“The record suggests that if Clinton is not the nominee, no woman will seriously contend for the White House for another generation,†columnist Marie Cocco wrote. She noted that “only eight women currently serve as governors, the springboard to the White House for four of the past five presidents.†One of those female governors who is sometimes mentioned as a prospect is Kathleen Sebelius. But, Cocco pointed out, Sebelius “heads a state with six electoral votes and limited fundraising potential.â€
Cocco wrote: “Clinton cleared the hurdles often cited as holding American women back, yet she is unlikely to surmount the final barrier. So you have to wonder. Is it something about Hillary, or something about us?â€
93 Comments
Women are 50% of the population and the least represented in our government. Obama really took this from her, and I do hold it against him. He won’t win the White House without her. Which makes me wonder if he hasn’t asked her to VP for him yet, then is he intending on blowing the race?
I believe very passionately in equal opportunities for women. I believe, equally fervently, in the differences between the sexes. How does that impact a presidential race? Sadly, there is at least one factor to consider:
Presidential politics are a dirty business. Candidly, I don’t believe the average citizen even knows how murky these politics can be. But I’ve grown to harbor distaste for the whole process – a process that is no respecter of gender. But the fact remains: we women are the more sensitive, gentler gender. We’re more affected by dirty tactics; or, at least, we are affected differently by these machinations.
Should these differences preclude a woman being president? Logic – and my respect for equal rights and opportunities, tell me “no.” My former church’s continual refusal to grant leadership roles to non-males is a huge turn-off, to be blunt about it.
Let’s face it – politics is a slimy, filthy business far too often. Then again, I’d be naive as all get-out to attest that women don’t engage in back-stabbing and petty jealousies, especially in the workplace. They do – and they’re often far guiltier than men, at least in my working experience.
I’ve said it before, and I still believe it: Hillary brings baggage – much of it emanating from the overactive gland to whom she’s married. I’ve heard more than a few rumbles on news programs – the former Clinton supporters who’ve switched to Obama have their reasons. The exact nature of those incentives isn’t being publicly revealed.
It would be great to elect a woman president who could bring the best of herself and her gender to her role. How that would square with the gutter tactics of presidential politics is a troubling question…….
Oh come on folks, there may be some sexism in this political race but far an away the reason Hillary isn’t getting the traction she wants is people don’t have confidence in her.
In fact she down right scares me, but not half a much as Obama.
If the ‘right’ woman stepped up and went for it I would be all for them.
We don’t need a ‘WOMAN’ in the White House, we need the ‘RIGHT PERSON’ in the White House regardless of their sex.
That woman has too many skeletons in the closet for me and for a lot of folks.
Just look at Kansas, they’ll elect a woman to run their state, but wouldn’t vote for her to go beyond the glass ceiling.
Hillary Clinton has suffered a wound in her foot, but it was her hand on the gun. The list of times that she has been wounded is long. But on that list those truly caused by outside forces are few compared to those suffered at her only hand. One of her viable points is she is a politician, she know the ropes of politics and how to keep from being entangled in them. Yet she does get entangled and the worst is caused by her own careless attempt at dancing around those ropes.
Some of the ropes she has tried to dance around are the race issue, she knows that it is a weakness in this election year. To bring it up directly would kill the campaign so the issue is brought up through other channels. It would have been there anyway, but certainly it was a weakness in her rival she could take advantage of. Ambiguous references to Obama and Jessie Jackson or a planned way to discount.
Knowing that many Whites do not see Jackson as anything more than using his color and his people to advance his own agenda. Thus discounting Obama as just another glory seeker.
The reference to RFK’s assassination, ambiguous or to instill the thought of him not making it through the primary. Obama has been compare to a Kennedy more than once. It has the pluses and minuses of that comparison. It would mean he would have the ability to draw people to his cause. But also imply to the fate that is waiting. She knows that some would not vote for him in a perverse sense of saving his life and this country the pain it brings.
Hillary is craft-ful in the political game or that is said to be one of her best selling points.
So why would she have made such obvious gaffes?
A lawyer in court plays the game too, making a statement that he knows will not be allowed but does impact the jury. Planting the seeds of doubt or misdirection in the mind without it being made a part of the permanent record. She maybe willing to take such wounds if the end result is to defeat her rival.
At first it bewildered me her recent comparison to RFK and Obama, I took it as stated that she was just giving a time reference. But that she has mentioned it more then once is not a slip of the tongue or an unseen comparison. Something that someone who knows the ropes would not have done.
