My first GDP post. Honest question, charisma, why do Hillary supporters not think...

[roseBudd]

that likeability is an important consideration.

If winning is job one, that is.

I wish Gore and Kerry had the type of personalities that draw people towards them. But they didn't. Life is not fair. Voters are superficial and under or misinformed. Reality bites.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

1. There is a lot I don't get about Clinton supporters, and your OP is a big one.

It's a bizarro-world where charisma and ability to draw large crowds is a terrible thing. Yet a candidate who is fiercely and irrationally loathed by half the country is our best chance in the general election. :crazy:

[Eurobabe]

4. Nuckin FUTZ!?!?

[Window]

7. Bizarro world, indeed.

[Big Blue Marble]

20. It really is not bizarre at all.

You must just flip into the Clinton universe and the logic becomes clear.
Anything or anyone who stops Hillary from getting her prize is to be bashed and demeaned.

Once you understand that, all will make sense again.

[TahitiNut]

83. When I discovered that George H.W. Bush disliked broccoli, I tried to eat it.

That was the limit to which I could subordinate my taste and personal preferences to my REACTIVE aversion to anything Bush. Strangely, other people seem to have a far greater ability to reactively form their opinions and preferences.

One of the most frequent themes I read on DU is "better than Bush." Well, that could be used to argue for eating dog-shit, too. That clearly seems to have influenced many. Indeed, the most often cited 'experience' that Hillary and her supporters have made reference to is the assault on THEM (Bill and Hill) by the far right. Funny thing is that it was 90% Bill and 9% Hill (and 1% Chelsea) ... but now it seems to be all about Hill and her claimed "experience."

I somehow doubt that the extreme vitriol of the far right should be booked as a "credit" to either Clinton ... but it was, at least effectively. I find it remarkable that a President whose policies were comparable or to the right of Eisenhower would benefit from such prolonged LOYALTY from liberals ... a loyalty that was motivated MORE by a common enemy than by any allegiance to common values and principles. Bubba has the ability to charm the buzzards off a gut wagon ... and it has recently occured to me that that's how he met and married Hillary.

:evilgrin:

[Evergreen Emerald]

2. I refuse to allow the GOP to pick my candidate for me

they vilified Clinton for a decade with the help of the press. They used sexism to dehumanize her and to re-define who she is, so that people now "dislike" her. That is BS. In fact if you look at this campaign, Clinton should be the most likeable. Obama used racism to win the SC vote and has run a dirty campaign...who is more likeable?

It depends on who you let take over your thinking. I prefer to think for myself.

[EmperorHasNoClothes]

8. For the record, I didn't dislike Hillary until the past month or two

I liked her before that, even if I supported Obama for president. My dislike of Hillary has nothing to do with the GOP, and everything to do with how she has run her campaign. And how ironic of you to say Obama has run a dirty campaign.

[Rosemary2205]

11. IMHO it's been a relatively clean campaign all the way around.

Romney was really the only nasty ass POS in the race and R voters drop kicked his ass (thank Gawd).

[Evergreen Emerald]

16. How has she run her campaign that caused you to leave?

sounds as if you are buying the talking points.

Look at history. Go back through the start of this race. Obama has used every dirty trick in the book, with the cover of the media. What is so bothersome is how people just believe the media without digging for the truth.

The truth is that when Obama shouted racism from the rooftops of SC he pulled something worse than Willie Horton.

[roseBudd]

33. Reality, today. You don't get a do over & you can't make people like her

Why does it have to be Hillary Way or the highway, especially if she continues to lose.

Should super delegates overturn the will of the voters in your opinion?

[Evergreen Emerald]

50. Are you asking that the rules be changed for Obama?

The super delegates are supposed to be independent, to account for the politics that people cannot see--for example the propaganda that is repeated on DU as if fact. The super delegates are above that type of force, and should be independent. That is what the purpose of the super delegates has always been...I would assume that you do not want a rule change now in the middle of the campaign?

Oh, and who is spending more on super delegates? (hint: Obama).

[roseBudd]

Name the last time super delegates overturned the voters & please tell how that worked out

[Evergreen Emerald]

56. "overturned?" No, they are helping choose the candidate.

The votes of all will be counted. Unless, you want to change the rules in the middle of the campaign?

[roseBudd]

62. You did not answer my question. But then you know that. You don't want to. Google it.

[Evergreen Emerald]

68. your question does not make sense. The candidates are nearly tied.

The candidate has not been chosen. The rules require delegates and super delegates to choose the candidate. So, your question makes no sense. Unless, you want to have the rules changed mid-campaign? Of course not! Obama does not want the rules changed only when it suits him, does he?

[roseBudd]

71. They are not tied and you know it. Google it. I dare you.

[TwilightGardener]

74. They're not "nearly tied"--she can't catch up, unless maybe we seize Mexico

and Canada as states and make them have a Dem primary too. She's running out of states, with no appreciable delegate gain from any of them to bridge the difference. When the final buzzer sounds, Obama will still be ahead in terms of pledged delegates. That is an inescapable fact. She's trying to run out the clock, while attacking Obama in pretty despicable ways (like endorsing McCain over Obama) to try to make him appear unelectable, all the while arguing for MI and FL delegates and trying to hoodwink the country with talk of "states that matter".

[Evergreen Emerald]

77. Neither of them have enough delegates to win at this point. But the race is not over

Obama can't win. Clinton can't win. They are nearly tied.

[TwilightGardener]

82. They are not. Obama is closer to the finish line than she is.

Hillary just doesn't get to erase the entire primary season, with all the caucuses and primaries that took place and all the delegates earned, and say, "Oops, now what? Neither of us reached the magic number--It's a TIE! Let's pretend none of the primaries happened (except for ones that I deem "big" and "important", like Ohio and PA, of course)! Consider us equals from this point on! And did I mention OHIO??"

[MonkeyFunk]

122. When was that?

as far as I know, the superdelegates never have.

[roseBudd]

124. once Mondale vs. Hart, super-delelagates gave Mondale the difference

Mondale won the Iowa caucus in late January, but Hart polled a respectable 16%. Two weeks later, in the New Hampshire primary, he shocked much of the party establishment and the media by defeating Mondale by ten percentage points. Hart instantly became the main challenger to Mondale for the nomination, and appeared to have the momentum on his side.

