Don't call her "Hillary"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:She's a very accomplished and hardworking, dedicated, intelligent person. She has a lot of great qualities, and I think she would be a very competent President.

But she won't be elected, because she's simply not a good candidate. She never has been. She's aloof and shrill and grating and not very personable. Very few of us would do any better, to be sure, because very few people are natural political candidates. But that's what it takes to be President, and she is completely lacking in that regard. The Democrats are throwing this one.

Interesting perspective. I agree Hillary isn't a natural campaigner. But do you really think President Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and the myriad other big-name Democrats who support Hillary are throwing the election? That would mean the president is not interested in seeing his agenda maintained in the future -- that he will be fine with the ACA's repeal and all his other efforts being reversed within a year. I can't quite believe that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She's a very accomplished and hardworking, dedicated, intelligent person. She has a lot of great qualities, and I think she would be a very competent President.

But she won't be elected, because she's simply not a good candidate. She never has been. She's aloof and shrill and grating and not very personable. Very few of us would do any better, to be sure, because very few people are natural political candidates. But that's what it takes to be President, and she is completely lacking in that regard. The Democrats are throwing this one.

Interesting perspective. I agree Hillary isn't a natural campaigner. But do you really think President Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and the myriad other big-name Democrats who support Hillary are throwing the election? That would mean the president is not interested in seeing his agenda maintained in the future -- that he will be fine with the ACA's repeal and all his other efforts being reversed within a year. I can't quite believe that.

This is quite rich. You are saying Hillary can't win the Presidency, but Obama can, and will, do so for her?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She's a very accomplished and hardworking, dedicated, intelligent person. She has a lot of great qualities, and I think she would be a very competent President.

But she won't be elected, because she's simply not a good candidate. She never has been. She's aloof and shrill and grating and not very personable. Very few of us would do any better, to be sure, because very few people are natural political candidates. But that's what it takes to be President, and she is completely lacking in that regard. The Democrats are throwing this one.

Interesting perspective. I agree Hillary isn't a natural campaigner. But do you really think President Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and the myriad other big-name Democrats who support Hillary are throwing the election? That would mean the president is not interested in seeing his agenda maintained in the future -- that he will be fine with the ACA's repeal and all his other efforts being reversed within a year. I can't quite believe that.

This is quite rich. You are saying Hillary can't win the Presidency, but Obama can, and will, do so for her?

Um, no. You said, "The Democrats are throwing this one," correct? Am I quoting you accurately? And do you understand what that means, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:She's a very accomplished and hardworking, dedicated, intelligent person. She has a lot of great qualities, and I think she would be a very competent President.

But she won't be elected, because she's simply not a good candidate. She never has been. She's aloof and shrill and grating and not very personable. Very few of us would do any better, to be sure, because very few people are natural political candidates. But that's what it takes to be President, and she is completely lacking in that regard. The Democrats are throwing this one.

I'd love to see a man referred to this way. I'm sure we'll hear "shrill" a lot more in the future -- it's such a gendered insult.

She's not the natural extrovert that Bill or Obama are, but that doesn't mean she wouldn't be a fine leader. If the country can elect GWB, who was a bumbling fool, we can elect a smart lady who isn't a natural politician.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She's a very accomplished and hardworking, dedicated, intelligent person. She has a lot of great qualities, and I think she would be a very competent President.

But she won't be elected, because she's simply not a good candidate. She never has been. She's aloof and shrill and grating and not very personable. Very few of us would do any better, to be sure, because very few people are natural political candidates. But that's what it takes to be President, and she is completely lacking in that regard. The Democrats are throwing this one.

Interesting perspective. I agree Hillary isn't a natural campaigner. But do you really think President Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and the myriad other big-name Democrats who support Hillary are throwing the election? That would mean the president is not interested in seeing his agenda maintained in the future -- that he will be fine with the ACA's repeal and all his other efforts being reversed within a year. I can't quite believe that.

I think that she has had eight years to improve her approach to campaigning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Peggy Drexler feels we shouldn't call her by her first name.

Has she taken this up with the candidate, who had a [terrible] logo created using the letter "H," not "C"? How about the scads of people with "I'm with Hillary" bumper stickers?

