Why I oppose Hillary .... it goes back to 1776

[Botany]

If Hillary Clinton wins the White House then it will be 32 to years of
either a Clinton or a bush being in power. This country was founded
as we rejected royalty as a from of government and the Clinton/bush
dynasty is royalty in a way.

If she wins a second term then we could have whole generations
that were born grew up and had their kids with either a bush or
Clinton being the #1 or #2 person in this country. Hell, it would be
38 years and then you could have people born, grown up and have kids,
and THIER KIDS could be having kids.

Enough already.

If Hillary really wants to help America then she should stay in the senate
and work to introduce laws that really can help all of us i.e. universal
health care & quality public schooling for all.

I support most of her ideas but this country needs new blood in the
White House.



Mary Jo Kilroy for President in '08.

[Bitwit1234]

1. Can't disagree more we need a woman in charge

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

27. Maybe, but there are other women besides Hillary.

I agree with the OP -- no more dynasties.

[Bucky]

41. Gender is the major... nay, the ONLY qualification to consider, right?

"We need a woman in charge." You're not too hard to spot in a crowd, Dr. Rice.

[nebenaube]

2. I don't support Hillary.... she blew her chance! n/t

[jumpoffdaplanet]

3. When did she announce she's running?

She hasn't and she won't.

But she won't say she's not running, just because of what's happening right now.

Senators went to iraq, and are having a press conference.

But cable refuses to show us, UNTIL Hilary comes on.

Why? Because they are convinced she's running for prez.

She's smart not to let on she's not, because right now she's on all the cable channels.

She knows the press will ignore Dems about iraq, so she lets them spin their fantasy that she's running. And now she's on the TV telling the public the truth.

She's using them and it's great.

So there's really no reason to buy into this useless bashing of a smart and capable Democratic Senator.

Personally, I'd vote for her, but she's smart enough to stay in the position she gets to do good work in.

[Botany]

6. That was not bashing ......

If I wanted to bash her I could but i didn't. .... I just pointed out that
I don't like royalty as a way of government.

BTW She has already hired core people who run presidential campaigns to
work for her and has hit the money circuit.

[partylessinOhio]

4. If Hillary didn't run - people would be bitchin' - WHY.

[rinsd]

5. Ummm we had a son follow his father as Prez within 30 years of our founding

We also had cousins as Prez and almost brothers as well.

[Botany]

8. Now don't you start bringing up facts .....

.... that make me look dumb. :rofl:

but somehow the Adams and the Roosevelt family seem a cut
above the bush clan.

[rinsd]

10. Way above!

But political families are part of the deal in this country.

I'm just glad Jeb has been taken to the woodshed in FL otherwise we could have faced the possibility of 16 years of Bush.

[earthside]

15. Adams/Roosevelt Quite Different

John Quincy Adams ran for president and was elected twenty-four years after his father left office, John Quincy Adams was a different political party than his father. Furthermore, John Quincy Adams had a distinguished career separate from his father's career -- he was Secretary of State under President Monroe. In other words, no comparison with the Bushes at all.

As for the Roosevelts, Teddy was a distant cousin of FDR, they were of different generations and different political parties -- again, not really much comparison with the Bushes.

In a country of 300 million people, I think we can have more diversity than just picking between two families for our presidents. I do not like this trend I am seeing in politics of family dynasties. Here in Colorado it is all over the place ... husbands, wives, sons, daughters all playing musical chairs with government offices.

A very good reason NOT to support Hillary Clinton is because of the principles behind the American revolution. This dynasty stuff is bad for representative government, even with good intentions it leads to elitism and exclusivity. The example of George senior and the Shrub ought to be enough to say no to Hillary or Jeb.

I say power to the people -- ALL the people!

[rinsd]

28. "elitism and exclusivity."

Please explain to me how a poor white Southerner and his wife (who though growing up with more than he was hardly royalty) consitute a dynasty?

[earthside]

32. "... From the Same Family"

According to my little widget dictionary a 'dynasty' is defined as: "A succession of people from the same family who play a prominent role in business, politics, or another field."

So, either from a poor southern family or a wealthy New England family ... it makes no difference.

The point is that progressives and liberals tend to believe in equality, tend to believe that accidents of birth or family do not entitle one to privilege or special consideration.

