Hatch, wrote:
Michelle Obama could easily get the democratic nomination if she wanted it
That would be banana republic
That would be banana republic
202(2)5 - dems in disarray thread
That would be banana republic
hutch wrote:you are not wrong, thankfully she knows that too and it won’t happenHatch, wrote:
Michelle Obama could easily get the democratic nomination if she wanted it
That would be banana republic
But she really knows how to get Dems to eat out of her hand
Hatch, wrote:hutch wrote:you are not wrong, thankfully she knows that too and it won’t happenHatch, wrote:
Michelle Obama could easily get the democratic nomination if she wanted it
That would be banana republic
But she really knows how to get Dems to eat out of her hand
Why is Michelle somehow worse than a Bush Jr. or a Clinton, or an Adams?
gavroche wrote:Hatch, wrote:hutch wrote:you are not wrong, thankfully she knows that too and it won’t happenHatch, wrote:
Michelle Obama could easily get the democratic nomination if she wanted it
That would be banana republic
But she really knows how to get Dems to eat out of her hand
Why is Michelle somehow worse than a Bush Jr. or a Clinton, or an Adams?
I can’t tell if this is a real question? I hope not.
gavroche wrote:Im going to take this question at face value and instead of assuming you’re trolling that you’re just ignorant. Let’s review:Hatch, wrote:hutch wrote:you are not wrong, thankfully she knows that too and it won’t happenHatch, wrote:
Michelle Obama could easily get the democratic nomination if she wanted it
That would be banana republic
But she really knows how to get Dems to eat out of her hand
Why is Michelle somehow worse than a Bush Jr. or a Clinton, or an Adams?
W. Bush was the former governor of one of the largest states in the country.
H. Clinton had been a US Senator and Secretary of State.
Q. Adams had been a Senator, a congressman for close to two decades, and Secretary of State for 8.
None of them went from “never holding major office” to the Presidency merely off nepotism. If Michelle wants to run for a lower office with aspirations of being President someday (which she doesn’t) then great.
Like Mrs. Obama today, Mr. Trump never held public office prior to running for president and ran based on ‘personality’
This is actually super interesting and something I don’t recall being raised when Trump was initially the candidate - the only other person ever to be president without either previously holding elected office OR being a General/War Hero was Herbert Hoover.
This is actually super interesting and something I don’t recall being raised when Trump was initially the candidate - the only other person ever to be president without either previously holding elected office OR being a General/War Hero was Herbert Hoover.
Isn't the problem the nepotism? I don't see how it is a bigger threat to democracy if someone builds their entire career upon nepotism then it is if they use it to go straight to the Presidency.
I would say she has transcended nepotism at this point and is a personality/celebrity/character in her own right, on a national level. I think she is viewed and judged as ‘Michelle Obama’ not ‘Barack Obama’s wife’.
She could win a Senate race easily. Why go through the motions?
She could win a Senate race easily. Why go through the motions?
Mobius wrote:
Like Mrs. Obama today, Mr. Trump never held public office prior to running for president and ran based on ‘personality’
And he was literally either the worst or 2nd worst President of all time. You're making my point.
gavroche wrote:There is a difference between "does this person have the relevant experience to do the job of President well" – which your three examples did and Michelle Obama does not – and asking esoterically if those three people should have ever been given the chance to acquire said experience. I am speaking to the first question.
Isn't the problem the nepotism? I don't see how it is a bigger threat to democracy if someone builds their entire career upon nepotism then it is if they use it to go straight to the Presidency.
Mobius wrote:Strong disagree with your first paragraph. As to why "go through the motions" – uh, because the Presidency shouldn't be an entry-level position? Because having first hand experience at accomplishing things within government is helpful for the populace to see how you would do as an executive.
I would say she has transcended nepotism at this point and is a personality/celebrity/character in her own right, on a national level. I think she is viewed and judged as ‘Michelle Obama’ not ‘Barack Obama’s wife’.
She could win a Senate race easily. Why go through the motions?
