The biggest irony of the Democratic Party’s best opportunity to take back the White House is that its current front-runner, Hillary Clinton, cannot win the presidential election against almost any Republican opponent that should face her in 2008. A recent survey by Zogby Interactive shows her losing to Rudy Giuliani and other Republican hopefuls, including Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson.
The same Zogby survey shows that Barack Obama and John Edwards would beat out Republican opponents in a race for the White House. Zogby conducts online polls among people who register with them. The polls have a margin of error of one percentage point. More than 9,300 people participated in the latest survey.
Clinton’s questionable electability has been the uncomfortable truth about the Democratic race for the White House. Political correctness has forced Democratic leaders to hold their tongues and hope that somewhere along the way Clinton takes a misstep, saving them from a sure loss. But she has proven remarkably resilient; a quick and tough learner who can hit back when hit, and who defends her turf with greater political savvy and effectiveness than her male counterparts.
She’s not infallible and has sometimes stumbled in answering controversial questions. She also carries more baggage than most Democratic hopefuls. She often comes across as cold and calculating to voters seeking the warm and fuzzy feeling generated by candidates like Obama. But her years of experience give her more horsepower under the hood and faster verbal maneuverability than other candidates in the race. She also has the powerful arsenal of a husband who’s been there and done that. In politics, she may not be a lady, but she's his wife.
A Fade Accompli?
No politician of any party would ever publicly admit that they doubt Clinton can win the race because of her gender – no more than they would ever suggest that Obama also can’t win because of his race. But the situation seems to be resolving itself. Since July, when polls showed Clinton beating out all comers for the White House – Democrats and Republicans – her popularity appears to be waning. Obama and John Edwards are gaining ground on her just five weeks before the crucial first test in Iowa’s Democratic primary.
A recent ABC News/Washington Post poll gives Obama 30% support in Iowa to Clinton’s 26%. John Edwards is still within striking distance at 22%. Obama has also begun to attract powerful endorsements from Democrats such as Al Gore, John Kerry, and Ted Kennedy. He also now has Oprah stumping for him – but Clinton’s got Barbra Streisand.
Still, don’t count Clinton out, yet. While perception is nine-tenth of the vote, Iowa is just the first of many primaries. Clinton still holds a lead over Obama on the national scene. And she’s proven that she never backs away from a good fight, and can slug it out with the toughest of men.
It is very likely that Democratic leaders allowed Clinton to run, in the first place, because they never really expected her to show so strongly – they expected her to create a stir, but never really be a factor in the race. At the end of the day, they figured she’d go gently into that good night, having helped the Democratic Party secure the women’s vote. They looked forward to Obama’s candidacy attracting the Black vote.
Unfortunately, Democrats did not count on the eloquence of Obama to carry him this far – or the toughness of Clinton to keep her from being thrown off the horse.
My vote is on the lady.
--------------------
Mario’s column, Point of Convergence, published to Gather Essentials: Politics, looks at the American political landscape and the people and events that make the news. Mario is a culture trend expert who frequently speaks on cultural, political and social issues that impact modern life. Keep up with Mario’s other postings and Gather activity by joining his Gather network. Just click popculture and select the orange “Connect” button on the left side of the page.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 115
Excellent article and great analysis! The next three months will tell us if Clinton is invincible or not! Frankly, at this point and with the machine and money she has assembled, plus the Bill Clinton at her side, I think she will win the nomination and very well may win the election.
Dick Morris, the conservative analysis, states that Clinton will win and will be our next president. Part of his reasoning is that ten million women will be mobilized to vote who would not vote otherwise and this would certainly tip the scale to Hillary.
Obama is offering a real challenge to her and could prevail after a few primaries. If she does too poorly, I'd look to her support to fall sharply. Edwards is not running just for the fun of it and feels he has a chance if he does well enough in New England and Iowa.
I think it is a horse race but would put my betting money on Hillary. At the same time, if he's on the ballot her by the time it comes around, I'll vote for Edwards. I believe any of the three could be a good president but I also believe that Obama is the least capable of the three, just based on his debate comments and statements. His ideas are good but could he get any traction as a new democratic president. Clinton had problems after he was elected getting the Democratic congress to pass his legislation and I'm sure Obama would be equally ineffective.
