World, Writing, Wealth discussion

19 views
World & Current Events > Have the Clintons lost their appeal?

Comments Showing 1-40 of 40 (40 new)    post a comment »
dateDown arrow    newest »

message 1: by Scout (new)

Scout (goodreadscomscout) | 5206 comments I think the Clintons are losing their appeal. Speaking engagements are poorly attended. In light of the Me Too movement, people are taking another look at Bill's affair with a young intern, who now says that she feels he took advantage of his office and the power it gave him over her. Yet Bill still seems more angry than repentant about his actions, as if he was the one wronged. The Clintons seem to be out of touch with the common man and blithely certain that they shouldn't be held accountable for their actions. People are also taking a hard look at the Clintons' avarice when it comes to speaking engagements, for which they received $240 million over 15 years. How can the average voter be expected to identify with people who live in such a rarefied environment? Average voters seem to be coming to their senses and realizing that the Clintons aren't their kind of people.

How do you feel about the Clintons? Do you think they have lost their appeal? Or maybe not. Could Hillary make a successful run for president in the next election?


message 2: by Philip (new)

Philip (phenweb) | 2925 comments On the avarice some of the electorate seemed to have no problem voting for a billionaire who promptly gave tax cuts to his rich friends.

On the Clintons - I am surprised that Hilary was ever chosen as a candidate. There were a whole bunch of other issues pre-dating Bill's presidency back to their law firm in Arkansas I seem to vaguely recall.

As for sex with an intern - I am still amazed he got away with it. Nevertheless he remains remarkably popular. They would both be more popular if Hilary had not run - they could have played the statemanship game.

None of this of course has anything to do with political policy which is a bigger issue for the Democrats. What policies will capture the imagination- at the moment its all about personalities


message 3: by Graeme (new)

Graeme Rodaughan | 7093 comments Hillary Clinton running for president in 2020 would be Donald Trump's dream come true.

Her popularity is concentrated in California, Florida and New England. As a consequence, she is deeply unable to win enough electoral college votes across enough states to take the presidency.

Simply the wrong candidate.


message 4: by Holly (new)

Holly (goldikova) They wore out their welcome a long time ago.

At Aretha Franklin's funeral Bill was perving on Arianna Grande in the grossest and most obvious way.

They've had their moment.......please, just take these people away.


message 5: by Nik (new)

Nik Krasno | 13112 comments William may still have some charm and charisma, but he's not eligible for another term and his spouse just doesn't seem to be the same mold..
However it'll be interesting to see a strong female presidential candidate in the States someday


message 6: by J.J. (new)

J.J. Mainor | 2108 comments Holly wrote: "They wore out their welcome a long time ago.

At Aretha Franklin's funeral Bill was perving on Arianna Grande in the grossest and most obvious way.

They've had their moment.......please, just ta..."

I remember one shot where it looked like he was having too much of a good time for a funeral.

To Scout: I was hearing somewhere that there's a greater than zero chance she'll run again. If she wants to, I think there are a lot of potential Democrats sizing up a run, so her chances of winning the primary fight are probably zero. Frankly, if the Democrats want to run a campaign based on moving the country forward, then they need to put up another young face like they did when they chose Obama. Someone like Biden might have a broad enough appeal to win back the White House, but symbolically, he represents a step back. Even if Trump manages to win re-election, the Republicans too need to find a younger face for the 2024 race.


message 7: by Matthew (new)

Matthew Williams (houseofwilliams) I would support her daughter's candidacy. She has some real gumption. I would also support the Bush daughters if they chose to run. Unlike their father, who wandered around in an alcohol daze during his adulthood, they cut their teeth helping people with HIV in developing nations. Maybe it's time for the next generation to take the lead.


message 8: by J.J. (new)

J.J. Mainor | 2108 comments The problem is that during the 2016 campaign, a lot of people expressed a tiredness for family dynasties...I don't know if the Trump years have quieted that, but if not, any one of those young women would have to overcome that stigma.

Not sure if you've seen it, or are a fan, but Al Gore's daughter, Kristen worked on Futurama as a writer. She's even in the commentary on one episode. Might be why Al Gore did frequent voicework on the show.

