Got an email from Hillary today (ok she sent it out to all her supporters) and it included a link to this wonderful video. Take a look at the note and the video...
You have spoken loud and clear over the past few days with a tremendous show of support. Your actions are drowning out the voices calling for this race to come to an end, and I am truly touched that you are so committed to our campaign.
Now we have just a few hours left before our midnight fundraising deadline. This is our last chance to show our strength in the midst of the onslaught from our opponent who wants this race to end before millions of Americans have their say.
Together we are going to keep fighting and winning. But first we need to show that we have the resources to compete vigorously in the upcoming races, and I'm depending on you for that support.
I wish you and I could share some of the experiences I'm having on the campaign together. But I recorded a special video message for you on the trail recently, and I hope you'll take a look.
As some of you might have heard, Hillary met with the editorial board of the Pittsburgh Tribune last week and to hear her detractors tell it, she’d gone in and met with the devil himself rather than talk with those with the power to endorse one candidate or another in the race for the White House. Well the owner of the paper put out an op-ed today and I think Hillary impressed the board – or more to the point, knocked their socks off with her grasp of the issues.
Hillary Clinton walked into a Pittsburgh Tribune-Review conference room last Tuesday to meet with some of the newspaper's editors and reporters and declared, "It was so counterintuitive, I just thought it would be fun to do."
The room erupted in laughter. Her remark defused what could have been a confrontational meeting.
He goes on to describe how the Trib. has criticized Hillary over the years, and had again just that morning on their editorial pages.
Reading that, a lesser politician -- one less self-assured, less informed on domestic and foreign issues, less confident of her positions -- might well have canceled the interview right then and there.
She turned up anyway full of courage and confidence, and in the course of their 90 conversation Hillary changed his mind.
Sen. Clinton also exhibited an impressive command of many of today's most pressing domestic and international issues. Her answers were thoughtful, well-stated, and often dead-on.
Particularly regarding foreign policy, she identified what we consider to be the most important challenges and dangers that the next president must confront and resolve in order to guarantee our nation's security. Those include an increasingly hostile Russia, an increasingly powerful China and increasing instability in Pakistan and South America.
Like me, she believes we must pull our troops out of Iraq, because it is time for Iraqis to handle their own destiny -- and, more important, because it is past time to end the toll on our soldiers there, to begin rebuilding our military, and to refocus our attention on other threats, starting with Afghanistan.
Here’s what Hillary had to say regarding a question on Pakistan…
On domestic policy, Sen. Clinton and I might find more areas on which we disagree. Yet we also agree on others. Asked about the utter failure of federal efforts to rebuild New Orleans since the Katrina disaster, for example, she called it just what it has been -- "not just a national disgrace (but) an international embarrassment."
Take a look at a video of her comments re Katrina…
He’s not quite there yet regarding an endorsement, but I think Hillary laid the groundwork for one.
Especially if Obama can’t bring himself to go in and meet with Scaif and his paper’s editorial board.
I’ll let Hillary take us out here by talking about super delegates and the need to let the voters in the remaining contests have a say in who our party’s nominee will be…
Grace, courage, tough as nails and as smart as they come - that's Hillary Clinton.
She's shown us time and time again that she's willing ready and ABLE to take on the tough crowds, and win.
She went upstate and won over the republican voters in NY - and won with 67% of the vote.
She went to China and addressed the UN Conf. on women - they shut off the broadcast and she still went into the countryside to meet with thn folks from the NGO's.
She went to speak to Tavis Smiley's State of the Black Union.
Heck she even went and spoke at last year's daily kos convention AND reworked her schedule to attend a break-out session.
And how many times has she gone toe to toe with the Sunday talkers like Russert?
This lady's not afraid of any one or any issue. She can handle whatever we throw at her and more!
Ok I admit it – I was pretty busy at work and haven’t been able to follow the news. And yeah our family budget’s too tight for us to afford cable so I haven’t been getting a steady diet of BS from MSNBO. And I did have a meeting to go to after work so I’m just now getting on line really, but I’ve got a question for you guys and I’m hoping you can help me out…
Have things changed THAT much over the past 24 hours? Were there some primaries yesterday or today that I didn’t know about and did Hillary lose that badly? Because the way Pat Leahy’s talking today you’d think Hillary were suddenly a good 20 or 25% behind Obama in the delegate race here, instead of a shade shy of 1%.
No?
No primaries?
Ya mean they’re still just one percent apart in this delegate thing?
Then can someone puhlease explain why the hell Pat Leahy’s gone ‘round the bend with his demand that Hillary drop out of this race for the White House before the voters have even had a say in the final ten contests? Or before some 350 super delegates have weighed in on this whole thing?
Seriously – is he that scared of Hillary in these final contests? Has he seen some super-top-secret polls that I haven’t showing she’s gonna open up a big ole can of whoop-ass on his guy come Pennsylvania? I mean bigger than we know is coming already?
I mean aside from winning the states she’s running strong in – PA, KY, WV & PR – does he know she’s also going to take NC & IN – OR even? Then there’re MT and SD.
My goodness but Leahy must be really frightened if he’s getting this shrill four weeks out of our next primary. Does he have that little faith in his own candidate? Is he that convinced that Hillary’s going to kick some serious butt in the coming contests?
(Hmmm… come to think of it this could explain why Obama’s been so entrenched in his opposition to holding new primaries in MI and FL. The guy’s convinced he’s going to lose and lose big in those states if the voters actually get to have their say. But I digress…).
Now that I think of it maybe I’m not the one who’s been busy with work lately. I mean after all, I did get enough of the news to know that the information below is accurate. Maybe ole Pat missed out on a few factoids eh?
MYTH: The delegate "math" works decisively against Hillary.
FACT: The delegate math reflects an extremely close race that either candidate can win.
"The Math" is actually very simple: with hundreds of delegates still uncommitted, NEITHER candidate has reached the number of delegates required to secure the nomination. And EITHER candidate can reach the required number in the coming weeks and months. That is indisputable. No amount of editorials, articles, blog posts, charts, graphs, calculations, formulas, or projections will change the basic fact that either candidate can win. Pundits who confidently proclaim that Hillary has no hope of winning because of "the math," have counted Hillary out of this race three times before. Each time they based their sober assessments on 'facts' and 'realities' -- and each time they were wrong.
In a campaign with dozens of unexpected twists and turns, bold prognostications should be viewed with a healthy dose of skepticism. Look no further than Sen. Obama's "full assault" on Hillary's character to judge whether he thinks this election is over. The fact is this: Hillary and Sen. Obama are locked in a very close, hard-fought campaign and Hillary is demonstrating precisely the strength of character required of a president. Her resilience in the face of adversity, her faith in the voters, her capacity to rise to every challenge, are part of the reason she is the best general election candidate for Democrats. And it is why she is increasingly strong against John McCain in the polls at the same time that Sen. Obama is dropping against Sen. McCain.
=====
MYTH: For Hillary to win, super delegates must "overturn the will of the people."
FACT: The race is virtually tied, the "will of the people" is split, and both candidates need super delegates to win.
