Geraldine Ferraro: I Might Not Vote For Obama
Ferraro calls Obama ‘Terribly Sexist’? Is this a problem for Obama?
NYT-With each passing day, it seems a little less likely that the next president of the United States will wear a skirt — or a cheerful, no-nonsense pantsuit.
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton is now in what most agree are the waning days of her bid for the Democratic presidential nomination. To use her own phrase, she has been running “to break the highest and hardest glass ceiling” in American life, and now the presidency — even a nomination that once seemed to be hers to claim — seems out of reach.
Along with the usual post-mortems about strategy, message and money, Mrs. Clinton’s all-but-certain defeat brings with it a reckoning about what her run represents for women: a historic if incomplete triumph or a depressing reminder of why few pursue high office in the first place.
Superdelegates Turned Down $1 Million Offer From Clinton Donor
Top Hillarylander mulls Obama job
Why would anyone who supports Hillary work to elect a pro life, pro Iraq war, privatization of Social Security candidate? Why? Anger?
We are having an election, and Obama is winning.
pcvirginiabeach
What is the anger?
John- I beleive the anger comes from a feeling that this has been stolen from Clinton. I do not believe that is justified, because Obama is winning by the rules. Hillary ran a very flawed campaign, and she has focused a lot of it on anger, and on resentment towards BO. Even today, she stokes the idea that somehow she has won this, and that her supporters have been disenfranchised. I believe that the anger comes from the Clinton campaign. It will continue, and hurt Obama, as long as Hillary pushes her argument.
This race was lost on issues. I remember the old Clinton phrase: “It’s the economy, stupid.” Well, this year: “It’s the war, stupid”
You cannot be the change candidate if you voted to invade Iraq. No matter how many times you attempt to steal the oppossing sides slogans.
I disagree it is a generational issue. I come from a family with two sisters and my mother are democrats. My oldest sister (close to 50) and Mom blindly support Hillary in my opinion because they want a woman president. They are both smart and well read but make irrational statements about Hillary being stronger on Iraq than Obama. When I point out Hillary last vote to give Bush the right to expand the war into Iran they just pretend it did not happen.
My youngest sister is 41 and she is for Obama. She is outraged by Hillary and her race baiting campaign and distortion of her record.
What I find interesting is that the support of Obama by white voters is based on age. I do think that that is a great sign for our country because the younger generations in both parties seem color blind and not caught up with the bitterness of the past.
I have many issues with Obama and McCain on issues, yet I do think Obama does represent a transition in society. I do have tremendous respect how he has conducted his campaign. And I do think his tough love Bill Cosby style message is very positive.
I just think Obama’s domestic agenda is unrealistic with the current financial issues in our country.
The truth is McCain and Obama are both wrong about immigration. How we can keep importing poverty at the expense of American workers is fascism not capitalism.
The truth is we need a mandatory pay healthcare system with no exceptions. We also need to let nurses do more general healthcare and block the powerful AMA.
The truth is we need to adjust the retirement age for SS. You cannot tax your way out of people living longer. Also we should let younger people fade out of the system if they watt as long as the accounts are guaranteed.
The truth is we do not have the money for Obama’s domestic agenda even if we get out of Iraq. The dollar crashing via out of control national debt is killing the average American. We must cut back now.
The truth is programs like No Child Left Behind have been a colossal failure. We need local control and if does not work vote out the school board and change School Superintendent.
I could go on and on.
At the end McCain and Obama are avoiding many tough issues because to get elected the will tell people they can have a free lunch.
John,
You lie to your mom…”When I point out Hillary last vote to give Bush the right to expand the war into Iran they just pretend it did not happen.”
It didn’t.
How did I lie?
SENATORS Joe Biden and Chris Dodd voted against it. Senator Barack Obama said he would have voted against it if he had voted. Former Senator John Edwards implied he would have voted against it if he could vote.
And Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton? She voted in favor of the measure in question, which asked the Bush administration to declare Iran’s 125,000-member Revolutionary Guard Corps a foreign terrorist organization. Such a move — more hawkish than even most of the Bush administration has been willing to venture so far — would intensify America’s continuing confrontation with Iran, many foreign policy experts say.
