I simply don't understand why she's losing to him.

[Writer]

Let's say for a moment that we don't know anything about either candidate personally. Simply based on their explanations of the issues, Hillary Clinton cleaned Barack Obama's clock. This woman is ready to go - I mean READY. Her explanations on social security and on taxation were lucid and understandable - and yes, I agreed with her!

So why is she losing to him? For the reasons that Barack Obama complained about in the beginning. The false issues that distract us from what truly matters. For some reason, it's okay to attack her lie on Bosnia (which she apologized for tonight), but it's not okay to mention Jeremiah Wright and Obama's comment on "typical white people." People in glass houses should not throw stones. Stones have been hurled at Clinton's credibility left and right for the last few weeks... but tonight Obama got caught in the shattering glass.

Come on, Democrats - what are we doing here?

Futilely yours,

~Writer~

[Pale Blue Dot]

1. ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=5513668&mesg_id=5513668

[melody]

2. Because she is -- you don't have the right to cancel out all your fellow Democrats

YOU may be wrong ... had you considered that?

My candidate was Edwards, but he's no longer in the race. All Hillary is doing now is destroying our chances.

[roguevalley]

134. not supporting her cancells out all dems? What? THis is delusional.

Bosnia was the last straw for me. Using my nephew and other soldiers who were actually under sniper fire at the same time she was having tea is not excusable. Fuck it.

[melody]

140. Did you READ my post?

To accuse someone of delusion without reading ... oy.

My nephew is over in harm's way right now -- and I despise Hillary, which should be obvious from my Obama icon.
Read my post *in context* and maybe that will help.

[sandnsea]

3. She's going to cut our social security benefits

Some people can fucking HEAR.

[lapfog_1]

18. And up the retirement age. Don't forget that part.

I think I prefer taxing people that make a *lot* of money (which, sometimes, is ME).

[sandnsea]

21. Because soooo many people make more than $100,000

:crazy:

If I made that much I wouldn't mind getting taxed for it.

[BeyondGeography]

4. Where did she come down on that whole Iraq War Resolution again?

Did that ever happen? What's her attitude on taking money from lobbyists? What are her favorable/unfavorable ratings again?

And has the pizza guy in Iowa been paid yet?

[TML]

5. What about those California colleges

Pay your bills, Hill!

[polpilot]

91. Let's don't find ourselves in the fall saying: "I can't believe she's losing to McCain."

She would be.

[datopbanana]

6. There are a lot of reasons. One, she doesn't play well with others.

Back during the Clinton Administration, we had the best chance maybe ever to fix health care. But she refused to work with others or compromise in any way and that killed it.

80% of a good thing is better than nothing.

[LulaMay]

7. You're not alone by a longshot. She's clearly the more capable, ready candidate.

[GarbagemanLB]

10. There's always 2016..it's okay.

[Tesha]

81. She's counting on 2012, after helping defeat Obama in 2008.

And *THAT*, in a nutshell, is why she's losing; more and
more people can see her (and her husband's) grand strategerie.

Tesha

[greguganus]

85. Who would ever vote her for any office after this fiasco? n/t

[Tesha]

94. The Clinton supporters here seem like the 28% True Believers who still believe Bush is God.

They're still supporting her now; they'll support her then.

Tesha

[Rockholm]

84. Obama should be a good president in 2016.

When he has gained experience.

[marshall]

121. Yep, 8 years in office will have given him lots of experience

And it won't be dodging nonexistent sniper fire.

[Rockholm]

146. He'll never see the Oval Office.

Maybe on Tee Vee.

[emilyg]

12. By a mile.

[Zachstar]

16. Like this?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x119397

[PBS Poll-435]

27. Get over it...really..

She said that she had apologized (like Obama) and then she did something REALLY CRAZY!!

She said "I'm sorry."

In the present tense.

[GarbagemanLB]

28. An Obama has apologized for the wording of his 'bitter' remark, yet Hillary Oakley keeps harping on

it....I guess that tells us which has more class and character.

[PBS Poll-435]

33. WTF?

I am sorry if you took it the wrong way because you are too stupid and poor and have grease under your fingernails and other stuff like that. I am sorry that you didn't divine my intent, you are only working and stuff.

That is not an apology.

Saying, "I'm Sorry" on national broadcast tv?

That is an apology.

[GarbagemanLB]

36. and Obama hasn't said he was sorry in speeches broadcast on CNN/MSNBC?

[PBS Poll-435]

38. NO, he hasn't

"I am sorry if you are/were/might be in the future offended."

Is not an apology. Ever.

[datopbanana]

49. He didn't, won't, and shouldn't

He did apologize for wording it in a way that zealots can distort and misrepresent it.

Looking at you, prodn2000.

[QueenOfCalifornia]

111. You are showing your ass

by calling someone "stupid"

It is really schoolyard bullying. You should apologize. In the present tense.

[PBS Poll-435]

130. You should re-read what I posted.

I didn't call anyone stupid.

[Fovea]

114. Take that cheap wad of ad hominum you will pretend is exemplum

and shove it where your candidate gets her strategy.

And I doubt anything even looking like a Clinton apology will be forthcoming.

[Bensthename]

128. She has a good record (her husbands).. But she is too unlikeable.

Please dont ask me to explain the unlikeable part. I would be here all day typing.

