Someone please clear this up for me; I keep hearing this phrase: "Hillary is now looked upon as the inevitable winner of the presidential race". I just want to know WHY?

I would vote for her if I were an American, but I'm sure she's got more enemies than one could possibly fathom. I mean people hate her "just because" - saw this woman on tv yesterday who said "I just don't like Hillary, I don't trust her, but I can't put my finger on it"... - These are the voters of the USA. They don't even have a goddamn clue who they're votin for and why. They have no argument, I wonder how they choose the candidate, the color of their eyes, the whiteness of their teeth?:)

So someone please explain - why is she seen as the leading candidate?

And nobody take this the wrong way please... But it is my opinion that Americans, as diverse as their society may be, would still rather elect a white woman, over a black man. Tell me I'm an idiot, please. I am impartial to the whole racism isssue, but I personally don't think a black man would become president over a white anyone (be it male or female). I think colour matters more then gender, am I right or wrong? :)

Someone please clear this up for me; I keep hearing this phrase: "Hillary is now looked upon as the inevitable winner of the presidential race". I just want to know WHY?

Because that's what some people want.

I'd assume the majority were Clinton supporters, or people who have been influenced by the Clinton propaganda machine.

If you talk to a wide range of people you will find there are about 5 or 6 inevitable winners out there...

Obviously in four or five of those cases people are going to be shown to be have been wrong.

She's the "leading candidate" because she has the most name recognition.

The only reason she moved to New York was so she could run for Senate there. The only reason she ran for Senate was so she could claim to have experience when she makes her run for President. A blind insane chimp could have seen this coming ten years ago.

The question is: WHY does SHE want to be President? I think the answer is clear: just so she can say she was the first female President. She doesn't stand for anything. She'll say whatever she thinks she needs to say to be President. She's a career politician. She has said publicly that she doesn't think there's anything wrong with taking special interest money and making policy decisions in favor of special interests. This is the politics of division, and collectivism. She's a soulless shell of a human being. She stands for nothing but her own naked ambition. That's why I don't like her.

She's a career politician. She's a soulless shell of a human being. She stands for nothing but her own naked ambition.

Wow, well, thank you for that. I only have one more question: which one of the presidential candidates do you think is NOT a career politician, soulless shell of a human being only driven by his own ambition? I'm afraid you'd just described pretty much every human being that ever sailed political waters.

I'm not sure that Clinton "stands for nothing" either, as you said, she's pretty damn forthright. On the other hand, I can see why you wouldn't share her views, as socialist politics is not traditional in your society. And lemme just say: proving that she can become the first female president is a HARD, BRAVE and DAMNED DIGNIFIED undertaking. I'd like to see you pull it off. Fact is, if you want to make it in politics, you have to be ambitious, cause nobody's gonna hand it to you if you don't push for it, and you must be able to please everyone simultaneously; some get more, others less, but the juggling act can't be easy. The thing is, being ready to take on the responsibility is hard enough, and she does it with such enthusiassm and confidence, one thing is for damn sure - she has the potential of a good decision maker. Now, how to get support is really her problem, I don't understand the complexities of the political rhealm. It's probably something along the lines of having two or more guns pointed at your head every step of the way. It's easy to criticize from the margins. I think that having a hard-core liberal president is long overdue.

Someone please clear this up for me; I keep hearing this phrase: "Hillary is now looked upon as the inevitable winner of the presidential race". I just want to know WHY?

I would vote for her if I were an American, but I'm sure she's got more enemies than one could possibly fathom. I mean people hate her "just because" - saw this woman on tv yesterday who said "I just don't like Hillary, I don't trust her, but I can't put my finger on it"... - These are the voters of the USA. They don't even have a goddamn clue who they're votin for and why. They have no argument, I wonder how they choose the candidate, the color of their eyes, the whiteness of their teeth?:)

So someone please explain - why is she seen as the leading candidate?

And nobody take this the wrong way please... But it is my opinion that Americans, as diverse as their society may be, would still rather elect a white woman, over a black man. Tell me I'm an idiot, please. I am impartial to the whole racism isssue, but I personally don't think a black man would become president over a white anyone (be it male or female). I think colour matters more then gender, am I right or wrong? :)


Hillary is no better or worse than any of the other ambitious, waffling, and deceptive male politicians in this race, but she, Romney, and Giuliani are the most transparent liars in the bunch. I agree that her simply being a female certainly doesn't qualify her any more than those other fellas. Possibly Obama or Edwards may just run stronger than people think, we may see that today.
And I think that being black in itself is no issue in this day and age, if the person inspires some intangible hope in the American people, and they feel like he ( or she ) could address their own concerns and unify this country back from the "great divide" the Bush administration has caused over the last two Presidential terms.

