[AGL] a successful HRC candidacy and/or presidency

[Harry Edwards]

She's hell on flag burning, I hear.            twisty

On Apr 24, 2006, at 10:51 PM, Wayne Johnson wrote:

> 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.