JUST IN: BAD NEWS FOR HILLARY'S "ELECTABILITY" ARGUMENT

(or "YOUR SLIP IS SHOWING")

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/01/blacks.html

New poll: U.S. more ready for black prez than female one

A new poll just out from CNN/Opinion Research tied to Martin Luther King Day today finds blacks and whites optimistic and pretty much in agreement -- 84% whites, 78% blacks -- that a lot or moderate progress has been made toward the civil rights leader's dream of equality in American society.

But hidden near the bottom of the survey of nearly 1,400 adult Americans Jan. 14-17 is some disturbing news for Sen. Hillary Clinton heading into tonight's Democratic debate in South Carolina and the party's primary there Saturday. ...

"there are just certain people no matter what they say they are going to be disliked and, on a more positive note, there are people saying absolutely nothing, they are loved ....and everyone likes them."

Both examples describe Charles Rangel.

No president can be perfect but America cannot go from one extreme (GWBush) to another extreme (BHObama). The experienced person can fail and there is greater probability that an inexperienced person would fail. Obama is running for the presidency now, not because he is called for a vision, but because he is compelled by a favourable condition. His candidacy is not about hope. His hope is about his candidacy. I like Obama for VICE President. He would work wonders to prosper America AFTER Hillary has worked her brilliance to take America back on track to fiscal responsibility, economic stability, and international respectability. Sometimes, it takes a really wise man and true leader to recognize humility and right timing so more and better things can be achieved for America not just for the moment but for the long term.

jbentley4 - I completely agree with you!

Change will not come with the same old dinosaurs in office. Look at how many in Congress have been in office for 25 or more years. They have let America down and should not be re-elected. We need to start at the top by electing a President who recognizes that there is a problem with the way government runs and will work to fix the overt influence of rich corporations. If the next president doesn't understand this then we are in for four more years of the same token approach to our problems.

Obama sees that we need to fix government first before any significant changes can happen. Obama understands that people can agree to disagree and can get both parties to begin a dialogue to reach comprehensive reform. What does Hillary see the first thing that needs to be changed? Can she say the same thing? Remeber she said her weakness is impatience. She will not have the patience it takes to bring parties to the table to work out disagreements - it's her way or the highway. She hears what we are experiencing, but she's never experienced the same reality that many of us are living in, whereas Obama has. Real life experience gives a person a better understanding and perspective of the problems. Obama hears and feels the pain of many Americans and wants to use that experience to create a better America.

this post, not my own, pretty much sums up the rapethe publican position on the Clinton nomination, I think it is a very apt and capable description:

Posted by: svreader | January 17, 2008 10:15 PM

The Republican stuff is so "over the top" that they lose all credibility every time Hillary speaks and people see that she's not only human, but actually extremely charming.

The Republican techique is way too brittle, way to fragile, and backfires way too easily.

The final problem is that everyone's heard the same stories too many times, they're bored of them and they're getting fed up and feeling sorry for the Clintons.

Hearing the same Anti-Clinton slime

stories over and over and over is like

hearing your crazy uncle drone on and on

about the war he never fought in.

Kind of like Bush and Cheney...

_________________________________________________

and why are "they," trying to deep six Hillary????

could it be money oriented?

do they still want payments going to

Bechtel [ Rumsfelds company ]

Carlyle Group [ thebushes, Saudis, James Baker the III, UAE, Kuiwati's company ]

Halliburton [ Cheenies company ]

KBR [ Cheenies company ]

Blackwater [ Cheenies company ]

and those are only the most obvious ones....

$720 MILLION DOLLARS A DAY GETS spenton the Occupation of IRAQ

as AMERICANs lives and ECONOMY TANKS....

why? because the current crop running the government are incredibley incompetent.

why is it visible now? when things are more delicately balanced incompetence is like a bull in a china shoppe

it's obvious.

SEARCH on CHENEY, Hamilton, IRAN CONTRA, bush

SEARCH on Gary Webb, Parry, CIA, cocaine, heroin

...and have a nice day.

A couple of thoughts:

1. When you've spent 35 years in the Estblishment, including 8 years in the White House, several terms in a governor's mansion, and 7 years in the U.S., you are an Establishment candidate. This is reinforced by that you present dinosaurs like Charles Rangel and Bill Clinton as the main faces of your campaign.

