Author
|
Topic: Democratic Nomination II
|
|
|
|
Geneva
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3808
|
posted 09 January 2008 05:12 AM
this got lost at the bottom of the closed thread, but it gives some perspective on New Hampshire winners past (see bottom) and how they fared/did not fare afterwards, ex. early front-runner Paul Tsongas defeating Clinton in 1992: http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/results/states/NH.htmlWinners of Previous New Hampshire Nominating Contests
Democrats 2004 John Kerry 2000 Al Gore 1992 Paul E. Tsongas 1988 Michael S. Dukakis 1984 Gary Hart Republicans 2000 John McCain 1996 Patrick J. Buchanan 1988 George Bush [ 09 January 2008: Message edited by: Geneva ]
From: um, well | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
robbie_dee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 195
|
posted 09 January 2008 05:28 AM
quote: Originally posted by josh: From the prior thread:Could the "Bradley Effect" have just reared its head? I've heard that speculation, but I do not agree. In a general election, yes. But it didn't rear its head in Iowa, which is even more white than New Hampshire.
Well the argument for why it didn't occur in Iowa was that it was not a secret ballot in Iowa, the caucuses are public meetings of mostly progressive Democrats. So rather than giving in to "secret" prejudices, voters might have had the opposite incentive of showing their friends and neighbors how non-racist they were by openly supporting Obama. Although other people are pointing out, given the exit polls show a huge move to Clinton among women (while men stayed with Obama) that this may have been something different. Perhaps what was really happening was that women voters perceived Hillary as a qualified female candidate being "passed over" for the job by a younger, less qualified male. And reacted to that. Andrew Sullivan: The Bradley Effect Debunked.
From: Iron City | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Geneva
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3808
|
posted 09 January 2008 05:41 AM
the link does not work for me, but IF the "Bradley effect" means a middle-class Northeastern white state voting disproportionately for a white guy/gal from the Northeast, well maybe -- how far did that get Paul Tsongas ?Trivia: our old friend David Frum kicked off the New Year 2000 with his prediction of that fall's presidential candidates: John McCain vs. Bill Bradley -- Right again !! [ 09 January 2008: Message edited by: Geneva ]
From: um, well | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938
|
posted 09 January 2008 08:16 AM
quote: Well the argument for why it didn't occur in Iowa was that it was not a secret ballot in Iowa, the caucuses are public meetings of mostly progressive Democrats. So rather than giving in to "secret" prejudices, voters might have had the opposite incentive of showing their friends and neighbors how non-racist they were by openly supporting Obama.
So people would take the time and trouble to go out to a caucus in freezing weather only to vote for someone they don't really want? Doesn't make sense.
From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wilf Day
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3276
|
posted 09 January 2008 07:15 PM
quote: Originally posted by Michelle in the previous thread: Delegates?I think I'm lost. Which isn't unusual when it comes to the mechanics of the American voting system.
Hilary Clinton didn't actually win: she tied with Obama. USA Democratic Party Delegate Selection rules: The nominee is chosen by the convention. They have 4,367 voting convention delegates, on paper. Minus Michigan, see below. Of these 852 are ex-officio delegates unpledged to any candidate. The other 3,515 are pledged delegates chosen pursuant to state party rules and primary results. Some states have closed primaries open only to registered party supporters. Some are open to independent voters as well, who can choose which primary to vote in. Others are fully open, so that registered Republicans can nevertheless vote in the Democratic primary. In the 15 states with no primaries, party supporters meet in "caucus" meetings to select delegates. The Call for the 2008 Convention states the base delegation for each delegation. Seventy-five percent (75%) of each state's base delegation shall be elected at the congressional district level or smaller. Twenty-five percent (25%) of each state's base delegation shall be elected at large. Delegates so elected are termed "district-level" and "at-large" delegates, respectively. Then a further 15% is added for pledged Party Leaders and Elected Officials (PLEO). States shall allocate district-level delegates and alternates in proportion to the percentage of the primary or caucus vote won in that district by each preference, except that preferences falling below a 15% threshold shall not be awarded any delegates. Under no circumstances shall the use of single-delegate districts be permitted. At-large and pledged party leader and elected official delegate and alternate positions shall be allocated to presidential preferences by reference to primary or convention votes or to the division of preference among district-level delegates or alternates, as the case may be, except that a preference falling below a threshold of 15% shall not be awarded any delegates or alternates at this level. Such delegates and alternates in primary states shall be allocated to presidential preference (including uncommitted status) according to the statewide primary vote. The Republicans have no such rule. State parties are free to follow a winner-take-all rule if they wish. For example, New Hampshire elects 22 Democratic Party delegates: 14 district-level, 5 at-large, and 3 PLEOs. Another 8 New Hampshire delegates are unpledged (ex-officios). Since New Hampshire has two Congressional Districts, 7 are elected for each district, in proportion to the primary votes in that district. The other 5 and 3 are each in proportion to the state-wide primary vote. Last night in each District Clinton and Obama each won 3 delegates, Edwards 1. For the at-large delegates Clinton and Obama each won 2, Edwards 1. For the 3 PLEOs they each won 1. Total: Clinton won 9 delegates, Obama 9, Edwards 4. By the way, state Democratic Parties shall adopt Delegate Selection Plans and Affirmative Action Plans (for African Americans, Hispanics, Native Americans, Asian/Pacific Americans and women.) In the selection of each state's at-large delegation, priority of consideration shall be given to African Americans, Hispanics, Native Americans, Asian/Pacific Americans and women, if such priority of consideration is needed to fulfill the affirmative action goals outlined in the state's Delegate Selection Plan. In New Hampshire District 1 will have 4 male and 3 female delegates; District 2 will have the reverse.
Note: Michigan has been stripped of its 157 national convention delegates, or at least the 128 to be elected by primaries, by the Democratic National Committee's Rules Committee because it broke party rules by moving up its primary to Jan. 15.
