Hillary: Help me understand why you hate her

I agree. I do not hate either Clinton. I don't even dislike them. I resent, however, their sense of entitlement. I resent that the only reason Hillary Clinton is the junior senator from New York is that New York is a more prestigious state from which to launch a political career than Arkansas. I resent their dismissiveness of a perfectly able and qualified candidate because he gets in the way of their inevitable rights to rule. Mostly I resent the fact that she will do anything she can to win. However, none of this matters. The fact is, nearly half the country just hates her for the sake of hating her, and that's reason enough not to nominate her.

This is the goofiest reasoning I've heard. It is about Bush now, it was about Bush's dad, it's always about the President. Barak will do the political thing for his legacy, they are all super egos or they wouldn't be running. Bottom line is many would rather have a black man than any woman. The movement started with the crazy right and has spread. If you really listen to the two and pretend they are just people Hillary wins hands down....and I'm a liberal white guy married to mixed blood....so drop the racist deal real quick. I'm just not afraid of women....they sure coudn't do any worse.

g & c:

Well, there's two possible rebuttals. The first is, then, perhaps it's difference in degree but not kind. It becomes more about the Clintons than in other cases.

Speaking as a lifelong Democrat of the contest within the Democratic party, I think there really is a sense in the Clinton campaign or among her surrogates, anyway, that I'm a member of the Clinton-ocratic party rather than the Democratic party, and I reject that. The Hillary campaigns' or her surrogates' ridiculous, absolutely INSANELY ridiculous arguments relating to the Nevada at-large caucuses and the seating of the MI delegations are proof enough of that. What's good for the Clintons isn't necessarily good for the Democratic party and to pretend some kind of principle was involved in either of those cases is unsustainable.

The second rebuttal is simply this. Okay, let's say there's no difference of either degree or kind in the phenomena I cite. You know what, then? The Clintons are just BORING. It's been "about" them for eight $%#&ing years already. I'm tired of it and I want someone new for it to be about.

glenandcarol say, in part:

"they are all super egos or they wouldn't be running. Bottom line is many would rather have a black man than any woman."

This statement, of course, assumes that anyone at anytime runs for President because they have a super ego. A blanket statement, and not necessarily the truth. And like many people, you choose to play both the race card and the gender card in the same hand...instead of the issues.

evano:

I've been critical of both remaining candidates during this season when they used tactics or took stands that I thought could adversely affect prospects for party unity after Labor Day or weaken the party's chances in November.

I've been more critical of Hillary lately because she's done more of those things lately. I'm not worried about negative ads or criticisms of her primary opponent or vice versa. That goes with the territory in a closely-contested primary.

But exploiting or heightening Democratic party procedural disputes in an attempt to gain substantive advantage is unacceptable in my book. Changing party rules after the fact because the change would benefit Hillary treats the Democratic party like it's the Clinton-ocratic party. Even ARGUING publicly for the change is destructive of party unity. That's I mean when I suggest "entitlement," not her work ethic.

I, of course, don't hate Hillary. I think if you had asked why people dislike Hillary, you'd be closer to the mark for most of us who lean to the left. Hate is quite a strong word.

My feelings are much like jfxgillis' above. I voted for Bill in 1992 & 1996. I campaigned for him in 1992. I was disappointed by his presidency in many ways, but that doesn't really reflect on Hillary as far as I'm concerned. I accept her as her own person. I didn't vote for Hillary Clinton for her senate seat because I didn't live in NY at the time.

I started to dislike her after her vote for the Iraq war. I think she voted for that war because she thought not doing so would cost her some votes in her next election. I feel like she's always got her finger in the air, seeing which way the wind is blowing before she has an opinion on an issue. I don't find that very inspiring.

Any remaining respect I had for her disappeared after the race-baiting she and her husband did in S. Carolina. I used to feel sorry for the Clintons because the Republicans were always attacking them. But, after seeing their behavior in this primary, I'm starting to think they might bring a lot of this on themselves. They just seem to create a toxic political atmosphere around themselves. This latest thing with her trying to cheat the delegate system is the latest example. It sure seems in many instances like her and her husband have gotten the idea that the rules apply to them. To answer your last question (though not in the same order you asked them), I don't think the media treats her any differently than anyone else, expect that she (and Obama) got a hell of a lot more media attention than any of the other Democratic candidates.

Tracie:

Intriguing. I blame Obama's people for the racialism that popped up in South Carolina. Seems not to have been a deliberate or concerted effort by the campaign (although appear to have benefited) but still, Hillary's comments about MLK/LBJ were perfectly innocuous.

I, ah, er, um, ah, am not very much worried about her vote for the Iraq War Resolution, because, it's, er, um ... well, you know what I mean? ... er .... I supported it myself. Although I do agree that her hedging now is inferior as an approach compared to say, John Edwards' simple admission of error.

Hillary's comments about MLK/LBJ were perfectly innocuous.

