Monday, February 25, 2008
CAMPAIGN NEWS BRIEFING
CAMPAIGN NEWS BRIEFINGS - Feb.25, 2008
HILLARY FOR PRESIDENT NEWS BRIEFINGS - FEB. 25, 2008
Clinton Ramps Up Criticism Of Obama In Rhode Island. NBC Nightly News (2/24, lead story, 3:35, Allen, 9.87M) reported, “Hillary Clinton campaigned in Rhode Island today. A small state that votes in the shadow of Texas and Ohio on March 4th. Clinton began her day facing more speculation her campaign is on its last legs while she went after Barack Obama with sarcasm.” Sen. Hillary Clinton: “Now, I could stand up here and say let's just get everybody together. Let's get unified. The sky will open. The light will come down. Celestial choirs will be singing.” Allen: “Today Hillary Clinton cast Barack Obama as naive about how difficult it is to get things done in Washington, a different tone from yesterday's outrage.”
Clinton Reassures Donors On Campaign’s Prospects. The AP (2/25, Fouhy) reports that in an attempt to “reassure anxious donors, Hillary Rodham Clinton on Sunday outlined a road map she said she will follow to beat Barack Obama in the Ohio and Texas primaries March 4.” Clinton “insisted that her campaign is on track and moving forward, despite losing 11 contests to Obama since Feb. 5.” Clinton said, “I am very optimistic and extremely positive about what we're doing as we go forward in these states [Ohio and Texas.]”
Clinton Calls Chafee’s Criticism Of Iraq War Vote “Revisionist History.” The Providence (RI) Journal (2/25, Arsenault) reports that in a Journal interview, Clinton responded to criticisms in former Rhode Island Sen. Lincoln Chafee’s forthcoming book that Clinton’s vote to authorize force in Iraq “should be a career-ending lapse in judgment.” “‘I’m not going to contradict his personal opinion,’ Clinton said. ‘That’s certainly his to hold. But I think there’s a lot of revisionist history going on here. At the time, it was very clear that we were hoping to rein in Saddam Hussein and determine what, if any, remaining weapons of mass destruction he had. Because the facts are, he had them when we went in after the first Gulf war.’ Clinton said she supported the threat of force to compel Saddam to accept inspections, and blames President Bush for abusing the authority extended by the resolution. ‘It was a sincere vote by me at the time, and if I had known what he would do with the vote, I would not have voted for it.’”
Granholm Defends Clinton’s Reaction To Obama Mailers. Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano and Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm appeared on CBS’s “Face the Nation” (2/24, 10:30 a.m.), where they were asked to address Sen. Hillary Clinton’s reaction to the release of flyers by the Obama campaign which Clinton claimed misrepresented her positions on trade agreements and health care. Granholm, who is backing Clinton, defended Clinton’s outrage, saying “I think she rightly feels so strongly about these two issues that those fliers touched on—health care and trade—that she felt she had to come out strongly.” The rest of the article can be seen here.
Clinton Criticizes Obama Over Supermarket Union Ads. The New York Sun (2/25, Gerstein) reports that the Clinton campaign “is charging Senator Obama with hypocrisy for denouncing independently funded advertising campaigns,” but that “Clinton’s own position on the appropriate role for so-called 527 organizations is murky, a fact which complicates her attempt to tarnish Mr. Obama concerning the issue.” The Sun notes that the Clinton campaign was reacting to “a plan by a supermarket union, the United Food and Commercial Workers, to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on pro-Obama television advertising in Ohio.”
Clinton Regrets Husband’s “Racially Charged” Comments. The Wall Street Journal (2/25, Chozick, 2.06M) reports Hillary Clinton “expressed regret over the weekend for racially charged comments her husband made in South Carolina that some pundits have said played a part in her campaign's recent troubles.” At the annual "State of the Black Union" symposium in New Orleans, Clinton said, “If anyone was offended by anything that was said, whether it was meant or not, or misinterpreted or not, then obviously, I regret that.”
Clinton Campaign Questions Obama’s Support For Israel. Newsweek (2/25, Hirsh, Ephron, 3.12M) reports that the Clinton campaign has “sent around negative material about Obama's relations with Israel, according to e-mails obtained by NEWSWEEK.” The e-mails “raise questions about Obama's relationship with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, the former pastor at Obama's Trinity Church in Chicago. Wright has criticized Israel, and Trumpet, a publication run by his daughter, gave an award for ‘greatness’ to Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, who once called Judaism a ‘bloodsucking religion."
Obama Draws “Surprising Numbers” Of Republican Voters. The Los Angeles Times (2/25, A1, Barabak, 881K) reports in a front page story on the “GOP renegades” who “are part of a striking phenomenon this campaign season: They are ‘Obamacans,’ as the senator calls them, and they are surfacing in surprising numbers, blurring the red-blue lines that color the nation's politics.” Susan Eisenhower, “a GOP business consultant and granddaughter of former President Eisenhower, has endorsed the Democratic hopeful. Colin L. Powell, who served in both Bush administrations, has hinted he may do so as well.” Former Sen. Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, “who quit the Republican Party after losing his reelection bid, endorsed Obama even though he campaigned for Chafee's opponent last year. Mark McKinnon, a strategist for presumptive Republican nominee John McCain, says he will continue to back the Arizona senator, but will step aside rather than work against Obama if the two meet in the fall election.”
Farrakhan Praises Obama At Nation Of Islam Convention. The Chicago Tribune (2/25, Ramirez, 607K) reports that in a speech to “thousands of members of the Nation of Islam in Chicago at their annual convention, Minister Louis Farrakhan on Sunday praised presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama as the only hope for healing America's racial divisions.” Farrakhan “spoke about the war in Iraq, the nation's ailing economy and the increase in natural disasters, saying the world was in a perilous state and Obama could help it recover.” The speech, “titled ‘The Gods At War—The Future is All About Y.O.U.th,’ closed the Nation of Islam's annual Saviours' Day Convention, which commemorates the birth of the movement's founder, Wallace D. Fard Muhammad.”
Conservatives Say Obama’s Patriotism An Issue. ABC World News (2/24, story 2, 2:50, Tapper, 8.78M) reported, “If Clinton has not been able to put Obama on the defensive, Republicans are hoping to by questioning his patriotism. Making hay out of his not putting his hand over his heart last summer during the national anthem, his removal of his American flag lapel pin, and other incidents.” Obama has “said he would push back against questions of his patriotism by arguing the Republicans were the ones that took the country to war without giving troops the proper equipment. He said, quote, ‘We'll see what the American people think is the truth definition of patriotism.”
Michelle Obama Mocked For Lack Of Pride In US. In an op-ed in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review (2/25), Ralph R. Reiland, an associate professor of economics at Robert Morris University, writes about Michelle Obama’s recent statements suggesting that she has recently become “proud of my country,” noting that during her “adult lifetime” the cold war ended, and that “could not have happened without the United States.” He adds that at the same time, the US economy made significant gains. He continues to compare Obama to Fidel Castro.
Rothenberg Asks If Obama’s “Change” Means Liberalism. In his Roll Call column (2/25), Stuart Rothenberg says Obama “continues to promise change and stress his ability to unite Americans. It’s a feel-good campaign built on soaring rhetoric and good intentions. Pardon me if all of the fawning from the national media, and the endorsements from Caroline Kennedy and Garrison Keillor, leave me less than convinced that he can bridge the deep divide that separates Americans.” In politics, “the devil is always in the details, and except in rare cases, Obama has either avoided them or, more importantly, failed to note the obvious contradictions in his message and his record.” Obama is “a wonderful speaker, and his calls for change obviously resonate with many Americans.” But “does Obama want to find common ground between Democrats and Republicans? Will he push issues and alternatives only with a national consensus? Or is ‘change’ simply a value-neutral word for liberalism?”
Obama Criticized For Backing Away From School Voucher Support. The New York Sun (2/25) editorializes, “No sooner had we issued Elizabeth Green’s dispatch under the headline ‘Obama Open to Private School Vouchers’ than his campaign was scrambling to undo the potential damage with the Democratic primary electorate,” releasing a statement reading, “Senator Obama has always been a critic of vouchers.” The Sun adds, “Parents of schoolchildren, in sharp contradistinction to teachers’ unions, will prefer Senator Obama’s initial statement to the clarification issued by his campaign. The initial statement was change you can believe in. The follow-up message was the same old interest-group Democratic Party politics as usual. It was plainly designed to assuage the teachers’ unions, who are the enemies of change.”
HILLARY FOR PRESIDENT NEWS BRIEFINGS - FEB. 25, 2008
Clinton Ramps Up Criticism Of Obama In Rhode Island. NBC Nightly News (2/24, lead story, 3:35, Allen, 9.87M) reported, “Hillary Clinton campaigned in Rhode Island today. A small state that votes in the shadow of Texas and Ohio on March 4th. Clinton began her day facing more speculation her campaign is on its last legs while she went after Barack Obama with sarcasm.” Sen. Hillary Clinton: “Now, I could stand up here and say let's just get everybody together. Let's get unified. The sky will open. The light will come down. Celestial choirs will be singing.” Allen: “Today Hillary Clinton cast Barack Obama as naive about how difficult it is to get things done in Washington, a different tone from yesterday's outrage.”
