Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
68 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Does Hillary have the temperament to be President? (Original Post) Autumn Apr 2016 OP
That was strange pdsimdars Apr 2016 #1
For me, it made the yes bar longer, but did not change the number of yeses. Also strange! merrily Apr 2016 #10
You only registered as a NO BernieforPres2016 Apr 2016 #11
No,her sense of entitlement is horrifying. libtodeath Apr 2016 #2
I don't know if any of the current canditates do, frankly. On either side. Kinda scary. Electric Monk Apr 2016 #3
No. Too shrill, too smug, too petulant. NewImproved Deal Apr 2016 #4
Hillary's temperament nichomachus Apr 2016 #5
Cause Bernie is Mister Happy Sunshine. JoePhilly Apr 2016 #6
Lol! zappaman Apr 2016 #7
No kidding. JoePhilly Apr 2016 #9
He's Mr. Brusque But Straightforward Armstead Apr 2016 #30
Bernie speaks in such gentle, dulcet tones. JoePhilly Apr 2016 #45
No he doesn't Armstead Apr 2016 #51
They really have some nerve, don't they? Beacool Apr 2016 #43
They spin the wheel of outrage and then go where it points them ... JoePhilly Apr 2016 #46
A former failed SOS nichomachus Apr 2016 #52
Yeah, right........ Beacool Apr 2016 #58
Finger wagging? Armstead Apr 2016 #54
+1000 giftedgirl77 Apr 2016 #55
I was just going to say treestar Apr 2016 #67
Temperment, as displayed by edgineered Apr 2016 #8
1 million times better temperament than that whiny, livetohike Apr 2016 #12
LOL! Duval Apr 2016 #38
if there was a "hell no" option i would have picked it. nt restorefreedom Apr 2016 #13
I'm more worried about her carelessness. Avalux Apr 2016 #14
Yeah, when Obama says someone is careless you can take it to the bank that person is careless. Autumn Apr 2016 #16
No she's paranoid and power mad. Been in the bubble too long. Cheese Sandwich Apr 2016 #15
bad question--better: "... temperament to be a GOOD president?" TheDormouse Apr 2016 #17
Does Bernie? baldguy Apr 2016 #18
He spoke his truth oldandhappy Apr 2016 #20
He obfuscated & didn't answer the question. baldguy Apr 2016 #26
Wow. Time to bring up that easily debunked claim again? bjo59 Apr 2016 #29
I have to laugh at the contrast here ... pacalo Apr 2016 #36
The cameras are always on and that will keep her OK oldandhappy Apr 2016 #19
"He's forceful, she's shrill" Retrograde Apr 2016 #21
+1 uponit7771 Apr 2016 #25
The question is fatuous creon Apr 2016 #22
Temperament? No worse than LBJ. JustABozoOnThisBus Apr 2016 #23
Sec. Clinton has the temperament. She also has the brains. Octafish Apr 2016 #24
The brilliant mind that was fooled by Dubya Fumesucker Apr 2016 #27
That is a good point. Octafish Apr 2016 #28
+1 Duval Apr 2016 #39
LOL, says conspiracy guy. OK. nt Logical Apr 2016 #37
Do you think I'm sandbagging Sec. Clinton? Octafish Apr 2016 #48
"The JFK Assassination: A False Mystery Concealing State Crimes" says it all! nt Logical Apr 2016 #49
The person who wrote that, Vincent J. Salandria is a man of integrity. Octafish Apr 2016 #50
Oswald did it, I know it is boring and not exciting but it is true. But keep up the drama. nt Logical Apr 2016 #57
That's what Allen Dulles and J Edgar Hoover said. Octafish Apr 2016 #62
I honestly think you are just messing with us. Nt Logical Apr 2016 #65
In the face of any form of adversity, her first instinct will be to do that which appears tough. lumberjack_jeff Apr 2016 #31
WaPo - "Men really need to stop calling women crazy" TomCADem Apr 2016 #32
They both have the temperament to be president gollygee Apr 2016 #33
One word: Greenpeace. pacalo Apr 2016 #34
When people march like I suggest to hold one's feet to the fire on issues. PyaarRevolution Apr 2016 #35
Or worse. Emmanuel called Move On members "terrorists". Duval Apr 2016 #41
Of course she has the temperament, what a nonsensical question. Beacool Apr 2016 #40
Of course she does SharonClark Apr 2016 #42
Of course she does Dem2 Apr 2016 #44
And more importantly for now ... does she have the DELEGATES? JoePhilly Apr 2016 #47
Nah, she's way too much "respect mah authoriteh" for the job tularetom Apr 2016 #53
Wrong question,imo. Ask about judgement instead. sadoldgirl Apr 2016 #56
Ambitious, ruthless, and mendacious make successful politiions. Tierra_y_Libertad Apr 2016 #59
This poll tells me that there really are more Sanders supporters posting in this forum Sky Masterson Apr 2016 #60
New Yorker - "The Bernie Bro Code" TomCADem Apr 2016 #61
Or you could just be high Sky Masterson Apr 2016 #66
She was mean to that young girl Rosa Luxemburg Apr 2016 #63
This person does not have the temperament to be POTUS nor CIC. PufPuf23 Apr 2016 #64
No (nt) bigwillq Apr 2016 #68

