Craig Crawford's Trail Mix

Dear Craig, Everyone
A good top 'o the 'mornin to all! :-))

--Heather

Dear Craig:
You make a great point in your article! Loved it :-))

Later I have a post that sort of ties in with your last point about media and its contradictions and Senator Obama's speech on racism. It's rather lengthly but not too much so I tried to compress it as much as i could without defaulting from it's value and interest, but all my words and a good read even if one disagrees.

Sincerely,
Heather

Yoo hooo for HEATHER !!

Craig, keep up as one of the voices speaking the truth - or at least we find agreement. Heather I look forward to reading your post.

By the way I will have a post on my soon new and improved website / blog --- Obama - the great distraction

more later

Obama and Change, If you want Change stick with Obama - as a Man with no direction beyond simplistic rose colored lavish offerings, will be a constant voice of change. As with little to put your hands around better get used to change.

I prefer someone founded with a ruder and keel, not someone that will be blown with the wind

ah.....a great list of gop offenders......

http://www.republicanoffenders.com/

The Other Original Sin Senator Obama Will Not Speak Of

Senator Obama was graceful in his speech about racism but it was very limited in scope and vision, it focused primarily in Anglo-African American relations while ignoring other minorities, in my opinion if you discuss racism you need to discuss it in its entire genesis.
The one I would like to discuss here is sexism and how little if at all it is discussed. Certainly I may have my detractors when I consider it an equal component to racism and perhaps a few scoffs and giggles, or a thought entering a person’s mind thinking “oh here we go, another eccentric feminist” I can assure you such is not the case.
What Senator Obama failed to mention in his lofty flowery speech on racism was any mention on the subject of sexism. Senator Obama’s speech on racism was extremely flawed and limited in scope vision and unity. He predominantly focused on racism on the African American community while practically ignoring other minorities and their struggles of oppression. Ignored were the Chinese, who were basically imported as slave labor for the construction of American railroads. The constitution of California was rewritten in 1879 forbidding any man or woman of "Chinese or Mongolian" ancestry from earning a living by working for a white man. And the legislature delegated "all necessary power" to towns and cities "for the removal of Chinese." The state constitution declared that the Chinese people were "dangerous to the well-being of the State.

In 1882 the Congress enacted the Chinese Exclusion Act, which decreed that a Chinese man who worked with his "hands," who was a "manual" laborer, would be prohibited from coming to America. And the people from China who were already residents were barred from becoming citizens. Chinese, like Black people and Indians, were not allowed to testify against whites in court. They were barred from public schools and forbidden to own real estate or get business licenses or government contracts. In San Francisco, laws were passed against the Chinese like a "queue tax," a "cubic air ordinance" requiring that every residence have so many cubic feet of air per inhabitant, and a "pole law" prohibiting the use of carrying baskets on poles. Laws that specifically targeted Chinese immigration stayed on the books until 1965. The Chinese Exclusion Act was not repealed until 1943--and even then immigration of Chinese was given a quota of only 105 per year!

The white labor movement in California became a major force behind the racist campaigns to drive the Chinese out. Mobs stormed through towns where Chinese immigrants lived, burning homes and looting shops. Chinese were lynched and scalped. They had their pigtails cut off and were branded with hot irons. In one incident a mob caught a Chinese miner and sliced off his genitals. In one Nevada town a Chinese laundryman was tied to a wagon wheel and the buckboard was driven at high speed through the town until the man's head fell off. One Chinese crab fisherman who was beaten to death was branded by hot irons, his ears sliced in half with a knife and his tongue cut off. You see Senator Obama it’s not just about what African Americans endured in Selma.

In order to keep this condensed there is a whole litany of horrible atrocities America engaged in as far as brutal oppression towards the Native American Indian that I would love to go into chapter and verse on but will refrain from suffice to say it was not focused on by Senator Obama.
I would really like to concentrate the focal point of my post on sexism and how it has affected Senator Hillary Clinton and her campaign for the presidency juxtaposed to Senator Obama’s flawed speech on racism in America.

It has become palpably obvious that Hillary is suffering, covert, and subtle sexism. What I mean by that is covert sexism is defined as unequal and unfair treatment of women that is recognized but purposefully hidden from view, which seems to be the case with Hillary and ties in with Craig's point of the media ignoring Obama's half-truths relating to lobbyists.

An example I can use is a current one, Hillary’s lies are unduly and unfairly focused on, yet when Obama lies it is virtually ignored by msm, which is one example of covert or subtle sexism. It is easily disguisable because the flaws that Hillary has as a candidate are unfairly exploited and exacerbated because the powers that be use those flaws to hide their sexist hatred toward women and women in power particularly. In my opinion this is the only plausible and logical theory that can explain the unfair treatment that Hillary has received. It has not been critical, fair or equal; it has been for lack of a better term venomous and hateful at its core.

It is time Americans wake up, women in particular and stop allowing this to continue. We must demand its ending, to sit back and do nothing we have become conspirators in feminine injustice.
While Obama’s speech applauded by many, I simply see as misleading and self-serving just a ploy to appeal and get sympathy from super-delegates and maintain the ones he has. It certainly does not come close to any of the great speeches of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. The last time I checked I never saw in any of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr’s speeches where he would throw any members of his family “under the bus” for his own self-serving agenda.

In closing, I just wanted to express my personal opinions on Senator Obama’s ridiculously overvalued speech on racism. You see Senator Obama if you are going to have a speech on racism it has to be inclusive of all races, minorities and women that have suffered. For a man that claims a lineage of all colors of the rainbow and multiple continents your speech was sadly black and white.

Sincerely,
Heather

Is that a lobbyist in your pocket or are you just glad to see me?

Obama caught lying? Does happy dance JUST LIKE THIS!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5GeA1QVb3DE

OMG! ROFL!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QipAqdomO3I&feature=related

Afternoon everyone..

