1920* - 2008 Progress or pandering
The Pennsylvania Primary results threw a scare into the BO campaign and its supporters. Before, callers to talk radio and TV programs warned of “trouble” if the Super delegates chose HRC over BO.
Then the Pennsylvania exit polls showed that more than a third of the supporters of HRC would NOT vote for BO. No threats here, no mob action – just a peaceful protest for good reasons.
But on hearing that, the Obambots went ballistic. There will be terrible repercussions if HRC is the nominee.” “We will leave the Democratic Party!” “Blacks will not vote in the General election” and so on, threat after angry threat.
Their point is that BO must win no matter what happens. Some callers threatened violence and anger permeated the airways. They insist that the coronation go forward.
Women are the majority of Democratic voters and have always been taken for granted. Most support HRC and most will not vote for BO, and they are angry. They differ from BO supporters in that they have reasons for their anger. You won’t hear much of this from the mean-stream media but it is all over the Blogs.
Reason # 1: Topping the list is Florida and Michigan where HRC won a majority in both Primaries. One can argue that the DNC did not allow these delegations to be seated or counted at the coming Convention.
However, Chairman Howard Dean has promised that once the candidate is chosen, he will allow the delegations to be seated and vote – but of course not for the candidate they want to vote for - HRC.
HRC was for a do-over of both Primaries but BO blocked this solution.
He knew that she would win both again and would tie him and he wasn’t about to let this happen.
Reason #2: The collusion of the media and the DNC to derogate HRC and ignore any deficit in BO’s experience and character. This bias also contributed mightily to the huge amount of contributions coming in to his campaign.
Thanks to Blogs that kept slogging out the truth, finally, some real light was shone on BO and he reacted by whining, blaming HRC and using more negative advertising while denying that he was doing this.
He sure had the money for PA and spent $10.63/vote. HRC won 55 to 35% and spent $2.40/vote. Who would you chose to manage the money of your country?
Reason #3: The many pejorative, sexists’ remarks from the media directed at HRC. They come at us all the time and most women feel the sting and unfairness of the continuous slams against our gender. It is directed at us, our gender and it angers us. Just to mention a few:
· Clinton "look[ed] like everyone's first wife standing outside a probate court."
· "[w]hite women are a problem, that's, you know -- we all live with that."
· "a scolding mother, talking down to a child."
· "trying to run away from this tough, kind of bitchy image
· "when [Clinton] comes on television, I involuntarily cross my legs
· "sort of alternately soppy and bitchy.'"
· Then there were the many times it has been said, by pundits to raucous laughter, that if BO took HRC as his running mate, he would need a food taster. They do not say this when commenting on a BO/HRC ticket.
But the final straw was a universal misogynist slap down of women when BO publicly flipped the bird to HRC, urged on by the roars of his supporters.
“The way Hillary has been treated and sexist language affect women deeply and they will write in Hillary on the ballot if she does not get the DNC nomination." – this is a frequent Blog comment.
Much has been written and commented on concerning the high regard and loyalty of BO’s supporters. But now the DNC and media-spawn-of-Cthulhu, will be forced to recognize the regard and devotion of women for HRC and face the consequences of their unfair treatment.
*1920 - The 19th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, also known as the Susan B. Anthony amendment, grants the right to vote to all U.S. women over 21.