The Unity Campaign: Peace, Prosperity and Progress in the 21st C

We each grow in strength, character and our vital coping skills as human beings when we can pick ourselves up and get back into the flow of life. Hillary Clinton is a solid human being tested by the viciously competitive rigors of America's political reality right before our eyes. Which one of us can withstand this level of pressure to keep showing up for the entire country?!

This taken from a Chicago fundraiser and posted to Lynn Sweet's website: Hillary Clinton lamented that the party has won only three of the last 10 elections.'This is a sobering thought,' she said, adapting her electability argument from the primary campaign. “For me this is intensely personal, because I want to see our country once again not just solving problems, which sounds very pragmatic, but lifting up our sights and finding the promise of our country by once again producing the progress that is truly the American birthright. It has slipped away from us.”

In watching the youtube videos of the Unity Speech, did these two (1-former) candidate(s) bring together the generation of actively voting, techno-savvy "kids" with their families and life-experienced, politically active elder-allies in this audience in Unity, N.H. on June 27th? Can we push that consideration to the political/social forefront among us now?

The Violence of Sexism in 21st Century America

From one email respondent, of the Hillary Clinton Campaign:

I have lived through a number of political campaigns, but never in my life have I experienced one as deranged and devoid of fact and reason as this one.

The atmosphere in America has been so poisonous that the only similar political times that come to mind are 1930s Germany, which was also a time of unbridled and unreasoning hate.

The sad part is that even many women join in the hatred of other women. Why, I don't know, but I know it to be so.

Maybe women want to be thought of as one of the boys, or maybe successful and powerful women loom as a threat to those women. Could it be a case of . . .

Obama: my supporters are more violent than the Hillary supporters, so you had better make me president, or there will be hell to pay. (not a direct quote)

Is this what we have come to as a nation?



Hating Hillary


by Andrew Stephen
The New Statesman
May 22, 2008

"Gloating, unshackled sexism of the ugliest kind has been shamelessly peddled by the US media, which - sooner rather than later, I fear - will have to account for their sins.

History, I suspect, will look back on the past six months as an example of America going through one of its collectively deranged episodes -- rather like Prohibition from 1920-33, or McCarthyism some 30 years later. This time it is gloating, unshackled sexism of the ugliest kind. It has been shamelessly peddled by the US media, which - sooner rather than later, I fear -- will have to account for their sins. The chief victim has been Senator Hillary Clinton, but the ramifications could be hugely harmful for America and the world.

I am no particular fan of Clinton. Nor, I think, would friends and colleagues accuse me of being racist. But it is quite inconceivable that any leading male presidential candidate would be treated with such hatred and scorn as Clinton has been. What other senator and serious White House contender would be likened by National Public Radio's
political editor, Ken Rudin, to the demoniac, knife-wielding stalker played by Glenn Close in /Fatal Attraction/? Or described as "a fucking whore" by Randi Rhodes, one of the foremost personalities of the supposedly liberal Air America? Could anybody have envisaged that a website set up specifically to oppose any other candidate would be
called Citizens United Not Timid? (We do not need an acronym for that.)

I will come to the reasons why I fear such unabashed misogyny in the US media could lead, ironically, to dreadful racial unrest. "All men are created equal," Thomas Jefferson famously proclaimed in 1776. That equality, though, was not extended to women, who did not even get the vote until 1920, two years after (some) British women. The US still has less gender equality in politics than Britain, too. Just 16 of America's 100 US senators are women and the ratio in the House (71 out of 435) is
much the same. It is nonetheless pointless to argue whether sexism or racism is the greater evil: America has a peculiarly wicked record of racist subjugation, which has resulted in its racism being driven deep underground. It festers there, ready to explode again in some unpredictable way.

To compensate meantime, I suspect, sexism has been allowed to take its place as a form of discrimination that is now openly acceptable. "How do we beat the bitch?" a woman asked Senator John McCain, this year's Republican presidential nominee, at a Republican rally last November. To his shame, McCain did not rebuke the questioner but joined in the laughter. Had his supporter asked "How do we beat the nigger?" and McCain reacted in the same way, however, his presidential hopes would deservedly have gone up in smoke. "Iron my shirt," is considered amusing heckling of Clinton. "Shine my shoes," rightly, would be hideously unacceptable if yelled at Obama.

