Heated Response to Kennedy's "Betrayal"

The National Organization for Women's New York affiliate is one of the national feminist group's largest and most engaged state arms, with 14,000 activists organized in 24 local chapters statewide and a serious focus on legislation, policy and politics. NOW-NYS pulls no punches, as was evident in chapter president Marcia Pappas' response to Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy's endorsement of Barack Obama for the Democratic presidential nomination.

Kennedy has historically been seen as one of the staunchest defenders of the rights of women in the Senate. He has, as well, been a civil rights champion. Those twin commitments creates an expectation that Kennedy would remain neutral in the contest between Obama, who would be the first African-American president, and New York Senator Hillary Clinton, who would be the first woman president.

When Kennedy went for Obama, Pappas called out the senior senator and other progressive backers of the surging senator from Illinois.

"Women have just experienced the ultimate betrayal. Senator Kennedy's endorsement of Hillary Clinton's opponent in the Democratic presidential primary campaign has really hit women hard. Women have forgiven Kennedy, stuck up for him, stood by him, hushed the fact that he was late in his support of Title IX, the ERA, the Family Leave and Medical Act to name a few. Women have buried their anger that his support for the compromises in No Child Left Behind and the Medicare bogus drug benefit brought us the passage of these flawed bills. We have thanked him for his ardent support of many civil rights bills, BUT women are always waiting in the wings," wrote Pappas in a press release issued by NOW-NYS.

"And now the greatest betrayal! We are repaid with his abandonment! He's picked the new guy over us," Pappas continued. "He's joined the list of progressive white men who can't or won't handle the prospect of a woman president who is Hillary Clinton (they will of course say they support a woman president, just not "this" one). ‘They' are Howard Dean and Jim Dean (Yup! That's Howard's brother) who run DFA (that's the group and list from the Dean campaign that we women helped start and grow). They are Alternet, Progressive Democrats of America, democrats.com, Kucinich lovers and all the other groups that take women's money, say they'll do feminist and women's rights issues one of these days, and conveniently forget to mention women and children when they talk about poverty or human needs or America's future or whatever.

"This latest move by Kennedy, is so telling about the status of and respect for women's rights, women's voices, women's equality, women's authority and our ability – indeed, our obligation - to promote and earn and deserve and elect, unabashedly, a President that is the first woman after centuries of men who ‘know what's best for us.'"

The edgy statement from Pappas, an ardent Clinton backer who traveled to Iowa on behalf of the New York senator's campaign and has referred to media coverage of the campaign as a "Psychological Gang Bang of Hillary," is neither so atypical nor so unexpected a response as casual observers might choose to imagine. Kennedy's move has stirred real resentments, as high-profile endorsements of this kind often do.

But after Pappas let loose on Kennedy and white progressives for failing to back Clinton -- despite her often disappointing votes on issues of deep concern to progressives -- the National Organization for Women's national office scrambled to issue a statement from NOW President Kim Gandy that read, "The National Organization for Women has enormous respect and admiration for Sen. Edward Kennedy (D- Mass.). For decades Sen. Kennedy has been a friend of NOW, and a leader and fighter for women's civil and reproductive rights, and his record shows that. Though the National Organization for Women Political Action Committee has proudly endorsed Sen. Hillary Clinton for president, we respect Sen. Kennedy's endorsement. We continue to encourage women everywhere to express their opinions and exercise their right to vote."

Gandy's was the more measured response, and it more closely reflects the traditional view of Kennedy's role as an advocate for women.

But as NOW-NYS notes at the top of the web page featuring its press releases: "Well-behaved women rarely make history." Pappas has stirred things up and put an honest response on paper. For that, even Democrats who disagree with her ought to appreciate that the NOW-NYS president's unapologetic response to the lion of the Senate us just how real this race is for activists who believe that the 2008 election is all about making history.

Comments (144)

1. The racist sexist idiocy that Democrats are spewing could easily lead to a GOP victory which most Democrats seem to want.

   Posted by i'm nobody at 01/29/2008 @ 11:14am

2. Why didn't she call out Caroline Kennedy? Or for that matter, while she was at it, why not call out Toni Morrison, Claire McCaskill, Kathleen Sebelius, Janet Napolitano, Oprah Winfrey and the many other women who have thrown their support behind Barack. Does their support represent a betrayal to women as well?

   Posted by martincaver at 01/29/2008 @ 11:24am

3. I think NOW has lost some its clout, especially with their leader. Check out Political Satire [hillarydivides.com]

   Posted by indep2008 at 01/29/2008 @ 11:29am

4. He's [Kennedy] joined the list of progressive white men who can't or won't handle the prospect of a woman president who is Hillary Clinton........."

   I don't get some feminists BLIND support of Hillary Clinton. Haven't they learned from Margaret Thatcher that a vagina does NOT translate into progressive policies? Have they failed to consider Hillary turning a blind eye on her husband's sexual harassment and abuse of women in the workplace, and what that tells us about her commitment to the feminist cause?

   Hillary Clinton ONLY cares about power, and when she had a chance to stand up for progressive change, she turned her back on us:

   1. US War Crimes Exemption from International Courts (HR 3338)

   Hillary: Yes Feingold: No

   2. Help America Vote Act of 2002 to Increase Voting (HR 3295)

   Hillary: No Feingold: Yes

   3. Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 (HR 1904)

   Hillary: No Feingold: Yes

   4. Bush's No Child Left Behind (Bill Number: HR 1)

   Hillary: Yes Feingold: No

   5. Prescription Drug Benefit for Medicare (Bill Number: S 1)

   Hillary: No Feingold: Yes

   6. Military Force in Iraq (Bill Number: H J Res 114)

   Hillary: Yes Feingold: No

   7. Patriot Act (USA Patriot Act of 2001)

   Hillary: Yes Feingold: No

   8. Kyl-Lieberman Declaring Iran Military Terrorists (S Amdt 3017)

   Hillary: Yes Feingold: No

   Posted by Metteyya at 01/29/2008 @ 11:31am

5. Posted by I'M NOBODY 01/29/2008 @ 11:14am

   I have heard older black folks, including my mother, state that if Hillary wins the nomination they are going to vote republican.

   Posted by k330k at 01/29/2008 @ 11:39am

6. Well, apparently Marcia Pappas...is a nut.

   or "Nation" blogger "HAMILTONGRAD"...

   or is that redundant?

   LOL!

   Posted by Mask at 01/29/2008 @ 11:46am

7. Metteyya,

   I concur with your post (cited below). It would be interesting to see if Senator Clinton disavows herself from the comments of Marcia Pappas; but something tells me she won't.

   I don't get some feminists BLIND support of Hillary Clinton. Haven't they learned from Margaret Thatcher that a vagina does NOT translate into progressive policies? Have they failed to consider Hillary turning a blind eye on her husband's sexual harassment and abuse of women in the workplace, and what that tells us about her commitment to the feminist cause?

   Hillary Clinton ONLY cares about power, and when she had a chance to stand up for progressive change, she turned her back on us:

   1. US War Crimes Exemption from International Courts (HR 3338)

   Hillary: Yes Feingold: No

   2. Help America Vote Act of 2002 to Increase Voting (HR 3295)

   Hillary: No Feingold: Yes

   3. Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 (HR 1904)

   Hillary: No Feingold: Yes

   4. Bush's No Child Left Behind (Bill Number: HR 1)

   Hillary: Yes Feingold: No

   5. Prescription Drug Benefit for Medicare (Bill Number: S 1)

   Hillary: No Feingold: Yes

   6. Military Force in Iraq (Bill Number: H J Res 114)

   Hillary: Yes Feingold: No

   7. Patriot Act (USA Patriot Act of 2001)

   Hillary: Yes Feingold: No

   8. Kyl-Lieberman Declaring Iran Military Terrorists (S Amdt 3017)

   Hillary: Yes Feingold: No

   Posted by METTEYYA 01/29/2008 @ 11:31am | ignore this person

   Posted by oraibi1952 at 01/29/2008 @ 11:56am

8. By ignoring all the prominent women -- e.g. Toni Morrison, Caroline Kennedy, all of whom can think quite clearly for themselves -- Marcia P makes herself appear as if she's on the Billary payroll in some way. And therein lies the real betrayal.

   Posted by sloper at 01/29/2008 @ 11:57am

9. He's joined the list of progressive white men who can't or won't handle the prospect of a woman president who is Hillary Clinton (they will of course say they support a woman president, just not "this" one).

   Kennedy said that he would support Clinton, if she were to win the nomination. I don't see how that means he "can't or won't handle the prospect" of a woman President.

   I find it a little sad that people in favor of Clinton are reducing her candidacy to her gender. And the feeble attempts to play the gender and the politically correct card, by calling people not supporting Clinton sexist? Only going to work on people that are insecure on that issue and galvinize those against her that aren't. Brilliant strategy.

   Posted by srjenkins at 01/29/2008 @ 12:08pm

10. Are we talking about the Hillary that stands by her man like some braindead stepford wife?

    Posted by i'm nobody at 01/29/2008 @ 12:08pm

11. ugh, gag me. Just because I'm female doesn't mean I'm voting Hillary!! This is just getting absurd. A real feminist, a person who believes men and women are equal, should NOT be playing favorites according to gender!!

    Posted by jro555 at 01/29/2008 @ 12:09pm

12. Posted by K330K 01/29/2008 @ 11:39am

    And you have people like Frank Grits saying if Clinton doesn't win, they will vote for someone like McCain. If I were a betting man, I think Clinton supporters moving Republican is probably the lesser risk.

