“President Clinton” – “President Bush” ONLY from 1988-2016 – Is that what we want? n/t

[autorank]

[rockymountaindem]

1. Apparently n/t

[mondo joe]

2. This is a total non-issue to me. There is no limitation on family members

running for office. And there shouldn't be.

It's entierly up to the electorate - provided the votes are counted.

[StClone]

7. Hillary is not Bill

W is not Poppie.

[originalpckelly]

17. And King George the 3rd was not King George the 2nd.

Doesn't that argument work for a monarchy?

[mondo joe]

21. Monarchs are not elected.

The problem with monarchy is not that multiple family members hold a position, but that lineage is the sole determining factor.

In an electoral system, lineage is not a determining factor, except as purely optional in the consideration of the voter.

[originalpckelly]

26. There is such a thing as elective monarchy...

and quite frankly, this doesn't seem to be right. So many people from only two families, it's not right.

[mondo joe]

29. It's not right to limit the voters per your bias.

The voters can choose their own bias.

If enough people think it's wrong, they won't vote for the person.

PS: Elected monarchs are not elected from the general public as a rule, but from small bodies who are not themselves elected.

[StClone]

41. King Roosevelt almost four term?

Yeah we were lucky. Now if there is a Bush in the next 50 years then I concur

[Dragonbreathp9d]

92. hence the problem

[rodeodance]

8. it is for this argument that I wish she would have changed to Rodham.

[autorank]

73. You're on to something.

But if she changed her name, the right wing morons would get on her for that. It's going to be fascinating to see how this plays out. I think Edwards is about 2 weeks away from breaking out, challenging her directly. And then there's Al...

[originalpckelly]

16. Don't you think it's wrong that so many people from two families are in power for so long...

when we live in a nation of 300,000,000 people?

How are people in only two families supposed to understand us?

I admit I would like a woman President, it would be cool, it's about damn time, but aren't there other women out there in this world capable of doing the job?

Isn't this kind of turning into a "duoarchy"?

[mondo joe]

19. I don't think it's wrong if it's the actual choice of the voters.

Provided voters have an actual choice to nominate candidates and vote on them, it's their call.

That's democracy.

[originalpckelly]

24. No, I'd call it a monarchy, you assume we've really got a choice.

The only other people running either have no chance in hell, or are losers. You can't tell me there isn't another woman out there in America as capable, or even more so, than Hillary. At least one, if not many more.

[mondo joe]

27. If we have no choice, it really doesn't matter if they're related or not, does it?

If we have any choice, it's not a monarchy.

If we have no choice (and short of election rigging, I don't see that), then it doesn't matter if they're related or not - the absence of choice matters.

[whopis01]

93. Do you believe that is the case?

Do you believe that voters have an actual choice to nominate candidates and vote on them? Do you believe that it is an equal and level ground upon which all candidates stand? Or do you think that the money and power that is concentrated in a small number of families skews the choices that voters have?

In theory anyone can run for president. Reality is not theory.

[aquart]

20. Four people, of whom only ONE is running and can be hurt by this smear.

And SHE is not a blood relative to any of them.

But if you want to tout the rightwing's talking points, be my guest. Take the label.

[StClone]

47. This all so silly

There is nothing wrong with Hillary; I'll vote her in if she's the nominee.

[autorank]

33. History shows it's wrong.

In the middle of the 11th century, Domenico Flabanico, ruler (Doge) of the Republic of Venice
and others barred any and all forms of hereditary power. There were no two consecutive rulers
from the same family after that. In addition, each subsequent leader was required to sign an
iron clad contract barring any anticipated form of graft and corruption explicitly and containing
general principles of honest leadership. These two elements, no heretitary succession and an
explicit pledge of honesty resulted in Venice becoming the wealthiest, by a long shot, nation the
world has ever seen, a beacon of tolerance, science and innovation, and a world power for the
next 600 years...six hundred.

If his name were George Stein, would he have even been take seriously?

If her name was Hillary Smith would she lead the pack?

Names, name recognition, and vested interests and alliances result in candidates who are not
running as people so much as part of "the franchise."

