Mark F. Barnes Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 I think she was having a minor meltdown, I think the Iowa Caucus caught her way off guard. Somewhere between her ego and her disillusion of grandeur, she thinks she has an easy walk into the White-house because she sold a lot of books and the Riff Raff in NYC like her enough to elect her. And the competition on the Republican side is barely showing ability to maintain cerebral activity. I think she got a rude awakening to reality. I guess she thinks people have short term memories when it comes to all the events during the last Clinton Administration tenure. Barack is going to be a big surprise to a lot of folk I feel. I figure any day now the mud slinging will step up and Clinton will hit him hard with the personal attacks. It's really all she has to work with, because she can't really stick to pushing her views and agendas, because she really has none, and hasn't stuck to her guns on one issue to date. I figure them to start riding the no hand on his heart malarkey any time now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
musicman Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 Barack is going to be a big surprise to a lot of folk I feel. I figure any day now the mud slinging will step up and Clinton will hit him hard with the personal attacks. which clinton? LOL seems like bill was doing that well on monday. yeah it's all about change. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KinkaidAlum Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 People/Pundits/Media types keep harping on the tear factor. I really don't think that moment of "humanity" was that big of a deal. What I do think was a big deal was the fact that she was heckled about 2-3 days before the Primary in New Hampshire by a group of men that held sexist signs and chanted at her things like "Iron My Shirt" and "Clean My House."Her response was along the lines of "Ah, sexism is alive in well in 2008" or something like that.That exchange got a lot of media play in New England. I am thinking that single event of heckling may have turned women back in her direction. You have to think about this from a liberal/prgressive feminist point of view. Hillary isn't really that appealing other than her having the right hormones. She certainly isn't the most progressive (Kucinich) or liberal (Obama) or social reformist inclined (Edwards) and her points of view on the war and other things aren't really energizing the "base." I honestly think her "standing up" for herself and other women was a much bigger deal than her almost shedding a tear. However, the tear factor certainly makes for better tv. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sevfiv Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 Caucus blog from NYT:http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/07/iron-my-shirt/“Iron my shirt!” yelled a man, who stood up in the middle of a jammed and stuffy auditorium at a high school in Salem, N.H., and held up a yellow sign with the same text. He repeated it over and over.Mrs. Clinton asked for the lights to be turned on, and the shirt man was removed along with another man who had stood up too.“Oh, the remnants of sexism are alive and well,” Mrs. Clinton said. and NYT article about the "percieved sexism"http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/10/us/politics/10women.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
musicman Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 People/Pundits/Media types keep harping on the tear factor. I really don't think that moment of "humanity" was that big of a deal. What I do think was a big deal was the fact that she was heckled about 2-3 days before the Primary in New Hampshire by a group of men that held sexist signs and chanted at her things like "Iron My Shirt" and "Clean My House."Her response was along the lines of "Ah, sexism is alive in well in 2008" or something like that. when the polls came out later and obama was ahead, bill was on the news saying how the media treats them unfairly, how barack wouldn't be good for this country, etc. we need change, we need my wife hillary clinton! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KatieDidIt Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 Everyone was talking about the tear on Wednesday. Or to be more precise, about the near-tear. Was it for real?Women who've spent years in Texas politics said yes, they believe Hillary Clinton when she came perilously close to shedding a tear on the campaign trail earlier this week.full articleHAIF ladies...comments?IMHO, If she actually was close to a tear it was because she was mad not sad. Of course hubby and I yelled "FAKER" at the TV when she did her "emotional" speech. But to give her the benefit of the doubt, maybe she really was about to cry. But it was more about her frustration level, not her concern about the country. Women often cry when they are really really mad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lockmat Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 "Iron My Shirt" and "Clean My House."Ok, I'm totally against that, but still...that's funny. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jscarbor Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 That response by Hillary was a little contrived really? Anyway as Republican I hope she wins, I really think she is more beatable than Obama. My personal rank of the dems in order of like would probably be:Richardson (gone)ObamaBiden (no chance)Kucinich (no chance)Edwards CintonAs a republican, its hard for me to get behind these guys right now. I would personally have to go McCain(many hard core repubs will not get behind him) then Romney. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
