The Hillary paradox

[DrDNA]

You can dislike her all you want, but if you honestly believe she can't be trusted around children (whatever that means), then you've been brainwashed far, far more than you realize by the professional slander industry. I mean, come on. I'm not a Hillary Clinton supporter, but I constantly end up coming to her defense, just because of the completely ridiculous degree to which she is maligned by some people.

 

She's a politician. So yes, she's probably insincere quite a bit, just like any other politician. (At one time I believe she was quite sincere, but a lifetime of politics tends to jade a person.) And yes, she's ambitious. (She's running for President! What a revelation!) She lacks the personal charisma of, say, her husband, and so she probably seems even more insincere than she actually is. .

 

You fail to miss the analogy. Let me rephrase. Say that you are interviewing candidates for an open position in your dept. A person comes through the door and they are very bright, driven, but you know for certain that they are insincere and they make your skin crawl severely on several levels. Would you hire them for a sensitive, VERY important position? Of course you would find any excuse not to hire them. Why, when someone honestly states this about Hillary, must they be subjected to ridicule and accused of being Rush Limbaugh's stupid robot?

 

But none of that would matter to anybody if it wasn't fashionable to hate her, and it wouldn't be fashionable to hate her if the "Hillary is evil" drumbeat hadn't been going for so long. People who don't actually know anything about her positions assume they're against them, because "Hillary is evil." That's why conservatives think she's a crazy liberal, and why liberals think she's a two-faced conservative. The same thing (to a lesser degree, frankly) has been done to GWB - people will take a position just because it's the opposite of his, because "Bush is evil." Similarly, anything she does must be criticized. She is attacked for standing by her husband, but you're a fool if you think she wouldn't be attacked for not standing by her husband. It goes on and on.

.

 

Call me stupid, a robot, whatever. It doesn't matter. I respect your opinion of Hillary and also of me. However, from where I sit, it appears to ME that YOU my friend are the one that has been buying someone else's (eg, party line or media's) bull. I am convinced that this country is in love with Camelot (if I may borrow that term for our fascination with almost roylaty). Jackie was our "queen"....walked on water because of it...and JFK junior our "prince". Ted Kennedy gets a free pass all the time because of it. No matter what he says or does, he gets a free pass (please don't get me started with Ted; that is a whole thread). Now Hillary walks on water for a large segment of the population and gets a free pass because she married a "duke" (gov) who became "king" (pres) and stayed with him through some really awful acts that no woman should have to put up with. Well latty firggin da. Women do that every day, for MUCH less in return. Does it make her honorable? On some level perhaps. Should it make her untouchable? Absolutely not. But it does. The royal lineage MUST go on. I ask why? It is absolutely insane.

 

So what is she really?

Great question! Glad you asked it.

As I said before; George Bush in a dress?

Seriously, I don't know (but I'm leaning towards the above). It does appear that this is a problem (at least part of the Hillary Paradox).

 

Oh, and BTW: "Bush IS evil" or just plain weak of character....the result is the same.

[CDarwin]

You fail to miss the analogy. Let me rephrase. Say that you are interviewing candidates for an open position in your dept. A person comes through the door and they are very bright, driven, but you know for certain that they are insincere and they make your skin crawl severely on several levels. Would you hire them for a sensitive, VERY important position? Of course you would find any excuse not to hire them. Why, when someone honestly states this about Hillary, must they be subjected to ridicule and accused of being Rush Limbaugh's stupid robot?[/Quote]

 

Snap emotional judgments like that aren't a very good idea even when you are able to meet a person. You've never had the opportunity to interview Hillary Clinton. All you have to go on is the face she puts out publicly and (more importantly) what the media tells you. Surely you see that there are problems with basing a major decision on something like that.

