Hmm, maybe she opened a whole new door of relations and diplomacy. Maybe if she cries in front of a Middle East summit she can broker peace. Pretty soon we'll just be electing cute little kittens for our Presidential office to look all sad in front of the cameras.

In all seriousness, if crying/showing a 'sympathetic side' really did the trick for voters/women voters in New Hampshire, I think that just underlines a point of pure childishness in the American voting population. I've always thought the Republicans were childish for basically looking for a candidate that can emulate a physical mix between Arnold Schwarzenegger and Ronald Reagan, but maybe this goes to show that the Democrats can be guilty of the same thing.

My complaint wasn't necessarily directed at how people view personality and looks in a candidate, but the very fact that people view personality and looks as taking precedent over issues. The point being, many Democrats don't like Hillary because of her stance on the issues; but if her crying (personality) was able to overshadow that, then the voting population, male or female, is acting very childish.

If we entertain some generalizations here, you might be right that men like their strongman and women might go for the puppy-dog look, but my point is that neither should be looking for both in the first place. Just more to distract from the issues; the true importance at hand.

That I agree with. . .

It's nice to see a reasonable liberal say something like that.

Thanks, Kat!

SignOnSanDiego.com > The San Diego Union-Tribune

Check out this cartoon:

The only thing that Sir Hillary is guilty of is showing her true colors. Has anyone ever seen a moist eye in this manipulative person before? Considering she is woman and a public figure the only thing to date that has stirred any emotion in her besides anger, is the consideration that she might actually lose her quest for the political power that she has spent her entire life questing after. Where were the tears on 9/11, or after any one of a number of natural disasters of our recent history? It just shows everyone where her is HEART really is......the self absorbed quest for ambition as nothing else has brought tears to this hard hearted lady expect facing the possibility of being beaten. (R)

What real and tangible accomplishmets can Hillary cite after her 35 years experience, she so glibly mentions ?

It's less of a question of supporting universal healthcare than the approach. McCain (in my understanding) wants healthcare for every American, but will obviously choose a market approach.

I am a Christian but won't claim to know enough about this issue to know which way is best. Obviously, for those who have healthcare in the U.S. (about 85% of us) have the access to the worlds best healthcare. If you want proof just look at all the people coming to the U.S. for advanced treatments. However, we also have the worlds most expensive healthcare.

I doubt most of the solutions tauted by either side would dramatically lower costs (e.g. tort reform, efficiency increases through better medical management, etc.). Obviously doctors are compensated at a much greater rate in the U.S. than in other countries (particularly specialists like cardiac or neuro surgeons); however, this also helps us attract the best talent. Moreover, we pay more for drugs notwithstanding our pharmaceutical companies produce and export more drugs than any other nations pharmaceutical industry. In essence the American consumer subsidizes our pharmaceutical industry (and in effect we keep global drug prices lower & our companies more competitive by doing this).

Additionally, our insurance companies are a huge source of economic activity. For example, they are the prime investors in commercial real estate, fixed income products, and to a lesser extent equities. So we do reap huge rewards from the way our healthcare system works that are unseen by the average person. I doubt its realistic to try and change this system. I think the better path would probably be to provide tax credits (with credits the government actually gives you money, versus deductions where the government merely lowers your tax burden & in many cases it doesn't even do that if your deductions don't exceed the standard & personal exemption). Perhaps the federal government could also create a block grant program to states so they can run it. I know here in NY state any individual who doesn't have employer provided healthcare can buy into our state program (which is as good as the average health insurance plan) for about $230 per month. Of course NY state has among the highest healthcare costs in the nation (if not the highest) so we have to assume this is the high end.

Therefore, a tax credit of less than $3,000 for individuals and a graduated increase in the credit amount for those with dependents (depending on the number of dependents) should do the trick, provided every state buys into the federal block grant program (and they will -- I've never heard of a state yet that refused free money from the feds).

Although I have good healthcare myself providing healthcare to every American is a huge priority of mine in my voting choices. However, I don't think we need to throw out the good with the bad. I also don't think it makes much sense to demonize insurance or pharmaceutical companies accept where warranted. To my knowledge the price to earnings ration of insurance and pharmaceutical stock is about average (if not below average). If the capital appreciation and earnings per share were inordinately above the market average obviously a good case would exist to look at pricing, but this doesn't seem to be the case.