Okay, still looking for answers...not satisfied with the ones I've been getting so far.
I wasn't a huge fan of Bill, especially after his sexcapades knocked the Pope's visit to Cuba off the news.
I'm a Democratic woman who's been ragging on Hillary for years. I can't stand her, and I was raised not to vote for carpetbaggers. I've said before, I sometimes wish I lived in NY so I could donate to those who campaign against her.
So,
for the last 12-18 months we've had this steady drumbeat of stories about how Hillary's going to be the Dem nominee and how she's the only one who can beat those nasty Republicans and save the country (and repeal sin and misery in the process).
I didn't buy it then, and I'm not buying it now. (on all 5 counts.)
Today, 73% of the voters in the Democratic primary in the good state of South Carolina voted for either Barack Obama or John Edwards. (There may have been a few other votes in there, but cnn.com isn't saying anything about those other guys.)
Given that almost 3 out of 4 Democrats aren't voting for her, much less independents,Greens, Libertarians, Republicans or others, how in the WORLD can this woman win her party's nomination, much less the general election?
When is the national political pundit braintrust going to pick up on this and ask more questions?
Or is the story line going to be about how the strapping young man beat out the old woman, and we'll get a Hillary biography in the future crying about how Obama stole the election from her?
And don't tell me about her "experience"; that's just code for "I've been doing political favors for 35 years and putting up with Bill screwing around on me for even longer, I'm looking to collect now and you better be paying up with interest!"
Explanations, please... :-/
If nothing else it is why those of us who are rooting for one of the GOP nominees is also rooting for her as an opponent for them to face. Unfortunately if this trend continues Obama will get the DNC nod... and he inspires Democrats and independents alike. Heck, I like him, I just disagree with him too much.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
Well, yeah, I understand why the Republicans want her, too. Makes their job that much easier and simpler. Just stand up and say "I'm not her". I might even vote for Huckabee if she's the Dem. nominee, and I don't care for him politically (never met him personally, can't say how I feel that way). Her I can't stand personally or politically.
I'm rooting for Obama (and working the phone lines).
"Well, yeah, I understand why the Republicans want her, too. Makes their job that much easier and simpler. Just stand up and say 'I'm not her'."
As Bob Dole and John Kerry found out, though, that has a poor performance record.
Dan, I think Hil and Bill are completely different situations in spite of being married to each other.
Bill had the ability to be "The Big Dog." He could be likeable enough when he wanted to be. It is difficult to mount a campaign against that kind of candidate--IF that candidate is working it like Bill did.
Hil, on the oher hand, is fighting an uphill battle--not just in this election but in the entire PR war. The unspoken rap on her for a long time has been that she is a b*tch. Once Obama mounted a "feel good" campaign it set her up to disprove his talking points--which reinforced her image as a shrew.
It was a very real dilemma for Hil but a stroke of brilliance on somebody's part. Dole and Kerry were not anywhere near this kind of situation, IMO.
Regards!
Laura
I would extend it to Topinka. Very hard to beat a well known figure simply by being not the well known figure.
What a silly premise this thread leads with:
73% of the XYZ party didn't select one of of three XYZ candidates, therefore one of the five ABC candidates is likely win win the general election if the ABC candidate faces that one XYZ candidate?
Hillary may or may not be the candidate most likely to win in November, but you can draw very weak conclusions from a low showing among other members of the same party.
I agree with Anon - this is very silly. It's a flipping primary. Hardly any of the GOP candidates have gotten anything close to a majority, yet even 20% for them is considered a good showing.
If you have something serious to say, say it - but this is just idiotic.
Okay, Anon and TheSquire, explain how you can win the general election if you can't even win a majority of the voters in your own party.
I'm a Democrat who won't vote for her, and I know lots of other Dems who won't vote for her, either. I might consider the Republican, lots of other folks will look at Libertarians/Greens/others.
As I and others have said before on here, a candidate needs to keep all the voters from their party, plus pick up independents and voters from the other party in order to win.
And remember, Hill's campaign started out as "she's the inevitable nominee and the only one who can beat the Republicans".
From where I sit, she ain't, and she'd get creamed by the Republicans. That's why we got the tears in New Hampshire.
I realize the race isn't over yet, and Super Tuesday will give us a better read on how things are going for Hillary.
(And btw, Kerry got swiftboated. His mistake was not reponding forcefully to those scumbags.)
Who responds with a demand to explain something explained twice in the two previous posts?
Okay, Anon and TheSquire, explain how you can win the general election if you can't even win a majority of the voters in your own party.
73% of the XYZ party didn't select one of of three XYZ candidates, therefore one of the five ABC candidates is likely win win the general election if the ABC candidate faces that one XYZ candidate?
Hillary may or may not be the candidate most likely to win in November, but you can draw very weak conclusions from a low showing among other members of the same party.
By your logic, there will be no victory by any candidate in the November election, and we will be forced to appoint a dog or rock to the highest office.