Hey, here's a good fact sheet:

http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Hillary_Clinton.htm

http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Barack_Obama.htm

Not only is Obama black, but his middle name is Hossein? Good luck to him.

No - really. His undertaking is a brave one as well.:)

Someone please clear this up for me; I keep hearing this phrase: "Hillary is now looked upon as the inevitable winner of the presidential race". I just want to know WHY?

Statistically she's favored to win the dem nomination and the election as a whole. Gallup is most famos for running the math, and as I understand it, they have never been wrong in their prediction. Also because of name recognition, she appears to many as the "inevitible winner" because so many voters dont use their brains to logically select a candidate (its much more emotional/commercial).


So someone please explain - why is she seen as the leading candidate?

She has consistent levels of support beyond any of her opponents on either side of the aisle.

Wow, well, thank you for that. I only have one more question: which one of the presidential candidates do you think is NOT a career politician, soulless shell of a human being only driven by his own ambition? I'm afraid you'd just described pretty much every human being that ever sailed political waters.


Not Ron Paul. He's running because he thinks our government has gotten out of hand, and we need a President who will rein it back in.


I'm not sure that Clinton "stands for nothing" either, as you said, she's pretty damn forthright. On the other hand, I can see why you wouldn't share her views, as socialist politics is not traditional in your society.


There's a very good reason why socialism shouldn't fly in America, or anywhere else for that matter.


And lemme just say: proving that she can become the first female president is a HARD, BRAVE and DAMNED DIGNIFIED undertaking. I'd like to see you pull it off.


Well, first I'd have to get a sex change. I don't think our country is ready to elect a transsexual to the Presidency.


Fact is, if you want to make it in politics, you have to be ambitious, cause nobody's gonna hand it to you if you don't push for it, and you must be able to please everyone simultaneously; some get more, others less, but the juggling act can't be easy. The thing is, being ready to take on the responsibility is hard enough, and she does it with such enthusiassm and confidence, one thing is for damn sure - she has the potential of a good decision maker. Now, how to get support is really her problem, I don't understand the complexities of the political rhealm. It's probably something along the lines of having two or more guns pointed at your head every step of the way. It's easy to criticize from the margins. I think that having a hard-core liberal president is long overdue.

Yes, it's very unfortunate that our political system tends to attract people whose only motivation in life is to control other people's lives. That's why we need someone who understand the proper role of government, which does not include raising our children for us or deciding what we're allowed to say in public.


For a better explanation of why I don't like Clinton, please read this article:
http://www.discussanything.com/forums/showthread.php?t=109872

The reason she's the presumptive leader is because her team has more long term friends and professional associates in the mainstream media than any of the other candidates in the DNC this time around. These pundits know who they'll have to be dealing with when all is said and done. What the media tells people in this country is what they believe. She in the lead because the media keeps telling us she's in the lead. They call it polling, but seriously, who have any of you ever known that has been polled for one of these national polls? They sample 1,000 people out of around 100 million potential voters, and they actually have the bloated nutsacks to publish the results as if they actually mean something. All they mean is that the winner will be promoted as the leader in the race, likely fulfilling that declaration due to the fact that most people back someone they think will win. People don't like to lose and most will avoid aligning themselves with a losing candidate. This enables polls to accurately predict the winner by declaring early on which candidate you should choose if you just want to be on the winning side.

I'm not sure that Clinton "stands for nothing" either, as you said, she's pretty damn forthright. .........................The thing is, being ready to take on the responsibility is hard enough, and she does it with such enthusiassm and confidence, one thing is for damn sure - she has the potential of a good decision maker............... I think that having a hard-core liberal president is long overdue.


Some comments

Her 'on record' statements seem to at times sway in the political wind. She will be forthright one way and then forthright the other.

Aha Maybe she is just enthusiastically practicing at potentializing her decision making.

And just what would a hard core liberal president do?

