Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Election 2008

Media Downplay Widespread Support for Hillary

By Peggy Simpson, Women's Media Center. Posted February 6, 2008.


Wonkish Clinton may never match Obama's soaring rhetoric about hope, but the media should not underestimate the strength of her campaign.
Advertisement

The political and media hype about the Kennedy family's anointment of Senator Barack Obama eclipsed the Clinton campaign's boots-on-the-ground organizational work in the 22 states with Democratic primaries on Super Tuesday.

In the end, Hillary Clinton held her own through hard work and an improved message, and continued to court women who rewarded her with a 20-point margin over Obama. She took New York, New Jersey, the prized battleground state of California -- and Massachusetts -- as well as Tennessee, Arkansas, Oklahoma and Arizona (where Governor Janet Napolitano had endorsed Obama).

Right after her comeback victory in New Hampshire, the Clinton campaign put a priority on getting Californians to vote absentee. More than half of Californians did just that, blunting the Obama momentum of the past week that had cut her lead to nothing. She bought time on Spanish-language broadcast outlets, not just those broadcasting in English.

Clinton emerged from Super Tuesday with a 70-delegate margin over Obama, but primaries coming in the next week will pose new challenges, in Louisiana, Nebraska, Washington, Maine, Virginia, Maryland and the District of Columbia.

Obama increased his credibility and votes with whites, most notably in the South and Midwest. He may have inherited votes of white men from former Senator John Edwards, who dropped out a week ago. Obama took 13 states. And he took every state that held caucuses rather than primaries, reflecting his strength with more liberal Democrats who turn out to caucus.

On election eve, the pundits were back-pedaling somewhat from their predictions days earlier that the Obama endorsement by Senator Edward Kennedy and his niece, Caroline Kennedy, would prove fatal to Clinton -- with union voters, Latinos and in delegate-rich states such as California.

Clinton withstood the Kennedy onslaught. And one of the sweetest victories was the earliest: an upset in Kennedy's home turf of Massachusetts, with women voting for her 62-36. One of her key supporters, Boston Mayor Thomas Menino, said his state was "Clinton country" and that the election "was about real people," about the working class.

Clinton won the hotly contested California primary with a huge margin among Hispanics, Asians -- and women. Women voted for her by a commanding 57-39 margin, ignoring appeals last weekend from Oprah Winfrey, Caroline Kennedy and her cousin Maria Shriver to switch to Obama.

Clinton's endorsements from three children of the late Robert Kennedy had been discounted, when noticed at all, by the East Coast media. They wrote in a Los Angeles Times op-ed piece that ran soon after Caroline Kennedy's bombshell Obama endorsement that, in essence, deeds count more than poetic words. Former Maryland Lieutenant Governor Kathleen Kennedy Townsend said she had worked with Clinton for 25 years, as had her two brothers for 15 years, on issues of children and poverty. This may have had resonance with California Latinos.

They stayed hitched to Clinton. They also turned out in record numbers, comprising nearly 30 percent of the California vote, voting 66-33 for Clinton. Hispanic women also voted with Clinton in Obama's home state of Illinois, as well as in other states where they are a significant bloc, such as New Jersey and New Mexico.

Super Tuesday reinforced certain realities. Obama does best with blacks, more affluent and better educated voters and with those under 30. He is doing better with whites than in earlier primaries. Clinton wins with a solid bloc of women voters, a better than 2-1 margin among Hispanics, an even larger one among Asian voters and a major edge among older voters.

That doesn't tell the full story. Women are turning out in record numbers and have averaged 58 percent of Democratic primary voters. Young voters are not. Their turnout Tuesday ranged from 8 percent in New Mexico to 16 percent in California but the average was about 12 percent -- not much more than their historic average. The Iowa caucus surge of young voters has not been replicated elsewhere.

More pertinent is the fact that Obama's clout with young voters is eclipsed by Clinton's strength with voters 60 and over, who form a core chunk of the Democratic electorate. They constituted 30 percent of the voters in New York and Massachusetts, 36 percent in New Mexico, 28 percent in California and 32 percent in Missouri.

