The Trail: A Daily Diary of Campaign 2008

"Hellary Clinton is the scariest female on the planet . . . and I have met my share of scary females."

Imagine my shock and embarassment at seeing this on a public message board.

I just read that Hillary has been handing out Red boxing gloves to some of her supporters. She is trying to diffuse her faultering by making a mockery of the situation. It is no joke when people want to know where she stands on issues. After so many days we still don't have a clear answer from her. Her camp puts out statements, but it does not come from her mouth. The other candidates have been fighting with open fists. Hillary does not need her boxing gloves to get on the podium. All she needs is to be straight forward in answering some questions. This is not a fight the american people are going to decide based on how cute one looks with boxing gloves on. If that is what is looking for, she should probably approach Donald Trump and compete in Mrs.America competition. The american presidency is not for her. Just becuase she put on boxing gloves does not mean she is going to get the vote of the people who like boxing. By the way all the women I spoke to have come to the same conclusion. Her campaign is big on showmanship and being evasive. We want somebody who is truthful. Not someone chameleon. Her camp is mistaken, if they believe that they have the female votes just becuase she is a woman. Hillary does not have my vote, or any of my friends voes for sure.

Where was the outrage when they went after Obama in Iowa during the August debate? He handled it with the grace and dignity expected from a Presidential candidate. But since it's your girl Clinton its different it's piling on. Thats reverse sexism. Please see the Hill Article

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/campaign-call-reveals-clinton-debate-concern-2007-11-01.html

zukermand Your girl lost the debate stop whinning and get over it.

"The issue is she is calling herself a victim of sexism "

You are mistaken, she has not.

"Now she is by way of her campaign she is calling herself a victim of those sexist evil men and this sexist society"

No, she isn't.

"This was a debate"

No, it wasn't. This was a pile-on. I'm positive you can't cite a single example in the history of presidential campaign debates where all participants focused on one candidate to this degree.

As for the rest of your ranting, there is really no response possible. You don't seem to be making any points, just sort of screaming into the void, if you will. You're perfectly entitled to your opinions, baseless as they may be, but don't pretend they are reliable for others.

I love how women call me a racist for calling Hillary Clinton privileged background. I voted for her and her Husband. You are trying to distract people from the issue. The issue is she is calling herself a victim of sexism in a society where she has had every advantage She is privileged but do not act like it doesn't exist... She went to Ivy League school; she is a lawyer, former First Lady, Senator and a millionaire. Now she is by way of her campaign she is calling herself a victim of those sexist evil men and this sexist society because of a poor debate performance. Come on, the nerve of her and some of these so called feminist bloggers. This was a debate. Some people would thrive in her position all she is doing is complaining and triangulating. Be honest Sen. Clinton and her supporters expected a coronation and got a contest.

Here is my summary of her "experience"
Hillary Clintons experience consist of is six years living off of Bill's name in the Senate and 20 years picking out the Governors' / Presidents china.
Obama, Edwards, Richardson, Biden and Dodd all self made. I want a self made person for president

People, people, people...

Please stop thinking that voting for Clinton (Hillary this time not Bill) will be a correction to the Bush years. NO! It is retracing the same steps, repeating the same mistakes that were foisted upon us from 1992 to 2000.

They may seem like the good ole days now, after eight years of Bush, but remember the daily scandals, the double-talk, the parsing, the compromises that left us Liberals scratching our heads.

Another four or eight years of Clinton is not the antidote to eight years of Bush.
Vote for Change. And Change is not spelled C-L-I-N-T-O-N.

Please be advise and advise, the media as whole IS controLled by AIPAC agents and EDITED by them , how could she be so ahead BY polls!! when she is a A REPUBLICAN IN THE DEMOCARACT CLOTHING - AND SHE IS PAR WARRRRRRRR.......
A+, FOR COMMENTS BY TENNGURL AND HSTE77

It's the Economy stupid!

The Liberals left the economy with a 100 billion dollar surplus,
a Nation at peace in the world,
and it cost .90 cents to buy a Euro.

After eight years of Conservative politics,
we are $9 trillion dollars in debt,
we have two wars on our hands,
and it cost a $1.44 to buy one Euro.

You got to hand it to the Liberals
they know how to run a business.

The Conservatives?
well...
they know how to run up
a hell of a credit card debt
and to trash the value of the dollar.
You can't trust the Conservatives
with your money.

