<p>
No I didn’t.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>She would be savaged because of her ineptitude and deep involvement with the disastrous foreign policy of this Administration. A minor example that speaks volumes: her statement, directly in the aftermath of the earthquake/tsunami that killed many tens of thousands, that “it represents a great opportunity for the US” was just one of many gaffes. Condi is only the dream candidate of Dick Morris, but she will leave this Administration hugely discredited.</p>
<p>
Your comment addresses whether Condi would win an election against a Democrat. That is different from winning in the republican primary where Condi would be very popular (largely because your view happens to be wrong).</p>
<p>“But you really really really should drop the attitude about Hillary knocking another candidate out of running for the NY Senate seat. It happens all the time, and has nothing to do with Hillary and nothing to do with the candidates being women”</p>
<p>The dad, you really, really shouldn’t tell me what opinions to hold. Carpetbagging is an issues for a lot of people. You don’t have to share my opinions, but I am entitled to hold them.</p>
<p>“Speaking of clearing primaries, ZM might want to do a little Googling on Barack Obama’s sharp elbows. He got his gift Senate seat when Carol Mosley-Braun initially decided not to seek her old seat after returning from an Ambassadorship to New Zealand, instead stupidly deciding on a vanity run for President. Obama went after the seat”</p>
<p>The difference is that Obama didn’t run in my state and does’t represent me. Which is why HIllary anoys me because I’ve known, directly and indirectly, Nita Lowey for years. You are right as rain that Hillary doesn’t miss a trick. That is an admirable quality. As I’ve said, she is a smart, hardworking woman. She is extremely formidable. On her own, she could have run for office but, frankly, without Bill’s political gifts and timing, who’s to say how far she would have gotten. The great unknowable. It it is knowable that a woman from Chicago with no previous elected offices would probably not have won the Senate seat from New York and without that, no presidential campaign.</p>
<p>ZM, you’re entitled to your opinion. But it’s based on a distorted and exceptionalist view of Hillary/Lowey and the American political process. In the larger scheme of things, it’s also trivial. My dad used to say, “Don’t sweat the small stuff” and in that I believe he was right.</p>
<p>zm:</p>
<p>You can say the same thing about every candidate who makes it to serious Presidential campaign level. They have ALL had a key break along the way that changed the trajectory of their political careers…a strong opponent deciding not to run, an opponent crippled by scandal in the middle of a campaign, being in the right place at the right time.</p>
<p>BTW, Nita Lowrey has not only endorsed Hillary Clinton, but is one of her top fundraiser bundlers in the country.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.hillaryclinton.com/blog/view/?id=12287[/url]”>http://www.hillaryclinton.com/blog/view/?id=12287</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m not familiar with NY politics, but I would guess that Nita Lowey might be a prime candidate for appointment to the Senate seat that Clinton vacates when she moves to the White House.</p>
<p>“ZM, you’re entitled to your opinion. But it’s based on a distorted and exceptionalist view of Hillary/Lowey and the American political process. In the larger scheme of things, it’s also trivial. My dad used to say, “Don’t sweat the small stuff” and in that I believe he was right.”</p>
<p>No, TD, it’s based on knowing Nita Lowey and having been (remaining) adamantly opposed to having That Woman in my city. Personal is not trivial and can you honestly say that every vote you’ve ever cast or opinion that you’ve ever held is based on grand ideals and the bigger picture?</p>
<p>ID, I do think Nita will likely replace Hillary but it doesn’t negate the fact that it was ugly at the time. Yes, every candidate had some help but MY PERSONAL OPINION is that marrying the tip is offensive. It bothers ME and I THINK that it sets back the cause of women. THis is MY OPINION. It’s MY PERSONAL ick factor. Don’t share, that’s fine, but please stop trying to persuade me otherwise. Share your opinions and your experience. That’s great. But snarky comments aren’t necessary or persuasive. I’m still going to be among many women who are icked out by Hillary.</p>
<p>Speaking of Condi, I read an interesting op-ed piece by a Republican strategist a few weeks back suggesting that the Republicans will have to pick a female VP candidate to have any prayer of competing with Hillary.</p>
<p>Looking down the list of potential players in the Senate and Governorships, their female bench is weak.</p>
<p>In the Senate:</p>
<p>Kay Bailey Hutchinson (probably the most likely)
Olympia Snow (strongly pro-choice)
Elizabeth Dole (up for re-election, showing a lot of age)
Susan Collins (up for re-election)
Barbara Mikulski (from Alaska)</p>
<p>Governors:</p>
<p>Sarah Palin (Alaska)
Jodi Rell (Connecticut)
Linda Lingle (Hawaii)</p>
<p>zm:</p>
<p>I’m not trying to persuade you about anything. Frankly, your vote (NY state) won’t impact the election any more than mine (Mass.) or TheDad’s (Calif). Clinton is a foregone conclusion in all three states in the primary and general elections. </p>
<p>Your state does proportion delegates in the primary, but if you are in Lowey’s district, the delegates will certainly go to Clinton. After all, Bill and Hillary live in Lowey’s district.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>White, affluent, suburban married women (overall) won’t vote for Clinton. They won’t vote for any Democrat. It’s the one female demographic that breaks decisively Republican.</p>
