I’ll begin this post with a confession: I’ve never been a Hillary Clinton fan. Unlike the “Hillary haters,” I don’t have a major grievance (real or imagined); I just haven’t been inspired by her. I will absolutely vote for her in November (a vote for Trump is unthinkable, and a vote for a third party is effectively a vote for Trump), but I haven’t been an enthusiast.
I’ve been thinking about that, believe it or not, because I keep remembering two jokes my Jewish mother used to tell.
The first was about the elderly woman who went into a kosher butcher shop and inspected a chicken. She smelled under both wings, both drumsticks, and sniffed in the cavity, after which she held the bird up and said “Butcher, this bird stinks!”
To which he replied, “Madam, could you pass that test?”
How many of us would appear unblemished if for 25+ years, virtually every aspect of our lives had been publicized, scrutinized and subjected to public debate? How scandalous or mendacious would even our innocent blunders look–especially to political adversaries gleefully jumping on every misstep and interpreting them in the most sinister way possible?
So why has Hillary Clinton generated a degree of animus and scrutiny that has vastly exceeded that experienced by most male politicians?
On that question, my mother’s second joke may–or may not– be instructive. It involved an elevator operator at the Chicago Merchandise Mart. (Yes, that used to be a real job.) There was a radio station atop the Mart, and one day, a man got on the elevator and, stuttering badly, asked for the top floor. He was the only one on the elevator, and the operator asked why he was visiting the station. The reply: “The-the-they have a-a-a opening for an an-an-anouncer.”
As luck would have it, an hour later, the same man was again the only passenger on the same elevator coming down, and the operator couldn’t resist asking how the interview had gone. “T-t-terrible,” the man replied. “The-the-they hate Jews.”
My mother’s reason for telling that particular story was cautionary: members of disfavored groups should avoid the temptation to blame our failures on prejudice. We are responsible for most of our own disappointments, and we need to take responsibility for our personal deficits. It was a profound–and I think important–lesson, and together with her insistence that women could do anything we wanted, it inculcated in me a reluctance to attribute criticisms to sexism or anti-Semitism.
But after watching 7 years of ridiculous and unprecedented attacks on a black President –and seeing the wildly contradictory and vicious attacks on Hillary Clinton– I have to conclude that racism and sexism explain a lot.
A recent column in Market Watch, of all places, was eye-opening. Titled “All the Terrible Things Hillary Clinton has Done–in One Big List,” it began
Am I supposed to hate Hillary Rodham Clinton because she’s too left-wing, or too right-wing? Because she’s too feminist, or not feminist enough? Because she’s too clever a politician, or too clumsy?
Am I supposed to be mad that she gave speeches to rich bankers, or that she charged them too much money?
I’m up here in New Hampshire watching her talk to a group of supporters, and I realized that I have been following this woman’s career for more than half my life. No, not just my adult life: the whole shebang. She came onto the national scene when I was a young man.
And for all that time, there has been a deafening chorus of critics telling me that she’s just the most wicked, evil, Machiavellian, nefarious individual in American history. She has “the soul of an East German border guard,” in the words of that nice Grover Norquist. She’s a “bitch,” in the words of that nice Newt Gingrich. She’s a “dragon lady.” She’s “Elena Ceaușescu.” She’s “the Lady Macbeth of Little Rock.”
Long before “Benghazi” and her email server, there was “Whitewater” and “the Rose Law Firm” and “Vince Foster.” For those of us following her, we were promised scandal after scandal after scandal. And if no actual evidence ever turned up, well, that just proved how deviously clever she was.
The article went on to list all of the various accusations, many of them contradictory or patently ridiculous. I encourage you to click through and read the whole thing.
Hillary Clinton has been the subject of more intensive investigations (conducted by people absolutely salivating to find something ) than anyone I can think of. Either she hasn’t been guilty of whatever the accusations were, or we have the most inept investigators in the world.
Does that mean she hasn’t been guilty of clumsy lies, poor decisions, tone-deaf pronouncements? Of course not. She’s no saint. But it’s hard to escape the conclusion that a man who’d made identical mistakes and had identical personal defects would have been subjected to far less vilification.
Sometimes, the problem is prejudice.
Amen,
Thank you!
White Water. Kenneth Starr. Millions of wasted dollars.
