Geraldine Ferraro and Hillary Clinton.

[Drunken Irishman]

I'm not saying there isn't sexism, because it does exist. However, people fail to mention how popular Geraldine Ferraro was when she ran with Mondale in 1984. Prior to choosing Ferraro as his vice presidential candidate, Mondale was down 16 points in the polls. After choosing her, he tied with Reagan. That bump didn't last long, but many historians attribute that to the fact Mondale was a poor candidate at the top of the ticket. It is actually believed that Ferraro would have benefited far more had there been a more likeable candidate at the top of the ticket, as opinion polls showed Ferraro receiving far more likeable ratings than George Bush.

Now I know you can't compare running for president with running as a vice presidential candidate, but I think there is something we can learn from this. I have no doubt there are people who dislike Hillary because of her gender, but maybe that isn't the only reason she's not liked. Here you had Ferraro, a very powerful, socially liberal woman who was generally liked by the voting public. In fact, liked more than the man she was running under. What is the difference? Have we really regressed since 1984? I don't think so. I think the problem does, in fact, rest with Hillary Clinton herself. To me, that's why I do not think she will make a good candidate in the general election. There are likeable issues, much like with Mitt Romney, who suffers from the same problem. Both appear to have this cocky, self-righteous approach to their campaigns. I think that is why both Romney and Hillary are sliding in the polls and why they both may not win the nominations of their respective parties.

[Tom Rinaldo]

1. Ferraro was somewhat obscure until that nomination

That is the key difference. Yes she was an intelligent and strong woman with a good liberal record, but she was a Congresswoman, and not many Congressional Representatives have well established national images. So she was refreshing and new at the time. We didn't come up against her baggage immediately - she started out clean and untarred. Of course that didn't last long, did it? Pretty soon people were digging up dirt to use against her originating with her husband and it became a major distraction to the Mondale campaign, which had something to do with that initial bump not lasting.

Hillary has been a primary target of the right wing for 15 years. That is the key distinction. You can't look fresh and new when you have been the focus of that type of extended campaign against you.

Ferraro lost appeal as the race progressed in 2004. Hillary went through that phase of exposure long ago. I honestly think her image will improve over the course of a Presidential campaign if she becomes our nominee. The negative surprises are out of the bag already, for most people only positive ones remain.

[Drunken Irishman]

2. Maybe, but how much of Hillary's image is self-created?

I think that is an issue she's been fighting the past few weeks. Look, deep down I like Clinton. I think she's a good woman who has the best interests of this country at heart. I do not think, however, she has run a competent campaign or shown off her true self. It's kind of like Al Gore, who never really was himself until after the election and by that time it was too late. He spent too much time trying to fix his flaws, he forgot to really let loose and actually show the voter who he really was.

If Hillary is going to salvage her campaign, she needs to be her true self. Not a combative person, rather an easy going, down to earth, caring politician. You see glimpses of it -- like the moment in the debate where she said her feelings were hurt, but it doesn't seem to last. To me, that will be her undoing and I honestly think it's too late to change.

So, will the real Hillary please stand up?

[Tom Rinaldo]

3. I don't completely disagree with you

Sometimes a loss in an important election frees up something inside a politician, there are lots of widely accepted instances of that happening. It's only been a couple of days since Iowa, and that was the first time Hillary ever lost an election. I am already seeing signs of her stepping forward and being more comfortable being open about who she really is.

I'm sorry for the people who don't want to keep reading about the effects of sexism on politics, but I believe they are there. It is harder for Hillary to give free reign to her spontaneous reactions without risking getting burnt for them than it is for most male politicians. We saw that on DU tonight about her supposed "melt down" when she showed strong emotion in defending her integrity as a Democrat.

Still it is a challenge she must deal with, it is the hand she has been dealt.

[aquart]

4. Ferraro was running in the feminine position: VEEP

Not the same thing at all. As for likable, I do like her. But I do NOT vote for "someone I want to have a beer with." That's a deplorable, shoddy way to choose.

[Drunken Irishman]

6. So are you saying Cheney is feminine? :D

[silverojo]

5. It's very true.

Geraldine Ferraro is what inspired me to volunteer for the Mondale/Ferraro campaign. She had a lot of class, and she had to face a far tougher uphill battle than HRC does now. Ferraro was the FIRST female who was part of a presidential/VP ticket in the GE, and she didn't have a famous Democratic former president as her husband, either. Because she was in uncharted territory, she had to hold back in the VP debates to avoid sounding shrill (hence her "I almost resent...." statement to Poppy Bush that some people ridiculed).

And, as usual, "The Silver Ox" (a/k/a Barbara Bush) had to inject her special brand of class into the post-debate discussion by calling Ferraro "something that rhymes with witch".