The most recent claim that she is being put upon because she is the only female in the race. Is one more weakness to exploit to her favor. Such thing can be used to chip away at the number of voters thinking of voting for her rival. How many women once hearing that Hillary is being abused by a man, suddenly remember all the time that have suffered at the hands of a man? A vote for Hillary is a strike against all those men whom are abusive.
Kansas,
I sure didn’t vote for our Governor, wouldn’t again if she could run, and wouldn’t for anything else either. She is simply a Democratic Party mouth, and other than vetoes of worthwhile things she hasn’t done anything.
Excuse me Phantom, that was a response to you not a ‘Kansas’. I was thinking ‘Kansas Governor’ as I started typing.
“all the time that have suffered”
Should read
“all the times they have suffered”
Point was majority did/would vote for her a Governor, but not vote for her as vice pres.
The first woman president will most likely come from the vice presidency. I wouldn’t be surprised to see either Obama or McCain choose a woman as his vice presidential running mate, in which case this person will be a logical front-runner the next time the party’s nomination is open (or, obviously, would take over upon the death of the president, as has happened several times in our history). So it really could be one of many people if that’s the scenario. Of course, if Obama loses, Clinton herself will still be a realistic candidate in 2012, maybe even in 2016 if he wins.
I agree with those who say that Clinton isn’t faltering because she is a woman, she is faltering because she is Hillary Clinton and because Obama has run a much better campaign.
He should not add her to the ticket. The last time there was an election without a Bush or Clinton on a ticket was 1976. I think if Obama puts Clinton on the ticket, it will backfire on him. He may shore up support among some Democratic constituencies, but his message of “change” will be severely compromised among the electorate in general, and McCain is already very competitive with the Independents who will actually determine the election’s outcome.
“The last time there was an election without a Bush or Clinton on a ticket was 1976.”
————–
And during all those years half the country felt disenfranchised, disappointed, angry.
She’s not perfect. And I still don’t like the dynasty thing.
But I like 4 more years of bush in McCain even less. And it’t time to say it again.
Senator Clinton is the best Democratic candidate. She wins where Democrats can win.
Obama can’t win without her. He maybe can’t even win with her.
Senator Hillary Clinton certainly has proven that she is as good as the men at politics as usual. WHich is why I won;t support her. Currently, I am supporting Obama, although the past month or so has not always done him well. McCain is just another politician. I can barely stand him any better than CLinton. I do not like Obamas policies, but so far, I think he has been pretty consistent with his points, which I can deal with, whether or not I like them. THe sad part is, out of 300 million people, these three are the best we can do?
Kansas has a successful and respected female governor with awards and recognitions from many quarters, and yet “botox” dismisses her as ” simply a Democratic Party mouth”.
With a Republican-dominated legislature to contend with, I think Gov. Sebelius’s record is admirable.
Her recent vetoes were of bills obviously crafted for narrow political purposes by the Republican majority to invite a veto. Send the same bad bill two or three times to the Governor.. what can you expect but two or three vetoes?
They could have crafted a compromise, but it is all or nothing for the Republican extremists in the Capitol.
Kansans are fed up with these legislators, and many of them will find themselves booted out in the elections to come.
Women are well suited for politics, and it is shameful that we have yet to have a female president OR ANY minority in the presidential seat.
I agree that the person should be best for the job, but Hillary hasn’t done as bad as people think. Remember, it hasn’t always been that we’ve had internet and 24 hour pundits on tv. True we had the media that swayed opinion, but by far this is a new phenomenon. Would past presidents had survived such scrutiny? I seriously doubt it.
You know why politics is nasty business? Just look at the goings on of this board. WE reflect more of the government tactics than we care to admit. They behave this way because of us.
The thread asks, “So you have to wonder. Is it something about Hillary, or something about us?”
It’s us.
We don’t like her.
Her negatives are almost as high as Bush’s. Talk about galvanizing the opposition, she’s the poster child.
*****
BTW, Worst.President.Ever. is the first president since polling started to spend his entire second term below 50 percent approval.
“You know why politics is nasty business? Just look at the goings on of this board. WE reflect more of the government tactics than we care to admit. They behave this way because of us.”
Yep
“Is it something about Hillary, or something about us?”
It’s Hillary.
And FilmFan, while I understand your perspective, the idea that women are “more sensitive, gentler gender” is pure balony – it’s myth on par whith the myth of the “noble savage.” While men and women are indeed different (viv la difference!) both are fully capable of the kind of ruthlessness needed for electoral success. Indeed, part of Hillary’s problem is she as seen as just the kind of do/say anything ruthless politician we don’t want. She is the status quo.
