(no subject)

[lafinjack.livejournal.com]

Comments

[edgar-suit.livejournal.com]

What did I miss?

[heartbeatfast.livejournal.com]

The debate on tuesday. Question about illegal immigrants having limited drivers licenses in NYC. I think she handled it well if people would actually have listened to what she said rather than been waiting to attack her for it.
The clip will be on youtube I'd say.

[balthrop.livejournal.com]

If she had answered the question with a "yes" or a "no", it would have been fine. Instead she said "Yes I think it's a good idea, but no I don't support it" which is trying to have both sides of the issue and pray no one noticed.

When she was called on the duplicity and asked for a "yes or no" answer, she refused to chose a position.

[xforge.livejournal.com]

I think there was also a bit of "what the hell was he SUPPOSED to do??" in there...

[heartbeatfast.livejournal.com]

I don't understand why people are failing to take what she said in the way that she meant it. To me, what she meant was that she thinks it's a good idea given the circumstances but hasn't given it her endorsement maybe because another better solution might come up. There was definitely an element of frustration about how she was saying it because in fairness, I think it's just a complicated issue and I honestly don't think she was trying to get around giving a straight answer. I definitely don't think it's all as simple as Chris Dodd was making it out to be.

[madali.livejournal.com]

Man, that artist sure is lazy.

[lafinjack.livejournal.com]

Yeah, it's pretty lame. I looked it up because it got something like five times as many votes for an award as Basic Instructions (http://www.basicinstructions.net/), yet is apparently full of crap from my cursory perusing. I thought this one was amusing, though.

[lafinjack.livejournal.com]

My bad, make that seven times, for a webcomic Webby.

[johnny9fingers.livejournal.com]

Yes-no answers...
The classic Barrister's question to which you have to answer yes or no is: 'Have you stopped beating your wife yet?' but it could be rephrased.
'Have you stopped treating minorities in a racist way?' works, as do others
It's so good that folk don't seem to appreciate or understand the nature of such questions. Because it's going to happen big-time to Hillary.
However, as soon as the Republicans actually decide which one of their extraordinarily intellectually gifted candidates gets the party nomination, I shall sit and build as many of those nasty questions as I can think of, and then distribute them as widly as I can.
Beyond a certain point, just letting other folk dictate the agenda is the same as rolling over and dying.
This time, it ain't gonna happen if I have anything to do about it.
After all; fair's fair. As ye sow, so shall ye reap.

[donkeyjon.livejournal.com]

I think the biggest concern is that we've already had 8 years of a Clinton in the White House who refused to take a position on anything. We'd like to know if this particular Clinton plans to be the same.

Now, to be fair, there are millions of people in America who WANT a President who doesn't take a stand, so this ought to really be a referendum point for them.

[johnny9fingers.livejournal.com]

Harsh, and not entirely true. He didn't do too much, and that wasn't a bad thing. He did intervene in Kosovo (a good thing as it happens), instituted extraordinary rendition (a bad thing), and sat on his butt doing nothing much but playing with interns while the economy got better and better (the biggest win of all).

Also Clinton left office with a 65% approval rating, the highest end-of-presidency rating of any President that came into office after World War II.

Oh, for some more creative fence sitting.
Just by doing nothing he pissed all over the present incumbent's record, and even then the last third of Clinton's term was as a 'lame duck', so you could amplify that statement to read: even with both hands tied behind his back....

I don't think another Clinton would be too bad a thing in the circumstances. You could do worse....look at the Republican candidates.

[donkeyjon.livejournal.com]

Personally, I haven't seen a single candidate that I like in this crop. Though, to be fair, like veryone else on the planet, I kind of like Obama and Thompson because I know NOTHING about them.

I'd prefer a President who took action over one who does not. But I recognize that I am in the minority here in America. :)

[lafinjack.livejournal.com]

I'd prefer a president who took no action over one who took negative action. But that's just me.

[johnny9fingers.livejournal.com]

Yeah, but the 'no action' accusation is not-quite-true either. (But when is anything really true outside of Mathematics or formal logic?)
I was wrong about his lame duck presidency. In the mid-terms in '94 the Dems lost control of both Houses. From '94 to 2001 Clinton (who was a master politician) had to deal with both Houses opposing every bill and Kenneth Starr's magnanimous, even-handed treatment of a trifling peccadillo.
It's not as if Clinton was caught in a gent's lavatory, now is it?

So, bound hand and foot by the political reality of his situation he still managed to end his Presidency the most popular post-WWII holder of that office. Credit where it's due.

Oh Gods, give us competence as a minimum prerequisite for the next President. But given our present mess, brilliance would be better. And Hillary's the cleverest of 'em all.
Right now, were I eligible, she'd get my vote.

[donkeyjon.livejournal.com]

So, bound hand and foot by the political reality of his situation he still managed to end his Presidency the most popular post-WWII holder of that office. Credit where it's due.

Unfortunately, that seems to have been his entire goal as President. He didn't care about what the American people needed, he cared about what they wanted. It's a subtle difference, but important.

I simply don't think Clinton was as good of a President as most seem to believe. I think he was constantly obsessed with polls and how the public viewed him, to the detriment of his Office.

That having been said, he is a master politician. But I don't mean that as a term of endearment. :)

[johnny9fingers.livejournal.com]

I don't think it was his entire goal as President, but he couldn't get his important policies through the legislative houses*.

Popularity was, if you like what he was left with.


*Health care reform and Campaign funding reform, anyone? Both still moot points.

[johnny9fingers.livejournal.com]

Obama seems able, and I doubt that anyone would find him other than a pretty safe pair of hands....but he suffers from the same problem as Hillary....he's not a stupid white male, which apparently is what you need to be if you're going to get a majority of like minded folk to vote for you in some States of the Union.

Hillary has more experience and is at least as able. She's seen how it all works and may just have the nous to deal with our problems, or more likely ameliorate them, because our problems now are going to take generations to solve properly.

Most competent first. (As if competent should take a modifier.)