|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
 | Blogs > NoniJuice4 > In Comfort of My Library Wing > Thought on Reverend Wright vs. Barak Obama |
|
|||
Last Read: |
This post is only viewable by Korean FriendFinder members.
Join Korean FriendFinder now! "Only two things infinite, the universe and human stupidity, - I'm not sure about the former." |
||
 5/5/2008 9:40 pm |
Check out Reverend Wright shutting down all comers at the National Press Club At CNN.com. (I love it when brothas hold their ground using facts and truths!!) The questions where pre chosen, Did he hold his Own ? Did you see him on Fox...he would not answer the questions...uhhhmmmmm 
| ||
5/5/2008 9:48 pm |
I voted for the girl. Hope she'll be the one that would go against the old republican.
| ||
5/5/2008 10:49 pm |
Check out Reverend Wright shutting down all comers at the National Press Club At CNN.com. (I love it when brothas hold their ground using facts and truths!!) The questions where pre chosen, Did he hold his Own ? Did you see him on Fox...he would not answer the questions...uhhhmmmmm "Only two things infinite, the universe and human stupidity, - I'm not sure about the former."
| ||
5/5/2008 11:01 pm |
I voted for the girl. Hope she'll be the one that would go against the old republican. 'Sir Billary' does this well...for she reinvents the wheel with each and every stroke of her erasable ink pen! Llolll!!! I cannot take her seriously. also, even if she does possess the same anatomy as I do, I will still disregard and look on her flaws: I can't vote for the girl. As for the 'old republican', lol, I agree: He is much too old to be taken seriously as a Presidental candidate. 76? I mean really! "Only two things infinite, the universe and human stupidity, - I'm not sure about the former."
| ||
 5/6/2008 1:02 am |
Wright sounds much like many of my middle eastern friends (Iranians, etc)... scary how twisted people can get.
| ||
5/6/2008 1:09 am |
Hello Noni, humm... didn't see that. Unfortunatly, Oba. is taking a toll with Wright's comments and Clint. is taking really advantage of it (Thx Mr Clint.) The situation is similar than the one in France during presidentials. - I see H. Clint. winning over Oba. and loosing to McC... McC, would be happy to have H. Clint. for opponent instead of Oba. McC knowing that facing Oba., he will loose. Well, this is just my personnal view... Note: I don't vote here (US) -otherwise, Oba. is the man- Beautiful day to you
| ||
5/6/2008 5:29 am |
I voted for the girl. Hope she'll be the one that would go against the old republican. 100% 
| ||
5/6/2008 8:09 am |
Wright sounds much like many of my middle eastern friends (Iranians, etc)... scary how twisted people can get. Pepe. Your hacking? (smile) "Only two things infinite, the universe and human stupidity, - I'm not sure about the former."
| ||
5/6/2008 8:45 am |
I've learned that it's best not to discuss about politics with ppl I am not totally comfortable with.. yet I couldn't pass bin's comment.. 100% Hmmm...I don't know...  Gender wars in politics maybe?  ******************************** Gender Is Hillary Clinton's Achilles Heel By Earl Ofari Hutchinson, New American Media Posted on April 17, 2008, Printed on April 26, 2008 alternet.org Hillary Clinton's daughter, Chelsea, is incredibly naïve, incredibly sheltered, incredibly in denial, or maybe a bit of all three. In late March, she told a Young Democrats audience in North Carolina that she was shocked at the nasty things some male (and even female) folks on the campaign trail are saying about her mother. Things like, "Iron my shirts," and "the nutcracker in your ... " The vulgarities are heaped on top of the hard-headed belief of many men and women that a woman just doesn't have the right stuff to be the nation's commander-in-chief. Chelsea would have gotten a healthy lesson in Sexism 101 if she had glanced at polls, and that includes a CBS News poll taken just a week before her talk, that have consistently shown that far more Americans have a bigger problem voting for a woman for president than voting for an African American. The worst part of this is that if anyone dared make a racial crack about Barack Obama they'd be pounded into the sand. Yet, blatant sexist and anti-woman remarks are routinely spewed out, often unchallenged, and even cackled at. In the CBS News poll, though more said they have heard more racist cracks in the past few months than sexist cracks, they were less likely to be offended by the sexist ones than the racist ones. The big worry for the Clinton camp is not the sexist innuendos, wisecracks and even the double standard with which gender and race are treated on the campaign trail, but how many voters it might scare away from Clinton in a head to head showdown with John McCain. There's good reason for the scare. The gender gap was first identified and labeled in the 1980 presidential contest between Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter. That year, Reagan got more than a 20 percent bulge in the margin of male votes over Carter. Women voters by contrast split almost evenly down the middle in backing both Reagan and Carter. Men didn't waver from their support of Reagan during his years in office. Many of the men that backed Reagan made no secret about why they liked him. His reputed toughness, firmness and refusal to compromise on issues of war and peace fit neatly into the often time stereotypical male qualities of professed courage, determination and toughness. The gender split is always apparent when there's a crisis such as a brush fire war, a physical conflict, or the threat of a terrorist attack. Even before he took office, pollsters noted that far more women than men openly worried that Reagan would drag us into a war. That was not a major concern for men. The divergence between men and women on the issue of war and peace showed up again in even more stark contrast two decades later on the Iraq war. Polls showed gaps of nearly twenty percent between men and women when asked how long they thought American troops should stay in Iraq. Far more women than men said that the troops should be withdrawn as quickly as possible. The huge spread in male and female views on public policy issues was just as pronounced in the terrorism war. More men than women by nearly 20 percent took a harder stance against nations that they perceive back terrorist groups. In countless surveys, polls, and anecdotal conversations, women say they are less likely to stay up on political issues than men, and are more likely to vote for a candidate based on personal likes or dislikes than men. When asked what they liked about Clinton, many women reflexively said they liked her toughness. That's generally considered a rough-and-tumble male quality. The issues of war, national security, strong defense, and terrorism don't totally explain the constant 15 to 20 percent gender gap between men and women on candidates and issues in elections noted as far back as 1980. Another possible explanation for that is how men and women perceive the messages that male candidates convey, and whether they use code words and terms to convey them. GOP presidential candidates and presidents in past decades have at various times skewered social programs and nakedly played the race card in presidential campaigns beginning with Goldwater in 1964. Since then, other Republicans at times artfully stoked male rage with racially charged slogans like "law and order," "crime in the streets," "welfare cheats," and "absentee fathers." Bush's John Wayne frontier brashness, and get tough, bring 'em on rhetoric in talking about Iraq and the war against terrorism was calculatingly geared to appeal to supposed male toughness. The endemic sexism buried deep in the skulls of many American voters alone won't sink Clinton. It's just simply another 'X' factor for Clinton that Obama and McCain don't have to worry about. Earl Ofari Hutchinson is an author and political analyst. "Only two things infinite, the universe and human stupidity, - I'm not sure about the former."
