Can Hillary win?

[Jim]

But those factors had long been in existence' date=' he knew about them, and the stoppage added nothing new to the picture. It was only about stoppage.

 

It's not disagreement I have a problem with. It's disagreement [i']ad infinitum[/i] on specific actions/activities, after a decision has been made. If people want to be partisan about something, more power to 'em. But once a decision is made on a specific case, we have to move forward, even if we disagree. Otherwise we don't have rule of law, we have rule of the more powerful ideology.

 

I disagree with the death penalty, for example, but if I were a judge I wouldn't approve a stay of execution just because I'm ideologically opposed to the DP. You'd have to show me something tangible and relevent to that specific case. Something that might have been overlooked or missed.

 

In this case Frist claimed that he saw something in the video which suggested to him that she was responsive. I believe that claim was false, and I believe that sufficient evidence exists, including his specific apology, to support that belief. I'm accusing him of being dishonest not because he believes that Schiavo shouldn't have been allowed to die, but because he mislead people.

 

Even worse, the actions of Republican senators have opened the door to federal review of any loss of life scenario at the state and local level. This will have ongoing consequences, and none of us are going to like all of those consequences. Such sweeping change should only take place after thorough debate and understanding of the issues, not as an emotional, unfounded, ill-conceived plea to a partisan political base.

 

Anyway, that's how I see it. Your mileage may vary.

 

My research skills are waning; when I google Frist apology Shiavo, I just get a bunch of articles saying Frist should apologize and none saying that he did. Here's a June 15, 2005 article saying that Frist has not apologized. Here is a June 27, 2005 article opining as to the apology Frist should issue:

 

"I've been accused of betraying my profession by having made a medical diagnosis via videotape. Though I participated in this crisis with passion and conviction, my words -- 'There just seems to be insufficient evidence...' -- were clearly not a definitive medical diagnosis. Indeed, a definitive pronouncement could only be made post-mortem.

 

"Just as I do not appreciate my observations being misrepresented, I'm sure those on the other side of this conflict would not want their satisfaction with Ms. Schiavo's autopsy to be misinterpreted as gleeful relief. I'm sure they would never have argued that Ms. Schiavo needed to die so we could find out whether she ought to have lived.

 

"And just as I know that fighting for my convictions doesn't qualify as pandering, I'll accept that those who argued for Ms. Schiavo's death weren't 'projecting', weren't just making sure now that they'd be off the hook morally if trapped someday by similar circumstances.

 

"My oath as a physician -- and really, our responsibility as humans -- is 'First, do no harm.' In tragic cases like this, where the person whose life hangs in the balance has not made her wishes clear and a definitive diagnosis isn't possible, I will always choose to protect human life, not to harm it. I therefore have no apology to make."

 

Again, your position seems to be that there was not even a good faith argument that could have been made by Frist in support of his position. The following article seems a pretty effective argument that there was at least two sides to this issue on which reasonable minds could differ.

The mainstream media scoffed. Without thoughtful examination of what actually went on in the shoddy Florida court proceedings, without the slightest concern about the absence of basic tests for brain function, the Big Government-lovin’ press — the same people who would mandate DNA testing for death-row inmates to avoid the slimmest possibility that a murderer might be wrongfully executed — became overnight federalists, demanding to know how the big, bad federal government could even think of interfering with a matter of sovereign state law.

 

The scientific facts about massive brain damage being trumpeted today, which — as Dionne’s own newspaper concedes do not even establish that Terri Schiavo was in a PVS — were not important to the media and the right-to-die lobby back then. All that mattered was that Terri Schiavo’s life was not one that they thought worth living. Whether or not it had technically been reduced to a PVS was beside the point. Whether or not Terri had even thought about, much less made a knowing and intelligent judgment about, the choice between life and death was beside the point. Terri was a grisly car-wreck. They just wanted her off the road and out of sight — no need to know what happened, and why, and whether anything could or should be salvaged.

 

So now, months later, long after it mattered, the autopsy is out and it indicates what we already knew: Terri was profoundly brain-damaged. She may or may not have been in a PVS — to this day we don’t know. Yet, the “right-to-die” forces are waving the autopsy report triumphantly, saying: See, see, see — she was PVS, just like we said! Well, leaving aside that the autopsy does not confirm the diagnosis, if scientific exactitude about the degree of brain injury is important now, when she’s dead, why wasn’t it important then? Why was there only rebuke for those who insisted there was virtue in a society’s being sure before life was snuffed out? The answer is simple: Because to the right-to-die people, the accuracy of the PVS diagnosis was never central; what mattered was giving effect to the purported “choice.”

