<p>“Zoosermom, no I don’t see any of the connections you do. But at least you aren’t continuing with your sexual harassment nonsense.”</p>
<p>Let’s try this slowly so you can understand. A woman from Arkansas and Chicago wouldnt have been a viable candidate for the senate from my state if her husband hadn’t been president. Had she not been senator from my state, she wouldn’t be a credible candidate for president. Does that help you? And as far as the other, you’ve either got to read your own posts or stop disclaiming them because they remain in existence for all to see.</p>
<p>Can Giulani get past his family problems? They have taken his wife off the campaign trail after low approval ratings. His kids don’t talk to him. He certainly won’t win the family man vote.</p>
<p>Why don’t they ask the candidates if they’ve ever traveled outside the U.S. and where? I doubt that Huckabee has been anywhere, and with his recent success I think we should know every candidate’s foreign experience or lack thereof. The fact that we elected a man who had never been to Europe still astounds me.</p>
<p>After watching the Dem. debate, I think Hillary would have been better off had she dumped Bill. 1) I wouldn’t have to worry about Bill having time on his hands in the White House 2) She wouldn’t be as vulnerable to the criticism that she has advanced solely because of him 3) The question of how her vice president would operate with the two of them wouldn’t be relevant and 4) curiously, that might have provided a little more sympathy for her, even a softening of her image.</p>
<p>IMHO I think Barack Hussein Obama is the package the country is going to choose.</p>
<p>I would pay 25 cents to find out what handle “Violinists” used to post under. I’d say it’s about a 99% chance that this is a sock-puppet ID for someone who doesn’t want to use their old ID anymore.</p>
<p>Back on topic, I still don’t think Clinton is electable. Al Gore, whatever his flaws – most of which were the taint of being Bill Clinton’s veep – didn’t carry around the negative baggage that HClinton does. Edwards might have the best “electability” of the leading dems, but it’s not likely he can get nominated. As far as I can see, things are even worse for the GOP. Time to join my “Reasonable People’s Party.” We are running Jay Leno for president.</p>
<p>After tonight’s debate, Hillary once again has come across as the smartest and the most articulate of all candidates in both parties. Her answers to most questions were to the point, sensible and concise. She even had a bit of humor. I certainly hope that she is nominated and actually becomes the first woman president!</p>
<p>It looks like violinist has exposed Obama as a bigot. We should stop bigots and not vote for Obama. I am sure Obama would never vote for a bigot.</p>
<p>My husband belongs to the IAM & is the union rep for his shop- but he and many others are for Obama- they don’t like to be told who to vote for.
Do other professions vote according to who the big mucky mucks decide?
I didn’t think so.
That isn’t what voting is about in USA</p>
<p>ranima, I agree with you on how Clinton performed in tonight’s debates. Although she looked incredibly tired at times (as did Edwards and Obama), she seemed to be the most prepared and to offer the most concrete solutions or examples. (I support Obama and don’t care for Clinton, but if I’m honest, she did the best of the Dems tonight.)</p>
<p>That’s like asking “when did you stop beating your wife?”</p>
<p>Hilary has never been inevitable. She’d like you to think that, but a surprisingly large number of voters actually are capable of thinking for themselves.</p>
<p>The inevitability of the Clinton nomination was a theme that pundits of all stripes latched on to. She is smart, ambitious and well-funded. I remember thinking when I saw this on FOX news, “hey, you worry about your nominee and we’ll take care of our own”.</p>
<p>I’m a Democrat, but she leaves me kind of cold. Some of it is her and some it is me.</p>
<p>There is one tool that that powerful men get to use that powerful women don’t: self-effacement. A powerful man can tell a joke on himself in a speech or presentation and it helps him connect with the audience. But a powerful woman couldn’t for fear that it would make her look weak. </p>
<p>A powerful man can be charming in the way that a woman in a similar position can’t. I think Clinton or any woman running for President would have this handicap. I appreciate that there are other things about her that one could dislike. but she does have a little less to work with as a woman.</p>
<p>Talk about rehearsed rhetoric. Clinton did not answer any of the questions from last night’s debate with a direct specific answer. She has clearly latched on to Obama’s winning message of “CHANGE” ! Yet, her argument is that she is going to enact change like she has done for the past 36 years. Huh? What has she done? She has yet to answer that. </p>
</p>