Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« Kucinich and the New Hampshire... | Monorail! Monorail! »

Friday, January 11, 2008

Emotional Question

posted by on January 11 at 14:13 PM

Voter excitement about Obama seems to be based on ephemeral stuff: He’s charismatic. He stands for hope and change. He’s likable.

In short: Obama has found a way to make an emotional connection with voters.

But when Hillary Clinton apparently makes an emotional connection with voters—her misty-eyed diner moment and her response to a question during the debate that she’s not “likable” (her best moment in the debate)—the press pillories her for playing to emotions.

Question: Why is Clinton’s emotional connection suspect while Obama’s emotional connection is hailed as Messianic?

Just asking.

RSS icon Comments


Because the press loves Obama and hates Clinton. But good point! Next.

Posted by Big Sven | January 11, 2008 2:12 PM

I'm pretty sure it has something to do with sexism...

Posted by Aislinn | January 11, 2008 2:14 PM

Because we've witness many years of Hillary not being charismatic and when she tries, it really feels like she's trying.

Obama, for whom there isn't the weight of years of public backstory, has always seemed charismatic, offering little evidence for doubt.

Posted by Christian | January 11, 2008 2:18 PM

Because humans are highly optimized to detect insencerity, and Hilary can't even come close to making a convincing case that she's sincere.

Why is this so hard to understand?

Posted by A Non Imus | January 11, 2008 2:19 PM

why do you have a hard on for hillary? get over it. she's not going to win and if she did by some fucked up chance, she'd be hated as much as George W. Bush. please give up your boner for hillary and move on.

Posted by jimcarey | January 11, 2008 2:19 PM

Her chance to forge an emotional bond should have come when she kicked Bill Clinton out of the White House and made him sleep on a sofa in the Exectuive Office Building after Monicagate broke.

Posted by NapoleonXIV | January 11, 2008 2:22 PM

it's about different kinds of emotions. obama elicits inspiration and enthusiasm and directs it back at his supporters, clinton elicited sympathy and focused other people's feelings towards herself.

Posted by ghostlawns | January 11, 2008 2:23 PM

As if the contexts were identical, and the reactions uniform.

Sorry, but this post is nonsense.

Posted by tsm | January 11, 2008 2:23 PM

Listen to them *talk* for crying out loud. Clinton is a droning monotone, Obama has intonation, diction, vocabulary, parallelism, etc. I really think the difference between O. and C. is 60% simply oratory talent. It has nothing to do with crying.

If you want a woman to run who has oratory talent, maybe send C. to study with Maya Angelou a spell. Now there's a strong, charismatic *female* speaker.

Posted by S. M. | January 11, 2008 2:25 PM

Because Hillary gets emotional about how hard it is for Hillary. Obama elicits emotion in others about stuff larger than themselves. Big difference.

Posted by kilgoretrout | January 11, 2008 2:26 PM

A lot of people are inclined to not believe anything Hillary Clinton says.

Obama just has more credibility and implicit trust at this point, even though he's a relative unknown.

For example, even though their platforms are almost identical, I trust Obama far more to actually try to implement some of the ideas on his agenda, whereas with Hillary Clinton, I expect it all to disappear the day after the election. With Clinton, liberal Democrats know full well we'll be thrown under the bus.

Posted by Original Andrew | January 11, 2008 2:28 PM

why does everything seem to come down to a double standard this election cycle?

obama connects with voters in a way that trascends the political divide. and the kind of change he represents [to me] is a willingness to move past this whole "hippies vs. the man" baby boomer war we've been waging for the past 40 years.

clinton obviously connects with voters' emotions as well, or they wouldn't support her. and this predates her "breakdown," which is unfortunately getting way more attention than it should. that particular incident seemed to be a product of the press searching for a "dean scream" moment.

but anyway, the reason clinton's "breakdown" is suspect is probably because she is a clinton and everything they do is by nature supsect. some people just don't trust them for some reason or other.

Posted by brandon | January 11, 2008 2:29 PM

Hillary got teary-eyed when asked why voters don't seem to like her much. Obama tries to get voters excited about participating in the political process and transcending partisan warfare. Self-pity on the one side versus optimism on the other.

Posted by MplsKid | January 11, 2008 2:30 PM

I got nuthin' against Hillary. But I think she will reunite a GOP that is currently in warring factions long enough for the Republican nominee to squeak out another 51% majority.

