Youth for Hillary….sing along!

So there is a lot of chatter about no youth following for Hillary but these videos argue otherwise:

This one doesn’t please the feminist in me, which arguable you could say about the previous one but it’s still worth checking out:

He’s Passionate:

THIS ONE IS THE WINNER. I Love it!

 

Don’t be coerced by the press to jump on the Obama bandwagon. PEOPLE ARE JUST AS PASSIONATE ABOUT HILLARY!!!!! An election is not a popularity contest. We are not looking for the coolest or the “sexiest” candidate. (Although if you ask me Hillary is that too.) We are looking to elect the best leader. It takes a life time in politics to make a leader. Don’t be fooled. VOTE HILLARY!

Kim Gandy speaks for Clinton

SO I HATE TO PASS ALONG MESSAGES SECOND HAND, ESPECIALLY WHEN I HAVEN’T WRITTEN IN A WHILE….BUT THIS IS WORTH IT.

Message from NOW PAC Chair Kim Gandy:

In a few hours, at 4:15 am to be exact, I’m headed out in the cold to yet another airport, this time to Chattanooga and then Knoxville, Tennessee to rally and speak for Hillary Clinton.

I’d go anywhere, any time, to shout from the rooftops that Hillary Clinton is the right choice for women, for our families, for our communities and for our future.

Here is why I care so much:

Hillary Clinton is a national leader of the highest order, with the strength and determination and experience to deliver real change to our country. She has been a leader on women’s rights and civil rights for over 30 years.

It is of special importance to me that Hillary is an unparalleled champion for women’s reproductive rights, justice and health. In fact, I’ve just signed a letter from many leaders: Martha Burk, Gloria Feldt, Cecelia Fire Thunder, Lulu Flores, Ellen Malcolm, Irene Natividad, Ellie Smeal, Gloria Steinem, and Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones on why Hillary is the best choice for those of us who care so deeply about these issues.

Hillary has been through fire and emerged stronger with each challenge. She can take anything the Republicans can dish out, and give it back double. The Democrats need her, the country needs her, and she needs your vote on Tuesday.

Make no mistake, Hillary Clinton is the strongest candidate to win in November, and to set our country right. She beat the Republicans in two landslide elections, despite predictions that she couldn’t win in upstate and rural New York. And it will take someone with her economic and national security strengths to beat John McCain. We know she can deliver on Day One — from getting our troops out of Iraq, to fixing the shattered economy and the mortgage crisis, to winning health care that covers every single person in this country.

Please vote on Tuesday for Hillary Clinton, and if you haven’t done it already, please email your friends and contacts in the Super Tuesday states and tell them that:

from her earliest days advising battered women, helping abused children, and providing free legal services to the poor,
to her time in the White House advocating for universal healthcare, championing the S-CHIP (State Child Health Insurance) program, and helping to pass the Violence Against Women Act,
to her service as a U.S. Senator, standing strong for reproductive rights and writing legislation to expand contraceptive access, helping win approval of emergency contraception, sponsoring equal pay legislation, and speaking out on the floor against the nominations of John Roberts and Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court, specifically saying that they would damage Roe v. Wade if confirmed. She was right, and I know we can count on her to nominate pro-women, pro-choice judges to the courts at every level.
She’s always stood up for us, and now it’s time for us to stand up for her with our vote and say “I’m Ready for Hillary.”

I’m ready.

P.S. Robin Morgan’s terrific new essay “Goodbye To All That (#2)” calls out the stereotypes, double standards and toxic viciousness against Hillary Clinton – Our President, Ourselves – and she concludes: “Me, I’m voting for Hillary not because she’s a woman-but because I am.”

Obama in South Carolina

I was in south carolina this weekend visiting my brother. I had the opportunity to share a drink with Obama supporters after their massive win. And while I maintain my support for Hillary, I love the charge that Obama inspires in young people.

Tommorrow when I go to vote (a delegate free vote, but a vote all the same) I will be voting for hillary and if I had my druthers, she would be the candidate that would lead the democratic party to victory in 2008. However, if the country chooses Obama, I’ll stand behind him.

Hillary attcked for her pro-choice position

Women’s e-news sent this out this morning and if you haven’t read it yet, then I thought you might be interested, very timely:

Anti-choice PAC targets Clinton for early Attack

By Allison Stevens

WASHINGTON (WOMENSENEWS)–
Life and Liberty PAC, a new anti-choice political action committee in Washington, D.C., has so far attacked Sen. Hillary Clinton in Iowa, New Hampshire, Michigan and South Carolina and is planning to continue doing so in other states before Feb. 5, when more than 20 states hold nominating contests.

Altogether it plans to spend $500,000 in early primary states on phone calls warning voters that Clinton has been downplaying her support for abortion rights in her race against Illinois Sen. Barack Obama and former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards.

While all three candidates are pro-choice, Mary Lewis–who founded the PAC in September because she said other anti-choice groups were not being aggressive enough–said Clinton is their top target because she is more hostile on the issue. Clinton, for example, is a co-sponsor of the Freedom of Choice Act, a bill that would enshrine protections for abortion rights into law; Obama is not.

You already know that I’m a Hillary fan, so suffice to say we agree in regards to the right to choose.

“Chauvinists Fly Under the Radar”

I couldn’t read this article alone so I am passing it along to all of you out there in the blogosphere. It was originally read it on truth dig:

Chauvinists Fly Under the Radar

Posted on Jan 10, 2008

By Marie Cocco

WASHINGTON—The national media have reveled in self-congratulation over Barack Obama’s historic ascent to become the first African-American to have the nomination of a major party within his grasp. Racism, we have been told, is now a supposed irrelevancy in American politics, a vestige of those past battles that Obama pledges earnestly not to fight.