In 1990 I was sitting at a table in a teachers lunch room listening to the male staff at the table tell jokes that were on the topic of sex. Nothing too bad, but the “F word” was used over and over in the joke and pretty much every lunch during that school year. I laughed along with the jokes because they were funny and I am not offended by any language unless it is hateful. A few days later I tell my own joke at the table, laced with the “F-word,” and all of the men at the table laughed except one. The one with no sense of humor complained to administrators and I was nearly fired for my “immoral behavior,” but the ISTA lawyer was able to keep me in my position.
Women are held to a different standard than men. It’s a fact and Hillary has lived it all of her political life. Every woman knows this because nearly all of us have had it happen to us.
I’ll give you just one outrageous conclusion of all of the “investigations” of Secretary Clinton. I do not have any evidence that she was involved; in fact none may exist, but lay out the facts of Vince Foster to any forensic pathologist and ask about cause and location of death. There was NO BLOOD, from a head shot, where his body was found and yet, investigators still ruled it a suicide. Do you know anything at all about commodities trading? If you can turn $1000 into $100,000 in a year, you are cheating.
“Sometimes the Problem is Prejudice”
Gee, maybe that could be part of our problem here in the U.S.. About twenty-five years ago, I had an opportunity to have a very intimate conversation with Dick Gregory the African-American comedian. He had come to Jacksonville to give a speech at Edward Waters College on the dangers of the Christian Coalition. As I remember, I might have been the only “Caucasian” at the event.
Yesterday after having lunch at the Mary Singleton Senior Center, I picked up a copy of Folio Weekly Magazine which is our alternative newspaper. And “lo and behold” who has come to town, guess who—- Dick Gregory. The article on Dick Gregory was entitled “Some Serious Laughter.”
The first sentence of the article should suffice for a longer introduction. “Before there was such a thing as radical or edgy comedy there was Dick Gregory.”
So the following are a few tidbits from the interview:
Interviewer from Folio Weekly: “I want to get your take on what I think is a threat to American power, and that’s Donald Trump. He seems like the malevolent projection of America. He says whatever he wants….and any other candidate would have been shut down for things he says.”
Dick Gregory: “You said it and you ran past it. The richest Republicans on the planet are in America–the Fords, the Rockefellers, the Duponts, right? So if he is saying something they didn’t like, they would kill him. And the fact they haven’t killed him means he’s saying what they want him to say. If I’m crazy and I come to town and kill 30 people, I can’t get the electric chair because they say I’m insane. So here’s a person who’s insane, and congress talks about him and they don’t say nothing about all the cops shooting black folks in America and it’s crazy, insane. He keeps saying the same thing and we say, “Well wait a minute, I expect that out of him.” If a pyromaniac is running around setting fires, I expect him to burn my place down. With Trump, he says some crazy shit, and he’ll say it again in case you didn’t hear it the first time. (This interview was with Folio Weekly Magazine during Gregory’s tour stop in Dallas, Texas some weeks ago)
Ma-lev-o-lent (me lev’ e lent) adj. [<L male, evil + velle, to wish] wishing evil or harm to others, malicious–ma-lev' o-lence n.
Theresa Kendall is right in her assessment that women are held to a different standard. Obviously we have never measured up to the set standards or “we” wouldn’t still be fighting for the same wage for the same job as men. And with millions of women being single-head-of-household these days.
I, too, will vote for Hillary if she is the nominee, and it appears she will be. It will be for a sane reason; a vote for her is a vote AGAINST Trump. That third party, write-in, “Bernie or Bust” (and I totally support Bernie) and “Never Hillary” will only be a divisive action and give away our presidency to the National Fool. They need to “do the math”. I have stated before and will state again; if Trump wins it will result in “Let the White House orgies begin!” for that is his moral level, he does his thinking with old one-eye.
My primary anti-Hillary view is her apparent level of greed due to the amount a former Senator and Secretary of State demanded just to see her and hear her speak. Those closed-door Goldman-Sachs speeches garnered her $675,000; she, who needs that level of money less than any other American politician sticks in my craw. The sexism issue for Hillary has two levels; her sex as a female and her dealing with Bill’s public “wrong side of the sheets” activities will not disappear whether she is elected or not. I have “been there, done that” and know the strength it takes as a wife to hold tight to our pride and deal with the issue as best we can.
