Bush Won - What are YOU gonna do about it?

[shereads]

She'll run. She'll be defeated in the primaries. To make nice on us ladies, the party will offer her the VP position on the ticket. The last time that happened, it took about a week for the Republicans to dig up enough dirt for an effective smear - not of the candidate, Geraldine Ferraro, but of her husband.

If you think gay marriage brought new voters to the polls in record numbers on Tuesday, wait till you see how hated Hillary Clinton is.

 

[Guest]

She'll run. She'll be defeated in the primaries. To make nice on us ladies, the party will offer her the VP position on the ticket. The last time that happened, it took about a week for the Republicans to dig up enough dirt for an effective smear - not of the candidate, Geraldine Ferraro, but of her husband.

If you think gay marriage brought new voters to the polls in record numbers on Tuesday, wait till you see how hated Hillary Clinton is.

Jeez, that's so dis-heartening (not to mention sickening) to hear.

What can I do? Come and mind-meld with a few million and make them a tad more open-minded?

Lou

 

[shereads]

Jeez, that's so dis-heartening (not to mention sickening) to hear.

What can I do? Come and mind-meld with a few million and make them a tad more open-minded?

Lou

Can't you Brits build a mass-hypnosis ray or something? Steed and Mrs. Peel would have thought of something.

 

[Quiet_Cool]

Maybe it's me, but I just can't see Hilary any differently than i saw Bill. A little yes, but not enough. I wonder with a shiver what Bill would have done after the WTC bombing. Gotten a hummer to relax, then what?

I don't think we're ready for a minoty President yet, anyway, especially her, given that she hardly seems to represent the rest of American women.

As for how I'm gonna deal. I voted Bush, basically because Kerry gave no inkling of what he'd do if elected. But even if I'd voted for Kerry, I'd still stick it out. Mostly because I feel that I dedicated myself by voting to begin with. I said I was an American and willing to take enough responsibility for the outcome that I was involved in the making of it. It's a ball-check.

Testes in place; I'll vote agian in four years..

Q_C

 

[razor_nut]

Sadly it'd take a little more than just a few million. Remeber, 51 million people voted for Bush.

As for the poll, I'll continue to fight for what I believe in. Protests, letters, meetings, you know, activism. Won't do much good, but it makes me feel better.

 

[Guest]

Can't you Brits build a mass-hypnosis ray or something? Steed and Mrs. Peel would have thought of something.

I'll see what I can do.

Lou

P.S. Um, QC, since when were women a "minority" in society? I thought 51% of the population of the world were women.

 

[razor_nut]

I thought 51% of the population of the world were women.

There really needs to be more.

 

[Guest]

There really needs to be more.

 

[Virtual_Burlesque]

. . . I voted Bush . . . It's a ball-check. . .

Should have done a brain-check, too.

 

[Weird Harold]

Sorry, that went straight over my head. GOP? And, why?

If Hilary runs for president, the Republlicans (GOP) will be handed the Election by a landslide.

Hilary is disliked by more people than disliked her husband.

Hilary is a woman.

Those two factors would combine to generate a defeat of historic proportions.

For example, I'm just waiting for a chance to help elect the first woman president of the US -- I routinely vote for women over men when the decision is close otherwise; it's one of my main tie- breakers.

I would probably NOT vote for Hilary though. I don't want a woman president badly enough to compromise my principles quite that much -- the Repblicans would have to choose a serious loser AND campaign for her before I'd even consider voting for her.

The right woman could be elected president in 2004, but Hilary is NOT the right woman.

 

[Quiet_Cool]

I'll see what I can do.

Lou

P.S. Um, QC, since when were women a "minority" in society? I thought 51% of the population of the world were women.

