Why I'd have no problem voting for Hillary

[Mythsaje]

People who've read my stuff before know I'm no fan. She strikes me as a little too happy to go with the prevailing wind, and I don't consider that the mark of a good leader. I don't think one can serve the public and the insurance industry at the same time, and I'm willing to bet any attempt at creating a national healthcare program would be an attempt to cater to both, with the public being on the losing end of the whole thing.

THAT said, there are a lot of reasons why I don't necessarily think she'd be a bad president. Not a GREAT one, but certainly worthy of the position. Her being a woman carries a lot of weight with me, even if she does mouth chickenhawk phrases entirely too often for my comfort. I think she's in the sad position of having to appear even more "manly" than the male contenders--more capable of forceful action than they are.

But the fact is that women are, in general, more defensively oriented than offensively oriented. I think, given the right information, she'd be less likely than many males, most definitely the Repugs, to launch an attack against any enemy that wasn't an obvious threat.

I don't think it hurts that she's married to a man I consider a consummate politician, a true latter-day statesman. Whether true or not, Bill has the ability to make anyone with whom he speaks feel like he actually hears them and cares about them. That would be a trait she'd be well-considered to emulate. She could learn a lot from him in this regard.

She's undoubtedly sharp. After eight years of moronic "leadership," it would be good to have someone in the White House who could rub two brain cells together, and wouldn't be so wedded to ideology, particularly the bankrupt ideology of the neo-cons, that she'd stumble from crisis to crisis like this present pack of nitwits.

It may well be that what we're seeing of her now is her attempt to cater to the mythical "middle." I can't say for sure. But it may be that she'd pursue more progressive policies than we realize now. Especially if she were able to retain a Democratic Congress to bolster her policy decisions. We might have seen even more prosperity during Bill's administration had Congress not been lost to the "Contract On America" so quickly.

And, finally, I think it would be a good thing to get a competent woman elected President. As long as she did a fair to middling job, it would open up the office to other capable women in the future. And that could only be seen as a positive trend in my opinion.

We might do better than Hillary, it's true. But, then again, we could do a lot worse.

Something to keep in mind.

[emilyg]

1. Very good points. R

[Sherman A1]

2. I will have no problem voting for her in the general, but in the primary

I will be voting for Kucinich

[aquart]

3. The primary we vote our choice. The general we vote our party's choice.

We'll never get everything we want or need. Right now, I'm so down I'll settle for sane.

[Mythsaje]

4. Hell, yeah...

Sanity would be wonderful.

[ShortnFiery]

9. Hell, maybe ...

I suggest the welfare of Our beloved Country comes before BLIND loyalty to a corporations-first leader. :(

[Double T]

5. Great points. This country needs to move forward..........

and not continue in high speed reverse. Hillary is definitely a corporatist and that concerns me more than anything else about her.

[avrdream]

6. Thanks. Recommended reading for thought.

[Captain Hilts]

7. Women in power usually go through the same socialization processes as men to get there.

But this is what makes HRC a bit different because of the 'first lady' experience.

[ShortnFiery]

8. Nobody I know uses being "the wife of the boss" to pad their resume

:eyes:

HRC's not a feminist but primarily serves powerful "big business." Noone admires assertive women more than myself having worked in mostly male oriented professions. However, HRC reminds me of that asinine old War Horse, Margaret Thatcher. If you believe NEVER admitting mistakes and exuding more bluster and testosterone than the men is what makes a good woman leader of a nation, have a sit-down with a few BRITs who had to *endure* that horrible woman as their know-it-all Ruler? :puke: :thumbsdown:

The USA needs a woman leader who is not afraid to show POSITIVE feminine traits, i.e., humbleness and consensus building abilities - not power consolidation with large corporations. Someone who doesn't have to crop her hair off, swagger and "talk tough" in order to be respected as a leader. :(

[Captain Hilts]

10. Being in the White House isn't like any other job.

'Humbleness' is a feminine trait?

Wow.

And I'm not so sure that is a trait that makes for a good president. Theodore Roosevelt, humble? No way. FDR? Hell no. Truman? About some things, but not his work.

And you're criticizing her haircut? It looks like those of a large percentage of her contemporaries.

This is like Kirk and Picard fans criticizing Janeway for not being more 'vulnerable'. That's just not a trait I look for in a leader.

[ShortnFiery]

11. Humbleness is a "typical" feminine trait - yes a generalization.

I'm criticizing HRC's "the ends justify the means" ambitions. Most of all I despise her power hungry love of large corporations and consolidating "whisper deals" and other alliances within the DLC, i.e., IMO a republican lite organization.

No, HRC can't have it both ways. She can't say she's "a feminist" and then reference "my husband" with every other breath.

BTW we must be observing different women: HRC is no Janeway for her exuded bluster and arrogance seemingly knows no bounds. :shrug:

p.s. Although we're talking fiction, but in her quiet moments, Janeway was quite humble. I just don't see any hint of such a trait in HRC. I also see hints of humbleness within FDR and other Presidents ... under the surface, there's glimpses of self-reflection. Self-reflection and HRC? No.

[Captain Hilts]

13. FDR...

was the most selfish, self-centered bastards to ever sit in the Big Chair. He was not loyal to his wife, his family, the Constitution, etc. As one cousin said, the only thing FDR was loyal to throughout his entire life was the US Navy. True.

HRC's husband is the 500 lb. gorilla in every room. She might as well mention him.

I generally agree with you that being married to someone isn't normally something that adds anything to your resume. But hell, I wish Eleanor had had a go at the Big Chair. I really like Elizabeth Edwards and Obama's wife as well. I actually find the latter two more intriguing than their husbands. I think Michelle O is a real winner and would like to see her in the Big Chair.