Obama may be "untested", but he can probably beat any Republican candidate on sheer force of personality alone.

Why don't Dems want to win the election?

Posted by Yogi | January 11, 2008 2:32 PM

oh, it's pure bleeding heart liberalism...the Left is beside itself to have a seemingly viable BLACK helps the Left to smugly pat themselves on the back as they get into their Priuses to think they're going to help elect a black man into the highest office in the land, which will of course make up for 400 years of racism in this county...
despite the fact, Obama isn't as well qualified as Clinton or Edwards for the job, based on experience and his stated positions on the issues.

He seems like a great guy, and I don't think he'll suck at the job, but he's getting a free pass because he's the Left's ideal Black man; intelligent, well-educated, well-spoken, good looking and light skinned. If he had the exact same background and education but was a chubby, fugly, dark skinned man with even the slightest hint of an "urban" accent, he wouldn't have a chance in the world.

And let's face it; whoever wins the election this year is in for a rough, rough haul. Between the war and a fucked up economy, the president elect is going to have a lot of shit to deal with and I want us to elect the person who is best going to deal with all this shit and manage to hold onto the White House for more than one term.

Posted by michael strangeways | January 11, 2008 2:34 PM

Wait! I've figured it out. It's because "voters want an imaginary hip black friend".

Posted by tsm | January 11, 2008 2:35 PM

It's a reflection of Obama that he has always been pragmatic, approachable and likable. His smile is magnetic. It lights up a room. He simply is more charismatic

HRC on the other hand always seems to be snarling, dictating, whining, or preaching. Her high pitch nasally voice irritates the shit out of most people. (myself included). She represents the stereotypical bitch that we've all had to put up with dealing with in our lives.

Combine that with her political stances, her being the epitome of the status quo of pandering politicians, and her lack of experience, and you have a combination of factors that turns peoples stomachs.

Hell if that isn't apparent to you by reading all these SLOG replies, you have you head in the damn sand! Even staunch Dems on her have said they wouldn't vote for her if she was the nominee come election day.

You just need to face the facts and get over your shock at the obvious....

Posted by Reality Check | January 11, 2008 2:36 PM

Barack Obama's appeal seems more mythic, to me. It's an emotional connection in the way that an infatuation is emotional -- he stirs people in a way that makes them feel good about themselves, the country, the future. He represents a fresh start for many. He's a conduit for empathy with a youthful, can-do Americanism -- it's aspirational, Kennedyesque stuff.

Hillary Clinton is not mythic. She doesn't represent a fresh start. She's spent her life in forms of public service. She's experienced, she's put in her time, and the job still may not be hers. She's asked bizarre questions, weighed on peculiar scales. Empathy with her is humiliating, in the sense of personally humbling. That fires some people up, the injustice of it, but it's just as likely to embarrass her viewers, who know exactly how it feels.

Posted by MvB | January 11, 2008 2:40 PM

I'm not quite sure why people think Hilary will fracture the vote and allow the Republicans to win in the end, but Obama won't.

Folks, there are lots and lots of racist people in this country, and yes, many of them are DEMOCRATS!!! Shocking, I know. And guess what, not all African American's are Democrats; quite a few are Republican! Do you think they're all going to go out and vote for Obama just because he's a "brother"? It's not going to be that cut and dried and if Obama wins the Democratic nomination, it's not going to be a cake-walk to beat the Republicans. He's NOT the miracle man candidate.

Posted by michael strangeways | January 11, 2008 2:43 PM

Obama emotionally connects with his listeners.

Clinton asks listeners to emotionally connect with her. The opposite of the (Bill) Clintonian "I feel your pain."

Posted by Eric F | January 11, 2008 2:45 PM

"It's a reflection of Obama that he has always been pragmatic, approachable and likable. His smile is magnetic. It lights up a room. He simply is more charismatic"

Substitute the name Obama with the names "Ronald Reagan" or "George W Bush" and that's exactly the kind of crap that most Republicans spew...

Posted by michael strangeways | January 11, 2008 2:48 PM
Posted by Big Sven | January 11, 2008 2:49 PM

Because Obama is making emotional connections with the voters more than once every 10 years. This has nothing to do with gender and everything to do with political savvy. Obama is the better politician by far.

