Frank Rich has sealed the deal!!

In a recent opinion column at the NYTimes Frank Rich wrote about the new demographics in the Democratic Party and how Obama will win in November. It is comprised of "mobilized young voters, blacks and women, among them many of Clinton-supporting Democrats (and independents and Republicans) unlikely to entertain a G.O.P. candidate with a perfect record of voting against abortion rights." Well there you have it!! We women are a lock for Obama, right Frank? NOT SO FAST.... Does anyone think I will go lemming-like to the voting booth in November because of the Supreme Court ? Or as one past comment read, McCain (may have) called his wife the c-word drawing the conclusion that I could not possibly vote for a man like that? Mmm..let me count the votes I have cast for men who have embarrassed me and humiliated their wives. Much more important to me is what I think about the dismissive treatment of me as a voter and a democrat and the disrespect and hate for Hillary, an amazing woman who is a sitting US Senator and a former First Lady of this country.

I cannot believe I am saying this but I am so close to leaving the Democratic Party or maybe I am waking up to the fact, they don't want me. Not one democratic party official, elected or otherwise has said anything against the sexist, hate-filled speech of the press. I am referring to both TV....Keith O of MSNBC who wanted someone to take Hillary out back and return without her implying she should be killed, and the print media lead by the vicious, vitriolic opinion columns of Rich and Dowd. If anyone uses race in any context, the Obama camp and the media scream racism but just laugh at the "humor" of sexism. A very good example of this is the Hillary Clinton nutcracker sold in airports around the country. I saw one on display in Washington DC. It is disgusting!! Can you imagine what would happen if someone sold a doll of Obama eating watermelon?? Believe me, that would be a lot less offensive than Hillary spreading her thighs waiting for the next nut to be inserted and cracked.

Maybe the bumper sticker I saw had it right....Bros Before Hos. When Frederick Douglas and Susan B. Anthony worked together for voting rights for blacks and women, Mr Douglas told 

Miss Anthony to step aside and let the black men have the vote because it didn't seem probable that both of them could achieve voting rights at the same time.  But perhaps one of the two disenfranchised groups alone might have a chance. Of course, Douglas wanted black men first. Susan B. refused to step aside and they parted ways not speaking for years. Black men did get the vote first and it was another 17 years before women were afforded the privilege. In their later years, Douglas and Anthony became friends again but what happened in history does have a familiar ring today, doesn't it?

Some agree with Frank Rich and are certain I must vote for the democratic nominee because of what might happen to abortion rights. But no, I am not influenced by the scare tactic of the "last" Supreme Court appointment that could overturn Roe v. Wade in the hands of a John McCain. Besides, no one gets to the Supreme Court without the consent of the Senate. The Democratic Majority in the Senate can exercise their power (if they grow a backbone) and deny any nominee submitted by the President that would do away with a woman's right to choose. Women's Rights are about a lot more than just abortion. It is the economy, stupid! One that doesn't pay women the same as men and health care that must cover everyone if it is to be effective. 

I will not be scared, abused or dismissed.

I will stand for me and other women who will throw off party affiliation and vote for the person who stands with us and that may be a write-in or an absent ballot (that is not a typo).

Think again, Frank Rich, this woman cannot be counted on. I will not step aside or go away gracefully. This may be the beginning of a new revolution but it is definitely not a new coalition.

Odds and ends.....

Sorry for the long absence from writing but I had to concentrate on speech writing. Last night at the event, someone at the table asked me if I had canned speeches that I simply updated and modified to fit the group. I was shocked because obviously this person thought I gave a lot of speeches....which I don't. I had spent the last week writing and rewriting. It wasn't easy and so my answer was no, this is brand new. And I hope I don't have to do it again soon. But throughout the week, I have logged on to the news blogs and followed the election results. Along the way, I came across a bunch of information and comments that I thought interesting and I wanted to share the thoughts with you. It is not the kind of stuff that makes the nightly network and cable news shows (and I wonder why) but it does make one think....this is truly the most exciting race in my lifetime and maybe ever. History will have a lot to say about this one. I did not write any of the words below, they are collected from many different writers on the internet.....So, here goes....did you know????

Look at 1992. Bill Clinton is fond of saying he didn’t wrap up the Democratic nomination until June 2 of that year, when he won the California primary. That’s technically true, but Clinton was the clear winner long before that. Nevertheless, former California Gov. Jerry Brown stubbornly stayed in the race, even though going into June 2, he had 388 delegates to Clinton’s 2,059. (Clinton’s total was, at the time, 86 short of locking up the nomination.)

