Democrats for Actual Change
About the Author
With the election 2008 coming up it must be weighing on your mind who to vote for in the Democratic Presidential Primary. Well this site is dedicated to you not voting for the Clinton's.
After eight years of the Clinton's we surely must have learned a little something about them.
Like how they failed to fulfill their main campaign promise of providing the public with universal healthcare. By not fulfilling this promise the Clintons demoralized the public that voted for them and as a result caused them to stay home in enough numbers in the mid term elections that corrupt republicans took control of the congress.
And of course lets not forget balancing the budget on the backs of the poor and welfare reform that led to ever increasing childhood poverty.
Because of not fulfilling their main campaign promise and giving away the congress the Clintons caused the congress to distract themselves from their sworn duty to the American Public and chase President Clinton through years of a wasted presidency in the impeachment process.
The Clintons gave us media consolidation so that corrupt businessmen could control the media and create propaganda that led the country into a war we don't want. The Clintons also gave us banking and investment deregulation that has led to the present morgage lending crisis that threatens the whole economy.
If you agree with our message here please support our cause and buy a shirt or a sticker and thank you for hearing us out.
By Lloyd Hart
Did the Clintons with their deep and sorted connection to the Hollywood Mafia get the Hollywood Mafia to create the Writers Strike? Just think about it for a minute. With the writers out of the way Hillary won't have to listen to a barrage of Bill as First Dude jokes like "Will Slick Willy's intern budget be severely reduced having to swap wings in White House with his wife?" or "Will Bill's interns have to bring a second dress to work not allowed to leave work at the White House with the first one, and of course let us not forget the penis jokes and Whether or not Bill should have submitted his penis for mug shots so that special prosecutor Ken Star could ask witnesses in open court "Can you identify this penis?" With the writers being on strike quite possibly all the way through to the end of the presidential primary campaign the public won't be reminded of Bill Clinton's penis over and over again which will allow Hillary Clinton all the time in the world to show us hers.
This is important because Hillary Clinton is running in the presidential primary against an African American and public penis perception is everything. You see, the white male in America is afraid of African American Penis. So the Clinton's have obviously fallen for the trap of attempting to compete with African American Penis. Instead of just accepting African American Penis as their equal the Clinton's see it as a threat. After all, Hillary Clinton is a woman competing in what she called the "Boys Club!" so she has to overcome her husband's penis, Barack Obama's penis, the whole democratic party presidential primary penis fest, all with a metaphorical penis of her own invention. So with the writers out on strike and Bill staying in the shadows and only coming out in the open to display his penis when the "Boys Club" gangs up on his wife, Hillary can attempt to win the penis factor metaphorically or otherwise.
Of course the other day Bill showed off to much penis by claiming to be "against the war from the very beginning" illustrating once again the famous Clinton ability to bend their penis around corners like in the infamous "It all depends what your definition of "is" is."
I know many of you are saying its not the size of the penis, its what you do with it (or in the Clinton' case how you bend it), like providing the public with sound policy. But Clinton can't win that debate because she proved to have erectile disfunction and Bill's penis proved to have very poor aim. When it came to universal health care Hillary Clinton couldn't get it up and instead of giving the poor "a hand up" Bill got a "hand job" instead of the promised blow job from the intern underneath his desk in the oval office dribbling his jizz onto the intern's dress and as a result accidently balancing the budget on the backs of poor because the blood that should've been in his brain was in his penis.
And remember earlier this year the Clinton campaign putting the condom on the Vanity Fair story threatening that if a story that exposed Clinton camp infighting were to published Bill Clinton would never show Vanity Fair his penis ever again.
I think the Clintons don't want the public to learn that the Clintons don't have the penis to be in the White House. If the writers were working right now the Clinton penis gap would be exposed by the likes of Jon Stewart's penis or Stephen Colbert's penis and of course Bill Maher's cute but little penis. After all, the speech writers of Clinton's democratic opponents in the presidential primary don't have the imagination to expose the Clinton penis gap. If they did they'd be livin in L.A. and on strike with the rest of the writers.
Personally I want there to be nothing but vagina in the oval office for at least the next twenty years. Let's face it, vagina is a warm and cozy place like free universal health care and a social safety net and environmental restoration. But the problem is, Clinton has chosen a strategy of showing us she can do penis with the best of them. Albeit bent penis.
When the nation is in desperate need of the universal vagina Clinton gives us Pavlov's Penis. Instead of providing free universal health care Clinton has chosen what she thinks is the penis approach. Clinton's mandated healthscar program is more like taking the public by the head and rubbing their nose in what ails them while at the same time screaming " You will buy this shitty, failed scum bag run private health destroying blood sucking plan, cause if you don't you can't get a job!" Only Clinton's perverted sense of bent penis could have come up with that policy.
