An Uxorial Candidacy?

From what I have read and seen, Mrs. Clinton isn’t all that bright. She is an outspoken first lady who has taken more advantage of the spotlight to advance herself than other first ladies. Unfortunately, the best and brightest do not seem to rise to the level of President of the United States anymore. It seems that the ability to be good looking while saying nothing controversial is the criteria.

What makes her and any candidate qualified is the content of their character and the quality of their ideas and leadership. During Clinton I, we were told Hillary was a ‘co-president’ and that we were getting two for the price of one. From the last-minute pardons to a White House counsel so torn by what he had experienced that he took his own life, the facts are clear that the Clinton presidency was not one of our nation’s shining moments. It certainly does matter what kind of marriage the Clintons have. If you cannot respect your marital vows, the laws of the land and common decency, then why in the world would you want to make that person the holder of the power of the presidency? After all, you don’t make a thief a corporate treasurer.

Lets see, Hillary has 0 foreing policy experience. She would let islamic militants be on the offensive worldwide. She thinks its ok to stab newborn babies in the head with a scissors, then take a vacum to their brain. She would tax the living hell out of everyone, plummeting the economy down the toilet. Yeh, overall she would be great for the country.

Politics allows for many people to follow the status quo/this would create “common sense”..I think time has clouded Politics with somer “poetic” might/like the avengeing angel or devil..as Sex Lies and Video taspe might exude-Common Sense should see thru the “non-sense”..the Clinton’s Road to Glory is so much non-sense..Hillary Clinton speaks to really no-one/she attempts to play the Political FOG-Horn..she uses todays RESOURCES like Flea Bag..spreading the Political “itch”..looking for “scratch”..I think its a pitiful sight that the Clinton’s have dragged so much about America into their “slight of hand” imaginary TOPIC.

Restorations always end badly, be they instigated by Louis XVIII, Napoleon III, Adams Two, Eva Peron,Bush Two or Clinton II. When a democracy opts for a dynastic solution to its problems, the democracy is at risk.

I believe that Hillary is qualified and would be a competent President. But I think that beyond competency this country needs a person who can bring us back together, a person who will truly be a uniter and not a divider. Because of her history and Bill’s the country is split with large percentages who will always either love her or hate her. So no matter how good she is the country will still be in two camps at total odds with each other. Edwards or Obama are the candidates that can be leaders capable of restoring the spirit, healing the wounds, and drawing us back to being one America.

I’ve been wondering when someone would bring this issue up. Why does no one worry about the fact that her presidency could be a ghost-presidency with Bill really the one in charge? Maybe that’s what has gotten her ahead in the first place: Democrats want to return to the Clinton “glory days.” Well, I’ve got news for them. Those glory days are long gone. If the Democratic party is to survive, they need someone with a vision for the future of innovative politics, not a nostalgic call o the past.

Well, It’s nice to see Charles Gibson commenting on his own work. That’s a switch.

First off, this is definitely true. If you look at Hilary’s advantages, they’re all tied to her marriage. Money, through the network and connections of her husband, near universal name recognition because of her time as first lady, and seeming inevitability because of the Democrats’ strong regard for President Clinton’s record in the White House. Sure, she’s smart, hardworking, tough, but none of those things would make her much more than a successful lawyer, let alone a Senator or a legitimate stakeholder in the run for the White House. She lacks charisma, she’s not a particularly warm or eloquent speaker, she’s diligent, but she’s not an amazing legislator. I can’t think of anything she’s accomplished offhand.
I also think is a legitimate stake both electorally and in terms of the Presidency. Firstly, Presidential campaigns are largely issues of the candidate’s character, and their life experience and family does affect how the voters assess that. Hilary will talk about being a mother no doubt, but having that kind of a marriage that seems like a materialistic parnership, adds to the cold and calculating persona, and some variant of that has been the kiss of death for Democrats in recent elections. Politician’s spouses are a minor part of how you come to see them personally, and her husband’s time as a President complicates all of that.
This matters for governing, too, because she maybe unable to truly speak to people and seem empathetic in terms of like ‘working hard and playing by the rules’, because for her it was also about connections, and so she can’t whine about how people don’t have lobbyists, and blah, blah, blah. I mean she has her childhood, but I think it does affect her ability to viscerally make others feel like she understands and cares about the interests of ordinary Amercans, who don’t have a spouse with a ton of connections.

