Yes it would be just as bad as voting for someone that is male because you are male, or black because you are black, or white because you are white...and so on.
A woman that votes for Hillary because she is a woman is making it ok for any man that will not vote for her simply because she is a woman.
I dont agree with your reverse logic.
I see no problem in having a gender or an ethic alliance-I think that already happens-unless of course the particular candidate is totally incompetent-and I cant say that about any of the frontrunners.
Would that be so bad if I supported her solely because she is female?
Its not the reason, but I dont see a problem with that
speculate away, but she is not my lover and Im only packing 9.
Yes, it would be a bad thing. i'm not a woman, but i would argue that cunton is the LAST woman any intelligent woman would want to have elected! Without mincing words, she is a lying, underhanded, win at all costs dirty politician whose only desire is to get back into the white house. The woman has ZERO integrity. Is THIS the kind of woman women want representing them? My guess is hillary would destroy the chances of an honest woman of virtue and integrity ever having a chance at the white house again. At least for a long time. As a man, i have no problem with strong women. My wife is a strong woman. i love strong women. Hillary isn't that. There is a sometimes fine line between being a "strong" woman and just being a dirty, crooked, lying bitch. Hillary is on the wrong side of that line.
"When all your friends and sedatives mean well but make it worse... better find yourself a place to level out."
I see no problem in having a gender or an ethic alliance-I think that already happens-unless of course the particular candidate is totally incompetent-and I cant say that about any of the frontrunners.
So it's cool if I come out and say I will only consider voting for white dudes, then? Because I kind of think that makes me a racist misogynist.
everybody wants the most they can possibly get
for the least they could possibly do
Yes, it would be a bad thing. i'm not a woman, but i would argue that cunton is the LAST woman any intelligent woman would want to have elected! Without mincing words, she is a lying, underhanded, win at all costs dirty politician whose only desire is to get back into the white house. The woman has ZERO integrity. Is THIS the kind of woman women want representing them? My guess is hillary would destroy the chances of an honest woman of virtue and integrity ever having a chance at the white house again. At least for a long time. As a man, i have no problem with strong women. My wife is a strong woman. i love strong women. Hillary isn't that. There is a sometimes fine line between being a "strong" woman and just being a dirty, crooked, lying bitch. Hillary is on the wrong side of that line.
And thats different from every other politician how?
People are a bit idealistic when it comes to politics-which is ok.
With very very very few exceptions, they are all self interested and deceptive in their own way-its part of politics-thats why its a dirty business.
And thats different from every other politician how?
People are a bit idealistic when it comes to politics-which is ok.
With very very very few exceptions, they are all self interested and deceptive in their own way-its part of politics-thats why its a dirty business.
Bullshit. Where as it is true that politicians want to be elected, (otherwise there is no point in running for office), and whereas it is also true that most politician will be less than honest in that attempt, the fucking clintons take this shit to a whole new level. You know it as well as i do. i generally don't like politicians. i'm 35 and have not participated in a presidential election since 18, and then, it was only because i had just acquired anew civil right and was excited to exercise it (kind of like getting hammered on your 21st birthday). Even i, however, have never happened across politicians that make me want to puke more than the clintons. Never. On the other hand, never have i happened upon a politician, in my lifetime, that i have been able to get behind, heart and soul, like i have with Barack Obama. i will be sincerely exercising my civil right to vote for the first time in my life. Whereas their platforms are somewhat similar, the two could not be further apart.
"When all your friends and sedatives mean well but make it worse... better find yourself a place to level out."
Bullshit. Where as it is true that politicians want to be elected, (otherwise there is no point in running for office), and whereas it is also true that most politician will be less than honest in that attempt, the fucking clintons take this shit to a whole new level. You know it as well as i do. i generally don't like politicians. i'm 35 and have not participated in a presidential election since 18, and then, it was only because i had just acquired anew civil right and was excited to exercise it (kind of like getting hammered on your 21st birthday). Even i, however, have never happened across politicians that make me want to puke more than the clintons. Never. On the other hand, never have i happened upon a politician, in my lifetime, that i have been able to get behind, heart and soul, like i have with Barack Obama. i will be sincerely exercising my civil right to vote for the first time in my life. Whereas their platforms are somewhat similar, the two could not be further apart.
