BlogHer - clinton - Comments

Obama, ACORN, and voter fraud

socrates — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 17:29:56 -0500

socrates Good evening, Cooper,

I would be quite surprised if Lynette Long were not a member of PUMA. You note that the objections to Obama's tactics were coming from the Hillary camp.

Obviously you don't care for Hillary, and that is your choice. I trust you would agree, however, that she and her supporters had a right to a fair electoral process both in the primaries and the caucuses. They were entitled to not having ballot boxes stuffed. Not having voters brought in from out of state. Not having "voters" registered multiple times. Not having Obama thugs intimidating Clinton supporters.

Please note that Ms. Long was NOT the only person raising objection to the Obama / ACORN fraudulent and aggressive tactics. If you will reference back to the original story, you will find about a dozen other persons who have voiced concerns.

We ALL need to worry about the infusion of such criminal practices into our democratic electoral process. AND now it is coming out that Obama paid ACORN and its subsidiary CIS $832,598 for their assistance during the Democratic primaries and caucuses. Yes, ma'am, check that out at the Federal Election Commission.

I am wondering

cooper — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 18:16:06 -0500

Is this the same Lynette Long who is a psychologist in Betheda MD? They PUMA LADY?

This is the "study" she is referring to isn't it

I have taken several grad courses at this point in analytics and research and this is not a study.

Very simlar information has been availble via media for some time.

What so many don't understand, or ignore, is the fact that there was a very large faction of the Democratic party which did not want any part of the Clinton machine. As soon as Iowa went to Obama and it became clear he could win they started abandoning her. All is not what it seems. This is something the party really took into their own hands. The party in the people who really make those decsions - the people who always control the parties in this counry, those with the money.

The melodrama from people who seem not to understand how this system works is beginning to border on histrionics - if not hysteriia.

cooper

I think the issue is deeper than 3 to 4 inches.

TeacherCaryn — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 18:06:29 -0500

I agree with several of the other ladies who left comments. This is not about being a woman, its about what she supports. When you said that no one gave Hillary trouble about raising kids, I'm just going to suggest that's probably due to the fact that her daughter has long been grown, wheras Palin has little ones in tow. Personally, I don't think that would hinder a determined woman from doing a good job in anyting. That issue aside, Palin looks like a ditz compared to Hillary, not to mention I sided with Hillary's policies from the get-go. Perhaps I can proudly vote for her one day. I am very disappointed in McCain's sorry attempt to win women over just because he thinks we all stand behind 'Girl power! woohoo!" and would vote for someone just because she has a vagina. Sorry, McCain. Some of us actually read up on issues and have formed opinions based on that.

Another reason Palin scares the living daylight out of me:

http://www.blogher.com/rape-and-justice-wasilla-ak

Seriously?

cshayr — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 23:15:44 -0500

I have to say that I was completely stunned and insulted when the McCain camped pulled Palin out of their magician's hat. Why her? As you say, they both have vaginas, right? That was exactly McCain's thought... we'll get a female to woo the Hillary supporters away from supporting Obama.

Let me say this, I WAS on the verge of going with McCain right up until this stunt with Palin. I have never felt so insulted as a voter.

If you are going to go after the intelligent and wary female vote, you need an intelligent and somewhat experienced female to back up the candidacy. In my opinion, Palin is neither. I was screaming in frustration as I watched interview after interview of her making a fool of herself, McCain, and women in general. The vice presidential debate, while she made a decent showing of herself, did not prove to me that she was any more informed or able to present her own thoughts or views, but that she was able to be coached over a period of weeks to respond to questions that they knew would be coming.

Oh, and her "I may not answer questions the way (the moderator) or Senator Biden may want me to" was a cop out for "I may not know the answer to what you are asking me, so I will just say something that the McCain camp wants to get out". I am very upset that our first female in the highest executive branch in the land could be this particular one. There are so many other females who could have done so much better in this role than her. Why not Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson of Texas? Sentaor Olympia Snowe of Maine?Senator Sheila Frahm of Kansas? They are all republican and have dealt with these issues. And I am sure that they would be able to speak a bit more fluently on current issues and topics than Gov Palin.

