is hillary electable?

Will one of you out there who considers yourself a Hillary supporter please look at this photo, which has been all around the internet these past few days, and explain to me why it is that you think she’s even remotely electable? Personally, I’d rather take my chances with the cokehead.

And, while we’re on the subject of presidential politics, why is it, do you think, that McCain needs a “Jew counter” on his staff? Does he keep misplacing his Jews?

update: At the request of be-Oh-be, I’m moving this note of mine up from the comments section. He thought that, without it, this post just came across as an “Isn’t Hillary hideous” post. He was right.

Remember the Dean scream? People think it hurt his campaign because it reinforced this idea that was already out there in the collective American unconscious that he was unstable, and on the brink of a meltdown. Well, I think this photo is Hillary’s “scream.”? I think it captures pretty perfectly what it is that most American voters don’t like about her. I’m not saying it’s justified. I’m just saying that, if I were a betting man, I wouldn’t put any money on her to be our first woman President.

And, I should add that I don’t dislike her because I buy into this idea of her being a strident, emasculating shrew. I don’t like her because she went along with the administration on the war far too much longer than anyone in their right mind would. She, I’m convinced, was thinking about it politically. As a women, she knew that she had to come across as strong when it came to all things military if she wanted a shot at the oval office. She knew that a woman couldn’t win unless she, like Thatcher, came across as a hawk. And, she played the part. It may be true, but I don’t respect it. If she’d said, “This means I’ll never be President, but here’s what I think about the war,” I’d be volunteering for her right now, but she didn’t. She maneuvered it like a politician. (As she did on the subject of health care as well.) And, frankly, I’m tired of politicians that are good at playing the game. I want someone who says what he or she thinks, even if I don’t agree with it all. (That’s one of the reasons I like Gore. He was talking about global warming way before anyone gave a fuck, way before it would have helped him in the polls. At the time, they used it to make him sound crazy, but he didn’t stop. I respect the hell out of that.)

This entry was posted in Observations. Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.

20 Comments

  1. mark
    Posted April 5, 2007 at 10:50 pm | Permalink

    Remember the Dean scream? People think it hurt his campaign because it reinforced this idea that was already out there in the collective American unconscious that he was unstable, and on the brink of a meltdown. Well, I think this photo is Hillary’s “scream.”? I think it captures pretty perfectly what it is that most American voters don’t like about her. I’m not saying it’s justified. I’m just saying that, if I were a betting man, I wouldn’t put any money on her to be our first woman President.

    And, I should add that I don’t dislike her because I buy into this idea of her being a strident, emasculating shrew. I don’t like her because she went along with the administration on the war far too much longer than anyone in their right mind would. She, I’m convinced, was thinking about it politically. As a women, she knew that she had to come across as strong when it came to all things military if she wanted a shot at the oval office. She knew that a woman couldn’t win unless she, like Thatcher, came across as a hawk. And, she played the part. It may be true, but I don’t respect it. If she’d said, “This means I’ll never be President, but here’s what I think about the war,” I’d be volunteering for her right now, but she didn’t. She maneuvered it like a politician. (As she did on the subject of health care as well.) And, frankly, I’m tired of politicians that are good at playing the game. I want someone who says what he or she thinks, even if I don’t agree with it all. (That’s one of the reasons I like Gore. He was talking about global warming way before anyone gave a fuck, way before it would have helped him in the polls. At the time, they used it to make him sound crazy, but he didn’t stop. I respect the hell out of that.)

  2. ol' e cross
    Posted April 5, 2007 at 10:55 pm | Permalink

    Everyone who’s won the popular vote since Reagan has had a southern drawl (including Gore). It’s the sign of downhome trust needed to sway those mid-country swingers. If Kerry had been the Senator from Kentucky, he’d be president.

    Which is why Edwards is the only hope for Dems (but Dems are rarely about nominating someone the bulk of the country will vote for.)

    Go back to Carter, and Reagan’s low-grade stardom was the only exception on my down-home theory, which is why if the Republican’s run double-threat Fred Dalton Thompson, the Dems are doomed.

    Rightly or wrongly and gender entirely aside, I swear to you, Hillary can’t be elected anywhere outside of NY or LA, which is why she ran in NY.

    Obama would make it more of a race, but he can’t carry the crowd, not because of race, but because he’s big city and the swing voters are small townies.

    Today, Hillary and Obama would both win against Bush. But neither will run against Bush. They’ll run against a fresh face who mymics their stance on Iraq, but delivers it will friendly ya’ll.

