Information

[Queen Mum]

 Why do I think that if I do read what Rosie has to say that I'll get ticked off?   

(nope, haven't readit but I am willing to bet that it won't be nice.)

[Jenn Kellams]

 Why do I think that if I do read what Rosie has to say that I'll get ticked off?   

(nope, haven't readit but I am willing to bet that it won't be nice.)

That is a great bet.  Actually Rosie didn't write it.  A friend of hers did but that bad enough.  It ticked me off badly.

[megamay]

 I am a supporter of Hillary Clinton's who has made the choice to vote for McCain, not just because he chose a woman for his running mate but because there is a woman on the ticket and I have to ask "why not?"

So I, as an older middle aged, middle class woman will be standing with my sister whenever there is one on the ticket. I didn't do it the first time and I regret it. That is feminism.

I'm more than one issue. I, as a woman, am about more than the abortion issue.

Regardless of one's political pursuasion, however, it is belittling to assume that just because someone does not agree with a political party's planks that that person is uneducated, weak or ill-informed. Statements like that say more about the one making the statements rather than the other way around.

I'm sorry, but voting for a woman just because she is a woman is NOT feminism.

you may be more than one issue, but *I* am more than my gender.

I agree that it is belittling to assume that because someone doesnt agree with you on a political party that the person is uneducated, but that -to me- only holds true if you are voting based on an educated view of the issues.

If you are voting based on the color of skin or what is between someone's legs, then you are NOT voting in an educated manner. ANYONE can see she is a woman, it doesnt take education for that. If someone agrees with her on the issues, then vote for her and be proud that you voted for a woman. 

I want as much as you to see a woman in office. I voted for Hillary in the primary because honestly, I didnt see much difference between her politics and Obama's, and Hillary was a woman so that tipped the scale. But I will not sell out my daughter's future just to vote for a woman now. I disagree with pretty much everything that she stands for and I truly believe that, if elected, it will be a sad, sad day for our country. If I were to vote for her just becasue she is a woman, that would be the total opposite of everything that feminists have fought for.  What is predjudice? judging someone based on some superficial characteristic rather than their mind and/or heart. Voting for a woman just because she is a woman is basically the same thing. I would be selling out all of my beliefs just for a superficial characteristic that I happen to share with half of the population, including this person.

I believe that the feminsts fought for us women to be free to use our minds and be judged on more than our gender.

[Miteenice]

  To tell the truth, I don't think there is a good choice for candidate, mainly because those who would be a good choice are in their right minds and they won't run because they don't want that job!

.

This is my favorite quote of the day

There is a lot of TRUTH to this statement!  That's why I chose not to run!

[ScrapGoo]

I am biting my tongue on this issue but I just want to point out that the writer of the "article" is Eve Ensler, the award winning author/compiler of The Vagina Monologues... while she MAY be a friend of Rosie (and I really don't know if they are personal friends) she is much more than a random voice on Rosie's blog.  Ensler did not write it for Rosie. 

Eve Ensler @ Wikipedia

[ScrapSis]

 I am a well educated woman, believe in equal rights - and feel a woman has a right to have a career, be a mom, be a wife or anything else she has the talent, want and education for. That said, I love Sarah Palin, did so before she became the running mate and continue to have high respect for her. Women CAN be and do many things, there is no ONE right way to be a woman.

Tina

[MLee]

 I want as much as you to see a woman in office. I voted for Hillary in
the primary because honestly, I didnt see much difference between her
politics and Obama's, and Hillary was a woman so that tipped the
scale. But I will not sell out my daughter's future just to vote for a
woman now. I disagree with pretty much everything that she stands for
and I truly believe that, if elected, it will be a sad, sad day for
our country. If I were to vote for her just becasue she is a woman,
that would be the total opposite of everything that feminists have
fought for.  What is predjudice? judging someone based on some
superficial characteristic rather than their mind and/or heart. Voting
for a woman just because she is a woman is basically the same thing. I
would be selling out all of my beliefs just for a superficial
characteristic that I happen to share with half of the population,
including this person.

I believe that the feminsts fought for us women to be free to use our minds and be judged on more than our gender.

And I think that after nearly 30 years of voting that there hasn't been a MALE yet who has done a thing for me as a woman. I don't have health care, I don't have any more rights now than I did 30 years ago and I sure don't have more respect from the men in office.

