51% SAY NO TO PREZ HILL

[adios]

51% SAY NO TO PREZ HILL

Hillary is the anointed candidate of the media so it seems. This kiss of death methinks.

[kurto]

The odd thing is I've rarely (I can only think of one time) that I heard any Democrat endorsing a Hilary candidacy. I've heard rabid Republicans talking about her running in 2008 pretty much since the 2000 elections ended.

Frankly, the fact that she's a woman, I suspect, is her biggest hurdle. There's still too many close-minded neanderthals in this country for me to believe a woman has a shot at the presidency.

Then... the fact that her last name is Clinton is enough to guarantee that a significant portion of the more sheepish of the partiasn right wouldn't vote for her.

If Jesus came back to Earth but had the last name of "Clinton".. a good amount of the less-thinking partisans on the right greet him with fresh crosses.

So... I can't imagine Hilary would have a chance.

[Exsubmariner]

There are still a fair amount of closed minded Neanderthals who think a Jew could never be President, either. That's why Joe Lieberman hasn't been endorsed as a viable candidate for his party.

Thanks for supporting my premise that the biggest bigots and sexists in the country hang out at the DNC.

I voted for GWB and I want Hillary to run. I want her to run so I can vote for Condelezza Rice. That way, the Republican party can take credit for the first Black Female President. That's in addition to the first Black Female Secretary of State.

[AvivaSimplex]

[ QUOTE ]
Frankly, the fact that she's a woman, I suspect, is her biggest hurdle. There's still too many close-minded neanderthals in this country for me to believe a woman has a shot at the presidency.

[/ QUOTE ]
It really has very little to do with her gender, except for the perception by liberals that the rest of the country is too sexist to vote for a woman. Her bigger problems are:

-She has very little charisma. Unlike Bill, she's not a convincing or entertaining speaker, and she doesn't come off as someone who you'd like to hang out with.

-She has very poor political instincts and/or terrible advisors. Among other things, her "plantation" comments, and her obvious and stupid pandering on flag burning reinforce the criticisms that Republicans made about Kerry: She has no inherent convictions, and will say whatever she has to to win. The spate of news stories about her "positioning herself" for a run for the presidency have the same effect.

-No one's really very enthusiastic about having Bill back, either. In a way, this is a success from the GOP's scorched-earth attacks during his presidency. People just don't want to have to hear all that crap from both sides again. (Of course, they will hear it no matter who's president, but at least it'll be fresh mud being thrown.)

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
There are still a fair amount of closed minded Neanderthals who think a Jew could never be President, either.

[/ QUOTE ] True. What's your point? I suspect a lot of your peers feel that way.

[ QUOTE ]
That's why Joe Lieberman hasn't been endorsed as a viable candidate for his party.


[/ QUOTE ]
Says who? He's the most conversative person I know in the party. Please show something other then your usual ignorant partisan kneejerk babble that shows Lieberman hasn't been endorsed by the DNC because he's Jewish.

(I won't really be waiting. Your little limbaugh-lite routine is predictable.)

[ QUOTE ]
Thanks for supporting my premise that the biggest bigots and sexists in the country hang out at the DNC.


[/ QUOTE ]

Boy, you must be illiterate too. Nowhere did I say anthing about the DNC. Question; do you fake being this dumb so that you make some partisan rant or is this the real deal.

If you insist on defending your trolling; feel free to cut and paste the part of my post where I said anything about bigots or sexists being in the DNC? (For that matter, I didn't specify ANY party as having the majority of sexists. Did you just make a stupid assumption that I was referring to a specific party? Based on your posts, I would say that seems likely.)

[ QUOTE ]
I voted for GWB and I want Hillary to run. I want her to run so I can vote for Condelezza Rice.

[/ QUOTE ]
Why does Hillary have to run for you to vote for Rice? One has nothing to do with the other. man, you're daft.

[ QUOTE ]
That way, the Republican party can take credit for the first Black Female President.

[/ QUOTE ]

Frankly, I'd be impressed. She's a hell of a lot smarter and competent then GWB. And I'm be impressed that my country would elect a black female president.

Frankly, I could care less if the person was from either party... that's only significant to partisan hacks.

[XxGodJrxX]

Lieberman is not endorsed by Democrats because he is a POS. I would put him farther to the right on social issues than some members of the republican party in Congress. I would rather have Bush as president than have the party realign to the right thanks to Joe.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
It really has very little to do with her gender, except for the perception by liberals that the rest of the country is too sexist to vote for a woman.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why do you pretend that sexism in this country is just something perceived by liberals? I really find it hard to take people seriously who pretend that sexism (or racism) isn't still relevent problem in our society. And the fact that you just labeled people who think there is sexism as "liberals" kind of tells me a lot about you.

[ QUOTE ]
She has very little charisma. Unlike Bill, she's not a convincing or entertaining speaker, and she doesn't come off as someone who you'd like to hang out with.


[/ QUOTE ]
Frankly, IMO, I think this is primarily an issue for idiots. Competency and intelligence is more important then charisma. This is very superficial.

