[AGL] a successful HRC candidacy and/or presidency

[Wayne Johnson]

I would not argue against a woman as President, but not HRC at this "point in time".  Perhaps in the future when she has demonstrated she can actually do something.  HRC has not, to my knowledge....and I could be Dead Wrong here....added anything to the extended, meaningful and shocking dialogue about women's rights.  But she didn't start it...she joined up...after, I think, it was safe to do so.  Maybe she was active during the Sixties, Seventies and Eighties but I never heard of her.  Doesn't mean she wasn't speaking out in Arkansas, but I don't know about it.  

Certainly wouldn't want Condosleeza as Prez. regardless of how well she plays the gd piano.

Vote for Pelosi in a NY second.

wgJ
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Frances Morey 
  To: survivors' reminiscences about Austin Ghetto Daze in the 60s 
  Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 10:54 PM
  Subject: Re: [AGL] a successful HRC candidacy and/or presidency


  Harry,
  HRC is speaking to the problems of women who are raising children without support. I suspect, with the recent shift in the percentage of single motherhood, because men have committment issues and/or are unable to command enough income to support a family, the quantum shift in grandparents taking care of the children of their disfunctional offspring, and the vast number of young people returning to their parent's homes, with or without children of their own in tow. I predict that this is a segment of the populace who are experiencing real pressures, and it is growing exponentially. This segment of the population has her focus and she is directly addressing their concerns. That could predipitate an unstoppable torrent of support that even the childless Ivins couldn't stand against. There is a backlast against women brought on in reaction to the feminist movement, witness dismantling the abortion law, visceral opposition to same sex marriage and the eroding self imagry/eating disorders in the lives of teen women for whom a viable career option involves dancing around a pole. 
  I hate to even contemplate this but today's sucking sound comes from teen age women. Anyone who offers hope to the female gender is a shoe in. We are ready for a woman as president. Leadership is not an administrative function, it's about imagry in the person of the leader. HRC has passed the test of fire--overcoming betrayal and moving ahead. This is something all women can identify with, not just woman's rights aggitators who are really dying to be treated like men. i.e. the feminists.
  Don't get me started,
  Frances


    And I can name several women who would not vote for her, including 
    Molly Ivins. twisty d

    On Apr 24, 2006, at 6:36 PM, Wayne Johnson wrote:

