Obama's Church: Where Are MY Reparations?

Here is an offensive, insane video of a white preacher, Rev. Pfleger, who thinks he's a victimized black person. He's preaching at OBAMA'S CHURCH and suggesting that Hillary cried because she thought she'd get the nomination for being WHITE. He's also calling for reparations whereby whites give up their 401Ks for the slavery our ancestors perpetrated. (Excuse me, my ancestors had nothing to do with slavery in America, and in fact did not come here until after 1900!)

So what I want to know is...where do I get MY reparations as a woman? If blacks deserve reparations, then women do too, for the years and years of women getting 75 cents on the dollar! How about reparations for rape, sexual slavery, and discrimination against women for eons?

What about Obama being entitled to the nomination because he's a MAN? Doesn't Hillary deserve a reparation on behalf of women everywhere?

What utter, total, offensive nonsense. Here's an excerpt of what Bill Cosby has to say about Rev. Wright (and by extension, his church) in the Wall Street Journal:

Rev.Wright epitomizes the thoughts and actions that have prevented and continue to prevent black America from moving ahead and achieving their potential as a people...When did this man become the spokesman for the 'black church'? And of course his church is different, but that doesn't mean his message and philosophy is acceptable, or productive or non-offensive or not-racist or indicative or our greater cultural behaviors, values and norms Americans.

Hillary Declaration of Independence

Here is a cute video about the revolt by Hillary supporters:



Important note: Be aware that if you check the box labeled "Independence" on your voter registration, you are not registering as an "Independent" but registering as a member of the Independence Party of America...which from its website doesn't seem to be a bad organization, but just choose it because that's what you want.

Women are Mad, and Some People Refuse to Get It

Jill Iscol over at The Huffington Post wrote a wonderful pro-Clinton piece that speaks to me and the many women who have been offended by Hillary's treatment in this campaign.

And yet, as we might expect from the angry HuffPosters commenting on her article, many people just don't get it. They just don't get why women might be pissed off. They won't acknowledge that we might have a legitimate bone to pick. They just think that Clinton is playing the "victim" card.

Never mind that Obama and his supporters are likely to call "racism" at his opponents at the drop of a hat. If women complain about the media bias against Hillary, we're told that Hillary is "desperate," has "PMS" or that we're "deranged Clintonistas."

(The "PMS" commenter claimed she was a woman, but HE appears to be giving himself away by forgetting that Hillary is way past menstrual cycles now.)

It's taken the first women candidate for president to flush out how much many men on the left are truly threatened by strong women. And all I can say is, you guys are downright pathetic. Thanks for selling out our party to an arrogant jerk because you were uncomfortable with a woman with balls. McCain will have you to thank when he becomes president in 2009.

A Landslide Victory for Obama? Are You Kidding Me, Progressives?

The biggest clue that many Obama supporters are naive at best is the continual assertion I see on various online comments that Obama is going to have a "landslide victory" in November.

Huh? What?

Where do these people get this idea? It can't be from any sort of real hard data or polling, which shows Obama losing to McCain in a resounding electoral defeat.

Obama is the worst of all worlds for the Democratic party: He paints himself as a very liberal progressive (which is ensuring his defeat in November) while being a total corrupt politician who has a closet full of skeletons just waiting for the Republicans to pounce over.

Progressives, get this through your head: The United States is NOT NOW, nor will it ever be in the foreseeable future, "PROGRESSIVE."

I consider myself a progressive on many issues (I am pro-environment, for gay marriage, concerned about separation of church and state, etc.). However, I am a pragmatic progressive who grew up in the Midwest and understands what REAL AMERICAN PEOPLE are like.

And real American people are concerned first and foremost about the economy and the security of this nation. They do not give a rat's ass about a progressive agenda. They want to know that they will have jobs and money to feed their children, and that their children aren't going to grow up in a country being blown up by terrorists.

That's it. It's very simple. Economy + security. All that other progressive mumbo jumbo doesn't mean jack to them. So you are NAIVE at best if you think that somehow Barack Obama is going to appeal to the average American based on a progressive platform that he doesn't even care about himself.

Hillary gets a lot of crap from progressives for not being truly progressive, but isn't that the point? She's a Democrat who is moderate and therefore can WIN in November, while still being mindful and sympathetic to progressive issues. But she's not a progressive sell-out who will blanket approve anything progressive just because it came out of the left.

And shouldn't we have a moderate in power anyway? I mean, hello, last I checked elections were about representing the people. I don't have a problem with my president representing a solid middle ground. That makes sense to me.

But, apparently not, to many so-called "progressives," who want to ram their progressive agenda down everyone's throat. Hey, go give some money to your favorite cause - that's what they are there for. Our elected officials need to be able to look at both sides and come up with a reasonable compromise. That's why moderates are more electable, and why Hillary needs to be our nominee.

If McCain Were Smart, He'd Pick a Woman as His VP

I'm not suggesting John McCain and Hillary Clinton team up. But if John McCain has any clue what's going on with the women of the Democratic party, he'd be wise to pick a woman as his VP. That way, if Barack Obama gets the nomination, and stupidly puts a man in his VP slot, McCain will have women locked up come November. Are you listening, Republicans? Opportunity is knocking...

ABC Censoring Pro-Hillary Comments?

If I hadn't seen it with my own eyes, I'd think it was just paranoia, but ABC just censored two of my very respectful pro-Hillary comments (after they had been posted) and has instead left up a lot of hateful anti-Hillary diatribes on their article about Bill Clinton calling the media out on their treatment of Hillary.

I just posted the following...let's see how long that one remains online:

ABC, why are you censoring my comments? I have been completely respectful, unlike a lot of the Obama people on here. Do you have a bias towards Obama in cherry picking what comments remain on your website? Are you trying to keep the public from knowing about the growing, organized backlash against Obama? What gives?

I am not going to assume this is a corporate cover-up job...but perhaps it is a pro-Obama intern who is getting click happy with the delete button. C'mon, ABC, you can do better than this.

UPDATE - It's not just me. I found the following comments under my last one (which was still there last I checked, but I'm not holding my breath):

Judging by the fact that all the rational Hillary support arguments are being deleted; guess we know who is working the blog today.....Unfortunately BHBRANDONS misrepresentations against other posters on here remain...I never use the word conspiracy and I have posted recent poll results... scream all you want against the facts. Thirty percent of voters who went for BUSH in 2000 and '04 in IND

Posted by: irma | May 25, 2008 5:40:29 PM

Irma! I noticed that too. I noticed that yesterday in the other message board. I thought it was just me. They are being deleted huh?

Posted by: HillaryMcCain08 | May 25, 2008 5:46:54 PM

Go Away, Hillary? Not a Chance!

I find it telling that the best response most Obama supporters have to Hillary vowing to stay in the race is a childish, petulant, "GO AWAY, HILLARY!" (Just check out some of the comments on her editorial in the Daily News.)

Don't Obama supporters care about Democracy? Why are they so threatened by Hillary staying in the race, if Obama has already "won," as so many of them crow. Could it be that they are scared that Hillary might pull it out in the end, as evidenced by this thoughtful analysis showing that Hillary could actually get the popular vote even without Florida and Michigan?

