How to lose a voter in two easy steps
Step 1: Throw rocks from inside your glass house…
Clinton: Wright ‘would not have been my pastor’ Did I miss her distancing herself from Ferraro and Steinem after their comments? Because last I heard she was still very close to both of them. And their comments were presented in context as opposed to snippets of a much larger speech that actually was not racist. Too bad the same can’t be said of Ferraro and Steinem’s commentaries. I’m also wondering why she mentioned denouncing Don Imus. It is not as though they were close, or even on friendly terms. He went after her on his show on a fairly regular basis.
Step 2: Decide the voters are too stupid to see the glass walls…
Meanwhile we’re supposed to ignore her lying about getting shot at in Bosnia, and instead continue going in circles about Obama’s religious ties. While we’re talking religion what about Hillary Clinton’s ties to The Family and Doug Coe? Now, I don’t particularly care about her religious affiliation or whether or not she cut off Steinem and Ferraro in her personal life. But I do care that she lied about the circumstances of her arrival in Bosnia. I really care that her politics are so dirty and that she’s clearly willing to do anything to be President regardless of the will of the people.
My support for Obama is no secret, but even if I was still on the fence (which I was at the beginning of this election cycle) tactics like this are precisely the reason I’m not supporting Hillary Clinton. Much as it pains me to say it, if she somehow gets the nomination I really can’t see myself voting for her. My options will be to cross the aisle and vote for a Republican (for the first time in my life), vote for the 3rd party candidate, or simply stay home. There’s not enough clothespins in the world to get me to vote for Hillary Clinton. Between the racism, the complete disregard for the voters, and the out and out lies? Isn’t this the behavior we’re supposed to be trying to get out of the White House?
Karnythia is a writer, a historian, and occasionally a loud mouth. In between raising hell and raising kids she usually manages to find time to contemplate the meaning of life as a black woman in America. Her posts on any topic can be found at her Livejournal.
am across the atlantic replying to this…
the way i see it is that clinton will stop at nothing short of destroying the democratic party if she is not nominated..
hell hath no fury and all that…
she sees the nomination as her right and something owed and wants womankind and black people to vote for her..
she did not see obama coming this far.. no-one in the party did..
this man is not another safe ‘jesse jackson’.. only perceived good enough to galvanise the black vote for them..
the party is somewhat to blame for things to have gone this far…
obama can win…
obama doing so well was not part of the game plan and so no-one has told this woman quietly to step off the stage…
someone needs to do it now…
What made me especially furious about all of this was that she equated Don Imus with Rev. Wright.
There is no comparison.
NONE.
I would venture to go out on a limb and speculate that Clinton Just Doesn’t Get It.
Where was all that damn fallout with Geraldine Ferrarro.
If anything, Ferrarro’s comments limiting Obama to nothing more than a quota-hire or a sympathy case is really not much different than Don Imus’s comments.
^(am actually referring to Clinton’s lack of commentary about the Ferraro situation)
I feel like people of the Democratic persuasion who say that they won’t vote for Clinton if she is nominated are losing sight of the big picture. “Between the racism, the complete disregard for the voters, and the out and out lies…” all sound like things you could say about McCain but to a greater degree. And there are arguments to be made about Obama falling into some of those categories as well.
Clinton may not be your ideal candidate but surely she is better than McCain. Don’t let the big picture slip away. McCain would be many degrees worse than Clinton, and we need all the votes we can get ensuring he doesn’t continue the Bush legacy, as he seems so determined to do.
Who said I was a Democrat? And really if you lay Hillary and McCain side by side? There’s not much difference. Especially not in terms of the issues that matter the most to me. So I’d be picking between devils. I vote for candidates, not party lines. Though for the most part I vote for Dems I’ve also voted for quite a few Independent candidates in other elections. I’ve always voted for a Dem as President because the Republican option was someone I could not stomach. This year one of the Democratic options is simply impossible for me to vote for, and really by comparison McCain doesn’t pain me as much I thought he would. I wouldn’t have been able to vote for Romney or Huckabee, but McCain and Hillary will both keep us in the mess Bush and Co created.
you articulated my feelings exactly….if she is gonna be the dem candidate, i will abstain from voting or vote 3rd party (and effectively waste a vote) again. she is no different from mc cain- support for iraq, unquestionable support for israel, and taking money from god knows who.
