"Hill will still Win".....agree or disagree with this editorial?

John Podhoretz
New York Post
July 3, 2007

<concluding snip>

"Hillary Clinton's greatest problem as a candidate was precisely that she was a potentially revolutionary figure - the first female president, as well as a liberal icon who would shift things to the left.

Now she's the establishment candidate of the Democratic Party - a "semi-incumbent," in Plouffe's words. With Obama as the first serious black candidate, her standing as the first serious female candidate seems far less revolutionary. And with him running to her left, she is well-positioned as the more moderate choice.

Obama and his partisans will need to tread carefully here. If they try to caricature Hillary as Bush in a dress, they're going to suffer for it. It's a ridiculous conceit, so divorced from reality that it will give her easy ammunition both to demonstrate her liberal credentials and to seem the victim of over-aggressive negative campaigning.

No matter how much money Obama raises or how much enthusiasm he generates, Hillary is still going to have to stumble for him to catch up to her. That's the advantage of being a front-runner. Many candidates stumble. But some don't. And so far, Hillary doesn't seem like a stumbler."

http://www.nypost.com/seven/07032007/postopinion/opedcolumnists/hill_will_still_win_opedcolumnists_john_podhoretz.htm?page=1

Thfpfffffffffffft

"Obama would be a revolutionary figure as a nominee and as a president. He wouldn't only be the first black president. He would also be ----->the most liberal person to be elected president since Lyndon Johnson<------. It makes sense that he would so easily inspire more than a quarter-million Americans to pony up for him."

johnson was more liberal than carter or clinton? interesting

Maybe when she was younger; but,unless she's going to unveil herself as the modern-day FDR after election day, I don't see it. And I like her. I think she's got brains and more than God's share of determination.

younger she was a Republican. President of the Young Republicans. Should check out her senior thesis sometime. The one that was sealed on WH orders (since released). I'm one of her critics so I would say I fall in the category of those that believe the thesis is

"evidence of a lack of any ideology besides a brutal willingness to attack opponents and accumulate power in the Alinsky style." (to quote an article by msnbc's Bill Dedman)

If the shoe fits. :shrug:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton

In 1968, her junior year at Wellesley College, Hillary Rodham became a supporter of the anti-war presidential nomination campaign of Democrat Eugene McCarthy.




edgr

I knew I liked her!

Many candidates stumble. But some don't. And so far, Hillary doesn't seem like a stumbler.

It's more evidence (if evidence is needed) of the press actively novelizing the news. If a candidate - - any candidate - - doesn't "seem like a stumbler" to the MSM, they will ignore any actual mistakes the candidate makes. That's what they did with Smirk. If a candidate - - any candidate - - "seems like a stumbler" to the MSM, they will pick the candidate apart with a microscope to find stumbles, even inventing them if they have to. That's what's happened to scores of Democrats for the last 15 years.

Verbally, I think she stumbles a lot. She definitely isn't the great orator her husband is.

But the MSM portrayed him as the greatest leader ever known to man from 1999 to Sept. 2005. (One of the ways they did this was showing video footage of him without sound whenever possible.) If the MSM decides that Hillary Clinton is the second coming of The Lord, she could look and speak like a bad Jerry Lewis impersonator, and they'd never report it. And if they decide that she's a freak show on wheels who is destined to loose by a landslide, they will turn a piece of lint on her shoulder into supporting evidence. These folks gave up any connection to reality about 15 years ago.

that should raise lots of red flags!

:rofl:

She'll be the next president of the United States.

she is feared by the right wing!!

she is the only candidate they attack.

for the general election if she is the nominee. They know Dems. don't listen to them; they're just tuning up for later. Hillary is their best fundraising tool. In an election in which the Rethugs are currently disorganized and down in the dumps, nothing will do more to rally them and bring out money and votes than Hillary. And the Rethug nominee will not be Bush, so they will have someone to rally around. They can't wait to take on Hillary. That is also why their lackeys in MSM are promoting Hillary so heavily.

because they want her to be nominated and win. What makes you think they are not "in shape" for that?

Somehow, your thesis does not hold water.

Hillary Clinton is my senator, and she will be my president.

That was praise that Ann Coulter was sending John Edwards' way.

They want her to win so we can lose.

They are excellent candidates, but let's not treat them as flawless individuals with magic superpowers.

Well said.

Come to NY where she is a hugely popular Senator. She got 67% of the vote in 2006. She won in Republican upstate NY by a landslide.

I think someone who says he/she doesn't know anyone who likes her is acting like Pauline Kael (movie critic, New Yorker magazine) who famously said that McGovern MUST have won the election of 1972 - she didn't know anyone who voted for Nixon, so it was 'impossible' for Nixon to have won, much less won in a landslide.

Narrow group of acquaintances, illinoisprogressive?

How can she be at 50% and have no one who likes her? Thats anecdotal crap that doesn't hold up to the facts.

How can this be when she is leading the polls? :wtf:

Sure, he made some mistakes, but not any major stumbles.
Mostly, I think it was a case of people going with the more electable candidate. Remember, we weren't very confident back then. Now, on the other hand, we are as confident as ever. And even though Obama is to the left of Hillary, he's not so far to the left that he is unelectable. His ability to speak in measured terms make him seem more moderate to the public than he his record would indicate.

People are not shopping for a candidate like in 2004 with Kerry.

How the HELL can anyone here defend THAT?? :grr:

Do you have a link...I have missed that one.

Maybe the guy saw the flourescent light?

Peace.

Do you really want a lawyer for president again? She voted for the war and the patriot act and takes money from big pharma/HMO's. How can you trust her to do what we the people want? For that matter how can we trust anyone anymore? They all feed off the corporate money trough. They are rich and they have tax payer paid for health care. She and the others don't really care about the common person or the poor. I don't see any candidate that is a good choice at this point.

That is a media talking point.