[WA98070]

57. Based on the past four presidents she is definitely is the MOST qualified.

She can lie with a straight face and ask the question, "Who do you believe, me or your lying eyes?"

[shayes51]

76. exactly

[SoCalDem]

8. She's like a toothache that just will NOT go away

you can tolerate it and go on, but it's always there, just aching and aching..

Personally..I have HAD it with the whole DYNASTY thing,..I am SICK to death of Cintons & Bushes..

We have over 300 MILLION people here, and surely there are OTHER people who could/should be president..


serve a while..do your job and GTF outta DC..go back to being a regular person.. That's how the framers wanted it..they did not even want "parties"...

[Spider Jerusalem]

9. Because she's a repeated and proven liar.

Because she's not likeable. Because she voted for the fucking war. Because she's disliked by over half the country and her negatives are not going to go down. It's not about the issues alone. Hillary's baggage makes her a poor candidate. The fact that a lot of people just can't STAND her makes her a poor candidate. The fact that she's viewed as dishonest and untrustworthy makes her a poor candidate. The fact that she voted for the Iraq War Resolution and has to date not apologised for doing so makes her a poor candidate. McCain is at least consistent here; he voted for it and supports it now, Clinton voted for it then, doesn't support it now, but won't admit a mistake.

[Zachstar]

15. Video

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x119397

[Zavulon]

42. This post contains almost everything I was going to say.

The only thing that was omitted was the utter fucking stupidity of her lies - "I was named after Sir Edmund Hillary," "I ducked sniper fire in Bosnia," "This is what Chelsea was up to in New York on 9/11," etc. We don't tolerate such blatant shit from Republicans, and we shouldn't tolerate it from a laughably-professed Yankee fan who puts a 'D' after her name but voted for the Republicans' fucking war.

Writer, could you honestly give me a decent argument if I were to say that she would adopt nothing but straight conservative principles if she thought it would get her in the White House? I like you and like your posts, but I fucking HATE Hillary and think she's nothing but a disgrace to our party. Obama isn't perfect, but at least he's capable of beating McStain. Hillary isn't. Reread Spider Jerusalem's perfectly correct post. Nothing said in that post is wrong. I have voted straight-ticket Democrat since 1992 and even I loathe her. Let me restate that - even I LOATHE her.

The day I got to vote for Obama over her was one the top ten thrills of my life. She's fucking scum, no matter how many people believe her ridiculously fake tears.

By the way, about two weeks ago I got to attend a funeral of a soldier who died during the war she voted for (I refer to the vote she refuses to admit was a political calculation or just an outright mistake). I didn't have any doubts before that funeral, but if I did my anti-Hillary stance would certainly be confirmed by now. I really don't want to go to war with Iran and North Korea because of some unprincipled bitch who votes the way trial balloons blow.

To be honest, I'm stunned that you even asked your question.

Writer, I really do like you and your posts, but if you think Hillary gives a flying fuck about you or anything other than herself, you simply haven't been paying enough attention.

[apocalypsehow]

116. What you said. n/t.

[cliffordu]

11. We are electing someone who will be a better President

than Hillary, that's what.

[Zachstar]

13. You want a reason? Here is just a few

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x119397

[kevinmc]

14. America is tired of corrupt lying Politicians .. she falls in that category...n/t

[Zachstar]

19. And video showing that.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x119397

[kevinmc]

29. That video has been getting a lot of play seen it on a lot of sites n/t

[Zachstar]

30. It is getting attention for a reason!

People are fucking tired of being lied to OVER AND OVER again!

[PBS Poll-435]

39. You are right....

Slice & dice yutoob videos have no place in this great discussion!

[nebula]

17. It was mentioned during the debate

59% of Americans do not find her to be trustworthy.

and most people say Obama won the debate, by an overwhelming margin.


ABC Poll:

Who won the Democratic debate?

Sen. Barack Obama: 20,651
Sen. Hillary Clinton: 7,231
It was a tie: 2,166

[Zachstar]

20. There is a reason people do not trust her.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x119397

[mcctatas]

22. because we are all a bunch of kool-aid drinking, gun-toting,

bible thumping, anti-immigrant, America hating, Weather Underground loving, crazy pastor associating cultists? Or maybe because she's run a deplorably negative campaign, is not right on the issues, hasn't met a voting bloc she won't pander to and has a mere passing acquaintance with truth?

*oh I forgot, typical white people

[FrenchieCat]

23. Buy a clue then......

or take off your blinders. :shrug:

[JeffR]

24. Respectfully,

she's one of the worst presidential candidates I've seen in years. It seems I'm not the only one who thinks this.

[MercutioATC]

25. Truthy post...

yes, I noticed the Colbert avatar ;)

[Raine]

26. The majority of people don't trust her

it comes down to that.

[Zachstar]

43. And they have a great reason to not trust her.

Check this out http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x119397

[ZombieHorde]

31. but it's not okay to mention Jeremiah Wright and Obama's comment on "typical white people."

Wright is guilt by association, which will probably hurt him with some non-thinking Republican leaning Obama supporters.

It is a fact there are typical white people, otherwise there would be no such thing as marketing. Though this may hurt him too, with some non-thinking Republican leaning Obama supporters.

