By now, I just can’t avoid it anymore. The presidential campaigns of 2008. Though intrigued by the outcome of the Iowa Caucuses (disturbed is actually a better word. I mean – Obama and a crazy Baptist Preacher? Huh?), I kept ignoring the predictions for the New Hampshire Primaries because it’s still so early in the game.

But then Hillary went and cried.

And now no pundit worth his or her salt can avoid that subject. So I am officially sucked in.

But after spending some time just on the NYT web site, reading all the banter and opinions about it, I’m still confused. Was it good for her that she cried? Was it the very thing that defied all the polling predictions and pushed her over the finish line victoriously? Or will that show of emotion, in the long run, be the end of her? Is it the final nail in her coffin – to reveal that she has emotion? Can she really stand up to the evil-doers of the world now that she’s shed a tear? I mean, she could have her period that day and all hell could break loose, at least that’s what Rush wants you to think.

Separating my extreme confusion after reading about what the pundits want me to think, I’ll instead revert back to my initial reaction.

Hillary is a total fake. There, I said it.

That was completely staged.

Come on people, we’ve been witness to staged Town Hall meetings for 8 years with the Bush Administration. You can’t have access or pose a question to the President in those “town hall meetings” unless you are a full-fledged card carrying member of the Republican Party with your NRA membership card proudly placed in your wallet and your question written, then edited, then written again, by the President’s advance people.

So, am I to actually believe the Democrats don’t use the same tactics? Now now. I’ve been living in DC long enough to not be that naive.

Come on people, get your head out of the sand. The D’s have to take pages out of the R’s playbooks because the R’s have a long track record of winning, even when anyone with a brain would think the odds are against them (anyone else thinking Bush’s re-election? I still can’t believe he won again. Ohio will always be dead to me).

So, there isn’t a person in the world who could convince me that Hillary’s sudden outburst of emotion, the first in decades of being a public personality, conveniently timed on the eve of an important Primary that she was slated to lose, was anything but staged.

Now, you could convince me that she has more acting chops than many of today’s overpaid Hollywood stars, but you cannot convince me to support her as the Democratic candidate in 2008.

What surprises me is how many people automatically assume I am supporting her because I am a woman. Like, they don’t even want to slow down for one second to hear my objections as I’m trying to speak for myself and actually point out that I can’t stand the woman.

When I finally get through to them, they look at me in disbelief and horror. Many women accuse me of not supporting women and how dare I?

Look, the truth is, I think Hillary is as good as a robot. She is like a freaking machine. She can study and memorize better than anyone up there, but is there anything real about her? Is there anything that’s not programmed about her? Why does she stand up there and tout her 8 years of experience in the White House? What the hell? She wasn’t President.

I actually don’t trust Hillary much more than I trust Bush.

At the end of the day, when push comes to shove, if, as I shudder, she actually receives the nomination to be the Democratic candidate, then there’s a good chance I’ll vote for her because at the end of the day, all I care about is that the Democrats take back full control and start to clean up this horror scene and mess Bush has created in our country and around the world. But right now, in January of 2008, I do not believe that Hillary is the best candidate and I do think her crying was totally fake, staged, and planned.

The first and only time I felt the least bit inclined towards Hillary was yesterday when speaking with a dear KT reader, who actually inspires many-a-postings here. She also despises the woman. But she made two really good points.

The first. This dear KT friend was an intern for the House of Parliament in 1994, back when we were in college. A woman she worked for told her a really charming story that has stuck with her all of these years. At that time, Margaret Thatcher had been Prime Minister for so long in England and apparently a little boy in this woman’s kid’s elementary school class stated that when he grows up, he wants to be Prime Minister. Turns out all the little girls in the class started laughing and told this boy that “only girls can be Prime Minister.”

OK now. Regardless of the fact that I now have a little girl of my own, that is a very compelling story and one that I would LOVE to see play out in elementary schools across the country. Odds are almost all of my millions of fans feel the same way.