Oh, I didn't mean that. I didn't find anything wrong with that either--it was a non-issue blown way out of proportion. The incident that I mean is when Bill pointed out after Obama's win in SC that Jesse Jackson also won SC in '84 and '88. Why did he mention Jackson? If he was trying to say, 'hey, it's possible to win big in SC and go on to lose the nomination', why didn't he mention Edwards, who won SC in 2004? The only reason Bill mentioned Jackson was to imply that SC's large black population are the only reason he won the contest there. It was a very scumbag thing to do.

Although I do agree that her hedging now is inferior as an approach compared to say, John Edwards' simple admission of error.

I agree. That would have been the mature, classy thing to do, and I could respect that a lot more than her hemming and hawing about being misled.

Tracie, the remark, in context, was an answer to a question about whether a black candidate could win in a southern state. Clinton responded that not only could a black candidate win, but that it had happened in the past, as well as recently. Of course, Clinton haters are so slick at taking remarks out of context that it's almost become second nature now. Which is why it should be second nature for everyone else to check the context whenever they hear someone quote a supposedly outrageous statement by one of the Clintons.

As a Black person, I heard the comment and I wondered why he brought up Jesse Jackson of all people. Obviously a lot of other people felt the same way I did.

To Trex--

You should check out what Bill Clinton said then come back and say the comment was not meant to label him the Black candidate IF you are referring to South Carolina.

Here's Bill. Listen to the question he was asked.

Tracie, the remark, in context, was an answer to a question about whether a black candidate could win in a southern state.

No, trex-138069, it absolutely was not. As the video linked by MaryGJ shows clearly, the question was, "What does it say about Barack Obama that it takes two of you to beat him?" Nothing at all about black candidates winning southern states. He pulled Jesse Jackson out of nowhere because he was race-baiting. Plain and simple.

Clinton haters are so slick at taking remarks out of context that it's almost become second nature now.

Or perhaps Clinton apologists are so slick at lying that it's almost become second nature to them now.

I have been very surprised at this criticism --

When you lose races the 1st thing you do is fire the campaign manager. Everybody does this. It's standard procedure. Hillary Clinton is certainly not the 1st and she'll not be the last to do so.

Jack, I've said it before, and I'll say it again: not only will Barack Obama be demonized in exactly the same way as the Clintons were from 1992 onward -- he already is being attacked in much the same way. You've seen the viral e-mails, haven't you? The innuendoes that he's some sort of a Muslim sleeper-agent who wants to blow up Washington and abolish American football and outlaw family values? Is the not-so-veiled racism in those attacks that much different from the not-at-all veiled misgyny that attributed cosmic significance to the fact that Hillary kept her maiden name for a few years after getting married? And even after she changed her name to Clinton, the likes of Cal "most effeminate face-lift since Bert Reynolds" Thomas was suggesting ominously that her commitment to the family was suspect because she had (ominous roll of drums) continued to use Rodham as her middle name. (Every married woman of my mother's generation used her maiden name as a middle name, but I guess that's different somehow). There won't be less filth-hurling during an Obama presidency than during a Clinton presidency. The slanders and lies will simply be aimed at a different target. And they've already started in on Michelle Obama too. Don't kid yourself that when it comes to "negatives" there will be a dime's worth of difference between any possible Democratic candidates.

t-rex:

No doubt true, but two things may ameliorate it:

1. Obama may well have an opportunity to blunt the slanders among swing voters. Maybe yes, maybe no, but Hillary most certainly will not have that opportunity.

2. Obama simply may not have as much to go after.

Oh come on, Jack, we're talking about the same people who cast doubt on John Kerry's military service while deflecting attention from the fact that their draft evading little golden boy didn't even show up for National Guard service. We're talking about the people who spread rumors that John Mc Cain's adopted Bangladeshi daughter was his illegitimate black child. There is no such thing as a candidate so clean that the Lee Atwater - Karl Rove school of "win at any cost, do anything you have to" lie merchants can't cook up something, and get stupid people to believe it. The kind of people who forward e-mails without checking Snopes already believe the "he took his oath of office on the Koran" garbage.

Tee Rex:

All true. The Clintons screwed up responding to the Noise Machine, Gore screwed up and Kerry screwed up.

Why, even accepting everything you say, would I want someone who I know cannot effectively neutralize the Noise Machine when there's someone else who I don't know whether they can or cannot? I'd rather roll the dice on a chance Obama could do it than take a 100% sure thing that Hillary can't.

Maybe he can't and he'll lose. Oh well. I know she can't and she'll lose.

The most bizarre thing about Hillary-hating is that when people point out how different she is in person from her grotesquely caricatured persona, Hillary-haters will often respond that this just proves how demonically devious she is. If you want to understand Hillary-bashing, I suggest you read Marion Starkey's "The Devil in Massachussetts," about hysteria, witch-hunting and spectral evidence. "Satan's Silence: Ritual Abuse and the Making of a Modern American Witch Hunt," by Debbie Nathan Martin Snedeker, will also cast a great deal more light on the matter than anything in her or Bill Clinton's political record.