Nice blog Craig
Good one Heather

Heather, your view point brings another aspect on the fluff that is barack.
Add that to the timing and failure to answer the questions which prompted his speech and you get more questions.
But afterall BHO is about change,

Good, old "watchdogs of politics." On the case, again, with Obama. It seems the problem is systemic.

Boycott Beijing & Have A Nice Day.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080407/ap_on_re_eu/olympic_torch

Names of the DC Lobbyists Obama “Doesn’t” Take Money From

"I would like to follow up on Barack Obama’s TV spot about how he doesn’t take money from lobbyists.

Now let’s take a look at known Federal Lobbyists who are referred to as Bundlers For Barack Obama. You see, unlike the other candidates in this race, Barack Obama is far more surreptitious about his relationships with lobbyists, so that you might be able to see a sweet lovable TV commercial like the one we just saw. He is very clever. Known lobbyists collect “bundled” money for him so that the money doesn’t actually “look” like it came from the lobbyist himself. Now why would a lobbyist do this? Two reasons:

1) So Barack Obama could pretend he doesn’t take money from lobbyists

and

2) So the lobbyist will still later get “credit” for collecting all this cool cash for their “Man”

.Barack Obama appears to have mastered many old tricks for a man who claims to be “different”. Here is a most recent list of Registered Federal Lobbyists who have bundled money for Barack Obama. "

http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/04/06/names-of-the-dc-lobbyists-obama-doesnt-take-money-from/

Excellent post, Heather! Thanks.

Mornin', all.

Craig, how dare you do the job the MSM refuses to do!! You are so in the tank for Hillary (:-). Of course Obama lies, if he didn't, that would be some sort of hopeful change to new postracial politics, or something like that.

Of course, I for one am glad to see a departure from the old politics - where with enough money you can buy enough media advertising to drum up enough votes to buy an election. Obviously Obama took The Media is the Message to heart.

sturg, great link - that could come in handy in a few months.

Yes, indeed, I do not expect to see Chris Matthews and crew tear this story apart with the same visceral zeal with which they would have devoted had the story been about Senator Clinton.

The anti-Chinese racism was one major factor in determining that the 14th amendment to the constitution applies to anyone living in America, whether citizen or not. (The Chinese were not permitted to become citizens during that time.) If I can find the court case, I'll come back with a link. Anyway, very important stuff.

Heather:

I would just say that you are always going to be able to nitpick a speech on race by arguing that it does not address all of the injustices that exist.

Keep in mind that Obama's speech was about an hour - which is a life-time given the attention span of many Americans. Plus - it was designed to be the START of a conversation - not the entire conversation.

(Go Yankees!)

Here's a link to a good survey of the anti-Chinese racism/14th amendment case written by Joy Hakim, who wrote the History of Us series of American history texts. I used these when I home schooled my children when they were younger, and they're so well written I've kept them ever since as a terrific set of reference books.

www.pbs.org/wnet/historyofus/web08/segment6_p.html

Dear Warren:
It was not nitpicking lol it was a valid argument.
Secondly it was designed to to appeal to super-delegates not start of a conversation on racism. But lets grant that it was supposed a start on a conversation on racism, thats exactly what I did, have a conversation on racism via blog. :-))

(Go Yankees! :-)) )

Heather lol

Fair enough Heather.

(And just because the speech had an impact on Super Delegates does not mean that the speech was designed only for them. I suspect that the speech was designed for several purposes - and I don't think either me or you can proclaim with certainty what it was designed to do.)

"Plus - it was designed to be the START of a conversation - not the entire conversation"

LOL
Warren it was designed to slow the bleeding nothing more.

Let's get real here.

Jack

Mary Kitt - that case you mentioned probably is Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886). Had to do with a ordinance that was facial neutral but discriminatory in application. It was a followup to Plessy v. Ferguson - the ridiculous case that was finally overruled by Brown v. Board of education.

Jack, you are soooooo cynical. The fact that the race speech came just after the Wright anti-Ameircian rap hit the news is just a coincidence. In Obama world one does not question the message of the messiah, even when the message is ludicrous on its face. LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

Obama Deals the Slave Card

"A while ago, the racist, Farrakhan-linked New Black Panther Party posted a page on the official Obama Web site. That page was pulled after complaints were lodged, with the Obama campaign implying that it would more closely monitor its site. Now, not only has the NBBP reposted its page, but the Obama Web site has become the friendly home for vicious race baiting of African Americans who support Hillary Clinton. The Obama campaign has repeatedly played the race card, at the same time that is has tried to blame the Clinton campaign — see Princeton historian Sean Wilentz’s devastingly factual articles on the subject ..."

http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/04/06/obama-deals-the-slave-card/

Dear Warren:

Generally we share the same or similar political ideology and core values and principles. We are simply traveling different roads to achieve the same goal.
I tend to be outspoken on issues but I speak from my heart and what I believe in as you do as well and because of our honesty people know exactly where we stand and I see that as an asset, besides you a Yankees fan and as such holds a special place in my heart :-))

Sincerely,
Heather

Savage Chickens take on the candidates

Obama

http://www.savagechickens.com/blog/2008/04/barack-obama.html

Clinton

http://www.savagechickens.com/blog/2007/01/first-lady.html

As i've said several times when choosing a prsident you are not picking a person but a team.
McClatchy come through again with a good article that is not horse raced base.

Clinton's economic advisers served her husband

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/226/story/32316.html

Jack

Funny, but I don't think I would want the next topic of discussion in the conversation on race to be my ties to racist organizations if I were running the first post racial presidential campaign.

Anybody hear that Mark Penn left HIllary's campaign? I understand that might be newsworthy - in fact I got an e-mail from Terry McAuliffe just this morning. My only question is what took so long to get rid of the guy who engineered an obviously flawed primary strategy that seemed to forget that February had 4 weeks instead of just one?