@ karnythia
Let me start by saying that I distrust Obama but that I distrust Hillary ten times more. And I agree in essence that there’s a hell of a lot of similarity btwn McCain and Hillary.
But I think the idea that one can vote for an individual without voting for a party is probably wishful thinking. If either Obama or Hillary wins, the Democratic party has won the white house. If McCain wins, the republicans have won it. There’s a (very scary) reason independent candidates are completely unviable — it’s because presidential politics is, at its core, a party game. The party gets you elected, keeps you in office, helps you out in legislative battles, etc. We can talk all we want about Obama’s grass roots support, but if he were an independent he would have been froced out of the game ages ago — a pretty clear indication that, whomever else has helped him get this far, at the end of the day he –and HRC — are going to be ultimately accountable to their party.
All of this is just to say that people should be clear with themselves about what their votes mean. There is no such thing as voting for an individual in our current system — to vote for McCain is to vote for the republican party, whether we want it to mean that or not.
Dirty tricks are part of all their campaigns, and Hillary’s are simply the most visible. And I do think she’s probably catching a little more hell for being ‘negative’ b/c she’s a woman. ‘Mr. Integrity’ McCain wrote campaign finance reform laws and now he’s blatantly breaking them. More importantly, though, I’m troubled by the fact that a number of folks who have rightfully raked Hillary and Bill over the coals for subtly racist comments (and their pals for less-subtle comments) have given McCain a free pass. Doesn’t anyone remember or care about his defiant, multiple-incident use of the word ‘gook’ in public? And please don’t anyone tell me it’s ok b/c he’s a vietnam vet. If a ‘black hawk down’ vet were running for office and talked about being captured by the ‘niggers’ in Somalia, his ass would have been handed to him long ago. Just saying….
As a woman of color I understand the outrage against Ferraro’s comments. They were wrong. However, to compare Hillary’s relationship w/ Ferraro who played a minor role in the campaign with that of Obama and Wright is unfair. Ferraro is not Obama’s pastor nor has she been his spiritual advisor for 20 years. Ferraro did not marry Hillary and Bill and baptize Chelsea.
Also, the comparison to Imus was made because Obama is on record as saying he would fire him for his racist comments. Some see Wright’s comments as racist also and so some wonder why he forgives Wright and not someone like Imus. Of course, many of us don’t think that Wright’s comments were necessarily racist, but that is why the comparison is being made. http://youtube.com/watch?v=g0pNjhZEqdQ
By the way, Obama just came out and said he would not have stayed at his church if Wright had not retired. So does your criticism of Hillary still stand for saying Wright would not be her pastor? (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/28/obama.pastor/index.html)
Anyway, I understand the frustration against Hillary, but I think it is important not to overstate what is being said. In the end it is all about the Supreme Court to me. The next president will potentially appoint 2-3 justices during their first term. As much as you may hate Hillary, is it really worth handing the supreme court to the republicans for decades if she is the nominee?
Angela,
You’ll notice I did not just reference Ferraro though I must say I find it disingenuous to say that the relationships are not comparable since Ferrarro is not a member of the clergy. She has been a staunch supporter and close friend of Hillary’s for years. And her comments (and Hillary’s refusal to condemn her comments) was IMO far more distressing than anything that happened during the hullabaloo over Wright.
Equating Imus’ behavior with Wright’s sermons is a ridiculous analogy that really should not be brought up by someone who claims to be qualified to lead the free world. Given that Wright was one of the people to whom Bill Clinton turned after the Lewinsky scandal? Yes, my criticism still stands that she would now claim he would not be her pastor, especially as it was said to deflect attention from her lies about Bosnia. The fact that it’s all about the Supreme Court for you does not mean it is all about the Supreme Court for me. Not to mention that there is no guarantee the nominees Hillary would propose would be any more palatable than McCain’s choices.
The fact that Obama said he would’ve left if Wright hadn’t retired makes him look a little less appealing in my eyes. But he’s still leaps and bounds over Clinton. Also? I’m really going to need people to listen to the entire clip before making Wright/Imus comparisons because poking fun at a group of young black women is quite different than (RIGHTFULLY) criticizing your government.
