Hillary Supporters unite....no bashing please! only smiles

[Fitswimmer]

I think they are. There is one "wacky" TX one that shows Obama ahead. I call it "wacky" because its the only one that does (out of 3). I am sure there will be fluctuations before March 4th.

A good site to check periodically is realclearpolitics.com They have no dog in the race so to speak.

If she has to lose - I'd like to see her try her best to the very end......

Something tells me that there won't be another serious woman contender for a long time..........

That glass ceiling is very thick here in America!

That concerns me too-if the first woman to get this far loses, how long will it be before we get another one?

 

[Planogirl]

Texas could get interesting. It's heavily Hispanic in some areas plus so devoutly Republican that I can't for the life of me decide what 'might' happen there. McCain should win but otherwise... ?

 

["Got Disney"]

that was an interesting article...did anyone watch Anderson Cooper tonight....it was on Race and gender and how it is effecting the vote and why the voters are voting the way they are.

They were also talking how Dems are spliting between Hillary and Obama and it is causing many disagreements...I started laughing because they were showing people disagreeing and getting a little heated(as they mentioned is happening all over the country) just as we have been here on the Dis...

Hillary's supporters talking about Experience and Obama's talking about Hope and bringing the people together...than the Hillary Supporter would say but he has no substance and the Obama supporter would say but Hillary is polarizing...gee sound familiar

the panel they had were very interesting

If you get a chance to see it again or watch it on CNN it is called ...

Race, Gender and Politics... I found it very enlightening.

 

[grinningghost]

I am not a Hillary fan, but this is an interesting thread. Good job guys.

(Just so you know, I'm from New York, so I've seen Hillary in action. Or lack thereof. So I base my opinion of her on what she's done for my state, which, sadly, isn't anything). But, I digress...

Great thread. Very good reading. You are an intelligent bunch. I wish you (and Hillary) well.

 

[wvrevy]

That concerns me too-if the first woman to get this far loses, how long will it be before we get another one?

We currently have a woman Speaker of the House and Hillary in the running for the higest office. I think the days of the "glass ceiling" in politics are finally dead. Plus, if Hillary loses, it won't - in my opinion - have anything to do with her being a woman. It will have a lot more to do with her being a Clinton (if she loses in the general) or with having a challenger that is considerably more charismatic and appealing to a much wider base than she is (if she loses the nomination).

 

[punkin]

We currently have a woman Speaker of the House and Hillary in the running for the higest office. I think the days of the "glass ceiling" in politics are finally dead. Plus, if Hillary loses, it won't - in my opinion - have anything to do with her being a woman. It will have a lot more to do with her being a Clinton (if she loses in the general) or with having a challenger that is considerably more charismatic and appealing to a much wider base than she is (if she loses the nomination).

Nope, the glass ceiling is alive and well, as well as the old double standard. I am not just referring to Hillary here. Our society is a lot more backward than many of us like to think.

 

[wvrevy]

Nope, the glass ceiling is alive and well, as well as the old double standard. I am not just referring to Hillary here. Our society is a lot more backward than many of us like to think.

In the corporate world, I think you may have an argument. But in the political realm? Like I said...you can't get much higher than Nancy Pelosi has risen. There's really only two offices that would be considered higher, and one of the final three contenders for one of those offices is also a woman. I don't see the "glass ceiling" in that realm at all.

 

[punkin]

In the corporate world, I think you may have an argument. But in the political realm? Like I said...you can't get much higher than Nancy Pelosi has risen. There's really only two offices that would be considered higher, and one of the final three contenders for one of those offices is also a woman. I don't see the "glass ceiling" in that realm at all.

look at the percentages of women in politics, particularly at higher levels. Until those percentages are roughly 50/50, there are barriers to entry and advancement.

 

[Fitswimmer]

In the corporate world, I think you may have an argument. But in the political realm? Like I said...you can't get much higher than Nancy Pelosi has risen. There's really only two offices that would be considered higher, and one of the final three contenders for one of those offices is also a woman. I don't see the "glass ceiling" in that realm at all.

Frankly, Nancy's been a bit of a letdown for me. Too much caving to the Bush administration, not enough fighting back.

 

[wvrevy]

look at the percentages of women in politics, particularly at higher levels. Until those percentages are roughly 50/50, there are barriers to entry and advancement.

See, I see this as akin to the "Title IX" arguments. Have you ever looked at whether or not the total number of candidates registering on the local, state, and federal level are equal? If it's not - and I honestly don't know - then how is that a "glass ceiling"? Unless the interest is equal from both genders - and I doubt if it is, but that's only a guess - then it isn't realistic to think that the end result would be a 50-50 split.

Frankly, Nancy's been a bit of a letdown for me. Too much caving to the Bush administration, not enough fighting back.

I agree whole-heartedly! The first things they've really done that I completely agree with just happened this week when they held Myers and Bolton in contempt of Congress, and forcing Bush to choose the financial security of telecoms over the "security" that he keeps saying we gain by spying on people without warrants. There have been smaller issues that I agree with, but in terms of the bigger picture, the Democratic Congress has definitely been a disappointment.