Bill Clinton said it best:

"If you notice, there hasn't been a lot of publicity on these polls I just told you about," Clinton said. "It is the first time you've heard it? Why do you think that is? Why do you think? Don't you think if the polls were the reverse and he was winning the electoral college against Sen. McCain and Hillary was losing it, it would be blasted on every television station? You would know it wouldn't you? It wouldn't be a little secret. And there is another Electoral College poll that I saw yesterday had her over 300 electoral votes, yeah. She will win the general election is you nominate her. They're just trying to make sure you don't."

Why should Hillary quit? She is this close to getting the nomination and winning the presidency. She would be stupid to quit. If you were inches a way from the finish line, to achieve a goal you've wanted all your life, would you quit? Well, you wouldn't and neither should she. GO HILLARY!

Liberals Have Lost Their Minds Over Obama

Let me start off by saying that I have always identified myself as a liberal. I've marched for abortion rights, I've voted almost straight Democrat in 20 years of voting.

It has taken this presidential election, however, to show me that I'm actually more of a moderate than anything. I have Obama's supporters to thank for that.

I knew that there was a small core of liberals who were a bit extreme in their tactics. PETA and their militant stance is a good example of this, as well as the Earth Liberation Front, which thinks somehow that torching buildings so that they spew toxic smoke into the air is an "environmental" statement.

So too, are the current crop of unforgiving anti-war liberals who are backing Obama on the single issue of a vote Hillary made for the Iraq war.

I marched against the first Iraq war, back in 1990, but I did not march again after 9/11. All I saw were angry people who said they were about peace but thought that it was perfectly OK to hang Bush in effigy. (I don't like Bush either, but you can't say you stand for peace and then perpetrate imaginary violence against someone, just because you don't like them.)

With that, I always felt there was a disconnect between the talking points of the anti-war movement and the ideal of peace. The anti-war movement was more about being angry than it was about doing something proactive. And it certainly wasn't peaceful.

There was so much hate, so much foaming at the mouth. I just didn't feel drawn to it.

Don't get me wrong - I was opposed to the war and shocked by the high number of civilian deaths. But I'm open to reason, and it took a viewing of an Iraqi documentary The Dreams of Sparrows, for me to see that the issue was not as cut and dry as it first appeared.

In The Dreams of Sparrows, Iraqis talk to other Iraqis about the Iraq war. This is not an American documentary, filled with bias on one side or another. It is a very balanced piece showing how normal Iraqis feel on the subject.

Surprise, surprise. Not all Iraqis hated America; in fact, quite a few of them were ecstatic that Saddam was gone. (I'll never forget the image of the little old lady who had a picture of G.W. Bush in her wallet, that she kept in praise to him for saving her country.)

There were likewise Iraqis who missed Saddam, saying that Saddam brought some sorely needed "order" to their country.

One of the filmmakers died during the making of that film. You might think this would leave me even more anti-war a the end, but no it did not, as sad as it was. People also died under Saddam's regime, and people died because of the war. In most of the real world: People die. And they don't live the cushy lives we Americans live, where it's easy for us to make pronouncements on what's right and what's wrong from our safe little suburban neighborhoods.

Bottom line is: After watching that film, I'm not sure what is best for Iraq, but I can't say for certain the war was absolutely wrong.

Most anti-war liberals, however, have made the unilateral decision that the Iraq war was not only wrong, but it is the most egregious, evil, hate-mongering thing that Americans ever did to the world. They are fanatical upon this point.

Because of this fanatical belief, these liberals have an unwillingness to give Clinton the benefit of the doubt on the war vote (perhaps she thought it was the best thing to do at the time, given 9/11 and the current climate of fear). Some even go so far as to hate her on this one point (which is, once again, anti-peace at its core).

Thus, they are taking all that anti-war fever and passionately backing a man who they believe is for peace: Barack Obama. Obama will save the Iraqi children, they believe.

Yet, in their fervor, they neglect to step back dispassionately and really take a look at Obama's past and record. All it took for me was to hear that Obama was the lawyer for a man being sued by the city of Chicago for building slum housing that didn't have heat in a Chicago winter. And for me, this is a much more egregious fault than Hillary voting for the war post 9/11.

Will Obama's supporters be willing to listen to reason, to really step back and consider whether this man is as sincere as he says he is?

Apparently not, because all they care about is the fact that here's a guy who for once talks the liberal talking points, who supposedly believes what they believe. And, he's an inspiring speaker! That must mean he's on the side of good.

So when you add up the anti-war fervor, with Obama's charismatic liberal pandering, you get a very explosive combination: Obamamania.

One only needs to look at the WTO riots in Seattle in past years to see what happens when the fanatical, angry core of the left gets riled up. (It is my firm belief that if there is any rioting over Obama not getting the nomination, it won't come from blacks but from the radical white fringe of the party.)

I used to think that fundamentalist Christians were the biggest danger to American democracy. I now think there is an equal threat from the far left. Fundamentalist Christians have turned terrorist in the past: bombing abortion clinics, for example. Fundamental liberals have also turned terrorist: blowing things up in the name of the environment, or destroying public property to free caged animals.

I do not want my country taken over by fanatical fundamentalists on either side of the political spectrum. Obama supporters who use hype-filled scare tactics to try to get me to vote for him are part of that scary trend.

"Don't vote for McCain! He is going to set women back to the stone age! He is going to bomb Iran! He is going to kill little children!"

Well, let me tell you what. Thanks to your righteous fervor, you hardcore Obama supporters have already set women back 30 years by your treatment of Hillary Clinton. You have split the Democratic party with your fundamentalist views on everything from the war to abortion rights. You have turned the moderate discourse in this country into a radical platform that is unwilling to hear the other side.

And you wonder why I don't want you or your chosen one in power? We've seen censorship against Hillary supporters on many major left-leaning websites, including the previously sane and progressive Huffington Post. We've heard what we thought were sensible radio show hosts such as Randi Rhodes turn on her own gender and call women in her own party "f--king whores." We're called upon to "unite" and blindly support a party that we feel doesn't speak to us or our needs anymore.

So this "liberalism" has already taken a dangerous turn towards group-think, censorship, and verbal violence.

That's what happens when you come from a fundamentalist space where you are completely unwilling to look at the other side and consider that maybe, just maybe, your viewpoint isn't the only valid one. Let run unchecked, such viewpoints, when manipulated by those in power, become the basis for a dictatorship, or alternatively lead to civil war.

Fundamentalist Christians get dogmatic over Jesus. Fundamentalist Liberals get dogmatic over Obama. Either way, they are a threat to our democracy, and they must be stopped. And this, more than anything, is why I will not vote Obama in November.

Sign me,
A Liberal Turned Moderate

Obama's Arrogance Shows in VP Selection

If there's one thing that pundits have made clear: Obama will not choose Hillary as his VP, should he get the nomination. And you have to wonder: What is going through this man's mind, that he honestly thinks he can flip a middle finger to the 17 million people who voted for Hillary?

If I were running for president, and my opponent had actually gotten MORE VOTES than I did, that would be the person I'd want as my VP. Because it stands to reason that I would have a better chance of WINNING if said opponent was on my side.

So why isn't Obama picking Hillary? Does he hate her that much? If so, what does this say about Obama? Doesn't this show that a man who says he's about "hope and change" and "not the politics as usual" is in reality a bitter, petty man, who can't overcome his personal distaste for the greater good? If he can't reach across the aisle and give Hillary the VP slot, how on earth will he able to work with Republicans or others that he dislikes?

