Iowa: Clinton, Cruz

Discuss whatever you want here ... movies, books, recipes, politics, beer, wine, TV ... everything except classical music.

Moderators: Lance, Corlyss_D

John F
Posts: 21076
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 4:41 am
Location: Brooklyn, NY

Re: Iowa: Clinton, Cruz

Post by John F » Fri Feb 05, 2016 7:24 pm

I haven't watched any debates either. Since I already know who I'll vote for, they'd serve no purpose, and I don't want to break my TV by throwing things at it. :D I don't watch the Antiques Road show either, or the American rip-off of Iron Chef - the Japanese original was hilarious and I miss it. But I do watch a lot of TV about science, travel, food, the PBS Newshour - oh yes, and football.
John Francis

lennygoran
Posts: 15892
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 9:28 pm
Location: new york city

Re: Iowa: Clinton, Cruz

Post by lennygoran » Fri Feb 05, 2016 8:03 pm

John F wrote:I haven't watched any debates either. ... But I do watch a lot of TV about science, travel, food, the PBS Newshour - oh yes, and football.
I've watched nearly all of them-especially the Republican debates-Trump is always a great draw-I agree on all the shows you do watch except football. Tomorrow night that Republican debate should be a good one! Regards, Len

jbuck919
Military Band Specialist
Posts: 26867
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2004 10:15 pm
Location: Stony Creek, New York

Re: Iowa: Clinton, Cruz

Post by jbuck919 » Sat Feb 06, 2016 1:14 am


There's nothing remarkable about it. All one has to do is hit the right keys at the right time and the instrument plays itself.
-- Johann Sebastian Bach

John F
Posts: 21076
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 4:41 am
Location: Brooklyn, NY

Re: Iowa: Clinton, Cruz

Post by John F » Sat Feb 06, 2016 4:23 am

Thanks for finding this - intelligent, penetrating, cogent, moving. Where is Madeleine May Kunin now when we need her? It's worth not just linking but quoting, so I'll quote it:

When Bernie Sanders ran against me in Vermont
By Madeleine May Kunin
February 05, 2016

Hillary Clinton is not the first progressive Democratic woman to be challenged by Bernie Sanders. He ran against me in 1986 when I was running for my second term as governor of Vermont. At that time he had little affinity for the Democratic Party. When advised that his third-party candidacy might result in a Republican victory, he saw no difference between Democrats and Republicans, saying: “It is absolutely fair to say you are dealing with Tweedledum and Tweedledee.”

Voters did not agree. Sanders received 14 percent of the vote, the Republican candidate, Peter Smith received 38 percent, and I won with 47 percent.

By any measure I was regarded as a progressive governor. If I was vulnerable, it was for being too liberal. As a legislator, my maiden speech on the floor of the Vermont House was in favor of ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment. My first priority as governor was universal access to kindergarten. I set a record for a Vermont governor’s appointees; women filled half of my cabinet. I sought out talented women, many of whom were the first women to head their agencies.

Women draw on a different network than men and can share an alternative definition of “qualified.” Hillary Clinton’s campaign staff, according to Fast Company, is over 50 percent female. Sanders’ campaign began with a a predominantly male inner circle and continues to face accusation of keeping women out of the top ranks. When Sanders was my opponent he focused like a laser beam on “class analysis,” in which “women’s issues” were essentially a distraction from more important issues. He urged voters not to vote for me just because I was a woman. That would be a “sexist position,” he declared.

Sanders has emerged as a more sophisticated and astute politician since those early days, and his message has more resonance. Thirty years later, women and men assume that gender no longer matters in politics. Now only 8 percent of voters would declare in a poll that they would not vote for a woman president. I remember precisely the time and place when a barber in Springfield, Vermont, ran out to tell me, “I will never vote for a woman.” Rare then, even more rare today.

