[Magdalen] Well at least that's over with.

[Roger Stokes]

On 21/10/2015 20:16, M J [Mike] Logsdon wrote:
>>>> In the case of Trump, he has worked at alienating women with his
> endless diatribe of derogatory statements.  I don't know what to  ascribe
> Hilary's unpopularity with men other than a male distrust of a strong
> woman. Anybody have other ideas?<<<
>
> My discussions with others on political issues is limited, nearly, to this list, and my female co-worker, who, though Dem, despises Hillary.  I've heard only two substantive complaints from her:  Hillary isn't qualified to lead the free world (which may be true, I honestly keep an open mind on that one),

She does have experience in that which none of the other candidates 
have.  She was Secretary of State for four years, representing the USA 
in high-level meetings around the world. That strikes me as recent, 
relevnt experience - showing she knows how to act and relate on the 
world stage. Yes, the world has moved on, some of the leaders she met 
have left the scene and the world has become more unstable but she will 
have retained awareness of what I might call the various national 
personalities are - what matters to them and the dominant sociology and 
political concerns.

> and Hillary is only where she is today because of her hanging onto the political coat tails of the husband any honest woman would have divorced when Monica took the stage (which may also be true -- I've honestly wondered just exactly how they worked out their marital problems back then).

Another word for that is commitment and the ability to forgive.

> With such a narrow Dem field, I'm very early able to just sit back and hope for the best, with no real worry.  If I can counsel an 8th grader to accept the fact that for at least a minimum of four years he could deal with a Prez Mitt, I can steel my own nerves to either a Hillary or (gag reflex) a Donald or Ben (though I think Ben is both awful and ultimately stands no chance).  Does that mean I think I can also stand Jeb, Ted, or Marco?  By comparison, ... obviously.

I agree that at this stage the Democratic field is very narrow, some 
might say too narrow, while the Republican field is far too broad and 
with front-runners (according to polling data) whom I would regard as 
supremely ill-qualified to sit in the Oval Office. The sooner that field 
thins significantly the better. That should give the remaining 
candidates to broaden their support and draw closer to Trump and Carson.

Roger