 

Oh, and on that score, one other thing: When does the “autopsy” on Terri’s choice come out? It doesn’t. We are stuck with a record that should trouble serious people: no living will, and some self-interested witnesses (mainly husband Michael, by then pulled by the ties of a new family) who suddenly remembered years after the fact that Terri supposedly made some passing remarks about not wanting to be maintained in extremis. Is it any wonder all the talk is now about the extent of brain damage, as if that had been the only issue?

 

Moral of the story: Do a living will if you do not want to leave your relatives with a mess.

[bascule]

What's wrong with Condi?

 

Well, as a liberal hippie douche, I'm obviously going to go for a moderate over a neocon. McCain is the kind of Republican I could seriously see myself voting for, especially if Hillary were running on the Democratic ticket. You'd be hard pressed to find a Democrat I'd want to be President less than Condi, at least as far as ones who have any hope of winning the Democratic nomination go. She's one of the more admirable members of the Bush administration, I guess, but the social policy she advocates is almost diametrically opposed to my viewpoints.

 

What would you propose as an alternative to the primary system?

 

If nothing else, instant-runoff voting. Unlike the electoral college the primary process is not set in stone, and if all the good ol' boys who vote for the Kerrys over the Clarks and the Bushes over the McCains were forced to rank the remaining candidates, I think it would result in a substantially fairer representation of who the party really wants to be president. As it stands, I think you wind up with the good ol' boys always winning over everyone else because the remaining group, who comprises the majority of the party, winds up divided over the other candidates, and can't compromise on picking a single one to oppose the good ol' boy candidate.

[Pangloss]

My research skills are waning; when I google Frist apology Shiavo, I just get a bunch of articles saying Frist should apologize and none saying that he did.

 

It's not you -- that sort of thing is always a tough google, especially in this case because of the commonality of the search terms. Fortunately in this case I remembered that it was on Meet the Press back in January, and I found this MSNBC story on it:

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10520713/

 

A couple of relevent quotes:

 

Asked on NBC’s “Meet the Press” if he had any regrets regarding the Schiavo case, Frist said: “Well, I’ll tell you what I learned from it, which is obvious. The American people don’t want you involved in these decisions.”

 

Frist was later mocked as having made a diagnosis from his office using a video screen. “I didn’t make the diagnosis,” Frist said Sunday. “I raised the question of whether or not she was in a persistent vegetative state.”

 

So this would seem to support my point that he made a mistake in supporting the move to insert the federal government into the picture.

 

 

Again, your position seems to be that there was not even a good faith argument that could have been made by Frist in support of his position. The following article seems a pretty effective argument that there was at least two sides to this issue on which reasonable minds could differ.

 

Yes, that's basically it. Apologies for not realizing that that was what you were saying earlier.

 

Absolutely reasonable minds can differ on the issues surrounding this case. From the above article, Frist himself makes this good point:

 

Looking back, Frist said, “When you’re taking innocent life, with parents who want that life preserved, you’ve got to make sure, and therefore stepping in to say, let’s take one more review, that’s what we did.”

 

He added: “I accept the outcome. I don’t agree with the moral sense of it.”

 

Fair enough. But I suspect there will be long-term effect from the intercession of the federal government on this issue.

[Jim]

It's not you -- that sort of thing is always a tough google' date=' especially in this case because of the commonality of the search terms. Fortunately in this case I remembered that it was on Meet the Press back in January, and I found this MSNBC story on it:

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10520713/

 

A couple of relevant quotes:

 

So this would seem to support my point that he made a mistake in supporting the move to insert the federal government into the picture. [/quote']

 

Heh, I interpret his statements as acknowledgment that the issue is a political third rail he does not intend to touch in the future.

 

Yes, that's basically it. Apologies for not realizing that that was what you were saying earlier.

 

Absolutely reasonable minds can differ on the issues surrounding this case. From the above article, Frist himself makes this good point:

I was far less than clear. My reaction was to the MSM's (a/k/a left wing rags ) attempt to demonize Frist along with any other conservative they can mangle. My initial reaction was more towards the masturbation issue than the Shiavo case.

