CBS Poll: Hillary Clinton a good role model for women...

[SaveElmer]

The latest New York Times/CBS News poll shows a broad majority of Americans — 68 percent of respondents — think Hillary Clinton is a good role model for women.

Sixty-six percent of men and 70 percent of women who responded to the poll call Mrs. Clinton a good role model for women. Single and younger women are more likely to call Mrs. Clinton a good role model than married or older women are – though majorities in all groups say so. More than six in 10 married women and more than three in four single women call her a good role model. More than seven in 10 women under age 45 say she’s a good role model; it’s six in 10 among women over age 64.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/07/19/poll-hillary-clinton-as-role-model//

[glowing]

1. Good role model does not equal good leader.

[SaveElmer]

2. Polls show people believe she would be that too..nt

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[emilyg]

17. well now you know me

and i'm not paid

[glowing]

24. But you are on this board... I mean in my real life, everyday talking

to people (I work with a lot of people everyday)... I don't know anyone who is voting for her.

[wyldwolf]

25. I want you to consider what you're saying.

Every poll taken. All of them - show Clinton with a double digit lead over Barack Obama. The latest polls show her defeating all Republicans. Further, recent polls show her flipping red states.

Now, either you don't know many people or you're implying all the polls are consistently wrong.

[RaleighNCDUer]

26. And you might notice that those of us who live in red states

disbelieve in her ability to flip red states. At least, not the deep south - maybe in Iowa or North Dakota she might, but I don't think she'd carry a single state in Dixie.

[SaveElmer]

37. I live in a red state...

I am confident she will put up a very good fight here...polls have her within the MoE of Republican candidates...and she is making a strong push here...released a long list of endorsements a few weeks ago and campaigned here last week...

Polls show she would likely flip Iowa, New Mexico, Ohio, Arkansas, Nevada, and West Virginia...the last poll I saw had her 1 back in Kentucky and within the MoE in Virginia...

[wyldwolf]

43. I live in perhaps the second reddest state in the Union

[ronnykmarshall]

35. Oh yeah ... I'm getting PAID!

:eyes:

What a crock.

[texastoast]

3. I think she is a good leader, excellent in fact

I just don't think she can win. Hope like hell I'm wrong, since she seems to be the front runner.

[glowing]

13. I think she voted for the Iraq war, never apologized for this mistake,

and follows a paid line. She could have been great, she should have stood her ground....

Good Role model: school, education, progressiveness in her time

Bad Leader: Paid for by Corp Amerika.

[wyldwolf]

16. you're right. She didn't grovel at the feet of "progressives" and beg their forgivness.

..follows a paid line...Paid for by Corp Amerika.

More "progressive" psuedo-socialist BS.

[rodeodance]

99. I am not a single issue voter.

[liberalnurse]

7. She my role model.

I can hardly wait until she is my Leader of America too!

[Forkboy]

4. Thanks for giving us the poll minus the spin that Wyldwolf decided to add.

[SaveElmer]

5. What spin?...nt

[liberalnurse]

9. I got that poster on ignore.

I'm sensing it was a good choice!

[elizm]

14. Me too!!

[RaleighNCDUer]

29. Ya know, it seems to me that putting someone on 'ignore'

is kind of like sticking your fingers in your ears and going "Laa laa laa laa laa!!!"

If you ignore them, how will you know what their arguments are? And as Democrats, and part of the reality-based community, aren't we supposed to be able to argue on the facts?

[rucky]

84. Ever hear Roseanne sing the National Anthem?

she got the words right, but...

sometimes you just gotta ignore.

[wyldwolf]

12. I put some of the text in bold. Must be the "spin" he's referring to.

[Forkboy]

15. "Majority Of Americans Believe Hillary Is A Good Role Model"

1500 people is not a majority of Americans as was claimed elsewhere.

[rinsd]

18. Psssssst

"The latest New York Times/CBS News poll shows a broad majority of Americans — 68 percent of respondents — think Hillary Clinton is a good role model for women."

[wyldwolf]

20. Forkboy is attempting to dispute years of polling, sampling, and marketing techniques because...

... he doesn't like what the polls are indicating.