 

["Got Disney"]

Thought I would post this here also...I posted it in addition on the liberal thread

Heres the Rassmussin report.....from today
Texas: Clinton 54% Obama 38%

Wisconsin: Obama 47% Clinton 43%

Ohio: Clinton 51% Obama 37%

This was on there also......

Seventy-eight percent (78%) of Likely Democratic Primary Voters say that Clinton would be at least somewhat likely to win the White House if nominated. Seventy-six percent (76%) say the same about Obama.

 

["Got Disney"]

this was posted on the Liberal thread by one of hte same posters here so I thought it was interesting so brought it over hre to sahre for those that dont come into the liberal thread....


This article says what I have been thinking and feeling better than I could - so I am posting it here for discussion:


Quote:
http://www.newsday.com/news/opinion/...,102266.column

Obama sounds good, but words aren't enough

James Klurfeld
February 15, 2008

Watch out, Barack Obama. You've hit the magic tipping point. After winning the Virginia, Maryland and District of Columbia primaries, you are now the front-runner. It doesn't mean that the nomination is yours, not by a long shot in this kind of competitive race. But you've got more delegates than Hillary Rodham Clinton.

And now the press is going to come after you.

I admire much of what Sen. Obama has to say. And he says it so well. But the journalist in me still feels there are questions that have not been asked, let alone answered.

First and foremost, just how is Obama going to bring the country together and find common ground on the substantive issues that have so divided it for almost three decades? Just saying you want to bring people together isn't sufficient. Where is the common ground on giving women the right to choose versus embracing the right-to-life argument? How do you pull troops out of Iraq without re-energizing al-Qaida or compromising the gains from the surge? How will you reduce the cost of health care to make it more affordable, when the medical inflation rate has been at least twice that of the general inflation rate? And how do you convince Americans that some taxes might have to be raised to pay for universal access to health care or to make Social Security and Medicare solvent for the next generation?

We here in New York have been scarred by the experience of Gov. Eliot Spitzer. He came into office as the great, new hope, vowing to change the way things were done in Albany, and he's run into a stone wall. His surprising lack of political finesse has been a huge disappointment. Remember the crushed promise of Jimmy Carter? Good intentions aren't enough. And, by the way, the comparison of Obama to John F. Kennedy makes me uncomfortable. JFK's record was poor in his approximately 1,000 days.

I understand that the Spitzer analogy might not be valid. He took the steamroller approach, and Obama says he'll be a conciliator. But you know what? Sen. Clinton has been a very effective cloakroom player in the Senate. She's demonstrated her political touch in surprising ways, working with former political enemies to craft legislative compromises. Her reputation as a polarizing figure isn't fair.

There's one school of political thought that believes that if you're really going to be a change agent, you have to be ready to go to political war, not be a compromiser. In fact, the question is whether there really is common ground on some of these big issues. According to this view, compromisers don't get that much accomplished.

Bill Clinton pursued a triangulation strategy in the last half of his presidency: small gains, trying to work with the other side of the aisle. But that's not the type of change Obama is talking about. He's promising fundamental change, generational change.

I also want to know how Obama is going to react when things aren't going well. He's gotten some unfair comments about his religious background (he's a Christian) and the association of his church's leader with Louis Farrakhan, but, as the saying goes, he "ain't seen nothing yet." It's obvious that he can be charming and inspirational, but reporters have also found him to be aloof, even arrogant.

How will a person with so little national political experience react to the cocoon of the White House, surrounded by sycophantic aides (regardless of what he may say now about wanting a staff that will tell him, "no") and a cacophony of criticism from the fourth estate, which inevitably happens to every president? If he wants to get anything done, he's going to make enemies, no matter how much he tries to rebuild the center of American politics. How will he react?

Don't get me wrong. Obama has my attention. He might actually have momentum - whatever that is and if it even exists. But it's been only six weeks since the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primaries. So far, I like what I see. But I'm still not sure what I'm getting.

 

[majimikate]

Hey GotDisney...thanks for a great article that states very well my feelings thus far...and I'm a New Yorker so the Spitzer analogy rings very true for me. Good find!

Chris

 

[DawnCt1]

Hillary's strategy of more experience isn't resonating with those who are enraptured with Obama. Her policy issues aren't much different but she needs to highlight what they are and point out why they are superior. She wants to raise capital gains taxes to 20% but on the other hand, Obama is pushing for 28%. She needs to focus on what that will do to the economy if investors choose not to take risks and invest in companies.

 

[JARNJ3]

A recent editorial from WI

http://www.madison.com/tct/opinion/column/272859

Stephen Schlesinger: Hillary Clinton clearly is best to lead nation

Stephen Schlesinger — 2/16/2008 6:19 am

In the upcoming Democratic presidential primary, Wisconsin voters are blessed with two candidates who are smart, energetic and forward-looking. Nonetheless, the state's residents have to decide who will be the most qualified starting on the first day in the Oval Office. My choice is Hillary Clinton.

