|
|
|
|
|
| Why is Hillary Losing?
Posted: 5/26/2008 8:36:39 PM | Give us a woman candidate who is worth voting for and I'd vote for her.
Clinton is not that candidate.
Nor is Condi Rice...
though she'd be a better choice than anyone who will actually get on the Nov ballot...
(but its not hard to be better than the weasels we will have to choose from)
 | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 5/26/2008 8:44:18 PM |
At that point in time, the possibility of a female leader of anything will have a real chance. But not this year, and not this country.
Anyone who feels this way should read Peggy Noonan's article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/declarations.html
Hillary's loss has NOTHING to do with gender issues, as Noonan aptly states. Many voters would strongly consider great women like Condoleezza Rice (conservatives), or Claire McCaskill (liberals). Hillary is losing because she's not a good campaigner and she wouldn't be a good President. It's great that the collective wisdom of the American people (in spite of all our differences) headed off this train wreck in time. | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 5/26/2008 9:18:34 PM | ^^^^^
Hillary's loss has NOTHING to do with gender issues
to even say that her loss has "nothing" to do with gender issues shows how unaware you are of sexism…
Could she possibly cake on anymore makeup???
^^^^^^
example msg 1658, even if this was posted in “jest”- I question why sexist comments- if someone thinks they’re amusing are accepted ….
but racist comments are NEVER considered funny and NEVER accepted-
we, as a society are so used to comments like this, that there will be those who don’t think the above is a sexist statement and there will be those who think that sexism played no part in this election no matter how many examples they are given- | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 5/26/2008 9:29:18 PM | Fred -
"Give us a woman candidate who is worth voting for and I'd vote for her"
She doesn't exist.
Spit, I read Peggy Noonan's article . It's a good thing she directed such vitriol squarely at Hillary Clinton. She's a tough broad, and she can take it. Had Noonan directed this nonsense towards the legions of women and men who have painstakingly documented sexist remark after sexist interpretation after sexist bias, they would justfiably come after HER. And a coward like Noonan couldn't handle it for a second. | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 5/26/2008 9:36:33 PM | A random statement on a thread is not indicative of why Hillary is losing the race (By the way, I doubt that most members even noticed the sexist statement in msg. 1658). I didn't notice it until it was reposted (always a bad move).
Peggy Noonan's article is conclusive on the matter. Noonan's article highlights the differences in mind-set between great woman leaders like Golda Meir, Indira Gandhi, and Margaret Thatcher as contrasted with the lesser personage of Hillary Clinton. Hillary doesn't measure up, and never did. Noonan analyzes the many rationalizations that Hillary and her campaign have made for her failure. Finally, Noonan describes the broad cross-section of voters that Hillary has gotten in this race and rightly states that Hillary's whining does those voters a disservice.
Anyone who knows the history of Hillary Clinton can see the spate of character flaws she has exhibited since her college years and also since her involvement with the House Judiciary Committee legal counsel in 1974. What we're seeing now is nothing new. Noonan knows about it. Maureen Dowd knows about it. Camille Paglia knows about it.
Most people have basic, minimal respect for Hillary as a person, her huge flaws notwithstanding. She's just not cut out to be President, now or ever. | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 5/26/2008 10:49:09 PM | With all due respect, Spitfire, you are stating singular opinions as fact.
“Peggy Noonan's article is conclusive on the matter.”
Sayzwhoo? You? What qualifies you to make that assertion any more than what qualifies me?
Noonan’s article is an uninspired hatchet-job on a candidate that has had the guts to step into a decidedly male-dominated and wholly uncontested arena – the top political job in the land. In my view she has done so with great dignity, even when that cretin at one of her rally’s held up a sign “Iron my Shirt.” She ignored it. Had someone held up a sign “Shine My Shoes” at an Obama rally and the outrage and distaste would have dominated national news for days if not weeks. But slag a woman, so what? It doesn’t even warrant coverage. That is just one of many, many examples.
Noonan doesn’t analyze squat. Noonan compares selective snippets of popular thought on long-dead female leaders from a long ago day, and pretends there wasn’t any sexist baggage attached to any of them. Remember the poster of Golda Meier “But Can She Type?” Sexist bias has always been present, it’s only that time has dimmed everyone’s memory. Until recently, this great big bandage called “everything is equal now” has been glued to the wound of modern feminism. The Clinton campaign has ripped it off, scab and all, and we see the ugly underside of misogynist vitriol and bile. Some of the reports I’ve seen in mainstream media, by so-called respected journalists make me vomit.