Evidence to the contrary notwithstanding, American men like to delude themselves that they are the most macho in the world. It is simply unthinkable, therefore, for most of them to face the prospect of having a woman as their leader. The massed ranks of male pundits gleefully pronounced that Clinton had lost the battle with Obama immediately after the North Carolina and Indiana primaries, despite past precedents that strong second-place candidates (like Ronald Reagan in his first, ultimately unsuccessful campaign in 1976; like Ted Kennedy, Gary Hart, Jesse Jackson and Jerry Brown) continue their campaigns until the end of the primary season and, in most cases, all the way to the party convention.

None of these male candidates had a premature political obituary written in the way that Hillary Clinton's has been, or was subjected to such righteous outrage over refusing to quiesce and withdraw obediently from what, in this case, has always been a knife-edge race. Nor was any of them anything like as close to his rivals as Clinton now is to Obama.

The media, of course, are just reflecting America's would-be macho culture. I cannot think of any television network or major newspaper that is not guilty of blatant sexism - the British media, naturally, reflexively follow their American counterparts -- but probably the worst offender is the NBC/MSNBC network, which has what one prominent Clinton activist describes as "its nightly horror shows". Tim Russert, the network's chief political sage, was dancing on Clinton's political grave before the votes in North Carolina and Indiana had even been fully counted -- let alone those of the six contests to come, the undeclared super-delegates, or the disputed states of Florida and Michigan.

The unashamed sexism of this giant network alone is stupendous. Its superstar commentator Chris Matthews referred to Clinton as a "she-devil". His colleague Tucker Carlson casually observed that Clinton "feels castrating, overbearing and scary . . . When she comes on television, I involuntarily cross my legs." This and similar abuse, I need hardly point out, says far more about the men involved than their target.

Knives out

But never before have the US media taken it upon themselves to proclaim the victor before the primary contests are over or the choice of all the super-delegates is known, and the result was that the media's tidal wave of sexism became self-fulfilling: Americans like to back winners, and polls immediately showed dramatic surges of support for Obama. A few brave souls had foreseen the merciless media campaign: "The press will savage her no matter what," predicted the Washington Post's national political correspondent, Dana Milbank, last December. "They really have their knives out for her, there's no question about it."

Polling organisations such as Gallup told us months ago that Americans will more readily accept a black male president than a female one, and a more recent CNN//Essence/ magazine/ Opinion Research poll found last month that 76 per cent think America is ready for a black man as president, but only 63 per cent believe the same of a woman.

"The image of charismatic leadership at the top has been and continues to be a man," says Ruth Mandel of Rutgers University. "We don't have an image, we don't have a historical memory of a woman who has achieved that feat."

Studies here have repeatedly shown that women are seen as ambitious and capable, or likeable -- but rarely both. "Gender stereotypes trump race stereotypes in every social science test," says Alice Eagley, a psychology professor at Northwestern University. A distinguished academic undertaking a major study of coverage of the 2008 election, Professor Marion Just of Wellesley College - one of the "seven sisters" colleges founded because women were barred from the Ivy Leagues and which, coincidentally, Hillary Clinton herself attended -- tells me that what is most striking to her is that the most repeated description of Senator Clinton is "cool and calculating".

This, she says, would never be said of a male candidate -- because any politician making a serious bid for the White House has, by definition, to be cool and calculating. Hillary Clinton, a successful senator for New York who was re-elected for a second term by a wide margin in 2006 - and who has been a political activist since she campaigned against the Vietnam War and served as a lawyer on the congressional staff seeking to impeach President Nixon - has been treated throughout the
2008 campaign as a mere appendage of her husband, never as a heavyweight politician whose career trajectory (as an accomplished lawyer and professional advocate for equality among children, for example) is markedly more impressive than those of the typical middle-aged male senator.

