What went wrong for Hillary Clinton?

Leafless · March 4, 2008

Nothing to do with Black and White. Nothing to do with male or female. I've said it before and I've never been proven wrong.

I am not to certain about that.

Obama wins support from Japanese town: Obama
"I believe he's the right president for this new age," the mayor said, adding that he liked the presidential candidate's opposition to the war in Iraq and his emphasis on dialogue. "America's image in the world will change."

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/02/19/asia/19japan.php

I think it is an automatic reaction as indicated with favourable Japanese sentiments and most Blacks in America, that non-Whites will prefer a non-White in a position of authority.

GostHacked · March 4, 2008

So much time is spent on how the candidates look/act, it takes away from their actual substance. It should not be about appearence, it should be about substance. I care about what they say, not how they say it. I care about their senate voting records, not their polling records. These debates are nothing more than a media circus. You are the audience watching this circus.

If you have no substance, it does not matter what the hell your image is or how you present it.

Leafless · March 4, 2008

If you have no substance, it does not matter what the hell your image is or how you present it.

You mean you have never heard of cultural preference over substance, image or anything else.

French Quebec for instance build their linguistic fortunes on it.

GostHacked · March 4, 2008

You mean you have never heard of cultural preference over substance, image or anything else.
French Quebec for instance build their linguistic fortunes on it.

I have heard of it, and that is part of the reason I really don't care about it. People who want to vote based on gender, cultural preference, image, is not helping. They are either misguided, or simply not informed enough about the candidate. It does not help when main stream media plays into this whole IMAGE IS EVERYTHING (screw the thirst) which in turn influences the general population to vote based on superficial qualities.

It is a circus, which performing animal can wow the crowd the most.

Argus · March 5, 2008

So much time is spent on how the candidates look/act, it takes away from their actual substance. It should not be about appearence, it should be about substance. I care about what they say, not how they say it. I care about their senate voting records, not their polling records. These debates are nothing more than a media circus. You are the audience watching this circus.
If you have no substance, it does not matter what the hell your image is or how you present it.

Right. Unless you want to get elected.

M.Dancer · March 5, 2008

I think it's too early to count her out. Little blunders from Obama like failing to repudiate Farrakhan's endorsement will whittle away at what ever support he has.
Eitherway I doubt either will take up sleeping at the White house.

....unless they run as team mates....

HisSelf · March 5, 2008

Nothing to do with Black and White. Nothing to do with male or female. I've said it before and I've never been proven wrong.
The folksy guy wins.

Bill Clinton was a folksy guy. That was why he won. George Bush too. Their opponents were stiff and stilted speakers nobody really felt any emotional warmth for or from.

Obama is a charismatic guy, a great speaker. Hillary is a cold fish no one has ever liked - probably not even Bill. The fact no one thinks there's a sincere bone in her body doesn't help, of course.

George Bush was a folksy guy? Well maybe if you sit him on Dick Cheney's lap. Hoo-ha! With a brother in Florida who goes down to the swamp and toasts the gators. Ha ha. This is rich. George Bush a folksy guy. Amazing.

HisSelf · March 5, 2008

If you were McCain, who wants to continue the war in Iraq, or George Bush, who is a little worried that History might see him as an idiot, whom would you rather have as your opponent? Hillary Clinton, who voted in favour of invading Iraq, or Barak Obama, who voted against invading Iraq?

And if you were Steven Harper, who has a tendency to look like he might support George Bush and the Republican Party, what might your choice be?

Arjun · March 6, 2008

The fact that Barack Hussein Obama is black is a reason he is winning. Black Americans who never voted befor will vote for him. White Americans will vote for him. I would vote for hillary over a younger women because atleast she will be stable all year round.

Argus · March 6, 2008

George Bush was a folksy guy? Well maybe if you sit him on Dick Cheney's lap. Hoo-ha! With a brother in Florida who goes down to the swamp and toasts the gators. Ha ha. This is rich. George Bush a folksy guy. Amazing.

Yes, he was and is. He's self deprecating, and uses mannerisms which might well be deliberately calculated to make him seem like the guy next door - using Nucular instead of Nuclear, for example. He's just the average joe, ya know, a guy you could have a beer with.

How come a guy who graduated from Harvard can't pronounce nuclear? Sorry, I don't buy that he's that stupid. I think he does it deliberately.

M.Dancer · March 6, 2008

Yes, he was and is. He's self deprecating, and uses mannerisms which might well be deliberately calculated to make him seem like the guy next door - using Nucular instead of Nuclear, for example. He's just the average joe, ya know, a guy you could have a beer with.
How come a guy who graduated from Harvard can't pronounce nuclear? Sorry, I don't buy that he's that stupid. I think he does it deliberately.

There's a little restaurant on the island of Gasperilla on the gulf coast of florida call Loons on a limb. The owner's name is Jay. Jay frives a pick up and takes a shotgun and a magnum with him when he fishes...(for sharks) and takes a fishing pole with hime when he's up this way hunting....

