Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditJohn McCain has made it clear that his campaign intends to aggressively court supporters of Hillary Clinton, include her major base of women voters.
Now top women Clinton supporters have a message for McCain: not so fast.
"The McCain campaign has been talking about the mythology of trying to pick up HRC supporters," says Ellen Malcolm, president of EMILY'S List. "This is a pipe dream, because he's out of touch with their lives and the issues they care about."
"We are here to sound the alarm bell," said Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz of South Florida on a conference call today. "We are going to work hard to make sure that John McCain is not allowed to pull the wool over womens' eyes one more day."
Wasserman-Schultz pointed to McCain's opposition to universal healthcare, universal pre-K, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act and raising the minimum wage as some of the many reasons women voters will rally around Barack Obama come November. "As a young woman in America who is a mom with three young kids, there is a real fear that John McCain will be dangerous for women," Wasserman-Schultz said. "He will impede our progress."
Malcolm and Wasserman-Schultz referenced a new Gallup poll showing Obama leading McCain by 13 points among women voters, a six point bump since Clinton exited the race and endorsed Obama. Gallup found that Obama is now "matching Clinton's performance among women versus McCain." In addition, Obama leads McCain among women 50 and older--a key chunk of Clinton's base--by six points, after trailing McCain among that group when Clinton remained in the race.
McCain is currently running well behind George W. Bush in 2004, who lost women voters to John Kerry by just three points by appealing to "security moms." And among non-college educated white women--another key segment of Clinton's base--Bush beat Kerry by nineteen points. In '06, Democrats cut that margin to five, a big reason why they recaptured Congress. If Obama can match that '06 number, there's a good chance Democrats will recapture the White House.
Wasserman-Schultz admitted that many Clinton supporters are still in a "period of mourning." According to Malcolm, "There is a lot of anger about sexism in the media, and the ongoing unwillingness to say anything positive about Clinton and her campaign. But that is about the media, and I dont think that transfers to Senator Obama."
EMILY'S List is planning to mobilize women voters on behalf of Obama in key battleground states, just as they did for Kerry and Gore and Clinton. An endless war in Iraq, skyrocketing gas prices, tax breaks for oil companies and a faltering economy are issues that deeply concern women voters. If Obama emphasizes these topics, Clinton supporters say, he can win over pro-Clinton skeptics. "The proof will be in the pudding," Wasserman-Schultz says, "as he campaigns across the country and talks about these issues that matter to women. This is what will warm women to him."
Share this article
News & Analysis »
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
RSS
˚∆˚
McCain is currently running well behind George W. Bush in 2004, who lost women voters to John Kerry by just three points by appealing to "security moms."
˚∆˚
male suffrage must be repealed!
Posted by frosty zoom at 06/11/2008 @ 1:08pm
˚∆˚
tax breaks for oil companies
˚∆˚
couldn't the current congress take care of that?
Posted by frosty zoom at 06/11/2008 @ 1:09pm
"There is a lot of anger about sexism in the media..."
Are Clinton supporters still whining about that? Really, it gets tedious after a while.
Posted by KSP556 at 06/11/2008 @ 1:11pm
"Malcolm and Wasserman-Schultz referenced a new Gallup poll showing Obama leading McCain by 13 points among women voters, a six point bump since Clinton exited the race and endorsed Obama. Gallup found that Obama is now "matching Clinton's performance among women versus McCain." In addition, Obama leads McCain among women 50 and older--a key chunk of Clinton's base--by six points, after trailing McCain among that group when Clinton remained in the race."
This is for FRANKGRITS and all his predictions about the general based on polling doen BEFORE Clinton exited. This trend will continue in Obama's favor, as will other demographics cited so much to argue Clinton's greater "electability."
Posted by Hman23 at 06/11/2008 @ 1:50pm
How do women, who tend Democrat, suddenly decide "I'm so pissed off I'm going to let John McCain put two, maybe THREE more Sam Alitos or Antonin Scalias on the US Supreme Court FOR LIFE...to appease his Religious Right base...and let them overturn Roe (and a host of other things).....all for the love of Hillary?"
I think most, almost all women...are a helluva lot less cultish or stupid as FRANKGRITS.
Posted by Mask at 06/11/2008 @ 1:54pm
If you're Harriet Christian Mask. :) Otherwise no women are not so foolish as to flock to a womanizing Bush clone.
Posted by yutsano at 06/11/2008 @ 2:02pm
I think women will come around to Obama. How far did the female republican candidate get in the primaries? Oh, my bad there wasn't one. And it is not likely to happen for a long time still. The democratic party is much more friendly to women then the republican party is. Women who vote for McCain because Hillary lost are seriously misguided.
Posted by Extraneous at 06/11/2008 @ 2:24pm
Oh and I have a theory Mask: FRANK only resurfaces on any Obama thread to talk trash then subliminated into the mists of the Internet. You think that has merit?
Posted by yutsano at 06/11/2008 @ 2:30pm
How far did the female republican candidate get in the primaries? Oh, my bad there wasn't one.
Posted by Extraneous
well, there was only one from the "others".
Wednesday, June 11, 2008 2:46:19 PM
Posted by frosty zoom at 06/11/2008 @ 2:46pm
This is not a time for childish dimwits throwing a temper tantrum to be indulged and coddled.
