HILLARY CLINTON chose to set aside her husband's betrayal and get on with her life. She had gained experience by working to get him into the Arkansas governor's mansion, then into The White House. Then she worked for herself, motivated to help others. She is an admirable role model.
I have always admired Hillary Clinton - her intelligence, her guts and her years of public service. I disapprove strongly with her comments about Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Dianne Feinstein. You have to know in life when to fold ‘em. If this party wants to attract young voters, the party needs to wake up now to the fact that some people need help walking off the stage so the younger generation sees that this is a party worth trusting to do the right thing and make room for them to be leaders.
A really excellent conversation with one of the most remarkable women of our time. But Jonathan, coach your daughter Charlotte to grow up a little more and keep her accomplishments under control when the answers she gets are more profound than the question. Her comment, "Hillary, 75, was warm and engaging, but she bristled when Charlotte, 33, the author of a book on young politicians changing the country, asked her about why some Democrats don’t know when it’s time to get off the stage. " Hillary's answer was better than the questioner's comment.
wow. beautiful conversation in the space between 33 and 75. you must be proud of your daughter. happy for you and grateful for this masterfully done interview.
I will point out that the "graybeards" are entitled to hang onto anything they wish, and it is up to the back-benchers to AGGRESSIVELY push them out of the way. No one should be expected to surrender power to anyone. "Politics" demands that challengers should step up and do their duty to insinuate themselves into the fray. And let the chips fall where they may.
By making excuses for an OBVIOUSLY impaired Feinstein, whose statist Senate voting record is appalling, Ms. Clinton chooses to ignore those obvious impairments and sustains the problem.
"Advise & consent" is pure politics and should be recognized as such.
Try to imagine how sad and unforgiving our world would be without the optimism of Hillary Clinton. This conversation shows how much greatness the country forfeited on the day she lost a presidential election to a goon. She has always understood the hardest challenges facing every facet of American life, and she has always met those challenges with grit and determination. Thank you, Charlotte, for helping us hear her voice.
Amazing to read such adulation for and reflection from a powerful politician whose judgment has been horrendous on everything from foreign policy to immigration to gay marriage to health care. This is a woman who said she ascribed to Henry "The Butcher" Kissinger's foreign policy, who as Secretary of State sold a record number of weapons to what her State Department classified as terrorist nations (while her foundation received millions in donations from these countries), lied against Medicare for All during the 2016 campaign with the help of her daughter, told lie after lie like her nemesis Trump, called Nancy Reagan one of the great contributors to the AIDS movement, and championed wars that she knew were fake to name a tiny fraction of her grievous errors. Liberals need to learn that one could be "better than Trump" and still push our country into a downward spiral.
One of the most insightful and thoughtful interviews of Hillary Clinton that I have read. Charlotte Alter did a fantastic job in giving informative questions. Bravo!
Reading through Ms. Clinton's interview reveals why she is (I think) clueless about her own shortcomings and those of the Democrat "Old Guard" which Ms. Alter, to her credit, tried to address: that it is, indeed, time for the graybeards (like Clinton) to get the Hell out of the way!
Clinton's comments about Supreme Court appointments and the DOBBS decision are revealing. A President does NOT have a "right" to make appointments for judicial vacancies. He has the qualified POWER to nominate candidates and the US Senate has the qualified POWER to apply POLITICAL review to those nominations. So the whole nomination/confirmation process is legitimately POLITICAL. It may well be the last time that a judicial candidate is subjected to a political examination process, as they all should be. Democrats better get a clue. The Republicans well understand the POLITICAL nature of such matters and have done a brilliant job of achieving their goals, but Democrats seem to think it is all about everything BUT "politics."
The 6-person majority that decided DOBBS was astutely political in its action. As Clinton said, that is why they were put on the Supreme Court and why most Democrat nominations have been "canned." It's past time for Democrats to learn to play "hardball" again and quit whining about "noble" alternatives to raw politics.
I can barely believe that one of the smartest people to ever serve in the US Senate (Al Franken) was run off for failure to measure up to some absurd notion of propriety among self-righteous Dems.
Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 Advice and Consent:
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to...appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, ...
Maybe it’s just me, but I think you’re splitting hairs
& obsessing over semantics to further your position re ‘politics’ when you wrote, “A President does NOT have a "right" to make appointments for judicial vacancies. He has the qualified POWER to nominate candidates and the US Senate has the qualified POWER to apply POLITICAL review to those nominations.”