[Hissyspit]

32. Because she keeps agreeing with the right-wingers in an effort to defeat Obama?

[Citizen Kang]

34. Wow, easy question

1. She's untrustworthy
2. She'll say and do anything to get elected ie. she's disingenuous
3. She lacks charisma


Hillary is smart, tough and would be an improvement over Bush as a president. But she does not inspire trust or confidence or hope in a vast majority of Americans, thus I don't think she would be an effective leader. Competent? Yes. Effective? No


But here's the main reason and the reason most people don't get elected in this country. PEOPLE DO NOT LIKE HER AS A PERSON.

[casus belli]

35. What is this "we" crap?

What are "we" doing? The answer would be negating the destructive opinions of people such as yourself through a democratic process designed for that exact purpose.

[dchill]

37. The first thing that drew me to Barack Obama...

He's NOT Hillary Clinton. Seriously, there's a LOT of that around, believe it or not. Many people have a viscerally negative impression of her. I think it's those among us with good character judgment. I'd rather go with what I don't know about Obama than with what I do know about Clinton.

[scheming daemons]

40. Because nobody FUCKING LIKES her...

Americans WANT to like their president.

[Warren DeMontague]

41. Start with "Voted for the Iraq War", and work your way forward from there. nt

[Zachstar]

44. You can go even before that!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x119397

[Maraya1969]

45. I dunno. I got bored and cut my toenails.

[McCamy Taylor]

46. Because the GOP voted to move Florida's primary and Michigan followed. That is why.

[quakerboy]

47. Your title tells it all.

The true elitism is shown clearly by how some people cannot understand how she could possibly be losing.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

48. In fact I bet Hillary has said almost those same words a number of times:

"I simply don't understand why I'm losing to him."

[jobycom]

50. She's not. She's losing to the media and the manufacturers of Kool Aid.

Obama is just the beneficiary of it all.

They've been working on Clinton for two years, at least. Newsmax and Drudge started it, spreading stories over the Internet that were picked up by operatives and posted on sites like DU, where Democrats read about them and believed they must be true coming from DU, missing the original source. They did this with the flag burning bill (misrepresenting it as a ban on flag burning, even though liberals like Boxer and Bayh co-sponsored it, and it was a critical move to defeat the anti-flag burning amendment). They did it by claiming she was trying to ban video games, by misrepresenting her work to hold Rockstar accountable for hidden scripts on its Grand Theft Auto game--a violation of a ratings system Rockstar had voluntarily agreed to.

They did it by misrepresenting her IWR vote, her IWR speech, her actions involving Iraq after the invasion began, and even her admission that the IWR was a mistake. They simultaneously accused her of being anti-troops and pro-war, and they planted ops all over to express outrage, so liberal sites like DU became critical in spreading their lies.

What amazes me, I guess, is that there are people who still support her, even after a smear campaign at least equal, and more likely superior, to what was launched against her husband and against Al Gore in 2000. You'll even note people around here pretending to be liberals now spouting the talking points of the Republicans about Bill Clinton.

All Obama has to do is continue to promise his voters what they want to hear (even though he's proven he doesn't mean a word of it), and not get caught in bed with anyone. Hell, he could get caught in bed with someone and his supporters would praise him for it. He's Bob Roberts. Or he's the Maltese Falcon--the stuff that dreams are made of (remember that the Falcon was fake, too).

[Skidmore]

72. People are no longer buying what the Clintons are selling.

The Clintons are not martyrs. They are also not perfect and all knowing and never wrong. Their public actions and words have gotten them to the place where they are now. They have worn out their welcome. As for promising voters they they want to hear, no one panders better than the Clintons. Their fall from grace has little to do with the game the media is trying to play to profit from a horse race. It has a lot more to do with the attempted perpetuation of a broken system that has been in place for the past three decades. It is time to clean house. Change the page. Toss the bath water and the baby out.

[jobycom]

77. They are buying what the media is selling about Obama, instead.

[Skidmore]

78. The media isn't selling much about Obama. Instead they look for

the next mole hill attack to ramp up the next news cycle. What Clinton supporters don't get is that Obama has a large network of supporters across many states and doesn't need to rely on the entrenched cumbersome political machinery of the same party leadership that has not followed through on what the Democratic Party voters have sent them to do for some time now.

Obama has consistently spoken to a change that needs to be both systemic and conceptual in nature. Thirty years of the same two family doing things the same way using the same smashmouth politics has only gotten the nation a world of hurt. We have been forced to a perpetual 51-49% gridlock in which nothing is resolved and more resentment is accrued--a hothouse atmosphere in which issues cannot be resolved because the language is too fraught with symbolism to encourage honest debate. It is not healthy for the nation or the future of the world to be trapped in perpetual cold civil war. Time to reject this type of politics and to move on.

[jobycom]

80. Obama speaks whatever he thinks his audience wants to hear.

If you can't see him spinning like a Republican, that's your lack of vision, but one thing you said really pisses me off. No, two. First, we haven't had "thirty years of the same two families." We had the Bushes for too many years, and now we have a second Clinton running. Don't lump the Clinton's with the bushes. I can do that, too. We've had too many years of the Bushes and Obamas. Yeah, we haven't had any years of the Obamas, but if you can lump families with no connection other than a job title, I can be as ridiculous, too.

