HRC

[poky]

Re: HRC

And he may be a cowboy, but at least we haven't been attacked in eight years.

...by which, you mean 7 years and 2 months, right?

Were we attacked while Clinton was in office? I'm not being snarky; I don't think we were, but I was young, so I'm not actually positive, and am willing to be educated.

[McPants]

Re: HRC

And he may be a cowboy, but at least we haven't been attacked in eight years.

...by which, you mean 7 years and 2 months, right?

Were we attacked while Clinton was in office? I'm not being snarky; I don't think we were, but I was young, so I'm not actually positive, and am willing to be educated.

The 1993 world trade center bombing occurred just a month after Clinton had taken office. There were also embassies bombed in 1998. I was pretty young too when these events happened so I only have vague recollections of them.

[GrayMatterWife]

Re: HRC

And he may be a cowboy, but at least we haven't been attacked in eight years.

...by which, you mean 7 years and 2 months, right?

Were we attacked while Clinton was in office? I'm not being snarky; I don't think we were, but I was young, so I'm not actually positive, and am willing to be educated.

Yes, I guess I was rounding up. I did not mean to "overcredit" Bush in my argument. Perhaps I should have been more specific in stating, "We have not been attacked again domestically since 9-11."

McPants responded to issue re: we were attacked while Clinton was in office. The answer is, yes, repeatedly. But of course most of it was not domestic and none of it was on the scale of WTC. I am referring only to attacks by radicalized Islamic forces on the US, similar to those that perpetrated the WTC attacks. We were attacked domestically by domestic groups (terrorism takes many forms...) both during Clinton (eg, OK City) and Bush (eg, anthrax).

[PrincessFiona]

Re: HRC

I'm 100% with McPants on this one!

Re: HRC

A little off topic....Tara, there is hope for you yet. I read a blip about Janet N....... being considered for Attorney General.

[GrayMatterWife]

Re: HRC

For that matter, I find it puzzling that you choose to blame Bill Clinton's wife by association for his acts of infidelity against her. I wonder if this is the way most Americans see it.

I don't hold her husband's behavior against her. I hold her husband's behavior (most notably, his felonious behavior) against him. However, I do not respect that she blamed a nonexistent "vast right-wing conspiracy" when the story broke. And I do not respect the fact that she holds herself out as a feminist when she's gotten her power by putting up with the disrespect of his repeated, flagrant infidelity and then by riding the coattails of his popularity into office.

And, most importantly, given that she has repeatedly relied on her husband's legacy to advance and promote herself (see almost any film footage from the Dem primaries), it is certainly not inappropriate consider that association when evaluating her. She has done nothing to distance his behavior from her and she embraces his Administration's policies.

You do realize that U.S. international behavior has a VERY strong bearing on how easy it is to recruit people willing to commit terrorist acts against the country, right?

So we should act like Clinton and hestitate or flat-out fail to sufficiently defend ourselves? To withdraw from Somalia? To refuse to take Bin Laden when he's offered to us? I deeply doubt the argument that by being solicitious to the UN or cowering in the face of hard choices would make us less likely terrorist targets. Terrorists prey on weakness.

And, of course, it should be remembered that Al-Quaida was born and flourished and became a terrorism powerhouse during Clinton's administration. Just because they are more vocal and notorious now does not mean that Bush created them. Whatever caused the fever of radicalized Islam to spread, it is historically inaccurate to imply that is was born of Bush, or to suggest that Clintonian policies would work to prevent their growth.

Furthermore, what Clinton did to resolve the Northern Irish conflict was invaluable, but I suppose that since it didn't mean that the U.S. got access to more oil, this doesn't represent any value to you. People here in Northern Ireland LOVE Clinton for this, do you not feel there's any value in that? Kosovo was an international peace-keeping mission, in which many countries participated and which saved countless lives, large-scale genocide may have been prevented by the U.N intervention there. How was that wrong? Other countries' presidents and peace-keeping forces do good deeds to benefit the world as a whole, why should the U.S. be different? Maybe there were projects that didn't work out as Clinton hoped, but on the whole he did a lot of good for the world. Even if Clinton didn't reach his goals in some of the conflicts he got involved in, he did something. He tried. A lot of us foreigners welcomed his efforts and we remembered them in association to his country.

