> aol.com> wrote in message
>
> news:5cebf9a3-9fdf-4797-8e92-a6022841dbcf@q27g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> Her following is larger than msm may know. On several lists I see many
> of all ages
> who are still appalled about the outcome, but that was pre-ordained,
> imo. Zero
> probability of a woman as president, imo.
>
> **Jeanne,
>
> With all due respect:
>
> When the primary process started, I supported Hillary.
> She lost the nomination process because:
>
> 1) She ran a terrible and disorganized campaign. She consistently changed
> her message due to the wrangling with her senior campaign advisors which
> finally resulted in the firing of many of those advisors.
>
> 2) No one could put a muzzle on Bill.  Her campaign was effectively over
> when Bill made the Jesse Jackson remark in South Carolina.
>
> 3) The vote on Iraq which you mentioned in your previous post.
>
> To infer that there was some sort of gender bias at work in her failure as a
> candidate is not only ridiculous, it's wrong and divisive.  If you don't
> want to see Roe v. Wade overturned before the end of the decade, you'll
> encourage your friends to get out the vote for the Democratic nominee.
> Think about it.  Isn't that the real womens' issue?

> We all pay for years thereafter as Beth, JR and others, many, many others I know
> would affirm. When I reviewed the "present: record in Chicago and the Senate
> I felt fear about endorsing an obviously opportunistic fellow whose stands did not
> agree with my pov. Time and again, my gut check beyond the fact checking did
> not allay my concerns on many levels. The "foolish" inserted in the subject (about

> gagged me. How dare another person deem me foolish for following my conscience?
> Then I thought I may tend to over react and feel insult where none was intended.
>
> btw what was your reaction to that long list of "present" votes which made clear
> he was not the pro-woman candidate many had hoped for from their own wish-list?
>
> Beyond the ministers (and that sick Catholic priest) who guided him for twenty
> years which most appalled me as I resent old men in long dresses who hate women
> and serve as religious poseurs in churches, the media and public life, his so swift
> rise out of the blue seemed no accident, but a purposeful event that warrants a look-see.
>
> We who have held our nose and voted for the lesser of two evils over and over
> are simply weary. I have not recovered from that weird awarding of 59 delegates
> to put him over the top before the me-toos raced in such a manner to disgust me.
>
> We who knew there was a zero probability of a woman president, however well
> known a quantity have been had again by a system operating to divide and conquer us.
>
> I still follow the money; ask who benefits and I am not pleased with recent events of
> many kinds which have not dispelled my fears. Questions to the Obama site are still
> not answered and unless Hillary is the VP I continue queasy beyond describing as do
> others who do not buy a pig in the poke no matter how much lipstick is added. Some of
> us are simply not believers. We want battle-tested warriors even if they pray with GOP
> senators and voted the way the constituents wanted even if we disagreed. That vetting,
> that responsiveness, that taking of unpopular stands out of their principles matters when
> I select who stands for me on my dollar. Many of us, men and women I know, including
> former GOP and Independents are not convinced enough to commit funds much less our
> precious vote when we see how the system was gamed to ensure Obama rose to the top.
>
> Being forced into voting for an unknown quantity whose track record is different from
> what we'd prefer makes non-believers, the unblind among us, nearly crazy. Roe reversal
> is not enough to propel me either. It feels like blackmail of sorts. I do not like it all.
>
> Being called a Harriet or a Puma does not help. Being seen as foolish when we know we
> are not foolish, but cautious because once burned, twice shy is part of our learning over time.
>
> As I mentioned before, my conservative friends are laughing about the present dilemma
> and they mock my principles which can focus on unity despite my trepidations and I can't
> respond with facts which support why it is a wise choice beyond mere fear to join the mob.
>
> If Hillary is the VP, I'd feel more reassured that some check and balance may occur or at least
> someone I trust who I verified over time is in the center of power. But since I saw Richardson
> pandering and watched dozens who should know better join the me-too believers, I've been
> troubled beyond words. It is difficult to speak freely about acute fear while worrying about
> hurting your feelings and that of others I know here, but I am not any more reassured than Beth
> or anyone voicing concern here about the wisdom of following Hillary's lead toward unity...
> She is gracious and has the party in mind, but I am not yet certain Obama is who he says he is.
>
> I have friends who say they do not agree with many of Obama's stances, but they will vote for
> him anyway. Many others have not reached that point and may not, ever. I respect their caution...
>
> Jeanne