Bill Clinton for Vice President

[Screaming Flower]

Not to change the subject, but why do women (and men) hate her so passionately? This woman I work with even went so far as to say "someone should kill her" When I ask her why, she said anyone who would stay with that cheating husband of her's doesn't deserve to live. This makes no sense to me.

i truly dislike her but i think it's disgusting to say she should be killed. my distaste for her actually has nothing to do with melon's post, although i'm sure some would fall into that category. i think hillary is dishonest to her core. i wouldn't trust her as far as i could throw her.

and as for her husband getting the vp nod - it's not going to happen. it's weird that cnn would even post the article.

 

[verte76]

I do not think Hilary could win the Democratic nomination. Not in 2008, and not any other year. She's too controversial and polarizing. She may *think* she can, but I say she can't.

 

[nbcrusader]

Bush and Cheney knew this too, so, as a media footnote with absolutely no fanfare or outrage, Cheney used a loophole to take residency in Wyoming in 2000. Now he was involved with the state in the past, but still...it was clearly a way to get past this problem.

Melon

Politicians moving to different states so they can run for office?

 

[Screaming Flower]

who would do such a thing?

 

[melon]

Politicians moving to different states so they can run for office?

Haha...very true! And that's probably why the media did little to no fanfare.

I'm personally not really up and arms about Cheney using a loophole (and, no, Hillary didn't even come to mind). I just wanted to comment that Bush/Cheney recognized that being from the same state was a problem.

Melon

 

[U2Kitten]

i truly dislike her but i think it's disgusting to say she should be killed. my distaste for her actually has nothing to do with melon's post, although i'm sure some would fall into that category. i think hillary is dishonest to her core. i wouldn't trust her as far as i could throw her.

and as for her husband getting the vp nod - it's not going to happen. it's weird that cnn would even post the article.

I strongly dislike her because of her 'it takes a village' thing and her attitude that all children should be forced into state run daycare at a young age. I'm not talking just about parents who choose that, there was a time when she was advocating this as the best way, and even made comments that most American parents weren't fit to raise their own kids. It was her "baking cookies" statement about stay at home Moms that really drew my hatred most. I'm a stay at home Mom, I take offense to the idea that only certain people are qualified to raise children. I believe she was advocating a type of youth program like existed in Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany where kids were put in mandatory institionalizied settings very young and educated and raised the 'right' way by people the 'right' side of government approved. Even if they could go home at night, the parents are not supposed to be the main influence in their develpment. So all parents aren't perfect. I'd take them over the government except in very extreme cases of abuse.

I also disagree with her on many other political issues which I won't get into. But her sheer arrogance is abrasive to me. Her problems with her husband have nothing to do with this for me. As a matter of fact, Bill seems like a nicer and friendlier person than her (though I am not a fan of his politics) and I don't blame him for cheating on her. She makes me sick, I can imagine how he must feel in the bedroom. I'd run too.

 

[melon]

On the other hand, how is reality really that much different than what Clinton was talking about? A lot of people already send their children to day care. A lot of people already send their children to school starting at 3 years old. A lot of mothers, also, *have to* work and they do not have adequate day care, due to its prohibitive cost for many. I think that a day care system, similar to how some European nations handle it, would be very helpful.

I'm not quite sure that Hillary was talking about a "forced" day care. After all, that's our public school system. Most mothers don't stay home anymore, and whether that is a good or a bad thing, we have to try and deal with that. I should mention that I was raised by a "stay at home" mother, and, as such, I do think it is a great thing. Yet, not everyone has that luxury, particularly with the way the economy is. The days of a household living with one income is as dead as Lyndon Johnson, sad to say (and that's why I believe that our inflation numbers are skewed to reflect much lower inflation than there really is).

Melon

 

[Kieran McConville]

Speaking of the democratic nomination, the best opportunity for a break with the past would perhaps have been Howard Dean, who for better or worse had no history in past administrations and no history in Washington.

But he was too scary, right?

Also on past presidents Adams etc, I stand corrected. But Teddy Roosevelt was a pretty distant connection to FDR.

From what I know of both women, I think I admire Eleanor Roosevelt a lot more than Hillary (who I have no particular gripe with). In promoting civil rights in the 1950s she really did put her own safety on the line... years before the civil rights issue was at all prominent.

 

[U2Kitten]

On the other hand, how is reality really that much different than what Clinton was talking about? A lot of people already send their children to day care. A lot of people already send their children to school starting at 3 years old. A lot of mothers, also, *have to* work and they do not have adequate day care, due to its prohibitive cost for many. I think that a day care system, similar to how some European nations handle it, would be very helpful.

