Women and Hillary Clinton

[question everything]

African-American, too, at first, were uncomfortable with Obama. He was not black enough for them; did not breath the Civil Rights at home. But they came around.

Not so with women. One group, the white, educated, divorced women with easy life not slave to a 9-5 job, whose opinions can be summarized in a recent book, written mostly by New York intellectuals, and edited by Susan Morrison, The New Yorker's articles editor. The book dissect Clinton's femininity, sexuality, clothes, mothering, marriage, mystique and, of course, likability. Or, more precisely, why so many educated, middle-class women have a visceral response to her. "My generation definitely has a Clinton problem," writes Amy Wilentz in an essay on Clinton's clothes, or "costumes."

http://www.newsweek.com/id/105587

The reasons for their suspicion outlined here are mostly personal — she doesn't have a hobby, aside from cleaning closets and completing crossword puzzles. She doesn't appear to have been deeply attached to her family pets. She lacks sensuousness. She showed a hint of cleavage. She wore turquoise earrings with a yellow pantsuit. She liked prim headbands. She changed her maiden name. She married Bill Clinton. She stayed married to Bill Clinton. She is still married to Bill Clinton. Even her voice, Marie Brenner writes, "reminds us of the fifth grade teacher we despised."

But now I read a different perspective.

Here is this amazing woman, top of her class, implausible marriage to impossible man, works as hard as the day is long, masters all the forms and spreadsheets of governing, even manages to raise a pretty darn good kid -- and then along comes this guy, this groovy Obamarama, with his pleasing mien, his high style, his absolute fabulousness, and he wants the top floor, corner office that she earned.

And women -- women have seen this movie, women have heard this story, women know the drill, have had their manicured fingers ready to ring that particular fire alarm for years now. Women, finally, will say no to that. Real women don't care what Caroline Kennedy and Maria Shriver with their easy words and easy lives have to say about any of this. No one with a job takes advice from someone with a chef.

http://online.wsj.com/article_print/SB120303455150570087.html

[ProSense]

1. The patriarchy against Hillary debunked

The patriarchy against Hillary debunked

[saltpoint]

2. It's our corner office. Collectively as voters, we decide who fills it.

And most of us are voting on issues and ideas and not genitalia.

[BlackVelvet04]

11. Sure.......n/t

[saltpoint]

14. I'll take that as an affirmation, BlackVelvet04. Admirable in these

trying times.

Thank you.

[Evergreen Emerald]

15. that is what people say, and then when pressed suggest that...

...she is just too "cold and calculating" to vote for.

I am extremely saddened at the treatment of Clinton in America. The masses are not ready for a woman president.

[saltpoint]

17. I think they most certainly are ready for a female president, but again we

have the difficult question of Which Woman.

Put Barbara Boxer at the top of our ticket and watch me vote.

[Evergreen Emerald]

18. I honestly think that because Boxer is not running, that is easy to say.

But watch the vitrolic sexist comments come out once she starts running--just a quick look at the treatment Ferraro received will prove my point.

[saltpoint]

19. We disagree. Senator Boxer has won more than one statewide election

in very diverse California.

There are all kinds of males on the voting registration lists. All incomes, all backgrounds, the whole works.

Your point is based on what you think will happen and not on what has happened to Senator Boxer. My saying I'd vote for her is not a vote for her as a woman, but as a public servant I have volunteered for and respected for quite a long time.

She is incidentally female to my otherwise & already strong admiration for her on issues I consider very important.

[Evergreen Emerald]

20. there is a difference between running for President and running as a Senator.

Lots of women run for Senator. Few run for President seriously.

[saltpoint]

27. But the slings and arrows are very similar. Senator Clinton would have

had this conversation with her campaign strategists long before her official announcement.

The trend may still favor her for nomination, but it's clear she'll have to fight for it now. The two labor union endorsements for Obama this past week are very telling. Those are blue collar families, blue collar workers, and have been touted as her constituency. Their support is now trending toward Obama.

There appear also to be campaign organization difficulties in the Clinton camp, with the removal of Solis Doyle and her replacement Maggie Williams. Bill Clinton has been sedated when he's allowed at all to appear in public and at other hours I suspect is now locked in a toolshed somewhere in the middle of west Kansas.