They're too hung up on sex
and what's going on in their neighbor's bedroom
then to focus their attentions on the business of running a Nation.

It's the Economy stupid!

It's the Economy stupid!

The Liberals left the economy with a 100 billion dollar surplus,
a Nation at peace in the world,
and it cost .90 cents to buy a Euro.

After eight years of Conservative politics,
we are $9 trillion dollars in debt,
we have two wars on our hands,
and it cost a $1.44 to buy one Euro.

You got to hand it to the Liberals
they know how to run a business.

The Conservatives?
well...
they know how to run up
a hell of a credit card debt
and to trash the value of the dollar.
You can't trust the Conservatives
with your money.

They're too hung sex
and what's going on their neighbor's bedroom
then to focus on the business of running a Nation.

It's the Economy stupid!

The pollsters are just making up numbers. It just doesn't make sense. When her Chinese fundraiser was caught red handed Hillary wished him all the best, then her camp went quiet for a few days and resurfaced quoting how good she is doing in polls. Now she was bruised during the debate. After a few days her camp again starts talking about how the liberals have raised her poll numbers. This is all a ploy by Bill and the gang. When people go to the polling booth in Iowa, people will realize how phony her campaign had been. She will definitely make some money if she goes to vegas and plays some poker. Becuase is a big time bluffer. I am not going to vote for Hillary regardless of what the poll says.

what a abc/wapo/mark penn poll ? sure. 50% of people say they will never vote for HRC yet, all the polls are still heavily in her favor- to paraphrase the far side " good morning mr anderson "

it does not suprise me she is a crack pot so she has found her place she always blames someone for her falures and shortcomings so she can join the rest of the george bush caused hurricanes wild fire and took down the word trade center crack pots

268 Iowa republicans came out today saying they are going to caucus for barack obama.
Obama gets a fair share of independents and republicans backing him along with his own democrats. this is what real electability is about.
I doubt Clinton could get 2 Iowa republicans to caucus for her and without any crossover, she is virtually unelectable.
Plus another study today said that 25% or so of Independents pick Clinton while both Edwards and Obama got 57%.
Something to think about.

I've been analyzing Hill, and I think she's got a real Dem-O-graphics problem.

Basically, she has little or no appeal among the youth. She's too old -- looks old, talks old.

I'm not being "-ist" I'm just expressing what I think other people think.

Therefore, she's really vulnerable to a candidate like Obama, who -- if there is a Youth Vote -- can capture it.

The problem is: is there a Youth Vote. Young people have almost no reason to vote. There's nothing in it for them...almost no issue on the table has a plus or minus for a young person. There's no draft: if they want to fight, fight. If not, stay home. Economy is good. Houses are high priced, but who wants a house if you're still good looking and can get laid.

Bottom line, Obama can win IFF he comes up with a really good reason to bring the under 30 crowd into the polling station (oh, silly me, they don't do that any more -- I mean, vote by mail).

Hellary Clinton is the scariest female on the planet . . . and I have met my share of scary females.

We DEFINITELY need someone to clean up the mess of the little sawed off Nazi-wannabe and his buddy, the brain-dead Cheney . . . but Hellary is NOT the person for the job.

She would only further foul the nest.

Yet another puff piece by the Post on their beloved Hillary.

Like liberals have a choice other than to fall in behind the coronated queen? Rocket science this is not.

I'm proud to also be supporting the strongest, most uniquely experienced candidate for president.

Remember the time 268 Republicans in Iowa announced publicly that they have changed their party affiliation to vote for OBAMA.

Only 24% (271 out of 1131 adults) are calling themselves liberals in the poll data.

271 is such a SMALL sample size, it's meaningless. You spend a whole article discussing a 'rising trend' of 30 people!

This has to be a memo from the Clinton camp.

Her hawkish statements on Iran and vote for the Kyle Leiberman amendment have lost her my liberal vote.

You know this is not true, WaPo, and collaborating with ABC doesn't make it true either.

Your article implies that her "opponents" accuse her of being too hawkish on Iran, as if her opponents did not include a high percentage of Democrats AND what you call "liberals".

She actually has very limited support amongst Democrats, Liberals, Progressives, or whatever you want to call them, precisely because of her hawkish views, and especially because of those views she has which do NOT distinguish her from the GOP.

All of which pretty much rules her out as a realistic alternative to the "staying the course" looneys we hear all day on our MSM, bless their sweet little treasonous hearts.

