Glenn Discusses South Carolina Primary, Hillary Clinton on Al-Jazeera
January 28th, 2008 by Glenn Sacks, MA for Fathers & Families
Background: I've previously discussed my views on the presidential race and the flaws in our primary system in several blog posts.
These include:
Glenn Discusses Presidential Primaries on Al-Jazeera (1/7/08)
In Defense of Hillary Clinton's Crying (1/8/08)
Of Course Richardson Needs to Bow Out--After All, 1.5% of the US Population Has Rejected Him (1/10/08)
New Column: In Defense of Giuliani’s Family Life (9/25/07).
To read more, click here.
I discussed the South Carolina presidential primaries, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama on Al-Jazeera's World News on Saturday, January 26. To watch, click here. Among other comments, I said:
"I don't think the media is really turning against Clinton, but the Clintons carry so much baggage. You're right, in a sense Hillary Clinton can't win whatever she does. If she's very tough, people say she has no feminine side, she's like a man. If she tries to be more feminine and warm, they say she's just trying to win the election by being a girl, by being feminine. Whatever she does, she gets criticized.
"The Clintons carry so much baggage--all through the Clinton presidency during the '90s it was just scandal after scandal after scandal. Most of us can't even remember what those scandals were all about, but we really don't feel like hearing about it all over again. That's the thing that drags Hillary Clinton down.
"I think with Obama, people like him, he's an impressive individual, he's inspiring, he's committed, but on the other hand, do you want a president that's only had two years of federal office? He's been a senator for a couple of years and that's about it. I think a lot of people are looking to the Clintons because they have more experience."
"));
19 queries. 0.396 seconds.
January 28th, 2008 at 2:53 pm
Bush - Clinton - Bush - Clinton.
When did Americans decide to accept a three-decade DYNASTY so arrogantly represented as DEMOCRACY?
People in ancient Rome had a better choice in their elected representatives.
And better bread and circuses too!
January 28th, 2008 at 3:00 pm
Yes, just breaking up the entrenched power structure would be something to do.
January 28th, 2008 at 3:12 pm
The youth are looking for change in this country!! And most young people are voting Obama.
Although most young people cannot articulate the exact change they want, but i will for them...
America is getting disgusted with the feminist establishment!!!!
They continue to see, and hear of yet another young male falselly accussed of this or of that, and see the older misplaced protector males like mike nifong, choking young males to show the girls how much of a real man he is!!
It's sick, and we need to uproot these sick, misplaced protector men at all costs!!
January 28th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
"You're right, in a sense Hillary Clinton can't win whatever she does. If she's very tough, people say she has no feminine side, she's like a man. If she tries to be more feminine and warm, they say she's just trying to win the election by being a girl, by being feminine. Whatever she does, she gets criticized."
I disagree. Men get criticized just as much, IMO, for the same things - too aggressive, not aggressive enough, etc. I don't agree that HIllary has this problem any more than the others.
January 28th, 2008 at 3:52 pm
"I think with Obama, people like him, he's an impressive individual, he's inspiring, he's committed, but on the other hand, do you want a president that's only had two years of federal office? He's been a senator for a couple of years and that's about it. I think a lot of people are looking to the Clintons because they have more experience."
Gonna have to disagree with you, Glenn. To me, this is one of his major selling points, if anything! Better we get him in the White House early, before being exposed to the sorry state of modern-day politics gets the chance to infect him. That, and the fact that he's done the right thing in handling his race by barely bringing it up and making it a non-issue, unlike Hillary Rodham "Vote For Me Because I'm A Woman" Clinton.
Granted, Obama has ridden the cliched "we need to encourage fathers to take responsiblity" wave in response to inner-city broken homes. But he at least seems like he can be receptive to Men's Issues, if they're effectively presented to him. That's something that we probably can't expect from the Billary Administration.
And Roy, great point about political dynasties. It's time for some new blood, ahora.
January 28th, 2008 at 3:54 pm
"barely bringing it up"
From the guy who said 'I'm 100% black', despite being half white.
