Hillary Clinton’s announcement followed by her dark-windowed SUV journey into deepest darkest America was the most inept, phony, shallow, slickily-slick and meaningless launch of a presidential candidacy I have ever seen. We have come to quite a pass when the Clintons can’t even do the show business of politics well. The whole extravaganza has the look of profound incompetence and disorganization—no one could have been thinking this through—or profound cynicism, or both. It has yielded only one good thing, and that is a memorable line, as Mrs. Clinton glided by reporters: “We do have a plan. We have a plan for my plan.” That is how the Washington Post quoted her, on ideas on campaign finance reform.What difference do the details make at this point? She has no "Y" chromosome, America!
Wednesday, April 15, 2015
War on women's intelligence
Here's another chick who really didn't like Hill's rollout:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
First off, Peggy "all the vibrations are right" Noonan and her lawn sign-based election analysis is a hot one to be calling anyone's professional performance inept, shallow and meaningless.
http://blogs.wsj.com/peggynoonan/2012/11/05/monday-morning/
As for chromosomes, there'll be a lot of Republican voters crying "Y? Y?" next November.
Women voters in...
2012: 53% of the electorate, went 55-44% for the Dem
2008: 53% of the electorate, went 56-43% for the Dem
2004: 54% of the electorate, went 51-48% for the Dem
2000: 52% of the electorate, went 54-44% for the Dem
1996: 52% of the electorate, went 55-38% for the Dem
1992: 53% of the electorate, went 45-38% for the Dem
1988: 52% of the electorate, went 51-49% for the GOP
1984: 53% of the electorate, went 58-42% for the GOP
1980: 49% of the electorate, went 47-46% for the GOP
That's the bad news. The good news: From New York City, New York, the flash apparently official. As of 9:13 PM Eastern Standard Time, the Republicans have secured Peggy Noonan's vote.
Peggy Noonan hates vapid happy babble, and demands substance. Like when she wrote "a kinder, gentler nation" and "a thousand points of light" to define the 1988 campaign.
Here in Massachusetts, Governor Martha Coakley rode her 15-point advantage with women all the way to the State House.
Now there's one guaranteed female vote for the Republican, AND one example of a demonstrably crappy female candidate. It's a groundswell!
Just one example? Ha-ha, OK chief.
Massachusetts elects Republican Governors all the time. Women voters haven't supported a Republican for President since two Bushes ago.
What’s the equation here? Because the appeal of "the second female Governor in 21st-century Massachusetts history" failed to wow the pretty ladies in a midterm cycle.... therefore "first female President ever" won’t maintain the typical support of women in a full election?
What I'm saying is that Hillary has the same warmth, personality and common touch as Governor Coakley and that her built-in advantage with women is a certain recipe for success.
Why are we arguing?
Post a Comment