Jim Henley knows how to upset me. In It Takes a Pillage he asks one of tough questions about Hillary Clinton (the other one would be about K Street, I think).
Go visit: it's not long, and I'll wait.
Now, what's the answer?
A Personal Blog
by Michael Froomkin
Laurie Silvers & Mitchell Rubenstein Distinguished Professor of Law
University of Miami School of Law
My Publications | e-mail
All opinions on this blog are those of the author(s) and not their employer(s) unelss otherwise specified.
Who Reads Discourse.net?
Readers describe themselves.
Please join in.Reader Map
Recent Comments
- Brooks Fudenberg on I Voted
- Jermaine Chad Ingram on Some Thoughts about the Downballot (Voters’ Guide Part II: Judicial Retention Elections)
- C.E. Petit on I Voted
- Jane Moscowitz on I Voted
- Ally Figueroa on Some Thoughts about the Downballot (Voters’ Guide Part II: Judicial Retention Elections)
Subscribe to Blog via Email
Join 52 other subscribers
All this superficial discussion is maddening.
Those of you who haven’t studied the truth about what happened on 9/11 are wasting your time and our time with this silly hooey.
Bill and Hillary Clinton are both participating in the the cover-up of 9/11, which disqualifies both of them from consideration for any official post.
Good reason to pick HRC as 5th or 6th among the Democratic contenders, but still above ANY of the Republicans. What makes an interesting exercise is to rank the priorities for a new regime, er administration, to pursue: Honest elections, change institutions so that this abuse of power doesn’t happen again (particularly the judiciary), end the occupation, national health care (preferably single payer), fair elections (e.g. public financing), prosecution of war crimes, port security, progressive taxation, domestic investment …
Now think how each candidate would act on those. Edwards and Obama would do much better than HRC. You can say she doesn’t have the temperament for the office but, Jeebus, you have to figure you’d get much more of democracy from HRC than GWB – get real. I think this is more rhetoric and style than deep philosophical objection to democratic governance. Congress can be very inept and it’s oversight functions corrupted (Congress in the ’90s) – the effect is not quite as profound as when it happens in the executive simultaneously (2002-2006). The right wing noise machine wouldn’t give HRC much wiggle room. So it is not a concern for her administration, it is a big concern for precedent and the evolution of institutions.