In Iowa, It's Clinton Pragmatism Vs. Obama Fever
As the Democratic frontrunners campaign in Iowa, Clinton supporters tout their candidate's electability, while Obama's fervent devotees are fueled by passion.
Thu Nov. 8, 2007 12:00 AM PST
Hillary Clinton's campaign stops are tightly-scripted affairs, more professionally run and grander in their pageantry (and, often, attendance) than those of any other candidate in the Democratic field. They are, in a word, presidential, and seem designed to project that image to voters. Indeed, as Clinton makes a campaign swing through Iowa this week, voters planning to caucus for her on January 3 say they are drawn to one specific aspect of her candidacy: her electability. Clinton is banking on such pragmatism—as opposed to her competitors who are pushing the passion button.
Continues Below
Continued From Above
Outside a biodiesel plant in the small city of Newton, where throngs of Clinton supporters and media gathered for a Clinton speech on Tuesday, an undecided voter named Patrick Van Nice said that he's looking for the candidate who most reflects his views—in his case, the "greenest" candidate—but added that he is seriously considering Clinton because "the other thing is electability. If they're not going to win, or don't have a really strong chance of winning, why bother?"
Similarly, Laura Noyce Engel, a homemaker, said that she sometimes has a hard time seeing where Senator Clinton "is on the issues," but that she may support the former First Lady anyway because the single most important question is, "Who's is going to beat whatever Republican who is going to win their nomination?"
"I think it's high time to get a Democrat in the presidency," Engel added.
It was a refrain echoed by many at the two Clinton events I attended this week. For Democrats looking for a sure thing, Clinton is as close as they're going to get. In a recent Washington Post/ABC News poll, 62 percent of Democrats said the candidate who "has the best chance of getting elected president in November 2008" is Clinton. Only 15 and 14 percent, respectively, said the same of Barack Obama and John Edwards. Perhaps the Democrats—with help from the Clinton campaign and the media—are creating a self-fulfilling prophecy: the more electable Clinton seems, the more electable she becomes.
Electability is part of the official campaign pitch, too. Former Iowa governor Tom Vilsack, who has endorsed Clinton and is campaigning with her in his home state, told me before the event in Newton that Clinton stands apart from the rest of the Democratic field because of her experience in the White House, her personal relationships with dozens of world leaders, and her willingness to, in his words, "challenge Americans." But when pressed to identify how she differs substantively from the rest of the Democratic candidates, Vilsack pointed to minor differences on health care and then said, "The reality is, we gotta get somebody who can get elected. We gotta get somebody who is tough enough to run in a race that is going to be a tough race." He added, "She is tough. She's been through this process and she knows how tough it can be."
If nothing else, Clinton is seasoned in the ways of political campaigning, having been through several of her husband's campaigns, and a couple of her own. On Tuesday, her well-oiled campaign machine was on display in Newton and at a second stop in Amana, where she addressed supporters in a barn decorated with several American flags and a ring of hay bales framing the stage. Always disciplined and relentlessly on message, Clinton delivered speeches that were calm, smooth, and polished without seeming robotic. Everything is committed to memory—no notes, no digressions, no cheap one-liners. Even her campaign staffers look more professional than their counterparts on rival campaigns, and seem to exude the confidence of future White House staffers.
The pragmatism of the Clinton campaign and of the senator's supporters poses a stark contrast to what drives the campaigns of other presidential hopefuls, notably Barack Obama, whom I followed Wednesday as he stumped through Iowa towns from morning until evening. Obama's events are not as highly choreographed as Clinton's, but they're always high-energy, as he feeds off of the energy of his supporters and they off of his. If their post-event comments are any indication, Obama supporters aren't yearning for electability. They're there for the candidate.
Unlike at Clinton's events, where roughly half the attendees I spoke with were on the fence, every person I spoke with at Obama events were fervent supporters. They were eager to tell me how strong their support was (very strong, many emphasized) and about how long they've supported him. "I've been with him since day one," one told me proudly.