Noonan lashes at Hillary for whining, and that is her article’s fatal flaw in my view. It isn’t Hillary complaining – it’s her supporters, and they are not whining, they are enraged.
“Most people have basic, minimal respect for Hillary as a person, her huge flaws notwithstanding. She's just not cut out to be President, now or ever.”
Most people have a lot more than that – be fair. She didn’t garner 18 million sympathy votes. | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 5/27/2008 3:37:13 AM | I just don't see how at this juncture in her career, after she's gotten so far and accomplished so much, that anyone could say she's a victim of sexism. Please provide examples of what you're talking about...because I'm also a woman and I just don't get it. I think what she's done so far has been (and I've said this before) important and historic, but I absolutely do not see how they are "picking on her" more than they "pick on" any other candidate.
Every one of them suffer scrutiny, and so it should be.
I think the way she's behaved in this campaign is sad and unworthy behavoir of someone in her position and status, and the same applies to her husband...who I used to very much admire and respect. He's shown us a side of William Jefferson Clinton I never thought we'd see. | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 5/27/2008 4:51:13 AM | | Right, right! Lets vilify Hillary and Bill after all our antics have worked on Bush...its funny how Obama supporters have to vilify the opposition to justify their emotionally based support for Obama...your side keeps saying all these vile things and reprehensible things that she has allegedly done that has changed your mind about her, on another thread I asked for some examples, if those examples are to what you are referring then you are definitely Swift-boating... | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 5/27/2008 7:26:53 AM | I'm reading Gail Sheehy's biography of Hillary Clinton called 'Hillary's Choice'. I'm at the section where she's selecting her college. I was amazed that as late as 1965 Harvard, Yale and the rest of the Ivy League schools still did not accept women:
"Although Maine South was one of the top public high schools in the country, most of Hillary's peers were going on to the University of Illinois or local schools. Very few kids went east. And at that time the Ivy League colleges - Yale, Dartmouth, Princeton, and the others - did not accept women. Janet Altman Spragens, a 1964 graduate of Wellesley who was a student teacher at Maine south, told Hillary that for a woman, the Seven Sisters schools, as they were called, were about as good as one could do."
Hillary's Choice, p. 40
In 1965 people, the best colleges in the coutry still did not admit women.
In the key swing states of Ohio and Pennsylvania Hillary got the vote of about 65% of the white female voters. I'm aiming to bring that up to the 80% range and higher.
This one picture is gold:
Kathrine Switzer attempts to run in the 1967 Boston Marathon.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/04/15/sports/15switzer.1.190.jpg
Expect to see it in future Clinton campaign commercials.
PhillyFellow | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 5/27/2008 7:45:23 AM |
Hillary's loss has NOTHING to do with gender issues, as Noonan aptly states. Many voters would strongly consider great women like Condoleezza Rice (conservatives), or Claire McCaskill (liberals). Hillary is losing because she's not a good campaigner and she wouldn't be a good President. It's great that the collective wisdom of the American people (in spite of all our differences) headed off this train wreck in time.
Sorry, but THE main overriding reason why Hillary is trailing is simply because two of the biggest states in the country that were big Clinton supporters were wiped off the election map. If those two states were added normally Obama's lead in pledged delegates diminishes to less than 50, while Hillary would gain in the popular vote by several hundred thousand, assuming she will also win big in Puerto Rico, which all signs are pointing to.
It is because of this fact that her two biggest supporting states were wiped out that her deficit in the pledged delegate count and popular vote became significant and there arose the constant drumbeat to pullout. This significantly damaged her ability to raise funds and to attract superdelegates.
Let me ask you this: what do you think would have happened to the Obama campaign if the two big Obama supporting states of Illinois and Virginia were just wiped off the election map?
PhillyFellow | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 5/27/2008 7:48:29 AM | Simmah,
Watch it and weep:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcdnlNZg2iM | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 5/27/2008 7:59:06 AM |
Most people have basic, minimal respect for Hillary as a person, her huge flaws notwithstanding. She's just not cut out to be President, now or ever.
