuck is the worst option IMHO.
Socialized medicine is by far not the only issue that Hillary looks to Government as the solution to.
The point really is that "socialists" aren't the only ones looking for government solutions. And wanting the government to provide solutions to common problems is not enought to make someone a "socialist". Lots of people on the other side of the aisle want government solutions and government to regulate areas of life. Are they all socialists too now? Or does the term only get trotted out when its a Democrat who advocates those types of things.
Damn you Rattlesnake Jake for putting me in the position of having to defend Hillary Fucking Clinton
Rattlesnake Jake | July 2, 2007, 3:09pm | #
"No. A socialist is someone who wants to see the means of production owned by the state. Clinton doesn't fit that description."I know that, I was just being hyperbolic. Hillary certainly leans in that direction, or should I say fascist? I know this is a word that the left likes to use on the right, but the definition of a fascist is somebody who allows private ownership, but controls it at the governmental level, which certainly describes Hillary.
dhex | July 2, 2007, 3:12pm | #
"I sincerely hope the support of Dan T convinces everyone else here that hilary is the worst of all possible candidates."hillary would have to start eating babies wholesale to beat out guliani. and then skimp on paying her bill, and undermining the network of contracts and trust that make a free market even remotely possible. also the babies would be libertarians who started changing themselves at an early age. (staying off the statist teat, literally)
Rattlesnake Jake | July 2, 2007, 3:15pm | #
"Wow...really? Kenneth Starr sat on the indictment? Because he knew know jury would convict her? The same Kenneth star that blew MILLIONS upon millions of dollars to ultimately find out Bill Clinton wasn't faithful?""Wow and I thought the 9/11 truthers had fallen into the deep end of the conspiracy pool."
This is in a different league than the 9/11 conspiracy theories. I suggest you do more research, Tom. You seem very uninformed.
Rattlesnake Jake | July 2, 2007, 3:18pm | #
"In what way does it describe Ron Paul?""He's a politican, right? Just because he's the one guy who is telling you what you want to hear doesn't mean he's necessarily any better than those telling other people what they want to hear"
Ron Paul is a statesman with convictions, not a political whore like Hillary.
Rattlesnake Jake | July 2, 2007, 3:20pm | #
"Because there are already plenty of female doctors. And in the case of Clinton, her gender is a large part of why people think she will be incompetent."People think she will be incompetent because she's showed her incompetence such as in her health care fiasco.
Dylan | July 2, 2007, 3:21pm | #
ChicagoTom,I agree re: the term "socialist." I used it in my last post, but a better description would be statist or big-government, which, as you pointed out, can describe both sides.
thoreau,
Can't we get a President who isn't a close family member (by blood or by marriage) of a former President?
I totally agree. I'd be a happy man if I didn't have to see another Bush, Clinton, Kennedy, etc. ever again.
thoreau | July 2, 2007, 3:26pm | #
Can anybody give me a quick rundown on the John Q. Adams administration? How was it, all things considered?What about Benjamin Harrison? (Grandson of William Henry Harrison)
I'm trying to figure out whether close presidential relatives generally have a good or bad track record. I'm not counting the Roosevelts because they were only distant cousins, and I've heard that a lot of US presidents are actually distant cousins of one another, even if not quite as close as the Roosevelts.
Bill Pope | July 2, 2007, 3:28pm | #
Her supporters wrongly saw all hostility to their heroine as a manifestation of misogyny. (Those who think no male in public life was ever demonized as she was, or was ever excoriated for excessive ambition and arrogance, obviously never paid much attention to the fortunes of Newt Gingrich.)The principal difference is Newt's shabby behaviour and ethical lapses were far more deserving of condemnation than Hillary's.
swillfredo pareto | July 2, 2007, 3:31pm | #
A socialist is someone who wants to see the means of production owned by the state. Clinton doesn't fit that description.Correct, she is a welfare statist (i.e. a strong advocate of the welfare state.)
The current President doesn't support socialized medicine.
He sure does. The man signed the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003. That effort will do far more damage than Hillary ever could while First Lady.
ChicagoTom | July 2, 2007, 3:34pm | #
This is in a different league than the 9/11 conspiracy theories. I suggest you do more research, Tom. You seem very uninformed.>No thanks, Jake. I don't think I'll waste any time with anything Kenneth Starr is associated.
And you are right, it is in a different league. Believing Ken Star had the goods on the Clintons but sat on it because he thought that any jury that convenes would be sympathetic and refuse to convict despite having good solid "proof" is in a whole different league of loony.
crimethink | July 2, 2007, 3:37pm | #
thoreau,Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will [America's] heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. She will commend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example. She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force....
