|
20935. Magoseph - 1/24/2007 12:43:50 AM Sorry. thoughtful, for not answering sooner, but I had to think about what you wrote.
I realize that there're many out there who hate anything Clinton, but they're a minority and I think they should be cautious how they go on about attacking her this time—attacking a woman may not have the same result than attacking a man. What are they going to do, rehash the same stories they made up in the past or invent new ones? The electorate is wiser to their games than ever before and I’d wager that Hillary and her team, unlike Kerry, are ready for them.
I think Americans would much prefer to look at what improve their financial situation nowadays and a woman in power to their thinking may be able to keep the country in peace in making use of diplomacy, concessions, help, whatever but brute force that kills the young serving the country.
The notion that Hillary is a loser next election has been bandied around for quite some time, especially by the right-wing Clinton haters. Americans like Imus do not wish to be associated with losers and tend to pile on if they see a trend. However, there is nothing in the polls to confirm this position. The moment Imus smells that he is wrong, he turns and he is already showing signs of abandoning his name-calling.
The main thing is that the people we are hearing from as loud as they sound simply are a loud minority. This election'll be decided on the merits, not on loud vicious talk that has no significance. For example, there's not one Republican who'll endorse national free health care for children. The free health campaign for children now belongs to Hillary. She’ll probably get 80 or 90 percent of the women with small children, the rich of course excluded--that is, I hope. 20936. Magoseph - 1/24/2007 12:46:36 AM Arky, don't you think that Hillary and Bill have changed for the best since the days you knew them in action in Arkansas? 20937. arkymalarky - 1/24/2007 1:06:11 AM Arky, don't you think that Hillary and Bill have changed for the best since the days you knew them in action in Arkansas?
No, what do you think is better about them? Like the rest of America, I have watched them steadily, but most Americans aren't that familiar with their AR work. They've never left the political arena for me, and we in AR probably focus on them more than most, naturally. I supported them politically here, and would again, given the alternatives in AR. But there are better options on the national level than Hillary.
They haven't changed much at all that I can see. Their views on education are certainly basically the same, which is my pet issue. They weren't bad views, just overly simplistic and not attentive enough to the importance of the public school dynamic and the real, on-the-ground needs of a poor school in an economically depressed area. And the people who do know what those needs are didn't get a significant role in policy-setting.
In addition, the structure is now too hierarchical and centralized and poor districts are punished rather than helped. When they try to speak for themselves they're treated horribly and have no recourse but to close or operate on cut funds. Two of the best superintendents I know, one a black man and one a black woman, both lost their superintendent's position when their little (majority-black) schools were shut down in the last three years. White people are superintendents of the consolidated schools. When Clinton was governor and the first wave of schools was consolidated under their (his and Hillary's) plan, they were poor, small, and black, and not a single black administrator of those districts retained or transfered to an equal administrative position in the receiving school. Not one African-American administrator retained the position in a consolidated school, then or now. Does this mean they're racist? Of course not. But it does mean they're out of touch and not attentive to the effects of policies as they should be.
The direction things are heading now, though, is actively and possibly irreversibly damaging, and Hillary would continue NCLB--hopefully with less corruption, but the end effects will be the same. She's also too inclined to do what is politically expedient, as is her husband. Again, they're better than McCain, but other Democrats are better than they are. And setting all my own views aside, I don't believe she's electable. 20938. judithathome - 1/24/2007 1:07:12 AM She’ll probably get 80 or 90 percent of the women with small children, the rich of course excluded--that is, I hope.
Sorry but I disagree...Hillary better not depend on the female vote because despite what women say before entering the voting booth, once in there they will not vote for a woman.
20939. concerned - 1/24/2007 1:22:56 AM As Motiers are probably already aware, I have a very low level of respect for Xlowntoon. However, I have always made an effort not to criticize Hilliary except when it was called for, or to attack her simply because she abetted the impeached sociopath in his wrongdoing. 20940. concerned - 1/24/2007 1:27:14 AM My friend, the elegant Hildegard will vote for Hillary because as a betrayed wife, she has not committed adultery—I mean, we’d know if she had, where, when, with whom and how many times.
I don't know about that. There has been speculation that Chelsea has a suspicious resemblance to Webb Hubbell, but Republicans didn't stoop to 'researching' that. 20941. arkymalarky - 1/24/2007 1:31:12 AM Nownownow, and after being so nice.
From what I hear about Chelsea, she is a class act. One of Bob's nieces went to high school with her. 20942. thoughtful - 1/24/2007 1:55:24 AM Mags, I'm pleased that you are so optimistic about the voting public, but alas, I am not. I don't think america is ready for a woman, especially this woman. Women in recent past who have made it in politics have projected a strong but maternal image. It's why pelosi looked so much better, even to gopers when she was on deck with all the children. Men and women are used to listening to their grandmothers...matriarchs of the nation if you will, like margaret thatcher. Hillary is anything but maternal.