Electric Monk

(13,869 posts)
3. I don't know if any of the current canditates do, frankly. On either side. Kinda scary.
Sun Apr 10, 2016, 01:18 PM
Apr 2016

Bernie seems the least bad on that aspect...


NewImproved Deal

(534 posts)
4. No. Too shrill, too smug, too petulant.
Sun Apr 10, 2016, 01:20 PM
Apr 2016

As Former First Ladies go, even Imelda Marcos and Isabel Peron were better matches for their people...


(12,754 posts)
5. Hillary's temperament
Sun Apr 10, 2016, 01:21 PM
Apr 2016

Is pretty much My Way or the Highway. She can go from Zero to Nasty in about 10 seconds.



(47,803 posts)
30. He's Mr. Brusque But Straightforward
Sun Apr 10, 2016, 04:13 PM
Apr 2016

I prefer that to Tracy Flick

And to avoid being called sexist, I also prefer it to Slick Willie smooth con arrtist.


(47,803 posts)
51. No he doesn't
Sun Apr 10, 2016, 08:05 PM
Apr 2016

I'd refer to the otehr candidate's vocal qualities, but I imagine that would be considered sexist


(30,258 posts)
43. They really have some nerve, don't they?
Sun Apr 10, 2016, 06:18 PM
Apr 2016

They support a cranky guy who spends his time scolding and wagging his finger at anyone who doesn't pass his purity test and they got the gumption to question if a former SOS has the temperament to be president? Do they even realize what it takes to put up with the crap that SOS put up with and still keep one's aplomb?


(27,787 posts)
46. They spin the wheel of outrage and then go where it points them ...
Sun Apr 10, 2016, 07:01 PM
Apr 2016

... no matter how ridiculous.

In all honesty, I have met Evangelical Fire and Brimstone Baptist ministers who are less preachy and self-righteous than most of these folks.


(82,383 posts)
67. I was just going to say
Mon Apr 11, 2016, 07:23 AM
Apr 2016

that question should not be asked by a Bernie supporter. They only bring up the obvious fact Bernie does not have the temperament.

We've been spoiled by Obama, whose temperament was perfect for it.


(2,101 posts)
8. Temperment, as displayed by
Sun Apr 10, 2016, 01:25 PM
Apr 2016

Kathy Bates in the film "Misery", upon finding her penquin facing the wrong direction; clearly Clinton sees people as either a friend or a foe. Any difference in opinion with her does not place one in the friend category.


(22,222 posts)
12. 1 million times better temperament than that whiny,
Sun Apr 10, 2016, 01:48 PM
Apr 2016

ALWAYS angry, complaining, blaming, vindictive Sanders. He doesn't even have one friend he could name among his colleagues. He'll be throwing temper tantrums every time things don't go his way.

His temperament is the main reason I do not support him.


(35,015 posts)
14. I'm more worried about her carelessness.
Sun Apr 10, 2016, 01:54 PM
Apr 2016

According to Obama, she didn't intentionally do anything to jeopardize the country, but she was careless with her emails, and has owned that carelessness.

I don't think being careless is a trait worthy of being president.


