Is it safe to poke one's head in here yet ?

The truth is, there is just no way this election (especially this one) is going to happen without very sizable amounts of cynicism, suspicions, more doubts than optimisms, mistrust and overall anxiety. It is predetermined to happen that way, I think. I hasten to say that this country has not been placed, globally, in a position to be trusted much in how we select our leaders and/or how we expect (allow?) them to juggle current events. Because of all that, naturally, there is a mighty load of both defensiveness AND optimism in the way we Americans are proceeding now. The thing is, though, there has to be that. Most of us in the USA realize that our President has been riding on a slippery slope for some time (but, just as much, we are quick to say that he's not run that "slope" by himself ... other countries have supported him, so while he may have the biggest horse, he hasn't got the only horse). We are also cornered into (still, so long later) a spot where we have to defend how a president can become elected in the first place when the numbers of votes tallied are STILL questioned here, there and everywhere. And, of course, we have to (somehow) account for how this man who sits in the alleged "driver's seat" over here got elected twice ? So, yeah, it puts us as square targets in a pie-throwing contest, pole-to-pole. Few are the Americans running around who do not know how the world sees our chunk of land at this point in time, however. Most of us who live here look at our 'real estate' with a skewed eye just as much - we see things MUCH differently than we did, say, a decade ago. But I think the only thing there is to grab onto and the only thing there is to sensibly hope for is that with this election comes some potential for change. It is fair not to "trust" that, from Boston to Bangkok. But it seems exactly right to hope for it at the same time. So we do. And (Good Lord, I sound like Audie Murphy here ), we have to!

Let me chime in on Hilary while I'm here, too ... just because I feel the need to . Personally speaking, if there were to be a "first woman president" now, I can think of no better one than Mrs. Clinton. But I agree with Lothruin. Not now, not her. She's a pretty capable bullet-dodger/shape-shifter and likely an exceptional politician (and I confess that I've always saluted the woman's backbone). This time, though, I think we need a leader who is a "diplomat" more than a skilled Washington Social Club double-talker. But, then, I'm not sure what our next President can hope to accomplish, in any pivotal historical sense, anyway. It took eight years to create the Godzilla-like situation at hand. It'll take longer to steady the beast. My hunch is that the next Chief Executive will get no farther than slightly taming the 'Zilla. That alone will, I think, be a worthwhile step in "changing the world". At this point, at least?

David - Ive only one thing to say to that ........

For Gods sake, run for President buddy!

You are obviously an American who is more than capable of thinking for himself, and are very in touch with world affairs - you are fair, unbiased, and level headed. You would make a darned good president!

Quote:

---

But I think the only thing there is to grab onto and the only thing there is to sensibly hope for is that with this election comes some potential for change. It is fair not to "trust" that, from Boston to Bangkok. But it seems exactly right to hope for it at the same time. So we do.

---

I think we all do David and what wise words.

Wise indeed.

I'm happy Obama had a great turn out in Iowa. I think he would be a breath of fresh air that the White House definatly needs. No more Bush's or Clinton's would be a wonderful change for our country. I find personal character to be a critically important factor in a candidate and very few of the candidates on either side have it.

You're rigth Delboy, the three ring circus that is the American Presidential election is I'm sure laughable on the outside (certainly is to many of us in the states). The tortures and gruling life campainers have to endure over a two year period is awful. By the time a candidate finally gets to election day they (and their family) have been beaten and dragged through the mud. And then people wonder why the choices that are left are so pathetic. I pray Obama does make it as the democratic candidate so I can for once in my life actually be happy to vote!

As a Democrat, I am absolutely delighted with the current field of candidates. The three front runners are strong, capable individuals, all of whom could exert a powerful, positive influence on the country were they to be elected to the presidency. I find this to be a very exciting race.

