Lynette Long

DENIED! From the NEW YORK POST

DENIED

HILLARY CLINTON NOT GRANTED HER REQUEST TO CHAIR A SUBCOMMITTEE ON HEALTH COVERAGE.

By JAMES FANELLI

Hillary Clinton

Last updated: 7:25 pm
November 8, 2008
Posted: 7:19 pm
November 8, 2008

Hillary Rodham Clinton's dream of overhauling the country's health-care system as the steward of a new Senate subcommittee has reportedly flatlined.

The New York senator had made health-care reform the centerpiece of her presidential campaign. After bowing out of the race, Clinton pushed fellow Democratic Sen. Ted Kennedy, the chairman of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, to create a special health subcommittee for her to head.

But the Massachusetts senator, who's battling brain cancer, has shot down that idea - all but dashing any hope Clinton had of pinning her legacy to universal coverage.

Michael Myers, Kennedy's staff director on the committee, ended any speculation by telling the trade publication Inside Health Policy that Clinton would not chair a subcommittee. Kennedy will instead hold health-care proceedings at the full committee level, Myers said.

"In the end, it's President Obama who's going to lead the effort for us," Myers told Inside Health Policy.

According to The Washington Post, Clinton had sought the subcommittee to grab the health-care policy reins away from Kennedy, a champion of reform.

Clinton senior adviser Philippe Reines told The Post the senator would assist however she could.

Clinton told Kennedy and Majority Leader Harry Reid "that she stands ready to help President-elect Obama in any and every way she can to enact comprehensive health-care reform, which she has sought for nearly two decades," Reines said.

Clinton discussed her future endeavors in a Time magazine interview this week, quashing speculation she wanted a Cabinet-level job in the Obama administration or a seat on the Supreme Court.

"I'm interested in standing on the South Lawn of the White House and seeing President Obama signing into law quality, affordable health care for everybody, and voting in a big majority for clean, renewable energy and smarter economic policies," Clinton told Time.

jfanelli@nypost.com

POLL: OBAMA STRUGGLING TO WIN OVER CLINTON VOTERS

By ALAN FRAM and TREVOR TOMPSON, Associated Press Writers

WASHINGTON (AP) - Barack Obama's support from backers of Hillary Rodham
Clinton is stuck smack where it was in June, a poll showed Tuesday, a
stunning lack of progress that is weakening him with members of the
Democratic Party in the close presidential race.

An Associated Press-Yahoo! News poll shows that among adults who backed his
rival during their bitter primary campaign, 58 percent now support Obama.
That is the same percentage who said so in June, when Clinton ended her bid
and urged her backers to line up behind the Democratic senator from
Illinois.

The poll shows that while Obama has gained ground among Clinton's supporters
- 69 percent view him favorably now, up 9 percentage points from June - this
has yet to translate into more of their support.

Support from Clinton's backers

In part, this is because their positive views of Republican presidential
nominee John McCain have also improved during this period. Those supporting
McCain have also edged up from 21 percent to 28 percent, with the number of
undecided staying constant, the survey showed.

Clinton backers' reluctance to support Obama helps explain why he is having
a tougher time solidifying partisan supporters than McCain. Overall, 74
percent of Democrats say they will vote for Obama, compared to 87 percent of
Republicans behind the Arizona senator. About nine in 10 Clinton supporters
are Democrats.

The problem that supporters of Clinton, the New York senator, have with
Obama seems to flow from their measure of him as a candidate, not from
issues. From establishing a timeline for a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq to
abortion to canceling tax cuts on the rich, their views of the importance of
issues are virtually identical to Democrats in general.

Yet they find Obama less likable, honest, experienced and inspiring than
Democrats overall do, and have a better view of McCain. And while majorities
of Clinton supporters say Obama shares their values and understands ordinary
Americans, they're less likely to say so than Democrats overall.

"It's just a gut feeling, my gut tells me he's not it," Leslye Burgess, 53,
a federal Treasury Department manager and Democrat from Fairfax, Va., said
of Obama. The Clinton supporter added, "I'll have to fight with myself
between now and November" about how she'll vote.

The GOP's selection of Sarah Palin as McCain's running mate has had no net
impact on Clinton loyalists - a group Republicans were hoping to lure by
picking the Alaska governor. Twenty-one percent in the poll said Palin on
the ticket makes them likelier to back McCain, 21 percent said it makes them
less likely, and 58 percent said it had no impact.