For all Obama's calls for "unity," he is patently unable to practice what he preaches. And that makes him a hypocrite of the highest order.

Where's the love, Obama? Where's the forgiveness? Where is setting aside the chip on your shoulder for the greater good? Because based on your behavior, Obama, I see you as a petty, vindictive man who doesn't have any heart or ability to transcend differences for a higher purpose.

With all that, one has to wonder, is Obama just suicidal? Does he actively want to lose the election by alienating Clinton's supporters? Is it possible, then, that he's actually a fall guy? Perhaps all those corporate donations to him were to pay him off for losing. Stranger things have happened.

I am certainly not going to vote for Obama on the off chance that he's purposefully trying to throw the election...but you have to wonder about this man's lack of basic common sense.

Take Action: Clinton Dems, Clinton Supporters

The Clinton Democrats website has a petition you should sign on rejecting Barack Obama as the "inevitable" Democratic candidate.

The Clinton Supporters Count Too website is finally online; stop by and add yourself to their mailing list to join their efforts.

Hillary Rapid Responders are organizing a demonstration in Washington DC on May 31 as the DNC meets to decide the fate of Florida and Michigan.

Act now: You can send real or virtual shoes to the DNC to encourage them to seat Florida and Michigan.

A Note to My Friend on Barack Obama

Here's an email I just wrote to my friend who thought that Kentucky voters were being "racist" when they voted for Clinton. I believe we need to start countering the disinformation, one person at a time, if need be:

Just a note on politics for a moment. I am working very hard right now to support Hillary in winning the Democratic nomination, despite all odds. I don't think she's perfect (she's a politician), but I think she is smart, capable, and I want to see a woman president. I have been extremely upset at the media bias for Obama and I have been online "blogging for Hillary!"

When you say things such as "Kentucky voters just don't like black people" in response to her win there, you are repeating a race-baiting talking point put out by the Obama campaign to silence opposition to him due to political correctness. It is divisive, and untrue.

Sure, there may be a small number of voters who don't vote for Obama because he's black, but it's also fair to say that a large number of African-Americans aren't voting for Hillary because she's white and he's black.

I've done a huge amount of research on this. People in blue collar states aren't racist. They aren't responsive, however, to a man who discounts them as "bitter" and clinging to religion. (That was a huge mistake on Obama's part.) Furthermore (and I've been on tons of blogs and boards reading comments), people are concerned that Obama does not have the experience or judgment to be president.

There is also a huge backlash against Obama by women who feel that Hillary has been shafted due to sexism, and a media that has been trashing her for months and months while putting Obama up on a pedestal. This is now a movement. Women across the nation are pledging to leave the Democratic party and not vote for Obama in November, as a protest to the Democratic National Committee at the poor treatment of Hillary by party leaders, who do not seem to be listening to many of their female constituents. I am one of those women, and I will leave the Democratic party if Hillary is not on the ticket for November.

Consider: Right now, Hillary Clinton has won the popular vote in the Democratic primaries. Obama only seems like he has a mandate, but he does not. He has won more delegates due to a screwed up system that somehow gave him more delegates in Texas even though she won there, that rewarded him with more delegates from smaller states than larger ones. The caucus states, where he mostly got his lead, were not Democratic elections but group elections where mobs ruled and Hillary supporters (generally, older women as opposed to young college students) felt bullied and pushed out of the process (I've heard this time and time again). If you had a day job, a kid to raise, or some sort of scheduling conflict, you would not have been able to appear at the caucus. How democratic is that? Not at all.

Furthermore, Obama is not the liberal populist he claims to be. Liberals back him because they believe he's anti-war and therefore a "good man." I believe Obama just follows the wind and whatever talking points benefit him at the moment. I've done my homework on him and he has a background where he's supported and legally defended slumlords who took taxpayer money to build shoddy housing where the poor people in Chicago didn't even have heat in the winter. Obama doesn't even care about the poor people in Chicago...and I'm supposed to believe he really cares about our soldiers and the people of Iraq?

You have to ask yourself, how did this man come out of nowhere to become such a media darling and have so much money in his campaign coffers? (Let's acknowledge, that African Americans aren't the richest people in the world, and neither are college students.) Well, here's where Obama's backing comes from, which is in direct conflict with his suggestion that he's beyond lobbying or "politics as usual":

Top Contributors by employer:

Goldman Sachs: Obama - $544,000
McCain - $128,000

UBS: Obama - $363,000
McCain - $82,000

JP Morgan Chase: Obama: $353,000
McCain: $123,000

Citigroup: Obama: $331,000
McCain: $206,000

Lehman Brothers: Obama - $312,000
McCain - $98,000

Time Warner: Obama - $245,000

Financial/Banking Industry Totals: Obama $16.9 Million / McCain $10 Million

Ultimately, I believe the money trail speaks for itself. For whatever reason, powerful interests have decided to back Obama as the Democratic nominee. Some go so far as to say this is a conspiracy by the global elite to keep the Clintons out of the White House. I can't say for sure what's going on, but something is fishy here. I've actually seen Democrats report that when they've called up certain Democratic party representatives to complain about all this, they've let it slip: "This was supposed to be all over by now." As if they had expected Hillary to drop out long ago.

Sorry to write so much about this, but I'm working hard right now on countering the disinformation campaign that has made Obama out to be this untouchable Messiah of the Left. He is not. Please consider that most American voters are not outright racists so much as patriots who are very concerned about having a charismatic, untrustworthy man get into the White House and put his finger on the button.

Even if you disagree with me, I hope you will at least see that there is more to this story than meets the eye.

A MUST Read on the Terrible Media Coverage

You know it's a sad day when I actually have to turn to FOX NEWS to get some objective coverage of the election...and even that is still lacking. Too much opinion and blustering, not enough reporting. I couldn't quite put my finger on what was missing until I read this article:

Television's news networks brought all of their punditry and electronic firepower to the Democratic presidential primary coverage on Tuesday, but left viewers yearning for the simplest of things.

Say, a reporter with a microphone who could walk into a bar in rural Kentucky and ask some voters what was on their minds.

...

What was missing was any real attempt by the networks to find out directly from these voters what their misgivings were, and why they came to the polls to express those feelings despite being told that the nomination fight was essentially done.

THAT'S IT! That's what's been sorely missing from this election coverage! And now that I think about it...it's really bizarre. I don't ever remember election coverage being like this, ever. I mean, every time I turn on CNN it's the SAME DAMN PEOPLE going on and on with their same clueless viewpoints and nothing NEW to say. Let's hear some real people for a change! Please!

You can read the full article here:

The punditry disconnect continues on primary night

Moving Forward...

I posted this comment over on No Quarter and then thought it was also worthy of a blog post:

Going forward, I am wondering if we can start discussing some strategies here for countering some of the Obama spin that’s out there. I had a friend say to me tonight that the Kentucky people voted against Obama because “they don’t like black people.”

I said “that’s not how it is” but did not get a chance to explain further. I will have to call this person tomorrow and explain what’s going on. But I am finding that a lot of people who aren’t reading the blogs really don’t have a clue to what’s really going on. We need to find a way to change the spin so we can convince the superdelegates to give the nomination to Hillary.

I do believe this blog is helping - I was shocked at how much FOX News was referencing not only US today but even talked about the video clips of Obama contradicting himself on Iran - the clips I SAW HERE FIRST!

