Listen... I will not make fun. If you prefer, I will not even respond. By all means, feel free to use a disposable identity for your response. We're essentially anonymous anyway.

But if you're a voter —whether male but more especially female— who's inclined to support Hillary for the White House, I'd love to know why.

You don't have to tell the truth! If you want, you can have your secret reasons, but then just type out the things you'd say to friends who know, or would want to know, why you're voting for Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Totes seri-o-so about this: I will offer no critique or sarcasm or argument in this thread. All comments to follow will be sheltered using MoveableType's patented SafePlace™ Blog Comments technology, which Amy installed during her software upgrade in the first week of May.

You can say whatever you want.

Why Hillary?

Don't you understand? It's important for future presidential candidate Hillary to show that she's just like every other woman struggling to make it on a limited income after being an executive wife for several years.

Intentionally left unsaid is the fact that the eight year gap in her work experience was due to her being First Lady of the United States, she was in high demand for post-FLOTUS speaking engagements, she had a Rolodex full of powerful contacts, and the debts weighing them down were driven by her and her husband's misdeeds and stonewalling of legal investigations.

That and the mortgage deal they got on that $1.7 million shack was unusually generous.

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1999-10-24/business/9910220019_1_pnc-mortgage-adjustable-rate-mortgage-clinton-mortgage

If you point out the hypocrisy in Hillary's "dead broke" comments, you're just sexist and afraid of a "strong" woman being president.

8 Years at 400,000 = 3.2 million. Free room, free board, free travel, free vacations. How'd they get broke?

I admit it.

I would vote for Hillary in a general election, if the only other major party candidate in the race was either Joe Biden, either Obama, Susan Rice, or one of the other democratic nitwits currently hanging around the administration.

Since Hillary is unlikely to be going for the republican nomination, I don't think I am going to have to make a pyrrhic choice like that.

I'll vote for Sec. Clinton in a heartbeat. She's clear-eyed and level-headed and experienced.

> if you're a voter —whether male but more especially female— who's inclined to support Hillary for the White House, I'd love to know why

I'm all for it if it means we'll get to hear a little less whining about how women are all being held down by "the patriarchy".

I'm all for it if it means we'll get to hear a little less whining about how women are all being held down by "the patriarchy".

Posted by: Lobster at June 9, 2014 8:39 PM

I guess I am not willing to trade a little whining about the patriarchy for the huge amount of whining that will occur when Hillary finishes the job of looting my retirement accounts through unchecked printing of money and out of control inflation.

in 10 years, I don't want to hear Hillary telling me, "at this point what difference does it make?" as she adds another ten trillion to the deficit.

Ya know, it doesn't actually matter who you vote for.

They are all, Republicans and Democrats, part of the system and beholden to the system. They're all - from where we stand - utterly corrupt, interested only in their own position and power within their exclusive little country club.

Sometimes the club gets a new entrant - Obama wasn't really part of the "in" crowd until someone discovered how well he could read a teleprompter. Tall, handsome and black - how better to get out the minority vote - so they inducted him.

What you won't see is anyone from outside the club getting nominated by either major party. Remember the games the Republicans played with their nomination procedures for the last election? It was Romney's turn, and the lumpen proletariat could not be allowed to endanger that.

I haven't voted for either party in years. If there is no better candidate, write in Cthulu. After all, why vote for the lesser evil.

Based on her accomplishments as the junior Senator from NY, all I can say is "Hillary who?"

I'll vote for Sec. Clinton in a heartbeat. She's clear-eyed and level-headed and experienced.

And yet, some how, the security arrangements for the personnel under her purview in Libya was...someone else's mistake?

Sorry, your name is on the desk. Every mistake committed by employees under your direction reflects upon you, and you will be held responsible for them. One employee or 10,000.

The higher up in rank you go, the greater the responsibility. We've got a president now who claims all the good things, but none of the bad things that result from his policies. I don't think the Republic can stand another 4 years of the same.

I'm all for it if it means we'll get to hear a little less whining about how women are all being held down by "the patriarchy".

Posted by: Lobster at June 9, 2014 8:39 PM

---------------------------

Good luck with that. It sure seems to me like whining about "white privilege" has exploded in the last 6 years.