In terms of my political leanings, I find John Edwards the closest to my own views and, for that reason, find him the most appealing. But I'm not sure he could win in the general election, and I'm not even sure he will still be a strong contender when I go to vote in my primary next month. It is very important to me that the Democratic candidate for President be strong enough to capture the White House, and Edwards may be too far left of center to be able to do that.
Barack Obama is certainly an eloquent and inspirational speaker who might well be able to lift the morale of the country, engage more younger people in the political process, and help to soften some of the divisive bi-partisan strife that interferes with meaningful progress. But, I am uncomfortable with his relative lack of experience on the federal level and his lack of foreign policy experience in particular.
Hillary Clinton has been an excellent Senator for NY, my home state. She has had long standing commitments to the resolution of many domestic social issues, and she has a firm grasp of the foreign policy and security matters which the next President must confront. Her eight years as First Lady certainly gave her rather unique opportunities for experience, and I find her to be the most realistic and pragmatic of all the candidates. She knows exactly what the job requires, and, I believe, she is the best prepared candidate to be the next President of the United States. I was very happy with Bill Clinton as President, although I think he is a somewhat more liberal Democrat than Hillary. I can only see it as an advantage that he would have some input into her presidency.

As things stand right now, I will likely vote for Senator Clinton when I vote in my primary next month. On balance, I believe that she is the best candidate. But I would not be terribly upset if any of these three individuals was the Democratic standard bearer in the next presidential election. They are all excellent choices. The differences among them are nowhere as great as the differences that separate them from their Republican counterparts. When you listen to them, they are clearly all Democrats and they have much in common. All could provide outstanding leadership and help to move the country in a more positive direction.

My hope is to see continuing greater voter turnout for the primary elections, and a record voter turnout in the next presidential election. If people want their voices to be heard, they need to express themselves at the ballot box.

My concern with Clinton is actually similar to your own with regards to Edwards, Chelseabelle. I don't know, under the current conditions of the country, if Clinton can win a Presidency, regardless of her voting record and/or platform, and I'm sad to say I think it's because she's a woman. Her gender isn't what would stop me voting for her. But it is a definite mark against as far as potential Presidency is concerned, and that's just realistic. I can't be sure, but it's possible there are enough liberals who aren't ready to vote for a woman and would vote elsewhere instead, and that weakens the Democrats' ability to take the election.

I never had any real dislike for Hilary Clinton, and I realize my previous posts may have come off that way. But in watching her during the primaries, so far I'm unimpressed. That has to be weighed against her voting record and experience, but her public speaking and debating hasn't left me thinking she's the strongest candidate.

Lothruin, I don't really feel that Clinton's gender is a significant liability in terms of her ability to win in the general election, although I do think that some degree of sexism still exists, and I do feel that, in this campaign, she has gotten harsher treatment and more scrutiny than her male running mates, probably because of her gender.

I have never fully understood why some people in the Republican camp absolutely detest this woman. They just don't dislike her, they actively hate her. In a general election, that segment will likely go after her full force and sling all the mud they can. At this stage of the game, I think she anticipates that, and is probably prepared to handle it. Other people simply dislike her, and, as she candidly said in a debate this week, that simply hurts her feelings. Much of the reason for the dislike seems rather vague and not really based on her policy positions. Perhaps, as she continues to campaign, and more of the public actually watches and listens to her, they may come to like her more, or at least come to judge her on her substance rather than perceived notions about her personality.

She is not a particularly stirring speaker. She is more like the A+ student who always shows up fully prepared for the final exam. She is very prepared, with a firm grasp of issues and complexities, and that can make her somewhat tedious to listen to, particularly when compared to the soaring rhetoric of an Obama. Although, if one does listen to her, her depth of understanding of the significant issues and the obstacles to easy solutions, is what makes her the most ready to assume the presidency. She can hit the ground running.

For the past year, she has tried too hard to stay the middle ground and not antagonize voters on either the left or the right. She has tried too hard to appeal to as many different groups as possible and not alienate any particular voting blocks. Although this might be a good strategy in preparing for the general election, I think it has cost her liberal support, and, until very recently, her total downplaying of any feminine "softness" even lost her support among women. Her loss in Iowa may have jolted women into realizing that the first really viable female candidate for President was about to get knocked out of the race before she had even gotten out of the starting gate. That realization, coupled with Clinton's tearful, and very human show of emotion, may have turned the tide in New Hampshire, where she won with greater support among female voters. The more female votes she can continue to draw, the more that will help to cancel out any vestiges of sexism which might work against her candidacy. No one should vote for her simply on the basis of her gender, but, all other things being equal, her gender could also be a positive advantage.

I think she has handled herself very well in the debates. I am really looking forward to watching her hour long interview this Sunday with Tim Russert. If she can handle herself well with Russert, who is one tough cookie as an interviewer, I think that might erase any lingering doubts I might have left.

