In a wide-ranging interview, the comedienne comments on the idea of Hillary as a woman president:
I don't subscribe to the idea that both parties are the same. However, I do think they operate along similar lines, and have similar vectors for corruption and collusion.
And I do agree with her that a woman president, as a woman president, would have to be "revolutionary" to be significant. I think she's right that Hillary would be another Democratic president and what's "in her shorts" is irrelevant, except in terms of squeezing votes from naive gender-issues voters.
I also think there's a similar, and therefore informative, dynamic with Obama's presidency. He hasn't really been a transformative president in terms of race relations, post-racialism, "diverse viewpoints", etc. He's been a rather run-of-the-mill Democrat executive, more notable for his relative inexperience and liberal ideals, than for his racial identity or minority-culture credentials. Not that this is necessarily a bad thing--it's just that history is going to record Barack Obama as a Democratic president, not a black president. "America's first black president" will be a footnote in the history books. Like Barr, I think the same would probably be true of a President Hillary.
I think that a party that was woman-friendly would be revolutionary, and that party could be headed by a male or female. It’s what the party itself stands for that matters. She is standing as a Democrat so she’s a Democrat, and I don’t see much difference between them and the Republicans. They both get paid by the same guys. They do the same thing, they want the same stuff, more business.... I would rather see the first intelligent, honest American president. I don’t care what’s in their shorts. I don’t care what it looks like down there at all."http://ift.tt/1zMNhUp
I don't subscribe to the idea that both parties are the same. However, I do think they operate along similar lines, and have similar vectors for corruption and collusion.
And I do agree with her that a woman president, as a woman president, would have to be "revolutionary" to be significant. I think she's right that Hillary would be another Democratic president and what's "in her shorts" is irrelevant, except in terms of squeezing votes from naive gender-issues voters.
I also think there's a similar, and therefore informative, dynamic with Obama's presidency. He hasn't really been a transformative president in terms of race relations, post-racialism, "diverse viewpoints", etc. He's been a rather run-of-the-mill Democrat executive, more notable for his relative inexperience and liberal ideals, than for his racial identity or minority-culture credentials. Not that this is necessarily a bad thing--it's just that history is going to record Barack Obama as a Democratic president, not a black president. "America's first black president" will be a footnote in the history books. Like Barr, I think the same would probably be true of a President Hillary.
via International Skeptics Forum http://ift.tt/1ObqcTQ
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire