Okay, so shoot me. If it isn't already abundantly clear, I'm for Ms. Hillary as the Democratic Candidate for the next President of these United States.
She's highly intelligent, politically savvy, experienced, seasoned and tested.
And, yes. She's a Bitch.
Put a 'capitol B' on that word, please. Because of all of the adjectives above.
'Bitch' has come to describe a strong woman who knows who she is and what she wants and is willing to work hard in order to achieve her goals. You know, just like men. Except, they are described as 'self-directed', 'goal oriented', and 'successful.'
I'll leave that essay about the next level of sexism for another time. Right now, I want to talk about the dilemma I'm struggling with: the nomination for Democratic presidential candidate. In talking with many Democrats - male and female - I know I'm not alone in this.
Look, I'm as excited as anyone else about the Democratic slate. An African American and a woman! Women of a certain age never thought it would be possible in our life time. And, there she is. There he is. My, my, my. Whodathunk it? It's certainly cause for great celebration - and, yes, hope.
I admit, I'm worried (Ready?). I'm worried that Mr. Obama is going to win the nomination.
Not that I don't want an African American or a man to win. It's that I want a Democratic candidate to win.
My real concern is that Mr. Obama can't win.
I admit, I'm worried (Aim!). I am very concerned about the fact that while he's obviously 'all that' - intelligent, self-directed, goal-oriented and successful - he is not seasoned, experienced or tested. He's a junior senator with no international experience, for goodness sake! He needs more seasoning. More experience. More testing.
He's got lots and lots and lots of charisma, of this there can be no doubt. Suddenly, I feel like that feisty old woman in those commercials for Wendy's Hamburgers. I listen to him and I find myself asking, "Where's the beef?"
So much of what we know about both candidates is what we read in the papers, and what I'm reading about both candidates smells like old fish. Susan Russell sent me the article below, which I append for your consideration. It's much of what I have suspected all along.
I like Mr. Obama. It's not that. I want an African American to be President. It's not that. I don't mind having another man as President of the United States. It's not that.
It's this: While she is far from perfect, as far as I'm concerned, the only really qualified candidate we have for the kind of change we need is Ms. Hillary.
So, here it is: (Get ready to fire!). If Mr. Obama wins the Democratic nomination, I just may have to vote for Mr. McCain.
Never mind. Put down your guns. If I had to do that I'd probably shoot myself first. At this point, however, I'm seriously considering the possibility of voting for a Republican President for the first time in my life.
Not because he's Republican, but because if Mr. Obama is the Democratic candidate, Mr. McCain is going to win anyway. It brings me no joy to say that he probably should. There is simply no contest between Mr. Obama and Mr. McCain.
Change for the sake of change is not good enough. These are dangerous times - politically, economically, and internationally. We need someone who is seasoned. Experienced. Tested. Mr. Obama is not. Mr. McCain is.
And, Mr. McCain is certainly smarter that the present incumbent. Further, he has earned a reputation for sitting down and talking with Democrats. He's a reasonable Republican. Just the fact that the Religious Right hates him is almost reason enough for me to like him.
But, Ms. Hillary? She's all that and more. More importantly, she can win against Mr. McCain. Then again, what do I know. I'm just a woman.
Here's the bottom line, for me: If she's not the candidate, well, as far as I'm concerned, it's all over but the crying. I'm sure there are those who are for Mr. Obama and Mr. McCain who are saying the same thing.
You wouldn't know that from reading the papers. Well, here. Read this. Okay, it's one perspective, but I think it's a voice that is being suppressed in the 'free press'.
I know I'm going to pick up a lot of heat for this, but there it is. Tell me what you think.
The Uppity Woman has just unfurled her 'Bitch' flag. Target practice has officially begun.
(With apologies to my sisters and brothers who work hard against that militaristic imagery. Find me a better metaphor and I'll use it, but for me, it fits. You just wait and see.)