I'm afraid that Ms Clinton will win BECAUSE she's a woman (or Obama because he's black). I'm afraid that some "knee-jerk" reactors will pull the metaphorical lever on that basis alone.
I don't want to vote for any woman (make that "any woman"). I want to vote for a capable, focused, astute and empathetic candidate. And if that individual happens to be a woman, so much the better!!
Very good article. I think I'll probably be voting for Fred if no one better comes up.
- J
Oh she can win.....If she and her husband make all kinds of promises to conduct all kinds of back door pardons, money laundering and other underhanded dealings in exchange for political support and the repeated votes of dead people...they can win.
But I don't think they will. America is tired of these two scumbags and will pass on them this time around.
"Do you think Oprah's endorsement of Obama could tip the scales?"
After the tsunami in Asia a couple of years back the American government and people gave hundreds of millions of dollars to help the people who had suffered from it. We gave by far more than any other nation. Oprah then felt it necessary to open her big mouth and sya that we did not give enough and we should all feel guilty. I know it's all the rage to love oprah and kiss her ass 24-7 but that statement she made has stuck with me and always will. It's pretty easy to say shit like that when you have more money then god. it's a completely different thing when you're an average American with 2 kids, a mortgage, two car payments, you're making maybe 60,000 a year and some billionare is telling you that you have to feel giuilty because you didn't give half your paycheck to some people halfway around the world.
Fuck Oprah and fuck that empty suit Obama.
There's the rub slick, in black and white. Look, the machine won't let her lose the primaries, but in the general election ???
Here's why--- SOURCE: Zogby International
The online survey of 9,718 likely voters nationwide showed that 50% said Clinton would never get their presidential vote. This is up from 46% who said they could never vote for Clinton in a Zogby International telephone survey conducted in early March.
Older voters are most resistant to Clinton – 59% of those age 65 and older said they would never vote for the New York senator, but she is much more acceptable to younger voters: 42% of those age 18–29 said they would never vote for Clinton for President.
J.O. - thanks for the compliment on the writing - always appreciate being recognized for doing my homework before I make blanked generalizations!
jJack - you are mellower than normal in your posting. Not sure if the survey info you provided offers any concrete evidence for or against the candidates.
Kay - very good observation about the Republicans sticking to their tried-and-true agenda. You are right that the Democrats look as if they will snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in the presidential election.
Unfortunately, I cannot agree with everything you've written.... Or at least your assessment of everything.
"She often comes across as cold and calculating to voters seeking the warm and fuzzy feeling generated by candidates like Obama."
I think it's less about the warm and fuzzy feeling generated by Obama or Edwards.... But more a disenchanted view of politicians who are cold and calculating that make decisions based on their agendas - we've had that for almost 8 years and too many of us are tired of personal agenda politics.
"But her years of experience give her more horsepower under the hood and faster verbal maneuverability than other candidates in the race."
Last time I checked, being a First Lady didn't really count as "experience." Other than that, she doesn't have many more years in the Senate than Obama. When it is convenient, she claims that she was active behind the scenes of Billy Boy Clinton - but, when inconvenient, she was a First Lady. In my opinion, she can't have it both ways.
"She also has the powerful arsenal of a husband who's been there and done that."
Last night, Charles Gibson talked about this on World News. Bill was speaking for Hillary at some forum and said that he was for Afganistan but always against Iraq - from the beginning. That led to two thoughts: 1.) If Bill was always anti-Iraq invasion yet Hillary still originally voted for it, maybe having him behind her isn't really going to persuade her or guide her as much as many people hope it will. 2.) His position is kind of questionable based on the fact that no one knew he was anti-Iraq invasion. He never said anything until he got to the forum two days ago (which he is being accused of telling the audience what they wanted to hear). Bill is both a potential positive and a potential negative on Hillary's ticket. You cannot avoid seeing both sides.
In general, I am a Democratic woman.... And I could never vote for Hillary Clinton. I am one of those people that she has rubbed the wrong way. And the term "Bush Lite" was very accurate in my opinion (which I know is JUST MY opinion)... But, I am afraid of another 4-8 years of Bush in the house if Hillary is voted in. I would rather take my chances on someone who DOES have a history of working bi-partisanly than have Hillary "leading" our country.
