<p>Well I agree with you mini, that having him as an advisor is not a 'big" plus. It was merely a compensating plus, in my mind. It does not compensate enough for my overall reluctance to support the dynasty idea dating back to the '80’s.</p>
<p>Competence, intelligence, experience: these Hillary has. What she does not have is freshness, innovation – or at least, she’s not big on those quotients. Yes, she’s done a good job in the senate, of being a “uniter.” But one of the main problems we’re facing as a country is the disconnect between the average citizen and Washington. I’m interested in getting citizens excited about the process, not in merely promoting the insider politics that exist in D.C. and in NYState.</p>
<p>“Competence, intelligence, experience: these Hillary has.”</p>
<p>Well, when it comes to Iraq, only the second applies positively. She was either in on the Big Lie of 1998 (which would make her “intelligent”), or she was too incompetent or too blinded by her “experience” to see through it, and it blinded her again in 2002. That’s precisely why she can’t apologize.</p>
<p>She does have a really major accomplishment to her credit, and it is a very big one: the Children’s Health Insurance Program. However, while a big plus for children, it was even a bigger giveaway to private insurance companies. That is understandable, politically, given the time; what is less forgiveable is her unwillingness (given her proposed health care “solution”) to fix it. It’s why big pharmaceutical companies and big insurers and health care companies love her.</p>
<p>Her bedfellows (and I don’t mean Bill) should tell you something.</p>
<p>I can’t argue with some your responses, mini. I’m merely trying to console myself with rationalizations if she’s the candidate. </p>
<p>Can posters weigh in, please about their reactions to the division between HC and Barack (unflaterring initials!) over the issue of diplomacy initiatives? I’d like to hear from anyone of any party on this. It was brought up in the debate & is now being carried over in the press.</p>
I suspect she has been trained, or trained herself, to speak slowly. Speaking fast can lead to a “shrill” label, which is the kiss of death for any female candidate. </p>
<p>
I think any of the Democratic candidates outside of Gravel and Kucinch meet those criteria. </p>
<p>Bushism is going to drag down the Republican party. They sold their souls to him and like all tales where souls are sold, there comes the moment when the price becomes due. One observer whom I respect breaks down the GOP into corporatist, dominionist, and nativist factions…a good broad-brushstroke model, I think. I don’t see anyone in the GOP field at the moment who can keep that unholy alliance intact.</p>
<p>I would agree with TheDad’s comments about why Clinton speaks so slowly. When women, in particular, speak too fast-- I do think their voice has a tendency to naturally rise and then sound “shrill.” I also think that when women talk too fast, it seems to translate as “emotional.” Also, she must be carefully editing every word/thought before it comes out of her mouth (something the current President should consider doing).</p>
<p>When you consider that the leading Republican contender – even if you poll with Fred Thompson in the mix – is None of the Above, I think the Republicans are going to have a very hard time winning the Presidency again. Their base is looking for something that they are not seeing among the 10 scoops of vanilla that they currently can choose from. I somehow doubt that Newt Gingrich is the savior of the party that he seems to think he is. Clinton, Obama, Edwards all come out as winners against <em>any</em> of the Republican field according to the latest polls. Now, you can play with statistics forever, but the polls are still the best ‘snapshot’ of the public mood as we have. I think – if the elections are fair and calm – we will see a Democrat in the White House come Jan '09.</p>
<p>“Can posters weigh in, please about their reactions to the division between HC and Barack (unflaterring initials!) over the issue of diplomacy initiatives?”</p>
<p>I want my political leaders talking all the time to other political leaders - ESPECIALLY our so-called enemies - and at all levels. I think it was wonderful when Nixon went to China, and Reagan met with the leaders of the “evil empire”. I’m quite pleased when I hear that meetings at the top are the BEGINNING of new diplomatic initiatives, rather than the end, and the fact that HC thinks she can be manipulated for propaganda purposes shows how weak she may in fact be, and incapable she is of taking a long view of things.</p>
<p>And the fact that she takes solace in trotting out an outspoken apologist for child murder to support her position is hardly a positive.</p>
<p>Well then, she’s going overboard, jack. (i.m.o.) She’s over-correcting, unnecessarily. Interesting that when Kucinich & Edwards talk real fast, they’re not called “shrill.” Pelosi talks fast, often. Is she “shrill”? Boxer does not talk as slowly as Clinton, nor does Feinstein, but with each of them, they’ve always had that style, and I do differentiate it from the way Clinton speaks, which sounds affected & deliberate.</p>
<p>epiphany: I like Pelosi, and I don’t think she comes across as “shrill,” but I do think she often comes across as a bit hyper or emotional. I don’t know if it’s her voice, or the way she moves. I’m guessing that has to do with how fast she talks. I do think that’s a problem that’s very specific to women, though. I wonder, too, if it’s simply connected with the medium of TV. In person, maybe that isn’t such an issue. I’m sure people have done research on this type of thing, but it is interesting. I agree that Clinton might be going overboard; she often seems a bit robotic to me, too, but I’m sure she’s being coached to speak that way.</p>
<p>I remember, years ago, working with a woman who was really trying to make a name for herself. I liked her a lot, but I remember we had a conversation once, and she was really attuned to what women needed to do, when talking, to be taken seriously. I found it fascinating. I remember her telling me, for instance, that women should never say, "I think . . . " or “I feel . . .” Instead, she would use, "My sense is . . . " Apparently, she believed (or had been taught) that she would be taken more seriously. She’s very well known in her field now, so maybe she was right. ??</p>