From: Port Hope, Ontario | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
flight from kamakura
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13562
|
posted 10 January 2008 01:51 PM
i've been in new hampshire this past week working on the obama campaign. (i'm glad to be back in montreal!)thoughts: 1. until e-day morning, everyone thought we'd win by a good margin. the debate and the crying incidident hit the undecideds hard and she doubtless got the win on late-deciding low information women (singles, especially in the 25-40 age group). 2. the disparity that you conspiracy-minded folks are talking about happened because the hand-counted areas are the smaller areas (college towns, boston suburbs, upscale resort communities, etc.) where obama does great and the machine-counted areas are the more densely populated blue collar areas (specifically, nashua and manchester). you'd have to be a total idiot to think that hillary clinton somehow stole the new hampshire primary. 3. my money's still on obama to win this thing. losing new hampshire may be a blessing in disguise, in the sense that it's better to let clinton take the yellow jersey until feb 5th. obama's got a decent shot at winning nevada and a great shot at winning south carolina, and this means he stays in the running in a) the media narrative; b) florida; and c) the delegate count. and there it is from where i'm standing.
From: Montreal | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791
|
posted 10 January 2008 02:07 PM
quote: Originally posted by flight from kamakura: i've been in new hampshire this past week working on the obama campaign. (i'm glad to be back in montreal!)thoughts: 1. until e-day morning, everyone thought we'd win by a good margin. the debate and the crying incidident hit the undecideds hard and she doubtless got the win on late-deciding low information women (singles, especially in the 25-40 age group).
There was no crying at all. Hillary spoke from the heart. I was hoping Edwards would get the nomination, but any of these three - Edwards, Clinton, or Obama would be much better for the US (and the world!) than any of the Repugs running for their nomination.
From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
KenS
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1174
|
posted 10 January 2008 11:10 PM
I'll be curious what Edwards does after South Carolina.If he plays second fiddle to Obama in his home turf- even making allowances for the unusually high percentage of black voters [still not overwhelming].... If he comes in second he may just pack it in; if he does not, we get to speculate on what he's trying to do. I think he was hopeing for Hillary knocked out early, and then what he could do with the spotlight on him by default. I can't imagine that there is any kind of Plan B until and if he wins SC. [ 10 January 2008: Message edited by: KenS ]
From: Minasville, NS | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938
|
posted 11 January 2008 02:40 AM
Yeah, I think if he comes in third in South Carolina he, unfortunately, will pack it in. quote: There was no crying at all. Hillary spoke from the heart.
As planned. As for Richardson, no great loss.
From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560
|
posted 11 January 2008 03:20 AM
quote: Originally posted by flight from kamakura: 1. until e-day morning, everyone thought we'd win by a good margin. the debate and the crying incidident hit the undecideds hard and she doubtless got the win on late-deciding low information women (singles, especially in the 25-40 age group).
Wow, that's pretty contemptuous. Are you representative of the attitude of the Obama campaign towards women? I've got news for you. If it WAS women who turned when they heard Clinton's statement, it's not because they were "low information". Women have had more than enough "information" in their lives about what it's like to face insurmountable sexism and difficulty when it comes to challenging the male establishment in their lives, whether at home or at work. The whole thing about getting up every day and facing such hatred and sexism (and guess what? that's what Clinton does, even if she's extremely privileged and a hawk - and your guy ain't much better on either count, not to mention he isn't exactly oozing substance) is something that rings true to an awful lot of women. I thought I liked Obama better than Clinton, but you know, he's really not THAT much better. And the more I see of this contempt for women who may have voted for Clinton in NH by supporters of Edwards and Obama (and almost always men - funny, huh?) the more sympathy I have for Clinton and her campaigners. Sorry, I know this is harsh, but I'm getting a little tired of reading sexist crap on the internet about supposedly stupid women who support Hillary Clinton. And I'm not even one of them. If I had a loonie for every time I've read some variation on the theme that Hillary appeals to stupid, single-issue women who can't see past their cunts at the voting machine, I'd be rich. (Edited back to make it a little less harsh.) [ 11 January 2008: Message edited by: Michelle ]
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791
|
posted 11 January 2008 04:59 AM
At the recent NH primary debate, all four of the Democratic candidates said they would get the US out of Iraq asap. Hillary was the one most reluctant to pull troops out of Iraq in a hurry, while Richardson was the one most eager to get the troops out. Hillary gave her reasons being that pulling US troops out overnight (not that it could be done that fast in any case) would result in a bloodbath or outright civil war. I think what she's saying is that (apart from her constant criticism of Bush having done an absolutely disastrous handling of this war) 'we broke it, we have to fix it'. I'm not sure the US is even capable of fixing Iraq now. I think the international community should demand that the US pay - very heavilly - for wrecking Iraq, and let the Iraqiis fix their country themselves, with help from the international community, when asked. The US needs to be punished for the situation in Iraq, and certainly by as much as they've spent so far in wrecking the country - close to a trillion dollars so far. And Halliburton and Blackwater need to be thrown out of Iraq right away. NONE of the candidates, Republican or Democrat, have really addressed this issue of reparations.I think any of the Dems, including Hillary, are far preferable than any of the Repugs. I was hoping it would be either Edwards or Richardson, but that ain't going to happen now. It's looks like it's coming down to a Clinton-Obama contest, and while I don't have any great love for either of these two, they'd be far better as Prez than any of the Repugs. There'd be a lot of symbolism, too, in having the first women or first black as Prez, even though I wish it could have been a better (less hawkish, less corporate) woman candidate. I don't get why Edwards finished a distant third in NH. Someone at the NH primary debate (maybe Hillary?) said a substantial US force needs to remain in Iraq to defend the new US embassy there. God, that comment pissed me off. Give the building to the Iraqiis, the Americans need to get the hell out of that country altogether. (cross posted to babble and BNR) [ 11 January 2008: Message edited by: Boom Boom ]