Part of the reason for Mrs. Clinton’s vote, some of her backers say privately, is that she has already shifted from primary mode, when she needs to guard against critics from the left, to general election mode, when she must guard against critics from the right. That means she is trying to shore up her national security credentials versus Republican candidates like Rudolph Giuliani and Mitt Romney, and is trying to reassure voters that she would be a tough-minded commander in chief.
By supporting the bill — sponsored by Senators Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut and Jon Kyl of Arizona — Mrs. Clinton is also solidifying crucial support from the pro-Israel lobby.
Mrs. Clinton voted along with 75 other senators in favor of the bill “in order to apply greater diplomatic pressure on Iran,” according to a statement she put out after the vote. “The Revolutionary Guards are deeply involved in Iran’s nuclear program and have substantial links with Hezbollah,” the statement said.
But Mrs. Clinton has come under withering criticism for her vote from many Democrats, who say she is implicitly supporting what they see as an attempt by the administration to build a case for war with Iran. And her vote has also set off a debate among foreign policy experts about how best to put pressure on Iran, with some of them saying that Mrs. Clinton, along with a big majority of the Senate, has gone too far.
Think of it as Iran declaring that the United States military is a terrorist organization because it carries out President Bush’s orders. Such a move, say some Iran experts — including some advisers to the Clinton campaign who declined to publicly criticize their possible boss — runs the risk of further alienating the Iranian population, because many Iranians are tied to the Revolutionary Guard or its many offshoots and enterprises in some way.
“What Senator Clinton and the other legislators who voted for this bill don’t seem to realize is that the Revolutionary Guards are not Al Qaeda,” said Karim Sadjapour, an Iran expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. “They’re not a group of voluntary jihadists signing up to fight the United States. Many are conscripts taken from the regular army.”
Mr. Sadjapour, an Iranian-American, and some other experts argue that the rank and file of the Revolutionary Guard are far more representative of Iranian society than most Americans realize. So labeling Iran’s elite fighters as terrorists is a move that is more likely to drive the Iranian population closer to the hard-liners in Tehran.
Even within the Bush administration, there is debate about whether designating the entire Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organization is a good idea. While some White House officials and some members of Vice President Dick Cheney’s staff have been pushing to blacklist the whole Revolutionary Guard, administration officials said, officials at the State and Treasury Departments have been pushing a narrower approach that would list only the Revolutionary Guard’s elite Quds Force and, perhaps, companies and organizations with financial ties to that group.
The designation would make it easier for the United States to block financial accounts and other assets controlled by the group. But most of America’s partners in a big diplomatic effort to rein in Tehran’s nuclear ambitions don’t like the idea at all, arguing that it might hamstring any number of business ventures with Iran. In addition, some European diplomats argue that the move could further alienate the Iranian population.
Mrs. Clinton has come under attack from the antiwar flank of her party. Among their objections, her opponents say the vote could be used by the White House to justify a military strike on Iran. Mr. Obama, who did not vote, called Mrs. Clinton “the only Democratic presidential candidate to support this reckless amendment” in a column in the New Hampshire Union Leader.
Mr. Biden was milder, but still critical of the bill. “I do not think the suggestion that the President designate an arm of the government of Iran as a ‘terrorist’ entity provides any authority to do anything — after all, it is a nonbinding measure,” he said on the Senate floor before opposing the bill on Sept. 26. “But this administration has an unduly broad view of the scope of executive power, particularly in time of war.”
In the statement she released after the vote, Mrs. Clinton spoke of the need for “robust diplomacy” with Iran, and warned President Bush that he shouldn’t think that “the 2001 resolution authorizing force after the terrorist attacks of 9/11 in any way, authorizes force against Iran. If the administration believes that any use of force against Iran is necessary, the President must come to Congress to seek that authority.”
Mrs. Clinton concluded: “Nothing in this resolution changes that.”
John,
Show me the portion of the legislation supported by 76% of the U.S. Senate where it allows the president “the right to expand the war into Iran.”
Did not happen, you lied to your mom…shame, shame.
still waiting John….que Jeopardy music
I read similar article also named le + ‘ – ‘ + basename(imgurl) + ‘(’ + w + ‘x’ + h +’), and it was completely different. Personally, I agree with you more, because this article makes a little bit more sense for me
A diamond is forever