Howard Dean is first - Danny is pretty great too!

One of the most alarming trends noted in the book is the rise in poverty. One in four preschool aged children in Maine lived in poverty in 2005, the most current year data is available for comparison on a county level. This is a substantial increase from the 18 percent in 2004. The federal poverty line in 2005 for a two-parent family of four was about $18,000 and about $15,500 for a single parent with two children.

Why?

Welfare deform.

Outa here, Clintonistas.

Hillary's NOT a feminist.

http://www.blogforamerica.com/view/24036#comment-1174357

 last one

2008 Democratic Convention Watch

Demokraternas båda presidentaspiranter Barack Obama och Hillary Clinton anklagar varandra för att vantolka deras respektive planer till lösningar för miljoner amerikaner som saknar sjukförsäkring.

====================

Sweden 

The subtitle reads something about people without  health insurance.

mainefem I think all careful thinkers including and especially Clintonistas are welcome here. In spite of all that is wrong with both of them, the US of A was in a H of a lot better place 7 years ago - even just in terms of the national debt. I just don't want the dynasty or the K street cronies back in charge.

See y'all later this evening.

Demokraternas båda presidentaspiranter Barack Obama och Hillary Clinton anklagar varandra för att vantolka deras respektive planer till lösningar för miljoner amerikaner som saknar sjukförsäkring.

==========

here's the link - for anyone who can read Svensk (Swedish)

http://tv4nyheterna.se/1.290053/2008/02/27/nya_attacker_av_clinton_och_obama;jsessionid=afb7ES6lwQrTL-futwNHr

I have a whole whole lot of heartburn with mothers thinking society owes them something -- if you have kids, it is your responsibility to have the means to care for them properly.

Looks like Danny got rid of Rooney - at least that's how it looks.

I have a whole whole lot of heartburn with mothers thinking society owes them something -- if you have kids, it is your responsibility to have the means to care for them properly.

What matters is the children. If some parents need help in fulfilling their responsibilities, we should be glad to, if only for the kids' sake. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZW0m2nWB_M

clip of Bill Clinton refuting HRCs 3AM ad.  Tongue in cheek.

I have a whole whole lot of heartburn with mothers thinking society owes them something -- if you have kids, it is your responsibility to have the means to care for them properly

==================

We do owe many women something.  We owe them the living wage that the CEOs and a rigged system stoled from them.

I guess women who wait on tables and work for minimum wage don't have a right to family life.  Think of that the next time you eat a meal or shop.  We can't all be teachers.

Wrong.

Welfare deform is straight out of RayGun's "Welfare Queen" playbook.

It's 100% misogynistic and racist.Billions have been shifted to "faith-based" programs, "fatherhood" initiatives, and HR4 (which you obviously haven't read) keeps those families indigent for generations.

 In TX, of all places.

No mention of aggressive child support collections, post-secondary education access (Maine is one of two states who have it); and no access to abortions via Medicaid dollars.Furthermore, "family formation."

Attempting to entice low income women to marry (or stay in abusive DV sitations) with federal dollars?

I don't fucking think so.

Not one damned dime for churches, either.

"Prayer" doesn't pay the bills.  Never has...never will. 

 Welfare to work programs have gotten filthy rich off the backs of low income women in this country.

 Primarily women of color.

You are ignorant of women's history, annilow--esp. in the Deep South. 

Hillary is an abject disgrace unto "feminism." As did that misogynistic moron she's married to.

She's used millions of them to advance her own so-called "career."

 I hope Obama trounces her into the dirt. See Billary's affiliation w/Wal-Mart's Board of Dir. fmi.

 HR4

 Billary needs to cease invoking the Edlemans; and the Children's Defense Fund.

10.
Annilow
Fri, 02/29/08

==============

Reproductive rights most literally should mean the right to reproduce...if not, the term is Orwellian.

-----
What matters is the children. If some parents need help in fulfilling their responsibilities, we should be glad to, if only for the kids' sake.
------
Well said, Sitka.

Last I knew, this was not a fascist blog.  HC supporters should be welcome here. 

OMG And we don't find these tactics-not just dirty, but deplorable? Now we have the Obama campaign and their supporters threatening Black Super Delegates? Is this another example of his new kind of politics?

"Obama Supporter Jesse Jackson, Jr: Black Super-Delegates Who Back Hillary Could Face Primary Challenge
By Greg Sargent - February 15, 2008, 11:01AM

A black supporter of Hillary, Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, has given an interview in which he sheds light on some pretty interesting efforts by Obama supporter Jesse Jackson, Jr., to privately persuade him to rethink his support of Clinton:
In an interview, Cleaver offered a glimpse of private conversations.

