<p>This always shocks me.</p>
<p>I thought Republicans were always pro-family values…the Tammy Wynette “Stand by your Man” types.</p>
<p>Why the Hillary haters come out in droves because she stuck with her husband (in a very pro-family values way), strikes me as more than a little hypocritical.</p>
<p><disclaimer: no=“” hillary=“” supporter=“” here=“”></disclaimer:></p>
<p>Contrary to what the bubble-people think, Fox viewers are not stupid–they already knew Foley was a Republican and Jefferson is not Conyers. This only matters in the paranoid left-blogosphere. That’s what I mean by clueless. </p>
<p>I agree with you, LTS, but unfortunately we appear to be stuck with what we have. It is a crying shame–yes. </p>
<p>50% do not like Hillary–that’s a large number of “Hillary haters.” Not just right-wingers, it seems.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>LTS, I knew that from previous posts, which is why I wasn’t including you with the labyrinthine minds that make the bizzare justification that being a cheater is morally superior to being cheated on. And frankly, I question how healthy Rudy’s relationships really are. It doesn’t look to me like he’s moving from unhealthy relationship to healthier one. It looks like a pattern of unhealthy relationships whose instability is caused by his own destructive behaviors.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Suuuuure…That’s why Fox viewers think WMD were found in Iraq after our invasion…why I just had one of them recently insist that Scooter Libby wasn’t convicted of anything but perjury…because they’re sooo full of clues.</p>
<p>Just for fun, let’s see how Hil is stacking up against Rudy!</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/national.html[/url]”>http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/national.html</a></p>
<p>Real Clear Politics average: Guiliani: 47.8 Clinton: 42.4</p>
<p>Of course, we must wait for those internals…</p>
<p>The one good thing about Rudy getting the nomination. It will finally force the right to admit that the culture wars were never about abortion, never about morality, and always about using those things to manipulate John Q. Public.</p>
<p>“An in-depth analysis of a series of polls conducted June through September found 48% incorrectly believed that evidence of links between Iraq and al Qaeda have been found, 22% that weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq, and 25% that world public opinion favored the US going to war with Iraq. Overall 60% had at least one of these three misperceptions.”</p>
<p>“The polling, conducted by the Program on International Policy (PIPA) at the University of Maryland and Knowledge Networks, also reveals that the frequency of these misperceptions varies significantly according to individuals’ primary source of news. Those who primarily watch Fox News are significantly more likely to have misperceptions, while those who primarily listen to NPR or watch PBS are significantly less likely.”</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/international_security_bt/102.php?nid=&id=&pnt=102&lb=brusc[/url]”>http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/international_security_bt/102.php?nid=&id=&pnt=102&lb=brusc</a></p>
<p>80% of Fox viewers had at least 1 misperception, compared to 55% of CNN viewers.</p>
<p>28%-ers aren’t born; they’re made.</p>
<p>“Funding for this research was provided by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and the Ford Foundation.” </p>
<p>So maybe if we wipe Fox off the face of the earth, everyone will vote Democrat. LOL.</p>
<p>What is it that people hate so much about Hillary Clinton? Personally, my biggest problem with her was her vote for the war, which is why I won’t support her in our primary. But what exactly is it about her that elicits such from-the-gut anger and venom? She’s clearly very smart and is one of the most articulate politicos around these days. As far as I can tell, her flaws are identical to most of the candidates currently running for the presidency–craven ambition being foremost among them. An unseemly quality in a woman, I guess.</p>
<p>As for Fox News, I’ve tried many times to watch its programming. But after wading up to my neck in Bill O’ Reilly or Sean Hannity’s right-wing baloney, I inevitably come away feeling like I need a very hot shower and some strong anti-bacterial soap.</p>
<p>“So maybe if we wipe Fox off the face of the earth, everyone will vote Democrat.” </p>
<p>HH–What a splendid idea! Why didn’t I think of that?</p>
<p>LTS, I think your view of staying with a flawed mate as an act of desperation, pathetic or otherwise, is the problem. That’s how <em>you</em> would see it were <em>you</em> in that position…others feel differently without being desperate.</p>
