Hillary On Hallmark Channel Now: Town Hall
Meeting

post from TalkLeft on 04 February 2008 09:18:00 PM. © TalkLeft

Hillary Clinton is holding a national town hall meeting now on the Hallmark Channel. I just tuned in, Bill Clinton is appearing from San Francisco, fielding questions from the audience for Hillary to answer.

You can also watch at Hillary's website. She's discussing veterans right now and promising legislation.

Now they are in Birmingham, AL, and an attendee asks a question about outsourcing jobw.

It's very low key, not like a campaign stump speech but a conversation.

Read The Full Article:
http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/TalkleftThePoliticsOfCrime/~3/229282181/8045

Digg this

A Book Meme

post from Moue Magazine on 04 February 2008 09:16:34 PM. © Moue Magazine

Archcrone tagged me to do the following book meme (and I’m honored). The rules are:1. Pick up the nearest book (of at least 123 pages). 2. Open the book to page 123. 3. Find the fifth sentence. 4. Post the next three sentences. 5. Tag five people.[...]

Read The Full Article:
http://mouemagazine.wordpress.com/2008/02/04/a-book-meme/

Digg this

Hardball panel ponders reasons Clinton
"tear[ed] up" with Yale former colleagues

post from Media Matters for America on 04 February 2008 09:13:52 PM. © Media Matters for America

On the February 4 edition of MSNBC's Hardball, discussing Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's (D-NY) appearance earlier that day at the Yale Child Study Center -- which the Associated Press described as "an emotional reunion Monday with a colleague from the early days of her legal career as a child advocate" -- host Chris Matthews said, "Hillary Clinton, this question of tearing up, is this now become part of the story line of this campaign?" Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson remarked:[...]

Read The Full Article:
http://feeds.mediamatters.org/~r/mediamatters/latest/~3/229276360/200802040012

Digg this

In Defense of Flip-Flopping

post from Liberal College Kid on 04 February 2008 09:04:51 PM. © Liberal College Kid

Over the last decade of American politics, the term flip-flopping has become a ubiquitous insult and one of the ultimate undesirable characteristics for public officials. It seems like no one knows the first time that this particular expression, normally a name for a certain type of sandal, was used in reference to politics. Originally, as [...]

Read The Full Article:
http://liberalcollegekid.com/2008/02/04/in-defense-of-flip-flopping/

Digg this

WWSD: What Would Suffragists Do Will Women Vote
Their DNA [Digg]

post from The Zaftig Redhead on 04 February 2008 09:03:54 PM. © The Zaftig Redhead

There are two schools of thought: 1) If you're a woman, you vote for Hillary because of what it means to women everywhere. It's past time we elected a woman and she's ready for the job. 2) If I'm supposed to vote for Hillary just because I'm a woman and she's a woman, isn't that almost as sexist as NOT voting for her because she's a woman?

Read The Full Article:
http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/TheZaftigRedhead/~3/229286720/WWSD_What_Would_Suff
ragists_Do_Will_Women_Vote_Their_DNA

Digg this

Hillary Clinton Nationwide Townhall Thread

post from MyDD on 04 February 2008 09:00:34 PM. © MyDD

Please Support the MyDD 2008 Fundraiser Consider this a thread on Hillary Clinton's nationwide townhall event, which you can watch on the Hallmark channel in the case that you have cable and on HillaryClinton.com if you don't. Todd's at the site in Los[...]

Read The Full Article:
http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/mydd/~3/229370447/21042

Digg this

Rule of Law Yeah, Right.

post from Firedoglake on 04 February 2008 09:00:07 PM. © Firedoglake

Over at my home blog, my co-blogger MEC informs me that with the issuance of Executive Order 13457, ?Protecting American Taxpayers From Government Spending on Wasteful Earmarks?, Bush has broken the law yet again and given himself a line-item veto:In[...]

Read The Full Article:
http://firedoglake.com/2008/02/04/rule-of-law-yeah-right/

Digg this

Rotten To The Core

post from Crooks and Liars on 04 February 2008 08:50:03 PM. © Crooks and Liars

In all the furor over primaries, polls and presidential candidates, I wanted to call your attention to a very important set of hearings going on right now and where you can get more information on it. Daily Kos: Even as the attention of most Americans ? and a large part of the rest of the world? [...]