<p>Well I have a different perspective, jack. Both Kucinich and Edwards can be quite ‘emotional.’ In Edwards, I like it; he often talks fast & sometimes his voice gets high; he’s speaking with passion when doing so. Why should he get a pass at ‘emotionalism’ more than Pelosi? And I certainly classify Edwards as ‘hyper’ – just as much so as Pelosi. I think there’s much more of a double standard when it comes to “emotionalism” in politics than the business about appearance. (Aside: Condy Rice doesn’t get criticized for appearance because she usually looks so classy & is not ‘posing’ for anyone.)</p>
<p>I agree that there’s a double standard in play here. Absolutely. </p>
<p>As far as Condi Rice-- well, I personally criticize her appearance all the time. But, I’m Southern and, hence, very critical. I think-- wait-- my sense is . . . that the two go hand in hand. I don’t think Rice looks classy at all. She looks just awful, in my opinion. And that hairstyle has got to go. Seriously. She needs a makeover.</p>
<p>As far as Kucinich, again-- if he looked more like Joe Biden, he would come across better. He’s just too short and funny looking for anyone to take him seriously. I hate to be so critical, but there you have it.</p>
<p>Well maybe I overdo it when I say classy. She looks conservative, as befits her role. Perhaps I don’t examine the detail so much, as to whether it qualifies as “class.” Maybe it doesn’t. You seem to notice details, such as whether a man is wearing a tailor-made suit or not. (Not a criticism!) I would tend not to notice that, but would notice mismatched color, pattern on a guy, and definitely an inappropriate color on a woman, given her coloring.</p>
<p>Edit: I do think the black pants on HC were the right choice. </p>
<p>Fashion-challenged? Now that’s Newt Gingrich, i.m.o. I don’t know a whole lot about male tailoring, but even I can tell when SOMETHING DOESN’T FIT. (Hint: It really helps when your pants are long enough. Makes you look more like a grown man, less like a little boy having a growth spurt.) Meow meow.</p>
<p>Oh, yeah, I’m definitely there when it comes to the fine details. For instance, I think Clinton should not wear pants. Period. First order of business – she should go in her closet right now, and throw away every pair of pants she owns. I do think she would look great in those peplum (sp?) jackets-- the kind that were so popular (still a classic look) in the 1940’s. And she should always wear skirts, slightly below the knee.</p>
<p>jack, I think she was trying to strike her balance. And this is one case of damned if she does, damned if she doesn’t. I think she would have stood out <em>more</em> as female (as if that should be the distinguishing aspect), had she worn a skirt. For events? Yes. For competitive debates with pants-wearing guys? No. She wore a colored jacket. Again, I would have advised a different (more powerful, more interesting) color, but the HC camp doesn’t call on me for such things. She was trying to strike a balance.</p>
<p>Striking a balance. Hmm . . . yeah, I can understand that. But wearing those pants makes her look shorter and somewhat stumpy-- especially with the jacket coming down as low as it does-- just cuts her up too much. I also have no idea why the cameras insist on coming around from behind them in some shots, while standing up there on that podium. If she’s gonna wear pants (and I get why she would), she needs to ensure that the cameras don’t come around and photograph her from behind. Not a good look for her. She also maybe needs to get pants that aren’t so full, though maybe that can’t be helped. But they somehow need to look more tailored. Again, perhaps a shorter jacket would help? I’m not sure, but something needs to be done about her clothing. I actually think she would look better wearing clothes in the “blue” family, given her coloring and eye color.</p>
<p>I think maybe we could offer up ourselves as her personal dressers/design team. She obviously needs help.</p>
<p>Oh. Just saw your post about Newt. Well, let’s face it. He needs a complete overhaul–as does Rudy, for that matter. Talk about a disaster. Something has got to be done about Rudy’s hair, too, or what’s left of it.</p>
<p>I hope voters will be careful with all the myth, stereotyping, and distraction-by-appearances surrounding Senator Clinton. Again, as informed voters, let’s look at people’s records and actions this time around. Let’s refuse to be bought by rumor mill.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I assure you, there is nothing sub-par about Hillary Clinton’s IQ. Google her bio.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Indeed, she already got spanked hard for that with her health care proposal. Nothing Americans hate more than innovation.</p>
<p>Of course the bottom line is that these debates don’t make one bit of difference. If they did, GWB certainly wouldn’t be president (not that he was elected, but, well, you know). Does anybody remember what it was like watching him “debate?” Lord, he couldn’t even talk.</p>
<p>I don’t think the poster meant that HC’s IQ was “deficient;” she was suggesting that she spoke slowly, because she assumed everybody else’s IQ was lower than her’s, so she needed to speak slowly to get her points across to the sub-par IQ listeners out there. At least, I think that’s what was meant. Speaking so s-l-o-w-l-y seems somewhat demeaning/condescending to her audience. That was the point, I think.</p>
<p>The debates sure helped make a difference with Nixon/Kennedy. Among other things, appearance counted for a lot there. Anybody remember Nixon sweating like a pig up there next to cool as a cucumber JFK?</p>
<p>I definitely won’t be casting my vote based on appearances, but I will continue to criticize. What’s the point of watching these folks if you can’t criticize their looks, among other things??</p>
I don’t think Rice looks classy at all. She looks just awful, in my opinion. And that hairstyle has got to go. Seriously. She needs a makeover.</p>