Arianna Huffington today said while it would be foolish to count Sen. Clinton out of the winner's circle, it might be even more foolish to count out Obama. Neither appear to be within arithmetic reach of a first ballot nomination at this point in time.

Al Gore is confirmed as being in talks to try and reach a resolution to this nomination dust-up.

[Bongo Prophet]

43. I voted for Mondale/Ferraro, with no problem. And Boxer? I would love that.

Here in Texas, Cissy Farenthold, Barbara Jordan, the Amazing Ann Richards...ESPECIALLY ANN!

I think SHE was one of the best possible presidents we could ever hope for as a nation.

Alas, the world, and history, is not the way I wish it was.

I think Hillary could make a very good president on many levels, (even though she is too conservative for me) - but I do not trust the Carville/Matalin team, nor Penn, nor Terry Mac, et al. She would have been in a far better position without these unprincipled men around her, in my opinion. More than once, I have thought, "If only she had some smarter and more progressive women behind her, instead of these asses."

If she does not get the nomination, I would blame them, and not "the nation" or Men, or sexism. It was bad messaging, poor strategy, wasted money and other resources - in other words, bad choices.

[question everything]

58. What an excellent post. You really summarized many of the hurdles

that eventually may end her candidacy.

The men in her campaign and, of course MSNBC/Newsweek. Perhaps someday someone will write a paper about how she was split and stretched and analyzed under a magnifying glass, while Obama got a clear ride, with reporters afraid to be called racist if they questioned him.

[Arugula Latte]

31. Exactly, Old Crusoe.

It's not "a woman" -- it's Hillary. As a woman I was feeling a little guilty about not supporting Hillary. But when I pictured Barbara Boxer as a candidate, I had a completely different feeling. I would have gone all out for her (I helped on one of her campaign's when I lived in DC).

[saltpoint]

40. Oregonian, thanks for throwing in to help Barbara Boxer. There she is

right now as Chair of the Environmental Committee and NOT that wingless pterodactyl, Jim Inhofe.

An ENORMOUS plus. She's fought some tough battles to win and hold that Senate seat, and I love her.

[Bongo Prophet]

39. Do you think Old Crusoe does not really care about the issues?

You seem to be practically accusing him of dishonesty.
I don't think it is fair to him. At ALL.
And as to "what people say" - well, right now we are not "some people" it is just us, discussing.
From the original post, and the subsequent ones, it is hard for me to see what people are even arguing about.

Did you read the articles?
Have any thoughts about them?
These are WOMEN, saying some pretty horrendous things about Senator Clinton.
The WSJ article in particular, was absolutely scathing.
I have defended Hillary for FAR less criticism than that.

I know we have discussed Hillary before, on threads where I was defending her from one stupid thing or another, and you seemed to be for that.
Subsequently, I have seen you pile on Obama supporters for equally stupid things, and wondered why you chose to jump in on those.
I know it is easy to get into a beleagered defensive position, and then lash out aggressively, but i think some balance and integrity would be a good thing to strive for.

Hopefully in the future, you may support your principles first regardless of candidate.

[LadyVT]

3. Whoo hoo! Great post--thanks!

[saltpoint]

4. I count two parents raising that great kid. One male, one female.

I also believe quite a few "real women" care very much what Caroline Kennedy says.

[MichiganVote]

5. Well I'm a real woman and while either of these candidates will do for me...

I don't give two toots what Caroline Kennedy Schlosswhatever says. I'm sure she is a good woman and the family history is sad by any standards but I don't recall any particular time CKS has stuck her neck out for Americans. She is something of a charity diva and that's great but it still doesn't imbue me with 100% confidence in Obama.

[saltpoint]

6. Wow. If a flippant male used a dismissive half-name strategy like that

on a woman, he'd be called to the carpet.

You are likely a real woman and I love the union logo -- I'm right there with you.

I'm a pro-feminist male and I care very much what she has to say. "Something of a charity diva" strikes me as quite a bit less than the whole story. It strikes me as something that, if a male said it, would provoke understandable fire from feminists.