Caveat emptor
When it comes to news about candidates, few people really know what they are getting
By Ellen Snortland 02/28/2008
American news consumers are double-crossed by the mainstream press all the time. The Latin phrase, "caveat emptor," or "buyer beware," is particularly apt for news consumption. As news consumers, how do you know what's missing if it's missing? I've seen press bias about Hillary Clinton (and other powerful women) my entire professional life. How do you impact a biased media without access to the media? Double standards and double binds abound!
Here's a recent, relatively small yet highly emblematic example: I was eager to attend the Feb. 2 Hillary Clinton rally at Cal State LA. I arrived around 7:30 a.m. for a 9 a.m. start time. I had forgotten to apply for a press pass, so I was prepared to stand in line. At the entrance to the main gym, I was thrilled to see that people of every color, age, size and yes, both genders, were waiting. "Wow," I thought, "Is it possible there won't be room in the auditorium?"
Looking for the end of the line, I kept walking. I grew more choked up as I walked. People were engaged in the democratic process. They were on fire, inspired and eager to support Sen. Clinton. This is exactly like the crowds the media covers showing up for Sen. Barack Obama. They cared enough to take a precious Saturday morning to participate in the selection of the next president of the United States. I saw remote news vans. OK, finally, the Clinton camp will get some decent coverage. How is it possible that I can still be so naïve after all these years of being a part of the media, albeit the alternative media?
Finally, I arrived at the end of the line. I realized I was not going to get into the gym. Fortunately, I let a friend of mine, MJ - who had a sprained ankle and was using a cane - stand with me in line so she wouldn't have to hike even further. An hour later, a campaign volunteer pulled people out of the line who needed handicapped access. I got to accompany MJ and made it into the rally.
The place was packed to the rafters and smelled of the sports gyms of my youth: that unmistakable mix of maple flooring and packed bodies. They had to set up an overflow area outside for the thousands of people who could not get in. I stood shoulder to shoulder with a crowd that actually looked like the population of America. The press bleachers were packed. "There's no way the press is going to be able to ignore the inspirational impact that Hillary has on people," I thought.
Her speech was exhilarating, as were those of her endorsers: US Rep. Maxine Waters, Sally Field, Magic Johnson, Dolores Huerta, co-founder of the United Farm Workers ... the list is too long for this column. Our cheers were deafening. The rafters literally shook. The chants: "Hillary, Hillary, Hillary" or "Si, se puede!" (An AP reporter, David Espo, reported recently that "Si, se puede" is a translation of Obama's "Yes, we can," when almost any progressive from California knows the United Farm Workers and other labor activists have been chanting "Si, se puede" for decades.)
I left refueled. I tuned into news with great expectations. Alas, the Hillary event was reported in the most tedious manner possible, if at all. No mention of the packed crowd, no "sound bites" from her stellar line-up of endorsers, no sounds of the rapturous, gigantic crowd. No mention of the overflow. Meanwhile, the Obama rally on the same day was reported with words like "raucous," and "packed," with the ambient sound of the chanting crowd of passionate Obama supporters. How do you know what's missing if it's missing? If I hadn't been there to witness it myself, from the news reports I would have concluded the Clinton event was virtually empty.
Later, a so-called liberal talk show host "spun" the event at Cal State LA to be Latino vs. African American. Excuse me? Why the intentional creation of conflict? There were plenty of African Americans - again, men and women - in that gym. Excuse me? Who is spinning what? When people support Clinton, it does not mean they are anti-Obama or anti-African American.
When I covered the 1995 United Nations Fourth World Conference on Women, I witnessed the impact Clinton had on gigantic crowds. She had them on fire. What did US readers get? More column inches on OJ Simpson and prosecutor Marcia Clark's hair. I have heard a news producer's directions to "Get a picture of that ugly woman," to represent a crowd full of all sorts of people when he was covering a feminist demonstration. You get the idea.