Hart's campaign was disorganized and chronically in debt, to a final count of $4.75 million.<3> In states like Illinois where delegates were elected directly by primary voters, Hart often had incomplete delegate slates. Hart's "new ideas" were criticized as too vague and centrist by many Democrats. Shortly after he became the new front runner, it was revealed that Hart had changed his last name from Hartpence to Hart, had often listed 1937 instead of 1936 as his birth date, and had changed his signature several times. This, along with two separations from his wife, Lee, caused some to question Hart's "flake factor". Nonetheless, he and his wife have remained married for almost fifty years.

The two men swapped victories in the primaries, with Hart getting exposure as a candidate with "new ideas" and Mondale rallying the party establishment to his side. The two men fought to a draw in the Super Tuesday primaries, with Hart winning states in the West, Florida, and New England. Mondale fought back and began ridiculing what he claimed to be the emptiness of Hart's ideas. In the most famous television moment of the campaign, he ridiculed Hart's "new ideas" by quoting a line from a popular Wendy's television commercial at the time: "Where's the beef?". Mondale's remark was not effectively countered by Hart's campaign, and when Hart — who was seen by many voters as a fresh, honest alternative to typical politicians — ran stereotyped negative TV commercials against Mondale in the crucial Illinois primary, his campaign descended to the level of ordinary politics that Mondale represented, and Hart's appeal as a new kind of Democrat never quite entirely recovered. Once primaries in the delegate-rich states of New York and Pennsylvania arrived, Mondale's vast fund-raising superiority as the party-establishment candidate helped him overcome Hart's greater attractiveness as a fresher political face. Nevertheless Hart bounced back in states where there was a greater appetite for change, and he won primaries in Ohio and California. By the time the Democratic convention arrived, Mondale had a lead in total delegates (owing largely to the un-elected super delegates from the party establishment) that Hart was not quite able to overcome, and Mondale was nominated. But this race for the nomination was the closest in two generations, and most felt that when Mondale later was trounced in the election against Ronald Reagan, winning only his home state of Minnesota and the District of Columbia, that Hart and younger, more independent candidates like him represented the future of the party.

[EmperorHasNoClothes]

42. Oh, please.

Obama never "shouted racism from the rooftops". What a distortion.

What she has done in her campaign to make me dislike her?
- Pushing McCain's experience while claiming Obama only has "a speech he made in 2002"
- Constantly whining about how the media is so unfair to her, she always gets asked the first question in the debate, etc.
- Saying one minute how "proud" she is to be on the stage with Obama, then less than 2 days later saying "SHAME ON YOU!". She has repeated this pattern several times now.
- Pushing minor issues as if they were huge scandals: Rezko, Canadians/NAFTA, "Monster", etc. etc. etc.
- Refusal to release her tax returns
- Pushing to have FL/MI seated only after it was clear she would "win" both states
- Claiming she "won" in Michigan when Obama wasn't even on the ballot
- Pushing for changes to the caucus process only after it was clear she was losing caucuses
- Constantly lying about Obama's record

There are many other reasons as well. Her campaign hasn't been as dirty as some in the past, but I don't know how any reasonable person can honestly compare Hillary's campaign and Obama's campaign and claim that Obama is the dirty player.

[roseBudd]

57. Did Obama stand on a roof & yell Bill pardoned Mark Rich & Hillary's bro got 200K for it?

[TwilightGardener]

76. Obama has class. And standards. The Hillarites call this being "weak".

[Evergreen Emerald]

108. right. obama gets his surrogates to do the dirty work...just like Chicago politics.

While he pretends to be a nice guy.

[TwilightGardener]

118. You're projecting how the Clintons operate onto Obama.

[cali]

43. You live in a screwed up Orwellian universe.

Every word in this post I'm responding to is disgustingly false. Demonstrably false. Shamefully false and racist to boot. Hillarians scream sexism at every turn and then engage in this racist crap.

Thank god for ignore. Bye, bye to noxious posts.

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Hepburn]

55. Cali is great...

...and not the least bit obnoxious!

JMHO

[Evergreen Emerald]

58. And Obama is the best candidate

To each his own. Different opinions used to be welcomed on DU, now they are attacked as "noxious" DU has fallen so far.

[roseBudd]

28. I was ambivalent but began disliking her intensely beginning with the OH debate, and it has only

gotten worse in the last week. I cannot see myself doing for her what I was willing to do for Kerry. Kerry got alot of hours out of me. Like everyday for 2 months.

[wileedog]

13. You realize

Most of the Republicans used the same argument about Bush for years, right? The media! The media!

And there is no such thing as "should be the most likable." What a silly statement. Either you like someone and are inspired by their potential for leadership or you are not.

I will grant you there are probably a significant number of people who just got "Over-Clintoned" in the 90's with Monica and all, but she simply does not have the charisma or charm or natural leadership to overcome that IMO.

[Evergreen Emerald]

18. I am not choosing a best friend

I am choosing a president. And someone who would stoop to using racism against a progressive democrat is not likable to me.

Lots of very bad people have charisma and charm. They did not make good leaders.

[TwilightGardener]

27. He didn't use racism against her. She and Bill and their surrogates

stepped into that steaming shitpile all on their own. Obama reaped the benefits of galvanizing the black vote in his favor. But of course, it's perfectly acceptable for the Clinton camp to talk about how the "boys" are ganging up on her, and making direct appeals to women to vote for her because she's a woman.

[Evergreen Emerald]

32. bullshit. Obama and his surrogates shouted "racism" to gain SC

It was a planned attack designed in advance to win SC. It it is obvious "fairy tale" had nothing to do with racism, but they used it anyway and with the help of the press, it worked.

The only person who would gain from using race was Obama. That is too low for me.

The double standard on DU is unbearable. When Clinton suggests that she is a woman--she is shut up. When Obama suggests that he is black and Clinton cries foul--she is shut up.

He got the best of both worlds. He was allowed to use both race and sex, and she was allowed to use neither.

[TwilightGardener]

35. Nope, what the Obama campaign knew was that the Clintons

would start dog-whistling to paint him as the Black Candidate, just as novel and on the margins as Jesse Jackson's candidacy, as soon as he won Iowa and they were gearing up for SC. His team was ready for it, and they immediately (and brilliantly) pointed it out to the media when it started--they fired some warning shots, and shut that strategy down--but fortunately, not before Bill and folks like Bob Johnson were given time to shoot their stupid mouths off in SC. That was just a lucky break.

[Evergreen Emerald]

37. Wrong. "Fairy tale" had nothing to do with race. --they used race to win.

Of course it is brilliant to shout racism and to have the black voting block so mad they voted for Obama. Lots of people are brillant--and ugly and dirty. That does not mean they are quailfied for presidency.

