by mageduley, Sun May 04, 2008 at 08:10:01 AM EDT
by mageduley, Fri Apr 04, 2008 at 07:47:11 AM EDT
<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/YG00SWAqcvw&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/YG00SWAqcvw&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>
Voice heard. Votes Counted. Aw heck with it. Forget the voters. All delegates, even pledged delegates, can choose whoever they want.
<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/3xiiwWQSy8Q&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/3xiiwWQSy8Q&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>
by mageduley, Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 06:23:29 AM EST
Hey this is what we need. Hillary trying to steal the election by voter intimidation. Just like she did in Nevada. Maybe she will have Bill come out, just like in Nevada and hover around and scream VOTER INTIMIDATION at Obama supporters.
Hillary's rule of campaigning. Accuse your opponent of something you are guilty of yourself.
From the Politico:
The Dallas Morning News gets hold of Clinton caucus "training materials," in which supporters are instructed to fight for procedural control of caucuses.
The materials say in part, "DO NOT allow the supporter of another candidate to serve in leadership roles."
It goes on to say, "If our supporters are outnumbered, ask the Temporary Chair if one of our supporters can serve as the Secretary, in the interest of fairness.
"The control of the sign-in sheets and the announcement of the delegates allotted to each candidate are the critical functions of the Chair and Secretary. This is why it is so important that Hillary supporters hold these positions."
Some of the moments on the ground in Nevada showed how crucial technical control can be, particularly when -- there, as expected in Texas -- nobody has any idea what the rules are. Really makes you love the caucus process.
See Letters from Nevada:
by mageduley, Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 11:22:50 AM EST
This article really embodies how many people feel about the primary media coverage.
Biased media!? Why I'm angry
By bserious- March 1, 2008, 4:36PM
The media is actually giving Hillary positive press for her tantrums and her claims that the media is pro-Obama.They're spinning it as a rallying cry for feminists. Taking lead from Tina Fey's sketch on SNL, her tantrum is somehow being spun into an ownership of the word, "bi*ch." You have people on tv talking about the double standards that women face in politics (i.e., men are assertive and women are bi*ches).
Now, I won't deny that women face double standards. And I know that there is some truth in that analysis. But this is not Jane Doe, this is Hillary Clinton.
Guess what, that "double standard" theory doesn't fly when her opponent has gone out of his way to be as respectful as he possibly can towards her (despite her repeated attacks). I could see if she was running against some sexist prick. But she's not. Yet she wants to take her anger at the media and re-direct it towards Obama and his success?
Why doesn't the media focus it's attention on how disrespectful she has been towards him? She won't acknowledge his victories; she mocks his message; she scolds his supporters; she calls him an empty suit; she calls his words, "cheap," and his hope, "false." The list goes on and on.
I don't care if she's a woman, man or whatever . . . when you're wrong, you're wrong.
"Shame on you Barack Obama"?!?!?! Who is she to talk to him like he's some 4 year old? This ain't pre-school and her condescending attitude is getting real tired, real fast.
Senator Obama is a grown man. He's just as accomplished as she is, (check their senate records) yet she wants to go around the country and call him some naive rookie? She dismisses his supporters and ignores the impact that he has had.
It's never good enough. He can win 11 straight states by an average of 33%, but it's still NEVER GOOD ENOUGH! He can expand the Democratic party by bringing in Independents, cross-over Republicans and first-time voters, but it's NEVER GOOD ENOUGH! He can draw crowds of 20,000 but it's NEVER GOOD ENOUGH! He can win more states (24 to 11), have a commanding lead in Pledged delegates, have a strong lead in the popular vote . . . but it's still NEVER GOOD ENOUGH!
She needs to stop making excuses. She needs to recognize that he's just doing a better job at reaching the voters than she is. Plain and simple.
Her stunts are going to backfire on her. It has nothing to do with being a man or woman. Democratic primary voters don't like negative politics . . . it's as simple as that.
This goes to show that there are differences in how the media treats race and gender. I'm not saying that they're better or worse, just different. I'm just gonna say it. This country has an instinct to protect white women. It can be a burden at times (i.e., Cult of True Womanhood) but it's still there. Hillary gets her feelings hurt and voters rush to her aide. She throws a fit and we make excuses because, after all, we can't forget those double standards, right?
