AJC.com > Opinion > Woman to Woman > Archives > 2008 > February > 09 > Entry
Where do women voters stand
after Super Tuesday?
Andrea Cornell Sarvady, a left-leaning columnist, writes the commentary this week and Shaunti Feldhahn, a right-leaning columnist, responds.
Commentary
I had a little trouble voting the other day. In my excitement I neglected to insert the electronic voting card until it fully clicked into place. If the precinct volunteers noticed me frowning at the screen, lingering at the booth a little longer than necessary, they probably just thought, “Here we go again. Another female voter who can’t make up her mind.”
For women of both parties, last Tuesday’s ballot was enough to give anyone pause. Democrats were made giddy by their choices, happily asking themselves, “Which way do I want to help make history?” Republican women were also kicking around the candidates, for entirely different reasons— their choices felt more filled with compromise. The GOP offered them a hair-triggered straight-talker hated by his party’s base, a folksy preacher without a prayer and a Mormon flip-flopper with the visage of Reagan but none of the charisma.
In what Republican author Peggy Noonan rightly calls the “most confounding election cycle of our lifetime” we find Hillary Clinton branded as part of the staunch old guard and Ann Coulter threatening to campaign for her. Yet if you can see beyond the pummeling circus of spin, interesting new possibilities emerge. For instance, older women are indeed drawn to Hillary yet their younger peers are increasingly breaking ranks with the sisterhood, smitten with Barack Obama’s beyond-gender-and-race persona.
Democrats are still awash in identity politics—that’s what happens when you give more than one identity a seat at the table. Yet encouraging statistics show a vast majority of Democrats happy with either of their choices. Early exit polls garnered from 16 states showed that over 70 percent of Democrats said they would be satisfied if either Clinton or Obama wins the nomination.
I predict that when November comes, indecision will be owned by moderate Republican and Independent women. Disappointed by our Iraq policies, pro-choice to a degree—what Republican candidate speaks to their concerns? These women, tired of the personal vendettas, tired of the safe choices, tired of being tired, just might join Democrats in spurring change and making history. Maybe, just maybe, when they look at their options and consider their futures, something new will click into place.
Rebuttal
I confess that Andy wins on the “enthusiasm gap,” but I totally disagree with her conclusions. Yes, 15 million Democrats took part in the historic Super Tuesday primaries compared to 9 million Republicans.
But even though the media discusses discontent in the Republican ranks, what isn’t taken into account is that Republicans had a record-breaking turnout in many areas. In a telephone interview, Jo Ann Davidson, the Co-Chairman for the Republican National Committee (RNC) explained that despite the media’s view that there is “no interest or energy” in the Republican Party right now, they raised $30 million more than Democrats in 2007.
There is a great deal of interest and energy among Republicans - but also a great deal of frustration in the wake of Super Tuesday, especially among conservative women. Democrat women are getting lots of scrutiny, obviously, but there is so little attention on the Republican side, that the RNC doesn’t even know who its women voted for!
In the last election, 78 percent of all Republicans identified themselves as conservative and 60 percent prioritized values issues. But Romney and Huckabee split those votes in the all-important Super Tuesday primaries, leaving more moderates - and thus possibly the nomination — with McCain. And those moderates seem very happy with him as a candidate; it’s the conservatives who aren’t.
Most conservative women feel strongly about issues such as protecting the unborn, traditional marriage and religious speech. And they want to avoid big government and universal health care. But frankly, just as important is a sense of security with the candidate as a person they can trust to consistently look out for their beliefs in office. And so conservative women are very uneasy with someone like McCain, who has a famous hair-trigger temper and a record of inconsistency - and is so non-conservative that he almost left the Republican party.
So as much as Andy salivates at the prospect of new recruits, conservative women aren’t going to abandon their beliefs just to make history by electing the first female or black President. But from where I sit, there is a real risk that if they don’t have somewhere to put all their energy and their concern, they might sit out the election. If the GOP doesn’t want that, they’d better find a way to speak to those women. Fast.
Comments
Commenting is now closed for this entry.
By MJK
February 10, 2008 1:29 PM | Link to this
Shaunti -
A Democrat will be President.
If you look at the voting results for all the contests to date, the winning Democrat in many of the primaries received almost twice the votes as the leading Republican and in the majority of primaries the Democratic winner had more votes than the Republican. Some telling contests include Michigan where Hilary was within 15,000 votes of homeboy Mitt in spite of the fact that no delegates were available and Massachusetts where Hilary received 700,000 votes to Mitt’s 260,000. Hilary also received more votes in Florida than McCain even though no delegates were available.
Perhaps wealthy Republicans have donated more, or maybe Mitt personal wealth thrown away to date is the reason for the $30m extra given to the righties but as Mitt and Rudy have proven, money doesn’t buy support, votes do.
By USinUK
February 11, 2008 8:07 AM | Link to this
Dear Shaunti:
This is an apple: “I predict that when November comes, indecision will be owned by moderate Republican and Independent women. Disappointed by our Iraq policies, pro-choice to a degree—what Republican candidate speaks to their concerns? These women, tired of the personal vendettas, tired of the safe choices, tired of being tired, just might join Democrats in spurring change and making history.” (emphasis mine)
This is an orange: So as much as Andy salivates at the prospect of new recruits, conservative women aren’t going to abandon their beliefs just to make history by electing the first female or black President. (again, emphasis mine)
Apples and oranges: please, learn the difference.
By GeezGuys
February 11, 2008 8:33 AM | Link to this
Shaunti’s right, “conservative” women will stick with the sinking ship of the other fake “conservatives”. These are the people who say they support the sanctity of marriage and oppose “activist judges”, who trampled Michael Schavio’s role as a husband, while shopping for judges who would ignore the law.
Like the dodo, these nuts are dying out. The demands they extort from John McCain, like anti-abortion Supreme Court nominees, will sink any further chance of another Republican president.
By The Other Jack
February 11, 2008 9:20 AM | Link to this
Hope springs eternal.
There is disappointment in the Republican Party, but the hope that Obama constantly talks about has not been absent to Republicans. We have hoped the Democrats that voted to send our young people into a horrible war would put aside partisan politics and support those troops … but no.
We hoped that the democratic voting block would see through the promises of the Democrats running for Congress to regulate the oil companies, fix the Health system and stop exporting our jobs, but they didn’t. Now we have a Congress with a lower approval rating than the president.
Shanti and Andrea both talked about the women that would come over from the Republican Party to support a woman running for president. For every woman that comes over, there will undoubtedly be a man that will defect in the opposite direction in order to vote against a woman.
Perhaps a woman could make a connection with men from both sides and not only pull in women from the Republicans, but maintain the support of the men from her own party: that is unless the woman was Mrs. Bill Clinton. Is America ready for a woman that is apparently a sock puppet for her husband?
The organization MoveOn.org was named because of the penchant of Republicans to point a finger at the criminal incompetence of Bill Clinton, his decimation of our CIA and the scandals d’jour. So does MoveOn.org become MoveBack.org?
At this point, it seems very “cut and dry”, but what happens when Mrs. Clinton’s criminal acts and other problems are pointed out along with the policies that Democrats support. Pro-abortion, Pro-union/mafia, pro-big insurance, pro-big taxes, anti-traditional family, anti-freedom of religion and anti-middle class.
The democrats promised the country the world in 06 and have done nothing. They are now the recipients of the vast amount of lobby money and Mrs. Bill Clinton has accepted more lobby money than all the Republican candidates combined, according to Mr. Obama.
You think this is over? This hasn’t even started.