Our country and government are in a real mess. If I were to vote for Hillary - and I prefer Clark, Richardson, Dodd and Gore over her - in the back of my mind might be the belief that perhaps it would be good to have someone who has already lived in the White House there so that we can hit the ground running with a minimal 'transition'. Someone who knows what it's like.

[ShortnFiery]

14. So you have the capacity to look within the heart and soul of FDR?

What other superhuman feat can you show us?

No, I saw a man, who, under the surface - REFLECTED and REANALYZED often. Not like our present Dear Leader who follows simplicity. Perhaps we are defining "outward appearances" ... even through what you perceive as arrogance, I could see "a genuine caring." Neither of us can read hearts and minds so this topic is admittedly moot.

We disagree.

With regarding on HRC touting "wife of the boss" status as a PRIZED of her resume to be The President. No, absolutely NOT. That doesn't sit well with me.

If Obama becomes President, those of his closest advisers will not have to sit on "pins and needles" out of fear that they are COMPETING with The First Lady for his domestic and foreign policy advice. Although Michelle is just as intelligent as HRC, she's not going to vie for the position of her husband's (the boss's) Chief of Staff. :thumbsdown:

The thought of a husband and wife as Co-Presidents of the United States scares the hell out of me. :scared: After all, this is NOT England and we are not talking about ROYALTY but the running of a Democratic Republic.

[Captain Hilts]

15. No, I'm just quoting those that were close to him. Being humble just wasn't one of his traits.

This is an interesting discussion, but your inability to keep it polite will make me bow out.

Your 'superhuman' comment is schoolyard. I don't need that kind of crap.

[ShortnFiery]

16. No, I apologize and I did admit that it's not sound to discuss "trait" perspectives.

Are you sure that you are not bowing out because people just don't want a Co-Presidency in the White House? That such ambitions may make us fear that they'll snag Chelsea from her hedge fund job to work in a high office within The Treasury?

I despise nepotism. It seems that HRC was angling for the Chief of Staff position. That must have made a number of advisers uncomfortable to say the least? :shrug:

[Captain Hilts]

17. Thanks. She's not among my first four choices...

and the Bushes have certainly confirmed nepotism's bad reputation. But that's not enough to keep me from voting for her should she be the nominee. But if she's the nominee, I'll vote for her because I am just livid over the war-mongering kleptocracy that the Bush Administration has created and that the Republican congress let him create.

Hell, the 3rd generation of Roosevelts and the children of W.S. Churchill did too.

I don't really think the absence of self-reflection is necessarily a bad thing. The general absence of that sort of thing is one of those things, I think, that probably made FDR a great president. He just kept moving forward. It also might have been one of those things that would have made Eleanor a bad president. She might have thought about things too much. The same can be said for Nixon.

But I'm not sure I need for my president, captain or quarterback to be humble.

[ShortnFiery]

18. I define "humble" as periodically "self-reflecting" and able to change course.

I think we define "humble" differently as I did a number of Google searches and have discovered that FDR did often "re-assess and self-reflect." At least there's ample evidence of other's claiming that he did accomplish the above. :shrug:

You know, I thank you for this exchange. I have come to the conclusion through this mostly civil (sorry I got snotty at one point :blush:), that I will not vote for HRC NOT out of liberal values (her corporatist bent) but the fact that I'm a woman.

I have to level with you, in that, because I truly prize my gender and I want excellent role models for my daughter and other young women, I have a *very personal* stake in NOT having our first President be HRC.

I've seen many ambitious women as I competed in mostly male occupations. I've admired a few women leaders (assertive but active listeners, time for ALL employees, helped peers look good as well as bosses, OPEN, consensus builder and not underhanded in building alliances), but the ones I did not respect (unbridled ambition, inability to admit mistakes, adoration of the bosses to the detriment of her peers and employees, shamelessly namedropping friend and family connections) are THE Negative Traits I see in HRC.

To each his/her own. Time will tell. :hi:

[Captain Hilts]

19. The 2 July Nation has a very good article on the demographic breakdown of women...

and how the react to HRC's candidacy. I found it very interesting reading.

I, too, am sick of corporate shills, that's one of the reasons I'm a Clarkie. Like a lot of military/Republican types, when he got out he noticed that the civilian world has thoroughly screwed over a whole bunch of folks in the 30 years he'd been in the service.

My defenses go up, however, when HillaryC is criticized for being 'ambitious'. They're all ambitious and few get to the presidency any other way.

After reading the Nation article, it got me to thinking about how our government - the whole thing - is set up to devalue or ignore so many issues of concern to women. Patty Murray, the 'mommy in sneakers' got to the Hill and ended up being just like everyone else there. A bit more liberal, certainly, but the system rewards people willing to be placed in that cookie cutter. Why isn't there a major 'homelife' committee that would address issues like parental leave/homecare for elderly/etc.? There should be.

But, I guess I'm a bit cynical in thinking that by the time someone gets to be a viable candidate for the presidency, they've been through a process that kind of chews them up. Women and 'liberals' have a burden of proof tacked onto them that conservatives just don't have. On Trek boards I keep noting that it's okay for Capt. Janeway to act like a 'mommy' to the crew at times. My dad was a sub skipper and being a 'daddy' is a VERY big part of the job. I just wish that instinct didn't get erased by the time someone becomes a prez. candidate. I like to think that eating a lot of the same MREs as his troops has helped Clark retain those instincts.

I'm rambling....but you get the idea. I think you'll find the Nation article interesting.

[papau]

12. I agree :-)

:-)