The Obama campaign and Sen. Obama's surrogates have engaged in a sustained public relations effort to convince people that the election is over and that if super delegates perform their established role of choosing a candidate who they believe will make the best nominee and president, they are somehow "overturning the will of the people." They have the audacity to make this argument while quietly and systematically courting those very same super delegates. They are courting them because they know that Sen. Obama needs super delegates to win. The Obama spin is being parroted daily by pundits, but it is patently false. The race is virtually tied; the "will of the people" is split. By virtually every measure, Hillary and Sen. Obama are neck and neck -- separated by less than 130 of the more than 3,100 delegates committed thus far and less than 1% of the 27 million+ votes cast, including Florida and Michigan. Less than 1%.
An incremental advantage for one candidate or the other is hardly a reason for super delegates to change the rules mid-game. Despite the Obama campaign's aggressive spin and pressure, the RULES require super delegates to exercise their best independent judgment, and that is what they will do. Even Sen. Obama's top strategist agrees they should. If not, then why don't prominent Obama endorsers like Senators Kerry (MA) and Kennedy (MA), and Governors Patrick (MA), Napolitano (AZ) and Richardson (NM) follow the will of their constituents and switch their support to Hillary? After all, she won their states. And if this is truly about the "will of the people," then Sen. Obama's short-sighted tactic to run out the clock on a revote in Florida and Michigan accomplishes exactly two things: it disenfranchises Florida and Michigan's voters; and it hurts Democrats in a general election. Apparently, for the Obama campaign, the "will of the people" is just words.
This race isn’t over – far from it. And the fact that BO’s followers are shrieking like this to try to drum up some sad and pathetic call for Hillary to step aside and let the guy win this thing is one of the most ridiculous things I’ve ever witnessed. And I’ve been around a lot of campaigns over the years.
So here’s a suggestion a friend said came up on the News Hour this evening…
Rather than shriek about one candidate or the other dropping out – rather than go at each other in this circular firing squat maybe – just maybe the candidates should turn their sights on John McCain. Show us what they’ve got and would take to the fight with him in the general election.
Once the Supers have evaluated how each does they can make up their own mind as to who’ll be best prepared to withstand what the goopers will throw at us in the general election. They’ll see how effective each of our candidates will be in addressing McCain’s short-comings on the issues that matter to voters.
Here’s a taste of what Hillary will take to the fight with McCain. Take a look…
You want a fighter who’ll kick some serious elephant butt in the general election, then the clear choice in this contest is Hillary. She’s no quitter and she knows how to stand tall against the Republicans.
If you’re like me and you’re with Hillary through to the convention, help her out guys. She’s set a goal of raising 3 million dollars before the next reporting deadline of midnight on March 31st. Last time around she was able to raise more than the million a day she’d set as a goal. Whattya say we shoot for 2 million a day?!
Here’s a bit of an email she sent around today – take a look…
Have you noticed the pattern?
Every time our campaign demonstrates its strength and resilience, people start to suggest we should end our pursuit of the Democratic nomination.
Those anxious to force us to the sidelines aren't doing it because they think we're going to lose the upcoming primaries. The fact is, they're reading the same polls we are, and they know we are in a position to win.
In three days, we're facing a critical March filing deadline -- another chance to show the strength of our campaign. Let's take these three days to make something absolutely clear: we aren't going to simply step aside. You and I are going to keep fighting for what we believe in, and together, we're going to win.
She goes on to ask us to kick in whatever we can – even $5 will make a difference in meeting the goal in the face of this upcoming deadline. So please – dig deep and let Leahy, Dodd and all of those other frightened senators know we’re not even close to giving up this fight!
I went to hear Hillary speak in DC last night. I’ve heard her speak 3 or 4 times before and I swear I learn something new at each event. Her depth of knowledge and passion when it comes to all of the issues our next president will have to deal with just blows me away. This woman is tuned in to the things that keep people awake nights with worry; health care; the crap economy; climate change and how to reverse it; paying for college for ourselves or our kids; losing a home to foreclosure; rising prices of food and fuel. She knows what we really care about and she has a plan to deal with it all.
Now after more than a year on the campaign trail, and many more in public service I’m sure she’s heard more tales of worry and woe than any of us could ever imagine. I’ve learned enough about her over the years from people who’ve worked with her and know her well to know that she doesn’t forget these stories easily, and does all she can to help if it’s at all possible. Hillary told one of those stories last night and it just breaks my heart to think of it. I raced to type it out before I slept last night so I could record what she said, knowing it’s something that should be shared on forums like this. Take a look…
Hillary said she'd talked with a deputy sheriff in a town in southern Ohio recently, along the Ohio river (?), and he talked of a woman in their town who worked at the local pizza place for minimum wage. You can imagine how little she got in tips there and the woman was just scraping by like millions in our society right now. Lived in a small apartment and lived paycheck to paycheck.
Just scraping by that is until she got pregnant.
Along the way she started having problems with her pregnancy so she eventually went to the local hospital. Since she had no insurance and they couldn't afford to take her on as charity etc, they asked for $100 before they would look at her.
She didn't have the money so she went home.
She was still having problems / pain so she went back and asked for help. They asked for $100 before they'd see her so she was sent home again.
Next time she went to the hospital it was in an ambulance.
Teams of doctors and nurses worked feverishly to help her, but she eventually lost her baby.
(That's not the end of it guys...)
She was still in really bad shape, so they air lifted her to the nearest facility that could really help her with what she needed - a hospital in Columbus.
Round the clock care in the ICU for the next 15 days - but this young woman who'd asked repeatedly for help - died.
All for want of $100 and a little compassion in our fucked up healthcare system.
They spent hundreds of thousands of dollars trying to save her and her soon-to-be baby and both lost their lives - her little one lost the battle before s/he could even take a single breath of air.
All for want of $100.
I'm near tears here thinking about it. This doesn't happen in the United States of America - right? This happens in developing nations in Africa or Asia - China maybe. Wherever - ANYwhere but here.
A little boy in DC died a couple years ago from blood poisoning - toothache and his mother couldn't afford dental insurance (neither can my family so this really hit home) nor could she afford to take him in when his tooth started to hurt him. Poor child ended up dead and his mother's left to grieve - right here in America. It's not supposed to happen here right?
Wrong.
My own father lost his health care coverage because he confused his premium payment one month and fell 2 cents short. The Blues were only too glad to get him off their rolls – he had a bad heart, Crohn’s Disease (auto-immune disease) and emphysema. Without insurance he couldn’t get his weekly shot for the crohns, so he’d get so sick he ended up in the ER needing an infusion of medicine that cost the state of Florida $10,000 per treatment. My father’s heart eventually gave out and he died at the age of 61. All over 2 cents. That’s not supposed to happen here in the states – right?
Wrong again.
This sort of thing happens all the time – NYCEve writes about these injustices and murder by spreadsheet and has for years. Our health care system doesn’t work – too many are left to die for want of 2 cents or $100.
The sooner we get real universal health care the better. Hillary’s the only candidate proposing a plan that will cover all of us.