Joe Biden's pick to be Democratic vice presidential candidate makes them a
bit likelier to vote for Obama, but seven in 10 said it won't be a factor.

Other September polls have shown Obama making progress in recent weeks with
one-time Clinton backers and doing better with them than in the AP-Yahoo!
News survey. One by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center had Obama with 78
percent of their support and McCain with 18 percent; another by ABC News and
the Washington Post showed Obama ahead 72 percent to 23 percent.

Those figures measured Clinton supporters who are registered voters - who in
the AP-Yahoo! News poll leaned toward Obama over McCain 61 percent to 26
percent. The discrepancies in the polls might come from how they were
conducted.

Obama spokesman Bill Burton said Clinton supporters are turning to Obama "in
huge numbers" and noted that the AP-Yahoo! News data differed from other
polls. He said strong feelings by Clinton supporters were understandable
considering the length and intensity of the Democratic primaries and said of
Clinton, "She's done everything we've asked her to do."

The AP-Yahoo! News poll has surveyed the same nationally representative
group of about 2,000 adults seven times since November, in an effort to
understand how individuals are reacting to the presidential race. Nine in 10
Clinton supporters who said in June they were backing Obama were still with
him in September, while three quarters of those with McCain stayed with him.

As during her primary battle against Obama, Clinton supporters are likelier
to be female, white, and less educated than those who did not back her.

They trust Obama more than McCain on important issues, though not by as much
as Democrats overall do. They prefer Obama over McCain on the economy by 30
percentage points, compared to Obama's 50-point edge among all Democrats.
They like Obama on Iraq by 17 points, while all Democrats give Obama a
40-point margin.

The starkest contrast comes from comparing Clinton backers still refusing to
support Obama with other Democrats.

Just three in 10 Clinton supporters still not backing Obama view him
favorably, compared to eight in 10 of all Democrats. While most Democrats
and former Clinton supporters strongly prefer Obama over McCain to handle
key issues, those Clinton voters still opposing Obama opt for McCain: On the
economy by 32 points, and on Iraq by 47 points.

One in four Clinton backers say they've not yet locked into a candidate -
and far more of those supporting Obama than McCain say they support their
candidate strongly. Many who have already decided to back Obama say the
transition wasn't difficult.

Kathy McVeigh, 60, a nurse from Norwalk, Ohio, has moved from Clinton to
Obama and said she would tell wavering Clinton voters "to get on the
bandwagon because we need change, we better do something in a hurry because
we're going down the tubes."

The AP-Yahoo! News poll of 1,740 adults was conducted Sept. 5-15 and has an
overall margin of sampling error of plus or minus 2.3 percentage points. It
included interviews with 502 people who in AP-Yahoo! News polls in January
and April identified themselves as supporting Clinton in one or both of
those months, for whom the margin of sampling error was plus or minus 4.4
points.

The survey was conducted over the Internet by Knowledge Networks, which
initially contacted people using traditional telephone polling methods and
followed with online interviews. People chosen for the study who had no
Internet access were given it for free.

In contrast, the Pew and ABC-Post polls relied on people saying in September
whether they supported Clinton earlier this year. Those polls were conducted
by telephone; some studies have shown people can be less reluctant to
disclose embarrassing behavior - like not supporting their party's
presidential nominee - in an online survey than to a live telephone
interviewer.

On the other hand, people in the AP-Yahoo! News poll who backed Clinton in
earlier waves of the survey might not want to appear inconsistent by
suddenly backing a candidate - Obama - they opposed earlier.

LYNETTE IN THE WASHINGTON POST

The Washington Post did a profile of me in today's Metro section:

A Real McCain Supporter? Or Just a Clintonite on the Rebound?

Sunday, September 21, 2008

Lynette Long's friends can barely sputter their objections. "How could you?" they say. "What about the environment? What about gay rights? What about Roe v. Wade?"

Long's son calls, flabbergasted. And her patients in affluent, liberal Bethesda? They can hardly fathom it.

Lynette Long -- psychologist, feminist, Democrat, Dupont Circle dweller, Whole Foods shopper, George Bush hater, Hillary Clinton supporter (to the max) -- is not just voting for John McCain and Sarah Palin, she even took the stage at their rally in Fairfax to trumpet her decision to the world.

