Originally Posted By woody The poll show Hillary Clinton in 2nd behind Obama in Iowa and now South Carolina. Interesting.... <a href="http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/2007/12/new_insider_advantage_sc_poll.html" target="_blank">http://time-blog.com/real_clea r_politics/2007/12/new_insider_advantage_sc_poll.html</a> The newest Insider Advantage/Majority Opinion poll (Dec. 3-4, 421 Democrats, MoE +/- 5%) in South Carolina shows Hillary Clinton's support in the state waning. Obama has taken the lead after trailing Clinton by 15 points in July. Obama 26 (-2 vs. last poll, July 23-24) Clinton 24 (-19) Edwards 15 (+2) Biden 10 (+6) Richardson 2 (-3) --- Note: This is only one poll. The other polls show Hillary is ahead in South Carolina. This is unexpected because no one is predicting Hillary will lose beyond Iowa and New Hampshire (where she is leading).
Originally Posted By Dabob2 The polls are interesting. And I've got my doubts about Clinton myself. But "Shrillary?" Nice to see the level of discourse here...
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "But "Shrillary?" Nice to see the level of discourse here..." I thought the same thing.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>I thought the same thing.<< Ditto. It's the sign of what passes for political discourse these days. Few are interested in the discussion but instead focus on the "zingers" they can get off and the "points" they can score off of their "opponents" in online debates.
Originally Posted By barboy "Shrillary" I have always had a working definition of root portion of that word but I decided to look it up anyway..... and it fits nicely after all. Woody, keep it going!
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA I enjoy seeing all the people in this country who are downright petrified to consider a woman as President of the United States. They'd rather see somebody like Rudy Giuliani, who for my money is completely unqualified, than see Hilary Clinton in office. Funny, ain't it? I enjoy seeing them all squirm.
Originally Posted By BlueDevilSF >>"But "Shrillary?" Nice to see the level of discourse here..." I thought the same thing.<< You've both been around here long enough to consider the source...
Originally Posted By HyperTyper It's funny to hear people calling Hillary's run "historic" and "a first." It's as if Elizabeth Dole's candidacy in 2000 never happened. Well, it did. But, true to form, the media will never acknowledge that the first major female presidential candidate was a conservative and Republican. They want liberals to own support of strong women leaders, ignoring the likes of conservative and friend of Reagan Margaret Thatcher. True, Hillary Clinton is in the lead in the primary race and Elizabeth Dole was not. But Dole has all of Clinton's experience and accomplishments, and more (including election to a senate seat), plus she is infinitely more likable. Liberals and the media enjoy tossing conservatives around for being "anti-women" and "anti-black." Yet last time around, we had Dole AND Alan Keyes both running, and there was never an undercurrent of "I can't vote for her because she's a woman, or him because he's black." Is the U.S. ready for a woman in the Oval Office? A black person? A (*gasp*) Mormon? You bet. It has been for a long time. But this country will not elect someone just because they are a minority. She or he must bring the right qualifications to the table first, though the media will not hesitate to blame a loss on sexism or racism instead of a weak resume'. More and more, I think Democrats are getting buyer's remorse about Hillary Clinton. She has very little leadership ability or experience. She can be poised and articulate, but not genuine, and certainly not optimistic. Plus, there is a record of shady behavior (her own and her husband's) in personal and other matters that will keep her from winning independent and crossover votes. I don't think she'll win the nomination.