Since they haven't achieved what people claim to be equality. Civil Rights still acts in thier favor, and feminists still work for further progress in the field. As long as they aren't properly represented in, well, everything, they're a technical minority (or so it seems to me). I've always agreed that you aren't a monirity, that 51%--and I believe there's a higher one in the U.S.--could elect a President on thier own and that meant they were as much a majority as anyone. However, the powers that be --which I guess is all of us, that 51% included-- seem to believe women aren't ready to be equals. Sad really.
On a side note, my GF told me once that she felt that, so long as the economics allowed, the woman should be at home with the kids. That notion comes from all sides, especially in a blue-collar household from what I've seen. not always, but more often.

Q_C

 

[Quiet_Cool]

Should have done a brain-check, too.

Good to see you're still bitter about that whole election thing...

Edited: forgot the "I" in bitter

 

[shereads]

Maybe it's me, but I just can't see Hilary any differently than i saw Bill. A little yes, but not enough. I wonder with a shiver what Bill would have done after the WTC bombing. Gotten a hummer to relax, then what?

The Clinton administration discovered and stopped a terrorist plot to bomb a Super Bowl game. They prosecuted and won conviction of one of the first World Trade Center bombers. They solved the Oklahoma City Federal Building bombing and instead of blowing up Arizona because the terrorists had fled there, they enhanced security at other government buildings with mandatory metal detectors and a buffer zone within which vehicles were prohibited.

Bill Clinton's briefing of GWB during the transition stressed his belief that Osama bin Laden and Al Queda were an immediate threat to the United States. He had missed an opportunity to kill Bin Laden, but to his credit he had put an excellent team in place of which Richard Clarke was one; Clarke was repeatedly rebuffed in his attempts to focus the new administration's attention on what he knew was an urgent situtation. Under Bill Clinton, Clarke had been given direct access to the president, who not only welcomed frequent briefings on the terror threat but insisted on them. Under Bush, Clarke was criticized for thinking he should have direct access, and was ordered to report only to Condoleeze Rice.

Given those facts, I think it can be assumed that a Gore presidency would have understood the immediacy of the Bin Laden threat and would have kept it at the top of their list of priorities. They might not have stopped 9/11 but they would at least have been trying.

One thing is certain about Clinton: if he'd been told the country was under attack, he wouldn't have sat there for 7 minutes waiting for someone to tell him what to do.

 

[Guest]

. . . I don't think we're ready for a minority President yet, anyway, especially her, given that she hardly seems to represent the rest of American women. . .

She doesn't? Better do that ball check thing again and examine the numbers of successful women in this country.

(I know you also posted that your GF feels the woman should be at home with the kids. On Nov. 1st that was not the majority viewpoint in the United States. Today I'm not so sure.)

I agree with Harold. I don't think Hillary should run because she has no chance of winning.

Because she's a woman.

To hell with her politics or her husband's history or her own Senatorial voting record.

She's female, and in the views of this current administration, she's supposed to be home tending the flock. Cooking a pot roast. Doing the dishes in high heels and pearls. Fetching his pipe and slippers. Stepford Wives. Amicus's dream society.



I imagine most career women find it difficult to split their time between family and jobs, but it's worth every late night trying to catch up. I'm very weary of being made to feel guilty because I dare work outside the home when I know I'm a better mom because of it.

At any rate, don't run, Hillary. We need a candidate who can win.

 

[Quiet_Cool]

The Clinton administration discovered and stopped a terrorist plot to bomb a Super Bowl game. They prosecuted and won conviction of one of the first World Trade Center bombers. They solved the Oklahoma City Federal Building bombing and instead of blowing up Arizona because the terrorists had fled there, they enhanced security at other government buildings with mandatory metal detectors and a buffer zone within which vehicles were prohibited.

Bill Clinton's briefing of GWB during the transition stressed his belief that Osama bin Laden and Al Queda were an immediate threat to the United States. He had missed an opportunity to kill Bin Laden, but to his credit he had put an excellent team in place of which Richard Clarke was one; Clarke was repeatedly rebuffed in his attempts to focus the new administration's attention on what he knew was an urgent situtation. Under Bill Clinton, Clarke had been given direct access to the president, who not only welcomed frequent briefings on the terror threat but insisted on them. Under Bush, Clarke was criticized for thinking he should have direct access, and was ordered to report only to Condoleeze Rice.