Yet, at the same time, we have an instinct to fear black men.
Tell me, what would happen if Obama went on a tirade against Hillary, like she's done ? What would happen if he (gasp) raised his voice to this white woman? What would happen if he spent all of his time talking about the "white man," the way Hillary talks about the "boys club?"
Rick Lazio, a white man, found out when he "invaded her personal space." If he took the fall, you can imagine what would happen to Obama the second he steps out of line.
Hillary faces a lot of obstacles through sexism, no doubt. But there are moments where she benefits as well. There are moments where she has the luxury to portray herself as the victim to garner sympathy from voters and the media. There are moments where she can, as Melissa Harris-Lacewell (a black woman, professor) notes, slip in and out of her "Scarlett O'Hara" routine. It's a prime example of how mainstream media discusses gender bias without recognizing the white privilege that often comes with it.
You want to talk about double standards? Obama has run his campaign under the interrogation of white approval ever since he made that speech at the DNC in 2004. He knows he can't do or say certain things because he can't afford to make white people uncomfortable, especially when running against a white woman.
Once again, I know that we have to fight sexism as vigorously as we fight racism. And we should be doing a better job at it.
But I also know that there are many "oppressed" white women who would never trade places with a black person. All I'm saying is that it's more complicated than the media would like to suggest.
So to the media: Fine, point out the double standards. But don't make excuses for Hillary's poor and divisive behavior. And don't pretend like Obama doesn't walk a tight rope everyday as well.
Obama caught hell just for saying, "you're likeable, enough" because people didn't like the tone of his voice. He caught hell for the "snub" because he happened to be talking to someone else when she came by. I swear, I almost fell out of my chair late last week when I heard a pundit criticize Obama for WRITING ON HIS NOTEPAD while Hillary spoke at the debate. I guess he was being disrespectful because he wasn't looking at her when she talked. Give me a break!
I can't make this any clearer. Obama has to RUN AWAY from issues of race for fear of being labled the "black candidate." It's the only way he can win. Yet, Hillary gets to embrace "girl power" in ways Obama could NEVER embrace "black power." Now you've got Tina Fey saying "Bi*ch is the new black."
Some see Hillary as a victim. But some of us also know what discrimination is. And for a lot of us, we see Hillary as a grown woman who knows exactly what she's doing. She conveniently plays off of gender oppression every chance she gets.
Some of us don't see her as a victim, and never have. What we see is a privileged person who thought the white house was her entitlement.
But the media keeps falling for her BS. The narrative remains the same . . . everything goes back to "POOR HILLARY"
by mageduley, Fri Feb 29, 2008 at 07:28:57 AM EST
If she runs our country the way she runs her campaign, we are in deep trouble.
From The Atlantic on her campaign managers loyalty
Here, too, Solis Doyle was disastrous; her lack of skill in areas other than playing the loyal heavy began to show. The first public sign of this came just after Clinton's reelection to the Senate. Even though Clinton had faced no serious opponent, it turned out that Solis Doyle, as campaign manager, had burned through more than $30 million. As this New York Times story makes clear, the donor base was incensed. Toward the end of the Senate campaign, Solis Doyle did her best to bolster the impression of the inevitability of Hillary's nomination as the Democratic presidential candidate, spreading word that Clinton's Senate reelection fund-raising had gone so exceptionally well that $40 million to $50 million would be left after Election Day to transfer to the incipient presidential campaign. But this turned out to be a wild exaggeration--and Solis Doyle must have known it was. Disclosure filings revealed a paltry $10 million in cash on hand; far from conveying Hillary's inevitability, this had precisely the opposite effect, encouraging, rather than frightening off, potential challengers.
Rather than punish Solis Doyle or raise questions about her fitness to lead, Clinton chose her to manage the presidential campaign for reasons that should now be obvious: above all, Clinton prizes loyalty and discipline, and Solis Doyle demonstrated both traits, if little else. This suggests to me that for all the emphasis Clinton has placed on executive leadership in this campaign, her own approach is a lot closer to the current president's than her supporters might like to admit.
Then of course is their highliy disorganized campaign which cannot seem to put all of the ground troops in place.
