Hillary Clinton is unelectable
 

Whatever the political stances, I cannot imagine that Hillary could be elected as president. Not because she is a woman, but because she is not likeable.

Obama is politically popularist and seems the most lightweight candidate... but eminently likeable and charismatic... and would certainly win the election

Its a funny system in the US.

In the UK, we vote for a party... who make all these tough decisions for you.

In the US the supporters of the party seem to be forced between choosing between their head and their heart every time.

In terms of political stance, I would say I would be closer to Hillary, but voting for her is the equivalent of voting for George Greghan to stand in front of you jeering "4 more years boys, 4 more years..." imo

Is it a good system that allows the people to actually decide the candidates?

I prefer the UK system myself, of the people having one choice... between the candidates presented to them.

I wish that were the case, my friend. I really do. The fact is that not only do some people agree with her, but some people don't care. Some people will vote for her because they think she looks funny or because of the Lewinsky bullshit. Some people will vote for her because she's not black. A lot will vote for her simply because she lacks a y chromosome.

The thing is, these people have every right to create their own criteria in their decision making process. Either everyone can vote and you get idiots voting, or you don't let everyone vote and the president, servant and representative of the people, doesn't represent everyone. It's a bizarre catch-22, but there really isn't any way around it.

I have to agree. Despite the problems that we encounter, I still would not want to see any reduction in the ability of the people to choose their own president. The public nature of the primaries are great because so often the 'anointed' candidate is rejected by the people and replaced by one deemed to represent that party all the better, and when they are not defeated, they often get a good dose of changes they need to make if they are to continue to get support.

Yes... but what I was asking was not exactly that.

I wasnt saying dont give people the choice.

I was saying give people one choice, not the double selection process.

By all means, people should elect however they feel guided too... but I feel it should be one decision, and they should understand it as such... a choice made in two stages seems less likely to be well made.

I misunderstood the direction of your first few sentences, sorry.

The US has primaries so that the parties have less control. If it were up to the parties, Hilary would be the Democratic presidential hopeful. A lot of Democrats would disagree with that decision, so they get the opportunity to choose the best representative for them. The Democratic party isn't just some officials and party members, it's the whole of the Democratic voter base. It's everyone registered to vote Democrat in the US.

To me that makes sense. Though it'd be nice to have a labor party over here... we've basically got tories already.

The Labour Party ceased to be the Labour Party when they dropped clause 4.

The abandonment of Clause 4 was a betrayal, in principle and fact, of what they stood for and what they are. They arent really much different to the Democracts without it... its just the iron fist in the silk glove, against the iron fist in an iron glove.

I think the UK is better off for having a three party system though... the third party can fulfil the position of the moral opposition rather than practical opposition, and this is very worthwhile... to have a powerful group in the main parliament who can speak from conscience rather than the guidelines of the latest focus group.

I dunno, I think Hillary is "likeable enough." (Bonus points to those who get the reference.)

Anyway, what will said.

Context for the rest of my yankee brethren:

Clause 4:
"To secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry or service."

Blair attempted to redefine this in 1993, suggesting that the wording above was outdated (bullshit, anyone?). When he was elected in 1994, he had the power to change it. It now reads:
"The Labour Party is a democratic socialist party. It believes that by the strength of our common endeavour we achieve more than we achieve alone, so as to create for each of us the means to realise our true potential and for all of us a community in which power, wealth and opportunity are in the hands of the many, not the few. Where the rights we enjoy reflect the duties we owe. And where we live together, freely, in a spirit of solidarity, tolerance and respect."

It's far less socialist and more centrist, and quit frankly is a betrayal of what labour was supposed to be. Labor was supposed to be socialist. It's not, anymore.

As for third parties...that fits right into the biggest political change that I do think is necessary in the US: we need to count votes using a method that fulfills the Condorcet criterion.

A fellow political scientist?! *giddy*

I have a couple of issues with your claim.

First, Hillary *is* the choice of the party leadership - check out the "Super Delegates":

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/01/05/6189/

The whole point of the super delegate system is to try to make sure that the plebians don't stray too far from the party line. Now, these delegates can change their vote, and they'll probably go with whoever wins the popular vote, but they could, possibly, sway almost any race. And right now, they choose Hillary. If they were the ones who got to pick, it would be Hillary.

Second, for most of us Plebes, we *don't* get to pick from more than two candidates. Unless we happen to live in an early primary state, the race will be won by the time it gets around to us. The only race that will matter is the actual election, and we'll get to choose between....Dem or Repub.

Third, I think part of the whole point of the primary system is to see how the candidates actually *do* in a campaign. A trial run, if you will. If the candidate fairs poorly in the primary, it's a pretty good indication that they would not have done well in the rest of the race. The primary system lets the party know that a given candidate doesn't play well with certain segments of the population, or can't take the strain of a campaign.

While I do think Hillary has electability problems, but I think the bigger problem is the *hate* that the right-wingers have for her. I'm not kidding. They'd of course rather have one of their own as president, but the idea of Hillary in office makes them froth at the mouth. Go read some right wing blogs, it's scary. Hillary as a candidate will probably help them whip the masses into a frenzy to go out and vote *against* her.

She does also have some likability issues, but she seems to have hit a magic formula with The Crying Incident. We'll see how that works out for her.

You must admit though, that Hillary is the party choice within the present context "ie - it not being the final choice"

My contention is that when a decision is brken up into pieces, this damages the quality of the result. I believe:

The party should make one decision of who is the candidate - through the membership of the parliamentary party or a combination of.

The people then should have a straight, and clear, choice.

Of course there is an anti-Hillary mob, as there is an anti-Bush mob. These people dont decide the election, the middle ground do.

___

And Will, your summary of Clause 4 is exactly correct... dropping Clause 4 was symbolically dropping the commitment to collective ownership. It was a symbolic statement that the Labour party was no longer a socialist party. Michel's "Iron Law of Oligarchy" I suppose.

See! You're not the only socialist lurking around these parts.

I was dismayed when I read about that a few years back. I was too young to appreciate the Labour party in it's glory days (in 1994 I was just a decade old). I suspect that the UK's little brother, the US, had too much influence. The reach-arounds between Bush and Blair were just the most recent symptom of that.