He's just as bad as Clinton with playing the victim card. Of course what he doesn't realise is that the group she's appealing to is a lot bigger than his.
January 28th, 2008 at 4:00 pm
"I think a lot of people are looking to the Clintons because they have more experience."
Interesting, Glenn. As though we were actually thinking of electing the couple as President, not just Hillary. She is, in my opinion, the monkey on Bill's shoulder. Her own experience? Not significantly more than Obama, and he got elected on his own merit, without a well-known name. She was a carpet-bagger who got elected only because Giulani got cancer. The idea that she has White House experence because she was the President's wife is frankly ridiculous. I have been married to a registered nurse for 28 years. That gives me ZERO experience in the nursing field.
The irony is, if Hillary is elected, I believe she will pridefully eschew any help from Bill. I think she will take delight in keeping him out of the loop and "in his place."
January 28th, 2008 at 4:07 pm
Jay--You're right, she was a carpetbagger, but she still served a full term in the Senate. During the Clinton presidency she was in many ways a chief of staff or, as some describe it, a "henchman." Either way, that's experience. I'm not saying she's the best candidate, because she's got other problems, but I do try to be fair even to those with whom I disagree.--GS
January 28th, 2008 at 4:12 pm
Women can't be hypocrites.
January 28th, 2008 at 4:15 pm
Callum says: "From the guy who said 'I'm 100% black', despite being half white."
In this country, being half white makes you 100% black in the eyes of most people. Culturally, he spoke nothing but the truth.
January 28th, 2008 at 4:37 pm
Glenn, I agree she did do a full term in the Senate. But I also agree with Jay (my brother's a doctor, does that qualify me to operate on your brain?) No, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night, lol. If I could get elected on my wife's name, I could do a full term in the Senate too. What did she do while she was there? Did she represent the total population of the state, or just the select few that could get her in there (women, lobbyist)? I think not. That's like Feinstein or Boxer, they were elected, but they don't do anything for me as a California resident. They represent their own interest or the interests of those that put them there. What's her platform now? Women, the girl card--oh, and healthcare.
I'm no fan of Obama yet, he still has to convince me on some issues. But I do like him. I just hope that if elected he doesn't "ef" it up, because that may be the last time the American people would elect a black president, lol. But I don't think he is using race as a crutch or aid in this race, as Callum states. Race only comes up from those concerned about it. He just answers the questions. I think he answers the question of his race and citizenship/religion because unlike "Ol Girl", he wants to include, empower and unify the whole nation, blacks included. You know, the audacity to hope?
January 28th, 2008 at 5:23 pm
"In this country, being half white makes you 100% black in the eyes of most people. Culturally, he spoke nothing but the truth."
Yeah, my friend Tom said the same. He's from North Carolina.
I still don't like either of them for playing the victim card. I don't like Clinton for lying about how oppressed women are and ignoring male issues while saying she believes in 'equality' and I don't like the fact she support Iraq. However I do like her plans for healthcare. I don't like Obama because his fatherhood initiative completely ignored the real problems and mostly toes the line of 'deadbeat dads must pay', he also supports the 'fair pay act' despite him knowing full well (from his financial advisor nonetheless) that the wage gap is a myth. But I do like the fact he was against the war and pro-rehabilitation for prisoners.
That said, Clinton is damn smart. She knows very well how to play the political game. I
January 28th, 2008 at 5:26 pm
Wow, you're still entertaining current Democrats!
Stunning!
January 28th, 2008 at 6:50 pm
Hey, what about the republican caditates? Last I checked, we were still in primarys.
January 28th, 2008 at 6:54 pm
Let's ask Ma Clinton and her gang about John Murtari, shall we?
You know, the guy who did a four-month full-on hard-core hunger strike a little while ago?
The guy who keeps getting arrested for writing "I LOVE YOU DOM" (his son, who lives states away) and "SEN CLINTON HELP US" with chalk outside her Syracuse offices?
Could this be Ma Clinton's Swift Boat? Inquiring minds want to know!