So I do think we can make a difference. Let’s do some brainstorming.

Hillary Projected to Win Kentucky!

Hurrah! Good job, Hillary...and hang in there!

Hillary was also quoted as saying today:

"There should be equal treatment of the sexism and the racism when it raises its ugly head. It does seem as though the press at least is not as bothered by the incredible vitriol that has been engendered by the comments by people who are nothing but misogynists."

Thank you for speaking out on behalf of women!

Divided We Stand, United We Fall...

So what do Obama supporters really think the word "unity" means? Consider the following from No Quarter:

When we point out that he’s (Obama's) made excuses like this in the past for losses like this, we’re called every name in the book. When we point out that he and his team rarely take responsibility for these losses (ie no loss is ever his fault) rather than acknowledge that maybe he has a problem with those voters and come up with a plan to reach out to folks, we’re called divisive and accused of posting “hit diaries.” When we ask whether it has ever occurred to the Democratic Party leadership, that if rumors and e-mails have hurt his ability to woo voters in Kentucky, what will the situation be when the Republicans REALLY start throwing the bs at him, we’re accused of being turncoats.

I accidentally ran across an excellent analysis of the call for "unity" on a conservative blog (and I don't normally read conservative blogs). He describes the call for "unity" as a dangerous trend towards group-think:

The siren song of never-before-realized 'unity' in America will bring unintended consequences. What begins as a naively-hoped-for single-mindedness on social issues like healthcare, race acceptance, etc., will soon become a coercive drive to demand group-think and univocal acceptance of one party's positions.

Rather than compromise, complete agreement will be demanded, and dissenting debate will be squelched.

Yep, that about sums up what some people have been trying to do this primary season: shut up the opposition. Well, we're not falling for it.

The Purpose of This Blog...

In response to the commenter on my last post who was chiding me for not following the progressive party line...let me just state for the record: The purpose of this blog is not to convince Obama supporters of anything.

I'm not here to try to "unite" the Democratic party. I think the Democratic party is broken beyond repair: It's too late for that. (The only slight sliver of hope is if Obama convinces Hillary to be his VP, but that's probably not going to happen.)

This blog was born out of deep anger. It is a personal expression of that anger. I needed to put it somewhere rather than keeping it inside (it's just better for my health).

I felt so alone on this issue when I started this blog. Then I started getting comments and seeing the results of my poll. It felt good to realize I was not alone. A friend of mine started speaking about these issues thanks to the blog and now she knows she's not alone. And so it's a blog for those of us who feel this way need to stand up and speak so we know we have a voice. It stands for other women (and men) supporting Hillary who feel like we have not been heard by the media.

Finally, and most importantly, this blog is a virtual protest. It is my virtual picket sign.

While I do not have the highest hopes that the DNC or the media is listening, I do know that collectively, people begin to notice when a wave of discourse online turns to a particular direction. So I am here to stand firm and let the DNC know:

I will NOT fall in line!

An Obama Conspiracy? Follow the Money

It might seem a bit "out there" to consider that Obama's ascendancy is actually a planned coup of the Democratic party by formidable interests intent on keeping the Clintons out of power...until you look at Obama's money trail.

When you add big money up with cultish, blind followers...it all adds up to bad news.

I Think NARAL Has Banned Me From Their Blog...

...actually, I'm surprised they let me post as much as they did. Now I can't seem to post at all. They had already deleted one comment I made, that if it's not important to support women in office, then the head of NARAL should resign and they should appoint a man in her place. Funny, how that one comment just HAD to be censored.

The latest comment I tried to post was in response to their condescending, insulting piece titled, "Liberty Lowdown: Obama and McCain head to head," which is apparently trying to tell all us Hillary supporters why we shouldn't vote for McCain in the fall.

There was NO APOLOGY from them, and no recognition of Hillary, even as a means of placating Hillary supporters. Never mind the assumption that Obama is the nominee...well, he's NOT yet. And he may never be. This is going to be a long summer.

So I'm even further convinced that the people running the show over there are just absolutely, 100% clueless. They need to hire a PR person with some sense to wake them up. Do they honestly think this tactic is going to work?

At any rate, here's my censored comment in response:

You know what disgusts me about this post? First, we don't have a Democrat nominee yet. Second, you have completely IGNORED all the outrage from Clinton supporters. Don't think this is going to sway us over to Obama. You lost your credibility with your endorsement. And we're going to fight for Hillary to win the nomination until the bitter end.

NARAL, you can kiss my @#$!.

UPDATE: Now all of a sudden my posts are showing up. I wonder if they saw my pingback. Whatever. NARAL, you still suck.

Enough With the Party Unity Crap

Oh am I ever sick of the Obama supporters calling on women to stand by their man...particularly the women. Here's a little hint for you, Obamoids: Instead of griping at Hillary supporters and trying to get us to "unite" behind your candidate, why don't you start lobbying your candidate to invite Hillary to be his VP?

Because that's the only damn way you are going to get any help from most of us die-hard Clinton supporters. And even then, you're going to have a tough case. For a variety of reasons. But stop trying to turn us to your side, with ridiculous fear-mongering tactics about Roe v. Wade or McCain setting back women's rights. Women's rights have already been set back, thanks to the "Obama Girl" type of campaigning that has been done, and the fact that the best, most spectacular woman candidate for president may not get her chance because of this sexism. Don't you get it? The worst has already happened!

The bottom line:

NO HILLARY, NO VOTE FOR OBAMA.

Period. End of story!

Kudos to Hillary for Stating the Obvious!

I was extremely happy to log on this morning and see this big headline on Yahoo News:

Clinton to Obama: There's no nominee yet

Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton on Monday said her opponent Barack Obama may be getting a little ahead of himself in acting like the party's nominee before the final contests of the primary season are over.

All I can say is: YOU GO, GIRL!!

Why Obama Must Be Stopped

Hillary supporters, do not be daunted by the picture of Obama with his 75,000 supporters at a Portland rally. We all know that Portland is filled with young liberals. It is also near Seattle (three hour drive) and San Francisco. But the picture does remind us why it is so very important to rein this man in. He is charismatic but corrupt, and therefore dangerous. Just read this comment from one Obama evangelist:

Most of the people there were from the Portland Metro area. I watched them start walking and biking there at 10:00 am. The sheer number of bicycles seen locked to crowd barricades was certainly in the 1,000s. It was a positively uplifting experience shared by all young and old, all colors, all people. Absolutely undeniably moving.

SHUDDER!!! These people scare the CRAP out of me! They are so blinded by their feel good emotions that they can't see the forest for the trees. They are unwilling to admit any flaw or wrongdoing on the part of Obama. They don't see him as human, but as a messiah who is beyond reproach. And that is DANGEROUS.

I honestly put Obama on the "dangerous in a Hitler kind of way" dangerous list. Not that he would start concentration camps, but that he has exactly the kind of charisma that bamboozles people into believing him when they shouldn't. And that kind of man absolutely must be stopped.

He scares me more and more...and so do his supporters. What if, in defeat, he continues on, to create a nationwide Obama movement? I don't want to overreact here but with this kind of fever anything could happen.

I hope people wake up and soon!

Hillary Clinton Supporters are Mad as Heck...

