ACTION: WomenCount PAC’s New Ad

From: WomenCount PAC
Date: June 12, 2008 12:22:14 AM EDT
Subject: Need your help to fund important new ad!

Dear Friends,
We are putting the finishing touches on our next ad, which we’re hoping to run in the New York Times as soon as Monday. We think you’ll love the content – and this is no time to sit back and wait. More than ever, we must stand up and be counted – all 18 million of us. But we can’t do it without you. We are still short of the necessary funds to place the ad.

The headline is “We’re still here. We’re listening. And we’re not going away.” It says we will not rest until we hear from the Democratic party and its nominee about how they will:

  • represent the 18 million Americans who voted for Hillary;
  • acknowledge Hillary’s 35 years of experience;
  • reform a flawed nominating process, especially caucuses;
  • address the flagrant, often hostile, gender bias in the campaign;
  • assure parity to the 52 percent of Americans who are women;
  • apologize for their public silence in the wake of the outrageous attacks leveled by Father Pfleger against Hillary;
  • and support the issues we hold dear, such as health insurance for everyone, a good start for all children, a strong economy, and a smart environmental policy.

It is so important that we speak out and speak up at this critical moment. Hillary’s supporters around the country are launching many different efforts, and WomenCount respects all of those views.

We believe that the points we raise in this ad are shared by everyone, and we hope you will get behind our latest effort.

To contribute, go to Remember that the quickest way to get the funds to us is to send a check by overnight mail or print out and fax back the credit card form you can download from the web site.

Thank you for your continued support.
WomenCount PAC

WomenCount PAC was created to ensure that the 51 percent of American citizens who are women have their values and votes counted in the political process. So far in the 2008 election cycle, WomenCount has run a series of ads related to the presidential campaign and made contributions to several women candidates for Congress.

Contributions to WomenCount PAC are not tax-deductible. Contributions will be used in federal elections, and are subject to federal law regarding prohibited sources and limits. Contributions to WomenCount PAC are limited to $5,000 per calendar year and contributions from corporations and labor unions are prohibited. Federal law requires us to use our best efforts to collect and report the name, mailing address, occupation and name of employer of individuals whose contributions exceed $20 in a calendar year.

Paid for by WomenCount PAC and not authorized by any candidate or candidate’s committee.
WomenCount PAC ~ 1016 Lincoln Blvd., Suite 303, San Francisco, CA 94129 ~

Dean: “So, what do you want?” Now He Asks

With 600,000 hits on their website in one week, Cynthia Ruccia and Marilu Sochor, co-founders of Women For Fair Politics, are an early demonstration of the collective power of so-called Hillary Democrats. 80% of their visitors say they agree with the group’s stance. Women are not taking their virtual ouster from core constituency of the Democratic Party, nor their candidate’s sexist treatment by it, lying down. (sic)

We love Hillary Clinton. We are so proud of the job that she has done. We feel very upset with our Party. We feel that they have absolutely betrayed us. The amount of sexism that came out during the course of this campaign is completely unacceptable. We feel that we want to make a statement and are going to support John McCain.

Yes, Howard Dean has contacted them! Twice over the last week. He wants to know what do they want, how do they feel? (Howard wants to know how we feel? I guess he hasn’t been reading his emails — you know, the one’s we’ve been sending him for the last six months.) He asks: how could they get on board the Obama train?

Ruccia and Sochor told Howard that it wasn’t an option, that their Party didn’t stand up for or defend Sen. Clinton throughout her entire campaign, therefore they could not support Sen. Obama, no matter what Sen. Clinton said her supporters should do. The sexism, they said, that was seen in the “big and little things” we’ve all heard about (and reported and protested in real time, to no avail), amounted to an unsurmountable and clear “no.” They cited as “completely unacceptable” Bill Richardson’s bashing of Hillary after she (reportedly) lost the Democratic Presidential nomination.

The co-founders describe how their group, which started with five members, are of all different opinions about the up coming general election. Some will vote for McCain, some won’t vote, some will write-in Hillary’s name.

Howard. Too late. Completely unacceptable. This is for you . . . Sweetie.

DC Rally Organizers Announce Speakers

WomenCount and Count Every Vote ’08 Rally Organizers

Announce Speakers for DNC RBC Rally May 31, 2008 in DC

Stephanie Tubbs Jones, Kim Gandy and others to speak at rally

San Francisco, CA May 29, 2008 ~ The initial list of speakers for the rally in support of Count Every Vote ’08 in Washington DC is being released. Another 5 to10 speakers and celebrities will be announced one day later.