And here's a little gift for my fellow Hillary supporters - a Salon op-ed that I doubt many Obama supporters will endorse.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/04/07/hillary/

From my morning read.

A new twist in the ongoing civil war in Iraq. Someone is deploying shite volunteers against the Mahdi army militia. But the report was uncertain as to who.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/32852.html

Jack

Well so much for all that progress in the war since the surge began. The ISG says we're no closer to being able to leave Iraq than we were a year ago.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/04/05/ST2008040502204.html?sid=ST2008040502204

Whatever happened to "declare victory and leave" as a strategy?

Hey Rezdog (if you're around) you finally going to click on the Politifact.com link now that Craig made it part of the story?

Yep, Jack, Iraq is now Shiite v. Shia. Now if in your country your two major factions are Shiite and Shia, and they are at war with each other (and really appear for the present to be ignoring the US forces that are supposedly there to bring peace and reconciliation to the country), isn't that what you would call a civil war?

Alrighty, this is the one thing that could keep me from voting for Barrack or McCain, they need to stop demonizing the Lobbyists!!! I still won't vote for Hillary, so I guess I may half to abstain.

Missed y'all while I was on vacation, still not smoking- 16 days!

Reporter without Borders : Beijing journalists in prison

http://www.rsf.org/

Heather - btw, great post.

Craig - great post -

And you're right about the media...I've given up getting angry about it and just accept it.

On an informal CNN poll last week 73% of people thought her coverage was unfair compared to Obamas.

What I find amazing is that with having to fight the Obama lies then perpetuated by the media that she's virtually tied with him in the popular vote (counting ALL the votes) and leading in many of the upcoming states. Just goes to show that Hillary supporters can't be duped by the Obamamaniacs or the media.

:-D

Ok so it's like Obama says half-truths or all out lies as well as Hillary being accused of the same. So why does the MSM still want to treat Obama as if he is the second coming of Christ?

The most important link in the No Quarter story is this one:

http://www.whitehouseforsale.org/

Where it shows Obama leading all other candidates.

:-D

I'd say they need to change that from half true to barely true...but I'm not going to question the Politifact folks - I hear them on POUTUS08 from time to time and I know they do a lot of digging and discussing to make these calls.

3/4 of a million votes is hardly tied Windy. And as Thomas Jefferson said a majority of 1 deserves the same respect as a majority of thousands. BTW interested that MSNBC reported that most of the pressure for Penn to leave was coming from within HillCo. Good it must be hell working for her, doesn't seem to be a lot of harmony.

Brian:

I believe that Wendy said if you counted all the votes (meaning that we include Florida and Michigan votes), the count comes within approximately 94,000 votes out of 27 million votes cast. That's pretty darn close, yes?

Florida doesn't count, they violated the party rules. Why would I count them, and even with Florida counted Obama is still ahead, so I don't really get hers or your point. Ahead is ahead no matter what "matrix" you try to plug the numbers into. BTW looks like Obama is picking up another SD today.

Iris your personal experience have nothing to do with the today's thread, the state of health care is not the topic of today's thread, Hillary's a liar, that's the point of today's thread. Got it?
Posted by: Brian Hussein In NYC | April

Title of Today's Post

Obama's Lobbyist Fib
By Craig Crawford | April 7, 2008 6:00 AM | Permalink | Comments

Here's a Krugman article about food and biofuels that deserves consideration and thought.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/07/opinion/07krugman.html?em&ex=1207713600&en=f68d7cc278e61be9&ei=5087%0A

He points out the reasons I have refused to buy a flexfuel vehicle and why I look for fuel that does not have high levels of ethanol in it.

Ally, don't waste your breath. You may as well be Sisyphus rolling that damned rock up the hill - again and again and again....

Ok Lilly, here you go, I'll take a half truth (though for argument sake I'm only willing to concede that by taking money from people who work for lobbyists is the same thing as taking money from lobbyists) over no truths anytime of the day. Happy now Lilly?

Brian: I betcha there are a lot of voters in Florida and Michigan who feel that they have been screwed by the system. It is the not the fault of the everyday voter that their state governments and the DNC chose to disenfranchise 2 million plus citizens.

I wish that all of the Obama supporters could do a wee bit of soul searching and realize that if the situation was reversed, and Obama was down by 100+ delegates and could diminish Clinton's lead by counting his wins in Florida and Michigan, that you would be hooting and hollering at the injustice of it (and it would be because the Clintons are part of the racist establishment, they'll do anything to win, they don't care about the rules, they are maniacal etc.)

Lily, and Obama's speech was the start of a discussion about race in America, not the obvious attempt it was to deflect criticism about Wright.

Ally, read the link in my 8:58 post - I think you will enjoy it.

Pogo

"Yep, Jack, Iraq is now Shiite v. Shia"

From the Article it looks like someone is trying to start the Shiite v Shiite part of the civil war, by employing Shiite militia groups against Sadar's Mahdi Army in Sadr city. If we are doing this it is a very questionable tactic. If the Iraqi government is doing it then the main phase of the Shiite civil war is on and the result will be a long period of anarchy. With our people targets by everybody. Time to get the f**k out.

Jack

If the system made sense, Clinton would be far ahead

"Under a winner-take-all primary system, Hillary Clinton would have a wide lead over Barack Obama -- and enough delegates to clinch the Democratic presidential nomination by June.

In 2004, Democrats lost most of the states where Obama's delegates come from now. The Democrats are likely to lose most of those states again in 2008, no matter how much his supporters speak of winning crossover votes. Of the remaining states that Obama has won, only one is a large state with a considerable number of electoral votes -- his home state of Illinois. Clinton has won the popular vote in all of the other large states -- and has done so in primaries, not caucus decisions. The arithmetic here is simple: Because of the flawed system, the delegates from the states that Obama has won, many of which vote strongly Republican, represent far fewer Democratic voters than those from the states Clinton won."