From the NYT:
But it's the Clinton strategists, not the Obama voters, who drank the Kool-Aid. The Obama campaign is not a vaporous cult; it's a lean and mean political machine that gets the job done. The Clinton camp has been the slacker in this race, more words than action, and its candidate's message, for all its purported high-mindedness, was and is self-immolating.
The gap in hard work between the two campaigns was clear well before Feb. 5. Mrs. Clinton threw as much as $25 million at the Iowa caucuses without ever matching Mr. Obama's organizational strength. In South Carolina, where last fall she was up 20 percentage points in the polls, she relied on top-down endorsements and the patina of inevitability, while the Obama campaign built a landslide-winning organization from scratch at the grass roots. In Kansas, three paid Obama organizers had the field to themselves for three months; ultimately Obama staff members outnumbered Clinton staff members there 18 to 3.
In the last battleground, Wisconsin, the Clinton campaign was six days behind Mr. Obama in putting up ads and had only four campaign offices to his 11. Even as Mrs. Clinton clings to her latest firewall -- the March 4 contests -- she is still being outhustled. Last week she told reporters that she "had no idea" that the Texas primary system was "so bizarre" (it's a primary-caucus hybrid), adding that she had "people trying to understand it as we speak." Perhaps her people can borrow the road map from Obama's people. In Vermont, another March 4 contest, The Burlington Free Press reported that there were four Obama offices and no Clinton offices as of five days ago. For what will no doubt be the next firewall after March 4, Pennsylvania on April 22, the Clinton campaign is sufficiently disorganized that it couldn't file a complete slate of delegates by even an extended ballot deadline.
Oooh yeah she's a smart one. She will really whip this country into shape wont she?
by mageduley, Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 07:15:32 PM EST
A very eye opening article passed my way. It really gave me a glimpse into the sort of management style and executive experience Hillary will bring to the table.
It explains the inner workings of the Hillary campaign staff, especially Patti Solis Doyle. Here are just a couple of choice excerpts:
Hillary's staffers were fiercely loyal. "My staff prided themselves on discretion, loyalty, and camaraderie, and we had our own special ethos," Clinton wrote in her memoir, Living History. "While the West Wing had a tendency to leak, Hillaryland never did."
"Concerns about Solis Doyle have preoccupied many in the campaign for several years. Clinton insiders say that her campaign chairman, Terry McAuliffe, launched an unsuccessful bid to remove Solis Doyle while on vacation with the Clintons two years ago. Two top campaign officials told me that Maggie Williams, Hillary's former chief of staff (and, as of Sunday, her campaign manager), also sought and failed to have Solis Doyle removed two years ago. Last year, some of Bill Clinton's former advisers, known as the "White Boys," lobbied to oust her, too.
But because of Solis Doyle's proximity to Hillary Clinton, because she demonstrated the loyalty and discretion Clinton so prized, and because no one appeared capable of challenging Clinton's presumed status as the Democratic nominee-in-waiting, nothing was done. "What Patti has that is real power is the unquestioned trust and confidence of the candidate," Paul Begala, a veteran of Bill Clinton's campaigns, explained in an on-the-record interview last year. "That makes her bulletproof."
This one is particularly telling:
"Here, too, Solis Doyle was disastrous; her lack of skill in areas other than playing the loyal heavy began to show. The first public sign of this came just after Clinton's reelection to the Senate. Even though Clinton had faced no serious opponent, it turned out that Solis Doyle, as campaign manager, had burned through more than $30 million. As this New York Times story makes clear, the donor base was incensed."
But this really nails it:
"Rather than punish Solis Doyle or raise questions about her fitness to lead, Clinton chose her to manage the presidential campaign for reasons that should now be obvious: above all, Clinton prizes loyalty and discipline, and Solis Doyle demonstrated both traits, if little else. This suggests to me that for all the emphasis Clinton has placed on executive leadership in this campaign, her own approach is a lot closer to the current president's than her supporters might like to admit."
Check out the whole article in The Atlantic by Josh Green
by mageduley, Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 09:48:01 PM EST
this from sullivan's blog:
The Unemotional Case For Obama
08 Feb 2008 04:01 pm
A meme is developing is that support for Obama is all emotion, fantasy, hysteria, etc. There's no question that the emotions behind Obama are powerful. And any fool can see why. His oratory does what oratory should. He is the greatest public speaker in American in a long time. And the shame and demoralization of the Bush-Cheney years - when we launched a war with reckless indifference to planning it, when we tortured prisoners and
called it "enhanced interrogation", when we saw a government rendered so utterly useless that a hurricane made the US look like the third world, when conservatives added $32 trillion to the debt of the next generation, when a president made sophomoric jokes about not finding weapons of mass destruction he leveraged American global credibility on ... if you don't feel emotions in wanting to put this disgrace of an
administration behind us, then you are not being rational.