The outside noise of a severely distressed economy may affect the coming votes. Clinton's wonkish speeches on specific economic programs may kick in here to provide a more secure basis of support than had been thought. That is partly because she is spelling out relief plans for homeowners who risk losing their homes in the subprime mortgage crisis. When she talks about reform of the health care system, she talks about providing relief to small business owners who face huge and escalating health care costs for their workers.

And Clinton may be getting more comfortable with finding a more lyrical way of talking about what she wants to do. She'll never match Obama in his soaring rhetoric about hope.

But, in her election-night speech, she said she'd work for "people on the day shift, the night shift, the late shift with the crying baby" and for "all those who aren't in the headlines but have always written America's story."

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: hillary, hillary clinton, clinton, presidential primary, super tuesday, media coverage

Peggy Simpson worked 17 years for the Associated Press, in Texas and Washington, D.C.; covered economics and politics for the Hearst Newspapers, served as Washington bureau chief for Ms. magazine and reported on Eastern Europe's transition from communism to a Democratic market economy, as a freelancer during the 1990s. She has taught at Indiana University, George Washington University and at the American Studies Center at Warsaw University. She currently is a freelance writer in Washington.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Election 2008! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Please report correctly
Posted by: EncinoM on Feb 6, 2008 12:57 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The delegate lead the article sites to is a allusion. It is because of the very undemocratic super delegates that Clinton can claim a lead. In truth Obama has won more delegates then Clinton.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Please report correctly Posted by: EncinoM
What the media should not underestimate, but they will
Posted by: fifthworld on Feb 6, 2008 1:04 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
because they're part of the problem:

Don't underestimate the danger of a Clinton presidency esp. with regard to ongoing militarism and imperialism, to start with.

But Obama, YOU will be held to the fire too! If you get nominated.

We're being had all over again - don't be stupid, America! Get the facts on what kind of "CHANGE" these folks (yeh, either) would (not) bring...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

She won the popular vote
Posted by: Donna_Darko on Feb 6, 2008 1:26 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Everyone forgets she won the most popular votes yesterday which is more democratic than pledged delegate counts. So she lead on popular votes, Super Delegates, Obama lead on pledged delegates and states.

The MSM, the Village and progressive blogosphere have been against Clinton from the beginning because of sexism.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: She won the popular vote Posted by: EncinoM
» RE: She won the popular vote Posted by: Crazy H
» RE: She won the popular vote Posted by: Bozwell
Are you saying what I think you are saying?
Posted by: pansa on Feb 6, 2008 1:47 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Obama does best with blacks, more affluent and better educated voters and with those under 30. Clinton wins with a solid bloc of women voters, a better than 2-1 margin among Hispanics, an even larger one among Asian voters and a major edge among older voters"

Are you saying that people that are educated (I assume this is a good thing) vote for Obama and people that are not as educated (looking at your statement that would either be the women, hispanics, older people or Asians) are voting for Hillary?

Am I missing the point or that says something good about Obama and bad about Hillary (Always having the best interest of the country in mind)? And id Hillary ends up becoming the president, why would she improve education if educated voters are not voting for her?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» THIS is what I am saying! Posted by: foreverhope
The Widespread Support is for Obama
Posted by: rplevy on Feb 6, 2008 1:47 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We need to end this myth that Clinton is getting short-changed by the media. Clinton has more connections and establishment support than Obama, yet Obama has managed to emerge as a strong underdog candidate. The media is being fair about this and has been fair all along. Clinton was the "media star" until Iowa, when Barrack led strongly with hisoric youth turnout. At that point it was clear we were dealing with a new phenomenon and different type of primary election. New Hampshire followed, and if anything the coverage favored Clinton, despite Obama's major comeback in NH polls from weeks prior. Then consider the impact of Obama's larger than life ability to inspire with speeches reminiscent of Kennedy and King. He promotes an agenda of transforming politics and getting beyond the unconstructive criticisms many Democrats have engendered, replacing it with a positive vision based on core progressive values. This is big news! If the media tried to ignore it that would not be fair.

Now consider Super Tuesday's results in that context. Clinton can claim CA, NY, MA victories, but these victories are only deemed important inasmuch as their delegates contribute meaningfully. In fact they ended up being far less important than they normally are because of the tremendous margins by which Obama won in several states. Obama won 13 states to Clinton's 8. That is huge! On top that Obama leads in pledged delegates. Obama won more states, Obama won more delegates, therefore Obama won Super Tuesday.