We need less 'nanny' government

This enables polls to accurately predict the winner by declaring early on which candidate you should choose if you just want to be on the winning side.

Sad but true.

Government governs, excercises authority to make and enforce rules and laws... The same should be utilitarian or for the benefit of the majority no? What other than a hard core liberal president does a liberal country need? Is USA not a country of liberal people, do you not do what ever the freck you want? Well you need a president who understands this.

I don't understand why USA is so afraid of certain socialist practices. You need a health care reform (have you watched "SICKO" - not that you need to - you know how dysfunctional, unfair and essentially cruel you system is - at least compared to the rest of the world). What does your conscience tell you when you watch someone die in your country because they can't afford to get treated? The sad truth is - you DO need a nanny to take care of certain business. Someone needs to stand up for the poor, or you're no better than freggin' Zimbabwe. Or would you rather stand back and watch that inhuman practice continue? Yeah, I guess you would.

She's the "leading candidate" because she has the most name recognition.

Unfortunately that's pretty much all there is to it.
Elections are more about having a good marketing team than having good policies, something made blatantly obvious by this psycho being consistantly in the lead.

Government governs, excercises authority to make and enforce rules and laws... The same should be utilitarian or for the benefit of the majority no? What other than a hard core liberal president does a liberal country need? Is USA not a country of liberal people, do you not do what ever the freck you want? Well you need a president who understands this.

I don't understand why USA is so afraid of certain socialist practices. You need a health care reform (have you watched "SICKO" - not that you need to - you know how dysfunctional, unfair and essentially cruel you system is - at least compared to the rest of the world). What does your conscience tell you when you watch someone die in your country because they can't afford to get treated? The sad truth is - you DO need a nanny to take care of certain business. Someone needs to stand up for the poor, or you're no better than freggin' Zimbabwe. Or would you rather stand back and watch that inhuman practice continue? Yeah, I guess you would.
I don't need the government taking more money out of my paycheck and giving it to people that are too lazy to work themselves, health care is out there, and its available to anyone willing to take the initiative to get it. I recall hearing about Canada's health care system. And as i recall it is Far from being perfect. As for Hillary, If she wins I might be joining you up north. She is the most dishonest Lie-to-win person I have ever seen. If she was the Only candidate.. I still wouldn't vote for her.

Government governs, excercises authority to make and enforce rules and laws... The same should be utilitarian or for the benefit of the majority no? What other than a hard core liberal president does a liberal country need? Is USA not a country of liberal people, do you not do what ever the freck you want? Well you need a president who understands this.

I don't understand why USA is so afraid of certain socialist practices. You need a health care reform (have you watched "SICKO" - not that you need to - you know how dysfunctional, unfair and essentially cruel you system is - at least compared to the rest of the world). What does your conscience tell you when you watch someone die in your country because they can't afford to get treated? The sad truth is - you DO need a nanny to take care of certain business. Someone needs to stand up for the poor, or you're no better than freggin' Zimbabwe. Or would you rather stand back and watch that inhuman practice continue? Yeah, I guess you would.

So, what are your thoughts today about the Iowa results, then? Change your mind at all about "us" here in the U S?

I don't need the government taking more money out of my paycheck and giving it to people that are too lazy to work themselves, health care is out there, and its available to anyone willing to take the initiative to get it.

:doh:

This is why Canadians don't like Americans - lack of responsibility to care for the other. I am not a judge, nor the "Almighty" and I have no right to preach to you what is good or bad, but I know that there is one principle that everyone should remember: "do onto others..." If tables were turned in your life, and you lost everything, and got sick, then you would understand. This lack of empathy is a social phenomenon in the USA. It's a very unforgiving, cruel place. Lack of government social programs in general definitely worsens the state of affairs: crime rates are a good indicator. If you don't help take care of your fellow man - they shall resort to desparate measures. It's a lose-lose situation.

So, what are your thoughts today about the Iowa results, then? Change your mind at all about "us" here in the U S?