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/04/07/hillary/index1.html

Brye...you didn't read my entire post...so your response is misguided...as usual...

Lil Brye Brye - my comment wasn't about rules and what does or doesn't count. It was about how many people actually have voted for Hillary despite the Obamamaniacs and the Obamamedia lies. You can't hoodwink and bamboozle us.

Ally's comment: " I wish that all of the Obama supporters could do a wee bit of soul searching and realize that if the situation was reversed, and Obama was down by 100+ delegates and could diminish Clinton's lead by counting his wins in Florida and Michigan, that you would be hooting and hollering at the injustice of it ..."

Nope Ally, I would not. I would think so much worse of Obama if he was playing Hillary's game. Which she would NOT be playing if the votes had gone Obama's way.

Florida and Michigan voters cast their ballots knowing they were voting in non-binding primaries for which no delegates would be awarded.

It is not fair to change the rules after the fact. For political reasons, the Dems will come to some accomodation on seating the two state's delegates (or some portion of them.)

But tethering my campaign to a call for "all the votes to be counted?"

Nope, that's a shiny object dangled by Hillary to keep people from noticing her badly run campaign and the fact that her "inevitable" nomination has been derailed. Probably terminally, but got to see what the upcoming states' voters decide.

I just hope that after this election the Dems sit down and agree on a better way to run their nominating process, complete with rotating regional primaries and far fewer caucuses.

In this day of so many independent voters, the party-building aim of caucus participation has got to take a back seat to allowing as many voters as posible to have their say in selecting their preferred candidate.

By absentee ballot and from Iraq or aboard ships in the Mediterranean, when necessary.

Of course what I can't help but wonder with the polls are still running as close as they are is what are the polls like in the states that have already voted.

Any second thoughts and changes of heart out there? Any discrepancies between the caucus percentages and the general population? Will we ever hear this information?

Pogo - Salon article was very good. I did enjoy it.

Thanks Pogo. Just read it. The Obama campaign brilliantly exploited the system put in place by the Democrats and whoever came up with the plan should be the new head of the DNC because they are hella smart. I may not like the end result but I can't deny the brilliance of the plan...as opposed to supreme planning of that moron Mark Penn.

Craig,

I noticed MoJoe was using your "trust" story from yesterday. Are the two guys from Florida chatting amongst themselves?

Dog: I'm sorry, I am just not buying what you are selling. However, if I assume you are being honest, then you would agree that the Superdelegates are entitled to use their individual judgment when making their choice of nominee, correct?

"It is not fair to change the rules after the fact. "

Nobody is changing the rules. Even Obamamediamaniac Donna Brazille acknowledges that the same rule that disqualified the two states allows for the two states to come up with plans to have their votes count. This includes re-vote and credentials committee options. Both states have been trying to get their votes to count. Just recently the DNC and Hillary campaign singed off on a plan in MI - the Obamamaniacs stopped it.

Again - Obama supporters w/o all their facts straight.

Thank you
To Jason, Patsi, Ping Pong, and all for your response and compliments to my 7.15 am post.

deeply appreciated :-))

Sincerely,
Heather

Ally it was the states that chose to disenfranchise their voters, not the DNC, anyway I have to head out to a client. Good day all.

Gordo,
This is a subject that has been sent to all MSM, but they do not seem to grasp it.
If Barrack o the other would have led there, we would have a total different view...

We can squabble all we want about MSM, they will continue to hassle Hillary till the end..... That is their job and that is what they will do

On another note:
Was looking at a Larry King show last week and was shocked. The topic was the election of course and a woman named Kamala whatever, was on. They were discussing the Rhodes story and the woman said: "Seen as the fight is taking so long (referring to the Hilary Barrack primaries), it is taking its toll on everybody, we should not let all these sayings bother us. It is the heat of the moment. It is taking too long.
To that comment Larry King said: WELL SAID, WELL SAID.
I was shocked!!!!! So we can say anything we want, and get away with it, because we are tired of this election??????
Larry King, give me a break!

I switched off the tv and laughed out loud. Damn...where are we headed

Brian: My reference to the DNC is because they refused to grant Michigan and Florida a waiver and then refused to pay for the re-vote. My apologies if I was not clear.

dog, Obama has played a different game in FL, and won it. His lawyers threw a disingenuous antidemocratic monkey wrench into the consideration of the Florida situation - claiming that voter fraud is a problem with mail in voting systems, which is wholly inconsistent with Obama's public support of mail-in voting, then suggested a 50/50 split of the delegates, which is inconsistent with the voting that took place there. (I doubt that this is featured on the ObamaForPresident website). I hope he has a general election strategy that doesn't rely on FL - 'cuz he ain't gonna win that state.

And there is certainly a better way to nominate a candidate, and they need to get Howie Dean out and implement it - I have set out one way, better in my opinion, numerous times - compress the primary season and get rid of preference for the dinky states, winner take all by state, secret ballot primary voting, no caucuses, one person, one vote, and no superdelegates (among a few other changes).

btw, I agree with you about Hillary's poorly run campaign - actually, it is more of a well executed boneheaded strategy, but that's just my view. It's also why I say of Penn, too little, too late. (btw, Mark, in the law they call those things conflicts of interest - in PR, they just call it stupid and disloyal).

jason, after 7 marriages to 6 women, you don't expect Larry King to think clearly do you? lol

Jason:

Everyone always says big deal when the name calling is directed at Hillary. Everyone is up in arms when the name calling is at Barack. Goes back to Craig's post - Obamamedia has a double standard.

This same comment also goes back to the excellent comment by Heather today - degrading women is acceptable and we should just all get over it and not worry about it.

I'll admit...I've taken my "feminism" for granted - I know I've suffered here and there being a woman - especially a woman working in the IT field. But never to the point of activism. I think this election has proven to me that we're not even close and there is a lot of work to do on behalf of women. I know Hillary has spent a lifetime being dedicated to women's rights and women's issues and perhaps it's time for me to take it all a little more serious as well.