MORE than 50% of the democrats say it's Obama who is not cut out to be President.
PhillyFellow | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 5/27/2008 7:59:24 AM | Just to be abundantly clear, I am not saying Clinton is perfect. I fully recognize that she is a politician, and they are, by nature, not particularly nice people. They are self-serving, they have to be to get elected. She got where she got in spite of the sexism she faced and more power to her for it. It's a sad day when respected feminists like Dodd and Paglia stomp all over her achievements as a female POLITICIAN.
Who among you are so naive that you think all of the male politicians out there speak God's truth for the good of mankind each and every time they open their mouths? What the hell kind of standard are you expecting her to deliver, that you haven't demanded from all these white boys all these years?
That is the issue people. None of Clinton's supporters that I can see are saying she is perfect. But neither is Obama and neither is McCain, nor any of them that came before her. The difference is, how the media is portraying her. That's the issue.
If the media treatment of Clinton had been as unbiased and kid-gloved as they have been to Obama, no one would have anything to be enraged about. If she lost, fair and square, so be it.
Thanks for the photo of the Boston Marathon Philly - that's exactly what has gone on here. Only in 2008, you can add a couple of women to that photo, too. | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 5/27/2008 8:17:17 AM |
Remember the poster of Golda Meier “But Can She Type?” Sexist bias has always been present, it’s only that time has dimmed everyone’s memory. Until recently, this great big bandage called “everything is equal now” has been glued to the wound of modern feminism. The Clinton campaign has ripped it off, scab and all, and we see the ugly underside of misogynist vitriol and bile. Some of the reports I’ve seen in mainstream media, by so-called respected journalists make me vomit.
Noonan lashes at Hillary for whining, and that is her article’s fatal flaw in my view. It isn’t Hillary complaining – it’s her supporters, and they are not whining, they are enraged.
Good points. I was very irritated that Noonan twisted the sexism charge that Hillary's supporters have made to be against the voters. Working class male voters actually have voted for her in large numbers. Obviously it's against the mainstream media that these complaints are leveled. There were many cases in past primary campaigns of the trailing candidate trailing the leader by far larger numbers than in this campaign. Yet there was no constant drumbeat for those men to withdraw in those. Oddly there is in this case when the race is still close and neither candidate will get the required number of pledged delegates from the primaries and caucuses alone to win the nomination.
PhillyFellow | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 5/27/2008 8:17:43 AM | Could she possibly cake on anymore makeup???
example msg 1658, even if this was posted in “jest”- I question why sexist comments- if someone thinks they’re amusing are accepted …. It's a joke!  Don't worry; I'll cut down on Obama being a metrosexual soon enough!
I read Peggy Noonan's article . It's a good thing she directed such vitriol squarely at Hillary Clinton. She's a tough broad, and she can take it. No doubt about that. I don't think Hillary would be upset over my comment about her overapplication of cosmetic products. In fact, I bet she toss a zinger right back at me, and then slug down a shot of whiskey.
I was amazed that as late as 1965 Harvard, Yale and the rest of the Ivy League schools still did not accept women Princeton U held out with their gender restrictions until 1969. I believe Princeton first admitted a black undergraduate shortly after WWII (1946). Historically, which group, women or blacks, have received more unfair discrimination in Western civilization? I'd say definitely women. They've experienced gender discrimation since day 1. Blacks only since after the days of Christopher Columbus.
Let's try to get away from gender bias justification for Hillary's loss. It's a brittle crutch best not leaned on. | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 5/27/2008 8:19:14 AM |
Sorry, but THE main overriding reason why Hillary is trailing is simply because two of the biggest states in the country that were big Clinton supporters were wiped off the election map. If those two states were added normally Obama's lead in pledged delegates diminishes to less than 50, while Hillary would gain in the popular vote by several hundred thousand, assuming she will also win big in Puerto Rico, which all signs are pointing to.
It is because of this fact that her two biggest supporting states were wiped out that her deficit in the pledged delegate count and popular vote became significant and there arose the constant drumbeat to pullout. This significantly damaged her ability to raise funds and to attract superdelegates.