Obama has the knocked the opportunities that have been afforded to him by the members of his own his race. He has said that he can't even remember the great leaders like MLK and RFK and then turns around and evokes their names when needed. He doesn't remember them becuase he wasn't in this country during that time. Yet he is able to run as an African American because of the work that they did on his behalf. He says it's time for change but cannot respect the changes that have already been made before him. That is the true meaning of disgrace.

By the same token Sarah Palin, as a woman, took on one of the most powerful corrupt Republican machines led by Sen Ted Stephens to run against the Governor in Alaska. I don't know how much you know about Ted Stevens but I've had the unfortunate displeasure of going against him myself and he is not someone you want to cross more than once. But Sarah Palin did. With little money and no backing she took on his power and his backing of the other candidate and fought hard and WON. If you've never been in politics you have no idea how hard that is to do. You have no idea what kind of mudslinging and dirty tricks that involves, what kind of personal sacrifices you have to make. But Sarah Palin did it. She did it and she beat Ted Stevens with all of his money, corruption and dirty politics! I don't know if that is why he is now being brought up on corruption charges or not but if it is then she is my hero!

I have looked at the issues and I have looked at what is between her legs and I have decided that the women of this country need to act more like MEN and start sticking together instead of tearing each other down over their reproductive rights. Regardless over who is President Roe v Wade isn't going to change. Men use it to scare us and it works every single time. Play on our emotions and we crumble.

Nope, I'm sticking with a woman who can take on a political power machine and bring it to its knees. It's what is needed in Washington.

Besides, Sarah Palin isn't running for President and Joseph Biden is a Washington insider who can't tie his own shoes without plagarizing the instructions from someone else.

[LoveMyBella]

 Regardless over who is President Roe v Wade isn't going to change. Men use it to scare us and it works every single time. Play on our emotions and we crumble.

Besides, Sarah Palin isn't running for President and Joseph Biden is a Washington insider who can't tie his own shoes without plagarizing the instructions from someone else.

I've been saying the same thing about Roe v Wade forever.  It's never going to get overturned. 

And that last sentence made me laugh.  I don't mind Biden as a man.  He seems like a loving, dedicated father.  But as a VP, no thanks. 

Rosie's a loon.  I stopped caring what she had to say and the ideals she promoted looonnng ago. 

[megamay]

 It sounds to me like you are not voting for her just because she is a woman. It sounds to me like you agree with what she stands for and who she is and you think she will make a positive difference in this country.

That's all I was saying, that I think it is sad if people vote for her JUST because she is a woman. It seems to me that you feel the way about her, that I did about Hilary - that she is a good strong woman who can make a world of difference in this country and the fact that she is a woman just makes it all that much better!

and FWIW - I dont think that Roe v Wade is as secure as you make it out to be. There is a constant presence of people who want to see it overturned (I see them protesting down the street from my office every day) and there is a Supreme Court that will likely need to have at least two members replaced in the next 4 years. If a conservative president appoints two more conservative justices, there is a fairly good chance that Roe v Wade will be overturned.

Frankly, I think stem cell research is a much better issue than abortion- less reason for people to hate it (assuming that the cells come from places that are not living fetuses), more chance to help the world.

but I totally agree with you that that is not the only issue facing women. I just think that Obama has a better plan. Gay marraige, education, health care and the economy - all things that I would prefer to have in the hands of the Democrats. I'm not going to say I am a huge Obama fan. Like I said before, I wanted Hilary.

Oh, and yeah, Palin isnt going to be Pres. Not right away anyway. McCain is a frail old man and I think that makes the choice of VP all that much more important. I agree that Palin as his pick was a pretty genius decision though. As for Biden - yeah, I dont like him much either, but it seems less crucial to me since Obama isnt going to keel over from a heart attack anytime soon.

[Jenn Kellams]

 Overturniong Roe vs. Wade is going to take a GREA DEAl to get overturned.  However, things like this in my opinion should never be solved at the Supreme Court level.  I think they should be ruled at a state level.  Just like every other civil issue in our country. 

I don't agree with abortion but I do believe women should have the right to choose so I hope whatever happens, it gives women the right to choose.  I do however growl at women who use abortion as a form of birth control and quite frankly I don't care if THOSE women have their right taken away.  For legitamate and obvious reasons I think abortion is perfectly acceptable. 

[LoveMyBella]

" Obama isnt going to keel over from a heart attack anytime soon."

