Friday, February 29, 2008

Clinton and the LGBT Community

This is yet another reason why I wholeheartedly support Senator Clinton. She gets it, and has for many, many years. This is article is from an interview she did on Wednesday. Obama declined the invitation.

Obama, not so much. He has on his campaign staff a minister, Donnie McClurkin, who is one of the "cured" homosexuals, who PROVES he is cured by being more homophobic than Jerry Falwell. I wish that was all, but it is not. Check out this ad for another example of who Obama really is:

Strong Arming

Okay, so it seems that MANY African American Congresspeople are being threatened, strong armed, and ridiculed for not switching from Clinton to Obama. As you may know, John Lewis did just that earlier this week. I guess the pressure from Jesse Jackson, Jr. was just too much for him, along with the threat of supporting a challenger became a reality (a 30 yr old minister). So, he caved. Given the long, long, long friendship he had enjoyed with the Clintons, his switch was reprehensible. And Jesse Jackson, Jr., has turned out to not exactly be who I thought he was, since he is the one who said they would get young challengers if they didn't line up behind Obama. Wow. Let's just say he isn't the nicest guy. As is pointed out in the article, no one is demanding that Senators Kennedy and Kerry join up behind Clinton after she won MA by a LOT. Interesting!! Gee, can you say "double-standard"??? So, here is an article from about the pressure the AA leaders are facing:

Now - how about Obama and NAFTA? First there is his making positive movement in OH based on his mailers falsely slamming Clinton. This kind of thing just gripes me big time - he is LYING about her positions, and the people are BUYING it! How can that be??? Well, then it comes out on CTV (that "C" is for Canada) that one of Obama's aides told the Canadian ambassador that Canada, which has benefitted quite well from NAFTA, doesn't have to worry about Obama's stated position on NAFTA because, well, he doesn't mean it. It's only what he is telling the VOTERS, not what he really plans to do.

Um - yeah, okay. So - isn't this the same crap with which we have been living for the past 8 years?? Someone who says one thing to get elected, then says and does something COMPLETELY different after in Office?? As someone pointed out at in response to this just being "politics as usual", how is that different from Bush lying about WMD in Iraq to get us embroiled in this invasion in Iraq? It is not, in my opinion. Obama is proving himself to be EVERYTHING he claims he is not. Some of us picked up on that already, but really - what the heck business does he have to contact the Canadian ambassador before he even has the nomination ANYWAY??? His arrogance is staggering. Oh - he has denied all of this, of course. CTV came out with the name of the aide today, so I guess the ball is back in Obama's court!

And then, he attacked Clinton saying that he would work so much better with the Republicans than he has. Oh, really? Because according to the CLinton Campaign, in the past three years, she has offered 53 bills that had Republican co-sponsors, and Obama has had 24 ( Never mind that he attacked her when she questioned his unqualified support of Reagan as sucha great president, and called the Republicans the "party of ideas," saying he didn't say they were good ideas, and he wasn't saying Reagan was a good president. So, which is it, Barack? Was he or wasn't he? Were the Republcians having good ideas during Clinton and Dubya's administrations or not?!?! I have no love lost for Kerry, but holy smokes - how is it HE got the moniker of "Fip Flopper," and Obama HASN'T?!?! It is just ridiculous. And just HOW does Mr. Unifier think he is going to unite the DNC after he has gone after Clinton so often, and usually, on such false pretenses?? Yeah. Exactly. We'll just see how it goes. And hopefully, the media will do its job JUST A TAD and really cover this CTV/NAFTA thing. Hope springs eternal!!

Thursday, February 28, 2008

Obama, the VA, and the Wounded Warrior Act

Again, it is really amazing the things that have NOT been investigated, or pressed, on Obama. And the lack of acknowledgement for what HAS been done by Clinton. This post was in response to the debate on 2/26 (in which Obama claimed he was in the midst of a heated Senate Race in Illinois - against ALAN KEYES. Alan Keyes - who was a last-minute replacement for the Republican primary winner caught in a sex scandal. Heck, my CAT could have beaten Alan Keyes because she is, well SANE!!! Oh, but wait, there's more - he claimed it was in the midst of this that he gave his great speech...Maybe if he is a TIME TRAVELER!!).

Anywho - this addresses some of the issues that have NOT been raised, like his not calling ANY meetings for the committee charged with European oversight and NATO, and focuses a LOT on the VA and wounded veterans. I respectfully ask that you give it a read...

On Clinton and Media Coverage

This morning, I read a good piece on how Clinton has been treated by the media, an issue about which I have written (a lot). The article, "In Search of the Real News in Primary Coverage,"is by Carol Jenkins, the president of the Women's Media Center. If you haven't already seen it, the article includes the very funny piece by Tina Fey, "Bitch is the New Black."

Here is the beginning of the article:
It was perhaps surprising to hear a presidential candidate reference the irreverent comedy workhorse, Saturday Night Live, in a nationally televised debate—but for those who’ve been tracking Hillary Clinton’s sometimes rough handling by the media, it made sense for her to bring it up.

This past Saturday’s SNL show (blessedly back, thanks to the end of the writers’ strike) had a couple of hilarious skits: one portraying swooning CNN correspondents in the last debate asking Barack Obama a tough question: Was he comfortable? Did he need a pillow?—while attacking Clinton. The other, a “Women’s News” segment with guest host Tina Fey using the “B” word liberally and proudly, in defense of Clinton, closing with the shout that “B… is the new black!”—or totally chic.

The show recognized what many observers had come to feel: that the media has conducted itself poorly and are worthy of parody. And watching Tim Russert, parodying himself last night, scowling eyebrows, raised voice, blustery manner and slightly weird questions—encapsulated what’s wrong with the media. Tim seemed to have the mistaken belief that he was the third debater, an impression only heightened after the debate when Chris Matthews repeatedly lauded Russert on “reeling in” Hillary Clinton with a question on her war vote. Increasingly the media has become the story—and not such a complimentary one. While the “serious” reporters and pundits were this morning condescending of Clinton’s mention of the comedy show, SNL’s take on the coverage seems at least as informative as what shows up on nightly cable shows.

Here is the link for the rest of the article:

On Race-Baiting

I read a very interesting article by Sean Wilentz in The New Republic last night, entitled, "Race Man." Following is the beginning of the article:

After several weeks of swooning, news reports are finally being filed about the gap between Senator Barack Obama's promises of a pure, soul-cleansing "new" politics and the calculated, deeply dishonest conduct of his actually-existing campaign. But it remains to be seen whether the latest ploy by the Obama camp--over allegations about the circulation of a photograph of Obama in ceremonial Somali dress--will be exposed by the press as the manipulative illusion that it is.

Most of the recent correctives have concerned outrageously deceptive advertisements approved and released by Obama's campaign. First, in Iowa, the Obama camp aired radio ads patterned on the notorious "Harry and Louise" Republican propaganda from 1993, charging falsely that Senator Hillary Clinton's health care proposal would "force those who cannot afford health insurance to buy it, punishing those who won't fall in line." In subsequent primary and caucus campaigns, the Obama campaign sent out millions of mailers, also featuring the "Harry and Louise" motif, falsely claiming that Clinton favored "punishing families who can't afford health care in the first place." A few bloggers and columnists, notably Paul Krugman in The New York Times, described the ads as distorting, but the national press corps mainly ignored them--until Clinton herself, seeing the fraudulent mailers reappear in Ohio over the past weekend, publicly denounced them.

The Obama mass mailings also attempt to appeal to Ohio's labor vote by claiming that Clinton believed that the North American Free Trade Agreement, signed in 1993 by President Bill Clinton, was a "'boon' to our economy." More falsehood: In fact, Clinton had not said that; Newsday originally applied the word "boon" and has now noted the Obama campaign's distortion. In this campaign, Clinton has called for a moratorium on all trade agreements until they are made consistent with labor and environmental standards--and account for the effect on jobs in the United States. Obama makes a big deal about how Bill Clinton signed NAFTA. But he fails to mention that, within the councils of her husband's administration, Hillary Clinton was a skeptic of free trade agreements, and as a senator and candidate she has said that NAFTA contained flaws that need to be rectified. Ignoring all that, the Obama flyer features an alarming photograph of closed plant gates, having no connection to any action of Senator Clinton's, as well as the dubious quotation about her from Newsday in 2006. Newsday has criticized "Obama's use of the quotation" as "misleading ... an example of the kind of slim reeds campaigns use to try and win an office." Obama, without retracting the mailing (and while playing to protectionist sentiment in the party) said only that he would have his staff look into the matter--long after the ad has done its dirty work.

Misleading propaganda is hardly new in American politics --although the adoption of techniques reminiscent of past Republican and special-interest hit jobs, right down to a retread of the fictional couple, seems strangely at odds with a campaign that proclaims it will redeem the country from precisely these sorts of divisive and manipulative tactics. As insidious as these tactics are, though, the Obama campaign's most effective gambits have been far more egregious and dangerous than the hypocritical deployment of deceptive and disingenuous attack ads. To a large degree, the campaign's strategists turned the primary and caucus race to their advantage when they deliberately, falsely, and successfully portrayed Clinton and her campaign as unscrupulous race-baiters--a campaign-within-the-campaign in which the worked-up flap over the Somali costume photograph is but the latest episode. While promoting Obama as a "post-racial" figure, his campaign has purposefully polluted the contest with a new strain of what historically has been the most toxic poison in American politics.

More than any other maneuver, this one has brought Clinton into disrepute with important portions of the Democratic Party. A review of what actually happened shows that the charges that the Clintons played the "race card" were not simply false; they were deliberately manufactured by the Obama camp and trumpeted by a credulous and/or compliant press corps in order to strip away her once formidable majority among black voters and to outrage affluent, college-educated white liberals as well as college students. The Clinton campaign, in fact, has not racialized the campaign, and never had any reason to do so. Rather the Obama campaign and its supporters, well-prepared to play the "race-baiter card" before the primaries began, launched it with a vengeance when Obama ran into dire straits after his losses in New Hampshire and Nevada--and thereby created a campaign myth that has turned into an incontrovertible truth among political pundits, reporters, and various Obama supporters. This development is the latest sad commentary on the malign power of the press, hyping its own favorites and tearing down those it dislikes, to create pseudo-scandals of the sort that hounded Al Gore during the 2000 campaign. It is also a commentary on how race can make American politics go haywire. Above all, it is a commentary on the cutthroat, fraudulent politics that lie at the foundation of Obama's supposedly uplifting campaign.

For the rest of this article, here is the link:

Wednesday, February 27, 2008

You Know It's Bad...

When Republicans are calling the media on their double standard, but they are, more and more. Here is a very good piece by a Republican, who also knows a thing or two about debates:,0,7365559.story

And, Clinton DOES have a point about being asked questions first over and over. Sure makes it easier for "Ditto"", as many bloggers are now calling him, to respond:

About the Debate..

I wish Clinton had stuck to her guns and NOT done another debate on MSNBC. Once again, Russert could not contain his animosity toward her, and kept on trying for a "gotcha" moment, his MO. At least that is my understanding. I won't watch that network ever again. As I have written. Anywho - Matthews apparently crowed that Russert had landed a big one by getting Clinton to "admit" that she was wrong for her vote on Iraq, something she has said a bunch of times already. (Am I wrong that Russert was/is VERY supportive of the Bush Administration and the Iraqi invasion?? A quick Google search would seem to support that supposition...) Apparently, he would ask Clinton a question, then not let her answer it, going on and on himself. Or, he would demand a yes or no answer. She did stand her ground against him. Suffice it to say, from all that I have read, they simply relieved the SNL skit on how the media fawns all over Obama.

And Obama. Oh, boy. As I said at TalkLeft this morning, Obama's santimonious response that his campaign has been negatively targeted by Clinton but you haven't heard HIM whining about it was just one more example of him lying through his teeth. HIS campaign has been INCREDIBLY negative, sending out these mailers for months REAMING Clinton in every single speech Mr. Hope and Change gives, misrepresenting her policies, STEALING her policies claiming SHE Is plagarizing John Edwards the day after he warmly shook her hand and smiled at her in the debate when she said what he accused her of stealing (sorry for the roundabout sentence - Clinton said, "Whatever happens...Whatever happens, we will be fine." Because no one in the WORLD had EVER said those two things together but John Edwards!), and then he has the audacity to get on his high, arrogant, patronizing horse about HER running a negative campaign???

All I can say is if he succeeds in getting the nomination, with the MASSIVE help from the media (particularly MSNBC), I am SO writing in Hillary's name. I will not vote for this man. He's just another Dubya, IMHO.

And speaking of Dubya, that leads me to TX, which also has open enrollment and crossover voting. Apparently, the Republicans are getting quite organized about voting for Obama as a vote against Clinton. This is not unlike what happened in WI. Since McCain is their nominee, they are free to determine ours. This is a HUGE problem with the state Democratic leaders to allow this. Now,a dmitedly, there are a few Republicans who want to vote for Obama because they support him, but they are not part of this organized movement. Grrrr. I think Geraldine Ferraro's good editorial addresses all of this adequately, so I will not belabor the point, but it is disturbing...

So today is Chelsea Clinton's birthday - I am going to go make (another) donation to Hillary on her behalf! Care to join me? Happy Birthday Chelsea!!

Tuesday, February 26, 2008

Dear Senator Dodd...

Senator Dodd drank the Kool Aide, and jumped on the bandwagon. Here is my response to his email this morning:

Dear Senator Dodd:

I am deeply disappointed in your decision to support Barack Obama.

I am disappointed because Obama's campaign has included a number of negative, FALSE attacks on Senator Clinton, plagarising of not only Senator Clinton's positions, but others as well, not to mention his vicious attacks in his "mailers," the substance if which is largely false. Just this past weekend, his campaign was "busted" for sending out these grossly misleading attacks. So much for "Hope" and "Change" - it just looks like more of the same to me, only from someone who claims to be new to Washington (check out the comparison of John Edwards and Barack Obama - the latter parrots almost VERBATIM a speech Edwards gace in 2003). He may give lofty speeches, but within those speeches are a NUMBER of unfounded attacks on Senator Clinton. He has run a NEGATIVE campaign, as whined about superdelegates, has whined about Florida and the potentital of seating their delegates, even though HE WAS THE ONLY ONE TO CAMPAIGN THERE (maybe it is because he was so SOUNDLY beaten there), and claims attacks wehre there are none. In other words, he is much too much like George Bush to me.

Along those lines, our country has just gone through almost 8 years of a president who claimed to be a Uniter, who was given a pass by the media and its party with DISASTROUS effects, effects which will surely be felt for years to come. We need a president who can actually handle the tough choices, the one who has the respect of a number of mlitary officers, who can think on her feet, and come up with real solutions. We need a candidate who has a PROVEN track record, who has been VETTED, and who knows how to get the job done.

That is all to say, I respectfully disagree with your choice, and I am hugely disappointed in it. The disdain with which many supporters of Obama, as well as the media and the Democratic Party, have shown women in general, and Senator Clinton in particular, is reprehensible. The rampant sexism with which she is met, and which is then passed on to women and GIRLS in this country, is reprehensible. So your choice, sir, not only disappoints me, but saddens me. And it is this kind of choice which is making women leave the Democratic Party in droves. That you support a man who has been BLATANTLY sexist to Senator Clinton says a lot, and it is not good.

Please remove me from your mailing list.

The Rev. Amy

Monday, February 25, 2008

Great Editorial By Ferraro

This is an excellent editorial by Geraldine Ferraro on the whole role of SuperDelegates, how they came into being, and what their role is supposed to be. She also makes some VERY interesting observations about the role cross-over voting is making for the Democratsic nominee (I'll give you a hint as to how it is playing out - Clinton actually won the Democratic votes in Wisconsin). Among other things she wrote, there is this:

"Besides, the delegate totals from primaries and caucuses do not necessarily reflect the will of rank-and-file Democrats. Most Democrats have not been heard from at the polls. We have all been impressed by the turnout for this year’s primaries — clearly both candidates have excited and engaged the party’s membership — but, even so, turnout for primaries and caucuses is notoriously low. It would be shocking if 30 percent of registered Democrats have participated.

If that is the case, we could end up with a nominee who has been actively supported by, at most, 15 percent of registered Democrats. That’s hardly a grassroots mandate."

For her informative editorial, there is a link below. I commend it to you.

Got a Problem? Ask the Super

Published: February 25, 2008, NY Times
"AS the race for the Democratic presidential nomination nears its end and attention turns to the role of so-called superdelegates in choosing the nominee, it is instructive to look at why my party created this class of delegates."

Sunday, February 24, 2008

Hillary Speaks For Me

Is a collection of short videos from all over the country (and includes one from Tina Fey on SNL). It also includes Hillary's Top Ten on David Letterman (very funny). It is AWESOME - check it out!!!

Here's the link:

Why Is It.

That the talking heads, especially Keith Olbermann, as well as others on MSNBC and CNN, are suggesting Clinton should drop out of the race?? Or why they keep sayinig that Clinton's pwerful and moving closing at the debate on Thurs. night was her swan song? She is VERY close in delegates to Obama (would be closer still if they counted FL and MI). Nevada has not even committed its delegates yet, and she won Nevada. And there are a bunch of states yet to go. She is not giving up, and neither are we. We want a president who can think for herself, who can speak eloquently extemporaneously, not just when someone writes something for him (or he steals it), who DOES have real solutions, and has the best interests of the people as her driving force.

I might add, I sure don't remember them hammering away at Huckabee, who is nowhere CLOSE to McCain in delegates, about dropping out. But Clinton, who IS close?? Oh yes - by all means, she should just give up (then they would hammer her for giving up and disappointing her supporters). Just sayin'.

Clinton has a great oppotunity to win PA, TX, and OH - I hope the people for whom she has worked so tirelessly do not stab her in the back (again). Let's hope they don't fall for the smoke and mirrors of Obama, or his negative, false attacks on Clinton. Hey, one can hope that people will not be taken in by this guy. A girl can dream anyway!

Saturday, February 23, 2008

Sad Event, and Dirty Tricks

Yesterday, in TX, a motorcycle police officer escorting Senator Clinton's motorcade, was killed when he hit a concrete partition. Senator Clinton cancelled her rally (over 2,000 people were already there) to go to the medical center to be with the police officer's family. Let us keep them all in our thoughts and prayers.

And Obama, the Great Uniter, is at it again. He is sending out mailers in OH falsely attacking Senator Clinton on NAFTA and her universal health care plan. As for NAFTA, Clinton has been opposed to many parts of NAFTA even before it got passed, opinions she has been free in expressing. Even Carl Bernstein, as I have noted before, and who is NOT a fan of Sen. Clinton's, said that she and the president had words over it. Obama is basing his attack on an unsubstantiated quote in Newsday. Newsday has claimed that the quote attributed to Senator Clinton is "misleading." For the latter mailer on her health insurance plan, he is using a modified "Harry and Louise" attack ad, one the insurance companies spent $17 million on to fight President Clinton's health care initiative back in the early '90's. And he flat out misrepresents Clinton's plan compared to his (Source for this information is:

Again, as I have noted previously, this has become SOP for the Obama campaign. Yet, the media is not COVERING these negative, false, maligning mailers. WHY?? Why are they not addressing his low-blow campaign tactics??

Oh - one more thing. The Wall Street Journal reported that a few Obama supporters have filed a complaint with the FEC over the recently formed 527 organization, the American Leadership Project ( They claim that Clinton is breaking the law by having them produce ads on her behalf. Okay - it is perfectly legal to have 527s - the OBAMA people have them, in fact, and have had them longer. Obama has them for the same reason - to pay for ads. As the article points out, the FEC is VERY slow to take these cases, and the complainants do not even CITE a particular instance. IN other words, they are just trying to give Clinton bad press.