He said Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. of Illinois had recently asked him "if it comes down to the last day and you're the only superdelegate? ... Do you want to go down in history as the one to prevent a black from winning the White House?

"I told him I'd think about it," Cleaver concluded.

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsm...


AND


Black backers steadfast for Clinton
By: Josephine Hearn
February 29, 2008 05:56 PM EST

African-American superdelegates said Thursday that they’ll stand up against threats, intimidation and “Uncle Tom” smears rather than switch their support from Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton to Sen. Barack Obama.

"“This is the politics of the 1950s,” he complained. “A lot of members are experiencing a lot of ugly stuff. They’re not going to talk about it, but it’s happening.”

After civil rights icon Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.) switched his support from Clinton to Obama earlier this week, other black superdelegates have come under renewed pressure to do a similar about-face. A handful have bowed to the entreaties in recent weeks, including Georgia Rep. David Scott, but many say they are steadfast in their support for Clinton and resent strong-arm tactics to make them change.

Rep. Diane E. Watson (D-Calif.), a black lawmaker and Clinton backer, said the intense lobbying for Obama would not alter her vote.

“I’ve gotten threatening mail,” Watson said. “They say, ‘Your district went 61-29 Obama and you need to change.’ But I don’t intimidate. I can hold the ground. … I would lose my seat over my principles.”

http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?u...

Howard on Blitzer Sunday at Eleven-ish.

Low income single women don't slut themselves out to Sugar Daddies (and then whine & become "misty-eyed" over trivial b/s).

Spare me the freakin' drama.  They're working two+ shit low-paying "jobs."

Benefits?

Nope.

One of which goes towards childcare expenses.

Got child support?

Nada.

No feminist in their sane mind would ever condone welfare deform.

 It's taxpayer-subsidized racism & misogyny.

Every married woman w/children is only one divorce away from poverty.

 Esp. those who've never worked for *wages* outside of the home...they're fucked.

Yes, I'm talking about all of those  presumably "oppresssed" housewives.

Sorry--no sympathy.

Childrearing and caregiving elders certainly isn't paid--nor is volunteering. 

Those women learn late when attempting to "retire."  They've got nuthin'. 

Unless she's earned at least a Master's or a Doctorate degree (and is actively in the workforce), she's got zilch means of economic support.

OMG! Threatened with PRIMARY CHALLENGERS?

What do people think this is, a democracy of something?! 

Mainefem I can't be too terribly ignorant of women's history having been one for sixty-five years. I think having children is a choice not a right. I think having children means you have the means to take care of them. If you don't have those means then you don't have children. I do agree with everyone that the children deserve whatever we can give them, but I get ticked at mothers saying "I have these children come help me take care of them." Sorry - they never should have had them in the first place if they hadn't thought about how they were going to take care of them.

I was in line with a couple of old guys from TX today at the store that will not be mentioned and I said "Oh you gave us this awful pres" and they asked who I was voting for and I said Obama and they said "he's black." I said only half -- my point of telling this story is it ain't gonna be as easy as we think.

seashell wrote: Last I knew, this was not a fascist blog.  HC supporters should be welcome here. 

HC supporters are welcome here. BO and HC supporters should not be coming here for the purpose of attacking the OTHER candidate with a lot of large bovine residue, claining it as fact that has dubious if any sources or credibility.

HC and BO are our last two candidates. Everyone should be ready to support whoever is the nominee.  Either one is light years better than what the opposition is serving up.

Having said that,

Obama 2008

Mainefem I do have a master's degree but when it comes to feeding myself it's my typing skills I rely on when the chips are down.

Again with the false accusations that HC supporters aren't welcome here.

Who said/posted that? Where did that come from?

mainefem is posting her opinion about welfare and the Clintons.

I don't see any evidence here that Clinton supporters are not welcome.

I've noticed a pattern lately that if posts are anti-HC, or take issue with a post from an HC supporter, it's turned into "you better welcome them. BO needs ALL votes."

How does that translate to asking people not to post here if they are pro HC?

Lewis gets gay-friendly primary challenger
Hutchins hopes sentiment of ‘change’ spreads to congressional race

Added "incentive" for switching to the will of the people, methinks.

Oopsie.