On the subject of Wright: I don’t think Wright’s speech was racist. I only listened to the major pieces of it that have been floating around youtube, but he seemed pretty on point with a lot of his anger in that goddamn America segment.
I do, however, think the speech was unforgivably sexist. In his rant against Hillary he essentially denied that sexism even exists. He said, “Hillary has never had her people defined as nonpersons, Hillary aint had to work twice as hard just to get accepted…” Uh… yeah… Women have been treated as nonpersons throughout the world for much of history, still are in some places, and couldn’t even vote here until 1920. Of COURSE she’s had to work harder than a lot of people in order to get accepted. She’s a WOMAN. Duh. To me this is as bad as saying that racism isn’t a problem in our society. It reeks of male privilege. Racism and sexism are both serious problems that need to be addressed. It’s not acceptable to pretend either of them doesn’t exist. Uncool and hypocritical.
Of course that’s not what the media has criticized Wright over — it’s all about OMG he’s racist! And as mentioned, I thought the race stuff he said was on point, his anger justifiable. But his blatant denial of sexism is unacceptable.
“My options will be to cross the aisle and vote for a Republican (for the first time in my life), vote for the 3rd party candidate, or simply stay home.”…
Please don’t :( at least Hillary is pro-choice. In this election getting a pro-choice person into office is a huge deal for me. I think I like Obama a bit more anyway, but I’d vote for either.
lco,
If anything Wright was pointing out her privilege, if anything, not making a sexist statement.
Thewayoftheid,
I, and others I know who heard that speech, did not feel it came across that way. Wright ranted about the hardships of racism while completely ignoring those of sexism. His litany of grievances (never been called a n—-, etc) could just as easily have been written this way by a white feminist:
“Barack has never been called a cunt. Barack has never had to worry he might be raped if he wandered alone into a bad neighborhood. Barack has never had to work twice as hard just to get accepted…”
The implication of such a speech would be that Obama is privileged while Hillary struggles. I would call it racist because it ignores the incredible obstacles that race creates in our society. Of course Obama has had to work twice as hard! A feminist who ignores that (Ferraro et al) is blinded by white privilege.
But Hillary has also had to work twice as hard to overcome another sort of privilege. And the heaps of misogynistic hatred, commentary, etc., towards her this primary season only further reveal that. Wright’s attitude is not better than that of racist white feminists, IMO. She has white privilege. Obama has male privilege. They both have had to face tremendous obstacles as a result of prejudice; denial of that is just assertion of one type of privilege over another.
The energy with which Reed documents the wackodoodle whiteright on Wright is splendid. It’s not that people who write and comment here, for instance, don’t know any of what he lays out, and who these batsh*t fellows are, and yes, alas, some are females too, but he’s got what it takes to face head-on and write out the endless list of them, what they say, who their associates are who give these spawn of satan their never-go-to-jail-or-get-nailed cards.
You can see it here, if you like.
Some people don’t like Reed much, or at all for all kinds of reasons, including for feminist ones. But I’ve always admired his writing, whether or no. His invention, his energy, his wordslinger capacity — well, the reasons one admires a writer.
Love, C.
Yeah, the Reed article does lay out pretty clearly the double standard being applied to Obama re: Wright.
I’m sorry to say I think we’ll only see more of this as the general election season gets going. It’s OK in mainstream (white) American society for someone to be a little (or a lot) racist; that’s how the dominant culture is. And of course if you cry “racism” too much, you’re playing the race card or being incredibly anal with your insistence on political correctness.
But if on the other hand a PoC should make a remark against whites, mainstream society is oh-so-happy to fling back cries of “racism” as if to say, “See? We’re not prejudiced. YOU PoC are.” Like that somehow removes all responsibility for racism from the shoulders of whites.
It’s a really stupid, infuriating double standard. White people can be racist, but PoC have to be PERFECT, well-behaved, polite, etc., or lose all credibility in complaints of racism in society.
I think the comparisons between Clinton and McCain are off-base. Yes, Clinton is likely (if elected) to keep us in Iraq for significantly longer than Obama would, but she has said she’d begin bringing troops home within six months, while McCain has said he’d keep troops in Iraq for 100 years to get his way. Clinton has not sought the endorsement of insane fundamentalist preachers the way McCain did. Clinton’s record over the past fifteen years shows way more respect for evidence and less reliance on blind faith than McCain’s does. Clinton may have wanted to join the Marines when she was younger, but McCain sang “bomb, bomb, bomb Iran” IN THIS CAMPAIGN.