As far as I'm concerned the writers should be ashamed of themselves for going on strike just when the public needs desperately to laugh at their politicians. The presidential primary process is a tried and true comedy writing bonanza fraught with so many opportunities to create laughter all across the land that only the Clinton's could have come up with the strike idea creating impotent writers instead of hard full thrust laughing all the way potency the presidential primary is usually filled with. But by trying to save themselves from the comedy writers the Clinton's have prevented the comedy writer's from making fun of the republican field of candidates as well as her democratic opponents. Just like the Clinton's though like when they bombed a baby food factory in the Sudan instead of dealing with the Clinton penis/vagina gap in Washington. You know what they say, little penis/no vagina leads to bigger bombs. I wonder who Hillary Clinton would bomb?
Clearly the lesson the Clinton's didn't learn after eight years in the White House was that Bill should have been giving the wives of Senators head and Hillary should have been giving the Senators vagina on top of the president's desk in the oval office if they wanted to get a real free universal health care bill passed.
Hillary Clinton! Put the bent penis down on the ground and back away from the writer's strike.
http://dadapop.com
http://myspace.com/lloydhart
Link
Did the Clintons with their deep and sorted connection to the Hollywood Mafia get the Hollywood Mafia to create the Writers Strike? Just think about it for a minute. With the writers out of the way Hillary won't have to listen to a barrage of Bill as First Dude jokes like "Will Slick Willy's intern budget be severely reduced having to swap wings in White House with his wife?" or "Will Bill's interns have to bring a second dress to work not allowed to leave work at the White House with the first one, and of course let us not forget the penis jokes and Whether or not Bill should have submitted his penis for mug shots so that special prosecutor Ken Star could ask witnesses in open court "Can you identify this penis?" With the writers being on strike quite possibly all the way through to the end of the presidential primary campaign the public won't be reminded of Bill Clinton's penis over and over again which will allow Hillary Clinton all the time in the world to show us hers.
This is important because Hillary Clinton is running in the presidential primary against an African American and public penis perception is everything. You see, the white male in America is afraid of African American Penis. So the Clinton's have obviously fallen for the trap of attempting to compete with African American Penis. Instead of just accepting African American Penis as their equal the Clinton's see it as a threat. After all, Hillary Clinton is a woman competing in what she called the "Boys Club!" so she has to overcome her husband's penis, Barack Obama's penis, the whole democratic party presidential primary penis fest, all with a metaphorical penis of her own invention. So with the writers out on strike and Bill staying in the shadows and only coming out in the open to display his penis when the "Boys Club" gangs up on his wife, Hillary can attempt to win the penis factor metaphorically or otherwise.
Of course the other day Bill showed off to much penis by claiming to be "against the war from the very beginning" illustrating once again the famous Clinton ability to bend their penis around corners like in the infamous "It all depends what your definition of "is" is."
I know many of you are saying its not the size of the penis, its what you do with it (or in the Clinton' case how you bend it), like providing the public with sound policy. But Clinton can't win that debate because she proved to have erectile disfunction and Bill's penis proved to have very poor aim. When it came to universal health care Hillary Clinton couldn't get it up and instead of giving the poor "a hand up" Bill got a "hand job" instead of the promised blow job from the intern underneath his desk in the oval office dribbling his jizz onto the intern's dress and as a result accidently balancing the budget on the backs of poor because the blood that should've been in his brain was in his penis.
And remember earlier this year the Clinton campaign putting the condom on the Vanity Fair story threatening that if a story that exposed Clinton camp infighting were to published Bill Clinton would never show Vanity Fair his penis ever again.
I think the Clintons don't want the public to learn that the Clintons don't have the penis to be in the White House. If the writers were working right now the Clinton penis gap would be exposed by the likes of Jon Stewart's penis or Stephen Colbert's penis and of course Bill Maher's cute but little penis. After all, the speech writers of Clinton's democratic opponents in the presidential primary don't have the imagination to expose the Clinton penis gap. If they did they'd be livin in L.A. and on strike with the rest of the writers.
Personally I want there to be nothing but vagina in the oval office for at least the next twenty years. Let's face it, vagina is a warm and cozy place like free universal health care and a social safety net and environmental restoration. But the problem is, Clinton has chosen a strategy of showing us she can do penis with the best of them. Albeit bent penis.