[MichiganVote]

8. Oh for cripes sake. Comparisons of male or female language or lingo

is pointless. CKS does work on behalf of charities--fine. As to her name I can't recall the spelling of the whole long name and I didn't feel like looking it up. But the point still stands. CKS has largely avoided political discourse or action for years. That's her choice. To now come forth in favor of one candidate is also fine. But this is not a person who has been shown to have a huge political following or to have engaged in strong party activities. The Caroline Kennedy name is a product brand endorsement regardless of her personal leanings.

[saltpoint]

10. I'd retract the assertion if surveys showed, unaccountably, that

"real women" don't admire and respect Caroline.

It seems to me the poster to whom I was responding is no more or less a "real woman" than other "real women" who do in fact admire CKS very much.

That poster's initial point was a fallacy, and by extension, anti-woman.

And as originally stated, the OP is entirely wrong to credit only the female parents for raising a child. There were two parents in that family, one male, one female.

[MagickMuffin]

32. I'm a Real Woman and I respect Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg

It's quite obvious that the posters attacking you don't have a clue anything about Caroline, as evident by their lack of knowledge.

I don't think Hillary is entitled to the corner office. After all look at who is running her campaign, Penn, McAuliffe, Wolfson, Carville ((married to a RWer)) and of course her womanizing husband Bill.

Just one of the reasons I will not be voting for her. I was a fence sitter until DUers opened my eyes to one of the websites that is promoting her, hilllaryis44. I've spent several hours there reading there posts, here's a sampling.

I've spent some time over at hillaryis44.org, and that is exactly their operational procedure, to SPAM SPAM SPAM.

I think a lot of the posters over there are freeperesque in their hatred of Obama and the Democratic Party, add to that their love for Bill O'Rielly, Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter, well you get the picture.

One poster claimed that they would saw off their arm before voting for Barack. Several claim they will vote for McCain.

They were calling Pelosi, McCatskill, Shriver and Oprah a bitch among others.

One poster by the name Idunn was making phone calls, explained how she talked to an elderly woman who said her husband was voting for Obama, and the poster told her that Obama was the antichrist, of course she said she was joking. But I wouldn't put it past them.

So, yes ignore them as much as possible. They have nothing to offer along the lines of political discourse.

Also be prepared to have them bitch and moan if McCain wins, because they help put him there by refusing to vote for the Democratic Party. Don't allow them to claim it was all because Obama couldn't win, it will be their own doing by not supporting the Democratic nominee.

positivelyclintonian Says:
February 15th, 2008 at 6:08 pm

This may have been posted already but at the link below there are 5 video links to the “Obama Fainters” - it’s hilarious - same MO each time. Lots of people seem to be buzzing about it. I’m sure none of us would be surprised to learn that Golden Boy traffics in cynical theatrics and staged interactions - but it would be nice if the MSM took note…

mynorthwest.com/?nid=91


dot48 Says:
February 15th, 2008 at 6:11 pm

Need to send the video link of the fainters to BillOrielly. OReilly at FoxNews dot com


lninla Says:
February 15th, 2008 at 6:25 pm

Glad that Cleaver is talking about the “squeeze” from BO and the threats - this is going to turn other SD’s off.

Also, post those “fainting” videos - the cult storyline here is working.


Informed in Illinois Says:
February 15th, 2008 at 6:27 pm

Yes, do post the fainting videos. If the fainters were set up, or even if it just looks like it, that will be the beginning of the end. Some mocking for your reading pleasure:
zornwatch.blogspot.com


Tiny Dancer Says:
February 15th, 2008 at 6:34 pm

I heard the fainting-gate on the radio today. It was pretty funny all the incidents sounded exactly alike. Someone called in and defended BO and said there’s not a lot different you can do when someone faints. The host pointed out that these were a little too similar for that to be the case. And then he kept saying “PHONY PHONY PHONY PHONY”

1, 2 the GOP is coming for you.

These people are very hateful, and disrespectful of our party leaders, calling Pelosi, McCatskill, Shriver, Oprah, among others. They also claim they will vote for McCain if Obama is the nominee.


If you will notice that they have their RW talking points, and they are bringing them here to cause division within the DU community.


I believe you OC.

