Heckuva Job, Penny

Why Should Hillary Clinton Be Our Next President?

Hillary Clinton is the most principled, determined, goal-oriented, and ready to deal with the complex problems we are now facing and the challenges of tomorrow. Despite the considerable challenges we are facing both at home and abroad, she will be an effective leader to deal with these problems and bring about positive changes. She has a more transparent and viable plan about the economy, national security, healthcare, diplomacy, and other national problems. I have a conviction that she will turn the economy around and also restore America’s moral leadership in the world. Let us not also forget that President Clinton created more than 22 million new jobs during his presidency and established a bridge to the 21 century for continuation of the economic prosperity which the Bush administration was and is unable to maintain and keep. It is hoped that Hillary Clinton’s presidency will clean up the current mess, end the war in Iraq and bring our soldiers home, reduce deficit, create more jobs, restore American competitiveness in the global economy, build consumer confidence, and develop a more constructive approach to diplomacy. She will also strengthen the American military. When considering her opponent’s qualifications and experience, she is more experienced to be Commander-in-Chief.

There is no doubt that America is ready for a woman president. However, it is imperative to note that it is not only her gender that qualifies her to be president but her qualities of determination, hard work, and leadership. If we want to expect a lot from our president, we should vote for Hillary Clinton. She will definitely take quick action on the problems we face. She is tough, smart, and stands for real changes that brings about positive results. She is very unhappy about the current economic situation, the war in Iraq, and the continuing foreclosures. She is ready to fight for us and work under pressure of life to better our lives.

It is imperative to note that other women in other countries have demonstrated exceptional qualities of leadership at national level. For instance, the former British Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher’s determination, hard work, and leadership had a profound and permanent impact on British politics in the 1980s and early 1990s and beyond after she left office. The former British Prime Minister demonstrated that, despite considerable challenges, women, if given the opportunity, can be effective leaders. While Hillary Clinton is not a conservative like Margaret Thatcher, I have a conviction that she will serve the American people with determination to bring about a real change that will positively impact the American people. We should know what is best for us.

We concerned citizens, let us not be swayed away by empty promise for change and hope beyond reality. Let us be realistic. Who can lead us to success for the next four years and beyond? Let us not forget about matters that affect us in particular and America in general. Voting for Hillary Clinton means, changing the economy around, having a universal healthcare plan, better education, vigorous and constructive diplomacy, better national security, enhanced scientific research and technology development, improvement in the environment and less dependency on foreign oil.
Let us vote for Hillary Clinton and give her an opportunity to fight for us! This is what matters most.

Getahun Leta
gtoera@aol.com

Okay, dl,

You quote your sources, and I quote mine. Doesn't make you right. Doesn't make me wrong.

But, when someone disagrees with you, their positions are "twisting this stuf?"

The next response will probably be something about hate, fear mongering, or racism.

Now, how about the pay scale for Obama bloggers?

Caucus can have a different vote dog soldier, in a caucus I admit that...but people who say caucus' aren't representive at all ...I have an issue with someone who is twisting numbers...

Then explain Texas Mike. Popular support Clinton. Caucus Obama. Proof that only an Obama supporter can confuse with reality. Democrats have a history of losing exactly because we elect candidates in a system that gives us all a false sense of elector reality. Proof it doesn't work? Americans have the lowest voter turnout of any western democracy and that is because we use systems that do more to EXCLUDE voters then we do to INCLUDE.

This is the number from Real Clear Politics...

Popular Vote Total -
Barack Hillary
13,025,003 12,421,316

If you count Michigan...she wins

Oh That's right he was not on the ballot.

and your argument about caucus's not being true to the popular vote...

the funny thing is there is no evidence that a caucus says otherwise...

oh and if you didn't know Barack wins the primary states count as well without the caucuses

Change you are exactly why people that don't like the Clinton campaign don't like them...You are not doing the campaign favors by twisting this stuff.

Commander Guy,

Outhouses have been around for lot longer, but not many people seem to use them any more.

Pony Express used to serve us for mail delivery, but the rider didn't make it this morning.

Smoke signals used to work for communication, but the Dell isn't smoking today.

Caucuses served a purpose hundreds of years ago. Now, they serve to misrepresent voters.

Rules? They are made, and they can be changed.

Caucus = Mob Rule

Mike,

Your argument is flawed and incorrect. But, spin it any way you want. That is what blogging seems to be about.

And, you leave out the glaring aspect of participation in primaries versus the participation in caucuses.

Most obvious and skewed, these caucuses.

Caucus = Mob Rule

Change

Caucusing has been around for about 300 years.