And face it, Hillary Clinton would not be a Senator from New York if she wasn't married to Bill Clinton ... just like George, Jr. would never have been president if his last name had been Smith.

There are far too many good qualified folks out there that can make a good president ... progrssives don't need to go down the dynasty path.

[rinsd]

34. "progressives and liberals tend to believe in equality"

Yes they do.

"tend to believe that accidents of birth or family do not entitle one to privilege or special consideration."

So as a means of preserving equality one would be resticted from office based on their relations having run?

:eyes:

"And face it, Hillary Clinton would not be a Senator from New York if she wasn't married to Bill Clinton"

Face what? Hillary was becoming a force in politics long before she became a first lady (and I am speaking of when Bill was Gov.). Who knows what she could or could not have done?

I am so glad someone who opines on what liberals and progressives should think believes a woman's earned place as Senator is because of her man.

[Henryman]

7. Blood!!!

What are you talking about? If you like her ideas and leadership skills, then vote for her. If you don't, than don't. But blood lineage has nothing to do with America's democracy and any suggestion is crazy, with all due respect.

[rodeodance]

9. She just gave a great news conference.

[SaveElmer]

11. Of all the reasons not to vote for someone...

I find this by far the least compelling..

It is just an aribitrary position with no basis in history at all...

If the founders had wzanted to restrict Presidents to those not related to previous PResidents they could have done it...

They didn't because there is no logic to it...

I suppose then you would have opposed the candidacies of Franklin Roosevelt and Robert Kennedy?

[Botany]

12. Hmmmm?

A FDR / RFK ticket

I would vote for that ..... good point.

[BlueJac]

13. Nothing wrong with a woman

But let's not waste it on another Clinton. Clinton did little for workers rights by signing NAFTA. The thought of Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton does nothing for me but make me sick, who would follow, another Bush then another Clinton? Enough is enough of those two families. A new name and a non-corporate leader with populist ideas and visions would be just fine.

[Botany]

14. That is why I am starting Mary Jo Kilroy in 08 campaign now

[xultar]

16. That has got to be the craziest thing I have EVAH heard.

[oasis]

17. Why I oppose Wes Clark. Washington, Grant, Eisenhower. Too many damn generals.NT

[generaldemocrat]

22. Well with the exception of Grant.....

they have a fairly decent track record.

[oasis]

29. Clark would probably be a great president but there are those who'll

insist that we have to get out of the rut of electing generals. Namely
the "there have been too many generals that have become presidents crowd". Then there's the "too many Yale grads" crowd.

And don't forget the "too many white,Protestant males" crowd.

These objections are just as valid as the one put forward by the OP.

[hughee99]

39. Let's not forget...

Generals Andrew Jackson, Wm. Henry Harrison, Zachary Taylor, James Garfield, and Rutherford Hayes.

[AtomicKitten]

18. I think anyone that wants to run should do so.

I tend to favor supporting a candidate and not actively opposing anyone.

[Connie_Corleone]

19. That's what the primaries and general election is for.

[wyldwolf]

20. Why you oppose Hillary AND Obama - It goes back to 1776

The Founding Fathers never intended woman or blacks to be able to run for President.

Nah! I know you don't feel that way, but if we're going back to 1776 and all... I'm just saying!

[ieoeja]

23. Not so sure about that.

Madison playing Devil's Advocate debating Jefferson against the Bill of Rights suggested the 1st Amendment would allow a Muslim to one day be president. Jefferson's public response was, "I look forward to that day."

I don't think he would have terribly minded a woman or someone of black African descent. I don't recall the exact word Madison used, but I do recall that it was not "Muslim". It may have been "Moor" in which case Jefferson was essentially saying that he did look forward to a black man some day being president.

Of course, I'm sure his opinion was shared by only a very small percentage of his peers.

[wyldwolf]

24. perhaps I should have used "constitutionally speaking."

With women not having too many rights at the time and blacks not even considered whole human beings. Constitutionally speaking. Voting rights were up to the states at the time but suffrage was restricted to white males, and urther limited by religious, property, and taxpaying qualifications.

[ieoeja]

36. There was no constiutional ban on women or blacks running for office.

And that "blacks not even considered whole human beings" is bull. You know perfectly well that free black citizens were counted exactly the same as free white citizens when determining the number of individuals who would represent those free citizens in congress.