And when faced with questions about why they support the Illinois senator, Obama devotees literally trip over themselves in an effort to describe his appeal.
"I think he's the one that can bring everybody together," said Cindy Green, who attended an event in a gymnasium in the city of Muscatine, where Obama campaigned under basketball hoops and a giant, handmade sign. "I'm tired of Republicans versus Democrats. He's the one I see that can bring everybody together, work with people, to make a better world, not just a better United States."
Sally Meisinger said she supported Obama because, "He's going to bring change to this country."
"Change on the issues?" I asked.
"Change for the better," she said.
"Change to the system?"
"I think overall change," she responded. "Change in how we think about ourselves, change in how we treat each other and the world, and how the world is going to see us, and just change in every way possible." She paused. "I pray and hope that he has enough support to win in Iowa."
Obama's ability to inspire in this way gives him the opportunity to reach people who traditionally don't participate in politics. Repeatedly, over the course of three Obama campaign stops, I met individuals who said they were planning to caucus for the first time. There were black men in their twenties, single mothers, and high-school and college students, all of whom declared they'd found their way into politics for the first time through the Obama campaign. I even met a few die-hard Obama supporters who had previously been staunch Republicans.
Angela McGee, an attendee at the gymnasium event in Muscatine, tried to herd four small children while she explained that she's supporting Obama because she likes "his personality and his thoughts on health care." Asked if she considered any other candidates, she said, "No, I'm just really, really stuck on Obama." Then she volunteered, with visible pride, "This is actually the first time I've ever voted before. I've never been involved in politics before. I'm doing it for Obama."
David Camp insisted that, though he had been a Republican for 55 years, and still considered himself one, he could reconcile his abundant enthusiasm for Obama because "he's the closest thing to what a true Republican is." Standing on a dock overlooking the Mississippi River in the southeastern town of Burlington after Obama's had addressed supporters, I asked Camp to describe a true Republican. He described someone who bore very little resemblance to Obama. It didn't seem to matter. Asked if he would caucus for Obama, he said, "You bet. The last time I was this excited for a candidate, it was Barry Goldwater."
Senator Obama ends his campaign events with a story about a woman he met in the South who would shout a call-and-response everywhere she went in her small town. "Fired up!" she'd shout. "Fired up!" people would shout back. "Ready to go!" she'd shout. "Ready to go!" people would shout back. Obama encountered this woman on a particularly bad morning and found himself, after a few minutes, surprisingly fired up and ready to go. One voice can change a room, he says. And if it can change a room, it can change a city. "And if it can change a city, it can change a state. And if it can change a state, it can change the nation. And if it can change the nation, it can change the world."
The crowd loves it. Applause begins. "Are you fired up?" Obama yells to his audience, as the applause crescendos. "Are you ready to go?" The cheers are deafening. "Fired up!" he shouts. "Fired up!" the crowd screams back. "Ready to go!" he shouts. "Ready to go!" the crowd roars back.
Afterwards, I caught a young black man—a rarity in Iowa—on his way out of the building. "I'm fired up, baby. I'm ready to go," said Tracy McCampbell, with a huge smile. "I'm caucusing, man. First time! I was one of those people who was sucked into thinking, 'One vote doesn't make a difference, blah blah blah.' But I've changed my mind now, man. I'm ready to go."
Comments
Pragmatism is a word that is often attached to the Clintons.
Yet the pictures of the young Hilary, show a woman ablaze with the desire to make the world a better and more decent place.
Senator Clinton now works and moves in perhaps the most cynical and calculating atmosphere in the world.
As the misstatements at the Drexel debate showed, she is still judged by a more rigourous and critical standard than her opponents.
Nevertheless, behind the big entourage, behind the celebrity, behind the careful scripting, the woman who wants to make the world a better and more decent place still stands out and inspires us.
