After watching how the DNC elite helped BO steal the nomination from Hillary Clinton I can never vote for the Democratic nominee. His endless lies, bad judgments and associations, terrible voting record which call into question his character and judgment, should bring any intelligent, logical person to the realization that BO should not be POTUS.
Even though her supporters, I count myself among them, did not want Hillary Clinton to be the VP nominee, it was clear that BO made a huge mistake by not begging Hillary to be on the ticket. Thank God his ego prevented that. I still say I couldn't have voted for a ticket with HIM at POTUS and Hillary as VP... however, when push came to shove in that voting booth, when faced with Hillary's name even as VP, who knows what I "might" have done??? BO will never know now, will he, just how many of us might have done the unthinkable and voted for that ticket. But he didn't have the guts to make that decision. We were not surprised because he has not had the guts to make any real decision -- just look at how many times he avoided taking a stand on an issue by voting "present"!
Had Hillary been the nominee, which if they'd had a REAL roll call vote at the convention (and not the rigged sham we saw!) she certainly could have (had the Super Delegates not deserted her for "The One"), then she probably would have chosen BO as her VP. While many of us would have had a problem with it ... we would have voted that ticket.
As it is, the "One" of ambiguous Hope and Change (???) chose a tried and true, old time Democrat with a gaffe prone mind and mouth that is the gift to Republicans that keeps on giving ... Joe "I Can't Help Myself" Biden. Nice man, I'm sure... but I guess after EVERYONE else turned down the VP slot, he was last man standing. Not much Change there, huh?
McCain. I read up on him. I did my research. This man has had quite a lifetime of experience in the world, through a war and in the Senate. He crosses party lines and counts Hillary Clinton among his close friends in the Senate. He is not a perfect man, no one is. But he admits his mistakes and so far I have yet to catch him telling a baldfaced LIE to the camera (unlike BO who seems pathologically unable to tell the truth!).
Palin was an inspired choice because no one expected it. Yes, I am sure McCain chose her in part to appeal to the disaffected HRC supporters. But honestly, he had my vote even though I expected him to pick Romney! Palin also appealed to the conservative Republican base who was not thrilled with McCain. This is something that McCain understood and BO did not. Appealing to those who are not on board. What a concept! So for us HRC supporters, Palin was just the cherry on top! McCain brought something to his ticket that BO could only dream of: real change. A real mover and shaker and a strong woman who can hold her own on the political world stage.
I suspect, due to his egocentric narcissism, that BO has been throwing temper tantrums at the woman who stole his thunder, his media star ranking. I just hope he hasn't kicked that poodle he finally got for his little girls.
John McCain is tough. He knows what it's like to be deprived of his freedom, of physical comforts and basic needs and yet he came back from Vietnam, not a broken man subject to Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome, but a stronger human being, determined to benefit from his ordeal and give back to his country rather than give in to the hopelessness and horror of his POW experience.
I will vote for Sen. John S. McCain for President of the United States and Gov. Sarah Palin for Vice President because I believe they will take care of this country. McCain already knows how Washington works. He's ready on Day One.
God Bless the United States of America and Senator John S. McCain!
Hillary Rodham Clinton - 2012!!!
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Sunday, May 4, 2008
Hillary Clinton by Ted Sorenson's Definition is Ready to be POTUS
I was listening to a talk radio show briefly today where an African American personality (not Larry Elder) was angry at Rev. Wright for giving Obama grief because a black man "was dragging down another black man." And I thought, where is your outrage that BO was sitting listening to Rev. Wright for 20 years, allowing his children to listen to him? Where is your outrage that BO didn't distance himself from Wright 10 years ago, or after 911, or even 5 years ago? BO KNEW he was going to run for POTUS some day. His judgment is so poor that he couldn't even plan for his own run for POTUS and distance himself from Wright, Ayers, Rezko, Odinga, etc. so he could run without distraction. And why? Because he obviously feels he can tell a lie to get rid of any discrepancy in his background and has done so numerous times. Because he is arrogant in thinking none of this would matter. Because he obviously isn't making good judgments and thinking about the ramifications of anything he does. So instead of being mad at Wright for calling Obama out on his lies and disowning his association with Wright, maybe they should finally realize that BO is not ready (if ever!) to handle the high-pressure cooker job of POTUS where judgments are a critical part of the job every single day!
Ted Sorenson, JFK's speechwriter and closest advisor, has a book coming out soon and in today's PARADE magazine he was asked:
His answer:
And THAT, is exactly what Hillary Rodham Clinton has. Too bad Ted Kennedy didn't see the resemblance, because BO couldn't be farther from that description if he tried!
Ted Sorenson, JFK's speechwriter and closest advisor, has a book coming out soon and in today's PARADE magazine he was asked:
"What kind of experience do you think an effective President needs to have?"
His answer:
"Experience that is required to make judgments and decisions and answer tough questions under pressure. Kennedy had some of that from being in the war and from spending almost four years on the road testing Presidential waters. People say he had no executive experience, but I'll tell you that running a national campaign takes executive experience. It has a lot of similiarities in terms of the kinds of people you have to negotiate with, the kinds of people you have to stare down or run over."
And THAT, is exactly what Hillary Rodham Clinton has. Too bad Ted Kennedy didn't see the resemblance, because BO couldn't be farther from that description if he tried!
Monday, April 7, 2008
Stand Up Tall and Proud For Hillary Clinton!
For a primary that is basically neck and neck it amazes me how there is a perception out there, fostered I'm sure by the mainstream media, that there are few Hillary supporters.
I did some volunteer phone calling this weekend to Oregon and other upcoming primary states. The people answering the phone were glad to hear from me! They were almost in "hiding" in their support for Hillary, feeling like they're the only ones. They've been bombarded by the news media on tv and in print with all the Hillary bashing. They get shouted down by Obama supporters. It's a freakin' jungle out there, folks!
Why are people afraid to publicly proclaim their support for Hillary Clinton? There is a pervading sense that you are somehow in danger if you wear a button or slap a bumper sticker on your hard earned automobile bumper.
This shouldn't be. Why is this happening? Can it be the lie that Obama is the uniter has come home to roost? It is quite obvious, by playing the race card and playing it hard, Obama has alienated the races and made us afraid. We watch our words ever so carefully so as not to convey the slightest erroneous hint of bigotry.
African Americans over the weekend were presented on the Obama website with a terrible image of rusty slave shackles. The basic idea was that a vote for Hillary Clinton kept the African American in the field slave mode to the whites. What rubbish. What hate. Only a vote for Obama would free the black from the shackles of slavery in the white world? What slavery? The last time I looked the only slavery going on in 2008 was against women and children mostly in third world countries but sometimes, closer to home than you care to realize.
This is the race card and hate at its worse. The Clintons have a long history of serving the African American community. They do not deserve this kind of vile lashing.
The myth of Obama as the uniter is just that, a myth. He is truly a divider now, clearly bringing out the worst in people instead of the good. And how very sad and wrong is that?
So I proudly display my Hillary for President bumper sticker on my car. Just not where it can be ripped off. It's on the inside of the rear window.
I talk about Hillary and her plans and solutions to the very real issues facing this country after 7.5 years of Bush. Most people are willing to listen.
I say, get out there and proudly display your support of Hillary Clinton. Do not let them make you feel afraid. This is still America, isn't it? Or has something happened when I wasn't looking?
For support and a community where you can be proud to support Hillary go to:
http://www.hillaryclintonforum.net
I did some volunteer phone calling this weekend to Oregon and other upcoming primary states. The people answering the phone were glad to hear from me! They were almost in "hiding" in their support for Hillary, feeling like they're the only ones. They've been bombarded by the news media on tv and in print with all the Hillary bashing. They get shouted down by Obama supporters. It's a freakin' jungle out there, folks!
Why are people afraid to publicly proclaim their support for Hillary Clinton? There is a pervading sense that you are somehow in danger if you wear a button or slap a bumper sticker on your hard earned automobile bumper.
This shouldn't be. Why is this happening? Can it be the lie that Obama is the uniter has come home to roost? It is quite obvious, by playing the race card and playing it hard, Obama has alienated the races and made us afraid. We watch our words ever so carefully so as not to convey the slightest erroneous hint of bigotry.
African Americans over the weekend were presented on the Obama website with a terrible image of rusty slave shackles. The basic idea was that a vote for Hillary Clinton kept the African American in the field slave mode to the whites. What rubbish. What hate. Only a vote for Obama would free the black from the shackles of slavery in the white world? What slavery? The last time I looked the only slavery going on in 2008 was against women and children mostly in third world countries but sometimes, closer to home than you care to realize.
This is the race card and hate at its worse. The Clintons have a long history of serving the African American community. They do not deserve this kind of vile lashing.
The myth of Obama as the uniter is just that, a myth. He is truly a divider now, clearly bringing out the worst in people instead of the good. And how very sad and wrong is that?
So I proudly display my Hillary for President bumper sticker on my car. Just not where it can be ripped off. It's on the inside of the rear window.
I talk about Hillary and her plans and solutions to the very real issues facing this country after 7.5 years of Bush. Most people are willing to listen.
I say, get out there and proudly display your support of Hillary Clinton. Do not let them make you feel afraid. This is still America, isn't it? Or has something happened when I wasn't looking?
For support and a community where you can be proud to support Hillary go to:
http://www.hillaryclintonforum.net
Tuesday, April 1, 2008
Hillary Reassessed by Pittsburgh Tribune-Review
I like this. Hillary Clinton is fearless and has a great sense of humor. This is a must read and you can also view video clips of their question and answer period in that conference room.
Click here to read the whole article:
Hillary, reassessed
By Richard M. Scaife
TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Tuesday, April 1, 2008
Hillary Clinton walked into a Pittsburgh Tribune-Review conference room last Tuesday to meet with some of the newspaper's editors and reporters and declared, "It was so counterintuitive, I just thought it would be fun to do."
The room erupted in laughter. Her remark defused what could have been a confrontational meeting.
More than that, it said something about the New York senator and former first lady who hopes to be America's next president.
Click here to read the whole article:
Monday, March 31, 2008
Hey, DNC, leave Al Gore ALONE, he owes you NOTHING!
The party did not want Gore in 2004. They considered him "damaged goods" because of the 2000 FL debacle. Like that was HIS fault! COWARDS!!! Didn't they realize voters recognized Gore was cheated??? Nope. Instead they went with that loser Kerry. A terrible choice, but I voted for him to try to get rid of Bush. Of course we all know what happened to him... swift boating anyone? They simply underestimate the Republicans every chance they get! It's so FRUSTRATING I could scream! Oh wait, I AM SCREAMING!!!
The DNC is utterly clueless. It continues to amaze me how they decide to back the wrong candidate.
I saw Joe Liberman explain on 60 Minutes why he left the Democratic party. He said it's not the party of Clinton/Gore years. It's become far left elitist and self-serving. This is from an insider. It's what I've suspected all along.
And they have put their money on Nobama. For whatever reason, it appears the DNC does NOT want to win back the White House. They only want to give the appearance of doing so. How else to explain the way they've treated Hillary Clinton, who, by all media accounts, was practically the shoe-in nominee not so long ago. The DNC, and I'm talking about Dean, Pelosi and others (probably Kerry and Kennedy too), probably got together and went to NObama and gave him their backing and encouragement. How else to explain the blatant favoritism of one candidate over the other.
Once again, they've backed the wrong horse. But this time, they will pay for it. I suspect many Democrats will have finally had enough of this and leave the party in droves. Not necessarily to become Republicans, but there's always Joe Liberman's solution. Independent. Which is what I thought a democrat was -- an independent thinker. Oh how wrong I was!
The DNC is utterly clueless. It continues to amaze me how they decide to back the wrong candidate.
I saw Joe Liberman explain on 60 Minutes why he left the Democratic party. He said it's not the party of Clinton/Gore years. It's become far left elitist and self-serving. This is from an insider. It's what I've suspected all along.
And they have put their money on Nobama. For whatever reason, it appears the DNC does NOT want to win back the White House. They only want to give the appearance of doing so. How else to explain the way they've treated Hillary Clinton, who, by all media accounts, was practically the shoe-in nominee not so long ago. The DNC, and I'm talking about Dean, Pelosi and others (probably Kerry and Kennedy too), probably got together and went to NObama and gave him their backing and encouragement. How else to explain the blatant favoritism of one candidate over the other.
Once again, they've backed the wrong horse. But this time, they will pay for it. I suspect many Democrats will have finally had enough of this and leave the party in droves. Not necessarily to become Republicans, but there's always Joe Liberman's solution. Independent. Which is what I thought a democrat was -- an independent thinker. Oh how wrong I was!