The media is not being biased toward Obama. I see a lot of "they are tied" which is a fair assessment. It is also fair to note that a tie is a major victory for an underdog campaign against and establishment stronghold (hello! have you heard of the right-wing branch of the Dem party, run by the Clintons known as the "DLC"?). Finally I see commentators and news sites conflating super delegates with pledged delegates to make it appear that Clinton has a large lead. In fact the delegates are points apart, and the superdelegates are meaningless at this point and are likely to follow the pattern of the delegates at the convention, favoring Obama in accordance with his delegate lead.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Sorry, but your wrong. Posted by: Verjenie
» RE: Sorry, but your wrong. Posted by: Bozwell
» running mates? Posted by: foreverhope
I want to rain on this parade.
Posted by: douglashoyt on Feb 6, 2008 2:04 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The candidates are spending huge sums of money. Some estimates put it over one billion dollars.

Does not that seem like allot will be owed to someone?
Especially the someone who is not the little people?

This election is another farce.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

BTJ1946
Posted by: BTJ1946 on Feb 6, 2008 2:14 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm getting a little tired of the faint praise for Barack Obama's 'fine rhetoric' -- as if that were an unfair advantage that somehow he is using against Clinton.
The inspiration and hope that Obama offers is speech matches his message that change comes from below and that is matched by the incredible organization that the Obama campaign has put together. It is far from empty 'rhetoric'.
Contrast that message with the Clinton message of incremental change achieved through pitting interest groups against each other -- a recipe for ongoing discord and stasis on most needed changes.
Here in Minnesota, polls predicted a narrow Clinton victory; Obama won by a two to one margin in every senate district in the state. Did that have something to do with his speech at a rally Saturday in Minnesota? Sure. But it had a lot more to do with the hard work of organizers and the message that turned out an extra hundred thousand voters for change.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: BTJ1946 Posted by: aethr
» RE: BTJ1946 Posted by: BTJ1946
» RE: BTJ1946 Posted by: Bec59
» OBAMA'S WORDS Posted by: foreverhope
The Media got cranky last night (I was thrilled and irked)
Posted by: arieden on Feb 6, 2008 2:34 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I watched CNN and MSNBC for 4 hours last night and it was thrilling and exasperating. Thrilling, because I support Hillary and I enjoyed seeing the press being shown up again. Olbermann and Matthews on MSNBC were downright cranky about how well Hillary did. It was so obvious that they were rooting for Obama. (And don't even get me started on Scarborough - he hates Hillary and advertises it!)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

hillary, the candidate for aging feminists and racist Latinos
Posted by: gerdhansel on Feb 6, 2008 2:48 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Obama is the new JFK, the candidate of the future. That's why he's making the stadiums rock. Hillary's only hope is to run out the clock on this political rock star.

Let's be real. Most of Hillary's core voters are:

1. Aging feminists who live in the past. The Gloria Steinems of the world want a return to their salad days of the late 60s and early 70s. The next best walk down memory lane would be a return to the golden Clinton years, otherwise known as the 90s.

These women wouldn't vote for JFK if he rose from the grave. They're voting for Hillary over Obama for one reason: she has ovaries and Obama does not.

2. Hispanics, a great many of whom just plain don't like black people. Period, especially in southern California.

3. Asians, who like blacks even less. I learned this the hard way when I worked in Seoul, Korea, during the Rodney King riots in Los Angeles. Armed Forces Network actually censored the news the first night of rioting in order to prevent local nationals from assaulting black American soldiers. Apparently the Little Korea section of Los Angeles was hard-hit by the rioters that night.

This formula won't work for Hillary in the general election, not even against McCain. Nobody motivates the wingnuts like this woman.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» About this JFK thing Posted by: aethr
» RE: About this JFK thing Posted by: Bozwell
» Fishy? from a old white woman Posted by: foreverhope
» FISHY!! LOL Posted by: foreverhope
Media downplay record turnout by Democrats?
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Feb 6, 2008 3:12 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Maybe that would be a more accurate headline. Some news outlets are commenting on the turnout, but for some reason it's not given front page status.

http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/06/ a-truly-super-tuesday/

"1. Turnout, Turnout, Turnout. It’s almost become cliche in this primary season to note that Democratic turnout in primary states is topping G.O.P. turnout, but the difference on Tuesday was unbelievable, and especially noteworthy in some key battleground states for the fall. The Democratic vote exceeded the Republican vote by more than 200,000 in Missouri, by almost 100,000 in Georgia and by more than 50,000 in Tennessee — all states that went Republican in the 2004 presidential election. And in what were once known as competitive states in American politics — California, New Jersey and Illinois — fuggetaboutit.