[rinsd]

22. Its a very strange argument.

Not as strange as someone telling me that because Hillary is at 35% in the polls 65% of Democrats don't want her as the nominee but still strange.

[Forkboy]

31. And I've made neither argument.

:shrug:

[rinsd]

34. I didn't accuse you of making the 2nd argument but you seem to be makign the first

This is a poll. Poll extrapolates results to the larger populace which is why they try and match up the demographics of the sample with the demographics that exist in reality and weigh accordingly.

The argument that the poll's sample size does not equal the populae and is therefore unreliable conveys a deep misunderstaidng of polling.

[Forkboy]

30. Wrong

I'm pointing out that the wording is spin.When you can prove that 1500 people equal a majority of Americans let me know.

For the record,I think Hillary is very good on women's issues,and I think she's better than the others will be.So no,the poll results don't bother me,no matter how much you wish you could peg me into your little thought boxes.

[wyldwolf]

44. It is an appropriate sample size.

I don't have to prove that polling techniques are reliable. I minored in marketing. Straightforward polling is completely legit.

[wyldwolf]

19. The linked article plainly states, "a broad majority of Americans..." Now, where is your problem?

Do you have a problem with the poll results? Do you have a lack of understanding of how polling and sampling works?

And why were you dishonest in saying I put "spin" on the article when I was quoting what the piece said?

[Forkboy]

28. It's spin

68% of 1500 people is NOT a "majority of Americans".It doesn't matter how polling works.My statement is simple and true.Had they said a broad majority of Americans we polled,then it would be accurate.If we're going to start extrapolating small polls to mean all Americans this will become an even more entertaining forum.

I do,however,apologize for saying it was you who added the spin.

[SaveElmer]

42. Weak...

[wyldwolf]

45. extremely weak... but is is a behavior I've noticed...

...on the left and the right - discrediting scientific findings when they don't match your pattern of thinking.

[SaveElmer]

21. How do you feel about the Census admin sampling to pick up undercounted populations...

Inner CIty, homeless etc.?

[RaleighNCDUer]

32. Do you understand that the census base of millions is a little differnt

than a polling base of a few hundred?

[SaveElmer]

49. Not really...

Statistical sampling relies on selecting a sample size appropriate to the population being estimated. IN either case, whether a limited potential population (Democrats in Idaho), or large(Inner city residents througout the US), you are still sampling a mere fraction of the total population...

[RaleighNCDUer]

60. But the larger the sample, the more accurate the results.

And there are so many things that can skew those results with a small sample.

So you sample in a college town, but only call during the day to land lines. The answers you get will way reduce the student population, and overemphasize the stay-at-home moms.

The professional pollers know how and when to call to best get the results they want, how to set the parameters of the poll to get the population they prefer. That's how there are such things as "right leaning polls" and "left leaning polls". They know how to target the people who they want to answer the phones.

How do you think Gallup went from being the most trusted name in polling, to being a 'right leaning poll'? When the son took over from the dad, he reset the parameters.

If you want a truly representative poll, you not only call land lines, but also cells. You not only make phone calls, you knock on doors. You not only poll during 9-5, but 5-10. And you don't poll 1500, but 15,000. THEN you may have a representative poll.

[SaveElmer]

62. The sample size is determined by the population size...

It doesn't make it any more or less accurate...

[RaleighNCDUer]

66. Nonsense.

The smaller the sample size the greater effect any variance within the group will be.

Randomly choose 10 people and ask if they are gay. If three say yes, you're supposed to extrapolate that 30% of the population is gay? If none say yes, then obviously gayness is an urban legend?

"Sample size is determined by the population size."

No, sample size is determined by the poller. To pretend any differently is to fool yourself. In this particular poll, the sample size polled women 2 to 1 over men. There are twice as many women in the country as men. There aren't twice as many Democratic women as men. (And if it was just about Democratic women, where did the '40% of Republican women think she's a good role model' come from.) Obviously, someone chose the sample size, and the parameters of the sample.