I respect your views, but disagree. I like Obama-he is a good candidate, and I like what I hear. Im not sure he is the guy I want cleaning up our foreign policy mess. But its irrelevant anyway as far as Im concerned.
I respect your views, but disagree. I like Obama-he is a good candidate, and I like what I hear. Im not sure he is the guy I want cleaning up our foreign policy mess. But its irrelevant anyway as far as Im concerned.
So you are going to settle for a shady canidate that is part of the same money grab going on right now?
Here's the thing I don't understand. I've noticed that people are quick to say why they don't like someone. Be it you don't like someones lack of experience or whatever. But when pressed to say why they DO like someone, suddenly that's a bit harder to say. Easy to complain about what you don't like, hard to say something positive about what you do like.
I guess I mean, its easy to say Obama isn't who you feel can get us out of the foreign policy mess. But what makes you feel that Clinton is? I believe she actually only has a couple more years of working "experience" in office than Obama. Correct me if I'm wrong with that. How does that make her more experienced to solve foreign policy matters? Has she been in the trenches negotiating with the enemy herself?
Here's the thing I don't understand. I've noticed that people are quick to say why they don't like someone. Be it you don't like someones lack of experience or whatever. But when pressed to say why they DO like someone, suddenly that's a bit harder to say. Easy to complain about what you don't like, hard to say something positive about what you do like.
I guess I mean, its easy to say Obama isn't who you feel can get us out of the foreign policy mess. But what makes you feel that Clinton is? I believe she actually only has a couple more years of working "experience" in office than Obama. Correct me if I'm wrong with that. How does that make her more experienced to solve foreign policy matters? Has she been in the trenches negotiating with the enemy herself?
few years? eight years in the white house, few years as a senator
and Bill by her side-yes I think that makes her a bit more qualifed than a rookie senator. An the jury is still out on Obama in my house-but my general feeling is he needs more experience on the federal level.
And I most certainly feel that the choices for democrats are not good-in terms of having a candidate that the nation can get behind.
As I have debated with MasterFramer, it will be tough for either to win-especially if McCain gets the GOP nomination.
I respect your views, but disagree. I like Obama-he is a good candidate, and I like what I hear. Im not sure he is the guy I want cleaning up our foreign policy mess. But its irrelevant anyway as far as Im concerned.
i'm not trying to be a dick, but so far, here's what i've gathered from you:
A: Its completely acceptable to vote for clinton based solely on the fact that
she is a woman.
B: Its completely acceptable to overlook lies, slander, corruption,
underhandeness and dirty, deceitful campaiging, and embrace them as
presidential behaviors.
i present to the OP, and everyone else, here the typical hillary clinton supporter. Here's the profile, folks.
"When all your friends and sedatives mean well but make it worse... better find yourself a place to level out."
few years? eight years in the white house, few years as a senator
and Bill by her side-yes I think that makes her a bit more qualifed than a rookie senator. An the jury is still out on Obama in my house-but my general feeling is he needs more experience on the federal level.
And I most certainly feel that the choices for democrats are not good-in terms of having a candidate that the nation can get behind.
As I have debated with MasterFramer, it will be tough for either to win-especially if McCain gets the GOP nomination.
Eight years in the white house is not experience. Sorry. The white house pastry chef has more years in the white house than that. Maybe we should all vote for the white house pastry chef. They have more "experience". Furthermore, as long as were being honest (hard, i know, for a clinton person) Obama actually has more years in an elected office than does cunton.
"When all your friends and sedatives mean well but make it worse... better find yourself a place to level out."
Eight years in the white house is not experience. Sorry. The white house pastry chef has more years in the white house than that. Maybe we should all vote for the white house pastry chef. They have more "experience". Furthermore, as long as were being honest (hard, i know, for a clinton person) Obama actually has more years in an elected office than does cunton.
This is very true. I'm not knocking Get_Right at all, but do you think Laura Bush could run on experience if she were to run for President?
i'm not trying to be a dick, but so far, here's what i've gathered from you:
A: Its completely acceptable to vote for clinton based solely on the fact that
she is a woman.