The second thing bothers me more. Obama talks a lot, but he doesn't do what he says. He says he was against the war, but voted like he was for it. He promised while campaigning for senator not to vote for troop funding increases, but voted for them as soon as he could. He claims not to take oil and lobbyist money, but does (or did until he decided to make an issue of it). He claims not to take PAC money, but blatantly took PAC money to fund his own PAC, which he used to donate to the campaigns of people who endorsed and/or declared for him. He says he's against NAFTA, but tells Canadian officials it's just political posturing. He claims he will have the troops out of Iraq in 16 months, but then tells the BBC that it's not a firm plan, to not confuse campaign positions with presidential policy.

He talks, but he doesn't do what he says. Never has, and there's no reason to believe he'll start now.

The presidency is not about talking, it's about doing, and Obama's pretty words won't mean squat when he starts doing what he's done all along. At least with Clinton (who was my third choice, so I'm not sure how much of a Clinton supporter I am, except in comparison to Obama) we have a record to look at. Yeah, she might not talk as pretty as Obama, but was we can see in the Senate, they do about the same things. The difference is, she doesn't try to pretend she's about something else.

If Obama wasn't the media darling, he'd have been out of this long ago. He's got nothing above community-level experience, he lies constantly, he's been caught contradicting himself so often I'm surprised even his supporters take him seriously (and bringing up snipergate doesn't clear him of anything). He's a media creation, no matter how fervently his supporters want to believe otherwise.

[Skidmore]

82. I'm sorry I pissed you off, but

we have had entirely too many years of the same two families. I'm not the only one who feels this way, and as more time passes, I would daresay that many more will feel the same way. The Clintons were value added to the Bush legacy. Bill Clinton covered up Poppy's debacles and Hillary enabled Little Boot's debacles. It seems to me that the Clintons have done much talking over the years, and their delivery has been six of one and half a dozen of the other. A very mixed bag indeed. I see Hillary talking out of both sides of her mouth or just plain making stuff up. Give me someone who understand how to put things together at a community level because my community is hurting. I don't need some voodoo political magician who looks at chicken entrails to divine the nations need--the toxic mix of Clintons and corrupt political shamen we have from the Clintons. I don't like their cozying up to the Bush family and their courting of some of the worst political players of the past two decades.

[jobycom]

125. Without Bill Clinton, we'd be so far to the right now that W would like liberal.

People around here have forgotten what Clinton faced, and what he defeated in Gingrich's plans. WIthout Clinton, Gingrich's budget would rolled the government back to pre-FDR levels (as Gingrich boasted it would do), and we'd have amended the Constitution to ban gay marriages, flag burning, abortion, and no telling what else. We'd have piles of bodies reaching to the stars from all the nations that would have been invaded.

That has nothing to do with this election, but it needs to be understood, or we'll never move anywhere in this nation. We eat our own champions.

[Zodiak]

90. Did you not see the debate last night?

If the media are shilling for Obama, they did a pretty shitty job of it.

[jobycom]

115. That was their token makeup performance. That way people can point at the debate

and say "Did you see that debate? That proves they aren't shilling for Obama." Truth is, they treated him about the same way they usually treat Clinton. Another truth is that Obama would not be in this race if the media treated him the way they treat other candidates. Reminds me of the soft-glove approach they gave to Bush, and to Obama's hero Reagan.

[Zodiak]

120. Well, I can also add

"Did you see the news coverage over the last month?" because it was all about the very same subjects...all attack pieces on Obama over the tiniest of issues. So your thesis is blown out of the water there.

You really do betray yourself as one of the most biased people on DU by comparing Obama to Bush and Reagan on the thinnest of evidence. I support your right to say it, but do not be surprised that no one takes you seriously around here.

[donheld]

51. If you don't understand that then

you either haven't been paying full attention, you drank the tainted Kool-aid, or you have simply blinded yourself to truth.

[Levgreee]

52. "but it's not okay to mention Jeremiah Wright" Yes, because that wasn't talked about at all

:eyes:

[girl gone mad]

53. "It's the war, stupid." n/t

[WA98070]

54. She did NOT apologize, she just said she did in the past. She has Not and ...

will not because to truly apologize she would have to admit she lied and she won't do that.

She even lies about apologizing. A child often acts the same when caught. Keep trying a new lie until one fits.

Bosnia is a lie no matter what the meaning of is is.

[goletian]

55. HILLARY'S GOT THOSE MAGIC SOLUTIONS YOU GUYS LOVE!

lol, obama said it right. hillary is full of it. if you cant understand why shes losing to him, you simply do not understand. period.

SENATOR OBAMA: That commission raised the retirement age, Charlie, and also raised the payroll tax. And so Senator Clinton, if she -- she can't have it both ways. You can't come at me for proposing a solution that will save Social Security without burdening middle- income Americans, and then suggest that somehow she's got a magic solution.

[CakeGrrl]

56. She's a slick, polished liar. Helps when they lob the softballs at her

to try to keep her in it.

I'll bet ABC didn't anticipate the overwhelming online poll numbers in Obama's favor on the ABC and MSNBC sites. Their railroading bullshit has worn thin.

And people are seeing through it and are tired of it.

Clinton just lacks the decency and common sense to refrain from seizing any opportunity to go negative on Obama. She got booed in PA for harping on about it, and I'm hoping for a healthy dose of blowback on her at the PA polls and elsewhere. She's earned it.

[JoFerret]

152. Silly nonsense

.

[zulchzulu]

58. Pathological liars with visions of self-aggrandizement can fool some people with their game

Hillary Clinton clearly and willingly is a pathological liar like her husband. They are simply a cancer on the Democratic Party.