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
The DNC needs to let the primaries play out
Earlier today someone pointed out in a blog that it will all come down to the electoral college in the general election.
Hillary Clinton will take those big electoral votes. It's what we've been saying all along. HRC has won the big states, the ones with the big electoral college votes.
Someone in charge of that nuthouse, the DNC, has got to shake the cobwebs from their brains and REALIZE this. Their agenda to crown their prince the nominee just can't be tolerated. They have to stop disenfranchising the voters!
The DNC got themselves into this mess in the first place.
First, they don't have a winner take all primary like the Republicans. This needs to be finally resolved and changed before the next round of this insanity in a few years.
Second, the very reason that California, Florida and Michigan moved up their primaries was because by the time the primaries came around to us, the nominee was decided. There was little incentive to vote except for a hotly contested proposition.
Now that every state, every voter has a real say in who they want to be the nominee the DNC would yank the rug out from under their votes and try to declare a nominee before June!
They can't have it both ways. Either have a primary where everyone has a vote or do away with primaries and nominate your own candidate and shove him down our Democratic throats and be done with it.
If this were the general election where things get very hot and nasty neither side would call a time out and ask the other to bow out for the sake of the country!!!
Rancorous politics is nothing new. Look at the way the mob would tar and feather someone who disagreed with them back in the 1700s. Much more barbaric than words flowing through the internet and on television! Although sometimes one wonders -- as they say, the pen is mightier than the sword.
One would hope that after PA, where Hillary Clinton is obviously going to be the big winner (please God, from my lips to your ears!!!), Hillary will be taken more seriously as the better candidate to go with. And those Senators and Governor who turned their backs on their voters choice for Hillary will finally have back her as they should (Kennedy, Kerry and Richardson in case you needed to be reminded!). Of course I'm not holding my breath over that scenario!
Hillary Clinton will take those big electoral votes. It's what we've been saying all along. HRC has won the big states, the ones with the big electoral college votes.
Someone in charge of that nuthouse, the DNC, has got to shake the cobwebs from their brains and REALIZE this. Their agenda to crown their prince the nominee just can't be tolerated. They have to stop disenfranchising the voters!
The DNC got themselves into this mess in the first place.
First, they don't have a winner take all primary like the Republicans. This needs to be finally resolved and changed before the next round of this insanity in a few years.
Second, the very reason that California, Florida and Michigan moved up their primaries was because by the time the primaries came around to us, the nominee was decided. There was little incentive to vote except for a hotly contested proposition.
Now that every state, every voter has a real say in who they want to be the nominee the DNC would yank the rug out from under their votes and try to declare a nominee before June!
They can't have it both ways. Either have a primary where everyone has a vote or do away with primaries and nominate your own candidate and shove him down our Democratic throats and be done with it.
If this were the general election where things get very hot and nasty neither side would call a time out and ask the other to bow out for the sake of the country!!!
Rancorous politics is nothing new. Look at the way the mob would tar and feather someone who disagreed with them back in the 1700s. Much more barbaric than words flowing through the internet and on television! Although sometimes one wonders -- as they say, the pen is mightier than the sword.
One would hope that after PA, where Hillary Clinton is obviously going to be the big winner (please God, from my lips to your ears!!!), Hillary will be taken more seriously as the better candidate to go with. And those Senators and Governor who turned their backs on their voters choice for Hillary will finally have back her as they should (Kennedy, Kerry and Richardson in case you needed to be reminded!). Of course I'm not holding my breath over that scenario!
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
THERE ARE NONE SO BLIND AS THE DEMOCRATS IN CHARGE
My cousin in Pittsburgh recently emailed me berating the "negativity of both sides ruining the integrity of the Democratic party."
Ha!! I emailed her back that the Democratic party had long since lost any sense of integrity when leaders like Kennedy, Kerry and Richardson say that their delegates should vote the way their states did (MA and NM went for HRC) and then turn around and support BO. When they continue to support a candidate caught lying on camera several times.
I am completely disgusted by the party literally trying to shove Hillary Clinton off a cliff. It doesn't seem to make any difference if we point out how she is still in this race to win the nomination and CAN do it. Nope. The main stream media, CNN, MSNBC, etc. continues to push and shove and shout against her. I suspect Obama could be caught on camera shaking hands with Osama Bin Laden and people would STILL find some way to explain it away!!!
The rancor toward Hillary Clinton is unbelievable but it points up the basic truth: a woman has to work twice as hard for half the money, praise and promotion than a man. That Hillary has lasted this long, has withstood this onslaught and maintained her dignity and strength is a testament to her capabilities as the leader of the free world.
Hillary made one, slightly insignificant mistake in speaking about her trip to Bosnia. Never mind that she wrote about it the right way in her book. This one slip had the media, the women on The View ready to tar and feather her! What misplaced outrage! Did this remark hurt anyone's feelings? Blast someone as a racist? Put down a group of people? Change the course of the world? No.
Where was their outrage over Obama lying on camera over his knowledge of Rev. Wright's sermons? I'll tell you where it was. BURIED under the words, words, words, pretty little words of Barack Obama. His "fabulous" speech on race relations mesmerized 'em again. As P.T. Barnum observed, there's a sucker born every minute!
One candidate is all smoke and mirrors, false hope and illusion.
Hillary Rodham Clinton is a candidate of substance, intelligence and a real sense of leadership that this country needs.
As one man asked on the Hillary Clinton forum recently, maybe it's time for a second Democratic party. We can gather up the disenfranchised voters of Florida and Michigan and anyone else fed up with this party and start a second Democratic Party.
Because I'll tell you this, the Democratic party is headed for a huge crash and burn and a rude awakening if they don't nominate the better candidate, Hillary Clinton.
I hope that after Hillary Clinton CRUSHES Obama in Pennsylvania, the powers that be in the DNC will wake up and face the music. Face the reality that their MAN cannot and will not beat McCain. And that it will be their fault that the Democrats fail miserably in November.
There are none so blind as those who will not see...
If you want to be proactive and join a community of like-minded HRC supporters, visit www.hillaryclintonforum.net
Ha!! I emailed her back that the Democratic party had long since lost any sense of integrity when leaders like Kennedy, Kerry and Richardson say that their delegates should vote the way their states did (MA and NM went for HRC) and then turn around and support BO. When they continue to support a candidate caught lying on camera several times.
I am completely disgusted by the party literally trying to shove Hillary Clinton off a cliff. It doesn't seem to make any difference if we point out how she is still in this race to win the nomination and CAN do it. Nope. The main stream media, CNN, MSNBC, etc. continues to push and shove and shout against her. I suspect Obama could be caught on camera shaking hands with Osama Bin Laden and people would STILL find some way to explain it away!!!
The rancor toward Hillary Clinton is unbelievable but it points up the basic truth: a woman has to work twice as hard for half the money, praise and promotion than a man. That Hillary has lasted this long, has withstood this onslaught and maintained her dignity and strength is a testament to her capabilities as the leader of the free world.
Hillary made one, slightly insignificant mistake in speaking about her trip to Bosnia. Never mind that she wrote about it the right way in her book. This one slip had the media, the women on The View ready to tar and feather her! What misplaced outrage! Did this remark hurt anyone's feelings? Blast someone as a racist? Put down a group of people? Change the course of the world? No.
Where was their outrage over Obama lying on camera over his knowledge of Rev. Wright's sermons? I'll tell you where it was. BURIED under the words, words, words, pretty little words of Barack Obama. His "fabulous" speech on race relations mesmerized 'em again. As P.T. Barnum observed, there's a sucker born every minute!
One candidate is all smoke and mirrors, false hope and illusion.
Hillary Rodham Clinton is a candidate of substance, intelligence and a real sense of leadership that this country needs.
As one man asked on the Hillary Clinton forum recently, maybe it's time for a second Democratic party. We can gather up the disenfranchised voters of Florida and Michigan and anyone else fed up with this party and start a second Democratic Party.
Because I'll tell you this, the Democratic party is headed for a huge crash and burn and a rude awakening if they don't nominate the better candidate, Hillary Clinton.
I hope that after Hillary Clinton CRUSHES Obama in Pennsylvania, the powers that be in the DNC will wake up and face the music. Face the reality that their MAN cannot and will not beat McCain. And that it will be their fault that the Democrats fail miserably in November.
There are none so blind as those who will not see...
If you want to be proactive and join a community of like-minded HRC supporters, visit www.hillaryclintonforum.net
Sunday, March 9, 2008
Last Hurrah for the Baby Boomer Era?
Now is the time for the women of the Baby Boomer era to stand up and vote for Hillary Clinton. Seriously, ladies, this is your last chance to be heard and have important issues for women and families taken care of! You have to believe in this woman who is so tenacious and strong... well here's a terrific Op Ed piece from the L.A. Times this morning.
Go away? Why should she?
Despite the toxic misogyny aimed at her, Clinton has good reason to stay in the race.
By Leslie Bennetts
March 9, 2008
This is not how the story line was expected to go, dammit, and the impatience of the (mostly male) punditocracy is palpable. Doesn't Hillary Clinton know she was supposed to lose decisively in Ohio or Texas last week so that Barack Obama could unify the Democratic Party and sail to victory in November?
Except that she didn't lose -- and, boy, are some people annoyed about that! Why doesn't she just get out of the way? The media have sorted it all out so neatly: He is young, glamorous, charismatic and funny; he represents the future. She is older, strident, earnest and humorless; she is the past. He inspires; she hectors. Ugh!
Not only is Clinton well beyond the age when our culture deems women to have lost most of their value, but so are all too many of her supporters -- and there are few things this country is less interested in than aging women. America requires that females be (or at least appear) young and sexually desirable. Once they've passed the age of facile objectification and commodification, they're supposed to disappear. How dare they not cooperate with our national insistence that older women become invisible?
Just in case we missed the memo, Rush Limbaugh recently spelled it all out for us. After observing that "aging makes men look more authoritative, accomplished and distinguished," he registered his own distaste about the prospect of having to watch Clinton shrivel up in the White House. "Will America want to watch a woman get older before their eyes on a daily basis?" he asked.
Oh, the horror! In the world according to Limbaugh, witnessing such a spectacle would be too repellent for the squeamish American electorate (although it would presumably pose no problem to watch John McCain -- who would be the oldest president ever elected -- slide into decrepitude if he were to win). But we certainly don't want to be forced to look at and (God forbid!) listen to a considerably younger woman.
So why won't Clinton just scram? I mean, you can't drive a stake through that woman's heart! She just keeps getting up and fighting on, like some incredibly irritating pop-up doll that won't stay down, no matter how many times you smash it to the ground. Not only does "the bitch" (as one McCain supporter memorably called her) insist on staying in the race, but her supporters are getting all riled up and defying the pressure to make her go away. News reports chronicle the anger of older female voters who are simply refusing to go along with the triumphalist narrative of Obama's inevitability. Who do they think they are?
In most of the news coverage, the idea of representation -- the fundamental point of democracy and the reason ours exists, if memory serves -- never even comes up. But the fact is that an enormous segment of the electorate spends most of its time below the radar of American culture. Younger women may be the tip of the iceberg, the part we're able to see, but its hulking body -- the vast cohort of older women we so rarely hear from -- remains submerged.
Many people would like to keep it that way. A quarter of a century ago, the wife of a major Hollywood mogul told me that she couldn't stand Los Angeles because women here became invisible after they passed the age of 25. Although that number may be somewhat higher elsewhere, a good case could be made that such attitudes have permeated our entire society in the intervening years. How many major studio movies (not indie films; that's cheating) have you seen lately that star older women? How many presidential candidates have you heard talking about the needs of older women?
The resounding silence notwithstanding, those needs have only become more acute. Twice as many American women age 75 and older live in poverty compared with men, and most older women feel their economic vulnerability keenly. Younger women struggle to manage work and family with little help from our government; although 163 countries give women paid leave with the birth of a child, the United States does not. So far, women have helped to elect a long series of men who paid lip service to family values while doing virtually nothing to improve the lot of this nation's women and children. Are female voters finally getting fed up? One national poll showed Clinton leading Obama by only 5 percentage points among women with annual incomes higher than $50,000 -- but among those who earn less, she beats him by a whopping 36 percentage points.
And yet the misogyny infecting the presidential campaign is dizzyingly toxic, as Robin Morgan pointed out in a recent essay, "Goodbye to All That (#2)" -- citing "the HRC nutcracker with metal spikes between splayed thighs," T-shirts reading, "If only Hillary had married O.J. instead!" and Comedy Central's "South Park" story line about terrorists secreting a bomb in Clinton's vagina.