<p>The single biggest leader in a GOP poll I saw the other day had 42 percent: Somebody Else. Rudy was in the 20’s with Romney and McCain trailing, McCain being in the low teens. I’m still not convinced that Thompson or Gingrich isn’t going to come in and take it. Moreover, of the three GOP front-runners, if any of them gets the nomination, a large part of the party is going to be Very Unhappy if you believe the current numbers…and I do.</p>
<p>I’ve chatted on the subject with two staunch, politically experienced and savvy Republican women in the past two days. Neither has a clue who is going to get the GOP nomination…one of them looked at me helplessly and shrugged. The other is crossing fingers for Romney but without a lot of conviction.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Hindoo–I agree with all of the above, and have been continually puzzled with the Hillary hate. I don’t like the way she handled the war votes, think she’s on the opportunist side on the whole, but I don’t get the personal animosity. Which is actually my biggest reason for not wanting her to get the nomination–this bizarre hatred will be more likely to cause a GOP win than anything else any candidate from either side could accomplish.</p>
<p>I just spotted this on Yahoo news.</p>
<p>NEW YORK - On a winter day when bomb blasts at an Iraqi university killed dozens and the United Nations estimated that 34,000 civilians in Iraq had died in 2006, MSNBC spent nearly nine minutes on the stories during the 1 p.m. hour. A CNN correspondent in Iraq did a three-minute report about the bombings. Neither story merited a mention on Fox News Channel that hour.</p>
<p>That wasn’t unusual. Fox spent half as much time covering the Iraq war than MSNBC during the first three months of the year, and considerably less than CNN, according to the Project for Excellence in Journalism.</p>
<p>The difference was more stark during daytime news hours than in prime-time opinion shows. The Iraq war occupied 20 percent of CNN’s daytime news hole and 18 percent of MSNBC’s. On Fox, the war was talked about only 6 percent of the time.</p>
<p>The independent think tank’s report freshens a debate over whether ideology drives news agendas, and it comes at a delicate time for Fox. Top Democratic presidential candidates have refused to appear at debates sponsored by Fox. Liberals find attacking Fox is a way to fire up their base.</p>
<p>“It illustrates the danger of cheerleading for one particular point or another because they were obviously cheerleaders for the war,” said Jon Klein, CNN U.S. president. “When the war went badly they had to dial back coverage because it didn’t fit their preconceived story lines.”</p>
<p>Fox wouldn’t respond to repeated requests to make an executive available to talk about its war coverage.</p>
<p>So how to explain the divergent priorities? Different opinions on what is newsworthy? A business decision? A mere coincidence?</p>
<p>Fox News Channel viewers argue that their favorite network is simply the most fair. Fox has long objected to suggestions that its newscasts go through a conservative filter. Surveys have shown its audience is dominated by Republicans.</p>
<p>There are no similar differences in priorities among the broadcast evening-news programs, where Iraq was the top story between January and the end of March. NBC’s “Nightly News” spent 269 minutes on Iraq, ABC had 251 and CBS 238, according to news consultant Andrew Tyndall.</p>
<p>Another story that has reflected poorly on the Bush administration, the controversy over U.S. attorney firings, also received more attention on MSNBC (8 percent of the newshole) and CNN (4 percent) than on Fox (2 percent), the Project for Excellence in Journalism found. …</p>
<p>…So with less on-air attention being paid to Iraq during the first few months of the year, what filled the void for Fox? PEJ’s report said the network gave the death of Anna Nicole Smith significantly more air time than its rivals. </p>
<hr>
<p>Garland, you are 100% correct!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In other words, well informed viewers aren’t likely to vote Republican. Thought so.</p>
<p>Rupert Murdoch himself admitted in an interview that Fox News coverage “tried” to shape the debate over Iraq in favor of the president’s policies. That’s advocacy, not journalism. And the admission came from the horse’s…mouth.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It has a lot to do with the religious right whipping up a frenzy. Falwell wasn’t kidding when he said his followers would be more motivated to vote against her than Satan.</p>
<p>Falwell, you’ll remember, bankrolled a “documentary” accusing the Clintons of murdering people. (Initially he denied being the funding source, but eventually admitted it when faced with the overwhelming evidence). Later Falwell would admit he had no idea if it were true. The “investigative reporter” “interviewed” who spoke from the shadows of his fear of the Clintons was actually Falwell’s producer doing a bit of play-acting. Falwell himself was running the camera at the time.</p>