“We are very excited about the amount of support we are receiving from many prominent elected officials and organization leaders.” announced Karen Feldman of Count Every Vote ’08. “These officials are as committed as we are to seeing that every vote cast in this election is counted fairly and proportionally. They realize how high the stakes are if, once again, millions of voters feel their votes have been disregarded.”

“My entire adult life has been dedicated to registering and inspiring young people to get involved and vote. This is a logical continuation of that work. How can we even think of ignoring 2.4 million voters in an election this close?” commented Jehmu Greene, who is slated to emcee the rally. “We must move away from the dangerous precedent of allowing small groups of people to determine the outcome of elections.”

The following speakers are planned to address the rally crowd beginning at 9:45am. The event will begin at the Marriott Wardman Park Hotel at 7:00am Saturday, May 31st and continue until the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee has announced their decision. A detailed time schedule will be released on Friday as well as 5 to 10 additional speakers and celebrities.

The speakers are:

Congresswoman Stephanie Tubbs Jones, OH 11th Congressional District

Congresswoman Corrine Brown, FL 3rd Congressional District

2008 Congressional Candidate Eric Massa, NY 29th Congressional District

Ambassador Elizabeth Bagley, Former US Ambassador to Portugal and Senior Adviser to Secretary Madeleine Albright

Kim Gandy, President of the National Organization for Women (NOW)

Brent Wilkes, National Executive Director, League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC)

Jehmu Greene, Former President of Rock the Vote

Lulu Flores, President, National Women’s Political Caucus

Amy Rao, Founder, Integrated Archive Systems and President, 11th Hour Project

Reverend Marcia Dyson, African-American Minister from Washington, DC

Jim Hannagan, Founder, Florida Demands Representation

Sexism Might Sell, But I’m Not Buying It: Petition Campaign

Statement from the Women’s Media Center:

On May 23, The Women’s Media Center, along with our partners at Media Matters, launched, “Sexism Sells, But We’re Not Buying It,” a new video and online petition campaign illustrating the pervasive nature of sexism in the media’s coverage. While Hillary Clinton’s campaign has cast a spotlight on the issue of sexism, this isn’t a partisan issue: it’s about making sure that women’s voices are present and powerful in our national dialogue.

Let’s send a message to the media:

Sexism Might Sell, But We’re Not Buying It!

Click here to join the WMC petition campaign (scroll down page to sign up).

From WMC president Carol Jenkins:

Women are a driving force in the U.S. economy with a purchasing power of more than $7 trillion a year, and purchase fully 82 percent of all products and services in the U.S. Earlier this year, The Women’s Media Center joined NOW, the Feminist Majority, and the National Women’s Political Caucus to speak out against the particularly egregious remarks Chris Matthews made about Hillary Clinton’s campaign, when he said that “the reason she may be a front-runner is her husband messed around” (MSNBC’s Morning Joe, January 9, 2008). Speaking for more than 15 million women across the United States, the coalition secured an on-air apology from Matthews, and assurances from NBC executives that steps were being taken to address the situation. Yet the situation persists, which is why The Women’s Media Center is taking this next step, releasing a video and launching an online petition campaign to allow women to speak out against this continuing sexism.

Read Carol Jenkins’ entire statement about the video campaign.

The Women’s Media Center strives to make women visible and powerful in the media. From our founding in 2004 by Jane Fonda, Robin Morgan, and Gloria Steinem to our advocacy and media relations work today, we are part of a strong feminist tradition that seeks to hold the media accountable for presenting the world as we know it.

Friendly nod to Cooney for posting the petition campaign at Hillary Clinton Forum.

The Officers and The Lady

As John McCain boasted ten days or so ago:

“Americans should be proud that they led the way in removing a vicious, predatory dictator and opening the possibility of a free and stable Iraq,” the statement continues. “Americans should be proud that once we implemented the surge and new counterinsurgency strategy, a dire situation has been dramatically improved. And, Americans know that the consequences of failure would leave our nation less secure for generations to come.”

Really, John McCain! “A free and stable Iraq”? You mean that you could walk down the street during your visit just like anywhere in America? After all that money and those lives lost of ours, of theirs, and a crumbling economy, infrastructure, and educational system here?