"This is sociopathic woman-hating. If it were about Jews, we would recognize it instantly as anti-Semitic propaganda; if about race, as KKK poison," Morgan wrote. "Where is our sense of outrage -- as citizens, voters, Americans?"
How about as women? After all, 54% of the electorate could wield decisive power, if only they would claim it. There are signs the slumbering beast may be waking up -- and she's not in a happy mood. From New Hampshire to Ohio, women have given Clinton a sizable edge over Obama -- and as of last week, they put her back into a race that the political elite had decreed all but over.
What if women actually started to assert their needs and interests, particularly women who have aged out of babedom? What if they stopped slinking dutifully into invisibility and instead rose up to demand their fair share of our nation's resources and rewards? What if they, like Clinton, finally said, "Hell, no -- We won't go!"
What a concept! No wonder so many guys seem to have the vapors these days.
Leslie Bennetts, a contributing editor at Vanity Fair, is the author of "The Feminine Mistake: Are We Giving Up Too Much?"
Go away? Why should she?
Despite the toxic misogyny aimed at her, Clinton has good reason to stay in the race.
By Leslie Bennetts
March 9, 2008
This is not how the story line was expected to go, dammit, and the impatience of the (mostly male) punditocracy is palpable. Doesn't Hillary Clinton know she was supposed to lose decisively in Ohio or Texas last week so that Barack Obama could unify the Democratic Party and sail to victory in November?
Except that she didn't lose -- and, boy, are some people annoyed about that! Why doesn't she just get out of the way? The media have sorted it all out so neatly: He is young, glamorous, charismatic and funny; he represents the future. She is older, strident, earnest and humorless; she is the past. He inspires; she hectors. Ugh!
Not only is Clinton well beyond the age when our culture deems women to have lost most of their value, but so are all too many of her supporters -- and there are few things this country is less interested in than aging women. America requires that females be (or at least appear) young and sexually desirable. Once they've passed the age of facile objectification and commodification, they're supposed to disappear. How dare they not cooperate with our national insistence that older women become invisible?
Just in case we missed the memo, Rush Limbaugh recently spelled it all out for us. After observing that "aging makes men look more authoritative, accomplished and distinguished," he registered his own distaste about the prospect of having to watch Clinton shrivel up in the White House. "Will America want to watch a woman get older before their eyes on a daily basis?" he asked.
Oh, the horror! In the world according to Limbaugh, witnessing such a spectacle would be too repellent for the squeamish American electorate (although it would presumably pose no problem to watch John McCain -- who would be the oldest president ever elected -- slide into decrepitude if he were to win). But we certainly don't want to be forced to look at and (God forbid!) listen to a considerably younger woman.
So why won't Clinton just scram? I mean, you can't drive a stake through that woman's heart! She just keeps getting up and fighting on, like some incredibly irritating pop-up doll that won't stay down, no matter how many times you smash it to the ground. Not only does "the bitch" (as one McCain supporter memorably called her) insist on staying in the race, but her supporters are getting all riled up and defying the pressure to make her go away. News reports chronicle the anger of older female voters who are simply refusing to go along with the triumphalist narrative of Obama's inevitability. Who do they think they are?
In most of the news coverage, the idea of representation -- the fundamental point of democracy and the reason ours exists, if memory serves -- never even comes up. But the fact is that an enormous segment of the electorate spends most of its time below the radar of American culture. Younger women may be the tip of the iceberg, the part we're able to see, but its hulking body -- the vast cohort of older women we so rarely hear from -- remains submerged.
Many people would like to keep it that way. A quarter of a century ago, the wife of a major Hollywood mogul told me that she couldn't stand Los Angeles because women here became invisible after they passed the age of 25. Although that number may be somewhat higher elsewhere, a good case could be made that such attitudes have permeated our entire society in the intervening years. How many major studio movies (not indie films; that's cheating) have you seen lately that star older women? How many presidential candidates have you heard talking about the needs of older women?
The resounding silence notwithstanding, those needs have only become more acute. Twice as many American women age 75 and older live in poverty compared with men, and most older women feel their economic vulnerability keenly. Younger women struggle to manage work and family with little help from our government; although 163 countries give women paid leave with the birth of a child, the United States does not. So far, women have helped to elect a long series of men who paid lip service to family values while doing virtually nothing to improve the lot of this nation's women and children. Are female voters finally getting fed up? One national poll showed Clinton leading Obama by only 5 percentage points among women with annual incomes higher than $50,000 -- but among those who earn less, she beats him by a whopping 36 percentage points.
And yet the misogyny infecting the presidential campaign is dizzyingly toxic, as Robin Morgan pointed out in a recent essay, "Goodbye to All That (#2)" -- citing "the HRC nutcracker with metal spikes between splayed thighs," T-shirts reading, "If only Hillary had married O.J. instead!" and Comedy Central's "South Park" story line about terrorists secreting a bomb in Clinton's vagina.
"This is sociopathic woman-hating. If it were about Jews, we would recognize it instantly as anti-Semitic propaganda; if about race, as KKK poison," Morgan wrote. "Where is our sense of outrage -- as citizens, voters, Americans?"
How about as women? After all, 54% of the electorate could wield decisive power, if only they would claim it. There are signs the slumbering beast may be waking up -- and she's not in a happy mood. From New Hampshire to Ohio, women have given Clinton a sizable edge over Obama -- and as of last week, they put her back into a race that the political elite had decreed all but over.
What if women actually started to assert their needs and interests, particularly women who have aged out of babedom? What if they stopped slinking dutifully into invisibility and instead rose up to demand their fair share of our nation's resources and rewards? What if they, like Clinton, finally said, "Hell, no -- We won't go!"
What a concept! No wonder so many guys seem to have the vapors these days.
Leslie Bennetts, a contributing editor at Vanity Fair, is the author of "The Feminine Mistake: Are We Giving Up Too Much?"
Friday, March 7, 2008
Now That The Shoe Is On The Other Foot Look Who's Whining Now!
Apparently Barack Obama can't take the heat once it's focused on him. While he's enjoyed months and months of favorable press coverage and breezed along he could take the "high road" and appear above the fray. He and his campaign loved to point out that Clinton's campaign whined. And now, it's his turn. Well, boo hoo. If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen.
CHICAGO -- Democratic Sen. Barack Obama on Wednesday blamed his primary defeats in Ohio and Texas on rival Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's criticism and news coverage that he argued benefited her at his expense.
The presidential candidate said he planned to do more in the days ahead to raise doubts about his opponent's claims to foreign policy and other Washington experience. In a television ad that her campaign credits with helping her win, she portrayed herself as most prepared to handle an international crisis.
"What exactly is this foreign policy experience?" Obama asked mockingly. "Was she negotiating treaties? Was she handling crises? The answer is no."
Clinton, who was asked in TV interviews Wednesday about her national security qualifications, ticked off a series events in which she played a role, including peace talks in Northern Ireland.
Senator Obama, please, isn't just possible that the people in Ohio, Rhode Island and Texas just didn't want to vote for YOU! They didn't fall under your monotonous, mind numbing speeches full of hot air and empty hope and promises? They saw an inexperienced, naive politician They saw that Obama can't debate. He has no passion for the issues he claims to care about, clearly evident as stammers and stutters through every debate.
What an insult to voters. And to call what he's had the past few weeks "bad" press coverage goes beyond exageration. Hey, Senator, wait till they really turn the x-ray on you.
And now the name-calling. An Obama staffer calls Hillary a "monster." Excuse me?
(CNN) — Samantha Power has resigned her position from Barack Obama's campaign after calling Hillary Clinton a 'monster,' the Illinois senator's campaign announced.
“With deep regret, I am resigning from my role as an advisor the Obama campaign effective today," Power said in a statement issued by the campaign. "Last Monday, I made inexcusable remarks that are at marked variance from my oft-stated admiration for Senator Clinton and from the spirit, tenor, and purpose of the Obama campaign. And I extend my deepest apologies to Senator Clinton, Senator Obama, and the remarkable team I have worked with over these long 14 months."
The Obama campaign said that the decision was Power’s, and stressed that “she was an adviser, not a paid staffer.”
"She made the decision to resign and we accepted," said communications director Robert Gibbs.
Earlier in the day, the Clinton campaign had called for Obama to end Power's association with his campaign.
Look, my point is, their campaign has had quite an easy free ride with the press. Now they lose 3 elections and the gloves finally come off.
And that's all I have to say about that for now. TGIF!
CHICAGO -- Democratic Sen. Barack Obama on Wednesday blamed his primary defeats in Ohio and Texas on rival Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's criticism and news coverage that he argued benefited her at his expense.
The presidential candidate said he planned to do more in the days ahead to raise doubts about his opponent's claims to foreign policy and other Washington experience. In a television ad that her campaign credits with helping her win, she portrayed herself as most prepared to handle an international crisis.
"What exactly is this foreign policy experience?" Obama asked mockingly. "Was she negotiating treaties? Was she handling crises? The answer is no."
Clinton, who was asked in TV interviews Wednesday about her national security qualifications, ticked off a series events in which she played a role, including peace talks in Northern Ireland.
Senator Obama, please, isn't just possible that the people in Ohio, Rhode Island and Texas just didn't want to vote for YOU! They didn't fall under your monotonous, mind numbing speeches full of hot air and empty hope and promises? They saw an inexperienced, naive politician They saw that Obama can't debate. He has no passion for the issues he claims to care about, clearly evident as stammers and stutters through every debate.
What an insult to voters. And to call what he's had the past few weeks "bad" press coverage goes beyond exageration. Hey, Senator, wait till they really turn the x-ray on you.
And now the name-calling. An Obama staffer calls Hillary a "monster." Excuse me?
(CNN) — Samantha Power has resigned her position from Barack Obama's campaign after calling Hillary Clinton a 'monster,' the Illinois senator's campaign announced.
“With deep regret, I am resigning from my role as an advisor the Obama campaign effective today," Power said in a statement issued by the campaign. "Last Monday, I made inexcusable remarks that are at marked variance from my oft-stated admiration for Senator Clinton and from the spirit, tenor, and purpose of the Obama campaign. And I extend my deepest apologies to Senator Clinton, Senator Obama, and the remarkable team I have worked with over these long 14 months."
The Obama campaign said that the decision was Power’s, and stressed that “she was an adviser, not a paid staffer.”
"She made the decision to resign and we accepted," said communications director Robert Gibbs.
Earlier in the day, the Clinton campaign had called for Obama to end Power's association with his campaign.
Look, my point is, their campaign has had quite an easy free ride with the press. Now they lose 3 elections and the gloves finally come off.
And that's all I have to say about that for now. TGIF!
Thursday, March 6, 2008
The real view from LaLa Land - Writers, we're a contentious lot!
So, the good news is this latest poll:
1,041 registered voters interviewed by SurveyUSA 03/05/08, following Clinton victories in Ohio, Texas and Rhode Island on 03/04/08.
Pairing #1:
* Clinton 48%
* McCain 46%
Pairing #2:
* Obama 46%
* McCain 46%
I go over to HillaryClinton.com blogs to read positive notes from believers in Hillary and boost my morale. The believers there give me hope that we can get Hillary Clinton elected the next President of the United States.
But I was kind of down after hearing from my writer/producer friend who said he believes B.O. can beat McCain, that HRC would bring out the right-wing loonies, and the right would crush her, etc. (Uh, see above poll which now disputes that).
But you know what? Not once did he tell me that he backs B.O. because he believes the man would be a good President. It didn't seem to be about a difference in the issues since, well HRC and BO are pretty much on the same page. It was all about the appearance of which Democrat could beat the Republicans in November (oh and he was a little peeved at Bill Clinton for that Jesse Jackson remark, which he claims tipped him to vote for B.O., geesh, WHATever!) (dumb reason if you ask me). But, you know what? THAT'S NOT A GOOD ENOUGH REASON to back a person for President! I back Hillary because I believe in her. She is tough, intelligent, experienced, she has worked the system in Washington both behind the Clinton White House years and in the Senate. Hillary Clinton is decisive in her speeches and debates. She knows what she's talking about and she's passionate about the issues. Something sorely lacking in B.O.
This woman should BE the Democratic nominee and more importantly the next President of the United States.
I will keep donating what I can and praying for her and us to succeed!
And that's all I have to say for today. TGIF!
1,041 registered voters interviewed by SurveyUSA 03/05/08, following Clinton victories in Ohio, Texas and Rhode Island on 03/04/08.