When the nation is in desperate need of the universal vagina Clinton gives us Pavlov's Penis. Instead of providing free universal health care Clinton has chosen what she thinks is the penis approach. Clinton's mandated healthscar program is more like taking the public by the head and rubbing their nose in what ails them while at the same time screaming " You will buy this shitty, failed scum bag run private health destroying blood sucking plan, cause if you don't you can't get a job!" Only Clinton's perverted sense of bent penis could have come up with that policy.
As far as I'm concerned the writers should be ashamed of themselves for going on strike just when the public needs desperately to laugh at their politicians. The presidential primary process is a tried and true comedy writing bonanza fraught with so many opportunities to create laughter all across the land that only the Clinton's could have come up with the strike idea creating impotent writers instead of hard full thrust laughing all the way potency the presidential primary is usually filled with. But by trying to save themselves from the comedy writers the Clinton's have prevented the comedy writer's from making fun of the republican field of candidates as well as her democratic opponents. Just like the Clinton's though like when they bombed a baby food factory in the Sudan instead of dealing with the Clinton penis/vagina gap in Washington. You know what they say, little penis/no vagina leads to bigger bombs. I wonder who Hillary Clinton would bomb?
Clearly the lesson the Clinton's didn't learn after eight years in the White House was that Bill should have been giving the wives of Senators head and Hillary should have been giving the Senators vagina on top of the president's desk in the oval office if they wanted to get a real free universal health care bill passed.
Hillary Clinton! Put the bent penis down on the ground and back away from the writer's strike.
http://dadapop.com
http://myspace.com/lloydhart
Link
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton trails five top Republican presidential contenders in general election match-ups, a drop in support from this summer, according to a poll released Monday.
Clinton's top Democratic rivals, Barack Obama and John Edwards, still lead Republicans in hypothetical match-ups ahead of the Nov. 4, 2008, presidential election, the survey by Zogby Interactive showed.
Clinton, a New York senator who has been at the top of the Democratic pack in national polls in the 2008 race, trails Republican candidates Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson, John McCain and Mike Huckabee by three to five percentage points in the direct matches.
In July, Clinton narrowly led McCain, an Arizona senator, and held a five-point lead over former New York Mayor Giuliani, a six-point lead over former Tennessee Sen. Thompson and a 10-point lead over former Massachusetts Gov. Romney.
She was not matched against the fast-rising Huckabee, a former Arkansas governor, in the July poll.
The results come as other national polls show the race for the Democratic nomination tightening five weeks before the first contest in Iowa, which kicks off the state-by-state nomination battles in each party.
Some Democrats have expressed concerns about the former first lady's electability in a race against Republicans. The survey showed Clinton not performing as well as Obama and Edwards among independents and younger voters, pollster John Zogby said.
"The questions about her electability have always been there, but as we get close this suggests that is a problem," Zogby said.
Obama, an Illinois senator, and Edwards, a former North Carolina senator, both hold narrow leads over the Republican contenders in the hypothetical 2008 match-ups.
"It all points to a very competitive general election at a time when many people think the Democrats are going to win the White House," Zogby said.
The poll of 9,355 people had a margin of error of plus or minus one percentage point. The interactive poll surveys individuals who have registered to take part in online polls.
(To read more about the U.S. political campaign, visit Reuters "Tales from the Trail: 2008" online at Link
(Reporting by John Whitesides, editing by Vicki Allen)
Source: Reuters North American News Service
Clinton's top Democratic rivals, Barack Obama and John Edwards, still lead Republicans in hypothetical match-ups ahead of the Nov. 4, 2008, presidential election, the survey by Zogby Interactive showed.
Clinton, a New York senator who has been at the top of the Democratic pack in national polls in the 2008 race, trails Republican candidates Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson, John McCain and Mike Huckabee by three to five percentage points in the direct matches.
In July, Clinton narrowly led McCain, an Arizona senator, and held a five-point lead over former New York Mayor Giuliani, a six-point lead over former Tennessee Sen. Thompson and a 10-point lead over former Massachusetts Gov. Romney.
She was not matched against the fast-rising Huckabee, a former Arkansas governor, in the July poll.
The results come as other national polls show the race for the Democratic nomination tightening five weeks before the first contest in Iowa, which kicks off the state-by-state nomination battles in each party.
Some Democrats have expressed concerns about the former first lady's electability in a race against Republicans. The survey showed Clinton not performing as well as Obama and Edwards among independents and younger voters, pollster John Zogby said.
"The questions about her electability have always been there, but as we get close this suggests that is a problem," Zogby said.