People get a grip on things lets talk about the only virtuous candidate for president of the USA, Mike Gravel. He makes circles around all the cadidates at the same time, he has trust and sense. Who is Hillary a nobody who has done little compared to Gravel. Gravel is good for the common cause both poor and rich, what and why would you consider anyone else this boggles my mind.

GRAVEL IS THE ONLY CANDIDATE OF SUBSTANCE AND CHANGE AND PROVEN RECORD NO ONE EVEN COMES CLOSE AND WE ARE TALKING ABOUT HILARY THIS IS HILLARIOUS. NO SAD.

I don't understand why Democrats seem so intent on backing an inevitable loser. You must be completely delusional to think Hillary Clinton has a chance to be elected . Half of the country hates her. It would be like the GOP running Rush Limbaugh out there. It seems so straightforward that at times I'm left wondering if I'm the crazy one. Do all of the Hillary supporters not understand that she will mobilize the Republican base like no Republican candidate possibly could? I share a couple of mutual acquaintances with a prominent Republican lawmaker who has been saying, for over a year, that Clinton will win the nomination, and that the GOP will be delighted because they KNOW that she CANNOT win. If you like Hillary(I myself do not), great; but pull your head out of the sand long enough to see the trap you're setting for yourselves and the rest of us who are actually in touch with reality.

Tenngurl,

I wonder if you are from New York, because if you are then you are in the minority being very critical of Clinton. Majority of New Yorkers were never sorry that they voted for her instead of Lazio, and that is why they REELECTED her. Clinton together with Schumer worked hard for the people of New York.

You said that Clinton has failed in every major plan. Do you think New Yorkers, who are known to be first rate cynics and were initially skeptical of Clinton, would reelect her if they see things the way you see it?

Hey give credit where credit is due...

There's nothing complex or mysterious about this. Most people--and, therefore, most people who respond to pollsters--don't spend their time "in the blogosphere and elsewhere", as you put it. They're real people with real lives, and they don't give a damn about all the elitist, Hillary-hating miscreants.

I voted for Bill twice - but I'll NEVER vote for hillary.

People who want to vote for Hillaey are either intellectually dishonest and KNOW that she is talking out both sides of her mouth and don't care, or are Gloria Steinem era supporters, and nutjobs, or are waiting for OBAMA to give them a reason to leave hillary.

One thing is for certain - hillary won't win the general election because Independent individuals like me split the Dem vote, and zero republicans will vote for her.

hillary is the new "Ralph Nadar" for the democratic party's chances in the general election.

GO OBAMA! (but please step it up a couple of notches already!)

Liberals are lining up behind Hillary because they are tired of the chimera exemplified by the likes of Ralph Nader and Dennis Kusinich who have fantastic pie-in-the-sky ideas about how America should be but zero recognition of American political reality. You have to walk before you can run, folks. In 2000, Liberals were so worried about keeping their precious pretentious little souls pure that they wouldn't get behind Gore because gasp! He held stock in an oil company once! He accepted donations from cooperations! Oh no! And what happened was that Cheney and the chickenhawks walked into the White House in an election so close that the margin would have made a difference. Ie, the number of hand-wringing liberals (most of whom, in my exerpeicne, we're well protected from the practical fall-out of a harsh conservative presidency by the color of their skin and their station in life) who decided they couldn't compromise their precious selves by voting for someone who didn't live up to their 'ideals'.

Hillary's answers on Iran and Iraq ring as unattractive to such a crowd because they're practical, and because there's actually a chance that they could come into being. If her stances were different she would be rightly accused of ignoring facts in order to pander to this self-congradulating mass.

If Liberals ARE lining up behind her, I am cheering and letting out a huge sigh of relief. Maybe this well-meaning crowd is finally looking at the REAL-LIFE consquences of their political choices, and ready to actually EFFECT CHANGE IN THE WORLD. Maybe at long last they're finally more worried about taking real steps to restore the status quo they let the Bushies destory (not to mention, more worried about the reality faced by the vast swarth of people on the planet who can't afford to have 'ideals' cause they're too worried about protecting their lives and livlihoods) than about not muddying that 'libearl idealism' they get so busy showing off to each other in classrooms and at the latest anti-war pow-wow.

Idealism that ignores the real, practical consquences of its choices isn't idealism. IT'S VANITY.

Hillary, you are not perfect, I don't agree with you on everything, but I believe you'll do a better job cleaning up Jr's mess than anybody else out there. You got my vote.