Long got the call from the McCain campaign at 10 the night before the rally this month. With a twinkle in her eye, the struggle for women in her heart and a bit of mischief in her mind, she agreed to be a warm-up speaker for the Republican ticket.

She had never been to a candidate's rally before. She had voted for the Democrat for president in every election except for the elder George Bush's first time, against Michael Dukakis in 1988. Sure, she had demonstrated against the Vietnam War, but she basically wasn't the political type. That is, until Hillary Clinton came along.

All of a sudden, Long saw hope. As she told her son: "How would you feel if every day all the people you saw in authority were men, all the statues in Washington are all men, the money in your pocket, all pictures of men -- and then finally, a woman comes along and she could be president? How would you feel? I would vote for her."

Long didn't just vote for Clinton in the D.C. primary. She blogged for her, campaigned for her, even wrote op-ed columns about her. But as Clinton's campaign faltered, Long felt wronged. She blogged about purported irregularities in caucus voting, accused Barack Obama and his supporters of taking women for granted, put all her hope in the Democrats picking a woman for vice president.

After Clinton's campaign ended, Long was among a group of local supporters who called McCain headquarters, asking, "What can you do for us?" To Long's shock, they were invited to a meeting -- with McCain himself.

"We told him we wanted gender parity, on the Supreme Court and in the Cabinet, and he listened," she says. "His eyes opened." At meeting's end, a senior staffer asked Long if she would endorse their man publicly.

"No way," Long said. "I'm a Hillary supporter."

Then, lo and behold, Sarah Palin happened.

By coincidence, Long was on an Alaskan cruise that week. "Everybody there loved" Palin, Long says. "I could see people glowing with pride."

The next time the McCain campaign called, Long was ready. She had 10 hours to write a speech, sleep and get herself to Fairfax City.

"What do you want me to say?" she asked the organizer. "Do you want to see my speech?"

Whatever you want to say, she was told. And no, we don't need to see it.

"I was shocked," Long says. "I wouldn't let someone go up and speak without seeing the speech. But they did, and that told me something about the man."

Long agrees that Palin is not exactly, um, worldly, and that she lacks a certain base of knowledge. ("But I know character and instincts, and she is real.") And yes, Long vehemently disagrees with the Republicans' social conservatism.

But other factors trump those issues, she says, naming Obama's inexperience, Clinton's treatment by her party and the media, and the Democrats' failure to choose a female running mate.

The issue that has most of Long's friends recoiling in abject horror from her decision is abortion. Long calls herself unwaveringly "pro-choice." But, she says, "as long as we let that determine our votes, we are hostages to the Democrats. If someone really tried to turn around choice, there'd be a revolution in this country. And I'm not going to let a future possibility nullify my vote. Women have sacrificed our power as the largest voting bloc in the nation because of one issue, abortion."

Now hold on: Long disagrees with McCain on many issues and concedes Palin's limitations. Then, when her e-mail lights up with unfounded rumors that Obama might dump Joe Biden and switch to Hillary Clinton, she nearly explodes with excitement. Is she really pro-McCain, or is she just being provocative?

Long is the kind of person who is drawn to a fire, she grants that. She says she wore her Palin button to the Whole Foods on 14th Street NW just to see if she'd get a rise out of the assembled crunchies. No one would even look her in the eye, she reports.

She seems downright gleeful as she describes her fellow liberals' faces draining of blood when she sings Palin's praises. But when I suggest that the McCain camp is using her even as she uses it to teach fellow Democrats a lesson about taking women for granted, she says: "No, that's too crass. You have to break down a house to rebuild it, but Palin is likable, popular and has integrity. She's a person who will listen. Is she smart enough to do the job? Hey, Reagan was no brain surgeon, but people would follow him. It's about leadership. Sarah has made mistakes, but out of naivete, not out of corruption."

Every couple of minutes, Long -- looking like the unPalin in black T-shirt, cargo pants and canvas sneakers -- reflexively checks her e-mail, revealing a new list of fire-spewing rants accusing her of betrayal, sexism and worse. She loves it.

I posit that her newfound activism is really more about sticking it to Democratic men than about any real belief that McCain might promote the interests of women or that Palin would be a good president should she ascend to that role. Long protests that she really would be happy with a President Palin, a woman who understands the majority of Americans as no man could.

And then she says this: "I just don't understand how the Democrats couldn't see that women wanted a woman. I'm not getting back in bed with someone who's just abused me. Yeah, it's payback time."