Also, Bill is a positive and negative influence, as you note - but behind the scene he carries a lot of clout in the Democratic party, and much of what happens with politicians in public at the national level is controlled by the party in the back rooms.
Obama is still learning the ropes - but he is a quick study and he is known for working with both sides of the aisle - which is going to be pivotal in the next President. How many Republicans do you think will help Hillary? For that matter, how many Democrats do you think will be willing to help her? She has alienated too many people - perhaps too many people for even Bill to save her now.
From a PR standpoint, neither party wants the people of the U.S. to have an epiphany and realize that the best presidents are those who are honest, hardworking and genuinely committed to bettering society, rather than helping themselves (and their parties) look good at any cost.
It's the harsh truth.
I am 24. In high school, I said I would never vote because my vote didn't matter and they were all corrupt anyways.... Then George W. came along and made me realize that I couldn't not vote. I couldn't not care. I had to do something.... And I did vote - unfortunately, my vote didn't do much and George W. was re-elected. Then Obama came along. And.... If you look at the number of young people - college aged, high school aged, 20-somethings - they are inspired. There is no longer the disenchantment with a corrupt government. There is hope. There is hope that someone can change everything you just commented about our government and our politicians.
I cannot agree more with you on your PR standpoint - but, unfortunately, for many young people (which you said millions of women will turn out to vote because of a woman candidate) they have the inspiration to turn out and vote for the hope that we will have an honest, hardworking and genuinely committed candidate. Obama has given me and my peers that. He has created that epiphany in many of the people of the US.... Now, we just have to re-establish that little bit of faith and hope which will be necessary to make the rest of you realize the epiphany.
Can you tell I'm an Ideal-Realist? : )
I must say that I was surprised by the Zogby Interactive poll, because it was so much different than other head-to-heads. Here is a link to an entry at pollster.com, which also discusses the poll: http://www.pollster.com/blogs/zogby_internet_poll_trial_heat.php
Here's a link to Gallup, and there most recent head-to-heads. Taken at about the same time, it shows Clinton slightly up. http://www.gallup.com/poll/102862/Democratic-Candidates-Look-Good-Latest-2008-Trial-Heats.aspx
As to thought No. 1: It's a no-win for Hillary then, isn't it? She may listen to advice from a master politician . . . but if she takes it . . . then she's just his lil puppet, right? If she doesn't . . . he's no help? A perfect example of the 'I hate Hillary' mindset (Not saying that's you, Lainie), that so many have. They can't explain the hate . . . but there it is.
As to No. 2 . . . perhaps you recall the uproar over President Carter's remarks. Presidents are not to criticize Presidents. What kind of husband would intentionally (essentially) attack his wife, a US Senator, by going public with the disagreement . . . and then get bent over by the raving lunatics who will pounce on him for criticizing the President too? That's the kind of thing political amateurs would do. It would benefit NOBODY.
"it's not about how experienced you are at your job - but how well you handle yourself in front of the media."
Dead-on right Mario! Never doubt this because the media is a force to be reckoned with from before DAY 1! The give and take of politics is one thing . . . but the power of the (corporate elite who own) the press doesn't take prisoners. ...And this is a press with a decidedly conservative agenda despite the lunatic fringe who constantly call it a liberal press. Whatever happened to that story about George "Protecting Texas from the VietCong" Bush deserting from the military during a war?? Dan Rather stands by his story to this day. If it were Clinton (often erroneously referred to as a 'draft dodger') you KNOW we'd be dogging that story for freekin' ever!
"I'd rather have someone with less "experience being in the political limelight". "
The media is a tool . . . less experience equates to less power. Simple as that.
Great to hear about the resurgence of hope among the youth in colleges, Lainie . . . They are more of the future than you can imagine.
Idrealist . . . :)
I like it.
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
If a President is not to speak out against a President and the husband should support his wife, the Senator, why do you think he all of a sudden opened his yapper two days ago and went against the President AND his wife?
Doyle, a lot of good insight in your comments. I really can't add to it, since you've covered most topics well.
- J
------ Until Barack Obama enters stage right.
