2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumThis message was self-deleted by its author
This message was self-deleted by its author (Octafish) on Sun Apr 24, 2016, 01:51 PM. When the original post in a discussion thread is self-deleted, the entire discussion thread is automatically locked so new replies cannot be posted.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Trust Buster
(7,299 posts)
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Its answer may explain "Why?" she is running for office. Its answer may shed light on her motivations, her psyche, her plans, her moral compass, and what KIND of person she is.
If I don't ask, all I will have is the impressions I have formed on the subject, and those supplied by her supporters, like you, and paid shills, like David Brock.
Not surprised if it's news to you, but the more I learn, the better choices I can make.
CentralCoaster
(1,163 posts)Could she ever have won a major US senate seat.
Hell to the no.
And without that seat and the name, no chance in hell of running for POTUS, becoming SOS.
IF she were to become POTUS, it wouldn't really be the breaking of a glass ceiling that so many claim it would be.
It would be on her husband's name, and that's like the opposite of what we should aspire to.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)If she had been accepted into the Marines instead of marrying Bill, she might be Chairwoman of the Joint Chiefs. She has the drive and ambition. But if she had set up a private email server that transmitted classified information while in uniform, she would surely be in Leavenworth Prison right now. So, things worked out better for her by sticking with Bill. They're also filthy rich together.
Baobab
(4,667 posts)Is it true?
I had a friend then who was on their transition team and she did not refute it.
If it is true, why weren't they more honest about it? Honesty sure would have nipped a lot of later problems in the bud so to speak.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)Baobab
(4,667 posts)about the existence or lack of existence of an open relationship.
In that case, although it wouldn't absolve Bill by any means, it would have changed the dynamic materially. Probably enough to have prevented several years of national paralysis.
I think the country WAS grown up enough then to have handled it.
Instead we were treated to....
speaktruthtopower
(800 posts)Octafish
(55,745 posts)Politically: Would divorce gain or lose support?
riversedge
(80,808 posts)egalitegirl
(362 posts)Let us be honest. When Asian women became leaders of their countries because their husbands had been the leaders of their countries, we looked down upon them. Now that it is happening here, we apply a different standard. We need to be consistent across races or else people outside USA will have a legitimate claim in calling us racist.
all american girl
(1,788 posts)
treestar
(82,383 posts)
Chemisse
(31,343 posts)I don't know much about how this works in countries where the wife is given her husband's position, but we don't do this here.
Hillary went up the ropes to get where she is. Granted, her ropes are shorter because of her husband's presidency, but she did have to go through the hoops to get where she is today.
Whether you like her or dislike her, she earned her spot as a serious presidential candidate. It is sexist to assume she could only do this with a man's support.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Question has to do with her rationale for staying married to the president of the United States.
Would she be in a position to become the most powerful person on the planet had she divorced him?
riversedge
(80,808 posts)Octafish
(55,745 posts)People who knew him at UChicago say he believes in and supports the same things he did then.
Do you think Hillary does, too? I do.
karynnj
(60,965 posts)There were people as early as 1992 suggesting she could be a President in her own right. I don't know when she learned that the Monica accusations were true, but the country learned in August 1998.
Imagine she filed for divorce the day after Bill Clinton gave that speech and moved to NYC. Better yet, moved to NYC and got a job at one of the non profits dealing with women's issues, something that she was always involved in. She could have run for Senate in 2000 and in 2008 run for President. She would have been a very different candidate. She might have won that year.
However, her divorcing Bill could have changed many things. Once impeachment started, Democrats might have pushed Bill Clinton to resign to let the country deal with real issues under Gore. Gore, as an incumbent might have meant no President Bush. Another question is - if Obama did defeat this independent Clinton, would there have been the same pressure to make her Secretary of State? I suspect that part of the motivation was to align the interests of the Clintons to his interests through the 2012 election. If she had lost in 2008 andwas not been SoS, would she have been able to do enough in the Senate to be the nominee again? I think back to 2006, Kerry, who was an accomplished Senator was highly unlikely to get a second chance even though by 2007, his Kerry/Feingold measure was pretty much the Democratic position.