Jason ------------------------

Larry King has always been anti - Clinton (both). In 92, he was involved in an effort to deny Bill Clinton the nomination at the convention. He wanted delegates to back his friend Mario Cuomo.

Hillary's Strategy:

(1) After she loses the primary, convince the superdelegates to hand her the nomination.

(2) After she loses the general election, convince the electoral college to hand her the Presidency.

" So why does the MSM still want to treat Obama as if he is the second coming of Christ?"

Tom -- I honestly believe it is because he set his campaign up -- complete with the rhetoric and "branding" techniques -- to appear that he is very nearly a religious figure. I feel it more all the time. It's to the point that I can envision O'supporters backing him 100% if he went off the deep end like W and started invading other countries. We'd see the same blind support.

I don't think he WOULD do that though. But I'll bet he's get support for it.

"btw, I agree with you about Hillary's poorly run campaign - actually, it is more of a well executed boneheaded strategy, but that's just my view. It's also why I say of Penn, too little, too late. (btw, Mark, in the law they call those things conflicts of interest - in PR, they just call it stupid and disloyal)."

Pogo - well said - agree 100%

dod: "I just hope that after this election the Dems sit down and agree on a better way to run their nominating process, complete with rotating regional primaries and far fewer caucuses."

Absolutely agree. It is starting to look like which ever way this goes, the Democrats will have an illigitimate presidential nominee.

Wendy: I have felt for some time that feminism is dead. I am making no judgments but would like to simply state a fact: Out of ALL of my close female friends from high school and college, I am the only one who works outside the home for wages (I really work out of my home but you know what I mean). As I said a few weeks ago, I also have had 3 friends who's husbands have left them over the last few months.

And so, the feminist movement must re-ignite: Women have been under some misguided perception that this would be the first generation of men who didn't leave their wives. Well guess what, not gonna happen. The key to a woman's independence is maintaining her own financial freedom. I do not disagree with a woman staying home for a few years after they have kids to care for them in a hands on manner. I applaud it. But why in the world would you stay home when they are in school? My advice to women: Keep your day job.

And we need to start acting like sisters again. I work with so many women who are competitive and petty. One in particular always tells me that her older female boss is "jealous" of her and that's why she is so unfair. UGH. Enough. Respect women who are older than you, learn from them. Don't try to compete with them and don't think they want to compete with you. I wouldn't go back to my twenties again if you paid me.

I have always adored older women. Whenever my kids would get teacher placements and it was a woman in her twenties I would cringe. Nightmare. Whenever they had a woman in her forties or fifties I would smile. I like a little something I can sink my teeth in to. I like edges. Give me experience any day of the week!

Hey, why aren't we talking about Mark Penn?

I guess to be "fair and balanced" we have to have a "beat up Obama" day.

So Obama takes lobbyist money. They all do. But the Clintons are STILL the biggest pigs at that trough.

Jason: "To that comment Larry King said: WELL SAID, WELL SAID.
I was shocked!!!!! So we can say anything we want, and get away with it, because we are tired of this election??????"

Yes. It is now permisssable to call women whores if they have the "audacity" to run for office.

Nash: I don't think you are going to find any Mark Penn fans here. Good riddance to bad rubbish is what I say.

"I'll admit...I've taken my "feminism" for granted - I know I've suffered here and there being a woman - especially a woman working in the IT field. But never to the point of activism. I think this election has proven to me that we're not even close and there is a lot of work to do on behalf of women. I know Hillary has spent a lifetime being dedicated to women's rights and women's issues and perhaps it's time for me to take it all a little more serious as well."

Hear, Hear! Wendy! I think we are all nearly shell shocked by what has happened during this campaign.
And I think we are going to see a lot of women paying attention again.

pogo:

And just what was so "ludicrous" about Obama's speech on race?

Is Barack Obama the Messiah?

http://obamamessiah.blogspot.com/2008_03_01_archive.html

Patsi:

Yes..."shell shocked"...that's really it.

Hillary the feminist icon?

Hillary supported Bush's war plans because she ASSUMED that, as a woman, she'd be labled "weak on defense. (Not presidential material.) Thus, we have Hillary the Hawk.

This war-mongering posture would have been a winner for her if Bush hadn't mis-managed the war from day #1. She bought into a complete disaster, and that's why she's losing the primaries.

Sexism has nothing to do with this, unless you want to consider the sexist logic of her own assumption: that she had to prove that she was "just as good as a man" by supporting an ill-conceived war.

I thought feminism had gotten beyond that sort of primitive logic. Of course, I've never thought Hillary was much of a feminist. I've never even heard her use the word.

Hillary supporters. Have you ever heard her call herself a feminist?

I used to think that most people were good, good at heart, now I think that there are good people and bad people. I know this is a huge generalization, but I just can't even imagine saying the things that have been said by various people, I do not think that way, so those words would never come out of me.

It is so foreign to me, I would be mortified, if I was on video calling Senator Clinton, (or anyone for that matter) a "#@#$^%&"- %$#@$.

I believe in free speech but, equally I also believe in mutual respect and kindness. Senator Clinton said nothing to that woman to deserve such vile anger.

(For clarification "bad" can mean many things not just speaking words, ie cheating, stealing, raping...you get the idea)

Gordo...or even better

http://obamaisnotthemessiah.blogspot.com/

Ditto on the more active role toward women rights. This campaign has certainly brought it to my attention. I have been starting to read more , and am looking to see what I can do to help and become more active in the cause.

Ally:

"I believe that Wendy said if you counted all the votes (meaning that we include Florida and Michigan votes), the count comes within approximately 94,000 votes out of 27 million votes cast. That's pretty darn close, yes?"

This is a big piece of misinformation being spread by Clinton supporters like that Salon guy. I will give you FL - because at least Obama's name was on the ballot and he was able to get some votes. But any calculation that adds in the MI popular vote is way off base.