[ QUOTE ]
She has very poor political instincts and/or terrible advisors.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have not followed her political career. But from what I understand, her constituents have been mostly please with her performance. Furthermore, I have been told by people who heard her speak (who wasn't excited about her) that she's a very engaging speaker and had a lot of good to say.

I've never paid her much heed so I can't say if I would agree. But since most people who bash her don't see much either, I'm more willing to listen to people who've seen her first hand and people who she has served.

[ QUOTE ]
Among other things, her "plantation" comments

[/ QUOTE ]
I thought the plantation comments sounded pretty stupid. But the same people who will jump on this, aren't bothered by Bush. So the people who think this disqualifies her but support Bush... they're hypocrites with no standards... so this becomes meaningless.

[ QUOTE ]
and her obvious and stupid pandering on flag burning reinforce the criticisms that Republicans made about Kerry: She has no inherent convictions, and will say whatever she has to to win.

[/ QUOTE ] I'm afraid I don't know the flag burning stuff you're referring to. The people who will believe she has no inherent convictions (but beleive the opposite is true about ________ (fill in blank with Republican candidate) are just the partisans who I covered in my first post. They are being irrationa. see PARTISON NO LOGIC

[ QUOTE ]
The spate of news stories about her "positioning herself" for a run for the presidency have the same effect.


[/ QUOTE ]
And the people who will be turned off by stories of Hilary positioning herself for a Presidency, will have no problems when the Republican counterpart 'positions himself' for a presidency. See... its the usual partisan BS. If Democrat positions himself, he has no conviction. If a Republican positions himself... its nothing to note.

You haven't shown anything concrete other then stating the propaganda BS that the right wing Clinton haters repeat to each other endlessly. I already covered them in my OP.

[ QUOTE ]
No one's really very enthusiastic about having Bill back, either.

[/ QUOTE ]
I have never heard this question asked. Yet, I'd guess you're wrong here. Perhaps you missed the polls on Bill's popularity. He was very popular.

But this is beside the point. I've never heard this discussed. Until you said it, it never even crossed my mind. Most people vote for a candidate; not their spouse.

[ QUOTE ]
People just don't want to have to hear all that crap from both sides again. (Of course, they will hear it no matter who's president, but at least it'll be fresh mud being thrown.)

[/ QUOTE ]

You can be pretty certain Hilary wouldn't be bringing it up. So, perhaps you mean to say, you don't want to hear Republicans flinging the same mud around again (as we know they would do?)

All in all... though you've restated a lot of the prejudices and opinions of the Clinton haters... you've done little to dispel my OP:
(1) this country is still sexist
(2) that there has been a strong group of people who have been thriving in their Clinton hate for a good decade now and aren't about to give someone a chance from that family.

One new point: the poll is almost meaningless. Until a person campaigns and people hear the platforms of the candidates; most polls like this are meaningless. Sure, a good 20% of the country probably already knows ("I ain't voting for no Republican" and "I ain't voting for no democrat/liberal")but the vast majority.. its meaningless
to poll now since most people don't know what a candidate offers.

I couldn't tell you anything about what she'd campaign on. How could I say if I'd support her as a candidate?

I suspect most people don't know anything about her, how she's done as a Senator, what she's like as a campaigner or what her platform would be.

But to people who hate everything "Clinton"... that stuff doesn't matter. And if you don't believe a woman has any place running the office of the most powerful nation in the world... none of that matters.

[AvivaSimplex]

I find it interesting that you dismissed all of my comments as coming from a deranged right winger. I've voted Democrat in every single important election. I actually like Bill Clinton quite a bit. In my opinion, Hillary has virtually no chance of winning the general election.

[ QUOTE ]
Why do you pretend that sexism in this country is just something perceived by liberals? I really find it hard to take people seriously who pretend that sexism (or racism) isn't still relevent problem in our society. And the fact that you just labeled people who think there is sexism as "liberals" kind of tells me a lot about you.

[/ QUOTE ]
The number of people who wouldn't vote for a woman president is probably less than 10% of the population, and those people wouldn't vote Democratic anyway.

[ QUOTE ]
Frankly, IMO, I think this is primarily an issue for idiots. Competency and intelligence is more important then charisma. This is very superficial.

[/ QUOTE ] If competency and intelligence were the deciding factors in our democracy, we'd be finishing President Gore's second term. Charisma is a prerequisite for winning, whether you like it or not.

[ QUOTE ]
If Democrat positions himself, he has no conviction. If a Republican positions himself... its nothing to note.

[/ QUOTE ]Look, both sides obviously do it. The thing is, it's a skill to make it look like you're taking a popular stance for reasons other than poll numbers. Bush has it, Bill Clinton had it, Kerry, Gore, and Hillary don't. It shouldn't be that way, but it is.

[ QUOTE ]
Most people vote for a candidate; not their spouse.

[/ QUOTE ]You gotta be kidding if you think Bill Clinton would be on the sidelines for Hillary's run.