2. When you've been on the national stage for nearly 20 years, people know you, and no, perceptions will not change.

3. Why is it that the media and conventional wisdom in general have bought into Hillary Clinton's claim that she's some sort of crack executive, technocrat-manager type who's mastered the bureacracy and will solve all of our problems on "Day 1." As best I can tell, she has virtually no managerial or executive experience and the one major policy initiative that she undertook during Bill's Administration, revamping healthcare, totally went down (or is it up) in flames. In fact, it became a textbook example of how not to get a major policy initiative through Congress, and was widely credited with being a major factor in the massive congressional gains made by the GOP in the mid-1990s. Honestly, during that whole process, Hillary showed total incompetence in terms of forging consensus and passing major legislation. Congress basically laughed at her, she did a terrible job of selling her plans to the American people, and involved interest groups ran circles around her in the media war and the battle for public opinion.

Some of the posts on here are simply amazing. I completely buy that Prescott Bush was a Nazi sympathizer, but all the vitriol against Sen Clinton and Rep Rangel is a bit over the top.

Newflash to Obama supporters. Many of us don't agree with you and have chosen a different candidate. You do your candidate no favor by denigrating someone else's, you merely demean yourself.

In the words of someone I admire and who is no great fan of Hillary Clinton:

"I you hate Hillary Clinton, it is SO about you." - Bill Maher

femalenick writes
"That she refuses to buckle and continues to fight for what she believes despite the hatred that's been flung her way since 1991 is why I admire and strongly support Hillary's candidacy."

Isn't that argument tantamount to saying "the right-wing attack machine has unfairly demonized her, therefore I support her candidacy"? I certainly agree that she has withstood 15-odd years of unjustified criticism and smears, but that's hardly a primary qualifier fo becoming the most powerful person in the world.

Charles Rangel and his fascistic approach to controlled substances issues have led to more black people being imprisoned than the entire amount of enslaved people prior to the Civil War. Imagine him coming out now in support of the Clintons, who did a large part of the imprisoning. Not a problem!

hey nick, what did you do/see in vietnam?

femalenick:
"I am willing to bet that most people here would not say what they do if they had to reveal their true identities!"

That's an interesting comment considering my userID is my legal name and you have yet to respond to my arguments.
Jonathan

Rangel comes off as a buffoon. He runs unopposed, like most black members of Congress, so there is not much his constituents can do to him. The Democratic Party relies on African American voters for statewide elections in so many states and they will be less interested in coming out. Here in New Jersey, Menendez wouldn't have won that senate seat in 2006 without being able to count on black voters. The Clintons are really cannibalizing the party.

have a nice evening. the roaches scatter when you turn the kitchen light on.

The Republican stuff is so "over the top" that they lose all credibility every time Hillary speaks and people see that she's not only human, but actually extremely charming.

The Republican techique is way too brittle, way to fragile, and backfires way too easily.

The final problem is that everyone's heard the same stories too many times, they're bored of them and they're getting fed up and feeling sorry for the Clintons.

Hearing the same Anti-Clinton slime stories over and over and over is like hearing your crazy uncle drone on and on about the war he never fought in.

Kind of like Bush and Cheney...

ALAN GREENSPAN SAID:

"It was always about the OIL."

so let's talk about Ken Starr, and how he's George W. Bushes lawyer now....and Blackwater's too.

and let's mention Michael Chertoff, "whitewater prsecutor," and Green Quest obstructor...

now in control of $BILLIONS$ of taxpayer dollars in his role as DHS channeler of dollars into bushCO and CRONYs pockets

SEARCH ON Chertoff, Green Quest, FBI

.be a voter that does something besides buy into other peoples sickness.

.

.

ALAN GREENSPAN SAID:

"Bill Clinton was the best President this economy has ever seen."

I think

"the infighting,"

is your work.

something that _you_ are selling.

anyone looking could come to that conclusion...it's what you are doing. nothing else.

anyone looking can see. can't they. you sell your sickness. it's what you do.

.

Wonder if her campaign will finally realize this and make the needed adjustments. The infighting certainly hasn't helped her image.

http://www.political-buzz.com/

I agree, nick.