That little boy didn’t have to die. My father didn’t have to go without care. That poor woman in Ohio didn't have to lose her soon-to-be baby and she didn't have to lose her life. Not here. Not in the 21st century.
As most of you know by now, Congressman John Murtha (Super Delegate and outspoken critic of the war in Iraq) has endorsed Hillary for president. Well he’s out on the campaign trail working the crowds and telling folks in his home state of Pennsylvania why he’s backing her, and why they should too.
The campaign’s put together a wonderful video and I thought I’d share it with my many good friends here at MyDD. Take a look…
Pretty cool eh?
The campaign put out a press release on this and it includes the text of the video…
NEW VIDEO: Rep. John Murtha On The Trail With Hillary Clinton in Pennsylvania
Tells Supporters Pennsylvania is Hillary Country!
The Clinton campaign today released a new video of Pennsylvania Congressman John Murtha on the trail with Hillary Clinton in the Keystone State. In the video, Murtha expresses his belief that Hillary is the only candidate who can responsibly end the war in Iraq and restore fiscal responsibility to our government.
Watch the new video here Following is the script for the video:
Let me tell you something. I’ve served with seven Presidents. I am convinced that we’re in probably one of the worst situations that I’ve seen in the 35 years I’ve been in Congress. We need a person with experience, a person that understands the policy.
When the Clinton administration left, there was a $250 billion surplus. Now, there’s almost a $3 trillion deficit.
The military has been so depleted by this war. We’re spending $343 million dollars a day to build roads in Iraq and we’re not spending money on the projects that are so important.
And who can solve that problem – Hillary!
Finally, a person that listens to the people, listens and works with people, and can get the country together and reunite us, restore our credibility, restore our military, and put us back in a fiscal policy worth the United States history.
The next President of the United States – Hillary Clinton!
This is Hillary country. She’s had a tremendous reception here in Fayette County – she’s going to get that kind of reception all over Pennsylvania. There is no individual that can do this more effectively than Hillary Clinton and I support her wholeheartedly.
Now I live in Maryland and our primary’s come and gone. But there are still ways in which our group of supporters (some 1,000+ strong in our county alone) can help in the upcoming primaries. Philadelphia’s just a couple hours north of here and towns like Lancaster are just over the border. So our steering committee is organizing weekend trips and day trips into the Granite State to help with the efforts up there.
I’ say this not to brag about how hard Hillary’s supporters in our area are working (they are) but to let you all know that there are ways to get involved where you’re at. If you can get the time off work or school and are willing and able to head out to the sates with upcoming primaries then please consider going to Hillary’s website and signing up to TRAVEL FOR HILLARY
Friends of mine have traveled to Iowa, New Hampshire, Texas and Ohio and to a person they’ve said it’s one of the best things they’ve ever done. A couple of friends went to a small town in Eastern Ohio and the said there were treated like rock stars by the hotel staff once they learned why they were in town. Another went to New Hampshire with his homemade banners and ended up with his picture in newspapers all around the state (the banners are really cool!) I can’t do much traveling now with two small children to look after, but I made the trip to Philly every weekend 20 years ago for 2 & a half months and had – a – blast! If you’ve never done this I would highly recommend it folks – you won’t soon forget the people you meet or the work you do.
Can’t get away for a day or three to help in PA, OR, IN or NC? No problem. You can still help Hillary by going to her website, signing up and logging on to MAKE PHONE CALLS No need to schlep down to a campaign office no-siree-bob… you can phone bank from the comfort of your own living room. Just put the kids to bed, put on you r comfies, put your feet up on the coffee table with your laptop on your (cough cough) lap, and get to work. You call into an 800# so it won’t cost you a dime and the program is easy as can be to use.
Lastly... (and you had to know I would eventually get to this) the ads she needs to run in PA and beyond won't pay for thenselves my friends so if you can't get to PA or the other states with upcoming primaries, and you don't have time to make calls then PLEASE consider sending Hillary some love.
Here's one of her latest ads to hit the airwaves in PA, just to give you an idea as to where your contributions are going...
I don’t always ask folks to pony up but if it’s been a while then please – look at your budget and see if you can spare a fiver for a woman who’s working 24/7 to make sure our next president is ready to hit the ground running on day one next year.
The stakes are too high in this election – we need to let her know we’ve got her back. Thanks! ;o)
By the way (and you had to know this bit was coming!) these ads don't pay for themselves gang. So if it's been a while please check your wallet and see if you have an extra fiver lying around ok?
Howard Dean's refusal to lead us out of this mess he's created in Florida and Michigan has set the stage for Sen. Obama to drag his heels in an effort to disenfranchise millions of Democrats in those two states. States we'll need if we're going to win the general election.
Obama seems to have a pattern of keeping people out of the electoral process going right back to his very first race for the IL Senate, when he did all he could to prevent the voters from having a say by keeping his opponent off the ballot. This pattern of Chicago smack-down politics continues in FL & MI.
Now he's throwing aside 2 million Democrats in these key states in an effort to push Hillary aside - it's all about him as usual. No concern for what this will mean for our party (including the Democrats down-ticket) when thousands and thousands of Democrats stay home in November. No concern as to what he's saying to them (you don't matter to me). No concern for how this will affect our party's chances in November in these key states.
Add to that his efforts to convince everyone that it's time for Hillary to drop out of this race before the last 10 states have had a say in this. This shows us he's willing to disenfranchise the voters in those states too. I'm seeing a definite pattern here guys and it's not a pretty one... Obama cares about himself - NOT our party or the Democrats who vote in our elections.
I won't presume to know what's in Obama's heart, but if I were to hazard a guess I'd have to say it's almost as if he's afraid to face Hillary in a fair election. It's almost as if he knows that if the playing field were level, he'd have his backside handed to him, so he does whatever it takes to tilt that field to his advantage and to hell with the Democrats who're caught in whatever games he plays along the way.
In the case of FL & MI, he's doing all he can to make sure of a few things...
That the delegates chosen during the January primaries aren't seated.
And
That it's impossible for the states to hold new primaries - he knows the republican controlled legislatures won't act as long as they have his refusal to allow new votes as an excuse.
Failure to seat the current delegates or hold new primaries (he hopes) will leave FL and MI Democrats with few options but from what I understand, he's hoping for something along these lines...
Dividing up the currently allotted delegates in a way that gives him more than he would have initially gotten, thereby ignoring the wishes of the Democrats in MI & FL.
Chucking it all and holding caucuses in states that are primary states.
Caucuses have consistently favored BO - we all know that. Whether it's due to the bullying and dirty tricks that go on in these caucuses, or the fact that Hillary's supporters are routinely shut out of these votes simply because they can't make it to the caucus site at the set place and time (usually in the evenings), the caucus states usually go to him.
The elderly who can't drive at night.
Shift workers who can't get away from work in the evenings.
Waiters and waitresses who work the dinner hour.
Parents who can't get childcare so they can go to their local caucus.
They're all shut out of having their voices heard in caucus sates. So he has every interest in making sure MI & FL can't seat the delegates they chose through primaries, and don't hold new primaries.
He wants to rig things in the states in a sad effort to disenfranchise my family in Michigan so he can steal a few delegates from Hillary.