As I said before, this is an exciting race, and I hope it will continue to focus on issues and not negativity between the candidates. The Democrats have a terrible habit of self destructing. I hope they save their powder to use against the Republican candidate in the fall.

And, still possibly waiting in the wings, is Michael Bloomberg, the mayor of NYC, who has not counted out the possibly that he will jump into the race as an independent candidate for President.

This is not a year when voters should complain about not having enough choices. I think that's what makes this election year particularly interesting and exciting. No matter who is elected, we are in for change.

I am one of those who really does not like Hilary. I would love having a woman president, just not her. I am definatly more democratic than I am republican but I try to vote for who I believe is the best leader. A leader is a person of character that can rally people behind them. Clinton comes across rather dry to me. I also don't really trust her. Even though he did a great job as president, Bill did a lot of dishonest things on a personal level and that should have really bothered her but you would never know. Bill even cheats at golf which I find really pathetic. Hillery also strickes me as the typical politician who would do anything and say anything not because it is what she believes is right but because it would get her elected. I just don't think she is honest enough for me. I would vote for her over many of the republicans though if it came down to it.

As far as Obama's lack of experience goes a president can not do it on their own. If elected he will have to make wise choices of who to help him in his administration. Whether you like Reagan or not he did a great job on forign policy and he had very little experice if any when he got into office. So it can be done with the right staff.

Edwards, unfortunatly lost my complete respect when he went after Chainey's daughters sexual preference in a public debate. This was a nasty low blow and NOT what I would ever want in a leader. That one exchange showed me a serious character flaw that we don't need in a person representing our nation, IMO. If it came down to it I would vote for anyone else first.

ClaraSue, are you aware that about 2 days after Hillary Clinton teared up that Mitt Romney also teared up, in front of a crowd, when talking about his father? But that was barely mentioned in the media. Why was it such a big deal that Clinton teared up, but not a big deal when Romney did the same?

Why is it that when a man tears up he is often considered "sensitive", but when a woman tears up she is considered weak?

Bush has been shown tearing up in public, and the same was true for Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan when they occupied the Oval Office, just to name a few.

Yes, ClaraSue, real men can cry. And so can real, and very strong, women. I hardly think that being devoid of normal human emotion qualifies one to be the leader of the free world. I'd much prefer a President with all of his/her humanness, and emotional equipment, fully intact.

Chelseabelle, I respect your opinion and what you write but nowhere did I talk down to you, I'll thank you not to talk down to me.

I don't mind anybody that tears up. Man or woman. But I stand by what I said. I feel she used feminine wiles to get the female vote in NH and I'm not the only one who thinks so.

And before the mods reprimand me or shut this down, please note that I will not get involved anymore in a political discussion. The last one four years ago was bad enough.

I forgot to mention that Romney also teared up during a recent interview when he was talking about a different topic. I guess he's also using "feminine wiles" to get votes.

Human beings have emotions. These candidates, all of them, are physically exhausted. They have been keeping up a grueling pace. That makes it more likely that some of their unguarded emotions might surface in public.

I have to say this (re: Hillary's tears). I think I believed them. The reasons I think so, I'm reflecting, aren't exactly flattering, though. She seems, to me, such a "polished" politician. So on-the-program always. That she wept a little seemed to be such a 'human risk' feature for her to let slip that I (just personally) thought those tears just had to be genuine (and, I also tend to feel, were regretted in just seconds by her AND her staff after they dried). That said, I don't know that they ultimately mattered in the long haul. For her, they didn't ... in terms of public perception. And most of that is, I'm afraid, because she IS a woman (strong public figure aside). Men are allowed to cry, even strong men. They can do so in a patriotic sense. Or when the family dog (their "best friend", etc.) dies. When their daughters marry. All that stuff. They ought not get weepy about international tragedies and/or being pressured into making tough decisions, however. I honestly (and perhaps wrongly) think that women politicians/leaders are held, pretty much, to the same standard. In terms of gender "stereotypes", I don't want to see Mrs. Clinton making a habit of doing something as often deemed "traditional for women to do" as cry. Or discuss grooming tips. Or (quite frankly) bringing the residuals/details of menopause into the social arena. No more than I'd care to hear a male discuss beer preferences, favorite football teams or have to catch a glimpse of him scratching his belly. Not as a matter of patterned public behavior, anyway (they certainly are allowed to be human ... just not thematically [and definitely not stereotypically!] at press conferences, and so forth). So ... Hillary cried. 'Nuff said. Did it gain her votes? Probably did, here or there. Did it lose her some? Probably did, here or there. Do I think she has every right to feel frustrated/often cornered because of her gender. Yes, I absolutely do. Do I think she's a sturdy enough politician/human to handle all of this mixed-up soup of humanity vs. leadership expectation? I'd have to say that, once again, "yes" I do. For me, I'd never hold it against Clinton for having the force, the reactions OR the sensibilities of a human being (gender labels regardless). Do I have the right to expect her to keep everything compartmentalized properly and show herself as a leader who is a human, too? I, and everybody else, absolutely have that right.

