For all the WoWers voting for John McCain in a fit of pique — can one of you volunteer to teach him how to use a COMPUTER. He confirmed this week he doesn’t know how. This is taking PRIVILEGE too far methinks….

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rebecca-walker/my-resonse-to-salons-stor_b… Yesterday, Salon ran a cover story written by Phyllis Chesler about my relationship with my mother. My response: Dear Phyllis Chesler and the Editors at Salon: I know it is very disappointing to a faction within the Feminist leadership that their candidate did not win the nomination. I feel for them, it is a devastating blow. But all is not lost. I believe Hillary and Obama will work out what is best for the country. The major issue is how Hillary’s supporters are going to recover from the statements made that an entire generation of young women are naive. Evidently, the people have spoken. The young women and their Second Wave allies who supported Obama have decided not go with those who offended them by calling them uninformed.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/11/us/politics/11clinton.html?_r=1&partne… Those Loyal to the Clintons Take Note of Who Was Not Thankfully, we prevented the Clinton Inc. PATRONAGE SYSTEM from a 3rd Lincoln Bedroom run — and further out-of-Office commoditization of American interests excepting those who buy into this system. Bush/Clinton/Bush — and their medieval courts — MUST come to an end.

McCain Removes Hillary-Slur from Website Months After Posting http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/09/mccain-campaign-removes-c_n_106…

For all the women rushing to vote for John McCain, I submit the following: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1024927/The-wife-John-McCain-c… The wife U.S. Republican John McCain callously left behind

