She alarms me, this failed HP CEO and defeated senate candidate from CA.

[Surya Gayatri]

* She is an accomplished demagogue and lier, and comes across as strong and forceful.

* She does it articulately and with utter conviction, avoiding the word-salad trap.

* She can think on her feet and doesn't blink even in the middle of the man-cave lion's den.

* She was the only one on that stage last night who was able to make The Donald look unconfortable.

* She's a WOMAN and could, I fear, garner many independent and female votes, and largely neutralize Clinton's claim to the 'FIRST FEMALE' mantle.

* She could blind-side Sanders in a potential match-up where he might appear rough-edged and aggressive faced with her softer, feminine persona.

SHE COULD PROVE TO BE VERY DANGEROUS FOR THE DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE, WHOEVER HE/SHE MAY BE.

[mnhtnbb]

1. The Republicans won't nominate a woman for POTUS: it's ok for them to have a woman VP

but there is no way in hell they will nominate a woman. Too many misogynists in the GOP.

[Surya Gayatri]

3. I wish I were so sure of that. Repub. women may flock to her in droves...

and they tend to vote without fail.

[mnhtnbb]

5. I disagree. I see a lot of Republican women voting the way they are told to by Repub men

and I don't see many Republican men choosing to vote for Carly.

[Surya Gayatri]

6. From your keyboard to the Creative Entity's in-box.

I've read of Repub. female voters who are even willing to bolt their party and vote for "the first woman president", Dem. or not.

[mnhtnbb]

9. Well, we'll see how it plays out. At this point, I'm not worried about Carly

and I'm not worried about Trump because I think he'll fizzle before the primaries get started.

I have no idea who will end up the Republican nominee, but I'd be willing to bet it won't be
Carly.

[daleanime]

2. The fact that any of them are 2 steps away from being president....

is dangerous.

[Surya Gayatri]

4. Truly disturbing, not to say dismaying.

[treestar]

7. She and Trump

have not been elected to any lesser office. In the long term, I don't see the voters rewarding such persons with the top office as their first. The Republicans won't want their candidate to be vulnerable to Hillary/Democrats harping on their lack of government experience.

A CEO has no experience having to deal with compromise. Their underlings do as they say.

I thought this about Perot, too.

[Surya Gayatri]

10. OK, but what about this much ballyhooed "anti-establishment" wave

we're supposedly riding? She can claim impeccable "outsider" credentials.

[treestar]

31. True to a point

I just wonder if enough voters would be swayed to think like that.

Jimmy Carter was one, but he'd been a governor.

Trying to recall has there ever been a US President who'd never been elected to any office lesser before. Ike maybe?

After looking:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States_by_other_offices_held

This is a list of Presidents of the United States by other offices (either elected or appointive) held. Every President of the United States has served as either:

Vice President of the United States
a Member of Congress (either U.S. Senator or Representative)
a Governor of a state
a Cabinet Secretary
a General of the United States Army

So Ike is the only one and he was a US Army General. And that is serving this nation, too. So a Trump would be the first never to have served his country in any way previously.

[HughBeaumont]

8. No serial firer will have any SNIFF of the Oval Office if labor has anything to say about it.

Her HP past dooms her. Cash-and-carry CEO Larcenists aren't fashionable in a still-recovering and still-low-on-living-wage-jobs economy. People view getting fired as a very traumatic and life-screwing experience.

[Surya Gayatri]

11. She was asked about her "failed" CEO gig last night. Her response?

"It was a Clintonite who wrote a hit piece on her..."

[mnhtnbb]

12. Well, of course. Republicans are never responsible for anything. It's always someone else's fault.

[Surya Gayatri]

14. ^^^AMEN to that!^^^

[HughBeaumont]

15. Amazing.

I love how these deluded and insufferable idiots think that their scorch-the-earth business practices are perfectly fair and just a normal process of life that Americans should simply get used to and abide by. That . . . this notion of us getting angry about bosses firing us just because is puzzling to them.

Whoever reports on Fiorina's tenure of shit at HP isn't making that term of rotten any less factual. I'm sorry she doesn't get that she was a cash-and-carry larcenist that ruined thousands of lives and stomped a mudhole in HP's former employee-centered culture. Still, it is so.

[lonestarnot]

13. I think you meant LIAR! LIAR pants on fucking fire! and

she is not capable of "blind-side"ing Bernie.

[Surya Gayatri]

18. She appears to be an adept of the Clintonian adage: Better to be wrong

and strong than right and light.

With an endless supply of lies and a shameful willingness to use them, she might put any "straight-shooter" off their stride in a debate setting, at least for a time.

[Gloria]

20. I am going to interject...

Really, Clinton is NOT like Fiorina at all...

Clinton hate is getting very old...