Given those facts, I think it can be assumed that a Gore presidency would have understood the immediacy of the Bin Laden threat and would have kept it at the top of their list of priorities. They might not have stopped 9/11 but they would at least have been trying.

One thing is certain about Clinton: if he'd been told the country was under attack, he wouldn't have sat there for 7 minutes waiting for someone to tell him what to do.

Oh? The Administration uncovered that plot? Not the CIA? Not the military or the FBI? No, Al Gore and Bill Clinton rushed to the mystery machine, which Chelea and Shaggy close behind and they solved the mystery of the Super Bowl Bombaduck Ghost...
And it was a good thing Mystery Inc. was available; cuz shortly after, Clinton drastically cut military spending, including to the CIA, who might have otherwise been more adept at gaining the information we need to find and stop Bin Laden now, or even before now.
I'm not gonna say there's no value to anything Clinton did; there's a value somewhere behind every president, and many have done worse than he did (Lyndon B. Johnson comes to mind, but that was before my time, and perhaps not a fair judgment). But the guy started the recession that was drastically escalated by the WTC bombing. The first recession since Reaganomics got the economy on a fifteen or so year climb.
Wait, I'm getting ahead of myself. I've been bitching about all the politics being discussed here since they started overwhelming the board and here I am discussing it, and outdated politics at that.
*Shrug*
Doesn't matter. We've got G.W. for four more. There won't be an impeachment; I think we can count on that. If Hilary runs and wins, then I hope she does a good job, just like I would have hoped of Kerry. Sobeit.

Sorry to cut it short, and I don't believe you're wrong any more than I believe I am. I just think we look at different facts from different angles and it makes for different opinions. Discussing just makes us, well waste words here when I need them for my NaNo, which still needs my daily attention.

Q_C

 

[Edward Teach]

She'll run. She'll be defeated in the primaries. To make nice on us ladies, the party will offer her the VP position on the ticket. The last time that happened, it took about a week for the Republicans to dig up enough dirt for an effective smear - not of the candidate, Geraldine Ferraro, but of her husband.

If you think gay marriage brought new voters to the polls in record numbers on Tuesday, wait till you see how hated Hillary Clinton is.

The Right has already started going after Hillary. All day yesterday Fox was bashing Hillary. They are now saying that she was the one responsible for all the Clinton scandals and that more investigations ought to be conducted. She destroyed documents, etc.

They said that Bill was a nice guy but that she is mean, etc, etc.

She is going to have a rough four years.

I sincerely think that they will make a concerted effort to cause Bill to have another heart attack or at least stress him to the point where he has to withdraw from public life. They will try to get to Bill through attacking Hillary and vice versa, possibly causing her to forego a run in 2008. It may not work, but they are going to try. It has already begun.

Ed

 

[Quiet_Cool]

She doesn't? Better do that ball check thing again and examine the numbers of successful women in this country.

(I know you also posted that your GF feels the woman should be at home with the kids. On Nov. 1st that was not the majority viewpoint in the United States. Today I'm not so sure.)

I agree with Harold. I don't think Hillary should run because she has no chance of winning.

Because she's a woman.

To hell with her politics or her husband's history or her own Senatorial voting record.

She's female, and in the views of this current administration, she's supposed to be home tending the flock. Cooking a pot roast. Doing the dishes in high heels and pearls. Fetching his pipe and slippers. Stepford Wives. Amicus's dream society.



I imagine most career women find it difficult to split their time between family and jobs, but it's worth every late night trying to catch up. I'm very weary of being made to feel guilty because I dare work outside the home when I know I'm a better mom because of it.

At any rate, don't run, Hillary. We need a candidate who can win.