Let me ask you this: what do you think would have happened to the Obama campaign if the two big Obama supporting states of Illinois and Virginia were just wiped off the election map?
If...if....if.....if...... wait a minute.
These were the rules that all agreed to.
They were not fought over WHEN they were agreed to.
Hillary said herself, as quoted multiple times, (concerning Michigan) that the votes wouldn't count. There was no outrage, no anger, no concern about those votes not counting then - from anyone.
As I noted in the Crist thread, a Republican legislature made sure it moved the Democratic primary just over the line where it would invalidate it. That's no accident. That same Florida governor also is fueling the flames of division in the Democratic party, and Hillary's taken the bait. That governor has direct ties to McCain/Bush.
The time for outrage, and calling that what it was, is past - a missed opportunity for the Democratic party to make some really good points about why this was being done. One week later, and nothing would have changed for anyone. That one week difference therefore has only one "raison d'etre" . 
Whatever happened happened. The time to act, for all concerned, was THEN. | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 5/27/2008 8:44:45 AM | MG, I'm responding to the claim that there is some overwhelming mandate for Obama to become the nominee which is FAR from the truth.
OVER 50% of the democrats DO NOT want him to become the nominee. That is a BIG point that needs to made.
PhillyFellow | |
|
| Why has Hillary lost?
Posted: 5/27/2008 9:01:23 AM | The issue of the delegates from Michigan and Florida has been amply discussed on the thread. Hillary signed a pledge not to participate (that means not to campaign and not to rely on voting totals and delegates from those states). Hillary then decided, when she wasn't doing well in the race, to go back on her pledge and now wants those results to count even though they are obviously tainted. She didn't successfully start an initiative in those states to re-do the primaries there. Failing in that, Hillary wants the current, tainted results to count anyway. There is no other way to look at this other than to say that Hillary is dishonest and lacks credibility. She signed the agreement, and now she wants to disregard her own pledge.
The bottom line is that those Michigan and Florida results are not going to be counted in a way that reverses the outcome of the race. Hillary failed to consider the ramifications when she signed the pledge. Hillary failed to help the voters of Michigan and Florida to institute new primaries (if she felt they were needed). Hillary failed to convince the party that the tainted results from the original, flawed primaries (which were held against the rules) should be counted in their entirety. Hillary has failed.
What Hillary needs to do now is to try to turn failure into feedback. If this issue is so important to her, she can perhaps be effective by going back to the Senate and drafting a bill to regulate how primaries are conducted in the future. It's doubtful that such a bill (especially from Hillary) would garner any support on Capitol Hill. However, if she's honorable and really believes in this, she should go back to the Senate and try. | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 5/27/2008 9:09:01 AM | About the May 31st DNC meeting and how to apportion the Michigan delegates.
The May 31st meeting of the DNC rules committee will
decide the question of how many delegates Michigan and
Florida should get.
Clinton has argued that 100% of the delegates should
be restored. Most news reports on this upcoming
meeting say the likely compromise will be the 50% that
MI and FL should have been given in the first place.
However, a key argument in Clinton's favor is this: by
changing the delegate penalty to only 50%, the rules
committee will be acknowledging that they made a
mistake in assessing a 100% penalty the first time.
But this mistake of the rules committee's own making
seriously damaged the Clinton campaign because it led
to the constant drumbeat for her to withdraw from the
race.
Because she won those states big, if it had been only
a 50% penalty from the beginning then the huge popular
vote gain she had from those states and the
significant delegate gain she got from them would have
made this a much closer race and there would have been
no calls for her to withdraw.
Hence restoring the full 100% would be a way of
rectifying the harm they themselves had caused. The
argument that some penalty has to be assessed has some
validity, but that penalty should have been 50% at the
beginning of the process. By making it 100% the rules
committee caused unwarranted harm to her campaign that
should be rectified now.
Removing the penalty entirely in this case will not
encourage further states to break the rules in future
elections because there will still be the 50% penalty
that should have been assessed in the first place.
Restoring full delegates to MI and FL is not rewarding
them for breaking the rules but only correcting an
error the DNC rules committee caused.
If those delegates were to be fully restored that
would have a major influence on the delegate count.
This news report says that in that scenario Clinton
would net a 111 delegate gain:
Florida, Michigan delegates cannot save Clinton.