Now I worked the phone banks on primary day in OH & TX and I spent the day (12 hours of it) calling Texas to explain how things would work down there and I wrote up some notes afterward. Take a look...
I spent all day Tuesday calling voters in Texas, explaining how their system works when it comes to choosing a presidential nominee for our party. It's an open primary. Anyone can turn up and vote to help determine who our champion will be in the general election. The party big-wigs decided they want to make the voters turn up not once but twice to make their vote count to the fullest extent possible. The primary counts for 70% and the precinct conventions (aka caucuses) account for the final 30%. Polls were set to close at 7pm - machines would be cleared out and the convention packets would be released to the folks running that part of the show at around 7:15.
Now the thing about Texas is that this is system is geared so that working folks, the elderly, and people who have responsibilities during the evenings are cut out of the second half of the process - their vote basically only counts as 70% of that of someone with a more flexible schedule, can get out / drive at night and are healthy enough to make it to the caucuses. This cuts out a lot of Hillary's core constituency and should favor Obama and YET he still managed to lose the state to her. We were calling even after the polls were set to close because there were still long lines of people waiting to get in to vote in the primaries. We asked people we know voted for Hillary to get back to their polling place to sign in for Hillary at their precinct convention (caucus). It broke my heart to hear one senior citizen after another tell me it wasn't possible for them to get back - they couldn't drive or couldn't get out after dark etc. Or they were 88 and not able to get around so well any more.
The frustration in their voices said it all - the caucus system is NOT fair to them, to folks who work the night shift, wait tables in the evenings, or to parents who can't get babysitters for their young kids so they could return and log in the other 30% of their vote. Caucuses are heavily weighted toward affluent, young and healthy people with flexible schedules. Texas is especially unfair in that they make you turn up twice to get your entire vote counted. It's almost as if BO's supporters have a built-in 30% advantage and yet Hillary was STILL able to beat him at this screwed up game. That and she was outspent 3 to 1 in that state.
This was his third chance at locking this thing up and he blew it - again. What's that say about his ability to win in the general election? I hope to hell they don't replace the results in FL & MI with new votes in a caucus - it would so disenfranchise thousands and thousands of voters Democrats - not just once but for a SECOND time. They've got to hold out for the seating of those delegates. NO ifs, ands or buts.
One other thing about Texas... I was also working the phones the Sunday before primary day, talking with voters in Texas. I spoke with one woman who told me that BO's camp is actively seeking out support from Republicans in Texas. How did she know this you may ask? She said her husband was a Republican - he passed away 2 or 3 years ago but she'd received 3 calls from BO's camp in the past 24 hours, asking that he cross over and vote in the Democratic primary on March 4th. Three calls - that's no accident folks. And neither was the message they were sending out to Texas Republicans.
He was reaching out to Democrats in Texas, just as he has in any other state that's had an open ballot. Remember Nevada and those horrid flyers?
Big Tent Democrat over at Talk Left posted something on that Nevada flyer when the story broke, and he closes his post with the following...
As I have said before, Obama is a fighter for Obama. He is not a fighter for the Democratic Party or Democratic values. This flyer is emblematic of everything that is wrong with the Obama campaign. Be a Democrat FOR A DAY. For Obama. But not for the Democratic Party or for Democratic values.
Back on Feb. 28th (before Hillary's big wins on March 4th), Christopher Beam of Slate posted a great write-up of how the votes have broken down so far. Take a look...
It's well-known that Barack Obama's success has depended largely on independent and Republican voters. The corollary to that, however, has been less thoroughly reported: Obama is losing among Democrats.
Over at the Perfect World, Cal Lanier crunches the numbers and finds that Obama, despite being ahead among pledged delegates, has fewer total votes among people who identify themselves as Democrats. (He has 7,392,809 votes; Clinton has 8,229,063.) That gives Clinton as lead with 52 percent of Democrats.
It helps you understand why the party gives so much power to its 796 superdelegates. If they didn't, independents and Republicans could essentially hijack their election. It also makes you wonder whether Clinton should start citing this number, if she maintains her lead through the convention in August. Even if Obama leads in the popular vote and among pledged delegates, it might disturb party gray beards to learn that the nominee has essentially been chosen by outsiders.
Hillary's not only running strong after her big wins in states where BO should have won handily, but she's actually ahead in the popular vote if you go by the DEMOCRATS who took part in our party's primaries and caucuses. Updated with the results in early Feb. (where she won 3 of the 4 states up for grabs that day) and the numbers look like this....
Hillary 10,166,262 Obama 8,973,276
Giving Hillary an advantage among Democrats over Obama by a margin of 1,192,986 votes
Now as the Slate article notes, these are slightly rough numbers as they're based on exit polls, but still... well over a million vote lead among Democrats voting in our party's primaries and caucuses. If I were BO I wouldn't tout that elected delegate count too loudly if I were him. Obama can't have it both ways. He can't actively recruit votes from outside our party and then say that Hillary can't look to our party's super delegates to help put her over the top. Neither candidate will win this thing purely on the popular vote so the supers will have a role to play in determining our nominee. BO claims to be ahead in the actual popular vote but when you take out the votes by people who some have noted may be actively working to throw our elections to what they see as our weaker candidate, then Hillary's winning this thing hands down.
Hillary's beating Obama among Democratic voters by over a million votes.
Now that right there would be a compelling argument for siding with Hillary if I were a super delegate.
Obama had better get used to Hillary being in this race. She's not dropping for some very real reasons. She's going to win and win big in Pennsylvania. Then she'll go on to take all the state's she's running strong in AND take North Carolina and Oregon.
I listened in on the press conference call this afternoon and Hillary’s team talked about the recent stream of personal attacks and distractions that have been tossed out by Sen. Obama’s team – from circulating a picture of Wright with President Clinton just 48 hours after making his famous speech (as if that one handshake would be the same as his own 20 year relationship with Wright) to jumping all over some comments Bill had made recently in North Carolina.
Let’s take a look at what Bill said, shall we?
Now sadly, BO’s playing the victim here – again. Even though Bill never once mentioned his name, this is (as usual) all about him. Suddenly, this is being twisted into something it’s not – an attack on Obama’s patriotism. My goodness but he’ll try to use anything to deflect attention from his troubles this week won’t he?
Now here’s what one of BO’s surrogates had to say about Bill’s remarks. First Read has some of what McPeak said about Bill here…
"I think it's horrible. I'm really disappointed because I worked for President Clinton, you know?" McPeak said when asked by reporters.
"We know Barack Obama don't we? Do we think Barack Obama loves America? Is this stupid or what?" he demanded of the press surrounding him.
"It sounds more like McCarthy. I grew up, I was going to college when Joe McCarthy was accusing good Americans of being traitors, so I've had enough of it," he added.
He then goes on to remind reporters of another time BO’s campaign went after Bill and twisted his words around into something they aren’t.
Take a look at what Hillary’s campaign put up on Fact Hub in response to this desperate attempt to divert attention from BO to Bill…
I think it would be a great thing if we had an election year where you had two people who loved this country and were devoted to the interest of this country and people could actually ask themselves who is right on these issues, instead of all this other stuff that always seems to intrude itself on our politics.