[saltpoint]

44. MagickMuffin, long time no see. Your post is by far the more

comprehensive observation. Impressive stuff. Thank you.

I feel that if the women posting against Caroline would have taken just a moment to consider her contribution -- and her humane leadership -- they would be left with a far different conclusion than they've made to date.

CKS is a wildly successful woman, who has never rested on the laurels of her father's considerable power to persuade, but who has gone into difficult heart work and performed independently and quite bravely, not to mention successfully.

It is disheartening to see anyone dismiss the accomplishment of a genuinely triumphant woman like CKS.

It really took me by surprise.

[MagickMuffin]

47. Thx, Old Crusoe I NEVER in a Million Years

would think a Democrat would attack another Democrat like this before. Just because she isn't endorsing their candidate. Makes one wonder who's side they are really on.

And to top it off, Sen. Clinton supporters who claim the mantle of feminism and then attack a female is beyond the pale.

As I stated I my other post my biggest problem with Hillary is the men she surrounds herself with, they make me want to :puke:

They have not strengthened our party. It's becoming apparent they are trying to divide us for whatever reason just to maintain power.


I'll still be monitoring the hillaryis44 site. I've noticed that they usually send out their talking points to several places after they have refined them. I also did a who is it site search and wouldn't you know it they are anonymous.

I'm here for you OC.

[saltpoint]

49. MM, you rock. And you rock high and clear, too.

Thank you.

[MagickMuffin]

50. If you haven't seen post #42 yet, please check it out

it kinda explains my love for the Kennedy's. And my appreciation for what JFK was trying to do for our country before that fateful day where he had his head blown off.:cry:


I think we could use one of these :hug:

[Bongo Prophet]

35. "The poster" did not even make a point at all, beyond two small copy-paste jobs.

Then waited for someone to comment.
Others then come in and attack that person.

Seen a lot of that technique lately.

One clip was a shallow Newsweek article, the main gist of which was that women have differing opinions of Clinton. but take criticism, or perceived criticism, very personal and symbolic of their own struggles.

The narcissism is overwhelming. And the standards she is held to are irrational. Jane Kramer admits she wants to know if Barack Obama has enough courage, ability and vision to be president. At the same time, she asks of Clinton: "Why do you want the job? What kind of woman does that make you?" "I take Hillary personally," she confesses, unnecessarily.

As Clinton's victory in the New Hampshire primary demonstrates, what unites women is not Hillary Clinton—it is attacks on Hillary Clinton. So when Rush Limbaugh says Americans don't want to watch a woman grow older in the White House, when Christopher Hitchens calls her an "aging and resentful female" or when John Edwards implies she is too emotional to be president, you can count on women hurdling into the Clinton camp. Katha Pollitt, for example, says that although she prefers Edwards and Obama on policy grounds, when she comes across "one of these sulfurous emanations from the national collective unconscious … I want to sit down and write Hillary's campaign a check immediately."

The problem is that many of the authors seem unaware of how much support Hillary actually has among women. Roiphe declares, "I have yet to meet a woman who likes Hillary Clinton." How, then, to explain that polling has consistently shown blue-collar women have rallied to Clinton's campaign, along with older women? A recent Pew Research Center study found 49 percent of female Democratic supporters back Clinton—only 28 percent chose Obama.

The other clip from the Wall Street Journal, is by Elizabeth Wurtzel. She of "Prozac Nation" - fired from the Dallas Morning News for plagiarism, fought depression and drug addiction, and a very troubled person. Here is what she had to say about her impressions of the attacks in New York on Sept 11, 2001.

My main thought was: What a pain in the ass... I had not the slightest emotional reaction. I thought, this is a really strange art project... It was a most amazing sight in terms of sheer elegance. It fell like water. It just slid, like a turtleneck going over someone's head... It was just beautiful. You can't tell people this. I'm talking to you because you're Canadian... I just felt like everyone was overreacting. People were going on about it. That part really annoyed me... I cried about all the animals left there in the neighborhood... I think I have some kind of emotional block. I think I should join some support group for people who were there... You know what was really funny? After the fact, like, all these different writers were writing these things about what it was like, and nobody bothered to call me.

Okay, like I said, troubled.

