POLITICAL JUNKIES

Most great politicians (yes, occasionally one can used those two words together) do NOT wait their turn. Theodore Roosevelt was 42 years old when he became president.....much to the horror of the people in the party who went by the book. John F. Kennedy faced the same criticism as Obama. Wet behind the eyes, not enough experience, too young, no record, needed to wait his turn as many much more experienced candidates were running, Lincoln had been a one term member of the House of Representatives when he sought the presidency, Robert Kennedy's doomed 1968 campaign......... I think all these men were driven by a sense of urgency, and an awareness of magnitudes of the problems, and the shortness of time. They felt it was their time, and they took it.

*PS, I will be supporting Clinton this time because I do believe that she is, by far, the most qualified candidate in the race. And I will be thrilled when the day comes where the portraits of the presidents include pictures of women......and when presidents are judged by the job they do; not their gender, religion, or by the color of their skin.

Since there has been so much Common Core discussion in these parts, I thought this might be interesting; it turned up in an education listserv for local issues (I serve on a district education committee)....

"Beginning in spring 2016, the NYS Education Department (NYSED) will convene Mathematics and English Language Arts Standards Review Committees that will review...the P-12 Common Core Learning Standards, and make any necessary revisions to the standards. These committees will be composed of New York State educators (P-16) and parents in order to ensure a comprehensive review...."

I think it's interesting as we've all agreed (I think?) that there is a huge difference in acceptance of Common Core between those states, like NY, that adopted the standards early and tied them to testing and teacher evaluation, and those that proceeded in a more leisurely fashion. Clearly, this is in response to the very high opt-out rate to state testing and overall negative Common Core perceptions in the state.

And now back to our regularly scheduled programming. The NY primary is next Tuesday, and I will be so glad when it's over!

I felt the same way about Melania. She seemed uncomfortable! His kids fared much better. Donald still talked in circles when answering questions. Makes me nuts! Edited to add that DT does not drink, never smoked and never did drugs. He is very strong on that. Strange to me that he has a winery and had a vodka brand but whatever makes money, he is smart about that (even though they did not do well overall as far as his brand)

I honestly think that President Obama will be judged to be one of the better Presidents in my lifetime when scholars look back at history. His accomplishments of turning the economy around after inheriting a disaster, getting health care passed (even if it does need some work, it is a start and more than others were able to do) and although he has made some mistakes, he has for the most part conducted himself very well in the face of so much opposition and obstructionism over his 8 years in office. He is a good man. He has been called a lot of horrible names over the years and has even been accused of lying about his own birth. DT was a huge part in that horrible mess. I can't forgive him for his disrespect of this man for no reason that I could see except that he was black and had a name that did not sound the same as most Americans. It is still cringe-worthy to me when the "birther" movement is talked about in the press.

I believe that America was more ready for President Obama in 2008 than they were for a woman. Even if he is African American, the status quo still felt more comfortable with a man. A lot has changed in 8 years though and the country is more than ready to try a woman in that office. Plus, some of the people interviewed coming out of the polling places have said they support her because she is a "package deal" with Bill and they felt prosperous during his administration. Most people could care less about Monica Lewinsky and what happened there. They liked President Clinton and hope he will help his wife govern just as she helped him during his tenure. She stands on her own with her accomplishments, Bill or no Bill. She is more than qualified and it is her time!

Just my 2 cents.

My understanding of Obama is that he had "hands on" experience with social advocacy at a neighbourhood, grassroots level, in Chicago, after graduating from law school. I very much doubt if "entitlement" felt normal to him, given his bi-racial, single parent, low income early years. The gender bias mindset I think had more to do with him gaining the nomination.

MrsM, we agree on most of the facts.

"I feel that (Obama) seized a moment in time when he felt he could win the presidency. Everything was aligning for him. I never held it against him that he didn't wait his turn, so to speak. I also think the MSM helped elect the first black president (rather than the first female)before Ted Kennedy died, to create a tidy little story about the civil rights movement as Kennedy had been there at the beginning of it and he was alive to see the fruition of a black man holding he highest office in the land. Obama started out very early with Oprah's blessing, and when I saw that connection and heard the initial buzz about this black Senator from Illinois, I just absolutely knew he was going to be president even as soon as two years before the election. Also, the Illinois connection between Lincoln and Obama was in Obama's favor from a historical point"

Yes, I agree completely. I too knew that Obama was going to be elected soon after he entered the field. I understood and appreciated his role in history and how important that was. I got that. I still get that. But what it means is that Obama was elected because of who he was and what he represented, not because of his qualifications or experience. And as much as I understand the importance of electing the first black president, and as much as I applaud the U.S. for doing that, when it comes to the single most important job in the world, a job that has implications to millions of lives around the world and repercussions that can affect the world for decades, personally I think qualifications and experience should count more than anything else.

