Talk:Hillary Clinton

From RationalWiki
(Redirected from Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton)
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

[edit] Fanatics

Only a fanatical Obama supporter would think, under accepted political classifications, that Senator Clinton is a conservative, especially when this article goes on to say conservatives universally hate Clinton. TheRationalOne 05:13, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

When Bill was President, the Clintons spent an awful lot of time trying to reconciliate with the Republicans. Which suggests they're not quite as savvy as they like to act, seeing how under Newt Gingrich, the GOP was sworn to drive Bill Clinton from office by any means necessary. (Which is ironic, seeing how the only policy successes Clinton had were GOP plans like NAFTA. As Michael Moore once jokes, Bill was the most successful Republican president since Reagan.)
I've heard quite a few Europeans comment on how right-wing ALL American politicians are. The American political spectrum is massively tilted towards the "Right", compared to Europe--they've actually got Green parties that serve as something besides a punchline. (The standing joke is someone trying to explain American political parties to a European: "We have the Republicans, who are the equivalent of your Conservative Party, and then we have the Democrats, who are the equivalent of your Conservative Party.")
Also, it's funny you should say this today. I just today read a rather scary article from a decidedly non-GOP-led source that the church Hillary attends is a bunch of Dominionists. Which will make it very cold comfort if she gets the nomination and then loses in the election--the last thing we want is a bunch of those scary beady-eyed Theocrats anywhere NEAR the White House. Bush was more than bad enough. --Gulik 05:47, 25 March 2008 (EDT)
1. Bill Clinton lost the Congress to the GOP in 1994. Thus, he was forced to compromise on several issues to break the gridlock. This is the hallmark of having checks and balances in our government with the three branches.
2. The United States was one of the first countries to legalize abortion, to ensure the right of free speech and free religion, and to protect other individual rights. Is America perfect? Of course not. However, it's is naive and simplistic to understand global politics in a 1-D spectrum.
3. Even you know Hillary Clinton is not a theocrat. TheRationalOne 00:54, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

[edit] image

Can we get a picture of her, you know, smiling, or something for the main image? ħψɱAnarchy dd00dd.pngUser talk:Human 23:17, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

[edit] conceding...

Several news outlets, including BBC, CBC, Foxnews, and CNN are reporting that the Clinton camp is denying that she is about to concede. Since up-to-the-minute news updates aren't really our mandate, let's wait and see if anything actually happens before dealing with this....PFoster 11:59, 3 June 2008 (EDT)

Apparently she is due to "half-concede" tonight, but, yes, let's wait until the facts are in, at least. (half-concede means announcing that Obama has the delegates to be the presumptive nominee, but not actually removing herself from the race, or some such.) We'll see. ħumanUser talk:Human 14:37, 3 June 2008 (EDT)

[edit] Hillary for VP?

Should she be Obama's Vice President?

[edit] Aye

  • They would be a good pair. (Editor at) CP:no intelligence allowed 15:08, 4 June 2008 (EDT)
  • He should offer it, since she ran such a close second. Her acceptance or not might be pre-negotiated behind closed doors, however. ħumanUser talk:Human 15:26, 4 June 2008 (EDT)
  • She told members of Congress yesterday that she would do it, which means he's gotta offer it to her. And he should, on the principle that one must keep their friends close and their enemies closer. As long as she's on the ticket, she and Bill won't be mouthing off and getting in Obama's way.PFoster 19:43, 4 June 2008 (EDT)
The dems will suddenly start liking Hill & Bill a whole lot more when they are attacking Geohn McShrubbery instead of one of "our" own... they are, after all, skilled and tireless campaigners. Also, it's a natural route to HRC in 2016. ħumanUser talk:Human 20:09, 4 June 2008 (EDT)
Shouldn't it be Chelsea's turn by that date? (Editor at) CP:no intelligence allowed 05:49, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
Hmmm, in 2016 Hils will be 69; Chelsea 36 - barely old enough. She'd really have to make a mark in the next 8 years to run for president credibly! ħumanUser talk:Human 14:41, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