But the strongest case for Obama is not emotional; it is as coolly rational as he is. I tried to express it in my "Goodbye To All That" essay. On the most critical issues we face - Iraq, the war against Jihadism, healthcare, and the economy - he makes more sense as a president than Clinton. And when you watch the knee-jerk opposition to him, I think it is actually more emotional and less rational than the support for him. Fear is more emotional than hope.
And defending Clinton on the grounds of "experience" and "substance" is a fairy tale on both counts, if you pardon the expression. Her legislative experience is one term longer than Obama's (and that's if you don't count Obama's state legislative record), is notable mainly for its uninspired diligence in constituency work, and on the most important issue of the day, Iraq, simply wrong. Her main executive branch experience was destroying a historic opportunity for healthcare reform through arrogance, secrecy and over-reach. Her "substance" claim is just as phony. There is no detail in her policy apparatus that isn't matched by Obama's. But you've heard a lot from me on this. Here's a video that shows a conservative cynic being slowly and rationally disarmed by the logic of young, shrewd voter.
A vote for Obama is a vote for reason over sentiment. Check it out:
by mageduley, Wed Feb 06, 2008 at 08:52:39 PM EST
If you think Hillary will protect human life rather than her own political life - Think AGAIN!
Clinton, Obama and Clusterbombs - By David Rees
Cluster bombs and landmines are particularly terrifying weapons that wreak havoc on communities trying to recover from war. They are fatal impediments to reconstruction and rehabilitation of agricultural land; they destroy valuable livestock; they disable otherwise productive members of society; they maim or kill children trying to salvage them for scrap metal.
Over 150 nations have signed the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty. It pains me that our great nation has not. But in the autumn of 2006, there was a chance to take a step in the right direction: Senate Amendment No. 4882, an amendment to a Pentagon appropriations bill that would have banned the use of cluster bombs in civilian areas.
Senator Obama of Illinois voted IN FAVOR of the ban.
Senator Clinton of New York voted AGAINST the ban.
Analysts say Clinton did not want to risk appearing "soft on terror," as it would have harmed her electibility.
I'm not a single-issue voter. But as Obama and Clinton share many policy positions, this vote was revelatory for me. After all, Amendment No. 4882 was an easy one to vote against: Who'd want to risk accusation of "tying the hands of the Pentagon" during a never-ending, global War on Terror? As is so often the case, there was no political cost to doing the wrong thing. And there was no political reward for doing the right thing.
But Senator Obama did the right thing.
I don't care what you say, Obama's non major "present" votes in the Illinois sentate do not match up with Hillary's life or death votes where she consistently votes for death.
by mageduley, Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 10:31:50 AM EST
NOW is flat out lying. For the truth, see
The article says "It is true he voted present several times between 1997 and 2001. But it was part of a strategy designed by Planned Parenthood. Republicans in the Illinois Senate had repeatedly tried to pass bills restricting abortion. This put Democrats in a difficult position. They wanted to vote against the bills, but worried they would be smeared by Republican opponents for opposing legislation with names like "The Born Alive Infant Protection Act." So Obama and a group of Democrats and moderate Republicans cut a deal with Planned Parenthood. The politicians would vote present as a bloc. The bills wouldn't get enough votes, and the pols would have political cover. Everybody would win.
Pam Sutherland, president of Illinois Planned Parenthood, tells NEWSWEEK that the ploy was her idea: "Senator Obama was always a no vote in committee, but we had other Democrats, and a couple of Republicans, who were tired of having mailers sent out against them." Sutherland says Obama could have voted no without suffering any negative fallout, since he came from a very liberal Chicago district. But, she says, his participation in the deal helped give cover to his colleagues."
Lorna Howard, former president of NOW, a true Women's rights activist, and enthusiastic Hillary supporter worked on the Hillary campaign. She started to notice some very dirty tactics in both IA and NH. She quit in protest of the obvious swift-boating of a great Women's rights advocate in the senate.
