New Hillary Mailer In New Hampshire: "Ready"
Check out the new, and very long, mailer that Hillary has just dropped in New Hampshire to push her "experience" argument:
The missive has page after page detailing the things Hillary is "ready" for, such as ending the Iraq War and providing universal health care for all. It concludes, "Hillary Clinton: Ready to lead." See the rest after the jump.
Comments (95)
DTM wrote on December 11, 2007 11:42 AM:The issues portion is playing to her strengths and is probably helpful.
I am a little more skeptical about the biographical/resume portion. Maybe it is just me, but I am not sure the material presented really backs up the claim "35 years of unmatched experience, accomplishment, and commitment", and highlighting her failed attempt to overhaul our health care system as First Lady (with a picture no less) strikes me as an odd choice.
M wrote on December 11, 2007 11:42 AM:Another thing Hillary is "ready" for:
A return or re-run of the American monarchy.
Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton sets a dangerous precedent for this country. Can Jeb wait eight years to make it a "quin-fecta?"
In a vote between an Anglo-Saxon and a minority candidate, I'm always going to lean towards the minorities. I think 43 Anglo-Saxon Protestant males (less JFK) is enough.
Jeremy wrote on December 11, 2007 11:44 AM:Hillary hasn't seemed ready to perform well in the general election considering the number of gaffes and flubs she's made just when it matters most in this primary season. Nothing in this mailer answers the question of how Hillary's experience informs her judgment. She takes a step in the right direction by talking about some of her legislative accomplishments. Unfortunately, on the metric of accomplishment she comes up short of Obama and the other candidates. Obama actually has more experience than her holding public office and has passed more and more significant legislation on tougher issues. The other candidates can say the same. For critical and informed voters, I can't imagine a mailer like this having much impact.
AlwaysTiptheWaitress wrote on December 11, 2007 11:45 AM:The amount of paper resources she is consuming is another reason to vote against her... (Joke)
Seriously. I don't get it. I did a literature drop in my neighborhood for the 2006 election. This reminded me how appalled I was by the amount of Hillary stuff I had to drop for her campaign. I don't know what it is like at your houses/aapartment, but this stuff goes directly to the recycling bin at mine.
She forgot to mention that we wouldn't need her "experience" to help end the Iraq War if she hadn't helped start it in the first place.
cms wrote on December 11, 2007 11:49 AM:Nice piece. I'm sure it will be effective.
Jenny wrote on December 11, 2007 11:50 AM:Does anyone know what company produced this mailer for Senator Clinton?
ihatebeets wrote on December 11, 2007 11:57 AM:This is a lovely, slick and shiny mailer which I'm sure cost a lot of money to produce. I'm not sure it will move anyone to vote for her that isn't already in her camp. There is a difference between experience and leadership - in my opinion, Hillary is not a leader. She has not introduced much in the way of legislation, but rather elects to sign on to bills authored by others once they seem to be gaining some traction. While some describe her as cautious or trying to run a textbook campaign, I see her as timid and calculating and deeply afraid of making a mistake. I wish Hillary were more of a leader. I don't know, maybe the bludgeoning she took back in the 90's when she tried to push universal health care afraid makes her reluctant to take a bold stand on anything. I'm left with a "so what" feeling about her so far tepid campaign.
DTM wrote on December 11, 2007 11:58 AM:Following up a bit on my prior comment, I just looked at the pictures alone, without the words. Here is a summary of what the pictures show:
#1 Hillary being raised in a tradional family.
#2 Hillary marries Bill Clinton.
#3 Hillary raises Chelsea.
#4 Hillary with Bill as First Lady of Arkansas.
#5 Hillary as First Lady of the United States meeting children in foreign countries.
#6 Hillary meeting more children in foreign countries.
#7 Hillary as First Lady at a podium promoting her health care plan.
#8 Hillary as First Lady back to meeting children.
#9 Hillary as First Lady meeting some more children.
#10 Hillary as Senator meets with a senior.
#11 Hillary as Senator poses with some firemen.
#12 Hillary meets with another senior.
Hmmm.
bridoc wrote on December 11, 2007 12:01 PM:I completely agree with Jeremy, her "experience" is fluff, and it obviously doesn't inform her judgment (Iraq, Iran, fool me once, fool me twice..). She constantly attacks Obama on experience (threw the first negative attack of the campaign calling him "naive"), yet his experience (and judgment) is much more impressive. Out of everyone in the race, she has the least amount of experience, so it is odd that she calls her experience "unmatched"; however, I suppose "unmatched" is technically correct, as no other candidate has been married to a president. I think everyone saying Jeb will run next is wrong, obviously Laura Bush is the most experienced GOPer for the job.
PS: Why doesn't Obama play up his over ten years of experience teaching constitutional law? I think after what the Bush administration has done to the constitution over the last seven years, we NEED our next president to be a constitutional law scholar.
JMChicago wrote on December 11, 2007 12:05 PM:The media just likes to play out her campaign "Gaffes" more than the others. The latest was a rebuttal. Some folks are stumping off of information in tabloid books about her plan to be president. They stumped it, she had a rebuttal. The press ceases to remind us of that.
This is a great ad for Hillary. She has done a lot of GREAT work for New York. And they ain't all liberal, people. Go ask the emergency responders, veterans, and farmers of her state what they think about her and Schumer. They do GREAT WORK! They ACT and get things done. I wish she was my Senator - but, I live in Illinois.
dcshungu wrote on December 11, 2007 12:12 PM:New York State has two stellar, hard-working and thoroughly progressive Senators in Chuck Schumer and Hillary Clinton. That a tough place like NY/NYC has fallen so hard for HRC should tell the rest of the nation something. She is simply that good. If she is good enough for New York, the "melting pot", she would definitely be good enough for the country as POTUS.
Anonymous wrote on December 11, 2007 12:13 PM:We need a multi-tasker. Hillary is still able to work hard for NY, pass legislation, meet with her constituents AND run for President.
I live in Illinois, I wish my Senator was still as active.
How could he display good judgement when he wasn't taking those personal meetings with the President? He didn't have all the sides of the story. He went with a gut feeling based on little info. While I didn't FEEL like we should have gone in to Iraq, the president put Colin Powell up in front of committee. He was viewed as someone with incredible integrity. I don't hold the vote against her. And at the time, 75% of America didn't.
She did a lot for workers of 9/11, for veterans, for children.
I get so tired of people putting down a really good, action-oriented Senator.
