Wednesday, April 30, 2008
So now the press tells candidates when to quit?
by Eric Boehlert
History continues to unfold on many levels as the protracted Democratic Party primary race marches on, featuring the first woman and the first African-American with a real shot at winning the White House.
Here's another first: the press's unique push to get a competitive White House hopeful to drop out of the race. It's unprecedented.
Looking back through modern U.S. campaigns, there's simply no media model for so many members of the press to try to drive a competitive candidate from the field while the primary season is still unfolding.
Until this election cycle, journalists simply did not consider it to be their job to tell a contender when he or she should stop campaigning. That was always dictated by how much money the campaign still had in the bank, how many votes the candidate was still getting, and what very senior members of the candidate's own party were advising.
In this case, Howard Dean, the head of the Democratic National Committee, said he was "dumbfounded" by public demands for Clinton to drop out last month. (He now wants one of the candidates to quit after the final June 3 primary.) Yet lots of pundits have suggested that in a neck-and-neck campaign in which neither candidate will likely secure the nomination based on pledged delegates, Sen. Hillary Clinton must drop out before all the states have had a chance to vote.
I realize the political debate surrounding the extended Democratic campaign remains a hot one, with people holding passionate opinions about the delegate math involved and what the consequences for the Democratic Party could be. I'm not weighing in on that debate. I'm focusing on how journalists have behaved during this campaign.
And the fact is, the media's get-out-now push is unparalleled. Strong second-place candidates such as Ronald Reagan (1976), Ted Kennedy, Gary Hart, Jesse Jackson, and Jerry Brown, all of whom campaigned through the entire primary season, and most of whom took their fights all the way to their party's nominating conventions, were never tagged by the press and told to go home.
"Clinton is being held to a different standard than virtually any other candidate in history," wrote Steven Stark in the Boston Phoenix. "When Clinton is simply doing what everyone else has always done, she's constantly attacked as an obsessed and crazed egomaniac, bent on self-aggrandizement at the expense of her party."
Indeed, even after Clinton won the Pennsylvania primary convincingly last week, she awoke the next morning to read an angry New York Times editorial, "beseeching her to get the hell out of the race," as Howard Kurtz put it at washingtonpost.com. On the Times opinion page that day same, Maureen Dowd actually turned to Dr. Seuss rhymes to make her point: "The time is now. Just go. ... I don't care how."
And across town at the New York Daily News, a bitter Mike Lupica was steamed over the fact that Clinton "won't quit" the race.
Weeks earlier, New York magazine fretted about which senior Democrats would be able to "step in" and "usher Clinton from the race." Or if Clinton, obsessed with her own "long-range self-aggrandizement," would finally figure it out herself.
Meanwhile, Slate.com's snarky Hillary Deathwatch was created to document, day-by-day, the demise of her campaign, complete with a damsel-in-distress cartoon drawing of Clinton atop a sinking ship.
That represented just a fraction of the often offensive get-out-now proclamations that have become a staple of this campaign.
No longer content to be observers of the campaign, journalists now see themselves as active players in the unfolding drama, and they show no hesitation trying to dictate the basics of the contest, like who should run and who should quit. It's as if journalists are auditioning for the role of the old party bosses.
It's a new brand of political commentary that leaves some veteran journalists perplexed. "The idea that it's your job to tell candidates when to get out, and really trying to control the whole process -- putting it in the hands of the journalists or the reporters or the columnists -- I find that to be new and different," Haynes Johnson told me last week. A Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, Johnson has covered more than a dozen presidential campaigns and is currently working on a book about the unfolding 2008 contest.
Johnson says he was astonished to read some early calls in March from the media for Clinton to get out of the race. He was stunned by "the pomposity and the arrogance of it."
Indeed, a very strange leap has been made this year by lots of media commentators who argue against Clinton's candidacy. Rather than simply detailing her deficiencies and accentuating the strengths of her opponent, which political observers have done for generations, time and again we saw pundits take the unprecedented step of announcing not only that voters should not support Clinton, but that she should also quit. She should stop competing.
More often than not, the analysis ends up resembling poorly argued temper tantrums. For instance, The New Republic's Jonathan Chait has written three essays about why Clinton must abandon her race for the White House, each increasingly petulant in tone. (We learned the "rationalizations" for Clinton's "kamikaze campaign" are "wretched.") Last month Chait wrote that Clinton's chance of winning the Democratic nomination this year were closer to Ralph Nader's than they were Barack Obama's or John McCain's. It's a reasonable comparison, if you ignore the nearly 1,600 delegates Clinton has amassed, compared with Nader's zero.
Chait also compared Clinton to former presidential candidate Sen. Joseph Biden, suggesting that if Biden could figure out when it was time to quit the race, why can't she?
Searching for candidates who did the right thing and went "gentle into that good night," Chait compared Clinton, whose campaign has secured nearly 14 million votes, to Biden, whose campaign ended abruptly in January after he received roughly 2,000 votes in the Iowa caucuses. That's who Clinton is supposed to emulate when ending her campaign run.
Quick note: I realize the press is not alone here and that scores of liberal bloggers have also loudly made the claim that the Clinton should drop out of the race. But there's a clear difference between the two groups, I think. Lots of liberal bloggers have a strong allegiance to advancing the progressive agenda and feel that to improve the party's chances in the fall, Clinton should give up. That's fair game, and that's part of an internal Democratic Party debate that continues to unfold.
And yes, journalists should report on that internal struggle, quote lots of players, raise all kinds of questions, and commentators should provide in-depth analysis about the ramifications. But what we're seeing this cycle -- and it's unprecedented -- is independent journalists taking it upon themselves to weed the presidential field by demanding one of the remaining candidates simply quit.
And no, this is not part of some larger liberal media conspiracy where the Beltway press is desperate to elect a Democrat and that's why so many journalists are anxious to get Clinton to quit -- because it might help the party's chances in November. The truth is, as The Daily Howler noted last week, the Beltway media's love affair with John McCain only grows deeper and more affectionate with each passing day.
This is more about media arrogance and unleashed elitism.
In the past there was always an assumption among journalists that candidates had earned the right to decide when they should quit. Journalists also respected the fact that candidates represented a sizable portion of the primary voting public and that the candidates owed it to their supporters to fight on, that there was a symbolic significance for the candidates -- and their supporters -- to persevere.
With Clinton, though, the press seems to have almost complete disregard for the 14 million voters who have backed her candidacy, as well as the idea that she is their representative in this race. Instead, they treat her entire campaign as some sort of vanity exercise in which voters do not exist.
And if pundits do acknowledge the Clinton voters, it's often with baffling ignorance, the way Time's Mark Halperin claimed many of Clinton's supporters would be "relieved" and "even delighted" if she dropped out. Really? Delighted? Halperin offered no proof to back up the peculiar notion.
But again, the point here worth stressing from a journalism perspective is that this is all brand new.
Looking back at history, it's hard to find evidence of the same media response to Ronald Reagan's failed 1976 presidential campaign. Taking on President Gerald Ford, Reagan lost more primaries than he won, and Ford won a plurality of the popular vote, but neither man had enough delegates to secure the nomination. So the campaign went to the GOP convention, where Ford prevailed. The bitter battle did nothing to damage Reagan's reputation (in fact, it did quite the opposite), in part because the media did not collectively suggest the candidate was acting selfishly or irrationally. Instead, Reagan walked away with a reputation as a resilient fighter who stood up for his conservative values.
And what about Sen. Ted Kennedy's doomed run in 1980? He trailed President Jimmy Carter by more than 750 delegates at the end of the primary season and insisted on fighting all the way to the convention, where he tried to get committed Carter delegates to switch their allegiance. The press did not spend months during the primary season ridiculing Kennedy, in a deeply personal tone, for remaining in the race.
And what about Gary Hart in 1984? He and Walter Mondale split the season's primaries and caucuses evenly, and neither had the 2,023 delegates needed to secure the nomination. Superdelegates eventually determined the winner. (Sound familiar?) Mondale had many of them locked up even before the campaign season began, so after the final primary between Mondale and Hart was complete, it was obvious that Mondale was going to be the nominee because Hart could not persuade enough superdelegates to change their mind and support him.