HRC gets +328K from the current MI totals (which is more of a bump that she gets even from NY). If there was a revote - there is no possible way that she would get anywhere near close to that.

btw, including Florida - Obama is up 422K in popular vote - which will be no easy task for Clinton to overtake.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html

(plus, that number could increase to over 500K once all the votes that have been cast are finalized).

Waren: Well I guess the only way to find out who would win in Michigan would be to have a new vote, yes? I think Hillary would be willing to take her chances. As I have always said, let's allow the voters to vote.

Meant to say "Warren".

OK....
Than I know it.

Is this the reason why Hillary is at this moment still refusing to go on Larry King? She hasn´t accepted the offer yet and Larry has said hat the invitation is still open.

My question: why are we continuing to watch, read and listen to media outlets that continue to be biased? Is it because it is easy...or is it because we are to lazy to take a stand and refuse to bend for an action we fiercely belive in.....???

Ally:

The good news is that this argument about the popular vote could very well be moot after PA. If HRC does not get a big boost in the popular vote from PA - it will become clear that she will not be able to overtake Obama in the popular vote - even if there were re-dos in MI and FL.

And despite what some Clinton advocates are saying - getting "close" in the popular vote will not convince many Super Delegates to side with her - especially because she will lose in terms of pledged delegates and contests won.

Don't worry Jason - Hillary and her supporters still have Fox News...

Warren: Certainly Hillary's best chances lie in winning the majority of the remaining contests. If Obama only wins North Carolina post-Wright, it is going to be a tough sell for him at the Convention. I for one would not be willing to wager on Hillary winning the remaining states...only pointing out that this may be the only chance she has of winning the nomination.

Nash:

Your view on Hillary is misguided. She has a very long, well documented track record (dating back to Wellesley days) of speaking up and speaking out on behalf of women's rights and women's issues. She has long been a champion for both women and children. In her well documented diplomatic work - some of which pointed out here: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/apr/04/more-than-sightseer-diplomacy/

had to do with actually bringing women to the table and having their voices be heard on important issues such as the peace process in Ireland.

Her speech in Beijing I believe speaks for itself.

The FACTS are clear when it comes to Hillary's track record on being a voice for women around the world. They are indisputable.

Warren:

Speaking of Fox News...I noticed you quoted a Fox News pundits talking point about Hillary's taxes yesterday. Looks like you do a little Fox News watching yourself

;-)

"There is no doubt about the basic reality in Iraq: we are no longer staring into the abyss of defeat, and we can now look ahead to the genuine prospect of success."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080407/ts_alt_afp/usvoteiraq

Wow - thanks McCain. I feel better now. All those stories coming out of Iraq were getting me down. But now I know everything will be OK and we will achieve "success".

I thought Obama was the candidate of "hope".

(Of course there are still those sticky details about the definition of "success" and how long it will actually take to achieve...)

The straight-talk express is off the track again.

These politicians need to start outlining some actual goals in Iraq - instead of using empty terms such as "success" and "defeat".

Nash: So now Hillary is not a Feminist? That's rich.

Warren:

The quote you attributed to me what not my quote.

But I'm not surprised many Obama supporters often get it wrong.

Wendy:

I watch all the news. And I don't complain when they say mean things about Obama. Instead, I try to address any misinformation that may be contained in the reports. And if it is accurate - than I take note of it.

The Clinton campaign should have adopted a similar strategy...

You know, when I read about Mark Penn it just pisses me off to NO END... Of course I am in a SHITTY mood anyway, but that's got nothing to do with it.

Read this:

"But for Clinton's aides and advisors, the meeting was just the latest in a list of complaints about Penn that began with his strategic decision last year to focus on a message of strength and electability rather than inspiration, and his insistence on highlighting policy over passion. His $13 million in campaign billing and his insistence on maintaining his salary as worldwide CEO of the firm Burson Marsteller were also sources of tension within the campaign. "

That creep has earned $13 million dollars on a crappy campaign and even if it was going great that's just fricken outrageous. THIS is why I think politics is so corrupt and why people should just REFUSE to give money to any campaign because all it is used for is creating this mega-rich political advisory class that sucks up the donations of everyday people and lines their pockets while they LAUGH all the way to the bank.

GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

Wendy:

Get it together. I copy and pasted a quote from Ally - so I AM surprised that you are now attacking your fellow Clinton supporters...

They have...and as you can see here...we Hillary supporters do a darn good job of batting down misinformation...wherever it is coming from including misguided and ill-informed Obama supporters.

Have to go now...I'm off work today but have a full calendar...since I have class tonight doubtful i'll be able to catch up. Will leave it in the hands of Pogo, Jamie, Patsi, Heather, Ally, Burrito, ET and others - all far more capable than myself in stamping out misinformation wherever it rears its ugly head.

Non political news: finally a verdict in the Princess Diana Paris inquest: Per Reuters:

"Princess Diana was unlawfully killed by the grossly negligent driving of chauffeur Henri Paul and paparazzi photographers pursuing their limousine into a Paris road tunnel in 1997.

The jury, which had spent almost six months listening to more than 250 witnesses from around the world, reached their majority decision on Monday after deliberating for four days."

========

I wonder if there's any recourse against the papparazzi now? Financial or punitive? It has always seemed to me that they bore more of the moral guilt for Diana's death -- had they not pursued so frantically, there would not have been the diversion driver and a drunk (who'd been told he was off duty earlier) behind the wheel. Terrible price to pay for celebrity.

Now: back to Clinton vs Obama.

Warren:

You're right...I apologize.

Tom, you are right on the money with your 11:44 am post! What else could've been done with money instead lining some fat cat's pockets.

Craig: Thanks for trying to debunk the Obama ads in PA and elsewhere. Know Olbermann's hopeless (can't even watch that Obama infomercial anymore), but do you think Matthews, Gregory et all will ever realize that this is a story? Hope you'll talk about this on their shows.