From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
flight from kamakura
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13562
|
posted 11 January 2008 08:14 AM
quote: Originally posted by Michelle:
Wow, that's pretty contemptuous. Are you representative of the attitude of the Obama campaign towards women? I've got news for you. If it WAS women who turned when they heard Clinton's statement, it's not because they were "low information". Women have had more than enough "information" in their lives about what it's like to face insurmountable sexism and difficulty when it comes to challenging the male establishment in their lives, whether at home or at work. The whole thing about getting up every day and facing such hatred and sexism (and guess what? that's what Clinton does, even if she's extremely privileged and a hawk - and your guy ain't much better on either count, not to mention he isn't exactly oozing substance) is something that rings true to an awful lot of women. I thought I liked Obama better than Clinton, but you know, he's really not THAT much better. And the more I see of this contempt for women who may have voted for Clinton in NH by supporters of Edwards and Obama (and almost always men - funny, huh?) the more sympathy I have for Clinton and her campaigners. Sorry, I know this is harsh, but I'm getting a little tired of reading sexist crap on the internet about supposedly stupid women who support Hillary Clinton. And I'm not even one of them. If I had a loonie for every time I've read some variation on the theme that Hillary appeals to stupid, single-issue women who can't see past their cunts at the voting machine, I'd be rich. (Edited back to make it a little less harsh.) [ 11 January 2008: Message edited by: Michelle ]
right.1) low-information is a technical term, it refers to people who don't vote on issues, or who are uninformed about where each candidate stands on issues. it's a fact that these folks prefer hillary, and that low information women prefer her most. 2) sure, you can argue that hillary's got it rough from the media, but here's another fact: hillary is there because she's the president's wife. no bill clinton = no hillary clinton. she had this guy running around the state (nh) doing everything he could, she had mailout after mailout with his face/words/themes, she's not some woman getting beat up by the media unfairly. she's hard and she's cynical, and she knows the game. those 'tears' were fake: do you think that after 15 years of composure, it's a coincidence that she loses control the day before the decisive primary? and isn't it odd that she managed to stay on message, putting out her talking points on obama's experience while choking back tears? you want to intimate that i'm sexist because i inform you about what folks in the campaign saw the numbers break? fine. but be serious at least. and by the way, there's loads of substance to obama, he has good progressive positions on everything imaginable, and you listen to the guy talk and it's mostly policy. it just seems that the media folks don't want to cover it, and the obama campaign seems fine with that: the real "hope" of obama (and why hillary should not be the nominee) lies in the fact that he could win the 55% majority that would give him a mandate for a very progressive vision. hillary's a woman, but people don't like her (and it's not sexism, for some, it's the clintons and for some it's the fact that she didn't dump his ass after a national humiliation). she'll never win a mandate for her policies, even if she becomes president. obama could, and if he does, it's likely to put to rest a lof of these old boomer debates (gay rights, abortion, the welfare state, etc). that's "change you can believe in", you know, hillary, you can't believe in anything about her... except her gender. which brings us back to the low information women. [ 11 January 2008: Message edited by: flight from kamakura ]
From: Montreal | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
KenS
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1174
|
posted 11 January 2008 08:34 AM
I want to interject something into this spat.Among Dem activists, people don't like Hillary because she's the machine candidate. I wouldn't say 'presidents wife'. But definitely machine candidate. And she made the choice to run on that- not only for what it can do, but even as the 'inevitable candidate'. She made that choice. So the Dem activists never liked her for that... and she couldn't care less. Along comes Obabma. Who has a universal appeal. Among which is that he doesn't play identity politiucs at all. So all of a sudden, the public- most of all but not only the mass of registered Dems who vote in primaries in this case- is looking at Hillary a lot like the Dem activists always have. [ 11 January 2008: Message edited by: KenS ]
From: Minasville, NS | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
KenS
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1174
|
posted 11 January 2008 08:41 AM
quote: : the real "hope" of obama (and why hillary should not be the nominee) lies in the fact that he could win the 55% majority that would give him a mandate for a very progressive vision. hillary's a woman, but people don't like her (and it's not sexism, for some, it's the clintons and for some it's the fact that she didn't dump his ass after a national humiliation). she'll never win a mandate for her policies, even if she becomes president.
Along the same lines, something I wrote elsewhere: Hillary is OK, just not as likely in my mind to overcome the hurdles a Dem President will face. US politics is so BIZARRE in its details. People know about federal government gridlock. But the details are almost more bizarre than the outcome. 40 out of 100 Senators can block ANY legislation from getting through. Which means they can refuse to do ANYTHING, no matter how neccesary, until they get what they want. That’s why Dem control of Congress has meant nothing, because the Republicans don’t just play chicken: they will not jump. Breaking the gridlock will require getting 60 Senator support. Either 60 Dems, or say 58 Dems and a President who can drive wedges among the Republicans. There are a ton of Repub seats up for grabs… so with a Dem candidate that has coatails, 60 seats is possible. For a Clinton who has been playing the polarizing game, such coatails are unlikely. Obama has a chance of being a President with the kind of personal popularity that at least a couple Republicans will break ranks because they want to or are afraid not to. Virtually no chance this could be true for Hillary.
From: Minasville, NS | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791
|
posted 11 January 2008 09:57 AM
quote: Originally posted by RosaL: This thread is the first place I have seen Obama described as "progressive". Can someone explain to me why they think that's an appropriate characterization? Thanks.