Read The Full Article:
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/02/04/rotten-to-the-core/

Digg this

Can Obama Win The NominationTomorrow

post from TalkLeft on 04 February 2008 08:48:00 PM. © TalkLeft

By Big Tent Democrat

John Nichols of the The Nation says it is possible:

What would a sweep look like? Obama would not have to win every state or every delegate, but he would have to dominate the map in a manner that left no doubt that Democratic primary and caucus voters prefer his candidacy to that of the woman who not long ago was busy outlining her Democratic National Convention acceptance speech.

Fair enough, if rather vague. But Nichols outlines his vision of this sweep:

To do this, Obama would has to begin by winning California convincingly. That's possible. He's moved even or ahead most Golden State polls.

Fair enough. What though if Clinton wins Cali convincingly? Does that mean nothing? Nichols does not say.

Obama then must come close to Clinton in her adopted home state of New York. To do that, he needs to carry New York City and do well enough statewide to pull at least 40 percent of the vote and roughly that percentage of the state's delegates. . . .

And if he does not? A Clinton win no?

Next comes Illinois, Obama's home state. He needs to win with over 70 percent to keep Clinton's take of delegates from congressional districts in the suburbs and downstate from being worthy of note.

70 percent would be impressive no doubt. What if it is 60%? A Clinton "win?"

Once the touchstone states are out of the way, we move to the difficult-but-not-unimaginable part: Obama must carry either New Jersey or Connecticut, states adjacent to New York that had been seen as safe Clinton turf until recently. New Jersey seems the more likely prospect. . . .

Hmm, I would have thought Connecticut more likely but fine. And if Clinton wins Jersey by 10? A Clinton win then?

Also in the northeast, Obama needs to win Massachusetts. That would have been unimaginable not long ago, but with the Kennedy family pulling for him is such a high-profile manner, it is now required. . . .

I like that Nichols points out that the Kennedy, Kerry and Patrick endorsements SHOULD make this a good Obama state. Frankly, a Clinton win would be big it seems to me. This should be an Obama state. Why isn't it?

In the south, Obama should take Georgia and Alabama, states with large African-American voter blocs. The exit of John Edwards -- who was splitting the southern white vote with Clinton -- complicates things a bit. But if Obama does not take Georgia and Alabama, he's got no claim to a sweep.

Agreed.

Tennessee and Oklahoma look good for her. Count Kansas for Obama -- it's his virtual home state, by virtue of his mother's roots there. Obama should also take Colorado, where he opened his campaign offices last fall, and Idaho . . . Alaska as well . . .

Strange that Obama's failure to ignite Tennessee and Oklahoma has given no pause to the claims of Obama's wide appeal. Whither the heartland? Nichols gives Obama a free pass here that seems questionable to me.

Minnesota [for Obama], where Obama's Saturday appearance in Minnesota drew a huge crowd. Obama is also looking strong in North Dakota, where popular Senator Kent Conrad is solidly behind his colleague from Illinois.

Mark them up for Obama, so what if he fails there?

Missouri, where Clinton has some neighbor-state advantages but Obama has Senator Claire McCaskill and large, well-organized African-American communities in Kansas City and St. Louis. . . .

Earth to Nicholls, Illinois has a long border with Missouri. Arkansas does too of course, but currently Clinton is the Senator from New York.

Arizona, with a large Hispanic population and a white population that trends older, should be solid Clinton country. . . .

The Governor is an Obama supporter. Obama is supposed to prove he can win Latinos here. If he fails to win, it is a big loss.

New Mexico would be an even bigger coup for Obama, and he is fighting hard for it. . . .

Ok. Not sure why, but ok. Nicholls bottom line?

To recap: Obama should win California and Alabama, Alaska, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Massachusetts, Minnesota and North Dakota. Then, out of the northeast, he needs another state, preferably New Jersey. Out of the middle of the country, he needs Missouri. Out of the southwest, he needs Arizona. If he gets these, and if the delegate distribution plays right, he can claim to have dominated the day. If he adds New Mexico in the southwest and Connecticut in the northeast, and perhaps a surprise -- like Tennessee or Oklahoma -- he'll no longer be merely claiming a sweep. He'll have it, and a clear road to the nomination.