Clinton Reassures Donors On Campaign’s Prospects. The AP (2/25, Fouhy) reports that in an attempt to “reassure anxious donors, Hillary Rodham Clinton on Sunday outlined a road map she said she will follow to beat Barack Obama in the Ohio and Texas primaries March 4.” Clinton “insisted that her campaign is on track and moving forward, despite losing 11 contests to Obama since Feb. 5.” Clinton said, “I am very optimistic and extremely positive about what we're doing as we go forward in these states [Ohio and Texas.]”
Clinton Calls Chafee’s Criticism Of Iraq War Vote “Revisionist History.” The Providence (RI) Journal (2/25, Arsenault) reports that in a Journal interview, Clinton responded to criticisms in former Rhode Island Sen. Lincoln Chafee’s forthcoming book that Clinton’s vote to authorize force in Iraq “should be a career-ending lapse in judgment.” “‘I’m not going to contradict his personal opinion,’ Clinton said. ‘That’s certainly his to hold. But I think there’s a lot of revisionist history going on here. At the time, it was very clear that we were hoping to rein in Saddam Hussein and determine what, if any, remaining weapons of mass destruction he had. Because the facts are, he had them when we went in after the first Gulf war.’ Clinton said she supported the threat of force to compel Saddam to accept inspections, and blames President Bush for abusing the authority extended by the resolution. ‘It was a sincere vote by me at the time, and if I had known what he would do with the vote, I would not have voted for it.’”
Granholm Defends Clinton’s Reaction To Obama Mailers. Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano and Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm appeared on CBS’s “Face the Nation” (2/24, 10:30 a.m.), where they were asked to address Sen. Hillary Clinton’s reaction to the release of flyers by the Obama campaign which Clinton claimed misrepresented her positions on trade agreements and health care. Granholm, who is backing Clinton, defended Clinton’s outrage, saying “I think she rightly feels so strongly about these two issues that those fliers touched on—health care and trade—that she felt she had to come out strongly.” The rest of the article can be seen here.
Clinton Criticizes Obama Over Supermarket Union Ads. The New York Sun (2/25, Gerstein) reports that the Clinton campaign “is charging Senator Obama with hypocrisy for denouncing independently funded advertising campaigns,” but that “Clinton’s own position on the appropriate role for so-called 527 organizations is murky, a fact which complicates her attempt to tarnish Mr. Obama concerning the issue.” The Sun notes that the Clinton campaign was reacting to “a plan by a supermarket union, the United Food and Commercial Workers, to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on pro-Obama television advertising in Ohio.”
Clinton Regrets Husband’s “Racially Charged” Comments. The Wall Street Journal (2/25, Chozick, 2.06M) reports Hillary Clinton “expressed regret over the weekend for racially charged comments her husband made in South Carolina that some pundits have said played a part in her campaign's recent troubles.” At the annual "State of the Black Union" symposium in New Orleans, Clinton said, “If anyone was offended by anything that was said, whether it was meant or not, or misinterpreted or not, then obviously, I regret that.”
Clinton Campaign Questions Obama’s Support For Israel. Newsweek (2/25, Hirsh, Ephron, 3.12M) reports that the Clinton campaign has “sent around negative material about Obama's relations with Israel, according to e-mails obtained by NEWSWEEK.” The e-mails “raise questions about Obama's relationship with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, the former pastor at Obama's Trinity Church in Chicago. Wright has criticized Israel, and Trumpet, a publication run by his daughter, gave an award for ‘greatness’ to Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, who once called Judaism a ‘bloodsucking religion."
Obama Draws “Surprising Numbers” Of Republican Voters. The Los Angeles Times (2/25, A1, Barabak, 881K) reports in a front page story on the “GOP renegades” who “are part of a striking phenomenon this campaign season: They are ‘Obamacans,’ as the senator calls them, and they are surfacing in surprising numbers, blurring the red-blue lines that color the nation's politics.” Susan Eisenhower, “a GOP business consultant and granddaughter of former President Eisenhower, has endorsed the Democratic hopeful. Colin L. Powell, who served in both Bush administrations, has hinted he may do so as well.” Former Sen. Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, “who quit the Republican Party after losing his reelection bid, endorsed Obama even though he campaigned for Chafee's opponent last year. Mark McKinnon, a strategist for presumptive Republican nominee John McCain, says he will continue to back the Arizona senator, but will step aside rather than work against Obama if the two meet in the fall election.”
Farrakhan Praises Obama At Nation Of Islam Convention. The Chicago Tribune (2/25, Ramirez, 607K) reports that in a speech to “thousands of members of the Nation of Islam in Chicago at their annual convention, Minister Louis Farrakhan on Sunday praised presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama as the only hope for healing America's racial divisions.” Farrakhan “spoke about the war in Iraq, the nation's ailing economy and the increase in natural disasters, saying the world was in a perilous state and Obama could help it recover.” The speech, “titled ‘The Gods At War—The Future is All About Y.O.U.th,’ closed the Nation of Islam's annual Saviours' Day Convention, which commemorates the birth of the movement's founder, Wallace D. Fard Muhammad.”
Conservatives Say Obama’s Patriotism An Issue. ABC World News (2/24, story 2, 2:50, Tapper, 8.78M) reported, “If Clinton has not been able to put Obama on the defensive, Republicans are hoping to by questioning his patriotism. Making hay out of his not putting his hand over his heart last summer during the national anthem, his removal of his American flag lapel pin, and other incidents.” Obama has “said he would push back against questions of his patriotism by arguing the Republicans were the ones that took the country to war without giving troops the proper equipment. He said, quote, ‘We'll see what the American people think is the truth definition of patriotism.”
Michelle Obama Mocked For Lack Of Pride In US. In an op-ed in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review (2/25), Ralph R. Reiland, an associate professor of economics at Robert Morris University, writes about Michelle Obama’s recent statements suggesting that she has recently become “proud of my country,” noting that during her “adult lifetime” the cold war ended, and that “could not have happened without the United States.” He adds that at the same time, the US economy made significant gains. He continues to compare Obama to Fidel Castro.
Rothenberg Asks If Obama’s “Change” Means Liberalism. In his Roll Call column (2/25), Stuart Rothenberg says Obama “continues to promise change and stress his ability to unite Americans. It’s a feel-good campaign built on soaring rhetoric and good intentions. Pardon me if all of the fawning from the national media, and the endorsements from Caroline Kennedy and Garrison Keillor, leave me less than convinced that he can bridge the deep divide that separates Americans.” In politics, “the devil is always in the details, and except in rare cases, Obama has either avoided them or, more importantly, failed to note the obvious contradictions in his message and his record.” Obama is “a wonderful speaker, and his calls for change obviously resonate with many Americans.” But “does Obama want to find common ground between Democrats and Republicans? Will he push issues and alternatives only with a national consensus? Or is ‘change’ simply a value-neutral word for liberalism?”
Obama Criticized For Backing Away From School Voucher Support. The New York Sun (2/25) editorializes, “No sooner had we issued Elizabeth Green’s dispatch under the headline ‘Obama Open to Private School Vouchers’ than his campaign was scrambling to undo the potential damage with the Democratic primary electorate,” releasing a statement reading, “Senator Obama has always been a critic of vouchers.” The Sun adds, “Parents of schoolchildren, in sharp contradistinction to teachers’ unions, will prefer Senator Obama’s initial statement to the clarification issued by his campaign. The initial statement was change you can believe in. The follow-up message was the same old interest-group Democratic Party politics as usual. It was plainly designed to assuage the teachers’ unions, who are the enemies of change.”
Experience v. Inspiration
"When I fly in an airplane I want the pilot with the most experience, not the one who can inspire hope in me that I get to where I am going. When I pay my taxes, I want the person filing them to be experienced, not the new person who inspires hope in me that he can do the job. When I hire someone to fix my washing machine, I want the tried and true experienced person, not the one who inspires me to hope that he can fix it. When I go to the doctor I do not want to get the one who inspires hope in me that s/he can cure what's wrong, but the one who knows what the hell to do the minute I call. It's not really the job of a public servant to inspire, but to get the job that the people demand done. The democrats think that if they have hope and are inspired things will get better, but they actually won't. When Oprah makes her employees sign her fifty page non-disclosure statement, she doesn't "hope" they can't break it, she pays teams of experienced lawyers to MAKE SURE they can't break it, or be sued in an experienced court by an experienced judge."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/roseanne-barr/experience-vs-inspiratio_b_87982.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/roseanne-barr/experience-vs-inspiratio_b_87982.html
Clinton to Obama: 'Shame on you'
A visibly angry Sen. Hillary Clinton lashed out Saturday at Sen. Barack Obama over campaign literature that she said he knows is "blatantly false.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BGP-EJQPd8
--
“Today in the crowd I was given two mailings that Sen. Obama’s campaign has been sending out. … I have to express my deep disappointment that he has continuing to send false and discredited mailing with information that is not true to the voters of Ohio”.