[TwilightGardener]

59. There were other comments besides that one, as fixated as you are on it.

Obama's campaign never "shouted" racism. They merely put the Clinton campaign on notice. And it worked.

[Catherina]

36. The only person who would gain from using race was Obama?

Her attacks back-fired which is when all the sour grapes started by people who thought we needed to reward insignificant past favors with perpetual loyalty. Your candidate sabotaged herself. Face it. If you at least do that, you might be able to fix things. Burying your head in the sand just makes it worse for you and for her.

[Catherina]

34. Did you really type that with a straight face

"Stoop to using racism against a progressive democrat?"

What an amazing disconnect from reality. The Black Community begged the Clintons not to go that route and some of the first warnings were posted right here on DU. Please pay special attention to the Clinton supporters who poo-pooed the warning and are whining now that Obama played the race card. One of the reasons we're especially proud of him in the Black Community is because he never stooped that low and ran as a human being, with no regard to color. He didn't even have our support at first until the Clinton campaign lost us with the race cards they started playing.

Get your facts straight when you talk about stooping to racism because that's why many people in the AA community turned their backs on the Clinton. News travels fast in our community and we ain't dumb.

[Evergreen Emerald]

45. that route? "fairy tale" is NOT RACIST. The only people "begging"

were the Obama surrogates who were using it as a wedge issue to solidify the black votes for Obama. "Please stop suggesting that Obama can't win because he is black." What a load of bullshit. STop with the propaganda. The facts are there for all to see.

Obama and his surrogate shouted racism to gain votes. Obama even admitted it. His campaign sent out a list of "racist" statements the Clintons made.


And yet, people still support someone who would stoop to that.

[TwilightGardener]

65. You're pissed because the Obama campaign detailed racist comments?

Really pisses you off that not only did they shut the Clintons' dog-whistle politics down effectively, but managed to win public sympathy at the same time. Of course, the Monster is still using the Muslim thing, but hey, you can't stop every puck from hitting the net.

[Evergreen Emerald]

73. No. I am pissed that they lied and distorted to suggest "racism"

when none was there. It was total bullshit that was supported by the media and condoned by the supporters who apparently believe anything goes as long as it is Obama doing it.

[TwilightGardener]

78. No lies--unless they fabricated quotes. And they didn't.

[Evergreen Emerald]

81. Read the quotes. There was no "there there."

Nothing they said was racist. That is the point. I feel like I am talking to a brick wall. THEY SAID NOTHING RACIST. THE OBAMA CAMPAIGN ATTEMPTED TO SPIN IT. It did not matter that it was not true. Thinking people got it, that the statements had NOTHING TO DO WITH RACE.

But the shout of racism was enough--even if it was without substance.

[TwilightGardener]

84. I guess if black people in South Carolina heard the quotes, and

thought they sounded sorta racist, then they were sorta racist. Perception is reality. I'm white, it's not up for me to decide what's offensive and inoffensive to blacks.

[Evergreen Emerald]

93. That is BS.

Everyone knows that they said nothing racist and the idea was used by Obama to gain votes.

[LisaM]

107. Do YOU think the Clintons are racist?

Quick question. Yes or no.

[TwilightGardener]

116. No.

[Catherina]

89. Thankfully most of America isn't too warped to deny what really happened n/t

[cali]

47. No kidding.

It makes me sick when I see that crap. The fucking lies about how Obama played the race card ARE racist. It makes me furious to such vile lying shit.

[Evergreen Emerald]

52. Right...cause the clintons ARE racist.

what a bunch of bullshit. DAng, DU has turned into a one-opinion board, and disagree the attack-gnats swarm.

[TwilightGardener]

67. No--but just as they're not above using the Muslim smear to win, they're

not above using race, or gender. But hey, buck up--I thought you Clintonistas ADMIRED and APPLAUDED her brand of "toughness" and ruthlessness.

[Evergreen Emerald]

69. No. They have not. They are not the ones using Race to divide

the democratic party.

And, I see that you have become militant in your Obama support, using name-calling to dehumanize anyone who disagrees with you. So much for democracy.

[cali]

72. They damned will did- to the point where dem insiders were

pleading with them not to do it. YOU are playing revisionist history and it sucks. Disgusting.

[Evergreen Emerald]

75. Stop with the propaganda. We all know the truth. The "insiders"

No. They were the Obama surrogates on TV shouting racism about things that had nothing to do with racism.
Obama later admitted that his campaign had a hand in it, when they sent around a list of "racist"
comments, like "fairy tale" and Clinton evoking MLK (god forbid a white chick evokes MLK). It was total BS and it worked. Partly, because the media helped, and because the supporters will agree with any underhanded trick as long as Obama is the one doing it.

Revisionist history: Obama's war stance. Now that is revisionist history.

[cali]

85. Nope. You're the spewing propaganda and it's disgusting.

It was not just Obama supporters. And Obama admitted nothing. The Clintons played the southern strategy and that's why hillypoo is going down. She won't be the nominee and that's a damned good thing. They played the race card. She deserves to lose and she will lose. Hope your little head doesn't explode.

[JVS]

111. until they get called on it

[cali]

70. NO. Because they will do anything whatsofuckingever to win

And that included trying to frame Obama as a fringe minority candidate. They didn't think twice about it. And if you don't like it here, leave.

[sniffa]

79. If he leaves, I hope the other Ignores follow

[Evergreen Emerald]

80. Obama even suggested that Clinton had a hand in killing her friend

Bhutto. He has shown that he will stoop to any means to get this nomination.

And, you do not run the show here Cali. And I likely will leave, as if you are the norm, it is not worth my time.

[cali]

87. Sick, sick , sick. He did nothing of the sort.

And I didn't say I ran the show. I said if you don't like it here, leave.

[Catherina]

90. Me too. It makes me even madder to see the denials

especially while there's still time to apologize or just not do it anymore.

[Hepburn]

60. Yeah, that is one of the things that determined that I will NEVER voting for HRC...

...the use of the race card by Bill Clinton against the more progressive Dem candidate, Obama. And, yes, Bill has a ton of charisma and charm...but it is HILLARY who is running and she has just about -0- of these two attributes.

[Hepburn]

15. Hint....it's the ENTIRE voting public that picks POTUS....

....over half hate Hillary. :eyes:

[roseBudd]

19. You either have charisma or you don't, Bill does, Hillary, Gore & Kerry do not

[TwilightGardener]

22. Then why does Bill Clinton and Terry McAuliffe run to RW talk shows

like Rush Limbaugh and Laura Ingraham to do interviews and promote Hillary? They're pretty incestuous with that VRWC, eh?