 

Fair enough. But I suspect there will be long-term effect from the intercession of the federal government on this issue.

 

Agreed; however, Shiavo was a pretty unique case and it will be some time before the republicans charge en masse into the same issue.

 

FWIW, I personally would not have acted as Frist et al. I just don't think the issue is so clear cut that they are disgusting for having taken this position.

[-Demosthenes-]

I think it'll be McCain v. Hilary. It would be cool for McCain to run with Kerry as his running mate, if for no other reason than it would be very different, and very interesting.

[Jim]

I think it'll be McCain v. Hilary. It would be cool for McCain to run with Kerry as his running mate, if for no other reason than it would be very different, and very interesting.

 

I think we've seen the last of Lurch as a viable presidential or VP candidate.

[Sisyphus]

I'd still like to hear why people really hate Hillary so much. So far, all I've heard is that she overstepped her role as a First Lady, and she's not really a New Yorker. She's made some decisions I don't really agree with, but for the most part she seems like an extremely intelligent, sensible, moderate Democrat. Is there something I'm missing?

[Pangloss]

Actual "hate" makes about as much sense with Hillary Clinton as it does with George Bush or Bill Clinton or any other national politician. Which is to say, not very much sense at all.

[Jim]

I'd still like to hear why people really hate Hillary so much. So far, all I've heard is that she overstepped her role as a First Lady, and she's not really a New Yorker. She's made some decisions I don't really agree with, but for the most part she seems like an extremely intelligent, sensible, moderate Democrat. Is there something I'm missing?

 

I'll add cold & calculating to the extent that she would put up with Bill's antics to retain power. At least that's the perception. I really don't know what is going on between the two of them.

[john5746]

Actual "hate" makes about as much sense with Hillary Clinton as it does with George Bush or Bill Clinton or any other national politician. Which is to say, not very much sense at all.

 

Actually, hate is an operative word nowadays. My father disliked Bush's policies, but hated Kerry, because of Vietnam.

 

If you can get people to hate the other candidate, you don't need to win on issues or debate, etc.

 

Reasons for being against Hillary:

 

1) Healthcare plan she introduced was considered socialist and would have destroyed the country as we know it.

 

2) She is married to Bill.

 

3) She comes across as arrogant. All would be Presidents do and probably should have some arrogance. But, the good ones hide it well. She doesn't and that is especially unbecoming a "lady"

 

The first one is related to policy and can be easily overcome, but 2 & 3 are more difficult. She would do well against an arrogant or aggressive opponent, then she will look "strong" instead of "pushy" or "b*tchy"

 

It is a shame it all comes down to emotions like this, but hey we only have two choices anyway. Maybe we should all flip a coin, or get a monkey to throw a dart.

[Sisyphus]

I'll add cold & calculating to the extent that she would put up with Bill's antics to retain power. At least that's the perception. I really don't know what is going on between the two of them.

 

So she's cold and calculating for not leaving her husband? Come on.

 

1) Healthcare plan she introduced was considered socialist and would have destroyed the country as we know it.

 

2) She is married to Bill.

 

3) She comes across as arrogant. All would be Presidents do and probably should have some arrogance. But' date=' the good ones hide it well. She doesn't and that is especially unbecoming a "lady"[/quote']

 

The first is a policy disagreement, so it doesn't seem like a real reason for such intense dislike. The second is manifestly irrelevant. And the third... well, that seems like the main thing, right there. She overstepped her place as a woman, and therefore was fun to pick apart. Mere arrogance isn't enough of a reason - both her husband and the current president have her beat, there.

 

At this point, I think generally people don't even know why they dislike her, anymore. It's kind of a snowball effect. But if she actually ran for president, the public would have to reexamine its evaluation, and I think she'd come out on top.

 

She would do well against an arrogant or aggressive opponent, then she will look "strong" instead of "pushy" or "b*tchy"

 

This is exactly what happened in the Senate race in New York against Rick Lazio. Sure, there were a lot of Lazio bumper stickers (because they were really just "I hate Hillary" stickers, which is fun for people to do), but his whole campaign basically consisted of trying to exploit people's dislike for her. "Look at this woman! Isn't she ridiculous? Wink, wink?" He came across as smug, juvenile, and overly aggressive. Clinton, on the other hand, basically ignored him, and stayed modest and issue-oriented, and thus destroyed him at the polls.

