Hillary Weeps

[laxfan25]

I was just making the point that not everything that appears on the internet is the gospel truth. There was a lot of unproven, unfounded bashing going on there. Sorry I lost you vote of confidence.
As I have said earlier, one of my concerns is that when she gets elected the knives will be out from day one. That would be unwarranted evisceration rather than one built on an 8-year record in the office.

As far as Hilary in the Senate from NY, she obviously met whatever criteria was needed to become a candidate in the state, and the voters had the final say and elected her. It also just happens to be a bigger media market than Little Rock. What is impressive is the work she has done in the Senate. I've read a few profiles, and what really stood out were the high marks she garnered from the GOP senators. She also has worked really hard in the state of New York, traveling frequently throughout the far reaches of the state. So I certainly can't knock her job performance, and it she loses the nomination/election she will go back to being a very capable contributor in Congress.

[Zeuslax]

The Islamic world treats women the same as men. Lots of respect and hugs and kisses and cupcakes and cinnamon and sprinkles.

I think I get your point. When they have to sit down at the table with a women (not just a women, the president of the most powerful country on the face of the earth) they will treat her like their 4th wife. Yes, I'm being sarcastic. Elaborate on what are you really saying? That a women (or this women isn't capable) isn't capable of this job? Or is it that a women can't handle leaders from a male dominated society?

This old-boy network thought process is very flawed in my opinion. What is the real fear? The empowerment of women?

No country in the world struggled more with women of power than Tunisia. Slowly but surely they have evolved to adopt a more moderate stance (aka interpretation) of the Koran as a result of empowered women.

[Dan Wishengrad]

Maybe she should cry more often? Last night's big win in NH not only saved Hillary's candidacy but slows down the Obama momentum train and makes his nomination much less inevitable than it seemed just two days ago.

ALL the pollsters had this one dead wrong, something which rarely if ever happens. Even HC's own internal polls reportedly showed BO winning by 11 percentage points yesterday. But the exit polls revealed that women turned out in HUGE numbers and voted overwhelmingly for Sen. Clinton. Many independents who might have otherwise voted for Obama went for McCain instead. Maybe this is just a wacky year of parity, like in college football. Who knows now who the Dems and the Reps will wind up nominating to head their respective tickets? It's still "game on" for both sides, and this will continue to be one of the most fascinating and intriguing presidential elections ever.

[Beta]

I think I get your point. When they have to sit down at the table with a women (not just a women, the president of the most powerful country on the face of the earth) they will treat her like their 4th wife. Yes, I'm being sarcastic. Elaborate on what are you really saying? That a women (or this women isn't capable) isn't capable of this job? Or is it that a women can't handle leaders from a male dominated society?

This old-boy network thought process is very flawed in my opinion. What is the real fear? The empowerment of women?

Um actually if those are my only 2 choices to answer, then niether. I am always on here complaining about women's (lack of) rights in the Islamic world, why would I say that someone cannot handle a job because of her sex? Wouldn't that be the exact opposite of what I am saying? A women IS capable of handling the job of being president. A woman CAN handle leaders from a male dominated society. However, I do not believe that THEY can handle dealing with a woman being in charge of the most powerful nation in the world.

I don't find it hard to imagine that a culture that forces ALL women (regardless of religion) to cover their faces/bodies in public (as an example) will have a problem adjusting their cultural attitudes when dealing with a woman. We already have a hard enough time dealing with the leaders of the middle east with our male leaders...let alone with a sex that over there isn't on the same level of men. So they treat the women like a lower class (regardless of race, nationality, religion), and all of a sudden they are going to change that for a white woman because of her title? Ha. If they did, that doesn't say much for the validity of their culture...which I am not a fan of...since they treat women like garbage.

[Zeuslax]

Dan, on the periphial I think that's the case. Definitely the Dodd and Biden supporters went with Hilliary, as expected. However, there's a lot to be said for the independants and the "Bradley and or Wilder effect".

Beta, I was antagonizing a little but only to provoke some thoughts. Hopefully I didn’t offend you! Should the perceptions of the world and in a portion of the world that we all agree we would like to see change in be pandered to just because of the their positions on women? If that was the case we should have been having this argument when the country was getting ready to elect a cowboy president in 00 &04. This was the perception of many in the world in regards to Bush. The cavalier attitude was a big deal in the Middle East. The whole world viewed FL as a stolen election and validation for some of their leader’s tactics. Isn't it just as valid to communicate that the most powerful and free country in the world will elect anyone as long as they are choice of the people? Even a women or African American?

