Clinton Supporters Aid Palin (all 20 of them)

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/14/clinton-supporters-aid-palin/

Gov. Sarah Palin met with a group of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s former supporters Tuesday evening at a special fund-raising reception organized for them on behalf of the Republican ticket.

The reception, which organizers said brought in more than $500,000, was part of an extended evening of fund-raising for Ms. Palin and Senator John McCain’s presidential campaign at the Grand Hyatt in New York that officials estimated raised more than $8 million.

Ms. Palin, along with her husband, Todd, mingled and posed for pictures with the group of about 20, before appearing at the larger finance event, which McCain campaign officials said was the last time Mr. McCain would personally appear at a fund-raiser before the election. It was also the first time the pair had appeared together for donors.

More than 1,000 people paid $1,000 each for tickets to the main fund-raiser. Nearly 250 people who contributed $25,000 got dinner beforehand with Mr. McCain.

more...

They were for some reason, latching on to anyone they could.

Again, I've already voted for Obama and have not been to any Palin or McCain fundraisers.

The idea that having a woman as president will break the glass ceiling in popular prejudice in a way that mere policy cannot is a rational and, to some, compelling argument. The best way to show that a woman can be a strong leader without all the unpleasant social judgments that go along with it is by electing one.

I might agree if 1. Palin was running for president and not merely VP and 2. if she were not a complete idiot. Frankly, she would do such a horrible job managing the country that it would set the women's movement back twenty years. And the idea of her moron finger being on America's nuclear button is too horrible to imagine.

Think about it. Since 1920 when the 19th Amend. was ratified, there have been zero women presidents, zero women presidential nominees, zero women VPs and only two VP nominees. There have been two SCOTUS justices who were or are women. Congressional women are a small minority. AFAIK every major corporation is headed by a man. One would think that by now we would have had some women presidents since they make up half of the electorate, but after 80 years of female voting, there has not been a single one. So I can understand the frustration of middle aged and old women who have lost the last chance in their lives to see a woman president.

both circumstances where equally important. What i have trouble understanding, is people who see one or the other as more valuable.

Electing either the first Black man or the first woman would be a significant achievement. My own personal feeling is that sexism is the bigger dragon to slay.

Half of our population is female. Only about 12% is Black. I'm am NOT saying that the concerns of Black Americans are less important. I am only pointing out that arithmatic can in some measure account for the unrepresentation of Black leaders. There is no similar excuse for the underrepresentation of women. Besides, every ethnic minority is also half female. As John Lennon noted in his song, even inside an oppressed minority, women are oppressed by their own people.

It has always been easier in this country to advance racial equality than gender equality. Black males had a Constitutional right to vote in 1870. Women did not have it until 1920. While every major religion has recently renounced racism, sexism is still openly practiced. Across the world, racism is seen as a human rights issue while brutality towards women is seen as matters of cultural and religious differences. The point of all this--and I have to spell out the point since some on this website will deliberately take it out of context--is that those who feel that sexism is the bigger dragon to slay are not without their reasons.

But i would debate a couple of core ideals.

Essentially, a strong case could be made that blacks experienced wholesale disenfranchisement regarding voting rights until 1968. Constitutionality didn't not reflect through Amercian sentiment.

I would also disagree with your case regarding representation. I woudl have to take a closer look at all levels of government but let me take the senate as one example.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_members_of_the_United_States_Congress#Gender
Looks like there are 14 female Senators and 1 Black Senator. If 50% of the population is female and 12% is black then female representation would be at 28% percent and black representation would be at 8%. While both numbers are poor, black representation is still far worse. To make matters worse, there have historically only been 5 black senators in history.

Thanks for making the case without acrimony. i appreciate debate.

I see your point and you are right about underrepresentation and effective disenfranchisement until '68.

If the Senate had proportional representation, shouldn't there be 51 women senators and 12 Black senators (half of whom would also be women)?

but given the current numbers, instead of 100% representation, which would be 51 women and 12 black senators, they are instead at 28% and 8% "representation" respectively. Horribly low for both.