I have to respectfully disagree with some of my fellow Democrats (like Hitchhiker, whose comment I posted). I cannot vote for this man. He is a wolf in sheep's clothing, just like his mentor, Joe Lieberman. He uses dirty tactic after dirty tactic. For all of his talk, he is most DEFINITELY a politician, and not a very nice man, it would seem. Again, Clinton has NOT waged these kinds of attacks on him. Not even close.

And just for fun, since he attacked Clinton for using a phrase, while shaking her hand and smiling at her on Thursday night, claiming it was Edwards' (yeah, right - NO ONE but John Edwards has EVER said, "whatever happens, we'll be fine."), here's a little diddy on of Obama parroting Edwards. Check out his parroting of Deval Patrick, too. It WOULD be funny, if he wasn't claiming to be something he isn't. Anywho - here it is:

Friday, February 22, 2008

From - "Here's Why I Support Her"

I read the folowing post by hitchhiker in today, and asked her permission to post it here. She kindly agreed. Here is her post:

Here Is Why I Support Her:

Because in 2001, about 10 weeks after W was inaugurated, my husband broke his neck. His injury changed our lives, of course, in 10 thousand ways. We had the good luck to be insured, but I have bad news for those of you who think that even good insurance will protect you from this kind of catastrophe. The out of pocket costs in the first year alone were up in the $80,000 range.

Fast forward a few years . . . Christopher Reeve's death created a hole where there had been an advocate. A few people from an online community got together to hold a rally in the upper senate park. Hillary--not running for anything, not looking for anything--showed up. She showed up again the following year, and the year after that, offering her support to a bunch of gimps in wheelchairs and their loved ones.

She talked with us. No press could be bothered with a pitiful little rally like ours; very few politicians had time for us, even though travel for quadriplegics is at best complicated and at worst dangerous. Hillary Cllinton earned my everlasting respect for caring enough to look people in chairs in the face and tell them she would fight for them.

If she stays in the Senate, I have no doubt whatsoever that she'll continue to do just that. It's been a couple of months now since I could stand to visit websites that used to be like home to me. I think the left blogosphere has poisoned itself, and that's been painful to witness when so much was possible.

And she added a follow-up in her response to my request:

One of the people at the spring 2004 rally --a staunch Bush-supporter and devoted evangelical whom I often argue with online-- told me that he noticed she made it a point to go up and shake the hand of every person in a chair.
He had to admit that he saw nothing phony or cold or ambitious or whatever the hell they keep saying about her. She was simply trying to give people the message that not everybody in Washington was indifferent, and that if funding research was possible, she would do it.

This administration has cost my family. I have spent the last 7 years working and waiting for someone better . . . it's not about "drama", as somebody said upthread. Drama is when you don't have any genuine problems so you invent some to make yourself feel important. I will of course vote for Barack Obama, because the alternative is just unthinkable...

Thank you, Hitchhiker!

On the Debate - Spin, Spin, Spin...

So, the debate was interesting last night. As always, Clinton seemed poised, in command, and articulated her positions well - when Campbell Brown actually let her finish her point. She interrupted her every time Clinton was getting to the end and the audience started applauding. Meanwhile, Obama was allowed to wind his way all over creation, beginning with copying EVERYTHING Clinton had just said. I was at a very cool site,, and one person said the reason he was always writing on his legal pad was to diagram his sentences. Someone else added that funny, that's what THEY were having to do to figure out what the HECK he was talking abt as he rambled! Naturally, te ONLY point in the headlines this morning is about the "Xerox" moment. EVERY time Clinton stands up for herself, EVERYONE freaks out about it. I swannee - if Obama had said anything comparable to her, everyone woul dhave laughed, and said how funny he is. But if Clinton calls him on something - plagarizing, representing a slumlord, she gets booed. Wow. That is SO telling. And what it says is that she has an impossible double standard to overcome. Men can; women can't - it's as simple as that. And it is WRONG.

OK, so then the spin began by the talking heads - since Obama didn't have any major gaffes, he won!! Someone said it reminded them of the media determining that Bush and Gore "tied" after their first debate because Bush didn't obviously shoot himself in the foot. In other words, the expectations for Obama were lower, and Clinton was challenged with hitting it out of the park. Well, if she had been allowed to address the attacks he made on her judgment and her ability to lead, that probably would have happened sooner. But, she did have total control and mastery of the entire debate. She was not struggling for responses, she did not copy everything Obama said, she was not scribbling all over her notepad, she took his attacks with good grace, and ended the debate in a stellar fashion. (Of course, the media are now calling this moment her "valedictory" moment - saying it is the end of her campaign, something they have tried to manufacture for some time now. I say enough already with trying to railroad her campaign!) Her last response did indeed knock it out of the park. She was asked to "describe the moment in your life when you were tested the most." She handled the question BEAUTIFULLY, I thought. But, don't take my word for it. Take a look for yourself:

The Obama camp has had its supporters emailing delegates to get their support. The Clinton Campaign has added a link to do likewise. It couldn't hurt, and can only help. Here is the link:

We cannot allow the media to continue its assault on Clinton and her campaign. Call for her, donate to her (every little bit helps), write the media. Their tactics are EXACTLY what got us George Bush, and I, for one, cannot take any more of a president like that. Just sayin'.

Thursday, February 21, 2008

Carbon Is A Good THING!!

As in, carbon FIBER. This is a seriously cool thing in terms of alternative fuels, gas mileage, cars, and consumers. So, before the big debate tonight, or during it, if you need a lift, this is a great concept! Here's the blurb from Green Energy News says, "Soon cars running on compressed air will go into production - in India. MDI Industries, of Carros, France, which develops the air-powered cars and engine technology, has signed a licensing agreement with Tata Motors that allows that company exclusive rights to manufacture and market
an MDI car and its technology in the world's second-most populous nation."

It Was Only A Matter of Time...

Before someone used misogynistic language to describe Senator Clinton. And, big surprise, it was not on Fox Noise, but MSNBC. I am just in shock at this. And temendously saddened at what is seen as permissible regarding women. Holy cow, I haven't the foggiest how Clinton puts up with this day in and day out. I mean, I know most (all?) women deal with sexism just about every day, but to have to deal with it so publicly, and to have it be seen almost as SPORT, is just nauseating. Wow. Just freakin' wow. So, here's my latest letter to the powers-that-be at NBC:

Dear Mr. Capus and Mr. Griffin:

I am practically speechless regarding your network allowing Roger Stone to appear not once, but TWICE recently to denigrate not just Hillary Clinton, but all women, with his anti-Clinton/anti-woman 527 organization and their acronym. You, sirs, and your network, have gone beyond the pale. Your consistent enabling of sexist, and MISOGYNISTIC, behavior by your guests, your hosts, and your reporters, is appalling.

Your network has shown clear bias against Hillary Clinton since her presidential campaign began, but this - this is an all-time low. To allow this hate monger to appear on your network MORE THAN ONCE to denigrate her is just shocking. At long last, you have NO decency, sirs. None. None at all. Shame, SHAME on you. This is simply disgraceful.

I hope, and pray, that your FEC license is suspended, at the very, very least. I know that I, for one, will NEVER watch your network again, and will encourage my family and friends to do likewise.

The Rev. Amy

AND NOW, for something to counteract that vitriol, there was a lovely post by a woman at Daily Kos today regarding Senator Clinton. One of the really cool things about it is that it includes actual legislation on which she has worked (see, unlike the Obamabots, people actually KNOW what Clinton has done while in office - just sayin'!), and more about her working life post-law school. See, here's the thing - THIS kind of thing is hardly EVER discussed when it comes to Hillary - her actual history and accomplishments. Again, that is the complete and utter failure of the media. Anyway, here it is. Enjoy!

Good News

FINALLY, a 527 has been formed to help Clinton with ads. It is a group primarily from CA that stared to think about forming a while back. My only question is: what the heck took so long??? Obama has had one for a while now. Clinton sure could have used more ads in WI, for instance. Whatever. I guess better late than never. Here's the link:

And below was a really good artcile from

Elizabeth L. Keathley | Hillary's Bias Problems Have Deep Cultural Roots
Writing for Women's eNews, Elizabeth L. Keathley says, "When Hillary conforms to the norms of feminine vocal comportment, she is too careful. When she raises her voice in passion, she is shrill. Lectern-thumping, emotionally charged rhetoric by a female candidate would be dismissed as hysterical. How, then, is a female presidential candidate to speak?"

And one more thing: There is an article in today about the Superdelegates and rigging the election: The Obamamaniacs are just going nuts over the whole Superdelegates issue. Never mind that Clinton has had a few more superdelegates jump ship, including someone from NJ, which she WON, btw. Grrr. But, frankly, I see little difference between the superdelegates and the caucus concept. The latter has been a real problem, from what I understand - swarms of people coming into caucuses who are not really a part of it, but make it clear for whom the delegates have to vote (wanna take a guess just who that might be??). It just seems to me that they two concepts are about the same - they are both a bit random. But the Obamatons just don't want to hear it - they want to make sure that if anyone is rigging this nomination, it's THEM, dammit!! Ahem. Just kidding! Kind of!!

To the DNC

There is a movement afoot to write the DNC directly regarding FL and MI. I learned a LOT about how the DNC, particularly Howard Dean and Donna Brazile, changed the rules after the fact to strip FL and MI of ALL votes. I had wondered why the DNC didn't do what the RNC does - only give 50% of the votes if a state does its primary too early. Lo and behold, the DNC DOES. Just not for FL and MI. I can understand only giving MI its 50%, but FL did everything the rules required for its primary, since the date was set by the Republicans, and yet they get NO votes counted. Meanwhile, SC (as well as IA and NH) got off completely. I have heard that SC was allowed to do so because they wanted to see how Obama did down here. Sounds like the DNC is a bit biased, TOO!! I don't think they should be counting on any more contributions from me - if things don't change and fast. Just sayin'.

Dear DNC:

I am a long-time Democrat, and frequent contributor.