I am also tired. The Mills incident and the Wilson story are separate events, about 8 years apart. Both are true - but not connected. I think Wilson was in the Senate
when he took care of another issue, as dumb as the leapyear one had been.

I think it's those that "have little character,"

attempting to sell character assassination as a position

that is the sickness in evidence tonight...

anyone with a modicum of intelligence can peruse these posts and find the truth staring them in the face.

INSIDER washington and bushCO and CRONYs are stealing AMERICAN LIVES and DOLLARS to feed to the fire of their

greed and stupidity... which is what they have demonstrated.

"...I think it is the inevitable entropy of web logs at work."

I disagree, Mark. It isn't the weblogs leading to entropy -- it's the anonymity. I am willing to bet that most people here would not say what they do if they had to reveal their true identities!

But to this - "But he seems a bit discombobulated in this interview. juge suggested he should hold his tongue; I suggest he should count to ten, figuratively, before he speaks for HRC." -- I say, "Amen!"

All supporters in the public eye, regardless of the candidate, should shut up. Each candidate should be judged on their own words, experience, and actions.

'95, not '91.

I think there is agreement that a whole bunch of these so-called surrogates should indeed "Shut Up" This is an everyday thing and only diminishes all the candidates of both parties.

JimD, this is a true story, but I may have told it here before. After Fannie in the fountain, Wilbur ckd into either Reade or Bethesda, I do not recall which.

I was a young lawyer with a client in Austin who had been denied his SS because he had celerated only sixteen birthdays - having been born on a Feb. 29. I was about to run into Fed Ct when a wiser older head said "Just call Cong. Pickle."

Pickle straightened out the Austin office, and his then AA, Cliff Drummond, told me to call Pete Wilson, R, San Diego. Wilson was the ranking R on W&M and was actually supervising the show in Mills' absence.
W&M was doing tech corrections to SS and Drummond said Wilson was a good guy and would see to it that the language changed from "65th birthday" to "65 years of age".

So I call Wilson - and he calls me back, personally. We have this great conversation and I get him in touch with his Korean War buddy, Les Procter, in Austin. After 1/2 an hr., I ask Wilson if he is ever gonna run for national office.
He says "any Congressman who says never is probably lying." I tell him he's got my support.

So in '91, wen he announced for Prez, I sent him $100 and remind him of the incident. When he dropped out, he sent me back the $100 with a note that said "Hardly
anyone ever remembers when you did something good for them -thanks."

you likka dat?

Chilean investigators say the Bush administration is undercutting their case against former dictator Augusto Pinochet for his alleged role in the terrorist assassination of a political rival on the streets of Washington three decades ago, a crime that then-CIA Director George H.W. Bush appears to have tolerated and then helped cover-up.

my mistake it was about this:

By frustrating the Chilean investigation, the Bush administration also is protecting former President George H.W. Bush against possibly being implicated in this act of terrorism, conceivably as an accessory after the fact for diverting suspicion away from Pinochet.

The Letelier-Moffitt murder is considered the worst act of state-sponsored terrorism in the history of Washington, D.C. At minimum, George H.W. Bush's CIA operated with extraordinary incompetence and negligence in failing to act on explicit warnings about the assassination plot.

Thirty-Year Tale

The case dates back to 1976 when the elder George Bush was running the CIA and right-wing military dictatorships - many with close CIA ties - were striking out at political adversaries through a cross-border assassination project known as Operation Condor.

At the time, one of the most eloquent voices making the case against Pinochet's regime was Orlando Letelier, who was living in exile and operating out of a liberal think tank in Washington, the Institute for Policy Studies.

Earlier in their government careers, when Letelier was briefly defense minister in the leftist government of Salvador Allende, Pinochet had been Letelier's subordinate. In 1973, after Pinochet took power in a military coup that killed Allende, Pinochet imprisoned Letelier at a desolate concentration camp on Dawson Island off Chile's south Pacific coast. International pressure won Letelier release a year later.

and so on....

what I was really pointing towards was using

OUR GOVERNMENT for bush family and friends business ventures...

jim.

such as $720 MILLION DOLLARS a day in business expenses for big oil in IRAQ...

which says nothing about the AFGHANI HEROIN supply being handled by bushCO and CRONYs.

.

Mark,

You can't remember Wilbur Mills without Fannie Foxx

Charlie Rangel is a serious player in the House and a pretty good Ways and Means Chair [but I remember Wilbur Mills, so Rangel is bound to look good in comparison].