By The Other Jack
February 11, 2008 9:32 AM | Link to this
USinUK
I checked the touring schedule for Pink Martini. I noticed that on several appearances, they will have a full Orchestra as part of the show. Man, I would love to see that, but they don’t come anywhere near Atlanta. They will be in Miami with an Orchestra, but that’s a bit of a drive. I will be traveling a lot this spring so maybe I can catch them somewhere else.
Went bowling Friday night. I hadn’t bowled since the Nixon Administration. I remember why. I stunk up the place. We all did. But we had a blast (it was a birthday party) and even the younger ones in the group were all still sore two days later.
By WhataJoke
February 11, 2008 9:43 AM | Link to this
Of course the Democrats have done nothing since re-taking Congress. The President vetoes everything they attempt to do. He has been unable to adjust to NOT having a RubberStamp Congress.
big DUH there, for the clueless.
By USinUK
February 11, 2008 9:46 AM | Link to this
TOJ -
We have hoped the Democrats that voted to send our young people into a horrible war would put aside partisan politics and support those troops
you mean like Bush does, “all talk and no trousers” (as they say here) - from Friday’s WaPo:
President Bush drew great applause during his State of the Union address last month when he called on Congress to allow U.S. troops to transfer their unused education benefits to family members. “Our military families serve our nation, they inspire our nation, and tonight our nation honors them,” he said.
A week later, however, when Bush submitted his $3.1 trillion federal budget to Congress, he included no funding for such an initiative, which government analysts calculate could cost $1 billion to $2 billion annually.
or how about the Democrat’s plan to require that troops receive the same amount of time at home as they serve in Afghanistan or Iraq - the Republicans voted that down, too.
so, please. just go out and shine up that yellow ribbon on your car if you’re going to use that tired old “the dems don’t support the troops” rhetoric. the rest of us aren’t buying what you’re selling.
By USinUK
February 11, 2008 9:51 AM | Link to this
TOJ -
Bowling - I get 3 games - 1 to warm up, the second to break 100 and the 3rd to head back to my home in the gutter. But, the beer is cheap! :-)
Does Atlanta still have duck-pin bowling, anywhere?? Or is that gone with the pink pig train??
Too bad about Pink Martini - I saw that they were going to be in DC, but I didn’t note the date (need to recommend the show to a friend of mine). Let’s just say that, in my case, gone are the days when I’d just hop in the car with a friend or 2 and drive a couple hundred miles for a show.
By The Other Jack
February 11, 2008 9:54 AM | Link to this
Whata Joke
So what have they presented to the President to regulate the oil companies that the president vetoed?
So what have they presented to the president to Fix the Health System?
So what have they presented to the president that woould have stopped exporting oiur jobs?
Big duh there for the person who speaks of what they know nothing about.
By GeezGuys
February 11, 2008 10:01 AM | Link to this
So what have they presented to the president to Fix the Health System?
The SCHIP bill, which he promptly vetoed, which was promptly overridden by a bipartisan effort of Congress. Dems leading the effort, of course.
Such work requires a lot of time and effort. They’re trying to get things done with a dunce at the wheel. Don’t expect much progress until they can clear the intestinal obstruction named Bush.
By The Other Jack
February 11, 2008 10:04 AM | Link to this
USinUK
so, please. just go out and shine up that yellow ribbon on your car if you’re going to use that tired old “the dems don’t support the troops” rhetoric. the rest of us aren’t buying what you’re selling.
I would be surprised if you did “buy it”. but we both know who you are going to vote for: anybody but a Republican. I can’t fault you for that because I am voting for anybody but a Democrat.
But you or I will not decide this election. but the people that will decide this election are undecided and moderates.
You can point out any specific item you want, but when a single speech by Harry Reid is played back, it is obvious how Democrats support our troops.
And what about the promises made in 06? Mrs. Bill Clinton will not win over many Republicans, male or female.
By The Other Jack
February 11, 2008 10:11 AM | Link to this
USinUK
We went to an underground bowling lanes on the Buford Hwy. and it was fantastic. It was clean, very well maintained, the tater tots were $2 and they had these huge four pitcher decanters that was almost enough for all of us. We had a blast.
I had forgot how much trauma is involved in slinging a 15 pound ball. My elbow is still a little sore.
I was hoping that Pink Martini was going to be a show at the FOX, maybe with the Atlanta Symphony. I would love to go to Miami, but tyhere would need to be several reasons to go that far.
What is duck bowling? Please tell me that you have not been throwing heavy balls at little ducks!
By USinUK
February 11, 2008 10:19 AM | Link to this
You can point out any specific item you want, but when a single speech by Harry Reid is played back, it is obvious how Democrats support our troops.
Is that like “please don’t bring up silly things like facts when I’m talking about issues”???
First of all, please cite what Harry Reid speech/quote to which you are referring. While I’m not a huge Harry Reid fan, I’ve never heard him say anything negative about the troops.
Secondly, what promises are you referring to?? Promises made by Hillary or by democratic congressional candidates??
Lastly, I’m not voting for Hill. Can’t stand her. So, we can both agree on that one, I think, and move on.
By The Other Jack
February 11, 2008 10:25 AM | Link to this
Geezeguys
You think the SCHIP Bill was going to fix our health care? The SCHIP bill had many problems along with adding a 61 cent tax on a single pack of cigarettes. The bill had so many add-ons that it was doomed from the start.
Didn’t the Democrats promise to FIX the system? Is it fixed? Don’t we need people in Washington that can actually get things done? In 1993, Washington had a democratic Congress, Senate and White House but couldn’t get health care reform passed.
So if you get a democrat in the White House, what will be your excuse them? Be careful what you wish for.
Now how about that oil company regulation promise? Do you think that will happen considering that the dims are now getting the vast majority of the lobby money from big oil? Why are our prices at the pump now higher than ever?
By USinUK
February 11, 2008 10:29 AM | Link to this
TOJ -
OMG … tater tots … (sigh) … oh, man, there are some foods you just can’t get here and tater tots are one of them. Cheeseburgers, Tater tots and Heinz 57 sauce … the perfect meal … yumyumyum. (I’d better stop … drool is bad for the keyboard)
I know exactly which lanes you went to on Buford Hwy - have been there loads of times! Friends of mine play in a league there!! Too funny :-) Sounds like you hyper-extended your elbow - Advil, TOJ - Advil is your friend at a time like this.
Duck pin bowling - just like regular bowling, but smaller balls and pins (and, thus, reduced likelihood of greivous bodily harm).
By The Other Jack
February 11, 2008 10:36 AM | Link to this
USinUK
Reid, we could start with his insistence that before we fund the troops, we have to start bringing them home. Nothing partisan about that.
The promises were made by several candidates that are now Congressmen. Nothing is getting done.
Would you vote for Mrs. Bill if it was between her and McCain? I talked to several Democrats this weekend that simply wouldn’t vote. Of course I am hearing the same thing about Republicans voting for McCain.
What if we had an election and no one came?
By The Other Jack
February 11, 2008 10:44 AM | Link to this
USinUK
See. See. America is great. We have tater tots.
That is a great bowling ally. Lots of families and young people on a Friday night. There were two little girls (5-6 years old) that would roll the ball, jump up and down, cheer, dance a little and go back and set down before the ball would make it down the lane. It was a great people watching place.
Duck pin. Seems like I have heard about that.
I am editing downtown, so I need to run. I don’t think they have Y-Fi in the suite so I’ll talk to you tomorrow.
I have one question I want to ask you since you apparently support Obama. I’ll make another post to keep politics and fun separate.
By Monica
February 11, 2008 10:48 AM | Link to this
A democrat will be President
If McCain ends up winning the Republican bid, you are right. There won’t be a Republican candidate.
By The Other Jack
February 11, 2008 10:50 AM | Link to this
USinUK
I’ll ask tomorrow. We are having a problem and I am outta here.
