Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Jan 7, 2008 15:30:52 GMT -5
It has been said that electing someone President is like inviting him/her to dinner for the next 4 or 8 years.
Is it at all surprising that voters don't want her face at their dinner table?
All substantive issues aside, she is a dour, shrill, self-righteous elitist. She has all of her husband's negatives as a candidate (truth aversion/lack of any real convictions/ policy by poll) and none of the personal charm that made him a great politician if not President.
The fact that she is being personally repudiated is no real surprise.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Jan 7, 2008 15:40:00 GMT -5
There were signs of this implosion for a long time, but I didn't see too many of them wildly reported.
The one I remember most was at the supermarket event, when the press all followed Bill smiling and shaking hands in the crowd after the formal event concluded. Hillary looked like she was about to lose it completely, but she composed herself. (I've looked for the video since Scarborough showed it, but I can't find it anywhere).
I also credit Hillary with the single most idiotic statement in the campaign so far:
"People want someone who can deliver change, and that's what I've been doing for 35 years."
Exsqueeze me? Baking powder? Let's forget for a moment the pure oxymoronic quality of this statement, but if you've been delivering change for 35 years, maybe you are the problem!
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Jan 7, 2008 15:42:19 GMT -5
The only "change" she really wants to deliver is the 35 cents or so I'd get out of every dollar earned in her perfect socialist world.
|
|
|
Post by StPetersburgHoya (Inactive) on Jan 7, 2008 16:23:10 GMT -5
I don't get some of the change she's saying she spear-headed.
In the New Hampshire Debates she said she created SCHIP. That's simply a lie. She wasn't in congress when it was created.
My problem with her is that her campaign strategy is that its the same demographic pandering that gets Democrats about 45% in a national election. Her husband did that and won thanks to Ross Perrot, but pandering doesn't work when you are an elitist. You'd never know that Obama is a Harvard Law Review Editor and Columbia grad when you hear him talk. Hillary sound like the type of person that thinks her Yale degree makes her a better person. That doesn't really translate into votes.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Jan 7, 2008 16:23:23 GMT -5
I, for one, did not see this happening (disclaima: not sure yet it is actually happening). I thought she'd win solely because she was a woman and I expected most women to vote for her. So, I think her possible implosion is a surprise, despite the fact she is easy to dislike. As for her "perfect socialist world", I think she is probably to the right of Obama.
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Jan 7, 2008 16:34:14 GMT -5
According to Drudge and a new flash poll, Lady McRodham now trails an African American candidate by 12 in South Carolina.
Good night. Don't let the door hit your fat can on your way out, Hillary.
|
|
The Stig
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,844
|
Post by The Stig on Jan 7, 2008 16:48:16 GMT -5
I sort of saw it coming. Of all the liberals I've talked to, nobody likes her or has any enthusiasm about her. She was ahead in the polls because she was seen as the default candidate. People didn't think Obama could win, and Edwards isn't a very inspiring candidate. My feeling was that if she lost a state early her support would implode, because Dems would suddenly see that there's an alternative to her. I didn't think it would happen so early though. Her downfall was accelerated by the fact that Obama won in a state that's 98% white, since it proved that his race wouldn't hold him back.
Now that she's not the default candidate, she's toast. I don't see her making a comeback.
Elvado - I disagree with whoever said that electing a President is like inviting somebody to dinner. George W. Bush seems like the sort of guy who I'd like to have over for dinner, but I think he's been a downright awful President. On the flip side, I wouldn't want Bill Clinton anywhere near my dinner table (especially if I've got a pretty girlfriend/wife/daughter), but I think he did a fine job as President. I know you'll disagree with me on my judgments of the Presidents, but the disconnect between my opinion of them as people and my opinion of them as Presidents is what I'm trying to get at.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Jan 7, 2008 16:49:37 GMT -5
I don't get some of the change she's saying she spear-headed. In the New Hampshire Debates she said she created SCHIP. That's simply a lie. She wasn't in congress when it was created. I'm not positive, but I believe SCHIP was created out of the rubble that was her failed health care plan, no? So, sure, why the hell not take credit for it? After viewing the ABC video you posted, no this isn't quite the implosion reported in print. A little on the weepy side, but she didn't lose it, much like the supermarket event (though that was more anger than tears). Still doesn't change my opinion that she's evil.
|
|
|
Post by StPetersburgHoya (Inactive) on Jan 7, 2008 16:55:01 GMT -5
This is not my summary of the primary season thus far. But it appeared on a blog today and was hilarious: Maybe I just find that funny because I was in Latin Club at one point ...
|
|
bubbrubbhoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
We are the intuitive minds that plot the course. Woo-WOOO!
Posts: 1,369
|
Post by bubbrubbhoya on Jan 7, 2008 17:14:38 GMT -5
I wouldn't declare her dead yet. The media had practically anointed her a month and a half ago, and there's no saying that another wild upswing isn't coming in the coming weeks. Another example of rapid change? McCain, whose campaign has just been reinvigorated from almost nothing in no more than the past 2 weeks. Politics is so fickle that it's wayyyyy to early to be declaring any one of the stronger candidates dead.
|
|
|
Post by Coast2CoastHoya on Jan 7, 2008 17:39:43 GMT -5
Is it more an implosion by Hillary or an ascendancy by Obama?
|
|
RusskyHoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
In Soviet Russia, Hoya Blue Bleeds You!
