She really shouldn't even be a senator from NY (or anywhere else)

[Bonobo]

The wife of the President packs her bags and becomes a New Yorker. How would she have gotten there without the nepotistic calling in of political favors? Give me a break. It needs to be said.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpetbagger

"Since 1900 the term has also been used to describe outsiders attempting to gain political office or economic advantage, especially in areas (thematically or geographically) to which they previously had no connection."

[onenote]

1. so tell me: do you refer to Bobby Kennedy as a carpetbagger, too?

Just wonderin....

[Bonobo]

2. Can't respond to the OP? Start your own thread.

[onenote]

3. And you set the rules here under what authority.

Can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. Its an open forum. You post something stupid, expect to be called on it.

Geez...

[Bonobo]

6. What was stupid about it? Do you believe that ANYONE is a "carpetbagger" or is the term

itself fundamentally flawed?

What does Bobbie Kennedy have to do with Hillary Clinton?

[onenote]

10. Its Bobby..And you should go study your history.

Bobby Kennedy, brother of the late President of the United States, John F. Kennedy (maybe you read about him) moved to NY for the purpose of running for..and getting elected to...the United States Senate. People called him a carpetbagger too.

That's what it has to do with your OP.

[Bonobo]

11. Duh, of course. Bu that does not mean that NO ONE deserves to be called "carpet bagger"

Does it?

You need to take a course in Logic.

[onenote]

14. No, It means the burden is on you to explain why what RFK did is different from what HRC did

I don't see a difference. If you do, please share.

[Bonobo]

18. That is absurd. YOU don't come onto a thread and change the subject.

You lose.

[onenote]

I'm sorry, You don't decide what gets posted on your thread. Stop being a baby.

YOu raised the issue of whether HRC was a carpetbagger. I asked whether you considered Bobby Kennedy a carpetbagger.

You're too chicken to answer.

Go play with your toys.

[Bonobo]

24. I am a chicken for not answering a subject I have not studied enough to answer?

I think that makes me a considerate and thoughtful person. Odd.

I guess you think it would be better if I read more history on Bobby Kennedy, and maybe that is true.

But Bobby Kennedy, either being a carpetbagger or not a carpetbagger, does NOT bear directly on whether Hillary is one.

[onenote]

34. Maybe you should've studied it more before you posted then.

If you are going to use the term carpetbagger to disparage a Democrat, you might know the history of the term and how its been used to disparage others in the past.

[OmahaBlueDog]

37. No, you are ignorant for posting on a subject you haven't studied enough to answer

It'd take about 10 minutes of internet research to see that what Bobby (and countless other Senators and Congresspersons) did was the same. They're either all carpetbaggers or they're not.

[Bonobo]

43. I guess you're right. I guess the issue really is whether or not nepotism is justified if it brings

advantages to the people.

I think nepotism is contrary to the ideals of a free, Democratic system.

[OmahaBlueDog]

48. So when JFK made RFK the AG, you're saying it was bad, correct?

[Bonobo]

49. No, I am not saying that.

I am saying that people should not become senators in that way in general.

I am also ASKING if you think the end justifies the means? Is nepotism wrong? Is it okay if it works out well in the end?

[OmahaBlueDog]

59. If the individuals are intelligent and otherwise qualified, is there harm?

RFK was qualified to be AG, and was a good AG, despite the fact that he would not likely have been AG if not for his brother.

Hillary Clinton is qualified to be a Senator, and has been a good Senator, despite the fact that she would not likely have been Senator if not for her role as Bill's wife.

Libby Dole wouldn't be the Senator from North Carolina if she hadn't been Bob Dole's wife; why aren't you complaining about her?

[Bonobo]

61. AG is an appointed position. Different story.

But a senator should be from the state they represent.

As for Libby Dole, wtf, this is GDP. Why do I have to post about Libby Dole?

[OmahaBlueDog]

65. Exactly my point. Nepotism is when a family member makes an appointment of family members

Cronyism is when the hiring authority hires their friends.

Election is when the majority of people in a state vote for you. That's how Hillary became a Senator.

Moving to a state, registering to vote, and paying taxes is about all you need to do to become a citizen of a state. There's no requirement of lifetime roots.

As for Libby Dole, I just thought you'd like another outlet for your apparant rage against transplanted elected officials.

[guruoo]

62. Awwwww....

Deeper and deeper we go....

[Two Americas]

50. ROFL

There again you run into RFK - brother of the late president.