But yeah, it's definitely time to pass the torch...Trump is now the 4th babyboomer president. If we can't get that generation to step aside, us Gen Xers will end up like the Silent Generation where we never get a turn in the White House...we get passed over when the Millenials get an early turn... :D


message 9: by Matthew (new)

Matthew Williams (houseofwilliams) J.J. wrote: "The problem is that during the 2016 campaign, a lot of people expressed a tiredness for family dynasties...I don't know if the Trump years have quieted that, but if not, any one of those young wome..."

Dear God, we can't let that happen! We need to lay some groundwork, establish some kind of legacy for ourselves before they screw it all up! The Baby Boomers thought we were spoiled, lazy, entitled and cynical, well millenials are even worse! ;)


message 10: by Nik (last edited Dec 03, 2018 11:43PM) (new)

Nik Krasno | 13112 comments No worries, Vladimir won't ignore the wish of the people and will be the generation's savior -:)


message 11: by Matthew (last edited Dec 04, 2018 12:25PM) (new)

Matthew Williams (houseofwilliams) Glad you're smiling when you say that. If you weren't, I would seriously think GRs had been infiltrated by bots! :)


message 12: by Rita (new)

Rita Chapman | 152 comments I'm not sure they ever had much appeal! I'd love to see Michelle Obama run for office.


message 13: by J.J. (new)

J.J. Mainor | 2108 comments Rita wrote: "I'm not sure they ever had much appeal! I'd love to see Michelle Obama run for office."

This might seem funny coming from me, but she is the perfect candidate for the Democrats. She has no scandals from her past that opponents can use. Any problems/issues/scandals the Republicans want to raise from her husband's term won't stick to her since she wasn't part of the administration. Her popularity is sky high, even higher than her husbands. An opponent might be able to play the "inexperience" card that Clinton tried to play on Trump, but she would have her husband behind her to guide her when she really needed the help. Besides that, a good cabinet could help around any weakness she might have in the role. The only thing that could go against her are any specific policies she would put forward, and all that comes down to is whether or not the voters agree or disagree with her stance.

Really though, if it is to be considered, I would say she has to run right for the White House. If the Party tries to push her into a lesser role in preparation, then she ends up with a political record an opponent could run against. Then people might look at her record and ask themselves if that is the kind of leader they want. Part of Barrack's victory was due to the fact he didn't have a long legislative record for McCain to pick apart in 2008. That's the way Michelle needs to go if she ever decides/if the Dems can convince her to do it.


message 14: by J.J. (new)

J.J. Mainor | 2108 comments Matthew wrote: "J.J. wrote: "The problem is that during the 2016 campaign, a lot of people expressed a tiredness for family dynasties...I don't know if the Trump years have quieted that, but if not, any one of tho..."

Problem is, every time a Gen Xer gets somewhere in their career, they decide to step down "to spend more time with the family." I was rooting for Paul Ryan just because he was the highest ranking Gen Xer in the government, then he pulled that going into this election.

At least with Millenials, when they do corrupt stuff in the government, they're stupid enough to post it all over social media, making it easy to catch and prosecute...As more and more end up in Congress, you'll start hearing complaints that older politicians get to hide behind plausible deniability...when really the older politicians don't advertise their crimes all over the internet...


message 15: by Graeme (new)

Graeme Rodaughan | 7093 comments Hi all, M Obama would make an intriguing presidential candidate.


message 16: by Matthew (new)

Matthew Williams (houseofwilliams) J.J. wrote: "Matthew wrote: "J.J. wrote: "The problem is that during the 2016 campaign, a lot of people expressed a tiredness for family dynasties...I don't know if the Trump years have quieted that, but if not..."

Good point. They will be the easiest generation of politicians to nail for something stupid. Remember Anthony Weiner? Imagine what it would be like if he knew how to use platforms other than Twitter!


message 17: by Nik (new)

Nik Krasno | 13112 comments Had to delete Matthew's post # 13 due to:
"3.Profanity, including approximations with asterisks, and/or derogatory language.
The Goodreads rules must also be followed: https://www.goodreads.com/about/terms"
An extract from our rules.
Hate to do it, but...
Matthew, u r welcome to reinstate the very same post after omitting the swear word


message 18: by Matthew (new)

Matthew Williams (houseofwilliams) Dangit, I was worried about that. As I added the asterix, I wondered of that was enough. Wish I could remember what I said :)


message 19: by Nik (new)

Nik Krasno | 13112 comments Matthew wrote: "Dangit, I was worried about that. As I added the asterix, I wondered of that was enough. Wish I could remember what I said :)"

You were excited about Rita suggesting Michelle Obama and imagined how upset it would make GOP and alt-right-:)


message 20: by J.J. (new)

J.J. Mainor | 2108 comments Matthew wrote: "J.J. wrote: "Matthew wrote: "J.J. wrote: "The problem is that during the 2016 campaign, a lot of people expressed a tiredness for family dynasties...I don't know if the Trump years have quieted tha..."