Trump’s level of wealth did not come from any political actions on his part but, wheeling-and-dealing and Trump family fortune and he is the poorest excuse for a man to be where he is today. I do not envy the wealth of either and her wealth IS an issue for many in this country, for I have known wealthy people and they didn’t impress me any more or any less than my friends working in barely above minimum wage jobs. My proverbial “rich uncle” was a multi-millionaire and the public never knew of his financial assistance to many children’s organizations and foundations. I devour Stephen King’s books and his level of wealth rivals the Clintons and Trump; he uses much of his for the betterment of his communities (he owns more than one home) and he aids educational and sports facilities for youth. That is to be envied!
Yes; I will vote for Hillary Clinton…grudgingly and not because she is a woman but I will be doing all I can to keep Donald Trump out of the White House. I will do the same here at home; John Gregg needs to be a stronger candidate but – he ain’t Pence – so I will cast my vote and hope for the best on both levels of government. Sexism in politics will always be an issue; female politicians will always be held to a different standard but “we” are up to the task. Where is Helen Reddy when we need her; “We Are Woman, Hear Us Roar”!!!
There was loss of blood ken you are mistaken
Thanks for articulating my view on HRC so well. It’s difficult to set aside the influence of 30 years of bashing by her opponents. I think a truer picture can be gleaned from reading the opinions of those who have worked closely with her over the years, particularly those from across the aisle. Many positive takes exist.
For the time being, I would strongly suggest we focus EQUALLY on the “Hillary Bashers,” at least for now, while they’re on the defense. If they are not neutralized NOW, even if Hillary Clinton is elected, she’ll be unable to govern and, looking back, the Obama Administration will look like a “honeymoon.”
I think that she is a tireless smart extremely well informed stateswoman equally adept at negotiating and hardball. Her knowledge of foreign affairs alone qualifies her to be President in these times.
She didn’t choose her gender.
I hear from many that she’s in addition warm and friendly which must be hard attributes to maintain in the environment in which she’s lived her life.
Is she arrogant? I hope so the job requires a certain amount of that. Is she wealthy? She and Bill have done very well but being an ex President is pretty lucrative and so is being an ex Senator so I think that their wealth is probably about average for their career choices.
I have zero reservations about her ability to serve as President.
Her biggest misfortune is having to follow the best at that job.
Unless something unimaginable happens between now and Nov she’ll win and win big because the dysfunctional GOP couldn’t even manage their own nominating process.
That having been said she faces, as did Obama, an unenviable job; in his case a world economy in ruins; in hers a world of unstable climate causing the necessity of a complete and rapid revamp of the world’s entire energy system. Undoubtedly that will be the most challenging project mankind has ever taken on and it comes simultaneously with the need to adapt to a new unknown climate and recover from the storms, droughts, floods and destruction of our making. That’s not to mention at a time when our credit card is maxed out surviving Bush, nor having to deal with the finally accepted reality that we as a nation can’t afford our health care system.
The least that we owe her to help accomplish what she and we face is a functional Congress and Supreme Court.
It’s very difficult to win anything through COWARDICE. Unfortunately, that’s been the sorry state of politics on both sides of the aisle. And it’s been going on ever since Ronald Regan was elected President.
Do we need to be reminded about Bill Clinton’s “triangulation strategy?” That was the “beginning of the end.” If things continue along the same path, the “end” will be the presidential election of 2016, no matter who wins.
According to the Israeli professor Yehuda Bauer, we need three things to turn around a debacle like we are witnessing. It is very simple…… 1. A Common Front 2. Allies 3. Ability to counter-attack. However….”No courage, no counter-attack.”
I ran across that article some time ago. I know it will never convince the Hillary Haters, but here is something more to consider. Hillary has worked doggedly for progressive causes for a long time. She has taken courageous stands, such as going to China in the 90s and saying “Women’s rights are human rights.” She made the Department of State the first government department to recognize gay marriages among staff, changing policy to include gay husbands and wives in staff assignments to foreign posts.
Admittedly, she can’t tell a joke. She is not quick with a quip and when she speaks she comes across as stiff and uncomfortable, unless she’s speaking about policy, then she just sounds smart.
