<p>I am very happy that a woman who came of age at a time when women were breaking down all kinds of barriers in academia and law is now very close to earning the Democrat nomination for President. Senator Clinton has been judged unfairly many times and yet has the courage and strength to persist. It would be so wonderful for me and my daughters to see her elected.</p>
<p>Obama does have a cute family, though!</p>
<p>Like Hindoo and some other posters on this thread, I’d vote for Hillary (<em>IF</em> she ends up being the Democratic nominee) over any of the Republican contenders in the general election. However, I strongly prefer Obama over Hillary–I like his message and his vision for the country.</p>
<p>I just wish that I didn’t have to wait until April for our ¶ primary. :/</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Exactly, Marite.</p>
<p>momonthehill… oh, April does sound so far away!</p>
<p>^Indeed…by then, any primary outcome is pretty much an afterthought. Oh, to live in New Hampshire…;)</p>
<p>Muffy said, (and I kid you not):
</p>
<p>Hahahahahahahaha</p>
<p>“It would be so wonderful for me and my daughters to see her elected.”</p>
<p>But it wouldn’t really just be HER. It would be BILL and Hill, that odd two headed entity. Barring the prospect of them performing a 24/7 Vulcan Mind Meld. who would REALLY be in charge? Can Bill, the former two term President, realistically be expected to take a back seat to anyone in the White House, much less the woman who has played his second banana for the past 30 years?</p>
<p>Hillary would be in charge.</p>
<p>“Hillary would be in charge.”</p>
<p>Based upon what do you make such an unequivocal statement? Certainly, her title would be President, but how likely would her decisions and policies be hers alone? I think that’s a legitimate question when the issue is the “historical significance” of the first woman President. Again, I will state my emphatic opinion that if “The First Husband” is also a very powerful and influential former two term President with an ego the size of Bill Clinton’s, he can likely be counted on to remind her at every opportunity, that by virtue of HIS “EXPERIENCE” (that booger of a word again), he is in the best position to guide her judgment on the important issues. He would be the training wheels on her bike, so to speak, such that she need never learn to ride solo. </p>
<p>I noticed that once again, during last night’s debate, Hillary shamelessly touted the significance and importance of the nation’s opportunity to elect the first “Woman President”. If Obama had said the same of electing the first African American President, the howls of indignation sent round the globe concerning his use of “the race card” would have doomed his candidacy immediately.</p>
<p>mercymom
please reference for me instances where Michelle Obama has acted like an attack dog in the same vein as Bill Clinton. When I label her “feisty” I’m comparing her to the likes of Cindy McCain,even Laura Bush.She’s honest I think, not attacking others.And yes, shes not a former President whose motives are unclear and whose role in a new administration has unknown ramifications and no clear outlines for behaviour.
For evidence of his behaviour,see yesterday’s speech demeaning Ted Kennedy…all of a sudden his enemy, and the revelations of his business dealings in Kazakistan(sp?).More of the same with him.He to me is Hillary’s biggest liability.I told my spouse after last nights debate I’d like her better if she had divorced him.</p>
<p>I like Hillary a lot better after last night’s debate than I ever have before, but I had noticed over the preceding series of debates that she is extremely bright and articulate. Although I would have voted for Edwards if he were still in the race I am now surprisingly comfortable with supporting Hillary–though I agree that at this point her husband is a liability. She may indeed have gotten where she is because of who she is married to, but now that she is here, she seems remarkably capable and prepared, and we are in dire need of that.</p>
<p>Marite made a brilliant point. Obviously, everyone has to decide its relevance, but if Bill did the things he did when he WAS accountable, what will he do when he isn’t? The NY Times article yesterday about money was noteworthy, as well. I’m not talking about sex here, but there is a lot of mischief that a man like Bill could make from the White House.</p>
<p>“She may indeed have gotten where she is because of who she is married to, but now that she is here, she seems remarkably capable and prepared, and we are in dire need of that.”</p>
<p>But you can’t have her without who she is married to.</p>
<p>I agree that Hillary is impressive. I never doubted that. Seeing her perform brought home how well prepared she always is and how well she can keep going even when under fire.