 

Call me stupid, a robot, whatever. It doesn't matter. I respect your opinion of Hillary and also of me. However, from where I sit, it appears to ME that YOU my friend are the one that has been buying someone else's (eg, party line or media's) bull. I am convinced that this country is in love with Camelot (if I may borrow that term for our fascination with almost roylaty). Jackie was our "queen"....walked on water because of it...and JFK junior our "prince". Ted Kennedy gets a free pass all the time because of it. No matter what he says or does, he gets a free pass (please don't get me started with Ted; that is a whole thread). Now Hillary walks on water for a large segment of the population and gets a free pass because she married a "duke" (gov) who became "king" (pres) and stayed with him through some really awful acts that no woman should have to put up with. Well latty firggin da. Women do that every day, for MUCH less in return. Does it make her honorable? On some level perhaps. Should it make her untouchable? Absolutely not. But it does. The royal lineage MUST go on. I ask why? It is absolutely insane.

Has anyone expressed that opinion? Continuing a dynasty (*cough*Bush*cough*) is just as stupid a reason for electing a public official as our hopelessly inaccurate sense of their "character."

[DrDNA]

"Snap emotional judgments"???

She has been in the national public eye for nearly a decade and a half!

 

Re: "You've never had the opportunity to interview Hillary Clinton. All you have to go on is the face she puts out publicly and (more importantly) what the media tells you."

 

Of course all I have to go on is the face she puts out publicly. Until she comes over to the house for tea, that will be all I have to go on.

[CDarwin]

"Snap emotional judgments"???

She has been in the national public eye for nearly a decade and a half! [/Quote]

 

I was referring to your example. You could just take out the word "snap" and it would apply to Hillary, though.

 

Re: "You've never had the opportunity to interview Hillary Clinton. All you have to go on is the face she puts out publicly and (more importantly) what the media tells you."

 

Of course all I have to go on is the face she puts out publicly. Until she comes over to the house for tea, that will be all I have to go on.

 

And it's a poor basis for decision making.

[DrDNA]

This is quite interesting.

If public face is a poor basis for decision making, by what means do you propose that the citizenry base their decisions regarding the casting of ballots? BTW: Record is part of that public face.

I'm open to other suggestions and would prefer another way myself, but I just can't think of one.

[CDarwin]

This is quite interesting.

If public face is a poor basis for decision making, by what means do you propose that the citizenry base their decisions regarding the casting of ballots? [/Quote]

 

The issues. And those things about a candidate that can be quantified.

 

BTW: Record is part of that public face.

 

No, a record is something quantifiable.

 

Again, this is just my opinion. If you think your gut is more reliable than my brain (definitely a possibility) then more power to you. I just don't have much of an intuitive gift myself.

[DrDNA]

So what are you planning to do?

Ban all forms of media and pass a law that all candidates must be judged solely on their quantifiable records?

 

As that guy on the Guiness beer commercial would say.... "Brilliant"

[ParanoiA]

This is quite interesting.

If public face is a poor basis for decision making, by what means do you propose that the citizenry base their decisions regarding the casting of ballots? BTW: Record is part of that public face.

I'm open to other suggestions and would prefer another way myself, but I just can't think of one.

 

Job performance...just like the rest of us. Voting record is a good source of ideology and viewpoints which also matters in this case.

 

Personal life is irrelevant. Sexual orientation is irrelevant. Looks are irrelevant. Pretty much everything they talk about on the corporate news business concerning candidates is irrelevant really.

[DrDNA]

Ah.......I see.

And how do you propose to deal with a thing call the first amendment (free speech, press, etc..)?

TVs, radios, internet, and newspapers would have to be banned and so that we only base our decisions on their records. And what about new candidates that have not held office before...How do you judge them?

I don't necessarily disagree with your idealistic views, but the first A might be a barrier to pulling this off.........

 

This has reminded me of when I was in my late teens to early 20s and firmly believed that we should give ALL of our money to our benevolent government, because they know how to spend it more wisely than we do and would provide us with everything we could possibly need......(true story).

Unfortunately, a beast called reality beat the living heck out me......

Enjoy while you can.

Peace.

[CDarwin]

So what are you planning to do?

