At Ask Me Help Desk you can ask questions in any topic and have them
answered for free by our experts. To ask questions or participate in
answering them you must register for a free account. By registering you
will be able to:
Get free answers from experts in any of our 300+
topics.
Seems the Dems' worries keep increasing. First it was talk of how success in Iraq would be a problem for them, now their front runner has them concerned about hurting the rest of their slate.
Quote:
Looking past the presidential nomination fight, Democratic leaders quietly fret that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton at the top of their 2008 ticket could hurt candidates at the bottom.
They say the former first lady might be too polarizing for much of the country. She could jeopardize the party's standing with independent voters and give Republicans who otherwise might stay home on Election Day a reason to vote, they worry.
In more than 40 interviews, Democratic candidates, consultants and party chairs from every region pointed to internal polls that give Clinton strikingly high unfavorable ratings in places with key congressional and state races.
"I'm not sure it would be fatal in Indiana, but she would be a drag" on many candidates, said Democratic state Rep. Dave Crooks of Washington, Ind.
Unlike Crooks, most Democratic leaders agreed to talk frankly about Clinton's political coattails only if they remained anonymous, fearing reprisals from the New York senator's campaign. They all expressed admiration for Clinton, and some said they would publicly support her fierce fight for the nomination -- despite privately held fears.
The chairman of a Midwest state party called Clinton a nightmare for congressional and state legislative candidates.
A Democratic congressman from the West, locked in a close re-election fight, said Clinton is the Democratic candidate most likely to cost him his seat.
A strategist with close ties to leaders in Congress said Democratic Senate candidates in competitive races would be strongly urged to distance themselves from Clinton.
"The argument with Hillary right now in some of these red states is she's so damn unpopular," said Andy Arnold, chairman of the Greenville, S.C., Democratic Party. "I think Hillary is someone who could drive folks on the other side out to vote who otherwise wouldn't."
"Republicans are upset with their candidates," Arnold added, "but she will make up for that by essentially scaring folks to the polls."
In national surveys, Clinton's lead over chief rival Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois has widened. Her advantage is much narrower where it counts most -- in early voting states such as Iowa and New Hampshire. In matchups against potential GOP presidential candidates, Clinton leads or is tied.
Looks like Hillary is a nightmare for both sides, those who think she's may cost them the house or the Senate, and those who think she's just plain scary. So what's a Democrat to do now? Obama, "the Great Contender"? They're concerned he may flame- out. But hey, he'll look fabulous doing it...
I think you could point a finger at the Kossacks and their stooge in this election ,John Edwards for authorship . The big suprise here is that AP would publish it.
Hillary must have lots of angst . First she's not black enough and now her electability is questioned and even if she is elected does her petticoat have sufficient tails to carry the rest of the party ?
The sorry truth is from a spectrum perspective she is about as centrist as you get from the Dems. Now part of that is deception as manifested in her fake toughness in foreign policy ,and some of that comes from the false impression that she would be the heir to her hubbies generally centralist economic legacy (at least he was a free trader ) . You would think that all of their performances at the NFL-CIO "debate " would dissuade anyone from that illusion.
I think you could point a finger at the Kossacks and their stooge in this election ,John Edwards for authorship . The big suprise here is that AP would publish it.
It actually doesn't surprise me, al-AP has been doing a lot of odd things lately.
Quote:
Hillary must have lots of angst . First she's not black enough and now her electability is questioned and even if she is elected does her petticoat have sufficient tails to carry the rest of the party ?
Seems the Dems' worries keep increasing. First it was talk of how success in Iraq would be a problem for them, now their front runner has them concerned about hurting the rest of their slate.
Looks like Hillary is a nightmare for both sides, those who think she's may cost them the house or the Senate, and those who think she's just plain scary. So what's a Democrat to do now? Obama, "the Great Contender"? They're concerned he may flame- out. But hey, he'll look fabulous doing it...
America is not ready for a Black, or Female President; especially in time of turmoil.
America is not ready for a Black, or Female President; especially in time of turmoil.
I have to disagree on both points.
Firstly, Obama has something none of the other candidates from either of the two mainstream parties has -- Being a first term Senator, he has a relatively clean slate.
(Being a charismatic, eloquent and intelligent public speaker works to his advantage as well.)
And this makes him a very appealing candidate to those fed up with the antics (voting records) and stances of the rest of the field.
Then again, to a thinking person, the absence of baggage will likely translate to a lack of experience.
As for Hillary, it isn't her gender that makes her so unappealing -- It's her abrasive personality, voting record and connection to Bill Clinton -- Most people I talk to have had enough of Presidential dynasties.
What this country needs more than anything else is a breather from familial dynasties and Red Neck Crackers from Texas and 'The South'.