He has relied on his NY Senate colleagues for local, NY issues. His support for HRC is probably both a show of personal and political loyalty.

But he seems a bit discombobulated in this interview. juge suggested he should hold his tongue; I suggest he should count to ten, figuratively, before he speaks for HRC.

wanna play huh???

okay.

January 8, 2007

NEW YORK--Newly released internal CIA documents assert that former president George Herbert Walker Bush's oil company emerged from a 1950's collaboration with a covert CIA officer.

Bush has long denied allegations that he had connections to the intelligence community prior to 1976, when he became Central Intelligence Agency director under President Gerald Ford. At the time, he described his appointment as a 'real shocker.'

But the freshly uncovered memos contend that Bush maintained a close personal and business relationship for decades with a CIA staff employee who, according to those CIA documents, was instrumental in the establishment of Bush's oil venture, Zapata, in the early 1950s, and who would later accompany Bush to Vietnam as a cleared and witting commercial asset of the agency.

According to a CIA internal memo dated November 29, 1975, Bush's original oil company, Zapata Petroleum, began in 1953 through joint efforts with Thomas J. Devine, a CIA staffer who had resigned his agency position that same year to go into private business. The '75 memo describes Devine as an oil wild-catting associate of Mr. Bush. The memo is attached to an earlier memo written in 1968, which lays out how Devine resumed work for the secret agency under commercial cover beginning in 1963.

Their joint activities culminated in the establishment of Zapata Oil, the memo reads. In fact, early Zapata corporate filings do not seem to reflect Devine's role in the company, suggesting that it may have been covert. Yet other documents do show Thomas Devine on the board of an affiliated Bush company, Zapata Offshore, in January, 1965, more than a year after he had resumed work for the spy agency.

It was while Devine was in his new CIA capacity as a commercial cover officer that he accompanied Bush to Vietnam the day after Christmas in 1967, remaining in the country with the newly elected congressman from Texas until January 11, 1968. Whatever information the duo was seeking, they left just in the nick of time. Only three weeks after the two men departed Saigon, the North Vietnamese and their Communist allies launched the Tet offensive with seventy thousand troops pre-positioned in more than 100 cities and towns.

While the elder Bush was in Vietnam with Devine, George W. Bush was making contact with representatives of the Texas Air National Guard, using his father's connections to join up with an elite, Houston-based Guard unit - thus avoiding overseas combat service in a war that the Bushes strongly supported.

The new revelation about George H.W. Bush's CIA friend and fellow Zapata Offshore board member will surely fuel further speculation that Bush himself had his own associations with the agency.

Indeed, Zapata's annual reports portray a bewildering range of global activities, in the Mideast, Asia and the Caribbean (including off Cuba) that seem outsized for the company's modest bottom line. In his autobiography, Bush declares that I'd come to the CIA with some general knowledge of how it operated' and that his 'overseas contacts as a businessman' justified President Nixon's appointing him as UN ambassador, a decision that at the time was highly controversial.

Previously disclosed FBI files include a memo from bureau director J. Edgar Hoover, noting that his organization had given a briefing to two men in the intelligence community on November 23, 1963, the day after the assassination of John F. Kennedy. The memo refers to one as Mr. George Bush of the Central Intelligence Agency and the other as Captain William Edwards of the Defense Intelligence Agency.

When this document was first uncovered in 1988, George Herbert Walker Bush, then vice president and seeking the presidency, insisted through a spokesman that he was not the man mentioned in the memo: "I was in Houston, Texas, at the time and involved in the independent oil drilling business. And I was running for the Senate in late '63. I don't have any idea of what he's talking about." The spokesman added, "Must be another George Bush."

When Nation magazine contributor Joseph McBride approached the CIA in 1988, it initially invoked a policy of neither confirming nor denying anyone's involvement with the agency. But it soon took the unusual step of asserting that the correct individual was a George William Bush, a one-time Virginia staffer whom the agency claimed it could no longer locate. But that George Bush, discovered in his office in the Social Security Administration by McBride, noted that he was a low-ranked coast and landing-beach analyst and that he most certainly never received such an FBI briefing.

jim, "tesla" is not worth any effort at all.