In the matter of Bill saying he would never have gone into Iraq and Hillary voting to give the current president permission, we are talking about two different things, a vote for a resolution and taking the action of making a physical invasion of Iraq. A person might well have voted for the resolution simply to give the president the needed authority to pressure Saddam into compliance. Without that permission he had little leverage, unilaterally.
And, a reasonable person voting for the resolution would have had no belief that Bush would have used the resolution without following allowing the UN the time to continue their inspections and to fully analyze the material released by Saddam about his programs.
Bill can look at the situation and recognize that reason was not involved and that Bush prematurely attacked Iraq, therefore, Bill is truthful in stating that he would not have followed that path.
So this does nothing to negate the idea that they are both being truthful at this time and would, in fact, work closely together on many matters. However, that said, I do believe that if Hillary and Bill disagreed on an action, we would see the action that Hillary believed was correct!
I really dislike her. No reason. She hasn't done anything. I guess that's reason enough. If electing her president is based on her sticking by her man, I know lots of woman who can fill that bill and are bigger bi*ches than she. Take me for example.
I'm betting on Hillary because I believe she can overcome the negatives.
Great article, Mario.
Hillary sucks.
She is no better than O. J. Simpson, except he was accused of only 2.
She lies.
I am fed up with WOMEN speaking of her as representing ME because she has a uterus.
She no more represents me than Paris Hilton, or any other female, and as far as I know she may NOT have a uterus!
Who do other women think THEY are telling ME who represents ME, Especially when they do NOT know ME, never have, and NEVER SHALL!
IF through some act of SATAN Hillary gets the Democratic nomination, well ----- primarily because of the Iraq War,
but also because of Democrats assuming she shall get the Black vote (meaning mine),
and because of WOMEN preaching to me and pushing GUILT TRIPS about HILLARY representing ME as the resurrection of MOTHER EVE and the GODDESS of WOMEN by virtue of her having a uterus. I never knew certain women were so desperate for a female hero that they would stoop to the likes of a Hillary Rodham Clinton, and then try to shove her down the throats of people like me who keep saying NO NO NO!
I shall NOT vote for her.
I would vote for David Dukes before I voted for Hillary Clinton.
The fanatics need to lay off, go somewhere sit down and
SHUT UP!
THEY are alienating a large faction of us who do not want to be FORCED in a country where we Blacks have been FORCED for TOOOOOOOOOOOO LONG!
Please do not approach me about Hillarious again. She is politically wretched, a death knell for this country and within her own self, pathetic.
Are you starting to see it now?
Hillary will NOT win against a Republican.
If you want to see why we went to Iraq, follow this link:
Michael Yon - Bipartisan War Correspondent
We lived there. I know first hand what was being done to the Iraqi people. I'm glad the Iraqi people don't know what so many Americans really think about being there. Makes me ashamed of being American. The majority of Iraqi see us as bucking the whole world to rescue them from a dictator worse than Hitler. Check out the link and see what I mean.
- J
Mario;
Exactly what experience are you referring to?
Hillary has no executive experience.
Hillary has a lackluster legislative record at best, with no proven leadership abilities in the Senate after more that seven years. She has no significant legislation that she has written, sponored or championed. She has held no leadership positions in either the minority or majority.
Hillary's lone foray into policy making was a dismal failure, quite possibly a major contributing factor to the Republican takeover of the House of Representatives after 40 years.
It seems to me the only experience she has is that she sleeps in Bill's bed. With that being the case, there are a bevy of bimbos that are just as qualified as Hillary ... and none of them are qualified to be President.
LadyNalida, your passion is palpable. Your feelings toward Hillary are basically reflective of a lot of women in the country. They hate her. For no specific reason. They just hate her.
While I believe Hillary is electable, I do not feel comfortable with the gamble this implies, and I think the country would be far better off with Biden who has more experience than any of them except for Dodd, but has exhibited more leadership skills than Dodd. Hillary and Obama are both spoilers for the Democrats, they are too big a gamble and they do not have the experience, and Hillary ... for God's sake, why do we need to alternate between Presidents Bush/Clinton for 16 damn years! Ugh .... that is terrible.
I would rather vote for a Republican than Obama. As far as I'm concerned he is an inexperienced stuffed shirt. Obama's popularity just shows how desperate Democrats are, it certainly does not highlight any thinking ability.