Posted by thehim | January 11, 2008 2:50 PM

there are a lot of people - liberal and conservative alike - who would never vote for hillary on general principle, based on her history. it's doubtful that any republican would consider voting for her, and enough dems would either stay away or vote GOP.

whether you think it's for legitimate reasons or not, she's one of the most divisive political figures in america today. obama simply does not carry that baggage, and has already demonstrated his appeal amongst independents and some disenfranchised republicans. this is why many see him as more electable.

Posted by brandon | January 11, 2008 2:52 PM

I'm with 21. Why is Obama a better candidate because he's charismatic? He's a slick politician, is that a good thing? I don't want to emotionally identify with my President, I want her to run the country well.

Posted by jhell | January 11, 2008 2:55 PM

Because Obama is reaching into our hearts and souls and expressing a strength of being American that this generation - and most of the prior one - have never or rarely seen or felt.

A 21st Century attitude.

Sen Clinton's appeal is really to a time back in the 20th Century, a time the media would like to pretend is over, but a time that still resounds for many women, and other groups, the unsettled fact that we as a nation never did have an ERA, never did make gay marriage legal, and still have a lot of anti-female attitudes. Something that other countries have mostly dealt with a lot better than ours.

Posted by Will in Seattle | January 11, 2008 2:56 PM

The press' love for Obama actually has me growing quite suspicious. On the surface he's sure a better STORY than most of the candidates, but seems like it should be wearing off by now.

Has he spoken on FCC or SEC (re: media) issues or the recent media deregulations at all?

Posted by Dougsf | January 11, 2008 2:56 PM

@michael strangeways

You think it's an accident that Obama has such a marketable persona? His popularity generates political capital that can be used to make things happen. Hillary's White House would be forever wasting time on defense. The ability to win friends is perhaps the most important qualification for the presidency, and in that he is by far the most qualified candidate. Your comparison with Bush and Reagan is appropriate, especially Reagan. When you're president and people like you, you get to change the world.

Posted by elenchos | January 11, 2008 2:56 PM

@21, you write, "Substitute the name Obama with the names "Ronald Reagan" or "George W Bush" and that's exactly the kind of crap that most Republicans spew..."

But that's exactly the point! Both Reagan and Bush were 2-term presidents who managed to push through really radical agendas, smiling the whole way. Reagan convinced a whole generation of blue-collar Dems to switch parties. Wouldn't a Dem who could do the same thing in reverse be desirable?

As to Josh's original point, I think he's conflating the media's treatment of HRC and BHO with the voters'. The media is sexist and hates Hillary, as I think this campaign has proven ad nauseum.

Posted by Frank | January 11, 2008 3:00 PM

It's one word, Josh: authenticity. And by the way, you're totally overplaying the Clintonista meme that Obama's appeal is based solely on so-called intangibles. I like the guy's Iraq and health care proposals better than hers, and it's not just because he does a more elegant job of framing them than she does.

Posted by Trey | January 11, 2008 3:09 PM

25 - bill clinton is a slick politician. obama actually has integrity to back up his charisma.

Posted by brandon | January 11, 2008 3:09 PM

Anyone who thinks the Republicants aren't going to spew as much bile on Obama and all of us Democrats in 2008 as they did against the Clintons in the 90's is in for a very rude awakening.

Republicans didn't hate the Clintons for anything other than being successful Democrats. You know what they're saying about Obama already, don't you? That we're only supporting him because he's black and a whole bunch of liberals have White Guilt. Get ready for this and much more if he gets the endorsement.

It's not a reason not to support him, but don't be disingenuous with the "oh, but the Republicans *hate* her" argument.

Posted by Big Sven | January 11, 2008 3:12 PM



Posted by stu | January 11, 2008 3:15 PM

Its amazing to me that so many people would choose the next head of state using the same criteria they use for choosing a boyfriend, or trying to decide which magazine to read, or which car to drive. Its not a statement on your individuality. You don't have to like them, or feel like you want to have a beer with them, or like their tone of voice, or their hands.

This is basically a big job interview. If you held job candidates to the standards you're applying to Presidential candidates, you'd get sued. Choosing Obama because he represents the spirit of hope is the stupidest fucking reason for picking a chief executive I can think of. How about qualifications, experience, skill - the sort of things you consider when interviewing someone for a job.

