Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

The Campaign to Humanize Hillary

Following last week's Democratic debate in Iowa, The Fix had the unique opportunity to sit in on focus groups conducted by The Washington Post.

Hillary Rodham Clinton
Clinton campaigning in Iowa earlier this month with her mother, Dorothy Rodham (AP Photo)

During the Democratic session, led by The Post's Dan Balz and David Broder, the group of 11 undecided voters was asked for their impressions about the debate and their general thoughts about the field of candidates.

As always when a group of Democrats are gathered, the conversation was dominated by Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) and revealed the problems and potential Clinton has in Iowa and beyond.

Asked to say whatever first came to mind when Clinton's name was mentioned, the group offered a fascinating panoply of descriptions. "Can't be trusted," said one. "I just got a glimpse that she's got an evil side to her," said another. A third offered a backhanded compliment of sorts: "Very good at saying what she thinks we want to hear."

Others were more positive in their remarks -- if not effusive. "Work ethic," said one; "I think she's really focused," said another.

The comments signal a larger theme when it comes to voters' views in Iowa and nationally about Clinton. She is widely respected but not widely liked. Time and again in last week's focus group, the voters said they had few doubts about Clinton's ability to do the job of president; they also expressed a frustration with the essential unknowability of Clinton as a person.

That paradox is born out in scads of polling data: Democrats believe in huge margins that Clinton is the candidate best able to win back the White House in 2008. The surveys simultaneously show the New York senator scoring far less well on more personality driven questions.

In The Post's most recent Iowa poll, in which Clinton trailed Barack Obama (30 percent to 26 percent), 39 percent of the sample said that Clinton had the best chance of getting elected president, compared with 25 percent who chose Obama and 22 percent who backed John Edwards. Asked which candidate had the "best experience" to be president, Clinton led with 38 percent, followed by Edwards at 16 percent and Obama at 11 percent.

But when voters were asked which candidate "best understands the problems of people like you," the results were reversed; Obama led with 30 percent, while Edwards was second with 25 percent and Clinton took third at 20 percent. Similarly, when asked which candidate is the "most honest and trustworthy," Obama led with 31 percent, followed by Edwards at 20 percent and Clinton at just 15 percent.

Jason Marcel, a focus group participant from Des Moines, summed up the Clinton paradox nicely. "I don't know if it's just her speaking style or what it does to certain people, but she's kind of polarizing," he said. "I mean, I admire her work ethic. I think, you know ... she would work very hard."

Given the current head ("I think she would do a good job") versus heart ("I just don't like her") split in Iowa, it's not at all surprising that the Clinton campaign seems to be bent on closing the campaign with a message focused on "Hillary the person" rather than "Hillary the politician."

It started with two ads that began running in Iowa last week featuring Clinton's mother, Dorothy, and the former first daughter, Chelsea.

In the first, footage is shown of the three generations of Clinton women -- taken from a recent campaign stop. The candidate says: "As I travel around I see so many families who share the same values I was brought up with. ...I'm proud to live by those values. But what I am most proud of is knowing who I've passed them onto."

The second ad features Dorothy Rodham extolling her daughter's lack of envy and her empathy. "She has empathy for other people's unfortunate circumstances. I've always admired that because it isn't always true of people," Rodham adds. "I think she ought to be elected even if she weren't my daughter."

The images in both ads are all soft corners and heart-warming. Nary a word of policy is mentioned in either.

Even as those ads were hitting the air, former president Bill Clinton sent out a fundraising e-mail touting his wife as "the best combination of heart and mind, of leadership ability and feel for the problems of other people I've ever known." She can be both head AND heart, according to her husband.

That e-mail was followed today with the unveiling of thehillaryiknow.com, which, according to a release from the campaign, "features video testimonials from regular Americans, longtime friends, and well-known leaders whose lives have all been changed by Hillary." Several people whose video testimonials appear on the site were traveling with Clinton Monday in Iowa for a series of what were widely described as emotional events.

Even the new ad that Clinton's campaign put up in Iowa Monday morning -- touting the Des Moines Register endorsement -- had a softer side to it. While the words of the endorsement are read by a narrator, Clinton is shown working at a desk in glasses, a look she almost never sports on the campaign trail. ("She has bad eyesight -- just like us!" the ad seems to be declaring.)

Because of Clinton's unique position in American politics (universally known and respected but not well liked by most), she is running what amounts to the reverse of a traditional campaign.

In a traditional campaign, a candidate spends the first part of the race familiarizing voters with his or her biography -- a tactic designed to get voters to identify with them before the nitty-gritty of the race truly begins. As a vote nears, the candidate (and his/her ad campaign) turns the focus to more detailed policy discussions.

Compare that to Clinton's campaign. Due to the fact that most voters already knew her, there was little introduction needed -- despite the campaign's claim that Clinton was the "most famous person no one really knows." The campaign, and Clinton herself, focused on her competency and her experience -- that she alone in the Democratic field was up to the job of being president.

Judging from The Post's Iowa focus groups, as well as piles of polling data, it worked. Voters seemed receptive to the idea that Clinton was capable and responsible; it played to the notion of her that many held from her days as first lady.

That task accomplished, the campaign is now attempting to tackle the much harder task of convincing voters in these last week's that Clinton is actually someone they could love -- or at least like enough to vote for.

Clinton will never be the "heart" candidate in this primary. But judging by tactics employed over the last week, her campaign clearly believes that a pure "head" appeal won't be enough for her to win the nomination. Interestingly, Obama and Edwards have the exact opposite challenge. They have voters' hearts but still face doubts about whether they can win.

With just 16 days before Iowa, can Clinton convince enough voters that she, too, is a real person who understands their problems?

By Chris Cillizza  |  December 18, 2007; 5:30 AM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2008  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Senate: Deflating Democrats' Dream of 60 Seats
Next: Edwards Makes the Electability Case

Comments


The primary is unimportant. The overwhelming no. of Dems will support whoever is nominated, the independent majty also will vote for any non Repub, and even a considerable no. of Repubs will vote for anyone BUT a repub. So relax and enjoy the fun. Did you hear what Oprah said? If Hillary wins the primary, she'll vote for her. So will the mjty of Americans.

Posted by: caesarganz | December 20, 2007 7:31 PM | Report abuse

"...I get a sense from her that she thinks she deserves to be President after putting up with Bill's antics during his term, not to mention taking plenty of undeserved shots from the Right."

bsimon, I actually understand where that's coming from. If at any time you didn't like Bill, some of it was bound to rub off on Hillary, esp. after the bulldog in a china shop tactic she used in her attempt to reform health care. I personally turned on Hillary after admiring her for years when she chose to stay with Bill after Monica. It seemed counter to the strong woman persona that I admired. Her move to NY and decision to run for the Senate strengthened that view, which was quickly followed by the idea that she stayed with Bill only to further her own career. So I get many of the views on Hillary.

But the truth is, my thinking that her choice to stay with Bill made her a wimp was faulty reasoning. It takes strength to live through public humiliation. It takes dedication and true love to live through that and to learn to forgive -- much easier to cut and run. A philandering husband does not equal an abuser - but I think many feminists, including myself, equated the two.

And thinking that she deserves to be president because she was First Lady? If you put on your objectivity hat, bsimon -- I know you have one -- you'll admit this reasoning wouldn't hold up to any logic. Did she want to be president? I wouldn't doubt it. I'm certain all politicians who meet the citizenship requirements fantasize about being president. But your thought would only be valid if she went from being First Lady to presidential candidate! She knew that wouldn't do it...so she aims for the Senate and wins -- TWICE! If she truly believed she were the "inevitable" candidate, she wouldn't have been campaigning as hard as she has. And though there are clearly a number of us on this blog who believe that Joe Biden would be a great president, Hillary's national lead is less a reflection of her thinking that she deserves to be elected than Democrats liking her for whatever reason.

Bill and Hillary are clearly among the pioneers of modern, truly equal couples. She never gave up her career, and his trust in her is such that he did pull her into policymaking, starting with Arkansas and culminating with the health care reform attempt. Since rather than playing the traditional first lady role of entertaining and smiling for the camera or looking adoringly at her husband (remember, Teresa Heinz was slammed for this as well), she was working on policies -- I think you can count those years as experience. Before that, you had the time she spent working on the Watergate investigative team -- and more recently the 8 years in the Senate...

And lylepink, I've met Hillary. I've watched her in a room of supporters, show genuine delight at seeing identical twins, and albeit briefly, I also talked to her. I thought she was charming, warm, and friendly -- and while I get Hillary Hatred, I think it's because most of us only know what the media or the rumor mongers have said about her, much of which is biased, unfair, or so blatantly false that the Enquirer can seem like a serious newspaper.


Posted by: femalenick | December 20, 2007 4:17 AM | Report abuse

markinaustin: I can not verify these folks actually met Hillary or her mom, it may have have been just talk, but after reading some comments I recalled it and wanted to pass it along, I don't have a clue about her mom liking horse racing or not.

Posted by: lylepink | December 19, 2007 12:18 PM | Report abuse

markinaustin: I have talked to a couple folks that knew Hillary through her mom's love for horse racing. This was back a number of years. From their brief encounters with her, they say she is very funny, a good listener, and interested in what people have on their minds. The "Humanizing" of her is a tad off the mark.

Posted by: lylepink | December 19, 2007 11:56 AM | Report abuse

femalenick writes
"Ambitious (man) = opportunistic for Hillary..."

Nick, I only excerpt the above as a representative sample of your whole post. My primary beef with Senator Clinton is that she, in my opinion, is approaching this nomination with an apparent sense of entitlement. Again, it is my perception, but I get a sense from her that she thinks she deserves to be President after putting up with Bill's antics during his term, not to mention taking plenty of undeserved shots from the Right. This whole claim of 'experience' due to being first lady of Arkansas & the US smacks of opportunism - I think if a 'first laddy' tried to pull the same move, he would be equally denigrated. Shen she's challenged on her experience, its a 'cheap shot' or mudslinging; which implies to me that she's unwilling or unable to prove actual relevant experience. I want a President who can stand on their own experiences, rather than on that of their spouse.

Posted by: bsimon | December 19, 2007 10:28 AM | Report abuse

Curious if anyone remembers how the media treated Ferraro in 1984 (right?)... how does that compare with the current take on Hillary? also, to femalenick - you certainly make good points, and I don't necessarily disagree... but how do you reconcile that with the solid 15-20% lead Hillary held for months before November?

Posted by: bokonon13 | December 19, 2007 10:01 AM | Report abuse

Nick writes thoughtfully at 7:31A.

I had written yesterday, struck by CC's use of the word "humanize":
"... I would argue that HRC is merely human (and not inhuman), hard working, smart, but not a public charmer."
and later I wrote:
"There are many of us who would not choose her for Prez if we had our druthers, but whose visceral reaction to those few loud women-haters is "You cannot talk that way about my [mother, sister, wife, daughter, boss, coworkers, friends]." And we are men. Imagine how women must feel when they hear or read this effluvia."

bsimon offered an Rx for HRC to make a campaign plus out of her charm deficit.

Some of us who do not favor her remain uncomfortable with the suggested journalistic "... myth that Hillary is less than human."

Perhaps this is what you meant to convey to me, lyle.

drindl noted some days ago the implied assumptions about females that many articles perpetuate.

Of course, I remain more uncomfortable that the press does not even mention Joe Biden, who has accomplished more than all three front runners...combined, and who has more clarity of thought and purpose, and more to recommend him, than any other D.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | December 19, 2007 8:08 AM | Report abuse

Greetings from Asia, Drindl and Mark...! I thought I would take a respite from political news, but I can't stop myself (esp. with Iowa being only a few weeks away), so I guess this means I'm certifiably a junkie.

I think this article by Howard Kurtz is a perfect companion to CC's post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/18/AR2007121802184.html

"From a conservative columnist we get praise of HRC the Senator, and a testament to the consistent character of BHO. Very interesting."

I point out Kurtz' article, Mark, because I think gender is playing out the way it has for the first women who dared attempt to break the corporate glass ceiling. Hillary Hatred is there, in part, I think, because she's trying and might make it. Traits admired in men take on different meanings or become negative when it comes to Hillary. Some examples:

Ambitious - positive for a man, negative for Hillary

Ambitious (man) = opportunistic for Hillary...how often has "opportunistic" been used to describe Obama or Edwards? Honestly - isn't this exactly what their campaigns have been about from the start?

Driven (male) = calculating (Hillary)

Focused (male) = aloof & cold (Hillary)

Tenacious (man) = ruthless (Hillary)

Private & shy (man) = deceptive (Hillary - she's hiding something)

There was an article in the Nov 06 (?) Atlantic Monthly. In it were a number of very conservative Republican senators who praised Hillary's tenacity and smarts, including Brownback, who later apologized for comments he'd made about her in the past. I think Rs who were forced to work with her not only seem to respect her, but they also seem to genuinely like her as a person.

She may not wear it on her sleeve, but Hillary clearly has a heart. Her entire career (including the failed health care reform), the fact that her mother lives with her, that she has friendships going back to her teens, that she's raised a pretty exemplary child, and that she's chosen to work through her marriage would be proof of a heart to any person who would take their blinders off.

But instead, we get posts like this from CC and others which serve to perpetuate the myth that Hillary is less than human.

Posted by: femalenick | December 19, 2007 7:31 AM | Report abuse

I chuckled at a headline Chris Cilliza wrote in the WashingtonPost.com's the Fix about the "Campaign to Humanize Hillary". How far off the path do you have to go before you need "humanizing"? What animal or insect has she become?

Then we read of Mike Huckabee's rise on the Republican side and I hear on Diane Rehm's show that authenticity is the presidential primary trend of the moment. Forget Reagan's TV friendly morning in America or Bill Clinton's mastery of micro-issues, sound bites and filling a 24 hour news cycle. Today, Americans want the real thing baby. I think Hillary will become so bitter at this turn of events, she may actually state something she really thinks. Rudy will wonder if he has lost enough hair to not look produced (he has) and Mike Huckabee will respond to Mike Huckleberry-Fin at whistlestops.