Posted by Zero at 06/11/2008
Yeah! YOU never throw temper tantrums, do ya ZERO?
THIS from Mr. Ignore Everybody?
Posted by Benchrest at 06/11/2008 @ 2:47pm
LISA SIMPSON '08
A True Voice For Sanity.
Posted by frosty zoom at 06/11/2008 @ 2:47pm
Zero, You're dead on, as usual.
Glad you posted today. The air in here was getting a little musty.
Posted by KSP556 at 06/11/2008 @ 2:53pm
Zero: "The point being that the "womens' movement" needs to quit perceiving itself as somehow alone in representing a group facing challenges in the media and culture."
Absolutely right.
I don't recall any feminist taking to the airwaves to complain about the bogus story that was the Wright "controversy." Perhaps the chief reason is that most feminists were silently praying that the issue would blow up in Obama's face, forcing him out of the race.
As far as I know, Maureen Dowd was one of the only feminists to come right out and say the "sexism" charge against Clinton was nonsense:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7w34oNP_Um0
Posted by KSP556 at 06/11/2008 @ 3:12pm
Interesting. I know many who have withdrawn their support on Emily's List. Perhaps, you might have asked how many have left Emily's List.
Posted by mcnor at 06/11/2008 @ 3:19pm
Face it, Hillary: just because 18,000,000 voters prefer you over Obama doesn't necessarily mean they prefer McCain over Obama, too.
Posted by pete29 at 06/11/2008 @ 3:22pm
Face it, Hillary: just because 18,000,000 voters prefer you over Obama doesn't necessarily mean they prefer McCain over Obama, too.
Posted by pete29 at 06/11/2008 @ 3:23pm
Clinton did NOT win more votes than Obama. That's a big fat lie. It rests on counting some caucuses and not others, and on counting the contests in FL & MI, where all the candidates, including Clinton, promised NOT to campaign.
Posted by KSP556 at 06/11/2008 @ 3:29pm
They'll simply stay home.
Posted by frankgrits
in the kitchen!
Posted by frosty zoom at 06/11/2008 @ 3:38pm
I don't think women will agressively come out for Obama or McCain. They'll simply stay home. McCain's strength will come from all those who voted for George Bush twice as well as Reagan democrats and the blue collar whites that Obama insulted. In any event, this will be one interesting election and one in which a hell of a lot is at stake for both sides.
Posted by frankgrits at 06/11/200
I don't think they will stay home. I think the majority will not "aggresivly" come out for anyone. I think they will come out and vote in typical numbers. I think those numbers will swing towards Obama the longer this election goes on. If they are already trending toward Obama the second Hillary stepped down it is only a precursor to the direction this is going to go.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/11/2008 @ 3:39pm
I don't think women will agressively come out for Obama or McCain. They'll simply stay home. McCain's strength will come from all those who voted for George Bush twice as well as Reagan democrats and the blue collar whites that Obama insulted. In any event, this will be one interesting election and one in which a hell of a lot is at stake for both sides.
Posted by frankgrits at 06/11/2008 | ignore this person | warn this person
Frank....you said it....there is alot at stake. That is why even you will swallow your silly pride, put on a hat and sun glasses on voting day and vote for Obama. You are welcome to tell us that you didn't vote.....but I am betting you'll be there along with former Hillary supporters.
Posted by OneVote at 06/11/2008 @ 3:49pm
FRANK,
Why does Hillary care more about "politics" than the safety and security of this country?!?!?!?
"FG, WHY did Hillary endorse Barack Obama for President?"----Posted by Mask at 06/10/2008
"Politics dillweed."----Posted by frankgrits at 06/10/2008
McClellan Will Testify, But Will Congress Act? posted by John Nichols on 06/09/2008 @ 7:41pm
Posted by Mask at 06/11/2008 @ 3:57pm
Oh and I have a theory Mask: FRANK only resurfaces on any Obama thread to talk trash then subliminated into the mists of the Internet. You think that has merit?----Posted by yutsano at 06/11/2008
As noted in my post to him above (yes, magician revealing the trick)....FRANK's painted himself into a corner.
On the one hand, he's consistantly told us the sun rises and sets on Hillary Clinton. Just Google "FRANKGRITS Hillary" and read the gushing over Her Nibs for years now.
On the OTHER hand, as soon as Obama started to win primaries and then pulled ahead, FRANK began in with his attacks on Obama.
Now the problem for him...HILLARY endorsed (wholeheartedly in a pretty good speech this past Saturday).
So....was Hillary WRONG about Obama and the "danger" (Yes, FG has used the word "dangerous" about Obama) of an Obama Presidency?
Or, as FRANK tried was she being "political"....if so, he's in a pickle.
He's saying Hillary cares more about partisan politics....than the country! in endorsing a man for President who's "dangerous".
That is...if FRANK's attacks on Obama were accurate.
So...SOMEBODY has to be in the wrong...either Hillary or FRANK. And if Hillary, FRANK is still wrong. (given his assessment of her).
I do love a paradox.
Posted by Mask at 06/11/2008 @ 4:11pm
I do love a paradox.
Posted by Mask at 06/11/2008
He will stick to his answer that it's just politics never realizing that that makes his candidate look sleezy and removes a lot of the credibility he gives to her about how great she is and how she is beyond partisan politics and cares so much for this nation.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/11/2008 @ 4:21pm
Posted by mcnor at 06/11/2008
How many?
