The Road to November

[sunrisevt]

Basically, what mattstick said.

I agree that Hillary's made a bit too much out of the "experience" claim as a supposed distinction compared to Obama.

But I do think she's a qualified leader: being the most active first lady ever and running 2 successful campaigns for the U.S. Senate demonstrate enough leadership to answer the "bullshit" call on her having relevant experience.

[bluecaravan521]

Check this out: Tracy Morgan on SNL  :-D

http://www.nbc.com/Saturday_Night_Live/video/play.shtml?mea=229454

[sophist]

So now it's a "myth" that Hilary is a qualified leader?  I guess she just made tea for the Armed Services Committee.  I guess her time spent abroad acting as a representative of the White House was really just a vacation.

You can rant and rave all you want, but that was a sexist comment - and one you wouldn't bestow on a man with similar credentials.

Read the whole thread before you make silly comments like that, as I've posted detailed accounts about what Hillary did while first lady.  It has nothing to do with her sex, I've provided the correct reasonings as to why that statement is accurate.  Further, these stupid and illogical sexist claims are as about as invalid as they come.  I never said she should be baking cakes or anything of that ilk.  I stated she has really done nothing in the political field, which isn't sexist.  Simply doing nothing can be done by anyone of any gender and isn't sexist to point out the obvious lack of action.  Look at her bill record, she has introduced the least number of bills in the senate, look at her voting record too.  It has nothing to do with her vagina, so stop hiding behind these blanket "isms" and accept the fact that she isn't qualified.  I'm the first person to point out that Condoleezza Rice is carrying the Bush administration, and if anything, Hillary should be taking notes from Rice.       

edited to correct spelling

[sophist]

Basically, what mattstick said.

I agree that Hillary's made a bit too much out of the "experience" claim as a supposed distinction compared to Obama.

But I do think she's a qualified leader: being the most active first lady ever and running 2 successful campaigns for the U.S. Senate demonstrate enough leadership to answer the "bullshit" call on her having relevant experience.

Again, 5 bills written by her in 6 years as a senator (she's been running since 2006), and all 5 bills are completely whimsical.  She didn't attend one NSA meeting with Bill, or even have basic security clearance for CIA, FBI, etc based intelligence.  How is that experience?   

Think of it this way:
If I spend 8 years in a church and interact with all the members, and occasionally I receive profound insight from my peers, am I qualified to be a priest and give spiritual advice?  No.  While Hillary learned from being first lady and had unique experiences, it doesn't equate to experience to lead.  I learn everyday in a class room, it doesn't mean I'm ready to run a business either.     

[sls.stormyrider]

Check this out: Tracy Morgan on SNL  :-D

http://www.nbc.com/Saturday_Night_Live/video/play.shtml?mea=229454

LMAO
+k

[mattstick]

Hillary was no Laura Bush.

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/about/firstlady/

I guess none of this counts as experience?

[sls.stormyrider]

imo she does have more experience than Obama. Introducing bills is not the only measure of Senate experience.
That said, I don't think the experience differential is as great as she makes it out to be. McCain has more than both combined.

But, Cheney and Rumsfeld are very experienced. Look where that got us.

[sunrisevt]

Basically, what mattstick said.

I agree that Hillary's made a bit too much out of the "experience" claim as a supposed distinction compared to Obama.

But I do think she's a qualified leader: being the most active first lady ever and running 2 successful campaigns for the U.S. Senate demonstrate enough leadership to answer the "bullshit" call on her having relevant experience.

Again, 5 bills written by her in 6 years as a senator (she's been running since 2006), and all 5 bills are completely whimsical.  She didn't attend one NSA meeting with Bill, or even have basic security clearance for CIA, FBI, etc based intelligence.  How is that experience?   

Think of it this way:
If I spend 8 years in a church and interact with all the members, and occasionally I receive profound insight from my peers, am I qualified to be a priest and give spiritual advice?  No.  While Hillary learned from being first lady and had unique experiences, it doesn't equate to experience to lead.  I learn everyday in a class room, it doesn't mean I'm ready to run a business either.     