A “qualified power’ is also a “right” to most people, but that’s neither here, nor there. You seem to be saying political power is inherently and legitimately partisan and although republicans recognize that, Dems do not.
What you’re implying is that Dems will lose whatever political argument they’re having if they aren’t sufficiently partisan about it. What republicans have
done in order to “win” is to engage from a position of extreme partisan politics. Yes, the Dobbs decision is rooted in extreme political partisanship and the GOP
has, so far, been able to achieve some of their goals by being politically extreme.
But being politically extreme in all things will eventually backfire. Responsible adults recognize the key to moving forward for the good of all is
compromise. Republicans have been somewhat successful not just by being extreme, but by being extreme when it wasn’t expected.
Same for the Dobbs decision. It was extreme and unexpected because it ignored precedent, a legal concept adhered to by nearly 100% of previous Supreme Court Justices. Extremely partisan republicans in Congress and their supporters are confusing extreme partisanship with extreme willfulness--stubborn adherence to an opinion, purpose, or course of action in spite of reason and logic. The majority of Americans don’t want that.
Although Congress had encountered extreme behavior from time to time prior to Trump’s occupation of the White House, he modeled unrelenting and even bizarrely irrational willfulness
to a degree never before seen in post-WWII politics.
Extreme partisan politics is exhausting & inefficient,
yet you recommend it as a way to regain power. The
problem with that is if both sides engage in that way over every little thing it doesn’t take care of the
nation’s business, it divides us.
Multiple extreme positions on both sides destabilizes us as a nation, which is exactly what both Trump & Putin want because it allows them to further their own personal agendas--the only agendas of any importance to Trump.
Appointments Clause:
Article II, Section 2, clause 2 grants the President the power to “appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States [except those whose positions are not otherwise already provided for in the Constitution.]
HILLARY CLINTON chose to set aside her husband's betrayal and get on with her life. She had gained experience by working to get him into the Arkansas governor's mansion, then into The White House. Then she worked for herself, motivated to help others. She is an admirable role model.
I have always admired Hillary Clinton - her intelligence, her guts and her years of public service. I disapprove strongly with her comments about Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Dianne Feinstein. You have to know in life when to fold ‘em. If this party wants to attract young voters, the party needs to wake up now to the fact that some people need help walking off the stage so the younger generation sees that this is a party worth trusting to do the right thing and make room for them to be leaders.
A really excellent conversation with one of the most remarkable women of our time. But Jonathan, coach your daughter Charlotte to grow up a little more and keep her accomplishments under control when the answers she gets are more profound than the question. Her comment, "Hillary, 75, was warm and engaging, but she bristled when Charlotte, 33, the author of a book on young politicians changing the country, asked her about why some Democrats don’t know when it’s time to get off the stage. " Hillary's answer was better than the questioner's comment.
wow. beautiful conversation in the space between 33 and 75. you must be proud of your daughter. happy for you and grateful for this masterfully done interview.
I will point out that the "graybeards" are entitled to hang onto anything they wish, and it is up to the back-benchers to AGGRESSIVELY push them out of the way. No one should be expected to surrender power to anyone. "Politics" demands that challengers should step up and do their duty to insinuate themselves into the fray. And let the chips fall where they may.
By making excuses for an OBVIOUSLY impaired Feinstein, whose statist Senate voting record is appalling, Ms. Clinton chooses to ignore those obvious impairments and sustains the problem.
"Advise & consent" is pure politics and should be recognized as such.
H. Watkins Ellerson
A POWER is NOT a RIGHT.
HWE
Hillary Clinton has been my hero(ine) for 40+ years. She is a remarkable woman, leader, and friend.
If only, if only, 2016 had been different…..❤️
Try to imagine how sad and unforgiving our world would be without the optimism of Hillary Clinton. This conversation shows how much greatness the country forfeited on the day she lost a presidential election to a goon. She has always understood the hardest challenges facing every facet of American life, and she has always met those challenges with grit and determination. Thank you, Charlotte, for helping us hear her voice.
