I personally find a pivotal difference between Bill and Hillary

Bill Clinton earned the nickname "Slick Willie," but I felt he had to be to beat the Republicans. In a word they were just jealous because he kept outsmarting them. One could say that Karl Rove is a responsive product to Bill Clinton's "slickness." But this aspect about Pres. Clinton didn't bother me, in fact I applauded it, because there was so much more to the man and that was just his adept political fencing skills in action. Bill is exceptionally intelligent and genuinely personable. Hillary is smart, but not gifted like her husband (who is?), and she just doesn't strike me as being genuinely warm and friendly, though it does appear that she's been working on it (so much for the genuine part). Of the 3 qualities mentioned about Bill, the quality that comes through strongest with Hillary is the slickness part. Calculating is a better word. Yes, it's necessary for succeeding in politics, but it's a problem when it becomes the most evident characteristic, and that's one of the biggest problems I have with Sen. Clinton.

or on a personal visit with them? So, more importantly, based on your personal observations, who would you most like to have beer with?

But, yes, I did have the privilege of shaking their hands, seeing them up close, and hearing them speak in person. These are my impressions. The beer part of your response doesn't make sense to me. Sorry. Over my head, I guess.

How about Dodd? Great guy -- is he "warm and friendly" enough?

Rightwingers, who started the slams against Hillary Clinton, sure don't complain about Rudy not being "warm and friendly," oddly enough.

:shrug:

And I shouldn't have to remind you that having trouble coming across genuinely affable, real or imagined, is just one of countless characteristics we look at in our candidates. Rudy, for example, comes across--according to many rightwingers--as having questionable moral standards. I wouldn't apply this to Hillary. To give another example, Thompson comes across as being somewhat lazy. I wouldn't apply this to Hillary or Rudy. So just because I find Hillary to be a little too cold and calculating for my tastes doesn't mean I should have to say the same of other candidates for it to be a legitimate opinion.

We don't look for it, expect it, or remark upon it if it's not there.

Instead, they can come off strong, commanding, macho, even gruff -- and it's okay. It's tricky for a woman to portray that same strength and toughness without people saying she's cold or unlikeable, bitchy or shrill, etc. Or, that she isn't warm and friendly.

very warm and friendly. Do you disagree? Maybe it's just me, but he strikes me as a real nice guy.

It's not something noted in the negative for men. Its absence is not noted among men.

Yes, it can be there as a positive, but isn't required in the same way.

(For the record, you don't have to sell me on General Clark in any way whatsoever!!)

in men and women. I'll give you this, I think I understand the point that you're making and I think it's probably true in many respects. It's a quality that, when absent in female politicians, has a greater negative impact than when absent in male politicians. In a male it may be perceived as stoicism where as in a female it may be perceived as cold and unfeeling. My upbringing has taught me to always be careful to keep myself in check on these matters, and I make a conscience effort to do so. I'm certainly human and make more than my share of mistakes, but my opinion on Sen. Clinton was formed very carefully. I am not a sexist. I certainly don't hate her. I think she's very intelligent and competent. But I also feel very confident that the Clintons planned in advance to move to New York so that Hillary could run for the Senate seat, not because she had a burning passion to serve the people of New York, as it ideally should be. Hell, there's no particular reason that I can see why she would feel driven to help the people of New York. However, I do believe they planned to move to New York, have Hillary run for the Senate seat in order to position herself to run for president. It's ambitious and they've succeeded at every step, and now they're closing in on the final goal. I'm impressed with their political skill, but this is my country they are stepping on as they climb their ladder to the top and I, for one, don't appreciate it. If they succeed in their ultimate goal, they will do so without my help.

Kerry actually is by the accounts of many who know him well and was my impression when I met him with other JK group people. I know people who have met Gore and they claim he is as well.

There are many things that are sexist, this one isn't. (Calling her aggressive, where a male would be aalled assertive is one.)

and not a "regular guy" like the Bush Boy.

Maybe I'm wrong, though. :shrug:

relationbship to being affable, and to coming across as optimistic. I believe we _do_ look for this in male candidates as well. In fact, in almost all recent presidential elections, the candidate who appeared to most have these qualities won. (In some elections neither party's candidate had them!)

im hoping if she gets elected she wont repeat the huge mistakes bill made ie media dereg, welfare 'reform', nafta and on and on...

talk about moderates, that is them, too far to the right for my taste and a little too cozy with big business.

is just a warm and fuzzy personality explosion.

People have every right to dislike Hillary for her policy positions, but there's a big double standard here when it comes to character assassination. She is no more or less warm and friendly or calculating than Obama, Edwards, Kucinich, Dodd or Gravel.

And I don't believe you, or anyone else, are in a position to tell me, or anyone else, where my rights begin and end on reasons for not supporting Hillary Clinton. When you say "she is no more or less warm and friendly or calculating than Obama, Edwards, Kucinich, Dodd or Gravel," that's your opinion. I'm not going to attack you for it, nor should you attack me for expressing mine.

I'm attacking you. I gave you my opinion, as well.

That's just my impression.

Rescuing most people from poverty (from oil costs, health costs, mortgage costs, loan costs, whatever) and ending the war hemorrhage will occupy the next Dem President.

He finish 3rd in that class. Tough to compare the two from that but, certainly, neither is a dummy.

and talk with experts and be slow or wafflely on the decisions. Hillary would be better at that. She'd listen to the best experts in the world and then decide. Nobody has ever accussed her of being "too smart". But they have said that about Bill.

but if Bill waffles--and frankly I don't associate him with that characteristic--it may well be because he's so deeply analyzing the situation. Hillary, whom has recently done this for all to see, seems to be tiptoeing through a minefield, very skillfully I might add, and is only caught waffling when asked a question that she hasn't formulated an answer to yet.

For example, on the issue of drivers licenses for illegal immigrants, I got the strong impression that she was for it, but was refusing to state that she was for it because it was a politically unpopular position. I prefer a candidate to just say how they feel, make their argument, and live with it. Is that so unreasonable?

that question and didn't want to answer it. I wish she had just said "well this is a new policy in my state and I'll have to think about it".

I don't think Clinton waffled in public. Just behind the sceens.

One could say that, but then one would be wrong

Rove has been around a long time.

but his rise to eminency in the Repub. Party didn't happen until Bill Clinton's in the Democratic Party.

Rove was *. He rose as * rose.

And besides, I believe I said, "It can be said..." or something to that effect. You're trying to obfuscate my primary point about Hillary by taking this statement too literally even though I prefaced it in a way that most people would understand that it shouldn't be taken so literally. Old trick. Doesn't work for most of us.

That's the biggest difference IMO.

:rofl:

Bill didn't follow a dangerous imbecile on whom the Republicans had lost their whole political stake like Hillary will. Hillary will come in with a true mandate for change. There will be no question about her winning because of a third party Perot. The country will be ravenous for health care reform. The balance will be restored in the enforcement of existing laws. The right has been tried and has failed miserably. Bill had no such luxury.

Watch for NAFTA to be revisited. Watch for media ownership diversification. Watch the health care plan.

I have high hopes. Hillary will surround herself with brilliant, effective, sane people just like Bill did. America will be back on its feet in the eyes of the world. None too soon.

That may make more of a difference than which Democrat becomes president.

You've got to be kidding?

many of his political tactics and 'slickness' over the years.