“We have consistently called him on it. It has been discredited. It is blatantly false, and yet he continues to spend millions of dollars perpetuating falsehoods”.
“Enough with the speeches and the big rallies and then using tactics that are right out of Karl Rove’s playbook” . “This is wrong and every Democrat should be outraged.”
“He says one thing in speeches and then he turns around and does this,”
“That is not the new politics that the speeches are about. It is not hopeful, it is destructive particularly for a Democrat to be discrediting universal health care by waging a false campaign against my plan, to be talking about NAFTA in a way that tries to make him appear to have a plan when he does not.”
“It is the worst kind of politics. Number one, it is wrong and untrue, and number two, it is exactly the talking points that the health insurance industry and the Republicans use on a daily basis.
“Sen. Obama knows that it is not true that my plan forces people to buy insurance even if the can’t afford it. … My plan has more financial help my plan has been evaluated by independent experts as actually achieving universal coverage and providing the financial assistance so everyone can have health care.
“This mailing about NAFTA saying that I believe NAFTA was a ‘boon’ quoted a newspaper [Newsday] that has corrected the record. We have pointed it out, the newspaper has pointed it out. Time and time again you hear one thing in speeches and then you see a campaign that has the worst kind of tactics reminiscent of the same sort of Republican attacks on Democrats.
“Well, I am here to say that it is not only wrong, but it is undermining core Democratic principles. Since when do Democrats attack one another on universal health care?”
“This is the kind of attack that not only undermines core Democratic values, but gives aid and comfort to the very special interests and their allies in the Republican party,”
“Shame on you Barack Obama. It is time you ran a campaign consistent with your messages in public, that’s what I expect from you. Meet me in Ohio, and lets have a debate about your tactics and your behavior in this campaign.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BGP-EJQPd8
--
“Today in the crowd I was given two mailings that Sen. Obama’s campaign has been sending out. … I have to express my deep disappointment that he has continuing to send false and discredited mailing with information that is not true to the voters of Ohio”.
“We have consistently called him on it. It has been discredited. It is blatantly false, and yet he continues to spend millions of dollars perpetuating falsehoods”.
“Enough with the speeches and the big rallies and then using tactics that are right out of Karl Rove’s playbook” . “This is wrong and every Democrat should be outraged.”
“He says one thing in speeches and then he turns around and does this,”
“That is not the new politics that the speeches are about. It is not hopeful, it is destructive particularly for a Democrat to be discrediting universal health care by waging a false campaign against my plan, to be talking about NAFTA in a way that tries to make him appear to have a plan when he does not.”
“It is the worst kind of politics. Number one, it is wrong and untrue, and number two, it is exactly the talking points that the health insurance industry and the Republicans use on a daily basis.
“Sen. Obama knows that it is not true that my plan forces people to buy insurance even if the can’t afford it. … My plan has more financial help my plan has been evaluated by independent experts as actually achieving universal coverage and providing the financial assistance so everyone can have health care.
“This mailing about NAFTA saying that I believe NAFTA was a ‘boon’ quoted a newspaper [Newsday] that has corrected the record. We have pointed it out, the newspaper has pointed it out. Time and time again you hear one thing in speeches and then you see a campaign that has the worst kind of tactics reminiscent of the same sort of Republican attacks on Democrats.
“Well, I am here to say that it is not only wrong, but it is undermining core Democratic principles. Since when do Democrats attack one another on universal health care?”
“This is the kind of attack that not only undermines core Democratic values, but gives aid and comfort to the very special interests and their allies in the Republican party,”
“Shame on you Barack Obama. It is time you ran a campaign consistent with your messages in public, that’s what I expect from you. Meet me in Ohio, and lets have a debate about your tactics and your behavior in this campaign.”
Daily Texan Endorsement: Time to clean house
As voters, we're often torn between our hearts and our minds when making crucial decisions concerning the welfare of the country. This endorsement is no different.
In the past year, we have been entranced by the powerful timbre of Barack Obama's voice. We have felt our hearts soar with each progressive idea he has put forth, especially his call for youth action and enrollment in public service programs. But we do not think he is the wisest choice for president. George W. Bush has made a mess of America, and we believe Hillary Clinton is the best person to clean it up. She is prepared and willing to be a leader who is "a lot less hat and a lot more cattle," as she stated during Thursday night's debate.
Clinton is a seasoned politician, and some argue that works against her. But Bush has been wildly successful in destroying every positive function of the machine that is Washington, D.C., and Clinton has the political tools and knowledge to fix it.
We have admired the consistent integrity of Obama's campaign. He is everything a politician shouldn't be, meaning that we think he is a good human being. To truly be a leader we can look up to, Clinton should learn from her refined opponent's style.
But during Thursday's debate, Obama made a major gaffe in incorrectly stating that he had received endorsements from every major newspaper in Texas. We may not be considered a "major" paper to many, but we represent a crucial constituency of close to 50,000 young and enthusiastic voters, and we've been scrutinizing every move of the candidates leading up to today's endorsement. Sure, Obama took many under his spell when he graced our city with his presence early in his campaign, but we think he prematurely considered his work in Austin done.
We've taken into account our communication with each campaign as an indication of how each candidate's government would function. Upon finding out the debate would not be open to students, Obama's campaign told us there was nothing they could do to get more students into the debate, whereas the Clinton camp was sympathetic in offering assistance. This makes us wonder how far Obama would go for us as president.
The youth vote, especially here in Texas, is extremely important to both candidates. As Texas, Austin and UT have all entered the limelight as major players in the nomination process, we have been confused by Obama's relative absence from the home of such an important, excited and loyal constituency.
Clinton, while not as dazzling as her opponent, has asserted her presence to us. She has pledged to restore government support to college students by increasing the availability of Stafford Loans and Pell Grants. Her outline for a universal health care system is thorough and sound, while Obama unfairly exploits the resounding term "universal" in terms of his plan, which is voluntary and wouldn't actually serve America in its entirety (like Social Security, policy can only be universal if it is mandatory). Furthermore, Clinton's plans for Iraq ensure a gradual transition to stability for the Middle East.
Clinton's abrasiveness, while somewhat off-putting, is essential in scrubbing our country clean of the grime the current administration has let build up. And by promising that the clean-up will begin in full effect on day one of her presidency, she's proved to us over and over again that she's ready, even excited, to get her hands dirty. Meanwhile, Obama's curent focus is geared toward winning the nomination, and we need more than hope and rhetoric to be reassured that the critical transition to come with the next presidency will be handled safely.
We live each day in anticipation of Democratic leadership for this country. But considering the current state of America, now is not the time for radical change.
We'd like to see Obama and Clinton work together in achieving the many goals they share. Obama has our confident vote in four (or eight) years' time. But for now, we can't risk trusting the judgment of our hearts. Logically, Hillary Clinton should be the next president of the United States. Under her leadership, we can return to being the great country we once were
http://media.www.dailytexanonline.com/media/storage/paper410/news/2008/02/22/Opinion/Endorsement.Time.To.Clean.House-3228848.shtml
In the past year, we have been entranced by the powerful timbre of Barack Obama's voice. We have felt our hearts soar with each progressive idea he has put forth, especially his call for youth action and enrollment in public service programs. But we do not think he is the wisest choice for president. George W. Bush has made a mess of America, and we believe Hillary Clinton is the best person to clean it up. She is prepared and willing to be a leader who is "a lot less hat and a lot more cattle," as she stated during Thursday night's debate.
Clinton is a seasoned politician, and some argue that works against her. But Bush has been wildly successful in destroying every positive function of the machine that is Washington, D.C., and Clinton has the political tools and knowledge to fix it.
We have admired the consistent integrity of Obama's campaign. He is everything a politician shouldn't be, meaning that we think he is a good human being. To truly be a leader we can look up to, Clinton should learn from her refined opponent's style.
But during Thursday's debate, Obama made a major gaffe in incorrectly stating that he had received endorsements from every major newspaper in Texas. We may not be considered a "major" paper to many, but we represent a crucial constituency of close to 50,000 young and enthusiastic voters, and we've been scrutinizing every move of the candidates leading up to today's endorsement. Sure, Obama took many under his spell when he graced our city with his presence early in his campaign, but we think he prematurely considered his work in Austin done.
We've taken into account our communication with each campaign as an indication of how each candidate's government would function. Upon finding out the debate would not be open to students, Obama's campaign told us there was nothing they could do to get more students into the debate, whereas the Clinton camp was sympathetic in offering assistance. This makes us wonder how far Obama would go for us as president.
The youth vote, especially here in Texas, is extremely important to both candidates. As Texas, Austin and UT have all entered the limelight as major players in the nomination process, we have been confused by Obama's relative absence from the home of such an important, excited and loyal constituency.