But that does not mean that gender no longer plays a role in how we judge a woman’s candidacy for the top job. Women, it turns out, are influenced by gender bias to almost the same degree as men. For example, both Clinton and Sanders have declared they are favor paid maternity and sick leave, and equal pay for equal work. What sets them apart? I believe it is both style and substance. Sanders can shout his message and wave his arms for emphasis. Clinton can’t. If she appeared on stage as angry at the “system” as he is, she would be dismissed as an angry, even hysterical, woman; a sight that makes voters squirm.

An angry female voice works against women but is a plus for men. It demonstrates passion, outrage and power. Sanders bristled when he was accused of sexism after he implied that Clinton was among the shouters. Ironically, it is he who has, according to his doctor, suffered from laryngitis.

Gender adds muscle to substance. How will a female president differ from the men who have ruled the world? Living in a woman’s body makes the world look different on some – though far from all – issues.

As a new legislator, my first bill introduced in the Vermont House was to increase funding for childcare. I had young children and I knew that finding childcare determined whether or not I could leave my house and come to the capital, Montpelier. And I knew, that for poor women, childcare determined whether they could go to work and support their children. As governor, I saw to it that childcare funding was quadrupled and funding for education doubled. Hillary Clinton’s career follows a similar trajectory. Education reform was her priority as the governor’s wife in Arkansas. A bill to cover children’s health insurance (CHIP) was her achievement as a New York senator. “Women’s rights are human rights and human rights are women’s rights” was the message she sent to every country she visited as secretary of state. Yes, Hillary has been around, she’s been a determined, consistent fighter for children’s welfare and women’s rights. It’s part of her DNA. She was drawn to these women’s issues – now urgent economic issues – in the same way that I was, by our experiences as working women, wives, and mothers.

A number of men will protest: “I believe the same thing as she does.” What’s the difference? The difference is how do they rank on the agenda. Is equal pay near the bottom of the list, or is it a priority? Is defense of Planned Parenthood an issue that saves women’s lives, or is it only another institution among many? Placement on a competitive agenda is vital to achieve results. I believe that Hillary Clinton will give high priority to equal pay for equal work, not because she has experienced discrimination herself, but as a woman, she can empathize with women who have been discriminated against. It is a kind of empathy that allows no definition, but I felt it every time I made eye contact with the women I met along the parade route or on the factory floor.

One of the criticisms Clinton has received is that she is not authentic, that she is too political (i.e. scheming) and that she has been around for a long time so that she is a captive of various institutions.

If we’re counting from when Sanders was elected mayor of Burlington, he has been around for some time, too: 35 years. In part because he is a man, he can run as the ultimate outsider. Clinton can’t be the outsider even as her very candidacy defies precedent. Ever since women got the vote, we believed, like the good students we are, that the path to political participation, as instructed years ago by the League of Women Voters, was to be informed, understand the system and play by the rules. That’s how we could make it in a man’s world.

That responsibility did not rule out reform, but it did crimp revolution. When I campaigned for governor, I believed that I had to assure voters that I would not be that different from the male governors who had preceded me, even when I knew that I would be. Being the first woman and a revolutionary would be too much for the voters to swallow.

Sanders is brave, pairing Socialist with Democrat. And I agree with him on the growing cancer in America of income inequality and a democracy-threatening campaign finance system. He is a bold truth teller, and I am grateful that he has changed the conversation. He makes the answers sound easy, which in turn, makes him look authentic. But the answers are not simple. The word “complex” does not win applause in a political speech. Nuance is not welcomed. “We need a revolution,” is more powerful than “I have a plan.”

I understand that voters are looking for authenticity; they always have been, asking, “Are you who you claim to be?” A woman, running for a leadership position that has always been held by a man, has to create a new persona. To succeed, she has to play the game as it has always been played, but at the same time, play it differently. It’s difficult to find that sweet spot where a woman is “just right” tough enough to be commander in chief and feminine enough to be mother of the nation..

When we elected the first African American as President, we believed that an African American man would be revolutionary and bring us hope. Barack Obama, in many ways, has changed the rules, and had new priorities on his agenda, but not to the extent that some voters had hoped and others had feared. Still, the world seen through the eyes of a black man looks different than through those of a white man. As a result of President Obama’s leadership, we look at him and ourselves differently.