A few other "news blogs" are commenting on it: CNNblog - "Democrats Shatter Turnout Records" - but no headlines or leading stories seem to mention the trend.

Overall 24,007,097 citizens have voted in the primaries so far – 13,901,602 in Democratic primaries, 10,105,495 in GOP primaries. Right now, the Republicans are praying that a nasty fight between Obama and Clinton will turn off Democratic voters by the fall. However, that would be silly - because policy-wise, Hillary and Obama will be very similar.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Oh, Please!
Posted by: armorypk on Feb 6, 2008 4:15 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Your "outrage" at the media's treatment of Hillary is evidence that you are either extremely gullible, or that you just haven't been paying attention. Hillary is and always has been the media's candidate of choice. Any "negative" coverage of Hillary is a red herring designed to elicit just the sort of sympathetic backlash you've provided in this column. The Republicans, the DLC and the Corporate Media quickly and neatly disposed of the candidates who posed any real threat to their power - Kucinich, Edwards, Richardson, Dodd and Gravel.
Where, oh where, was your outrage back then? Back when it might have made a difference?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Oh, Please! Posted by: Equalitynow
» RE: Oh, Please! Posted by: Bozwell
Hillary's Hypocrisy Fools Feminists
Posted by: AlexLawyer on Feb 6, 2008 5:39 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hillary Clinton's supporters are now trying to blur the issues by claiming that she and Obama have the same positions, and that the difference is one of experience. This is disingenuous. Her early and vocal support for the Iraq war, which she justified by retailing the same lies about Saddam's alleged weapons and ties to al Qaeda, should raise serious questions about her judgment. Now she claims to oppose the war and want to get out, but her plans for doing so are typically vague.

And how about her opposition to intervention in Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia which, all told, cost close to a million lives? Her support for the vicious sanctions, enforced by her husband, that denied even vaccines and medicines to Iraqis and cost the lives of over 500,000 children? Her support for her husband's refusal to ban landmines, and her opposition to restricting cluster bomb exports to countries that use them in civilian areas? Doesn't it bother anyone that they cynically had US diplomats vitiate the International Criminal Court statute, fatally weakening it with concessions granted by other nations in the expectation of US support, then refused to sign it?

Hillary is Joe Lieberman in drag. She may pro-choice, but the way she and Bill sold gays out, after enjoying their strong support in the election, by imposing the onerous "don't ask, don't tell" regulations and signing the Defense of Marriage Act shouldn't give social liberals much hope.

She claims to be a feminist but is unabashedly riding on her husband's semen-spattered, muddy coattails. She claims to be a champion of the common people, but what about her long and lucrative service on the Board of Directors of the union-busting, worker-exploiting, offshore-sourcing WalMart Corporation?

A slick politician she may be, but a progressive or humanitarian she definitely is not. Don't let the big smile, on-cue tears and expensive pants suits fool you.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hillary is more conservative than McCain . . .
Posted by: Scientz on Feb 6, 2008 9:39 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
. . . and if she's the candidate, McCain will be president. That is my doomsday scenario. I hope the superdelegates take a long hard look at the Obama supporters and the areas that he is winning.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Remember Nevada?
Posted by: rplevy on Feb 6, 2008 11:09 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
One example I neglected to mention was that when Obama won Nevada the media portrayed it as being won by Clinton because she won more votes in the raw count*. It was agreed upon beforehand that this was about delegates, yet the media went with the Clinton-camp interpretation. That's also another example of Clinton's "calvinball" approach of trying to change the rule while the game is in play, like for example turning around and lobbying for inclusion of the FL and MI delegates ex post facto, for example.

