MESSAGE TO OBAMA: CHANGE YOUR VIEW TO “OBAMA FOR WOMEN”

Unity symbols abound on the Democratic side of the presidential campaign these days. Barack Obama writes a personal check to help retire Hillary Clinton’s campaign debt; the two appear together, smiling, in Unity NH. He phones Bill. Fundraising events coming up in NY will find them together raising money for both Obama’s campaign and to pay Clinton’s debt.

Week before last,  I attended a breakfast where boldface New York Clinton supporters were invited by Women for Obama to bridge their candidate preference chasm. Perfect giant strawberries and mini-muffins remained untouched on their silver platters in the dining room, while former Random House scion Bob Bernstein’s elegant Upper East Side living room fairly burst with highly caffeinated women.  Gloria Steinem, iconic Hillary endorser who had already publicly thrown her support to Barack, urged us in her ever-optimistic way to support Obama in the “interest of our best interests.”

It was a tough and impassioned group, three groups actually. Some were quite ready to support Obama because, as someone said, “the alternative is unthinkable”. Others, too bruised or bitter to do otherwise, urged Hillary for vice-president. I count myself among those strong Clinton supporters who know Obama needs not just our votes but also our enthusiasm for victory.  This meeting didn’t get me there, and since then the candidate himself hasn’t helped his own cause.

Starting with his backing off of opposition to the federal abortion ban last week when questioned by evangelicals, then issuing political-speak “clarifications” aimed at smoothing over the breach with women’s groups, he is rapidly coming to exemplify politics as usual instead of a new politics of hope.

Don’t get me wrong. I lived in Arizona when John McCain carpetbagged down and was helped by his new father-in-law’s wealth to win his first Congressional term. Aside from not being the moderate maverick the press thinks he is, McCain in my experience is an abuser of power and a water carrier for the Bush administration’s retrograde positions, including his 100% anti-choice, anti-family planning, voting record.

INTENTIONING

Sex, Power, Pandemics, and How Women
Will Take The Lead for (Everyone’s) Good

The new book from Gloria Feldt about the future, taking the leadership lessons learned from this disruption and creating a better world for all through the power of intention.

So, sure, I’ll vote for Obama. Still, the fervor with which I’ll work for his election, when there are so many worthy state and Congressional candidates I can give time and money to, will be determined by what Obama does now. Peggy Kerry, sister of the 2004 Democratic presidential nominee acknowledged her brother realizes he didn’t reach out to women sufficiently; only 51% of women voted for him and that’s several points too low to create a gender gap capable of propelling a Democratic presidential candidate to victory. One prominent Clinton supporter nailed it, “women aren’t marginal; we’re the key”.

What Obama must do soon to get women like me to rally round is, in a nutshell: change his own point of view from from “Women for Obama” to “Obama for Women”.

I’ll have lots more to say about how in subsequent posts.

16 Comments

  1. Stacy on July 7, 2008 at 7:17 pm

    Obama has stumbled since he effectively grabbed the nomination- the worst thing he can do right now is what all Democrats do when they get the nomination- move to the right, politically. When it comes to the economy, healthcare, reproductive rights, even Iraq- most Americans are more in line with the Democratic platform than the the GOP platform.

    While I have been battling (rhetorically speaking) the so-called pro-Hillary PUMA’s (noquarterusa.net) on my blog and on theirs, who insist on voting for McCain, I can’t help but think that both of the Clinton’s endorsement of Obama has been a bit luke-warm, Unity, NH notwithstanding. If Hillary wants Hillary supporters to vote Democrat in November, she needs to reign in her husband and start appearing all over the country at Obama’s side- and preferably not looking stiff-as-a-board like I did on my first awkward date in Junior High with a guy, if you know what I mean.

    I agree that Obama needs to reach out to women and he can’t do that effectively if he is courting the hate-mongering so-called Christian ‘Right’- it’s time we called them what they are- why in the world he [Obama] would try to court that riff-raff is beyond me- let ’em vote for McCain as far as I’m concerned- they certainly weren’t going to vote for Hillary. The very idea that they would support him is ludicrous and I hope he’s not as pathetic as the Log Cabin Republicans are when they try to schmooze their own party for a ‘shout out’ now and again. It’s a pretty good rule of thumb to not support an interest group or political party that hates you- and the fact that Franklin Graham came out and asked Obama to pass his first litmus test by answering to whether or not he is Muslim, gives us a pretty good idea of where Obama ranks on their food chain.

    • LindaA1 on July 7, 2008 at 7:17 pm

      Stacy – I realize that Obama supporters are all over the map these days trying to fit this waffling candidate into a presidential figure. Your post is a perfect example of that struggle.

      Most Americans “may be more in line with the Democratic platform than with the GOP platform,” but there are plenty of Democrats who will not be voting for Obama. He’s going to have to go for disaffected Republicans and Independents to patch together enough votes to win the general election.

      On another note –

      I take issue with your characterization of PUMA members as “so-called” Hillary supporters if they choose to register their protest of an unfair election by voting for McCain and against Obama. For the life of me, I don’t understand where freedom of choice and public dissent went in this election.

      I am a fervent Hillary supporter and I will vote for John McCain if Hillary is not the nominee of the Democratic Party. I will never vote for Barack Obama – not with Hillary on the ticket, no matter how much he “woos” the women’s vote.

      Perhaps you are not willing to entertain the prospect of people who will vote for the principle of honesty and fairness over our so-called “best” interests. Best interests by whose definition?

      Perhaps you should consider that the very foundation of freedom in this country rests on our ability to have free and fair elections – and most certainly THAT constitutes our best interests.

      Most of us who will vote for McCain are not embracing his policies – quite the contrary. We feel free to vote for him in spite of his conservative positions since there will be a strong Democratic Majority in Congress.

      McCain will be unable to get conservative judges confirmed thus removing the Roe vs Wade fear tactic from the equation. McCain will not be able to continue Bush’s war if the Democratic Majority chooses to not fund his war. Hillary can be working on a health plan during McCain’s one-term presidency and be prepared to implement it on day one of her own presidency in 2012 – no time lost. Executive orders can be undone by a new President.

      While McCain and four years of deadlock are not ideal, they are much more palatable to rebelling Hillary supporters than eight years of Barack Obama.

      You seem incredulous in your post that Obama is doing some of the things he is doing. Perhaps the answer is so simple that it escapes you: perhaps it’s that he is simply not the politician you think / hope he is.

      BTW –

      The “rule of thumb” phrase you use in your post originates in a turn of the century (1900) law that mandated the following: a man may not beat his wife with a rod larger than the thickness of his thumb.

    • Gloria Feldt on July 7, 2008 at 7:18 pm

      Stacy, I throw my weight with your contention that voting for McCain is not the smart thing to do.

      LindaA1, thanks for the “rule of thumb” reminder.
      I’m ticked off too and I know revenge by voting for McCain might feel good momentarily, but the better strategy is to get in Obama’s face now and stay there through the election and beyond so that he stays on course with his positions on issues that we care about. There will be plenty of time and opportunity for Hillary to get even and reemerge in a stronger than ever position.

      A bitter pill for me to swallow was to see that Hillary made so many mistakes and missed so many opportunities in her own campaign. I have too much respect for her to heap blame upon her head. Anyone who makes it through such a grueling campaign is a heroine. But the truth is the race was hers to lose and she lost it by choosing the wrong consultants then not having the good judgment to override them and/or fire them sooner–including her husband. They banked too much on her experience argument and didn’t realize the mood of the country was someplace else. She and Bill have racked up so much resentment and angered so many former friends along the way–that always happens to any leader who does anything worthwhile by the way, so again I am not blaming, just stating some hard truths. But the upshot was that when presented with an alternative many people were willing to take it. This cannot be attributed solely or even primarily to Obama’s tricks even though I am sure there were some. She left herself vulnerable to being deserted.

      And unlike Obama who took the leadership leap to deal directly with race rather than allow it to fester and doom his candidacy, Clinton failed to address the rampant sexism in a way that would use the controversy to teach and to call Americans to their higher selves.

      She showed amazing persistence, toughness, and strength. But in the final analysis, it wasn’t that Obama won; it was that she lost. And in any race, someone wins and someone loses and you must go forward with an imperfect resolution.

      Do not for one minute think that a Democratic Senate will necessarily resist anti-choice judicial nominees. Many Democrats aren’t pro-choice because the party has not held their own caucus to a set of core principles. And what we saw in 2000 and 2004 is that when the Democratic leader doesn’t win, Congressional Democrats lose their spines rather quickly.

      I could go on, but this is plenty for now. Let me close by referring again to my immediately previous post on McCain. I know they guy too well. He is bad. You do not want him as your president no matter what.

      • LindaA1 on July 8, 2008 at 7:18 pm

        Gloria –

        Thank you for your comments.

        Well, you had a lot to say and my response is, unfortunately, a lot to say back.

        I’m not sure where my post gave you the impression that I am out for revenge. Certainly I am ticked off, and seeing Obama and the DNC leadership get their comeuppance would be sweet – but I am old enough to forego revenge in lieu of a good strategy.

        Tagging rebellious Hillary supporters with words like “revenge” and “grief-stricken” is a rather simplistic approach to dismissing our anger. Apparently, it’s a tactic to divert us from taking actions that might actually prevent the Obama campaign and the DNC from achieving their goals.

        Many Hillary supporters like me have looked long and hard at the situation and chosen to vote for McCain as a strategy. And I have no illusions that a Democratic majority may be gutless and spend four years running around like the headless chickens they usually are. However, I am willing to take the calculated risk that the majority will, at worst, revert to deadlock for the McCain term.

        I see no scenario that could result in a reversal on Roe unless the country makes an astounding right turn during the next four months and delivers Congress to a Republican majority. The Democrats harping on Roe are being disingenuous in an effort to scare voters. If a Democratic majority actually stoops to confirm a McCain conservative to the Supreme Court, then the reversal of Roe would be a Democratic action – not a GOP one.

        You also say “Hillary made so many mistakes…the race was hers to lose and she lost it by choosing the wrong consultants then not having the good judgment to override them and/or fire them sooner–including her husband…She left herself vulnerable to being deserted.”

        No doubt Hillary made mistakes. What candidate doesn’t? However, I see her primary campaign quite differently than what you describe.

        Barack Obama came out of nowhere and garnered rock star celebrity status almost instantly. He is the Harry Potter of politics – apparently with that same catnip affect on young people and gullible adults who like fantasy and happy endings. Add to that an understandable and irresistible ethnic appeal to blacks who historically vote in large numbers.

        To make the concoction totally unbeatable, let’s add a gazillion dollars worth of free swooning publicity from Obama’s thousands of unpaid press secretaries – the liberal media who not only fawned over Obama and covered his mistakes with breaking news of car chases in LA but turned on Hillary with a vengeance.

        The press relentlessly prodded Hillary supporters to believe that she was a goner at every turn – depressing her voter turn-out, and worse, depressing her fundraising abilities giving Obama a 3-1 financial edge over her in most campaign battles.

        Only when Reverend Wright emerged did a rip occur in the media’s finely-crafted tapestry of political deceit. Unfortunately, Iowa had already voted along with a number of other states and the deficit was too large for Hillary – and the voters – to overcome.

        Once a small amount of daylight was cast on Obama, Hillary started winning. And she continued winning until the last primary.

        BUT – enter the DNC and Democratic Party elite for a new low in political chicanery. You know the rest of the story.

        Looking at the odds against Hillary Clinton and the shameful advantages given to Barack Obama, how can anyone say this woman ran a terrible campaign? Given the impossible circumstances, Hillary Clinton was a genius campaigner to weather the normal campaign pitfalls and to end her run almost even with Obama and ahead of him in the popular vote.

        You remark that Hillary did not address sexism in her campaign. You laude Obama for addressing racism. You seem to believe the two are interchangeable as issues. Surely you must realize that race was a plus for Obama – he certainly knew it. People in this country are hyper-sensitive to racism and Obama played that to his advantage – to the hilt and in very clever ways.

        Sexism. What sexism? Sexism is so institutionalized in our society that even feminists are conflicted about what it is and isn’t nowadays. Had Hillary complained about sexism, she would have been crucified by the already-negative media. Even the hint of a sexism complaint was ridiculed by Obama surrogates and pundits. Had sexism become an issue, Hillary could have immediately kissed those blue collar white guys’ votes goodbye.

