SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Sioux Nation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Patricia Trinchero who wrote (130882)3/24/2008 12:13:17 AM
From: ThirdEye  Respond to of 361732
 
Guess I spoke too soon.

Touche, sweetheart.

'night. <gg>



To: Patricia Trinchero who wrote (130882)3/24/2008 5:25:11 AM
From: Travis_Bickle  Respond to of 361732
 
Hillary wishes she could say the same about Bill.



To: Patricia Trinchero who wrote (130882)3/24/2008 7:05:26 AM
From: Ron  Respond to of 361732
 
Hi Pat,
Very happily married here, and my better half is a bigger Obama supporter than I am :)
You're probably right that some folks to need to get out more....



To: Patricia Trinchero who wrote (130882)5/1/2008 11:13:42 AM
From: ChinuSFO  Respond to of 361732
 
I know that you have been banned from this thread and hence you will not be in a position to respond to me. But this post to you from me on another thread is something that I want to share. You methods and tactics of fanning the racial issue is very highly deplorable.
=======

Pat, I would welcome you to debate issues. It is very offensive for you to be persistently raising the issue of race on several threads you post on SI. You have been recently banned on another thread (not the Obama thread that I host)because of your racial comments. It was extremely painful for the thread host to ban you judging from his PMs to me.

I would ask you to engage in a meaningful issue dialog that I am trying to initiate with folks like you and Mary. Judging from the posts I am tempted to stereotype women and their approach to politics. But what keeps me from doing so is that there are other women posters on this thread itself who are very dignified in putting forth their POV. So please, I hope that not only will you cease to make blanket accusations about Obama supporters, but that you will also make an effort to engage yourself in fruitful issues oriented discussions. For a start, he you go:

Message 24551249



To: Patricia Trinchero who wrote (130882)5/6/2008 11:43:55 AM
From: SiouxPal  Respond to of 361732
 
Zogby Polling: Women Deserting HIllary?

huffingtonpost.com



To: Patricia Trinchero who wrote (130882)6/27/2008 9:45:31 PM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 361732
 
Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama make a joint campaign appearance in Unity, NH today - their first since Obama became the Democrats' presumptive nominee. Good discussion of the day's events on CNN's Larry King Live tonight.



To: Patricia Trinchero who wrote (130882)8/27/2008 12:48:29 AM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 361732
 
"Hillary knocked it out of the damned park tonight."

dailykos.com



To: Patricia Trinchero who wrote (130882)9/4/2008 9:42:41 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 361732
 
GLORIA STEINEM: Palin [is] Wrong Woman, Wrong Message

mydd.com



To: Patricia Trinchero who wrote (130882)9/4/2008 2:34:55 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 361732
 
My Republican husband has come on board!

dailykos.com



To: Patricia Trinchero who wrote (130882)9/5/2008 1:07:55 AM
From: stockman_scott1 Recommendation  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 361732
 
BREAKING: Sen. Hillary Clinton releases Statement! (UPDATED X3)

dailykos.com

Statement of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton

Thursday, Sep 4, 2008

The two party conventions showcased vastly different directions for our country. Senator Obama and Senator Biden offered the new ideas and positive change America needs and deserves after eight years of failed Republican leadership. Senator McCain and Governor Palin do not.

After listening to all the speeches this week, I heard nothing that suggests the Republicans are ready to fix the economy for middle class families, provide quality affordable health care for all Americans, guarantee equal pay for equal work for women, restore our nation's leadership in a complex world or tackle the myriad of challenges our country faces. So, to slightly amend my comments from Denver: NO WAY, NO HOW, NO McCAIN-PALIN.
___________________

Update: Clinton will be in Florida on monday campaigning for Obama.



To: Patricia Trinchero who wrote (130882)9/5/2008 10:12:07 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 361732
 
Most Clinton backers say Palin's too far a stretch

ap.google.com

By JOCELYN NOVECK – 09/05/08

Sandy Goodman was deeply disappointed when Hillary Rodham Clinton didn't get the Democratic nomination, then again when she was bypassed for the VP spot. So Goodman, a longtime Florida Democrat, flirted with thoughts of shunning Barack Obama, and perhaps even voting Republican.

Then John McCain picked Sarah Palin as his running mate, and suddenly things became clear to Goodman: The Republicans had no place for her.

"Boy, you are sure not talking to ME!" Goodman, 61, says she thought when she heard Palin's views on issues like abortion rights. Now, Goodman is volunteering for Obama.