| ||
5/6/2008 4:13 pm |
Pepe, how are you cutting into my blog and posting in between other posters pervious to you? Pepe. Your hacking? (smile)
| ||
5/6/2008 5:21 pm |
Hello Noni, humm... didn't see that. Unfortunatly, Oba. is taking a toll with Wright's comments and Clint. is taking really advantage of it (Thx Mr Clint.) The situation is similar than the one in France during presidentials. - I see H. Clint. winning over Oba. and loosing to McC... McC, would be happy to have H. Clint. for opponent instead of Oba. McC knowing that facing Oba., he will loose. Well, this is just my personnal view... Note: I don't vote here (US) -otherwise, Oba. is the man- Beautiful day to you While Obama has attempted to distance himself from the pastor's views, the row shows little signs of dying down. Wright was accused of upping the ante earlier in telling a press conference that media attacks on him were also an attack on African-American church culture and warning Obama, "I'm coming after you." But Rev Wright, he should have known how this was going to be played, and the game that will ensue. But you know what, it might as well come up now, get this its play, and thats that, as this intentional distraction will just be a fading memory. Yet, while we are distracted with this mess, Sir Billary is dancing and laughing at all this now, doing some skullduggery to let the super-dels know this will sink Obama in the general and place her as the nominee instead. I guess the race card didn't work well enough... Hell, Rev Wright was invited by a Hillary supporter, a black woman at that (&@#$!! Uncle Ruckus). Thus, Hillary's camp wanted this to look bad no matter what. Obama, in parting with the Minister, choose what he felt was the lesser evil... What do you mean, Thx Mr Clint? It seems to me the 'Clints' have a history of dirty dealing when it comes to winning at all costs, including a lack of common human decency. Talk about 'cookie baking'... Also, as far as Mccain is concerned, I think you have something here: since he can beat Sir Billary ~much easier~ than he can beat Barack Obama, the McCain machine has effectively endorsed Sir Billary ...by continually beating the Rev. Wright drum: "Reverend Wright,Reverend Wright,yada yada Reverend Wright, Reverend Wright, Reverend Wright, yada yada Reverend Wright!" It sounds like a broken record!  The media has also turned up its collective nose at the uppity upstart of Barack, too. His opponents have finally deployed the one key strategy that has never failed in American politics to this day...divide and conquer. When he was a hot commodity, Barack was like ye ole' Mike Tyson in the good old days, i.e. 'seemingly invincible'. But his flirtation with black nationalism, his loudmouthed wife's ill timed eruption (ankle?), and the fact that Americans have NEVER fully accepted or trusted a Black man with an independent intellect all serve to prepare Barack for that final blow. The good reverend, for reasons unknown, rather than keeping silent for the next several months, has deliberately chosen to provide the last nail in Barack's coffin. The collective, concerted effort of both the Billary and McCain camps to link Obama with Wright provides complete justification for the electorate and superdelegates to decline offering Barack the nomination... as he now becomes a tainted, unelectable lame duck candidate. I hope not in his case, as the end won't be pretty or quick. Hopefully, it is not inevitable either. On offense, but if Hillary's gonna be the nominee, this in all likelihood WILL ultimately mean, barring some crazy miracle like the one in the last election in Florida in favor of Bushman,... The McCain Administration. Strange. It's like White America has this 'Madonna/Whore hangup' with Black America in politics: on one hand, they want politicians that will ~FORGIVE~ them for all the transgressions, but then again, they look down their nose in disgust at the required backturning and under-the-bus throwing that's bound to take place. THIS is why Black Conservatives in general don't go far in elective politics; do you really think, for example, White folks would ever get behind an Alan Keyes? It's beyond absurdity...and yet, quite possible.  "Only two things infinite, the universe and human stupidity, - I'm not sure about the former."
| ||
5/6/2008 10:40 pm |
Quote" "You mean you two are inclined to vote for Billary soley on the fact that she has a V." I did not state nor imply that I voted for Hillary Clinton based soley on her gender, and I obviously did not vote for her based on her race/color. She seems to have proven so far that she is capable of leadership and could lead the nation if only given the chance. She'd make a good presidential candidate and possibly beat out the old republican (more so that Obama), and being a female in an icing on the cake. I am not comfortable with the color-oriented controversy that seems to surround Obama. He himself may not be the one to bring about such issues onto himself... though I do not know him well as a politician. What does "Sir Billary" mean to imply? If it means that Hilary Clinton is similar to or/and influenced by Bill Clinton, our former president, in her political outlook and practices, well, so be it. Bill Clinton would be far more suitable mate and confidant for her in leading this nation than many of the spouses of other politicians.