Amazing to read such adulation for and reflection from a powerful politician whose judgment has been horrendous on everything from foreign policy to immigration to gay marriage to health care. This is a woman who said she ascribed to Henry "The Butcher" Kissinger's foreign policy, who as Secretary of State sold a record number of weapons to what her State Department classified as terrorist nations (while her foundation received millions in donations from these countries), lied against Medicare for All during the 2016 campaign with the help of her daughter, told lie after lie like her nemesis Trump, called Nancy Reagan one of the great contributors to the AIDS movement, and championed wars that she knew were fake to name a tiny fraction of her grievous errors. Liberals need to learn that one could be "better than Trump" and still push our country into a downward spiral.
One of the most insightful and thoughtful interviews of Hillary Clinton that I have read. Charlotte Alter did a fantastic job in giving informative questions. Bravo!
Reading through Ms. Clinton's interview reveals why she is (I think) clueless about her own shortcomings and those of the Democrat "Old Guard" which Ms. Alter, to her credit, tried to address: that it is, indeed, time for the graybeards (like Clinton) to get the Hell out of the way!
Clinton's comments about Supreme Court appointments and the DOBBS decision are revealing. A President does NOT have a "right" to make appointments for judicial vacancies. He has the qualified POWER to nominate candidates and the US Senate has the qualified POWER to apply POLITICAL review to those nominations. So the whole nomination/confirmation process is legitimately POLITICAL. It may well be the last time that a judicial candidate is subjected to a political examination process, as they all should be. Democrats better get a clue. The Republicans well understand the POLITICAL nature of such matters and have done a brilliant job of achieving their goals, but Democrats seem to think it is all about everything BUT "politics."
The 6-person majority that decided DOBBS was astutely political in its action. As Clinton said, that is why they were put on the Supreme Court and why most Democrat nominations have been "canned." It's past time for Democrats to learn to play "hardball" again and quit whining about "noble" alternatives to raw politics.
I can barely believe that one of the smartest people to ever serve in the US Senate (Al Franken) was run off for failure to measure up to some absurd notion of propriety among self-righteous Dems.
H. Watkins Ellerson
PO Box 90
Hadensville, VA 23067
Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 Advice and Consent:
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to...appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, ...
Maybe it’s just me, but I think you’re splitting hairs
& obsessing over semantics to further your position re ‘politics’ when you wrote, “A President does NOT have a "right" to make appointments for judicial vacancies. He has the qualified POWER to nominate candidates and the US Senate has the qualified POWER to apply POLITICAL review to those nominations.”
A “qualified power’ is also a “right” to most people, but that’s neither here, nor there. You seem to be saying political power is inherently and legitimately partisan and although republicans recognize that, Dems do not.
What you’re implying is that Dems will lose whatever political argument they’re having if they aren’t sufficiently partisan about it. What republicans have
done in order to “win” is to engage from a position of extreme partisan politics. Yes, the Dobbs decision is rooted in extreme political partisanship and the GOP
has, so far, been able to achieve some of their goals by being politically extreme.
But being politically extreme in all things will eventually backfire. Responsible adults recognize the key to moving forward for the good of all is
compromise. Republicans have been somewhat successful not just by being extreme, but by being extreme when it wasn’t expected.
Same for the Dobbs decision. It was extreme and unexpected because it ignored precedent, a legal concept adhered to by nearly 100% of previous Supreme Court Justices. Extremely partisan republicans in Congress and their supporters are confusing extreme partisanship with extreme willfulness--stubborn adherence to an opinion, purpose, or course of action in spite of reason and logic. The majority of Americans don’t want that.
Although Congress had encountered extreme behavior from time to time prior to Trump’s occupation of the White House, he modeled unrelenting and even bizarrely irrational willfulness
to a degree never before seen in post-WWII politics.
Extreme partisan politics is exhausting & inefficient,
yet you recommend it as a way to regain power. The
problem with that is if both sides engage in that way over every little thing it doesn’t take care of the
nation’s business, it divides us.
Multiple extreme positions on both sides destabilizes us as a nation, which is exactly what both Trump & Putin want because it allows them to further their own personal agendas--the only agendas of any importance to Trump.
Appointments Clause:
Article II, Section 2, clause 2 grants the President the power to “appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States [except those whose positions are not otherwise already provided for in the Constitution.]
A relief to see critical thinking that calls out Democrats from the politically expedient corporate servants that they are.
Excellent interview!!
What a terrific interview!