"The U.S. isn't going to vote in a female newcomer the way they did Obama and Clinton knows that. There was lots of Democratic strategy and deals were made; she would eventually concede and got on the Obama train. In return, he made her Secretary of State, helping her add to her credentials, grooming her for the Presidency. It was give and take with them."

Exactly. Inexperienced men, if they are bright & shiny and meet all the style criteria, are lauded and promoted. Not so for women. It's exactly what I've seen in business for 40 years and it's what I react so strongly to. The idea that Obama, the young man with minimal experience, took on the role of grooming the older, much more experienced woman, so that she might eventually be considered qualified for the job... well, it's true, but isn't that absurd, when you actually think about it?

One thing to clarify. I don't think anyone should wait their turn just for the sake of waiting, or so that someone older can go first. I think that waiting one's turn is important for those who do not have the qualifications or experience, and who need the time to gain more relevant experience. I think Obama would have been a much better and more effective President if he had spent another 8 years in the Senate, particularly on the Foreign Relations Committee. And I have the same issues with our new Canadian leader, Justin Trudeau, that I had with Obama. Trudeau was bright and shiny but not nearly experienced enough for the job he was seeking. The good news is that the Canadian influence on the world is much smaller, so his screw-ups, should he have any (so far I've been okay with him), will have less of a global impact. And domestically, on most issues we are a less divided country than the U.S., so while our elections inevitably lead to small shifts in direction right or left, there are never any major changes to the things that are important and that represent Canada as a country. No matter which party is elected in Canada, we will still have universal health care, we will still have a strong safety net of social programs, we will still allow gay marriage, abortion will remain legal, we will welcome immigrants, we will strive to have a strong financial system that supports business development... I could go on, but I'm sure no one here wants to hear me tout Canada's benefits (but did you read that someone from the Fed. Reserve in NY said that the American Dream is now more achievable in Canada?).

What I think is a shame is that the presidential nomination and election process in the U.S. has become so partisan (one must appeal to the far right or the far left), so onerous and so fraught with danger (all the digging into one's past, all the parsing of words) that for the most part, the really qualified people don't want the job, or should they run, they can too easily get knocked out because of a silly misstep. Hillary Clinton has the necessary experience but is a terribly flawed candidate; the fact that in all likelihood she previously violated security regulations does put into question her qualifications for the job. The other candidates still running don't have the experience and/or qualifications. When you look around, however, there are so many people in U.S. politics who know their stuff, have the experience, have the respect of their peers and therefore the ability to get things done, but who just don't want the job. I don't blame them, but it's an unfortunate situation both for the U.S. and for the rest of us who are so affected by U.S. policy, decisions and actions.

It was even before Barack Obama officially threw his hat in the ring for president that I had a knowing he'd be the next president. I would see his name while reading a news article, hear a sound bite about him on tv or catch a picture of him while casually flipping thru a magazine. It was all very subtle, as I'd never heard of him and what did I care about an Illinois Senator? But there was something.....

I didn't get that feeling this time, as I was thinking before this campaign season that Chris Christie might be prez. Apparentlly my knowing feeling was a one shot deal and not a honed craft, ha ha.

I've been telling people I was going to vote for Hillary a year ago. Normally, I never even talk about it. For some reason, this time I'm outspoken on the subject

Kay a very trendy best seller was published a year ago called: "Daring Greatly: How the Courage to Be Vulnerable Transforms the Way We Live, Love, Parent, and Lead" by Brene Brown. That's when I learned of the quote. I read the book, very insightful.

April, I agree on the polled people vs historians. Good post.

First of all, thank you Mary for starting this thread. It is so fun to think about and debate these issues with other people who really care about what is happening (no matter what side of the coin it brings you to).