[edit] Neigh Nay

  • After spending so much time criticising each other, it would look disingenuous. Jellyfish!There are doors that lock, and doors that don't. There are doors that let you in and out, but never open 15:13, 4 June 2008 (EDT)
  • It would just accumulate the huge drawbacks to both candidates. You don't want Rev. Wright and Bosnia, do you? Lyra § talk 15:27, 4 June 2008 (EDT)
  • They're just going to end up at each other's throats. Unfortunately, there are a lot of people resolute on this issue, and who knows what's going to happen. Honestly, I view it like a Schrödinger's Cat right now... There are simply too many unknown variables coming into play. Of course, Bill Richardson is being primed for being President, and being vice-President can help. (As long as you don't go and make a potatoe out of yourself.) --Eira omtg! The Goat be praised. 19:21, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

[edit] Moot point: never gonna happen

  • Having Hillary on the ticket would guarantee whole sections of the Republican base turning out to vote purely against her - sections, indeed, that might otherwise stay at home 'cos McCain's not conservative enough for them. It would be a suicidal risk for Obama to take, and he knows it. --Robledo 15:21, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
I agree with that point. Hopefully O and C will put together a "behind closed doors" plan where she gets offered the VP magnanimously and sincerely (O is good at that), and she will then magnanimously and sincerely decline, citing work in the Senate or some such. ħumanUser talk:Human 15:37, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
He doesn't even have to do that, fella. Hillary's stock is so low with the Democrat grandees at the moment that she'll take whatever bone Obama or the party throw her. Her future political career now depends on her not doing anything to fuck with the big O's chances in the run-up to the election. --Robledo 16:21, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
True, but he does have to make sure the die-hard Hillary fans are placated well enough to get out and vote for him in the fall. That is of course, partly her job, and that fits in with what you are saying. ħumanUser talk:Human 16:42, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
Will the extreme republicans go vote for McBain just not to see her as Vice-President? And to compensate, wouldn't she as VP candidate attract some votes for Obama from whites, women, hispanics? (Asking here, not claiming) (Editor at) CP:no intelligence allowed 16:26, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
In order: yes & not in sufficiently large numbers to make it worth the risk. --Robledo 16:40, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

[edit] Conservative?

I'm sorry, but using the Iraq War as a reason for her being conservative is stupid, considering the Democrats were given false information about Hussein. Mr. Anon (talk) 18:10, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Iowa primary

"Clinton placed a dismal third in the Iowa caucus" ?

Not according to Wikipedia. Obama 37.6%, Edwards, 29.7%, Clinton 29.4% . BTW, how in the fuck (in the supposedly "democratic" party) does the third place looser end up with more delegates than the second place finisher? (Obama 16, Edwards 14, Clinton 15) Don't look like third place at all. nobsWould you like anchovies on your sub-prime mortgage? 00:55, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

[edit] Benghazi

While I appreciate that much of the criticism of Clinton over Benghazi is meaningless bluster, there were some valid points in all of it. As the Secretary of State at the time she was ultimately responsible, which she herself said, and is accordingly at least partly responsible for the subsequent prevaricating and the PR fiasco which resulted. She could have coordinated with the other people in the State Department, to say nothing of the president, so they could make up their minds exactly how they wanted to address the situation; that they didn't do this led to much of the suspicion around it, and in turn has caused the obscene number of investigations into the matter. Even though much of the finger-pointing is without merit, to pretend that she didn't mishandle the situation would be whitewashing to say the least. 24.186.49.177 (talk) 05:46, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