Pairing #1:
* Clinton 48%
* McCain 46%
Pairing #2:
* Obama 46%
* McCain 46%
I go over to HillaryClinton.com blogs to read positive notes from believers in Hillary and boost my morale. The believers there give me hope that we can get Hillary Clinton elected the next President of the United States.
But I was kind of down after hearing from my writer/producer friend who said he believes B.O. can beat McCain, that HRC would bring out the right-wing loonies, and the right would crush her, etc. (Uh, see above poll which now disputes that).
But you know what? Not once did he tell me that he backs B.O. because he believes the man would be a good President. It didn't seem to be about a difference in the issues since, well HRC and BO are pretty much on the same page. It was all about the appearance of which Democrat could beat the Republicans in November (oh and he was a little peeved at Bill Clinton for that Jesse Jackson remark, which he claims tipped him to vote for B.O., geesh, WHATever!) (dumb reason if you ask me). But, you know what? THAT'S NOT A GOOD ENOUGH REASON to back a person for President! I back Hillary because I believe in her. She is tough, intelligent, experienced, she has worked the system in Washington both behind the Clinton White House years and in the Senate. Hillary Clinton is decisive in her speeches and debates. She knows what she's talking about and she's passionate about the issues. Something sorely lacking in B.O.
This woman should BE the Democratic nominee and more importantly the next President of the United States.
I will keep donating what I can and praying for her and us to succeed!
And that's all I have to say for today. TGIF!
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
HILLARY CLINTON the comeback Kid. Well, she never went away!
This is from HillaryClinton.com this morning and worth reprinting here.
With last night’s victories in Ohio and Texas, one thing is clear: the momentum has swung back to Hillary Clinton. Voters in both states agreed that Hillary Clinton would be the best Commander-in-Chief and the strongest steward of our economy. In fact, according to last night’s polls, those who decided who to vote for in the last three days overwhelmingly favored Hillary [CNN exit polls, 3/4/08]. It’s time for a second look.
Ohio is the barometer: Hillary was successful in Ohio, the state that for the last quarter century has picked our president. As everyone knows: As Ohio goes, so goes our country. Historically, it’s one of the bellwether states and it decided the last election. And the demographics of the upcoming contests in Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Indiana and Kentucky closely mirror those in Ohio. Hillary looks strong in all four states.
In recent years, every President has won two of the three following states: Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida. Hillary has already won two of those and, according to all polls, is leading in the third – Pennsylvania.
This race is extremely close and more than 5 million Democrats are likely to vote. After 28 million votes have been counted, the popular vote contest in the Democratic primary is within one-tenth of one percent. Applying the same level of turnout to the remaining contests, there are still more than 5 million Democratic voters – 17 percent of the total – who are likely to participate in this contested primary race. After 41 primaries and caucuses, the delegate count is within roughly 2 percent.
HRC (% of total)
Obama (% of total)
HRC Margin
Remaining (total %)
Popular Vote (incl MI and FL)
13,422,321 (40%)
13,455,140 (40%)
-32,818 (-0%)
5,758,698 (est) (17%)
Total Delegates
1,486.5 (37%)
1,584 (39%)
-97.5 (-2%)
950.5 (23%)
In the primaries, Hillary has demonstrated that she is the best positioned candidate to carry the core battleground states essential to a general election victory -- particularly the large industrial states of Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania and the critical swing contests in Florida, New Mexico, Nevada, and New Jersey.
The vetting of Obama has just begun. The press has only begun to scrutinize Senator Obama and his record. The corruption trial of Tony Rezko is getting underway this week, yet many questions about Obama’s relationship with him remain unanswered. Hillary, on the other hand, has withstood fifteen years of substantial media and Republican scrutiny, including many months of sharper scrutiny as the front-runner. If the primary contest ends prematurely and Obama is the nominee, Democrats may have a nominee who will be a lightening rod of controversy.
Several of Hillary's base constituencies (women, Hispanic, labor, elderly and under $75,000) are key to a Democratic victory in November. Senator Obama has not brought these voters out in the same numbers.
The two groups that fueled President Bush’s victory in ‘04 were women and Hispanics, and they are among Hillary Clinton’s strongest supporters. From 2000 to 2004, Bush’s support among Hispanics rose from 35% to 44%. And Bush’s support among women rose from 43% to 48%. That five point gain among women and nine point gain among Latinos gave Bush his victory in 2004.
Women reached an all-time presidential election high of 54% of voters in ’04. As a factual matter, an outpouring of women for the first woman president alone can win the election. Hillary leads all candidates among women.
These political and demographic trends project positively into the general election and strongly favor Hillary.
The Red States: The central strategic argument of the Obama campaign is flawed. Senator Obama argues that his success in Democratic primary contests held in long-time Red States means he will carry those states in a general election. In reality, there are no “Red States” in a Democratic primary – there are only Democratic voters who live in Republican states and represent a small percentage of the general election population.
Of the eleven core Republican states that have gone to the polls, Sen. Obama has won ten: Utah, Idaho, Nebraska, North Dakota, Alabama, Alaska, Kansas, South Carolina, Georgia, and Louisiana. John Kerry lost each of these states by fifteen points or more.
The last time a Democratic nominee won Utah, Idaho, Nebraska, North Dakota, Kansas, and Alaska in the general election was 1964.
Even if Obama is “transcendent,” as his campaign has argued, the historic electoral trends and the current political environment suggest that translating those primary wins into November success will be close to impossible.
In short: Hillary is better positioned to carry the battle ground states that Democrats need to win in November and Obama’s victories in deep red states do not.
Hillary is the only Democrat with the strength, leadership, and experience to defeat John McCain. Senator Clinton is seen as the best prepared to be Commander-in-Chief.
Nationally, 57% say Hillary Clinton is best prepared to be president, 39% Obama [CBS/ NYT, February 24]
Hillary Clinton is seen as best able to take on the Republicans on their own turf – national security and terrorism. She is seen as a strong and decisive leader (a seven point advantage over Obama nationally).
Hillary is seen as the one who can get the job done – leading Obama nationally by 13 points [USA Today/ Gallup, 2/24].
Hillary is seen as the candidate to solve the country’s problems, leading Obama by 10points [USA Today/ Gallup, 2/24].
John McCain will diminish any perceived advantage Obama has with independents. As has been widely discussed, one of John McCain’s key constituents is independents. And against McCain, Obama will be framed by the Republicans as too liberal (he was ranked by the National Journal as the most liberal Senator); untested on national security; and vulnerable on issues that would make him unelectable in November. These issues may be surmountable in a Democratic primary but will be an Achilles heel with independents in a general election.
The McCain Roadmap: McCain has already foreshadowed his campaign’s construct against Obama: His vulnerability is experience and judgment on national security.
McCain: Obama’s ‘meet, talk and hope approach’ is ‘dangerously naïve in international diplomacy.’ “Meet, talk, and hope may be a sound approach in a state legislature, but it is dangerously naive in international diplomacy where the oppressed look to America for hope and adversaries wish us ill.” [McCain, NYT’s The Caucus, 2/22/08]
McCain: Obama is an ‘inexperienced candidate who once suggested bombing our ally, Pakistan, and suggested sitting down without preconditions or clear purpose with enemies who support terrorists.’ “Each event poses a challenge and an opportunity. Will the next president have the experience -- the judgment, experience informs and the strength of purpose to respond to each of these developments in ways that strengthen our security and advance the global progress of our ideals? Or will we risk the confused leadership of an inexperienced candidate who once suggested bombing our ally, Pakistan, and suggested sitting down without preconditions or clear purpose with enemies who support terrorists and are intent on destabilizing the world by acquiring nuclear weapons? I think you know the answer to that question.” [Post-Wisconsin Primary Victory Speech, 2/19/08]
Steward of the economy. Hillary Clinton leads both John McCain and Barack Obama on the economy and health care. In the latest LA Times/Bloomberg poll (1/22), Hillary leads McCain 52/28 on health care and 43/34 on the economy.
Hillary leads Barack Obama on health care by 21 points nationally [USA Today/Gallup, 2/24].
Florida. There is an additional reality that must be considered – the 1.75 million voters in Florida whose votes will not be represented at the Democratic convention. How we handle this swing state will affect our Party’s potential of carrying it in November (Democrats lost Florida in 2004). This is a state where the playing field was level – all of the candidates had their names on the ballot and none campaigned in the state.
Michigan. Nearly 600,000 Democrats voted in Michigan, but right now their votes are not being counted. Democrats barely carried Michigan in 2004 (by only 3% -- 51 to 48). If our party refuses to let them participate in the convention, we will provide a political opportunity for the Republicans to win both Florida and Michigan. Recognizing their importance to Democratic success in November, Hillary has called for the delegates of both states to be seated at the convention.
Hillary has the money to compete. In February, the Clinton campaign raised approximately $35 million – averaging more than a million dollars a day. This deep level of support gives Hillary the resources she needs to compete between now and the Convention.
With last night’s victories in Ohio and Texas, one thing is clear: the momentum has swung back to Hillary Clinton. Voters in both states agreed that Hillary Clinton would be the best Commander-in-Chief and the strongest steward of our economy. In fact, according to last night’s polls, those who decided who to vote for in the last three days overwhelmingly favored Hillary [CNN exit polls, 3/4/08]. It’s time for a second look.
Ohio is the barometer: Hillary was successful in Ohio, the state that for the last quarter century has picked our president. As everyone knows: As Ohio goes, so goes our country. Historically, it’s one of the bellwether states and it decided the last election. And the demographics of the upcoming contests in Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Indiana and Kentucky closely mirror those in Ohio. Hillary looks strong in all four states.
In recent years, every President has won two of the three following states: Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida. Hillary has already won two of those and, according to all polls, is leading in the third – Pennsylvania.
This race is extremely close and more than 5 million Democrats are likely to vote. After 28 million votes have been counted, the popular vote contest in the Democratic primary is within one-tenth of one percent. Applying the same level of turnout to the remaining contests, there are still more than 5 million Democratic voters – 17 percent of the total – who are likely to participate in this contested primary race. After 41 primaries and caucuses, the delegate count is within roughly 2 percent.
HRC (% of total)
Obama (% of total)
HRC Margin
Remaining (total %)
Popular Vote (incl MI and FL)
13,422,321 (40%)
13,455,140 (40%)
-32,818 (-0%)
5,758,698 (est) (17%)
Total Delegates
1,486.5 (37%)
1,584 (39%)
-97.5 (-2%)
950.5 (23%)
In the primaries, Hillary has demonstrated that she is the best positioned candidate to carry the core battleground states essential to a general election victory -- particularly the large industrial states of Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania and the critical swing contests in Florida, New Mexico, Nevada, and New Jersey.
The vetting of Obama has just begun. The press has only begun to scrutinize Senator Obama and his record. The corruption trial of Tony Rezko is getting underway this week, yet many questions about Obama’s relationship with him remain unanswered. Hillary, on the other hand, has withstood fifteen years of substantial media and Republican scrutiny, including many months of sharper scrutiny as the front-runner. If the primary contest ends prematurely and Obama is the nominee, Democrats may have a nominee who will be a lightening rod of controversy.
Several of Hillary's base constituencies (women, Hispanic, labor, elderly and under $75,000) are key to a Democratic victory in November. Senator Obama has not brought these voters out in the same numbers.
The two groups that fueled President Bush’s victory in ‘04 were women and Hispanics, and they are among Hillary Clinton’s strongest supporters. From 2000 to 2004, Bush’s support among Hispanics rose from 35% to 44%. And Bush’s support among women rose from 43% to 48%. That five point gain among women and nine point gain among Latinos gave Bush his victory in 2004.
Women reached an all-time presidential election high of 54% of voters in ’04. As a factual matter, an outpouring of women for the first woman president alone can win the election. Hillary leads all candidates among women.
These political and demographic trends project positively into the general election and strongly favor Hillary.
The Red States: The central strategic argument of the Obama campaign is flawed. Senator Obama argues that his success in Democratic primary contests held in long-time Red States means he will carry those states in a general election. In reality, there are no “Red States” in a Democratic primary – there are only Democratic voters who live in Republican states and represent a small percentage of the general election population.
Of the eleven core Republican states that have gone to the polls, Sen. Obama has won ten: Utah, Idaho, Nebraska, North Dakota, Alabama, Alaska, Kansas, South Carolina, Georgia, and Louisiana. John Kerry lost each of these states by fifteen points or more.
The last time a Democratic nominee won Utah, Idaho, Nebraska, North Dakota, Kansas, and Alaska in the general election was 1964.