When the Republicans start arguing that they should weigh her against a duck, don't forget I predicted that it would come to this.

evano:

My new theory is a simple swap if Hillary wins the White House.

It's going to be as inconvient for Gordon Brown to have Tony Blair hanging around as it will be for Hillary to have Bill around. So they've been pushing Blair for EU President while pushing Bill for the U.N. But neither will help. Brussels is too close to London while New York is too close to Washington.

So. Put Bill in as EU President and Tony in as U.N. Secretary. Then they're both an ocean away from trouble.

Hey, why stop at EU president? I say we make him Pope!

spiff:

Well, he's got the "Sin and be forgiven" part of Catholicism down pat.

He needs to work on the confession part.

I know he often spoke of himself as an example of that, coming from a poor, single-parent family and yet made it to the Ivy League and Oxford.

That's another piece of Clintonian mythology that Roger Morris pretty well covered in what is still one of the best books on Bill and Hill, Partners in Power: The Clintons and Their America. It is certainly true that Bill's step-daddy didn't do much for him but he got where he got both by his own talents and in no small part the doings of his paternal uncle Raymond Clinton who was a car-dealer in Hot Springs and well-connected with the Arkansas elite (both legal and illegal) including Fulbright. Bill Clinton might have been born in Hope but his natural home was always the shady dealings of his real hometown of Hot Springs.

It's quite obvious that you don't know one thing about Roger Morris nor have you read his book or you wouldn't be making such asinine comments. That clear enough for you? He has nothing to do with Scaife or any of the other crap you're babbling about:

Roger Morris, an award-winning historian and investigative journalist who served on the National Security Council Staff under Presidents Johnson and Nixon, has just completed Shadows of the Eagle, a history of American policy and covert interventions in the Middle East and South Asia, to be published early next year by Alfred Knopf. Morris is the author of Partners in Power: the Clintons and Their America and with Sally Denton The Money and the Power: the Making of Las Vegas. He serves as a Senior Fellow of the Green Institute, where this column appears originally, along with his previous and ongoing work on American politics, on the Institute's world affairs web site, www.eGP360.net.

That's from his bio for a piece he wrote for Counterpunch. You know, that noted repository of rightwing nuttery? Try reading something once in a while before jumping to conclusions and you'd make yourself appear less of a fool.

I was simply pointing out the fact that the mythos surrounding Bill Clinton's alleged impoverishment is basically just that -- a myth as the passage I linked pointed out. Insofar as the rest of the Clinton scandals are concerned there are prosecutable offenses (which when witnesses refuse to testify can be tough) and there are ethics. In my view the Clinton critics missed the boat by not focusing more intently on the corrupt WH fundraising operations which included having an agent of foreign influence installed as a conduit in the Commerce Dept. in the form of John Huang.

But leaving that all behind us I think it's pretty clear that while the public did not believe Clinton should have been impeached neither is there any hunger for a rerun of the type of "ethics" the Clintons represent and that's what we're seeing in both the Democratic nomination process and the country at large.

Let me rephrase that:

"I just find it hard to trust her. She comes across sometimes as a bit of a phony TO ME."

Exactly. I'm a graduate student, and in my crowd of friends, we've each given $25 to the Obama campaign whenever we can afford it. Dinner and drinks or support Obama? Okay, let's support Obama. There are a lot of young people doing the same thing around the country. Most of these may still vote for Hillary but won't give her a dime. We may agree with her (she and Obama have practically the same exact platform with only minor differences), but we simply don't believe in her.

We may agree with her...but we simply don't believe in her.

This is essentially how I come down on the Hillary-Obama decision. Well put, AKG. Obama has shown uncanny political ability for his age/level of experience. Voting for Barack excites me about a president who could forever change the office and leave his imprint upon America for centuries to come. When I think of Senator Clinton, I think of the past. That may not be a fair reason to choose a candidate to support, but as AKG pointed out there just isn't any legitimate policy distinction to work off of. Democratic voters have to make a judgement call between two people whom they have never had the chance to know personally. Oh well. That's part of the deal.

hey evano - i just seeded this article and thought you might like it because it addresses Volcker and Glass-Steagall. It's also interesting to note that Volcker has come out and supported Obama for president - which I think is very telling.

If it were possible, I would vote twice for your comment.

Lulu124 says:

"If it were possible, I would vote twice for your comment."

No worries. I did it for you. (laughs)

Thanks, then.

the paragraph, it helps.

It's interesting to note how so many Obama supporters think his way marks a striking divergence politically from the Clinton path

Except I don't think that. To quote myself from the comment I linked in vas's column:

I've mentioned someone similar (in much shorter form) in a couple of comment threads around Newsvine, but mostly in response to Obama critics. I can already see the angle critics will take: "Where's the change we were promised? Where are the policies?"

But you're absolutely right. Obama isn't preaching a policy revolution. He's preaching a revolution of the approach to politics. He's seeking to elevate politics back to where it stood when the best of men entered public service. He wants politics we can be proud of, not politics where we have to hold our noses when we read the national news pages.