I've been pushing Rudy Giuliani for a long time. And I think he wins whatever contest this becomes- one for authenticity, or ideas, or money- whatever- he's got the best pacakge at the right time. More on that later. Meanwhile I wish everyone luck at relating to Hillary Clinton as a human being.

http://jobrien.typepad.com/reallifeinamerica/

Posted by: james | December 19, 2007 2:37 AM | Report abuse

Except for Ron Paul, there is not a dime's worth of difference between Clinton's foreign policy and the Republicans: Maintain a US presence in Iraq, hassle Iran, maintain the US Empire, and support Israel uncritically.

Posted by: ritchee303 | December 18, 2007 8:31 PM | Report abuse

"Each person should be judged on his/her own merits, not on some prejudice about a supposed group.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | December 18, 2007 05:02 PM

"

Tell that to your friends at fox news and dominating the radio. I agree 100%, but you know that. The day fox and rush and the like are off he air, so am I. Until then, you see why they SHOULD be removed.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 18, 2007 6:30 PM | Report abuse

*****Question of the day:

If Bill Clinton thinks his wife is 'the single most qualified person for president in America,' isn't he by virtue of this saying:

1. there are no black men or women in the entire country more qualified than his white, very wealthy wife.

2. there are no Hispanic men or women in the entire country who are smarter than a woman who flunked her first attempt to pass the bar exam.

3. there are no Asian men or women who are more qualified than a woman who last year made a joke about Ghandi having worked at a gas station.

4. there are no lesbian or gay people in the entire country more qualified than a woman who says she wants equal rights for all, but cuts them off with a 'civil union' cop-out.

5. there are no disabled persons in the entire country more qualified than Hillary.

Get the idea--the very demographic these two use to propel their 'careers' are never a part of their lilly white upper class political machines or cabinets.

EXACTLY why this conservative (who would vote for Condi in a heartbeat) made America's only politically confrontative music CD-one that takes on Hillary, Congress, and the whole Ward Churchill crowd. One-of-a-kind stuff @

www.conservativemusiconline.com

Posted by: Truscott1 | December 18, 2007 5:45 PM | Report abuse

drindl, I have now seen the dramatic Huckabee photo of the window pane/cross.

I have never heard of this Michael somebody who got fired by MSNBC, but your quotes make me so happy I never watch 24/7 news or listen to "talk" radio.

rufus, some of us geezers worry about the effects of national debt, foreign debt, war, and wasting natural resources on our grandchildren. Even some billionaires worry about this stuff. It isn't fair to categorize by age - not for the geezers to moan about the young being uninvolved nor for the youth to moan that the geezers do not care. Each person should be judged on his/her own merits, not on some prejudice about a supposed group.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | December 18, 2007 5:02 PM | Report abuse

The Republicans have been peddling their anti-Clinton hype and hate for a decade to justify their theocratic authoritarianism. It's sad to see so many people still buying into the lies of the Rove/Cheney propaganda machine. The voters are ready for Hillary, and a Clinton presidency would put a stake through the heart of the neo-Pharisee neoconservative movement.

In 2000, Ralph Nader argued that Al Gore wasn't concerned enough about America's real problems. After seven years of a Bush presidency, Gore's ideas are now much more widely accepted. We don't need another McGovern to push the Democrats away from the mainstream, we need someone like Harry Truman, who has a backbone, who can take the worst the right wing gives and spit right back at them. Hillary Clinton has held her ground against the worst of the worst, and that's what we need.

Posted by: lartfromabove | December 18, 2007 4:20 PM | Report abuse

CC: Please tell me what your reasoning was for the 11 people you got together,and why on earth did you pick David Broder? Everything he says is biased. Heard him plenty of times over the years on Tim Russet show and he though the sun rose and shined on the great George Bush. He was great, he was the savior of the republicans, he was going to do great things. But what he did is drag this countries reputation and our standing in the world down and made our country more unsafe than we ever were, not to mention that he has broken our military. Why would you care what this man thinks. I don't think that people care to read his columns anymore because he is out of touch with what we are all thinking anc caring about. And I wonder why so many of you keep insisting that many people do not like Hillary. There are always some people that don't care about you too!!!! Does this then translate to many many many no it doesn't. Haven't you heard the comment that you can not please all of the people all of the time? She is pleasing the majority of us and that is all that counts. This article is a zero in my books.

Posted by: chacha1 | December 18, 2007 4:02 PM | Report abuse

"ORANGEBURG, South Carolina (CNN) - Former President Bill Clinton said Monday that the first thing his wife Hillary will do when she reaches the White House is dispatch him and his predecessor, President George H.W. Bush, on an around-the-world mission to repair the damage done to America's reputation by the current president -- Bush's son, George W. Bush.

"Well, the first thing she intends to do, because you can do this without passing a bill, the first thing she intends to do is to send me and former President Bush and a number of other people around the world to tell them that America is open for business and cooperation again," Clinton said in response to a question from a supporter about what his wife's "number one priority" would be as president.

"

But the gop is scared of clinton? Right pink. So scared the first thing she does is get Bush involved. She's running for the wrong party.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 18, 2007 3:11 PM | Report abuse

How do you deal with the willfuly ignorant, mikeb?

Past them by? Marginalize them?

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 18, 2007 3:07 PM | Report abuse

Everything we have been telling these people for months now is coming true mikeb. And not only do these people attack us for bringing them wisdom, them blame us. Unbelievable.

Attack those with truth and credibility so they can lie spin and discredit. Then they have the nerve to attack us as liars or propogandists? Wow. the gop has bal*s, I'll give them that. Brains? Not so much.

It's like these fascists almost want lies. Why? Is it easier than the truth? And if you build a society based on hate lies and propoganda, what does reaping that society sow?

Just trying to understand these lunatics. i bring them the truth, yet they reject it. The world cahnges around them, they see it, yet they reject it. Where do we go from here partner?

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 18, 2007 3:04 PM | Report abuse

"And, as for her friend from NY tossing around the "lesbian" terms, she is an operative for the Clinton campaign. At least one of her computer's used for posting has the signature of the NY Clinton campaign office"

Who is?

I think it's funny. then they look at us like we have no credibility? Huh?

HAHAHHAHA

who is on the payroll?

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 18, 2007 3:00 PM | Report abuse

rufus, It's best to ignore our toxic librarian. She baits people, does the immature name calling, and in general creates a mess wherever she is allowed to roost she befouls the nest. Igore her.

And, as for her friend from NY tossing around the "lesbian" terms, she is an operative for the Clinton campaign. At least one of her computer's used for posting has the signature of the NY Clinton campaign office. No idea if she is paid for this or is some ehack job acting as a volunteer. It might be intersting, however, to check signitures for similar "posters" across these forums. I am starting to believe that this is a new kind of dirty tricks camapaign, ala Nixon, but updates for today.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | December 18, 2007 2:58 PM | Report abuse

Now comabt either one of those posts. Combat reality. Rathr than palying 8 year old games. Respond to what I just posted. Is it wrong, if so how? does the gop fit the terms of fascist from the dictionary? I think so. If you disagree, why?

What you other than lie spin and discredit the messanger. don't be man simon because I've been screaming obama obama obama for months and the rest of you lost all credibility with your "clinton is enivitable". If clinton is not the cadidate what does that say about those who have been telling us she is the nom for year now? What is a news person with zero credibility? A propogandist?

What you moderaes and gop fascists got. otehr than kids games. You can't win. Better to not try. Keep the crediblity you still have left.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 18, 2007 2:56 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 18, 2007 2:52 PM | Report abuse

"Fascism is an authoritarian political ideology (generally tied to a mass movement) that considers individual and social interests subordinate to the interests of the state or party. Fascists seek to forge a type of national unity, usually based on (but not limited to) ethnic, cultural, racial, and religious attributes. Various scholars attribute different characteristics to fascism, but the following elements are usually seen as its integral parts: nationalism, statism, militarism, totalitarianism, anti-communism, corporatism, populism, collectivism, and opposition to political and economic liberalism"

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 18, 2007 2:50 PM | Report abuse

"You throw that word around way too easily"

Its easy to throw around words when you don't know what they mean.

Posted by: bsimon | December 18, 2007 2:47 PM | Report abuse

Yes voter. We see how the culprit is. Or shoud I say zouk.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 18, 2007 2:46 PM | Report abuse

Whiny thought police cowards.

Sad day in america. You are fooling no one. Neither one of you. For all we know zouk and voter are the same. It would make sense as there are so few of you propogandists left who buy the gop's nonsense.

Your not fooling anyone. Any independant thinker, cc included, will see what is going on here. Bait attack, then whine and cry when I recipracate. I ahve an idea for you. If will help you. If you don't want to engage in verbal dialogue, then post your posts. Stop attacking liberal posters for liberals perspectives with "crazy" "unamerican" unresponsible" and whatever bogus claims you are going to make. We see you fascists now. People aren't buying it. If you got a problem go away, stop attackng and baiting liberals.

Classic gop. Attack attack attck, then hide whine and cry. elementary school children. Your party is done baiters. if you think not, why? If you think I'm wrong, Why? But don't attack then whine cry and complain about civility. Sounds liek fox to me. Silencing all that "offened" them, while hiding behind free speech themselves. I see you gop.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 18, 2007 2:45 PM | Report abuse

rufus: You have called everyone on here other than a few true lefties a fascist. You throw that word around way too easily. A word to the wise -- not that you're wise, it's just an expression.

Posted by: LoudounVoter | December 18, 2007 02:37 PM"

Just you and zouk. And when mark or proud get out of line. I have to keep you fascists in your palce. So you don't get to bold here. So you remeber WE know what you people are about. You are not fooling anyone anymore, fascists.

Couldn't help myslef.

You got any posts of your own today voter. Or is your goal to attempt to smear me for the FASCISTS? I got news for ya buddy. Teh fascists hate and fear me already. So who are you after? Moderates? Democrats? Liberals?

Divide and conquer. Sounds liek a republcian to me.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 18, 2007 2:39 PM | Report abuse


This blog has sunk to an all-time low with the inputs of the three stooges: koz, brooks, and rufas. never in the history of this blog has so much hate, filth and nonsense been posted.

seriously - get a life.

It is not that your are complete moonbats with no grasp of reality, it is that you are so vindictive and disagreeable.

CC- is that what you wanted your blog to be? they will try to blame it on everyone and anyone else, but we all see who is the culprit.

foaming at the mouth indeed.

Posted by: Spectator2 | December 18, 2007 2:38 PM | Report abuse

Every, what 2 hours zouk. Another whine complain on the clock.

I got somewhere for you to blog zouk, if you can't ahndle truth.

http://takeastandagainstliberals.blogspot.com/

There you go zouk. Enjoy. If you don't like this site, change the channel. Oh wait.

If you would remove me, you should see that fox and rush and all your masters should be off the air. Is that waht your saying zouk? Whoa. Finally.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 18, 2007 2:37 PM | Report abuse

rufus: You have called everyone on here other than a few true lefties a fascist. You throw that word around way too easily. A word to the wise -- not that you're wise, it's just an expression.

Posted by: Spectator2 | December 18, 2007 2:37 PM | Report abuse

I'm much more concerned with Romney's "Freedom requires religon" Speech.

these people are in for a rude awakening. Do these people ralize their is a document called the BILL OR RIGHTS and the CONSTITUTION? What cave did these cavement crawl out of?

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 18, 2007 2:34 PM | Report abuse

"riiiight rufus, you call people fascists -- or even worse, republicans -- but i'm the one making personal attacks. ok, that makes sense.

Posted by: LoudounVoter | December 18, 2007 02:21 PM
"

Again. For the slow people. My calling you a fascist doesn't make it so. your actions do. Stop being a fascist. I'll stop calling you one.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 18, 2007 2:33 PM | Report abuse

This blog has sunk to an all-time low with the inputs of the three stooges: drindl, loud and dumb and rufas. never in the history of this blog has so much hate, filth and nonsense been posted.

seriously - get a life.

It is not that your are complete moonbats with no grasp of reality, it is that you are so vindictive and disagreeable.

CC- is that what you wanted your blog to be? they will try to blame it on everyone and anyone else, but we all see who is the culprit.

foaming at the mouth indeed.

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 18, 2007 2:32 PM | Report abuse

"A federal judge has ordered a hearing on whether the Bush administration violated a court order by destroying CIA interrogation videos of two al-Qaida suspects. U.S. District Judge Henry H. Kennedy rejected calls from the Justice Department to stay out of the matter. He ordered lawyers to appear before him Friday morning.

In June 2005, Kennedy ordered the administration to safeguard "all evidence and information regarding the torture, mistreatment, and abuse of detainees now at the United States Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay."

Five months later, the CIA destroyed the interrogation videos. The recordings involved suspected terrorists Abu Zubaydah and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri. The Justice Department argued that the videos weren't covered by the order because the two men were being held in secret CIA prisons overseas, not at the Guantanamo Bay prison.
"

This is a law or guideline? If it's a law whst should be done with the countless laws that this president and his cult ignore? Any gop george bush lawyers want to defend the undefendable?

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 18, 2007 2:32 PM | Report abuse

No, didn't see your 9:09, Mark, sorry.

"...and so the cycle of growth takes root."
"Is the moment of truth knocking on the door?"

you ARE joking aren't you? this is a textbook? in England? omigod.civilization has ended.

did you see the 1:50 I posted of the Huckabee cross? I can't beleive they are saying it isn't one--please. chek it out...

Posted by: drindl | December 18, 2007 2:29 PM | Report abuse

Election time is right around the corner For all the fascists trying to force their views or candidates, or views on candidates. The great thing about america, is it's all for not. People will make up their minds on an individual basis. We are in a much better place for this election than in ones past. America has changed. We now see the fascists. they have been marginalized and the country no longer followers their drum beat. they have been shown for what they are. Lying war profiteering fascists. Now the american people are free to look at the facts (other than slaves clones and dittoheads).

In two months it won't matter what is said here today. But what we will be about to do is see who are the lying propogandists, and who has been speaking truths. Tiem will tell all people. Ignore the fascist peanut gallery, like zouk and voter who tell you how to vote and why. It's the people who fudge the facts that should be questioned. Or hide them. People like me who want everything on the table should be treated with resepct. People that care about where this coutnry is headed.

for the divide and conquer sabotuers. Your time is almost up. Enjoy you rirrelevance. And know how you got here. Rather than pointing the finger and blaming those who show your face. Why not take responsilbeity for your actions. Stop being traitors and work to re-unite this country.