| ||
5/6/2008 11:14 pm |
i think i might be in love with bintijua
| ||
5/7/2008 12:41 am |
i think i might be in love with bintijua 
| ||
5/7/2008 5:26 am |
"i think i might be in love with bintijua" - blue I see why! 
| ||
5/7/2008 8:57 am |
An interesting read: Tuesday, April 29th 2008, 4:00 AM The Rev. Dr. Barbara Reynolds and the Rev. Jeremiah Wright at the National Press Club event Monday, which was organized by Reynolds. Somodevilla/Getty The Rev. Dr. Barbara Reynolds and the Rev. Jeremiah Wright at the National Press Club event Monday, which was organized by Reynolds. The Rev. Jeremiah Wright couldn't have done more damage to Barack Obama's campaign if he had tried. And you have to wonder if that's just what one friend of Wright wanted. Shortly before he rose to deliver his rambling, angry, sarcastic remarks at the National Press Club Monday, Wright sat next to, and chatted with, Barbara Reynolds. A former editorial board member at USA Today, she runs something called Reynolds News Services and teaches ministry at the Howard University School of Divinity. (She is an ordained minister). It also turns out that Reynolds - introduced Monday as a member of the National Press Club "who organized" the event - is an enthusiastic Hillary Clinton supporter. On a blog linked to her Web site- reynolds news, Reynolds said in a February post: "My vote for Hillary in the Maryland primary was my way of saying thank you" to Clinton and her husband for the successes of Bill Clinton's presidency. The same post criticized Obama's "Audacity of Hope" theme: "Hope by definition is not based on facts," wrote Reynolds. It is an emotional expectation. Things hoped for may or may not come. But help based on experience trumps hope every time." In another blog entry, Reynolds gives an ever-sharper critique of Obama: "It is a sad testimony that to protect his credentials as a unifier above the fray, the senator is fueling the media characterization that Rev. Dr. Wright is some retiring old uncle in the church basement." I don't know if Reynolds' eagerness to help Wright stage a disastrous news conference with the national media was a way of trying to help Clinton - my queries to Reynolds by phone and e-mail weren't returned yesterday - but it's safe to say she didn't see any conflict between promoting Wright and supporting Clinton. It's hard to exaggerate how bad the actual news conference was. Wright, steeped in an honorable, fiery tradition of Bible-based social criticism, cheapened his arguments and his movement by mugging for the cameras, rolling his eyes, heaping scorn on his critics and acting as if nobody in the room was learned enough to ask him a question. Wright has, unquestionably, been caricatured and vilified unfairly. The feeding programs, prison outreach and other social services he has built over more than 30 years are commendable, and his reading of the Judeo-Christian tradition as an epic story of people trying to escape slavery is far more right than wrong - and not something to be caricatured or compressed into a 10-second sound bite. But Wright should have known - and his friend and ally Reynolds, a media professional, surely knew - that bickering with the press can only harm Wright and, by extension, Obama. I hope that wasn't their goal.(wink) ******** Now, THIS ARTICLE RIGHT HERE...seems to explains it all! I hear what media, etc. is saying, and despite a few b*llshiet theories, I have no problem with Rev. Wright defending himself. But enough is enough. He is merely being an attention whore. Well, I take that back. This he IS an attention wh*re or Hillary Clinton supporter.... The National Press Club event was OVERKILL. ~Common Sense~ would have told him not to speak at the NPC event. Especially if a Clinton supporter is organizing the event. He was on some peacocking type shiet. NOTHING... was going to stop him from getting his shine on: they even have a picture of him throwing up an Omega sign. How 'coonish' is that? SOME people are their own worst enemies sometimes.... What he should have done was defend himself in that PBS interview/Detroit NAACP Convention and laid low until Obama took it home. Why is that so hard to do? Obama is only a member of his church. He is only trying to become president.  qout;First rule of life taught by my parents: "Listen to what people say, BUT WATCH what they do." Actions = Truth Trust...But Verify. Option A: Obama wins the presidential election. Consequence A: Wright is at the swearing in, Wright writes books, does the speaking tours, rolls in the money and influence that 20 years knowing the current president brings. It's all good.... Option B: Obama loses the presidential election. Consequence B: Wright simply retires and is likely dismissed as a crackpot. Clearly, Wright doesn't think that Obama can make it; yet, his actions are defeatist at best and he isn't afraid of Obama becoming president and pulling a Vince Foster on his enemies. Wright is cashing out now. What does Wright know? Why are the Supers dragging this along? Thoughts? qout;Crickets. Oh yes... Why is or have the media given this 'rev wright', so much media coverage.... ALL the channels carried his speech in entirety like he was a head of state... Hmmm.. Me smells a double agent... A black woman outspoken Hillary Supporter sitting right next to Rev Wright... And oh yeah.. I forgot to Add ONE WEEK before Two Primaries in NC and Indiana that Can either Bury Hillary Clinton for good or keep her in the race.... Me still smells a Double Agent "Only two things infinite, the universe and human stupidity, - I'm not sure about the former."
| ||
5/7/2008 9:51 am |
i agree that MR Wright was a little bit on the Over Acting mode. He just might have a hidden agenda. But after yesterday's results, it looks like Obama no matter what.
| ||
5/7/2008 10:51 am |
Quote" "You mean you two are inclined to vote for Billary soley on the fact that she has a V." I did not state nor imply that I voted for Hillary Clinton based soley on her gender, and I obviously did not vote for her based on her race/color. She seems to have proven so far that she is capable of leadership and could lead the nation if only given the chance. She'd make a good presidential candidate and possibly beat out the old republican (more so that Obama), and being a female in an icing on the cake. I am not comfortable with the color-oriented controversy that seems to surround Obama. He himself may not be the one to bring about such issues onto himself... though I do not know him well as a politician. What does "Sir Billary" mean to imply? If it means that Hilary Clinton is similar to or/and influenced by Bill Clinton, our former president, in her political outlook and practices, well, so be it. Bill Clinton would be far more suitable mate and confidant for her in leading this nation than many of the spouses of other politicians. It has been common in this election for women to take a stand on a feminist perspective in support of Hillary Rodham Clinton. Gender is playing a key role in her popularity in the poles. Yet, another thing is evident in this election as well: ethnocentrism and ignorance in voting for candidates based on race/color. You say you vote for Hillary (smile) ...because she has proven so far that she is capable of leadership? that she could lead the nation...if only given the chance? that she'd make a good presidential candidate ...possibly President even, with icing on the cake since she is a female?? oic...(smile) She would be 'icing on the cake' of what as a female? What does this mean? Matriarchy in USA? Women will have 'finally arrived'? Not that I'm stating that you are a feminist, sis,...but I tend to agree with Camille Paglia on the Clinton nomination: (See Below Post to read...) You say you don't know Obama well as a politician, yet you seem to 'know' Hillary well enough to give endorse? Are you forgetting about Hillary's association with Hamas? Please remember that the 'influence and experience" of the former first 'lady' has a ~long~ record of association with Islamic militants. Yet, her ability for clowning and being a chronic liar,and posturing icon in the eyes of feminists women here in USA is amazing and knows no bounds... We all need to realize that when it comes to politics, the politicians are merely stage actors demanding attention. As far as being comfortable with the color-oriented controversy that seems to surround Obama, I agree. By himself he may not bringing that issue on himself. True that, as I address my thoughts on that in another post here: Billary politics and the race-card been played at his expense. Lolll... Is Barack Obama 14% Big Win in North Carolina Is The American People Slap on The Face of the Media??? (Victory dance here..) Lol..what do I mean by "Billary"? No, I would never state that Hillary Clinton is similar to and/or influences by Bill Clinton, nor is her political outlook or practices the same. Hillary is def. not a Bill Clinton...not on any measure. They are completely different. Moreover, I am also VERY DISAPPOINTED that here we have the first female viable enough for presidential candidate relying heavily on her hubby to win this election. As I understand it, THAT is why she is gaining ground in the poles... because of her husbands statement of gender bias versus racial bias... THAT AFTER she literally cried for the American people in her 'sad vulnerability' after losing ground to Obama in the Iowa polls. If it was not for Bill introducing the 'race card', I think her 'game' would have been 'over'. Comeback in New Hampshire? Wowo...(smile) Seems all Hillary COULD do is modify her stump speech, try to sound more empathetic by softening her 'masculine-sounding' voice, answering more question from the audience, and then stepping up her 'game' with what she views as "the fun part" of the campaign....ATTACK THE OPPONENT! Attack on Obama's inexperience: "It is not enough to hope for change; you have to workfor it. The idea that Mr. Obama can live up to expectations is ...the biggest fairy tale I have ever seen."; Flip-flopping accusations; Nonfavoritism of universal health insurance; Opposition to the Iraqi War. Yeah...I'm disappointed: Bill should have let her win on her own merit...that is, IF she is so viable a candidate in the first place. Female or not.... Bill was always the voice behind the Clinton legacy. Hillary is just the actor...and a good one at that! I don't trust her as far as I can throw her.... http://koreanfriendfinder.com as finding out the truth about Sir Hillary Rodham Clinton is like the discovery of Eldorado: "We're always traveling, yet NEVER travelling on the right road to reach our destination."  "Only two things infinite, the universe and human stupidity, - I'm not sure about the former."
| ||
5/7/2008 11:02 am |
On voting for Sir Billary solely on the grounds of her being a Woman:(smile) (PAGLIA on Clinton...wow...how true.) ******************************** PAGLIA: Why women shouldn't vote for Hillary Rodham Clinton Is Hillary Clinton the saviour of feminism? Or its albatross, dragging feminism backwards under a weary weight of old-guard victimology and male-bashing? The scrum is on! Feminist grand panjandrums like Gloria Steinem have leapt back into the arena, while younger women have seized the feminist banner to proclaim Hillary the messianic Wonder Woman, destined to smash the glass ceiling of the presidency. All women, on pain of excommunication from the feminist claque, must now support Hillary. Never mind her spotty record or her naked political expediency. Any woman with the temerity to endorse Barack Obama (as I do) is condemned as a "traitor" to her sex. "Gender is probably the most restricting force in American life," trumpeted Steinem earlier this year in an article promoting Hillary in the New York Times. Barriers of race, class or economics are waved away as mere frippery. Back to her roots: Hillary Clinton among the women of Scranton As a resident of Philadelphia, I am currently under siege by the firestorm of political adverts heading toward Tuesday's Pennsylvania primary, which Hillary has long been expected to win. She has roots in this state: her grandfather was a Welshman who settled in the coal-mining city of Scranton, which remains conservative and working-class. Women there are tough and blunt, with few illusions about life. Hillary's voter base consists of middle-aged to elderly white women who identify with her caustic, stubborn, bulldog resilience. Humiliated and upstaged by her philandering husband, Hillary is the champion of an army of women who were stymied, betrayed or outmanoeuvred by men. Over the past year, whenever her cowed male opponents mildly rebutted Hillary in debate, her campaign jumped into über-feminist mode: male bullies, they screeched, "ganging up" on a helpless damsel. Losing ground with other core groups - notably her own cohort of upper-middle-class, baby-boom career woman - Hillary played the gender card to the max. When polling showed she had seemed too harsh to the caucus-goers of Iowa, she rolled out teary eyes for New Hampshire, which handed her a primary victory. Hillary will scratch, claw, and morph through every gender trick if it rakes in votes. This symbol of raw female ambition has never comfortably fitted into a conventional sex role. As the first child of a hard-working and authoritarian father, Hillary absorbed his willfulness, competitive drive and suspicion. Excelling academically, Hillary felt ill at ease with the feminine persona so deftly deployed by pretty, popular girls in that era. Frumpy, stumpy and myopic, she identified with the new idolatry of shiny careerism promulgated by the second-wave feminism of the late 1960s, when she emerged from posh Wellesley College. Though she would specialise in women's and children's issues, Hillary's public statements have often betrayed an ambivalence about women who chose a non-feminist path. "I suppose I could have stayed home and baked cookies," she sneered during Bill's 1992 presidential campaign. Then, defending her husband against the claims of a 12-year affair by Gennifer Flowers, Hillary snapped: "I'm not sittin' here like some little woman, standing by my man like Tammy Wynette" - a sally that boomeranged when Hillary had to make an abject apology. The irony is that Hillary had offended the very group of stoical, put-upon, working-class women who are now proving to be her staunchest supporters. Whatever her official feminist credo, Hillary's public career has glaringly been a subset to her husband's success. Despite her reputation for brilliance, she failed the Washington, DC bar exam. Thus her migration to Little Rock was not simply a selfless drama for love; she was fleeing the capital where she had hoped to make her mark. In Little Rock, every role that Hillary played was obtained via her husband's influence - from her position at the Rose Law Firm to her seat on the board of Wal-Mart to her advocacy for public education reform. In a pattern that would continue after Bill became president, Hillary would draw attention by expressing public "concern" for a problem, without ever being able to organise a programme for reform. Hillary has always been a policy wonk, a functionary attuned to bureaucratic process, but she has never shown executive ability, which makes her quest for the presidency problematic. Hillary's disastrous botching of national healthcare reform in 1993 (a project to which her husband rashly appointed her) will live in infamy. Obama may also have limited executive experience, but he has no comparable stain on his record. The argument, therefore, that Hillary's candidacy marks the zenith of modern feminism is specious. Feminism is not well served by her surrogates' constant tactic of attributing all opposition to her as a function of entrenched sexism. Well into her second term as a US Senator, Hillary lacks a single example of major legislative achievement. Her career has consisted of fundraising, meet-and-greets and speeches around the world expressing support for women's rights. Hillary Clinton is aiming to become the first female president of the United States What feminist supporters have recently denounced as troglodytic misogyny in media portrayals of Hillary has in fact been a function of her own strange sexual accommodations and ambiguities. Yes, she may surround herself with luscious, multicultural babes (such as her minder, Huma Abedin, or her now sacked aide, Patty Solis Doyle), but Hillary, despite the rumours, is no lesbian. She's a crucifix-wearing, Methodist do-gooder who confidently thinks she's God's agent. There's no room for random eroticism in her calendar. Genuinely disturbing are the caricatures of Hillary (called "Hitlery" or "the Hildebeast" on the web) that rarely accrue to male candidates: she's portrayed as a hectoring nag, a witch on a broomstick, or a castrating bitch. But if such images were truly generated by simple fear of female power, we would expect to find them around other women politicians too, such as the current female Speaker of the House. No, Hillary was demonised by the American electorate long before she sought elective office. It is Bill Clinton who is responsible for the tainted sexual aura around his wife. Furthermore, Hillary's mythomania and her chameleon-like daily alterations of persona and voice are unsettling. (Even Hillary's eye colour is fake: she wears blue contact lenses.) No male candidate enjoys Hillary's options as a woman to tailor her costume to the audience. Hillary's recent remarks about politics as a "boys' club" resistant to uppity women was sheer demagoguery. By progressing farther than any woman presidential candidate, she has become a role model for future aspirants. But by attaching herself so blatantly to anti-male rhetoric - particularly in view of her debt to her husband - she is espousing a retrograde brand of feminism no longer applicable to the US. If Hillary loses, batten the hatches against a mass resurrection of paranoid, paleo-feminist martyrs, counting their wounds and wailing at the blood-red moon. "Only two things infinite, the universe and human stupidity, - I'm not sure about the former."
| ||
5/7/2008 11:13 am |
Bintijua: "Bill Clinton would be far more suitable mate and confidant for her in leading this nation than many of the spouses of other politicians." (<~~~Scratching my head here...) An oldie but goodie here: New books paint critical portraits of Hillary Clinton May 25, 2007 - 3:47PM By Peter Baker and John Solomon, The Washington Post WASHINGTON — Two new books on Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York offer fresh and often critical portraits of the Democratic presidential candidate that depict a tortured relationship with her husband and her past and challenge the image she has presented on the campaign trail. The Hillary Clinton who emerges from the pages of the books comes across as a complicated, sometimes compromised figure who tolerated Bill Clinton’s brazen infidelity, pursued her policy and political goals with methodical drive, and occasionally skirted along the edge of the truth along the way. The books portray her as alternately brilliant and controlling, ambitious and victimized. The Clinton campaign has nervously awaited publication of the books for fear they would include some new bombshell revelation or, at the very least, revive memories of less-savory moments in the couple’s rise to power. The books, both by longtime journalists and both obtained by The Washington Post Thursday, include a number of assertions and anecdotes that could confront her campaign with unwelcome questions. “A Woman in Charge: The Life of Hillary Rodham Clinton,” by Carl Bernstein, reports that Clinton as first lady was terrified she would be prosecuted, took over her own legal and political defense, and decided not to be forthcoming with investigators because she was convinced she was unfairly targeted. While in Arkansas, according to Bernstein, she personally interviewed one woman alleged to have had an affair with her husband, contemplated divorce and thought about running for governor out of anger at her husband’s indiscretions. “Her Way: The Hopes and Ambitions of Hillary Rodham Clinton,” by Jeff Gerth and Don Van Natta Jr., reports that during her husband’s 1992 campaign, a team she oversaw hired a private investigator to undermine Gennifer Flowers “until she is destroyed.” Flowers had said publicly that she had an affair with Bill Clinton while he was governor of Arkansas. The book also questions whether as senator Clinton read the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq in 2002 before voting to authorize war. The book also includes a thirdhand report that the Clintons made a “secret plan” in 1992 in which he would have eight years as president and then she would have eight years, although Thursday night a key source disavowed the story. The Clinton camp hopes to brush off the books as mainly rehashing old news. “Is it possible to be quoted yawning?” asked Philippe Reines, her Senate spokesman. If past books on Clinton were “cash for trash,” he added, “these books are nothing more than cash for rehash.” Howard Wolfson, a campaign spokesman, pointed to previous reports on some of the elements in the books to make the point that there was nothing new. “The news here is that it took three reporters nearly a decade to find no news,” he said. He added: “Two overwhelming Senate victories in the toughest media market in the country demonstrated that voters have put these issues behind them.” Unlike many harsh books about Clinton written by ideological enemies, the two new volumes come from long-established writers backed by major publishing houses and could be harder to dismiss. Bernstein won national fame with partner Bob Woodward at The Post for breaking open the Watergate scandal, while Gerth and Von Natta both spent years as investigative reporters for the New York Times. Their publishers have engaged in a race to the bookstores, moving up publication dates as the presidential campaign heats up. Alfred A. Knopf has printed 275,000 copies of Bernstein’s “Woman in Charge” that will be available June 5, while Little, Brown & Co. plans to put 175,000 copies of “Her Way” on sale June 8, after June 3 excerpts in the New York Times Magazine. The size of the print runs mean both publishers expect their books to be major bestsellers. In the works for eight years, Bernstein’s 640-page book is the more extensive biography and, while not unsympathetic, includes some damning observations from people once close to the senator. Bob Boorstin, who worked for Clinton when she was pushing her plan to restructure the nation’s health-care system in the early days of her husband’s presidency, blamed her for its collapse. “I find her to be among the most self-righteous people I’ve ever known in my life,” he told Bernstein. “And it’s her great flaw, it’s what killed health care,” along with other factors. Mark Fabiani, who as White House special counsel played a key role in defending the Clintons, said she was “so tortured by the way she’s been treated that she would do anything to get out of the situation. ... And if that involved not being fully forthcoming, she herself would say, ‘I have a reason for not being forthcoming.’ ” Her logic, he said, was: “If we do this, they’re going to do this to me. If we say this, then they’re going to say this. You know, (expletive) ’em, let’s just not do that.” Fabiani said Clinton personally directed the White House defense, telling Bernstein that private attorney David Kendall dealt mainly with the first lady and met only rarely with the president until the Monica Lewinsky scandal. “He was easy to deal with compared to her,” Fabiani said of the first couple. The only time he saw Bill Clinton lose his temper, Fabiani said, was when the president saw his Whitewater partner, Susan McDougal, taken to jail in an orange jumpsuit and shackles for refusing to testify. At one point, Hillary Clinton was convinced she would be next, worried that Whitewater prosecutor Kenneth Starr would indict her for perjury or obstruction of justice arising from statements she made under oath about her work for Madison Guaranty Savings and Loan, the Whitewater investment or long-missing billing records. “When I say there was a serious fear she would be indicted, I can’t overstate that,” Fabiani told Bernstein. Bernstein reexamines the most sensational aspects of Clinton’s life — and to his subject the most painful — namely her decision to marry and remain married to Bill Clinton. She waited two years before deciding to become his wife and move to Arkansas, and Bernstein points to a little-known factor that may have contributed. Hillary Clinton failed the D.C. bar exam after law school, something she hid from her best friends for 30 years until disclosing it in passing in her autobiography, “Living History.” Bernstein suggests that blow to her ego may have played a role in her decision to move to Arkansas, where she had passed the bar. The succession of women who also figured in Bill Clinton’s life in Arkansas make a return appearance in the book, most notably Marilyn Jo Jenkins, a power company executive he fell in love with and almost left his wife over, according to Bernstein. Jenkins has been linked to Clinton before — she was spirited into the governor’s mansion at 5:15 a.m. for a final, furtive meeting with him the day he left for Washington to assume the presidency — but Bernstein’s account makes clear her pivotal role. Bill Clinton wanted to divorce his wife to be with Jenkins in 1989, Bernstein reports, but Hillary Clinton refused. “There are worse things than infidelity,” she told Betsey Wright, the governor’s