|
20923. judithathome - 1/22/2007 6:49:57 PM So what's going on with WC? I wonder when people are going to get tired of the outages over there.
maybe it's working for some but not for me. I can't even get the Home page to come up anymore. 20924. wonkers2 - 1/22/2007 11:30:27 PM That movie, "Bitter Rice," was before your time, Judith! Sylvana Mangano didn't make very many movies. She married Dino de Laurentis and apparently settled down as a housewife. 20925. arkymalarky - 1/23/2007 5:05:23 AM My satellite internet is put off until March, which may be good, since we'll be pretty busy until then and I don't need the diversion. When it comes in I'll probably check out WC again and a couple of other places.
Bob got me Sirius for Christmas and hooked it up this weekend. I'm really going to like it on my commute. It works the whole way, which sort of surprised me. 20926. Magoseph - 1/23/2007 6:17:05 PM I swore that after the last election I would NEVER invest any of my emotions in another, ever again. But then, after reading “Harpy, Hero, Heretic: Hillary”, (posted by Jex in American Politics), I got fired-up again and let me tell you, Clinton definitely has my vote and let me tell you too, not for the reasons that someone like me would be expected to have—no, N O, period! It is because Hillary was never accused of shoplifting-- I HATE shoplifting because long ago I was a naive victim of this most dastardly crime.
My friend, the elegant Hildegard will vote for Hillary because as a betrayed wife, she has not committed adultery—I mean, we’d know if she had, where, when, with whom and how many times. My other friend, the much put-upon wife with five unruly kids and an alcoholic ex-husband will vote for the first time ever and for Hillary. My sons will vote for her too because they would not be mine anymore if they were Republicans. One daughter-in-law will too for some murky reasons I couldn’t understand. The other will because her folks won’t.
The forty-year-old couple building a house next to us will also vote for Hillary because they voted for her husband as will for the same reason the sixty-year old couple in the one lot over already built. The kitty-corner neighbor will vote for her because her late husband hated Hillary with neo-con passion. Overall, let me tell you, everyone I know these days including three cashiers at three different stores, all say they will vote for her, except for my brother who luckily can’t vote, given he’s a neighbor of Alistair.
We live in a sick world and IT IS all Hillary’s fault, says Flexy, but you know me, I feel for the biggest minority in this country, oppressed girls and women, little white-hair ladies, even you and Judith and that’s hard to do—-so Hillary has my vote.
The only voters I know who make sense are my friend John and his wife Jan who say they’ll vote for her because she’s experienced, knows how the game is played and they know she’ll send Bill abroad to mend the international broken fences.
20927. alistairconnor - 1/23/2007 6:29:14 PM Mago I love you! What a brilliant rant.
I think it has potential as a short story...
except for my brother who luckily can’t vote, given he’s a neighbor of Alistair.
Yes, but sadly he'll vote for Sarko. Or worse. 20928. judithathome - 1/23/2007 6:49:06 PM Magos, we should send your post to Hillary as a recomendation for you to work on her campaign! You'd be hired in a flash! 20929. thoughtful - 1/23/2007 7:38:53 PM Nice rant, mags, but I would never vote for Hillary. Why? Because she doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning. Who won't vote for her?
-those with a virulent hatred for anything clinton (remember starr? scaife?) who will stop at nothing to keep her out of office
-those with a virulent hatred of bill who will do anything to keep him and his out of the lincoln bedroom again
-those who think a woman has no business being president, of which there are many
-those who find her personally repulsive (include me in that bunch)
-those who think that 8 years in office is enough for anyone
-those who think that the last thing the country needs is a wimpy woman fighting the war on terror
-imus who spends every morning referring to her as 'satan' and any of his fans who take his political view as gospel
She would be just the lightning rod the rwers hanker for to stir their masses to get out and vote against hillary, making who ever they put up, even jeb, be a shoo-in.
And when we are sorely in need of new leadership, and we can't afford to let this country suffer under another 4 years of a goper administration, we have no choice but to vote for the dem that will be most electable to both the left and the right. And that ain't hillary.