-- John Quincy Adams, 1821
Les | July 2, 2007, 3:38pm | #
hillary would have to start eating babies wholesale to beat out guliani.This is a good point.
Rattlesnake Jake | July 2, 2007, 3:38pm | #
"Well let's hear some. Other than let the insurance and health provider do whatever they want and let the chips fall where they may."The doctors and hospitals are really working for the big insurance companies and Medicare and Medicaid, not the patients. Regina Herzlinger in "Who Killed Health Care?" recommends scrapping health insurance for routine visits and only supporting catastrophic policies. For Medicare and Medicaid, we could use vouchers where the patients get to keep what's leftover. These measures would encourage patients to shop around for routine care, which would drive down the prices. Imagine how much car insurance would cost if routine maintenance like oil changes were included. We could also give bigger tax breaks for purchasing health insurance. We could reform frivolous law suits. We could allow nurses to perform more routine care. There are many things we could do without going the socialized medicine route. Why sacrifice the quality of our system for a system that works even worse than ours. Better to make improvements than throw the baby out with the bath.
crimethink | July 2, 2007, 3:40pm | #
Of course, coincidentally, JQ Adams also won the presidency despite not winning the popular vote, which was won by Andrew Jackson. Of course, Andrew Jackson, at least 6 times the man that Al Gore was, ran again four years later and mopped the floor with Adams.Dan T. | July 2, 2007, 3:41pm | #
Okay, I will resend my statement that if you support women's equality you should vote for Clinton no matter what. Yes, that was kind of dumb for me to say.Maybe what I should have said is that if you support women's equality, then there is nothing wrong with giving Clinton the nod over similar candidates because she's a woman.
thoreau | July 2, 2007, 3:42pm | #
OK, so John Q. talked about a humble foreign policy before taking office. (He was elected in 1824, and your quote is 1821.) What was he like in office?I believe I can think of at least one other Presidential relative who talked about a humble foreign policy before taking office...
Rattlesnake Jake | July 2, 2007, 3:42pm | #
"Personally, I'd be curious to see a Single Payer system in place just to prove whether or not it can work."We don't have to do that. We can already see what a failure they are by looking at the mess they have created in other countries. Great Britain and Canada are moving in the opposite direction than us and allowing more competition to try to salvage their systems.
crimethink | July 2, 2007, 3:42pm | #
And, Adams was from MA, the same state the Bush family came from, while Jackson and Gore were both from TN. This is weird.thoreau | July 2, 2007, 3:44pm | #
One place where the parallel breaks down is that joe would have been a big fan of local hero John Q.crimethink | July 2, 2007, 3:48pm | #
thoreau,Well, his glowing Wikipedia article claims that he'd resolved all the major foreign policy problems the US had at the time as Monroe's Secy of State during the previous eight years.
Let me also take this opportunity to indulge in my Misogynist Minute: it's pretty sad if the first female president got there because of her husband.
Rattlesnake Jake | July 2, 2007, 3:50pm | #
"He sure does. The man signed the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003. That effort will do far more damage than Hillary ever could while First Lady."But will it do as much damage as what she will do as President if she get socialized medicine passed?
Jessica V. | July 2, 2007, 3:50pm | #
To suggest that one should vote for Hillary simply because she is a woman is the equivalent of affirmative action in the White House. Let's put an end the Clinton Dynasty.I support Ron Paul!
crimethink | July 2, 2007, 3:51pm | #
Another tidbit: he and his father are the only two presidents to not attend the inauguration of their successors. Quite the bitter family!thoreau | July 2, 2007, 3:55pm | #
crimethink-Yeah, we should probably distrust any Wikipedia entry that claims that a President solved every foreign policy problem of his time. For all we know, one of his staffers might have edited the page to make it more flattering.
Now, what about Benjamin Harrison?
crimethink | July 2, 2007, 3:56pm | #
Okay, I will resend my statement that if you support women's equality you should vote for Clinton no matter what. Yes, that was kind of dumb for me to say.I'm sure you meant recind, but both "resend" and "resent" are much funnier.