CLINTON'S JOUNEY AWAKENS NEW WOMEN'S MOVEMENT

Boston Globe, By Lisa Wangsness, Globe Staff  |  August 27, 2008

DENVER - The timing of Hillary Clinton's closely watched prime-time speech last night, on the 88th anniversary of women's suffrage, brought into sharp relief the passion for women's issues her campaign engendered - and the possibility of a legacy that could reenergize or divide the feminist movement.

Clinton's presidential bid galvanized women as no other campaign in recent history has. While many younger women supported Barack Obama, among Clinton's most passionate supporters were older women who saw the former first lady as their best chance of having a woman in the White House in their lifetimes - and who saw the demise of her campaign as evidence of lingering sexism in America. In Denver this week, many of these women have been talking about the emergence of a new movement that would unite women across the generational divide to combat discrimination, unequal pay, and other concerns.

"This is beyond Hillary now," said Maerose Tengsico, a 55-year-old insurance claims adjustor and the head of the California chapter of 18 Million Voices Rise Hillary Rise, which organized a march through Denver yesterday. "This is about women in general. . . . I think there's going to be another movement coming, a different kind of movement of women for women. We've been silent for some time."

Several dozen of Clinton's strongest female supporters met three weeks ago in New York to organize The New Agenda, a nonpartisan group focused on women's issues and electing women candidates. Amy Siskind, a major Democratic donor and activist from New York who helped start it, said in a phone interview yesterday that she has received e-mails and calls of support from around the country.

"I think the grave mistreatment of Hillary during the primary has been an awakening for a lot of women who. . . didn't consider themselves to be feminists in the past," she said. "Millions of folks feel like the Democratic Party abandoned its loyal base of women in this election."

But it is not at all clear a new movement would benefit the organizations that have long been at the forefront, such as EMILY's List and NARAL. Now, they are calling for unity, saying that some of the most important women's issues, especially abortion rights, are at stake in November and that Clinton supporters have a duty to stand up for them.

Many Clinton loyalists, though, are angry with the leaders of the party and women's groups, saying they did too little to confront rampant sexism and allowed an unfair primary process. They are divided over whether to support Obama or Republican John McCain - a troubling turn for the Democratic Party and for the feminist establishment, whose credibility depends on keeping Clinton supporters in the fold.

Siskind said the new group believes in abortion rights but does not make it a platform issue. Democrats, she said, have abused the issue as "a way to control women's votes."

"We believe that once women in this country have power in government and the workplace and money, things like abortion will not even be on the table for discussion," she said.

In Denver yesterday, as women celebrated the historic day, divisions within the movement were apparent. At a 2,000-person gala sponsored by EMILY's List featuring some of the party's most powerful women - Michelle Obama, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and Clinton herself - there was no mention of the disaffected Clinton supporters' biggest immediate gripe - obtaining a full roll-call vote tonight for Clinton.

Ellen Malcolm the president of EMILY's List, sounded confident. "Make no mistake about it," she said. "Women are united."

But earlier, as the several hundred Clinton supporters marched through downtown Denver to celebrate the historic day and Clinton's 18 million votes during the primaries, the mood was more indignant, or even angry, than celebratory. Many of those who marched beat drums and wore T-shirts emblazoned with "Hillary 2016." Reports that Clinton would not be granted a full roll-call vote on the convention floor infuriated the marchers, who said they would not rest until Clinton was given a fair say.

Discontent with the feminist establishment was also widespread. Diane Schrack, 52, of Highlands, Colo., marched with a sign that read, "Why didn't the DNC speak out against sexism?" She said she contributed money to groups such as NARAL and Planned Parenthood, but said she would "think twice about that in the future."

"The women's movement needs to stand up and say, 'Sexism is wrong, we made a mistake because we allowed it to happen, and we will not do that again to women or any other group,' " she said.

Gloria Allred, the celebrity women's rights lawyer from Los Angeles and a Clinton delegate, told the crowd at the end of the march, "We will honor the voters who elected us." She then rattled off the names of women's rights leaders emblazoned on a scarf she wore around her neck: Harriet Tubman, Golda Meir, Abigail Adams, Susan B. Anthony.

Quoting Eleanor Roosevelt, she said, "Women are like tea bags; they never know how strong they are until they're in hot water."

