The Obama prime time commercial: what did you think?/Hillary supporters: please don't abstain

Houseonahill www.Houseonahillorg.blogspot.com ( http://www.houseonahillorg.blogspot.com/ )

 I hope everyone will stop and read this:

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1855677,00.html?imw=Y

 This has been a long and arduous campaign. If any of you are in successful relationships or have children, I KNOW that you know the rule of success ~ EVERY day is a new day. There is a lot of bitterness left in many of our comments when we should be looking ahead toward Wednesday morning.

 OBAMA is READY. Having  worked on his Illinois senate campaign and having had my reservations, the TIME magazine article COMPLETELY shares that this man is PRESIDENTIAL.

His transformation before our eyes, has revealed a man who is ready, capable, can think on his feet, and absorb, as necessary, mountains of information in a very small amount of time. Let's not forget he is a lawyer, his running mate is as well and holds two B.A.s; the opposition is not only not as qualified but both are not as educated.

He is not that same man that stood on those stairs of the old capital building that cold February in Springfield, IL.

We should be assured and glad. We should be proud and stand together as this new day awaits. I found the ad inspiring and powerful. I KNOW that the campaign listens to us and that all of our voices are heard. They also listen to the negative commentary. The Obama/Biden camp is SO committed to making real change. At least that has been my experience working here in Chicago.

I cast my vote and am waiting for all that will come, good and bad, because I cast my vote with faith and I hope that everyone else will too!

~ HAPPY ELECTION DAY, LADIES!!!

Yuck...radical feminism rears its ugly head. I am deeply disturbed by the comments here that plainly show a uterus is all that is required in their eyes to run for POTUS or VP. DEEPLY disturbing. And then to call Obama supporters uninformed...now if we don't vote for the woman we are ignorant too. Wow is all I can say. If that is feminism please strike me from the rolls PLEASE!

No, he was not the nominee.  The endorsement was made in May.  Obama did not become the presumptive nominee until June and was not the official nominee until August.

Are you related to Bill Maher?  He says that Obama's not religious but that Palin is scarily religious.  Obama has spoken more about how his religion qualifies him for the office of the presidency than any candidate in recent history.  What is it about Obama that makes people hear only what they want to hear?  Both Obama and McCain made offensive comments related to women seeking abortions for reasons of health as if a woman's health were an excuse to have an abortion of convenience.  Both were cruel and dismissive of women. 

Vote for whomever you like but please stop trying to impose a Kool-Aid infused interpretation on two essentially identical statements just because one was made by the candidate whom you prefer. 

I totally hate women more than you Heather!

Politics & News Contributing Editor
Queen of Spain ( http://queenofspainblog.com/ )

he's the nominee?

lol

And McCain's and Obama's comments were no where near similar.

Politics & News Contributing Editor
Queen of Spain ( http://queenofspainblog.com/ )

Thank you, Pitboss, for posting this and reminding readers of Hillary's actual words, decision, and class. She knows why she's been in this fight and that to sit down and pout now would not be beneficial to the very people she's been fighting for.

Earlier this month, I think, I heard an NPR report ( http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?story... ) about a former CIA operative Robert Baer in a discussion of his latest book, The Devil We Know. He spoke with Terry Gross about the Middle East and concern about IRAN's influence, and in this next section said that the Iranians don't want to be more Palestian than the Palestians when advocating for their future:

GROSS: You know, if Iran becomes the key player with the United States in negotiating a settlement for the Middle East, I mean, we know what President Ahmadinejad of Iran wants. He wants all Palestinians to participate in elections, Palestinians in the West Bank, Gaza, and I think also Palestinians in the Palestinian diaspora, and that would effectively eliminate Israel as a Jewish state.

Mr. BAER: This is what Ahmadinejad says. During the last year I’ve sat down, for what it’s worth, with Hezbollah for more than a few meetings. And they’ve told me over and over again that the real policy in Iran, and Hezbollah’s real policy, is to come to a solution that the Palestinians accept, the vast majority of them. And I asked them, would that be on Resolution 242, which gives the West Bank to the Palestinian and East Jerusalem? They said, if the Palestinian accept it, we accept it. We do not want to be more Palestinian than the Palestinians. The Iranians have officially stated this. (Transcript posted at Syria Comment ( http://joshualandis.com/blog/?p=1080&cp=2 ))

The situation is analogous to the supposed pro-Hillary supporters who would rather wage war against the DNC and destroy it rather than look at the bigger picture, even after Hillary herself has recognized it's time to move forward, unite, and ensure a DNC victory. Political wisdom accepts compromise, understanding when the timing's right and when your focus is wrong. YAY, Hillary!