If we want her to be a successful President, we must make sure we support down ballot candidates who will support progressive policies. Something too few of us did for President Obama.
The Clinton’s are all about obtaining power and in the process making themselves rich.
Hillary’s record is one of repeated failures:
Hillary care – Failed
Supported DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act)
Vote to go to War in Iraq – Failed
Regime change in Libya – Failed.
Panama Trade Agreement – Failed (Not so though for the tax evaders)
Supports NAFTA -Failure
Keystone Pipeline – Changed mind
TPP – Changed Mind
Fracking -Who knows??
Refusal to release transcripts of her speeches to Goldman-Sachs among others.
Selected to use a Private Server for her SOS E-Mail -Failure.
Reneged on her promise to debate Bernie in May. – Failure
Now as far as Woman’s Rights are concerned – Donations to the Clinton Foundation :
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/election/article24782695.html
Saudi Arabia
$10 million to $25 million
Qatar
$1 million to $5 million
Oman
$1 million to $5 million
UAE
$1 million to $5 million
None of these counties has a good record on human rights let alone woman’s rights.
“The fundamental issue here is that you’ve got foreign businesses and foreign governments giving money to the Clinton Foundation partly because of the foundation’s work, but also because of the access to the upper echelons of power in America,” said Lawrence Jacobs, a professor at the University of Minnesota’s Humphrey School of Public Affairs and a prize-winning author of numerous books on politics. “I think the people who know something about politics understand the wink and a nod that’s going on here: Give to Bill and become a friend of Hillary. . . . There’s kind of a political shakedown going on here.”
So I have no intention of voting for Hillary or Trump.
JoAnn Green: “she, who needs that level of money less than any other American politician sticks in my craw.” From Forbes, the 10 most expensive speeches:
No. 1: Donald Trump, $1.5 Million, The Learning Annex, 2006 And 2007
No. 2: Donald Trump, $1 Million, The Learning Annex, 2005
No. 3: Ronald Reagan, $1 Million, Fujisankei Communications, 1989
No. 4: Tony Blair, $500,000, Guangda Group, 2007
No. 5: Bill Clinton, $450,000, Fortune Forum, 2006
No. 6: Bill Clinton, $400,000, Mito City Political Research Group, 2002
No. 7: Bill Clinton, $350,000, Congresso Nazaionale della Publicity, Milan, Italy, 2001
No. 8: Bill Clinton, $300,000, Various Events In 2002 And 2005
No. 9: Rudy Giuliani, $270,000, Sage Capital Group, 2005
No. 10: Alan Greenspan, $250,000, Lehman Brothers, 2006
(http://www.forbes.com/2008/03/18/trump-reagan-blair-biz-media-cx_lh_0318speeches_slide.html)
I don’t know that any of these men “needed” that level of money.
That is great Louie. You will not be missed. Maybe you will remove yourself from this party also
Joy in Indiana; of course you are right about each and everyone on your list. But…Hillary Clinton and “Sexism and Public Life” is the subject of today’s blog, not how much more men were paid for speaking engagements. But your comments do speak to the issue of women not being paid the same wage as men for the same job so I guess it is relevant.
JoAnn, I’m just saying that I hope “that level of money” sticks in your craw as well when made by male politicians.
We all smell like orange blossoms next to a ‘chicken’ who supplied the Saudis with the arms and advisors to bomb Yemen into the stone age, the same chicken who chortles about a man being murdered, and we’re pretty fragrant when it comes to not having the blood of Berta Caceres on or hands. Pretty low standards–the power hungry hawk vs the bloviator with the bad comb over.
Joy in Indy; of course it does. I attended a speech by Birch Bayh and his guest Cicely Tyson years ago; don’t remember the cost but…could’t have been in the ballpark with those you listed and they probably were much more interesting to hear.
A friend gave me her $250 plate ticket to Mayor Bill Hudnut’s Roast before he left office; I would have paid that but they were sold out so I was lucky my friend couldn’t go. The thousands per plate dinner George Clooney gave for Hillary actually embarrassed him…but after the dinner, bystanders along the route throwing dollar bills at Hillary’s limo and the bad publicity, George agreed it was ridiculous. Of course, they kept all of the money.
Louie, special interests put their money supporting who will probably get elected not just people who promise them something.
You want to indict the Clintons for getting elected.
