Hillary tries to jump start losing effort

Hillary Rodham Clinton’s once-vaunted campaign continues to unravel as new polls show her falling farther and farther behind Barack Obama in New Hampshire and campaign contributors take a “wait and see” attitude.

Meanwhile, chaos escalates in the Republican camp where an Iowa win gives Mike Huckabee no help in New Hampshire and a resurgent John McCain becomes the new frontrunner.

A new USA Today poll shows Obama with a 13-point lead going into Tuesday’s New Hampshire primary and McCain with a four-point edge over former front runner Mitt Romney.

“Hillary is in danger of becoming the Howard Dean of 2008,” says one Clinton strategist, referring to the former Vermont Governor who went to Iowa as the presumptive nominee and lost big time to John Kerry. Dean’s campaign never recovered from the blow.

Reports from within the Clinton campaign say staff meetings have turned into shouting matches and finger pointing exercises with strategists trying to shift the blame to others.

Clinton reportedly is unleashing her famous temper on aides she blames for recent setbacks. At a strategy meeting over the weekend campaign aides say she lost it and told chief strategist Mark Penn to “get your fucking act together!”

According to The Washington Post:

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, slipping further behind her chief rival in the Democratic primary here, has taken direct control over her strategy and message as she scrambles to block the ascent of Sen. Barack Obama.

As expected, Clinton is shifting her strategy. Writes Thomas B. Edsall in The Huffington Post:

In an approach redolent of Walter Mondale’s 1984 “Where’s the Beef?” tactic against Gary Hart, Clinton has adopted the less memorable slogan “Rhetoric vs. Results, Talk vs. Action.”

The Clinton campaign is sparing no effort to pressure the media to lean on Obama’s perceived vulnerabilities. Looking to leverage Obama’s slender resume, a Clinton operative argued to HuffPost that the campaign will be able to demonstrate that “Obama is just not a plausible person in this environment of international peril,” and that the longer the primary campaign can be extended, the better chance Clinton will have to prove that “there is not even a second level to Obama, there is no depth.”

The results of this gambit are far from certain. Many political observers here see Hillary on the ropes. “I think Iowa was the best she is going to do. Now she has the stink of a loser on her,” said an official from the upper echelons of the 2004 Democratic campaign. In the upcoming states, voters “are just now starting to pay attention, and all they know is that he [Obama] is a winner and she’s a loser.”

Political analyst Norm Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute warned, “Tactical maneuvering at this point is of limited value, but all [Clinton] may be able to do for the moment is to try tactical stuff, and lash herself to the mast to withstand the [Obama] wave.”

The frustration is not limited to Clinton. Reports The Washington Post:

With just two days to go until the New Hampshire primary, contenders in both parties blanketed the state with campaign events. On the Republican side, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney and Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) continued their war of words, with Romney seeking to remind voters about McCain’s unpopular stand on immigration legislation.

Despite being outwardly optimistic, Romney advisers are well aware that a loss Tuesday after defeat at the hands of former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee in Iowa on Thursday would unravel their carefully plotted route to the nomination. A new CNN/WMUR poll, released after a heated Saturday night debate in which Romney was peppered with criticism from his rivals, showed McCain maintaining a narrow lead over Romney.

That poll also showed Obama (Ill.) opening up a significant lead in the state, suggesting a major bounce in support following his win in the Iowa caucuses, where Clinton (N.Y.) finished third.

Frustrated by her campaign’s reaction to the defeat, Clinton ordered her advisers Sunday to reorient their message to more aggressively focus on the idea that Obama is all talk and no action.


  1. Upon Further Review

    JoyfulC wrote:
    I’m happy so many people are enjoying what they perceive to be Hillary Clinton’s humiliation. But let’s face it, that’s something that transcends issues. You have to be full of hatred for someone to gloat when you think they’re defeated.

    “Full of hatred” strikes me as way too strong a term, especially when applied to Hillary’s (occasional) setbacks. In fact, I’m not even sure it’s immoral to enjoy someone’s defeat when the person in question is arrogant, self-centered and power-hungry (as with Hillary). I mean, what’s the “proper” alternative — feeling sorry for her when she gets misty-eyed over her own potentially unfulfilled ambition?