I believe that beyond the hope that Obama provides people, when you listen to him speak and answer questions, he provides so much more: he *has* the substance. He knows the issues, clearly speaks about what he believes, and unlike Hillary Clinton, can tell us *why* he believes what he believes.
Obama's views are all rooted in a combination of common sense progressive principles and his deep understanding of the constitution. And as the article points out, Obama's way of thinking appeals not only to progressive voters, but quite a few independents and republicans as well, and all the while he never has to triangulate or sell out his principles.
As a woman, I have been told by friends that I should support Hillary Clinton. I have wanted to vote for a woman for president for decades, but she is not the one.
The notion that Obama lacks substance is a shallow, ridiculous media meme. They focus on his style because it's so unusual for a presidential candidate to have style, and they gloss over his substance. Then, based on their own biased coverage, they ask where the substance is. The answer is, it's RIGHT THERE. In any of his many bold, reasonable policy speeches and plans.
Hillary is more about the illusion of substance than substance itself. She's got the best image makeover money can buy, but she's still a bland, status quo candidate. Her list of actual accomplishments and qualifications is thin. Support her if you must, but don't let your reason be that she has substance and Obama does not. That just plain isn't true.
I agree that Hillary's "substance" is an illusion that falls away any time she is asked to explain WHY she feels a certain way. Hillary and W. Bush have the same sort of "substance," hence their agreement on many issues (despite what Clinton would have you believe).
Just because these ridiculous "national" polls tell you she's winning doesn't mean that she is, or that she will, and it doesn't mean you have to vote for her. Any one of the democratic candidates should easily defeat the republican nominee...
I'm baffled and frustrated that voters actually think Clinton is more electable that Obama. For Clinton, electability, along with inevitability, is simply strategic rhetoric. Obama's electability, on the other hand, is tangible. In addition to the many Democratic Party loyalists that support him, there are many Republican, Independent, and previously apolitical individuals who have committed to caucus for him here in Iowa. Clinton, on the other hand, does not share such appeal. While she may be popular and effective within traditional Democratic Party circles, she does not share the nuanced vision and approach to problem-solving that makes Obama such a skilled and popular politician across party lines. These kinds of diplomatic skills not only make him a more electable Democrat, but they will also make him more effective in the White House than Clinton, who (possibly through no fault of her own) is utterly mired in the divisive partisanship that has characterized our government for the past several decades.
Predictions of the next 911 by a Professional Geologist.
www.H2onE2.com Glacial Respiration, Conceptual Ring of Ice, The End of Linear Western Religion
A Geological Exploration of an E2 Earthen Planet And the H2 Human Species
Author: B Billy Marse, Professional Geologist
Brief Description:
www.H2onE2.com is an exploration of the universe, geology, climate, biology, humans, psychology, folklore and ancient structures to uncover the beginning and disclose the end of linear western religion. The true DaVinci Code behind the bible is not a supreme spiritual power but a scientific record of climate change described as Glacial Respiration. The Greek philosophers originated the practice of communicating a hidden idea or message in the short story format, as a metaphor. In the bible, metaphors conceal historic climate change within the fanciful stories. The theory of Glacial Respiration explains the myth behind the Holy Grail, structures such as the Great Pyramids, Stonehenge, Easter Island and is the knowledge that was collected in the Jewish Ark of the Covenant.
The environmental changes of Glacial Respiration determine all biological evolution and can explain why higher forms of intelligent humans developed. Further, Glacial Respiration releases the secret hidden by the Knights Templars, Masonic Order and all religions. Uncovers an advanced Blue-Blooded semi-industrial Atlantian Civilization that was built and destroyed many times over for the last million years. The book ends with an explanation of how linear western religion will be physically ended and describes the construction of the doomsday device capable of fulfilling its own self defining prophesy, “Revelations”. H2onE2 is a mind-expanding experience that stimulates the soul, instinct, intellect and is an almanac to the past, present and future of humanity. Rise, awaken and evolve into H3 human consciousness.