Posted by gavingourley | January 11, 2008 3:25 PM

Maybe because Obama didn't have to cry on camera to make an emotional connection.

Posted by monkey | January 11, 2008 3:25 PM

"Republicans didn't hate the Clintons for anything other than being successful Democrats."

do you *honestly* believe this?

look, i think everyone should support whichever candidate they think is best, but you at least need to be honest with yourself. i'm a life-long democrat, and i don't like the clintons [to put it mildly]. and this has nothing to do with them being "successful democrats" and everything to do with them being corrupt, morally bankrupt liars who betrayed their supporters and paved the way for bush's presidency. and i'm not the only one.

Posted by brandon | January 11, 2008 3:28 PM

Exactly how much more experience is Hillary? Her first elected office was NY Senator in 2000. She has served 8 years as US senator. She worked on Health Care issues as first lady. She was a practicing attorney.

Obama served 8 years as an Illinois Senator, (elected 1996) served two years as US senator, and is a lawyer focused on discrimination and voting rights. The experience is very similar but for Hillary being first lady.

Hillary supporters really mean that Bill Clinton is experienced and can help Hillary. Remember the 2 for 1 presidency?

But do we really need another administration where someone other than the president has more experience and influence. Do we need another second in command to pull the strings (see Cheney)?

Maybe another Clinton administration would be stable. But it certainly won't bring change.

Obama may learn on the job, but he may also bring a vitality to politics not seen for generations. In any case, he will bring 10 years of political experience as well as legal experience. Is it really fair to call him inexperienced?

Posted by Medina | January 11, 2008 3:29 PM

When you look at Hillary's mis-steps, it seems like she's the one in the middle of on the job training.

Posted by elenchos | January 11, 2008 3:36 PM

Interesting question but I think it is the wrong one. It seems to me the Republicans will have a real front runner before the Democrats. Democrats should be asking themselves who has the best chance of beating McCain.

Posted by Zander | January 11, 2008 3:37 PM

If experience is so important, McCain is your candidate.

Posted by Medina | January 11, 2008 3:40 PM


Please don't confuse why Democrats do or do not like the Clintons with why the *Republicans* do or do not. I understand why progressives feel the Clintons were not liberal enough. They (well Bill anyway- Hillary is too liberal) tend to reflect my own views- fiscally conservative and socially liberal. But I recognize progressives don't agree with me on economic issues.

But Republicans? Clinton gave them NAFTA, welfare reform, and other pro-business reforms. He was the most business-friendly Democrat to hold office in almost a century. And the economic prosperity that enabled is why he continues to be so popular today- he knew that economic security is the central concern (after physical security) for most Americans and for their government.

Your calling them

corrupt, morally bankrupt liars
is nothing more than Republican talking points and disgusts me. Yes, Bill Clinton lied about his personal sex life. And that was a mistake. And for that he and his family suffered public shame and ridicule. But about Whitewater, and Vince Foster, and all the other things, Kenneth Starr found NOTHING.


Posted by Big Sven | January 11, 2008 3:41 PM

Reagan and Bush were two term presidents who did NOTHING but BE popular. They accompished nothing other than making America a miserable place to live. (well, actually 'they' didn't do anything; I needed to substitute the name Dick Cheney in there, the real American Emperor for the last 27 years...)

even though I'm a Democrat, I cringe when I see the term "Kennedyesque" applied to Obama. JFK, another goodlooking, well spoken guy who was, in reality, a pretty mediocre president and who's greatest accomplishment was his martyrdom.

and the Republicans have learned to play dirty; they DID instigate a witch hunt against the Clintons and they'll do it again to any Democrat who wins the White House. That's their new modus operandi and they're NOT going to give it up.

Posted by michael strangeways | January 11, 2008 3:44 PM

@37 Exactly - those are the right questions to ask.

Posted by gavingourley | January 11, 2008 3:45 PM

Hillary is too liberal?!?!? And more liberal than Bill?!?!?


Hillary started out as a Republican and she's a liberal Republican at heart...