    On a separate note, I think the term “hatred” has become overused in recent years, probably because our society is less tough and more touchy-feely than it used to be. We’re now supposed to avoid being “haters” and practicing “hate speech,” but those are subjective terms that are usually designed to put a chill on free expression.

    Don’t get me wrong — I’m not contending any of that is your motivation, JoyfulC … I’m just saying, why worry about the emotional motivations of other people who post here, especially when it comes to politics? You can go to any professional sporting event in America and see thousands of people gloating over another team’s defeat, so I don’t find it strange or troubling when observers react the same way toward politics.

  2. Carl Nemo

    Hi JoyfulC…

    As a disclaimer I must say I don’t “support” any of them. There are no El Cid’s in this kettle of hopeful presidential fish.

    My only interest is targeting the worst of the lot and doing my best to influence lurking readers that visit CHB away from the most dangerous candidates, relative to the welfare and safety of the Republic.

    In terms of CHB’rs we are all collectively preaching to the choir if we think we are trying to influence each other in terms of candidate choices. I think CHB is loaded to the gunnels with patriotic skeptics. : )

    Rather than ramble about Dr. Paul, here’s a link to a sister article on this site concerning the 20million he’s raised to date. I believe he received about 9 percent of the republican vote in New Hampshire. Yep, that’s real bang for the buck…! :))


    Btw, regardless of our differences of opinion I enjoy your thoughtful, incisive commentary on CHB.

    Carl Nemo **==

  3. acf

    Hillary Clinton won New Hampshire, so the coronation of Barak Obama will have to wait a while. The polls weren’t right, the media jumping on the Obama wagon like lemmings over a cliff, are now spinning like mad, trying to explain how they knew it was too early to write off Clinton or crown Obama, and it’s on to South Carolina.

    Oh, and the Romneymobile has another flat tire.

  4. ekaton

    “I have had many Jewish friends over the years including classmates, neighbors, business associates, and clients, many of whom were in totlal disagreement with Israel’s policies toward settlements, Palestinians, etc.”

    And of course these people are labelled “self hating Jews”.

    — Kent Shaw

  5. Cobaltkid

    Great post – Carl …………..

    That’s probably the best article on the subjedt I have ever seen. It reflects my own thinking concerning our blind support for a froeign nation regardless of the disastrous impact on our own country.

    What is especially frustrating is what happens if one expresses their dislike for anything involving Israel.
    Note carefully, I said Israel, not Jews. It is most aggravating to be labeled anti-semetic when nothing could be further from the truth.

    I have had many Jewish friends over the years including classmates, neighbors, business associates, and clients, many of whom were in totlal disagreement with Israel’s policies toward settlements, Palestinians, etc. I also made various business trips to the Middle East from 1975 to 1985 and saw first hand the results of our pro Israel tilt.

    Perhaps I should not be expressing these views in a public forum for fear of retaliation from the Israel Lobby – the real third rail in American politics!

  6. JoyfulC

    Well, actually, it’s not just MSM that’s skimming over Ron Paul. I have asked a couple times on this site for more info regarding his stance with respect to preserving, eliminating, expanding, whittling away at — whatever — the “New Deal” social programs that have been intrinsic to making the United States into the envy of the world. But no one here seems to want to talk about it.

    And whenever I do hear Paul talk about it himself, he seems to gloss over certain hard realities. As it has been pointed out, he is a bit two faced with respect to “pork” — while he votes against it, he’s never rejected any that’s come his way. It seems to me that if he were really committed to getting rid of pork, he’d start by explaining to his own constituents how they should refuse federal money and accomplish what they can on their own. But maybe there’s more to the story. I’d love to hear what some of his supporters have to say. But they seem too shy to respond.

  7. bryan mcclellan

    Quite the eye and mind opener Carl.Thanks.I urge everyone to check out the link Mr Nemo supplied.PMFOT’s

  8. JoyfulC

    You might wish to read Jeffrey Toobin’s “A Vast Conspiracy.” He doesn’t pull any punches and certainly makes no apologies for Bill Clinton’s stupidity. But he gives a good look at the other side of the coin too.

    One mistake that is continually made around here is to assume that if someone believes it was wrong for certain people to push to make literally a federal case out of something that happened in private between two consenting adults, then they must be Clinton supporters and apologists. WRONG!

