Never accept a woman president? Or never accept that a woman now could be president?

Comments

8 comments posted
Admitting the miscalculations

There were any number of mistakes that were made by people who managed Hilary's campaign. I agree that her holding fast to her vote for the war became a millstone that started to sink her.

Mostly, she lacked a message. Like a hybrid in Battlestar Galactica, she said a lot of stuff, much of it true, but it never added up to a clear vision.

I will say for Hillary (as opposed to some of her supporters) she did not place the blame elsewhere, though she did touch on some of the negativity in the press.

All in all she showed a lot of grace and strength. I admired her for it.

Matsu's picture
Posted by Matsu on 8 June 2008 - 5:58pm
Whatever Man....

To Reclusive Leftist and the rest of the population, who said that it couldn't be done....

and a blah blah blah blah blah - suck it up - move on!

vickilynne's picture
Posted by vickilynne on 8 June 2008 - 9:06pm
Obama and Clinton

I have very little personal against Sen Obama. His staff and senior campaign people are another story. Considering that 75% of them are Washington insiders who have worked on campaigns for 20 years.

Sen Obama is most likely going to loose to J McCain. Should Sen Obama win then watch out for a congress that will, given any opportunity will throw him under the bus, just like the 1993 congress did to Bill Clinton.

But gee...Sen Obama is authentic, and new and "can unite the country" Please tell me WTF does that mean?

Sen Clinton knows how congress operates and would have taken it to them on day one. They feared her for a reason.

Sen Obama has no credentials at the international level, only 2 terms as a state senator and less then 3 as a US senator. Can you imagine a woman attempting to run for president on that resume.

It comes down to crunchy numbers; Hillary Clinton won the popular vote AND the states she won total 312 electoral votes. And electoral votes wins the Whitehouse. Sen Clinton is more competetive or ahead in more swing/big states than Sen Obama over McCain.

All is hunky and dory now, but give a bored press several weeks of a slower news cycle and just as the media enjoys building something up, it has even more fun bringing it down.

By convention time it will be interesting to see where Sen Obama is in the polls. He has to be ahead of McCain by double digits. He will get a bounce, but that will be off set by the GOP convention. And they will hardly mention Sen Obama. It wil be 4 days of McCain war hero, respected by world leaders, knows and is known by the world's leaders.......etc.

It is an easy bet; Sen Obama will loose, Sen Clinton might win.

david stewart's picture
Posted by david stewart (not verified) on 8 June 2008 - 10:04pm
You want to make bets?
Hillary Clinton won the popular vote AND the states she won total 312 electoral votes.

Not.

Oh, and primaries don't have electoral votes, so you seem a bit confused on this score.

Electoral votes count in the main election, but then the Democratic nominee runs against the Republican nominee, not another Democrat with a more progressive voting record.

If Clinton is so savvy, then let's ask the question she liked to ask: Why couldn't she close the deal?

Maybe because she has the highest negatives.

Meanwhile Obama won more legitimate votes (i.e., votes in elections where all the candidates were on the ballot), had a broader and more diverse base of campaign contributors, and has energized a party that is largely sick and tired of the old DLC game.

You want to make bets? I'll take your money.

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 8 June 2008 - 10:26pm
Interesting

In this post you mention that Obama "Speaks centrist but votes progressive". So you admit that he is a liar but he is lying for you cause so it is okay. Typical!!!!

RedStater's picture
Posted by RedStater on 1 July 2008 - 12:19pm
Are you really that dim or

Are you really that dim or just pretending?

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 1 July 2008 - 6:15pm
Typical, yet again

You are making a fool of yourself. Why can't you just explain what you have written instead of relying on name calling anytime you don't have the answers. I suppose the next thing you will do is ban me from the site, so much for freedom of speech.

RedStater's picture
Posted by RedStater on 3 July 2008 - 9:32am
Apparently the former.

Apparently the former.

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 4 July 2008 - 1:08pm