This blog post from a McCain supporter is a must-read. It sums up all the reasons behind the Obama backlash and includes a variety of links to various pro-Hillary sites and articles, as well as those outing Obama's dubious past:

Hillary Clinton Supporters Are Mad As Heck and Are Refusing To Fall Quietly in Line Behind Obama

Clinton Takes on the Media; Obama Fans in Denial

Hillary is fighting back against the obvious media bias against her.

Obamabots are of course dismissing her complaints, calling her "insane" among other things. One of their tired old insults is that Hillary had the lead at the beginning and lost it, so therefore she must suck. Yet, the vitriolic Obama supporters are completely unwilling to acknowledge that a) Clinton now has the popular vote with Florida and Michigan and b) caucus states distributed a disproportionate number of delegates in an unfair group voting system that cut out older and working voters.

It sadly takes conservatives such as Pat Buchanan on the McLaughlin Group to point out the ridiculous disparities and media bias that make Obama out to be a bigger winner than he is. If the mainstream media had reported more objectively all along, they would not be crowning Obama whatsoever. The superdelegates have not voted, Obama does not have the popular vote, and the race is far from over.

Trying to portray Clinton as delusional is a sign of denial and delusion in and of itself: Based on actual numbers, Obama is hardly in a position to sweep the election in November. It's sad to say I almost want him to be nominated and run without Hillary, just so I can see him get trounced and watch the Obamabots get theirs. And even more sadly, that may be exactly what happens.

The Obacklash Has Just Begun...

Looks like the mainstream media is noticing that Hillary supporters are fed up and taking a stand - "Women Threaten Obama Boycott" is the headline over at an ABC.com blog.

The Huffington Post, which I mostly ignore thanks to the Obama-skew, has Obama readers whining and screaming bloody murder in response to an article covering the NARAL debacle, "Massive Blowback To NARAL's Obama Endorsement."

Obama supporters are, dare I say it? HYSTERICAL and OVERLY EMOTIONAL over the stance that Hillfans are taking. How could we not support the Democrats by threatening a boycott? How DARE we?

What entitlement! What has the Democratic party, much less the LEFT WING done for me lately, except spit in my face as a woman? And you expect me to just tick off a ballot for Obama just because he's a Democrat? Think again.

They are throwing the threat of Roe v. Wade being overturned at us, as if that's going to stop us. First off, we've lived through eight years of Bush, and Roe v. Wade has been just fine. Second, they forget something: Most of us Hillary supporters are older and wiser women than the young female Obama supporters, who don't understand why female representation in office is important.

Note the adjective OLDER.

I am in my late 30s, so I have not hit menopause yet, but I'll tell you what. Pro-choice is no longer the dealbreaker for me that it once was when I was in college and freaked out over the idea of getting pregnant. Being childless at my age, I would not get an abortion should I get pregnant by accident. (It might be my last chance to have a child.)

Women older than me have already hit menopause. So do you think they are going to support NARAL first or Hillary first? Because Hillary represents our lifelong dream of a woman president, whereas NARAL represents a bunch of immature idiots who think that we only care about one mono-issue, abortion rights. And abortion rights become much less pressing when you are past the child-bearing years.

I used to march on Washington I was so freaked out over Roe v. Wade. Guess what? That was 20 years ago. I have other things I'm more worried about now. Like the economy, stupid. (A reference that younger voters probably won't get.)

I've heard it said, and I am sad to say I agree, that if young women lose Roe v. Wade over this election (which I highly doubt), it is their own damn fault for not supporting the female candidate. Maybe then they'll wake up and realize that voting for a pro-choice man is never the same as voting for the pro-choice woman.

I'm Heartened...Hillary Has Hope

You know, when I started this blog just a few days ago, I thought that I was perhaps just one of a very few people who'd had it over the sexist dismissal of Hillary and the crowning of Barack Obama.

I've discovered since that women (and men) across the country are rising up to demand better treatment for Hillary. I'm amazed when I see that women were actually heard by FOX News (of all the news channels) and told the world they were standing firm for Hillary. (See the clip at Two Clinton Supporters Lay It on the Line)

This movement is building fast, and ironically spurred on unwittingly by the very people who are trying to endorse Obama (i.e., John Edwards and the very stupid leadership at NARAL). When I go to NARAL's blog and see young women absolutely clueless as to why it's important to have representative females in office, young women who blindly follow Obama without having checked into his background or dubious dealings in Chicago...I know we have a lot more work to do.

I'm sorry that I have to stand so strongly against the first black candidate for president. I think minorities deserve representation just as women do. However, I'd no sooner vote for Obama just because he's black than I'd vote for Ann Coulter because she's a woman.

If Obama seemed to me to be a sincere man, a kind man, a man who really practiced what he preached, I'd be more forgiving of the fact that Hillary has been shafted for him.

Obama is none of these things, however. I knew, when he threw Rev. Wright under the bus after 20 years of going to his church, that Obama was an opportunist. It's obvious. And Obama, who has set himself up to be different from the "politics as usual," has backed himself into a corner. I hold him to the higher standard that he set for himself, and he fails miserably.

Why are so many people against Obama? It is not his race, believe me. It is his arrogance, his corruption, his scary cult-like following, and his lack of experience that all leads to one frightening prospect.

But ultimately, we're not so much against Barack Obama as we are for Hillary Clinton. Hillary is bright, capable, caring, and sincere. Is she perfect? No. Is she ambitious? Yes. But she never set herself up to be a messiah.

The white far left Obama liberals who bash Hillary over her war vote and centrist leanings forget that we are not living in a left-wing country. Most Americans are moderates. Hillary's moderation is her strength. She, and she alone, can cross party lines and get things done as president. Those very things that the Obama people bash her for are what make her much more electable.

It's time to unite the Democratic party and get behind one candidate, and that candidate is: HILLARY CLINTON.

Let a Superdelegate Know You Want Hillary

On Carole Midgen Leading's poll to see who superdelegates should endorse, Hillary was leading by a wide margin yesterday. This morning it has flipped to Obama...and the strange thing is, if you hit reload on the page, Hillary keeps going down a percentage point a minute. I think someone is running a bot to change the vote, because apparently you can vote more than once. (An Obamabot...running a bot!)

Maybe it's a good idea to vote (again) and to post some comments on her board to counter this obvious manipulation of the voting tally:

http://www.carolemigdenleading.com/forum.asp

Here's the comment I posted on her forum about this:

Carole, you need to get your sysadmin to fix your voting system. It's being tampered with. Yesterday Hillary was leading by a healthy margin, and the percentages were somewhat stable throughout the day. This morning I logged in to find Obama up by a huge percentage. That was a bit strange...but even stranger still is the fact that in the past 5 minutes Hillary has gone down about 5 percentage points and Obama has gone up accordingly. (It's probably more now.) I sincerely doubt this is a large group of voters doing this. Your vote appears to be open to manipulation; i.e., the same person can vote twice. I suspect someone has programming a bot to hit your vote count in favor of Obama over and over again. Basically, it's voting spam. You should redo this vote with more secure software and require an email address for more accurate results.

UPDATE: The poll has been closed, with the following notice:

During the past 24 hours the poll has become competition for supporters of Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama to gain the most votes. We’ve decided to close the poll. Thank you for participating.