But later, Allred fiercely insisted that women who supported Clinton must vote for Obama in November because, at the very least, of abortion rights. Obama supports abortion rights, while McCain favors overturning Roe v. Wade, the US Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion nationwide, and working to eventually end abortions. "We have to educate these women who are disappointed Hillary didn't win," Allred said. "We have to help them to understand what's at stake. We can't have McCain appointing two Supreme Court vacancies."

Not all the women in the crowd were buying this argument. Many were older women who remember an America where abortion rights were not guaranteed - but are also at an age when those rights may not be as relevant to their lives.

"I'm not pregnant," said Jeannie Stratton, 51, from Washington who said she plans to vote for McCain to protest how the Democratic Party treated Clinton.

Lisa Wangsness can be reached at lwangsness@globe.com.

CLINTON SUPPORTERS OUTRAGED

August 23, 2008

Some in Clinton circle 'outraged'

Posted: 05:00 PM ET

Some in Clinton's inner-circle are outraged.

(CNN) — Evan as Hillary Clinton praised the newly-minted Democratic presidential ticket Saturday, some in her circle are furious Barack Obama did not appear to give the New York Democrat serious consideration for the No. 2 spot, or even ask for her consultation on the matter.

"Set aside that Obama said she'd be on anybody's short list, set aside anybody's feelings on whether she was deliberately snubbed and the pros and cons of whether it should be her," a former Clinton strategist told CNN's Candy Crowley. "Focus on the politics of it and you have about a quarter of Clinton loyalists still not joining the caravan…for God's sake, not to even make a show of taking her seriously is flatly stupid."

A top Clinton advisor also told CNN they were "outraged," over how the process was conducted.

"You can't put [Obama VP vetters] Eric Holder and Caroline Kennedy on an hour plane ride to Chappaqua just to check the box? They should have done it just for the optics," this person said. "Barack never even said to her, 'Here's how I envision the job'– not one discussion with her about [the position]."

"They thought her supporters were mad before? They are really mad now," this person also said. We knew it was never going to happen but you would have thought they might at least make a show of it."

Former Clinton strategist Paul Begala echoed similar frustrations on CNN Friday night.

"I think there are a lot of Hillary voters who are going to say, 'Hey, wait a minute, man You said you were going to put her on the short list. You know, you didn't even vet her. You didn't call her. You didn't seek her advice,'" Begala said. "By the way, he didn't seek President Clinton's advice either. He's actually the guy who I think picked the best vice president in American history. You would think maybe you would sort of check in with him."

Meanwhile, two sources familiar with Obama's VP search tell CNN's Roland Martin Clinton was very much under consideration, and it's wrong for anyone to suggest that she wasn't.

One of the sources noted the Clintons have lived a very public life, and it's inconceivable for anyone to think that there really is more that needs to be learned from them by requesting additional paperwork, citing the release of documents by her during the primary season.

The other source said both Holder and Kenndey are very familiar with Sen. Clinton and that there was substantive and lengthy conversations among the Obama team with regards to Clinton as vice president.

Filed under: Barack Ob

CALLING ALL VOTES, FROM THE NYT

By MICHELLE COTTLE

Published: August 9, 2008

Washington

NEARLY everyone in the Democratic Party seems to think that officially entering Hillary Clinton’s name into a roll-call vote for the presidential nomination at the Democratic National Convention would be a dangerous show of disunity. It’s true that having America watch as some portion of Mrs. Clinton’s 1,640 pledged delegates thumb their noses at Barack Obama would disrupt the party’s vision of a carefully scripted Denver love-in. But finding a constructive way for Mrs. Clinton’s seriously aggrieved loyalists to channel their anger and disappointment could wind up being the path of less destruction for Mr. Obama’s campaign. Plus, it’s the right thing to do.

You don’t have to be a die-hard Clintonite, or even much of a feminist, to be moved by the significance of her presidential campaign. In 1972, the Democratic presidential candidate Shirley Chisholm made history by having her 151.95 delegates entered into the convention record. Mrs. Clinton amassed more than 10 times that number. Her achievement deserves an official salute.

Symbolic gestures and signs of respect always hold a larger meaning for the campaign that came in second. More than a few of Mrs. Clinton’s devotees, including plenty headed to Denver this month, are in need of catharsis and a bit of closure. They remain convinced that their gal got a raw deal, that she was treated unfairly by the news media, that she was cheated out of her Florida and Michigan delegates by hostile power brokers like Howard Dean and Nancy Pelosi, that she was a victim of sexism, that the historic nature of her candidacy was callously dismissed in all the hullabaloo over the historic nature of Mr. Obama’s, and on and on and on.