It's my degree ;)

I'm a fan of the founding fathers' intention to minimize party control in Democracy, though I do think parties have their purpose of helping convey a candidate's general message. If it weren't so upsetting, I'd find it rather amusing that the Democratic party has the less democratic process of choosing a presidential candidate (superdelegates). That said, I also recognize that right now there is too much fluff in the campaigning of individuals. That's just as much a cultural problem as it is a political one though, what with our celebrity obsession and so forth.

As for the anti-Hillary mob, I think you underestimate the power of "getting out the vote." In a reasonably close election or in one where both sides are somewhat ambivalent, the independents definitely hold the most sway. But if one side can get their base fired up and the other one can't (which is what I think a Hillary candidacy would do, and also part of what happened in 2004), then the anti- voters can have significant power.

Maybe I'm missing something, but it sounds to me that this is what we do.

The party as a whole chooses the candidate through the primary. Only the members of a party can vote in that primary, as technically they are separate; each party holds them at the same time (for the most part) for convenience.

How does it work in the UK? Are the elections for leaders (Prime Minister, etc.) public? I always assumed that it was more like how the Speaker of the House is elected in America; from within the congressional/party leadership.

I'm pretty sure independents can vote in the primary in most states. Could be wrong, though.

I disagree. I think democracy would be healthier with *more* candidates in the actual election, rather than having it be party-vs-party. In the US, if you vote for a 3rd party candidate, your vote is 'wasted'. Unfortunately, a strong third party candidate (like Ross Perot, before he imploded) can tilt the field towards the *least* popular candidate.

[ LEFT ---Cand. A--Cand. B.----------------|middle|------Cand. C-------------- RIGHT ]

Most voters would prefer either Candidate A or B over candidate C. But since candidate A and B split the 'left/liberal' vote, candidate C has a much better chance of winning.

In our (the USA's) voting system, the primaries let the 'left' (democratic) side and the right (republican) side pick their favorite candidate, then left can fight against right, and you don't have a 'split the vote' issue. There are other systems, like runoff elections, and "single transferable votes" that are supposed to fix this sort of problem. Our (again, in the US) system is a cobbled-together compromise that seems to work 'ok' (except for the last 7 years... ;-)). I would love to see something better come along, though.

It's not that Hillary is unelectable - I tend to think she is, and I hope to net have to find out for sure, but I could easily be surprised. No one has ever gone broke underestimating the <s>American</s> people.

The problem with Hillary is that, regardless of her qualifications, capabilities, ideas, and advisers, if elected she cannot rule.

There is a large group of wealthy people who hate her with a pathological fury who will exert every ounce of their considerable power to make sure that any Mrs. Clinton administration will be a miserable failure to make Bush look like George Washington (or at least Ronald Reagan - who was a lousy president but don't try telling them that).

They have been stockpiling political ammunition for the last 15 years. A second Clinton administration will come out of the gate like the first Clinton administration exited - under seige by people who think that the very greatest service they can do to their country is to make the administration a train wreck to prevent anything like it from ever happening again.

With that said, I think it would be amusing and infuriating to watch, and it would give her the opportunity to crush these people like the weasels they are (I'm talkin' to you, Scaife!), but I don' think she has the chops to do it (though she's probably better equipped for a no holds barred, salted earth campaign than Bill.)

On top of that, I am concerned that there will be some degree of this for any Democratic president, plus the economic and military Shitburger combo plate that the Bush Administration has served them and they're going to have to eat and smile.

And that last is why, if Clinton gets the nomination, I'll probably vote for McCain. It's not that he's better equipped than any of the Democrats, or that he would be more able to deal with the coming meltdown than any of the other Republicans. It's that I would expect him to be honest about it (which I would not expect from anyone else except Kucinich - fat chance of that happening), and his honesty would very likely doom the Republican party for the next 20 to 50 years.

The beauty of the American system is that it keeps the fringe groups from getting power disproportionate to their numbers.

For all the whining, its worked petty well so far.

i dont know if hillary clinton is "electable" or not yet.
i'm not sure how anyone would: we collectively are moving through the charade of agency now at its first level (the primary ritual)...no-one knows quite what the opposing tickets will be and it seems to me that it is entirely possible that the question of electability is only to some extent a function of, say, the conservative fashioning of clinton as some socialist Devil, and mostly a function of what the choices look like.

if, say, some paleolithic ticket emerges from the right--anything featuring mccain, say, or--funnier still--huckabee--that clinton would be in quite good shape.

she would be far more vulnerable if the republicans were to nominate and actual moderate--romney.

but the same kind of drift to the right that was of a piece with construcint clinton as socialist devil may mean that the republican voting base is too conservative for romney.

what i think folk are banking on who oppose hillary clinton from the right is that the process of making her into a fictional socialist will make of her a wedge issue and that right identity politics will over-ride the catastrophe that has been the bush period in shaping votes.
personally, i think they're dreaming.

but really, this is entirely speculative.

Well then, you're awesome.

They should nominate Nancy Reagan! Hil would be SOL.

Hillary's unelectability is a myth created by her opposition. Obama was considered unelectable at the beginning of this race. GW was considered unelectable all the way up until Sept-Oct in both 2000 & 2004. Bill Clinton was un-re-electable in 1996 and unelectable through Super Tuesday in 1992.

This is an election strategy used every four years that nonetheless no one seems to recall. While I've come to accept this as a political reality, I do expect more from serious political historians and political scientists. Rule number one in electoral politics is that there is nothing new under the sun. Remember what has worked and not worked in the past and why.

"Anyone but Hillary" -- bumper sticker at the gym parking lot this morning

I don't think Hillary is unelectable. Plenty of the population support her, and I think she could probably win in November. Personally I'm not sure if I support her fully -- she's too much of a polarizing figure.

I voted for Hillary for Senator. I'd have some difficulty voting for her for President. But of course, a lot would depend on who was running against her.

That's the issue, though.

How many of 1) Republicans that might be disaffected with the present administration and 2) conservative-leaning independents would be willing to vote for her?