    Posted by srjenkins at 01/29/2008 @ 12:10pm

13. Frank-There aren't enough staunch democrats to get her elected.She will need far more than just democrats.I wouldn't be surprised if Obama does endorse her.that's one of the many things that make election years such a joke.First they put each other down and then endorse each other.Politics is for the immature.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 01/29/2008 @ 12:20pm

14. "In her and Bill's speechs on the stump...."---Posted by FRANKGRITS 01/29/2008 @ 12:12pm

    After what he did in South Carolina...they're still going to allow Bill to SPEAK!?!??!!?

    heheh

    Posted by Mask at 01/29/2008 @ 12:25pm

15. Clinton and Obama actually have similar ratings from the various interest groups. This is based on the most recent ones given--

    NARAL and Planned Parenthood gave both of them 100

    Right to Life Committee gave both of them 0

    Citizens for Tax Justice gave Clinton 80 and Obama 100

    National Taxpayers Union gave Clinton 17 and Obama 16

    Chamber of Commerce gave Clinton a 67 and Obama a 55

    Americans United for Seperation of Church and State gave them both a 100

    The ACLU gave them both an 83

    NAACP gave them both a 100

    American Conservative Union gave them both an 8

    League of Conservation Voters gave Clinton a 71 and Obama a 100

    Children's Defense Fund gave Clinton a 90 and Obama a 100

    USPIRG gave Clinton a 91 and Obama an 86

    The AFL-CIO and Americans for Democratic Action gave each a 95

    Obama's ratings are slightly more progressive but there doesn't appear to be an overwhelming difference.

    Incidentally, comparing Clinton's votes to Feingold's is misleading since these are, for the most part, votes that took place when Obama wasn't in the Senate, so we don't know what he would've done. What is the difference, if any, between Clinton's and Obama's votes when both were in the Senate? That is the relevant metric.

    Posted by brunowe at 01/29/2008 @ 12:25pm

16. 8. Kyl-Lieberman Declaring Iran Military Terrorists (S Amdt 3017)

    Obama--Not Voting (so we don't know here, either)

    Posted by brunowe at 01/29/2008 @ 12:28pm

17. USPIRG gave Clinton a 91 and Obama an 86----Posted by BRUNOWE 01/29/2008 @ 12:25pm

    I thought USPIRG was supposed to be "non-partisan"?!?!?

    "As non-profit 501(c)3 and 501(c)4 organizations, the PIRGs claim they do not engage in partisan electioneering (supporting or appearing to support any electoral candidate)"----wikipedia.org

    Posted by Mask at 01/29/2008 @ 12:30pm

18. thought USPIRG was supposed to be "non-partisan"?!?!?

    Giving ratings is a metric on how much agreement there is between the group's position and the voting record of the politician. It doesn't constitute an endorsement.

    Posted by brunowe at 01/29/2008 @ 12:32pm

19. Frank-Someone who wants to be POTUS has no private life and should not have a private life.Everything about them is relevant and you will not prevent me or anyone else from speaking out about the subject.Your cult like admiration for them causes you to be unable to think when they are the subject.I do not want to relive all their scandals and "marriage".I could have respected Hillary if she had dumped Bill and went out on here on,but she didn't.All of hillary's actions are quite relevant since she wants to be president.If she doesn't want people like me to mention her actions then she needs to get out of politics.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 01/29/2008 @ 12:33pm

20. "A real feminist, a person who believes men and women are equal, should NOT be playing favorites according to gender!!"

    Posted by JRO555 01/29/2008 @ 12:09pm

    Copy that!

    The same goes for people who vote based solely on race.

    Pappas' diatribe only makes her look like an hysterical asshole, and can only detract from her credibility in fighting our institutional "isms".

    Posted by drhammer at 01/29/2008 @ 12:36pm

21. Frank-Claiming that you know how Obama would have voted on the war shows desperation on your part.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 01/29/2008 @ 12:39pm

22. Frank-My facts are straight.It's you who distorts reality where the Clintons are concerned.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 01/29/2008 @ 12:40pm

23. Obama stated that if he were in the Senate when the resolution was voted on he doesn't know how he would have voted. He lied. He would have voted the same way

    You have no possible basis for that conclusion.

    Posted by brunowe at 01/29/2008 @ 12:42pm

24. There is something daunting in the prospect that Hillary Clinton's campaign may continue to tempt more "good guys" -- like Bill Clinton and NOW -- to continue to say and do things which will diminish their standing. People are exhausted and alienated by bitterness and anger. After a decade of evangelicals, the neocons, not to mention the pissed-off miscreants and power brokers of the Bush administration, haven't we had enough of "it's all about ME and MINE"? Do the Clintons and women's organizations have to subject us to the same awful attitudes? And why in the world would one vote for anyone, regardless of politics and behaviors, just because of gender, religion,or ethnicity! Isn't that precisely what we want to eliminate?

    Posted by saetias at 01/29/2008 @ 12:44pm

25. FYI - Just made a contribution to the Obama for President Campaign.

    Before Ms. Pappas' venomous comments about Senator Kennedy, I had not contributed to nor campaigned for any of the candidates seeking the Democratic Party's nomination for President of the United States - my neutral position on the candidates will be maintained no longer.

    Posted by oraibi1952 at 01/29/2008 @ 12:44pm

26. I'm undecided about who & which party I'm voting for, but found this great article called "Black Voters and a Twist of Bias" on the BlogZine SAVAGE POLITICS.

    http://savagepolitics.com/?p=59 WOW- all I have to say! Here is an excerpt: "Last Saturday's South Carolina Democratic Primary produced the widely expected result of a Barack Obama victory. From the beginning of the week, it was the ethnic composition of the State in question which was amply discussed by both the Media and it's multiple pundits. It was here and through other sources that we discovered that 55% percent of Democratic voters in South Carolina were African American. An interesting number when you consider the "coincidence" that Obama actually won the election by exactly the same margin: 55%. Of course, many in Clinton's campaign have used this demographic reality to spin their defeat, vociferating that they had always expected to loose from the start. It should be noted that it has been this exact attitude which they have ridiculed Obama's camp for, insinuating that they had proved to be "sore losers" by not admitting their own failures in stating their case to the American People. As we all know, in modern politics, no campaign is free of idiotic childishness, sadly resurfacing the reality that our current political existence is dominated by whining imbeciles of the lowest ilk. Nevertheless, the Clinton Campaign's affirmation (victory based on a unified ethnic constituency) is valid, especially when we consider the data. The Primary's exit polling, presented by all major networks, were utilized by analysts to determine how was Obama's, Edwards', and Clinton's support spread throughout different social markers. Their results indicated that 80% of the Black vote, and only 20% of the White vote, went towards Barack Obama. Regarding most White voters in the State, you could easily identify their split between John Edwards and Hillary Clinton. The significance of this racial division is crucial in understanding the fate of Barack Obama's campaign, and the Democratic Party, if they chose to face the General Election with him at the helm.…" Find the rest of the article at http://savagepolitics.com/?p=59

    Posted by elsylee at 01/29/2008 @ 12:47pm

27. Posted by BRUNOWE 01/29/2008 @ 12:32pm

    That's a fine distinction, BRUNO. PIRG comes out in the Primaries and says "We give high ratings to THESE two Democratic candidates...and low ratings to these Republican candidates"....and even, which I'm sure they would, in the General Election and say "We give high ratings to the Dem, and low ratings to the Repub"...

    and then claim you're "a non-partisan 501"?!?!?

    (BTW, I don't cut the Right slack on that either...Right-To-Life Committee is just as partisan, with the number of Democrats they support counted on one hand...or one nose)

    Posted by Mask at 01/29/2008 @ 12:47pm

28. Posted by FRANKGRITS 01/29/2008 @ 12:12pm

    Frank, have you actually been so blinded as to see that Obama hasn't been the one bringing up race. Everytime race is brought up in this campaign just like every time gender is brought up it's a comment Hillary, Bill, one of their staff or a debate question has brought up? I dare you to give me one quote where Obama used his race to try to garner votes.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 01/29/2008 @ 12:50pm

29. Posted by I'M NOBODY 01/29/2008 @ 12:40pm

    I'M, FG is literally in a "cult of personality" mind-set. The "Maximum Leader" is always good and pure and true, and ALL who oppose her are (if FG is being generous) "misguided fools who need re-education" or "evil Goldsteins tryiing to bring down Big Sister".

    He doesn't "support" Hillary Clinton....he idolizes and worships her.

    Posted by Mask at 01/29/2008 @ 12:51pm

30. Well, all I have to say is that Pappas' rant did not do any favors for Clinton. Wow. Anyone who doesn't support Clinton has "betrayed" the cause for gender equality. Who knew? Way to simplify Clinton's candidacy, Ms. Pappas. Just another fool that somehow thinks she is entitled to the job.

    Posted by Hman23 at 01/29/2008 @ 12:53pm

31. Posted by FRANKGRITS 01/29/2008 @ 12:52pm

    So Clinton's candidacy isn't about whether or not she would make the best president? Its a referendum on the "women's movement?"

    You are either with us or against us? Where have I heard that one before?

    Posted by Hman23 at 01/29/2008 @ 12:55pm

32. "...no=one in the media, while orgasming over the endorsement, point that Robert Kennedy Jr. and Kathleen Kennedy Townsend both endorsed Hillary and are actually delegates for her."

    Posted by FRANKGRITS 01/29/2008 @ 12:12pm

    Why should they, Frank? Who besides yourself would compare the endorsements of an earnest but relatively low-profile environmental advocate, and a nearly invisible former lieutenant governor, to the endorsement of a senior US senator?

    Take a deep breath.

    Posted by drhammer at 01/29/2008 @ 12:55pm

33. Frank-You are quite naive when it comes to the Clintons.Their marriage is a joke that is nothing more than a political union.Women, or men, who stick by spouses that emotionally abuse them and who excuse affairs do so because they suffer from a mental illness and not because they're trying to save their marriage or because they're loving and forgiving spouses.Either that or they are having affairs themselves and can't say anything.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 01/29/2008 @ 12:56pm

34. Mask-Talking to Frank is like talking to a cult follower.Pointless,but educational in terms of learning about that mind set.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 01/29/2008 @ 12:59pm

35. That's a fine distinction, BRUNO. PIRG comes out in the Primaries and says "We give high ratings to THESE two Democratic candidates...and low ratings to these Republican candidates"....and even, which I'm sure they would, in the General Election and say "We give high ratings to the Dem, and low ratings to the Repub"...