Not a good idea for a nation founded on anti royalist, democratic principles which we've struggled
to implement over these many years, and continue to implement today.

My candidate, Gore, is from one of those franchises but he's had an awakening, I'm convinced, and
sees the horror that "the money party" (both the Republican and Democratic wings) has created.
Privilege is about protecting the franchise, expanding the money opportunities for allies. It's
got to go, imho. It's a matter of principle and pragmatism at the same time. It works much better
when privilege, no matter how derived, has little to do with leadership.

[superkia]

48. And the the MSM stops poisoning peoples minds with lies!

[juajen]

3. Yep

N/T

[Burma Jones]

4. I think so, let me see what CBS tells me I want.......

I'm pulling for Richardson, ho hum.....

[autorank]

49. He did pretty good in that Chicago debate.

He was right out there on unions and infrastructure. Impressive. Huge intellect.

He's appealing since he's got the mojo on lunatic leaders of large and troubling nations.

I'm serious here. Of all the candidates on either side, if I could sit down with one of
them and ask anything I wanted, it would be Richardson: "So tell me all about dealing so
well with these folks, how do you do it?" Because he does. What a necessary talent.

If he doesn't get in, he'd be a great Secretary of State.

[Stephanie]

5. NO

NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO !

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

6. It's Irrelevant, Really.

What's relevant is whether or not Hillary would make a good president or not. I think she would. That's what matters.

[ccpup]

9. absolutely

those who bring up this argument seem to be looking for anything to knock her out and, in effect, prop up their own candidate. I want whoever is going to be a good President regardless of their name or who they're married to.

[terrya]

57. Yes...that's the correct answer.

:thumbsup:

[Speck Tater]

10. Don't forget Chelsea and the Bush girls. This could last 100 years. nt

[aquart]

22. I really hope you think you're being funny.

[Fresh_Start]

11. If Bill could run again, I'd vote for him

EOM

[originalpckelly]

30. It's amazing how willing we are to turn ourselves over to people...

in some type of quasi-President for life type of thing.

[Fresh_Start]

32. maybe you. I wouldn't turn my vote over to either of the Bush's

or Reagan

[MrCoffee]

31. if only we could recommend a response

:applause:

[MrCoffee]

12. yawn.

i'm not a fan of HRC, but this "argument" holds no water at all.

[DaveJ]

13. I think it causes negative reprecussions...

I remember when individuality was much more important. Now everyone is associated with their family or their own clicks, politics, ethnic groups, etc. I don't think young people even know what this kind of individuality is like anymore.

[katmondoo]

14. I am tired of hearing that

[onenote]

15. who is "we"?

Its more evident than ever that DU doesn't speak with a single voice. Let me turn around the question: if you could've had Hillary from 2000-2008, would you have taken that over chimpy?

[autorank]

35. That's an easy one, of course I would. "We" - the American people.

It's a matter of principle. How does a democracy run in order for it to
be a meritocracy, not a plutocracy or an oligarchy. Give the total mess we're in, this is the time
to start talking about questions like this.

Privilege pervades our culture. It's often contrived since the playing field is not even close to
level allowing talent to emerge from all classes. We've got a Senate where being a multi millionaire
is one of the most common characteristics. Look what they did? Sold out the Constitution.

Access to power via name recognition via previous power of a family member is a form of privilege that
we've tolerated too long.

Let me ask you this: If you had a choice between Bush and Clark between 2000 and 2008, who would you take?

Fatherless for a period, from very modest means, and raised outside the metropolitan centers, he ended
up a distinguished military leader and professor of philosophy on top of that. That's the type of
leader we sacrifice by making it all about money and built in access to power.

[onenote]

37. I see you avoided answering my other question, but I'll answer yours

You answered my question with a question. I'll answer your question, and would hope you'd have the courtesy to answer mine.

If I had choice between Clark and Bush between 2000 and 2008 I would've taken Clark.

Now, back to my question. If the question was a choice between Hillary Clinton and Bush from 2000-2008, who would you have taken?

[autorank]

58. "That's an easy one, of course I would. " - That WA/IS my answer meaning Clinton.