The discovery:
As a Professional Geologist, I attempted to link the Dust Bowl/Great Depression to a pre-glacial condition or mechanism and ended up writing the book H2onE2. I felt that there was a strong connection between the Dust Bowl and transition back into Glacial Winter. I did notice that my professors scientifically crumbled every time I mentioned the relationship. I could not go back in time or locate indisputable proof. The proof came from understanding all educational disciplines including history and theology. I soon discovered that all religious text both eastern and western continually described significant climate change conditions relating to Glacial Respiration. For years I fought off mixing science and religion until I discovered that the origins of all religions were founded or created to help humans psychologically survive the harsh earthen environment. Without reason I soon accepted that the world's complicated religions were the same. This came true and I continued to write and discover. Everything came into place as though I was unlocking a 10,000-year-old puzzle. I also realized this puzzle was opened before I discovered it, by someone else, some other group. If so, further understanding of this knowledge might be extracted from significant historical events. Lastly, this is the vital information needed to make future predictions.
hmnjryz
I will vote for whatever non-Republican candidate is on the ballot next year, but I honestly think the field of Democrats should be broadened to include one more voice, that of Ross ("Rocky") Anderson, Mayor of Salt Lake City. For a taste of his views, read the text of the speech he gave on October 27: http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/110907E.shtml
After reading the speech, read what he's accomplished as mayor:
http://www.slcgov.com/mayor/bio.htm
IMHO, too much attention is being given to the wrong Mormon! (Who knew that Utah could raise a liberal Democrat?)
Obama makes me marvel at his clarity of vision and, therefore his clarity and honesty of communication. My joy at this quality first occurred when the Clinton thugs demanded an apology from Obama when Bob Geldof (who the Clinton's disingenuously referred to as Obama's campaign treasurer) mentioned the Clinton pairs' phenomenal inability to tell the truth, Obama responded with characteristic simplicity and clear-mindedness. He said something to the effect that it was unclear to him why he should apologize for what someone else said. Similarly, when the Clinton's recently compared Obama and Edwards' completely reasonable questioning of Hillary's integrity. Obama said the analogy was "quite a stretch" - which it certainly was. I love Obama because he is clear, direct, honest and phenomenally intelligent. Hillary is a real work-horse but she has none of these qualities that I admire so much in Obama, and which our country so desperately need.
Sorry, that came out totally wrong. Let's try again!
Obama makes me marvel at his clarity of vision and, therefore, his clarity and honesty of communication. My joy at this quality first occurred when the Clinton thugs demanded an apology from Obama when Bob Geldof (who the Clinton's disingenuously referred to as Obama's campaign treasurer) mentioned the Clinton pairs' phenomenal, and consistent, inability to tell the truth. Obama responded with characteristic simplicity and clear-mindedness. He said something to the effect that it was unclear to him why he should apologize for what someone else said. Similarly, when the Clinton's recently compared Obama and Edwards' completely reasonable questioning of Hillary's integrity to the attack of the swift-boaters. Obama said the analogy was "quite a stretch" - which it certainly was. I love Obama because he is clear, direct, honest and phenomenally intelligent. Hillary is a real work-horse but she has none of these qualities that I admire so much in Obama - qualities of which our country is in such desperate need.
You name one Republican candidate that Hillary Clinton can beat that Barack Obama can't. Then I might be willing to settle for Clinton in order to get a Democrat in the White House. As it stands, I see no reason to settle. Barack Obama is smart, principled and he stands for American politics as they could be. Clinton just stands for more of the same with minor revisions.
Anyone casting a vote for Hillary is casting a vote for the GOP.
I don't see her as being electable.
I would never vote for a Candidate that voted as she did on amnesty, I would never vote for anyone who would miss voting on the Attorney General especially one that leans towards torture
http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20071109/cm_thenation/1250258
Shame on Clinton, Obama, Dodd & Biden for skipping out on this crucial vote.