A couple of other quick notes. The one black senator is our current rising star.

Also, in the house, things look different.

black representatives make up 9%(75% representation) of the tally while women make up only 17%(34% representation) making women far more underrepresented in the house. One thing to remember about representative seats is that they are designated by area and while it is possible to create a "mostly black" district, it is far more difficult to create a mostly female district.

What good is a right to vote in 1870 to vote but black men could not exercise without being lynched?

Another hole in our argument is the numerical certainty that a majority of 51% of this country is female so their concerns are more important than the soon to be minority majority of this country. If numbers alone were enough to control the agenda in America, why hasn't it happened yet? We are in a democracy...one man one vote.

I could be wrong, but racism still is OPENLY PRACTICED. "Kill him." "Exotic." Can we criticize a black man? Etc. etc.



You can't win an argument by saying racism matters less. It would be easier to win an argument by saying identity politics trump the actual issues because for alot of these former white Hillary women voters, race matters not. Gender matters most because they don't have to also worry about racial politics.

McCain/Palin are failing. Fast.

As you can tell by some of their posts here at DU.

I bet I can find way, way more posts bashing Hillary. I believe the constant revival of PUMA shit is just another way to keep attacking Hillary.

Is that what you just did?

I personally think the PUMAs are "Dixiecrats", largely female... and doing their damnedest to keep the stereotype of a "dixie" bigot alive.

As for your taunt of PUMA examples, that would constitute calling them out as trolls... which (whether one is correct of not) I understand to be verboten. Nice little trap you tried to lay though... hmm?

Nonetheless though, I'd love to hear why you think that PUMAs and Hillary Clinton should be deemed to be synonymous.

GET SOME READING COMPREHENSION SKILLS

And no, you really didn't answer the question.
You answered the question of why you think there are still attacks on PUMAs. What I actually asked was why you seemed to think that PUMAs and Hillary are synonymous? In other words, why do you think an attack on PUMAs is in any way reflective on Hillary?

Judging by your response, I'm guessing you see the synonymity as self-evident. This is, I'm sure, not something that Hillary herself would agree with, judging by her efforts to bring her supporters back into the fold of the Democratic party. In fact, in your assertion that attacks on PUMAs, who have turned their support to McCain and in the process joined Lieberman in crapping all over the Democratic party, are tantamount to attacks on Hillary Clinton... you are actually asserting that Hillary is a Democrat in Name Only.
Let me repeat that.
You are, in your assertion that attacks on PUMAs are really attacks on Hillary Clinton, actually asserting that Hillary Clinton is a DINO.

I'm sure that this is not the sort of support that Hillary appreciates.

Please, Skittles, Stop Attacking Hillary and her Reputation !!

But since I belong to a high traffic PUMA website (for fun and entertainment) I know that many of them are DUers who drop
in here to spread their poison pills. Oh, and they know about my sleath membership but can't seem to find me because I'm
a very good actor. Meow. ;)

under a big pile of stone cold pizza where they belong and can't really spread their venom on DU anymore.

A while ago someone had a screen shot here with the names posted on that "puma" site talking trash about Obama.. who also happened to be duers. Fucking evidence.

The funny thing is that the myth goes that PUMAs are really Republican disruptors in disguise... um, no. :eyes:

zombies. Tombstones don't kill them..they need a stake through where their heart is suppose to be.:)

;)

Just act like you believe the rumour or slander du jour and throw in a "PUMA HAKA" every so often :-)

Just dumb!

The reception for former Clinton supporters, which also was attended by Rick Davis, the McCain campaign manager, was spearheaded by Lady Lynn Forester de Rothschild, a former telecommunications entrepreneur and “Hillraiser” who brought in more than $100,000 for Mrs. Clinton’s campaign; Calvin Fayard, also a former Hillraiser and longtime Democratic donor from Louisiana, and Miguel Lausell, a former senior political adviser to the Clinton campaign from Puerto Rico.