I did not fault her for tearing up in NH–I’ve lost my cool under less stressful circumstances; I also resent the suggestion that women do not like Hillary because she is intelligent; I consider myself intelligent and also know that I’ve gotten where I am totally on my own merits. Being married actually held me back a bit in my career.
But much I admire Hillary’s many strengths, I still have huge qualms about the co-presidency and her and her husband’s willingness to cut ethical corners. They think they are fighting the good fight; and in many cases, they are. I do not doubt Hillary’s commitment to health care reform or her commitment to children’s welfare. At the same time, there is Castle Grande, Travelgate and more recently, the Kazakhstan’s venture. And there are Bill’s bimbos. There haven’t been any eruption because the press has decided not to focus on them. But the bimbos are there. The problem for me is not that he has them (heck, I knew that Mitterand had a mistress all along, even knew the exact apartment where she lived, and I supported him in the beginning). The problem is the marital quid pro quo Bill’s bimbos promoted and will no doubt continue to promote. Can she control Bill? To paraphrase Obama, Yes, she can. But should we even ask that question of a presidential candidate?</p>
<p>Marite brings up the very big concerns-is Hillary electable ? There is so much baggage and the Republicans are producing Swift Boat, last minute type of commercials right now!</p>
<p>So I ask the Hillary supporters with all due respect- are you convinced she is electable. </p>
<p>Or we end up with Mccain when the dust settles in November.</p>
<p>Joe Klein has a piece about this in today’s Time magazine that was thoughtful.</p>
<p>I am interested by the many comments that Clinton wins on health care. Seeing the cost of the MA health care (thanks Romney) and the difficulty of passing a similar plan in CA, I think that Obama’s more modest (not by that much!) proposal has a better chance of passing. The ambition of Hillary’s first plan was as much to blame as the secrecy under which it was formulated for its total failure. This is where Obama’s vaunted ability to work with others would be a real asset; but his more incremental approach would also be easier for many to swallow. The goal has to be universal health care. But Clinton has not said what happens to those who refuse to get health care, usually because they cannot afford it.</p>
<p>Clinton’s health care “plan” will cost $110 BILLION.</p>
<p>She really never answered as to where the money will come from. At least $55 BILLION will come from “efficiencies”. Nice way to avoid specifics. 
</p>
<p>Health Care is her success story? While she was in the White House the last time, her “plan” was a miserable failure. Is this the experience she keeps referring to?</p>
<p>“But Clinton has not said what happens to those who refuse to get health care, usually because they cannot afford it.”</p>
<p>How would it even be possible to determine whether an individual could or could not afford healthcare? Seriously – perhaps this has come up in MA? For example, if Johnny refused insurance because he says he can’t afford it, but leases a hummer for $1,000 per month and owns an 8 bedroom home (I’m exaggerating to make my point), would an auditor come and check out his financial details, maybe tell him what kind of car to drive? What if someone had the same income as Johnny, said they couldn’t afford insurance, but had some mitigating factor? Would there be some governmental arbiter of how people spend their money? An income threshhold? I understand the concepts behind Obama and Clinton’s plan, but I am curious about the details with regard to refusers because I’ve never seen that in action.</p>
<p>The ball is in play between Obama and Hillary. Both amazing choices. I would like to see Hillary get the nomination since I am more aligned with her policies but right now I will watch the process continue. In the end, I no longer consider myself an Independent. I will vote Democrat from long distance in November and I will make sure my ballots get in on time.It takes special dedication to vote from outside of the U.S.</p>
<p>And the question why (some) women hate Hillary: I personally don’t know of any who do. I don’t mix with people who watch American channels and read American papers. Personally I find Time and Newsweek information pretty boring. I do watch NBC nightly news since I get it over iTunes in the a.m. and Meet the Press as well. I watch more BBC than anything. There is such interest in this election. I see sniping as counter-productive. But then it goes on and will continue. This is going to be an interesting election season</p>