Posted by Hman23 at 06/11/2008 @ 4:26pm
'Wasserman-Schultz admitted that many Clinton supporters are still in a "period of mourning." According to Malcolm, "There is a lot of anger about sexism in the media, and the ongoing unwillingness to say anything positive about Clinton and her campaign. But that is about the media, and I dont think that transfers to Senator Obama." '
Brought to you by the ThirtySomething 2006 Democrat who promised to work to get us out of Iraq, restore fiscal responsibility to Government, prosecute impeachment of Administration criminals, stop earmarks, hold war contractors accountable for fraud,.............
Welcome aboard Debbie!
Posted by OneVote at 06/11/2008 @ 5:00pm
"After the debate, Barbara Bush was asked what she thought of Ferraro; she responded, "I can't say it, but it rhymes with rich."[13] Later that evening, Mrs. Bush called Ferraro to apologize. Ferraro now explains Bush's words as having been said in defense of her own husband; Mrs. Bush had said this after an open microphone had caught George H.W. Bush bragging that he had "kicked a little ass" following the debate.[14]"
Wikipedia - Query: Geraldine Ferraro
Ah the politics of yesteryear. If only Hillary had carried herself with the dignity of a Barbara Bush. I wonder if H.W. meant "I kicked a "little ass." Who is to say.
Posted by OneVote at 06/11/2008 @ 5:17pm
On the other hand, you couldn't ask for a candidate who is more qualified to be President than John Mccain.
Posted by frankgrits at 06/11/2008 |
Mask....Please make sure The Nation saves this quotable quote from Frank for future reference.
Thank you in advance.
Posted by OneVote at 06/11/2008 @ 5:20pm
Barbara Bush? Dignity? Isn't that the same woman who made the remark that the refugees from Katrina would be better off living elsewhere?
Posted by frankgrits at 06/11/2008
Oh....I'll take that statement anyday over a candidate who four times mentioned the possibility of assassination as a reason for staying in the race after her defeat was inevitable. A little dignity is better than none at all.
Posted by OneVote at 06/11/2008 @ 5:25pm
The point being that the "womens' movement" needs to quit perceiving itself as somehow alone in representing a group facing challenges in the media and culture.
Posted by Zero at 06/11/2008
Oh, please! I have some pretty big issues with the feminist movement, but if you think mainstream feminist organizations like NOW or MS. Magazine do not recognize racism or homophobia in the media and culture, then you have just not visited their websites or read their publications or been to any of their conferences or even stopped by a table and read a brochure since the fricking 70's! Believe me, I think there is a lot to criticize, especially in the beltway feminist organizations, but the caricature that you always present of the feminist movement is as unrecognizable to me as Mask's ridiculous "Left" is, and just as dated.
Posted by cka2nd at 06/11/2008 @ 5:25pm
FrankGrits-Your post was one contradiction after another.McCain isn't your candidate.In fact,you can't stand him.This election is a lose/lose for you because Hillary blew any future chance at the White House and you can't stand Obama or McCain.Don't feel bad.I can't find anyone to get behind,either.
Posted by i'm nobody at 06/11/2008 @ 5:29pm
FrankGrits-You make the Clintons sound as bad as they are with your admission that they are revenge oriented..Thankfully,they lost.
Posted by i'm nobody at 06/11/2008 @ 5:30pm
Posted by frankgrits at 06/11/2008
Answer MY question first FRANK....
Is Hillary so partisan and "political" that she's willing to endorse a "dangerous" Presidency that Obama would have?
Posted by Mask at 06/11/2008 @ 5:41pm
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/11/2008
Again, revealing the trick....
yep, you nailed it.
Every time he has (and WILL) attack Obama....
he further erodes the credibility of the woman who ENDORSED wholeheartedly the candidacy of him.
How can FG claim Hillary has such great judgement and is so patriotic....
when she supports a man he has told us is woefully "inexperienced" and even "dangerous" to become President?
Either Frank is wrong (perish the thought)....
or Hillary is stupid or a partisan hack.
Posted by Mask at 06/11/2008 @ 5:43pm
Right, politics on the surface and beneath the surface, the Clintons have a pretty good hit list.
Posted by frankgrits at 06/11/200
Like... Kill people list? I don't know what you mean by hit list.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/11/2008 @ 5:58pm
Anyone who thinks that the Clintons are politically neutered should think again. They're already looking to the future. It is well know that they do keep an enemies list. I wouldn't wat to be on it if I were looking for a career in the democratic party.
Posted by frankgrits at 06/11/2008
No they won't I will be surprised if Hillary makes it back into the Senate again. If she sinks Obama she will not stand a chance in 2012 because she will be blamed for it as she already is. I don't know if you noticed but most people not just Obama supporters but Hillary supporters as well got pissed after she wouldn't concede. When you are turning off your own supporters you have a problem. Many people my grandmother included who liked her and voted for her by the end of the primaries found her off putting and no longer liked her. Her election killed a lot of like that people had for her. I don't think she would be able to run in 2012 if Obama goes under because she will be one of the people most heavily blamed.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/11/2008 @ 6:02pm
There will be a handful of Hillary supporters who will have their tantrums and will pout and threaten to vote for McCain,but few,if any,will.