The "direction" isn't one of policies. It's great that you're a policy wonk just like Al Gore, but leadership isn't always about having a 10-point plan for any contingency.

He's seeking to elevate politics back to where it stood when the best of men entered public service.

You mean like when Jefferson's political opponents began the whispering campaign about him and Sally Hemmings? Or when Sen. Preston Brooks of SC beat abolitionist Sen. Charles Sumner nearly to death on the Senate floor? Or when Lincoln was commonly compared to a simian? God save the Republic from the holier-than-thou.

And yet despite *gasp* humans being humans 200 years ago, great and thoughtful men still entered public service. Who is the greatest man in the administration now? Who was it under Clinton? Are they the best we have to offer?

Spiffie, counter to the prevailing conventional wisdom, as a close observer of US politics for forty years I do not believe we are suffering from a shortage of good people going into politics. Most people like sausage but few would want to examine the sausage-making process and today we much more of the latter than we did previously. Politics ain't beanbag and it will continue to be so no matter how much Barack Obama smiles.

I would never say that were no "good people" in government. After all, I have a fundamental belief in the power of government to be a force for good. Jefferson marshaled the early populist impulses of this country. Lincoln fundamentally altered the relationship between the states and the federal government. FDR fundamentally altered the relationship between the federal government and its citizenry. Reagan seismically shifted the the center of debate to the right. These were all men who recognized, harnessed, and shaped strong currents running through the body politic.

A good leader leading good people can keep the country running over their term and make incremental changes. A great leader leading good people can do truly remarkable things.

Obama has shown he won't play beanbag. He didn't sit back and take punches like Kerry did. And leading isn't about "smiling," no matter how you try to trivialize it. This president and the Congress from '02-'06 showed the worst kind of leadership, the leadership of 50%+1. That kind of "leadership" isn't leadership at all. It's majority bullying of the worst sort.

Maybe I'm wrong about Obama's ability to change that, or at least be an agent in that change. Maybe I'm not. But I do think that Obama is more likely to change that than either of the two candidates. For that he's picked up my vote.

It's interesting to note how so many Obama supporters think his way marks a striking divergence politically from the Clinton path when, in fact, on balance their positions on issues don't vary all that much

It's a fair point, and what supporters on either side of the debate are saying is "sure, they say more or less the same thing, but one of them is lying." Of course, in practice, both candidates are probably being at least a little deceptive: it's part of rhetoric, and part of winning. But many people feel that, on a basis of integrity, Obama sizes up much more strongly than Hillary does.

The flipside of this is that whether or not they differ in their integrity, there's little question that America overall believes that there is difference. Some democrats are deeply invested in one candidate over the other, but others have taken sides strictly on the basis of strategy in the general election.

Obama supporters point to his broad appeal, and how he consistently fares better than Clinton in head-to-head comparisons to McCain. This, they assert, is evidence that Obama is the "winning candidate" regardless of the similarities between Hillary and Obama on policy. Hillary's supporters, on the other hand, feel that Clinton is the more "weathered" combatant, and that her history of exchanging barbs with the Republican spin machine makes her the more experienced campaigner.

My own opinion is the 90s-era vilification of the Clintons is a major liability that will scare away centrist voters that the Dems need to worry about McCain picking up. I have other reasons for disliking Clinton (there's little doubt in my mind that she's the more "corporate" candidate), but I would still favor Obama even if I thought they were identical. It's not just about what I believe - it's about what the rest of America believes as well.

Bill @ 22.2

You neglected to mention the era when men would challenge each other to a duel to the death, for the most mundane reason as a man's honor tarnished by defamation, or when women and blacks (even those of property) had their rights stripped down to zip, zilch, zero - voting or otherwise. Yea, to the good old days of our exceptional public servants. ;-)

Spiffie,

A great leader leading good people can do truly remarkable things.

Call me a cynic, I reserve my right to believe truly remarkable things will happen until it occurs - with great leaders and good people. I gave up on hope a few years ago. Hillary is a great leader, too. It still remains to be seen what she'll accomplish, and as you well know my position here, regarding the stinking pile Bush has left for the next administration to mop up. Perhaps Bill Harrison can provide the historical data on which Presidents inherited morasses such as this left from Bush's wake and the last three Congresses.

Evano,

I don't hate Hillary Clinton. I voted for her for biased reasons.

Call me a cynic, I reserve my right to believe truly remarkable things will happen until it occurs

Cynic. ;-)

Although I don't disagree. Obama has a lot of proving himself to to do, in my mind, before I'll be willing to say he is a great leader. He shows potential. Hillary is a good leader. She's managed to do some good things. She's also not been very successful at some very big things.

The way this election is looking right now, for me, is almost like an episode of the old game show Let's Make a Deal. I know what's behind door #1 and door #2. I don't know what's behind door #3, but I've been given enough clues to know that it's probably not any worse than what's behind the first two, and it could be a whole lot better.

