"H-I-L-L-A-R-Y" by 'Nuff Said / LJWorld.com

Blogs home 'Nuff Said

H-I-L-L-A-R-Y

As a 53 year-old woman and an admitted feminist, I watched in awe tonight as Hillary Clinton delivered the speech of her life. Having spent a lifetime in the service of others and working for the greater good, I was one with Hillary as she selflessly passed the torch to Barack Obama and the younger generation. Most true Democrats had no doubt that she would do so - and do so in style - in spite of the speculation by "ratings greedy" pundits who have spent the last several days perpetuating the "rift" between Hillary supporters and Obama supporters. You see, Hillary is no fool. Like most progressives and most women, her daughter's interests and your daughter's interests come before hers and ours.Tonight, Hillary put on her big girl panties and took one for the future of our country. I, for one, intend to follow suit.

By Virginia Rigney

August 26, 2008

'Nuff Said

From the Citizen Journalism Academy

Discussion

LJWorld.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post.
Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.

26 August 2008
at 11:19 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Guardian (Anonymous) says…

One performance does not a commitment make. It's still early and Hillary's allegiance is to Hillary. We will see. 2012 isn't that far off.
27 August 2008
at 1:11 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

blahblahblah (Anonymous) says…

She lost. She finally conceded defeat, and it is entirely possible that she was so “selfless” in hopes of securing a high profile cabinet position in Obama's administration. If she would have been more abrasive tonight, her chances for that would have gone out the window. Seeing as how she is not a fool, she did what she had to for her own security and political gain. She is, after all, a politician (and a lawyer).
27 August 2008
at 1:33 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

Devil with the red dress on!
27 August 2008
at 5:33 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

triplegoddess13 (Anonymous) says…

zzzzzz … Wha? Is the convention over with yet? As with all political types she will wait to see where she lands to plot her next move. Wouldn't expect anything less from any other person.
27 August 2008
at 8:30 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

mike_blur (Mike Blur) says…

Triplegoddess, how's about the Supreme Court? There's a probability of 3 retirements in the next four years. HRC has a chance to influence American culture for the next 20-30 years! She finally wised up and realized what's at stake.The media-concocted “rift” has been, by far, the lowlight of the convention. It was commendable of Hillary to acknowledge this in a subtle manner, and advise the most irrational of her supporters that it would be absolutely stupid to vote for McCain, just because Barack didn't pick Hillary for veep.Oh, and how about that Brian Schweitzer guy! Probably the best speech of the whole convention thus far. He stirred up the crowd for Hillary. I only wish he could do it again Thursday for Barry. (Schweitzer's speech is on youtube if you missed it. It rocks!)
27 August 2008
at 8:46 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

POCO (Anonymous) says…

It is sad to realize that Hillary was held back by her husband's actions. There was no way that Obama wants Bill back in the door again. She should have dumped Bill on the basis of adultery as long time ago. Had she done that, I believe she would have been found “acceptable”. I found it remarkable last night when she ticked off who she was … a mother, a senator, etc. In her list of six, “a wife” was not mentioned. She would have been a winning card for Obama, but that card was not to be played because of Bill.
27 August 2008
at 8:56 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

jumpin_catfish (Anonymous) says…

I think I'm going to be sick!

27 August 2008
at 8:59 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

The_Original_Bob (Anonymous) says…

Mike-That is interesting, but SC justices lead pretty private lives. I'm not sure Hillary can containt her ego enough not to be on tv every night. I think she'll give 2012 a shot. Which means, of course, she'll start campaigning this December.
27 August 2008
at 9:08 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

justbegintowrite (Ronda Miller) says…

Glad to see your post. I disagree with a lot of what you say, but admire that you are speaking up. I enjoyed watching the black female delegate when a CNN reporter spoke with her after last night's convention and I couldn't have agreed more. Hillary may say she wants us to vote for Obama, but if we really respect what she and other women like her have done over the years for women's rights then we know we will do what our own strong opinions tell us to do. She wouldn't want it any other way, and I for one am like the delegate I refer to in that Obama has a long, long way to go in proving he should be President - of anything.
27 August 2008
at 9:10 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