Have you read his platform? From: Blueprint For Change: Obama's Plan For America two excerpts from a much longer document: Labor Obama will strengthen the ability of workers to organize unions. He will fight for passage of the Employee Free Choice Act. Obama will ensure that his labor appointees support workers’ rights and will work to ban the permanent replacement of striking workers. Obama will also increase the minimum wage and index it to inflation to ensure it rises every year. Ensure Freedom to Unionize: Obama believes that workers should have the freedom to choose whether to join a union without harassment or intimidation from their employers. Obama cosponsored and is strong advocate for the Employee Free Choice Act, a bipartisan effort to assure that workers can exercise their right to organize. He will continue to fight for EFCA's passage and sign it into law. Fight Attacks on Workers' Right to Organize: Obama has fought the Bush National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) efforts to strip workers of their right to organize. He is a cosponsor of legislation to overturn the NLRB's "Kentucky River" decisions classifying hundreds of thousands of nurses, construction, and professional workers as "supervisors" who are not protected by federal labor laws. Protect Striking Workers: Obama supports the right of workers to bargain collectively and strike if necessary. He will work to ban the permanent replacement of striking workers, so workers can stand up for themselves without worrying about losing their livelihoods. Raise the Minimum Wage: Barack Obama will raise the minimum wage, index it to inflation and increase the Earned Income Tax Credit to make sure that full-time workers earn a living wage that allows them to raise their families and pay for basic needs. Civil Rights Strengthen Civil Rights Enforcement Obama will reverse the politicization that has occurred in the Bush Administration's Department of Justice. He will put an end to the ideological litmus tests used to fill positions within the Civil Rights Division. Combat Employment Discrimination Obama will work to overturn the Supreme Court's recent ruling that curtails racial minorities' and women's ability to challenge pay discrimination. Obama will also pass the Fair Pay Act to ensure that women receive equal pay for equal work. Expand Hate Crimes Statutes Obama will strengthen federal hate crimes legislation and reinvigorate enforcement at the Department of Justice's Criminal Section. End Deceptive Voting Practices Obama will sign into law his legislation that establishes harsh penalties for those who have engaged in voter fraud and provides voters who have been misinformed with accurate and full information so they can vote. End Racial Profiling Obama will ban racial profiling by federal law enforcement agencies and provide federal incentives to state and local police departments to prohibit the practice. Reduce Crime Recidivism by Providing Ex-Offender Support Obama will provide job training, substance abuse and mental health counseling to ex-offenders, so that they are successfully re-integrated into society. Obama will also create a prison-to-work incentive program to improve ex-offender employment and job retention rates. Eliminate Sentencing Disparities Obama believes the disparity between sentencing crack and powder-based cocaine is wrong and should be completely eliminated. Expand Use of Drug Courts Obama will give first-time, non-violent offenders a chance to serve their sentence, where appropriate, in the type of drug rehabilitation programs that have proven to work better than a prison term in changing bad behavior.
From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560
|
posted 11 January 2008 10:14 AM
Wow. Obama doesn't play "identity politics" at all? How has Clinton (by the way, if we're using last names here, I'm not sure why the men all get last names and the woman gets her first name used) played identity politics any more than Obama has?How could she possibly avoid answering questions about her gender? Should she just ignore them? At every debate, people ask her about her gender. She has a set response to that which makes sense, that she thinks she's the best candidate for the job, and she's glad that, as a woman, she's running at a time when women can realistically become President. Are you telling me that Obama has never ever made reference to race? Ever? So his victory speech in Iowa had absolutely nothing to do with race when he said, "They said this day would never come"? Or his speechifying style that is reminiscent of MLK? Of course it was. And so it should be! Why shouldn't they address their "identities" when it comes up? Neither of them are saying vote for me because I'm not a white man. They're saying vote for me because I'm the best candidate. By the way, I know what "low information" means. I understood it just fine. And you're assuming that all the women who voted for Clinton are "low information"? Was the NH vote secret ballot or not? After all, we know that the polls were useless, so how exactly do you know just what kind of women were voting for Clinton? I'm no "low information woman" and believe me, when I see sexist crap from all sides aimed at Clinton, I feel sympathy for her too. Enough to vote for her in a primary? I'm not so sure about that, but Obama and Edwards sure don't appeal to me much. As for her husband being the former president - well, yeah, certainly no man has ever used name recognition or their contacts in the White House to run for President. Certainly there is no "family compact" type of system in the US, where people intermarry in political families, or where men have wives with huge family fortunes like Mr. Heinz, right? Yes, because Clinton was married to the President, that means she should sit down and shut up like a good First Lady, and never have any political ambitions of her own, or act on them if she has them. Maybe this is not what you're saying, but this is what it sounds like. And as other people have mentioned - she didn't cry. She didn't even really sob or choke up. Her voice quavered slightly, and her voice softened up. Of course she stayed on message. She's a professional. She's been a lawyer for decades and a politician for years. And actually, most people when they lose their composure grasp at their talking points to get themselves back on track. People who know her have been saying that this is what she is like in "real life" when she's not "public speaking" and that while it was probably a deliberate tactic to "go softer", she wasn't being fake. I have no idea what she's like in real life and whether this is true. But making sexist attacks against her, or insulting the people who vote for her by implying that they're only voting for her because they're stupid and because she's a woman will probably backfire for a lot of women, low information or not. It certainly has that effect on me.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791
|
posted 11 January 2008 10:22 AM
quote: Originally posted by Michelle:- snip - But making sexist attacks against her, or insulting the people who vote for her by implying that they're only voting for her because they're stupid and because she's a woman will probably backfire for a lot of women, low information or not. It certainly has that effect on me.
It has that effect on me, and I'm a man.
From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
RosaL
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13921
|
posted 11 January 2008 10:24 AM
quote: Originally posted by Boom Boom:
Have you read his platform? From: Blueprint For Change: Obama's Plan For America
He didn't sound very progressive in the debates but I'll take a look at this. Thanks.
From: the underclass | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
KenS
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1174
|
posted 11 January 2008 12:11 PM
For what it's worth, I don't think she cried or that she staged it.She was just getting emotional- and that helped break her Ice Queen image- which is good. But as to what she was getting emotional about- I'm convinced it had everything to do with the disspointement that the carefully laid plans had gone awry and she wasn't going to glide in. That's got nothing to do with her gender. BTW, I didn't say Hillary [her campaign uses the name a great deal- obvious reasons why] plays identity politics. And it's unfortunate it was undestandably implicit. I still maintain that Obama stays above identity politics. Perhaps you have to some degree to intimately understand US history as it is felt by Americans to understand that. Of course Obama uses the fact he is a black man. But he does so ever so tactfuly. Part of his effective rhetoric is that he is a human being of many identities. Everyone can say that, and can feel it, but it's abundantly true in Obama's case. Praising Obama for what he does, is only in some cases an implicit dig at Hillary [not a machine candidate]. It shouldn't be assumed that any particular praise implies a relationship to the many unfair digs on Clinton that are out there. [ 11 January 2008: Message edited by: KenS ]
From: Minasville, NS | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
melovesproles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8868
|
posted 11 January 2008 01:35 PM
quote: So his victory speech in Iowa had absolutely nothing to do with race when he said, "They said this day would never come"?