Thank you, again - Peggy Noonan! http://online.wsj.com/article_print/SB121269958227749853.html June 6, 2008 DECLARATIONS By PEGGY NOONAN Recoil Election June 6, 2008; Page A11 It is the most amazing thing that a young black man who was just a few short years ago unknown to most of his countrymen—really, unknown—could, this week, win the presidential nomination of one of our two great political parties. It is even more amazing that this historic news could be overshadowed by the personal drama and spite of the woman who lost to him. M.E. Cohen I like it that she spent the campaign accusing America of being sexist, of treating her differently because she is a woman, and then, when she lacked the grace to congratulate the victor, she sent her stewards out to tell the press she just needs time, it’s so emotional. In other words, she needs space because she’s a woman. A friend sent, by instant message, the AP flash that ran at 16:56 ET on 06-03-2008. There it was suddenly on my screen: “*** WASHINGTON (AP)—Obama clinches Democratic nomination, making him first black candidate to lead his party.” A great old-school bulletin, and of course it carried a huge and moving message. It is good when barriers fall; it’s good when possibilities seem to open up to more people, especially the young, who are always watching. (That’s what’s wrong with them, they’re always watching, and we’re always doing terrible things, like, say, not congratulating the winner on the night he won.) But what I thought of when the friend sent the flash was something another friend told me months ago. It was the night Mr. Obama won Alabama. My friend was watching on TV, in his suburban den. His 10-year-old daughter walked in, looked, saw “Obama Wins” and “Alabama.” She said, “Daddy, we saw a documentary on Martin Luther King Day in school.” She said, “That’s where they used the hoses.” Suddenly my friend saw it new. That’s the place they used the water hoses on the civil rights marchers crossing the bridge. And now look. The black man thanking Alabama for his victory. What kind of place makes a change like this? Only a great nation. We should love it tenderly every day of our lives. * * * We will hear a lot of tasteful tributes this weekend to Hillary Clinton’s grit and fortitude. The Washington-based media may go a little over the top, but only out of relief. They know her well and recoil at what she stands for. They also know they don’t like her, so to balance it out they’ll gush. But this I believe is the truth: America dodged a bullet. That was the other meaning of the culminating events of this week. Mrs. Clinton would have been a disaster as president. Mr. Obama may prove a disaster, and John McCain may, but she would be. Mr. Obama may lie, and Mr. McCain may lie, but she would lie. And she would have brought the whole rattling caravan of Clintonism with her—the scandal-making that is compulsive, the drama that is unending, the sheer, daily madness that is her, and him. We have been spared this. Those who did it deserve to be thanked. May I rise in a toast to the Democratic Party. They had a great and roaring fight, a state-by-state struggle unprecedented in the history of presidential primaries. They created the truly national primary. They brought 36 million people to the polls, including the young, minorities and first-time voters. They brought a kind of dogged brio to the year. All of this is impressive, but more than that, they threw off Clintonism. They threw off the idea that corruption is part of the game, an acceptable fact. They threw off the idea that dynasticism was an unstoppable dynamic in modern politics, that Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton could, would, go on forever. They said: “No, that is not the way we do it.” They threw off the idea of inevitability. Mrs. Clinton didn’t lose because she had no money or organization, she didn’t lose because she had no fame or name, she didn’t lose because her policies were unusual or dramatically unpopular within her party. She lost because enough Democrats looked at her and thought: I don’t like that, I don’t like the way she does it, I’m not going there. Most candidates lose over things, not over their essential nature. But that is what happened here. For all her accomplishments and success, it was her sketchy character that in the end did her in. But the voters had to make the decision. So, to the Democrats: A nod. A bow. Well done. May this mark the beginning of the remoralization of a great party. * * * Should he make her his vice president? He shouldn’t, and he won’t. The reasons: The only ones who could force him to do it are party elders, and they don’t like Mrs. Clinton. They’re the ones who finally forced her from the race. Their antipathy was not apparent when she was inevitable. It is obvious now. She would never be content to be vice president. She’d be plotting against him from day one. She’d put poison in his tea. She brings Bill. She undercuts the cleanness of Obama’s message. She doesn’t turn the page, she is the page. She would give Republicans something to get excited about. She will revivify them. They’re not excited about Mr. McCain, but they could become excited about opposing her. Her presence on the ticket would force the party to have two breakthrough moments when a rule of political life, and life in general, is: one breakthrough at a time. He doesn’t need her. He needs a boring white man. Because he’s an interesting black man. He needs a sober, experienced, older establishment player who will be respected by the press, the first responders of the political game. They’ll set the tone in which the choice is celebrated, or not. He needs someone like Sam Nunn. Or, actually, Sam Nunn. He could throw a wild pass at Jim Webb because he has a real-guy, Southern, semi-working-class persona, and a Scots-Irish grit and chippiness. He is from important Virginia, has Vietnam boots and is moderate. Choosing Mrs. Clinton would make Mr. Obama look weak. No one would believe he picked her because he respected or liked her. They’d think he was appeasing her. This is not something he can afford! And in any case some people cannot be appeased. Voters would assume she and her people did their voodoo—I have 18 million voters!—and he fell for it. She doesn’t have 18 million voters, she got 18 million votes. It is telling the way she thinks of them, as if they are working-class automatons awaiting her command. As for reports of their rage, there are always dead-enders, and frantic lovers of this candidate or that. This goes under the larger heading “lonely people.” But there’s reason to think, and some Democratic insiders do think it, that a lot of the supposed pro-Clinton furor is ginned up on Web sites by the Clinton campaign, and even manufactured by the Clinton campaign, to prove Clinton loyalists are real and their demands must be met. In any case, you can see how Mrs. Clinton views her supposed working-class heroes by what she is doing with them now: using them as a bargaining chip to get whatever she wants. Democrats this year have the winning fever, and Democrats will come out. By November they will be united. Also, he doesn’t like her. He recoils. Just like his party. See all of today’s editorials and op-eds, plus video commentary, on Opinion Journal1. And add your comments to the Opinion Journal forum2. URL for this article: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121269958227749853.html Hyperlinks in this Article: (1) http://online.wsj.com/opinion (2) http://forums.wsj.com/viewtopic.php? t=2821 Copyright 2008 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. Distribution and use of this material are governed by our Subscriber Agreement and by copyright law. For non-personal use or to order multiple copies, please contact Dow Jones Reprints at 1-800-843-0008 or visit www.djreprints.com. CloseRELATED ARTICLES FROM ACROSS THE WEB Related Articles from WSJ.com • Political Diary This Week May. 11, 2008 • Clinton Says Words Establishment Was Dying to Hear Jun. 07, 2008 • Obama Extends Campaign Operation To DNC Jun. 05, 2008 • Emanuel Comes Out From ‘Under The Desk’ To Endorse Obama Jun. 04, 2008 Related Web News • Obama praises ‘valiant’ Clinton Jun. 08, 2008 news.bbc.co.uk • Japanese editorial excerpts -2-+ Jun. 06, 2008 news.aol.com • Clinton will quit and back Obama Jun. 05, 2008 news.bbc.co.uk • Obama used party rules to foil Clinton May. 30, 2008 news.yahoo.com More related content Powered by Sphere