triplegoddess13 (Anonymous) says…

Did I not say she was waiting? Obama was smart not to pick her as VP because he knew he wouldn't win with a minority-female ticket. I know it sounds harsh and crass but it's the truth. Sorry to break it to you so bluntly. IF he wins, Hillary will have a nice little place somewhere that will further her career until she wants to move on and step up/on/over someone else.
27 August 2008
at 9:18 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

acoupstick (Anonymous) says…

“Devil with the red dress on!”Actually it was “electric pumpkin orange!”
27 August 2008
at 9:24 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

jhwk2008 (Anonymous) says…

Ronda, did you not see the speech? Maybe you should read the speech. How can you not vote for Obama when she says this:”I ran for president to renew the promise of America; to rebuild the middle class and sustain the American dream; to provide opportunity to those who are willing to work hard for it and have that work rewarded, so they could save for college, a home and retirement, afford gas and groceries and have a little left over each month; to promote a clean-energy economy that will create millions of green- collar jobs; to create a health care system that is universal, high- quality and affordable, so that every single parent knows their children will be taken care of.We want to create a world-class education system and make college affordable again, to fight for an America that is defined by deep and meaningful equality, from civil rights to labor rights, from women's rights to gay rights — (cheers, applause) — from ending discrimination to promoting unionization to providing help for the most important job there is, caring for our families, and to help every child live up to his or her God-given potential.To make America once again a nation of immigrants and of laws, to restore fiscal sanity to Washington and make our government an institution of the public good, not of private plunder.To restore America's standing in the world, to end the war in Iraq, bring our troops home with honor, care for our veterans and give them the services they have earned. We will work for an America again that will join with our allies in confronting our shared challenges from poverty and genocide to terrorism and global warming.Most of all, I ran to stand up for all those who have been invisible to their government for eight long years.Those are the reasons I ran for president, and those are the reasons I support Barack Obama for president.”http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2008/08/clinton_transcrip.html
27 August 2008
at 9:28 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

jhwk2008 (Anonymous) says…

Furthermore Ronda, how do you respond this question raised by Hillary?”I want you — I want you to ask yourselves, were you in this campaign just for me, or were you in it for that young Marine and others like him? (Cheers, applause.) Were you in it for that mom struggling with cancer while raising her kids? Were you in it for that young boy and his mom surviving on the minimum wage? Were you in it for all the people in this country who feel invisible?We need leaders once again who can tap into that special blend of American confidence and optimism that has enabled generations before us to meet our toughest challenges, leaders who can help us show ourselves and the world that with our ingenuity, creativity and innovative spirit, there are no limits to what is possible in America.”
27 August 2008
at 9:36 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

RedwoodCoast (Anonymous) says…

Ronda: I admire your spirit, but to be honest, it almost sounds as if voting for Obama causes you some sort of allergic reaction. I guess my personal feeling is that if the guy we have in there now somehow could survive 8 years without completely ruining us, then how bad could Obama possibly be? He won't be running the show by himself.
27 August 2008
at 9:48 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

justbegintowrite (Ronda Miller) says…

No allergic reaction, redwoodcoast. Just don't think he is experienced enough. I am pro-life. ( I know Hillary isn't this either). Don't ever think things can't get worse than they are now. :)jhwk, I answer it the same as I did the first time around. “if we really respect what she and other women like her have done over the years for women's rights then we know we will do what our own strong opinions tell us to do. She wouldn't want it any other way, and I for one am like the delegate I refer to in that Obama has a long, long way to go in proving he should be President - of anything.”

27 August 2008
at 10:01 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

jhwk2008 (Anonymous) says…

Ronda, you answered “no” to the following?”[W]ere you in [this campaign] for that young Marine and others like him?Were you in it for that mom struggling with cancer while raising her kids? Were you in it for that young boy and his mom surviving on the minimum wage? Were you in it for all the people in this country who feel invisible?”That's truly disappointing. I hope you reconsider between now and the election.
27 August 2008
at 10:18 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

