It’s because Democrats (surprisingly) are Americans, too, whose candidates are subject to critiques from every manner of citizen, regardless of party. It’s called democracy. As President Bush impressively demonstrates, a President must uphold the best interests of all of us, regardless of party.

JJ is clearheaded and comprehensive in his comments.

We will never envision Hillary as having Margaret Thatcher
breeding. I could never see her as a war leader.
Red states like mine will vote against her for that very reason.

She’s merely a good, vicious political infighter whose skills may indeed procure the nomination.

Interestingly enough, this next election cycle is seeing something that I don’t think we’ve seen a lot before, which is that Hillary seems to think she should get the nomination by acclamation.

Which is also, I suspect, why a nothing like Obama is all of a sudden being blown up by the media. It’s occurred to a lot of people, as Hillary continues to poll with very high negatives (generally around 50% in polls say they wouldn’t vote for her – period) that if they go with her they might be in trouble.

Interesting article in, of all things, the NY Times, link below.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/13/nyregion/13patti.html?_r=1&ref=politics&oref=slogin

Hillary is very, very, very controlled. She is not, for example, going to visit every county in Iowa for the Iowa caucuses – because somebody might ask her a question that was unscripted. People in Iowa will not appreciate that. (She also sees that, I’m sure, as the annoying minutiae she should be regarded as being above.)

A lot of it is meeting and greeting, and Hillary hasn’t been asked a tough question in six years. She hasn’t had an honest press conference in years. Her handlers don’t permit it – but out on the trail it’s hard to keep it under control. And when Hillary is left on her own, she’s shrill, she’s screeching, she’s carping: she’s a harpy. (Which is why they don’t let an unscripted word pass her lips.)

But here’s what I see as interesting. I think the sudden emergence of Obama is a clear indication that the democrats do not wish her to simply have a coronation. There is a lot of uncertainty over how well she does when forced to think on her feet, and a lot of uncertainty over just how widely loved she really is.

Hyping somebody well beyond any level of competence or experience he may bring to the table, and throwing him at her, accomplishes a couple of things. It tells her it isn’t just going to be a coronation, she’s going to have actually work for it. It also reminds her that she is not seen as a shoo-in by a lot of folks in her own party. And it reminds her that she’s going to have to actively function in the process, and when some guy in Iowa asks a hard question, there better be a – at least semi-reasonable – answer. You can’t be insulted because someone had the temerity to ask something, and you can’t just ignore it, either.

I think the existence of Obama is a clear indication that there are a lot of democrats who aren’t so sure she can function outside her bubble.

That’s why people like Clinton, Obama, McCain, Giuliani et al spend years running around the country “helping” other people get elected. They are of course helping only themselves. They are engaged in putting other people in debt to them, so when what they regard as their time comes, they will be owed – fund-raising assistance, favors, delegates, whatever.

It’s always been about such maneuvering, and whoever maneuvers most effectively gets the nomination. “Best” has only occasionally had anything to do with it, and then usually by accident.

I am curious, though, as to the thinking behind why a Republican would want so much input into who the Democrats nominate. In some ways that violates the Jewish person “taking pot shots at Jew” idea. Why not take pot shots at other Republicans and let the Democrats cleanse from within? Ah, but I know the answer. All’s fair in love and politics. (Which is why it’s called “dirty”!) It’s not about each party choosing its best candidiate and letting the best of the best win. No sadly, it isn’t.