*interestingly the total popular vote from Super Tuesday is nearly an exact tie separated by only a fraction of a percentage point.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Obama
Posted by: Navyvet59 on Feb 7, 2008 11:03 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If Obama is the winner for the Dems as a former Republican I will have to vote for McCain!
Obama has many issues to answer for especially his allegiance to that sleaze ball in Illinois. Have any of you ever seen a real slum? I have. He needs to be challenged on his history of votes in the Illinois Senate voting overwhelmingly present much of the times.
It is easy for Obama to say he would have voted against the war but he was not on the hill at the time. He did not see the faces of Congress members as they left briefing after briefing as my friend did. Their faces were white! The vote for the war was a gut reaction and fear of more attacks as well as the outrageous lies the current administration told.
Wake up! Obama is a politician, he will still make sure pork barrel issues for his constituents are passed because that is who he is supposed to stand up for!
Clinton has my back because she supports mandated funding for the VA. Nine years ago I gave a speech in support of overhaul of the VA and mandated funding; Hillary Clinton is the candidate who stands beside me today to get that done. You may call that militarism but it isn't. It is keeping a promise to a female veteran who is now 100% disabled because she volunteered to protect your right to free speech and right to a free life.
This woman gave you the right to have an unemcumbered alternative media outlet. Never forget that!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Obama Posted by: damianmann
» RE: Obama Posted by: Bec59
» For heaven's sake Bec! Posted by: foreverhope
» Have it your way Bec Posted by: foreverhope
» as well as crude Posted by: foreverhope
» RE: as well as crude Posted by: Bec59
The Boots On The Ground
Posted by: desidid on Feb 8, 2008 6:21 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
never marched to my house. The lone organization to approach me for my vote here in South Carolina was the Obama campaign. Neither Clinton or Edwards sent campaign information or a person to ask for my support. If the idea is to reach out to the voter, then Obama was the only democrat to even attempt to do that. And I rewarded him with my vote.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Vote Democrat 2008!!
Posted by: ConcernedRepublican on Feb 8, 2008 8:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Bush spoke to a boisterous crowd shortly after 7 a.m. EST. The ballroom erupted in cheers when someone shouted "Are there conservatives in the house?" When the president walked on stage, they clapped and chanted "Four more years! Four more years!"...sounds awfully familiar, kind of like the same rhetoric right before we elected George W. for his second term... that led us into the recession we are now facing.. OBAMA/CLINTON 2008!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

women voters
Posted by: RODNOX on Feb 8, 2008 5:04 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
any women who vote for hillary just because she is a woman are FOOLS...........JUST STEP BACK AND REALLY LOOK AT HER----SHES OUT FOR HERSELF---NOT FOR WOMEN OR WOMENS RIGHTS----SHE IS NOT A GOOD ROLE MODEL FOR ANYONE---THAT IS UNLESS THEY WANT TO BE A GUTTER POLITITION ......

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: women voters Posted by: Bec59
» RE: women voters Posted by: Bozwell
» RE: women voters Posted by: Bec59
» You are arrogant and condescending Posted by: foreverhope
Aging Feminist for Obama
Posted by: Urstrly on Feb 8, 2008 6:49 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Annoying as heck to hear on the msm and read it here that people like me support Clinton. I just made 50 phone calls for Obama, and I plan to make a whole lot more.

It's the war, folks, and while she says she'd start bringing the troops home from Iraq in 60 days, she was for it all the way, and I worry that she'll feel pressured to start one of her own just to prove she's got the testosterone.

Yes, misogyny abounds. Yes, she's taken far more abuse than she could ever deserve. But we're electing a President here, and I don't want one who's going to turn into a Margaret Thatcher.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A vote for Hillary is a vote for Monsanto
Posted by: healinghawk on Feb 8, 2008 7:51 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If you Google "Does Hillary's campaign take money from Monsanto?" you get a fast, and deep, wake up call about Hillary's corruption.

Sure, it's how the game is played, but the game is corrupt and everyone in this race knows it.

It doesn't matter that Hillary is the first woman President.

It matters that we, the people get a chance to reclaim our government, clean Dubya's excrement off the Constitution, and perhaps create a future worth living for our posterity with a policy of descent into the resource base we now have available to us.

Hillary continues Dubya's policy of corporate rule, where corporations call all the shots.

Do the due diligence, instead of going with bias.

I wish Hillary were not corrupt. She's smart, she's tough, and she's competent. But she is corrupt. End of story.

Google the question. See for yourself.