I can't wait until mid-November 2016 when we don't have to hear about HRC any longer. This is tiring already.

When Bush ran in 2000, I saw scads of "W" bumper stickers. It worked for him. I personally like Hillary's logo. When people hear "Hillary" you know exactly who they're talking about. The forward arrow within the initial symbolizes progression and moving forward, both of which are beneficial messages for her campaign.

I think this is much ado about nothing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is going to be difficult when she spearheaded her campaign with "IM READY FOR HILLARY" everywhere

She actually had nothing to do with that. It's a super PAC started by two complete non-insiders.

But I think she prefers Hillary, hence the campaign's name.

It was all over the place the day she announced. How does she have nothing to do with that? Clearly her team is involved.

It was all over the place because the aforementioned super pac that started "Ready for Hillary" had been waiting for over two years to materialize on her announcement. Did you think they were just going to go away??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:She's a very accomplished and hardworking, dedicated, intelligent person. She has a lot of great qualities, and I think she would be a very competent President.

But she won't be elected, because she's simply not a good candidate. She never has been. She's aloof and shrill and grating and not very personable. Very few of us would do any better, to be sure, because very few people are natural political candidates. But that's what it takes to be President, and she is completely lacking in that regard. The Democrats are throwing this one.

I think she is going to work hard on this campaign to dismantlell some of the impressions you noted. I read an article in the NYT just this past weekend saying that her campaign planned on employing more of the elements from her successful Senate run in 2004 and to avoid the mistakes made in 2008. There was also a lot of references to grass roots campaigning, essentially taking a page out of the Obama playbook.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Peggy Drexler feels we shouldn't call her by her first name.

Has she taken this up with the candidate, who had a [terrible] logo created using the letter "H," not "C"? How about the scads of people with "I'm with Hillary" bumper stickers?

I can't wait until mid-November 2016 when we don't have to hear about HRC any longer. This is tiring already.

When Bush ran in 2000, I saw scads of "W" bumper stickers. It worked for him. I personally like Hillary's logo. When people hear "Hillary" you know exactly who they're talking about. The forward arrow within the initial symbolizes progression and moving forward, both of which are beneficial messages for her campaign.
[/img]
I think this is much ado about nothing.

When I see her logo, I think of the blue “hospital” signs you see along the highway.
And, the arrow reminds me of Fed Ex.
So, the message is.... “She will absolutely positively get us to the hospital overnight.”
I don’t care for it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Peggy Drexler feels we shouldn't call her by her first name.

Has she taken this up with the candidate, who had a [terrible] logo created using the letter "H," not "C"? How about the scads of people with "I'm with Hillary" bumper stickers?

I can't wait until mid-November 2016 when we don't have to hear about HRC any longer. This is tiring already.

When Bush ran in 2000, I saw scads of "W" bumper stickers. It worked for him. I personally like Hillary's logo. When people hear "Hillary" you know exactly who they're talking about. The forward arrow within the initial symbolizes progression and moving forward, both of which are beneficial messages for her campaign.
[/img]
I think this is much ado about nothing.

When I see her logo, I think of the blue “hospital” signs you see along the highway.
And, the arrow reminds me of Fed Ex.
So, the message is.... “She will absolutely positively get us to the hospital overnight.”
I don’t care for it.

Well you certainly shouldn't vote for her if you don't care for her logo.

[Anonymous]

Should we call her

Mentally Illery ?

[Anonymous]

It's brilliant. It communicates forward progress without saying it in words. They can put any issue or message on that logo and it will work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's brilliant. It communicates forward progress without saying it in words. They can put any issue or message on that logo and it will work.

I think it looks like penis envy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's brilliant. It communicates forward progress without saying it in words. They can put any issue or message on that logo and it will work.

I think it looks like penis envy.

Of course you do. You agree with President Clinton. You can't stand Hillary either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's brilliant. It communicates forward progress without saying it in words. They can put any issue or message on that logo and it will work.

I think it looks like penis envy.

Of course you do. You agree with President Clinton. You can't stand Hillary either.

Do you not trust President Clinton's instincts?