But what is the OP trying to tell us by this second article? Does the OP wish to tell us, with some analysis? Not at all, it seems. Perhaps it is some attempt for us to have an open discussion, and read the articles. Strange use of a discussion board. Perhaps the OP is telling us that women do not like Hillary so much, but to criticize her is to invoke the wrath of her...supporters is not really the right word here...we can only guess, unless the kind OP will reveal their thoughts on this thread that they created.

There is a special kind of hate that people -- particularly women -- reserve for Hillary Clinton that is unique in contemporary politics. It's nothing like the disdain liberals feel for W., which is only to be expected, and has no special edge: Liberals believe President Bush is an undeserving doofus who made a big huge mess, that's that. But the hatred for Hillary Clinton is visceral and venal, a lot of it is female and feminist, and some of it is simply off the charts.

...

Hillary is grotesque because she has gotten to where she is, indeed, by playing it every which way -- by being a career woman when that made sense, a wife when that was advantageous; working on her husband's behalf when that seemed the way to the top, then working for herself when the coast was clear; standing by her husband despite infidelities because she loved him, while belittling Tammy Wynette for offering the very advice she was ostensibly taking; pooh-poohing the prospect of having teas and baking cookies instead of having a profession, and then becoming first lady and having teas as a profession for a full eight years. Yes, Hillary Clinton will do anything, bless her heart: That is how you amass power as a woman. We hate her, because she exposes the sordid business of having it all for the grotesque thing that it actually is.
...
Right now, it looks like Barack Obama will be the nominee. Hillary Clinton is unlikely to win any more primaries for a few more weeks, and at that point, it may be too late for this championship season. But pundits count her out at their own peril. That woman is a force of nature. One of these years, Hillary is going to the White House. If she has to win every single vote one by one, she'll do it. If she has to take hostages, hold a gun to the head of every voter as he enters the booth, she'll do that too. She may even cry.

It seems apparent that Ms Wurtzel is quite free to criticize, nay, eviserate not only Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg and Maria Shriver, but Hillary Clinton as well.
What are we to take from this? Again, the OP does not say, but has hit and run, leaving us to wonder.

How ironic then, that after this harsh characterization of Senator Clinton as "grotesque", to accuse her of "playing" things to her advantage, including crying - that anyone with even the mildest problems with her policies would be attacked as anti-woman? Is there any sense to this at all, beyond a mysterious and dangerous psychological trap?

[saltpoint]

45. Hi, Bongo Prophet. You ask the essential questions not only about the

OP but about the role of women as influential figures universally.

The negative matrix IMO for Hillary Clinton is that she is in some part defined by her husband's political stature and instead, should define her own political stature, which is comprised of genuinely impressive accomplishments.

No one on my block where I grew up went to an Ivy League school. No women on that block were successful attorneys. And few had to bear the public stress over a globally-revealed adulterous affair by a husband.

If Democrats and many independents can agree in general zone about the need to re-balance spending in favor of domestic initiatives that assist human beings in health care, education, veterans' benefits, and so forth, then they can surely see the value in either of the two remaining Democratic contenders, in and of themselves, nevermind compared with McCain.

I would love to see a shift in strategy of those women who oppose Obama because they believe his male supporters are sexist. That is an unearend conclusion, IMO, and it doesn't seem to be selling very well in the DU marketplace.

[Bongo Prophet]

46. I think the fact that her detractors have often been irrational has caused a reactive environment.

Newton's law of discourse? :)

The mystery of this thread to me is the use of two negative articles, without any discussion of the contents of those articles.
This is not discourse, it is distraction.

It is getting difficult to tell genuine supporters from the operatives coming in from certain sites.
This is the sole responsibility of the genuine supporters to rise above the name calling and over-amped accusations, and deal with substance.


Why post articles with no comment, and then attack?
What purpose could thst possible serve, outside of turning people away from each other?

The right knows that their only hope is for infighting on the left.
unfortunately, they know enough about the dark side of human nature to exploit those traits.
I am convinced that this is a big part in the state of discussion in GDP these days.

Donald Segretti and Lee Atwater are dancing in their graves right now.
We ain't seen nothin' yet.