I am writing with a concern, and that is this: the disenfranchisement of over 2 million Democratic voters in FL and MI. I do not understand the DNC punishing Democrats for decisions made by Republicans, as is the case in FL. To take away the votes of SOME Democrats while allowing other states to VOLUNTARILY vote early is not only illogical, but it is clearly disparate treatment. Why whould Iowa, NH, and SC be allowed to vote early with NO PENALTIES, yet FL and MI are accessed incredibly HARSH penalties?

Moreover, I do not understand why you changed the rules AFTER THE FACT and elected to seat NONE of the delegates, as opposed to 50% of the delegates as the rules originally stated. How do you justify that stand?? It would certainly seem that you are showing tremendous favoritism to certain states, and callous disregard for other states, as well as their citizens. Again, how can you POSSIBLY justify this, and expect to keep this Party together?

Seat ALL of Florida's delegates. All of the candidates' names were on the ballot, and only BARACK OBAMA violated the "No Campaign" pledge in Florida by airing tv and radio ads, yet the people made their choice ABUNDANTLY clear - by a LANDSLIDE!! There is no reason at ALL to punish Florida for decisions made by REPUBLICANS! That makes this decision DOUBLY offensive.

Michigan's delegates should also be seated. Give Senator Clinton her delegates, and Obama the "Undeclared" delegates. That would be a fair solution.

What is NOT fair is to throw away one of the most PRECIOUS rights we have as Americans - the right to VOTE. That is precisely what the DNC has chosen to do. I find that to be REPREHENSIBLE.

I am EXTREMELY disappointed in the way the DNC has dealt with this situation. Again, LONG time member, and frequent contributor in the past, though further donations are certainly in doubt at this point.

I am also disappointed that I have heard NOTHING from you regarding the INCREDIBLY biased treatment of the media to the Democratic candidates (Edwards was COMPLETELY ignored), especially now. Obama gets 45 minutes of FREE AIR TIME on the cable news shows last night, interrupting Clinton just as she started to speak; over 30 minutes on Super Tuesday - ALL FREE AIR TIME, and those are just TWO examples. Clinton has REPEATEDLY received negative, and SEXIST, commentary by the media, while Obama has been declared the media darling. I, for one, do not appreciate the media picking my candidate FOR me. WE are supposed to pick our candidates, based on their records and their performance, NOT the MEDIA. How many calls have YOU made to the FEC about equal time???

Do the right thing, what the DNC SHOULD have done in the first place - SEAT THE DELEGATES, ALL of the Delegates, in FL. As for MI, DO THE RIGHT THING and FOLLOW THE DNC RULES - seat 50% of the Delegates. Anything less is a disgrace to the Democratic National Committee, and the Party as a whole.

The Rev. Amy

Wednesday, February 20, 2008

A Few Things...

So, it turns out that Clinton actually received more votes from DEMOCRATS last night in WI. WI as an open vote polcy, so anyone can vote for anybody, regardless of party affiliation (, so there's that. There has been a LOT of discussion online about Republicans and Independents determining the Democratic nominee, and there does seem to be some reality to those concerns.

The first primary in WA was a caucus one. The one last night were actual voters - about 3% separated the two frontrunners. That's it. The caucus numbers are pretty different, though. From what I just saw at the WA state site (, the parties could use a combination of the two primaries. They hold the second one to ensure that the people's voices are heard, since many people do not have the time or ability to be in a caucus. It will be interesting to see how the actual votes figure into the equation.

I have signed two different petitions to reinstate the votes of Florida and Michigan. As I have said, it is reprehensible for the DNC to dismiss the votes of over 2 million Democrats given that they had little or NO control over setting the primary dates. So much for Dean wanting to reach out to all states. Anywho - here are the petition links: and . If you are so inclined!

Holy Crap!

OK - so I'm making phone calls for Hillary in Ohio. I had two bizarre calls in a row. One was a man asking where Hillary stands on gun control, and volunteered that he believes there should be a gallows at every courthouse as a crime deterrent. He went on from there. Okey dokey! Then, I spoke with a woman who asked if Hillary was pro-life. I said she supports a woman's right to choose. The woman responded that being pro-choice supported the woman, not the child. I said that supporting a woman WAS supporting life!!! I don't think the woman agreed with me. It's actually kinda sad when you think about it - as if her own life had little or no meaning. Yikes.

Wowie zowie. I am just in shock!!!

More on Washington State

OK - I found an article in the Seattle Times about the Democratic primary last night in Washington. As I suspected, it is REALLY close. I don't think the counting is complete yet. The article claims delegates will go from the first primary. The second one, though, could be helpful with superdelegates. Here's the link:

Andy Borowitz on Plagiarism

OK - this should help ease the pain a bit. Andy Borowitz wrote this piece yesterday. If you don't know him, he is a humorist. Here's the piece:

Andy Borowitz - Winner Of The First-Ever National Press Club Award For Humor February 19, 2008

Breaking News: Obama Calls Plagiarism Flap ‘Best of Times, Worst of Times’

Tells Hillary: ‘Nobody Puts Baby in a Corner’

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama responded today to Sen. Hillary Clinton’s charge that he plagiarized a speech, saying of the controversy, “It was the best of times, it was the worst of times.”

Mr. Obama’s somewhat cryptic remark came at a fundraiser in Houston in which he dared his rival to tell the truth about the brouhaha, declaring, “You can’t handle the truth!”

The Illinois senator also told his supporters that Mrs. Clinton was trying to use the plagiarism allegations to back him into a corner, but warned, “Nobody puts Baby in a corner.”

Mr. Obama’s last remark raised eyebrows, in no small part because people were puzzled as to why he had suddenly referred to himself as “Baby.”

But the Illinois senator, who exhorted the crowd at the fundraiser to “show me the money,” seemed dismissive of Mrs. Clinton’s accusations, later telling MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell, “Frankly, my dear, I don’t give a damn.”

Professor Davis Logsdon, who studies plagiarism in the speeches of presidential candidates at the University of Minnesota’s School of Public Oratory, says that accidental plagiarism can often occur in the hurried atmosphere of a political campaign: “As Obama himself has often said, he feels the need… the need for speed.”

For his part, Mr. Obama seems to have moved past the controversy altogether, greeting his audience at a campaign rally in El Paso with his trademark welcome: “Ladies and gentlemen, I’m Johnny Cash.”

What a Night...

Wow. Very disappointing. And the love-fest with Obama continues. Once again, he was allowed to interrupt a speech by Clinton, right after she started, and then spoke for over 25 minutes. FREE AD TIME FOR OBAMA. I sure don't remember them giving CLINTON that kind of time when SHE won CA or MA or any of the other states she won! I am just at a LOSS as to how to deal with all of the media bias. It is just overwhelming.

AND - Clinton and Obama were VERY close in the Washington primary last nigt (Washington State has a three-part primary system). They were only separated by 3% when I finally went to sleep last night. I ran to my computer to check this morning, and she MOST be doing well, because both CNN and the NY Times have removed ANY tallies from Washington. I'm not kidding. I haven't been able to find them anywhere. CNN was showing it last night on television when I went to bed, too, so I know I wasn't seeing things. So where the heck did the numbers GO???? She must be doing well, right? Bizarre.

But there was one bright light, and Chris Matthews, of ALL people, was the one to bring it. He asked TX state senator and Obama endorser, Kirk Watson, what legislation Obama had passed. Watson couldn't anwer him. Well, no duh! Still, GOOD that SOMEONE is finally asking something of substance about this candidate. Here is the link to watch: And you can read about it at

Finally, I wrote Senator Edwards again, asking him to throw his support to Clinton. Her policies most mirror his, and surely, he has noticed the biased coverage as well as his blatant plagarism of Clinton's policy speeches (which, sadly, just doesn't seem to bother people - what has HAPPENED to this country?!?). If anyone else wants to write, his contact info is:

We gotta keep up the good fight, people...

Tuesday, February 19, 2008

"This One's For the Girl"

This is a great pro-Hillary, pro-woman video. It doesn't hurt that Martina McBride sings the song by the title above. Wow. It really moved me:

And there is another moving piece at by high school and college friends of Chelsea's. It really helps to get a fuller picture of Hillary:

More Lies

So today, at, some blogger named Roger Simon, posted that Clinton is going after Obama's pledged delegates. Later on, he said that Obama's people were probably doing the same thing. But here's the thing: Clinton is NOT poaching Obama's delegates! This just makes me nuts. Grrr. Anyway, here is what I posted in response to his entry:

This is the precisely the problem with TOO many Obama supporters - THEY DON'T DO THEIR HOMEWORK!!! Just because this guy is SAYING Clinton is doing this does NOT Mean she is doing it! Here is what her campaign site says:

"Hillary Clinton Campaign Position On Pledged Delegates:

There are inaccurate reports today about how the Hillary Clinton campaign intends to pursue the nomination. Here is our official position:

We have not, are not and will not pursue the pledged delegates of Barack Obama. It's now time for the Obama campaign to be clear about their intentions."

SO DO YOUR HOMEWORK!! It is important to CHECK THE FACTS FIRST before you attack Clinton!

And frankly, I am sick and tired of how the media is CONSTANTLY attacking her, and giving Obama free pass after free pass. He can make sexist comments (and has), he can lie about her positions, like NAFTA, and does (ignoring the fact that HE spoke in favor of NAFTA in 2004!!!), he can steal her Economic speech (and did), and HE started saying negative things about HER in his speeches FIRST, all with a free pass.

That is all to say: Look before you leap onto that bandwagon, folks.

Holy cow, HOW is she supposed to compete against these fallacious attacks?!! Sheesh!

Today is a big primary day in Wisconsin and Hawaii - if you have time to make some calls, that would be great!