B: Its completely acceptable to overlook lies, slander, corruption,
underhandeness and dirty, deceitful campaiging, and embrace them as
presidential behaviors.
i present to the OP, and everyone else, here the typical hillary clinton supporter. Here's the profile, folks.
A: Yes. I think that wanting to have a female in the white house simply because it may be good for the feminist cause is ok. Same is true for Obama. I think it would be good for our country to elect either one. A woman or a black in the white house would be good-put a crack in the ole boys network. Unless of course, they are totally incompetent-and I cant say that about either one.
B: While I think you are exaggerating quite a bit, I expect that from politicians. At least to a certain degree. I simply do not hold a grudge for whitewater or monica.
As far as being typical, I highly doubt that, but remember, you still dont know why I support her. All of your points are irrelevant to that.
A: Yes. I think that wanting to have a female in the white house simply because it may be good for the feminist cause is ok. Same is true for Obama. I think it would be good for our country to elect either one. A woman or a black in the white house would be good-put a crack in the ole boys network. Unless of course, they are totally incompetent-and I cant say that about either one.
B: While I think you are exaggerating quite a bit, I expect that from politicians. At least to a certain degree. I simply do not hold a grudge for whitewater or monica.
As far as being typical, I highly doubt that, but remember, you still dont know why I support her. All of your points are irrelevant to that.
Bro the Clintons are part of the good ole boys network!!!
Eight years in the white house is not experience. Sorry. The white house pastry chef has more years in the white house than that. Maybe we should all vote for the white house pastry chef. They have more "experience". Furthermore, as long as were being honest (hard, i know, for a clinton person) Obama actually has more years in an elected office than does cunton.
ok so know you are comparing an oxford trained first lady who was intimately involved in her husbands presidency to a pastry chef-that is weak and is in no way analogous-you are just looking for baseless ways to attack her because you think she is dishonest.
And your right about Obama AT THE STATE LEVEL-hilary has been a senator longer and has what three times the federal experience.
Not to mention there is something wrong when a country would vote a father, husband, son, wife as presidents.
Its a darn good thing hillary stands no chance in a general election. Otherwise i could easily see it. Bush sr. Slick Willy Clinton, Bush Jr., Billary Clinton, Jeb Bush, Chelsea Clinton. Shit, by the time she came around to it, Chelsea coud claim 16 YEARS WHITE HOUSE EXPERIENCE! She be a fucking shoe in.
"When all your friends and sedatives mean well but make it worse... better find yourself a place to level out."
Your argument is at least logical.
Do you think laura bush was involved in her husbands presidency?
I dont and that makes a difference.
And we are talking about a bush here, so that automatically dumbs her down to being unelectable.
A lot of people criticize Hillary for the failure of Hillary-Care in the 90's. That was a great extent of her involvement with the Clinton White House, and soon after that the powers that be decided that she should have a smaller role in the administration.
Is it fair to criticize her because of the failure of her health care plan since she was so involved in the Presidency to run for President based on that experience?
few years? eight years in the white house, few years as a senator
and Bill by her side-yes I think that makes her a bit more qualifed than a rookie senator. An the jury is still out on Obama in my house-but my general feeling is he needs more experience on the federal level.
And I most certainly feel that the choices for democrats are not good-in terms of having a candidate that the nation can get behind.
As I have debated with MasterFramer, it will be tough for either to win-especially if McCain gets the GOP nomination.
So, being married to the former President counts as experience in solving foreign policy matters? How so?
I'm not trying to argue with you on a personal level, but I don't see how that logic adds up. I want you to try to explain it to me so I can see if your way. Honestly, I really mean that. I'm open to trying to see how that jives for you.
Seriously agree with you about McCain. I think he's going to be a tough one to beat.
So, being married to the former President counts as experience in solving foreign policy matters? How so?
I'm not trying to argue with you on a personal level, but I don't see how that logic adds up. I want you to try to explain it to me so I can see if your way. Honestly, I really mean that. I'm open to trying to see how that jives for you.
Seriously agree with you about McCain. I think he's going to be a tough one to beat.
I think Hilary was a bit more involved in policy making than your average first lady-people used to complain she was too involved!-and I was just adding that to her list of experience-it is just one piece of her CV. But yes I think her experience in the white house makes a difference, not huge one, but a difference.
But in any event, and as I have said, my reasons for supporting her really have nothing to do with all of this. Its personal.