Once we get a non repulcain 9clinton included) we will start to fix the country, from the destruction of the last 7 years. those that would stop the re-consolidation should be looked at as traitors and thrown it jail. Your not Monica lewinski'ign the dem's this time. Not after the way you people ran this country

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 18, 2007 2:27 PM | Report abuse

riiiight rufus, you call people fascists -- or even worse, republicans -- but i'm the one making personal attacks. ok, that makes sense.

Posted by: Spectator2 | December 18, 2007 2:21 PM | Report abuse

Keep up the personal attacks voter. You show your face. you got nothing but elementary school kid games. Enjoy your parties irrelevance come 08. I know you are made because clinton, and the moderate sell-outs are being shown for the republcain sabotuers they are. As a result your party (gop), and republcain candidate (clinton) is done. Not because I say so.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 18, 2007 2:16 PM | Report abuse

"If the gop wins and reinstitute a draft, who goes? You old people? Or my 20 year-old brother? My cousins? My children?"

Charles Rangel is a Republican?
"

Play time on the fix. I see. If the gop wins how will they continue this generational war? They don't have the troops now. Rangel was making us aware that if this is the national path, the only way to do it is with a draft. Does rangel want to continue this war? Think on that and his draft comments will come into perspective.

You people will say anything won't ya. I think you are not as dumb as you people let on. I think you think this is play time. Your not playing with me. Your playing games with yourself. I'm just here for independant thinkers. the fascist right-wingers are never going to mislead us again, to the extent of the last 8 years. People like me won't let you divide and conquer the country for personal or political gain. So play your games. You are at OUR mercy

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 18, 2007 2:14 PM | Report abuse

"Voter is a she? Ok. now I see what is going on here. Thanks 27."

LOL oh rufus, please, please believe everything brooks says. Of course he is able to identify posters on here, it's so easy to do so. You moronic fool.

This is not the blind leading the blind, this is the blind and drooling leading the blind and drooling.

Posted by: Spectator2 | December 18, 2007 2:11 PM | Report abuse

vbhoomes -- dislike Kerry for his policy positions or for his utter lack of a relatable personality. Heck, dislike him for his antiwar views after he served. But alleging that his service was anything other than heroic is uncalled for and I'm troubled that you are willing to repeat such terrible lies.

Out of curiosity, how exactly do you address the fact that EVERY MAN on his boat -- including more than a few republicans -- vouches for his side of events? Or that they EACH think he's a hero? None of the so-called swift boat veterans for truth were on the boat. Not a one.

Seriously, just let it die. You think Kerry is a terrible politician? Fine. You're glad he lost? Great. Totally fair. But lying about a man who, as mark noted above, volunteered for duty that entailed a 45% casualty rate is despicable and beneath someone of your intelligence.

Posted by: _Colin | December 18, 2007 2:09 PM | Report abuse

Mark: I defer to you on Navy History, I studied AF History(Linebacker 1 &2, Rolling Thunder, etc) But I believe the DOD on the whole admits the vetting process for medals during Vietnam was not as strong as it should had been. Understandably, it was a very unpopular War that Johnson and McManara got us into, so giving medals when in doubt may have been the right policy at that time. Thanks for Your Service, my fellow warrior.

Posted by: vbhoomes | December 18, 2007 2:07 PM | Report abuse

"rufus - Forget her. She is a toxic personality, and has a habit of starting fights, tossing off wild acuusations"

Voter is a she? Ok. now I see what is going on here. Thanks 27.

"As are we all. What we are not looking forward to is the prospect of Hillary Clinton in the spotlight, as the Democratic nominee. She might be easier to beat than Barack Obama or John Edwards. She might take positions that are a little less distant from this magazine's views than Obama or Edwards. But the last few weeks have reminded us--and, we suspect, many other Americans--how little we should want the Clintons back on the center stage of American politics. "

Straight from your boy, willaim the bloody.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/482stfoe.asp

Elaborate pink.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 18, 2007 2:06 PM | Report abuse

oh, a postscript to my last post: Just because I call brooks an idiot doesn't make me a research librarian from Sterling VA named Phoebe. Or maybe it does. Hmmm.

Posted by: Spectator2 | December 18, 2007 2:06 PM | Report abuse

"If geroge bush and his people go to jail for thirty years each, then what will you say?"

I'll say, "See you in 30 years, a-holes!"

"If the gop wins and reinstitute a draft, who goes? You old people? Or my 20 year-old brother? My cousins? My children?"

Charles Rangel is a Republican?

"you people are so tough becuase you are not paying fo rthis war."

I guarantee that I pay far more in taxes than a slacker moron like you.

You are seriously confused, rufus. Do you think I'm a Republican? Just because I call you a moron doesn't mean I'm a Republican any more than calling Brooks an idiot makes me a Clinton supporter or calling zouk an idiot makes me a liberal. Just shows how silly all three of you are.

Posted by: Spectator2 | December 18, 2007 2:04 PM | Report abuse

Pink. Tsst tsst.

Lying to people again. What did we tell you.

From drudge today:

"BUSH DAD 'WILL HELP PRESIDENT HILLARY RESTORE USA IMAGE' "

Really scared. Wasn't clinton on Fox yesterday? I bet they are terrified. What about her taking money from rupert murdoch and fox? Did any oterh democrat, other than kusinich, go on fox? No. Did any other take money from them? did any other candidate's wfie/husnad travel the world with bush 41 for years on end?

They really hate her, don't they. I'll give you insight on who these people "fear". It's who they mention as little as possible. They are not dumb to think fox and the right-wing radio attacking her will fool old school people like you. It's a trick. What do they say about obama? "He will never win. He's a terrorist muslim extreamist. He's middle name is huesain." And on and on.

But they fear the person they are talking about everyday as the "enivitable candidate". Giving money to. ENlighten me on how this is possible. You gave your point of view pink. But why?

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 18, 2007 2:03 PM | Report abuse

rufus - Forget her. She is a toxic personality, and has a habit of starting fights, tossing off wild acuusations, name calling, character assissination, etc. all over the internet. Go look at the local newspaper from Stirling, VA. She does this sort of pathological nonsense wherever she is allowed to roost - it's her trademark. She was a research librarian there. And her buddy, supporting her here from New York is posting from a computer at a New York city Clinton campaign office. Forget them. They are out to cause problems. Nothing they say or do has any meaning whatsoever, other than to indicate the sort of national disaster we could expect from a Clinton presidency.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | December 18, 2007 1:59 PM | Report abuse

On a lighter note, my son-in-law in Bath, uk, is copy editing [virtually every line of] a textbook for publication in February. He says it is "The Single Worst Textbook Ever Written." Some quotes, pre-editing:

"...and so the cycle of growth takes root."
"Is the moment of truth knocking on the door?"

drindl, did you see my 9:09A before you wrote at 9:29A?

Posted by: mark_in_austin | December 18, 2007 1:57 PM | Report abuse

"War is old men talking and young men dying."

Unless your a republcian of course. Then you send your children to war, while refusing to practice what you preach. the gop, a party of foot tapping hypocrites.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 18, 2007 1:57 PM | Report abuse

ajan31: You should read the comments by ichief about how many Repubs are advising Obama whether sought after or not. This echoes what I have been saying for months. The Repubs will do anything, and I do mean ANYTHING to stop Hillary. I keep pointing this out day after day and surely some readers of this blog that do not post will take a few minutes and find I am absolutely correct in this obsession to stop Hillary from getting the Dem nomination. Strong hard core Repubs I've known for years tell me these things and two have said they gave money to the Obama campaign in an effort to stop Hillary. This is 100 % true/accurate. Make no mistake, the Repubs "Fear"
Hillary for one simple reason, i.e.. They know Hillary will beat them in the General Election.

Posted by: lylepink | December 18, 2007 1:56 PM | Report abuse

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/12/18/huckabees-christmas-ad-_n_77315.html

This is a still from Huckabee's ad running in Iowa, when he wishes everyone a Merry Christmas and says,
"what really matters is the celebration of the birth of Jesus Christ."

Behind him is what is very clearly a cross. Only his campaign says it isn't. See for yourself--doesn't it look like a cross to you? I've worked on many TV ads, nothing is an accident.

And I have to admire Ron Paul, actually for having the courage to say this:

"It reminds me of what Sinclair Lewis once said. He says, 'when fascism comes to this country, it will be wrapped in the flag, carrying a cross.' Now I don't know whether that's a fair assessment or not, but you wonder about using a cross, like he is the only Christian or implying that subtly."

Posted by: drindl | December 18, 2007 1:50 PM | Report abuse

"rufus, you take this stuff way too seriously. get out of mommy's basement once in a while."

and you don't take it seriously enough. If geroge bush and his people go to jail for thirty years each, then what will you say?

If the gop wins and reinstitute a draft, who goes? You old people? Or my 20 year-old brother? My cousins? My children?

you people are so tough becuase you are not paying fo rthis war. You old people are not fighting it. Me and my generation will have to. and my kids. So if we, as americans, are going to have to follow the policy our government puts forth, WHY WOULD YOU NOT CARE. You do you think is cashing the checks the gop is writing? the gop? When do they ever take accountability for anything they do? When do they ever do anything other than sabotage this country for personal or political gain?

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 18, 2007 1:49 PM | Report abuse

"WOW, my friends on the left seem to be really foaming at the mouth today. Nice try JK but I love my fellow service members and would never accuse them of Genghis Ghan type of War Crimes or like Dick Durbin accusing them of being Nazi;s on the Senate Floor. And please quit blogging from India, you guys have got enough of your own problems without being worried about ours.

Posted by: vbhoomes | December 18, 2007 01:38 PM
"

It's not an attack to call a frog a frog. It's not an attack to call criminal attacks, or lawlessness as it is. That is the hard patriotic thing. To hid eour heads and deny the facts. Or to sacrafice our brothers for a politicans legacy. that is a crime. And a spite in the face of all soldiers.

Just like Japan bombings were war crimes. It doesn't make anyone less american for stating these facts. This is why they say that reality has a well known liberal bias. You people must ackowledge reality. you must do that. Stop pointing the finger. It's time to start acting liek grown-ups and start taking responsiblity for our nations actions. We are a nation of the people, after all.

Watch "the FOg of wAr", by your boy macnamura. then come talk sh*t to me.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 18, 2007 1:45 PM | Report abuse

rufus, you take this stuff way too seriously. get out of mommy's basement once in a while.

Let's see: You, zouk, brooks. that's about it as far as this board goes. "The Three Spewers": One lefty loon, one righty wackjob, and one total nutbar.

Posted by: Spectator2 | December 18, 2007 1:44 PM | Report abuse

drindl, did you ever see the final two paragraphs of my 9:09A post or were you implying that I lacked sufficient vehemence
when you posted at 9:29A?

bhoomes, I take your point, but my recollection was that the medal process was warped for the Army, not the Navy. I stand ready to be corrected by folks who were there.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | December 18, 2007 1:42 PM | Report abuse

Resort to smears name calling and personal attacks. It really helps your points. Read up. Get out of your small box. Everyone who is not exactly like you is not crazy. That is a crazy persons mentality. It is also a fascist principle.

is he crazy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jiddu_Krishnamurti

Is Jesus crazy?

Is the Budda Crazy?

who else is "crazy" for not being like you, madman?

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 18, 2007 1:40 PM | Report abuse

It's not a question of LOVING HRC - it's about TRUST. Personally, I cannot do so.

The words of her husband in the last two weeks only reinforce my belief that the good of the Clintons will always trump the good of the country.

The Clintons are desperate to get back into the Oval Office - and not in a subordinate role. They and their team will do anything it takes to do so.

Posted by: GordonsGirl | December 18, 2007 1:39 PM | Report abuse

WOW, my friends on the left seem to be really foaming at the mouth today. Nice try JK but I love my fellow service members and would never accuse them of Genghis Ghan type of War Crimes or like Dick Durbin accusing them of being Nazi;s on the Senate Floor. And please quit blogging from India, you guys have got enough of your own problems without being worried about ours.

Posted by: vbhoomes | December 18, 2007 1:38 PM | Report abuse

"Fascist moonbats are a pretty rare breed."

Several of the more prolific posters fall into the rare breed category.

Posted by: Spectator2 | December 18, 2007 1:34 PM | Report abuse

rufus: I thought brooks was the only insane person on here, but you should probably join him at St Elizabeth's.

Posted by: Spectator2 | December 18, 2007 1:33 PM | Report abuse

Half of all democrats hate hillary, and all republicans hate hillary.

how is it possible that she can win? You wanna run that by us again?

hillary IS UNELCTABLE IN THE GENERAL ELECTION!

VOTE OBAMA FOR PRESIDENT!

Posted by: onestring | December 18, 2007 1:26 PM | Report abuse

"I think I have proven that I am indeed an independent. The righty idiot zouk calls me a moonbat, and the lefty idiot rufus calls me a fascist.

I too may be an idiot, but I'm an independent idiot.

Posted by: LoudounVoter | December 18, 2007 01:15 PM
"

Neither I nor Zouk make you anything. you are by your words and actions. Call yourself what you will. the labels we put on ourselves are not for ourselves, but for others.

I am. you are. Start from there. Who is that "I". Only you can answer that question. Not zouk. Not rufus. Not any other imaginary entity. I am as I show you, as is zouk. You and zouk or anyone may not be fascists, but they look act and sound like them.

I saw a comedy show by DAve chapelle. He says he run up to a person wearing a police uniform. "I need help".

"Why are you coming to me. this is a costume". Is that Chapell's fault for calling it as he see's it?

to anyone that has seen it will see the humor as he also had another joke, pertaining. Talking about women's dress.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 18, 2007 1:22 PM | Report abuse

Loudon Voter writes
"I too may be an idiot, but I'm an independent idiot."

Don't sell yourself short. Fascist moonbats are a pretty rare breed.

Posted by: bsimon | December 18, 2007 1:21 PM | Report abuse

Who is supporting the troops?