Rarely is she depicted as an intellectually formidable politician in her own right (is that what terrifies oafs like Matthews and Carlson?). Rather, she is the junior member of "Billary", the derisive nickname coined by the media for herself and her husband. Obama's opponent is thus not one of the two US senators for New York, but some amorphous creature called "the Clintons", an aphorism that stands for amorality
and sleaze. Open season has been declared on Bill Clinton, who is now reviled by the media every bit as much as Nixon ever was.

Here we come to the crunch. Hillary Clinton (along with her husband) is being universally depicted as a loathsome racist and negative campaigner, not so much because of anything she has said or done, but because the overwhelmingly pro-Obama media -- consciously or unconsciously -- are following the agenda of Senator Barack Obama and his chief strategist, David Axelrod, to tear to pieces the first serious female US presidential candidate in history.

"What's particularly saddening," says Paul Krugman, professor of economics and international affairs at Princeton and a rare dissenting voice from the left as a columnist in the New York Times, "is the way
many Obama supporters seem happy with the . . . way pundits and some news organisations treat any action or statement by the Clintons, no matter how innocuous, as proof of evil intent." Despite widespread reporting to the contrary, Krugman believes that most of the "venom" in the campaign "is coming from supporters of Obama".

But Obama himself prepared the ground by making the first gratuitous personal attack of the campaign during the televised Congressional Black Caucus Institute debate in South Carolina on 21 January, although virtually every follower of the media coverage now assumes that it was Clinton who started the negative attacks. Following routine political sniping from her about supposedly admiring comments Obama had made about Ronald Reagan, Obama suddenly turned on Clinton and stared intimidatingly at her. "While I was working in the streets," he scolded her, ". . . you were a corporate lawyer sitting on the board of Wal-Mart." Then, cleverly linking her inextricably in the public consciousness with her husband, he added: "I can't tell who I'm running against sometimes."

One of his female staff then distributed a confidential memo to carefully selected journalists which alleged that a vaguely clumsy comment Hillary Clinton had made about Martin Luther King ("Dr King's dream began to be realised when President Lyndon Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964") and a reference her husband had made in passing to Nelson Mandela ("I've been blessed in my life to know some of the greatest figures of the last hundred years . . . but if I had to pick one person whom I know would never blink, who would never turn back, who would make great decisions . . . I would pick Hillary") were
deliberate racial taunts.

Another female staffer, Candice Tolliver - whose job it is to promote Obama to African Americans - then weighed in publicly, claiming that "a cross-section of voters are alarmed at the tenor of some of these statements" and saying: "Folks are beginning to wonder: Is this an isolated situation, or is there something bigger behind all of this?" That was game, set and match: the Clintons were racists, an impression sealed when Bill Clinton later compared Obama's victory in South Carolina to those of Jesse Jackson in 1984 and 1988 (even though Jackson himself, an Obama supporter, subsequently declared Clinton's remarks to be entirely inoffensive).

The pincer movement, in fact, could have come straight from a textbook on how to wreck a woman's presidential election campaign: smear her whole persona first, and then link her with her angry, red-faced husband. The public Obama, characteristically, pronounced himself "unhappy" with the vilification carried out so methodically by his
staff, but it worked like magic: Hillary Clinton's approval ratings among African Americans plummeted from above 80 per cent to barely 7 percent in a matter of days, and have hovered there since.

I suspect that, as a result, she will never be able entirely to shake off the "racist" tag. "African-American super-delegates [who are supporting Clinton] are being targeted, harassed and threatened," says one of them, Representative Emanuel Cleaver. "This is the politics of the 1950s." Obama and Axelrod have achieved their objectives: to belittle Hillary Clinton and to manoeuvre the ever-pliant media into depicting every political criticism she makes against Obama as racist in intent.

The danger is that, in their headlong rush to stop the first major female candidate (aka "Hildebeast" and "Hitlery") from becoming
president, the punditocracy may have landed the Democrats with perhaps the least qualified presidential nominee ever. But that creeping realisation has probably come too late, and many of the Democratic super-delegates now fear there would be widespread outrage and increased racial tension if they thwart the first biracial presidential hopeful in US history.

