After Hillary: Can A Woman Win?

[Terri]

Dick Morris

Yes. Certainly. Absolutely. Undoubtedly. She can. In fact, Hillary, even in defeat, demonstrated the viability of a female candidate for president.

Hillary lost because she is Hillary and because she was outsmarted by Obama. She lost despite being a woman, not because of it.

In the early going, before Obama began seriously to challenge her, Hillary was winning easily in all the national polls. There was, indeed, a sense of inevitability to her impending triumph. This consensus was not illusory; it was based on solid polling data and very real advantages she had at the time in funding, name recognition, field organization, and political momentum. Hillary lost because of a myriad of factors, none of which had to do with being female:

More

[FlaJim]

Dick Morris once again establishes his his detachment from reality. It sometimes seems that he's in a parallel universe.

Shrillary had negatives in the polls of all voters as high as 54% last fall. She may have originally been a darling of the left wing media and most Democrats but lost out because early polls in the South, where almost all Dems are blacks, were an uphill struggle, demographically. Very early contests that were causucses went against her, too, since affiants had to declare publicly for whom they were voting and no one wanted to go one record as opposing Hussein, the black guy.

Her negatives never dropped below 46%, despite her pleas, so using her as an example is a distraction. In addition, she's simply not qualified.

Are there any women on the political scene who are qualified? Rice's name is often bandied about but she's been nearly as inept as Powell as Secretary of State.

Until we find a woman with spine and convictions, not expediency, we won't see a woman president.

[candles]

I have noe problem voting for a woman for President, Hillary was not the right woman.

[Teacher Indep]

Don't count Hillary Clinton out. She put up with too much to give up so easily. Obama came on strong because the celebrity types with the money and the pseudo-intellectual elite left have an innate defiance of authority, and they wanted to show their tolerance and liberalism by voting for a "black" man. It's an "up yours" attitude toward the Establishment: Get rid of those now in authority. The news media never bothered to analyze and to make a point of the fact that Obama is half-white, and, therefore, could just as legitimately be considered a white candidate. What may do us in (executive, legislative, judicial future) is the attitude of "out with the old, in with new" and the rebellious nature of so many of the "outs". They will vote radical as a means of exerting their power; Obama is their means to that end. They are counting on the guilt factor: That a majority of voters will vote for Obama as a sort of moral reparations for slavery; that to vote against him will prove that his opponents are racist. They will play that card to the max.

Someone in a previous election aptly defined the "take no prisoners" attitude of the Democrats: "Rule or ruin". These people are ruthless, and the Republicans will not win unless they stop merely reacting instead of being pro-active. They cannot sit back and be nice and simply take a defensive posture - their traditional stance and fault. Politics may be the art of compromise (Look at McCain), but this election is not the time nor the place.

[Teacher Indep]

Don't count Hillary Clinton out. She put up with too much to give up so easily. Obama came on strong because the celebrity types with the money and the pseudo-intellectual elite left have an innate defiance of authority, and they wanted to show their tolerance and liberalism by voting for a "black" man. It's an "up yours" attitude toward the Establishment: Get rid of those now in authority. The news media never bothered to analyze and to make a point of the fact that Obama is half-white, and, therefore, could just as legitimately be considered a white candidate. What may do us in (executive, legislative, judicial future) is the attitude of "out with the old, in with new" and the rebellious nature of so many of the "outs". They will vote radical as a means of exerting their power; Obama is their means to that end. They are counting on the guilt factor: That a majority of voters will vote for Obama as a sort of moral reparations for slavery; that to vote against him will prove that his opponents are racist. They will play that card to the max.

Someone in a previous election aptly defined the "take no prisoners" attitude of the Democrats: "Rule or ruin". These people are ruthless, and the Republicans will not win unless they stop merely reacting instead of being pro-active. They cannot sit back and be nice and simply take a defensive posture - their traditional stance and fault. Politics may be the art of compromise (Look at McCain), but this election is not the time nor the place.