This is a debate I don't want to get into. But the main thing I am getting at is that while of course a lot of people already do, they can choose where the kid will be sent and can take it out or change day cares at their choice any time. It's not 'forced' and most of all it's not government run, mandated or endorsed. That scares me.

A lot of people have kids watched by friends, relatives and home sitters too. I have also seen reports that she wanted to make the home day cares illegal, or that no government aid would be given to people who select this kind of care. Not only is that putting people who use it for an income out of work, what it's saying is that only specially trained, government approved people are fit to watch your kid, and that's scary as hell to me. It all reeks of raising the kids together with an agenda to brainwash them a certain way, as I brought up with Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia. If the government wants to pay for child care so bad, they can give the money to the parents and let them spend it as they choose.

In my personal opinion, I don't think the government should pay for child care in families that are not low income. There should definitely be a limit to the amount a family can make and get it paid for. Help the struggling, yes. But don't subsidize it so somebody can work when they don't really "have" to and the only reason they are working is to buy fancier stuff. If they want to do that, it's their business, but let them pay for child care themselves and not add the burden to the taxpayers.

I truly hope Hillary's vision of raising kids in America never comes to pass.

One more thing about her and kids that makes me angry is the time she visited the wife of Polish leader Lec Walensa, who has 8 children. She was quoted as saying how great it was the lady had 8 kids and how she wished she'd had a big family! Bullshit. She hates mothers like Mrs. Walensa, she was only patronizing, and gagging to herself inside. She only had 1 and that must have been a real burden on her.

Speaking of Chelsea Clinton, has anybody seen her new face? She got drastic plastic surgery.

a "forced" day care. After all, that's our public school system.
Melon

Yes, it is, and a free babysitter I'm ashamed to say I know parents, even mothers who don't work, who love to get rid of their kids that way and dread vacations. They hope the bus will come as late as possible in the afternoons.

 

[U2Kitten]

This is an old Hillary joke that has been going around for years.

A man was stranded on an island after a shipwreck. He discovers there are no people there, but there are a lot of sheep and sheep dogs. After he's there awhile he gets really horny and tries to do it with the sheep. But every time, he is twarted by the dogs, who attack him. Then one day he sees a woman laying face down on the sand. He turns her over and gives her mouth to mouth and C.P.R. As she comes to, he realizes it's Hillary. She looks into his eyes and says, you saved my life and I will do anything for you. Anything, just ask! He is very horny and decides to take her up on it. "Okay," he says. "Go distract those dogs for awhile!"

 

[U2Kitten]

Hillary Clinton represents a complete detachment from the conservative "dominant hegemony." She is educated, has short hair, works, has an opinion of her own, and is not a trophy for her husband.
Melon

Then why does no one hate Elizabeth Dole? Because she's a nice person. To me, Hillary comes off as arrogant, condescending, haughty, insincere and aloof. I don't like her demeanor. Like somebody else said, I don't trust her any further than I could toss her.

What does hair have to do with anything though?? Laura and Barbara Bush and Nancy Reagan all have short hair and Hillary had long hair with bangs and a headband when Bill first got elected.

 

[oktobergirl]

I can't wait for his book I hope to go to a signing too

Is anyone else going to read it?

When I think about all the Clinton negatives, compared to what we have now, I'd much prefer Bubba

I have it on preorder. I can't wait to read it.

 

[joyfulgirl]

People generally are uncomfortable with independent, intelligent, strong women. The very qualities that people bash Hillary for would be respected in a man. Through my work I have met many of the people considered to be this nation's great thinkers, male and female. I have seen little difference in the way the powerful females conduct themselves vs. the way the powerful males conduct themselves, yet the men are revered as great strong leaders and thinkers while the women are generally reduced to bitches. It still amazes me.

 

[A_Wanderer]

To anybody that thinks for a second that the key to peace and stability in the world is having more women in positions of power --> Margaret Thatcher

I don't believe that Clinton was one of the great US presidents, I think that there are quite a few things that taint his presidency (not Monica, that was all a bunch of hypocritical BS on every politician who bashed him over it, im talking about Rwanda, failures in fighting terrorism etc.), he was not a bad president but certainly not one of the greats.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

I agree w/ joyfulgirl, I think that double standard is still alive and well

While there are issues outside that standard, I certainly believe Hillary Clinton is subjected to that standard. While she might not be the most honest person/politician, in my opinion she's not the evil incarnate that some people think she is. No other first lady that I can recall has ever been villified to that extent, and it makes you question why..