*double-checking the balls*

Yep, still in place, and sturdy as ever.

I'm not sure how much of this is directed at what I posted, so if I miss something, feel free to point it out. (Of course, I'm letting the base politics deal go, just talking the social aspect).

When I said she doesn't represent most women, that had nothing to do with success. I'm not some backwoods chauvinist who wants my woman barefoot and pregnant. When my GF told me that, I told her it was foolish. And she was only one example of many. You have to remember, many people are stuck in their roles in society, or what they believe to be their roles is more accurate. In my viewpoint, if the GF and I were married, she could work the same as me and I can clean the toilet and do dishes the same as she. Fair is fair. It's an equal partnership, kids or no (though sometimes equal is tough with the little ones around; I doubt I need to explain that one).
But for the most part (and it's not as prevalent as it was just a few years back, I've noticed, just a matter of closing the final steps): Women don't pay thier part on a date; they wait for the guy to ask them, no matter how interested they are; they tend to be comfortable not only making less money than their SOs but also working less...what's the word...i dunno "Valuable" (though it doesn't fit at all, I think yo uknow what I mean) jobs. You see women of all ages working jobs at grocery stores and fast food, whereas you mostly see men who are older (retired most likely) or younger (teenaged or slightly older) working the same jobs. Most of those women have kids. They represent more of a majority than any other group of women, just as blue collar men, who tend to make more money at often more "trade-oriented" jobs (locally, it's steel mills that not so long ago gave men these opportunities) that make up the U.S. Majority.

 

[Weird Harold]

I agree with Harold. I don't think Hillary should run because she has no chance of winning.

Because she's a woman.

To hell with her politics or her husband's history or her own Senatorial voting record.

She's female, and in the views of this current administration, she's supposed to be home tending the flock. Cooking a pot roast. Doing the dishes in high heels and pearls. Fetching his pipe and slippers. Stepford Wives. Amicus's dream society.

Nope, you apparently don't agree with me at all.

Being a woman would be handicap for any candidate, but that alone is NOT what would keep Hilary from being electable.

I believe this country is very nearly ready to elect a woman as President; I just don't believe Hilary's politics would overcome the handicap of being a woman enough to get her elected.

In 2008, after another four years of fear-mongering about neocon repression of women's rights, just might be the right time to run a GOOD moderate candidate from either party who just happens to be female.

With the right choice, whichever party is in opposition in 2012 should nominate a woman with moderate politics for their best chance of unseating an incunmbent.

 

[Quiet_Cool]

She's female, and in the views of this current administration, she's supposed to be home tending the flock. Cooking a pot roast. Doing the dishes in high heels and pearls. Fetching his pipe and slippers. Stepford Wives. Amicus's dream society.



I imagine most career women find it difficult to split their time between family and jobs, but it's worth every late night trying to catch up. I'm very weary of being made to feel guilty because I dare work outside the home when I know I'm a better mom because of it.

At any rate, don't run, Hillary. We need a candidate who can win.

But you have to remember, if she's running, they won't be voting her in or out, we will be. That's important. Unless Cheney runs, the administration is out in four years, then it's fair game, no incumbent to oust.
And as for you being a single mom and working, if the "guilty" comment was directed toward me, you misinterpretted, or I didn't give you enough info. to interpret properly. That's what modern woman should do, and before it starts, modern man should be more home-supportive than most are. It's just a cycle. Gender roles are taught to us by those who won't live in our time. No one's fault, but a barrier to overcome.

Q_C

 

[Guest]

*double-checking the balls*

Yep, still in place, and sturdy as ever.

I'm not sure how much of this is directed at what I posted, so if I miss something, feel free to point it out. (Of course, I'm letting the base politics deal go, just talking the social aspect).