Rattlesnake Jake | July 2, 2007, 3:57pm | #
"Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will [America's] heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. She will commend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example. She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force...."If only our Presidents and Presidential candidates believed that way today (excepting Ron Paul)
Apostate Jew | July 2, 2007, 3:57pm | #
Neither John Q. nor Benjamin were Elis. Yale is the problem, not dynastic politcs. (Not an endorsement of dynastic politics, which are a bad idea as well, it's just that Yale is a worse idea.)Les | July 2, 2007, 3:58pm | #
Of course, Andrew Jackson, at least 6 times the man that Al Gore was, ran again four years later and mopped the floor with Adams.He also killed six times as many Indians as Al Gore did, which was a big selling point back then. ;)
Reinmoose | July 2, 2007, 4:01pm | #
Personally, I'd be curious to see a Single Payer system in place just to prove whether or not it can work.That's like saying that you'd like to have your arm chopped off just to see how it looks. There ain't no goin back, buddy.
qwerty | July 2, 2007, 4:02pm | #
"...if you support women's equality, then there is nothing wrong with giving Clinton the nod over similar candidates because she's a woman."I agree wholeheartedly. Women are still second class citizens in terms of representation in all areas of public life (and private enterprise) of power and influence. This imbalance must be redressed, for the sake of both democracy and the creative etc. strength of our societies (i.e. nations which pull their leaders from a narrow group -white males...lose out on the talents of those outside of that group, I would argue that they may also become less dynamic).The same applies to the relegation of non-whites to positions lacking political influence - the fewer who brake the still present glass ceilings the harder it gets for any to reach the top.) It's a self-perpetuating social hierarchy, e.g. all Presidents have been white males and therefore we perceive being "presidential" as embodying the attitude and persona of white (often protestant) upper class males with an inevitable knock-on effect for our regard for what constitutes a "leader". Symbolism is important. The symbol is currently white and male.
Having said all that. It is clear, regardless of gender and the reasons given above, that HRC is out and out the most capable candidate. So no choice has to be made (for me at least) in putting her ahead because of gender...she's ahead anyway.
crimethink | July 2, 2007, 4:03pm | #
Les,But Andrew Jackson's carbon footprint was six times smaller than Al Gore's, so that makes up for it...
Rattlesnake Jake | July 2, 2007, 4:03pm | #
"Another tidbit: he and his father are the only two presidents to not attend the inauguration of their successors. Quite the bitter family!"Yet John Adams and Thomas Jefferson were best friends.
Les | July 2, 2007, 4:03pm | #
Maybe what I should have said is that if you support women's equality, then there is nothing wrong with giving Clinton the nod over similar candidates because she's a woman.I can't disagree with this. But I will disagree with your implying that I would vote for Ron Paul because he's saying the things I want to hear. I judge candidates on their actions, not their words. That's precisely why I could never vote for Hillary. I disagree with Ron Paul on many issues, but his actions are those of an individual who values principles over political power.
Rattlesnake Jake | July 2, 2007, 4:12pm | #
"I can't disagree with this. But I will disagree with your implying that I would vote for Ron Paul because he's saying the things I want to hear. I judge candidates on their actions, not their words. That's precisely why I could never vote for Hillary. I disagree with Ron Paul on many issues, but his actions are those of an individual who values principles over political power."That's right. It's so obvious that Hillary has no principles. Why does she keep changing her position depending on the polls and what crowd she speaks in front of?
swillfredo pareto | July 2, 2007, 4:17pm | #
Women are still second class citizens in terms of representation in all areas of public lifeIn what way are women any less represented that I am? Just because the assholes in office have a pair doesn’t mean they represent me. I have voted in 6 presidential elections and have yet to vote for the winner so in that respect I am not represented at all. In fact, based on the interpretation of the Constitution demonstrated by this “self-perpetuating social hierarchy” I could not imagine being more poorly represented than by these white males. But in the realm of gender politics that really doesn’t matter, does it?
mj | July 2, 2007, 4:17pm | #
It's sad to see so much disinformation about Hillary is out there. First, the three top candidates are extremely similar on the issues so what is so wrong with one saying you know what, it's about time we had a woman president? Second, Hillary is the only one running for president who has spent her career prioritizing women's and children's issues. I think that focus would transform the country. I encourage to actually read some of her proposals and policy stances(S-CHIP, Paycheck Fairness Act, etc.) instead of assuming you know anymore about Hillary than you read in Dowd's column.qwerty | July 2, 2007, 4:24pm | #
"I could not imagine being more poorly represented than by these white males."Well said.
It is sadly true.
On the other hand, think how you might feel about it if "your kind" so to speak are never (but for rare exceptions)in power.
Would you feel powerful or would you feel dis-empowered?
Poor representation is better than non at all.
The failures of politicians generally is a separate issue but arguably if there was more competition - i.e. not just white males. Quality might go up.