'So much for supporting the troops: Far-right groups slams U.S. military for "San Francisco-style social experimentation" - CBS's Lesley Stahl reported that current military pressures have led to a new reality -- a fighting force that's starting to care less and less about "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," and discharging capable American troops.

Some commanding officers are confronted with gay troops, and decide that it just doesn't matter -- the U.S. military and American interests are better served having these soldiers serving their country than not. That's not sitting well with some conservatives: Matt Barber, policy director for cultural issues with the conservative group Concerned Women for America, said, "The military is no place for such radical San Francisco-style social experimentation, especially during a time of war."

I guess Matt Barber will be joining up tomorrow, to replace the brave soliders he wants thrown out of the military.

Posted by: drindl | December 18, 2007 1:20 PM | Report abuse

Well, sisobama08, they are a lot of people who feel like you. The problem is, Clinton liely will be inflicted on us and those of us who watched Obama and Edwards and Biden be the subject of the Clinton's negative campaign machine need to make it very clear that we will not support nor vote for her if she is the nominee. The last time that sort of diaster happened was when Bush had his underhanded campaign against McCain and look what the Republican's got with that, what they inflicted on the country. So, I am serious, what Republican is an acceptable alternative to Clinton. I figure almost any of them but Guliani, but lately even he is looking minimally accptable in comparison. However, we simply don't know what these guys stand for. So, without the Clinton partisan's drownding the discussion in a sea of mud, I genuinely would to know what these guys believe in and how they would govern.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | December 18, 2007 1:19 PM | Report abuse

cladia: Bush did leave texas during the war -- he spent some time in Huntsville, Alabama.

Of course, while there he could usually be found passed out drunk, face down in a puddle of his own urine and vomit, but let's give the man all due respect, ok? 8<D

Posted by: Spectator2 | December 18, 2007 1:17 PM | Report abuse

"you'll say anything, even defame the military itself, to warp history. of course bush didn't say he was a war hero--he never left texas, did he? but he was AWOL IN WARTIME, which i tend to think is relevant."

tO EXPAND ON DRINDL'S point. Where were all these coward war cheerleaders when they had their chance to be big bad patriots. Rush? A pimple on his bottom.

O'REilly?

Bush?

Cheaney?

Willaim :the Bloody" kristol?

Your buddy fromt he NYT Brooks?

And on and on and on.

Where were they when they had their chance to put their body's where their fascists mouths were. Real patriot's. Draft dodgers. Soemwho they have credibility with the elderly dispite this. Does this say more about the war cheerleaders, or the dittohead followers following these cowards? Who are the real patriots? Who really supports the troops?

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 18, 2007 1:16 PM | Report abuse

Here Mark and JD, I wanted to demonstrate some Hate Radio for you, from just one guy:

"90 percent of the people on the Nobel Committee are into child pornography and molestation." -- Michael Savage [12/12/2007]

"Of all of the dictators in the past, you know the one Al Gore strikes me as [being] closest [to] is Hitler." -- Michael Savage [7/9/2007]

"Notice what this double-talking sl*t just did, this mind-sl*t Barbara Walters. And I stick by those words. She's an empty mind-sl*t." -- Michael Savage [3/16/2007]

Madeline Albright is "a traitor. In my opinion, she should be tried for treason, and when she's found guilty, she should be hung." -- Michael Savage [10/9/2006]

"Liberalism is, in essence, the HIV virus, and it weakens the defense cells of a nation." -- Michael Savage [7/6/2006]

In July 2003, MSNBC finally fired Savage after he referred to a caller as a "s*domite" and said he should "get AIDS and die."

Posted by: drindl | December 18, 2007 1:16 PM | Report abuse

I think I have proven that I am indeed an independent. The righty idiot zouk calls me a moonbat, and the lefty idiot rufus calls me a fascist.

I too may be an idiot, but I'm an independent idiot.

Posted by: Spectator2 | December 18, 2007 1:15 PM | Report abuse

Claudi, GWB never said he was a War Hero, so his record was not really revelant'

you'll say anything, even defame the military itself, to warp history. of course bush didn't say he was a war hero--he never left texas, did he? but he was AWOL IN WARTIME, which i tend to think is relevant.

CC - how low on the IQ spectrum must one be to contribute daily'

good question, moonbat. How low is yours?

Posted by: drindl | December 18, 2007 1:12 PM | Report abuse

Hillary's experience is a track record of failures during her husband's term and refusal to admit when she's been wrong on issues like Iraq . She also repeated the same mistake with the Kyl-Lieberman amendment. We don't need another president with a track record of failure and cold pig-headed stubbornness. In the last campaign days she is now "acting" like she is a softer person.

Obama has been both successful in his legislative career -- a career longer than either Clinton or Edwards -- and able to admit and learn from those times when he's made mistakes. That's the kind of experience, honest, and judgement we need. We are where we are now not because of Bush's lack of experience - but because of his vision. We need new vision.

And if experience is your thing, Obama has that too:

- Senate Foreign relations committee

- Homeland Security committee

- Veterans affairs

- 10 years constitution law professor

- grassroots organizer

- State Senate

- US Senate

Posted by: Sis_O | December 18, 2007 1:05 PM | Report abuse

"rufus: are you scared of people from yale because they are smarter than you? you're borderline illiterate.

Posted by: LoudounVoter | December 18, 2007 01:00 PM
"

Again. I have to give you fascists soemthing to attack. you can't touch my posts. If I didn't misspell words for you to attack you cowards would just run and hide if I came on the blog. I have to give you something. I'm not here to hate you fascist tritors. You are mislead. I'm here to help you grow. Bring you into this decade and out of the 60's.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 18, 2007 1:04 PM | Report abuse

Thaks for the disclaimer 27. now I see you. You were an enigma last week. I see you now.

Ever get sick and whining zouk. your party is done. you didnt' get the memo. Whining and crying about "fairness in the media" will not get you anywhere. As they say truth has a well known liberal bias. If you want smears spina nd propoganda, go find it. There is a market for you people, obviously. go elswhere. The reason you come here is because you will not be pushed off this site, no matter how much credibility you lose. not our problem. If you want want you wnat. go get it. I'm sure their are plenty of right-wing facist propoganda sites that you'll love.

That is not this site anymore. So go find something up your alley. Or whine cry and complaint like a 8 year old. See where that gets ya. I bet whining and crying like your boys fred barnes and Bohener will get all you r foot tapping fascists elected and make all your fascist dreams come true. Or will it?

Your party is done for a generation. Not due to lib's, but due to criminality and incompetance. Eitehr your party are tratiors or retards( no offense to the mentally challeged.) Which is it.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 18, 2007 1:02 PM | Report abuse

rufus: are you scared of people from yale because they are smarter than you? you're borderline illiterate.

Posted by: Spectator2 | December 18, 2007 1:00 PM | Report abuse

not only do we have the idiot savant rufus posting the same overlong screeds as usual, we have the obsessive compulsive KOZ trying to bait me even though I am now ignoring him.

Proof that stupidity knows no bounds on the political spectrum.

Posted by: Spectator2 | December 18, 2007 12:58 PM | Report abuse

"Please explain how she's proven herself to be better than Obama in these areas"

Blarg- According to Bill Clinton, Obama is all symbol and no substance, but of course he tried to soften the attack by adding "He can't help that".

Is there any doubt that Bill as First Laddie would be an absolute disaster, and that for all his trying he cannot convince America that even without him, she'd be where she is today. That hilldog won't hunt.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | December 18, 2007 12:55 PM | Report abuse

"Claudi, GWB never said he was a War Hero, so his record was not really revelant. (ask Dan Rather, it helped his career)Mark; Not quite as old as you my friend, but as a 20 year Vet who was required to study Vietnam as part of Professional growth, own DOD History admits the medal process got out of control in Vietnam and were handing them out like candy to help with low morale. I cannot speak for all of my fellow service memebers, but I know I would not take a Purple Heart for a minor scratch, when so many of my fellow brethen have given so much more.

Posted by: vbhoomes | December 18, 2007 12:47 PM
"

i thought we were past swift-baoting. "handing out medals like candy". And your an ex-service memeber and you insult your brothers like this? PArty over country is treason. Is was and always will be. Support the roops for real. Not to hide behind. "Phoney soldiers"? You dittoheads make me sick. 30 years for treason. that's how I would handle traitors if I was a king like george bush.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 18, 2007 12:55 PM | Report abuse

"It was David Brooks, the Ny Times neocon conservative columnist who was first among the major media gurus to urge Obama to run, and Obama has used word for word the talking points Brooks provided for him. A few months later, Andrew Sullivan echoed Brooks in his blog in the anti-feminist Atlantic online. Recently, Karl Rove gave Obama tips on how to defeat Hillary Clinton. In today's Ny Times David Brooks has dedicated another column to promoting Obama. All of this powerful conservative media backing for Obama raises some questions. Do they think it would be easier for a Republican candidate to defeat Obama than Clinton? Or maybe they believe Obama is one of them. How do Obama's left wing extremist supporters interpret this?

Posted by: ichief | December 18, 2007 12:45 PM

"

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Nice try cheif. Try again. This is not the dittohead/savage nation. There are independant thinkers on this site. Try again.

Right, the racist fascist right wing wants obama. Someone who has been running on everything opposite of the current gop. The want to divide and conquer, he wants to re-unite. looka t their tactics. Clinton of the republcain, she gets money from them, she goes on fox, her husband and bush 41 are buddies.

Your funny. That kind of smear/propoganda only works with dittoheads. We're not stupid follower here. Try again.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 18, 2007 12:52 PM | Report abuse

the ignorant coward MO is back.

does anything ever change on this blog CC? there is always the hate-filled drindl trying to make hate and foulness seem normal. rufas trying to make personality disorder seem mainstream. Loud and dumb trying desperately to contribute something of merit and failing, then resorting to name calling as usual,Ace. simple simon with inane analysis that ignores facts. lylepink with glowing hillary love.

nothing new under the sun - simply another day in dogpatch with the full contingent of moonbats and stooges.

CC - how low on the IQ spectrum must one be to contribute daily to this oh-so-predictable scrum. Boredom and tedium have taken over your blog. If I randomly chose a day from the last 6 months, there would be no way to tell the exact date - it is all carbon copy of the same moonbattery. Yawn!

you have succombed to the liberal-leftist disorder. the next symptom is falling ratings and staff cutbacks.

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 18, 2007 12:50 PM | Report abuse

kingofzouk, vbhoomes, Proud - I wish I could be so sanguine. From my, admittedly liberal perch, is a Republican Party bent on nominating a candidate with all of the baggage of Clinton, but that might simply be because their genuine message has been lost in the mud slinging contest. I know almost nothing of where these guys stand and, like a lot of other liberals who see Clinton being inflicted on us, am genuinely looking for any excuse to vote Republican. It might be valuable to discuss, in depth, the more acceptable moderate or liberal stances on issues these candidates have. I know Mike Huckabee was endorsed by the NH NEA and several local chapter because of his support for schools and education; I know of McCains support of environmental issues and fully funding Social Security. And, Chris, I series of column suggestions - Republican's disaffected-antiClinton Democrats might support. Maybe a column a day on the main candidates (or you could run 30 or 40 a week to balance the coverage the MSM has given to Clinton).

Posted by: mibrooks27 | December 18, 2007 12:49 PM | Report abuse

Claudi, GWB never said he was a War Hero, so his record was not really revelant. (ask Dan Rather, it helped his career)Mark; Not quite as old as you my friend, but as a 20 year Vet who was required to study Vietnam as part of Professional growth, own DOD History admits the medal process got out of control in Vietnam and were handing them out like candy to help with low morale. I cannot speak for all of my fellow service memebers, but I know I would not take a Purple Heart for a minor scratch, when so many of my fellow brethen have given so much more.

Posted by: vbhoomes | December 18, 2007 12:47 PM | Report abuse

"[Obama] is NOT exactly a 'liberal', and he hasn't proven that he can LEAD, let alone be an executive."

ajain31, how exactly has Hillary proven she can LEAD or be an executive? Perhaps you explained that somewhere in your post, but it was far too long for me to say for sure. I saw where you pointed out that she's popular in her home state. And I saw the many places where you said that she should be president because she's a woman, a truly impressive achievement. But I didn't see any reference to her leadership or executive ability. Please explain how she's proven herself to be better than Obama in these areas.

Posted by: Blarg | December 18, 2007 12:46 PM | Report abuse

It was David Brooks, the Ny Times neocon conservative columnist who was first among the major media gurus to urge Obama to run, and Obama has used word for word the talking points Brooks provided for him. A few months later, Andrew Sullivan echoed Brooks in his blog in the anti-feminist Atlantic online. Recently, Karl Rove gave Obama tips on how to defeat Hillary Clinton. In today's Ny Times David Brooks has dedicated another column to promoting Obama. All of this powerful conservative media backing for Obama raises some questions. Do they think it would be easier for a Republican candidate to defeat Obama than Clinton? Or maybe they believe Obama is one of them. How do Obama's left wing extremist supporters interpret this?

Posted by: ichief | December 18, 2007 12:45 PM | Report abuse

"rufus: can you stop with the idiotic posts about the yale plan? do you think someone who went to harvard or princeton thinks any differently?

Posted by: LoudounVoter | December 18, 2007 12:39 PM
"

I will when Obama gets the nomination. Deal?

Will you stop crying about it for another month? Deal?

Let me post what I want, you post what you want. Deal?

If you have something to combat me, do it. Otherwise read listen and learn. When your a big boy or after the election you will understand what I have been telling you peopel for months now. Better for me to speak my mind then be silenced or drowned out, right. this way if clinton DOES win nobody will be able to say they wern't warned.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 18, 2007 12:44 PM | Report abuse

"Look for the 42 state sweep by the center-right american voter. Libs will claim foul and ignore (again) the mandate from the voters. they always do.

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 18, 2007 12:37 PM
"

Better have the gop lawyers ready to sue, zouk. It's your only chance. The lacky filled justicless DOJ is your only hope, AGAIN.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 18, 2007 12:41 PM | Report abuse

noon -- official shift begins for Exxon Weathernut Moonbat. Run for the exits, pre le deluge!

