Re: This One's For the Girls
Kristen Breitweiser wrote:Heck, even standing next to Barack, Michelle makes a more commanding presence by appearing stronger, more engaged, and more aware. In Team Obama, Barack's the cheerleader, while Michelle's the quarterback.
Michelle knows the same simple truth that all women know: when it comes to getting work done and cleaning up messes, women are better than men.
This is part of the reason of why Hillary Clinton is the better candidate in '08. Aside from the fact that she has more experience; she is a woman. It's time we recognize what a strength that is in a Commander in Chief.
Hillary is smarter, more capable, a harder worker, better multi-tasker, and most importantly, tougher than Barack.
Umm.. is this a column or a diary item? Talk about paragraph after paragraph of pure assertion, of "if I just say it's true maybe people will accept that it's true."
The author is welcome to her personal opinion, of course, but if she's not going to even provide any argument, let alone proof, for any of her assertions, what the hell is she doing writing a column?
Michelle appears "stronger, more engaged, and more aware"? Um, OK. I like Michelle too, I think they make a strong couple. But I think Barack looks pretty much equally "strong" and "engaged". Either way this is just eye of the beholder stuff.
Hillary is "smarter, more capable, a harder worker, better multi-tasker, and .. tougher" than Barack? Uh.. if you say so, author. But is there anything specific you actually want to base this on?
I mean, look at the campaign. Obama prepared better, had a longer-term plan, has a more tightly organised campaign. Hillary's campaign has been plagued by infighting between advisors who dont listen to each other and each think they have the One Right Plan; so much for management competence. She's kept on Solis Doyle as major campaign manager even after she wasted millions of campaign money in Hillary's Senate race, and now only fired her after again tens of millions of money was misspent - because she famously values personal loyalty over anything. Hello, GWB management style.
The Hillary campaign had no plan - nothing - for after Super Tuesday. It wrote off caucus states from the start, while Obama people were out there in every state, even the smallest and the reddest, to do the hard grassroots organising. The Hillary campaign banked everything on Texas and Ohio, and apparently only afterwards found out that Texas's electoral system was fiendishly complicated and offered little opportunity for any large delegate lead.
The Hillary campaign has been worse run, less informed, and with less of a presence throughout the primary and caucus states than Obama's, and yet we are to just swallow the assertion that Hillary is "smarter, more capable, a harder worker, [and] better multi-tasker" than Barack? Based on what?
Kristen Breitweiser wrote:Let's employ the "foxhole rule." Imagine yourself in the heat of war. Bombs dropping everywhere. You're dug in. You've got limited ammo. All hell is breaking loose. Who would you rather have getting your back? Barack or Hillary?
Um - Barack. Any time.
During this campaign, Hillary has stubbornly pursued failed strategies, even in the face of mounting evidence that they werent working, when she should have anticipated the turns in the road. And then when it was too late, she apparently panicked and scuttled from one tactic to another and yet another in the course of one week - all of which ineffectual.
While Obama's chief advisors have been nearly invisible and out there building effective grassroots machines, Hillary's chief strategists have been tumbling over each other in the media, trying out increasingly ludicrous lines of spin. Hillary herself postured a lot as tough cookie, but when things got hard she cast herself in the victim role - it's so hard, and they're all against me.
Judging on the campaign, Hillary simply
isnt the strong leader, effective manager and steady hand she claims to be - the very opposite. She's all spin and no beef. In the foxhole itself, maybe she'd be fine - but this is not the kind of leader I'd be happy entrusting my fate with if I were risking my life in that foxhole, and she'd be the general. It's like having GWB as commander.
Kristen Breitweiser wrote:our country is a mess. It's going to require a lot of unglamorous, grunt work and perhaps a bit of a bad rap to clean it all up. To me, it sounds like a job for a woman because if there were ever a house that needed cleaning up, it would be our current WH.
To me, it sounds like a job for someone who's actually proven that he or she can do that unglamorous, grunt work - successfully. Dunno if that's Obama, but it's obviously not Hillary. Her campaign is the one that has proven itself singularly inept at the "unglamorous, grunt work" part of the deal. At the organising and preparing - in time, quietly, and reliably.
Just like she failed at the "unglamorous, grunt work" of getting the numbers in Congress for "Hillarycare", in the 90s. Due at least in part to the same bunker mentality, lack of foresight, and lack of skill.
This is not someone I'd want to entrust with decisions and projects that have the chance of defining a generation of politics.
Kristen Breitweiser wrote:As the saying goes: a woman's work is never done. Indeed women are the ones who tirelessly and (and perhaps truly miraculously) clean up the messes, unplug the toilets, nurture the children, and make sure everyone is as happy as can be at day's end. Michelle Obama gets that. I get that. You get that. And perhaps more than any of us, Hillary Clinton gets that.
Except that the last time Hillary actually unplugged a toilet herself must be at least twenty years ago, of course.
What a steaming pile of short-sighted, feather-light, vacuous nonsense.