A couple more thoughts from me for the day. I think another hurdle Hillary faced in the 2008 election was that for the 20 years before that, there had either been a Bush or a Clinton in the White House, and people were wanting a change. Even though she was a woman (which, of course, was new and exciting), she still seemed to represent the past. My brother heard Obama speak long before he ran & said at the time how impressive he was ('electric' is the word he used). I felt his election was like a turning of the page of history. An unmovable objection had moved....we are closer to what a profess to be our ideals of "all men (in the universal sense) are created equal". A lot of the ugly rhetoric is a push back from that election. But it can not be undone. I will feel the same way when a woman does become president.

And when thinking about it, I do think that gender must top race on the prejudiced scale. Black men were given the right to vote by the 15th Amendment in 1870. It took 50 more years for women with the passage of the 19th Amendment in 1920.

For you Maltese. For your bravery and for hangin in this (obvious) den of liberal ladies. You are a good egg and a most excellent sparring partner.

April that is so sweet of you! I enjoy reading all the posts, with the knowledge and passion thats is put forth from a liberals view certainly has given me the respect for everyone here. I am first jumping to read this thread before reading my two other favorite threads, which are Ibrance and bone mets!!

Edited to say: In 2009 I lost one of my very dear and closest friends to Ovarian Ca. Her BIL and I had our differences in the political world. He was a history teacher and really was just a die hard liberal but so much fun to debate with. He really was so anti Bush anti anything republican. I had to call him today and when he answered I said so Nick who is it? Hillary or Bernie? He said I am not voting in the primary but if I was forced it would be Bernie. On that note he said, don't tell me your a Trump Supporter-- He said "Carol his opinion on women??" " What do you say about that? " He didn't like the answer I gave, and handed the phone to his wife! Anyway, I had a half hour conversation with her on cancer ( her sister was braca pos) and so is she. Which brought me to how precious life is and how much I miss my friend. She beat BC but they ignored a cyst on her ovaries to it being just a simple cyst. After the fact they did the genetic testing to find out that 2 of her sisters and daughter and son carry the gene. She was an angel on earth.

Megyn Kelly, Nicole Wallace and Peggy Noonan are the three conservative pundits I respect most, regardless of gender. (I'd have added David Brooks to the mix but he has recently come to his senses and moved to the center).

Heard some interesting analysis today (I confess--do we Jews “confess" except on Yom Kippur?--that I have MSNBC on in the background as I type) as to Trump's tirades about the Republican nominating process being unfair (DT used terms like “rigged" and “crap"). There are two theories about this. One is that he truly did not understand the rules going in, even though they'd been in place well before the candidate filing deadline, because of the incompetence and inexperience of his campaign staff (and perhaps because he never expected to be the contender he has become).

But the other--and one I tend to believe more strongly--is that he understood the rules and the process perfectly, and chose instead to appeal directly to that segment of non-liberal voters who feel excluded from the mainstream of society and ignored by those in power in government. (Of course, they've also been maltreated by the wealthy but Trump has joined the conservative choir who have convinced them of the myth that supporting the rich is in their best interests because some day they too may join the ranks of the wealthy by sheer dint of hard work). The intricacies and arcana of intramural party mechanics are the perfect microcosm of these voters' broader sense of victimization; and he has taken this microcosm to them as an example of not just how the party system is maltreating him but also denying them a voice. (Which is bullshit--they've always had a voice as long as they tried to use it by becoming active at the grassroots level. Maybe not in the GOP of the 1%, but certainly on the other side of the aisle--my parents, who had white-collar aspirations despite blue-collar resources, met on a blind date at a political meeting of a reform organization targeting the Tammany Hall-dominated Tamowock Club, and raised us to believe that you have no right to complain about the political situation if you fail to take advantage of the participatory opportunities open to you. I grew up handing out flyers and stuffing envelopes, and have never missed a primary or caucus since I reached voting age).

Trump is, at his most basic, a master of controlling the conversation by misdirection. Things not completely going your way? Blame the system, even if you are deriving some benefit from it. (He actually has a 10% greater share of the delegates than he does the GOP popular vote). Adverse publicity from scandal, skeletons unearthed, or foot in mouth? Resort to name-calling, shibboleths, catchy memes, unfounded allegations & promises, or....."oooh, look--over there!"

Chi, yes to Megyn Kelly, Nicole Wallace, Peggy Noonan and David Brooks.