I was GI (grammatically incorrect). It is an easy question but leads to a key problem.

I'm tired of being in a position, which I am frequently in my state, of voting for the lesser of
two lessers. Clark from 2000-2008, you bet, Gore, Kerry 100%, & Richardson, yes indeed, with
a few reservations. Those are all politicians with the intellect and strength to lead and grow
in their leadership.

Here's a purely pragmatic comment. http://tinyurl.com/3yvfd7 People have to think about that.
It's not going to change. In fact, it will get worse, the very high negatives. They're a
function of a lot of unfair press and organized right wing hate. Nonetheless, it's a huge
deficit to have going into a campaign. We cannot afford to lose.

[aquart]

18. Repackaging the rightwing talking point does not change it.

And you should be ashamed for bringing it here.

[autorank]

74. It's a legitimate point about democracy, access to power, money and influence.

But thanks for mentioning the part about being ashamed.

Did you a chance to read Skinner's post:

"Do you ever get tired of hating?" It's a good read, very instructive.

[DS1]

23. Only if we beat them 4 to 3

:D

[dkofos]

25. That's what the M$M wants. Can we prove them wrong??

[Terri S]

28. Not what I want!! n/t

[Uncle Joe]

34. One of the networks is advertising an upcoming Billy Graham special,

I believe it's titled Praying to Power or something like that. Everyone of the people featured in the ad are Presidents, with the exception of Hillary Clinton, she's featured prominently with Bush the lesser, Bush the least and Bill Clinton, and we're in the midst of an election season.

What I truly despise is corporate media manipulation of the American People, in an attempt to glorify or camouflage one candidate and disappear other equally credible ones, all for the sake of they're own agenda.

While this may not be eliminating choice in the strictest sense of the word, it's the equivalent of telling you Baskin Robbins only has two flavors.

[autorank]

40. Uncle Joe

The fun one!

You reminded me of a great story I once heard. Truman came into the oval office one day and the young
Billy Graham was there. Someone had set up the appointment. Graham went through his routine and then
asked Truman to accept Jesus as his personal savior, hugged him and made a big scene. Some how Truman
extricated himself. When Graham was gone, Truman told his secretary, "Don't ever let him near me
again?" It may or may not be true, but it should be.

If this a Franklin Graham event, OMG! He's a real bigot. If it's a Billy event, then it is as you
say, just another part of the corporate mythology that gets floated out there for us to consume as
though it means anything. It's ultimately a fraud and I find it revolting. Has nothing to do
with religious beliefs, it's the total insincerity of it all - I challenge Graham or anyone to find me
one spot that indicates Jesus favored war, particular a pre emptive one that has killed at 3000 of our
soldiers and at least 600,000 Iraqi civilians. Will Billy say anything about that at the big tent
meeting? Don't hold your breath

[Uncle Joe]

43. I remember reading or hearing about that event with Truman and Graham, good memory, autorank.

:thumbsup:

[autorank]

79. The benefits of stopping the clock at 39;) ... Benny style! n/t

[TwilightGardener]

36. It's sick, in a rich, well-educated, free nation like this, that two families rule our nation.

How are we unlike a monarchy again?

[BeHereNow]

38. Heck- why not? Who are we to stop the New World Order Global Elite agenda?

It's far past the time that we drop the charade of being
a country governed by the people, for the people.
Face the facts autorank, the reality is we are irrelevant to the elite
other than our usefulness as Walmart greeters and slave labor.
It the New World Order way!
:sarcasm:
BHN

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

39. Thanks for anticipating the right-wing talking points that'll be around if HRC wins the primary

I'm sure you'll be happier with a Giuliani or Romney administration then.

[autorank]

46. Actually, Hillary is the one chance we have to lose.

June 2007

But those polls only tell part of the story. According to a new Mason-Dixon survey, given exclusively to NBC/MSNBC and McClatchy newspapers, Clinton is the only major presidential candidate -- either Democrat and Republican -- for whom a majority of likely general election voters say they would not consider voting. In addition, she's the only candidate who registers with a net-unfavorable rating.