Even if Obama is “transcendent,” as his campaign has argued, the historic electoral trends and the current political environment suggest that translating those primary wins into November success will be close to impossible.
In short: Hillary is better positioned to carry the battle ground states that Democrats need to win in November and Obama’s victories in deep red states do not.
Hillary is the only Democrat with the strength, leadership, and experience to defeat John McCain. Senator Clinton is seen as the best prepared to be Commander-in-Chief.
Nationally, 57% say Hillary Clinton is best prepared to be president, 39% Obama [CBS/ NYT, February 24]
Hillary Clinton is seen as best able to take on the Republicans on their own turf – national security and terrorism. She is seen as a strong and decisive leader (a seven point advantage over Obama nationally).
Hillary is seen as the one who can get the job done – leading Obama nationally by 13 points [USA Today/ Gallup, 2/24].
Hillary is seen as the candidate to solve the country’s problems, leading Obama by 10points [USA Today/ Gallup, 2/24].
John McCain will diminish any perceived advantage Obama has with independents. As has been widely discussed, one of John McCain’s key constituents is independents. And against McCain, Obama will be framed by the Republicans as too liberal (he was ranked by the National Journal as the most liberal Senator); untested on national security; and vulnerable on issues that would make him unelectable in November. These issues may be surmountable in a Democratic primary but will be an Achilles heel with independents in a general election.
The McCain Roadmap: McCain has already foreshadowed his campaign’s construct against Obama: His vulnerability is experience and judgment on national security.
McCain: Obama’s ‘meet, talk and hope approach’ is ‘dangerously naïve in international diplomacy.’ “Meet, talk, and hope may be a sound approach in a state legislature, but it is dangerously naive in international diplomacy where the oppressed look to America for hope and adversaries wish us ill.” [McCain, NYT’s The Caucus, 2/22/08]
McCain: Obama is an ‘inexperienced candidate who once suggested bombing our ally, Pakistan, and suggested sitting down without preconditions or clear purpose with enemies who support terrorists.’ “Each event poses a challenge and an opportunity. Will the next president have the experience -- the judgment, experience informs and the strength of purpose to respond to each of these developments in ways that strengthen our security and advance the global progress of our ideals? Or will we risk the confused leadership of an inexperienced candidate who once suggested bombing our ally, Pakistan, and suggested sitting down without preconditions or clear purpose with enemies who support terrorists and are intent on destabilizing the world by acquiring nuclear weapons? I think you know the answer to that question.” [Post-Wisconsin Primary Victory Speech, 2/19/08]
Steward of the economy. Hillary Clinton leads both John McCain and Barack Obama on the economy and health care. In the latest LA Times/Bloomberg poll (1/22), Hillary leads McCain 52/28 on health care and 43/34 on the economy.
Hillary leads Barack Obama on health care by 21 points nationally [USA Today/Gallup, 2/24].
Florida. There is an additional reality that must be considered – the 1.75 million voters in Florida whose votes will not be represented at the Democratic convention. How we handle this swing state will affect our Party’s potential of carrying it in November (Democrats lost Florida in 2004). This is a state where the playing field was level – all of the candidates had their names on the ballot and none campaigned in the state.
Michigan. Nearly 600,000 Democrats voted in Michigan, but right now their votes are not being counted. Democrats barely carried Michigan in 2004 (by only 3% -- 51 to 48). If our party refuses to let them participate in the convention, we will provide a political opportunity for the Republicans to win both Florida and Michigan. Recognizing their importance to Democratic success in November, Hillary has called for the delegates of both states to be seated at the convention.
Hillary has the money to compete. In February, the Clinton campaign raised approximately $35 million – averaging more than a million dollars a day. This deep level of support gives Hillary the resources she needs to compete between now and the Convention.
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Barack Obama another MEDIA CREATED Jimmy Carter!!!
It's Time to Bring Up Jimmy Carter.
A nice man, but an ineffectual President who had no foreign political experience. If the following sounds like it's really about Barack Obama, then we have a lot to worry about. It appears that half this country is led by their noses by the media! The rest of us are supporting Hillary Clinton for President. Read it and weep, my friends, as history might be about to repeat this terrible mistake.
The following is from Wikipedia:
"When Carter entered the Democratic Party presidential primaries in 1976, he was considered to have little chance against nationally better-known politicians. He had a name recognition of only 2 percent. When he told his family of his intention to run for President, he was asked by his mother, "President of what?" However, Nixon's Watergate scandal was still fresh in the voters' minds, and so his position as an outsider, distant from Washington, D.C., became an asset. The centerpiece of his campaign platform was government reorganization. He attacked Washington in his speeches, and offered a religious salve for the nation's wounds, which was necessary following the Watergate scandal.
The media discovered and promoted Carter. As Lawrence Shoup noted in his 1980 book The Carter Presidency and Beyond:
"What Carter had that his opponents did not was the acceptance and support of elite sectors of the mass communications media. It was their favorable coverage of Carter and his campaign that gave him an edge, propelling him rocket-like to the top of the opinion polls. This helped Carter win key primary election victories, enabling him to rise from an obscure public figure to President-elect in the short space of 9 months."
As late as January 26, 1976, Carter was the first choice of only 4% of Democratic voters, according to a Gallup Poll. Yet "by mid-March 1976 Carter was not only far ahead of the active contenders for the Democratic presidential nomination, he also led President Ford by a few percentage points," according to Shoup.
Carter's presidency was marked by several major crises, including the takeover of the American embassy and holding of hostages by students in Iran, a failed rescue attempt of the hostages, serious fuel shortages, and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.
The final year of his term was dominated by the Iran hostage crisis, during which the United States struggled to rescue diplomats and American citizens held hostage in Tehran. By 1980, Carter was so unpopular that he was challenged by Ted Kennedy for the Democratic Party nomination in 1980. Carter received the Democratic nomination, but lost the election to Republican Ronald Reagan."
Sounds like we're talking about Barack Obama, CNN, MSNBC and the rest of the media today doesn't it?
Clearly, Jimmy Carter is a nice man, but he was simply the wrong choice for President at the time. I didn't know until I read Wikipedia what went on at the time. I'd always thought his election was because of his nice guy Southern charm.
The following is from Wikipedia:
"When Carter entered the Democratic Party presidential primaries in 1976, he was considered to have little chance against nationally better-known politicians. He had a name recognition of only 2 percent. When he told his family of his intention to run for President, he was asked by his mother, "President of what?" However, Nixon's Watergate scandal was still fresh in the voters' minds, and so his position as an outsider, distant from Washington, D.C., became an asset. The centerpiece of his campaign platform was government reorganization. He attacked Washington in his speeches, and offered a religious salve for the nation's wounds, which was necessary following the Watergate scandal.
The media discovered and promoted Carter. As Lawrence Shoup noted in his 1980 book The Carter Presidency and Beyond:
"What Carter had that his opponents did not was the acceptance and support of elite sectors of the mass communications media. It was their favorable coverage of Carter and his campaign that gave him an edge, propelling him rocket-like to the top of the opinion polls. This helped Carter win key primary election victories, enabling him to rise from an obscure public figure to President-elect in the short space of 9 months."
As late as January 26, 1976, Carter was the first choice of only 4% of Democratic voters, according to a Gallup Poll. Yet "by mid-March 1976 Carter was not only far ahead of the active contenders for the Democratic presidential nomination, he also led President Ford by a few percentage points," according to Shoup.
Carter's presidency was marked by several major crises, including the takeover of the American embassy and holding of hostages by students in Iran, a failed rescue attempt of the hostages, serious fuel shortages, and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.
The final year of his term was dominated by the Iran hostage crisis, during which the United States struggled to rescue diplomats and American citizens held hostage in Tehran. By 1980, Carter was so unpopular that he was challenged by Ted Kennedy for the Democratic Party nomination in 1980. Carter received the Democratic nomination, but lost the election to Republican Ronald Reagan."
Sounds like we're talking about Barack Obama, CNN, MSNBC and the rest of the media today doesn't it?
Clearly, Jimmy Carter is a nice man, but he was simply the wrong choice for President at the time. I didn't know until I read Wikipedia what went on at the time. I'd always thought his election was because of his nice guy Southern charm.
The media created Carter and they created Obama. Okay, maybe George Clooney had a hand in it too. Darn you, gorgeous George!
Be afraid, people. Be very afraid.
Be afraid, people. Be very afraid.
News Blackout for Me!
I can't watch the news anymore. I honestly don't know how Hillary Clinton does it. I'm a nervous wreck over this election! I so dearly want HRC to be the Democratic nominee that I get depressed with every new hit on her in the media & by NObama. I don't understand why superdelegates are switching sides now claiming they want to follow the will of the people. Really? You care that much about the will of the people? If so, then wait until it's clear who has the most delegates. As it stands now one is only slightly ahead of the other. That's not a clear mandate as far as I can see. Or am I missing something here? Is the fix in and they already know the outcomes in Texas, Ohio, Vermont and Rhode Island and Pennsylvania down the road?
I'm sure Mr. Lewis switched sides more for personal reasons than the will of the people. He's black and he wants to support a black man -- well, half black and half white, but they always ignore that fact -- which is understandable. I support a woman candidate because I want a woman President for a change. REAL change. Not the unknown change NObama talks about. However, it's not just because she's a woman I support HRC. The woman is a rock. To take the attacks she has and heartaches and all the b.s. and have stood up to all that? Well that's the person I want to be President!
Me? I can't take the heat. In order to stay positive I need a media/news blackout.
Over and out. HILLARY CLINTON FOR REAL CHANGE IN AMERICA!!!!
I'm sure Mr. Lewis switched sides more for personal reasons than the will of the people. He's black and he wants to support a black man -- well, half black and half white, but they always ignore that fact -- which is understandable. I support a woman candidate because I want a woman President for a change. REAL change. Not the unknown change NObama talks about. However, it's not just because she's a woman I support HRC. The woman is a rock. To take the attacks she has and heartaches and all the b.s. and have stood up to all that? Well that's the person I want to be President!
Me? I can't take the heat. In order to stay positive I need a media/news blackout.
Over and out. HILLARY CLINTON FOR REAL CHANGE IN AMERICA!!!!
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Thank You Whoopi Goldberg!
For pointing out that it would make no sense at all for Clinton's campaign to have put that Obama photo out there when it does not hurt Obama but Hillary in the long run. She also pointed out, as did Hillary, that other politicians including Hillary and Bill have donned native costumes when visiting foreign countries and that the ONLY person hurt by this is HRC by the insinuation by Dredge Report that it came from a Clinton staffer. Which is what her detractors were probably hoping for. I actually believe that someone who hates Clinton and does not want her to get the nomination put this out there to smear her. Make more people distrust her. Maybe it's an Obama supporter, maybe the Republicans.
Why so many people hate Hillary is beyond me. What has she done to incur this wrath?
The woman cares about this country; she cares about people in this country and cleaning up the mess George W. Bush will leave behind.
Come on Texas and pull this one out for Hillary Clinton!
Why so many people hate Hillary is beyond me. What has she done to incur this wrath?
The woman cares about this country; she cares about people in this country and cleaning up the mess George W. Bush will leave behind.
Come on Texas and pull this one out for Hillary Clinton!
Sunday, February 24, 2008
Hillary Clinton on YouTube for the Undecided
I'm calling out to the undecided in Ohio, Texas, Vermont, Rhode Island and all the other states who have yet to have their primaries.
Please take a look at Hillary Clinton's plans, proposals and speeches on YouTube and judge for yourself whether this strong, intelligent woman should get your vote as the first woman President of the United States. At the very least just take a look to see what she has to say. I implore you. This country needs this woman.
http://youtube.com/hillaryclinton
Thank you. And once again, a big shout out to TINA FEY for her choice of Hillary Clinton and for braving the media to support Hillary!
BITCH IS THE NEW BLACK and BITCHES GET STUFF DONE!
Please take a look at Hillary Clinton's plans, proposals and speeches on YouTube and judge for yourself whether this strong, intelligent woman should get your vote as the first woman President of the United States. At the very least just take a look to see what she has to say. I implore you. This country needs this woman.
http://youtube.com/hillaryclinton
Thank you. And once again, a big shout out to TINA FEY for her choice of Hillary Clinton and for braving the media to support Hillary!
BITCH IS THE NEW BLACK and BITCHES GET STUFF DONE!
"Bitch Is The New Black!" Tina Fey is my heroine!
