![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
andverygingerFrom "Powder Room Politics" by Kathleen Parker, on townhall.com:
The truth is, Clinton might not be a senator from New York if not for her victimization as first spouse...Throughout their White House years, the worse Bill behaved, the better Hillary looked. All women, without exception, could relate to her position and could admire her classy handling of the situation.
First of all -- what. the. frak? Classy handling of the situation? If my husband pulled what Bill Clinton did, he'd be out so fast his head would spin. Cheating -- dallying -- whatever you want to call it, is the worst type of disrespect a husband can pay a wife, and it is not something I would stand for. Because of her "classy handling" of his behavior, I tend to view Hillary not as some hero for womanhood; I can't "relate" to her position. To me, she has stayed with her husband not out of affection or commitment to her marriage; to me, she has stayed with her husband out of her drive for power. In an era where the current administration is vilified, and people are looking back with some fondness to the folly that was the Clinton administration, being hitched to Bill provides political capital she can expend in her own quest for the presidency.
That being said, those running for president should have a narcissistic bent. They have to be in the spotlight, have to like being the center of attention; they also have to really want the job to go through all the crap to get it. For that, I will give her credit. But that's as far as it goes. Her other machinations -- staying married to that "lying, cheating sack-of-shit" (thank you, Emma Rae), moving to New York to gain a Congressional seat, and busily playing up the "I'm just a girl" card in the middle of a presidential campaign -- strike me as too Machiavellian to be good.
And then there's her proposed policies. I'll say this right now: I don't want universal health care. Are there folks out there who are in need of medical attention but can't afford it? Sure. But I've had government managed health care -- called military medicine -- and I have not been impressed. For months, I was treated by the Navy docs for what they insisted was tendonitis in my left knee. I was dosed up on 800 mg of ibuprofen and sent on my merry way. The pain didn't lessen; it got worse. I was sent to physical therapy, which didn't help much, either. When it was delaying my change of station, I finally asked for an MRI. I was told that it wasn't in the budget. Finally, on leave for a long weekend, it locked up and I had to seek civilian medical care. It wasn't until that day that I was diagnosed with a medial meniscal tear. The Navy decided it wasn't in the budget to fix that, either. I was medically separated -- for a condition that many in service do receive treatment for, and return to duty.
Beyond that debacle, anyone who has sought treatment at a VA Medical facility knows what I'm talking about: The often shabby conditions, and waiting hours at their "sick call", only to be told that they can't help you; you have to wait weeks to see the doctor for an immediate need. I'm just thankful that the local VA service office is run a bit more efficiently than the hospital.
This is the future that awaits us, turning to universal health care. But I live in a country with a capitalist system. I should be able to choose who I want to patronize with my business, I should be able to choose what doctor I want to see for which condition. This is the very reason I have a PPO, rather than an HMO: I don't want to go to a primary care physician to ask to see a specialist, like some kid asking a if they can go to the bathroom. I have knee problems, I go to the orthopedic; I have migraine problems, I either see my general practitioner or, given the severity, I might see the neurologist. There is no waiting months or even years to see these specialists. And I can guarantee that, if I needed gall bladder surgery or an appendectomy, there wouldn't be any waiting around for that, either.
Like the elephant that I am, I also haven't forgotten about Hillary's comment regarding oil company profits: She wants to confiscate them and spend them at the discretion of the government, as the companies are simply making too much money.
::blink::
I wasn't aware we were living in the former Soviet Union, Senator.
The oil companies are making quite a profit right now, no mistake. And Hillary's proposal probably looks pretty good to the uneducated voter -- a fact she is counting on. Despite her desires, however, we still live in a free-market economy. These assets are privately held and it is the discretion of the company to use those assets as they see fit. The reality of the situation is that oil -- locating it, drilling it, refining it -- is an expensive process. I find it increasingly ironic that now, while the companies are pouring money into exploration and infrastructure, looking for ways to lessen dependence on "foreign oil," they are getting lamb-basted for it. And let's face it: Until someone comes up with a better solution, we're stuck with the fossil fuels for the time being.
I could go on, but this highlights two of my top pet peeves with the woman. No, I probably wouldn't vote for her anyway; I am, after all, an evil neocon. But my "vilification" of the woman doesn't stand alone on her personal record, it also stands on her issues... something I really hope women examine a lot closer before casting a ballot for the wench.
Don't get me wrong: I want a female president. Just not Hillary Clinton.
