<p>BTW, the reason that Clinton refused to answer the “hypothetical” was the Wolf Blitzer asked an overly broad question, “would you favor a military intervention in Darfur?” Clinton asked for clarification because there is a huge gap between enforcing a no-fly zone and an invasion with US ground troops – a distinction that makes a “raise your hand” answer for “yes” inappropriate for any potential President.</p>
<p>I agree with interesteddad’s analysis–especially that Rudy will be the most formidable opponent for HRC. The Republicans are fools if they nominate anyone else. Where I differ is that I believe he has a more than decent chance at winning over Hillary in the general election. Rudy is a tough and resilient guy: Hillary, on the other hand, is extremely brittle (a quality she tries to hide, without success) as are her supporters here. 
Not a good portent for the Dems.</p>
<p>HH, you really are reaching now. I personally know several people who know Hillary well, two personally who have known her over many years, and the others in a professional capacity. Not one of them would describe her as anything close to resembling brittle. I have met her a couple of times and, to be honest, she is an amazingly humble woman, one on one. She puts people at ease in pretty much any situation and is extremely easy to talk to. She’s a very generous, friendly, eloquent, strong, and also funny woman. People who know her well, regardless of their political affiliation, are always surprised at the vitriol that is thrown her way. You don’t know what you’re talking about, and your commentary becomes more ridiculous with each successive post.</p>
<p>We call it “grasping at straws”.</p>
<p><disclaimer…not a=“” hillary=“” supporter,=“” but=“” i’ll=“” take=“” her=“” over=“” the=“” rudester=“”></disclaimer…not></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Thanks for proving my point.</p>
<p>Res Ipsa Loquitur.</p>
<p>Hereshoping:</p>
<p>Thanks. I was responding to post 135 from maciver:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This sounds different from expressing surprise at the information which has been available, courtesy of HRC herself, ever since her memoirs came out in 2003, and without any digging necessary on the part of the news media.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>“extremely brittle”</p>
<p>Which is it? “Extremely brittle”. Or the biggest “b…h” in the history of America? Or, maybe “shrill”? Or, we could try “ambitious”? Or, any of the other adjectives hurled at Senator Clinton that have, at their root, the fact that she is a woman? </p>
<p>My favorite is attacking her for her husband’s cheating.</p>
<p>Time to play the woman-card.</p>
<p>Shrill and brittle are bad. Ambitious is good. None of which have anything to do with gender. </p>
<p>Hillary is not criticized for her husband’s cheating. She is criticized for looking the other way for decades as her husband sought conquest after conquest. This is behavior that cannot be reconciled with her claim of being a strong, capable, independent leader. What a terrible message this sent to Chelsey!</p>
<p>Alwaysamom, I have met her twice, and while I haven’t spent any time at all in discussion with her and certainly cannot claim to “know” her, I found her creepy, weird, cold, almost sociopathic in her robot-like persona. Of course, it would be interesting to see how the reactions would be to her, if one met her just as a person, and if she were not running for office and if her politics were not known - perhaps she would indeed come across as a very nice, likable person. But the person I met made me want to take a shower after shaking her hand…appalling that she’s a member of my gender. I would imagine you would feel the same about meeting Bush, so, perhaps it’s simply impossible for me to keep my political opinion separate from my reaction to the person. </p>
<p>Interesteddad, I tend to judge people by the company they keep, and how they allow themselves to be treated. I don’t blame her for Bill’s cheating, but the fact that she tolerated it and remains with him sort of tells me that perhaps she doesn’t like or value herself very much. But beyond the cheating, she accepts the lying, and stays married to a man who has been stripped of his law license - I don’t know, I just think that there are a lot of talented, decent people in this country, and we surely can put better than this in the White House. </p>
<p>As to her failing the bar exam, if she really did miss Bill at that time, it’s entirely possible she subconciously intentionally blew the test, giving herself permission and the business case to go to Arkansas. If so, oddly, that would make me start to see her as a little bit human and potentially even like her. </p>
<p>I don’t know that I care for Guliani that much; I do like Romney, and I do like Obama - I could actually vote for or live with either of them in the WH. Obama’s inexperience doesn’t bother me; he would be able to surround himself with capable, experienced people. But I also think that there must be some way to attract better candidates to this office. In 2000 the choice was between someone who claimed he invented the internet vs. someone who later would make reference to “internets” - not a good situation for the country. And the dem’s choice in 2004 was appalling. </p>
<p>There just has to be some way to come up with a group of candidates in BOTH parties who aren’t quite so horrible. Perhaps the barriers to entry are simply too high - maybe it takes too much money to win. Perhaps a reasonably decent person cannot win. Perhaps we’re at a point where only the truly disgusting and sleazy can get elected. After all, this is a country where the media - based on their perception of viewer appetite - feed us an overwhelming amount of Paris Hilton while simultaneously I have to go drilling to even find out the names of the astronauts on the space shuttle Atlantis, which launched yesterday (just a quick sound bite, then a media after thought), or to learn more about what the pope and the government leaders in Italy discussed with Bush today. (Sure, you can find the coverage, but no where near to the depth of information that you can find about PH.)</p>