When Hart took his crusade all the way to the convention, the media did not form a posse and decide it was their job to get Hart to quit for the good of the party. (And the press certainly didn't form a posse in March to start pushing Hart out of the race.) Nor did the press collectively suggest that Hart had an oversized ego that had turned him into a political monster.
That new media standard has been created exclusively for Hillary Clinton.
And where were the catcalls in 1988 for Jesse Jackson to ditch his quixotic run before all the primary votes had been tallied? He finished with 1,200 delegates, nearly 1,400 behind Michael Dukakis, yet soldiered on all the way to the convention without having a prayer of winning the nomination. There were few if any media drum sections trying to pound him out of the race.
Or Jerry Brown in 1992? He continued his campaign against Bill Clinton through June despite the fact he tallied fewer than 600 delegates. (By contrast, Hillary Clinton has won approximately 1,600 delegates so far.) Brown's attacks at the time were far more personal and bruising than anything we've seen this cycle. As The New York Times reported on June 2, 1992, Brown "put his party on notice that he intends to carry his politics-is-corrupt, Clinton-is-unelectable message to the Democratic National Convention in New York in July, and beyond." Brown also told the Times that voting for Clinton was like buying a ticket on the Titanic.
At the time, Clinton was actually polling in third place nationally, behind President George H.W. Bush and independent candidate Ross Perot, so why wasn't the press in a frenzy demanding that Brown drop out of the race because he was hurting his party's chances in November?
If you look at Reagan and Kennedy and Hart and Jackson and Brown, those men all ran competitive races. But toward the end of the primary season it was clear most of them had no mathematical chance of winning the nomination. (Reagan was the exception.) Yet none of them was told collectively by the press to go home. Nor were they routinely depicted in the media as being self-absorbed.
Today, Clinton does have a chance to win. Yet she has been told by the press to go home and to get over herself.
(There are links throughout the article to back up Boehlert's argument. If you wish to read it with the links enabled, go to: http://mediamatters.org/columns/200804300001)
This is a new ad running in NC. It is a powerful one, I think. Maybe it is because I have long been in awe of Maya Angelou's brilliance, and the voice of wisdom with which she speaks...Whatever my reasons, I think there is little doubt that she is one of the greatest poets of our age. One of the greatest visionaries. And she sees in Hillary Clinton what many, many of us see. So, here's the video. Enjoy.
Thank you for contacting the Human Rights Campaign regarding this phone survey.
You are correct in that Sen. Clinton is a longtime - and very well known - supporter of GLBT rights. This is precisely why the surveyors didn't follow up with more questions about Sen. Clinton. Opinions about Senators McCain and Obama, however, aren't as well known, which is why the surveyors focused on these two. This doesn't skew the survey, but instead helps us discover new information.
We apologize for any confusion and thank you for taking the time to contact HRC with your concern. If you have future questions or concerns please feel free to contact us again.
Here are some thoughts: if this is truly what they think about Senator Clinton, then why the hell haven't they endorsed her yet??? And, do they not think it might have negative implications to ONLY focus on Senators McCain and Obama?? To me, that DOES skew the survey. So, I am not sure I'm buying what they're selling...Here is my response back to the HRC:
Dear Dana Campbell:
Thank you for you prompt response. I appreciate it.
Two things: 1. has it occurred to anyone that it might be sending a negative message that there are NO follow-up questions regarding Senator Clinton, and only for the two other candidates mentioned? Because I have to say, it certainly took me aback that there was not more about Senator Clinton. Others may NOT know of her long-standing history with the GLBT community and HRC, thus making a subtle message that there are only two major players in the contest; and 2. given that longstanding support of our community, and given your acknowledgement of same, WHY hasn't HRC endorsed her yet?? For what is HRC waiting?? It seems to me that now is the time, when it might actually mean something (and frankly, I am surprised an endorsement has not ALREADY been made). Clinton has proven herself over and over - just what does it take for HRC to acknowledge that in this contest?
Thank you for allowing me to share my concerns with you.
The Rev. Amy
I just spent over 15 minutes responding to an HRC sanctioned survey. As part of the survey, I was asked between McCain and Obama, who would I support (neither is the response). Same question for McCain and Clinton (most definitely, Clinton). The survey went on to ask more detailed questions about Obama and his GLBT support, and McCain and his GLBT support. Yet, there were NO more questions asked about Hillary Clinton. I would REALLY like to know why. When I asked the surveyor, he claimed he could give me no infomration about who was conducting the survey, but assured me it WAS through HRC.
So, my question, again, is WHY there were not more questions about Senator Clinton? She has been honored by the HRC; she has been a long-time friend of the GLBT community; and has made several policy announcements recently in support of the GLBT community, to name a few. Contrast that to Obama not allowing Gavin Newsome to have a photo taken with him after asking him to throw a fundraiser for him; his relationship with DOnnie McClurkin; and his relationship with The Rev. James Meeks, among others.
All of that is to say, the survey seemed a bit skewed.
My partner and I are LONG time members of HRC, which is why this concerns me so. It is way past time for HRC to have made an endorsement, and in my opinion, there is only one candidate who will be best for the LGBT community, and her initials just happen to be HRC.
Thank you for your kind attention to this concern.
The Rev. Amy
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
Okay - so now, for something not as joyful. Howard Dean is at it again. Yes, it's true. He has now said that one of the candidates should drop out by June so there can be "party unity" by the convention in August. (I am sure there are several articles out there, but I got the info from AOL.) Well, here's a little newsflash for you, Howie - there is not going to BE "party unity" because of the way you, Donna Brazile, Nancy Pelosi, and some of the other party leaders have conducted yourselves during this process. There isn't going to be "party unity" because you have chosen to disenfrachise over two million Democrats. There won't be "party unity" since you have decided to back the "Democratic" candidate who has not gotten the majority of DEMOCRATIC voters!! Nope - you want the Republican Lite candidate whom you claim can pull in the Independents and Republicans (funny - I thought this was the DEMOCRATIC National Committee - I must be confused). There won't be "party unity" because of the way you have treated Senator Clinton, in particular, and women in general. The level of sexiam and misogyny evidenced by the DNC has seen to that. Oh, and basically calling all white people racist because we choose Clinton, the more experienced, more qualified candidate who is actually capable of writing her own policies, rather than your inexperienced, WORM-y, poor judge of character hanging around with questionable characters, lying, sneaky, arrogant candidate. See? It's not racism - we just prefer the BETTER candidate who can actually effect some CHANGE!!! So, yeah, Dean - you can pretty much hang up that whole "party unity" crapola - you have made damn sure that is not going to happen. Not in August. Not for a while. I an a lifelong Democrat, but I gotta tell you - after this year, after the way you have handled this nomination process, the way you are trying to strong arm out the best candidate despite the voices of DEMOCRATS - yeah, you can hang that unity schtick right up. Ain't gonna happen. And you have no one to blame but yourself.
In the meantime, shut up. Let the VOTERS decide who the candidate will be. It is NOT UP TO YOU to determine who it will be, or it SHOULDN'T be!! Let the voters speak. That is the whole thing about Democracy, or did you forget that?!?! Evidently. Anyway - learn it. Shut up. Let the people speak. Stop pressuring the Superdelegates to decide immediately. Stop trying to insert yourself into this process. Oh, and SEAT FLORIDA AND MICHIGAN!!!!! Sheesh. Now, go away already.
NEW TOPIC: I hate to admit this, but I actually read a William Kristol piece in yesterday's NY Times. I know, I know - I can scarecely believe it myself. But get THIS - it was a VERY positive piece about Hillary Clinton, and how crappy the MSM has been! I know! I can't believe it, either!!! The title is pretty telling: "Hillary Gets No Respect!" If you want to take a look, here is the link: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/28/opinion/28kristol.html?em&ex=1209614400&en=313a3c9b4fbcb971&ei=5087%0A
Sunday, April 27, 2008
I am writing regarding Keith Olbermann's recent remarks regarding Senator Hillary Clinton in which he stated that a superdelegate should take her in a room and only "he" should come out. Olbermann offered a weak explanation, though no apology to Senator Clinton, and claimed that he was using "he" generically (newsflash - he means he. Someone in his position should be aware that language shapes our reality, and using male terms to be generic has long been considered unacceptable). What Olbermann offered was no apology. And I say this as someone who used to be a faithful viewer until he lost all objectivity, as he has done over the past several months. It was not an apology at all.