 

[U2Kitten]

Again, why does no one hate Elizabeth Dole? She is also well educated, intelligent, employed, US senator, and wife of a politician. She's very successful too, but nobody hates her like they do Hillary, because she doesn't come across as a bitch. I don't believe there is a blanket stereotype on all 'strong' women, it's on a case by case basis. There also isn't a double standard for men, plenty of men with snotty attitudes are hated as well.

 

[joyfulgirl]

I've never paid any attention to Elizabeth Dole. She's just not on my radar, she doesn't have Hillary's visibility. If you'll go back and read my post, I used the word 'generally' twice, saying nothing about blanket stereotypes about strong women. But I see the double standard in my own life, especially my work life, all the time.

 

[ThatGuy]

Also keep in mind that the Doles were not the targets of attack journalists financed by millionaires with extreme political beliefs.

 

[U2Kitten]

If you'll go back and read my post, I used the word 'generally' twice,

I hate that too sorry. I put a disclaimer on it and I still get accused of blanket statements

My point about Elizabeth Dole is, you can't use the 'everyone hates a strong important woman' thing as the reason people hate Hillary because there are other women in her position that no one feels that way about. It's HER, not what she is.

Originally posted by ThatGuy
Also keep in mind that the Doles were not the targets of attack journalists financed by millionaires with extreme political beliefs.

They had nothing to do with why I don't like her, and I never form my opinion based on anyone else, just as I don't read music reviews. But I will say IMO Hillary's views are the ones that are "extreme."

Though you say they had people working against them, they also had people working FOR them. I remember when they first started running, no one like them. Then all of a sudden they changed, they got more homey, started holding hands, they gave Hillary a more matronly hairdo and clothes, and they seemed more marketable to middle America. I didn't fall for it, I knew it was all an act, but I knew they were being packaged for quick sale. Soon after the election, I saw an article in the newspaper called "The selling of the Clintons" which detailed everything I had noticed and predicted They really did have spin doctors and advisors telling them what to do and not do to make the average American accept them. It was considered a major coup. I was never fooled.

But all politicians are phoneys anyway.

 

[ThatGuy]

But all politicians are phoneys anyway.

Too true.

 

[joyfulgirl]

But all politicians are phoneys anyway.

Well that we can agree on!

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

i've seen chuck schumer often, i see pete king at least once a month, but i have yet to see hillary once.

 

[Scarletwine]

I admire Hillary greatly. She is independent, well educated, and in social situations very charming. I was able to get to a book signing. There's a great part about Ireland in it.

U2Kitten - Did you read "It Takes a Village". There was no talk of forced daycare or preschool, even though I think all kids need preschool for socialization.

I can't wait to get Clinton's book. I hope I can get it signed also.

 

[WildHoneyAlways]

To highlight the operative portion of the above:But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.

Term limits are such a crock....

 

[LoveTown]

just to clear up the Bill as VP thing. He cannot be VP because he was Pres for 2 terms. If anything happened to the president he was serving under he could not take the office again because it would be unconstitutional because of already serving two full terms. At least I think that's how it goes.

Too bad, I loved Bill! I think his only mistake was not saying that he did indeed have an affair with Monica and apologizing and just putting the matter behind him. Instead he lied and in the process got himself impeached. BAD BAD BUBBA!!

However, I bet under similar circumstances most of those among us would have lied as well

 

[U2Kitten]

U2Kitten - Did you read "It Takes a Village". There was no talk of forced daycare or preschool, even though I think all kids need preschool for socialization.

I can't wait to get Clinton's book. I hope I can get it signed also.

I've been trying to stay out of here but this was directed at me personally so I will answer.

It wasn't so much in that but other things my sister and I used to read about her and her attitude. I don't think it takes a village, it takes a family, and the idea of having the 'village' raise your kids instead is not something that I like. I am not a fan of preschool. The kids will be in school at 5 anyway, isn't that young enough to join institutionalized socialization? I think so. I think children miss out on a great part of life by never having that free time to play as they please without structure. My preschool years were the happiest of my life, the freedom, the fantasy, imagination in the back yard, my own TV show in front of my parent's mirror, inventing my own coloring books. I think kids lose a bit of their creativity and raw imagination when they are always in a place with organized play and rules. There is plenty of socialization with the other kids on the street, and if there are none, play dates can be made with friends. I love hearing my kids and the ones behind me coming up with original storylines for everything from a flooded ditch to a piece of wood. Their imagination and fantasies flow free and I think that is an important part of the development of the mind, conscience, and personality. If a parent can't be at home, I would prefer seeing a friend or relative watch the kid, or at least a small home daycare setting. Of course every kid is different and some may need it. But I will never believe it's best for everyone.