PS to Mainefem - I don't know what the H you are telling me about women's history in the "Deep South" since I was born and raised here and you live up on the Canadian border where 99.99 percent of the population is white folks and your knowledge of black folks must be pretty D academic.

This from Linda's posted links above.

"Cleaver questioned why white superdelegates such as Massachusetts Sens. Edward M. Kennedy and John F. Kerry weren’t being targeted to support Clinton after she carried their state.

“If white people were being harassed and threatened because they were not supporting a white candidate, we’d see headlines,” he said. "

I haven't a clue who/what is behind this, but it really is time to throw out the college, the delegates and go with the popular vote.

First woman, first AA = recipe for disaster in a year that is do or die for us. It could tear the dem party apart and give the election to McC.  I wonder whose idea it was to pit BO against HC?  Or wasn't he "supposed" to catch on fire like he has?

Did someone's plan go awry?  Were two glass ceilings planned or is BO truly a spontaneous event horizon?  :-)

While the voters and CMWs are drooling, we're not only losing more of our country every day but things are being set up in the ME that will keep us there and dying for many years.  JMO

Ånd again, I hope I'm wrong. 

Enuf blog hog -- see y'all later on.

18.

Moxie Jett
Fri, 02/29/08




OMG! Threatened with PRIMARY CHALLENGERS?

What do people think this is, a democracy of something?!

_________________________________

Oh great, you think that's a sign of democracy. oh, goodie, that explains things.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/2/29/173943/596/314/466499

Joan, yes.  I think all previous JE supporters will support the nominee and have said so.  I've repeatedly said so.   Will all BO supporters support HC should she somehow pull it out?  There seem to be some  BO supporters who HATE Hillary.  Sounds to me like they wouldn't vote for her at all.

You had a Master's degree when your children were small, I presume, annilow?

 Doing what, exactly?

Let's see--hubby dumps you (back then, irreconcilable differences wasn't an option).

 You have no money, no place to live.  Nuthin'.

Doesn't pay one cent in child support.

You are NOT capable of supporting children--esp. if there are a few; and if they're young. 

 Women could not own property in their own names, establish credit, or obtain b/c in many states 45 yrs. ago.

Women had great difficulty suing for divorce--burden of proof rested upon the woman.

Options?

Find another Sugar Daddy, STAT;  and hope like hell the living shit wasn't beaten out of 'ya.

If you were a "good girl," he might give you a weekly "allowance."

 {{{insert sarcasm}}} 

 Or even better--that he's wealthy; and pre-deceases you by decades.

It's your only way out (financially). 

 Drawing Social Security?

 Where's that investment  portfolio for all those yrs. of caregiving, volunteering, and housekeeping?

MIA  Unpaid labor.

Half of what hubby earned; and only if you're married for 10 yrs.

Sound equitable?

 Got portable comprehensive healthcare coverage from that career?

Sorry - they never should have had them in the first place if they hadn't thought about how they were going to take care of them.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

One may think, and one may have a job, and then not have a job, and be unable to get a job. Which is a very scary place to be. And, no, I don't see why children should pay for parents bad choices/luck. Or the economy.

My grandmother, in 1920, had 11 children. Her husband died. She took the baby and walked away from the other ten. No one, no agency, no church, NO ONE stepped in to care for those children. My mother was three at the time. The older boys dropped out of school to try to get jobs. My aunt, who was 13, dropped out of school to become the "mother" ~~ And THIS is what the rePublicans want back. . . .

Welfare was the program set up for women whose mates left them voluntarily, versus SS survivor's benefits, for those whose mates left them involuntarily. From the viewpoint of the children, I don't suppose it really matters. Nor does welfare ever lift one out of poverty. Simply keeps you from starving or freezing to death. If the richest country in the world can't do better. . . .

Gee, don't I remember someone, recently, saying, "We can do better than this"?


♡

ALWAYS care for what you Love,not hate,and treat it very "NICE" not "BAD."

A poem by Sitka's BFFL.
 

mainefem, Suze Orman would be proud of you!

And I know you don't mean anything against Anni, but you're speaking in generalizations.

I have no less than 5 girlfriends that were in dire straits for quite awhile after their hubby decided to, in most of the cases, find someone else (for as many reasons as their were marriages). Or in one case, he under reported income so badly that they lost everything (this was before the innocent spouse reform legislation).

5 marriages where the men mostly walked away scott free, and the girls raised the kids on their own. Two of them had to go on welfare temporarily. The others had families that pitched in their support.

