Posted on 10/24/2007 5:28:28 PM PDT by Libloather
Clinton: Iowa a "special burden" for campaign
BY GLENN THRUSH
October 24, 2007
WASHINGTON - Hillary Rodham Clinton is adopting a unique strategy to tamp down expectations she'll win the Iowa caucuses - suggesting that sexism will create a glass ceiling in the Hawkeye State.
In an interview with The Des Moines Register, Clinton singled out Iowa and Mississippi as two states that have never elected top officials who are women. She called Iowa a "special burden" for her campaign and said it was her "hardest" state.
"I was shocked when I learned Iowa and Mississippi have never elected a woman governor, senator or member of Congress," she told the paper Monday. "There has got to be something at work here."
Dianne Bystrom, director of the Catt Center for Women and Politics at Iowa State University, says Clinton's statement was accurate - but probably an attempt to deflate expectations she'll take the state easily.
"Politics is an expectations game and Hillary's not the only one playing it," said Bystrom, whose center hosts Clinton today.
Clinton has jumped out to a slight lead in Iowa in recent weeks after being locked in a three-way tie with John Edwards and Barack Obama.
Iowa also has never elected an African-American to any of those positions but Obama hasn't highlighted that fact.
Asked how she could compare Iowa to Mississippi, Clinton told the paper the environment for women in Mississippi was clearly worse.
"How can Iowa be ranked with Mississippi?" she asked rhetorically, adding that the Magnolia State lacked "the communitarianism" and "openness I see in Iowa."
Mississippi GOP Chairman Jim Herring predicted the statement would create "huge problems" for her in moderate Southern states like Arkansas, Virginia and Tennessee.
"I think it will hurt her," said Herring.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsday.com ...
But, after the primary, you're going to have two candidates -- and only two candidates -- to select from.
If you want to elect the socialist, it's your right.
But, if that's what you want to do, you need to vote in the Democrat primary.
You say you've been a GOP voter for forty years. My first presidential vote was for Barry Goldwater. Over the course of my life, only two candidates have been in general (but not total) accord with my views: Goldwater and Reagan. Both were Republicans.
Over that same period, the Democrats have offered nobody that came even close to meeting my standards. Indeed, those who were elected were all proven disasters. All three of them -- Johnson, Carter, Clinton. Each ranked among the worst presidents this country has ever had to suffer through.
Nixon, GHWB and GWB weren't all that great, I'll agree. But they were a helluva lot better than what the Democrats were offering up.
When you punish the Republican party, you're punishing America.
Think about it.
I don’t believe that all who would vote for Guiliani are full supporters of his liberal policies. It’s just that the GOP seems to be purposely leaving many of us conservatives “out in the cold.” I am of the belief that the GOP may pay a dear, and long-term, price for their recent decisions. American does not need two Democratic Parties and the GOP arrived at the picnic after the watermelon was cut.
thanks, bfl
Well if this is true then Hillary will easily beat Edwards.
“but the rest of the nation will NEVER see this type New York elitism”
Except for one thing. She didn’t become elitist in New York (hard though it is for anyone to remember).
Same “cr**” she pulled on stage when she was running for the Senate. “I’m a girl...you don’t like me.”
I have not given thought to any 3rd party candidate but I stopped looking at the Democratic Party for leadership after LBJ.
Thank you for being gracious. Of course, you're not a socialist. And, presumably, you don't want a socialist to be president.
But isn't that the practical result of your threatened decision? Won't you be enabling the socialist?
I'm not a RINO and I certainly don't favor a Giuliani candidacy. Personally, I favor Duncan Hunter...but I don't see how he can get there from here.
When it comes to the primaries, I'll vote for the most conservative guy who is still in it. And, let's face it, if all the conservatives in the GOP would unite behind one guy, then he'd be the nominee. Because we didn't, we're likely to get a more liberal plurality nominee.
But that's politics. Wouldda, shouldda, couldda...
In the end we're going to have a GOP nominee. He may not be as conservative as we'd like him to be. But he'll be demonstrably superior to anything the Democrats will nominate.
We conservatives will never win by being satisfied with losing.
Please bestow upon me the high honor of kissing my Lilly white overly educated Mississippi redneck ass....
Yours
EJ....
AMEN.
Communism + Community = Communitarianism
Bite Me. You have no more right to tell people how to vote than I do. Post it all you want, Jack, but I’m not reading it from you again at least, since I’m ignoring your posts from now on. Live with it.
A lot of people aren’t even AWARE of his liberal policies as yet. Yeah, I’m sorta sick of democrat lite myself. The repubs used to be the party of personal responsibility, small stay-out-of-the-way government, limits on spending, etc. Now many are big-guv, nanny staters just like the dems. I can’t believe the luck of the Klintons-everything keeps falling into place for them perfectly-With a very few exceptions, they couldn’t have picked a better bunch to try for their third term against. I know I can’t bring myself to vote for a ticket that has Romney or Huckleberry on it. And I blame the party for giving us this bunch, which came about because they got away from their core beliefs.I like both Hunter and Tancredo, but doubt if they stand a chance, other than VP spot.
“There has got to be something at work here”
Here come the accusations already. How long before the drive bys run with it?
Which is why her handlers started the movement to cause some large, Hillary-friendly states (with a higher percentage of minority voters) to hold earlier primaries to counteract any bandwagon effect Obama and others might get from winning Iowa or New Hampshire. The whole primary system had to change to guarantee her coronation.
HIllary knows what every Dem candidate knows: there's an endless supply of people who love to be pandered to. These people want to be told that (1)things are awful (2) it's not your fault and (3) we'll take (rob) other people and give those things to you. I know Dems who are very well off who love to be pandered to. They'll vote for Hillary in droves, because no one panders better than a Clinton.
LLS
LLS
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.