Nash -- You get weirder by the day. I'd love to know how you presume to speak for feminists. Furthermore, you can't know what all went into her decision to vote to give the POTUS the power to move militarily if needed. Your hatred of her borders on pathology.

"I thought feminism had gotten beyond that sort of primitive logic."

I don't think you have ANY idea how sexist and offensive that bullshit comment is.

Patsi

Nash knows all about feminism just like he knows all the racial code words in the world.

Down in the hills we would call it "pulling it out your ass"

In Maine they must call it professorial reasoning.

Jack

"I thought Obama was the candidate of "hope".

Warren -- take a serious look at the photo of the bus stop "poster" of Obama at the top of the page. Now that's Mao-worthy.

"I wonder if there's any recourse against the papparazzi now? Financial or punitive? It has always seemed to me that they bore more of the moral guilt for Diana's death -- had they not pursued so frantically"

Ditto this sentiment. What a bunch of a-holes -- and never even seemed to feel bad about what happened.

JennBe

Congratulations on your 16 days of being a non-smoker!!

Don't let your guard down; the nicodemon is lurking right around the corner.

Now that you've got the smoke out of your system and you've aired-out the house and sent your clothes to the cleaners, it's time to start your withdrawal from the patches and gum (if you're still using them).

You can do it, everyone here knows you can!

Princess Diana was unlawfully killed by the grossly negligent driving of chauffeur Henri Paul and paparazzi photographers pursuing their limousine into a Paris road tunnel in 1997.

The jury, which had spent almost six months listening to more than 250 witnesses from around the world, reached their majority decision on Monday after deliberating for four days."

Posted by: dog hussein dog | April 7, 2008 11:51 AM

Does that include Dodi al-Fayed as well?

Wendy:

I apologize as well since my post was a bit harsh. (But I figured you could take it ; )

Hillary supporters. Have you ever heard her call herself a feminist?

Posted by: nash | April 7, 2008 10:50 AM

Another NASH drive-by posting...

If Gloria Steinem and other leaders in the feminist movement say she's a "feminist", that works for me. They speak with much more authority than you could ever pretend to muster Nash. You start to remind me of the old saying ...

"those who CAN, do.. those who CAN'T become professors"....

Line #3: those who cant teach become critics......

Hello there ETom. Posting longer story -- and must correct my error -- this was verdict of LONDON coroner's jury.

From more complete AP story:

"London -- A coroner's jury ruled Monday that Princess Diana and boyfriend Dodi Fayed were unlawfully killed through the reckless actions of their driver and the paparazzi in 1997.

The jury had been told that a verdict of unlawful killing would mean that they believed the reckless behavior of the driver and paparazzi amounted to manslaughter. It was the most serious verdict available to them.

New criminal charges were unlikely because the incident happened in France outside the British authorities' jurisdiction, a court spokesman said.

Nine photographers were charged with manslaughter in France, but the charges were thrown out in 2002. Three of the photographers were convicted of invasion of privacy in 2006 for taking pictures of the couple. ...."

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/world/AP-Britain-Diana.html?hp
====
I would say those photographers got away with manslaughter.

it is sickening! Diana was very special...

Diana's handwritten letters to Dodi are posted here:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/04/07/ndiana307.xml

I never really believed the theory of Dodi's father that it was a conspiracy to stop Diana from marrying a muslim.

ine #3: those who cant teach become critics......

Posted by: sturgeone | April 7, 2008 12:34 PM

Well presumably Nash can "teach" and he is certainly well practiced in the art of criticism. Then again, we all are.

Anyone who has ever gone over her career knows she's a genuine, dyed in the wool feminist. She needs no vetting by anyone.

And yes, feminism may be dead. Seems like young women today often seem content with their stations in life.

Probably the strongest message I have for my granddaughter is to never let someone else define her role in the scheme of things--that she is capable of doing any damned thing she wants to do and capable of doing it better than most others.

From reading the posts on this subject today, i know i have stepped right in the middle of the ANTI-OBAMA social club of America. nothing about the issue of when Obama's guy did this, Team Clinton, jumped on Obama as if he was related to the Rosenbergs trading secrets. Folks seem to be looking for our President To be GOD. And when the high expectations are not met, then everyone want to call the person the Anticrhist. First and foremost, Obama is a HUMAN, he is not perfect, he is not the Masiah, just a man, a politican,HE WILL LIE, HIS TEAM WILL LIE, so will any of us who are running for the biggest seat in the house(thats what humans have been doing for a long time) the question is who is willing to sell their soul for the White House. I know one thing, Team Clinton has lied to the American people, under oath, and it looks like been prostituting themselves at the tune of 109 million dollars, no big thing, I dont judge. It appears if anyone no matter how far down the food chain a person with Obama's point of view, if they say something wack, we want to blaime Obama, I read someone's post about Obama's speech on race, just because the man didnt mention any of the other Hundreds of races that make up this great country, we are a great country with flaws.We have a history,and people that sometimes make me want to throw up, but we are still great, and i dont want to be anywhere else. I dont expect Obama,Hillary,or John McCain to be perfect, just put America, and it's citizens first. no matter what color,race sexual orientation , feminist or not. I am not not perfect and i dont have all the answers, Both of the major parties, are eating from the same trough, so it's going to be real nasty, but we can still be civil.As for the Fl/Mi debacle, all the candidates did sign off on this, and Obama's name wasnt even on the ballot in Mich. so how is this far? earlier in the race Hillary even said, the votes didnt matter, now that we are living in desperate times down at Team Clinton, it's time to change the goalposts AGAIN!!.