Michael A wrote on December 11, 2007 12:19 PM:I will preface this with nice mailer. I disagree with her claims about the war. She's changed again.
dc, get off the ny bandwagon. NY has not gone for a republican president since the b-movie actor. So she can carry ny, big deal.
carrenderb wrote on December 11, 2007 12:24 PM:Isn't saying "universal healthcare for all" repetitively redundant?
(Yes, yes, yes; I get it that it's a shot at Obama's plan, but still...)
bridoc wrote on December 11, 2007 12:29 PM:In response to "Anonymous":
With all due respect, myself and a large portion of the population, along with quite a few members of congress had good enough judgment to look at the facts, and look at what Bush and his people were saying, and decide, correctly, that he shouldn't have the authority to invade Iraq. She, in her words, gave Bush the "benefit of the doubt" on the subject. Look how well that turned out. We are nearing 4,000 dead Americans (way past 9/11 numbers), tens of thousands of wounded American soldiers (to say nothing of the PTSD toll), hundreds of thousands (some credible estimates go over 1 million) dead Iraqis, 4 million Iraqi refugees, trillions of US dollars when all is finally said and done, unmeasurable damage to America's image abroad, and a failure to eradicate Osama bin Laden (and actually doing him a favor by boosting terrorist recruitment). Now, of course it isn't all Hillary's fault, but her poor judgment, her "working closely" with Bush, gave Bush the green light to invade. Now, she made a mistake, people do that, and as you pointed out, a lot of people did (Obama didn't, which shouldn't be discounted as him just blindly following his gut), but how did that "experience" inform her future actions? Well for one, she to this day refuses to acknowledge she made a mistake, instead only saying, "If I knew then what I know now...", yet from what we can see with her Bush-line Iran vote, apparently the end of that sentence is "...I would do it all over again".
And Obama is still active in the Senate. Hell, he could probably not even bother leaving DC if he had been married to a president. I guess all candidates don't have that extra "push" though now do they? No, considering he went from relative obscurity to rivaling the political dynasty that is the Clintons, I think he has done a damn fine job at multitasking while in the Senate.
DTM wrote on December 11, 2007 12:32 PM:Personally, I have no problem with giving Clinton credit for her time as a Senator from New York.
Of course, having been a Senator does not distinguish her from Obama, Edwards, Biden, or Dodd (and Richardson has been almost everything but a Senator). And as others have noted, she deserves credit for both the good and the bad from her time in the Senate (including in the later category not just the Iraq Resolution and Kyl-Lieberman, but also things like her flag burning amendment).
Greg DeLassus wrote on December 11, 2007 12:42 PM:That a tough place like NY/NYC has fallen so hard for HRC should tell the rest of the nation something.
Is this really true? Are there data to substantiate this claim? I live in Missouri, and I have been going door to door in my home town of St Louis for Barack Obama and have been struck by the extreme paucity of real, live Hillary Clinton supporters despite the poll numbers on reads which shows her in the lead here in MO. I figure that if I cannot find her actual supporters here in St Louis, the most democratic part of the state, then I am hard pressed to think of where else one might look for them.
When I mentioned this to a friend of mine who goes to grad school at Columbia Univ, she responded that she has only met one or two folks who purport to be supporting Hillary Clinton in her circle of acquaintences there in Manhattan. In her acquaintence she knows more folks who purport to support Sen Obama than Sen Clinton. As such, I am hard pressed to know whether it really is true that NYC is quite so smitten with Sen Clinton (at least with regard to her presidential aspirations) as the above would make out.
Kefa wrote on December 11, 2007 12:49 PM:If one would listen to the press HRC is hated everywhere....her negs are soooooo high, sooooo high she polls higher then Rudi in NYC, Higher then Mitt in Mass. But she is soooooo bad sooooo neg. All the DEms have high negs in Reps strongholds. People look past your noses. HRC in 08.
kjoe wrote on December 11, 2007 12:52 PM:Where does Hillary stand on the death penalty?
We know where her husband stood---in 1992, he executed a black man whose IQ had dropped to 70 after shooting one third of his brain out (before he was tried), in a move calculated to leave no doubt for a nation still frightened by Willie Horton about where he stood.
Obama's position has been discussed---Hillary's has not, so far as I can tell.
pkoso wrote on December 11, 2007 12:55 PM:bridoc...good post.
Kefa wrote on December 11, 2007 1:04 PM:This crap from the opposing camp about HRC and from the right wing about HRC being evil, satan etc is just wrong. HRC loves America just like Obama/Edwards and every other Dem running today. What you get when you take the attack line that the Repubs give you and Edwards and Obama camps have done because they feel it has worked a bit is it alligns you with them. It makes you just a bad as them. HRC has never taken the Repub attack line. If she did I wouldn't vote for her. Their line will be race.
DTM wrote on December 11, 2007 1:04 PM:Kefa,
The thing is that even small differences in support among Republicans and independents can make a very big difference in swing states (basically because such support also takes a vote away along with every vote gained).
As an aside, the basic pattern recently has been Democrats doing well in urban areas, Republicans doing well in rural areas, and suburban areas going back and forth. But that doesn't mean a candidate can afford to ignore any area. Rather, a Republican not doing too badly in urban areas allows them to win a statewide election by rolling up the vote in suburban and particularly rural areas (that in fact is how they can win in otherwise "blue" states). Conversely, a Democrat not doing too badly in rural areas allows them to win a statewide election by rolling up the vote in suburban and in particular urban areas (that is how Democrats can win in otherwise "red" states).
In short, the basic setup is that neither party has enough diehard partisans to win the Presidency just by being very popular with their own diehard partisans. Instead their nominees have to generate broader appeal among independents and even members of the other party. Again, that doesn't necessarily mean winning those groups (particularly not the members of the other party), but it is very important not to lose them too badly.
NCSteve wrote on December 11, 2007 1:14 PM:I started a long post dissing the 100% marshmallow fluff text before I realized that the text was just an excuse for the pictures. It's clear that the real point of this drop was to get a bunch of pictures in front of people that show her being all warm and humanoid and snuggly and non-castrating in front of voters. The text is supposed to be almost irrelevant.
That said, what really caught my eye was how the things it said she had done didn't really line up with the all the fulsome superlatives about her purportedly vast experience.
Obviously, I'm not in her target group on this one, however.
stlounick wrote on December 11, 2007 1:18 PM:Mailer is too long and too wordy. Warm and fuzzy pictures should help with Hillary's image in the area of "warmth". Good presentation of issues. This seems along the line of "Norman Rockwell Christmas Cards" to invoke the warm and fuzzy feelings towards Hillary. It will probably work well during the holiday season.