She's definitely not unelectable, no question there - there are plenty of people who would support her for a variety of reasons. It's important not to underestimate the vitriol that others have to her though...I honestly think a Clinton candidacy is about the only thing that could truly mobilize the Republican base. Maybe it wouldn't be enough for them to win, maybe it would, but they'd certainly be mobilized.

Sometimes I wonder.

We often hear about can't miss candidates. They get so built up for so long that when it comes time for the actual election we are over the hype and frankly sick of being repeatedly told who we are going to vote for. The anointed candidate goes down in a hail of chads and the electorate goes against what they were told and does their own thing. Sometimes it is the smallest of things that serve as an excuse for this shift (Dean's scream for example).

I wonder if this works in reverse. We've been told for so long now that Hillary is this polarizer, that she's the one we should love to hate, that to so many she is the anti-Christ, and that her candidacy will bring out the passions of those who hate her guts with torches and pitchforks. But when is it too much? When do we stop being afraid and switch to sympathizing with a candidate that has weathered a merciless assault? I think the results in New Hampshire indicated there might be something to this.

The Republican faithful will rail on her mercilessly. Democrats, regardless of the primary jockeying, should she win, will rally around her more strongly because of the attacks. The people in the middle--the ones who really decide the election--are going to be the ones that will go one way or the other, siding with the bully or the bullied, and much will depend on the conduct of both along the way.

I suspect this was Karl Rove's strategy when he declared a Clinton presidency "inevitable". Most people aren't aware that they're quoting the devil himself when they say that, but they are.

I know one who won't. Policy wise, she's OK, but truth wise she gives Shrub a run for his money. My problem is do we really need 20 years of the most cynical kind of spin-meisters running the country? Bill, then George, then Hillary? (Edwards falls into this too, BTW). The only thing worse, to my mind would be a religious nutcase like Huccabee or Romney (Mormanism is the Scientology of the 19th century. With all due respect to the several Mormons I have know, uniformly good people, I don't want a Scientologies or a wearing-Spock-Ears-to-work Trekkie as president either.) or a certified bloodthirsty autocratic maniac like Guiliani (who would also fall under the cynical spin-meister umbrella).

the prolem is that it has prevented mostgroups fom getting any representation. There are very few Libermans who can win (a senator seat) as an independant.

In presidental politics it makes sense to have a run-off, but in the congres, there should be a system where you vote for the party that will represent you. I think if you had a ballot like this:
_ Republican
_ Democratic
_ Libertarian
_ Green
_ Constitution
_ Socialist
_ Anarcist
_ ...

You would see a differnt breakdown in the house seats than right now. The problem with that is you would see these political parties probably, and they would be one issue parties that would sell their votes on issues that they don't care about.

_ Evangelical
_ Jewish
_ Black
_ Latinio
_ White
_ Feminist
_ NRA
_ Vetrens

Although it is good having someone from your local area represent you, I feel that the states should have more power, and the local state representative and your two senators should be enough. And it is good that the people have some say as to who 'the party' picks, but there is very little chance that a majority of people in a certain area will elect a third party person (since most people feel their vote is 'wasted', or they really don't like the other candidate).

As for the OP, I feel that if Hillary did win, there is very little (outside of Iraq) that she could get done. At least with a Republican house/senate that is bound to happen, just like it did to Bush.

I think the right might play nice with Obama for a while, although I doubt he would get much done either.

And let's all thank the man Jesus for that, say thankee. Leiberman is a prick of the frist water. He is proof that the point that Ustwo made and you replied to is absolutely wrong. The inmates have taken over the asylum.

We spent a good deal of blood and treasure breaking away from England. Let's not import their parliament. Actually, while there is something to be said for proportional representation, that thing is that it will never, Never, NEVER be allowed to happen. There is far too much interest vested in the current system.

There is very little inside of Iraq she could get done either.

Guys, of course Hillary is electable. She's straight out of center-leftish central casting. In this country we tend not to nominate people who are not electable. Things tend to look very different when the field gets narrowed and the choices are sharper. People who tend Democratic and don't like whoever the Repubs put up will vote for her even if she would not have been their hypothetical first choice.

The big mistake the Democratic party made in 2004 was trying to "game" the electability issue. Kerry was dead in the water until Iowa, when people decided he had insurance against attacks from the right because he was a war hero. Big mistake. Kerry was an exceptionally unattractive candidate, thin-skinned, sanctimonious, and with all the charisma of a tree stump. I maintained back then that Edwards would have been a much more attractive candidate , and I still believe I was right.

People should vote for who they think will make the best President, not try to figure out who is "electable." We have "big tent" parties in this country so anyone who can convince one of the major parties that s/he should be nominated is more than likely electable. That doesn't mean s/he WILL win, but it does mean s/he will have a fair shot.

She would be able to pull out the troops. Whether that is a good idea or not is another debate.

And I don't like Liberman either, but he does represent the Jewish population. Which is more representation than many other groups have (besides white, male, religious and rich).

Hillary would need to get the middle independents if she were to win. And I would say that Barack has a better chance of swaying those voters than Hillary. If it were Hillary vs Bush, I would say she would win. But a McCain, Romney or maybe even Huckabee would be a tough match.

Able, yes, but there's no way she'll do it. The strategic genius of the Iraq invasion was to bungle it horribly until the last hour and then pass on to the next chump a strategy that has the appearance of working. So she either leaves us in and attempts to clean up the mess, or she pulls us out and creates a bigger mess. What do you do when a blonde throws a pin at you? Run like hell; she has a grenade in her mouth. That blonde is what Bush has made Iraq.

No he doesn't. He represents Israeli settlers and other ultra-zionist crazy people. He's every bit the fundamentalist lunatic that Huccabee or Pat Robertson is, only he's bought into Likud security dogma rather than literal interpretation of the Talmud. He represents the Jewish Population like Cynthia McKinney represents the Black middle class, which is to say as a parody thereof.

I think only McCain would present her any significant challenge. I sincerely doubt that presenting the People with documented evidence of the multitude of times he has exhibited the hypocrisy that is a job qualification for getting anything done in the legislature would disrupt the straight talk narrative he has built over the last 8 years. Comparing him to Hillary tarred with Bill's broad brush will likely turn people who ought to be more moderate than him in his favor. I just want the collapse to happen in such a way that the Republicans can be blamed for it, since they caused it.

