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?"
Sunday, March 9, 2008
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!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