Monday, February 18, 2008

Media Matters and David Shuster

This is an interesting piece about David Shuster and the media treatment of Cinton. Now, I don't agree with everything that Sklar said - I did not think Shuster's comment was so innocent, but other than that, she makes some excellent points, and PROVES a point with the interviewer. Here's the link:

What a Uniter - Haha

I received an email from an old friend of my Cousin Ellen's, also an Education professor, down in Florida. She included some very interesting links, including the one below by Larry Johnson. Johnson, as you might recall, was a fellow classmate of Valerie Plame Wilson's at the CIA. This is an interesting piece, with one disclaimer - he mentioned Kerry throwing his medals over the wall during the Vietnam War. Kerry did not - he threw the RIBBONS from his medals over. I have no love lost for Kerry, but felt this should be clarified. I know it makes a big dfference to military people. Anywho - here is the article:

Also from Huffington Post: Quote of the day: Obama on Clinton
"I understand that Senator Clinton, periodically when she's feeling down, launches attacks as a way of trying to boost her appeal."

--Sen. Barack Obama speaking about Sen. Hillary Clinton's campaign tactics to reporters on Friday, as quoted by the Associated Press.

-- Katharine Mieszkowski

Wow - what a nice guy! Oh, but wait - there's more (and this was one in particular mentioned by the Ed. prof., who also said she can just IMAGINE what would have happened had Clinton said ANYTHING like this about Obama):

And finally, this piece. Now, the piece is good - but check out some of the comments. If there is any doubt that sexism is a love and well, if the "Got Pimp" type comments, or the other offensive things said about Clinton detailed here, just take a look at the comments. Holy Cow. Anywho - here's the article links:

Thanks, N, for all of the good information - it really came in helpful in my jetlagged state!

Sunday, February 17, 2008


I forgot, since I was writing from an airport this morning (Sand Diego) and doing the same now (Charlotte), to add something really disturbing I saw the other day. Chelsea Clinton was speaking at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, to a group of students. One if the signs being held up was, "Got Pimp?" in reference to the disturbing comment David Shuster made regarding Chelsea and Hillary. I have seen too many comments of people saying, "what's the big deal about what Shuster said?"

Sigh. Just thought I'd share.

Sexism v. Racism

My dear friend, Marilyn, who has an insightful comment regarding young women and Hillary in an earlier blog on my frustration and sadness, pointed out this article in today's Boston Globe: . It is well-worth a read, and I commend it to you.

After reading Marilyn's comments, my frustration returned (okay - it isn't all that deep in terms of this whole election, so it hadn't far to go). I am so frustrated that these young people are not doing their homework on these two candidates. When it comes to Clinton, I am dismayed that these young people are buying into the RIGHT WING talking points on Clinton. Or that so many women are mad at her for staying with Bill after Monica. And here's the thing - first of all, it is in the Right Wing's best interest to tear her down - she is, IMHO, the most qualified out of ALL of the candidates running to lead this country. Second of all, WHOSE business is it to criticize her personal choice to stay with her husband after he had an affair? How many women, and men, choose to stay with their partners following such a painful event? Plenty, I'll tell you, in my professional AND personal experience. SO why is it that HILLARY is villified for her choice to stay with Bill? And what the hell kind of feminists ARE we when we diminish choices made by other women? NONE of us knows the ins and outs of that relationship - NONE OF US. So to judge another person based on the crapola the REPUBLICANS sought out to bring down a great president just irritates me. She stayed with him - for wahtever her reasons. And it has been a while, now, too, so what the heck with rehashing this over and over? It is just doing more of the Right Wing's work for them. WHY WOULD WE DO THAT??

The issue with young people in this particular election is really getting to me, though. Hillary has worked HARD for women and children her entire adult life. As my friend, Marilyn, pointed out, it is PRECISELY because of women like HER that these young women have all of the opportunities they enjoy today. It is a sad commentary that they have not been made more aware of this very recent history, or the struggles so many of us endured. Many young people are surprised when they asked if I played sports in high school and I tell them the only teams the GIRLS had were intramural ones (and yes, I did play). Or that my partner did not continue playing soccer when she got to UVA because there were no school sponsored women's teams (and she's 8 years younger than I am).

This, along with my constant hashing of Obama's relations with people like Lieberman and the lack of homework being done by all of these college kids, and it really makes me despair. The blind bandwagon jumping on at such a serious time in our country's history is exactly what we DON'T need. We need someone who can LEAD, someone who is serious (though Hillary does have a great sense of humor), someone who can make some sense out of the mess that will be left after Bush. I don't care that her last name is Clinton - I care that this brilliant, committed woman is willing to take on fixing the many problems with which we are faced.

So, to the young women and men - do your freaqkin' homework already!! Look into the candidates histories, their records, as well as their rhetoric! And especially for the young women - you need to go back and look at that it took to get the women's vote in this country; what it took to get Title IX in this country, and to ask yourself - who will get you Equal Pay for Equal Work in this country??? Then choose.

Saturday, February 16, 2008

Oh, McCain...

How could he turn his back on his own horrendous experiences? That McCain, of all people, would vote against a prohibition on torture is just plain shocking. Truly. After all he has said on this topic, to then capitulate to the rabid Republicans (and Lieberman) is simply reprehensible.

And Lieberman. Obama's mentor. Also voted against the torture ban. And here's a big surprise - not - the media has said NOTHING about their close association. Or that Obama helped this folksy-style war-monger beat Ned Lamont in CT.

Wow. That the vote on this was so close - 51-45 - is a stain on our country. And Obama's good buddy helped to make it close.

And McCain - whatever respect I had for him is completely lost. He appears to be lost, too - so desperate for the presidency that he sold his soul. That is just tragic.

Friday, February 15, 2008

Chafee, Lewis, FL, and Superdelegates

OK - so now Lincoln Chafee, the former Republican senator from RI, has endorsed Obama. Holy cow - can you IMAGINE the hew and cry from Democrats across the land if he had endorsed CLINTON???? They would have said, "SEE?? Told you she was really a Republican!!" And on, and on. But Obama? They'll say, "See?? We TOLD you he was a Uniter!" GRRRR.

And John Lewis, Clinton's longtime friend and ally, jumping ship on her is insulting at best. The headlines are reading, "Black leaders abandon Clinton" - stgill want to tell me this isn't a racially divided contest? Yeah, sure, okay. Again, never mind how much Clinton has done for the African American community her entire adult life. The first time she asks for their support, they abandon her. Great. Really shows these leaders for who they are, and who they are showing themselves to be has made me lose a LOT of respect for them.

Then there's Florida. So, the media would have you believe that the Florida Democrats decided to take it to the Party and hold their elections early. Not so. It was because of the REPUBLICAN Party in FL that their primary was so early. Are you seriously going to tell me that you are going to disenfranchise 1.5 MILLION Dermocrats because of something the REPUBLICANS did? And despite Obama's hypocrtical cry that it would be unfair since they didn't campaign there, he DID campaign there, AND HE LOST!!! He is such a petulant, sore loser. Really, really reminds me of our current WHite House occupant. If he doesn't win, he throws a hissy fit. Again, grrrr.

And then there is the whole outrage over the Superdelegates and the role they will play. has a whole petition drive going to ensure that the delegates vote the will of the people. Well, guess who has given them $694,000 to make SURE they vote "the will of the people"?? That's right - BARACK OBAMA!! Mr. "Change and Hope, not the usual Washington Insider!" Since 2005!!! Yep!!! Oh, and Clinton? $195,500. Those are the numbers. Here's the link: So maybe those Obamamaniacs oughta shut the hell up al;ready since THEIR candidate is the one who has been buying the most influence!!! I guarantee you - they will find a way to spin this, too. No doubt.

Oh, and funny - I don't recall the NY Times or Washington Post or LA Times or any of the big papers running this information. What a big ol' surprise. I guess SOMEONE is starting to pay a little bit of attention, but I fear it will be too late to make a difference.

Along those lines, Chelsea Clinton has started a campaign to have 1,000,000 phone calls in three weeks!! If you have some time to volunteer, it is easy as all get out to make calls for Clinton. Just go to, and go to the Action tab. You'll see the place to make calls. They set the whole thing up for you - you just read it off the computer screen. Couldn't be easier! Let's go, Hillary!

Thursday, February 14, 2008

One Way To Fix It...

That is, the frequent claims that Obama is all fluff and no substance. He took to Wisconsin yesterday, touting his economic policies of millions of Green Jobs and Infratructure Banking, among other things. The only problem with his "new" economic policies? They're CLINTON'S policies, which she laid out MONTHS ago!! The articles I have seen have a one or two line mention that Clinton says these are hers, then go along to tout how wonderful Obama is, and how he has silenced the critics.

His supporters, too, say, what's the big deal (on the blogs I have seen)? Who cares who came out with it first?? Oh, I don't know - because it's PLAGARISM?? UNETHICAL? This is so, so, so typical - again, it's like the person in the office who steals the smart person's idea, then gets all the credit for it. It was so blatant in fact, that the McCain people had something to say about it: "Obama's (economic) plan. is the most shameless piece of potential plagiarism that I have ever seen. He basically took Clinton's words and Clinton's policies and called them his own. If I were a professor I'd give him an F and try to get him kicked out of school," said Kevin Hassett, Sen. John McCain's economic advisor and the Director of Economic Policy Studies at the American Enterprise Institute. ( Holy Toledo - couldn't have said it better myself!

As for where the FREAK have these reporters been when HILLARY was talking about these policies? Oh, wait - I know that one, too. They just chalked it up to her being "wonkish" and all about policy, and didn't pay any attention to what she actually said. Those of us who have attended her rallies KNOW she said them because we heard them with our own ears! "Oh, but that's just that Wonkish Hillary going on about some policy or another - who really cares?"

And now that Obama is parroting HER, nay, STEALING her material, he's BRILLIANT!! What GREAT ideas!!! This happens so often, it makes me nuts. The person who actually DID the work gets very little, or no credit, for it. The person who steals it gets lauded and elevated. We are truly living in upside-down world. I guess long gone are the days when to plagarize someone was considered BAD, and a stain upon one's reputation, the comments from the McCain camp notwithstanding.