But will Obama live up to the hype? That, I fear, may not happen: he is a deeply flawed candidate. Rampant sexism may have triumphed only to make way for racism to rear its gruesome head in America yet again. By election day on 4 November, I suspect, the US media and their would-be-macho commentators may have a lot of soul-searching to do."

In Support of Emily's List Campaign against CNN men

Here is what the campaign is saying on Emily's List:

Show some respect for women!

Talking heads on cable news using vile, sexist language that insults and degrades women.

This time it's GOP consultant Alex Castellanos -- purveyor of a racist attack ad on behalf of former Sen. Jesse Helms -- appearing on CNN's Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer Tuesday, May 20.

Commenting in a discussion about a comedy routine characterizing Hillary as a "white b**ch," Castellanos said, "...and some women by the way, are named that and it's accurate."

(Use the form below to tell CNN that it's time to stop condoning sexism and start showing some respect for women.) You can go HERE to do this.


I say, don't fill yourself with the toxicity by watching what you already know exists. Just confidently respond from your own voice!



Here is my reply:

Dear CNN,

Wake up men! You have not lived in a world of your own making, in your own image, under your own control for a very long time if ever, really!

Wake up men! The facts that The Women's Movement now has thirty-plus years in self-help, self-examination, enlightenment work, etc., is obvious when a man continues to presume to shoot off his mouth like some, "Oh I don't need to read the new curriculum (since the 1970's!) because I am the curriculum with an attitude!"
Oh, really?!

As an upright hominid, you all sound truly a lot more ignorant than the great and noble apes. The generally portrayed evolution of men as only selfish, self-centered, needy boy-children, insisting on the security of a Moma at home just for them, is a general picture of men that really can afford to evolve into socially conscious beings now. I would give you permission, but you have to learn how to do that for yourselves.

This IS where the women are: out in the world, making the world a safer place to be! You can come out of your neediness to be taken care of a little more differently now_ WE women are making the world more safe for you to be out here, with no more chest-pounding antics.

Want a cookie?

Ghana: Is the Dream over for Hillary Clinton?

What is it in this article from Ghana, about our presidential campaigns that makes sense_ besides the need for good editing?

COLUMN
12 May 2008
Posted to the web 12 May 2008

Godwin Yaw Agboka

"Hillary Clinton has vowed to fight on, even though the odds are hugely against her.

She is behind Obama in popular votes, pledged delegates, and states won. What is more, more than ever, pressure is mounting on her to withdraw her candidature from the Democratic race to save the party from a chaotic convention due to take place in Denver later this year.

Last Tuesday was an apt opportunity for Hillary to prove to the superdelegates and the leadership of the party that Obama is, indeed, vulnerable; that several questions remain unanswered about Obama; that Obama does not connect with middle class, blue-collar workers; that he cannot win the big states, and that he is elitist. This point, she could not make at the end of the primaries in Indiana and North Carolina. When the votes were counted, Obama won North Carolina by a 14-point margin in North Carolina, and, almost denied Hillary victory in Indiana, where the demographics favored her.

Let's face it; Hillary Clinton has run a terrific campaign. She began the race as the most established, experienced, and most formidable brand. She was-before the process-and still is, the most popular woman in the US. She had the Clinton machinery well in place for her, and she made good use of it. Consequently, during the debates, she stayed above the fray, refusing to answer some questions, and always presenting herself as the candidate for the '08 campaign. She led by huge margins in most of the states, according to most of the polls- even before some of the other contenders dropped out.

Hillary's tragic mistake was that she ran a general election campaign-not a campaign to win her party's nomination. She presented herself as the invincible candidate destined to go to the White House. Thus, while Obama was amassing grassroots support, soliciting as little as a dollar from donors, Hillary was already living the life of a president. Thus, as Obama developed into a movement, the Clinton machinery could not rise to the challenge.

