SUPPORTING HILLARY CLINTON - MY REASONS. We have the following headlines this Monday morning (2/4/2008) in the Washington Post.

Washington Post-ABC News poll....
U.S. Concern Over Economy Is Highest in Years.

The Labor Department announced Friday that the economy had lost jobs in January, the first time in 53 months that had happened.

Public views of the national economy are now more negative than at any point in nearly 15 years, and few people believe that the kind of stimulus plan being devised by President Bush and Congress is enough to stave off or soften a recession, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

More than eight in 10 Americans describe the economy as "poor," and nearly six in 10 believe the United States is already in a recession. While voters appear more sanguine about their own circumstances, three in 10 are now pessimistic about their financial prospects over the coming year, double the percentage holding a dour outlook in December 2006.

Thirty-nine percent of all Americans now cite the economy and jobs as the No. 1 issue in the presidential campaign, up 10 percentage points in the past three weeks; more than twice as many people now highlight the economy as the top issue.
(The above is all in this morning's Washington Post.)
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

CONTINUING, we must elect a President who knows what they are doing, is a tough "fighter", one who can bring in an equally strong and experienced team to work on the above problem and a myriad of others from the disastrous results of the final days (thank God) of this corrupt and evil administration, and that is Hillary Rodham Clinton, and her team. She is ready to go to work on this, and I ask everyone nationwide to join me in voting for her. We can't equivocate. We must vote for her now. That is each of us, and all of us.

Barack Obama is a fine gentleman, and should continue with his preaching. I think it's great. But as I see what we have to do as a nation, I want someone who I know can get the job done.

The noted economist from Princeton University, Dr. Paul Krugman wrote in the New York Times on December 17th an article titled "Big Table Fantasies". In that article Dr. Krugman is discussing Mr. Obama's view and supposed experience and thoughts Mr. Obama would bring to the problem of governance. In paragraph number four, Dr. Krugman says Obama comes off as looking "naive". I agree. However, I hope Mr. Obama continues his preaching. I think that's great. But for President, it's Hillary Rodham Clinton and her team who we need. I ask everyone to join me. Added note. I invite the reader to go to www.HillaryClinton.com for futher information and good specifics; hit the sites in there titled "Issues" and "News Room" - Speeches. Thank you for your attention.

CommonSense12

I'm with ya.

Pretty talk from Mr. Unity won't pay anyone's mortgage.

But at least the Obama people will feel good in the bread line. They can recall how special he made them feel.

No, thank you.

That you're voting for Hillary because a friend and long time supporter of hers (Krugman)...

told you to.

As for "naive", he's been RIGHT while Hillary's best defense and excuse for several of her votes - including the single dumbest foreign policy disaster in America's history - has been the fact that she believed in and was duped by Bush... That shows little to no judgement.

I used to be a fan of Krugman - though I disagree with him concerning trade theory, but his column has become a complete wash since he started using it to do nothing other than slander Obama to help his good friend Hillary.

Unfortunately, the Clinton's economic legacy was short lived.

Their biggest accomplishments were a housing price increase which has since fallen, a dot.com tech bubble which has since burst and a free trade agreement (NAFTA) that even Clinton is distancing herself from. Some record.

People who are re-evaluating Alan Greenspan's magic economy would do well to remember that Greenspan's legacy is Clinton's economic legacy also.

Neither looks as good as it once did.

Okay. I'll admit that Obama can "talk". (stammers alot though) BUT, what I haven't seen too much of, is Obama talking about HOW he intends to accomplish "issues". Sometimes he does. Not really all that often. Usually, he brings up things that are wrong with this country. Brings them up, and says that they need to be changed, and his supporters go nuts! - BUT, that's not talking about the solution. Talking about the solutions isn't very "pretty", but it's what needs to be done. ANY OF "US" CAN SAY THAT WE NEED CHANGE. - Duh! Hillary offers solutions to problems. CONSISTANTLY. That's the difference. It's like if our country was a sick child: OBAMA: "This child is sick, and needs to be cared for right now!" (audience goes nuts) "Everyone, should have Health Care!" (audience goes nuts) "I love (enter "State")" (audience goes nuts) - HILLARY: "The best hospital is (enter "hospital) I've called an ambulance, it's on the way". It's ETA is 10.31/2 mins." (Obama crowd "boos") THAT'S THE DIFFERENCE. Only some of us seem to be able to see it.

We won't get change with a Clinton candidacy. We will get McCain.

I think "W"'s election proved that the American people don't want to think that hard. They just want one word slogans--thinking about what policies might actually work is too hard.

Thank you Archangel. Good way to put it.

Thank you LButterfly. You are so "right on". The "Bush" campaigns and elections were all "hype".... People were not thinking. Now after seven years of disaster, lying and repeated dishonesty to the American people by this Bush government, we have to turn the corner.... and do it immediately..... and in my opinion and many thousands of others.... that has to be the Hillary Rodham Clinton team. Thank you for weighing in.

Abraham Lincoln had served one term in the Illinois State Legislature when he was elected. Was he unprepared for the job of the Presidency? I would say that he was supremely prepared. He had the character and the judgment to lead us through one of the most difficult times in our nation's history. If you look at the history of the American Presidency, experience and expertise are essentially unrelated; we've had some terrible Presidents who were on both sides of the experience spectrum, and we've had some great Presidents on both sides of the experience spectrum. It's simply not a predictive factor.

If you prefer Hillary Clinton's policy positions to Barack Obama's, that's fine. I happen to believe that Obama's positions are superior on Iraq, health care, education, economic stimulus, and social security. Consequently, I'm supporting him. However, please don't be fooled into believing that someone's level of experience is going to determine the kind of job they're capable of doing. It's just not factually accurate.

Thank you for your point: "bentontheword". Abraham Lincoln is a real hero of mine, and an excellent example.

I didn't realize it was the President's job to make your house payment. Many, not all of course, but many of the people in mortgage trouble bought a house that was too expensive for them in the first place. In addition they are in financial trouble because of mismanagement in other areas ( leased cars, credit cards, etc. ) which exacerbates their problems. Champagne on a beer budget. The end result of all this will be a gov't bailout no matter who is President.

And besides, before your girl bumped into Obama one heard the words "unity" and "change" spewing from her mouth all the time. So is it no longer as important or is she just demonstrating her penchant for prevarication so more?

FIRST: We need anything but a "compassionate conservative", whatever that cute phrase by Rove is suppose to mean, and I have nothing against Obama; he's a real 'rock star' in politics, BUT giving up an opportunity to elect the first woman as President of the leading democracy in the world-one qualified, highly intelligent, experienced, and prepared to govern from day one, and forego the very real probability of a Dem Prez for 16 continuous years (Clinton, 2008-16-Obama, 2016-24) is lack of foresight. There are distinct overtones of rampant subconscious misogynism being manifested on the political landscape-Why are otherwise good and pragmatic men afraid of women in power ? Hillary has her faults, but one of them is not serving her country's average working people and ALL the children ! Then you have those women who can't stand a 'pushy' woman; they would starve to death if some man didn't provide ALL their needs. Life is a soap opera to them and they can't stand a gal who is a proven competitor in a man's world. Makes them feel "inadequate and un-feminine", as one affluent social matron told me.Unfortunately, common sense is not as common as it should be, and the present exodus of Hillary's once formidable male supporters whose visionary extent is limited to the NOW, proves it. GO, Hillary, GO !

Go, Hillary, GO!

Seriously, go.