Posted by i'm nobody at 06/11/2008 @ 6:29pm
>>>Wasserman-Schultz pointed to McCain's opposition to universal healthcare, universal pre-K, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act and raising the minimum wage as some of the many reasons women voters will rally around Barack Obama come November. "<<<
YOU FORGOT THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE - McCain is AGAINST a woman's right to choose and has vowed to overturn Roe v. Wade with his Supreme Court picks!
If you run a campaign ad highlighting this fact over-and-over again in blue states that are considered "in-play", McCain will have absolutely no chance of getting the Clinton female voters in November.
Posted by Metteyya at 06/11/2008 @ 6:39pm
FrankGrits-As you have stated many times,McCain is your typical republican,but because you're having a tantrum over Hillary you are,now,contradicting all of your previous views on McCain.
Posted by i'm nobody at 06/11/2008 @ 6:41pm
>>>I think you're quite wrong about that. John McCain is not your typical republican. He is one of the most admired men in America. If you don't feel that way then you are in the minority. It may not translate into a stampede to the polls for him but it may make a lot of people think twice into who's hands they want to put the security of the nation into.
Posted by frankgrits at 06/11/2008<<<
I wonder how "admired" McCain will be when the voter is reminded in TV ads that he helped Charles Keating bilk billions of dollars in retirement savings from old people in the Savings and Loan debacle when he was part of the Keating 5?
It is time to turn the page on the corrupt insider special-interest politics of the past, and McCain is very much a part of that past that we need meaningful change from.
Posted by Metteyya at 06/11/2008 @ 6:44pm
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/11/2008
oK, education time again. Hillary got eighteen million votes. She would have doubled that if she weren't running against a black man. Hillary is and will be a force in the Senate if she doesn't get the VP nod. Sheand Bill will also be soucht after for council by the Obama's on a number of issues. You don't understand how Washington works. Obama won't change anything.
It would be a good move for Obama to name Bill Clinton as a special emissary to the mid-East, not that Bill would accept the position but there simply is no-one else in this country who is held in as high esteem all over the world than Bill Clinton. B.O. would be doing the country a dis-service not to avail himself of Clinton's talents.
Posted by frankgrits at 06/11/2008
Yeah but what you DON'T take into account and that you need to be educated on is that there are a good number of those 18 million votes who regret voting for her. That was my point you pompous ass. Maybe you should try educating yourself about the truth of what has gone on. Numbers don't show where the loyalties of people lie 3 - 4 months after.
"You don't understand how Washington works. Obama won't change anything."
I know perfectly well how Washington works you egotistical jerk. I know he isn't going to affect major change. That takes a long time in a system like Washington. He has already helped to affect some change by setting an example in the Democratic party so that the DNC pledged to never take money from lobbyists and PACs. Whether it works or not stands to be seen but that's a change in the right direction created in part by his example.
"It would be a good move for Obama to name Bill Clinton as a special emissary to the mid-East, not that Bill would accept the position but there simply is no-one else in this country who is held in as high esteem all over the world than Bill Clinton"
This I can agree with you on to a degree the only problem is he has tarnished his name a bit lately and I don't know about his standing now.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/11/2008 @ 6:48pm
Zero, Have to agree with you about Ehrenreich. She didn't seem to go in for this "first woman president" stuff, choosing always to focus on Hillary Clinton's voting record in the Senate and reminding readers of how very unprogressive Clintonism was in the 90s. I imagine she took quite a lot of heat from her cranky "sisters".
I've never been taken by Dowd's frivolous punning style in the Times, but she gets credit for seeing right through the "sexism" mantra of Clinton supporters. She's never shied away from calling attention to the Clintons' narcissism, either. Good for her.
There were numerous feminists who supported Obama, from Ehrenreich to Kate Michelman to Francis Fox Piven. It's nice to know that not every feminist harbors antipathy toward men, and that their judgment is not clouded by identity politics.
The real curiosity for me was Katha Pollitt. She said she supported Obama, but I can't recall more than one column in which she touted him as both person and politician. She did write several pieces, however, defending Hillary Clinton against (non-existent) sexism in the media, and often came across as hysterical and shrill.
Posted by KSP556 at 06/11/2008 @ 6:50pm
cka: "Oh, please! I have some pretty big issues with the feminist movement, but if you think mainstream feminist organizations like NOW or MS. Magazine do not recognize racism or homophobia in the media and culture, then you have just not visited their websites..."
----
I think Zero's point is that they turned a blind eye to racism during the primary season because they wanted more than anything for Hillary Clinton to be the nominee.
I think Zero would also object to identity politics - this silly notion that because I'm a woman or you're a woman, we must adopt a "vote for women only" posture.
Posted by KSP556 at 06/11/2008 @ 6:54pm
BTW, anybody notice this...ignoring the inherent contradictions...
"If Obama wins, my party wins and so do the issues that I favor. If Obama goes down, Hillary is back in 2012. If Mccain goes down the Supreme Court stays balanced. If McCain wins, he has to compromise to get anything done. it's a win/win for me, kinda like Lieberman."-----Posted by frankgrits at 06/11/2008
FRANK is a "Lieberman Democrat"?!?!??!
Posted by Mask at 06/11/2008 @ 7:00pm
Just curious...Why does anybody give a hollering hoot what this Frank Gritsy guy thinks? He's shown himself to be totally irrational on many occasions.