This incident highlights the lack of objectivity Mr. Olbermann has exhibited, to be sure. But what is even more serious, and egregious, is the hostility and misogyny it reflects. Olbermann essentially called for violence to be done upon a former First Lady, a current Senator, AND a presidential candidate. This is so far beyond the pale as to be bordering on criminal. No, strike that - it IS criminal.
MSNBC has shown itself to be a safe harbor for men who have expressed a number of misogynistic and sexist statements by its hosts, and guest commentators. It is simply unacceptable that it continues to allow these men to have forums to denigrate women, and to even suggest violence. Keith Olbermann should be fired. Now. He has advocated violence against a sitting senator (never mind that he has done a HORRIBLE job in discussing her policies and plans - his bias against her is abundantly clear).
While I am at it, David Shuster should also be fired. Now. His recent appearance in which he gave Tucker Carlson a Hillary Clinton pen and made disparaging remarks demonstrates loud and clear that his calling Hillary Clinton a pimp and her daughter a whore was not aberrant, but how he thinks. Yet MSNBC continues to employ him.
And MSNBC continues to provide airtime for these men to spew their vitriol against not only Senator Clinton, but all women. This is absolutely unacceptable. Ketih Olbermann should be fired IMMEDIATELY. IMMEDIATELY!!!!! NO person should be allowed to have a regular forum in which they not only attack a presidential candidate with reckless abandon, but to ADVOCATE VIOLENCE AGAINST THEM. MSNBC needs to step in NOW, and remove Keith Olbermann from his position. There should be NO place for that level of discourse on a major cable network.
I hope, and pray, you do the right thing.
The Rev. Amy
April 27, 2008
Bowling 1, Health Care 0
By ELIZABETH EDWARDS
Chapel Hill, N.C.
FOR the last month, news media attention was focused on Pennsylvania and its Democratic primary. Given the gargantuan effort, what did we learn?
Well, the rancor of the campaign was covered. The amount of money spent was covered. But in Pennsylvania, as in the rest of the country this political season, the information about the candidates’ priorities, policies and principles — information that voters will need to choose the next president — too often did not make the cut. After having spent more than a year on the campaign trail with my husband, John Edwards, I’m not surprised.
Why? Here’s my guess: The vigorous press that was deemed an essential part of democracy at our country’s inception is now consigned to smaller venues, to the Internet and, in the mainstream media, to occasional articles. I am not suggesting that every journalist for a mainstream media outlet is neglecting his or her duties to the public. And I know that serious newspapers and magazines run analytical articles, and public television broadcasts longer, more probing segments.
But I am saying that every analysis that is shortened, every corner that is cut, moves us further away from the truth until what is left is the Cliffs Notes of the news, or what I call strobe-light journalism, in which the outlines are accurate enough but we cannot really see the whole picture.
It is not a new phenomenon. In 1954, the Army-McCarthy hearings — an important if painful part of our history — were televised, but by only one network, ABC. NBC and CBS covered a few minutes, snippets on the evening news, but continued to broadcast soap operas in order, I suspect, not to invite complaints from those whose days centered on the drama of “The Guiding Light.”
The problem today unfortunately is that voters who take their responsibility to be informed seriously enough to search out information about the candidates are finding it harder and harder to do so, particularly if they do not have access to the Internet.
Did you, for example, ever know a single fact about Joe Biden’s health care plan? Anything at all? But let me guess, you know Barack Obama’s bowling score. We are choosing a president, the next leader of the free world. We are not buying soap, and we are not choosing a court clerk with primarily administrative duties.
What’s more, the news media cut candidates like Joe Biden out of the process even before they got started. Just to be clear: I’m not talking about my husband. I’m referring to other worthy Democratic contenders. Few people even had the chance to find out about Joe Biden’s health care plan before he was literally forced from the race by the news blackout that depressed his poll numbers, which in turn depressed his fund-raising.
And it’s not as if people didn’t want this information. In focus groups that I attended or followed after debates, Joe Biden would regularly be the object of praise and interest: “I want to know more about Senator Biden,” participants would say.
But it was not to be. Indeed, the Biden campaign was covered more for its missteps than anything else. Chris Dodd, also a serious candidate with a distinguished record, received much the same treatment. I suspect that there was more coverage of the burglary at his campaign office in Hartford than of any other single event during his run other than his entering and leaving the campaign.
Who is responsible for the veil of silence over Senator Biden? Or Senator Dodd? Or Gov. Tom Vilsack? Or Senator Sam Brownback on the Republican side?
The decision was probably made by the same people who decided that Fred Thompson was a serious candidate. Articles purporting to be news spent thousands upon thousands of words contemplating whether he would enter the race, to the point that before he even entered, he was running second in the national polls for the Republican nomination. Second place! And he had not done or said anything that would allow anyone to conclude he was a serious candidate. A major weekly news magazine put Mr. Thompson on its cover, asking — honestly! — whether the absence of a serious campaign and commitment to raising money or getting his policies out was itself a strategy.
I’m not the only one who noticed this shallow news coverage. A report by the Project for Excellence in Journalism and the Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy found that during the early months of the 2008 presidential campaign, 63 percent of the campaign stories focused on political strategy while only 15 percent discussed the candidates’ ideas and proposals.
Watching the campaign unfold, I saw how the press gravitated toward a narrative template for the campaign, searching out characters as if for a novel: on one side, a self-described 9/11 hero with a colorful personal life, a former senator who had played a president in the movies, a genuine war hero with a stunning wife and an intriguing temperament, and a handsome governor with a beautiful family and a high school sweetheart as his bride. And on the other side, a senator who had been first lady, a young African-American senator with an Ivy League diploma, a Hispanic governor with a self-deprecating sense of humor and even a former senator from the South standing loyally beside his ill wife. Issues that could make a difference in the lives of Americans didn’t fit into the narrative template and, therefore, took a back seat to these superficialities.
News is different from other programming on television or other content in print. It is essential to an informed electorate. And an informed electorate is essential to freedom itself. But as long as corporations to which news gathering is not the primary source of income or expertise get to decide what information about the candidates “sells,” we are not functioning as well as we could if we had the engaged, skeptical press we deserve.
And the future of news is not bright. Indeed, we’ve heard that CBS may cut its news division, and media consolidation is leading to one-size-fits-all journalism. The state of political campaigning is no better: without a press to push them, candidates whose proposals are not workable avoid the tough questions. All of this leaves voters uncertain about what approach makes the most sense for them. Worse still, it gives us permission to ignore issues and concentrate on things that don’t matter. (Look, the press doesn’t even think there is a difference!)
I was lucky enough for a time to have a front-row seat in this campaign — to see all this, to get my information firsthand. But most Americans are not so lucky. As we move the contest to my home state, North Carolina, I want my neighbors to know as much as they possibly can about what these men and this woman would do as president.
If voters want a vibrant, vigorous press, apparently we will have to demand it. Not by screaming out our windows as in the movie “Network” but by talking calmly, repeatedly, constantly in the ears of those in whom we have entrusted this enormous responsibility. Do your job, so we can — as voters — do ours.
Elizabeth Edwards, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, is the author of “Saving Graces.” (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/27/opinion/27edwards.html?_r=2&pagewanted=print)
This is another good video from IleWoman. It goes through a number of issues facing Obama, particularly about his relationship with Rezko, his relationship with the press, and blaming his campaign people when things do not go well for him.
The video also contrasts the very real differences between Senator Clinton and Senator Obama. Her optimism and strength are quite evident in comparison. And, her unwavering belief in the American people.
So, grab a cup of coffee, tea, or whatever, and take a look.