Clinton, while not as dazzling as her opponent, has asserted her presence to us. She has pledged to restore government support to college students by increasing the availability of Stafford Loans and Pell Grants. Her outline for a universal health care system is thorough and sound, while Obama unfairly exploits the resounding term "universal" in terms of his plan, which is voluntary and wouldn't actually serve America in its entirety (like Social Security, policy can only be universal if it is mandatory). Furthermore, Clinton's plans for Iraq ensure a gradual transition to stability for the Middle East.
Clinton's abrasiveness, while somewhat off-putting, is essential in scrubbing our country clean of the grime the current administration has let build up. And by promising that the clean-up will begin in full effect on day one of her presidency, she's proved to us over and over again that she's ready, even excited, to get her hands dirty. Meanwhile, Obama's curent focus is geared toward winning the nomination, and we need more than hope and rhetoric to be reassured that the critical transition to come with the next presidency will be handled safely.
We live each day in anticipation of Democratic leadership for this country. But considering the current state of America, now is not the time for radical change.
We'd like to see Obama and Clinton work together in achieving the many goals they share. Obama has our confident vote in four (or eight) years' time. But for now, we can't risk trusting the judgment of our hearts. Logically, Hillary Clinton should be the next president of the United States. Under her leadership, we can return to being the great country we once were
http://media.www.dailytexanonline.com/media/storage/paper410/news/2008/02/22/Opinion/Endorsement.Time.To.Clean.House-3228848.shtml
Won't Back Down
Well I wont back down, no I wont back down
You can stand me up at the gates of hell
But I wont back down
Gonna stand my ground, wont be turned around
And Ill keep this world from draggin me down
Gonna stand my ground and I wont back down
Hey baby, there aint no easy way out
Hey I will stand my ground
And I wont back down.
Well I know whats right, I got just one life
In a world that keeps on pushin me around
But Ill stand my ground and I wont back down
Hey baby there aint no easy way out
Hey I will stand my ground
And I wont back down
No, I wont back down
Deliver: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjDKOqI-0lw (It's very Texas!)
Resolved: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iAyvHL2m6Tc
Proud: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmnmDkG_-cI (featuring John Glenn airing in Ohio)
Level: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zS1u-d6aqsk
You can stand me up at the gates of hell
But I wont back down
Gonna stand my ground, wont be turned around
And Ill keep this world from draggin me down
Gonna stand my ground and I wont back down
Hey baby, there aint no easy way out
Hey I will stand my ground
And I wont back down.
Well I know whats right, I got just one life
In a world that keeps on pushin me around
But Ill stand my ground and I wont back down
Hey baby there aint no easy way out
Hey I will stand my ground
And I wont back down
No, I wont back down
Deliver: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjDKOqI-0lw (It's very Texas!)
Resolved: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iAyvHL2m6Tc
Proud: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmnmDkG_-cI (featuring John Glenn airing in Ohio)
Level: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zS1u-d6aqsk
SNL Debate Spoof
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XLZ18U1Txnc
http://www.nbc.com/Saturday_Night_Live/video/#mea=221776
http://www.nbc.com/Saturday_Night_Live/video/#mea=221776
'Let's Get Unified!' Sarcastic Clinton Mocks Obama's Rhetoric
http://www.breitbart.tv/html/52534.html
On Sunday, before a rally of several thousand, she added a heavy dose of sarcasm.
“Now I could stand up here and say, let’s get everybody together, let’s get unified the sky will open, the light will come down, celestial choirs will be singing,” she said, to a smattering of giggles. “And everyone will know we should do the right thing, and the world will be perfect.”
She added: “But I have no illusions about how hard this is going to be. You are not going to wave a magic wand and make the special interests disappear.”
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/24/clinton-turns-from-anger-to-sarcasm/
On Sunday, before a rally of several thousand, she added a heavy dose of sarcasm.
“Now I could stand up here and say, let’s get everybody together, let’s get unified the sky will open, the light will come down, celestial choirs will be singing,” she said, to a smattering of giggles. “And everyone will know we should do the right thing, and the world will be perfect.”
She added: “But I have no illusions about how hard this is going to be. You are not going to wave a magic wand and make the special interests disappear.”
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/24/clinton-turns-from-anger-to-sarcasm/
Obama's "New" Voters
Previously Obama took credit for helping to expand the playing field for Democrats by "attracting new voters and independent voters into the process in a way that Senator Clinton cannot do."
Now, a forward being sent by Texas Republicans (below).
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
Also see: Why Republicans are voting for Obama:
http://www.taylormarsh.com/archives_view.php?id=27036
http://robertbluey.com/blog/2008/02/12/why-i-voted-for-obama/
http://www.thecityedition.com/Pages/Archive/Winter08/2008Election.html
Based on exit polls, among the approximately 16.3 million people who identified themselves as Democrats, over 678,000 more voted for Hillary Clinton than Barack Obama. If we’re going to “let the people decide" who the Democratic nominee would be, shouldn’t we be basing that on the will of Democrats themselves?
===
On March 4th, Texas Republicans and Independents will have an opportunity to end Hillary Clinton’s (and Bill’s) presidential ambitions once and for all!
Since Texas has on open primary, Republicans and Independents should sign in at their polling place and request a Democratic ballot. They should then vote for Barack Obama. Even James Carville admits that if Hillary loses Texas, “she’s done!” Republicans can help make this a reality!!! Just think, no more Clintons in the White House!
Voting Democratic this one time will have NO effect on your ability to vote in the next Republican primary or obviously on your vote in November. Since John McCain has the Republican nomination locked up, voting for McCain or Huckabee at this point will have no effect on the outcome on the Republican side.
After you vote during early voting or on March 4th, you ARE NOT done! Report back to your regular polling place at 7PM on March 4th to sign the Barack Obama list for caucus delegates. In a little known Texas voting quirk, 67 delegates to the Democratic convention will be seated because of these caucuses. This is a full one-third of the total number of Texas delegates. For Hillary to lose, she has to lose the primary votes AND the caucus votes.
I urge you to vote against Hillary Clinton by voting for Barack Obama. Please forward this e-mail to all your Texas Republican and Independent friends so that we can help ensure the Clinton’s defeat on March 4th!!!
###
Now, a forward being sent by Texas Republicans (below).
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
Also see: Why Republicans are voting for Obama:
http://www.taylormarsh.com/archives_view.php?id=27036
http://robertbluey.com/blog/2008/02/12/why-i-voted-for-obama/
http://www.thecityedition.com/Pages/Archive/Winter08/2008Election.html
Based on exit polls, among the approximately 16.3 million people who identified themselves as Democrats, over 678,000 more voted for Hillary Clinton than Barack Obama. If we’re going to “let the people decide" who the Democratic nominee would be, shouldn’t we be basing that on the will of Democrats themselves?
===
On March 4th, Texas Republicans and Independents will have an opportunity to end Hillary Clinton’s (and Bill’s) presidential ambitions once and for all!
Since Texas has on open primary, Republicans and Independents should sign in at their polling place and request a Democratic ballot. They should then vote for Barack Obama. Even James Carville admits that if Hillary loses Texas, “she’s done!” Republicans can help make this a reality!!! Just think, no more Clintons in the White House!
Voting Democratic this one time will have NO effect on your ability to vote in the next Republican primary or obviously on your vote in November. Since John McCain has the Republican nomination locked up, voting for McCain or Huckabee at this point will have no effect on the outcome on the Republican side.
After you vote during early voting or on March 4th, you ARE NOT done! Report back to your regular polling place at 7PM on March 4th to sign the Barack Obama list for caucus delegates. In a little known Texas voting quirk, 67 delegates to the Democratic convention will be seated because of these caucuses. This is a full one-third of the total number of Texas delegates. For Hillary to lose, she has to lose the primary votes AND the caucus votes.
I urge you to vote against Hillary Clinton by voting for Barack Obama. Please forward this e-mail to all your Texas Republican and Independent friends so that we can help ensure the Clinton’s defeat on March 4th!!!
###
National Post: Hillary has a point
Over the past eight years, Hillary Clinton has compiled a relatively moderate record in the U.S. Senate. She famously voted to authorize the Iraq war, but in other ways too she has moved away from her image as a hard-left ultra-feminist toward the national centre.
Her party's liberal base has noticed -- and resented the shift. Her opponents have not. And so Clinton suffers the worst of both worlds: Conservatives oppose her because they think she is a liberal. Liberals oppose her because they suspect she is not. Add to that her husband's scandals and the larger Evita Peron problem posed by a First Lady running to succeed her husband and the result is …free fall.
Meanwhile, Obama has managed to soothe many conservatives into imagining him as a unifying figure, despite his own clear record as the most consistently liberal member of the U.S. Senate. It's a good trick, so long as it lasts -- but it gives every sign of lasting just long enough.
Yet there is a reality here beyond the image. Hillary Clinton has given every indication of being a more responsible potential commander-in-chief than Obama. She has refused to pledge unconditional and immediate withdrawal from Iraq, as Obama has done. He has offered to meet Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chavez and Raul Castro without preconditions. Hillary has declined to offer America's enemies such a PR coup. Her foreign policy advisors include level-headed people like Richard Holbrooke. His are led by the most dovish of the former Clinton hands, including Anthony Lake. Obama has even accepted advice from Robert Malley, the most prominent U.S. advocate of engagement with Hamas.