Posted by: drindl | December 18, 2007 12:40 PM | Report abuse

rufus: can you stop with the idiotic posts about the yale plan? do you think someone who went to harvard or princeton thinks any differently?

Posted by: Spectator2 | December 18, 2007 12:39 PM | Report abuse


'To the rabid, emotional right, she's a symbol of liberalism and all things evil, and they (and the media) have done a good job of villifying her.'

Posted by: drindl | December 18, 2007 12:38 PM | Report abuse

What I learned on the fix today:

clinton(s) are crooked and anyone paying attention knows it. the challenge will be to fool those not paying attention. hillary is personality-challenged and hopes to have others bail her out, but bill's own sense of megalomania won't allow him to talk about anyone but himself. when the going gets tough, the clintons get ugly, first it was Bush, which worked quite well in the Dem primary voter crowd, but when she had to go ugly on a Dem it backfired. do the voters want IRS records, FBI files, private gestapo and the rest?

When questioned on the issues, Dems always revert to personalities. this can only be because they have such a total lack of any issues that sing to the voters. their congress has passed none of their left-wing agenda.

Look for the 42 state sweep by the center-right american voter. Libs will claim foul and ignore (again) the mandate from the voters. they always do.

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 18, 2007 12:37 PM | Report abuse

They're not "three generations of Clinton women".

Posted by: meshugaman11 | December 18, 2007 12:37 PM | Report abuse

"I hope that these people start pulling their heads out of their backsides pretty darned quick...and stop living in the past...and stop spewing the old venom that no one is interested in hearing anymore"

Again. this is why clinton will not be the nominee. time to turn the page. Not only on the ninties, but the 60's. Time to start looking out our front window, rather than our rear.

Change is at hand. Clinton is more of the same. Fear the yale plan. Clinton is bush-cheaney. Let's try electing soemone NOt from yale once. See what happens:

"All U.S. presidents since 1989 have been Yale graduates, namely George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton (who attended the University's Law School along with his wife, New York Senator Hillary Clinton), and George W. Bush, and Vice President Dick Cheney, (although he did not graduate). Many of the 2004 presidential candidates attended Yale: Bush, John Kerry, Howard Dean, and Joe Lieberman.

Other Yale-educated presidents were William Howard Taft (B.A.) and Gerald Ford (LL.B). Alumni also include several Supreme Court justices, including current Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.
"

Obama- Dodd 08

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 18, 2007 12:36 PM | Report abuse

Thanks for the link to the leftcoaster ajain31. Very informative!

Posted by: maiapapaya | December 18, 2007 12:35 PM | Report abuse

"The left-wing fringe Democrats are so desperate to put a rehabilitated image of "liberalism" on a pedestal that they aren't bothering to notice that the nation isn't becoming, necessarily, more "liberal" as much as it is becoming "anti-right-wing-conservative"

rIGHT. That is why the left rejects clinton. She panders to the fascist right-wingers that this coutnry hates right now. She goes on Fox. She takes money from Murdoch at fox. Like you said, I am not a democrat. I got pulled into this fight. My family is alomst entirly republcains. they got fooled by the rush's and o'reilly's of the world. But your right, peopel hate these people right now that divide our nation for profit. Great point, but the rest of yu post runs counter to this.

Hillary is the furthest right of the serius contenders, for the d's. Who is further right than her? No. You don't punish the gop for their criminality and partisanship by re-electing them. Make no mistake clinton and her husband should now be considered moderate republcains.

But she gets money and love from the right-wing propoganda machine. Look at drudge today. She votes to go to war with iran following faulty intel again. No. hillary is done. The presidency is not "owed" to anyone. It is a title put on a person by the peopel of this great nation. if the american people reject clinton, for whatever reasons they decide, then it is so.

I disagree with must of you rpost, but appreciate your passion. Clinton is done. Is she worth the trouble? What would the gop talk about if they couldn't bash the clinton years? Time to turn the page on the fascist right=wingers and the moderate sell-out democrats that enable them

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 18, 2007 12:30 PM | Report abuse

bsimon, I'm not sure that Cheney, among GOPers, wouldn't get 15% of people who would claim he's the 'most honest and trustworthy' (a straight shooter .. pardon the pun ...).

To the rabid, emotional left, he's a symbol of corporate greed and all things evil, and they (and the media) have done a good job of villifying him.

M in A, I don't waste my time with reading the NYT. I don't trust them. Krugman is a 19th century socialist. Herbert sees racism everywhere. Dowd is over the cliff with her hatred of all things Bush. And calling Brooks conservative is like calling Lieberman a liberal. Okay, sorta, yeah I guess I see it... but not really.

Posted by: JD | December 18, 2007 12:28 PM | Report abuse

The last time this country selected the candidate of the "heart" we went to war against a country that didn't attack us. We lost blood and treasure over lies.

I did then and do now want the "SMARTEST" candidate. That's Hillary.

Posted by: maiapapaya | December 18, 2007 12:28 PM | Report abuse

one thing for sure: If Clinton is the nominee, the campaign will be one people will be writing books about 100 years from now.

Posted by: Spectator2 | December 18, 2007 12:23 PM | Report abuse

Here is an in-depth, thoughtful analysis of the top three Democratic candidates: http://theleftcoaster.com/archives/011500.php

Thanks for your time and remember to vote in your respective states on Super Tuesday which is all that matters.

For a little election snapshot click: http://uselectionatlas.org/2008.php

Posted by: ajain31 | December 18, 2007 12:13 PM | Report abuse

lwoodfield - Please. Character assassination? The Clinton's and their minions have crafted negative campaigning and character assassination to a fine art. And, she is cold and evil and manipulative and simply crooked.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | December 18, 2007 12:13 PM | Report abuse

People, pollsters and pundits give undue importance to the Iowa caucus. Isn't it time to break the back of this myth of Iowa's importance? They haven't picked a winner since 1976. And Clinton and Kerry won the democratic nominations without winning in Iowa. Enough with the rural pandering.

I fondly remember the Bill Clinton administration years as pretty good ones in spite of the personal attacks from the right. The personal problems were Bill's not Hillary's. She had to deal with him and the public and she did it expertly with a win as a junior Senator in NY and a re-election where she won 67% of the vote, with 58 of 62 counties including the MOSTly Republican "red" counties in upstate NY.
In the General election Hillary will beat the pants off any Republican nominee trying to keep us fighting the Iraq war.

2008 is not the year for the Grand Old Party. Vote for the party that is enthusiastic, raised the biggest money and futuristic forward looking. Vote straight Democratic on Super Tuesday. Vote for Hillary Clinton. Super Tuesday will decide the nominee in both parties and everything else will be settled by February 2008. Forget the early states, the IOWA caucus and all the talk of momentum. A fluke here and a fluke there does not make a nominee. End of discussion.

When Bill Clinton left the White House we were a nation at peace, we had a sizable surplus, we had a growing economy, and today he is the most popular politician in the nation if not the world.

Maybe that is not such a bad thing to return to. But the reality is that Hillary is not Bill. She is by all accounts smarter and definitely won't have the personal problems that Bill had. She is a master politician and is becoming a master speaker as attested to by looking at her in some of her live appearances and on the recent single sweep of five Sunday news shows in this election cycle.

It is Hillary's time and it is the time for a woman to be the US President. It is time to break the highest glass ceiling in the US. I predict that many Republican women will join because they have said "I have never voted or never voted for a Democrat in my life, but if Hillary is the candidate and I have the chance to see a woman US President in my lifetime, Hillary will have my vote!"

People underestimate the positive change that will occur around the world in the way the United States is viewed when we elect Hillary. She will be symbol for women everywhere.

It's time to give up the sniping and for some women to stop venting their jealousy, which is really what it is when they complain not about her policies but about her personal choices as relates to Bill.

It's time to think about the nation and Hillary will be good for the nation and the world.

The Republicans view Hillary as a "bogeyman" because she fights back against their smears...and because they have sunk way below their previous depths to a point where they have NO positives to run on...they depend on nothing more than the modern equivalent of inciting mobs with pitchforks and torches into voting AGAINST anything/anyone from gays to non-Christians to communism to deficits (until Darth Cheney declared that deficits are GOOD when they're run up by Republicans) to Bill Clinton. I think their formerly mindless followers are wising up to the fact that their Republican party has not been their friend. The left-wing fringe Democrats are so desperate to put a rehabilitated image of "liberalism" on a pedestal that they aren't bothering to notice that the nation isn't becoming, necessarily, more "liberal" as much as it is becoming "anti-right-wing-conservative"...and they hang their hats on my-yes MY-Senator Obama to be their champion without bothering to look at his actual history here in Illinois. He is NOT exactly a "liberal", and he hasn't proven that he can LEAD, let alone be an executive. You can't base your entire candidacy on (a) not supporting the Iraq invasion during your tenure in the Illinois State Senate (which can't even manage to do the State's business right now), and (b) NOT being Hillary. Edwards would be in the single digits were it not for sympathy for his wife (if it weren't for her tragic cancer, she'd make a better candidate), and ALL of the Republican candidates are flip-flopping jokes worse than fish just pulled out of the water.

You are absolutely right in pointing out Hillary's re-election support in highly-Republican Upstate New York...THEY have had her representing them for almost 8 years, and their Republican support of her says all that needs to be said. Her Republican Senate colleagues speak highly of her, too...she is OBVIOUSLY NOT a polarizing figure, but the fringes in both parties still try to paint her as one for the very simple reason that they are trying to beat her in the upcoming elections...and because she DOES know what she's talking about and DOES have more than basic competence, the only way they can beat her is to plant the red herring that many people have preconceived notions of not liking her. They are TRYING to scare support away from her without letting people see her for herself...without her being filtered and framed by the fringes of both parties. And they seem to forget that Bush was re-elected with some very high negatives...people are so numbed by the partisan sniping of the past 12 years and incompetence of the past 6 years that personal negatives don't matter to them nearly as much as much as intelligence and competence do now.

I hope that these people start pulling their heads out of their backsides pretty darned quick...and stop living in the past...and stop spewing the old venom that no one is interested in hearing anymore. The Nation has work to do, and no one is better versed, better educated, and better qualified to lead it out of the Republican-created nightmare...ready to roll up sleeves and get to work on Day 1...than Hillary. And when she DOES get elected, I hope that the Republicans give her the deference due her as President that they never gave her husband but expected for his successor for the 8 years to which we have been subjugated. They had their chance, and they've perverted everything they've touched. It's time for a woman to clean the White House!

Posted by: ajain31 | December 18, 2007 12:10 PM | Report abuse

lwoodfield writes
"If the people who know her best, those who have worked with her longest, and the voters of her own state approve of, and often love her, could it be possible that you have misjudged her just a bit?"

The people of Texas sent GW Bush to the governor's mansion twice. That does not change my opinion of the man.

Posted by: bsimon | December 18, 2007 12:00 PM | Report abuse

' he was an unlikable blue blooded snob who distorted how own military record and got called on it by people who were there.'

are you talking about GWBush, bhoomes? The creepy, coke-snorting frat boy who went AWOL during wartime?

---exactly, zukermand. and that's true of most of the so-called MSM. See: Mike allen, Dan Balz, Sheryl Stohlberg, Kit Seelye, Judth Milller, Adam Nagroueney, ad infinitum.

Posted by: drindl | December 18, 2007 11:57 AM | Report abuse

"I have successfully predicted every POTUS starting with Truman, and many before the nominees were known."


Man, was I excited. The Green Bay Packers had NEVER LOST A PLAYOFF GAME AT HOME. Brett Favre's record when kickoff was below 40° was perfect. And I had tickets. A home playoff game against Atlanta, with not just cold weather predicted, but cold, wet weather. The kind of weather that seperates men from boys. The kind of weather in which Green Bay had a long-established reputation for being tough to beat.

As it turns out, streaks end. Unbeatable teams are beaten. People who have never been wrong before become fallible. Thats just the way things work.

Posted by: bsimon | December 18, 2007 11:56 AM | Report abuse

bhoomes, You only get .500 on Kerry, I think. Unlikeable snob, yes. Distorted [by him] naval record, no.
As JimD, who was a serving officer says, the medals were real,there is a vetting process for medals, and his own crew supported him. The distortion came from other crews, not in eyeshot of Kerry's riverboat, after Kerry became a 'Nam critic.

I strongly disliked Kerry, but when I was at NOCS in Newport in early '68 our Commandant addressed us and told us riverboat duty was the road to a Naval career but that the casualty rate was 45% -
so if we thought we were serving three years four months and out, we not need apply. I did not apply. Just being there voluntarily was a big deal. You may not be old enough to remember that, but it was.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | December 18, 2007 11:55 AM | Report abuse

Most of the anti-Hillary comments here and elsewhere are mere name-calling. Cite the evidence for "dishonest", "cold", "evil", "programmed" etc.

It reminds me of the character assessments of movie stars. Most were based on carefully constructed p.r. and often completely false bios which became 'truth'. I know -- I wrote a few.
In Hillary's case, there has been a unremitting volley of attacks because of the frustration in beating Bill, and the normal misogyny of conservatives.

Ask yourself if the 'motives' you ascribe to Hillary are true or just assumptions fed to you by her obsessed haters. If the people who know her best, those who have worked with her longest, and the voters of her own state approve of, and often love her, could it be possible that you have misjudged her just a bit?

Does "I'd rather vote for Hitler than Hillary" sound rational to you? Is that speaker and his brethren, the ones who have artfully designed your assessment of Hillary's character? Have they also strongly affected your view of Obama as "squeaky clean"? "Squeaky" and "evil" -- is either view true?

Posted by: lwoodfield | December 18, 2007 11:54 AM | Report abuse

Strong words pink. Your still with clinton right?

And if she doesn't get the nom, then what?

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 18, 2007 11:48 AM | Report abuse

Romney, on the other hand, is an unlikeable blue-blooded snob who has no military record. He can't lose!

Posted by: Blarg | December 18, 2007 11:46 AM | Report abuse

By all means Colin; use my previous scoresheet, I will be back like my beloved Redskins, with a 500 record. Did Mitt change his position on abortion and & Gay rights to make himself more viable? Adsolutely. But so did the 1st President Bush. If the worse thing you can say about Mitt, that he is a flip flopper, I will take it. Kerry did not lose the 2004 election because of his flip flops.He lost because he was an unlikable blue blooded snob who distorted how own military record and got called on it by people who were there.