I don’t think saying “If Obama doesn’t get the nomination, I’m going to vote for McCain” makes any more sense than saying “If Obama does get the nomination, I’m going to vote for McCain.”
*rereads post and comments* Where did I say I was voting for McCain?
HC doesn’t get a lot of things. She better not blow this for the Dem Party. I can’ t take McCain-Bush Dumbya Jr.
“Women have been treated as nonpersons throughout the world for much of history, still are in some places, and couldn’t even vote here until 1920.”
Which “women” of whom you speak?
White women?
Black women?
White women WERE able to vote under the 19TH Amendment, Black women were not.
Black men received the right to vote with the 15TH Amendment (not black women/black people as so many erroneously point out. Not saying you stated this, but, it galls me the ignorance that people have of the Constitution’s Amendments).
So, since many enlightened people know that women have suffered the world over, stating that WOMEN did not receive the right to vote trivializes and dismisses the hells that black women went through at the hands of WHITE WOMAN AND WHITE MAN RACISM during the 1st AND 2nd Feminists waves.
WHITE WOMEN received the right to vote with the enactment of the 19TH Amendment.
BLACK WOMEN did not, especially in the American South, where 65% of black people lived.
Black women, like black men, did not receive the right to vote until decades later…………….with the signing into law the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
Maybe it’s just me, but, I am tired of white women always being the default WOMAN whenever people mention the word “woman”.
And yes, Rev. Wright did attack Clinton’s white woman privilege.
She may be a woman, but, in the end she is still a white woman, with all the privileges that white skin gives.
And white women in IN AMERICA have never suffered the hells that Black and Native American women have endured and survived.
Karnythia,
You didn’t say you were voting for McCain, but you did say you don’t see any real differences between them.
Ann,
As Wright was discussing Clinton, I was referring to white women, yes. I should have been more specific about that. I don’t believe I suggested anywhere that white women have suffered as much as WoC, and I would never make that argument. Wright’s speech concerned the privileges of a white woman vs. a black man, and made a comparison between the two, so that was what I was referring to.
What I said was that Obama has male privilege, Clinton has white privilege. And Wright clearly (to my mind) ignores ALL the obstacles that white women face because of sexism by saying things like “Hillary never had to work twice as hard” blah blah. And I am sorry, but as a white woman? I know I sure as hell have to work twice as hard as most white men to get anywhere. Yes I have white privilege. But I feel the effects of sexism everyday, dragging me down, making life miserable in all kinds of little (and not so little) ways. So it is not cool of Wright to dismiss that by implying that male privilege does not exist, or is any less a hurdle than white privilege. Obama has to face obstacles. So does Hillary. Period.
[ “It’s a really stupid, infuriating double standard. White people can be racist, but PoC have to be PERFECT, well-behaved, polite, etc., or lose all credibility in complaints of racism in society.” ]
And never be ANGRY, either.
Love, C.
That, too.
The anger gets conflated with hatred in the mind of the indignant white:
“ANGRY at white people? OMG, how dare you HATE white people! YOU ARE A RACIST!!! How dare you expect white people to listen to you when you are racist! So there.”
I think that argument (with differing degrees of articulateness and condescension) gets posted on this site at least once a month.
Seriously do you folks stereotype white people much????????????? All I’ve read the past couple posts about how much “white” people cry racism and how we’re so privileged. I guess I’m just happy this is coming most likely from the educated POC out there. Most blacks I know don’t own a computer, but they’re also the same ones I can get along with and don’t worry about crucifying me just because I was born white. You people do absolutely nothing to help the cause, you actually make it harder for us to get along. Have it your way though, I’m white so I’ve got it made : )
^ ^ ^ Speak of the devil…
(FYI, happierthanyou, I am, in fact, white. And so far those scary educated POC haven’t come to crucify me. But it is marvelously enlightened of you to get along with only those blacks who don’t own computers. They do tend to get uppity with education, don’t they?)
^^^^ Was that meant to be funny? Illustrating the preceding observations, maybe? I believe there was a post on here recently about how satire only works if it’s directed at somebody (or institution) with power, and preferably also not stupid.