Furthermore, the outrage in that portion of the constitution is not that slaves counted for less than 100% of the population being represented. The outrage is that they were counted at all. The extra representatives this article gave to those states did not represent those slaves in congress. They represented the owners of those slaves thus giving them greater power to, among other things, perpetuate slavery.

[wyldwolf]

37. 1866. 14th Amendment

"blacks not even considered whole human beings" is bull. You know perfectly well that free black citizens were counted exactly the same as free white citizens when determining the number of individuals who would represent those free citizens in congress.

Four different parts of the Constitution represents a compromise on the issue of slavery. For the sake of our discussion, representation in the House is in proportion to the sum of "free persons" and "three-fifths" of "all other persons," (i.e., slaves). Article I, Section 9 includes a "migration or importation" clause that prohibits the slave trade from being banned before 1808 but nevertheless provides that a tax May be levied on imported slaves. The Fugitive Slave Clause of Article IV, Section 3 provides that "Person(s) held to Service or Labour," (i.e., slaves), escaping from one state shall be delivered to the party "to whom such Service or Labour May be due." Finally, Article V makes the slave trade clause unamendable.

Now, you're opinion may be that because freed slaves were counted as one person in regards to representation, they were allowed to hold the office of the presidency, but that is not exactly so.

Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution sets out the qualifications one must have to be the President: No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.

Blacks, however, were not Constitutionally considered citizens until 1866 when Congress approved the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which defined citizenship to include African Americans and entitled them to the equal protection of the laws.

http://ap.grolier.com/article?assetid=a2015580-h

[Strawman]

21. I wouldn't vote based on that, but

that possibility surely ought to offend whatever is left of our republican (small r) ideals. On some level something ought to seem wrong about that. The idea of a political class is hostile to our civic republican tradition. And for those pointing back to John Adams, to a significant extent, so was he. 32 straight years of rule by competing elites from two immediate political families? That doesn't pass the republican smell test. I know the Anti-Federalists would have hated it.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

25. I agree. It's nepotism.

It's the original reason I didn't like Dubya.

[Botany]

26. Thanx to everybody for their posts!

.... DU has people w/ real minds & smarts behind them.

thanx again

I disagree with everything you say, but I will defend to the death your
right to say it.
-- Voltaire

BTW to the Freepers who lurk here 24/7 and take such an interest in everything
we do with DU ..... Get a life.

Way to go 58 members and 100 guests? :rofl: :nopity: :wow: :spank:

Gee, we only have ah ah ah what is that #? Oh yes a 100,000 members and growing too.

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

30. I can't do the math..

8 years of *, 4 for Poppy, 8 for Big Willie makes 20........ :)

[Botany]

31. started in 1980 w/ Reagan / Bush

Reagan Bush
81-89
HW
89 - 93
Clinton
93 - 2001
shithead
2001 - present

[mtnsnake]

33. Ahh, you're just worried because women presidents can serve more than 2 terms

as president. The current rules only apply to men, so Hillary could be president as long as the pope!

Long live Hillary!

[snowbear]

35. I agree Botany!

We HAVE to break the Bush > Clinton cycle!!!

I couldn't drop in yesterday and when I tried to rate this up.. I couldn't!

Error: you can only recommend threads which were started in the past 24 hours

[question everything]

38. Or even an executive post

Every time when I hear her speak, I admire, again, her clear thought and presentation.

[AZBlue]

40. Ever heard of the Adams family? (one d, not two, small f)

I don't understand using a last name as a reason to vote or not to vote for someone. If the person's good and right for this country, then who cares what family they belong to. If they aren't good and not right for this country, then who cares what family they belong to. Either way, it doesn't matter and it's a silly basis for a decision that's so important.

As for my original question, it pertains to the family that included John Adams, Vice President under George Washington (1789-1796) and then President in his own right (1797-1801). His son, John Quincy Adams, was also President (1825-1829). You carelessly fling the year 1776 around as the basis for your decision but John Adams happened to be one of the Founding Fathers of this country and a signer of the Declaration of Independence. He might have a different opinion than yours - as would many of the Founding Fathers I suspect. I believe their whole point was exactly opposite yours - that a leader should be chosen based upon their merits and abilities, not their last name.

[election_2004]

42. Why I oppose Hillary....she has no qualifications....

...or at least, no qualifications that make her a superior candidate to everyone else who could run.

Being a former First Lady and getting buddy-buddy with Carville don't count.