Other prominent former Clinton supporters in attendance included John Coale, a former Hillraiser, Washington lawyer and husband of Fox News television host Greta Van Susteren.

So let's see.... we have some vile corporate whore who married some foreign billionaire, a "Democratic" donor from a state where "Democrats" consistently vote against the party, an "advisor" from a territory where you can't vote in the election at all, and a Repuke lawyer tied to FAUX Noize.

Or in other words, not a legitimate Democratic voter among the lot of them.

What a pathetic joke.

Lady Lynn Forester de Rothschild...I read the first sentence and figured she was involved.

an elitist were priceless. I could have sworn that was satire, and was shocked to discover it wasn't.

Wealthy lifetime Republicans who got excited about Hillary, but likely would have turned on her in the general too. The very women for whom phrase "rich bitch" was invented. :puke:

Gotcha. :rofl:

Sorry but these people are dragging Sen. Clinton around like a security blanket and it needs to stop. If these 20 people were truly Sen. Clinton supporters, they wouldn't spit in her face like this; she's worked hard to help unite the party and it reflects poorly on HER that she has such supporters. I don't see how people like Lady de Rothschild piss and moan about how Sen. Clinton was treated only to turn around and give money to another campaign. Every one of those people could have held a fundraiser but decided their hurt pride was more important. Pathetic.

They have a right to support whichever candidate they like. It doesn't bother me. It would have been the same if Hillary had been the nominee, some of his supporters would have never voted for her and that would have been OK too.

I think Hillary "supporters" should feel at complete liberty to give all of their money to McCain.
And, likewise, I'm sure that Hillary would've been fine with Obama supporters deciding, had she won the Democratic nomination, to go and give their money and time to support Nader. I seem to recall her being very pleased with how that worked out in Gore's campaign, as Gore tried to distance himself from Bill and his blowjob and Hillary and her perceived lack of nerve for not divorcing him in the eyes of independent women at the time (including my mom... who did have the nerve to divorce my father). I was sure that she was looking forward to that so that she could run in 2004- which is why I was so shocked when she suddenly didn't show the nerve to run... instead letting Kerry charge the "machine gun nest" that was running against a war president in the middle of a war begun in response to an attack on the homeland.
She showed her mettle in 2008 though. And in the process she's done a fine job of making sure that Obama is well versed in dealing with the dirtiest of campaign tactics, by having exposed him to the dirtiest of campaign tactics.

Hmm... I guess the Hillary fuundraisers are, really, just continuing the "education" of Obama... by forcing him to now deal with campaigning not only against all the fundraising capabilities of the Republicans, but also campaigning against a significant bit of fundraising by Democrats.

If he proves himself capable by being able to win the General Election in November, then maybe Hillary's supporters will deem him qualified for the VP spot next time around...

Here's crossing my fingers!!

I campaigned my butt off for Hillary, but I never believed in coercing people. If the undecideds could be persuaded to vote for her it was great, but I don't believe in monolithic thinking.

Too many are too dogmatic, demanding loyalty oaths and being appalled that someone would have the temerity to choose not to support the nominee of their party simply because he has a D o R after his name. Let people vote their conscience. Lady Whatshername has as much right to support McCain as the Republicans who came out in support for Obama.

Besides, this election will go to Obama. Why are you worried?

:shrug:

PS I forgot to add, it wasn't "lack of nerve" that prevented Hillary from divorcing Bill. Despite the pain, anger and hurt, the reason is very simply: she loves him.

Sorry about the rant. The tone of your first post just brought it out of me.
I agree Lady deWhat'sHerFace ca campaign for whomever she pleases... and I find it nothing but amusing that she's raising money that will go to waste.

Ohh, and to be honest, I couldn't care less why Hillary did or didn't divorce Bill. Unfortunately, I have run across a lot of people, particularly women of Hillary's generation, who find her choice unforgivable.