She wanted to win but not at any cost, proving that she's a true warrior.

"To capture the enemy's entire army is better than to destroy it; to take intact a regiment, a company, or a squad is better than to destroy them. For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the supreme of excellence. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the supreme excellence."
- Sun Tzu

Of course, it's possible that the Hillary hold-outs were only voting for Hillary because she has a womb and not because they shared her political beliefs. That would explain a lot.

Nordette ( http://blogher.org/blog/nordette ) is a Contributing Editor with BlogHer.com whose personal blog is hosted on another site at this link ( http://bigsole.blogspot.com ).

( http://blogher.org/blog/nordette )

Here she is asking her supporters to please vote for Barack Obama.

Bill cries, Chelsea cries, Michelle gives her a standing ovation. Palin touting McCain's "maverickness" for weeks will never compare to this one speach Obama's primary opponent, Hillary Clinton, made for him.

What you seem to be implying is that for someone to enjoy JayZ then that person is a misogynist? I like JayZ so am I anti-feminism?  You heard it hear first: I hate women!  

Heather B.Personal Blog: No Pasa Nada ( http://nopasanada.org )BlogHer CE: Business, Career & Personal Finance ( http://blogher.org/topic/business-career-personal-... )

Thank you for the civil tone of your post.  I recognize that there's racism in our society that significantly impacts people of color.  It's really late and I have to sign off so I can't go into a lot of detail but here are a few examples:

Donna Brazile's characterization of Bill Clinton's use of the term "fairy tale" as racial.

Jessie Jackson, Jr.'s suggestion that Hillary cried over her appearance but didn't cry over the Katrina victims as if she were oblivous to that tragedy because it involved so many black people.

The notion, floated by Obama's campaign, that Hillary's comment about MLK, Jr. and LBJ was, in some way, disrespectful to King.

Obama's claim that Hillary's campaign had circulated the photo of him in Somali dress just days after he publicly accepted her word that the photo had not come from her campaign.

Obama's incredibly successful campaign theme that people who don't vote for him are racist.  This includes the SC memo that was circulated and then recalled by the Obama campaign.

 I don't mean to suggest that Obama has not been subjected to any race-based criticism or bigotry during this election.  I do mean to say that there has been a lot less than I expected and that Obama and his subordinates have  frequently suggested that criticism or questions about him were race-based when clearly it was not. 

I'm well aware of McCain's and  Palin's views on abortion and I disagree heartily.  My post was in response to a specific reference to McCain's objectionable comment about women's health with regard to abortion.  I though it was pertinent that Obama had made an almost identical comment which seems to be ignored by his supporters.

NARAL received thousands of angry e-mails when they inexplicably endorsed Obama before the end of the primaries.  Hillary has worked for choice for decades and Obama has treated limitations to choice as bait for evangelical voters.  I don't know what they were thinking. 

Al From of the DLC has claimed Obama as one of his own and Obama's vote on FISA and the bailout support his belief.

blackagendareport.com agrees with Al. 

Christie Todd Whitman was a lousy director of the EPA and is pro-choice.  She would have received yawns from moderates and jeers from the Republican base.

Joe Biden held the Thomas/Hill hearings.  While I feel an enormous amount of respect for him for his sponsorship of VAWA, the fact is that his actions resulted in Clarence Thomas' position on the court.  Biden's tirade against women during the hearings and his refusal to call the second witness who had been harassed by Thomas resulted in a terrible miscarriage of justice that affected all working women.

I'm curious, if Obama is hanging out with all these anti-choice folk, why exactly is he backed by NARAL and Ellie Smeal and Kim Gandy?

http://www.naral.org/elections/election-pr/pr_0504... ( http://www.naral.org/elections/election-pr/pr_0504... )

and

http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2008/09/obama_bide...

I'm sorry- did I miss the part where McCain was really good with this stuff? Palin too?

I assume you think Palin is just FANTASTIC for choice?

Politics & News Contributing Editor
Queen of Spain ( http://queenofspainblog.com/ )

I would like to know more about the plan that will effectively "impact the Democratic Party and assure that they will not rig future elections."  I haven't heard any details about plan objectives that point to that particular outcome.