And the world as seen through the eyes of a woman will not result in revolution, but it will mark a change towards greater gender equality. Visualizing Hillary raising her right hand to take the oath of office, and Bill holding the Bible, will tell every little girl and boy, that, yes, women can achieve anything.
John Francis

lennygoran
Posts: 15892
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 9:28 pm
Location: new york city

Re: Iowa: Clinton, Cruz

Post by lennygoran » Sat Feb 06, 2016 7:25 am

John F wrote:Thanks for finding this - intelligent, penetrating, cogent, moving. Where is Madeleine May Kunin now when we need her? It's worth not just linking but quoting,
I don't agree with your assessment of the article-I'm not voting for Hillary just because she's the woman in the race--there's just too much of that in Kunin's article. Regards, Len

jbuck919
Military Band Specialist
Posts: 26867
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2004 10:15 pm
Location: Stony Creek, New York

Re: Iowa: Clinton, Cruz

Post by jbuck919 » Sat Feb 06, 2016 8:04 am

lennygoran wrote:
John F wrote:Thanks for finding this - intelligent, penetrating, cogent, moving. Where is Madeleine May Kunin now when we need her? It's worth not just linking but quoting,
I don't agree with your assessment of the article-I'm not voting for Hillary just because she's the woman in the race--there's just too much of that in Kunin's article. Regards, Len
We'd better hope that many women will vote for Clinton if only because she is a woman, because many men will refuse to vote for her for exactly that reason. (My father is one of them, as ashamed as I am to say it.) I wouldn't say this about any old election, but in this case, it doesn't make any difference why she gets the votes, as long as she gets them.

There's nothing remarkable about it. All one has to do is hit the right keys at the right time and the instrument plays itself.
-- Johann Sebastian Bach

lennygoran
Posts: 15892
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 9:28 pm
Location: new york city

Re: Iowa: Clinton, Cruz

Post by lennygoran » Sat Feb 06, 2016 8:13 am

jbuck919 wrote:
We'd better hope that many women will vote for Clinton if only because she is a woman, because many men will refuse to vote for her for exactly that reason. (My father is one of them, as ashamed as I am to say it.) I wouldn't say this about any old election, but in this case, it doesn't make any difference why she gets the votes, as long as she gets them.
I can see people voting for her over Sanders because of her greater knowledge of foreign policy but not simply because she's a woman-I can understand what I see as your more pragmatic view of the matter. Regards, Len :)

John F
Posts: 21076
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 4:41 am
Location: Brooklyn, NY

Re: Iowa: Clinton, Cruz

Post by John F » Sat Feb 06, 2016 10:03 am

lennygoran wrote:I can see people voting for her over Sanders because of her greater knowledge of foreign policy but not simply because she's a woman
Both reasons are valid. We don't just elect presidents because of their promises and what we believe to be their competence. Elections like Franklin Roosevelt's in 1932, Ronald Reagan's in 1980, and above all Barack Obama's in 2008 are statements about who we are, our identity and our values. As such they are historically meaningful in a way that other elections such as George H. W. Bush's and Bill Clinton's are not. This year America has another such opportunity; electing a woman president for the first time will be a historic declaration of our national character. Even if she weren't by far the best qualified and least ideologically driven of all the candidates in both parties, which of course she is.
John Francis

lennygoran
Posts: 15892
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 9:28 pm
Location: new york city

Re: Iowa: Clinton, Cruz

Post by lennygoran » Sat Feb 06, 2016 10:07 am

John F wrote: Both reasons are valid.
I disagree-no way I can vote for Carly Fiorina -she may be a woman but her views are very different than mine. Regards, Len

rwetmore
Posts: 3042
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2003 7:24 pm

Re: Iowa: Clinton, Cruz

Post by rwetmore » Sat Feb 06, 2016 12:13 pm

John F wrote:Even if she weren't by far the best qualified and least ideologically driven of all the candidates in both parties, which of course she is.
You actually think Hillary is moderate candidate? That's a joke.