OK, I respect the reasoning despite disagreeing with your conclusion. I'm looking forward to seeing your bracket even more now.

[mattstick]

OK, I respect the reasoning despite disagreeing with your conclusion.

I don't find it to be particularly compelling.  Comparing attendance in a classroom or a church are a far cry from living daily life in the White House.

[sls.stormyrider]

living in the white house alone doesn't prove much, although she was involved with several efforts (as are many 1st Ladies, probably Hillary more than most with the possible exception of Eleanror Roosevelt)

How her living in the White House provides her with foreign policy expertise is totally beyond me. Visiting other countries with the Pres doesn't cut it.

[mattstick]

Think of it this way:
If I spend 8 years in a church and interact with all the members, and occasionally I receive profound insight from my peers, am I qualified to be a priest and give spiritual advice?  No.  While Hillary learned from being first lady and had unique experiences, it doesn't equate to experience to lead.  I learn everyday in a class room, it doesn't mean I'm ready to run a business either.     

I wonder if you feel the same way about McCain's experience in the military...

[rowjimmy]

I wonder if you feel the same way about McCain's experience in the military...

Well, I have no worries about McCain answering the 3am phone call. Senior Citizens are always up that early.

[sunrisevt]

I wonder if you feel the same way about McCain's experience in the military...

Well, I have no worries about McCain answering the 3am phone call. Senior Citizens are always up that early.

But we have to remember--he's also a cranky old man with a bad temper. He might not be at his best at 3am...

[sls.stormyrider]

from the Boston Globe

Many voting for Clinton to boost GOP
Seek to prolong bitter battle

By Scott Helman, Globe Staff  |  March 17, 2008

For a party that loves to hate the Clintons, Republican voters have cast an awful lot of ballots lately for Senator Hillary Clinton: About 100,000 GOP loyalists voted for her in Ohio, 119,000 in Texas, and about 38,000 in Mississippi, exit polls show.

A sudden change of heart? Hardly.

Since Senator John McCain effectively sewed up the GOP nomination last month, Republicans have begun participating in Democratic primaries specifically to vote for Clinton, a tactic that some voters and local Republican activists think will help their party in November. With every delegate important in the tight Democratic race, this trend could help shape the outcome if it continues in the remaining Democratic primaries open to all voters.

Spurred by conservative talk radio, GOP voters who say they would never back Clinton in a general election are voting for her now for strategic reasons: Some want to prolong her bitter nomination battle with Barack Obama, others believe she would be easier to beat than Obama in the fall, or they simply want to register objections to Obama.

"It's as simple as, I don't think McCain can beat Obama if Obama is the Democratic choice," said Kyle Britt, 49, a Republican-leaning independent from Huntsville, Texas, who voted for Clinton in the March 4 primary. "I do believe Hillary can mobilize enough [anti-Clinton] people to keep her out of office."

Britt, who works in financial services, said he is certain he will vote for McCain in November.

About 1,100 miles north, in Granville, Ohio, Ben Rader, a 66-year-old retired entrepreneur, said he voted for Clinton in Ohio's primary to further confuse the Democratic race. "I'm pretty much tired of the Clintons, and to see her squirm for three or four months with Obama beating her up, it's great, it's wonderful," he said. "It broke my heart, but I had to."

Local Republican activists say stories like these abound in Texas, Ohio, and Mississippi, the three states where the recent surge in Republicans voting for Clinton was evident.

Until Texas and Ohio voted on March 4, Obama was receiving far more support than Clinton from GOP voters, many of whom have said in interviews that they were willing to buck their party because they like the Illinois senator. In eight Democratic contests in January and February where detailed exit polling data were available on Republicans, Obama received, on average, about 57 percent of voters who identified themselves as Republicans. Clinton received, on average, a quarter of the Republican votes cast in those races.

But as February gave way to March, the dynamics shifted in both parties' contests: McCain ran away with the Republican race, and Obama, after posting 10 straight victories following Super Tuesday, was poised to run away with the Democratic race. That is when Republicans swung into action.