In the poll, 48% say they would consider voting for Clinton versus 52% who say they wouldn't. By comparison, majorities signal they would consider voting for all other major presidential candidates or possible candidates: Giuliani (64%-36%), Fred Thompson (62%-38%), Bloomberg (61%-39%), Obama (60%-40%), Edwards (59%-41%), McCain (58%-42%), Biden (57%-43%), Richardson (57%-43%), Huckabee (56%-44%), and Romney (54%-46%).

Moreover, 39% say they recognize Clinton favorably, while 42% say they recognize her unfavorably. By contrast, every other candidate has a net-positive favorable rating: Giuliani (43%-17%), Obama (36%-21%), McCain (33%-28%), Edwards (32%-28%), Thompson (25%-12%), Romney (24%-20%), Biden (21%-20), Bloomberg (20%-18%), Richardson (19%-15%), and Huckabee (16%-12%).

-----------------------

July 2007

Two in five people recently polled by The New York Times hold an unfavorable view of Hillary Clinton, which matches those who view her favorably. Of those with an unfavorable view, 71 percent have a "strongly unfavorable" view, while those with a favorable view aren't as passionate.

Republicans are generally despondent about the 2008 election, but some brighten at the prospect of a Clinton candidacy; she's the Democrat the Republican base will rally to defeat, they say.

In another recent poll, more than half of respondents said they wouldn't consider voting for Clinton in the November 2008 election. The Clinton campaign says that poll is an outlier , wildly at odds with other surveys.

-----------------------

So how about those numbers. The right wing loves them, count on it.

[Me.]

80. Simply Put

It's about the math

[autorank]

85. 50% plus negatives are about something...and yes, it is about that math.

Who knows why they're so high, a multitude of reasons for sure. But some of that might be a
reaction to the same old same old halo effect due to name recognition.

[shadowknows69]

42. Not just no but Hell no!

"and that's all I've got to say about that"
-Gump

[autorank]

86. roflmao

"Adding buddy error

You cannot add this user to your buddy list because this user is already in your list."

[porphyrian]

44. Not particularly, but when has what I wanted had anything to do with it?

Personally, I'd like to, just once in my life, vote for someone who represented me rather than voting against the one who sucks more.

[ecstatic]

45. They're related by marriage, not blood. Think Hillary Rodham... Is that better? nt

[AllyCat]

50. No

Not here anyway. And I don't think the rest of America wants it either. Just the media and some others.

[autorank]

87. This media is a pain in the ass. Can't we trade up or something;)

[Desertrose]

51. Hell NO!

We ain't a frikkin' monarchy.

[Nimrod2005]

52. NO and you don't have to worry about it, she is not going to make it!

[robertpaulsen]

53. 2016? Guess you can see farther into the future than I can.

Channeling Nostradamus: My predictions for 2007-2012.
http://progressiveindependent.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=72471

[Me.]

62. Geez RP, Write Much?

That is quite a piece and very thought provoking. You have made sense of something that never made sense to me. Among the many rumors surrounding AG was a 2012 run. Looking at that I wondered how that could be, for I surely think we will have a dem this time (wishing for him) and how could he run against a dem incumbent. You gave a really plausible explanation for how a 20q2 could come into play.

[robertpaulsen]

64. Gore has the heart and soul to run.

But I think his brain is saying: wait. President Clinton is in the unenviable position that President Carter faced in 1976. Like Jimmy, Hillary has to clean up the previous eight years of Rethuglican destruction at a time when the economy will be tanking. I think Al Gore is prescient enough to see the writing on the wall and is biding his time.

[autorank]

77. Wow! That's really great stuff. n/t

Kreskin is my guy;) but he's yesterday. Keep those coming and me informed when they show up.

[Me.]

54. Hmmmmm

Good question, I vote none of the above. Will this vote count or will it be diebolded?

[daninthemoon]

55. They may well be the beginning American Julio-Claudian line.

[autorank]

71. Il miglior fabbro

[terrya]

56. If it's between Hillary and any Republican, you bet I do.

[MethuenProgressive]

59. A desperate, sexist, and false, argument

I laughed when I heard it from FOX, but it's sad to see it echoed here.