It was stunning how the Illinois Senator, Barrack Obama took the Democratic race by storm. He won ten contests in a row after Super Tuesday, picked up high profile endorsements, and closed the gap in the number of superdelegates won. He looked unstoppable after Super Tuesday, and, as things stand, he has ruggedly broken the aura of invincibility around Hillary Clinton, and provided tough answers to the question of electability, raised by Hillary Clinton.

Obama appears to have a magic wand that appeals to the youth, independents, and liberals. For the first time, in many decades, the expectations, among voters, are reaching boiling point-call it a crescendo. Voters seem to want things to change in Washington. Obama represents the change they want. Forget about the fact that he is black. Obama has transcended race. He talks about hope, and believes that "there is nothing false about hope." He knows how to say the right things at the right time.

Mathematically, it is impossible for Hillary to get the Democratic nomination. The only hope she has is to court (and win over) superdelegates, who are the tie-breakers in the Democratic process. Unfortunately (maybe, for Hillary), there is no tie in this case. The problem with allowing the superdelegates to decide the winner of the race, especially now that Obama has a huge advantage is that it will be a recipe for rancor, animosity, and division in the Democratic Party. It will be a disaster! That will be against the will of the people who voted, en masse, for Obama. Don't forget, also, that the many blacks who have turned out for Obama will feel the nomination has been 'stolen' from them. Blacks are a core voting group for Democrats.

Obama currently leads in pledged delegates and in states won and he is ahead in the popular vote, even if Florida were factored into the equation. Votes from Florida and Michigan were not counted because the states were penalized for moving their primaries up in violation of party rules. Thus, all the aspirants agreed not to contest there, even though Obama's, Clinton's, and Kucinich's names were on the ballot in Florida. In Michigan, however, Obama's name (and those of the other candidates), except Clinton's, was not even on the ballot.

Obama has won a total of 1,846 delegates out of which 1,588 are pledged delegates and 258, superdelegates. Clinton has won a total of 1, 685 delegates, out of which 1,419 are pledged delegates and 266, superdelegates, but a candidate will need a total of 2,025 to clinch the nomination. Furthermore, Obama has won twice as many states as Hillary. However, neither candidate is expected to win the 2,025 delegates needed to clinch the Democratic nomination by June 3, the end of the primary season. The final decision will most likely fall to the 796 superdelegates who are Democratic governors, members of Congress and party officials. That is where Hillary wants to cash in.

Even if Hillary Clinton won the remaining six contests, she cannot make up the difference (in delegates) between her and Obama, because the number of delegates for pick up is not as huge as it was in (say) Pennsylvania or even North Carolina. In fact, for Clinton to come close to closing the gap, she needs to win about 70% of the popular votes in all the other contests-a task which is impossible. Unfortunately for her she is about 500,000 votes behind in popular votes.

However, even though the odds are against her, Hillary believes she can still pull a surprise; in fact, she wants to re-live or re-enact the story of her husband who staged a major comeback after he lost Iowa about sixteen years ago when he was seeking the Democratic nomination. The challenge Hillary faces, however, is that she's had a lot of comebacks in this race-New Hampshire, Massachusetts, etc-but the odds have always been against her. She can't simply catch up!

The New York Senator makes an argument about why she is more electable. She argues that she has won the bigger states that matter to Democrats: California, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Tennessee, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New Jersey. In fact, no Democrat became President without winning Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida. These states have a lot of blue-collar workers who have been behind the pockets of successes Hillary Clinton has chalked in this process. Obama has failed to connect with these voters, and has often performed poorly whenever these voters come into the equation. He has won more of the small states which are also swing states.

What is more, recent polls about how the Democrats will fare against McCain have shown that, in fact, Hillary Clinton will beat McCain in a general election match-up by about 5 points, while the match-up between Obama and McCain is statistical dead heat. What these polls fail to do, however, is that they can't project into the future. They can only show the present. Is voter behavior static? Can't voters change their minds? Also, if Hillary argues that she is more electable, what is the best assessment of electability? Isn't Obama beating Hillary in the current process? Who is more electable?