Until...Uncle Al ruins Christmas yet again with a tasteless joke. I personally prefer a more ironic and modern feel in advertising, even for political folks. But, I'm probably in the minority.
Helter wrote on December 11, 2007 1:31 PM:It strikes me that this ad reinforces the idea of Hillary as old guard democrat versus Obama's adoption of the "change" motif. She's not running to change D.C. here- she's arguing that she knows how D.C. operates and can get things done. Hard to predict which approach works out in all the primaries when the smoke clears.
Evadt wrote on December 11, 2007 1:54 PM:The Hillary Clinton who took part in NPR’s Democrat Candidate Q&A last week took Best of Show. Her extemporaneous responses were clear, concise, and bundled in polite, informed brevity — she stayed with what she knew and responded on-topic with ease. Hillary was different. Dunno why, but it looked good.
Then Sunday, Wes Clark went public with his endorsement: a relief because Hillary’s campaign is not showing the stones required for experience necessary as CINC (Commander In Chief) — her past toughness works on domestic and soft power foreign policy issues, but has not translated into military bearing — not convincing. It is imperative that Senator Clinton’s choice of Presidential Admin people includes a few competent, experienced warriors…. General Clark’s recent book, A Time to Lead, locks-in credentials tempered with political philosophy demonstrating viable attributes — Wes Clark / Veep.
Another issue is voter perception, that Hillary owns lop-sided attachment to women’s issues. Many can’t help but sense she’s over-the-top for women, that she blames men for job discrimination and the other inequalities woven into the fabric of ‘male dominated culture/society.’ One only has to watch Hillary to see she’s warm toward women and chilly to men — as if at heart, she can’t bring herself to trust us — always on guard.
It’s true, pay and salary parity is not where it should be. But women now take up 52% of the work force, and men have been left behind. Just drive thru town; stop at the grocery store, the bank, the insurance company — it seems all the employees are now women. And there is evidence of reverse discrimination: women tend to hire women, and not hire men.
The loss of manufacturing jobs has hit men especially hard. (On the side, corporations sending work off-shore look for ways to fire employees so they don’t have to pay unemployment compensation. Federal unemployment stats are cooked books — they lie. Terminated workers, those fortunate enough to be eligible for unemployment compensation — when it runs out — are not counted on the books.) Hillary harping on women’s issues all the time rings like a one trick pony with men, and with many women: she runs-on about healthcare and daycare for single moms and/or women from households with two incomes, while all men from no-income households want, is work.
Accurate or not, Hillary’s rigidities are obvious. It’s something sensed right-off, an absence from the natural matronly trait in a woman’s character — womanhood tempered by womanhood. But it was different; during the NPR Democrat Q&A, she was right-on… hard to say why her demeanor was warmer, more approachable, empathetic — whatever it was, hang on to it. For the first time, I was impressed.
On Religion: It has be reported that Hillary admits her struggles with faith, which alongside the Romney consumer buy-in, and Hucksta’s phone call from God, may appear disingenuous to Evangelicals and other authoritarian Zionists seeking a sign that Candidate Clinton Has Been Saved… Perhaps it’s time to reconsider the notion of State Religion.
Let us pray for Senator Clinton: that if elected President, she will struggle to resuscitate Separation of Church and State. Clearly, Founders intent includes freedom of religion, and freedom FROM religion. Yes sisters and brothers, it’s time for the second coming — sweep the profession of Evangelical Christian sleeper-axynetoi from our Democratic Constitutional Republic, forever.
Mitt Romney’s stated folly: Separation of Church and State is not absolute; his Mormon prophets have prophesied: ‘the Constitution shall hang by a thread — and the Mormon Elders of America-Israel have been selected by God to save it’… and they intend to get in on smiting Gentiles who get in the way [‘tis a true Mormon prophesy].
This means if God elects Flippin’ Mitt to be Prez, he will serve to enforce state religion contrary to Founder intent. His religion believes in the appeasement of patriarchal, Zionist state religion; Romney has confessed his interpretation of Church & State — a move that that will remove Constitutional, freedom FROM religion: tough luck for atheists, agnostics, seculars, skeptics, Gnostics, and moderate Republicans and Democrats — and Jews, Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus, Zoroastrians, Pagans, beer lovers, Scientologists, the Constitution, et al.
Back to Hillary: It’s not entirely clear what she means when testifying she has had personal struggles with faith…. If she’s saying she had a hard time getting over Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy, well what the hell — we can all run comparatives on that kind of trauma.
But let us conjecture thru the next few paragraphs: KJV bible believers like to quote that Mr. God created humanity in His image — male and female (and He made all the other creatures too, but they don’t know it.) If you discount the Old Testament “Adam’s Rib” myth, the ‘in God’s image’ argument gets a little complicated because logic says He-God must have breasts along with other reproductive attributes…. Or, there’s a Mrs. God the Ol’ Man prefers to keep up in Heaven outta sight, her head covered, her mouth shut, and pregnant.
So Hillary’s faith struggle might be as simple as wondering why the Good Book never offers any comments from Mrs. God, nor does it mention the names of women prophets and/or other celestial fairer-sex messengers providing bit of direction from the female point of view from time-to-time.
Hillary might even dare to think the KJV of Good News has classed women as after-thoughts, at best; and in view of historical perspective, all the Zion Christian inspired money grubbing, racism, torture, murder, rape, book burning, and hypocrisy, the sum of her struggles could be defined as, “I think I’m over Santa and the Tooth Fairy, now.”
And hey, any man who’s ever been married or in serious relationship with woman surely knows how it really works in the family – around the house. No matter what the KJV authors say God thinks, and/or says about the authoritarian patriarchal order of things, it’s safe to assume Bill’s not immune from getting his ass kicked by the wife from time-to-time. So there must be a Mrs. God the Christians haven’t told us about all these years.
We’ve heard a lot from the TheoNeoCons about getting rid of entitlements — the pull yo-self up by the bootstraps, and ‘teach a man to fish’ bull-pucky… while these voters identify with crooked K-Streeters who lobby God's Elect to send jobs off-shore. If God is truly the alpha and omega, omniscient and omnipotent, then He doesn’t need State Welfare entitlements and tax breaks. As part of returning Separation of Church and State, I sincerely pray the next administration will end religious tithing tax deductions and faith based initiatives.
Our Constitutional Republic has been intruded upon by theme park Evangelical witchdoctors and snake-oil shamans LIVIN’ LARGE ON THE DOLE — ‘tis the profession of Zionist Christianity: there are no good reasons why God needs taxpayer money. The Evangelicals and other trespassers own businesses, office buildings, huge personal mansions, media empires, private jets, luxury cars, and as standard practice, do not suffer doing business with non-believers — they have their own goddamn economy that goes out of its way to exclude and discriminate against non-affiliated citizens, thank you.