We will not get anything solved in this country as long as they are alive and willing to destroy the Democratic Party as they are attempting to do. They are scum.

You don't see it. That's a shame.

[oasis]

59. If Obama is denied the nomination there will be so many hurt feelings. Some

may even leave the Democratic Party. We just can't have that.:sarcasm:

[IamyourTVandIownyou]

60. I simply don't understand why she's losing to him by less than 20 points.

Don't get it.

[TheDonkey]

61. Hillary = More of the Same. Americans aren't as stupid as you wish

[krkaufman]

62. Because she's shown herself to be a devisive, destructive shill? n/t

[Awsi Dooger]

63. Agreed, and I was immeasurably annoyed at Hillary tonight

Her campaign has allowed an over valued candidate to prevail. That's all I was thinking about night, as she commanded one issue after another. I stared at her and was disgusted, that it has senselessly unfolded this way.

Writer has it devastatingly correct. About a week ago when a GDP thread asked for rationale of supporting Hillary, reason for belief she would make a superior president, my response was simple: Show the tapes of every debate, back to back to back. The totality, dating to April 2007.

She may have wobbled a time or two, like the driver's license response late last fall. But overall in a sample of 20+ it would take downhill desperate denial, like grasping at the last branch on the way down, to claim Hillary has not been the most specific and wide ranging and impressive. Crop a set of DVDs containing every debate and show them alone to a large group of quarantined and truly undecided Americans, and I'd love to wager who they would identify as the best choice as our next president.

It's like handicapping a horse race and lunging for every peripheral detail to make a case for a longshot, then the gate opens and reality sets in, with a major gulp: The chalk was simply far superior, after all. That's my jarring memory of watching the first debate last April, as an Edwards supporter on vacation at a Waikiki Beach high rise. It was front and center tonight.

Unfortunately, in this case we're not judged on concrete variables like time or distance or points. The damn public is allowed to intervene and they have a remarkable propensity to botch it.

Obama is erratic and unreliable in debate setting. He exuded confidence after gaining the delegate lead and that briefly attached to debate performance, leading to faulty media conclusion that his debates were beginning to mirror the level of his speeches. But tonight he was tired and lacking smiles or spark, seemingly in annoyed disbelief that scrutiny was cuffed to him, and often. If not for the love of hearing his own voice I got the impression he wanted to merely hold up the, "Me too" sign, after Hillary's responses. Everything tends to drift back to the beginning and Obama is not a skilled debater. Maybe he earned points for being less rigid than Hillary in a couple of areas but it wasn't his night. Admittedly, as a Hillary supporter, it didn't to be. Bitter and Co. show up in September.

In this case, Hillary was already regulated in Democratic circles by the Iraq vote. She could overcome that, barely. But slide in the propensity to knife unnecessarily, like tonight with the Farrakhan insertion, plus the perception of racism in South Carolina, and particularly the incomparably ignorant decision to ignore the lesser populated states, and it's crumbled to the point I'm exponentially more frustrated and disappointed at the Clintons, than critical of anyone who supports vessel Obama.

One more thing. A year ago I thought the pausing "uhhs" of Obama would be a more frequently addressed topic during the campaign. Their number was startling and I mentioned it on a few sites, including here.

A few months ago it was less noticeable and I concluded Obama had been prepped to avoid them. But tonight they were distractive to such degree I decided it was much more basic: When under pressure the most ingrained flaws tend to resurface. Not much different than the Greg Norman push to the right, when he was gagging late in a major event.

The relative lack of "uhhhs" from Obama until tonight only serves to hint at how much he has gotten away with, the media obsession with attacking Hillary and keeping her on the defensive.

[Spider Jerusalem]

68. She's neither liked nor likeable.

She can be the world's most accomplished debater, and that's not going to help her. Not when she has a basic personality problem of being perceived as unlikeable and dishonest. It's the same reason Kennedy was seen as winning the debate against Nixon in 1960; people who listened to it on the radio thought Nixon won, those who saw it on television thought Kennedy won. Hillary possesses a Nixonian charisma (or lack thereof), and it's foolish to discount the effects of that.

[JVS]

64. IWR. That and her Nixonian charm

[Guava Jelly]

65. I do.

:)

[dkf]

66. Could it be because people can't stand her?

A person with unfavorables that high...people are saying please please don't make me have to see you and hear you anymore.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

67. "It'th abtholutely ineckthplicable!"

--Daffy Duck :*

[usrbs]

69. Because she's not a good campaigner and has been very unlucky

as well as totally savaged by the MSM. Take the years of vitriol she has been exposed to from the Right with the active participation of the MSM, take the free ride Obama has been given, take the unfairness of the process which favored Obama (winning the popular vote in Texas but not winning the most delagates, MI, FL), and it would have been hard for even the greatest politician, which she's not.

The great late Steven Gilliard always used to claim that she lacks a political ear, which is why I never took her seriously as a candidate until there were only 2 left standing, and I had to go with whom I saw as the one far more qualified and far more prepared to be President. And her performance in the debates were a big factor in this decision.

[tabasco]

70. She's a Walmart lawyer that married Bill Clinton.

She failed miserably as health care executive officer under her husband.
She failed miserably as a Senator by voting to give madman Bush a loaded gun.
She has failed miserably running a slovenly, "kitchen sink" gutter campaign.

Not exactly a stellar resume.

What part aren't you understanding?