The West Virginia results were as across-the-board as you can get. She (Hillary) won 57-34 among men and 70-24 among women. She won 64-25 among voters who attend church more than once a week and 64-34 among voters who never go to church. She won 69-24 among voters without a college degree and 54-39 among voters with a degree. She won 69-25 among voters who make less than $50,000 a year and 58-34 among voters who make more than that. She won 65-28 among voters who think the economy is the most important issue, 57-37 among voters who think the war in Iraq is the most important issue, and 68-23 among voters who think health care is the most important issue. She won 67-26 among white voters. (We don’t know the breakdown among black voters, because they were too few in number — West Virginia is 95 percent white — for exit pollsters to calculate, although results in other states suggest that blacks probably voted 90-plus percent for Obama.) She won 67-25 among voters who have a union member in their household and 63-31 among voters who don’t. She won 56-38 among voters under 30 years old, 63-27 among voters between 30 and 44 years old, 65-27 among voters between 45 and 59 years old, and 68-28 among voters 60 and older. Among all voters, 70 percent want the campaign to continue, against just 24 percent who want it to end as soon as possible.

Since 2005, Barack Obama has donated three times as much as Senator Clinton to Democratic superdelagates. The study found that the presidential candidate who gave more money to superdelegates received the endorsements 82 percent of the time. As noted in the Weekly Standard.

In 1980, Kennedy came into the Democratic convention at Madison Square Garden in New York City with 1,225 delegates to President Carter's 1,981, with 122 delegates uncommitted.
Kennedy stood on principle and people admired him for the fighting the good fight.
If Kennedy could take it to the convention when he trailed by 756 delegates, why can't Hillary go to the convention trailing by far less? Would it be so awful?

Barely a third of Clinton supporters say they’d vote for Obama over John McCain in a November matchup. As many claim they’d vote for Republican John McCain and a quarter said they would not vote for president. If that horse race were Clinton vs. McCain, half of Obama backers say they’d vote for Clinton, about three in 10 say they’d back McCain and the rest would stay home. Only a third of Hillary supporters say they will back Obama in a General Election. Barely a third! Another third said they would vote for John McCain. And 25% of them said they wouldn’t vote for anyone. Among Obama supporters 50% said they would back Hillary but 30% said they would vote for McCain. And 20% wouldn’t vote at all.

I am a woman who has fought for women's rights her whole live. Who once sat in a factory in Ithaca New York and wanted to tear it apart brick by brick as she remembered her mother's life eaten up by the numbing, mind stealing, life sapping work of putting the same 5 parts together on an assembly line for Grayson Heat Control. She did this for eight hours a day, five days a week, year in, and year out until her dreams become memories, and then they were nowhere to be found at all. I knew those dreams well, and I saw them eaten alive by a world that counts women's dreams less than anyone else's.

I mean I have never in all my life seen anything as tenacious, as determined, as strong, as committed, as inspiring and ultimately as Powerful as Hillary Rodham Clinton fighting for Her Fair Place in this nomination fight. This woman will take you home. She will rock your world. She can be the President of the United States--and she will start working for you and me on Day One. And if you don't think that would be pretty powerful, take a good look at her now. Because Hillary Rodham Clinton in the home state of Mothers Day is going to Rock the Vote like you have never dreamed. (referring to the West Virginia primary)

Have a great weekend!!!!

Obama is tired!?!!??

Okay, so the headline under the video (click on Taylor Marsh to the right) said something about fatigue causing Obama to say he had campaigned in 57 states not counting Alaska and Hawaii because his staff said he shouldn't---that makes 59 states!!! And he also misstated the number of dead in Burma....he said 100 billion and then corrected himself the next day saying he meant 100 thousand. I think its interesting that he said Burma, the old name of Myanmar. Did his memory slip or the pronunciation? Oh, but he is tired.....all that campaigning does a young guy in, doesn't it?? It causes him to fumble his words, misspeak....Mmmm..and he is winning! What will he do if he falls behind or has the demands of a general election? I guess it is true, women do have to be twice as good as men to get the same job---I just didn't know we had to be twice as strong too. This man who is touted for his words...turns out without that teleprompter and speechwriters, he is mere mortal.

President Mc Cain

Last night's primary results while split, did not move Hillary forward enough and that is disappointing for her fans. However, I am not giving up yet on Hillary. I will do whatever she says because she is my leader. As long as she is in it, so am I.