The hard-right dominionist Evangelical god crowd won’t ever see it, but Theocracy and the American Democratic Constitutional Republic are opposites — mutually exclusive. When monotheists are pressed to define allegiance, the response is always God first, then country. But there is only one Constitution, and there are many Gods… we can never be certain which God they, the monotheists, are referring to because of all the overwhelming and fantastic, numerous and varying tenets and doctrines — e.g. every Christian faith has its own Jesus brand. The best we can do: protect State FROM religion, and protect freedom OF religion in accordance with Constitutional Separation of Church and State: Founder intent.
Theocratic monotheism is and has been an invisible male God King run by self-anointed minions who claim to speak for HIM — a lot not unlike absentee landLord monarchy. The Founders did not appreciate the notion of monarchy, and kings — and superstitions; they clearly established a Democratic Constitutional Republic — enlightened secular law: freedom of religion, and freedom FROM religion.
SEPARATION of CHURCH and STATE!
GOD OFF WELFARE!
Opinions Inspired By:
1. THE BIRTH of SATAN: TRACING THE DEVIL’S BIBLICAL ROOTS — by T.J. Wray and Greg Mobley.
2. MORAL MINORITY: Our Skeptical Founding Fathers — by Brooke Allen.
3. The DECLINE and FALL of the ROMAN EMPIRE — by Ed Gibbons
4. BREAKING the SPELL: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon — by Dan Dennett.
5. LOST CHRISTIANITIES: The Battles for Scripture and Faiths We Never Knew — by Bart Ehrman.
6. LOST SCRIPTURES: Books that Did Not Make It into the New Testament — ibid.
7. GOD IS NOT GREAT: How Religion Poisons Everything — by Chris Hitchens.
8. AMERICAN THEOCRACY: The Peril and Politics of Radical Religion and Borrowed Money in the 21st Century — by Kevin Phillips.
9. The CLASH of FUNDAMENTALISMS — by Tariq Ali.
10. CONSERVATIVES WITHOUT CONSCIENCE — by John Dean.
11. HISTORY AS MYSTERY — by Michael Parenti.
12. THE TEACHINGS OF EZRA TAFT BENSON — by Ezra Taft Benson (Mormon President/Prophet).
13. KING JAMES VERSION of the Bible — by various and suspect authors, post A.D.
14. THE TORAH — by various and suspect authors, B.C.
15. THE HOLY QUR’AN — by various and suspect authors, post 600 A.D.
16. GUNS, GERMS, and STEEL — by Jared Diamond
17. THE FEDERALIST PAPERS — by Constitutional Framers.
18. DECLARATION of INDEPENDENCE — by American Founders.
19. THE CONSTITUTION — by Constitutional Framers.
"I'm always going to lean towards the minorities. I think 43 Anglo-Saxon Protestant males (less JFK) is enough."
Nothing like the smell of racism in the morning.
This is a nice slick piece that plays up her strengths. I have nothing against her except that she another presidential relative running for the office. President's sons and wives winning the presidency makes the USA look like a banana republic.
That said, her Administration would probably be like Bill's and that is not a bad thing.
Jeremy wrote on December 11, 2007 2:40 PM:Evadt, there was a lot in your post, including a lot on religion and women's rights. You might be surprised to learn that Hillary has been cozying up with the DC fundy set:
http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2007/09/hillarys-prayer.html
You might be further surprised to learn that she sold out women's rights for a little bit of fundy cred, co-sponsoring with Rick Santorum legislation that would limit access to birth control: the so-called "Workplace Religious Freedom Act".
Kefa wrote on December 11, 2007 2:54 PM:Try this little poll on for size.....
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/
Love the mailer! It's beautiful and, "in person" has a very classy feel to it.
p.s. I don't understand people who advocate not voting for a certain candidate because of that candidate's last name!
Banana republic? Get a grip. We have elections in America. The only thing "banana republic" about the USA is her current President.
The MAJORITY of us -- Democrat, Republican (me then) and Independent (me now) -- LOVED the Clinton Presidency.
And the majority of us also HATED/HATE the two Bush Presidencies.
Yet it appears that only Democrats beg fellow Democrats not to vote for a Democratic candidate because that candidate is a relative of the ONLY Democratic President to be re-elected to a second term in a HALF-CENTURY.
Whew.
Democrats seriously baffle the shit out of me.
Michael A: dc, get off the ny bandwagon. NY has not gone for a republican president since the b-movie actor. So she can carry ny, big deal.
Where did I even say anything about Hillary's chances to win NY [that is a given]?
New York State has two stellar, hard-working and thoroughly progressive Senators in Chuck Schumer and Hillary Clinton. That a tough place like NY/NYC has fallen so hard for HRC should tell the rest of the nation something. She is simply that good. If she is good enough for New York, the "melting pot", she would definitely be good enough for the country as POTUS.
Do you see why I frequently refer to you as (I'll be nice) a bit "confused"...
bridoc wrote on December 11, 2007 3:05 PM:Kefa wrote on December 11, 2007 2:54 PM:
Try this little poll on for size.....
Ha, for anyone who had any illusion that Hillary is a frontrunner in the presidential race based on her abilities, judgment or experience. It is sad that nearly half of her support is potentially being propped up by who her husband is. I guess she made a good choice when she didn't dump him for cheating...hmm...
I know having a woman running competitively for president of the United States is a historic feat, and I love that we have come this far as a society, however the feminist inside me will be very sad if the first woman president (whether it be in this election or in a later election) got there on her [adulterous] husband's coattails. I think any true feminist would have a very hard time with this. I'd actually like to see a poll targeted toward women to see if such a consideration is at all common.
loki wrote on December 11, 2007 3:17 PM:DTM,
Not sure I follow what your second post was all about. It could just be a snarkey way of covering youself after coming precariously close to saying something unmean about Hillary in your first post, but I'm not sure.
I guess it's the "hmmm..." part. What photos would you have them print? What photos, for comparison sake, does the Obama campaign use in their promotional flyers? Are they using photos of him at 2AM, disheveled, shuffling papers, phone to his ear, spilled coffee on his desk, hard at work?
I can't imagine that you are not unaware of the point of these things.
bridoc wrote on December 11, 2007 3:19 PM:Jan wrote on December 11, 2007 2:58 PM:
Yet it appears that only Democrats beg fellow Democrats not to vote for a Democratic candidate because that candidate is a relative of the ONLY Democratic President to be re-elected to a second term in a HALF-CENTURY.