The Iraq War Vote. Trying to establish her toughness she didn’t do her due diligence on Iraq. Neither did Edwards, for that matter, but he acnowledged his mistake. Sexism was real, but certainly no more so than racism - and the Clintons exploited BOTH. The Obama Campaign chose NOT to. To paraphrase a great Clinton bon mot: It’s the war, stupid. Bill. The greatest pol of his generation turned out to be an albatross around her neck. Never mind the ham-handed remarks about race or the explosive temper. The thought of him being back in the White House pontificating and embarrassing everyone with his unstable personal behavior was more than most stomachs could take. The Senator decided she did not want a divorce. The rest of the country decided they did. Now, New York will be making the SAME decision.

As Barack continues to be triangulated by Familia Clinton and the brutal but fair competition with Senator McCain, I submit the following which another people in another difficult time — kept their heads up and FOCUSED - and thrived despite the odds. HRC raising the spectre of RFK’s assasination has not been forgotten as she “suspends” her Campaign. I am less concerned about whether her folks will vote their interests — or, damage the Nation by focusing instead on solidarity with Hillary — than that statement she continually openly spoke of, looking into the cameras, when she knew she had lost. New Yorkers we have work to do on our JUNIOR Senator to remind her WHO she is when she leverages power WE give her. As w/Hillary Rosen, WE are no platform or chips to be dealt on the card table of HER ambition — nor will be subvert OUR interests and security for some national feminist pipe-dream for a woman unworthy of carrying that banner from our port of call. All women are not monolithic and, women who do not want to be part of this “army” hijacked by HRC’s interests — should speak up an speak out! Angels Watching Over Me (for Barack) 19th Century “Negro” Spritual Written By: Unknown Copyright Unknown All night, all day, Angels watching over me, my Lord. All night, all day, Angels watching over me. Sun is a-setting in the West; Angels watching over me, my Lord. Sleep my child, take your rest; Angels watching over me. All night, all day, Angels watching over me, my Lord. All night, all day, Angels watching over me.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/06082008/news/columnists/she__em__still_thin… It’s Still All About Her - Peggy Noonan (Thank you!/r.) June 8, 2008 — NYPost.com Washington -She was as gracious as she could be. I mean that literally. It was the closest she could come to grace. It was all about her – I, me, me, I – and not about the man who needs her support. When she referred to Obama it was all poker-face and passive-voice. When Mrs. Clinton speaks and wants you to believe she means something she gestures with her hands and arms, and attempts inflection. But here, in praising the presumptive Democratic nominee, she used the same voice she had used on the trail to attack him. When she got to the parts of the speech in which she endorsed Obama, she seemed to be making a point of reading. She lowered her eyes to the text and read with a comparatively flattened voice, and with little expression…

One Historic Night, Two Americas - Frank Rich Remarkably, neither Mrs. Clinton nor Mr. McCain had the grace to offer a salute to Mr. Obama’s epochal political breakthrough, which reverberated so powerfully across the country and throughout the world. By being so small and ungenerous, they made him look taller. Their inability to pivot even briefly from partisan self-interest could not be a more telling symptom of the dysfunctional Washington culture Mr. Obama aspires to mend. —————————————————————————————————- Ditto, this website…perhaps, the ONLY media distribution channel in the world to NOT address this historic moment — AT ALL — Sunday, June 8, 2008!

http://msa4.wordpress.com/ Obama, Spock and the New Star Trek Nation …or, replacements for HRC supporters who are going to John McCain! We’ll take them! :-)

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/08/us/politics/08recon.html?_r=1&partner=… The Long Road to the Clinton Exit - NYT/Sunday Overconfidence and constant infighting…

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=2c2ec3a8-e813-4d4e-b566-510e0f… 3AM for Feminism - The New Republic TNR TALKBACK [28 comments] How remarkable that a political campaign could be transformed into a pretext for personal grudge; how breathtaking that a woman whose commitment to feminine ideals was a deep as a mirror could be percieved as a symbol for womanhood; how discouraging that so many women cannot reason beyond their emotions; how historically typical that white feminism exploits racism. Mandy All this belies the fact that—as you point out—almost none of this actually has to do with anything Obama did other than BEATING HILLARY. What we’re really seeing is what happens when the entitlement of feminist identity politics gets into a conflict with the facts: That somebody has to win, and that somebody is the person who has the most delegates. As soon as feminism hits facts, either we have to scrap feminism or we have to scrap reality. Clinton’s diehards chose to scrap the latter. What amazes me is the latent racism inherent in all the assumptions made by Clinton supporters. Countless times I’ve heard Clinton supporters proclaim Obama to be lazy, shiftless, and unworthy while Hillary was “hardworking” and “brilliant”. I’ll start kissing Clintonian rear end as soon as Clinton supporters get off this sexist-racist “Hillary is so much smarter” meme and start acknowledging that the first black editor of the Harvard Law Review and a man who managed to ascend so quickly from state politics all the way to being the nominee of the Democratic Party is someone who is clearly nothing short of a genius. Start giving my guy some credit and I’ll stop harping on the now-proven incompetence of your own candidate. Abe I’m not sure just which wave of feminism we are up to, but Hillary may be the death of second-wave feminism. She exposes it as nothing more than a form of special pleading that insists women, even those who have already gained high office, are in fact inferior. They cannot be subjected to the ordinary demands of politics at the top but must be coddled because they are women. And if they are not they will declare themselves victims of misogyny. I think Hillary Clinton discredits the women’s movement and women’s rights. Like everything else she touches, she merely exploits it as just the latest vehicle for her ambition. It is sad to see a group of women so ready to be used merely because Hillary sheds a few tears and yells sexism and demands solidarity. This is a problem for the Democratic party to be sure, but the women’s movement is going to have to decide whether it wants to commit political suicide. You cannot really stop anyone from committing suicide when they are determined to do so. That may be the case here. But sitting out the 2008 election will not make women’s issues more politically relevant. It will make them irrelevant as the Democratic party shifts right and abandons its historic stance in favor of reproductive rights in order to compensate for the missing feminist left wing. I think women have more at stake than Obama. roidubouloi