By GeezGuys
February 11, 2008 10:52 AM | Link to this
You think the SCHIP Bill was going to fix our health care?
No, but it’s a start. You want instant gratification, stick with microwave brownies.
The bill had so many add-ons that it was doomed from the start.
The bill I’m talking about was passed into law.
Oil companies are giving money to Democratic candidates, knowing they’ll be in control soon. If they want to help elect Democrats, (who have pushed for raising average MPG standards) over Republicans, I’m happy to hear it.
Oil companies are making record profits because oil is in high demand, thanks to our record consumption, and China’s increased demand too. Basic economics for ya. Once we get idiots who talk about increasing our meager supply out, we can focus on developing other energy sources.
By USinUK
February 11, 2008 10:54 AM | Link to this
TOJ -
What if we had an election and no one came?
HA! would be funny if we didn’t have such disgustingly low turnout numbers to begin with.
Seriously, though - despite the superdelegate issue, Obama is really taking Hillary down when you look at the number of states he’s won and the momentum he has coming out of Super Tuesday and the victories this last weekend. IF his momentum continues (which is pretty likely), I think convention delegates will have to listen to the will of the democratic voters who have said overwhelmingly that they want Obama at the head of the ticket.
I’m not really a huge fan of the CA/FL/NY majority choosing our president - in either the primary or the general election.
I think you should let us ex-pats decide the election!! yeah, yeah!! that’s the ticket :-)
As for Reid - he wanted to set a deadline for the beginning of troop withdrawal as a condition of funding - to me, that’s supporting the troops by not allowing them to languish there with no goal, no end in sight.
By USinUK
February 11, 2008 10:58 AM | Link to this
TOJ -
See. See. America is great. We have tater tots.
Yes, I agree - Tater Tots is one of the top 10 things that make America great (democracy, the first amendment, tater tots)
:-)
By Don'tConfuseTheOleBoy
February 11, 2008 10:59 AM | Link to this
Oil companies are making record profits because oil is in high demand, thanks to our record consumption, and China’s increased demand too.
Please don’t confuse the ignant with actual FACTS. LOL
By Gale
February 11, 2008 11:06 AM | Link to this
Personally, I think Bill was the sock puppet and Hillary was the puppeteer. She is clearly the tougher of the two. Bill has the charisma of Obama, but I think Hillary is the one with the strength. What she may lack in charisma, she makes up in know how. Her plans have detail while Obama is vague. If the dems give Obama the nod, I’ll be among those voting for McCain. I’d prefer a moderate republican who knows how to get consensus, than a newbie who wants change but hasn’t proven he knows how to make it happen. The country is in too much of a mess for a freshman senator who thinks he can change things with a nice smile and encouraging words.
For the ones who swear they will stay home, fine. There are just as many who are excited enough to vote for the first time in many elections. It will even out.
By The Other Jack
February 11, 2008 11:12 AM | Link to this
USinUK
OK, False alarm. (Videographers have worse writing skills than doctors.)
I’m not really a huge fan of the CA/FL/NY majority choosing our president - in either the primary or the general election.
It’s a screwy system. We are not a democracy but a representative Republic.
My question is this:
What would you want Obama to do that he actually could do. Presidential powers are limited.
By The Other Jack
February 11, 2008 11:18 AM | Link to this
GeezGuys
The Oil Companies sell a necessary commodity. they need to be regulated. Supply and demand does not mean that any industry can cripple the US economy whenever they like.
Jimmy Carter stood up to them and look what happened to him. They are now threatening us that if we do try to regulate their profits, there will be long lines again.
The Republicans have had the stigma of being in bed with big oil. But now that the dims control Congress it is all a matter of supply and demand.
Funny how a few billion in the right hands can change the mantra, isn’t it?
By USinUK
February 11, 2008 11:24 AM | Link to this
Gale -
The country is in too much of a mess for a freshman senator who thinks he can change things with a nice smile and encouraging words
Yeah - and this country is in too much of a mess for a hothead who has alienated the majority of the senate, not to mention his own party.
Oh, one more thing - this country is in too much of a mess for a senator who has NO CHARACTER who thinks it’s just fine and dandy to make fun of a teenage girl’s looks in a disgustingly crude joke at a republican fundraiser.
We need better than McCain for the country.
By The Other Jack
February 11, 2008 11:30 AM | Link to this
Gale
Personally, I think Bill was the sock puppet and Hillary was the puppeteer. She is clearly the tougher of the two.
Up until recently, I thought that, also. But now she can’t get him to shut up. He has hurt her chances.
Bill has the charisma of Obama, but I think Hillary is the one with the strength. What she may lack in charisma, she makes up in know how.
She knows how to play the Washington games. She knows who has the big bucks. Is that what we need? She is so connected to the old school Washington that she offers no chances of change. And Washington has stopped working.
Her plans have detail while Obama is vague.
That’s a huge thing. Not so much right now, but during the general election debates, he had better made some definite stances or McCain will eat him alive.
If the dems give Obama the nod, I’ll be among those voting for McCain.
I liked McCain in 2000.
I’d prefer a moderate republican who knows how to get consensus, than a newbie who wants change but hasn’t proven he knows how to make it happen. The country is in too much of a mess for a freshman senator who thinks he can change things with a nice smile and encouraging words.
He is well trained. His media persona rivals JFK. If you ever doubt that, take a look at his striking a pose at the end of his most dynamic statements. He has the 5% chin rise that makes him look presidential. All candidates are trained, but he is part of the new politico that look and move like movie stars.
For the ones who swear they will stay home, fine. There are just as many who are excited enough to vote for the first time in many elections. It will even out.
Agreed.
By USinUK
February 11, 2008 11:33 AM | Link to this
TOJ -
What would you want Obama to do that he actually could do. Presidential powers are limited.
Well, of course, the first thing is better judicial nominees. My god, the ninnies we’ve been lumbered with in both the Supremes, appeals and federal district courts.
Next would be better cabinet members and other federal nominees - political cronyism is a fact of life - but, I don’t mind it as much if they actually know what the heck they’re doing (case in point: a veterinarian being put in charge of women’s health at the FDA, “Brownie” at FEMA, a staunch anti-contraception advocate being in charge of family planning services at the Dept of Health … and on and on and on).
Third would be setting national agendas that are achievable and with which we can all agree - ending our dependence on OIL (foreign or otherwise), developing a health service for ALL Americans, encouraging companies to keep jobs inside the US rather than outsource them.
By The Other Jack
February 11, 2008 11:36 AM | Link to this
USinUK
Now, I really need to run. I think for lunch I will have a good old cheeseburger and maybe … tater tots. Maybe even onion rings.
So there. :)
Have a good afternoon.
By Aquagirl
February 11, 2008 11:47 AM | Link to this
The Oil Companies sell a necessary commodity. they need to be regulated. Supply and demand does not mean that any industry can cripple the US economy whenever they like.
Uh, yeah, it pretty much does. No matter what political system, supply and demand rules in one way or another.
Instead of regulating the oil industry, we need to make them less relevant. Most of the world’s oil belongs to other nations. Many of whom don’t like us. Our dependence on oil is bad in so many ways that we look like crackheads in search of our fix.
He is well trained. His media persona rivals JFK. If you ever doubt that, take a look at his striking a pose at the end of his most dynamic statements. He has the 5% chin rise that makes him look presidential.
Ha!
By USinUK
February 11, 2008 11:48 AM | Link to this
TOJ -
Now, I really need to run. I think for lunch I will have a good old cheeseburger and maybe … tater tots. Maybe even onion rings.
order an extra-large batch and have a few for me!!!
By USinUK
February 11, 2008 11:57 AM | Link to this
Aquagirl -
Instead of regulating the oil industry, we need to make them less relevant.
preach it, sister!