In my opinion, which is a woman's point of view.... (Although not really why I dislike her.) I believe that for soooo many years, women have accepted the fact that the President doesn't necessarily reflect who they are or what they believe. It's difficult for the President to accurately reflect me as a middle-class woman when all of our Presidents have been upper (or upper middle) class men. Now, we are ready for a President that really reflects who we are - the nation has accepted the idea of a woman in the White House (at least most of the nation has accepted the idea). But, Hillary Clinton does not accurately reflect the average woman. She does not have the same values. She does not have the same morals. She does not have ANYTHING in common with ANY woman I know. So, while the nation is ready to have someone that reflects women as the leader, Hillary Clinton is NOT that person, so we cannot support her.
I don't disagree that women and men are ready for a woman in the White House, but I think people need to be a little more honest with themselves and admit that what they mean is they're ready to accept a woman who behaves more womanly - the idea being sweeter, more demure, softer voice. But, to be fair, the equation also fits on the opposite side. People accept a man in the White House - as long as he behaves like a man - meaning, they will not accept an openly gay man in the White House who exhibits any overtly feminine behavior.
What I'm saying (and I was having a hard time wording it) is that for our first time to have someone that TRULY reflects me as a woman in the White House, I want to take advantage of that opportunity and get the perfect woman that reflects more women. I don't want to waste this opportunity and put a woman in there just because she knows what it's like to bleed once a month. I want to put a woman in there that actually reflects the majority of women - otherwise, there is really no reason for me to vote for a woman because she's a woman. If someone that doesn't really reflect a woman is going to be in office (whether female or not), I'll vote for someone that reflects ME more accurately - which is why I don't like Hillary. She doesn't reflect ME or my interests accurately, she is a woman but she doesn't reflect ME as a woman so her gender is negated. Now I look at the issues: She more closely reflects George W. with personal agendas than she reflects me.
Waiting for the perfect politician to come along is like looking for "Mr./Mrs. Right" at a bar. Your chances of meeting that person in such an environment are very small.
I'm not not voting for Hillary because she's not my kind of woman. That was just a woman's point of view - which I think is more accurate than the "she's a manly woman" idea. I'm not voting for her because after taking out the gender thing because her gender is really meaningless because she offers nothing beyond what any of the men offer, I don't like her calculated-ness. I don't like how she is cold and flip-floppity. I don't like how she will do anything to advance herself and her agenda because honestly, I'm sick of the last 8 years of the same thing. I want something different for the next Presidential term and she is not different from Bush (in my opinion). If she reflected the average woman more accurately, I think her gender would play more of a role.... But, since she doesn't, it's just a moot point and another possible reason for women to hate her.
And.... I laughed at your Mr./Mrs. Right at a bar because I met my husband at a bar. : ) So... While the chances are small, I am willing to take that chance - and it worked out for me so I know maybe the opportunities with smaller chances are more fruitful. I will vote for someone with less of a chance that seems more fruitful for our country and the world.
Also, glad to hear you found your "right" in the "wrong" place! Have you ever asked him what he was "really" doing there?!
THAT is exactly what I'm saying about Clinton. Just because she has the same genitals does not give me anything different than the candidates that have different genitals. She is exactly like them so her vagina is irrelevant.
And, he was there drinking.... And I was there working. It just worked. : )
George, can't argue with the poll. Zogby is a respected organization. That said, every poll can have a thousand interpretations, so we have to take their results as food for thought and not necessarily hard evidence.
Glad it was clear that time. : )
Why don't you just pay attention to the issues/responses/likability/etc?
"But I don't think they will. America is tired of these two scumbags "- Dana B.
"Hillary has no executive experience. It seems to me the only experience she has is that she sleeps in Bill's bed."- David B.
Are you two married and stupid?
I don't support Hillary, but I definitely respect her YEARS and YEARS of experience in politics:
In 1965, Rodham enrolled in Wellesley College, where she majored in political science
Rodham was invited by Representative Charles Goodell, a moderate New York Republican, to help Governor Nelson Rockefeller's late-entry campaign for the Republican nomination.