If you didn't see last night's new episode of Saturday Night Live, then you missed Tina Fey's "Women in the News" segment on Weekend Update. I hope the clip shows up on You Tube soon. Sounds to me like Tina supports Hillary Clinton. At the end of her piece she says something like, "and one more reason people may not like her, a lot of people say she's (Hillary) is a bitch! Well, she IS a bitch. And so am I, and so is she (re: Amy Poehler). And you know what? Bitches get things done." She went on in that vein ending with "So come on Texas and Ohio! Get with it! Bitch is the new Black!"
It was heartening to see someone stand up for Hillary Clinton for a change, especially on a popular show. And this being the first show since the writer's strike, I'm sure there will be much coverage of the episode.
Oh and the show began with a funny rift on the debate Thursday night pointing out the worst kept secret in America - the media bias toward and fawning over Obama. Loved it!
Thank you TINA FEY!!!!
It was heartening to see someone stand up for Hillary Clinton for a change, especially on a popular show. And this being the first show since the writer's strike, I'm sure there will be much coverage of the episode.
Oh and the show began with a funny rift on the debate Thursday night pointing out the worst kept secret in America - the media bias toward and fawning over Obama. Loved it!
Thank you TINA FEY!!!!
Saturday, February 23, 2008
SHAME on Barack Obama - Now His Gloves Come Off!
Well, this is just despicable. I suppose because he's practically untouchable in the media that he feels they can get away with this LIE!!!! HIS plan is the one that forces Americans to purchase health insurance and Barack Obama's plan would KEEP private insurance companies in business!!! Tell me that's NOT a significant difference from Hillary Clinton's plan for Universal Healthcare coverage?
Shame on you, Barack Obama," Clinton said, speaking to reporters after a rally in Ohio, a state that is key to her struggling campaign.
Brandishing a copy of the leaflet, Clinton said the Obama campaign was spreading "false, misleading, discredited information" about her health-care plan.
"Senator Obama knows it is not true that my plan forces people to buy insurance even if they can't afford it," Clinton said. "It is blatantly false and yet he continues to spend millions of dollars perpetuating falsehoods. It is not hopeful. It is destructive, particularly for a Democrat to be discrediting universal health care."
First he can't even elect to go first in any debate because all he ever does is repeat Hillary Clinton's responses then he does this!
I'll tell you right now, I will never vote for B.O. NEVER. Hillary is the one who should be the Democratic Nominee. Why couldn't he wait 8 years to take HIS shot at the presidency. We don't need him now!!!
And I made the mistake of watching Leno last night where Bill O'Reilly said Hillary won't have a chance since she'd have to win BIG in Texas and Ohio to stop B.O.'s momentum and "that won't happen." But what really burned me up was Jay Leno saying that B.O. has earned and deserved all those wins. Oh really? Jay, can you name one accomplishment that B.O. has to his record?
At least Bill O'Reilly got one thing very right: he said it's a popularity contest because when all is said and done B.O. agrees with Hillary more often than not. He said, as I have stated in a previous blog, that it's Al Gore vs. George W. Bush all over again. That she's not likeable and it's too late to start now. Oh great. Another reason I will be totally fed up with this facaca country and it's witless people for voting once again for Style over Substance.
I'm mad, I'm angry and I'm sad that once again, the BEST candidate for the job may not get there.
Shame on you, Barack Obama," Clinton said, speaking to reporters after a rally in Ohio, a state that is key to her struggling campaign.
Brandishing a copy of the leaflet, Clinton said the Obama campaign was spreading "false, misleading, discredited information" about her health-care plan.
"Senator Obama knows it is not true that my plan forces people to buy insurance even if they can't afford it," Clinton said. "It is blatantly false and yet he continues to spend millions of dollars perpetuating falsehoods. It is not hopeful. It is destructive, particularly for a Democrat to be discrediting universal health care."
First he can't even elect to go first in any debate because all he ever does is repeat Hillary Clinton's responses then he does this!
I'll tell you right now, I will never vote for B.O. NEVER. Hillary is the one who should be the Democratic Nominee. Why couldn't he wait 8 years to take HIS shot at the presidency. We don't need him now!!!
And I made the mistake of watching Leno last night where Bill O'Reilly said Hillary won't have a chance since she'd have to win BIG in Texas and Ohio to stop B.O.'s momentum and "that won't happen." But what really burned me up was Jay Leno saying that B.O. has earned and deserved all those wins. Oh really? Jay, can you name one accomplishment that B.O. has to his record?
At least Bill O'Reilly got one thing very right: he said it's a popularity contest because when all is said and done B.O. agrees with Hillary more often than not. He said, as I have stated in a previous blog, that it's Al Gore vs. George W. Bush all over again. That she's not likeable and it's too late to start now. Oh great. Another reason I will be totally fed up with this facaca country and it's witless people for voting once again for Style over Substance.
I'm mad, I'm angry and I'm sad that once again, the BEST candidate for the job may not get there.
Thursday, February 21, 2008
L.A. Times Article - Obama said oops on 6 state Senate votes
Obama said oops on 6 state Senate votes
He pushed the wrong button, he asserted at the time. Two of the admitted flubs were on hotly contested issues.
By Peter Wallsten, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
January 24, 2008
Barack Obama angered fellow Democrats in the Illinois Senate when he voted to strip millions of dollars from a child welfare office on Chicago's West Side. But Obama had a ready explanation: He goofed.
"I was not aware that I had voted no," he said that day in June 2002, asking that the record be changed to reflect that he "intended to vote yes."
That was not the only misfire for the former civil rights attorney first elected to the state Senate in 1996. During his eight years in state office, Obama cast more than 4,000 votes. Of those, according to transcripts of the proceedings in Springfield, he hit the wrong button at least six times.
The rules allow state lawmakers to clear up a mishap if they suffered from a momentary case of stumbly fingers or a lapse in attention. Correcting the record is common practice in the Illinois Legislature, where lawmakers routinely cast numerous votes in a hurry.
But some lawmakers say the practice also offers a relatively painless way to placate both sides of a difficult issue. Even if a lawmaker admits an error, the actual vote stands and the official record merely shows the senator's "intent."
No one has accused Obama, now a U.S. senator and a leading candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, of changing votes to play both sides, and an Obama spokesman called that idea "absurd."
But Obama has come under fire from Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina for his frequent use of another oddity of Illinois politics: voting "present" rather than casting up-or-down votes on controversial measures.
"It is very difficult having a straight-up debate with you, because you never take responsibility for any vote, and that has been a pattern," Clinton told him in a debate Monday.
Tommy Vietor, an Obama spokesman, said the mistaken votes were not meaningful. "In Illinois, legislators often have just a few seconds to cast a vote, so after thousands of votes they're bound to make a few mistakes," he said. Referring to Clinton's vote to authorize the war in Iraq and her support for a bankruptcy measure, Vietor added, "The real problem is when Democrats vote like Republicans."
Four of Obama's admitted flubs drew little controversy.
On March 19, 1997, he announced he had fumbled an election-reform vote the day before, on a measure that passed 51 to 6: "I was trying to vote yes on this, and I was recorded as a no," he said. The next day, he acknowledged voting "present" on a key telecommunications vote.
He stood on March 11, 1999, to take back his vote against legislation to end good-behavior credits for certain felons in county jails. "I pressed the wrong button on that," he said.
Obama was the lone dissenter on Feb. 24, 2000, against 57 yeas for a ban on human cloning. "I pressed the wrong button by accident," he said.
But two of Obama's bumbles came on more-sensitive topics. On Nov. 14, 1997, he backed legislation to permit riverboat casinos to operate even when the boats were dockside.
The measure, pushed by the gambling industry and fought by church groups whose support Obama was seeking, passed with two "yeas" to spare -- including Obama's. Moments after its passage he rose to say, "I'd like to be recorded as a no vote," explaining that he had mistakenly voted for it.
Obama would later develop a reputation as a critic of the gambling industry, and he voted against a similar measure two years later. But he was clearly confused about how to handle the issue at the time of his first vote, telling a church group on a 1998 campaign questionnaire that he was "undecided" about whether he backed an expansion of riverboat gambling. And, months earlier, he had voted in favor of a version of the bill.
The senator who led the opposition to the gambling measure, Republican Todd Sieben, said he took Obama at his word that the initial vote was an error. But Sieben also said the thin margin of victory was a sign that perhaps there was more to the vote than met the eye. "He was obviously paying attention to this vote. It was a major, major issue in the state, and it was a long debate," Sieben said. "The inadvertent 'Oops, I missed the switch' -- I'd be kind of skeptical of that."
On June 11, 2002, Obama's vote sparked a confrontation after he joined Republicans to block Democrats trying to override a veto by GOP Gov. George Ryan of a $2-million allotment for the west Chicago child welfare office.
Shortly afterward, Obama chastised Republicans for their "sanctimony" in claiming that only they had the mettle to make tough choices in a tight budget year. And he called for "responsible budgeting."
A fellow Democrat suddenly seethed with anger. "You got a lot of nerve to talk about being responsible," said Sen. Rickey Hendon, accusing Obama of voting to close the child welfare office.
Obama replied right away. "I understand Sen. Hendon's anger. . . . I was not aware that I had voted no on that last -- last piece of legislation," he said.
Obama asked that the record reflect that he meant to vote yes. Then he requested that Hendon "ask me about a vote before he names me on the floor."
Hendon declined to discuss the episode. "I try to block out unpleasant memories," said Hendon, who has endorsed Obama. "If I tried really hard to remember it, I probably could, but I'm not going to try hard because I'm supporting the senator all the way."
Hendon said "it happens" that senators press the wrong button. But he was quick to add: "I've never done it."
peter.wallsten@latimes.com
He pushed the wrong button, he asserted at the time. Two of the admitted flubs were on hotly contested issues.
By Peter Wallsten, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
January 24, 2008
Barack Obama angered fellow Democrats in the Illinois Senate when he voted to strip millions of dollars from a child welfare office on Chicago's West Side. But Obama had a ready explanation: He goofed.
"I was not aware that I had voted no," he said that day in June 2002, asking that the record be changed to reflect that he "intended to vote yes."
That was not the only misfire for the former civil rights attorney first elected to the state Senate in 1996. During his eight years in state office, Obama cast more than 4,000 votes. Of those, according to transcripts of the proceedings in Springfield, he hit the wrong button at least six times.
The rules allow state lawmakers to clear up a mishap if they suffered from a momentary case of stumbly fingers or a lapse in attention. Correcting the record is common practice in the Illinois Legislature, where lawmakers routinely cast numerous votes in a hurry.
But some lawmakers say the practice also offers a relatively painless way to placate both sides of a difficult issue. Even if a lawmaker admits an error, the actual vote stands and the official record merely shows the senator's "intent."
No one has accused Obama, now a U.S. senator and a leading candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, of changing votes to play both sides, and an Obama spokesman called that idea "absurd."
But Obama has come under fire from Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina for his frequent use of another oddity of Illinois politics: voting "present" rather than casting up-or-down votes on controversial measures.
"It is very difficult having a straight-up debate with you, because you never take responsibility for any vote, and that has been a pattern," Clinton told him in a debate Monday.
Tommy Vietor, an Obama spokesman, said the mistaken votes were not meaningful. "In Illinois, legislators often have just a few seconds to cast a vote, so after thousands of votes they're bound to make a few mistakes," he said. Referring to Clinton's vote to authorize the war in Iraq and her support for a bankruptcy measure, Vietor added, "The real problem is when Democrats vote like Republicans."
Four of Obama's admitted flubs drew little controversy.
On March 19, 1997, he announced he had fumbled an election-reform vote the day before, on a measure that passed 51 to 6: "I was trying to vote yes on this, and I was recorded as a no," he said. The next day, he acknowledged voting "present" on a key telecommunications vote.
He stood on March 11, 1999, to take back his vote against legislation to end good-behavior credits for certain felons in county jails. "I pressed the wrong button on that," he said.
Obama was the lone dissenter on Feb. 24, 2000, against 57 yeas for a ban on human cloning. "I pressed the wrong button by accident," he said.
But two of Obama's bumbles came on more-sensitive topics. On Nov. 14, 1997, he backed legislation to permit riverboat casinos to operate even when the boats were dockside.
The measure, pushed by the gambling industry and fought by church groups whose support Obama was seeking, passed with two "yeas" to spare -- including Obama's. Moments after its passage he rose to say, "I'd like to be recorded as a no vote," explaining that he had mistakenly voted for it.
Obama would later develop a reputation as a critic of the gambling industry, and he voted against a similar measure two years later. But he was clearly confused about how to handle the issue at the time of his first vote, telling a church group on a 1998 campaign questionnaire that he was "undecided" about whether he backed an expansion of riverboat gambling. And, months earlier, he had voted in favor of a version of the bill.