Oops, Ico beat me to it.
Ico.
Many people do not know the history of the suffragette movement, (not saying you do not), but, whenever I read a comment posted by anyone that “Women got the vote in 1920”, I have to ask “What women?” Looking at the time frame, only white women could vote.
Not black men (obtained the right to vote “on paper”) with the 15TH Amendment [countless black men murdered while trying to exercise the right to vote;
Not Black women (obtained the right to vote on “paper” ) with the 20TH Amendment; countless black women destroyed while trying to exercise the right to vote;
Not Native American women (who had NO RIGHT TO VOTE). Native Americans were not declared U.S. citizens until 1924.
That is why I questioned which women of whom you were speaking.
Yes, white women face sexism. ALL women face sexism. Compound that with racism, black and other WOC face what many black women call the double jeopardy.
As a black woman I wonder which is more sick and twisted: racist hatred from non-black men (white, Latino, Asian, Native American [and believe me, black women have suffered from racist hate from more than just white men]); OR, sexism from all men (white, men of other races—as well as black men).
It is more oppressive, because it is a double-beat-down. But, that is the uniqueness of the experiences of WOC: we have seen and experienced IT ALL.
As I stated on a post at my blog, fighting the Hydra-headed monster of “Isms” is something that millions of WOC have much experience with, which is why I have much contempt for the so-called white feminists through the years who cared nothing for WOC. The so-called feminists who couldn’t’ wait to get up on an even par with the white man, even if it meant kicking WOC to the curb (something that many middle-, upper-class white feminists are often so ready to do.)
Much of which many so-called middle-, upper-class white feminists still do.
Being a black woman I do realize that many men look at me as a black woman first (hypersexualized because of all the millions of lies told by white men against black women since 1619). But, on the other hand, sexism from all men, even your own (black men) who have the audacity to compare all black women to white women (never mind if some particular white women can have less morals than some black women.) stings much worse.
So, for me, as a black woman, I face more than sexism. For me, I have to fight against racist/sexist hatreds created against black women by white men, and in many cases, kept into place by some of the self-hating black men who reside in my community, as well as by other MOC.
“What I said was that Obama has male privilege, Clinton has white privilege. And Wright clearly (to my mind) ignores ALL the obstacles that white women face because of sexism by saying things like “Hillary never had to work twice as hard” blah blah. And I am sorry, but as a white woman? I know I sure as hell have to work twice as hard as most white men to get anywhere. Yes I have white privilege. But I feel the effects of sexism everyday, dragging me down, making life miserable in all kinds of little (and not so little) ways. So it is not cool of Wright to dismiss that by implying that male privilege does not exist, or is any less a hurdle than white privilege. Obama has to face obstacles. So does Hillary. Period.”
True.
ALL MEN have male privilege. Even black men. Just because a man is black does not make him any less a member of the “Men’s Club”.
The three groups of people in America who have given the most hells to black women are the following:
-White men
-White women
AND
-Black men
White men started calling black women “bitches”
“whores/wenches”.
Now, 8 years into the millennium, who needs a white man to call a black woman a bitch when there are some self-hating black men who will do it for the white man.
Today, 8 years into the millennium, black women STILL have to fight both racism from white men and white women and sexism from black men and all other men.
Shit.
What the hell.
In addition to worshipping whiteness, this country also worships maleness.
Just as there have been white women (the most well-known—so-called white feminists [middle-, upper-class] who have been racists against black women right along with white men (and many white women still are), so too have black men been sexist against black women, and thinking only of their agendas that benefited them only as well.
Yes, male privilege brings all the males into the fold, even if it means stomping on and destroying the women of your own race.
And black women still have to fight both racism and sexism——from white men, white women, black men——–and everyone else out there who does not have black women (or other WOC’s needs and interests in mind).
“What I said was that Obama has male privilege, Clinton has white privilege.”
Indeed.
White men have privilege.
White women have privilege.
Black men have privilege.
All the Blacks are not men; all the women are not white………………
…………………But, Many of Us are Still Brave.
And many (white men; white women; black men) have walked across the backs of millions of black women in this country to get to what they wanted at the expense of many black women.
And Clinton is no better than George Bush with all the lies she has been telling (Yugoslavia).
