Hillary Clinton for President

Sure why not. But to get there she needs to defeat Obama. He's already campaigning so she better get started.

No I don't think she could. The concept of Democrats bringing change about has been severely damaged by those who put it in the POR house. Running as a change agent when you are the ultimate Washington insider would be impossible for her. It would be easy to tar her as a creature of the system and an insider. That plus she would absolutely take a ton of damage trying to defeat an incumbent president through the primaries. Obama has already announced his intention to run for reelection so there's no speculation in that area.

Hillary is too much of a war hawk for me to think she's anything more than another wolf in sheep's clothing (Conservative in Democrat's clothing) like Obama turned out to be.

I think he chances are about as good as Obama's. Much would depend on the primaries and what mud was thrown there as to how the voters opinions would be flavored. I partially agree with Tonton. She would not be much better than Obama.

Very true (scum rises to the top). *Any* democrat who rises through the ranks, regardless of their roots, ends up abandoning their base while on the surface doing their best to disguise the fact. To survive in the cesspool of Washington DC, such a course is imperative to avoid being spat out... (or worse).

It just shows how trusting and naive so many on the left really are.

Although... there is the continued presence of Dennis Kucinich. who although compromised, has at least maintained some sense of integrity, and accountability to the electorate. The token liberal in DC, whose presence is tolerated to give the public an impression that there is some form of opposition to the relentless trip towards paranoia, indentured corporate servitude and religious medievalism. Poor old Dennis, I guess he's a tool as well... but just a little less than the rest.

Your reasoning amounts to those in control manage to fool all the people all the time.

Not at all.

The people who are fooled all of the time are those who pander to the phony "Red Team-Blue Team charade. This amounts to less than 50% of the voting population. The majority, as we all know, don't vote in "elections"... this could either through apathy: "why bother voting", or distrust: "why partake in a fake, corrupt system in which I know my vote will be roundly ignored". The silent majority could easily be the ones who are *not* being fooled.

Edit...

Having said that, it is pretty easy to fool a large segment of the population. A National Geographic Survey at the height of the Iraq war (2003) found that 50% of high school age Americans couldn't even locate the Pacific Ocean on a map of the world... and 80% incorrectly located Iraq. So, with such prevailing ignorance, combined with the national obsession with trivia and celebrity, the fact that the majority have no time to educate themselves on account of too much stress, doing 3 jobs to pay the bills etc., etc., etc.,... it is really, really easy to fool a large number of people, most of the time. In addition, how many how many live their lives mired in a haze of antidepressants, alcohol and other chemicals?

Real democracy can only work when the public is educated, aware and engaged. (Gotta avoid that like AIDS... DC mandate).

I guess we're on a hiding to nothing.

Well, for what it's worth, I'm a staunch Kucinich supporter as well.

Inactive, inattentive and of course, the most intelligent of all.

I guess that doesn't quite add up in my book.

How hard is it really to avoid most of the bills that require the three jobs? I ask this in all honesty because living a frugal lifestyle myself, it's harder to jump on the treadmill then jump off. My take is most people are pursuing and getting exactly what they want.

Most people I know who wanted to indulge in a little escapism didn't need three jobs and a boatload of stress to pick up their habits.

Why would the public desire to be educated, aware and engaged when they are not responsible for themselves? They are where they happen to be due to -ists and -isms. They are excused from control of their own lives and the powers that be will remedy it via transfer payments in exchange for their vote.

Why the places where they are fooled and paid off the most are of course our blue team television centers on the coasts and around the major cities. The people you speak of can watch Jersey Shore there while waiting for their EITC check to come in the mail so the even bigger screen television can be purchased.

You tell me the kid who was born in South Central has exactly the same opportunities as the kid who was born on Knob Hill and I'll know how intelligent you really are.

Some just make their own I guess.

Ah yes, the anecdotal exception that proves the rule incorrect or something. Damn, MJ, you were quick to try to provide some evidence there when trying to refute someone. How about you provide some answers to questions asked of you when there's no refutation to be had?

He's done very well in getting something out of a system that is geared towards rewarding parasitism, cronyism, gambling with insider knowledge, and scamming, over those who do something of merit and value. The unwritten rules of our society can be broken and often are, but it doesn't change the underlying reality.