  3. Anonymous
    Posted April 6, 2007 at 12:06 am | Permalink

    You damn well right that Hillary Cherry is electable.

    – Steve

  4. be OH be
    Posted April 6, 2007 at 10:11 am | Permalink

    I don’t much like Mrs. Clinton for president either. And I agree with a lot of what you said in your first comment, Mark. I just don’t understand why you didn’t put those thoughts into the original post.

    A casual reader who didn’t click through to the comments might infer that you think she is unelectable solely because someone took an unflattering photo of her.

    She has the strongest staff and more name recognition than any other candidate in the race right now. She seems extremely electable.

    But I realize that there are plenty of voters who will judge her solely on her appearance and demeanor without scrutinizing her voting record or political views. That’s U.S. politics today. It just seems like this post’s title, photo, and first sentence encourage that position.

    Sorry, I’m not trying to bash you or this blog in general. I’m just getting increasingly frustrated with the beauty pageant dynamic of presidential campaigns. An ignorant, homophobic, dry drunk, twitchy, obstinate horse’s ass was re-elected for a second presidential term. How does being occasionally unattractive make someone unelectable?

  5. robr
    Posted April 6, 2007 at 4:41 pm | Permalink

    I went into my “Less than Enthusiastic” rant against Hillary at some length on Sam’s blog recently… To boil it down, I find Clinton too calculating. Too much of a fence sitter or a democratic version of a McCainish styled flip-flopper. My personal feeling is that she is too much the typical Washington insider– A Poll watcher who doesn’t budge politically until her staff green lights it, meanwhile our troops are being maimed and occasionally killed for what will most likely be a failed and flawed policy. Shame on all politicians (whatever their party affiliation) for not being more vocal about this foolish war– Especially within the past two years when the failure is obvious to all but the most dense. Hillary (and others) are not dense, and they’re not idiots. But I take issue with politicians, whatever their stripe, for “sampling” the political winds before making a decision, afraid to go on record and “talk straight” ( sorry McCain– But I’ve lost a lot of respect for you, lately.) about what they really think and feel about Iraq.
    If anyone is interested, the so-called “Young Turks” on “Air America Radio” have more or less been following and sort of tallying many of Hillary’s recent stump speeches: At one she shouts “Troops home now!” two days later, its “Well, we may need to keep a military ground presence in Iraq….” Sheesh! Which is it, lady? Come on, tell me at least– There ain’t no cameras rolling….

    Sorry Mark, for going on at length and ranting some– But I’ve a young family member (my adoptive brother) likely to join the Army soon– And maybe its selfish, but I’d like that “Iraqi Adventure” to be over and done with; along with this policy of “preemptive war” as well…

  6. dorothy
    Posted April 7, 2007 at 7:58 am | Permalink

    i don’t know what to think about hillary, but i think as much as i love obama, he doesn’t have the chops yet. the best thing would be for him to run as veep under hillary, spend 8 years in a national office getting his gravitas and then eight more as president. i’m just saying.

  7. mark
    Posted April 7, 2007 at 10:09 am | Permalink

    Great points, everyone… And, you’re right, B-oh-B, I’ll move my comment to the front page so that my point’s more clear.

    I’ll comment on some of your other points later, but I wanted to suggest that you, Dorothy, read that essay by Jim Kunstler on Obama. I liked to it a while ago. In it, I think he makes a pretty good point – which is that Obama has about as much experience getting into this as Lincoln. His point, I think, was that that may not be such a bad thing.

  8. be OH be
    Posted April 9, 2007 at 9:17 am | Permalink

    Now I feel guilty for putting myself in the role of editor. But the tone of the post does seem more balanced.

    I’m torn about Obama as well. I really wished he wouldn’t have jumped into this race. He would make a much stronger candidate if he’d stay in the Senate and build more of a reputation first. But then the Lincoln comparison might bear some consideration. It would be great to have someone young, energetic and endlessly optimistic take the reins in this country. But I’d settle for a somewhat wishy-washy centrist over any of the neo-con hopefuls.

  9. Andy
    Posted April 9, 2007 at 11:41 am | Permalink

    Bill Richardson. He’s the man.

  10. Robert
    Posted September 18, 2007 at 12:24 pm | Permalink

    Did you all see? Hillary finally came out with a health care plan…John Edwards’ plan. The Clinton campaign had an intern make a few changes in the wording though, and that shows leadership.