Posted by: vbhoomes | December 18, 2007 11:40 AM | Report abuse

Colin: I think I understand why you want "My Empirical Evidence", as a lawyer you know none exists, nice try. A smart lawyer does not ask a question unless he knows the answer. Hey man, I only finished one year of High School and know that. I have sixty years of being involved in politics at all levels, working for others and running for office myself. I have successfully predicted every POTUS starting with Truman, and many before the nominees were known. The "Factors" I mention often play an important role in my opinions, but the "Gut Feeling", if you understand what it means, is also important.

Posted by: lylepink | December 18, 2007 11:40 AM | Report abuse

"...By Chris Cillizza..."

The moment at which one realizes they are about to embark on a tour of baseless speculation, generally concluding with trouble for a leading democratic candidate.

Posted by: zukermand | December 18, 2007 11:33 AM | Report abuse

At least the 49ers are moving to my home town. santa clara/san jose.

Maybe they wil be the Bay Area 49ers now. :)

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 18, 2007 11:29 AM | Report abuse

And yes, I blame the ownership, MArk :)

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 18, 2007 11:28 AM | Report abuse

Drindl, you asked me at 9:29AM EST:

"Have you addressed the flood of hatred for Hillary on this blog?"

I thought I directly addressed it at 9:09AM EST. Last two paragraphs.

lyle at 9:36A - If you think HRC is the victim of bad coverage I can only say that Joe Biden is the victim of no coverage. I do understand your point; I do not know if you are correct.

I agreed with rdklingus at 8:15A, expanded a bit at 8:55A,and now see that bsimon at 9:58A turned it into good campaign advice.

bsimon, thanks for SC news.

Tend to agree with Colin at 10:37A, but I add the caveat that it is still Edwards who runs strongest for Ds against all Rs, something that Ds seem unable to accept. Not identifying as a D or an R I never understand why the partisans think they win despite their polling. I agree that Obama runs as strong or stronger than HRC against all Rs. Ds think HRC is the strongest. McCain is the strongest R against Ds and
Rs think RG is the strongest. Beats me.

Rufus' 49ers analogy was entertaining.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | December 18, 2007 11:27 AM | Report abuse

Drindl, you asked me at 9:29AM EST:

"Have you addressed the flood of hatred for Hillary on this blog?"

I thought I directly addressed it at 9:09AM EST. Last two paragraphs.

lyle at 9:36A - If you think HRC is the victim of bad coverage I can only say that Joe Biden is the victim of no coverage. I do understand your point; I do not know if you are correct.

I agreed with rdklingus at 8:15A, expanded a bit at 8:55A,and now see that bsimon at 9:58A turned it into good campaign advice.

bsimon, thanks for SC news.

Tend to agree with Colin at 10:37A, but I add the caveat that it is still Edwards who runs strongest for Ds against all Rs, something that Ds seem unable to accept. Not identifying as a D or an R I never understand why the partisans think they win despite their polling. I agree that Obama runs as strong or stronger than HRC against all Rs. Ds think HRC is the strongest. McCain is the strongest R against Ds and
Rs think RG is the strongest. Beats me.

Rufus' 49ers analogy was entertaining.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | December 18, 2007 11:25 AM | Report abuse

Drindl, you asked me at 9:29AM EST:

"Have you addressed the flood of hatred for Hillary on this blog?"

I thought I directly addressed it at 9:09AM EST. Last two paragraphs.

lyle at 9:36A - If you think HRC is the victim of bad coverage I can only say that Joe Biden is the victim of no coverage. I do understand your point; I do not know if you are correct.

I agreed with rdklingus at 8:15A, expanded a bit at 8:55A,and now see that bsimon at 9:58A turned it into good campaign advice.

bsimon, thanks for SC news.

Tend to agree with Colin at 10:37A, but I add the caveat that it is still Edwards who runs strongest for Ds against all Rs, something that Ds seem unable to accept. Not identifying as a D or an R I never understand why the partisans think they win despite their polling. I agree that Obama runs as strong or stronger than HRC against all Rs. Ds think HRC is the strongest. McCain is the strongest R against Ds and
Rs think RG is the strongest. Beats me.

Rufus' 49ers analogy was entertaining.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | December 18, 2007 11:20 AM | Report abuse

"Without question, it was those efforts, spontaneously created and driven by blogs and their readers, which led directly to the principled stand Chris Dodd took yesterday in defense of the rule of law. This was not a process whereby some Beltway politician announced a campaign and then citizens fell into line behind it. The opposite occurred. The very idea for the "hold" originated among a few citizens, was almost immediately exploded into a virtual movement by tens of thousands of people, and was then made into a reality by a single political figure, Chris Dodd, responding to that passion by taking the lead on it. "

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/

sorry last one. This is important to me. This is why blogs are important and bloggers hould not be mocked. In this country my vote is worth the same as anyone's. The blogger community that has sprung up is all good. The liars and propogandists can be disproved very easily. only those that want lies and propoganda defend them. It is impossbile for some to beat truths with lies spina nd propoganda. For them to try only shows their face. This accelerated teh gop's downfall. When you got reality and gop reality, independant thinkers will obviously go to reality.

So take pride in what we do. Do not let the republicans fear you out of blogging. This is still america, lest we forget. Where no man is under anotehr man unles they allow it to be so. Don't allow them to crown new kings. The king has no power without a kingdom. The business has no business without the workers. And our government is not a monarchy and cannot funtion without the people of america pushing change.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 18, 2007 11:17 AM | Report abuse

Rasmussen has HRC & BHO tied in SC at 33%. No real movement from two weeks ago, though confirms that data as more than a blip, as HRC had a lead a month ago that was wider in Sept. Conclusion: No evidence of a significant Oprah blip in this data.

http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/south_carolina/election_2008_south_carolina_democratic_primary

Posted by: bsimon | December 18, 2007 11:15 AM | Report abuse

Why we blog. And why we should not be bullied out of blogging. Not by mark in autin. Not by cc. Not by george bush and his patriotic act cronies. The only power they have is the power you and I give these people. They are our representatives. Not our kings.

"Within literally a matter of minutes, numerous blogs began urging their readers to contact the Dodd campaign to ask Dodd to place a "hold" on any bill containing immunity. Blog readers deluged the Dodd campaign by the thousands, tying up their telephones and overflowing their email boxes.

It was exclusively in response to that blog-based outpouring of citizen passion that Dodd -- within a matter of a few hours -- emphatically vowed that he would do something he has almost never done during his 24-year Senate career: place a "hold" on this bill and, if necessary, lead a filibuster against it on the floor of the Senate. Dodd's responsiveness, and the all-too-rare leadership he displayed, prompted an outpouring of support for his campaign from citizens hungry for any sort of Democratic leadership, as he raised $200,000 in small donations over the next 24 hours alone, exceeding the total he had raised for the preceding many months.

* * * * *

From the beginning, there was pure hostility from numerous Beltway crevices towards Dodd's stance. The Beltway media largely ignored it except to mock it and question its authenticity with their standard lip-curling, jaded pettiness. The very day that Dodd announced his hold, Harry Reid made clear that he was hostile to it, and strongly insinuated that he would not honor it. That led to an outburst of anger directed towards Reid's office which caused them -- falsely as it turns out -- to spend weeks issuing public and private assurances that Reid would treat Dodd's hold the same way he treats other holds.

"

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 18, 2007 11:11 AM | Report abuse

For those you who actually do care about our troops, here's what the strain of multiple long tours is doing them--frim the Army Times:

'.... 2nd Platoon had gathered for a meeting and determined they could no longer function professionally in Adhamiya -- that several platoon members were afraid their anger could set loose a massacre.

"We said, 'No.' If you make us go there, we're going to light up everything," DeNardi said. "There's a thousand platoons. Not us. We're not going."

They decided as a platoon that they were done, DeNardi and Cardenas said, as did several other members of 2nd Platoon. At mental health, guys had told the therapist, "I'm going to murder someone." And the therapist said, "There comes a time when you have to stand up," 2nd Platoon members remembered. For the sake of not going to jail, the platoon decided they had to be "unplugged."

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003686058&imw=Y

Posted by: drindl | December 18, 2007 11:05 AM | Report abuse

The Republicans are salivating at sending either Guilliani or Romney against Hillary. Dems after you lose the white house again are you going to cry ever day for the next 4 years. Either Obama or Edwards gives you the best chance.

Hillary could lose NY state if Guilliani runs. What state is she going to win?

Posted by: Italiaxxx | December 18, 2007 11:00 AM | Report abuse

Why the internet and blogs are important. We ar enow pushing the agenda. We hold our own democracy in our hand. This is what people all across the world for centuries have wanted. Let's not waste what we have. Let's seize the day. Seize the oppurtunity. Don't let teh republcains or their moderate sell-out democrats replace your pride and courage with apathy. Take your country back. As skeptical as you all are, we have our country back. Let's do the right thing. Let's put our fear where it belongs. Where our american ancestors placed their fear. In the back of their minds, while they did what needed to be done.

Bush and the law breakers need real jail time. Nothing else will do.

"In the Senate, one brave Senator can put a hold on legislation. Is it possible to convince Russ Feingold to step up and be a true patriot here? Is there another Senator we should approach instead? I think we should choose one, and deluge that office with calls, emails and even live demonstrators for those who live close enough to pressure one brave person to do what is right. Sadly, I think it will be necessary to find a single patriot, since we are unlikely to find 41 who will vote against cloture on this.
At virtually the time, there was an email exchange between a relatively small group of bloggers and a couple of representatives from grass-roots organizations in which the same idea arose: finding a Senator who would be willing to place a "hold" on the Rockefeller immunity bill. Earlier that morning, Big Tent Democrat had noted that Chris Dodd had issued a strongly worded statement against Jay Rockefeller's bill, and he urged Dodd to announce he would lead a filibuster against the bill. Based on all of that, it was quickly recognized, both in comments and in that email group, that the obvious choice to target for a "hold" was Dodd, who had made constitutional and oversight issues the centerpiece of his presidential campaign."

Glen Greenwald

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 18, 2007 10:56 AM | Report abuse

Chris,

A better headline might read, "Campaign Begins to Humanize Media."

MediaMatters.Org just addressed the latest Chris Matthews abusive attack on Hillary Clinton. Matthews reached an all-time low in his castration comments.

And for all of those who are yearning for a candidate you'd enjoy having a beer with, please give Hillary Clinton a break: She doesn't have years of experience as a barfly that your idol Dubya boasts.

Don't forget, folks. Dubya was the guy you thought had heart as opposed to Al Gore and John Kerry, whose qualities were more about substance than charm.

Posted by: ichief | December 18, 2007 10:52 AM | Report abuse

I heard about that claudia. What's with these people and dogs. didn't flip flop mitt get in hot water for leaving his dog on the roof of his car for like ten hours?

As to Huck. I heard they hung it, slit it's throught then stoned it to death. Sounds liek Iran.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 18, 2007 10:50 AM | Report abuse

fyi -- filed under family values...

'As Mike Huckabee gains in the polls, the former Arkansas governor is finding that his record in office is getting more scrutiny. One issue likely to get attention is his handling of a sensitive family matter: allegations that one of his sons was involved in the hanging of a stray dog at a Boy Scout camp in 1998. The incident led to the dismissal of David Huckabee, then 17, from his job as a counselor at Camp Pioneer in Hatfield, Ark. It also prompted the local prosecuting attorney-- bombarded with complaints--to write a letter to the Arkansas state police seeking help investigating whether David and another teenager had violated state animal-cruelty laws. The state police never granted the request, and no charges were ever filed. But John Bailey, then the director of Arkansas's state police, tells NEWSWEEK that Governor Huckabee's chief of staff and personal lawyer both leaned on him to write a letter officially denying the local prosecutor's request. Bailey, a career officer who had been appointed chief by Huckabee's Democratic predecessor, said he viewed the lawyer's intervention as improper and terminated the conversation. Seven months later, he was called into Huckabee's office and fired. "I've lost confidence in your ability to do your job," Bailey says Huckabee told him. One reason Huckabee cited was "I couldn't get you to help me with my son when I had that problem," according to Bailey. "Without question, [Huckabee] was making a conscious attempt to keep the state police from investigating his son," says I. C. Smith, the former FBI chief in Little Rock, who worked closely with Bailey and called him a "courageous" and "very solid" professional.'

http://www.newsweek.com/id/78241


FOXNEWS.COM HOME > POLITICS
Huckabee's Son Arrested With Gun at Little Rock Airport
Thursday, April 26, 2007

LITTLE ROCK, Ark. -- David Huckabee, a son of Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee, was arrested at Little Rock's airport Thursday after a federal X-ray technician detected a loaded Glock pistol in his carry-on luggage.

"I removed the bag and asked Mr. Huckabee if he knew what he had in the bag," Little Rock police officer Arthur Nugent wrote in a report after being summoned to a security checkpoint. "He replied he did know."

Huckabee, 26, later pleaded guilty in Little Rock District Court after being charged with possessing a weapon in a prohibited place. District Judge Lee Munson gave Huckabee a one-year suspended jail sentence and ordered him into 10 days of community service -- which Huckabee can avoid by paying $100. Huckabee will be on probation for a year. Fines and costs totaled $605.'

Posted by: drindl | December 18, 2007 10:47 AM | Report abuse

Forget it. There is no soft side, Hillary is a bag of nails. An ad with her mother saying she's nice -- that's supposed to convince us of what?? Hillary is what she is, love it or hate it. The problem for her is that increasingly more are hating it.

Posted by: zb95 | December 18, 2007 10:42 AM | Report abuse

"Lyle, Lyle, Lyle. Seriously, why do you keep saying this stuff when all the empirical evidence suggests the exact opposite. Again, I understand liking your candidatethe best, but am baffled as to why you continue to argue that only Hillary can beat the GOP. It's just silly. "

The 49ers are going to win the superbowl this year. I want it to happen, so I will say it's going to happen. But if it doesn't do i look like I don;t know what I'm talking about and lose my (football) credibility? Yes. Unless your a republican. then your a patriot for liying.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 18, 2007 10:40 AM | Report abuse

Lyle said: "...I am getting to believe that in fact Hillary is the only one that will prevent a blowout."