<p>In addition, many of the religious right and especially the Southern Baptists teach that it is inappropriate for a woman to have any role outside the home, and specifically that a woman should never be in a position of authority over men. So they paint Hillary as unnatural and a threat to the plans they have for reshaping society.</p>
<p>Fundamentalist women are especially bothered by Hillary being cheated on. I think the reason for this is that their culture stresses the wife as subservient and dependent on the husband. Movements like Promise Keepers teach that women shouldn’t even have any knowledge of–much less say in–the family finances. </p>
<p>Their role is to do the chores, raise the children, and obey their husbands as they would the Lord. So the idea of a husband being unfaithful–possibly abandoning them for another women–is much scarier than it is to a woman with a job, credit in her name, understanding of the household finances, etc.<br>
Hillary is an attractive, educated, intelligent woman; if she could be cheated on, what does it say about them? Hillary is a painful reminder of how vulnerable they are to a spouse’s change of heart, and they cannot forgive her for it.</p>
<p>Allmusic, the issue is that Bill Clinton is NOT a man. He’s more like a young boy who has grown tall, and old. </p>
<p>Conyat, TheDad, “somebody else” is just about right - that’s who can maybe get my vote. The way things look to me right now, if we could take a test tube, and fill it, say, with 20% Romney, another 20% Obama, 15% maybe of Rudy, 12% Edwards, maybe even 5% of Hillary’s very best qualities (if anyone can identify any that is) and the balance with a few other people, then, we’d have exactly one complete presidential candidate. I have never voted for a democratic candidate for president but would be willing to consider the right person from ANY party. But I just simply do not see anyone among the current choices.</p>
<p>Real Clear Politics Average National Polls 5/28 - 6/10</p>
<p>Giuliani 26.7
McCain 16.4
Thompson (undeclared) 15.4
Romney 10.4
Gingrich 7.9</p>
<p>Gingrich is going to have a rough time of it. Apparently the voters remember him a lil better than he hoped. Also, news came out today that his foundation is financially supported by the folks who stand the most to gain from the recommendations it-oh so coincidentially-has been making, and Gingrich never bothered to disclose the conflict of interest.</p>
<p>I’m surprised Gingrich would even both to run…it’s hard to imagine anyone wanting to support him. </p>
<p>I heard something on the news this morning, wandering through the living room, someone said Hillary’s base of support is low income women; I wonder why. Is it because of hopes for health care, or some other issue or grouping of issues? The same announcer said that middle to higher income women split for Obama…</p>
<p>"Fundamentalist women are especially bothered by Hillary being cheated on. "</p>
<p>Well that may be true, but I’m no fundamentalist and I’m bothered by it, because there’s a disconnect between her portrayal as a “strong woman,” a feminist, having a mind of her own, not being a victim, etc., and tolerating his cheating for such an extended period of time. I think we associate being cheated on with being victimized, when in reality you could say that this was another conscious (political) choice of hers: (1) to choose other personal aspects of him which were more important to her than fidelity – personal traits which overrode his infidelity; and/or (2) it’s a political asset for any candidate to stay married, & she continued to have political goals far beyond First Lady.</p>
<p>Garland, I also have hoped for a long time that the Dems wouldn’t choose HC, because she is definitely “divisive.” I think she does symbolize “The Left” to “The Righteous Right” (just a term), and any candidate who evokes equally strong positive & negative reactions is a risky choice to head the ticket. (She’s actually not the most “left” candidate among the dems.)</p>
<p>It really is a problem that her strongest supporters (mostly women) stress her “feminism” so much, and talk so much about her as a woman. We get it. There’s only one woman running. Being female, though, does not equal being more qualified. This continued emphasis narrows her voting appeal, does not expand it. It almost makes it sound as if the ONLY people who should be voting for her should be women. Do you hear the male candidates talking about how you should vote for them because they’re men?</p>
<p>I’m not a Hilary-‘hater,’ but her personality does irritate me, major. However, I will admit that in a recent debate her style came off as mature, to me, even though among all the dem. candidates she is my second least favorite.</p>