[cali]

40. Nope. That is revisionist history of the worst kind

The Clinton camp tried their utter best to frame Obama as the black candidate when he was trying to transcend that campaign killer. And she's not likable. She may well be in private, but she has a very unlikable public persona. I never found her likable and it sure as hell wasn't the MSM frame. I think for myself and I'm bloody well sick of the bullshit Hillaryite line that if you don't think she's just the greatest woman who ever lived you've been brainwashed by the MSM.

[Catherina]

44. Then you really shouldn't be supporting Rush Limbaush's candidate

I'd be REALLY EMBARRASSED to support a candidate who's fine with Rush Limbaugh's support and sends a former President to plead for her on his show. Was the big "Vote for Hillary" sign on the homepage so dazzling that they missed the pearl of wisdom about the Clintons being cockroaches?

Some refusal.

[Evergreen Emerald]

54. The reality is that the republicans and independents are voting for Obama

the democrats are voting for Clinton. So, that argument has been debunked in the real world. In the DU world where anything that opposes Obama is attacked and marginalized, it may not have risen to the consciousness yet.

[TwilightGardener]

86. You didn't address the Limbaugh/Ingraham/Clinton incest.

[Evergreen Emerald]

97. They want Obama to win. because he is the light weight.

Give me a break. You have to know that now! They are chomping at the bit to get to Obama.

[TwilightGardener]

117. Then why wasn't there a concerted effort to get the vote out for Obama

on the part of RW radio? Why did Limbaugh and Ingraham and Boortz encourage their listeners to vote for Hillary (many of whom did, BTW)? You make no sense. Why did Bill Clinton and Terry McAuliffe go on those shows to shill? Were they shilling for Obama?

[Catherina]

91. So what are all the Democrats voting for Obama? Chopped liver?

Exit polls contradict your assertion. Please, please spend time analyzing a few of them.

For God's sake deal with facts if you want your candidate to win. Blaming everything but the truth is just making HER look worse.

[Evergreen Emerald]

98. The facts show that the dems have chosen her.

And the independents and republicans support him. She has one the democratic votes.

[roseBudd]

103. Well that is not enough, way too many states have less than a 51/49 share of Ds

[JVS]

109. "Clinton should be the most likeable." Too bad she can't act the part

[annie1]

3. should we not have nominated gore?

[Mudoria]

6. I wish!

[roseBudd]

23. I don't remember, did Bradley have charisma?

[annie1]

39. did he do the commercials "jersey and you, perfect together"? ...

b/c i have to say, that has stuck with me all these years. :D. it's more catchy than "fired up". :D

[sueragingroz]

5. Hillary supporters aren't about her likeability. they are about her ABILITY.

[Window]

9. Ability to divide?

[sueragingroz]

14. Ability to run the country.

[TwilightGardener]

30. If she runs it like her campaign, we're in deep kimchee, aren't we?

[Chasing Dreams]

12. Agreed. You don't care about winning, or how you win.

Or whether that ability supports the MIC and Big Oil. Vote for Hillary, the candidate with the greatest ability to give you more of the same.

[Hepburn]

17. Great.....

....she is hated and cannot get elected....so her alleged abilities are the important issue.

:eyes:

[Window]

46. LOL! That's what I like...short, concise and to the point.

[roseBudd]

21. But if her high inlikeability quotient costs us the election, then ability means nothing

[TwilightGardener]

29. If character mattered to Clinton supporters, they wouldn't be Clinton supporters.

[hedgehog]

10. We elect an entire person, not just a platform or policy statement.

Regean was likeablity without any decent policy. I'm afraid that the Jimmy Carter of 1980 was all good ideas without personality. Both are important.

[MADem]

24. If LIKEABILITY ruled the day, Nixon wouldn't have been elected.

Neither would have TRUMAN. Dewey would have defeated him, being the more "likeable" fellow of the two:

Part of the reason Dewey ran such a cautious, vague campaign was because of his experiences as a presidential candidate in 1944. In that election Dewey felt that he had allowed Franklin Roosevelt to draw him into a partisan, verbal "mudslinging" match, and he believed that this had cost him votes. As such, Dewey was convinced in 1948 to appear as non-partisan as possible, and to emphasize the positive aspects of his campaign while ignoring his opponent. This strategy proved to be a major mistake, as it allowed Truman to repeatedly criticize and ridicule Dewey, while Dewey never answered any of Truman's criticisms. (Smith, pgs. 524-529)

Dewey was not as conservative as the Republican-controlled 80th Congress, which also proved problematic for him. Truman tied Dewey to the "do-nothing" Congress. Indeed, Dewey had successfully battled Ohio Senator Robert Taft and his conservatives for the nomination at the Republican Convention; Taft had remained an isolationist even through the Second World War. Dewey, however, supported the Marshall Plan, the Truman Doctrine, recognition of Israel, and the Berlin airlift. (Smith, pgs. 512-514)

Dewey was repeatedly urged by the right wing of his party to engage in red-baiting, but he refused. In a debate before the Oregon primary with Harold Stassen, Dewey argued against outlawing the Communist Party of the United States of America, saying "you can't shoot an idea with a gun." He later told Styles Bridges, the Republican national campaign manager, that he was not "going around looking under beds."<3> As a result of his defeat, Dewey became the only Republican to be nominated for President twice and lose both times. He is also the last presidential candidate to wear permanent facial hair, in his case a mustache.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_E._Dewey

Competence, or perceived competence, trumps likeability when people perceive that they live in uncertain times.

[roseBudd]

26. Except for Nixon, this was before TV, FYI FDR & JFK had charisma

[MADem]

113. Thomas DEWEY was before tee vee. Much more "likeable" than Truman.

When the country is LOOKING for competence, that is what they vote. When they are looking for "charisma" that is what they vote.

When they are looking for "devilish charm" they vote Harding. When they are looking for "regular guys you can have a beer with" (even if they've been rehabbed) they vote for Monkeys.

[roseBudd]

126. Then why are so many voting for Obama?

[NastyRiffraff]

25. I think likeability IS a consideration...

I just don't think it should be the only, or even the most important, consideration.

Personally, I don't find Obama likeable in the least. There are a lot of people who agree with me, too, so it's a moot point.

[roseBudd]

31. "There are a lot of people who agree with me, too, so it's a moot point." a lot of people is not

enough. We are talking every citizen & expat of voting age in the entire world.

[OzarkDem]

38. I reject your premise

but would be more than happy to discuss Clinton on real terms.