Taking Action to Support Hillary

Hillary can still pull out the Democratic nomination if we keep the heat up. Here is an excellent blog post looking at the issues and outlining some simple steps to take action:

...In short, the DNC and Obama’s campaign have pursued a scorched earth policy to install Barack Obama as the party’s nominee. However, they still fully expect the party rank and file to vote for Obama in November by telling us our vote is theirs.

Our vote is *not* theirs. We have something they want; they have to earn it. We can choose to give our votes to the Democrats, give them to the Republicans, write in an alternative candidates name, choose a different party or withhold them altogether. But one thing is for certain: The Democrats are NOT entitled to them. If they wish to pursue a trainwreck in November, they will do it without our help. The DNC and party members will need to address our protest immediately and before the nominee is chosen for us if it has any expectation of winning in the fall.

Read the full post...

The Sexist Language Used Against Hillary

Twice in the past month or so, I've seen headlines that say "Clinton scolds" so-and-so. (The latest, written by a female AP journalist...though I'm thinking that some man wrote the headline.) Can you imagine the word "scold" being used with a man? How about:

Dick Cheney scolds Al Qaeda

Then, I saw a video clip from Yahoo and Politico, where a man actually took time out of his Bush interview to ask the extremely patronizing question: Do you feel sorry for Hillary Clinton?

Imagine this used on a man. How about Huckabee, after his defeat:

Do you feel sorry for Huckabee?

Then, of course, is Barack Obama's use of the word "sweetie." I'm sorry, Obama, but the only people who can call me sweetie are older women who are the grandmotherly type. But when a man does it, it'd be the equivalent of someone referring to you as "boy." And so we now know how Obama really feels about women: dismissive.

Boycott NARAL for Endorsing Obama

NARAL (the National Abortion Rights Action League) recently endorsed Obama for president. OBAMA? A MAN?? When we have a pro-choice WOMAN, Hillary Clinton, running for office?

I am absolutely STUNNED that a women's organization would endorse the less qualified MAN running for president!! So what gives - did Obama give NARAL a hefty donation to buy this endorsement? Because otherwise it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever...unless the board members are 20-year-old college students who are too young to understand what feminism is really about.

And to think I long ago marched in Washington and carried picket signs to be insulted in this manner by other women. For SHAME.

NARAL supporters backing Hillary are now leaving NARAL in droves. I called up a friend of mine who had not heard the news and she is writing a letter to NARAL right now to cancel her membership.

Apparently some leaders at NARAL thought that this ill-timed endorsement would help "heal the rift" between Democrats...what...you somehow thought that slapping Hillary Clinton and her supporters in the face was going to HEAL something? Grow up!

Some women Obama supporters don't have a clue as to why other women are pissed off. Let me explain it to you. If a qualified woman who has worked tirelessly for women her whole life is running for president, then a WOMEN'S ORGANIZATION should be backing her up. Why? Because reproductive issues are WOMEN'S ISSUES and the fact that we have not yet had a woman president is part of a whole culture that does not support women. If you support the male candidate over the female, you are supporting the very discrimination against women that threatens a woman's right to make decisions about her own body.

Geez oh pete, grow a brain cell. It's interconnected.

From EMILY's List:

The following is a statement from EMILY’s List president Ellen R. Malcolm on NARAL’s endorsement in the Democratic presidential competition:

“I think it is tremendously disrespectful to Sen. Clinton -- who held up the nomination of a FDA commissioner in order to force approval of Plan B and who spoke so eloquently during the Supreme Court nomination about the importance of protecting Roe vs. Wade -- to not give her the courtesy to finish the final three weeks of the primary process. It certainly must be disconcerting for elected leaders who stand up for reproductive rights and expect the choice community will stand with them.”

Women, speak with your dollars and don't give another cent to NARAL. There are plenty of other groups you can support with your hard-earned 75-cents-to-the-dollar-that-men-earn money.

John Edwards...Tsk Tsk

I hope the person who wrote the following comment on No Quarter doesn't mind me reprinting it here in its entirety. I just thought it was very well-written in response to John Edwards' endorsement of Obama:

Tuesday, Hillary Clinton achieved an amazing feat. Outspent as per usual, and with less campaign offices than Senator Obama, and despite the added obstacle of George Stephanopoulos, Bob Schieffer and company electioneering on national television, on voting day no less, saying “the nominating contest is effectively over,” West Virginia voters showed up in record numbers and Senator Clinton shellacked the ‘presumptive’ nominee to the tune of 41 pts.

I should call Senator Obama the presumptuous nominee. That is truly all he is – an arrogant, empty suit. Of course, it was too humiliating for “the One” to let her victory stand. He could not even be bothered with a concession speech or have the decency to acknowledge the voters of West Virginia and instead allowed them to be called illiterate and irrelevant on national television by cretins the likes of Chris Matthews.

Today, Senator Obama, continuing to show his classless sore loser/sore winner behavior, delivered another outrage as the boys’ club had to gang up on Hillary yet again.

In order to steal the victorious news cycle from her, John Edwards allowed himself to be ill used by picking today of all days to endorse Senator Obama. I wonder if Edwards received a large contribution to his own foundation?

John Edwards has shown himself to be likewise nothing more than an empty suit and a hypocrite. His unfortunate actions have reduced him to the $400 hairdo that negatively characterized him earlier in this campaign. Edwards clearly said on national television weeks ago that he would only endorse the candidate for Universal Health Care. Well, that is Hillary and Hillary alone. Even Elizabeth Edwards voted for Senator Clinton. How disrespectful to his wife and everything she works for and stands for.

Furthermore, Senator Edwards allowing himself to be used this way by Obama and stabbing Clinton with this horrible timing is cruel and I hope will backfire, because once again it looks like the boys are piling on. This is heartbreaking for another reason. After John Edwards dropped out of the race, Obama blew his meetings with John and Elizabeth. They saw him I’m sure, as I see him: an inexperienced, arrogant know-it-all; a dissembling shape-shifter under corporate control.

People stand with Hillary because they believe in her, not because they have been bought off. Edwards now raises all those questions again of his sincerity to work on behalf of poverty while operating from his multi-million dollar mansion, and allying himself with a corporatist, who spits on Democrats while praising Reaganomics. I wonder if Elizabeth Edwards will have the courage to stand up for what is right and come out and endorse Hillary Clinton – the only candidate who truly gives a fig about the working class and health care for all. Senator Clinton actually does what Senator Obama can only pontificate about.

I am not sure how much weight John Edwards’ endorsement carries at this point. It simply looks low and tacky to me. After all, this is a man who was not even able to carry his own home state in 2004, so I am not sure how far his coattails will carry the insincere and elitist Senator Obama with working voters. If there is any justice in the world, it will not carry far at all and it is sad that John Edwards in one moment has thrown his own credibility out the window.

I wonder if he was aware, when he made his announcement today and mentioned Hillary’s name to compliment her, the nasty Obama supporters booed her, and though John Edwards was gracious enough to stop them, the man behind him – the one running for President of the United States – smiled at their rudeness, once again advantaging himself by their tasteless behavior, and showing his true self. I hope John Edwards has an opportunity to view this footage and see clearly with whom he has just made his bed.

One can only hope he hangs his head in shame tonight.

New Petition Against Obama

The petitions circulating to the DNC and superdelegates trying to get them to nominate Hillary seem to be falling on deaf ears...even after Obama's embarrassing defeat in West Virginia, Edwards still endorsed him! (Shame on you, Edwards!)