[Surya Gayatri]

22. That's NOT Hillary's quote, but Bill's. No implied judgement of Hill at all.

(I'm an erstwhile HRC supporter!)

"Yet, Democrats marshaling opposition to Bush's plan might do well to consider the words of the former president, who is their smartest political strategist.

After the 2002 election, Clinton had an explanation for those who did not understand why Bush and the Republicans had picked up congressional seats. The GOP victories that year, in which national security was a big issue, were the exception to the historical record of the president's party usually losing seats in mid-term elections.

"When people are insecure, they'd rather have somebody who is strong and wrong than someone who's weak and right," Clinton said."

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/01/strong_and_wrong_vs_weak_and_r.html

[Gloria]

23. Oh, yes, I remember it now...

thanks for the correction...

And, it is spot on to this day...witness the rise of Trump...many pundits are commenting that he comes across as STRONG, which is what people crave...they don't care a hoot about any policies, etc.

[lonestarnot]

27. Nope Bernie too smart for that twit. His honesty will never betray him.

[dembotoz]

16. wish i could look so good for getting canned from a job because i was incompetent

she should be putting her resume rehabilitation sessions on dvd and making the big $$$$$$$$

[Surya Gayatri]

17. She obviously has far higher ambitions.

[Gloria]

19. Just now on Bloomberg TV...

Discussion of the debate...

One guy said Fiorina was "to hard edged"....understatement of the year,
but to here it on the BUSINESS networkk....wow....

She was actually robot-like...
I have to say, Fallon teased Clinton about her "robot-like" demeanor which some people like to talk about...

But you have to admit, HRC is nowhere near as cold as Fiorina.

HRC is a solid Midwesterner and has a sense of humor...here at DU, she may be hated, but she really is
not anything like Fiorina....

[Surya Gayatri]

21. When she speaks, her face barely moves. 'Hatchet-faced' is how I'd describe her.

All hard angles and sharp corners.

[Gloria]

24. I think Fiorina has issues..

Something about her is on the edge, so tightly controlled that it is unnatural.
She lost a child to drugs and has survived cancer....

It seems she is being STRONG because she is fearful of something. She is afraid of losing control....Politics gives her the place to act this out....she certainly has no history of being interested in government service.

While all candidates have a screw loose, to some degree, there is something about extreme Republicans which go way past the norm. Watching her is like watching a volcano ready to explode. Fiorina has something going on here that is pretty deep...They called her "scissorshands" at HP.

When a guy on Bloomberg Business says she is too "hard edged" then something is going on. I bet a lot of business people may not be all that happy about her....

[madaboutharry]

29. The story of "lost a child to drugs" is actually not entirely true.

The "daughter" was actually the daughter of her second husband from his first marriage. This daughter lived with her own mother (the first wife) and not with Carly Fiorina. It is a stretch of the truth in order to pad her personal history resume. It is taking someone else's tragedy for personal gain.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3156767/White-House-hopeful-Carly-Fiorina-s-claims-motherhood-secretary-CEO-rise-fire-ex-husband-ridicules-calculating-tragic-stepdaughter-s-mom-says.html

[Gloria]

32. Ah, another piece of false info that needs to be

Fact checked, like the PP video she supposedly saw whuch VOX reporters say doesn't exist....

[rufus dog]

25. People were concerned about her during her Senate run in CA

I believe she came out early within a few points of Boxer, ended up losing by 10 points. The more people got to know her, the less they liked her. This was in 2010, in a Presidential election year it would have been worse.

So in an all female match up in a favorable year, she got smacked. I don't think it is possible to lose, CA, OR, WA, the North East, by double digits and have any chance of getting to 270 EVs. Believe me, there wasn't much focus on the race and she tanked.

Think about her winning line smacking down Trump for making fun of her looks. Original impression is favorable, watch it three times, with the knowledge that she smacked Boxer for her hairstyle, then tell me that you don't get the impression that she is an annoying farce.

[Johonny]

26. She did not attract Female voters in California

mostly because she doesn't support women in any issue: from equal pay to health care she is just more of the same GOP. Women aren't stupid even if Carly thinks they are. She had huge negatives with women.

She has a lot of negatives that play to the Dems advantage just as it did the last time she ran. Remember the GOP candidates have yet to attack her. Neither have the Dems.

[Aerows]

28. Give it time

There are still a lot of debates. Everybody can have a good one, everybody can have a bad one.

Quite honestly, her business record is so awful I have no idea why anyone would want her directing anything, let alone the US Government.

[n2doc]

30. She will be called on her lies in a less friendly debate

And just because she can say lies with conviction doesn't mean that there is no cost to saying lies. If she makes it far enough to be a threat count on a deluge of advertising pointing out her lies. Over and Over.

Right now she is being held up by the media, frantic to have another person to fight with Trump.