northbeaumont Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 Everyone was talking about the tear on Wednesday. Or to be more precise, about the near-tear. Was it for real?Women who've spent years in Texas politics said yes, they believe Hillary Clinton when she came perilously close to shedding a tear on the campaign trail earlier this week.full articleHAIF ladies...comments?Kevin Brady, the representative for my district, said that he believes there's a 90% chance that the Texas votes won't mean anything because its primary isn't until March 4, and that the nominees of both parties will most likely be known after Super Tuesday on February 5. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vertigo58 Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 Don't like any of the ones running right now. Rather stick to this old fav. Not too finicky either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fringe Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 Emotional breakdown? I can't stand Billary but I believe the media might be going a little overboard (again). Jon Stewarts take of emotional breakdown Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rapturematt Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 I think I am going to vote for Al Gore. He is running right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trae Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 People/Pundits/Media types keep harping on the tear factor. I really don't think that moment of "humanity" was that big of a deal. What I do think was a big deal was the fact that she was heckled about 2-3 days before the Primary in New Hampshire by a group of men that held sexist signs and chanted at her things like "Iron My Shirt" and "Clean My House."Her response was along the lines of "Ah, sexism is alive in well in 2008" or something like that.That exchange got a lot of media play in New England. I am thinking that single event of heckling may have turned women back in her direction. You have to think about this from a liberal/prgressive feminist point of view. Hillary isn't really that appealing other than her having the right hormones. She certainly isn't the most progressive (Kucinich) or liberal (Obama) or social reformist inclined (Edwards) and her points of view on the war and other things aren't really energizing the "base." I honestly think her "standing up" for herself and other women was a much bigger deal than her almost shedding a tear. However, the tear factor certainly makes for better tv.I personally think that thing was staged (the sexist signs), to make Hillary look good (her comment afterwards). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
west20th Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 Don't like any of the ones running right now.Rather stick to this old fav. Not too finicky either. But he used to be. Another flip-flopper like Romne. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNiche Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 I personally think that thing was staged (the sexist signs), to make Hillary look good (her comment afterwards).I suspected as much, myself. Great guerilla campaigning, gotta say. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewMND Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 Hillary would definately mobilize the Republicans to go out and vote against her. If it's not Hillary as the candidate, I don't see there being a high enough voter turnout on the Republican side to beat the Democrats, none of the Republican candidates are getting their party as excited as Obama and Hillary are for the Dems. Hillary would get many Republicans to vote against her, instead of voting for the Republican candidate because they like him. But as long as Edwards stays in the race, he seems to help Hillary, since him and everyone else are splitting the Anyone-But-Hillary vote. If he wasn't in the race in New Hampshire, Obama would have most likely gotten a lot of Edwards votes, giving him the win. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
northbeaumont Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 Hillary would definately mobilize the Republicans to go out and vote against her. If it's not Hillary as the candidate, I don't see there being a high enough voter turnout on the Republican side to beat the Democrats, none of the Republican candidates are getting their party as excited as Obama and Hillary are for the Dems. Hillary would get many Republicans to vote against her, instead of voting for the Republican candidate because they like him. But as long as Edwards stays in the race, he seems to help Hillary, since him and everyone else are splitting the Anyone-But-Hillary vote. If he wasn't in the race in New Hampshire, Obama would have most likely gotten a lot of Edwards votes, giving him the win.I can't believe how John Kerry shunned John Edwards, his running mate four years ago, by endorsing Barrack Obama. I voted for Kerry. I guess he's an opportunist. When a lot of people see their preferred candidate running behind in the polls, they line up behind someone who is doing better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark F. Barnes Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 I can't believe how John Kerry shunned John Edwards, his running mate four years ago, by endorsing Barrack Obama. I voted for Kerry. I guess he's an opportunist. When a lot of people see their preferred candidate running behind in the polls, they line up behind someone who is doing better.People said he was a turncoat back then and now