Posted by KSP556 at 06/11/2008 @ 7:08pm
The only reason that a Clinton cultists would vote for McCain is in the hopes that that will give the Clintons a shot at the White House in 2012.They do not care about America nor do they honor McCain.They simply want their cult leader to be POTUS and that's all they care about.
Posted by i'm nobody at 06/11/2008 @ 7:16pm
Posted by i'm nobody at 06/11/2008
FRANK admitted as much...
"Obama goes down, Hillary is back in 2012."
Throw in childish "revenge"...and it makes a helluva lot more sense than his contradictory support for McCain but supposed support for "Hillary's agenda" which obviously would fare better under Obama than McCain.
Posted by Mask at 06/11/2008 @ 7:29pm
Mask-If they want to vote for McCain in order to give Hillary another shot at it in 2012 fine,but be honest about it.If you're having a tantrum fine,but be honest about it.Frank burns McCain until it looked like Hillary would lose and now he can't stop running him up the flagpole for everyone to salute.Tens of millions of Americans have acted bravely,in and out of combat,and not just McCain.Has any other candidates followers ever done this kind of whining and threatening?
Posted by i'm nobody at 06/11/2008 @ 7:44pm
>>>FRANK admitted as much...
"Obama goes down, Hillary is back in 2012."
Throw in childish "revenge"...and it makes a helluva lot more sense than his contradictory support for McCain but supposed support for "Hillary's agenda" which obviously would fare better under Obama than McCain.
Posted by Mask at 06/11/2008<<<
FRANKGRITS is confused. He really doesn't seem to have a lot of solid values or principles, and this is why it doesn't make much difference to him whether its McCain or Hillary.
He also could be a closet pro-war type, and knew Hillary would go to war to prove she is as tough as a man, and McCain will go to war because it is the only thing he is comfortable with. Iran looks like the target in both instances, which is the "unofficial" AIPAC position.
Posted by Metteyya at 06/11/2008 @ 7:48pm
check out this oddity.
the same blog as this one,
different format:
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/notion/328690/print
Posted by frosty zoom at 06/11/2008 @ 10:03pm
As I've said before, I voted for Hillary in my state's primary.
McSame?
No way.
I'll be voting for Obama in the general election.
Posted by Lillian at 06/12/2008 @ 10:05am
DNC can not convince or persuade Hillary Supporters to stick with the party. Like Kevin Spacey stated in Recount "Country before Party!
There is a massive movement PUMA and on HillaryClintonForum.net that proves that the real , honest supporters Hillary has and who they plan on voting.
First and foremost, when Obama supporters call women whiners when in fact, Obama has clearly shown to be the whiner. Let's see, most recent the 4 delegates for Michigan.
You all need to read Wayne Barrett truthout.org article. Look who was behind enforcing the primary dates in both states to move up. Obama's camp. chair mgr and elected officials in MI as well. The Democrat party screwed up!
Posted by sociallybanned at 06/12/2008 @ 4:53pm
Also, Bush will go down in history as one of the most conservative presidents. If Roe v . Wade was to get overturned, it would have happened by now. We don't take threats by reversing Roe v. Wade as something to think about. We know it's too difficult to do and if it were to have happened, Bush would have done that since he likes making history. NICE TRY!
The more negative ppl online dogging Hillary the more voters you will send over to McCain.
Obama is only about winning and not about "change". Here are some articles to make you become well informed on your beloved , fake Obama.
Article: clearly states He isn't going to end the war. LOL http://socialistworker.org/2008/06/04/will-obama-stop-the-war
Obama's choice for Pro-Nafta
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-furman11-2008jun11,0,2347842. story
Even Naomi Klein stated this was a bad move but little does his radical supporters know, they've been lied to just like Bush has. I see no different in Obama or Bush.
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080630/klein
Jews aren't voting him either just like the latinos and white women. He has major problem but the MSM keeps acting like , he is ahead. YUP, we'll see.
"Obama the hawk? Lee Sustar explains that Barack Obama's hard-line speech at the AIPAC conference wasn't just pandering to the pro-Israel lobby, but a statement of his real position on foreign policy issues."
Real is the key word he lacks, not change.
http://socialistworker.org/2008/06/11/obama-the-hawk
Posted by sociallybanned at 06/12/2008 @ 4:54pm
If Debbie Wasserman thinks that the sexism only existed in the media, I got news for her.
The media misogynist frat-boys' Hillary-bashing happened with a capable assist from Obama, who relished in his own brand of camouflaged Sexism! See his performance in N.C. day after his pathetic loss in the Pa. Debate where he immaturely gave the 'finger salute' to his fellow female Senator: Youtube's mega-hit: "OBAMA GIVES HILLARY THE F!NGER" - L.A. Times reported on this incredible Omama frat-boy antics....then he made comments like "her claws are comin' out" "Periodically, she gets feeling moody, low, and starts launching her attacks" at poor little ole' me, whining like a 2-year-old deprived of playground privileges.
Come November, Obamyopia will be delivered Bitter Medicine by the Invisible Demographic that the Obama Campaign spent months diminishing and insulting with an assist from the media frat-boys!
Giving Obama the keys to the White hosue is like giving your brand new car's keys to your hormonally challenged teenager! No way, you'd want to ride in that car...