See http://www.kids-right.org/clinton/index.htm for a brief intro to the much longer and more twisted tale of Ma Clinton and her Syracuse office's remarkable denial of contact with and elected representation of Murtari and the AKR organization.
January 28th, 2008 at 6:54 pm
Ron Paul is obviously not the press favorite, but he's got my vote for the primaries.
January 28th, 2008 at 7:35 pm
Sure the two of them have their disadvantages, and sure I get where Glenn's coming from with his position. I actually agree with him, BUT if I have to choose between two evils, I'll choose the lesser one, that being Obama. At least he's fresh, he questions the status quo and has the guts to stand by his convictions even while in fierce combat with both Hillary and her husband. I couldn't have said it better than Alex: Better we get him in the White House early, before being exposed to the sorry state of modern-day politics gets the chance to infect him.
All I can say is Amen brother!
January 28th, 2008 at 7:51 pm
There is a saying in Zen Buddhism -- "In the beginner's mind there exist many possibilities, but in the expert's very few."
Experience typically makes a person more and more convinced that they are correct to continue the same behaviors, unless they get a bad shock and have to learn something new.
Given the lack of real actual democracy in America, I think Obama is the best chance we have of making incremental changes -- tiny baby steps to unseat big oil, big pharma, big insurance, big permanent war inc.
Mainly because Obama could very well arrive in Washington and as the new kid on the block ask, with all sincerity -- "how come this place is so f-'d up and why did it get this way?"
Hillary has already stated that she'll be McCain's best friend if the two of them get their party's nominations.
Republicrats and Demopublicans ... one party, united under greed.
January 28th, 2008 at 7:53 pm
Ackisom,
Thanks for the Joh Murtari post, I have signed on to support his effort.
I wonder why isn't this story more widely known?
I am humbled.
January 28th, 2008 at 8:35 pm
Hey Er'Body, check this one out. Just saw this on CNN.com I've got one word for em'. WHAAAAAAAAAA(sniff, sniff).!
WASHINGTON (CNN) – Massachusetts Sen. Ted Kennedy is under heavy fire from a state chapter of the National Organization for Women for his decision to back Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton.
In a sharply critical statement, the New York state chapter of NOW took aim at Kennedy Monday for what it called an "ultimate betrayal," and suggested the Massachusetts Democrat "can't or won't" handle the idea of Clinton becoming President of the United States.
"Sen. Kennedy’s endorsement of Hillary Clinton’s opponent in the Democratic presidential primary campaign has really hit women hard," said the statement. "Women have forgiven Kennedy, stuck up for him, stood by him, hushed the fact that he was late in his support of Title IX, the ERA, the Family Leave and Medical Act to name a few."
"And now the greatest betrayal! We are repaid with his abandonment!" the statement continues. "He’s picked the new guy over us. He’s joined the list of progressive white men who can’t or won’t handle the prospect of a woman president who is Hillary Clinton."
After months on the sidelines, Kennedy formally endorsed Obama Monday during a speech at American University, despite reported pleas from the Clinton campaign that he remain neutral. He hailed the Illinois senator for his potential to be a “president who appeals to the hopes of those who still believe in the American dream."
Kennedy also praised Clinton and John Edwards in his speech, saying that “whoever is our nominee will have my enthusiastic support."
But the NOW state chapter suggested Monday Kennedy's decision was a larger representation of society’s ongoing disrespect for women's rights.
"This latest move by Kennedy is so telling about the status of and respect for women’s rights, women’s voices, women’s equality, women’s authority and our ability – indeed, our obligation — to promote and earn and deserve and elect, unabashedly, a president that is the first woman after centuries of men who ‘know what’s best for us.’”
Meanwhile, the national chapter of NOW sought to distance itself from the state chapter’s comments, issuing a statement Monday evening that praised Kennedy's record with respect to women's rights.
"Though the National Organization for Women Political Action Committee has proudly endorsed Sen. Hillary Clinton for president, we respect Sen. Kennedy's endorsement," NOW President Kim Gandy said. "We continue to encourage women everywhere to express their opinions and exercise their right to vote."