Some of these allegations ring truer than others. But many of Mrs. Clinton’s supporters believe them intensely enough to want to make trouble for Mr. Obama. Discouraging Mrs. Clinton’s name from being entered into a roll-call vote would give her legions yet one more opportunity to feel that their candidate had been snubbed.

Giving them the chance to see their beloved candidate honored in a highly public forum could, just maybe, help release a little steam from the pressure cooker. Beyond that, there could be other, more direct benefits for Mr. Obama’s candidacy.

A roll-call vote for Mrs. Clinton could help Mr. Obama look magnanimous instead of messianic. Fair or not, the man has earned himself a reputation as arrogant. These days, John McCain’s campaign spends much of its time watching for the tiniest show of self-importance by Mr. Obama to exploit. By making a grand gesture, inviting (even publicly urging) Mrs. Clinton to sign the (already circulating) petition to have her name submitted for nomination would help Mr. Obama look like a swell guy.

Yes, we would all be reminded of how close the Democratic race for president was when, on the convention floor, delegation after delegation rose to cast its votes. (A few die-hards for Mrs. Clinton might even get mouthy.) But in the end, the tally would indicate that Mr. Obama won. He beat Mrs. Clinton, the inevitable nominee who drove far-more-experienced politicians than Mr. Obama from the race before it even began, and who beat every other guy in the race.

He did it. And he could demonstrate that he is now so comfortable with his victory that he is willing to let Mrs. Clinton tout her achievement as well. (Better still, the delegate total for Mr. Obama would almost certainly be higher than it stood at the end of the primaries, because many of Mrs. Clinton’s superdelegates — and probably even a few of her pledged delegates — would decide to cast ballots for Mr. Obama.) Sure, some portion of Mrs. Clinton’s delegates will never be satisfied with any gesture. They are determined to sink Mr. Obama in the hopes that their candidate can come back and win this thing in 2012.

But the kamikaze cohort is just one, admittedly very noisy, subset of a larger pool of wounded supporters. The trick is to find a big, public way to separate the zealots from those who just want a concerted effort by the party and its candidate to show a scrupulous commitment to respecting every vote cast.

Is this desire reasonable? Sensible? Logical? Maybe not. But in presidential campaigns, reason and logic rarely carry the day.

Michelle Cottle is a senior editor at The New Republic.

HILLARY TALKS ABOUT THE CONVENTION

Hillary Clinton is asked about the convention and whether her name should be placed in nomination at the convention.  She also indicates there is no way she is going to win the nomination.

ARE SUPERDELEGATES FOR SALE?

by Lynette Long

In a few weeks the historic 2008 Democratic Party Presidential Primary between an African American Man and a White Woman will end. The two candidates competed in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, the US Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico and Guam. At the end of these contests, neither candidate had earned enough pledged delegates to garner the necessary 2118 needed to win the Democratic nomination for President of the United States. Hillary Clinton earned 1640 pledged delegates while Barack Obama earned 1763 pledged delegates. A paltry 123 pledged separated the two candidates at the end of the primary season. Since there was no clear winner, the superdelegates would determine the Democratic nominee.

Approximately 800 superdelegates will make up around 20% of the 4000 delegates at the convention. These superdelegates are Democratic Party leaders, Democratic governors, and Democratic members of congress. They have the right to endorse either candidate without reason and can change their endorsement from one candidate to another at any time. The superdelegates are very powerful and highly sought after by candidates. One superdelegate is equal to one pledged delegate or 11,361 voters in California or 7,220 voters in New York. Many factors influence which candidate a superdelegate endorses but they usually vote the way their constituents vote. Some superdelegates have intense personal relationships with particular candidates that may influence their endorsement. Members of congress may also be influenced by money given or promised by party leaders, the DNC or the candidates themselves.