I don't believe anyone has contended that one shouldn't vote for Hillary because she was married to Bill. On the contrary, all I and many others have said is that she shouldn't be elected beacuse she was Bill's wife, which, according to the above poll, appears to be the source of much of her support, which is ridiculous to say the least.
Although, to be fair, she does base a lot of her supposed "experience" via Bill's proxy in the White House, so in theory anyone having a problem with Bill's record, might have some case in pointing the finger at her as well. For instance, when Bill was gutting programs for "welfare reform", was Hillary complicit? It has to be asked if those years are on her resume..
Peggy McGilligan wrote on December 11, 2007 3:28 PM:The way in which the Clintons treated Monica certainly indicates that neither is a respecter of persons, male or female. But what kind of candidate founds a state college, brings all their ideas to bear, and then never mentions it? After all those years of "experience," it's a non-issue? It may be a non-issue to the Clintons, but not for the souls who attended this puppy; not for the American people. Lets set the record straight. Lets talk about what Hillary really did: http://theseedsof9-11.com
bridoc wrote on December 11, 2007 3:35 PM:Maybe I should clarify my past post, let me try this again:
Jan wrote on December 11, 2007 2:58 PM:
Yet it appears that only Democrats beg fellow Democrats not to vote for a Democratic candidate because that candidate is a relative of the ONLY Democratic President to be re-elected to a second term in a HALF-CENTURY.
I don't believe anyone has contended that one shouldn't vote for Hillary because she was married to Bill. On the contrary, all I and many others have said is that her being Bill's wife shouldn't be the reason people vote for her, which, according to the above poll, appears to be the source of much of her support, which is ridiculous to say the least.
Although, to be fair, she does base a lot of her supposed "experience" via Bill's proxy in the White House, so in theory anyone having a problem with Bill's record, might have some case in pointing the finger at her as well. For instance, when Bill was gutting programs for "welfare reform", was Hillary complicit? It has to be asked if those years are on her resume..
Michael A wrote on December 11, 2007 3:44 PM:Oh, comeon dc, that was the implication. She can win in ny, so she can win anywhere and take the nation. What? You were implying otherwise?
On a less controversial note, why do these candidates send out these mailers? They seem kind of silly, in so far as they assume that a voter will get one of these in the mail and say gee, I'll vote for so and so because of the mailer. Does anyone believe that?
I get stupid republican mailers all the time because I live in a heavily gerrymandered district. My vote doesn't mean squat except in statewide elections. These stupid mailers really are irritating and seem to be a waste of money.
One other question. The tone of her mailers all seem to play to female voters. Wouldn't it make more sense to play to male voters, as she is assuming that she has female voters sewn up? or the ones that would vote for her anyway?
brewmn wrote on December 11, 2007 3:49 PM:"The MAJORITY of us -- Democrat, Republican (me then) and Independent (me now) -- LOVED the Clinton Presidency."
Then the MAJORITY of us were not paying attention. Looking good compared to George Bush doesn't make a great (or even very good) presidency.
Clayton wrote on December 11, 2007 3:57 PM:>Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton sets a dangerous precedent for this country.
I don't get this "dynasty" or "royalty" argument. Hillary and Bill are not biologically related, their views are also considerably different. I think more correctly its states Bush-Clinton-Bush-Rodham. I am not even sure if she ever legally changed her name to Clinton at all. Does anyone know?
dcshungu wrote on December 11, 2007 4:09 PM:Mike A: Oh, comeon dc, that was the implication.
Not even close!
Let me try this with a simple, 2nd grade syllogism:
1. NY Melting pot is just like America.
2. NY Melting pot just loves HRC
3. America will just love HRC as POTUS!
Nothing at all about her ability to trounce everyone in NY, which is a given...Got it?
Greg DeLassus wrote on December 11, 2007 4:27 PM:I think that you are misunderstanding Michael A, dear dcschungu. He is not saying that you are claiming that Sen Clinton can win in NY (a claim which would be, as you have already noted, pointless). He is taking issue with the now-explicitly articulated premise #1 of your earlier enthymeme. NY is not just like America. To wit, NY has not gone for a Republican president since Reagan, while America as a whole has had two of them elected three times in the time since Reagan. The fact that NY is (alledgedly) wild for the idea of a President Hillary Clinton tells us nothing whatever about the feelings of America as a whole for the same prospect.
Michael A wrote on December 11, 2007 4:27 PM:Ok, you're right, you're right. You are just way too smart for me dc. Now I see the light.
DTM wrote on December 11, 2007 4:31 PM:loki,
Interestingly, I think they paint a reasonably accurate picture of her life. I'm just not sure that picture goes along with the claims in the text.
Thanks Greg DeLassus, I thought the point was pretty clear as well. Dc is just ignoring it as usual.
Anonymous wrote on December 11, 2007 4:52 PM:"I think more correctly its states Bush-Clinton-Bush-Rodham."
Right on!!!!! Go Hillary!!!!
DTM,
The mailer talks about her helping pass SCHIP: Picture of children. Talks about promoting human rights in foreign lands: Picture of foreign kids. (Maybe could have a picture of kids and adults.) Talks about veterans: photo with her and old guy. Talks about 1st responders: picture of her and firemen. Talks about minimum wages and social security: picture of her with working man.
Did you see something different?
Michael A wrote on December 11, 2007 4:58 PM:Hi loki, don't you think the overall tone is to play to women voters? Why do that when she allegedly already has that vote sewn up? Shouldn't she try to be playing to males?
votenic wrote on December 11, 2007 5:03 PM:
2008 Presidential Candidate Weekly Poll
The Only Poll That Matters.
Results Posted Weekly Tuesday Evening At Midnight.
Actually, I wouldn't say with much assuredness that it is aimed only at women...Are men uninterested in human rights? SCHIP? 1st Responders? Veterans? Social Security?
Loki, I am not talking about the issues, I am talking about the overall tone. It's the same type of tone as the other mailer that she did. Just curious about perspective.
loki wrote on December 11, 2007 5:12 PM:Explain to me this "tone" you're talking about. I honestly don't see what you're seeing...or sensing. Honestly.
Anonymous wrote on December 11, 2007 5:15 PM:dcshungu spins " That a tough place like NY/NYC has fallen so hard for HRC should tell the rest of the nation something."
Where in the world did you get that idea? I live in Manhattan and voting for Hillary for Senator is very different than voting for her for President. How much damage can a Senator do, particularly in a do-nothing Congress?