The bush family takes a week during the xmas season and holiday on the island and the town known as Boca Grande. They sometimes have breakfast at loons. I have been told that the bushes eat their grits the same as everyone else...except they have an extra table for the Secret Service...and they chat about the fishing...the golf....etc.

People are people. Some more than others....and often, southern americans are some of the least pretentious people you will ever meet.

August1991 · March 6, 2008

How come a guy who graduated from Harvard can't pronounce nuclear? Sorry, I don't buy that he's that stupid. I think he does it deliberately.

He's not stupid. He's a country club Republican, like his Dad. More ambitious and far more competitive than most. And that's how they talk.

As to your "folksy guy wins" political theory, please explain Richard Nixon's wins in 1968 and 1972.

I think your theory really is saying that the Democrats can only win with a southerner and in your mind, anyone who talks like a southerner is a folksy guy. Don't confuse an accent with how one's mind works. To my ear, everyone in Ontario sounds like an accountant or a marketing manager.

-----

To return to the OP, what went wrong for Hillary?

For a woman to become president (excepting some accident), everything - absolutely everything - has to go right. There's no margin of error. It would be better if the Republicans nominated a woman. She would have to have served in the military and have some political experience at the state level.

There's too much against Clinton.

Carinthia · March 6, 2008

Bush is a country bumpkin and an embarrassment. Doing a jig on the steps of the Whitehouse while waiting for McCain so he could give him the kiss of death, was so un Presidential. Americans are dying every day in Iraq and this President is dancing around without a care in the world. Impressive, I must say.

Edited March 6, 2008 by Carinthia

M.Dancer · March 6, 2008

Americans are dying every day in Iraq ......

Ummm....no. This month, while early has seen only one american death.

Non combat as well.

You might as well say, because of the surge, less americans and Iraqi civilians are dying each month, thanks to McCain.

jbg · March 7, 2008

How come a guy who graduated from Harvard can't pronounce nuclear? Sorry, I don't buy that he's that stupid. I think he does it deliberately.

No question. As was Reagan's folksiness, and Chretien's peasant mannerisms.

jbg · March 7, 2008

Bush is a country bumpkin and an embarrassment. Doing a jig on the steps of the Whitehouse while waiting for McCain so he could give him the kiss of death, was so un Presidential. Americans are dying every day in Iraq and this President is dancing around without a care in the world. Impressive, I must say.

Your knee-jerk hatred of Bush and America less impressive, I must say as well.

August1991 · May 10, 2008

Why has Hillary lost this? She's running against a no-name, first term senator from Illinois who speaks in cliches.

HH: Now how in the world did Hillary Clinton not beat him like a drum? How could she not, as Rush likes to say, as everyone on the radio, Michael Medved, Dennis Prager, Bill Bennett, he’s as green as ivy, and yet she could not beat him.
MS: But he’s out-punched her. He’s trumped her on the identity politics thing. You know, the first woman candidate would be viable if it weren’t for the fact that Hillary Clinton is very well known. Generally speaking, the Republicans vote for the bore who’s next in line. And it’s just a question of whether you get someone effective whose turn it is, as it was for Ronald Reagan, or you get someone whose relatively disastrous, like Bob Dole. The Democrats are fixated on novelty, so if you’ve got an identity politics trump card with a fresh face, that trumps identity politics with a stale, old face, which…and I don’t…like Rush, I’ve got a crush on her, too. Let’s face it. We all have now, just because she’s making this race interesting. I don’t mean that in a misogynist sense, but just that she’s been around a long time, and the Democrats value novelty in their primaries.

Link

The hardcore Dems who caucus in primaries love novelty and identity politics. An unknown, thin black guy who seems chill trumps a known, wide-assed white woman who isn't cool.

WIP · May 10, 2008

I would have answered the poll question if there was a box to check for: "because she has no conscience and is devoid of any ethics!" Just like her husband! I guess that's the "special bond" they share that we here so much about from Clinton supporters.

After threatening to nuke Iran to try to show off her new brass balls and risking starting a race war by encouraging rural white voters to vote "race" and reject the black candidate, I hope she is too toxic to be considered for the VP nomination. The Clinton dynasty should be brought to the same end as the Bush's! And I mean a permanent end! I hope we don't end up with Chelsea running for president 20 years from now!

August1991 · May 10, 2008

I would have answered the poll question if there was a box to check for: "because she has no conscience and is devoid of any ethics!" Just like her husband! I guess that's the "special bond" they share that we here so much about from Clinton supporters.

No conscience?

Obama said very publicly that he would never renounce his pastor and then two weeks later he did exactly that. He renounced his pastor.

You are a fool to select such politicians on such grounds. In Obama's case, I suspect many caucus-primary Democrats have done as you. When Obama goes prime time in the Fall, all of this is going to change. Then again, maybe I'm wrong. We'll see.

Is Obama dishonest? Not at all. He's just some guy.

