Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
I usually ignore the posts that complain about Salon's allegedly blatant ongoing support for an HC candidacy, but this time I'm writing one. This article really has gone too far. Its fawning adulation is one thing, but it doesn't even contain the content to qualify it as a cover story. Worse, what content there is contradicts its hypothesis:
"When pressed, her advisors will grudgingly admit that she does come across as stiff in formal speeches. But they argue that she excels in town meetings with voters."
That may work in New Hampshire, but what happens when it comes time to win a general election? Will she hold town meetings in every precinct in every state in the nation? Formal speeches are the bread and butter of the campaign trail--and when you are carrying as much baggage as the former first lady, you need that skill very badly.
The reason that we get excited about the charisma of an Obama or Edwards is that CHARISMA SELLS--not to we party faithful who will vote for another Clinton, a Kerry or a Yellow dog should that be the party's choice, but to the UNDECIDEDS and swing voters who make or break an election.
Not only is Mrs. Clinton a hard sell because of her stiff and somewhat chilly formal speeches, but--more importantly--she already has as much support as she is likely to muster. That is, for every voter, like the North Irish immigrant in this article, who will vote for her because he can't distinguish between her and her husband, there is a Mr. Clinton and/or Mrs. Clinton hater who will vote against her for the same reason. If you look at the polls, you will notice that Mrs. Clinton consistently ranks very high in "support", very high in "oppose" and extremely low in "consider" or "unsure" (go to Wikipedia right now and look at "Opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2008"). That is, the swing voters already have their minds made up, and she doesn't have the numbers to make it. And that is before the inevitable swiftboating, character assassination, manufactured scandals and other dirty tricks of the GOP.
People, when will you understand? It doesn't matter what kind of president she would make. The point is that she could never get there in the first place.
anyone who doesn't know that attacking defenseless countries who haven't attacked you is immoral is not fit to lead anyone. no way in hell she's getting my vote.
It's as sincere as her soul. She's the very worst that the Democratic party has to offer.
As an academic who studies political communication, I can say that Pablo Fresa is probably correct in his assessment of the importance of the swing vote and the difficulty for Hillary to surmount these preformed attitudes--though polling is largely speculative this early in the race. As an Upstate New Yorker and Democrat, I wish that she understood that like Ted Kennedy she will never be President, but she can be a truly Great Senator. The sooner that she accepts the former and moves forward with the latter the better for us all.
I think it is great that Clinton refuses to apologize for her Iraq vote because of her core beliefs. We need more candidates for all elective offices that a guided by their core beliefs.
Let's just be clear what that core belief is, though. Her core belief is that if someone offers some set of evidence about Iraq and WMD and she bases her vote on that evidence, then she is not responsible. It doesn't matter that set of evidence is so transparently flawed that it convinces no one who actually knows anything about Iraq or WMD. It doesn't matter that there was abundant evidence at the time that the evidence was being presented was being fixed around the policy. It doesn't matter that the central argument for the war, Colin Powell's speech to the UN, was such transparent hogwash that anyone who asked any question about Powell's assertions would instantly realize that the claims didn't hold up.
No, Senator Clinton was not personally responsible for being fooled. Apparently all those years at Yale Law School, in the Rose law firm and in public life taught Senator Clinton to believe everything she heard and that the responsibility for her vote rests not with her, but with those who misinformed her.
This is her core belief.
We currently have a President who believes absolutely in his own infallibility and right to behave as a moron and blame others for his failures.
One of my core beliefs is that we don't need another.
This posting sounds like Shapiro, the writer, is embarking on a public relations campaign on behalf of candidate Hillary.
Shapiro's assessment of Hillary is as generic as what Hillary has offered to her base so far. Shapiro attributes this so-called generic approach to Hillary's "authentic prudent moderate" stand. I have to say this is a laughable defense.
The purpose of primary election is to provide voters--the party faithful--an opportunity to study, examine, assess, compare each candidate’s personality, position, conviction, principles, action plan. It is not a beauty pageant where candidates only need to post, smile, show off while the audience only need to choose whoever is the most pleasant to their eyes.
We don’t need a candidate who hides in her so-called “authentic prudent moderate” label so she doesn’t need to voice her position, dare to speak from her heart, because she thinks her bold and honest stand may alienate certain imagined voters. We need candidates to be as clear, bold, honest, skillful as possible to speak their minds and express their hearts. So, we as the voters can decide who should be the party’s nominee and who deserves to be the resident of the White House.
To Shapiro, it is an act of intellectual honesty, to me Hillary’s reluctant to recant her Iraq vote is a calculated mistake on top of another calculated mistake, namely the vote for this bloody, unnecessary, costly foreign policy blunder.
From Shapiro’s eyes, Hillary possesses hard-earned wisdom, which comes with a sense of political prudence and caution; to me Hillary’s wisdom is misplaced for her own self-serving ambition, her sense of political prudence and caution has been best reflected in her overwhelming desire to win and win at any cost.
In addition to our contrasting view toward Hillary, I would like to correct some of Shapiro’s word usage when describing her. I don’t think the word “prudent” is correct, I think it should be replaced with “timid, calculating.” Likewise, “moderate” should change to “do or say nothing extraordinary to either win or not to alienate any type of voters.” Furthermore, even though this is purely personal opinion. I have to say I think I am right. I think “authentic” is completely opposite word to describe Hillary. The better word should be “jaded.”
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
219 Democrats and one Republican join in favor of the legislation, which passed by a narrow margin
Salon headlines in your mailbox