“So you have to wonder. Is it something about Hillary, or something about us?”
That is a sad statement. Just another low-brow attempt to blame Clinton’s failure on sexism.
If not Clinton, then which woman?
How about Barbara Boxer? Patty Murray? Maybe Janet Napolitano, or Jennifer Granholm (yeah, I know: the latter’s not a “natural born citizen”). Or someone out of left field, who we don’t even know about today (prior to his 2004 convention speech, who outside of Illinois had heard of “Barack Obama”?).
Granted, there are no women politicians in America with the political connections and instant name recognition of HRC. Sadly, this is because there are much fewer women in power.
But the notion that this one woman (!) represented the only conceivable successful female candidate for president of a generation strikes me as odd, defeatist and, ironically, sexist.
All the more so because Hillary’s historically strong campaign has left that particular glass ceiling in shards, whether Cocco realizes it or not.
Jennifer Granholm
Are you freakin kidding? Have you seen the train wreck of Michigan? She jacked up our taxes to support her pet projects. One of them being a new State Police Headquarters. Sounds great right?
The current lease the troopers have cost $1.00 per year.
They like where they are.
The new facility allows the police to do LESS.
There is nothing wrong with the current facilities.
No one asked for a new facility.
The new facility will cost $116 MILLION (compared to $1.00 per year)
The no-bid contract went to her buddy.
This is just one instance. MI is one of the worst states economically. We are hemorrhaging jobs, dollars and population. All while she lines the pockets of her friends. Bad choice.
Granholm is a dirty idiotic party – political shill. She is in it for the power and money.
Heres the link
http://www.wxyz.com/mostpopular/story.aspx?content_id=4d2d270b-8b66-4a6f-a9bc-5ef4a97d6813
“Jennifer Granholm (yeah, I know: the latter’s not a “natural born citizen”)”
So why mention her in the same breath as the presidency? According the the Constitution, she cannot serve.
“But the notion that this one woman (!) represented the only conceivable successful female candidate for president of a generation strikes me as odd, defeatist and, ironically, sexist. ”
I agree completely.
“
“Is it something about Hillary, or something about us?”
It’s about Hillary. Has nothing to do with her sex.
What’s next? A guilt thread about Obama being black?
Will it be another generation?
Waaaaaaaa!
Yeah I know it’s long. I dont care. I doubt if the people who most NEED to read this will.
“Understanding Obamamania: the triumph of Republican-style politics
It’s no secret, I think, that most of the liberal blogosphere has become a one-note 24/7 Obama rally. People who support Hillary, particularly women, have been relentlessly insulted, silenced, even banished from sites like DailyKos. The nastiness of the Obama guys — most of them are guys — is breathtaking.
But their Obamamania is of a slightly different flavor than what I’ve discussed so far. Political junkies are not immune to the marketing stuff and pseudo-religion that captivates so many Obamabots, but they do tend to be a tad more cynical than the average bear. Cynicism, no matter what Obama says, is necessary if you’re going to analyze politics.
What makes up the shortfall for the blogger boys is a third ingredient: misogyny. Supporting Obama gives them license to hate Hillary. It’s a license to engage openly, enthusiastically, in misogyny of the most feverish kind. Hating Hillary has traditionally been the preserve of wingnuts, and the liberal boys have felt constrained (though not entirely) to stay away from too much Clinton-bashing. But now, with Hillary running against their man Obama, they’ve got their opening. Finally they’re free to engage in the crazed heart-racing hatred that only the guys on the right have been able to enjoy. Can you imagine how liberating it must be? That’s why they’re so giddy. They’ve been repressing this for years!
Here are some comments on the article. For those who have been hanging around DU too much–this is what the real world is saying about this mess:
“From where I sit, it looks for all the world like a significant slice of the left has been body-snatched by wingnut-like pod people. The gullibility, the cult-like adulation, the frantic misogyny, the insistence that anyone who disagrees is The Enemy Who Must Be Destroyed — the whole batshit crazy package has arrived.”
These trash talking supporters do not want support from others. They wish to win on their own specifically excluding others. How they think they will win in November I do not understand.
…
Very few Obama supporters I’ve encountered are able to articulate why his actual positions stand out to them, or why they prefer them to Clinton’s. Mostly, they aren’t aware of what those positions actually are.