All of them are now fine and most are happily remarried - but not everyone is that lucky when we think of all of the poor and uneducated women in this country.

The two friends that had to go on welfare were WELL OFF when their marriages fell apart but after the child support kept coming later and later (or eventually not at all), and they could not get a decent job, they had to turn to the government.

It truly can happen to anyone, but thankfully the young women of today are (hopefully) smart enough to not put themselves in that position.

Saying people should not have kids if they can't afford them does not take the future into account - things change, and sometimes it's not too pretty.

Joan, yes.  I think all previous JE supporters will support the nominee and have said so.  I've repeatedly said so.   Will all BO supporters support HC should she somehow pull it out?  There seem to be some  BO supporters who HATE Hillary.

=======================

Hate is a strong word.  There is anger at the ambivalence  Bill and Hillary Clinton have demonstrated toward core liberal values and his strengthening of the DLC wing of the party.

The is ambivalence from the fact that Clinton was better than Bush, but Bill followed his political instincts rather than liberal Democratic ideological principles, or at least he compromised those principle to a certain degree.  That position may be forgiveable in the 1990's but  Hillary uses that era to glorify herself with its "experience" - and that is the experience Democrats don't want to repeat.

This is a blog of Dean supporter in origin, and Obama personifies the Dean revolution so much more than Clinton does - funding directly by the people and has broken the corporatist death-grip on politics in this country for the last 50 years. 

I minored in women's studies; which means that I'm very well versed in African American women's history; as well as that of women of color.

 Moreso than you'll ever be, annilow.

Esp. issues of low income women and poverty.

Intersections of race, sex, and class. 

 Poverty in the Deep South is historic; and systematic.

It's a holdover from slavery and Jim Crow (welfare deform). 

Gordon, Linda. "Black and White Visions of Welfare: Women’s Welfare Activism, 1890-1945", Journal of American History 78 (1991), 559-590.

Gordon, Linda. Pitied but not Entitled: Single Mothers and the History of Welfare, 1890-1935 (Cambridge, 1995).

Gordon, Linda. "Social Insurance and Public Assistance: The Influence of Gender in Welfare Thought in the United States, 1890-1935", American Historical Review 97, 1 (1992), 19-54.

Gordon, Linda. Women, the state, and welfare. University of Wisconsin Press, 1990.

Anything written by Dr. Alice Kessler-Harris, also.

 Accessible for laypersons. 

mainefem, Suze Orman would be proud of you!

And I know you don't mean anything against Anni, but you're speaking in generalizations.

================

The children of those who profitted from the exploitation of the working class should pay for working people to have babies - they owe them that.

We all contribute to the wealth of this country - no matter what kind of car you drive, or what level you work at.

In many European countries  women and couples get two years of cash subsidy for having children - it doesnt matter if you are rich or poor everybody gets it, and they even get young people to help them with their homemaking and child care.

The right wing doesnt  want immigrants and don't want to help the working class to populate, so who is going to power this country?  That will be the death of this country.  We will be working for the Europeans.  Have you seen the value of the dollar lately?

Hi, all. Just lifted this from Caine's blog:

This is a great article from Nadar's VP candidate outlining Obama's limitations and voting record.

A must read.

http://www.beyondchron.org/articles/The_...
Reply To This | Flag As Offensive

Hey Fred - I'm not sure what your post to me means. Is there something I wrote that you want to discuss further?

http://tv4nyheterna.se/2.139?videoId=1.283328&renderingdepartment=2.757

Short speech the Swedes are seeing of Obama (spoken in English with Swedish subtitles and narration)

 from this page of links

http://tv4nyheterna.se/1.288799/2008/02/26/foto_pa_obama_utloste_gral

http://www.democracyforamerica.com/Runfo...

No, I'm speaking factually.

Statistically; and academically.

Every married woman w/small children in this country is indeed one divorce away from poverty.

That's a fact.

 She damned well better be highly credentialized; already in the waged workforce; and use birth control constantly.

I don't mean as a teacher or as a secretary, either. 

 45 yrs. ago?  Unless one was highly credentialized, was bequeathed a shitload of money from her biological family (which didn't alway go into her name only, folks), or infertile--she was outa luck.

 45 yrs. ago, no-fault divorce in this country didn't exist.

Not until feminists fought tooth and dagger for it in all 50 states.

 It took decades; and those laws are still on the books (and coming back) in some states.

Women couldn't obtain birth control if they wanted to, or establish credit in their own names. 

 Women were legally barred from some occupational sectors 45 yrs. ago.