Originally Posted By JeffG >> "It's funny to hear people calling Hillary's run "historic" and "a first." It's as if Elizabeth Dole's candidacy in 2000 never happened. Well, it did. But, true to form, the media will never acknowledge that the first major female presidential candidate was a conservative and Republican. They want liberals to own support of strong women leaders, ignoring the likes of conservative and friend of Reagan Margaret Thatcher. " << Dole's campaign certainly was never as significant as Clinton's has been and it really is pretty much revisionist history to even pretend that it was. By this stage in the 2000 election she had already dropped out of the race due to inadequate financing. She never was included in any of the Republican primaries. Barring any unforeseen scandal, it is a safe bet that Clinton's campaign is going to go substantially further than Dole's ever did. Other than personal animosity towards her, I really can't think of any good reason why Clinton's campaign wouldn't be viewed as groundbreaking. As for the reference to Thatcher, I honestly don't know what point you are trying to make. It isn't like she is an unknown figure, but she certainly isn't of any relevance to a US presidential campaign. I honestly don't know how far Clinton will end up going in this race or if she will end up winning the nomination. While I would likely vote for her over any of the Republican front-runners, I'm not even sure that I'm likely to vote for her in the primaries (right now, I'm leaning towards supporting Obama). I do think it would be a mistake to underestimate her, though, as both she and her husband are incredibly astute campaigners. -Jeff
Originally Posted By gadzuux Elizabeth Dole had about as much chance of winning the nomination in 2000 as Shirley Chisholm back in 1976 - another "historic first" for those keeping score. It's odd how focused the right is on hillary and their efforts to derail her. The truth is, she's by far the most conservative of the dem candidates, and has the most hawkish stance on iraq. As with jeff above, if she's the democratic nominee I'll vote for her in a heartbeat over any of the GOP candidates in the general election, but I'm not particularly supportive of her in the primaries. Biden is my personal choice - he has an "eat your spinach" message that I believe is the most pragmatic of the pack, and he's the most qualified in foreign policy matters, as well as the most politically astute. But of course he doesn't have a snowball's chance of getting the nomination. I'm left with the belief that this almost rabid GOP opposition to hillary is mostly based on their own fears and personal animosity. But what's surprising is that she's also the candidate that most closely aligns with GOP platform issues. You'd think that if they took a dispassionate look at the democratic candidates, they'd see that her positions are more favorable towards them than any of the other dems. But there's a combo effect going on of being influenced by the right wing pundits and their own emotions and fears, instead of reason and logic. And ever has it been thus.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>I'm left with the belief that this almost rabid GOP opposition to hillary is mostly based on their own fears and personal animosity.<< Does that surprise you? Today's Republican party has been hijacked by people who can't govern, but manage to get elected by exploiting people's fears and personal animosity. They get people to vote for them by telling them how evil abortion and homosexuality is, then they turn around and off-shore those same voter's jobs. We've got a thread here that's titled "Shrillary" and people who are blaming the attention she gets on the non-existent "liberal media." You were expecting logic and reason and discussion of the issues? Take a silent ballot and you'll sadly get plenty of people who approved and laughed at the woman at the McCain fundraiser who called Hillary a "female dog." They won't advertise that they loved it because somewhere inside they know how despicable it is, but they laughed, and they approve.
Originally Posted By fkurucz << It's the sign of what passes for political discourse these days.>> FWIW, both side of he aisle are guilty of this.
Originally Posted By fkurucz <<They get people to vote for them by telling them how evil abortion and homosexuality is, then they turn around and off-shore those same voter's jobs.>> This is exactly what I told a GOP fund raiser who called me. I told them that they could neither count on my vote nor my money until they remedied this situation. The caller said "But we can't allow the democrats to win!". I told her to can the scare tactics and to start delivering
Originally Posted By Dabob2 You beat me to the punch on Shirley Chisholm, gadzuux. Why would Dole be the first "major" female candidate and not her? They won the same number of primaries (i.e. zero). I think Chisholm even lasted longer in the process than Dole did. So why would Dole be a "major" candidate and Chisholm not? Couldn't have anything to do with HT's own biases, could it?
Originally Posted By officerminnie >>>>I enjoy seeing all the people in this country who are downright petrified to consider a woman as President of the United States.<<<< I don't think folks are necessarily all that opposed to a woman being president, they just don't want to see this particular woman as president.
Originally Posted By gadzuux But their reasons aren't because of what this particular woman is actually saying or positions she's taken.
Originally Posted By mstaft I'm not too impressed with any of the frontrunners, regardless of the party. They all seem to say the same thing but in slightly different form. As far as the abortion issue, IMHO, you are either human or you are not- this includes being in utero.
Originally Posted By woody >>I'm left with the belief that this almost rabid GOP opposition to hillary is mostly based on their own fears and personal animosity.<< Yes, its a belief based on your own fears, perhaps thats Shrillary will lose the general election??? >>We've got a thread here that's titled "Shrillary" and people who are blaming the attention she gets on the non-existent "liberal media." You were expecting logic and reason and discussion of the issues?<< Yes, I wonder why? >>non-existent "liberal media." << Oh, please.
Originally Posted By woody BTW, Shrillary is descriptive of how she deliveries a speech, which is not listenable.
Originally Posted By JohnS1 "Shrillary" is at least semi-clever, using word play to define a person's characteristics. But nicknames like "Bushie" and "Shrub" are just stupid and spohomoric by comparison. I'll smile at anybody's clever nicknames for parties they don't like - regardless which party the person is from. The only caveat - it must be at least approaching clever in its execution.