Here's an interesting story on this topic. I knew a woman once who put her daughter in a daycare preschool program at 3. She cried her eyes out and had a fit every time her mother left her there. The mother's rationale was, if she doesn't learn now she'll cry when she goes to kindergarten! Same thing at 4 year old program, she was miserable and cried constantly. When she went to kindergarten at 5, she loved it and didn't cry. The woman said, see, if I hadn't put her in the 3 and 4 year old preschools she'd have cried in kindergarten! Even if she did, she'd have only had to cry once and had been spared 2 years of emotional distress!

Oh well Scarlet at least we will always agree on one thing- Bono

 

[anitram]

Coming in kind of late, but I wanted to offer a first person POV re: the daycares.

Somebody mentioned daycares in the USSR, etc. I went to such a daycare in an Eastern European country, from the age of 3-6 (may have even been 2 and a half).

First of all, they were not mandatory, although the vast majority of kids went. There were many of them in each city, and you were not forced to attend one in your particular area. You did have to pay a monthly fee (it was not completely free), and you had to pay an additional fee if you wanted the child to have a full lunch. Now, we are talking about some minor change really, but it was not 100% paid for by the state.

As for what it was like, I laugh a little when I read people's thoughts who have never even been to these countries, much less attended such a daycare.

It was actually a lot of fun! It was a very short day, 8-12, and you were pretty much separated into classes, the way schools are. There were 4 grades, and most of it was doing art projects, plays, etc. It really wasn't about formal education at that point nor about communist indoctrination - that came in 1st grade when you were sent to a primary school. Daycares were mostly concerned with having a social setting for the children while parents worked. We would spend tons of time outdoors. Twice a week, we had trips to the main city park, for different things. We would go collect leaves and flowers and dry and press them so we could make cards for mother's day. We'd press our hands into ink to track how we were growing over the four years. We finger painted and learned how to blend watercolours. We would go collect chestnuts and then the city's roasting trucks would come around and we'd have a roast on Fridays. We made flower garlands sometimes and we'd also make clay animals and other things and then sent them away to get baked. It was actually a really cool experience.

I still remember when Chernobyl happened, I think I was in my last year of daycare and we could not go outside to the parks for several months because they were concerned about radiation. I don't know why this has stuck with me, but it has.

Yes, the children were very disciplined and well behaved. We'd walk to the park in twos, and you'd have 4 year old in better formation than adult soldiers, I kid you not. In Communism, the teacher was God, and the kids followed along. We had no problems with any sort of school violence or talking back, that was simply unthinkable. You knew your place in the world right from the start.

What was fun is that when you started 1st grade, you were guaranteed to know at least a handful of people from your daycare. There would be 3-4 first grade classes and you really made a lot more friends because you already had a basis for knowing many of them. Your parents knew each other and there was very much the "village" mentality there. You always had someone to watch you, always had someone to walk home with, always had someone to pitch in. It's very much a climate where the individual is worth nothing except in the context of what he can provide for his community. It's not the best, it's not the worst, it just is. But you have to understand that millions of us lived this way for many years and we did not feel oppressed. I would not want to go back to Communism, because it was oppressive on other ways - religion, political freedom, private ownership, etc. But there were also some very good things about it and you may feel what you wish about the daycare, but as someone who is a product of it, I would not have wanted it any other way. It was a good few years, definitely.

 

[U2Kitten]

Anitram what country are you from? Did they not put red scarves on you and make you salute the 'party' and teach you that Americans are bad and brainwash you? That's what they told us here. I mean as a little kid in school they'd tell us that, you'd see snippets of video of it on TV and I was scared of those kids, and felt sorry for them.

It's very much a climate where the individual is worth nothing except in the context of what he can provide for his community.

This is the concept that I am so much against, anywhere. It's like you have to be part of a 'group' and are worth nothing on your own. Even some schools here now seem to be trying to ingrain a 'worker bee' mentality, and the attitude that working together as a group is more important than what you know or how you do it. Anytime people try to stamp out or discourage individuality or independent thought, I believe there's something wrong. It's like they don't want you to be different, you have to be like everyone else, like 'they' want you to be, because people who are different think for themselves, get ideas that oppose them, and try to change things. That's why all the intellectuals were killed in Cambodia in the 70's. I don't like it.