Saturday, April 26, 2008
Then there are Clinton's supporters. It seems to me that many of her supporters feel like we have a real relationship with her, that she really is committed to doing what is best for the country, and for us. That when she says she will end "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," we believe she will. When she says she will get us out of Iraq, she will. Her recortd is clear as a bell that she is a tireless worker, and she is COMMITTED to working on behalf of the people. She has demonstrated this over and over. And there is a huge difference between putting someone on a pedestal (Obama), and feeling like the candidate is in the struggle WITH us. It is a relational thing, that is, she approaches us differently than Obama does. She does not talk down to us, she talks WITH us. She doesn't lecture us, she engages us and wants to hear what WE think. If she had been the one eating the waffle in a diner and a reporter asked her a question, she would have asked them to sit down and have a cup of coffee. (Note to Obama - if you want to eat uninterruptedly, stay in your hotel room!!! Don't invite the press to your event, and then complain about them wanting to talk to you, you big freakin' baby! Show a modicum of manners, at LEAST! SHESH!)
So that's the difference in my mind. And I have a story to back that up. My aforementioned friend from NY works for an artist who had some work displayed at a function which Clinton attended (before the crowds came). My friend said she acted like they were the only two people in the world, and like she had all of the time in the world just to talk with THEM. She didn't rush them through the show. Rather, she asked questions about different pieces on display. She was warm, friendly, engaging, and PRESENT to them.
And this is why so many of us love her - because we KNOW that is how she is. Add to that her INCREDIBLE intelligence, and as I keep saying, THIS is who I want as my president. Obama cannot hold a CANDLE to her. Not even close. But this is about her - and how she relates to people as people. She genuinely cares, and she genuinely will do what she can to affect the most positive outcome for all us. She may not always succeed, but it won't be for lack of trying. You can take that to the bank. Just sayin'.
Thursday, April 24, 2008
So, here's the thing. If this cream puff can't take these kinds of distinctions being made by his same Party opponent, how in the WORLD can he be the leader of the Free World?!?! I mean, SERIOUSLY!!! If he cannot even participate in the NC debate because he is such a big baby and doesn't want to have to answer direct questions, HOW HE CAN HE ENGAGE REPUBLICAN OR EVEN WORLD LEADERS?!?! This is the hardest job in the WORLD, and Obama cannot take even a hint of criticism on his record (like how he was too damn busy campaigning to ever hold a meeting of the Subcommittee on European Affairs), or his associates, or his policies, he should not be RUNNING!
And the SuperD's need to really LOOK at this tremendous lack on his part as they make their decisions. As well as look at who is winning the states we need to win to take back the White House, and that AIN'T Obama!! Just sayin'!!!
Clinton was masterful in her interviews yesterday, and made the point over and over that SHE is the only one who can beat McCain; she is the ONLY one who can win the states that need winning; and made the point (along with some of her interviewers, especially Joe Scarborough) that to win a contest in which one's opponent is outspending one 3-4 to 1 by DOUBLE DIGITS is unprecendented!! And it speaks volumes - Hillary Clinton is THE one to lead this country! She is the one we NEED to run this country. Let's do what we can to get her there!
***At NoQuarter yesterday, SusanUnPC had a link to HillaryResponders.com, a rapid response team to address false information. You can go sign up for alerts, if you wish! ***
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
And, CONGRATULATIONS to all who HAVE supported her, financially, by volunteering, by going to her rallies, by sending her positive messages, by sending her prayers and lighting candles for her - all of it has helped her to come this far. Her campaign is OUR campaign!!
So, dig deep - help her out. Let's make sure she gets all the way to the convention (though if they seat Florida and Michigan already it will not even be CLOSE), and can take the nomination!
Clinton WINS!! And she wins BIG!!! I knew she was going to win PA, and she won handily, despite Obama spending record-breaking amounts in PA. The people of PA saw what the rest of us see - the best candidate in the field.
On to the White House!!
I love this woman. Good for her, good for us, good for the US!!
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
And I just have to reprint a piece by SusanUnPC over at NoQuarterUSA.net. This highlights COMPLETELY the difference between these two candidates, and it ain't pretty for Obama, I'll say. And, I'll say, what a piece of work Obama is, and I do NOT mean that in a good way. Here it is:
"CNN Political Ticker:
[A]t a diner Thursday morning, a reporter slipped in a question about former President Jimmy Carter’s meeting with Hamas, but Obama responded by saying he just wanted to eat his waffle. Later that afternoon while taping an interview for “The Daily Show,” a reporter tried to ask Obama about a new Clinton ad and the Obama ad that came as a response. According to a pooled report, the White House hopeful asked the reporter if she was “supposed to be” asking a question then. He added that he would consider answering but that it would depend “on how well behaved you are.” In the end, he did not take the question."
"That CNN Political Ticker report fills me with anxiety. This is not the kind of person we want as president. He is hiding from the media. He is afraid to debate Hillary again, and get scrutinized. He knows he’s a sham. Deep down, he knows he’s not the real deal. He just hopes the followers who’ve bought into his scam don’t find out." (http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/04/21/so-you-hide-your-fear-with-arrogance/#more-2257)
So - who do we want? Another Bush? Or a Clinton who has the experience, the strength, the grace, the compassion, the humor, and the POLICIES? Clinton - hands DOWN!!!!
Vote, PA!!! Go, HILLARY!!!
Monday, April 21, 2008
This is an excellent video, and seems appropriate on the eve of the major contest in Pennsylvania tomorrow. While Obama is whining and complaining if he is asked a question more difficult than, "What is your favorite color?" or "What is your favorite ice cream flavor?" (don't even THINK of asking him a question when he is about to eat a waffle, like a reporter tried to do today in PA - never mind that it was a publicity event - Obama just wanted to eat his waffle, dammit!), Clinton has been having to deal with tremendous bias, not just in the media, but in the culture as well. She has been held to a different standard throughout the process, and goddess forbid that she should actually stand up for herself!! How unladylike!!! Ahem.
This video can be a difficult one to watch, especially in the beginning. But, while it shows the difficulties Clinton faces, as well as women around the world, it is also one of hope, because Clinton fosters that kind of hope with her perserverance, with her heart, with her mind, and with her humor. So, I leave you to it, with the prayer that "Yes She Will" win tomorrow in PA, then in KY, IN, WV, all the way to the White House!
Oh, crap - now I have to violate my No MSNBO watching!!!! Oh, well - small price to pay to see her deal with Keith. This should be FUN!!!!
And that is what a PRESIDENT needs to be able to do - walk into a tough room, and talk things out, to make connections, to make convincing arguments, to highlight one's policies, and to do so in an engaging manner. Senator Clinton can do that. She CAN do that because she has a fierce intellect; she is capable of being self-deprecating; and ahe is able to reach out to those who may have preconceived (negative) notions of who she is. Once they spend time with her, though, she has the ability to win them over. She focuses on the issues at hand, on where she stands, and where she wants to go, rather than on tearing down her competition or belittling them. She certainly doesn't flip them off, or whine about how she is being asked tough questions. No, she certainly does not do that. Rather, she stands on her own merit, her own record, her own policies, and allows people to make their own decisions about her.
Tomorrow is a big day for Senator Clinton, and for Pennsylvania. It is a big day for all of us who want the most qualified candidate to be the next president of the United States. Say a prayer, light a candle, send a donation to Senator Clinton. Call or email people you know in Pennsylvania and remind them to vote, and to ask for their vote for Senator Clinton. This is go-time, and she needs all the support we can muster. Go to her website and send her a word of encouragement and support. Let her know you stand behind her. Thanks. If she wins, you will be glad you did...
Sunday, April 20, 2008
Bill Clinton Says Criticisms of Hillary's Healthcare Plan are 'Bull'
April 19, 2008 9:20 PM
ABC News' Sarah Amos reports: Former President Bill Clinton continued on the campaign trail today, with time quickly ticking away before Pennsylvania’s presidential primary on Tuesday.
Clinton started the day completely focused on his wife’s policies. But by as the day wore on Clinton found himself in Waynesburg, Pa., where he couldn’t help but mention the latest round of ads put out today by Sen. Barack Obama’s campaign.