Conservative radio giant Rush Limbaugh said on Fox News on Feb. 29 that he was urging conservatives to cross over and vote for Clinton, their bête noire nonpareil, "if they can stomach it."

"I want our party to win. I want the Democrats to lose," Limbaugh said. "They're in the midst of tearing themselves apart right now. It is fascinating to watch. And it's all going to stop if Hillary loses."

He added, "I know it's a difficult thing to do to vote for a Clinton, but it will sustain this soap opera, and it's something I think we need."

Limbaugh's exhortations seemed to work. In Ohio and Texas on March 4, Republicans comprised 9 percent of the Democratic primary electorate, more than twice the average GOP share of the turnout in the earlier contests where exit polling was conducted. Clinton ran about even with Obama among Republicans in both states, a far more favorable showing among GOP voters than in the early races.

Walter Wilkerson, who has chaired the Republican Party in Montgomery County, Texas, since 1964, said many local conservatives chose to vote for Clinton for strategic reasons.

"These people felt that Clinton would be maybe the easier opponent in the fall," he said. "That remains to be seen."

Wilkerson added, "We have not experienced any crossover of this magnitude since I can remember."

In the Mississippi primary last Tuesday, Republicans made up 12 percent of voters who took a Democratic ballot - their biggest proportion in any state yet - and they went for Clinton over Obama by a 3-to-1 margin.

John Taylor, the GOP chairman in Madison County, said he toured various precincts and witnessed Republican voters taking Democratic ballots to vote for Clinton.

"Some people there that I recognized voting said, 'Hey, I'm going to vote in this primary this year, right now. But don't worry, in November I'll be back,' " Taylor said. "They were going to do some damage if they could."

Another popular conservative radio host, Laura Ingraham, who had also encouraged voters to cast ballots for Clinton, crowed about her apparent success the day after Ohio and Texas voted.

"Without a doubt, Rush, and to a lesser extent me, had some effect on the Republican turnout," Ingraham told Fox News. "When you look at those exit polls, it is really quite striking."

Some political blogs have suggested that the influx of Clinton-voting Republicans prevented Obama from winning delegates he otherwise would have, by inflating Clinton's totals both statewide and in certain congressional districts. A writer for the liberal blog Daily Kos estimated that Obama could have netted an additional five delegates from Mississippi.

It is also possible, though perhaps unlikely, that enough strategically minded Republicans voted for Clinton in Texas to give her a crucial primary victory there: Clinton received roughly 119,000 GOP votes in Texas, according to exit polls, and she beat Obama by about 101,000 votes.

Not everyone casting ballots for Clinton did so primarily to sink her, however. Brent Henslee, 33, a Republican who works at a radio station in Waco, Texas, wanted to keep Clinton in the race to expose more about Obama, whom he sees as more "fluff than substance."

"I'm not buying into all the Obama-mania, is the main reason I did it," he said. "A lot of these people don't know a thing about this guy and they're crazy about him. And I thought that maybe keeping Hillary alive will just shed some more light on the guy."

Of the nine remaining major contests, four - Pennsylvania, Kentucky, Oregon, and South Dakota - have "closed" primaries, which means only Democrats can participate.

If Republicans and conservative independents continue their tactical voting, it may be more likely in Indiana, Montana, and Puerto Rico, which allow anyone to vote, and possibly in North Carolina and West Virginia, which open their primaries to Democrats and independent voters.

"If you are a Republican you could pull a Democrat ballot and vote for the Democrat presidential candidate you think will stand the least chance of beating McCain in the fall general election," the assistant editor of the Greene County Daily World, in southwestern Indiana, wrote in a blog post earlier this month.

Meanwhile, Clinton, despite trailing Obama in delegates, is projecting confidence about her chances as the nomination race careens toward the April 22 Pennsylvania primary. The morning after her big wins in Ohio and Texas, she was asked on Fox News whether she had a message for Limbaugh.

"Be careful what you wish for, Rush," she said with a grin.

Scott Helman can be reached at shelman@globe.com.

[sunrisevt]

 :lol: Joke's on them--it won't work the way they want it to. The dems (party and candidates both) will see eventually the danger in a protracted ugly campaign.