Money seems more important to these candidates than America.
Seems Hillary has skipped almost 50 votes this year though.
If they find the responsibility of carrying out their role as Lawmakers not important, what will they do if elected President?
Shillary Clintoon is about to discover that America, beyond the Oil of Olay demographic, is not really buying into her hype. It's not so much that she's scripted. She's politically hollow, and the Clinton branded shell is not that massively appealing.
I agree with Ruth. It would be nice to be able to vote for a woman, as there are many passionate, brilliant, collaborative, peace-making women who would make great presidents. Unfortunately, Hillary is not one of them. I'm for the passionate, brilliant, collaborative peacemaker, Barack Obama.
I really wish I could like Hillary, I really do. She took a lot of undeserved crap during Bill's Administration, and she hung tough through it all. But now all I see is a woman who will scratch and claw her way to the top, determined to be President at any cost. And that means giving this crazy, nut-job of a President the OK to bomb Iranians if it furthers her political agenda. She's not going to repeal the Patriot Act, she's not going to fix NAFTA, she's not going to bring our troops home. What else will she sellout before it's over?
All this talk of Clinton's electability is frightening. Can anyone name a single state lost by Kerry or Gore that she would win? That is how presidents are elected, state by state, not by national opinion polls, which don't have her ahead by more than the margin of error anyway, despite being the most well known candidate in either party. She also has the highest percentage of people who will not vote for her under any circumstances...an extremely bad sign.
I would like to think that Obama is electable, and certainly he is more so than Clinton, but the red state/blue state test doesn't seem like it helps him much either. How many independents...i.e people who don't already know that they should be Democrats, in the South are going to line up to vote for him. Now compare that number to the number who, openly racist or otherwise, are not going to vote for an African American or who watch Fox news enough to believe he is some sort of Islamo-fascist sleeper cell, Manchurian candidate. The outlook does not seem promising.
Edwards not only seems like he has the best chance to pick up a red state or two, (North Carolina for sure, but maybe also Virginia or Florida which are close to fifty/fifty), but his policies are clearly the most anti-establishment and populist of anyone who has a chance to win (Sorry Dennis). With any luck early primary voters will figure this out, and we will get Edwards at the top of the ticket and Clinton or Obama as a VP.
The Day from Hell, when Bush was elected, will be reversed with the election of either Clinton or Obama, but just as all thinking people knew instinctively (before he proved it) that Bush was an evil, power hungry dictator, so do we know that Clinton can bring this country back from the brink of disaster but Obama can change the world. The passionate support Obama inspires is not accidental or mystical although at times it seems spiritual. There is a newness and clean innocence about Obama, that at the same time is informed and intelligent, knowledgeable and comptent. There is a very real sense that not only is Obama not corrupt, but that he is uncorruptable, and that he has no preconceived hatreds or prejudice. He has the calm, peaceful demeanor of one who has no demons or skeletons to deal with and his strength seems to emmanate from within, not artifially sprayed on as lip service or part of an exterior crutch. He can relax with life because he knows it to be enjoyable and wants the people of the world to have access to freedom from misery, sadness, tragedy, hunger, disease and poverty. Obama understands how government works and he knows how to respect individuals. He sees no discerbanle difference in the cultures, creeds, and colors of world citizens.
He knows the value of educating all cultures and creeds with the concept that there is no need for suffering, that there is no need to lay down the life of a child or young man or woman to protect financial interests of a self elected government leader. That with intelligent planning and cooperaton the citizens of the world can live in harmony, peace and the pursuit of happiness, a right that can and should be guaranteed for all, not a self elected few who want endless and decadent luxury to be their lifestyle and death to those who do not agree.
We, the people of the world are tired of greed, corruption, death and destruction. It is not too early for someone of Obama's nature to lead the world - It is almost too late.
I just think how pittyful the debates will be with a democratic Clinton yelling i am better than you republicans and the republican nominee yelling your just a liberal.
ewww Republican Democratic debates with no substance.