Caucusing was promoted heavily by the democrat party and is the paramont reason people caucus out in the western states. People got their Traditions.

The rules are the rules. You don't have to like them (HRC poor likeability and all), but play by them.

An interesting perspective from another blog suggests that caucuses percentages are skewed and provide a false perception of what private, individual voting will produce in the November election.

"In addition to not winning the ELECTORAL VOTES of states won, Barack Obama is not winning the majority of the popular votes these primaries. Gwen Richardson (Obama website) who criticized Clinton wrote 'Some individuals are unaware or forget that Bill Clinton did not receive a majority of popular votes in either of his winning presidential elections.'

Obama supporters seem confused by the media bias, thinking that Barack Obama is getting the majority of the popular votes (or 50-plus 1 %) during the 2008 primaries.

28 Million people have cast their votes during the 2008 primaries, with 54% of the votes for Hillary Clinton and other candidates, plus uncommitted."

Don't care if you are supporting Clinton, McCain, Nader, or Obama.

Caucus=Mob Mentality

For those people criticizing the caucus system your argument is flawed. Most caucuses are held on the weekend. Most factory wokers work during the week. Most employers will give time off to workers so that they can vote, especially union workers. Caucuses also allow you to bring your children and provide child care usually by teenagers too young to vote. Campaign workers provide rides to voters who cannot otherwise get there (both Obama's and Clinton's did this). So the only one of your arguments that holds is that there is no absentee balloting. The interesting thing about a caucus is that it does require commitment. The candidate who has more committed supporters will win.

sorry Illinois isn't close oh yeah Obama won that one...

Change you don't understand how the state numbers are going to go in a general...

and as far as being paid by a candidate...sorry...I am just a guy from NH

who at first volunteered for the Clinton campaign...and then started helping out BIden and Obaam

has seen all of the candidates speak in some really intimate seetings

and realized Obama is not a "phenom" when I jumped on board...

I realized he is the best person to be president. that is why i get on here and correct people like you.

The numbers for states like Ohio, California, Massachusetts New York Illinois are so close in the primaries...with the numbers of republicans in them ...and compared to the last state elections change your issues with the electoral college...

so your numbers stating "Hillary won more in the electoral college states" ... are misleading at best. She won states predominantly by margins under 5% that mattered...

Barack's margins in states that matter... are huge... and there are more of them...smalldelegate count individually yes...but when you add up those delegates for the electoral college he wins 2 to 1 in match-ups between Hillary vs. McCain and Barack vs. MaCain

Check your numbers... I will keep checking the spin coming from people who twist this stuff.

Welfare checks,what welfare checks? I
send my to HUSSEIN(OBAMA)campaign!I'm
so glad we have the CAUCUSES,if we didn't were will we be right now.I don't
need MEDICAL INS,I have WELFARE.

Why would anyone even compare Obama and Clinton in the electoral college? That's not the way they are running against each other. The fact is, big states that Hillary has won will not be lost by Obama - he will carry her states. He also puts more so-called red states in play. Obama said this at least a month ago, and he was right: "I can get her voters in the general election. It's less clear that she can get mine." Obama has more independents and republican defections coming his way. Hillary UNITES the republican party - against her.

No, dl,

Your perception flawed.

I am an Independent voter from a Republican state.

I not a paid blogger of the Obama or Clinton campaign, but your jump to that accusation indicates a subject that is at the front of your concern.

So, how much is Barak paying bloggers these days?

The relevance of the Electoral College has nothing to do with good or bad or how someone views either of the candidates perception of it.

The 2008 Presidential election will be determined by the Electoral College.

The Republicans understand this.

Obama Democrats do not.

I'm sorry, her campaign is going fine, drawing $1 million a day.

This is another trumped charge directed at her -- and it is false and misleading.

Why don't you talk about the fact that Obama's "supporters" are not grassroots people, but wealthy bundlers from Wall Street, giving him millions of dollars to blow last Tuesday. He spent sometimes 2 to 4 times as Senator Clinton and STILL LOST IN TEXAS, OHIO, RHODE ISLAND.

What does that say about his management abilities or message?

The only thing any of you have to worry about is the magic number of 1627 w/o MI & FL.

Or the number of 1783 with MI & FL.

Whoever gets that will have won over half of the pledged delegates possible. Superdelegates can overturn that at their own peril.

There are alot of things that Bill Clinton whitehouse did right and responding to and helping during times of need promptly.

Yea Jake that is a low blow AS IF Hillary would show up 5 days late to a disaster, then give person in charge an attaboy.