        You encourage us to support Obama’s presidency and push him to do the right thing once he is in office. Barack Obama has shown absolutely no desire to do anything except what is politically expedient for him. I would like to share your optimism but I have observed that the time to change a man is before you marry him.

        I appreciate your cautions about McCain. I don’t see him as a nice guy. But I don’t see Obama as a nice guy either. So I’ve chosen to support a hamstrung, lame-duck not nice guy in the presidency rather than a not nice guy with a free hand to do as he pleases.

        I’m hoping for a successful do-over in four years.

  2. Stacy on July 8, 2008 at 7:19 pm

    Ah, Linda says what I have been fearing since Obama got the nod- the pro-McCain ‘Hillary supporters’ (PUMAS) just want a do-over in four years, regardless of how damaging 4 more years of GOP rule will be. If Obama wins, they fear he will be President for eight years, thus not allowing Hillary to run again for quite a while. I have to say, as someone who admires what Hillary has accomplished, I cannot ever sign on to such a cynical, politically expedient plan that might well benefit the career aspirations of Hillary, but puts the rest of the country at so much risk.

    Obviously, people can vote for whoever they please. As someone who would have pulled the lever for Hillary had she won the nomination, I have to believe that she [Hillary] is not so cynical as to be planning what Linda and others with like mind are planning. But then again, I don’t know that for sure. My father, a 76 year old democrat who came to visit me this past weekend, thinks that is exactly what Bill Clinton has in mind and I wince at the thought of it.

    Justice John Paul Stevens may not last 4 more years and another anti-choice justice will see Roe overruled and an executive branch even more out of control than it already is. Our Constitution is in tatters and the same republicans who so royally screwed up in their assessments of Iraq, are planning the very same for Iran. Four more years of that? No, I can’t do it.

  3. Stacy on July 8, 2008 at 7:19 pm

    I have a question for linda and I would like to apologize if I came across as too harsh above but I am really struggling to understand the reasoning behind voting for Clinton and then supporting mccain- someone whose social policies are diametrically opposed to everything Hillary has fought for her entire career.

    It seems to me that your support of Hillary is more about her as a person than her position on the issues otherwise how can the above inconsistencies in policy be reconciled? As I said above, anyone has the right to vote 4 whom they choose and we also have the right to voice our disagreement with each others choices, which is what we are doing right now.

    While I find the democratic party 2 be politically tone-deaf and ineffectuve at times, I simply cannot imagine what would happen if each time there was a nomination process, the supporters of the losing candidates responded by actively trying to ensure a GOP victory out of anger, revenge or out of a desire to position their candidate 4 a “doover” as you say, in 4 years- that strategy seems very short-sighted and self-defeating- it would be the GOPs wet dream of course…

    I also agree with Gloria on the point of Hillary making some important mistakes she and her advisors made in the hopes that she and other candidates learn from it but some Hillary supporters are unwilling to acknowledge Hillary is even capable of making a mistake which sounds more like blind loyalty, which frankly, we’ve had 2 much of with president bush. I also don’t understand the intense hatred towards obama which some (I am not saying you linda b/c I don’t know you)seem to feel – I have read unbelievable smears against obama which seem eerily reminiscent of those used against the Clinton – I understand the anger, yes, but not the hateful invective I have seen.

    Sorry 4 the type, I’m on a handheld computer and not great at texting

  4. Stacy on July 8, 2008 at 7:20 pm

    Ok, the typos in my post were horrendous- sorry ’bout that.

  5. Punditmom on July 8, 2008 at 7:21 pm

    I wish we could assume we would see a sign like that soon. But Obama has made it pretty clear that he feels not compulsion to reach out. Michelle and his daughters better have a little chat with him soon.

    Ultimately, I will swallow hard and check the Obama box on the ballot, even though I really don’t want to. But I will work hard to find another Democrat for 2012.

  6. LindaA1 on July 8, 2008 at 7:21 pm

    Stacy –

    It never ceases to amaze me that so many people can be so confused and dumbfounded by a legitimate group of U. S. citizens who have decided to draw a line in the sand and stand firm against runaway corruption in our government.

    Thank God, such voices did not prevail during the American Revolution, the Women’s Suffrage Movement, the Civil Rights Movement. And wouldn’t they have been real Tea Party Poopers in Boston Harbor?