"I just got a briefing before I came in here on all the radio ads and mailings that Sen. Obama’s sending out in this, uh, positive campaign," said Clinton with a sarcastic chuckle. "And um, I want to tell you what I think this election is really about, what it is really about. It is about your future. And the only relevant choice is who would do the best job at helping you realize that future."
The new television ads, which deal with Sen. Clinton’s plan for healthcare in America, were clearly on the former president's mind throughout the day. While discussing his wife’s plan at an earlier event in Hermitage, he took offense with what he says are false claims by the Obama campaign.
"Hillary's being subject to a television ad that has been roundly criticized in the form of mass mailings all across this country saying she's trying to make you buy insurance you can't afford and you're gonna be fined and all that. It isn't true. It is not true," he said. "Every expert who has looked at this says if you provide the subsidies and you cap somebody's income, everybody'll be able to afford it, it'll be cheaper than anything you're buying now if you buying it. But I'm just telling you, we won't get control of cost unless we cover everybody. Doing the morally right thing is the economically essential thing. If you agree with that, if you agree with that, you have only one choice left with the three candidates for president. You got to vote for Hillary for president, she'll fix this problem."
Later, in Beaver Falls the former president had one word to describe the arguments being leveled against Sen. Clinton’s healthcare plan –- "bull."
"And, you know, you may hear some more about it before Tuesday. 'Oh, it's the end of the world. Oh, you're gonna be forced to buy health care you can't afford.' That's bull. The only way you can afford it over the long run is that everyone is covered. Every other country knows this," Clinton told the crowd.
Not one to shy away from a full days worth of events, Clinton managed to hit up both sides of the state today, starting his day in Wilkes-Barre, Pa., and ending his day four events later at Waynesburg University.
The former president had quite a bit of company on the road though, bringing along a variety of Hillary Clinton surrogates, including Former Iowa Gov. (and Western Pennsylvania native) Tom Vilsack.
Saturday, April 19, 2008
NoQuarter had some EXCELLENT examples from previous debates in which Clinton was hammered over and over and over. You never heard HER complaining, except about always being asked to answer first. Other than that, she KNOWS this is the time to be asked tough questions. Oh, and you sure didn't hear any of the Obama people chiming in saying this was all over the top. Nope, nary a sound was uttered from the Obamabots. Here are a few examples from NoQuarter:
Did you hate Stephanopolous and ABC last August, when they warmed Obama up and threw HIM, not Clinton the first question about her negative, and premised the whole thing with a Karl Rove quote:
STEPHANOPOULOS: Let me turn now to the second question I raised, the topic question about Senator Clinton. And outgoing White House counsel Karl Rove opined on that this week. He was on Rush Limbaugh. Here’s what he had to say.
(Beginning of video clip)
KARL ROVE: There is no front-runner who has entered the primary season with negatives as high as she has in the history of modern polling. She’s going into the general election with, depending on what poll you’re looking at, in the high forties on the negative side and just below that on the positive side.
And there’s nobody who’s ever won the presidency who started out in that kind of position. (End of video clip.)
STEPHANOPOULOS: Now, Senator Obama, I know you’re loathe to agree with Karl Rove on just about anything.
OBAMA: I am.
STEPHANOPOULOS: But the Associated Press this week wrote an article. They talked to 40 Democratic activists and officeholders across the country. It led to the series of headlines across the country: “Democrats worry Clinton may weigh down lesser candidates”; “Democrats worry Clinton may hurt the rest of the ticket.”
Are they right to be worried?
Did Clinton at least get the follow up? Nope, the next question was also to Obama:
But when you say that, are you saying that Senator Clinton is part of the failed politics of Washington, or not?
After he answered it, Stephanopolous let Edwards chime in:
STEPHANOPOULOS: So the answer is yes?
OBAMA: The answer is: I would not be running if I did not believe that I was the best person to do this.
EDWARDS: Well, let me just say — I have a slightly different view. Here’s what I believe. I think we were out of power in the Congress for 13 years. In November of 2006, the Democrats took over the Congress again. I think there was a reason for that. Because the Democrats in November of 2006 stood for change.
America wants change in the most serious way. And if we become the party of status quo in 2008, that’s a loser.
followed by more follow-up, TO EDWARDS:
And you’re seeing that Senator Clinton is not?
Clinton was never asked to address the question. Instead, the next question to her was a shift, based on something Edwards said, and clearly another shot at her:
EDWARDS: Senator Obama is not taking it in this campaign. I applaud him for that. And I’ve said: Why don’t we all make an absolutely clear statement that we are the Democratic Party; we’re the party of the people; we are not the party of Washington insiders?
And we can say it clearly and unequivocally, by saying we will never take another dime from a Washington lobbyist.
HERE'S SOME MORE (Comments inbetween quaotes are also from No Quarter): Do you remember this exchange, before the break? They gave Obama a long opportunity to talk about invading Iraq, and cut Clinton’s response off because they needed to go to a commercial break. They did it with a promise to return to her on the return:
MR. RUSSERT: Senator Clinton, on the issue of jobs, I watched you the other day with your economic blueprint in Wisconsin saying, this is my plan; hold me accountable. And I’ve had a chance to read it very carefully. It does say that you pledge to create 5 million new jobs over 10 years.
And I was reminded of your campaign in 2000 in Buffalo, my hometown, just three hours down Route 90, where you pledged 200,000 new jobs for upstate New York. There’s been a net loss of 30,000 jobs. And when you were asked about your pledge, your commitment, you told The Buffalo News, “I might have been a little exuberant.” Tonight will you say that the pledge of 5 million jobs might be a little exuberant?
So, what was the first question on the return, and who got it?
Senator Obama, we started tonight talking about what could be construed as a little hyperbole. Happens from time to time on the campaign trail. You have recently been called out on some yourself. I urge you to look at your monitor and we’ll take a look.
Something else funny happened there, too. When they played Clinton videotape, they asked Obama about it. When they played Obama videotape, they asked Obama about it. Ain’t that grand?
Russert raised the FRAUDULENT National Archives argument again in this debate:
MR. RUSSERT: One other issue. You talked about releasing documents. On January 30th, the National Archives released 10,000 pages of your public schedule as first lady. It’s now in the custody of former President Clinton. Will you release that — again, during this primary season that you claim that eight years of experience, let the public know what you did, who you met with those eight years?" (http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/04/18/oh-stop-whining-about-abc/#more-2223)
So, what has Hillary said about all of this? This, from her website:
CLINTON: DEBATE QUESTIONS NOTHING COMPARED TO CHALLENGES OF THE WHITE HOUSE
Senator Clinton Responds to Senator Obama’s Complaints about the other night’s debate
PHILADELPHIA – In response to a question on Fox 29 Good Morning Philadelphia this morning about Barack Obama's complaints on Wednesday night's debate questions, Senator Hillary Clinton had this to say:
YouTube link and transcript of Hillary Clinton's response:
"Can I say that I’ve been through, what, 23 of these debates? And as I recall, I was asked some pretty tough questions in nearly every one of them. That goes with the territory. Having been inside the White House, I know the pressures inside the White House; I know how hard it is every single day. When the going gets tough you can’t run away. And it’s going to be tough going to deal with these hard problems; getting out of Iraq in the right way, turning the economy around, getting universal health care, ending our dependence on foreign oil. The special interests are going to be a lot tougher than 90 minutes of questions from two journalists and we need a president who is going to be up there fighting everyday for the American people and not complain about how much pressure there is, and how hard the questions are.”"
No freakin' kidding. So shut up and stop whining, Barry. Woman up already and get a GRIP. We have already had one short-tempered, ill-prepared, bullying baby in the White House. We sure don't need another one!!!