My point was that when it mattered to our self-interest and self-defense, he was a failure, and frankly--at times--a coward. I am not suggesting that facilitating peace in Northern Ireland isn't an admirable thing. I am saying that, where it counts for the people he was elected to represent, he often fell flat. If you are interested in a less-rosy assessment of our participation in Kosovo, you should read "Making War to Keep Peace" by Jean Kirkpatrick (a Dem). It is an excellent, historically accurate reflection on the situation.

You're referring to declaring war on other countries here. I don't feel any country should have that right without getting support from the U.N. (corrupt as it may be), but hey, if you're the biggest kid - why shouldn't you have the right to beat others and steal their lunch money?

We will just have to agree to disagree on that. Yes, I do not believe that we should have to seek permission from anyone to defend ourselves. Sure as heck not the UN. It is great to have allies and we should seek them out--but not defer our self-defense to another body. I do not advocate self-defense by concensus. Granted, "going it alone" bears risks--you may, very well, end up doing it alone. But doing the right thing in self-defense, despite the fact that you are alone, does not make it wrong. You can be right and alone. (For example, Churchill, in advocating for the comparably unpopular position of not compromising with Hitler in the face of Chamberlain's position and support, was right.)

The comment regarding beating up others and stealing their lunch money doesn't really deserve a response.

I'm not much of a fan of Clinton for the reasons you mention, though I feel you're quite a bit harsh on her as she's actually been politically active as an individual for quite a while now.

Really? She's accomplished...since taking office, she's...run unsuccessfully for her party's nomination for President, primarily. And she did a bang-up job at that, getting ultimately creamed by the underdog. However, I do credit her for being very hawkish for a Democrat in terms of the Iraq War. I admire the fact that she never apologized for that stance (as versus many of her Dem breathren) and stood her ground throughout the primaries. That was not the popular, easy thing to do. That position is what I would like about her as a candidate for Sec. of State. Oddly, her position on the war varies dramatically from Obama's position.

[Rapunzel]

Re: HRC

You do realize that U.S. international behavior has a VERY strong bearing on how easy it is to recruit people willing to commit terrorist acts against the country, right?

So we should act like Clinton and hestitate or flat-out fail to sufficiently defend ourselves? To withdraw from Somalia? To refuse to take Bin Laden when he's offered to us? I deeply doubt the argument that by being solicitious to the UN or cowering in the face of hard choices would make us less likely terrorist targets. Terrorists prey on weakness.

And, of course, it should be remembered that Al-Quaida was born and flourished and became a terrorism powerhouse during Clinton's administration. Just because they are more vocal and notorious now does not mean that Bush created them. Whatever caused the fever of radicalized Islam to spread, it is historically inaccurate to imply that is was born of Bush, or to suggest that Clintonian policies would work to prevent their growth.

I find McPants statement here odd for the reasons Abigail states.

As a matter of ethics the fact of the matter is that we should not alter U.S. policies because others will make poor choices (such as committing terrorist acts). Such an attitude as quoted above takes away the reality of personal choice and accountability. The United States' government (being a government composed of leaders elected by the citizenry themselves and, therefore, by default IS the citizenry of the United States) is not accountable for the choices of others. Those who choose to participate in what is an unfortunate evil (such as terrorism) are solely accountable for their actions and choices.

In short the type of attitude McPants expressed is tantamount to a battered woman being blamed for her husband's abusive, violent outbursts. It doesn't matter what mistakes she has made or how imperfect she is - her husband's violence is his own choice and can be blamed on NO other person's decisions or actions.

So says the "rootin' tootin'" fifth generation Texas girl.

