<p>mercymom,</p>
<p>As a republican women, I have had enough of people like McCain. I know what to expect from Hillary. I know I will not agree with her everytime, but I know she will at least listen to the American public.</p>
<p>“On the bimbo issue, JFK had bimbos. Ted Kennedy killed his. Having Ted Kennedy endorse Obama is a plus for Hillary in my book.”</p>
<p>It’s not about the bimbos, per se, it’s about how he deals with them and about his recklessness IMO.<br>
AMom, I am on record as loathing, detesting and reviling Hillary, but as a constituent, I can tell you one thing. She absolutely does listen.</p>
<p>LOL
do watch this - so funny!
<a href=“HuffPost - Breaking News, U.S. and World News | HuffPost”>HuffPost - Breaking News, U.S. and World News | HuffPost;
<p>Ya’ think Ann Coulter might campaign for Hillary, because THEY really want it to be Hillary? </p>
<p>M,m,m,m might they be fearful that Obama might beat Mccain?</p>
<p>Republican conspiracy I say.</p>
<p>The only candidate the Republicans are worried about is Hillary (hence all the “stop her now” efforts), and the only candidate they’ve got who’s outpolling her now is McCain and only by about 2 percentage points, so that is forcing some of them to think about how they really feel about McCain. </p>
<p>They don’t want Obama as president but I don’t think they’re “afraid” of him.</p>
<p>mini’s suggestion in post #78 is my impression also. I find Hillary admirable in some ways & so wish that I did not have these qualms.</p>
<p>Zoosermom:</p>
<p>For the under 25, they are covered under their parents’ plan under the new MA program. As for enforcement, Obama’s plan made health insurance voluntary but provided subsidies to make it attractive. Clinton made it mandatory but did not provide details about how it would be enforced (Obama asked the question twice last night). If we think it would not be feasible to round up 12-14 millions illegal immigrants to deport them, would it be feasible to identify 15 millions uninsured? Clinton did not address this issue.</p>
<p>“If we think it would not be feasible to round up 12-14 millions illegal immigrants to deport them, would it be feasible to identify 15 millions uninsured? Clinton did not address this issue.”</p>
<p>No, right, exactly. That’s what I was badly asking. It seems like more overreaching on her part, but who am I to know?</p>
<p>About the bimbo issue. Yes, JFK had his. Jackie knew about them. But Jackie was not Hillary. She was not interested in wielding political power.</p>
<p>Zoosermom:</p>
<p>That’s why I have been surprised to read that Hillary is stronger on the issue of health insurance. She is more ambitious, certainly, but practical? realistic? If MA has problem providing health insurance for all its citiznes, can we imagine how it would play in Louisiana or Mississipi or Arkansas?</p>
<p>THat’s very true Marite. Can you imagine the bureaucracy(ies) that would be needed to enforce that?</p>
<p>I have no idea why a person’s sexual history is important to anybody but his/her spouse.</p>
<p>If Hillary can live with it, who are we to tell her how to respond?</p>
<p>I think who Bill has sex with is none of our business.</p>
<p>What matters is what programs the candidates want enacted. What are their foreign policies? What are their economic policies? What are their social policies? What are their priorites? What will they do in office and how will this affect us?</p>
<p>“I think who Bill has sex with is none of our business.”</p>
<p>In and of itself, that’s true, but if you add to that the reckless behavior, the dishonest behavior and the potential for being blackmailed, I think it does matter.</p>
<p>If it is none of our business, he can’t get blackmailed. Bill is not being dishonest to you. He didn’t pledge fidelity to you.</p>
<p>Our kids sexual shenanigans, once they are adults, are none of our business. Bill’s aren’t either.</p>
<p>dstark:</p>
<p>That was my position, too, and that was why I voted for Bill twice. But in hindsight, I realized how much not only he lost, and we, as a nation lost, because of the bimbo eruptions but also how much that affected the dynamics in their marriage and her political activities. Do I, a feminist, support a woman who tried to destroy other women not because they were evil, not even because they had had affairs with her husband, but because the women might jeopardize her husband’s career and her own ambitions? What should we think of the story that Bill, despite misgivings about the ambitiousness of Hillary’s health care package, let her go ahead because he “owed” her because of his transgressions? What do we think of a potential First Gentleman who is involved in shady deals such as in Kazakhstan? Did anybody ever ask " Can JFK control Jackie? Ron control Nancy? GW control Laura?" That was not because these were women; it was because they did not have political ambitions of their own.</p>
<p>The Kazakhstan situation raises the question of whether access could so easily be sold by Bill if Hillary were president. There’s no reason to think the answer would be no.</p>
<p>Well, I do think to identify those without health insurance would be easier (and kinder) than rounding up illegal immigrants for deportation. </p>
<p>Both have said they would first make health insurance affordable for all. She (don’t know about Obama) has also said she would prohibit insurance companies from refusing to cover those with pre-existing conditions; she would require that employers insure their employees under this more affordable plan. She has also suggested a tax credit for working families if they all get insurance. </p>
<p>Presumably, when you make it affordable, people will get it. Although she hasn’t stated this, I would imagine that if you’re documented, it’s easy enough to keep track of who has it and who doesn’t… How about not allowing a drivers license or renewal of one, unless you can document you have health insurance; how about a hefty fine for employers if they don’t cover their employees; children can’t start school without showing they have had some vaccinations, so include documentation of health insurance coverage. I think there are any number of ways you can ensure documented people get it. When you spell it out like that, though, it sounds scarily like more government control over our personal lives. Still, I do think that health insurance is a huge problem in this country, even for those who have it. I think it’s outrageously expensive, and I am horrified every time I have to go to a doctor for anything-- in my experience, no one will even look at you unless you can show you have insurance. I don’t have a clue what happens to people when they show up at the ER without one.</p>
<p>Marite, there is so much in your last post I disagree with, my head is spinning.</p>
<p>“What should we think of the story that Bill, despite misgivings about the ambitiousness of Hillary’s health care package, let her go ahead because he “owed” her because of his transgressions?”</p>
<p>It’s a story. </p>
<p>“What do we think of a potential First Gentleman who is involved in shady deals? Did anybody ever ask " Can JFK control Jackie? Ron control Nancy? GW control Laura?” That was not because these were women; it was because they did not have political ambitions of their own."</p>
<p>Did anybody ask can so and so control…?
Who cares? The question is offensive. How can any feminist think this is relevant. Every single woman has a right to political ambitions. </p>
<p>“Do I, a feminist, support a woman who tried to destroy other women not because they were evil, not even because they had had affairs with her husband, but because the women might jeopardize her husband’s career and her own ambitions”</p>
<p>Who did Hillary destroy?</p>
<p>“What do we think of a potential First Gentleman who is involved in shady deals”</p>
<p>What shady deals?</p>
<p>“Presumably, when you make it affordable, people will get it.”</p>
<p>I’m not 100% sure about that in 100% of cases. I do think there is a group of people who gamble that they will remain healthy and, unless free, would not purchase coverage because they have other priorities.</p>
<p>We attacked Iraq instead of Saudi Arabia because the Bush’s have friends and business relationships with the Saudis. </p>
<p>That’s about as bad as it gets.</p>
<p>I don’t know the above for sure (and knowing for sure doesn’t seem to matter much), but it seems more likely than the Kazakhstan hypothetical. I mean, the Clinton’s may throw away a trillion or two because of Kazakhstan. I don’t think so.</p>