I can only hope that were Edwards to get the nomination, the press forgets who's side they are on and asks Edwards point blank why he made his legal fortune in such a manner which has cost women their lives to prevent a non-existent condition and if he feels any regrets knowing his lawsuits ended up causing harm and death to pregnant women.

Oh, my. That deserves an explanation.

I love this talking point. Because everyone knows about how the evil, nasty trial lawyers prey on innocent,defenseless companies for their own benefit. Life would be so much better if companies didn't have to be liable for their actions, or, at worst, if the damages were capped to make their cost/benefit analysis easier when it comes time to decide to fix a problem with their product or service that causes people harm.

I have no idea which particular lawsuit you're talking about, so I can't discuss it on it's merits. Maybe the jury made the wrong call. That's unfortunate, but it happens. However, it's a lawyers job to make his client's case as best he can. Edwards is apparently a very good lawyer. Unfortunately, sometimes a good lawyer can win a case that shouldn't be won, but that's the way life is.

Also, who's side is the press on? News reporting here in the US tends far more towards the right-wing point of view, despite what Rush says. Of course, that's not nearly as bad as how trivial and vapid it is. It would probably be better to have a biased media than an incompetent one. Right now we're stuck with both.

Robot, if I have failed to welcome you to Politics before, please allow me to do it now. Your above post brings fresh air into the room, and it is appreciated. :)

never mind, ignore this

You mean you don't know the history of John Edwards as a lawyer, where he made his millions and what it did to the medical profession, and the number of increased c-sections despite you voting for him for vp in the last election?

This wasn't covered in truthout.org?

Oh my. I covered this before.

Edwards is a disgusting human being of the worst kind, I'd vote for Kusinich before I'd vote for him, without regret. I'd rather a left wing loon than a stereotypical shyster.

Have you considered that the only place where the partisan garbage you are spouting is coming from is from ridiculously prejudiced and compromised sites like cnsnews, authored by exposed, unethical partisan shills, like this guy?

If requested, we can discuss Marc Morano's reputation, and the reputation, origin, and funding of CNSnews....IMO, it is as pathetic a source as worldnetdaily is.

Here is a balanced decription of Edward's litigation from a findlaw contritbutor, published on a mainstream news network website:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/07/27/se...rds/index.html

The attack the trial lawyers strategy is part of along term, republican party Op intended to defund democratic party candidates, by eliminating the revenue that it's traditional contributors have access to. The other large prong of this attack is to eliminated dues from union workers and unions themselves.

This is a class war, also intended to remove the right to initiate lawsuits by most of us....people who cannot pay a lawyer in advance to conduct a lawsuit.

You are manipulated Ustwo, more and more of us recognize it....

host you don't have a fucking clue what my sources are, and quit worrying about it, really, is there nothing you won't try to blame the source to cover up?

How about challenging a single one of my points?

Strange, I can't help but look at this thread in a different light after your recent comments on recent threads regarding women:

It's brought even more to light by the fact that you explicitly stated at the beginning of the thread that:

Perhaps you were trying to rationalize to yourself that the reason she is not electable isn't because she's a woman, and that there must be another reason. Have you ever considered that your strongest subconscious reason for not believing she is President material is that you have a very real bias towards women, what I call the "poor woman" belief? That women inherently need male "protection", and that we should protect them from the evils of this world?

Just something to think about...

No one has a clue what your sources are because you've not posted them. If you have information that's in question, a reliable source is required or your points will be dismissed.

I'm sorry but I can't believe Mr. Google can't figure this one out for himself. John Edwards is a shyster, anyone who knows his history knows this, most of you don't know his history obviously.

Hell host used walmart as an example of poor employment and ignored that unemployment in the country is 5% all while being condescending in that he somehow did his homework. Well to hell with that crap. All he does lately is blame the source and post his usual spam.

Here are some of Mr. Edwards cases

http://news.findlaw.com/newsmakers/john.edwards.html

Several of them have to do with C-sections, and cerebral palsy.

The argument seems to be:

o Edwards represented people in lawsuits that alleged that the doctors should have performed a c-section in a given case instead of proceeding with vaginal delivery.
- Obviously true, see the link.

o The cases were decided incorrectly. In other words, the doctor wasn't at fault, or, at least, had know way of knowing he or she was doing anything other than providing the best care.
- Highly debatable. I'm not a medical or legal expert. Prove it.

o These particular lawsuits then affected other doctor's decision making, and caused them to sometimes choose a c-section when a vaginal birth would have been a better medical decision.
- Very hard to prove. I can't imagine a doctor admitting he or she gave something other than what he thought was the best care. Medical malpractice insurance is obviously very expensive, and no one wants to be sued. Even if this bit is true, then I still wouldn't fault Edwards for it if he believed that the individuals in his cases were harmed, and proved it in court. He isn't responsible for other people's paranoia or fear of being sued.

o The increase in c-sections harmed people.
- C-sections are generally more dangerous than vaginal birth for obvious reasons. Doctors should be making the decision based upon their medical judgment instead of fear of being sued. If fear of lawsuits is really affecting Dr.'s judgment, then perhaps some action is needed.

o Edwards made a profit from these cases.
- Obviously true. That's is job.

o Edwards knew, or should have known, that these cases were frivolous, yet took them on anyway.
- If true, then he's a scumbag ambulance chaser. Prove it.

So, prove to me that these lawsuits were frivolous, and that Edwards new it. Then maybe I'll listen to you. Otherwise it's just more right-wing blather, which starts with the assumption that lawsuits are Bad because businesses might have to be responsible for their actions.

(If you've already proven such in another thread, point me at it and I'll take a look).

Google shows me a lot of what I classify as untrustworthy rightwing blather. Not that people with an agenda smearing politicians on the internet ever happens, or anything. I just have trust issues.

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=43067

I forgot that trolling liberals got it locked :thumbsup:

Ah yes, the thread that demonstrated that he was a good lawyer.

Nothing to see here, move along.