There are 300,000,000 people in this country. What are the parameters that say they can get the mood of the entire country by phoning 1500 of them? What if, by random chance, all 1500 calls went out to Texas and South Carolina? Improbable, but not impossible. Wouldn't that skew the results of the poll?

So the poll selects (selects, not randomly allows) "likely voters". Doesn't that skew the results? Isn't that tremendously different than "registered voters"; or "people who happen to be at home at 3:00 in the afternoon"?

By selecting the size of the sample, and choosing how the sample is contacted, the poller selects for a result. Otherwise, there would be no variance between polls. One poll has * at 38%; another, at 30%. Who do we believe? With a 4% MOE, both could be right, or he could be at 42%, or 26%.

[Forkboy]

68. Thank you very much for having the patience today to explain it better than I.

That is the point I've been trying to make.

[SaveElmer]

72. Except it is wrong...nt

[Forkboy]

79. "What a deep response..."

[SaveElmer]

103. My full answer...

Was given in response to your friend..

[SaveElmer]

71. Nope...

Sample size is determined by the estimated population of groups you are trying to poll...as well as demographics, estimated party affiliation, and dozens of other factors for which prospective respondents are screened. It does not skew the result, it determines the mood if you will of the population for which you are screening.

Does it skew the result to ask Democrats only who they prefer in a Democratic primary? As an indicator of the mood of the general population it does, but not for the population of folks for which the poll is aimed.

These same kind of models are applied to dozens of areas...so there is absolutely no reason to believe that this poll is wrong simply because it doesn't produce the results you wish...

In any case the argument is not whether you believe pollsters are purposely skewing polls to get a predetermined result, for which there is no evidence...since polling firm after polling firm come in with approx the same results...but whether then the same techniques applied to other areas are also to be dismissed...statistical sampling for censuses for example...

You are still taking a small fraction of the population and extrapolating population figures based upon that.

You are trying to thread an untenable needled...trying to convince us that 60 years of political polling is bogus, while not applying that standard to other areas...there simply is no evidence for it whatsoever...

[RaleighNCDUer]

83. Nonsense again.

Do YOU know the parameters of this poll? How they came up with 1500 people? If it was a nationwide poll, why 1500? I've seen other nationwide polls that sought 6500 respondants. If they're both nationwide polls, why don't they have the same sample size. Again, I ask, WHY was the poll overrepresenting women by 2 to 1? Were the women polled 50/50 Democratic and Republican? If, in the sample, the 1000 women were 75% Democratic, wouldn't that give reason for such a high rating for Hillary, particularly when 60% of Republican women do NOT see her as a good role model? Who, exactly, was polled? A poll across the upper midwest would give a significantly different result than a poll across the deep south.

Because the pollsters decide what sample they are looking for. There is no formula that says 'if we are asking about a Democrat, we poll 1500, and if we are asking about a Republican we poll 1750'. 1500 people is what (I don't have my calculator to hand) 1/2 of 1/100th of 1% of 300,000,000 citizens? By what possible mathmatical permutations do you get a 'representative sample' out of a number like that?

And, BTW, the word they specifically used was 'respondants'. People who respond to the polls. Might that not automatically exclude people who are working 2 jobs and just too tired to bother with polls? How do THEY feel? We don't know because they won't answer the polls.

The larger the sample, the more accurate the result. That's why we can trust the exit polls on election day, polling 20,000, 30,000 people as they leave. That's how we KNOW the last two elections were stolen.

And why do you keep bringing up the census? You do know, don't you, that the census tries to count EVERYBODY? 298,000,000 out of 300,000,000 is a rather large sample. That's why they CAN extrapolate estimates from it.

As for the generations of experience with polling, there are two major things to remember: the changes in demographics in the past generation, and the willingness of partisan operatives to cheat in any way they can that has come to dominate the republican party. For the demographics, just a generation ago it was easy to predict that calling a home at 7:00 pm you would get the man of the house, the sole breadwinner, on the phone. Today, you're more likely to get the babysitter, because both he and the wife are out to work.