Ban all forms of media and pass a law that all candidates must be judged solely on their quantifiable records?

 

As that guy on the Guiness beer commercial would say.... "Brilliant"

 

You've got a talent for non sequiturs. Ban all media? Who said that?

 

All we're saying is it's unwise to base who you're going to vote for on your emotional responses to "how blue Hillary's suit was in that debate", when there are such things as issues and records on issues floating around. You don't need to have been elected to have a record on an issue. I think you know we've got a point and you're just weaseling around because you don't want to lose.

[ParanoiA]

And how do you propose to deal with a thing call the first amendment (free speech' date=' press, etc..)?

TVs, radios, internet, and newspapers would have to be banned and so that we only base our decisions on their records. And what about new candidates that have not held office before...How do you judge them?

I don't necessarily disagree with your idealistic views, but the first A might be a barrier to pulling this off.........[/quote']

 

First, I just answered your question. I don't care how idealistic it is, it's just what I believe. I also believe it's wrong to commit murder, but how realistic is it that no one else will ever commit murder? And why should I care or let that impact my belief in any way, shape or form?

 

A person once told me, a liberal I might add, "be the change you want to see". I laughed at him at the time and now I understand.

 

 

 

Second, there's nothing to "deal with" because I don't have this urge or drive to control everything. I'd rather persuade others to think like me, that is if it mattered so much to me for you to agree with me. I'm a libertarian, individualist type of guy so I don't mind everybody else having different opinions, desires, ways of life, cultures and etc. I just don't like anybody infringing on my capacity to follow my own way in life.

 

So, nothing needs to be banned. Nothing needs to be censored. People, the consumers, have the power and the media will give us what we want. Right now, we seem to want Hillary to show more cleavage and Obama to be more black. We get to the issues after all of that.

 

Lastly, if a candidate has no credentials that you know of, then why would you vote for them? If all you can speak of is their attire or looks, then why do you settle for that and make a decision? Wouldn't it be smarter not to vote at all? Don't "Rock the Vote". Know what you're voting for or stay home, please.

[DrDNA]

All we're saying is it's stupid to base who you're going to vote for on your emotional responses to "how blue Hillary's suit was in that debate", when there are such things as issues and records on issues floating around. .

 

I see.

Paranoia, Darwin,

You think that I am advocating that people make decisions of such magnitude based on anything other than the facts? LOL. Thanks buds.

Cleavage and color of clothing? ROFL!

Johnny, let's vote for Edwards because he has the nicest hair cut..ROFL!!

I thought this was about something at least a little deeper than that....at least some perception of trust vs lack thereof, sincerity, truth vs lies, deciet or corruption...based on something(s) on some grander scale... I am VERY disappointed.

 

I think you know we've got a point and you're just weaseling around because you don't want to lose.

 

BTW: Your should know that it is not nice to call people weasels. Not a good strategy to use when trying to prove any kind of point or state a case.

 

Lose? LOL. I wasn't even aware that this was a contest. I thought it was an honest, simple discussion about possible reasons why some people think Hillary walks on water and some apparently detest her. Just because I honestly tried to explain why I personally feel the way I do about this candidate (which has nothing to do with cleavage, clothing, orientation, what some radio pundit said, etc... by the way....), doesn't mean I want to beat anyone at anything.

**And if you would just look, the first responce to this thread was by me. In which I stated that most peoples' opinions of her come from media/pundits/etc... So come on. You think that I am not aware of the influence????

 

I just so happen to believe that what you are proposing would be great. I really do. I'd be cray not to agree with it. Not like it's novel and hasn't been proposed before (many many times). Except for the fact that in the real world peoples' opinions and beliefs tend to be based on things other than entirely objective criteria (not my novel invention either). I wish it weren't so, but it is. If it were so, this world would be a little closer to perfect than it is. And if you and I were actually able to put our blinders on and view each of the candidates in a completely objective manner (see Hillary as a person....LOL...sorry, Obama as colorless, etc), unfortunately, our votes would be drowned out by the millions are not completely objective. Plus, if you think that you are ENTIRELY objective, lacking in the effects of outside influence, well I could be wrong, but you might need to remove the log from your eye and take a long hard look at yourself. Again, I could be wrong and perhaps you are not influenced in any way by the environment. If I am wrong, I apologize, but I've only ever heard of one other person like that.......

