Sorry folks, but being First Lady doesn't count. Can anyone even know what she did before Bill was elected in '92? I sure as hell don't. But being first lady doesn't count. It's not experience.
For Clinton to claim that she is the "experience" candidate is just absurd. She's been in the Senate for 7 years, and it turns out she's willing to help the Republicans destroy this country. So, I'm not sure that her small amount of experience counts for anything.
Obama supporters shouldn't let Clinton simply claim that she has more experience. She doesn't.
I don't agree with you about this. As a president, I think Clinton would merely continue many of the same policies as Bush, i.e. the imperial presidency run amok. I don't know what you mean when you say she would restore trust merely by being elected. I don't know how that is possible or how it would happen. Would you care to explain.
Your last point is fair, but again, I disgree. I really think we need someone who is willing to take a strong stance and fight the Republicans. That isn't Clinton. In her time in the Senate she has shown herself to be more willing to vote any which way just to get along--I don't mean "get along" as in "be friends" but rather as to advance herself. Why did she vote for the war? Why did she vote for Kyl/Lieberman? What does she actually stand for?
This is exactly the type of BS that I was trying to point out above. Clinton doesn't get a pass because she's a woman. If she wins the election, she'll be the president, woman or not. We can't let her slide on this simply because "it's time we had a woman president"--whatever the hell that is supposed to mean. The presidency should not be doled out to groups within our society. It should be filled by the best candidate.
The fact that she is a woman is not a reason to vote for her.
The media always attacks Democratic candidates for stupid shit. The only difference with Clinton is that they have a new angle because she is a woman.
People who support Hillary Clinton's candidacy seem to do so for two main reasons. First, we ought to support her candidacy because she will be the first female president. Second, we should support her candidacy because it will get Bill back in the White House, or some variation on the belief that she would be an effective heir to Bill's presidency.
Neither of these are good reasons to vote for her and both are just as sexist as most of what is quoted from the Times above. In all honesty, hwc, you seem to be supporting her because you want there to be a female president and for no other reason.
I can't think of anyone I know or anyone I read online who supports her candidacy because they think she is right on the issues. She's not right about Iraq: her position is essentially that it was a good and justified war, but it has been poorly managed. That is not what I want to hear from a candidate and certainly not what I want to hear from the next President. I continue to believe that if Hillary becomes president she will lead us into another wasteful and useless conflict in some far flung locale.
Hillary Clinton would be a competent administrator and would restore the functioning of the federal government. But she is not a true leader, nor is she likely to reject the power of the presidency as it will be handed to her: an imperial presidency at its zenith.
Yeah, I would say it's more transparent than having an unrepresentative group meet in secret to hash out the details. Sure, we might not know exactly how everything is negotiated, but at least it ensures that the decisions are made by the House as a whole (or the Senate as a whole). That may not be transparency is we typically think about it, but it's better.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it was my understanding that when the Republicans ran the Congress, it was typical for "moderate" bills to be passed by the House, only to be modified in conference committees by the most extreme elements of the party in order to produce terrible legislation. Then the "moderates" could claim they voted for a good bill but then ultimately support the extremes--they'd have it both ways.
So, my point is that a navette system forces the individual members of congress to be responsible for what gets passed, because it's going to have to go through all the normal processes in order to reach the compromise with the senate.
Some negotiation is going to happen with any bill, even before it needs to be unified in both houses. So, I'm not sure that we can create a system with perfect transparency.
The ping-pong system is generally referred to as a "navette" system and it's the way most grown up democracies do it. I really hate conference committees for exactly the reason you describe--it's not transparent. This is just one of the big problems with the way our country works.
"an engaged electorate and greater government transparency" is not a "conversation."
I'm with you on transparency, though. As far as I am concerned, every document our government produces should be open for public view excepting only those that can directly threaten our national security--things like defense plans, nuclear weapon designs, etc.
In fact, I am sympathetic to pretty much all discussions of governmental reform, but most of them don't go far enough for me. If we really want to renew our democracy, we have to start amending the constitution, especially to reign in the executive and counter the specific excesses of the current administration.
The internet may provide new opportunities, but it is still up to individuals to make use of the opportunity.