As a black feminist, I take issue with language such as "a crowd of race-baiting sexists," unless you have some evidence to back that up, and maybe some specifics as to who this crowd is.  Just as many people have ignored, dismissed and attempted to invalidate my issues with sexist oppression (perhaps you can relate..?), so have many ignored, dismissed and attempted to invalidate my problems with racist behavior.  Forgive me if I'm a little suspicious of accusations of race-baiting blasted off toward nameless groups of people (groups that I may be a part of).

I'm willing to hear you out, though.  Can you tell me more about what you are thinking when you make such comments?

Atena

Assumptions, Biases & Irrational Fantasies ( http://antibias.wordpress.com )

Allow me.

http://www.relevantmagazine.com/life_article.php?i...

Obama used the term partial-birth abortion during the last debate with McCain.  I can find link the text of the debate if you like.

Do you need a link to the "Faith, Family and Values" tour, too?  One of Obama's reps is Doug Kmiec, a fervent anti-choice Catholic law professor and dean.

I was thinking holding McCain personally responsible for everything any beach boy ever said.

Sound good?

lol.

Politics & News Contributing Editor
Queen of Spain ( http://queenofspainblog.com/ )

I've seen negatives ads from both camps that were inaccurate.  I haven't seen anything that I viewed as using racist code words.  Can you direct me to a specific ad?

The Jay-Z 99 problems rumor was thoroughly debunked in January ( http://www.blogher.com/dont-believe-hype-media-and... ) as I wrote about here at BlogHer. And surprising that Hillary fans spread that false rumor considering the source is ultimately the same one that spread the lie ( http://www.mediabistro.com/fishbowlny/newspapers/r... ) that she had an affair with her assistant. Interesting that some believe lies that fit their agenda even when they come from the same "media" they decry when it doesn't play along with their propaganda needs.

Jay-Z said that. And which candidate says that he is a fan of Jay-Z? Or is Jay-Z throwing benefits for McCain now?

 Don't even get me started on what Obama has actually said and done. Frankly I don't have the time to invest with folks who really don't care about sexism and misogyny in the first place.  

I find your tone offensive.  Maybe your mother-in-law was acting out of bitterness and anger.  I'm acting out of principle and the conviction that if we surrender our party to a crowd of race-baiting sexists who will deny us our vote, we're lost as a party and a civilized country.  We can't turn the GOP into the pro-choice party but we can significantly impact the Democratic Party and assure that they will not rig future elections in order to put forth the less-able male candidate instead of the demonstrably brighter, better prepared, more experienced woman candidate.

You know, she was the candidate who could actually talk about women's issues without a cheat sheet.

You're quite funny Kim. Yeah. Thanks for letting me know I'm right on FISA but I already knew that. And I also know that the Obama campaign is rife with sexism and misogyny. It's absurdly obvious to anyone without blinders on.

 Btw, your link says Obama hasn't flipped on the timetable to withdraw from Iraq but AP reported differently today ("Obama's prime-time ad skips over budget realities").

Obama had an opportunity to hire the best candidate for vice president (you know, the one that more Democrats voted for than voted for him) and he chose not to do it.

John McCain hired a woman who had the pro-life, religious bona fides that cemented the base of his party and energized his campaign.  She was an elected governor of a state and had a documented history of opposing corruption in her own party. 

It sounds to me as if Obama talks a good game but McCain actually hires women.

McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform.

Do you think that Tony Rezko hung around Obama because he liked playing basketball with him?  Have you read the Boston Globe's article on the corruption and abuse of poor people that so many of Obama major supporters committed in the public/private housing mess in Chicago?

Do you think that Obama's vote for the bailout that has virtually no restrictions was anything other than a giveaway to corporations?

 You need to educate yourself.  I live in a swing state.  I've been watching negative, untrue ads from the Obama campaign for weeks now.  I received the negative and untrue fliers that Obama sent out criticizing Hillary on UHC and NAFTA during the primaries.

since you have no links or supporting evidence, allow me

http://www.blogher.com/barack-obama-100-pro-choice...

Politics & News Contributing Editor
Queen of Spain ( http://queenofspainblog.com/ )

The middle class did pretty well under Bill Clinton which Obama has no problem pointing out now that he needs to recall Clinton's economic successes in order to persuade worried people to vote for him.  When he was running against Hillary, Obama lumped the Clinton years and the Bush years together in a truly dishonest way. 

Obama made a similar comment about third-trimester abortion in an interview to a religious magazine called Relevance or Relevant, I believe.  He said that he was not opposed to limitations on late abortions if there was an exception if a woman's physical health were jeopardized.  He made it clear that feeling "blue" didn't count as a health issue and I believe he even used the rightwing nutjob language of "partial-birth abortion". 