Care to give it another try?

[JackintheGreen]

41. Sad thing is,

Gore *does* have such a personality when he's allowed to be passionate about what he passionate about. If 2006 Gore ran in 2000, he could have won.

[roseBudd]

61. But he didn't and the annoying sighing he did in the debate really hurt him, Like Eminem said, "you

only get one shot"

[JVS]

48. Because they don't have it. Bill had charisma and they liked it then, but Hillary, not so much

[roseBudd]

64. I have seen descriptions of Bill's charisma. Apparently it is a sight to behold in person.

[JVS]

66. One of my HS buddies met him. He gushed about the experience.

The only more awe stuck kid I remember talking to was a guy who shook hands with John Paul II.

Me, I shook hands with RFK Jr. after he gave a speech on protecting wetlands. Meh,

[gulliver]

51. Ross Perot. At first a dynamic, likable maverick...

...but by the end of the '92 campaign, he exposed himself as a flinty, peevish, semi-paranoid.

I don't think we know Obama well enough to know whether he is likable. Every "new kid" is likable at first. So in one way, Obama has not been around long enough to know what he is really like naturally over time. He's forced to rush things.

Charisma? I think Clinton has more of it. In the seventies, you could get (IIRC) a vinyl bolt-on kit that would make a Volkswagen Beetle "look like" a Lamborghini. To me, it looked like a Volkswagen Beetle with its charisma removed. I don't count plastic in my assessment of charisma, and I would rather have a low level of authentic charisma than a high level of fake.

I'm not saying Obama doesn't have charisma. He does. He still hasn't shown much of it though. The lapel pin thing was his Eastwood moment for me. So I know he is capable of something gutsy. I don't give any credit for charisma to people who aren't authentically gutsy. You can watch Obama in the debates and about one or two out of every five points he makes have an authentic edge. He stammers a lot, and clips his better points short of their full impact, IMO. Speeches? Who cares?

I will say that this OH and TX loss seems to have awakened Obama a little bit. Maybe, if some of his supporters will stop shouting down those of us who are unsold, Obama will dig a little deeper--if he's really got it in him.

[Lucinda]

53. I like her a lot. And I think she is the better choice.

:hi:

[housewolf]

63. 3 basic reasons

1. I don't find her to be trust-worthy.

2. IMHO, she's a "Bush-lite" DLC conservate candidate.

3. This one is very personal and you can call it as shallow as you want to because I think so myself, but it's something I just can't help. I am extremely auditory... and I can't bear to listen to her speeches. I can sometimes listen to her on a debate stage, but her animated speeches ... I hear an extremely shrill voice that makes me want to cover my ears and turn her off. And usually I do.

I've spent 8 years being unable to listen to GWB speak. EVERY time I hear his voice it's a negative experience for me and, gotta tell you, it stresses my body. I have an extreme dread looking forward to 4-8 years of another president who I can't stand to listen to.

Because, you know what, these people are IN YOUR HOUSE EVERY SINGLE DAY. The vocal tones don't affect many people. Me, they do. I could possibly live with it if it weren't for #1 & #2 above. Four-to-Eight years of her.... ARRRRGGGHHHHHHHH!!!!!!

[mrreowwr_kittty]

88. Just to add another little shallow thing that is a big turnoff for me.

She smirks. A lot. It's this little half-smile she does with her lips closed. Always pops up in interviews when she's particularly pleased with herself for one of her little cheap shots. 8 years of a habitual smirker is enough for me. I can't stand smug, arrogant people no matter what side they are on.

[LizW]

92. Likeability is important.

You make an incorrect assumption when you say that Hillary supporters don't think it is. Many people find Hillary, AND Al Gore, AND John Kerry quite likeable. Just because you don't doesn't mean others don't.

No one gets as far in politics as those three did without a lot of personal charisma. It may not be as evident in a speech, or in a debate setting, but it is there. I find both Al Gore and John Kerry very charming. Both are very funny, and then there is the "smart is sexy" thing. I've never met Hillary, but I can see from the responses she gets from people that those who have met her find her likeable.

You are correct when you say that voters are under or misinformed. When the media constantly harps that Al Gore is dull, or that John Kerry is elitist, or that Hillary is a bitch, those who are looking for a reason to dislike them will buy it. It doesn't make the characterization true.

[JerseygirlCT]

94. It's interesting, actually

Because B. Clinton was probably as successful as he was (electorally) because he's got lots of charisma. H. Clinton, not so much. So was it good then, and not now?

Sometimes a person has it, sometimes they don't. Sometimes it's all they've got - sometimes it's just one tool among many and one that allows a solid candidate to introduce him/herself to people better and more quickly.

[applegrove]

95. You have a point. I would say that Hillary has a little something something of her own.

She is charismatic isn't she?

[cbayer]

96. Charisma is a factor, but not the only factor.

There is no doubt that some of the most hateful and destructive leaders this world has ever seen were extraordinarily charismatic.

Also, I believe that many people are being more thoughtful this time around after having been through the last 7 years of a president they didn't bother to really know.

I think most would agree that Obama has more charisma. And clearly many are strongly supporting him for that reason. But for lots and lots of other people, that is just not enough.

[roseBudd]

102. But if it is super delegates and a MI vote with only 1 candidate on the ballot, the voters should

trump, yes?

I am betting on Secretariat, not Seabiscuit.

[cbayer]

105. I loved Seabiscuit!

That movie was fantastic.

And that horse provided hope and inspiration in very dark times.

And as to your first question, I am certainly not in a position to answer it. These are very confusing times and there are as many theories about how this will go as there are theorists.

Personally, I want a joint ticket.

[mod mom]

99. Rosebud, since you are downriver you might be interested in East Liverpool Toxic Waste Incinerator:

How The Clintons SOLD OUT OHIO: New Developments-Anthrax, Radioactive Waste, & Post Katrina Waste @ The East Liverpool Incinerator

FIRST, HERE IS THE WELL RESEARCHED KOS PIECE:

Ask Hillary About This Tonight. I Dare You.
by Zwoof

Thu Jan 31, 2008 at 03:40:46 AM PST

-snip

While I was writing the original piece on the history of this foul project, a new ruling from the Ohio EPA allowed this incinerator, located 1,100 feet from an elementary school, to accept even more hazardous waste (anthrax, radioactive waste, infectious medical waste and mixed hazardous waste from Hurricane Katrina) than the original permit that was shrouded in corruption and approved by the Clinton Administration

Clinton and Al Gore promised the residents of East Liverpool, Ohio that they would not allow this incinerator originally approved by Bush '41 to operate. However, a Clinton EPA appointee, recommended by his classmate Hillary Clinton, approved the permit.