Then Imagine Barack with his wise understanding of so many issues being able to make any republican feel like a grade schooler up against a professional college educated man of experience who won't play the game of back and forth politics.
wow oh wow i long for those debates :)
Geologist discovers link to the next 911 in global warming policy
www.H2onE2.com Glacial Respiration, Conceptual Ring of Ice, The End of Linear Western Religion
A Geological Exploration of an E2 Earthen Planet And the H2 Human Species
Author: B Billy Marse, Professional Geologist
Brief Description:
www.H2onE2.com is an exploration of the universe, geology, climate, biology, humans, psychology, folklore and ancient structures to uncover the beginning and disclose the end of linear western religion. The true DaVinci Code behind the bible is not a supreme spiritual power but a scientific record of climate change described as Glacial Respiration. The Greek philosophers originated the practice of communicating a hidden idea or message in the short story format, as a metaphor. In the bible, metaphors conceal historic climate change within the fanciful stories. The theory of Glacial Respiration explains the myth behind the Holy Grail, structures such as the Great Pyramids, Stonehenge, Easter Island and is the knowledge that was collected in the Jewish Ark of the Covenant.
The environmental changes of Glacial Respiration determine all biological evolution and can explain why higher forms of intelligent humans developed. Further, Glacial Respiration releases the secret hidden by the Knights Templars, Masonic Order and all religions. Uncovers an advanced Blue-Blooded semi-industrial Atlantian Civilization that was built and destroyed many times over for the last million years. The book ends with an explanation of how linear western religion will be physically ended and describes the construction of the doomsday device capable of fulfilling its own self defining prophesy, “Revelations”. H2onE2 is a mind-expanding experience that stimulates the soul, instinct, intellect and is an almanac to the past, present and future of humanity. Rise, awaken and evolve into H3 human consciousness.
The discovery:
As a Professional Geologist, I attempted to link the Dust Bowl/Great Depression to a pre-glacial condition or mechanism and ended up writing the book H2onE2. I felt that there was a strong connection between the Dust Bowl and transition back into Glacial Winter. I did notice that my professors scientifically crumbled every time I mentioned the relationship. I could not go back in time or locate indisputable proof. The proof came from understanding all educational disciplines including history and theology. I soon discovered that all religious text both eastern and western continually described significant climate change conditions relating to Glacial Respiration. For years I fought off mixing science and religion until I discovered that the origins of all religions were founded or created to help humans psychologically survive the harsh earthen environment. Without reason I soon accepted that the world's complicated religions were the same. This came true and I continued to write and discover. Everything came into place as though I was unlocking a 10,000-year-old puzzle. I also realized this puzzle was opened before I discovered it, by someone else, some other group. If so, further understanding of this knowledge might be extracted from significant historical events. Lastly, this is the vital information needed to make future predictions.
I am sure Mr. Obama is a fine young man but Hillary has been through the fire and not only survived but grew in stature. She has been a good and trusted Senator,just ask New Yorkers. oF COURSE SHE STUMBLES, THE WOMAN IS HUMAN,A QUALITY MANY OF YOU FAIL TO PERCEIVE.She has brains, drive and the honest desire to help Americans. Give her a chance,stop listening to the shallow media and think on your feet. Also, dont pin Bill,s stumbles on her;she acted with great dignity on several personally painful occasions and deserves to be viewed on her merits,NOT on gossip and near slanderous remarks. Thanks, Doris Ward
Hillery has no experience, has written no bills in Congress, failed at the Healthcare Bill;handles only the bimbo eruptions, is not a feminist [ check with, Flowers, Jones , Broderick and Lewinsky]. The polls are taken from people who answer the phone, want to tkae part and are screened by zipcode and time of day. Her likabilty factor is less that glowing and she has yet to take a firm stand on anything...Pleeese quit pandering to her.