Kennedy's office has not returned CNN's request for comment.
January 28th, 2008 at 8:49 pm
Looks like a nasty catfight in the corridors of feminist power.
Thank you Hillary!
I always had faith in your influence as a social catalyst.
Giving the lie to the myth of female moral superiority!
Parading your husband around as a court jester with a bad temper that you modulate daily.
Can I subscribe to this delightful mudfest on pay-per-view?
Will the upcoming Oprah Network cover it 24 x 7?
January 28th, 2008 at 8:58 pm
Okay, first of all, overall, I like Obama, and I think he's one of the candidates who I'm most likely to vote for, and I believe that, given his penchant for unifying and promoting a hopeful future for America, he might be a candidate who, if given the chance, could possibly be receptive towards Men's Issues.
But honestly, how in the banana-yellow Hell is an endorsement of Obama "the greatest betrayal?" Obama has done nothing but parade about on how he's going to help inner-city single mothers and decried how more women live in poverty. Do they honestly think that this is some step back for women's advantages?
Then again, why should I be surprised? An elite, insiders-only feminist group in bed with an elite, political-insider feminist politician. Makes sense to me.
January 28th, 2008 at 9:18 pm
"But the NOW state chapter suggested Monday Kennedy's decision was a larger representation of society’s ongoing disrespect for women's rights."
MCA.
I think what this is saying is that kenedy's is deciding to maybee give a few others some rights besides white middle class females!!
It's silly to think that modern feminism is about women in general...just look at south Caorlina, It was black women voters who turned out in droves who voted for Obama!!
What this country is saying is that they're sick of hearing the most priveledged group of people the world has ever witnessed,(white middle class females) continue a propaganda campaign that they are in fact "oppressed"!!
January 28th, 2008 at 9:44 pm
Alex - "Then again, why should I be surprised? An elite, insiders-only feminist group in bed with an elite, political-insider feminist politician. Makes sense to me."
Man, I thought I was at least in the top ten most cynical of posters here; but you make me look like Tinkerbell.
Will you be writing in Fidel on your 2008 ballot?
I could respect that.
January 28th, 2008 at 9:57 pm
"president who appeals to the hopes of those who still believe in the American dream."
You got that right brother. Obama easily beats Hillary in his concern for the entire nation as opposed to only acknowledging the existence of women. So Teddy hasn't been completely corrupted. A very good sign.
January 28th, 2008 at 10:00 pm
Okay, no, I'm not THAT cynical. Still, I was referring mostly to the sort of "establishment" nature that the two have in common.
January 28th, 2008 at 10:24 pm
I just thought of something. (Hold the applause). You must remember that Senator Kennedy made an informed decision. In other words Hillary can't pull the wool over his eyes because he's more involved with her than the general public is. I would venture to say that Obama is a much more decent person than Hillary and therefore more suitable for the presidency.
January 28th, 2008 at 10:45 pm
So Hillary can't win either way. Maybe now she knows what it's like being a man.
I don't agree that this problem is unique to Hillary, it is something that male politicians face as well. On the one hand you are expected to be a strong leader who can make tough decisions, but you are also expected to be sensitive to different people's problems and in touch with the community.
January 28th, 2008 at 10:54 pm
A Hillary candidacy is the best thing that could happen for the Republican Party at the moment, for a number of reasons:
- it will remind voters of the scandals of the Clinton years, and divert attention from the Bush administration
- because Hillary is more strongly disliked by conservative voters, a higher percentage of them will turn out to vote against her, thereby helping Republicans running in other races (especially in states that lean Republican in presidential years)
- if Barack loses the Democrat primary, black voters will be disappointed and this will suppress black Democrat voter turnout.
- if Hillary did get elected and presided over a disastrous presidency, Republicans would clean up in mid-term elections
Hillary has been sent to save the Republican Party. The only question is whether Democrats have worked this out.
January 29th, 2008 at 6:30 am
There is no difference between Hillary and Obama, If you dont believe me take a look at their stance on various issues. What they are so vehemently arguing about are 2 cent differences.