    No they didn't. These ratings are issued annually and given to all Congresspersons. The most recent USPIRG rating covered calendar 2006.

    Posted by brunowe at 01/29/2008 @ 1:00pm

36. Posted by I'M NOBODY 01/29/2008 @ 12:59pm

    When he said he'd "vote for McCain if Obama got the nomination"...as well as when he LIED about what Obama said about "Republicans and good ideas"....that nailed it for me.

    Posted by Mask at 01/29/2008 @ 1:04pm

37. Posted by BRUNOWE 01/29/2008 @ 1:00pm

    I just think the false claim of "non-partisan" (Left OR Right) is disengenuous, when the group's ideology is 99% in lock-step with ONE political party.

    Posted by Mask at 01/29/2008 @ 1:05pm

38. Posted by FRANKGRITS 01/29/2008 @ 1:04pm

    Please post this----Posted by MASK 01/29/2008 @ 1:04pm

    Posted by Mask at 01/29/2008 @ 1:06pm

39. Posted by FRANKGRITS 01/29/2008 @ 1:01pm

    Funny because apparently Hillary and Bill begged Ted to stay neutral. I don't think they know that. To your earlier comment about him bringing up race. I'm sorry frank but that quote is too interpretive. You say anyone would see that she wasn't saying that but most people out there disagree with you Frank. Hillary has brought up the fact that you should vote for her specifically because she is a woman. That's what she is running on. Don't vote for me because I am good at what I do. Vote for me because I am a woman.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 01/29/2008 @ 1:06pm

40. Have you seen ms. Pappas resume?

    Posted by FRANKGRITS 01/29/2008 @ 12:58pm

    Her resume is irrelvant. Her statement was lousy. It reduced Clinton to a "woman candidate" and nothing more. It equated support to other candidates as a rejection of women's rights. You do not attract support by putting people on the defensive. Why do you think Gandy came out with her follow-up?

    Posted by Hman23 at 01/29/2008 @ 1:06pm

41. Frank-I've noticed that you Hillary supporters resort to name calling when presented with facts and expect us to warm up to Hillary because you called us names.You were,of course,unable to refute what I said so you called me names.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 01/29/2008 @ 1:10pm

42. I'm getting sick of the fanatical portion of the women's movement saying that a vote for anyone but Hillary is a sexist votes. That's probably the dumbest thing I have ever heard. Same with the race movement saying a vote for anyone but Obama is a racist vote. If you want equality. Then on who the better candidate is and ignore their race and gender.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 01/29/2008 @ 1:11pm

43. Posted by FRANKGRITS 01/29/2008 @ 1:01pm

    Thanks for the family tree, Frank, and your objective assessment of who loves whom, but your statement about their respective endorsements (and their implied importance) was made in the context of what the media covers.

    How about some simple Google searches?

    Kathleen Kennedy Townsend - 111,000 results

    Robert F. Kennedy Jr. - 564,00 results

    Ted Kennedy - 4,110,000 results.

    Simply put, if you think that the endorsements of a couple of relatively obscure Kennedys carry the same weight as that of a sitting senator, then you are truly blinded by love.

    Posted by drhammer at 01/29/2008 @ 1:13pm

44. cccomf01-The Democrats are going to call each other names and then wonder why they lost.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 01/29/2008 @ 1:13pm

45. Posted by FRANKGRITS 01/29/2008 @ 1:14pm

    I disparaged her for her statement. If it makes you fell better, I take back that I called her a "fool." Care now to comment on what she said? Or any of my substantive comments?

    Posted by Hman23 at 01/29/2008 @ 1:17pm

46. Posted by FRANKGRITS 01/29/2008 @ 1:13pm

    No you think they are far more weighty because Hillary got one. Oprah is a huge endorsement in this country whether you want to believe it or not. Look at how popular she is. You get Oprah's endorsement you then get her to endorse you on her show and do you know how many people in this country watch her show religiously Frank? Exactly. You want the news paper endorsements to mean more but they mean less because fewer people read the paper as watch television. That's why the NY times is sinking.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 01/29/2008 @ 1:17pm

47. It's frightening sometimes to be able to READ a person so well....

    "The "Maximum Leader" is always good and pure and true, and ALL who oppose her are (if FG is being generous) "misguided fools who need re-education" or "evil Goldsteins tryiing to bring down Big Sister".----Posted by MASK 01/29/2008 @ 12:51pm

    "I'm not going to sit by and let evil gain a hold and try to derail her prospects of realizing the Oval Office."-----Posted by FRANKGRITS 01/29/2008 @ 1:06pm

    Posted by Mask at 01/29/2008 @ 1:24pm

48. Frank-you still are unable to refute my post so you resorted to name calling which seems to be typical of Hillary supporters.There are only two types of spouses who tolerate multiple affairs.Those that are having affairs themselves or those who are mentally ill.I see that you are resorting to using the right wing tactic of making fun of my id because,like them,you don't understand it.This nobody lives in a swing state.My vote is relevant and it won't go to Hillary.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 01/29/2008 @ 1:24pm

49. I agree with the comment "the media gang banging Hillary". I wonder how many women are outraged as I am. It does not help when bloggers make references to women's body parts. Remember, only a few decades ago women could not vote. It is women's issue that the media, accross the left-right spectrum is attempting to destrot the first woman ever to run for president in this country.

    Posted by nursevic at 01/29/2008 @ 1:27pm

50. osted by FRANKGRITS 01/29/2008 @ 1:20pm

    You sure know how to spin it Frank or be spun one or the other. Hillary has been the one avoiding discussing the issues. I have yet to see Obama concentrate on race or sex. While Hillary has been concentrating fully on those things. Look at how she tried to shirk off the question about her timeline for getting us out of Iraq. She does that quite often. Just like when her and Obama tried to call a truce the first time, SHE brought the race issue back to the forefront. So we will see how long it lasts before she brings it back up. Or maybe she has learned that making negative comments is only hurting her in the polls. This isn't her taking the higher ground this is her being intelligent enough to see that her mudslinging tactics are losing her votes. Which I believe you predicted would work differently didn't you Frank. I believe you said that once Hillary started attacking him in ernest he would start to lose votes, but the only thing it has done is lost Hillary votes.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 01/29/2008 @ 1:28pm

51. frank-I'm more concerned with the fact that so many Hillary supporters resort to name calling and then expect to get us to vote for her despite the fact that her supporters are so immature.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 01/29/2008 @ 1:29pm

52. Frank, there's still an issue remaining to be resolved, an issue you've never answered throughout this whole discussion:

    Why have you yet to retract your lie about Obama claiming Republicans had good ideas? Why is the fact that Clinton has repeated this manifest lie also not a reason to distrust her?

    Posted by Thrawn at 01/29/2008 @ 1:30pm

53. Posted by FRANKGRITS 01/29/2008 @ 1:28pm

    How did he betray them Frank? Because he voted for who he thought was best instead of just voting because she's a woman? Could you be anymore misguided and detrimental to the ideas of seeking equality.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 01/29/2008 @ 1:33pm

54. Actually she hasn't won all of them. For instance she lost the one in SC. Another lie on your part./

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 01/29/2008 @ 1:34pm

55. Posted by THRAWN 01/29/2008 @ 1:30pm

    To refresh memories, THRAWN--

    "Hopefully, everyone understands why Barack Obama said that he thinks republicans had good ideas the last ten or fifteen years. ..."----Posted by FRANKGRITS 01/24/2008 @ 5:41pm

    THE METHOD TO BILL CLINTON'S MELTDOWNS...Posted by Ari Melber at 01/24/2008 @ 1:23pm

    Posted by Mask at 01/29/2008 @ 1:36pm

56. She also lost in Iowa Frankie. Maybe you should pay attention.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 01/29/2008 @ 1:36pm

57. Posted by FRANKGRITS 01/29/2008 @ 1:35pm

    Actually it was a lie. What he said and meant was that Reagan had a way of bringing together both sides of the party. Then he continued to say that Kennedy also had a way of doing it. Listed a democrat and a Republican because he knew people like you would try to spin his comment. He meant that certain people in the past have galvanized both sides of the party he never said he agreed with Reagan's stance on the issues. You should read instead of filtering everything through the how is this bad for Hillary filter.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 01/29/2008 @ 1:39pm

58. Posted by CCCOMFO1 01/29/2008 @ 1:36pm

    Less a "lie", than disengenuous on THAT one, CCC.

    FRANK meant "she won all the DEBATES"...which is subjective, though (you're right) matched up against the PRIMARY RESULTS, he's wrong.

    Posted by Mask at 01/29/2008 @ 1:39pm

59. This sort of stuff is depressing. Are we to take for granted Hillary Clinton is a feminist because she is a woman running for or holding high office, and yes, had her share of sexism to deal with? Betrayal of what? Don't see how Clinton intends to lead us to a more peaceful world and social, economic equality. Simply, I don't see in her a successor to the progressive political activism, independence and feminism of a Fanny Lou Hamer, Bella Abzug, or Shirley Chishom to name just three. Finally, what matters most is what we can expect from her as President and specifically for women, for girls and young women particularly, what example of courage and principle she presents, which is different from success. Sad to say she fails on all these counts. For me at least, and she will not have my support.

    Rowena Martinez Pita

    Posted by cmsandia at 01/29/2008 @ 1:41pm

60. Frank-I spent over 20 years as a counselor.Adults don't resort to name calling so get back to me when you become an adult and then we can have an adult conversation.I noticed that you still can't refute my posts and must resort to name calling.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 01/29/2008 @ 1:43pm

61. Posted by FRANKGRITS 01/29/2008 @ 1:38pm

    So then it's ok for women to vote for a woman because she's a woman but its NOT ok for blacks to vote for a black because he's black. Is that how you look at it Frank. You have made plenty of comments before denouncing black voters for voting for Obama because he's black now you are denouncing Ted for not endorsing her because since he was a part of the women's movement he should vote for a woman whether he agrees with her policies or not. Exactly Frank you will take on any tactic to win. Just like that hypocrite of a candidate you support.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 01/29/2008 @ 1:43pm

62. I've heard FRANK talk about how much he's read and how much of a political junkie he is. I *thought* he cared about the issues. He doesn't. He is totally infatuated with Hillary Clinton. How can I tell? Other than it being totally obvious, even FRANK admits that Obama's platform and Hillary's platform are extremely close. But, should Obama win the primaries, FRANK won't vote for him. Nope, he'd rather vote for McCain. WTF? This isn't a vote about issues, it's blatantly a vote for love. If FRANK actually cared about the issues we all face, then, by his own admission, he should be able to put aside his personal feelings for a particular candidate and vote on the issues. He can't and he won't. A pity really. I feel for ya FRANK. Must be a miserable existence.