That's no more certain that McCain having a heart attack.  A 35 year old friend of our was just found dead on his couch--heart attack.  More likely to happen to McCain?  Sure.  A certainty?  No.  Could it happen to Obama?  Most definitely.

[dianagirly]

 This has become so interesting to read!
 And I whole heartedly agree with NOT assuming some one will have a heart attack so not electing them. If you are gonna throw something like that out there, why not also realize that there is a signifcant chance of Obama being assassinated by some moron white suppremesist? ( already been one arrest! )

[megamay]

 This has become so interesting to read!
 And I whole heartedly agree with NOT assuming some one will have a heart attack so not electing them. If you are gonna throw something like that out there, why not also realize that there is a signifcant chance of Obama being assassinated by some moron white suppremesist? ( already been one arrest! )

true true. I didnt say I wasnt voting for McCain because he is old or sick, I just dont like the guy. I just REALLY dont like Palin and I find it utterly terrifying to think of her in the white house.

I should have said it isnt LIKELY that Obama will have a heart attack. that's what I meant. Obviously anything can happen, he could break his leg getting out of his car and bleed to death. (almost happened recently to a good friend of mine) I am just saying that being scared of Palin taking office if something happens to McCain is all that much more reason for me to not vote for him.

[JeanG]

I loved the women against Palin rally - some of those signs were filarious!  Like (to paraphrase) the one: '...abstince worked for your family, eh, Sarah?"  

I do NOT like Sarah.  I think she is as dumb on National and Foreign policy as I am...and that's really BAD!  Yesterday, in an interview where she was lauding McCain's record, she was asked to name any one of the things she was talking about - and she couldn't think of ANY!!  Same thing early on when she was praising Bush's policies and when asked which one in particular, she couldn't think of one!  8 years ago McCain was good.  Now he's done a 180 and is just doing what he's told...and he says something totally stupid - like the econonomy is strong the day the stock market was bottoming out this week! Then he has to change what he said and make it sound like WE were the ones who misunderstood. And he does NOT look well to me. He looks like cancer or a heart attack in the near future - and Palin in charge of the country would be REALLy bad .

Obviously I'm voting for Obama.  Not keen on Biden, but Obama seems to me as if he can handle a lot and keep on going.

[dianagirly]

Oh yeah? Well let's see you name ONE THING Obama has done?

[megamay]

 It doesnt really matter whether WE all have our facts memorized. Those who are running should know their stuff. President of the USA is a big job, I want an overachiever!

I'm not saying that any of the candidates are what I want, but I do know that I hope the President knows more about politics than I do!

[SBcrazee]

 I've been trying to stay away from this thread today but sorry, I'm drawn in again if only for a minute right now.

This is for those that haven't done their homework to find out Obama's Achievements. You ask for one, but I'll give you 3.
Lugar-Obama Nonproliferation Legislation Signed into Law by the President Bush in January 2007.
Real Ethics Reform Bill
Obama, Coburn Legislation to Prevent Abuse of No-Bid Contracts in Wake of a Disaster

And while I'm at it I'll also state one of the many reasons I won't support McCain.  This one is on taxes.

McCain said Obama won't raise taxes for most people, but he's voted 94 times in his short Senate career for tax increases and against tax cuts."

So not true!
The facts:
The effort to convince voters that Sen. Barack Obama would support higher taxes is a central part of Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign. McCain and the Republican National Committee have repeatedly cited 94 alleged votes by Obama to bolster their argument.Factcheck.org, a non-partisan project of the University of Pennsylvania's Annenberg Public Policy Center, pieced through records to determine just what these 94 votes were.
Key findings:-23 were against proposed tax cuts
-7 were "for measures that would have lowered taxes for many, while raising them on a relative few, either corporations or affluent individuals"
-11 were to increase taxes on people making more than $1 million a year, to help fund programs such as Head Start, school nutrition, or veterans' health care
-53 were votes on budget resolutions or amendments that "could not have resulted by themselves in raising taxes," though many "were clear statements of approval for increased taxes"
- The total includes multiple votes on the same measures

[Jenn Kellams]

And while I'm at it I'll also state one of the many reasons I won't support McCain.  This one is on taxes.

McCain said Obama won't raise taxes for most people, but he's voted 94 times in his short Senate career for tax increases and against tax cuts."

