Hillary: Chances of Another Presidential Run "Close to Zero"

During an interview on Fox and Friends this morning. Hillary Clinton said the chances of her running again for President are "close to zero."

She said the chances of her becoming Senate Majority Leader or a Supreme Court Justice are "zero."

Hillary has made more than 50 appearances for Barack Obama. But, according to this report, that's not the reason her former supporters are now lined up behind him. The reason: Sarah Palin. [More...]

"Palin — God forbid! Where did they find her?" Evelyn Fruman exclaimed on Monday before a Clinton speech at a Jewish community centre here.

"God forbid!" Gail Silverberg chimed in. "Hockey moms and lipstick on a pig and six-packs? I don't want that stuff."

Nearby, Rina Jampolsky was wearing a "Hillary Sent Me" button next to a pin saying "Barack Obama" in Hebrew. "I thought I wouldn't vote at all when Hillary left the race," she said. "But as soon as McCain selected Sarah Palin, my decision was made."

When John McCain looks back at why he lost the election, I hope he recognizes that it wasn't just the economy. It was equally his brazen Hail Mary pass in choosing a spectacularly unqualified and unacceptable candidate as his running mate that women saw through in a nanosecond.

< The Polls - 10/14 | Supreme Court Denies Cert for Troy Davis >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    She's right, on all three counts. (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by tigercourse on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 09:32:37 AM EST

    That's depressing (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by WS on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 09:33:56 AM EST
    but never say never.  Obama did say he wasn't running in 2008 and changed his mind.  

    Clinton and Obama are two very (5.00 / 5) (#6)
    by tigercourse on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 09:36:48 AM EST
    different people. I have no doubt that she is telling the truth.

    She knows that they won't let her.


    Who's they? (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by WS on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 09:46:35 AM EST
    Who knows what will happen 8 years from now. There is an opening in 8 years that she can take if she wants to try again and there will be lots of people who will ask her to.  

    She's a politician and one angle is that she doesn't want her supporters to pine for a 2012 run that you see in PUMA sites.  And there's already a stereotype out there that paints her as too ambitious.  This can help deflect that and help people to move on in this and the next election cycle.



    "They" is the leadership of the (5.00 / 4) (#16)
    by tigercourse on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 09:50:16 AM EST
    Democratic party. It was already against her before Obama became it's leader. How do you think they will treat her now that he is in charge? Daschle, Brazille, Jackson, etc. are going to do their best to make sure Clinton never gets any kind of power or influence.

    And in 2016, she'll be painted as the over the hill grandma who's too dodering to take on the likes of Warner or whoever else they come up with (if it isn't Biden).


    A contrary theory (5.00 / 3) (#39)
    by lilburro on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 10:27:56 AM EST
    proposed by someone I know, is that Hillary will have the opportunity to run if she wants it in 2016, because the Democratic Party will owe it to her.  Her cooperation this election year has been extremely remarkable.  They may owe her a favor of that size.

    We will see what happens.  But one thing's for sure, politicians always say they're not going to run before they do.


    The party may owe it to her. But they aren't (5.00 / 6) (#46)
    by tigercourse on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 10:30:36 AM EST
    going pay that debt. They treated her terribly this year and I see no reason to suspect they would treat her better in the future. The Brazilles and Kennedy's of the political world have no reason to change their tune.

    The Kennedys (5.00 / 0) (#52)
    by lilburro on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 10:36:55 AM EST
    I'm sure will still be around, but I really don't see Donna Brazile being too influential 8 years from now.  She's just one not particularly bright strategist.  Heck, James Carville could be head of the DNC 8 years from now.  We don't know.

    Brazille is part of the Obama team. It's (5.00 / 5) (#54)
    by tigercourse on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 10:41:02 AM EST
    far more likely that she is the head of the DNC then Carville ever is. Her status can only rise from here. Count on her to have some kind of position of power.

    You think Obama owes her a favor? (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by lilburro on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 10:54:03 AM EST
    He very well may.  He owes Hillary as well though...

    Obama does not believe he will owe (5.00 / 9) (#110)
    by tootired on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 11:48:18 AM EST
    Hillary a favor. He acts like he's making her pay for having the audacity to run against him. He's extracting penance. If he was grateful to her for her help, he'd mention her name when he adopts her positions on issues.

    I really dont care... (5.00 / 3) (#165)
    by Thanin on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 01:39:17 PM EST
    what brazille, the dnc, or anyone else says.  Hillary has done so much, throwing everything into Obama getting in, I dont care who else runs in 2016.  The voters owe Hillary and we will pay that debt.  And maybe next time florida and michigan wont be so **ing stupid to risk their votes again.

    I was schocked (5.00 / 1) (#201)
    by BackFromOhio on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 03:14:16 PM EST
    to hear Michelle O say on Larry King live last week (I think it was that show) that Hillary had been great, and had spoken to Michelle about having kids in the White House, etc.

    these anti-Hillary conspiracy theories (2.25 / 4) (#186)
    by Iris on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 02:35:26 PM EST
    are so over the top.  You don't really believe all that do you?

    Come on, the leadership isn't (none / 0) (#50)
    by WS on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 10:35:36 AM EST
    that powerful.  What happened this year was that the primary was as close to 50/50 as you can get and the leadership got to fiddle with the rules and affect the outcome.    

    Its best not to canonize Hillary and cast Obama in a negative light when he changed his mind to run for President.  They're both politicians.  She hasn't said she's not going to run  and could change her mind even if she did say that.  I agree with another poster that its a response to the classic "when will you run" question but we'll find out her thought process after (hopefully after Obama's re-election) to see where fortune takes her.          


    Leadership Has Plenty (5.00 / 2) (#202)
    by BackFromOhio on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 03:15:50 PM EST
    of negative power. No other reason to have twisted their own by-laws into a pretzel to block Michigan and Florida votes.

    8 years? (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Pepe on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 10:05:08 AM EST
    I already had been previously thinking about what I've been starting to read lately and that is Obama is inheriting such a mess that there is no way he can begin to solve it in 4 years. Add in the fact that the Republicans will block him at every turn when possible and his task is worse.

    Recent articles have been predicting that 'Mr. I can solve the problems of the world' will have very poor approval ratings by his second year if people don't see meaningful progress. And if things don't improve enough by the third year it will put the Republicans in a situation where they could win the White House in 2012.

    If all that plays out and Obama is a weak candidate for reelection in 2012 don't be surprised if we see a challenge for the Democratic nomination. And if there is a challenge don't be surprised if one of the names on the Primary Ballot is Hillary Clinton.

    Sure she says she will never run again. Sure she says being Majority Leader is out of the question. Those are things at this point in time that she should be saying. But don't think for a second that is what she believes.


    I think it's highly probable that Obama will (5.00 / 4) (#28)
    by tigercourse on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 10:07:39 AM EST
    be a mediocre President and that he will have low approval ratings by 2012. That doesn't matter. Carter was a mediocre President with low approval ratings. And Kennedy lost. She has no chance in 2012. The backlash against her would be enormous. You think she's hated now? See what they say about her if she tries to challenge the Golden One again.

    And if the Democratic Party (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Lil on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 10:32:09 AM EST
    is fractured in 4 years, she would not win against the Republican candidate. I believe her best chance is to hope Obama gets re-elected and then be the second act.

    You are 100% right! (5.00 / 3) (#172)
    by BrassTacks on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 01:59:16 PM EST
    No matter how bad things are in 4 years, Obama gets to run again.  Hillary would be a fool to try to upset an incumbent President and we all know that Hillary is definitely NOT a fool!  

    Kennedy had Chappaquiddick (none / 0) (#47)
    by Pepe on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 10:31:02 AM EST
    hanging over him and if I recall still came close. Also the Democrats were even denser than they are today if that is possible and literally gave the WH away by not nominating someone without Carter's negative baggage. As I asked elsewhere in the thread, if faced with the same proposition again wold they make the same mistake again? Or in today's times would primary voter make the same mistake DC Democrats mad back then?

    The Dem nomination in '80 (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by jb64 on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 10:49:49 AM EST
    was never seriously in doubt. All that Ted Kennedy managed to do that year was inflict fatal damage to Jimmy Carter's re-election bid. It was a shameless, egotistical act that helped usher in the last 28 years of Republican dominance. Carter lost that election because the Iranians crawfished him on a deal to get the hostages released by essentially making a deal with Reagan for arms by holding them until after the election. He was winning by a near ten point margin right up until the last couple of weeks before the election. I think if he could have arranged the hostages release prior to that election he would have won a second term.

    But there were plenty of party "leaders" who were disenchanted by Carter's style of governance, and his relations with the legislative branch. Thus the Kennedy run.


    Iran wasn't Carter's only problem (5.00 / 1) (#174)
    by BrassTacks on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 02:02:55 PM EST
    Some of us are old enough to remember interest rates at 14% and long gas lines, on the days we were allowed to try to buy gas.  Carter's heart was in the right place, but he was not a good President.

    I see a repeat for Obama.  The economy will be a total mess, even with him poring money into the government.  Our trillion dollar deficit will multiply.  Energy will continue to be an issue, with or without off shore drilling, and we have no clue what Iran might do.  

    Still, Obama gets his shot at a second term.  


    Kennedy lost (none / 0) (#198)
    by BackFromOhio on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 03:07:31 PM EST
    not because Carter beat him out, but because of Chappaquidick.  

    If Obama is elected President and his polls are really poor, I think anything goes.


    So your message is... (5.00 / 1) (#187)
    by Iris on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 02:37:50 PM EST
    "don't believe Hillary, what she really means is she's running in 2012."

    As we saw during the primaries, Hillary tells us straight up "what Hillary wants" and the mind-readers are invariably wrong.

    Close to zero chance means she's not running again, but if at some point she decided she needed/wanted to she would not want to look like a liar by saying "absolutely zero" now.  


    Yes, this is very sad (5.00 / 2) (#170)
    by BrassTacks on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 01:54:31 PM EST
    I am surprised.  I thought for sure that she would run again.  I guess she's seeing 8 years of Obama and no place for her after that.  How very sad.  

    i would postulate (none / 0) (#188)
    by Iris on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 02:39:46 PM EST
    that she sees running for President again as unnecessary, because the Democratic party is headed for a landslide victory this year, and Obama was a better candidate than she thought.  Why should she run for President given the great outlook for progressive policies that we have now?

    Excuse me... (2.60 / 5) (#94)
    by Nevart on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 11:18:05 AM EST
    Sorry, but Hillary also denied that she was running for president when she was running for re-election to the Senate, even as Mark Penn et al were planning her presidential campaign.  It's standard fare for politicians.