The senator who led the opposition to the gambling measure, Republican Todd Sieben, said he took Obama at his word that the initial vote was an error. But Sieben also said the thin margin of victory was a sign that perhaps there was more to the vote than met the eye. "He was obviously paying attention to this vote. It was a major, major issue in the state, and it was a long debate," Sieben said. "The inadvertent 'Oops, I missed the switch' -- I'd be kind of skeptical of that."
On June 11, 2002, Obama's vote sparked a confrontation after he joined Republicans to block Democrats trying to override a veto by GOP Gov. George Ryan of a $2-million allotment for the west Chicago child welfare office.
Shortly afterward, Obama chastised Republicans for their "sanctimony" in claiming that only they had the mettle to make tough choices in a tight budget year. And he called for "responsible budgeting."
A fellow Democrat suddenly seethed with anger. "You got a lot of nerve to talk about being responsible," said Sen. Rickey Hendon, accusing Obama of voting to close the child welfare office.
Obama replied right away. "I understand Sen. Hendon's anger. . . . I was not aware that I had voted no on that last -- last piece of legislation," he said.
Obama asked that the record reflect that he meant to vote yes. Then he requested that Hendon "ask me about a vote before he names me on the floor."
Hendon declined to discuss the episode. "I try to block out unpleasant memories," said Hendon, who has endorsed Obama. "If I tried really hard to remember it, I probably could, but I'm not going to try hard because I'm supporting the senator all the way."
Hendon said "it happens" that senators press the wrong button. But he was quick to add: "I've never done it."
peter.wallsten@latimes.com
Substance Vs. Style
Hillary vs. Barack, Al vs. George W. -- now I'm not inferring that Barack isn't smart, I have to say that right off the bat here. Obviously he's a very intelligent man.
But the implication should be clear here. America, we've been there, done that. Republicans and obviously quite a few Democrats and independents, voted for George W. Bush I suppose because they preferred good old boy George and his personality (nevermind his less than stellar qualifications for being Prez) over Al Gore. And who has turned out to have been wrong?
Al Gore clearly would have been a terrific President. But he was too boring and stiff for the country -- they thought he was too intellectual. They chose style over substance. And I'm afraid the Democrats are swooning over Obama for the same reason. That is not to say Barack isn't smart. He's obviously very intelligent. But he hasn't done anything so far. He has no record except for voting wrong six different times! I think he needs more seasoning and a longer stint as a senator before I'd trust him with the country.
Barack is the charismatic speaker, he's inspiring people to swoon and follow him. I think that's just one aspect of a good leader. That's the style everyone's falling for. Where's his substance? If the man can't pay attention to what he's voting for or against in his present job, how can he run a country? Well, Hillary is ready to run but she lacks the charisma, the inspiring speeches.
People, have we learned nothing from your rejection of Al Gore for those very reasons? How great would this country be right now if we'd just had 7 years of an Al Gore presidency instead of what we just suffered through with Bush?
Food for thought, I hope.
But the implication should be clear here. America, we've been there, done that. Republicans and obviously quite a few Democrats and independents, voted for George W. Bush I suppose because they preferred good old boy George and his personality (nevermind his less than stellar qualifications for being Prez) over Al Gore. And who has turned out to have been wrong?
Al Gore clearly would have been a terrific President. But he was too boring and stiff for the country -- they thought he was too intellectual. They chose style over substance. And I'm afraid the Democrats are swooning over Obama for the same reason. That is not to say Barack isn't smart. He's obviously very intelligent. But he hasn't done anything so far. He has no record except for voting wrong six different times! I think he needs more seasoning and a longer stint as a senator before I'd trust him with the country.
Barack is the charismatic speaker, he's inspiring people to swoon and follow him. I think that's just one aspect of a good leader. That's the style everyone's falling for. Where's his substance? If the man can't pay attention to what he's voting for or against in his present job, how can he run a country? Well, Hillary is ready to run but she lacks the charisma, the inspiring speeches.
People, have we learned nothing from your rejection of Al Gore for those very reasons? How great would this country be right now if we'd just had 7 years of an Al Gore presidency instead of what we just suffered through with Bush?
Food for thought, I hope.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
A Latte for Hillary
Okay, so it's been a disappointing few days. But we expected it, right? I did volunteer for the Clinton campaign, finally putting my money where my mouth was. I made calls over President's Day weekend to Ohio, Texas and Wisconsin. Now judging by the calls I made to Wisconsin I would have thought Hillary might have won that one. I got some very nice responses of super support for Hillary. Oh well, back to the drawing board.
Now comes the real showdown. The polls still show Hillary Clinton ahead in Texas and Ohio. She has to win on March 4th to be our Democratic nominee for President and become the first woman President of the United States. In that light all the campaign is asking for is a donation of just $5.00 -- that's about a latte and a half... so give up a latte for Hillary why don't you? I can't lay claim to that. I emailed a few friends to donate just $5 and my friend Jill said she'd be willing to give up a few lattes to get Hillary elected.
If anyone stumbles across my blog and/or reads this, please support Hillary Clinton by donating just $5.00! There's a link below to make it easy.
And hey, about that plagiarism story... look it was grasping at straws. I think Hillary was ill-advised by her team on that one. It made them look desperate. And that was sad. But I still believe Hillary Clinton is the best candidate for the job.
Now, about Michelle Obama's over-the-top statement -- yes, you know the one I'm talking about, the one everyone's talking about. Her comment about this being the first time in her adult life she's been proud of her country and felt hope? My friend Jill would like to smack her! As Jill put it, "Hasn't it ever occured to her that her entire charmed and privileged adult life (from Ivy League education through this opportunity to become First Lady) is largely attributable to her being an American? (not to mention all the other reasons she should have some pride in her country.) I'd like to see her have pride and hope living life in Iran, or Saudi Arabia." Not to mention Kenya, Iraq, Darfur or Afghanistan for that matter.
Point well taken there, Jill. Whoopie Goldberg also took issue with Michelle Obama's statement as well yesterday morning on The View.
And of course today comes the "that's not what I meant" explanations -- of course it wasn't. But aren't words powerful?
And one other little thing, how about what I also heard on The View that Obama has mistakenly voted six times for legislation that he meant to vote against! Uh, gee, not quite on the ball there is he? But of course, for some reason, this is just another overlooked "minor" flaw by the media. Ah me. He may be a brilliant speaker and writer, but he sounds like a scatterbrain where it counts -- at work!
Over and out! Keep the faith! VOTE FOR HILLARY CLINTON FOR PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!!!
Donate to Clinton here: https://contribute.hillaryclinton.com/form.html
If the above link doesn't work, simply cut and paste it into your browser.
Now comes the real showdown. The polls still show Hillary Clinton ahead in Texas and Ohio. She has to win on March 4th to be our Democratic nominee for President and become the first woman President of the United States. In that light all the campaign is asking for is a donation of just $5.00 -- that's about a latte and a half... so give up a latte for Hillary why don't you? I can't lay claim to that. I emailed a few friends to donate just $5 and my friend Jill said she'd be willing to give up a few lattes to get Hillary elected.
If anyone stumbles across my blog and/or reads this, please support Hillary Clinton by donating just $5.00! There's a link below to make it easy.
And hey, about that plagiarism story... look it was grasping at straws. I think Hillary was ill-advised by her team on that one. It made them look desperate. And that was sad. But I still believe Hillary Clinton is the best candidate for the job.
Now, about Michelle Obama's over-the-top statement -- yes, you know the one I'm talking about, the one everyone's talking about. Her comment about this being the first time in her adult life she's been proud of her country and felt hope? My friend Jill would like to smack her! As Jill put it, "Hasn't it ever occured to her that her entire charmed and privileged adult life (from Ivy League education through this opportunity to become First Lady) is largely attributable to her being an American? (not to mention all the other reasons she should have some pride in her country.) I'd like to see her have pride and hope living life in Iran, or Saudi Arabia." Not to mention Kenya, Iraq, Darfur or Afghanistan for that matter.
Point well taken there, Jill. Whoopie Goldberg also took issue with Michelle Obama's statement as well yesterday morning on The View.
And of course today comes the "that's not what I meant" explanations -- of course it wasn't. But aren't words powerful?
And one other little thing, how about what I also heard on The View that Obama has mistakenly voted six times for legislation that he meant to vote against! Uh, gee, not quite on the ball there is he? But of course, for some reason, this is just another overlooked "minor" flaw by the media. Ah me. He may be a brilliant speaker and writer, but he sounds like a scatterbrain where it counts -- at work!
Over and out! Keep the faith! VOTE FOR HILLARY CLINTON FOR PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!!!
Donate to Clinton here: https://contribute.hillaryclinton.com/form.html
If the above link doesn't work, simply cut and paste it into your browser.
Thursday, February 14, 2008
1-20-09 seen on a bumper sticker this morning...
Hmmm, so upon closer inspection the bumper sticker read:
Well, that brought a huge smile to my face. Finally, the light at the end of a long, dark, gloomy tunnel!
And let's hope that it's Hillary Clinton being sworn in as the next President of the United States of America.
Happy Valentine's Day and have a good day.
1-20-09 Bush's Last Day in Office
Well, that brought a huge smile to my face. Finally, the light at the end of a long, dark, gloomy tunnel!
And let's hope that it's Hillary Clinton being sworn in as the next President of the United States of America.
Happy Valentine's Day and have a good day.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
It Ain't Over Till It's Over...
Okay, now that the dust has settled on a few more primaries, what we have is Obama taking small states that the experts thought he would. A big shout out to Texas and Ohio for March from California -- Hang in there and don't sway in the wind.
What I mean is, don't leave Hillary now. She needs your support now more than ever. At a time when the pollsters are getting it just as wrong as right, don't let them convince you to flock over to Obama. I believe when all is said and done, when the primaries are over, Hillary Clinton will be ahead in the delegate count. If she doesn't have enough to clinch the nomination we have to hope that the superdelegates stay true to her.
From where I sit my suspicion is that the Republicans are sponsoring polls trying to show, incorrectly, that Obama could beat McCain. He won't. But they want the Democrats to think he can, because they know McCain's a shoe-in if Obama's the candidate.
Hillary Clinton can win this. She is the better candidate and represents true change for the history of our country.
She's tested and she's ready. For me and a lot of my friends, it's Hillary Clinton all the way.
What I mean is, don't leave Hillary now. She needs your support now more than ever. At a time when the pollsters are getting it just as wrong as right, don't let them convince you to flock over to Obama. I believe when all is said and done, when the primaries are over, Hillary Clinton will be ahead in the delegate count. If she doesn't have enough to clinch the nomination we have to hope that the superdelegates stay true to her.
From where I sit my suspicion is that the Republicans are sponsoring polls trying to show, incorrectly, that Obama could beat McCain. He won't. But they want the Democrats to think he can, because they know McCain's a shoe-in if Obama's the candidate.
Hillary Clinton can win this. She is the better candidate and represents true change for the history of our country.
She's tested and she's ready. For me and a lot of my friends, it's Hillary Clinton all the way.
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Between the Media & the Wax Museum... Houston, We Have a Problem!
MSNBC's Shuster said on air last Thursday, while talking about Chelsea Clinton placing phone calls to Democratic superdelegates on her mother’s behalf: “Doesn’t it seem as if Chelsea is sort of being pimped out in some weird sort of way?”
The media has been hostile to Hillary Clinton from the very start, and it's getting worse. If half the crap they threw at her was slung at Obama, or as I like to refer to him now, NObama, it would be called racism. I don't even get the "pimping out her daughter" remark. Well, if that was his true feeling about family campaigning then throughout history every politician has pimped out their wives, mothers and children. What a jerk.
Chris Matthews and "Hardball" has been unwatchable to this Clinton supporter for their clear hostility toward Hillary Clinton. For example, weeks ago, Chris Matthews apologized to the former first lady after suggesting her political career had been made possible because of her husband’s philandering.
Oh really? Is that what he thinks? Maybe, just maybe, Mr. Matthews, it's because Bill Clinton was brave and confident enough to show that his spouse was an equally brilliant person in her own right. Most of us sat up and took notice of that fact. While I loved Bill Clinton and thought he was a terrific President for this country, I realized, Hillary Clinton, wow, now there's a woman who should and could be President!
When you think of what Hillary Clinton has had to endure both professionally and personally in the public eye all these years and yet she is stronger for it, well, wouldn't you trust that steely strength to run this country? I would.