I’ll vote for Hillary come November but I won’t like it because Trump will be a disaster and be our last President. I can’t imagine how bad it could be.
Why can’t we clone Bernie, Elizabeth Warren Or the liberal Obama a few hundred times so we can have a Congress that will work with the President? Like Yesterday when the D’s finally took a stand for improving our gun laws. It only took another massacre to find their spine. ugh. Long long past due. When I heard the news I asked, what took them so long?
Where are the Ds with spines? Oh how I hate that we don’t have more people with conviction in Congress. The GOP sure has their strong willed representatives, where’s ours?
Aging Girl, here’s one way to look at it: liberals have been beaten up so much in the press over the last 30 years that politicians who need to get elected, in fact who honored democracy by serving their constituents, thought that America had turned largely conservative. Bernie and Warren and Schumer and Gillibrand and company kept the faith quietly. Obama and Biden maintained progress despite Congress.
Bernie came out of the closet and returned us the gift of our left half.
It’s a remarkable rebirth of the American spirit, a true great awakening.
Even the GOP inadvertently helped by nominating the great pretender.
Thank you. So much of politics is personality, race, and now gender, and sadly, not policy. So much has to do with making “friends” who can give you money to campaign and not with supporting those who need help from government.
Thou doth protest too much about sex and race.
Love Condi Rice, for one. She’s been called all sorts of names. Justice Thomas. No need to fo on. Come on, argue the merits. You libs inject race and gender every chance you get.
People don’t like her for many reasons, the least of which is because she is a woman.
Full disclosure, there is no candidate I like.
What I don’t like about her, I don’t like about most, from either party.
She stands for nothin but but herself.
She is not accessible and very scripted.
She is not honest.
Travel Gate: you want your own people- fine, don’t throw people who did nothing wrong, under the bus.
Monica and the like: you know he did it, don’t throw them under the bus and call it a ‘vast right wing conspiracy’
Whitewater- don’t have the billing records mysteriously discovered in your living quarters.
Carpetbagger Senator.
Actually voted for war authorization.
No real accomplishments as Sec.of State.
Reset button.
Benghazi, too many inconsistencies.
Private server?
Inconsistencies?
Parsing?
Clinton foundation?
Are we blurring the lines?
What %age goes to charity?
Wall street speeches?
Broke coming out of Whitehouse.
Charging SS rent for guest house same as mortgage payment on house.
I could go on and in more depth.
Some things are bugger than others.
She is not likable for a lot of reasons. One is longevity, but gender is not a factor to many.
Integrity is.
I don’t see integrity in this race, maybe Bernie.
We are all just avoiding a lesser alternative.
I agree with you William. Republicans have called her every name in the book. After all of that mythology spread around for so long you’d think that they’d have treated this year as an opportunity and run a qualified candidate against her but they apparently couldn’t find even one.
Given that inability I’m wondering why people fall for their lies?
They have made it crystal clear that to them party comes before everything so even though I am a registered Republican I find no reason to grant them even the slightest credibility.
Look at Benghazi for instance. The spent more than $15M investigating before coming to the obvious to everyone else conclusion that the military is responsible for security and the CIA for intelligence.
I personally respect Hillary for taking their heat and not throwing those who failed under the bus.
The question that we should be thinking about is do we need Hillary to be more liberal than President Obama has been?
Pete wrote “The question that we should be thinking about is do we need Hillary to be more liberal than President Obama has been?”.
Not really is my initial thought. ‘Liberal’ and ‘conservative’ are simply policy stances, and Hillary undoubtedly is a master of policy, a policy guru with policy being her greatest strength; however, one’s greatest strength can also be one’s greatest weakness.
Sheila wrote ” I just haven’t been inspired by her” and I hold the same feeling which has nothing to do with her gender and nothing to do with political barbs thrown at her throughout the years. When one is in the political eye for decades, the barbs are to be expected.
Hillary is one-dimensional, an accomplished policy wonk, but she lacks what’s described by the Harvard Business Review as the emotional intelligence of transformational leadership (aka not inspiring).