    No, she did not deny that she was running (5.00 / 4) (#98)
    by tigercourse on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 11:20:53 AM EST
    in 2008. She just didn't confirm it.

    She did the (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by WS on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 11:22:51 AM EST
    same thing here.  

    One hundred percent wrong. (5.00 / 6) (#113)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 11:57:10 AM EST
    Clinton was asked whether she would promise to serve out her Senate term in the last election and she stated clearly that she could not promise to do so.

    You're right that making a promise to serve out a full term and breaking it -- as Obama did -- is typical behavior for politicians.  But not for Clinton -- she was forthright and honest in this regard.


    Didn't he promise not to run (5.00 / 2) (#155)
    by hairspray on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 01:11:14 PM EST
    when elected senator?  I know they badgered Hillary in her first term and she promised not to run during 2004.  She did not refuse to run in 2008 and the media speculated  on that  until they were nearly blind.

    Chances for the most qualified woman (5.00 / 13) (#5)
    by Cream City on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 09:35:27 AM EST
    in this country to reach the top in this country: close to zero.

    We knew that.  And we know what that means for the rest of us . . . and our daughters, 160 years since Seneca Falls.  Like the suffragists, our hope is for change for our "daughters' daughters."  And yours.

    really awful (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by Jlvngstn on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 10:29:09 AM EST
    that outlook.  But I am hard pressed to argue it. I hope in 8 years she changes her mind or 4 if things are crappy.....

    It doesn't matter how crappy things are, (5.00 / 2) (#171)
    by BrassTacks on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 01:56:10 PM EST
    Obama gets a second run.  All Presidents do.  Or at least all democrat Presidents do.

    "Democratic" presidents (5.00 / 1) (#197)
    by sallywally on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 03:07:11 PM EST
    is the grammatically correct version when the word is used as an adjective.

    "Democrat" presidents would be the Republican version, which they use to make the word sound harsher.

    Just in case you didn't realize.....


    I agree with all of her assessments (5.00 / 9) (#74)
    by ruffian on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 10:57:06 AM EST
    of her future options.  It was perfectly clear to me at the end of May that any career advancement that depended on help from the Democratic party were closed.

    Just so sooooo stupid on the part of the Dem party.


    Exactly. (5.00 / 3) (#95)
    by blogtopus on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 11:19:47 AM EST
    She's talking about things that rely on the Democratic party. I for one could see her becoming U.N. Leader someday.

    Of course, if Obama screws up, the Dem party won't allow anyone else to come in to save the day; they'd rather have a GOP candidate than anyone not named Barack Obama. And that's exactly what they'll get.


    I strongly disagree (5.00 / 2) (#118)
    by CST on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 12:02:42 PM EST
    Before this election I thought there was maybe a possibility I would see a female president in my lifetime.  Now I am almost 100% certain.

    Hillary only lost b/c Obama was running, and he was a chance at another "first".  I honestly think that she would have beaten any other candidate hands down.  And I honestly think that she will either do so again in 2016, or someone else will come along who will.  At the very latest by the time my generation is old enough to run we will see a female president.

    Hillary running this year will only make it easier for the next woman who comes along.


    I doubt that. Women need money and (5.00 / 2) (#160)
    by hairspray on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 01:23:38 PM EST
    a boatload of mentors to make it to the presidential ranks.  I don't see any of those now.  Hillary was unique because she had a husband who was (is) wildly popular with the rank and file Democrats. That was her shoe in, unfortunately, Bill was not popular with the liberal media class and all Axelrod had to do was to destroy Clinton popularity with the AA base.  And we saw how they did that.

    20 years ago no one would've picked (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by CST on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 01:46:58 PM EST
    Hillary Clinton as someone to run for president?  We have no idea who will emerge in the future.  For that matter, 2 years ago, who would've mentioned Sarah Palin?

    Again, the only reason I think that Hillary lost this year was the appearance on the scene of another "first" - which won't be true next time around.


    First Latino male president? (5.00 / 2) (#182)
    by oculus on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 02:30:54 PM EST
    Annecdotally. . . (5.00 / 0) (#7)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 09:39:08 AM EST
    two elderly relatives of my wife's who we were worried about seem to have come around -- largely because of Palin.

    As long as we're sharing anecdotes (5.00 / 2) (#141)
    by echinopsia on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 12:49:53 PM EST
    A lifelong friend in IL who usually swings Republican was all set to vote for Hillary/anyone or Hillary/Obama enthusiastically. Now she's 100% McCain/Palin. She just does not think Obama is ready and she thinks Hillary was treated disgracefully.

    Ah. (none / 0) (#9)
    by oculus on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 09:41:52 AM EST
    "Bloom where you're planted." (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by oculus on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 09:44:05 AM EST
    I never heard that one before.  A bit different than:  you can be anything you want to be.

    Ask Teddy Kennedy about it (5.00 / 0) (#18)
    by scribe on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 09:51:42 AM EST
    he might have made a good, or even great, President.

    But he was planted in the Senate and bloomed beautifully.

    I see HRC - if serendipity doesn't wave its caprice to put her in the WH - as winding up wearing Teddy's mantle.  Not a bad place to be, either.


    I had that poster on my wall in college (5.00 / 0) (#81)
    by ruffian on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 11:02:32 AM EST
    stuck in central Illinois and wanting to get out. Blooming there with a 3.8 GPA did the trick!

    Wow, what a shame.... (5.00 / 4) (#12)
    by sallywally on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 09:46:23 AM EST
    Do we really think she has lost all her power in politics? Or has she exhausted herself in this election?

    I can't stand the thought of not hearing from her on the national stage, although in fact the media don't cover her much.

    Makes me cry.

    I'd say it's probably both. She knows (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by tigercourse on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 09:52:26 AM EST
    that the leadership isn't going to give her an inch, and she's likely tired of getting kicked around for a year and a half.

    She hasn't lost her power in politics (5.00 / 3) (#36)
    by byteb on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 10:25:00 AM EST
    not by a long shot. Based on her run for the nomination, her power has only increased. She's going to be one of the most powerful political players on the scene for decades to come.

    If Obama wins the election, (5.00 / 2) (#104)
    by tootired on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 11:31:21 AM EST
    Hillary will have no power in the senate. Reid and Pelosi will help make sure of it. Anyone who thinks she has any clout anymore hasn't been paying attention lately. She's had to go to the press to get her ideas heard, and only McCain gives her credit for them. If McCain wins, she may become one of his go-to people in the senate, but that doesn't seem likely. Her time has come and gone. She fought hard, but it's someone else's turn to try to break the glass ceiling. It will be easier for the next woman because of her, and sometimes that's the only satisfaction you get.

    What on earth (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by cal1942 on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 12:11:58 PM EST
    makes you believe that Hillary will "become one of his go-to people in the senate?"

    McCain is at bottom a right-wing Republican.  If he has a go-to Democrat it will be a blue dog.

    Hillary is no blue dog.


    McCain has been giving Hillary (none / 0) (#140)
    by tootired on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 12:46:18 PM EST
    credit for some the proposals he has been making of late. It's not too big a leap to suggest that he might ask for help implementing them should he win the election.

    What (5.00 / 2) (#156)
    by cal1942 on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 01:14:10 PM EST
    he wants to implement is very different from Hillary's proposal. On the surface it appears the same.  He made that comment to draw disaffected Hillary supporters.  McCain's plan will relieve banks of their irresponsibility and reward them with handsome profits for doing the wrong thing.  That was NOT a part of Hillary's plan.

    You're underestimating Hillary (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by byteb on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 12:15:41 PM EST
    sure, there's a new power base in the Democratic party now but any politician who ignore Clinton does so at their own peril. Plus, political power is always in flux depending on so many variables. Clinton's run has solidified her standing as one of the 'movers and shakers'...plus, her impressive and extensive campaigning for Obama has added to her stature within the party, imo...add to this her close relationship with Biden. Put it all together and, I think, time will only increase her stature and her power.

    Yes. Biden. You called it. (5.00 / 4) (#150)
    by oldpro on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 01:02:15 PM EST
    If Obama/Biden are elected, Biden is the back door through which Hillary will influence the administration invisibly.

    Visibly, she'll use the front door by way of Senate legislation to knock on the White House door.

    Biden will be the Clinton enabler of influence.  


    Biden is very much his own man. And (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by tigercourse on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 01:08:34 PM EST
    I doubt (and sort of hope) that he will have much say in anything to do with the government. We're back to pre Al Gore days for the Vice President.

    Hillary and Bill were thrilled (none / 0) (#195)
    by Iris on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 03:00:04 PM EST
    that Joe Biden was picked as VP.

    If McCain wins (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by sj on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 12:26:23 PM EST
    His "Democratic" go-to person is Lieberman.  

    you're just looking for every angle (5.00 / 0) (#177)
    by Iris on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 02:12:02 PM EST
    to get people to vote for McCain aren't you?  McCain would be looking for someone to help him implement conservative policies.  Hillary would NOT cooperate with that.  It's actually the opposite of what you say; she would be marginalized under a GOP administration and be the point-woman for progressive policies in an Obama administration.  Can we say universal health care?

    differing opinions abound (4.50 / 2) (#122)
    by dws3665 on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 12:07:57 PM EST
    Your claim that Hillary will have no power is unusual. She will still be one of THE most highly sought after fundraisers and speakers -- rivaling Obama. She will have plenty of opportunity to exert her 18-million-voter influence on policy matters.

    Being a useful tool has nothing to do (5.00 / 2) (#124)
    by tigercourse on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 12:13:45 PM EST
    with being powerful. Hillary will continue to raise large amounts of money for the party, but her influence will be no greater then any other relativley junior Senator.

    right (3.66 / 3) (#135)
    by dws3665 on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 12:28:28 PM EST
    I guess the idea of a chit is unknown to you. Do you really think HRC does all the speaking she does out of the kindness of her heart?!?! She is a politician, and she will use her considerable power to advance her agenda (and nudge Obama when necessary). She has instant cache and power based on nothing but her name -- either one of her names, actually. Your line of thinking is bafflingly naive.

    Really now (none / 0) (#107)
    by WS on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 11:36:17 AM EST
    I know Speaker Pelosi doesn't like Hillary for some reason but Sen. Reid and Hillary have a good relationship. He stayed on the sidelines during the primary.    

    A snapshot in time (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by coigue on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 11:00:10 AM EST
    seriously, this is nonsense.