I am sorry, but if the issue was soley whether or not someone has a vagina, then of course you would vote for the McCain Palin ticket. However, most of the women who were voting for Hillary were voting for her because of what she stood for, and Palin is far from that mark. It's comparing apples to rotten bananas as far as women's issues go.

Women's rights

RetroHousewife — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 20:12:15 -0500

I wholeheartedly agree with Lisse. I was and am a huge Hillary supporter and seriously contemplated not voting in this election after she ended her campaign. However, McCain's choice of Palin as his running mate will have me running to the polls to vote for Obama on November 4th.

I have heard very little criticism from the media about her being a mother, and if I did, I too would be appauled. The media are criticising Palin, and rightly so, about her lack of knowledge on everything from foreign policy to economics. Take a moment to watch her painful interviews with Katie Couric or Charles Gibson and you will see that when she is unrehearsed and unscripted she doesn't know where she stands on any issues.

The reason women's organizations aren't supporting her is because she does not support women's rights. She is a major step backwards for women in politics and women period. She doesn't support a women's right to choose, even if they are raped, even if the rape is incest! As mayor of Wasilla she charged rape victims for their own rape examination kits!

We should not support women simply because they are women. This would be a huge error in judgement. Just like all people, we should judge women based on their content, their character, and in this case, their ability to perform a job. It is absolutely silly and absurd to think I should support a woman and endorse her simply because we have the same equipment. We don't like it when men choose a man over a more qualified woman. I couldn't in good conscience support a woman who isn't qualified for a job just because we are "sisters".

Policy, not anatomy

Lisse — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 19:00:00 -0500

In attempting to sell Sarah Palin as a viable alternative to Hillary Clinton, the McCain Campaign played women for stupid, and Sarah Palin is out there proving McCain's point.

This is not just about getting a woman in office, it is about electing someone who will further women's stature on the national stage, not set us back.

This is about electing someone who will be a major proponent for women's freedoms and rights and opportunities, someone who will be an advocate for our needs and those of our families, not someone who will set us back.

I'm sorry that person is not going to be Hillary Clinton, but is it certainly not Sarah Palin.

Sarah Palin is a walkin', talkin', winkin', flirtin', major setback with a hunting license. This is a woman who can not name the publications she reads, let alone, the names of major figures on the world stage. This is a woman who wants to force other women to bear their rapist's child. This is a woman whose party wants to limit women's access to birth control. This is a candidate who does not believe in science and whose party does not believe in equal pay for women.

This is not about anatomy, this is about policy. Let's hope the embarrassment that is Sarah Palin does not hamper the options for women for decades to come.

-Lisse

@ Home in the World

It Makes Me Sad...

HeidiChick — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 11:21:37 -0500

Amen.

I am so saddened and disheartened by ALL the women's organizations who've sent a plethora of Hilary stuff to me over the years. And I'm ok with that. Even though I do not personally support Hilary, I never found it necessary to be "against" her and write negative things. To me, putting efforts towards positve and good things makes more sense. (I'll take a Sarah wink over a Hilary scowl any day)

But then when Sarah rolls around, not only does the support stop. But the hate emails start rolling in....from the "women's" organizations.

My favorite business book is by former CNN Exec VP Gail Evans - "She Wins, You Win."

Just seems to me like some of those folks from the Organizations Formerly Known as Supporting Women need to read something like that....

Re: Its not about women

craftyncer — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 10:44:11 -0500

chef-mommy I have to disagree with you wholeheartedly, it is not all about party lines, hating the current administration and blindly following party lines. I am a Republican who looked at the smear emails I was receiving, looked up the truth and found out I liked most (not all) of Obama's stances vs. McCain. Oh and I am not the only one, since I have been volunteering I am seeing more and more of Republicans coming to help out. Even more so now that McCain/Palin have started their smear tactics.

No Palin is NOT just as qualified just watch the Katie Couric interviews that alone should clue you in.

Who said anything about being a beautiful woman is a flaw?

Cathy

Who also has done the beauty pagent circuits and has won

its not about women

chef-mommy — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 08:10:25 -0500

It’s not about fighting for the goals woman have been fighting for the years, its all about party lines. Democrats are to busy hating the current administration and blindly following their "chosen one" that they would find fault in any woman the Republican Party supports. Republicans could put the Virgin Mary or Mother Theresa on the ticket and democrats would tear them down and find faults. Fact is Sarah Palin is just as qualified as Obama, Biden, or Clinton. She may not have the number of years in Washington that the others, but she has a fresh approach to things that this country desperately needs.

