The New Republic

Character, temperment, and, most of all....judgement, are the most telling critiques of Hillary.  And you can take that critique all the way back to 1993 and find in her ballyhoed "experience" claim a clear and consistent pattern of questionable character, uncongenial temperment, and truly atrocious judgment on every single crucial issue she has ever faced.  (I.e...Health Care, Whitewater, Iraq....and now we can add Iran to the collection.)  Why this critique, which Obama has been making over and over, doesn't get traction is a mystery to me.  

But, after all, this is the electorate that gave us Walter Mondale, Mike Dukakis, Al Gore and John Kerry...so the political judgment of folks who vote in Democratic primaries and caucuses  has a pretty bad track record.  

(To paraphrase Nelson Rockfeller when he was asked in 1968 why he didn't get the Republican nomination and he replied "Have you ever BEEN to a Republican Convention?", Barack and Edwards might ask the same question about Democratic primary contests.)

- vanwurs

October 26, 2007 at 11:48am

what vanwurs said

- JackR

October 26, 2007 at 12:42pm

Without Obama, Edwards would already be the front-runner.  But the reverse is not yet necessarily true.  Obama needs to pick up some speed, or get out of the race.  

- purcellneil

October 26, 2007 at 4:59pm

The level of animosity that exists among Democrats toward Hillary (I am one of them) makes me feel as though her campaign is a curse. My true wish is that it comes down to a race between Edwards and Obama, otherwise I hope one gets plastered early on so that there is only one alternative to Hillary. I would hate for Hillary to win the nomination with only 35% of the Democratic voters, with a significant chunk of the other 65% of Dems detesting her.

I supported Edwards in 04 but accepted Kerry when he became the nominee, I just can't accept Hillary. If she wins and is against McCain I am staying home election time.

- blackton

October 26, 2007 at 5:27pm

The thing that worries me most about HRC is that she can't make a speech or give an interview to which I can stand to listen.  It seems odd to say such a thing of a person as accomplished and obviously intelligent as Clinton--and I do believe she's intelligent--but she's INARTICULATE.  

I've run across who knows how many biographical comparisons between Hillary and Bill trying to show how she was the better student with the brighter prospects, the valedictory speech-maker, the Watergate committee-member, yada yada yada, but as I see it the crucial difference between Bill and Hill and a big reason why he, not she, was the trailblazer to the White House is that unlike Hillary, Bill can bloody well TALK.  

Sure, HRC has a clear command of the facts, but I'm not sure that's enough.  I'd think after the past six years we'd have had enough of tongue-tied presidents.  We all know that Obama is a communicator; it's his speech-making that made him famous.  But Edwards, the litigator (and Southerner; I'm not sure why but it plays a role) also knows his way around a lectern and a talk-show lounge chair.  

I don't feel I have any idea whether HRC would make a good president.  It seems pretty clear to me though that she's a dud candidate of the Mondale, Dukakis, Kerry mode.  Given the historical conditions this election cycle she'll likely win anyway.  But either Obama or Edwards--Edwards especially--would be much more dynamic than HRC in the general election, and probably would make a better POTUS too.

- aeromonas

October 26, 2007 at 8:11pm