    Don't worry Hillary fans.... (5.00 / 6) (#15)
    by kdog on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 09:50:07 AM EST
    she's a politician, and a damn good one, of course she is not gonna leak her true intentions for 2012 weeks before 2008.

    It is the most dodged and bs answered question of them all..."will you run?"

    She isn't going to run in 2012. Obama is (5.00 / 5) (#17)
    by tigercourse on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 09:51:14 AM EST
    going to win. Do you really think she will primary challenge him? Come on.

    Her only shot is 2016 in my opinion. (none / 0) (#22)
    by Lil on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 09:53:36 AM EST
    Or some unforseen tragedy (bite my tounge)

    Yeah Carter was thinking (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Pepe on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 10:17:41 AM EST
    four years also. And then circumstances took over.

    Let's face it Obama is inheriting the Titanic which is already sinking and is planted with IED's every step of the way. He is facing much worse than Carter did. As I said in a previous post in this thread if circumstances overwhelm him his favorable ratings could reach dangerous lows which would leave the 2012 race up for grabs. The Democrats made the wrong move by sticking with Carter. Will history repeat itself if we find ourselves in the same situation? Or will there be challengers to Obama in order to save the WH?


    Get real (5.00 / 3) (#161)
    by oldpro on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 01:24:33 PM EST
    There will be NO in-party challengers to Obama under any circumstances short of impeachment and conviction.  Ever.

    Not.  Possible.



    Who the hell knows.... (none / 0) (#23)
    by kdog on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 09:53:38 AM EST
    if Obama wins and sh*ts the bed, she might throw her hat in again....though 2016 is much more likely if Obama takes this one.

    Carter won and sh*t the bed. Ted Kennedy's (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by tigercourse on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 09:55:27 AM EST
    campaign was a joke.

    And if she couldn't win the primary this time, she isn't going to do it in 2016.


    na (none / 0) (#30)
    by connecticut yankee on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 10:10:12 AM EST
    She was running against a phenom. The other dems can't take her. At least nobody on the stage today other than Obama.

    she was running against the dnc (5.00 / 9) (#73)
    by sancho on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 10:56:47 AM EST
    Exactly (5.00 / 3) (#76)
    by ruffian on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 10:59:23 AM EST
    She won't have any better chances against the DNC in 2012 or 2016 than she had this year.  Hillary's assessment is correct, as usual.

    What is the DNC (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by WS on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 11:04:41 AM EST
    going to do, cancel the primaries?  They were able to affect the outcome this year because it was so close.  

    I wonder if states will defy the DNC again after what they saw with Michigan and Florida.  


    Yep (5.00 / 5) (#92)
    by joanneleon on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 11:16:53 AM EST
    Especially when they can change the rules in her opponents favor, and such.

    Then again, perhaps the makeup of the DNC will change in the coming years.  God knows it should.  The current insiders should be booted out the door after the mess they caused this year.


    Why would the makeup of the DNC change? (5.00 / 2) (#96)
    by tigercourse on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 11:20:15 AM EST
    The only way it would is if they lost this year. They didn't. Brazille was the biggest player in the DNC in Obama's victory. She's only going to get stronger.

    Well, there is that half of the party (5.00 / 3) (#105)
    by joanneleon on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 11:31:27 AM EST
    who were thoroughly pissed off about the actions of the DNC this year.

    Honestly, that half has no say. We lost. (5.00 / 5) (#106)
    by tigercourse on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 11:33:11 AM EST
    We have /Ted Kennedy)one 'say'... (5.00 / 2) (#164)
    by oldpro on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 01:36:27 PM EST
    actually, three.

    I've withdrawn my time, my money and my vote from the national Democratic Party.  Good luck to them with replacing all 55 years of that activism and the over $50,000 of my own money.  I decided to look at the ROI, as they say on Wall Street.


    All I got was 4 years of Jimmy Carter (thanks and no thanks to the Democratic Party/Teddy K) and 8 years of Bill Clinton (NO thanks to the Democratic Party/Democratic Congress who got themselves thrown out of both houses and left Clinton with the Gingrich revolution for 6 years).

    Corrupt and inept.  I'm AWOL.


    My thoughts as well (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by Amiss on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 12:28:11 PM EST
    perhaps the makeup of the DNC will change in the coming years.  God knows it should.  The current insiders should be booted out the door after the mess they caused this year.

    We can only hope that this happens, although with Obama as President and even though I plan to vote for him, I feel that it is a remote chance.

    They were right when they said "where else are they gonna go". To go in any other direction than to vote for a Democrat gives us NO CHANCE to get out of this mess.


    Yeah (none / 0) (#35)
    by WS on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 10:23:32 AM EST
    Obama's secret weapon against Hillary was the super super majority of African American votes.  That was rock solid for him, and if she decides to run again, that demographic is where she will find the greatest windfall.  

    Yes, Obama had a rock solid majority (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by tigercourse on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 10:28:12 AM EST
    amongst African Americans. And Clinton would do better next time. But perhaps not as well as you think. She will not do as well with white working class however, so the large numbers in Ohio and Pennsylvania might not be there in 2016. And I see no reason to suspect that she will overcome the general dislike Iowa seems to have for her. Without Iowa, it's very difficult to win the nomination.

    Why wouldn't the white working class not (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by WS on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 10:43:31 AM EST
    be there for her if she had a second hypothetical run?  

    Because there would be another white (none / 0) (#69)
    by tigercourse on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 10:52:09 AM EST
    candidate (like Edwards but not a joke) who appeals to the white working class more then Obama did. She'd have a better shot at picking up African Americans and less of a shot at picking up whites. A trade off. There's also no certainty that another Black candidate won't run, and take away all the AA votes.

    You forget white women (none / 0) (#79)
    by WS on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 11:00:42 AM EST
    that was rock solid for Hillary.  Also, conversely, there could be no candidate that appeals to the white working class like Hillary does and the Clinton brand is strong.  We won't know the field candidates until obviously 2016 and then a politician will survey his or her chances and go from there.  

    Obama had more than African Americans in his coalition and another black candidate would have to duplicate that.  Plus, there was a real sense of urgency among African Americans this year because Obama would be the first black President.  I don't think the super super majority will hold after Obama's turn.        



    Iowa (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by joanneleon on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 11:14:54 AM EST
    may very well have to wait its turn in future primaries.  I think this year was the last straw for the monopoly Iowa and New Hampshire have on the primary.

    That and. . . (5.00 / 3) (#44)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 10:29:22 AM EST
    outstanding organization in the caucus states.  If Clinton had won Iowa I think the outcome of the primary might well have been different.  And I see  no fundamental reason why she couldn't have won there.

    If she won Iowa... (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by kdog on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 10:36:09 AM EST
    she would be on the ticket, no doubt, imo.

    If we all remember, she was the front-runner and the assumed nominee with the most money before Iowa...then Obama-mania really exploded and he took the lead in money-raising.  The horse with the most money usually wins.


    And she's certainly not going... (5.00 / 0) (#136)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 12:28:28 PM EST
    ...to spill the beans to those bottom feeders that make up Fox and Friends and their audience.

    It has been my intent (5.00 / 6) (#20)
    by Lil on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 09:52:24 AM EST
    to vote for the Dem candidate all along, but the tipping point for actively supporting Obama was Palin's convention speech (and Guiliani's). That night was my first financial contribution. I switched my Clinton bumber sticker with an Obama one (though she'll always be my first choice). I can not express strongly enough how bad (I believe) Republicanism has been for all of us. I hope Hillary gets another shot, although that chance seems slim.

    I was and still am a fervent Hillary supporter (5.00 / 4) (#26)
    by Radiowalla on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 09:55:53 AM EST
    but I share common ground with the women who were quoted as saying  "Palin- God forbid!"  That's what sent me over, immediately, to the Obama camp.   And I wore my "Hillary Sent Me" button when I went to phone bank for Obama.

    I'm still furious at the DNC and the Democratic leadership for running an anti-democratic primary, but I'm not willing to let my ire overcome common sense and self-preservation.  There is no way that McCain and Palin can be allowed near the levers of power.  No way, no how.

    As for Hillary's future, whatever she decides she's my girl!

    Very well put (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by dws3665 on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 12:23:01 PM EST
    Common sense and self-preservation. Brought into almost comically bold relief by the economic situation.

    I've given up hope (5.00 / 8) (#29)
    by Lena on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 10:08:51 AM EST
    for the Dem party too. Nancy Pelosi, Brazille, Steny Hoyer, Harry Reid, Jesse Jackson, Jr., Dean, etc. not just disappointed me, they offended me.

    And the hoopla over Palin just cements in my mind how totally stupid people are. I mean, I can't stand her either, but I've never seen the hatred from the mainstream media directed at a male Republican candidate in this way (and believe me, this is precisely what should have happened to GW Bush in 2000). It's as if, because she's female, everyone is finally given full scope to vent their fury with the entire party on her. Sure, she's an idiot, but the frothing "progressives" seem to take special glee in tearing her down, even as they give the rest of the party a pass...

    well (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by connecticut yankee on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 10:11:45 AM EST
    You say she's an idiot and then defend her?

    I don't think she's an idiot or stupid. She's ignorant. Willfully ignorant. She's Bush minus the education and experience in government.


    I don't defend her (5.00 / 8) (#33)
    by Lena on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 10:17:34 AM EST
    I berate the Democratic party for its sexism and inability to attack the rest of the Republican party the way they so gleefully attack Palin.

    you mean (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by connecticut yankee on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 10:26:58 AM EST
    They didnt gleefully attack Bush?  It's practically the only growth industry in the country.  If we could tax bush-bashing, we'd be flush.

    The Dems (5.00 / 3) (#49)
    by Lena on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 10:33:42 AM EST
    were never good at that until the MSM started to run with it. Look at how they threw Gore to the wolves in 2000 when they should have been slamming Bush and the Republicans a la Palin. And frankly, the Dems still aren't so good at it... (though snaps to the MSM for finally running with it!)

    heh (none / 0) (#42)
    by Lil on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 10:28:20 AM EST
    My opinion (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by Howard Zinn on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 10:43:02 AM EST
    is that it's McCain's judgment that's truly being attacked for choosing such an embarrassing candidate.  She's not embarrassing because she's a woman, she's embarrassing because of what she says and does (or has done).  I kinda feel bad for her as a VP candidate.  I think she should have turned down the offer.