We already had one Millenial House member a few years ago who was charged with violating campaign financing because he used funds to pay for vacations...idiot took pictures and everything and posted them to Instagram.


message 21: by J.J. (new)

J.J. Mainor | 2108 comments Nik wrote: "Had to delete Matthew's post # 13 due to:
"3.Profanity, including approximations with asterisks, and/or derogatory language.
The Goodreads rules must also be followed: https://www.goodreads.com/abo..."

Matthew, invoke arbitration! :D


message 22: by Scout (new)

Scout (goodreadscomscout) | 5206 comments If you've read what Michelle Obama has said through the years, you'll know that she has no interest in politics. She wasn't all that keen on her husband running for President. She's definitely not up for running for public office.

I don't see anyone here defending the Clintons, which gives me hope. I think Biden would have had a chance of winning in the last election against Trump, but I'm not sure he would have that good a chance next time around. I have no idea who the Democrats might run in the next election, someone who could win. Any ideas?


message 23: by Graeme (new)

Graeme Rodaughan | 7093 comments I think the democrats will find it difficult to find someone who will work well as a presidential candidate across enough states to make a difference.

They also need to work on policies and messaging to reach those they have lost.

Time will tell. 2020 is not far away.


message 24: by Matthew (new)

Matthew Williams (houseofwilliams) Scout wrote: "If you've read what Michelle Obama has said through the years, you'll know that she has no interest in politics. She wasn't all that keen on her husband running for President. She's definitely not ..."

I believe we were kidding around, Scout. And its futile to defend the Clintons at this point, thanks to the way their brand has been so toxified over the years. With the exception of Obama, I've never seen so much irrational hatred directed at a family.


message 25: by Scout (new)

Scout (goodreadscomscout) | 5206 comments I completely missed that people were kidding about Michelle Obama running for president. As far as the Clinton brand being toxified over the years, it sounds like you're saying that they didn't deserve it based on their actions. I recently watched a program about Clinton's affair with Monica, and there were plenty of clips of Bill lying outright under oath. Bill, a 49-year-old president, abused his power of office and had sex with a 22-year-old intern and then threw her under the bus. He then went on to earn millions for speaking engagements and became a respected part of the Democratic establishment, while Monica's reputation was ruined. Great guy. And Hillary revealed her true character during the Benghazi hearings. She was angry and indignant that her actions (or lack thereof), which resulted in the deaths of American citizens, were being questioned. She said that she took responsibility for what happened, while at the same time making it clear that she felt she hadn't done anything wrong. What a crock. I don't see how finding these two despicable is in any way irrational.


message 26: by Nik (new)

Nik Krasno | 13112 comments From man's perspective, a forty-niner having consensual relation with 22 years old (if that's the case) probably doesn't look as despicable-:) Kennedy causing an intern (if that's the case again) to 'entertain' others looks far worse.
Maybe even Patraeus doesn't look hopeless


message 27: by Scout (new)

Scout (goodreadscomscout) | 5206 comments Yeah, well, Nik. A sixty-year-old guy friend of mine is dating a 30-year-old, and that's fine with me if he's happy. Clinton was a whole different story, as you know.


message 28: by Dave (new)

Dave Edlund (dedlund) | 13 comments Nik wrote: "From man's perspective, a forty-niner having consensual relation with 22 years old (if that's the case) probably doesn't look as despicable-:) Kennedy causing an intern (if that's the case again) t..."
I think you totally miss the point when focusing on age and age difference--the PROBLEM is abuse of power. Plus, those nasty little details of obstructing justice, witness tampering, and lying under oath.
The fact that every Democrat Senator voted in the Clinton impeachment trial to over look those "failings" (some of which are indisputable) and then to now call out members of the opposite party for lesser offenses signals to me that the notions of truth and justice really have no place in Congress.


message 29: by Dave (new)

Dave Edlund (dedlund) | 13 comments To the original question of this post, I sincerely hope the Clintons are done and over. The Democratic Party would be wise to separate itself from Hillary and Bill. There simply is not enough room here to list all the shady and outright illegal and offensive actions from both persons over their 2+ decades in Washington.