    YOU SAY –

    “Ah, Linda says what I have been fearing…the pro-McCain ‘Hillary supporters’ (PUMAS) just want a do-over in four years, regardless of how damaging 4 more years of GOP rule will be.”

    First, I take issue for the second time with your disparaging us Hillary supporters who reject Obama with your use of quotation marks around “Hillary supporters.” That kind of pejorative dismissal only reinforces our resolve to rebel against disrespect wherever we find it in this political arena.

    Second, you imply that we “just” want a do-over in four years. I don’t understand how you can read my previous comments and still come to the conclusion that we are such shallow beings – or politically callous hacks – that we only care that “our gal wins” and to hell with the country.

    Check out the Philosophy Page of JUST SAY NO DEAL – the coalition group of anti-Obama supporters. It seems pretty straightforward to me:

    “OUR PHILOSOPHY – If the parties won’t uphold democratic principles, who will? If the voters don’t hold the parties accountable, who will?”

    This is not about Hillary Clinton. This is about the principles of fairness and honesty in elections and our belief that these are the very foundation of our freedoms in this country.

    YOU SAY –

    “…I am really struggling to understand the reasoning behind voting for Clinton and then supporting mccain (sic) – someone whose social policies are diametrically opposed to everything Hillary has fought for her entire career.”

    Hillary was and is our candidate. We do not accept the presumptive nomination of Barack Obama as anything other than a repeat of the 2000 stolen election and a repeat of the swiftboat corruption of the 2004 election.

    Again I repeat – our rebellion is not about Hillary Clinton or policy. IT IS ABOUT THE CORRUPTION in our political process, particularly in this and the last two elections.

    Certainly the fact that Hillary was a woman running for President – and the despicable spectacle of sexism that reared its ugly head in the process – makes the corruption harsher to swallow.

    Certainly centuries of political, social, emotional and sexual abuse endured by women at the hands of misogynistic men (and women) reached the threshold of critical mass in this very public and celebrated crushing of women’s hopes – hopes that society had embraced them beyond this devastating marginalization of their significance as equal human beings.

    The anger is visceral. It is this country’s good fortune that the energy of it is being channeled into a righteous cause.

    Democratic leaders and pundits and surrogates would do well to recognize the intensity and depth of what they are dealing with. It is at their own peril that they continue to jab the wound with disrespecting, demeaning and dismissing characterizations and demands.

    Perhaps CNN’s Bill Schneider and others should search a little deeper before continuing their smug renditions of simple-minded Hillary-lovers working their way through levels of the grief process – even pinpointing the timing of how many weeks it will take for us to traverse “anger and denial” and fall into place with “acceptance.”

    We are not grieving Hillary Clinton’s loss to the exclusion of our good common sense. Most of us have already moved past that phase. We are in fighting mode now.

    Apparently there are Hillary supporters who see Obama and Clinton as the same politician with the same policies – different in race and gender only.

    I see an experienced, well-known, mainstream centrist Democrat being ousted from the Presidential race by an inexperienced, unknown, radical ultra-liberal Democrat. Politicians, like all of us, ultimately dance to the tune of their own inner moral compasses and personal philosophies. Obama and Clinton are light-years apart in these respects.

    BARACK OBAMA CANNOT HELP BUT BECOME THE POLITICIAN OF HIS LONG-TIME CHOSEN SOCIAL AND POLITICAL ENVIRONMENT.

    Hillary, corruption, sexism and everything else aside – I can no more vote for Barack Obama than I could vote for the Reverend Jeremiah Wright.

    Obviously there are those who supported Hillary Clinton who can stomach this illicit primary and tolerate the corruption in the Democratic Party in order to win at all costs. Certainly Hillary Clinton – being a professional politician – can do that in her own way.

    I can only say we have chosen different paths of patriotism.

    Change almost always begins at the margins with folks mad enough or patriotic enough or fed-up enough to fly in the face of power. This just may be one of those times that count.

    • Stacy on July 8, 2008 at 7:22 pm

      Linda-
      Thanks for your detailed response.

      I am still wondering if McCain wins the presidency, how is Hillary Clinton’s vision for America being honored and how does it solve the problem of a corrupt political process, at least with respect to the Democratic Party? I’m all for rebellion but I still don’t see how progressive principles are furthered with this particular rebellion that you are supporting.