The_Original_Bob (Anonymous) says…

“Were you in it for that mom struggling with cancer while raising her kids? Were you in it for that young boy and his mom surviving on the minimum wage? Were you in it for all the people in this country who feel invisible?”None of that means anything. Just a bunch of questions designed to try to guilt people into voting for Obama. There is no substance in any of that.
27 August 2008
at 10:26 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

chet_larock (Anonymous) says…

If those “Clinton supporters” truly were in it because they believed in what she believed in, and believed that she was the best thing for the country, there is absolutely no rational way they should think that voting for John McCain is the next best option. It is truly unbelievable. I can understand if they would prefer to vote for a third party candidate, but to say that McCain is the next best thing to Hilary is incredulous. If I ran into any of these “Democrats” in Denver I would tell them one thing: “Minneapolis is 700 miles east of here”.
27 August 2008
at 10:28 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

beatrice (Anonymous) says…

No Way! No How! No McCain!Beautiful. She smacked it out of the park last night. The experience McCain has of being closely tied to the policies of George W. Bush means something to most of us. His wanting to expand the war in Iraq by acknowledging his desire to attack Iran has been made clear, proving that he is someone who doesn't learn from his failed experiences. He is not Presidential material.Obama has the intelligence and the vision to lead our nation. Obama for President!
27 August 2008
at 10:30 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

chet_larock (Anonymous) says…

The Daily Show had an excellent segment last night, when they brought in a child pyschologist to “heal” Clinton supporters who are against Obama being president.http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=179256&title=healing-clinton-supporters
27 August 2008
at 10:34 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

beatrice (Anonymous) says…

Ronda, would you please tell us what experiences are needed to be President? Would more years in the Senate make one truly more intelligent or capable? Look at how long McCain has been in the Senate, yet he led the charge even before Bush that we should invade Iraq. He supports Bush's failed economic plans, despite his longevity in the Senate.George W. Bush has 8 years of experience as President. Need I say more?
27 August 2008
at 10:43 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

kansascrone (Virginia Rigney) says…

among the people i was with last evening was a young man i had never met named troy. he was a good looking, well-spoken, professional type. by appearance-only i would have guessed him to be conservative. throughout the evening, his conversation revealed a compassion for humanity and knowledge of the issues that affect most americans that seemed beyond his years. out of curiousity, i asked troy, “who are you and where do you come from.” turns out troy, like many young men today, was raised by a caring and competent single mom. the average single mom makes 60cents to the average mans dollar. this is important for two reasons. 1) i could never vote republican because their “policies” (trickle down among them) are out of touch with most americans and do not provide equal opportunity for all. 2) the troys of this world are the “way” towards balancing the masculine and feminine that is so desperately needed in our society. hillary knows that in order for her daughter or granddaughter to enjoy equal opportunity (including the opportunity to run for president of the us) she must graciously step aside. she will no doubt go down in history with the likes of alice paul and others who have fought for women's rights throughout the ages. the historian laurel thatcher ulrich noted, “well behaved women rarely make history.” it is obvious that many on this post like their women “well behaved.” rather than wasting one minute of the future engaged in a pitty party, i am betting on the younger generation, and men like troy and obama to help achieve that balance that many of us have fought for all of our lives.
27 August 2008
at 10:50 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

supertrampofkansas (Anonymous) says…

Ronda,I disagree that your “pro-life” stance means that you have to vote for someone who is also “pro-life”. As previous posters have pointed out, there has not been any progress politically speaking in terms of overturning Roe vs Wade (1972). By far, the biggest effect on overturning abortion has been with grass root campaigns to reduce the number of abortions through education and counseling. In other words, let abortion be legal, just make it obsolete. It makes no sense to use this criteria as your main basis for who you will vote for president because it has no effect at all on the legality of abortion. In my opinion, the day abortion is overturned by SCOTUS will be the day that the Republican Party dies.

27 August 2008
at 11 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

kansascrone (Virginia Rigney) says…

ronda - i hardly took you for a single issue voter. ever heard of divide and conquer?
27 August 2008
at 11:06 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

justbegintowrite (Ronda Miller) says…

logic, by your logic a vote for Obama would be meaningless in the state of Kansas as well. I wouldn't tell people they shouldn't do that though. I think people should vote for the person they want to win regardless of what they “predict” the outcome to be.jkwh, I didn't say no to any of those things - please don't put the “no” word in my comments when it isn't there. I said no only to Obama.kansascrone, if you read my piece about “Coming Out of the Closet”, and the comments that followed, then you read my comment about an elderly, African American man who said he was extremely disappointed that Hillary wasn't the nominee for the Democratic party. He said if people wanted change it would take a woman to do that - voting for another male wouldn't be different. I tend to agree with him.Geez people. You would think this was my blog! :) It will be of interest that I watch President Clinton's speech this evening. It will be with interest that I watch how many of Hillary's fans write her in, vote for Obama, vote for McCain/Bush, or don't vote. Then there is always Ralph. I hope Obama grandslams it when he speaks, but I frankly don't think he can come close to Hillary's ability to speak and lead.
27 August 2008
at 11:28 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

acoupstick (Anonymous) says…

“I hope Obama grandslams it when he speaks, but I frankly don't think he can come close to Hillary's ability to speak and lead.”He certainly hasn't made it any easier for himself speaking after Hillary last night and Bill tonight. He better have one hell of speech ready.
27 August 2008
at 11:29 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Satirical (Anonymous) says…

Kansascrone:I was raised by a single mother, grew up on government purchased school lunches, and have received thousands from the government for things like education. She tended to vote for Democrats but I am a conservative.While you may not understand how my political philosophy could be reconciled with my background, it may reflect more on your lack of knowledge of conservative and liberal philosophy. Conservatives don't hate the poor, women and minorities; and liberals don't solve poverty, racism and gender issues by throwing money at problems and creating more inefficient and wasteful bureaucracies. Government can be there to help others, but the government is not the solution to all of our problems.Do not be fooled by those who don't want you to view each candidate on their own and want you to vote against all Republicans simply because Bush (who isn't conservative on many issues) was ineffective in many respects. Vote based on the candidate, not based on the (R) or (D) next to their name.
27 August 2008
at 11:30 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

cg22165 (Anonymous) says…

My prediction: Secretary of State
27 August 2008
at noon

Suggest removal

Permalink

davidnta (Anonymous) says…

I loved that speech. Makes me feel good to be a liberal Democrat who's also a feminist and LBGT/queer rights activist.
27 August 2008
at 12:06 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

beatrice (Anonymous) says…

Good post, Satirical — or were you just being satirical? No, seriously, good post. Vote for the candidate, not the party. John McCain was one of the first to call for war against Iraq, has made his intentions clear of attacking Iran at the earliest sign of provication, and now supports Bush's economic plans of massive tax cuts that benefit the wealthiest of the wealthy. He does, however, recognize the need to find alternative energy sources and appears to not dislike science, which I appreciate. Obama voiced his opposition to invading Iraq, prefers diplomacy when possible, and is opposed to Bush's economic plans. He strongly supports breaking America's dependancy on foreign oil and encouraging investing in alternative energy sources, and he, too, doesn't dislike science. All of these views I appreciate. The choice is pretty clear when you look at the candidates without considering just the party.
27 August 2008
at 12:12 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

kansascrone (Virginia Rigney) says…

ronda - are you a puma? http://riverdaughter.wordpress.com/ i understand, i really do. and i agree that it will take women in power to achieve the balance i am talking about. the fact is it isn't going to be hillary - not this time. i guess i just see something in obama that i haven't seen in a politician in a long time and am not willing to risk missing the opportunity for our country. satirical says - “liberals don't solve poverty, racism and gender issues by throwing money at problems and creating more inefficient and wasteful bureaucracies.”it is you who misunderstands the democratic party platform. i have worked closely with struggling families for many years and agree that niether party does enough to support (by that i do not mean “throwing money”) families and others who just want the opportunity to succeed. if i may have a “lack of knowledge” of what republicans do for the american people perhaps it is because i rarely hear a discussion of the issues. instead, more often than not, republicans run on a philosophy of fear. fear of terrorists, fear of mexicans, fear of women, fear of god, fear of gays, fear of our shadows…well i'm not afraid and i don't need the daddy party to take care of me. so tell me what the republican party does stand for.

27 August 2008
at 12:38 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Satirical (Anonymous) says…

Kansascrone:.”if i may have a “lack of knowledge” of what republicans do for the american people perhaps it is because i rarely hear a discussion of the issues. instead, more often than not, republicans run on a philosophy of fear.”Your lack of knowledge is not because people aren't discussing conservatism, it is because you choose not to listen. First you have to understand there is a difference between political philosophy and politics. Politics is a game. Both sides use the exact same tactics when the roles are reversed, such as when the other party is in power. Once you start paying close attention to politics as long as I have, you will realize this. You will hear essentially the same slogans every election “it's time for change” or “you've never had it so good.” Liberals use fear of big a greedy corporations and fear of alleged warmongering to fuel their side. “fear of terrorists, fear of mexicans, fear of women, fear of god, fear of gays, fear of our shadows:” -kansascrone(1)I think it would be naÃive not to realize terrorism exists and the problems must be dealt with. The difference between conservatives and liberals is the approach. The Bush administration's policy has been to take a pre-emptive approach before we are attacked again. While I do not universally agree with this approach, I also do not agree with the liberal approach to close our eyes and pretend terrorism doesn't exist.(2)Conservatives do not fear Mexicans. Conservatives believe laws should be followed. Since our country could not support the billions of people that would come to America if given a chance, we have to have a system to decide who can enter. Do you think Mexicans should get preference over starving Africans? I don't.(3)Conservatives do not fear women. This unsupported allegation is so ridiculous it does not deserve further comment.(4)One does not have to believe in a Deity in order to be conservative, but many are God fearing. Do you seem something wrong with believing there are consequences to a person's actions?(5)Conservatives do not fear gays. Again reference #3(6)Conservatives do not fear shadow. Reference # 5 and # 3More to come:
27 August 2008
at 12:40 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Satirical (Anonymous) says…

Kansascrone:”:tell me what the republican party does stand for.”I will tell you a little about conservative philosophy. This is not an exclusive list.Conservatism believes in personal responsibility. If you sacrifice and work hard, take risks to succeed, and educate yourself, you should enjoy the fruit of your labor. If you choose to be lazy and not work, you should suffer the consequences of your choice. It is not the role of government to engage in class warfare. This does not mean conservative hate the poor and only care about the rich. It is about personal responsibility. Conservatives believe a system that inherently rewards hard work and discourages laziness is self correcting and doesn't require constant bureaucratic oversight.Conservatives believe the government that works best is the government that is closest to the people, so they want a stronger state and local government and a smaller federal government. Conservatives believe that while the government can at times be useful, it is generally inefficient and wasteful and will more often make things worse by trying to “help.” Conservative believe that rather than always giving handouts, people should be incentivized. Most conservatives believe in free markets and supply and demand since it leads to efficiency, understanding the companies help create jobs and make products we use and enjoy. Companies need some regulation but are not evil. A question that most liberals have never asked themselves:What is the role of government? Is it to be everything to everybody? To redistribute wealth? To solve every possible problem in society? Or provide liberty and opportunity to allow people to get out of life what they put in it.
27 August 2008
at 12:42 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

RedwoodCoast (Anonymous) says…

Ronda: Man, don't push that button again—unless you liked what happened. Anyway, everyone is entitled to vote for whomever the wish. Heck, I think Mark Twain even gets a certain percentage of the votes in each election. So I guess to me, it still sounds like you actually resent Obama more that you disagree with him. I personally feel that having someone of African American descent in the top seat of US government is a significant step in American history. After all, we have fought no wars with women's rights as a central theme. African Americans are both male and female, so I guess I feel that if Obama gets elected, then this would serve to reify the alleged equality of men and women of non-European descent—especially African descent—in our society. I do have some feminist leanings and I am prochoice, and I do think that a woman president would be another huge step for us. However, I also feel that, symbolically, electing Obama would have much more meaning for our society than a woman getting elected. Now if it were an African American woman, that would be another story… in my opinion. I guess I see the struggle of women as a demographic group as inhabiting some space in a spectrum of justice between absolute equality and the African struggle in the United States.
27 August 2008
at 12:51 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Satirical (Anonymous) says…

Beatrice:Sorry bea, didn't mean to pass you over. I was not being satirical in my post.”John McCain was one of the first to call for war against Iraq, has made his intentions clear of attacking Iran at the earliest sign of provication,” - beaMcCain, like Hillary Clinton, supported the invasion of Iraq. Obama was still in Illinois when the vote was taken., and his opposition without the same information that Hillary and McCain had is about as informed as a janitor who advocated against the invasion. However, McCain was 100% correct about the surge in Iraq, while Obama claimed the surge would make the situation worse. In the only significant and important decision, where the consequences are now known, Obama was horribly wrong.”and now supports Bush's economic plans of massive tax cuts that benefit the wealthiest of the wealthy.” - beaThe reduction in taxes on long term capital gains is already in effect, McCain doesn't support ending this tax cut. If taxes increases as Obama wants, it will be the largest tax increase in U.S. history.”Obama: prefers diplomacy when possible, and is opposed to Bush's economic plans. He strongly supports breaking America's dependancy on foreign oil and encouraging investing in alternative energy sources, and he, too, doesn't dislike science. All of these views I appreciate.” - beaMcCain also prefers diplomacy, disagrees with Bush on many issues, but doesn't support the largest tax increase in U.S. history, also supports breaking America's dependency on foreign oil and encouraging investing in alternative energy sources.
27 August 2008
at 1:28 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

beatrice (Anonymous) says…

The same as a janitor? Really? While Hillary voted for the invasion (a huge error on her part that cost her the party's nomination), John McCain called for attacking Iraq within a month after 9/11 — long before Bush called for the invasion! It isn't just that he voted for the invasion — he did everything he could to make sure it happened. That shows a huge lack of judgment on my part and a shoot-first attitude that is not what our country needs.http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/17/us/politics/17mccain.html?_r=2&ref=politics&oref=slogin&oref=sloginAs far as the “surge” goes, much of the success there is also because we are now spending millions to pay off waring factions, something that isn't discussed. Initially, however, McCain felt that smaller number of troops is what was needed. McCain said: “But the fact is I think we could go in with much smaller numbers than we had to do in the past. But I don't believe it's going to be nearly the size and scope that it was in 1991.” [CBS Face the Nation, 9/15/02] The invasion of Iraq was based on finding WMDs. There were none. So, is it better to have someone who is supposedly “wrong” on the surge issue, or the person who was wrong on the entire invasion in the first place? As far as the tax issue, very sadly we have a runaway deficit and our national debt has doubled! in the 8 years Bush has been in office. He gave uber-wealthy Americans a massive tax cut during a time of war! (Has it helped the economy, or has it just made the prices of fine art go up?) McCain initially was against Bush's tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. Now, he supports them. (What was that phrase Republicans liked to use 4 years ago about Kerry for changing positiions?) Our economy is in the tank, and those policies are part of the reason why. McCain wants to continue those policies. Vote Obama! He will get it right the first time!
27 August 2008
at 1:45 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Logan72 (Alia Ahmed) says…

Ginny,Thanks for the great blog. It certainly has generated a lively discussion. Let me say I am adamently pro-choice, but don't believe John McCain is a threat to women's right to choose. Many pro-life organizations don't trust what he is saying about abortion as he courts them for their votes. I would not vote for someone on a single issue. I will not vote for McCain because of his war record, due to the loss of the lives of our service men and women, catastrophic injuries to our service men and women and the tens of thousands of Iraqi men, women and children killed by “collateral damage” and by the destabilization of the entire region. Although I'm pro-choice, I agree that decreasing the number of abortions performed would be a good thing. That can be accomplished by increasing access to contraception and other programs that encourage young women and men to delay pregnancy until they have completed high school and/or college and are financially stable. I'm not voting against John McCain, instead I am voting for Barack Obama because I believe his is the best candidate still in the running. Even though he and his family are more well-off than many of us, he is committed to helping the middle and lower class. He didn't take a cushy job right out of college, but chose to work with American workers whose jobs had been displaced overseas. For eight years, George Bush and his wealthy buddies has profitted from his failed policies (though, they certainly wouldn't call them failed policies as they've lined their pockets). John McCain as president would ensure four more years of the gap widening between the rich and poor and decimation of the middle class as well as many more lives lost in war. Here's a you tube clip about a pro-life's opinion of John McCain's stance on abortion. This was first one on the list, but there are many more.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7C-2-jtKFM
27 August 2008
at 2:30 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

chet_larock (Anonymous) says…

” I also do not agree with the liberal approach to close our eyes and pretend terrorism doesn't exist.”Satirical, regardless of what you may think of me, I appreciate your comments regarding conservatism and consider you one of the more reasonable conservative posters on here. However, the above statement is a flat out lie.
27 August 2008
at 2:53 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

kansascrone (Virginia Rigney) says…

logic - kinda funny though, Party Unity My A**logan and bea - right on!satirical - you talk down good!

27 August 2008
at 5 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

bondmen (Anonymous) says…

H-i-l-a-r-i-o-u-s - it's all about Hilarious and her husband!
27 August 2008
at 5:37 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

scott3460 (Anonymous) says…

“However, McCain was 100% correct about the surge in Iraq, while Obama claimed the surge would make the situation worse. In the only significant and important decision, where the consequences are now known, Obama was horribly wrong.”You keep on repeating this lie like it is going to come true one day. It is our bribes to the various factions and tribe members, which predated the surge, that caused the cessation of violence. That is what the facts show. And no one has ever explained how long, or why, the American taxpayer is expected to continue with the bribes. Long enough for idiot boy to run out his term is my guess. What is Grampy's position on that, keep on paying, right? This from the supposed “maverick.” And you guys claim it's the Democrats that spend the tax payers money like it is in endless supply.
27 August 2008
at 5:43 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

scott3460 (Anonymous) says…

“McCain also prefers diplomacy…”Except he doesn't. This is the man who jokes about, “bomb, bomb, bomb” Iran & thinks we'll need a draft during his Presidency. Who here wants to go die, or have their kids or relatives sent off to die, for some Republican errands for the war profiteers and other corporate criminals?
27 August 2008
at 6:33 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

POCO (Anonymous) says…

I was amazed to read the website information on the Philip Berg civil suit against Obama based on the belief Obama is not an American citizen. How true is this report? Is there any merit to the suit? Has anyone heard about this on national news or even the radio talk shows?If there is any truth to this, how will it affect Hillary's chances?
27 August 2008
at 6:51 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

twaldaisy (Anonymous) says…

I'm going to write in Hillary's name for president.
27 August 2008
at 7 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

blahblahblah (Anonymous) says…

John McCain was also born outside the United States, in Panama. A law was retroactively applied to his birth (and others too) saying he was a citizen, yet it is still being disputed. I guess it is OK that McCain was not born in the US because his dad was in the military right?http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/11/us/politics/11mccain.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
27 August 2008
at 7:05 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

POCO (Anonymous) says…

blahblah, etc. Surely you must know that children of military families born on military bases are automatically American citizens. That fact was officially clarified a very long time ago.Let's move on to my question… what is the story about Obama and how will it affect Hillary's chances?
27 August 2008
at 7:14 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

beatrice (Anonymous) says…

Poco, is there any merit to the suit? Did you honestly just ask that? Well, I guess if you are one of those people who think Obama is a Muslim, that his children have horns, that he is a Socialist wanting to change our monetary system to the Euro, etc. … well, then I guess you did just ask that question. (You do know that Hawaii is part of the United States, don't you?) twaldaisy, this is America and you are more than welcome to write in Hillary's name, or anybody else's name for president, although you will be going against her wishes.If you do write it in, just remember to spell it O-b-a-m-a. ; )

27 August 2008
at 7:20 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

POCO (Anonymous) says…

Beatrice… don't make assumptions about what I think. His children do not have horns… I'm not pointing fingers at Obama or his family. My gosh, girl… focus!!!All, I'm asking is for is more information on why this attorney (I know nothing about him) believes he has a case. Is the purpose of this group to ask questions and improve a person's understanding of events, or is it to slash and burn each other. I ask this question in good faith… let's try for a reasonable answer.
27 August 2008
at 7:49 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

blahblahblah (Anonymous) says…

POCO, surely you know that that was not the case when McCain was born 72 years ago. If that were the case, then why was an unnecessary law passed and retroactively applied to him and others???
27 August 2008
at 7:50 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

blahblahblah (Anonymous) says…

And yes, they are citizens, that was not disputed, but not “natural born” as is required by the constitution.
27 August 2008
at 7:58 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

twaldaisy (Anonymous) says…

Thanks Bea! LOL
27 August 2008
at 8:17 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

acoupstick (Anonymous) says…

PocoIt is my understanding that the confusion over Obama's nationality is due to confusion and dissemination of deliberate misinformation concerning his birth certificate.Here is the truth of the matter:http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html
27 August 2008
at 8:19 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

POCO (Anonymous) says…

Obviously… there's no one so far who is willing/able to answer a simple and direct question. I'm not asking about McCain. I'm asking about the validity of a current lawsuit in progress against a single man. What is the story? That's it… nothing more.
27 August 2008
at 8:37 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

POCO (Anonymous) says…

Acoupstick… thank you. Your message of 8;17 p.m. had not come through at the time I posted my 8:19 message. You presented worthwhile and interesting information. Appreciate a thoughtful answer.
27 August 2008
at 9:09 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

beatrice (Anonymous) says…

Poco, nobody can answer your question because nobody cares. It is obviously bogus information being drudged up by those who I listed earlier. If you really want to know more about it, do your own research. I can assure you, however, that with the millions and millions already spent by the Republicans and by Hillary Clinton, if Obama wasn't actually eligible to be president, it would have already come out by now. Do you possibly think it could be otherwise? And you tell me to focus? Please.

27 August 2008
at 11:17 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

KSWatch (Todd Epp) says…

“…took one for the country”?Hardly. She lost an election in a democracy fair and square. It is this End Timer sentiment by some (not most) Hillary supporters that simply has to stop if we Democrats and progressives are going to get a decent president elected this fall. (That's Barack Obama, BTW)To read an entirely different view, go to Kansas Watch at http://thunewatch.squarespace.com/sdw… EppKansas Watch
27 August 2008
at 11:29 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

kansascrone (Virginia Rigney) says…

my brother-in-law who is a conservative told me he heard it on fox news a week or so ago. i searched their site at the time and found nothing. i have also had numerous “smear” emails forwarded to me from well meaning conservative friends. when pressed one swore he heard it on fox news. coincidence?i always refer them to www.factcheck.org and to www.fightthesmears.com interesting site - particularly interesting to see who is behind the smears. amazing what some people will fall for. even more amazing what some people will stoop to.
27 August 2008
at 11:32 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

rantor (Anonymous) says…

I can't read the other posts. I'm still vomiting after the author used the words, “Hillary” and “panties” in the same sentence.
27 August 2008
at 11:43 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

kansascrone (Virginia Rigney) says…

todd - take it easy on your fellow dems, if you would have bothered to read the posts you would have known that i too, believe barack is our man. we're on the same team so don't get your panties in an uproar. btw, thanks for the link - i totally agree.
28 August 2008
at 12:13 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

angell (Marlo Angell) says…

Ginny,Watching all the coverage makes me wish I was in Denver- guess I'll just have to settle with wearing my obama mama t-shirt here in town.I thought Hillary did what she needed to do with her speech, but, like some other posters here, I am skeptical of her altruism. Urging her supporters to back Obama is really the only thing she could have done if she has further ambitions in the party. Just saw Biden's speech, thought he was pretty good, too, but no one's blown me away, yet. I missed the guy everyone's been talking about (was it the gov. of Montana?) I'm looking forward to Obama's speech to see if he can deliver- by the time I saw him in KC his words sounded a bit redundant. His speech way back at the Jackson dinner blew me away, though!Nice blog, Ginny, and nice to hear you're an obama mama too!
28 August 2008
at 12:54 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

kansascrone (Virginia Rigney) says…

hi marlo - i know what you mean about being in denver. my son lives there and is taking pictures and videos for me. as far as speeches go, it has been a little hit and miss for me too. i'm wiling to bet obama hits it out of the ball park (pun intended) tomorrow.
28 August 2008
at 1:55 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

TheOriginalCA (Anonymous) says…

Selflessly? Seriously!!
28 August 2008
at 9:27 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

kansascrone (Virginia Rigney) says…

original - like i said earlier, some prefer their women well behaved

28 August 2008
at 10:26 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

beatrice (Anonymous) says…

rantor: “I can't read the other posts. I'm still vomiting after the author used the words, “Hillary” and “panties” in the same sentence.”I guess some men just really don't like women at all. That is okay. I still support your right to gay marriage.
28 August 2008
at 10:35 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

liggyon (David Lignell) says…

Help me understand…if I was a supporter of Hillary, and Obama won the nomination, why would I switch parties and support McCain? I don't get it…sincerely. If I am truly for women's rights (and I am), why would I trust the Republican party, which has no record of supporting women's rights? If past behavor is the best predictor of future performance, why wouldn't I vote for Obama? (Is it a sour grapes sort of backlash?) Help me understand.
29 August 2008
at 4:34 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Logan72 (Alia Ahmed) says…

David,Maybe it's like “hell hath no fury like a woman scorned”? That is not the case for me. Fortunately, the democratic party choice seemed like a win-win situation as far as I was concerned. I could have supported either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. Either as our presidential candidate will be a vast improvement and does instill hope for the future. I think they were on the same page on the things that mattered to me the most, the war, the economy, continuing to level the playing field for the middle class men and women, children, minorities and addressing climate issues.