It might have now that I think about it but I honestly just took it as a rebuke to everyone that was writing him off as too young and inexperienced to be a serious candidate-which has been Clinton's favorite attack. I personally think there are significant differences in the two candidates. Obama's platform on justice sounds reasonably progressive to me, seems to be the opposite of the direction Canadian political elites now want to move us. It might be unfair to judge a potential Hilary Presidency by her husband's record but since he is taking an extremely active role in her campaign I personally think that will continue if she is elected. And the Prison building industry loved life under Bill Clinton. Hilary's commitment to the US's gulag system has been a part of her campaign as well: quote: Hillary's aides point to Obama's extremely progressive record as a community organizer, state senator and candidate for Congress, his alliances with "left-wing" intellectuals in Chicago's Hyde Park community, and his liberal voting record on criminal defendants' rights as subjects for examination.Along the same lines, ABC reported that Clinton aides gave the network various examples, of Obama's controversial stands. The aides cited Obama's past assertion that he would support ending mandatory minimum sentences for federal crimes, pointing to a 2004 statement at an NAACP-sponsored debate: "Mandatory minimums take too much discretion away from judges."
Hillary Hits Obama For Opposing Harsher Prison Sentences
From: BC | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791
|
posted 11 January 2008 02:10 PM
quote: Originally posted by melovesproles: Hillary Hits Obama For Opposing Harsher Prison Sentences
Further down in that link is this tidbit: Edwards' staff also immediately began to take shots at Obama: Appearing on MSNBC this morning, Edwards' manager David Bonior described Obama as a sellout to corporate America: "Barack Obama's kind of change is where you sit down and you cut a deal with the corporate world." And all this time I thought Clinton was the corporate candidate.
From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Vansterdam Kid
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5474
|
posted 11 January 2008 11:40 PM
quote: Originally posted by KenS: I'll be curious what Edwards does after South Carolina.If he plays second fiddle to Obama in his home turf- even making allowances for the unusually high percentage of black voters [still not overwhelming].... If he comes in second he may just pack it in; if he does not, we get to speculate on what he's trying to do. I think he was hopeing for Hillary knocked out early, and then what he could do with the spotlight on him by default. I can't imagine that there is any kind of Plan B until and if he wins SC.
I don't know about that. The SC primary is likely to be about half-black in its composition. There are rumours that Jim Clyburn (3rd Ranking Democrat in Congress, heavyweight in SC Democratic Party, highest ranking black congressman etc so it would be a big coup...) is going to endorse Obama if the Clinton's don't stop what some people see as subtle race baiting. And while earlier in the campaign Clinton held a significant edge with the black vote, that edge has been completely lost with some polls even showing Obama ahead in the black vote by 46 points. Edwards hasn't been a serious contender in SC since 2004.
quote: Originally posted by flight from kamakura: and by the way, there's loads of substance to obama, he has good progressive positions on everything imaginable, and you listen to the guy talk and it's mostly policy. it just seems that the media folks don't want to cover it, and the obama campaign seems fine with that: the real "hope" of obama (and why hillary should not be the nominee) lies in the fact that he could win the 55% majority that would give him a mandate for a very progressive vision. hillary's a woman, but people don't like her (and it's not sexism, for some, it's the clintons and for some it's the fact that she didn't dump his ass after a national humiliation). she'll never win a mandate for her policies, even if she becomes president.
I agree, especially about the mandate issue. I really don't see Clinton having a shot at winning by a landslide, I could even see her loosing to McCain or maybe even Huckabee (who, though extremely socially conservative, is affable enough.) Though hey, I guess when people keep talking about Obama's "lack of substance" and "lack of experience" I guess we ought to (always) chalk those criticisms up to racism. quote: Originally posted by Michelle: (by the way, if we're using last names here, I'm not sure why the men all get last names and the woman gets her first name used)
She's the one who insisted on being referred to as "Hillary" or "Hil" to "soften her image." Though for the most part I've resisted referring to her like that because calling a politician by their first name insinuates that you have some sort of personal connection with them, or really like them...at least it does to me. quote: By the way, I know what "low information" means. I understood it just fine. And you're assuming that all the women who voted for Clinton are "low information"? Was the NH vote secret ballot or not? After all, we know that the polls were useless, so how exactly do you know just what kind of women were voting for Clinton?
I agree that "lower information" is a stupid term. But it's true, because most of the exit polling has indicated this, that Obama does better with younger and well-Educated voters, including men, whereas Clinton does better with middle-aged to older and moderately to lower educated voters...including women whom she won by 46 to 29% a margin over Obama. Clinton won those without a degree, Obama won those with one. (Or to be technical to the nth degree it was pretty much tied amongst those with a Bachelors, whereas he had a major lead amongst those with a post-graduate degree). eta...links [ 12 January 2008: Message edited by: Vansterdam Kid ]
From: bleh.... | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
babblerwannabe
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5953
|
posted 11 January 2008 11:40 PM
Thank you Michelle. I feel the exact same way. I have real sympathies for Clinton, and if you compare the voting record between Clinton and Obama, they are almost exactly alike.The latest national poll from CNN shows that Clinton is leading with 49 percent, if its between Obama and Clinton, I go with Clinton. Oh and remember what Jesse Jackson Jr , the co chair of Obama’s campaign said, he said Clinton cried about her campaign, but not for Katrina, how dare she! The Obama team doesn’t play the race card, give me a break! But go ahead, keep playing the sexist crap , and keep saying Clinton was crying, that will get more women to vote for Clinton, and we will see who will have the last tears.