Logical
(22,457 posts)
amborin
(16,631 posts)
winter is coming
(11,785 posts)peace13
(11,076 posts)Together they are a corporation. The money is the magic. And it has always been about power. That being said they make a nice couple.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Perhaps the question should be: Would Wall Street banks and banksters have paid her $250,000 an hour to speak were she not running for president?
egalitegirl
(362 posts)She would also not have been where she is today had Bill Clinton not been President. In this sense, she joins the list of a few women around the world who were housewives and then ran for the top office only because their husbands had been in power.
DemocratSinceBirth
(101,850 posts)She was a working person with a law degree from the most prestigious law school in the land.
egalitegirl
(362 posts)She was not intelligent enough to pass a simple bar exam. So whether she is intelligent is doubtful and all he subsequent positions must have been due to her husband's clout. On the other hand, Bernie Sanders is an example of a self made person.
DemocratSinceBirth
(101,850 posts)Lots of people fail the Bar. John Kennedy Jr. failed the New York Bar twice.
She is
a National Honor Society member
a Merit Scholar finalist
has a B.A. from Wellesley
has a JD from Yale Law School
If you think someone with those educational achievement lacks intelligence there is nothing I can do to disabuse you of that notion.
egalitegirl
(362 posts)Don't infer from the media. Post the results of a specific IQ test she took and prove it. Otherwise it is just propaganda. Russians used to do this too and claim that Lenin's IQ was extremely high. We need to stop behaving like countries with dictatorial regimes.
Hillary is an ordinary person with no great achievements. Please stop the hero worship. Attending college is not an achievement. Thousands of people attend college. During Hillary's time, it was much easier to get into top colleges. Besides, entry into American colleges are not tests of intelligence like they are in Chinese or Russian universities. Out there they actually test your intelligence. Here, you write an essay and get in.
bvf
(6,604 posts)You'll probably be accused of stalking the poor guy and ganging up on him with your "associates."
It's a pattern.
Good response, btw.
DemocratSinceBirth
(101,850 posts)I will be the first admit math isn't my forte but the data suggests that corresponds to an I Q of 140. She was also a National Honor Society member and a Merit Scholar finalist. That suggests she is anything but dull.
egalitegirl
(362 posts)Inferring from SAT and LSAT is nonsense. It is middle school level math. Besides, your claim of LSAT scores needed for admissions does not match up to reality.
Try telling that to Asians who are deprived of admissions despite scoring higher than Whites on these tests. They are told that the admission process is "holistic" and they have legitimate reasons to claim that the college system is loaded against them. Why do you think they have a "holistic" system with essays and so on? It is to ensure that the 1% gets admitted to the top universities. This includes the Bushes, Kennedys and Clintons. And yes, it includes Chelsea Clinton as well.
Imagine Saddam Hussein's children getting admitted to top universities in their country. You would never admit that it was due to merit. This is similar. To have a claim of merit, the admission process should not be based on essays and such.
DemocratSinceBirth
(101,850 posts)Hillary's father was a small business owner.
egalitegirl
(362 posts)That is the point of this thread.
CherokeeDem
(3,736 posts)What are you? 12? I suppose I'm just a old fogey... I remember those times because I went to college then, too...
Entrance in the college and law school Hillary attended was difficult then and now. And yes, other countries have very rigorous entry requirements but that is not the argument. There are a lot of reasons many people choose to dislike Hillary Clinton but do not insult her intelligence.
Elizabeth Warren is a graduate of the Universtiy of Houston, Rutgers Law School and taught law.... sorry I don't have her IQ to compare but I'm certain she is equally intelligent. Why do I believe some will tout her educational background as superior?
The fact is... Hillary has a long list of accomplishments. While not everyone is expected to or will support her, her educational background should be respected.
My concern is this attitude that anyone can graduate college and it's no big deal. It is a big deal.. whether one graduates from a community college with an IT degree or MIT with a degree in astrophysics, that person put a lot of hard work and effort into graduating. For anyone in this country, and there are a few at least, who look at educated people with disdain, to diss someone for graduating college as no big deal is shameful.
egalitegirl
(362 posts)I just googled in Google Books setting the time between 1965 and 1975, and sure enough, Black Law Journal from 1973 complains about the admission process.
QUOTE FROM
https://books.google.com/books?id=8agMAQAAMAAJ&q=lsat++yale&dq=lsat++yale&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwia66TMvqfMAhUB_WMKHYPDAKUQ6AEINDAA
It assumes that through utilization of such criteria, admissions officers will unerringly select the best and most qualifies applicants. This has never been the case.
Former Yale Law School Dean Louis H...