Change my mind, about what? Freggin' Iowa... Born again Christians and Evangelists... YAIKS! 6/10 of Huckabees voters said it was important to them that the candidate shared their values. Well, who better than a former preacher! I fully enjoy witnessing a scandal every now and then, especially surrounding an evangelical preacher.:)

Someone please explain to me the difference between Baptist and Evangelist...:( It's all non-roman-catholic Christianity to me... I am truly ignorant with respect to these separatists.

http://peacemakers.net/TedHaggard.jpg

theres a lot of overlap between baptists and evangelists-an evangelist is just someone believes on focussing on obtaining new converts. Baptist is about as broad an umbrella as "catholic" eg "primitive baptists" dont believe in missionaries...
a lot of this is "you had to be there" stuff-when youre around it a while you figure it out

Change my mind, about what? Freggin' Iowa... Born again Christians and Evangelists... YAIKS! 6/10 of Huckabees voters said it was important to them that the candidate shared their values. Well, who better than a former preacher! I fully enjoy witnessing a scandal every now and then, especially surrounding an evangelical preacher.:)

Someone please explain to me the difference between Baptist and Evangelist...:( It's all non-roman-catholic Christianity to me... I am truly ignorant with respect to these separatists.

http://peacemakers.net/TedHaggard.jpg

You shouldn't denigrate groups of people out of ignorance.

This lack of empathy is a social phenomenon in the USA. It's a very unforgiving, cruel place. Lack of government social programs in general definitely worsens the state of affairs: crime rates are a good indicator. If you don't help take care of your fellow man - they shall resort to desparate measures. It's a lose-lose situation.
:nice:

6/10 of Huckabees voters said it was important to them that the candidate shared their values.
That number (or more) should apply to every voter. Who the hell votes for someone who's values are completely opposite?

Weeeeell.... I think that what a bunch of hard core Christians call values just means that they prefer a hard core Christian. As for how that candidate votes on various matters that concern the well being of the people, I'm not so sure. Take my word for one thing: you don't need a religious conservative running a place whose motto is "liberty and freedom for all".

I just don't trust religious people. I'm sorry but I am simply biased that way. Religion and state should be separate. That is just my humble opinion. Most of all, I say this because I come from a place where religion was used to divide and conquer. Religion is the most dangerous weapon in the hands of a political leader.

You shouldn't denigrate groups of people out of ignorance.



Well, what would you call those masses that used to grovel at Haggard's feet?:eek3:

Ok, I ain't saying that all preachers are alike (lying sicko's), I'm saying all people are alike, which is why I don't worship nor follow none in particular.

Change my mind, about what? Freggin' Iowa... Born again Christians and Evangelists... YAIKS! 6/10 of Huckabees voters said it was important to them that the candidate shared their values. Well, who better than a former preacher! I fully enjoy witnessing a scandal every now and then, especially surrounding an evangelical preacher.:)

Someone please explain to me the difference between Baptist and Evangelist...:( It's all non-roman-catholic Christianity to me... I am truly ignorant with respect to these separatists.

http://peacemakers.net/TedHaggard.jpg

I guess you totally missed the point that the caucuses rejected the most egregious campaign liars of both parties ( Clinton, Romney ), in favor of those with generally more conciliatory and populist views. In other words, regardless of the "Christian" Huckabee aspect, which seems to trouble you greatly, the people of Iowa strongly indicated their lack of patience with the current Republican administration, and have shown they solidly embrace the idea of kicking them and their policies the hell out of office.
This, to me, is a very favorable indicator that just maybe this election season Americans won't get fooled again, and will finally start to hold our politicians more responsible for carrying out our own wishes than has been the case over the past 8 years.
This country needs to walk before it can run, and after New Hampshire we'll be able see more clearly exactly what the real attitude is as far as more sweeping changes now being possible. I consider Iowa a very positive first step, and I hope for many more down the line.
Not all of us in the US are nearly as callous as you believe, but recently we've been largely stuck with a government that's bought and paid for by corporate shills and business interests. We need to boot them out of influence, and take away their power before any real progress can be made. I sincerely hope we can do it this time, because our time is running out.

Weeeeell.... I think that what a bunch of hard core Christians call values just means that they prefer a hard core Christian. As for how that candidate votes on various matters that concern the well being of the people, I'm not so sure. Take my word for one thing: you don't need a religious conservative running a place whose motto is "liberty and freedom for all".

I just don't trust religious people. I'm sorry but I am simply biased that way. Religion and state should be separate. That is just my humble opinion. Most of all, I say this because I come from a place where religion was used to divide and conquer. Religion is the most dangerous weapon in the hands of a political leader.