Politicians collect money for their campaigns but most American’s don’t realize that politicians collect a separate a pot of money called a Leadership Political Action Committee or PAC. These PACs are used to hire additional staff and pay for additional perks such as limos and first class flights. But one of the major reasons for these PAC’s is to donate to the campaigns of other candidates. Nancy Pelosi’s PAC is called PAC to the Future, Barack Obama’s PAC is called Hope Fund, and Hillary Clinton’s PAC is called Hillpac. Money was distributed by these PAC’s to the superdelegates to influence their voting. The Federal Elections Commission requires scrupulous reporting of how PAC money is obtained and how it is spent. This data can be retrieved at www.opensecrets.org.

In 2007, Obama distributed 299,000 from his PAC to superdelegates. He especially targeted the states of Iowa and New Hampshire. On July 25, 2007, the Hope Fund made $1000 donations to each of the following groups: Hillsborough County Democrats, Hudson, NH; Martha Fuller Clark for State Senate, Portsmouth, NH; Merrimack County Democrats, Chichester, NH; New Hampshire for John Lynch, Manchester, NH; Sgambati 4 NH Senate, Tilton, NH; Stafford County Democratic Committee, Durham, NH and Sullivan County Democrats, Claremont, NH. Obama also gave $5000 contributions to New Hampshire Democratic Party, Concord, New Hampshire, on July 26,2007; New Hampshire for John Lynch on July 25, 2007, and New Hampshire Democratic State Committee, Concord, New Hampshire on November 3, 2006. Obama did not announce his candidacy until May 2, 2007.

Obama also gave New Hampshire Democratic State Senator Jacalyn Cilley $1000 on July 25, 2007. She endorsed Obama on July 31, 2007, just six days after his contribution to her campaign. On July 26, 2007, first term New Hampshire Congressman Paul Hodes of New Hampshire endorsed Obama. The New Hampshire Primary was not until January 8, 2008 and Hillary won New Hampshire.

By March 28, 2008, Hope Fund donated $710,900 to superdelegates, more than three times as much as Hillpac. ($236,100). A study by the Center for Responsive Politics showed that presidential candidates who gave more money to a superdelegate received their endorsement 82% of the time. This is especially disturbing when the superdelegates endorse a candidate that is decidedly contrary to the will of the voters in their state and their districts.

After reviewing state and congressional voting records as well as PAC donations, members of congress were identified that fulfilled the following four criteria: 1. These members endorsed Barack Obama. 2. The constituents of their state preferred Hillary Clinton. 3. The constituents of their district preferred Hillary Clinton. 4. They got more PAC money from Hope Fund than from HillPac. These senators are Jeff Bingaman, Frank Lautenberg, and Jay Rockefeller. The members of the house are Jason Altmire, Dennis Cardoza, Jim Costa, Joe Donelly, Gabrielle Giffords, Baron Hill, Ron Klein, Patrick Murphy, Gerald Mc Nerney, Carol She-Porter, Zack Space, Niki Tsongas, and Charlie Wilson.

Charlie Wilson is the perfect example. He ran in Ohio’s District 6 in 2006. His seat was the seat of the former governor and is located in Southern Ohio. Wilson was a last minute candidate for his seat and because of this was a write-in candidate. The governor and the party worked hard to get Wilson elected.  President Clinton made an audio recording endorsing Wilson that went out to 50,000 homes.  The governor of Ohio is a big Clinton supporter, the voters of Ohio voted 54-44% percent in favor of Clinton, and District 6, Wilson’s District, voted for Clinton 70% - 27%. Yet Wilson endorsed Obama. It looks like there is no loyalty in politics to either your constituents or your friends. Wilson got $7,000 of PAC money from Barack Obama, but no money from Hillary Clinton. Was this a factor in his choice?

100 MILES IN THE RAIN!

by Anonymous Guest Blogger

I would walk a hundred miles for you in the rain.  I will stand by you until the end but I will never ever ever vote for Obama. I will also not vote for the democrats in my state.

Obama voted y!es to FISA.  He has flip flopped on every single promise he's made.  You're the only democratic presidential candidate that represents the will of the American People. Democratic party elites don't even want to allow your name to be on the roll call next month??? Sorry but that is demonic treatment from diabolical egos.

Sorry, but I have left the democrats and I will be voting Mccain.  Hopefully, he will win and you can run again in 2012.

I would like to see you form a new People's Party of America. I will continue to contribute to your campaign and I am forever proud of you.

Hillary I know you must do what you must do, but asking me to vote Obama is like asking a rape victim to shake hands with her rapist!!!  Obama, Dean, Pelosi, Brazille, and the media have shown no respect for you or your supporters. You received more votes than any candidate in history, but the media and Obama are saying you lost???

