What's going on with Hillary?

[chance1]

she's imploding

# 3 in Iowa - I know, within a 1/2 % pt of Edwards so really 2A but ........ perception can be reality - too bad really - cuz iowa is not really representative of the american population IMO

she was not on Sunday AM News shows - she shoulda been

Huckabee and Obama were on last week - McCain this week - Edwards was with wolf blitzer - tim russert said hillary was invited but turned it down - she has not been on TV

she was not great in the debate yesterday - ok - but not super - did u see edwards go after her yesterday - wow - calls he and obama agents of change and hillary as the status quo - nasty shit - she got real agitated - not so good - felt a little sorry for her

she needs to win in NH which is looking tougher as obama has taken the iowa victory and is parlaying it in the polls

Dem establishment will jump off her bandwagon soon - especially if Obama wins NH - Bill Bradley just endorsed Obama

What is Al Gore gonna do? I bet he endorses Obama

Bill Clinton - was very popular with blacks - so WAS Hillary - not now - cuz Obama is their guy

her Iowa "I lost" speech shoulda been more humble - instead she played the front runner again - she shoulda laughed it off instead of giving a victory speech - she coulda shown some humility/some grace/some sense of humor

i think her handlers have really fucked this up - not lance's fault - he's small potatoes - but the higher ups - they've programmed her to lose - she's better than she is showing

i think bill is hurting her - gaffes and he doesn't seem humble either

sorry for the rambling

but she is really in a freefall

i hope she can rebound

 

[tommyj]

Very difficult Chance. Her pals at the state parties front loaded the primaries so they could get the nomination in the bag in short order (so there was less chance for a screw up or something coming out) and now those grand plans are coming back to haunt her. She is getting the image of the also runner and money will start to dry up, etc.

 

[khushibagh]

You can knock Iowa (and New Hampshire) for being unrepresentative - too white, too rural, too elderly, etc. but they are two of the very few states that flipped from party to the other in the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections. If the Dems hope to win in November they are going to need to get those states in the Democratic column. The fact that she is not playing well in these states bodes ill for her electibility in November.

I think her candidacy is imploding because independent voters in swing states are not warming to her and Democratic voters are realizing that her electibility issues are not going to go away and are terrified. Not everyone is looking to get two for the price of one again.

Her campaign relied heavily on a creating a sense of inevitability about her candidacy but the truth is her full throated support of the Iraq war and her blank check to W on Iran cost her candidacy the enthusiasm of the Democratic base. Sure the base will vote for her if she is the nominee but if it is not clear she can win a general election and a candidate is available who could knock her off, why keep supporting her?

I want to vote for the Democrat who can win in November. I don't know if it could be Hillary, I don't know if it could be Obama or Edwards. There is no way I would vote for any of the current Republicans. Other than possible electibility there is no reason to prefer Hillary to Obama or Edwards so when the New York primary rolls around I expect I will vote for the emerging consensus candidate.

 

[Orlandude]

Listened to a few pundits across the news networks tonight about this very thing. Consensus appears to be that she is "re-tooling". Is it too late? Nobody seems to have that answer but most agree that she won't drown over Iowa and NH.

But a win in NH will give Obama enormous traction.

Terry McAuliffe maintains she never expected a win in Iowa. Odd thing to say considering that she outspent everyone but did fail to make as many appearances as Obama.

Obama is appealing to moderates in general, both Dems and republicans. Hispanic voters are bailing the GOP. The country clearly wants a "fresh" change and that may well be THE issue. Edwards has similar problem. He and Hillary are reminders of the past. Obama is "fresh".

Of late, Edwards and Hillary have been particularly negative, if not bitter. This is resonating with the public. Obama seems amused by it. With good reason.

Her machine knows that Bill needs to back off now. She has to do this on her own. Bill won't win or lose this for her.

Hillary's strong suit is still younger women, regardless of race. My opinion....women will decide the next President. May not be Hillary but they will decide.

I have never underestimated Hillary and don't. But I agree that it is puzzling as to what she will do. She is either being an extraordinarily brilliant strategist or, as you suggest, in free fall. I'm not ready to believe the latter.

 

[cowpoke212]

Senator Clinton has a record of being a disciplined and determined campaigner. To suggest that she is in freefall is simply hyperbole.

 

[maxpowr9]

I haven't had much time to focus on political matter because I have been focusing on economic issues instead but here's what I think.