 

[anitram]

Of course they told you that in America - the American propaganda against Communism was just as honest as the Russian propaganda for Communism.

I grew up in the former YU, which was a Communist country, but apart from the Soviet Bloc (theoretically speaking anyway). Nobody in our schools told us Americans were bad. I never, ever heard anything like that taught. But you have to understand that America had a very specific way of dealing with Communist countries - pumping money into some for strategic purposes (ie. the YU) and demonizing others. We didn't get brainwashed about the West really, nobody talked about it much in schools, most probably because everyone wanted to go to the west, LOL.

We never had to wear the red scarves except at a ceremony in first grade, and then if your school participated in a ceremony celebrating a public holiday. So, for example, if you had to sing in a choir for your country's July 4th equivalent, you'd have to wear the scarf, but otherwise you didn't. I even remember every time we had to dig it up, my mother would panic for 3 days because we'd throw it in the basement or something and had no idea where it was.

There were some good things about it too, though. You may not agree with the village mentality, but the support system there is incredible. Now you have kids here in North America who have never met their fathers, whose mothers work 2 jobs and never see them. That never happened in Eastern Europe. There was a huge net of people to fall back on. Nobody paid anybody for babysitting. And we had no such thing as obesity in childhood, because there was a tradition of sport in our schools, and you can bet those kids were nice and fit.

Education was completely free, daycare was free, medical and dental coverage was free, all vaccinations and prescriptions were free, everything.

If you were the poorest child in the city, or the child of the president, you'd write the exam to get into a university, and then you'd both attend it for free. In the West, we perpetuate the cycle of poverty continuously.

Don't let those "educational" videos educate you about how life was there. Talk to the people who lived through it. I think most, if not all will tell you they would prefer not to live in Communism either, but you have to understand, that is the only way of life millions of us knew. And it wasn't perfect, but it wasn't as horrible as your media and politicians would like you to believe. Those videos you watched may have been in context or may have not. They were certainly excuses to go interfere in Latin America, to go kill a couple of million Vietnamese peasants, bomb Cambodia and so on.

 

[u2ulysses]

I strongly dislike her because of her 'it takes a village' thing and her attitude that all children should be forced into state run daycare at a young age. I'm not talking just about parents who choose that, there was a time when she was advocating this as the best way, and even made comments that most American parents weren't fit to raise their own kids. It was her "baking cookies" statement about stay at home Moms that really drew my hatred most. I'm a stay at home Mom, I take offense to the idea that only certain people are qualified to raise children. I believe she was advocating a type of youth program like existed in Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany where kids were put in mandatory institionalizied settings very young and educated and raised the 'right' way by people the 'right' side of government approved. Even if they could go home at night, the parents are not supposed to be the main influence in their develpment. So all parents aren't perfect. I'd take them over the government except in very extreme cases of abuse.

I'm sure you are an excellent mother.

However...

H. Clinton's comments have merit - most people should NOT be raising children. Some "welfare moms" have children just so that they can continue to be on welfare! While some people use welfare as it was designed, most abuse the system to the best of their abilities.

Also, many parents simply don't know how to raise children. I would say this is true for generations past as well as present - but it's only in the present that someone dares to say that something should be done. Hitting or spanking children was accepted years ago - it's frowned on now, but we hear about child abuse cases more than ever.

Also, given the number of single parent households, a single parent simply can't be there for his/her children. Even in double parent houses, the cost of living is such that often both parents have to work - and this further limits the amount of time parents can spend with children.

What you are doing, U2Kitten, is ideal. And more and more people are trying to do just that - return to a single income household and "do with less". Latch-key kids are not a way to raise a family. But as I wrote, many people can't or won't dedicate the time to their children. Hence, H. Clinton's proposal has merit. Clearly this program is not meant for you - so take no offense at H. Clinton's words. Rather, view it from the perspective of helping a child. Would you rather see a child in a government daycare or out on the streets after school? Would you rather see a child learn at least the basics in a government daycare or see the child play video games or watch TV all day because mom is too busy? Would you rather see the kids stuck with an aging grandparent or left alone so mom could work, or would you prefer to see them in a more supervised government daycare?

The government daycare is not for all, but the idea has merit.

As for the topic, B. Clinton cannot be VP - silly CNN notion.

And H. Clinton said she would turn down the offer if it was given.