    Should Hillary win the primary, I may be able to vote for her. It greatly depends on any green or independent runners and how they stand on the ISSUES. There are a lot of political quizzes on the internet and Hillary constantly ranks below Kucinich, Edwards, Obama and sometimes Paul in my answers. But, if she's better politically than anyone else who is running, then she'll get my vote.

    I stepped back a few days ago and took a look at the media from a different perspective. Right now, there is a love fest with Obama happening and Hillary is getting shat upon. Next week, it may be the opposite. These endorsements the candidates pick up really don't make that big of an impact, in my opinion, as do the responses to them like the one posted here. This woman's outrage at Sen. Kennedy makes her sound like a raving lunatic.

    There are some creepy people walking around out there.

    Posted by FritztheCat at 01/29/2008 @ 1:44pm

63. Posted by MASK 01/29/2008 @ 1:39pm

    Sorry Mask I detract my statement you are correct. Debate results are subjective so she won in Frank's eye but apparently not in a lot of other peoples.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 01/29/2008 @ 1:45pm

64. "I've made my point about endorsements. i'm through discussing it."

    Posted by FRANKGRITS 01/29/2008 @ 1:20pm

    I have a Labrador Retriever who likes to get in the last little "woof", too.

    And to be honest with you, if she met Hillary, she would probably stick her nose in her ass, also.

    But that's where the similarity ends.

    Posted by drhammer at 01/29/2008 @ 1:48pm

65. Posted by FRANKGRITS 01/29/2008 @ 1:44pm

    Nothing I've said to you is "cowardly", FRANK....as I am not the one refusing to READ what YOU are posting, but the other way around.

    And as for attacks...I called you out for LYING about Obama (same as THRAWN)

    As for "behaving"...I don't CONFORM to YOUR view of behaving, just so I get the "privelege" of you not Ignoring me.

    Posted by Mask at 01/29/2008 @ 1:48pm

66. Hillary condones the behavior of a man who, at the very least used his office to take advantage of women, and in reality, is no better then a rapist. NOW's support of Bill and now Hillary completes a cycle of hypocricy by an organization so far off the radar screen of relevency most peole would be surprised it still exists.

    Posted by beaky at 01/29/2008 @ 1:49pm

67. Posted by CCCOMFO1 01/29/2008 @ 1:45pm

    It's a neat trick to TRY, but pointless. "Winning debates" is meaningless...unless you win the ELECTIONS that follow.

    FRANK cannot give you ONE example (his "driver's liscense" comment was close) where he'll say She-Who-Must-Be-Obeyed actually LOST something...even the caucus/primaries. He can't.

    To do so (without excuses, which he does for Iowa and South Carolina), would mean that Her Majesty CAN lose....and that possibility is frightening to somebody who has EMOTIONS invested in a leader.

    Posted by Mask at 01/29/2008 @ 1:52pm

68. Posted by FRANKGRITS 01/29/2008 @ 1:49pm

    Actually no. She wins in YOUR opinion in a landslide. Considering other people have different weights on different things Frank she can lose in other peoples eyes. So you are wrong again. For instance I don't think she wins at all. And you have admittedly say they stand exactly the same on the issues so how then does she win by a LANDSLIDE? I will answer that according to your own statements about their stances on the issues Frank. She doesn't

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 01/29/2008 @ 1:54pm

69. and that possibility is frightening to somebody who has EMOTIONS invested in a leader.

    Posted by MASK 01/29/2008 @ 1:52pm

    You hit the nail on the head.

    Posted by FritztheCat at 01/29/2008 @ 1:54pm

70. Frank-I have only stated on here 400 times that I'm retired from the field of counseling,but you need to deny that in order to spew your cult like devotion for the Clintons.You need people like me to go away so you can distort reality in favor of the Clintons,but people like me aren't going away and there is absolutely nothing that you can do about that except call names and then claim that you're an adult.If you really believe that people who tolerate multiple affairs and emotional abuse are sane then there is something wrong with you.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 01/29/2008 @ 1:54pm

71. Posted by FRANKGRITS 01/29/2008 @ 1:44pm

    Nothing I've said to you is "cowardly", FRANK....as I am not the one refusing to READ what YOU are posting, but the other way around.

    And as for attacks...I called you out for LYING about Obama (same as THRAWN)

    As for "behaving"...I don't CONFORM to YOUR view of behaving, just so I get the "privelege" of you not Ignoring me.

    Posted by MASK 01/29/2008 @ 1:48pm

    Thanks what mask just posted Frank.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 01/29/2008 @ 1:55pm

72. Posted by CCCOMFO1 01/29/2008 @ 1:45pm

    It's a neat trick to TRY, but pointless. "Winning debates" is meaningless...unless you win the ELECTIONS that follow.

    FRANK cannot give you ONE example (his "driver's liscense" comment was close) where he'll say She-Who-Must-Be-Obeyed actually LOST something...even the caucus/primaries. He can't.

    To do so (without excuses, which he does for Iowa and South Carolina), would mean that Her Majesty CAN lose....and that possibility is frightening to somebody who has EMOTIONS invested in a leader.

    Posted by MASK 01/29/2008 @ 1:52pm

    And that.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 01/29/2008 @ 1:55pm

73. "...and in reality, is no better then a rapist."

    Posted by BEAKY 01/29/2008 @ 1:49pm

    Whatever you may think of NOW, or Bill Clinton and his sexism, or his objectification of women, equating his indiscretion with Monica Lewinsky with rape is hysterical and wrong.

    Posted by drhammer at 01/29/2008 @ 1:59pm

74. Posted by FRANKGRITS 01/29/2008 @ 12:48pm

    FRANKGRITS,

    You know that Hillary started "gaming her votes" once Obama arrived in the US Senate so that she wouldn't "appear" that much different than him. That is why I included the pre-Obama record in my first post on this thread.

    And we do know how Obama would have voted on all of those issues because he said so AT THE TIME OF THOSE VOTES! He was with the progressives and Feingold and not eh DLC and Hillary!

    But rather than take my word for it, read up on the Obama record [ontheissues.org] and then tell me if there is "any" doubt that he is 100% committed to the progressive cause!

    And even AFTER Obama arrived Hillary and Obama differed on Kyl-Lieberman (hillary for it, Obmam against it) and the full disclosure of earmarks (Obama for full disclosure and Hillary against it) as well as 40 other issues:

    The two Democrats differed on other energy-related issues. In August, Clinton supported a bill to expand oil and gas production in the Gulf of Mexico, while Obama voted against it. During the 2005 energy debate, Obama backed an increase in vehicle fuel-efficiency standards, which Clinton opposed. Clinton voted against the energy bill itself because it was stuffed with oil industry incentives. But Obama supported the legislation because it included language that would double ethanol demand by 2012.

    Another fault line is spending. Obama sided with fiscal conservatives on several high-profile measures to strip funding for pet projects, including a widely criticized Pentagon travel system and the relocation of a railroad line along the Mississippi Gulf Coast that was part of a Hurricane Katrina redevelopment project. Clinton voted in favor of the projects.

    One budget-related vote with broader political implications would have stripped funding for TV Marti, which beams television programming to Cuba, though the Cuban government jams the signal. Critics in Congress complain that the United States has spent almost $200 million on the failed effort and have targeted the program year after year.

    Obama twice voted to cut off TV Marti funding, while Clinton supported maintaining it. Those votes will have resonance in Florida, which is a key primary state and may reschedule its 2008 primary date from March to February.

    Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs said the senator's opposition to TV Marti was primarily about cost. But within Florida's large Cuban exile population, one of the most powerful voting blocs in the state, Clinton's and Obama's stances ally them with distinct groups: the older hard-liners and a younger, more progressive group of second-generation Cuban Americans and more recent immigrants whose numbers are growing. Clinton "is going with the status quo," said Sergio Bendixen, a Miami-based pollster who specializes in Hispanic voters. Obama, he said, "is with the position of change."

    The senators differed on a July 13 vote that would prohibit the confiscation of legally held guns during natural disasters -- a response to seizures by law enforcement officials in the New Orleans area after Hurricane Katrina. Obama voted to ban confiscations; Clinton was one of 16 senators opposing the restrictions.

    In late 2005, Obama allied with Republicans to support creating an exception to Senate rules to allow Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) to continue practicing medicine on a not-for-profit basis. Clinton opposed the change, an aide explained, because she believes that senators should not have a second source of income. Gibbs said that Obama, as an author of two best-selling books, was sympathetic to Coburn's request.

    In several instances, Clinton and Obama voted against measures that they supported in principle, because the bills were not strong enough. Clinton opposed a restructuring plan for the Federal Emergency Management Agency that Obama and 86 other senators backed, because it did not restore the Cabinet-level status that FEMA had attained under President Bill Clinton, her husband. One of Obama's chief interests in the Senate has been ethics reform, but he was one of eight senators to oppose a bill aimed at tightening lobbyist rules because it was not strong enough. Clinton supported the initiative. By Shailagh Murray, Washington Post Staff Writer, Monday, January 1, 2007

    Posted by Metteyya at 01/29/2008 @ 2:02pm

75. Posted by FRANKGRITS 01/29/2008 @ 1:59pm

    I think Hillary went low when she openly said DURING a debate that people should vote for her because she's a woman. That's why I don't like her.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 01/29/2008 @ 2:03pm

76. FRANK, so what you are claiming Obama did, is the same thing that McCain has done to Romney with his "timetable" spill.