Tommy Tolson
Austin, TX

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

skysage
Posted by: Skysage on Feb 8, 2008 8:30 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This writer does not really know Hillary Clinton. Does she not know that Hillary will do anything to win this presidency? She would promise her soul to get it. Notice how soon she has changed her position on Iraq. First it was no we should not get out of Iraq and now she wants to get out in two weeks. Before the war, I sent her letters begging her to vote against it. I sent pictures of maimed children and bombed out villages, but she never listed. In fact, she even frightened some of the Senators because of her aggression. Now that she sees that people were loving getting out of Iraq, she jumped on the bandwagon and is now saying get out of Iraq in two weeks. Just look at what NAFTA has done to the middle class, and she is still for it!!! So how is she going to help the middle class by keeping NAFTA??? No matter how sweet, cuddly, and fake crying she does, and says she is for the little people, she is really a power hungry woman that will totally shock the people who vote for her and put her in the White House. God help us, if this happens. Hillary will really be a dictator! I don't know where this writer gets her insights but she certainly does not know Hillary.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

3rd Term in The White House
Posted by: Abushite on Feb 8, 2008 9:26 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hillary unfortunately besides being dishonest about her finances - Secretive - Obamo honest and open.
The Clinton's backdoor attempt for a third term in the Whitehouse if successful will cause great racial tension and be the end of the Democratic party.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Didn't Kucinich want to have..... Posted by: foreverhope
Rebecca
Posted by: Bec59 on Feb 8, 2008 9:46 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The people voting for Obama are "better" educated because their "Boomer" parents paid for them to go to college--probably also why Obama is getting more money in donations because these children of "Boomers" aren't completely saddled with paying off their own college---their parents are doing it. The younger crowd with "Boomer" parents think they're making some great choice by voting for Obama---his speeches are largely written by Sorenson, an old man now who used to write for Kennedy. The words aren't Obama's---so what about the substantive ideas he has--haven't heard a whisp of them yet. All talk---talk, talk.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» YES WE CAN! Posted by: foreverhope
» RE: YES WE CAN! Posted by: Bec59
» RE: YES WE CAN! Posted by: foreverhope
» RE: YES WE CAN! Posted by: Bec59
bartxx2
Posted by: bartxx2 on Feb 8, 2008 9:47 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Mollie Ivins pegged HRC 2 yrs ago in column titled "Why Hillary Won't Save Us." That wry, powerful assessment is still valid.
Thanks to AlterNet, you can read it: http://www.alternet.org/story/31109.
That column was the only reason I needed to say that HRC is not the choice for this mainline Dem.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: bartxx2 Posted by: Bec59
» RE: bartxx2 Posted by: Bec59
Not ALL women are for Hillary
Posted by: dianectaylor on Feb 8, 2008 10:30 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm a college-educated, 60-year-old woman, and I'll write in Mickey Mouse before I'll vote for Hillary Clinton. As for media coverage, until Obama won in Iowa, the media seemed to have a love affair with Hillary. Only after they got kicked did the mainstream media wake up to the fact that not everyone loves her. I was hoping Obama would offer change, but it's looking more and more like he's joined McCain, Hillary and the rest of the "good ol' boys". At any rate, we taxpayers have three senators on our payroll who are still earning big salaries but who aren't doing their jobs. Normal people who disappear for weeks on end would be fired.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Rebecca
Posted by: Bec59 on Feb 8, 2008 10:52 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Obama also voted for a bill to limit citizens rights to seek legal redress against abusive corporations----and sooo many wimpy votes of "present"===seems to me he waits to see and hear and steal the words of other, smarter, more adept people before he commits his vote. So, where's the meat? Quit talking and start researching his true voting record--it's very telling.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: ebecca Posted by: Bozwell
» RE: ebecca Posted by: Bec59
Watching from Outside the Box
Posted by: namaste on Feb 9, 2008 4:09 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Well it seems Dems are divided and so is the world – they are watching the Obama-Clinton battle with baited breath. NONE and I mean not one candidate running right now is worth my vote. I left the US because of the politics, policies and outright murderous warmongering attitude and I see it is still status quo. People need to do something radical such as a write-in campaign for someone who will end the war, create universal healthcare, honor the right of women to chose, respect gays ... I do not see McCain, Clinton or beloved Obama promising any of this or a record of trying to tackle the IMPORTANT issues. PLEASE wake up. I would like to be proud to be American again.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

GQ/HHC
Posted by: gquigley on Feb 9, 2008 6:12 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The media is a factor for sure. As predicted long ago by McLuhan, we are both misled and awakened by the 'spin' of those with enough money to influence the mainstream coverage.