[cooolandrew]

71. When did Obama mention bosnia ??

[bowens43]

73. There is little difference between the two on policy.

Hillary didn't clean anyone's clock. The fact is the woman can't be trusted. She will say anything and do anbything to further the cause of hillary . We have seen that over the last couple of decades. Her style of 'politics' is responsible for the mess we're in today. America is sick and tired of the lying and the cheating and the swiftboating. Hillary is the poster child for these things. Nothing she says can be believed. There is no issue so small or so great that she won't lie about it if she thinks it will further her own interests. The abuses of power we would see in a Hillary presidency would dwarf those of the current administration. No thanks, we have had enough of that shit over the last 7 1/2 years. She is nothing but george w bush with a very slight tilt to the left. Of course that tilt to left might be a lie too. Hillary is just more of the same and she's too stupid to realize it as are most of her supporters.


The only she is ready for is the trash heap of history. She's done.

[Inspired]

74. I don't understand why Edwards lost to both of them.

[FlyingSquirrel]

75. She had already pretty much lost BEFORE Bosnia came up.

eom

[Name removed]

79. Deleted message

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

[Arkansas Granny]

83. Because she has not acquired the "rock star" image that has been bestowed upon Obama.

Hillary has been in the public eye for years and Obama has burst upon the national scene quite recently. I would venture to say that most of us didn't even know who he was before the 2004 convention. If Obama was as familiar to the voters as Hillary is it would have been a very different race, IMO.

[cherokeeprogressive]

127. Agreed. Hillary will NEVER attain anything like the "rock star" image.

The lone fact that she's been in the public eye for YEARS should tell you why. She's not LIKEABLE.

And, if she crosses her eyes like that every time she takes a shot, she'd be an embarrassment at parties.

[Vinca]

86. She's losing because she is scripted and robotic and comes across

as the same old thing. I was disgusted with her last night. With all the important issues we need to discuss, she obviously intended only to tear down Obama and not to get any other message across. He looked disgusted by it all, I was certainly disgusted by it all . . . where's your fucking flag pin? Give me a damn break.

[Jersey Devil]

87. Simple - She's the past, he's the future

People are so disgusted with the same old pols who promise them everything every 4 years and then deliver nothing. He doesn't belong to that crowd. Who knows? Maybe in 4 years he will, but voters are willing to give him a chance to prove he is different. They already know that Hillary is part of the crowd that kisses their asses before elections and then ignores them afterwards.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

88. Because she took the primary for granted and ran her Republican Lite hawk campaign

in the beginning and alienated many many people from the get-go.

When she decided to be a Democrat again, it was too late.

[JoFerret]

89. It's a very fair question

Based on all the debates it seems to me that Hillary has emerged as the consistent winner.

But think back to 2004. in the debates Bush was a bumbling inarticulate half wit. Kerry was magnificent. Did not make much difference.

Obama actually has been doing better and better in the debates until last night. he is a very quick learner and will bounce back fine.

But as to why Hillary is not in a commanding lead has to do with other factors - not competence, ideas, grasp of policy or debating skill

[eridani]

92. Because she ran and is running a shitty campaign

Spending money on shitstains like Mark Penn instead of organizers, and having no Plan B after 2/5

[Mezzo]

93. She hasn't lost yet...

which is why some people are freaking out. He. can't. win. unless. she. withdraws.

She just keeps getting up. It's fucking incredible.

[Spider Jerusalem]

101. He can and will, because even if it goes to the convention she won't get the nomination.

[Medusa]

95. It's about trust.

And the American people don't trust her. And why should they? She changes her mind and her positions every 5 minutes. She's either Annie Oakley or she's against guns. She's either for the "little people" or she says "screw 'em". She lies like a dog (Bosnia Sniper-Fire) and God knows what else. She cannot be trusted.

[seabeyond]

96. because we do know her and we dont trust her. that is the bottom line

you want an opinion, really why she is not winning, not going ot win. i am not giving this cause i am a obama fan, cant be objective. not hard for me to be.

the reason people do not want hillary is people do not trust hillary.

[burythehatchet]

97. Really, why would anyone not want to restore a monarchy.

[totodeinhere]

98. We are electing the next POTUS, not a debate team coach.

[Orsino]

99. He's the new, improved brand image, and she is not.

I don't think their politics differ much, but Clinton is also--to a greater degree than is Obama--a prisoner of Big Money. In order to pull in the big campaign dollars, a corporatist candidate can't touch the real issues directly. Her campaign is based on playing it safe. As the (relative) outsider, Obama is shaking up the status quo ever so slightly by going for the small money from ordinary folks. His support is a little more broadly based than hers.

The differences are tiny, but I'm betting on them.

[saltpoint]

100. She's run a shit campaign. We'll never know what kind of campaign

she might have run since the one she did run was truncated, defined -- by her and her handlers -- by her political celebrity and not the ideas that made her such an effective authoritative voice in IT TAKES A VILLAGE. She abandoned that voice and ran on the fumes of her husband's political stature, hiring hacks and hyper-corporate public relations thugs to work the ropes.

She is not the worst public speaker out there, but she is very far from the best, and frankly, flowers die when she begins to speak. Obama is a gifted public speaker and HIS book is still vibrant in his current voice. Hers isn't.

Somebody squandered a massive lead and a pile of cash, while Obama's crew rose and rose in polls and donations. Democrats began choosing him over her. Now he leads polling nationally, holds a commanding lead in North Carolina, is even or ahead in Indiana, and steadily eroding her once-mighty lead in Pennsylvania.

Senator Clinton has lost the nomination.

[Bonobo]

102. Because at this point, she sounds, in her tactics, like just another slimy, untrustworthy politician

[Barack_America]

103. Obama did NOT attack her on Bosnia, but she DID attack him on Wright....

And that right there gives you your answer. Hillary represents a type of politics that is destroying this country with its obsessive negativity and self-focus. And Americans are sick and tired of it.

You want the source of Obama's "teflon", that's it. The people have decided that he represents a different kind of politics and they're willing to forgive him a lot because they want and need the current style of politics to end. That's also why negativity against him tends to raise his numbers. Every time you remind people of the negativity in politics, more flock to Obama.

That's why last night's debate will end up being a victory for Obama.

[KoKo]

104. The Media and Corporate America/Defense Complex prop them up and take them down...

They choose our candidates now. They own it all. While we are left to carp and bicker. One look at Tim Russer, Matthews, Time, Newsweek...the cables...and you see how it plays. Our candidates are chosen for us and when one is up or down it's all due to what storyline the Media decides to push as it reveals some bit of info about a candidate and magnifies it. In general they don't do it to Repugs because they always want the Repugs to win. They know them and trust them to do whatever they want. Any rogue Dem will be brought into line or crushed. After 7 years of Bush II the Empire is complete...they go for "crushing" now...because they can do it. Our Dem Party has been so weakened they can't even fully investigate the Criminals in the White House.

It's what it is...but it won't always be this way. There's a new grassroots of Populism welling up in this country. To paraphrase MLK....we won't all be able get to the other side of the mountain...but some will and they will make the change. (sorry for bastardized quote)...

[NDambi]

105. Duh, because she's Hillary. Have you seen her negatives, right up there with Satan.

[democrattotheend]

106. I thought his answer on social security was much better

He is the one who gave specifics there, while she simply attacked his plan and said there were "more progressive solutions" without saying what they were.

She did sound smoother on some of the questions, and I think she gave the better answer on taxation and Iraq. She sounded more coherent on Iran but what she said was a pretty radical new doctrine...his answer was more restrained.

[Fovea]

107. I think you may have nailed it in the the first sentence

"Let's say for a moment that we don't know anything about either candidate personally"

You cannot say that. Everyone who was not in a coma since 92 knows her. And it is to her regret, I am sure, that so many who 'know' her, in the sense that anyone knows a public figure, and do not like what they 'know.' And I for one see the reports of her making nice with Murdoch and Scaife and ask myself ... WTF???

When a candidates negatives are higher than their favorables, you don't have to bend Occam's razor to explain when voters aren't inclined to send that person into the GE.

And yet Hillary keeps pounding on experience, because, well I don't know.
Most voters would prefer someone who doesn't have an entire flock of albatrosses hanging from around their neck, esp in the age of Rove.

Then of course, there is the tone and tenor of her campaign. The whole experience-gaffe ended her campaign. I don't want eight years more of Rovian politics, even in a donkey suit.

[kentuck]

108. I got mine.

Screw you!

[Arugula Latte]

109. She comes across as phony, calculating, condescending and insincere.

And that is why so many people have a gut-level reaction that they just don't like her.

[olkaz]

110. We're ending the campaign.

Seriously. Hillary Clinton has ran the worst campaign I can remember. This was supposed to be over a long time ago. I mean, seriously, three months ago, could you have concieved of this situation?

And we're supposed to take this ineptitude as strength?

Good lord, if she can take a "100% for sure" candidacy and turn it into a loss, it's really probably better that she doesn't end up in the White House.

[Elidor]

112. If you don't understand it by now

It's doubtful anyone could explain it to you.

[ProSense]

113. Here, two doses of reality:

It's the message, the movement and the management

"Clinton aides and donors say the candidate herself never expected Obama to be so competitive"

[redqueen]

117. She lost me because she's a LIAR who uses RW talking points.

I don't know what you're talking about... it was her own willingness to tell people she was against NAFTA from the beginning... and to tell people that Iraq was connected to Al Qaeda... and to tell people that Iraq was a threat.

THOSE are the lies that stand out.

I won't even bother explaining her eagerness to hop on board with the vast right-wing conspiracy. That should be common knowledge by now.

[Phillycat]

118. She is very obviously the better policy candidate.

She always has been.

[Swamp Rat]

119. Because she is propped up by corporate media and lobbyists, while We the People support Obama

There are a lot more of us holding $100 bills than lobbyists and corporations can counter. :)

[haymakeragain]

122. We don't like her, she's same old, same old.

Sorry to say it, but we want some new perspectives. New ideas, new priorities, and old time democracy for THE PEOPLE.

She not the one.

Sorry.

[Milo_Bloom]

123. She losing b/c of the real issues.

IWR, Bankrupcy Bill, Kyl/Lieberman, NAFTA, etc..etc..

[Imagevision]

124. Obama can put away McCain - Hillary will lose to him

[RogueTrooper]

126. Because she's running a shit campaign

\simple-answers-to-simple-questions

[TheWraith]

129. Because he's a much better candidate than she is.

Whether you like it or not, she didn't "clean his clock." Do you seriously think that Obama hasn't been attacked on Wright? If you do, you've clearly not been paying attention. He took a guilt-by-association smear head on and put it down; she got clubbed with a lie that she personally had told four times.