    She's no more ridiculous than other conservatives (4.75 / 12) (#85)
    by esmense on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 11:06:20 AM EST
    and has no ideas more absurd and embarrassing (in fact,there are indications she is actually more pragmatic) than most of the other conservative ideologues -- in and out of office -- who have long been treated with ridiculous respect and seriousness and allowed to dominate the mainstream political conversation. We didn't get into the mess we're in because of Palin -- we did so because of Reagan, Gingrich, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and their various legislative and executive followers, and because of well-paid, well-respected (in terms of being invited to participate in and dominate the most prestigious forums) ideologues; Kristol, Norquest, Safire, Will, Brooks, Sullivan, Bennet, Kelly, etc., etc., etc.

    Why, in 26 years, hasn't anyone suggested that McCain is "embarassing" because of what "he says and does?" Have his ideas and deeds really been superior to Palin's? Why, instead, has he been beloved and celebrated by the media?

    It is sexism. The man is an idiot, has always been an idiot -- but he's a "heroic" male idiot who conforms to our biased cultural ideas about leadership (that it is exclusively masculine). And that makes not only all, but the only, difference between a "serious" candidate and an "embarassing" one.


    Hear hear. (5.00 / 0) (#90)
    by liminal on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 11:14:51 AM EST
    we'll have to agree (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by Howard Zinn on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 11:24:42 AM EST
    to disagree.  Palin is embarrassing because she can't name a newspaper or SC case, she claims to have foreign policy experience because she can see Russia from Alaska, and when faced with fairly simple policy questions, she shows her ignorance by responding to a different question.  Not to mention her idiotic beliefs that the earth was created 2,500 years ago and that humans aren't responsible for global warming, against all evidence.

    My belief is that if you substituted a random male for Palin (who said and did the exact same things), the criticisms (and the embarrassment) would be pretty much the same, if not worse.

    McCain is not an idiot; he handles debates and interviews with skill and knowledge.  The other talking heads you mentioned are similar.  Substitute any of them for Palin and they would have done much better.  They might be 100% wrong, but they're still knowledgeable.

    My opinion is that criticisms such as these are pointed to her as a candidate, not as a woman.  

    Now criticisms such as "how can she handle a family and be VP?" and "how can she be a VP when she can't even control her own daughter?"  Those are sexist IMO because they criticize Palin as a woman.


    McCain has indicated he is in agreement (4.71 / 7) (#134)
    by esmense on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 12:28:19 PM EST
    with Palin in the areas you mention.

    May I suggest you hear the same ideas differently when they are expressed in a baritone.

    And frankly, when you go to the tape you see that the "interpretation" of her statements are often tendetious. The flap about the "Bush Doctrine" was very similar, in the sense of being equally dishonest in the same way, as the flap about Clinton supposedly hesitating to assure us that Obama isn't a "muslim." When you look at what happened with an unprejudiced eye, you see that it is the poor performance of the interviewer -- confusion, lack of clarity and professionalism and, in Clinton's case, an obvious and bizarre agenda -- that really should be condemned.

    Really, has she made any more "gaffes" than the male candidates in the race? Biden suggested Roosevelt appeared on television, Obama said he visited "57" states.

    Do such things disqualify them for office? Should they be taken seriously as "issues." Of course not.

    I will not vote for Palin for the same reasons that I will not vote for others who share her ideology. Neither her experience or her ideas offer what's needed to win my vote.

    Nonetheless, I can't respect people who suddenly notice, because they are voiced by a woman, how "embarassing," ignorant and destructive the "ideas," and self-serving arguments she is peddling, along with the man and the party she was chosen to represent, really are.

    By the way, this woman is 100 times more talented at wrapping those goofy ideas in a populist and lively, although tendetious and dishonest, argument than the often barely articulate presidential candidate.

    Right or wrong, stupid or savvy, she is a more authentic, and therefore perhaps more effective, populist than the rich and elite faux populists who have been spreading the conservative gospel for decades; Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Bennett, Brooks and a whole passle of others. That's the real reason the left is afraid of her, and the real reason they should be afraid of her.


    wow I don't know where to begin (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by Howard Zinn on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 01:17:21 PM EST
    I'm not sexist and I'm taken aback by the insinuation.  I'm trying to point out that there have been sexist criticisms of Palin, but saying that she's unqualified isn't one of them.

    So it's Couric's lack of professionalism that caused Gov. Palin to not be able to name a magazine/newspaper?  Come on.

    It is a gaffe to make a stupid mistake on the number of states.  It's not a gaffe to not know the title of a newspaper or magazine or a SC case.  That is ignorance, and it speaks to Palin the VP candidate.  That was embarrassing to McCain; and I'm baffled that someone would debate that point.

    Palin is woefully unqualified. Her gender has nothing to do with that fact.  I had/have the same opinion about W.


    Do you really believe this woman doesn't read? (4.00 / 3) (#183)
    by esmense on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 02:31:03 PM EST
    I'd say that assumption is both sexist and classist.

    She claims to read the Wall Street Journal, The New York Times and The Economist, among others. I have no reason to doubt her -- all three of these (elite) publications spend a great deal of time promoting, or at least providing a forum for, the "embarassing" ideas she respresents.


    I'm through (5.00 / 1) (#203)
    by Howard Zinn on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 03:19:41 PM EST
    with these offensive and baseless accusations of sexism.  

    "She claims to read the Wall Street Journal, The New York Times and The Economist, among others. I have no reason to doubt her."  Really?  Not one reason?  How come she couldn't think of one title in the Couric interview?  How am I sexist for assuming she's not well-read?  How many well-read people cannot name one magazine or newspaper?

    How is that not embarrassing?  How is it sexist for me to say that it is embarrassing?!?

    JEEZ!!!  It's like the people who say that criticizing Obama is racist -- it's not.  By the same token, criticizing Palin is not sexist.


    The Only Reason I Would Believe Palin Doesn't Read (5.00 / 1) (#206)
    by daring grace on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 03:35:29 PM EST
    is that she couldn't/wouldn't name ANY publications that she DOES read when she was talking to Katie Couric. Why not?

    Yes, she later listed some things, but why not with Couric?

    I don't believe she doesn't read, but I find the way she answered this question strange in an unsettling way.


    wishful thinking (5.00 / 2) (#125)
    by dws3665 on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 12:15:22 PM EST
    It is not sexist to criticize a female candidate for being unprepared to hold national office, for not being able - despite repeated opportunities to do so -- to articulate coherent policy positions (in complete sentences), for having political positions that are considerably outside the mainstream (abortion, for one), for brazenly lying about her actions, and for avoiding the opportunity for the public (as represented by the media) to question her at length in an open forum.

    McCain and other suffer from some, but not all of these flaws. He has positions and can (sort of) articulate them. But most importantly - he has a public record. He is a known quantity (we could certainly debate the accuracy of his public persona).

    The reason there has been SUCH a frenzy about Palin is her unknown-ness -- and her inability to decrease it via her public appearances. Were she a man with a similar lack of public profile, experience, verbal ability (when not reading a speech), and established positions, we would be getting nearly the same amount of "palozza" about him.


    .."but I've never seen the hatred (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by Radiowalla on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 10:38:25 AM EST
     from the mainstream media directed at a male Republican candidate in this way"

    Clearly, you don't remember Dan Quayle.


    The exception... (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Lena on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 10:41:50 AM EST
    that proves the rule?

    The only other time. . . (5.00 / 0) (#70)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 10:52:34 AM EST
    in living memory that either side selected such a doofus for VP.

    Dan Quayle? (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by EddieInCA on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 10:44:12 AM EST
    Or are you too young to remember him?

    He was mocked at ruthlessly, if not moreso, than Palin - and he got it for four years.

    How about Gerald Ford?  Chevy Chase built his career on making fun of Ford.

    To say that no Republican male has ever gotten treated like Palin has is simply not true.

    Of course, despite that fact, no candidate for national office has ever been as unqualified as Sarah Palin - nor as unready for a national election - and her shortcomings were very obvious to anyone paying attention.

    Lastly, McCain/Palin is the first ticket in U.S. History to have TWO candidates who were found to have official ethics violations BEFORE being elected to National Office.


    Hillary is My Senator (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by MTSINAIMAMA on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 10:49:42 AM EST
    And may she remain so. Truth be told, the only reason I would have voted for her was to get Bill back in the WH. But the pick of Palin did energize me to the point that where I was going to sit this election out, I am now for Obama.

    LOL. (5.00 / 5) (#75)
    by rooge04 on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 10:57:35 AM EST
    How did this manage to become about Palin? Jeralyn, you are a woman obsessed. Instead of a post about Hillary and how great she is...we get another weird Palin tie-in.  Bizarre.

    maybe because McCain supporters (1.00 / 2) (#180)
    by Iris on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 02:23:06 PM EST
    are on this site trying to convince us to vote for Palin simply because we were mad at the way the media treated Hillary?  Maybe because Palin is trying to ride the "18 million cracks" to power?  What do you take us for?

    The Heartbreaking Reality (5.00 / 6) (#80)
    by Cairo Faulkner on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 11:02:28 AM EST
    I've come to accept the heartbreaking reality recently. Hillary is not going to be president. Obama is going to win this year. If he's a good president, he could win a second term; if he's a bad president, he'll loose to Romney or Huckabee or Palin in 2012. Either way, that leaves Hillary 2016 at the earliest. She couldn't challenge him in 2012, no matter how weak he had been, it'd tear the party apart and guarantee we'd lose that year. In 2016, she'd be 68. Admittedly that's as old as Reagan was, and younger than McCain and Dole. But if - if - she wins the nomination in 2016, she'd either be coming after two terms of a Democratic White House, or she'd be challenging an incumbent Republican who took over from an unpopular and failed Democrat. If Obama is a poor president of Carterian proportions, expect a populist Republican to sweep the board. If Obama is a success, that'll be eight years of Democrats, and there'd still be room for Palin or Jindal to swoop in at a relatively young age. Who is going to vote for the aged political has-been, seeking a third and in time a fourth term for the Democratic Party? After eight years, you've usually managed to piss enough people off to swing the pendulum.

    This is what angers me so much. Obama was our trump card for the future. He had four or even five presidential elections left in him. Now he's spent (and we took an extraordinary risk putting one so inexperienced out there in an otherwise Democratic year; if it weren't for the financial crisis, those weaknesses would still be there), and who is our future? Mark Warner? Did you see his keynote address? Schweitzer? He's got great charm, but he's a Blue Dog. In contrast, look at the GOP: Palin, Jindal, Pawlenty, and for 2012, Romney, Huckabee, Giuliani.