John -- I like you and all, but you're a blindly loyal and non-discriminating Democrat if you think Hillary is a strong and highly desirable candidate for your side. I frankly don't care whether she's a women, is black, white, or green -- it shouldn't matter to anyone who takes the filling of the position of the Presidency seriously.
"Most human beings have an almost infinite capacity for taking things for granted. That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons of history."
- Aldous Huxley

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing has happened."
-Winston Churchill

“Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one!”
–Charles Mackay

"It doesn't matter how smart you are - if you don't stop and think."
-Thomas Sowell

"It's one of the functions of the mainstream news media to fact-check political speech and where there are lies, to reveal them to the voters."
-John F. (of CMG)

rwetmore
Posts: 3042
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2003 7:24 pm

Re: Iowa: Clinton, Cruz

Post by rwetmore » Sat Feb 06, 2016 12:16 pm

John F wrote:This year America has another such opportunity; electing a woman president for the first time will be a historic declaration of our national character.
No it won't.
"Most human beings have an almost infinite capacity for taking things for granted. That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons of history."
- Aldous Huxley

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing has happened."
-Winston Churchill

“Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one!”
–Charles Mackay

"It doesn't matter how smart you are - if you don't stop and think."
-Thomas Sowell

"It's one of the functions of the mainstream news media to fact-check political speech and where there are lies, to reveal them to the voters."
-John F. (of CMG)

Chalkperson
Disposable Income Specialist
Posts: 17669
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 1:19 pm
Location: New York City
Contact:

Re: Iowa: Clinton, Cruz

Post by Chalkperson » Sat Feb 06, 2016 11:45 pm

rwetmore wrote:
John F wrote:This year America has another such opportunity; electing a woman president for the first time will be a historic declaration of our national character.
No it won't.
Please explain, perhaps in more than three curt words.

I'm genuinely interested in what you think it will say about one of the last bastions of male domination in the highest office.
Sent via Twitter by @chalkperson

John F
Posts: 21076
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 4:41 am
Location: Brooklyn, NY

Re: Iowa: Clinton, Cruz

Post by John F » Sun Feb 07, 2016 5:24 am

lennygoran wrote:
John F wrote: Both reasons are valid.
I disagree-no way I can vote for Carly Fiorina -she may be a woman but her views are very different than mine. Regards, Len
What exactly do you disagree with? I said that Hillary Clinton's sex is a valid reason to elect her president, not the only one. Do you disagree with that? As for Carly Fiorina, I'm not talking about her or Sarah Palin or Christine O'Donnell or Geraldine Ferraro or any of the other women who have campaigned for president or vice president. I'm talking about Hillary Clinton.
John Francis

lennygoran
Posts: 15892
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 9:28 pm
Location: new york city

Re: Iowa: Clinton, Cruz

Post by lennygoran » Sun Feb 07, 2016 7:33 am

John F wrote: What exactly do you disagree with? I said that Hillary Clinton's sex is a valid reason to elect her president, not the only one. Do you disagree with that?
Someone's sex, race, religious affiliation etc are not valid reason's to vote for a person-experience, intelligence, their policy positions-that's what counts. BTW Hillary gets high marks from me on those items. Regards, Len

John F
Posts: 21076
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 4:41 am
Location: Brooklyn, NY

Re: Iowa: Clinton, Cruz

Post by John F » Sun Feb 07, 2016 1:30 pm

lennygoran wrote:
John F wrote:What exactly do you disagree with? I said that Hillary Clinton's sex is a valid reason to elect her president, not the only one. Do you disagree with that?
Someone's sex, race, religious affiliation etc are not valid reason's to vote for a person-experience, intelligence, their policy positions-that's what counts.
Then we disagree, because I'm in favor of affirmative action, in society and in the ballot box. Barack Obama's race was one reason why I voted for him with such enthusiasm and felt so good about it. I would have voted for the Democrat anyway, no matter what, of course. If African-Americans hadn't turned out in unprecedented numbers in 2008, Obama might not have won. And if women don't vote for Hillary Clinton big time, they may surrender the White House to a right-wing Republican mossback who will sign the Congressional Republicans' cutbacks in women's reproductive and other rights into law. I'm with them.