    Things aren’t always so black & white. Some of us can think Clinton was incredibly stupid and weak of character, while at the same time believing that it shouldn’t have been blown out of proportion the way it was, and that doing so did more damage to our country than Clinton’s poor judgement.

    I’m happy so many people are enjoying what they perceive to be Hillary Clinton’s humiliation. But let’s face it, that’s something that transcends issues. You have to be full of hatred for someone to gloat when you think they’re defeated. Frankly, I hope she doesn’t win the nomination. I predict that whoever wins the next presidency is going to be mired in problems leftover from the previous administration and won’t really get a chance to get much else done besides grapple under the weight of them. I also predict that the next president will go out with as much antagonism as he went in with enthusiasm. And that’s because the bulk of our problems aren’t with our politicians — they’re with ourselves, as a culture, as a society. We’re very spoiled and we, as individuals, need to start making some less selfish choices, some healthier choices, some less glamourous but more sane choices. And I don’t see that happening before we’re forced to do so by hitting rock bottom.

  9. JoyfulC

    Actually, I don’t perceive any criticism of Hillary as an attack on all women. What I object to is the use of terms like “bitch,” “shrill,” “dumb broads” — especially when delivered without any issues-based arguments to back them up.

    If someone said to you, “that Guiliani is a prick,” I’m sure you’d assume that he doesn’t like Guiliani, but you wouldn’t really understand why. If you asked for more info, and they gave you a lot of highly prejudicial input about his personal life, and a lot of unsubstantiated allegations that never went anywhere, you might think to yourself “well, where there’s smoke, there’s generally fire — but when it comes to politics, there are some good motivations for people to make it appear that there’s a lot of smoke.” A sage person would only allow themselves to be influenced by arguments that bore up to scrutiny.

    On this site, I have seen a lot of sexism. For example, re: Nancy Pelosi. One oft-repeated remark here is that her father was a corrupt politician and the state she’s from is known for corrupt politics. ???? What’s that got to do with anything? They then go on to note that she failed to end the war — but very little weight is given to the fact that Congress is currently dealing with a president who has zero respect for anybody and unfortunately has the power of a few laws on his side. It’s also well known that this president has no problem sending troops into war with inadequate funding and equipment, and bringing them home to inadequate health care and veteran services. So I don’t really see how any reasonable person could blame Pelosi or anyone in Congress who has tried to get this stubborn president to budge for “failing.” I haven’t seen any criticism of her here that really stands up to scrutiny. But I have seen her referred to as a “dumb broad.” If that’s not sexism, then please tell me what it is?

    I also believe that we still have a lot of sexism and racism in the United States today, and that voices that continuously pander to those base instincts do get results. Doug recently said that the US wasn’t ready for a black president yet. Personally, I’m not sure we’re ready for a woman president. Are we racists and sexists? Or just observers of reality?

  10. Upon Further Review


    Thanks for your reply. You make some excellent points — for instance, I have no problem handling dissenting opinions that begin, “I think you’re wrong about Hillary, and here are the qualities I admire in her.”

    Now I didn’t say I agreed with such comments, but it beats the heck out of the armchair psychoanalysis that assigns innate biases to everyone with a set of XY chromosomes.

    Fact is, Hillary doesn’t “threaten” me in the least … I simply find her a contrived, insincere, question-dodging, power-hungry, despicable human being, and I’d say the same even if she flew to Denmark and got a sex change operation.

    In short, I and a great many of my male buddies have evolved far beyond the days of posting “No girls allowed” signs on our treehouse.

    I also find it incredible that the mainstream media gave her a free pass after her condescending “I don’t feel no ways tired” minstrel show routine at the black church. Any other candidate, especially a Republican, would have been crucified for badly imitating an African-American accent, yet the fourth estate allows Queen Hillary to play by different rules.

    And of course, Matt Lauer never asked her to prove the existence of her imaginary “vast right-wing conspiracy” that was supposedly attacking her cheating husband. I don’t know if the mainstream media are intimidated by her or simply huge fans, but either way, it’s Softball City when she deigns to answer their questions.

