13 thoughts on “Isn’t it time?”

1. t April 20, 2015 at 8:04 am

   Hillary has my vote (unlike 2008).

   however, like Ian, I am not a fan of secret fundraising, regardless of political party. secrecy is a disaster waiting to happen, and Hillary is quite familiar with this reality.

   New York Times
   By AMY CHOZICK APRIL 19, 2015
   …
   “Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich,” by Peter Schweizer — a 186-page investigation of donations made to the Clinton Foundation by foreign entities — is proving the most anticipated and feared book of a presidential cycle still in its infancy.

   The book, a copy of which was obtained by The New York Times, asserts that foreign entities who made payments to the Clinton Foundation and to Mr. Clinton through high speaking fees received favors from Mrs. Clinton’s State Department in return.

   “We will see a pattern of financial transactions involving the Clintons that occurred contemporaneous with favorable U.S. policy decisions benefiting those providing the funds,” Mr. Schweizer writes.

   His examples include a free-trade agreement in Colombia that benefited a major foundation donor’s natural resource investments in the South American nation, development projects in the aftermath of the Haitian earthquake in 2010, and more than $1 million in payments to Mr. Clinton by a Canadian bank and major shareholder in the Keystone XL oil pipeline around the time the project was being debated in the State Department.

   In the long lead up to Mrs. Clinton’s campaign announcement, aides proved adept in swatting down critical books as conservative propaganda, including Edward Klein’s “Blood Feud,” about tensions between the Clintons and the Obamas, and Daniel Halper’s “Clinton Inc.: The Audacious Rebuilding of a Political Machine.”

   But “Clinton Cash” is potentially more unsettling, both because of its focused reporting and because major news organizations including The Times, The Washington Post and Fox News have exclusive agreements with the author to pursue the story lines found in the book.

   …..

   Reply ↓
2. Patty April 20, 2015 at 9:58 am

   I would never vote for Hillary, a terrible choice. The country deserves a better choice than another Clinton. I don’t know anyone who would vote for her. Already weary hearing, reading her name.

   Reply ↓
3. t April 20, 2015 at 10:00 am

   another Bush?

   pfffffffffffffft…….

   Reply ↓
4. t April 20, 2015 at 10:12 am

   already feels like the 1990s are back…..

   CNN:
   … Earlier in the day, Clinton’s spokesman also dismissed the New York Times report as focusing “on attacks rather than ideas.”

   “It appears that this book is being used to aid this coordinated attack strategy, twisting previously known facts into absurd conspiracy theories,” Clinton spokesman Brian Fallon. “It will not be the first work of partisan-fueled fiction about the Clintons’ record, and we know it will not be the last.”

   The White House was again roped into a Clinton controversy with questions on the book at the daily press briefing on Monday. Press secretary Josh Earnest said while there have been “a lot of accusations made about this,” there’s “not a lot of evidence.”
   …

   Reply ↓
5. Nick Chagnon April 20, 2015 at 10:32 am

   It indeed is about time. However, Hilary’s candidacy creates a terrible conundrum. She’s clearly the lesser of two evils when pitted against any of the potential Republicans. On the other hand, it’s an awfully tough calculus to understand what is to be gained from our first woman president when she is a militaristic Wall Street shill. Can we celebrate a step toward gender equality while we mourn economic equality and democratic power?

   Reply ↓
6. Ken Conklin April 20, 2015 at 11:00 am

   To those who don’t like Ms. Inevitable Billary — you can join the herd stampeding over the cliff anyway, or you can just stay home and keep your dignity by not giving your vote to anyone you do not truly support.

   Reply ↓
7. t April 20, 2015 at 11:19 am

   Ken Conklin –

   And help elect someone I support even less? by not voting at all?

   No thank you. i prefer selfless dignity.

   Reply ↓
8. Aaron April 20, 2015 at 11:29 am

   I consider myself a feminist, but the “Isn’t it time” argument is lame. I will probably vote for Clinton if she is the Democratic candidate, but not because she is a woman. I just hope we are given a choice in the Democratic primaries.

   If the candidates in the general election were Joe Biden and Condoleezza Rice, would you vote for Rice just because she is a woman? No. You would vote for the candidate who holds the positions closest to your own.

   Reply ↓
9. Sunshine April 20, 2015 at 1:31 pm

   “It’s about time” is not a reason to vote for someone just because of gender. I will never vote for H., she is too secretive and is a Provence liar( I don’t have 2 emails because I don’t want to carry around multiple devices.” Does she actually think people are that stupid? She is bad news and the US would be foolish to vote her in. Also, there are more than 2 parties in the election and not all Republicans are crooks. Educate yourself before you vote, don’t just vote for a female.

