The Clinton Surprise

[Karmadillo]

http://warner.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/10/18/the-clinton-surprise/index.html?8ty&emc=ty

October 18, 2007, 9:27 pm
The Clinton Surprise

<edit>

Alongside the newest set of poll results showing Clinton’s surprising levels of popularity among lower- and middle-class women, white moderate women, even black voters, was another story this week, based on a new set of data from the I.R.S.

<edit>

More and more people are being priced out of a middle class existence. Because of housing prices, because of health care costs, because of tax policy, because of the cost of child care, The Good Life – a life of relative comfort and financial security – is now, in many parts of the country, an upper-middle-class luxury.

Given all this, you would think that Clinton’s big policy announcement this week on improving life for working families would have been big news.

After all, it contained a number of huge new middle class entitlements: paid family leave and sick leave, most notably. There were a number of tried-and-true triggers for outrage from the right wing and the business community like government standards and quality controls for child care. There could have been debate stoked among the many childless workers who now feel parents are getting too much “special treatment” in the workplace (Clinton supports legislation to protect parents and pregnant women from job discrimination). At the very least, someone could have accused Clinton of trying to bring back welfare. (She supports subsidies for low-income parents who wish to stay home to raise their children.) Or someone could have questioned how realistic it really is to pay for all that – to the tune of $1.75 billion per year – simply by cracking down on the “abusive” use of tax shelters, as Clinton proposes to do.

But there was none of this. Clinton’s family policy speech in New Hampshire all but sank like a stone. If it was covered at all, it was often packaged as part of a feature on her attempts to curry favor with female voters. (“Clinton shows femininity,” read a Boston Globe headline.) It was as though the opinion-makers and agenda-setters, waiting with bated breath for Bill to slip up, just one more time, couldn’t see or hear the message to middle-class voters.

more...

[BootinUp]

1. She is going to win because of the two Americas

without using the radioactive rhetoric Edwards uses, and she is going to do something about it. Mark my words, bookmark it.

[patrice]

2. Thanks for this information. It is valuable.

It's ALL about Trust right now. Trust comes from **BOTH** "sides" touching Hearts.

I know many of Hillary's rational positives, but the main thing I know about her heart (and that of about half of our other Dems, at that time) is her IWR vote. Please don't go through all of the tooooo oft repeated explanations again. I already know all of them and every last one of those Dems who voted against the IWR could have claimed the same explanations. The difference between her and them is Heart. The only one who can do anything about that is Hillary and her challenge, if she chooses to try do so, is that true hearts infallablly recognize false-hood, so whatever she does (overt or covert) must be truly real.

Personally, I'm hoping that what she chooses to do about this problem will be in the arena of who her running-mate would be ****IF**** she is nominated, and therein, in that sacrifice, lies evidence of her Heart.

[BootinUp]

3. I'll keep it short

"The IWR vote should not be used as a litmus test." -Gen. Wes Clark 2003

[patrice]

4. I do my own thinking, thank you.

Thinking IS a process and a person has to begin with what s/he knows.

There are no absolutes and that fact is so true that not even it is an absolute.

As Buckminster Fuller so aptly put it, "I seem to be a verb."

[BootinUp]

5. Apparently the door to thinking has been closed

as you said you don't want to hear about it.

[patrice]

6. I didn't say that at all.

I can't help it if you do not understand the implications of what being "a verb" means.

The fact that you can't see that is evidence that the door to your thinking is closed.

I gave you a chance and you rejected it. Too bad for your candidate. You need to re-evaluate what you think you are doing, because you are doing it wrong.

End of (what was supposed to be a) conversation.

P.S. When you don't understand something, it's a good idea to begin with a question, rather than an un-founded accusation.

[BootinUp]

7. Maybe

we both jumped to a wrong conclusion then. You're right I didn't think about what I seem to be a verb meant, doesn't mean I won't just that I didn't before replying. I'll keep expressing my opinions thanks.

[never_get_over_it]

9. Well that's nice for Gen Clark

Not only did she use bad judgment when voting for IWR she makes excuses for it and somewhere along the way she told an audience that if they were expecting her to apologize they should choose another candidate....AND THEN proving she has learned NOTHING she supported LIEberman/Kyl Iran vote

I have a million reasons I won't vote for her - top of the list is IWR....

[BootinUp]

10. I can agree

with your statement she used bad judgment, not sure why you would expect her not to try to explain it (you prefer excuses). Not sure why an apology is important to you, it will do nothing for anybody and arguably would be a liability for our candidate in the GE. And I disagree with you on Kyl Lieberman which is certainly no authorization for war resolution or anything close.

[denem]

11. Thank you doe your beautiful post..

I would add that a true heart informs and guides personal growth, whether it be Bobby Kennedy or David Souter.

I have no idea who Hillary Clinton is. She is so fast at the net, the ball barely lands in her court. One constant in her political life has been a concern for children. That speaks well of her.

If Hilliary is a supreme political strategist, one can only hope as president, she will be calculating her place in history. Vietnam and Iraq would be s salutary reminder of the fruits of military adventure.

[DURHAM D]

8. Thanks for posting.

Last night on Bill Maher - Tweety's "self-satisfied multi-millionaire Nantucket livin' white guy unable to view issues from the middle-class perspective" was never more on display.

He actually rationalized (believes) that support for Hillary is because they want to "see" Bill back in the White House.

He truly thinks that her support comes entirely from those who want to view her husband more often and not because they need policy change. He thinks it is all in the visuals.

Tweety does not know that there is a problem out here. He has absolutely no ability to perceive what is at work in the country. Therefore, he is unable to discuss issues that matter to us. He could not be more shallow.

In short, he is a very sick little puppy. Sadly, he has a pulpit.