There's a great SF story, bradbury, I think, about the man elects the president by his single vote: the poll watchers calculate all the trends, incomes, preferences of the nation and pick him to be the absolutely average, typical voter - therefore, whoever he votes for is the perfect choice for the nation. Of course, it's absurd. So how is a choice by 1500, out of 300,000,000 any less absurd?

Incidently, I think she is a fine role model for women. So are Barbara Boxer and Maxine Waters and Nancy Pelosi. Each of whom I think is a better choice for president.

[SaveElmer]

102. Nope again...

You're argument boils down to the notion that pollsters are purposely skewing polls to achieve a desired result, and because neither you nor I know what parameters Gallup used the results are therefore wrong...

Ridiculous..


As to the census, the argument is that there are certain populations that are undercounted. Democrats generally wish to use statistical sampling - polling - to get a more accurate count of those undercounted. Therefore, they would conduct such polling in areas where they believe such undercounting is occurring...so no, they are not using statistical sampling to count everyone, they are trying to identify undercounted populations...which still requires polls, which means they are polling a fraction of the population...

[Forkboy]

36. Weak.

[SaveElmer]

40. What a deep response...

You question the whole notion of polling because it produces a result you don't like. So if you believe as it appears, that polling is bogus, it is perfectly natural to ask you how you view it in other areas. Democrats for the most part believe sampling should be used to determine more accurate counts for those that normal census procedures to not catch. Do you believe sampling should be used for that purpose?

[wyldwolf]

47. why won't forkboy answer that question?

[Forkboy]

63. Because Forkboy was getting bloodwork done because of cancer.

[Forkboy]

65. ...

You question the whole notion of polling because it produces a result you don't like.

No,not because I don't like the result.Put that canard away.Replace Kucinich with Hillary and I'd still have a problem with the interpretation that a small sample of 1500 can be accurately extrapolated to 300 million people,which,if the phrase "the majority of Americans" is to be accurate would have to be the case.The further you extrapolate the more chance for deviation,making the end result shakier and shakier the further it's taken.And taking it from 1500 to 300 million is a long distance.It's called extrapolation beyond the data.My problem is NOT the scientific method in and of itself,it's the way it's used as spin.THAT'S not science,it's politics.

I think the term used is a major stretch,and for what I hope will have to be the last time,not because I don't like Hillary.

[ronnykmarshall]

6. This should be good .....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vfDXlgmKFyU

[GreenTea]

8. One thing you can say, the republican owned corporate media loves Hillary!

We hear about her adoringly everyday by the republican media, and republicans donating money to Hillary, every day how much money Hillary is bringing in....And the conservative DLC is doing all it can to make sure she is the corporate Dem candidate...But indeed the media want her as candidate...She & Obama are the darlings.

And they certainly want Edwards gone!

[elizm]

10. I prefer a woman role model who...

...doesn't feel she has to be hawkish like a man to be taken seriously...someone like Barbara Boxer.

[Cameron27]

23. How is Hillary any more Hawkish than Edwards

or Obama? How do their voting records compare, and as far as voting for the IWR and apologizing, Edwards blames faulty intelligence, and "the Clinton People," but never mentioned the fact that he never bothered to read the NIE. And he was on the Intel Committee. I've read both their positions on Iran, and Edwards came across far more hawkish IMHO.

How does Obama's voting record compare to Hillary's?

I'm seeing this hawkish label thrown around, but I've never seen anyone back it up.

[GreenTea]

27. Don't worry republicans love Hillary...

The corporate press (we never stop hearing how much money Hillary is taking in (or Obama) they are the republican media darlings, the republican fund raisers for Hillary, the corporate owned and sponsored DLC...Hillary will be the Dem nominee don't worry!

The republicans want to run against who they believe they can beat much easier than an excellent charismatic politician with a great progressive platform as John Edwards...They are doing everything possible to destroy Edwards early and get him out of the race...

The republicans much prefer and like their odds running against an African-American or a woman. This is no slight to either, it's just quite obvious...Much the same way ALL republicans have been trashing Edwards from the very beginning....just as they did with Howard Dean in 2004...The republicans don't just sit around each and every day, they are busy and conniving and setting things up, it's to their benefit to make sure the weakest Democratic candidate is nominated and running against them...And Edwards would indeed kick republican ass and the republicans absolutely know it!!