So not true!
The facts:
The effort to convince voters that Sen. Barack Obama would support higher taxes is a central part of Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign. McCain and the Republican National Committee have repeatedly cited 94 alleged votes by Obama to bolster their argument.Factcheck.org, a non-partisan project of the University of Pennsylvania's Annenberg Public Policy Center, pieced through records to determine just what these 94 votes were.
Key findings:-23 were against proposed tax cuts
-7 were "for measures that would have lowered taxes for many, while raising them on a relative few, either corporations or affluent individuals"
-11 were to increase taxes on people making more than $1 million a year, to help fund programs such as Head Start, school nutrition, or veterans' health care
-53 were votes on budget resolutions or amendments that "could not have resulted by themselves in raising taxes," though many "were clear statements of approval for increased taxes"
- The total includes multiple votes on the same measures

I am confused, where is the bad part about McCain?  The fact that he used an ad attacking Obama and maybe twisted a little bit of the fact.  However, be it on the rich or the poor, a tax increase is a tax increase.  However, Obama does the exact same things....for example, please read the following....

"An Obama-Biden ad falsely claims McCain
says he wants to "do the same to our health care" that "Wall Street
deregulation" has done to the banking industry.

The ad relies on a single phrase from a journal article under McCain's
byline, in which he said he would reduce regulation of health insurance
"as we have done over the last decade in banking." But the full context
reveals that McCain was referring narrowly to his proposal to allow people to purchase health insurance across state lines."

That was taken from the same website.  I am afraid that IMHO, nothing was proved in your comment.  I am just throwing both sides out there....don't hate me please.

[SBcrazee]

I am confused, where is the bad part about McCain?  The fact that he used an ad attacking Obama and maybe twisted a little bit of the fact.  Which I must say is the exact thing Obama does.    FOr example, please read the following....

"An Obama-Biden ad falsely claims McCain
says he wants to "do the same to our health care" that "Wall Street
deregulation" has done to the banking industry.

The ad relies on a single phrase from a journal article under McCain's
byline, in which he said he would reduce regulation of health insurance
"as we have done over the last decade in banking." But the full context
reveals that McCain was referring narrowly to his proposal to allow people to purchase health insurance across state lines."

That was taken from the same website.  I am afraid that IMHO, nothing was proved in your comment.  I am just throwing both sides out there....don't hate me please.

Na, this is fun, I don't hate you or anyone. Iactually have more respect for people that can come here & support their candidate irrespective of which side you are on. Shows passion & I'm all for that.

To answer your question, that was my point. Both sides are going to point out that the other party is bad for the country & there's going to be lies on both sides. I get that it's part of the whole political game. McCain supporters are bent of the fact that Obama has nothing to show for & has no experience, whatever.... & they believe what their candidates are saying without going to the actual facts. I'm sure it's the same with Obama supporters. But  reading on the actual facts & what both sides stand for will give you the best picture.

[Jenn Kellams]

I am confused, where is the bad part about McCain?  The fact that he used an ad attacking Obama and maybe twisted a little bit of the fact.  Which I must say is the exact thing Obama does.    FOr example, please read the following....

"An Obama-Biden ad falsely claims McCain
says he wants to "do the same to our health care" that "Wall Street
deregulation" has done to the banking industry.

The ad relies on a single phrase from a journal article under McCain's
byline, in which he said he would reduce regulation of health insurance
"as we have done over the last decade in banking." But the full context
reveals that McCain was referring narrowly to his proposal to allow people to purchase health insurance across state lines."

That was taken from the same website.  I am afraid that IMHO, nothing was proved in your comment.  I am just throwing both sides out there....don't hate me please.

Na, this is fun, I don't hate you or anyone. Iactually have more respect for people that can come here & support their candidate irrespective of which side you are on. Shows passion & I'm all for that.

To answer your question, that was my point. Both sides are going to point out that the other party is bad for the country & there's going to be lies on both sides. I get that it's part of the whole political game. McCain supporters are bent of the fact that Obama has nothing to show for & has no experience, whatever.... & they believe what their candidates are saying without going to the actual facts. I'm sure it's the same with Obama supporters. But  reading on the actual facts & what both sides stand for will give you the best picture.

I am now very interested in this site you gave out!  www.factcheck.org is the best.  I have been reading it since I saw the link in your post.

EVERYONE....GO TO THIS SITE!!  www.factcheck.org  It is truely the bestest!!!  Great info here!