In Clinton show, eyes are on Bill

OrangeCrate · 07-06-2007

Chicago Tribune news | Registration

So, what do you think? Is Bill taking main stage going to hurt or help Hilary's chances?

yaaarrrgg · 07-06-2007

it's sending the message that Bill will be part of the decision making process if Hillary is elected.

I think it will help Hillary overall...

rjwood · 07-06-2007

Besides, it deflects criticism, which works as him seeming loyal to her as well as both being smart and strong. I don't think america is willing to elect a female president yet, but if it can be done, the Clintons are the people who can do it.

seisen · 07-06-2007

They should just change everything to say Billary Clinton for President!

bns · 07-06-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by rjwood

Besides, it deflects criticism, which works as him seeming loyal to her as well as both being smart and strong. I don't think america is willing to elect a female president yet, but if it can be done, the Clintons are the people who can do it.

I can't speak for the country, rj, but personally I would have no problem with a woman for a president. I do not want Hillary for president for a couple of reasons: 1) We need fresh blood. It's been said here before that we do not need Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton... as president. We need somebody from a different viewpoint, IMO. 2) I'm not a big fan of Hillary. She looks to me like just another politician who's catering to the unethical-but-legal elitists of the country. I don't want that from anybody regardless of gender, race, religion, sexual preference, party, or mental capacity. 3) I don't trust her. I'm very leery of trusting any politicians. My instincts tell me she isn't to be trusted when I listen to her talk.

That's just me. And if it comes down to it, and she gets nominated by the Dems, I would probably vote for her in the national election. That said, I don't think she has enough public credibility to win.

You may be quite right, but why do you think the country wouldn't elect a woman? I know the hard-line righties won't, but they won't vote for a Dem anyway. Do you really think moderates and liberals would get caught up on the fact that she's a woman? I'd like to think not, but maybe I'm too optimistic.

seisen · 07-06-2007

If you watch Sicko you can see where she sold out to the healthcare industry.

rjwood · 07-06-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by bns

You may be quite right, but why do you think the country wouldn't elect a woman? I know the hard-line righties won't, but they won't vote for a Dem anyway. Do you really think moderates and liberals would get caught up on the fact that she's a woman? I'd like to think not, but maybe I'm too optimistic.

The following is a very thoughtful essay I heard on the 'Newhour with Jim Lehrer' in September 2006, written by Ann Taylor Fleming. It is very insightful from the view of a successful female journalist.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AnnTaylorFleming

ANNE TAYLOR FLEMING, NewsHour Essayist: Is something wrong here? Where have all the women gone? On op-ed page after op-ed page of the country's major newspapers, they have largely disappeared from view. As someone who used to write regularly for these pages, it is disturbing.

SEN. HILLARY CLINTON (D), New York: This is not a time for partisanship.

ANNE TAYLOR FLEMING:It comes at a time when the country is also having a debate about whether or not it`s ready for a female president. It's late for all this, isn't it? After all, other countries have had female leaders long since.

And there is an attention-getting new trio of them in Michelle Bachelet of Chile, Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf of Liberia, and Angela Merkel of Germany. Shouldn't we be chagrinned, we Americans, who think of ourselves as the beacons of enlightenment?
Yes, the country still has lingering daddy issues.

CBS ANNOUNCER: This is the "CBS Evening News" with Katie Couric.

KATIE COURIC, "CBS Evening News" Host: Hi, everyone.

ANNE TAYLOR FLEMING: It came up again when Katie Couric was appointed to an anchor chair, the first such solo woman. "Did she have the gravitas to deliver us our daily dose of sobering news?" men and women all asked. Wasn't that a job for a man, a father figure, a Brokaw or Cronkite?

There's also the paltry number of elected female leaders in this country: eight women governors out of 50; 14 women senators out of 100. Is it possible that we women selected ourselves out of the fray, out of the dialogue, didn't fight hard enough for our turf? Sure, it is.

Feminist ideals

The work-family juggling act has always been daunting, and those business and lawyer careers often turned out to be less satisfying than we thought when we didn't have them. Being a hands-on mom has seemed the better option for many women, but that's what the feminist movement was about; it was about the choice being ours to make.

For women writers, we, too, have our choices, and maybe we have spent too much time thinking about and writing about our private lives, ceding the public arena to men. Abuse and anorexia, an abandonment by lovers and husbands, sex and hormones, and infertility, we wrote book after book after book. I did it, too.

Of course, there were, there are legitimate wounds to air, to address and redress, but maybe the personal wasn`t political or not political enough. We backed out of civic skirmishes, too many of us, so that the voices we hear now on radio and TV, and read about Iraq and immigration, and, yes, Hillary`s potential candidacy, are predominantly male.

Recently, in the "Style" section of the New York Times, there was a piece questioning our readiness for a woman president and also an essay by a woman bemoaning the fact that she is a love addict who fell apart and had to be hospitalized when her boyfriend left her. I winced at the inadvertent juxtaposition: It is time, I found myself thinking, past time to refocus on something bigger than ourselves.