Just when Rufus seems to have outgrown the cutting and pasting from conspiracy theorists
we get "tesla."

I think it is the inevitable entropy of web logs at work.

The CIA was heavily involved in the Chilean coup but Bush I was not CIA director at the time.

Sorry Charlie, the Clintons have created the negative perception with their negative behavior and I suspect they will never be able to overcome that since that is their true nature.

"George H.W. Bush was Director of the CIA when Chile's presidente Allende' was assassinated in the streets of "

Allende was not assasinated in the streets of Santiago -- he was killed in a battle with the army in a coup in 1973. George H W Bush became CIA director in 1976.

"lets' try to be accurate."

how about

lets' try to be accurate.

.

thecrisis: The same could be said about the WIFE of a candidate. Lets at least try to be fair, although I know it is hard sometimes, I'm guilty myself at times.

Let's EXAMINE THIS POSTER:

prjonp wrote, impugned, maligned:

Forget perceptions. It's not a perception that Hillary would cement an American oligarchy.

Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton-Jeb Bush-Chelsea Clinton-Jenna Bush... Chelsea better start having kids.

I'm being sarcastic, but what percent of Democrats will vote against Hillary because the Bush/Clinton legacy disturbs them? Even if it's 5%, Hillary is probably unelectable in a 50/50 America on top of all of other negatives she possesses.

___________________________________________

the implication is that a bushCO and CRONYs pact is the same thing as the Clintons are offering is it?

Prescott Bush, George H.W.s father was war profiteering in WWI, he worked for REMINGTON MUNITIONS

he colluded with the NAZIS IN WWII, and profited from slave labor at Auschwitz...

he hid that information from the public with the help of Allen Dulles who helped found the CIA....some of the members of the CIA at it's beginnings were NAZIS

recruited because of their great skills in propaganda.

to continue:

During the NIXON YEARS, thedichCHEENIE and DONNY WMD! RUMMMSFELD were buddies together and worked under NIXON, they saw him "just fail," to take over the United States government from within....

talking to some former JCS people a few years back they laughed and said, "we thought we would have to use force to take him...that he was planning a coup...."

little dickie and donny saw what didn't work, and made some plans along with

George H.W., infact they worked with him during the time that JFK was in office.

after JFK was assassinated George H.W. moved to Texas and continued his work from there....

__________________________________________

Bill Clinton hadn't even come to Washington D.C. yet, he was a Rhodes scholar in London....

see the difference?

George H.W. Bush was Director of the CIA when Chile's presidente Allende' was assassinated in the streets of

WASHINGTON D.C. after the CIA was warned of the impending assassination.... George H.W. now sits on the board of directors of several CHILEAN CORPORATIONS.....serendipity ?????

nope. but an example of corruption, crime that spans over 80 years....going back to WWI

there is no comparison, the liars in charge are hoping you don't catch on to their ploys...

and since AMERICANS usually like their thoughts handed to them, it often works.

make a difference investigate my post

SEARCH on BUSH CRIME FAMILY, nazis

SEARCH on BUSH CRIME FAMILY, WMR, Sununu

SEARCH on BUSH, CHENEY, Nixon, Bay of Pigs, Zapata Oil

be big boys!!! and girls!!!!

.

Forget perceptions. It's not a perception that Hillary would cement an American oligarchy.

Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton-Jeb Bush-Chelsea Clinton-Jenna Bush... Chelsea better start having kids.

I'm being sarcastic, but what percent of Democrats will vote against Hillary because the Bush/Clinton legacy disturbs them? Even if it's 5%, Hillary is probably unelectable in a 50/50 America on top of all of other negatives she possesses.

Thanks, Mark. Vietnam was a fun and memorable experience.

"...her style of politics is the reason everyone has become a cynic." That's giving Hillary an awful lot of credit as the same could be said for just about any politician. That's why "political science" is an oxymoron!

it seems obvious to me that the only perceptions that Hillary needs to overcome are the ones planted by the

repulsickscammers aka rapethepublicans aka neoconartistes...

reading the comments here verifies that.

wouldn't you say?

content? nah.

appeal to emotion? yes, it's all they have.

facts are unsubstaniated and feelings based.

wanna dance minnows?

let's do it.

.