"If their elections had been held according to party
rules, Michigan and Florida would have allocated a
total of 313 pledged delegates based on the outcome of
the vote. Using the results of the January elections,
Clinton would get 178 to Obama's 67, giving her a
111-vote advantage. As of Thursday, she was behind 180
delegates, so that would not catch her up even under
that unlikely scenario."
By NEDRA PICKLER – May 16, 2008
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5igrYLRrHG3P6lIbs2E7pSH0bxhvgD90MLKE80
While giving the correct delegate gain as 111, which
assumes Obama gets no Michigan delegates because he
voluntarily removed his name from the ballot, the
reporter makes a glaring error here. The important
number here is the difference in the pledged delegates
from primaries and caucuses alone, not the number
including the superdelegates. This is because the
superdelegates can change their opinion anyway they
want until the convention. Their vote won't be counted
until the convention is held in August.
In pledged delegates the Obama lead is around 160 or
so. So if you took 111 off of that, it would be less
than 50. Since Clinton is expected to win big in
Puerto Rico and the two other remaining states have
low numbers of delegates she could reduce the Obama's
pledged delegate lead to around 30 to 40 or even less
depending on how strongly Puerto Rico comes out in
favor of her. In a total delegate pool of over 4,000
delegates such a small lead hardly counts as a ringing
endorsement of Obama. Plus a large margin of victory
in Puerto Rico will pad her already existing lead in
the popular vote.
Obama supporters have complained that giving Obama no
delegates from Michigan would be unfair to Obama since
many of his voters voted "uncommitted" when his name
was not on the ballot. But the key fact here is that
Michigan delegates who are listed as uncommitted can
still vote for Obama at the democratic convention. So
the way to apportion the Michigan delegates should be
to give Clinton the number of delegates she won
according to the primary and the rest of the delegates
go as uncommitted and be free to select Obama or
anyone else at the convention itself.
Note that this appears to have been part of the Obama
campaign's plans from the beginning judging from this
campaign ad aired by Obama supporters prior to the
Michigan primary:
Sunday, May 25, 2008
Campaigning for Obama to Lose in Michigan.
Caption? "Electioneering"
"Councilwoman Conyers: IF AT LEAST 15% OF THE PEOPLE
VOTE UNCOMMITTED, THE STATE DEMOCRATIC PARTY MUST SEND
THAT PERCENTAGE OF DELEGATES TO THE NATIONAL
CONVENTION UNCOMMITTED.
"Rep. Conyers: MY WIFE AND I ARE VOTING UNCOMMITTED.
WE WILL WORK WITH THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY TO MAKE SURE
THAT UNCOMMITTED DELEGATES GO TO THAT CONVENTION TRULY
UNCOMMITTED SO THAT OBAMA CAN COMPETE FOR THEIR VOTE."
http://rezkowatch.blogspot.com/2008/05/campaigning-for-obama-to-lose-in.html
On this issue of not giving Obama any delegates
initially from Michigan we need to keep in mind also
his decision to remove his name from the ballot was
not actually done in the interests of simply upholding
the rules of the party. It was pure self-interest.
Several reports have come out that the Obama campaign
reached out to other democratic candidates other than
Clinton to all remove their names from the Michigan
ballot to embarrass Clinton and curry favor with Iowa
and New Hampshire who wanted their elections to be
first during the campaign:
Michigan, Iowa and the Games the Politicos Play
by: Lynda Waddington
Oct 11, 2007 at 15:09 PM
"Five individuals connected to five different
campaigns have confirmed -- but only under condition
of anonymity -- that the situation that developed in
connection with the Michigan ballot is not at all as
it appears on the surface. The campaign for Illinois
Sen. Barack Obama, arguably fearing a poor showing in
Michigan, reached out to the others with a desire of
leaving New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton as the
only candidate on the ballot. The hope was that such a
move would provide one more political obstacle for the
Clinton campaign to overcome in Iowa."
http://iowaindependent.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=1264
PhillyFellow | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 5/27/2008 9:25:24 AM |
She got where she got in spite of the sexism she faced and more power to her for it.
She got to where she is because she married Bill Clinton. Something a man couldn't have done at the time.