"Clinton is running on her name, gender, and experience. She may be the nominee but I don't think she will win unless she is the overwhelming nominee"

What does that mean?

tenngurl: why don't you sell your racism someplace else? obama is irrelevant so get over it and try, as much as you can('t), to support someone who is relevant. Biden and Edwards are the candidates who make sense based on EXPERIENCE. Clinton is running on her name, gender, and experience. She may be the nominee but I don't think she will win unless she is the overwhelming nominee. Then she will face another hurdle, the GOP and that will not be so simple.

"zukermand Are you denying that the "I am your girl statement was not poll tested. "

I don't know, and neither do you.

"I must have gone to the wrong political meeting then. Anyway it was a spectacle to you because "your girl" got beat plain and simple. "

Like I said, you can't cite an example where an entire presidential debate, including the moderators, focused from start to finish on trying to trip up a single candidate.

"She got caught doing what she always does triangulation. She never answers the questions or she will say different things to different crowds. "

If that is true, you should have no trouble providing an example.

"Well this shows that her campaign and her supporters can't handle the mild criticisms from the Dems. Will she wilt when she faces the personal attacks from the RNC and boy they have a lot of stuff to throw at her."

I imagine we've heard it all before. See if you can cite something credible we all haven't heard before endless times.

She is very effective, as her favorability trends show. The more people see and hear her, the more they like her. Unfortunately for you and the GOP, the opposite is true for Mr Giuliani.

I saw Hillary's youtube video about her voucher plan. I just couldn't understand her point. She blabbered so much about the different religions, I just didn't understand whether she supported the catholics, or the jews, or the sectarian or whatever group she was talking about. She is a very poor communicator. No substance to her talk. Only confusing remarks. I am a woman and she is not going to get my vote by saying, honey, we both got the same sexual parts, so vote for me. We need a president whom we can trust, who is credible in what he/she says. Hillary has all these federal plans, where she will take $10 from your pocket and give a couple of dollars to somebody else. You asically gain nothing out of her healthcare, or voucher plans. So far she hasn't clarified any of her points. I am a liberal and she is just not going to get my vote, regardless of what the polls say about her support.

If indeed she is leading among the liberals, what exactly does this liberals stand for?

Enough of shoving your polls on us. If you don't have anything to report on, then short up.

zukermand Are you denying that the "I am your girl statement was not poll tested. I must have gone to the wrong political meeting then. Anyway it was a spectacle to you because "your girl" got beat plain and simple. She got caught doing what she always does triangulation. She never answers the questions or she will say different things to different crowds. Well this shows that her campaign and her supporters can't handle the mild criticisms from the Dems. Will she wilt when she faces the personal attacks from the RNC and boy they have a lot of stuff to throw at her.

I just don't undertand this stupid poll numbers that is meaningless. Can they tell us the people that are being polled?

How many of this so called liberals undertsand her position on the issues? As an independent leaning Democrats, i'll definitely vote for Republican if Clinton is nominated.

Clinton's number rising among the liberals ? I guess the liberal could be bunch of gays and net root that don't actually vote.

Mr Balz:"Four years ago, a party that was moving left and increasingly anti-war ended up rejecting the darling of the anti-war wing of the party, Howard Dean, in favor of someone who had voted in favor of the war resolution. In that case, John Kerry's electability counted for more than Dean's opposition to the war. That same calculation may be at work in the 2008 nomination fight."

Now, that's just bizarre. What's your game Mr Balz? How does a responsible journalist draw this comparison and disregard a 20% difference in the prevailing public opinion of the war?

I think Mr Balz is frustrated and trying to stir things up a bit.

TennGurl, you are mistaken and you'll have to forgive me if I judge you are not "someone who knows a little something".
That debate was a spectacle and anyone who watched it knows that. They also know they don't "always do that to the frontrunner" because everyone knows they have never seen anything like it before. Neither have you.

" She won't win the female vote....she won't win the black vote...and she won't win the southern, white male vote.

How can the polls be so wrong?

Posted by: linnie1 | November 5, 2007 03:58 PM "

That's really very funny.

I know what she stands for just ask Mark Penn.j/k. But I hate to tell you this as someone who knows a little something she is very poll tested. That "I am your girl" crap was poll tested.

As to an earlier questioner I do know what she has done. She has failed on Healthcare, she failed on her Iraq vote and her support/not sure of it today depending on the crowd of the Iraq war and she is failing again on Iranian guard vote. Every major plan she supported has failed.