    It’s this kind of privileged existence that makes it a joy to watch her smugness fade and her facade crack as it did on camera (perhaps by design) this week. To me, it’s the way Romanians must have felt when they pounced on Elena Ceausescu.

  11. Carl Nemo

    Hi Sandra Price…

    “It is a popular concept that Israel and American Jews are responsible for our woes and I will not get into a cheap and disturbing argument on this subject.”
    “We have serious problems in our government, our culture and our academics and none of them come from a Jewish influence.”
    Your blanket comments concerning the lack of Jewish influence over our government is possibly true if we want to talk about American citizens of Jewish decent, but not true if we are going to discuss Israeli/Zionist and American Isaeli/Jewish sympathizer influence over our Congress and government in general. It’s because any discussion on this matter is squealched at all levels that we are going down the tubes as a nation. The U.S. is slated to become an altar sacrifice on behalf of Israel. I surely hope not, but it seems that way.

    Germans; ie., hardcore Nazi’s immolate 6 million Jews, gypsies, gays, Catholics, and even some of our captured servicemen;ie.,just about anyone deemed expendable by the Gestapo, the SS etc.

    Then in time the U.S. must suffer for the sins of our former WWII enemy?! The allies stopped the Germans from achieving world hegemony with the U.S. being the main supplier of materiel and manpower to do so.

    Truman along with support from Britain decides to give the Jews a homeland by displacing Palestinian arabs who had lived in the region since the Jews were expelled by the Romans in 79AD.

    Years pass and Israel gives thanks to the U.S. by slowly but surely engineering the demise of the United States and the free world if necessary to survive.

    People need to get it in their heads that Israel is simply another sovereign nation and is not a state or territory of the United States. They have no allegiance to our country, nor are they our allies or friends! Remember the USS Liberty, Johathan Pollard et.al….?! They as a nation expect everything in terms of support and give nothing in return except grief for the region along with their stiff-necked intransigence when it comes to creative negotiations. As a U.S. citizen I’ve lost patience with their leadership and their potential civilization destroying agenda.

    John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt wrote an excellent book, “The Israel Lobby”, a 2006 release discussing the effects of the Israel lobby on this nation. The book was received with indignant outrage because it was spot-on. Since the book was written by two scholars of renoun on this subject it couldn’t easily be dismissed. The link will provide you with an overview concerning the negative effects of the Israel lobby on our government and way of life.


    Carl Nemo **==

  12. Sandra Price

    Well Dejavu. I come from the Hollywood Studios and could trade stories with you. However I won’t. It is too easy for you to blame Israel for our problems and that I cannot agree.

    Television is influenced by our culture. We have allowed our American kids to slip into an apathy that verges on the development of idiots. It is a popular concept that Israel and American Jews are responsible for our woes and I will not get into a cheap and disturbing argument on this subject.

    I was raised with the daughters of the studio owners and saw for myself the start of television. The good shows failed due to a lack of interest by the viewers. One of the first networks in Los Angeles was NBC followed by ABC. I dated the boss of ABC for years who happened to be Jewish. My own culture kept me from buying a television before 1982 when I opened my book store and began to turn on the football games. My store became a place to stop, pour a cup of coffee and sit and chat about Hollywood. I was 6 miles south of the Hearst Castle and shared some of the stories about those great stars who visited.

    The people who worked with these studios concentrated on quality not anti-semitism. I was there during the McCarthy hearings and that is story on it’s own. I won’t share it as there is apparently a bigotry on this forum that will turn on me again.

    We have serious problems in our government, our culture and our academics and none of them come from a Jewish influence.

  13. DejaVuAllOver

    Sandra, I agree with you on at least ONE thing: Television is an insult to anyone with the IQ of celery. You’re right to boycott it. And after 8 years of working in the “biz” in L.A., I could tell you stories that would make your skin crawl. It’s a disgusting, degenerate, capitalist shill that should make any intelligent parent want to vomit. Regardless of political beliefs. And I won’t even start on about the inherent bias, although I can tell you one thing for certain: It involves Israel. You probably disagree, but I spent a large portion of my working life witnessing it first-hand. The mainstream media in LA makes the Hatfields and McCoys look like a schoolyard brawl.