A quick drive around Massachusetts (the most liberal state in the union) and you see alot more Obama bumper stickers than Clinton or Edwards. Perhaps it's because Patrick (MA governor who is black) supports Obama. I dunno who I'd vote for; either Hilliary or Obama.

I personally think Obama will take NH as well. Reckon this is a gay forum but with civil unions becoming legal in NH (as of 1/1/08 ), that is a BIG DEAL that slipped under the media radar and Obama is the only outspoken democratic nom about gay marriage.

 

[Centexfarmer]

I personally think that the only thing going on with Hillary is that she's running to be our next POTUS.

Historians will remind you that WJ Clinton polled 4th in Iowa in 1992, and wasn't "in the race" until he placed 3rd in New Hampshire.

What I saw in the New Hampshire debates, that I hadn't seen from Hillary previously, was some humility.

I liked it.

I liked what I saw.

Showed that she's human, and it appeared honest to me, not staged.

So Chance, I wouldn't worry about your girl Hillary.

Not yet, not at the moment.

Let's see what happens between now, and South Carolina.

 

[TheTalkingAsshole]

I personally think that the only thing going on with Hillary is that she's running to be our next POTUS.

Historians will remind you that WJ Clinton polled 4th in Iowa in 1992, and wasn't "in the race" until he placed 3rd in New Hampshire.

What I saw in the New Hampshire debates, that I hadn't seen from Hillary previously, was some humility.

I liked it.

I liked what I saw.

Showed that she's human, and it appeared honest to me, not staged.

So Chance, I wouldn't worry about your girl Hillary.

Not yet, not at the moment.

Let's see what happens between now, and South Carolina.

Oh, please...don't be so simplistic. Of course she's running for President, along with many others. But there are stark differences between this election and 1992.

First, I hope historians do a better job than you did. Bill placed 4th in Iowa because nobody contested it vigorously against Tom Harkin. And, Bill finished 2nd in Iowa, not 3rd.

Yes, she showed that she's human, and willing to fight, and scared, and pissed off, and in trouble.

Sure, the trend hasn't been established yet that signals her demise. But, if she loses to Obama by 10% or so in New Hampshire, then the serious worrying will begin.

 

[naked gent]

Obama is appealing to moderates in general, both Dems and republicans. Hispanic voters are bailing the GOP. The country clearly wants a "fresh" change and that may well be THE issue. Edwards has similar problem. He and Hillary are reminders of the past. Obama is "fresh".

Orlandude while "change" seems to be what voters yearn for (and everybody from Romney to Huckabee to Hillary and Obama claim to be agents of it) I think your introduction of the word "fresh" is a far more accurate reading of the voting public.

If change were really what voters wanted I would expect to see at least a 40% turnover in congress which I doubt will happen. It makes no sense at all to vote for change on the presidential level and then vote to send your incumbent rep back to Washington.

On the other hand "fresh" works much better with fresh meaning not a Washington pol, and that goes for past elections as well as this one.

Using this definition Carter was fresh, Reagan was fresh and so were Clinton and Bush the lesser. The problem for Mrs. Clinton is that she is anything but fresh and that is the root of her difficulty.

 

[a little edgy]

You can't count Hillary out until Feb 5. Her greatest strength is in the big-city states like NY, NJ and CA. A preview of this will come with the Michigan contest on Jan 15, where her success or lack thereof in metro Detroit will be critical. It will be the first really big metropolitan area she has faced, and it has a huge black population where her strength against Obama will be tested.

For what it's worth, I think Hillary's problems - "meltdown" is a bit strong - were predictable. She is not a fresh face, as naked gent points out. Furthermore, she is extremely polarizing. Her election potentially could mean a continuation of the intense bitterness that has characterized politics for at least the last 10+ years (for which both sides share the blame). Many Dems may realize that this polarizing quality makes her less electable. They may also - like me, even though I'm not a Democrat - want the next President to be someone who has the potential to be less divisive. If I were a Democrat, I'd be thinking seriously about Obama for this very reason.

 

[naked gent]

They may also - like me, even though I'm not a Democrat - want the next President to be someone who has the potential to be less divisive. If I were a Democrat, I'd be thinking seriously about Obama for this very reason.

I think you're right about the desire for a candidate who is less divisive and has a chance of bringing some unity to the country.

If Obama is the less divisive democrat I think McCain is the less divisive republican.

Given his stand on Iraq I might be wrong but give either of those men more than 51% of the vote and I think the country will give them a chance.