She may be a nice person I voted for her in NYC but the fact is she has poor judgment and she never learns from her past mistakes. Her poor judgment shows she still has a lot to learn from Bill. Her actions by her campaign this week after the debate shows she is not ready for prime time yet. Her campaign really thinks working women "with needs" will fall for this sexism "issue". Or this "issue" will make us feel sorry for her again like they did a few years ago and vote for her (i.e. Rick Lazio). The funnier thing is the think that 24% of republican women will vote for her ha. They won't.

Anyway anyone from New York knows if you want to get something done in NYC ask Chucky Schumer.

..As a moderate democrat, I fully support the DLC, and of course, Mrs. Hillary Clinton. Clear the way, The Clinton's are coming back. Thank god; need to clean up yet another BUSH MESS!
Go Hill ! !

I know what she stands for just ask Mark Penn.j/k. But I hate to tell you this as someone who knows a little something she is very poll tested. That "I am your girl" crap was poll tested. But I do know what she has done. She failed on Healthcare, she failed on her Iraq vote and her support/not sure of it today depending on the crowd of the Iraq war and she is failing again on Iranian guard vote. Every major plan she supported has failed.

She may be a nice person I voted for her in NYC but the fact is she has poor judgment and she never learns from her past mistakes. Her poor judgment shows she still has a lot to learn from Bill. Her campaigns reaction this week on the debate shows she is not ready for prime time yet. Her campaign really thinks working women "with needs" will fall for this sexism stuff. They think it will make us feel sorry for her again like they did a few years ago so we would be angry and vote for her again. It won't.

Anyway anyone from New York knows if you want to get something done in NYC ask Chuck Schumer. Now if you want to know about the

I'm a moderate Democrat, and I will vote for Hillary if she wins the nomination because she isn't too far to the left.

The Founding Fathers of our country established the system of checks and balances to keep the country from going too far in one direction or the other.

After 8 years of George Bush, to say the least, we need a correction -- and we also need to balance the next few Supreme Court nominations against the last few appointments.

However, I don't want to see us moving to an extreme left wing state with single-payer health care, heavily socialized programs, and the kinds of problems that go along with them.

Trade in that abused word 'Liberal' for something with a little more real meaning, like 'Progressive' and I suspect she fairs far worse. Kucinich is the only real progressive choice.

Here's something for all you naysayers to chew on... I AM a liberal and I AM a Hillary supporter.

Why? Because I read more than the sensationalistic headlines. I actually watch and LISTEN to the debates. I understand the nuances necessary in complex policy decisions and I don't believe that 30 second "lightning rounds" allow anyone to get to the meat of an issue.

This liberal has come to understand two things from the republicants that it appears my fellow Democrats and liberals have yet to learn:

1. Change will only come in incremental steps. Far too many of my liveral brethren are too gung-ho to move things to the left. That's just not a good prescription for change in a democracy like ours. My support for Hillary Clinton is based on what I see as her carefully nuanced positions that will push us, step by step, back onto the right (that is, to the center-left). It's easy for the media and the rightwingers to say her positions are "too nuanced" (is there really such a thing?) or unclear. Well, that's just plain wrong. Our problems require nuanced and delicate solutions. All I see from the Republicants is status quo. All I see from the other Democrats, specifically like Obama, is high-minded, detail-lacking rhetoric. It's nice for a lofty speech but says little about the ability to implement policy.

2. You won't see Clinton attacking the others like they are her. There are certainly two reasons - first, she's the frontrunner by a large margin; but second, and I think this is where the rest of the field should learn from the Republicants as well - Don't do the oppisition's fighting for them. Reagan called it the 11th commandment: Thou shalt not attack a fellow Republican(t). It's a good lesson that my fellow Democrats have yet to learn. These guys need to go out and make a case of they are beter than any of the Republicants. Clinton, I believe, knows this, and you won't see her beating up on her fellow Democrats, even if she wasn't in the lead.

For these reasons, this die-hard, bluest of the blue, liberals is supporting Hillary Clinton.

For the person who always writes to say "I don't know what Hillary stands for." Have you read her goals and plans on hillaryclinton.com? For that matter, regardless of which candidate you complain about, that argument is usually specious. It only means that you have not read that candidate's website. They are all written in plain English, unlike all other government-speak.