Thursday, April 17, 2008
Yeah. Right. And to that, I said to Dean: Screw you. It is NOT your decision to make!! Oh, all right - I am a Southerner after all, and didn't say that EXACTLY. What I DID say was:
Dear Dr. Dean:
Stop inserting yourself into the primary process. You and Donna Brazile have already disenfranchised 2.5 million voters, and now you want to DEMAND that the Super Delegates declare for whom they are voting now??? They do not need to do so, sir, UNTIL THE CONVENTION!! They are free to learn, watch, and make a measured decision. They are free to decide, and even change their minds, if they so desire. How DARE you insist they declare NOW!!!
You are ruining this Party. You, Brazile, Pelosi, Leahy, and Dodd have done great damage to this party with your declarations. Many of us have determined to leave the Democratic Party because of the way you have conducted yourselves, especially by shoving your preferred candidate down our throats, and by the overhwlemingly SEXIST behavior that has been tolerated, and even encouraged. This has happened under YOUR WATCH, sir.
ENOUGH!!! LET US DECIDE WHO WE WANT FOR OUR NOMINEE!!!! Stop trying to take momentum away from Senator Clinton, like you did with FL and MI, which MUST be reinstated FULLY as they stand RIGHT NOW. Stop threatening and bullying the Super Delegates. STOP TRYING TO CONTROL THE OUTCOME!!
I have lost all respect for you. I will be changing my voter registration as a result of your actions, especially voter disenfranchsisement, blatant bias, and your desire to run an undemocratic process.
I would suggest that you need to consider resigning your position. Your actions have seriously damaged this party. Your actions and statements are having an adverse effect on this nomination, and are making a mockery of democracy. You need to step down, sir, before the Party is irreparably damaged.
The Rev. Amy
Gee - I can't imagine just WHAT might have made Dean make this statement! Surely, it couldn't have anything to do with how badly Obama tanked last night, COULD IT?? Yeah. Uh huh. I am sure there will be more about this tomorrow. Lots of good comments on this over at NoQuarter, if you're interested (especially Uppity's - she has a way with words!).
Bottom line - Dean is destroying this Party. And he is losing the Democrats the chance to win back the White House. Nice job, Dean. I regret having ever supported you for this position. Had I but known...
The Obama Campaign: Consent of, or Contempt for, the People
Expert guest post by Joseph C. Wilson (originally published on Huffington Post, and thanks to taylormarsh.com for having it there)
Senator Obama's ill-conceived remarks likening small town Americans to embittered guns-and-God bigots have triggered a justifiable furor. Not only are the remarks insulting, but also factually incorrect.
As it happens, at the same event in San Francisco, Senator Obama made other remarks, equally startling, insulting our Foreign Service, Intelligence Officers, members of Congress who provide oversight, and friendly governments. Like his comments about small town Americans, Obama demonstrated a cavalier disregard for Americans who every day get up determined to make this a better country, whether running the general store in a small town, or representing our national security interests in a foreign country.
This is what Obama said:
Experience in Washington in not knowledge of the world. This I know. When Senator Clinton brags, 'I've met leaders from 80 countries,' I know what those trips are like. I've been on them. You go from the airport to the embassy. There's a group of children who do a native dance. You meet with the C.I.A. station chief and the embassy and they give you a briefing. You go take a tour of a plant that with the assistance of USAID has started something. And then you go.
Obama's arrogance and contempt for career professionals in the national security community is palpable. His contempt reminds me of something Bill Kristol, the editor of the right wing war mongering Weekly Standard, said in a debate with me shortly after the launching of the Iraq War in 2003. We were in Midland, Texas, Laura Bush's home town, and Kristol was asked if he had ever spent time in the Middle East region, to which he responded "I've always believed on the ground experience is highly overrated." That callous disregard for professional expertise and experience is, of course, one of the reasons we so badly miscalculated the consequences of our actions in Iraq. That arrogance is no less offensive coming from Senator Obama. And it is no less wrongheaded.
Foreign Service Officers, Intelligence operatives, and USAID development experts carry out the mandate of our government to represent the interests of the United States, to understand the dynamics in a foreign society so as to better advise our own government on policies to be pursued, and work to improve relations between the United States and the country in question. The world is a dangerous and precarious place, and there are serious issues that constantly need to be engaged with foreign governments. It requires hard work and diligence. We ignore or denigrate that work at our peril.
Senator Obama should know better. After all, in his professional capacity as Chairman of the Senate subcommittee responsible for Europe and NATO, he was in charge of ensuring Congressional oversight of the administration's efforts to generate greater NATO support for operations in Afghanistan. The fact that, by his own admission, he was too busy running for president to convene a single meeting of that subcommittee, should not absolve him of responsibility for acquiring at least some understanding of and respect for the work of career professionals who dedicate their lives to the service of their country.
I was one of those public servants for twenty-three years. My colleagues and I, whether in the Foreign Service, the Military or the Central Intelligence Agency, were and are motivated by a commitment to serve the values that have made this country free and secure, values that are enshrined in our founding documents, the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. In exercising our responsibilities, we were careful to ensure that members of Congress were kept abreast and made partners in our efforts to keep America safe. When they visited our posts, we went out of our way to provide substantive briefings, meetings with senior host government officials, trips to USAID projects so elected representatives could see for themselves what the United States was doing to assist citizens of the recipient country improve their lot in life. And yes, there were cultural events, to broaden the perspectives of the visitors and to show respect for the indigenous culture they were being introduced to. Our goal in this was to ensure that those who represent the American people in Congress better understood what we were doing because more knowledge leads to better decisions. Judgment is not intuitive, as Senator Obama asserts; from my hard-won experience as a Foreign Service Officer, that judgment is learned.
Obama has made plain that he is not bothered in the slightest about belittling the work of Foreign Service and CIA Officers serving overseas, often in dangerous circumstances, any more than he is about denigrating Americans from small towns or blaming democrats in Congress, and especially Hillary Clinton, for George W. Bush's war in Iraq. It was not ironic that he made both comments at the same fundraiser in San Francisco. The contempt is consistent.
Trashing Congress, small town Americans, and career national security professionals, while befriending Jeremiah Wright and Weather Underground terrorist Bill Ayers may be a winning electoral strategy. Who knows? Time will tell. But I suspect that many small town Americans are as offended as my professional colleagues and I by this display of contempt from one who seeks our consent to govern.
Hillary's Reviews Are In: 'The Winner,' 'Strong Presence,' 'In Her Element'
Hillary dominates Philadelphia focus group. “NYDIA HAN: The real take away is this. We now know who won the debate according to our focus group. Take a look. Senator Clinton is the debate winner, at least according to our focus group. 23% believe Senator Obama won while 50% believed Senator Clinton won.” [WPVI Post-Debate Analysis, 4/16/08]
ABC News’ Rick Klein – 'Clinton is back to the strong presence we saw early in the cycle.' [ABC News Political Radar, 4/16/08]
NBC News’ Chuck Todd – Obama ‘did not have a good night.’ [MSNBC Post-Debate Analysis, 4/16/08]
NBC News' Chuck Todd—Obama’s answer on Ayers and the flag ‘were simply weak.’ “His answer on Ayers and the flag question were simply weak; He seemed unprepared for them; Kinda surprising because he normally has a decent rant against "old politics" and yet "old politics" questions seemed to stump him.” [NBC First Read, 4/16/08]
The Atlantic’s Marc Ambinder – [T]here's no way Obama could fared worse. [The Atlantic’s Marc Ambinder, 4/16/08]
Washington Post’ Chris Cillizza— Obama ‘struggled quite a bit’ when asked about Rev. Wright. “…He struggled quite a bit more when asked to answer for Wright, his former pastor.” [Washington Post, The Fix, 4/16/08]
New York Times’ Katharine Seeyle: Hillary’s ‘in her element as she goes into details.’ "She’s becoming expansive, seemingly in her element as she goes into details; Mr. Obama does not look as thrilled to be still standing there." [New York Times, The Caucus, 4/16/08]
Talking Points Memo’s Josh Marshall – Hillary ‘certainly seems more self-assured.' “She certainly seems more self-assured on the Iran question than Obama did. The question of extending an American security umbrella to Israel is very dicey. And he could clearly see he was on delicate territory.” [Talking Points Memo, 4/16/08]
Philadelphia Inquirer blog – ‘Obama is again less certain, and rambles a bit.’ “Obama is again less certain, and rambles a bit when asked about the Washington D.C. gun ban. Gibson asks him to deny that he has ever advocated a complete ban on hand guns in 1996. Obama says no. But whatever the truth, no other answer is possible.” [Philadelphia Inquirer Blog, 4/16/08]
NBC News’ Matthew Berger – Obama ‘tried to have it both ways’ with Israel. “Obama's answer on an Iranian attack on Israel tried to seem to have it both ways: highlight his support for Israel but not lock him into treating an attack on Israel like an attack on the U.S. But it may have looked more like a no because it wasn't a firm yes. Clinton's answer seemed more direct.” [NBC First Read, 4/16/08]
So there ya have it! Add this to what else I said earlier. Oh, and go check out a couple of posts at Divine Democrat - she has some good ones today!!