By chuck
February 11, 2008 12:00 PM | Link to this
Good Morning all. I don’t get to post as much since I don’t have a student teacher anymore, but I had to weigh in on this one.
Whatajoke. You are kidding right? President Bush has vetoed exactly 8 bills in 8 years in office. Seven of those 8 have been in this congress, but 5 of those were vetoed because the democrats exceeded spending limits and they were warned ahead of time that if they exceeded those limits the bills would be vetoed. Two of the vetoes were on expansion of stem cell funding (one of these came while Republicans were in charge). The other had to do with water allocation.
BTW “geezguys”, the congress DID NOT override the president’s veto of SCHIP. It was sustained in both houses.
The only veto overridden by congress was the water allocation bill veto.
The SCHIP bill that DID PASS, was the REAUTHORIZATION OF THE ORIGINAL BILL PASSED BY THE REPUBLICANS IN THE LAST CONGRESS.
As for your assertion that these things are “hard work” and that they “take time”, weren’t you one of the ones deriding Bush when he said the same thing about the war in Iraq? In addition, have you forgotten 1994? When the Republicans took over Congress with the promise of a “Contract With America”, they passed 8 out of 10 of those items in the first 30 days after they took control. BTW, the president was a democrat.
By chuck
February 11, 2008 12:39 PM | Link to this
I have to agree with you aquagirl. We do need to make them irrelevant. I can’t find the video any more, but about 2-3 years ago on NBC News, there was a guy who invented a modification for gasoline engines that enabled them to get over 100 miles per gallon and cost less than a $100. NBC did a feature story on it then it disappeared. I would defnitely spend a hundred bucks to get even 70-80 MPG. Does anybody else remember seeing this?
By USinUK
February 11, 2008 12:51 PM | Link to this
Chuck -
I don’t remember that story, but I do know that there has been the technology to create fuel out of charcoal since WWII (there was even a movie about it called The Formula). No one pursued it since it was more expensive to produce when oil was under $40/barrel. With oil around $90/barrel, I’m surprised there’s not more talk about it.
By Newzwyre
February 11, 2008 1:02 PM | Link to this
Because I promised kimberly I would hunt down the article Andrew Sullivan had linked to regarding the “Hillary Derangement Syndrome”. All in the spirit of “balance”, of course –
All You Need is Hate – by Stanley Fish
Jason Horowitz described the world of Hillary haters, many of whom he has interviewed. Horowitz finds that the hostile characterizations of Clinton do not add up to a coherent account of her hatefulness. She is vilified for being a feminist and for not being one, for being an extreme leftist and for being a “warmongering hawk,” for being godless and for being “frighteningly fundamentalist,” for being the victim of her husband’s peccadilloes and for enabling them. “She is,” Horowitz concludes, “an empty vessel into which [her detractors] can pour everything they detest.”
This is not to say that there are no rational, well-considered reasons for opposing Clinton’s candidacy. You may dislike her policies (which she has not been reluctant to explain in great detail). You may not be able to get past her vote to authorize the Iraq war. You may think her personality unsuited to the tasks of inspiring and uniting the American people. You may believe that if this is truly a change election, she is not the one to bring about real change.
But the people and groups Horowitz surveys have brought criticism of Clinton to what sportswriters call “the next level,” in this case to the level of personal vituperation unconnected to, and often unconcerned with, the facts. These people are obsessed with things like her hair styles, the “strangeness” of her eyes — “Analysis of Clinton’s eyes is a favorite motif among her most rabid adversaries” — and they retail and recycle items from what Horowitz calls “The Crazy Files”: she’s Osama bin Laden’s candidate; she kills cats; she’s a witch (this is not meant metaphorically).
But this list, however loony-tunes it may be, does not begin to touch the craziness of the hardcore members of this cult.
Click on link for more - http://fish.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/03/all-you-need-is-hate/#more-85
By GeezGuys
February 11, 2008 2:48 PM | Link to this
Chuck, I do stand corrected on the SCHIP bill, I think the water bill was around the same time. Boy, what legislative excitement that was.
I didn’t deride Bush for saying we’d have to spend time and effort in Iraq. I do deride him for launching a full-scale invasion and basically taking over the country. We didn’t have the necessary military forces, or the plan, and his prancing about on his “Mission Accomplished” aircraft carrier says it all. Notice, the war was at a total stalemate until after the last election, when Rumsfeld was booted and Bush was forced to come up with a strategery.
Now we have an overextended military with units deployed for so long both people and materials are being stretched to the breaking point. More than anything else, this draws my ire. It’s lip service to the military.
On our point of agreement, it seems like every few years we see a story about 100 mpg cars, or cars that run on cooking oil, or whatever. I’m not a big conspiracy theory type, but it does strike me as odd we never hear about them again.
Newzwyre, that’s a great article. Hillary draws as much irrational hate and bashing as Obama gains irrational devotion. Had someone on NBC suggested Obama was “pimping out” his wife, there would have been front-page news. More to the point, nobody would have said such a thing. Family members campaign all the time, there’s never been such a stupid bias expressed, except against the Clintons.
By Monica
February 11, 2008 2:58 PM | Link to this
Hi Chuck! Missed you last week! I saw an episode of Mythbusters where they made a car run off of fast food french fry grease. If that will make it work, the possibilities are great! But then, of course, the Texas oil CEO’s who are in bed with the Middle East oil CEO’s would lose their fortune, and we can’t have that now, can we?
By kimberly
February 11, 2008 3:01 PM | Link to this
Thanks, Newzy! Misogyny knows no cultural bounds, it seems — not even in America. Two steps forward, one step back. Unless you live in Georgia, that is; then it’s three steps back pretty much every day. I’m fairly certain my lil’ ol’ vote doesn’t count at all between all this primary chaos and the electoral college. But if’n I don’t show up, I don’t get the lil’ ol’ sticker wif’ a cute lil’ peach on it!
By Newzwyre
February 11, 2008 4:04 PM | Link to this
kimberly, the largest issue that keeps me from warming to Senator Clinton is the feeling that she works on a “need to know” basis and if she decides we-the-people don’t need to know something, I doubt we’d be told. I do believe that she has the best of intentions but I find it difficult to trust to the good intentions of any politician at this point. Also, the people around her have such a reputation of close-mouthed secrecy and “dirty pool” that it makes my “spidey-senses” start tingling. We’ve had enough of that with the Bush administration.
We need to start taking “accountability” seriously and I don’t know that she would.
By The Other Jack
February 11, 2008 5:01 PM | Link to this
Bad news for all
the good news is that Nitrogen Powered cars are just around the corner. The bad news is that the delivery system for nitrogen will be owned by … you guessed it: Big Oil.
Lessening our dependence on foreign oil is a great thing, but the people in power (big oil) will still be in power.
By Copyleft
February 12, 2008 8:07 AM | Link to this
quote: Reid, we could start with his insistence that before we fund the troops, we have to start bringing them home. Nothing partisan about that.
You’re right… there isn’t. Since our troops are fighting and dying for no reason (they’re certainly not defending America) and this war is a proven mistake, insisting on bringing them home is the greatest “SUPPORT” any official can give.
And there’s nothing partisan about that. In a hole, stop digging. Pretty clear-cut, don’t you think?
By USinUK
February 12, 2008 8:09 AM | Link to this
TOJ -
the good news is that Nitrogen Powered cars are just around the corner
I don’t know about Nitrogen-powered cars, but I can tell you that I’ve seen an episode of Top Gear where they tested a hydrogen-powered GM prototype. I. Want. One. BAD. All the controls were in the wheel which can be transferred from left- to right-hand drive (handy for those of us near the continent). The actual body of the car could be changed out so that you could have a coupe one day and an SUV the next - the base never changes. It was the coolest thing I have ever seen!!