    But that's okay with you because it wasn't done to Hillary?

    So you're "ethics" argument doesn't fly. Especially, although I know it is a complete waste of time pointing this out to you, that the Clinton campaign has been the most ethically unsound campaign of either party.

    Posted by FritztheCat at 01/29/2008 @ 2:06pm

77. Now this is sad.

    After all of these years and all of their struggles, NOW sends the message to women that thinking independently and doing what your conscience demands merits public crucifixion?

    Posted by ibsteve2u at 01/29/2008 @ 2:15pm

78. Here we go----if you vote against Hillary you must be a sexist. Soon it will be if you vote against Obama you are a racist. NOW is doing us all a dis-service by creating a false and misleading litmus test. Can Obama unite a political party that is so beholding to their own set of interest groups???? If he can then maybe he will have a chance---but if groups like NOW dominate the agenda with their misguided definition of feminism then their is no hope for the democrat party.

    Posted by Len Mosse at 01/29/2008 @ 2:15pm

79. I just don't understand...I like Obama, so that somehow makes me a sexist?!

    Posted by nicR at 01/29/2008 @ 2:15pm

80. Posted by NICR 01/29/2008 @ 2:15pm

    Of course it does you aren't allowed to vote for a man while a woman is on the ballot! (Sarcasm)

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 01/29/2008 @ 2:17pm

81. he was trying to make black people, a community the Clintons have worked hard to improve, turn their backs on Hillary and vote for him. It was a sneaky. dispicable, cowardly thing to do.

    Posted by FRANKGRITS 01/29/2008 @ 1:59pm

    Do you realize you just undermined your entire defense of Pappas' attack on Kennedy?

    Following Pappas' logic, those black votes never belonged to Clinton -- they belonged to Obama. And following that ridiculous logic, any black voter who would vote for Cliton over Obama is "betraying" the civil rights movement.

    Posted by Hman23 at 01/29/2008 @ 2:23pm

82. And so it begins. I am so excited to see the numbers of registered democrats who voted for the Republican in the general election because they thought their primary favorite was ill- treated. We eat our own. One thing I can guarantee, Romney's people will not vote for the Democrat, just because John McCain played dirty- Republicans play to win. Just ask Al Gore and the 100,000 Florida democrats who voted for Nader. But hey, there really was no difference between Nobel laureate Gore and the lame duck chimp. (Now is when the progressives get all worked up thinking I can't believe he's bringing back the Nader thing, it was so not true, get over it.) I can't get over it, I can think of 2 trillion or 1 million reasons why.

    Posted by phillymark at 01/29/2008 @ 2:23pm

83. Posted by NICR 01/29/2008 @ 2:15pm

    According to FRANK and Pappas, yes. No matter that Obama may have done a lot of good work on women's rights. But strangely enough, if you are black and vote for Clinton you are NOT a racist. Because Clinton has done a "lot of work" for black causes.

    Confusing, isn't it?

    Posted by Hman23 at 01/29/2008 @ 2:26pm

84. Posted by FRANKGRITS 01/29/2008 @ 2:26pm

    Just like any of the minority races should have to struggle Frank. So why are you so FOR the feminist movement but not caring add all about the racial movement? Because it helps Hillary win perhaps?

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 01/29/2008 @ 2:31pm

85. shouldn't* is what I meant. Not should.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 01/29/2008 @ 2:32pm

86. For a feminist, that Frank sure is one angry white male.

    "I think everyone should vote for the best qualified candidate. Hillary wins in a landslide under that standard. Period."

    Best qualified to do what - cave in to big corporations and neocons wanting to start yet another war? Judgment and character are what counts in a leader.

    Posted by Steve1us at 01/29/2008 @ 2:35pm

87. Betrayal? That's a bit melodramatic. Apparently, Kennedy should have based his endorsement on gender, which, ironically, would have been sexist.

    Posted by Be Good at 01/29/2008 @ 2:48pm

88. Posted by FRANKGRITS 01/29/2008 @ 2:26pm

    Maybe FRANKGRITS is a groper like Bill Clinton, and feels guilty about his abuse of women?

    Posted by Metteyya at 01/29/2008 @ 2:49pm

89. Posted by FRANKGRITS 01/29/2008 @ 2:04pm

    I'm wounded...wounded to the core.

    Whatever shall I do, knowing that FG is ignoring me....sigh!

    /sarcasm off

    Posted by Mask at 01/29/2008 @ 2:51pm

90. In case you missed it, here's my reason. When Obama said that Hillaery was dissing MLK by saying that LBJ was responsible for converting King's dreams into action, he was trying to make black people, a community the Clintons have worked hard to improve, turn their backs on Hillary and vote for him. It was a sneaky. dispicable, cowardly thing to do.

    Hillary was magnanimous last night when she shook Ted's hand. Obama turned his head away and the camera caught him. He's too immature to be President.

    That is pure bull. It is so flimsy a pretext that it would be illegal to wear it outdoors in all fifty states. You've embraced a cult of personality and would rather take your marbles and go home. A vote for McCain is a vote for continuing the war. You evidently have no problem with that (anything to do with the fact that your son is no longer in the military and it's other people's sons who would be in the line of fire?)

    But a politician who aspires to sit in the Oval Office would never vote to tie the hands of the President in the face of a threat. I think I'm on pretty solid ground here.

    No, I'd say you were trying to stand on water except that you obviously believe that only Hilary can do that. Hilary voted thumbs up on a war resolution to triangulate. Everyone knew Bush was gunning for an Iraq invasion. You telling me you don't tie the hands of a President who wants to start a preemptive war? Byrd, among others, new that this was the Gulf of Tonkin resolution redux.

    By this logic, you must consider neither Feingold nor the late Wellstone to be (or to have been) qualified for that office.

    Posted by brunowe at 01/29/2008 @ 2:51pm

91. I'd love to have a woman to vote for,but all the Democrats have is Billary.

    Posted by i'm nobody at 01/29/2008 @ 2:51pm

92. BTW, FRANK...better nip over to "Hillary Applauds The Surge"...and "explain it away"!

    Posted by Mask at 01/29/2008 @ 2:52pm

93. I guess I missed the memo that being a feminist means wearing blinders when it comes to female candidates. It's a good thing then that my definition of feminism doesn't include turning off my brain.

    Posted by gillian at 01/29/2008 @ 2:56pm

94. I can't get over the stupidity I'm reading on this thread today. I thought TN had sophisticated readers. I'm going to have to look elsewhere for a reasoned discussion. The pickings are pretty slim here.

    Please, if you want to take your blinkered heroine-worship elsewhere, don't pause on anyone's account. I don't think you'd actually notice a reasoned discussion on this issue if it came up and handed you its business-card.

    Posted by brunowe at 01/29/2008 @ 3:42pm

95. Posted by FRANKGRITS 01/29/2008 @ 3:40pm

    Everybody who doesn't LOVE Her Majesty you consider "idiots"...or Ignore.

    And then you bitch about THEIR "sophisticatin"...then (since the last time) threaten TWICE to leave....then come back "to gloat" a few weeks later...

    and then can't figure out why nobody is taking YOU seriously!?!?!?

    Posted by Mask at 01/29/2008 @ 3:43pm

96. Posted by BRUNOWE 01/29/2008 @ 3:42pm

    This would make the SECOND time, BRUNO...

    BILL CLINTON REWRITES HIS SUPPORT FOR IRAQ WAR...Posted by Matthew Blake at 11/28/2007 @ 2:42pm

    You know, I think I'm going to take a break from this site. I'm feeling unchallanged. I'll be back after the primaries to gloat. Later.----Posted by FRANKGRITS 11/28/2007 @ 6:29pm

    Posted by Mask at 01/29/2008 @ 3:44pm

97. Posted by FRANKGRITS 01/29/2008 @ 3:40pm

    Everybody who doesn't LOVE Her Majesty you consider "idiots"...or Ignore.

    And then you bitch about THEIR "sophisticatin"...then (since the last time) threaten TWICE to leave....then come back "to gloat" a few weeks later...

    and then can't figure out why nobody is taking YOU seriously!?!?!?

    Posted by MASK 01/29/2008 @ 3:43pm

    I'll post it for mask just so Frank can see.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 01/29/2008 @ 3:48pm

98. Posted by FRANKGRITS 01/29/2008 @ 3:44pm

    I'm not opposed to what he did and I have a cousin in the military. So no it doesn't take someone who has no vested interest. It takes someone who can see past the the blinding lights of their heroine worship.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 01/29/2008 @ 3:50pm

99. Posted by CCCOMFO1 01/29/2008 @ 3:48pm

    Careful, CCC...last time that happened (with JOHANNESROLF, believe it or not somebody even MORE self-righteous than FG)...it got the poster put on Ignore too!

    Posted by Mask at 01/29/2008 @ 3:53pm

100. I don't mind getting put on ignore really. I just think it's childish. Instead of addressing people who present good points against your logic you just choose to ignore them. It's like when you present to good of a point to a little kid and they just put their hands over their ears and say "I can't hear you, I can't hear you!"

     Posted by Cccomfo1 at 01/29/2008 @ 3:55pm

101. If the only reason someone would fail to support Hillary is because they're a sexist, does that mean the only reason one would fail to support Obama is because one is a racist? Is NEW YORK NOW, then, admitting to de facto racism?

     This kind of zero-sum balkanization of the political landscape by holier-than-thou pc screeds embodies the attitude that has sabotaged any and every attempt to put together a solid, effective center left coalition in this country for over a generation now. NY NOW would do well to reflect on the fact that part of the reason why Obama has managed to steal so much of Hillary's thunder is because he at least makes the rhetorical attempt to rise above identity claims, and speaks to people's hunger for someone who will address the common good, not just some bitter sense of particularist (and classist) entitlement. NY NOW should be ashamed of themselves!

