Published On Cape May County Herald, : Senator Chuck Schumer said recently, "I think there's a strong view in our caucus that Hillary would be a very, very strong, formidable candidate and president.”
Democratic pollster Hart of Hart Research Associates said, "Nobody doubts her competence or her experience or knowledge. She has proved that."
Senator Tim Kaine said, "Pledge your support right now so that Hillary Clinton will know that, should she take this step, there are millions of us ready to take the field with her and make sure she wins.
I support democratic administration and Hillary Clinton for President because Bush and his advisors have not managed the Iraq War effectively. His mistakes have resulted in more treasure lost and higher unemployment, which affect the ordinary Americans more so than wealthy ones. Thus, I supported the Obama administration, hard to see how it can do worse.
Bush adopted a program of large tax cuts and increased defense spending. Thus, current costs are paid by additional debt, which will be paid by later generations in the form of higher taxes, or inflation, or both. As an economic policy to stimulate a moribund economy by higher government spending and increased consumer demand for goods, the statistics on economic growth and unemployment showed that it has failed.
Bush is allied with the "big money" segments of the republic (the upper 2 percent) at the expense of 98 percent of Americans. The result is a widening gap in income distribution that fosters more dissension among economic classes and less market demand that inhibit economic growth for everyone.
My priorities are more similar to those of the Democratic Party. For example, I like universal health care for Americans at affordable prices. I like the idea of buying cheaper drugs from foreigners, like Canada, so many Americans can afford them. However, these subjects are anathema to the Bush administration because they would cut into business profits and Bush would lose business support.
As we know, every nation has goals that it tries to win or protect by foreign policy. Throughout its history, U.S. has used its foreign policies to maintain and expand foreign trade, e.g., trade agreements with European Union, Japan, China, Mexico, Canada, India; reduce worldwide unemployment, inflation, and business cycles, e.g. IMF; seek collective economic cooperation with other nations, e.g., UN, Israel, Pakistan, NATO; assist in settling disputes, e.g., Russo-Japanese War, WTO; provide humanitarian aid, e.g., post-WWI American Relief Administration, post-WWII Marshall Plan, Peace Corps; promote democracy, maintain a balance of power. Usually, a combination of these motives governs U.S. foreign policy and maintaining peace globally.
Economic transformations will reduce debts, and all transformations will reduce unemployment rates, in my opinion. The democratic government will continue promoting good health care plans and an education system emphasizing identification. I also think the economic crisis will diminish, in the long run. Democratic administration is continuing to promote sufficient economic, judicial and political equality. The results of reducing economic crisis, unemployment and health cost will happen when people engage in production and living standards will continue to increase and people are more satisfied. Such is the thinking driven by market economics.