I have had the good fortune to observe Clinton's career while living in New York. Up close, she is an unusually tough and savvy as well as charming political figure. While not as visible as Mayor Rudy Giuliani on 9/11, she showed great mastery in the difficult days after the attacks in helping to bring about the physical and emotional recovery of New York City and gaining federal assistance for ground zero workers exposed to toxic air.

As important, in her eight years in the Senate, she has compiled a strong liberal voting record in the tradition of Wisconsin's great Sens. Bob La Follette and Gaylord Nelson. While she has known defeats (e.g., health care in 1994), she has turned her reversals into legislative prowess on Capitol Hill.

Her work on the Armed Services Committee and her fact-finding visits overseas belie the notion that she has limited foreign policy experience. Her vote for the congressional resolution on Iraq in 2002 was a vote for continued weapons inspection and diplomacy and in opposition to pre-emptive war, as she clearly stated in her Senate floor speech. Today she is trying to prevent the establishment of permanent U.S. bases in Iraq by requiring prior congressional approval for any such outposts.

Of extraordinary importance, she has taken the lead on the most important economic crisis to face our country in decades. She was among the first of the Democratic contenders to propose a bold economic recovery program designed to rescue the nation from recession. Over a month ago, Clinton advocated for $70 billion in emergency spending and a backup of a $40 billion tax rebate should economic conditions worsen. Hers is a direct attempt to help the most threatened people in America -- namely, lower-income families facing foreclosures of their mortgages, those in need of home heating aid, and people who require extended jobless benefits.

Her opponent, Sen. Barack Obama, belatedly came out with his own plan, which seemingly lifts most of his ideas straight out of Clinton's proposal.

On a more specific level, Clinton's recommendations on helping Americans caught in the subprime mortgage mess are far-reaching. She has called for a moratorium on foreclosures, a freezing of interest rates, the use of federal subsidies to help homeowners keep up with payments and restructure loans, and augmented regulation of the financial industry.

Obama has come up with an alternative plan, which, by contrast, does none of these things but tinkers around the edges. He backs a bill against mortgage fraud, supports an average $500 tax credit for homeowners, and endorses additional funding for a limited class of homeowners. His is a tepid response to an enormous tragedy.

In many ways, Clinton is to the left of Obama. She has outlined a program of universal health insurance -- meaning that every person in America would be covered. By contrast, his plan is more restrictive and would leave millions of people uncovered.

Lastly, Clinton is a fighter for change. Obama, on the other hand, is a self-described conciliator. What Democrats want today, however, is a battler, not a mediator. They have suffered enough from the vicious blows of President Bush and the Republicans. What the party needs is a nominee who will take the contest directly to the opposition. Come the fall showdown, a candidacy of "friendly persuasion" is going to be Swift-boated into oblivion.

Stephen Schlesinger is a specialist on the foreign policy of the Clinton and Bush administrations and is a frequent contributor to magazines and newspapers.

 

[Duckfan-in-Chicago]

Interesting...if it goes to the superdelegates, maybe it's HC who doesn't have a chance?

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/02/superdelegates.html

Obama's political action committee has doled out more than $694,000 to superdelegates since 2005, the study found, and of the 81 who had announced their support for Obama, 34 had received donations totaling $228,000.

Clinton's political action committee has distributed about $195,000 to superdelegates, and only 13 of the 109 who had announced for her have received money, totaling about $95,000.

 

[punkin]

Interesting...if it goes to the superdelegates, maybe it's HC who doesn't have a chance?

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/02/superdelegates.html

Obama's political action committee has doled out more than $694,000 to superdelegates since 2005, the study found, and of the 81 who had announced their support for Obama, 34 had received donations totaling $228,000.

Clinton's political action committee has distributed about $195,000 to superdelegates, and only 13 of the 109 who had announced for her have received money, totaling about $95,000.

Yuk. Talk about buying votes. Can I make a joke about Chicago politicians now?

 

[robinb]

It's up in the air now if I'll be able to see Hillary before the election. She was supposed to be here in Madison tonight, but a big ice storm/blizzard put the kibosh on that! They appear to have re-scheduled for tomorrow, but I have been reading mixed reports on that. It's not clear if she'll be here tomorrow or if she'll blow us off in favor of campaigning in Texas.

 

["Got Disney"]

Interesting...if it goes to the superdelegates, maybe it's HC who doesn't have a chance?

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/02/superdelegates.html

Obama's political action committee has doled out more than $694,000 to superdelegates since 2005, the study found, and of the 81 who had announced their support for Obama, 34 had received donations totaling $228,000.

Clinton's political action committee has distributed about $195,000 to superdelegates, and only 13 of the 109 who had announced for her have received money, totaling about $95,000.

Hmmmm...why is it that every time I turn around I see things that Obama has also be guilty of but he always is made to look like he does no wrong....here is a example of paying out more money than Hillary. Sorry but his squeaky clean persona is getting to me.....

And that's how I roll

 

[Planogirl]

Funny that no one has mentioned this buying of superdelegates. Interesting....