      Also, you did said you were hoping for a “do-over, specifically this is what you said:

      “I appreciate your cautions about McCain. I don’t see him as a nice guy. But I don’t see Obama as a nice guy either. So I’ve chosen to support a hamstrung, lame-duck not nice guy in the presidency rather than a not nice guy with a free hand to do as he pleases.

      I’m hoping for a successful do-over in four years.”-

      I’m sorry you take issue with my interpretation of that, but I still see it the same way that I did in my comment above- working to get McCain in office so that Hillary can run in 2012 is certainly your RIGHT to CHOOSE whom you want to support (I don’t think anyone claimed it wasn’t), but to me its not worth another ultra-conservative Supreme Court Justice on the bench (not to mention possibly hundreds more on the lower federal courts), erosion of gay rights, war with Iran and continued erosion of the Constitution. I ultimately supported Hillary for her progressive stand on social issues and McCain seems to represent the exact opposite and I’m having a hard time reconciling that. But maybe I’m just slow.

      I would wholeheartedly agree that Hillary was the target of repulsive sexism but I don’t think that Barack Obama was the primary source of all of it, or even some of it although I do wish he spoke out forcibly against it from the get-go. That said, it seems like some people are making Obama into the devil himself while not being willing to perhaps entertain the idea that maybe Hillary Clinton had a hand in some aspects of her campaigns downfall. When I go to some of the PUMA websites I am amazed at some of the allegations and smears used against Obama- as I said above, it’s ironic that it’s the same sort of nonsense Hillary and Bill fought against for so many years. A lot of it (not all) looked and continues to like swift-boating (for example the “Obama had gay sex while doing cocaine in the back seat of a limo with Larry Sinclair” nonsense) to me and quite frankly, I didn’t like when either candidate took part in it.

      You said:

      “I see an experienced, well-known, mainstream centrist Democrat being ousted from the Presidential race by an inexperienced, unknown, radical ultra-liberal Democrat. Politicians, like all of us, ultimately dance to the tune of their own inner moral compasses and personal philosophies. Obama and Clinton are light-years apart in these respects. ”

      Exactly how is Obama a “radical ultra-liberal”- I’m just wondering because if that’s what he is, then I must be an off-the-charts, radical…I’m not sure which policies you are specifically referring to but now it makes sense why when I go to PUMA websites I am referred to as a Communist.

      As for experience, I also didn’t realize that not having lived in the political mud-swamp of Washington DC for 10+ years- the heart of the corrupt system which you dislike so much- makes one too inexperienced to be President. And while I certainly believe Hillary would make a great president and has all the experience, strength, intelligence she needs to do the job well, the fact that she was married to a former president and had access to the Washington elite, doesn’t necessarily make her any more qualified to be President (in and of itself), than anyone else who had been the First Spouse- I always found that experience argument to be strange, given she, like Obama, also hadn’t held elected office until she became the Senator of NY.

      You say:

      “OUR PHILOSOPHY – If the parties won’t uphold democratic principles, who will? If the voters don’t hold the parties accountable, who will?”

      You also say:

      “Again I repeat – our rebellion is not about Hillary Clinton or policy. IT IS ABOUT THE CORRUPTION in our political process, particularly in this and the last two elections.”

      So by supporting Obama’s adversary, helping him win the presidency and then voting for Hillary in 2012 if things play out that way, all the corruption in both political parties will be resolved? And the rest of us who vote OUR principles are simply shills for a corrupt system? If I vote for Obama based on my particular set of principles (ie. not wanting certain rights, which I deem as fundamental, to be eroded further) even if I don’t think he’s the best thing since sliced bread, am I being inherently corrupt and unprincipled?

  7. Gloria Feldt on July 8, 2008 at 7:22 pm

    The plot keeps thickening. See my new post.

    On the subject of corruption, there is a good reason for the saying that one shouldn’t watch laws or sausages being made. I don’t know of any politician who is totally principled all the time or unprincipled all the time. We voters always have to choose from among imperfect vessels of our aspirations for a better life and a more just nation.But choose we must.

    I think this conversation between Linda and Stacy is one of the most important ones I have seen in a while.It’s worth really pondering over.

    Meanwhile, Stacy, I wonder what StoutHouse is thinking about his candidate? Stout, where did you go?