Dan T. | July 2, 2007, 4:28pm | #
I can't disagree with this. But I will disagree with your implying that I would vote for Ron Paul because he's saying the things I want to hear. I judge candidates on their actions, not their words. That's precisely why I could never vote for Hillary. I disagree with Ron Paul on many issues, but his actions are those of an individual who values principles over political power.Fair enough, but I won't agree with your assessment of Ron Paul until he quits the GOP.
Reinmoose | July 2, 2007, 4:30pm | #
Poor representation is better than non at all.BUZZZZZ!!! WRONG!
Ever had someone speak on your behalf who only made things worse? Many people resent my kind (white males) because of the things that certain white males have done and proclaimed that they are doing on behalf of the rest of us. Similarly, I'm sure there are some Muslims out there that would disagree with you too.
swillfredo pareto | July 2, 2007, 4:31pm | #
On the other hand, think how you might feel about it if "your kind" so to speak are never (but for rare exceptions)in power.That's my point; my kind (libertarian) are never in power. I feel...violated. On a daily basis. Twice a day during an election cycle.
Rattlesnake Jake | July 2, 2007, 4:33pm | #
"Fair enough, but I won't agree with your assessment of Ron Paul until he quits the GOP."Should he join the Democrat Party? He would be just as out of place in the Democrat Party. I think it shows principle to hold to his antiwar views even though he's in the war party.
Col DuBois | July 2, 2007, 4:35pm | #
Second, Hillary is the only one running for president who has spent her career prioritizing women's and children's issues. I think that focus would transform the country.Great, a national focus on feminizing and infantilizing the American people. We've had enough of that already, toots.
Stop Al Gore! | July 2, 2007, 4:40pm | #
He also killed six times as many Indians as Al Gore did, which was a big selling point back then. ;)Let's just include the 800 Indians that Jackson's militia killed in the Creek War. That means Gore has killed 133 Native Americans! This man must be stopped!
Dan T. | July 2, 2007, 4:42pm | #
Should he join the Democrat Party? He would be just as out of place in the Democrat Party. I think it shows principle to hold to his antiwar views even though he's in the war party.What I'm saying is that it makes no sense for Paul to be a member of a political party that is fairly anti-libertarian and still claim to be libertarian. Why doesn't he join the LP or run as an independent?
qwerty | July 2, 2007, 4:43pm | #
Ah some focus on what 190 million Americans (a guess) is bad for America?Hmm.
What would be best for America? Ignoring all women and all children?
thoreau | July 2, 2007, 4:44pm | #
Here's the real question, though: Did Jackson wear earth tones?...apologies...should have pointed out that my last comment was in response to Col duBois.
highnumber | July 2, 2007, 4:45pm | #
I'm reading The Rise of American Democracy, Jefferson to Lincoln right now.Jefferson and Adams may have been friends personally, but they were certainly not friends politically.
I'm on Madison right now. Stop talking about Quincy Adams and Jackson. You're spoiling it for me.
crimethink | July 2, 2007, 4:48pm | #
What would be best for America, qwerty, is for the govt to get back to protecting the rights of individuals, regardless of gender, age, or race, and staying out of everything else.If you think we should try to solve every problem faced by women and children, you're totally free to do so and to persuade others to do so. But I'll be damned if you compromise my liberty or use my taxes to do it.
Les | July 2, 2007, 4:48pm | #
Fair enough, but I won't agree with your assessment of Ron Paul until he quits the GOP.This assumes that the Republican party is somehow less trustworthy or has a more bloody and/or less honest history than the Democrats. Documented facts say otherwise.
First, the three top candidates are extremely similar on the issues so what is so wrong with one saying you know what, it's about time we had a woman president?
Because that's sexist. And it's Hillary's previous behavior that matters much more than what she's saying now. She has always voted in a way designed to maintain and increase her power. That's why she voted for the war when it was popular and opposes it now that it's not.
Second, Hillary is the only one running for president who has spent her career prioritizing women's and children's issues.
It can more accurately be said that she's spent her career, like most politicians, prioritizing the issues that she thinks will get her elected. Maybe she should go to Iraq and volunteer to help some of the women and children whose lives have been utterly ruined via her policies.
I encourage to actually read some of her proposals and policy stances(S-CHIP, Paycheck Fairness Act, etc.) instead of assuming you know anymore about Hillary than you read in Dowd's column.
Again, I don't judge candidates by what they say, but rather what they do (and I certainly have never read anything by Ms. Dowd). So Hillary can say whatever she wants, but as long as she won't cop to supporting the war and the Patriot Act, as long as she supports the war on drugs, a flag burning amendment, government ratings for video games, etc., there's no way I'm going to vote for her.