 

Back to the point: A nonobjective variable that will be used in this race that may be valid on some level(s): one example of why she is difficult for Average Joe to take, a very subjective thing that really makes me wonder about Hillary....how, after a decade and half in the national spotlight, plus years before that in a state mansion, a few years in the Senate....all that money spent on handlers.....does she still comes across to the Average Joe (and to me by the way) as so insincere and unprofessional. Almost like someone in a high school debate....I really want to know why. You got an answer for that?

BTW: If your answer involves any hint of pundits or media...may the fleas of a thousand camels infest your arm pits.

[CDarwin]

I see.

Paranoia, Darwin,

You think that I am advocating that people make decisions of such magnitude based on anything other than the facts?[/Quote]

 

Then despite all appearances we seem to agree.

 

I thought this was about something at least a little deeper than that....at least some perception of trust vs lack thereof, sincerity, truth vs lies, deciet or corruption...based on something(s) on some grander scale... I am VERY disappointed.

 

You know how you tell if someone is lying? It's not "looking them square in the eye." It's looking at their record. You know how you can tell someone is corrupt? Its not seeing that they use the right body language. It's their record. That's what I'm at least talking about.

 

just so happen to believe that what you are proposing would be great. I really do. I'd be cray not to agree with it. Not like it's novel and hasn't been proposed before (many many times). Except for the fact that in the real world peoples' opinions and beliefs tend to be based on things other than entirely objective criteria (not my novel invention either). I wish it weren't so, but it is. If it were so, this world would be a little closer to perfect than it is. And if you and I were actually able to put our blinders on and view each of the candidates in a completely objective manner (see Hillary as a person....LOL...sorry, Obama as colorless, etc), unfortunately, our votes would be drowned out by the millions are not completely objective. Plus, if you think that you are ENTIRELY objective, lacking in the effects of outside influence, well I could be wrong, but you might need to remove the log from your eye and take a long hard look at yourself. Again, I could be wrong and perhaps you are not influenced in any way by the environment. If I am wrong, I apologize, but I've only ever heard of one other person like that.......[/Quote]

 

You're not addressing our/my actual argument. "Blah, blah, blah, we don't live in a vacuum," Sure.

 

What I at least have had a problem with is this statement:

I ask this every election year: who would I let baby sit my child? Honestly, I can say that I would not let her baby sit my child.

 

I say that's a bad basis for electing a politician because you can't possibly know from what you see on the television and what you read in the papers if a person is qualified to baby sit a child, and childcare skills aren't at issue for leaders anyway.

 

No, we don't live in a perfect world. We live in a world where people don't wear their 'characters' on their sleeves, even if they want you to think they do. The sub-perfect nature of our world means that relying on our emotional response to a candidate makes for bad decision making.

 

Back to the point: A nonobjective variable that will be used in this race that may be valid on some level(s): one example of why she is difficult for Average Joe to take, a very subjective thing that really makes me wonder about Hillary....how, after a decade and half in the national spotlight, plus years before that in a state mansion, a few years in the Senate....all that money spent on handlers.....does she still comes across to the Average Joe (and to me by the way) as so insincere and unprofessional. Almost like someone in a high school debate....I really want to know why. You got an answer for that?

BTW: If your answer involves any hint of pundits or media...may the fleas of a thousand camels infest your arm pits.

 

Because she's bad at relating to people. Big whoop. So am I.

 

This little digression has gotten so off-topic and acrimonious... If anyone has anything to say vis-a-vis the original topic don't let us stop you.

[iNow]

I'd like to read the wording of the questions used in the poll.

[DrDNA]

Amen.

I surrender