  8. lindaA1 on July 9, 2008 at 7:23 pm

    Stacy –

    I don’t believe I backed off my “do-over” wish at all. I do want to see another Hillary Clinton run for the Presidency in 2012 – yes.

    However, in four years, my great hope is that the rebellious bloc of Hillary’s supporters have made real headway in cleaning up the mess we call the Democratic Leadership with its ridiculous party rules and unfair election mechanisms.

    What the GOP does is up to them.

    Until this election is over, we will be dedicated to supporting the defeat of Barack Obama and the DNC and depriving the MSM of choosing the next President of the United States.

    Once this election is over, we fully intend to busy ourselves with building an organization devoted to a number of goals:

    We are looking at media boycotts to rid the airways of the army of campaign operatives masquerading as reporters, anchors, analysts and credible pundits.

    We are devoted to dismantling the ridiculous Democratic primary election mechanism with its absurd caucuses, proportional allocation of delegates, super delegates and bonus delegates. The schedule of primaries needs a complete overhaul to insure fairness among the states.

    And we are determined to move against the corruption in the Democratic National Committee – ridding ourselves of the likes of Howard Dean and his cronies – to prevent another illicit DNC appointment of our Presidential nominee.

    To accomplish these lofty goals, even you would have to admit that a general election defeat for the Democratic Party in the 2008 election puts major re-organization in play. A win by the Democrats almost guarantees business as usual for another eight to twelve years and beyond.

    You continue to play the “conservative Supreme Court nominee” fear card. I believe I have addressed that at least twice already. There is surely going to be a Democratic majority in the Senate. It takes a whopping 2/3’s vote to confirm a nominee. Unless the Democrats are itching for Roe to be overturned, explain to me how you see Roe as an issue in this election cycle? Specifically with what scenario do you see a McCain conservative being confirmed?

    You have indicated several times that Hillary supporters appear blind to Hillary’s failures and imperfections. I’m sure some are. I am not. On the contrary, I see all politicians as necessary boogey people – like dentists – nobody likes to have one but when you’ve got a toothache, who else can fix it?

    Unlike you, I am not willing to give Obama a pass on the sexism rampant in this campaign. Hillary was hamstrung in her ability to complain about it. Obama was free to shut it down if he had so chosen. Instead, he got big payoffs for lacing subtle sexism into his criticisms of Hillary – much as you do, I might add.

    YOU SAY –

    “While I certainly believe Hillary would make a great president and has all the experience, strength, intelligence she needs to do the job well, the fact that she was married to a former President and had access to the Washington elite doesn’t necessarily make her any more qualified to be President than anyone else who had been the First Spouse.”

    I believe it is a stipulated fact that Hillary Clinton is a hard worker – a roll-up your sleeves, burn the midnight oil, fight until you drop kind of public servant. Clinton changed the role of First Lady from the adoring wife appendage to a working partner (for good or bad). Yet, you – AND BARACK OBAMA – attempt to diminish her public service during those eight years to that of a mere appendage to her husband.

    First that is sexist based on your slight to the position of wives everywhere. Second, that is sexist given that you attempt to equate the demanding public position of First Lady to that of an average “housewife.” While you may be able to parse your way out of your sexist implication, if you do not mean to diminish the position of First Spouse – why bring up the subject of “spouse” at all?

    AND THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT BARACK OBAMA DID DURING THE CAMPAIGN – repeatedly. He ridiculed Hillary’s public service as First Lady joking at times about her “flying around the world having tea with heads of state.”

    You – and Obama – readily admit that Hillary has the bona fides to be President. Why then is it necessary to disrespect, dismiss and demean her role as First Lady? Surely being First Lady of the United States of America is at least comparable to being a community organizer in Southside Chicago.

    As for comparing Obama’s lack of experience with Hillary’s formidable resume – If you really wish to make the comparison, I will gladly look up links to the numerous online comparisons available.

    You seem to believe that being an Obama supporter subjects you to excessive vitriol from Hillary supporters on the blogs. I often go on suicide missions to Obama-friendly websites. Usually, I need a good therapist afterwards – or a long, cleansing shower. The crazed lunatics and perverts and hateful name-callers are on both sides.

