<p>
I completely <em>honor</em> Hillary’s choices. What I <em>DON’T</em> do is respect them, and that is my right as a person and as a voter. I don’t see how any <em>true</em> feminists can applaud or support her demonstrating the very behavior that they have worked so hard to try to change. </p>
<p>Forgiveness is wonderful, provided it is from the heart. Choosing to stay with a man who has been emotionally abusive by way of long-term serial infidelity goes beyond simple “forgiveness” and borders on something pathological, IMHO. Again, this is MY opinion only, and I am as entitled to that (without being falsely accused of having a “gender-based double standard”) as anyone else is.</p>
<p>I don’t believe I have made any comments to anyone about double standards here. Be that as it may, I still don’t get your ability to “know” why Hillary forgave Bill. I sure don’t presume to do so. You can have your opinion; I’m just saying I don’t understand the sureness of it.</p>
<p>“zoosermom, if your husband cheated, you would dump him in an instant, is that what you are saying? not try and work on your marriage? and don’t say, oh he would never do it, be intellectualy honest”</p>
<p>That was not the point CGM. Nowhere did I say that I thought Senator Clinton should dump her husband. What I implied was that she will use any situation for personal gain, no matter how ugly, and that gives me pause.</p>
<p>Z–I guess that goes back to my original question-- Where does this animosity come from? Obviously not from her “standing by” Bill, since your opinion of why she does so is rooted already in a negative judgment. So, why do you think she’s using her marital situation for personal gain, rather than keeping it together because it’s important to her? I’m not asking to be argumentative–I am sincerely puzzled by this (very common) point of view and am trying to figure it out. As I’ve said, I’m not in favor of her for policy reasons, but this personal stuff is what I don’t get.</p>
<p>Like her husband, Hilary is, and has always been, a pragmatist. While I don’t know the woman personally (& never met her), & therefore would never claim to look into her mind or soul, many of her decisions strike me as pragmatic in nature (including many of her votes). I think that’s one reason that her marriage to Bill has “worked” on a basic level. They do have a partnership; they have a lot in common, so it “makes sense” to me that they maintain their marriage. </p>
<p>The problem arises on the national political front, when a party wants to showcase a candidate with the <em>appearance</em> of moral ambiguity. I’m not in a position to judge their marriage, or the degree of her wisdom in staying with him, just noting that, if nothing else, their relationship – while by no means unique in style (plenty of more famous couples in history are well known for their “arrangements”) – is unorthodox. There are other democratic candidates with less unorthodox personal histories & lifestyles, and it therefore seems to me that their candidacy is a little less risky, that’s all.</p>
<p>From the most recent Wash Post/ABC poll, asked of Democratic leaners:</p>
<p>a. is the strongest leader
Clinton: 50%
Obama: 26%
Edwards: 15%</p>
<p>b. best understands the problems of people like you
Clinton: 38%
Obama: 33%
Edwards: 18%</p>
<p>c. is the most honest and trustworthy
Clinton: 28%
Obama: 34%
Edwards: 22%</p>
<p>d. has the best experience to be president
Clinton: 66%
Obama: 9%
Edwards: 19%</p>
<p>e. is the most inspiring
Clinton: 37%
Obama: 41%
Edwards: 15%</p>
<p>f. has the best chance of getting elected president in November 2008
Clinton: 43%
Obama: 21%
Edwards: 26%</p>
<p>g. is closest to you on the issues
Clinton: 41%
Obama: 27%
Edwards: 18%</p>
<p>h. you would trust most to handle a major crisis
Clinton: 47%
Obama: 24%
Edwards: 19%</p>
<p>Item c) is clearly Clinton’s weakness, although she polls second place among the three candidates. Item d) is clearly Obama’s weakness. Both Obama and Edwards trail Clinton so badly on this one that it may be insurmountable.</p>
<p>
I should have been clear here…the double standard reference was in response to ID.</p>
<p>"So, why do you think she’s using her marital situation for personal gain, rather than keeping it together because it’s important to her? " I think, for me, it was the timing of all of that in connection with her run for the Senate. It appeared to outsiders that a deal was made between them, which is certainly their business. I think for me (and I speak only for myself), I was predisposed to dislike her because I found her run in New York so opportunistic on so many levels and because she appears to stand for everything I dislike. I really don’t think she would have been a viable candidate in New YOrk if not for her husband’s cheating and the sympathy that engendered in some quarters. Again, my opinion.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So you are saying that the sympathy helped cut through the noise from the decade of smear machine characature of Hillary Clinton as the biggest “shrew” in history?</p>
<p>You are probably right.</p>
<p>On the other hand, all accounts have it that Sen. Clinton ran a great campaign for Senate in 2000. Tireless and disciplined, especially in the upstate counties where she had to counter high negatives.</p>