chief of staff. The crisis frayed Wright’s relationship with Bill Clinton too, and she told Bernstein that she arranged for the two of them, Wright and Clinton, to see a therapist together. Hillary Clinton, meanwhile, turned to her best friend, Diane Blair, obliquely raising the prospect of divorce during a long walk. “She was thinking that they had not made much money,” Blair told Bernstein before her death in 2000, and she was concerned about her daughter. “Chelsea was there now. What if she were on her own? She didn’t own a house. She was concerned that if she were to become a single parent, how would she make it work in a way that would be good for Chelsea.” The Clintons stayed together, but out of “anger and hurt” she considered running for governor in 1990, when he presumably would step down to prepare his 1992 presidential campaign. The idea ended after consultant Dick Morris conducted two polls showing she had no independent identity with Arkansas voters and compared her to George Wallace’s wife, who ran to succeed him in Alabama, an analogy that offended her. By the time Bill Clinton was running for president, Hillary Clinton suggested to Blair that victory would be good for the marriage because her husband’s sexual compulsions would be tempered by the White House and the ever-present press corps, Bernstein reports — a flawed assumption, as it would turn out. In Bernstein’s account, both Clintons went to great lengths to keep the lid on his infidelities. At the behest of Wright and Hillary Clinton, two partners with Hillary Clinton at the Rose Law Firm, Webster Hubbell and Vincent W. Foster Jr., were hired to represent women named in a lawsuit as having secret affairs with the governor. Hubbell and Foster questioned the women, then obtained signed statements that they never had sex with Bill Clinton. On one occasion, Bernstein reports, Hillary Clinton was present for the questioning. Bernstein also reports that Bill Clinton, with Morris’ help, pressured Wright to issue a false statement denying comments she had made to David Maraniss, a Washington Post reporter, for his book, “First in his Class,” in which she said Arkansas state troopers had procured women for the governor. ---- Gerth and Van Natta’s 416-page book covers much of the same ground, but it explores Clinton’s time in the Senate in greater depth and portrays her legislative career and her presidential campaign as parts of a broad, long-term plan for power that has its roots in the early 1970s. According to Gerth and Van Natta, even before the Clintons were married they formulated a “secret pact of ambition” aimed at reinventing the Democratic Party and getting to the White House. The authors cite a former Bill Clinton girlfriend, Marla Crider, who said she saw a letter on his desk written by Hillary Clinton, outlining the couple’s long-term ambitions, which they called their “twenty-year project.” Crider was first quoted about the letter in a book by a former National Enquirer reporter in 2000, at the time describing it as more about Bill Clinton’s infidelities and the “little girls” he had. Gerth and Van Natta, however, report that they re-interviewed Crider and that she said the earlier book’s account was “not totally accurate.” In this telling, Crider described the note as being more about the couple’s political plans, with little discussion of their personal relationship. The authors report that the Clintons updated their plan after the 1992 election, determining that Hillary would run when Bill left office. They cite two people, Ann Crittenden and John Henry, who said Taylor Branch, the Pulitzer prize-winning historian and close Clinton friend, told them that the Clintons “still planned two terms in the White House for Bill and, later, two for Hillary.” Contacted Thursday night, Branch said that “the story is preposterous” and that he was not even in touch with the Clintons at the time the conversation supposedly happened. The book looks in detail at Hillary Clinton’s Senate vote in support of the Iraq war, suggesting she may have been motivated by a desire to not abandon her husband’s tough-on-Iraq policy and a need “to prove that she was tough enough” as a woman. But Gerth and Van Natta suggest that she did not read the National Intelligence Estimate, which included caveats and dissents about reports of Iraq’s weapons program. Reines, Clinton’s Senate spokesman, seemed to confirm Thursday night that she did not read the NIE, saying by e-mail that she was “briefed multiple times by several members of the administration on their intelligence regarding Iraq, including being briefed on the NIE.” Gerth and Van Natta portray Clinton as fixated on secrecy and loyalty. She has used her Washington house as a staging ground for her presidential campaign, holding strategy meetings and fundraisers under strict confidentiality. “Visitors are asked to check their bags, cameras and cell phones at the door, pictures are taken by an authorized photographer,” they write. The authors also assert that Clinton failed to properly file paperwork with the Senate ethics committee to document many congressional fellows borrowed from universities to beef up her expertise on various issues. The ethics committee therefore could not determine if the free service, underwritten by university funds, created any conflicts, Gerth and Van Natta write. The book also portrays Clinton as constantly seeking out the spotlight, pushing her way into Senate discussions without invitation. As Senate Democrats were wrestling with their approach to the Iraq war in mid-2006, for example, Clinton is described as inserting her name into a piece of legislation calling for a phased redeployment of U.S. troops. Although she was not originally a co-sponsor of the bill, she said she was, and after storming the floor of the Senate before her turn, she shifted her rationale for her original war vote, the authors write. Her behavior amazed her Senate colleagues, they write. As part of her presidential ambitions, they write, the Clintons plotted to steal some of the thunder of former vice president Al Gore on climate change, creating tension between the former partners. They recount how Bill Clinton filmed ads for a California ballot initiative that overshadowed a Gore ad. --- Staff writer Anne E. Kornblut and staff researcher Zachary A. Goldfarb contributed to this report. Bintijua, I love you too. (smile) "Only two things infinite, the universe and human stupidity, - I'm not sure about the former."
| ||
5/7/2008 11:15 am |
i agree that MR Wright was a little bit on the Over Acting mode. He just might have a hidden agenda. But after yesterday's results, it looks like Obama no matter what. "Only two things infinite, the universe and human stupidity, - I'm not sure about the former."
| ||
5/7/2008 10:58 pm |
Noni, I hope you'd understand that I am basically skipping all the copy and paste of others' writings though you may be using them to support your views. They are just way too long and not easy to read... unless I google them individually and print them out. And I am in the middle of preparing for a final paper along with a couple of quizzes coming up (for a class). I rather read your own views in your own writing. Paraphrasing their work with your own words and referencing them would be one of the ways(as my professors would say), I guess. The only reason why I even bothered respond to this blog was because it had an interesting topic (ie; Obama who happens to be winning over Hillary Clinton). What do you mean you love me too?