Obama, an Illinois senator, and Edwards, a former North Carolina senator, both hold narrow leads over the Republican contenders in the hypothetical 2008 match-ups.
"It all points to a very competitive general election at a time when many people think the Democrats are going to win the White House," Zogby said.
The poll of 9,355 people had a margin of error of plus or minus one percentage point. The interactive poll surveys individuals who have registered to take part in online polls.
(To read more about the U.S. political campaign, visit Reuters "Tales from the Trail: 2008" online at Link
(Reporting by John Whitesides, editing by Vicki Allen)
Source: Reuters North American News Service
By PATRICK CALDWELL
The Iowa caucuses are known for their “living-room chats” where ordinary Iowans can meet candidates face-to-face and talk about what interests voters. When candidates have larger events or make major policy speeches, the crowds are bigger, but there is often still an opportunity for questions. But under the pressures of major media coverage, with polls narrowing in Iowa, campaigns can potentially control questions and coverage by planning questions ahead of time.
While no campaigns admit to this practice, at a recent Hillary Clinton campaign event in Newton, Iowa, some of the questions posed to the New York Senator were planned in advance, planting some audience members in the crowd.
On Tuesday Nov. 6, the Clinton campaign stopped at a biodiesel plant in Newton as part of a weeklong series of events to introduce her new energy plan. The event was clearly intended to be as much about the press as the Iowa voters in attendance, as a large press corps helped fill the small venue. Reporters from many major national news outlets came to the small Iowa town, from such media giants as The New York Times, Los Angeles Times, the Associated Press, and CNN.
After her speech, Clinton accepted questions. But according to Grinnell College student Muriel Gallo-Chasanoff ’10, some of the questions from the audience were planned in advance. “They were canned,” she said. Before the event began, a Clinton staff member approached Gallo-Chasanoff to ask a specific question after Clinton’s speech. “One of the senior staffers told me what [to ask],” she said.
Clinton called on Gallo-Chasanoff after her speech to ask a question: what Clinton would do to stop the effects of global warming. Clinton began her response by noting that young people often pose this question to her before delving into the benefits of her plan.
But the source of the question was no coincidence"at this event “they wanted a question from a college student,” Gallo-Chasanoff said. She also noted that staffers prompted Clinton to call on her and another who had been approached before the event, although Clinton used her discretion to select questions and called on people who had not been prepped before hand. Some of the questions asked were confusing and clearly off-message.
The practice of planting audience members to ask specific questions does not appear to be a common practice, or at least not a politically acceptable one. “Our campaign does not plant questions,” said Lauren Rose, Communications Director for Governor Bill Richardson’s campaign. When asked what she would think of other campaigns who did plant audience members, Rose said, “I think campaigns should give Iowa caucus-goers the chance to ask the questions they want.”
When asked if the John Edwards campaign employed such practices, Jenni Lee, Edwards’s Iowa Press Secretary said, “No, they ask whatever they want.”
But the Clinton campaign also denied the practice of planting. “It’s not a practice of our campaign to ask people to ask specific questions,” said Mark Daley, Clinton’s Iowa Communications Director. Daley said that when an event is focusing on a specific topic, such as health care or Iraq, “people are encouraged to ask questions in these regards,” but denied that they are given specific questions.
But when directly asked if his statements meant that planting does not occur in the Hillary campaign, Daley could only say, “to the best of my knowledge.”
“[Planting] is not something that is encouraged in our campaign,” he said.
The event in Newton was a particularly major policy speech, more informative than rallying. The campaign’s apparent tactics at this event may have little or no relationship with the questions at less formal campaign events.
Other presidential campaigns were approached for comment on the topic, but no others responded before the paper went to press.
Serving as a stark contrast to the Clinton event was Richardson’s campaign stop at Grinnell College the night before. Richardson’s appearance was designed as an opportunity for voters to interact with the candidate, and not the media event that Clinton held in Newton. In lower-profile events like Richardson’s (and most of Clinton’s) candidates face many challenging, presumably spontaneous questions.
The Iowa caucuses are known for their “living-room chats” where ordinary Iowans can meet candidates face-to-face and talk about what interests voters. When candidates have larger events or make major policy speeches, the crowds are bigger, but there is often still an opportunity for questions. But under the pressures of major media coverage, with polls narrowing in Iowa, campaigns can potentially control questions and coverage by planning questions ahead of time.
While no campaigns admit to this practice, at a recent Hillary Clinton campaign event in Newton, Iowa, some of the questions posed to the New York Senator were planned in advance, planting some audience members in the crowd.