Posted by sakel at 06/12/2008 @ 4:57pm
If Debbie Wasserman thinks that the sexism only existed in the media, I got news for her.
The media misogynist frat-boys' Hillary-bashing happened with a capable assist from Obama, who relished in his own brand of camouflaged Sexism! See his performance in N.C. day after his pathetic loss in the Pa. Debate where he immaturely gave the 'finger salute' to his fellow female Senator: Youtube's mega-hit: "OBAMA GIVES HILLARY THE F!NGER" - L.A. Times reported on this incredible Omama frat-boy antics....then he made comments like "her claws are comin' out" "Periodically, she gets feeling moody, low, and starts launching her attacks" at poor little ole' me, whining like a 2-year-old deprived of playground privileges.
Come November, Obamyopia will be delivered Bitter Medicine by the Invisible Demographic that the Obama Campaign spent months diminishing and insulting with an assist from the media frat-boys!
Giving Obama the keys to the White hosue is like giving your brand new car's keys to your hormonally challenged teenager! No way, you'd want to ride in that car...
Posted by sakel at 06/12/2008 @ 4:57pm
All of the pundits cherry pick recent polls and quote old polls to create inaccurate perceptions designed to support their points of view. Some show polls with Obama and Clinton doing much better against McCain and Romney than Obama does alone, but show no polls with Obama and other VP candidates or McCain with other VP candidates. The elasticity of the polls has also been suspect, and what's really going on is an incestuous relationship between the phony polling industry and the media. Moron Joe, Nazi Pat and stupid Tucker do this all the time, cherry picking what they want in the polls, just as the Administration and the media cherry picked the intelligence in order to sell the Iraq incursion.
Unfortunately for all of them (and for McCain) all of this hullaballoo of women voting for McCain or not voting is BS. Except for the likes of Harriet Christian, women are just not stupid enough to vote for McCain or sit home and possibly get McCain. They are too far evolved on the evolutionary scale to fail to vote for Obama, whether Hillary is on his ticket or not. McCain is simply too anti-woman for them to risk him. Devolved individuals like Harriet Christian are too miniscule in number to make a dent in how overwhelming the womens' vote will be for Barack, with or without Hillary on the ticket.
Posted by NonAmnesiac at 06/12/2008 @ 5:06pm
"I think only a small minority of the Hillary supporters will ultimately either stay at home in November or vote for McCain. The great majority will vote Democrat over Republican.
The minority that will stay at home should be ashamed, and the small minority that will vote for McCain are absolute nitwits who should be ostracized aggressively. This is not a time for childish dimwits throwing a temper tantrum to be indulged and coddled."
How DARE you tell me what to do. I (and at least 25% of Clinton supporters) will not vote for the corrupt politician with no qualifications to lead that guilty white liberals have pushed to the forefront. You Obama supporters looked the other way (or participated with glee) while Clinton was raped in the media and on your blogs (and The Nation) -- now you're SURE? ... we will never vote for your little guy who is looking more and more like Dubya daily. Dream on.
Posted by smayhew at 06/12/2008 @ 5:46pm
Unbelievable. Finally, Democratic men shove their arrogance and piggish tendencies -- every bit as bad as Republicans -- in our faces. Right here in Tne Nation. Thanks, boyz. After 40 years, I'm sitting this out. And reading this message board reminds me why. You want the party for your own frat boy playground? You got it.
Posted by 70sFem at 06/12/2008 @ 7:43pm
I wish you guys wanted to win more than you wanted to be emotionaly purged by picking on poor white people. I think maybe it says more about YOU than it does about them....but, what do you think? You guys are supposed to be the "intellectual elite", right? How could I be so presumptuous! I'll just accept that I'm stupid and you just TELL me how to vote! And then insult me more and tell me AGAIN hiow to vote! That should work, right ladies? LAY OFF IF YOU WANT TO WIN! Ms. Kyle Christensen, MSW
Posted by kdelphi95 at 06/12/2008 @ 9:29pm
Everyone I know refuses to vote for Obama.
In fact, we're bordering on not voting for ANY Dems because of the way the DNC allowed Obama's thugs to take over the caucuses, resulting in a delegate "win", then cutting Hillary's FL & MI delegates in half but not cutting South Carolina's (Obama's state), then giving BO Michigan's uncommitted delegates where he chose not to run so he could win Iowa, AND THEN giving BO 4 more of Hillary's MI delegates.
The supers who voted against their constituents, like Kennedy and Kerry, better watch out in their next election.
We are sick and tired of all the BO/DNC corruption. This party is pathetic.
Yes, it's very nice to see someone show Hillary the respect she deserves.
If the superdelegates don't come around by August and see that Hillary is the People's Choice, then we are surely voting for McCain. As Pelosi said, "go with the will of the people". I can't think of anything more representative of the will of the people than the People's Votes which Hillary won.
We are not concerned about Roe v Wade because there will likely be a Democratic Congress to control McCain.
I've never seen such corruption, payoffs, and threats, and just to nominate an inexperienced Chicago thug.
BO's whole "win" is based on a disproportionate system, and thugs forcing voters to sit down and shut up or get out and be locked out, fraud, theft, force, and corruption.
Yes, John McCain, here we come.
VOTE FOR A HERO, NOT A ZERO.
Go to WWW.JUSTSAYNODEAL.COM to see the growing list of NOBAMA websites.