<p>It’s a really sad and disappointing place to be, that the choices have come down to this.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You blame her for all that, but not for her husband’s cheating, right? I see. Did you blame Jackie O? Did you blame Lady Bird? Or, was it that they didn’t also have the “sin” of being “ambitious” or “shrill”? In other words, Clinton could stay with her husband if she wore white gloves and a pillbox hat?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s what they all say. But, in reading the kiss n’ tell administration books going back to Kennedy, I’m not aware of a White House neophyte presidency that hasn’t shot itself in the foot time after time during a year or two of on-the-job-training. Kennedy. Nixon. Carter. Reagan. Clinton. Bush. They all screw up. Why? Because they have no clue how impossible the job really is.</p>
<p>The only candidate in the race this year who does know what the job requires is Clinton. IMO, that is unusually important this election because we have a complete disaster on our hands in terms of military affairs and foreign policy. The next President is going to have to sit down with the military leaders immediately and devise plans for getting out of Iraq and fixing the broken Army. Likewise, there are immense foreign policy problems resulting from the incompetence of the current administration.</p>
<p>Obama has an added hurdle. He simply has no big league experience. State legislator and 2 years of experience on the national level is pretty thin gruel. He will be a much more formidable candidate with eight more years of experience as a Senator or VP, when he will be in his early 50s.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually, we’ve got a pretty impressive slate of candidates this year. As James Carvelle has pointed out, you’ve got multiple candidates in both parties who can walk into a room and instantly change the temperature. There are quite a few larger than life figures in the race. Even the second tier candidates would be legitimate contestants in most election cycles: Joe Biden, John McCain, Chris Dodd, John Edwards, Romney, etc.</p>
<p>Interesteddad, look at it another way: think about all the admirable, capable, intelligent, knowledgable people who are NOT running for president, not now, not ever. People who are leaders in industry, academia, social organizations, etc., who do not have weird issues in their backgrounds, who would not be “default” or “anyone but the other guy” votes. I have a running list in my head and you probably do too. </p>
<p>The problem is none of these people will ever run; even if they wanted to, the barriers to entry, specifically the financial barriers are probably just too high, and/or they probably don’t want to put their families through the stress.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Then, maybe they wouldn’t make very good Presidents.</p>
<p>It’s the hardest job in the world. Basically impossible. The process of running for the office should be extremely challenging because that test is just a precurser to the difficulty of the job.</p>
<p>I agree the process of running for the office of President of the United States should be extremely challenging, which is why I hope Hillary, Barry and John will eventually summon the courage to be questioned by Brit Hume and Chris Wallace. :p</p>
<p>Why? Does your TV only get one channel?</p>
<p>I agree that the job interview process should be challenging, however, it is disappointing that what it seems like it primarily requires is simply enough money to BUY the job. </p>
<p>And yes, I’d like to see some tough interviewing too. Not the silly, giggly, girlish, embarrassing scenario Soledad O’Brien serves up to Hillary, but rather some serious questions that she and others HAVE to answer. </p>
<p>I watched both debates, and was first annoyed, then incensed, then very angry, when the majority of candidates from BOTH parties side-stepped the questions, and segued directly into the stuff THEY wanted to talk about, vs. answering the questions presented to them. It was rather like watching a bunch of used car salespersons. From what I saw, only Obama and Romney actually made some effort to address what was being said to them, instead of pontificating what they wanted to say vs. what the audience wanted to hear. </p>
<p>And Hillary was one of the most annoying of all. Outside of the debates, when she did the faith etc. piece with Obama and Edwards, not even 20 seconds into the first question Soledad asked, she was blathering about “I’ll get us out of Iraq” etc. - which had NOTHING to do with the question Soledad asked. </p>
<p>It’s sort of like any interview with Hillary would go rather like this:</p>
<p>“What do you think of global warming?”</p>
<p>“I’ll get us out of Iraq”</p>
<p>“What is your position on fruit flies?”</p>
<p>“Iraq is a bad war.”</p>
<p>“What would you do about immigration?”</p>
<p>“I’d get us out of Iraq.”</p>
<p>“What’s your favorite flower?”</p>
<p>“Iraq is Bush’s war; bad, bad, evil Bush…”</p>
<p>“Where would you like to go for vacation?”</p>
<p>“Iraq is a horrible situation…”</p>
<p>And so on…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I take it you haven’t followed a lot of Presidential campaigns?</p>
<p>If you want more in-depth coverage of the candidates, you have to venture away from the confines of the cable news networks and into C-Span and the candidates websites for the full text of their speeches and policy papers.</p>
<p>Particularly useful, IMO, are events where all the candidates give speeches to the same group, such as the candidates forum for the International Firefighters convention earlier this spring. Video of all the speeches is here:</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.iaff.org/07News/031507ForumMedia.htm[/url]”>http://www.iaff.org/07News/031507ForumMedia.htm</a></p>