[saltpoint]

48. That's on-target on all points, IMO, and you properly invoke the ghosts

of Segretti and Atwater. Frightening duo, those two.

Agree that GOP attacks will escalate and will have to be more potent than ever if they are to get anywhere this time. Junior has betrayed the far, far Right and they are angry with him and disgusted that McCain has emerged as their nominee. LOL! They deserve the disappointment!

And of course the fundie nutbags hate McCain because they feel he's too "liberal," which is laughable to us but evidently genuinely dreadful for them. The Republicans created the Fundie Monster and they will have to just pee their pants while it destroys their cities, Godzilla-like.

I jumped into this thread in the first place for exactly the reason you indicate -- the posting of referenced pieces with no summary material -- and the subsequent smear of other Democrats. I'd do the same if the target had been Edwards or Richardson, so it's not really a matter of sex or gender, despite the OP's best efforts to make it so.

[question everything]

29. "some of my best friends are feminists."

Now, where have we heard that one before?

I just logged on and am amazed at the time and effort that you have taken to discredit Clinton and the well documented opinions of women about her.. including on DU.

Hit a nerve, or something?

[Bongo Prophet]

36. Strange games some are playing here. Lay the bait, then lie in wait.

Hey, you as the OP, are the one who gave links to two articles without comment, and then attacked anyone who showed up, with your allies to come swarm them.
There is no real substance to the attacks, except to accuse others of sexism. No discussion of the articles themselves, or any reason given why you would choose articles that actually insult Senator Clinton FAR worse than the responding posters even could hint of doing.
What kind of game are you playing?
I have been watching the swarms from H=44, and they have linked to articles that refute the very points they claim to be making, the exception in this case being that no claims at all are made, so that anyone coming upon them could comment either positively or negatively, and still be open for attack! AMAZING in its audacity.

From the WSJ article.

There is a special kind of hate that people -- particularly women -- reserve for Hillary Clinton that is unique in contemporary politics. It's nothing like the disdain liberals feel for W., which is only to be expected, and has no special edge: Liberals believe President Bush is an undeserving doofus who made a big huge mess, that's that. But the hatred for Hillary Clinton is visceral and venal, a lot of it is female and feminist, and some of it is simply off the charts.

A young woman I respect in northern California describes Hillary as "grotesque." A middle-aged successful artist I know -- herself a bit of a virago -- thinks she's "evil." And my mother, who is admittedly a Republican, is capable of going on and on about how Hillary is in it all for herself, that she'll do anything to win, that she'll kill to push her agenda through, that she's just a disgusting human being, that the sound of Hillary's voice is enough to send her racing for the remote control to turn off her beloved Fox News. The New Republic points out that many Democrats describe Hillary Clinton as "mendacious, brutal, willing to bend (or break) any rule in pursuit of power." And they're on her side.

This special anti-Rodham anger is especially troubling because it's impossible to separate from sex or sexism. Hillary Clinton reminds me that it's possible that all powerful women are, as my friend puts it, "grotesque." They are exaggerated humans, extreme cases, everything to everybody.

Some typical propaganda techniques I notice being used here:

1. Be the first. The tactic is to be the first to escalate the emotional tenor of the argument and by the use of "hot button" code words and phrases, such as "infringement of my rights," "you are a bigot," and so on.

5. Attack people and their credibility, making them rather than the issue the focal point of discussion.

8. Accuse the opposition of doing the same underhanded things to you that you yourself refuse to acknowledge doing to them.


"Propaganda Techniques" in J. A. C. Brown's 1964 book Techniques of Persuasion, Propaganda, and Communication

[question everything]

59. I probably have more respect for my fellow DUers than you

I like to post articles and wait for comments. I am not going to tell others how they should react and what they should think. In most cases, I have learned a lot from DUers who added more information, who pointed to different angles.

And, of course, I am limited by how much I can post from a copy righted story.

If you will go over the entire thread you will find that of the close to 60 posts, I have four. I like to hear what others have to say. I selected these two paragraphs because they put two different groups of women in opposite positions about Clinton.

And to ignore women's reaction to Clinton is like ignoring the reaction of blacks to Obama.

[saltpoint]

41. Senator Clinton's drop in the polls lately has taken place with no

input from me.