*Decided against falling into the temptation to continue the thread-jacking and pointless trolling after all*

I will just ask that we watch the 'shyster' talk. I know that in the common vernacular it can be used as a derogatory term towards lawyers, but it originated, and still carries the connotation, specifically to derogate the Jewish people.

Ustwo, you have to be trying really hard to think that the evidence you presented is unequivocal proof that Edwards did any of the things you accused him of. As far as i can tell, each piece you quoted allows for the fact that Edwards' cases might have been on the level.

It's kind of typical tactic though. Talk about why you hate certain lawyers, bring up the fact that Edwards is a lawyer, cover your libel bases by acknowledging that you have no evidence that Edwards did anything in any way improper, then go on about how much you hate certain lawyers. It's a fancy way of trying to get folks to come to a certain conclusion without actually having evidence to support that conclusion.

Going even further, as much as i don't like the phrase, i would imagine that as a proponent of the free market it's right up your ally: Don't hate the player, hate the game. The american economic system has created a market for lawyering and as such it is only natural that lawyers should exploit this market for all that they can. Since when is it like you to come down so hard on a fella just trying to earn a buck?

Now I have got to say, I don't much hold with SF's take on that other thread, but this is a completely different thing here. I don't know if Hillary is electable or not. I know that she is the only Democrat in the field (or who has been in the field) this year who might not get my vote. Not because she's a woman, but because she's a finagling, calculating, manipulative bitch. (NV casino caucus lawsuit. Perfect example.)

Now it may be that those are qualities required to run a successful campaign, and I would ignore them in a man, but I think not. It's a question of style and presentation. Who else has a presentation like Hillary? Rudy and Mit. They're both pretty darn bitchy.

Alrightey, then!

So, it looks like your primary source (which you quote in full, with a small response at the bottom - clearly you were channeling host ;-)) is the National Review Online. I would put it to you that they are a clearly biased right-wing outfit. That isn't to say that they are wrong, but, really, I don't expect them to be unbiased when it comes to a democratic candidate who also happens to be a trial lawyer who sues on behalf of 'the little guy' against doctors, hospitals, and large companies. Maybe you agree, maybe not. Regardless, let's look at the facts they present. Just because they are biased doesn't mean they are wrong.

Ok, so, to paraphrase your arguments and assumptions:

1) There is a litigation problem in the US. Trial lawyers are harming our country by their practices.

This is not self-evident to me, even though it may be so to you. Prove to me that there's a problem.

2) Trial lawyers 'own' democrats through their campaign contributions.

I'll grant you that trial lawyers contribute to democrats more than republicans. It's probably true. How is this different from every other special interest donating to politicians? How is it worse for the country than, let's say, Big Business lobbying for their interests? Or me sending a cheque to a given candidate along with a letter asking them to pay attention to my point of view? Unfortunately, money talks. That's the way the system works. People give money to the campaigns of people who agree with them on various positions, and politicians are more likely to listen to people to donate to them.

3) Edwards is part of the problem.

Is this because he's a trial lawyer and all trial lawyers are bad, or are their good trial lawyers, and Edwards has done something in particular that is bad?

Forgive me for paraphrasing instead of quoting you directly, but I'm trying to get at the meat of your arguments, and point out some assumptions that I think you are making implicitly rather than stating explicitly. Feel free to correct me if I misstated or didn't state any of your points.


More quotes - specific quotes from the original article that you use to bolster your case:

That is utter bullshit. First, the source is anonymous for no apparent reason. He or she spouts a silly accusation, which effectively amounts to "Edwards did his job as long as he got paid. Oh, and by the way, he got paid a lot." So, I'm supposed to be jealous of how much a successful trial lawyer like Edwards makes? Fine, I am. I'd love to have a job that makes me millions of dollars. But that doesn't mean he is a bad person. He only did his job so long as he got paid? So does my mechanic, my doctor, and myself. Few people can afford to work for free, and, of those that can, I assert there's no moral obligation for them to do so.

Several websites seem to indicate that he didn't do any 'pro bono' work while he was a lawyer. After a few quick minutes googling, I don't find anything to dispute that. If true, that's certainly a concern - my understanding is that it's considered a professional obligation for attorney's to provide some pro bono work. It's something I'd like clarification on. However, it doesn't necessarily disqualify him as a candidate for president, to me, and doesn't seem worthy of the hatred people have for him.

Do you think Edward's charged too much for his services? Maybe so, but from what I've read, they sound perfectly inline with standard lawyer fees to me. Unfortunately, we live in capitalist system, and people can charge whatever the market will bear. Apparently the market bears paying (good) lawyers lots and lots of money. Fine. Edwards, btw, worked on contingency - meaning if he lost a case, he got nothing. If he won, then he got a (large) percentage of the 'winnings'. Apparently his clients thought this was fair. As an aside, it's important to note that many of the 'high dollar' awards we hear about are later reduced by a judge, on appeal, or by plea bargain.


Ok, let's assume for the sake of argument that scientific consensus has been building since the 1980s that 'doctors could do very little to cause cerebral palsy during the birthing process.' Fair enough. I haven't done the research to check up on this, because I've spent too much time on this post as it is, so I'll accept it as a given for now. However, from the very article you quote:

So, a cerebral palsy expert, who one would assume is up on the latest research, says that while it is 'quite unusual' for cerebral palsy to be caused during delivery, it does happen in 'some cases'.

So, what proof do you have that:

1. The specific cases that Edwards was involved in were cases where the doctor was not at fault? What specifically about the case makes you think it was decided incorrectly? Where did the judge and jury go wrong?
- Remember, the article you quoted still allows that cerebral palsy *could* be caused during delivery. One would assume that Edwards would tend to pick cases that he could win - in other words, those cases where the doctor was at fault.

2. If you think that some of the cases Edwards won for his clients were illegitimate, then what makes you think that Edwards had reason to believe that the doctor was not at fault? According to the article you quoted, scientific consensus had not yet been reached in the 80's and 90's when Edwards was taking part in these cases.