By USinUK
February 12, 2008 8:13 AM | Link to this
kimberly -
Misogyny knows no cultural bounds, it seems — not even in America
Most people don’t hate Hill because she’s a woman, most people hate her because she’s Hill. I couldn’t care less that she has ovaries - I can’t stand her because of her support of the wretched 2005 bankruptcy bill.
By The Other Jack
February 12, 2008 9:21 AM | Link to this
USinUk
Well, of course, the first thing is better judicial nominees. My god, the ninnies we’ve been lumbered with in both the Supremes, appeals and federal district courts.
I can see why you would want different judges. Of course that all depends on who retires or dies.
Next would be better cabinet members and other federal nominees - political cronyism is a fact of life - but, I don’t mind it as much if they actually know what the heck they’re doing (case in point: a veterinarian being put in charge of women’s health at the FDA, “Brownie” at FEMA, a staunch anti-contraception advocate being in charge of family planning services at the Dept of Health … and on and on and on).
I can also see that and since that is an important point, I can also see why you would be against Mrs. Clinton. I guess it is unfair to judge her because of bad decisions her husband made, but you know she will be judged by that standard.
Third would be setting national agendas that are achievable and with which we can all agree - ending our dependence on OIL (foreign or otherwise),
This is a problem. You were right about hydrogen, not nitrogen. Long day yesterday. But our dependence is all about the private sector. Even if automobile manufacturers were forced to comply with standards that would phase out gasoline powered cars, it would be years before a difference would be seen. And like I said, the same criminals would be in charge of the new fuels so it wouldn’t be long before they would be jacking us up again.
It needs to happen, but it is an extremely complicated issue considering how many uses for oil we have, including most plastics.
developing a health service for ALL Americans,
I’m with you there. ALL Americans. The “poor” here just wait until the next election cycle and wait on the new benefits. I am a contractor so I buy my own insurance and it stinks. Maybe I’ll just stop working if Hillary gets in so I can get free health insurance.
encouraging companies to keep jobs inside the US rather than outsource them.
That is also a big problem. Both parties have sent them overseas.
All the things you listed need to be done (Except the judge deal. I don’t mind the new judges). Can Obama get them done? Maybe we’ll see.
John Kerry claimed he was going to provide the US with Universal Health Care and no one thought he would be able to do with with a Congress controlled by Republicans. But that didn’t stop him from making promises that he knew he would be breaking. Americans are tired of politicians that will say anything in order to be elected. i think that fact and his shrew of a wife cost him the election.
Obama will need much more than “hope” to beat a Republican. He will need less presidential posing and more ideas on getting something done.
BTW. I lied about the cheeseburger and tater tots. I almost never eat red meat. There is a new chain here called Five Guys that make the very best burgers I have ever eaten. But I try to stay with the more healthy stuff. Yesterday I had the Ru Sans Sushi buffet. I love good sushi and Ru Sans buffet ain’t great, but it was good enough.
Running again today so I will be in and out.
By The Other Jack
February 12, 2008 9:24 AM | Link to this
Copyleft
You’re right… there isn’t. Since our troops are fighting and dying for no reason (they’re certainly not defending America) and this war is a proven mistake, insisting on bringing them home is the greatest “SUPPORT” any official can give.
Proven by who? Salon.com?
And they are fighting for nothing? Kool-aid, anyone?
By The Other Jack
February 12, 2008 9:28 AM | Link to this
USinUK
Most people don’t hate Hill because she’s a woman, most people hate her because she’s Hill
Do you have any idea what fun it is to watch progressives finally see the Clintons the way the rest of the world has seen them since 1992?
They are trashy, power hungry, dishonest and ruthless people who will stop at nothing to achieve their goals. Welcome aboard.
By lozen
February 12, 2008 9:45 AM | Link to this
They are trashy, power hungry, dishonest and ruthless people who will stop at nothing to achieve their goals. And that’s so unlike born-with-silver-spoon-in-mouth, power hungry, dishonest, ruthless people (Bush, Rumsfeld, Wolfovitz, Cheney) who will stop at nothing to achieve their goals! Jeez.
By USinUK
February 12, 2008 9:47 AM | Link to this
TOJ -
ahhhh … memory lane … Ru Sans - my first ever sushi experience back in 1989 with someone who was at the time a date and is now one of my best friends.
5 guys - I used to live in DC where we had 5 guys burgers. O.M.G. Sooooo messy but sooooo good.
Okay. Subject at hand … judges - you’re right about openings with the Supremes, but Obama would have the right to go in and clean house with the federal judges. And, given the shenanigans that have gone on with this administration, I think the DoJ needs a good scrub, top to bottom.
As for health care - the poor pay for health care, too, through their taxes (Grady isn’t free). Like you, I used to be self-employed, so I remember that “oof” feeling I got whenever I opened my health care premium bill. It doesn’t have to be that way.
In my opinion, health care shouldn’t be treated as a commodity, something that is determined by supply/demand. To me, health care is like education and safe food - one of those things that is done for the general welfare. It benefits EVERYone in the country - not just the poor - if there is good access to health care (disease eradication, preventative care leading is less expensive than critical care, etc)
Lastly, I wasn’t really comparing Obama and Hillary - I was more focused on what he could do while in office vs. what he would do differently than Hillary.
By USinUK
February 12, 2008 9:52 AM | Link to this
TOJ -
They are trashy, power hungry, dishonest and ruthless people who will stop at nothing to achieve their goals. Welcome aboard.
don’t pull out the cork on the champagne bottle just yet - you missed the last half of my answer: “I can’t stand her because of her support of the wretched 2005 bankruptcy bill.”
By USinUK
February 12, 2008 10:01 AM | Link to this
Lozen -
And that’s so unlike born-with-silver-spoon-in-mouth, power hungry, dishonest, ruthless people (Bush, Rumsfeld, Wolfovitz, Cheney) who will stop at nothing to achieve their goals! Jeez.
the current administration is just a better class of trash
:-)
By lozen
February 12, 2008 10:11 AM | Link to this
Kimberly, I agree with you. Yes, USinUK some people hate Clinton for other reasons than she’s a woman but there are many who do hate her just because she’s a woman. Carl Bernstein dissing her for having thick ankles - for cryin’ out loud. And then comments like she’s power hungry! Show me a friggin’ politician who isn’t power hungry. Bush and his string pullers are the epitome of power hungry and secretive and liars. They are a bunch of thugs and anybody, including Clinton, will be better than them! How does TOJ presume to know all this about the Clintons - from Rush? From FOX? Like his sources are all true and correct, but he sneers at those who get their info (he thinks) from MoveOn.com and Salon.com. But then he’s more intelligent than anyone else on the blog right? I guess he has ‘sources’. He’s certainly more arrogant than anyone else on the blog!
By kimberly
February 12, 2008 10:26 AM | Link to this
US in UK, I also have a huge problem with the 2005 bankruptcy bill, and confronted my own Congressman (R-big money weasel) at one of his “town hall” meetings about it, while he was busy flashing his little pie charts about why we should privatize social security. We are simpatico on this atrocity that the government, and the legislators and laws therein, work for corporations and not for people who pay the taxes, and do the living, working, and dying here.
With regard to the ideological notions that our political leaders should be free of corruption, I maintain that it is not possible given the system we HAVE. As long as money controls the electoral process, we will have collusion between our leaders and some form of Satan. I like Hillary Clinton, not because I think she’s pure of heart or free from puppet strings (NONE of them are, but feel free, fundies, to pump that delusion at will), but because she’s competent (how refreshing!), tough (slung mud works wonders on the complexion) and knows how to get things done. If Jimmy Carter’s administration taught us anything, it’s that a man with great ideology and purity of heart (the occasional adulterous lustings aside) is completely ineffetive at leadership unless he can work within the channels, avenues, alliances, and protocols of the cesspool known as Washington D.C.