The thing were missing here is that the world doesn’t have a choice when the president of the US picks up the phone. They have to listen! Women have been very successful dealing with the Middle East. Rice has been doing it for weeks now prior to Bush’s current visit and Thatcher in England was more than capable dealing with male dominated provinces.

[laxfan25]

I don't find it hard to imagine that a culture that forces ALL women (regardless of religion) to cover their faces/bodies in public (as an example) will have a problem adjusting their cultural attitudes when dealing with a woman.

Yes, but haven't they been having to deal with a black female Secretary of State? Madeline Albright before her? Not to mention Margaret Thatcher, the German Prime Minister, Indira Ghandi and the president of the secular Islamic state of Pakistan - Bhenazir Bhutto?

Sounds like they can get over it, and it seems like we're behind the times in having a woman leader of the nation - it's not that radical of a concept.

Oops! Didn't see your similar reply Zeus!

[Beta]

The thing were missing here is that the world doesn’t have a choice when the president of the US picks up the phone. They have to listen! Women have been very successful dealing with the Middle East. Rice has been doing it for weeks now prior to Bush’s current visit and Thatcher in England was more than capable dealing with male dominated provinces.

Haha you didn't offend me. I'll start using more "Emoticons" or something. It's a political discussion, not the BCS. Grr. J/k.

Women have indeed done well. But Rice isn't the leader of the big bad US... Bush is. And he's not the most loved over there...to put it lightly. I think (hypothetically) if Hilary was elected, it would hit harder to Americans seeing a straw dummy with a female's face on it being beaten/burned. It'd definitely get America more "emotional" about issues over there.

A few people have mentioned before about the Dean fit-O-rage in '04 in comparison. But I don't see this getting the same press as that incident. I honestly don't think the crying had an impact on anything, either good or bad.

Super Tuesday is going to be ridiculous. It's gonna be like watching the NFL draft with all of these numbers going on.

Bhenazir Bhutto

And she was exiled and now killed. Alas, none of these nations are the US. It's different with us (us = America) since we have to police the world, and often times babysit.

Sounds like they can get over it

Damn straight they need to.

I guess I just hold a woman's life higher than a man's. HAHA technically I guess that's sexism/favoritism.

[Dan Wishengrad]

Dan, on the periphial I think that's the case. Definitely the Dodd and Biden supporters went with Hilliary, as expected. However, there's a lot to be said for the independants and the "Bradley and or Wilder effect".

The "Bradley effect" was discussed alot last night on tv, but it's only real relevance is that like the '08 NH primary the pollsters got it dead wrong.

For those who don't remember (or weren't even alive then LOL), Tom Bradley was projected by all the polls to win the California governor's race in 1982. An African-American, Bradley was the former police chief of L.A. and a middle-of-the-road, moderate Democrat. When Deukmejian wound up winning the race and proving all the polls wrong, many mistakenly attributed this to a "hidden racism" factor -- that voters would tell pollsters they were going to vote for Bradley but that they actually just didn't want to admit a bias against blacks and actually voted for the white "Duke" instead.

But this was NOT the real reason that Bradley lost, although it may have certainly played at least a small factor. Bradley came out a few weeks before the election to take a strong gun-control public stance. He did this out of personal conviction, having witnessed the horrors of crime in his city and the proliferation of semi-automatic guns as the new weapon of choice for the competing gangs, who began a wave of drive-by shootings which claimed numerous lives, including the many innocents who got caught in the cross-fire. GOP State Senator H.L. "Bill" Richardson, who had co-founded Gun Owners of California, immediately began a campaign to turn out all his members to work and vote against Bradley. The NRA was enlisted as an ally against Bradley, and that group also poured in buckets of money and turned out their own army of gun-toting members to oppose Bradley's gubenatorial bid. This was the real reason that Bradley lost, much more so than his skin color. It also helped really propel the NRA into the political force it has become, campaigning hard against ANY form of gun-control in this country ever since. The lesson learned was that gun-control had became a "third rail" of politics, and if anyone wants to prevent five-year-olds from carrying bazookas to kindergarten that they say so at their own political peril. Every candidate must now don camouflage clothing and get photographed killing animals whether they enjoy the sport of hunting or not. To fail to do so risks the wrath of a very powerful and motivated political interest group.