[ QUOTE ]
So, perhaps you mean to say, you don't want to hear Republicans flinging the same mud around again (as we know they would do?)

[/ QUOTE ]The American public doesn't want to hear it. That's why people liked Bush's promise in 2000 to "change the tone." He didn't, and the tone will stay the same (shrill and irritating) no matter who's elected. But if Hillary is elected, people know it's just going to be painful to read the paper or watch the news.

[QuadsOverQuads]

[ QUOTE ]
The odd thing is I've rarely (I can only think of one time) that I heard any Democrat endorsing a Hilary candidacy. I've heard rabid Republicans talking about her running in 2008 pretty much since the 2000 elections ended.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's like I've said before: they're conditioned, just like Pavlov's dog.

"Hillary Clinton!"

*bark!bark!bark!bark!* ...


It's just another cue-phrase used to induce a conditioned psychological response. And within their circles, it works.


q/q

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
I find it interesting that you dismissed all of my comments as coming from a deranged right winger. I've voted Democrat in every single important election. I actually like Bill Clinton quite a bit. In my opinion, Hillary has virtually no chance of winning the general election.

[/ QUOTE ]
I've never heard anyone except 'deranged right wingers' assume that liberals are the only people who think sexism is an issue. Do you honestly believe the fact that there's never been a female president and most politicians are predominantly male doesn't have something to do with gender politics in our country?

[ QUOTE ]
The number of people who wouldn't vote for a woman president is probably less than 10% of the population, and those people wouldn't vote Democratic anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]
Though neither of us have any numbers, I suspect your estimate of 10% is low. And I think that sexism isn't restricted to simply republican conservatives. But since elections are pretty close... knowing that you automatically will lose 10% of the nation simply because of your gender... that's a big hurdle to overcome.

[ QUOTE ]
If competency and intelligence were the deciding factors in our democracy, we'd be finishing President Gore's second term. Charisma is a prerequisite for winning, whether you like it or not.

[/ QUOTE ] I'm not disagreeing with you here. I'm merely saying that the shallowness of a good percentage of our population would work against her. (I think this ties into the sexism and the fact that people who hate 'everything Clinton' would not give her an opportunity regardless of her merits.

[ QUOTE ]
Look, both sides obviously do it. The thing is, it's a skill to make it look like you're taking a popular stance for reasons other than poll numbers. Bush has it, Bill Clinton had it, Kerry, Gore, and Hillary don't. It shouldn't be that way, but it is.

[/ QUOTE ] I agree both sides do it. But I don't agree that one candidate is necessarily better at representing more. For instance, I don't think Bush is convincing at all. I think he's transparently dishonest and full of 'it'. But I think the right is a little more partisan and willing to overlook the deficiencies in their candidates and pounce on them for the other side. (And I'm not saying everyone. But enough to make a difference.) I've seen 'deranged right wingers' malign Hillary Clinton from the day Clinton started campaigning for his 1st term until today. And the same for Chelsea. Hilary will always be hated simply because she is a Clinton. I've seen a decade and a half of obsessing about her and insulting her to believe otherwise.

[ QUOTE ]
You gotta be kidding if you think Bill Clinton would be on the sidelines for Hillary's run.


[/ QUOTE ]
I don't doubt Bill would want to be involved. But the nation would not be voting for him. He would not be the President. Clinton is likely to campaign for any Democratic nominee. But, if you're implying that she couldn't win because of her husband, then you're supporting my argument that she had not chance of winning... because she's a Clinton.

[ QUOTE ]
The American public doesn't want to hear it.

[/ QUOTE ]
Oh please. I've seen endless Republicans salivating for her presidency because they want to get vicious. In this very thread was one of the board right wingers hoping for Hilary to run so he can snub her. The right would love a chance to sharpen their knives at have at the Clintons.

[ QUOTE ]
That's why people liked Bush's promise in 2000 to "change the tone."

[/ QUOTE ]
I'd say by "people" you mean Republicans. Only people who were already going to vote for him believed that. It's not like the Clintons were the ones who made the tone ugly. The republicans set up a foundation from Day One who's entire purpose was to dig up trash at the Clintons and toss it at them. Karl Rove is FAMOUS and an expert at Dirty politics. Bush spent the whole campaign painting Gore as a liar. Anyone who thought Bush would change the tone was sticking their head in the sand.

Why are the people slinging the mud supposed to be the ones who would change the tone? You think most 'non deranged partisans' believed he would do this?

[ QUOTE ]
He didn't,

[/ QUOTE ] Of course he didn't. Nor would Hilary Clinton make the tone worse. She's not going to be the ones bringing down the tone.

[ QUOTE ]
But if Hillary is elected, people know it's just going to be painful to read the paper or watch the news.

[/ QUOTE ] Its going to be painful no matter who runs. The GOP are the people who question the patriotism of veterans who've lost their limbs in service of our country. They trash their own (see McCain) in their primaries. The ugliness wouldn't be brought on by Hilary.

You and I are both agreeing she wouldn't have much of a chance at all. We're just disagreeing on the reasons.