  11. mark
    Posted September 18, 2007 at 11:39 pm | Permalink

    Thank you for drawing our attention back to this post, Robert. I’d forgotten how great that picture of Hillary was.

  12. egpenet
    Posted September 18, 2007 at 11:51 pm | Permalink

    She is NOT electible … certainly NOT delectible … and by NO MEANS selectible … and in my humble opinion forgetible

  13. Milton
    Posted September 19, 2007 at 12:29 pm | Permalink

    I would certainly not hit it.

  14. Robert
    Posted September 19, 2007 at 9:22 pm | Permalink

    I actually like Hillary, despite the fact that I think her running could cost the Democrats the general election. I undertsand that she is really in an impossible position, and almost entirely for reasons that are undeserved and unjust. Hillary could obviously handle the job, and she certainly deserves the opportunity. The problem is that the cost of her taking her shot here and now is too high, and she’s putting the Democratic Party in a considerably weaker position. That would be fine if these were not such perilous times.

  15. Mark H.
    Posted September 20, 2007 at 12:06 am | Permalink

    Say what you will about Hillary, her campaign is being managed by Bill Clinton, and he has rarely made an election campaign error. So the Clintons will take the hand they have, and play it superbly in the campaign. They’ll make few mistakes that will minimize her chances of winning. Not sure the same is true of any of the other Dems….So yes, the Clintons are calculating politicians. Not sure if that’s a real problem or not.

    I think Hillary ran for the Senate in NYS becaus there was an open seat there, and because it is a big money, big media state – and hence a better launching pad for a presidential camapign than a small state (Bill was the only president in modern times to be elected from a state with a really small population).

    I am not saying I like her politics or that she’s electable, but I am saying that she will not “self destruct” like so many presidential candidates do at critical stages of our very odd election system.

  16. Robert
    Posted September 20, 2007 at 9:19 am | Permalink

    Mark H, I completely agree with you. Hillary and Bill are superb campaigners, as well as superb administrators. They will certainly play their hand as well as it can be played. My point is that Edwards has a much better hand to play.

    There is a lot of irrational hostility toward Hillary out there. There is also some legitimate criticism of her, but it is drown out by the hatred so many express. My heart has always gone out to Hillary for all the crap which is directed at her. If she wins the nomination, I will work hard to help get her elected.

  17. Robert
    Posted February 5, 2008 at 1:53 pm | Permalink

    wait everybody haven’t we forgotten that Mrs. Clinton’s husband was empeached!!!! and what about the whitewater scandal that she was part of. None of that has been mentioned in this whole campaign. if there was any dirt that should surface on the woman that should be the first!!! My hell What is wrong with everybody?
    She became a senatewoman for a state that she has never lived in until after the presidancy was finished and then she moved there. I guess everybody in New York must have been on drugs that voting day.
    I am all for a woman president just not her. not now not in 4 years not never. She will not help our country get out of debt, fix our reputation in the world, keep our military strong, or protect our country. She will further her agenda and that is it. people wake up!!!!

  18. Robert
    Posted February 5, 2008 at 9:17 pm | Permalink

    Just so everyone knows, that last post was not from me, the “Robert” who usually posts here. First off, I know how to spell “impeached.” I also would never use a made up word like “senatewoman” and I prefer to use punctuation and capitalization at least occasionally, if for no other reason than to give the impression that I finished 9th grade.

  19. Robert
    Posted February 8, 2008 at 6:19 pm | Permalink

    I always thought GWB seemed a little “presi-dancy” in that cabbage-patching drug-addict sort of way.

    The fake Robert who posted the lame anti-Hillary crap two entries above may have forgotten that Ken Starr and the criminal-Republican congress of the late 90’s spent over 40 million of US taxpayer’s money trying to nail the Clinton’s on something they could claim was illegal regarding the Whitewater deal. They failed of course, so they went for the Lewinski crap, and proved what the entire country knew already…that Bill is a womanizer.

    On the issue of all these idiots using the “Robert” sign-in…I realize a lot of people out there want to be me. But, these folks don’t seem to understand how much work it is. Their obnoxiousness always pales in comparison to mine.

  20. egpenet
    Posted February 8, 2008 at 6:57 pm | Permalink

    We ALL want to be the real Robert, Robert. (Perhaps, we could call you, Bob.)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Connect

BUY LOCAL... or shop at Amazon through this link Banner Initiative Body Snatcher header