I don’t dislike Obama at all; in fact, I think he’s terrific! Either one gets my support this year with the utmost hopes that he or she will END THIS DISASTROUS OCCUPATION OF IRAQ, stop shoveling our treasury into the hands of war-profiteers, (via borrowed money that we now owe) and return the government to its true purpose: to serve the people, not be a noose around our necks while playing favorites to a few. I guess I’m just getting old…. logistics mean more to me than warm fuzzies. Sigh… It happens. Either way: DEMS ‘08!!!
By USinUK
February 12, 2008 10:28 AM | Link to this
Lozen -
Carl Bernstein dissing her for having thick ankles - for cryin’ out loud. And then comments like she’s power hungry! Show me a friggin’ politician who isn’t power hungry.
Like Carl Bernstein should comment on ANYone’s looks, toad that he is. It has more to do with the “Villagers” - the entrenched DC media (Bernstein, Woodward, etc) who saw the Clintons as intruders who didn’t belong and proceeded to shoot them down at every possible opportunity.
And, I agree with you re: politicans being power-hungry and/or ambitious. I never understood that complaint when people said it about Bill - if a man/woman knows at age 16 that they want to be president, then work hard and do what it takes to get elected, why is that a bad thing?
By The Other Jack
February 12, 2008 10:36 AM | Link to this
UsinUK
I was fortunate. My first Sushi experience was in Hawaii and paid for by a client. It has never been that good since. Ru Sans can be a little nasty, but generally good. East Atlanta Thai is great and not very expensive. It has a great lunch.
Five guys is the way to go. If I am going to suffer through a day or two of digesting cow, that is the cow I want to eat.
Believe it or not, I agree with the basic premise of Universal Health care, but I would rather health care just be affordable. It used to be affordable. But because of lack of tort reform and then the fact that HIV caused so many really dumb decisions in the name of political correctness, that the costs skyrocketed. There were many other reasons including lack of regulation because of Congressional payoffs, but health care should not cost what it does.
HMOs should not decide hospital stays. Having a medical tourism client has shown me the enormous overpricing that only benifits the corporations that own the hospitals, certainly not the doctors.
Again, get the money out of Congress and we could fix this country, but neither party wants that.
You don’t like Mrs. Clinton because of a single symptom of the overall problem. She is for sale, just like her husband was. It is all about the power. It is all about the money.
And as far as those old evil rich Republicans, you really need to do some reading on the overall wealth of the Republican Party as opposed to the overall wealth of the Democrats. People like Nancy Pelosi and other limousine liberals are as ruthless as it gets.
Pelosi’s golf course is still dumping chemicals into the ground water despite repeated warnings from the EPA. That was the Country Club where she promised that “common people” would be able to play without the outrageous membership fees, but the last time I checked, it was Members Only.
And look into her fighting for the Unions: that is except the Union Reps she had physically thrown off her non-union vineyards.
And the Kennedies? Where do I start?
There is no difference between the rich Democrats and the rich Republicans except the media doesn’t monitor the Dims like they monitor the Pubs. There is no Republican Micheal Moore and if there was, where could we see those “films”?
By USinUK
February 12, 2008 10:37 AM | Link to this
kimberly -
I guess I flinch whenever I hear a generalization like “mysogeny” or “people hate Clinton because she’s a woman”. Some do - you’re right. But, I think more don’t really care about her gender.
All-in-all, I think we’re lucky - we have 2 strong candidates to pick from - plus a fantastic pool for Veep!!
GO DEMS!!!
By Monica
February 12, 2008 10:38 AM | Link to this
As for health care - the poor pay for health care, too, through their taxes (Grady isn’t free). That’s why Grady is millions in debt. A good percentage of the poor people who go to Grady don’t pay taxes because they don’t have jobs. They don’t have homes either. It’s hard to send a bill to the 75-85 connector beneath the bridge.
Sorry to change the subject, but a few weeks ago on the news one of the anchors slipped in the fact that Gov. Sonny cut $55 million from the budget that was earmarked for Grady.
By The Other Jack
February 12, 2008 10:49 AM | Link to this
Iozen
How does TOJ presume to know all this about the Clintons - from Rush? From FOX?
I lived through 8 years of the scandals d’jour. NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, FOX, The BBC. Were you asleep for eight years?
I also read. Gary Alridge: Unlimited Access. The Seduction of Hillary Rodham. It Takes a Village. Enough! Jaun Williams. They Think You Are Stupid: Herman Cain. Do As I Say (Not As I Do).
By USinUK
February 12, 2008 10:56 AM | Link to this
Monica -
A good percentage of the poor people who go to Grady don’t pay taxes because they don’t have jobs.
So, groceries are now tax-free? Clothes? Booze? Cigs? Mickey-D’s? Gasoline? Services? The term “taxes” isn’t limited to income tax.
By Copyleft
February 12, 2008 11:03 AM | Link to this
OtherJack: We invaded on the assumption that Saddam was a threat to us. The invasion proved he was not a threat to America at all. Thus, Iraq War = mistake.
Insisting that we end this blunder, rather than prolonging it, is hardly “partisan.” Pretending there’s some way to eke out a “victory” while wasting billions of dollars and thousands of lives for pure ego… now, THAT’s partisan.
By kimberly
February 12, 2008 11:04 AM | Link to this
My reference to misogyny is not to imply that it’s the only reason Sen. Clinton’s electability may be questionable; rather, it’s based on what MEN have told me. “On a visceral level,” explained a 30-year-old military veteran, “Men have a harder time accepting a woman as an authority figure than they do a man of any race or background. We just can’t stand her!” That, and the rampant double-standard by which everything [the dreaded] “she” is and does is measured, while the exact same qualities, as Lozen pointed out, are perfectly acceptable in a man.
As painful as it is, I must also concede that there is still a real possibility we’ll be forced to endure yet another ego-maniacal, self-fulfilling-prophesy delusionist, belligerent, war-mongering, anti-civil-rights, “Go-eff-yourself” A—H-LE Republican in the White House next year. Personal contigency plans in progress.
By Monica
February 12, 2008 11:13 AM | Link to this
USinUK, you got me! I was thinking about income tax. However, I’m betting that a very small percentage of that sales tax makes it to Grady, especially since their funding was reduced drastically.
By USinUK
February 12, 2008 11:22 AM | Link to this
Monica -
Grady is a public hospital - it isn’t meant to be “for profit” (ed note: the whole idea of a hospital being profitable is abhorrent to me, anyway) - it’s meant to receive public funding. Especially as Grady is a teaching hospital, as well.
But, then, I’m not surprised that this Governor/Legislature has left Grady to wallow. The “Two Georgias” feud continues.
By lozen
February 12, 2008 11:29 AM | Link to this
TOJ, and you’ve been asleep for the past seven years, right?
By USinUK
February 12, 2008 11:30 AM | Link to this
kimberly -
there will always be neanderthals - men who think that a women’s place is in the kitchen (barefoot, etc). and, yes, as I said a couple of weeks ago, whether it’s Hillary or Margaret Thatcher’s clone, whatever woman the public elects to be the first President is going to have holy hell to pay - from cleavage to ankles, hair to nails, hats to bags, EVERYthing will be scrutinized.
me, I’d love to see the first female Commander in Chief actually be someone who has served - there are a number of women who have risen in the ranks who would be more than qualified. I think it will be critical in shutting a significant number of gobs - in particular, the people who say “the military will never listen to a woman”. If that woman once had stars on her shoulders, I’ll bet they will.