I'm Anne Taylor Fleming.

Look at the news coverage of females; the 'Hilton' girl, the run-away-bride, the mother who drowned her 5 children, the girl from 'abu grabe', and those female teachers who chase their youg male students; tv shows like; desperate housewives. Far too often females are still portrayed as hysterically emotional, mysterious beings who are completely unpredictable and way too hormonal. That is why I believe americans still will not elect a female president. Many females may vote for her as will some males, but the media machine has been working against women for far too long to allow american men of all colors and backgrounds to trust the instincts of a female. That said, I do not underestimate the Clintons. I believe america is even more in favor of a black president (as long as he isn't too black) over a female. I do not think either one is capable of being elected over a white male. I will cast my vote for whomever the democratic candidate is and I will hope I am wrong.

kevmartin · 07-06-2007

I think that the only people who would be turned off voting for Hillary due to Bill's involvement, would be those who wouldn't vote for her anyway, hence his involvement will be a net gain for her chances.

Bill is one of the best political speakers I have ever seen (in terms of charisma as well as ability to handle whatever questions might be aimed at him). He has to be a huge asset to the campaign.

OrangeCrate · 07-06-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by kevmartin

He has to be a huge asset to the campaign.

Really?

Clinton Impeachment

rjwood · 07-06-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by kevmartin

I think that the only people who would be turned off voting for Hillary due to Bill's involvement, would be those who wouldn't vote for her anyway, hence his involvement will be a net gain for her chances.

Bill is one of the best political speakers I have ever seen (in terms of charisma as well as ability to handle whatever questions might be aimed at him). He has to be a huge asset to the campaign.

I completely agree! As I stated above, the two together is the only shot she has. That is a shame because she is a formidable enough person on her own, but because of our culture, she needs him.

rjwood · 07-06-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by OrangeCrate

Really?

Clinton Impeachment

That was a circus, orangecrate.

kevmartin · 07-07-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by OrangeCrate

Really?

Clinton Impeachment

Yes, Really.

As I said:

Quote:

I think that the only people who would be turned off voting for Hillary due to Bill's involvement, would be those who wouldn't vote for her anyway, hence his involvement will be a net gain for her chances

Nobody buys into that circus as rjwood describes it (my choice of words would probably have been 'joke') other than those who would be very unlikely to vote for Clinton or any Democrat for that matter.

It really is a sad reflection on the USA that 1 president gets persecuted and eventually impeached for his sexual escapades with staff members (please don't give me any 'he was impeached for lying under oath' crap - clearly that was just the final act in the circus - and besides, to me the persecution is more important than the eventual impeachment), while another illegally invades a sovereign nation, does away with basic Geneva conventio nrights, and continues to act the way Bush still does today, despite the country clearly having spoken out against the war in the last election.

Bush should be impeached for being a war criminal, lying openly to justify his war, and maybe just for being a moron in the most powerful position on the planet (surely there was some form he had to fill out to become president stating that he was of sound mind and body

- that has surely turned out not to be the case).

07-06-2007	#1 (permalink)
OrangeCrate Eligible for a custom title Join Date: May 2007 Location: USA Posts: 1,576	In Clinton show, eyes are on Bill Chicago Tribune news \| Registration So, what do you think? Is Bill taking main stage going to hurt or help Hilary's chances?

07-06-2007	#2 (permalink)
yaaarrrgg Super Moderator Join Date: May 2007 Location: Indiana, USA Posts: 830	Re: In Clinton show, eyes are on Bill it's sending the message that Bill will be part of the decision making process if Hillary is elected. I think it will help Hillary overall...

07-06-2007	#3 (permalink)
rjwood Long Gone For Good Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 1,236	Re: In Clinton show, eyes are on Bill Besides, it deflects criticism, which works as him seeming loyal to her as well as both being smart and strong. I don't think america is willing to elect a female president yet, but if it can be done, the Clintons are the people who can do it.
	Long Gone For Good

07-06-2007	#4 (permalink)
seisen Humanitarian Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 723	Re: In Clinton show, eyes are on Bill They should just change everything to say Billary Clinton for President!
seisen Humanitarian Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 723

07-06-2007	#6 (permalink)
seisen Humanitarian Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 723	Re: In Clinton show, eyes are on Bill If you watch Sicko you can see where she sold out to the healthcare industry.
seisen Humanitarian Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 723

07-06-2007	#8 (permalink)
kevmartin Reliable Music I Got Left To Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 844	Re: In Clinton show, eyes are on Bill I think that the only people who would be turned off voting for Hillary due to Bill's involvement, would be those who wouldn't vote for her anyway, hence his involvement will be a net gain for her chances. Bill is one of the best political speakers I have ever seen (in terms of charisma as well as ability to handle whatever questions might be aimed at him). He has to be a huge asset to the campaign.