Obama talks about "building bridges." And certainly his style seems less angry than Hillary Clinton's. He does not seem to hate his enemies the way she does, does not engage in loose talk of vast right-wing conspiracies against him. That's all to the good. Yet it is Clinton who has compiled the better record of bipartisan co-operation in the Senate.
Obama's supporters react angrily against Hillary's claim that she offers action, Obama only words. But she has a point: Not in a long time has a candidate sought the presidency on the basis of a record as slight as Barack Obama's. His supporters compare him to Abraham Lincoln, who served only a single term in Congress before winning election as president. A better analogy might be William Jennings Bryan, who won the Democratic nomination in 1896 on the power of a great convention speech. Obama too gave a great speech in 2004. Beyond that, there is only guesswork, hope and fantasy.
Supporters of a strong American foreign policy will of course prefer John McCain to either Democrat. But if a Democrat it must be, Hillary Clinton seems the better choice for a national security voter. Largely for that very reason, Clinton's party has chosen otherwise.
If Obama does win the nomination and the presidency, he will face some very difficult realities with very little preparation. At that point, many Democrats -- and not a few Republicans -- may find themselves recalling Hillary Clinton's prophetic warnings that there is all the difference in the world between making speeches and effective government.
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=328070&p=1
Her party's liberal base has noticed -- and resented the shift. Her opponents have not. And so Clinton suffers the worst of both worlds: Conservatives oppose her because they think she is a liberal. Liberals oppose her because they suspect she is not. Add to that her husband's scandals and the larger Evita Peron problem posed by a First Lady running to succeed her husband and the result is …free fall.
Meanwhile, Obama has managed to soothe many conservatives into imagining him as a unifying figure, despite his own clear record as the most consistently liberal member of the U.S. Senate. It's a good trick, so long as it lasts -- but it gives every sign of lasting just long enough.
Yet there is a reality here beyond the image. Hillary Clinton has given every indication of being a more responsible potential commander-in-chief than Obama. She has refused to pledge unconditional and immediate withdrawal from Iraq, as Obama has done. He has offered to meet Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chavez and Raul Castro without preconditions. Hillary has declined to offer America's enemies such a PR coup. Her foreign policy advisors include level-headed people like Richard Holbrooke. His are led by the most dovish of the former Clinton hands, including Anthony Lake. Obama has even accepted advice from Robert Malley, the most prominent U.S. advocate of engagement with Hamas.
Obama talks about "building bridges." And certainly his style seems less angry than Hillary Clinton's. He does not seem to hate his enemies the way she does, does not engage in loose talk of vast right-wing conspiracies against him. That's all to the good. Yet it is Clinton who has compiled the better record of bipartisan co-operation in the Senate.
Obama's supporters react angrily against Hillary's claim that she offers action, Obama only words. But she has a point: Not in a long time has a candidate sought the presidency on the basis of a record as slight as Barack Obama's. His supporters compare him to Abraham Lincoln, who served only a single term in Congress before winning election as president. A better analogy might be William Jennings Bryan, who won the Democratic nomination in 1896 on the power of a great convention speech. Obama too gave a great speech in 2004. Beyond that, there is only guesswork, hope and fantasy.
Supporters of a strong American foreign policy will of course prefer John McCain to either Democrat. But if a Democrat it must be, Hillary Clinton seems the better choice for a national security voter. Largely for that very reason, Clinton's party has chosen otherwise.
If Obama does win the nomination and the presidency, he will face some very difficult realities with very little preparation. At that point, many Democrats -- and not a few Republicans -- may find themselves recalling Hillary Clinton's prophetic warnings that there is all the difference in the world between making speeches and effective government.
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=328070&p=1
Monday, February 11, 2008
Texans for Hillary
And if you're interested in volunteering to help the campaign, go here: http://hillaryclinton.com/hq/Texas/
Helping Hillary
We've got a unique opportunity to help our country by helping our candidate of choice, Hillary Clinton. She's been there for us time and time again, so let's show our support and the strength of our cause by each donating $10.44 on February 12, 2008.
Here are the reasons:
First, Obama supporters think they own democracy. Let's show them they don't. Democracy belongs to the people and leaders should be in it for the people, not for cult-like adulation.
Second, if they can give $5, we can give $10. If they can give a pint of blood, we can give two. Point is, our resolve is bigger than theirs. We will make it hurt twice as much because we are stronger and our candidate is better.
Third, the 44 cent designation shows we have faith that she is destined to be "44." Hillary Clinton is and will be the 44th President of the United States of America.
Fourth, the small amount is doable for the majority of people. If you question whether it is for you, forgo eating out that day or give another amount, but leave the 44 cent designation to show you know Hillary is 44.
Fifth and more importantly, we have our girl's back. She's not only fighting a tough campaign, but she is also fighting the MSM, the GOP and the rampant sexism ingrained in our society. We have her back, and in times like these where her message is being drowned out by the evil that men do, we can help buy her a little more voice so that our voice, the voice of the people- the voice of the disenfranchised voters in Florida and Michigan, the poor, the elderly, the infirm without access to medical care, the veterans deserted by their own countrymen....... IS HEARD LOUD AND CLEAR.
So join us on February 12th and show some love for our girl. Go to HillaryClinton.com and donate $10.44 and make sure the rest of the world hears the message that Hillary is 44!
http://operation104goodbuddy.blogspot.com/
Here are the reasons:
First, Obama supporters think they own democracy. Let's show them they don't. Democracy belongs to the people and leaders should be in it for the people, not for cult-like adulation.
Second, if they can give $5, we can give $10. If they can give a pint of blood, we can give two. Point is, our resolve is bigger than theirs. We will make it hurt twice as much because we are stronger and our candidate is better.
Third, the 44 cent designation shows we have faith that she is destined to be "44." Hillary Clinton is and will be the 44th President of the United States of America.
Fourth, the small amount is doable for the majority of people. If you question whether it is for you, forgo eating out that day or give another amount, but leave the 44 cent designation to show you know Hillary is 44.
Fifth and more importantly, we have our girl's back. She's not only fighting a tough campaign, but she is also fighting the MSM, the GOP and the rampant sexism ingrained in our society. We have her back, and in times like these where her message is being drowned out by the evil that men do, we can help buy her a little more voice so that our voice, the voice of the people- the voice of the disenfranchised voters in Florida and Michigan, the poor, the elderly, the infirm without access to medical care, the veterans deserted by their own countrymen....... IS HEARD LOUD AND CLEAR.
So join us on February 12th and show some love for our girl. Go to HillaryClinton.com and donate $10.44 and make sure the rest of the world hears the message that Hillary is 44!
http://operation104goodbuddy.blogspot.com/
Goodbye To All That (#2)
Goodbye To All That (#2) by Robin Morgan
February 2, 2008
Goodbye To All That” was my (in)famous 1970 essay breaking free from a politics of accommodation especially affecting women (for an online version, see http://blog.fair-use.org/category/chicago/).
During my decades in civil-rights, anti-war, and contemporary women’s movements, I’ve avoided writing another specific “Goodbye . . .” But not since the suffrage struggle have two communities—joint conscience-keepers of this country—been so set in competition, as the contest between Hillary Rodham Clinton (HRC) and Barack Obama (BO) unfurls. So.
Goodbye to the double standard . . .
—Hillary is too ballsy but too womanly, a Snow Maiden who’s emotional, and so much a politician as to be unfit for politics.
—She’s “ambitious” but he shows “fire in the belly.” (Ever had labor pains?)—When a sexist idiot screamed “Iron my shirt!” at HRC, it was considered amusing; if a racist idiot shouted “Shine my shoes!” at BO, it would’ve inspired hours of airtime and pages of newsprint analyzing our national dishonor.
—Young political Kennedys—Kathleen, Kerry, and Bobby Jr.—all endorsed Hillary. Senator Ted, age 76, endorsed Obama. If the situation were reversed, pundits would snort “See? Ted and establishment types back her, but the forward-looking generation backs him.” (Personally, I’m unimpressed with Caroline’s longing for the Return of the Fathers. Unlike the rest of the world, Americans have short memories. Me, I still recall Marilyn Monroe’s suicide, and a dead girl named Mary Jo Kopechne in Chappaquiddick.)
Goodbye to the toxic viciousness . . .
Carl Bernstein's disgust at Hillary’s “thick ankles.” Nixon-trickster Roger Stone’s new Hillary-hating 527 group, “Citizens United Not Timid” (check the capital letters). John McCain answering “How do we beat the bitch?" with “Excellent question!” Would he have dared reply similarly to “How do we beat the black bastard?” For shame.
Goodbye to the HRC nutcracker with metal spikes between splayed thighs. If it was a tap-dancing blackface doll, we would be righteously outraged—and they would not be selling it in airports. Shame.