Some Democratic women objected and Obama flip-flopped on that position when confronted but the fact is that he was just as offensive as McCain about reproductive choice.  He also sent out anti-choice, anti-gay religious men to stump for him.  Your reproductive health is just something else to trade for votes.

The media conducted a campaign of disinformation.  It was in their tone and in the stories they chose to cover.  It was in the kind of people who were "for" Hillary in their newspapers, magazines and programs.

Donna Brazile was a not-so-stealthy Obama supporter who contributed to the "Hillary supporters as racists" meme which invalidated our voices with other Democrats.  The Democratic guests on cable shows were almost invariably gushers for Obama while Hillary was defended by people like Pat Buchanan and Joe Scarborough which to Democrats was like being praised by serial killer.  The NYT which endorsed Hillary printed a daily mishmash of biased columns which slammed Hillary and anyone who supported her, as racist or uneducated or women "of a certain age".  Hillary supporters have been stereotyped as "bitter dead-enders" instead of people who have legitimate concerns about race-baiting, sexism and election fraud.

I noted a particular Newsweek that had guest columns with advice for Obama after he was selected as the nominee by the DNC.  There was a column by a black man (Harold Ford, Jr.), a half-Latino man, a white man and a black woman whose column consisted largely of "up yours, you white b*tches" directed toward women like me who've supported civil rights for decades and had the nerve to support Hillary.  There was no column from anyone who represented the point of view of the millions of Democrats, men and women, who felt that their voices had been silenced and their votes  stolen by the DNC.

We were silenced.  I voted for McCain/Palin today.

According to the ratings that came out this afternoon, Obama's 30 minute ad had more viewers than regularly scheduled programming for the same timeslot.  More than 33 million ( http://bigsole.blogspot.com/2008/10/maybe-malia-ob... ) people tuned in per Nielsen.  They weren't all pro-Obama, otherwise people wouldn't be debating what they saw.  I see many anti-Obama ads where I'm located and the BS practically oozes from the TV screen, some of it laced with racist code language.  But they're dying down now since so many Republicans are afraid to go down with McCain's ship.

Nordette ( http://blogher.org/blog/nordette ) is a Contributing Editor with BlogHer.com whose personal blog is hosted on another site at this link ( http://bigsole.blogspot.com ).

( http://blogher.org/blog/nordette )

Suggesting that people are acting out of spite as opposed to conviction is unlikely to contribute to dialogue.

Asserting that a woman must be a "feminist icon" to be a legitimate candidate for any political office reduces the available pool of candidates to a puddle. 

Ignoring Palin's accomplishments in winning the office of governor of a state and acting against corruption in her own party is an act of sexism, imo.  The first response of the Obama campaign to Palin's nomination was a snide comment which ignored her position as governor, immediately diminishing her accomplishments in a way that is peculiarly successful when used against women.  Obama did the same thing very effectively when he suggested that Hillary's travels abroad consisted of "sipping tea".  That was when he was claiming foreign policy experience because he had lived in Indonesia as a child.  Somehow, that outrageous claim was taken seriously by Obama supporters.

While I wouldn't claim that McCain was any less patriarchal than Obama, he certainly has a healthier ego.  Obama didn't have the courage to name the woman candidate who received the votes of most Democrats as his vice president.  McCain looked around and found a woman candidate who would add to his ticket and he's not become waspish and whiny even though she's received a much warmer response from GOP audiences than he has.  Obama has a little fit whenever the spotlight moves off of him for a moment or two.

I'll take the guy who actually hires the woman instead of just using her as Obama has used Hillary.

 Heather - I've read in the past about you being an avid and engaged Clinton supporter.  I'd really like to hear more about your perspective on this.

This is a topic that I know little about, but I find it hard to trust the logic that I'm hearing from the PUMA supporters that are posting here.  I'm not saying they do or do not have valid claims - and I appreciate the coherence of some of their comments, but a lot of these temperatures are running pretty hot here, in this crucible of pre-election rhetoric.

So if you could share some of your insight, I'd appreciate it.  Thanks!

Atena

Assumptions, Biases & Irrational Fantasies ( http://antibias.wordpress.com )

But Jay-Z said that. NOT Barack Obama. So unless we're voting for Hova, then I suggest not quoting him in a thread about who is better suited to run the country since las I checked Sean Carter wasn't on the ballot. 

Heather B.Personal Blog: No Pasa Nada ( http://nopasanada.org )BlogHer CE: Business, Career & Personal Finance ( http://blogher.org/topic/business-career-personal-... )

 Erin - you're seriously cracking me up!