We’re done, we were done before we started. We made it a hotbed of terrorism. If there was a problem in Iraq, our actions have made it far worse. How about Basra, and Mutatada El Sadr’s call for cease fire after we began bombing? Yes, they hollered wolf, but who was in charge? He was and still is, and his supporters are part of the Iraqi congress. Then, as if knowing Petraeus would testify to the surge’s success, the last ten days of surge seemed to strengthen the hand of the resistance, who repeatedly ripped bombs inside of the “safe” Green Zone, as if to thumb their noses at that assertion, and provide strength to all those who would have us fold our losing hand.

Let’s build our country up to the shining light it used to be for other countries around the world that respected us, instead of pouring it down the drain there. Greeted as liberators with cheers and flowers, my foot!

34 retired Admirals and Generals including two Joint Chiefs of Staff have endorsed Hillary and say that her world experience and five years on the Senate Armed Services Committee, and her clear plan make her the best candidate. That’s despite McCain’s war prisoner bragging rights and Obama’s claim that Hillary voted wrong.

You can watch it here: Go to to favorite, rate and comment.

Instead of covering these heavy-duty endorsements, the media decided to cover Hillary’s First Lady schedule as if it was a tea party, like her claims were all fluff. In fact, Irish women who were part of the Irish/England peace negotiations are on record saying that Hillary’s presence made a huge difference. But who does the media quote? Some men who deny it. Now doesn’t that just fit the bill? Meanwhile, Obama rings in about his doubts that Hillary could be a strong Commander-In-Chief.

So, the media ran with those stories instead of the Officers. As to why is a confirmation of all I’ve been saying till now: People–some men, some women–are just scared as hell to have an intelligent, dedicated, deep-thinking woman in power. It challenges so many things about the prevailing world order and culture that it’s safer to demonize Hillary than succumb to her competence.

It’s a tricky game to get drawn into — this one upmanship about national defense and ending the war. Hillary and Obama are drawing record numbers to the polls, primarily because this country is war-weary, which it wasn’t (unbelievably) in the last two elections. Many baby boomers, like me, are still weary from Viet Nam forty years ago.

King Me

Obama is pronounced the winner, day after day, on talk shows, in editorials, on blogs, his every campaign stop, talk, and plane interview a topic of excitement.

On March 25, 2008, NY Times columnist David Brooks wrote:

Second, Obama’s lawyers successfully prevented re-votes in Florida and Michigan. That means it would be virtually impossible for Clinton to take a lead in either elected delegates or total primary votes.

Now I just don’t get why preventing millions of voters from having their say would be a yay moment, and reported as a successful winning strategy without questioning it?

What happened to reporting the news, fair and square? Oh right, FoxNews does that. Every pundit is a star. Face it, I tell myself, he’s a phenomenon, and they’ve helped make him one. We’ve been so starved for a smart, charismatic leader to pull us out of the Bush dumb hole.

Wow, can you imagine a scenario, see if you can get a picture of it in your mind, where Democratic big Whigs pronounced daily for six months–actually two years, including getting into the race–that Obama should quit when he’s in a statistical (1 percent) dead heat with his opponent? Just listen: Can you hear the roar of the furor that would cause and the implications that would be mined by the media?

Yet Hillary is described as divisive for doing what candidates do: staying in the race and fighting. She said this week that the big boys club is trying to bully her around. I’m sorry, guys, but the men just look like they’re gloating right now. It seems so obvious to me.

As a nation, we could be learning so much more about the issues and candidates if the media would pose some real questions instead of playing with themselves. But of course, conflict, intrigue, back-biting are what they think sells, their allegiance pledged to the almighty dollar. This is the very same media that sold us the war in failing to do their job as the fourth estate with the responsibility to investigate stories in-depth. In that case, they were beholden to fear and bandwagonism, which is extremely dangerous.

Hill Can’t Buy a Thrill — What a Week It Was!

I’m feeling bad for Hillary, no really. Whatever she does this week, she just can’t buy a thrill. She began on Monday with what was billed as a major policy speech, which was drowned out by her Bosnia gaffe and Obama’s intro by Mayor Bloomberg, followed by his appearance Friday on the View. Gosh, Sherri Shepard declared her allegiance — well, that she’d voted for Hillary, but since “the speech” has switched to him, and together with Elizabeth Hasselbeck, gushed that they were ready to hit the Obama campaign trail on the weekends. Meanwhile, Hillary’s major policy speech about the economy and housing market didn’t even make it to the evening news.

All this and more: Easter weekend featured Bill Richardson all the time. Then there was James Carville. Come on, Judas? That’s a little strong, don’t ya think? Hmm, not that Hillary is Jesus, but Gov. Richardson did turn around and bite his unwitting colleague in the butt — really hard. Then . . . we had the purported letter from Hill’s camp urging Super Delegates to consider who could win the general election, and to not abandon her.

Then there was Thursday’s retaliation by Nancy Pelosi, whose distaste for Clinton was publicly evident a couple of weeks ago in her turned up nose answer to hopeful idealists who wondered, “Will there be a dream ticket?”

“I don’t think so,” she replied. Sigh, I’ve really liked Nancy for a long time, but that just came off way too cold.

And then to cap off the week, we have two more stalwart Dems, Dodd and Leahy, calling for Hill to throw in the towel. It’s Larry King’s favorite question, and spreading around like wildfire on all the shows. The final cherry on top: late Friday, and under the category of “with surrogates like these, you don’t need opponents,” Governor Rendell said that both Hill and Barack were great candidates, but PA has a lot of white conservatives who wouldn’t vote for a black president. Now the black PA community is pissed. Wow! Bill and Hill must be feeling the sting of all those slaps right about now.

I don’t know, am I just blind, stupid, or what (don’t answer that) to be clinging to my faith that Hillary would be a really good President? She’s really smart, has the will and desire, and she definitely has as much to prove in office as Obama. I’ll tell ya, she’s got more cojones than any of the sissies who can’t take the heat and are now jumping out of the frying pan.

According to the DNC, Hillary has 13,464,305 votes to Obama’s 13,568,526. If FL (where neither spent money, which is how I think it should be everywhere) were counted, she would have 14,321,249 votes and he 14,137,456. But Obama is blocking all efforts for a solution to have FL and MI count. Then DNC Chair, Howard Dean, whose brother works for Obama’s campaign, mocked the whole process instead of trying to act more Solomon-like in order to broker a deal.

Has anyone ever run for class president? School president? Imagine hitting it day after day just to win a few votes. Now imagine if you’d run and nearly 14 million people voted for you: Wouldn’t you feel an obligation to stay in and keep representing those people? What if nearly 1 million more people voted for you, which would push you into the winning category, but the school board said it couldn’t count? Then your opponent, who said he was for “the people” refused to let those votes count or propose a way for every person to vote, and blocked solutions that would reflect the actual vote where neither candidate advertised. Wouldn’t you stay in and fight? There are 10 states left, and 14 million people are pulling for that one.

Governor Rendell Goes Head to Head with Charlie Rose

God bless you, Ed Rendell, for speaking about your newfound realization and appreciation of how women feel about Hillary’s mistreatment by the media, and about our culture’s invisible misogyny. Case in point: On Monday, what was billed as a major policy speech was completely drowned out by the Bosnia landing strip gaff. Details, information, anything at all? Clinton’s plan to help the nation’s housing market and financial situation wasn’t even covered on the evening news. To say that the media who repeatedly predicted her demise and said she was running a negative campaign, even after she’d win a state, is biased against her because she’s a woman, is the understatement of this election cycle.

He could barely spit it out without being challenged by Charlie Rose three or four times, “What makes you say that Obama has been given a pass?” “State where Obama has been given a pass”? Charlie, you would have been better off to ask for examples regarding Hillary’s treatment, but instead you went for the questions that appeared to be Obama-defensive. Ahem, exactly the point.

I’m not the most photogenic person — in fact, I look lousy on camera, always stiff, or like a little old lady — I’ve always been that way, even in grade school class photos. But darned if the Governor didn’t have a piece of saliva sticking being stretched between his top and bottom lip with each word for the first half of the show. For you baby boomers who might remember, it was the real live equivalent of a classic Rosanne Rosanadana riff by Gilda Radner. I got so grossed out, I had to turn away and just listen to Gov’nr Ed, thinking, can’t someone tell him in his earpiece to just use his handkerchief? Oh gosh, I’m smiling now, but really, it’s not a great way to get those young people on board for Hillary. I mean who wants to see that? Oh, I joke. Okay, now who’s being shallow?