you see him for what he is. What's the big surprise? Kerry has always been an opportunist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westguy Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 Kerry and Edwards were opponents in the primaries, and it is doubtful that they ever became friends. The choice of a running mate is purely strategic. As I remember it, Bush and Reagan did not like one another at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rapturematt Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 We all know that Kerry is a flip flopper anyhow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedScare Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 We all know that Kerry is a flip flopper anyhow.Like this means something. I seem to recall a certain candidate who was very vocal in his disdain for "nation building". Next thing you know, he's sending the Army all over the Middle East, attempting to do just that...badly, I might add. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vertigo58 Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 But he used to be. Another flip-flopper like Romne. The cat's meow right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNiche Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 Like this means something. I seem to recall a certain candidate who was very vocal in his disdain for "nation building". Next thing you know, he's sending the Army all over the Middle East, attempting to do just that...badly, I might add.Of course flip-flopping means something, and it isn't good. I'd think that that'd be obvious to you, considering the example you provided. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
northbeaumont Posted January 14, 2008 Share Posted January 14, 2008 Kerry and Edwards were opponents in the primaries, and it is doubtful that they ever became friends. The choice of a running mate is purely strategic. As I remember it, Bush and Reagan did not like one another at all.And from what I've read, Kennedy and Johnson didn't care much for each other, either. Kennedy simply wanted to carry Texas. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedScare Posted January 14, 2008 Share Posted January 14, 2008 Of course flip-flopping means something, and it isn't good. I'd think that that'd be obvious to you, considering the example you provided.There is actually a difference between flip flopping and changing one's mind. Kerry and Bush are not really flip floppers, as a flip flopper changes his mind, then changes back. Changing one's mind is not necessarily a bad thing, if more information shows your original position to be flawed. I really only pointed out Bush's "flip flop" to show the uselessness of political catchphrases...at least to those who are actually interested in substance. I readily admit their value to those who only use labels to select candidates. My current favorite is the use of "conservative" by the Republican candidates, when virtually everyone has a different definition of the term. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
liammclaren Posted January 14, 2008 Share Posted January 14, 2008 "flip-flopping" is just a nice way of saying that none of them actually believe anything and will say and do whatever it takes to get elected. It's not about principle; they have none. it's about power, and how badly they want it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNiche Posted January 14, 2008 Share Posted January 14, 2008 There is actually a difference between flip flopping and changing one's mind. Kerry and Bush are not really flip floppers, as a flip flopper changes his mind, then changes back. Changing one's mind is not necessarily a bad thing, if more information shows your original position to be flawed.While not necessarily a bad thing, inconsistency is a red flag, in particular when it correlates with polls, and especially when it is not a decision such as to go to war or not but on what a core value ought to be.I really only pointed out Bush's "flip flop" to show the uselessness of political catchphrases...at least to those who are actually interested in substance. I readily admit their value to those who only use labels to select candidates. My current favorite is the use of "conservative" by the Republican candidates, when virtually everyone has a different definition of the term.Likewise, with "change" and "hope". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedScare Posted January 14, 2008 Share Posted January 14, 2008 (edited) Likewise, with "change" and "hope".LOL! So true. I saw Fred Thompson calling himself an agent of change. Huh? Change of what? Apparently, from "T for Texas" to "T for Tennessee". Edited January 14, 2008 by RedScare Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNiche Posted January 14, 2008 Share Posted January 14, 2008 LOL! So true. I saw Fred Thompson calling himself an agent of change. Huh? Change of what? Apparently, from "T for Texas" to "T for Tennessee".I like Fred, actually. He's pretty good at leaving out the religious rhetoric and is more convincing than perhaps any other candidate than Ron Paul in that he intends to curtail government spending. That'd be a pretty decent kind of change as far as I'm concerned.It's the use of the word "change" without putting forth a very clear political philosophy to back it up that scares me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
musicman Posted January 14, 2008 Share Posted January 14, 2008 It's the use of the word "change" without putting forth a very clear political philosophy to back it up that scares me. don't knock the clintons. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.