The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux)

[wendybeth]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

I agree with it, but what I don't want to have happen - however, I guarantee it will happen - is that if she loses in a general it will be deemed as a defeat for women and declare that we are a society of neanderthals because obviously, no matter how brilliant she is, we just weren't ready because of our backwards thinking.

If she is in the general and she is defeated, it won't be because she is a woman. I dare say many women may vote for her just because she is a woman. Her defeat will be because of her policies and history, and it will be sickening (should it happen) to listen to the spin about how it wasn't that.

I would never vote for someone based on their gender or ethnicity alone and I'd like to think the same of most others. I doubt the world will think that America is comprised of Neanderthals if Hillary loses- they'll just continue on thinking about what hypocrites we are, like always. I promise, should it come to what you say, that I will be vocal about why I didn't vote for her. I've no patience with hypocrisy myself, and I can't stand it when someone plays the race or ethnic card when it is not always applicable. (Oprah lost me with the Hermes bull**** she pulled, not that I liked her much anyway).

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by wendybeth

(Oprah lost me with the Hermes bull**** she pulled, not that I liked her much anyway).

Since I've never paid attention to one thing Oprah has said, I don't know what you are referring to.

[wendybeth]

Pulled out the race card when it really didn't apply. I've never been a fan, but now I can't stand to even hear her name. Kind like how you feel about Hillary, Scaeagles.

[Snowflake]

I'm still in a total quandry, nobody really appeals to me, not that appeal is a reson to vote for a presidential candidate. I can't get past the fear that no matter who follows Bush as president they're going to be totally screwed with so much mess on their hands. The worry that if the next president is independent or democratic, they will be seen as a failure and we'll go through another 2 year republican term after that.

[scaeagles]

That brings up an interesting point, Snow. If a dem is elected, I wonder how much their own difficulties will be blamed - whether by them or their supporters - on the Bush Presidency. The President doesn't exist in his (her) own Presidential bubble, but is obviously affected by the policies of the predecessor.

That being said, I have rarely (if ever) been permitted on this board to get away with saying "Bush has problem B because of how Clinton dealt with situation A". Rather, there has been a "happens/happened on his watch" sort of mentality, and i wonder if I'll get away with a "happens/happened on the dem's watch" attitude, or if anyone that doesn't let me get away with it will try it with a dem President.

[sleepyjeff]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

That brings up an interesting point, Snow. If a dem is elected, I wonder how much their own difficulties will be blamed - whether by them or their supporters - on the Bush Presidency. The President doesn't exist in his (her) own Presidential bubble, but is obviously affected by the policies of the predecessor.

That being said, I have rarely (if ever) been permitted on this board to get away with saying "Bush has problem B because of how Clinton dealt with situation A". Rather, there has been a "happens/happened on his watch" sort of mentality, and i wonder if I'll get away with a "happens/happened on the dem's watch" attitude, or if anyone that doesn't let me get away with it will try it with a dem President.

In other words time began in January of 2001 but will not actually end in January of 2009

[Alex]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

That being said, I have rarely (if ever) been permitted on this board to get away with saying "Bush has problem B because of how Clinton dealt with situation A".

Not that my position will hold sway, but I see it as a sliding scale. At this point, even if the problem was initially inherited from Clinton then I'd generally argue that Bush has had more than enough time to make it uniquely his responsibility. And similarly, Clinton/Obama/Thomspon/et al. won't get much blame from me in March 2009 but that will start to increase as time goes by.

[Snowflake]

Originally Posted by Alex

Not that my position will hold sway, but I see it as a sliding scale. At this point, even if the problem was initially inherited from Clinton then I'd generally argue that Bush has had more than enough time to make it uniquely his responsibility. And similarly, Clinton/Obama/Thomspon/et al. won't get much blame from me in March 2009 but that will start to increase as time goes by.

I think you hit the nail on the head Alex. If the problem in question is inherited and not owned as time goes by, the blame grows, no matter which party, I guess.

I realize my opinion of Bush is what it is, I may be overstating, but I do hold him responsible for a heck of a lot that is wrong, going wrong or has been blown up. I know, I could not do the job, I'm not political at all (not even in my line of work, I steer clear of office politics), I don't envy anyone who steps into Bush's doo-doo covered shoes.

I will await the nominations by both parties with interest, but I am certainly in no position to decide, I'm mired in quandry.

[Morrigoon]

Originally Posted by BarTopDancer

Hillary against any republican scares the crap out of me.

I think Obama would be better than Hillary. I don't think his lack of experience will be a bad thing - I think he will think outside the box on a lot of issues rather than doing what is already done for the sake of that's just how it is.

Unfortunately I don't think most of this country is ready for a woman or an African American man to be president - and another Republican will be elected. Just hope that whoever that is doesn't destroy the country any more than it already is.

I disagree... Hillary against any Republican scares me because I think the Democrats WILL win the White House this year. But I would prefer it to be Obama. Obama would appeal more to fed-up Republicans than Hillary, who they pretty much hate. Nothing to do with her being a woman, and everything to do with her being... well, herself.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by Morrigoon

Nothing to do with her being a woman, and everything to do with her being... well, herself.

You know, even here in the sheltered world of Southern California, I encounter a ridiculous amount of sexism in the work place. Overt sexism. No one's dumb enough to base hiring or salary practices off of it, but the talk that goes on about female coworkers is shameful (and not just in a "sexual jokes" way, in a "they're not as important as us men" kinda way). I see it even more than I see racism. A lot more.

So I don't think I'm prepared to agree with it being "nothing to do with her being a woman." Oh, I'm sure lots of people who don't like her can put together some list of personality or political traits about Hillary to justify it, but I'm also sure many of those people would overlook many of those same traits in a man.

Sexism is alive and well in this country and if you don't think it enters into the equation, you're kidding yourself.