I want door #3 to be a whole lot better. At worst, if Obama wins, we get just another politician in the White House. The civil service will prevent total chaos from happening. At best we get a transformational leader who might genuinely do some good in Washington. What we'll probably get is in the middle. But I can live with a bit better than now, and I don't think Hillary will get the same opportunities (as outlined above).

But I can live with a bit better than now, and I don't think Hillary will get the same opportunities (as outlined above).

I don't think Hillary will get the opportunities, but I think she's more than capable of making the opportunities, and I haven't the same faith in the opposition.

Spiffie,

Remarkable transformation will only occur if there is a sea change in Congress. (It is the chief reason impeachment hearings against the Bush Administration have never happened. Just as with the Republican Congress that impeached Clinton but could not convict, our current elected officials lack the votes not only to impeach but to also convict. I blame the Republicans corruption and hunger for holding on to power - at all costs, even if it breached the Constitution.)

So, if we examine both Barak's and Hillary's platforms - there are not a lot of differences - unless you consider hairsplitting over semantics significant differentiation. I don't.

Barak has a smoother, and more inspirational, populist communication style of delivery (except for that phony twang I wished he'd drop - it's really sounds awful); whereas Hillary really has a vocalization that explores details that is different from his. His deep baritone is seductive. Hers is alto/soprano - to some it sounds shrill.

To some, one sounds more assertive than the other, until you begin to listen to what words are being spoken. I become very board with vague generalizations of hope (fifteen or twenty years ago I was swayed by such dreaminess, but no more). I love a speaker who delves into their goals and objectives and lays out a plan. IOW: I've become task oriented in my listening skills. What is the speaker trying to tell me they propose to accomplish - what's the plan. For me, Hillary is better able to vocalize her plan. Barak, not so much. How will he vocalize his plans when he is President? Again, to me - it's unclear.

And, then of course I do give marks for life experiences, that is, the older you are the more experiences you've had. So, since Barak is about my age...I feel he doesn't have as much experience as she does.

She has seen the WH is action. She will be able to hit the ground running without skipping a beat on crisis - she has White House experience, he on the other hand well...it's unknown. Yes, I'm risk averse this time. But, it's accentuated because our national house is in such disorder and teetering on becoming a shambles.

I have always opposed this war, had hope it wouldn't happen and had been angry with Congress for support of the Bush Administration war plan. I even asked advice from family members in the military with combat experience in VN, their responses: "We don't think a ground war is prudent and don't agree with the President, but the President didn't ask us for our opinions. So, we will deploy on his orders." McCain has weight with the military on votes, service members are loyal to each other - especially former combat veterans. Hillary has made inroads on issues to Veterans, but it's unlikely she'll garner a majority. And, it's unknown how Obama is perceived by military service members. Their votes do count - a great deal in presidential politics.

As far as Hillary's record on voting for PL 107 - 243, I'm reminded of what John Dean wrote about the Bush Administration in June of 2003

More specifically,

Presidential statements, particularly on matters of national security, are held to an expectation of the highest standard of truthfulness.

There were very few in the 107th Congress that didn't vote with the President. I can't credit Obama for what he would've, could've or should've done. He didn't vote on PL 107 -243, so I really can't give him credit for a vote he never made. He wasn't on the Senate roster to be on the record. It's great that he opposes the War, it's apparent than many more American people oppose it now.

I don't have an exact figure at hand, but roughly 70% of the American people believed what Bush said about Sadaam Hussein and what Colin Powel told the UN body. If only we were not affected by our fears, but we were. When it was passed, the nation was mourning the first anniversary of September 11. I was so distraught by its sadness, I decided to fly on an airplane to visit family overseas as an exercise to myself that I had no fear. I wasn't afraid. The memory of that day was so painful, I had to prove in my own small way that I wouldn't allow to be paralyzed in fear by not flying on a plane, and also -sort of as a memorial to those who perished. But, there was real collective pain and trauma THAT was paralyzing our collective conscience (at least for most of us here in NY Metro as Ground Zero was still being excavated) to think logically and clearly about what happened that day and how to proceed. Collectively, our nation wanted to stop any imminent threat. We were played.

That said, I want experienced negotiators (meaning older boomers) brokering foreign affairs to help restore our standing that has been hindered with the Bush Administration's unilateral approach. The world has always been a cruel, cruel place - we need someone who can help us navigate in changing territories. Check out today's NY Times Editorial and consider the questions its editorial staff suggests voters ask about the candidates abilities.

Warmest regards,
The cynic

P.S. Btw: {chuckle on the Let's Make a Deal - who plays Monte Hall) ;-D

Remarkable transformation will only occur if there is a sea change in Congress.

Agree. A firm Congressional majority would be very helpful for whoever is president. However, being like the Republicans and ramming through legislation on party-line votes will not improve the divide in this country. Obama's emphasis on consensus legislation is persuasive. 50%+1 is tyranny by the majority. In a pluralistic society, compromise is key to holding us together. Obama seems to be speaking to that need in a way that Clinton has not.