So, you ask, why the title above.....Well, I just read a blog from a democrat who said we need to get use to hearing, "President McCain." And whether we like it or not, it may be true. When McCain was counted out last summer and went out alone in New Hampshire and won, I thought then, this may be his destiny. When you look at his history, it is a remarkable story and when I saw him some months ago on Meet the Press, the word, "authentic" kept popping up in my head. McCain has the feel of a person you can trust.

Just the opposite, Obama is an elegant speaker but carries a questionable track record in job performance and associates. I do not have a sense of trust about him. Obama's speech last night was brilliant but I couldn't help noticing again, the teleprompters and the prepared remarks. He is not the same in interviews and debates. He reminds me of Adlai Stevenson (yes, my first love in politics) also from Chicago. Adlai was an elegant man, brilliant and..... a two time loser for the presidency. Obama may be the black version of Adlai. I just don't see how he wins this in spite of the negative numbers for the republicans. Those low Bush ratings may translate into increased numbers for the democrats in the Senate and House but not necessarily the Presidency. The fact that the polls today show a close race for the presidency in spite of huge opposition to Bush policies may be an indication the public is not holding McCain responsible for much of what is going on today. His biggest problem is the war. The present polls show that it might not be any different with Hillary as the candidate but I think she has more stomach for the fight than Barack. Get ready for lots of whining and accusations of racism.

And here is a list of names, some of which you are familiar with but not all, I am sure. If Obama is the candidate, they will be a part of the general election, guaranteed. Look them up......Tony Rezko, Nadhmi Auchi, Bernadine Dohrn, William Ayers, Rashid Khalidi and the favorite, Jerimiah Wright. The 527's are all ready set to go.

High Falls Film Festival

I attended some events this past week at the High Falls Film festival and am pleased to report that the festival is growing and doing well. I did see a couple of movies and intend to go to the audience award winners (Phoebe in Wonderland and Autism:the Musical) tonight. I also saw Fermat's Room, an intricately drawn, suspenseful drama about puzzles and murder. A surprise for me was the Iranian film, Bride of Fire which powerfully presented the cultural differences between rural tribes and the younger more educated generation living in Tehran when it comes to love and marriage. The festival had movie star wattage with guests Rita Moreno and Bill Pullman. Bill was there to promote his movie, Phoebe in Wonderland and he is from nearby Steuben County. He was warm and amusing in his presentation of the Susan B. Anthony award to Rita Moreno, one of a handful of people to win all four prestigious awards. (Oscar, Tony, Emmy and Grammy) I was lucky enough to meet both at one of the casual parties after the screenings and I can report they are both charming and fun, especially Rita. Jack Garner, retired Gannett movie critic interviewed Ms Moreno on stage at the theater and she was delightful telling her stories about the movies she has been in and the people she has worked with. She continues to work in the movies and television (Oz).

All in all, the festival looks healthy and the hopes are high for the future. There were some glitches...the shuttle that never came, projection issues, standing in the rain when you have paid for an all access pass wondering again what the benefit was supposed to be, but these are small compared to the over-all feeling that this film festival is very special for Rochester and can only get bigger and better. (If I get better at this stuff, I will post a couple of pictures---probably with the help of my daughter when I visit her next week)

As the superdelegates turn.....

I listened to the latest superdelegate turn from Clinton to Obama explaining what he had just learned about Obama and it inspired him to switch.....the only problem with his reason was that everything he said (BO against the war, inspirational speaker, a unifying leader) did not just come to light causing his sudden turn; these attributes, if you will, were there months ago, even from the beginning, so why now....???? A person I used to work with always said, "When you don't understand something, look for the money." And I don't understand some of the moves to Obama, i.e. Richardson, etc. so I found the money. (those thirty pieces of silver that James Carville talked about). Also, if the numbers I am going to give you below were reversed, and it was Clinton giving three times as much money to superdelegates, you can bet it would be all over the news but no....you have to get this info from me. I tried to copy the entire list of individual contributions by the candidates to the superdelegate legislators and could not fit it on this page logistically so I will give you the totals. There has been a total of $947,006 given by both clinton and obama to legislator superdelegates. Of that, Obama has given 710,926 and Clinton, 236,080. For the source and the full list, click on the Taylor Marsh link on the side of this post and go to her red column of postings at that site. It is interesting isn't it? What is that expression...Show me the money!

"I HATE HILLARY"

I have heard this from men and women and it always shocks me. Hate is a very visceral reaction to a person or thing. Why? I often ask? Why do you HATE Hillary? What has she done to deserve such a strong reaction? Below is a post from the Taylor Marsh website that I think is interesting. It does not answer the question but it is enlightening and worth reading. What do you think?

