<p>You’re not the only one who thinks this. I too think it is extremely unwise to so soon write Hillary Clinton’s obituary in the race. One should never!, under any circumstances, underestimate Bill and Hillary Clinton. Nobody plays the Entrenched Washington Politics Game better than the two of them. “Billary” is a term often used to describe them as a single entity for good reason: together, they are an extremely powerful political force, and whether they use that power for good or ill is something that has always been fiercely debated. I happen to think the answer is a little bit of both, with the bulk of their actions being purely predicated upon that which is most expedient for long term political gain. Ruthless, is an adjective often used to describe them among their circle of friends/admirers, as well as their enemies, which is why I’m still waiting for something devastating out of left field from them, something Obama may never see coming.</p>
<p>“Nobody plays the Entrenched Washington Politics Game better than the two of them”…except that’s not the game Obama’s playing. He’s playing the ‘I’m not from Washington’ game and people are responding to that. I’m not sure the citizens of this country want to play games from the 90’s any more…we’ve moved on. I’m not sure Bill ‘n’ Hill have or can.</p>
<p>Hillary and Barack were both gracious on Thursday night. I actually liked her-then I watched her bashing/scolding/attack on Obama today and I cringed-she was at her absolute worst-made me want to duck-like we were all being chewed out by our mother or the principal or something. I don’t think that makes a good leader.</p>
<p>According to HC, the false statements in the Ohio fliers deal with her position on NAFTA and her health care plans. No matter how much she tries to put herself far away from the NAFTA issue, the face that BC signed it will hurt her - HC called it a success in her book, anyway. The Obama fliers claims that Clinton would force people to buy health insurance even if they can’t afford it are false - she has proposed many methods of reducing costs, such as tax credits.</p>
<p>I think the nomination is wrapped up for Obama (I think HC will drop out if she fails to win both TX and OH), but I have serious doubts about his ability in the general election. He says he’s attracting all these Independents and Republicans. This is because when they vote in the primaries they see his name and HC’s name (who doesn’t appeal much to either group) on the ballot. In the general election, they will see it next to John McCain, who himself has considerable support from independents and, of course, Republicans, and a lot of the independents and Obama Republicans will switch back. Also, the enthusiasm Obama is generating can’t go on forever. HC’s campaign just kind of ran out of steam; Obama will have a hard time keeping everyone ‘Fired up and ready to go’ for 8 more months - by that time, a lot of the young voters he is relying on will probably go back to apathy. Finally, if the situation in the world were to deteriorate (attack on US/allies, return of increased instability in Iraq after troop withdrawls, extreme turmoil in Pakistan if democracy fails… all very possible), John McCain would probably soundly defeat Obama in the election - just one little incident affecting national security would kill Obama’s chances.</p>
<p>To be fair, Hillary actually said that her health care plan would be affordable to all. When she was repeatedly pressed on how she could go about forcing people to buy health insurance, she suggested garnishing people’s wages. She responded that this was one way to do it, but that this would <em>only</em> apply to workers who could afford it, but refused to buy it.</p>
<p>I honestly see nothing wrong with that. Right now, we (those of us who currently have health insurance) are <em>all</em> paying for people who don’t-- whether they can afford it or not. I would also certainly like to see health care become more affordable.</p>
<p>Why aren’t people up in arms over the fact that your wages are “garnished” now for Social Security and taxes, AND that if you drive/own a car, you are also forced to buy car insurance? These aren’t choices. Why is no one screaming about these mandates? </p>
<p>For my money, forcing healthcare on people is the least of our worries, and might even be beneficial. It’s sure a lot less offensive than forcing us to pay for an immoral war-- and, yes, our wages are being “garnished” for that, in the form of taxes.</p>
<p>Basically, she will garnish workers’ wages, and hand them to her friends in the private insurance companies and their lobbyists. The total extra to be paid to the “managed to care less” companies will be several trillions over two decades. </p>
<p>If you think waiting lists for care are long now (longer than in Canada), wait til Hillary adds 40-50 million, some with major health care needs (that’s why many of them lost their jobs and insurance to begin with), to the rolls.</p>