Actually, as is indicated by the quote itself, President Clinton was talking about the need to talk about issues, rather than falsely questioning any candidate's patriotism.
He was lamenting that these kind of distractions "always seems to intrude" on political campaigns. This is consistent with his criticism of the "politics of personal destruction," which dates back 16 years.
I mean really… First they call him a racist and now they’re comparing him to McCarthy.
This is President Bill Clinton we’re talking about here – right?
To borrow a few of Bill’s words… GIVE - ME – A - BREAK!
I think Howard Wolfson – Hillary’s Communications Director responds to this BS best…
RE: Bill Clinton = Joe McCarthy?!
Recent attacks by Obama Campaign surrogate General Merrill McPeak comparing Bill Clinton to Joe McCarthy are outraegous and divisive, but not surprising. They are in keeping with the Obama campaign's daily attacks on Senator Clinton's character in starkly personal terms.
Suggestions by the Obama campaign that Bill Clinton was questioning Barack Obama's patriotism are equally irresponsible and incorrect. In discussing a possible Clinton-McCain race, the former President said: "I think it would be a great thing if we had an election year where you had two people who loved this country and were devoted to the interest of this country and people could actually ask themselves who is right on these issues, instead of all this other stuff that always seems to intrude itself on our politics."
We can not imagine that the Obama Campaign really believes that the comments above were an attack on Senator Obama in any way; rather their attempt to cast the comments in that light are nothing more than a transparent attempt to shift the media’s focus away from his recent troubles (http://facts.hillaryhub.com/archive/?id=6668).
Of course, this is not the first time in this campaign that General McPeak has engaged in personal attacks. On February 2, General McPeak was forced to apologize for remarks he made about Senator Clinton ( http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-iraqpol2feb02,0,1272905.story).
Many Americans were taken with Senator Obama's call this past week to engage in a high minded debate. Now, just days later, his campaign is comparing Bill Clinton to Joe McCarthy.
In no way did I interpret Clinton’s remarks as questioning Obama’s patriotism. Clinton was making the case for his wife’s electability against McCain, who last time I checked is the presumptive Republican nominee and her challenger should she win the Democratic nomination. He may have intentionally bypassed Obama in his leap to match Hillary against McCain, but he didn’t say anything that could be construed as questioning Obama’s patriotism. The sequence went as follows: He noted that Hillary polls ahead of McCain in Ohio and Florida and also that McCain leads “Hillary’s opponent” (I quit typing here and don’t recall exactly which states he mentioned in that part of his comment.) His point, obviously, was that Hillary should be the nominee and, in that case, she and McCain would face each other in the final contest.
This was toward the end of his talk, which focused on Iraq and the economy. Obama was no longer on the radar at this point.
These comments claiming Bill’s the modern day equivalent of McCarthy are bad enough but it isn’t really the point of my post tonight.
This latest load of manufactured outrage on BO’s part has little or nothing to do with Bill Clinton, and everything to do with his attempts to distract our attention from his rotten to the core week.
First the news hits (with video) of his longtime friendship with his pastor (Wright), and a speech that was supposed to make it all go away but didn’t.
Then we watch as BO sits on his hands as hopes of a new vote in Michigan and Florida evaporate, in effect disenfranchising some 2 million Democrats in this election.
Then two days after his big speech where he calls for folks to heal and move past it all, he circulated a picture of Bill shaking hands at a prayer breakfast 10 years, in some lame effort to convince us that that 10 year old picture of a single handshake equals his own 20 year relationship with Wright.
And in the last day or two, we’ve seen BO and his minions make demands that Hillary drop out of this race altogether in an effort to avoid facing her in a real and fair contest come convention time, which (if she complied with their demands) would disenfranchise millions and millions more Democrats in the states that have yet to vote in their upcoming primaries.
And now this.
Now, usually BO gets his pals and surrogates to go on the attack while he’s nowhere to be seen – in another state or whatever but in this case, he’s standing right on stage with McPeake as he goes after Bill on these trumped up charges of McCarthyism – right next to the guy for crying out loud as he twists Bills words into something they’re not.
McPeak attacks Bill at one of BO’s campaign events, while BO stands beside him arms folded and lookin’ all serious and – well like he’s ashamed to be a party to these lies and distortions about a good and decent guy like President Bill Clinton.
His silence speaks volumes no?
So much for wanting to change the way we do politics eh? Mr. Clean’s gone and gotten his hands dirty – again.
Thanks, Alegre, for the invite to join as a blogger here!
Since I'm certainly not posting diaries - or anything else - at DKos these days, I'll take the lazy person's opportunity to jump in by posting a reply I just wrote to some Josh Marshall items at TPM.
Josh --
Putting up those emails from frustrated Hillary supporters is a bit like shooting fish in a barrel - when a candidate is behind, you can always count on their shrillest supporters for some intemperate primal screaming. I'm embarrassed to be supporting the same candidate as MR, let alone DT. All the same, shouldn't you be a bit embarrassed to be running this stuff? When you run similar wince-inducing emails from Republicans - be honest - what is the intent? To illuminate a perspective, or to hold up the enemy for ridicule?
My own Plan B is what it has always been, to support the Democratic nominee. The delegate arithmetic heavily favors this being Obama, and if he is the nominee I will support him. I won't support him until then, because he has chosen to identify himself with the strand of progressivism that moves me least, "good government" concern with process rather than purpose. (The New Deal never worried very much about "good government;" it was too busy getting things done.) Seeing Bill Bradley's face recently on CNN reminded me of everything annoying about that sort of politics, and why my own early interest in Obama faded.
A lot of Democrats - pretty close to half, in fact - have opted for Hillary rather than Obama, largely I suspect for variations of this reason. His speech about race and Wright answers nothing, because Wright is significant only as a potential GOP cudgel. There's some schadenfreude in seeing a politician who so sedulously avoids all controversy having to explain a preacher's red hot rhetoric, but the real unanswered question is what Obama intends to do as president, besides make everyone feel good for a while.
As for the state of the nomination race, in spite of Obama's hefty lead in elected delegates, the popular vote is razor close. According to RCP, Obama leads in the official tally by some 700,000 votes out of 26 million cast. Adding estimated caucus voters boosts Obama's margin to 800,000, while adding the FL popular vote reduces his margin to 500,000. (Adding the far more dubious MI vote reduces his margin to 200,000; RCP doesn't say what results from crediting MI's "uncommitted" vote to Obama.) No one count is going to be universally acknowledged as fair, but a big Hillary win in PA alone could cut whatever gap you choose more or less in half. If the momentum for the rest of the primary season goes Hillary's way, she could well end up getting more total votes than Obama did, even ignoring MI.
Suppose that the the overall momentum does continue going Hillary's way - with Obama generally on the defensive, parrying individual thrusts effectively enough, but slipping significantly in primary polls and trial heats against McCain, and especially losing ground with those independents who were his big general-election selling point. This is scarcely a given; perhaps not the most likely outcome, but it requires no miracle. For Hillary to overcome Obama's pledged delegate count would indeed take a miracle, but what are the cross pressures on the superdelegates if Hillary has pulled even by reasonable measures of the popular vote, and Obama is not looking good for the general?