(45,145 posts)
16. Yeah, when Obama says someone is careless you can take it to the bank that person is careless.
Sun Apr 10, 2016, 02:00 PM
Apr 2016

We can't afford careless.


(1,168 posts)
17. bad question--better: "... temperament to be a GOOD president?"
Sun Apr 10, 2016, 02:02 PM
Apr 2016

Obviously, she has the temperament to be president.

The real issue is whether she would make a good president.


(24,722 posts)
36. I have to laugh at the contrast here ...
Sun Apr 10, 2016, 05:50 PM
Apr 2016

between the media's ho-hum attitude toward Sheriff Arpaio's Tent City & Bernie & Jane Sanders' concern about the humanity of the make-shift facilities that are meant to be permanent by a sadistic-minded sheriff.

The point is, Jane Sanders was doing what the media should be doing to make this country better & worthy of being admired.

Pink underwear for men doesn't cut it.


(6,719 posts)
19. The cameras are always on and that will keep her OK
Sun Apr 10, 2016, 02:50 PM
Apr 2016

I know the recent video incident has reminded her to keep the lid on. She is temperamental in private. I would not want to have to live with her or work for her. She knows how to be president. I think actually being in the position and on the job will be a shock for any of the current candidates. White hair coming up!


(10,231 posts)
21. "He's forceful, she's shrill"
Sun Apr 10, 2016, 02:58 PM
Apr 2016

"He's firm, she's unyielding". If you look beyond their respective sexes, neither of them appear to behave any worse than previous presidents who liked to get their ways - Johnson and Nixon come to mind. And if Johnson didn't go around bullying senators the Civil Rights legislation of the 1960s wouldn't have passed. Then again, there was the part about getting the US entrenched in Vietnam...


(1,183 posts)
22. The question is fatuous
Sun Apr 10, 2016, 03:06 PM
Apr 2016

It begs the answer of "no".

Asking the same question about Sanders is equally fatuous.
If that question were asked, it, too, would beg the answer of "no".


(55,745 posts)
24. Sec. Clinton has the temperament. She also has the brains.
Sun Apr 10, 2016, 03:10 PM
Apr 2016

DU: If she is our nominee, we are in like Flynn come November.

Best of all, the country will continue to move forward.


(45,851 posts)
27. The brilliant mind that was fooled by Dubya
Sun Apr 10, 2016, 03:44 PM
Apr 2016

It's really too bad Hillary had never heard of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, she might have been less naive and more prudent if she had.


(55,745 posts)
28. That is a good point.
Sun Apr 10, 2016, 04:06 PM
Apr 2016

Thank you for reminding me. I knew there was something about her critical faculties that bugged me.

ETA: Thus, one's "judgement" would be part of those.

ETA2: Where does "integrity" fit in? The mind or the nature?


(55,745 posts)
50. The person who wrote that, Vincent J. Salandria is a man of integrity.
Sun Apr 10, 2016, 08:02 PM
Apr 2016

Instead of using the assassination of President Kennedy as a means of belittling me, you should learn more.

Letter to Vincent J. Salandria

April 5, 1995

by E. Martin Schotz


Look at Kennedy’s American University speech in which he tried to indicate to the American people the direction our nation needed to go in securing world peace.[31] Interestingly he could not bring himself to tell the American people about the dangerous conflict that had erupted in Washington over the direction he was taking, even though at the time his brother, the Attorney General, was sending messages to Khrushchev to cool it, because they were worried about the possibility of assassination.[32]

This American University speech is so important. As I go back and reread it, I realize how advanced Kennedy’s position was at that time, much more advanced than anything we have coming from our government today. In that speech there is an understanding very close to the position George Kennan articulates in the later essays in The Nuclear Delusion.[33]

What I am referring to is an understanding that there was something of value to the powers that be in the United States, as well as to the people of the United States, in the existence of the Soviet Union: namely that there was an organized force on “the other side” that was also interested in disarmament. When I go back and read Mikhail Gorbachev’s Perestroika[34] today I think of where Kennedy and Khrushchev were in 1963 and the opportunity that was beginning to emerge and that was destroyed.