<p>Clinton will probably swing this group a point or two less Republican. A point here, a point there, and pretty soon you are talking real electoral college votes. However, the real action in this election will be middle class working women and unmarried women. Watch the imagery in Clinton’s TV ads.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.hillaryclinton.com/video/55.aspx[/url]”>http://www.hillaryclinton.com/video/55.aspx</a></p>
<p>Well, if you refer to Hillary as That Woman, then the thing with Lowey is justification for an opinion already arrived at. And, yes, ZM, I do my damnedest to overlook personal pique when deciding whom to vote for. I really really did not like voting for Mondale. But Reagan…pfui. And I don’t care how close to canonization he currently is.</p>
<p>N.B., I’m a pretty good one-man litmus test for a Presidential election, at least in the negative: if I vote for a Democrat without much enthusiasm, he or she loses. And in fact, the depth of my enthusiasm is an indicator in the opposite direction: I was angry at Gore for keeping Clinton at arm’s length during the campaign and angry at Kerry for not fighting back. Whereas I made the prophecy that Bill Clinton would be our next President in December of 1991…Gennifer Flowers nearly derailed that one. One of my Republican friends took great offense at the massive sense of celebration when Bill was elected…that celebration will positively be dwarfed if Hillary is elected.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There won’t be a dry eye in the country! Democrats will be crying. Republicans will be crying. Invest in Kleenex stock. </p>
<p>Seriously, though… I think the first woman President narrative will become a very powerful force towards election day 2008 and explode on Inauguration Day.</p>
<p>The pundits, IMO, are missing the story by framing it as “is American ready for a female President”. The real story, I think, is how the desire to see a female President will drive the election. Anne Kornblut of the Washington Post is the only pundit who has picked up on it – in a little color piece she did about Clinton at the Iowa State Fair and the response of women to her.</p>
<p>Add: I also am impatient with those who focus on private sexual immorality, whether those of the candidate or now, the spouse, and the candidate’s reaction to the latter. Assuming consenting adults, it’s between the principles involved and God, none of my business. And, again, is positively trivial compared to the public immorality and criminality of, oh, say, Bush/Cheney, quite possibly the worst president/vice president ever. I can ding both Nixon and Buchanan pretty heavily but Bush wins the prize.</p>
<p>My primary choices:</p>
<p>1972 Scoop Jackson
1976 Jackson, then Mo Udall, then finally, reluctantly, Carter when the only remaining choice was Jerry Brown
1980 John Anderson all the way
1984 Gary Hart
1988 Gary Hart, then Dukakis
1992 Bill Clinton, all the way
1996 Bill Clinton, all the way
2000 Al Gore
2004 anybody but Dean, John Kerry</p>
<p>“What if a Republican female–a conservative–made a legitimate run for the White House? Could Republicans seriously consider a female for president? My gut says ‘No’. IF there’s is to be a ground-breaking female running for President of the United States, it has to be a Democrat. For example, I don’t see the religious right ( a huge Republican faction ) allowing a woman to get that far. They don’t even want women leading their churches, much less their country!”
{Not sure how to do the highlighted quotes from another posting! Sorry!}</p>
<p>^^^^Totally agree with Panhandlegal. Republicans would never nominate Condi, nor any other black female. We are many years down the road from that. Have to agree that Dems are the female candidate’s only hope, at least for MY lifetime.</p>
<p>Zoosermom: I have no problem with your feelings/conclusions. We all have our own priorities.</p>
<p>On another note, not to foist Hillary on you, NY does seem to have a history of carbetbagging from both parties: Bobby Kennedy and James Buckley stand out from the sixties. It doesn’t bother me, but I can understand why it bothers you.</p>
<p>I have met Hillary on numerous occasions. Have pictures of her standing with my kids. Our local dem organization is very strong and focused. I found her personally charming, much more so than I expected, but I don’t share her politics. Has nothing to do with Bill, gender, carpetbaggging – she is just too much of a centrist for my taste. I don’t think she really has left behind the little Rep. girl from Illinois. JMO.</p>
<p>I will, however, vote for her in a general election. I would rather see Gore run, and I am going to vote for Kucinich in the primary (though this vote will be one of a trickle) for his principled opposition to the war early in the game.</p>
<p>TD I’m still calling it for Hillary. I’ve been saying that for over a year now and I see no reason to change my mind.</p>
<p>Why anybody but Dean?</p>
<p>I respect your opinions, but I suspect that you’re not a woman. As a woman it bothers me immensely that the first credible female candidate is a spouse. I’m sorry if you find that trivial, but you’re still not a woman.</p>
<p>As for republican women, I think that if we had a stellar candidate, she could get the nomination. But we don’t have a stellar woman at the top levels who doesn’t carry a lot of baggage.</p>
<p>zooser: You might find this funny. When D was looking at colleges we did the five college consortium. We got a follow up postcard from Smith. Background: Barbara Bush, mommy, not daughter, is a Smith alum. Postcard had picture of BB with this caption: We think there are better ways for a Smithie to get to the White House." I had to LOL. I wanted D to attend just for the postcard. She preferred Barnard wanting to be in the big, bad world not on an ldyllic, protected campus. Funny, isn’t it?</p>