[Cameron27]

38. I doubt that Hillary's their choice

but even if she is, the Clintons have proven themselves to be fierce fighters before, and I expect the same now. Edwards can't get past the bs hair, hedgefunds and houses smears, and we're not even out of the primaries. I don't see him doing any better against the republicans than he's doing right now, which is badly.

Obama's an unknown, but I think he's more than able to fight off the GOP attacks.

[GreenTea]

41. Yeah the conservative DLC who is NOT impartial but should be, is backing only Hillary

The DLC should be neutral to to all Dem candidates just as Howard Dean's run DNC is supportive & neutral to each & every Dem candidate. Support the DNC- NOT the DLC!! Again, the DLC is very conservative as you must be, you I'm sure consider yourself a moderate, whatever the fuck that is... clearly you are no FDR liberal....but they almost had Hillary's candidacy locked up for her...when James Carville tried to strong arm Howard Dean to step down at the DNC and no doubt Carville wanted that job and still does...But Dean stood strong with his 50 state strategy and basically told Carville to fuck off...

Could you imagine if Carville ran the DNC and with the corporate/conservative backed DLC in Hillary's corner...No other Dem candidate would of even had a chance...But you would of liked it that way...Carville, Emanuel, Clinton's, DLC corporatism...very power hungry bunch...they won't let go...And now Hillary with republican Rupert Murdoch supporting her, the republican owned corporate media stroking her, the republicans knowing their best chance is going up against a woman Or even better an African American would be the republicans wet dream, but that won't happen....So Hillary will be our nominee whether we like it or not....the republicans certainly want her to be the nominee, there's no doubt about that. So be happy Hillary will be the nominee!!!

[Cameron27]

46. What the hell are you talking about?

You don't know me at all. I'm not backing Clinton in the primaries, but I'd like to see some balance around here. I replied to someone who called her hawkish. I want to know what that's based on. You told me all the reasons Hillary was the GOP's choice and why you think she and Obama can't win the general. I told you why Edwards' isn't a better choice IMHO.

I can imagine a lot of things, but it's useless debating someone who can read minds, and equates opinion with fact.

[GreenTea]

48. Thank you!

[wyldwolf]

50. Where do you get that the DLC is backing only Hillary?

[GreenTea]

52. Are you for real?

I guess the obvious means nothing to you?

DLC Leadership Team

From left to right: Harold Ford, Jr. is chairman of the DLC. U.S. Sen. Tom Carper is vice chair of the DLC; U.S. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is chair of the DLC's American Dream Initiative; Al From is founder and CEO of the DLC. (Not pictured: Bruce Reed is DLC president; Pennsylvania State Representative Jennifer Mann is chair of the DLC's State Legislative Advisory Board (SLAB); Columbus (OH) Mayor Michael Coleman is chair of the DLC's Local Elected Officials Network(LEON).)

DLC Leadership Team Hillary Rodham Clinton
DLC | Blueprint Magazine | October 18, 2006
Fulfilling the American Dream
By Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton
In 2005, Sen. Clinton took charge of the American Dream Initiative, a collaboration to strengthen the middle class. A year later, she unveiled the product of that effort at the DLC's National Conversation.


DLC | Speech | July 24, 2006
Remarks of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton at the 2006 DLC National Conversation
By Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton
"Our strength, our economy, our values derive from the promise of America, the promise of lifting yourself up through hard work in a society that rewarded results."


DLC | Blueprint Magazine | July 22, 2006
Saving the American Dream
By Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, Sen. Tom Carper, and Gov. Tom Vilsack
We must build an opportunity agenda for the middle class and all who want to join it.


DLC | Blueprint Magazine | October 21, 2005
America in 2020
By Hillary Rodham Clinton
The chair of the DLC's American Dream Initiative has an optimistic vision of the not-too-distant future.


DLC | Speech | July 26, 2005
Remarks of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton to the 2005 DLC National Conversation
"We have come to Columbus today to begin a new voyage of discovery toward the America our children deserve from us. That is our solemn responsibility and our great calling as Democrats and Americans."



DLC | Press Release | July 25, 2005
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton Accepts Position as Chair of the DLC's 'American Dream Initiative'
The American Dream Initiative is a year-long project of the DLC that will engage political, business, labor, civic and intellectual leaders in a "national conversation" to help shape a positive agenda for our country and the Democratic party.



DLC | New Dem Of The Week | August 5, 2002
New Dem of the Week: Hillary Rodham Clinton
New York Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton last week hosted the 2002 DLC National Conversation in New York City, anchoring the two-day program with a stirring keynote address that focused on the major themes of the event: security, opportunity, and responsibility.

[wyldwolf]

53. Answer the question. I have seen no endorsement from the official apparatus of the DLC...

...nor any of their top board members. Have you?

[GreenTea]

56. Again, I guess the obvious means nothing to you? Hillary's on the DLC board

and you think she is supporting someone else! I know you live and die Clinton's, but be somewhat objective...I know it's impossible...

The DLC has to pretend to be impartial...tell me who you suppose the DLC i.e., Bill Clinton, James Carville, Rahm Emanuel is supporting....at least be honest about it.

[SaveElmer]

57. Bill Richardson is a proud DLC member...

Edwards was a DLC member...

Do you have any link...anything at all...that shows the DLC has made an endorsement...

[wyldwolf]

59. Bill Richardson is a DLC member.

Time for YOU to be objective.

The DLC DOES NOT have to pretend to be impartial. Where did you get THAT from???

Bill Clinton is supporting his wife.
James Carville is NOT a member of the DLC any more than Bob Shrum is.
Rahm Emanuel has not endorsed anyone. Some think he'll endorse Obama.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

77. Even Obama thinks Rahm will endorse him nt

[draft_mario_cuomo]

76. Barack Obama is confident that Rahm Emmanuel will be endorsing him

There may be a split in the DLC between HRC and BO. Since Obama seems to be lurching to the right of her he may actually win the DLC sweepstakes, just as he won the Wall Street sweepstakes among the current 18 candidates.

==In a Tribune editorial board session, Obama was asked about Emanuel’s dilemma.

“Rahm knows the right thing to do,” Obama said with a smile.==

[rinsd]

54. Has the organization issued a formal endorsement?

Have they donated money to Clinton's campaign?

There are certainly DLCers supportive of Clinton's candidacy with a few on her camapign team but I don't think the org has endorses anyone.

[RaleighNCDUer]

67. I think Greentea might be wrong on this --

DLC would happily back ANY of their candidates - primarily Hillary, Obama and Richardson - and gladly sabatoge any non-corporatist candidate.

That's why the republicans are always talking up her and Obama - with a DLC candidate, if the Dem loses, they win, and if the Dem wins, they win.

[wyldwolf]

74. I think you're wrong about one thing

There has never been a case of the DLC sabatoging a candidate - unless you have more than leftwing conspiracy theories to present.

[RaleighNCDUer]

78. The Scream. nt

[wyldwolf]

80. oh, silly me! The DLC replaced Dean with a robot twin that night!

[rinsd]

81. The DLC is responsible for the scream?

[RaleighNCDUer]

86. In answer to the both of you,

it was the DLC spokespersons who ripped Dean worst about it - they first promulgated the nonsense that it was something insane and out of control. Fox picked up on it, because Fox is Fox, but those who used it most were Deans democratic opponants, the DLC advisors who did NOT want Dean in the lead in New Hampshire.

And, notably, it's the DLC supporters today who still think it's something to make fun of Dean for, despite it having been debunked years ago, and the DLC who claim credit for our meager electoral wins in 06, when it was Dean's 50 state strategy that put us in the majority.

When Gore moved away from the DLC in 2000, they responded with comments about his sighs and earthtones, and THEY cost him the election as much as anyone.

Turncoat dems, working for corporate america. I don't care who their candidate is, if the DLC candidate is the nominee, we lose. Even if we win.

[rinsd]

88. "it was the DLC spokespersons who ripped Dean worst about it"

Then it should be very easy to find their quotes on it.