[McPants]

Re: HRC

As a matter of ethics the fact of the matter is that we should not alter U.S. policies because others will make poor choices (such as committing terrorist acts). Such an attitude as quoted above takes away the reality of personal choice and accountability. The United States' government (being a government composed of leaders elected by the citizenry themselves and, therefore, by default IS the citizenry of the United States) is not accountable for the choices of others. Those who choose to participate in what is an unfortunate evil (such as terrorism) are solely accountable for their actions and choices.

In short the type of attitude McPants expressed is tantamount to a battered woman being blamed for her husband's abusive, violent outbursts. It doesn't matter what mistakes she has made or how imperfect she is - her husband's violence is his own choice and can be blamed on NO other person's decisions or actions.

So, according to your line of reasoning, the U.S. government should do anything it wants without any regard to consequences or foreign opinion, because retaliation is the choice of others. Fine. I'm not saying responsibility for terrorist acts lies anywhere else than with the terrorists. People and countries are responsible for their actions. I'm just saying that if the U.S. continues to be one of the most belligerent countries on earth, more and more people will want to attack it in various ways. It is up to you Americans (as you claim, you are your government) to deal with this situation the way you see fit. Maybe attacking a few more countries will scare the terrorists into submission?

If you choose to see the U.S. as a battered wife, that's your right. If you ask me, however, she's been turning into the rest of the world's abusive husband during the last 8 years, although I'm hoping this will stop being the case soon. It's essentially a flawed analogy though, since the abused party isn't able to do the right thing and leave the aggressor (unless the moon becomes inhabitable in the near future).

[mommax3]

Re: HRC

And I do not respect the fact that she holds herself out as a feminist when she's gotten her power by putting up with the disrespect of his repeated, flagrant infidelity and then by riding the coattails of his popularity into office.

I completely agree with Abigail here. This is why I have never been able to respect HRC.

Sally

[alison]

Re: HRC

And I do not respect the fact that she holds herself out as a feminist when she's gotten her power by putting up with the disrespect of his repeated, flagrant infidelity and then by riding the coattails of his popularity into office.

I completely agree with Abigail here. This is why I have never been able to respect HRC.

Sally

I feel that her husband's infidelity has nothing to do with his performance in office. Yes, he lied, but impeaching the guy? Please. I'm not offended by her (in)action one bit and feel it's her own business.

[Sheherezade]

Re: HRC

We really need to talk Hillary. I've been poking around in her career pre-White House. I was always under the impression that she was accomplished in her own right in the legal world and that she had to lessen that to be First Lady. I've seen that she was a partner in a law firm in Arkansas (Rose Law Firm) from 1979 -1993 and that she was named in the top 100 most influential lawyers by the National Law Journal in 1988 and 1991 (while she was Arkansas First Lady). She worked for Pres. Carter on a legal commission and worked on the Nixon impeachment after college. She was a faculty member at an Arkansas law school before marrying Bill.

So....I've never been a huge fan but I don't hate her either. I guess what I'm wondering is what she'd have to do to be "accomplished" on her own when she has always been partnered/in love/married to a Type A, driven highly successful man since the age of 25/26? I think she's done a lot. I can't imagine it is all because of Bill. :huh: That seems like a cruel and belittling assessment of a talented woman's abilities.

Maybe I should counsel my daughter to avoid successful men so no one accuses her of riding their coattails through life? Or to not partner up until you are safely "accomplished" on your own? (By some unclear standard this society sets!)

I'm sorry. I agree that she "rode coattails" to get her Senate seat and that it was a bone head move to put her in charge of health care reform when she was First Lady BUT I think she is a "trailing spouse" victim extraordinaire. She was in a losing situation career-wise the minute she became a political wife. I wouldn't have made the choices she's made - but I can't see that she had any good ones.

As far as the infidelity, I leave that to the Clintons. It had to be painful all the way around. I think they have to choose what works for their family. And the Spitzers. And the Foleys. And the McGreeveys. And the Guilianis. And the Craigs. And the Edwards. And the Harts. And the Kennedys. And the Roosevelts. And the ....