Lyle, Lyle, Lyle. Seriously, why do you keep saying this stuff when all the empirical evidence suggests the exact opposite. Again, I understand liking your candidatethe best, but am baffled as to why you continue to argue that only Hillary can beat the GOP. It's just silly.

vbhoomes -- can we use the accuracy of your 2006 predictions to assess your '08 presidential prediction? If Romney had run as the same guy who was governor of MASS, you might be right. The current version, who has retooled his position on all the issues, won't stand a chance in a general election. Really, I think the GOP is SOL unless they come back around and nominate McCain. He could win a GE. I doubt the other can, especially since Hillary won't be the Dem nominee...

Posted by: _Colin | December 18, 2007 10:37 AM | Report abuse

"JK: Huckabee will win Iowa but that is where it ends for him. His message of running as the annoited one from God, will not play well in NH or other states with primaries not caucuses. I doubt if Rice would want VP, but a respected African-American woman would help with independents.

Posted by: vbhoomes | December 18, 2007 10:29 AM
"

Ok. I can't pretend to know wha tin the world is going on with people that STILL call themselves republcains. I thought they were all getting lied to and misled. I had hoped once Rush Fox Coulter and malkin were shown for what they are, all the right-wing propogandists would be off the air. Who likes to get lied to? I was wrong there. I have no idea what the gop people are thinking.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 18, 2007 10:36 AM | Report abuse

bsimon:I totally agree with your campaign advice for Clinton. It's real, authentic and plays to her strengths. Let Hillary be Hillary.

Posted by: rdklingus | December 18, 2007 10:30 AM | Report abuse

JK: Huckabee will win Iowa but that is where it ends for him. His message of running as the annoited one from God, will not play well in NH or other states with primaries not caucuses. I doubt if Rice would want VP, but a respected African-American woman would help with independents.

Posted by: vbhoomes | December 18, 2007 10:29 AM | Report abuse

Anyone who has to work as hard as she does to try to prove what a swell human she is most likly is a really screwed up flawed person. The Taming of the Screw always comes to my mind when I think of HRC except of course Bill couldn't tame her.

Posted by: FLvet | December 18, 2007 10:23 AM | Report abuse

"Hillary leads in the 'anti-' vote
By Stephen Dinan
December 18, 2007


Forty percent of Americans say they would vote to keep Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton from winning the presidency, more than twice the total for their No. 2 "anti-" pick, former New York Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani.

"

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 18, 2007 10:22 AM | Report abuse

vbhoomes:If you're skeptical about the existence of amoral desperate tactics then google Hillary Clinton misogyny and deny reality.

Posted by: rdklingus | December 18, 2007 10:22 AM | Report abuse

Good luck with that vbhoomes. Now let's see how it plays out. I doubt it. We'll see where your mind is in a month or so, won't we.

The republican feild is up in the air.

I'm pretty sure the d's is up to two. The republcains sure are pushing hillary aren't they? Drudge fox the bush's. It's a stradegy. I guess what's she's been doing isn't working. Personally I think her sell-out to the right, a la lieberman fienstein Rockafeller reid, is really going to hurt her. I could be wrong. Look at the archieves. doesn't happen much.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 18, 2007 10:18 AM | Report abuse

There's a path to success. Folow the Yale plan. Get the bush's on your side. There's an approach.

"BUSH DAD 'WILL HELP PRESIDENT HILLARY RESTORE USA IMAGE' "

Disclaimer: From drudge

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 18, 2007 10:15 AM | Report abuse

I'm quite confident next January we will be swearing in Mitt Romney as our 44th President. He wear's well, they more you see him the more you like him. Huckabee has totally lost this Republican with constant invokation of religion. Plus hiring that Flake, Ed Rollins, tells me he is not ready for Prime Time. Romney/Rice: Now that's a winning ticket.

Posted by: vbhoomes | December 18, 2007 10:11 AM | Report abuse

As to Dodd. Your looking at the new VP president candiddate. Say good-bye to biden.

Obama-Dodd 08

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 18, 2007 10:08 AM | Report abuse

"Harry Reid, agianst the will of his constitutents, tried to pass a FISA bill with this odoius provision. Chris Dodd stood up to him.. this is the support he got."

He's my rep, supposedly. I sent him severa emails on this. I guess he wanted to look "strong" to the opposition party. We all know he is Sen. Lieberman. closet mormon republcian, in sheeps clothing. He pretends to serve his country while serving a cult. A republican cult. Of all the democratic senators, the democrats choose Reid.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 18, 2007 10:07 AM | Report abuse

YOU WANT TO TELL me again the republicans are not in with the terrorists?

"Tony Snow, former press Secretary to President Bush and Fox news anchor, spoke to the Academy of Leadership & Liberty at Oklahoma Christian University last week.

The winsome and articulate Snow charmed his audience with wit: "The average Iranian is more Pro-American than virtually any college faculty in this country." And with serious talk about the war on terror and "the second war in this country, the war on God."

"

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 18, 2007 10:04 AM | Report abuse

rdklingus writes
"Hillary is not a "natural" politician, in the sense of charisma, warmth and personal empathy that one finds in Obama, her husband and George Bush , for example. She does however have intelligence, pragmatism and gravitas... She has won over many in upstate New York who have grown to respect her, even while some admit they still don't like her personally."

If the above is true, then that is what Sen Clinton should campaign on. Rather than producing campaign ads with sugar 'n spice 'n everything nice, give us the 'real' Senator Clinton. Give us: "I know I'm not a natural politician like some of the other candidates, or some favorite past politicians. But what I am is smart, pragmatic and competent. This isn't a popularity contest; I'm not running to be your favorite guest for tea - I'm running to be the President of the United States, and that's going to require making tough decisions that some people won't like." Etc. Senator Clinton, try the Straight Talk. You might find it a refreshing change.

Posted by: bsimon | December 18, 2007 9:58 AM | Report abuse

Wanted to mention an actual important story that the media has for the most part refused to cover -- the battle against retroactive immunity for the telecoms, which would allow them to continue to to turn over to the govenment the calling, email and web records of any and every American, without evidence, withot probable cause, without warrants, for a gigantic fishing expedition. Not for terrorism, it's more commonly used now for criminal or political investigations. In other words, it guts the 4th amendment.

Harry Reid, agianst the will of his constitutents, tried to pass a FISA bill with this odoius provision. Chris Dodd stood up to him.. this is the support he got.

' thought you might be interested to read some of the statistics for what people have done through our site to lobby the Senate to stop retroactive immunity.

11,300+ people emailed the Senators (16,000 people visited the page, a 75% follow through rate)...

506,000+ emails were sent to the Senate...

5,700+ comments were submitted through the website (350+ were posted on Twitter) in 7 hours...

http://chrisdodd.com/blog/some-stats-fisa-activism

Half a million people emailed the Senate. The switchboard was tied up al day.Consequentally, Reid pulled the bill until January for reconsideraton. It was a victory for our Constitution.

Posted by: drindl | December 18, 2007 9:49 AM | Report abuse

vbhoomes writes of Democrats:
"After losing the last two general elections because their was an unlikability to their candidates they believe their best chance is nominating someeone who makes Richard Nixon seem like a swell guy. How they think Hillary is their best candidate to win is beyond my level of comprehension."

With a touch less hyperbole, I tend to agree with vbhoomes. It blows my mind that so many Dem primary voters think Senator Clinton is their best candidate for President. I can certainly understand why people sympathize with her, or even equate her with fond memories of her husband's administration. But I don't understand how that converts to support for her as a Presidential candidate.

I'm curious to know what these people expect of a President - what characteristics they think make a great President - and how that applies to Senator Clinton. I just don't see it.

Posted by: bsimon | December 18, 2007 9:47 AM | Report abuse

JD writes
"Oh dear. 15%. Those are Dick Cheney-like nubmers."

JD, as a math person, you should be embarrased for yourself. Dick Cheney's 15% is based on a raw analysis of Dick Cheney. Hillary's numbers to which you compare Dick's are based on a ranking. 15% find her the MOST trustworth; 85% find someone else to be the most trustworthy. While its possible that those same 15% are the only people that find her trustworthy, that's not the question that was asked - which therefore makes a comparison to Dick irrelevant. As a joke, it was sortof funny though...

Posted by: bsimon | December 18, 2007 9:37 AM | Report abuse

markinaustin: You are inaccurate about my being inaccurate. The Media gives about the same in $$ amounts to both parties, what I am referring to is the coverage. You could check Wall Street, Lawyers, and other groups such as pro-choice and pro-life to get a $$ amount that would reflect a disproportionate %% of the amounts given. I think you misunderstood what I was trying to point out. claudialong also points this out in her comment, and she is not a Hillary supporter YET.

Posted by: lylepink | December 18, 2007 9:36 AM | Report abuse

Oh yes, found this example of the treachery of Lieberman:

'Joe Lieberman, debating Ned Lamont, July 2006:

Lieberman: "I want Democrats to be back in the majority in Washington and elect a Democratic president in 2008. This man [Ned Lamont] and his supporters will frustrate and defeat our hopes of doing that."

So... he endorses a Republican.

Posted by: drindl | December 18, 2007 9:34 AM | Report abuse

There is a reason she has to work so hard to convince people she is a "real person". Anyone who has to convince people that one is warm, nice, and caring is not such a person. Individual's personality traits are naturally conveyed, not forced. The Clintons recent underhanded attacks on Barack Obama showed just what they are: mean, desparate, phonies who crave power.

Posted by: bringbackimus | December 18, 2007 9:31 AM | Report abuse

'That language puts you outside rational debate and into the dark world of persons who dehumanize others.'

That was one comment, Mark. One democrat who said something nasty. Have you addressed the flood of hatred for Hillary on this blog? Do you really think that has to do with Hillary herself, or the culture of hate that has become the GOP? Look at the rightwing blogs sometime [try the blog report at Salon] -- you will find that they are seething with hatred for anyone they perceive to be a democrat. Anyone.. and that goes for Obama too, whoxe name they just can't get over, and the idea that he is going to lead the US into a 'caliphate.'

And then there's Hate Radio -- here it's 770 AM. 24 hours of loathing for democrats. It goes from Rush Limbaugh for 3 hours, to Sean Hannity for 3 hours, then Laura Ingraham--the later at night it becomes, the more hysterical and hateful. Tthe really late night shows outright advocate murder.

There's nothing like this on the left. but it's been around so long we're all just used to it and think it is normal somehow. It's institutionalized, normalized hatred. When someone criticizes GW Bush, they're accused of Bush Derangement Syndrome. When bhoomes says casually, it's hatred toward Hillary, he saying that's just fine. It's okay to hate Democrats, but not okay to hate Repulicans, you see. Someone compares her to Hitler. Yes, Hillary personally slaughtered 6 million Jews. No hyperbole theere.

But one similarity we have here is that Jew-hating became institutionalized and normalized in Germany, too -- in the same fashion, through hate radio-- it works very well.

Posted by: drindl | December 18, 2007 9:29 AM | Report abuse

If your campaign has to focus on and spend money on "humanizing" the candidate. You have got major problems. Billary is DOA

Posted by: fatboysez | December 18, 2007 9:28 AM | Report abuse

HRC is cold as one could get. People suggesting that if we voted with our heads HRC would win. I don't know where your heads are but OBAMA is the most intelligent candidate. I would vote for him from my head.

Posted by: dewanitum | December 18, 2007 9:18 AM | Report abuse

CC, I don't get this heart vs. head stuff you keep pushing. Both my heart and my head are turned off by Hillary and subsequently stimulated by Obama. My head knows HRC is a deceitful, opportunistic tyrant, and my heart hates her for it. My head knows Obama can think for himself, and my heart is hopeful for our nation once again.

Posted by: schencks84 | December 18, 2007 9:12 AM | Report abuse

bsimon, I will be looking forward to your announcement of SC D polling and the O effect when I get back here at tea break or at lunch.

Bye-bye.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | December 18, 2007 9:11 AM | Report abuse

Cynical manipulation. Sheep will respond well to this. Sad, especially when there are several more qualified candidates who get virtually no coverage.

Posted by: soonerthought | December 18, 2007 9:10 AM | Report abuse

You take David Broder and Dan Balz, both of whom have been sworn enemies of the Clintons for at least a decade,who sniffed they weren't 'fit' to hang out with the self-appointed royalty of the DC Media complex, who cannot write a word about them without twisting it into some kind of criticism, then you take a really statistically significant sample of exactly 11 -- 11, people, you feed them leading questions, you get 3 [about a quarter of them] who say mildly disparaging things, and then you pronounce Hillary has 'problems'.

Tell me, have you done any 'scientific' focus groups like this on the other canddiates? Have you asked whether anyone whether they 'like' Rudy Guiliani, or whether they think he would 'understand their personal problems?'

Well, I guess he might, if it happened to be a man divorcing his second wife for one of his mistresses and abandoning his children.

CAN WE SEE AN ARTICLE NOW ABOUT THE NEED TO HUMANIZE RUDY? This guy is actually one of the biggest b*stards on the planet. How can we trust him when he has publicly lied to/ cheated on so many women? How can we trust a man with so little character he would abandon his kids for a golddigger?

I'd like to see a column on that now. Something with real substance.

Is this really the best you can, CC? Is this really how low the WaPo has fallen? A cheap gossip rag?

Posted by: drindl | December 18, 2007 9:10 AM | Report abuse

rich5, the Brooks column is at
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/18/opinion/18brooks.html?ref=opinion

JD, you do not have to subscribe to the NYT any more to read the columns. You are excused from reading Krugman, of course - he took my breath away with his most recent.

From a conservative columnist we get praise of HRC the Senator, and a testament to the consistent character of BHO. Very interesting.

I am going to guess that HRC's gender is slightly in her favor, after reading all the hateful slams directed at her gender. There are many of us who would not choose her for Prez if we had our druthers, but whose visceral reaction to those few loud women-haters is "You cannot talk that way about my [mother, sister, wife, daughter, boss, coworkers, friends]." And we are men. Imagine how women must feel when they hear or read this effluvia.

