LawTalkers  

Go Back   LawTalkers

» Site Navigation
 > FAQ
» Online Users: 1,036
0 members and 1,036 guests
No Members online
Most users ever online was 9,654, 05-18-2025 at 04:16 AM.
View Single Post
Old 11-21-2017, 10:47 AM   #3059
sebastian_dangerfield
Moderator
 
sebastian_dangerfield's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Monty Capuletti's gazebo
Posts: 26,231
Re: Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy View Post
I really don't like the lumping of the "Clintons" together. Yes, they have supported each other, which should not surprise anyone. But I like Hill a hell of a lot more than Bill.

It's not hard to compare administrations. In terms of corruption in office, Bill's was likely better than the one that came before and the one that came after, but not at all on par with Obama, who probably ran the most honest administration we'll see in our lifetimes. The lack of corruption was astonishing. And Hill was part of that.

Yes, it's a matter of degree, almost always is, and God save us from those who believe they are pure. But overall, frankly, even Bill is just not on the scale of a Lyndon Johnson or Richard Nixon, and certainly very very very very far from what we have now. And Hill, despite being pilloried constantly, is as close to Obama levels of purity as you are likely to see.
I agree Bill wasn't as bad as LBJ or Nixon. Or Bush II (our worst President, based on his lying blunder into Iraq). And from what I've heard about HRC, the public and private person are, sadly, much different. In that regard, I think she's a bit of a tragic figure. Her meanest critics can't dispute that she was eminently qualified and would have been a highly competent leader. I think her problem was she was a technician, a chess player... She was a strategist first, hardened by years of attacks. Where Obama could overcome with soaring rhetoric, she was worried about how her words would be parsed.

But the point of my harsh rhetoric wasn't to uniquely assail HRC or Bubba. The point was more a recognition of the degradation of our democracy. I don't think either of us, or anyone here, is arguing about whether a politician is sleazy. We assume that's the case. The wise and weary of us would say that's how it's always been, going to back to the establishment of Ur in Mesopotamia. "There are always appalling compromises to be made..." Of course.

But maybe it's gone too far? Maybe the pragmatism and cynicism (of which I'm enormously guilty, and are most here) aren't wise anymore? Maybe we've reached a moment where the solutions lie outside traditional politics and markets?
__________________
All is for the best in the best of all possible worlds.

Last edited by sebastian_dangerfield; 11-21-2017 at 10:53 AM..
sebastian_dangerfield is offline  
 
Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.0.1

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:05 PM.