Prof. Kim is pretty badass.

Atena

Assumptions, Biases & Irrational Fantasies ( http://antibias.wordpress.com )

Governor Dean and Speaker Pelosi rigged the nomination system and that's why Senator Obama won?? On what evidence are you basing this theory?  Let's just say that I know for a fact that that wasn't the case. And leave it at that. So I'd be interested to hear how you believe the party structure works when it comes to the nomination process because the DNC made it the fairest it's been in eons by allowing other states besides the blaring white states of NH and IA be at the front of the line in the primary process. I was a Hillary supporter. Always have been but I do know that the primary season couldn't have been a better representation of how democracy is really supposed to be. 

Heather B.Personal Blog: No Pasa Nada ( http://nopasanada.org )BlogHer CE: Business, Career & Personal Finance ( http://blogher.org/topic/business-career-personal-... )

Just quick thoughts:

Are you sure this comment of yours is under the right comment?

In my #2, I asked if you had personal experiences with "being told that my daughter's and my granddaughter's lives will be forever ruined if we elect the first female VP, and I can't for
the life of me see how."   You didn't speak to that, but you did write this, "In the past few months I have been kicked off several blogs because I
refuse to support Obama. I've been told I'm old and bitter, insane, and
called part of the "dry pussy brigade" or the "women's studies set.""

In my #4, I wrote about the kinds of steps that would be needed to be followed in order to make misogyny a hate crime, and implied that behavior out of spite against the DNC won't accomplish that. 

Then, in the end, I asked you what kinds of things you're willing to do to change the corrupt machine.

It sounds to me, though of course I could be wrong, that you feel that you've done so much and nothing has changed - is that right?  If that is the case, I'm still unclear as to why that continued dissatisfaction will be satisfied by voting against the individual candidate.  But clearly you have your reasons for feeling that that's the logical next step to accomplish...whatever it is you are trying to accomplish.

I could blather on about what I've done, but I wasn't the one complaining that I couldn't vote for Obama because of the corrupt DNC.  You said that.

Likewise, I have never used the word feminist here and I never would - i'm on record as having some serious misgivings about labels and general and that label in particular so I'm not sure what the air quote thing you wrote is all about.

If you really want to know what I've done, you can google my name or you can go here ( http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/theruckus/pages/jil... ),  here ( http://www.writeslikeshetalks.com/about/ ), here ( http://www.writeslikeshetalks.com/media/ ) and here ( http://www.blogher.com/blogher_conference/conf/spe... ) for starters.

Engagement is good, but I'm trying to focus on the concerns you stated in the comment you wrote in reply to mine: 1) making misogyny a hate crime and 2) not feeding and/or dismantling and/or punishing the DNC because you feel its acted not in the best interests of all Democrats vis a vis Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

My subsequent comment was intended to ground conversation about those two concerns.

Jill
Writes Like She Talks ( http://www.writeslikeshetalks.com )

Evidence of caucus fraud is rampant. There is a documentary in production, called"We will not be silenced."  The Obama campaign people took sign-in sheets from caucuses, stormed caucuses, locked out supporters of other candidates from the caucus room, and violated other procedures.  

In addition, the Rules and Bylaws Committee of the DNC reassigned pledged delegates at their meeting on May 31.  In Michigan, the primary had been certified as 74 delegates for Clinton, 55 for uncommitted. "Uncommitted" is a legal status for delegates to the Democratic Convention. At the meeting on May 31, the RBC gave Senator Obama all 55 "uncommitted" delegates -- remember, John Edwards name was also not on the ballot in MI, and some of those uncommitted votes could easily have been for Edwards. Then they REASSIGNED 4 delegates from Senator Clinton to Senator Obama, based on "EXIT POLLS."  

In other words, the RBC subverted the will of the voters of Michigan. 

This is not a case of Obama winning "Fair and Square."  This is a case of the DNC subverting the wishes of the voters in order to install the candidate of their choice. It is a dangerous path to tread, as we saw in 2000 with the installation of Bush. It is wrong when Republicans steal elections, and wrong when Democrats do. 

On May 31 the Democratic Party Rules and Bylaws Committee reassigned delegates who were committed to another candidate according to the will of the voters. They assigned delegates who should have been sent to the convention with "uncommitted" status to a candidate whose name was not on the ballot.

 Those are the facts. 

That is the heart of the DNC corruption.  