Posts: 4,618
|
Post by RusskyHoya on Jan 7, 2008 17:56:52 GMT -5
I wouldn't declare her dead yet. The media had practically anointed her a month and a half ago, and there's no saying that another wild upswing isn't coming in the coming weeks. Another example of rapid change? McCain, whose campaign has just been reinvigorated from almost nothing in no more than the past 2 weeks. Politics is so fickle that it's wayyyyy to early to be declaring any one of the stronger candidates dead. Politics is fickle, but certain trends are obvious. It's been clear from the get-go that Hillary's strategy was to make her candidacy appear inevitable and to cruise to the nomination on the strength of that. There were enough questions about the viability of a black candidate, even among many black voters, to make that strategy seem like it could work. Now that it has been shown in Iowa (and will be shown tomorrow in NH) that Obama can garner white votes, the empress will be shown to have no clothes and her strategy will collapse. As for McCain's campaign being reinvigorated...that's really more a function of people having increasing doubts about Romney. It doesn't matter either way - the Republican Party is dominated by the South, moth geographically and (more importantly) culturally. Southerners aren't going to vote en masse for a pro-choice, on-his-third-marriage, Catholic former mayor of Zoo York. They're not very likely to vote for McCain, whose "maverick" schtick turned many off, and whose age and lack of funds makes for added problems. And they sure as hell aren't voting for a Mormon governor of Massachusetts. Fickle politics are not, at this point in time, this seems ironclad to me. And when there's a Southern governor who used to be a minister in the field? Forget about it! In other words, get ready for lots of "I <3 Huckabee" jokes, 'cause he's not going away.
|
|
theexorcist
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,506
|
Post by theexorcist on Jan 7, 2008 18:00:35 GMT -5
Is it more an implosion by Hillary or an ascendancy by Obama? Oooh. I was trying to write something on this, and it didn't make sense. The above does. The Democrats have a very good chance to win the White House. Edwards, if he was nominated, might go for taxing every single business owner and would screw up a chance to retake the White House. Hillary jumped on that, presenting herself as staid and a middle-of-the-road Democrat. Yes, Republicans hate her, but she'll appeal to enough independent voters and win. Along comes Obama. Also middle-of-the-road. An electrifying speaker. Hillary promises "change", but it's change from Republican to Democrat. Obama promises hope that tomorrow will be better and - especially - less rancorous. You get all the pluses of Hillary, but in a more appealing package. A comment on November - I've found Obama to speak to beat all hell, but he never seems like he says anything. If the campaign goes deep into issues (if we hit an honest-to-God recession, a major terrorist attack), I think that Obama may hit a big roadblock and that the right nominee (McCain or Giuliani, maybe Romney, maybe maybe Huckabee or Thompson) can hammer him. If not, Obama has too much momentum and will win it all.
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Jan 7, 2008 18:43:44 GMT -5
What I said was that in electing a President, you're effectively bringing him/her into your home every night for four years. Bush had likeability; Bill Clinton had likeability; hillary has none.
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Jan 7, 2008 18:49:24 GMT -5
As a postscript, while there may be a fundamental disconnect between how you got the invite and how you behave once there, the invite comes based at least in part because someone can stomach the idea of your presence.
Put another way, name a fundamentally unlikeable President elected since LBJ, irrespective of performance.
|
|
|
Post by StPetersburgHoya (Inactive) on Jan 7, 2008 18:50:54 GMT -5
What I said was that in electing a President, you're effectively bringing him/her into your home every night for four years. Bush had likeability; Bill Clinton had likeability; hillary has none. There is something to this. The only person that has been elected president that Americans didn't like personally was Nixon.
|
|
|
Post by AustinHoya03 on Jan 7, 2008 19:05:26 GMT -5
This is not my summary of the primary season thus far. But it appeared on a blog today and was hilarious: Maybe I just find that funny because I was in Latin Club at one point ... So Hillary is like Tracy Flick? As for Huckabee, he's about to be hit on all sides by D's and other R's. I would not be surprised to see his campaign end up like McCain's in 2000.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Jan 7, 2008 19:25:52 GMT -5
"Along comes Obama. Also middle-of-the-road."
I need someone to tell me how Obama is middle of the road. First off, it's hard to tell what he stands for since he doesn't tell us - except he was against the war from the start. Would somone like to tell me what beliefs/policies he espouses that makes him middle of the road?
|
|
theexorcist
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,506
|
Post by theexorcist on Jan 7, 2008 19:54:25 GMT -5
"Along comes Obama. Also middle-of-the-road." I need someone to tell me how Obama is middle of the road. First off, it's hard to tell what he stands for since he doesn't tell us - except he was against the war from the start. Would somone like to tell me what beliefs/policies he espouses that makes him middle of the road? It's not that he is middle of the road, just that he seems that way. Edwards has built his campaign by going after Big Bad Business. Obama hasn't - he's basically said that Washington isn't governing well, and that we need to do things differently. He could be a closet socialist or (more likely) not really be sure how to fix various problems beyond some vague talking points. For all I know, he could be a Reagan Republican on fiscal issues. As I said previously, Obama may reach some point in the debates where he gets a "where's the beef" question. He may then be forced to expand on his soundbites.
|
|
|
Post by Coast2CoastHoya on Jan 7, 2008 20:23:42 GMT -5
First and foremost, we have to define what the middle of the road is, and what it means for a candidate (or any political actor) to be middle of the road, which I'm assuming we also mean to be moderate or "the center".
|
|