Do you think I could get this Cal State LA story published in the mainstream press? The irony is that if I suddenly became one of those "anti-feminist" female columnists, I'd bet you I'd be syndicated in no time.
Buyer beware, you're being sold on some ideas that are ultimately double-crossing all of us.
32 comments:
Well, I wouldn't go so far as to vote for McCain... I wouldn't even kid around about it. But, you are spot on about Obama. I like him and I think he's real pretty too. I just don't think he's got what it takes to WIN!
Hillary's not out of it yet! And you'll notice we did our job here in Texas... Almost makes up for W doesn't it? Don't answer that.
Lindy
Let me counter with my three concerns about Senator Clinton (who is my senator and I'm a fan). I have three concerns about her electibility:
1: The "I Hate Hillary" crowd gets revitalized. We're hearing from some among the very conservative that they just can't bring themselves to support McCain. If Hillary wins I think you see a large portion of them back in the voting booths. Plus for McCain.
2: Lesser appeal to independents and young voters. I think Senator Clinton is seen as being an "insider" and part of the current system. What appeals to this group is the outsider. If Senator Obama is NOT the candidate I think these groups are less likely to vote. Plus to McCain (in fact he may PICK UP some of these voters because of his rep as a maverick)
3: This one is going to sound bass akwards but Senator Clinton is a battler. In a time when what we need is someone to bring America closer to one another we're faced with someone who has spent the last two decades of her life as a bare knuckled political brawler (mainly because she's had to be). I'm concerned about her ability to step back and work with the folks that have been "the enemy" for all those years.
Those are my primary concerns.
I do have another question that nags at me. We constantly hear about Senator Clinton's "experience" in foreign policy. Gained how? As First Lady? By what reasonable measure is that "training" to be President? I think this is a specious argument. For the simple reason that I'm not sure there is any "reasonable" training ground for this job.
Just some thoughts from a life long Democrat who hasn't made up his mind yet about the November election.
Lindy - I'm not kidding. I'm seriously considering it, at least, at this point.
Love you, dear, but you're missing the mark on this one. Hillary would be a good president, but to suggest that Obama can't win is nonsense. The Greedy Old Party is so far down at this point that McCain will lose against either one. am convinced of this because of the surging involvement of the young people. I support Obama primarily because I cannot bear the thought of the rightwing slime machine that we'll hear against Ms. Clinton. And, woman or not, I am sick of dynasties in this country. I say that as someone who thinks Bill was the best president of the century.
Okay, so it's Youth against Boomers. Nah, can't be that simple. Okay, so Obama isn't an 'insider'. I get that. But, here's my question: "Where's the Beef?"
Ma'am -- I'm a Hillary supporter for the same reasons you are but I would NEVER vote for McCain. Can you say "Supreme Court"
I believe that many people hate Hillary with a passion that nears pathological. Two of my female Dem friends will not vote if Hillary wins the primaries. Neither has been able to explain their reaction to her in terms that make sense. They aren't alone.
I don't think Hillary can beat McCain. She has too many negatives. Can she work with the opposition? I believe she can because she is an excellent politician. She has worked with the Reps which is one reason some hate her. She's too practical. She's too liberal for the conservatives and too moderate for the traditional liberals. And she's Bill's Wife.
I believe people will vote for Obama out of hope. I suspect people will swallow their prejudices to try to improve their lives. I'd love to see a Hillary/Barack ticket. I hope they don't destroy each other trying to get my PA vote.
Much depends on what the Bush administration comes up with to terrify the country before November. The "little" bombing this morning in The City is just the start. The country will flock to McCain when Rove's plans spring into action.
Yes, Hillary has her baggage, but there's got to be more substance to 'hope' for me to feel truly hopeful.
A Clinton/Obama ticket? I'm there. No matter what the order of office.
Her quick turns to political fratricide (undermineing the 50 State Stratagy and even going so far as to endorce MCCain as better qualified to start with) dosn't bother you? Fear mongering dosn't bother you? Race bating dosn't bother you?