I think if you are going to go to a Democratic board and attack a current politician on the grounds that she had a close relative who was previously the president, or for moving to New York and becoming a Senator and then running for president herself, it would behoove you to know that one of the most beloved leaders among all Democrats, as well as people around the world, the martyred champion of the people, Robert F. Kennedy, was guilty of exactly the same offenses.

Teddy and FDR were related, too, by the way.

[Bonobo]

52. I think it is cowardly to hide behind RFK on this. The question is a legitimate one.

The fact that RFK was a great senator changes nothing. It is simply off-subject except as a weak rationalization for nepotism.

[Two Americas]

58. oh boy

OK....

No one is "hiding behind RFK."

No one is "defending nepotism." We are not arguing about nepotism at all. You used nepotism and carpet bagging as attacks against Clinton - saying that doing those things were a strike against her. If nepotism and carpet bagging are OK in some circumstances - which you admit - then it is no longer a valid charge, is it? The burden is upon you, here.

I think your actual position is that it is bad if Clinton does it - no matter what it is - and were hoping that this would somehow stick as a smear. Unfortunately, you are profoundly ignorant of the history of the party - the party that you presume to lecture the rest of us about - and stepped in it this time.

[Bonobo]

60. "No one is defending nepotism. We are not arguing about nepotism at all."

I know. That's the problem.

You keep trying to shift the argument to ground where you feel more comfortable and that is understandable.

I am saying flat out that Hillary got her position as senator due to the unfair advantage of having been married the the POTUS.

That, in and of itself, does not bear directly on whether or not she is good at the job that she acquired unfairly.

It is simply a statement. She leveraged an unfair advantage. Good for her.

[Two Americas]

70. bullshit, Bonobo

That is unfair. I am not trying to "shift the argument to ground where I feel more comfortable and that is understandable." YOU tried to use carpet bagging and nepotism as a smear against a particular politician. That failed. It is not up to the rest of us now to debate the pros and cons of nepotism with you simply because your first line of reasoning failed so miserably. We all addressed your initial assertions - and demolished them. It is not we who are trying to shift the grounds of the debate.

If you wanted to argue about nepotism - although technically this is not even nepotism - then why are you talking about Senator Clinton?

Who are you to decide which advantages are fair and which are unfair? The voters of New York made this decision. They have a right to elect anyone they chose, and they are the only authority on whether she should or should not be in that position.

Senator Clinton is a brilliant and driven and ambitious person. For all we know, being married to that husband of hers held back her political career. He seems to be a handicap to her now, at least if you listen to many Obama supporters tell the story.

[Bonobo]

71. I think you make great posts.

Admittedly, nepotism is not the correct term. However...

The point is that she would not have been senator without the advantage of having been married to the POTUS. Not having been a senator, she would not have been in the running for POTUS.

Ultimately, your argument is weak because this is the very reason that people feel ill when they think of the insanity behind having a Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton dynasty. It disturbs people on such a deep level. They know it is wrong. And it for the very reason that I am trying to point to here. That America was not intended to be run by royalty. And that is what the Clintons and Bushes are. American royalty. That is where the sense of entitlement also comes.

You can dance around it all you like, but it sticks in the craws of Americans and it is a serious issue she has to deal with in the GE. The fact is that many are made uncomfortable by this.

You are simply shooting the messenger.

[Two Americas]

75. would you please stop insulting me?

I am not "dancing around" anything. I am not making a "weak argument" - I am pointing out how weak your argument is.

The point is that she would not have been senator without the advantage of having been married to the POTUS. Not having been a senator, she would not have been in the running for POTUS.

We can't know that. She is a brilliant and ambitious woman. Maybe her marriage held her back.

Ultimately, your argument is weak because this is the very reason that people feel ill when they think of the insanity behind having a Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton dynasty. It disturbs people on such a deep level. They know it is wrong. And it for the very reason that I am trying to point to here. That America was not intended to be run by royalty. And that is what the Clintons and Bushes are. American royalty. That is where the sense of entitlement also comes.

How can my argument be weak when I didn't even talk about any of these issues you are bringing up for the first time now?

I am furious and heartsick about the corner we are painted into now and with the two candidates we have left. I am not going to jump on either bandwagon and pretend that all is well just so I can delude myself and please others who are demanding that we all do just that - live in a fantasy world.

I don't know which of the two candidates is worse, and no one listens to me anyway, and besides I go out decade after decade and work my ass off for whatever clown the party runs, so what the Hell difference do all of these arguments make? Why isn't what I do enough? Why must I sign a loyalty oath, figuratively speaking, my must I be silent and not criticize the anointed ones that the party shoves at us, why must I be on the team and pretend that if we just think positive or have f-ing hope or cheer real loud or visualize the f-ing results we want that all will be well? Why must I pretend that these candidates the party runs walk on f-ing water? I won't do it.