It's natural for many women (and certain guys from Philadelphia) to feel bitter that she's losing. However, to blame sexism is ludicrous. She ran the poorest campaign that I can remember. Anyone that starts out with 53% party support and ends up losing surely has done something wrong.
Where was the "rampant sexism" when she was waaaaay out front of the other nominees? Did it suddenly reemerge?
She has won the majority of the white male vote. Where's the sexism in that?
If anything, being a woman gave her the biggest break in the whole campaign. If Barak Obama had broken down to tears the way she did early on, it would have been the end of the race for him. His support would have deserted him, and he would have been deemed unworthy for the office without any further questions and debate. Being a woman got her out of that jam.
As for scrutiny. When you have been caught making numerous bold-faced lies, you will get a lot more scrutiny. People tend to question liars more than they do people whom they see as honest. She did that to herself.
It was her campaign that started the mud-flinging, and it backfired. Now she has to live with the consequences. | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 5/27/2008 9:28:56 AM | And how many Republican voters actually voted for Hillary ? We do know that Rush as mounting a campaign for her - and not for Obama.
Can you show me a Republican push to vote for Obama in the same volumes ?
If so, what does that say about your "popular vote" for Hillary ? Some, and God knows how many, of those votes were done without any real democratic purpose other than to invalidate Obama.
So Philly, how many of those are there ? | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 5/27/2008 9:41:17 AM | “She got to where she is because she married Bill Clinton.”
Right. Her education and work record would suggest differently, but none of that really matters does it? After all, she married a President, and that should be held against any of her accomplishments, forever and ever. That's because, once you marry a man, you are solely and completely identified by him, no matter what YOU do. Anything you accomplish belongs to his catalogue of achievements. You're just a backdrop.
“ Something a man couldn't have done at the time.”
Who are you kidding? Men have married rich women for centuries to gain a leg up at whatever industry they are hoping to achieve in. Men have been GIVEN the keys to businesses through the natural inheritance of man to man for centuries. Don’t spin this twaddle of men earn it and women are given it – as they say in the country, that’s horsehit Aylmer, don’t eat it.
“It's natural for many women (and certain guys from Philadelphia) to feel bitter that she's losing. However, to blame sexism is ludicrous. She ran the poorest campaign that I can remember. Anyone that starts out with 53% party support and ends up losing surely has done something wrong.”
Anyone who starts out with 53% party support will lose it mighty quickly when the mass media does the hatchet job that we’ve seen here. Just wait for the knives to come out on Obama, cuz that’s next.
“Where was the "rampant sexism" when she was waaaaay out front of the other nominees? Did it suddenly reemerge?”
Um, yeah! You are chosing to ignore my post here. I have already agreed that she isn’t perfect. What I want, what her supporters want (and they are A LOT of men by the way) is a fair game. That’s all.
“If anything, being a woman gave her the biggest break in the whole campaign. If Barak Obama had broken down to tears the way she did early on, it would have been the end of the race for him. His support would have deserted him, and he would have been deemed unworthy for the office without any further questions and debate. Being a woman got her out of that jam.”
I doubt it. If Barack Obama had shown a little emotion (she did not break down in tears, her voice cracked and it was obvious she felt deeply about the subject) he would have been lauded as the new man, the sensitive new president we’ve all been waiting for. Just look at Beckham’s tears when he left England – for a recent example. Same level of emotion – vilified? Nope, admired. And you say there isn't a double standard?
“It was her campaign that started the mud-flinging, and it backfired. Now she has to live with the consequences.”
And Obama has clean hands? No, he does not. Obama is the master of attack, run for cover, and when she defends herself, scream foul. And the media and the DNC have sat back and watched it happen. That’s not objective reporting. That’s a smear campaign with an agenda. | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 5/27/2008 9:57:42 AM |
I doubt it. If Barack Obama had shown a little emotion (she did not break down in tears, her voice cracked and it was obvious she felt deeply about the subject) he would have been lauded as the new man, the sensitive new president we’ve all been waiting for.
