Are Clinton's troubles because of her Gender, the Media or "wicked witch of the west"

[ElvisL1ves]

@elfkin477

I am 99.98% sure that Bill would play a major role in many if not all of the issues she’d handle as president, and I don’t want to see that happen.

Why not?

[ElvisL1ves]

Even Christianity Today now says it’s time to cut the shit.

Perhaps Hillary-bashing says more about the political climate Americans have created than it does about Clinton herself. The current President? “Village Idiot.” The one before him? “Slick Willy.” And on it goes. Instead of researching a candidate’s voting record or listening to position statements on pressing issues, it’s easier to mark someone ENEMY and begin the verbal whacking. There’s admittedly something comforting about this: It helps make sense of the world and creates a feeling of mutuality among those with whom we share dislike. The factions created around enemies may even bear a far-off resemblance to true community.

…

But when vigorous political discourse turns into bashing of public figures, it perpetuates a great lie: that they are merely the ideologies and symbols attached to them. When a candidate’s ideology is mistaken for his or her personhood, it masks a crucial truth: that each person, no matter their political views, bears God’s image and matters deeply to him.

[Harborwolf]

@ElvisL1ves

(A) The winner of an election is decided by the actual vote count, not its first derivative, and (B) this campaign has gone on for so long that we’ve just about reached steady state there - and they’re still essentially even.

So you don’t think that, thus far, Barrack Obama catching up to Hillary Clinton despite her having double digit leads in most states before the primary season got into full swing means that her campaign has problems?

So why aren’t we reconsidering our premise yet?

Because it hasn’t been proven that the premise is wrong.

[ElvisL1ves]

@Harborwolf

So you don’t think that, thus far, Barrack Obama catching up to Hillary Clinton despite her having double digit leads in most states before the primary season got into full swing means that her campaign has problems?

Don’t you think that the fact he really hasn’t done any better than her mean he has problems of a similar magntude?

Because it hasn’t been proven that the premise is wrong.

Only by ignoring the actual results to date - the only evidence there is - can you say that.

[Desert_Nomad]

@ElvisL1ves

Why not?

Rwanda.

[Harborwolf]

@ElvisL1ves

Don’t you think that the fact he really hasn’t done any better than her mean he has problems of a similar magntude?

As annoying as it is to respond to a question with a question, I’m going to anyways. Do you think that Hillary’s shrinking leads and repeated losses are indicitive of problems with her campaign?

[elfkin477]

@ElvisL1ves

Why not?

I believe I stated why not in the sentence following the one you quoted. Perhaps you didn’t read the entire post. If you did, do you think not wanting a second unofficial vice president who will almost certainly try to force his positions on issue isn’t a good reason not to want Clinton not to get back into the white house?

[ElvisL1ves]

@Harborwolf

Do you think that Hillary’s shrinking leads and repeated losses are indicitive of problems with her campaign?

Even before last night, the answer would still have been “No more so than Obama”.

What do you think now?

elfkin577, you only repeated your opinion, you didn’t support it. You do know, I trust, that the President can get advice from anyone s/he wants to ask for it, and that no one can “force” him/her to follow it, I hope?

[Harborwolf]

@ElvisL1ves

Even before last night, the answer would still have been “No more so than Obama”.

So Hillary’s inability to hold on to a lead and Obama’s gaining on Hillary and his current delegate lead put them in the same position. Interesting. Care to expand on this?

What do you think now?

I imagine you mean after last nights primaries (Hillary takes Ohio and Rhode Island. Obama takes Vermont. Texas is a draw.). I’m not surprised. Texas was too close to call. They split the small states and Hillary kept the lead she had in Ohio. Right now the first candidate to solve their problems wins. Hillary is seen as the establishment candidate and isn’t nearly as charismatic as Obama. Obama needs to figure out how to win the big states.

[ElvisL1ves]

@Harborwolf

So Hillary’s inability to hold on to a lead and Obama’s gaining on Hillary and his current delegate lead put them in the same position. Interesting. Care to expand on this?

If you need it, sure: Their being in pretty much the same position is what puts them in pretty much the same position.

:rolleyes:

[Harborwolf]

@ElvisL1ves

If you need it, sure: Their being in pretty much the same position is what puts them in pretty much the same position.

:rolleyes:

One was gaining votes while one was losing votes. Sure that leaves them in the same position but surely that means one is doing better than the other.

And using the rolleyes when you clearly missed the point of the post doesn’t make you look intelligent or witty.

[ElvisL1ves]

Look at their vote totals - pretty much the same. Look at their delegate totals - pretty much the same. For that matter, since you persist in thinking first derivatives matter, look at where they are now - Clinton is rising, Obama is not.

When you want to be serious, let me know. Meanwhile, you can keep that :rolleyes: for your very own - you’ve earned it.

[Harborwolf]

@ElvisL1ves

Look at their vote totals - pretty much the same. Look at their delegate totals - pretty much the same. For that matter, since you persist in thinking first derivatives matter, look at where they are now - Clinton is rising, Obama is not.

When you want to be serious, let me know. Meanwhile, you can keep that :rolleyes: for your very own - you’ve earned it.

I’ve actually tried to discuss this with you in a rational way and you insist on trying these weak attempts to score points through misinterpreting posts.

When you want to be serious, put away your smileys and your bias. Until then there is no point in continuing this exercise in futility.

[ElvisL1ves]

Tell me what I’ve misinterpreted. Or, for that matter, tell me what you think I’ve said. Or how dismissing the only relevant evidence somehow supports your “case”.

That’s what someone who wishes to be thought “serious” would do. You might start there.