How much damage can a president do whose only qualification is family connection and huge amounts of influence buying corporate support? The last 7 years have answered that question on a historic and frightening scale.
Hillary's only qualification for president is that she's Mrs. Bill Clinton. The NYT/CBS poll out yesterday 12/10/07 found that "nearly as many of Mrs. Clinton’s backers say they are supporting her because of her husband as say they are supporting her because of her own experience." www.nytimes.com/2007/12/10/us/politics/11cnd-poll.html?ei=5065&en=eb1d46cd20e61f5b&ex=1197954000&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print
Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton. It's scary.
Hillary is READY to continue the Bush-Clinton agenda of dividing America so there is no consensus on major issues and protetection for profiteering by the corporations who put them in office and then pull the strings.
Take his wife please
Michael A wrote on December 11, 2007 5:22 PM:Ok loki, it just seems to me style wise to be playing to women. I am not trying to be obnoxious or anything. It is just my perspective.
For instance, the pictures portray this "warm and fuzzy" type of feeling. Also, I know I'll get blasted for this but the pictures are by and large women and children, like the last one. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, but it seems to be playing to the women voting population, more than the men. Hugging the soldier, the new born, standing in front of a group of women, "ready to lead."
Do you see that or not?
loki wrote on December 11, 2007 5:29 PM:Do you not see that every politician in the country has photos of them with women and children? SHould we be keeping count as to how many are with men, how many with women? And warm and fuzzy?
You know since your days of calling her things like Mrs Bill and Her Majesty...this sense you have of the "tone" of this mailer only reinforces the tone you seem to have when it comes to women.
This is why I have in the past refered to you as unhinged when it comes to Hillary Clinton. You wouldn't say anything like this about any other candidate. And their mailers are all quite similar.
Really, absurd.
DTM wrote on December 11, 2007 5:30 PM:loki,
Sure, there is some connection between the pictures and the text (although the ones from her law school and Arkansas days appear to be just contemporaneous pictures of her and Bill). But basically, eight out of the first nine picks could be of any First Lady (arguably the one exception is her apparently giving a speech about her failed health care plan).
So does that really amount to 35 years of unmatched experience, accomplishment, and commitment? I can't help but think that, say, Bill Richardson could put together a more compelling set of photos to support such a claim.
random wrote on December 11, 2007 5:33 PM:Jan "p.s. I don't understand people who advocate not voting for a certain candidate because of that candidate's last name!"
Where did that come from? The real question would be why in the world would people who say they love their country vote for someone JUST BECAUSE OF THEIR LAST NAME. Much of Hillary's support is because she is Mrs. Bill Clinton. Period.
For many of those who oppose her, however, it isn't her name, its because everything she has purportedly done in her "professional" life has come to her because she is married to a charismatic politician and powerful man.
Please Hillary fans, be specific about her credentials and "experience."
What specific, tangible results can Hillary show for "35 years of fighting for children" that is evidence of her UNIQUE contribution and leadership?
What major landmark legislation has she authored and championed through to passage as law during 7 years in the Senate? More like 7 years campaigning for president.
What in all of the rest of her life compares to her vote to give George Bush authority to attack Iraq, wasting countless lives, trillions of dollars and our nation's respect in the world. Hillary demonstrated with that vote precisely the quality of judgment she would exercise as president.
It is frigthening to think of her in the Oval Office calculating how to use her power to take revenge on the "vast right wing conspiracy" that only exists in her paranoia.
Hillary fans who dismiss the real concerns about her candidacy and the fear of her as president, are living in a fantasy world.
Michael A wrote on December 11, 2007 5:36 PM:Oh, brother. I give. I knew I would get blasted. You missed the point and I wasn't trying to be negative.
Anonymous wrote on December 11, 2007 5:44 PM:Hmmmm. Some very important people central to the Clintons' relationship and professional lives are missing. Where are Paula Jones, Harsha Scott, Linda Jones, Sally Perdue, Kathleen Wiley, Gennifer Flowers,Dolly Kyle Browning, Juanita Broaddrick, Monica Lewinsky, Susan McDougal, numerous White House staffers (wink, wink), Denise Rich, Beth Dozoretz, Belinda Stronach, Segolene Royal, an unnamed "forty-something divorcee in Chappaqua, N.Y"
AND...
America used to trust people in power. No more. Voters are waking up and taking a good look at Hillary. She doesn't look anything like the calculated, airbrushed images in this slick brochure. And what the voters see is Bill's unqualified, dishonest wife, trying to get elected president the same way George Bush did: family connections and corporate dollars. When they get a good look at the Real and Ready Hillary they support other candidates: IA, NH, SC... soon CA. It's a trend.
Greg DeLassus wrote on December 11, 2007 4:27 PM:I think that you are misunderstanding Michael A, dear dcschungu. He is not saying that you are claiming that Sen Clinton can win in NY (a claim which would be, as you have already noted, pointless). He is taking issue with the now-explicitly articulated premise #1 of your earlier enthymeme. NY is not just like America. To wit, NY has not gone for a Republican president since Reagan, while America as a whole has had two of them elected three times in the time since Reagan.
You are putting ideas into Michael A's head that is a dangerous thing because it always hurts up there when he thinks. Here it is again from the horse's own mouth:
Oh, comeon dc, that was the implication. She can win in ny, so she can win anywhere and take the nation. What? You were implying otherwise? Not my point exactly... On the other hand, your argument that NY is NOT just like America would directly go against my premise, so let's examine it.Anonymous wrote on December 11, 2007 5:54 PM:Look at how many times we, New Yorkers, have elected Repubs to the highest offices of the state, Pataki, Rudy, Bloomy, Koch, etc...and you will see that we are just like America. The reason NY has not voted for a Repub for the Presidency is because the GOP candidates' views have not reflected those of America! Reagan came at a time when "malaise" about the Dems was at an all-time high following Carter. Otherwise, we have not had much to celebrate about recent Repub candidates, who have generally gone to become mediocre POTUSes in modern America.
Conclusion: NY is just like America. The whole country should follow our lead in electing Presidents because we represent all the views that are good about centrist America.
dcshungu you just take up space. Nobody reads or believes your posts. Save the energy. Hillary needs your talents to stuff envelopes.
dcshungu wrote on December 11, 2007 5:54 PM:I forgot to close the "blockquote" in the preceding post, but you can tell where my comments began ("Not exactly point..." onward.) Your turn.
Michael A wrote on December 11, 2007 5:54 PM:Too funny dc and your post totally distorts facts once again. You are way tooooo funny. Koch was a dem. Bloomberg was a dem and changed to republican to run for mayor, like Mr. 9/11, and now he is an independent. Pataki is just like a dem.