Nick S, What a racist comment! Being black means you have no option of voting republican? You have to be "suppress voter turnout" as if the democrats have the black vote in a vault, what is it that republicans do that is so offensive to the black community?
As for republicans winning, there is a high likely hood that both Hillary and Obama will form a joint ticket and run and win, in spite of what they have you believe are their differences. Both are power hungry lawyers and they will "manage" to get it and good for them. The republicans do deserve a reality check.
January 29th, 2008 at 6:55 am
Abraham Lincoln had exactly two years of experience in Federal office, as a member of the house. He was defeated for his second term prior to running for president. Experience is overrated. What's valuable is good judgment which Hillary Clinton lacks.
January 29th, 2008 at 7:35 am
Stephen Says:
"president who appeals to the hopes of those who still believe in the American dream."
You got that right brother. Obama easily beats Hillary in his concern for the entire nation as opposed to only acknowledging the existence of women. So Teddy hasn't been completely corrupted. A very good sign.
Hi Guys,
What evidence is there that Obama is an inclusive and a unifying force for America?
I only know about Obama from the media and I have not read his articles and books. From the media I heard some troubling things. Obama wrote a book called something like 'race and identity'. I think it is about his struggle to come to terms with his bi-racialism. The media claim he confessed to using illicit drugs to cope with the stress his bi-racialism caused him. He seems like a typical identity politics type which is what feminism is in part about.
It is interesting that his European family treated him with respect and I think he got to Harvard, but he seems not to respect his mother's family heritage (I am not sure about this).
So to deal with his racial identity problem and his angst over the father who had nothing to do with him, he goes back to Africa al a Baldwins 'Roots' to meet the relatives. He seemed to be seeking his spiritual roots and may be was looking for an idealised world free from the racism he finds in America. Here is the ironical thing when he gets to Kenya the place is boiling over with genicidal warfare and his fathers tribe appeared to be heavily implicated in the whole thing. It did not fit the script so he got out of there. The script might have been something like Africa, innocence, purity, spiritual homeland -America, unjust morally twisted in some perverse way.
He then becomes a christian in a famous civil rights church in Chicago, (I think) which the mainstream media and the Republican Party claim is a Black Supremist church no different to Farrakahn's Mosque.
I also read he has been accused of being involved with a Muslim business man who has been convicted of dubious activity and Obama and he share adjacent house blocks-
Google Wikapedia-Obama there is heaps of info on there.
I don't know what to make of him- to me personally he seems to have a feminist mindset albeit in the race-identity politics.
To solve all our problems we need a good hearted Afro-American woman with lots of commonsense, straight of Georgia or Alabama, from a humble background, as our candidate. She would have my vote. As for Obama he has a dubious past and too many personal issues and agendas and is burdened with identity politics.
I cannot vouch for the accuracy of my facts and will happily stand corrected.
January 29th, 2008 at 8:28 am
In his endorsement Kennedy said;
"With Barack Obama, we will close the book on the old politics of race against race, GENDER AGAINST GENDER, ethnic group against ethnic group, and straight against gay."
I would like to see some specifics around this
January 29th, 2008 at 10:29 am
Glenn,
I'm afraid you fell into the same "binary thinking" that has made news media election coverage a national joke -- or nightmare, depending on your viewpoint. Democrats have three choices, not two. We can vote for the "appearance" of change: nominating the first Democratic African American or Female presidential candidate, or we can vote for "real" change: nominating a true "change agent" who refuses to work with the corporate lobbyists who have hijacked American government. John Edwards -- despite his media marginalization -- is a real candidate with a real 84-page plan for reforming America. (It's available at his website http://www.johnedwards.com for all to read.) He may be a "white male," but Edwards is just as capable of being dedicated to real change as men are capable of being dedicated to our children. Don't let the press or stereotyping manipulate you. Consider very seriously supporting -- or at least including -- the Edwards campaign as an option. This country needs someone like him at a time like this.
January 29th, 2008 at 11:13 am
"I think a lot of people are looking to the Clintons because they have more experience." The Clintons or Hillary Clinton? One of my fellow faculty members announced that he was "voting for Bill Clinton."
January 29th, 2008 at 11:22 am
Wouldn't John Edwards make a better U.S. Attorney General than a President?
At least in that role, he could continue the street-fighting in court that he so clearly enjoys, with fewer compromises.
January 29th, 2008 at 12:03 pm
I honestly have no idea how anyone that knows Hillary and her views could vote for her. Honestly. Has anyone read her book, "It takes a village"? If you like the idea that the government can require all pregnant moms and couples to register with the government, and being surprise visited, searched and observed as to our parneting styles, and IF they are not cohesive with government standards they can take the children away and mandate that you attend parenting classes so that you can parent your child in a way that abides by government standards, then they will give your children back... Think it's a bit Hitler-ish? Read her book before you cast a vote.
She can promise two turkeys in every pot all she wants. I don't like eating alone without my kids.
Rumor has it Al will jump in at some point, I pray he does and my vote will go to Al Gore. Until then, I'm in Ron Paul's camp.
-PK
January 29th, 2008 at 12:20 pm
It's important to recall Hillary's relationship with her father was completely dysfunctional.
As is her relationship with her husband.
Is that the kind of first woman President that America wants to set the standard?
January 29th, 2008 at 12:23 pm
@roy:
the response to that is far too easy. Remember her "good ole boys' club" comment?
If her relationship with a man was disfunctional, it's because the men were disfunctional. This is the lady who threw an ash tray at Bill.
January 29th, 2008 at 12:37 pm
http://www.zpub.com/un/un-bc9a.html
"The Bill and Hillary story begins with their first meeting in the Yale Law School library in a fabled and maybe even true story of how Hillary accosted Bill who was so smitten he couldn't remember his own name. It has given way to rumors of unprintable domestic confrontations, ashtrays and lamps thrown by Hillary and Bill's casual liaisons. At least so we're told. The emotional climate of their marriage is a psychohistorical reality even though the gossipy details are variable. "
January 29th, 2008 at 12:55 pm
Preston, don't pretend you know anything about social services in the Third Reich. Hitler was more worried about how German the baby was than how well it was parented.
January 29th, 2008 at 1:26 pm
Hillery Clinton DESERVES all the scorn AND MORE !!! The Clintons are an ongoing criminal enterprise & always have been. America deserves better than someone with the last name Clinton...... OR Bush for that matter !!
Hillery is all for the current family law gulag that currently reigns supreme...you'd see no improvement whatsoever in fathers rights issues under a 3rd Clinton regime and in fact would expect it to get worse....we'd have a much better chance under Obama. Who better than a black man to face the injustices of family law courts... Obama has to know !!
I haven't voted for a Democrat since the 1970's...but as an independant in Ca where no true conservatives are anywhere to be found in government...Obama is looking better everyday & if that ends the Clinton terrorism I'm all for it.
January 29th, 2008 at 1:44 pm
Glenn,
While the elections are topical right now, do you really feel that it serves the interests of the constituency here for you to be taking positions on candidates, or more particularly, on what would make a good or not so good president? Reporting on their well evidenced positions and statements, and trying to objectively interpret these vis-a-vis interests of people here certainly makes some sense.
It has presumably taken you some years to develop your knowledge base and reputation as a trusted spokesperson for fathers and men's rights. This is an important asset which doesn't necessarily get enhanced in terms of its usability towards good ends by your getting involved in evaluating polical candidates.
To use an analogy, would it be a good idea for you to start making stock market recommendations? And how would it impact your credibility as a balanced, objective analyst of men's issues for you to start picking and promoting stocks, and quite possibly being wrong, or very wrong on some picks?
It is not neccessary to take positions on political candidates to advance the goals of men in this blog. In fact, it might be most helpful to not take positions on candidates, given your history of neutrality.