[mommax3]

Re: HRC

I'm not offended by her (in)action one bit and feel it's her own business.

I agree that it is her own business, absolutely. But it makes me respect her less. :huh: For all of the reasons Angie cited, Hillary could have risen high without putting up with that shit. The fact that she did *over and over* makes me think there was more going on than the fact that Bill is the love of her life. It seems calculated to me, and an attempt to fast-track to a place where she could have absolutely gotten without him.

Obviously with my pro-life stance, I am no poster-child for feminism, but I thought one of the tenets had to do with respecting yourself enough not to put up with repeated infidelities. Maybe it just means anything goes, for women as well as men.

She was in a losing situation career-wise the minute she became a political wife.

I don't think so.....what about this?

I've seen that she was a partner in a law firm in Arkansas (Rose Law Firm) from 1979 -1993 and that she was named in the top 100 most influential lawyers by the National Law Journal in 1988 and 1991 (while she was Arkansas First Lady).

I can respect someone even if I don't agree with them politically, and I would respect HRC a LOT more if she had shown she respected herself. That's all I'm saying.

Carry on.

Re: HRC

McPants - thanks for saying what I have been thinking.

[GrayMatterWife]

Re: HRC

I've seen that she was a partner in a law firm in Arkansas (Rose Law Firm) from 1979 -1993 and that she was named in the top 100 most influential lawyers by the National Law Journal in 1988 and 1991 (while she was Arkansas First Lady). She worked for Pres. Carter on a legal commission and worked on the Nixon impeachment after college. She was a faculty member at an Arkansas law school before marrying Bill.

Honestly, most of these things are not particularly impressive.

It isn't all that too terribly hard to work at the "biggest name" law firm in Little Rock, and it sure isn't hard to make partner there when your husband is Governor. (It is interesting that no one pointed out that Harriett Miers made it as a partner at one of the national powerhouse firms in Texas--a much bigger market--back when NO women became partners at big firms, and served as White House counsel, and led the state bar, and did a thousand more impressive things--before people who had no idea what they were talking about declared that she was unqualified for the SC appointment.) Likewise, it's no big surprise that HRC ended up on the beauty list of the NLJ while married to a state Governor. And, the fact that she taught at a law school in Arkansas? Back then, especially? If you had a pulse and a JD...

Seriously, none of these things are the kind of accomplishments that would qualify her for Senator or Sec of State, outside of her marriage. She got everything she has because she latched on to Bill.

I have no educated opinion on the impressiveness of her DC work. All I have is an antecdotal experience--my husband worked on the Hill for a while. It didn't strike me as all that hard to become an underling in DC, especially with the right college pedigree. But maybe she scored an underling positions that was really hard to get. But, to any degree, it's not like she was WH counsel or something like that. There are a lot of people who have comparable experience.

To some degree, the fact that sheer fact that she is held in such high esteem for all of this nothingness is pretty damned impressive, in and of itself.

If she gets the nod, I hope she does a bang-up job. I hope she's tough and truthful. She could use this as a chance to overcome the fact that, right now, her reputation is nothing more than a lot of good feelings about her husband and women who see her as a symbol (without much of an actual record). Right now, she hasn't done anything as a Senator of any national significance (she is, after all, only a first-term junior Senator--her lack of a record at this stage is not unusual), so she still has no legacy of her own. If she could use this Secretary post as an opportunity--even if it came to her because of who her husband is--to independently forge herself a legacy built on something real, and overcome the "riding the coattails" footnote that otherwise will always tag a historical explanation of her.

[GrayMatterWife]

Re: HRC

Maybe attacking a few more countries will scare the terrorists into submission?

If that's what would stop the terrorists from attacking us, sounds like a plan. I'd rather the terrorists submit to us that we submit to them. It's not like NOT attacking them and their allies will suddenly cause them to stop hating us and seeking to harm us. The Carter administration and Clinton years certainly showed us that terrorists are not intimidated by a failure of an effective show of force.