A Family Fight or a License to Hate?
guest post by Joanne Parrent

So, Democrats, the media tells us we are in the midst of a “family fight.”

To introduce myself and my family, I am a latte-drinking, white, college-educated progressive Democrat who, despite my demographic, supports Hillary Clinton. Maybe it is because I am also a woman over 45. My mother and my late father are “blue collar” Democrats. My Dad worked in a factory in the Detroit area all his life and my mother, in a medical supply house. My mother, whose vote doesn’t count – for now at least – because she lives in Michigan, supports Hillary. My younger sister, another educated progressive Democrat, (who, oddly, thinks Starbucks coffee is too bitter and doesn’t drink lattes), voted for Obama. We had several “family fights” about this, mostly by email since I live in the great Hillary-supporting state of California and my sister lives in Maryland, an Obama stronghold.

It occurs to me that my “family fight” somewhat mirrors the Democratic primary that the media has frequently characterized as a “family fight.” Therefore, I thought Democrats, particularly those latte (or non-latte) drinking, educated, progressive, blog-reading Democrats in the upcoming primaries, would like to hear about my family fight and what I learned from it, in the hope that it could illuminate the larger battle.

When I asked my sister why she didn’t want to vote for the first viable female candidate for President – and a brilliant person as well – she told me that she “hates” Hillary Clinton. Stunned at the intensity of her feelings, I asked her “Why?” She proceeded to give me some reasons that I found startlingly similar to the Obama campaign talking points:

1) Sister: Hillary voted for the war in Iraq.
Me: Actually, she voted to give the President the authorization to go to war so the threat of war would force Saddam Hussein to allow UN inspectors back into Iraq, which it did. Bush, not Hillary, then decided to stop those inspections before they were done and invade Iraq. (I sent her an article in the Huffington Post by anti-war activist, former Ambassador and husband of Valerie Plame, Joe Wilson, about this.)
Sister: I don’t have time for this. She still voted for the war, and Obama was against the war.
Me: Obama didn’t have to make that tough decision. He wasn’t in the Senate. He wasn’t representing the state of New York that had been devastated on 9/11. He just gave a speech at an anti-war rally in Chicago, in his very safe, very liberal State Senate District. How much courage did that take?
Sister: Look, I’m inspired by Obama. Democrats have the right to be inspired too, you know.
Me: Okay, you like the guy. I am not crazy about him, myself. He seems like a snake oil salesman, selling hope and change. But I don’t “hate” him, and you still haven’t answered my question about why you “hate” Hillary.

2) Sister: Hillary is just like Bill Clinton. She’s too moderate and they both “triangulate”. We don’t need another Clinton. I’m tired of Bushes and Clintons. We need something new. (To her credit she didn’t use the epithet “Billary” which may have been too sexist for her. Or she may have just been embarrassed to say that to me.)
Me: Have you seen Hillary’s policy proposals? They are very similar to Obama’s. In some cases, particularly her health care proposal, they are more progressive than his. (I sent her one of economist Paul Krugman’s articles from the New York Times on why Hillary’s health care plan which will cover everyone is better than Obama’s, which will only cover children.)
Sister: Who has time to read all of these things? Politicians never do them anyway. He inspires people. That’s what we need in a President. I’m going to lose my job if you don’t quit writing all these emails and sending me all these articles.
Me: I am just trying to find out why you “hate” Hillary so much?

3) Sister: Hillary Clinton will do anything to get elected. She’s running a negative campaign.
Me: Can’t you see that that is just code for she’s an ambitious, ball-busting bitch?! What kind of sexist double standard is that? Hillary has paid her dues. She didn’t run for President in 2004 after only four years in the Senate. She waited until 2008 after being elected by the state of New York with a huge majority to a second term. Yet, Obama’s ambition is very apparent. He has run for higher office every three years. He is impatient to get to the highest office in the land. And, do you really think Obama won’t do anything to get elected? Both he and his campaign have been very negative. He or his campaign spokespeople have said she:

• is a “calculating, poll-tested, divisive figure”
• "consistently" and "deliberately" misleads the American people.
• is “dishonest”
• is attempting to "deceive the American people".
• is "one of the most secretive politicians in America".
• is "a monster".
• is "not being straight with the American people".

They have also claimed that:

• “The American people are not going to elect a president that they do not trust".
• And, (probably the worse), they have said that John McCain is seen as more honest and trustworthy than Hillary Clinton.
Obama is a master at the very negative campaigning that he and his campaign accuse Hillary of practicing. And, though he calls her a liar, he has lied plenty in this campaign. (I sent her a New York Times news article about how he lied about a Senate bill that he claimed to have passed but didn’t regarding radioactive leaks at nuclear power plants.