In the summer of 1970, she was awarded a grant to work at Marian Wright Edelman's Washington Research Project, where she was assigned to Senator Walter Mondale's Subcommittee on Migratory Labor, researching migrant workers' problems in housing, sanitation, health and education;
She began her career as a lawyer after graduating from Yale Law School in 1973
she was named the first female partner at Rose Law Firm in 1979 and was listed as one of the one hundred most influential lawyers in America in 1988 and 1991
Rodham co-founded the Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families, a state-level alliance with the Children's Defense Fund, in 1977. In late 1977, President Jimmy Carter (for whom Rodham had done 1976 campaign coordination work in Indiana) appointed her to the board of directors of the Legal Services Corporation
Clinton was elected to the United States Senate in 2000, the first time an American first lady ran for public office and the first female senator from that state
Clinton has served on five Senate committees: Committee on Budget (2001–2002), Committee on Armed Services (since 2003), Committee on Environment and Public Works (since 2001), Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions(since 2001) and Special Committee on Aging. She is also a Commissioner of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe (since 2001).
UHHHH....check out Mit Romney's experience.
I can understand even black women being so fed up with the system that they want to protest.
It is so ingrained into women to be submissive that they resent any other women who tries to be a leader against men. Do women thing they are doing their men a favor by being anti-Hillary.
As to the Republican candidates I have watched each debate twice and I think they are all insane, or at least all trying to appeal to people who are all insane.
Anytime a question about the war or security comes up Rudolph G. starts pacing around in the background to jump on it.
McCain starts in with the "we could have won in Viet Nam".
Then Ron Paul comes in with some truth, and his peculiar spin
but he is right on the facts of Viet Nam ... and then he gets
booed by the idiot Republicans for being sympathetic to the
Arabs/Muslims who just want us out of their countries ...
presumably so they can kill each other better.
Hillary sounds clear and like a leader compared to this, and any
waffling the Democrats have done is because anyone has got to
a bit nervous to try to break through the fantasy programming
many if not most Americans have.
Personally I am sympathetic the Republican point that Iraq and
Afghanistan, the so-called war against terror has to be won, but
look at the incompetence and corruption that has been even more
important to the Republicans than making headway in the war.
I know and talk to a lot of foreigners, from France, Germany,
Britian, Canada, Israel, the Middle East, the Far East, and I do
not get why Americans put up with the lives we do.
Stress, bad food, toxic chemicals are killing us. The fact that we
are underpaid, get practically no vacation, and less and less
health care compared to the countries we want to think we
are so much better than is a joke, let alone education, let
alone enough information to be good citizens of a democracy
and pursue America's best interest.
I think too many of you guys are chalking it up to women's subconcious roles. Honest, I would rather have a strong woman in office than someone submissive. But, above a strong woman in office, I want a woman that reflects the majority of women - which Hillary does not. She has body parts that reflect the majority of women - but that's where the reflections end.
As you saw, I made the same mistake. In your defense, you've convinced me that your reasoning comes from a very credible perspective and has nothing to do with "emotional issues." However, as you see here, you're challenged with having to defend yourself every time you express your opinion on this issue.
You should consider doing an article on this, because I think it's important to recognize the distinction and too many women's opinions are simply being dismissed by men because they automatically assume that a woman disliking Hillary is a hormonal thing.
If you follow through on my suggestion, hower, be ready for the fireworks!
You know NOTHING of my socioeconomic status -- whether I am poor or middle-class. As a matter of fact, you do not EVEN know if I AM Black, since there are people on this site sporting Black faces who are not Black, I could be one of them.
That being said, unless you ARE Black, listening to a talk-show program does not qualify, and since you are from the Bay Area or claim to be, maybe you have listened to Ron Owens. On his show recently (about 2 weeks ago, he gave a listener a good piece of his mind for the very thing you just did.
What was that?
Trying to speak for the Black race simply because he lived in a Black neighborhood in Berkeley and knew Black people.
Ron Owens called the person who had called in, an "Idiot" and told the man he would not speak with him any longer!
I suspect he would tell you the same thing, YOU who try to tell people what you KNOW about Black people. I would wager you could fit the number of your Black friends in the trunk of your vehicle and still have room for the Republican elephant.
YOU KNOW NOTHING!