3. What, exactly, did Edwards do in these cases that was so wrong?

Hrm, maybe this is a clue to what you think he did wrong:

So, apparently the author of the article knows that it was the emotional plea by Edwards that swayed the jury, not the facts of the case. He doesn't back up this assertion with facts, alas. The quote mentioned above is cheesy, to say the least. It's clearly an emotional plea, with more than a little mumbo-jumbo. However, I suspect that Jennifer's parents *hired* Edwards to speak on their daughter's behalf in the most eloquent way he could, because they thought she had been harmed by her doctor. The jury in this case agreed with this, and awarded the parent's compensation. The judge approved the verdict. Edwards got paid his part of the settlement. What part of this process is wrong?

Making emotional pleas on behalf of their clients is one of the things lawyers do. Any decent lawyer recognizes that juries decisions are not entirely logical. This is a flaw in our legal system - that juries (and judges) are human, and are often swayed by things other than plain facts and logical arguments. If you have a recommendation to fix it, I'm all ears. However, in the context of our legal system, it was Edward's *duty* to argue for his clients as best he could. Not just an option. A duty. He has a duty to make the strongest possible case, within the law and the guidelines of his profession. When has Edwards ever been charged with violating the law, or reprimanded or disbarred for his conduct?

He was a good lawyer, by all accounts, including in this aspect. Great. If I needed a lawyer, it sounds like he would be a good choice. This doesn't necessarily mean he'd make a good president. But on the other hand, it doesn't mean he'd be unsuitable.

You haven't show me any wrongdoing on his part. It sounds to me as if you're against the very existence of trial lawyers. I find that to be completely ridiculous. You're welcome to hold that opinion, but if you're trying to convince me that it is true, or that Edwards is a bad guy, you haven't managed it.

How did Edwards behave improperly? Who did he harm?

Hillary Clinton soundly defeats "Uncommitted"!

Michigan results are in and Hillary takes a decisive win over "Uncommitted". Dennis Kucinich finished a distant 3rd.

"Uncommitted" vows to prevail in South Carolina :)

She is unelectable on account of this flag.

http://politicalnightmare.com/images...llaryflag2.jpg

This has to be very deliberate.

samcol: you've totally lost me. she's unelectable because of the American flag?

Because the picture was intentional, like that's a conspiracy.

Look at the stars. I have never ever seen a flag with upside down stars. I mean how the hell do you even get a flag with upsidedown stars. Isn't that disgraceful?

Ok I'll just say it, upside down stars are satanic. I really don't see how this is some kind of accident.

Huh?

How dare an American presidential candidate purposely use an American flag.

:confused:

Are you kidding me?

Yeah, dude, you've lost me.

The US flag has never had stars with 2 points on the top and 1 point on the bottom. Her flag has upside down stars. Look at real flags.

1. It's very disgraceful to the flag
2. Upside down stars are a symbol of satanism.
3. Have you noticed the GOP flipped their star upside down on their logo recently?

It's pretty weird to see this done so covertly when the symbol is expressly known to be satanic. Especially when it is delibertly changed.

1) There is no official direction of stars on the flag.
2) Upside down stars have literally hundreds of meanings, none of which is evident in the picture above. It doesn't appear photoshopped.
3) Never noticed that. Of course I'm atheist.

It's a sign. It's true. Hillary will be America's Oliver Cromwell!!

Hillary Clinton, Lady Protector of the Commonwealth of America!

It's okay everyone. I fixed it. Here's the same picture with the stars pointing up.

http://www.normanrockswell.com/images/flag.jpg

Could it be that "Uncommitted" guy behind the conspiracy?

Thats a myth.

http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-shy1.htm

Just thought I'd throw that up there before I get back to this thread.

This has to be very deliberate.

http://www.normanrockswell.com/images/commflag.jpg

Touche', I'll go ahead and retract my previous statement concerning where the term originated. Nonetheless, the connotation is there and, be it a myth, it is a popular myth and commonly understood in that context. Now, I believe you meant nothing particularly anti-semitic by it and that's why I'm not berating you for its use or lashing out at you in any other way. All I was respectfully asking is that we watch it and not go on using it because of the connotation. I'm still hoping for that. But if its some sort of deal for you to honor that request then I'm not going to raise a fuss about it either and will just consider my request denied. That being said, I have nothing more to say in this matter and am looking forward to sitting back and watching this thread get jacked by Satanic Hillary conspiracists.

otto: LOL

even if I were to agree that this is something worth spending any time discussing...which I don't...you don't have anything to say about what it means. What exactly are you trying to say, other than "look at the stars!" Are you saying that Hillary Clinton and the GOP are all part of one large Satanic cult that is planning to take over government in order to usher in the antichrist and bring on the end times? Or are you trying to say something else?

will: Excellent investigative work, but if you take a closer look...
oh no! :)

sorry, couldn't resist... I promise no more pics. Back on topic!

Unfortunately for Hillary, there is considerable (and somewhat undeserved) baggage she carries from Bill's tenure. Because those days linger in our collective political and pop-culture memories, it's still an easy target. Bill may be her best or worst asset. She seems to be holding her own for now.

Hillary has a new theme song.
 

Hillary has a new theme song. The Clinton campaign just released this today ...no joke.

This is very sad. She pays advisers for this?

R.I.P Hillary


<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/5FvyGydc8no&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/5FvyGydc8no&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

It's got to be a hoax, or from misguided loyal followers.

It at least looks like it was pieced together by first-year college students. You know, from one of those media programs.

I have no idea what happened to Hillary. She was a pretty good Senator, worked hard, made herself accessible. I voted for her. She's very savvy. I'm very surprised at how her campaign appears to have massively miscalculated.

Right... I wouldn't recommend counting Hillary out yet. She has massive leads in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Texas (all extremely delegate rich states). Plus the DNC still has to decide what to do about Michigan and Florida once convention time rolls round, all the more so since it doesn't appear either candidate will have the requisite number of delegates come convention time. This is going to come down to a deal making at the convention for superdelegates and that could go either way.

I am only repling to the title of the thread because it is a pet peve of mine. Anybody is electable if they get enough people to vote for them. Even if they won't win, people should still vote for who would best represent their views and who they feeel will take the country in the best direction.

I don't think so... If it wasn't for going head to head with Obama, she would have had this in the bag long ago.