I have said several times in the past few weeks that arguing with Obama supporters is like arguing the theory of evolution with creationists. They throw up an argument, you refute it. They throw up another, you refute that one. Along about argument number five or six, they go back to number one. Any day now I expect to hear that the Second Law of Thermodynamics or the fossil record refutes the possibility of a Hillary Clinton presidency. I’m glad I’m not the only one who sees the parallel.
A week ago I asked a co-worker what he would have said if someone had told him a year ago that one day he’d believe the unsupported word of Matt F’ing Drudge over that of a fellow Democrat. I didn’t get much of an answer.
No one talks about the huge vote called the white guilt vote or the Hillary Effect vote, women who are afraid to say they vote for Hillary.
An orgy of male bonding is taking place under the guise of “opposing” Hillary Clinton.
Obamamania is not a grassroots movement. It’s a product, a very slick carefully packaged product. It’s been fed to you. And part of the product is the illusion that you and your young friends are somehow creating a grassroots movement yourselves. Actually you’re just unpaid salespeople and voters.
Obamamania has one goal: getting Obama elected. That’s it. He’s a creature of the Chicago machine who’s been groomed by Axelrod to be maximally electable. He’s not going to change anything. His positions are virtually identical to Hillary’s except where they’re more conservative. And his callow youth makes him dangerous as hell (witness how his aides had to explain to him why voting to confirm Roberts to the Supremes wouldn’t be good idea).
The horror that the Obamamaniacs cannot give one any concrete information about their messiah, but can spew hate-speech is very very frightening.
Google anti-Hillary and read the 20 odd pages of disgusting insults by the Obama crowd.
I am 60 and Obama’s campaign is the most destructive I’ve ever seen.”
You bought him. Now let’s see ya get him elected.
http://www.reclusiveleftist.com/?p=832
Equally ironic is the notion that Hillary is the icon of feminism. There are many women who have made themselves material for high leadership – including president – on both sides of the aisle.
Hillary ain’t one of them.
Hillary rode her way to near the top. Her primary claim to “experience” amounts to sleeping with a former president. She is where she is SOLELY because of her marriage to Bill Clinton. She is where she is because of her dependence on a man – the very antithesis of feminism.
“You bought him. Now let’s see ya get him elected.”
Sorry, that part was mine, not part of the article.
I’m sure all those republican and moderate “crossovers” you all are so proud of will take the place of the nearly fifty percent of democrats who support Hillary.
It’s clear that the obama supporters dont think they need them. Good thing. You may not get them.
“People who support Hillary, particularly women, have been relentlessly insulted, silenced…”
The silence from Hillary supporters staying home just might be deafening. And you wont even see it coming.
Jennifer Granholm
Are you freakin kidding? Have you seen the train wreck of Michigan?
Merely mentioning a name is not an endorsement. Obviously.
Sheesh, you people kill me sometimes.
The silence from Hillary supporters staying home just might be deafening. And you wont even see it coming.
That would leave McCain getting the nod. Who the hell wants that? Unless the Ron Paulers and Barr supporters can outweigh the Clinton supporters. God save us.
I am truly hoping that a democrat wins, BECAUSE of Ron Paul and Barr supporters. I hope that gets the GOP to take notice that they have strayed far far away from their base.
Rage
Posted May 27, 2008 at 11:44 am | Permalink
If not Clinton, then which woman?
How … or Jennifer Granholm
You answered a question with a baboon.
“That would leave McCain getting the nod.”
I think the obama supporters here might disagree with that. They forget how many people DO support Hillary. It isnt just JR, or me.
They dont think they need us. And I see how obama is “uniting” the party. With fear.
“Vote for me or you’ll be sorry!”
Like the article said, the triumph of republican style politics.
Fear uber alles.
BOO!
You answered a question with a baboon.
Heh. Okay. Fair enough.
Hard-core heavy handed political attack machine.
The Clinton war-room took dirt digging and political attack to a new level. And it’s what many people see when they see Hillary.
Remember, she’s the one who tried to use Osbama’s kindergarten (or was it first grade) answer to “what do you want to be when you grow up” against him.
KFG I HAVE BUT ONE ANSWER TO SEEING YOUR POSTS!
I am sure glad you were not “gone with the wind” Not just me was worried about you, in case you have not seen the post from those days.
Yeah Rage, Boxer LOL every time I watch her on CSPAN I know where Cheney learned how to be so warm and cuddy. I have a sister in-law that Boxer reminds me of, I love her to death…. Scary as hell when she is on a rage but I do love her!
