<p>Okay, is she out of the race…is it a forgone conclusion that Obama has the nom?</p>
<p>My opine is YES. Mr. Bill knows this by now. The bigger issue is will McCain be done tomorrow? Looking more and more like Bloomberg is lurking shadow…about to pounce. So it could be Bloomberg versus O’Bama.</p>
<p>Senator Clinton will have to settle for the Senate.</p>
<p>I usually avoid political news but caught some bits of analysis on CNN after the Iowa caucuses that showed some good insights; it sounds like Obama has a better chance with the American public than Hillary Clinton. I hope she uses her talents to further her party’s cause even if she isn’t the candidate.</p>
<p>Depends on what happens on the February 5 primaries. </p>
<p>I’m a bit bemused by the Obamamania myself…it’s more like a rock star tour than a political campaign. I will vote for Obama over any of the Republican contenders but I find him inexperienced, glib, and naive. </p>
<p>He’s done a masterful job of tapping into the youth vote, independents, and peddling the fantasy of “post-partisanship”…no, I won’t debate it in this post but I’ll be happy to take a survey after he’s been in office for six months if that happens.</p>
<p>As for the 17-29 vote, which went for him heavily in Iowa and made all the difference, D had a shrewd observation: the young, not having experience themselves, tend to discount its value and even regard it warily as a handicap.</p>
<p>
I am in complete agreement with you, TheDad. I would love to roll several of the qualities of each of the leading Democratic candidates together, and throw in a few dashes of some of the “not in contention” candidates, and have one heck of a good President.</p>
<p>As an erstwhile Republican I suppose I shouldn’t have an opinion, but i have never understood the visceral dislike of Hillary. Obama terrifies me. Huckabee terrifies for some of the same reasons. If there was ever a time when we needed SOME experience, this is it. I think the attack dogs will come out if Obama gets the nomination, but I’m not overwhelmed with the Repub possibilities either. I just hope I get a chance to vote for Hillary.</p>
<p>Now, now, TheDad and his D, when young people stay away from electoral politics, they’re castigated for their apathy and self-centeredness; when they get involved, they’re castigated for not being sufficiently respectful toward their elders; oops, for preferring hope–the future, their future–over experience and their parents’ pasts (HRC is only 5 years younger than Obama’s late mother).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>[washingtonpost.com</a> - nation, world, technology and Washington area news and headlines](<a href=“http://washingtonpost.com%5Dwashingtonpost.com”>http://washingtonpost.com)</p>
<p>This reminds me why I preferred translating Greek to Latin. Demosthenes as a youth had a speech impediment and practiced speaking on a deserted beach. He became a fiery orator whose Philippics roused people to action. Cicero wrote convoluted sentences that would not have fired up anybody but look well on pieces of legislation. You need both kinds, but in different jobs.</p>
<p>I still have not figured out what specific “experience” Hillary has that will make her a good President. I think many voters in NH will indeed be “sting” voters, voting against a particular candidate. In the case of Clinton, it really may not be a visceral dislike. It just may be that voters see Clinton as disingenuous and entrenched in a poltical quagmire. This may make her a good bureaucrat, but not necessarily a good leader.</p>
<p>As Obama said, “Hillary, you are likeable enough.” </p>
<p>However, whether we like or dislike her, we may not think she is capable of leading the country. We vote for leaders, or those we view as having the ability to lead.</p>
<p>We vote for leaders or those we view as having the ability to lead people like George W. Bush. People who have the skills needed to be able to look to the future and have the understanding and wisdom necessary to understand what the future holds. Leaders who like Bush have the fortitude and integrity necessary to do what is needs to be done to serve the best interests of our nation and its people. Leaders like Bush, who will rise above their class self-interests and prejudices, to work for and to insure that all Americans are treated fairly without regard to race, color, creed, or economic circumstances. </p>
<p>George W. Bush has been a great leader, for a great nation. The next four years will require someone with his wisdom, compassion and leadership skill. Let us all pray that we are sent such a leader, someone who will do for our nation in the next four years what President Bush has done in the last eight.</p>
<p>From Post 8 I still have not figured out what specific “experience” Hillary has that will make her a good President.</p>
<p>I can explain it to you but I cant comprehend it for you.</p>