As Peggy points out, Hillary cleverly got people to vote absentee which assured that those votes would be cast but also assured that they couldn't be changed at the last minute. This might have undermined some of the polling data and limited the late surge by Obama.

On the other hand, Paul Krugman's NYT Op-ED on Monday before the primary raised a key issue and may well have been a contributing factor any shift back toward Clinton in the vote.

However it is, either way the question of to whom the candidate is accountable remains and is being soft pedaled by all. Shouldn't we demand a clearer picture of the relationship between the candidates and their sponsors?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Rebecca
Posted by: Bec59 on Feb 9, 2008 6:37 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Bottom line--until we make elections totally publically funded, go back to the "equal time, equal access" rule in our media, (or some better version), make our voting system secure with paper ballots that we can see with our own eyes, make election day a (payed?) National Holiday so all have few excuses not to vote, make voting an act of personal pride and responsibility in the eyes of all, make elections "clean"-- do something about our crazy electoral system (win by popular vote!)in other words, make it real so that ANYONE can run for elective office in this great country of ours---not just the wealthy--then no one will have to compromise their values to get money to buy the time, to pay the fat-cat owner/ broadcasters who use OUR AIRWAVES.Until that day when we take back our power as a people who should be lighting the way as we used to be known and admired for, then we're stuck with this 'effed' up system of ours. Let's take our country back and make it right.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Jeri Rasmussen, Women's activist Minnesota
Posted by: jerir on Feb 9, 2008 8:05 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
After reading the ugly comments generated by Obama supporters I have to wonder why he is not speaking out against such attacks. He would if it were blacks but not women and it is about time he steps up. I am so tired of men with little or no substance thinking just because they have the "parts" they are entitled. Well, should Obama win I for one will not support him until he refutes the ugliness of the anti-Hillary Obama supporters. She is far more qualified than he is but apparently doesn't have required parts that impart all wisdom. Racism and sexism are twin evils. Obama, without a doubt, is an outstanding candidate but lacks experience and his supporters seem to imply that his blackness and his maleness will attribute to greatness. His character will and he best draw up short his supporters or he will lose.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Bitter? Posted by: foreverhope
» RE: Bitter? Posted by: Bec59
» RE: Bitter? Posted by: foreverhope
» You are so right Posted by: joseph_b26
» RE: You are so right Posted by: Bec59
WORSE then the repugs!
Posted by: foreverhope on Feb 9, 2008 2:22 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
JFK and Bobby Kennedy together represent IN EVERY WAY the HISTORIC PRINCIPLES OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY!!!

As Ronald Reagan represents what conservatives these days embrace, so have liberals and progressives embraced the beliefs and legacy of these TWO GREAT DEMOCRATS FOR OVER FORTY YEARS!!

For Hillary's supporters to continue maligning and disparaging them only shows me that YOU ARE WORSE THEN REPUGS!!!!!!

IT IS REPREHENSIBLE! IF YOU ARE OR EVER WERE A DEMOCRAT KNOCK IT OFF!

GET INSPIRED!!!

"I thought they'd get one of us, but Jack, after all he's been through, never worried about it I thought it would be me."
*Robert Kennedy*

"All of us might wish at times that we lived in a more tranquil world, but we don't. And if our times are difficult and perplexing, so are they challenging and filled with opportunity."
*Robert Kennedy*

"But suppose God is black? What if we go to Heaven and we, all our lives, have treated the Negro as an inferior, and God is there, and we look up and He is not white? What then is our response?
*Robert Kennedy*

"Ultimately, America's answer to the intolerant man is diversity, the very diversity which our heritage of religious freedom has inspired."
*Robert Kennedy*

"What is objectionable, what is dangerous about extremists, is not that they are extreme, but that they are intolerant. The evil is not what they say about their cause, but what they say about their opponents."
*Robert Kennedy*

"Few will have the greatness to bend history itself; but each of us can work to change a sma