Getting fired up about Obama is great. He seems like a great man. For, me it is hard to overcome the etreme down of the current administration. I just do not think that it is time for such idealism. This country has a lot of probems with money. It will be hard to do much of anything for U.S. citizens, there is no money left. Bush took all the money and then some. Bush has us so in debt that it will be decades to reduce it.
Between the two candidates, Obama is the one who voted against going to war. Clinton has shown no backbone at all in standing up to this administration. I think she was once a woman who wanted to change the world, but she has fallen into corruption. And Obama is definitely not spotless...as someone pointed out, he didn't show up to vote on the Makasey issue. I've always held mostly Democratic beliefs, but in this election the person who is offering REAL change (like ending the IRS, going back to the Gold Standard, ending the war on drugs, and following the Constitution is Republican hopeful Ron Paul, who has run as a Libertarian before. He's probably too extremem and honest to get elected, but I'm voting in the Primary for him. If he doesn't win, I'll switch back to a Democrat and vote for whomever gets the nomination...again, the best man,IMO, is one that doesn't stand much chance: Dennis Kuccinich.
The difference between Obama and Hillary is people are going to be more judgemental to hillary because she is a woman. It is fact. But, that is no reason that we can not say her views are not correct. You can still have an "open door policy" about her and say you do not agree. My problem with both candidate is they both seem to be beating around the bush on their policies on healthcare.
I live in Illinois and have followed senator Obama since he ran for senator. What people see is the real thing. He has vision and desire to make this country a better place. He was known as a very hard worker and sincere state senator. He actually was not known as an inspiring speaker until he ran for the senate.
But, with Obama, people here in Illinois can tell you that you'd get someone who is incredibly smart and quick, hard working and a person who is focused on people's issues.
I think that the biggest problem with Hillary's campaign is that she is too corporate, too much a smoke and mirrors campaign with little underneath. Wizard of Oz. And she lacks a vision. Why is she running? What is her passion and what does she invision for America and it's people?
I suspect she is running the same as the other nepotism candidate currently in the white house - to win. No other reason but, running to win. It's all very selfserving and selfinvolved.
M. Cox: I am a woman and find it insulting for gullible women to fall into the spin of people are harder on HRc or are against her because she's a woman. My not supporting clinton has nothing to do with gender and frankly to support someone because of it is simply shallow.
I see Nancy Pelosi being accepted or not due to her performance and not gender and frankly, no one cares if someone is male or female running for a job.
I find it amusing that the very same people crying gender don't wonder about race. Why is it that no one cries race or that Obama is being treated harshly because of race.
Because, neither one really matters in this day and age.
Successful women are the norm and widely accepted. No one is threatened. Hillary is not supported because of herself and not due to the spin of gender.
Though she is right, look at Condi Rice. If she ran don't think the republicans wouldn't be thrilled. They would be backing her 100%.
So, please, look to your candidates positions, her corporate leanings and establishment ties. Her DLC mindset and then tell me it's about gender.
If she is the Democratic nominee, I will not support her. She is fraudulently passing off former Pre. Clinton's experience as her own. She strategically became the senator of NY even though she had no real residence there and did so because of her plan to run for president. Without Bill she would not be in the race. Further, she has never contributed anything significantly to his presidency. Name one significant thing she did when she was the First Lady. Finally, one Clinton is enough; it's time to move forward.
In New Hampsire at the infamous 'coffee shop gathering' Senator Clinton said she just doesn't want us to go back. Well electibility is one thing, but sustainability is another. What do you call inviting the kind of press that she and her husband visited on the nation? Must we relive Whitewater, Monica Lowensky and the others who pressed legal charges and be reminded of the near impeachment of the past?
Compare that to a man who, aside from all of his obvious ability, comes to us with no such past.
Now, which candidate do you think is more electible, once the Republicans get through tubbing the nation's noses in the Clinton legacy?
Senator Clinton echos my fervent hope that we don't go back again.