When I said she doesn't represent most women, that had nothing to do with success. I'm not some backwoods chauvinist who wants my woman barefoot and pregnant. When my GF told me that, I told her it was foolish. And she was only one example of many. You have to remember, many people are stuck in their roles in society, or what they believe to be their roles is more accurate. In my viewpoint, if the GF and I were married, she could work the same as me and I can clean the toilet and do dishes the same as she. Fair is fair. It's an equal partnership, kids or no (though sometimes equal is tough with the little ones around; I doubt I need to explain that one).
But for the most part (and it's not as prevalent as it was just a few years back, I've noticed, just a matter of closing the final steps): Women don't pay thier part on a date; they wait for the guy to ask them, no matter how interested they are; they tend to be comfortable not only making less money than their SOs but also working less...what's the word...i dunno "Valuable" (though it doesn't fit at all, I think yo uknow what I mean) jobs. You see women of all ages working jobs at grocery stores and fast food, whereas you mostly see men who are older (retired most likely) or younger (teenaged or slightly older) working the same jobs. Most of those women have kids. They represent more of a majority than any other group of women, just as blue collar men, who tend to make more money at often more "trade-oriented" jobs (locally, it's steel mills that not so long ago gave men these opportunities) that make up the U.S. Majority.

(sorry about the 'nads comment)

Actually, I think I overreacted to your original post. What I meant to say was despite vast improvements in the status of women in our society, it's still blatantly obvious we're still considered second-class citizens. And my comments were not intended to denegrade women who are stay-at-home moms, whether by choice or necessity.

 

[Quiet_Cool]

(sorry about the 'nads comment)

Actually, I think I overreacted to your original post. What I meant to say was despite vast improvements in the status of women in our society, it's still blatantly obvious we're still considered second-class citizens. And my comments were not intended to denegrade women who are stay-at-home moms, whether by choice or necessity.

That's alright. Every man's nads come into question at times. Look at how dumb I was. I wrote all those words and all I had to do was say: "Don't you make less money at Wal-Mart for Chrissakes?"

No hard feelings:
Q_C

 

[Colleen Thomas]

The first woman to make a successful run at president will be a moderate or conservative. She will have to be, because she will have to PULL liberal voters who want to see a woman and still Appeal to conservatives and moderates. A liberal woman won't pull any conservatives because they want to see a woman elected president.

The GOP wants Hilary to run, nothing could be finer for them. They won't even have to worry about screing up in who they select to run after Bush is done.

-Colly

 

[Virtual_Burlesque]

. . . No hard feelings . . .

Bad HMO.

That should have been covered in the ball-check.

 

[Guest]

Nope, you apparently don't agree with me at all.

Being a woman would be handicap for any candidate, but that alone is NOT what would keep Hilary from being electable.

I believe this country is very nearly ready to elect a woman as President; I just don't believe Hilary's politics would overcome the handicap of being a woman enough to get her elected.

In 2008, after another four years of fear-mongering about neocon repression of women's rights, just might be the right time to run a GOOD moderate candidate from either party who just happens to be female.

With the right choice, whichever party is in opposition in 2012 should nominate a woman with moderate politics for their best chance of unseating an incunmbent.

Harold, I must disagree.

And I can only offer as argument my own status as a female. Do you know in grad school when I first began publishing articles in my field I used my initials (first and middle) so people wouldn't know I was a woman?

It's very difficult to earn respect when men occupy most of the high-ranking positions.

And I'm not even referring to Hillary in this matter. No matter how professional or well-educated or even how well-connected a female candidate may be, there is an enormous segment of the population which will always believe a woman is not fit to lead this country.

 

[shereads]

I used to think as sweetsub does, that men resist women in leadership roles because they think we can't handle it. After a few thousand years in the corporate world, I believe it's the opposite: not all men, but the insecure ones are afraid to find out that we can succeed in traditionally male roles. There are men who feel energized by independent women and seek their company. But a lot of men seem to feel diminished, even bewildered. It's as if their masculinity was defined by the fact that they could do things women couldn't.