<p>Interesteddad, thanks for the links. I’ve watched Edwards and Obama so far.</p>
<p>Is it just me? I didn’t see that much enthusiasm for either candidate. </p>
<p>I thought Edwards was more emotional. I was surprised by the lack of emotion coming out of Obama. His speech was “matter of factly”.</p>
<p>I am looking forward to seeing Hillary’s.</p>
<p>Nice job summing up the candidates.</p>
<p>Garland:</p>
<p>As you can see from the “never vote for” polling below, Sen. Clinton is not the only candidate in the race with a significant group of haters. In fact, given that she has been, by far, the most relentlessly attacked candidate in the race, it’s surprising that her negatives aren’t higher. </p>
<p>The only two candidates with significantly lower negatives are the two candidates, Guiliani and Obama, who have not yet been subjected to “scrutiny”. It is doubtful that Clinton’s negatives will increase from here. Guilliani and Obama’s negatives can only logically go up as they are tested.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, it might be possible. I wouldn’t bet on it, personally. It seems like a pretty big chance to take. I don’t share your antipathy to Edwards, and I think he will sell better across the country. My personal pick with present knowledge would be Obama, but I think he will also run up against some formidable resistance, couched as being based on “inexperience.”</p>
<p>I think that the most winnable ticket would be Edwards/Obama.</p>
<p>(I wrote that before your latter post, interesting, but I still feel her negs are pretty formidable, stronger than for the others–my gut feeling.)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Agreed. I thought Edwards was rhetorically effective, but not particularly Presidential. I though Obama seemed oddly detached and matter of fact, particularly given that his strength is effective oratory. That’s why I posed the theory that maybe he can only do his rock star thing in a rock concert setting with the bands blaring and the banners waving. I didn’t think he was terribly effective or Presidential in this speech.</p>
<p>I could never picture Hillary as “presidential” either. In my opinion, she has way too many skeletons and character flaws…</p>
<p>A couple of other items as postscript to ID’s post: The “never would vote for” numbers are in a void; once you put “Clinton vs. X” where X is defined, some people back off and say “Ummm…”</p>
<p>The second point is that a vast majority of the people who aren’t voting for Clinton are pretty unlikely to vote Democratic in any event.</p>
<p>Finally, I’ve sifted the poll numbers and Clinton runs surprisingly strong among white working class women who had been voting Republican. </p>
<p>I’m also looking at 2006 voting patterns in states like Ohio and Colorado…I think the Reps are going to be on defense through 2008 and that Iraq is going to be as much, if not more, of an anchor as it was in 2006. </p>
<p>As a sideshow, I like Democratic chances in the various Senate races. I’d like to make Lieberman’s threat to defect irrelevant.</p>
<p>^That last would be very good.</p>
<p>BTW, one more general election point. The Democrats are going to bludgeon the Republicans to death with Katrina and Walter Reed.</p>
<p>My bad. I didn’t know you were using George Bush Sr/Jr as the standard bearers. My bar is set somewhere north of those idiots–thus my doubts about Obama up against the power of Putin or Chavez or the CCP. Obama looks like a baby next to those guys.</p>
<p>I’m not sure about Hillary’s legs. She has a fundamental credibility problem. From a super-star position at Wellesley and Yale Law, she took a back seat to her fella. Because he was so darned good-looking. She sat in the back seat for nearly three decades, hello. As a career gal, I don’t get that submissive behavior. </p>
<p>Then, she has what I call The Apprentice problem. Like the female contestants on The Apprentice, Hillary’s temper comes across as overly harsh and shrill. She hasn’t mastered an effective television voice. That flaw tanked Gore and numerous female Apprentice contestants. It has the potential to tank her. Obama will have her for breakfast in a debate. He’s got that teflon factor.</p>
<p>The Righties are worried about Hillary though. She should be pleased they consider her a threat. That’s why they are sending torpedoes her way and leaving Obama, the easier target, for another day.</p>
<p>I thnk the Dems better sharpen their ‘two by four’. I don’t think the election will be a walk in the park.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, she didn’t. She was the first female partner in the most powerful law firm in Arkansas. She was actually the breadwinner in her family.</p>
<p>Most of the attacks on Hillary grew out of her refusal to wear a pillbox hat and white gloves, playing the traditional First Lady role. People hate her fundamentally because she was too “pushy” and “cutthroat”.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t think that is necessarily true at all. Clinton has a mastery of the issues and an encyclopedia of legislative “initiatives” to trot out. She’s, by all accounts, been a very effective Senator.</p>
<p>As for temper…wait 'til somebody gets under Guiliani’s skin. His prickliness is the stuff of legend. There are YouTube videos of him haranging a Parkinson’s disease sufferer for talking funny and sounding drunk. Gulliani is a “macacca” incident waiting to happen when the professional paid heckling starts. McCain is known to be pretty prickly as well.</p>
<p>I agree with you that Clinton had not developed an appropriate “voice”. However, I’ve seen quite a remarkable transformation in her recent campaign appearances. She’s been really good, just from a candidate “voice” standpoint. I suggest revisiting this issue in the fall when we see which candidates hardened from the crucible of the campaign trail. They are still “testing” their stump speeches.</p>
