troll means bad, right?

This doesn't count because Virginia has too many people!

You know, I read a few blogs and Kos and this one have been two of my favorites over the last couple years.  I have to say that it is interesting that this one seems to be really pro-Clinton and Kos is at least starting to become pretty darn pro-Obama.  (I also like to read Andrew Sullivan's blog which is even more pro-Obama than BarackObama.com, but then I am too.)

One of the criticisms of people like me who want to get their news from blogs is that we'll only read the sites that have articles with which we already agree.  I have to admit, this has been to some extent true with me, as I have read this blog a lot less since it has become, in my view, so extremely pro-Clinton.  

I'm looking forward to the nomination being decided so I can go back to my old reading patterns.

I don't usually type stuff on these blogs, so I don't know how to find the original post I was responding to (or "to which I was responding.") However, it seems to me that the majority of that diary was about her experience as First Lady.  Actually, there is no way you or anyone else can tell me the primary reason she was elected to the Senate was anything other than she was First Lady.  She's smart, she's talented, on the vast majority of issues her position is the correct one; but her Senate position is the product of her celebrity that was the result of being First Lady.  (She's in no way from NY, for crying out loud!)

If you want to talk about her Senate career, let's talk about how she was one the the most prominent Democrats to cave to the administration on a vote that led us to war.  If it wasn't for Gephardt and  a few others like Clinton, we wouldn't be in Iraq.  (Obviously, the people most responsible are BushCo., but the Democrats could have stopped them and they didn't; probably because a lot of them wanted to be President one day.)

As for Pelosi v. Boxer, fine, Boxer is a better example.  I don't really think an internship with a Senator helps you get elected to office that much, but it is not a point I care to debate.  

By saying "they were both into politics" I didn't mean that they were elected officials.  I meant that they had set their goals on entering politics and I have no doubt they did that before they were elected.

(I find the time difference a minor point, but the bio you posted to show that they were married before they were in politics actually says the opposite.  He ran for Congress in 74 and they married the next year.  Did you think I thought they married when he was Governor or Atty Gen of AR?)

She didn't marry into power, but almost nothing on her resume would have happened if not for that marriage.  (Maybe this is unfair to Senator Clinton because there is no way she could have escaped this critique of her resume without getting divorced from him; but on the whole, considering that marriage has opened so many doors, I think there have been benefits too.)

I guess when I look at her story, I think the thing that stands out the most is that she was the First Lady.  Maybe that is just because it was the first way most people became aware of her.  But the story that follows, for me, is First Lady becomes Senator, First Lady runs for President.  That narrative reinforces the idea that she is where she is because she was First Lady, aka married to the President.  (This, by the way, is a narrative she herself reinforces by constantly talking about the Clinton years.)

Anyway, I hope this doesn't seem to heated.  I don't expect everyone (sometimes "anyone") to agree with this opinion I have, but I really don't think it is a sexist one for reasons I have already mentioned (needless to say, feel free to disagree).   I do find the debate enjoyable, as always, so thank you for that.

Finally, at the risk of being a royal pain in the ass, here is the definition of nepotism.  I think it is apt to this discussion.

Nepotism - patronage bestowed or favoritism shown on the basis of family relationship, as in business and politics: She was accused of nepotism when she made her nephew an officer of the firm.
 (from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/n epotism )

It isn't about who her family is, it is about whether her record is dependent on that connection.  The post lists all the experience that Clinton has as her qualifications for being President.  It goes on to say that electing Hillary Clinton as President would be a milestone of civilization or whatever you want to call it, and therefore, her candidacy should be supported.

I'm saying that if electing Hillary Clinton is a sign of anything, it is a reinforcement of the power of nepotism (for lack of a better word). Most of her resume is the result of being First Lady of either AR or the US.  In other words, the only reason she can even be considered for this office is that she was married to a Bill.  

This isn't to say that she isn't qualified and wouldn't make a good President, or that she shouldn't be supported.  It is, however, a point that dilutes the symbolism the author of the post cites as the primary reason for selecting Senator Clinton for this office.  (This is especially true if, like me, you consider Bill Clinton the model of a terrible husband, what with his consistent record of philandering.)

A friend of mine supports Hillary for this reason that the author mentions.  Specifically, she likes the message it will send to her young nieces, that they too can be President; the shattering of the glass ceiling and all that.  But to me, when I look at her record, I think it says "if you grow up and marry a powerful man, anything is possible"; I don't like that idea or the message it sends.  

A better symbol of feminist advancement is the election of Pelosi to Speaker.  This is because even though she does come from a political family, her achievements are primarily her own.  The same could be said of Feinstein and many others.  To me, their stories better demonstrate that women can do anything men can if they determine to do so.

As I originally said, this is not why I do not support Hillary, but I just have to point out the distinction between achievement and nepotism.  (My primary reason for not supporting her is the War. I look at her as I would look at Lieberman; a hawk in temporary dove's clothing.  I'm the age of those dying in the war and I won't support anyone I don't trust on this one issue.  And yes, I trust Obama.  But that is for a different post...)