 That's why we have EEOC, folks.  Thanks to feminists, natch.  And birth control.

What utter bullshit. 

45 yrs. ago, if hubby took off, your children were placed into foster care--tough cookies.

Domestic violence movement and shelters hadn't come about as yet.

 We have one of the oldest in the country; and that was started 35 yrs. ago.

 By feminists.  Yup.

 Native American women lost their children in droves--see orphan trains fmi.

Involuntary sterilizations.

Women (uppity types) were involuntarily committed into insane asylums, too.

Hey Fred - I'm not sure what your post to me means. Is there something I wrote that you want to discuss further?

============

Thanks but not really - just added my two cents.

OK Fred just wanted to make sure :)

Your two cents made alot of sense!

Thank you, god, for cC.  Keith is running the last debate.  Perhaps now some of you can hear him the way others of us have all along.

I hope everyone enjoyed my daughter's posts (while I was away.) 

A 6 year old liberal blogger! 

Will all BO supporters support HC should she somehow pull it out?  There seem to be some  BO supporters who HATE Hillary.  Sounds to me like they wouldn't vote for her at all.

People are not monolithic in their opinions and reactions to events even when they have some things in common.

You should answer your question for yourself and leave others to themselves. 

What will YOU do? 

New Thread:

http://blogforamerica.com/view/24037

 
Danny
Communications Director

seashell :-)

===============

Nobody's perfect and a lot of that article is content and quotes taken out of the context and backround.

Don't thank god  and you won't blame god

Yes, I'm a Suze Orman fan, Denise.

She's truth to power--esp. w/whiny married women (who suddenly witness their world fall apart when dumped, or in  DV situation).They don't have the luxury of being "misty-eyed" over trivial bullshit. 

However, 45 yrs. ago was a whole 'nuther thang.

Women w/small children had little economic clout, little access to reliable b/c, or assorted options (esp. women of color). 

Newsflash:  men still don't pay full or adequate child support today; and courts don't enforce it. 

And Hillary ain't no feminist--not by a longshot. 

 Fresh stats:

http://www.iwpr.org/index.cfm

I haven't seen a mention about the reports all over the place about the Obama campaign contacting the Canada Ambassador telling them to ignore what they will hear over the month about him going after NAFTA, "it's campaign rhetoric".


It seems Obama might not have been genuine in his opposition to NAFTA Reports that his campaiagn, Austan Goolsbee, contacted Canada to tell them not to worry about Obama's talk against NAFTA, it's just campaign rhetoric. And after the campaign denied it, Canada reaffirmed twice and gave name and date and said they were now going to cover it a 2nd evening.

Now, this is real bad when McCain jumps on this hypocrisy as well.

"From CTV News, "[T]he Obama camp did not respond to repeated questions from CTV on reports that a conversation on this matter was held between Obama's senior economic adviser -- Austan Goolsbee -- and the Canadian Consulate General in Chicago."

Earlier Thursday, the Obama campaign insisted that no conversations have taken place with any of its senior ranks and representatives of the Canadian government on the NAFTA issue. On Thursday night, CTV spoke with Goolsbee, but he refused to say whether he had such a conversation with the Canadian government office in Chicago. He also said he has been told to direct any questions to the campaign headquarters. [That exchange speaks volumes.]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jMpbpov-H...://www.mydd.com/story/2008/2/29/84354/2510

More on that Canadian Television Story About Obama and NAFTA

February 29, 2008 7:56 AM

The latest from Canadian Television (LINK ) on that story that a senior member of Sen. Barack Obama's campaign team had reached out to the Canadian Ambassador to the U.S. to tell him not to take seriously Obama's fiery anti-NAFTA rhetoric includes questions about a conversation on this subject between Obama senior economic adviser Austan Goolsbee and the Canadian Consulate General in Chicago.

"I don't think it's appropriate to go to Ohio and tell people one thing while your aide is calling the Canadian ambassador and telling him something else," Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., told us yesterday as we flew from Houston to Dallas. "I certainly don't think that's straight talk."

ABC News' Jennifer Parker spoke to Goolsbee, a University of Chicago economics professor, Thursday who would not confirm or deny that he had a conversation with Georges Rioux, the Canadian Consulate General in Chicago.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/...

Many different sources and links
http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/2/29/8435...

Sounds to me like they wouldn't vote for her at all.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Hillary is a rePublican. I've only voted for one rePublican in my life. If she's the nominee, I'd have to think about who the second would be: her or McCain.