The point the Clinton campaign misses, even regarding blue-color voters, is that these blue-collar voters who have been the backbone of Hillary Clinton have traditionally voted for Republicans, so that is not necessarily an Obama problem. It is a problem Democrats have had, and still have. Democrats have always struggled with this group of voters in the general elections. Thus, it is not a given that these voters will vote for a Democrat in the general elections.

The challenge Democrats face with this long, drawn-out process is that the White House might elude them. Even though the race has brought as much excitement to Democratic voters, it is also dividing the party. The Republican nominee, John McCain is already running a general election campaign, while the Democrats tear each other part. If recent polls about reports of division within the Democratic Party are an indicator, the Democrats are in big trouble.

According to early exit polls, half of Clinton's supporters in Indiana would not vote for Obama in a general election matchup with Sen. John McCain, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee. A third of Clinton's voters said they would pick McCain over Obama, while 17 percent said they would not vote at all. Forty-eight percent of Clinton supporters said they would back Obama in November.

Obama got even less support from Clinton backers in North Carolina, where 45 percent of Clinton supporters said they would vote for him over McCain. Thirty-eight percent of Clinton supporters said they would vote for McCain while 12 percent said they would not vote. It appears Obama voters appear to be more willing to support Clinton in November. In Indiana, 59 percent of Obama backers said they'd vote for Clinton, and 70 percent of Obama backers in North Carolina said vote for her against McCain.

It will be difficult, if not impossible, for Hillary Clinton to clinch the Democratic nomination. It's almost over for her! Obama looks poised to become both the nominee and the first black president of the United States. He has one foot there, and he should be worrying over who will partner him for the December elections. The best Hillary Clinton can do is to graciously quit the race to save the party, her image, and to brighten her chances towards the pursuit of her political career. It is as simple as that!"

When my first choice for president Dennis Kucinch dropped out of the race, I vowed to stay in behind Hillary all the way to the primaries. Once Thomas Friedman's article was published in the NYT, I found myself doing some digging and research on line to better understand what he was plainly saying. It was then, about ten days ago that I found myself beginning to waver, to the extent that I posted my own call for Hillary to call the race, and drop out.
Today, with my Oregon ballot in my hand, I am really stuck in my decisions, for whom to vote!

Rise America! Rise!

Celebrating Women: A Note from Dr. Maya Angelou
by Dr. Maya Angelou
3/31/2008 11:45:30 AM

This entry is part of a series in celebration of Women's History Month.

You may write me down in history
With your bitter, twisted lies,
You may trod me in the very dirt
But still, like dust, I’ll rise.

This is not the first time you have seen Hillary Clinton seemingly at her wits end, but she has always risen, always risen, much to the dismay of her adversaries and the delight of her friends.

Hillary Clinton will not give up on you and all she asks of you is that you do not give up on her.

There is a world of difference between being a woman and being an old female. If you’re born a girl, grow up, and live long enough, you can become an old female. But, to become a woman is a serious matter. A woman takes responsibility for the time she takes up and the space she occupies.

Hillary Clinton is a woman. She has been there and done that and has still risen. She is in this race for the long haul. She intends to make a difference in our country.

She is the prayer of every woman and man who long for fair play, healthy families, good schools, and a balanced economy.

She declares she wants to see more smiles in the families, more courtesies between men and women, more honesty in the marketplace. Hillary Clinton intends to help our country to what it can become.

She means to rise.

She means to help our country rise. Don’t give up on her, ever.

In fact, if you help her to rise, you will rise with her and help her make this country a wonderful, wonderful place where every man and every woman can live freely without sanctimonious piety, without crippling fear.

Rise Hillary.

Rise.

Hillary in Portland, Oregon

Talking about the environment AND the troops in the same place. Not only can Oregonians deal with it, these freedoms, motivations and commitments are why we live here!

Violence against Women Work- Eve Ensler comments on Bush's terrorizing war on humanity, & Hillary! Listen, THINK & do read on...