"Fox picked up on it, because Fox is Fox, but those who used it most were Deans democratic opponants, the DLC advisors who did NOT want Dean in the lead in New Hampshire."

Let me guess this straight, you're mad because Dean handed his opponents a campaign killing gaffe on a silver platter and they used it?

"And, notably, it's the DLC supporters today who still think it's something to make fun of Dean for, "

Well, it was funny. Even Dave Chappelle (though a couple of years late) did a bit on it

"despite it having been debunked years ago"

Debunked? How exactly do you debunk something like that. The adding of the crowd noise didn't really take away from the fervor. Maybe it helps disguise the voice crack at the end better.

"
the DLC who claim credit for our meager electoral wins in 06, when it was Dean's 50 state strategy that put us in the majority."

Which wouldn't have been possible if the DNC was still in debt which was a situation resolved by Terry MacAuliffe. 2006 had many fathers. Dean deserves kudos for his 50 state strategy. There are others that deserve recognition as well.

"When Gore moved away from the DLC in 2000, they responded with comments about his sighs and earthtones, and THEY cost him the election as much as anyone."

Again, the quotes should be easy to provide.

[wyldwolf]

94. Links?

[elizm]

58. YOUR COMMENT MAKES NO SENSE!

The post is about whether Hillary makes a good role model for WOMEN. How do you gets Edwards in this? I merely was pointing out that I prefer Boxer as a role model for women....she had the good judgment to vote against the war, she just last week was bold enough to say she wanted impeachment back on the table. She is bold enough to say what she thinks. WHAT a role model for women.....that was the point. Geesh!

[Cameron27]

73. And I'd like to know what you're basing the label

hawkish on because I've never heard that description tossed around about Edwards or Obama. Fine, if it's the IWR vote, then my question's answered, and now I know you probably consider Edwards hawkish too.

[AZBlue]

98. Oh, you're wasting your time.

Hillary Bashers, Inc. members don't care a bit about facts. Facts schmacts.

[elizm]

55. Self Deleted

[RaleighNCDUer]

33. That is a meaningless poll.

Plug just about any major public woman into that, other than Paris Hilton or Anne Coulter, and you get the same results.

Elizabeth Edwards is a good role model for women.
Elizabeth Dole is a good role model for women.
Elizabeth Shue is a good role model for women.

WTF?

What is glossed over is that 60% of Republican women disagree. There is a hard core of absolute negativism about Hillary that even something as innocuous as "good role model for women" cannot overcome.

[Ethelk2044]

39. I would never make her a role model for myself or my daughter

[emilyg]

82. Why not?

She's very bright.

[jillan]

51. Well I guess that confirms that I am an older, married woman.

:eyes:

[zulchzulu]

61. Cheating, skirt-chasing husbands agree!

You can get away with affairs and still stay married! Don't ask, don't tell...

[SaveElmer]

64. Fun to watch desperation set in...

Keep it up...you are very entertaining...

Obama would be proud to have a supporter like yourself...

[Forkboy]

70. Why would either camp be desperate?

Hillary is in a great position to take the whole ball of wax,and Obama is in a great position to give her a run for her money.Neither camp has anything to be desperate about.Damn,I'd be thrilled if DK was in either spot.

[zulchzulu]

75. Speaking of desperation...Bill must have been when he was getting serviced by Monica

Yeah...what a guy...

:crazy:

[rinsd]

85. So do you think Obama ever ran into Bush while buying coke?

Two can play this game.

But in reality, none of us should.

So think about that.

[rinsd]

89. I posted this in the heat of anger and it was stupid.

I should not have let the behavior of a supporter no matter how vile influence how I post about a candidate.

[zulchzulu]

95. I'd bet BIll Clinton did cocaine

He didn't inhale, of course...

:rofl:

[Forkboy]

69. It was their marriage.

They have the right to deal with it as they see fit.I wonder sometimes if it was political calculation on her part,but who knows? Maybe she just loves Bill.Either way,it's a topic that doesn't affect me one way or the other.There's both more reasons to like her or dislike her than this.