<p>BTW, she has run an excellent campaign in the Presidential race so far, too. A nose-to-the-grindstone kind of candidate who is discplined enough to not make major mistakes (like saying there is no war on terror and handing the Republicans a baseball bat talking point on a silver platter).</p>
<p>“So you are saying that the sympathy helped cut through the noise from the decade of smear machine characature of Hillary Clinton as the biggest “shrew” in history?”</p>
<p>I think she is the biggest “shrew” in history, but I’ve said exactly what you did about her campaign and about her time in office. I’ve also said repeatedly that I can’t bear the thought of seeing her husband again on a daily basis. Of course, I would never vote for a “for the common good” candidate, and some of the other statements she’s made lately have been very close to socialistic, so she would never, under any circumstances have my vote.</p>
<p>^^But it’ll be “incremental” socialism, so it’ll be okay. We the people won’t even notice. :p</p>
<p>I don’t know. I rather enjoyed her husband’s speech to class day at Harvard last week. The basic message is one that would benefit the US immensely in trying to clean up the foreign policy mess:</p>
<p><a href=“http://video2.harvard.edu:8080/ramgen/pluto/ClassDay2007Archive.rm[/url]”>http://video2.harvard.edu:8080/ramgen/pluto/ClassDay2007Archive.rm</a></p>
<p>Clinton takes the stage about 1 hour 37 minutes into the video.</p>
<p>BTW, anyone who thinks Hillary Clinton is a “socialist” is just spouting Republican talking points. I have to laugh because the knock on her in the Democratic primaries is that she and her DLC rhetoric sounds too much like a Republican. She actually polls quite a bit stronger from “conservative” voters than “liberal” voters relative to the other candidates in the Democratic primaries.</p>
<p>^^I think you’ve hit the nail on the head for me, ID. She’s not well-defined in her views at all. In fact, they seem to morph significantly depending upon her audience.</p>
<p>To: </p>
<p>From: Mark Penn, Chief Strategist</p>
<p>Date: June 11, 2007</p>
<p>Re: Strengths of Hillary Emerging</p>
<p>The public polls taken following last week’s Democratic debate in New Hampshire are now being reported on.</p>
<p>Hillary’s strength as a leader is emerging in the face-to-face forums and in that debate. Today’s WMUR/CNN poll is the second post-debate poll to give Hillary a commanding lead in New Hampshire – at 39% for Hillary Clinton to 24% for Obama and 14% for Edwards.</p>
<p>Hillary Clinton is up 9 points from their previous poll and this trend follows a Franklin Pierce poll done earlier in the week that had similar results and which showed her as overwhelmingly winning the debate.</p>
<p>What makes this so important is that when the candidates are on the same stage, Hillary Clinton’s strengths as a leader clearly emerge. They are reshaping the dynamic of the race because those appearances emphasize the qualities that the next president will need to be ready to implement a program of change.</p>
<p>While each of the candidates has introduced themselves to the voters of New Hampshire, this was the first major televised event in New Hampshire that let the voters see the candidates unfiltered for two straight hours.</p>
<p>The poll also shows that most voters consider her the most electable of the potential Democratic challengers. </p>
<p>This poll comes after several other national polls (Fox/Opinion Dynamics, AP) showing her holding a double-digit lead nationally. Some commentators have then said we should instead look at the state by state numbers as more important and today’s poll shows how those numbers can change after they see all the candidates and how there is a big upside for Senator Clinton when they get a chance to compare the candidates on the issues.</p>
<p>The latest CNN/WMUR New Hampshire poll shows Hillary Clinton dramatically increasing her lead in the Democratic primary, and also demonstrates that she is seen as the strongest leader and the most electable Democrat.</p>
<p>^ I think any valid poll information from NH is very premature. There are still a lot of “undecided” voters in NH. I’m one of them. :o</p>
<p>(Been getting daily calls from the Obama and Edwards camps though.)</p>
<p>"BTW, anyone who thinks Hillary Clinton is a “socialist” is just spouting Republican talking points. "
No. I listen when she speaks. Do you?</p>
<p>“Universal health care” is regarded by many to be a form of socialism–like it or not. This view is not reliant on Republican talking points. Ron Paul was on C-Span the other night and his views on health care were very refreshing. Likewise, Katrina vanden Heuval was on C-Span Sunday night; she and her cronies at the left-wing The Nation (including ex-crony Christopher Hitchens) are anti-Hillary. Hillary has a lot of problems with a lot of people because she is not, and never has been, honest about who she is. We can surmise, but we can never know, which is why her “trust” ratings are so low. People want to elect a president they can “trust.”</p>
<p>“Hillary has a lot of problems with a lot of people because she is not, and never has been, honest about who she is.”</p>
<p>I agree.</p>
<p>It appears that Bush has screwed up the “War on International Terror” so much; the Republicans are having to fall back on their old line about “creeping socialism,” to scare the American people. What’s next “who lost China” or the line about Roosevelt be a “traitor to is class?”</p>