As others have said, no worries man, as long as you realize that you're pretty constantly jumping to conclusions - it's entertaining. :D


Only on the Democratic side. Republicans still have a secret ballot in Iowa for the caucus.

This makes a ton of sense to me, even more so when you figure in the overall unlikeability of Romney.

This is going to sound silly, but I don't think the crying thing is going to be good for her in the long term. I think part of the bias against having a female executive is the belief (correct or not) that they'll fold under the highest pressure and/or become emotional at the wrong time. You look at females elected to the highest positions in their countries (Thatcher, Bhutto, Meir, Merkel) and they've pretty universally put forth an image of being pretty tough and unemotional.

I'm on the other side of that one, flere. For years, people have wanted to see a human side of Hillary, and the crying incident did that. And we're only talking about misty eyes, not an all-out Muskie blubbering.

I'd be curious to know if any of the Hillary-haters on the board think she isn't tough because of this.

I pretty much think Hillary sucks. So forgive my bias.

Look -- Obama, McCain, Huckabee, Romney, and Edwards are all out there pretty friggin' exhausted, working hard, doing everything they can for a vote and all of them have been down far worse than Hillary at times...and if any of them started crying there campaign's would be over. Period. Hell, at least wait till the end to cry, if you find out you don't win, that's cool. But to cry because you're losing? The fight is still on and I don't think crying is the right national TV strategy to get votes. It worked this time (amazingly) , but I think it's crap.

The standard for President of the USA should be the same for men and women. If crying on national TV is a PR disaster for a man, it should be a PR disaster for a woman.

Is getting misty eyed when talking about one's country a PR disaster for a man? I don't think so.

I didn't get the sense she "cried" because she was losing. Here are the exact words she spoke:

“I couldn’t do it if I just didn’t passionately believe it was the right thing to do,” she said here in reply to a question from an undecided voter, a woman roughly Mrs. Clinton’s age.

Her eyes visibly wet, in perhaps the most public display of emotion of her year-old campaign, Mrs. Clinton added: “I have so many opportunities from this country, I just don’t want to see us fall backwards. This is very personal for me — it’s not just political, it’s not just public.”

I have no problem at all if someone, man or woman, gets visibly moved by something they believe passionately in. If anything I think it's a hallmark of a good leader, though perhaps not a good politician. (Sadly, the qualities that make a good leader are rarely found in a good politician).

We see men get misty-eyed all the time when "overcome" by emotion. It's pretty common place in sports when a team wins a championship or a player announces his retirement from a game he played since he was a boy and loved passionately. These are never "PR disasters". In fact, these guys are lauded for it.

Quite the contrary, I'd say it was an extremely effective and calculated move. It's obvious her prior strategy wasn't working, and it was the just right show of emotion at the right time.

As others have already said, it wasn't an all-out ball-fest. Not enough for others to think she may be too emotional, but just enough to show that she does have emotions.

Her corporate funded political strategists seem to know exactly what they're doing.

A lot of you do not remember the Clinton years because you were in HS/college and/or didn't care like you do now. I have followed the whole Clinton years in the same way most of you have been following the Bush years. What you may not remember from Clinton was the widespread belief of fake sincerity. Even the major media outlets picked up on it and made references/jokes about it (e.g., the biting of the lip, the sorrowful eyes, the purposeful hand jestures, etc.). He was the Selfish (or Self-Centered) President whom every action was to draw attention to himself or to draw criticism away from himself. Hillary is being coached in everything she says or do and that's where the problem lies because she not personable, charismatic or young/hip. While Edwards come off as a huckster, Obama and McCain (and Huckabee) are coming off as more real. After the years of Clinton phoniness and selfishness, and years of Bush arrogance and secretiveness, voters for both parties want something more real.

Was it a PR disaster when Bush cried? Or LBJ? Or Churchill?

Why "amazingly"? Clinton is seen as an ice queen (as most female leaders have been in the past... Thatcher, Meir, etc.). Emotion would help sway people into questioning that stereotype.

If you had a male "ice king" crying, I think it may help him as well. But the men in this campaign (or most any really) aren't seen that way.

If Hillary wins the Dem nomination, Mike Bloomberg gets in the race and that means, the GOP might have a much better road to keeping its clutches on the White House.

Dola --

I hadn't heard about the hecklers who said "Iron My Shirt" in the background of that one Hillary rally.

I think that they were plants. But even still...she's going to turn this into Hillary against the men. Smart move, really. But will it work? I don't think America is opposed to a woman President.

I just think lots of people are opposed to her. There is a big difference. But we'll see what happens in the coming weeks, after people wipe their faces and catch their swooning breathe from both of the leading candidates on the Dem side.

The Iron my shirt guys were a stunt from a radio morning show. I think they were from a Boston station, but I don't remember.

Yup, seems to be the case.

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/01/0...-my-shirt-post

I wonder with Richardson dropping out who does the roughly 4-5% he had go to? It could be a deal if alot of the hispanic voters go over to say Obama. It lloks like it will be a close race between Clinton and him with Edwards far back in the rear siphoning votes from Obama mostly .

Richardson voters were, by and large, persuaded that he was strongly "qualified" for the job, more than anything else I heard. My guess (and it's little more than that) is that many Richardson supporters will look to Clinton as their default next choice, and not Obama.

Richardson and Clinton were very close (and there is strong assumptions that Richardson may get Clinton's VP position if she wins the nomination), so I think most of Richardson's support will flock to Hillary.

This is a dropping out that Clinton likes, unlike say, if Edwards were to drop out, because I'm positive that most of his support would flock to Obama in that case.

God, Richardson as the VP. I hope not. I would love to see a Obama/Edwards ticket.

