Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Is there ANY reason to slam Laura Bush? Nothing in this thread, nothing that her husband or the former President or his Senator soon to be Sec of State wife or the President Elect or his wife has one single thing to do with Laura Bush.
[mod cut]
No matter what anyone thinks of the current president, one shows himself a complete kool-aid drinking partisan if they have anything but praise for Laura Bush. She held the position of first lady with grace and dignity. She has championed children's education (specifically literacy) and has had an expert voice in the arena as an educator and a librarian (MA in Library Science from the U of Texas). She has also championed women's health issues.
She has been a great support for her husband and has spoken with aplomb in interviews about White House policies when the media bias against her husband has been at its height.
Does she have Hillary's ambition for a personal political life for herself? Obviously not. Does this make her "vapid?" Far from it.
[mod cut]
I love Mrs. Bush. You forgot to mention she is a wonderful mother.
She is the one bright spot in the Bush administration. I respect her immensely. She has had a tough time, I'm sure and it must have been hard on her to watch what has unfolded during her husband's presidency.
I love Mrs. Bush. You forgot to mention she is a wonderful mother.
She is the one bright spot in the Bush administration. I respect her immensely. She has had a tough time, I'm sure and it must have been hard on her to watch what has unfolded during her husband's presidency.
Thank you! By your status statements, I can tell you are not the biggest George Bush fan but have the ability to see that Laura Bush is a wonderful woman. I just don't see how anybody can call Laura vapid.
Moderator cut: Discussing moderator action
Last edited by gallowsCalibrator; 12-03-2008 at 10:32 AM..
Hillary wanted the job, Obama had to give it to her. End of story.
What's your source for this? It certainly wouldn't be your posterior, of course, because if she had that kind of power, she would have won the primary. So you must have more information to share with us Moderator cut: Personal Attack
Last edited by gallowsCalibrator; 12-04-2008 at 06:15 AM..
Hilary could have made a mess at the convention - she could have challenged for those delegates that were not counted - she could have made it a "brokered convention" - in which case, it would have been a wild scene
No, I'll hazard a guess that there was some quid pro quo here -
Hillary's appointment is simply political payback. If he had wanted to pick the best person for the job I agree with the poster a few back that Kerry or Richardson are the most qualified.
I think Hillary is a mistake. The rest overall I am pretty happy with, especially Gates.
I wouldn't mind making Hillary an Ambassador to somewhere. Maybe get her back to work on health care. Not Secretary of State though, she is not qualified. I don't care how many trips she went on as First Lady.
Hillary's appointment is simply political payback. If he had wanted to pick the best person for the job I agree with the poster a few back that Kerry or Richardson are the most qualified.
I voted for Kerry for President, but:
a) I don't think he is the best person for a diplomatic position; and
b) I don't think with Ted Kennedy's likely departure from the Senate that Kerry's going anywhere.
Maybe some of the posters would rather Obama had picked Jesse Jackson or Rev Sharpton or Bill Ayers to be SOS.
I think Hillary is smart enough, and tough enough, and has enough common sense and the ability to present this countries views in a way that will be in the best interests of the country.
Are there any people who might be more qualified? Possibly.
But I don't really have a problem with her being picked for the job. I think she will take her responsibilities seriously and perform them to the best of her abillty with the countrys best interests in mind.
Backbone, heart, and brains are what's important, Doesn't matter what the sex of the person is.
England has been run by a female for decades.
Last I heard, it is still doing pretty well.
Hillary won't be running the country, but I think she is capable of doing this job and doing it well.
What's your source for this? It certainly wouldn't be your posterior, of course, because if she had that kind of power, she would have won the primary. So you must have more information to share with us. Moderator cut: Personal attack
Moderator cut: Personal attack
I've posted my suggestions as to why Hillary is very likely calling the shots in the Obama Whitehouse. You'd have to be blind , dense or a tinfoil helmet wearing Obama groupy to not at least wonder if its possible.
Hillary and Obama do not like each other. He took her job. He stole the primary from her. She did get more primary votes, remember? Bill Clinton doesn't like him. So why would she allow him to win?
Had she moved to derail his candidacy she'd have burned bridges in her party that she'd never have been able to rebuild and would have handed the win to McCain. She'd have been known as the spoilsport who gave the republican another 3rd Bush term, no matter if Obama was clearly guilty or not.
So why not let him win and then take charge from behind the scenes? She has Rahm Emmanuel as his chief of staff, she's his Secretary of State, Eric Holder, another Clinton insider is the new Attorney General. Can you connect the dots? And just what "change" has Obama produced other than the change of his own decisions on how the country should be run? He's left his own allies out in the cold or lowered their influence if they have a conflict with Hillary. Richardson, got a lower key postion. Kerry, got nothing.
I've said that I'm not completely unhappy with what Obama is doing. It may lack integrity and honesty on his part, but clearly it is better than the damage his campaign promised to do. An Obama as an empty suit but doing some of the right things is better than an Obama purposely driving the country further into a hole. That was my biggest criticism about Bush, he had the wrong people telling him what to do. Obama may not be making liberals happy( Obama groupies are not liberals), but he's also not making conservatives or centrists unhappy. But he still has to be under close scrutiny at all times.
Last edited by gallowsCalibrator; 12-04-2008 at 06:15 AM..
Reason: Removed personal attacks, fixed quote
Moderator cut: Personal attacks
I've posted my suggestions as to why Hillary is very likely calling the shots in the Obama Whitehouse. You'd have to be blind , dense or a tinfoil helmet wearing Obama groupy to not at least wonder if its possible.
Hillary and Obama do not like each other. He took her job. He stole the primary from her. She did get more primary votes, remember? Bill Clinton doesn't like him. So why would she allow him to win?
Had she moved to derail his candidacy she'd have burned bridges in her party that she'd never have been able to rebuild and would have handed the win to McCain. She'd have been known as the spoilsport who gave the republican another 3rd Bush term, no matter if Obama was clearly guilty or not. So why not let him win and then take charge from behind the scenes? She has Rahm Emmanuel as his chief of staff, she's his Secretary of State, Eric Holder, another Clinton insider is the new Attorney General. Can you connect the dots? And just what "change" has Obama produced other than the change of his own decisions on how the country should be run? He's left his own allies out in the cold or lowered their influence if they have a conflict with Hillary. Richardson, got a lower key postion. Kerry, got nothing.
I've said that I'm not completely unhappy with what Obama is doing. It may lack integrity and honesty on his part, but clearly it is better than the damage his campaign promised to do. An Obama as an empty suit but doing some of the right things is better than an Obama purposely driving the country further into a hole. That was my biggest criticism about Bush, he had the wrong people telling him what to do. Obama may not be making liberals happy( Obama groupies are not liberals), but he's also not making conservatives or centrists unhappy. But he still has to be under close scrutiny at all times.
It's funny that you see Hilary as controlling Obama in some way and I see Obama as co-opting and marginalizing Hilary as a political opponent. By naming her as SOS he keeps her very close. She can't criticize him without getting fired and if she gets fired, then what does she have? She'll just look like a shrill has-been who can't hang with the big dogs.
As an aside, the only people Obama's appointments are surprising are those who bought into the fear-mongering that he was a Muslim socialist bent on destroying individual rights. Most of us who voted for him did so because we thought he was smart and would work his butt off for the overall good of the country. I'm not a bit surprised that he's surrounding himself with the smartest, most capable people he can find.
Last edited by gallowsCalibrator; 12-03-2008 at 09:40 AM..
Reason: Fixed quote to reflect current version
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