Neither Bush nor Clinton received a majority of the votes and I believe that goes a long way toward explaining why they had such difficulty with various parts of the electorate.

Minority presidents are doomed from the start and if the country wishes for an end to divisive politics they had better give someone a solid majority.

Failing that a divided country will be produce a divided divisive government.

 

[opinterph]

Neither Bush nor Clinton received a majority of the votes and I believe that goes a long way toward explaining why they had such difficulty with various parts of the electorate.

Admittedly 50.7 percent is no mandate, but just to keep the record straight …

United States presidential election, 2004

Bush received about 51 percent of the votes cast (62 million votes), making him the first presidential candidate to win a majority of the popular vote since his father George H. W. Bush in the presidential election of 1988.

 

[NickCole]

Neither Bush nor Clinton received a majority of the votes and I believe that goes a long way toward explaining why they had such difficulty with various parts of the electorate.

Minority presidents are doomed from the start and if the country wishes for an end to divisive politics they had better give someone a solid majority. ...

What do you mean "doomed"?

As Clinton left the White House he had the highest approval ratings of any President since WWII, despite a relentless assault of bogus investigations by divisive Republicans. While he was President we enjoyed the longest peacetime expansion of the economy in our history.

If peace and prosperity, and high approval as he leaves the job, is the result of "doomed," what's success?

And Bush wasn't "doomed" by winning without a majority in 2000 any more than he ended up successful after winning by a majority in 2004.

Clinton was a success because he was a good effective President and Bush has turned out a failure because he's been a bad and incompetent President. Nothing at all to do with the numbers they won by.

 

[Spensed]

Hillary isn't infallible. She underestimated the increased youth vote and is belatedly trying to make up for that. She's well funded and may well recover by Feb 5.

As for Bill Clinton, despite his success and although he wasn't wholly to blame for it, his legacy was eight years of George Bush. Bill's just baggage at this point.

 

[NickCole]

As for Bill Clinton, despite his success and although he wasn't wholly to blame for it, his legacy was eight years of George Bush. Bill's just baggage at this point.

Now George Bush is Clinton's fault too?!

It's really remarkable how far this anti-Clinton insanity goes.

 

[Spensed]

Now George Bush is Clinton's fault too?!

It's really remarkable how far this anti-Clinton insanity goes.

Likewise the pro-Clinton blindness. I was and am a big supporter of Bill Clinton. But the fact is his successor might have been different if Bill hadn't lied about Monica and if he had planned better for what would come after him.

My point really is that I suspect he is more likely to put people off from voting for Hillary than he is to get her votes. Obviously, that isn't your issue if you're uncritically pro-Bill. But it is an issue for some Democrats and swing voters.

 

[naked gent]

Admittedly 50.7 percent is no mandate, but just to keep the record straight …

OP I was only referring to the 2000 election because when the subject is divisiveness and alienation of a particular part of the electorate it occurs when the winner is not viewed as being legitimate and once a bastard always a bastard as it were.

Both Bush and Clinton (and Nixon another minority president) produced a visceral hatred in certain corners and that did not disappear in the second terms of any of them.

What do you mean "doomed"?

My use of the word doomed refers to the problems minority presidents have with certain parts of the electorate.

As Clinton left the White House he had the highest approval ratings of any President since WWII, despite a relentless assault of bogus investigations by divisive Republicans. While he was President we enjoyed the longest peacetime expansion of the economy in our history.

Thats how you remember the Clinton yrs Nick......others mostly remember the far right attacking and the Clintons constantly defending and given Mrs. Clinton's current prospects they don't wish a return to that.

 

[JayHawk]

Gloom despair and agony on me
I searched the world over and
thought I found true love
They picked another and
Poof! She was gone

 

[NickCole]

Thats how you remember the Clinton yrs Nick......others mostly remember the far right attacking and the Clintons constantly defending and given Mrs. Clinton's current prospects they don't wish a return to that.

Sure, I remember all that background noise from nasty divisive Republicans. You think it's the Clinton's fault Republicans were that way? You think Republicans will be nice and easy go-alongs with the more liberal Obama? If so, on what evidence do you base such a conclusion?

But you're right, mostly from the 90s I remember working and playing, making a lot of money and having a great time. Those were the Clinton years. If we don't give Hillary Clinton a chance to put us back on that track, it's Americans who'll suffer, not the Clintons.

 

[JayHawk]

So you havent made money, played or had fun in the last 7 years?