6 posts tagged “hillary”
Guess what? My screen is still not fixed. I don't know when it will be - it's up to my "driver", who lives a very busy life and may not be able to take me for awhile to this computer-fix-it place downtown, which no one else seems to know how to get to, thus, my continued darkness. However, I happen to own an incredibly bright light that, when angled directly above a light surface on my screen, allows me to see just enough to get stuff done. Thus, my semi-return to Vox.
So, what's been on my political mind lately....
Scooter Libby convicted. He's only the fall guy, which we all know. The men behind the curtain may never be brought to justice, which saddens me.
Walter Reed scandal. Deplorable, sad, inexcusable.
Ann Coulter, who does not deserve to be listened to any longer, let alone paid any attention, continues to be the Paris Hilton of punditry. We all know she doesn't believe a single word she says, so really, outrage is redundant. But it's truly sad that Republicans keep giving her a platform only to then be forced to denounce how she used that platform the very next day. When will they learn? What does she have to say that she hasn't already? Sigh.
Hillary vs Obama heats up. I can't wait for this thing to play out. Let's hope the right man - hint, hint - wins.
On a non political front, I've been following all this Anna Nicole stuff pretty closely, and it gets more depressing by the day. The worst part is how her baby girl is the ultimate victim in all of this. She has zero chance at a normal life, so I pray the cycle doesn't repeat itself in her.
That's all for now. I hope I can get back to my previous blog rate, which I will try very hard to do. :)
It seems real now, even though we knew he'd be running since January. And now that it's real, I'm starting to let myself feel...hopeful. No other candidates make me feel hopeful, certainly not Hillary. I can see Obama as president, and unlike many, I believe his relative inexperience is asset. He has yet to be corrupted by DC, and his baggage is minimal. He is the anti-Hillary, and if he plays his cards right, I don't think he'll have a problem beating her for the nomination.
Now please, God, don't let my hopes be crushed again...
I used to really love John McCain, and I still do. But his campaign in this upcoming election is going to disappoint me, I know it is, because it already has.
I know he has to pander to certain interests to win the nomination. I know he is a conservative. I know many, if not most, of his positions directly oppose mine, not the least of which his pro-war stance. But man, I miss the McCain of the Straight Talk Express, the McCain who stood up to Falwell and Robertson, and the McCain who put his principles before politics. But that McCain was unelectable, I suppose, so now he's decided that politics rather than principle should take highest priority.
Maybe I'm wrong, maybe he is being honest and principled, and I simply don't agree with him. But I doubt it.
He is, indisputably, a man of great character and honor. That alone could win my vote should it come down to him against Hillary. But I just don't have the same enthusiasm for him that I once did. I would hate to see him turn into just another politician come '08. But I fear that he will.
Please, Senator, prove me wrong.
I rarely agree with Cal Thomas on, well, anything, but it turns out that Hillary is quite a unifying force - just not in the way that she would like. If the Democrats nominate her, they deserve to lose. She is not worth her baggage, and I hope we don't find out the hard way.
It's not like we need her to beat the GOP - there is going to be a huge field of candidates this time around, much better than in 2004, and I don't understand what she has that Obama or Biden or Edwards or Richardson don't have. She's very, very average, and at this point in history, we do not need another average politician in the White House. Besides, didn't the midterms supposedly cure the Dems of their addiction to losing? At this point, I don't think so.
Am I missing something?
You must have been a fashion victim at least once in your life. What hideous blunder did you commit?
Submitted by Tina.
Where to start...
I had this pair of shiny, plasticy, bright blue pants that just about reached my neck in the waist that I wore when I was 11. I guess the age excuses me.
Then, at 15, I suddenly decided Hillary Clinton was my fashion role model, so I wore pantsuits and American flag pins everywhere. Blazers were my best friend. I was old enough, you can blame me for that one.
Between those phases, I decided I was a hippie and didn't leave the house without some sort of fringe hanging off me.
Then I decided that Amy Lee was my new fashion role model, and I was a half-ass goth. I use that term because my mom only let me get away with so much. But I would have dyed my hair black and wore the clothes if I'd been able to. I still might.
Now, I guess, I've stopped following the trends and have settled into a happy medium.