As a woman, if you, with all your credentials and experience are treated with such sexism, how am I as a woman to be treated? 

I support the issues you stand for but never ever obama!

THE TITLE BOUT

by Lynette Long

Don Fowler, the former head of the DNC sent a letter to Democratic leaders and major contributors this week urging party unity. Intended to get resistant Hillary supporters on board, the unity letter is likely to produce the opposite effect. The letter repeatedly stated, “Barack Obama won. It’s over!” In other words, “Get over it,” or as an astute Clinton supporter put it, “Get in line, it’s not your time.” Mr. Fowler chided Hillary supporters, “I must confess a bit of fatigue and irritation with the people who continue to carp, complain and criticize the results of the primary and lay down conditions for their support.” The paternalistic nature of this statement and the implication that the issues raised by Hillary supporters are trivial is troubling. “It’s time to act in a mature fashion,” Fowler implored. Demographics will prove that if Hillary supporters are anything, they are mature. Maybe there is wisdom in old age since they did not select Obama.

To illustrate that Clinton supporters are sore losers, Fowler compared the Democratic Primary to men’s basketball and men’s tennis. Attempting to appeal to the broadest base of Hillary’s supporters, women, by comparing the primary to men’s sports illustrates a continuing insensitivity to women and women’s issues by the DNC. In fact the DNC, the party of the people, has never had a female chair.

If sports were the metaphor of choice, the Democratic Primary is more like boxing than tennis or basketball. One could equate the primary to the World Heavyweight Boxing Championship. The two fighters in the ring, Senator’s Clinton and Obama, went the distance, 15 rounds, or in this case 52 primaries, but neither candidate scored a knockout blow. The fight will be decided by decision. The judges in this fight are the superdelegates and they will announce their decision at the Democratic Convention. There is one caveat however. These superdelegates are not impartial and both a carrot and a stick have been used to get them to declare for Obama. Many superdelegates have had large sums of money donated to their campaigns by Barack Obama under the guise of the Hope Fund or the Hope Pac. Others have received warnings that the DNC will not support their next campaign if they do not support Obama and still others have had death threats from the African American community.

The referee in this title bout, the person entrusted by the people to ensure a fair fight is Howard Dean, Chairman of the DNC. Dean stood silently by as Dodd, Kennedy and Kerry called for Clinton to throw in the towel early in the contest. He was mute when the main stream media called Hillary a bitch or said she should be taken out behind the barn. Dean did not enforce with the full authority of his office voting regulations to ensure a fair shot at the title for both candidates. Dean turned his back on the fight while Obama threw numerous sucker punches in the early rounds of the bout. Obama won 93% (13 out of 14) of the caucuses and only 46% (18 out of 39) of the primaries. It is impossible to explain the disparity in primary vs. caucus results due to superior organization or demographics alone. Dean and the DNC turned a blind eye to the fraud, busing and data manipulation by Camp Obama at the caucuses. Not only did Dean not investigate voter fraud, suppression and intimidation, he further engineered Obama’s nomination by giving the Florida delegates, a state where Clinton had a commanding lead, half a vote each. In Michigan Dean orchestrated the decision that gave Obama delegates for punches Clinton landed and gave Obama credit for votes logged as undecided. When Clinton Camp tried to raise some of these concerns they were labeled whiners.

The bout is not over until the judges officially announce their scoring of the fight in Denver in August. The DNC wants to deny Hillary’s name being put in nomination and to prohibit a state roll call that reflected the results of the primary. The DNC wants the judges, in this case the state delegations and the superdelegates, to declare that all votes went to Obama. But there was no knock out blow. In face based on the results in the swing states, the primary states, the blue states, the largest states, and by winning the popular vote, Hillary Clinton won the fight by decision. The referee can hold Senator Obama’s arm up in the center of the ring, but everyone watching the primary knows who won. If a football game is decided by an unfair penalty, a soccer game lost by an undeserved red card, a title match lost by a sucker punch, fans typically become embittered and resentful. Senator Clinton was the first significant female candidate to run for the presidency and her nomination was stolen by a corrupt party. No letter chiding Clinton’s supporters is going to change that. Red Sox fans will never become Yankee fans, and Clinton supporters are not coming home.

www.lynettelong.com is a proud partner of www.justsaynodeal.com