They are already selling bumper stickers,,,
“Don’t blame me. I voted for Ron Paul.”
BlueJay posted May 27, 2008 at 8:59 am
“Senator Clinton is the best Democratic candidate. She wins where Democrats can win.”
BlueJay does not like the way citizens voted in some states.
He wants to throw away the Democratic primary votes that people made in those states — i.e. disenfranchise entire states from the primary process.
Thanks Dog! I was going to answer your email today, but I’ll just do it here.
They are already selling bumper stickers,,,
“Don’t blame me. I voted for Ron Paul
Gee I guess I should check the web site more often. I want one!
like heckler’s gonna vote for any democrat….
No wonder he thinks obama’s campaign was just fine. The triumph of republican politics indeed.
kfg
“like heckler’s gonna vote for any democrat”
I have no choice, McCain or Obama. (or Hill if obama gets croaked).
McCain or Obama
Dem’d if you do and dem’d if you don’t.
So…
If it were Rice running for President would we be seeing all these calls for supporting the woman simply because she is a woman?
Or would she be just another evil Republican and that is why no one will vote for her?
I have no problems with voting for a Black man, Woman, or anyone else of differing race, religion, or sex, so long as I agree with them politically.
I don’t agree with Hilary on many issues and she has one of the largest negative rates in the polls.
People just don’t like her very much.
This has nothing to do with being a woman and not being able to make it to the top.
I 100% agree with that article KFG. Look at how WS treats Hillary, and it infuriates me. The Obama camp will continue to try to beat her up and sound as bad as republicans.
Makes me mad.
So who is calling for “supporting the woman simply because she is a woman”?
I support Hillary because she is the best candidate.
Nathan thinks HE’s the only one who does that. The rest of us are just sheep. Remember?
Big eye roll…
KFG,
You and Political Mama are over here saying those that don’t support her are simply sexist men.
I am simply pointing out the absurdity of the comment.
“those that don’t support her are simply sexist men.”
Please repost where either one of us said that.
Care to admit that you are “simply” wrong?
I try not to even post on Hillary threads because I find it so totally stupid for those people who know how dangerous McCain and four more years of bush policies will be for our country to criticize one another. I much prefer finding one of the many areas McCain deserves criticism and running with that!
I have stated repeatedly I will vote against McCain, will vote FOR the Democratic Party candidate. That’s where the differences are! That’s where we must be united for the sake of our country and our future.
But I do have a question. I respect that those who support Senator Clinton do so because they think she is the best candidate and will make the best President.
Why can I not be afforded the same respect?
I AM NOT a Hillary hater, I will support her if she is the Democratic Party candidate. I think Obama is the best candidate and will make the best president and that is why I support him.
ksfarmgrrl
Posted May 27, 2008 at 1:47 pm | Permalink
“those that don’t support her are simply sexist men.”
Please repost where either one of us said that.
———-
ksfarmgrrl posted May 27, 2008 at 12:26 pm
Yeah I know it’s long. I dont care. I doubt if the people who most NEED to read this will.
“The nastiness of the Obama guys — most of them are guys — is breathtaking.
What makes up the shortfall for the blogger boys is a third ingredient: misogyny. Supporting Obama gives them license to hate Hillary. It’s a license to engage openly, enthusiastically, in misogyny of the most feverish kind.
… the frantic misogyny…
An orgy of male bonding is taking place under the guise of “opposing” Hillary Clinton”
“Very few Obama supporters I’ve encountered are able to articulate why his actual positions stand out to them, or why they prefer them to Clinton’s. Mostly, they aren’t aware of what those positions actually are.”
———-
I haven’t found a nickel’s worth of differences in most of Senator Clinton and Senator Obama’s positions.
I will say again — I would rather not draw distinctions betweent hese two excellent candidates when the differences between either of them and Mccain are so vast and so easily illustrated and sooo meaningful!
ksfg – I am not supporting Clinton vs Obama but will support her in a heartbeat against McBush. I don’t see you claiming that makes me a ” are simply sexist men”
Of course, I do not have the devining skills of nathan in reading words into your posts that are not there.
linda – I’m with you. Let’s quit fighting each other and go after the REAL enemies.
“REAL enemies.”
Who would they be?
ksfarmgrrl,
Exactly what point were you trying to make with your 12:26 pm post?
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2008/05/if-not-clinton-then-which-woman/#comment-358037
Who would they be?
.NET developers who live in Michigan! ;-)
In this instance McCain. He is a war monger. I’m not sure he is part and parcel of the neocon movement but will do their bidding.
