Kev H
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2006
- Posts
- 749
Dearest Jenny,
You sound so painfully rabid-Clinton. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, especially if it's well thought out, say, like Camille Paglia's, who understands that Hillary is actually bad for women. Or like that powerful Aussie feminist, who knows Hillary and calls her "cold and bossy." Listen to your active, concerned fellow-women-in-the-struggle-for-complete-equality if you wont listen to me (male, true, but 100% against sexism and more interested in women's long-term prospects over their short-term/sighted gain).
No one, man or woman, likes an asshat, and Hillary, whatever else she is, is a complete asshat. She will be ineffective on the world scene at a time when America is in its most precarious (and self-hating) position. She has shown herself to be the worst liar (if she was helpful in the Northern Ireland peace talks, then Gore really did invent this internet) as well as the one to throw the lowest (dirtiest, most unscrupulous) punches. She will weather criticism worst of all 3 remaining candidates, which will only get worse if she's Queen...oops, I mean President.
She will have the least credibility with the Middle East, no matter how wrong that is (doesn't change the fact), and her "experience" as a politician actually proves to many how poorly she does at it. But she has the best chance of entrenching/polarizing her opponents.
Hear me out, because here comes the most important point that so few have thought through:
It doesn't take a political expert to understand that the majority of American policy that comes from the executive branch actually comes from non-elected officials. No two people can possibly run a country, no matter how well meaning they are. They must rely on appointees to fill in all those gaps--to get a decent set of appointees takes, at the very least, a good judge of character. Of the three choices now, who has the worst spouse (a pretty enormous error in judge of character); who has seen the worst betrayals (people changing sides); who has had the most resignations from their campaign (especially over incompetence/poorly run campaigns)? Who do you think is responsible for all those errors in judgment? Can you honestly say that the chances are good that all those errors in judgment will disappear once the stakes have been raised and it's time to pick cabinet members?
I'm truly sad that you must wait longer for your perceived vindication until a truly remarkable woman comes along, but Hillary is not your girl. You will understand this (if only privately) if you have the sense to view the larger picture. Hillary is bad for everyone but Hillary (and America's competitors and enemies).
You sound so painfully rabid-Clinton. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, especially if it's well thought out, say, like Camille Paglia's, who understands that Hillary is actually bad for women. Or like that powerful Aussie feminist, who knows Hillary and calls her "cold and bossy." Listen to your active, concerned fellow-women-in-the-struggle-for-complete-equality if you wont listen to me (male, true, but 100% against sexism and more interested in women's long-term prospects over their short-term/sighted gain).
No one, man or woman, likes an asshat, and Hillary, whatever else she is, is a complete asshat. She will be ineffective on the world scene at a time when America is in its most precarious (and self-hating) position. She has shown herself to be the worst liar (if she was helpful in the Northern Ireland peace talks, then Gore really did invent this internet) as well as the one to throw the lowest (dirtiest, most unscrupulous) punches. She will weather criticism worst of all 3 remaining candidates, which will only get worse if she's Queen...oops, I mean President.
She will have the least credibility with the Middle East, no matter how wrong that is (doesn't change the fact), and her "experience" as a politician actually proves to many how poorly she does at it. But she has the best chance of entrenching/polarizing her opponents.
Hear me out, because here comes the most important point that so few have thought through:
It doesn't take a political expert to understand that the majority of American policy that comes from the executive branch actually comes from non-elected officials. No two people can possibly run a country, no matter how well meaning they are. They must rely on appointees to fill in all those gaps--to get a decent set of appointees takes, at the very least, a good judge of character. Of the three choices now, who has the worst spouse (a pretty enormous error in judge of character); who has seen the worst betrayals (people changing sides); who has had the most resignations from their campaign (especially over incompetence/poorly run campaigns)? Who do you think is responsible for all those errors in judgment? Can you honestly say that the chances are good that all those errors in judgment will disappear once the stakes have been raised and it's time to pick cabinet members?
I'm truly sad that you must wait longer for your perceived vindication until a truly remarkable woman comes along, but Hillary is not your girl. You will understand this (if only privately) if you have the sense to view the larger picture. Hillary is bad for everyone but Hillary (and America's competitors and enemies).