  14. Dogma

    Can’t Hill come up with something original? After her thumping in Iowa, she started copying Obama’s theme of “change” and adding that to her speeches. Today while near tears, she started saying that this run for the presidency is “personal” for her. Seems I first heard that same theme from Edwards’ during the debate on Saturday. Who is she going to copy next???

  15. SEAL

    Carl: Thank you for the wonderful comments, although I doubt I deserve them. BTW: the SEAL attitude [I said this yesterday on another topic] is: “when a SEAL goes down, he’s just reloading.”

    Incidently, I just saw another piece on the wire service that reported Hillary’s “quivering voice” etc. I think the Clintons are so flabergasted by the turn of events they do not know how to handle it. In fact, they are not handling it. Not when a candidate for president is reported with “tears in her eyes,” “choking up,” “quivering voice.” etc., and essentially gives up conceeding the state just because the polls jumped 10 points in favor of her rival.

    She is mouthing words like “fighting on” and “in it til the end” but they aren’t very convincing. I guess we are going to find out what the Clintons are actually made of. They will have to reload with a different message because experience, and the agent of change, and the Clinton-S returning to the White House as president-S ain’t working. I read that her handlers are advising her to be more emotional and show the softer side.

    I think she needs new handlers.

  16. DejaVuAllOver

    Upon Further Review, I couldn’t agree more. There are certain people here who, despite all their chatter to the contrary, are quite content to use any opportunity (like this forum) to further their own pet causes, or air their personal vendettas, at the expense of intelligent, asexual analysis of the players and/or issues at hand. Politics is a (sometimes ugly) fight, and it’s perfectly fair to tell a man OR WOMAN they’re full o’ crap…. provided you’re willing to endure the same, yourself.

  17. DejaVuAllOver

    Hillary is phonier than George Bush saying that anyone caught “outing” Valerie Plame would be punished. Yeah, right. One of the filthiest, most degenerate human garbage bags in human history talking about JUSTICE. That’s like Hillary talking about moral, ethical decision-making.
    Decency does not belong to any one party, or gender, I’m sorry to say. If there’s one thing I agree with Doug Thompson and CHB on….. that would be it.

  18. Pablo

    Glad to hear Hillary is going down!

    And her tears don’t make me feel sad, like I’m sure the tears of the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi’s who lost loved ones to the cluster bombs and spent uranium munitions she repeatedly approved have not made her sad!

    Now that Kucinich and Gravel, who truly had correct, sincere vision for our country have been ignored, we can only pray that Edwards and Obama are not just spouting off what they think people want to hear to get elected. I think we will see an Obama/Edwards ticket, although I’d rather see an Edwards/Obama ticket. Unfortunately, I have serious doubts about the sincerity of these guys for many reasons. Despite my misgivings about Obama and Edwards, I have some hope for bigger changes, and no doubt things will at least improve in this country with them (Isn’t saying much now, is it?). However, I have never had doubts about scary hillary. I’m so glad she will soon be going away!!!!!!!

  19. Upon Further Review

    Sandra and Joy,

    This is my first post here, and hopefully it will be taken in the spirit I’m offering it. But as a white male on the far side of 50, it concerns and frankly saddens me to hear you expressing attitudes like this:

    “I understand what the guys here are saying. Women are becoming their greatest threat! When we speak out, we care labeled ‘like nagging wives’ and even ‘bitches’.” — Sandra Price

    Honestly, I don’t think that’s what the guys here are saying at all. And if you dismiss all of Hillary’s male critics as sexists who consider strong women “their greatest threat,” you’re being as unfair to men as if you’d have written a sentence that began, “I think what all blacks/gays/Asians/Amish/etc. fear and resent is (BLANK).”

    See, it isn’t fair to generalize with gender, race, geographic location or whatever. We men are individuals, too, and believe it or not, many of us have evolved past the point where our political analysis consists mainly of sitting around fires in caves and grunting, “Umph! Clinton woman act too powerful! Must hit with club and drag by hair!”

    What concerns me even more is that some women seem to regard any critique of Hillary as an attack on womankind in general. I would hope that your reasons for supporting her go deeper than a “Yay rah, sisterhood,” but sometimes I wonder.

    I mean, if you truly favor integrity in government, how can it not concern you when fund-raising illegalities keep tainting her campaign? Do you seriously believe her when she says she had no knowledge of any of that?