There's the bar for a big Obama night. Let's hold Nicholls and the Media to this. Oh btw, if Clinton wins similar numbers of states, can we call it a Clinton sweep? Course not, then it will be about DELEGATES. You know the drill.

Read The Full Article:
http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/TalkleftThePoliticsOfCrime/~3/229268045/5326

Digg this

WWSD: What Would the Suffragists Do or, Will
Women Vote Their DNA

Once again, women voters are in the driver's seat and charting the course of the Democratic Party -- and it's not because the men would not stop to ask for directions. That's right, ladies. When you line up at the polls on Super Duper Nuclear Tuesday, your shear numbers will once again be determining the fate of the Democratic nominees. You Go, Girls!

There are basically two sentiments running through the girl-power set these days. It goes something like this:

If you're a woman, you vote for Hillary because of what it means to women everywhere. It's past time one of our own was in the White House, dammit, and she's ready for the job.

If I'm supposed to vote for Hillary just because I'm a woman and she's a woman, isn't that almost as sexist as NOT voting for her because she's a woman?

That's the issue many of us have been mulling, especially when both candidates clearly have much to recommend them. Do you vote for a woman to finally and forever shatter that particular marble ceiling? Or do you make a decision that is not confined by gender but rather empowered by your own conscience. Hmmm.... it's a tough call, especially when Obama's bid to become the first black president is every bit as historic as Clinton's run for the record books. And when McCain is breathing down our necks. Baby boomer women (mid-40's to mid-60s) seem particularly torn about their choice, wavering between honoring their mothers and listening to their daughters.

Are women who vote for Obama somehow traitorous? Oprah, Caroline Kennedy, Maria Shriver, Sens. Dianne Feinstein (CA) and Clare McCaskill (MO), Reps. Rosa DeLauro (CT) and Jan Schakowsky (IL), Gov. Janet Napolitano (AZ) and writer Alice Walker would argue otherwise -- none of them are slouches when it comes to women's equity. Women's rights advocate Kate Michelman, an Edwards supporter, has joined the Obama camp now that Edwards has bowed out. Among women "Barack stars," there does not seem to be any sense of opportunity lost in supporting Obama over Clinton. They simply believe in their candidate, and they also believe there will be another woman in the near future. The women for Obama seem to be saying to women nationwide, "it's okay, there's still time to change your mind." There is real confidence that, once busted, this particular barrier will be down to stay -- that Hillary is just the first of many (Margaret Thatcher might beg to differ, but that is the sentiment).

I think there will be other women in my lifetime who will run for president. This isn't going to be women's only chance to vote our DNA, should we chose to do so. And perhaps that is the crux of the matter: this inevitability divide is also often a generational divide. It's no coincidence that Hillary's biggest fan base is women over 65 -- women who've been waiting their whole lives for the chance to vote for a woman. Women who are the least likely to pass this way again. Women whose grandmothers were suffragists.

On the other hand, women can often be our own worst enemy. Women are often the most critical of women candidates, holding them to a higher standard and personalizing our decisions about them. Some women's disdain for Hillary's decision to fight for her marriage rather than leave her philandering husband is a good example; using this as a basis for a presidential vote is rediculous. While Obama has been closing fast in the polls, lots of women could wake up Tuesday -- as they seemed to do in New Hampshire a few weeks ago -- look in the mirror and think to themselves: "Am I smokin' crack? Am I really going to vote against the first viable women candidate? Put down the pipe!"

All this leads me to wonder, what would the suffragists do if faced with this dilemma? I mean, besides a little happy dance that such a wealth of choices is ours to begin with? These women were all about the vote, the franchise, the fundamental right of women to speak their minds at the ballot box. They would rejoice at the pivotal role women's votes now play in most elections, marveling at the gender gap but also encouraging ALL people to exercise this basic responsibility of citizenship. Somehow, I can't imagine the suffragists would want us to vote for Hillary just because she is a woman. In fact, Hillary has said repeatedly that she doesn't want that kind of support, any more than Obama wants us to vote for him just because he's a black man. Both these candidates have encouraged us too look into our hearts, our guts -- but not our DNA. To cast a vote on such a simplistic notion disrespects the right those suffragists fought and even died for not all that long ago.