<p>“The second point is that a vast majority of the people who aren’t voting for Clinton are pretty unlikely to vote Democratic in any event.”</p>
<p>I’m not sure that is true everywhere. Hillary has a major credibility and personal integrity issue. She just seems to be too opportunistic and sleazy. I personally wouldn’t trust her. I heard someone in my office suggest that she would push her own grandmother under a bus for the sake of a vote. I couldn’t disagree.</p>
<p>Camille Paglia in Salon:</p>
<p>
<a href=“http://www.salon.com/opinion/paglia/2007/03/14/coulter/[/url]”>http://www.salon.com/opinion/paglia/2007/03/14/coulter/</a></p>
<p>Obviously, you’ve never been to Little Rock, dad.</p>
<p>Read Bill’s summary of her career potential in his autobiography. She was a super star at Yale law school. Bill was a nobody by comparison. She had an amazing career stretching before her when she graduated. The sky was the limit for her.</p>
<p>Instead she moved to Little Rock. To be with her fella. Because he was really really good-looking.</p>
<p>Reaching partner in Little Rock would not have been a stretch for a Yale super star, dad. Her peers went on to the best law firms and law benches in the world.</p>
<p>I’m sure her family tore their hair out when she followed that big galloot.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’d say that Clinton is holding her own against her Yale Law peers. She’s a second term US Senator from New York State – a position that is hers in perpetuity if she wants it.</p>
<p>She is the front-running candidate for the Presidential nomination of her Party. I don’t think her career is that shabby.</p>
<p>BTW, I think it sells Bill Clinton short to describe him as a “big galloot” whose only attribute was good looks. Everyone knew he was returning to Arkansas to become governor and run for President. They knew it from the time he finished law school.</p>
<p>"Everyone knew he was returning to Arkansas to become governor and run for President. "</p>
<p>Like I said, she was and is always opportunistic.<br>
How is it again that she was able to become a New York Senator??
Do you honestly think she would be running for President now had it not been for Bill’s charm and good looks?
Her career may not be shabby, but I’m not so sure it is something to be proud of. ;)</p>
<p>“I’m not sure that is true everywhere. Hillary has a major credibility and personal integrity issue. She just seems to be too opportunistic and sleazy. I personally wouldn’t trust her. I heard someone in my office suggest that she would push her own grandmother under a bus for the sake of a vote. I couldn’t disagree.”</p>
<p>Ya think? Seriously, why? She’s only run for office twice, against lackluster opponents. She campaigned hard in both cases, much harder than she needed to, but never would have needed to throw anyone near a bus in order to win and win bigtime. She became Senator from New York by working very, very hard (and the lack of credible primary opponents or Republican candidates.)</p>
<p>Her biggest achievement (which actually grew out of her post-graduate, post-juris year at the Yale Child Study Center) is the federal Children’s Health Insurance Program, a federal-state partnership now embraced broadly by Democrats and Republicans alike.</p>
<p>I think she has major political integrity issues (which I’ve already stated), but no personal integrity ones that I can put my finger on. Opportunistic? She put her career on hold for 20 years to support her husband and raise a family, but stayed abreast of issues she cared about long enough to make herself (with Bill’s help of course) into a major political force. She survived some of the most ridiculous “opportunistic” personal and political attacks in recent memory, and came up for air pretty much unscathed.</p>
<p>I won’t vote for her. I wouldn’t even consider voting for her. But I’m clueless as to where the “opportunistic and sleazy” business comes from, except to say that she’s a woman. Now Elizabeth Dole… Let me tell you about the Red Cross in Santa Cruz following the earthquake…;)</p>
<p>Every single candidate is opportunistic.</p>
<p>I do like how Wellesley and Yale law are mentioned when Hillary is mentioned.</p>
<p>It would be very hard to argue that elite private schools didn’t make a difference in her life.</p>
<p>When trying to decide who to vote for, watching these videos is better than watching clips from CNN and Fox news.</p>
<p>It would be great if we could watch and listen to all the candidates talk in-depth instead of getting our information from CNN and Fox after they filter out what they don’t want us to see.</p>
<p>She did a better job than Obama and Edwards. She is going to be a very strong candidate.</p>
<p>It looked to me like the firefighters liked her best.</p>
<p>She’s had a very nice career. It’s not over yet.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>She bought a house in Chappaqua, scared Rudy Guliani and Gov. Pataki out of the race, and clobbered Rebulican rising star Rick Lazio in the 2000 election, 55% to 43%.</p>
<p>She was re-elected in 2006 with 67% of the vote, carrying 58 of the 62 New York counties.</p>
<p>She was able to run for the Senate initially for two reasons: two decades of laying a political foundation (from the conferences at Hilton Head to the White House) and because party poo-bahs, nationally and in NY state, urged her to run and donated heavily to her campaign.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Versus the likes of Bush in comparison? McCain? Giuliani? Gingrich? Romney? Rice? </p>
<p>Ahhh…no. Though looking at the Republican field makes me understand why some in that party are hoping that Fred Thompson gets in the race and lightning strikes.</p>
<p>Mini, you are already sure you won’t vote for Hillary. Who do you like among the candidates that may actually get the nomination?</p>