With all due respect to Cong. Rangel, he contradicts himself here. "There are just certain people no matter what they say they are going to be disliked." If Sen. Clinton is such a person, woe will surely befall her candidacy. Rangel offers no concrete idea of how Clinton will overcome established negative views of her--just that she will somehow. For that matter, Clinton herself hasn't been very convincing on this subject.

it seems obvious to me that the only perceptions that Hillary needs to overcome are the ones planted by the

repulsickscammers aka rapethepublicans aka neoconartistes...

these people have been using tactics to smear and imply as their only tool since

George H.W. escaped near death from his IRAN CONTRA linkage....

SEARCH on CHENEY, Hamilton, IRAN CONTRA, bush

SEARCH on John Negroponte, Honduras, terrorists

SEARCH on BUSH CRIME FAMILY, nazis

SEARCH on BUSH CRIME FAMILY, WMR, Sununu

be an informed voter, not one herded by the spawn of satan aka

rapethepubliccans...

you know the guys that tap dance in Minnesota airport restrooms, dancing for their dinner

so to speak.

My dislike for hillary is not at all because she is a woman. I hate the way she plays the game. Her failure to repudiate bob johnson in the debate the other night was just another example. Like anybody with a brain took his references as anything other than drug use and she had the audacity to say that she believed he was sincere when he said he was referring to community organizing. he would not have made an oblique reference if that was the case. And note that bob johnson has since apologized for is comments. her style of politics is the reason everyone has become a cynic.

As an African American, I am so disgusted by HRC's tactics and those of our so-called black leaders, I am seriously considering not voting for her should she receive the nomination, and I am a Democrat

RE: femalenick's comment

I really should continue to ignore this line of argument, but I feel I must address it occasionally. NONE of Hillary's problems winning the Democratic nomination are because she is," . . .a woman willing to claw and fight her way in a male dominated society." I have never encountered a single Democrat, male or female who gave me even a hint of this sentiment. I do not think it would be a major factor in the general election either. Put simply, she is not "liked", because of her perceived cynicism, untrustworthiness, and some of her policies (alarming aggression towards Iran, etc). The tenor of her campaign after Iowa isn't doing wonders for those who were on the fence about her character. Also keep in mind that some on the left will never forgive the Clintons for the ascendancy of the DLC, triangulation, and the "third way". For them, she is simply too centrist, and they viewed some of the policy of the 90s as a betrayal.

With respect to her chances in the general, my view is that she simply won't be able to win over any of the red states where Bush had small margins in '04. If you live in the North East, or on the West Coast and don't spend much time in the South or Great Plains, you have not scratched the surface of Clinton hatred. Here in red state America, the residue of the culture wars of the last forty years combines with seventeen years of right wing radio and TV invective to turn Bill and Hillary into objects of hatred in many communities. On a recent trip to Texas, I heard Obama referred to as "that nice man" in company in which the mere mention of either of the Clintons would send folks storming out of the room in a head trembling rage.

nick, glad your back.

Hillary will never overcome the nation's distrust and dislike...for many good reasons beginning with the disaster of the 8 years she and Bill were in the WH.....but also esp thanks to your actions, Rep. Ragel, when you disgraced yourself and your party by tearing down its brightest star, Barack Obama.

Enough of you and your ilk!

Hillary has never been a true feminist. She tried and failed repeatedly to win her father's approval. She had to learn to maneuver around two loutish brothers. She kept attached to a pathological liar who humiliated her at every opportunity. She trusted the judgment of GW Bush about Iraq. She choose not to read the intelligence report on Iraq. She has always followed strong-willed men.She "knows" men are her source of power. She is no feminist.

Democratic Nevada Caucus - Prediction Time!

The road to the White House now goes through Nevada because Saturday's statewide caucuses

will help to clarify presidential nomination races in both major parties.

Who do you predict will win the Democratic Nevada Presidential Caucus?

http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=1551

.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Republican Nevada Caucus - Prediction Time!

Who do you predict will win the Republican Nevada Presidential Caucus?

http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=1552

.