Thus, even as to white students, grades and LSAT scores are supplemented by other criteria, including letters of recommendation, interviews, and so forth.
CherokeeDem
(3,736 posts)White people have privileges... always have in the academic world, as well as, the business world, and in life -- that's why EEOC is so important.
What does admission inequality have to do with Hillary specifically? Was she privileged because she was white? Probably. Did she complete the work required at these universities to graduate because she was white? No.... she graduated because she was not only smart but worked hard.
Hillary Clinton did not create this environment any more than I did. I am white, and I had colleges from all over the US chasing me when I was in high school. Would those schools been recruiting me for my academics if I was not white, I doubt it.
Your argument regarding the need for revision of college admissions is valid. Using this issue to denigrate Hillary Clinton's academic accomplishment is not.
egalitegirl
(362 posts)Let us all be honest. Those who do STEM courses are the real smart people. We get by with degrees in fields such as business, law and philosophy and claim we are as smart as those who do STEM. I am part of this problem too but at least I acknowledge it.
To claim that Hillary is super intelligent and cite her college degree in one of the easier subjects as evidence is wrong. Had she obtained a degree in Math, Science, Engineering or Medicine, that would mean something. Nothing else requires the use of one's intellect.
CherokeeDem
(3,736 posts)You are saying any degree other than a science of some sort does not require the use of intellect?????
I have lots of things to say about this.. but I would be booted from DU if I did.
Let's just say... in my opinion... your definition of intellect is skewed and elitist. Your thinking is not part of the solution, it's part of the problem.
Madam Mossfern
(2,340 posts)She's a national merit scholar, not a mere finalist and National Honor Society member. She has a PhD in Ecological/Environmental Sciences from a prestigious university, was valedictorian of her high school has won several awards and has lots of common sense and ethics.
Vote my daughter for POTUS!
She's better than Hillary.
CherokeeDem
(3,736 posts)She failed the DC Bar exam and passed the Arkansas (and please no jokes about where she passed). Many lawyers do not pass the bar the first time exam the first time... just as many nurses or CPAs don't pass their professional exams the first time. It has nothing to do with the intellect or quality of the professional.
Hillary was a practicing attorney.
athena
(4,187 posts)Should I not be allowed to drive?
ETA: Just to clarify that I agree with you. It's such a ridiculous line of attack.
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)she worked as a lawyer. That does not happen if you don't pass the bar exam.
oldandhappy
(6,719 posts)but saying she is not intelligent is crazy. You have to be smart to do all the manipulations she has done! Plus smart stuff mentioned in another post.
all american girl
(1,788 posts)except for keeping her career while her husband was making his.
except for being his backbone, raising a daughter, implementing programs in her state, and having a career.
You know, you are right. She's just a dumb slacker. I think this might be the lowest this place has come. You may not like her, you may not think she should be president, but you don't get to call her a dumb housewife.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)Would she have had a political career? Hard to say if it would even have been a goal...
all american girl
(1,788 posts)else. So to say that this would not have happen if she had divorced Bill, or never married him, is irrelevant, because it didn't happen. This is irritating that in 2016 this is being discussed here.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)Let me be up front: I loathe Hillary Clinton. But that said, I do not accept sexist criticism of her...that's simply not okay. The OP is borderline, iMO...and for my part, when I find myself thinking "hmmm...that might be interpreted as sexist, racist, or whatever," I find it best to err on the side of caution and not post it.
egalitegirl
(362 posts)Even semi-literates sit on juries. Being a lawyer is not a sign of high intelligence. It is not like she has the brains of a mathematician or scientist. As for leadership, Bill Clinton definitely has it in him. Hillary does not. She is not a leader and remember that the establishment had to protect her from debates.
treestar
(82,383 posts)sitting on juries is not the same.
And the schools Hillary got into show she is smart.
You are getting really desperate.
egalitegirl
(362 posts)Filling out forms for immigration or patents is not a sign of intelligence just because the system is rigged to keep control of this profession among cronies by requiring degrees. Yes, juries that decide matter of life and death is more important than filing paperwork.
treestar
(82,383 posts)There is nothing further to say. You do not know what you are talking about. Did you see a single trial? Arguing the case, cross examination, that is not "filling out forms."
Because there are forms to start does not mean that it is easy to fill them out and forms exist only for cases that exist massively and are simple to assert, like auto accidents, but that doesn't mean arguing the case and who was negligent and what damages are recoverable is not a great deal more. And many cases don't have basic forms and require pleading, knowing the law used, knowing the rules of pleading and how much is required.
