McGentrix is sounding more and more like one of the Abuzz uglies
being as nasty as he knows he can get away with on this site quite frankly.
McG - Hillary has never needed Bill... he in fact needed her.
How can we ever know that! Relationships just aren't that uncomplicated...
They are like two planets revolving around one another - co-dependent in a lot of ways, yet, at the same time, independent. I would today vote for either of them over any other political figures on the current landscape.
Tartarin wrote:How can we ever know that! Relationships just aren't that uncomplicated...
Tar - I was referring to their political relationship... not their personal relationship. I just can't see Bill getting as far as he did without her.
I rather think that she could bury any opponent she came up against, if the Democrats would get behind her. Sadly, i don't think that is going to happen any time soon.
I'm with you Setanta. She will get my vote if and when she does run.
edgarblythe wrote:They are like two planets revolving around one another - co-dependent in a lot of ways, yet, at the same time, independent. I would today vote for either of them over any other political figures on the current landscape.
You will excuse the expression...but...AMEN!
I had a discussion with my students today about whether or not this country was ready for a woman president, or an African american president. It was very interesting to hear what some 19-25 year olds thought (some of them actually do - think, that is).
If Hillary found a way to mount a viable contest against the shrub, I'd vote for her. But if you really think that this country's people are ready to elect a woman to that office, I don't think you're payin' attention (even Tartarin, who's pointed out that her perceptions and sensibilities are oh so much sharper than the average joe or jane).
There are plenty of folk who would not vote for a woman or person of color. But, if she came in by the back door - vp first - the scale might just tip enough - - -
Heck, I'd vote for Saddam if he was running.
c.i.
I was interested by what you've written, Snood, about young people. I also suspect that many of them don't vote. What is your take on this? Do you think most of your students are likely to vote?
Setanta wrote:I was interested by what you've written, Snood, about young people. I also suspect that many of them don't vote. What is your take on this? Do you think most of your students are likely to vote?
I think they probably fit the standard for their age demographic - very few of them probably vote. That nonaction (and "nonthought") is something I have begun calling them to task about. In my estimation people my age are generally no more active than they, unfortunately. Nationally, I'm sure statistics would bear out that folks in the 30-55 crowd are far more likely to vote, but I don't think that in itself allows us to take on any moral airs.
No, it certainly does not--nor was that the thrust of my post. It bothers me that young people do not vote, not simply because they sometimes complain about a process in which they don't participate--but because this removes from the political process a significant voice which is often out of the mainstream. I think we need that. I know of many people who complain that the Greens cost Gore the last election. I don't know that that was necessarily the case. I rather think that many who voted Green would otherwise not have voted.
I've been one of those saying I was mad at Nader. My thoughts and feelings about that have changed some, to some degree directly owing to the exchanges I've had with you and others on A2K. Hopefully all of us who see Bush as a detriment will continue to strive for creative ways to reverse the effects he's had.
Dumping the bum would help considerably, but i like the implication of yours that we can "reverse the effects"--even in the event of voter idiocy on a vast scale, the Shrub's reelction, all is not necessarily lost . . .
If Setanta is correct in thinking that Nader brought people out to vote who might not have voted otherwise, Nader may have done everyone an unexpected favour. We can hope that those 'new' voters remain interested in government and politics, and that they will see the power of an individual vote, AND then, perhaps, consider voting strategically next time round. Lots of maybes and hope-fors etc., but isn't hope and optimism part of what keeps us going?
Don't you remember when you were growing up that you couldn't WAIT to vote? Big thrill? Can't imagine growing up now and not caring one way or the other.
Maybe a consequence for not voting should be added. Like if you don't vote, $100 gets added to your taxes...