Goodbye to the most intimately violent T-shirts in election history, including one with the murderous slogan “If Only Hillary had married O.J. Instead!” Shame.
Goodbye to Comedy Central’s “Southpark” featuring a storyline in which terrorists secrete a bomb in HRC’s vagina. I refuse to wrench my brain down into the gutter far enough to find a race-based comparison. For shame.
Goodbye to the sick, malicious idea that this is funny. This is not “Clinton hating,” not “Hillary hating.” This is sociopathic woman-hating. If it were about Jews, we would recognize it instantly as anti-Semitic propaganda; if about race, as KKK poison. Hell, PETA would go ballistic if such vomitous spew were directed at animals. Where is our sense of outrage—as citizens, voters, Americans?
Goodbye to the news-coverage target-practice . . .
The women’s movement and Media Matters wrung an apology from MSNBC’s Chris Matthews for relentless misogynistic comments (www.womensmediacenter.com). But what about NBC’s Tim Russert’s continual sexist asides and his all-white-male panels pontificating on race and gender? Or CNN’s Tony Harris chuckling at “the chromosome thing” while interviewing a woman from The White House Project? And that’s not even mentioning Fox News.
Goodbye to pretending the black community is entirely male and all women are white . . .
Surprise! Women exist in all opinions, pigmentations, ethnicities, abilities, sexual preferences, and ages—not only African American and European American but Latina and Native American, Asian American and Pacific Islanders, Arab American and—hey, every group, because a group wouldn’t exist if we hadn’t given birth to it. A few non-racist countries may exist—but sexism is everywhere. No matter how many ways a woman breaks free from other discriminations, she remains a female human being in a world still so patriarchal that it’s the “norm.”
So why should all women not be as justly proud of our womanhood and the centuries, even millennia, of struggle that got us this far, as black Americans, women and men, are justly proud of their struggles?
Goodbye to a campaign where he has to pass as white (which whites—especially wealthy ones—adore), while she has to pass as male (which both men and women demanded of her, and then found unforgivable). If she were blackor he were female we wouldn’t be having such problems, and I for one would be in heaven. But at present such a candidate wouldn’t stand a chance—even if she shared Condi Rice’s Bush-defending politics.
I was celebrating the pivotal power at last focused on African American women deciding on which of two candidates to bestow their vote—until a number of Hillary-supporting black feminists told me they’re being called “race traitors.”
So goodbye to conversations about this nation’s deepest scar—slavery—which fail to acknowledge that labor- and sexual-slavery exist today in the U.S. and elsewhere on this planet, and the majority of those enslaved are women.
Women have endured sex/race/ethnic/religious hatred, rape and battery, invasion of spirit and flesh, forced pregnancy; being the majority of the poor, the illiterate, the disabled, of refugees, caregivers, the HIV/AIDS afflicted, the powerless. We have survived invisibility, ridicule, religious fundamentalisms, polygamy, teargas, forced feedings, jails, asylums, sati, purdah, female genital mutilation, witch burnings, stonings, and attempted gynocides. We have tried reason, persuasion, reassurances, and being extra-qualified, only to learn it never was about qualifications after all. We know that at this historical moment women experience the world differently from men—though not all the same as one another—and can govern differently, from Elizabeth Tudor to Michele Bachelet and Ellen Johnson Sirleaf.
We remember when Shirley Chisholm and Patricia Schroeder ran for this high office and barely got past the gate—they showed too much passion, raised too little cash, were joke fodder. Goodbye to all that. (And goodbye to some feminists so famished for a female president they were even willing to abandon women’s rights in backing Elizabeth Dole.)
Goodbye, goodbye to . . .
—blaming anything Bill Clinton does on Hillary (even including his womanizing like the Kennedy guys—though unlike them, he got reported on). Let’s get real. If he hadn’t campaigned strongly for her everyone would cluck over what that meant. Enough of Bill and Teddy Kennedy locking their alpha male horns while Hillary pays for it.
—an era when parts of the populace feel so disaffected by politics that a comparative lack of knowledge, experience, and skill is actually seen as attractive, when celebrity-culture mania now infects our elections so that it’s “cooler” to glow with marquee charisma than to understand the vast global complexities of power on a nuclear, wounded planet.
—the notion that it’s fun to elect a handsome, cocky president who feels he can learn on the job, goodbye to George W. Bush and the destruction brought by his inexperience, ignorance, and arrogance. Goodbye to the accusation that HRC acts “entitled” when she’s worked intensely at everything she’s done—including being a nose-to-the-grindstone, first-rate senator from my state.
Goodbye to her being exploited as a Rorschach test by women who reduce her to a blank screen on which they project their own fears, failures, fantasies.
Goodbye to the phrase “polarizing figure” to describe someone who embodies the transitions women have made in the last century and are poised to make in this one. It was the women’s movement that quipped, “We are becoming the men we wanted to marry.” She heard us, and she has.
Goodbye to some women letting history pass by while wringing their hands, because Hillary isn’t as “likeable” as they’ve been warned they must be, or because she didn’t leave him, couldn’t “control” him, kept her family together and raised a smart, sane daughter. (Think of the blame if Chelsea had ever acted in the alcoholic, neurotic manner of the Bush twins!) Goodbye to some women pouting because she didn’t bake cookies or she did, sniping because she learned the rules and then bent or broke them. Grow the hell up. She is not running for Ms.-perfect-pure-queen-icon of the feminist movement. She’s running to be president of the United States.
Goodbye to the shocking American ignorance of our own and other countries’ history. Margaret Thatcher and Golda Meir rose through party ranks and war, positioning themselves as proto-male leaders. Almost all other female heads of government so far have been related to men of power—granddaughters, daughters, sisters, wives, widows: Gandhi, Bandaranike, Bhutto, Aquino, Chamorro, Wazed, Macapagal-Arroyo, Johnson Sirleaf, Bachelet, Kirchner, and more. Even in our “land of opportunity,” it’s mostly the first pathway “in” permitted to women: Representatives Doris Matsui and Mary Bono and Sala Burton; Senator Jean Carnahan . . . far too many to list here.
Goodbye to a misrepresented generational divide . . .
Goodbye to the so-called spontaneous “Obama Girl” flaunting her bikini-clad ass online—then confessing Oh yeah it wasn’t her idea after all, some guys got her to do it and dictated the clothes, which she said “made me feel like a dork.”
Goodbye to some young women eager to win male approval by showing they’re not feminists (at least not the kind who actually threaten thestatus quo), who can’t identify with a woman candidate because she is unafraid of eeueweeeu yucky power, who fear their boyfriends might look at them funny if they say something good about her. Goodbye to women of any age again feeling unworthy, sulking “what if she’s not electable?” or “maybe it’s post-feminism and whoooosh we’re already free.” Let a statement by the magnificent Harriet Tubman stand as reply. When asked how she managed to save hundreds of enslaved African Americans via the Underground Railroad during the Civil War, she replied bitterly, “I could have saved thousands—if only I’d been able to convince them they were slaves.”
I’d rather say a joyful Hello to all the glorious young women who do identifywith Hillary, and all the brave, smart men—of all ethnicities and any age—who get that it’s in their self-interest, too. She’s better qualified. (D’uh.) She’s a high-profile candidate with an enormous grasp of foreign- and domestic-policy nuance, dedication to detail, ability to absorb staggering insult and personal pain while retaining dignity, resolve, even humor, and keep on keeping on. (Also, yes, dammit, let’s hear it for her connections and funding and party-building background, too. Obama was awfully glad about those when she raised dough and campaigned for him to get to the Senate in the first place.)
I’d rather look forward to what a good president he might make in eight years, when his vision and spirit are seasoned by practical know-how—and he’ll be all of 54. Meanwhile, goodbye to turning him into a shining knight when actually he’s an astute, smooth pol with speechwriters who’ve worked with the Kennedys’ own speechwriter-courtier Ted Sorenson. If it’s only about ringing rhetoric, let speechwriters run. But isn’t it about getting the policies we want enacted?
And goodbye to the ageism . . .
How dare anyone unilaterally decide when to turn the page on history, papering over real inequities and suffering constituencies in the promise of a feel-good campaign? How dare anyone claim to unify while dividing, or think that to rouse U.S. youth from torpor it’s useful to triage the single largest demographic in this country’s history: the boomer generation—the majority of which is female?
Old woman are the one group that doesn’t grow more conservative with age—and we are the generation of radicals who said “Well-behaved women seldom make history.” Goodbye to going gently into any goodnight any man prescribes for us. We are the women who changed the reality of the United States. And though we never went away, brace yourselves: we’re back!
We are the women who brought this country equal credit, better pay, affirmative action, the concept of a family-focused workplace; the women who established rape-crisis centers and battery shelters, marital-rape and date-rape laws; the women who defended lesbian custody rights, who fought for prison reform, founded the peace and environmental movements; who insisted that medical research include female anatomy; who inspired men to become more nurturing parents; who created women’s studies and Title IX so we all could cheer the WNBA stars and Mia Hamm. We are the women who reclaimed sexuality from violent pornography, who put childcare on the national agenda, who transformed demographics, artistic expression, language itself. We are the women who forged a worldwide movement. We are the proud successors of women who, though it took more than 50 years, won us the vote.