Clinton is nothing but a white man in a dress (well, in the case of Clinton, a white woman in white men’s clothing.)
ABW.
My last comment did not go through.
Am I on “comment moderation”?
What bubble does that poster inhabit?
I am seeing particularly white males everywhere screeching “racist!” re Wright. And how ungrateful black are to all the white people who have tried to ‘hep’ them and that this is best country for black people to live in there ever was.
No matter what facts, documents, etc. you bring out, how many quotes from other white racist males, you cannot get through to them because — they are so embarrassingly obviously reveling in their joy of howling ‘racist’ at a black man.
These guys, btw, also howl how sick they are of not being able to call a woman a ‘cunt,’ etc. How sicksicksick of political correctness they are. They resent not being able to continue in the ways of, presumably, their fathers, and this is one of the opportunties, as they see it, to get some of their contempt on.
Love, C.
I don’t think Clinton is foolish enough to write an accurate account of not being shot at in Bosnia in her book and then think she can get away with telling a different version later – either saying she was shot at was a mistake, or she’s stupid, and she may be many things, but I don’t think stupid is one of them.
Thank goodness someone other then myself is saying it.
Cheers hun.
Blacks4Barack presents:
Hillary’s Religion (cult ?) ‘THE FAMILY’
Very Scary !
Prays To Jesus For The Elite To Rule The World
The media has repeatedly aired the short clips of Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s rhetoric in attempt to discredit and smear Barack Obama. But what’s even more interesting is the fact that the media never discusses Hillary Clinton’s religion, which is extremely telling and even frightening. A closer look into her ‘religion’ gives one a clearer picture of why she is the way she is.In a recent article by Steven Brandt many truths about Hillary’s religion, called ‘ The Family’ will make you shutter. The question is….where’s the media on this one ?
Brandt writes, “You don’t choose your family, but you choose what church you want to attend.” said Hillary Clinton, to reporters and editors of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review on Tuesday the 25th. This is an interesting choice of words, since — while we mostly hear about her Methodist upbringing — Hillary Clinton has chosen to associate herself with The Family (also known as the Fellowship), a very conservative, fundamentalist organization started by Abraham Vereide…
“…an immigrant preacher who in 1935 organized a small group of businessmen sympathetic to European fascism, fusing the Far Right with his own polite but authoritarian faith. From that core, Vereide built an international network of fundamentalists who spoke the language of establishment power, a “family” that thrives to this day. In public, they host prayer breakfasts; in private they preach a gospel of “biblical capitalism,” military might, and American empire. Citing Hitler, Lenin, and Mao, Doug Coe, the Family’s current leader, declares, “We work with power where we can, build new power where we can’t.”
This quote is taken from the book on The Family by the same name which will be published in May… a book which claims to
“…dramatically challenge conventional wisdom about American fundamentalism, revealing its crucial role in the unraveling of the New Deal, the waging of the Cold War, and the no-holds-barred economics of globalization. The question Sharlet believes we must ask is not “What do fundamentalists want?” but “What have they already done?”
A long article was written about Hillary Clinton’s participation in this organization last September in Mother Jones, and The Family, itself, was the subject of an extensive article in Harper’s in March of 2003. And on March 21st, The Nation published an article on Hillary and The Family by Barbara Ehrenreich that was published on The Huffington Post and CBS News’ web site.
The Family avoids the word Christian but worships Jesus, though not the Jesus who promised the earth to the “meek.” They believe that, in mass societies, it’s only the elites who matter, the political leaders who can build God’s “dominion” on earth. Insofar as The Family has a consistent philosophy, it’s all about power – cultivating it, building it and networking it together into ever-stronger units, or “cells.”
…wrote Ms.Ehrenreich.
Is it possible that Hillary’s participation in this fundamentalist group — which apparently preaches the “gospel of military might” — would help explain her vote in favor of authorizing President Bush to attack Iraq? Is it possible her pro-NAFTA stance during her husband’s administration comes from its embrace of “the no-holds-barred economics of globalization”? Is it possible that the sense some get that Hillary feels entitled to be president comes in part from this group’s belief that “it’s only the elites who matter”?
I encourage any reporter covering Hillary’s campaign to ask her about all this.