Yes, you have to study it for three years and after years of experience you know more about it. It is a profession and has been accepted by society as such for over a thousand years. Your perspective is more uninformed than can be described and not common enough to think you can get a lot of agreement on it.
egalitegirl
(362 posts)Nothing!
MadBadger
(24,089 posts)I'll brb.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Those who want to learn WHY Bill and Hillary Clinton are so close to Wall Street helped repeal Glass-Steagall, became empathetic with those in natural gas and fracking and other mineral extraction industries, and seemed content with irregular international banking practices a la BCCI; then check out this article from the great Barbara Demick, once of The Philadelphia Inquirer, which ran three days before the inauguration of President Clinton in 1993:
Clinton's Wealth Of Support
An Arkansas Family Has Been A Backer,
And A Source Of Controversy.
By Barbara Demick
PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER STAFF WRITER, January 17, 1993
EXCERPT...
Early in the game, the Stephenses raised $100,000 in Arkansas to get Clinton's candidacy up and running. Then last spring, when Clinton was trailing both George Bush and Ross Perot, Worthen Bank supplied the cash- starved campaign with a $3.5 million line of credit.
SNIP...
The centerpiece of the family's $1 billion empire is Stephens Inc., one of the largest investment banking firms off Wall Street. In addition to its 38 percent interest in Worthen Bank, the family owns stakes in oil and natural gas, utilities, nursing homes, waste management, diamond mining and hog farming.
SNIP...
The Stephens businesses are often represented by the Rose law firm, where Hillary Clinton has been a partner. Until the mid-1980s, they owned Arkla Inc., the Shreveport, La., natural-gas utility from which Clinton tapped chairman Thomas F. "Mack" McLarty as his White House chief of staff. Their investment firm serves as business manager to Linda Bloodworth-Thomason and Harry Thomason, the Hollywood couple who helped choreograph Clinton's public image.
SNIP...
In 1978, federal securities regulators alleged that Stephens, along with Lance, helped Middle Eastern investors linked to BCCI secretly buy up shares in a Washington bank. Stephens and the others settled the civil lawsuit by signing a consent decree in which they neither admitted nor denied wrongdoing.
SNIP...
The Stephenses have extensive holdings in natural gas, a resource strongly supported by Clinton. They, along with Bradbury, have been vocal proponents of easing banking regulations - in particular the limits on interstate banking and the Glass-Steagal Act, which separates banks from brokerage firms.
CONTINUED...
http://articles.philly.com/1993-01-17/news/25959645_1_worthen-bank-stephens-family-bill-clinton
The whole article is worth reading if you want to understand Ms. Clinton and where she's coming from -- and where she will lead.
George II
(67,782 posts)Octafish
(55,745 posts)I'm wondering if she weren't married to a president, would she be in a position to become the next one?
If her familial associations make it possible, it seems like royal succession.
Personally, I am tired of trickle down economics and wars without end.
George II
(67,782 posts)...."inheritance"?
Squinch
(59,520 posts)the obvious trollerific implication here.
Assholery abounds.
karynnj
(60,965 posts)Had she divorced him while he was governor, probably not because she would have had to develop some path all on her own.
Had she divorced him after Monica and immediately moved to NY, I do think she would have been very likely to win the Senate seat. In addition, from 1992 on some saw her as a potential President.
I think she still would have lost to Obama and he would have had less pressure to give her the SoS position. However, she might have created a more personal record in the Senate where she now would be in her 16 th year Given the roles she played, she might still be running but possibly not as much the establishment candidate.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Had she taken a different path, she might be even a more formidable candidate. She might be a different person.
One thing is certain: she put her marriage ahead of her own feelings. For asking ,"Why?," I have hurt many DUers' feelings.
Ferd Berfel
(3,687 posts)the Wall Street darling she is today?
firebrand80
(2,760 posts)
MineralMan
(151,265 posts)Worst sort of speculative nonsense, if you ask me. But, hey, it's an open forum...
aikoaiko
(34,214 posts)he wouldn't have been elected or reelected.
If she divorced him amid the ML scandal, Bill would have retreated from public life after the presidency. Speeches and consulting would have made him happy and wealthy.