I know that no one seems to be interested in the McCloy-Zorin agreement.[35] Hardly anyone even knows about it any longer. And I really don’t understand why. Maybe they were just words as far as Kennedy was concerned in 1961 when it was signed. But as events developed, particularly after the Cuban Missile Crisis, I think the McCloy-Zorin agreement began to take on real significance. Because if you go back and look at that American University speech, I think Kennedy is talking about the McCloy-Zorin agreement without mentioning it by name. Khrushchev and Kennedy were talking about worldwide disarmament, conventional as well as nuclear. That is really radical. That is what Gorbachev was talking about, that you can’t settle problems with military means any longer. And the “powers that be” in this country didn’t want Gorbachev. And even the liberals were ecstatic when the Soviet Union collapsed and Yeltsin replaced Gorbachev. You read the American University speech by Kennedy and George Kennan’s later writing and you read Castro, Gorbachev, and Nelson Mandela[36] and you realize how foolishly narrow the political mind set that dominates this country is.

People are always asking how would our history be different if President Kennedy hadn’t been assassinated. For me this isn’t the question to ask. Rather ask how would history have been different if President F.W. de Klerk had been assassinated in the midst of South Africa’s transition to majority rule and the ending of apartheid. It seems to me that South Africa would still have gone through the changes it has accomplished because that society had the organized social momentum to move in that direction.

This is why I see Kennedy as a “de Klerk without an ANC.” He saw the handwriting on the wall in our situation, the way de Klerk did in his. But Kennedy didn’t have an “ANC,” an organized social movement for peaceful coexistence that could compel the society to move in that direction. So he was in a very vulnerable position.

And as in South Africa before the ascendancy of Nelson Mandela and the ANC to the government, we too in America are confronted by a “third force” which is shadowy and operates behind the scenes. You will recall that this “third force” in South African society turned out to have the clandestine backing of the government.

It seems to me that at the moment of the assassination the Kennedy forces had a choice. They could openly acknowledge to the American people what had happened. To do this might have meant to release a popular disillusionment with the military and the CIA. You understand that in such a situation these liberal leaders as well as the conservatives might lose control of the situation to popular forces. Or they could decide not to run that risk; they could accept the assassination as a brutal, heinous wound to their side, but nevertheless keep going with the people in the dark. Obviously this was the decision that was made. And in so doing they decided (perhaps unconsciously like the “innocent” parents of the anti-social teenager) that the CIA murder of the President was acceptable to American democracy. The fact that our press and universities fell into line is an indication that they too accepted American democracy as delimited by this liberal-conservative establishment.

Are the American people really any different? Do they really want to know what happened and take responsibility, as opposed to indulging themselves in endless speculation?

Warren Commission member John J. McCloy is quoted by Edward J. Epstein in Inquest as saying that the paramount importance of the Commission was to “show the world that America is not a banana republic where a government can be changed by conspiracy.”[37] Nowhere has the primary concern of the establishment been more honestly acknowledged in this case.



That was 1995. We've learned a lot since then. I reported some of it on DU, thanks to the suggestions of some of my favorite DUers.


(55,745 posts)
62. That's what Allen Dulles and J Edgar Hoover said.
Sun Apr 10, 2016, 10:29 PM
Apr 2016

Dulles helped NAZI war criminals escape justice after World War II.

Hoover said there was no MAFIA until the New York State Police raided a big meeting.

Neither one breathed a word to the public that the CIA had contracted the MAFIA in 1960 to murder Fidel Castro and others.

Both also lied under oath about that to the American people.

I wrote about them on DU for a long time. Here's something from 2005:

Know your BFEE: Corrupt Craftsmen Hoover and Dulles

Believe them about Dallas if you want, I prefer to go by what we've learned since Nov. 22, 1963.



(33,224 posts)
31. In the face of any form of adversity, her first instinct will be to do that which appears tough.
Sun Apr 10, 2016, 04:23 PM
Apr 2016

And absent that adversity, her only instinct is to cultivate and support her friends network - no matter how evil they may be.


(17,393 posts)
32. WaPo - "Men really need to stop calling women crazy"
Sun Apr 10, 2016, 04:46 PM
Apr 2016

Bernie does lose his temper from time to time even during interviews where he is clearly upset because he is so passionate about what he believes in. However, the issue of his temperament is not usually raised as an issue. However, a woman loses patience, and the old tropes about whether she has the temperament to be President are raised.