Vandehei and Allen are really saying that the superdelegates, broadly the party establishment, will never "risk a backlash of historic proportions from the party’s most reliable constituency." African American Democrats, however, are not isolated from the factors that play out with other Democrats. It is hard to imagine them abandoning Obama in large numbers - indeed the trend thus far in the primary season has been the other way - but if the air goes substantially out of the Obama balloon, their support might drift from passionate to dutiful. He is a momentum candidate with no long-established base anywhere outside of IL, no one he has "been there for." For most of the country, black and white, his entire public career amounts to his presidential campaign. His magic is not deep rooted, and could fade.
How likely is this? Vandehei and Allen say "virtually no chance," and you evidently agree. The betting markets give Hillary a one in four or one in five chance, but it is hard to give meaningful odds about something as subjective as momentum. For those of us who support Hillary, and don't feel the Obama magic, no great leap of faith is needed to suspect that it will indeed fade, and that time is on our side - as much time from now till Puerto Rico, some 10 weeks, as has elapsed since Iowa. (!) She cannot overcome his lead in pledged delegates, but that is dispositive only by the Obama spin. If his magic has faded by summer, and Hillary has pulled even in the popular vote, the Politico piece may end up as one more item on the overfilled dumpster of wrong predictions about this campaign.
-- Rick Robinson
One collateral casualty of this primary campaign is Josh Marshall, sad to say. He has been assimilated not so much by the Oborg as by the greater Borg of Respectable Opinion.
And finally, I hope you'll forgive a little shameless pimp of my own science fiction related blog, Rocketpunk Manifesto.
Well after all that talk about being a bridge over the gap it looks like that speech of Obama's the other night was nothing but more words.
Take a look at the press statement I just got from the campaign...
Per this NYT story, the campaign's statement in response:
"Less than 48 hours after calling for a high-minded conversation on race, according to the New York Times the Obama campaign is peddling photos of an occasion when President Clinton shook hands with Reverend Wright. To be clear, President Clinton took tens of thousands of photos during his eight years as president."
And on the passport breach:
"The breach of Sen. Obama's passport files is outrageous. The Bush administration must get to the bottom of it."
Sorry but I just can’t let this one go guys – my family are all back home in the Great Lake State and it’s absolutely mind-blowing that a guy running for the right to represent DEMOCRATS in the general election is working so hard to disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of fellow Democrats in my home state.
Yeah – I get it. This is politics and a contest for each and every delegate out there. But in the heat of the battle Obama’s forgetting that each one of those delegates represents thousands upon thousands of people just like you – and just like me. Is this election so important to him that he could become this SELFISH as to say to my family that their voice doesn’t count in this election?
Is he so obsessed with winning that he’s willing to write off a state (2 with Florida) that will be absolutely crucial in the general election?
The state legislature’s gone on recess for 2 weeks and during that time I’m sure we’ll get the full court press from BO on splitting up the delegates in a way that benefits him but that does NOT represent the will of the people. My parents. My brother and his family and my sister and hers. My uncles, aunts and cousins all turned out to vote in Michigan’s primary and THIS is the message that BO’s sending to them?
Well I’ve got a few choice words for that underhanded, smack-down Chicago pol but I won’t post them here. Instead I’ll let Hillary do the talking. Take a look at a couple of press statements her campaign put out earlier today…
Clinton Calls on Sen. Obama to Support Counting the Voices and Voters of Michigan and Florida
Hillary Clinton gave the following statement at a press availability earlier today in Terre Haute, IN:
“It’s really important that we try to get as many people here to participate in this important primary election.
“That’s why it’s critical that we figure out a way for the people of Michigan and Florida to have their votes and their voices count. As you know, I went to Michigan yesterday because I feel so strongly that it is not in the best interest of our party or our chances for victory in November to deny the rights of the people of Florida and Michigan .
“I do not see how two of our largest and most significant states can be disenfranchised and left out of the process of picking our nominee without raising serious questions about the legitimacy of that nominee.
“So again, I would call on Senator Obama to join me in supporting the rights of the people of Michigan and Florida to have their voices and their votes counted. I have, as the Democratic National Committee has, come out in favor of an effort for a re-vote in Michigan .
“I do not understand what Senator Obama is afraid of, but it is going to hurt our party and our chances in November and so I would call on him, once again, to join me in giving the people of Florida and Michigan the chance to be counted as we move forward in this nominating process. We’d be glad to take your questions.”
And then later today, when it was clear that BO had dragged his feet long enough to make sure they couldn’t act upon Governor Granholm’s proposal…
Clinton Campaign Statement on Michigan
The following is a statement from Deputy Communications Director Phil Singer in response to reports that efforts to hold a new vote in Michigan have stalled:
When it comes to the Michigan and Florida primaries, Senator Obama seems to only be capable of saying no: No to honoring the January elections, no to holding a new primary vote, no to a vote by mail. The only thing he seems to be for is divvying up delegates in a way that doesn't reflect the will of the electorate.
Senator Clinton disagrees with solutions that exclude voters and believes there should be new primary elections in Florida and Michigan if the January votes can't be honored. It is unacceptable to disenfranchise the voters who participated in January and if Senator Obama allows that to happen, there will be implications for Democrats in the general election.
Ok I do have one word for Obama and I hope to hell he hears it…
Coward.
He’s trying to steal this election one delegate at a time and it is absolutely unacceptable to anyone who cares about democracy, one person one vote, and sending up a nominee who’ll NOT piss off millions of voters in Michigan and Florida.
He may win the nomination but if he goes about it in this underhanded way he will insure that we lose in November.
I’ve been hearing a lot of BS about what those recently released papers of Hillary’s do or don’t mean I’m tired tonight and have a lot of work to do on another project, so I’m going to let Hillary’s press office do the talking for the most part on these documents. The campaign released a memo earlier today that sets the record straight so pay attention…
MYTHS AND FACTS: FIRST LADY SCHEDULES 3/20/2008 11:06:10 AM
Myth: Hillary and Bill Clinton have control over which documents are released from the Clinton Library.
Fact: Under federal law, records at the Clinton Library are the property of the U.S. government—not Hillary or Bill Clinton. These records are in the custody and control of the National Archives.
As noted in the Washington Post, “Presidential papers can't be released at the snap of a finger”; so “[c]alling on the Clintons to release their papers makes for great campaign theater. But it’s theater that has no bearing on reality.” [Washington Post, 2/8/08; 3/1/08].
Myth: Hillary and Bill Clinton have control over when documents from the Clinton Library are made public.
Fact: The Archives released these schedules in response to a Freedom of Information Act request. The Archives processes those requests on a first come, first served basis, and is required by law to review every line of every page.
As the Archives itself has said: “‘We're releasing them tomorrow because they're ready tomorrow . . . It was as soon as we could get them out.’” [Washington Post, 3/18/08].
Myth: Hillary and Bill Clinton have delayed the release of her White House records by preventing their release from the Clinton Library.