So, if we examine both Barak's and Hillary's platforms - there are not a lot of differences - unless you consider hairsplitting over semantics significant differentiation. I don't.

I don't either. I've said a few different times now that I don't believe Obama is "preaching" a policy revolution; instead he's suggesting a different (and, perhaps, older) approach to politics. That's not to say there won't be differences, or that there won't be partisan fights over his proposals. I'm sure there will be. But he does seem genuinely interested in working to get commanding majorities in the houses of Congress. Additionally, his ability to communicate with and inspire the American voter should not be underestimated as a key talent. As the Star-Telegram said in their endorsement today, "Yes, we know, hope is not a strategy. But it can get people working together to find one."

(except for that phony twang I wished he'd drop - it's really sounds awful)

Agree! Although I would note here that Hillary likes to slip into an affected twang from time to time, also. Pandering is rarely pretty no matter who does it.

For me, Hillary is better able to vocalize her plan. Barak, not so much. How will he vocalize his plans when he is President? Again, to me - it's unclear.

Being able to vocalize a goal is more than just rattling off a 10-point plan. However, let me just admit right here that a year ago I was thinking some of the same things: i.e. give me some meat. But from my reading it seems first that claims that Obama has no detailed plans may be overblown, and second that Obama in recent days has begun to include more detail of those plans in his stump speech.

And, then of course I do give marks for life experiences, that is, the older you are the more experiences you've had. So, since Barak is about my age...I feel he doesn't have as much experience as she does.

That might be true; it also might not. He certainly has different experiences than she does. He's held elective office longer than she has, for instance. He also is coming up from a state legislatures, a position that I think will serve him well. At the very least it's a perspective that rarely gets attention at the national level. There are some who say Sandra Day O'Connor was successful at weaving between two extremes during her tenure on the court because of the practical experience she gained in the Arizona legislature.

She has seen the WH is action.

And, to be fair, White House failure.

Yes, I'm risk averse this time. But, it's accentuated because our national house is in such disorder and teetering on becoming a shambles.

I can respect being risk averse. A lot of people were risk averse in 2004, too. And while I don't agree with the reasons why someone is risk averse, it's a valid feeling to hold. In just the same way, that I am not currently risk averse is a valid component of my support for Obama. It's hard to argue why one should be risk averse (or should not be risk averse), though, because aversion to risk isn't necessarily rational. I'll fully admit that in this aspect I'm willing to go "all in" and that my position is not one everyone will, or can, share.

Hillary has made inroads on issues to Veterans, but it's unlikely she'll garner a majority. And, it's unknown how Obama is perceived by military service members. Their votes do count - a great deal in presidential politics.

Sure. They count for a lot. The military is greatly respected by people on all sides in this country. However, it's telling to me that Obama is pulling more donations from the military than Clinton is.

As far as Hillary's record on voting for PL 107 - 243, I'm reminded of what John Dean wrote about the Bush Administration in June of 2003

Clinton's vote on AUMF isn't really much of an issue for me. Politics at the national level during that time was a bit frenzied ("freedom fries????").

That said, I want experienced negotiators (meaning older boomers) brokering foreign affairs to help restore our standing that has been hindered with the Bush Administration's unilateral approach.

Experienced negotiators would be great. Do you have some reason to believe Obama wouldn't gather a team of experienced negotiators in State? Richardson is sitting this one out. Want to bet he's tapped by either Obama or Clinton?

Check out today's NY Times Editorial and consider the questions its editorial staff suggests voters ask about the candidates abilities.

Which? It hasn't popped up on the RSS feed yet.

who plays Monte Hall

Good question. Gillis is a gambler, too. Maybe we can rope him into it.

He also is coming up from a state legislatures, a position that I think will serve him well.

All the more reason I doubt his halo, angel wings of goodness, faith and inspiration. I'm unfamiliar with politics in Illinois, however, in my own state - the Department of Justice has been engaged in corruption cases involving the local fiefs here, it's not something about which I am proud. In the light of my cynicism, all politics are local, I don't imagine the Illinois political grind to be very much different.

Senator Clinton, too, has experience with state government as First Lady of Arkansas. No, not voting rights in legislation - but knowledge on and influence with party leaders. Again, I don't see a difference between Senators Clinton and Obama. Politics is politics whether it's in the state legislature or the governor's mansion. And, under my arguments over corruption - she's suspect on this account.

I don't doubt that Senator Obama has a good strategy, I'm saying he keeps his talking points short and concise. I'm a task oriented listener. A speaker must give substance to what they propose.

That might be true; it also might not. He certainly has different experiences than she does. He's held elective office longer than she has, for instance.

Hillary Clinton has been a party organizer since her college years. First, in the RNC and later when tumultuous changes swept through our nation during the Kennedy years, Civil Rights and Vietnam. Our nation nearly imploded.