There are those who consider affirmative action racist because its purpose is to give disadvantaged people some compensating advantage on the basis of race, sex, what have you. For me that's a specious argument whose real purpose is not fairness but the opposite, to preserve the unfair advantage that white adult males have exploited in American society and government since the founding of the United States. Of course nobody wants an incompetent person as president or as a Yale freshman, but other things being equal or nearly so, I'm in favor of tipping the balance toward the historically disadvantaged to offset the insidious lingering prejudice in the other direction.
John Francis

karlhenning
Composer-in-Residence
Posts: 9816
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2005 11:12 am
Location: Boston, MA
Contact:

Re: Iowa: Clinton, Cruz

Post by karlhenning » Sun Feb 07, 2016 2:01 pm

John F wrote: Hillary Clinton's sex is a valid reason to elect her president, not the only one.
That sounds reasonable. Unlike Madeleine Albright's sermonizing that (in only slight paraphrase) "There's a special place in hell for women who don't vote for Hillary."

Cheers,
~k.
Karl Henning, PhD
Composer & Clarinetist
Boston, Massachusetts
http://members.tripod.com/~Karl_P_Henning/
http://henningmusick.blogspot.com/
Published by Lux Nova Press
http://www.luxnova.com/

lennygoran
Posts: 15892
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 9:28 pm
Location: new york city

Re: Iowa: Clinton, Cruz

Post by lennygoran » Sun Feb 07, 2016 4:58 pm

John F wrote: Then we disagree, because I'm in favor of affirmative action,...Of course nobody wants an incompetent person as president...but other things being equal or nearly so, I'm in favor of tipping the balance toward the historically disadvantaged to offset the insidious lingering prejudice in the other direction.
I could still agree with some of what you say but for me it might depend on how nearly equal the 2 choices were. Regards, Len

rwetmore
Posts: 3042
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2003 7:24 pm

Re: Iowa: Clinton, Cruz

Post by rwetmore » Sun Feb 07, 2016 8:31 pm

I want to say that ABC did an excellent job with the GOP debate. It was substantive and entertaining, and the moderators were professionals, asked thoughtful questions, and were fair to the candidates. This is the way it should be done.
"Most human beings have an almost infinite capacity for taking things for granted. That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons of history."
- Aldous Huxley

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing has happened."
-Winston Churchill

“Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one!”
–Charles Mackay

"It doesn't matter how smart you are - if you don't stop and think."
-Thomas Sowell

"It's one of the functions of the mainstream news media to fact-check political speech and where there are lies, to reveal them to the voters."
-John F. (of CMG)

John F
Posts: 21076
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 4:41 am
Location: Brooklyn, NY

Re: Iowa: Clinton, Cruz

Post by John F » Mon Feb 08, 2016 2:23 am

lennygoran wrote:
John F wrote: Then we disagree, because I'm in favor of affirmative action,...Of course nobody wants an incompetent person as president...but other things being equal or nearly so, I'm in favor of tipping the balance toward the historically disadvantaged to offset the insidious lingering prejudice in the other direction.
I could still agree with some of what you say but for me it might depend on how nearly equal the 2 choices were.
Equality in such matters is impossible to measure. By what standards? I'd put it that the 2 or more choices should show us that they are potentially up to the challenges of the office, and that their vision for the country is closer to yours and mine than their rivals'. That may be the case with both Clinton and Sanders, in which case I say we should vote for the woman because her election, in itself, will do more for the country than yet another man's. For those who claim to want equal opportunity for women, it's time to stand up and be counted.
John Francis

lennygoran
Posts: 15892
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 9:28 pm
Location: new york city