Since when is being a beautiful woman a disqualifying flaw!?!

Being a Woman Does Not Make Her Qualified

craftyncer — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 23:40:39 -0500

I am all for a woman in the White House or in any position that shows we are just as capable as men. However, Sarah Palin is not capable to be VP. The difference is not their vaginas but one shows she has brains (Hilary) the other doesn't. Just listen to the way Sarah Palin talks, very little coherencies.

Cathy

A vagina doesn't make her qualified to be VP

MJ2007 — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 23:30:34 -0500

I'm not being disrespectful of your post. I'm all for backing women and working for the cause. Believe me! I browbeat my family incessantly about how we women need to help women. But what it comes down to is Sarah Palin is just not qualified to be VP. She looked silly next to Joe Biden. And no, she doesn't represent a "Washington outsider" either (which is how she referred to herself). She didn't even know what Joe Biden was talking about. It was so apparent. So, yes, I'd love to see a woman in the White House (Pres or VP). Just not her. Not as the "first" woman in history to be appointed to one of these very important offices. She just doesn't have the qualifications.

I Was Right With You Until...

Megan Smith — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 10:05:27 -0500

The name on the piece of paper!

Megan
BlogHer Contributing Editor, TV/YouTube
Megan's Minute
Video Runway

ok that made me laugh

Denise — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 09:54:18 -0500

thanks. :-)

~Denise
BlogHer Community Manager

Flamingo House Happenings

Clinton as Gender Icon

TonySmith — Tue, 27 May 2008 09:22:12 -0500

Hi. Thanks for your response. Obama's abortion postions do not differ from most mainstream Democrats, and they do not include funding abortion services for poor women. Framing the abortion debate around Roe obscures the reality that for poor women, the issue is class, not choice. There is enough political support for maintaining the right to choose up until late-term; so I am not threatened by the Roe scare tactics. There is very little political support for public funding of abortions, and I do not expect Obama's presidency to alter this. The legal landscape on abortion has not changed dramatically since Roe (other than the ways I outlined in my original post), despite the torrent of complaints that it would.

Eveyone must vote his or her conscience. I am a black man, and I can safely say my support of Clinton does not rest on identity politics, although I am happy with the prospect of her being the first woman president. But that is just as "symbolic" (and nothing else) as Obama being the first black president. People have argued that his race alone would achieve some tremendous advancement; but this is so only on paper. Perhaps it is a milestone, but this alone would not generate any new policies or change the status of most blacks. So, in the same way the Obama's women supporters criticize Clinton's women supporters for defending her on gender terms, I would criticize Obama supporters for boasting about the racial impact of his candidacy -- although this is not something you have done in your post. In the mainstream media, however, I have only seen this type of criticism directed towards Clinton's supporters, not Obama's. But that's very typical of this election cycle.

Obama on Women's Rights

Candace in OKC — Mon, 26 May 2008 20:03:28 -0500

Have you read Senator Obama's Blueprint for Change? The following is copied directly:

REPRODUCTIVE CHOICE

Supports a Woman’s Right to Choose:

Barack Obama understands
that abortion is a divisive issue, and respects those who disagree with
him. However, he has been a consistent champion of reproductive choice
and will make preserving women’s rights under Roe v. Wade a priority as
President. He opposes any constitutional amendment to overturn the
Supreme Court's decision in that case.

Preventing Unwanted Pregnancy:

Barack Obama is an original
co-sponsor of legislation to expand access to contraception, health
information and preventive services to help reduce unintended
pregnancies. Introduced in January 2007, the Prevention First Act will
increase funding for family planning and comprehensive sex education
that teaches both abstinence and safe sex methods. The Act will also
end insurance discrimination against contraception, improve awareness
about emergency contraception, and provide compassionate assistance to
rape victims.

I am a 53 year-old white woman who supports Barack Obama. I am capable of making a choice of who to vote for, and I can honestly say sex and race had nothing to do with my decision. I have been following Hillary's career since 1991 and have not been impressed. It will be a great day when we finally have a woman as President, but it must be the right woman and she isn't the best woman for the job.

Truth is Truth Is Truth