“The most effective leaders are all alike in one crucial way: they all have a high degree of what has come to be known as emotional intelligence. It’s not that IQ and technical skills are irrelevant. They do matter, but…they are the entry-level requirements for executive positions. My research, along with other recent studies, clearly shows that emotional intelligence is the sine qua non of leadership. Without it, a person can have the best training in the world, an incisive, analytical mind, and an endless supply of smart ideas, but he still won’t make a great leader.”
For a fuller understanding, read the entire article at https://hbr.org/2015/04/how-emotional-intelligence-became-a-key-leadership-skill
“Hillary is one-dimensional, an accomplished policy wonk, but she lacks what’s described by the Harvard Business Review as the emotional intelligence of transformational leadership (aka not inspiring).”
BSH; this translates to me what I have tried in my mind to form into words and could not, probably still did not say what I mean so others understand my meaning. I do not believe she can understand or relate to people – the people who make up the majority of this country made up of a combination of minorities – which means she knows much on an political intellectual level but lacks wisdom of knowing people and their needs. She is corporate America, no matter her political background or current political makeup.
I do not know if it is true but, there was a post on Facebook that Hillary had removed Debbie Wasserman Schultz from her position as director of DNC. If true; how does a presumptive nominee, currently not an elected official, have the power to do this. In thinking back to yesterday; Bernie met with Hillary and they part with him still a contender for the presidential nomination. Bernie had problems with DWS a few months ago and today, if true, Hillary removed DWS from her post. Is there a connection? What kind of political games are being played out at this time in the Democratic party? As I said; IF this is true and how are we to know due to conflicting reports and changing poll counts in the media?
When are we going to nominate better candidates on both sides
BSH: I replied to you late last night on yesterday’s blog. We’re in complete agreement.
William; not till 2020 so get a grip and hang on for the duration!
JoAnn. From DailyKOS.
“In 2008, when then-Sen. Barack Obama sewed up the nomination, his team rushed to fill the ranks of the Democratic National Committee. That is normal, as the committee’s No. 1 task is to support the presidential campaign (the Senate and House Democrats have their own committees).”
“If you remember, Howard Dean was the head of the DNC at the time, and he remained nominally in charge, but Obama’s team was in full control. Dean had been moved to the sidelines. It wasn’t an antagonistic move. It simply meant that the presidential campaign and the DNC had to be in sync, and the best way to manage that is to have people from the same team in charge.”
Apparently what’s going on with DWS is standard operating procedure.
As I said earlier one of the problems that Hillary is taking on is following the best in the business.
Prior to Obama the next President going back that I would call an inspirational leader was Kennedy. Before that, FDR. It doesn’t happen often.
“If you remember, Howard Dean was the head of the DNC at the time, and he remained nominally in charge, but Obama’s team was in full control. Dean had been moved to the sidelines. It wasn’t an antagonistic move. It simply meant that the presidential campaign and the DNC had to be in sync, and the best way to manage that is to have people from the same team in charge.”
Pete; I don’t remember that Howard Dean supported Hillary against Obama or causing serious problems for either campaign which is the case with Debbie Wasserman Schultz. You stated “Barack Obama sewed up the campaign”; does this mean he had officially been nominated when his involvement with Howard Dean and the DNC came about? If so; this merely means they worked together, as they should have.
Hillary Clinton currently is the PRESUMPTIVE nominee; she is also the FORMER First Lady, FORMER Senator and FORMER Secretary of State so her current position is that of a general citizen…with an illustrious political past. Being a general citizen myself, I would have removed DWS long before now but have no power over anything or anyone, not even myself in most issues.
BSH, Betty, and JoAnn,
I agree with you. Her personality is going to be a serious predicament if she is ever elected.
Sorry, substitute “be” with PRESENT.
JoAnn
Why do you assume a hostile takeover of the DNC by Hillary? The article clearly says otherwise. It’s an election year unfolding as planned.
Marv, responding to your earlier post re: Hillary “I agree with you. Her personality is going to be a serious predicament if she is ever elected.”
Going back to 2008, I’m still wondering why the DNC basically dropped Hillary like a hot potato in favor of then Senator Obama. Perhaps that’s simply a rhetorical question of wonderment on my part.
In 2008, Hillary had years of political experience, was a known policy expert, and had a highly developed network of ‘friends’ in DC and across the globe; yet, she was tossed under the bus by her own party for some reason. And, I’m thinking the reason was her proven track record of an inability to inspire people and a relative paucity of charisma among the electorate. Let’s admit it, Hillary’s no pied piper. But, still the DNC recycled Hillary under the theme of “It’s her turn.”