We don't give hotshot MBA grads F100 CEO seats because time spent learning and succeeding in D and V-level roles within company is inessential "going through the motions." Why would we do this for the most important job in the world?
Julian, wrote:Mobius wrote:
Like Mrs. Obama today, Mr. Trump never held public office prior to running for president and ran based on ‘personality’
And he was literally either the worst or 2nd worst President of all time. You're making my point.gavroche wrote:There is a difference between "does this person have the relevant experience to do the job of President well" – which your three examples did and Michelle Obama does not – and asking esoterically if those three people should have ever been given the chance to acquire said experience. I am speaking to the first question.
Isn't the problem the nepotism? I don't see how it is a bigger threat to democracy if someone builds their entire career upon nepotism then it is if they use it to go straight to the Presidency.Mobius wrote:Strong disagree with your first paragraph. As to why "go through the motions" – uh, because the Presidency shouldn't be an entry-level position? Because having first hand experience at accomplishing things within government is helpful for the populace to see how you would do as an executive.
I would say she has transcended nepotism at this point and is a personality/celebrity/character in her own right, on a national level. I think she is viewed and judged as ‘Michelle Obama’ not ‘Barack Obama’s wife’.
She could win a Senate race easily. Why go through the motions?
We don't give hotshot MBA grads F100 CEO seats because time spent learning and succeeding in D and V-level roles within company is inessential "going through the motions." Why would we do this for the most important job in the world?
I'll conceed that she likely doesn't have the experience necessary to do the job well. I don't really know what experience prepares someone to do the job though. I think you can make a strong argument that a CEO like Rex Tillerman probably has developed more of the skills then a Senator actually has. Trump managed to convince people that just faking having those skills for decades made him qualified. Of course, that's why lots of people believe Governors are better qualified that legislators like a Seantor. I'm not pining for Michelle (or Oprah), or whoever.
It was the notion that her winning would make the U.S. a "banana Republic" that I was trying to unpack. To my mind that is a step further than just, you know, she'd likely not be good at it. The only argument I see for Michelle being especially problematic to democracy is the nepotism. And obviously, we have a lot of political dynasties in our history.
These are good points above.
My frame of reference was Barack himself, who’s Senate tenure seemed to be ‘going through the motions’ before his national profile was high enough to run for president (about 2 years in senate before he announced candidacy). But he did have state senate experience.
Michelle already has that profile and I’m focusing more on electability than potential effectiveness.
But it makes sense that you need to pay your dues and put in the time to become a true political animal before being an effective president. . .although it seems like that experience could also be a hindrance yet history has no exceptions
My frame of reference was Barack himself, who’s Senate tenure seemed to be ‘going through the motions’ before his national profile was high enough to run for president (about 2 years in senate before he announced candidacy). But he did have state senate experience.
Michelle already has that profile and I’m focusing more on electability than potential effectiveness.
But it makes sense that you need to pay your dues and put in the time to become a true political animal before being an effective president. . .although it seems like that experience could also be a hindrance yet history has no exceptions
Stevie!!
any guesses….some people are saying Swift
There is a scheduled gap in tonight's DNC schedule that the special guest is only known by a handful of people
There is a scheduled gap in tonight's DNC schedule that the special guest is only known by a handful of people
Maybe the triumphant return of Al Gore lol
Twitter's hyping it up as Oprah level. Taylor is a very good guess; $1 pays $1.50.
Justin wrote:welp oprah was last night
Twitter's hyping it up as Oprah level. Taylor is a very good guess; $1 pays $1.50.
Beyonce doing that song that Kamala picked would be the non-Taylor guess.
I think we got james woods back and he's speaking !!
The non-entertainer guesses that would merit the amount of insane hype this is getting would be Mitt Romney, Mike Pence, or George W Bush.
If it’s Liz Cheney, this is a massive thanks overhype.
If it’s Liz Cheney, this is a massive thanks overhype.
Taylor Swoft would be so funny.
But man, GWB is way funnier in the exact opposite way lol
But man, GWB is way funnier in the exact opposite way lol