Posted by michael strangeways | January 11, 2008 3:48 PM

Please discard all the drama, becasue both Obama and Clinton are sketchy. Of the big three, only Edwards said we will be out of Iraq in 10 months if elected. I like that he said that, but he is a democrat, so hard to believe. This country needs “change” and deserves to have “hope,” but can the Democrats really deliver? I was almost willing to vote for Edwards, but it looks like he is out of the race. All you Obama fans, after the Democratic party destroys your “hope,” should look into a third party. Your enthusiasm and numbers when it comes to voting are impressive, but the sad fact is the Democratic party does not deserve you. I wish you all could do this before the next election, but I guess you will need to be stabbed in the back first. Do not become cynical hipsters after said back stabbing by the Dems.

Posted by 3rd & way | January 11, 2008 3:50 PM

@ 28, @ 29, @ 30 Thanks for adding to my thoughts. I agree fully... Nice attempt at discrediting my thoughts Michael. Unfortunately all you are spewing is rhetoric in an attempt to justify your frustration at my comparison of the two...

@ 37 perfect reply to the "experience" argument. In truth and actuality, Barack actually has the experience edge, and if Hillary continues pressing that issue it is going to bite her in the ass more and more. Those of you here who keep repeating her campaign mottos are beginning to sound like broken records.

Happy Friday

Posted by Reality Check | January 11, 2008 3:54 PM

@42 - Kennedy was much more than a mediocre president. His handling of the Cuban Missle crisis alone moves him into the top echelon of leaders (American or otherwise). But for his absolute leadership ability in the face of near universal opposition, this country likely would have had a nuclear exchange.

Remember, almost all his military advisors wanted him to retaliate militarily. His decision not to follow there advice is one of the most extraordinary acts of leadership in history.

He did more in 1000 days than most presidents did in their entire presidency.

Plus, he humped a lot of chicks.

Posted by Medina | January 11, 2008 3:55 PM

Oh. That’s easy… (@13 & @20 get it)

Obama’s emotion is a projection of his aspirations for all of us. Clinton’s are a projection of her self obsession. It’s easy to be co-opted into Obama’s emotional appeal (kind of like a pre-game team pep talk), but not so much Clintons (which is more like coffee chat).

This is fundamental to the differences in the way men and women communicate. Women tell you how they feel to gain sympathy. Men tell you how they feel to gain action. While one is empathetic to Clinton, one is motivated by Obama.

I thought that was obvious…

Posted by You_Gotta_Be_Kidding_Me | January 11, 2008 4:07 PM

obama shmama

he's boring, he's a part time senator...what has he really done for Illinois? He's all talk and if you think that putting Obama into the presidency is going to magically change the way this government REALLY works well your all a bunch of idiots....really hopeful idiots but idiots all the same.

Posted by Lynneland | January 11, 2008 4:09 PM

Of course there's a terrible, sexist double-standard. Clinton got misty-eyed and won New Hampshire. Edmund Muskie got misty-eyed and it destroyed his candidacy.

Posted by kk | January 11, 2008 4:14 PM

i guess we have to agree to disagree, big sven.

my disappointment in them has nothing to do with them not being liberal enough; i'm realistic about that stuff.

i'll reiterate: it's the corruption and lies. when you look at their record - from whitewater to the paula jones / monica thing to bill's list of 11th hour pardons to his disbarment - it's kind of hard to just dismiss it all as "right wing talking points." the right wing wouldn't have those talking points if the clintons didn't hand them over on a silver platter. that's why i feel betrayed by them.

Posted by brandon | January 11, 2008 4:14 PM

Medina, I disagree, but I learned a looooooong time ago, to not get into it with members of the Kennedy Klan Fan Club.

Reality check: I would never parrot Hillary's campaign mottos because I don't like Hillary well enough to feel that strongly about her. I'm only leaning towards Hillary because she DOES know how the system works, even if she wasn't that good at it, her first time round as co-presid...oops, I mean First Lady. Being in the US Senate for a couple years and a state rep in Illinois isn't quite the same as being in the national political spotlight for the last 18 years, even if half that was as a know nothing/do nothing political wife. (yes, I'm being sarcastic.)I'm also aware, if she WERE to win the White House, the Republicans will be merciless on her, just like they were the first time around.

Oh, and for the record, I'm not that crazy about any of the choices we have for President. I'm hoping they'll allow that sexy French President to run for US president; he's hot and French and he has a sexy mistress he takes on exotic trips. Our current President goes on trips but usually leaves Laura home 'cause she's feeling woozy.