The Dems and Republicans need to stop blaming the other guy for misdeeds conducted by both. Any politician who thinks the public is too stupid to recognize their hypocrisy should have a short political career. Sadly, this happens infrequently.

Would love to see centrist, younger, female, multiracial candidates. And I'll continue my practice of voting against all incumbents until they start earning my vote through actions that place America and her citizens as top priority.


message 30: by Graeme (new)

Graeme Rodaughan | 7093 comments Dave wrote: "To the original question of this post, I sincerely hope the Clintons are done and over. The Democratic Party would be wise to separate itself from Hillary and Bill. There simply is not enough room ..."

Term limits?


message 31: by J.J. (new)

J.J. Mainor | 2108 comments Dave wrote: "To the original question of this post, I sincerely hope the Clintons are done and over. The Democratic Party would be wise to separate itself from Hillary and Bill. There simply is not enough room ..."

With more people registering as unaffiliated, usually falling somewhere in the middle of the political spectrum, I'm actually shocked, when I think about it, that a Centrist Party hasn't begun to form. When we talk about 3rd Party candidates or Independent candidates, they're either just unaffiliated Repubs/Dems (like the ones we have in Congress now), or they're further right or left than our main parties (Libertarian and Green from 2016).

I wonder if we could have a truly centrist party, or if the party would eventually fight over whether or not to go center-right or center-left...


message 32: by Nik (new)

Nik Krasno | 13112 comments Dave wrote: "I think you totally miss the point when focusing on age and age difference--the PROBLEM is abuse of power. Plus, those nasty little details of obstructing justice, witness tampering, and lying under oath....."

I know. I was specifically referring to the age difference and how Kennedy's behavior looked worse. Bill was acquitted and some republicans, if I remember correctly, voted not guilty too. My personal impression - the perjury looked solid. Didn't believe the chap on few occasions, incl. Monica and the notorious experimenting with marijuana 'without inhaling it'. Come on now.. Yet, he's gone through the process and came out acquitted. That's how I view him.


message 33: by Graeme (new)

Graeme Rodaughan | 7093 comments J.J. wrote: "I wonder if we could have a truly centrist party, or if the party would eventually fight over whether or not to go center-right or center-left... t..."

Hi J.J. That could be a distinct possibility - but someone needs to stand up and own the middle, and get that message out there.

REF: Miami Herald (Exhausted Majority): https://www.miamiherald.com/news/nati...

REF: PRN News Wire: https://www.prnewswire.com/news-relea...

REF: More In Common: (Hidden Tribes): https://www.moreincommon.com/publicat...

The people are there.


message 34: by Anita (new)

Anita (neet413) | 78 comments Matthew wrote: "Scout wrote: "If you've read what Michelle Obama has said through the years, you'll know that she has no interest in politics. She wasn't all that keen on her husband running for President. She's d..."


"Irrational hatred"? Surely you jest. Watch Clinton Cash, research the Clinton Body Count.


message 35: by Scout (new)

Scout (goodreadscomscout) | 5206 comments Do you think that the middle will ever have enough votes to matter? A centrist party would still have to take a stand on abortion, immigration, social programs, military spending. How would they attract voters? I'd be open to considering it, if they have good ideas.


message 36: by Ian (new)

Ian Miller | 9251 comments The problem for a centrist party is it seems to think that means taking the middle position on everything, which means their leader tends to emulate Caspar Milquetoast, taking no firm position on anything. There is no reason a centrist party cannot take strong stands for what it believes in, but the problem lies in what does it believe in? If it is, just be in the middle, it bores everyone.


message 37: by J.J. (new)

J.J. Mainor | 2108 comments If I remember correctly from this last election, NC has more unaffiliated voters than registered Republicans. I think with the polarization of the parties, the unaffiliated represent the same portion of the population nation wide as each of the 2 Parties represent.