At a time when so many people are wondering what sort of effect the Rev. Wright’s sermons may have had on Barack Obama, I think it’s only fair to ask what sort of effect The Family’s fundamentalist mission has had – and continues to have – on Hillary Clinton. We know that George Bush engages in truly fundamentalist thinking. There is no person or new information capable of challenging his belief that what he already knows is right. Is Hillary Clinton like this in some way? I am not sure.
But the opinion I have formed from this is that – while Hillary Clinton may be considered a Liberal by many – on the inside she is a deeply Conservative person… possibly as close to being a Republican today as she was when she was a young woman supporting Senator Goldwater. This helps explain, to me, why she and John McCain are such good friends. They are both drawn to the use of military power and free market capitalism… and to taking money from lobbyists. The other opinion I have formed is that those who say there are no policy differences between Hillary and Barack haven’t taken into account how their religious differences might impact the policies they would actually seek to implement as president.
(end of article)
So now a few things make more sense about Hillary. In review, she’s in a kinda power-hungry cult which is actually run by her fellow Republicans which she is secretly one of ! It also makes sense why she could care less about detroying the Democratic Party. Also, beware of her claim to work toward ending the Iraq war. That is another great lie that she is telling. If you listen to her claims she commonly repeats ‘ I will start getting troops out within my first 60 days ‘…..How many ? 3….1000…10,000 ? Don’t be fooled. Hillary has no desire to end the war. She’ll bring 5 troops home then say that she kept her word.
The media should be called out for not exposing this cult. Problem is, they would also be revealing the truths about their fellow Republican’s plan and prayers to ‘rule the world’ by any means. So it’s up to us, regular Americans like you and I, to help spread the truth in spite of the media…..For The Re-Birth of America !
Greg Jones
Visit: http://www.Blacks4Barack.org (A Multi-Racial Organization)
For all you ‘if Clinton loses, I’m voting for McCain’ folk, or you ‘if Obama loses I’m voting for McCain’ folk. Consider this thought: your vote is not only symbolic – in this election the results will deeply effect your life… If the following info. does not convince, consider the following two words, SUPREME COURT. (As in, there are a couple old right wingers on the bench in need of retiring, and all we need is a McCain appointee to join Roberts and Alito, Bush’s two, truly reactionary rightist appointees, to finish shredding the bill of rights and the constitution…) and they will, my people.
10 things you should know about John McCain (but possibly don’t):
1. John McCain voted against establishing a national holiday in honor of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Now he says his position has “evolved,” yet he’s continued to oppose key civil rights laws.1
2. According to Bloomberg News, McCain is more hawkish than Bush on Iraq, Russia and China. Conservative columnist Pat Buchanan says McCain “will make Cheney look like Gandhi.”2
3. His reputation is built on his opposition to torture, but McCain voted against a bill to ban waterboarding, and then applauded President Bush for vetoing that ban.3
4. McCain opposes a woman’s right to choose. He said, “I do not support Roe versus Wade. It should be overturned.”4
5. The Children’s Defense Fund rated McCain as the worst senator in Congress for children. He voted against the children’s health care bill last year, then defended Bush’s veto of the bill.5
6. He’s one of the richest people in a Senate filled with millionaires. The Associated Press reports he and his wife own at least eight homes! Yet McCain says the solution to the housing crisis is for people facing foreclosure to get a “second job” and skip their vacations.6
7. Many of McCain’s fellow Republican senators say he’s too reckless to be commander in chief. One Republican senator said: “The thought of his being president sends a cold chill down my spine. He’s erratic. He’s hotheaded. He loses his temper and he worries me.”7
8. McCain talks a lot about taking on special interests, but his campaign manager and top advisers are actually lobbyists. The government watchdog group Public Citizen says McCain has 59 lobbyists raising money for his campaign, more than any of the other presidential candidates.8
9. McCain has sought closer ties to the extreme religious right in recent years. The pastor McCain calls his “spiritual guide,” Rod Parsley, believes America’s founding mission is to destroy Islam, which he calls a “false religion.” McCain sought the political support of right-wing preacher John Hagee, who believes Hurricane Katrina was God’s punishment for gay rights and called the Catholic Church “the Antichrist” and a “false cult.”9
10. He positions himself as pro-environment, but he scored a 0—yes, zero—from the League of Conservation Voters last year.10