[OmahaBlueDog]

64. So by Nepotism, you mean over half of the New York voters are Clinton family members?

I know Bill is rumored to have gotten around, but sheesh -- I think that's a stretch.

By the way, Arnold Schwarzenegger is married to a Kennedy and a media luminary, so I guess that's nepotism as well..wait, no, he's a Republican and she's... oh never mind.

[paulk]

67. while you're studying up on Bobby K.

you should also look up the definition of "nepotism".

[DemVet]

82. It sounds like you don't have an answer.

[DemBones DemBones]

7. Good question which he won't answer. nt

[Bonobo]

12. Red herring.

[onenote]

15. Empty response

I'd find a good picture to go with my response, but why bother?

[Bonobo]

17. Ha! You don't have the courage to answer the OP!

Why should I go off course onto the subject YOU want me to talk about it.

If you could address the substance of the OP, you would have already done so.

[onenote]

21. I've answered it.

She is no more of a 'carpetbagger' than Bobby Kennedy was. The voters of New York willingly and knowingly elected them.

You have a problem with that? Fine. I don't.

And I'm not even a HRC supporter.

[Bonobo]

23. Oh, I think I see the problem.

You missed the definition part.

"Since 1900 the term has also been used to describe outsiders attempting to gain political office or economic advantage, especially in areas (thematically or geographically) to which they previously had no connection."

[Two Americas]

63. we know the definition

We know the definition of the term. RFK was smeared with it in the 60's by the right wingers, by the way.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

22. Sure he was. But he never acted like a feminist icon, that I'm aware of.

Nepotism is inherently antithetical to feminism. Nepotism is all about maintaining the status quo and existing patriarchal power structures. Feminism is about dismantling them. The patriarchy occasionally allows females to arise to heads of state. Hillary Clinton becoming President is no different than Queen Elizabeth I, Queen Victoria, Benazir Bhutto, or Isabelita Peron in that sense. In the larger sense, she's no different than the innumerate sons and nephews of sovereigns who have attained power because of their family relations. She's just another politician who benefitted from nepotism (and carpetbagging). Just like Bobby.

[Two Americas]

66. double standard

So it is just standard operating procedure when men use connections or family, but if a woman does that she is going against feminism? Then what? Either don't strive to get to the top, or don't support feminism if you want to strive to get to the top? Bad choice there.

I agree with the rest of your post but did want to comment on that. This is akin to "how can he be an environmentalist if he lives in a big house?" or "how can he be a champion of the poor when he is a millionaire?"

[mrreowwr_kittty]

74. I see what you're saying there.

However, the number of rich men who have embraced noblesse oblige (ala FDR and Kennedy) and the number of men who live in big houses who espouse conservation (Al Gore and perhaps, John Edwards) are pitifully small. When it comes to feminism, the record of women, when it comes to using the providence of their family connections to benefit their sisters is even more pitiful. Did either of the Queen Elizabeths, Queen Victoria, Isabelita Peron, Benazir Bhutto, Golda Meir, or Indira Ghandi, among others, go out of their way to improve the conditions of their fellow women? Not really.

Do I blame them for it? Not necessarily. They were/are products of their patriarchal cultures and understood/understand the limitations of their roles, given how they obtained them.

It's not Hillary's fault either. I'm sure she would want to enact policies that improve the lives of women everywhere. But she is hobbled by the way she was given access to power. She will always have to prove her macho bona fides, whether it's voting for authorization for war or for cluster bombs or for cutting taxes or social programs.

That said, I've always believed that our first female president will be a fundie warhawk firebrand. Think Margaret Thatcher crossed with Phyllis Schlafly. Who won't have the burden that Hillary has, of pretending to supporting all the social programs.

[Two Americas]

76. thanks

Thanks for seeing what I was trying to say. Great post, and you make several outstanding points in it.

Good analysis of the possible problematic nature of a Clinton presidency. I agree, she will have to appear "tough" and that could mean abandoning left wing political goals.

[Radical Activist]

78. At least Kennedy had lived there and had some connection to the state.

It isn't an honest comparison.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Stephanie]

5. WHAT is that photo?

[mamalone]

8. same question here!

Is that really Hillary? Who is the other person?? and what the heck is going on???