I think as far as policies go, they'd have to be pretty flexible, and they'd likely adopt a middle-of-the road attitude towards issues.

I doubt abortion would matter as an issue...it only seems to be an issue for the Republicans with the Democrats taking a stance only in defense...

I would think immigration policy would be something like supporting legal immigration, providing a path for legalization (not necessarily citizenship) for those here illegally.

As far as social programs, I would imagine you'd want to keep them in place, but dial them back or look for ways to get able-bodied people off of them and into the workforce. Maybe you'd want to invest more in education and put forth a stronger criminal justice reform platform in order to eliminate unnecessary barricades to meaningful work. Maybe a child support program for single mothers might be more worthwhile than blank cash payments...In general, I'd expect a centrist party to be for social programs, but in a fiscally responsible way.

They'd have to support military spending and international missions, but I would expect them to take a hard look at the budgets. The military is just like any other department of the government - they're necessary, but they don't deserve a blank check just because.

I think they'd actually be serious about the slogans tossed around now. When the Republicans talk about "common sense business regulations," they mean it as "total deregulation." I would expect a centrist party to support regulation that it keeps people safe, while opposing regulation when it really does become an industry-killer.

A centrist party would certainly support climate-change policy, but I would expect them to take a hard look at what policies we enact so that we're spending our money and resources in a meaningful way, and not just throwing money at the latest idea without any research and insight. They would probably be for the Paris Accords, but I would hope they take a look at it first to make sure we're getting a max return on our investment.

I would want to see a serious attempt to tackle rising drug prices. I would expect actual policy on the growing trend of mental illness. I think they would support limited gun control measures, ie. universal background checks.

I think most important, they have to listen to their constituents and show a willingness to shift according to what the voters expect at any given moment...either that, or they have to be excellent at explaining why a specific path, goal or platform is good for the country...then again, the Republicans had a member in the State Legislature here in NC who was excellent at explaining policy, and he was the only Republican to lose his seat at the state level...


message 38: by Scout (new)

Scout (goodreadscomscout) | 5206 comments Looks like a common-sense approach, which would be good, but they'd still have to deal with entrenched liberals and conservatives in Congress, which is a problem that seems insurmountable these days.

I do think abortion is a bigger voting issue than you realize. I live in a conservative part of the country, and it's a big issue here, as well as for Catholics nationwide. Personally, I don't think it should be a political issue at all, but the Supreme Court decision on Roe v. Wade has made it political, so pro-lifers will vote Republican in hopes of changing the composition of the Court.

I'd definitely be for a more middle-of-the-road approach that you've presented here. Actually doing some thinking about some of our problems instead of thoughtlessly jumping on a bandwagon.


message 39: by Scout (new)

Scout (goodreadscomscout) | 5206 comments For the first time in 17 years, Hillary Clinton is not the most admired woman in Gallup's national poll.

Moving to the third spot, the former secretary of state and 2016 Democratic presidential candidate has been surpassed by another former first lady, Michelle Obama, and Oprah Winfrey. She is tied with current first lady Melania Trump.


message 40: by J.J. (new)

J.J. Mainor | 2108 comments Scout wrote: "Looks like a common-sense approach, which would be good, but they'd still have to deal with entrenched liberals and conservatives in Congress, which is a problem that seems insurmountable these day..."

All you'd have to do is grab enough seats to keep either party from getting an outright majority. You'd end up with a situation like you see in these parliamentary countries where the party with the largest bloc has to pander to that small bloc just to secure the seats they need to run the body.

So if you take the incoming Congress, suppose the Democrats had more seats than Republicans, but they fell short of 50% because a Centrist Party captured, say, 30 seats. Naturally, Nancy Pelosi wants to be Speaker since her Party has the most seats, but if the Centrist Party decides to thrown their votes behind the Republican candidate for Speaker, she's out of luck. That means, she has to give those 30 Representatives serious attention if she wants the job. You would have both parties promising prime committee assignments, votes on legislation important to them, etc. It would be similar to how the Tea Party/Freedom Caucus has been holding the Republican Party hostage at times. If the Black Caucus was more willing to work with Republicans, they might have been able to squeeze concessions out of both Parties since the Democrats wouldn't have been able to take them for granted. If you can keep any party from winning a clear majority, the minority can get more of a voice in the government...


back to top