We are the women who now comprise the majority of U.S. voters.
Hillary said she found her own voice in New Hampshire. There’s not a woman alive who, if she’s honest, doesn’t recognize what she means. Then HRC got drowned out by campaign experts, Bill, and media’s obsession with everything Bill.
So listen to her voice:
“For too long, the history of women has been a history of silence. Even today, there are those who are trying to silence our words.
“It is a violation of human rights when babies are denied food, or drowned, or suffocated, or their spines broken, simply because they are born girls. It is a violation of human rights when woman and girls are sold into the slavery of prostitution. It is a violation of human rights when women are doused with gasoline, set on fire and burned to death because their marriage dowries are deemed too small. It is a violation of human rights when individual women are raped in their own communities and when thousands of women are subjected to rape as a tactic or prize of war. It is a violation of human rights when a leading cause of death worldwide along women ages 14 to 44 is the violence they are subjected to in their own homes. It is a violation of human rights when women are denied the right to plan their own families, and that includes being forced to have abortions or being sterilized against their will.
“Women’s rights are human rights. Among those rights are the right to speak freely—and the right to be heard.”
That was Hillary Rodham Clinton defying the U.S. State Department and the Chinese Government at the 1995 UN World Conference on Women in Beijing (look here for the full, stunning speech).
And this voice, age 21, in “Commencement Remarks of Hillary D. Rodham, President of Wellesley College Government Association, Class of 1969.”
“We are, all of us, exploring a world none of us understands. . . . searching for a more immediate, ecstatic, and penetrating mode of living. . . . [for the] integrity, the courage to be whole, living in relation to one another in the full poetry of existence. The struggle for an integrated life existing in an atmosphere of communal trust and respect is one with desperately important political and social consequences. . . . Fear is always with us, but we just don't have time for it.”
She ended with the commitment “to practice, with all the skill of our being: the art of making possible.”
And for decades, she’s been learning how.
So goodbye to Hillary’s second-guessing herself. The real question is deeper than her re-finding her voice. Can we women find ours? Can we do this for ourselves?
“Our President, Ourselves!”
Time is short and the contest tightening. We need to rise in furious energy—as we did when Anita Hill was so vilely treated in the U.S. Senate, as we did when Rosie Jiminez was butchered by an illegal abortion, as we did and do for women globally who are condemned for trying to break through. We need to win, this time. Goodbye to supporting HRC tepidly, with ambivalent caveats and apologetic smiles. Time to volunteer, make phone calls, send emails, donate money, argue, rally, march, shout, vote.
Me? I support Hillary Rodham because she’s the best qualified of all candidates running in both parties. I support her because her progressive politics are as strong as her proven ability to withstand what will be a massive right-wing assault in the general election. I support her because she knows how to get us out of Iraq. I support her because she’s refreshingly thoughtful, and I’m bloodied from eight years of a jolly “uniter” with ejaculatory politics. I needn’t agree with her on every point. I agree with the 97 percent of her positions that are identical with Obama’s—and the few where hers are both more practical and to the left of his (like health care). I support her because she’s already smashed the first-lady stereotype and made history as a fine senator, because I believe she will continue to make history not only as the first US woman president, but as a great US president.
As for the “woman thing”?
Me, I’m voting for Hillary not because she’s a woman—but because I am.
###
February 2, 2008
Goodbye To All That” was my (in)famous 1970 essay breaking free from a politics of accommodation especially affecting women (for an online version, see http://blog.fair-use.org/category/chicago/).
During my decades in civil-rights, anti-war, and contemporary women’s movements, I’ve avoided writing another specific “Goodbye . . .” But not since the suffrage struggle have two communities—joint conscience-keepers of this country—been so set in competition, as the contest between Hillary Rodham Clinton (HRC) and Barack Obama (BO) unfurls. So.
Goodbye to the double standard . . .
—Hillary is too ballsy but too womanly, a Snow Maiden who’s emotional, and so much a politician as to be unfit for politics.
—She’s “ambitious” but he shows “fire in the belly.” (Ever had labor pains?)—When a sexist idiot screamed “Iron my shirt!” at HRC, it was considered amusing; if a racist idiot shouted “Shine my shoes!” at BO, it would’ve inspired hours of airtime and pages of newsprint analyzing our national dishonor.
—Young political Kennedys—Kathleen, Kerry, and Bobby Jr.—all endorsed Hillary. Senator Ted, age 76, endorsed Obama. If the situation were reversed, pundits would snort “See? Ted and establishment types back her, but the forward-looking generation backs him.” (Personally, I’m unimpressed with Caroline’s longing for the Return of the Fathers. Unlike the rest of the world, Americans have short memories. Me, I still recall Marilyn Monroe’s suicide, and a dead girl named Mary Jo Kopechne in Chappaquiddick.)
Goodbye to the toxic viciousness . . .
Carl Bernstein's disgust at Hillary’s “thick ankles.” Nixon-trickster Roger Stone’s new Hillary-hating 527 group, “Citizens United Not Timid” (check the capital letters). John McCain answering “How do we beat the bitch?" with “Excellent question!” Would he have dared reply similarly to “How do we beat the black bastard?” For shame.
Goodbye to the HRC nutcracker with metal spikes between splayed thighs. If it was a tap-dancing blackface doll, we would be righteously outraged—and they would not be selling it in airports. Shame.
Goodbye to the most intimately violent T-shirts in election history, including one with the murderous slogan “If Only Hillary had married O.J. Instead!” Shame.
Goodbye to Comedy Central’s “Southpark” featuring a storyline in which terrorists secrete a bomb in HRC’s vagina. I refuse to wrench my brain down into the gutter far enough to find a race-based comparison. For shame.
Goodbye to the sick, malicious idea that this is funny. This is not “Clinton hating,” not “Hillary hating.” This is sociopathic woman-hating. If it were about Jews, we would recognize it instantly as anti-Semitic propaganda; if about race, as KKK poison. Hell, PETA would go ballistic if such vomitous spew were directed at animals. Where is our sense of outrage—as citizens, voters, Americans?
Goodbye to the news-coverage target-practice . . .
The women’s movement and Media Matters wrung an apology from MSNBC’s Chris Matthews for relentless misogynistic comments (www.womensmediacenter.com). But what about NBC’s Tim Russert’s continual sexist asides and his all-white-male panels pontificating on race and gender? Or CNN’s Tony Harris chuckling at “the chromosome thing” while interviewing a woman from The White House Project? And that’s not even mentioning Fox News.
Goodbye to pretending the black community is entirely male and all women are white . . .
Surprise! Women exist in all opinions, pigmentations, ethnicities, abilities, sexual preferences, and ages—not only African American and European American but Latina and Native American, Asian American and Pacific Islanders, Arab American and—hey, every group, because a group wouldn’t exist if we hadn’t given birth to it. A few non-racist countries may exist—but sexism is everywhere. No matter how many ways a woman breaks free from other discriminations, she remains a female human being in a world still so patriarchal that it’s the “norm.”
So why should all women not be as justly proud of our womanhood and the centuries, even millennia, of struggle that got us this far, as black Americans, women and men, are justly proud of their struggles?
Goodbye to a campaign where he has to pass as white (which whites—especially wealthy ones—adore), while she has to pass as male (which both men and women demanded of her, and then found unforgivable). If she were blackor he were female we wouldn’t be having such problems, and I for one would be in heaven. But at present such a candidate wouldn’t stand a chance—even if she shared Condi Rice’s Bush-defending politics.
I was celebrating the pivotal power at last focused on African American women deciding on which of two candidates to bestow their vote—until a number of Hillary-supporting black feminists told me they’re being called “race traitors.”
So goodbye to conversations about this nation’s deepest scar—slavery—which fail to acknowledge that labor- and sexual-slavery exist today in the U.S. and elsewhere on this planet, and the majority of those enslaved are women.
Women have endured sex/race/ethnic/religious hatred, rape and battery, invasion of spirit and flesh, forced pregnancy; being the majority of the poor, the illiterate, the disabled, of refugees, caregivers, the HIV/AIDS afflicted, the powerless. We have survived invisibility, ridicule, religious fundamentalisms, polygamy, teargas, forced feedings, jails, asylums, sati, purdah, female genital mutilation, witch burnings, stonings, and attempted gynocides. We have tried reason, persuasion, reassurances, and being extra-qualified, only to learn it never was about qualifications after all. We know that at this historical moment women experience the world differently from men—though not all the same as one another—and can govern differently, from Elizabeth Tudor to Michele Bachelet and Ellen Johnson Sirleaf.
We remember when Shirley Chisholm and Patricia Schroeder ran for this high office and barely got past the gate—they showed too much passion, raised too little cash, were joke fodder. Goodbye to all that. (And goodbye to some feminists so famished for a female president they were even willing to abandon women’s rights in backing Elizabeth Dole.)