Edited May 10, 2008 by August1991

Remiel · May 10, 2008

And ultimately, Hillary Clinton is just the wife of a former president of the United States. That is not a qualification, it is an interesting factoid. Without that, she too would be a nobody.

To say that Obama went back on his word is to ignore the fact that Wright basically renounced him. Kind of like a guy saying, " I would never hurt an animal, " and then in the defense of another killing a rabid dog that had attacked someone. Would you say that such a person was of flawed character because they went back on their word?

August1991 · May 10, 2008

To say that Obama went back on his word is to ignore the fact that Wright basically renounced him. Kind of like a guy saying, " I would never hurt an animal, " and then in the defense of another killing a rabid dog that had attacked someone. Would you say that such a person was of flawed character because they went back on their word?

Obama knew the guy for 20 years. In a critical, turning point of a speech, Obama states his absolute trust in Wright - comparing this trust to his trust in his white grandmother.

Then, two weeks later, Obama disowns Wright.

----

The question is: how did Hillary lose against some guy like this? In Democratic terms, it's hard not to conclude that a black guy trumps a white woman.

Edited May 10, 2008 by August1991

Remiel · May 10, 2008

The problem is Obama went out of a limb for Wright in the March 18th speech. But in the commentary I have seen on Wright's later speech, it seems the pastor decided that what Obama did wasn't good enough for him and their was speculation that Wright was trying to sabotage Obama in that speech. Being loyal is all well and good, but if the person you are loyal too just uses it as an opportunity to kick you in the teeth the only thing to do is reconsider. Otherwise people are just going to think you're a tool. I think the U.S. has had enough of having a tool for president.

I will not say definatively that it does not come down to a black guy trumping a white woman as you said, because maybe that is simply all it is. But that reduction is no more complimentary to Clinton than it is to Obama. Is the only reason she got this far because she is a woman? There are other factors involved. The U.S. is coming off an 8 year period where trusting in someone who shared the last name and had blood ties to a recent president got them in the dumps. Obviously the Clinton name has helped Hillary to get to where she is, but I think it also produces something of a " plastic " ceiling effect. That is so say, you get so high and then you hit hit an invisible barrier that can you can push through, but not without a great deal of additional effort.

Oleg Bach · May 10, 2008

The problem is Obama went out of a limb for Wright in the March 18th speech. But in the commentary I have seen on Wright's later speech, it seems the pastor decided that what Obama did wasn't good enough for him and their was speculation that Wright was trying to sabotage Obama in that speech. Being loyal is all well and good, but if the person you are loyal too just uses it as an opportunity to kick you in the teeth the only thing to do is reconsider. Otherwise people are just going to think you're a tool. I think the U.S. has had enough of having a tool for president.
I will not say definatively that it does not come down to a black guy trumping a white woman as you said, because maybe that is simply all it is. But that reduction is no more complimentary to Clinton than it is to Obama. Is the only reason she got this far because she is a woman? There are other factors involved. The U.S. is coming off an 8 year period where trusting in someone who shared the last name and had blood ties to a recent president got them in the dumps. Obviously the Clinton name has helped Hillary to get to where she is, but I think it also produces something of a " plastic " ceiling effect. That is so say, you get so high and then you hit hit an invisible barrier that can you can push through, but not without a great deal of additional effort.

Obama did what was right regarding Mr. Rev Wright. All the reverand said was the truth, that all power on the planet was held by white people who are cold and cruel and predatorial in regards to blacks and other weaker cultures. I really am not at issue with what the ranting rev. said - it was true..and truth can only make America more free and more eqitably prosperious.

As for Hillary - just to much anger and quiet violence and vice in the woman and people notice it..not every one is of the Oprah Whinfrey soccer mom religion and mentality - so being female is not a guarentee to win. Estrogen is the huntress hormone and Hillary may if president become that raging little female terrier dog that kills even the flys in the kitchent not to mention the mice.

August1991 · May 10, 2008

I will not say definatively that it does not come down to a black guy trumping a white woman as you said, because maybe that is simply all it is. But that reduction is no more complimentary to Clinton than it is to Obama.

In the Democratic Party, that's what it comes down to because they've adopted identity politics as their main credo.

Obama did what was right regarding Mr. Rev Wright. All the reverand said was the truth, that all power on the planet was held by white people who are cold and cruel and predatorial in regards to blacks and other weaker cultures.

We'll give Obama the Oleg Bach vote. That's sure to get him to the White House.

oreodontist · May 10, 2008

Hisself: "And if you were Steven Harper, who has a tendency to look like he might support George Bush and the Republican Party, what might your choice be?"

Probably the most left leaning liberal possible. Bush in the White House is a thorn in Harper's ass. His principal obstacle to greater success in the last couple elections was his perceived right wing agenda and being 'too close' to neocon thinking....otherwise 'we can't trust the guy and his merry band of Reformers'. Harper can have closer relations with a Democrat in the Presidency than a Republican without having to constantly show he's not anyone's go-boy.