Could she have found a way to enter national politics on her own from any of those points, maybe, but its hard to see her almost winning POTUS in 2008 or 2016. Bill Clinton is a master politician, if nothing else.
MattP
(3,304 posts)And they ran ads against his opponent?
egalitegirl
(362 posts)It is ignorance to believe that NRA is the only group in the whole country that supports guns. There are many groups. Bill Clinton had the Presidency, Congress and Senate on his side and he did nothing.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)...it's a pretty good sign the poster is not only ill-educated in philosophy, but also possess a rather dubious character. Ignore-worthy, that is. Bye, Felicia.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Why are democrats suddenly so interested in Hillary's personal decision to stay married to Bill?
Its bad if a woman divorces her husband ... and its bad if she doesn't.
Got it.
Bohemianwriter
(978 posts)Is just lack of self respect...
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Their marriage is THEIR marriage.
Your marriage is YOUR marriage.
Its really is that simple.
Bohemianwriter
(978 posts)under the bus in the process.
Makes me think of this:
How many female Hillary supportes would be sticking with their husbands after finding out that he's been cheating repeatedly throught the years?
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Your marriage is your marriage.
Read it over and over and let it sink in.
I understand RWers don't get this fact. But I'm always surprised when I encounter a liberal who does not.
all american girl
(1,788 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)Geez.
egalitegirl
(362 posts)Honestly, she has no other achievement. That is why this comes to the fore. We should be supporting women who have achieved more than their husbands and not people who walked in their husbands' shadows.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)You guys are hilarious.
Bernie is going to lose. And as he does so, his supporters are crawling into the gutter.
egalitegirl
(362 posts)Had Saddam Hussein's wife become the Senator or an equivalent in Iraq, we would be trashing him. Bill Clinton was the President when she was selected to be the Senator.
athena
(4,187 posts)in case you hadn't noticed.
New Yorkers don't elect women senator just because they happen to be married to the President.
egalitegirl
(362 posts)What makes you think that we are not like Iraq or other dictatorial regimes when it comes to a small clique clinging on to power by using any means available? We see election fraud both among Democrats and among Republicans.
We know that Bloomberg would have run had Bernie won the nomination and his aim was to split the votes so that Hillary's allies on the other side can win. That plan was in place when everyone believed that Hillay's buddy Bush would win the Republican nomination.
Hillary would never have been Senator had she not been First Lady. Now we have a new reason. If women don't vote for Hillary, they will go to hell.
treestar
(82,383 posts)successful she cannot then have the chance to be so herself and is "in his shadow."
And we don't know that in the long run, Hillary may achieve more than her husband did.
all american girl
(1,788 posts)new, and it will be exciting....I swear. That's what I did.
Bohemianwriter
(978 posts)JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)
riversedge
(80,808 posts)egalitegirl
(362 posts)I don't want to name her but all of us including me opposed a woman who was not defined by the man she married. This is the frustrating part because I do not have a good argument to counter the supporters of this particular woman I am talking about. Women who are defined by the man they marry are defined that way for a reason. It is mostly due to their own choice and it is always the case in politics.
all american girl
(1,788 posts)twirls hair with a blank look on face
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)all american girl
(1,788 posts)When did 1999 come back? This is low...right wing low, and that's saying something.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)It's over and they know it. So we'll be treated to all manner of ridiculousness for the next month or so.
Bohemianwriter
(978 posts)without the automatic media attention and power that follows marrying power if she would have married a union worker, fisherman or farmer instead?
You think she would be wining and dining Wall Street criminals today?
athena
(4,187 posts)There are quite a few, in fact.
So what makes you so certain that Hillary would not have succeeded in politics if she hadn't married Bill?
Indeed, she might have succeeded sooner if she didn't have to wait until Bill was done being president.
treestar
(82,383 posts)She went to Yale, etc., all the signs of future success. She could have gained the media attention as Bill or Obama or anyone else did. Barbara Boxer, Elizabeth Warren, etc. You're saying just because she married Bill it must be Bill and being married to him. In essence that any woman who has a successful husband must owe all her success to him.
treestar
(82,383 posts)She would have been a lawyer no doubt and not ended up in Arkansas. Very possible she'd have been an Illinois senator and be President already. Who knows? This is speculation. But she is smart and hard working and would have done a lot of things.
all american girl
(1,788 posts)Instead of asking, because she's a woman, if she would have made it without Bill, how about if you ask would Bill had made it without her.