It really is a waste of time on this point. NY is royal blue and the fact that she can carry the state doesn't mean squat about carrying the country. Your conclusion is meaningless, because it is not based on facts.
Try another angle. This one hurts your credibility, what little you have.
By the way, I thought you were a poll guru. Why haven't you been going after the polls showing that clinton II is in trouble in all the early primaries? Gee, I wonder why.
dcshungu wrote on December 11, 2007 5:56 PM:
Anonymous wrote on December 11, 2007 5:54 PM:dcshungu you just take up space. Nobody reads or believes your posts. Save the energy. Hillary needs your talents to stuff envelopes.
LOL. Apparently you do! Address the issues I raise or ignore my posts altogether. Got that?
Evadt wrote on December 11, 2007 6:01 PM:Jeremy:
Yeh, I wander off-topic frequently - it's the way my brain works.
Thx for the MoJo link on Hillary's faith, I did not know - always gave her credit for intellect.
She was a Goldwater Girl, and ol' Goldwater didn't have much truck with religion mixing w/ politics: "...Public business - that's all politics is...."
My arguments are not against God, but against those who claim to speak for Him, or Her. Religion has become a social/cultural/political requirement... everyone's gotta have a conversion story.
God Bless Heretics.
Anonymous wrote on December 11, 2007 6:01 PM:Another Annoymous said: "We need a multi-tasker. Hillary is still able to work hard for NY, pass legislation, meet with her constituents AND run for President."
I live in New York and getting Hillary's attention on things that matter to me is impossible. She is never in this state, seldom in DC, and she hires the most self-impressed, unhelpful staffers that Wellesley can supply.
I think we need a nominee and a president with the charisma, character, intelliegence, vision, ideas, multi-cultural life experience, courage to build, persuade, inspire and lead a large majority of Americans, rather than divide them. Nothing in that discription, nothing, says Hillary Clinton.
Anonymous wrote on December 11, 2007 6:03 PM:dcshungu, I just see your name 50,000 times a day. Does Hillary pay you by the post or by the word? Like I said, I learned to ingnore you posts, but they take up space and I hate to scroll over so many. Please stop it. No kidding. It's like spamming.
dcshungu wrote on December 11, 2007 6:04 PM:Come on, let's have a TPM-EC post, with a screaming headline, regarding the just released WaPO/ABC news poll!
WaPo:
The Democratic race has changed little nationally, according to the new poll, with Clinton now enjoying the support of 53 percent of likely Democratic voters to 23 percent for Obama. Edwards remains in third with 10 percent. New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, Sen. Joseph Biden Jr. (Del.), Rep. Dennis Kucinich (Ohio) and Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (Conn.) registered in the low single digits.
ABC News:
DEMOCRATS: This poll finds more clear-cut preferences on the Democratic side, where the contest looks very much now as it has since September. Clinton's overall lead is buttressed by very large advantages as the best experienced candidate, the strongest leader and the most electable in a general election. She also has a significant lead on empathy, wider than when that attribute was last tested in June.
Clinton has a much narrower eight-point advantage on honesty and trustworthiness, long a weaker suit for her. And Obama runs evenly with her in one last attribute, being the "most inspiring" candidate.
On issues, again, Clinton prevails with very large leads in trust to handle health care, the economy, Iraq and terrorism alike.
While Clinton leads among both sexes, she again has a bigger advantage among women than men. Indeed, she leads in this poll across demographic groups, including a 13-point advantage among African-Americans, who've been oversampled in ABC/Post polls all year for more reliable analysis.
Incidentally loki, I don't know why I am coming back to this, but I am. On the last mailers, I made the similar point about Mr. 9/11's mailer. He had all white guys, no women and no minorities. It's called subtle tone and I won't bring it up again.
dcshungu wrote on December 11, 2007 6:07 PM:Anonymous wrote on December 11, 2007 6:03 PM:dcshungu, I just see your name 50,000 times a day. Does Hillary pay you by the post or by the word? Like I said, I learned to ingnore you posts, but they take up space and I hate to scroll over so many. Please stop it. No kidding. It's like spamming.
LOL. Anonymous, I just saw your name 1,000,000 times a day. Who pays and how much do they pay you per post or word.
Now go to hell... Thank you.
Concerned in Iowa wrote on December 11, 2007 6:22 PM:dcshungu says "Now go to hell... Thank you."
Insults are the best evidence that someone got the best of you.
Greg DeLassus wrote on December 11, 2007 6:26 PM:NY is just like America. The whole country should follow our lead in electing Presidents because we represent all the views that are good about centrist America.
Hey, from your lips to God's ears. I would be delighted if the electoral college of the U.S. were to start taking its cues from New York state. Surely, however, you can see that "should follow our lead" is not the same as "will follow our lead," which gets to the logical bankruptcy of your earlier point. That Sen Clinton is electable nationwide simply does not follow from the fact that she is electable in NY. There is no such thing as a locality in this country with its finger so firmly on the broader national pulse that "electable locally" in that locality can be taken to imply "electable nationally."
Greg DeLassus wrote on December 11, 2007 6:28 PM:The Democratic race has changed little nationally, according to the new poll...
One could have written the same thing in the lead-up to the Iowa caucuses of 2004. What of it? We all know how that race for the nomination turned out. All nationwide consensus polls will readjust once early primary results start pouring in.
dcshuungu wrote on December 11, 2007 6:28 PM:ABC NEWS reports its poll: "Clinton has a much narrower eight-point advantage on honesty and trustworthiness, long a weaker suit for her. And Obama runs evenly with her in one last attribute, being the "most inspiring" candidate."
This is national data for a nation not yet focused on the election or the candidates. It is contradicted by similar polls in early states where Hillary is campaigning hard, in person and with television ads: IA, NH, SC, and even CA showing signs of a trend. When voters focus on the election and look closely at Hillary her numbers on honesty, positive campaign and inspiration fall through the floor. People who look closely at Hillary tend not to like or support her. Trend.
Michael A wrote on December 11, 2007 6:32 PM:Good post dcshuungu.
dschuungu wrote on December 11, 2007 6:36 PM:Also from the WashPo/ABC poll...
"...a highly competitive campaign in Iowa pitting Clinton, Obama and former senator John Edwards (N.C.), along with signs of a tightening contest in New Hampshire, suggests that the Democratic race is also far from settled.