... 24.186.49.177 (talk) 22:36, 11 January 2015 (UTC) (Same person as the IP above)
What you're saying sounds like, "Yes, the Benghazi scandal was a PR fiasco, and Hillary Clinton and Obama bear the blame for this", which seems like a pretty accurate description. However, what "caused the obscene number of investigations into the matter" wasn't that the U.S. government messed up the PR on Benghazi, but the ridiculously partisanism infesting U.S. politics in which the GOP has increasingly gone off the deep end (endorsing all kinds of conspiracy theories and pseudoscience). Otherwise, one enquiry would have been quite enough. ScepticWombat (talk) 07:51, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
So, what are you saying, Bengazi is the last word on incompetence and deception? Dream on. nobsIt all depends what ISIS is. 19:47, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Two questions, Rob: Was the comment/question meant for me or the BoN OP? If it was meant for me, what do you mean by "last word"? Is it last word as in final example (then of course no - we'll always have new cock ups), or is it last word as in supreme example (while my answer would still be no, it would be because fumbling public relations in the way it was done here is not actually a major scandal). Anyway, I don't see much in the way of deliberate deception in the ludicrously overblown "Benghazigate". ScepticWombat (talk) 20:02, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
The last word on investigations. What I mean is, foreign policy, and getting a competent commander-in-chief is a huge issue at this moment in the U.S., and likely, unfortunately, to become more pressing in the next few years. That fact that (a) Hillary denied then and denies now that the United States underwent a terrorist attack on her watch as Sec. of State at a crucial moment, and (b) didn't bother to show up in Paris last week can't be hidden. nobsIt all depends what ISIS is. 21:50, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Well, denying that Benghazi is a terrorist attack is just silly - but if that is her silliest statement, she'd actually be ahead of most other POTUS hopefuls... As for Paris, if she had gone certain U.S. media (and probably more than just them) would've been overflowing with claims that she was "exploiting" the Charlie Hepdo attacks - I'd say it was a "heads you win, tails I lose"-situation for her. Also, which POTUS hopefuls did go to Paris? Hell, even John Kerry was "late to the party", only showing up late last week and he even had a pretty good official reason to go as Secretary of State. So you could very likely add allegations of trying to "upstage her successor" to those of "exploitation" had Hillary Clinton gone to Paris. Finally, I'm a bit puzzled about this emphasis on a "commander-in-chief", could you expand a bit on what this "huge issue" is? ScepticWombat (talk) 09:23, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
People in the U.S. are mad as hell. We're in the midst of a crime wave. Then the terror threat. Now, being tax season, people are starting to see the Obamacare "fines". Obamacare caused workers to lose healthcare benefits and paycuts. Then throw in the foreign policy & terrorism issues. Unemployed criminal Democrats may not care about any of this, but trust me, Republicans & Tea Partiers had absolutely nothing to do with any of it. nobsISIS is SISI spelled backwards. 15:10, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Crime has been in a long-term decline in the US since the 1950s, juvenile crime in particular. There are fewer people without health insurance than there were before Obamacare. I'd agree that many people in the US are mad as hell, in either sense of the word 'mad'.Queexchthonic murmurings 15:26, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Biden was the victim of a terrorist attack routine crime house got shot up last nite, but nobody gives a fuck. nobsISIS is SISI spelled backwards. 15:32, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Maybe it happened because he didn't go far enough, or had nothing to do with Biden since nothing was found around his home. It doesn't say why it happened. You are just seeing what you want to believe in it. Then immediately giving into the perceived threats like a chicken. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 15:45, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Would you agree if this happened in a less-gun crazed culture, like Canada or the UK, this certainly would be a bigger story? and I'm pointing out how jaded the U.S. public and media have become today -- a private residence gets shot up and it no big deal, happens all the time, thank Allah nobody was home. nobsISIS is SISI spelled backwards. 16:09, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Probably only because of the relative rarity of firearms in the UK. Common arson attacks (the nearest parallel), when they happen, generally only make the local news. It takes something like the multiple arson attack on South Oxfordshire council to get nationwide coverage, and even then the private residence that was attacked doesn't always get mentioned. As the article says, no-one knows if the location of that shooting was coincidence or not yet. Queexchthonic murmurings 17:09, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
So if unknown persons fired shots or tossed a molotov cocktail at Nick Clegg's country estate over this past weekend, in the current environment and tensions, it would be considered routine hooliganism with no media panic or speculation about AQAP terrorists? nobsISIS is SISI spelled backwards. 17:38, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
What's your point here? You start off with contrafactual blathering about a crimewave and more people lacking health insurance, then when called on it abandon it completely and segue into some vague ramblings how it's a bigger deal than people seem to think. For the record, the Oxfordshire arson was a political act - it seems that the culprit had some grievance about planning permission. If this shooting was an act of terrorism, it was far more likely to be a teabagger culprit than a Islamist one. After all, since 9/11, there have been more terrorist acts committed on American soil by WASPs than by Muslims. Where are you trying to go with this? Queexchthonic murmurings 10:57, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, seriously; all I wanted was some input on some disputed text, not... whatever this has degenerated into. 24.186.49.177 (talk) 21:31, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
It's nobby. It's all tangents from here. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 21:33, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Welcome to any conversation involving nobs. It's like a full body dry heave and a head injury at the same time. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 21:37, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
You are all correct, and I do apologize. As to being a Commander-in-Chief, I ask all my Democrat friends, "Who has more cahoonies, Obama or Hillary?", and an overwhelming consensus (which includes unaffiliated moderates & Republicans as well) seems to indicate Hillary does. nobsISIS is SISI spelled backwards. 22:48, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
That, if I recall correctly, was also the general opinion way back in 2008, yet Obama won both the Democratic nomination and the presidency - which suggests that U.S. voters care about other things besides the "I'm a tough Commander-in-Chief" spiel...
PS. Not that this tangent of yours is actually relevant to the original topic of this thread. ScepticWombat (talk) 09:35, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Indeed. She was "Inevitable" then, too and the Democrats rejected her. What makes her "inevitable" now, other than her donor list, lots of cash, and rich friends? nobsISIS is SISI spelled backwards. 14:05, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── As has already been noted, Rob, you're off on a tangent. This latest question of yours is yet another entirely new topic/tangent, which I think is more fittingly discussed on Talk:2016 Democratic Party presidential nomination, where I'll happily indulge you - at least for a time. ScepticWombat (talk) 14:20, 21 January 2015 (UTC)