    > Well, I really like Nancy Pelosi.  She is smart, tough, a good 
    > organizer, a great speaker and she doesn't look like she is going to 
    > apologize to anyone about anything.  She is Dem Whip in House.  Boxer 
    > has good credentials and is probably a better Senator for CA than HRC 
    > is for NY.  Of course, she has nowhere near the "name recognition". 
    >  
    > Bottom line: we desperately need someone who can actually "fix" 
    > something which is almost broken beyond repair and I just don't have 
    > confidence in HRC's actual "ability" to get things done.  For one 
    > thing, the GOP will block everything it can, just as the Dems would 
    > fight Jeb down into the mud and beyond.  HRC might be a great choice 
    > as a candidate but I think she carries wayyyy to much ideological and 
    > personal baggage to be an effective president. 
    >  
    > Despite all my fears of the military, I still prefer Wesley Clark over 
    > most of the other Dems, excepting perhaps Kuharich.  The New Mexico 
    > governor has a "rough charm" that is tempting.  He certainly looks 
    > like a "populist"!  At one time I like Bayh, but lately I find myself 
    > scratching my head over some of his comments.  (No, I don't remember 
    > which one.  Drat.)
    >  
    > There is such an enormous wealth of problems, the number One of which, 
    > imho, is the growing separation of wealthy and poor and the 
    > establishment of a Permanent Uppler/Rulling Class in the US.  Right 
    > behind at number Two is the heavy-handed effort by the Chrisitian 
    > Fascists to abolish the separation of Church and State which must be 
    > stopped dead in its feral tracks.  Both of these are, I am convinced, 
    > absolute "culture/society killers"....and I mean killers.  Either 
    > policy will mean the absolute death of all this country has ever stood 
    > for...when it wasn't being racist and elitist, of course.   Combined 
    > they could start a new Christian Crusade against Islam.  Guess where 
    > that woud lead?
    >  
    > Then there is the absolute hatred of the US by almost everyone else in 
    > the world.  (Foreign Policy and US business practices.) No. 3
    > Then there is the almost absolute rule of the US by giant (and dare I 
    > say, evil) corporations. No. 4
    > Then there is the need to get the hell out of the ME. (This means 
    > making sure the Likkud Party sucks hind tit in Israel) .No 5
    > Then there is the need to have an "energy policy" which is not 
    > dedicated to consuming every park in sight. No. 6
    > Then there is the utterly ruinous and middle-class destroying tax 
    > policy which MUST be re-written ASAP  No. 7
    > Then there is the corollary of no. 6....environmental protection. No. 8
    > Then there is the need to completely overhaul, top to bottom, American 
    > Education from K1 thru K21. No. 9
    > Finally, there is NAFTA and the dumb-ass immigration issue. No. 10  
    > (Paul Samuelson, MIT Nobel Laureate, has mde the best suggestion yet, 
    > to wit - permit ALL who are here to become citizens one way or 
    > another, crack down very hard on New ILLEGALS.  P.S. says there is no 
    > real need for "undocumented workers" any longer in the US because we 
    > have all the labor/person power we need to do this work...NOW)
    >  
    >  
    > Frankly, at this moment, I just don't think HRC has the depth of 
    > either character or organizational acumen to pull this off.  The 
    > biggest problem is that she is a life-time "politician" not a "real 
    > world" manager.  She hasn't run any business that I know of.  She was 
    > never in the military.  She isn't an economic whiz kid.  She has zero 
    > experience in "fixing" anything.  Simply "hanging on" and "looking 
    > resolute" and "being loyal"....well, shit, Colin Powell sort of owns 
    > that wretched territory and he has demonstrated once and for all how 
    > being a Good Soldier can lead to a completely immoral decision.
    >  
    > Gore's pronouncements are much better thought out than HRC's which are 
    > primarily "talking points" which try to keep from offending anyone.  
    > At least that is how I hear them.  I am tired of the "don't make 
    > anybody mad" or "offend" some dim-bulb demographic.  That way lies 
    > sure defeat and eventual decline of everything the men and women of 
    > WW2, as an example, died for.  
    >  
    > If HRC ....or anyone else....wants my vote, she/he/it better have a 
    > clear platform that addresses the ten (10) issues I raised above with 
    > clear statements of their goals, objectives and ....here is the 
    > kicker...just how one measures their success and/or failures.  The 
    > business world understands the power of metrics but most politicians 
    > avoid them like the plague.  They lead to direct accountability which 
    > is unheard of in today's poliitical world.  HRC is too imbedded in 
    > that Beltway Logic and she would have to make a quantum level jump to 
    > separater herself from the samo-samo.
    >  
    > enough.
    >  
    > wgJ
    >  
    >> ----- Original Message -----
    >> From: Frances Morey
    >> To: survivors' reminiscences about Austin Ghetto Daze in the 60s
    >> Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 6:31 PM
    >> Subject: Re: [AGL] not negative about Gore
    >>
    >> Writer Reverend,
    >> That's too negatives--Gore's personality or lack thereof, and lesser 
    >> known women Senators who are to the left of the Dempcratic party. I 
    >> doubt that ticket will coagulate.
    >> I guarantee you that every woman (free woman) in America will vote 
    >> for HRC, even if they have to do it with write-in votes. Her 
    >> speechifying is getting more femininist, as opposed to feminist, and 
    >> it is tapping a nerve in woman's world.
    >> Frances
    >>
    >> Wayne Johnson wrote:
    >>> How about a ticket of Al Gore and, say, Barbera Boxer or Nancy 
    >>> Pelosi?
    >>>  
    >>> wgJ
    >>>> ----- Original Message -----
    >>>> From: Connie Clark
    >>>> To: BJ's List Ghetto 2 ; Ghetto List
    >>>> Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 1:25 PM
    >>>> Subject: [AGL] not negative about Gore
    >>>>
