.: Above The Aether :.

1 | Vote for Hillary Online

November 17th, 2007 at 6:46 pm

You don’t want to vote for Hillary? She is our only hope to take back America and if you’re not for that, I suggest you move to Europe or something.

2 | Dave

November 17th, 2007 at 6:57 pm

You honestly think it’s OK for two families to run the country for the last 20 years? I’ll tell you what, if Hillary can beat Barack in a bare-knuckled brawl, I will vote for her.

Otherwise, Barack is my homeboy.

3 | Leslie

November 17th, 2007 at 7:43 pm

Let me start by saying this: I don’t like Hillary Clinton.

However, there was an interesting article in The New Yorker about this very issue a few weeks ago, which points out that dynasties have been in all levels of politics from the beginning of the country’s history. We’ve always had, frighteningly enough, ruling families. Here’s the link: http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2007/10/29/071029taco_talk_hertzberg

4 | Dave

November 17th, 2007 at 8:30 pm

Yeah, I honestly don’t have a real problem with Hillary other than the fact that I’m tired of political monopolies.

She strikes me as a bit cold in the personality department. But warmth is not a prerequisite for the presidency, I suppose.

Why do we, as a nation, put political power into the hands of leaders with blood-ties to past leaders? That notion is thousands of years old, yet still flourishes today.

Why?

5 | Scott

November 17th, 2007 at 9:27 pm

It’s no news to me that we’ve always had ruling families, but I hadn’t realized it had been quite so long since we’ve had someone other than a Bush or Clinton in the White House. This concerns me more because of the ethically challenged actions of our last two presidents (and likely extension of that situation if Hillary is elected) than because the presidency has come down to a couple of prominent families. Why is it so hard to elect a president who doesn’t abuse the office?

I think the answer is that the most powerful families in the U. S. know that most people in this country don’t care enough to vote, and often don’t bother to vote intelligently when they do. They’re taking for granted that the rest of us sheep will complacently do as we’re told no matter what they do. After all, we haven’t shown them otherwise for quite a long time. We’ll get more responsible government at all levels when we demand it, and not before. We don’t all have to be political activists, but let’s at least vote for a person and the ideas for which they stand instead of voting for the political party supporting the candidate, which is what many people appear to do.

6 | Scott

November 18th, 2007 at 2:38 pm

“Why do we, as a nation, put political power into the hands of leaders with blood-ties to past leaders?”

Because they tend to be the only people in position to be elected. Popular perception is that a candidate can’t get elected unless they are running as a Republican or a Democrat, which is largely true *because* of that perception. So those two parties are the focus of any efforts on the part of financially powerful people who’d like to make sure that the political environment remains favorable to their interests.

While political power isn’t inherited in this country, money *is*, and money buys political power to a substantial degree, in terms of campaign support if not directly. And so the same families remain in power for generations, behind the scenes if not personally in office. That’s simply not going to change. The only thing that can change is the degree to which the public keeps these leaders accountable for their actions, and fortunately, we live in a country where it’s possible to do that with public opinion rather than armed conflict.

7 | Leslie

November 18th, 2007 at 6:49 pm

That’s a good question, Dave.

Perhaps it’s because people always feel more comfortable with the familiar–one of the main reasons advertising works through repetition–and these ruling families are familiar to us. We feel like we know them, and we’re instinctively drawn to what we know, because it feels safe.

A corollary to that is that these families are connected to the political engine, and so the second and third and further generations have insight into how it all works that outsiders do not. They know how to get into the system easier, and it’s less intimidating to them to try it because they’ve seen it before. (It’s familiar to them.) In fact, in some cases, they may not know anything else.

Leslie

8 | epiphenita

November 18th, 2007 at 9:53 pm

You think that Hillary would probably be a good president and agree with her on most social issues. You even think she has the skills, connections and intelligence to do a much better job than our current president.

But you wouldn’t vote for her because she is married to a former president?

That would be the only reason? That’s the most contrary and silly thing I’ve ever heard you say. And I’ve heard you say a lot of silly things.

I have mixed feelings about HC but if it’s between her and Rudy? Her and Mitt? I don’t care if she was married to Billy Carter and Ted Kennedy. The only place I’m throwing my vote is towards whatever keeps the GOP frontrunners as far away from the White House as possible.

9 | Dave

November 18th, 2007 at 10:02 pm

20 years with 2 families running the free world. Yep, if your name ends in Bush or Clinton you are not getting my vote. I’m tired of the monarchy.

It really is that simple for me.

10 | TDH

November 19th, 2007 at 2:49 am

This is at this point hypothetical, since no primaries yet. But sorry, dude. you don’t get a break on this one. Here’s a radical thought: vote for the best choice you get based on multiple issues, not just one. I’m not bothered that you don’t like political dynasties, but if you are going to choose one single issue (that has absolutely no bearing on the well-being of the country), please just stay home. Enough people who are uninformed vote, no need to increase the number.

By the way, your logic could easily be used to vote FOR Hillary, since we’ve only ever had a dynasty of men and she’s a woman. Or vote for Barack because only whites have run the country and it’s screwed up. Or vote for Romney, because only non-Mormons have EVER been president. Your type of “thinking” a) barely qualifies as such, and b) can be turned to justify any course of action. Frankly, you’re smarter than that.

11 | Dave

November 19th, 2007 at 9:48 am

Would you ever vote for a candidate that came out and publicly said “I will outlaw abortion if I am elected president?”

I don’t think taking a stand against ruling families is much different than taking a stand against abortion or health care or gay rights or any other single issue we happen to feel strongly about.

It’s an issue I don’t think many people consider and I think they should.

12 | TDH

November 19th, 2007 at 10:44 am

As a matter of fact, yes I would vote for such a candidate if the sum total of their stances and beliefs was preferable to that of the opponent. Naturally, I would vote in primaries in the hope of preventing their nomination if there was someone better. You should do what you can to promote the success of “outsiders” in politics, and I would appreciate and applaud your efforts. But you haven’t done anything to defend your absurd stance that AFTER THE FACT of nomination, when it’s now down to a choice of who’s on the ballot, you wouldn’t vote for someone because of who they are related to. You can pretend it’s an intellectual stance, but I don’t think you can put together a consistent argument supporting that. I suspect you just don’t like Hillary and won’t vote for her. And frankly, that emotional argument bothers me much less than the flawed “reasoning” behind a question of who she married. Like I said, stop voting for men, or stop voting for white people, or non-Mormons, etc etc etc.

13 | Kang

November 19th, 2007 at 11:34 am

Man2: Well, I believe I’ll vote for a third-party candidate.
Kang: Go ahead, throw your vote away.

14 | Dave

November 19th, 2007 at 10:46 pm

Tom, so there are absolutely no single issues that would prevent you from voting for a particular candidate?

If someone says “I’m going to outlaw abortion when I am elected” you would need more proof to rule out that candidate?

15 | Scott

November 20th, 2007 at 8:41 pm

My wife doesn’t like Hillary Clinton because she believes she’s the spawn of evil. This really ticks her off because she has always held the belief that she herself is the spawn of evil. She doesn’t like the competition. ;-)

(dictated by 667, evil and then some)

16 | Scott

November 21st, 2007 at 8:36 pm

Benny Lava for President!

Everybody say it together! “The looney bun is fine, Benny Lava!”