It is necessary to maintain your credibility, as well as the ability of yourself and this movement to be embraced by whatever candidate/s take office. This, in my view, is best done by "strengthening your strength", and playing to that strength, and not diluting it by trying to comment on too many things outside of your areas of comparative strength, the latter which clearly include this blog's core topics, and baseball:), among others.
Just a thought.
January 29th, 2008 at 1:53 pm
@ callum
I wasn't claiming to know anything about social services in the third reich, it was merely intended to be an adjective, not a new debate ;)
January 29th, 2008 at 2:02 pm
AnonymousPamphleteer Says "do you really feel that it serves the interests of the constituency here for you to be taking positions on candidates."
I actually didn't take a position on any candidate, but I see nothing wrong with doing so. My view of the politicians is simple--I don't care if they're on the left or the right, if they do something that is positive I will praise them, if they do something harmful I will criticize them.
For example, unlike practically everybody else in this movement, I won't bash Hillary just because she's Hillary, and I won’t pretend she doesn’t have strengths as a candidate just because she's Hillary. I will, however, point out where I feel she's wrong, as long as it's relevant to the issue I’m discussing.
For example, I’m disgusted by the way she misrepresents the wage gap, and I’ll say it. I do like her program on climate change and alternative energy (minus the overblown oil company bashing), and I’ll say it. That seems fair enough to me.
January 29th, 2008 at 2:03 pm
I for one take offense when the government gets involved in our private lives. How we choose to raise our children is not our government's business.
We can't solve all problems in the world. The current climate of the Family Courts should be a good lesson in that. The Family Courts have tried to solve all the problems for women and children, and all I can see is that a maniac man can still beat his wife if he wants, and still kill her if he wants (I mean who really thinks a restraining order restrains anyone that could do something so horrid) and the only thing we have succeeded in is hurting thousands of innocent men and children.
So does anyone think the government can really solve the problem of bad parenting? "Bad parenting" is a relative term subject to the perspective of each individual. I think its a scary thought to think that someday the government can make us parent the way **they** think we should or we get our kids taken from us. What happens when the government finds ways to make money off that system like the child support enforcement sham we have now?
When I ride a motorcycle, I always wear a helmet without exception. But I still get pissed that I HAVE TO because the government says it is in charge of my skull. My kids are a whole different level and I'd prefer to raise them the way I think is best, thanks. Hillary is scary.
January 29th, 2008 at 2:37 pm
What is the choice?
Elect a Clinton with a record of cheating, lying, and abuse activities to assure a continued criminal government
or
Elect Obama with limited experience and integrity?
A friend from a formely Iron Curtain country said the next socialist republic will be the USA, sooner than I thought possible with Hillary at the helm.
I have seen the same manipulations leading to socialist power before.
January 29th, 2008 at 2:50 pm
Well, the choices are more than:
1.) "Elect a Clinton with a record of cheating, lying, and abuse activities to assure a continued criminal government
or
2.) Elect Obama with limited experience and integrity?
Ron Paul, John Edwards, and Al Gore are all what I consider to be good choices too. Who said we have to choose between Obama and Hillary? Last I looked we are a democracy and can choose whom we want.
January 29th, 2008 at 2:53 pm
Oh, and I forgot to add to my rant 4 posts up,
ADDENDUM: "And women are free to abuse men all they want and withhold chicdren without fear of any consequences by the government."
Welcome to government solutions for our private lives. Just what we need, a radical feminist as president.
January 29th, 2008 at 3:22 pm
Glenn,
It is hard for anyone to make any but the blandest statements on candidates with running that risk of seeming partisan. Researching and analyzing their clearly stated positions as these relate to issues you cover, seems not just appropriate, but something folks here would really appreciate, and which the broader media might pick up on and invite you to speak upon.
It might also put you in a position where candidates need YOUR endorsement of their family platforms -- and where they can't escape a failure to get your endorsement on family issues due to claimed blog evidence of partisanism on your part.
In my view, it would be best if you continued to rise as the emerging "high Priest" of the rights of families, children and fathers.