This is a tangled tale of corporatism, broken promises and an environmental disaster waiting to happen.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/1/31/21045/9822/688/446786

NEW RULING:

Ohio EPA Approves Permit Modification
For East Liverpool Incinerator
Ohio EPA has given final approval for Von Roll America, Inc., to receive, manage and incinerate waste not previously taken at its hazardous waste incinerator located at 1250 St. George Street in East Liverpool.

The permit modification allows the facility to receive and manage mixed infectious and hazardous waste. Typical wastes could include vaccines containing mercury; sharps containing chemotherapy drugs; growth plates and Petri dishes containing hazardous components; and tissue and organs from small lab animals preserved in ethanol or formaldehyde.

Ohio law requires that any infectious waste that also is hazardous waste be managed as hazardous waste. While the permit modification allows Von Roll to accept mixed infectious and hazardous waste, the facility will continue to be prohibited from accepting and treating waste that is only infectious.

On February 21, 2007, Ohio EPA held a public meeting in East Liverpool to discuss the draft permit modification. Comments presented at that meeting and during the public comment period were considered prior to final approval. Ohio EPA's written response to public comments is available online at: www.epa.state.oh.us/dhwm/von_roll_america_inc.html.

Issuance of the final permit modification can be appealed to the Environmental Review Appeals Commission (ERAC), 309 S. Fourth Street, Room 222, Columbus, Ohio 43215. Many appeals must be filed within 30 days of the issuance of the final permit; therefore, Ohio EPA recommends that anyone wishing to file an appeal contact ERAC at [phone] for more information. The appeal must be in writing and a copy must be received by the Ohio EPA director within three days of filing with ERAC. Further appeals can be made through civil courts.

The permit modification and related materials are available for review at the Carnegie Public Library located at 219 East Fourth Street, East Liverpool, and at Ohio EPA's Northeast District Office in Twinsburg by first calling [phone].

http://www.epa.state.oh.us/pic/nr/2008/january/VonRoll.html

Richard Wolf questioned: “…whether or not Anthrax is going to be incinerated.”

Response 2:
Yes, VRA will be authorized under this permit modification to manage anthrax, if it meets
the definition of a mixed infectious and hazardous waste (MIHW). MIHW is defined as
infectious waste that is also hazardous waste. In order to be managed as MIHW, waste
must be both infectious waste and hazardous waste simultaneously. If a waste stream
contained a mixture of untreated anthrax and hazardous waste with hazardous waste
codes, then VRA could request to manage the waste under this permit modification
request. Based upon Ohio EPA knowledge of waste generation, it is unlikely waste
streams containing both anthrax and hazardous waste will be generated.

-SNIP
During the hearing, it was clarified that the citizen was referring to the fact that examples
of possible mixed infectious and hazardous waste streams were provided on two
occasions. The examples provided were not identical on those two occasions, and the
citizen wondered why.

In the VRA news release for their public information meeting held on February 13, 2006,
VRA provided possible examples of MIHW including “...mixtures of these materials are
found during environmental cleanups such as those following the hurricanes that
pounded the Gulf Coast states. It is not uncommon in these and other disasters that
chemicals would be co-mingled with pharmaceuticals and other medicinal materials”.

In the Ohio EPA news release dated February 9, 2007, entitled Ohio EPA Schedules
Public Meeting Concerning East Liverpool Incinerator, examples included “...vaccines
containing mercury; sharps containing chemotherapy drugs; growth plates and Petri
dishes containing hazardous components; tissue and organs from small lab animals
preserved in ethanol...”.

pdf found here: http://www.epa.state.oh.us/dhwm/pdf/VRAResponsivenessSummary-101507.pdf
HERE IS SOME BACKGROUND ON THE SITE OF THE EAST LIVERPOOL OH TOXIC WASTE INCINERATOR:

The Problem

The Waste Technologies Industry, Inc. incinerator is located in the floodplain of the Ohio River in East Liverpool, Ohio. The surrounding area is elevated on a bluff, such that incinerator's stack is level with the windows of local buildings. The incinerator is located about 300 feet from homes and just 1100 feet from an elementary school. The location of the facility has been intensely criticized by citizens, scientists, and government officials alike. East Liverpool is located at the juncture of Ohio, West Virginia, and Pennsylvania, approximately 35 miles from Pittsburgh.

Waste Technologies Industry, Inc. (WTI)


WTI has also gained significant political support, as one of the original partners in the corporation was Jackson Stephens. Stephens, an Arkansas investor, was known as a significant contributor to Reagan, Bush, and Clinton campaigns.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

The EPA has been accused of having bias in favor of WTI and carrying out decision-making activities without required public participation. The agency also violated rules established in RCRA during the WTI permit application process. EPA admitted such wrong-doing at a hearing before the House Judiciary Committee's subcommitteeon Administrative Law and Government Relations, as well as the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.

-SNIP

http://www.umich.edu/~snre492/mcormick.html#Key%20Actors


The incinerator failed its March 1993 test burn.<6> Among other shortcomings, its efficiency rating for burning mercury was only 7 percent, as opposed to the required 99.99 percent.

An April 1993 inspection of the facility revealed numerous violations. For example, employees had failed to store some of the hazardous waste in closed containers and were not monitoring the underlying soil conditions, although cracks had already appeared in the incinerator's foundations.

In late June, after a three-year investigation, the Ohio attorney general issued a heavily censored report concluding that, yes, because of all the ownership changes, under state law the incinerator permit was invalid after all. Nonetheless, on August 24, the U.S. EPA ruled that although Von Roll wrongfully failed to register the 1989 ownership change, this did not invalidate the incinerator's operating permit. The EPA just fined Von Roll $64,900 for failing to modify the permit.