My state hasn't even voted yet.

And as has been suggested already, despite your having missed it, this ain't a boy/girl argument.

It is a decision by individual voters toward a collective process of choosing a nominee.

[Annces]

9. I agree

I think she lives in a bubble and does not have first hand knowledge of America in all its patchwork quilt.

[BlackVelvet04]

12. Only those stupid enough to think it's great to let their

kids pick the president of the united states.

[saltpoint]

13. Chelsea Clinton was referenced in the OP as a child of Hillary Clinton.

I responded that I count two parents raising Chelsea Clinton, one male and one female, suggesting that the OP didn't count very carefully or was biased on sexist grounds.

[Exultant Democracy]

22. Seriously, talk about a knee jeck reaction. BV needs to simmer down are read before posting.

[BlackVelvet04]

26. I was referring to women respecting Caroline Kennedy.....

maybe you should read the posts before jumping.

[question everything]

28. Let's see. Caroline Kennedy heard from her daughter that she was excited about Obama

Caroline Kennedy heard similar comments about her late father. Conclusion, Obama is the incarnation of the late JFK. At least, this is what she said on national TV.

I was hoping that, given she got the best education that money could buy, that she would at least take the time and effort to study Obama on her own.

[MagickMuffin]

33. What makes you think Caroline didn't do her research?.?.? you ASSume much

I never heard her make any statements that Sen. Obama was the incarnation of her slain father.:eyes:

[question everything]

37. When she was interviewed in one of the morning programs

don't remember which, she did not mention any research, only that her 18 years old daughter was excited about Obama and this was the same she has heard from people remembering JFK.

No, she did not mention incarnation; was my facetious remark. I apologize if this offended you.

[MagickMuffin]

42. Thanks, I appreciate your input

As you can see there are a lot of ugly remarks on here about Caroline. She didn't do anything to deserve so much disrespect, except to endorse a candidate that isn't their own.


Do you think they would have been so brutal to Caroline if she had endorsed theirs?.?.?


She had her father taken away from her as a child ( I was six years old at the time, Caroline was a few days shy of her sixth ) and was fortunate enough to have a mother who raised her to be an outstanding woman.

JFK, spent the last night of his life in my city, Fort Worth. I did some research about his last night here and his morning speech outside to a large crowd, before his speech at the FWCC breakfast.

I didn't find any transcripts of his speeches, but I did find a speech he gave in San Antonio, that was about his space programs. He not only wanted to put a man on the moon, but he wanted to do medical research in outer space that could improve the lives of all of us earth bound humans.

I have never ever heard this mentioned anywhere before and I fell in love with JFK all over again.

The Kennedy's have worked hard for human rights, among other important issues facing our planet. They have my heartfelt respect.

It makes me sick DUers spew such hatred of someone they don't even know.

[saltpoint]

51. The man stood tall, no question. We haven't recovered from his loss

and his brother's, and Dr. King....

Great post, MagickMuffin.

By any chance have you read LIBRA by Don DeLillo? It is an account of the JFK assassination from Oswald's point of view. There are some glimpses of JFK and Castro in that book that are just spendidly done.

[MagickMuffin]

52. No doubt about it, the Kennedy's were trying to advance our country

I often play a little game with myself about what could've been, had the assassinations of these three great leaders had not ended in such tragedy. They were working for the greater good of everyone.

I haven't read that book, but I'll have to see if my library can get it.

Oswald's grave was on my home turf, not very far from where I lived. I use to go there quite often to view it, it was kinda creepy. It got vandalized several times. I felt so sorry for his mom, she eventually had his marker removed so no one would know where he was buried, but I remember it was under a weeping willow tree, so it was easy to find if you knew about the tree.

When I was doing some of my research the other day, I came across an article that had pictures of the Fort Worth visit in which JFK was addressing the crowd that gathered to see him. One of the pics was a little boy on the shoulders of a man, found out the little boy was none other than Bill Paxton. He was eight years old at the time.

Check it out:

http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/unfairpark/2007/03/the_day_bill_paxton_saw_john_f.php

[saltpoint]

53. Paxton! That is too good. How amazing. And those photographs. What a

gruesome time in our country's history.