Sister: Quit sending me these emails! Can’t we just agree to disagree? I’ll vote for her if she is nominated. But, I don’t want to talk about it anymore.

That, sadly, was the end of our conversation. But from it and others with Obama supporters, as well as listening to the regular anti-Hillary rants on the “progressive” Air America talk radio, I realized something quite disturbing. I realized that a very important pillar of Obama’s campaign strategy is exploiting the irrational hatred of Hillary Clinton. This hatred was first brought to us by the Republicans, and it is now the rallying cry of Obama supporters. The negative things Obama and his campaign have been saying about Hillary are 50 times worse on the blogosphere and the progressive talk stations (she’s a “bitch”, a “f**king whore”, “Billary”, “warmongering” etc.) than even that coming directly from him and his campaign. But the license to do this, the license to spew negative and vile, often misogynistic hatred, has come from Obama and his campaign – if they can call her a divisive liar, why can’t talk-show host Randi Rhodes go a little farther and call her a whore?

The other strategic pillars of his campaign are 1) his ability to give inspiring speeches about change and hope, 2) his race, which legitimately brings pride to African Americans and makes white liberals feel good about their support for the first viable African American nominee and 3) his hip, trendy, youthful coolness. None of these, in my opinion, are the best reasons to choose a President who will have the responsibility for pulling us out of war, an economic mess, a climate crisis and various other difficult, explosive foreign policy problems. But they aren’t ugly.

The exploitation and encouragement of Hillary-hating by the Obama campaign, however, is ugly. And, it is insulting not only to Hillary but to all women and particularly those who have worked hard and competed in male-dominated professions – like politics.

What is astonishing about what the Obama campaign has accomplished is that it has built so much of its support on this sexist, negative and inaccurate portrayal of Hillary Clinton, while at the same time successfully spreading the myth that it is the Clinton campaign that is negative. And the Obama campaign couldn’t have done this without the willing participation of Obama, himself, which belies the claim that he is a “unifying” figure and that he practices “new politics”, let alone that he brings people together. In fact, he is bringing people to his campaign by scapegoating and demonizing the “other” – the old, traditional, divisive, bitchy, lying, politics-as-usual Hillary Clinton.

Yet, in reality, Hillary is not only not traditional: she is, in fact, a very unusual figure in American politics – a First Lady who became a Senator and then ran for President. How many of those have we had? She also is not only not divisive but she has shown, as a Senator, that she can work with people who hated her and her husband when he was President. She has healed relationships that one would expect could never be healed.

Women across the country are working their hearts out for Hillary, not only because they want to see this brilliant woman become the first woman President, but because they are furious at the ugly misogyny coming from the Obama camp. And they know that the Obama campaign could not have been successful in building their support on the demonization of Hillary without the willing cooperation of a male-dominated, sexist media. A media that rarely reports that his campaign is regularly calling her some of the worst epithets ever thrown at one Democrat by another, but one that pounces on her when she or her surrogates even mildly criticize him. A media that doesn’t even notice that he is a Democrat, who, in attempting to tear her down, actually tears down the administration of the one Democrat since FDR, Bill Clinton, who has won two terms of office. (In his “bitter”/”clinging” remarks, Obama stated that the Clinton years were as bad for working people as the Bush years.)

I couldn’t talk to my sister about all of this because she wouldn’t listen. But, I’m hoping that voters in the upcoming primaries will listen. I’m hoping that Democrats, particularly those latte-drinking college educated Obama-leaning people will educate themselves to what is really going on in this primary election. I’m hoping that not just women, but men with daughters, mothers, wives and sisters, men who respect women – will no longer be inspired by hatred.

I’m hoping that this Democratic “family” will not stand by and watch as Obama and his campaign tear down Hillary Clinton and get away with it in the media, if not in the hearts half of the primary voters so far.

There is no question that this primary campaign has alienated a lot of women. And women are this party’s biggest block of supporters—almost 60 percent of reliable Democratic voters. If we abandon so many women, the backbone of our party, by nominating Obama, it will be more than a family fight. It will be a very bad time for the Democratic family – without the scores of women in local offices to answer the phones, canvass and run the ground game. We won’t have much of a family with women walking out of the house in droves.

We need these hard-working reliable “mamas” – and Hillary Clinton – much more than we need a candidate who has given his followers a license to hate – Barack Obama.