The new poll found that the issues driving voters are shifting rapidly. … 49 percent of Clinton's supporters back her "strongly," down from 57 percent last month and under 50 percent for the first time in the campaign."
hmmmm Hillary going down down down.
dcshuungu wrote on December 11, 2007 6:28
ABC NEWS reports its poll: "Clinton has a much narrower eight-point advantage on honesty and trustworthiness, long a weaker suit for her. And Obama runs evenly with her in one last attribute, being the "most inspiring" candidate."
Look, I am not sure who you are and I do not give shit, but please to not use my name, which you have misspelled each time, in posting here or elsewhere. It is foul, crass and stupid.
I now understand why some sites (like the old TPM-EC format) restrict posting privileges only for registered members...that way they'd know how to ferret out guys this joker and toss them out....
dcshungu wrote on December 11, 2007 6:40 PM:Michael A wrote on December 11, 2007 6:32 PM:Good post dcshuungu.
You could be stupid enough to pull such a stunt. If it you, stop it now. That is really going beyond the pale. Thank you.
dcshuungu wrote on December 11, 2007 6:43 PM:dcshugu said "but please to not use my name"
to quote your insulting foul mouth:
"Go to Hell"
dcshuungu wrote on December 11, 2007 6:48 PM:dcshungu said "That is really going beyond the pale."
you dare to say that, when you constantly insult and trash honest posters just because you disagree with them. You set the lowest standards for this site dcshungu. Get a new name if you don't like parody, dishonest insult monger.
dcshungu wrote on December 11, 2007 6:48 PM:"dcshugu".... still misspelling... You are clearly an idiot, and the last one to even know it.
We're done.
Bonsoir!
Anonymous wrote on December 11, 2007 7:01 PM:dcshungu wrote: "I now understand why some sites (like the old TPM-EC format) restrict posting privileges only for registered members...that way they'd know how to ferret out guys this joker and toss them out...."
Well if you were a member of the old TPM-EC and you weren't ferreted out, it didn't work very well. You denegrate the discussion in this forumn all day every day, dcshungu.
CalD wrote on December 11, 2007 7:27 PM:[Person too lazy to type their name wrote]:America used to trust people in power. No more.
Yeah, Nixon kind of screwed that up for us, didn't he. Of course trusting LBJ did get us mired in Vietnam... Perhaps it's just as well to be a little skeptical.
Michael A wrote on December 11, 2007 8:15 PM:It wasn't me dc. I have too little of a brain to come up with that one. It was funny though.
dcshungu wrote on December 11, 2007 8:58 PM:"It wasn't me dc. I have too little of a brain to come up with that one. It was funny though."
I believe you. Despite your "strange" views of things, I have never thought of you as vicious partisan. You occasionally see the light until someone sways you...you have no position on anything except for your opposition to "Clinton II", which is pathetic 'cause the rationale is incoherent, at best. I am watching you!
Michael A wrote on December 11, 2007 10:16 PM:You are too funny dc. On your blast, the problem is that you are so blinded by your love of clinton II that you don't see my positions on anything. I have numerous positions and have repeatedly stated them, but you are too blind to see them. That dc is pathetic. Keep watching me. I appreciate it.
Also, just in case your boss wins the nomination, I hope that the campaign is watching as well. If they are getting bent out of shape about my jabs and digs, they ain't seen nothing yet. Wait until the general which really scares me in light of what I have seen on this site. The flawless campaign and inevitable, I think not. And regardless of the nominee as a dem I don't want to lose. The way things are going, if its clinton II my last and worst choice, we got major problems.
CalD wrote on December 12, 2007 2:17 AM:Thanks to whoever posted about the new ABC/WP poll. It's interesting that Clinton is up almost much across the board from a month agoand leading Barack Obama in virtually every category. Kind of confirms my general sense that her campaign is back on their game and people are starting to notice.
CalD wrote on December 12, 2007 2:20 AM:I wish I could type.
loki wrote on December 12, 2007 7:40 AM:Michael A,
It is you, of course, who missed the point. This is what occurs to someone so unhinged about a candidate. Like DTM, you see things that are simply not there. You appear also to have issues with women. Maybe you should see someone about this.
loki wrote on December 12, 2007 7:58 AM:Also, just in case your boss wins the nomination, I hope that the campaign is watching as well. If they are getting bent out of shape about my jabs and digs, they ain't seen nothing yet.
Oh yes...they're watching um, you? Comical.
Michael A wrote on December 12, 2007 11:11 AM:Loki, I don't know why I am wasting my time, but the insults are annoying. I massage subtle impressions for a living and make arguments and impressions to portray themes and tones, so I am kind of struck by your claim that I am unhinged or that the tone of the mailer is not targeted to women. That being said I have asked a number of professionals that I work with to look at the overall tone and who is the audience based on the tone. Every single one, both men and women, came almost immediately to the same conclusion. The target audience is women. So, I guess I am not the one that's unhinged and I don't see how making such an observation is "unhinged."
On the other dig, I was responding to dc. I really don't care and I hope your candidate loses. I felt some sympathy for her over the attacks that she was trying to do, but obviously were blowing up in her face. I thought that she was getting bad advice; however, in retrospect it may be her driving the attacks and if that's the case, she has problems that may be insurmountable and she should not be the nominee.
loki wrote on December 12, 2007 1:39 PM:
That being said I have asked a number of professionals that I work with to look at the overall tone and who is the audience based on the tone. Every single one, both men and women, came almost immediately to the same conclusion. The target audience is women.
Professionals of what?
The rest is bullshit, Michael. As someone who deals with people on a regular basis, has a good read on what folks are all about, it is clear to me you have issues with women. Your insulting attacks on Clinton have almost always had that condescending attitude most neandertal males carry with them.
And it is not at all surprising that your "friends" think the way you do and therefore are also unhinged. Not surprising at all.
But as this is now in archives I probably wasted my time writing this up. Ah well. ;^}
Michael A wrote on December 12, 2007 4:11 PM:Nice comeback loki. Very well thought out. Apparently you have issues with men and merely are supporting clinton II because she is a woman, which seems to be the substance of alot of her support.
I really don't care about the sex of a candidate or a candidate's race. I have supported women candidates in the past and I have supported minorities. All I care about is policies, positions, character and electability. She fails on all of them and if I were a woman, I would be pissed that she expected me to vote for her just because she is a woman.
Just because I point out that the target audience of her stupid f'n mailer is women doesn't make me sexist or that I hate women. It's an observation. Yeah then the typical response from clinton II lovers is that everyone who doesn't love clinton II and follow her blindly is unhinged or any of a variety of insults. Puhlese. You people are killing your candidate.