The Media to Gloria and Geraldine: “Okay, You Want to Take a Stand? We’ll Show You!”

The Fawning Media, as if to say to two of our most outspoken women, “Okay, you want to speak out? We’ll show you!” Under their collective breath: “Onery women!”

The most recent flaps, first Gloria Steinem’s on-air utterance that John McCain’s war prisoner status made him no more viable as a candidate than Hillary. Whoa, did that raise the official patriotism meter! Perhaps I should say, arouse it. I think her point was that war experience is not necessarily a qualification for creating peace.

Then there was Geraldine Ferraro. I’ve just been laying low, not writing too much here, in my very own first blog entries, watching this tennis match, engaged, surprised, sometimes not believing what I see or hear. Here’s how covered this story after Ferraro had to justify her statement, made at a private event, that Obama is where he is in the 2008 Presidential race because he’s black:

“I got up and the question was asked, ‘Why do you think Barack Obama is in the place he is today?’ ” She alluded to her own position 24 years ago as the first female candidate for vice president.

She said Wednesday that her comments about the impact of Barack Obama’s race on the electorate were taken out of context and that she stands by her words.

She says in an interview, “It’s the guys sticking together. . . . If he were a woman of any color, we wouldn’t be voting for him right now.” Just as when she was a Vice-Presidential candidate in 1984: she claims she would never have been picked were she not a woman.

I think that’s true. She’s talking about experience, and that the black community is turning out for Obama simply because he’s black. Geraldine says she’s the first to admit that she was only picked for her gender. I think she’s brave–basically stating that race is an issue, as is gender. Isn’t that why many people are voting for Hillary–because she’s a woman? I admit, it’s part of why I am, so I can’t hold Obama supporters in any more judgment than that. They have to make a choice, it’s just a shame, based on the Clintons’ lifelong support of civil rights and the black community. How come now they’re the bad guys, and their entire contribution is called into question? Oh that? Well yeah, I’m sure, for some people.

But then, of course, the public got offended, went ballistic. In all the TV discussions nobody spoke of why that was happening. I think that Ferraro’s comments seemed insensitive, but were actually made purposefully with seasoned knowledge of the political system and electorate. She was trying to make a point. The sticky part was that people listened to her as meaning Obama didn’t deserve, or work to get where he is. Her statement didn’t seem to acknowledge the talent that he has and how he motivates and inspires others–people feel him.

So Hillary’s move in all this was to disavow both stalwart women who made inflammatory statements, as opposed to going more deeply into their actual meaning, and then using the breakdown as a way to open a discourse. Perhaps she could have taken a page out of Barack’s book this week: He turned all that Preacher Wright flap into a fantastic major speech on Race in America. Now that was some fine lemonade he made. It’s been wall-to-wall Obama, all channels, all week.

I know our girl’s been just a bit busy, flying lightning speed around the country, but what would have happened had she faced these issues and gone deeper into them? Could she have revitalized the debate about how the media and other women are treated? She likely thought of those topics as diverting her current message, which is true, and perhaps felt like we’re not ready for the fem conversation yet–just like half of the electorate seems to prefer a less experienced black man than a more experienced white woman. Oh, you’re remembering the part about, “she’s just not likable, she’s cold, I don’t trust her, she’s ambitious. If it were any other woman, I’d vote for her, it’s just her.”

Even the book I bought, thinking it would give me fortitude, after skimming it at B&N, “Thirty Ways of Looking at Hillary,” edited by Susan Morrison, has been too frustrating to read. Half the essays trash and super-analyze her, and the other half provide analysis that helps me understand why the first half is trashing her. Of course, they’re interspersed, and I can feel my stress level rise as moods pass through me making me feel like I’m going to rip the book in half, throw it away, or perhaps sell it right after I’m done. Sometimes I feel like I don’t want anyone else to even read it and destruction or trash might be best. Like when I go online, for instance to daily kos or the Huffington Post, or various news outlet blogs or comment sections, and Hillary haters are spewing. As a sorry few have commented about the language used to describe Hillary and her campaign, if people talked about Barack Obama in that way, it would be considered racist. After several Saturday Night Live skits, the media actually discussed it for a week. I was happy to see that, but they’ve since moved on and are back to their old ways.

Sigh. I’m just amazed. Hillary Clinton is such a fighter.