[Bonobo]

13. Being blessed by someone I think.

[mamalone]

16. wow....

very disturbing picture:yoiks:

[Bonobo]

20. It's hard to come up with something that makes THAT okay.

Imagine if someone found a photo of Obama doing that.

[mamalone]

81. Seriously!

I am a person to whom faith is very important, and even I find this picture unsettling. I'd love to hear some type of explanation of this pic...

[ShortnFiery]

9. Agreed. HRC reminds me of all the senior Officers' wives who ordered us

junior Officers' wives around for *favors* like they actually WORE their husbands' rank.

Yes, I do have to temper my overt prejudice because, due to my past experiences, I loath nepotism.

[Bonobo]

19. So far no one has denied it. Because it is true.

[JasonHill]

25. Bobby Kennedy was a carpetbagger

but to be fair though his legacy was of pushing forward racial integration while hers is IWR and the Bankruptcy Bill.

[BenDavid]

26. Maybe HRC is doing us Dems a favor so we'll still have a viable candidate

for when Obama shoots himself in the foot badly enough that even the whoremedia can't salvage his candidacy.

If he does somehow win the nomination this will all move forward to the general election and you can just imagine what the RNC, the 527's will use against this one trick pony.

[Bonobo]

29. I think he has shown resilience. You can't deny the numbers and Hillary has hit him

with everything she has.

I agree that the process should weed out the weak. It has done so.

[JasonHill]

44. That is right-wing propaganda

He has consistently shown that these manufactured controversies have had no long-term effect on his support or electability. Actually, you could say this proves he's more than capable of handling their machine since the Clinton one has been throwing mud at him through a republican frame yet despite all that he's been achieving all-time leads nationally and her support has been erroding, including reaching a majority-lvl perception of dishonesty.

[gore000408]

27. New Yorkers voted for her and give her high approval

We should ask them.

[Bonobo]

28. I think that would only mean that she was a "good carpetbagger".

It certainly wouldn't disprove the fact that nepotism was the reason she got into office in the first place.

[onenote]

30. the reason she got in office is that the voters elected her

they weren't bothered by, and in fact, seemed to find her political "connections" to be a positive thing.

Nepotism has gotten a lot of folks into office, in case you haven't noticed. Including folks like Evan Bayh, Martin Luther King III, Teddy Kennedy, Patrick Kennedy, John Dingell, Mary Landrieu, Al Gore...the list goes on and on and on.

Its not necessarily a bad thing in and of itself, although you don't seem to realize that.

[Bonobo]

33. Voters like senators who can bring the pork. That is why. Nothing honorable in that.

The fact is, she would get very different reviews from the more Upstate NYers.

[onenote]

36. you have a link for your statement about how upstate nyers feel about HRC?

You do realize that NYC makes up around 30 percent of the electorate in NY, upstate around 45 percent, and the suburbs constitute the rest. And she won reelection with 67 percent of the vote.

Again, I don't want HRC to be our nominee, but attacks like this are just stupid.

[Bonobo]

40. Upstate NY lost 240,000 jobs under Hillary instead of gaining the 200,000 she promised.

[paulk]

69. actually, NY lost the jobs under George W. Bush

I, as a Democrat, blame him. You know - he's the guy who is the President? The one most rational people are blaming for our crap economy?

ps - Hillary won counties in upstate NY that no Democrat had won in over fifty years. I'd say that is a pretty good indication of how upstate NY felt about her.

[murielm99]

31. And the same can be said of Bobby.

There was nepotism there, too.

[Two Americas]

55. it is up to the voters

If the voters want to vote for a relative of a previous president, or vote for a candidate who just recently moved to their district, that is their right to do so.

We have this thing called "elections," and a group of people called "voters" who make these determinations. Well we used to, anyway.

[Bonobo]

56. True. But the fact is she leveraged unfair advantages.

That is all that I meant when I said that she did not "deserve" it. In the sense that she took unfair advantage.

[Two Americas]

77. how about Al Gore?

His father was a Senator. That gave him an advantage. How about Ted Kennedy?

You say "took unfair advantage" - do you mean cheated? It is certainly unfair that some have unearned advantages - that is pervasive - but you say taking unfair advantage. Having and taking are different. Many have unfair advantages. That is different than taking unfair advantage.

I wonder if it had been Kucinich, Biden, or Edwards running against Clinton at this point if things would be different. Since there would have been such clear differences in positions and programs, I am betting we would be talking issues instead of playing gothca (both sides are doing it so let's be honest about that.)