Posted by nobama5750 at 06/12/2008 @ 10:16pm
Are Clinton supporters still whining about that? Really, it gets tedious after a while. Posted by KSP556 at 06/11/2008
KSP 556 needs to get her own 'nutcracker' - I'm sure she can get it with her image. Have you ever been raped, KSP556? Have you ever been called a 'cunt', 'slut', 'whore' ? Did Keith Olbermann call you 'David Duke'? Did Chris Matthews say that you only got (what is probably a pathetic job) because your husband fooled around? Did every late night comic mock your pantsuit - your genitals?
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.
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!"
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.
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?
And you worship the con man who made you believe that he accepted you. This Chicago con man. Do you know that Axelrod sends Keith Olbermann's anti-Hillary rants to major news outlets regularly.
You people are completely delusional. We voted for the qualified candidate - not the con man of the lyric rhetoric. The con man with the shady past - the past that McCain will use against him.
You sick misogynists clearly do not want our vote and that's fine with us. We are not like you and we won't be able to work with you - as you continue your whining bray of hate and disrespect.
Yes, KSP 556 - you deserve to lose and you will. It will only take 25% of us to vote for McCain for your corrupt Chicago con man to lose.
Posted by smayhew at 06/12/2008 @ 10:19pm
VOTE FOR A HERO, NOT A ZERO.
Posted by nobama5750
some hero.
dropping bombs from 30,000 feet.
a hero.
Posted by frosty zoom at 06/12/2008 @ 10:24pm
While McCain's buddies were bombing the enemies.....
Obama's buddies were bombing America.
Nice friends.
Posted by nobama5750 at 06/12/2008 @ 10:29pm
ooh,
the enemies.....
BOO!
Posted by frosty zoom at 06/12/2008 @ 10:40pm
"The real curiosity for me was Katha Pollitt. ... She did write several pieces, however, defending Hillary Clinton against (non-existent) sexism in the media, and often came across as hysterical and shrill."
'No-Existent' sexism - KSP 556 is either an idiot - or a very angry man. KSP - mom troubles? - a little therapy would help here.
The babble of the scared Obamaniacs is getting really shrill (and very boring) because all of a sudden they know that they are missing 18 million votes that may never come their way - and WHAT do they do to 'Unite' as the Barackster would say? They continue to demean and insult those of us who are actually holding all the cards. Good strategy, bots.
For a breakdown of some of the 'non-existent' sexism read (it's not too long so don't be afraid) Robyn Morgan's "Goodbye To All That (#2) by Robin Morgan" the link follows: http://www.womensmediacenter.com/ex/020108.html and this article was only written in February - before the Axelrod machine was fully cranked and he was sending Keith Olbermann's anti-Hillary rants to all the major news outlets for his boss Obama (the guy with the campaign that didn't go 'negative').
Maybe you actually don't know what the term sexism is: Sexism is a belief or attitude that one gender or sex is inferior to or less valuable than the other and can also refer to a hatred or distrust towards either sex as a whole.
Misogyny: Misogyny is hatred (or contempt)of women. Misogyny being the correct term in this case.
Rev Wright - again your blindness and defensiveness proves you nuts. EVERYONE defended Rev Wright.. Bill Maher defended Rev Wright - Bill Moyers defended Rev Wright... etc etc etc Wright - purveyor of Black Liberation Theology who said that the US INVENTED AIDS to kill black people! Yeah - that equates, sure.
As you continue to beat up people whose vote you may need someday and continue to claim that sexism is not alive and well remember just one of thousands of facts that substantiate our complaint.
The number one cause of death in pregnancy in America is homicide. That, unlike the Wright's victimization claim is actually true.
Posted by smayhew at 06/12/2008 @ 10:49pm
"Unbelievable. Finally, Democratic men shove their arrogance and piggish tendencies -- every bit as bad as Republicans -- in our faces. Right here in Tne Nation. Thanks, boyz. After 40 years, I'm sitting this out. "
Sitting this out?? From someone with the username "70sFem"? This is really depressing. I can't help being male, but I can help my attitudes. I have pushed for women's rights my entire adult life, including working for the ERA. Now I find that all of our work is being undercut by people who claim to be feminists and yet will help to elect a right-wing President who will set our cause back decades. Why? I hope that this isn't spite, or even disrespect for Hillary Clinton, who pleaded with us to vote for the candidate who best expresses her views. I'll avoid the name-calling that seems to permeate this site, but I hope that you rethink your untenable position and vote for the candidate who supports the very things that you seem to support. Otherwise, there may be a backlash against Hillary Clinton in 2012 if misguided supporters help to elect John McCain in 2008. That's not fair to her, because she is working to support Obama now, as the far better choice to represent her (and our) views, but I'm afraid that it may happen. Please don't let your anger set back women's rights to the 1950s!