[edit] Susan Rice

Here's an interesting little tidbit, and Wikipedia seems to expose more than the 9/11 Report or any Benghazi investigation could bring to light: Susan Rice, Hillary's would be successor and at the center of the storm for spreading disinformation, lies and bullshit over Bengahzi, according to Wikipedia overruled Madeline Albright when she wanted the Clinton administration to arrest Osama bin Laden in Sudan in 1995. God damn. Is Obama's National Security Adviser on the Bush family payroll or just a closet jihadi? nobsISIS is SISI spelled backwards. 20:18, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Again, I'm uninterested in conspiracy mongering, but to pretend that Clinton and her staff didn't fall down on the job hard core here is simply denying reality. The point above is that while there have been a ludicrous number of investigations, Republicans wouldn't have the ammunition to conduct them if the State Department hadn't blown it so huge in the first place. 24.186.49.177 (talk) 20:45, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough. On to another Hillary point: Americans only now are being introduced to Line 61 Form 1040, 2014. 1% of your income upto a max of $285 per household, guaranteed to rise in 2015 and 2016 when it'll be 2.5% of you income ($695 per adult and $347.50 per child with limits). This is (a) sure to piss people off, and (b) entirely, solely, without any remotely credible hint of innuendo a Democrat doing. Guaranteed, as Chuck Schumer said, this will do serious, longterm, and permanent damage to the Democratic party and its constituent base demographics. What's Hillary gonna argue, that she should be trusted? that her plan should of passed (that her own party rejected in 1993-94)? that she's a knowledgeable expert? People will be so pissed, I seriously doubt right now she is a shoo-in for the nomination. nobsISIS is SISI spelled backwards. 01:57, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry, people will be pissed because they don't have to pay a tax because they have health insurance? They'll be upset that, unless they have an income tax refund, not having health insurance won't even cost them anything? I'm sure they'll be angry about that. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 02:07, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
They're already pissed; this family of 4 had coverage for $380 month; now it's $828.26. Now the Democrats got more people pissed. Like Shumer said, only 30% of the uninsured vote, so the other 70% who have to pay a $700 a year fine ($2100 per family of four) the Democrats will gain no good will from. Not only are the 40 million uninsured pissed off, the whole damn workforce and country is pissed off. nobsISIS is SISI spelled backwards. 03:46, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Hmm, if only there was some way to guarantee that everyone in the country had health care without having to pay ruinous amounts of money for it. God damn it Hillary and Obama, why are you trying to stop the Republicans from giving people health care?! --Ymir (talk) 04:38, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Back to the matter at hand

The question above still stands. Basically, I'm arguing that we include 1 sentence explaining how Hillary Clinton did a decidedly less-than-optimal job handling Benghazi and how the legitimate criticism turned into wingnut hysteria. If you like, I can directly link to the text I'm thinking about. 24.186.49.177 (talk) 05:51, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Sure, that was pretty much the gist of my original reply to you (i.e. pre-sidetracking by nobs). ScepticWombat (talk) 07:03, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
OK, just wanted to make sure. I'll work on it when I get access to a full keyboard. 24.186.49.177 (talk) 07:10, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Community
Tools
support