I'll vote for Sec. Clinton in a heartbeat. She's clear-eyed and level-headed and experienced. ~ Posted by: Jim at June 9, 2014 8:21 PM

Experienced at what? What exactly has she accomplished?

Her intervention in Libya has turned that country into a basket case of violence and anarchy.

Her "reset" with Russia resulted in no major economic deals or significant international cooperation. Animosity between the two countries is at an all-time post-Cold-War high.

As a junior senator from New York she proposed no major legislation, worked on no major committees or projects, and has no significant accomplishment to her name.

As a presidential candidate, she was soundly beaten by a snot-nosed freshman senator from Illinois that no one had heard of four years earlier.

As a Watergate attorney, she was fired for unethical behavior and was the only member of her team not to receive a recommendation from her boss afterward.

What exactly does she bring to the table, other than dubious Wall Street connections, ethics problems, a philandering husband who was a mediocre president riding an economic bubble for eight years, and ineffectual terms as a US Senator and Secretary of State.

What exactly are her accomplishments? Please list them.

==============================

I'm all for it if it means we'll get to hear a little less whining about how women are all being held down by "the patriarchy". ~ Posted by: Lobster at June 9, 2014 8:39 PM

What Isab said.

I'm not voting for someone because it's high time we had a _____ in the White House.

Being president is a real job, not a figurehead position like Queen of England. It demands competence, not symbolism. We need to fill it based on competence, not checking off boxes based on which group's turn it is to be president.

Elections have consequences. So do poor choices.

==============================

Since Hillary is unlikely to be going for the republican nomination, I don't think I am going to have to make a pyrrhic choice like that. ~ Posted by: Isab at June 9, 2014 8:04 PM

Don't sell the Republicans short. They'll find a way to blow it.

in the olden days... politicians might been abashed at the poor optics of such statements... but now?

"let zem eat cake."

"Girl-power feminists who got where they are by marrying men with money or power – Hillary Rodham Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Arianna Huffington, and John Kerry – love to complain about how hard it is for a woman to be taken seriously. It has nothing to do with their being women. It has to do with their cheap paths to power. Kevin Federline isn't taken seriously either." ~ Ann Coulter

"Don't sell the Republicans short. They'll find a way to blow it."

If the general election winds up being a Clinton vs. a Bush, which is looking fairly likely, that is where I get off the train and vote third party.

If the general election winds up being a Clinton vs. a Bush, which is looking fairly likely, that is where I get off the train and vote third party.

We all need to be worried then.

Jeb Bush may have it in him to be a great president. He may be the best choice the Republicans have.

It would be better for the country if neither Clinton nor Bush ran.

A Bush or a Clinton has been running for president in every presidential election since 1988 with one exception (2012). Actually, since 1980 with 2 exceptions.

A Clinton or a Bush has run in 7 out of the last 8 elections and has won 5 of them.

That means the supporters and family friends of the Bushes or the Clintons have had significant influence in the White House between 1988 and 2008.

That's 20 years of two families (and their friends and supporters) dominating US policy and politics; 28 years of having influence concentrated in the hands of one or the other sets of confidants.

The same voices have been whispering in White House ears, pulling White House levers, and sitting in intimate conversations with the president alternately for the past 20 years.

That's too strong a concentration of power and erodes the US system of meritocracy instead of dynasty.

The only good news is that the Clintons didn't spawn prodigiously and don't seem poised to establish a long-term dynasty. Chelsea hasn't made enough of a name for herself to be taken seriously as a potential candidate for anything beyond the local school board.

Meanwhile, the younger Bush spawn don't seem to making moves to position themselves for a potential presidential run. No governors in the bunch, yet. And unlike the Kennedy spawn, they don't seem to be infesting the lower ranks of politics either.

Jeb and Hillary may be the last gasp of the Bush-Clinton axis of banality.

Actually, George P. Bush (Jeb's son) is about to win Texas Land Commissioner. So, four years in that post, then eight years at the next... we're looking at 12, maybe 16 years before his name starts coming up nationally. And... this is very important, y'all... he's Hispanic.