Re: Iowa: Clinton, Cruz

Post by lennygoran » Mon Feb 08, 2016 6:39 am

rwetmore wrote:I want to say that ABC did an excellent job with the GOP debate. It was substantive and entertaining, and the moderators were professionals, asked thoughtful questions, and were fair to the candidates. This is the way it should be done.
Nearly all the debates have been fair imo-aamof I thought ABC nearly lost control at one point-agree that it was pretty entertaining but not the best. Regards, Len

lennygoran
Posts: 15892
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 9:28 pm
Location: new york city

Re: Iowa: Clinton, Cruz

Post by lennygoran » Mon Feb 08, 2016 7:01 am

John F wrote:
lennygoran wrote:
John F wrote:
>Equality in such matters is impossible to measure. ...That may be the case with both Clinton and Sanders, in which case I say we should vote for the woman because her election, in itself, will do more for the country than yet another man's.
Well with regard to this specific case I will assess the situation as things move along-I'll have to decide what will help the country most from my perspective--I'm very much disturbed with how the rich are buying elections-anyway if I deem that the choice is too close to decide and too hard to determine who would be better then voting for Clinton because she's a woman could very well be the deciding factor-I don't think that doing that would subject me to any court case that would end up being decided at the Supreme court-still what if Scalia got his hands on the matter! Thinking about his last comments on affirmative action he might tell me Hillary is better suited to be a county clerk in Rowan County, Kentucky and my vote for her is being thrown out. Regards, Len [fleeing] :lol:

"In a remark that drew muted gasps in the courtroom, Justice Antonin Scalia said that minority students with inferior academic credentials may be better off at “a less advanced school, a slower-track school where they do well.”

“I don’t think it stands to reason that it’s a good thing for the University of Texas to admit as many blacks as possible,” he added."

lennygoran
Posts: 15892
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 9:28 pm
Location: new york city

Re: Iowa: Clinton, Cruz

Post by lennygoran » Tue Feb 09, 2016 6:42 am

Apparently Trump is still at it-last night:

Donald Trump criticizes Ted Cruz, calls him a ‘***’ at New Hampshire rally

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politic ... -1.2524951

Regards, Len :(

rwetmore
Posts: 3042
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2003 7:24 pm

Re: Iowa: Clinton, Cruz

Post by rwetmore » Wed Feb 10, 2016 6:34 am

Sanders was polling an average of around +13% over Hillary, but won by well over 20%. Does this signify anything? I don't know.
"Most human beings have an almost infinite capacity for taking things for granted. That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons of history."
- Aldous Huxley

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing has happened."
-Winston Churchill

“Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one!”
–Charles Mackay

"It doesn't matter how smart you are - if you don't stop and think."
-Thomas Sowell

"It's one of the functions of the mainstream news media to fact-check political speech and where there are lies, to reveal them to the voters."
-John F. (of CMG)

lennygoran
Posts: 15892
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 9:28 pm
Location: new york city

Re: Iowa: Clinton, Cruz

Post by lennygoran » Wed Feb 10, 2016 8:15 am

rwetmore wrote:Sanders was polling an average of around +13% over Hillary, but won by well over 20%. Does this signify anything? I don't know.
Yeah it means you and your Wall St. friends are in serious trouble! Regards, Len :lol: :lol: :lol:

Chalkperson
Disposable Income Specialist
Posts: 17669
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 1:19 pm
Location: New York City
Contact:

Re: Iowa: Clinton, Cruz

Post by Chalkperson » Thu Feb 11, 2016 4:36 am

lennygoran wrote:
rwetmore wrote:Sanders was polling an average of around +13% over Hillary, but won by well over 20%. Does this signify anything? I don't know.
Yeah it means you and your Wall St. friends are in serious trouble! Regards, Len :lol: :lol: :lol:
Trolls have no friends. :mrgreen:
Sent via Twitter by @chalkperson

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests