Hillary’s Voice

The Daily Show:  Too much democracy for the Democratic Party (video)

Against McCain, Clinton bests Obama in swing-state polls (McClatchy)
WASHINGTON — Hillary Clinton is stronger than Barack Obama when pitted against John McCain, according to new polls of three major states that tend to swing between Democrats and Republicans in November elections.

Sign the new petition to seat Florida and Michigan

Signe Wilkinson

But even some of the few women we do have in the media trash Hillary Clinton:
Rand[i] Rhodes calls Ferraro and Clinton- Whores (video)
The video linked to above contains just the most offensive portions of Randi’s recent appearance in San Francisco.  The video of the entire “performance” was promoted on the website of radio station GREEN 960AM.  If you’re as offended as I am, you can send a message to the station at this link.  Here’s my message: “Your promotion of Randi Rhodes’ appearance in San Francisco where she called Hillary Clinton a “fucking whore” is inexplicable. Why do you promote such filth, and this kind of division in the Democratic Party?”  You can write to Randi’s home network, Air America Radio, at this link.

The Hillary Waltz (by Maureen Dowd)
One of the most valuable lessons the gritty Hillary Clinton can teach the languid Barack Obama — and the timid Democrats — is that the whole point of a presidential race is to win.
Why does every good word about Clinton have to have something to do with how she can help Obama?  Don’t these writers realize how galling it is to those of us who spent years being passed over for promotions, even being forced to train men for jobs we thought we should get?  And why is one of the few women in the national media helping to push this kind of preferential treatment for a male over a female?

Clinton’s Persistence Could Help Obama (by Katherine Q. Seelye, New York Times)
Mrs. Clinton has taken the calls for her to quit and recast them as efforts to disenfranchise the voters. In making it clear that Mrs. Clinton is not dropping out, Maggie Williams, her campaign manager, linked Mrs. Clinton’s struggle with a signal struggle for Democrats. As Ms. Williams wrote in a memorandum on Tuesday, “The last time that we were told we’d better cut the process short or the sky would fall was when the Supreme Court stopped the recount in 2000.” Linking Mrs. Clinton’s cause with a larger one has been successful before. Call it the New Hampshire effect.
Why does every headline have to be cast in terms of how it affects, or could affect, Obama?  And why is one of the few women in the national media helping to push this kind of preferential treatment for a male over a female?

At the Barricades in the Gender Wars (Wall Street Journal)
Just as Barack Obama’s campaign has been empowering for African-Americans, Sen. Clinton’s run has inspired women across the country, drawing millions to the polls and putting her in a neck-and-neck battle for the nomination. She has already gone farther than any woman before her — a source of great pride for her women supporters. But her campaign has also prompted slurs and inflammatory language that many women thought had been banished from public discourse. Some women worry that regardless of how the election turns out, the resistance to Sen. Clinton may embolden some men to resist women’s efforts to share power with them in business, politics and elsewhere.

Polls: What the pro Obama MSM is not reporting. (by John: south of Melrose at Liberal Rapture)
Further proof the media is rotten to the core: Polls - Monday BHO had run up a 10 point lead in the Gallup tracking poll. The media went goo goo ga ga. Today that same poll has collapsed back, Obama leads by three. Rassmussen has Clinton ahead. The media is silent about this. The race has tightened in Pennsylvania. Sort of. Clinton still leads substantially in all but one odd poll. The headline is “Obama catching up”.

Lou Dobbs is Correct (by TexasDarlin at MyDD)
Here’s Lou Dobbs giving ‘em hell [Wednesday] night.  Thank the lord someone in prime time gets it:”…What you said was she cannot win the nomination…well, neither can Senator Obama.”"…Why in the world is there this compulsion, this insistence, that she can’t win the nomination….neither can Senator Obama!” (emphasis by Lou)”…And I have never seen in my career greater favoritism applied in the national media…”

Lou is correct.  And I don’t care whether Lou’s views on public policy are conservative, moderate, or whatever.  He has in fact been one of the fairest commentators on any cable channel this election season, certainly on CNN. You can’t even tell who he prefers for President…imagine that!
Click through to watch the video.

A Reply by the Liberal Journal to a Note from the Pro-Hillary Blogs to the Pro-Obama Ones (by Damozel at Buck Naked Politics)
The Liberal Journal thinks it’s a shame that some pro-Hillary blogs are quoting Republicans.  So does Brad at Sadly, No!  “You know who you are,” says Nelson M. of the LJ. With all due respect to these fine publications, perhaps they had better consider what this means about the extent to which pro-Hillary bloggers have been alienated by the relentless scorn, sanctimony, and contempt with which some progressive blogs have treated Hillary Clinton and her supporters during the last few months… Perhaps it would be more productive to ask how a large number of Hillary’s supporters have reached the stage where they feel that their traditional enemies—even Scaife, even Karl Rove— are speaking more rationally, objectively and justly than our fellow Democrats.   Matter for reflection, guys.

The Tao of Rocky (by Susie at Suburban Guerilla, thanks to Corrente)
All over the blogosphere today, bloggers (none of them actually born and raised in Philadelphia, which is relevant here) were referring to this: “In a speech in Philadelphia today, Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, compared herself to Philly icon Rocky Balboa… Um….Senator? Rocky lost.” Rocky lost. Oh, the laughter! Oh, the snark! Of course, they missed the point… To Philadelphians (and the thousands of “Rocky” fans who flock here every year), this movie isn’t about winning - it’s about class. It’s about invisible people, living in forgotten, decaying neighborhoods. It’s about the search for dignity. It’s about making people see your life.

Four Stumps in the Water for Obama (by Charles Lipson, Real Clear Politics)
As the high-water mark for Barack Obama recedes, his campaign must now confront several dangerous stumps that were once hidden below the surface. The problems began with Obama’s long attachment to Rev. Wright, Trinity United Church, and Black Liberation Theology, but they won’t end there. So, what issues are now lurking for Obama?

The first is the volatile mix of race and religion, begun with the Rev. Wright controversy. Videos have now surfaced of virulent race-baiting by yet another Chicago preacher with ties to Obama, the Rev. James Meeks. Obama was not a member of Meeks’s church and their connection may be only a tactical alliance between prominent local figures. That’s the question: how close are those ties?…

Obama’s second problem is his most important patron in Illinois politics: Emil Jones. Jones heads the Illinois State Senate and is one of the two most powerful legislators in Springfield. He played a vital role in Obama’s rise in state politics and, most significantly, he blessed Obama’s underdog candidacy for the U.S. Senate. Now that Obama is playing on a national stage, his ties to Jones raise uncomfortable questions about his years in Illinois politics. That’s because Jones is a old-fashioned, wheeler-dealer, the sort that Mike Royko used to write about when he was shredding Richard J. Daley and the Cook Count Democratic machine…

The Rezko trial highlights another problem for Obama, potentially a devastating one, though it is unlikely to arise for several months or more. Antoin “Tony” Rezko is on trial for taking large bribes in return for political favors… Rezko problems are bad news for Obama because the two have close, long-standing ties. Obama initially downplayed those ties and minimized the money Rezko had raised for him…

Obama’s final stump [is his friendliness] with the 1960s radicals, Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn. Ayers and Dohrn, now married, were members of the Weather Underground, a group that killed police and tried to bomb the US Capitol. Ayers and Dohrn spent a decade on the run before turning themselves in and spending time in jail. Both are now professors and prominent figures in Chicago’s leftist-progressive politics… Obama served with Ayers on the board of a small, leftist foundation, the Woods Fund… Serving with Obama and Ayers was the prominent Palestinian activist, Rashid Khalidi, then a historian at the University of Chicago and now the Edward Said Professor at Columbia.

Fact check: Obama and oil money
WASHINGTON - Democratic Sen. Barack Obama has seized on a key feature of voters’ economic concerns — rising fuel prices — and is casting himself as the candidate who could bring about energy independence because he is not beholden to energy companies… True enough, Obama does not take money from oil companies. No candidate does. It is illegal for corporations to give money to politicians. Corporations, however, do have political action committees that collect voluntary donations from employees and then donate them to candidates. Obama doesn’t take money from PACs. He also doesn’t take money from lobbyists. But he does accept money from executives and other employees of oil companies and two of his fundraisers are oil company executives.

Obama had greater role on liberal survey (Politico)
During his first run for elected office, Barack Obama played a greater role than his aides now acknowledge in crafting liberal stands on gun control, the death penalty and abortion — positions that appear at odds with the more moderate image he has projected during his presidential campaign. The evidence comes from an amended version of an Illinois voter group’s detailed questionnaire, filed under his name during his 1996 bid for a state Senate seat.
So which is he, liberal as this questionnaire would imply?  Or conservative, as his choice of advisors would imply?  Or a chameleon who will be whoever his immediate audience wants him to be?

Rosenthal of ‘NYT’: Report in ‘Vanity Fair’ is ‘Completely False’
“Arthur Sulzberger did not overrule the board. The sentiment of the Times board was overwhelmingly to endorse Hillary Clinton in the primary,” Editorial Page Editor Andrew Rosenthal told E&P. “Arthur did not overrule anything.”

Candidate, Improve Your Appearance! (by Dick Cavett)
Hillary Clinton is just beginning a live speech as I type. And I just failed in my purpose. I tried to reach the Clinton campaign to suggest that she could get a big, heartwarming laugh if she came onstage wearing a flak jacket. I’m not sure the sight gag would have guaranteed her the nomination, but a laugh never hurts and is worth a thousand straight lines… If I were running a campaign, I’d urge taking the mountain of money reportedly squandered on pizza, coffee and bagels and spending it more wisely — on a talented young comedy writer. Remember Twain’s “Against the assault of laughter nothing can stand”? All candidates should post this on their shaving mirrors. Or make-up mirrors. (This clumsy gender thing has to stop.)

Lots more really good stuff at MakeThemAccountable.com.

Carolyn Kay
MakeThemAccountable.com