So true, I always wonder why we can't have an atheist president? Why do they all have to be some wacko religious fundamentalist? This isn't the Middle East, it's scary how such a huge percentage of Americans care more about a book of fairy tales rather than their liberty, their life, and their planet. I find it funny how the group that hates Muslims more than anyone is the religious crowd who has more in common with them than anyone else in this country.

Hopefully one day this nation will be civilized..

I guess you totally missed the point that the caucuses rejected the most egregious campaign liars of both parties ( Clinton, Romney ), in favor of those with generally more conciliatory and populist views. In other words, regardless of the "Christian" Huckabee aspect, which seems to trouble you greatly, the people of Iowa strongly indicated their lack of patience with the current Republican administration, and have shown they solidly embrace the idea of kicking them and their policies the hell out of office.
This, to me, is a very favorable indicator that just maybe this election season Americans won't get fooled again, and will finally start to hold our politicians more responsible for carrying out our own wishes than has been the case over the past 8 years.
This country needs to walk before it can run, and after New Hampshire we'll be able see more clearly exactly what the real attitude is as far as more sweeping changes now being possible. I consider Iowa a very positive first step, and I hope for many more down the line.
Not all of us in the US are nearly as callous as you believe, but recently we've been largely stuck with a government that's bought and paid for by corporate shills and business interests. We need to boot them out of influence, and take away their power before any real progress can be made. I sincerely hope we can do it this time, because our time is running out.

Good luck with that!

Good luck with that!

Hey, I'm very cautious, and by no means a naive dreamer.
I'm watching and waiting like many others are. I can hope. When hope is lost, desperation then causes people to do desperate things. I prefer being peaceable as a first option. However, I'm not foolish enough to think it's the only option.

it's scary how such a huge percentage of Americans care more about a book of fairy tales rather than their liberty,

The Bible is certainly mostly fiction, but liberals don't care about liberty either. Liberty is the freedom to engage in any peaceful, honest, voluntary activity you choose to engage in. Liberals certainly don't respect such freedom. They believe they have the right to steal from anyone via taxation and to control any aspect of their business or their dealings in the name of the collective or the state. You have a lot to learn about liberty.

I find it funny how the group that hates Muslims more than anyone is the religious crowd who has more in common with them than anyone else in this country.

That is rather ironic... Actually it's the Neocons that have more in common with them.


Hopefully one day this nation will be civilized..

Hopefully one day this nation will have true liberty.

Hey, I'm very cautious, and by no means a naive dreamer.
I'm watching and waiting like many others are. I can hope. When hope is lost, desperation then causes people to do desperate things. I prefer being peaceable as a first option. However, I'm not foolish enough to think it's the only option.

Sometimes I believe things can change, but then I'll see how young people only care about making money and pretending to be rappers/gangsters, and how utterly clueless and vapid the soccer moms of America are. And I realize that we've gone too far, and with the corporations/filthy elite in total control of this society (media/education/government), I just can't see us digging ourselves out of this whole, this empire is history..

The Bible is certainly mostly fiction, but liberals don't care about liberty either.

Oh really? It's been mostly liberals fighting against the BA the past 7 years for our liberty, the right has been mostly supportive of the liberty snatchers..


Liberty is the freedom to engage in any peaceful, honest, voluntary activity you choose to engage in. Liberals certainly don't respect such freedom.

Nonsense, tell me most conservatives believe in the right to alter your mind, have an abortion, or see boobies on tv and I'll believe you.


They believe they have the right to steal from anyone via taxation and to control any aspect of their business or their dealings in the name of the collective or the state. You have a lot to learn about liberty.


Are taxes your only measure of liberty??? What do you suggest we do? Business needs to be regulated because time and time again they've proven that unless they are strictly regulated they will screw society over. People have freedom, businesses aren't people.

That is rather ironic... Actually it's the Neocons that have more in common with them.

Well, many of them are neo-cons..:p



Hopefully one day this nation will have true liberty.


Hopefully..

the liberals oppose things like the Patriot Act when the GOP stands to profit but does that mean they wont enact the same kind of thing when theyre in power? People in power tend to want to enhance their power..there are people on the left i feel that are not like that but i cant say there arent the other kind too

So true, I always wonder why we can't have an atheist president? .

I'm just curious.

How would having an atheist president be any better?

Not looking quite so inevitable as of late. I'm holding out hope. Our primary goal should be to do anything possible to keep that filthy, elitist, yankee bitch out of the white house.