Finally, if you believe that she is as responsible for Bill's success as he is for hers, I can see why you would disagree with the point I make.  However, that is an opinion that I do not share.  (And I'm sure they were both into politics long before they met.)

In any event, thanks for responding with an actual comment towards my point, instead of that other person who just called me sexist and moved on.  

REPEAT AFTER ME:

Bill Clinton is not running for President.  

Also, my point isn't as much about the states Kerry/Gore lost, it is about the states they won.  If those two jokers won those three states, I doubt that any Democrat would lose them.  Also, Hillary is more like Kerry or Gore than her husband, if for no other reason than there is no one like her husband.  

How is that sexist?  I am not referring to women in general, I am referring to a particular person.  It's not sexist because it has nothing to do with gender.  

If you really want to get down to it, the post is sexist.  It says that the most important reason for voting for Hillary is that she is a woman.  That rationale has nothing to do with the individual; it only refers to gender, making it a sexist comment.  

So you don't give Obama credit for opposing the war because he's black?  I suppose you'll let Hillary off the hook for supporting the war because she's white.

What you're really impling is that white people don't have the same affinity for "non-caucasian [sic] people".  Both your statements are, practically by definition, racist, but beyond that, they're weird.  

You think he'd lose Wisconsin, Connecticut and New Jersey?  That's crazy.  

The other interesting thing about your list is that aside from NH and the three I just mentioned, Kerry lost all those states to Bush and Gore lost most of them as well, so what does that have to do with Obama being black?

I guess she would be ok, but it seems to me that her biggest qualification is that she married Bill Clinton.  Most of those things you list as her experience would never have happened if it wasn't for being the First Lady (of AR or the US).

For that reason, I kind of cringe when people say that would be meaningfully historic for Hillary Clinton to be elected President.  To me, I think it would be more impressive if the first female President was someone who got there basically on her own.  Pelosi becoming Speaker is the sort of thing I am thinking of, where although her family was in politics, she basically got to where she is by hard work.  I'm not really commenting on the work Hillary has done, but it seems like the more important thing she did was stay married to some guy who cheated on her all the time; to me, that's not really a story of inspiration.

For full disclosure, I like Obama and think the fact that his dad was from Africa would make for a  more historic moment should Barack be elected.  That's more impressive to me than some white lady from a rich Chicago Burb who married well becoming President.  But it is cool that you like her so much.  I do agree that it would be great to have a woman President, I just want a little more from my "symbols of history" or whatever you want to call them.

(I have other reasons for preferring Obama, but I didn't want to steal your thunder; I just wanted to comment.  Your post has a lot of info, and that's cool too.)

wake up!  If the elected democrats don't shape up, you might very well see a wave of primary challenges.  Eventually, that new wave is going to win aginst the old school types.  Just look to the bible thumping Republican party for evidence that grassroots can change the ideology of political parties.  

I don't really know what Rahm does in his DCCC chairman's position, so I can't say if he is doing a good job or not.  I do know that he should stop whining.  Of course the DNC is going to be in this election.  Spending some money on the future is a smart move.  What happens if we listen to him, spend all our money in his targetted areas and lose anyway?  That's basically what happened for the last decade, so it is not very farfetched to think it can happen again.  Spending money in places Rahm's crowd haven't made competitive with their style of machine work is called not putting all your eggs in one basket.

And what exactly is the "historic opportunity" that Rahm talks about in the article?  Possibly gaining a slim majority in one or both houses of congress?  How is that historic?  

A historic opportunity would be to create a national party, like the Republican Party has.  Karl Rove talks about creating a Republican majority that will last for a generation, and Rahm thinks that a majority of a couple seats is historic?  Please.  

I'd like the party to be run by people interested in the kind of "historic" that means winning elections on a national scale.  That would be a party of party of "people interested in winning".   That's what Dean is trying to do, (in spite of Rahm's crowd sitting on their hands hoping the R's implode). Rahm's party sounds like one that is interested in making him chair of some committee.

And finally, one Chicagoan to another, Tunney could definately pose a serious challenge to Rahm.  I don't think it has as much to do with the "majority of the party" that you claim to be part of as it has to do with what Mayor Daley thinks.  If Daley is ok with Rahm being challenged, then look out old school.

That's an interesting idea.  Tunney certainly seems to be popular around the area.  I do wonder what would happen in a race between these two...it would be a bloodbath, maybe mudbath is a better term.  The Clintonista's would give their all against Tunney to protect their boy Rahm; what side do you think Daley would be on?  The best case for Tunney would be for Daley to stay out of it, because I don't see him going against the Clintons.

I remember when Tunney was elected the first time; it seemed to be a very grassroots thing.  Do you think he would be ready for the primetime gutter fighting neccessary to beat the big boys from DC?

Maybe Dean AGREED with Yandura and replaced the person responsible, (who just so happened to be Yandura's partner).  I don't think the Bloomberg thing is similiar.  

absolutely.  I couldn't agree with this point more.  If anything, this guy was criticizing his partner (likely unintentionally), not Dean.  

If I was a bus driver, and my wife kept calling to complain that my route was constantly late, it is not "retaliation" if I get fired by the bus company.  I don't see how this is a story at all.