At the end of the primaries, with these 55 "uncommitted" delegates assigned to Senator Obama, as well as 4 delegates who by the will of the voters should have been delegates for Senator Clinton, Senator Obama had 1747.5 pledged delegates. Senator Clinton had 1730.5 delegates.  

Those are the facts. 

Boo-ya

or maybe

OH SNAP

or possibly

Professor Kim's School is in SESSION

ahhhh. Thank god for you.

Yes, I have the maturity of a 12-year old boy. And I'm ok with that.

In all seriousness, facts rule...and so does Kim

Politics & News Contributing Editor
Queen of Spain ( http://queenofspainblog.com/ )

No welling up for me. I think a campaign infomercial is an affront to our democratic process. This was only possible in the absence of the Fairness Doctrine and Public Campaign Financing. I found it creepy.

 indie in CA

nite swimming ( http://niteswimming.blogspot.com )

I wish Hillary were on the ballot.  She isn't. I moved on and voted early for the candidate that best represents my interests. Abstaining from voting does not seem to be in the best intersts of anyone, including feminists like myself.

My Blog: http://www.cannedlaffs.com

 But quickly --

Timothy Cooper's ReportingWith the News makes the point that when there is consensus among political leaders, the press tends to follow the dominant narrative. With that principle in mind, I note:

 According to this July 31 report ( http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/chutzpah_hoopla_a... ) from the Columbia Journalism Review, MSNBC, FOX and CNN all agreed that under the Democratic rules, Sen. Clinton's victory in Florida gave her no additional delegates. FOX's understanding doesn't seem to diverge from the cable networks, so I am not sure what you are getting at. 
Most likely, mainstream news organizationa' understanding of the rules was determined by the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee's statements ( http://www.democrats.org/page/s/nominating ) in advance of the primaries, in addition to Op-Ed pieces such as this Sept. 2007 essay ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic... ) by committee member Donna Brazile.
Finally, I'll note that with the decimation of news organizations over the last couple of years, few news organizations have knowledgeable political reporters (as opposed to commentators). That would increase the likelihood that there would be a reliance on official spokespeople, especially given the arcane nature of the issues at hand.

All of this strikes me as something other than "silencing" which implies a conscious conspiracy of some sort.Has there been any independent scholarship that identifies specific erroneous claims and eliminates competing explanations for the data found?

As for the coverage of the Rules debate on May 31, I confess that I watched on C-SPAN, and I didn't formally study the coverage. Sounds like a great research topic though.

Thanksf or responding. 

Kim
BlogHer Contributing Editor ( http://blogher.org/blog/kim-pearson )|Professor Kim ( http://professorkim.blogspot.com/ )|

I support women at the local level so that there is a group of female candidates being primed for higher and higher elected offices. Some of them are Democrats and some are Republicans, but they all speak for me. I give them both my time and my money. On November 4th, there will be a female candidate for me to vote for in every position except senator. Some of them are young, and hopefully they will be still be serving when my granddaughter is able to vote. They will speak for her, too, I'm sure.

I have joined the New Agenda ( http://thenewagenda.net/ ) and have become actively engaged in their crusade to stop the violence against women - particularly the very public images of violence against women that have been used in this campaign cycle. It must be as socially unacceptable for women to be subjected to misogyny as it is for blacks to be subjected to racism. Black women suffer from a double whammy. We're knocking away at it - one misogynist at a time if we have to. The group seems energized in this direction, and I will be doing all I can to help.

In the early 70's I was one of the first women at all-male college. Despite the fact that most of the students and half the faculty did not want us there, and made their feelings known daily, I stuck it out and opened the doors for thousands of young women to attend school there.

When I went to work, I was employed in a mostly male profession. Many times I was the only woman in the room. Every time a new position opened up, I went through all of the resumes and made sure that every qualified woman got an interview and that a large portion of them got hired. As I moved up the corporate ladder, I brought the women further down the ladder up with me.

For the last 8 years of my career, I gave up a six figure income to teach in a city school so that young women would have someone who believed, unlike Larry Summers, that there were no "girl subjects and boy subjects", and who would cheer them on to careers in math and science, where the paychecks are.

I have paid my "feminist dues" all along the way. I have earned the right to vote my conscience - even if my conscience speaks differently than yours. In the past few months I have been kicked off several blogs because I refuse to support Obama. I've been told I'm old and bitter, insane, and called part of the "dry pussy brigade" or the "women's studies set".