The democrats have two solid potentials and the results show it.

She isn't all that far behind and there are still a lot of delegates to vote.

/me moves to Canada.
Never in the almost 30 years since I first registered to vote have I been so dismayed, disheartened and disgusted with the electoral process and the politicians who partake of it.

Any time I was unsure of who was in the running or didn't like the major party players, I voted for a woman if one was on the ballot. But I wouldn't vote for Hillary if she paid my bills off and cleaned my house for a year.

This whole election makes me shudder....

I thought voters were supposed to be borderline manic with our candidates this year. [/sarcasm]

http://www.oilempire.us/graphics/Can...ction_2006.jpg

Which region do you intend to move to?

I plan on moving to Niagara-on-the-Lake* and opening a lovely B&B charging overly inflated rates found appealing to snobbish American tourists.


*a 'quaint' tourist trap of shops not unlike our own New Hope, Pa., surrounded by wineries and winding scenic roads.

What are your objections to Hillary, specifically, compared to the political stances of Obama and McCain, or is it visceral?

My main problem with Hillary is she's too hated by too many. I sincerely do not think it's going to do the country any good to continue with a leader a large percentage of the country just flat out can not stand. She could cure cancer, solve Social Security, end world hunger and the right would still hate her.

And I'm really not a fan of the way she and her campaign have handled things as she gotten into a long slog in the primaries. It would appear she was blindsided by Obama and his supporters. The tactics she taken to right her ship, ads, comments, etc... I find distasteful. Bill's behavior, IMO, has been worse then hers, but I figure that's purely by design.

Add all that with if she wins the number of years this country will have been led by either a Bush or a Clinton and I see an equation for some body new to have a shot at resolving the major issues facing the US.

All that said I had decided to vote for McCain if she won the primary. In part because I figure the GOP has created crap load of problems over the past 7 years, let them solve them. But the more I read and listen to McCain I'm almost certain I wouldn't be able to support him.

So if it comes down to Hillary V. McCain I might just go to the beach and collect shells.

Compared to? I can't stand the lot of them.
Democrats think the answer to everything is pay for it, except they're never the ones who are paying, we are. Republicans are still struggling with the idea that this is the 21st century. Not one person who was ever elected to office has kept a promise that mattered. Cronyism, nepotism and good old fashioned ass-kissing gets you ahead in Washington. Politicians, as a separate human race, are the only ones with the ability to talk out of both sides of their mouths and make the gullible believe both sides.
Eh, I guess it's 'visceral'.

Democrats are tax payers just like everyone else. So I'd say they are paying for it. And this not paying for things is killing our economy. GOP used to run ads calling every Dem "just another tax and spend liberal" The way the money been spent by the GOP the Dems should start running ads calling every GOP "just another borrow and spend conservative."

The amount of debt were leaving our kids (hell our kids, kids, kids at this point) is criminal, IMO.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt

To paraphrase someone else- you add a trillion here and a trillion there and pretty soon you're talking about real money.

Last week, Bush proposed the first $3 trillion annual federal budget....five years after he offered the first $2 trillion budget.

It took nearly two hundred years for the annual budget to pass the $1 trillion mark and that was a Reagan budget.

The economy and an extended war in the middle east had a big part in taking down the USSR.

The way see it we can't go at this pace very long. Hopefully I'm wrong.

If I'm right prehaps in the not so distant future many Texans and those guys in Northern California will get their wish to become sovereign nations.

And how much are those Democrats making annually? Of course they should be tax payers, but they are NOT like everyone else, neither are the Republicans. Both are full of front runners totally out of touch. You think Hillary, Barak and John have trouble making their car payments or the phone bill? National health care plan Hillary was so fond of? Whose pocket gets emptied first for that one? And I wouldn't exactly give Bush my checkbook to balance either, so it's not like I'm partial one way or the other.
Our Social Security tax deductions surpass the federal ones, yet Social Security is 12 trillion in debt. That didn't happen overnight. It takes some really good money wrangling to be that irresponsible and I put the blame equally over the shoulders of everyone elected to office in Washington.
Yea, the president proposes and may even sign off on budgets, but it's not a one man operation. And here we have two people that haven't even gotten all the green out from behind their ears and now they want to run the country....
Have mercy....

Well the Dems you mention make a ton of money and there also the one's saying we need to roll back the tax cuts on the most wealthy. So while none of them are having any troubles making a car payment, they are cutting their own financial throats by raising their own taxes.

You make some good points about the debt ad how we got here. We just can't keep going at this rate. The Canadian dollar is equal to and at times higher then the US's. We keep going at this rate and it will be one to one with the Japaneses Yen.

But while you blame the elected officials, I blame the people who keep voting for them.

I agree with this.

Plus, I don't think this is the time to start holding our candidates up to standards like having trouble with their car payments. Since when has any presidential candidate been a middle-class American? I certainly didn't hear these sorts of comments coming from democrats in 2004 when Kerry was running.

Fact is, we need a moderate, rational person in the White House and personally, I think Obama, Hillary or McCain will be a giant step in the right direction. This election doesn't scare me at all. Nothing could be more frightening than that 2004 election and we all managed to get through that...well, of course, we did. Some brown people in other countries didn't fare as well.

It's a cycle. Politicians get those people to believing their promises and where they stand on issues. Don't know if you remember Bush Sr's "read my lips. No new taxes!" Nope...just increased ones. Here in NJ, Corzine made the same "promise" then in less than 6 months our sales tax went from 6% to 7% and he's trying to get us to swallow his proposal for a 200% increase in road tolls and add tolls to the three interstates that go through NJ. To "cut spending", he wants to release prisoners and mental patients, yet the state spent millions renovating a mental hospital that isn't being used.
Hey, I didn't vote for him...

I don't know the more I read about McCain and his plans on Iraq the more I believe him when he says the economy isn't his thing. Scary, just plain scary. Not GWB scary but still damn scary. So you're right any of these candidates beat what we've had for the past two terms.

Well, you have a point there...I could have easily left McCain out of the equation, but I wanted to at least have the appearance of being non-partisan, lol. He is a bit of a freak. No denying that.