We are wending our way through a shift in idology. The establishments in both parties are being forced into a new shape. We'll see where we end up in a month.
Both Roosevelts and Bobby Kennedey ran on little more than a message of "hope."
Now, I can see both of them on a ticket - but Sen Clinton may be unwilling to be on the VP slot.
I'm not mad at all, but I think you are deeply mistaken here.
Hillary has no significant foreign policy experience either and she hasn't been in public office much longer than Barack. As I told our nine year old daughter, who is excited that a woman is running, I think it's great that she's developing her own political views and that I could support a woman. Not this woman. She's too tied to the failed policies of her husband (NAFTA, welfare "reform," the beginnings of the new surveillance state). True, Obama has his own DLC ties, but look at where his support is coming from. If we want to build a coalition to change the direction of government, he is the one.
The most significant decision Hillary made involving foreign policy was the vote to support the Iraq invasion. It was a mistake and shows poor judgment. She is also tied to the most corrupt sectors of the Democratic party. Obama can find good advisors and, unlike Bush, will listen to military advice that doesn't agree with his preconceived ideas, and will listen to foreign policy professionals in the State Dept.
As for electability, I believe that Obama brings more independents and Republicans. His organization is first rate and hungry and fighting to win. I had a front row seat in Ohio, and he has a much better ground game...Hillary has too many negatives, and some of them are based in reality and not just in the perception of wingnuts that she's a bitch. Any strong woman is perceived that way by sexists, as we all know.
If Hillary were nominated, I've threatened to vote for McCain or Nader, or just stay home. But I'd hold my nose and vote for her. McCain has compromised what principles he has to appeal to his base, the very people who gave us fascist George. He will run to the center now that he's got the nomination sown up, but he will still need to compromise with the far right and many of his own convictions are in agreement with his party platform. Could you really vote for someone who left the Episcopal Church to become a baptist just to placate his party?
While I get your point, I just have two words for you regarding voting for McCain:
BOMB IRAN
I'll also add this -
Bill was the same age that OBama would be when he took office. THE SAME AGE. He just looks younger because we are all older. Do yo know ho w much like my Grandparents you all sound now that the shoe is on the other foot?
I'm damn sick of the "GO BACK TO THE KIDS TABLE!" line. It's as wrong as the "MAKE ME A SANDWICH." I suppose whos ox is being gored.
Have you been to Obama's website? His positions are explained more fully there, and frankly aren't that different from Clinton's. The media is definitely fueling perceptions at the moment, with biased coverage in favor of Obama.
I've expressed my concerns about Clinton, based on her past actions sucking up to the right wing, here before, so I'll save you that again. :)
You are right about her level of experience being a plus on her side, and Obama's biggest weakness. But a real concern in winning this election is the South. Clinton will NEVER get the South. (I know never say never, but things look different from NJ than they do from GA.) I grew up in the North, and have spent 10 years now in GA. The view from each place is very, very different, and my fear is that whoever cannot hold the South will not win. And believe me, the anti-Clinton venom is deadly down here.
What might sweeten the pot is a Clinton/Obama ticket. Like Pseudo, I'm holding out hope that they don't destroy each other before then. Having Obama on the ticket, with Clinton leading the ticket with her wealth of experience, might convince enough voters in the South (especially African-American Christian voters, who have voted for Republicans in the past) to swing the election Clinton's way.
I dunno. I'm sporting my "Obama '08" sticker on my car, so I'm obviously biased. I wish Hillary had acted more like a Democrat, and less like a moderate Republican, over the past few years -- my sticker might read "Hillary '08" if she had.
OK, let me counter "Where's the beef?" with
"Where's the inspiration?"
The good senator from NY has a tendency to come off as a bit of a policy wonk. Her rallies can be long discussions of policy. Which is great for the wonk vote but some of us are looking for some inspiration, some high soaring language.