[MonkeyFunk]

32. I almost thought you were sincere

the other day when you talked about making peace with Clinton supporters. Then I saw you were on meds.

Welcome back to your normal self.

[Bonobo]

35. Yeah, love all the help you've been around here.

At the time I was sincere.

I have become enraged after last night's debate.

And none of the "good Hillary supporters" can even say one word about Hillary's nasty behavior?

Where are the reasonably voiced middle of the grounders?

When I tried to reach out, NONE of them gave a drop of support.

Just paranoid rantings and stated regrets that "I shouldn't have taken you off ignore."

[MonkeyFunk]

38. No, I shouldn't have

I thought we'd be friends after the primaries, but you attacked me personally too many times now, and you've shown a meanness I didn't know existed. Ciao.

[Bonobo]

42. "No I shouldn't have"

Ciao.

[MonkeyFunk]

46. well, I'm saddened by it

it's so unnecessary.

It's not like you gain anything by losing friends. This isn't a trade - it's not my friendship or Obama's nomination. They're not connected. If being a dick to me would ensure Obama's nomination, I could understand your behavior. But what you say or do here has no impact on who gets the nomination. You're just losing friends for no reason, and I think that's sad.

[emilyg]

39. I reached out. Thought you were sincere.

My mistake. Your loss.

[Bonobo]

41. I'll be fine.

Thanks for the concern.

[Bonobo]

45. NEPOTISM: Do the ends justify the means?

Now perhaps we can get to the content of the thread.

[Two Americas]

72. again, bullshit

You started the thread, you established the context, and now that you got knocked out of the ring you are trying to change the rules of the game.

By the way, don't assume that anyone who disagrees with you here is a Clinton supporter. I am not. So don't lecture me that I should be criticizing something about her before I dare to challenge an Obama supporter on anything or fail to show anything but puppy love for Obama.

I don't care which if the two candidates wins. Let the candidates run and speak as long as they wish to, let the voters vote, and let the convention decide. I do care about the destructive means people are using to promote their candidate and the damage that could do to the party's prospects.

[PBS Poll-435]

47. Wow. The stench of fear

[Bonobo]

51. It's more anger than fear.

But there's a drop of fear in there. Why shouldn't there be? Obama is an extremely unlikely candidate to make it to the position of POTUS. There are many forces that are beginning to work in concert to stop such an unlikely thing from happening. Those powers also have Fear. But they are powerful indeed.

So yes, I have some Fear. It is the flip side of Hope.

[PBS Poll-435]

53. At least you are honest.

Extremely honest.

Is Hillary Clinton not an extremely unlikely candidate, as well?

[Bonobo]

54. Honestly I do not think she is equally unlikely.

She is married to the former 2-term president of the US.

I would love to have a woman as president and have said so many times. Believe it or not. It's true.

The fact that I don't like Hillary does not change that.

She has advantages that Obama does not have to make a massive understatement.

[guruoo]

57. Now, think. Where, and from whom did we first hear this shit?

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[OmahaBlueDog]

68. How would she have gotten there without the nepotistic calling in of political favors?

1. She moved to New York (people move in the country .. it's allowed)
2. She became a citizen of the state (dirt simple in all 50)
3. She hired a firm to get petition signatures, like every other politician does, and paid the registration fee to enter her name on the ballot.
4. She received a majority of the votes

I don't see the "nepotistic calling in of political favors." Saying Hillary one strictly on the political influence of people she knows is kinda like saying that Barack Obama wouldn't be the Senator from Illinois if Oprah didn't think he was the greatest thing since sliced bread.

[cbayer]

73. That site where you got that weird picture is really, really scary.

http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/

I'm not sure we should be using things from that site. If you think that is Hillary Clinton in that picture, I would venture that you have no credibility.

[BlooInBloo]

79. Do you mean the one on the right? It comes up all over the place in a google image search.

[cbayer]

85. I did a google search for it.

It comes up only twice and both times on really bizarro sites. I don't think it's her and I don't think you should use it. Suit yourself, but I am going to challenge it everytime I see it unless you can show me that it is a legitimate picture of Clinton.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

80. D L C

Delivering Lying Clintons


Umm, no thanks.

[undeterred]

83. No I don't think she should be in elected office at all.

[hulklogan]

84. Some people on DU hate democracy, I guess.

Senator Clinton was elected by the people of New York to represent them. If a majority thought should she "shouldn't even be a Senator from New York (or anywhere else)" they wouldn't have voted for her. End of.

It saddens me to see underhanded attacks like this around here, and I'm no Hillite.