     Posted by markhaag at 01/29/2008 @ 3:58pm

102. CCCOMFO1

     I'm not opposed to what he did and I have a cousin in the military. So no it doesn't take someone who has no vested interest. It takes someone who can see past the the blinding lights of their heroine worship

     It doesn't require it, however FrankG was as vociferously against the Iraq war as many of us. The fact that he would vote for a pro-War McCain over an Obama who would, at least, start withdrawing troops defies any attempt at explanation. One has to be careful about hypotheticals but I'm inclined to believe that he would be less inclined to support a pro-Iraq War candidate like McCain if his son were still in the military.

     FRANKGRITS

     As for the "Ignore" threat, well you haven't been listening to anything except your heroine-worship anyway. I will gladly filet that for the benefit of the rest of the audience.

     Further, I don't think anyone who throws out terms like "dipshit" and says "I don't play softball here and I don't expect anyone to play that way with me." has any business complaining.

     Posted by brunowe at 01/29/2008 @ 3:59pm

103. The ignore feature is kind of like what Romney's aide did when that reporter confronted Romney calling him a liar about a statement he made and saying that he needs to be professional and not be combative with the candidate. I choose to speak to my detractors.

     Posted by Cccomfo1 at 01/29/2008 @ 4:00pm

104. Posted by CCCOMFO1 01/29/2008 @ 3:55pm

     Okay...just wanted to warn you. Re-posting Ignored posts risks putting the one in the snit (in this case FG) on your case as well.

     FRANKLY (heheh), I feel sad for FG. He's not a true nut or a major ***hole like, well, a poster most here know who gets in little tete-a-tetes with me....

     he's probably a decent old man, who did his duty and whose son did his, both honorably in crappy wars with bad leadership....but he's easily MANIPULATED by all forms of Media, both Mainstream AND Limbaugh.

     I've said it numerous times, and honestly think it is atleast PART of the FGRITS make-up...He loves Hillary (to a degree) because Rush Limbaugh ACTS (again theory) like he hates her.

     And Limbaugh's recent attack on McCain (whom I think he really DOES dislike, because a McCain Presidency would isolate the Hard Right)....means that FG must say that he'll support McCain if Her Nibs doesn't get it. (Note: Limbaugh tacitly supports Romney...and FRANK has YET to say "If it's Obama, I'll vote for Romney"...again, a hint?)

     Either way, he's sucked into the Hillary Cult of Personality and beyond any reasonable "supporter" shows himself to be devoted to the woman and to categorize all opponents (or even mild critics) as "evil" (see Posted by MASK 01/29/2008 @ 12:51pm followed by Posted by FRANKGRITS 01/29/2008 @ 1:06pm).

     That's hard-core idolatry.

     Posted by Mask at 01/29/2008 @ 4:06pm

105. Posted by FRANKGRITS 01/29/2008 @ 1:49pm

     I think everyone should vote for the best qualified candidate.

     Ever interview people and have decision making authority on whether to hire them or not? If you had, I would suspect that you would have learned that the best qualified candidate is frequently not the best candidate.

     There have been many times where I have picked someone that is less qualified (but still more than qualified to do the job), who had a better attitude, a better personality fit with the team, provides greater diversity or a host of other factors that made them a better candidate.

     The simple fact is that Obama has none of the Clinton baggage. He has a great attitude that is inspiring people in a way that Clinton does not. Even if you think he lacks experience, this might be an asset in an environment where you want change - because he will try things he otherwise might not try, like Clinton did with healthcare when her husband was President. And unlike her, he may have more success, if for no other reason that the President is viewed differently than the First Lady. Clinton, on the other hand, will remember her experience and may be constrained as President because of her prior experience in other roles.

     I don't think anyone is qualified to be President. Like most jobs, it requires a great deal of OJT - even for someone like Clinton who has been in the White House before (but not on the hot seat). Granted having an advisor who has BEEN THERE helps, but it's not the only thing.

     So, in short, best qualified candidate doesn't mean best candidate.

     Posted by srjenkins at 01/29/2008 @ 4:13pm

106. Posted by PHILLYMARK 01/29/2008 @ 2:23pm

     Why is it that Al Gore's inability to get more people to vote for him something you lay at the feet of people that voted for Nader? Didn't the people that voted for the other guy or the people that stayed home have any culpability - or do you just like to engage in tired scapegoatism?

     Posted by srjenkins at 01/29/2008 @ 4:16pm

107. Posted by SRJENKINS 01/29/2008 @ 4:16pm

     One guess as to who SRJ voted for in 2000?

     heheh

     Posted by Mask at 01/29/2008 @ 4:18pm

108. I was truly suprised by the NOW of NY statement. For decades I have considered myself a feminist, and still do. The feminist movement has contributed a great deal to our understanding of the importance of developing our full potential as women, in all walks of life. I also believe that it has permitted men to develop their "feminine" side. I think a majority of women around the world are for peace, and do not condone unjustified wars, nor want to facilitate aggresion. HOW DARE the NOW organization of NY attack ANYONE for not supporting a woman who 1) is a HAWK, as her votes on Iraq and Iran indicate 2) does not defend basic civil rights(Patriot Act, etc). For me, unjustified wars of aggresion, and locking people up and throwing away the key are NOT my idea of women's values. Hey, maybe that's just me. But I believe the NY NOW chapter has insulted me as a woman, and as a feminist, by their ridiculous statement, and insulted many fine Prime Ministers that have been women (and I do NOT mean Margaret Thatcher or Isabel Perón), without renouncing women's values, and without having to follow in the steps of their husband.

     Posted by irunkle at 01/29/2008 @ 4:21pm

109. Posted by CCCOMFO1 01/29/2008 @ 4:00pm

     The ignore feature is a good way to cut through the crap. I never used to use it, and now, I'm easily in the double digits - and it has made this site much more interesting than responding to people that are baiting you because they have nothing else better to do than waste your time.

     Just for example, how many times do I have to see Mett post the same voting comparison between Hillary and Feingold? What about the new people cut and past posting links to Hillary Divides? On and on. Use it, you'll be happier for it - and you can still respond to detractors without having to respond to the twits.

     Posted by srjenkins at 01/29/2008 @ 4:22pm

110. "I really do believe that American feminists need to take a long, hard, painful look at themselves now, and ask them if they really have maintained a connection to their historical roots in the best ways." Posted by ZERO 01/29/2008 @ 2:12pm ::: I don't think its fair to judge "American Feminists" like some monolithic group that agrees on every little issue. I also think it unfair to assume since one loose cannon from NOW-NYS sounds off, its the official stance of the entire organization. Kim Gandy (pres of NOW) is trying to explain NOW supports all voters voting by their own conscience, a more respectable stance then Pappas.

     Posted by jro555 at 01/29/2008 @ 4:24pm

111. Posted by JRO555 01/29/2008 @ 4:24pm

     Pop over to Ms Valenti's newest, JR....ZERO explains the "real problem" American feminists have....

     "overt heterosexuality"!

     Posted by Mask at 01/29/2008 @ 4:27pm

112. I can't get over the stupidity I'm reading on this thread today. I thought TN had sophisticated readers. I'm going to have to look elsewhere for a reasoned discussion. The pickings are pretty slim here.

     Posted by FRANKGRITS 01/29/2008 @ 3:40pm

     Sorry, FRANK, we have agreed on the majority of issues here over the past few years, but if I didn't see the sign-off I would swear this was a LVLIBERTY post.

     It's fine to be an advocate for the candidate you choose and I am no Hillary-Hater, but I think you go a little too far when you write things like this and in some of your earlier posts to me. I know you have a lot invested in Ms. Clinton, but try not to take things so personally. My attacks were about what Pappas said, nothing about Clinton. I actually think she did a disservice to Clinton by coming out the way she did against Kennedy. Pappas reduced everything about Clinton down to one thing – her gender. Kind of surprised you refuse to see that.

     Posted by Hman23 at 01/29/2008 @ 4:28pm

113. Posted by FRANKGRITS 01/29/2008 @ 1:46pm

     Don't get your comment. Whether villages or not, for me at least, children need examples of what it means to be a responsible committed adult of a community and will not find it with Hillary, but just might in the courage and principle of a Bella or Shirley.

     Posted by cmsandia at 01/29/2008 @ 4:45pm

114. Posted by HMAN23 01/29/2008 @ 4:28pm

     Except LVLIBERTY would never say The Nation had sophisticated readers, that he comes here for reasoned discussion or that he was "leaving" to find what he was looking for elsewhere.

     Posted by srjenkins at 01/29/2008 @ 4:56pm

115. Why is it that Al Gore's inability to get more people to vote for him something you lay at the feet of people that voted for Nader? Didn't the people that voted for the other guy or the people that stayed home have any culpability - or do you just like to engage in tired scapegoatism?

     Of the 100,000 nader voters- far more than the 500 needed by Gore trully believed Bush and Gore were insignificantly different- and that was STUPID. Scapegoatism would be blaming the people who stayed home. Maybe their absentee ballots were not counted because they lived in the wrong neighborhood? The only Nader voters I respect are the ones who knew Bush would screw things up so badly that a change would be necessary. At least they were right.

     Posted by SRJENKINS 01/29/2008 @ 4:16pm | ignore this person

     Posted by phillymark at 01/29/2008 @ 5:29pm

116. Posted by PHILLYMARK 01/29/2008 @ 5:29pm

     The only thing STUPID is blaming some other candidate - other than the one that won - because the one you preferred got beat. If you want to blame someone, blame the people that voted for Bush. They are why he is in office.

     Blaming anyone else is setting up a scapegoat for the failures of both the Democratic and Republican parties and of our electoral system. Accept the responsibility and stop trying to pass the buck off on Nader.

     Posted by srjenkins at 01/29/2008 @ 5:46pm

117. Calm down, folks. Here's a piece about the fellow who gave Obama his first job in Chicago. http://www.bustedhalo.com/features/BarackObamaandJerryKellman.htm

     Posted by fougasseu at 01/29/2008 @ 5:46pm

118. metteyya's post begs the question: Why isn't Senator Feingold running for President? He stood head and shoulders above ALL other Democrats in opposing the criminal activities of the Bush White House.