Oh really?

Yes, really.



Nonsense, tell me most conservatives believe in the right to alter your mind, have an abortion, or see boobies on tv and I'll believe you.

Did I say conservatives supported liberty? No. Perhaps you're confused. I'm a libertarian, not a conservative.



Are taxes your only measure of liberty???

No, but they are indeed a measure.

What do you suggest we do?

A scientific experiment. After all, we don't want to do anything in an unscientific or irrational manner.

Business needs to be regulated because time and time again they've proven that unless they are strictly regulated they will screw society over. People have freedom, businesses aren't people.


Business needs to be "regulated" as all individuals need to be regulated. Corporate personhood should be abolished. And each adult individual should have the right to engage in any peaceful, honest, voluntary activity of his or her choosing. Government's only legitimate function is to regulate actions that involve force, fraud or coercion. If a business initiates force, fraud or coercion against another group or individual, then the government should step in and take corrective action. Otherwise, the government should stay the f*** out of everyone's business.

I'm just curious.

How would having an atheist president be any better?

Yea, at least he/she would be sane, and wouldn't believe that their mistakes don't matter because they'd be "forgiven" one day and all would be swell.

I don't see why it's a requirement that we have a religious president, I thought theocracy was for the Middle Easterner's...

Yes, really.

Where is your evidence?


Did I say conservatives supported liberty? No. Perhaps you're confused. I'm a libertarian, not a conservative.


Ok, but it doesn't make you right on every matter.



No, but they are indeed a measure.

I agree in a way, but how are you going to fund everything that needs funding? The private sector doesn't cut it as they only care to maximize profit.



A scientific experiment. After all, we don't want to do anything in an unscientific or irrational manner.

Explain.



Business needs to be "regulated" as all individuals need to be regulated. Corporate personhood should be abolished.


I agree with you there, I'm probably the biggest opponent of corporate personhood on this site.


And each adult individual should have the right to engage in any peaceful, honest, voluntary activity of his or her choosing.


Totally agree.

Government's only legitimate function is to regulate actions that involve force, fraud or coercion. If a business initiates force, fraud or coercion against another group or individual, then the government should step in and take corrective action. Otherwise, the government should stay the f*** out of everyone's business.

Problem is they don't step in when it comes to a business like Monsanto, but they do when it comes to cancer patients smoking pot..:nonono:

Yea, at least he/she would be sane, and wouldn't believe that their mistakes don't matter because they'd be "forgiven" one day and all would be swell.

I don't see why it's a requirement that we have a religious president, I thought theocracy was for the Middle Easterner's...

Well you didn't quite answer my question but since there is no president (Democratic or Republican)in my memory that has outted himself as an atheist or agnostic it's kind of hard for you to cite any examples of 'better'

I sense this is an emotional issue with you.

Perhaps you could point out to me where religion has played an over-important part in the decisions that have been made or how religion contributed to the mistakes that have been made.

Let me set the record straight on my own position. I have been in a church 3 times in the past 20 years, my mother's funeral service and the weddings of my 2 children. My own wedding and my husband's funeral did not take place in a church.

I find it hard to believe that all the people who attend religious services are of just one political ideology so how big a factor can it be? What does being an atheist or agnostic bring to the table that we don't have right now?

Yea, at least he/she would be sane

Atheism does not imply sanity.

"Inevitable" no more. The NH polls close soon, but word leaking out is that Obama is running away with the Democratic ( and Independent ) vote. Stay tuned...

"Inevitable" no more. The NH polls close soon, but word leaking out is that Obama is running away with the Democratic ( and Independent ) vote. Stay tuned...

I should know better than to believe a prank call from a "friend". Geez...:P

But the Dems are still too close to call, even though McCain, as expected, wrapped up the GOP side early.

I should know better than to believe a prank call from a "friend". Geez...:P

But the Dems are still too close to call, even though McCain, as expected, wrapped up the GOP side early.

dont feel bad; i ve been stung with that too-and posted it online too :P

dont feel bad; i ve been stung with that too-and posted it online too :P

Oh well. Thks. :)

hey we're just human-and a friend is a friend

Wow...Hillary pulls out the old, traditional, "fem" move and cries, and these dumb NH women rush to vote for her.
I've just renounced my gender, I'm so disgusted!