Capitol Hill Blue Forums Capitol Hill Blue Opinions CHB Columnists Yes, Hillary Clinton is a bitch

Also speaking as one who votes for Democrats the majority of the time, I have no interest in "eating our own". But I'd like to make sure we actually look at them, discuss & debate them, and get the right one, or at least one of the best. I'm not saying anything against Senator Clinton. I just want some evidence she is one of the best beyond the category of electability. I'm not interested in the Republican ploy of "speak no evil of a fellow Republican". That ploy got the last few of them elected with little up front, in depth analysis & debate, and a great deal of national turmoil as a result. Bush 43 was annointed, elected, coronated & went on to wreck this country's reputation and the lives of many Americans. Dems have a poor track record of putting up the best to get past "leaders" like Bush. It'd be nice to see them put up an effort to do so this time. No cannibalism, just honest effort.

While we're generalizing... How should we characterize every member of groups like, I don't know, 'All Journalists" and "All Lobbyists"?

Does it offend you, Ferm, that this thread is based on the generally accepted "fact" that politicians all deserve some expletive before their names? If so just join in and point out a few whose leadership abilities and personal attributes place them above the others and so not deserving the epithets.
For now I have chosen Gov. Bill Richardson, as my hero, who has shown time and again that he stands for what I stand for. Show me another Politician with 5 Nobel Prize Nominations. Hillary represents more of the same to me, I want a bigger change than that. There are others, Biden or Huckabee or Kucinich. Perhaps you'd like to expound on the relative "goodness" of one of the Republican Candidates?
Steve, I agree, a more disposable Prime Minister might be a better form of choosing our temporary top dog and allow better for mistakes. You support Mr. Kucinich, and I ask this not to be contentious but because I haven't studied the man closely, what has he actually accomplished? Can you point to some proof that he is the leader we seek or is he just a bundle of good ideas that haven't caught on yet?

Firstly, let's get one thing straight:
Who Doesn't Have a Nobel Prize Nomination?

And as for Doug's generalizations, I was pointing out that people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

Ok, so Doug is a bastard. Since he is not really a politician or public leader that insult needs to be between you and him and I don't see any point of you and I discussing the construction of his house any further.

And so in answer to my question of who else has 5 Nobel Nominations you offer up the answer "Who doesn't" and show information that they are easy to get and many people you deem unworthy of them have been nominated for them. I ask again who else among the candidates for POTUS have recieved this honourable mention? All of them? That would be my assumption as per your claim. I haven't researched this as well as you have and merely seek enlightenment.

Isn't it ironic that a statement like "let's get one thing straight" is so often followed by an obfuscation?

While it is true that "anyone can get nominated" and it is also true that Adolph Hitler was reputed to be a Peace Prize nominee, there was also a time when Adolph Hitler was a staunch ally of the US, but that didn't stop us from going to war with him and vilifying him as the greatest monster in human history.

While it is true that "anyone can get nominated", there are actually two nominating processes, a formal one and an informal one, and the winners are almost invariably picked from the formal process. And while it is true that "anyone can get nominated", the names of the nominees chosen by the formal process, the ones who actually are seriously considered by the Nobel committee, are not revealed for fifty years. Thus, anyone can claim to have been nominated, and no one can disprove it.

While it is true that "anyone can get nominated", it is to the advantage of libertarian naysayers like Eugene Volokh, publisher of the Volokh Conspiracy blog, to make the Prize seem less significant than it is, because of the collectivist nature of its criteria for winning. And it is typical of right-wing prevaricators like Volokh to hide their ideological stridency by using a byline like "Eugene Volokh is a professor of law at UCLA Law School" after an opinion piece in a Librul newspaper.

An opinion piece.

Yes, let's.

Those are reasonable questions, Greger, and I don't find them contentious at all.

Is he the leader "we" seek? I don't know the answer to that. I know he is the leader I seek, because of what he believes in and how he has voted since being in Congress. Remember that of all the candidates he is the only one, the only one, who has voted against the war 100% of the time, and who voted against the PATRIOT Act. As he said in the last debate, a lot of the other candidates have come around to his positions on the war, on homeland security, on peace initiatives, on universal health care, on rebuilding America, on education. But these positions are positions he has had all along.

Imagine, he said in the debate, imagine what it would be like to have a President who gets it right the first time. Just imagine.

But this is a thread about Sen. Clinton after all, and so it is appropriate to point out how he differs from her in terms of the thread's purported theme. Is he a bitch? Well, yes he can be. Recall his most famous - or infamous - accomplishment as the Mayor of Cleveland. He went up against ConEd to prevent his citizens from being gouged by rate increases. In retaliation, mega-banks pulled the plug on Cleveland's credit, and the City was soon bankrupted. Kucinich was blamed, but MunyLight remained a public utility, and soon ConEd subscribers were being gouged while Cleveland's citizens continued enjoying reasonable rates.

During those years, Kucinich showed what a bitch he could be. I can't attest to any sailor's language, but he can be strident. He is a powerful orator, but has the gift of rhetoric and populist charisma that Clinton is lacking. Every time he opens his mouth in a Dem debate (though rare), he gets at least a standing ovation, and usually cheers. And it's not because his people pick the audience, as you might guess.

Why is Hillary saddled with the "qualified and experienced" question - clearly our current President had none and he ended up President.

(...and he certainly didn't learn to be President thru osmosis from his dad.)

The whole enchilada needs to be considered as everyone's "life experiences" are qualifying attributes.

Greger,
It's not proper etiquette to imply that was what I meant by my question. What I asked about generalizations which might apply to groups like 'all lobbyists' or 'all journalists' was not a disparagement of Doug. I was only pointing out that generalizations should be avoided.

As for your challenge to name other candidates who share the dubious distinction which your's does is lame. A similar challenge could be made for any candidate - Name another woman, Name another ex-mayor of NYC, name another Black man....

If you work backwards from the result you seek, you can always frame a question to distinguish your candidate.

Ask a better question, and I'll consider providing you with a better answer.