So far, Hillary Clinton has rubbed me the wrong way, and here's why: Regarding the need to rebuild New Orleans and Katrina recovery in general, she hasn't brought it up except for those rare occasions (like when she delivered the commencement address at Dillard University) when she's in the region stumping for votes. It's as if she sees it as a mere regional issue only of interest in Louisiana, Mississippi, other states in the storm zone, and the handful of states such as Texas and Georgia that took in a great deal of evacuees. When it needs to be treated as a national issue.

Hillary needs to make Katrina recovery a prominent part of her national platform. She needs to frame it as a national issue as follows: If the recovery of Louisiana and Mississippi is handled in a competent manner and rebuilding New Orleans and the rest of the stricken communities given the federal attention it needs instead of being shuffled off on the back burner, it will show that the same thing can be done in the wake of any future disasters (or in the new normal, terrorist attacks) of Katrina's magnitude. She can say that this can be done were San Francisco hit by a major quake, or Miami hit by a hurricane, or Seattle's Mr. Rainier to blow its top, etc. And allied with this issue is the related topic of disaster preparedness--reason being, while it's best for individuals and families to make plans and stock up on necessities, even the most careful preparation on their part can only go so far, and in fact might not be enough in the case of a new "Katrina." Hillary needs to bring these topics up in every national forum possible--interviews, presidential debates--anything that will generate publicity in the mainstream media.

(By the way, the above applies not only to Hillary but to every presidential candidate, whether Democratic, Republican, or any serious third party. I'm just referring to Hillary because she's the topic of this post.)

I find it intefesting that some of these women don't like the idea that just because Clinton has qualities similar to male politicians, she would not make a good president. Another indicated that it would bring back the "ClintonAdministration." She ,ade that sound bad. Let's see, we weren't losing 1000's of young men and women in Iraq or any other war that is unnecessary. We were not running a deficit and with this war, one that willnever see the light of day in my lifetime and my grandchildren's lifetime. So I guess his administration was pretty bad! The male politicians haven't exactly done a great job of leading us. Yes, Hillary rubs people wrong in a lot of ways, but she is smart and she is more qualified than a lot of other people and with the First Husband, we certainly, as a country, will gain back a good deal of respect that has been lost. That is something that Bill had and HAS over our current president. I know I support her and I sure hope she wins. Maybe this is the real kind of change that would be good for our country.

Sounds like a really interesting conversation. I'd love to have heard the two women trying to define what it is about Hillary Clinton that doesn't sit well. I can't quite figure it out either. There's something hidden about her and her steeliness doesn't make me think of conviction or sureness.

Any chance we could see some of the video?

Thanks.

I saw the interview segment, "Girl Talk." One woman said she didn't want Hillary Clinton because she doesn't want a "repeat of her husband" Bill Clinton. I'm sorry, but I'd be thrilled if there was a "repeat of Bill." We weren't at war and the economy was good. Honestly, no one ever asks the question: WHAT'S MORE IMMORAL? SLEEPING WITH A WHITE HOUSE INTERN? OR HAVING 3,000 TROOPS DIE IN IRAQ, ALONG WITH THOUSANDS OF IRAQI CITIZENS--- AND FOR WHAT?