And you know, why do you care? Why is their relationship any of your business. They stayed together, not for you or anyone else, but for themselves. This is right wing claptrap. I swear this crap was all over FOX and limpballs, and now it's here, at DU. SMH
Bread and Circus
(9,454 posts)Logical
(22,457 posts)HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)bettyellen
(47,209 posts)So I guess that means none of them would be president without their wives. See how stupid these arguments are. You don't even get how sexist it is.
athena
(4,187 posts)Many male politicians would probably also have gotten divorced were it not for their political ambitions. Or they would never have gotten married in the first place. We never even think about that.
But when the candidate is a woman who chose not to get divorced, in a situation where many people choose not to get divorced, suddenly her decision becomes not a laudable personal one but a questionable political one.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)And it will backfire. It's desperation talking.
Men in the upper class or near it have been known to marry women from wealthy families too, so why not question that? I'm sure there is a President or two to whom it applies.
loyalsister
(13,390 posts)Response to Octafish (Original post)
rjsquirrel This message was self-deleted by its author.
athena
(4,187 posts)A woman's job in life is to give up her own personal ambitions and put all of her energy and resources into advancing her man's career!
It doesn't count when a white man gets an unfair advantage. Unfair advantages are only a problem when they benefit a woman or a person of color.
It's a sad world we live in.
athena
(4,187 posts)then that says something about us and our society, not about Hillary Clinton.
If people are OK voting for a divorced man to be Senator, but not for a divorced woman, then that means we live in a very sexist society where women are held to different standards than men, standards that have nothing to do with a person's qualifications.
I don't believe New Yorkers are as sexist as you suggest. Sure, some people would have voted against her because she divorced Bill, but others would have voted for her for the same reason.
I therefore believe she stayed with Bill for personal reasons. And you can see those reasons when you watch Bill today. He clearly loves her very much; that's why he gets angry when people attack her unfairly. I believe she made the right decision.
It is very low to attack a person for her marital choices, when you know nothing about what it was like to live in her shoes.
edhopper
(37,368 posts)On Sun Apr 24, 2016, 01:44 PM an alert was sent on the following post:
Would Hillary Clinton be where she is today, had she divorced Bill Clinton?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511822504
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
A misogynistic post that a divorced woman is somehow tainted? Vote to hide this crap.
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sun Apr 24, 2016, 02:21 PM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: A useless post and a useless discussion, but I don't agree with the alerter's reasons. I think they are reading into it motives that are not there.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Another idiotic alert from a Hillary fan
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: The question wasn't if a divorced woman is somehow tainted, but rather how society viewed it. Read to understand rather that read to be offended. It saves time.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Another alerter's reading comprehension problem.
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Some people live to find offense.
athena
(4,187 posts)This kind of sexist attack against the Democratic Party's likely nominee will hurt our chances in November and does not belong on DU.
Moreover, the post is deeply offensive.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)If bringing up an idea you find reprehensible causes so much consternation here, imagine what it would do were it brought up by Wolf Blitzer on tee vee in October?
athena
(4,187 posts)It's a weak argument. You're kidding yourself if you think it's a good one.
If anything, your argument (assuming someone is stupid enough to use it after Hillary is nominated) will help Hillary by reminding the majority of the women out there why it's important to vote for her. It might even get us some Republican women's votes.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Is that why democracies are overthrown under her watch?
Like it or not, those questions are tied right to the OP.
athena
(4,187 posts)You have not actually been able to respond to the arguments we have made. Because you can't. Because there is no argument you can make in response to them that is not as weak as your original argument.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Is that plain enough?
athena
(4,187 posts)If you disagree, prove it. Go ahead. Prove that she would not be the front-runner.
She has a Yale law degree; she was the first and only student to give a commencement speech at Wellesley; she worked as a congressional legal counsel before she married Bill (see this for more details); she's hard-working; she's smart; she's ambitious. Go ahead and argue that without Bill, she would have just stayed home and baked cookies.
Your argument is not only weak; it's ridiculous on its face.
amborin
(16,631 posts)mockery of marriage as based on commitment?
how about the way Hillary venomously attacked Bill's consorts? is that a good way to treat women? blame the woman, never the man
athena
(4,187 posts)It is neither your business nor mine.
Do you also go around criticizing your friends' and coworkers' decision to get divorced or stay married?
it is a discussion about how one person's life affects their political fortunes. it is no more sexist than how GWBs family affected his.
