<p>"The Clinton campaign recognized weeks ago that Obama’s message of change was catching on in Iowa. Clinton herself sought to blunt his advantage by casting herself as having the experience to bring about change. She sought to blend the two themes with slogans like “ready for change, ready to lead” and “the strength and experience to make change happen.”</p>
<p>Bill Whalen, a research fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, called the message schizophrenic and said it is confusing voters about whether she’s pushing for change or a return to the Clinton years."</p>
<p>Well put, Bill Whalen: One of the many problems with her campaign, and with herself. I.m.o., she doesn’t at all come across as standing for “change,” but rather for the same old same old. She is So Yesterday.</p>
<p>Remember that lots of pundits wrote off John Kerry after Iowa and NH, but he won the nomination anyway. The Democratic machine went to work and made him inevitable. The machine could do the same for Hillary if it so desired. (It may not decide to do that, though - Hillary has a lot of baggage that John didn’t.)</p>
<p>Hill is falling into the “say anything” “promise everything” campain. Hopefully, although you can never tell with this country anymore, people are smart enough to see through it…</p>
<p>However, the last eight years have benefited the top 3% of the country at the expense of the other 97%. That means 48% supported policy that really didn’t support them. go figure?</p>
<p>Do Hillary supporters really buy this business that she’s chock full of experience in contrast to Obama? Her experience is primarily that of the wife of a President which means very little IMO.</p>
<p>“However, the last eight years have benefited the top 3% of the country at the expense of the other 97%. That means 48% supported policy that really didn’t support them. go figure?”</p>
<p>That presumes a different policy might have had greater benefit. How do you actually know that? Would freezing CEO salaries really mean much more pay for the rank and file employees? Would more tax on Hedge Fund profits mean more money in your pocket or just make you feel better? Which policy would you change in order to change economic forces and trends without having a negative overall imapct on the economy and our foreign relations?
Remember what the luxury tax on boats did–it put scores of working boatbuilders out of work. The rich were not impacted to my knowledge.</p>
<p>In recent elections the winners in Iowa did not go on to capture their party nomination. However, HC’s nomination is far from inevidible. She is definitely among the more moderate Democrats running and this is not something resonating with many Dems and independents.</p>
<p>So Barrons - is it your position that the continued stratification of the nation into a small group of extremely wealthy people with no improvement in the lots of anyone else is simply the will of God, and the economic policies of the US government have no impact on it?</p>
<p>Very litttle. Are you going to outlaw private equity? If they can actually deliver the kinds of returns they have they will continue to make huge profits (now I doubt they can but time will tell). The old manufacturing economy is D E A D. I think the autos can come back but they need to improve and cut costs dramatically so the jury is still out on them.<br>
Knowledge based services are growing but so few people have the good to succeed in it we have to import them. Now that’s sad. We had three young folks leave our company in the last month because the work was too demanding for them. They had jobs that in a few years would be paying them well into six figures but they lacked the commitment and patience to get there. I don’t know what they think they’ll find that’s better but it’s not my problem. </p>
<p>So tell me exactly how you are going to manage the rich out of the economy?</p>
<p>I don’t want to manage anyone out of the economy. I just want to stop providing the powerful with additional advantages, while stripping the weak of any recourse when they are cheated or abused. For thirty years the law has been tilting further and further towards allowing the wealthy and powerful to make and enforce the economic rules by which our society operates. From the fine print in contracts - which will be enforced, no matter how unfair and one-sided - to tax laws which result in the poor and middle class paying a higher percentage of their total income in taxes, to labor laws which provide no security or recourse to cheated or mistreated workers outside of narrowly drawn categories specified for protected treatment, to the gutting of pensions, to a health care system which threatens the life savings of all but the extremely wealthy - the list of subtle changes to our society over the past 30 years is too long for this forum, but on a “two steps forward, one step back” basis we have moved to a society which is separating into two groups - the wealthy, who split all of the growth of the wealth of the nation, and everybody else - who doesn’t. It isn’t just one policy, not just taxes, or labor laws, or contract laws, or the failure to enforce existing regulations and policies - it’s the combined effect of all of those things. And each small step is a decision that’s made by elected officials and their appointees. Returning to the distribution of wealth our nation had just 30 years ago will require a similar series of small steps correcting the long series of steps which took us here. And Republican politicians and their appointees aren’t going to facilitate that process - they’ve driven us to where we are today.</p>
<p>Does not California have some of the strongest consumer protection laws in the US. They have warning on every damn thing you can buy there. I know in Washington I can walk away from many major contracts in three days. As to the tax percents, well percents are always fun to play with. I personally don’t think SS and Medicare taxes should be counted as regular taxes because there is a driect longterm bebefit back to the individual. </p>
<p>Labor laws and all that have little real impact on most jobs. The basics were in place many years ago and have not changed much. Child labor, overtime, etc. Most legal Americans don’t even hold the crappy jobs anymore. Go into a beef plant or a food processing plant as I have today and you see virtually no white faces and that’s in rural areaa that are mostly still white. 40 years ago I worked in a food processing plant and it was nearly 100% white US citizens. Not anymore. I aksed one of the managers about the change and he said the whites just don’t apply anymore except for the office jobs. These jobs paid $10-$20 an hour in a smaller town where living is not expensive.</p>
<p>The clock will not go back 30 years. Our economy is totally different and it was already on that path 30 years ago.</p>
<p>Okay, I’ll try to get this thread back on Hillary. I think it is interesting that so many Americans, including lots of liberals, HATE Hilary. I rarely hear people use “hate” to describe their feelings toward her husband, who is certainly guilty of much worse behavior. I can understand not liking Hilary and not agreeing with what she stands for, but the strength of emotion and the H word are hard for me to comprehend. I think there is a huge, mostly female averson to strong, ambitious women in our culture.</p>
<p>That said, I do not support Hillary for president. Here is a possibly entertaining strategic question: if she gets the nomination, and the Republicans trot out 1, 2, 50, 100 women who say they have recently slept with Bill, how would the Clintons possibly put together a credible defense?</p>
<p>No, I no longer think Hillary is inevitable, however, she was gracious and likable in her speech on Thursday night. I think that for most voters, what she says may not be as important as how she comes across. Most Americans have the attention span of a flea, so we often elect people based more on their on-camera appeal than on their ideas or substance.</p>
<p>Suna, I am embarrassed to say my very liberal and highly educated husband adores Hillary and always has.</p>
<p>I know plenty of successful women who admire her. What is not to admire? Yale Law Degree, Ex First Lady, NY Senator, not terrible looking for her age, personable, able to forgive, realizes the importance of marriage and being an adult with obligations.</p>
<p>I think she says whatever her audience wants to hear. But who doesn’t in politics?</p>
<p>And what about stanima? How does hers rank? She was pretty cool and relaxed election night. So was Edwards. Obama was at his worst I’ve seen. How will he be in 6 months?</p>