Taylor's other good one is about how the media has really treated Obama softer than ANY other presidential candidate in the past 20 years, which is why his people are going NUTS this morning that anyone DARED to ask him a question that was more than, "so, gee - what do you have planned for summer vacation?" Yeah, they are freaking. Anyway, I am beginning to think that she is right - I think he has been getting it easier than Bush did. Who the hell ever thought THAT was possible?!?! I know! But yet, he has! And he does NOT deal well when he is questioned, either. What a quick fuse he has - and his ratchet response is to immediately turn to Clinton and attack HER! Really telling, if you ask me, and what it says isn't pretty. Like when he was questioned about WIlliam Ayers, and he immediately turned and attacked Clinton about someting her HUSBAND did!! Whaaaa?? What the hell did HILLARY have to do with pardoning two people who spent a LONG time in prison, unlike Ayers?? I commend BOTH of Taylor's pieces to you this morning.
And along THOSE lines, Uppity Woman has a GREAT piece at NoQuarterUSA.net this morning on William Ayers. What an incredibly scary man he is. If you missed it when Clinton said this last night, Ayers said on 9/11 that he wished he had set more bombs. You heard me. He said it. And he is one of Obama's BFFs. No kidding. SO go take a look at the history of the Weather Underground in Uppity's post. Larry Johnson ALSO has one about the difference between HILLARY'S relationship to the Weather Underground (she didn't have one) and Obama's (he does have one).
All in all, Hillary is getting HIGH marks for her participation last night, and won over a BUNCH of Undecideds. She is head and shoulders above Obama, in my opinion. She has a mastery of the issues he cannot even DREAM of having. And she can TALK EXTEMPORANEOUSLY without stumbling and stammering al over herself! And she has real ideas, not generalities and worn out cliches. She made it abundantly clear last night - she IS the real deal. Obama? Not so much.
Oh - and people like Keith Olbermann? He was just freaking out. So was Rachel Maddow, whom I also used to like. And Stephanie Miller, whom I used to love. Yeah, they were not happy campers that someone actually asked The Chosen One some REAL questions!! Nope, not happy at all. Teehee! Ahem. I mean, really, that's kinda what htey get for setting him up when he had not been vested or tested. But I think if he had undergone more scrutiny earlier on, he would NOT even be in the running any more. Seriously. If anyone had bothered to really look at Rezko, Auchi, Ayers, Wright, et al BEFORE, he would be sitting in the Senate chamber right now instead of traipsing around Pennsylvania. So, Keithie Boy can blame only himself and the other MSNBO "journalists" for this latest turn. If they had done their jobs BEFORE, this would have been discussed before, they wouldn't have been all taken off guard, and they wouldn't be pitching their little hissy fits. Just sayin'. But, probably too much to expect that they might actually start doing their jobs NOW!! I know, HAHAHAHA!! I crack me up sometimes, too...
*****HILLARY WILL BE ON THE STEPHEN COLBERT SHOW TONIGHT!!***** If you can't stay up for it, tape it - he had put out an invitation to the candidates, and none of them have been on his show yet - until tonight!!! It should be interesting!
Dear Washington Journal:
About Clinton, Bosnia, and honesty: she has said a number of times, along with the president of BOSNIA, that it WAS a war zone into which she was flying. They had Apache helicopters protecting them, and they WERE worried about sniper fire! Yes, she exaggerated from the original story - and she has APOLOGIZED for that! Enough already!
And Obama gets asked semi-tough questions ONE time, and everyone freaks out. How about HIS honesty? He LIED when he said his handwriting wasn't on the questionnaire regarding his position on guns - politico.com has a copy of it WITH his handwriting on it! He has lied about being in TUCC when Wright was going on on his diatribes - NO ONE has been pushing hard on THAT! He has LIED about his relationship with Rezko, as we are finding out more and more (not that the national media is bothering to cover it much). He has misled about his childhood, his father, and other associations. He has LIED about the legislation he has introduced and their outcomes. He ATTACKED Clinton when HE was pressed on his LONG time association with friend and contributor,and lied about, William Ayers, about her husband pardoning two of the Weathermen. First of all, SHE was not the one who did it. Second of all, UNLIKE Ayers, they had actually spent time in PRISON. Ayers has walked free. EVERY time Obama is pushed on his poor judgment, or his questionable associates, he gets mad, and attacks Clinton. Where's the outrage THERE? He has been allowed to get away with far, far more than ANY other candidate since George Bush.
For once, he was asked slightly harder questions than usual - and got a glimpse into how Clinton is treated ALL OF THE TIME by the media. He couldn't take it. How in the WORLD can he run a country when he can't even handle Charles and George?!?! (The bias against Clinton in the media has been demonstrated, by the way. Lou Dobbs has actually spoken out about it. And I have been disappointed to see that C-Span has engaged in that bias as well. The lack of true journalism in this country is shocking. The spin by the MSM to support one candidate over another, just like in 2000 and 2004, is reprehensible. It is far past time for Obama to be vetted, and last night was just a tiny bit of that.)
Clinton won the debate last night HANDS DOWN. She knows policy, she can affect change, and she has the right vision for this country. Obama stammers, hems and haws, and throws out generalities and cliches. We've already had 7 yrs of a president like that. Personally, I want the president who CAN affect change, CAN speak extemporaneously, and CAN think on her feet. Clearly, that is Senator Clinton.
Thank you for your time.
The Rev. Amy
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
So, yes - Obama gets the endorsement of Bruce Springsteen. Big damn deal - I never cared all that much about Springsteen anyway I have to confess. What did the media FAIL to cover??? Endorsements that actually DO matter! ONE HUNDRED Pennsylvania mayors endorsed Hillary yesterday - ONE HUNDRED of them. You can see the complete list of mayors at: http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=7105
Who else endorsed Senator Clinton? The Cement Masons and Plasterers Union of the AFL/CIO endorsed her. So, if you're looking for the Union label, look to Hillary Clinton.
And how about this one? In a match up against Senator McCain, Clinton wins handily. Obama? Not so much. Not even close. Nope - McCain beats him by a ton. It is pretty darn hard to win the presidency without Florida. Just sayin'.
And in NC, Clinton announced the 1,500 North Carolina Women for Hillary Leadership Council with some mighty impressive names on there (at least to a born Tar Heel). (http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=7113)
There are a lot more positives for the Clinton campaign than the national media is reporting, so don't believe everything you see. The best pollster, SUSA, has Clinton doing very well in PA, KY, and elsewhere, so don't listen to the crappy polls that discount Clinton. Just remember that a lot of other polls had her down and out a while ago, and they wer flat out WRONG.
So, keep the faith, people, and keep fighting for Clinton!!
Nice video - thanks to No Quarter for bringing it to my attention so I can bring it to yours!
Hillary Clinton IS worth fighting for - all the way to the White House!
Don't forget the debate tonight on ABC!