    And one of the qualities that troubles me most about Hillary is her fairly obvious attempt to be all things to all people. Yes, I know that’s true of most politicians, but how pathetic was it when she couldn’t even take a position on driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants without contradicting herself? To me, that’s just further evidence that she has no real vision or stance on anything — her candidacy is all about furthering her own ambition.

    I don’t even understand why feminists regard it as a mark in her favor that she “stood by her man.” Think about it: Her husband was accused of sexually abusing women, yet it’s somehow admirable that Hillary was willing to throw another woman — and a potential sexual abuse victim at that — under the bus without even seriously considering the charges?

    Anyway, I hope I’m expressing myself clearly. But I genuinely believe Hillary’s high negative ratings have virtually nothing to do with her gender and everything to do with Hillary herself. Really, it’s been said before, but if you could clone Margaret Thatcher — or even get Laura Ingraham to run for president — I doubt that any conservative male voter would utter a peep of negativity about the candidacy.

    I just think it’s a mistake to personalize the anti-Hillary sentiment as an attack on women (which is kind of like believing that Michael Vick is in trouble solely because of his race).

    Thanks for hearing me out.

  20. Carl Nemo

    Hi SEAL,

    I’m not a SEAL, but I know SEALS and the secret to completing the mission is “never, never, never quit”…per Winston Churchill. Even a weaker man or woman with a ferocious cando spirit, who refuses to quit, nor admitting to defeat can overcome adversaries many times their strength!

    If CHB’r commentary was instrumental in her demise by swaying public opinion; then if I may borrow a SEAL cheer…Hooyah! 🙂

    Thanks good buddy for your mutual support and incisively clear commentary on all subjects!

    Carl Nemo **==

  21. SEAL

    Hillary crys about losing:

    I’m sure you wll read about this tomorrow but Hillary basically destroyed herself today at one of her stops in New Hampshire. She choked up with tears in her eyes and voice breaking up when talking to the crowd about her disappointment, essentially conceding she was going to lose this primary, and vowing to carry on, regardless. “We knew in the beginning this was going to be a tough fight.” That’s bullshit. They thought it was going to be no fight at all.

    That is the worst thing she could have done. It validated all those anti-female types why an “emotional” woman should not be president. Some of the died in the wool pro fem types will be sympathetic but for the majority, Instead of gaining her sympathy it makes her look weak. Is this how she will react as president? If the anti-Hillary bunch picked this up on video they will flood the campaign trail with it. I wouldn’t blame Obama’s handlers if they do that.

    She’s cooked. Done. This has ripped her heart out. Now maybe she will realize that campaigning as “the Clintons” returning to the White House was a huge mistake. She should have kept Bill out of it, had him disappear, and, when asked, she should have told people SHE was running for president, Bill just happened to be her husband. As a former president he will, occassionally, be an asset.

    The wire sevice has already put her “choking up with tears” as a headline. She’s finished.

  22. Carl Nemo

    Hi Joyful C…

    “I’m waiting for someone with the courage to step forward and tell us the TRUTH. (But will the media even allow it to be heard?)”

    In answer to your question…nope! Ron Paul comes closest to explaining our national plight and what needs to be done to cure our collective illness from 60 years of Empire building; but he’s basically ignored by both the MSM and the electorate. The modern welfare/warfare state is too deeply entrenched for change. This train ain’t stoppin’ til it crashes…!

    In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act. …George Orwell

    Carl Nemo **==

  23. Sandra Price

    I have an advantage or disadvantage in that we had no television when I was growing up and none when my kids were being educated. I saw the tilt that all girls had to look like sluts or no man would be interested but this was much later in my life. I have a 23 year old granddaughter who is a lady to the core. No television in that one either.

    I get the impression that Obama is clearly interested in mankind versus American Idol. I am pleased that he and Michelle have two girls to pass on the wonderful class they share as a family. I am so disgusted with the girls on the streets at this time. They have virtually no vocabulary and the walk around with their mouths open and chewing gum. On the stage if a mentally deficient person is shown they will always have their mouths open and chew gum.

    We cannot expect these kids to vote as they have no clue about government, economics, foreign relations as these subjects are overlooked at home and in school.