It is going to be tough for the democrats to win. Nothwithstanding the fact that GWB was the worst president i recent history.
A lot of people criticize Hillary for the failure of Hillary-Care in the 90's. That was a great extent of her involvement with the Clinton White House, and soon after that the powers that be decided that she should have a smaller role in the administration.
Is it fair to criticize her because of the failure of her health care plan since she was so involved in the Presidency to run for President based on that experience?
I could care less about any of her positions... she's dirty and she is divisive. Lets give someone that isn't quite the institution the Clinton's are a chance. Republicans HATE the Clintons... republicans and independents are voting for Obama when they can. Why wouldn't we all want someone that actually has a chance to bring people together and make some progress. Look at what has happened with this divisive administration we have had for the past 8 years. I can't understand ONE good reason to give Hillary your vote...
Just read this... she's already saying one thing doing another. So shady...
Comments
I dont agree with your reverse logic.
I see no problem in having a gender or an ethic alliance-I think that already happens-unless of course the particular candidate is totally incompetent-and I cant say that about any of the frontrunners.
Yes, it would be a bad thing. i'm not a woman, but i would argue that cunton is the LAST woman any intelligent woman would want to have elected! Without mincing words, she is a lying, underhanded, win at all costs dirty politician whose only desire is to get back into the white house. The woman has ZERO integrity. Is THIS the kind of woman women want representing them? My guess is hillary would destroy the chances of an honest woman of virtue and integrity ever having a chance at the white house again. At least for a long time. As a man, i have no problem with strong women. My wife is a strong woman. i love strong women. Hillary isn't that. There is a sometimes fine line between being a "strong" woman and just being a dirty, crooked, lying bitch. Hillary is on the wrong side of that line.
So it's cool if I come out and say I will only consider voting for white dudes, then? Because I kind of think that makes me a racist misogynist.
for the least they could possibly do
And thats different from every other politician how?
People are a bit idealistic when it comes to politics-which is ok.
With very very very few exceptions, they are all self interested and deceptive in their own way-its part of politics-thats why its a dirty business.
only
no
but to say I generally prefer a man in the oval office is-just be ready to back that up with more than a gender based reason for saying it.
Bullshit. Where as it is true that politicians want to be elected, (otherwise there is no point in running for office), and whereas it is also true that most politician will be less than honest in that attempt, the fucking clintons take this shit to a whole new level. You know it as well as i do. i generally don't like politicians. i'm 35 and have not participated in a presidential election since 18, and then, it was only because i had just acquired anew civil right and was excited to exercise it (kind of like getting hammered on your 21st birthday). Even i, however, have never happened across politicians that make me want to puke more than the clintons. Never. On the other hand, never have i happened upon a politician, in my lifetime, that i have been able to get behind, heart and soul, like i have with Barack Obama. i will be sincerely exercising my civil right to vote for the first time in my life. Whereas their platforms are somewhat similar, the two could not be further apart.
I respect your views, but disagree. I like Obama-he is a good candidate, and I like what I hear. Im not sure he is the guy I want cleaning up our foreign policy mess. But its irrelevant anyway as far as Im concerned.
So you are going to settle for a shady canidate that is part of the same money grab going on right now?
I guess I mean, its easy to say Obama isn't who you feel can get us out of the foreign policy mess. But what makes you feel that Clinton is? I believe she actually only has a couple more years of working "experience" in office than Obama. Correct me if I'm wrong with that. How does that make her more experienced to solve foreign policy matters? Has she been in the trenches negotiating with the enemy herself?
See thats the point you all miss, I think they are all shady-thats a given for me in politics.
And your man Obama looked pretty shady standing next to ole Teddy.
"What a stupid lamb."
"What a sick, masochistic lion."
few years? eight years in the white house, few years as a senator
and Bill by her side-yes I think that makes her a bit more qualifed than a rookie senator. An the jury is still out on Obama in my house-but my general feeling is he needs more experience on the federal level.
And I most certainly feel that the choices for democrats are not good-in terms of having a candidate that the nation can get behind.
As I have debated with MasterFramer, it will be tough for either to win-especially if McCain gets the GOP nomination.
