"You seem to automaticaly assume that people whose family connections/wealth/status, etc. help them win elections are by default worse leaders than those who did not have family help. I don't think so."
Generally speaking, I think that's true. Who do you think tend to better business people: Those who build a billion dollar business or those who just inherited a billion dollars from their spouse or parent?
I also think if Hillary became president it would send a message to young girls that the way to become president is to marry one, which is pretty anti-feminist.
Also if I were a woman who became governor of a state with no help from my husband, and had plans to run for president, I'd be pretty pissed about having Hillary come along and steal my thunder as the first woman president, mostly because she married the right guy.
The favoritism by kinship Hillary received was from her husband who used the enormous power of the white house (some people were even allegedly pardoned to win support for Hillary according to Christopher Hitchens), use his own personal popularity, media connections, fund-raising apparatus, and control over the part machinery to get Hillary elected (diverting resources from Gore's presidential run in the process, which was convenient because a Gore victory would have impeded Hillary's future plans to run for president). True you can't inherit votes through family, but you can inherit all the resources you need to get those votes, or would you argue that George W. Bush is also a self-made man and didn't inherit political power from his dad?
Similar arguments can probably be made about Hillary's legal career, especially if it was in the law firm's best interest to have connections to the governor. I admire Bill Clinton for being a self-made man but I refuse to extend the same admiration to his wife or the current president who clearly aren't.
As for Bill's record on poverty, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt until I see strong evidence otherwise, but all of those accomplishments don't mean anything if his wife lost both houses of congress (according to David Broke), and a pointless romance with Monica allowed Bush to defeat Gore. The most important part of any presidency is the strategic exit.
I strongly disagree about nepotism not getting Hillary her senate seat. Don't know about her position in the Rose law firm, but was her husband not a powerful governor at the time? If the Clinton admin did so much to reduce poverty, how do you explain articles like this?:
Hillay helped with this, helped with that. It's one thing to jump on the band wagon of somebody else's initiatives, quite another to show leadership, and I have yet to see evidence that Hillary ever had and yet to see evidence of Hillary getting ANY important position without nepotism. As for the Clinton admin, the most significant thing she did there was mess up health care reform so badly that according to David Broke, dems lost congress for the first time in decades, which of course led to Bush having unprecedented power when he got into office. After the health care fiasco, Hillary was relegated to tradition first lady duties like writing books and traveling the world and kept out of policy. As for the decline in black poverty, it's not hard to get those numbers down if you throw enough people in jail, as black incarceration rates were high during the Clinton years. Are you denying that welfare reform created poverty?
Interesting. Maggie Thatcher in Britain had no trouble being taken seriously. Neither does Angela Merkel of Germany.
Perhaps the reason Hillary is a laughing stock is because she thought being a former first lady made her qualified to be commander and chief. You can argue that is sexism but I guarantee that a man who tried to run for president based on his wife's resume would be receive far more ridicule than Hillary.
Actually the majority of white Americans are extremely rich, compared to the world population as a whole. As long as whites and men as a group have more power than blacks and women, it is impossible to be racist against a white or sexist against a man. Because racism and sexism can be defined as discriminating against members of a less powerful race or gender, respectively.
I also left out governors. Only a couple blacks have served as governor of a state, but dozens of women have. I agree my review could have been more exhaustive, but I doubt it would change the overall picture.
But that assumes blacks are the only race affected by sexism. In fact every race with the exception of whites (who are currently on top) experiences racism, and the total number of non-whites in the world exceeds the number of women.
It's actually the other way around. People thought Obama was an unqualified empty suit because he's BLACK and assumed Hillary was qualified because she's white. Even though Hillary was wrong on the biggest foreign policy decision in U.S. history and Obama was right, even though Hillary flunked the bar exam and Obama was president of the Harvard Law Review, even though Hillary got her senate seat through nepotism and Obama got his through merrit, people still viewed Obama as less qualified. That is because we have best selling books like THE BELL CURVE saying blacks are less intelligent. Women are also dismissed as stupid, but nowhere near to the same extent as blacks are.
""The issue of older workers is similar in many ways to the arguments surrounding discrimination against blacks and women in the '60s," Mr. Cappelli said. At the time, he noted, it was widely said that the "market will take care of it," since self-interested companies would want to tap a wider pool of workers with varied skills. But ultimately it took anti-discrimination laws and changes in social attitudes to improve job opportunities for women and minorities."