Frankly, as a buddy of mine said and I have to agree, women don't like hillary. So IMO she can't depend on the female vote. Without that, she has little to offer.
Remember her shoo-in performance as senator in ny was because she had 1) name recognition and 2) was running against a nobody. While she has the former, not all of it is favorable and the latter certainly won't be true for the presidential election.
Do you really think she has a prayer against, say John McCain???
I don't. 20943. wonkers2 - 1/24/2007 2:51:27 AM I think she'd give him a tough fight. McCain's been sticking his neck out on Iraq more than Hillary. And his record on a lot of issues is off the chart to the right. 20944. prolph - 1/24/2007 5:51:39 AM no i would not vote for hilary, for many reasonsbeginning with her
insane i will fix health care before she unpacked at the whiye house, We do not need another dynysty or you get two for one nonsense.
20945. wonkers2 - 1/24/2007 6:07:02 AM Wouldn't whether you'd vote for Hillary depend on whom she was running against? Suppose Brownback was the GOP nominee and Hillary was the Dem candidate? Would you vote for Brownback? 20946. arkymalarky - 1/24/2007 6:09:03 AM I agree, Patsy. And when you create a large and complex monster and don't feed and maintain it, like a health care behemoth or NCLB (almost 700 pages), it's very difficult to adjust where it falls short and change it to meet changing circumstances and new needs. That's a real possibility, especially as Bill Clinton (and Hillary too, for that matter) would look at her election as a mandate for a return of Bill Clinton's presidency.
FWIW, I don't think McCain has a chance of getting the Republican nomination. Their machine wouldn't have it, even if the party membership would. 20947. judithathome - 1/24/2007 3:28:08 PM Wonkers, there IS such a thing as not voting or voting Independent or even writing in a vote. It isn't automatic that a person vote for one or the other. I seriously doubt I'd vote Republican if NO ONE ran for the Democratic position.
I've said this before...in 2000, I wrote in Bill Bradley. I couldn't warm up to Gore and hated that he got the nom and there was no way in HELL I would vote for Bush. 20948. judithathome - 1/24/2007 3:28:57 PM I'm off to the doctor this morning...wish me luck in getting something to get me over this bout of colon trouble. 20949. Magoseph - 1/24/2007 4:17:10 PM Let us know how you fared as soon as you come back, please--I doubt that I'll get to the phone this morning--Flexy is scheduled to listen to two stock-conferences.
And good luck.
Mago I love you! What a brilliant rant.
That's so nice of you and I too love you!
20950. Magoseph - 1/24/2007 4:18:02 PM toys 20951. Magoseph - 1/24/2007 4:19:07 PM Will be back to answer you, thoughtful. 20952. Magoseph - 1/24/2007 10:34:58 PM
Hillary can handle McCain, thoughtful.
Look, I‘ve learned something in the last election that admittedly I had no knowledge of in the past. That being that the soundest source in respect to matters of chance is found with the people that make a living year in and year out in the wagering business—specifically the bookmakers in London and Las Vegas. They’re almost never wrong and if wrong by a very narrow margin. At this moment, they’re calling it is Hillary all the way.
I sent an e-mail a day or two before the midterm election to Jexster predicting what happened—my knowledge deriving for watching the bookmakers odds.
Why do these people know the general population doesn’t know? The answer is they simply have to survive financially as a result they’re able to poll in a fashion that is obviously not available to the random public.
Of course, I wouldn’t have followed their wager, had I not felt that all the signs pointed to a win. Six years of Bush is a long time for those we call the middle-class and these people are only concerned with peace and prosperity, a future for their kids and a chance to work all their lives. They will vote for whoever is promising them they can deliver what they need. Hillary is on her way to tell them she can. The last thing women younger than fifty with children will believe is that a woman can’t win the presidency.
20953. thoughtful - 1/24/2007 11:40:33 PM Mags, We are a year out from even the first primary.
Even if I had the faith in bookmakers that you do, which I don't, it is far too early for even them to call.
Imus and crew were on this a.m. discussing pelosi's suit and blink rate as the pres was speaking. and they were discussing botox and her face. Do you really think men who are focused on what a woman's wearing and her beauty treatments will ever seriously consider what policies a woman might put forth? Let alone have the confidence that she'll be able to stand up to a nuclear north korea and a potentially nuclear iran? Moreover a higher share of women 50 and over vote than those 50 and under. I just don't think she has a strong enough constituency to make it.
Right now, she's going on name recognition, and a year from now, she won't be the only candidate with that.
We've got a long way to go and lots of candidates to sort through. (dodd, vilsack, edwards, obama, gravel, kucinich, biden...) Besides, if you think hillary is really the best candidate than you can be sure she'll never make it through the primary process. For whatever reason, the primary process often selects the worst candidates, not the best.
And i dont' think you want to underrate the charisma of obama. Even my wall st journal toting husband finds him likable.... 20954. arkymalarky - 1/25/2007 12:28:24 AM I'm tellin' y'all....He's my pick by far, right now.
|