Which would seem to suggest that you should welcome all candidates to "worship" -- as long as they get some "religion" with respect to our issues.
January 30th, 2008 at 12:04 am
I watched the State of the Union Address last night, or some of it, and I thought the panning camera shots were really informative.
I saw 100% of one side of the room wildly clapping at every point, and 100% of the other side bemusedly 'panning' the comments.
This means that our government is just as bad as Feministing.com. They don't think, they hate. They just follow the party line and try to be seen doing so. Why would we want idiots in office?
My comment was "What a bunch of buffoons!"
January 30th, 2008 at 7:34 pm
There are a lot of interesting comments in the above statements. It is pretty clear that this election is a very hot issue. I agree with many of the previous bloggers that having Hillary Clinton as President would be a disaster waiting to happen. I have never liked Hillary. She is more likely to dance to the tune of "WOMEN'S'" special interest groups (only) than do a reputable job running the country.
If I had to make a choice between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama however, I would choose Barack Obama, simply because he at least tries to get input from common citizens like myself about our concerns. Whereas, Hillary Clinton is known for hosting dinners and other fund raisers that cost $1000 or more per person, the kind of fundraisers that only special interest groups (in many cases, only for women) can afford to attend. If Hillary were elected president, every man over the age of 21, and especially divorced fathers, might as well leave the country. Without a doubt their rights as human beings would soon become completely eradicated under her control. Just look at the child support enforcement scam that is so prevalant today. Would anyone reading this blog want to consider such a dark future for the male of the homo-sapien species?
February 5th, 2008 at 4:41 pm
August 1st, 2008 at 6:56 pm
Glenn ...please read this brief about possible El Presidente
Judicial Watch Files Senate, FEC Complaints against Barack Obama over Questionable Mortgage Loan
Contact:
Press Office 202-646-5188
Washington, DC
Northern Trust Allegedly Provided Obama Special Discounts on "Super Super Jumbo" Home Loan
Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that it has filed separate complaints with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) and the U.S. Senate Ethics Committee against Senator Barack Obama for allegedly accepting a below-market rate mortgage loan in 2005 not available to the general consumer.
According to the Judicial Watch complaints, the Illinois Senator reportedly received a home loan of $1.32 million at a rate of 5.625 percent, although the average going rate on that day according to two different surveys was between 5.93 and 6 percent. Unlike what was reportedly available for the general consumer, this special below-market "super super jumbo" loan was secured without an origination fee or discount points. (Questions about the mortgage were first raised by The Washington Post.)
"It appears that due to his position as a United States Senator, Barack Obama received improper special treatment from Northern Trust resulting in an illicit 'gift' which has a value of almost $125,000 in interest savings," Judicial Watch wrote in its U.S. Senate ethics complaint. "Judicial Watch therefore respectfully requests a full investigation into whether the special Northern Trust mortgage received by Senator Barack Obama constitutes a gift that is prohibited by Senate ethics rules." In its FEC complaint, Judicial Watch also calls for a full FEC investigation into whether the special mortgage is a disguised and illegal corporate campaign contribution to Senator Obama.
As Judicial Watch notes in both complaints, Northern Trust has supported Barack Obama's political campaigns for elected office since 1990. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, cited by The Washington Post, Northern Trust employees have donated $71,000. The Northern Trust political action committee gave $1,250 to Senator Obama's 2004 campaign for the United States Senate.
Northern Trust Vice President John O’Connell essentially admitted the company provided Obama preferential loan terms because of his position in the U.S. Senate. "A person's occupation and salary are two factors; I would expect those are two things we would take into consideration," O'Connell told The Washington Post [emphasis added]. "This was a business proposition for us."
"Americans ought to be suspicious when a United States Senator such as Barack Obama, obtains a sweetheart mortgage deal," said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. "We have serious concerns that Senator Obama's mortgage may have violated the law and Senate ethics rules."
August 1st, 2008 at 7:09 pm
Is it just me or has anyone found that Obama is as offensive as any other politician especially when he refered to fathers as 'boys' - knowing full well what is happening in the community !