    YOU SAY –

    “Exactly how is Obama a ‘radical ultra-liberal’ – I’m just wondering because if that’s what he is, then I must be an off-the-charts, radical.”

    Okay 🙂

  9. Stout House on July 9, 2008 at 7:24 pm

    Hi, Gloria. I’m here, but holding my tongue on this thread. Every time Linda posts something my head starts pounding and I feel a torrential, book-length post coming on. A post I’m certain would be ineffective against so absurd a position as hers. Mostly I’m fearful of a headlong plunge down the rabbit hole of lengthy tit-for-tat posts such as we exchanged during the primary season, particularly as Linda is already too far gone to change her mind. She is energetic and eloquent, yes, but that eloquence is masquerading as strategic thinking, and it’s utterly wrong. Sorry, Linda, but you’re no more a political strategist than Hillary Clinton turned out to be. Blind and tone-deaf to the end.

    As for my feelings about Obama, I’ll admit to being alarmed of late, but also mindful that I never expected to agree with him on every issue. His FISA position is understandable enough politically speaking, and the flap about his alleged flip-flop on the 16-month Iraq withdrawal plan is a non-issue. From the outset he’s said we need to be as careful getting out as we were careless going in. Period.

    Bottom line, though: Obama wants out, while Linda’s candidate wants not only to stay in, but to stay while simultaneously “bomb, bomb, bombing” Iran.

    What’s hardest for me to swallow is Obama’s proposed expansion of Bush’s faith-based initiatives. But again, it’s really no surprise considering his lifelong association with the church. I’m an atheist who viscerally despises religious institutions of all faiths, but still I support Obama. In the end what’s worse, more taxpayer dollars going to churches who (at least in part) care for the poor? Or, if Linda gets her way, many billions more taxpayer dollars going to support the brutalization, murder and incineration of countless more men, women, and children in Iraq? And what about the young American soldiers who will die during McCain’s first term, while Linda’s strategy plays itself out? Then there’s the economy, offshore drilling, Supreme Court appointments, the future of the entire planet. Sacrificing more American lives and imperiling the very Earth should be part of no one’s “strategy.”

    Linda claims to be a pragmatist, willingly voting to continue the murder and mutilation of thousands more innocent Iraqis and American soldiers under John McCain’s leadership. My pragmatism is different. I despise Obama’s blatant religiosity but cast my vote for the peace-minded fruit his deeply-held Christian philosophy will bear. True Christian philosophy, not the corrupted version held by McCain and George W. Bush. There is so much blood on their hands, and on Hillary’s hands, and on the hands of every last American who voted for George W. Bush in 2004, after it was clear what horrors his ineptitude and jingoism had created. It’s an outrage. These PUMA people would do well to remember that, and vote accordingly.

    • LindaA1 on July 9, 2008 at 7:24 pm

      Stout –

      I guess we’ll have to wait and see who the better political strategist is.

      Yes, obviously my posts are too long to hold your attention since you make unending accusations that are grossly unrelated to what I actually said.

      Instead, you revert to the same old lazy Obama opposition rhetoric that I’ve heard ad nauseam which – if thrown against the wall long enough – will stick in some less politically interested minds. And you do Obama’s campaign bidding well as you attempt to bog me down in useless blah-blah mire.

      As a courtesy, I’ll keep this post very brief for you.

      Well, that’s a bit disingenuous…

      The truth is, I want to stay out of your brain so that you can clearly attribute that certain future “head pounding” to your GROWING ALARM about Obama.

      • Stout House on July 9, 2008 at 7:25 pm

        Yes, Linda, I suppose we’ll have to wait and see. Four blood-soaked years to be precise, possibly eight if you get your way and John McCain becomes the next president. Meanwhile Baghdad is burning, our economy is tanking, John McCain is ready to start drilling for oil on our nation’s coastlines, and he would like nothing more than to prevent a woman’s right to choose by repealing Roe v. Wade. This is not a scare tactic, merely the way things are.

        So if by “useless blah-blah mire” you mean the temerity I display by invoking reality (or what you call “the same old lazy Obama opposition rhetoric that I’ve heard ad nauseam”), I have to ask: How do you sleep at night?

        • LindaA1 on July 9, 2008 at 7:25 pm

          Very well. Thanks for asking.

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.