    In any case, that's it. There's nothing we can do about it now. This year was Hillary's only chance. Sarah Palin's going to disappear off to Alaska, brush over Troopergate, read every single newspaper and work of political philosophy and come back in four or eight or twelve or even sixteen years. She's the most prominent female politician in the country. For that reason alone, I think the odds are on her to be the first female President of the United States.

    that is the waste I see as well (5.00 / 5) (#84)
    by ruffian on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 11:06:14 AM EST
    It made all the sense int he world for Hillary to be pres, and Obama VP for 8 years, then Obama pres for 8.  That way he would have had a very long, influential carreer.  Now, at best he will be an ex-pres in 8 years, without decades of influentce behind him.  While that is not  nothing, it is a small thing compared to what he could have accomplished. I hope he has big plans for his post-presidential career.

    Heh, perhaps Michelle will run :P (none / 0) (#87)
    by Cairo Faulkner on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 11:12:17 AM EST
    If you (5.00 / 0) (#97)
    by WS on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 11:20:19 AM EST
    consider Hillary a "has been" after one of the closest primaries in history than I have no idea why you think Huckabee, Guiliani, and Romney are political rising stars.  And Palin is about to go down with a losing Presidential ticket in a possible landslide.  Is she a has been too?

    Hillary has another chance in 2016 if she wants to run again.  I hope Obama does well in his (hopefully) 2 terms in office because his success will affect his successor.  

    And I don't know why people talk about Carter now.  Carter's legacy is Carter's legacy (and he's had a good post-Presidency).  Obama will want to create his own legacy and will work hard for it to be a success.  


    I said... (5.00 / 4) (#158)
    by Cairo Faulkner on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 01:17:36 PM EST
    ...she'd be a 'has been' in the context of running after two terms of Obama. By that point the Democrats will have had their crack at the whip, so a third term is unlikely; Hillary will be sixty-eight, whereas her potential opponents, of whom Palin and Jindal are the obvious frontrunners, will be younger and in the case of Jindal, fresher; the 1990s will seem so far away that 'Clinton' will be a historical term, rather than, as it is now, a look back at the prosperity Before Bush; Obama himself will retire in his mid-fifties, so having a successor nearing her seventies would be odd; the Republicans will have recovered from and most likely repudiated much of the Bush years.

    I don't consider Romney, Huckabee or Giuliani as rising stars, that's why I specified their names in the context of 2012. They are from the losing party with credible national profiles, so they have another chance. Romney, despite his sixty-one years, looks very fresh and has strong credibility on the economy. If Obama messes up or is washed away by the problems of his first term, Romney would appear a credible alternative. Giuliani is a moderate with strength on national security, so if Obama faces problems over that issue, he could be a player (though I think he's far less likely than Romney or Huckabee).

    My money however is on Huckabee. He's only fifty-three, has kept his profile up with a new show on Fox, appeals to social conservatives, and has a brand of economic populism that could be attractive to many if the economy remains a problem for the next few years. He'd play well with conservative Democrats, and therefore in places such as Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Arkansas, and perhaps Wisconsin. Needless to say these are the exact people that rushed to Ronald Reagan when the Carter ship sank.

    Palin may not run in four years. She might think she needs more time and experience - and at age forty-eight in 2012, she's in no rush. Or, she might look in the mirror and never run for office again. I doubt that. If she doesn't, or if she blows up in the primaries, I expect it to come down to Mitt vs. Mike. Both are potentially dangerous challengers, especially if Obama is overwhelmed by the difficulties of office. That is why I mention them.

    It looks very likely now that Obama will thankfully defeat McCain. But by no means is it certain that he will walk a second term. Republican support is much deeper than Democratic - I believe this country is a fundamentally center-right nation. This is why Democrats have lost so many elections relative to Republicans since the Sixties. Twice Republicans have had landslide reelections - Nixon in '72 and Reagan in '84. Democrats have had no such landslide - Clinton won in '96 convincingly, but there were still plenty of red states on that map. Democratic support is much softer, and all it takes is for a Democratic president to be perceived as weak for many of those tepid supporters to jump ship.

    I've always believed Obama a weak candidate. He will do well this election not for any major policy or character quality, but because the financial crisis has turned this election into a Generic Republican vs. Generic Democrat match-up - something that neither candidate actually is. This is a dangerous election to win, because the next four years are going to be very difficult indeed. The perception of Obama (that has receded but still fundamentally exists) is that he is waiflike, unsure of his principles, vague, generic, noncommital. That is a cariacture, but it is nonetheless the cariacture that has entered our cultural consciousness. The same applied to Carter, and that is why people keep mentioning his name. Is that the sort of president an independent would want? Unlikely.

    In contrast, Hillary Clinton is perceived as tough, decisive, unemotional - to the point that, before she established herself as 'the Fighter', the champion of the working American, it was almost a negative: she was an Ice Queen, ruthless, Lady Macbeth, indifferent, callous, calculating. But in the campaign, her true self was shown to the country - alas too late - and those snowy cariactures melted away to reveal the mountains underneath that is her true character. Again, that has entered the public consciousness - I think it was Ed Rendell that said she makes Rocky look like a quitter, or something like that. Similarly, the SNL sketch with Hillary and Palin together, where Clinton tells the media to 'grow a pair, or if they like, I can lend them some of mine'. That sort of public persona could weather the difficulties of the next four years, and that is one of the major reasons I supported her. (Incidentally, that's why the 'Obama has the same sort of ideas as her' argument isn't that effective to me. I supported her not just because she was a Democrat, nor just because she was a Clinton, but because she was Hillary; I supported her character as much as her policies).

    Anyway, this is becoming a long post. Obama will thankfully win. But winning and governing are two very different things; the doubts that so many had about his candidacy during the primaries haven't suddenly evaporated because he is the nominee. Faced with two choices, for the Hillary supporter and for most Americans, he is obviously the best choice. But that doesn't make him good; that just makes him the lesser of two evils.


    Hillary is saying she won't (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by Iris on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 02:28:12 PM EST
    run for President again.  This could be a signal to the PUMA's who are thinking about voting for McCain so they can vote for her in four years.  In other words, Hillary is saying: "don't count on it.  It's this election that matters."

    I think as Democrats we're being a bit too hard on Carter.  He was the first President to make human rights a priority, and for that he should be celebrated.


    I suspect that (5.00 / 6) (#102)
    by joanneleon on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 11:25:25 AM EST
    she and Bill have had it with politics and will focus their efforts on his foundation, and perhaps other things, when her term expires.

    I can't say I'd blame them one bit.  We only know what happened in public.  I've never seen Bill Clinton so angry and for so long.  He seems to be having a really hard time shaking it off.  I think a lot more happened in the background that we don't know about.

    If I were them, I'd enjoy what I'd earned, do some foundation work, travel and do what I enjoy most, and say F you to the Democratic party.  I wouldn't lift a finger to help the Obama administration after the way they have treated the Clintons.  Maybe I would even help some promising group out there who might be trying to start a third party.  Both parties are ruined in this country and while I've been inclined to think it would be easier to reform the dem party than to start fresh with a third, I often wonder these days, with each cave in and capitulation by the Congress and such.  Truthfully, lately I think the Republicans are going to have an easier time reforming their party than we are.


    I'll vote for Obama (5.00 / 5) (#103)
    by joanneleon on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 11:30:21 AM EST
    but it has nothing to do with Palin.  In fact, I think it's horrendously stupid to focus on Palin.

    We've got two wars, a financial crisis, a planet in peril, a country that hardly manufactures anything anymore, humongous debt, and a ton of people who are really, really hurting.  

    That's why I'm voting for the Democrat.  I have no other choice.  Voting for a Republican means more of the same and worse.  With a dem, at least we have an ice cube's chance in hell to improve things.

    For anyone with their head on straight, it seems to me that the answer is very simple.  But that's just me.

    Carry on with all of your rants about issues that are merely distractions from the important issues.  Americans are making it really clear, to the media at least, that they are sick and tired of the horse race and petty personal battles.  They want to hear about the issues and they want to know clearly what the candidates plan to do about the issues.

    We need more political parties (5.00 / 3) (#115)
    by Manuel on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 12:00:29 PM EST
    It is wishful thinking but I wish Hillary would lead the formation of a new party, not to get herself elected but to push for a more progressive agenda.  The new party could align itself with the Democrats but it would be a separate entity.

    third parties are pointless (5.00 / 1) (#199)
    by Iris on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 03:08:50 PM EST
    unless the electoral college and winner take all congressional election laws are changed.  Or if we adopt fusion voting.

    How does one align oneself (none / 0) (#209)
    by oldpro on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 07:05:23 PM EST
    with folks who do not WANT you anywhere near them...people whose goal is to marginalize, if not destroy, you?  

    Is sexism (5.00 / 2) (#147)
    by OldCity on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 12:55:40 PM EST
    responsible for Hillariys mis-management of her campaign, or her erroneous assumptions regarding her electoral success?

    Is sexism responsible for Palin taking what, six years and how many colleges to finish with a journalism degree?  Is it responsible for HER campaign to wall her off from questions and for her not to object?  Did sexism cause her ethics violation(s)?

    The arguents I see here are so inconsistent.  Sexism is in no way the root cause of Hillary's loss and it is certainly not the reason why Palin is a poor choice for vice-president.  Hillary didn't plan well and didn't manage well...had she won, would you have said, "Yeah, but if it wasn't for sexism, she really would have killed him!"?  Palin, well, there's just no way to dress it up...if anyone has seen her speak and thinks she is qualified to be President...I mean, wow.

    It's just too easy to ascribe the treatment of Palin to sexism rather than the fact that America has realized a) she's simply not the intellectual equal of most of us...she's anti-intellectual, actually, and that hasn't served America particularly well as a quality in a President or Vice-President, b) she's divisive, and willfully so, like we need more of that c) she's a hypocrite (see ethics, above and her rise in Alaska) d) she has certainly never been above using her sex appeal to her benefit, though, when convenient, claims she is being objectified.  

    Sexism is a compnent of the treatment both women have received, from men and women.  However, when you have a man who's for reproductive rights, healthcare, equal pay, improved education, etc, and you vote for his oppostion, who supports none of those positions solely on the basis of her gender, then who's being sexist?  What in Palin's makeup would ever convince you that she's the representative for women, that she should be the standard bearer?

    I've seen so many criticisms of racial politics, of people who only see events through the prism of race...it's at least as acceptable to condemn those people who view events through the prism of gender.  

    agreed (5.00 / 2) (#184)
    by Iris on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 02:31:56 PM EST
    I've seen so many criticisms of racial politics, of people who only see events through the prism of race...it's at least as acceptable to condemn those people who view events through the prism of gender.  