Les | July 2, 2007, 4:51pm | #
What I'm saying is that it makes no sense for Paul to be a member of a political party that is fairly anti-libertarian and still claim to be libertarian.It makes as much sense as very liberal representatives staying in the Democratic party. The radicals always hope to sway the majority.
qwerty | July 2, 2007, 4:52pm | #
Col du Bois"But I'll be damned if you compromise my liberty or use my taxes to do it."
Where on earth did I say I wanted to compromise your liberty or use your taxes to do it?
So what your saying is that out of the entire federal budget you want no money spent on the 190 million Americans who aren't men or aren't adults? This is the only way to protect your taxes from reaching them (unless you pay non at all of course - how patriotic).
Col DuBois... are you sure you don't mean to be called Cul du Bois?
And qwerty, lashing out at people for "not caring" isn't very effective on this forum. I would suggest coherent argument.
crimethink | July 2, 2007, 5:04pm | #
qwerty,That last was me, not Du Bois, and if you're expecting the govt to do something it can only be done by restricting liberty and/or spending tax dollars. There's no other way it can affect the society.
thoreau | July 2, 2007, 5:05pm | #
Stop talking about Quincy Adams and Jackson. You're spoiling it for me.Make sure you don't listen to that They Might Be Giants song about James K. Polk. It's full of spoilers.
Your right Reinmoose, my attack may have come across as ad hominem. However, I can't help but view the I wont pay taxes to help x, y or z category of persons is somewhat uncaring. Those who espouse less and less tax and less and less government while they make cogent arguments for self-sufficiency and enterprise fail to account for those who are blameless yet will be left behind. Are the children of the poor to starve? This is the effect of denying welfare payments of at least a minimum level to the poor. Perhaps this is not Col du Bois' view but the phrase used "my taxes etc" is strikingly similar to the catch phrase of the starve government/less tax school of thought. Remember the current government is quite a "big government" it's just that it has different budgetary priorities. Perhaps the better less tax argument might be for smaller government but a more compassionate weighting of those arguments.
crimethink | July 2, 2007, 5:09pm | #
Reinmoose,I'm pretty sure "Col. DuBois" is a reference to Johnny Rico's high school civics teacher in Starship Troopers, who is essentially a mouthpiece for Heinlein's libertarian political views.
qwerty | July 2, 2007, 5:11pm | #
the only way a government can effect change is "restricting liberty and/or spending tax dollars. There's no other way it can affect the society."Not entirely correct. There can be a carrot as well as a stick. One example might be a tax break to encourage a particular activity. Another can be requiring certain standards of companies etc. who bid for government contracts...e.g. you must comply with safety guidelines for your employees. There are a myriad of other forms of cheap and more co-operative regulation. More carrot than stick if you will.
qwerty | July 2, 2007, 5:13pm | #
...and who's to say a government can't lead by example.Take freedom of information...people get used to an open society and demand answers/accountability from private providers of services also.
highnumber | July 2, 2007, 5:16pm | #
qwerty,Go read some books about libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism. I'm not being smarmy - I'm dead serious. You sound like you're talking about objectivism. I care about my fellow human beings, and I realize the right thing to do is to help the less fortunate. The gov't is not the best way to do it.
(I, on the other hand, should probably go read up on objectivism, because I am probably smearing it.)
crimethink | July 2, 2007, 5:18pm | #
Your right Reinmoose, my attack may have come across as ad hominem. However, I can't help but view the I wont pay taxes to help x, y or z category of persons is somewhat uncaring.I'm used to that particular ad hominem by now. Also keep in mind I'm against spending tax dollars for the benefit of any particular group, not just women and children. As I said before, the legitimate function of govt is to protect the basic rights of individuals as individuals, not instances of a particular gender or race.
Those who espouse less and less tax and less and less government while they make cogent arguments for self-sufficiency and enterprise fail to account for those who are blameless yet will be left behind. Are the children of the poor to starve? This is the effect of denying welfare payments of at least a minimum level to the poor.
Theoretically, yes. Assuming that most people don't want the poor to starve, it won't happen; such a thing can be warded off through private charity. If most people are OK with the poor starving, then govt isn't going to help in that area either.
Perhaps this is not Col du Bois' view but the phrase used "my taxes etc" is strikingly similar to the catch phrase of the starve government/less tax school of thought.
Bingo! There's a reason for that similarity.
Remember the current government is quite a "big government" it's just that it has different budgetary priorities. Perhaps the better less tax argument might be for smaller government but a more compassionate weighting of those arguments.