BSH, why do you suppose that “the DNC basically dropped Hillary like a hot potato in favor of then Senator Obama.”?
It seems to me that Democratic voters made that choice in a normal primary process.
Pete, my answer to your question was embedded in my post when I wrote “And, I’m thinking the reason was her proven track record of an inability to inspire people and a relative paucity of charisma among the electorate. Let’s admit it, Hillary’s no pied piper. “
BSH; I believe Pete made the most salient point regarding Hillary a few blogs back when he stated that if elected, the GOP would simply trade racism for sexism. I firmly believe we also have to prepare for that consequences in addition to her inability to relate to “people”. If she is elected; this is all the more reason to vote out as many Republicans as possible in November and in later elections. The sitting Congress can do much damage between now and January 1st either way the election goes.
The GOP is trying to undo their last minute support of Trump by separating themselves from his rants after allowing him to garner so much power we need to fear he CAN and MIGHT win this election. Then again, much of his power lies with his supporters who aren’t supporting the party but the orange-haired man who is their personal guru at this point. There will be those who will cast one vote on November 8th, they will only vote for Trump, not incumbents or new GOP candidates. They are of one mind; their mindless leader is all they know. They are unaware of party affiliation for they appear to be a collection of rabble bent on taking the country back from those they view as different, thus beneath them and The Donald will lead them to the land of milk and honey.
BSH,
“Hillary is one-dimensional, an accomplished policy wonk, but she lacks what’s described by the Harvard Business Review as the emotional intelligence of transformational leadership (aka not inspiring).”
The ball is in your hands on this one. Don’t drop it. Hillary Clinton isn’t going to go anywhere without All-American blocking. Trump is plummeting in the polls right now, but it doesn’t reflect in a positive way for Hillary because many, like myself, do not believe that she can stand-up effectively under a vicious personal attack which she will have “in spades” in the months leading up to the presidential election in November. She doesn’t have the personality for it.
Why don’t we ask Daniel Goleman for his opinion? He’s the author of “Emotional Intelligence.”
As a matter of fact he came to me for an “emotional opinion” a few years ago. I think he owes us one.
Trump is a nothing. The Tea Party is for real. They haven’t gone anywhere. No one has challenged them. Does anyone in their right mind think that Hillary Clinton is going to be the first to stand-up against them BEFORE or AFTER the election?
Hillary Clinton isn’t going to make it without some All American blocking. Don’t you agree BSH?
BSH,
I believe I’m right. Wasn’t your son an All-American offensive tackle for the Citadel?
Sorry, it’s not “the” Citadel, but The Citadel. Growing up in the “Deep South” in Jacksonville, The Citadel was like West Point to us. Both of my early, best friends went to college there.
Jacksonville was a very important military town during WWII. We were all affected by it. My grandfather was on active duty with the Coast Guard patrolling the beach when the German spies came ashore at Ponte Vedra by way of a submarine only a mile or so offshore.
My family lived at the beach during the summers. I witnessed two ships torpedoed. It was at night. You could see the flames from the explosions on the horizon. There was so much oil in the ocean, your bathing suit would be covered with oil if you decided to go swimming.
It wasn’t exactly like growing up in London, but it was about as close as you could be, in America, to the reality of the war.
Like all things in life, I suspect multiple causes of anti-Hillary feelings. Most of the attacks on her are pure balderdash, but there are other reasons that Hillary has had a harder time with her public image.
The early attacks came against “The Clintons”, a somewhat right of center political couple who were Democrats and had the audacity to win after we were assured that only those that paid homage to St. Ronald would ever be able to partake of the 1,000 years of Republican rule. In those days, it was more Bill than Hillary who was making big mistakes, but this is a part of her problem.
Another part is her behavior, the mistakes she made on her own. Even journalist Andrea Mitchell reported that she had asked Hillary before her Wall Street speeches why she would do something that looked to bad if she still had ambitions of becoming President.
The rest is sexism. How much? I am not certain, but I think sexism is only about 35-40% with maybe 20% her own personal foibles.
For Obama, Racism may be closer to 70%.
But those are guesses.
Len,
Pretty good guessing.