We elected a wonk President once in our lifetimes my lady.
Jimmy Carter.
Yes Obama could be a little heavier on the details in his speeches (you'll find plenty of detail on his website, ditto for Clinton's) but Hillary could spend a little more time inspiring the troops.
You seem to hear the inspiration. I'm just saying I don't.
Oh and referring back to the youth vs boomers comment. Just for clarity my first Presidential vote came in 1976. I AM a boomer.
But as someone who works with youth (on dio staff) I'm seeing another generation that isn't convinced that the current leadership is due their loyalty.
Well, from here in Canada, I can't believe that either of them will win the Presidency. Voters will stay home by the millions, and the Republican candidate (looks like McCain) will win by default. I SO hope I'm wrong.
And I'm tired and appalled by all the discussion of whether a white woman or a black man would be best for America. What was the point of the '60's and '70's, all that struggle, if race and gender are allowable criteria NOW?
Part of my issue with Senator Clinton (aside from foreign policy) is that she is strangely divisive. Where every she is division seems to follow, and I'm afraid of our country becoming more divided.
I'm not sure if Senator Obama is "electable" but I'm not sure that Senator Clinton is either.
Before you jump on me for being "youth," my mother is for Senator Obama, as are most of the people I work with, all of whom are boomers or older. (Actually, many including myself were for Edwards... or Kucinich)
FWIW
allie
I agree that Sen. Clinton would bring an enormous number of rich gifts to the task of leading the country, but to date she has shown a "tin ear" for the kind of movement building necessary to bring real change to this country, no matter who wins. She needs to find a way to talk about empowering the grassroots, not simply talk about her expertise from the top down. Sen. Obama's campaign has paid very careful attention to building a local, empowered constituency, and brought real numbers of new people into the process, while Sen. Clinton has played the old games of democratic institutional politics. There's obviously still strength in those games, but they're not enough to override what the Bush regime has wrought.
I really wish Obama had waited another 4 years or 8 years. He really isn't experienced enough to be electable. I'm afraid if he is elected he'll be another Carter, well intentioned but totally ineffective.
I agree with your analysis on several points.
However, I remind all that American Presidents, when they act in international affairs, act with far less oversight than in domestic affairs.
frankly, if we consider only the domestic agenda, I could live with John McCain. Or Hillary, or Barack.
but in terms of foreign policy, McCain worries me. McCain strikes me as a hawk. actually, Hillary does also, but to a considerably smaller extent. Barack has less experience in this area. perhaps that's a good thing. he's said he's willing to negotiate with leaders we might consider our enemies - wouldn't Jesus' teachings suggest that that's a valid course of actions?
I do agree that John is a reasonable Republican. however, if you vote for him while expecting a more just foreign policy, you are taking a large risk.
You all have given me much food for thought and prayer. I am really worried over this and just this afternoon considered that perhaps I am eating the 'bread of anxiety' which has been force-fed to us by the present administration.
Nothing looks clear through the lens of anxiety.
OTOH, my biggest concern is that nothing is clear through the lens of media spin, and I'm really concerned that none of the candidates have been presented fairly.
Someone wrote to me today - someone I deeply admire - and said, "John McCain???? He's a nutcase!"
Well, he's a hawk, that's for sure, and I'm no pacifist (I don't have the courage required), but I sure as hell ain't no hawk, either.
How is it that we can sweepingly write off someone based on a few spins from the media?
I'm still thinking and praying, but I gotta tell you, I'm really worried that the Democrats won't get in and McCain will win by default. I'm not so sure about the Supreme Court thing with him, but I think the Iraq war will most certainly continue.
OTOH, it may continue anyway because there's no easy solution and I don't hear either Obama or Hillary giving any solutions to the problem.
Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.
I believe the disaster of U S politics began with the election of Reagan, which reflects the nation's inability to face the reality represented by the defeat in the Indochina wars.