I don't like Hillary,but she'll be a damn sight better than any Republican running,and probably as good as anyone on the Dem side for that matter.It's one of the few areas I like about her.

[Kingstree]

87. Professionally, she ascended to this level at her daughter's expense

but personally as a role model for her own daughter and other women, I don't think so. It seems that Hillary, as well as many political wives (Sen. Vitter, Former NJ Governor etc) seem to care only about their images and morals be dammed. These women, who are weak minded, are totally dependent on the political careers of their husbands for their life's security, image, and social standing in order to validate their life or career aspirations. It's no different that a women who marries for money or fame because many have been taught this by their mothers that this is the way to secure their lives or they just don't have the will to do it themselves. The "go find and marry a successful man" is really shameful because these women can't handle real life without someone to lean on. It's would be different if you brought something to the table. The worst part is that you pass that down to your daughter(s) to carry on this pathetic tradition.

Hillary Clinton is no different when it comes to Bill. Numerous affairs with women over their marriage and the ultimate insult: Monica Lewinsky. But Hillary decided not to be strong, protect her daughter and set an example for women all over the country, JUST DIVORCE THE BUM. Instead, she took the low road: hung in there, knowing that her political career would be over if she divorced him and she would not be in the position she is in today to run for Prez. Does career aspiration trump your family's morality, your child's welfare and correctness? In her case, yes and for every woman who thinks that she is a role model, their will settle for a life of dependence, emotional and physical abuse at the hands of men who have complete control and power, knowing full well that their significant other is more concerned about economic standing, career, and social image at the expense of their children, spending years in therapy just to justify their existence. I guess as a equalizer these women either go on some talk show or write a book to get public sympathy. If Hillary was strong, she would have branched out on her own, survive the jungle of political criticism, and still get to this position. She choose not to. Sad.

[rinsd]

91. You can just feel the bitterness emanating from you.

Yeah a woman with a tough marriage at the top of her field with a great kid is a horrible role model.

:eyes:

[Kingstree]

93. No bitterness here, it's just the truth and the reality.

Plus, if the truth hurts, oh well. She allowed this to happen and she had the chance to change it. Plus we don't know her daughter personally so who is it to say she's a great kid. The media? We can't answer that question. A strong woman would have done otherwise. Respond with a valid justification. I'll listen. Scheming and manipulation for voter choice is a game, especially in politics, just weed through the bullshit. You can make better choices.

[zulchzulu]

96. Extremely spot on

Senator Clinton knew that if she divorced her husband after the affairs (like most decent, strong women would) that her political career would be over and done with.

Now how does a mother tell her daughter about the Clinton marriage in a serious way that would make her a "role model"?

Here's how it might go:

Mother: I want to just tell you that you should look to Mrs. Clinton as a role model for all women to be like when they grow up.

Daughter: Really? Isn't she married to a guy who cheated on her a bunch of times?

Mother: Yes, that's true. But it was only a couple of times, we think.

Daughter: Didn't he have sex with his intern in the White House...I think in or near the Oval Office? Shouldn't she be mad at him for doing that?

Mother: Well...um...she's running for President now. Let's just think about now and let the past pass, OK?

Daughter: Mom? Why is your hand trembling? You look pale... Ouch!

Mother: Just relax...I didn't mean to prick your skin. I'm just putting this Clinton button on your blouse. For the party tonight...remember?

Daughter: Mom! Ouch! Stop it!

[Tellurian]

97. "Sicko" isn't a just a title reserved for the movies...

[mustang]

90. She's a great role model

She's been a trailblazer her whole life. She's done so much for women's and children's rights. She's strong, a great wife and mother, informed, tough, educated, and an advocate for health care. She's a passionate speaker. She's such an accomplished women and I'm very proud of her. Look, she's running for President of the United States. Whether she wins or not, that's impressive, courageous, and inspirational. She's an incredible role model.

[Alamom]

92. k&r

[rodeodance]

100. Thanks for posting this. Nice to see something positive about a condidate

[Perry Logan]

101. Ditto. It's fun to watch the Hillary-haters squirm.