To quote Hillary, marriage is a world of two. In other words, no one knows what goes on inside a marriage but the two people involved. Infidelity is something that everyone has to decide for themselves whether they can forgive and if they can trust the person ever again. Hillary did a lot of soul searching before making her decision. Suffice it to say that Bill spent many months sleeping in a different room in the WH. Quite funny if you think about it, here's the leader of the free world and the one room he's not welcome in is his own bedroom.

Take care!

:hi:

I thought fund raising was supposed to be done, given their public funding?

(puma) to check to see if the level of animosity and hatred were still at defcon II.

Memberships are definately down and the few stalward members left have decided that hillary is being held "hostage" by the dem party and speaks in code words to them in order to let them know that she lurves sarah palin.

Some of them have made some baby steps. One member bucked the group and said she didn't think she could vote for johnny mc, course the others leaped her immediately, but soon relented as long as she promised to vote bob barr or green. They remained slightly miffed as this screws with their plan of getting mcgramps elected so that palin and hillary can run on the same ticket in 2012.

I recognized names that had been here at du for years. It still boggles my mind.

Watching people actually become "freepers" after years of being here. A testament to the human unwillingness to have one's ox thoroughly gored I guess. This is the first primary/election I've ever followed very closely. Are they usually this surreal?

I guess. To me they became more of a phenomenon, much like The Ellen James Society from The World According to Garp.

It was both surreal and bizaare.

Wow. That just blew my mind. It's been years since I read that book, but I know exactly what you're talking about.

because they suffer from the same tinfoil hat, batshit, craziness.

They watch FOX, they rail about liberals and use the oxymoronic term liberal media, they make up insane and logically implausible (AT BEST) conspiracies. Only the Reich Wing uses the verbiage and shares the concerns. The next biggest chunk are fearful racists, striking out or recoiling. Then their are the toys in the attic, certified, drugs that would make an elephant trip for a year, house of a trillion cats, conspiracy loons that are actual Democrats.

What else is left? The entire McCain coalition in general has now pretty much boiled down to the evil greedy, the willfully ignorant, the flat earthers, and reflex Republicans. Keeping in mind that the moneyed evil greedy is EXTREMELY shaky.

Its getting near smart vs. stupid, hope vs. fear, truth vs. lies time in this one on a non-ideological basis even. Out of touch and rudderless/corrupt and empty is a ticket that I don't think a person of an conscience could vote for and certainly not one that generally holds the views and values of a Democrat. Not knowing full well what the Republicans are up to here. I for one am not magnanimous enough to be supportive or even tolerant of people that willfully hit the self destruct button on the country over...whatever their point is supposed to be because there is no case that an Obama administration holds as little potential as one headed by McShame nor the extreme danger of Palin ending up with the reigns. I don't even know anyone that I'd trust less than her.

Anyone with sense knows the Obama is the only option and many feel he is the best. Obviously, anyone can disagree on the latter but the only part has yet to have any semblance of a reasonable debate against it. You can even quote some pretty hardcore conservatives on that. McCain/Palin is dangerous and stupid, even they can't make an affirmative case for themselves.

I think we tend to overlook the woefully ignorant that are so easily manipulated by the sound bites that they hear. That woman who told McCain that she was afraid of Obama because "he's a Arab" fits into that category. She represents a segment of the population that can be so easily exploited by either side. I was upset with the you-tuber guy that interviewed her after the McCain rally. He seemed to be exploiting her rather than trying to enlighten her, yet I could also see his point in raising her as an example. She seemed so sweet, yet so naive. I have an aunt and sister who both used to buy into e-mail smear campaigns. A few quick lessons in critical thinking, fact checking sites, and how search engines can be, and are, often exploited to float shit to the top have them doing a lot of questioning and soul searching. While they are not yet pro-Obama they have become anti-McCain. Hey, it's a start....