(to complete my thought on the recent post):

Only someone with a strong foundation of values, character, integrity could have withstood what Hillary has endured publicly for decades. Yet she continues to stand tall and strong and persevere. These are the qualities I want in my president.

uclazy31,
It's far better than that. This was the setup the Clinton campaign and their allied unions wanted and all signed off on when it was proposed months ago and her campaign assumed that they'd have all the endorsements in the bag. The teacher's union had every chance to object at the time an none of their board did so. The lawsuit is not only an act of generalized hypocrisy with respect to Dem rhetoric about voter participation, but also specifically hypocritical in that they only protested the setup when it suddenly looked to be disadvantageous to their campaign.

"Hilary Clinton's great sin was that she left the nicely wallpapered domestic sphere with a slam of the door, took up public life on her own, leaving big feminist footprints all over the place, and without so much as an apology." - From "Bewitched: The Demonization of Hillary Clinton" by Patricia J. Williams (b. 1942), as quoted in the Village Voice, 1/93.

Therein lies the best explanation of the Hillary Clinton "national perception," formed when Bill Clinton first campaigned for the office. She represents the final break from the past - the days when women were second class citizens who could neither vote nor own property and were expected to stare adoringly at their husbands while they ran for public office or entertain their husbands' corporate clients & colleagues. Too many men and women continue to frown on women like Hillary who choose to continue their careers, opt to keep their last names (which she did until it hurt Bill), and openly defy societal expectations and gender roles. They are accused of being cold and calculating when they are ambitious and dare to fight back -- often to the point of their sexual preference being questioned.

Hillary Hatred, I believe, is less about her (personality or policies) or Bill than it is about her being a woman willing to claw and fight her way in a male dominated society. That she refuses to buckle and continues to fight for what she believes despite the hatred that's been flung her way since 1991 is why I admire and strongly support Hillary's candidacy.

Bills comments about the weighting of the caucuses might be true but they went too long before raising them. waiting till the culinary endorsement took out any credibility to his claims.

Watch Bill Enraged

Former President Bill Clinton disagreed with the casino caucuses and became testy with a TV reporter on Wednesday while being asked about the lawsuit. "If you want to take that position, get on the television and take it," he added. "Don't be accusatory with me, I had nothing to do with this lawsuit."

http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=1571

.

"Clinton and her supporters have argued that it's more important that the next president have the practical experience needed to run the government"

Someone please explain what experience hillary has where she is actually running things and the person who is ultimately in charge and responsible?

When she talks about how she views the presidency she is so autocratic and wants total control over everything including her plans to manage the economy. She comes across as a micro-manager. as a leader i want someone who hires top quality people and lets them do their job. Look how effective bush has been at trashing the country and he is not hands on.

Whatever you say Charlie..

VOTE OBAMA FOR PRESIDENT!

I don't know about Hillary but I'm certainly looking at Bill in a less favorable way since he bullied his way into this race like it's his third term. He was a great president and has done great things since he left office, but he really needs to just shut the hell up when it comes to Obama. Why would anyone take the husband of a candidate as an objective source for opinion?

I'd like someone to ask Hillary what part Mark Penn will play in her administration. If it's the Karl Rove part, she'll never overcome "national perceptions."

I also wonder how the VP will function in the administration. My guess is that Bill Clinton will neutralize any policy role the VP might expect to have. Expect Clinton VP candidates to be less than enamored with what the position offers them. She'll want a partisan political attack dog, so hubby doesn't have to do the heavy lifting and damage what's left of his reputation.

Look for Obama to take himself out of the running for VP if he should fail to get the presidential nomination. He won't touch it with a ten foot pole. Edwards might if he has any hope of remaining a nationally relevant figure.

"Clinton Will Overcome "National Perceptions" "

Which Clinton? These little spats (MLK, casino voting) in which Bill weighs in with harsh invective are detracting from BJC's 'legacy,' such as it is. Certainly the DNC's court action in Vegas will minimize the culinary union peel off to HRC.

Rangel needs to minimize his visibility, aka "sit down and shut up," to have any hope of extracting his foot from his mouth.

Chris writes
"Clinton and her supporters have argued that it's more important that the next president have the practical experience needed to run the government than to be an inspirational speaker, like Obama."

Interesting. They argue for practical experience, but change the campaign to offer a more personal touch & expand HRC media contact (see Ms Kornblut's article on the HRC campaign plane). The inherent problem faced by the Clinton campaign is that, while they claim important 'practical' experience is critical in a president, they overplay their own candidate's credentials, while underplaying their opponents'.