Well, Terry, I have just arrived at your blog after watching you do your usual schtick on “Nightline”, and was delighted when you announced you have your own blog, and welcomed debate. “Ex-cell-ent,” I thought, rubbing my hands together — finally, I could write and tell you and the world what I really think of you and your disrespectful swagger.
I found the headline “An Uxorial Candidacy?” and wasn’t surprised to see you use a unnecessarily obscure word to imply superior intelligence. But I started to read the piece, and surprise! There was actually something that departed from the All-Bush-bash all the time theme of “Nightline”! Skepticism about Hillary’s organic qualifications for the Presidency! Acknowledgment that she would likely never have been a household word had she not been First Lady! Wow! That’s something I’ve only heard from national figures like Rush Limbaugh (who has repeated it since the early nineties and as recently as this morning) and Laura Ingraham!
However, as I continued to read, it occurred to me that here on your blog — sure to be read by far less than those who watch “Nightline” — is probably the only place you will feel free to admit your feelings on this topic. I think you know there would be (as 9/11 victim Barbara Olson wrote in her final work) hell to pay if you said in front of a camera what you have written here. The Clinton crony machine would come cracking down on ABC News the way it did on the entertainment division when they aired “The Path To 9/11.”
It’s a shame, Mr. Moran, because if you were this honest in front of American eyeballs and not just computer screens, it just might make fans of millions of news junkies who have abandoned the MSM for Fox News Channel in search of yang to balance out an all-ying diet served with a shovel.
I can honestly say that I am delighted with what I’ve seen of your blog so far. But I warn you, any backsliding will be noted with extreme prejudice. You’ve got a long road to hoe, pal. And as Murray Slaughter said of Ted Baxter in the series finale of “The Mary Tyler Moore Show,” “When a donkey flies, you don’t expect it to stay up for very long.”

Note to Karyn Posella: I have lived most of my life in Nancy Pelosi’s district. Nancy Pelosi is not just an empty dress, she’s a see-through empty dress. She’s a cipher. She’s got the most secure job in America as a Democratic San Francisco congresswoman, and hasn’t campaigned for the seat in decades. Pelosi is all show and no go. Even if you hate Bush and Cheney with a passion, pray for them, because if something happens to them and Pelosi becomes the Commander-in-Chief…I don’t even wanna think about it.

Whether it’s a man or a woman, Republican, Democrat, or an Independent, the simple fact is this: whoever is President is the Chief Executive officer of the US Federal Government and Commander in Chief of the US Armed Forcces. Almost intuitively, Americans elect Governers rather than Senators to be President. As most Americans know, a Senator has no executive authority and ultimately no responsibility for any VOTE they make – other than to their own political career. The last two Presidential elections the Democrats nominated four Senators to head their ticket. They lost. The last two Democrats to win the Presidency were both Governors. Bill Clinton, as Governor of Arkansas, had 12 yrs of Chief Executive experience prior to running for President.
So, is Senator Hillary Clinton qualified to be President? Consider this: Senator Clinton has never held an Executive or Chief Executive position in either the private or public sector, nor has she ever made a single political decision in which the results and responsibilities for a political decision has been hers and hers alone. Something a Governor or President does on a daily basis.
BTW: Senator McCain, Obama, Dodd, Biden, and former Sen. Edwards are all in the same category as Sen. Clinton. I don’t want someone sitting in the oval office whose first decision as President is their first Executive/Chief Executive decision in their life. There are many excellent woman Governors in this great country of ours who are qualified to move up to the Presidency. Take away Senator Clintons’ last name and fundraising ability – based on her last name – and all you have is a one-term Senator – from a state she never lived in prior to running for office -that lacks any concrete qualifications to be the nations Chief Executive officer and Commander in Chief of our Nations Armed Forces.

Many of the people commenting here are so ill informed. To accuse the Clinton adminstration of ignoring terrorism is just plain wrong. Read some books people instead of letting blow hards like Limbaugh and O’Rielly fill you with hate. As far as bashing Hillary because of her marriage to Bill, I think that is just women hating in disquise. All across this country there are marriages between two equally smart and capable people. The fact that this couple took their skills and abilities to the top is a testimony to their own hard work and perserverance.Hillary came from a middle class family that was able to give her a great education and she has used it to dig and work for big issues that impact everyone. Isn’t that what we want our children to do?Bill came from nothing and got where he is by his own abilities and hard work. Isn’t that the American dream? After severe problems in their marriage she chose to keep her family together, isn’t that the “moral” thing to do? One thing we can count on if Hillary makes it to the Presidency is that she will not be afraid to hire the best and the brightest on every level instead of loyal toadies that know nothing except the far right dogma. That in itself would put this country way ahead. There would be no Katrina’s on Hillary’s watch.

Note to Susan Gibson, who espoused the hard-fought accomplishments of Bill and Hillary and suggests “There would be no Katrina’s on Hillary’s watch” – I’ll bet you would have thought there would be no Rwandas under Bill’s watch.

To L.N. Smithee: I’m sorry – I must have missed when Rwanda became a state in the U.S.

