We've all heard the call, "What does Hillary want?" ever since Obama pulled ahead in the primaries, and as the convention approaches the chorus is growing. Well, now I'm going to turn it around and put the burden on Senator Clinton. What do YOU, the Great Salon Unwashed, want from Hillary?
Hillary Clinton's name is going to be put into nomination. To put down any anti-Obama demonstrations her supporters try to pull on the convention floor, she has formed a "whip squad" -- a name which inspires kinky political visuals that gave me the most tantalizing dreams last night . . . ahem, but I digress.
Hillary is going to speak at the convention. My question to you is this:
---> What do you want Hillary to say in her speech? <---
- Do you want to hear her say she is running for president and wants the nomination?
- Do you want her to make a call for unity?
- Should Hillary ask her supporters to vote for McCain?
- Should she demand the vice presidential nomination?
- Should she apologize for her negative remarks about Obama during the primary?
- Or would you like her to simply plunge six-inch steel needles into her eyeballs on national TV?
Okay, folks. I've got Hillary on my cell phone. (She is constantly calling me, you know, but I rarely return her calls these days.) I will tell her what you want from her.
As for me, I just want to hear her attack her good friend, John McCain, like a bulldog on a pork chop; to see her set him on fire. Rhetorically, not literally. I'm really not into human combustion. Unless there's a good political weanie roast in it, then I say let's have us a good old-fashioned, patriotic Republican bonfire.
But as for you, what do you want to hear Hillary say in her convention speech?
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Joan Wilder
Jeve (aka John and Steve)
Cassandra Berg
Zing
Danni California
Graham Sale
Salon.com
Comments
B) Not only is he ready to be President, but even more, this country needs him;
C) That he will fight to make this economy better for hard-working Americans (she can leave out the "white" this time around)
D) That women cannot afford the anti-choice justices McCain would appoint to the Supreme Court
E) That politics is not a game (I'm sure she's said that before) and that a vote for John McCain won't "send a message"--it will destroy this country.
That beings said, I'd personally like Hillary to step up and make a great speech, period. On the "redemption tour" (the first public appearance post-Monicagate), I saw Bill/Hillary/Al/Tipper all speak from the floor of the Marine Midland Arena in Buffalo. Hillary was amazing then, and she's only improved with time. It's time to rally the troops, and she's a leader for the Democrats. Whatever she says, hopefully it will energize and motivate us all.
I'm confused by your comment. Hillary is going to give a speech at the convention. On the off chance that she doesn't just there silently for 20 minutes, actual words will have to come out of her mouth. Do you have any thought as to what those words and their meanings ought to be?
I'm not sure what she could do in her speech other than come up with some new slogans against the McBush campaign.
I also want her to do it cheerily, having Obama's promise to appoint her to the Supreme Court at his first opportunity.
And I think Bill should be his second pick!
There is no career path to SCOTUS, but if there is, Hillary is on it.
There's some kind of feminist objection to having a pro-choice feminist appointed FOR LIFE to the Supreme Court?
Truly, this must be one of those parallel universes I've heard about.
I am not concerned about Hillary Clinton hitting hard times. She it of the most versatile players the Democrats have on the team (game or no game). Surely, she has more than a little control of her destiny just now? I am hoping we will be pleasantly surprised within less than a year to find out that her amazing skills will be put to their very best use.
If not, and we have McSame, the entire focus of the sane portion of America will have to shift and then rallly in a big way to do a MAJOR political housecleaning all around...
For instance, current justice Clarence Thomas was a judge for less than a year before being appointed to the SCOTUS by the same president who made him a circuit judge (Bush I). The ranks of former Supreme Court justices include an ex-President, the U.S. Chief Prosecutor at the Nuremberg Nazi War Crimes Trial, former governors from the states of New York and California, and even a football star.
I wonder if you would think it was patronizing if it were a man.
Hmmmmmmmm...Chief Justice Hillary Clinton. That doesn't sound terribly patronizing to me.
And that "popping" sound you hear would be Republican blood vessels everywhere. I can think of nothing that would upset them more.
Unless it was Hillary and Bill both on SCOTUS.
Maybe Chelsea, too ... she could serve a LONG time.
However, I would still like to see her as a Supreme. In fact, I'm one of the first people I know to have talked it up, way before the campaign really got going, not because I didn't think she could be a good president (she could) but because she could have even more impact on that particular bench. And because it would more or less eliminate the "issues" that plague her: no more campaigning, but a lifetime opportunity in public service, and the attributes for which the left loves to criticize her would actually be assets: her judiciousness, and tendency to seek consensus. And there'd be no role for Bill, so he couldn't really get in her way.
I don't think her lack of judicial experience is a problem at all. In fact, it used to be something of a tradition to have a few justices with some legislative (i.e., real world) experience, like Sandra Day O'Connor, but now there are none (that I know of) and the preponderance of white Catholic males really is a bit much. I also think she's worked both sides of the aisle well enough in establishing relationships with her senate colleagues that she would make it through the confirmation process, too.
And Ruth Bader Ginsburg has made it very clear that she does not like being the only woman on that Court. Who can blame her?
And I'm certainly not the first or only person who ever gave this some thought.
"Mark Agrast, senior fellow with the Center for American Progress, notes that justices without experience in elected office or policy-making positions have dominated the Supreme Court in recent years. He doesn't consider that positive. "There is much to be said for selecting a mixture of people with different experiences in the law and political affairs. Clinton has the political experience and the legal experience that would help to diversify the Court. In that sense, I wouldn't think the lack of prior judicial experience should in any way be seen as a detriment," said Agrast, an expert in constitutional law."
One difference between the 1950s and today, Yalof notes, is that time on the bench has become "a de facto prequalification for being considered" for the Supreme Court. Yet Sheldon Goldman, professor of political science at the University of Massachusetts (Amherst), said he does not view a lack of judicial experience as a disqualifying factor. "Historically," he said, "some of our greatest justices never sat on a bench before: Louis Brandeis, Earl Warren, Hugo Black. The great Chief Justice John Marshall had never sat on a bench before, nor did Justice [Felix] Frankfurter. You could go on and on."
Quotes are from National Jouranl
Well, Stellaa, you started out by saying I was "ignorant," then you chided me for being unable to see that policy and judicial experience is different. That's not "discussion," that's insulting instead of discussing, and is a technique used to forestall actual discussion.
I "submitted" because I have no need or desire to engage a person who tosses out ad hominems instead of discussing the merits. Even your last sentence to me -- "If you don't want to have a discussion...ciao!" -- was a snark.
I do want to have a discussion. I do not want to endure insults and snarks from an imaginary person on the interwebs. I get enough insults in real life to tolerate it here.
If you want to have a discussion that doesn't call me gnorant or oblivious, I'm all over it. Otherwise, as you say "...ciao!"
Up to you.
On another issue: So far, the inherent racism underlying the reluctance of white middle-class working class to embrace Obama as their candidate, is being handled politely by the media. This was not the case with the blatant sexism and misogyny directed at Hillary Clinton.
Some of us have experienced a level of campaign fatigue. I think women would have been so raw by now that we have revolted if all that kept up until the convention against her.
That is no reason for feminists to back down from Hillary's well-earned right to run for the Presidency. My personal thought is that it is hard to watch what is going on with Obama. It would have broken my heart to see too much more hate and venom directed at Hillary, and by proxy, the entire female population. Maybe I am a wimp on our behalf, or a pragmatist. Unless we wake up the sleeping masses fairly quickly, the next four years might not meet the hopes of the majority for any significant change.