The perception among Clinton supporters that she's doing better than he is is just that: a perception. In reality, she's been losing and blundering pretty much every second this year.

[SOS]

131. "Authorization for the Use of Military Force in Iraq"

If Clinton had voted no, she would have had the nomination wrapped up in February.

[chemenger]

132. Why didn't you insert the "sarcasm" smilie in at the end of your post?

:sarcasm:


Because you really are not serious ... OR ARE YOU?

You are aware that she is a lying, conniving, political hack who thinks that she is entitled to the nomination, has nothing to offer except "business-as-usual" politics.

[Bensthename]

133. Because she can't win the Gen election.

She has too much baggage and hate from the right.

[LSK]

135. America is tired of lobbyists writing our Laws in Washington

How come you are ok with this?

[Justitia]

136. Worst. Candidate. Ever.

[JoFerret]

141. Who? Obama?

I disagree.
Thanks to Hillary he get stronger all the time.

[Orangepeel]

137. she's losing mostly because she's run a worse campaign

On the "issues that really matter," they're very similar. Where they differ, many democrats agree with him. I agree that she did a better job in last night's debate. But, there were plenty of debates where he did a better job. So, in my opinion, that's a wash.

On campaign tactics, Obama has simply done a better job.

Her campaign did a good job using GOTV tactics that used to work. If x number of people voted in the primary last time, they estimated that x + y would vote this time. So, they identified 1/2(x+y) + 1 supporters and got them to the polls. Unfortunately for them, they severely underestimated y.

She also picked the wrong strength about herself upon which to hang her hat. If the nominee had been Romney, which was likely last year, then "I'm the most experienced candidate" might have been a good idea. But in a year when people are looking for a new direction, and running against an R nominee who bests her on the criteria she identified as important, she's not the most electable candidate.

So, what I'm doing is supporting Obama and I'm happy with that.

[Life Long Dem]

138. Gullible people are probably asking this same question.

[Kaleva]

139. Personality

Elections pretty much boil down to who one would prefer to have a beer with.

[Hamlette]

142. If you can't see the difference between Bosnia and "bitter" you need a reality check

Hillary made up a story about what happened to her and tried to sell herself as a war hero or something. (Personally, I found the most offensive sentence in the whole thing the one where she said "we joked in the WH that if a country was too small, too dangerous, or too poor the President wouldn't go, they'd send the first lady." (not an exact quote) What a slam against Bill.)

The bitter comment IS TRUE! Everyone knows it is true. He just should have chosen his words more carefully.

[Exilednight]

143. In my personal opinion, Obama makes more sense to me on health care........

and she has credibility problems. She will promise you the moon then show up at your door with a rock she found in your front yard and try to pass it off as the moon.

She was suppose to give us universal health care 15 years ago. She failed then, and what she is offering now is far from universal - all she does is make it mandatory. How is making people pay for something they can't afford, and the money going to big business health insurance companies universal?

I don't buy her talk about getting us out of Iraq, after all she voted to get us into Iraq.

I could go on and on, but you get the drift.

[dpbrown]

144. Boy, you are spot on there

Why indeed?

[otohara]

145. She Voted For War

didn't even read the intelligence report.

Can't vote for those who were duped by Dimson, unless it's the last choice. Luckily this time, that won't be the case.

[JoFerret]

147. Now look what you have done - shame on you

Unleashed a whole hate Hillary fest in defense of the poor underpuppy.

[Danger Mouse]

148. She's losing for a number of reasons:

1.) The biggest is that her campaign is poorly managed and disorganized, while Obama has a very strong campaign.

2.) Lack of money. Obama has trounced her in fundraising.

3.) Personal unlikeability. Clinton has a problem connecting with voters personally...while Obama is considered very charming, engaging, and inspiring. Blame this on Penn.

4.) Keeping that worthless tub of guts Penn around...he did nothing but hurt her campaign.

5.) Her husband's offensive statements deeply wound her campaign by making her look weaker.

6.) Clinton has a lot of baggage and a lot of unfavorability to begin with.

7.) Her own conduct during the campaign...her numbers suffer when she goes negative, and lately, she's been throwing the kitchen sink.

8.) The rest...is probably sexism on the part of some male voters.

9.) Oh, and the IWR vote doesn't help her much, either.

As for the rest of your post...well, that's just kind of silly.

[zulchzulu]

149. There are these things called "voters" n/t

[ampad]

150. Go ahead and add an adjective in there:

informed.

[onenote]

151. for a variety of reasons:

1. Bad campaign strategy
2. A message that doesn't work -- people want change and she is inherently not "change" -- it may be unfair, but in this political season, familiarity breeds contempt.
3. She has never ranked high in the important likability race -- again, maybe its a shallow factor, but pretending its not a factor in how voters react to candidates is closing eyes to reality. And the reality is that even when Bill first ran for the WH in 1992, Hillary's "favorability" ratings were considerably below his. Why? Sexism undoubtedly played a role. And the way she was portrayed by the media. But in politics, perception is reality and if you can't change the perception -- and that's where waging a good campaign comes in -- you can't change the outcome.

I'm guessing you know all of this, but you just are having a hard time accepting it. But sooner or later you are going to have to face the reality, even if its not a reality you particularly like.