That isn't to say all folks living South of the Manson/Nixon Line or those who hail from Texas are Crackers -- But being a Red Neck Cracker certainly seems to be a prerequisite for election to higher office in those necks of the woods.
Firstly, Obama has something none of the other candidates from either of the two mainstream parties has -- Being a first term Senator, he has a relatively clean slate.
(Being a charismatic, eloquent and intelligent public speaker works to his advantage as well.)
And this makes him a very appealing candidate to those fed up with the antics (voting records) and stances of the rest of the field.
Then again, to a thinking person, the absence of baggage will likely translate to a lack of experience.
As for Hillary, it isn't her gender that makes her so unappealing -- It's her abrasive personality, voting record and connection to Bill Clinton -- Most people I talk to have had enough of Presidential dynasties.
What this country needs more than anything else is a breather from familial dynasties and Red Neck Crackers from Texas and 'The South'.
That isn't to say all folks living South of the Manson/Nixon Line or those who hail from Texas are Crackers -- But being a Red Neck Cracker certainly seems to be a prerequisite for election to higher office in those necks of the woods.
Well, people are not going to come out and say they are against a Black, of female President, that’s for sure. But if you take a look at the bias that still exists, it appears telling to me.
Well, people are not going to come out and say they are against a Black, of female President, that’s for sure. But if you take a look at the bias that still exists, it appears telling to me.
Being from the 'Left Coast', I'm not seeing the bias.
And posting from the capital of the 'Left Coast' as you are, I have to wonder where exactly this backwoods bastion where centrist views are apparently still allowed is located.
Being from the 'Left Coast', I'm not seeing the bias.
And posting from the capital of the 'Left Coast' as you are, I have to wonder where exactly this backwoods bastion where centrist views are apparently still allowed is located.
Your question reminds of the time when I when I was growing up, I mean by that elementary and High school in Oceanside, San Diego County. Occasionally I would hear about race relations and so forth. But we didn’t have any of the problems like, different bathroom for blacks, different drinking fountains, or the like. Blacks played on the football team and sat where they liked in the movies. I believed these race stories was from a different country than America. This was in the 1950s, which as I know now, were violent Racial times in much of the country.
Obama is imploding. Edwards is a lightweight. The rest of the Dems are all there for comic relief. The only serious contender left from the Dems is Hillary. Not because she's so good, but because she hasn't had a major screwup yet. Emphasis on "yet".
That said, there is something to be said for the argument that she is a danger to her own party. Certainly she hasn't been left-leaning enough to satisfy the moveon.org/Michael Moore types.
But think of it this way: if she is the only game in town for the far left wing of the Dem party, wouldn't they bite the bullet and vote for her rather than grant support to her Republican opponent? And if that is true, she won't really have lost them in terms of losing their votes.
On the other side, we have the moderate Dems. They will have a tougher choice: Hillary vs. Giuliani or Hillary vs. Fred Thompson.
But the difference is that moderates, by their very nature, will be willing to vote for whoever looks best to them at every level. That means that the moderate state-level and Congressional candidates won't really lose the support of their moderates, even if Hillary is seen as either too far too the left or too far to the right. Moderates, in my experience, vote the candidate, not the party. Hillary's candidacy for President won't necessarily mean a shift of moderates at the congressional level.
So, I don't really agree that Hillary is necessarily a danger to the Dem party. I think that the Dem politicians as a whole are a danger to the Dem party. They are losing their moderates by shifting too far to the left... a mistake that Hillary has not yet made. Moderates don't like to vote too far to either side... that's what makes them moderates. But the Dems have been making a leftward shift for 4 years now, and they are losing their moderates because of it. Hillary isn't the danger to the Dems. The Dems are the real danger to the Dems.
What this country needs more than anything else is a breather from familial dynasties and Red Neck Crackers from Texas and 'The South'.
That isn't to say all folks living South of the Manson/Nixon Line or those who hail from Texas are Crackers -- But being a Red Neck Cracker certainly seems to be a prerequisite for election to higher office in those necks of the woods.
I guess I'm a "Red Neck Cracker." Funny how you speak of Obama being "charismatic, eloquent and intelligent" just prior to disparaging those of us in the south. I can tell you as a "Red Neck Cracker" from Texas that I don't have a need to vote for another "Red Neck Cracker," I intend to vote for the best candidate that has a shot at winning, which at this time appears to be Rudy.
But, it is precisely your attitude that makes us leery of "left coasters" and northeastern politicians, that smug attitude is not welcome here. Your values are not our values in so many areas, we resent that liberal/progressive air of superiority that's so often on display and we especially hate Yankee politicians that come to the south and pull out their "sho 'nuff, y'all" accents like Hillary does.
Other than that, we don't care about your gender, your color or where you're from
Linear Mode