Posted by IndyBob at 06/13/2008 @ 01:16am
"You people are completely delusional. We voted for the qualified candidate - not the con man of the lyric rhetoric. The con man with the shady past - the past that McCain will use against him...Yes, KSP 556 - you deserve to lose and you will. It will only take 25% of us to vote for McCain for your corrupt Chicago con man to lose." Posted by smayhew at 06/12/2008
Yes, smayhew, sexism is alive and well in the U.S. today, sadly. So is racism. I don't see the point in getting into a spitting contest regarding who has been more mistreated. To avoid name-calling, I won't comment on who appears to be "delusional." However, your tone and comments will do nothing to help the cause; nor will they even get people to read your writings. The sad thing is that you are correct that if enough progressives vote for McCain out of spite, they will get the result that no progressive wants. Continued war and a horrific setb ack to women's rights. I take you at your word and assume that you do not want this. If I am correct, please reconsider your strident position and support Hillary Clinton's lead in supporting the candidate who best reflects her views. She was wonderful in her speech last Saturday. Can you rise to that level?
Posted by IndyBob at 06/13/2008 @ 01:27am
"Also, Bush will go down in history as one of the most conservative presidents. If Roe v . Wade was to get overturned, it would have happened by now. We don't take threats by reversing Roe v. Wade as something to think about. We know it's too difficult to do and if it were to have happened, Bush would have done that since he likes making history. NICE TRY!" Posted by sociallybanned at 06/12/2008
I think you (and a couple others posting here) missed a basic point. The President doesn't determine Supreme Court decisions directly. His/her only impact is through packing the Supreme Court, which indirectly (and with quite a lag) affects the Court's decisions. Bush wasn't able to overturn Roe v. Wade only because he wasn't President long enough to control a majority of the court, although it's getting close. Four more years of Bush/McCain certainly could do it (and McCain has already said that he would work to overturn Roe v. Wade and would appoint judges only if they reflect his philosophy). So your sarcasm notwithstanding, it really was a "nice try," and it will succeed if you let it continue.
Posted by IndyBob at 06/13/2008 @ 01:35am
"Also, Bush will go down in history as one of the most conservative presidents. If Roe v . Wade was to get overturned, it would have happened by now. We don't take threats by reversing Roe v. Wade as something to think about. We know it's too difficult to do and if it were to have happened, Bush would have done that since he likes making history. NICE TRY!" Posted by sociallybanned at 06/12/2008
I think you (and a couple others posting here) missed a basic point. The President doesn't determine Supreme Court decisions directly. His/her only impact is through packing the Supreme Court, which indirectly (and with quite a lag) affects the Court's decisions. Bush wasn't able to overturn Roe v. Wade only because he wasn't President long enough to control a majority of the court, although it's getting close. Four more years of Bush/McCain certainly could do it (and McCain has already said that he would work to overturn Roe v. Wade and would appoint judges only if they reflect his philosophy). So your sarcasm notwithstanding, it really was a "nice try," and it will succeed if you let it continue.
Posted by IndyBob at 06/13/2008 @ 01:36am
"Also, Bush will go down in history as one of the most conservative presidents. If Roe v . Wade was to get overturned, it would have happened by now. We don't take threats by reversing Roe v. Wade as something to think about. We know it's too difficult to do and if it were to have happened, Bush would have done that since he likes making history. NICE TRY!" Posted by sociallybanned at 06/12/2008
I think you (and a couple others posting here) missed a basic point. The President doesn't determine Supreme Court decisions directly. His/her only impact is through packing the Supreme Court, which indirectly (and with quite a lag) affects the Court's decisions. Bush wasn't able to overturn Roe v. Wade only because he wasn't President long enough to control a majority of the court, although it's getting close. Four more years of Bush/McCain certainly could do it (and McCain has already said that he would work to overturn Roe v. Wade and would appoint judges only if they reflect his philosophy). So your sarcasm notwithstanding, it really was a "nice try," and it will succeed if you let it continue.
Posted by IndyBob at 06/13/2008 @ 01:37am
Thank (fill in the blank) for intelligent, reasonable women!! Upon reading the words of even such an ardent supporter as Wasserman-Schultz, who can see clearly what is at stake, I can already feel my optimism about November returning.
Posted by planedon at 06/13/2008 @ 7:31pm
to this frank person mccain is one of the most admired men in america? are you nuts? mccain is my senator do you realize in 1999 before he ran last time he said "this why chelsea clinton is so ugly because janet reno is her father!!!!ha!!!ha!!! this he admitted to saying on tv back then, also he has not admitted this but has not denied it called his current wife a word that i cannot say because she was teasing him about his hair loss first he called her a trollop because of her makeup excess as he saw it then the comment mccain gets a pass because he is rep and a prisoner of war if obama had said those thingshe wouldn't be the nominee
Posted by shillalagh at 06/14/2008 @ 01:31am
Thanks for reminding us just how prejudiced McCain is against women, shillalagh. McCain has behaved in a more sexist manner than any serious Presidential candidate that I can remember. Read Frank Rich's column in today's New York Time (6/15) for more of McCain's sexist remarks. Suddenly his tone is very pro-women's rights, but unless he suddenly reversed his views of a lifetime just as Hillary left the race, his long-term track record is surely more accurate than his political posturing this month.
If you care at all about women's rights, there simply is no choice in this election. If you give McCain the presidency, then women's rights will be back in the stone age.
Posted by IndyBob at 06/15/2008 @ 06:00am
Ladies there are three things that WILL happen if McCain is elected 1) Roe vs Wade goes away 2) Your sons and daughters get drafted and sent to fight in more useless wars 3) Woman are again considered second class citizens subservent to the great white male ego Think about this when you decide to stay home or vote for McCain on election day.
Posted by arocco at 06/17/2008 @ 1:14pm