Smaller govt? Darn right. As far as the compassion goes, well, it's not charity when you're spending someone else's money, which is what govt-operated welfare involves. I may be stingy when it comes to spending other perople's money, but don't presume to know how compassionate I am with my own resources.
thoreau | July 2, 2007, 5:18pm | #
(I, on the other hand, should probably go read up on objectivism, because I am probably smearing it.)SPOILER ALERT:
They all go on strike. And give long speeches.
highnumber | July 2, 2007, 5:21pm | #
There really isn't a branch of objectivism that's not associated with Ayn Rand, is there?Screw it. I'll keep on smearing it.
crimethink | July 2, 2007, 5:22pm | #
highnumber,Well, as far as I know, the main difference between libertarianism and objectivism is that the latter is a philosophy of life, whereas the former is merely a philosophy of govt. In other words, while Objectivism opposes any sort of altruistic helping of the poor, libertarianism is silent on the subject so long as govt isn't involved.
Pro Libertate | July 2, 2007, 5:28pm | #
thoreau,You left out rough, violent, not-entirely-consensual sex with multiple partners.
thoreau | July 2, 2007, 5:29pm | #
Yeah, well I don't want to spoil ALL of it for him.I will, however, spoil the book he's reading right now: Lincoln dies at the end.
highnumber | July 2, 2007, 5:29pm | #
Are you talking about the Polk administration?LarryA | July 2, 2007, 5:30pm | #
First, the three top candidates are extremely similar on the issues so what is so wrong with one saying you know what, it's about time we had a woman president?Because I believe any of those “three top candidates” will be a disaster.
Second, Hillary is the only one running for president who has spent her career prioritizing women's and children's issues. I think that focus would transform the country.
I do to. [shudder]
I encourage to actually read some of her proposals and policy stances(S-CHIP, Paycheck Fairness Act, etc.) instead of assuming you know anymore about Hillary than you read in Dowd's column.
But it’s so much more instructive to go to Thomas.loc.gov and read the legislation she’s proposed. “Leave no tax dollar behind.” “Regulate them all, let God sort them out.” “A giveaway for every minority.”
the only way a government can effect change is "restricting liberty and/or spending tax dollars. There's no other way it can affect the society."Not entirely correct. There can be a carrot as well as a stick. One example might be a tax break to encourage a particular activity. Another can be requiring certain standards of companies etc.
Giving a tax break to one requires raising everyone elses’ tax to compensate. “Requiring certain standards” restricts liberty.
crimethink | July 2, 2007, 5:36pm | #
To LarryA's correct assessment above, I might add that requiring extra standards of govt contractors drives up the price of their services in accordance with the law of supply and demand. Thus, money must be raised by increasing taxes, borrowing, or devaluing the currency, to cover the increased expenditure.Pro Libertate | July 2, 2007, 5:38pm | #
highnumber,Yes, though not the Polk administration per se. More accurately applied to all administrations.
Oh, and I suppose that could apply to Rand and the Objectivists, too. And to Col. Lingus.
crimethink | July 2, 2007, 5:43pm | #
Rather than reading up on objectivism, you can just wait for the movie.Also I noticed at IMDB that today is one of the H&R-favorite-stroke-object's 21st birthday. You thought the roads were dangerous before, you'd better look out now.
crimethink | July 2, 2007, 5:47pm | #
Ah, just found a much better Cavanaugh vs. Lohan thread. Those were the days!Randolph Carter | July 2, 2007, 6:19pm | #
SPOILER ALERT: A is AJoeCHI | July 2, 2007, 7:39pm | #
Nice piece. Like most things, the truth is somewhere in between.That said, I disagree with those who opine that Hillary would not be a Senator or the leading candidate for the Whitehouse but for BIl. My feeling is that Bill would never have been President but for Hillary.
kwais | July 2, 2007, 8:27pm | #
Qwerty,The most patriotic thing you can do is refuse to pay income tax.
kwais | July 2, 2007, 8:45pm | #
So one of my many complaints about voting for Hillary just because she is a woman.Is that her husband raped Juanita Broderick.
And she probably new about it, and protected him. That doesn't really say much about standing up for womens rights.