    Obsessive focus on either race or gender is always counterproductive.  You risk not being able to see the forest for the trees.

    At the same time it shouldn't blind us to real racism or sexism.

    I remember many fellow Hillary supporters pointing out that false accusations of racism make it harder to point out actual racism.  The same is true for reckless accusations of sexism -- when the real thing is staring us in the face, nobody is going to believe us if we hurl around that accusation at every little thing.


    Thanks, (2.00 / 1) (#204)
    by OldCity on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 03:26:32 PM EST
    I'm just amazed at the absolute closed mindedness.

    Worse, I'm pretty tired of the deification of HRC.  I've been a big Clinton fan since they got into national politics; that doesn't mean that I can't acknowledge their foibles and failures.  And they had more than a few failures and have more than a few foibles.  A very strong sense of entitlement is one of them.  Bill's antipathy toward Obama was so visceral...it seemed unworthy of one of my heroes.  Hillary's failure to be a good CEO of her campaign reminded me of how she failed with healthcare during Bill's administration.  That sort of management simply isn't one of her strengths.  

    Now, saying that she has strengths and weaknesses, as we all do, and that her fundamental weakness was an inability to effectively manage a large organization isn't sexist.  It means that her experience has been in policy; an executive needs both policy and organizational skills.  It was disappointing, but I'm a professional and I know how professional organizations are run...I get paid to assess them.  

    So, we found out that Hillary enjoyed the support of a lot of women, and rightly so, because she has great ideas.  But, she wasn't able to fulfill the second test; she squandered (there's no other word for it) an utterly sure thing by losing Iowa and then by failing to get her folks consistently on message and on budget.  

    We can argue that obama was a juggernaut, that the media was in the tank and that the DNC was, too, but, c'mon.  Who seriously predicted the fight we saw?  Nobody (and no revisionist history, anyone, please.).  Everyone I knew expected her to be the nominee, if not the President.  Those national assumptions weren't sexist.  So, why was her loss?  

    She should stay in the Senate...that's her strength.  She won't be the leader (that's wishful thinking) and she's not going to the SCOTUS.  Running well in the primaries doesn't entitle anyone to either.  


    I do not (5.00 / 3) (#159)
    by JThomas on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 01:21:26 PM EST
    come close to believing Hillary will not run again in 2016. Sure she will be 68, but lets face it, women live longer than men and she will be good for another 20-30 years.
    She has a huge advocate and fan in the white house in Joe Biden who will always make sure Obama has her in the inner circle. Obama also knows Bill  and her are going to be key advisors to him. Obama would push her to run,I will bet.
    She has the moxie,the experience and the brand name to continue the work he will have started and will take a long time to finish, like global warming and alternative energy.

    Hillary is a pro and just watch her and Obama build a strong alliance to forward her and his agendas which were virtually identical the whole campaign. This is gonna take a team of Obama,Biden,the Clintons, Pelosi,Reid,Durbin,Hoyer ect. to dig this country outta this deep hole.

    Hillary for Senate Majority Leader! (5.00 / 2) (#173)
    by heymisssuze on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 02:02:35 PM EST
    I don't want Hillary to rule out becoming Senate Majority Leader. We need someone who has a steel spine and can stand up to McCain if he gets in (or should I say, if he steals his way in!). I am tired of Harry Reid caving and rolling over every time the Repugs say 'BOO'.

    If Hillary wanted power, that is the position to get. The president's hands, in many ways, are tied.

    Misogyny, or hyper-masculinism (5.00 / 1) (#178)
    by Iris on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 02:19:43 PM EST
    Is something deeply rooted in America, period.

    It's something liberals have been keeping an eye on for years (see Digby), and it affects everything from foreign policy to same-sex marriage to Hillary's candidacy.  So I agree with you, in a way, it's bad.  But if hyper-masculinism is commonplace in the U.S., it stands to reason that the Democratic party is going to have people in it who display those tendencies, especially if it is in the majority.  The task for those who care about it will be to marginalize it and repudiate it, while still holding the GOP at bay, because they're going to cynically try to exploit it at every opportunity, even though they are worse.

    Kudos b/c I agree with you, sexism is important but it's certainly not the most important or the only issue facing our country.

    The narrative already starts... (5.00 / 4) (#205)
    by huzzlewhat on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 03:32:22 PM EST
    I find this "report" really, really depressing, if completely predictable. She's made more than 50 appearances on Obama's behalf, and raised over $10 million dollars, but she has nothing to do with his current success. It's all down to how sucky Palin is.


    This election has made me very, very tired. Bone-deep tired.

    I don't know about that (4.33 / 6) (#8)
    by tootired on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 09:39:30 AM EST
    I went from being a strong Hillary supporter to a person who was going to leave the the top of the ballot blank to being "tepidly" for Obama to probably voting for McCain/Palin based on the Palinpalooza. When I decided to vote for Obama, I did it based on voting for my own self-interests, but I no longer think that the Democrats represent my interests. I don't want to be associated with a party that has so little respect for women. I've become an identity voter for the entire ballot. I no longer care whether a candidate has an R or a D after his or her name. I am so totally disgusted with how female candidates have been treated that I'm only voting for women. I may never vote for a male candidate again. I know I'm not alone.

    Wow (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by bluegal on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 09:44:41 AM EST
    So I never want to hear again about why Obama is winning 95% of the black vote since you have become an identity voter.



    I just wish.... (5.00 / 5) (#19)
    by kdog on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 09:51:59 AM EST
    I had an identity to associate with and vote for...not many Lebanese-Irish hedonists running for office:(

    If you run... (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by EddieInCA on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 10:48:01 AM EST
    ...I'd vote for you.

    Damn, think of the parties.  Irish booze, Lebanese food and hedonism?  Does it get any better?

    Seriously, does it?


    We'd certainly be looking a (5.00 / 3) (#88)
    by oculus on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 11:13:21 AM EST
    smaller government or maybe even no government.

    You'd be free as a bird Oc..... (5.00 / 3) (#109)
    by kdog on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 11:44:21 AM EST
    thats my only campaign promise, can't promise a chicken in your pot:)

    Open door and open bar.... (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by kdog on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 12:01:38 PM EST
    at my Inauguration Eddie...I'd put Jackson's to shame.

    Hope you prefer your Kibbie raw:)


    Would That There Were... (n/t) (none / 0) (#64)
    by daring grace on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 10:48:24 AM EST
    How many (none / 0) (#37)
    by Repack Rider on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 10:26:35 AM EST
    Black Republicans do you know?

    This statistic hardly surprises me.


    I may never vote for a Jewish candidate again (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Gabriel on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 09:53:40 AM EST
    I may never vote for a white candidate again.
    I may never vote for a black candidate again.
    I may never vote for a female candidate again.

    Notice the pattern?


    Amen! n/t (none / 0) (#189)
    by Iris on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 02:41:17 PM EST
    But what if the female candidate you're voting for (5.00 / 3) (#45)
    by lilburro on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 10:29:25 AM EST
    wants to take away the rights and respect accorded to women?  

    We have no respect to be taken away from us. (5.00 / 5) (#82)
    by tootired on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 11:03:37 AM EST
    This election cycle has proved that beyond all reasonable doubt. And why do women have to be "given rights"? We're 52% of the population. I am suggesting that we begin to act like it. If we want rights, we should just take them. With more women in office that will get easier.

    "If women want any rights more than they's got, why don't they just take them, and not be talking about it." - Sojourner Truth

    I have no quarrel with black people voting for Obama, BTW, and I never have. Even the ones who think his running mate is Sarah Palin have a right to vote for someone who looks like them. My original point is that it is a mistake to think that Sarah Palin's candidacy is bringing women home to Obama. It's something people who like to tear away at Palin might like to believe, but if women vote for Obama in droves, it will be "the economy, stupid", not because of Governor Palin. And I would be happy to vote for white women, black women, Jewish women, etc etc etc. My "women only" votes are not based on bigotry or racism. You could try to call me "sexist", but if racism charges can't apply to the oppressed race, then sexism charges can't apply to the oppressed sex.


    How is it possible (5.00 / 3) (#108)
    by lilburro on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 11:43:33 AM EST
    for women to gain more rights by allowing a Vice President like Palin into office, someone who wants to restrict our rights?  Our rights definitely need some tweaking (equal pay for equal work - something McCain/Palin is not for) but they are legally there...so I am unsure as to what rights you think we need to go and grab.

    And while you can make an argument that McCain/Palin wouldn't take away Roe v. Wade if you like (IMO, not an argument worth the risk), there's no getting around the actual views Palin holds on equal pay/equal work, abortion, and a woman's right to marry another woman, for instance, and even READ literature about lesbian relationships.  As far as female leaders go, would Margaret Thatcher be worth voting for on the grounds of gender alone?

    You can vote how you want, but voting for identity without taking into account ideology seems an unwise path to me.

    I think this election cycle has in many ways brought us respect from new quarters.  Hillary's popularity and ability to cross the C-in-C threshold were really amazing.  Her enduring popularity and the image she presents continue to inspire women.  People in Scranton chanted her name when she came up to introduce Joe Biden - you wouldn't have known that SHE wasn't the candidate!  She inspires me much, much more than Palin.


    What "new quarters" do you feel (5.00 / 4) (#114)
    by tootired on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 11:59:19 AM EST
    respect from? I see women being more openly harassed and humiliated in the press and in public than I have ever seen before. It's been an open season on women in the blogs for months. For a better explanation than I can give you in a blog comment about why electing a woman who we disagree with on policy is still a good idea, check out Congresswomen Carolyn Maloney's book, "Rumors of Our Progress Have Been Greatly Exaggerated: Why Women's Lives Aren't Getting Any Easier--And How We Can Make Real Progress For Ourselves and Our Daughters". It's an interesting read. It was recommended to me by a local woman who wanted my vote but knew we differed on some issues.

    well imo (5.00 / 3) (#151)
    by lilburro on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 01:04:13 PM EST
    I think Hillary's extended primary battle demonstrated her complete readiness for the Presidency.  So now when I hear that joke about PMS and women as Presidents, I have Hillary's example to dismiss the whole canard with.  I also think that Hillary's massive following from men AND women, her ability to turn a bit into the working-class hero, demonstrate the ability of women to lead mass heterogeneous groups and possess charisma.  Sexism did run rampant, but that doesn't surprise me at all.  It's not like men gave more of a sh*t about women before Hillary ran after all.  

    I guess I think Hillary's run created something that can give women inner strength.  I don't think the primary battle caused a categorical loss of respect in this country for women.  We started out at a place where many people didn't seriously respect women.  But Hillary was able to change minds and challenge assumptions.