Goodbye, goodbye to . . .
—blaming anything Bill Clinton does on Hillary (even including his womanizing like the Kennedy guys—though unlike them, he got reported on). Let’s get real. If he hadn’t campaigned strongly for her everyone would cluck over what that meant. Enough of Bill and Teddy Kennedy locking their alpha male horns while Hillary pays for it.
—an era when parts of the populace feel so disaffected by politics that a comparative lack of knowledge, experience, and skill is actually seen as attractive, when celebrity-culture mania now infects our elections so that it’s “cooler” to glow with marquee charisma than to understand the vast global complexities of power on a nuclear, wounded planet.
—the notion that it’s fun to elect a handsome, cocky president who feels he can learn on the job, goodbye to George W. Bush and the destruction brought by his inexperience, ignorance, and arrogance. Goodbye to the accusation that HRC acts “entitled” when she’s worked intensely at everything she’s done—including being a nose-to-the-grindstone, first-rate senator from my state.
Goodbye to her being exploited as a Rorschach test by women who reduce her to a blank screen on which they project their own fears, failures, fantasies.
Goodbye to the phrase “polarizing figure” to describe someone who embodies the transitions women have made in the last century and are poised to make in this one. It was the women’s movement that quipped, “We are becoming the men we wanted to marry.” She heard us, and she has.
Goodbye to some women letting history pass by while wringing their hands, because Hillary isn’t as “likeable” as they’ve been warned they must be, or because she didn’t leave him, couldn’t “control” him, kept her family together and raised a smart, sane daughter. (Think of the blame if Chelsea had ever acted in the alcoholic, neurotic manner of the Bush twins!) Goodbye to some women pouting because she didn’t bake cookies or she did, sniping because she learned the rules and then bent or broke them. Grow the hell up. She is not running for Ms.-perfect-pure-queen-icon of the feminist movement. She’s running to be president of the United States.
Goodbye to the shocking American ignorance of our own and other countries’ history. Margaret Thatcher and Golda Meir rose through party ranks and war, positioning themselves as proto-male leaders. Almost all other female heads of government so far have been related to men of power—granddaughters, daughters, sisters, wives, widows: Gandhi, Bandaranike, Bhutto, Aquino, Chamorro, Wazed, Macapagal-Arroyo, Johnson Sirleaf, Bachelet, Kirchner, and more. Even in our “land of opportunity,” it’s mostly the first pathway “in” permitted to women: Representatives Doris Matsui and Mary Bono and Sala Burton; Senator Jean Carnahan . . . far too many to list here.
Goodbye to a misrepresented generational divide . . .
Goodbye to the so-called spontaneous “Obama Girl” flaunting her bikini-clad ass online—then confessing Oh yeah it wasn’t her idea after all, some guys got her to do it and dictated the clothes, which she said “made me feel like a dork.”
Goodbye to some young women eager to win male approval by showing they’re not feminists (at least not the kind who actually threaten thestatus quo), who can’t identify with a woman candidate because she is unafraid of eeueweeeu yucky power, who fear their boyfriends might look at them funny if they say something good about her. Goodbye to women of any age again feeling unworthy, sulking “what if she’s not electable?” or “maybe it’s post-feminism and whoooosh we’re already free.” Let a statement by the magnificent Harriet Tubman stand as reply. When asked how she managed to save hundreds of enslaved African Americans via the Underground Railroad during the Civil War, she replied bitterly, “I could have saved thousands—if only I’d been able to convince them they were slaves.”
I’d rather say a joyful Hello to all the glorious young women who do identifywith Hillary, and all the brave, smart men—of all ethnicities and any age—who get that it’s in their self-interest, too. She’s better qualified. (D’uh.) She’s a high-profile candidate with an enormous grasp of foreign- and domestic-policy nuance, dedication to detail, ability to absorb staggering insult and personal pain while retaining dignity, resolve, even humor, and keep on keeping on. (Also, yes, dammit, let’s hear it for her connections and funding and party-building background, too. Obama was awfully glad about those when she raised dough and campaigned for him to get to the Senate in the first place.)
I’d rather look forward to what a good president he might make in eight years, when his vision and spirit are seasoned by practical know-how—and he’ll be all of 54. Meanwhile, goodbye to turning him into a shining knight when actually he’s an astute, smooth pol with speechwriters who’ve worked with the Kennedys’ own speechwriter-courtier Ted Sorenson. If it’s only about ringing rhetoric, let speechwriters run. But isn’t it about getting the policies we want enacted?
And goodbye to the ageism . . .
How dare anyone unilaterally decide when to turn the page on history, papering over real inequities and suffering constituencies in the promise of a feel-good campaign? How dare anyone claim to unify while dividing, or think that to rouse U.S. youth from torpor it’s useful to triage the single largest demographic in this country’s history: the boomer generation—the majority of which is female?
Old woman are the one group that doesn’t grow more conservative with age—and we are the generation of radicals who said “Well-behaved women seldom make history.” Goodbye to going gently into any goodnight any man prescribes for us. We are the women who changed the reality of the United States. And though we never went away, brace yourselves: we’re back!
We are the women who brought this country equal credit, better pay, affirmative action, the concept of a family-focused workplace; the women who established rape-crisis centers and battery shelters, marital-rape and date-rape laws; the women who defended lesbian custody rights, who fought for prison reform, founded the peace and environmental movements; who insisted that medical research include female anatomy; who inspired men to become more nurturing parents; who created women’s studies and Title IX so we all could cheer the WNBA stars and Mia Hamm. We are the women who reclaimed sexuality from violent pornography, who put childcare on the national agenda, who transformed demographics, artistic expression, language itself. We are the women who forged a worldwide movement. We are the proud successors of women who, though it took more than 50 years, won us the vote.
We are the women who now comprise the majority of U.S. voters.
Hillary said she found her own voice in New Hampshire. There’s not a woman alive who, if she’s honest, doesn’t recognize what she means. Then HRC got drowned out by campaign experts, Bill, and media’s obsession with everything Bill.
So listen to her voice:
“For too long, the history of women has been a history of silence. Even today, there are those who are trying to silence our words.
“It is a violation of human rights when babies are denied food, or drowned, or suffocated, or their spines broken, simply because they are born girls. It is a violation of human rights when woman and girls are sold into the slavery of prostitution. It is a violation of human rights when women are doused with gasoline, set on fire and burned to death because their marriage dowries are deemed too small. It is a violation of human rights when individual women are raped in their own communities and when thousands of women are subjected to rape as a tactic or prize of war. It is a violation of human rights when a leading cause of death worldwide along women ages 14 to 44 is the violence they are subjected to in their own homes. It is a violation of human rights when women are denied the right to plan their own families, and that includes being forced to have abortions or being sterilized against their will.
“Women’s rights are human rights. Among those rights are the right to speak freely—and the right to be heard.”
That was Hillary Rodham Clinton defying the U.S. State Department and the Chinese Government at the 1995 UN World Conference on Women in Beijing (look here for the full, stunning speech).
And this voice, age 21, in “Commencement Remarks of Hillary D. Rodham, President of Wellesley College Government Association, Class of 1969.”
“We are, all of us, exploring a world none of us understands. . . . searching for a more immediate, ecstatic, and penetrating mode of living. . . . [for the] integrity, the courage to be whole, living in relation to one another in the full poetry of existence. The struggle for an integrated life existing in an atmosphere of communal trust and respect is one with desperately important political and social consequences. . . . Fear is always with us, but we just don't have time for it.”
She ended with the commitment “to practice, with all the skill of our being: the art of making possible.”
And for decades, she’s been learning how.
So goodbye to Hillary’s second-guessing herself. The real question is deeper than her re-finding her voice. Can we women find ours? Can we do this for ourselves?
“Our President, Ourselves!”
Time is short and the contest tightening. We need to rise in furious energy—as we did when Anita Hill was so vilely treated in the U.S. Senate, as we did when Rosie Jiminez was butchered by an illegal abortion, as we did and do for women globally who are condemned for trying to break through. We need to win, this time. Goodbye to supporting HRC tepidly, with ambivalent caveats and apologetic smiles. Time to volunteer, make phone calls, send emails, donate money, argue, rally, march, shout, vote.
Me? I support Hillary Rodham because she’s the best qualified of all candidates running in both parties. I support her because her progressive politics are as strong as her proven ability to withstand what will be a massive right-wing assault in the general election. I support her because she knows how to get us out of Iraq. I support her because she’s refreshingly thoughtful, and I’m bloodied from eight years of a jolly “uniter” with ejaculatory politics. I needn’t agree with her on every point. I agree with the 97 percent of her positions that are identical with Obama’s—and the few where hers are both more practical and to the left of his (like health care). I support her because she’s already smashed the first-lady stereotype and made history as a fine senator, because I believe she will continue to make history not only as the first US woman president, but as a great US president.
As for the “woman thing”?
Me, I’m voting for Hillary not because she’s a woman—but because I am.
###
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)