The second story this same KT BFF told was this. She then went on to write her honors thesis on whether or not having a woman hold high office in a country, ultimately impacts women’s issues in that country. And her findings very conclusively showed that, it does. Having a woman hold the highest office in the country means that important issues to women are taken seriously and change can happen.

Again, this would be another point in the column for Hillary.

But see, this same friend and I, after discussing these two stories, still concluded that while we would LOVE to have a woman hold the highest office in the country, and we want to see this for our sake and the sake of our daughters, we still don’t believe Hillary is the right candidate.

Michelle Obama?

I’ve said it before – go for it. She has my full support.

Elizabeth Edwards?

Again, sign me up.

But Hillary?

Don’t trust her as far as I can throw her. I’m well aware of the complex dynamics at play here. As a woman, many people assume I should support the only female candidate to take a stand for all women nationwide. But I think that is fundamentally flawed reasoning.

The truth is, that isn’t enough for me. I just genuinely do not trust her or like her or believe her to be the strongest candidate with the best chance of beating the Republicans. I just don’t. And I have to also believe that in my lifetime, Hillary will not be the only female candidate for President, I have to believe that  we will have more chances in the future for other female political leaders to inspire a generation of little girls.

Hello Kittens – 

This post is also posted today by me on DC Metro Moms (www.dcmetromoms.com). I am cross-posting because I think this issue is so very important and hope everyone is paying attention……so here it goes….. 

Nary a day passes when I don’t wonder how this President of ours can wake up and actually face himself in the mirror. As if the death toll in Iraq and hiding of the dead soldiers in caskets when they return to the US isn’t enough but hey – how about the economy?

Or how Hurricane Katrina victims? Or wait – how about censorship of live television?

How DARE Emmy-award winner Sally Field question him on the War? http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jFeiXKwcMM-AgMVN1HZAPMkVleIg 

I mean, really, should I keep going?

OK good, because I will. Just when you think this man cannot damage himself any further, politically, he is doing it again. He is threatening to VETO the House and now Senate-passed bill to increase funding for state sponsored children’s health care.

You got it. He is AGAINST providing health insurance for more poor kids.

I mean – isn’t that like hating Santa and putting a bounty out for the head of the Easter bunny?

How very conservative of him. So in case you weren’t following, he is FOR spending a billion dollars a day in Iraq indefinitely, but he is AGAINST spending $2 billion more a year on covering uninsured poor children.

Of the 48 million uninsured Americans (shameful), 9 million of them are children. Earlier this week, the House passed legislation that would provide insurance for an additional 3.5 million children each year. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/25/AR2007092501474.html?hpid=topnews&sid=ST2007092502249

How is it that the man that has increased our budget every year for six years, thereby defying fiscal conservatism, is suddenly tightening the reigns and making poor uninsured kids the victims?

The Senate passed the bill last night, according to the Washington Post and the President has threatened to veto the bill.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/27/AR2007092701038.html?hpid=topnews

I could be wrong but by my estimation, this would mark only the THIRD time the President has vetoed a bill during his presidency. The first came in 2006 to veto federally funded stem cell research (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/20/washington/20bush.html) and the second came earlier this summer to veto a bill that would have forced a time line to bring the troops home from Iraq (http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/05/01/congress.iraq/index.html).

So what does this mean, exactly? It means that nothing in Washington is as it seems. It means that the White House is hiding behind rhetoric that they believe this expanded coverage would provide free health care to children in families that are not considered poor.

Whatever. Look – it is a disgrace that there are 48 million uninsured Americans and it is a disgrace that there are 9 million uninsured children in this country. If children do not have access to health care when they need it, how can we expect them to grow and develop into thriving, successful adults? What is the point of government and taxes if it isn’t there to protect those that need it most, like children?

How can a man who based two campaigns around morals and values threaten to veto increased spending for children’s health care?

The list of contradictions coming out of the Republican party never cease to amaze me but on this one, Bush is alone. I’m sure it’s going to pass the Senate and make its way to the President’s desk. And you can be sure my claws are out and will be sharpened on the day he vetoes it.