    Blogs, eh, I don't really care about blogs.  Their sexism and elitism is again not at all surprising.  But Hillary's impact this year will last a lot longer than Josh Marshall's.

    I will have to take a look at that book you recommended.  I guess I can't comment either way about it at this point.  

    Sarah Palin...I guess I could go on and on about reasons why I will not vote for her.  But most recently, her outright lying about the results of troopergate (cleared of legal and ethical wrongdoing?  No, you weren't.  Just the former) has me angry at her and extremely mistrustful of her.  


    oh and also (5.00 / 3) (#154)
    by lilburro on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 01:09:12 PM EST
    I am a believer in the importance of witnessing all the ugliness.  We got to see people throw mud and become shameless fools out of their desire to maintain sexism in our society.  That ugliness reflects upon them, not upon women as a whole.  We saw people who were once respected expose the limits of their minds for all to see - I saw it, and we know who those people are now.  

    New quarters of respect?  
    The white male working class.  I'm sure many expected them to be the most boorish.  

    The quarter that didn't respect, and now has lost much of my respect?
    The white male middle class.  Or, ha, the creative class.


    a most bizarre argument... (1.00 / 2) (#190)
    by Iris on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 02:44:17 PM EST
    Women have no respect to be taken away?  What world are you living in?  

    And how much No Quarter/Confluence/Pumapac do you read per day?  Or are you just another wingnut ratf*$er?


    Stay classy, Iris (5.00 / 4) (#200)
    by tootired on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 03:11:10 PM EST
    or course you're not alone (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by dws3665 on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 10:48:09 AM EST
    A great many people don't vote every year. You may be one of them.

    What mystifies me is the apparent inability of people to differentiate invalid, gender-based criticism of a qualified candidate from legitimate criticism of an unqualified and uninformed candidate of a particular gender. This is not to say that there haven't been sexist criticism of Palin - of course there have! But the so-called "Palin-palooza" that some posters here are referring to has, in the main, focused squarely on the shocking level of her lack of resume and illiberal positions.


    I haven't missed voting in an election (5.00 / 4) (#89)
    by tootired on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 11:14:37 AM EST
    since 1972. This year will be no different. I will be at the polls casting my "females only" votes. I am perfectly capable of differentiating between attacks on the issues and personal attacks, but the overwhelming theme this election cycle has been on the personal. When a candidate is referred to in terms that both Hillary and Sarah have, the discussion of their positions on issues and qualifications becomes irrelevant. I'm sorry, but referring to Palin as a "fluffy bunny" is not the way to discuss her qualifications to be VP.
    "It's a giant changing of the subject," said Jenny Backus, a Democratic strategist. "The problem is the messenger. If you want to start throwing fire bombs, you don't send out the fluffy bunny to do it. I think people don't take Sarah Palin seriously."

    Palin is the governor of Alaska, and as such deserves to be "taken seriously".
    And that one was MILD.

    there's taken seriously (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by dws3665 on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 12:03:56 PM EST
    and "taken seriously."

    She has revealed herself as falling considerably short of being taken seriously as a national political figure over the course of this campaign. The same was true of Dan Quayle, who was also mocked  incessantly and treated as an object of derision.


    If a man said (5.00 / 0) (#191)
    by Iris on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 02:46:26 PM EST
    he'd never vote for a female candidate, what would you call him?

    Yeah, well... (none / 0) (#163)
    by shoephone on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 01:26:36 PM EST
    We once had a female governer named Dixie Lee Ray. I don't want to tell you how that one worked out.

    I was (5.00 / 2) (#121)
    by cal1942 on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 12:07:12 PM EST
    an Edwards supporter. When he dropped out I came to support Hillary with even more enthusiasm. Now I'm supporting Obama.

    We have two daughters, two grand daughters and two grand sons.  This election, like every other election, is about them not about me.

    I've never believed that ethnicity or gender should play any role in determining my vote.

    The future of the nation is more important than any personal identity matter, that's the type of selfish attitude that accounts, in large measure, for the current state of the nation.

    Identity politics is corrosive and destructive.


    In this country we marginalize (5.00 / 6) (#130)
    by tootired on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 12:26:14 PM EST
    the contributions of 52% of the population. If you are thinking about the future of your grandchildren, then including women in every aspect of decision making should be important to you. If we keep letting men tell us that voting for them and letting them make decisions for us is best for us, then we are losing out on the contributions of over half the people.  Identity politics is only corrosive to white men. It only destroys the patriarchy. It empowers the rest of us. Women voting for women is not responsible for the current state of the nation. Our not voting for other women may be, though.

    The females in the US Senate (5.00 / 4) (#144)
    by oldpro on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 12:54:28 PM EST
    figured that out some time ago.  They made a pact, both Ds and Rs, to never allow themselves to be used in a campaign against a female colleague of the other party.

    And they never have.


    more than 52% (5.00 / 0) (#146)
    by coigue on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 12:55:07 PM EST
    add in all men of color.

    Identity (5.00 / 2) (#162)
    by cal1942 on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 01:25:14 PM EST
    politics from any direction is corrosive.  It obscures real issues and needlessly pits group against group based on the accident of birth.

    The good of my children and grandchildren is determined by policy and policy only and I feel that I am a far better judge than you are concerning their future.  I know what they need.  

    Assaulting white men is assaulting the second largest demographic in the country. Talk about exclusion.

    So given the choice between say Franklin Roosevelt and Magda Goebbels who would you support?


    nice point, and I agree (5.00 / 0) (#192)
    by Iris on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 02:50:12 PM EST
    simplistic identity politics is a dangerous affair.

    extra kudos for the FDR vs. Goebbels comparison!


    the bitterness vote (3.25 / 4) (#77)
    by coigue on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 10:59:41 AM EST
    now there's a tactic McCain hasn't fully explored.

    "Pissed cause your candidate didn't win? Vote for McCain"


    I'm not the least bit bitter. (5.00 / 5) (#99)
    by tootired on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 11:21:55 AM EST
    And I'm not "pissed" that my candidate didn't win. I'm just disgusted with how women in general have been treated during this election, and I am working with other women to change it. It's a journey I began in 1969, and I made the mistake of taking some time off. It won't happen again. We're in this for the long haul. One congressional seat, one senator at a time until the surge becomes overwhelming. And I don't want Hillary to run again in 2012 or 16. It's time for a different strategy. With an Obama win, Hillary will be marginalized as a senator. Time for her to join Bill in his foundation work. They'll be great together.

    Silver linings... (5.00 / 11) (#137)
    by marian evans on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 12:33:24 PM EST
    Well, that's the one good thing I think will come from this US election cycle - I think that the blatant sexism aimed at Sen Clinton (& yes, at Sarah Palin also), has been a real wake-up call for a lot of women, both within the US and those watching from without.

    There's quite a few women who have been galvanized by the dismissive, disrespectful and downright hateful attitude and actions of many involved in the political process. And hateful is exactly the right word for it - the quality of it, the pathological tenor of it, was truly shocking.

    In particular, the egregious behaviour of the left was an eye-opener. Hateful behaviour from your opponent, one can almost understand - but being treated like cr*p by your so-called "friends" is a betrayal of trust that will not be forgotten, or forgiven.

    The emancipation of women is the truly radical (radical - to the root) notion developed by our culture and the modern era. It is unique in human history, unimagined by the ancient world. The oppression of women is the most pervasive, and most pernicious, of all - the deepest, and most difficult to eradicate, and the most necessary to our full development as human beings.

    I have a dream too...

    ...of a more just world, where all our daughters will not be ridiculed and punished merely for being female, and daring to ask to be considered equal.


    proof-reading failure! (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by marian evans on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 12:40:30 PM EST
    ....i.e should read:

    "most difficult to eradicate, and the most necessary to eradicate, for our full development as human beings."

    OK, where's that coffee...


    Having a biracial man leading the free (5.00 / 0) (#145)
    by coigue on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 12:54:36 PM EST
    world is also quite revolutionary.

    My apologies... (3.50 / 2) (#112)
    by coigue on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 11:54:09 AM EST
    I should have said "The disgusted vote"

    Vote for McCain against your own interests, cause "that'll show em."

    It's a fine fine line. Too bad the result is the same.


    Voting for Obama is voting (5.00 / 2) (#127)
    by tootired on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 12:16:29 PM EST
    against my own interests.  Voting for Sarah Palin is not. McCain just gets to come along for the ride. The problem is that you think you get to decide what my interests are - and you don't. It is in my best interest to get a woman into one of the two top jobs in the US - no matter who she is. Just because I can think of other women on both sides of the aisle that I would rather vote for, it doesn't change things. Voting for Obama does not further my own interests in any way. I get equal pay for what I do, I have fine health insurance, and I'm past child-bearing. I'm looking for a woman to finally have a seat at the grown-up table. That's in my own self-interest.

    what about the rest of us? (5.00 / 1) (#193)
    by Iris on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 02:54:54 PM EST
    What about our interests, our children's interests?  What about the interests of men who didn't partake in misogyny?

    When women say that they are going to vote (5.00 / 4) (#207)
    by tootired on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 03:35:46 PM EST
    for McCain/Palin, the usual comeback is "How can you vote against your own self-interest?" My point is the real question you are asking is, "How can you vote against MY self-interests?" Abortion is not an issue that I vote on. I have mixed feelings about it so I, like Obama, support the law of the land. I am for equal pay for all women having fought very hard to get it for myself. I am for everyone having health insurance as good as mine is. I am for family leave and all of those things you want me to be for. The difference is that I disagree with you about how to get it. I have equal pay, family leave, and good insurance because I work for a company owned and run by women. Some of them are even Republicans. I want our government to have more women running it because I think that's the way to get not just women, but families, what we need. I want our government to be awash in estrogen, and I'm willing to vote some Republicans in to do it. Men will benefit from having more women in government, too. I'm not a PUMA. I'm disappointed that Hillary won't be on the ballot, but she is not the only woman in this country. I think the DNC showed what great lengths it was willing to go to to keep Hillary off the ballot. I was willing to believe that it wasn't all women, just Hillary, but the reaction to Sarah Palin suggests otherwise. I came to Talkleft after the convention to try to shore up my resolve to vote for Obama, but the opposite happened. It's been awhile since I've contributed much, but this post today struck a deep nerve. I respect, Iris, that you are full steam ahead in support of Obama. I suspect that if we were talking in person the conversation would be lively, constructive, and respectful, and we'd probably go out for coffee after.