Go to this link for E.E.'s full presentation, it's worth it. (50 mins.)
It is time on so many important fronts for a woman to be president of this country. Do I mean Eve? Well, she isn't running is she?
Elect Hillary because she is the bitch to get the needed work done. We HAVE to build our way back to access in the country and now! I say to all U.S. women in mid-life, don't skip out on the responsibility of your own power at this time, NOW!
VOTE HILLARY! IT IS SO VERY MUCH AMERICA'S TIME FOR A WOMAN PRESIDENT, DEEP IN THE NATIONAL PSYCHE!! NOW! NOW! NOW! NOW!

It is Obama's turn in another four years. He needs to season and mature into the responsibility first.
Kucinch dropped out, this is Hillary's time!
Step UP! Do the right thing! Vote Hillary!! She is a political horse, and knows how to do battle with the realities of Washington the way it is. The nation prospered in the Clinton White House.

Yes, yes, we have had thirty years of the Bushes and the Clintons. So?! Look to yourself for that! It is time to quit reacting as logic, and mature ourselves as a whole country!!!
The right way to get out of the currant devastating mess America is in, at home and in the world, is with a female who is powerful!

The power we need in the world right now, is the balancing principal of FEMALE POWER.
Female power guiding our nation back to access and prosperity, and yes, healing ON THE NATIONAL & INTERNATIONAL stages!

THIS IS NO ACT, SO THIS IS NO DRESS REHEARSAL! (REHEARSAL IS TRULY OBAMA'S PATH FOR RIGHT NOW!) The prematurity of America's newest voters could steer this election in the wrong direction, IF, we do not do our job! Don't let this happen now.

THIS ELECTION IS REAL!

WE NEED A WOMAN WHO CAN DANCE!

WE NEED A WOMAN COME INTO HER OWN POWER!

WE NEED A WOMAN WHO CAN & WILL FIGHT FOR US!

WE NEED A WOMAN WHO CAN & WILL WIN!

WE NEED A WOMAN WHO CAN NURTURE!

AMERICA NEEDS A WOMAN AT THE HELM!

NOW! NOW! HILLARY NOW!

VOTE FOR A WOMAN FOR U.S. PRESIDENT NOW!!!

VOTE FOR HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON!!!

VOTE! VOTE! JUST DO IT! VOTE FOR HER!!

(I am Kerrie B. Wrye, and I approve this message!)

I am going to holler, stamp my feet, and throw up both my hands loudly, until Hillary is elected!

She is going to be elected because America does need this!!

Now, go! Talk to everyone you know and don't know about this!

American grand dame of national consciousness and poetry

Hillary must NOT let us down!!!

As a voter, do you care about any of these issues? This question is especially posed for all the young, computer savvies who need a healthy opportunity to pause to consider: will you only commonly sacrifice your own youthful momentum to wasting (your life)time being cynical? Instead, at least passionately consider your human innocence... when no one is looking if you need that! Just do this one thing for yourself.

A glimpse on Diplomacy... 'Corpmediaorations' BACK-OFF! Leave Americans alone to think for themselves!! On any political consideration, there is nothing wrong with a liberal view or a conservative view. The process involved, learning to work together, is our national wealth. To detrimentally undermine that process in any way is treasonist, as the era of Bush Regime and the momentous greed of Reagonomics have most effectively shown!
America requires an inclusive economic model and has for a very long time, since it is not clearly understood that an "exclusive" model is childishly outmoded, outgrown in effect dead, and has been dead since the sixties. We are all responsible for this mess now. (Allow this conscious commentary to work metaphorically, with reference to "diplomacy".)


The Care and Well-being of the American Middle Class?!


Collective Economic Strength through Unions?!


An Apollo-Like effort; introducing legislation for A Strategic Energy Fund


THE WAR ON IRAQ?


CIVIL RIGHTS!


Federal Regs & the Mortgage Market!


Humanism versus Money-First, at the Expense of Quality of Life for the Majority?!


Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton on Autism and Disabilities Rights


Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton's Call for a US Public Service Academy


Reintroduction for Approval of Follow-on Safe Biologics" (Stem Cell Research?)


(Re)Introducing the Women's Equality Amendment_ ONCE AND FOR ALL, THIS TIME!