I heard through the grapevine that Indiana Senator Evan Bayh thinks he has a really good chance of getting Clinton's VP position if she wins the nomination. There might be some truth to it since he is really high up in her campaign.

NPR reported this morning that Richardson is likely dropping out today.

I think I got the answers that I expected from the anti-Hillary folks. They mistrust her motives but it helped more than it hurt.


A colleague of mine and a former Richardson staffer who was modestly active in his campaign tells me that she is inclined to support Hillary. But she's a little too disappointed right now to be very excited about it.

My sense is the same as yours, QuikSand, that the plurality of Richardson supporters will likely move to the Clinton camp. I'm not sure how big of a blip it is on the radar screen, however.

How does everyone feel about where Ron Paul's supporters will land when he finally drops out? I really like him, although my support currently is for Obama. I'm wondering if a Ron Paul drop out could be an Omaba / Edwards boost, assuming most of his supporters are moderates and independents?

If Paul drops out, his supporters will spend the next 11 months trying to get people to write him in, in November.

If Hillary does get elected, I wonder if she finally jettisons Bill. Actually, I guess she waits until re-election time...after that, THEN she kicks him to the curb.

Fear leads to Anger, Anger leads to Hate, Hate leads to Suffering, SFL Cat. I'd say you're in Step 2 already. Don't fall into the dark side.

Thanks for the tip, Lord Vader. :)

It's what I do. ;)

John Kerry officially endorses Obama today. I'm not sure if that's a good thing or a bad thing.

This will make sense months from now but...

"I voted for Obama before I voted against him."

:D

You're on fire today, Dutch. :p

I prefer Obama for Hillary and, if I had an actual Democratic primary in my state, I'd vote for him. That said, there really is something very appealing about the idea of Clinton becoming president, beyond the fact that she'd be the first woman president.

I would just so enjoy watching all those haters, of which there are legion, go absolutely apoplectic. They'd finally get a little taste of how the rest of us have felt over the course of much of the last eight years and it would be glorious. :)

What about those of us who didn't want Bush in the last 8 years, and who don't want Clinton in the next 4 or 8? I guess I could move to Canada like my sister did :) (She didn't move for political reasons)

I'm really really hoping that my choice in at least one of the two parties is chosen, but I am not holding my breath as I am far too moderate for America

Collateral damage.

Oh we already know...we had to put up with eight years of Bill. :p

If Hill gets in, it would be just like a bad rerun - minus the oval office bj.

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.co...tical-con.html

If only I could draw stick-people, I'd be a legend around here. :)

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/dai...100.guest.html


It's been a while since I've been able to say this, but I agree with Rush Limbaugh. At the end of the day, I think that it will be Clinton. Never bet against the house.

Sophistry, in my opinion. The only election in recent history for which this is a meaningful statement is 2004. Gore obviously was sitting VP in 2000, which is a massive advantage, and Clinton was the incumbent in 1996. Are we sure Clinton was the "machine" candidate in 1992? Elections further back aren't particularly relevant to today's electioneering.

Along the same time frame, let's look at the Republican candidates. Bush over McCain in 2000 was a victory for the "establishment". Dole was quite clearly the "establishment" candidate in 1996.

So I wonder if Kerry supporting Obama puts the nail in Edwards coffin (campaign)? I mean the guy can even get the man who he ran with in the last election to support him for this one. I don't think you can put any positive spin on that.

Oh, I think that the Republicans do it too.

James Earl Carter

So, I'm not the only one.

I find a good rule to be that Rush Limbaugh is full of shit. If I want intelligent commentary on the right, talk radio isn't the place to go. This is the 3-times married guy and pill-popper who rants about the "sanctity of marriage" or how "drug-abusers should be jailed"? His audience is the Michael Moore of the right - they don't want to think, they want to be lead.

Clinton was an unknown yokel from just west of nowhere in 1991-2. The Democratic "machine" had no candidate. It wanted Cuomo, but Bush the Elder looked unbeatable after the successful prosecution of the Gulf War, so he stayed out. Most institutional Democrats kept their powder dry until it was pretty clear that 1) Clinton was going to win or 2) their state was up and they couldn't really hold out any longer.

Anyway, I would argue that the "machines" are far less powerful today than they ever have been. They have some value for fundraising, but are not necessary to succeed in raising money and certainly no longer directly translate into votes.

I strongly disagree that Clinton wasn't the machine candidate in 92 - it was just a newer machine. Clinton's coming out was the 1988 DNC and the machine was the DLC, which was started shortly before that. It steadily rose to prominence by 1992, so much so that it rapidly replaced the old guard machine as the primary force in the party.

Now we might be witnessing the passing of the DLC as the old guard into something new. After all, we have an old, white woman as the old guard and the young, black man as the new order.

So, anyone think that the "pointless" primary will end up hurting the Dems in MI in the presidential race? Seems to me like there could be 2 factors at play here:

1) If I don't get to have a say in who runs for president, screw the Dems I either won't vote or vote the other way out of spite
2) I voted in the Republican primary (a ton of independent and democratic people are reported to be doing this because it actually means something), now I'll see it through and vote for "my" candidate in the real thing

I don't know anything about Michigan historically, so it may be that this won't be the case, but logically the above makes sense to me.

Chris Matthews suggested that when push comes to shove, they'll let Michigan have delegates at the convention who can actually vote to avoid this possibility. But more so for the base/volunteers to motivate them to get out the vote in the presidential election.

Michigan is so firmly Democratic at this point that the highly unpopular Dem Governor Jennifer Granholm easily won re-election in 2006. All the Dems had huge leads in the most recent polls (December) that tested matchups in Michigan. I think there's virtually no chance that Michigan goes red, unless the Dem nominee drives to a rally in a foreign made car and then gets out to take a piss on an American made car.