In most instances neocons are THE enemy. And I don’t throw that word around loosely, have done my homework and understand what it means and how dangerous the movement is.
Here is a little YouTube production by Ron Paul with an overview. writerdog shared this in an email recently and Senator Paul does a good job of succinctly outlining this dangerous movement.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4df1soW7Dho
NET developers who live in Michigan
LMFAO. OK I have successfully hacked into your machine. Downloading data files in 3..2..
The neocons are dangerous true indeed and I will not support them. I also don’t support the Green Party and feel they are equally dangerous in their own way. I don’t view either as an enemy. They are both comprised of Americans with viewpoints and values different than mine. That is what makes America great, differing viewpoints.
The in-fighting between the two Democratic sides has been intense. I hope that all Democrats support whomever the nominee turns out to be. Remember that divided we fall.
In other news…glad to see you’ve weathered the storms KFG.
“…comprised of Americans with viewpoints and values different than mine.”
———-
I see the neocons differences akin to say, Ted Kazenski or Timothy McVeigh. I don’t know of greater dangers to our country than those the neocons represent. Call me a kook and a sensationalist and conspiracy nut. I’ve spent hours researching this threat. I sincerely hope I am any of those things you probably think I am. Being proven a kook would be fine with me.
Just a little 20/20 hindsight here, so indulge me.
If Senator Clinton and the former President had reached an “amicable” divorce a couple of years ago, and she had run for President as Senator Hillary Rodham, her feminist credentials might have been stronger.
Like him or not, though, Bill Clinton was one of the best political minds in the history of the republic. He survived a lot of slings and arrows (some of them self-inflicted), but he was in it for him not her. And he never was quite as good as a surrogate; his coattails were damned short.
If Hillary were as good a politician as Bill, she would have cut him loose. Her claims that she advocated everything that he did that worked and opposed everything he did (i.e., NAFTA) that didn’t could have been spun into some of the reasons that led to their marital split.
Okay, it might have been interpreted Machiavellian in its own right.
Just some thoughts…
THERE she is!
Farmgrrl as you can see, you’ve had folks worried about you.
I told them I was more worried about the storms.
“People who support Hillary, particularly women, have been relentlessly insulted, silenced…”
or stalked and badgered endlessly.
I’m looking your direction cosmos.I’m going to ask you not to speak for me.
“BlueJay does not like the way citizens voted in some states.
“He wants to throw away the Democratic primary votes that people made in those states — i.e. disenfranchise entire states from the primary process.”
Huh? I’m for the candidate who WANTS to count votes.
Votes in important states like Michigan and Florida.
I have NEVER spoken to throwing away votes.
I DO think some states are more practical to expect a Democrat to win in the fall. I DO think Florida and Michigan are a little more electorally imporant AND reliable than Kansas and Idaho.
That’s called dealing with reality and a winning strategy.
Oh and by the way linda? I always try to say SOME Obama supporters when citing the actions of the bad actors. If I swing at you, I’ll call out first.
This is not baseball game about to be rained out in the 8th inning! This is how the system is SUPPOSED to work.
“Like him or not, though, Bill Clinton was one of the best political minds in the history of the republic”
I have always said the BIl Clinton was a masterful politician. I have often wondered though, if perhaps Hillary was the brains, and BIll the front man.
He was indeed a master of politics.
I didn’t like Bill Clinton much. He was the best Republican President of the 20th Century.
There is a reason he is the master politician of his age. He is a born schmoozer.
I think Senator Clinton would have been a better President at the time.
BILL thinks she will be a better President than him.
“BlueJay” admits –
There is a reason he [Bill Clinton] is the master politician of his age. He is a born schmoozer.”
And that’s part of the equation, “BlueJay,” like it or not.
And that’s part of the reason why Senator Clinton is behind Barack Obama; she’s not the politician her husband was. (And he, God love ‘im, isn’t as good a surrogate as she was.)
The Clintons ran this campaign as if it were still 1995. They were the people who wrote the Democratic Party’s rules for this primary, thinking she’d sew up everything on Super Tuesday last February.
They stopped “thinking about tomorrow.”
“I think Senator Clinton would have been a better President at the time.”
Perhaps. And I think she’d be a pretty good President this time.
But — and I’ve said this dozens of times in this forum and you’ve always chosen to ignore this — she’s simply not the best candidate.
I’m sick and tired of Democrats nominating people who clearly would be better on the job, but who fall short getting the job.