     Posted by mrpoizun at 01/29/2008 @ 5:50pm

119. I do not understand why because I am a woman I must support the sole female candidate rather than the person whose past example, current record, and public relationships I feel most represent the views I believe in. Hillary's status as a woman does not immediately mean she stands for the issues I support, just like Ward Connerly's position as a black man does not mean he speaks for me when he tears down countelss states' ability to admit students in a way that creates a racially balanced incoming class of students.

     Just because she appears to be the first viable female candidate does not mean she deserves it or that she is not coasting on Bill's good memories. As a matter of fact, it irks me that people would put her in office simply because of Bill - what, she can't stand on her own??

     I would hate to have to explain to my children why I allowed a Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton Dynasty, oh, I mean white house cycle to exist....

     Posted by KurlyBrown at 01/29/2008 @ 5:54pm

120. Blaming anyone else is setting up a scapegoat for the failures of both the Democratic and Republican parties and of our electoral system. Accept the responsibility and stop trying to pass the buck off on Nader.

     Posted by SRJENKINS

     Republicans got exactly what they wanted, but I would argue that Nader voters did not get what they thought they voted for. STUPID.

     Sorry, if there was no Nader, there would have been no BUSH.

     Posted by phillymark at 01/29/2008 @ 6:04pm

121. It was fishing, casting a net, and only needs to be said once, whatever retractions or clarifications now follow, the insecure, the not as yet formed, as well as the HAMILTONGRAD lunatic fringe, is now locked up tight. I will give her the benefit of the doubt and say it was merely corrupt cynical bullshit, and that I doubt if even she believes it herself.

     There seems to be a pull out all stops, crack-head need ... to get Hillary elected, somewhat like the fevered drive behind G.W.B.'s election.

     Posted by V at 01/29/2008 @ 6:06pm

122. The statement made by NOW is hypocrisy. For a long time the Feminist movement has often been very exclusive of women of color. We have been asked on numerous ocassions to support Women's issues at the exclusion of issues we face based upon race. In fact, to many white women hang on to the old guard as it relates to race relations and then want our support. Going all the way back to the suffrage movement, black women have been asked to step aside. When Ida B. Wells wanted her voice heard in getting women the right to vote, Alice Paul told her she could not be a part of the movement because it would open a can of worms as it related to black voting rights.

     White women were not and often still ARE NOT concerned about the concrete ceiling issues that their sisters of color face in job situations. In fact, in all to many cases, they are the ones pouring the cement.

     If NOW wants to know why black women went for Obama in South Carolina, they only need to look to their own history and their blind eyes to the issues that face women of color.

     This statement by NOW is so full of hypocrisy that it makes me sick. Instead of reading Backlash, Sexual Persona and The Feminine Mystique, they should read bell hooks, Feminist Theory: From Margin to Center to gain insight into the exclusion they create among women of color.

     Posted by sophia33 at 01/29/2008 @ 6:13pm

123. Posted by HMAN23 01/29/2008 @ 4:28pm | ignore this person

     Frank is "gone" ... All the attributions of, love, infatuation etc. only apply to people functioning in the realm of what is "normal." There is absolutely nothing normal about the reasoning, rationalizations, or obsequious obsession that Frank has exhibited towards Hillary Clinton. He will probably start to feed off the amount of attention he is being given. Debate and trying to reason with him will only push him further away, and is almost tantamount to abuse.

     Posted by V at 01/29/2008 @ 6:22pm

124. Posted by PHILLYMARK 01/29/2008 @ 6:04pm

     If you got an additional 1,000 people to the polls in Florida to vote Democratic, there would be no Bush. If 1,000 less people in Florida voted for Bush, there would be no Bush. If Florida didn't have a winner take all allocation of electoral votes, there would be no Bush. If Bush I and Barbara never met, there would be no Bush. If there was no Karl Rove, there would be no Bush.

     We could go on all day with the What If game, looking at things after the fact and being self-righteous. The bottom line is that people preferred another candidate and the Democrats didn't get the job done. Blaming Nader is a cop-out.

     Posted by srjenkins at 01/29/2008 @ 6:52pm

125. Posted by SOPHIA33 01/29/2008 @ 6:13pm | ignore this person

     I've noticed in the feminist literature, not one reference to the following women;

     Hatshepsut, daughter of King Thutmose I, first woman to rule a world (such as was known at the time) empire.

     Or ...

     345-332 Queen Candace of Meroe (Sudan)

     "One of the earliest references to the kentakes (Candacs) comes from 332 when Alexander the Great set his sights on the rich kingdom of Nubia. The presiding kentakes, known in history as "Black Queen Candace of Nubia", designed a battle plan to counter Alexander's advance. She placed her armies and waited on a war elephant for the Macedonian conqueror to appear for battle. Alexander approached the field from a low ridge, but when he saw the Black Queen's army displayed in a brilliant military formation before him, he stopped. After studying the array of warriors waiting with such deadly precision and realizing that to challenge the kentakes could quite possibly be fatal, he turned his armies away from Nubia toward a successful campaign in Egypt."

     In other words "Alexander the Great" was himself punked from a battle field by a woman.

     Or ...

     Queen Nzinga (1583-1663)

     "In the sixteenth century, the Portugese position in the slave trade was threatened by England and France. As a result, the Portugese shifted their slave-trading activities to the Congo and South West Africa. Mistaking the title of the ruler (ngola) for the name of the country, the Portugese called the land of the Mbundu people Angola--the name by which it is still known today.

     Here, the Portugese encountered the brilliant and courageous Queen Nzinga, who was determined never to accept the Portugese conquest of her country. An exceptional stateswoman and military strategist, she harassed the Portugese until her death, at age eighty."

     Her people being free till her death.

     There was a great scientist (the chariots would be lined up for blocks, it was said) murdered by the Romans, can't think of her name I spose I'll have to configure a search query, as I know I won't find her name in the literature either.

     I could go on (the benefits of a museum born classical education) but time doesn't permit, else I should go "Rese" on this issue as it deserves it ...

     Posted by V at 01/29/2008 @ 6:54pm

126. Posted by BRUNOWE 01/29/2008 @ 3:59pm

     You are way out of line and now you're gone. Tell Mask I said hello.

     Posted by FRANKGRITS 01/29/2008 @ 5:31pm | ignore this person

     To everyone but FRANKGRITS, I am still here. What a bloated ego to believe that I am somehow being locked up because he isn't listening to me. As far as Hillary is concerned, he has bitten himself and gone mad.

     Posted by brunowe at 01/29/2008 @ 8:43pm

127. I am relieved that finally some progresives are seeing through these post-New Left, pharaonic, straight-jacket ideologues like Marcia Pappas. (Are you listening Katha?) As one blogger wrote, having a vagina does not make one an automatic "progressive" nor does it automatically make one a "victim." I'm a Mexican-American and I'm voting for Edwards, not for his race, ethnicity or gender, but for his politics. Nader endorsed him and that's more than good enough for me.

     Posted by john molina at 01/29/2008 @ 8:47pm

128. MASK, if a tree falls in a forest and FRANKGRITS has it on ignore, does it make a sound?

     Posted by brunowe at 01/29/2008 @ 9:01pm

129. Also, NOW seems to want Ted Kennedy to vote for Hillary because she is a woman. However, those same women from NOW will de-cry who may appear to vote for Obama because he is black.

     Posted by sophia33 at 01/29/2008 @ 9:03pm

130. What a bunch of hypocrits! JFK & RFK were both guilty of the same thing people have convicted Bill Clinton. While Jackie Kennedy was sailing with Onassis recovering from the death of son Patrick JFK was entertaining other women in the White House. After JFK finished his affair with Marilyn Monroe RFK started his affair. Not one person has condemned Jackie or Ethyl for not leaving JFK or RFK because of their whor*ing around. I find it the height of hypocrisy for anyone to condemn Hillary for not divorcing Bill for his playing around. It takes a stronger woman to hold to her oath before God to stay with her husband for "better or worse" than to simply turn her back and walk away especially when she has children.

     Posted by sara48909 at 01/29/2008 @ 9:36pm

131. Count me among voters who would love to vote for a woman president, "just not this one". I've been a feminist since I was eight and fought for equality in large & small ways all my adult life. Voting for Clinton because she is a woman would be a sexist act. I am voting for the candidate who I think is the best choice for the country, Clinton is not that candidate in my view. NOW should not be advocating sexism of any sort.

     Posted by be peace at 01/29/2008 @ 11:18pm

132. RE: "Heated Response to Kennedy's "Betrayal""

     Ted Kennedy has a history of straying from the mainstream, self-promoting and supporting the wrong cause or wrong candidate. Look at Gore in 2004 who supported Howard Dean's short-lived campaign. Ted's irrelevant now, even harm ful to his allies.

     Posted by HelenDAO at 01/29/2008 @ 11:21pm

133. As a loyal Democrat and one who will vote that way no matter who gets the nomination, I'm afraid that what we are observing is the Democratic party fracturing while the Republicans pull themselfs together behind John McCain. What I see from the middle of the country is if Obama wins the nomination older women will not vote for him because he has ruined their chance of at last having a woman president. And if Clinton wins the blacks will not come out to vote for her because she has ruined their chance to have the first black president. I hope I'm wrong but that is how I see it coming down.

     Posted by wmnorton at 01/30/2008 @ 12:04am

134. "And if Clinton wins the blacks will not come out to vote for her because she has ruined their chance to have the first black president."

     Posted by WMNORTON 01/30/2008 @ 12:04am | ignore this person

     How would Clinton have "ruined it" for blacks? Simply by running? Being a poor sport? How exactly? looking for a tad more context ...

     Posted by V at 01/30/2008 @ 12:12am

135. I'm talking about the older women I know here in Missouri. That is what they are feeling. I have less black friends but they have expressed similar feelings. Just for reference I support John Edwards. I accept that his chances at the nomination have been diminished but, as I have stated before, I feel that nothing is more important for the country than to elect a Democrat.