I had to remove myself from the situation for a second.... And, you're right. While I was thinking about it.... The guys that continue to clump all of us women as a bunch of submissive, issue-ridden, emotional, intellectually incapable voters, are just as bad as the group of submissive, issue-ridden, emotional, intellectually incapable women voters.....
You are stuck in society's stereotypes of women. And, if there is one group of females that don't like Clinton because she's too "manly" or she doesn't wear skirts often enough, it doesn't mean we are all like that. You continually dismiss the logical ones because you cannot see past the stereotypes yourselves. So.... Mario, maybe you're right. Maybe I should write my own article about it... Unfortunately, I understand the probability of being dismissed as one of the emotional women before actually reading my rationale is much higher than the chance that I'll be taken seriously.
As I said before, I'm all about the option with lesser odds. I'll let you know when my article is up. : )
I'm leery of anyone who professes to speak for any group--race, gender, ethnicity, etc. The categories are never homogeneous.
You made me recognize something important: There is no clear-cut candidate, and never will be, because we all look for something different. You don't care about likability..... That's not what you're looking for. Well.... I'm looking for someone that is different. I want someone that is unlike the others (at least slightly unlike the others). And more importantly, someone that is unlike George W. Unfortunately, Hillary Clinton is too much like George W. in my opinion.
(THAT WAS A JOKE FOR ALL YOU GUYS THAT THINK WOMEN DON'T LIKE HER BECAUSE SHE'S TOO MANLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!)
Mario A., Nov 30, 2007, 12:09am EST
Mario,
The question shouldn't be "Can she be elected?" The most important question is, "Should she be elected?"
Personally, I don't think she can be elected. Based upon my prior comment, I also don't think she should be elected. Experience before the media's lights is not a qualification to be the titular head of the free World.
His search for voters is getting deseperate.
You've described a very viable reason why you don't support Hillary. However, it does not translate to an irrational hatred. If you don't want her for the first female president that's understandable, but others who don't want her express outrage and hatred like they had been personally wronged by her.
From my standpoint as a man, I don't care what kind of genitals the president has. Looking at issues, experience, overall personality and other factors will give me a decision as to who I want in there and I, unlike you, don't care whether the first female president represents the average woman. In fact, if the candidate is the epitomy of the average woman, I suspect that candidate is as far as she will go! Let me ask you, if you look at your "average woman" next door and think about the question, is she qualified and would make a good president? In some cases, the answer might well be yes, but they also have to be out there working for it.
If a woman exhibits the traits and characteristics of a good president, it would obviously remove her from being acceptable to you as the first woman president, because being strong, determined, agenda driven would also make her come off as harsh, mean spirited, cold and aloof, traits that you don't mind so bad ina man!
As to some of your other detailed thought, I'd agree that Hillary is the closest thing to a Republican running on the Democratic ticket. I'd also agree that she is pro-business and somewhat hawkish. These are the traits needed to get the majority of votes in the general election. This country is neither left wing or right wing but well into the middle of the road.
I appreciate your responses to Mario as they helped me to understand your perspective much better.
You've been listening to Bush too much. The US Presidency doesn't include the title "Head of the Free World" whether the position is real or symbolic. It's arguable whether or not our current president is Head of the US.
great article and very good analysis...this will be one of the more interesting elections before it's through....
Do you know how many women are in positions of "independent and intelligent women in charge, taking a 'mans' place and possibly doing a better job"?
The last time I checked, the women that were so afraid of a female that wasn't home baking cookies were the minority. I cannot believe that you would give that minority as much credit as you did in your comment. You and the men that believe women are stuck in stereotypical female roles (subconsciously and thusly acting out on Hillary) are the ones that are trying to keep women in those submissive roles - not the actual women that are trying to be leaders.
I reviewed the discussion Bruce and the fellow were having, along with the way they were treating the others, and made a decision -- my right. Rather than to continue having others mistreated I removed the article, problem settled. Vacation plans could commence. . . .
Did you really think the article was GONE? No, dearie.
YOUR problem was that you had some idealistic view of HILLARY and womanhood that you were espousing and got slammed.
Too bad.
I will not waste my time addressing your other comments.
Your mouth is speaking volumes for you. Keep talking, Kay.