“And that’s part of the equation, “BlueJay,” like it or not.”
Pandering with the cons you mean?
And where did that get Clinton?
Well it got him a con dominated Congress for hte first time in 50 years. THEN it really started to get “interesting”.
His whole term was giving ground for…what?
“But — and I’ve said this dozens of times in this forum and you’ve always chosen to ignore this — she’s simply not the best candidate.”
I haven’t ignored you. I disagree with you.
In every measure I can think of she is the better candidate. She WANTS to fight. And given the current political climate, she’d have her foot on the cons throats from jump. She’s also better on the electoral map.
?
“
It’s her..not us. She’s obnoxious. I hate it that the first serious female contender for the presidency lacks common sense, wisdom, honesty, and class.
BlueJay posted May 27, 2008 at 4:58 pm
“I’m looking your direction cosmos.I’m going to ask you not to speak for me.”
Didn’t you post that Clinton should be the nominee, because she has higher (telephone) poll numbers against McCain than Obama, in certain states? Want me to find the link to your post?
Obama is only about 48 delegates away from securing the nomination. Clinton needs about 190.
The delegate count is based on elections and caucuses in the states (and the superdelegates).
Selecting the nominee based on telephone polls, and/or elections and caucuses in only certain states is throwing away votes in the other states.
BlueJay: “She’s also better on the electoral map.”
Translation: Ignore the primary elections in certain states.
“Didn’t you post that Clinton should be the nominee, because she has higher (telephone) poll numbers against McCain than Obama, in certain states? Want me to find the link to your post?”
I don’t have any problem remembering my own words cosmos.
Yup. She beats McCain in Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.
“Ignore the primary elections in certain states.”
I did not say ignore. I did say certain states are more important than others in political strategy.
Ya think Obama is gonna win Kansas and its big 6 electoral votes there cosmos?
Noted AGAIN the condescension among SOME Obama supporters….
Cosmos, your Hillary hatred is eerily similar to another rabid Hillary hater.
“Yeah I know it’s long. I dont care. I doubt if the people who most NEED to read this will.
“The nastiness of the Obama guys — most of them are guys — is breathtaking.
What makes up the shortfall for the blogger boys is a third ingredient: misogyny. Supporting Obama gives them license to hate Hillary. It’s a license to engage openly, enthusiastically, in misogyny of the most feverish kind.
… the frantic misogyny…
An orgy of male bonding is taking place under the guise of “opposing” Hillary Clinton”
Funny, but NONE of those things say:
“those that don’t support her are simply sexist men.”
You usually try to be Mr. Logic, but sorry, chump. No cigar this time. Lots of WOMEN dont support her either.
But the sexism and rampant Hillary hatred is unmistakable. Just because you are blinded by your own hatred doesnt mean we cant see it.
And monkey, and cosmos, just ignore the electoral map. The winner of the primary is automatically crowned preznit?
he. hehe. ehehehehehheheheeheh. HEEEEEEE……
If you are sick of losing in November, why do you want to nominate someone who cant beat mcsame in crucial states.
And just keep slinging the telephone mantra. It has served the democrats SO WELL over the past years.
You bought him. Let’s see you get him elected. I’ll be waiting right here on the first Wednesday in November.
Nice to know you dont need almost fifty percent of the party. What confidence.
Or usual democratic pig headedness…
polls saying obama wins = good
polls saying Hillary wins = bad
Got it!
And HOW MANY times has the winner of the democratic party primary gone down in defeat since 1976?
Five times?
And how many times has the dem nominee gone on to win? Twice? And both times it was a Clinton?
heheheheheh. Yeah. PLEASE continue to believe that winning the democratic nomination gives ANYONE a leg up on winning the presidency.
It has served you all so well in the past. Like I said before, what plays inside the party doesnt matter. It’s what plays outside the party.
And obama isnt playing outside the party. But keep dreaming… and ignoring polls…. and almost fifty percent of your own party.
You’ll blame Hillary if he loses. Book marking that for future reference.
“Nice to know you dont need almost fifty percent of the party.”
And the inverse is also true – Hillary cannot possibly win without the Obama supporters – and some of the Hillary supporters are just as dismissive of Obama as the inverse.
Hillary isnt going to be the nominee. I’d worry about obama if I were you.
Let us consider a possibility: those who like Clinton like he because they like her – regardless of gender. Those who dislike her do so for similar reasons.
Similarly with Obama – like or dislike for reasons that have nothing to do with race.