    I see. You got yours (2.25 / 4) (#128)
    by coigue on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 12:20:55 PM EST
    so screw everyone else.


    Guess you are a Republican.

    I wonder why you ever voted for Hil in the first place.

    I hope for your sake your situation never gets worse.


    No, it's not "screw you" (5.00 / 4) (#138)
    by tootired on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 12:34:50 PM EST
    You said that voting for McCain/Palin is against my self-interest. Actually, you don't care what my self-interests are, but I'm supposed to vote for what you think yours are. What makes your self-interests more important than mine? I think that when more women are in office, your self-interests will be in much better hands. I want more women making the decisions that affect us. I happen to think that's in your best interests, too. I'm not a Republican, BTW, but I no longer think being called one is an insult.

    I am going by what you said (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by coigue on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 12:50:05 PM EST
    YOU have equal pay
    YOU have child care
    YOU have all these things.

    A true Democrat realizes that A STRONG COMMUNITY strengthens the individual.

    You aren't even considering what things will be like when your kids are grown up.

    Now I am the one that's disgusted.

    Thankfully, it isn't looking good for YOUR side.

    Oh yeah and P.S. As a professional woman I am HORRIFIED by the blatant and cynical tokenism of choosing Sarah Palin. McCain spent less time choosing her than a college spends choosing a professor for a tenure track position. As a woman, I want high-level representatives of my gender to be chosen based on their qualifications for the position (example Condolisa Rice, Hillary Clinton, Justice OConnor). On paper Palin seems (marginally) qualified, but she has since proven she is no more so than GW Bush. Would you want a female GW Bush representing you as a woman? I would not. She would set us back decades.

    And that is saying something.


    PS (5.00 / 0) (#168)
    by coigue on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 01:46:55 PM EST
    If you think a Palin Vice-Presidency will be good for women


    you must think the George W Bush presidency was good for Republicans.


    Voting all women, any women (5.00 / 2) (#131)
    by Melchizedek on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 12:26:21 PM EST
    does have some strategic sense to it. If you really believe that women's interests will only increase if women are elected from any party (from Green to KKK), then that's the way to go about it.

    But let's be clear what those "interests" are. Not abortion rights, or equal pay, or health care, or research into women's health, or domestic violence law, or family leave policy, or welfare policy. The real interest at work is cultural-- women are being mistreated by the media during campaigns. That's a real concern, certainly a real issue. It affects how other issues are dealt with. But a quick glance at the gaggle of women at Fox News is evidence that voting according to that one criterion may not lead to the other interests being met.


    good point. (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by coigue on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 12:53:03 PM EST
    that really is the only thing that Hil and Palin share....the treatment via the media.

    I guess if I were willing to give upon all other women's (and others) issues , I would vote Palin too.


    If women were 52% of the senators (5.00 / 3) (#148)
    by tootired on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 12:56:47 PM EST
    and held 52% congress, no matter what party they represented, I think that women would have their issues heard, and that things like equal pay, research into women's health, family leave policy, etc. would be no-brainers. Actually, 30-40% would do it. The abortion issue is one that divides women, but wouldn't it be better to have more of us in on the decision-making? Right now the abortion issue is being decided by men and is used to keep us in check. Women are not just being mistreated by the media. We are not being allowed full partnership in governing at any level. We're supposed to vote for the men who will take the best care of us. Time to take charge of ourselves.

    So wrong (2.33 / 3) (#176)
    by Iris on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 02:09:03 PM EST
    Hillary was "impervious" to the treatment by the media.  She cares about the issues that matter, not whether the media make fun of her.

    What you're suggesting is unilateral disarmament on every single women's issue in favor of an obscure signal that will never be heard or understood.  

    I can see the right-wing/PUMA crowd is taking to trolling liberal blogs and pushing their bogus 30% crap in advance of the election.  This is the same crap that appeared on PUMAPac blog a month ago.


    I wasn't aware that the PUMAs (5.00 / 3) (#185)
    by tootired on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 02:33:16 PM EST
    were pushing Congresswoman Maloney's "crap" as you put it, but if they are, good for them. My book club chose it as a selection when it came out in May. We are still talking about it. Each chapter ends with action item suggestions, the 30% solution being just one of many.

    I saw this coming a while back (5.00 / 1) (#194)
    by Iris on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 02:58:13 PM EST
    when it was cross-posted on nearly every PUMA blog that I was watching.

    Unfortunately for the people dishonestly trying to push this, Carolyn Maloney, author of the 30% solution, had this to say about the Democratic 2008 platform:

    She added that the platform this year is the most "pro-woman" platform in history.

    Silly! (1.00 / 1) (#175)
    by Iris on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 02:04:57 PM EST
    You call Obama's supporters sexist, and yet you obviously are viewing all women as angels and all men as sexist devils.  McCain/Palin would appoint SCOTUS justices that would narrow our rights as women, and Obama would appoint justices that solidify and defend them.  McCain/Palin would limit public funding for contraception, and take no action to ensure equal pay.  No matter what else you believe to be true, these are simply the facts.

    It may be emotionally satisfying for you to imagine yourself as teaching the Democratic party some obscure lesson about how to treat women, but what you're suggesting is the equivalent of leaving a thickheaded husband to shack up with an abusive boyfriend.  Please don't inflict McCain's conservative, anti-women policies on my daughter just because you're angry.

    "[Revenge] is like a poison, it can take you over, and before you know it, turn us into something ugly." - Spiderman 3


    Noo, I don't think all women are (5.00 / 1) (#179)
    by tootired on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 02:20:21 PM EST
    angels. I just think that it's time that women get a chance to be a bigger part of the decision making process in our government. Some will succeed and some will fail - just like the men do. But if they're not there, they (and we) will never truly be heard. I've voted for a lot of men while holding my nose so I'm used to not having the perfect candidate to vote for. If a male candidate came along that was a positive vote for me rather than the lesser of two evils, I might vote for him, but since that is seldom the case, I can safely say that I will be voting for women, any women, for awhile. When I go to the polls in my district on November 4th, there is only one race that does not have a female candidate running. We've been working hard here to get women on the ballot, and it's paying off.

    hrmmm (3.00 / 2) (#60)
    by wystler on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 10:45:38 AM EST
    So Palinpalooza is merely sexism, eh? None of the criticism valid at all, given it's an attack on a sister?


    Those ain't your eyes that have been opened.

    While some Democrats give lip service to choice or equal pay, which are important components to social justice on women's issues, misogyny nevertheless remains as deeply rooted in this party ...

    Breathtakingly ignorant. (Of course, just my own opinion.)

    Or perhaps the GOP is the true champion of choice and equal pay?

    Maybe not only sexism (5.00 / 6) (#71)
    by ruffian on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 10:53:47 AM EST
    but it is certainly there.  Hard to deny that when Obama supprters are calling her the c-word.

    Obama supporters? (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by wystler on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 11:08:26 AM EST
    Like it's a monolithic bunch?

    Have the actions of PUMAs taught you nothing about the loose-cannon nation of folk on the web?


    Calling any woman THAT name is wrong.

    But there's plenty that'd be hard, if not impossible, to deny for any "monolithic" group of supporters, no? The Obama camp didn't have the market cornered on ugly supporters. Why, there are more than a few archived TL comments ...


    I'm an Obama supporter (5.00 / 1) (#196)
    by Iris on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 03:03:26 PM EST
    and I'm not doing that.  Are you really going to let internet commenters determine your vote?

    If Joe Biden hadn't advised us to not question our opponent's sincerity, I'd be questioning yours.


    strawmen? (none / 0) (#119)
    by wystler on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 12:03:42 PM EST

    but if that kind of accusation makes you feel better ...


    Can't wait for the exit polls. (none / 0) (#1)
    by oculus on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 09:29:22 AM EST
    Who did you vote for President?  If the answer to this question if Barack Obama, did you do so because Sarah Palin was John McCain's VP choice?

    Heh (none / 0) (#4)
    by Steve M on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 09:34:49 AM EST
    The linked article hardly gives us a rigorous examination of the issue, that's for sure!

    I think (none / 0) (#41)
    by Repack Rider on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 10:28:17 AM EST
    that Hillary's enthusiasm for Obama may be a result of a deal where she gets to be on the SCOTUS if he gets elected.

    That is a great place for her to land.

    No way (5.00 / 9) (#61)
    by Radiowalla on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 10:47:39 AM EST
    Furthermore, she isn't a constitutional scholar.   She's a fighter for the people.

    Her support for him is because he needs her and she is good Democrat and wants what is best for Americans.  


    SCOTUS? No way. (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by Pieter B on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 10:51:26 AM EST
    Not that I think Hillary is unqualified for SCOTUS, but Justices have to keep a low profile, and she's an advocate by nature. I honestly think she'd turn it down, but she's surprised me before.

    Majority Leader is a much better place for her IMO, but she's unlikely to be elected because of the Democratic PTB.

    2016? Please, people, she'll be 61 in less than two weeks, and I don't think she'd want to take on The Toughest Job In The World® at the age of 69. I have little doubt she could handle it, I just don't see it happening. 2012 is highly unlikely as well, absent a major Obama screw-up, which would make electing another Democrat to fix it a very tough sell.


    funniest darn thing. (none / 0) (#66)
    by cpinva on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 10:49:47 AM EST
    it was perfectly fine when both the MSM and the obama campaign were openly sexist in their denigration of sen. clinton, but now it's not okay for palin?

    methinks thou doth protest too much.

    so far as i've seen, the vast majority of negative comments and news articles about gov. palin have little or nothing to do with her gender, and everything to do with her unique non-qualifications for the job.

    incompetence transcends racial and gender boundaries.

    Come back after your boss (5.00 / 3) (#149)
    by Joebasic on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 12:59:03 PM EST
    slaps you on the fanny and calls you a c--t.
    And then sas he's firing you because of your lack of qualifications.

    Hillary, 2016, and SCOTUS... (none / 0) (#208)
    by BigElephant on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 05:14:47 PM EST
    Hillary will run in 2016.  "Close to Zero" chance means "Not Zero".  If she was sure she wasn't going to run, she'd say, "No way.  I swear over Chelsea's life that I won't run."  I'll say it.  "I will not run for president, period.".  My odds aren't "close to zero" -- they are zero, because there's no chance that it will happen.

    The SCOTUS position would be ideal for her.  And frankly she'd probably be a better justice than president (I've heard from people that worked in her campaign that as an executive, she left something to be desired).  Earl Warren, one of our greatest justices ever, was a governor.  I think Hillary would rank up there as one of the best ever.