No, “crazy” is typically held in reserve for women’s behavior. Men might be obsessed, driven, confused or upset. But we don’t get called “crazy” — at least not the way men reflexively label women as such.

“Crazy” is one of the five deadly words guys use to shame women into compliance. The others: Fat. Ugly. Slutty. Bitchy. They sum up the supposedly worst things a woman can be.

“Crazy” is such a convenient word for men, perpetuating our sense of superiority. Men are logical; women are emotional. Emotion is the antithesis of logic. When women are too emotional, we say they are being irrational. Crazy. Wrong.

Women hear it all the time from men. “You’re overreacting,” we tell them. “Don’t worry about it so much, you’re over-thinking it.” “Don’t be so sensitive.” “Don’t be crazy.” It’s a form of gaslighting — telling women that their feelings are just wrong, that they don’t have the right to feel the way that they do. Minimizing somebody else’s feelings is a way of controlling them. If they no longer trust their own feelings and instincts, they come to rely on someone else to tell them how they’re supposed to feel.


(22,336 posts)
33. They both have the temperament to be president
Sun Apr 10, 2016, 05:20 PM
Apr 2016

One need not be inhuman to be president. She is a human being, as is Bernie, and either would make a good president, particularly when compared to Cruz or Trump.


(24,722 posts)
34. One word: Greenpeace.
Sun Apr 10, 2016, 05:31 PM
Apr 2016

After seeing her act on an assumption that a question was instigated by Bernie's campaign, I don't want her anywhere near the red button. And, judging from her rhetoric, she seems anxious to prove she can start another war.


(814 posts)
35. When people march like I suggest to hold one's feet to the fire on issues.
Sun Apr 10, 2016, 05:38 PM
Apr 2016

I wonder how much Hillary might try to shut people down, bully them to shut up and sit down, calling them "sexist" if they don't.


(30,258 posts)
40. Of course she has the temperament, what a nonsensical question.
Sun Apr 10, 2016, 06:13 PM
Apr 2016

Only on a pro-Sanders board would such a question be asked. Well, maybe on a RW board too.


(8,168 posts)
44. Of course she does
Sun Apr 10, 2016, 06:21 PM
Apr 2016

One would have to be an intemperate hyper-polarized political website troglodyte to vote any other way.


(23,664 posts)
53. Nah, she's way too much "respect mah authoriteh" for the job
Sun Apr 10, 2016, 08:16 PM
Apr 2016

She has the temperament to be dictator, not president.



(50,414 posts)
59. Ambitious, ruthless, and mendacious make successful politiions.
Sun Apr 10, 2016, 08:53 PM
Apr 2016

Not to mention successful gangsters, CEOs, and generals.

Sometimes, those attributes make presidents.

We've had more than our share of that type. We don't need more of them.

Sky Masterson

(5,240 posts)
60. This poll tells me that there really are more Sanders supporters posting in this forum
Sun Apr 10, 2016, 09:03 PM
Apr 2016

The other persons supporters are just noisier.


(17,393 posts)
61. New Yorker - "The Bernie Bro Code"
Sun Apr 10, 2016, 09:42 PM
Apr 2016

Your observations are consistent with the Bernie Bro Code as reported by this New Yorker piece:


1. A Bernie Bro must #FeelTheBern twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week. A Bernie Bro’s newsfeed must reflect this.
2. Under no circumstances should a Bernie Bro allow the delegate count to cock-block Bernie Sanders from the White House.
3. Even if a Bernie Bro claims that he is “just gonna leave this here” when posting a Bernie-related Op-Ed on social media, he must also be prepared to reply to all comments that seem to refute its pro-Bernie sentiments in any way.
4. If a Bernie Bro goes two weeks without sharing that picture of Bernie sitting with Martin Luther King, Jr., his Bernie Bro­-ship shall be subject to scrutiny.

Sky Masterson

(5,240 posts)
66. Or you could just be high
Mon Apr 11, 2016, 05:26 AM
Apr 2016

And have done what non-thinkers do and broadbrush a whole bunch of persons you don't know.
You have such Mansonesq devotion to the Neocon Hillary that I wonder if you need an intervention/deprogramming.
Should I call someone to rescue you from this cult?

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Does Hillary have the tem...