We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
It is astounding to me that democrats would want another Clinton administration in the White House. Perhaps some believe they are getting another Bill without all the personal problems.
I think what is happening now is that others are looking for a candidate with a positive message and outlook. Obama is no Reagan, but he is the most optimistic. Hillary is extremely critical and negative, and comes across as fake when she is trying to be positive.
I hate so say it, but Hillary reminds me of an overbearing and nagging wife. She may not actually be like that in real life. In fact, those who know her say that she is a warm person. (Although I have my suspicions) Fair or not, I think that men get that impression. It may be a subconscious thing.
Like others in positions of authority, she may believe that as a women she has to appear tougher then her male counterparts. Although that stigma still exists to a degree, I feel that most women have moved beyond that by now. Experience has taught them that it doesn't matter.
However, in reality, one has to remember that Hillary has not really ever been in a true position of authority. Her feminist nature would hate to admit it, but she has in effect always been in a subordinate role. In other words, she doesn't know how to be a boss, and therefore may still hold onto old ideals about how women should behave.
Her claims of having 35 years of experience is ridiculous. It reminds me of John Kerry's pathetic army schtick. I believe that people are beginning to wise up to that kind of stuff, and it makes a difference at least in primary elections.
George Bush is a perfect example. He was obviously not the sharpest knife in the drawer. However, he was genuine, a person with an affable nature. A guy that you could sit down and have a beer with.
Obama has that going for him. However, like Hillary, he has the additional pressure of being the first true black candidate.
Anyway, it isn't over yet. But, it will be interesting now to see how Hillary responds.
Hillary can't win in the critics' eyes, yet she will win. Go figure. The Repubs won't mount a more viable man and have less of a machine, a vast networked and corrupt organization, to operate against opponents. Money talks, but sleazy $ walks real sassy to the polls
Hill shouldn't win on account of her policies or for being the female candidate. Obama shouldn't for his (lack of) experience and policy and for simply being the African-American candidate. I personally support a Charlton Heston-Lily Tomlin ticket.
As a Republican I would rather face Barack than Hillary in the National election but not with Huckabee who won't win over the general populace. Mitt is a good guy but also comes off like a high priced car salesman and the Morman issue will haunt him. Truly the only guy who is viable in the general election since Mcain is too old looking and stiff remains Fred Thompson but his team is killing him. The guy is smart and honest and unlike Barack a realist. Obama will most likely be the first African American Presidential candidate but hopefully that is all he will be in 2008.