Wow - do people really not care that this man didn't even create his OWN policies he's touting?!?! Shame on them, then. And SHAME on Obama for stealing her material and claiming it for his own. And SHAME on the media for allowing him to get away with it instead of labeling it the plagarism it is. SHAME!!!

Oh, and then there is the NY Times article claiming Clinton is running a "negative" ad regarding Obama's unwillingness to debate her in Wisconsin. Even many of the Obama supporters had to admit that it wasn't negative, and they didn't understand why the Times would phrase it that way. Once again, I know why - because it is Clinton, and she is damned if she does, damned if she doesn't. If she doesn't challenge him, she is weak. If she does challenge him, she's being "negative" (which in women-speak means BAD). Heck - when the OBAMA supporters are starting to blog at the Times (in a number of places, actually) that Clinton sure seems to get a lot of bad press and very little positive coverage, you KNOW it's bad!

Something sure has to change. And fast. Or Clinton's chances will be dashed, not by her or her policies, but by the incredibly skewed coverage she has gotten and continues to get.

One caveat to that - there was an article by Dean Reynolds of CBS talking about Clinton's rallies. It was a bit of a fluff piece, and a bit sexist. But he did say that Clinton and her supporters clearly have a connection, and that we love her. And that there are lots of us at these rallies (nice for someone to finally notice). Her supporters cheer for her just as louldy, but since her crowds are primarily women, it is not the same ROAR that Obama gets at his (I am not making this up, people). So, a real back-handed compliment, but that is about all for which Clinton can hope with the media THESE days, I'm afraid. Anyway, here's the link:

Wednesday, February 13, 2008

Joseph C. Wilson on Hillary Clinton

I just saw this in, and feel compelled to include the entire article here:

Joseph C. Wilson
Become a Fan Get Email Alerts Similar Bloggers
Posted February 13, 2008 | 12:45 AM (EST)

With the emergence of Sen. John McCain as the presumptive Republican nominee, the choice for the Democrats in the 2008 presidential election now shifts to who is best positioned to beat him, in what promises to be a more hard-fought campaign -- and perhaps a nastier one -- than Democrats anticipated.

Sen. Barack Obama's promise of transformation and an end of partisan politics has its seductive appeal. The Bush-Cheney era, after all, has been punctuated by smear campaigns, character assassinations and ideological fervor.

Nobody dislikes such poisonous partisanship, especially in foreign policy, more than I do. I am one of very few Foreign Service officers who have served as ambassador in the administrations of both George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton, yet I have spent the past four years fighting a concerted character assassination campaign orchestrated by the George W. Bush White House.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is one of the few who fully understood the stakes in that battle. Time and again, she reached out to my wife -- outed CIA officer Valerie Plame Wilson -- and me to remind us that as painful as the attacks were, we simply could not allow ourselves to be driven from the public square by bullying. To do so would validate the radical right's thesis that the way to win debates is to demonize opponents, taking full advantage of the natural desire to avoid confrontation, even if it means yielding on substantive issues. Hillary knew this from experience, having spent the better part of the past 20 years fighting the Republican attack machine. She is a fighter.

But will Mr. Obama fight? His brief time on the national scene gives little comfort. Consider a February 2006 exchange of letters with Mr. McCain on the subject of ethics reform. The wrathful Mr. McCain accused Mr. Obama of being "disingenuous," to which Mr. Obama meekly replied, "The fact that you have now questioned my sincerity and my desire to put aside politics for the public interest is regrettable but does not in any way diminish my deep respect for you." Then one of McCain's aides said of Obama, "Obama wouldn't know the difference between an RPG and a bong."

Mr. McCain was insultingly dismissive but successful in intimidating his inexperienced colleague. Thus, in his one face-to-face encounter with Mr. McCain, Mr. Obama failed to stand his ground.

What gives us confidence Mr. Obama will be stronger the next time he faces Mr. McCain, a seasoned political fighter with extensive national security credentials? Even more important, what special disadvantages does Mr. Obama carry into this contest on questions of national security?

How will Mr. Obama answer Mr. McCain about his careless remark about unilaterally bombing Pakistan -- perhaps blowing up an already difficult relationship with a nuclear state threatened by Islamic extremists? How will Mr. Obama respond to charges made by the Kenyan government that his campaigning activities in Kenya in support of his distant cousin running for president there made him "a stooge" and constituted interference in the politics of an important and besieged ally in the war on terror?

How will he answer charges that his desire for unstructured personal summits without preconditions with a host of America's adversaries, from Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to Kim Jong Il, would be little more than premature capitulation?

Senator Obama claims superior judgment on the war in Iraq based on one speech given as a state legislator representing the most liberal district in Illinois at an anti-war rally in Chicago, and in so doing impugns the integrity of those who were part of the debate on the national scene. In mischaracterizing the debate on the Authorization for the Use of Military Force as a declaration of war, he implicitly blames Democrats for George Bush's war of choice. Obama's negative attack line does not conform to the facts. Nothing could be farther from the truth. I should know. I was among the most prominent anti-war voices at the time -- and never heard about or from then Illinois State Senator Obama.

George Bush made it clear publicly when lobbying for the bill that he wanted it not to go to war but to give him the leverage he needed to go to the United Nations and secure intrusive inspections of Saddam's suspected Weapons of Mass Destruction sites. Who could argue with that goal? Colin Powell made the same case individually to Senators in the run up to the vote, including to Senator Clinton. It is not credible that Senator Obama would not have succumbed to Secretary Powell's arguments had he been in Washington at the time. Why not? Obama himself suggested so in 2004. "I'm not privy to Senate intelligence reports,' Obama said. 'What would I have done? I don't know." He also told the Chicago Tribune in 2004: "There's not much of a difference between my position and George Bush's position at this stage." According to press reports, Powell is now an informal adviser to Mr. Obama.

In his tendentious attack, Obama never mentions that Hans Blix, the chief United Nations weapons inspectors, declared that without the congressional Authorization for the Use of Military Force the inspectors would never have been allowed into Iraq. Hillary's approach -- and that of the majority of Democrats in the Senate -- was to let the inspectors complete their work while building an international coalition. Hillary's was the road untaken. The betrayal of the American people, and of the Congress, came when President Bush refused to allow the inspections to succeed, and that betrayal is his and his party's, not the Democrats.

Contrary to the myth of his campaign, 2008 is not the year for transcendental transformation. The task for the next administration will be to repair the damage done by eight years of radical rule. And the choice for Americans is clear: four more years of corrupt Republican rule, senseless wars, evisceration of the Constitution, emptying of the national treasury -- or rebuilding our government and our national reputation, piece by piece. Obama's overtures to Republicans, or "Obamacans" as the Senator calls them, is a substitute for true national unity based on a substantive program. His marginal appeals have marginally helped him in caucuses in Republican states that Democrats won't win in the general election. But his vapid rhetoric will not withstand the winds of November. His efforts will be correctly seen by the Republican leadership as a sign of weakness to be exploited. While disaffected Democrats may long for comity in our politics after years of being harangued and belittled by the right wing echo chamber, the Rovians currently promoting Obama are looking to destroy him should he become the nominee. Obama's claim to float uniquely above the fray and avoid polarization will be short-lived. He is no less mortal than any other Democrat -- Michael Dukakis, Al Gore, John Kerry -- all untouched at the beginning of their campaigns and all mauled by the end. We should never forget recent history.

In order to effect practical change against a determined adversary, we do not need a would-be philosopher-king but a seasoned gladiator who understands the fight Democrats will face in the fall campaign and in governing.

Theodore Roosevelt once commented, "It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again, who, at the best, knows, in the end, the triumph of high achievement, and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly."

If he were around today, TR might be speaking of the woman in the arena. Hillary Clinton has been in that arena for a generation. She is one of the few to have defeated the attack machine that is today's Republican Party and to have emerged stronger. She is deeply knowledgeable about governing; she made herself into a power in the Senate; she is respected by our military; and she never flinches. She has never been intimidated, not by any Republican -- not even John McCain.

Barack Obama claims to represent the future, but it should be increasingly evident that he is not the man for this moment, especially with Mr. McCain's arrival. We've seen a preview of that contest already. It was a TKO.

This article is adapted from a piece published in the Baltimore Sun on February 12, 2008

So Frustrated; So Sad; So Fed Up...

By the continued Golden One Annointment on the media. I can barely stomach watching ANY news now because every time I turn it on, there is Obama giving a speech. Then, the commentators gush over him. Blech.

And so sad because of Hillary's losses. The African American community is CLEARLY voting in a bloc, something women sure aren't doing. I don't want to hear that it is just THIS woman they won't support. I thnk Campbell Brown's reaction to Paul Begala last night says it all. He said that Hillary has proven she can TAKE a punch; now she has to prove she can THROW a punch and go on the attack. Campbell all but said that would not be lady-like. Begala responded that Obama has been attacking Hillary in every single speech, and she needs to respond in kind. "But ladies don't DO things like that." And when Hillary DOES confront him, like about his whole nuclear energy legislation reported recently in the NY Times? He calls her a liar, and the press lookis no further into it.

Which is all to say that I am tremendously sad that this nation seems nowhere closer to being able to vote for a woman for president now. The blatant sexism in discussing Clinton (as I have already noted) is just rampant - it seeps into EVERYTHING I have heard about her. Her voice, her dress style, her mannerisms, EVERYTHING. I am so sad, and angry, that the Feminist movement has been pushed back so hard over the past 20 years, that young women have NO idea how hard we fought for them to have what they have, and many older women have become too complacent, or just gave up. So, some smooth talker comes along, and they fall for it hook, line, and sinker.