   Reply ↓
10. Keith April 20, 2015 at 4:33 pm

    I offer my cat Belle to be our next President. She is a cat of good habits, always neat in the litter box, she is a cat who does not discriminate as to race, gender or national origin, she ignores everyone equally. She has never started a fight with another cat, she is a cat of peace (okay she is locked indoors). She is not part of the 1%, all she owns is a few catnip toys, and a blanket. She was once homeless; she knows what its like to be on the streets to endure tough times. Yes, I offer you Belle the Cat as our first female President.

    Reply ↓
11. Ketchup April 21, 2015 at 8:23 am

    It *is* time. There’s no other candidate on the field that comes with qualifications and bona fides that are anywhere near as good as Ms. Clinton’s.

    The GOP clown-car is already overfull, and no one from the Democrats approaches Hillary Clinton in terms of breadth and depth of experience.

    @Sunshine – “more than 2 parties in the election.” This doesn’t square with single-member plurality voting mechanics. Trust me, there’s only two that count.

    @everyone_who_says_they_won’t_vote_for_her_because_her_views_aren’t_lockstep_with_their_own – Good luck finding a viable candidate who does. See ya at the polling places!

    Reply ↓
12. Patty April 21, 2015 at 9:24 am

    Why do we have to continue to elect evil? Sad to me is the attitude of acceptance. Jill Stein would be a possible good candidate.

    Reply ↓
13. compare and decide April 23, 2015 at 12:00 am

    Most women elected to the highest level of leadership in their countries tend to be “tough guys”, and often very right-wing. Here I am thinking of the most famous women elected to office, like Indira Gandhi, Margret Thatcher and Golda Meir of Israel. So be careful what you ask for.

    Also, after these three particular women, elected so long ago, there have been no subsequent female elected leaders in India, Britain or Israel, respectively. So the metaphor of a “glass ceiling” is limited. The glass ceiling is not broken by a single brave pioneer, with other women then pouring through this shattered barrier. That seems like the tail wagging the dog.

    Also, most Americans have never heard of the long list of women statesmen from these various countries because Americans have never even heard of the even longer list of male statesmen of these countries. Most of these countries are relatively small countries with a small pool of talent, and they are compelled to vote for women because there is no one else worth voting for. Portugal and Bolivia, as far as I know, are not especially progressive.

    This puts the election of Linda Lingle in a particular light. Despite her skill at public debate, she does have a somewhat wooden persona. But that stiffness might make her an appealing choice in some electoral races (gubernatorial rather than congressional) because she comes across as tough and less emotional. Also, she has been described (by Richard Borreca) as “by far” the smartest politician in Hawaii. Again, it’s a shallow pool of talent.

    Hillary Clinton in some ways fits the profile of someone with a conservative personality type – so different from her husband.

    Bill Clinton is a typical liberal in his personality: warm, sympathetic, emotional, eager to please, forgiving. Bill Clinton will do or say anything (lie) for attention and to make people happy. He is like a giant, friendly, super-genius child (or Labrador Retriever). There is a certain stereotype of the “bland liberal”, civilized and humane but wimpy, an idealistic reformer who wants society to be more enlightened. That’s Bill Clinton. He was always like that. Here is a 2004 profile on Bill Clinton:

    http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2004/08/02/the-politician-2

    Contrast this with a 2003 profile of Hillary.

    http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2003/10/13/the-student

    One will note that in the article many Republican men are apparently awed by Hillary Clinton. There seems to have been a kind of paradigm shift since her husband’s scandal, where she stood by her man, like the song says a woman should. Conservatives see her differently now.

    There is a stereotype that we in the US are less familiar with, that of the radical. This is a fanatic who is intensely passionate and idealistic, but emotionally repressed, cold, calculating, disciplined, organized (the kind of person who would join the Viet Cong or the Red Brigades, or al Qaeda or ISIS, etc.). In some respects, they resemble or even exceed conservatives in their strictness. Hillary Clinton seemed to fit this profile. There was always something unnatural about her in the eyes of conservatives. But, there has been a shift of perception since then. Indeed, she was originally a Republican, just like her family.

    One interesting issue is scandals. Republicans are more uncompromising toward scandals, whereas Democrats are more “New Testament”, if you will. Once a Republican screws up, that’s it for their political careers. Disgraced Democrats can make a comeback.

    However, if one remembers back to the Reagan administration, there were many, many more scandals back in the 1980s with Reagan than with Clinton, related to corruption. Because of their closeness to business elites, Republicans have financial scandals, whereas Democrats tend to have personal scandals.

    This brings us to the Whitewater scandal. According to the Frontline story, Hillary Clinton was involved in financial corruption, but Bill Clinton wasn’t. But this would fit the pattern above if one reimagines her as a fundamentally conservative person.

    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/arkansas/

    Reply ↓

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.