I guess royalty is not held to the same standards.
crimethink | July 2, 2007, 9:27pm | #
kwais,That's the difference between standing up for women's rights and standing up for a woman's rights. The former is easy for a politician to do; the latter can get mighty inconvenient.
dhex | July 2, 2007, 10:29pm | #
frankly i've never bought any of that rape stuff. it's a little too falwell cocaine conspiracy WHO SHOT VINCE FOSTER for my blood.of course, if anyone would make the world nostalgic for a "vast right wing conspiracy" that was basically pointless and harmless (beyond partisan kvetching), it would be bush.
dhex | July 2, 2007, 10:31pm | #
"Having said all that. It is clear, regardless of gender and the reasons given above, that HRC is out and out the most capable candidate."great! now i've got blood all over my keyboard.
are you happy now?
soulrebel | July 2, 2007, 11:11pm | #
hillary is really a man, so her gender is no issue.crimethink | July 2, 2007, 11:29pm | #
dhex,Well, the cryptic response of Clinton's legal team didn't help matters when they responded to the charge with something like "The President did not rape Ms Broderick at the Holiday Inn in Memphis 21 years ago." (I'm making up the hotel name, but they did specifically mention the hotel's name in their statement.) Given the Clintonian tendency to carefully word denials so they seem to deny more than they really do:
"I have never violated the laws of this country by smoking MJ" -- his MJ experience was supposedly at Oxford, in the UK, so he didn't violate US laws;
"I did not have sexual relations with that woman!" -- sexual relations != oral sex;
that denial may be saying that he didn't rape Ms Broderick, or that he did it at a different hotel, or in a different year, or (my favorite) that he did rape her but he wasn't President at the time.
I'm no Nifong, so I'll say he's innocent until proven guilty, but it sure does look suspicious.
kwais | July 2, 2007, 11:31pm | #
Dhex,I have read a little bit about the rape case, and I heard Juanita Broderick interviewed. There was always a much stronger case against Bill in the rape case than there ever was against Mike Tyson.
In her interview she came across as very earnest. The one question that stuck out in my mind, was she asked for someone to ask Hillary, or any of Bill Clinton's supporters "why do they think I am lying? What do I have to gain, and what in my history says I would do such a thing?"
soulrebel | July 3, 2007, 12:01am | #
she's a man, baby.I say this in every Hillary thread. It is the truth that no conservative wants to face. Hillary is the most conservative Democrat, and if you had to choose somebody from that side of the aisle, she'd have to be it. Given that the GOP is going through some serious growing (groin?) pains, Hillary doesn't look half bad. Get over your goddam vanity, please.
John C. Randolph | July 3, 2007, 5:46am | #
Nominating Hillary is just about the only way the democrats could blow their advantage this time around. I'm sure they'll do it, and she'll get cocky and preach her marxist bullshit, and beat Mondale's record by carrying no states, just the District of Columbia.-jcr
John C. Randolph | July 3, 2007, 5:49am | #
" My feeling is that Bill would never have been President but for Hillary."Nope. The woman who put Bill Clinton in the White house was Donna Rice. If Gary Hart hadn't boinked that little tart and then dared the press to catch him at it, Clinton would only be remembered as yet another crooked sourthern governor.
-jcr
John C. Randolph | July 3, 2007, 5:51am | #
dhex,I know nothing about Broderick's reliability, but I do know that Clinton is a liar. So, until any other evidence arrives, I believe her word over his.
-jcr
John C. Randolph | July 3, 2007, 6:03am | #
Tom,I don't know how you got the idea that we have a free market for health care. The FDA and the AMA have it locked up tighter than Hillary's sphincter. The FDA kills thousands of people annually by keeping drugs off the market, and the AMA is one of only three guilds in the USA that's able to limit the number of people entering their line of work.
This is not a case of the market failing, it's a case of continuous encroachment by government and government-supported cartels on our right to seek medical care from competent providers. Broken as our system is, it's still possible to go into surgery on a timely basis rather than die on a waiting list like they do up in Candada.
-jcr
John C. Randolph | July 3, 2007, 6:16am | #
""Objectivism opposes any sort of altruistic helping of the poor"That is a line of pinko bullshit that they've been spouting ever since Rand published Atlas Shrugged. Objectivism doesn't in any way oppose helping the poor. What it *does* say, is that poverty isn't a moral claim to the property of anyone else, which it isn't.
There are effective ways to help poor people, such as the microcredit program invented by Mohammed Yunus, and there are ineffective ways to try to help them, such as the modern welfare state. The evil that Rand was railing against was the creation of the dependent class that the welfare state uses to justify itself.
-jcr
Rattlesnake Jake | July 3, 2007, 8:41am | #
"Nominating Hillary is just about the only way the democrats could blow their advantage this time around. I'm sure they'll do it, and she'll get cocky and preach her marxist bullshit, and beat Mondale's record by carrying no states, just the District of Columbia."I'd love to see that, but I don't want her to even get the nomination. If she gets the nomination, the slimy worms that the Clintons are, they'll figure out some way to wiggle back in there.