From: toronto | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
babblerwannabe
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5953
|
posted 11 January 2008 11:42 PM
Oh and I don’t think so, I read that Clinton has a one percentage lead among college graduate in the NH primary. Low information voters, that’s really freaking stupid.
The reason is because Clinton decided to take questions after questions in NH, and people respect that and got a full and complete answers from Clinton and they love her performance during the debate. Obama knew he had a huge lead so he got cocky and stop taking questions from audience. Why is it when a woman gets support from voters, she can’t do it because of her skills and performance? Everyone said she won only because she “cried”, this just goes to show how sexist this society is, it really makes me sick. Clinton found her voice, good for her, WOMEN POWER! [ 11 January 2008: Message edited by: babblerwannabe ]
From: toronto | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vansterdam Kid
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5474
|
posted 11 January 2008 11:50 PM
I edited my post to add Exit Polling results, which prove what I've just said. Also, did you make this up: quote: Obama knew he had a huge lead so he got cocky and stop taking questions from audience.
? Cause I'm not sure where you could've gotten that from. I've been following the race pretty closely and never seen anything about that. It seems to me like Obama's campaign is pretty populist based and that it wouldn't have been possible for him not to hold community forums where individuals ask him questions. It would be like if all the sudden Edwards decided to argue for a flat tax, or if McCain where to advocate for a quick withdrawal from Iraq, or Romney were to be believable etc. [ 11 January 2008: Message edited by: Vansterdam Kid ]
From: bleh.... | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
babblerwannabe
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5953
|
posted 12 January 2008 12:05 AM
quote: Originally posted by Vansterdam Kid: I edited my post to add Exit Polling results, which prove what I've just said. Also, did you make this up: ? Cause I'm not sure where you could've gotten that from. I've been following the race pretty closely and never seen anything about that. It seems to me like Obama's campaign is pretty populist based and that it wouldn't have been possible for him not to hold community forums where individuals ask him questions. It would be like if all the sudden Edwards decided to argue for a flat tax, or if McCain where to advocate for a quick withdrawal from Iraq, or Romney were to be believable etc. [ 11 January 2008: Message edited by: Vansterdam Kid ]
I take serious offense that you think I am making up stuffs. You think you are the only one following this closely? I follow the campaign very closely, I visited the dailykos site and democraticunderground, plenty of people have said that Obama got a little cocky and gave speeches but don’t take questions and try to play it safe during the days leading up to the NH primary. But HERE'S THE link http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/08/us/politics/08style.html?ref=todayspaper .
quote: Though Mr. Obama conducted two network television interviews on Monday, he did not take questions from voters at town meetings and rallies, as he had done in Iowa. He did not introduce any new proposals or wade into much policy discussion on Monday.The front-runner’s hat is one Mr. Obama has not worn before, yet he appeared to be slipping it on comfortably. Throughout this race, his accessibility to voters — and journalists — has gradually declined, particularly once he received Secret Service protection last spring. Since arriving in New Hampshire, he has not held a formal question-and-answer session with reporters. It was a different story when he was struggling to catch his rivals in Iowa a month or so ago. In one week alone, he held two news conferences in two days.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNg_hUqbnH0 This video shows why women supported Clinton in NH. [ 12 January 2008: Message edited by: babblerwannabe ]
From: toronto | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938
|
posted 12 January 2008 04:00 AM
quote: But go ahead, keep playing the sexist crap , and keep saying Clinton was crying, that will get more women to vote for Clinton, and we will see who will have the last tears.
Democrats in November will.
From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938
|
posted 12 January 2008 04:42 AM
quote:
Anyways, after that loss it seems like the campaign has taken on his traditional populist-oriented message, and perhaps more importantly, populist-oriented formula again.
Speaking of populism: quote:
Alarmed at the increasingly populist tone of the 2008 political campaign, the president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is set to issue a fiery promise to spend millions of dollars to defeat candidates deemed to be anti-business. "We plan to build a grass-roots business organization so strong that when it bites you in the butt, you bleed," chamber President Tom Donohue said. . . . . "I'm concerned about anti-corporate and populist rhetoric from candidates for the presidency, members of Congress and the media," he said. "It suggests to us that we have to demonstrate who it is in this society that creates jobs, wealth and benefits -- and who it is that eats them."
http://tinyurl.com/2l6x42
From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
KenS
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1174
|
posted 12 January 2008 05:23 AM
quote: But go ahead, keep playing the sexist crap , and keep saying Clinton was crying, that will get more women to vote for Clinton, and we will see who will have the last tears.
But no one here 'accused' Clinton of crying. This is a common problem with Babble discussions. People take what they THINK others are saying- which is already getting problematic but not bad on its own. Then they add to it things that have been said somewere else, and treated the whole mixture as the same thing. I also think you are winging it with your interpretation of Obama that you derive from that NY Times article. When people elsewhere- not here- do go on about Clinton 'crying', thats an example of winging it. And you do the same thing talking about Obama. quote: The reason is because Clinton decided to take questions after questions in NH, and people respect that and got a full and complete answers from Clinton and they love her performance during the debate.Obama knew he had a huge lead so he got cocky and stop taking questions from audience.