I cant understand how a bunch of photogs on motorbikes can cause you to go way to fast for conditions.......maybe it's totally annoying to have someone shoving a camera at you all the time.....but it beats the hell out of driving your car into concrete.......

way too fast......

in defense of my long time pal Nash, to this witticism by EuroTom I would add the following:

""those who CAN, do.. those who CAN'T become professors"....and those that can't do either, run a gas station.

Yo soy un demócrata amarillo del perro.

Yo soy Hussein Horsedooty!

Patsi:

What's wrong with Mao?!?

(j/k ; )

Kind of ironic that diplomacy may be spurred by Al-Sadr as opposed to the Americans...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080407/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq;_ylt=Aqm_TWCEpDtyaMB.fVQta3KGWo14

A little comic relief...

Mo-bama, Mc-Curly and Hil-Larry

http://commonsenselogic.blogspot.com/2008/03/picture-of-day-three-stooges-obama.html

warren,

The content of the race speech was fine, even laudable. The timing of it and ts purpose are what is ludicrous. Had Wright's anti-american rant not been on the 24 hour newsers nonstop, what is the chance that "discussion on race" would have started then or ever from the post racial politics candidate?

And eddieboyd ... you sound a bit trollish, but nonetheless, Clinton supporter bloggerss aren't the only ones who've noticed the religious bent,

http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2008/04/obamas-believer.html

pogo:

I think it was inevitable that some story re: race was going to hit the news during Obama's campaign. And he took this opportunity to confront the issue head on.

And I think the timing was appropriate for several reasons.

-Everybody was listening because of the Wright story. If he made this speech without all the controversey - his speech would have received far less coverage.

-Also, it was timely. Obama was responding to some of the issues raised by the Wright story. If he would have made the same speech without such a prompt - he would have been written off as "injecting race into the campaign." And probably would have been written off as the "black candidate" by some who would argue why doesn't he stick to issues like Iraq and the economy.

Dooty

In here Nash live and dies by what he posts in here. So far, imo, there is no reason to give his opinion any more creedence than the HS dropout who works at the local junk yard where I get parts for my truck. In fact the young man in question seems to have a better grasp of how the world functions than Nash does.

I was impressed, when a youth, by Nash like statements. They are at least 35 years old now. The world has totally changed but the words are still the same, just trying to tear down a different group of people.
Call me much less impressed

Jack

sturg - put a few too many drinks into a chauffeur and I bet the chauffeur thinks driving way too fast is just fine to avoid having your passengers photographed - even if one of them is one of the most photographed people in the world. I would think that tinted glass would be a better alternative - of course this is in retrospect.

yeah......I was thinking more like.....drapes........

http://www.coldbacon.com/pics/kliban/bkgofuck.gif

might as well get used to it.......the only show in town......

MSM being aggravating again today. I know the Mark Penn story is interesting, but the non stop Clinton bashing without so much as one negative word about Obama is a major drag. The woman is obviously about to bring the known western world down around our ears.

Somewhere, at some time, with some person, Sen. Obama must have said or done some thing that would necessitate a gentle word of mild disapproval. At worst he gets a little hand tap and a "no no not nice honey".

n defense of my long time pal Nash, to this witticism by EuroTom I would add the following:

""those who CAN, do.. those who CAN'T become professors"....and those that can't do either, run a gas station.

Yo soy un demócrata amarillo del perro.

Yo soy Hussein Horsedooty!
Posted by: yo soy Horsedooty! | April 7, 2008 12:42 PM

Well I am sure mobil people around the globe are glad some people do run gas stations. Then again, I am also an employer, a buyer, a seller, a negotiator, and a great boss. :-) I certainly don't look down on my career... though it is interesting that your comment comes at a time when I am questioning whether I am in the right place or not. Strange...

Anyone here believe that running a gas station/shop as an independent franchise holder is something that is for incapable people? :-)

Oh and I do have a Master's Degree in Public Administration and was Development Director of KAOS Olympia Community Radio for 7 years. Oh yeah, I also cleaned toilets for a summer in The Netherlands.

dear much less impressed,

Tough toenails, buddy. We can all give our opinions here not just you and your fellow Clinton followers. That is the way free speech works as it is supposed to be a two way street.

Yo soy un demócrata amarillo del perro.

Yo soy Hussein Horsedooty!

warren, you have a point (or two). It probably was inevitable - I guess the timing was predictable if nothing else - the odd thing to me was the failure to acknowledge that Wright prompted the speech. It really ain't that big a thing - it just strikes me as opportunistic, which is one of my concerns about Obama. He has other issues with a racial theme that at one time or another he's going to have to confront, but I suppose that will happen when and if they come up somewhere other than blogs. No need to bat this back and forth - regardless of my misgivings, if he wins the nomination, I'll be voting for him.

Somewhere, at some time, with some person, Sen. Obama must have said or done some thing that would necessitate a gentle word of mild disapproval. At worst he gets a little hand tap and a "no no not nice honey".

Posted by: Jamie | April 7, 2008 1:18 PM

Hmmm Jamie, good point. Do you attribute that to the fact the press serve Obama "ON BENDED KNEE"? Or is it the continued portrayal of him being the most exciting leader since Jesus Christ himself walked the Earth? Or is it because he is also treated as if he is the Messiah come back to save his wayward flock and help them find their way to their heavenly reward? Oh who knows, maybe it's white guilt...

Btw, I reference "On Bended Knee" because of a book I once read:
On Bended Knee: The Press and the Reagan Presidency (Paperback)
by Mark Hertsgaard (Author)

Here is a short write up: "From Publishers Weekly
Based on some 175 interviews with top administration officials, senior journalists and news executives, plus analyses of newspaper articles and television stories, Hertsgaard ( Nuclear Inc. ) argues that the Reagan White House not only tamed the media but transformed it into "a willing mouthpiece of the government" in its coverage of issues ranging from economic policy to arms control. In addition to providing examples of the media's "accommodating passivity" on major issues, he contends that the Reagan propaganda apparatus (or "Deaver & Co.," as he also calls it, refe