Hillary Clinton’s 5 mistakes By: David Paul Kuhn June 7, 2008 11:11 AM EST Covering a campaign is more like covering a sports team than either sort of reporter cares to admit. The same performance that’s labeled “gutsy” after a win becomes “inadequate” after a loss. While Hillary Rodham Clinton managed more primary votes than any winning candidate before her, it wasn’t enough for the onetime front-runner to beat Barack Obama. And so the mistakes that would have been obscured by a victory have instead been brought into relief by her defeat. Here are five of the key mistakes that helped cost her the nomination: 1) Hubris Hillary didn’t just sell the press and the public on her inevitability as the general election candidate; she sold herself the same bill of goods, telling George Stephanopoulos before the Iowa caucus that “I’m in it for the long run. It’s not a very long run. It will be over by February 5.” Hubris was the campaign’s fatal flaw, from which the others, both strategic and tactical, derived. 2) The Iraq War Vote “There is a straight line from Howard Dean to Ned Lamont to Barack Obama,” said Carter Eskew, the chief strategist for Al Gore’s 2000 campaign. The 2002 vote authorizing military intervention in Iraq has haunted Clinton since, and opened up a space for an anti-war candidate in this year’s primary. While John Edwards, who cast the same vote, later claimed to have made a mistake in doing so, Clinton — looking ahead to a general electorate disappointed with the war in Iraq but still hoping for some sort of victory there (and perhaps also back to the 1990s image of the Clintons as serial parsers) — continued to defend her vote even as she criticized the war. See Also As campaign ends, was Clinton to blame? Same candidate, new race Clinton’s exit: When push came to shove “When you have voted the wrong way on the signature issue of the change election, it’s very difficult to position yourself as the change candidate,” Eskew continued. “The whole energy in this campaign was [in] being anti-war.” Voters associated Clinton with her husband’s administration, in part explaining why she based her run on “experience” and ceded the more appealing “change” role to Obama, whose limited tenure in Washington, soaring rhetoric and the historic nature of his candidacy all aligned nicely with that narrative. (Though as the first woman with a serious chance at the presidency, Clinton would been a historic nominee, too.) Obama’s consistent opposition to the war, from the outset to the present, helped build his brand and voter base, and plugged him in to a network of small-contribution donors that continues to fuel his record-setting fundraising. Joe Trippi, who served as a top strategist for John Edwards in 2008, believes a Clinton apology would have helped take the issue off the table. But many saw Clinton’s refusal to apologize as a testament to her strength, which she saw as a character trait a female candidate couldn’t afford to compromise. “They were determined not to make primary mistakes” that would come back to haunt them against the Republican nominee, said Tad Devine, Sen. John F. Kerry’s chief strategist in 2004, who remained neutral in this year’s primary. “My reaction to that, you don’t get to participate in the general election unless you win the primary.” 3) The Trouble With Iowa Clinton’s deputy campaign manager Mike Henry wrote a May 2007 campaign memo arguing that the campaign should “skip” the Iowa caucuses since they “will cost over $15M” but “we will not have a financial advantage or an organizational advantage over any of our opponents” and going all-out there “may bankrupt the campaign [but] provide little if any political advantage.” (The memo, it should be noted, also offered the less prescient claim that “In effect, the Democratic Party is holding a national primary with over 20 states choosing a nominee on Feb. 5.”) As it turned out, Clinton spent more than $20 million and finished third and short on cash. A great unnoticed irony is that had Clinton mostly skipped Iowa, Edwards would likely have won, and become Clinton’s presumptive rival, leaving Obama out in the cold. “She should have gone to Iowa but she should not have not doubled down on it. And it cost them the resources that she needed to fight a long fight,” said Devine. “She was the candidate to win a war of attrition.” 4) The Great Caucus Blunder In the same interview with Stephanopoulos, Clinton shrugged off the effect of a potential loss in Iowa, saying “I don’t think it’s a question of recovery. I have a campaign that is poised and ready for the long term. We are competing everywhere through Feb. 5. We have staff in many states. We have built organizations in many states.” But “many states” turned out to mean organization myopically focused on big state and Super Tuesday primaries. “Keep everything else the same and add that she competed in the caucus states, she would have won,” Trippi said. “It’s actually fairly amazing.” There were some built-in advantages for Obama in the caucus states. Party activists are most likely to turnout for caucuses, and Obama was the favorite of the progressive grassroots. But by mostly neglecting these small contests, Clinton conceded delegates that effectively cancelled out her gains in larger states. In Minnesota, for example, Obama beat Hillary by 24 delegates, twice as many delegates as Clinton gained on her rival in the much larger Pennsylvania primary. After Super Tuesday, the smaller contests also allowed Obama to offer his own, more credible, narrative of inevitability. Between his Super Tuesday draw and the Virginia vote, Obama won five small contests in a row, including three caucuses. Those victories gave Obama a winner’s aura heading into Virginia, which may have helped him increase his margin there, which in turn further increased his perceived momentum. “You could look at any point in this process and change one or two states and had a totally different outcome,” said Tony Fabrizio, who served as chief strategist for Bob Dole in 1988. Devine agreed. “If his numbers had not looked so overwhelming, the movement of superdelegates would have been inhibited,” he added. “It would have been a different dynamic; a different narrative.” 5) An Old-Fashioned, Offline Campaign “It’s like no one watched from 1984 to 2004,” Trippi said of Clinton’s campaign. The spectacular internet fundraising success of Howard Dean’s 2004 primary run seemed to have had little impact on Clinton, who’d built a tremendous network of old-school big-money donors. Fundraising online might have been more difficult for Clinton, considering how much of her support came from the establishment. Trippi, though, disputes that assertion, pointing out that in February, when Clinton’s campaign adjusted to new-fashioned fundraising and she began mentioning her Web site frequently in her speeches, about half of the contributions she received were for less than $200 — while only about a fifth of her contributions had been in that range in the last quarter of 2007. It wasn’t just fundraising, though. Politico’s Kenneth P. Vogel calculates that Obama spent $6.8 million on web advertisements from the beginning of the campaign through the end of April, while Clinton spent just $350,000. When she finally caught on — spending more on online advertising in March and April than in the previous 14 months — Obama had already built a substantial lead in online presence (including ads on the Politico website). As with any losing campaign, there’s practically no end to the mistakes that can be blamed for contributing to Clinton’s defeat. Other culprits would include Bill Clinton’s at times unhinged public appearances, the racially coded messages the campaign was repeatedly accused of sending, the Bosnian sniper tall tale, the double talk about drivers licenses for illegal immigrants, and her damning admission that she did not read the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq before voting to authorize the use of military force. What we know with certainty is that pundits and historians will be busy for years assigning and assessing blame — and that the long run was longer than Clinton anticipated, and the end result different.

