Ms. Clinton

[myboynoah]

Originally Posted by Detroitdad

I think Hillary has the best combination of factors, and she has a chance to undo some of her negatives and show that she has "it."

I will wait for my conservative friends to start puking now.

Perhaps, but I think this is wishful thinking. The nation had eight years of Hillary up close and personal. Most people's views of her have had time to fossilize, and I suspect that is what has happened. Those who love her, love her much. Those that despise her, despise her much. Are there any middle of the roaders?

Her Internet ad shows her problem. There she is acting all open and happy-faced, almost begging people to like her. What happened to the stern school marm ( or librarian ) we've all grown to love and hate? Despite all the DNC's best efforts, it couldn't convince us that Al Gore was a funny, spontaneous, hip guy (that kiss was torture to watch, not just because it was gross, but because it was such an embarrassingly obvious attempt to be spontaneous). Try as they might, we cannot be convinced that Hillary is a happy, easy going, nice person.

Her face at rest speaks volumes.

[BarbaraGordon]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Let me get this straight, he's a Democrat who hates football, stares at the computer instead of his wife, and prefers Dwarkin to Moses?

De gustibus non disputandum est.

Yup. And there's no one I'd rather spend life with. Isn't love bizarre? <insert big goofy grin>

[BarbaraGordon]

Originally Posted by myboynoah

Perhaps, but I think this is wishful thinking. The nation had eight years of Hillary up close and personal. Most people's views of her have had time to fossilize, and I suspect that is what has happened. Those who love her, love her much. Those that despise her, despise her much. Are there any middle of the roaders?

Her Internet ad shows her problem. There she is acting all open and happy-faced, almost begging people to like her. What happened to the stern school marm ( or librarian ) we've all grown to love and hate? Despite all the DNC's best efforts, it couldn't convince us that Al Gore was a funny, spontaneous, hip guy (that kiss was torture to watch, not just because it was gross, but because it was such an embarrassingly obvious attempt to be spontaneous). Try as they might, we cannot be convinced that Hillary is a happy, easy going, nice person.

Exactly. She's got two videos on her website. If you watch the one where she's on the talk show, she's a real, likeable, decent person. But when she goes into politics mode (her announcement video) she loses all that. It's contrived. She'll have to do better if she wants to connect with people.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

Exactly. She's got two videos on her website. If you watch the one where she's on the talk show, she's a real, likeable, decent person. But when she goes into politics mode (her announcement video) she loses all that. It's contrived. She'll have to do better if she wants to connect with people.

CaliCoug and DetroitDad may be able to inform us, but is it wise to select a candidate who has such visceral negatives?

Rarely do candidates begin a campaign with negatives, they sort of creep up over time. Hillary is a known commodity that obviously has her supporters but her negatives must be higher than almost any other potential candidate. Why would Dems select somebody who can galvanize the opposition?

I imagine no other candidate besides Howard Dean that would be so viscerally and universally rejected by Reps and the middle.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

Exactly. She's got two videos on her website. If you watch the one where she's on the talk show, she's a real, likeable, decent person. But when she goes into politics mode (her announcement video) she loses all that. It's contrived. She'll have to do better if she wants to connect with people.

Neither video is the real Mrs. Clinton.

A very good friend of mine is with the Secret Service. He was assigned to Mrs. Clinton and told me that she is the nastiest, most vicious person he's ever encountered. I guess she was so popular amongst the agents that they had to do mini-lotteries to be assigned to her. The loser would get to protect her, or as he said, "the loser gets to protect the title of First Lady."

He's a staunch Democrat but would vote said that he'd vote for David Duke before he'd ever consider voting for her. Did I mention that this friend of mine is a black man?

[Detroitdad]

Originally Posted by Archaea

CaliCoug and DetroitDad may be able to inform us, but is it wise to select a candidate who has such visceral negatives?

Rarely do candidates begin a campaign with negatives, they sort of creep up over time. Hillary is a known commodity that obviously has her supporters but her negatives must be higher than almost any other potential candidate. Why would Dems select somebody who can galvanize the opposition?

I imagine no other candidate besides Howard Dean that would be so viscerally and universally rejected by Reps and the middle.

Hillary's test will be whether she can raise massive amounts of money. If she can, she can erase some of her negatives. If she were able to get through the primaries she would benefit from the two party system, in which people would have to hold their noses and vote for her, even if they do not want to. She is fairly likely to face someone with high negatives as well, and with much less public exposure.

I am not saying that I hope that this will happen. I have not made up my mind about whom to support and Hillary's negatives are scary, but publc opinion is a good deal more fluid than it would seem on the surface.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Detroitdad

Hillary's test will be whether she can raise massive amounts of money. If she can, she can erase some of her negatives. If she were able to get through the primaries she would benefit from the two party system, in which people would have to hold their noses and vote for her, even if they do not want to. She is fairly likely to face someone with high negatives as well, and with much less public exposure.

I am not saying that I hope that this will happen. I have not made up my mind about whom to support and Hillary's negatives are scary, but publc opinion is a good deal more fluid than it would seem on the surface.

My example is her husband. He was an unknow commodity, but he built his negatives over time.

Bush was relatively unknown.

Giuliani, McLain or Romney are relatively unknown on the national scale so they won't have the built-in negatives and baggage she carries. In a small way, I hope the Dems nominate her because she gives the Reps the best chance to win. (OBAMA concerns me because his negatives are unknown) But if she were to win, we would be in for the worst societal calamity of our lives. Her election would send negative shockwaves through all segments of society, in terms of her appointments and economic policy.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

CaliCoug and DetroitDad may be able to inform us, but is it wise to select a candidate who has such visceral negatives?

Rarely do candidates begin a campaign with negatives, they sort of creep up over time. Hillary is a known commodity that obviously has her supporters but her negatives must be higher than almost any other potential candidate. Why would Dems select somebody who can galvanize the opposition?

I imagine no other candidate besides Howard Dean that would be so viscerally and universally rejected by Reps and the middle.

I disagree. Candidates begin campaigns with perceived negatives all the time. Look at Obama: he admitted to using cocaine. That was a big issue in Bush's election because nobody knew about it when he started his run, then it came to light. With Obama, nobody cares because it was already disclosed... by him. Story over.

Hillary's negatives, by the way, are far more perceived than real. She is a politician, and a brilliant one at that. Lots of people hate her, but they are almost all people who would have voted Republican anyways. I think you underestimate her ability to attract voters from the middle. She raises money like nobody else out there (and winning elections has a lot to do with how much money you can raise). The attacks on her will be vicious, and that could also wind up helping her. She could become the "victim" of Republican agression, and her sex may contribute to her status as a "victim." If so, she will do well.

As for someone Republicans would despise more... Ted Kennedy?

She is competent, prominent, and married to one of the best political strategists in the last 100 years. She has a real chance, though she also has fierce competition in Obama and in Romney/McCain if she makes it to the general election.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

But if she were to win, we would be in for the worst societal calamity of our lives. Her election would send negative shockwaves through all segments of society, in terms of her appointments and economic policy.

Overstating things a bit? What has she done as US Senator to demonstrate to you that she would be the "worst societal calamity of our lives?"

[myboynoah]

Originally Posted by Archaea

(OBAMA concerns me because his negatives are unknown)

I stand amazed as all the buzz circles around Hillary and Obama, who has run nothing, talks in feel-good generalities, and will not even be a full-term senator by the election. Americans are going to turn over the country to that guy? The election is there for the taking and the Democrats are dancing with these two. Amazing.

If they had any sense at all they would look to someone like Bayh out of Indiana.