With all the ruckus about Clinton's doubletalk, being untrustworthy, cold and calculating, the bottomline is she has the EXPERIENCE and the TRACK RECORD. Granting that her negatives are correct, still she delivered the goods expected of her as a Senator of New York. New Yorkers initially were lukewarm to her, but because of her good performance she was able to win their trust and confidence and REELECTED her overwhelmingly.

So I have decided to support her to give her the chance to deliver the goods (just like what she did to skeptical New Yorkers) and if after four years she won't be able to do it, then I will just simply not REELECT her for President and maybe this time I can try voting for OBAMA who will be more experienced by that time (of course with the condition that he makes good performance as a Senator for the next four years)

All of the candidates (including Clinton are now playing the good Politicians to the hilt) so I am not listening to them. I will make my own decision based on their PROVEN track records.

^^^ (Sorry, I'm dyslexic today.)

I. Cannot. Believe it.

You can't be a liberal and support Hillary at the same time, so whether or not these people identified themselves as liberal or not, they ARE NOT LIBERALS.

All you have to do is pay the slightest attention to Hillary's voitng reacord to see how NOT liberal she is concering war, diplomacy, healthcare and energy, so these people they polled are the most uninformed or ignorant people on the planet.

Hillary is so far to the right, I (identifying as a liberal) can NEVER EVER VOTE FOR HILLARY.

I'm disgusted by "liberals" and the democratic party.

If america elects Hillary, we'll deserve the continued war and death she will bring to our country.

For a point xmanore her campaign said that her opponents are piling on her. On the net you hear the screeching of people (mainly old school feminist) running to her side claiming sexism because people dared to challenge a woman. It's her campaign who labeled her a victim of male bashing
www.thehill.com/leading-the-news/campaign-call-reveals-clinton-debate-concern-2007-11-01.html . I am just pointing out she was not a victim of sexism she is in fact a very privileged white woman who is running for president of the United States. Her campaign needs to stop whining.

I'm a liberal, a Democract, and a Hillary supporter. She's wrong on illegal immigration. Go to www.numbersusa.com to fight for the working American man and woman and against greedy corporations and illegal immigration.

She won't win the female vote....she won't win the black vote...and she won't win the southern, white male vote.

How can the polls be so wrong?

Ru Paul is running for President?

Most of the candidates are promising to give us a health plan like John Edwards - including Hillary - but Edwards used plain language to describe it on the campaign trail (see first link below). If you want to be controlled like a robot, you'll love it.

Under Edwards' health plan, if you can't afford private insurance, you're forced into the government's system. Then your premiums go up if you don't get the screening or shot they tell you to get. That is how they will control you, and most of the Dem and Pub candidates are hinting at doing the same.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/02/AR2007090200743.html

This is the little sentence in Edwards' website that proves it's true:

"Incentives like lower premiums will reward individuals who schedule free
physicals and enroll in healthy living programs."

http://www.johnedwards.com/about/issues/health-care-overview.pdf

And don't forget Hillary got Bill to sell pardons to help her in her senate run.

The only ones who are not control freaks that I know of are Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul. Kucinich is the only one for single payer health care and the only one to vote against the war. Unfortunately, he talks to UFOs. On the Pub side, Ron Paul is the best choice to clean up government.

TennGurl wrote:

"Yes a victim who went to Wellesley, went to Yale Law School, married an ex-President who made millions of dollars selling books and going speaking tours, and are living in a multimillion dollar home Chappaqua New York."

Just a point of clarification: She didn't marry an ex-president, she married her boyfriend. The fact that all of these other things happened are immaterial. Your argument fails if you can't use valid facts.

And so what if she lives in a big house. I wonder if you can tell me which of your preferred candidates aren't wealthy or don't live in big fancy houses?

Isn't it interesting that when Clinton tops 50 in the polls, we get nothing but screaming headlines, but now that she's belows 50, nothing but complete silence.

Here is the deal most liberals have no idea where she stands. It seems from the last debate she didn't know either. They just assume she takes their position. It's her opponent's jobs to point it out.

Sadly, they cannot point out the differences because debating her makes her a victim of sexism. Yes a victim who went to Wellesley, went to Yale Law School, married an ex-President who made millions of dollars selling books and going speaking tours, and are living in a multimillion dollar home Chappaqua New York. It's hard out there for wealthy, ivy league schooled a former First Lady. Don't question her you or your sexist even if you are a woman.