    We are being stomped by other nations in manners, intelligence, university degrees and many simply want to allow our kids into a university without earning the right to attend. Hey, we get what we breed.

    I live with all the grandparents in 4 states and they are basically proud of their children and enbarrassed by the grandkids. It’s as if the strength of character and the ability to learn has been tapped out. I think it is television and video games.

    The only candidate who can inspire our younger citizens is someone like Obama. He speaks of the future with all Americans involved. Hillary sounds more like the Pied Piper drawing kids to her without helping in the deal.

    I grew up feeling very involved in American actions. The kids today cannot find Iraq on a map. Unless a man of Obama’s character can stand up to this apathy, we are a lost nation. I know he tends toward Socialism; but we’ve been there before and the families can work on that at home. But only if they are motivated.

    I’ve been called a bitchy feminist and I seldom speak out about men vs women but Hillary scares the shit out of me.

  24. JoyfulC

    You’re right about that!

    But what do we really know about Obama? Looks like a first rate PR campaign to me. They even interviewed his grandma in Kenya. It reminds me of the ads for the starving children (in countries where we know the natural resources are being exploited right out from under the locals by the same people charging me $1.10/litre for gasoline! — smooth).

    We need a candidate who dares to speak the truth to us, to tell us the truth about ourselves. One who dares to tell us specifically where we really stand and specifically what sacrifices we’ll need to make to pull ourselves out.

    As someone else here pointed out, we’re a culture that runs to Wal-Mart to save on useless, needless material purchases. But who are we really screwing when we do so? Not the big profiters at the top. They’re doing better than ever. We’re screwing each other.

    I’m waiting for someone with the courage to step forward and tell us the TRUTH. (But will the media even allow it to be heard?)

  25. ekaton

    I’d like to see Sandra run!! I don’t always agree with her but I think she’s HONEST.

    — Kent Shaw

  26. Donnat

    Hillary pandered to the right too much. She voted for the invasion of Iraq for political expediency, when it looked like Bush would have high approval ratings for the duration of his term.

    When America soured on Iraq, Hillary claimed she was given bad information. Now she says she regrets it.

    She clutches at trends and tries to make it look like it was her idea all along. When did she talk about ‘change’ before Iowa? Now she’s all about ‘change’.

    I am embarrased for her to act this way and I hope she is taking bad advice from someone, not doing it on her own.

    The worst that can can be said about Obama is that he lacks experience. The best that can be said is that he motivates and inspires people, he has vision and he can communicate that vision.

    That’s what people need in a leader as much as experience. Clinton and her advisors completely overlooked that as part of the Obama’s appeal. Would that she would have copied those things from him.


  27. JoyfulC

    Sandra, I came of age is the 70s and things were very different then. You had your choices: girls who did were sluts; girls who didn’t were frigid. And the feminists were the worst of all. The only way you could meet with their approval was to walk around with stringy hair and no make-up in bib overalls. If you dared to celebrate your womanhood, you were dismissed. A non-person.

    I am just sorry that this is still so pervasive today that it even affects our choice in a president. I don’t think Clinton is the best person for the job, but I don’t really see anyone any better either (although I find something appealing in Huckabee’s civility, Thompson’s disdain for the process, and Edward’s track record on taking on industry to get justice for ordinary people). Perhaps our process doesn’t really allow for anyone better to succeed.

    But I must ask you, as you are a Ron Paul supporter: Do you think we can simply toss “New Deal” reforms in the dustheap and still retain the greatness of this country? And if so, why?

  28. Cobaltkid


    Your comments are very eloquent and in many respects are similar to what I have witnessed over my nearly seven decades of life. I was, however, brought up in a family with Quaker beliefs that included equality of everyone – regardless of sex, race, etc. I was fortunate to work at companies that were eons ahead of Federal Equal Opportunity Laws. As such, I hired and promoted many women based on their I.Q., ability, and job performance. I was rarely disappointed.

    In fact, my strong pro-choice belief is grounded in the fact that a woman is smart enough and has the right to make her own choice and not be dictated to by some religious dogma or governmental entity. I certainly understand your attraction to Ron Paul’s positions but his strict pro-life stance disturbs me. This is especially frustrating due to his beliefs on individual freedoms, privacy, and limited government.