    >>>> I think we have had posts about the new film coming up "An 
    >>>> Inconvenient Truth", but here is a review.
    >>>>  
    >>>> Richard Cohen, WP:
    >>>> "Gore insists his presidential aspirations are behind him. "I think 
    >>>> there are other ways to serve," he told me. No doubt. But on paper, 
    >>>> he is the near-perfect Democratic candidate for 2008. Among other 
    >>>> things, he won the popular vote in 2000. He opposed going to war in 
    >>>> Iraq, but he supported the Persian Gulf War - right both times. He 
    >>>> is smart, experienced and, despite the false caricatures, a man 
    >>>> versed in the new technologies - especially the Internet. He is 
    >>>> much more a person of the 21st century than most of the other 
    >>>> potential candidates. Trouble is, a campaign is not a film. Gore 
    >>>> could be a great president. First, though, he has to be a good 
    >>>> candidate. "
    >>>>  
    >>>>  
    >>>> A Campaign Gore Can't Lose
    >>>>     By Richard Cohen
    >>>>     The Washington Post
    >>>>     Tuesday 18 April 2006
    >>>>     Boring Al Gore has made a movie. It is on the most boring of 
    >>>> all subjects - global warming. It is more than 80 minutes long, and 
    >>>> the first two or three go by slowly enough that you can notice that 
    >>>> Gore has gained weight and that his speech still seems oddly out of 
    >>>> sync. But a moment later, I promise, you will be captivated, and 
    >>>> then riveted and then scared out of your wits. Our Earth is going 
    >>>> to hell in a handbasket.
    >>>>     You will see the Arctic and Antarctic ice caps melting. You 
    >>>> will see Greenland oozing into the sea. You will see the atmosphere 
    >>>> polluted with greenhouse gases that block heat from escaping. You 
    >>>> will see photos from space of what the ice caps looked like once 
    >>>> and what they look like now and, in animation, you will see how 
    >>>> high the oceans might rise. Shanghai and Calcutta swamped. Much of 
    >>>> Florida, too. The water takes a hunk of New York. The fuss about 
    >>>> what to do with Ground Zero will turn to naught. It will be 
    >>>> underwater.
    >>>>     "An Inconvenient Truth" is a cinematic version of the lecture 
    >>>> that Gore has given for years warning of the dangers of global 
    >>>> warming. Davis Guggenheim, the director, opened it up a bit. For 
    >>>> instance, he added some shots of Gore mulling the fate of the Earth 
    >>>> as he is driven here or there in some city, sometimes talking about 
    >>>> personal matters such as the death of his beloved older sister from 
    >>>> lung cancer and the close call his son had after being hit by a 
    >>>> car. These are all traumas that Gore had mentioned in his 
    >>>> presidential campaign and that seemed cloying at the time. Here 
    >>>> they seem appropriate.
    >>>>     The case Gore makes is worthy of sleepless nights: Our Earth is 
    >>>> in extremis. It's not just that polar bears are drowning because 
    >>>> they cannot reach receding ice flows or that "The Snows of 
    >>>> Kilimanjaro" will exist someday only as a Hemingway short story - 
    >>>> we can all live with that. It's rather that Hurricane Katrina is 
    >>>> not past but prologue. In the future, people will not yearn for the 
    >>>> winters of yesteryear but for the summers. Katrina produced several 
    >>>> hundred thousand evacuees. The flooding of Calcutta would produce 
    >>>> many millions. We are in for an awful time.
    >>>>     You cannot see this film and not think of George W. Bush, the 
    >>>> man who beat Gore in 2000. The contrast is stark. Gore - more at 
    >>>> ease in the lecture hall than he ever was on the stump - summons 
    >>>> science to tell a harrowing story and offers science as the 
    >>>> antidote. No feat of imagination could have Bush do something 
    >>>> similar - even the sentences are beyond him.
    >>>>     But it is the thought that matters - the application of 
    >>>> intellect to an intellectual problem. Bush has been studiously 
    >>>> anti-science, a man of applied ignorance who has undernourished his 
    >>>> mind with the empty calories of comfy dogma. For instance, his 
    >>>> insistence on abstinence as the preferred method of birth control 
    >>>> would be laughable were it not so reckless. It is similar to Bush's 
    >>>> initial approach to global warming and his rejection of the Kyoto 
    >>>> Protocol - ideology trumping science. It may be that Gore will do 
    >>>> more good for his country and the world with this movie than Bush 
    >>>> ever did by beating him in 2000.
    >>>>     Gore insists his presidential aspirations are behind him. "I 
    >>>> think there are other ways to serve," he told me. No doubt. But on 
    >>>> paper, he is the near-perfect Democratic candidate for 2008. Among 
    >>>> other things, he won the popular vote in 2000. He opposed going to 
    >>>> war in Iraq, but he supported the Persian Gulf War - right both 
    >>>> times. He is smart, experienced and, despite the false caricatures, 
    >>>> a man versed in the new technologies - especially the Internet. He 
    >>>> is much more a person of the 21st century than most of the other 
    >>>> potential candidates. Trouble is, a campaign is not a film. Gore 
    >>>> could be a great president. First, though, he has to be a good 
    >>>> candidate.
    >>>>     In the meantime, he is a man on a mission. Wherever he goes - 
    >>>> and he travels incessantly - he finds time and an audience to 
    >>>> deliver his (free) lecture on global warming. It and the film leave 
    >>>> no doubt of the peril we face, nor do they leave any doubt that 
    >>>> Gore, at last, is a man at home in his role. He is master teacher, 
    >>>> pedagogue, know-it-all, smarter than most of us, better informed 
    >>>> and, having tried and failed to gain the presidency, he has raised 
    >>>> his sights to save the world. We simply cannot afford for Al Gore 
    >>>> to lose again.
    >>>> Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. PC-to-Phone calls for ridiculously low 
    >>>> rates.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.pairlist.net/pipermail/austin-ghetto-list/attachments/20060424/d472131a/attachment-0001.htm