     Posted by wmnorton at 01/30/2008 @ 12:34am

136. Are we talking about the Hillary that stands by her man like some braindead stepford wife?

     Posted by I'M NOBODY 01/29/2008 @ 12:08pm

     i'd say it's more like lady macbeth.

     MACBETH My dearest love, Duncan comes here to-night.

     LADY MACBETH And when goes hence?

     MACBETH To-morrow, as he purposes.

     LADY MACBETH O, never Shall sun that morrow see! Your face, my thane, is as a book where men May read strange matters. To beguile the time, Look like the time; bear welcome in your eye, Your hand, your tongue: look like the innocent flower, But be the serpent under't. He that's coming Must be provided for: and you shall put This night's great business into my dispatch; Which shall to all our nights and days to come Give solely sovereign sway and masterdom.

     MACBETH We will speak further.

     LADY MACBETH Only look up clear; To alter favour ever is to fear: Leave all the rest to me.

     Posted by frosty zoom at 01/30/2008 @ 01:09am

137. "Voting for Clinton because she is a woman would be a sexist act."

     Posted by BE PEACE 01/29/2008 @ 11:18pm

     Like the abbreviated Christian question "WWJD?", it all distills down to this one very succinct point.

     And all else is bullshit.

     Peace.

     Posted by drhammer at 01/30/2008 @ 08:45am

138. Just one question (from someone who will definitely vote for Hilary if she's the nominee, but would prefer someone more progressive/liberal): If and when Condi Rice gets up the stones to run for major political office, will NOW cheer and defend her against men, and will African Americans vote the race card, and will African American women have the terrible feelings of not knowing which part of their genetic code to support?

     I think not.

     NOW has every right to support whoever they think best supports their agenda, and if they think that is Hilary, then they can do whatever they want to support her - but to revile anybody who doesn't share their fervor smacks of fanatacism (and reminds me a great deal of the evangelical mindset).

     It seems that people who only stay with their own kind produce the same kind of problems that occur when certain breeds of dogs are inbred over and over. That is why I try (although I do not always like it) to have dialogues with those who don't share my exact opinions. Everybody, even the lunatic fringe, has perspective to offer (even if it is just as a warning and an example of what lack of objectivity leads to).

     Posted by Turk33 at 01/30/2008 @ 10:44am

139. Voting for a female candidate just because she is a woman is not, in any way, a feminist act.

     Not all feminists support Hillary. Those who support her because they want to see a woman President and not based on her merits as an individual person and politician are using the word "feminism" in a naive and selfish way and not in a productive or realistic way.

     Many versions of feminism are indeed about equality on a larger scale, not about blind support for anyone who has female body parts. As history has shown, as daily life shows to anyone whose eyes are open, the sex of a person does not determine their worth, intelligence, moral character, etc. This is a feminist principle, as much as many people who call themselves feminists are stating publically that a female candidate will always be better suited to secure equality, regardless of her track record.

     The way a person is treated in society (clearly linked to perceived sex, among other things, including, for example, race) does indeed influence their politics, views, and actions. However, these factors do not influence any two people of the same sex, race, etc. in exactly the same way. A woman will not always be more apt to stand up for women's issues than a man. In fact, a woman President would be taking a much greater political risk than a man for taking such a stand.

     People need to start thinking more critically and quit pretending that a vote for Hillary Clinton is specifically a vote against people of color or that a vote for Barack Obama is specifically a vote against women. This is ludicrous, and a truly democratic candidate would have the interests of both women AND people of color in mind, regardless of his/her own personal experience.

     Seriously, we need to get over this competing oppression rhetoric and instead allow for the possibility of an America or even an individual candidate who wants to secure equality for all Americans, not just people who look like them.

     Personally, I think Obama is more likely to be that candidate. Not because I think that a man knows best but because I think he has more personal integrity than Clinton and seems less likely to play the gender card against Clinton than she is to play the race card against him. That's saying a lot about what kind of a President he would be.

     Posted by sebastian79 at 01/31/2008 @ 1:48pm

140. It's amazing. The good ol' girls' "poor, poor pitiful me" persecution complex roars at the slightest hint of Hillary criticism. Talk about gender equality: Women Are Rednecks, Too.

     Posted by DejaVu at 02/01/2008 @ 9:30pm

141. I have to agree with Gloria Steinmen; the gender gap in this election is much bigger than the racial gap. Even Islamic and third world nations have had women heads of State. This country is really backwards when the good old boys from left and right, as well as media and bloggers, are attempting to destroy an intelligent and dedicated candidate like Hillary. Commentators after the debate missed Hillary's feminist punch;" I am running for President, not my husband. At the end of the day, I'm alone"

     Posted by nursevic at 02/02/2008 @ 12:43pm

142. This is amazing to me, I thought this was the "Nation" . But it is now, the "OBama-Nation". Unbelieveable, that everyone here seems to be sold out to the wholesale package deal of selling Obama to the country. Qualified, Not hardly. No one here seems to see that.. . . let's just vote for change- and buy the obama-message. Where is the outrage over the fact that MR. "I did not support the war OBama," ACTUALLY VOTED FOR FUNDING THE WAR TWICE! But of course, "Mr. Preacher for President" - never owns up to that! Integrity, that is joke, really - when Mr. Obama was taking money from his slum-lord patron... Look into that story -- all you lazy asses... Oh, and I will NEVER vote for a person who has the gall to say anything good in defense of Ronald Reagan! All of you defending Obama, must be closet Republicans, cause a Republican is what you are going to get if you vote for Obama. By the way, ever wonder, all of you intellectual sheep, why the media is pushing OBama? Is it Because the media suddenly fell in love with African Americans and they thrive on the idea of a Black President? Not even close! They know that Mr. Obama is the easiest candidate to beat and that most white people will vote Republican if he gets the nomination.

     Hillary is the strongest, most qualified candidate and she is the one that will beat either McCain or Romney. Although some of you imbeciles might actually prefer a McCain presidency...

     Posted by cherie1 at 02/03/2008 @ 03:55am

143. I agree with the Response from Gandy. She is right! Women have supported Ted Kennedy in spite of his involvement in Chappaquedick and the death of a woman under very questionable circumstances. Women have supported him in spite of his past alcoholism and by the way, how many ex-wives does he have? His support of Mr. Obama is a clear case of simply trying to insert himself into presidential politics. The fact remains that Ted Kennedy screwed up his chance to ever become president almost thirty years ago. He is also trying to make up for the that fact that he is totally irrelevant in current presidential politics. Mr. Kennedy fancies himself to be some sort of "kingmaker" , but really his influence is limited outside of some very specific groups. His dis-respect of Mrs. Clinton is typical of someone who has a history of treating women badly and wants to get away with it.

     Posted by cherie1 at 02/03/2008 @ 04:29am

144. I'm a native New Yorker, recently moved to Florida. I'm also one of those Hillary-haters the MSM is always identifying: a 60-year old male with my fair share of machismo, and a checkered history with female authority figures, beginning with my mom and working forward to a few memorable bosses who enjoyed eating my cujones for lunch, an independent, sometimes cold wife (and sometimes warm), and nightmarish memories of Bella Abzug, Betty Friedan and Susan Brownmiller.

     Feminists, especially the aggressive, NY variety, have always been about advancing the interests of middle and upper class white women, many if not most of whom are already college educated and working in corporate or professional careers. Throughout my own long career in NYC, these women and their ilk made their general contempt for men a rallying cry, a central theme of their shrill, humorless, often hostile social and political personae, while they proceeded to practice the art of seduction as the primary weapon in their ongoing campaign to "equalize" their economic and professional status with men, with the goal of eventually dominating them...the payback strategy for centuries of female discrimination, abuse and disenfranchisement. Having actually met and interacted with Betty Freidan several years ago, notwithstanding her iconic status in the women's movement, I can understand why most men would instinctively shield their loins around such a woman. I admit it, I'm no Phil Donohue.

     Call me paranoid, but if you asked most any man of my generation (I'm excluding the younger generation of metrosexuals who seem more interested in what mousse they should purchase at Bloomingdale's) if his feelings approximate what I'm saying here, I'd get considerable support. I'm not speaking about legal and constitutional equality, which I fully support. I'm talking about social and professional reality in and out of the workplace. Get real. It's no random accident Hillary's primary support is among white women, and until Bill played the race card in South Carolina, among many Black women as well (who are now flocking to Obama). Men of all demographics tend to run for the hills where she is concerned.

     Along comes Hillary, a carpetbagger, a synthetic New Yorker, a public phony, a rhetorical, uninspired stiff who would be invisible if her last name wasn't Clinton (she dropped the "Rodham" for a reason, didn't she?), a serial cuckold who presumably has "forgiven" Bill for his 40 or 50 past affairs and remains "happily married", on and on. Her status as a person with breasts and a vagina as opposed to a penis is of no relevance or consequence to my choice. Her political character, or lack thereof,her voting record--McCain Lite, taking big money from Rupert, Wal-Mart and the Drug companies--her reliance on her race-baiting former president husband to be her Spiro Agnew, while she at once claims independence from him as a candidate, are what differentiates her from Obama, not her genitalia (although, that too). Had the inpsiring Elizabeth Edwards not been so ill, and had she been the candidate instead of her husband, and had she presented herself in exactly the same manner during the past several years, I'd vote for her in a New York minute, and I'd venture so would many thousands of other men, versus the bigots who would never vote for any woman, ever.

     Why isn't NOW-NYS attacking Caroline in their statment along with Ted? What will they say about Maria Shriver? Where were they for the past 7 years of horror stories emanating like sewage from the Bush Administration every day?

     As one whippersnapper at the bottom of the ladder to senior heaven, I wish the feminists would simply shut the hell up for once, and support REAL change, not their narrow sexual identity politics. That's what we need: CHANGE. If they chose to run, should we have voted for Jean Kirkpatrick, or Madeline Albright, or Condi Rice, or Clare Booth Luce, or Elizabeth Dole? Not.

     Posted by sbraunst at 02/04/2008 @ 1:55pm