20930. judithathome - 1/23/2007 10:26:08 PM Agree 100%, thoughtful...the Republicans are frothing at the mouth hoping we're stupid enough to put her up for election. 20931. thoughtful - 1/23/2007 11:33:19 PM I got really turned off by hillary when they started talking about adopting a child because it would be politically popular. At some point, even politicians should draw the line and that includes not using/abusing children for political gain. I mean it's bad enough to let the polls decide where you should go on vacation, but that was over the top. And I could never abide a family that would dump their own cat. Poor socks. 20932. judithathome - 1/23/2007 11:54:54 PM The picture I posted a few weeks ago was of an Alexander Caulder sculpture which was the subject of an article in my paper today:
The Eagle 20933. arkymalarky - 1/24/2007 12:39:01 AM I had a lot of experience with the Clintons in AR before Clinton ever acted like he was interested in the presidency, including trying to keep them from shutting down a poor, rural, high-minority district I worked in. Bill Clinton responded personally to my letter to him, and while I appreciated that, typically, he really didn't focus on what I was saying but simply grazed by it on the way to his own talking points about education and what was best for the children....
Hillary can do a lot (she did a lot here), and she does a lot of good things, but she's intransigent where she's wrong and she doesn't respect people who know what they're talking about when she's got her map set out in her mind. And she will do what she thinks she needs to in order to get support, without being transparent about it. But she makes a good Senator for many of the reasons I think she'd be a horrible president.
NCLB was built on the reforms she and Bill supported in AR and the Goals 2000 initiative he led under Bush I; and they're seemingly simple, positive changes on the surface, but because they don't account for circumstances and provide the needed assistance and qualified staff and infrastructure to succeed--and the TIME it takes--they are particularly hard on poor, high-minority, especially high-crime districts, and provide an excuse to further undercut them. That's exactly what's happening, and it's a crime. NCLB sounds fine to people who don't understand how it works, and most outside the POOR districts (including most suburban school staff and parents) don't understand it. It's the same basic principle of other government programs that cut from those in need and funnel government money to corporate cronies--which is why Bill Bennett can sell his k-12 Inc snake-oil to home-schooling parents on the government's dime in some states--though thankfully not in ours, due to some alert state legislators. Like everything else, the media is piss-poor at letting people know what's going on, but the info is out there if you dig it up yourself.
When I retire I'm going to write a book about the disgusting scenario that's been repeatedly (and in many cases purposely) played out wrt poor public schools in the name of improving public education, but right now I've written so much and talked to so many people I'm about burned out on it--and they're tired of hearing it, I'm sure, even when they agree.
But in short, Hillary won't get my vote, either. I've seen enough of her and Bill both in the last 25 years. I'm ready to have someone in office who will at least give a convincing impression of listening and paying attention instead of thinking of their own best "I feel your pain"-making moment while people are trying to communicate their concerns to them. 20934. arkymalarky - 1/24/2007 12:43:24 AM And btw, they're beginning investigations into the Ed Dept's funding of programs and their grant approval process now that Democrats are back in charge of congress. It's about time. 20935. Magoseph - 1/24/2007 12:43:50 AM Sorry. thoughtful, for not answering sooner, but I had to think about what you wrote.
I realize that there're many out there who hate anything Clinton, but they're a minority and I think they should be cautious how they go on about attacking her this time—attacking a woman may not have the same result than attacking a man. What are they going to do, rehash the same stories they made up in the past or invent new ones? The electorate is wiser to their games than ever before and I’d wager that Hillary and her team, unlike Kerry, are ready for them.
I think Americans would much prefer to look at what improve their financial situation nowadays and a woman in power to their thinking may be able to keep the country in peace in making use of diplomacy, concessions, help, whatever but brute force that kills the young serving the country.
The notion that Hillary is a loser next election has been bandied around for quite some time, especially by the right-wing Clinton haters. Americans like Imus do not wish to be associated with losers and tend to pile on if they see a trend. However, there is nothing in the polls to confirm this position. The moment Imus smells that he is wrong, he turns and he is already showing signs of abandoning his name-calling.