[autorank]

65. Thanks for sharing n/t

[OnionPatch]

60. I don't know if it's so wrong, but.....

it definitely points to something really, really wrong with the system. MHO.

[robcon]

61. The would be my dream...

that Hillary wins two terms to undo what * has done to the country.

[kster]

63. Things that make you go HMMMM... K&R...nt

[here_is_to_hope]

66. No. eom

[leftchick]

67. no fucking way

and thank you for asking auto!

:)

[ronnykmarshall]

68. Raiders fan ...

pffft!

[autorank]

70. Didn't you get the memo?

We're America's Team

[ronnykmarshall]

72. Good come back!

GO NINER'S!!!

[autorank]

75. The 49ers are great. My first favorite team, Montana is Lord!

Only guy to meet or exceed Kenny in the 4th quarter/last 2 minutes. See, it's all good;)

[ronnykmarshall]

76. You're right ...

Montana rules. As a former San Franciscan he was my hero. I will never understand why the 49'ers let him leave for KC.

[autorank]

83. I know why...

...a very low IQ, a good knock on the head, or no gratitude. Joe gave a billion dollars worth of
great football and courage. I remember when he hurt his back hoping he'd stay out. Well he didn't,
and he's in good health now. What a guy. Re the pic above - Stabler was interviewed and asked
what he and Madden would talk about on those two minute break huddles. He said, something like
'We'd just talk about where we were going after the game, what we wanted to eat. He let me call
the plays.' That's how people talk with high IQ's, a good head on their shoulders, and mutual
respect. See, America's Team;)

[AuntPatsy]

69. I don't care about the name, I want a president who can insure change and fast.

[Zomby Woof]

78. The current occupant is not the president

I haven't said "President Bush" in the past 7 years unless referring to his father.

I like the sound of President Edwards or President Kucinich myself. :D

[autorank]

88. I agree

I have trouble using his last name. I refer to him and his crew as "the White House" to avoid having to even mention that word.

Those two sound terrific. I think we're going to see an Edwards explosion, as in break out. He's right on the edge of letting go; maybe or perhaps this is one of those times my judgment is marred by bias like when I was convinced that the DNA test would be negative and it was a lure to totally annihilate the Republican Party;) Word is I was wrong on that one.

[Warren DeMontague]

81. If Hillary is the one who gets the nomination, sure.

I'd prefer it be someone else, but we may have to deal with the eventuality that it will be her. We'll see.

[nadinbrzezinski]

82. We are being played truly

by the way, after the poll questioner and what he wanted to do... I don't believe she's ahead either

[autorank]

91. I've wndered that myself more than once.

Just a hunch. How can Edwards be spanking the Repubs in the national head-to-head but lagging so far behind in the 3 way Democratic polls. Could be the lack of indys but I find it hard to believe. I hope that there are no photo finishes in these primaries. That will be a huge problem given the new level of problems with optical scan (FL SoS test), as well as touch screen (CA SoS test) voting machines. I thought your big thread of a couple of days ago was terrific, btw.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

84. You'd have a point if Bush = Clinton

I'm not saying I don't have problems with some of the positions of Mr. and Mrs. Clinton, but to equate the two families is absurd. Bill Clinton's presidency was a far cry from either of the Bushes and Hillary would be a substantial improvement over GWB. All this "It'll be a dynasty oh noes!!1!" fear-mongering will NOT be helpful if Clinton wins the primary. Why are we giving the other side and the MSM an easy talking point to use in the general election?

[proud2BlibKansan]

89. Hell NO

[autorank]

90. I'd know that sig line pic anywhere...brings back great memories! n/t

[BeFree]

94. Hmmm

Good question and actually quite troubling.

The answer is: NO

The country needs new blood and new ideas from new people... a fresh start... call it new and improved, if you like, just call it.

And we need hand counted paper ballots, eh?

[autorank]

95. We need hand counted paper ballots indeed - Hooray for MO and Galloglas! n/t