Yes too about Trump. I heard the same thing about his tirades about the Republican nomination process, and I agree that he is probably playing this whole thing up just to rile up his base. Not something I appreciate at all, and potentially dangerous. Trump has gotten to where he is in this campaign through bullying and threats. When his opponents and the Repub. leadership finally started speaking out against him, everyone was saying "what took them so long?". Well, it was pretty simple. When he first entered the race, he was continually threatening a 3rd party run, should the Repubs "not treat him fairly". It was recognized that he has some appeal to a portion of the Repub. base, and if he were to run as a 3rd party candidate, it would guarantee a win for the Dems. So of course everyone played nice and didn't attack his positions (or lack of positions). His opponents and the Repub leadership also assumed, quite logically, that some of the really insane things Trump was saying would turn off enough primary voters that he would eventually lose support and drop out. Turns out that they were wrong on that one - it surprises me to no end that he retains this much support after some of the stuff that's come out of his mouth - and so finally everyone else had to go on the offensive. And then Trump, despite having committed to sticking with the Repub party and not going 3rd party, started threatening again that he might. When things don't go his way, out comes the childish insults, the bullying, the threats, and he starts inciting his supporters, which is exactly what he's doing now on the issue of the nomination process. Not at all Presidential. Actually, I'd expect - and probably would always get - more maturity and civility from the person running for dog catcher. I suppose the only saving grace is that I believe that everything Trump is doing is intentional and planned, which means that he knows exactly what he is doing and why he is doing it. I think he is playing everyone, especially his supporters and the media, but also the Republican leadership. With just a few exceptions, I think so far everything has gone exactly as he's planned it. I also therefore believe that he can choose to act very differently in a different situation. He can be the threatening bully, or he can be the conciliatory diplomat. He hasn't shown us much of the latter, but I believe it's there. After all, there must be a reason why most of the people who have worked with him actually like him. And we can't say that about Ted Cruz.

Chi interesting article. I enjoyed it!!

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0416/colon041316.php3

LovesMaltese, with all due respect you’re not citing an article of journalism, nor even a true news analysis but an op-ed by a writer with an obvious bias--everything she says to supposedly justify her contention that all the GOP candidates are superior to Sanders & Clinton is personal opinion and wild allegation, not proven fact. One glance at the masthead reveals more fire-breathing extreme right-wingers (e.g.,Stossel, Malkin, Krauthammer) than reasoned conservatives & centrists such as Milbank, Will and Albom. What do Tikkun and other more scholarly Jewish periodicals (not Republican house-organs-in-yarmulkes such as Commentary) say?

What gets right-wing Jewish publications so rabidly anti-Democrat (including their disdain for Obama) is that neither Clinton nor Sanders is willing to unflinchingly approve everything the Likud-Shas coaltiion gov’t of Israel does. Sanders especially infuriates them because he is Jewish (and unlike Lieberman, secular--which also incenses Evangelicals) and they see him as a traitor,

Maltese, I never mentioned the term “politically correct” (in fact, I deplore it--it is often used as pejorative codespeak by those who find it acceptable to be intolerant or at least inconsiderate of people who look, speak and pray differently from the majority, as well as of those who are differently-abled). Nowhere does the author of the op-ed cite facts, only her subjective opinions with nothing but her biases to back them up. I’d be interested to know what influences your belief that it is “close enough in fact.” I submit it proves only that you agree with her, with no explanation why. As to sharing it, we’re all free to share.

One more instance of how Trump is employing bullying and threats: several potential Colorado and Indiana delegates have released e-mails they’ve received from Trump supporters and operatives threatening their safety should they not vote “the right way.” Trump coordinator Roger Stone (a modern-day version of Nixon’s Dick Tuck and Poppy Bush’s Lee Atwater) has gone on record as urging Trump supporters to use threatening language to persuade delegates to vote for Trump and hint at dire personal consequences to their “future” should they not. To turn Paul Manafort’s own words against him, who’s using “Gestapo tactics” now? Okay, more like Mafioso tactics...”nice future you got there...pity something should happen to it...."

ChiSandy, perhaps you'll be interested in an interactive map of the number of state-by-state cases of voter fraud as reported by The Slate in 2012. I realize it is not too current, and known cases vary greater from state to state, but your state of Illinois looks like it has far fewer cases than some other states.

Your statement that voter fraud "does not exist" doesn't appear to be an accurate absolute, but neither is the claim by some REPs that voter fraud is widespread. Not trying to raise an argument with you, but wanted to provide some data. I'm not sure an all-or-nothing approach works for either side of the voter fraud/photo ID debate. Me, I'm just glad to have the freedom and right to vote!!