Gender attacks will eventually result in a net gain of votes for her, IMHO.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | December 18, 2007 9:09 AM | Report abuse

Chris, I hope you are reading the comments here. Very diappointed with your appearance on Hardball tonight! Is it not apparent to you that Chris Mathews is totally biased against the Clintons? How dare he challenge the integrity of the people who support Mrs. Clinton? Do you honestly think Mrs. Clinton can somehow direct bob kerrey to spell out the full name of Barack Obama? Can you not say "wait a minute, chris, you cannot denigrate people's character and integrity like this?" Is TV appearance really that imporant to you?

Posted by: nidaye3322 | December 18, 2007 9:03 AM | Report abuse

Lyle said:
"I hope the REAL Dems, not those claiming to be, reading this take into consideration the media, as a whole, is against Hillary."

Lyle, that was inaccurate. Please see
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.asp?id=N00000019&cycle=2008
which reports through October 29, 2007. HRC has plenty of big media supporters. Please check through "Open Secrets" for yourself.

benmatheny says

"...anything to defeat the GOP Subhuman pond Scum ...eliminate Republican Scum..."

That language puts you outside rational debate and into the dark world of persons who dehumanize others.

On topic, and uncritical of other posters, I would argue that HRC is merely human (and not inhuman), hard working, smart, but not a public charmer. Her campaign lost its original focus of engaging in a public dialogue, but that was an undeliverable promise, when made. She might have made good use of not being perceived as a public charmer, but it would be a delicate act for her. The obvious comparison for her would be to the oddly charming but miserably presiding GWB, but it would invite others to make invidious comparisons with Big Bill.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | December 18, 2007 8:55 AM | Report abuse

"Hummanizing" Hillary would require about the same process used to "hummanize" Frankenstein. Except Hillary doesn't have the bolts sticking out of her neck. (Maybe she did. Has anyone looked closely for scars?) Otherwise, it's about equivalent.

I'd think it would be best just to leave her be and be done with the Clintons and their ilk forever. God knows,they have run this country into the ground. I don't think we need anymore help from them.

Posted by: tdh_1 | December 18, 2007 8:45 AM | Report abuse

rdklingus just because you New Yorkers are gullible and amoral enough to elect Hillary, the rest of the country is not. Please spare us the nonsense about us being women haters. Its a tactic for desperate people.

Posted by: vbhoomes | December 18, 2007 8:35 AM | Report abuse

Hillary is not a "natural" politician, in the sense of charisma, warmth and personal empathy that one finds in Obama, her husband and George Bush , for example. She does however have intelligence, pragmatism and gravitas. She is being nitpicked by the media, especially the beltway pundits, in a way that Obama has not yet had to endure, and they are writing and shaping this horse race. The misogyny that underscores the tone and vehemence of the anti-Hillary commentary seems to be accepted and amplified, perhaps subconsciously, by voters. She has won over many in upstate New York (my state) who have grown to respect her, even while some (including my father) admit they still don't like her personally.

Posted by: rdklingus | December 18, 2007 8:15 AM | Report abuse

I think the republican response to Hillary is even more fascinating. They find her the most polarizing and repulsive candidate, yet they NEED her. They can't stop talking about her. They need her to win in 2008 so they can rely on their tried and true roadmap to get back to power.

Democratic voters see this republican focus on Hillary and guess that it is based in their fear of a Hillary victory. It is much more likely that what republicans fear is an efficiently run federal government serving the needs of the American people led by an inspirational leader. Should this happen, the republicans will be locked in their minority status for a generation.

Read the David Brooks essay in the NYT this morning to get a good contrast between Hillary and Barack.

Posted by: rich5 | December 18, 2007 8:06 AM | Report abuse

Lylepink: Its not fear as much as just plain old Hate. Yes, if elected, I do believe and fear she would divide America even further. I do fear she would use the IRS to go after her political opponents and I do fear another term of Clinton soap opera's. When you have such other good candidates who(Obama, Dodd,Biden)would not be as mean & nasty as Hillary, why would you subject this country to such internal strife? So if you guys do nominate her, be prepared for a political defeat in a year that should had been yours because its just not us republicans who hate her, its also independents and a good chunk of dems.

Posted by: vbhoomes | December 18, 2007 8:04 AM | Report abuse

BGard---- Oh LOL. what slop are you peddling?

"read the blogs"??!@*!!??LOL

"""". She is increasingly winning over thoughtful, moderate independents, including many disaffected Republicans. This is Democrats' best hope to win, people.

It all reminds me of my parents when I (a white woman) dated a black man in college..."""""

Oh , Puhleez. the Clintons NEVER EVER EVER would nominate Barack for the VP. Never. They are too calculating and fear losing votes in the South and Midwest. So save your Guess Who's Coming to Dinner baloney...

theBlogs? Dailykos? the Democratic Astroturf Operative hub of the world? Where Democratic Dissenters are run off.. Where Markos Moulitsas takes ad money from Chevron??You are laughingstocks ...
Yeh, big welcome wagon for African Americans there too... ever here of Fabooj?? LOL.

The Dems had their chance with the committed Activist base and stabbed tem in the back..With Hillary they will Lose the White House, LOSE seats in the House ( a thinner majority) ...They'll pick up seats of course in the Senate having NOTHING to do with the Disastrous Harry Reid... Could luck drumming up excitement next year for a triangulating LIAR.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dasUm65vrFA

Posted by: fugeddabowdid | December 18, 2007 7:55 AM | Report abuse

Its's ad, but voters are reverting to their old habit of voting based on likability and whether or not they'd have a beer with the candidate, etc. That's what got GW Bush elected twice, so it does not bode well.

Not saying that Hillary's great, but why write her off just because she's not cute and cuddly?

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by: parkerfl | December 18, 2007 7:47 AM | Report abuse

BGard, your comment means that people are DEEPLY AFRAID of Hillary Clinton. That is true, while, simultaneously, they hate her. But, as Obama has correctly said, "This policy of fear and the behavior dictated by fear would not take us to the right place." I am not quoting the exact words of Obama, I am quoting the meaning of his words. In this particular case it means that people know very well why Mrs. Clinton is very wrong for the presidency, but are afraid to voice it openly. And Obama is exactly right, as THIS FEAR WOULD TAKE US NOWHERE!

Posted by: aepelbaum | December 18, 2007 7:40 AM | Report abuse

So the focus group indicates a need to Human-oid-ify Hillary....

Easiest job on Earth next year?

Republican Media Op with Hill as the nominee...

Let's just HAND the White House to the GOP.

Posted by: fugeddabowdid | December 18, 2007 7:40 AM | Report abuse

I would like to see Hillary Win, anything to defeat the GOP Subhuman pond Scum I will be for. We need to eliminate Republican Scum from the political scene forever. The problem with Hillary is that although her message is one that we need to hear and implement, her voice is the most horrid sound on the face of the earth. I would prefer nails on a chalk board to the Womans voice, it is just dreadful and full of horror. So unpleasant to hear. If I was married to a woman like that I would be in my chair at home saying like shut the hell up for God sake.

Posted by: benmatheny | December 18, 2007 7:34 AM | Report abuse

Hitler had his mother also, and to parade with her closest relatives after everything she has done, while in public sight within last seventeen-twenty years, means exactly nothing!

Posted by: aepelbaum | December 18, 2007 7:33 AM | Report abuse

SO MANY men have also said this to me: "Personally, I'm actually OK with her; it's OTHER people who won't vote for her (so I won't either.)" These folks are ignoring the numbers. While she has no shot at winning the hearts of the kind of nutcases who impeached her husband (and who wants them anyway), read the blogs. She is increasingly winning over thoughtful, moderate independents, including many disaffected Republicans. This is Democrats' best hope to win, people.

It all reminds me of my parents when I (a white woman) dated a black man in college. When I invited him to visit over Christmas, each parent took me aside to explain why he couldn't, saying, "I'm fine with it, but I'm afraid your mother/your father will be too upset."

Posted by: BGard | December 18, 2007 7:32 AM | Report abuse

"...when asked which candidate is the "most honest and trustworthy," Obama led with 31 percent, followed by Edwards at 20 percent and Clinton at just 15 percent."


Oh dear. 15%. Those are Dick Cheney-like nubmers.

Posted by: JD | December 18, 2007 7:32 AM | Report abuse

Stop Playing this cheap comedy, freespeak!
Hillary clinton together with her husband and bush family has been working together to serve us better for almost twenty years by now. She has shown the extremely unpleasant personal features within this while of time. She has shown it to the entire country and to the world. Bush and his closest associates are Mrs. Clinron's supporters. Therefore, we are watching here the complete profanity and elimination of the very meaning of American democracy. Besides, once again, due to her personal features, Hillary clinton is not liked, I am not saying loved by the overwhelming majority of American voters. This is the plain truth!

Posted by: aepelbaum | December 18, 2007 7:30 AM | Report abuse

The mere fact that Mrs. Clinton must make an effort to portray herself as a person is truly in itself a sign of how unelectable she may be in the general election. No true political leader tries to define themselves as a person; but it is their person that qualifies them for leadership. It shows how much of a fassade her public persona must be, regardless of her good intentions and good works. She simply does not have the charisma that her husband and the current president have, and she should look deep within herself and acknowledge this. Otherwise, the Democrats are really in serious trouble.

Posted by: AgentG | December 18, 2007 7:29 AM | Report abuse

vbhoomes: You, as a staunch Repub make the point I will try to explain why you "Fear" Hillary so much, you saying you don't is the exact opposite, a tactic well know by old timers like me. I have been a little reluctant to say Hillary is the only Dem that can win in 08, however, I am getting to believe that in fact Hillary is the only one that will prevent a blowout. I am basing this on data I have seen over many months and especially the "Fear" Factor Repubs have of her. I hope the REAL Dems, not those claiming to be, reading this take into consideration the media, as a whole, is against Hillary. Think of the media as the corporations they actually are and who controls them. My research finds the media and military suppliers are owned by the same people to a high degree. Logic then would be for them to support those candidates, and since most of them won't give Hillary the time of day, IMHO, Hillary is the one the normal everyday middle and lower income folks should support, for she has worked all her life trying to improve our standard of living.

Posted by: lylepink | December 18, 2007 7:28 AM | Report abuse

Her husband's strength is that he could see everyone's point of view - even his detractors - and fashion his policy accordingly. I get a "my way or the highway" impression from Hillary. I'm a fiscal conservative who believes in helping oneself before asking the government and it's maddening to see Hillary propose programs that will take resources from me and give to those who could have provided for themselves but chose not too - many of these people are better off than I am. Humanize Hillary? The best advice I can give her is to humanize all of her potential constituents rather than shove so many of us aside.

Posted by: kjh25177 | December 18, 2007 7:25 AM | Report abuse

The Headline Says It ALL: The very fact that a campaign has to HUMANIZE the candidate (as is the case with Ms. Rodham-Clinton) should leave voters running so far and so fast seeking another candidate to vote for that one would think you are at a fast marathon at the olympics!

Now this voting with your heart, there is an inspired idea!

Posted by: curtiswalker1 | December 18, 2007 7:22 AM | Report abuse

This is a Fox News Alert: Mike Huckabee is in favor of Christmas.(See latest TV Ad)I sent this guy 50 bucks 6 months ago, I am going to ask for a refund. He doesn't need my money if Jesus Christ is supporting him.

Posted by: vbhoomes | December 18, 2007 7:09 AM | Report abuse

"...they also expressed a frustration with the essential unknowability of Clinton as a person."

And I'm frustrated with this double standard. Heavens, have we become so comfortable with male politicians spinning us that we honestly believe we've attained "essential knowability" of ANY of the candidates? Plain and simple, folks must stop deluding themselves that their "sorta kinda vague discomfort that they really can't explain" is an irrational, visceral sexism they are hiding from themselves.

We ALL want to think of ourselves as above prejudice, but none us are, and we create this host of rationalizations to explain to ourselves our fear of the unfamiliar. Read the new book "Mistakes Were Made (But Not By Me)" about our extraordinary need to view ourselves positively, and to self-deceive.

Be honest with yourself. Progressive men who believe in social justice: be thoughtful on this and less emotional, look at the numbers, and hear your sisters. A significant majority of progressive women believe in and want Clinton. Stop fooling yourself about your "mysterious bad feeling" about her. Our daughters everywhere finally have a strong woman who would make a great President and CAN WIN -- IF you -- yes YOU! -- don't take her away from them. Please, look deeply into your heart.

Yesterday morning I was dressing with the radio on and I was suddenly aware that nearly every song I'd heard had some reference to woman's dark nature: "witchy woman," "she's got the devil in her," "she's just an evil woman," "soul of a woman was created below," etc. "spooky," etc. While we've come a long way from the Salem witch trials, it's incredibly naive to think we've purged these feelings from society entirely in such a short time.

Let's evolve past this for your daughters' sakes, I beg you.

Posted by: BGard | December 18, 2007 7:02 AM | Report abuse

re: "Because of Clinton's unique position in American politics (universally known and respected but not well liked by most)"

I'd seriously like to see how you came to the conclusion that Clinton is "not well liked by most." I really would. Because, imo, that is just a stereotype that the media pushes.

She's not well liked by the high percentage of people who support her as the Democratic nominee? I think we can all agree that she is at the top or in second place. How does that happen, if she is "not well liked by most"?

She's not well liked in the Senate? We hear a different public story from her fellow Senators. She's not well liked by most of her fellow Senators?

She re-won her Senate seat with over 60%. In her state, she's not not well liked by most?

When Bill Clinton left office, 70% of America thought we were going in the right direction.
Therefore, Hillary Clinton is not well liked by Bush Republicans.

psst! Bush Republicans are not even close to being "most" of us.
Stop spreading GOP propaganda.

Posted by: freespeak | December 18, 2007 7:02 AM | Report abuse

THANK GOD Democrats are Stupid: After losing the last two general elections because their was an unlikability to their candidates they believe their best chance is nominating (Hillary) someeone who makes Richard Nixon seem like a swell guy. How they think (glad they do)Hillary is their best candidate to win is beyond my level of comprehension.

Posted by: vbhoomes | December 18, 2007 6:42 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company