But, hey, pretty anything's better than homelessness, drug addiction and being "tied to the hood", and such a state can often spur the luckier, of capable, or motivated, out of *that* particular rut, into another, more comfortable/respected, rut.

I've worked in South Central. I worked there five years. There were plenty of opportunities for our students. USC is right in that neighborhood and as part of their outreach had put together comprehensive mentoring programs that had as their conclusion, free tuition to USC.

California also has admission standards for CSU and UC that are based on being within the top percentages of your class at your school. You may not get your first choice school, but you will get admitted. Plus California has a comprehensive system of city colleges at very affordable cost.

Anyone who wants to get ahead can get ahead.


You presume the great grades. The world can't seem to find a single paper or article the man published and he hasn't released his grades. The only thing he's "written" that can truly be attributed to him are his books and there are plenty of claims of assisted writing and ghostwriting with them.


Didn't help her out the first time around.

If you're saying all candidates should present their transcripts, I'm all for it! That certainly would have kept George W. Bush the fuck out of the White House.

Funny though, I don't seem to recall you demanding to see Bush's proof of anything... military papers... university grades... DUI parole officer reports...

In fact, I haven't seen Bush's fucking birth certificate! What is he hiding!?

Yes, there are. There are also drug pushers at West Beverly High. But that doesn't mean that opportunities are equal.

You're a teacher. You know as well as I do that 80% of what makes a student succeed is parental involvement. Do you think the East Side kids are getting as much of that as the Bel Air brats? Seriously?

No, I did not. She may have guts, but that is not what gets you elected. That requires votes, and the question is whether she can get those. She was unable to the last time she tried. The one thing she may have going for her this time, which was a detractor last time, is she is not Obama. \

Careful, you are starting to put the blame on the parents, we wouldn't want that.

There's nothing wrong with saying that parents are often to blame when their kids fail. But there's also nothing wrong with saying society is often to blame when parents fail.

Glad we agree. I have been lambasted many times here for stating just that.


Society is not fully to blame, but there is a definite contributing factor. The parents still hold responsibility for their actions and how they deal with their kids.

Agreed.

But I believe we should continue to take steps help counter the partial effect that we agree society does have.

I haven't been one to demand most people present much of anything though I will hoist people with their own petard. For example if people declare Bush a moron due to his middling grades and Gore a genius, I'll happily note Gore's mediocre grades, lack of advanced degree and drug use and ask them to apply the same reasoning by proxy. With Palin if they declare that requiring admittance to a lower tier school or seeking transfers shows lack of academic prowess, I'll note Obama's start at Occidental and transfers as well. I'll let them apply their terrible reasoning in both directions or perhaps they'll see their error and change it.


I wouldn't put it at 80% at all. I'd give it 20% though. There's also degrees of success. They could certainly be MORE successful if their family background is one that values education or their parents push them, etc. However that wasn't the claim. The claim was that they wouldn't be a success period. Is someone a failure if they get sent to UCR instead of UCLA? No. Is someone a failure because they didn't value education when they were younger, dropped out, went back to get their GED and later finished an associates at community college and then transferred on to a university where they finished whatever level they wanted to stop out? Not at all.

I have a friend right now who is finishing up his Doctorate in Chemistry. He family was in the construction trades and he barely passed high school and went that route. The last time I saw him roughly 8 years ago, he was installing the tile counter-tops in my kitchen. Suddenly a fire was lit within him and the sky was the limit.

You do a great disservice to the many fine and capable people who still come out of these neighborhoods and achieve great things. They may have a few more walls to climb or a different path to travel but their not disabled, retarded or whatever else you want to make them out to be.

Really? I haven't seen that claim anywhere. Have you? Perhaps you could point it out to me.

No one says they're retarded. Just disadvantaged. Everyone can overcome obstacles. But some people have more obstacles than others, and this is a disadvantage they shouldn't be faced with.

And apparently, just because someone is a white male doesn't mean they can differentiate "their" and "they're", for example, even if "their" a teacher!

Yeah, I know, I'm pulling your leg. We all make mistakes.

I considered the quote from BR to say they wouldn't be a success at all. He declared the example an exception and that it did not prove the rule, aka did not prove success is an expectation or normal thing.

\ Sorry for providing a factual counter-example in response to tonton's statement:


I understand that providing actual evidence of something in response to such claims isn't as mature and productive as something like this:


But then we can't all be such cunning debaters.

Well, you considered incorrectly. Nice try.