Thank you gorgeous for your insightful political analysis.
i'm not trying to be a dick, but so far, here's what i've gathered from you:
A: Its completely acceptable to vote for clinton based solely on the fact that
she is a woman.
B: Its completely acceptable to overlook lies, slander, corruption,
underhandeness and dirty, deceitful campaiging, and embrace them as
presidential behaviors.
i present to the OP, and everyone else, here the typical hillary clinton supporter. Here's the profile, folks.
Yeah yeah yeah all politicians are evil, pick the lessor of the two. Come on man...
Eight years in the white house is not experience. Sorry. The white house pastry chef has more years in the white house than that. Maybe we should all vote for the white house pastry chef. They have more "experience". Furthermore, as long as were being honest (hard, i know, for a clinton person) Obama actually has more years in an elected office than does cunton.
This is very true. I'm not knocking Get_Right at all, but do you think Laura Bush could run on experience if she were to run for President?
http://www.reverbnation.com/brianzilm
A: Yes. I think that wanting to have a female in the white house simply because it may be good for the feminist cause is ok. Same is true for Obama. I think it would be good for our country to elect either one. A woman or a black in the white house would be good-put a crack in the ole boys network. Unless of course, they are totally incompetent-and I cant say that about either one.
B: While I think you are exaggerating quite a bit, I expect that from politicians. At least to a certain degree. I simply do not hold a grudge for whitewater or monica.
As far as being typical, I highly doubt that, but remember, you still dont know why I support her. All of your points are irrelevant to that.
Bro the Clintons are part of the good ole boys network!!!
ok so know you are comparing an oxford trained first lady who was intimately involved in her husbands presidency to a pastry chef-that is weak and is in no way analogous-you are just looking for baseless ways to attack her because you think she is dishonest.
And your right about Obama AT THE STATE LEVEL-hilary has been a senator longer and has what three times the federal experience.
Your argument is at least logical.
Do you think laura bush was involved in her husbands presidency?
I dont and that makes a difference.
And we are talking about a bush here, so that automatically dumbs her down to being unelectable.
I see why you say that.
not that they are evil, but that there is a certain degree of manipulation and deception when its comes to politics- and that its a constant
maybe its because I live in NY and have lived through Cuomo and Guiliani.
Its a darn good thing hillary stands no chance in a general election. Otherwise i could easily see it. Bush sr. Slick Willy Clinton, Bush Jr., Billary Clinton, Jeb Bush, Chelsea Clinton. Shit, by the time she came around to it, Chelsea coud claim 16 YEARS WHITE HOUSE EXPERIENCE! She be a fucking shoe in.
On one hand you have a "certain degree of manipulation" on the other hand you have the fucking clintons. Talk about outrageous comparisons.
A lot of people criticize Hillary for the failure of Hillary-Care in the 90's. That was a great extent of her involvement with the Clinton White House, and soon after that the powers that be decided that she should have a smaller role in the administration.
Is it fair to criticize her because of the failure of her health care plan since she was so involved in the Presidency to run for President based on that experience?
http://www.reverbnation.com/brianzilm
So, being married to the former President counts as experience in solving foreign policy matters? How so?
I'm not trying to argue with you on a personal level, but I don't see how that logic adds up. I want you to try to explain it to me so I can see if your way. Honestly, I really mean that.
Seriously agree with you about McCain. I think he's going to be a tough one to beat.
I think Hilary was a bit more involved in policy making than your average first lady-people used to complain she was too involved!-and I was just adding that to her list of experience-it is just one piece of her CV. But yes I think her experience in the white house makes a difference, not huge one, but a difference.
But in any event, and as I have said, my reasons for supporting her really have nothing to do with all of this. Its personal.
It is going to be tough for the democrats to win. Nothwithstanding the fact that GWB was the worst president i recent history.
I could care less about any of her positions... she's dirty and she is divisive. Lets give someone that isn't quite the institution the Clinton's are a chance. Republicans HATE the Clintons... republicans and independents are voting for Obama when they can. Why wouldn't we all want someone that actually has a chance to bring people together and make some progress. Look at what has happened with this divisive administration we have had for the past 8 years. I can't understand ONE good reason to give Hillary your vote...
Just read this... she's already saying one thing doing another. So shady...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/29/AR2008012902998_pf.html