Kitty - It is my intent to remember the history not NY-PR spun speeches. It is my intent to hold Hillary Clinton accountable for her conduct going forward — and make sure the Junior Senator from New York remembers WHO she represents, and it isn’t “hard working…very hard working, white Americans” in Appalachia. She would not have had a platform for her ambitions if WE did not vote for her. WE did not vote for the woman we have seen since February. The Junior Senator from NY has cost precious time, validated John McCain over the Democratic Nominee, balkanized women and asked them to stick w/her in some kind of perverse solidarity and selling their interests down the river in the process. The New York Democratic Delegation did NOT throw themselves on the train tracks for Clinton Inc. — after Tuesday night. We put TREMENDOUS pressure on them to STOP this train wreck to derail the Democrats from winning this Fall — if it isn’t HRC. Some of us have seen the Clintons up close in NY and their pivot after February. We know what to expect and we know the speech and the “long goodbye” Shakesperean DRAMA. We didn’t vote for a VICTIM as Junior Senator and should have listened to the august Sen. Moynihan. HRC has incited her “followers” to vote FOR McCain. I have no respect for this. I will not tolerate this from a sitting New York Senator who is supposed to representing MY interests. She does NOT represent ALL women and I resent her proffering this as fact. And, she should write a check and pay HER BILLS to small vendors from the BILLION DOLLARS she/Bill have amazingly amassed cumulatively across their interests — while she was a sitting Senator from New York. In short — New Yorkers are more sophisticated media/information consumers than Hillary/Bill would like. There is MUCH we have learned we did not know, including about their amassed wealth — while she was supposed to be representing OUR interests and voting for the Iraq War when we did not want her to. Some New Yorkers would like to know more about the confluence between that vote and Bills DEALS. That is our right — and we intend to follow through. Unity is her JOB because it is what New Yorkers want. It is what the Democratic Party who sponsored her Senate run wants. Unity doesn’t equal we don’t hold our representatives accountable in the same way every other American and State/City does. We put our interests on hold and sponsored HRC’s Presidential run, when she told us she would not. She has run - past tense. Time for New Yorkers to caucus and PREVENT any further destablization of the Democratic Nominee from ANY quarter - and most especially, ours. We won’t be FOOLED again. There is too much at stake. If HRC proves us wrong - great. If she has good intentions to honor her speech - great. If she doesn’t, and we will be watching closely in NY — then, we will STOP HER IN HER TRACKS and shut her down faster than we did after Tuesday nights pity-party, this week. Nothing personal. As the woman herself said…”if you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.” If HRC wasn’t being disengenous when she said this repeatedly, and has no nefarious intentions — at OUR expense — then there should be no beef w/what I am saying/writing. Politics ain’t beenbag — is also another statement both she/Barack have said. HRC needs to make up her mind — either she is tough — or a VICTIM. Even I am getting confused…