[Jac Coyne]

if anyone wants to prevent five-year-olds from carrying bazookas to kindergarten that they say so at their own political peril. Every candidate must now don camouflage clothing and get photographed killing animals whether they enjoy the sport of hunting or not.

Bwahaha. Did someone mention kool-aid? Now I know why Sonny has to keep people on point. And by the way, the pollsters pretty much nailed the Republican side in N.H.

HC's entire political career has been scripted, thus every move is deconstructed to find its real meaning. In this case, pure desperation, which appears to have worked.

Conversely, a bumpkin like Huckabee can skip through the political minefield and come out unscathed because he appears to be just winging it. And by winging it, I mean doing God's work.

[Zeuslax]

The "Bradley effect" was discussed a lot last night on TV, but it's only real relevance is that like the '08 NH primary the pollsters got it dead wrong.

Dan, I don't entirely disagree. The polling going in is almost always on the nose, unless it's very close. That's the whole point with the results. There's a very valid case here and it looks like a lot of voters are admitting it behind the scenes.

I haven't had the chance to catch the news today, but I assumed this topic would come up when I went to bed and they didn't declare a winner on the Dem side. Many NH's have stated that they said one thing and did another. You're a numbers guy. With the numbers going in to last night she didn't have a chance in hell. They changed their minds in the booth. I agree the experience factor and the women vote had a huge impact. I also agree that a lot of people didn't like to see her get kicked around, especially women. Again, NH is not an indicative of the national landscape (I'm not saying this is a bad thing). It's an open primary and there's a huge number of independents. Looks like the Dodd-Biden factor played about a 5% roll as well. Definitely a whole new ball of wax moving forward. However, with all of this said, there's a very strong case for the Bradley-Wilder effect here. This "phenomenon" is not just a theory. We've seen it in many, many cases. It usually happens on the local level, but it's a real thing. Why do you think HRC was still leading BO with the African American vote even when the national polls titled heavily for him prior to NH?

[KnoxVegas]

Hmmm....This talk of foreign leaders possibly having trouble dealing with a female President of the United States is funny. I wonder if there was talk of this in the past but directed at the US when black leaders of foreign countries came calling. You now, keeping in mind that we enslaved them for so long and all.

[laxfan25]

Bhenazir Bhutto

And she was exiled and now killed. Alas, none of these nations are the US. It's different with us (us = America) since we have to police the world, and often times babysit.

But she was elected is the bigger point, even in a heavily Muslim country.
The reason she went into exile is because she was being accused of extensive corruption, not because she was a woman, nor was that the reason she was assassinated.
Read some interesting things about her husband, the ostensible new candidate of her party. When she was president, he was referred to as Mr. Ten Percent for the bribes he took for letting contracts. He is widely reviled in the country, so it'll be interesting to see if he (through his son) wins the election if it is ever held.

As for the U.S. "having" to police the world, many folks would aver that this is a self-proclaimed mantle, one used more in maintaining US political and economic power around the globe rather than as an altruistic venture. Our efforts might not always be welcome or proper.

[Beta]

As for the U.S. "having" to police the world, many folks would aver that this is a self-proclaimed mantle, one used more in maintaining US political and economic power around the globe rather than as an altruistic venture. Our efforts might not always be welcome or proper.

Self-proclaimed yes, False? Nope. Maintaining power? Si.

Yes I know there was corruption with Bhutto. And her husband was tied up in it too (sounds like 1st Lady Bill Clinton). I've read plenty on Bhutto, the fact remains that the first ever elected female leader of an Islamic country was assassinated recently...regardless of the reasoning behind the crime.

I said we "have" to police the world, with sarcasm.

[Zeuslax]

Well, Beta and Jolly have stepped up to the plate to explain why they don't like her. However, I still hear and have read a lot of, "she's terrible, she's unfit, she couldn't sit at the table and eat cupcakes with the Saudi's, she better not scream at the end of a rally, her laugh annoys me, she's desperate, she cold and calculating and she's a theif". Let's go to Kook Aid land and pretend she isn't a woman or a Clinton. Now what's the issue?

And her husband was tied up in it too (sounds like 1st Lady Bill Clinton).

Where does this stuff come from about the Clintons. They were drug dealers during the Iran Contra Affair too......didn't you guys hear.

[Beta]

Where does this stuff come from about the Clintons. They were drug dealers during the Iran Contra Affair too......didn't you guys hear.

I really need to figure out how to convey sarcasm on the interwebs. Because I actually really like Bill Clinton.