Fact: Hillary and Bill Clinton do not decide when records can be released from the Clinton Library—the Archives does and has said so publicly on the record.
By law, before releasing any documents, the Archives must conduct a page-by-page, line-by-line review of every record to ensure that confidential, security, and personal privacy information is not improperly released.
The Archives has repeatedly stated that that this painstaking process is cumbersome and responsible for the bulk of the time it takes to review and release material. In this case, the Archives took approximately 6 months to complete its review of more than 11,000 pages. For his part, President Clinton's representative completed his review in less than 30 days -- weeks ahead of the time allotted for his review.
Myth: Hillary and Bill Clinton are responsible for the redactions in the White House schedules.
Fact: The Archives made the redactions. According to the Archives, the majority of the redactions in the schedules pertain to the privacy interests of third parties, including their social security numbers, telephone numbers, and home addresses. This information is withheld under federal law.
In fact, President Clinton asked the Archives, to the extent it could under applicable law, to release extensive material in those records that otherwise would have been excluded.
Myth: Bill Clinton instructed the Archives to redact large portions of these documents in a 2002 letter.
Fact: President Clinton’s 2002 letter has been misunderstood. In 2002, President Clinton issued an “easing” letter to the Archives that waived his right to restrict access to most of the confidential advice he received during his administration. The Archives has said this guidance is the least restrictive of any President covered by the Presidential Records Act.
Myth: The schedules undercut Hillary’s claims to involvement in the policy efforts of the Clinton Administration, or to have gained valuable experience from it.
Fact: They do no such thing. The schedules can not and do not speak to the substance of her meetings with staff, advisers, Administration officials, citizens, activists, foreign leaders, and others with whom she worked on policy issues. That should be no surprise – it’s not what they were created to do.
What the schedules do show is an incredibly active and involved First Lady, and add detail to the already voluminous public record about her work.
Those who claim the schedules undercut her efforts on such issues as the Family and Medical Leave Act, or her work for peace in Northern Ireland, or her efforts to support America’s foreign policy around the world are flying in the face of the public statements of the principal individuals involved in each, and decades of reporting on these issues.
Myth: The schedules show that, while Hillary may have been engaged in the substantive policy work of the Clinton Administration in 1993 and 1994 during her work on Health Care, she retreated to a ceremonial First Lady role for the rest of her time in the White House.
Fact: The schedules show no such thing. They demonstrate that Hillary remained an active participant and contributor to the work of the Clinton Administration in addition to fulfilling her ceremonial duties as First Lady .
The schedules are just that: schedules. They can not and do not speak to the substance of her meetings with staff, advisers, Administration officials, citizens, activists, foreign leaders, and others with whom she worked on policy issues. That should be no surprise – it’s not what they were created to do.
Myth: Contrary to her stated opposition to NAFTA, Hillary Clinton attended NAFTA meetings to work for its passage.
Fact: It is no secret that passing NAFTA was a priority of the Clinton Administration, but numerous contemporary accounts make clear that Hillary Clinton was personally opposed to NAFTA, and her position on NAFTA was and remains consistent.
For example, one of the NAFTA meetings she attended was run by David Gergen who has clearly stated that Hillary Clinton was opposed to NAFTA. According to Gergen, Hillary “was extremely unenthusiastic about NAFTA. And I think that's putting it mildly.” He said: “If I could just add one other post script, Anderson, on NAFTA, I was actually there in the Clinton White House during the NAFTA fight and I must tell you Hillary Clinton was extremely unenthusiastic about NAFTA. And I think that’s putting it mildly. I’m not sure she objected to all the provisions of it but she just didn’t see why her husband and that White House had to go and do that fight. She was very unhappy about it and wanted to move on to health care. So I do think there’s some justification for her camp saying, you know, she’s never been a great backer for NAFTA." [David Gergen, Anderson Cooper 360, 2/25/08]
And speaking of NAFTA, I've seen more than a few snide remarks on the Net since the release of Hillary’s documentss, and the following puts all that to rest. This from the guy who organized that meeting everyone’s nattering on about – David Gergen…
Fact Check: Organizer of NAFTA Meeting Said Hillary Was A NAFTA Critic 3/20/2008 1:10:02 PM
Once again the Obama campaign is demonstrating that Senator Obama's words can't be trusted. Last year, Senator Obama said that he would not engage in personal attacks. Now, after losses in Ohio and Texas, the Obama campaign is explicitly attacking Senator Clinton's character. Instead of attacking Senator Clinton, Senator Obama should explain to the American people why his top economic policy advisor was telling the Canadians that his promise to fix NAFTA shouldn’t be taken seriously. The fact is that independent accounts make clear that Senator Clinton did not support NAFTA and that she is the candidate Americans can trust to fix it. —Campaign Spokesman Phil Singer
The Obama campaign is claiming that the fact that Hillary attended a meeting on the subject of NAFTA organized by David Gergen is proof that she was a champion of NAFTA.
Here's what David Gergen said about Hillary's views on NAFTA:
I was actually there in the Clinton White House during the NAFTA fight and I must tell you Hillary Clinton was extremely unenthusiastic about NAFTA. And I think that’s putting it mildly. I’m not sure she objected to all the provisions of it but she just didn’t see why her husband and that White House had to go and do that fight. She was very unhappy about it and wanted to move on to health care. So I do think there’s some justification for her camp saying, you know, she’s never been a great backer for NAFTA." [David Gergen, Anderson Cooper 360, 2/25/08]
Watch David Gergen here:
Seriously - if I were Sen. Obama I'd steer clear of the issue of NAFTA altogether.
I won's speculate on why Obama's helping Michigan's Republicans screw with our nominatoin process by sitting on his hands while they use him as an excuse for their refusal to act on a re-vote bill. Jennifer Granholm - Michigan's Democratic Governor - has sent out a draft proposal to set up a new vote in Michigan in early June. Three parties need to sign off on it...
Hillary Clinton Barack Obama The DNC
Care to venture a guess as to who the lone holdout is?
Hillary visited my home state this morning - take a look at this clip of her talk at the AFSCME HQ in Detroit...
There is absolutely no excuse for these stall tactics.
You either support the notion of one wo/man one vote - or you don't.
The campaign just put out a video of top military brass who are hoping we're smart enough to elect Hillary as their next Commander in Chief. Check it out.
So have you had a chance to send Hillary some love in her latest fundraising drive? She can't do this alone ya know!
I'm sure Alegre will fill in the blanks later but I think that those in the press who read about our strike just might like to see what it is we left. What is this poisonous attitude we speak of.
This is one of Alegre's great blog posts about Hillary and International Women's Day. If you read the post you'll find only positive information about Alegre's candidate of choice. But please read the comments that follow and fairly quickly you'll see the Obama supporters start to take over the thread by posting videos of Mike Gravel and other useless junk. That is a nice example of what we deal with.
Here are a few examples of the nice little comments we have to deal with.
Gabriele is a wonderful woman who cares for injured raptors, she even has a pet owl. This nice lady tried to have a conversation and ends up being trolled.
That's just a little for anyone who stops by. I'm sure that if you stop by later Alegre wll have a much more complete post.