In the first place, you are talking about Clinton and Obama in 2 differnt venues. Obama's was a solo campaign appearance. And the reporter is just making the very mild point that Obama did not take questions as he customarily does and Cinton never did before [his/her point, not mine]. And then she also matter of factly observes that this would be consistent with Obama's new status as perceived front runner. And you turn that into 'Obama getting cocky'. You are entitled to the opinion. But when someone questions it you offer the Times article as 'proof'. There's also no basis for you saying 'Obama knew he had a big lead'. No basis for saying he thought that, let alone 'knew' it. His campaign did a slight tactical shift for the short time it looked he probably did have a lead. Real big deal there. I don't go casting stones at Hillary. And no one here has cast the kind of stones you are talking about. Clinton would be an acceptable result for me- they all would. I've made it clear she's my last choice because she's the quintessential machine candidate, and until after Iowa she relished and even ran on that. that's the only reason I have for Clinton as last choice. After month and months, even years, of her running on that, it's a bit rich for her supporters to be trumpeting her as the underdog. The media dumps on her- no question. But leave off the 'everyone dumps on her' whining. I'm sure she gets slagged plenty on Daily Kos too. But that's not here. And you have no right to assume that because some of us defend Obama against slagging, that means we're the same as the media or a bunch of bloggers in the US. [ 12 January 2008: Message edited by: KenS ]
From: Minasville, NS | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
KenS
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1174
|
posted 12 January 2008 06:17 AM
Obama Giving Clinton a Race in New YorkI beleive you have to be registered to get NYTimes articles. But it's easy, no BS, a fast actig site for those of us with dial-up- and they send you a clear daily digest/index if you want. quote: if Mr. Obama wins the South Carolina primary in two weeks, he could develop enough grass-roots support among young people, liberals and black voters in New York to pose a serious threat to her claim to the state’s rich delegate lode, allies of both candidates say.“The expectation is that Hillary should win in New York,” said Assemblyman Adam Clayton Powell IV of Harlem, an Obama supporter. “As you know, expectations don’t always translate into votes, and so we’re going to fight in New York.”
From: Minasville, NS | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
martin dufresne
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11463
|
posted 12 January 2008 09:26 AM
Media Matters for America is a website that counters conservative pundits' attacks on Emocratic Party candidates. They do a pretty good job keeping tabs on racist slurs against Obama and the current sexist firestorm against Clinton: MSNBC' Chris Williams' problem with Hillary Clinton An excerpt from Media Matters Weekly Update - not available on-line, I think. Room for thought, regardless of what you think about Clinton's politics: quote: (...)More than six years ago, long before Hillary Clinton began running for president, the Philadelphia Inquirer magazine reported that, according to an MSNBC colleague, Matthews had said of Clinton: "I hate her. I hate her. All that she stands for." Even before that, Matthews told the January 20, 2000, Hardball audience, "Hillary Clinton bugs a lot of guys, I mean, really bugs people like maybe me on occasion. I'm not going to take a firm position here, because the election is not coming up yet. But let me just say this, she drives some of us absolutely nuts." Not that there was much chance his feelings would go unnoticed by even the most casual Hardball viewer. Matthews has referred to Clinton as "She devil." He has repeatedly likened Clinton to "Nurse Ratched," referring to the "scheming, manipulative" character in One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest who "asserts arbitrary control simply because she can." He has called her "Madame Defarge." And he has described male politicians who have endorsed Clinton as "castratos in the eunuch chorus." Matthews has compared Clinton to a "strip-teaser" and questioned whether she is "a convincing mom." He refers to Clinton's "cold eyes" and the "cold look" she supposedly gives people; he says she speaks in a "scolding manner" and is "going to tell us what to do." Matthews frequently obsesses over Clinton's "clapping" -- which he describes as "Chinese." He describes Clinton's laugh as a "cackle" -- which led to the Politico's Mike Allen telling him, "Chris, first of all, 'cackle' is a very sexist term." (Worth remembering: When John McCain was asked by a GOP voter referring to Clinton, "How do we beat the bitch?" Allen reacted by wondering, "What voter in general hasn't thought that?" So Allen isn't exactly hypersensitive to people describing Clinton in sexist terms.) Matthews repeatedly suggests Clinton is a "fraud" for claiming to be a Yankees fan, despite the fact that all available evidence indicates that Clinton has been a Yankees fan since childhood. In April of 2007, former Washington Post reporter John Harris, who has written a book about Bill Clinton, told Matthews to his face that the attacks on Clinton over her history of being a Yankees fan were false. Harris said: "Hillary Clinton got hazed over saying she was a New York Yankees fan. It turned out, actually, that was right. She had been a lifelong Yankees fan. But people were all over [her] for supposedly embroidering her past." But Matthews doesn't let a little thing like the truth get in the way of his efforts to take cheap shots at Clinton: At least twice since Harris set him straight, Matthews has attacked Clinton over the Yankees fan nonsense, once calling her a "fraud." Matthews has described Clinton as "witchy" and -- in what appears to be a classic case of projection -- claimed that "some men" say Clinton's voice sounds like "fingernails on a blackboard." In what appears to be an even more classic case of projection, Matthews has speculated that there is "out there in the country ... some gigantic monster -- big, green, horny-headed, all kinds of horns coming out, big, aggressive monster of anti-Hillaryism that hasn't shown itself: it's based upon gender." Matthews has suggested that Hillary Clinton "being surrounded by women" might "make a case against" her being "commander in chief." He once asked a guest if "the troops out there" would "take the orders" from "Hillary Clinton, commander in chief." When his guest responded, "Why wouldn't they listen to a [female] commander in chief? Sure," Matthews responded: "You're chuckling a little bit, aren't you?" When his guest responded "No," Matthews couldn't quite believe it, sputtering: "No problem? No problem? No problem?" Matthews has wondered if she is unable "to admit a mistake" because doing so would lead people to call her a "fickle woman." He has said that Clinton is on a "short ... leash" as a presidential candidate, lacking "latitude in her husband's absence" to answer a question. He has, at least twice, called Hillary Clinton an "uppity" woman -- both times, pretending to attribute the phrase to Bill Clinton. But, as Bob Somerby has explained, there is no evidence Clinton has ever used the term. One of Matthews' favorite topics is Clinton's marriage. After The New York Times ran an article purporting to count the number of nights the Clintons spend together, Matthews' imagination ran wild, and the MSNBC host couldn't get the Clintons' marital life out of his mind. At one point, Media Matters counted 90 separate questions Matthews asked guests about the topic during seven separate programs; the number undoubtedly grew after we stopped counting. In the middle of one of