    It is disappointing to report that since my last post I received a call from a non New Hampshire Ron Paul political operativw. I asked this person (male) about Paul’s being pro-life and wanting to change the Constituition. I also brought up some of the points I raised in my previous post here. The Ron Paul supporter then began to tell me that he (and Ron Paul) as Christians believed totally in their positions including no exception for rape, etc. I felt like reminding this person that he was in NH and no longer in Iowa, but I refrained.

  29. JoyfulC

    Sadly that’s all too accurate.

    And whatever happened to letting us think for ourselves. We listen to a candidate speak to us, and then we have to suffer two dozen talking heads analyzing what was said, each one putting their own spin on things. The news should facilitate our hearing what the candidates have to say. They shouldn’t tell us how to interpret it. If we are smart enough to vote, we should be smart enough to digest what we hear and contrast it against what we know.

    The worst thing, I think, is that there’s no way any candidate can tell us hard truths and survive the process. That necessitates that we get candidates who lie to us — and then later we’re shocked when we feel they’re not honest in office. We get what we deserve. The successful candidates are being honest with the parties who will hold them accountable after they’re elected — but that ain’t us.

    Paul Krugman wrote today: “… there’s a powerful political faction in this country that understands very well that any real change will create losers as well as winners. In particular, any serious progressive reform of health care, let alone a broader attempt to reduce middle-class insecurity and inequality, will have to mean higher taxes on the affluent. And members of that faction will do whatever it takes to scare people into believing that change means disaster for the economy.

    I don’t think they’ll succeed. But it would be a big mistake to assume that they won’t.”

    I wish I could share his confidence that it’s just the affluent that are going to have to sacrifice. But then, politicians that tell people things like they need to be less materialistic, lower their thermostat, drive less or (egad!) take the bus have never gotten to first base.

    And that’s the only candidate I could trust right now.

  30. Steve Horn


    I’m very sad to say that intellect, breeding, culture and manners no longer matter. The sole measures of a candidate (male or female) are money and popularity.

    I’d love to see a strong, confident, accomplished lady run for and win a Presidential contest. Heck, I’d like to see a true gentleman do the same. Sorry to say, our society no longer holds manners and civility as measures of a man or woman, lady or gentleman. We’re not that deep.

    Face it, Sandra, our candidates reflect our buying patterns. Off to Walmart for more cheap stuff that won’t last very long. We won’t like it a couple months after we buy it, but at least it was cheap, and, at the time, deemed “popular” by the media.



  31. Carl Nemo

    It’s said that a photo is worth a thousand words, if so then a vid clip must be worth ten thousand times as much…no?! This has to be my all time favorite clip and to me nails down the crux of “Billary’s” patronization of “we the people”…enjoy and then think…!


    Carl Nemo **==

  32. Sandra Price

    Every woman my age has had to face the fact that if even a tiny glimmer of I.Q. is shown at an employment interview or even a first date, we will be shown the door. We all have learned to laugh with a high pitched silly sound and flutter our eyelashes (often false) and even tear up on occasion. We were trained to take the fanny patting and bra snapping if our paychecks were needed. We learned never to get into an elevator without another woman present. Our filing cabinets were carefully placed so we could get into the bottom drawers without leaning over if anyone was in the office. It was a lesson in survival they never taught us in school.

    I was very interested in fashion and had one or two designers who made my clothes. In the 50’s we did not show our cleavage and our skirts were always at knee level. We wore 3 or 4 inch high heels because it made our legs look really good to see but not to touch. We dressed and made up for the men but it did not mean we were available to any of them. Today it is a different culture.

    Back in the 40s I dated some neat actors and we were very careful to look like ladies and stay sober in case the cameras came after us. I passed this on to my daughters and taught them formal manners in case they would need them. My youngest has been invited to the White House on several occasions. She attends the Opera with Justice Ginsberg. My oldest travels all over the world teaching physical therapy to the students. She speaks 3 languages.

    I don’t belong in today’s culture and don’t even try. I’ve been trained by pros how to act and react like a lady. It has left me with little respect for the American men. I go for the intellectual nerds and may be why Ron Paul appeals to me.