So as soon as Hillary Clinton defied the polls and won an upset victory in New Hampshire Tuesday night, the pundit chorus immediately cried … what? Racism!

The pre-election polls were wrong, many declared, because white voters must have lied to pollsters about supporting Obama and then went into the booth to vote for a white candidate. Yet there is scant evidence of this: When pre-election polls were averaged, Obama was predicted to get 38 percent of the New Hampshire vote; he got 37, a statistically insignificant difference. Obama beat Clinton soundly among white men. Clinton beat Obama among white women and—significantly—among nonwhite women, whose vote she carried by 12 points.

We have tried mightily as a country to banish race as the -ism none dare to publicly speak. But the national media during this campaign have ignored, if not heartily encouraged, an ugly -ism no one is squeamish about.

To recount the sexist double (and triple and quadruple) standards and misogynist insults to which Clinton has been subjected would take double (or triple or quadruple) the usual column space. Consider this an abbreviated account: Television commentator Chris Matthews suggested last month that prominent male politicians who endorsed Clinton are “castratos in the eunuch chorus.” His MSNBC colleague Tucker Carlson declared that there’s something about Clinton that “feels castrating, overbearing and scary.” Why, Carlson said, “when she comes on television, I involuntarily cross my legs.”

Think, for a moment, of what might happen if a well-known media personality were to say of Obama: “Every time he comes on television, I involuntarily reach for my white hood.” Would even Don Imus survive?

A wholesale rewrite by both the media and Clinton’s opponents transformed her tenure as first lady into a useless credential, and made winning two Senate terms in New York—a state not known for softball politics—the moral equivalent of achieving nothing on her own. Yet back when she actually was first lady, the media depicted Clinton as the most powerful presidential spouse since Eleanor Roosevelt. Clinton’s groundbreaking foreign travels, her discussions with foreign leaders, her rebuke to Chinese dictators, and her failed attempt at overhauling the health insurance system were chronicled as evidence of her unprecedented reach. The right wing spewed vitriol; the left took approving notice.

Yet once she ran for president, Clinton was portrayed as an observer to her husband’s administration—why, The New York Times pointed out, she hadn’t even attended National Security Council meetings. Can you imagine the ruckus if she had?

Such a revelation would likely have caused a bigger stir than did the videotape of an impeccable woman attending a November campaign event for John McCain leaning forward determinedly to ask, “How do we beat the b—-?” An excellent question, McCain replied. The exchange never drew the abundance of national analysis given to Hillary’s cleavage, her alleged “cackle” or those wrinkles that were so pronounced in a photograph that zoomed around the Internet.

Twenty-four years have passed since Geraldine Ferraro was the Democratic vice presidential nominee, the first—and only—woman to have a spot on a major party’s ticket. Ferraro was subjected to George H.W. Bush’s post-debate taunt that he’d kicked a “little ass,” while first lady Barbara Bush assessed Ferraro as someone who “rhymes with rich.” A supposedly enlightened generation later, Clinton has had it far worse.

The senator’s emotional moment in a diner, when her voice caught as she answered a sympathetic question, was immediately dissected as a possible Clintonian calculation. No doubt New Hampshire women thought differently, and brought their—how to say it?—difference of opinion into the voting booth.

Obama’s candidacy may yet deliver us to the promised land of post-racial politics. Right now the idea is either irrational exuberance or a fascinating theory, still to be tested. Neither racism nor sexism has disappeared from American life, and we’d best admit it.

But standards of public discourse should not differ depending on the candidate. If you—or the media—wouldn’t hurl racist insults at Obama, it’s time to call out those who have made Clinton’s candidacy a celebration of their own sexism.

Marie Cocco’s e-mail address is mariecocco(at)washpost.com.

© 2008, Washington Post Writers Group

Why do we allow this kind of gender bashing without backlash?

Are Obama and Kerry the future for this country?

So, I’m supposed to talk feminism and I do most of the time, but somehow, with Hillary running, it feels like anything political is feminism these days.

I read on Politico today that John Kerry endorsed Obama, which is good for him. Kerry lends Obama the “experiance” that Hillary already has, and he brings on a slew of “older” democrats, who don’t like Obama’s platform of change…the old dog new tricks bit.

I could stand here and say no biggie…Hillary already had this crown nailed, but really it doesn’t feel that way. It feels like the Kerry support will be a decent hit to the Hillary campaign. I’m no politico…but he was the last front runner for the party…but then again, he lost.

You think Kerry’s vying for a spot as Obama’s VP???

Hillary behind in New Hampshire

A good friend of mine who is fairly active in florida politics and has always been a political mind, used to ask this question at college keg parties: Who will be president first a black man or a white woman?

The answer was almost always a black man but not until 2020 or 2050. So, in some ways we’re ahead of the curve. But with this in mind, I find myself wondering what exactly do people see in Obama? I know that he is touting change, and I know we need change, but is saying you’ll bring change a full platform for a presidential canidate?

As a country we are dissatisfied, as we should be. But we cannot be reactionary voters, especially if we’re women.

My friend notes that for her this is a gender war. (She wouldn’t say that to her constituates, but she feels it.) America does not like women in power, feminists should.

Right now we face huge International problems and we need someone with experiance in the hot seat. Hillary is that canidate, and as far as I’m concerened her being a woman is just a nifty perk.