I know that we -- me and you, the entirety of my f-list -- come from very different political backgrounds. But as the time approaches, please do your homework. Vote issues, not gender, or who looks best in a pink suit.Because Ed Wood, erm, John Edwards might win that one. ;)
The truth is, Clinton might not be a senator from New York if not for her victimization as first spouse...Throughout their White House years, the worse Bill behaved, the better Hillary looked. All women, without exception, could relate to her position and could admire her classy handling of the situation.
First of all -- what. the. frak? Classy handling of the situation? If my husband pulled what Bill Clinton did, he'd be out so fast his head would spin. Cheating -- dallying -- whatever you want to call it, is the worst type of disrespect a husband can pay a wife, and it is not something I would stand for. Because of her "classy handling" of his behavior, I tend to view Hillary not as some hero for womanhood; I can't "relate" to her position. To me, she has stayed with her husband not out of affection or commitment to her marriage; to me, she has stayed with her husband out of her drive for power. In an era where the current administration is vilified, and people are looking back with some fondness to the folly that was the Clinton administration, being hitched to Bill provides political capital she can expend in her own quest for the presidency.
That being said, those running for president should have a narcissistic bent. They have to be in the spotlight, have to like being the center of attention; they also have to really want the job to go through all the crap to get it. For that, I will give her credit. But that's as far as it goes. Her other machinations -- staying married to that "lying, cheating sack-of-shit" (thank you, Emma Rae), moving to New York to gain a Congressional seat, and busily playing up the "I'm just a girl" card in the middle of a presidential campaign -- strike me as too Machiavellian to be good.
And then there's her proposed policies. I'll say this right now: I don't want universal health care. Are there folks out there who are in need of medical attention but can't afford it? Sure. But I've had government managed health care -- called military medicine -- and I have not been impressed. For months, I was treated by the Navy docs for what they insisted was tendonitis in my left knee. I was dosed up on 800 mg of ibuprofen and sent on my merry way. The pain didn't lessen; it got worse. I was sent to physical therapy, which didn't help much, either. When it was delaying my change of station, I finally asked for an MRI. I was told that it wasn't in the budget. Finally, on leave for a long weekend, it locked up and I had to seek civilian medical care. It wasn't until that day that I was diagnosed with a medial meniscal tear. The Navy decided it wasn't in the budget to fix that, either. I was medically separated -- for a condition that many in service do receive treatment for, and return to duty.
Beyond that debacle, anyone who has sought treatment at a VA Medical facility knows what I'm talking about: The often shabby conditions, and waiting hours at their "sick call", only to be told that they can't help you; you have to wait weeks to see the doctor for an immediate need. I'm just thankful that the local VA service office is run a bit more efficiently than the hospital.
This is the future that awaits us, turning to universal health care. But I live in a country with a capitalist system. I should be able to choose who I want to patronize with my business, I should be able to choose what doctor I want to see for which condition. This is the very reason I have a PPO, rather than an HMO: I don't want to go to a primary care physician to ask to see a specialist, like some kid asking a if they can go to the bathroom. I have knee problems, I go to the orthopedic; I have migraine problems, I either see my general practitioner or, given the severity, I might see the neurologist. There is no waiting months or even years to see these specialists. And I can guarantee that, if I needed gall bladder surgery or an appendectomy, there wouldn't be any waiting around for that, either.
Like the elephant that I am, I also haven't forgotten about Hillary's comment regarding oil company profits: She wants to confiscate them and spend them at the discretion of the government, as the companies are simply making too much money.
::blink::
I wasn't aware we were living in the former Soviet Union, Senator.
The oil companies are making quite a profit right now, no mistake. And Hillary's proposal probably looks pretty good to the uneducated voter -- a fact she is counting on. Despite her desires, however, we still live in a free-market economy. These assets are privately held and it is the discretion of the company to use those assets as they see fit. The reality of the situation is that oil -- locating it, drilling it, refining it -- is an expensive process. I find it increasingly ironic that now, while the companies are pouring money into exploration and infrastructure, looking for ways to lessen dependence on "foreign oil," they are getting lamb-basted for it. And let's face it: Until someone comes up with a better solution, we're stuck with the fossil fuels for the time being.
I could go on, but this highlights two of my top pet peeves with the woman. No, I probably wouldn't vote for her anyway; I am, after all, an evil neocon. But my "vilification" of the woman doesn't stand alone on her personal record, it also stands on her issues... something I really hope women examine a lot closer before casting a ballot for the wench.
Don't get me wrong: I want a female president. Just not Hillary Clinton.
I know that we -- me and you, the entirety of my f-list -- come from very different political backgrounds. But as the time approaches, please do your homework. Vote issues, not gender, or who looks best in a pink suit.