<p>The Clintons should know about that game–they played it to ride into the White House. Unfortunately, once you’ve been in the White House, you become part of the Entrenched Washington Politics crowd.</p>
<p>Of course, I never thought I’d see the fall of the iron curtain in my lifetime…and it actually happened when I was relatively not old (I can’t say “young”)…</p>
<p>ID, do you really believe it will be that long? I find that so incredibly sad. I talked last night with a good friend who is visiting her parents in the Philly area and she said she won’t vote if Hillary doesn’t run and she was actually considering the grey-haired one as an alternative. I said, “you have to be kidding…” “No,” she said. “I probably won’t vote at all.” Being in the US right now and seeing what the press is saying has her very upset. Obama scares her. She doesn’t think he has the ability to handle tough things that may come our way in the next few years. I said that presidents have their advisors and we made it through the Bush years with horrendous advisors. Who was paying attention to the guys in the background during the last election cycle? The only reason why I have written about this conversation I had last night was I think it may speak for more than just one.</p>
<p>Anyway, I find it all very sad. By the way, I will vote with a heavy heart for Obama if that is how the chips fall…and I will hope.</p>
<p>I think we will have a woman President in the next 20 years. Women are rapidly gaining parity in politics. A lot of Governorships have gone to women lately. It is just a matter of time. The electorate is now pretty gender-neutral. It is not yet color-blind. Obama is just a huge exception.</p>
<p>I honestly don’t think the “Obama Republicans” will switch back. My husband is one of them. He voted for Reagan in 1984, too. (And my maid of honor worked for Mondale’s campaign; it was a rough year.) I’ve met a lot of Obama supporters who were Republicans just a few years ago (my husband made the switch in 2000).</p>
<p>The Republicans and independents I know who are supporting Obama don’t like McCain. They want out of the Iraq war, they want national health insurance because they can’t afford the health insurance they need, and they like Obama’s message of hope, believe it or not.</p>
<p>interesteddad, you certainly have a point. I do believe so much of this hatred for Hillary really has to do with the fact that people simply don’t want a woman president. They don’t want to admit that, though.</p>
<p>While I agree that this country isn’t there yet-- electing a woman president-- I’d like think that in another 50 years, at least (not 100), this will happen.</p>
<p>Janieblue, I have to respectfully disagree. While there may be a very small minority left in this country still stuck back in the 50s (and working half days to catch up), I think America can elect a woman to the Presidency. </p>
<p>The issue with Hillary is directly an issue of party politics. The Clinton team brings up as much animosity from the right as GWB does from the left. Fair? Rightfully so? Not about to get into that debate. But as one of thetwo viable candidates from the Democratic party, she’ll have to deal with that. </p>
<p>The issue comes from the fact that there are no other viable female candidates AT THIS TIME. None have had an equally visible national stage as Hillary, her run made sense in this area (name recognition). There are a few who may be close (Elizabeth Dole? Condeleeza Rice? Nancy Pelosi?), but it will eventually happen. My guess, another viable female candidate (because of positive name recognition) by the 2016 or 2020 election cycle.</p>
<p>I think so, too-- just not in my lifetime. </p>
<p>Any “viable female candidate” will undergo the same detailed scrutiny and, often needless, criticism as Hillary has endured (and Obama has not). Certainly, I think Hillary has paved the way for the next female candidate, but I do believe it will be many decades before this country elects a woman for president. That will rest with the next generation of voters (or the next), for sure.</p>
<p>I just listened to my fav program on BBC World where they were talking about shrillery. Women are damned if they do and damned if they don’t. Hillary is such a great candidate be she man or woman. America is surely not ready and it is such a shame.</p>
<p>“I do believe so much of this hatred for Hillary really has to do with the fact that people simply don’t want a woman president.” </p>
<p>I also disagree. I think Clinton supporters use that as an excuse. And I find it insulting to be told that my opinion is based on sexism. If I were to critizise a Clinton supporter saying they are racist, they would be up in arms. </p>
<p>Obama does not invite the same scrutiny because he hasn’t done as many things to warrant it. IMHO</p>