On Tuesday Nov. 6, the Clinton campaign stopped at a biodiesel plant in Newton as part of a weeklong series of events to introduce her new energy plan. The event was clearly intended to be as much about the press as the Iowa voters in attendance, as a large press corps helped fill the small venue. Reporters from many major national news outlets came to the small Iowa town, from such media giants as The New York Times, Los Angeles Times, the Associated Press, and CNN.
After her speech, Clinton accepted questions. But according to Grinnell College student Muriel Gallo-Chasanoff ’10, some of the questions from the audience were planned in advance. “They were canned,” she said. Before the event began, a Clinton staff member approached Gallo-Chasanoff to ask a specific question after Clinton’s speech. “One of the senior staffers told me what [to ask],” she said.
Clinton called on Gallo-Chasanoff after her speech to ask a question: what Clinton would do to stop the effects of global warming. Clinton began her response by noting that young people often pose this question to her before delving into the benefits of her plan.
But the source of the question was no coincidence"at this event “they wanted a question from a college student,” Gallo-Chasanoff said. She also noted that staffers prompted Clinton to call on her and another who had been approached before the event, although Clinton used her discretion to select questions and called on people who had not been prepped before hand. Some of the questions asked were confusing and clearly off-message.
The practice of planting audience members to ask specific questions does not appear to be a common practice, or at least not a politically acceptable one. “Our campaign does not plant questions,” said Lauren Rose, Communications Director for Governor Bill Richardson’s campaign. When asked what she would think of other campaigns who did plant audience members, Rose said, “I think campaigns should give Iowa caucus-goers the chance to ask the questions they want.”
When asked if the John Edwards campaign employed such practices, Jenni Lee, Edwards’s Iowa Press Secretary said, “No, they ask whatever they want.”
But the Clinton campaign also denied the practice of planting. “It’s not a practice of our campaign to ask people to ask specific questions,” said Mark Daley, Clinton’s Iowa Communications Director. Daley said that when an event is focusing on a specific topic, such as health care or Iraq, “people are encouraged to ask questions in these regards,” but denied that they are given specific questions.
But when directly asked if his statements meant that planting does not occur in the Hillary campaign, Daley could only say, “to the best of my knowledge.”
“[Planting] is not something that is encouraged in our campaign,” he said.
The event in Newton was a particularly major policy speech, more informative than rallying. The campaign’s apparent tactics at this event may have little or no relationship with the questions at less formal campaign events.
Other presidential campaigns were approached for comment on the topic, but no others responded before the paper went to press.
Serving as a stark contrast to the Clinton event was Richardson’s campaign stop at Grinnell College the night before. Richardson’s appearance was designed as an opportunity for voters to interact with the candidate, and not the media event that Clinton held in Newton. In lower-profile events like Richardson’s (and most of Clinton’s) candidates face many challenging, presumably spontaneous questions.
By honoring the writers's strike picket lines and not going to work at the Comedy Channel Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert are inciting the American public to resort to acts of terrorism. Without the laugh therapy Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert provide the American public every week night the connection between the insanity emanating from the White House, the Pentagon, Congress, the national news media and the punch lines Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert provide will be broken. The American people will forget to laugh and this can only lead to violence. You see, the secret to good comedy is the build up of tension in the audience from the monologue. Once the tension is just right it is then released with a punch line so contradictory to the tension building monologue that the audience then laughs at the absurdity of it all. When a comedian flops it is because he or she is not providing a sufficient punch line to the monologue. The tension builds in the audience joke after joke, not being released, until the audience can't take it any more and begins to throw things at the source of the tension, the comedian.
Without the punch lines that Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert provide every night the tension building that happens to the American public as they come in contact with the news of the day (our national monologue), day in, day out will not be released. The longer the writers are out on strike the greater the American public's tension will become till one day very soon it will be to much for the American People to handle and they will be forced, finally to attack the source of their tension and violently over throw the government of the United States of America and that would be an act terrorism according to a new bill passed in the house of representatives.
I am calling on law enforcement officials to arrest Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert and their writers for inciting terrorism and force them back to their shows at gun point. At gun point Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert and their writers should be forced to provide our National Punch Line quota so we the American people do not have to resort to the violent over throw of our government. If I don't get my daily punch line quota I'm afraid I will have no choice but to beat up Dick Cheney and the generals.
There is a ticking time bomb in America and its called the writer's strike. So the use of torture is not out of the question after all the Democrats sided with Bush on appointing a new pro torture attorney general Adolf or Benito Mukasey or something like that. I say we put the new attorney general right to work busting the writer's guild in a pre-pre-emptive union busting water boarding session so they never endanger our governments right to commit acts torture and mass murder against people who some how have our oil under their sand.
If we can't laugh at ourselves we'll have to do something about it and that would be un-American.
http://dadapop.com
http://myspace.com/lloydhart
Link
Without the punch lines that Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert provide every night the tension building that happens to the American public as they come in contact with the news of the day (our national monologue), day in, day out will not be released. The longer the writers are out on strike the greater the American public's tension will become till one day very soon it will be to much for the American People to handle and they will be forced, finally to attack the source of their tension and violently over throw the government of the United States of America and that would be an act terrorism according to a new bill passed in the house of representatives.
I am calling on law enforcement officials to arrest Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert and their writers for inciting terrorism and force them back to their shows at gun point. At gun point Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert and their writers should be forced to provide our National Punch Line quota so we the American people do not have to resort to the violent over throw of our government. If I don't get my daily punch line quota I'm afraid I will have no choice but to beat up Dick Cheney and the generals.
There is a ticking time bomb in America and its called the writer's strike. So the use of torture is not out of the question after all the Democrats sided with Bush on appointing a new pro torture attorney general Adolf or Benito Mukasey or something like that. I say we put the new attorney general right to work busting the writer's guild in a pre-pre-emptive union busting water boarding session so they never endanger our governments right to commit acts torture and mass murder against people who some how have our oil under their sand.
If we can't laugh at ourselves we'll have to do something about it and that would be un-American.
http://dadapop.com
http://myspace.com/lloydhart
Link
WASHINGTON--John Edwards campaign advisor Kate Michelman--former NARAL president-- is attacking frontrunner Hillary Rodham Clinton--the first female with a real chance of being elected president-- for complaining that her male rivals are "piling on."
"It's trying to have it both ways; walk the fence, something Senator Clinton's good at. At one minute the strong woman ready to lead, the next, she's the woman under attack, disingenuously playing the victim card as a means of trying to avoid giving honest, direct answers to legitimate questions," Michelman said in a statement the campaign issued Saturday.
click below for entire statement...
Michelman has impeccable creditionals when it comes to the struggle for womens equality and supporting women cracking glass ceilings. As the former president of NARAL, she has been a long-time national leader in the abortions rights movement.
Michelman goes after Clinton for playing the gender card after Clinton botch answers in Tuesday's debate in Philadelphia--with Edwards part of an aggresive assault.
"As a woman who's been in the public eye and experienced scrutiny, as a woman who knows how hard it can be for women to earn their seat at the leadership table, how hard women have to work just to get the same opportunities, this distresses me," she said.
Link
"It's trying to have it both ways; walk the fence, something Senator Clinton's good at. At one minute the strong woman ready to lead, the next, she's the woman under attack, disingenuously playing the victim card as a means of trying to avoid giving honest, direct answers to legitimate questions," Michelman said in a statement the campaign issued Saturday.
click below for entire statement...
Michelman has impeccable creditionals when it comes to the struggle for womens equality and supporting women cracking glass ceilings. As the former president of NARAL, she has been a long-time national leader in the abortions rights movement.
Michelman goes after Clinton for playing the gender card after Clinton botch answers in Tuesday's debate in Philadelphia--with Edwards part of an aggresive assault.
"As a woman who's been in the public eye and experienced scrutiny, as a woman who knows how hard it can be for women to earn their seat at the leadership table, how hard women have to work just to get the same opportunities, this distresses me," she said.
Link
The group Democrats Against Hillary has formed and put out a great music video called "Hillary Knew." it is a must see.
Lloyd Hart
Democrats Against Hillary
Link
If anyone in the world had the information and experience to see the truth about Iraq, it was Hillary Clinton. Don't you think someone who spent 8 years in the White House could predict what Iraq would become? Don't you think someone who had been on the Armed Services Committee would know our intelligence was flimsy?
Hillary knew. She knew Bush's rationale for going into Iraq was bulls**t and that our troops would sink in a quagmire once they got there. But she voted for the war anyway. And she didn't just vote yes. She voted "with conviction" that the resolution was "in the best interests of our nation" and told Saddam to "disarm or be disarmed." Why?
We think Hillary approached the Iraq resolution with cold, self-interested logic. Whether she voted "yes" or "no," the outcome would be the same: a year after 9/11 with a Republican majority in Congress, America was definitely going to war with Iraq. Only two things would be affected by Hillary's vote.
The first was her electability. She knew she'd be running for President in a few years. If she voted "no" she'd play into the hands of detractors who would claim that she was soft, that a woman couldn't be trusted with national security.
The second was her integrity. If she voted "yes", she'd speak the lie that she in the world was best-positioned to detect: that Bush had a phony premise and American soldiers would die for it.
She put her electability ahead of her integrity.
She put her personal advancement ahead of the lives of American soldiers.
She traded votes for death.
It is unconscionable to put someone who made that perverse choice- so publicly, so shamelessly- into the world's highest office. Vote for Edwards, Biden, Obama: anyone but the woman with blood on her hands. HILLARY KNEW.
Link
Lloyd Hart
Democrats Against Hillary
Link
If anyone in the world had the information and experience to see the truth about Iraq, it was Hillary Clinton. Don't you think someone who spent 8 years in the White House could predict what Iraq would become? Don't you think someone who had been on the Armed Services Committee would know our intelligence was flimsy?
Hillary knew. She knew Bush's rationale for going into Iraq was bulls**t and that our troops would sink in a quagmire once they got there. But she voted for the war anyway. And she didn't just vote yes. She voted "with conviction" that the resolution was "in the best interests of our nation" and told Saddam to "disarm or be disarmed." Why?
We think Hillary approached the Iraq resolution with cold, self-interested logic. Whether she voted "yes" or "no," the outcome would be the same: a year after 9/11 with a Republican majority in Congress, America was definitely going to war with Iraq. Only two things would be affected by Hillary's vote.
The first was her electability. She knew she'd be running for President in a few years. If she voted "no" she'd play into the hands of detractors who would claim that she was soft, that a woman couldn't be trusted with national security.
The second was her integrity. If she voted "yes", she'd speak the lie that she in the world was best-positioned to detect: that Bush had a phony premise and American soldiers would die for it.
She put her electability ahead of her integrity.
She put her personal advancement ahead of the lives of American soldiers.
She traded votes for death.
It is unconscionable to put someone who made that perverse choice- so publicly, so shamelessly- into the world's highest office. Vote for Edwards, Biden, Obama: anyone but the woman with blood on her hands. HILLARY KNEW.
Link
Released: October 20, 2007
Zogby Poll: Half Say They Would Never Vote for Hillary Clinton for President
Other top tier candidates in both parties win more acceptance; Richardson & Huckabee favored most
While she is winning wide support in nationwide samples among Democrats in the race for their party�s presidential nomination, half of likely voters nationwide said they would never vote for New York Sen. Hillary Clinton, a new Zogby Interactive poll shows.
The online survey of 9,718 likely voters nationwide showed that 50% said Clinton would never get their presidential vote. This is up from 46% who said they could never vote for Clinton in a Zogby International telephone survey conducted in early March. Older voters are most resistant to Clinton â�" 59% of those age 65 and older said they would never vote for the New York senator, but she is much more acceptable to younger voters: 42% of those age 18â�"29 said they would never vote for Clinton for President.
Whom would you NEVER vote for for President of the U.S.?
Clinton (D)
50%
Kucinich (D)
49%
Gravel (D)
47%
Paul (R)
47%
Brownback (R)
47%
Tancredo (R)
46%
McCain (R)
45%
Hunter (R)
44%
Giuliani (R)
43%
Romney (R)
42%
Edwards (D)
42%
Thompson (R)
41%
Dodd (D)
41%
Biden (D)
40%
Obama (D)
37%
Huckabee (R)
35%
Richardson (D)
34%
Not sure
4%
At the other end of the scale, Republican Mike Huckabee and Democrats Bill Richardson and Barack Obama faired best, as they were least objectionable to likely voters. Richardson was forever objectionable as President to 34%, while 35% said they could never vote for Huckabee and 37% said they would never cast a presidential ballot for Obama, the survey showed.
The Zogby Interactive poll, conducted Oct. 11â�"15, 2007, included 9,718 likely voters nationwide and carries a margin of error of +/â�" 1.0 percentage point.
In a Zogby International telephone survey conducted in March, 46% said they would never vote for Clinton. In that survey, she finished in second place, behind Republican Newt Gingrich, a divisive figure who has since announced he would not seek the presidency and was not included in this new online survey. In that earlier poll, 54% said they would never vote for Gingrich. This recent survey included only the 17 candidates who were at that time running for President in one of the major parties. Former Vice President Al Gore, who like Gingrich was also included in the earlier Zogby survey of who would never win voters� support for the White House, was excluded from this latest survey because of his insistence that he has no interest in a run for the presidency.
Interest in a Gore candidacy has been rekindled after he recently won the Nobel Prize for peace in connection with his work on the issue of global climate change.
Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback, who announced Friday he would end his campaign, was included in the poll. He might have sensed the nationwide opposition to his campaign, as 47% said they would never vote for him for President. The survey showed he was tied as the third most objectionable candidate, behind Clinton and Congressman Dennis Kucinich (49%). Tied with Brownback was Democrat Michael Gravel, a former Alaska senator, and GOP Congressman Ron Paul.
Opposition to Clinton among Democratic and Republican women revealed mirror opposite attitudes, the Zogby Interactive survey showed. While 83% of Republican women said they would never vote for her, just 17% said they could possibly cast a ballot for her. Among Democratic women, just 17% said they would never vote for Hillary, while 83% said they could.
Democratic women appear smitten by former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina and Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois â�" just 11% said they could never vote for them for President. Republican women, on the other hand, find former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney most attractive â�" just 14% said they would never vote for him. Tied for a close second was former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, who were found to be objectionable by just 15% of Republican women.
For a complete methodological statement on this survey, please visit:
Link
(10/20/2007)
With primaries and caucuses beginning in what is simply a matter of weeks, we as free thinking people need to judiciously examine our choices and reflect upon our national dynamic as a whole.
There is going to be a substantial portion of the republican voting pool that is going to abandon it's party and they're going to secede for a number of reasons. Some of these people are going to be evangelicals who are leaving the party because they believe that neither the Bush Administration, nor whomever the republican nominee turns out to be, truly reflect their values. From the fumbling of domestic aid and relief to even recent attacks on children trying to engage this political process. There's also a business side of the republican party that is going to defect because of the fiscal irresponsibility of our President.
And let's face it, both of those groups will also be motivated by the war.
As the evangelicals feel out our candidates, and our unions continue to build support for John Edwards, we should be mindful of where the corporate defection heads. And this brings me to Mr. Hannity. Read More »
There is going to be a substantial portion of the republican voting pool that is going to abandon it's party and they're going to secede for a number of reasons. Some of these people are going to be evangelicals who are leaving the party because they believe that neither the Bush Administration, nor whomever the republican nominee turns out to be, truly reflect their values. From the fumbling of domestic aid and relief to even recent attacks on children trying to engage this political process. There's also a business side of the republican party that is going to defect because of the fiscal irresponsibility of our President.
And let's face it, both of those groups will also be motivated by the war.
As the evangelicals feel out our candidates, and our unions continue to build support for John Edwards, we should be mindful of where the corporate defection heads. And this brings me to Mr. Hannity. Read More »
With the election 2008 coming up it must be weighing on your mind who to vote for in the Democratic Presidential Primary. Well, our group is dedicated to you not voting for the Clinton's in the primaries.
After eight years of the Clinton's we surely must have learned a little something about them.
Like how they failed to fulfill their main campaign promise of providing the public with universal healthcare. By not fulfilling this promise the Clintons demoralized the public that voted for them and as a result caused them to stay home in enough numbers in the mid term elections 1994 that corrupt the republicans took control of the congress.
And of course lets not forget balancing the budget on the backs of the poor and welfare reform that led to ever increasing childhood poverty.
Because of not fulfilling their main campaign promise and giving away the congress the Clintons caused the congress to distract themselves from their sworn duty to the American Public and chase President Clinton through years of a wasted presidency in the impeachment process.
The Clintons gave us media consolidation so that corrupt businessmen could control the media and create propaganda that led the country into a war we don't want. The Clintons also gave us banking and investment deregulation that has led to the present morgage lending crisis that threatens the whole economy.
The worst attack the Clintons perpetrated against the working people of America was signing NAFTA (North America Free Trade Agreement) which did everything to the working people that we all said it would. Bring about of the end of the road to the middle class for the working people in this country, set up slave labor camps in Mexico and undermine small business across America.
The worst thing the Clintons did abroad beside's maintaining sanctions on Iraq that murdered 500,000 Iraqi children was to sign an executive order that took away the ablilty for U.N. Peace Keeping Troops from intervening directly in a conflict they were tasked to police which led to the deaths of 500,000 Rwandans.
Just recently Hillary Clinton Voted away Habeous Corpus or the right to a public court hearing within twenty four hours after being arrested by voting with the republicans for the Military Commisions bill which Bush signed into law.
And lest we not forget, Hillary Clinton voted to authorize the use of force and as a result the invasion of Iraq and the deaths of over a million Iraqis .
If you agree with our message here please support our cause, join our group and buy a shirt or a sticker and thank you for hearing us out.
Link
Posts By Month
Posts