Posted by michael strangeways | January 11, 2008 4:17 PM

@49 Oooh, nice talking point there. Have any original thoughts?

Posted by Mike of Renton | January 11, 2008 4:29 PM

Maybe because Obama actually seems sincere...

Posted by Clint | January 11, 2008 4:36 PM

I agree with the above folks that she could be challenged for sincerity because this is the first we've seen of emotion from her (although I actually found at least the "crying" (as if!) moment quite moving and sincere). To me, the big difference is that Clinton gets emotional about people attacking her and Obama connects to people emotionally about larger things like issues and the direction of the country--ideals larger than himself and this one race.

Posted by sara | January 11, 2008 4:36 PM

and another thing, big sven:

if you think whitewater was just a witch hunt because the clintons were never charged with anything, even though everyone else involved was [a number of whom were "incidentally" pardoned, btw], you don't understand how organized crime works.

Posted by brandon | January 11, 2008 4:36 PM

Mike of Renton...........

never saw that article. Good to know. All my thoughts are originally mine. I could ask you the same but I try NOT to tangle with people in Renton.

Posted by Lynnland | January 11, 2008 4:38 PM

If Clinton wins the nomination, this means the democratic party is not serious about winning the Whitehouse. I think Obama and Edwards should make a third party run. Imagine Obama not tethered to the Democrats!!!!! I am going to bring this up at the next Obama Meetup.

P.S. Suck it Big Sven.

Posted by Obamatron | January 11, 2008 5:10 PM

@ Big Sven,

I find the fact that all deaths within 5 miles of the Clintons are automatically labeled "suicides" to be pretty unnerving.

Posted by Original Andrew | January 11, 2008 5:17 PM

Uh, because her emotion was about pity.

Posted by K | January 11, 2008 5:44 PM

Will any of you ever be happy no matter the result of the nominations, the election, the inauguration? As someone said about W's biggest contribution to the country: he has managed to be totally effective in dividing this country into two warring camps.

Now on the great DEM battlefield, there are sub-warring camps between the Hillaryites and the Obamalites. The Clintons are pilloried for everything - including your ingrown toenails. Obama is charismatic, has perfect teeth and is perceived as capable of doing no wrong in thought, word or deed. This alarming paucity of critical thinking may be blamed on the PEOPLE Magazine Effect.

If Obama get the nomination, Hillary in an aberrant Lyndonesque moment will accept the vice presidency based on the same gut feeling LBJ had. When asked by Clare Boothe Luce why he accepted JFK's offer, he drawled:

"Ah'm a gamblin' man, honey, and this is mah last chance." BTW Did Hillary talk like that when she lived in Arkansas?

All of this welled-up anger for the Clintons has seemingly trashed your current episodic memory for how awful the past seven years has been under the moronic Alfred E. Newman. All of this Barack love might evaporate in the privacy of the voting booth.

Could she beat McCain? Or will she have to spend some time in a Viet Cong prison camp to increase her street cred? This post was intended to be cogent but has turned out to be incoherent. My Obada.

Posted by RHETT ORACLE | January 11, 2008 7:24 PM

obamatron@58 sez...

Suck it Big Sven...Obama and Edwards should make a third party run...Obama not tethered to the Democrats...

Good god. Here's the net net, kids. Every single Clinton supporter I've ever seen on the SLOG has said "we have to beat the Republicans in the fall, and I'll support whoever gets the nom."

QUITE A FEW (though of course not all) Obama supporters seem ready to not only slander a great President with Republican lies (hi Original Andrew! Hi Reality Check!) just to score points against his wife, but whine on and on and on AND ON AND ON AND ON about how they will leave the party or join the Republicans if their candidate doesn't win.

The more I see of this, the less likely I am to view an Obama win as almost as good as a Clinton win, if it unleashes shrill loony hysterics like we're seeing here on the SLOG. Especially given that the rational Obama supporters (who I know are out there) seem to have no interest in reigning in the mad hatters.

So I'm just going to have to give more money to Clinton. And then I'm going to go to and make sure my local precinct is well represented for February 9th.

Posted by Big Sven | January 11, 2008 8:17 PM

I think its because Obama was against the war and Clinton voted for it. She also recently voted for aggression against Iran. She panders too much and walks the fence.