This is coming from someone who likes Hilary, but to ignore how integral Bill was to her political success is just being blind.
I find no need to join in the OPs discussion, but I don't see why others shouldn't if it is of interest.
athena
(4,187 posts)as has been demonstrated elsewhere in the thread.
When a man benefits from unfair advantages, we don't call those advantages unfair. It's only when a woman or a minority gets unfair advantages that suddenly it becomes unacceptable to benefit from them. I don't see anyone here arguing that FDR or the Kennedys benefited unfairly from name recognition. I don't see anyone seriously suggesting that Bill benefited unfairly from Hillary's constant support, or that President Obama only married Michelle because he knew he couldn't win as a single man.
In this case, it's not even clear that Hillary would not have become more successful had she not married Bill. In my opinion, given how hard-working she is, she might have run for office and won much sooner. That's why this is a sexist attack, and a very weak one at that.
edhopper
(37,368 posts)GWBs rise to power, all the talk was about his advantage from family.
Look. I don't agree with the OP and don't think speculation about divorce serves any purpose. I am glad he has been challenged. I just don't think the thread should be hidden on the basis of sexism.
Do you think Hillary would have been a Senator and now running for President if Bill was not elected?
As I posted elsewhere in this thread, I do believe that Hillary would have run for office if she hadn't been married to Bill. She would have done so sooner, and she would probably have succeeded sooner. She would have created her own name recognition.
She's smart; she's hard-working; she's ambitious (which is a good thing both in women and in men). She had a law degree. She was into politics. There is zero basis for arguing that Hillary would not have been Senator were it not for Bill.
And suggesting that New Yorkers only elected her to the Senate because she was married to Bill is not only dismissive of Hillary's own qualifications, but insulting to the New Yorkers who voted for her.
The case of GWB was different. For one thing, he was the son of a president, not the spouse of one. As such, he was born into politics. For another, he did not come across as someone who was hard-working and competent. In his case, he probably would not have succeeded in politics were it not for name recognition. But just because GWB would not have made it without his father does not mean Hillary would not have made it without Bill. There is no analogy there.
edhopper
(37,368 posts)But to discount how it helped her run in the first place is blind.
Are you aware of how much Schwarzenegger's Kennedy connection was discussed in CA?
As I said, disagreeing with the OP isn't cause for hiding a thread.
I'll give you the last word, i am done here, this is why I stay out of GDP.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)I doubt David Brock or anyone else she pays will have the guts to bring it up until after Donald or Ted or whomever the GOPs foist in Cleveland mention it in.
athena
(4,187 posts)by making sexist attacks against the likely nominee now.
This is an offensively sexist attack designed to hurt Hillary now, and you know it.
It's also ridiculous that you think it's a viable attack. It's a weak one. Many of us have shredded your argument to pieces already.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Do you think Ms. Clinton has enjoyed political advantages from staying married to Bill Clinton?
athena
(4,187 posts)Do you think President Obama has enjoyed political advantages from marrying Michelle? Are you claiming that he could have won the Presidency as a single man?
Do you think GWB enjoyed political advantages from being married to Laura? Or do you think he could have won the Presidency as a single or divorced man, or if he had been married to, say, a strip club dancer?
Do you think FDR enjoyed political advantages from the fact that his fifth cousin, Theodore Roosevelt, had already been president 14 years earlier?
Do you think Bobby Kennedy should not have run for president because his brother had been president? Or that Ted Kennedy should not have been Senator because his brother had been president?
Or are such advantages only unfair when they benefit a woman?
edhopper
(37,368 posts)the idle speculation of divorce is pointless. This is pure hypothetical with no bearing on her current candidacy.
But it's par for the course in the swamp that is GDP and therefor should be allowed. I don't think it was meant to be anti-women, just anti-Hilary.
athena
(4,187 posts)when they make an argument that is anti-Hillary, it often ends up being anti-woman in general. Before posting an attack against Hillary, people should ask themselves whether they would be making the same attack against a male candidate.
There are plenty of reasonable, non-sexist criticisms that can be made about Hillary, plenty ways to discuss whether she would be a good president. This is not one of them.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Asking about the political impact of her marriage is not slander or libel.
edhopper
(37,368 posts)I don't think you are being sexist, just irrelevant.
athena
(4,187 posts)Nice try, putting words in my mouth.