Here's a very telling comment from the latest petition:

No Obama in '08

I am a affluent, intelligent college graduate who graduated Magna cum laude and I also have a Master's degree. I am a "dyed in the wool " lifelong democrat who in the past has contributed lots of time and money to the DNC. If you nominate an "empty suit" FAKE like Obama, I will vote definitively for McCain!! You can also kiss my generous contributions goodbye unless Hillary is nominated in '08 or runs again. NEVER, EVER OBAMA !!!! Wake up DNC and Superdelegates, Obama is unelectable in Nov. Hill has won all the major electoral and swing states almost 100% in primaries which equate to her stronger electability in a general election while Obama has won the majority of his elected delegates in somewhat dubious caususes and primaries mainly in states where the majority of democratic votes are African Americans. Blacks make up less than 20% of the electorate. Obama has lost the majority of the democratic base such as myself and will be unelectable against McCain especially when the Republican Dirt Machine starts exploiting his nefarious past and how exactly he has amassed so much money for his presidental campaign. I get very bad vibes whenever I hear him speak. His arrogance, tone, and inexperience is absolutely scary!!! I am amazed each day when so many white male senior superdelegates especially her fellow senators are turning on Hillary and declaring for Obama or reversing their vote for her. Are these supposedly astute politicians NUTS!!! Mark my words if you vote for Obama or refuse to count the votes in Fla. and Mich., you are handing the presidency to McCain because NEVER EVER will I and millions like me vote for Obama in Nov. If you told me a year ago, that after the mess of having W, Chaney, and Rove for 8 years with the scandals and the Iraq War, I , a lifelong democrat, would be voting for a Republican in any office for the first time in my life, I would be incredulous!!! Another warning----do not try to blame Hillary for your stupidity in supporting such a unbelievably unqualified candidate as Obama. Before it is all done, I feel 50%+ of Hillary voters will not vote for Obama under any circumstances and vote for McCain as the only other choice. It is not too late DNC and Superdelgates, let Fla. and Mich votes count and switch to or back to Hillary as the strongest and only viable qualified democratic candidate left. See the light fellas---stop your petty sexism---start researching Obama for real before its too late and he destroys the Democratic Party and hands the presidency to McCain on a silver platter with my reluctant help!!!! PLEASE, PLEASE THINK LONG AND HARD BEFORE YOU DECLARE YOUR VOTE------THINK OF AMERICA AND VOTE FOR THE BEST AND MOST ELECTABLE DEMO. FOR PRESIDENT. WHAT ABOUT AL GORE TO BREAK THE TIE WITH HILLARY AS HIS VP!!!! THAT WOULD BE MY DEMOCRATIC DREAM TICKET IF YOU WILL NOT GIVE THE NOMINATION TO HILLARY!!!!!

Well said. Hello, Democrats-in-Power: WAKE UP!!

Should Obama Worry? Ummmm...DUH!

Here's an AP writer who has a bit of a clue:

Analysis: Maybe Obama should worry

But maybe the Obama camp should be more worried. The voters who went against Obama Tuesday night - white, rural, older, low-income and without college degrees - don't just live in West Virginia. They live everywhere in the country, in places Obama needs to win.

Right...except this author forgot the most important demographic, WOMEN, who overwhelmingly voted for Clinton. Obama totally ignored West Virginia in his arrogance, and somehow thinks that everyone who voted Democrat in the Democratic primary is automatically going to vote for him in November...why? Because he says so?

But that seems to be more of the kool-aid that the Democrats are drinking, where they assume all Democrats will fall in line with Obama. They ignore past history where their overly liberal candidates lost the support of the moderate Reagan Democrats. And this time, the Democrats are not only going to lose the Reagan Democrats, but WOMEN, women like myself who are pissed as all get out at the bias against Clinton.

Just listen to the arrogance in this comment reported in the story:

Obama's campaign leaders say they are confident most of these Clinton voters are Democrats first and will support Obama once the primary is over. In a memo before the polls even closed, they said conclusions cannot be drawn about the general election campaign from the results of the Democratic primaries and pointed out that head-to-head polls between Obama and McCain show Obama is running as well as past Democratic candidates among white voters.

"These people are Democrats," said Democratic consultant Steve McMahon, who is not working for either candidate. "They will come home."

Excuse me, Steve, but HOME for me is not a party that slams its first and best serious female candidate for president, in exchange for an inexperienced politician with questionable loyalties and character.

It's funny...I found the article linked on a conservative website, and even there blindly optimistic Obama supporters tried to write off Obama's failure, as in this comment:

Republicans should feel fear, because when Obama wins the nomination you are going to see energy like never before.

Yeah, but not the kind of energy you are thinking of, sir. The energy that will be drummed up will be from women and other Clinton supporters, fed up with a Democratic party that is not listening to them.

Hillary Trounces Obama in West Virginia

Hillary has beaten Obama in West Virginia by a whopping 66 to 27 percent... caught a bit of the commentary on Larry King Live this evening and it was a bit maddening. Most of the pundits (one, who looked to be so young as to have just gotten out of college) seemed to be clueless as to the backlash that will occur from Hillary supporters if Obama does not choose her as a running mate.

Second, they were also completely clueless as to why people prefer Clinton over Obama, insinuating that it has something to do with race. Actually, it has more to do with gender than race (like blacks, women want to elect one of their own) and the inexperience of Obama. (Not to mention the whole shady Rev. Wright/Rezko stuff.)

You have to wonder why they pay these pundits...do these people actually go online at all and listen to what real people are saying?

Media Recognizing HRC Backlash

From Politico: HRC courts media backlash, protest vote

The legions of Hillary Rodham Clinton backers still investing their cash, energy and emotion into her faltering bid for the Democratic presidential nomination seem driven not by the reasonable expectation that she can beat Barack Obama, but by the emotional desire to see her through to the end of voting and stick it to those who have already written her off.

Well, finally someone noticed. But can you see the subtle sexism in that last comment? We are supporting Hillary out of an "emotional desire" instead of a "reasonable expectation." Right. Because we're women, and women can't make a "reasonable" decision.

Excuse me, but I support Hillary staying in the race because Michigan and Florida still have not been seated, and the superdelegates have not had their say. Furthermore, I think it's very likely that Obama will implode on his own volition.

And yes, I'm passionate about Hillary, but no more "emotional" than the Obama supporters who swarm the bulletin boards and slam Hillary's supporters as "stupid" and "uneducated."

The Unprecented Media Bias Against Clinton

A big huge THANK YOU to Eric Boehlert of Media Matters for his very insightful and well-researched piece on how the media has been completely overstepping its bounds in calls for Hillary to quit the race:

Looking back through modern U.S. campaigns, there's simply no media model for so many members of the press to try to drive a competitive candidate from the field while the primary season is still unfolding.

Until this election cycle, journalists simply did not consider it to be their job to tell a contender when he or she should stop campaigning. That was always dictated by how much money the campaign still had in the bank, how many votes the candidate was still getting, and what very senior members of the candidate's own party were advising.

...

And the fact is, the media's get-out-now push is unparalleled. Strong second-place candidates such as Ronald Reagan (1976), Ted Kennedy, Gary Hart, Jesse Jackson, and Jerry Brown, all of whom campaigned through the entire primary season, and most of whom took their fights all the way to their party's nominating conventions, were never tagged by the press and told to go home.