Hear what she has to say.
Obama is at the forefront on a Woman's right to choose. See his speech to planned parenthood in July.
"The recent decisions handed down from the Supreme Court of the United States. The court presumes that a women's health is best protected by the court, not by doctors or by the woman herself. That presumption is wrong! Some people argue that the ban on abortion was just an isolated effort aimed at one medical procedure. That is is not part of a concerted effort to steadily roll back the hard won rights of American women. That is also wrong!"
My typing doesnt do it justice. Please see the video
We want someone who will stand up for our rights. Not use it as a political wedge against someone who is fighting the Women's right with us.
Say no to dirty email by the Clinton Campaign. Women's rights should never be an attack tool.
by mageduley, Tue Feb 05, 2008 at 08:45:29 AM EST
By Michael J. Salamone - February 5, 2008, 10:19AM
I woke early, in hopes of getting to the polls before work. A progression of household delays will force me to do so after work today. Still, I was in position to get to the office early enough to enjoy a cup of coffee before the rest of the organization gets in, and that seemed like a solid goal for me.
When I arrived to the subway station, a college student was at the top of the escalators handing out Obama literature and encouraging people to vote. I passed on the literature, stating that Barack already had my vote. The young man thanked me and I took the stairs down to the train stop.
That's when I noticed something far out of the ordinary for my morning routine. My fellow commuters, who I see every morning and afternoon, were engaged in conversation with each other. Usually, this crowd of mixed age, race, gender and preference casually ignores each other. They stand or sit quietly. They bury their faces in books or newspapers. They close their eyes. Rarely do they interact. Today, they were discussing politics with their fellow strangers.
All of this was inspired by the young man at the top of the station encouraging votes for Obama. It appeared to me that a majority of my fellow commuters were receptive to that encouragement. People were shouting, "Yes We Can!" Others asked each other if they'd voted yet and if they knew where to do so.
I decided to interact as well, and try to get a feel for people's thoughts and ideas. As I was considering who I would survey, a couple of young black men shouted over their iPod earphone volume at me. "Democrat?" I smiled and nodded. They both responded with a hearty Kool-Aid man impression.
As I took my seat on the train, I was stunned by how everyone was still interacting. They were folding up their Obama literature and saving it. I asked an elderly gentleman nearby what he thought of this phenomenon. He smiled a Cheshire grin and told me that it gave him hope.
Two well dressed white girls, likely students, sat near me, and didn't seem interested in the political conversations occurring around them. I decided to ask them why. "We're Hillary girls," one responded to me. I had to ask why.
"Because she's a woman," the other said enthusiastically.
The two black men I'd encountered outside the train chimed in from several rows away, saying that they were voting for Obama, but not because he's black. They wanted to know what issues the girls were choosing Clinton over Obama for. The girls responded they were choosing Clinton because they liked her husband.
This made me pause. At first the ladies made me think they were choosing Hillary because of strong feelings for the need for a woman, but ultimately their reason was anti-feminist, and because they liked her husband.
My new friends that I'd met outside the train weren't done interjecting. "No more Clintons. We can't have more of the same."
I felt bad for the girls, as they sunk down sheepishly, in an obviously mostly Obama crowd. I decided to push the Obama crowd on the issues to see how they made their choice.
Interestingly enough, the people I may have incorrectly stereotyped by appearance for not being politically minded, seemed to be the most astute on the issues. One told me about a pledge to honor the constitution as President that Obama signed and Hillary refused. (I researched this when I got to the office, it's true.) Several spoke about the war. A nice couple spoke about Obama's work as a community organizer and how they believed it would benefit the nation to have a leader who worked on the streets like that. Everyone agreed that Barack's warm personality made him extremely likable and gave them hope.
A stylish older black man with a cane, the sort of character you see on the train and wish you'd brought a sketch pad, grabbed me by the arm and smiled. "You see this? That man, (Obama) has inspired all these people to get active in politics. I haven't seen anything like this since the civil rights movement. You say you're a writer. You write about this today."
And so I did.
I can't wait to cast my vote for Obama today. He at one point was my third choice, behind Kucinich and Paul. Now I'm excited to support him.
THAT is the audacity of hope.