In two posts (here and here), I have noted far more cars sporting bumper stickers promoting Senator Barack Obama’s presidential bid than those promoting that of his rival from New York, former First Lady Hillary Clinton. While the two may be tied in presidential preference polls, his backers more readily advertise their support.
Recently, I speculated that her husband generated such enthusiasm among Democrats because of his success. Unlike any of his party’s previous presidential nominees, he demonstrated an ability to not only win a presidential election, but also to win successive national elections. Do her supporters back here merely out of respect for his past achievements?
It’s not just that.
As I become increasingly aware of animosity to Mrs. Clinton among Democrats as well as Repubilcans, it seemed odd that a woman who could inspire such animosity could generate so little enthusiasm. Usually politicians who inspire such animosity among their adversaries generate a corresponding (if not increased) amount of enthusiasm among their supporters. (Think Ronald Reagan in the 1980s and Bill Clinton in the 1990s.)
In this way, she seems similar to President George W. Bush for the better part of his second term. He has many impassioned critics, but currently gets only tepid praise (at best) from his supporters.
Lisa Schiffren had this in The Corner today:
Electile Dysfunction ….the inability to become aroused by any of the choices for president put forth by either party in the 2008 election year.
I think the lack of enthusiasm for any of the candidates stems from apathy. I remember when a visit by Reagan or Clinton (when they were running) would draw thousands. I saw something today about 150 people turning up somewhere to listen to McCain.
Most people only care about what a candidate will promise them and have figured out that the promises are empty.
About the only think a president can impact is foreign policy and most people don’t think about that until it blows up somewhere.
Anything to avoid blaming the candidates themselves I guess?
I’m not excited by Sen Clinton because she’s not very exciting. At least not to me. I know this comes as a big shock to people who never leave the beltway and Republicans who have used Hilary’s name to scare donors for eight years now. (I have seen the actual letters so don’t tell me they didn’t.) Too bad no one ever asked US if she was our first choice for President.
Hillary is government issued rat cheese with mold. Obama is designer Fiji water in a clever bottle. Those married to leftist state socialism prefer the new label to the old stink. Obama is sneaky clean and anti-establishment within the big government tent. Poor Hillary and Bill are left swatting at the super fly who won’t play by the script.
This is an enormously entertaining show. Who will the capture the welfare native American vote? Inquiring minds want to know.
You have to check out the two movie trailers here
http://www.hillarythemovie.com/trailer.html
This is Hillary sharing with Fox Biz Channel her economic wishlist.
It’s absolutely frightening
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Icix8emZtNM
In 1984 when I was 32, some in my family went to see President Reagan give a speach on the roof of a Sears building in a shopping mall. It was amazing. Thousands of people standing in the rain, straining for a look. And we left motivated and energized by that man. It is interesting to see the difference with Hillary. In Michigan she lost 41% of the Democrat vote to Kuchinich and UNCOMMITTED. 41% of Democrats in a union hotbed state experiencing the worst economy in the US. Is it any wonder why Bill Clinton is so peeed off on the campaign trail? How humiliating if they lose.
Well, everyone knows I am a Democrat. Still, Mrs. Clinton has so pissed me off in recent weeks and her economic stimulus plan is such a disaster, if she’s our nominee and there’s anyone on the Republican side that wouldn’t use the gay community as a political football to kick around (that would exclude Huckabee, Romney and Thompson, even though Thompson is more libertarian), then I might vote Republican. I would listen to McCain and Giuliani if either of them where running against Mrs. Clinton. I’d give Mayor Bloomberg a look also if he got in the fray. It’s not that I just lack enthusiasm for Mrs. Clinton’s campaign, I’ve soured on the Clinton’s entirely.
More enthusiasm would be shown to this campaign if it had not gone on already for 4 years. The candidates are worn out and so are we. I can remember back to 1928 and never has anything been like this.
In 1928 (for you young’uns) Herbert Hoover was running against Al Smith. I remember a cartoon with an owl sitting in a tree calling, “Who. Who. Hoover”.
We’ve got to try and hype Hillary up so the Dems nominate her. Remember that was our previous talking point. We need to plant positive stuff about her so the Dems will nominate her. She’s still the easiest to beat so I’m not sure why Drudge and our other operatives are now downing her. C’mon, let’s get our stories straight.
Bill Clinton is going to continue to make an ass of himself. He really, really, really wants the Whitehouse back in his toy chest. He has gotten his face so deep into this campaign that it would be hard to pull back at this point.
The Clinton’s are grifters. They come to your house and eat all your food and then borrow things you didn’t lend them. They really know how to use the Whitehouse for all they can. Meanwhile they pander and connive and perfume the air with psychobabble. Their followers are either in it for the scraps or blind, numb and pathological.
Sorry to hold back on how I really feel.
I’d just like Americans to remember who used the race card first. The Clinton’s against Obama. They do, what they accuse others of doing. Dispicable.
She’s playing the constant victim for pity votes. What’s not to love? Matthews was right. She’s only gotten where she is because of Bill’s philandering (sp?).
So you prefer folks who tell you what a good little fag you are and then kick you around when it’s politically convenient?
Oh I get it. You prefer politically opportunistic pu$$ies who legislate your freedoms away based on junk science. Much better. You’re better off sticking with the one who will just tell you that she’s taking your freedom and your cash “for the greater good”.