By Monica
February 12, 2008 11:31 AM | Link to this
That’s my point. Public hospitals should not try to make a profit, but they should be able to make ends meet. Grady can’t. I’m personally for having all counties that Grady services share some of the financial responsibility. Of course, then taxes would increase, and we can’t have that!
By USinUK
February 12, 2008 11:43 AM | Link to this
Monica -
I’m personally for having all counties that Grady services share some of the financial responsibility. Of course, then taxes would increase, and we can’t have that!
I’m with ya, sistah! Grady is well known across the SE for it’s excellent care of the critically wounded (or, as an EMT I once knew said, “If you’re ever shot or stabbed, you want to go to Grady”). It used to be that Kennestone was the place to go if you were severely burned and Piedmont was the place to go if you were paralyzed - but, I don’t know if that still holds.
The problem with running a hospital so that it will “break even” means that you have to have projections for what you will need during the year. For instance, “we’ll serve 10,000 gun shot victims, so we’ll need $15,000/victim for a total of $150M. We’ll have 12,000 AIDS patients who will require roughly $20,000/patient, for a total of $240M” … and so forth - then hope you don’t exceed those totals.
Unfortunately, askin’ ain’t gettin’. Even if they are able to accurately forecast their fiscal needs each year, that doesn’t mean that the guys under the Gold Dome are willing to give it.
By Newzwyre
February 12, 2008 11:50 AM | Link to this
When Women Rule - by Nocholas Kristof
A notable share of the great leaders in history have been women: Queen Hatshepsut and Cleopatra of Egypt, Empress Wu Zetian of China, Isabella of Castile, Queen Elizabeth I of England, Catherine the Great of Russia, and Maria Theresa of Austria. —- Scholars find that women, compared with men, tend to excel in consensus-building and certain other skills useful in leadership. If so, why have female political leaders been so much less impressive in the democratic era?
[snip]
In one common experiment, the “Goldberg paradigm,” people are asked to evaluate a particular article or speech, supposedly by a man. Others are asked to evaluate the identical presentation, but from a woman. Typically, in countries all over the world, the very same words are rated higher coming from a man.
In particular, one lesson from this research is that promoting their own successes is a helpful strategy for ambitious men. But experiments have demonstrated that when women highlight their accomplishments, that’s a turn-off. And women seem even more offended by self-promoting females than men are.
This creates a huge challenge for ambitious women in politics or business: If they’re self-effacing, people find them unimpressive, but if they talk up their accomplishments, they come across as pushy braggarts.
The broader conundrum is that for women, but not for men, there is a tradeoff in qualities associated with top leadership. A woman can be perceived as competent or as likable, but not both.
[snip]
Female leaders face these impossible judgments all over the world. An M.I.T. economist, Esther Duflo, looked at India, which has required female leaders in one-third of village councils since the mid-1990s. Professor Duflo and her colleagues found that by objective standards, the women ran the villages better than men. For example, women constructed and maintained wells better, and took fewer bribes.
Yet ordinary villagers themselves judged the women as having done a worse job, and so most women were not re-elected.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/10/opinion/10kristof.html?em&ex=1202965200&en=4209d0dabc575142&ei=5087%0A
By Lyrazel
February 12, 2008 12:21 PM | Link to this
Forgive me but its the people surrounding Presidents who make decisions for this country now and we must oblige these non-elected officials without voice while they wheel and deal our constitutional rights out the door. My real issue is: who will Hilliary/Obama/ John/Mike/Ron put into high offices like Sec. of State, Defense, etc.? Who will they put into vacated supreme court seats? I don’t give a damn about gender or race. Integrity is easy to buy with enough TV ads.
By Gordon
February 12, 2008 12:28 PM | Link to this
Barack beats McCain, McCain beats Hillary. If you think Republican (women or not) aren’t excited, wait until Hillary is the Democratic nominee. You’ll see plenty of excitement then. I disagree with Obama on most issues, but at least he seems genuine.
I think it is hilarious listening to libs like Andrea talk about “making history.” The same people who say they dream about a society that looks beyond race and gender are always the ones who bring it up, and in this case use it as a reason to vote for someone. I hear that 10 times as much as reasons to vote on the issues from Democrats. It’s all about feelings.
By USinUK
February 12, 2008 12:38 PM | Link to this
Gordon -
The same people who say they dream about a society that looks beyond race and gender are always the ones who bring it up
maybe that’s because it’s the conservatives who never think there’s a problem.
as for the in this case use it as a reason to vote for someone. - that’s not at all what Andrea or anyone else on the forum is saying. What Andrea said was that people were excited about which way they could make history - but not that they were voting for that person BECAUSE Obama is black or BECAUSE Hillary is a woman.
I suggest you reread some of the postings here as you have obviously missed the point(s).
By lozen
February 12, 2008 12:38 PM | Link to this
Newswyre, great info. Of course, we all knew that already, right? Hillary is the first politician I know of who is called too political to be good at politics! She’s either too emotional - or she’s the ice lady. How many people talked about GW’s disadvantage because his father had been prez? None! How many people feared Bush, Sr. being the real power in the WH if GW was elected? None. All the things even fair minded people are talking about as being disadvantages for Clinton were there in the Bush dynasty and nobody worried about it. So now we’re in a war because Saddam tried to kill Bush, Sr. Jeez!
By lozen
February 12, 2008 12:44 PM | Link to this
And Gordon I think it’s hilarious to listen to you CON-servatives make excuses for the past seven years and try to say you didn’t vote entirely on feeling - FEAR in the last election!
By Newzwyre
February 12, 2008 1:00 PM | Link to this
do me a favor? Go to AJC Home and take a look at the photo they have up of Ron Isley. Is it me or does he bear a striking resemblance to a Ferangi? Kind of creepy…
By Monica
February 12, 2008 1:10 PM | Link to this
I didn’t notice the picture, Newz. I was too astounded by the headline that Thriller is 25 years old. Ouch!
By The Other Jack
February 12, 2008 1:42 PM | Link to this
Copyleft
OtherJack: We invaded on the assumption that Saddam was a threat to us.
No. We invaded on the fact that Saddam Hussan was a serious threat to our allies and sadly, the same oil industry that is now paying off the dims. We WOULD have gone into Iraq whether it was GW Bush or Al Gore. As much as the dims want to distance themselves from the action, Washington sent us to Iraq.
Insisting that we end this blunder, rather than prolonging it, is hardly “partisan.” Pretending there’s some way to eke out a “victory” while wasting billions of dollars and thousands of lives for pure ego… now, THAT’s partisan.
Pure Ego? You really need to stop going to Salon and MoveOn for your “facts”.
No one wants to stay in Iraq. The options are these, we pull another Viet Nam and split, like the dims want. That concedes the country to whomever, and just like Viet Nam, we have no influence over that country. Yes, that’s sounds wonderful until you consider where the country is and what is there.
We continue to advance and clean out pockets of fascists that are beating women and killing any opposition. We will need to stay there in bases, like most Democrats have admitted. The fighting has recently gone down substantially and while there will always be problems, to “cut and run” is insane.
But ego? What you guys need to accept as fact in order for you to say things like that is staggering.
By lozen
February 12, 2008 1:44 PM | Link to this
Newswyre, Ferangi fer shur? Did they use him for the model?
By HeeHaw
February 12, 2008 2:06 PM | Link to this
sadly, the same oil industry that is now paying off the dims
the oil industry must foresee the Democrats winning then, and no longer wish to Pay off the Repugs like they have been for years.
thanks for the insight on who will win the Presidential election.
By Here's yer facts, Woody
February 12, 2008 2:12 PM | Link to this
Fact: Osama Bin Laden remains free, while the rights of Americans are being eroded.
Fact: The United States government has spent billions of dollars (borrowed, as in debt with interest) in Iraq paying privately-owned firms for their “services” in no-bid, unaudited contracts.