They may say they supported HRC, but I bet they were not in the least.

They may say they supported HRC, but I bet they were not in the least.

hehe

Seriously. It must totally suck to have her so-called "supporters" giving money to a ticket that goes against everything she wants for the country.

No one in their right mind could support Hillary AND McCain. These people must truly be stupid.

are really not mentally qualified to have that much money under their control.

I can't imagine giving McCain/Palin a dime, and still considering myself sane.

:applause:

spin it though. Saw in another unrelated article mentioning the fund-raiser, "Guests paid as much as $28,500 to support the presidential ticket and other GOP candidates." Well, that would be this particular group of 20. At the main fund-raising event, most paid $1,000 with the "real" GOPers only coughing up $25,000 to have a seat with McCain. Haha! Folks are paying more money to gladhand with the Palin's than with McCain himself!


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3545095

snip>
Palin and McCain appeared with their spouses Tuesday night at a fundraiser in New York. Guests paid as much as $28,500 to support the presidential ticket and other GOP candidates.

who are voting for Obama? These people should be ashamed of themselves for trying to equalize Gov. Palin with Sen. Clinton.

...and their bitterness.

That these idiots would deem to back this dim-witted RealDoll™ of a candidate as some sort of silly, spiteful revenge tells you everything you need to know about their level of intelligence and political common sense. Which is knee high to a midget gnat.

glad that they're now republicans. She sure as hell wouldn't want those sick groupies following her around anymore. Pawn 'em off on McKKK. That's where they belong anyway.

Personally, I'm glad they're not in OUR party anymore. I hear AIP has some openings and they'd fit right in. :evilgrin:

I didn't support Sen. Clinton in the primaries, but I don't have the vitriolic hate some here seem to have for her. So I figure she's better off without these idiots that would rather support a misogynistic ticket like McCain-Palin, than follow Sen. Clinton's own example and throw their weight behind Obama. In fact, reading who they were in one of the posts above, I can only say good riddance to bad rubbish!

If they can't support whom Hillary supports, and is working so hard for, then they don't deserve to be called Clinton supporters anymore.

The primaries are over, and I have actually been very complimentary of Hillary, especially for the speech she gave at the Biden rally on Sunday.

But every time somebody here tries to shove her down my throat, it brings up some very bad memories of her and bill's nasty behavior during a very hard fought bid for the nomination.

We all need to heal. Hillary seems to be making an effort to make that happen. It may take a while, but she has made what appears to be an earnest effort to heal and unite our party.

Time is the great healer, but picking at old scabs only delays a the healing process and delays a full recovery.

"PUMAS" were not democrats in the first place; they were displaced republicans who wanted to vote for a women. It wouldn't have mattered who our candidate was. Anyone besides Hillary would have sent them back to the pukes.

I have some pretty bigotted female relatives, and they were against Obama until Palin became the VP pick.

Said he interviewed women in Indiana who didn't trust Obama at first, but after Sarah Palin, and after McCain's foolishness over the economic mess, they will be voting for Obama. This is great news, the shift, even among white women of IN is taking hold.

The reception for former Clinton supporters, which also was attended by Rick Davis, the McCain campaign manager, was spearheaded by Lady Lynn Forester de Rothschild, a former telecommunications entrepreneur and “Hillraiser” who brought in more than $100,000 for Mrs. Clinton’s campaign; Calvin Fayard, also a former Hillraiser and longtime Democratic donor from Louisiana, and Miguel Lausell, a former senior political adviser to the Clinton campaign from Puerto Rico.

Other prominent former Clinton supporters in attendance included John Coale, a former Hillraiser, Washington lawyer and husband of Fox News television host Greta Van Susteren.

Everyone at the reception contributed $28,500 to McCain-Palin Victory 2008, a joint fund-raising committee for the Republican National Committee and several state Republican parties.


(Or they were seriously in deep undercover, something I won't discount either)