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!
Monday, March 31, 2008
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