| ||
5/8/2008 8:15 am |
Noni, I hope you'd understand that I am basically skipping all the copy and paste of others' writings though you may be using them to support your views. They are just way too long and not easy to read... unless I google them individually and print them out. And I am in the middle of preparing for a final paper along with a couple of quizzes coming up (for a class). I rather read your own views in your own writing. Paraphrasing their work with your own words and referencing them would be one of the ways(as my professors would say), I guess. The only reason why I even bothered respond to this blog was because it had an interesting topic (ie; Obama who happens to be winning over Hillary Clinton). What do you mean you love me too? Secondly, In response to your blatant statment, "I rather read your own views in your own writing. Paraphrasing their work with your own words and referencing them would be one of the ways(as my professors would say), I guess." I Do recall quoting several sources, three in fact, in defending my beliefs and in giving explaination of my retort on your 'inquiry' of why I used a statement re women voting for Hillary Clinton solely on the grounds that she has the 'ticket' by way of a percieved golden "V" (excuse my french..): (1)--Gender Is Hillary Clinton's Achilles Heel By Earl Ofari Hutchinson, New American Media Posted on April 17, 2008, Printed on April 26, 2008 alternet.org (2)--CAMILLA PAGLIA: Why women shouldn't vote for Hillary Rodham Clinton Is Hillary Clinton the saviour of feminism? Or its albatross, dragging feminism backwards under a weary weight of old-guard victimology and male-bashing? (***google her IF you must...as each her words are her own, and referenced accordingly. better yet, 'wikipedia' her as well: she's called the "feminist that other feminists (Sir Billary, for instance...) LOVE to hate," a "post-feminist feminist," one of the world's top 100 intellectuals by the UK's Prospect Magazine, ) (3)--New books paint critical portraits of Hillary Clinton May 25, 2007 - 3:47PM By Peter Baker and John Solomon, The Washington Post (***Google this one too, sis...all legit! btW, the last statement thereof:Staff writer Anne E. Kornblut and staff researcher Zachary A. Goldfarb contributed to this report....NOT NoniJuice4, OK?) I assure you, Bintijua, whatever else you read here on my blog posts on this particular subject are my own. No need in your implying that my views are not displayed in my own writing (paraphrasing, that is, as a form of plagerism,...as YOUR PROFESSOR would say...my own taught differently.) Now if your purpose in 'bothering' to post response here, as you state below, is what you ACTUALLY came here for: "The only reason why I even bothered respond to this blog was because it had an interesting topic (ie; Obama who happens to be winning over Hillary Clinton)." Then, Hey! It's all good, sis. If otherwise,PLEASE NOTE WELL... I have not interest nor time in BS as you should pay me for my time dealing with it, ok? time is money... money talks, ...BS walks. Choose wisely.... Much Love and Respect (as always Bintijua, my lovely Korean sista) "Only two things infinite, the universe and human stupidity, - I'm not sure about the former."
| ||
5/9/2008 9:17 am |
i agree that MR Wright was a little bit on the Over Acting mode. He just might have a hidden agenda. But after yesterday's results, it looks like Obama no matter what.  <~~~NoniJuice4, Dancing to Usher's... YEAH!! "Only two things infinite, the universe and human stupidity, - I'm not sure about the former."
| ||
5/9/2008 1:00 pm |
Don t let your Juice overflow yet, it s a long way to go still... and personally, I don t think Obama can beat McCain.
| ||
5/11/2008 11:45 pm |
uhhhmmmm, ahhhhh, WHAT?!?! SERIOUSLY, this blog worries me a bit on many levels! i think i need a hug.
| ||
5/28/2008 12:48 pm |
I'm neither Democrat, nor Republican, nor Libertarian. Though I not a Democrat, I do not like everything the Replicans are doing or has done. Same thing goes for the Livertarians. I'm more right than left leaning, but I'm an unique individual, free thinking, for himself. This very particular to me, the Rev. Wright views and facts he uses. I hope I'm just misunderstanding this post and hope this is not how you and others here view the issue of race and color. I hope what you are saying he is just standing up for what he believes, expressing what's on his mind, and being a person of integrity. I'm not saying everybody is perfect or every nation is good, for I admit I live in a country whose history in the past has not always been perfect or just in all matters. But it does it's utmost to correct it's ways, unlike other countries in the history of the world who will just ignore it or do nothing to change it. I watched part of Rev. Wright speech he made on CNN at an educational annual conference. The speech which I caught and listened to, a few things he was saying was a bit off. The notion of his on the particular way
| ||
5/28/2008 6:40 pm |
I'm neither Democrat, nor Republican, nor Libertarian. Though I not a Democrat, I do not like everything the Replicans are doing or has done. Same thing goes for the Livertarians. I'm more right than left leaning, but I'm an unique individual, free thinking, for himself. This very particular to me, the Rev. Wright views and facts he uses. I hope I'm just misunderstanding this post and hope this is not how you and others here view the issue of race and color. I hope what you are saying he is just standing up for what he believes, expressing what's on his mind, and being a person of integrity. I'm not saying everybody is perfect or every nation is good, for I admit I live in a country whose history in the past has not always been perfect or just in all matters. But it does it's utmost to correct it's ways, unlike other countries in the history of the world who will just ignore it or do nothing to change it. I watched part of Rev. Wright speech he made on CNN at an educational annual conference. The speech which I caught and listened to, a few things he was saying was a bit off. The notion of his on the particular way The rest of my comment on Rev. Wright's views on how blacks learns is because they are one-sided-brain over the other sided-brain and their behavior in class in schools. He sounds like those back in the past who argued this is why they should be separated and segregated in the first place. That to me seems so wrong. I know everyone learns differently not because of what they are, but who they are. No matter if anyone has disabilities, how they were raised in the city or in the country (or backwoods/sticks), or nation, or gender, or religion , or creed, or character, or behavior, they learn differently because they are human. And being human, which are unique, that's the reason everyone learns differently. Another thing, do think nothing has changed since the 1960s in America? I do not see any signs says
| ||
 |
 |
 |
| Become a member to comment on this blog | ||
 |
|