Having broken some glass ceilings of my own, I believe the way to full citizenship for women n this country is through the last glass ceiling we have. No one ever invites you through. You have to push yourself. I refuse to be satisfied to be a member of the "Ladies' Auxiliary of the Democratic Party" any longer, which is the only place the Obama/Biden ticket thinks we belong.

What have you done?

I'm seeing a lot of Republican talking points being made by "Democrats". It certainly is Halloween! ;)

--
media girl ( http://mediagirl.org )

The following is a link to a post which explains how PUMA came into being and who they are and why they became a PUMA.

http://riverdaughter.wordpress.com/2008/10/30/puma...

I am a life long Democrat which I used to take pride in. One of the things any consciencious voter should do is inform themselves of what a candidate stands for.

Reading some posts here is scary. Not the least of which was " I like his temperament."  ...Does this include the flipping the bird, brushing off the shoulder and wiping off the shoes...that is so Jay Z. Presidential = hm, not so much.  

"I vote for Obama because I prefer the Democratic platform." - if you could please tell me one - just one Democratic issue this man supports for longer than  48 hour period  I would be grateful.

"I am offended at the claim that I have to lower my standards and compromise my values to support someone I consider unsuited for the office because of her politics, just because she's female." = someone is living in the rabbit hole. BO is the least qualified candidate to ever run for the office of POTUS. When you add on the method used to "try" to make it look like he is a legitimate nom(RBC=stolen votes), the constant race baiting, the associations formed and maintained for decades with less than desirable 'religious' guides, mentors(Ayers), friendly financial helper (Rezko) - please do keep your lofty standards - but, do apply them to this questionable candidate BO as well as Sarah Palin. I find it offensive that you think you have applied any standards to BO. Even with the media assists we know more than enough to see he is a cipher.

Some posters here are very ill informed - very.  I can understand making an informed decision - but some of these statements are laughable. I take a harder look at a political candidate than, say, what my bridge partner is talking about. I love my country and she has suffered greatly these last several years. The election is not a social event - it is a civic duty. PUMAs are all genders, races, creeds. It's no longer about Hillary - it's about our country and how best to return it to what most of us want. I'm a Democrat - I have no idea what BO is. I shall be voting - but it certainly will not be for teh least qualified candidate evah.

As Ben Smith reported ( http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0108/Obamas... ), and this video ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAXAemXaivY ) confirms, Barack and Michele Obama entered the room to U-2 after the Iowa primary, not Jay-Z.

However, you are right that Obama voted for the FISA compromise bill ( http://www.blogher.com/obama-compromise-fisa-worri... ), upsetting many of his supporters.

Here's Politifact's Flip-O-Meter page ( http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/flip-o-met... )for Obama, McCain Biden and Palin. By their count, Obama and McCain look about when it comes to reversals on major policy issues.

Kim
BlogHer Contributing Editor ( http://blogher.org/blog/kim-pearson )|Professor Kim ( http://professorkim.blogspot.com/ )|

You asked about media silencing. One example is the grossly inaccurate reporting of the DNC's Rules and Bylaws Committee meeting that stripped Florida and Michigan of their votes and delegates. In almost every mainstream news report on this, even from the most highly respected media outlets, the same false information was repeated continuously.

 One of these was that "they broke the rules" regarding the primaries, a blatant falsehood in the case of Florida, and in the case of Michigan, an action that the state undertook out of desperation (an exploration of the reasons for which might have made for a very interesting story on its own). Another was that the candidates all agreed to take their names off the ballots; this falsehood was repeated over and over although the reality is that only Obama and Edwards removed their names in a blatant pander to Iowa voters.There were many other distortions and lies on this issue and I'm sure the other PUMAs can fill in what I'm leaving out.

There was not, that I recall, a single media source except (ironically) Fox News that reported on this accurately; how odd it was for me to have Republican friends (Hillary haters all btw), call me to express dismay at what the DNC had done to my candidate; meanwhile my Democratic friends thought I was just imagining things. 

My standards exclude a candidate who employs sexism and misogyny to attack his female opponents. 99 Problems but a B!&%# ain't one? You can't get much lower than that.

And then there's the issues. Who knows where Obama stands. He changes positions as the wind blows. FISA? Honestly, at least when I vote for McCain I'll know where he's coming from and what to expect.

You say you there's no evidence for the DNC's corruption and vote rigging? Well that's odd because thousands of people watched both in person and on C-SPAN when the disenfranchisement and vote theft happened. It was May 31,2 008, which is the official "birthdate" of the PUMA movement. The core of our opposition to Obama is precisely that he did *not* win the nomination fairly. If he had, we would probably have backed Obama fully--although, as evidence of his past corruption continues to surface, even then we might not have.