[-Demosthenes-]

She overstepped her place as a woman, and therefore was fun to pick apart.

 

It seems that disagreeing with the character of a woman can be easily mistaken for sexism?

[Sisyphus]

Yeah, that's why I wanted to be sure first. Since, conversely, the mere suggestion that sexism might have something to do with it can easily be mistaken for PC hippie apologism.

 

Still, the main reason people hate her today is not because of sexism. It's because they hated her yesterday.

[Jim]

So she's cold and calculating for not leaving her husband? Come on.

 

She comes across as cold & calculating generally. I've never gotten the idea in any interview of her that I've seen the real person underneath. Good politicians, her husband being the best example in our lifetimes, can at least give the illusion that they are sincere people. Stiffs have a hard time in politics these days, e.g. Dukakis & Kerry.

 

As far as her being judged for not leaving her husband, I didn't say I feel that way but some do. She looked at times like she hated his guts but hung on not because she was a "stand by her man" kind of gal but for the percs.

 

Other people react with sympathy to the same set of facts.

[Jim]

The first is a policy disagreement, so it doesn't seem like a real reason for such intense dislike. The second is manifestly irrelevant. And the third... well, that seems like the main thing, right there. She overstepped her place as a woman, and therefore was fun to pick apart. Mere arrogance isn't enough of a reason - both her husband and the current president have her beat, there.

 

 

THere was a bit more too it than just a policy disagreement. If you will recall, some of the speakers at the republican national convention blasted Hillary, basically saying that this was a two-for-one deal. The CLinton response was to feminize Hillary with better makeup and cookie recipies and have Bill come out with a "how dare you attack my wife" attitude.

 

Of course, Hillary became the most openly empowered first lady in US history. It was like a reverse bait and switch.

[Sisyphus]

Alright, fair enough. It's true she has astonishing composure and self-control, but seems to lack the ability to make it look natural, putting her ahead of most politicians but behind, as you say, her husband. I can see how that might seem cold and calculating, although it could be viewed positively, as well.

 

As per the not leaving her husband thing, a few thoughts: Is it still calculating if she refused to leave Bill for Bill's or the party's or the country's sake, not hers? She is, after all, an American and a Democrat, and wouldn't want more trouble than necessary. Or, for that matter, because she wanted to? Plenty of couples stay together despite indiscretion because they, you know, actually love each other. I dunno, I tend not to take that kind of speculation seriously, since she was basically in a no-win situation, and no matter what she did would have been spun to make her look bad. Can you imagine the uproar if she'd filed for divorce?

 

And finally, I can't say much for the bait and switch, beyond that its pretty mild compared to, say, W...

[Jim]

Alright, fair enough. It's true she has astonishing composure and self-control, but seems to lack the ability to make it look natural, putting her ahead of most politicians but behind, as you say, her husband. I can see how that might seem cold and calculating, although it could be viewed positively, as well.

 

It could but your question was why do people hate Hillary.

 

As per the not leaving her husband thing, a few thoughts: Is it still calculating if she refused to leave Bill for Bill's or the party's or the country's sake, not hers? She is, after all, an American and a Democrat, and wouldn't want more trouble than necessary. Or, for that matter, because she wanted to? Plenty of couples stay together despite indiscretion because they, you know, actually love each other. I dunno, I tend not to take that kind of speculation seriously, since she was basically in a no-win situation, and no matter what she did would have been spun to make her look bad. Can you imagine the uproar if she'd filed for divorce?

 

It's certainly possible she stayed for the good of the country or, simply, because she loved the man. I don't know but, again, your question was why do people hate Hillary. I'm not one of those people. I was trying to list the possible reasons people react so extremely towards her. Imagine if you just didn't buy that she did it for the man she loved or for the country? If you believed that, what would you think of her?

 

And finally, I can't say much for the bait and switch, beyond that its pretty mild compared to, say, W...

 

Mrs. W was unfaithful? *scratches head* Seriously, I agree it was a "mild" switch but it did stick in republican's craw at the time.

[Sisyphus]

I know, I know, I'm not arguing with you that those are the reasons, only that they're not as big as people seem to think. My point in all this is that what might seem like an insurmountable obstacle for Clinton, the personal dislike that so many have for her, could actually be fairly easy to overcome. My secondary point is that, when we have strong personal feelings for or against a public figure, we ought to reexamine the reason for those feelings carefully before we dismiss people out of hand. This is not a criticisim aimed at you personally, or even at all, really, since, as you say, you're not one of the Hillary-haters.