My seminary, Union Theological Seminary in New York City, has just announced that for the first time in its 172 year history, it will have a WOMAN PRESIDENT!!!! Yes, it is true. Her name is Serene Jones, she is 48, and has been a professor at Yale Divinity School and Yale Law School for some time. She is an accomplished writer, and her specialty is gender studies and theology, particularly feminist/womanist theology. She is thrilled, of course, to be the first woman president, but said she would have been equally thrilled to be its 12th! I like her already. Here is another quote from Dr. Jones: "The Reality is that 8-percent of grassroots, faith-based programs are carried out by women practitioners, and the majority of seminar students today are women," she said. "However, women still run up against the stained-glass ceiling, and we need to understand that women's ministries and spiritual leadership are flowering, often outside ordained ministry." (Union News, Spring 2008, p 3)
Oh, you might recognize this seminary - it is also where James Cone, father of Black Liberation Theology teaches. I had the opportunity to study under him while at Union (1983- 86). Another name you might recognize, Dwight Hopkins, was a doctoral student there at the same time, and was my TA in Systematic Theology. I think I have written here before about Black Liberation Theology. I always got the impression that Black Liberation Theology, like Latin American Liberation theology, ALL liberation theologies, came from the place of Jesus standing with the oppressed. I never got the hate and anger we have seen displayed at Obama's church, certainly not when I was at Union either in class or chapel. Just sayin'.
Anyway, perhaps this is a sign of what is to come, a herald that we will ALL have a woman president in the coming year. Oh, dear goddess - that would certainly be the answer to a lot of prayers, mine included.
To Dr. Serene Jones (what a perfect name for a theologian, by the way), I say WELCOME to the Union community. I look forward to hearing more about your tenure there in the coming months and years!
(For more information on Dr. Jones, you can go here: http://www.utsnyc.edu/NETCOMMUNITY/Page.aspx?pid=913&srcid=256)
Here's another great video from ILEWoman. Grab a cup of coffee, sit back, and be prepared to sing along (there's even a little bit of rapping to support Hillary - teehee). Really impressive to see so many of her accomplishments listed in one place. What a woman she is; what a great PRESIDENT she will make!! Go, HILLARY!!!!
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
And make no mistake - that is EXACTLY what this is. Sexism, pure and simple. See, since he's a MAN, it is just hunky dory for him to hang out in a bowling alley lifting a glass, but for CLINTON to do so?!?!? Oh, dear, me - that is just unLADYlike!!! What was she THINKING???? Why, next thing ya know, she'll be showing her ANKLES, or letting her petticoat peak out from underneath her hoop skirt!! Give me a freakin' break already. Here's the thing - not only would I rather have a drink (make mine a seltzer with lime) with Senator Clinton any single day of the WEEK, but I could talk POLICY with her all at the same time! Because, see, she's wicked smart, and VERY funny - ALL AT THE SAME TIME!! Woohoo!!! Ahem. So, Obama and Stewart, take you sexist comments and put them you-know-where - it is nto an acceptable attack strategy, and unless you rag on Obama for the same thing, Jon, it ain't all that funny (and I migt add, people were not laughing as much when Jon was pointedly criticizing Clinton - ah, SNAP, Jon!).
On my way home from taking in one of the dogs to see the vet (thank the GODDESS her ears are finally a-okay), I got a call from the Obama campaign wanting money to win Pennsylvania. I said, very nicely, that the young man could stop right there, I was a Hillary Cinton supporter. He said, "Oh, okay." So, when I got home, I gave Clinton another donation. I figure if they are calling people down here in South Cacalacki, they are going through their whole donor list, so Clinton will be needing more, too. (Oh, all right - a LONG, long time ago, I gave Edwards, Clinton, and Obama money until I figured out who I as going to support wholeheartedly. Clinton won with her mastery of policies, her commitment to human rights, her work on behalf of women and children, and all the rest that you most likely know. Every single day, my decision is affirmed, especially as I see and learn more about Obama. Seriously - wow...So, so, so glad I didn't drink the Kool-aide.)
I urge you to do so, too. This is a mighty important time for her campaign. Check that, OUR campaign. The election is ONE WEEK AWAY. So, show her some love, and yourself, by extension - give her some of your hard-earned dollars. And don't forget to watch the debate tomorrow night to cheer her on!
Monday, April 14, 2008
There are two other VERY good pieces at NoQuarterUSA.net today: one is a letter by an African American woman named Chastity who writes Obama a letter regarding his recent comments. And there is a video piece from a news show in PA about protestors at one of Obama's campaign offices because of his comments. I encourage you to check them out.
Then, there was Obama's attack on Clinton yesterday, claiming here was a Democrat ATTACKING another Democrat, and isn't that the REEPUBLICANS' job?? And just HOW was she attacking him? By saying what all the rest of thinking people know - Obama's remarks in San Francisco were ELITIST and DEROGATORY!! Heaven forFEND that she should actually challenge him on something HE SAYS!!!! He says, repeatedly, "Shame on her! Shame on her!" Shame on HER? Shame on YOU, Obama!!! For your lying, conniving, right-wing talking point ways! Shame on YOU! Ahem. So, he went on to attack HER (for real), and calling her Annie Oakley (could do a whole lot worse in MY book, I might add! Oakley was QUITE a strong woman, and quite accomplished.). He was pretty schmucky in THAT video, too, which I will also post. (Ref. Post 2)
And then there was the whole Faith Forum thing last night. Not only was Campbell Brown one of the co-hosts, but she was particularly aggressive to Clinton. She kept pushing her to give an example of just WHEN Clinton felt the Holy Spirit around her. Clinton very deftly said that there were numerous experiences she had had, but it would cheapen their importance to enumerate them, though she was much more eloquent about it. And nicer. Never mind that I have a REAL problem with this whole concept in the FIRST place - SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE IS CRITICAL!!! What the HELL are they doing grilling Clinton about her FAITH?? You know, there was a time, and Clinton is certainly of this generation, in which people did not TALK about their faith experiences because they are PRIVATE! And politicians CERTAINLY should not be made to talk about their faith experiences UNLESS they volunteer it by way of making a point. Like, "I do work for poor people because I am called by my faith to do so." Enough said! Clinton did handle herself well, though, as one might expect.
Obama, not so much. But he also got a whole bunch of softball questions, said he would support ABSTINENCE programs WHICH DO NOT WORK, would continue to fund FAITH BASED INITIATIVES, praised BUSH AGAIN, and said he would WORK WITH CREATIONISTS!!! Are you KIDDING ME??!?! What the hell is the matter with him?? You know, sometimes you HAVE to take a stand, and Creationism is BOGUS!!!!!! No educated person can give real credence to Creationism. Yet, that is exactly what Ol' Barry did - yep - he will work with them if, "God sees it in his plan to put Barry in the White House," or something along those lines. And I am not kidding - that is what he said. Creationism is an anti-educational perspective because it takes NOTHING into account, like history, culture, sociology, biblical criticism, OR context!! It is ridiculous!!! But, hey - since Barack was in front of a group of people at a religious school, he was all too ready to say whatever they wanted him to say. He couldn't bring himself to utter that a "woman has the right to choose," but he would embrace abstinence first programs and consult with Creationists. Holy COW.
AND PROGRESSIVES ARE SUPPORTING HIM!!!!!!! And, they are rationalizing away his comments while ATTACKING Clinton, as if SHE was the one who uttered such insensitive, haughty words. What a joke. They simply refuse to actually LOOK at his record, what he has said, the lies he has told (his entire first book is FILLED with them), his record, or lack thereof. They have ordained him as being "Cool," and that is all that matters. What an American Idol generation we have. Where are the people who really CARE about these issues? Oh, wait - I know - in HILLARY's camp!
And everytime they do this crap, Daschle, Obama, his supporters, it just makes me go to her website and give her money. So, I'm off to do that RIGHT now.
Sunday, April 13, 2008
This is a good response to Obama's recent attacks on good Americans, as well as the 8 years that Bill Clinton was president. I might add, as I recall, those 8 years were pretty damn good for most Americans, including those in small towns. So Obama's slam on both our ONLY TWO-TERM Democratic president in DECADES, along with a number of small-town Americans, was doubly insulting. What a blowhard. Anywho - this is a nice response from Clinton, and it rings most authentic. She grew up in a small town, and she HAS always been a church-goer. All true. This is who Clinton is, and she is the one who will BEST represent not just small town Americans, but ALL Americans. Amen, sister!