On July 28, an EPA whistle-blower charged two senior EPA administrators with fraud for allowing the incinerator to operate despite the decision of the Ohio attorney general. In a memo to U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno, Hugh Kaufman, whose job is to act as an internal watchdog at the EPA, claimed that Deputy Administrator Robert Sussman and Region 5 Director Valdus Adamkus modified the incinerator's permit to grant it "temporary authorization" to operate, even though they knew the permit was legally invalid. He called for a criminal investigation into Sussman, Adamkus, and the "business entities" running the incinerator. (The federal Justice Department has had no comment on Kaufman's charges.)<7>

-snip

http://www.ohiocitizen.org/campaigns/wti/motherjones.html

VP CANDIDATE AL GORE MADE CAMPAIGN PROMISES TO THE PEOPLE OF THE AREA TO BLOCK THE OPENING BUT ONCE IN OFFICE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION TURNED THEIR BACKS AND ALLOWED IT TO GO FORWARD:

Clinton Will Not Fight Toxic-Waste Incinerator
By KEITH SCHNEIDER,
Published: March 18, 1993

More than three months after Vice President-elect Al Gore vowed to block the opening of the nation's newest hazardous-waste incinerator, the Clinton Administration said today that it would not oppose the owner's plan to begin commercial operation of the plant, probably next month.

The decision, which was disclosed today by top officials at the Environmental Protection Agency, came a day after a Federal appellate court in Cincinnati cleared the way for the incinerator in East Liverpool, Ohio, to begin accepting tons of toxic wastes.

-SNIP

But legal experts and a top official of the Environmental Protection Agency said the Federal hazardous-waste law gave the E.P.A. the authority to bar the incinerator from operating and could have halted a test burn that the incinerator's owner, Von Roll Inc., needed before it could begin commercial operation.

The Administration's decision represents a setback for Mr. Gore, who has made a specialty of environmental issues. The Vice President campaigned in the Ohio River Valley with Mr. Clinton last year and twice promised to investigate how one of the country's largest toxic-waste incinerators was built near the center of a densely populated community, where its emissions could blow onto a school, hundreds of homes and several churches.

-snip


http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0CE4DC1F39F93BA25750C0A965958260

Behind The Scenes In Washington
When Clinton became president, he appointed Carol Browner head of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Ms. Browner then sent a small cadre of scientists to court in Cleveland, Ohio, to serve as expert witnesses on behalf of Waste Technologies, Inc. (WTI).
Because a memo to Ms. Browner from one of her staff was leaked to Greenpeace (a plaintiff in the lawsuit trying to shut down WTI), Ms. Browner's staff were forced to admit under oath that after Ms. Browner took office on January 20th, EPA conducted a secret risk assessment on the WTI incinerator.

EPA's secret risk assessment revealed that the incinerator would be1000 times more dangerous than EPA had estimated in the risk assessment they released to the public.
New EPA appointee Browner recused herself from the issue, because her husband had connections to anti-WTI activists that opposed the incinerator. She left the matter in the hands of Robert Sussman, Deputy EPA Administrator.
After moving into Pennsylvania Avenue, Hillary had the opportunity to hook up with an old classmate.

The EPA Deputy Administrator Robert Sussman that eventually approved WTI's application was a law school classmate of Bill and Hillary Clinton.
Sussman had previously acted as legal counsel to the Chemical Manufacturing Association, at a time when two of its biggest clients, Du Pont and BASF, were negotiating contracts to supply two-thirds of the waste to WTI." The Nation Magazine
The resumption of operations was approved as Robert Sussman, deputy administrator of the EPA, met in Washington with Ohio Valley residents and Hugh Kaufman, an EPA whistleblower, who want the agency to shut down the incinerator.
The group questioned Sussman's involvement in Waste Technologies matters in light of his former private legal representation of chemical brokers who have contracts with the plant. The plant opponents also cited Sussman's appointment to the EPA through the influence of first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton, whose former law firm represented the original founder of Waste Technologies.Source Archives Cleveland Plain Dealer (hat tip to Patriot Daily for the link)
-SNIP
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/1/31/21045/9822/688/446786


WHY WOULDN'T THE CLINTONS ACT TO STOP THIS TOXIC WASTE INCINERATOR?:

Stephens Inc. was founded by Witt Stephens, a state legislator's son who parlayed a Depression-era belt-buckle, Bible, and municipal-bond business into an immense personal fortune. After his retirement in 1973, the company was run by his shy younger brother, Jackson (a classmate of Jimmy Carter's at the Naval Academy). Witt Stephens and Stephens Inc. did much to create the economic paradox that is modern Arkansas: a desperately poor state with a scant 2.3 million inhabitants that is nonetheless home to a number of wealthy companies. Without the financial assistance of the Stephens brothers, Sam Walton might have ended his days as the most innovative merchant in Bentonville. Stephens money was also important to the fortunes of enterprises as various as Tyson Foods and Linda Bloodworth-Thomason, the television producer and reigning First Friend. Stephens Inc. is an important client of the Rose law firm, whose chairman, C. Joseph Giroir, made Hillary Rodham Clinton a partner. And back in 1977, Stephens assisted BCCI's infiltration of the American banking system by brokering the latter's purchase of National Bank of Georgia stock held by Bert Lance, former President Jimmy Carter's friend and disgraced budget director.

Jackson Stephens (who turned over the reins to his son, Warren, in the late eighties) and his firm were both substantial contributors to the campaigns of Presidents Reagan and Bush (to the tune of at least $100,000 in 1980 and 1989), but they have been closer still to Bill Clinton (whom Witt Stephens had been known to call "that boy").

On two occasions, once when Clinton was running for reelection in Arkansas in 1990 and again in March 1992, when his battered presidential campaign was broke, the Stephens family saved Clinton's bacon with an infusion of money. Indeed, it may not be too much to say that their Worthen Bank's emergency $3.5 million line of credit saved the presidential campaign from extinction. --L.J.D.


http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/1993/11/davis.html



LEAGUE OF CONSERVATION VOTERS GAVE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION A C- FOR THEIR FIRST YEAR:

Washington, D.C. - The League of Conservation Voters (LCV), the self-described political arm of the environmental movement, has given President Clinton a middling grade of "C-plus" overall for "not working up to potential" during his first year in office.

In particular, the League criticized the Clinton Administration for failing to halt Waste Technologies Industries' controversial hazardous waste incinerator in East Liverpool, Ohio.

-snip

http://wasteage.com/mag/waste_fewer_onsite_hazwaste /

SO WHY DID THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION TURN THEIR BACKS ON THIS CASE?

Stephens was also the biggest financial backer of the Clinton-Gore campaign. The Little Rock investment banker had supported Clinton in each of his campaigns for governor, raised $100,000 in contributions for the 1992 Clinton-Gore campaign, and extended a $3.5 million line of credit to the campaign through his bank. Hillary Rodham Clinton, while a partner at the Rose law firm in Little Rock, had represented a company controlled by the Stephens family.