Libertarians will argue that there is no need for government discrimination laws, because the free market is so competetive that any company that discriminates against competent people because of age, gender or race will fail to thrive and lose out to the company that takes the most productive people, regardless of race, gender or age. Libertarians believe in privatization of almost everything, because they argue that being forced to compete in the free market is the only way to make sure organizations will be forced to trim fat and cut dead weight.
But traditional liberals will say only government is efficient, and that privatized corporations to an incompetent job. They blame privatization for the problems in executing the rebuilding of Iraq.
and unlike you I don't trash people who just died just to excuse my candidate of her responsibilities as a member of congress. It must be sad to worship someone so much that you're willing to drag a dead man's name through the mud, just because he dared to ask your candidate tough questions.
James Carville is the biggest Hillary supporter I know, but he actually had the decency to publicly sob over Russert's death.
Your demonization of Russert who just died is at best reprehensible, especially when you show no compassion for his family at this time, you just want to slime anyone who dared treat Hillary like a regular candidate and asked her tough questions.
"Regardless what Bill Clinton was saying in 2003, people were listening to Cheney, Bush, Rumsfeld, Rice, and most importantly Powell."
No they were listening to Clinton too. He made media appearances during the run up to war and as a former president of the opposite party, he was essential to selling the war to the American and British public, and giving it the bipartisan legitimacy Bush cited. Clinton was far more tusted by Americans than Cheney and Rumsfeld COMBINED, especially since he wasn't a republican or part of the Bush admin. David Gregory cited Clinton's belief in WMDs as a key reason why the media believed it too.
"Regardless what Hillary Clinton was saying in 2003, people were listening to Cheney, Bush, Rumsfeld, Rice, and most importantly Powell."
Actually people were listening to Hillary when she made those comments in 2002. She was the most famous person in congress, she was widely expected to be the first woman president, she just spent 8 years in the white house, she was the defacto leader of the democratic party, she was the senator from the state where 9/11 took place. All eyes were on Hillary as America, the media, and the other members of congress decided what side to take. Hillary gave Dems permission to support Bush.
"The complete capitulation by Russert's shows and the rest of the corporate press (NYTimes, WaPost, CNN, Fox, ABC, CBS) to Bush scare tactic lies bull-rushed Congress into approving the Iraq invasion."
Actually congress itself set the tone for the media coverage by being extremely deferential to Bush during that period. The job of the media is to treat democrats and republicans fairly, but when it came to Bush, both the republicans and democrats agreed that they were to give their commander and chief unconditional support, so the media went along. And those in the media who did challenge Bush were faced with boycotts and withdrawl of sponsors, so they didn't have the power to challenge Bush if they wanted.
Senators like Hillary on the other hand were guaranteed their jobs until the next election years away, so unlike the media, she actually did have the power to dissent, and more importantly, congress had the authority to stop Bush in his tracks but chose not to.
"What was needed was the pushing of two falsehoods: that Iraq had nukes, and that those nukes were an imminent threat to the U.S."
Actually the Iraq liberation act layed the ground work for the war because it was a policy of regime change. And the two falsehoods that were pushed were that Sadam had nukes AND that he had links to Al Queda. Both Clintons pushed such rhetoric, Bill asserted that Sadam had been building nukes and delivery systems to justify the Iraq liberation act, Hillary also spoke of WMDs and accused Sadam of having links to Al Queda. This propaganda campaign was so successful that many Americans blamed Sadam for Sept 11. But regardless of the falsehoods, once Bush had approval from congress, he had all he needed to go to war. Public support was nice, but not needed. Look how unpopular the war is now, and yet it continues.
"The Levin Amendment was much less than it appeared to be. For example, look at this loophole Bush could've driven an invasion through: the bill "affirms that, under international law and the United Nations Charter, the United States has at all times the inherent right to use military force in self-defense."
Except invading Iraq was not an act of self-defense but an act of preemptive war and was described as such at the time. During this unprecidented situation, congress should have been on high alert to make sure the president wasn't abusing his war powers, instead they were expanding them. Did the media do a bad job informing the public? Maybe so, but the media didn't have access to classified intelligence. Further the public doesn't send us to wars, congress and the president do, so ultimately those are the only people to blame.