Rattlesnake Jake | July 3, 2007, 8:46am | #
"I say this in every Hillary thread. It is the truth that no conservative wants to face. Hillary is the most conservative Democrat, and if you had to choose somebody from that side of the aisle, she'd have to be it. Given that the GOP is going through some serious growing (groin?) pains, Hillary doesn't look half bad. Get over your goddam vanity, please."If Hillary is so conservative, why did the ADA rate her so high. She was rated way at the top with Teddy Kennedy. She is practicing Bill's method of triangulation by pretending to be a centrist. She was a hardliner on foreign policy because she had to be to show the public that a woman can be a strong commander in chief. Lamar, you've fallen for her smoke and mirrors.
Lamar | July 3, 2007, 9:21am | #
I've fallen for her smoke and mirrors because she "pretends" to be centrist? If Bill Clinton gives us any insight to Hillary, she will actually be a centrist. Sure, she's still a democrat with her ideas on big government. And maybe you don't like politicians who listen to what people want. I tend to think that she'll put her own political career above policies that don't work. Hillarycare was going to be a disaster and it was abandoned. Too bad politicians didn't realize Iraq would be a disaster and abandon that.I'll change my mind on this issue when you can show me a Democrat who is more conservative than Hillary. Instead, people seem to think that cherrypicking her more liberal positions means that she's an ideologue. I like Ron Paul, and he's pro-life. Congressman Paul is no more a Santorum-style neocon than Hillary is a Kennedy-style liberal.
dhex | July 3, 2007, 9:26am | #
ehhh, i dunno, i've heard plenty of stuff from people who claim the white house is also breeding children as sex slaves. which is, of course, also possible, depending on one's position / how much of a stooge for the new world order you are."The one question that stuck out in my mind, was she asked for someone to ask Hillary, or any of Bill Clinton's supporters "why do they think I am lying? What do I have to gain, and what in my history says I would do such a thing?""
the most obvious thing would be money, of course. and perhaps some revenge. who knows?
Rattlesnake Jake | July 3, 2007, 10:06am | #
"I'll change my mind on this issue when you can show me a Democrat who is more conservative than Hillary."How about Lieberman and Richardson?
Rattlesnake Jake | July 3, 2007, 10:09am | #
dhex,Why would you believe a proven liar over Juanita Broderick who has not been proven to be a liar? Perhaps it's because you admire Clinton and just don't want to believe he could be capable of rape.
joe | July 3, 2007, 10:10am | #
Pretending, as Young does, that Hillary's years in the White House give her comparable experience as the First Ladies who preceded her is nonsense. She was a top presidential advisor, who worked closely with the President on all manner of important matters. Her experience there is probably equivalent to holding a cabinet, or top sub-cabinet, position.If you want to be taken seriously in discussing feminist issues, Ms. Young, you probably should stay away from minimizing women's accomplishments because they achieved them while holding jobs that are considered tradtionally feminine.
Rattlesnake Jake | July 3, 2007, 10:18am | #
It's exactly because of her experience in the White House that I'm opposed to her such as health care reform, travelgate, filegate, sicking the IRS on her political opponents, Fostergate, campaign finance scandals, coverups, etc.crimethink | July 3, 2007, 10:29am | #
I say this in every Hillary thread. It is the truth that no conservative wants to face. Hillary is the most conservative Democrat, and if you had to choose somebody from that side of the aisle, she'd have to be it.Uh, most people here are libertarians, not conservatives. By adopting a few positions of social conservatives, she's actually made herself less attractive to libertarians.
The most libertarian-friendly Dem is probably Bill Richardson, though he scares me a bit too.
dhex | July 3, 2007, 10:36am | #
"Why would you believe a proven liar over Juanita Broderick who has not been proven to be a liar?"partially because of the timing. some things are more convenient than others.
"Perhaps it's because you admire Clinton and just don't want to believe he could be capable of rape."
yes, that must be it. i have a lot of love for captain "you can't love your country and fear your government" happypants.
Thomas Mc | July 3, 2007, 10:52am | #
Hillary Clinton is just Joe Lieberman with a vagina.I will never vote for her.
rattlesnake: Lieberman isn't running, and as crimethink notes, libertarians aren't necessarily conservatives, though I suspect this is a Bush/neocon inspired phenomenon.
Captain Happypants | July 3, 2007, 2:01pm | #