Matthews' bouts of obsessive speculation about how often the Clintons are "together in the same roof overnight, if you will," Washington Post reporter Lois Romano asked him, "[W]hat is your obsession with logistics here?" In response, Matthews snapped at her: "Because I'm talking to three reporters, and I'm trying to get three straight answers, so I don't want attitude about this. It's a point of view -- I want facts. Tell me what the facts are, Lois, if you know them. If you don't, I don't know what you're arguing about." Matthews has claimed: "[T]he reason she's a U.S. senator, the reason she's a candidate for president, the reason she may be a front-runner is her husband messed around." John McCain's political career got started after he left his first wife for a wealthy and politically connected heiress, married her, and ran for Congress. But Chris Matthews doesn't suggest that the reason McCain is a "U.S. senator ... a candidate for president ... a front-runner" is that he "messed around." Even Fox News' Bill O'Reilly said Matthews' comments about Clinton went too far: "I mean, it's rough business what these people over there [at MSNBC] are doing. We don't do that here. We would never say that Senator Clinton got her job because her husband messed around. I mean, that is -- that is a personal attack. And it is questionable whether a network should allow that or not." Matthews periodically gets it into his head that the most important question in the world is whether Bill Clinton will be a "distraction" or whether he will "behave himself." He badgers Clinton aides about the question and warns that Bill Clinton "better watch it." He asks if Clinton will be a "good boy" or be guilty of "misbehavior." Matthews is not so subtly referring to Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinsky. But curiously, he doesn't have the same concerns about McCain or about Rudy Giuliani, as I wrote nearly a year ago. Think about this for a second: Chris Matthews is holding it against Hillary Clinton that her husband cheated on her. But he doesn't hold it against John McCain and Rudy Giuliani that they cheated on their spouses. Matthews seems to think women are to blame when their husbands have affairs -- and men who cheat on their spouses are blameless. And then there's Matthews' fixation on Hillary Clinton's "ambition." In December 1999, Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson appeared on Hardball to discuss Clinton's Senate campaign. Matthews asked Wolfson eight consecutive questions about whether Clinton was "ambitious." Finally, Matthews said, "People who seek political power are ambitious by definition," leading Wolfson to tell him: "if you say so. If it will make you happy, I'll agree." If Matthews has ever displayed as much interest in the "ambition" of male candidates like John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, or Mike Huckabee, he has done so in private. And, in the midst of his years-long assault on Hillary Clinton, much of it either directly based on her gender or on a sexist double standard, Matthews has the audacity to accuse Clinton of being "anti-male" and to insist that "she should just lighten up on this gender -- 'the boys are coming to get me' routine." None of this should surprise us. Chris Matthews acknowledged his feelings about Hillary Clinton long ago: "I hate her. I hate her. All that she stands for." And "she drives some of us [guys] absolutely nuts." But Matthews' questionable treatment of women extends beyond Hillary Clinton. Matthews has described House Speaker Nancy Pelosi as "scary" and suggested she would "castrate" House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer. And he has wondered how she could disagree with President Bush "without screaming? How does she do it without becoming grating?"(...)
[ 12 January 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]
From: "Words Matter" (Mackinnon) | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
wage zombie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7673
|
posted 12 January 2008 09:51 AM
Chris Matthews is a slimeball. And Clinton has definitely been on the receiving end of a lot of sexist smears over the years.But i wouldn't vote (if i had a vote in this race) for the establishment, status quo candidate in order as a response to the media. That's silly. Is the idea that women voted for Clinton because of her emotional moment, or as a response to the subsequent sexist attacks. I think if it's as a response to the attacks, then they're being manipulated by the media (which serves the money interests). I'm not sure what Chris Matthews was doing in the 90s, but for someone like Bill O'Reilly, the Clintons made his career. If the Dems are going to get the WH anyway, then the best move the pundits can make for their own careers is push for a Clinton win. Their ratings will benefit from having Clinton win the nomination. As for Obama playing identity politics, here's a dailykos diary titled, Turning MLK Jr's Dream on its head: quote: what has been disturbing for me is the fact that for the previous three weeks much of the discussion for why we should elect Obama from most of the blogs, Andrew Sullivan, Huffington Post, Daily Kos, and others is that it will send a message that America has changed because it has elected an African-American with the name Barack Hussein Obama. It seemed as a PR move so that the world will "like us" again. Isn't that what corporations do when they are caught being racist or behaving badly to some constituent group? Instead of really changing things from the ground up, they put a figurehead out there as a short cut to real change.
From: sunshine coast BC | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
wage zombie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7673
|
posted 13 January 2008 08:41 AM
Here's a great article by kid oakland on dailykos that examines Clinton's claim of 35 years of being "an agent of change": quote: Has Hillary Clinton, in her life and career, been an agent of change? Undoubtedly so; that is a claim she can rightly make. She has been a tireless advocate for children, health care and education since her early career, she innovated the role of the first lady and advanced the cause of women in many ways, and she has won high approval for her performance as Senator from New York. For all these things, Senator Clinton is guaranteed of high praise for her ongoing life work. Senator Clinton has only recently, however, served as an elected official. She does not have a track record in the Senate, as Senator Kennedy has, of authoring major legislation and moving it successfully through Congress.Further,when Senator Clinton takes blanket claim for accomplishments (or failures) that should more rightly be associated with her husband's presidency, even SCHIP, she is stretching things. In particular, when she says she has "taken on" special interests when, unfortunately, the reverse might be more accurately true, that the special interests took her on and won, voters have a right to view with some skepticism her broad characterizations of her time as first lady and what she means, exactly, by her 35 year career.
From: sunshine coast BC | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wilf Day
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3276
|
posted 15 January 2008 01:30 PM
How is Barack Obama like a post-nasal drip remedy?Oprah can sell them both. Recently she had Dr. Oz on the virtues of Neti Pots. There cute little things are used to rinse your sinuses with a mild solution of salt and soda bicarb, washing away your sinus and allergy problems. Today our local drug store owner said he was out of them, as was his supplier; they are back-ordered. "What's going on?" he asked. "There's a big run on Neti Pots." He must not watch Oprah.
From: Port Hope, Ontario | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|