The campaign just put together this wonderful video of Hillary talking about her experiences in Northern Ireland, and a bit of her recent visit with Northern Ireland’s First Minister, Ian Paisley and Deputy Minister Martin McGuinness. Given all of the BS out there by people claiming she didn’t contribute anything to the process, I thought it was important to get this out there. Take a look…
I know there’s probably not much to add after linfar's amazing diary at MyDD last night, last night, but I got a great email a few weeks ago from a woman who worked closely with Hillary during the time of the peace process in the mid-90’s, and I thought this might be a good time to share it.
Hillary’s former Chief of Staff and now Chair of a non-profit group called Vital Voices Melanne Verveer, sent me something she wrote up about Hillary’s role in this peace process, as a part of the tribute being pulled together by Stella O’Leary. Ms. Verveer worked with Hillary for 8 years and I doubt anyone has a deeper understanding of Hillary’s role or her motivations for getting so involved in all this. Nineteen ninety-five was a big year for Hillary, with trips to Beijing for the UN Women’s Conference, and her first trip to Northern Ireland. Take a look…
HILLARY AND THE VITAL VOICES OF NORTHERN IRELAND
Hillary accompanied President Clinton during his historic first trip to Northern Ireland in 1995. In preparing for the visit to Belfast, Hillary told me that she wanted to meet with some of Northern Ireland’s remarkable women peacemakers. During her travels around the globe, Hillary always spent time with the women leaders who were changing their societies for the better. Now she would have to the opportunity to do so in Northern Ireland.
I don’t think Hillary will ever forget her first visit to Northern Ireland, and neither will I. It was on that trip that Hillary went to a very simple restaurant called “Ye Olde Lamplighter” on Lower Ormeau Road. There she sat around some small tables that were pulled together and talked with Joyce McCarten and her working-class neighbors --- Protestant and Catholic alike. Many of the women had lost husbands, sons or brothers to senseless killings during the Troubles. But, over a cup of tea, they told the Fist Lady of the United States that while they attended different churches on Sunday, seven days a week they all prayed to the same God for the safe return of a child from school or a husband from an errand in town.
Their families struggled with the same deep-rooted causes of the violence – the burdens of poverty, the shackles of limited education, the despair of unemployment. And although the women held different views of the past events, they had learned that together they could make a difference for a better future. Joyce and her colleagues came together as women have always done: to speak out on behalf of the children.
Some called Joyce a “troublemaker,” but she had a better name for herself, “family feminist.” Her goal was simply to lift up the hopes and everyday lives of families like hers in Northern Ireland.
Hillary often talked about Joyce’s powerful lessons and never more emotionally then when she returned to Belfast in 1997 to deliver a lecture in Joyce’s memory at the University of Ulster. Hillary returned with the teapot Joyce had given her in 1995. Hillary held it on the lectern and talked with deep feeling about the important role that Joyce and so many others like her had played in transcending the conflict. In the audience were many women who were carrying on Joyce’s legacy of peacemaking.
It was on this return visit to Belfast in 1996 that Hillary met Mo Mowlum, the British Secretary of State whom Tony Blair had sent to Belfast to negotiate with both sides to bring an end to the bloody conflict. Hillary and the indomitable Mo forged a bond through the ups and downs of the peace process and supported the efforts of the women in advancing the peace.
On St. Patrick’s Day in 1998, the political leaders of Northern Ireland were invited to the White House. The peace negotiations that led to the Good Friday Accord were going on at the time and President Clinton was doing his best to encourage the leaders to continue their efforts. The only leaders who did not have a meeting in the Oval Office were the two representatives of the Northern Ireland Women’s Coalition who were also elected to participate in the peace talks. Realizing their omission, an official on the National Security Council called me to see if it might be possible for the First Lady to meet briefly with the two Northern Irish women leaders, Monica McWilliams and Pearl Sager.
Hillary agreed and the meeting was anything but brief. Monica and Pearl told the First Lady how important it was for women in Northern Ireland to be able to participate fully in the social, economic and political life of their society, and they also told her how difficult it was, how the women were ridiculed, marginalized and even threatened. They pleaded for help in skills development, leadership training and employment opportunities. That was the birth of Vital Voices Northern Ireland. Minutes after the conclusion of the meeting, Hillary called me and said, “We really need to bring Vital Voices to Northern Ireland. Do you think we can organize a conference in six months that would help to build the confidence of the women, bring in experts and programs to develop their skills and provide new opportunities? We really need to help raise the voices of the women because they are critical to build a peaceful and prosperous Northern Ireland.” Vital Voices became one of the US commitments to the peace process.
That night at the gala St Patrick’s Day party in the East Room, Hillary introduced her husband and paid tribute to the women of Northern Ireland who are the unsung heroes. Her remarks were greeted with thunderous applause.
True to her word, Hillary was back in Belfast six months later to keynote the Vital Voices conference. Hundreds of women gathered at Waterfront Hall, as did First Minister of the Assembly David Trimble and the Deputy First Minister Seamus Mallon. Hillary also saluted her friend Mo who had done so much to make the conference possible, despite several roadblocks along the way. Hillary noted that it was “the smart thing for women to clear the path of reconciliation which brought us to this day. And it is the smart thing for women to play a central role in the reconstruction that will usher in a Northern Ireland that fulfills the promise of democracy, prosperity and peace for all its citizens….the Peace Agreement was the beginning, not the end.” She asked, “How will each of us work to fulfill the promise of peace?” She added, “Let us pledge to each other that this is only the beginning and that, as the Peace Agreement is implemented, the voices that have been raised here will never fade away.”
Hillary returned again to Northern Ireland the following year to hear about the progress of the Vital Voices initiative. One by one women told her how the initiative was opening new opportunities in the economy -- for partnerships in small business development and in creating cross border collaborations; how women were raising their voices in political system once reserved only for men and developing new strategies to sustain community- based women’s groups.
In 2000, on her last visit as First Lady and her first as Senator-elect, Hillary hailed the women of Northern Ireland who were “setting an example of how women can foster peace and prosperity in this new century,” and she proudly told the audience that everywhere she went around the world, she talked about the daily acts of courage taken through the years by the women of Northern Ireland –“whose whispers of ‘enough’ became a torrent of voices that brought us to this day.”
As Senator, Hillary made few trips overseas, but she did travel to Northern Ireland and made a point of visiting with the women leaders who had been such an inspiration to her and the world – women like: Inez McCormack, Avila Kilmurray, Mary Breslin, Monica McWilliams and so many others. She continues to hear about the strides that are being made politically, socially and economically in Northern Ireland.. Today through the Vital Voices Global Partnership, the work that Hillary started continues. And the women of Northern Ireland are sharing experiences on peace building and community development with their sisters in the Middle East.
Hillary responded when the women of Northern Ireland sought her assistance. Time and again, she brought them encouragement and support. I know she will never forget them. I also know that they will always cherish her as their dear friend Hillary.
Melanne Verveer Co-founder and Chairman of Vital Voices Global Partnership Former Chief of Staff to First Lady Hillary Clinton.