Oh and don't even get me started on that Madame Tussaud's Washington D.C. wax museum debacle. Placing Obama in the center behind the desk in the Oval office with Hillary off to the side like his aide, well that was just plain mean and rude and insulting to women. It only reinforced how men perceive women as subservient to men; wives, moms and daughters but not leaders. God forbid they actually offer us a glimpse of the first WOMAN President. Besides, I don't believe for one minute that Hillary Clinton would play VP after all is said and done. How ludicrous to have a person with her experience and intelligence playing second fiddle after all this to a younger, inexperienced man with nothing to offer but vague speeches about change and hope. Please.
Okay, that's my rant for today. GO HILLARY -- WIN THIS ONE FOR SUSAN B. ANTHONY as well as me and all the other fine women who believe in you. And let's not forget our men who want to vote for you as well. She won California, at least we got that right.
The media has been hostile to Hillary Clinton from the very start, and it's getting worse. If half the crap they threw at her was slung at Obama, or as I like to refer to him now, NObama, it would be called racism. I don't even get the "pimping out her daughter" remark. Well, if that was his true feeling about family campaigning then throughout history every politician has pimped out their wives, mothers and children. What a jerk.
Chris Matthews and "Hardball" has been unwatchable to this Clinton supporter for their clear hostility toward Hillary Clinton. For example, weeks ago, Chris Matthews apologized to the former first lady after suggesting her political career had been made possible because of her husband’s philandering.
Oh really? Is that what he thinks? Maybe, just maybe, Mr. Matthews, it's because Bill Clinton was brave and confident enough to show that his spouse was an equally brilliant person in her own right. Most of us sat up and took notice of that fact. While I loved Bill Clinton and thought he was a terrific President for this country, I realized, Hillary Clinton, wow, now there's a woman who should and could be President!
When you think of what Hillary Clinton has had to endure both professionally and personally in the public eye all these years and yet she is stronger for it, well, wouldn't you trust that steely strength to run this country? I would.
Oh and don't even get me started on that Madame Tussaud's Washington D.C. wax museum debacle. Placing Obama in the center behind the desk in the Oval office with Hillary off to the side like his aide, well that was just plain mean and rude and insulting to women. It only reinforced how men perceive women as subservient to men; wives, moms and daughters but not leaders. God forbid they actually offer us a glimpse of the first WOMAN President. Besides, I don't believe for one minute that Hillary Clinton would play VP after all is said and done. How ludicrous to have a person with her experience and intelligence playing second fiddle after all this to a younger, inexperienced man with nothing to offer but vague speeches about change and hope. Please.
Okay, that's my rant for today. GO HILLARY -- WIN THIS ONE FOR SUSAN B. ANTHONY as well as me and all the other fine women who believe in you. And let's not forget our men who want to vote for you as well. She won California, at least we got that right.
Monday, February 11, 2008
Women Get the Right to Vote - and BLOW it!
February 5, 2008 · Sunday was the 138th anniversary of the 15th amendment's ratification, which guaranteed black men the right to vote in 1870. Theodore Shaw, of the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund, talks about the amendment and the later provision for women to vote.
The 19th Amendment to the Constitution was passed in 1920, August 18, giving women the right to vote.
Why should women expect a woman President after all these years of men running this country? Well, case number one. Black men have had the right to vote since 1870. Women have only had the right to vote since 1920.
Men have run the United States of America since its inception. Some have done a great job, some a mediocre job, some like George W. Bush, a completely dismal job.
Hillary Clinton is an extremely viable choice for President. As a woman and a mother women should be able to identify with her. Our goals for this country seem to be similar. She's also tried and tested in the Washington establishment. She's already come up against the system and weathered it. And she's tough. She won't crack under the strain, unlike Obama who showed he could be rattled during the debate when he practically had a hissy fit sputtering out ..."well, I don't know who I'm running against, you or Bill..." to paraphrase his rattled response. If he can get annoyed and rattled during a debate, how can this man run this country? He's only been a Senator for 3 short years. Frankly, Hillary is one tough cookie. She doesn't crack, she doesn't crumble, she more than holds her own during interviews, debates, and press interviews/cross examinations.
I suspect men don't like her because she's as tough as they are. She's a threat. Finally, a woman who can run this country as well as a man, if not better.
So why aren't women in the United States uniting for this capable woman for president? Are they judgmental over her personal life? Are they swooning over Obama?
My friend was watching her 12 year-old daughter and her friends at a party the other day. The mother commented that the friends were a cute group. Her daughter seemed surprised, "Even Jenny??" Her mom, shocked at her daughter's clear disapproval of Jenny, remarked, "Why, just because she has braces right now, she's at a little awkward stage, but she's cute and has a great personality." To which her daughter, my godchild, rolled her eyes in disagreement. We discussed this judgmental attitude we women become accustomed to at an early age. We are competitive and taught by society to be the prettiest, the best and all for the attention of ... men, boys. Yup, that's what it boils down to. I think. It's the only explanation I have for most of the women out there who say they don't like Hillary and won't or can't support her.
Don't misunderstand where I'm coming from. I love men. I'm just tired of men always being in charge of the ecomony and waging war for no good reason. A woman in charge: now that would represent huge change.
What a shame. The first completely viable and strong woman for President we have a shot at in the history of our country, and she's struggling. There just are no words to describe my disappointment with my own sex. Oddly enough, most of my girlfriends are supporting Hillary and we are a sisterhood in agreement over this. Why aren't other women like us?? It's a mystery.
And I'll tell you this: Hillary Clinton can beat McCain. Barack Obama will not. Period. As a point of contention, which has nothing to do with race, none of us believes Barack would be a good President. Not at this time in history. Not after the mess that George W. Bush will leave this country in. None of us can in all honesty, vote for him if he's the nominee. We have all said we'd vote for McCain. At least he's not Bush and he's got more experience.
Let's hope and pray that Hillary Clinton can turn this around and finally appeal to women out there who should be supporting her. Because women of America, it's your loss if you can't support this totally capable woman. You are still buying into the patriarchal society of men ruling. And shame on you for not believing a woman can do a better job of running this country that the current man.
The 19th Amendment to the Constitution was passed in 1920, August 18, giving women the right to vote.
Why should women expect a woman President after all these years of men running this country? Well, case number one. Black men have had the right to vote since 1870. Women have only had the right to vote since 1920.
Men have run the United States of America since its inception. Some have done a great job, some a mediocre job, some like George W. Bush, a completely dismal job.
Hillary Clinton is an extremely viable choice for President. As a woman and a mother women should be able to identify with her. Our goals for this country seem to be similar. She's also tried and tested in the Washington establishment. She's already come up against the system and weathered it. And she's tough. She won't crack under the strain, unlike Obama who showed he could be rattled during the debate when he practically had a hissy fit sputtering out ..."well, I don't know who I'm running against, you or Bill..." to paraphrase his rattled response. If he can get annoyed and rattled during a debate, how can this man run this country? He's only been a Senator for 3 short years. Frankly, Hillary is one tough cookie. She doesn't crack, she doesn't crumble, she more than holds her own during interviews, debates, and press interviews/cross examinations.
I suspect men don't like her because she's as tough as they are. She's a threat. Finally, a woman who can run this country as well as a man, if not better.
So why aren't women in the United States uniting for this capable woman for president? Are they judgmental over her personal life? Are they swooning over Obama?
My friend was watching her 12 year-old daughter and her friends at a party the other day. The mother commented that the friends were a cute group. Her daughter seemed surprised, "Even Jenny??" Her mom, shocked at her daughter's clear disapproval of Jenny, remarked, "Why, just because she has braces right now, she's at a little awkward stage, but she's cute and has a great personality." To which her daughter, my godchild, rolled her eyes in disagreement. We discussed this judgmental attitude we women become accustomed to at an early age. We are competitive and taught by society to be the prettiest, the best and all for the attention of ... men, boys. Yup, that's what it boils down to. I think. It's the only explanation I have for most of the women out there who say they don't like Hillary and won't or can't support her.
Don't misunderstand where I'm coming from. I love men. I'm just tired of men always being in charge of the ecomony and waging war for no good reason. A woman in charge: now that would represent huge change.
What a shame. The first completely viable and strong woman for President we have a shot at in the history of our country, and she's struggling. There just are no words to describe my disappointment with my own sex. Oddly enough, most of my girlfriends are supporting Hillary and we are a sisterhood in agreement over this. Why aren't other women like us?? It's a mystery.
And I'll tell you this: Hillary Clinton can beat McCain. Barack Obama will not. Period. As a point of contention, which has nothing to do with race, none of us believes Barack would be a good President. Not at this time in history. Not after the mess that George W. Bush will leave this country in. None of us can in all honesty, vote for him if he's the nominee. We have all said we'd vote for McCain. At least he's not Bush and he's got more experience.
Let's hope and pray that Hillary Clinton can turn this around and finally appeal to women out there who should be supporting her. Because women of America, it's your loss if you can't support this totally capable woman. You are still buying into the patriarchal society of men ruling. And shame on you for not believing a woman can do a better job of running this country that the current man.
Sunday, February 10, 2008
Hillary Clinton For President
So, the consensus here among my mostly female friends, one straight hispanic male, and one young gay man in Los Angeles, all Democrats, is that we will vote for Hillary for President but not Obama.
Hillary is tough, smart and would be an excellent President who can dig in on the first day to clean up the mess left behind by Shrub Bush... ugh. However, this dream of the first female president is in danger of being eclipsed by a man who couldn't wait his turn to run for President. Obama must have gotten quite a swelled head after all the compliments over speeches that have people bedazzled. Me, I'm immune. He seems cold and distant to me and speaks in generalities. I don't get it. What has he done? What is his record? Well, it's yet to be written. And the Presidency is no place to start!
I look at Obama and I see a man who I could vote for in 8 years when I know more about him. When he's done battle and paid his dues. But not now. Fired up speeches with vague promises of change are not going to cut it. Not after the mess Bush has this country in.
The Republicans must be positively giddy with joy over the Obama express. John McClain can start moving into the White House before the summer's even over if Obama's the nominee. McCain is not too far to the right, a man who survived a horrible war experience, a man who can deal with terrorism and knows Washington. Now is not the time for dreamy idealism that Obama represents.
It's no surprise that this weekend was quite depressing for Hillary supporters, watching those little states fall under the charm of Obama, one lemming after another. Bah humbug. He may be their candidate, but he's not my choice. I won't vote for him. Why couldn't he wait until a woman has been elected for a change? Obama represent change? Oh please. He's another man. All he represents to me and mine, is another man in power.
Oh and while I'm at it, what's the deal with we WOMEN? Why can't we support our own sex???? What is your problem with Hillary Clinton? Again, I just don't get it. You women DO know that rooting for Obama does not get you any closer to George Clooney, right?
Well, here's hoping and praying the Democratic party is smart this time around. Nominate Hillary Clinton. She can beat John McCain. Hillary represents bigger change than you can imagine.
Hillary is tough, smart and would be an excellent President who can dig in on the first day to clean up the mess left behind by Shrub Bush... ugh. However, this dream of the first female president is in danger of being eclipsed by a man who couldn't wait his turn to run for President. Obama must have gotten quite a swelled head after all the compliments over speeches that have people bedazzled. Me, I'm immune. He seems cold and distant to me and speaks in generalities. I don't get it. What has he done? What is his record? Well, it's yet to be written. And the Presidency is no place to start!
I look at Obama and I see a man who I could vote for in 8 years when I know more about him. When he's done battle and paid his dues. But not now. Fired up speeches with vague promises of change are not going to cut it. Not after the mess Bush has this country in.
The Republicans must be positively giddy with joy over the Obama express. John McClain can start moving into the White House before the summer's even over if Obama's the nominee. McCain is not too far to the right, a man who survived a horrible war experience, a man who can deal with terrorism and knows Washington. Now is not the time for dreamy idealism that Obama represents.
It's no surprise that this weekend was quite depressing for Hillary supporters, watching those little states fall under the charm of Obama, one lemming after another. Bah humbug. He may be their candidate, but he's not my choice. I won't vote for him. Why couldn't he wait until a woman has been elected for a change? Obama represent change? Oh please. He's another man. All he represents to me and mine, is another man in power.
Oh and while I'm at it, what's the deal with we WOMEN? Why can't we support our own sex???? What is your problem with Hillary Clinton? Again, I just don't get it. You women DO know that rooting for Obama does not get you any closer to George Clooney, right?
Well, here's hoping and praying the Democratic party is smart this time around. Nominate Hillary Clinton. She can beat John McCain. Hillary represents bigger change than you can imagine.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