Posted by Jersey | January 11, 2008 9:38 PM

Oh Big Sven, settle down bro. You are just an easy target. All prodding aside, Clinton is the worst candidate, and it will just be more of the same with her. It is just surreal for me to see somebody actually pumped up for Clinton. I like Bill by the way, but whatever good was in Bill and Hill were in 92 is gone.
If you can not see that by now, just go ahead and give her all your money, I am sure she is going to win the nomination one way or another. The question is will she win the race? She is hated by the right and the rational left. If she wins the nomination, the Democratic party is just asking to lose, and set the stage for a third party to be seriously considered. Hey, maybe Hill can save America! Go Paul/Nader!

Posted by Obamatron | January 11, 2008 9:40 PM

Obamatron- if "more of the same" with Hillary is more of what we had in 92-00, count me in. The 90s was a great decade for me, and a far better decade for almost all Americans than the 80s or the 2000s. Could it be better with a progressive? Who knows. We go with what's possible.

I wish you all weren't so surprised that some of us believe Hillary is the best candidate and the one most likely to win in the fall. I feel like I keep having to hear "Really? REALLY? You actually like her?" from you folks.

I. Love. Hillary. Clinton.

Posted by Big Sven | January 11, 2008 10:19 PM

Sexism. Sexism. Sexism. I vote sexism.

Women have to appear tougher to be considered with the same respect as a man in the same position. Hillary getting misty eyed makes the news because she's a woman. Emotion in a woman is seen as a sign of weekness. In a man, of passion. What humanizes her the most is her laugh. It's like a 250 East German beer wench of olde' type laugh.

If either get elected, I predict more soaring ecconomic growth for the billionaires of America. But hopefully a bit less war, and a bit more alternative energy. She'll cary the cities. Her male running mate (Obama) will cary the backward sexist asshole idiot vote that she can't reach because she's not warm like mommy. the voting machines will vote Republican and it'll be President Huckaby of the Jesustards.

Posted by toasterhedgehog | January 11, 2008 11:06 PM

Obama fans, keep it up and you just might make this Edwards supporter switch to Clinton. Politically and generationally I should be supporting Obama, but the cultish fervor and ugly anti-Hillary sentiments of his supporters make that next to impossible. Edwards is the guy who's really speaking the truth about what needs to change in this country, and if I have to choose between two status quo Democrats I'm much more likely to vote for the one whose followers aren't repeating GOP talking points and petulantly threatening to vote for the Republican nominee if they don't get their choice in the Democratic primaries.

Posted by Cascadian | January 12, 2008 12:11 AM

Wow Big Sven, you get hit in the head with a log or something? You a lumber jack? There is something unnatural about you fixation on Clinton. Maybe sloggin is not your thing, and you should be writing poetry for her. Print a chap book. That is great the 90’s were so good for you, but I am a little more concerned for our troops stuck in a war that Clinton voted for, and still supports. I feel more empathy for the plight of Iraqis being killed every day because Clinton, our great senate leader, has not cut off the funds for our illegal and unnecessary war. Clinton helped kill the prosperity of the 90’s by her support of Bush’s policies. A vote for Clinton is a vote of support for a foreign policy that has bankrupted us morally, and eventually financially.

Posted by Obamatron | January 12, 2008 4:16 AM

Hillary represents the same old dirty politics as usual. Scroll down the slog posts, and look at her last minute N.H. mailer accusing Obama as being anti-abortion when he simply voted "present" at the behest of pro-choice leaders. She's too slick for Obama -- he needs to hire a Karl Rove type to keep up.

Posted by hillary = female W. | January 12, 2008 8:55 AM

O, O, Obamatron: You forgot - didn't Hillary introduce West Nile virus into the country as well? And what about her failure to alleviate the heartbreak of psoriasis? You're way more unevenly unbalanced than Big Sven who's merely passionate, thoughtful and discerning in his view of the pending Obamalypse.

Posted by RHETT ORACLE | January 12, 2008 12:02 PM

Obamatron, I love you. Thank you for proving my point with your response. Obama supporters are allowed to gush ad infinitum about their candidate, but anyone who feels genuinely passionate about Clinton must be deranged or a closet Republican.

Posted by Big Sven | January 12, 2008 5:07 PM

I really don't care, I just don't think she'll win against a Republican.

Posted by Deacon Seattle | January 14, 2008 12:37 AM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).