More about Hillary

[question everything]

I just read the TIME Nov. 19 cover story (TIME and Newsweek have been doing them on "first tier" candidates of both parties) and Joe Klein's final paragraphs are quite poignant:

As I've watched Clinton perform over the past year, it has been hard not to admire the sheer effort she's made — to know the issues, to become a more effective speaker on the stump, to be more personable, to loosen up a little. It is also hard not to admire the sheer, pellucid quality of her intelligence. She has already proved herself an indefatigable campaigner and a deft debater, with a personal confidence that Bill — who always seemed desperate for approval — never had. Rather than collapse under the pressure of what promises to be a tense and thrilling campaign, she seems more likely to break free from the cocoon of her stereotype and emerge from the shadow of her husband's brilliance.

The biggest decisions about Hillary Clinton have yet to be made, and they are largely out of her control. Do people really want a woman President? Do they want the Clinton circus back in town? Do they want to keep trading the presidency between these two weird families? "Who knows?" said Karl Rhomberg, a former Scott County Democratic chairman, after watching Clinton perform in Davenport, Iowa. He pointed out that four years ago, in November, Howard Dean was inevitable, and John Kerry was over. "But 40% were undecided going into the last week of the caucus. It'll be the same this time. Hillary is 20% smarter than the guys, but a woman has to be just to pull equal. And I can't stand thinking about what Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity are going to do to her. People are just sick of that. They love Obama. He's very inspiring. But in the end, Iowans vote on electability. I hate to say it, but my guess is they'll vote for the white guy — Edwards — this time, just like they voted for the war hero last time."

It was a chilling thought. I'm sure Edwards wouldn't want to win that way, and I'm not so sure he will. But Rhomberg's scenario wasn't at all implausible. It certainly raises the central issue of this Democratic campaign: whether Hillary Clinton's excellence as a candidate will be enough to overcome her family's garish political history, the undiluted hatred that will be directed against her and the demons that still haunt our nation.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1681670-4,00.html

[dkf]

1. Yup the Clinton circus. This is depressing me.

sigh.

[MethuenProgressive]

2. "Iowans vote on electability. I hate to say it, but my guess is they'll vote for the white guy"

"But in the end, Iowans vote on electability. I hate to say it, but my guess is they'll vote for the white guy — Edwards — this time, just like they voted for the war hero last time."
- Karl Rhomberg, a former Scott County Democratic chairman.

Again - why do we let Iowa have such an important role in selecting our nominee?

[question everything]

3. The only way to lessen the importance is to urge all our candidates

to stick around until "Super Duper Tuesday" Feb. 5th.

They don't have to campaign in California, Illinois and New York; all they have to do is fly (coach) to LA, Chicago or NYC and arrange for an interview on a local radio or TV station.

These places have not seen any candidate so, no doubt, they will be more than happy to provide them with a five minutes time. Or, at least, report on their visit.

This will also encourage more voters to go out and vote, not raising their hands in despair that the game is over after Iowa and New Hampshire.

And, maybe, by 2012 we will switch to regional rotating primaries.

[MGKrebs]

5. It may not be as important as it seems.

Candidates have lost Iowa or ignored it in the past and gone on to win. Granted, they are spending a ton of time and money there, but most everything they do there is broadcast nationally, so they get more bang for their buck by staying there where the media is. They don't seem to get nearly as much attention when they go to Nevada or Georgia or Seattle.

[Bitwit1234]

4. I think she has a better chance than Obama

this country would probably accept a woman for president. I really truly don't know about a black man. Everyone says how nice he is, how he can give good speeches. But you all see the hate in the south. He will never overcome it. He needs the south to win. Because he won't get California or Ohio, Hillary will get those big vote states,he won't get Minnesota, or New York or any of the other big states. So even with the few middle and low vote states they would add up to put him in. There is no way he can make it.

I love to post strident remarks to offset the hate and vile his supporters post about Hillary. And I hope it makes them mess their pants. But I really think if Obama had waited he would have had a better chance to beat the odds, which are stacked against him right now. If bush had not been in, and if this country did not think we needed an extremely strong politician it would have been better for him, but speeches don't make the grade.

[fightindonkey]

6. Hillary Has Always Transcended Gender. People Like Hillary For Hillary

It has nothing to do with gender. She has bigger balls than anyone in the race. Nothing scares her.

I agree about the "black guy" issue, however, Barack has more problems than his race. His no-experience, and a hallow hack with a shaddy past and no voting record, is his problem. His flipping on the core issues is just appalling.

[Yael]

12. transcended gender? Put down the crack pipe before you fall and hit your head again

Seriously.

:rofl:

[dkf]

13. Or dislike Hillary for being Hillary.

Yup. Couldn't care less that she is the same gender as I am.

[question everything]

7. I think that if Obama went back to Illinois and ran for governor

and won, he could then run for president as a governor of a large state with executive experience and win.

[Nailzberg]

8. We already have a Dem governor.

:rofl: Shit, I crack myself up.

[Laurab]

9. I think you're mistaken.

I'm ready for a woman president - just not HRC. It has nothing to do with the fact that she's a woman, just who she is. I'd vote for Barbara Boxer in a heartbeat if she were running. Hillary's negatives are higher than those of any other candidate. She is as hated by repugs as bush is by us. She doesn't deserve that, but it's fact.

I've seen many of your anti-Obama posts, and Obama's race seems to bother you more than anything else about him, so I get the feeling that it's more you personally who isn't ready for a black man. I believe Obama's personality transcends race for many people, and the racists in this country wouldn't vote dem, anyway. Obama's negatives are far lower than Hillary's, and I think he would win the general easily. Hillary, on the other hand, would get the repug vote out like no other candidate.

IF she manages to win the primary, which I'm not so sure is going to happen, she will have a very difficult time winning the general. I think Obama, Edwards or Biden (who seems to be gaining day by day), would all win the general easily. There are so many disgusted repugs out there now, that I think a lot of them might just stay home on election day. The only thing that would change that would be HRC winning the primary. I really hope that doesn't happen - we need a dem to win.

[Yuugal]

10. Did they all recently have IQ tests?

"Hillary is 20% smarter than the guys, but a woman has to be just to pull equal."

Shame on all those stupid guys for even running. :eyes:

[Yael]

11. "perform"

Pretty much sums it up in one word right now.

"Get me the latest script from the focus group so that I know who to play today".

Sad.

[Perry Logan]

14. The people who oppose Hillary are going to have to decide whether she's electable or unelectable.

Talk about flip-flops!