And, no matter how I individually do or do not sum her up, I think she's managed to compartmentalize things VERY ably for decades now. Kinda hard, from my desk, to damn the woman for that - in any direction.

"There's no crying in politics!"

Well ... "Super Tuesday" came and went yesterday. Everybody seemed so excited - and the primaries/caucuses in the US were a decent blend of exciting and telling, but (to me) it ended up changing pretty darned little. It's still anybody's game, on the Democrat side of matters. The only slight eye-opener, I thought, being that Mrs. Clinton grabbed California (despite key endorsements there that could have shuffled Obama into a win). McCain looks like he's in full gear now to get the Republican nomination. The more I hear the guy, the more I'm liking him, too ~ which alarms me considerably. He's a Republican, after all . I was pretty much determined to have no business with those in 2008. Romney, I heard last night, is "making some serious decisions about his plans" after yesterday's results. Well, I'd say that round of head-banging ought not last long. Time to drop out, dude! I had to laugh. One of the "journalists" reporting reminded us that Mitt spent $35 Million of his own money on this campaign (already!) ... so his decisions are "nothing to sneeze at", given that. [*Clears throat loudly*] Um ... a little condescending, I thought. Using the words 35 Million Dollars and a teensy little term like "sneeze" in the same sentence. Maybe it's just me who thinks so, but that's one helluva bulky, wet, noisy (and ultimately for nothing) sneeze indeed.
Seems to me (based only on what I heard last night - finalizations weren't quite official yet ... but close, as per tallies) that the big question, now, is whether a McCain/Huckabee ticket might end up likely. Huckabee DID do well (imagine it?) in the Southern US AND grabbed up that frighteningly important evangelical vote. Putting him with that allegedly 'not conservative enough' McCain might make for a nicely balanced Republican ticket, I reckon.

But, for me, I can say this: much as I find myself paying attention to John McCain all of a sudden (and not trembling wildly as I do it), said interest in him will disappear the very second he announces Huckabee as his running mate. Were such a thing to happen, that is.

It was a pretty interesting day, though. People were out voting, all involved and passionate. And that's always a good thing. Any thoughts out there re: "Super Tuesday"? Not to be confused with "Fat Tuesday" , mind you (that day happens a little bit later)....

A perfect quote by commentator Tammy Bruce:

If this country is going to be driven into a wall at 80 miles an hour, I'd rather have a real liberal doing it, as opposed to a fake conservative. There is a reason why he [John McCain] is the Democrats' favorite Republican.

I've always liked McCain quite a bit, I just don't agree with many of his opinions. I guess it's like "real life"--I have several friends whose political opinions I oppose; we just don't talk about it. I still like them.

I think Clinton got California because she is carrying the Hispanic vote and the 'conservative' democrats. (Despite California's reputation, there are an awful lot of conservative people here.) Obama got all the caucus states which seems pretty important to me--seems the places where he gets closer to the voters, he wins them over.

Overall, I feel a bit more optimistic about these elections than I have about any other in quite some time. There are no candidates (of those who have a shot at winning, at least ) that I absolutely detest. I'm not as afraid for the country as the last time my candidate didn't win--if my pick loses, well, I think it still can't help but be an improvement.

And I'm encouraged by the high voter turnout--so many people voted here that some polling places ran out of Democratic ballots, they had to bring more in from other places. I guess people are really ready for a change.

...and another one 'bites the dust'.

Mitt Romney just dropped out.

Apparently Obama has made $7.5 million since Tuesday. (maybe he'll give some to Hilary so she can repay that $5 million loan she made to her campaign?

Nebraska's caucuses are this weekend, and I think I will be attending. I'll admit I'm a huge geek, but it looks like such fun.