Fact: The United States soldiers deployed to Iraq did what they were asked to do. They removed Saddam from power.
Fact: The United States military is depleted, stretched, overextended, and less able to defend our homeland than they were five years ago.
Fact: Osama Bin Laden remains free to manage his ever-growing organization while US soldiers try NOT to get their limbs and heads blown off in the middle of a pointless civil war / free trade for Halli Zone.
Fact: Some Americans get wood thinking about war. Big wood. They watch John Wayne movies and shout, “Kill ‘em all and let God sort it out!”
Fact: Those Americans will vote for John McKillEmAll in November.
Fact: Those Americans can bite me.
By Monica
February 12, 2008 2:23 PM | Link to this
As much as I hate the fact that we are in Iraq, I feel that leaving now will be the worst thing that we could do. I agree that we should not have gone to war, and that we did not really go to war because someone thought there were WMD’s (nice red herring), but I don’t see how we can leave yet. There isn’t yet the light at the end of the tunnel, but there’s not one behind us anymore either.
By Archie
February 12, 2008 2:26 PM | Link to this
Hillary is the first politician I know of who is called too political to be good at politics! She’s either too emotional - or she’s the ice lady. This is a good point Lozen. None! How many people feared Bush, Sr. being the real power in the WH if GW was elected? None. All the things even fair minded people are talking about as being disadvantages for Clinton were there in the Bush dynasty and nobody worried about it. Those are very good points Lozen and I think people just won’t admit they’re sexist just as they won’t admit they’re racist. People say those things exist but they always point the finger at someone else. I do believe that some of Obama’s support is irrational pride but the struggle for blacks has been different in America and although the irrational pride in Obama bothers me the irrational dislike of Hillary is just as bad. I have heard people say things that are slanderous and they could be easily sued if it were me or someone else here. Lozen or anyone my questions are this: If you’re a democrat and you dislike the war then how do you vote for McCain? If you think 50 million people including yourself not having health insurance is a problem how do you vote for anyone other than Clinton or Obama? My point is if you have a hot button issue then how do you logically vote against that. One guy on the Sharpton show said that he was against the war but if Hillary won then he would vote for McCain,who has said he would continue the status quo. That same guy said he was mad at Hillary because of her vote on the war btw.
By lozen
February 12, 2008 2:44 PM | Link to this
No one wants to stay in Iraq. You wanta bet Haliburton doesn’t want to stay in Iraq along with other private firms - Blackwater - for example, that are making millions. “We can’t pull out now! We can’t. We’ll die; the muslims will get us!” Sounds just like Vietnam … before we pulled out. Of course then it was “…the commies will get us!” The commies didn’t get us. The commies didn’t take over Vietnam. All the asian countries did not fall like dominoes to the commies! The commies didn’t invade the USA! No, the commies went bankrupt and fell apart because they kept spending all their money on wars! Great bumper sticker: “Just let North Korea threaten to invade the U.S. … Bush will attack Venezuela immediately.”
By chuck
February 12, 2008 2:51 PM | Link to this
USinUK, I know you’ve been across the pond too long, but let me give you a little lesson in American Government. Your statement:
you’re right about openings with the Supremes, but Obama would have the right to go in and clean house with the federal judges.
This is not true. Federal judges under article III of the Constitution are appointed for life (though the Constitution actually says that they serve “during good behavior” it is usually just paraphrased as being appointed for life). This includes all federal judges that are appointed under Article III which is everybody except for the U.S. Tax Courts which are appointed for a specified term.
Lozen, if you want to see the difference between the Power Hungry” Republicans and the Clintons you need look no farther than what they did as Billary left office in 2001. When they left they were millions of dollars in debt with legal fees. Then they began to beg for money to cover those. At the same time they sold some pardons, took HUGE advances for books not yet written, Bill took jobs “consulting” for the Arabs and other foreign countries and now 8 years later they are worth tens of millions of dollars. Almost as good as that WHITEWATER investment hillary made. You can take the trash out of the trailer park but…well, you know what I mean.
Now what did GHW Bush do. Made a few speaking fees that for the most part were given to charities. Apparently his “lust for power” was for the good of the country and NOT HIMSELF. It remains to be seen what George II will do, but I think that he will follow his father’s example. In any event, I trust him in power way beyond anyone whose last name is Clinton.
Kimberly, on what do you base your proclamation that Hillary is “competent”? I’d like to know what it is that she has actually accomplished as a U.S. Senator.
By lozen
February 12, 2008 3:00 PM | Link to this
Hi Archie. We humans like to think we’re rational creatures and the only thinking animals don’t we? We are not rational. We all think with our feelings and vote out of fear, pride, sexism, racism, and all that other feeling stuff. Some of us admit it and others, like Gordon, deny it. We take the exact same information and twist it to suit our preconceived notions. I like Hillary. I admire Hillary. I want to see a woman lead this country before I die. She’s no more perfect than any of the men who are running, but, based on 40 years of study about differences in leadership styles, (the info provided by Newswyre regarding female leadership earlier, for example) I truly believe she would be the best leader. I like Obama and if he’s the candidate I’ll be happy. But I believe Hillary is the one to get the job done now. Yes, she’s tough, she’s smart, and she has Washington connections! Even with all that know how, I’m not sure she (or anyone) can do much to salvage the reputation of the U.S. after the last seven years. I know beyond a doubt she will be better than “John McKillEmAll”
By chuck
February 12, 2008 3:03 PM | Link to this
Lozen…are you kidding me?
*The commies didn’t take over Vietnam. All the asian countries did not fall like dominoes to the commies! *
April 17, 1975 the Kmer Rouge toppled the government of Cambodia and took over (They were of course COMMUNISTS)
April 30, 1975, South Viet Namese Army laid down its arms and a COMMUNIST government was installed.
December 1975 the Pathet Lao overthrew the government of Laos and took charge (They were, of course, COMMUNISTS).
I’ll give you the fact that they didn’t overtly attack the U.S., but everything else you said was false. On the other hand, what would you call the current trade deficit with China? Maybe not a military attack, but it could be considered an attack on our economy.
By Newzwyre
February 12, 2008 3:08 PM | Link to this
Archie, how does an anti-Iraq War Democrat vote for McCain? The same way a pro-life Republican votes for Obama; they consider more than that one single issue before pulling the lever.
If you are basing your vote on one single issue, you probably won’t be voting for a candidate who doesn’t agree with you. If the war is the most important issue to that Democrat, I don’t see them voting for McCain. If it is only one of several that he thinks are important, he may choose to ignore the war votes in favor of McCains stand on torture or the environment or civil liberties.
Most people realize that there is no “perfect candidate” who will agree with them on every issue, so we choose the one who agrees with us on most of them.
By lozen
February 12, 2008 3:08 PM | Link to this
Okay, this is why I think TOJ is one of Chuck’s alter egoes:
*By chuck February 12, 2008 2:51 PM | Link to this USinUK, I know you’ve been across the pond too long, but let me give you a little lesson in American Government. *
Does that snide, cocky, arrogance not sound just like TOJ? I think Chuck got tired of always having to be the saintly xtian and decided to let his evil side really come out in TOJ.
Bill consulted with Arabs did he? I know GHW didn’t have nuthin’ to do with them Arabs! Maybe he didn’t need to. His father and grandfather may have consulted with Arabs enough that GHW and GW don’t need to; they just collect the profits!
By chuck
February 12, 2008 3:11 PM | Link to this
USinUK, you said:
The same people who say they dream about a society that looks beyond race and gender are always the ones who bring it up
maybe that’s because it’s the conservatives who never think there’s a problem.
Don’t you think it is really more that the Conservatives judge people on their MERIT and not their skin color or gender? I can garauntee you that if you look at po