Every time they rag on Hillary, they are ragging on ALL women. And I am sick and tired of it - sick and tired of having put up with this all of my life; sick and tired that their attacks on Hillary for being a woman are WORKING, sick and tired of women not sticking with women. And hell to the yes, it IS a gender thing! Same as it is for African Americans to vote predominantly for Obama. It reminds me of something my chosen brother, Patrick, has said over and over and over: women will NEVER vote in a bloc, which means they end up voting against their own self interests. Amen to that. And that makes me sad, too. I am sick of living in a country where women can be raped by their fellow employees (Halliburton), and have the company cover up for the rapists. I am sick of living in a country where a woman soldier can be raped by her commanding officer and SHE'S the one in the brig. I am sick of living in a country where men who rape women serve less time in prison than someone who commits a robbery, Sadly, I could go on and on (and I haven't even TOUCHED the issue of domestic violence, and the preponderance of it being directed at women). I am sick and tired of being a second class citizen in my own country.

Don't even get me started on what it is like being a lesbian in this country (still illegal in 31 states). Talk about second class citizenry. Add to that our representatives actively lobbying AGAINST us, and oh, whew - am I fed up with THAT. I have been out for over 31 years. Unless you are also lesbian/gay/bi, you cannot imagine how it feels to watch these legislators stand up there and talk about you in the most demaning ways possible, and want to change the Constitution to EXCLUDE you. You cannot imagine the anger, the pain, the sorrow that your own country has not only forsaken you, but wants to increase the criminality of who you are. No matter how much you have done to give back, no matter how much you pay in taxes, no matter what you bring to the table, no matter that you ARE a US citizen. To constantly hear your community affiliated with pedophilia and beastiality...If this was ANY other group, you wouldn't hear this - but as I have said in a previous posts, women, lesbians, gay men, bisexuals, and transgendered people are all fair game. There are no holds barred when it comes to us.

And I am fed up that the freakin' Senate just voted to give the telecom industries immunity from spying on US! AND gave Bush the expanded spying powers he wanted! WHAT THE FREAK????? So much for having a Democratic majority - they are still handing this horrendous president with HORRIBLE poll numbers EVERYTHING HE WANTS!!!

I have worked on political issues since I was in high school, and I am so sick and tired of our representatives not listening to US, and allowing corporations to dictate our policies.

My partner just reminded me of a line in "The American President": "You don't fight the fights you think you can win; you fight the fights that need fighting." I'll try to remember that, though it is mighty hard at the moment...

Tuesday, February 12, 2008

Obama Train and Clinton

Well, the Obama train keeps a-moving, with the sanction of the media. WOW - just like 2000 all over again. I've decided that, given the way Obama has conducted himself, his arrogance, his so-called Uniter-but-Divider actions, his wife attacking Clinton, HIM attacking Clinton, his devious campiagn strategies (mailers, etc.), and the sheer hypocrisy of him attacking Clinton for being on the board of Wal-Mart YEARS ago while his wife was a PAID executrive the board of a pet food co. that makes pet food for - you got it - WAL-Mart, among other things*, that I cannot vote for him. It occurred to me this morning that I can WRITE IN Clinton's name. I do believe she is the BEST candidate, and once the Republicans get a hold of Obama, people are going to realize maybe they should have slowed down on the Kool-Aid.

I might add, the Obamamaniacs have really pushed this division, too. Paul Krugman had an EXCELLENT article on it in the NY Times:

As far as I am concerned, we have gone through eight long years of a president whose arrogance was termed "charm" by the media, whose claims to be a Uniter have been blown out of the freakin' water unless you consider all of those Iraqis who have been united with their deceased loved ones, whose record was investigated only in the most superficial of ways, who has anger issues (his friends have commented on this, and he gets downright nasty should he LOSE a state - surely the Clintons must have STOLEN it from him!!), who engaged in underhanded attacks on his opponents, and the list goes on and on. I just cannot do it. Not to mention Obama isn't the greatest on lesbian/gay rights either, so add THAT to all of the other crapola and it just leaves me cold. I cannot vote for a Republican, that's for sure, so a write-in seems like a viable option (unless someone can convince me why it isn't, and I'll listen, I promise). It just seems like WAY too much of the same. And heck - he's gonna get all of these Independents and Republicans to vote for him anyway, so apparently, he doesn't need all of the Democrats to vote for him!

So, now the media is showing Obama in front of his adoring fans, and having his wife on CNN the night before the big primaries today. They show Clinton walking through a factory, but they do not go into what kind of factory it IS, and what her plans are for integrating green technology into the automobile industry. Those plans INCLUDE bringing back the plug-in electric cars that were yanked off the market when gas prices went up. Why bother mentioning that she actually has PLANS to deal with global warming and the environment when we can show young people screaming their heads off for Obama?? Exactly. And see, this really matters to ME - the environment and the increased destruction in Bush's reign. But when the hard questions are not asked, when the smart women is dismissed for having some ideas about how to make things better (you know, being "wonkish) in favor of the quarterback, well - how do we get the adults back in the room to look at the ISSUES and not vote on popularity??

And might I add one more time how sick and tired I am of the media dismissing WHO makes up the Clinton Supporters? As I understand it, people who support Obama are rich and well-educated, or college kids, or African Americans (and can I also say how quickly the Clintons were thrown under the bus by a constitutency for whom they have been working their entire adult lives?!?! All of that has been completely forgotten now. And, it has been forgotten in large part because of how the Obama comapign AND the media twisted what Bill Clinton said in SC. Look at the freakin' video to see what he REALLY said. Like Bill Maher the other night on Larry King saying when the media was claiming Bill was OUT OF CONTROL, raging at them, he couldn't wait to see the video! Clinton held up a finger to a reporter. Maher, who is NO Hillary supporter, I'll tell you, couldn't BELIEVE how the media was reporting it!). Well, I'm pretty well educated. My uncle has been a Greek and Latin professor at some of the finest institutions in the country, including Smith College, and HE supports Clinton. My cousin, a professor of Education in NY State supports Clinton. I could go on and on and on, but the point is clear - her supporters are lumped into ONE group, while there seems to be plenty of room for all kinds of people in Obama's camp, especially the smart people (that's DEFINITELY the implication). So much for Obama claiming he got his chops as being an organizer on the mean streets of Chicago! That being said, it is classist in many ways - an issue we do not deal well with here in the USA. ANd it is an effort to minimize her camp, and that speaks volumes all on its own. Not that it SHOULD, but it does. Just sayin'.

So we'll see what happens today. Gotta keep the faith!

Monday, February 11, 2008

Stanley Fish and Bill Press

Stanley Fish has an updated column to his piece last week regarding the irrational hatred of Hillary Clinton. One thing he makes clear, as I have, is that OBAMA istoking these fires regarding how divisive Clinton is. Not a speech goes by that he doesn't mention that, or cite polls about how HE is the one to beat McCain because Clinton is too divisive. So much for the Unifier guy - just more and more like Geroge W. Bush every day, if you ask me...Here is the link:

And Bill Press, the man in the middle of the David Shuster storm, has a piece in the, a bit shocking considering how anti-Clinton THAT site is. I am including that piece below.

As I keep saying, both articles highlight the blatant anit-Clinton bias in the media, as well as the ratchet response to allow the most rabid among us, as well as Republicans, to determine our nominee. Craig Crawford said recently that the anti-Hillary hatred is bordering on mental illness. By allowing the lowest common denominator to determine our nominee IS mental illness. It is a phenomenon seen in many churches, synagogues, non-profit organizations, and other systems, and one Rabbi Friedman, a psychiatrist, spoke of often. In essence, if the healthy people overfunction for the unhealthy people, it brings EVERYONE down. And that is what is happening now. Even people who LIKE Clinton, and WANT to vote for her, are afraid to do so because they are buying into the ranters and ravers. Sigh.

Bill Press

Caught in the Middle of David Shuster's Screwup
Posted February 9, 2008 | 01:54 PM (EST)

Meet the man in the middle. MSNBC's David Shuster was suspended for a question about Chelsea Clinton he asked -- me!

Appearing as a guest on Tucker last Thursday, with Shuster sitting in as guest host, I was puzzled when he brought up Chelsea's increasingly prominent role in the campaign and suggested that this was somehow "unseemly." Not at all, I responded. She was campaigning for her mom. Just like the Bush twins stumped for their dad. What's unseemly about that? (I should have, but didn't, think of mentioning the five Romney sons).

But Shuster persisted. Chelsea was even calling super delegates. Wasn't she being "pimped" into a more active role? Even though I winced at the word "pimped," I stuck to my point that Chelsea's campaigning for her mother is what family members always do. Like Michelle Obama, campaigning for her husband. No big deal. "Give Chelsea a break," I told Shuster.

Did his question merit suspension? Absolutely. Shuster's a damned good reporter, who's always been religiously fair. But even the best of us can sometimes go over the line. Chris Matthews did, earlier. This time, it was Shuster. Except he, unlike Matthews, has to pay the price.

But, of course, this isn't the first sign of media bias, intended or unintended. What's most disturbing about Shuster's pimp remark is that it reinforces the impression of media bias in this campaign.

It began with the networks' deciding which candidates were serious and which were not -- and therefore ignoring qualified contenders like Joe Biden or Ron Paul. It continued with the media's admitted infatuation with John McCain and Barack Obama. It culminated with the media's declaring open season on the Clintons. In contrast to fawning reports about Obama crowds, every story about the Clinton campaign is sprinkled with snide, critical, even crude, comments about Hillary or Bill. Now not even Chelsea is spared.

Enough's enough. The media's role is to report on the primaries, not decide the primaries. No candidate deserves favorable treatment. The media should treat all of them equally badly. That's their job. And there's a big difference between their job and ours. To bend a phrase: "They report. We decide."

Sunday, February 10, 2008

Huckabee?? Please...And More on MSNBC.

Are you freakin' KIDDING ME?!?! This man is NUTS!!!! IMHO, that is. He DID say, though, that people with AIDS should all have to live together when he was the governor of AR. AND, signed onto a huge-o ad in the NY Times saying that women should be submissive to their husbands. AND, just recently, that if HE becomes president, he will work to amend the US Constitution to make it more in line with God's standards (I KID YOU NOT - here it is: This is the man who just took two states yesterday (not that I like McCain at all, but at least he isn't a complete fundamentalist anti-democratic candidate.