And consider further – I think that the majority of us who support EITHER of them have similar positions on the issues – JUST AS THEY DO!
So, tomorrow when this phase is over lets get togehter and support whichever one wins the nomination. Consider the implications of another 4 years of “stay the failed course” and “bomb bomb bomb Iran”
Heh, actually, since 1964, forty four years, the dems have won three. And the repukes?
And Clinton was the ONLY democrat since FDR who was RE-elected after one term.
The numbers for democrats choosing a WINNING nominee get worse the more you look at them.
Looks like ya got another one just like the other ones in obama.
The race for the nomination is over. Now let’s see you get him elected.
“Consider the implications of another 4 years of “stay the failed course” and “bomb bomb bomb Iran”
Perhaps democrats should have thought about that before nominating obama?
Well,
It won’t be over tomorrow ben.
Good catch kfg.
Cosmos dismisses polls …here.
Not a few minutes and a thread or two away, cosmos posted? A poll that says Obama beats Clinton in?
Montana.
WS? I am only unkind to you when you make Obama’s every hurdle a conspiracy between the cons, Senator Clinton, and little green men.
And if you don’t recall, not so long ago, you were ready to bail the party, fold your tent and quit. Blaming above conspiracy.
It was kfg and I told you to get your d&^* outta the dirt and fight.
ksfarmgrrl posted May 27, 2008 at 6:14 pm
“Just because you are blinded by your own hatred doesnt mean we cant see it.”
I have no “hatred” toward Clinton — I just believe that Obama’s the better candidate.
Polls in May? The November election is a long way off. Debates, campaign ads, etc…
Obama can probably win some states that Clinton cannot.
Obama is better at fundraising.
Clinton has strong negatives with Republics, which will cause a strong turnout to defeat her.
Are Kansas and some other states not important in the general election? Okay, make it official, and don’t hold Dem primaries.
“you were ready to bail the party”
Still am – if Hillary manages to STEAL the nomination – then I will bid a fair adieu to the Democratic Party – after forty years of activism.
“Not a few minutes and a thread or two away, cosmos posted? A poll that says Obama beats Clinton in?
Montana.”
The election is next week, for delegates.
“Are Kansas and some other states not important in the general election? Okay, make it official, and don’t hold Dem primaries.”
Uh, we don’t.
Kansas had a caucus, not a primary. And that was the first in many years.
And a bigger mess I never saw.
And yes, a Democratic primary OR caucus has exactly zero input in the national election. Kansas and many other red states where Obama beat Clinton have, are and will forever be red.
Kansas has not elected a Democrat to the Senate in more than 80 years. Even Obama and his magic powers can’t change that.
“Okay, make it official, and don’t hold Dem primaries.:
We didnt. We had semi-controlled chaos.
Redraw that “new” electoral map for us again.
When Kansas goes for obama, you can tell me “I told ya so”. Even with sebelius at the number two spot, he doesnt take kansas.
We’ll see about those other “red” states.
And how meaningless these may polls are.
“Are Kansas and some other states not important in the general election?”
My point was if only the blue and purple states are important, then only have Dem primaries (voting and/or caucuses) in those states.
The caucuses are just as important as the voting primaries or the superdelegates – all of the processes were known before the fact.
Just as with Michigan and Florida – the rules were known well before hand – no one can complain.
Well the Kansas caucus was one collosal cluster…mess.
They ran out of sign up sheets.
They couldn’t find paper…in a SCHOOL!
It makes no sense to have a caucus or a primary in Kansas. Some places, there just is no hope for.
WSClark
Posted May 27, 2008 at 7:15 pm | Permalink
The caucuses are just as important as the voting primaries or the superdelegates – all of the processes were known before the fact.
Just as with Michigan and Florida – the rules were known well before hand – no one can complain.
=================================================
Yes, Clark, but what Clinton did not know when she agreed to the rules was that she was going to need them to have a chance of winning.
BlueJay – my ‘tomorrow’ is rhetorical – after the pripary process plays itself out. Not May 28. My point is that we are more aloke than we are different.
“Noted AGAIN the condescension among SOME Obama supporters”
As opposed to some Clinton supporters?
Pot calling the kettle black?
2 Trackbacks
[...] Read the rest of this great post here [...]
[...] White House for four of the past five presidents. …Waiting another generation Indianapolis Starhttp://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2008/05/if-not-clinton-then-which-woman/Welcome to the Florida Governor&39s MansionThe Governor&39s Mansion commands the center of a lushly [...]