It has come to my attention that you "might not" vote for Obama because you feel that he or his campaign might be guilty of being "terribly sexist".  As a woman and feminist, I can't disagree more.  The most common mention of Obama's sexism toward Clinton is the remark that "she's likeable enough".  What about that has any shred of sexual/gender connotation? Is it she?  Would you prefer that he used a non-gender specific noun such as "It"?  Honestly, I'm wondering what it is you have seen as being wrong and how Barack Obama has been 'terribly sexist'? Because I simply am not getting it.

I understand that you are still probably seething because your remarks ("If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position, and if he was a woman, he would not be in this position.")were not well received. They were clearly unwarranted and honestly more sexist than anything anyone can claim that Obama has done. The damage done is your own and has nothing to do with the "sexism" of Obama.  I think you come across as more upset about the reaction to your backhand remark than truly concerned about the well being of Hillary Clinton as a candidate.

This will be brief.  The Kevin James/Chris Matthews Interview has inspired me.  Americans need to look at this and recognize the use of specific syntax to manipulate and assemble mass segments of the population into angry mobs shouting the latest catch phrases, angered because they were misinformed and instructed to follow without full explanation.

Remember when Americans wanted to know the full story, "The truth and nothing but the truth?"  When did we become automatons who are controlled by any soundbyte as if it were a mental trigger?  

Examples of this in the modern day are obviously the Kevin James "Appeaser" bits.  He doesn't know what an appeaser is.

I understand the fact that Hillary being elected president would represent an enormous achievement in the eyes of women and those who subscribe to feminist thought.

The problem is that Hillary isn't that woman for me and I'm guessing many of my fellow feminists agree.

Could it be that I'm a 3rd waver?

From Wiki:

Third-wave feminism seeks to challenge or avoid what it deems the second wave's "essentialist" definitions of femininity, which often assumed a universal female identity and over-emphasized experiences of upper middle class white women.

Third-wave feminists often focus on "micro-politics" and challenge the second wave's paradigm as to what is, or is not, good for females.]

But how does that contrast second wave feminism?

I've said it once, I'll say it again.

Don't count out Kentucky.

I went to the rally for Obama yesterday in Louisville and it was enormous.  People were excited, open and ready to act.  His volunteers were wonderful.  They actually had to turn folks away.

The keys are: Louisville, Lexington, Northern Kentucky......Berea, Paducah (creative communities).

Ashland is Big Oil, Hillary's got that.  (of course) but the population centers (above) are really up for grabs.  As well if he could use Rory Kennedy on the ground in Appalachia I think he'd make a bigger dent in those communities.  

Very simple..copy and paste to your email list:

The gas tax holiday is NOT a good idea.  It will cost jobs to people who really need them and the gas companies will still suck in huge profits.

Read Here: From the Associated Press  Gas Tax Holiday

I don't care which candidate you're for, don't be fooled by a shiny gas tax holiday.  Tell your candidate NO!

It might sound like a quick solution but it really puts more money in the oil companies pockets.  

In the past week, since Pennsylvania, we have seemingly gotten a bit off track.  A few media worthy things happened.  The Pennsylvania primary was not one of them.  Hillary was expected to win all along.  Of course, she is using the psychology of that win to place doubt and fear in the hearts of Obama supporters.  Why?  Because psychology is all she has.

She does not have the numbers.

Say you want a revolution
We better get on right away
Well you get on your feet
And out on the street

Singing power to the people
Power to the people
Power to the people
Power to the people, right on

A million workers working for nothing
You better give em what they really own
We got to put you down
When we come into town

Singing power to the people
Power to the people
Power to the people
Power to the people, right on

Lennon said it, Now I'm asking us to all follow through and change the media narrative.

Barack Obama may have to play nice.  His supporters do not.  We don't have to be undignified but we are under no restraints to be quiet.

We have chosen our candidate because we believe he is the best to serve the needs of this nation.  We have chosen him because he has made us a part of this process in a way that no other candidate can comprehend.  We have chosen him because his message has empowered us to believe in our power to affect change in this nation.

Here's my issue today:

The "news" is schizophrenic.  One day they love a candidate, another day they wonder if they've got a major problem.  

The issue I have with that is why are they telling me who they like anyway?

I don't want to know who Chris Matthews drools over or his opinion of Rev Wright's finally speaking (didn't he previously ask where he'd been?). I don't want Chris Matthews telling me that Barack Obama needs to drink coffee instead of juice. I want Chris Matthews to swallow the spit that collects in his mouth all the damned time and shut up.

Of course Chris Matthews is not news. He's an editorialist.

Do we have news anymore?  Do we have any one who simply offers up the information and keeps their damned opinions to themselves?

Ok, damn, I'm guilty.

First the "Big States" argument is skewed. It's a primary and she didn't wipe him out by 20 points.  In a general election, it looks pretty good that a democrat would be successful. Any Democrat.

now the real topic

Alright, I know that seemingly Kentucky would be Clinton country.  But what folks don't know about Kentucky is that the creative class has grown immensely in the last 5 years which bodes well for Obama. As well the ethnic diversity in the state is changing.  Louisville (my town) is probably leaning toward Obama without question. His street signs are everywhere. This also speaks well for him in Southern Indiana.  According to Open Secrets, He leads in fundraising in this city and is nearly tied in fundraising in Lexington. Both cities have large and active youth cultures and the two largest public universities.  Another city to watch is Paducah.  Very large creative community and another university town.

Apparently Obama's $200.00 donation from Bill Ayers, an American Sixties ex-radical pales in comparison to Hil's donations from the LTTE or the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam.  These donations came namely from two individuals, Pat Pathmakumar and Ram Ranjan.  Before I posted this, I wanted to check the campaign donation funds at Open Secrets and I see that sure enough both Pathmakumar and Ranjan have donated to Hillary's campaign. Ranjan reportedly admitted then "unadmitted" his involvement as a LTTE supporter.  Information regarding this is posted here :Sri Lanka News from December 2007.

Edit: An old article from 2005 shows Bill Clinton supported a proposal that suggested the Sri Lankan government work with the Tamil Tigers to allocate Tsunami Aid.  Putting a "terrorist group" in charge of disseminated international aid seems odd. Bill in Sri Lanka

Ok, L.A. Times should really pack it in.  There are two articles (both citing Youtube as sources), one attempting to exploit the Ayers-Obama relationship and one claiming that Obama flipped Hillary the bird.  On top of that claiming that "two different videos show him doing the same thing at different speeches."  Same video, two angles.  

Please don't laugh people.  Please. It really isn't funny.  It is sad that the great newspapers of our country have been reduced to childish drivel.  It frightens me.

I've written notes to these "writers" or should I call them "blighters".  Real writers cherish their profession as do real journalists.  

In the sixties, Chicago was a hotbed of political activity.  There were many groups formed by young people to take on the problems they found in the government at the time.  Much has been written about this time and there were very many participants and players.

The issue of Obama's association with Bill Ayers was brought to the forefront as an "issue".  It is not.  At all.  Young Chicagoans in great numbers were members of these groups like Weather Underground or Abbie Hoffman's Youth International Party.  As these youth aged into competent adults, it is no surprise that Obama, being an active public servant in the Chicago area, would happen upon an association with one of these people during later years.  

First a note about language and psychology:

When you read the news and then you begin to read the commentary from everyone, notice who starts to use the terms propagated by the media and candidates. For instance, "Elitist" and my personal favorite, "buyer's remorse". Edit: to add "gaffe".

For those who keep claiming that they are only giving their opinions, catch how many times they use the "language" of someone else's opinion. Take your own inventory of yourself and notice if you do the same. It's very interesting and frightening at the same time.

There are many reasons I can give as to why I like Obama.  One of the main things that attracted me to his campaign was the idea that HE isn't going to change my country, I am.  The power lies in the reach of my own hand.  The idea of personal responsibility is sadly absent from the other campaigns. Hillary is making promises.  McCain is...I'm not really sure what McCain is doing.

I've been really interested in who is actually funding the campaigns of our democratic candidates as well as John McCain.  Opensecrets.org is a non-profit research group that makes the money situations easy to understand. I discovered this site just recently but appreciate its simple format.

First let me apologize if anyone has posted this information before but I feel its always good to have an idea of where the money's at.

If people are concerned about who is financing the campaigns and who is taking more money from special interests, it appears that definitely Hillary is losing that battle.  However I'll not really say more but let you check it out for yourself. You can also do individual donor searches.

Open  Secrets 2008 Presidential Election Financing.

FYI: Notice the disclosure meters.  The more in the green, the more up front the candidate's donors seems to be.  Knowing where the money is coming from and how it is being reported is very important.  Candidates only have to disclose once a donor passes $200.  The undisclosed cash means the no personal information is listed for some donors.  

I hope you find it as interesting as myself.  

Here’s the bottom line.  When a leader speaks out for truth, justice and progress, America gets nervous.  The hope for something better is at times too much to bear and so in self defeating fashion we try to find a way to derail it.  It has to be fantasy, right?

When that same leader, again in truthful fashion, starts to make that same America face not only its ability to hope but its demons, the American people have to shake their heads.  Hope mixed with reality is blowing our minds.  It has to be wrong, right?

My advice is to calm your nerves America.  Have the conversations.  Let’s talk about Black rage, White rage; Black fear and White fear.  Let’s talk about it so that we can move forward and remember that in this country we are not simply white or black.  Richardson’s endorsement today should bring this into focus.  America is a land full of different people (remember the Latinos and the Asians?) and until we can be honest about ‘all of who we are’, then we will continue to swirl around in a cesspool of fears and anger.  

written by a typical black woman

Today Barack Obama took the high road.  He offered his version of what "race" is in this country and it was honest, pointed and necessary.  It was necessary to further illustrate that despite ill advised assumptions, America is NOT a black/white nation.  America is a nation that looks like Barack Obama; that looks like George W. Bush or Hillary Clinton; that looks like Bill Richardson.  It is a nation that looks White, Black, Asian and Latino.  We are a nation that looks poor, wealthy and in-between.   To reduce these issues to "minute" details of our society yet tear each other apart because of these same details, is to deny the essence of what the nation is and has become.  It is also a nation that despite these things still at times wants to pretend to be only black or white.