Here's the interesting thing - Huckabee and Obama have won pretty much the same areas. Like in Florida - the counties Obama won, Huckabee won. Then Kansas and Louisiana. I'm just sayin', I think it is an interesting correlation. Someone should do some research on this!! Ahem. Seriously - it does seem a bit odd.

Along those lines, the media has continued to give Obama unfettered access to the airwaves. His speeches fill the time, and when he isn't on, they'll have his wife. Like his wife on Larry King (who is a bit nuts himself). How can Clinton POSSIBLY continue to fight against this tidal wave of either negative or nonexistent coverage?? (Frank Rich had an obnoxious piece about her again this week, particularly regarding her Town Hall Forum. He and Maureen Dowd should form their own NY Times, "We Despise Hillary Clinton" fan club - wait, it seems they already have.) If all people see is Obama's smiling face and oratorical ability, and hear close to nothing about Clinton (or crap about her), why WOULDN'T people go for Obama?? I'm tellin' ya - he's going to get swept in, and THEN the media will start asking more questions.

Speaking of questions - on the way out to San Diego today, I sat near a man from NC who is a BIG Edwards fan, and supported him. And he, too, dredged up Obama's BIG talking point about Clinton voting for that damned resolution. Well, SO DID EDWARDS, yet HIS feet were rarely held to that fire - it was all Clinton,a s if she single-handedly took our troops to war. This is yet another CRITICAL difference in how she has been treated by Obama AND the media.

How do we stuff the media's biased reporting??? One outstanding source for media oversight is Media Matters (, which often has lots of links to contact the big muckety mucks at different news outlets. Sometime, I'll go into how it was founded. For now, there is an excellent outline of NBC/MSNBC's history of tolerating sexism and misogyny, including the recent deplorable comments by David Shuster (and good for Olbermann - he did say Shuster's comments were horrible). It was compiled by the founder of Media Matters, David Brock. Here's the link:

OK - I'm jetlagged and plumb tuckered out, as we say down South, so that's it for now.

Saturday, February 9, 2008

Gone Fishin'...

Well, not really, but we are getting ready to go to CA for a week, and I DO intend to go on a whale watch...Anywho - this will be brief.

So, Obama is claiming he is the best candidate to run against McCain. I still do not understand WHY Democrats think we need to elect candidates in REACTION to whom the Republicans choose. Shouldn't we be chosing THE BEST CANDIDATE FOR THE JOB?? If Clinton is the nominee, and IMHO, she SHOULD be, and the Democrats unite against the mean-spirited, flip flopping, "let's stay in Iraq for all eternity" McCain, there is no reason my DOG shouldn't win against him!! So for Obama to be claiming he's the one to do that is just preposterous. As long as the Obamabots can come back to the Democratic Party when he loses the nomination, and support the Party nominee, it is a no-brainer.

Speaking of McCain, I highly recommend this memo at

Oh, yeah - and he might want to be just a tad les rabid abt demanding Clinton's tax returns. The whole "people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones" thing. Now, I know he is getting a big, huge-o pass from the media, but eventually, people are going to want HIM to answer just a few questions, too - like, "Senator Obama, what are the chances you would have made it into the IL senate if your good indicted-and-in-jail buddy hadn't given you so much money or done so much darn fund-raising for you?" Or, so can you please explain what you continue to tout that you are anti-Iraq invasion, but keep funding it?" Or, "how is it that one of the most conservative war-hawk senators is your BFF?" Just sayin'.

Anywho - I am GLAD David Shuster has been suspended, and maybe this is the wake-up call MSNBC has SORELY needed for MONTHS now - to stop being such misogynistic, sexist, chauvinistic pigs. (Hey, a woman can hope, can't she??)

And, Senator Clinton, I am sorry you have had to deal with such incredible crap during this campaign. Your strength and courage are AMAZING!!!! GO CLINTON - I hope you SWEEP the primaries today!!!

Friday, February 8, 2008

Great Article

I commend the following article from to you: "Media Downplay Widespread Support for Hillary," By Peggy Simpson, Women's Media Center
Wonkish Clinton may never match Obama's soaring rhetoric about hope, but the media should not underestimate the strength of her campaign.

Ms. Simpson has some mighty impressive credentials (bottom of the article).


Amazingly, nay, UNBELIEVABLY, David Shuster has been suspended from MSNBC as a result of his comments. Clinton is now saying that she may not do any more debates conducted by NBC - who the heck can blame her?!?!

Oh, and Shuster has been trying to get in touch with the Clintons to apologize. Hopefully for real this time, since his apology this morning was basically that he stood behind the intent of his comment even though he labeled Chelsea a whore and her mother a pimp. I mean, really - what CONTENT behind THAT is acceptable?!?! Sheesh.

So, good for MSNBC for finally doing the right thing. It is SAD, though, that it took something like this, for this level of sexism/misogyny on a national level, to finally be acknowledged. I swannee - I just don't know how things have gotten this bad in a relatively short period of time...So many of us worked so hard for so long in the '70's and '80's, and here we are. Exclusive language used with regularity - women soccer players are yelling, "Man on" when a player is coming up on them, and the announcers use the same language when not one man is visible on the field of play - same with basketball. WHAT does that tell our girls? That they are not heralded as being WOMEN athletes, but some kind of lesser form of MALE athletes? And any ATTEMPT at inclusive language seems to have fallen by the wayside despite the fact that we KNOW language shapes our reality.

And Clinton is bearing the brunt of it on a national scale. Chris Matthews, of MSNBC, said that to some men, Clinton's voice "is like fingernails on a chalkboard" ( Tucker Carlson, on MSNBC (naturally - see a pattern here??), says things like the following, "I have often said, when she comes on television, I involuntarily cross my legs." ( Don't take my word for it - Jamison Foser of Media Matters has laid out the past three weeks at MSNBC beautifully, if not shockingly when you read just some of the crap these men have said:

This is the barest TIP of the iceberg, and only two incidents on one network. These kinds of comments would absolutely, under no frikkin' circumstances whatsoEVER be tolerated of almost any other group on the planet*. But women are still fair game for this kind of misogynistic vitriol, and Clinton is taking it on the chin for many of us. Just listen to how the pundits describe Clinton's supporters - you'll see what I mean. We gotta keep fighting, people - we gotta keep fighting for Clinton, and for all women, girls, and the men who support women. Rock on.

*Lesbians, gay men, bisexuals, and transgendered people are also fair game. In a big way.

Holy. Freaking. COW!!!

I just saw the following article at about David Shuster of NBC and MSNBC. My head is about to explode. Read this first, and below is my letter to Steve Capus, president of MSNBC< and Phil Griffin, Senior VP of MSNBC News:

Again, Holy Freakin' COW.

Now, for my letter:

Dear Mr. Capus:

It has come to my attention that David Shuster, a reporter whom I held in some regard, on 2/7/08, has referred to Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton as a pimp, and by extension, her daughter, a whore. His exact quote was: "But doesn't it seem like Chelsea's sort of being pimped out in some weird sort of way?" He said this in regard to Seantor Clinton's daughter campaigning for her, the FIRST viable woman candidate IN OUR HISTORY! FOR CAMPAIGNING FOR HER! I dare say, he has not made the same kind of comments regarding Huckabee's children, or Edwards' children (especially Cate). This is far, far beyond the pale, sir. The constant barage against Senator Clinton, and now her DAUGHTER, is simply reprehensible.

On what planet is this acceptable language for a JOURNALIST on a NEWS program? In what world do your reporters live that they think they can get away with saying such BLATANTLY sexist, if not misogynistic, comments?

These kinds of reprehensible comments, just like the ones from Chris Matthews, reflect directly upon YOU. It has been under your direction that these journalists and anchors have been allowed to get away with such despicable comments ON THE AIR. That he apologized this morning, after receiving complaints such as this, is the LEAST that can be expected of him. It does not change that he said it, and would have thought nothing of a retraction had he not received such complaints.

As a result of this latest attack, and many others befoe it, I have lost ALL respect for MSNBC. I am hardly alone. Take a look at the posts at Huffington Post sometime, and see how your network is now regarded (I'll save you some trouble - it is considered to be the flip side of Fox News, and that is one of the milder criticisms.). What you have done to a previously decent network is nothing short of shocking.

And you will lose more viewers still for allowing this type of blatant misogyny to be spewed on your network. Rightly so.

The Rev. Amy

Not the Only One...

Who has quit MSNBC over the incredibly skewed coverage in which it has been engaging. I read a TON of posts at Huffington Post yesterday relating to a Craig Crawford piece (Crawford is the one who said recently that the anti-Clinton venom in this country borders on mental illness). Many, many people, have observed the same thing I have been saying, particularly about MSNBC. Many others feel let down by Olbermann, and disgusted by Chris Matthews. And, ok, I'll admit this now - many of us have found, much to our shock and dismay, that PAT BUCHANAN has become the voice of reason on MSNBA! How the FREAK did THAT happen?!?!?! I'm not kidding, which is what makes this particular confession so difficult...While everyone else is jumping on the Obama bandwagon, Buchanan has actually been very balanced about the Clintons. Could blow me away with a feather!

There were some pretty funny terms for Obama supporters, too - I was cracking up, I have to admit. Like "O-borg-a: Resistance is fu-tile!" Or, "Obamalamadingdongs." Or, "Obamabots." And then, "Obamaniacs." Aren't people CREATIVE?!?! :-) Seriously, the point of the terms was something else I have been saying - everyone jumps on the Obama bandwagon without LOOKING befoer they jump. They take everything Obama says at face value. His attack on Clinton for taking money from Washington lobbyists is a case in point if one just looks at Exelon, the nuclear energy lobby, you will see how much money Obama has gotten from just ONE group (,0,4656523.column), yet he throws up this smokescreen trying to implicate Clinton. Wow.

Oh - and I am not the only one who thinks he is arrogant, and quick to anger. Just sayin'.

So, the GOOD news is that, whether one supports Clinton or Obama, people are starting to call the MSM (Mainstream Media) on its incredibly biased coverage, and that is a good thing indeed!