<p>I guess most people in Iowa and NH don’t quite comprehend it either. It may be that most of the country doesn’t… 
</p>
<p>The experience message has just not worked. She has shouted at us that she has 35 years of experience many many times. We just don’t really know what accomplishments she can outline that qualify her to be President.</p>
<p>In addition, personality is a factor. I don’t know what qualities she has in that department that would suggest that she could be an effective President either. It is apparent, even within her own party, that she is clearly a divider, not a uniter!</p>
<p>35 years of experience?! Doing what? Being Robin to Bill’s Batman? Looking the other way while Bill diddles his latest hottie? As far as I can tell, she’s only held political office once—her current first term Senate seat. Am I wrong?</p>
<p>It has nothing to do with her skills or ability to do the day to day work which she is very good at; she is just a very poor communicator. This was oblivious from the start (and I mean 1992 and 93) but rather than focus on her poor communications skills and therefore lack of leadership skills, some prefer catty 3rd grade innuendo and name calling.</p>
<p>Some of you are the ones I feel the most sorry for. What are you going to do if Hillary fades and you dont have her to pick on? My experience has shown me that the pretty little girls who liked to gang up on and make fun of the smart girls on the playground, later their lives have only gossip and martinis, while the smart girls have fulfilling careers and happy lives. </p>
<p>Hillary will be OK; she may end up like Ted Kennedy, never president but one of the great senators of her day. The pretty little girls will still have their gossip, martinis and romance novels.</p>
<p>“35 years of experience?! Doing what?”</p>
<p>You can search the vast resources of the internet for that. On the the other hand Obama has not done anything. On most of the important issues while in Illinois senate, he voted present - not taking any stand. He is a great orator without much substance.</p>
<p>He is given a lot of free passes. Hillary has been subject of attack machine even before she announced her candidacy.</p>
<p>Many will dispute the fact that Kennedy is a “great” Senator too! (even though he keeps getting re-elected. Another political mystery to some of us…) But let us not digress… ;)</p>
<p>simba, I tend to disagree. I think that Hillary owned the media, until Iowa.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Sexism is alive and well. But thank you for calling this contemporary of HRC and career woman a “pretty girl.” Several decades have just melted away. Really, thanks so much.</p>
<p>I actually like a lot of what HRC has worked for throughout her life, in particular the work she did with the Children’s Defense Fund, and she has proved herself to be a hard-working and capable senator. But she has also enabled some of her husband’s worst traits (and he is still chasing bimbos–yeah, I listen to gossip). The two of them brought a lot of their troubles on themselves. More importantly, I think that she probably would make a terrific cabinet minister. But she has shown she does not have the same capacity to inspire that Obama has. I do think that the capacity to inspire is important (see the contrast between Cicero and Demosthenes).</p>
<p>Bob Dole was one of the great senators of his day I didnt agree with him very often but that doesnt change the fact that he was one of the great senators of his day. I agreed with most of what Bob Kerry did while he was in the senate, but he was not one of the great senators of his day. </p>
<p>It is very narrow thinking to only consider things and people that you agree with when measuring their worth. This narrow thinking is very common among those whose thinking is common.</p>
<p>Post 16 you are correct…. I should have added that the pretty little girls’ husbands will have their BS, bourbon, and football.</p>
<p>And some will engage in snarky labeling of those with whom they disagree. I don’t think H and I have ever come near bourbon. And being foreign born, we prefer soccer. As for BS? Well, who’s dispensing it here?</p>
<p>"the pretty little girls who liked to gang up on and make fun of the smart girls on the playground, later their lives have only gossip and martinis, while the smart girls have fulfilling careers and happy lives. "</p>
<p>Wow. So women who prefer another candidate over Hillary aren’t the smart girls? I won’t deny that there was a lot of gossip over martinis at Harvard Law, but it’s news to me that I don’t have a fulfilling career. :(</p>
<p>To respond to the original post, heck no, she’s not out, even if she gets a drubbing today. No one’s out till Feb. 5 at the earliest, unless they say they are out. The best thing Obama and Edwards fans could do to help Hillary now is to relax and assume that she’s toast. She’s not.</p>