It's a cycle alright. A cycle that needs to be broken. Yes, I remember Bush Sr. I remember them all back to LBJ. They pretty much all say they won't raise taxes, then they do. But hey when you gotta build bridges to nowhere the money has to come from somewhere.

Tolls, fees and licensing are great ways for politicians to raise your taxes and still be able to look into the camera and say I didn't raise taxes. In reality they're just taxes with different names attached to them. And who are effected most by these taxes? The poor and the middle class. But if you do anyway with things like the estate tax you have to make up that income somewhere (even China and Japan are only willing to lend you so much for so long.) And who benefits from those reductions? Rich people like the politicians telling you they won't raise your taxes. Well, rich is a relative term, but I'd consider people with over 4 million per couple rich. That's the current exemption per couple. In 2009 it's set to go to 7 million.

http://www.cbpp.org/4-12-05tax.htm

Screw that! After what the GOP's done to the US over the past 7 years I'll be hard pressed to ever vote GOP again, almost everything they said hasn't worked out the way they planned, or at least what they told us they planned. Smaller government? Yeah right! Less spending? Not even close! No to nation building? No, no now we're spreading freedom. Freedom it turns out looks a lot like a military occupation, who knew? An occupation that may just break our economy beyond repair. And when the economy goes to shit what's the answer? Well borrow more money aboard and go into deeper debt so you can send everyone a $300-$600 check of course. That'll get stuff turned around.

I may not vote Dem, may just sit it out and watch to see if Paris forgot her panties again.

But oddly enough, the US and Peru have come into an agreement where Peru will not pay any export duties on US products. Wanna take bets on how many other countries want some of that deelishus US pie?
On the one hand, I can see the reasoning. Don't charge the country, and what they "would" pay in duty taxes conceivably goes into buying more US products, thus preserving jobs.
On the other hand, that is less income for the government and it's gotta come from somewhere.
Then, if you have a third hand, US companies are outsourcing so much and moving production to other countries, just how much is Peru thinking of buying and how much is really pure US product?

wow. serious thread jack there^

If McCain is that bad, then Hillary shouldn't be unelectable. :D

I think what just drives me nuts about this whole thing is this country's penchant for the two-party system that virtually locks out anyone not a Dem or GOP.
Last election, I voted for Ralph Nader. This year I just might vote for whatever is the furthest name to the right in the columns....

Hillary is too green. She's still considered a "junior senator", as is her Dem opposition. And they spend too much time knocking each other, skirting some serious issues and changing their minds, according to some op-eds I've read lately. HIllary would not be where she is now if not for hubby.
McCain? Anti-choice, anti-gay and a former POW...which just makes me think he's gonna have some serious PTSD and go hiding under the presidential desk at some point. Plus his age is a factor. Reagan was old enough and his dying with Alzheimer's makes me suspect he was showing some signs of it in office.
Truth be told, I'd have probably gone with Giuliani had he not quit....if nothing else but a viable choice to keep Hillary out of office.

A moderate? What do you think a moderate will do, confront the corporatists or cooperate with them? How do you see that there can be a middle ground?

McCain, a moderate? He fell in love at age 43. He could have married his second wife, and stayed at arms length from her ex-con "mobbed up" father. Instead, he went to work for him and accepted him as his "king maker". When did the man's money become clean enough to not stain the character and reputation of the former Naval aviator POW that he bought with it?

Do you think a "moderate" will transfer any measurable power or wealth from the corporatists in control, to "the people"? Doesn't "cooperate" mean to operate alongside the corporatists?

A moderate won't "take" anything from the military industrial complex in this country. Wouldn't "wrest" from their control, be a more accurate description?
This guy was <a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=117353&highlight=huey+long">the last American politician to do it</a>, and he was no moderate!

Quite frankly, yes. That is if you are talking about a left-leaning moderate. In fact, that moderate will get more accomplished towards those goals than a "liberal" president. The fact of the matter is that the presidency is built for moderates while the place for more extreme liberals and conservatives is the legislature. A moderate can build consensus between to two extremes there and buy themselves gains in the direction they want to go in. On the other hand, more extremely oriented presidents will never accomplish any of those goals because they won't be able to compromise without losing their base unless equally far left/right elements control both the house and senate as well as their own party. That is not the case with the democrats, as the majority in both houses and the party are far more moderate than liberal. That is why the goals you seem to desire will become closer to a reality by a moderate getting elected than not.

Democratic house and senate leadership in the current congressional term have been models of moderation, exemplary in their restraint and total willingness to accomodate the republican congressional minoirty and the republican president. Please name one example of what that moderate approach has achieved for democrats. Congress has shown itself to be a bipartisan majority supporting corporatism at every turn.

I don't think we have the time that you and mixedmedia impress me as thinking we have to unravel this mess. The currency valuation deterioration and the overall economy, petroleum dependence, housing valuation and bond insurer implosion, etc. all tell me that there is limited opportunity, if any, to confront and wrest corporate political control from the corporatist bloc.

Roosevelt as radical reformer, was a poor substitute for Long in 1933, but he was influenced by Long's radicalism, nipping at his heels, until the day Long was shot in Sept., 1935. Our only hope is deep cuts in military spending and the intelligence and domestic secuirty apparatus, with an immediate military withdrawal from Iraq and a crash program of energy conservation, including severe sanctions againt one occupant commuting vehicles.

A wish for a moderate president, in these times of national emergency, aggravated by corporatist domination of government, seems like pissing in the wind to me. We'll have a $700 billion increase in <a href="http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np">national debt</a>, between 10/1/07 and 9/30/08. Take a look at the <a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=113978">"1992 Redux"</a> thread, and then tell me how I have this "all wrong"......

Thanks for reminding me that we're all screwed and there's nothing we can do about it. Sometimes I forget. I guess I got distracted from the wave of truth while standing in the tidepool of election year optimism. Because for all of your efforts and passion, host (and, to a large extent I agree with you) you too, sir, are just pissing in the wind. So was Huey Long.

So I am going to do what I can to keep a John McCain or a Mike Huckabee out of the White House for the next four years. I'm going to vote for a moderate Democrat. These are the only terms with which I can think about it - practical terms.