On Apr 20, 2008, at 5:43 PM, authfriend wrote:
Sure she does, Judy, which is why she surely would
have been elected to the Senate even if she had been a total
unknown named Mrs. Jones and why he's played no role
whatsoever in her campaign.
As usual, you're making no sense at all.
Physician, heal thyself.
Of course Hillary has name recognition,
and of course that's helpful.
Understatement of the century.
But if she didn't have a long record of
activism and achievement of her own, it's very
unlikely she'd have been elected the first time, let
alone the second time.
She has no record as an "independent person."
Oh, good lord. Of course she does, a long one.
Again, you won't read it, but here's a good
history:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Rodham_Clinton
She hoped
to parlay her victimhood as First Lady as well as her
time in elected office, all courtesy of her hubby,
into becoming the First Woman President.
Bullcrap.
Isn't
working, and it isn't too difficult to figure out why.
Roughly half the Democrats in the country are supporting
her, Sal.
Quite a bit less than half at this point, Judy, if you
believe the latest polls--but whatever, we can say
half if that makes you feel better. But of course, what you're
*not* saying, and what you seem to want to forget,
was that she started out with a *whole lot more*
supporting her, many more than Obama, but lost
both the support and the good faith of millions along
the way, including old friends and formerly staunch supporters
like Richardson and Robert Reich--mostly because of
bad faith and abominable tactics.
And, I'm proud to say, I believe Iowa played a major role in
that. Once the myth of Hillary's "inevitability" was shot,
(which is basically the kiss of death to any kind of democratic
process,)
her chances seemed to evaporate almost overnight. So
much for inevitability. So much for this idiotic 2 decades-long
replay of "Dynasty."
Sal