Stephens' also had strong ties to previous presidents and was a major contributor to the Republican party. In 1991, Stephens had arranged a bail-out for a small Texas oil company on the verge of bankruptcy, according to the Wall Street Journal. One of the company's directors and stockholders was George W. Bush, now the leading Republican candidate for president. The Stephens family also contributed to the campaign that won him his current job, Governor of Texas.

On January 15, 1992, East Liverpool residents sought an injunction against the test burn. A federal judge in Cleveland ruled in March, 1993 that WTI could conduct the eight-day test burn but suspended further operation because of public health concerns raised at the hearing. Weeks later, an appeals court in Cincinnati overturned the decision, and the facility began operating.

WTI failed part of its test burn in 1993, releasing four times more mercury than allowed. Children at the elementary school were tested for mercury in their urine prior to WTI operation and again six months after the facility started burning as part of a state health study. In the first test, 69 percent of the children tested negative; the follow-up test found that nearly the same number tested positive.

http://www.ohiocitizen.org/campaigns/wti/jennl.html




But a top E.P.A. official and several legal experts in and out of the agency said the Administration had the authority to lift the permit for testing as soon as it took office. Now that the issue is being decided by the courts, any Administration action would swiftly be drawn into the litigation.

Investigators for the E.P.A. and Congressional committees who have followed the case speculated today that there may have been several reasons in addition to the legal issues for the Clinton Administration's failure to aggressively fight the incinerator immediately upon taking office.

The original investor in the $160 million plant was Jackson T. Stephens, chairman of Stephens Inc. in Little Rock, Ark., one of the nation's largest investment banking companies, and the Stephens family is a leading financial backer of Mr. Clinton's campaign. Mr. Stephens sold his interest in the incinerator in 1990, a company spokesman said, and it is not known whether he retains a financial stake.

-snip

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0CE4DC1F39F93BA25750C0A965958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all

[LisaM]

100. Well, some people thought REAGAN was likeable.

Some people think GWB is likeable.

First, I think there are very few women in powerful positions who are considered likeable, even if they act exactly the same as a man in those very same positions. Unfortunately, it's a societal bias.

But, secondly, people have different ideas of what *is* likeable. Personally, I found Gore and Kerry BOTH very likeable. I liked their intelligence and dry wit. I always found Reagan smarmy and oily. Yet he was considered likeable and Gore was not! People are odd.

I saw Hillary in person a few weeks ago, and I'm sorry to inform you that she was very likeable. She's attractive and responsive, and was very much in tune with her audience.

I don't really get Obama's appeal. I know people are swooning over him, but I don't grasp it. To me, he has all the appeal of a Billy Graham, or a Jim Bakker - which is to say, zero, but I admit that Billy Graham has lots of people who go crazy for him, too.

[roseBudd]

101. Check out Reagan vs. Mondale, and realize that the Reagan generation was created by a charismatic

president. Hillary Clinton has insurmountable unfavorables. We have a chance to create a decades long realignment with new young democratic voters. OMG is Hillary Way or the highway more important than that?

Spock "Wrath of Khan": That is wise. Were I to invoke logic, however, logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

[LisaM]

106. Well, the Reagan generation didn't turn out very well, did it?

So who wants to run the same risk again?

[DemBones DemBones]

115. I agree with all you said. Hillary Clinton is being viewed through sexist lenses

by many women as well as men. Many women are jealous of/threatened by more successful women, as many men are jealous of/threatened by more successful men.

The first time I ever saw *, I thought "Smart ass frat boy." Reagan was a big phony, an actor who knew how to deliver lines and salute, because he'd been in war movies.

Obama doesn't ring true to me, either. I don't believe he's sincere, but like a phony preacher, like Jim Bakker or Pat Robertson, working an angle. He's too smug.

Hillary Clinton has come across as very likable in the debates I've watched and in her speech in Ohio last week. In debates, she looks at Obama and listens to him while he speaks, makes an occasional note, but when she speaks he spends a lot of time writing on his notepad, rarely looks at her. He may be up there writing a book, who knows? When he does look at her, he holds his head back and looks down his nose at her.

She has had everything in the world thrown at her and she's still keeping on and can laugh at herself. I don't delude myself that she will do all that I think needs to be done but I think she'll be a good president. Obama? Disaster! He's not ready for prime time. He might be in a few years but he's not now and should not have run this year.

[roseBudd]

120. And if Hillary loses to McCain? Are you willing to say those newly energized young voters

and independents were less important than you personally thinking Obama is a phony.

Will you be alright with that.

Because Hillary hate is real.

Obama phony is a maybe

[BzaDem]

104. Because I am forward looking.

Obama is so unknown that after a massive swift-boating campaign, his image will be redefined, and his negatives will soar. Most people here refuse to look ahead.

[LWolf]

110. I'm not a Clinton supporter,

and I don't think that "likeability" is an important consideration.

I do think that the "charisma" factor is dangerous. For several reasons:

First of all, someone can be "likeable," can exude "charisma," and be totally without substance. We don't need a media star, we need a smart, strong, persistent, ethical human being who will work for us.

"Charisma" can cover a lot of flaws.

Any time "charisma" or "likeability" takes precedence over issues, we've lost. If we aren't voting to make a difference in issues, we've wasted our vote.

"Charisma" should not make poor positions on issues okay.

When people choose a candidate based on "likeability" rather than issues and record, they are operating from emotion, not from logic. Emotions are an important part of life, but it's not responsible to make crucial decisions from an emotional place, drowning out our thinking selves.

"Likeability" is subjective. Crucial decisions that will affect everyone should not be based on subjective criteria.

Finally, "winning" can't be "job one." It can't be, if "winning" means putting someone in office who cannot, or will not, do the work to achieve the real goals. "Winning" is electing someone who is good for the people. The election is not a sporting event.

"Winning" is an essential part of creating the change we wish to see, but it's not a real "win" if the person we elect won't create that change.

"Winning" is winning the issues.

[roseBudd]

119. None of those points apply to Barack Obama, now do they.

[LWolf]

123. The hell they don't.

I've recognized that since his convention speech in '04.

[joeybee12]

112. It is..however...Bush was more likeable in 2000 than Gore...or so the

story went...and his campaign tried to play that up. There's that history that is making a lot of people re-consider that quality this time around, wondering if it is all that important.

[roseBudd]

121. So you are saying a democrat who has charisma, like FDR ,JFK & Bill is bad because it means tthey

are going to tturn out like Bush?

[Johnny__Motown]

114. Because it isn't important unless it helps Hillary

[Perry Logan]

125. It's progress when Clinton non-supporters realize they don't understand Clinton supporters.

It's almost like the first faint glimmerings of rationality.