“But I can’t help thinking that the triumph of the feminist civil-rights struggle represented by Senator Clinton’s candidacy is a bit diluted by the simple fact that her path to power was launched from her marital bed.”
Holy selective-advantage-bashing, Terry.
Considering how many senators and presidents – including our current wunderkind – have found their own path to the top having sprung from privileged male loins, this is incredibly offensive.
Women are as free to use the advantages of birth and life experience as any man. To expect any woman candidate, Republican or Democratic, to ignore the tools any man would use is disingenuous.
Women literally chained themselves to the White House gates for the right to participate in this process. Our candidates will fight as hard as any to advance those rights.
Martha Sterling-Golden
President,
Women’s Campaign School

Well phrased Martha…that says it all.
These ingrained,inbred,double standard, male media talking heads observations go hand in hand with last nights insightful observations of Nancy Pelosi’s “Mint Green Suit” and/or dour expression!
We’ve got a long way to go!!

Hillary’s most significant accomplishment is marrying well. Aside from that, she has done nothing of note on her own, unless you count her failure to reform health care in this country.

One more thing: According to her aide David Watkins, what was the real reason she wanted the Travel Office staff fired? His quote: “She said, ‘I have talked
to many people that have been in the White House before, and there are
just too many people, if you don’t have your own people in — there are too
many leftovers that can create and cause us problems.’”
But she wouldn’t fire the best just for nothing. No sirree.

Terry Its Funny U Have The Balls To Critize Anyones Qualifications After Chimpy. Corporate Media News Actors Will Be Remembered For One Thing. Cheerfully Standing Aside While Your Corporate Slavemasters Sell Out America, To “Human Rights, What Stinkin Human Rights” Communist China No Less!

OK, I’m what you might call, ‘a right wing evangelical conservative’ and you know what? I’m actually rather enouraged by what I’ve seen and heard from Sen. Clinton since her candidacy announcement–shockingly so actually! Yes, no doubt it’s politics and positioning to the T but, regardless, I’m amazed at just how warm and real she has managed to come across in her announcement and subsequent web chats the last 2 nights–whether genuine or not. I expected her to sound fairly smart-she has a good educaton after all, but I never expected her to be able to make a connection with a wider audience.
I have to admit I actually liked her! Mind you, I didn’t agree with one thing she said, but was thinking, “if she can make a connect with someone like me (who loathed Bill’s sleazy character and the whole Clinton fiasco, let alone her own postioning in that time), then there is real potential for her to swing independents and those outside her more feminist liberal camp. In that, I’m excited to see some energy she might bring to the table. I’m willing to hear her out and not judge her off of her husband’s personal record.
Ultimately, if she is not elected, it won’t be because America isn’t ready for a woman President–I’m convinced we are, but that she will be largely judged off her own merits. Will she bring big ideas to the forefront? What are her solutions to Iraq, other then merely capping the number of troops, and so on?
If she can truly reach out to “everyone” as she claims to want to do, then she too has to be willing to surround herself with people who aren’t going to mimic the tired refrain, no options for discussion on some of the major issues of our day, like abortion, etc. If she simply resorts to belittling those who genuinely arrive at different conclusions, but can go beyond the formulaic tryp dished out in the media with what makes a conservative ‘conservative’, etc, then I believe she may be able to make it.
However, with all that said, even with his inexperience I believe Sen. Obama has the best shot of ascending to the top of the Democrat’s primaries. Why? Because he comes across as a man of ideas. He offers something different, and most importantly, he seems more genuinely able and wanting to reach across the divide and unite us rather than merely rally his liberal base against all the apparent “evils” and “stupidity” of the conservatives. I have great confidence in him, even though, like Hillary, I don’t agree with his politics.
One final note: personally, I don’t want to see Hillary win, aside from anything else, because it makes me feel sick thinking of Bill back in the spotlight and enjoying even more the bennies of the Whitehouse, and this time without actaully having to be ultimately responsible. Yes, he will give his input and, contrary to what Democrats think, the economy won’t blossom again as it did prior since he was merely riding the wave of prosperity generated by the dot com industry, in spite of himself. I think all this allure the Clintons hold with their base may well be tested if Hillary steps up to the plate, and the country doesn’t actually get any better but even more divided’–and with Iraq left in shambles, the world watches the aftermath and then the energized enemy reorganzed, regrouped (this time in Iraq) and coming back out after us all the more than before.

Vickie, understood and I wholeheartedly agree about the abortion is murder point. I’m not endorsing her per se, merely stating that I think she has done remarkably well in projecting a better self–whether real or not. I was just surprised at how well she did it, that’s all.

If you want to see “spendocrats” look no further than the Hollywood liberal elite!