You are singularly ill informed about one of the most blatant abuses of power, one that broke its own party rules, of any political party in recent years, and yet you choose to opine on it in a dismissive and condescending tone.

The evidence surrounding the caucuses is abundant yet you dismissed this as "absurd" and "racist"; on what basis do you make those claims? Is any criticism of the Lightbringer "racist"?

In fine, I'm good and fed up with my vote being stolen and with being pushed around verbally by arrogant Obama supporters (is there any other kind? Because y'all really need to get over yourselves).

When Bush stole the election from Gore (and possibly Kerry, too) did you just "get over it" when Republicans told you to? Did you find it infuriating when they told you "stop whining, he lost!" Well, that's how we feel. He and the DNC in collusion stole the nomination and rigged the convention, and no, we are not going to "get over it" just because his followers tell us to. 

No amount of bullying--and Obama's fans have supplied that in abundance--or arguing will sway us, so I respectfully suggest you give it up. 

I'm asking this as someone who has tried to pay attention to the role that the press has played in the election. I'm also asking as someone who covered Sen. Clinton on two occasions during the primary and one time since. Please enlighten me.

Thanks in advance.

Kim
BlogHer Contributing Editor ( http://blogher.org/blog/kim-pearson )|Professor Kim ( http://professorkim.blogspot.com/ )|

"Obama will not commit to having 1/2 of his cabinet be female because he's not sure there are enough qualified women out there. Not ten qualified women out of 300 million people? "

Attributed to a conversation between a PUMA and someone on Obama's finance committee??? Seriously??? How about Obama's finance committee guy wouldn't commit to it in a phone conversation with a disgruntled Hillary supporter? Would that be a whole lot more accurate? You betcha.

As for the other stuff, you're stretching at best with no evidence. And I should really know better than to engage you and I shouldn't. But I seriously can't sit here and watch you spread lies.

Let's review the facts, shall we?

Obama/Biden on Lily Ledbetter -yes yes yes
McCain- no no no
Obama/Biden on women's reproductive rights yes yes yes
McCain/Palin no no no
Obama/Biden on Violence Against Women Act yes yes yes (and authored by Biden)
McCain no no no no
Obama/Biden on Family Medical Leave yes yes yes
McCain no no no
Obama/Biden on SCHIP yes yes yes
McCain no no no

McCain surrounds himself with the likes of...well, McCain and his record is enough for me.

But hey- Sarah Palin is a girl so screw it! Right?

How about for fun you tell me what a sexist McCain is- come on, I'm sure there are a few examples out there. I mean you're against sexism in all forms right? SO let's hear it!

Or maybe you'd rather tell me all about what a HUGE supporter of women John McCain is- come on, I'd love to hear all about how John McCain is WONDERFUL to women. Give me those examples. I can't wait! Because Maybe he's a real feminist at heart and I'm just not seeing the true maverick. Come on. Show me. /snort

Politics & News Contributing Editor
Queen of Spain ( http://queenofspainblog.com/ )

There may be naive supporters who think Obama can do no wrong, but this comment demonstrates just as much naivete on the Republican side, imho. I don't think anyone climbs rapidly in politics without help or with clean hands. Politics is a bareknuckle business.

I vote for Obama because I like his temperament and I strongly dislike and distrust McCain's. John McCain 8 years ago was a different man, and I don't mean just younger. His turnarounds and pandering to the worst of the GOP base tell me enough: he can't be trusted. He's lost his integrity, or what he had before embracing Bush and company.

I vote for Obama because I prefer the Democratic platform.

I would have voted for Hillary if she had the nomination, even though she represented the DLC establishment.

Sarah Palin is to the right of just about the entire Republican party. I cannot support that. No way no how.

If McCain had named someone with some credibility and wasn't a political extremist, like Christie Whitman for example, he would have really thrown the race wide open and made people think.

Palin has no track record with the American public. And unlike Obama, she hasn't been out there letting people get to know her for the past 20 months. If she had, maybe it would be a different story, but she's a cipher with a questionable track record. Give her some time so people can get to know her.

It's not sexist to demand the highest from the nominees. In fact, I am offended at the claim that I have to lower my standards and compromise my values to support someone I consider unsuited for the office because of her politics, just because she's female.

--
media girl ( http://mediagirl.org )

because his loss would be attributed to racism. There are many reasons not to vote for Barack Obama that have nothing to do with the color of his skin. Enough with the race-baiting.