There are plenty of reasonable and non-sexist ways in which you could have discussed Hillary's strengths and weaknesses in the general election. Claiming that she got an unfair advantage from her marriage is not one of them.
edhopper
(37,368 posts)is ridiculous.
athena
(4,187 posts)Sexist is what focusing on it is.
edhopper
(37,368 posts)So Hilary's relation with Bill is off limits because she is a woman?
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)But deal with it and not quit on him, forgive him- is what she did.
The River
(2,615 posts)is all she has. She wasn't going to give that up regardless if what Bill did.
It was always about political power and ego.
Autumn
(48,962 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Octafish
(55,745 posts)Like per capita gun owners in Vermont, you and Podesta understand.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)As for me being back? Well...happy to see you.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Podesta said he'll ask Hillary to come clean re UFOs.
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/john-podesta-hillary-clinton-ufos_us_56d730c9e4b03260bf78f129
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Octafish
(55,745 posts)Fascinating subject, really.
FTI: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1027178/Easy-pi-Astrophysicist-solves-riddle-Britains-complex-crop-circle.html
More on pi and H2: http://www.rochester.edu/newscenter/discovery-of-classic-pi-formula-a-cunning-piece-of-magic-128002/
amborin
(16,631 posts)athena
(4,187 posts)whenever someone attacks her unfairly? To the point where he loses control and starts saying things that won't necessarily help her campaign?
That's a person who loves his spouse, if you ask me. I believe Hillary was right not to divorce him. Clearly there was enough love there to be able to pick up the pieces and move on.
In any case, this is not our business. It's Hillary and Bill's business, and no one else's. Just as, when your co-workers get divorced, you don't go around telling everyone they should have stayed married, or vice versa, you shouldn't be going around claiming that the marriage of someone you've never met is a sham marriage just because you don't like her.
amborin
(16,631 posts)got interrupted by Monica Lewinsky scandal; read up on it: he and Newt Gingrich were planning this; only a "Democrat" can get away with something like this
additionally, you fail to realize that this isn't about workers in an office; this is about someone who aspires to be the president; their pathological relationship matters to national security and to the lives of regular Americans
salinsky
(1,065 posts)... and, then steer the conversation into an attack on her intelligence and morality.
Just when you think Bernie Bros can't go any lower, they find another shovel.
emulatorloo
(46,155 posts)2banon
(7,321 posts)IF , she had dumped his diereir on the spot and severed ties with him.
But she made a different choice for business financial and political reasons..
The notion of him returning to the White House sickens me to the core as it should any self-respecting Woman in this country. IMO.
Lil Missy
(17,865 posts)Fresh_Start
(11,365 posts)Pretty crappy speculation don't you think?
Same pretty crappy speculation as this thread.
treestar
(82,383 posts)why would her personal situation have any effect whatsoever ?
Hillary is as educated and smart as Bill. No reason to think she could not have done anything she has ever done without Bill. She is a career woman - crediting her success to her husband is just sexist. And hinting divorce would have hurt her is too - Reagan was divorced and he was elected and there must be other divorced Senators.
Squinch
(59,520 posts)
jeff47
(26,549 posts)See: "Single payer will never ever happen" as an example.
She would have won political office. There's lots of positions where there's not nearly as much coverage, so it's easier to win as a lousy campaigner.
But she would not have a realistic campaign for president, nor those speaking fees, nor the political machine.
Firebrand Gary
(5,044 posts)
moriah
(8,312 posts)In case you can't recognize a rhetorical question,vthe answer is no.
loyalsister
(13,390 posts)Her claim of feminism rings hollow because she did. I think it makes her a terrible role model for women and a bad example of what men should expect in a marriage.
She took on the responsibility to consider her image as a role model when she voluntarily became a high profile woman.
Chemisse
(31,343 posts)She had a lot of sympathy after the Monica expose. Nobody would have blamed her if she had divorced Bill.
And Bill's reign of power was at an end when she resumed her own career. She could easily have done exactly what she has done, without his help or influence.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)While she is qualified for the nation's highest office, had Hillary Clinton divorced her husband, I do not believe she could have become a U.S. Senator from New York or would become the U.S. Secretary of State. Breaking the marriage would have diminished her luster as a future candidate, what Bill had once termed "political viability."
Perhaps staying together as a couple was the price she knew she had to pay in order to keep up the Good Fight and be in a position to best their political enemies.