I certainly agree that he has had different experiences. And, so has she. They both have had to fight hard for their successes. Make no mistake. However, each of their Ivy League collegiate experiences are not all that different. I suppose I'd never noticed her twang, his inflections at the end of his sentences are hard to distinguish where he's from. To me, he's trying too hard to sound like a southern black Baptist preacher. He's not, and to my ear - it's phony. As I mentioned to gillis on another thread, you do not hear his intonations when he's speaking about Net Neutrality. But I suppose you're right it's not relevant to the political discussion.

And, to be fair, White House failure.

Can you be more specific? A cite please. What failures? The 1990s was a successful decade - in terms of employment levels. If you want to blame Clinton for NAFTA, then you must include George Herbert Walker Bush's initiation of the treaty. It was already in the works and near completion by the time Clinton took office. Perhaps someone here knows whether Congress at the time of its signing had the power to override a veto. Clinton's impeachment was, more than anything, a cause pursued by a Republican Congress and a hateful. I don't give a crap about the details, to me there are boundaries. Has Clinton served time or been convicted outside of his terms in Office?

It's hard to argue why one should be risk averse (or should not be risk averse), though, because aversion to risk isn't necessarily rational. I'll fully admit that in this aspect I'm willing to go "all in" and that my position is not one everyone will, or can, share.

Thanks. To use a metaphor, I suppose, it's rather I've also never been a crowd follower. When everyone is running to praise a candidate that I'm not getting descriptions to the questions flipping through my mind that a speaker raises as I listen to a speaker, I begin to question ever more what it is that makes the speaker great to others. In other words, I seldom follow the herd. For the record, I voted in the last election - as a write-in - for Carol Mosely Braun. I couldn't stand Senator Kerry communication style..."get to the point, get to the point man..."

I may have taken a different position had Senator Obama approached his campaign from my perspective - by expanding his talking points with just enough detail, and have been risk averse (as gillis and other here point to the RNC noise machine) to Senator Clinton's viability. Though, her positions on women's issues carry a great deal more weight than perhaps they would for you. So in that respect, I am biased. Just as black voters recognize Senator Obama's positions and his experiences on matters important to persons of color and do translate to all people of color. I'm glad I'm not confronted with the issue of being female and black.

The clincher for me on Senator Clinton came when Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. endorsed her just before the February 5 primary. There is nothing more dear and near to my heart than enforcing our pollution laws, and he is an ardent, forceful opponent to what the Bush Administration has done to the Clean Water and Clean Air Acts. She is adopting word for word - Al Gore's plan for AGW reductions. Again, another issue I've not heard Senator Obama mention.

Sure. They count for a lot. The military is greatly respected by people on all sides in this country. However, it's telling to me that Obama is pulling more donations from the military than Clinton is.

I was referring to the issues for Iraq & Afghanistan Vets, not campaign finance. It's true he's reaching many constituents via individual donations, but what legislation has he participated in that has made a difference for veteran benefits? She was one of the first legislators to meet in Washington with Iraq and Afghanistan veterans, outspoken about the war, to listen to their concerns and issues. Meanwhile other leaders on the Hill have followed suit. She supports the GI Bill. I don't doubt Senator Obama supports it too, but she met with organizational leaders when they began a campaign focusing on Traumatic Brain Injury, PTSD, Veteran Homelessness, the problems with leadership at the VA and updating the GI Bill. But, when all is said and done I imagine veterans will vote (which, quite frankly, matters more than campaign contributions) for McCain. Veterans aren't asking this time where the candidates were in Vietnam, they're asking where their children are in Iraq. And, if Senator Jim Webb were on the GOP ticket (yes, I know he's a democrat, but he's adored by veterans - so was Wesley Clark)? Guess who'd trump McCain.

I imagine Richardson, Gore, Edwards are bound by their super delegate status and will not rock the boat until it's clear who has the largest share of voter delegates. And, it is only fair to see this contest stretch neck and neck to the very finish before throwing endorsements out or changing them. Not just for fairness, but it sure as hell will take all the bluster out of the RNC's candidate. While at the same time keep Democratic voter enthusiasm rolling and engaged in the Democratic contest. Nothing beats free publicity for a great cause to get the vote out. Everyone loves a contest.

I do hope both Senators Clinton and Obama are crafting their short lists, in fact, I'm sure they already have them completed. These two individuals know how to do their homework.
I don't dare reveal my real hope at this particular time, but it's something along the lines of a Dream Team ticket. That would thrill me. ;-) Oops, I couldn't contain enthusiasm about this contest. At the very least, it would address another population most marginalized in our society and perhaps conflicted about their votes - that is, Democratic African American women.

On Monty Hall: it occurred to me this afternoon. That would be the biased liberal media. ;-) Right, Gillis?

Can you be more specific?

Oh, sorry. I was referring to the failure of health care reform of the first Clinton term. That's the only substantial failure that I can think of in which she played a significant part. I thought the inference was clear, but since not that's the one! :-)

Though, her positions on women's issues carry a great deal more weight than perhaps they would for you. So in that respect, I am biased. Just as black voters recognize Senator Obama's positions and his experiences on matters important to persons of color and do translate to all people of color.