But then there's Chrissie Peters. The 37-year-old librarian from Bristol, Tenn. has always voted Democratic and supported Clinton. She assumed she'd vote for Obama — until she saw Palin speak. Now she's voting Republican.

"She was so down-to-earth, a regular person," says Peters. "She hasn't been in politics her whole life, so she isn't jaded or tainted. And I love that she's a mom. Yes, I disagree with some of her positions, but that's what this country is about."

One of the most intriguing questions about the Alaska governor's sudden arrival on the national scene has been what impact it'll have on women voters — especially those who supported Clinton.

Palin made an overture to those voters in her first speech after being chosen by McCain.

Will the pitch work?

Evidence so far shows that Palin is not drawing a lot of support from voters outside the Republican base.

An ABC News poll released Friday found the selection of Palin makes people likelier to vote for McCain by just 6 percentage points — half the 12-point margin by which Sen. Joe Biden makes them more likely to support Obama.

And as for Clinton supporters, eight in 10 said they'd vote for Obama in November, according to a Gallup Poll conducted last weekend after McCain announced his selection of Palin.

Diane Mantouvalos, for one, thinks the numbers are behind the tide.

"We've always been a few weeks ahead of the polls," says the founder of the JustSayNoDeal Web site, a clearinghouse for groups of disaffected Clinton supporters seeking to punish the Democratic Party and Obama for what they see as inexcusable treatment of Clinton.

Mantouvalos hasn't decided whom she'll support in November. But she believes many former Clinton supporters will end up voting for McCain. And she thinks Palin will help make that happen.

"I was there," Mantouvalos says of Palin's convention speech. "I was blown away. She seemed so confident in her own skin."

And what about all the issues on which Palin differs so sharply from Clinton? "Principle trumps issues for this group," she says of her and others like her.

To Gloria Steinem, the nation's most recognizable feminist, that logic is mystifying.

"Selecting Sarah Palin ... is no way to attract most women, including die-hard Clinton supporters," Steinem wrote this week in the Los Angeles Times, arguing that McCain's running mate is seriously underqualified. "Palin shares nothing but a chromosome with Clinton."

In an e-mail to The Associated Press, Steinem added: "I have yet to meet one single human being who was for Hillary and is now for McCain, with or without Palin, but some must exist somewhere."

Historically, women vote on the issues, not by the gender of the candidate, and since 1980 they've trended Democratic for that reason, says Debbie Walsh, director of the Center for American Women and Politics at Rutgers University.

"I wouldn't expect that the McCain-Palin ticket will pull in Clinton supporters," says Walsh. "They were supporting her on the issues. Her gender just added to the appeal."

Whatever appeal gender has for female voters, Obama's campaign is not about to let McCain corner the market. Clinton herself, along with Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano and Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, all are scheduled to campaign for Obama in the coming weeks, particularly where they can vouch for Obama to large female audiences

The Washington group EMILY's List, which backs female candidates who support abortion rights, says its own polling shows that a majority of Clinton supporters — 55 percent — say Palin's presence on the ticket makes them even less likely to vote McCain. Only 9 percent say it makes that more likely.

"There really couldn't be more of a distance between Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton on the issues and the agenda that Clinton fought so passionately for," the group's executive director, Ellen Moran, said in an interview. "The more (Clinton supporters) are learning about Palin, the more they are coming to the Obama-Biden ticket."

That's not the case for self-described "Clinton die-hard" Amy Goldman. The consultant from Edgewater, N.J. says she'd been leaning toward McCain for a while, but his pick of Palin sealed the deal.

"His pick goes outside the box," said Goldman, 52, who like Mantouvalos is involved in the Internet-based efforts to challenge the Democratic party. "I'm not being bitter by voting this way. I really think they're a great ticket."

Liz Hunter won't go that far. The 25-year-old Clinton fan is deeply conflicted. She's not ready to support Obama, but doesn't think she could seriously vote Republican. She read Palin's speech online, so she could pay attention to the details. "Sometimes on TV, you get caught up with all the applause," she says.

"I really respect the fact that she has five children and a career, and keeps her family strong," said Hunter. But at the same time, "I just don't think I could go over to that side." The debates will decide it, she says.

For Goodman, the Florida voter who's shifted to Obama, there will be no such indecision. She'll work to convince fellow Clintonites that they shouldn't be swayed by the woman on the Republican ticket.

"I was insulted when she referred to Hillary and the 18 million cracks in the ceiling," Goodman says, referring to Clinton's line that her primary votes put that many cracks in the glass ceiling that has held women back. "I don't believe Hillary was making those 18 million cracks for Sarah Palin."

Copyright © 2008 The Associated Press.



To: Patricia Trinchero who wrote (130882)9/12/2008 11:16:49 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 361732
 
What Happened to Family Values?

newsweek.com

Palin's pro-life extremism is as ethically flawed as it is politically damaging to the GOP.

By Jacob Weisberg
NEWSWEEK
From the magazine issue dated Sep 15, 2008

In the 1980s, the rising conservative movement tried to frame the pro-life cause as part of a broader family-values agenda that included reducing rates of illegitimate childbirth, welfare dependency and divorce. To Ronald Reagan and many of his most ardent supporters, abortion on demand was the pre-eminent example of the breakdown of traditional morality that brought about the sexual revolution. Few remember it this way, but Reagan's "evil empire" speech, delivered to the National Association of Evangelicals in 1983, had more to say about the right of parents to prevent their daughters from receiving contraceptives without their consent than it did about the Soviets.

In fact, these two conservative social goals—ending abortion and upholding the model of the nuclear family—were always in tension. The reason is that, like it or not, the availability of legal abortion actually supports the kind of family structure that conservatives once felt so strongly about: two parents raising children in a stable relationship, without government assistance. By 12th grade, 60 percent of high-school girls are sexually active (or, as Reagan preferred, "promiscuous"). Teen pregnancy rates have been trending downward in recent years but, even so, 7 percent of high-school girls become pregnant every year. And the unfortunate reality is that teenagers who carry their pregnancies to term drastically diminish their chances of living out the conservative, or the American, dream.

Forget the "Juno" scenario—in the real world, few unwed mothers give up their babies for adoption. If you do not allow teenage girls who accidentally become pregnant to have abortions, you are demanding that they either raise their children as single mothers or that they marry in shotgun weddings. By the numbers, neither alternative is promising. Unmarried teenage moms seldom get much financial or emotional support from the fathers of their babies. They tend to drop out of high school, go on the dole and are prone to lives of poverty, frustration and disorder. Only 2 percent of them make it through college by the age of 30. The Bristol Palin option doesn't promote family happiness, stability or traditional structure, either. Of women under 18 who marry, whether because of pregnancy or not, nearly half divorce within 10 years, double the rate for those who wait until they're 25.

I've long expected the Republican Party to resolve this conflict in its social vision by moderating its stance on abortion. Politically, pro-life absolutism has never made much sense. A significant element within the GOP—libertarians, economic conservatives, Barbara Bush—favor leaving Roe v. Wade alone. A majority of the country agrees. Meanwhile, the percentage of people on either side of the debate who say they'll vote only for a candidate who shares their views on the subject has been steadily shrinking. Since Lee Atwater's heyday, pragmatic Republicans have been trying to figure out how the party can become a "big tent," making room for a pro-choice as well as a pro-life faction. Until recently, the modernizers included John McCain himself, who in 1999 said, "Certainly in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade, which would then force women in America to [undergo] illegal and dangerous operations." That was only one of several attempts on his part to evolve his position. If Roe ever were repealed, there would follow a fight in every state about whether to ban abortion by statute. Politically, this could be the best thing to happen to liberals since the New Deal.

But renewed evangelical dominance of the Republican Party in the George W. Bush years has pushed McCain in just the opposite direction—to the point of letting Phyllis Schlafly revise the abortion plank in the party's 2008 platform, which eliminates language "rejecting punitive action against women who have an abortion." It explains how McCain ended up with a wildly underqualified running mate in Sarah Palin, instead of his preferred pro-choice veep picks, Joe Lieberman and Tom Ridge.

Give the anti-abortion extremists credit for living their principles. If they weren't deadly serious, they wouldn't sabotage their party's political prospects or sacrifice so many other values they hold dear for the sake of denying exceptions in cases of rape and incest. But Palin's pro-life purism is as ethically flawed as it is politically damaging to the GOP. By vaunting their pro-life agenda over everything else, conservatives are abandoning one of their most valuable insights, that intact, two-parent families are best for children and the foundation of a healthy society.

About this, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Bill Bennett, Gertrude Himmelfarb and, yes, Dan Quayle, were entirely correct. Remember Murphy Brown? I always thought the former vice president was on solid ground when he called it morally irresponsible to encourage women without the TV character's resources to embark on child rearing on their own. In today's GOP, Quayle wouldn't condemn Murphy Brown. He'd call her up to the stage and salute her for choosing life.



To: Patricia Trinchero who wrote (130882)1/4/2009 2:11:33 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 361732
 
Why Israel went to war in Gaza

guardian.co.uk