John Kennedy, in death, has the privilege of influencing and inspiring people born after the assassination. What an impact. Some while back NPR ran excerpts of the recorded tapes between JFK and RFK and southern Governors who at the time were resisting desegregation.

It was remarkable to hear the voices -- the sharp difference in accents and the sense that one set of voices was pushing toward the future and the other voice was still clutching to the distant past. Those tapes are a knockout.

[MagickMuffin]

54. I'll have to check the NPR website, perhaps they have them archived

It is amazing the influence he had. I use to hate Dallas for killing our president. It took me a long time to come to terms that Dallas was behind his murder. I think even back then I knew the powerful elitist in Dallas played a part in his death. These feelings stemmed from my teenage years and carried into my adult life. I guess I've always have had good intuition.


Here's a link to several videos on JFK.

http://www.cbsnews.com/elements/2003/11/18/national/videoarchive584325_0_1_page.shtml

[saltpoint]

55. Appreciate the links on JFK. Thank you.

This is a bit odd, but I had a dream some many years ago -- prior to the Reagan presidency -- that the man on the grassy knoll in Dallas was James Baker, who later became such a player in the State Dpt. apparatus under Reagan etc (and the powerbroker for the GOP in Gore v. Bush in Florida.

No evidence. It was just a dream. But not a very happy one.

I have never been able to tolerate Baker since then.

[MagickMuffin]

56. Strange Dream, or post premonition

Well it has been stated that Poppy was in Dallas that fateful day.

Could Baker have been one of the hobos?


It should be acknowledged that Poppy Bush and his family had reasons to be unhappy about Cuba being taken over by Castro. Why you may ask, because his family had several business interests in that country. Sugar, Rum among other industries.

I read about this in Kevin Phillips book, American Dynasty: Aristocracy, Fortune, and the Politics of Deceit in the House of Bush.



Another link concerning the conspiracy to kill a president:

http://www.totse.com/en/conspiracy/dead_kennedys/161963.html

[saltpoint]

57. Phillips' book AMERICAN DYNASTY was kind of a shock for me.

It's awfully good.

And he is not exactly a fire-belching socialist.

Careful research, great writing.

And it doesn't paint the Bush clan in a very good light at all.

[Captain Hilts]

7. Bill Clinton was VIOLENTLY allergic to Socks the cat. In a house as big as the WH it wasn't a -

problem. In a smaller house it was.

The Bushes gave away their cats in favor of dogs right before they moved into the WH.

[saltpoint]

16. The reference to 'headbands' is unclear to this observer.

Is Senator Clinton really known for her headbands?

I had evidently missed that key element in her characterization, either as she presents herself or as the public sees her. Perhaps everyone else is aware of this and I'm just now coming to realize how crucial headbands are to the Clinton candidacy.

Past the current events awareness stage, however, I remain befuddled over these headbands. Is one more or less a feminist if one wears a headband, and if male athletes, for example, wear them, are they pro-feminist males or superficially predictable female-like males? And who decides these things, so this time I can look it up and self-educate?

Jimi Hendrix wore a lot of headbands, judging from concert footage and album art. Where does that leave him in the mix?

[JimGinPA]

21. "No one with a job takes advice from someone with a chef."

Oh, the irony! Somehow I just don't see Hillary in a kitchen.

[question everything]

30. The comment was about the Kennedy ladies

who were born with a silver foot in their mouth (with apologies to Ann Richards) and who have had comfortable lives all her life.

[MagickMuffin]

34. Just because they were born into wealth, you use Ann Richards comment meant for Poppy

I think Ann would not take to kindly to your hateful comparison.

[NashVegas]

23. Second to Last Paragraph You Quoted

Is something I have encountered three times in my career, and I imagine many other women have as well.

[JTFrog]

24. "top floor, corner office that she earned."

Thanks for posting Mr. Penn. How has that inevitability/entitlement campaign turned out for you so far?

[Barack_America]

25. If she had stood up against the IWR, or at least apologized for it...

That corner office would be hers.

She has nobody to blame but herself for blowing it.

[cooolandrew]

38. In 2000 free thinking people voted Nader not looking at stats where are we today. Your free right ..

though. I wouldn't deny you that.