"Clinton is being held to a different standard than virtually any other candidate in history," wrote Steven Stark in the Boston Phoenix. "When Clinton is simply doing what everyone else has always done, she's constantly attacked as an obsessed and crazed egomaniac, bent on self-aggrandizement at the expense of her party."

Read the rest of the story here:

So now the press tells candidates when to quit?

More Media Hating on Hillary

The more the mainstream media disses Hillary, the angrier I get as a supporter of Hillary. In a very sexist, hate-filled article, "Hillary Clinton is one sorry sight on her way to defeat," Michael Goodwin has the following to say about Hillary:

The wince-a-minute circus seems like a saboteur's effort to prove she will do anything to win, including trying to change the rules.

Excuse me, Michael Who-Gave-You-a-Writing-Job Goodwin, but Hillary is still in the race because her supporters want her to win!

We don't LIKE Obama. We don't believe Obama can win in November. WE WANT HILLARY. We want Hillary to take it all the way to the convention. We don't want her to quit now. We don't care what you journalists have to say: YOU ARE NOT US!!

A few commenters said it best:

Hillary Clinton is a lady, and EVERYONE in this country, like it or not, has become better off because of her tireless public service. She leads in the popular vote. NObama only won states that are Republican and will go to McCain in the general election OR that are not populous enough to be influential. The media has purposely reports lies and leaves out her accomplishments. The bias against her is dirtier than racism - sexism. Mrs. Clinton will continue to do good no matter how much hatred and slander you throw at her.

Here's another comment:

Reading all of these absolutely hateful comments directed toward Hillary makes me both happy and sad. It makes me sad because it demonstrates that most of you people need to have your adult status reduced back to juvenile. It makes me quite happy because you will continue to alienate the Clinton supporters and then we WILL NOT vote for your messiah in November. Know that that means? He loses and we have president McCain. Start thinking before you shoot your mouth off from now on or watch us give the presidency to the Republican.

And another:

The title of this article is disgusting and doesn't deserve a dignified response. . . but I'll try! The Clinton supporters have been enduring this type of coverage for 15 months now. Do you realize that 16.6 million people have marked Senator Clinton's name on a ballot? (16.7 million have voted for BO) That's an awful lot of people to **** off! If you think it's helping Obama. . .free to continue to corrupt democracy. We'll see what the other 16.6 million (and counting) of us have to say!

And hitting the nail on the head:

No, Michael Goodwin, the media, including yourself, has been on sorry sight. The extent of the biased and inaccurate reporting in this nomination process is revolting. One thing you have done, is to galvanize Hillary's base. Millions of us will never vote for your candidate, Obama. We would rather see a centrist Republican as President, than an inexperienced, ruthless, deceptive, divisive and racist Obama. Of course, that may have been you intent all along.

Part of the reason I started this blog was because the media bias against Hillary was driving me nuts. I needed an outlet for my anger. And the more the media pushes Obama at me, the more determined I am to stand up for Hillary.

Call it a backlash, if you will.

Hillary Clinton as VP?

If Obama gets the nomination, the only way I am voting for him in November is if Hillary is his nominee for vice-president. I don't have high hopes for this: Obama seems to despise Hillary, and he appears arrogant enough to think he doesn't need her or her supporters. But there's absolutely no way he can win in November without Hillary on the ticket.

With Hillary as the second-in-command, I'll begrudgingly vote for Obama...actually I won't be voting for him so much as I'll be voting for her.

Given that an Obama presidency may end up being a disaster, I'm not actually sure if it's best for Hillary in the long run to be his second...after four years of McCain perhaps then we could have Hillary as president in 2012...perhaps the Mayan calender ends then, because it's showing an end to the patriarchal world we've had for so long...I can be a dreamer, I suppose.

Why I Won't Vote for Obama

Never mind the fact that the mainstream media, certain Democratic leaders, and Obama himself have insulted Hillary Clinton and used subtle sexist tactics to bring her down.

My first gripe about Obama was that he just felt insincere to me. I just didn't like him, didn't feel a warmth or sincerity from him. I felt that his lofty words were hollow. I couldn't quite put my finger on it. But he just didn't feel like a good person to me.

And initially, I was excited to have a black candidate for president. I felt it was a positive step forward. I did not have negative feelings for him in the beginning.

But as time wore on, my suspicions of him grew, and I felt less at ease with him as a candidate. Then the nastiness sprung up - from Obama supporters themselves, tearing Hillary down like a pack of wolves. I spoke with young women, who should have at least be proud that a woman was running for President, and heard them sneer at Hillary for being "too ambitious." What? Anyone who runs for President is ambitious by nature!

These young ladies were being sexist, and they didn't even know it. They had grown up too much with their peers posting half-naked photos of themselves on MySpace. Stripper culture had seeped into their brains, and they could not see the reason to respect a strong adult woman. No wonder "Obama Girl" became famous...back when I was in college, if that sort of sexist, demeaning crap was put out about a candidate, all the women on campus would have been up in arms. But not these days...the girls are too busy trying to get a chance to appear on "Girls Gone Wild."

So it was the Obama supporters themselves that initially put me off in a big way, and then I started noticing the disconnect between Obama's words and his heart (or lack thereof).

The Rev. Wright fiasco sealed it for me. NOT because of what Wright said, but because Obama, after 20 years of close association with this man, decided to drop him and pretend he didn't agree with him, because it was politically expedient to do so.

At that point, I knew that Obama was full of hot air - that he was probably a pandering liar at best and a con-man at worst.

Upon further investigation, I found out the story behind his ties to some really shady characters back in Chicago. Why isn't the mainstream media all over this? Hm. Perhaps because they want a weak opponent for McCain in the fall. That's all I can figure.

Regardless, I cannot with any conscience vote for Obama in the fall, if Hillary is not on the ticket. Obama is a fake, and a fraud, and he frankly scares me with his charisma. (A friend of mine had a posterized picture of Obama on her cellphone, with rays of light drawn out from his head. It reminded me of propaganda for Mao Tse Tung in Communist China. Yikes!)

The insults against Hillary, the lack of concern over the voters in Michigan in Florida, Obama's crazy supporters, and the shadiness of Obama himself, all lead me to the conclusion that our country would actually be better off with four more years of Republicans in the White House than Obama. That's how bad a feeling I have.

And what a shame too - Hillary could turn this country around, if given the chance.

The Dirt on Obama the Media Keeps Ignoring

I was wondering why the mainstream media was constantly gushing over Obama, and then I found this article, which explains it all:

Karl Rove Manipulates the Presidential Primaries

You'll find more on the Rezko debacle here, but it's a bit dense:

Barack Obama - Subplots of Operation Board Games

Very Important Petitions Supporting Hillary

The DNC does not appear to be listening to Hillary's supporters. It's time certain DNC leaders stop pressuring Hillary to get out of the race and start listening to her constituents. If you support Hillary and want to make your voice heard, sign the following petitions:

Urgent Petition to Democratic Super Delegates

Quiet Riot

Hillary Clinton Must Get the Nomination

I'm tired of the mainstream media telling us the Democratic race is over when it's not. The race is very close and Hillary can still pull through at the end. Barack Obama has too many skeletons in the closet and the Republicans are hoping he'll be the nominee, because they know Hillary would beat McCain come November. We need to give Hillary the chance to take this all the way to the Democratic National Convention.