 

I wasn't referring to Mrs. W. I was referring to George, and the very different President he is from what he presented himself as in 2000. My point is that its a very commone tactic.

[bascule]

My problem with Hillary is that she's one of those totalitarian liberals who wants to trample all over my libertarian values

[Saryctos]

My problem with Hillary is that she's one of those totalitarian liberals who wants to trample all over my libertarian values

True 'dat

[ecoli]

I almost forgot... Hillary visited my campus last thursday, and people were protesting her support of the Iraq war. Apparently, liberals feel she's too right and conservatives think she's too left.

[Jim]

I know, I know, I'm not arguing with you that those are the reasons, only that they're not as big as people seem to think. My point in all this is that what might seem like an insurmountable obstacle for Clinton, the personal dislike that so many have for her, could actually be fairly easy to overcome. My secondary point is that, when we have strong personal feelings for or against a public figure, we ought to reexamine the reason for those feelings carefully before we dismiss people out of hand. This is not a criticisim aimed at you personally, or even at all, really, since, as you say, you're not one of the Hillary-haters.

 

She very well could surprise me and I always thought she was the brainer of the two Clintons which is no small feat. OTOH, she just doesn't strike me as having the charisma to cobble together a win as a NY senator. The Dems need to nominate someone very much like Bill Clinton if they want to win. Jimmy Carter & Bill Clinton had the advantage of being southeners. Dems need to stop nominating candidates from areas of the country they are already going to win handily.

 

I wasn't referring to Mrs. W. I was referring to George, and the very different President he is from what he presented himself as in 2000. My point is that its a very commone tactic.

 

I was semi-kidding.

 

How do you figure Bush has done the ol' bait & switch? Of course, 9/11 changed the entire direction of his presidency.

[Haezed]

How does Hillary get around this speech and still bash Bush on Iraq?

 

Forgive the typos. I type fast but couldn't quite keep up:

 

There is a very easy way to prevent anyone to put in harms way and that is for Saddam Hussain to disarm and I have absolutely no belief that he will. I have to say this is something I have followed for more than a decade. If he were serious about disarming he would have been much more forthcoming. There may be progress, we may be destroying the missles but there is no accounting for the chemical and biological stocks.

 

For now nearly 20 years, the principal reasons women and children have suffered is his leadership. His not only tyranical and dictorial leadership but his reign of terror against women and children. It is a very unfortunate situation for the Iraqi people that they have been so horribly misgoverned for so long.

 

The very difficult question for all of is how does one bring about the disarmanent with such a proven track record, if not an obsession, with weapons of mass destruction. I ended up voting for the resolution after carefully reviewing the information and intelligence I had available and talking with people whose opinions I trusted and trying to discount political or other factors that I ddin't believe in any way should be a part of this decision. It is unfortunate that we are at the point of a potential military action to enforce the resolution.... It would be far preferable if we not only had legitimate cooperation from Saddam Hussein and a willingness on his part to disarm and to account for his chemical and biological storehouses but if we had a much broader alliance and coalition but we are in a difficult position right now.

 

Regarding the possibility of the international community stepping up to the plate:

 

With respect to whose responsibiilty it is to disarm Saddam Hussein, I just do not believe that given the attitudes of many people in the world community today there would be willingness to take on very difficult problems if it were not for the United States leadership and I'm talking specifically about what happened in Bosnia and Kosovo where my husband could not get a UN resolution to save the Kosovo Albanians from ethnic clensing and we did it alone as the US and we had to do it alone. It would have been far preferable if the Russians and others would agree to do it through the UN but they would not.

[ParanoiA]

Because she's a politician first, intellectual second. And almost all of them are.

 

This, is actually a rational thinking process that I wish would be preferred by all rather than the political mudslinging and distortion we see primarily.

 

Incidentally, I'm not as scared of her like I used to be. If she gets elected, I'm not that disappointed.

[Haezed]

Because she's a politician first, intellectual second. And almost all of them are.

 

This, is actually a rational thinking process that I wish would be preferred by all rather than the political mudslinging and distortion we see primarily.

 

Incidentally, I'm not as scared of her like I used to be. If she gets elected, I'm not that disappointed.

 

I was very impressed by what she had to say. If only she would keep saying it...