Absolutely wrong. If Obama ever breaks down in public like Hillary did, he'll wreck his career just like Edmund Muskie did in 1972. What Hillary did (crying after the defeat in the Iowa caucus) was unprofessional and inexcusable. Gender has nothing to do with it. If Obama ever shows weakness and breaks like that, the backlash against him will be even worse. | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 5/27/2008 10:09:17 AM | As SimmahDahnNah pointed out, and I've also pointed out, if Hillary is such a feminist - why has she been a member of The Fellowship for two decades - a religious group that doesn't allow the sexes to worship in the same prayer circles ?
Sean Hannity has called Obama's church a "cult," but that term applies far more aptly to Clinton's "Family," which is organized into "cells" - their term - and operates sex-segregated group homes for young people in northern Virginia.
They get to use The Family's spacious estate on the Potomac, The Cedars, which is maintained by young men in Family group homes and where meals are served by The Family's young women's group.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/03/20/opinion/main3955108.shtml
She's quick to use the term 'elite", but then her group actually believes in elites.
They believe that, in mass societies, it's only the elites who matter, the political leaders who can build God's "dominion" on earth. Insofar as The Family has a consistent philosophy, it's all about power - cultivating it, building it and networking it together into ever-stronger units, or "cells." "We work with power where we can," Doug Coe has said, and "build new power where we can't."
- Ibid
She;'s a liberal, but that group has many very right wing Republicans, and has ties to dictators.
During the 1960s the Family forged relationships between the U.S. government and some of the most anti-Communist (and dictatorial) elements within Africa's postcolonial leadership. The Brazilian dictator General Costa e Silva, with Family support, was overseeing regular fellowship groups for Latin American leaders, while, in Indonesia, General Suharto (whose tally of several hundred thousand "Communists" killed marks him as one of the century's most murderous dictators) was presiding over a group of fifty Indonesian legislators. During the Reagan Administration the Family helped build friendships between the U.S. government and men such as Salvadoran general Carlos Eugenios Vides Casanova, convicted by a Florida jury of the torture of thousands, and Honduran general Gustavo Alvarez Martinez, himself an evangelical minister, who was linked to both the CIA and death squads before his own demise.
At the heart of The Family's American branch is a collection of powerful right-wing politicos, who include, or have included, Sam Brownback, Ed Meese, John Ashcroft, James Inhofe and Rick Santorum.
- Ibid
Senators Don Nickles (R., Okla.), Charles Grassley (R., Iowa), Pete Domenici (R., N.Mex.), John Ensign (R., Nev.), James Inhofe (R., Okla.), Bill Nelson (D., Fla.), and Conrad Burns (R., Mont.) are referred to as “members,” as are Representatives Jim DeMint (R., S.C.), Frank Wolf (R., Va.), Joseph Pitts (R., Pa.), Zach Wamp (R., Tenn.), and Bart Stupak (D., Mich.). Regular prayer groups have met in the Pentagon and at the Department of Defense, and the Family has traditionally fostered strong ties with businessmen in the oil and aerospace industries. The Family maintains a closely guarded database of its associates, but it issues no cards, collects no official dues. Members are asked not to speak about the group or its activities.
http://harpers.org/archive/2003/03/0079525
Two weeks into my stay, David Coe, Doug's son and the presumptive heir to leadership of the Family, dropped by the house. My brothers and I assembled in the living room, where David had draped his tall frame over a burgundy leather recliner like a frat boy, one leg hanging over a padded arm.
“You guys,” David said, “are here to learn how to rule the world.”
-Ibid
Elite ?
Some troubling questions, especially in context with Hillary's desire to focus so much attention on Obama's church and Wright.
It would be fascinating to see the same amount of attention focused on her own religious group. | |
|
| Why is Hillary losing?
Posted: 5/27/2008 10:19:36 AM | Spit:
"Absolutely wrong. If Obama ever breaks down in public like Hillary did, he'll wreck his career just like Edmund Muskie did in 1972. What Hillary did (crying after the defeat in the Iowa caucus) was unprofessional and inexcusable. Gender has nothing to do with it. If Obama ever shows weakness and breaks like that, the backlash against him will be even worse."
Well, that's just speculation isn't it? Why didn't you address the real-life examlple I gave you? Both Beckham and Clinton are in the media spotlight, both express emotion on camera, the media response is quite different. And please, no argument about how she's a politician and he's an athlete. We're talking about the media spin here, not the occupations. | |
|
|
| Page 68 of 98
|
58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98 |
|
Home
login 