I think there is no significant difference between the Democratic candidates on policy; I am skeptical of Obama's inexperience, but acknowledge the vitality he represents. I wish he were willing to say something.
I believe John McCain is a war-monger, with a barely controlled temper, who has been in the pocket of any corporate lobbyist who offered him advantages for the past twenty five years. He willingly courts the
"conservative" wing of his party, which is somewhere to the right of the Waffen SS. He sucks up to Dubya, and has won his endorsement and support.
I think we may put too much expectation on the outcome of this election, and too little on those things which we cannot anticipate or control, but which are in Godde's hands. I believe any Democrat, even Obama, is better than than the best Republican, which McCain is not. (No, I don't know; please don't ask!)
I believe improvement, even under the best conditions, will be partial and incremental, largely due to Republican Congressional and Court obstructionism. Nor will any President willingly give up the unconstitutional powers usurped by this abominable gang of criminal thugs.
I think that's enough for now. I hope "abominable gang of criminal thugs" is seen as merely descriptive, and not an ad hominem assault.
Vote for McCain - 100 years of war in Iraq? I would not vote for him if he were the only candidate. Barack or Hillary -- either or both.
A change of focus please. Would you say something about the picture that follows the headline "Target Practice"? We're really concerned about the violent image of a child or young person of color (or any person) in the cross hairs. Why this kind of metaphor?? Mary Anne and Joanne
I think it is instructive that as of today, Obama is leading in the Texas caucuses by the same margin that Hillary beat him in the popular election.
Let's not forget that our favorite talk show host, Rush Limbaugh, urged his many listeners to vote for Hillary to help keep her in the race. Not exactly a badge of honor.
Hillary's refusal to release her income tax returns, when everyone else has, is a huge impediment and a spot of major suspicion.
Obama has attracted a large number of new voters, who will likely return to their apathy if the nomination is stolen from him in some back room political deal.
I believe with all my heart that Obama has the only, best chance of defeating the Republicans.
Hillary, as did all the other Democrats, agreed to the ground rules that left Michigan and Florida out of the equation.
Now she wants to change that for political expediency.
I want the person who answers the red phone in the White House to be a "let my yes be yes, and my no be no" not someone who flips with the wind when it serves here better.
It is Hillary who is on the attack and creating a situation that is likely to end up like the 1968 election. We all know how that ended up.
MAO: Here's the information about the artist:
http://www.artshole.co.uk/suzmuna.htm
Artists Statement:
All the work was created by Suzanne Muna, who has never exhibited at the Tate or won the Turner Prize. She is just one of many hundreds of artists in Britain whose work deals with contemporary political subjects. She will therefore never be accepted within the mainstream arts scene. She is not bitter.
Suzanne Muna
Jim of L-town: My primary concern remains how the media spins information about these candidates. For Hillary, it's a Catch-22: we know more about her because she has more experience in the political arena. Obama is not yet tested, so we don't know what he will do in service of "hope" and "change."
Dynasty? Please. This is America. There is no more a 'Clinton' dynasty than there is one for the Bush family. That's just more evidence of media spin.
I'm far from ready to vote for McCain, but I remain deeply troubled about Obama's inexperience.
Here are two questions with which I continue to struggle:
1. Am I so desperate for 'change' so 'hopeless' that I will cling to promises of both over evidence of substance? (I've been to Obama's website. He's not that different from Hillary.)
2. Am I so anxious about Terrorism that I will vote for the candidate who has experience, even if he is odious on all the other issues I care about, over someone who is untested in national and international issues?
Thanks for all of your thoughtful, careful, passionate responses. I know from private notes that there are others who are grateful that this is being discussed.
BTW, I chose that image precisely because it was disturbing to me. It conveyed my sense of distress about what is one of the most important elections of our time which is being muddied by media industry which holds up confusing, often false, images of the candidates.
That's you and me, friends, in the crosshairs. And, the media is taking aim at our innocence.
