So, Maggie, I guess your whining was pointless. eh?

So, Maggie, I guess your whining was pointless. eh?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,320532,00.html

Hillary captures more blacks than Obama- avr. blacks and celebs.

'Shame on us for not recognizing that women are more discriminated against than black people and shame on all females for not supporting a great candidate because she is a female.'

The first part of this sentence is laughable. Ask black women if they are more discriminated for their race or sex.

Let's see: are you a white female under 30? Suburbanite?

Read the link I provided above. The best blogosphere commentary on Hillary yet.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,320532,00.html

Hillary captures more blacks than Obama- avr. blacks and celebs.

'Shame on us for not recognizing that women are more discriminated against than black people and shame on all females for not supporting a great candidate because she is a female.'

The first part of this sentence is laughable. Ask black women if they are more discriminated for their race or sex.

Let's see: are you a white female under 30? Suburbanite?

Read the link I provided above. The best blogosphere commentary on Hillary yet.

I recently asked a group of females between the ages of 18 to 25 if they prefer a woman president or a black male president and they all said a woman should not be president and they all said that being black did not matter. Their reasoning was that OTHER countries would not take a Female President seriously and that it would be bad for foreign relationships (in spite of Margaret Thatcher).

Shame on us for not recognizing that women are more discriminated against than black people and shame on all females for not supporting a great candidate because she is a female. And shame on us for not noticing what this is really about, discrimination against women!!! (Do your own poll, but ask the question correctly , should a woman be president, and do not use Hillary specifically) The women say no more than the men do.

Hillary will lose not because of men and not because of war, but because women trust men (black or white) more than they trust women and women are lucky they were ever even allowed to vote. With this attitude, we will never see a female president. We are still living in the dark ages and should not be criticizing other countries for their treatment of women. We do it here-we just hide it better.

Take a look at the black poulation of our country, they have rallied around their candidate specifically because he is black, but no one talks about this because it is politically incorrect, they would be labeled as prejudiced. But I do not see women supporting Hillary Clinton just because she is a female!!! I do not hear anyone saying that if Obama is elected as President that Oprah will be appointed to the Supreme Court but I hear them saying that If Hillary is elected as President, Bill Clinton will be appointed to the Supreme Court.

According to my brief survey, the newest voting generation still discriminates against women! This is a very sad situation–we are really no better than Iraq!

I recently asked a group of females between the ages of 18 to 25 if they prefer a woman president or a black male president and they all said a woman should not be president and they all said that being black did not matter. Their reasoning was that OTHER countries would not take a Female President seriously and that it would be bad for foreign relationships (in spite of Margaret Thatcher).

Shame on us for not recognizing that women are more discriminated against than black people and shame on all females for not supporting a great candidate because she is a female. And shame on us for not noticing what this is really about, discrimination against women!!! (Do your own poll, but ask the question correctly , should a woman be president, and do not use Hillary specifically) The women say no more than the men do.

Hillary will lose not because of men and not because of war, but because women trust men (black or white) more than they trust women and women are lucky they were ever even allowed to vote. With this attitude, we will never see a female president. We are still living in the dark ages and should not be criticizing other countries for their treatment of women. We do it here-we just hide it better.

Take a look at the black poulation of our country, they have rallied around their candidate specifically because he is black, but no one talks about this because it is politically incorrect, they would be labeled as prejudiced. But I do not see women supporting Hillary Clinton just because she is a female!!! I do not hear anyone saying that if Obama is elected as President that Oprah will be appointed to the Supreme Court but I hear them saying that If Hillary is elected as President, Bill Clinton will be appointed to the Supreme Court.

According to my brief survey, the newest voting generation still discriminates against women! This is a very sad situation–we are really no better than Iraq!

http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/2008/01/jilting-...

http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/2008/01/jilting-...

DLS: Re: Obama-
1) He has more politcal experience than Hillary in dealing w people, and all but a few R's. People want change. Won't work.

2) there are no black political machines, esp. in Chicago. Cronyism, yes.
But a machine? No.

3) This is 2008. The L word no longer works.

4) The name is Huckabee, and I'm not giggling.

DLS: Re: Obama-
1) He has more politcal experience than Hillary in dealing w people, and all but a few R's. People want change. Won't work.

2) there are no black political machines, esp. in Chicago. Cronyism, yes.
But a machine? No.

3) This is 2008. The L word no longer works.

4) The name is Huckabee, and I'm not giggling.

Because he is Religious Right, the liberal media will, literally, crucify him. Also, the Religious Right is hardly the only constituent element of the Right (or those of us on the non-left, a somewhat larger group) and Huck's occasional gaffes may make people recall Bush's. I can see Huck being shoved into the VP slot to try to get those Religious Right votes in November (not that they would rush to vote Democratic without Huck there).

* * *

“Obama: How do they beat him?”

These are ideas. I don't know if they'd work, though.

1. Cast him as inexperienced and appeal to the older, often more-knowledgeable (and less naive!) voters, to vote for the other guy. This is similar to the appeal that Clinton has with older voters now versus Obama and younger voters, but in this case it would be more deliberately sought.

2. Inform voters that he is a typical big-city machine politician, i.e., even more in the past than many in DC already.

3. Expose his record, which at least one organization rated as more liberal than that of Dennis Kucinich.

what would really help would be

4. Get a GOP candidate who appeals to voters and who offers something positive to voters. (Please try not to laugh too loudly.)

Because he is Religious Right, the liberal media will, literally, crucify him. Also, the Religious Right is hardly the only constituent element of the Right (or those of us on the non-left, a somewhat larger group) and Huck's occasional gaffes may make people recall Bush's. I can see Huck being shoved into the VP slot to try to get those Religious Right votes in November (not that they would rush to vote Democratic without Huck there).

* * *

“Obama: How do they beat him?”

These are ideas. I don't know if they'd work, though.

1. Cast him as inexperienced and appeal to the older, often more-knowledgeable (and less naive!) voters, to vote for the other guy. This is similar to the appeal that Clinton has with older voters now versus Obama and younger voters, but in this case it would be more deliberately sought.

2. Inform voters that he is a typical big-city machine politician, i.e., even more in the past than many in DC already.

3. Expose his record, which at least one organization rated as more liberal than that of Dennis Kucinich.

what would really help would be

4. Get a GOP candidate who appeals to voters and who offers something positive to voters. (Please try not to laugh too loudly.)

As for Bush- not the word 'if.'