The main thing is that the people we are hearing from as loud as they sound simply are a loud minority. This election'll be decided on the merits, not on loud vicious talk that has no significance. For example, there's not one Republican who'll endorse national free health care for children. The free health campaign for children now belongs to Hillary. She’ll probably get 80 or 90 percent of the women with small children, the rich of course excluded--that is, I hope. 20936. Magoseph - 1/24/2007 12:46:36 AM Arky, don't you think that Hillary and Bill have changed for the best since the days you knew them in action in Arkansas? 20937. arkymalarky - 1/24/2007 1:06:11 AM Arky, don't you think that Hillary and Bill have changed for the best since the days you knew them in action in Arkansas?
No, what do you think is better about them? Like the rest of America, I have watched them steadily, but most Americans aren't that familiar with their AR work. They've never left the political arena for me, and we in AR probably focus on them more than most, naturally. I supported them politically here, and would again, given the alternatives in AR. But there are better options on the national level than Hillary.
They haven't changed much at all that I can see. Their views on education are certainly basically the same, which is my pet issue. They weren't bad views, just overly simplistic and not attentive enough to the importance of the public school dynamic and the real, on-the-ground needs of a poor school in an economically depressed area. And the people who do know what those needs are didn't get a significant role in policy-setting.
In addition, the structure is now too hierarchical and centralized and poor districts are punished rather than helped. When they try to speak for themselves they're treated horribly and have no recourse but to close or operate on cut funds. Two of the best superintendents I know, one a black man and one a black woman, both lost their superintendent's position when their little (majority-black) schools were shut down in the last three years. White people are superintendents of the consolidated schools. When Clinton was governor and the first wave of schools was consolidated under their (his and Hillary's) plan, they were poor, small, and black, and not a single black administrator of those districts retained or transfered to an equal administrative position in the receiving school. Not one African-American administrator retained the position in a consolidated school, then or now. Does this mean they're racist? Of course not. But it does mean they're out of touch and not attentive to the effects of policies as they should be.
The direction things are heading now, though, is actively and possibly irreversibly damaging, and Hillary would continue NCLB--hopefully with less corruption, but the end effects will be the same. She's also too inclined to do what is politically expedient, as is her husband. Again, they're better than McCain, but other Democrats are better than they are. And setting all my own views aside, I don't believe she's electable. 20938. judithathome - 1/24/2007 1:07:12 AM She’ll probably get 80 or 90 percent of the women with small children, the rich of course excluded--that is, I hope.
Sorry but I disagree...Hillary better not depend on the female vote because despite what women say before entering the voting booth, once in there they will not vote for a woman.
20939. concerned - 1/24/2007 1:22:56 AM As Motiers are probably already aware, I have a very low level of respect for Xlowntoon. However, I have always made an effort not to criticize Hilliary except when it was called for, or to attack her simply because she abetted the impeached sociopath in his wrongdoing. 20940. concerned - 1/24/2007 1:27:14 AM My friend, the elegant Hildegard will vote for Hillary because as a betrayed wife, she has not committed adultery—I mean, we’d know if she had, where, when, with whom and how many times.
I don't know about that. There has been speculation that Chelsea has a suspicious resemblance to Webb Hubbell, but Republicans didn't stoop to 'researching' that. 20941. arkymalarky - 1/24/2007 1:31:12 AM Nownownow, and after being so nice.
From what I hear about Chelsea, she is a class act. One of Bob's nieces went to high school with her. 20942. thoughtful - 1/24/2007 1:55:24 AM Mags, I'm pleased that you are so optimistic about the voting public, but alas, I am not. I don't think america is ready for a woman, especially this woman. Women in recent past who have made it in politics have projected a strong but maternal image. It's why pelosi looked so much better, even to gopers when she was on deck with all the children. Men and women are used to listening to their grandmothers...matriarchs of the nation if you will, like margaret thatcher. Hillary is anything but maternal.
Frankly, as a buddy of mine said and I have to agree, women don't like hillary. So IMO she can't depend on the female vote. Without that, she has little to offer.
Remember her shoo-in performance as senator in ny was because she had 1) name recognition and 2) was running against a nobody. While she has the former, not all of it is favorable and the latter certainly won't be true for the presidential election.
Do you really think she has a prayer against, say John McCain???
I don't.
|
 |
Go To Mote #
|
|