And, I think the artist is amazing. Go see some of her other work. She's nothing if not disturbing and controversial, but that's because her work comes from a place of truth in her.
Not surprising that I like her, huh?
You don't get suspicious that she's seeking her party's nomination by campaigning for the presumptive nominee of the opposing party? And you think you should follow her down this road?
If Hillary Clinton's "foreign policy experience" came from being First Lady, then Laura Bush has identical qualifications. If she hadn't started a Rovian campaign of boosting McCain, blackening up Obama's picture in her ads and website, and suppressing her tax returns "until after the Democratic candidate is chosen", among others, I might have had some respect for her and her organization.
But no.
Posted for VT Crone
Elizabeth-I’m adding my 2 cents via e-mail, partly because I wasn’t certain that I could get the Maureen Dowd site into my e-mail note on your blog. Right up front, let me say that I voted for Sen. Obama in the VT primary on March 5. I know that I fit the profile for “Hillary voters” being a 64 year old WASP female. I’ve always been, at least since my mid-20’s, a Liberal, and proud of it. While I don’t “hate” Sen. Clinton, I am one of those (and Rob too) who would seriously consider voting for Sen. McCain should SHE be the nominee. (I actually have a number of friends and family members whose motto is, “Anybody but Hillary!”) I know that I personally would have a lot more respect for the Senator if she had divorced her husband right after he left office, and gotten to where she is today on her own. Both Clinton’s strike me as arrogant people, and the thought of having Bill lurking around the Oval Office again, makes my headache. There were a lot of good arguments pro and con on your blog site. I fear that this nastiness will tear the Democratic Party in half and that the Republicans will win by default, as many people have stated. Our senior VT US Senator is Patrick Leahy. He’s a super delegate who had endorsed Sen. Obama before the primary, as did our single Representative to Congress (Vs. 13 for NJ.) I’ve decided to send an e-mail to Sen. Leahy and ask him, being that he was recently rated the 4th most powerful US senator, to exert his influence to tell the 2 candidates, especially Sen. Clinton, that they are destroying the Democratic Party.
Up to now the whole process has been exciting and energizing but now it is getting nasty, and people are being turned off. If you want to use any of this on your blog go ahead.
Namaste-
Marcia (VT crone)
Elizabeth- No gun shots here but what I notice about Obama (and I believe he is sincere but will be under immense pressure to do otherwise by those for and against him) is that he is talking about systemic change. For those of us who have studied Freidman we can appreciate the difficulty this would be in 20 years much less 4-8.
On another note, I remember working for a man who was very insecure in many ways (although I don't think sexuality was one) my first days as a priest and when +KJS was elected, he wrote an e-mail to the parish criticizing her lack of experience. Now, this individual was a bishop so it's not like he didn't know of her. I told him that 40 years of experience vs 12 years of the right sort of experience would make all the difference and I would say the same sort of thing now, only Obama has a lot more than 12 years of experience and speaking of that...
Hillary is counting from the time she was about 25 (graduated from law school). Well, Obama is 47/48 so that gives him 20+ years of experience doing the same sorts of good works Hillary was doing. She got a higher profile as first lady of Arkansas and then the US. That's the real difference, IMHO.
Please, please, please don't vote for McCain. Please! Write Hillary in if you have to, but don't vote for McCain. McCain, McCain it will all be the same.
Peace, Joie+
You are ignorning the fact that Hillary is hated. I don't think most New York people do realize how much Hillary is hated in the midwest...esp by married men. I work in an American Studies department at a huge state University, and most of my colleagues are committed Democrats, but many of them hate Hillary for one reason or another, and unlike you, I don't think Hillary is strong enough to carry the election, which is why I am supporting Obama.
On a different note, let me refer you to Keith Olbermann's Special Comment on the Ferraro evidently-intentional race-baiting on Sen. Clinton's behalf. Her failure to disavow these tactics I find deeply disturbing.
Post a Comment