Oh, I just remembered. I used to wear a big, frilly, pink, almost floor-length dress everywhere when I was 10. Again, the age excuses me.
But as long as you know who you are and dress accordingly, there are no fashion blunders.
 |
Anyone but a Bush or a Clinton
JAMES BURKEE, an assistant professor of history at Concordia University Wisconsin, is co-founder of the bipartisan political action committee Americans for Responsibility in Washington.
January 22, 2007
HAVING REFUSED a third term as president, George Washington offered the nation a farewell address in 1796, urging Americans to cherish the Union and to avoid the "baneful effects" of political partisanship. Successors such as Thomas Jefferson warned against the formation of an "unnatural" aristocracy of men who inherited great fortunes and political office.
Both of these warnings have been overlooked in the debate over Hillary Rodham Clinton's 2008 presidential run. But if she secures the Democratic nomination, wins and serves two terms, by 2017 the United States will have been governed by either a Bush or a Clinton for 28 years. That's three decades governed not just by the same two families but much of the same supporting staff. As Dick Cheney is a name familiar to both Bush presidencies (as George H.W. Bush's secretary of Defense and his son's vice president), so too may a Hillary Clinton presidency resuscitate familiar names such as Harold Ickes, Paul Begala and James Carville.
And it might not end there. Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, encouraged by Republican leaders and the current president (who said, "I would like to see Jeb run at some point"), has not ruled out a White House bid or a vice presidential slot on the ticket in 2012 or 2016.
If Washington's caustic, partisan atmosphere is to change, the era of Bushes and Clintons needs to end in 2008.
Three times in American history have close relatives of former presidents won the office. John Quincy Adams, son of John Adams, lost the popular vote to Andrew Jackson in 1824 but won in the electoral college amid charges of a "corrupt bargain." Benjamin Harrison, grandson of William Henry Harrison, lost the popular vote to Grover Cleveland in 1888 and also suffered as a "minority president" and mere figurehead. George W. Bush lost the popular vote to Al Gore in 2000.
Recent polls suggest that a significant body of Americans, perhaps 40%, will not vote for Hillary Clinton under any circumstances — so it is unlikely that she could enter the Oval Office with a strong electoral mandate. The ironic upshot is that such a Hillary Clinton presidency — weakened by low approval and beset by partisan sniping — would mirror George W. Bush's presidency.
That the Bush's administration has been consumed by political partisanship comes as no surprise to students of history. From the time of John Quincy Adams — whose term in office marked the end of the Era of Good Feelings — the children, grandchildren and spouses of presidents engender exceptional hostility when they seek office themselves. For all their personal capacities, the latter Adams, Harrison and Bush — like Hillary Clinton — inherited their claims to the presidency. George W. Bush would not be president today were his name not George Bush, nor Hillary a senator from New York absent the Clinton name. This nation's traditional commitment to meritocracy inclines many to reject these "unnatural" aristocrats, who never garner widespread popularity.
Minority and bare-majority presidents are weak leaders because nothing undergirds presidential power like an election mandate. The strongest post-World War II presidents — Dwight Eisenhower, Lyndon Johnson and Ronald Reagan — were also its most popular. (Eisenhower and Johnson won at least 55% of the vote; Reagan polled just over 50% in 1980 with independent John Anderson in the race, then 59% in 1984.) Presidencies enveloped by partisanship — Harry Truman, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton — were made of men who won office on the barest of majorities or pluralities (Truman won 49.6% of the popular vote in 1948; Carter won 50.1% in 1976; Clinton won 43% and 50% in 1992 and 1996).
Pundits compare 2006 to the late Nixon years, with a country disillusioned by war and a deep distrust of its political leadership. In one of his last interviews, former President Ford lamented the "extreme partisanship that exists in the nation's capital today," suggesting that partisanship is even worse than in the post-Watergate era he inherited.
The nation needs today, as it got in Ford then, a president respected by both Republicans and Democrats who can restore trust in politics. It needs new faces and new ideas if it is to confront advancing crises of war, debt and entitlement reform. And it needs a president who can assume office in 2009 swimming in the political capital that only a mandate can bring. The nation needs a candidate who can win 55% or more.
And that will not happen with a Bush or Clinton on the ballot.
Neighborhood
Explore friends, family, friends & family, or entire neighborhood.