I already pimped this seed to lisaed, but you might find it interesting, too.

Spiffie,

Thanks. I place blame with both the legislative and executive branches on the failure of healthcare reform. Remember, President Clinton had to contend with, in his first term, the likes of the Newt Gingriches and Tom Delays and a proclamation for The Contract with America (well, that contract turned out to be just another piece of paper - didn't it).

What struck me about the entire situation was the public indignation that President Clinton allowed the First Lady to endeavor such a cause. Why is it acceptable for Laura Bush to champion a cause like literacy, and not the same for Hillary Clinton champion a cause all mothers generally oversee. The health and education of their children. It failed before it ever had a chance to develop wings. How much worse, or corrupted, could it have been then the Prescription Drug Plan (Medicare Part D) under the Bush Administration?

Thanks for the link to your seed. It's all about identity, isn't it. Always has been, and always will be. Another reason why popularity contests are so...well...popular. {chuckle}

I want young American girls to have a hero (and if Senator Clinton makes it - let's hope she doesn't screw it up). My hero as a ten year old was Harriet Tubman. Yeah, Civil Rights had that much impact on my psyche. Too bad an African American woman isn't making a bid for president. We do have Mrs. Obama, but women have proven themselves in a spousal role. I want a leader to break through the glass ceiling, once and for all. Nancy Pelosi has gotten us closer, but let's keep our "eyes on the prize." ;-)

On other identity issues, man have we still a long road to hoe. Just look at what my state did to McGreevey. (Although, the underlying and unreported issues surrounding his resignation had more to do with his campaign finance associations - but that's a different story.)

I place blame with both the legislative and executive branches on the failure of healthcare reform.

Oh I would have never said that the failure was all Hillary's. Far from it. I was only pointing out that the single biggest item in her experience in the Clinton White House was a failure. (She had successes, too, but nothing of the scale of the healthcare reform attempt.) Certainly, she's since admitted that she made a lot of mistakes at the time, but has tried to learn from them (always a good thing!).

I want young American girls to have a hero (and if Senator Clinton makes it - let's hope she doesn't screw it up).

I want you to have a hero, too! And even though I happen to prefer Obama this go-round, I'm not averse at all to a Clinton presidency. I've also been pushing female VP candidates to anyone who will listen, on both the Democratic and Republican tickets. Obama would serve himself well by picking a woman to run with, and so would McCain.

Additionally, even if Hillary doesn't get the presidential nod from the party, I doubt we've seen the last of her. How does Senate Majority Leader Clinton sound? I think she'd do a great job. (Reid's been something of a disappointment.)

Spiffie,

Ahem. Perhaps it had something to do with her political inexperience.
She has done remarkable things in a bipartisan fashion. Witness her recent cooperative efforts with former House leader Newt Gingrich (universal health care), Senator Bill Frist (modernization of medical records) and Senator Lindsey Graham (cooperative efforts with the American Manufacturing Trade Action Coalition - our manufacturing base is dissolving).

I think most people who are far left of center miss the point that politicians have a responsibility under the charge for the good of national constituencies to compromise with political enemies. She has done very good things. She is experienced, capable and flexible.
She has heralded the causes of health care and monitoring for first responders at Ground Zero, and veterans.

(And, although it isn't mentioned in any news reports regarding her affiliation of large earmarks in the FY08, I venture a guess that these are pertinent to those two issues. I could be wrong. If you, or anyone, can direct me to fiscal reports on them, then I'd greatly appreciate it.)
Quite frankly, as Gillis points out in his article about Obama...ready or not... I would dare to say American sexist attitudes aren't ready for a woman in the White House.

I think we are.

Thanks for your sentiments about my needs for positive role models, my time has passed for that (tho, I still do admire, most, my mother's generation and the generations of suffragists before her), but presently my concerns are directed towards the future waves of young feminists. The other "f" word, it really isn't a vulgar word - only in peoples false perceptions of it.

BTW: in reading up on Senator Clinton's history, I was amazed to learn that Senator Elizabeth Dole AND Senator Barak Obama modelled their senatorial campaign bids on Senator Clinton's model. Isn't that rich. Obama sought the advice and expertise of Senator Clinton during his senatorial campaign.

caltha:

*cough*

I would dare to say American sexist attitudes aren't ready for a woman in the White House.

Black man vs. white woman

My only defense is that I assure you I had not read this article until after I finished writing my Obama article.

Jack,
You really need to do something about that cough.

Excuses, excuses. You could have done yourself a favor and read MarilynL's seed of Nicholas Kristof's opinion on the matter and engaged in a deeper discussion on the endemic nature of, and the whys and wherefores that make patriarchal societies so g/d damned oppressive. But, thanks for letting me know about your altruistic efforts, anyway. Much obliged.

caltha, somewhat related to our conversation above re: military, this seed might be of interest.