Thank you so very much for the precious $50 you sent to Hillary's campaign. That is not a small amount, and every sum is much appreciated by Hill, for sure.

It's now a campaign to raise $3 million in 72 hours, so all Hillary supporters (and former Edwards, Biden, Richardson, Kucinich, Gravel supporters leaning towards her, and even some Obama supporters reconsidering their choice) should all help out in this fundraising campaign.

From the New York Observer website, I shamelessly re-post this comment written regarding a review of the new anthology, THIRTY WAYS OF LOOKING AT HILLARY: REFLECTIONS BY WOMEN WRITERS / Edited by Susan Morrison. (I hope the brilliant Camorrista doesn't mind, but it encapsulates so succinctly the attitude of some pathological cases in the anti-Hillary camp. And Gaylord and Renatam are the two previous commenters in the comment thread.)

~~~~~~~~~~~

Camorrista (not verified) says:

As a small public service, I've designed a Q & A for those who are are not fans of Hillary Clinton. It's available on a wallet-sized, laminated card and I offer it free to any of the writers the anthology under review. (If Gaylord and Renatam, above, want copies, all they need to do is do what they do best, shriek.)

What's your occupation? I hate Hillary Clinton.

What's your hobby? I hate Hillary Clinton.

Do you do volunteer work? I hate Hillary Clinton.

Do you love children? I hate Hillary Clinton.

How's your sex life? I hate Hillary Clinton.

Do you believe in God? I hate Hillary Clinton.

February 02, 2008 3:39 PM

~~~~~~~~~~~~

'Nuff said.

First, you dismiss my hearfelt thank-you message to Diane B as simply a promo for HRC's new fundraising campaign - but all I wished to do is genuinely express my gratitude to Diane B in the post. And is that donation campaign not something newsworthy, too, since it has been mentioned in the news? Why do you find it offensive for me to mention a candidate's asking for donations, which can easily be ignored by anyone, no? Sorry that you take offence at such a comment, but since when did you make the rules for posting here at Salon?

Next, you just can't resist another opportunity to stomp on HRC again in her request to supporters by calling the target sum as 'lame' - ooh, that's very gracious of you, since 3 million dollars is oh-so-small. 'Cause Obama is so awash in money right now, ergo, he's the one who deserves the nomination - this seems to be your pretzel logic here, if I follow the implication of your demeaning comment.

By the way, you might want to get a copy of Camorrista's Q&A card about which I posted just earlier.

Do read posts more carefully next time. Didn't you see what I specifically wrote?

...it encapsulates so succinctly the attitude of SOME pathological cases in the anti-Hillary camp.

If the shoe fits, and you feel yourself to belong to that particularly odious section of the camp, well, go get yourself a handy Q & A card from Camorrista.

Ha, ha. Posted the Q&A thing before I even read your comment on my thank-you to Diane B. So, no, that was NOT a response to your comment.

Ah, this online back-and-forth can be a confusing business, hey?

However, I did post another comment in response to your reacting to my thank-you note to Diane B. I was addressing Diane B and other Hillary supporters, so why did you respond to that, by the way?

Bye for now. Do behave while I'm gone.

...despite the seeming contradiction of a strong machismo current operating in many of them, lots of matriarchal societies are very comfortable with having women as leaders (Chile, Argentina, Philippines, Pakistan, India, Liberia...etc.). I'm not sure, though, that one can call Hillary anything close to a 'Latina-in-Chief', despite her strong showing among that demographic. Perhaps Hillary was just smart in, as you say so yourself, offering her proposals for improving the health care and educational landscape - things that matter to everyone - basically speaking to the Hispanic demographic in the same manner as she does to other groups in her campaign speeches.

I don't think it's got anything to do with gender (why and how did 'gender' replace the more accurate term, 'sex', anyway?), but perhaps more to do with...culture, as others have noted elsewhere on Salon? Certain groups (I'm guessing here - perhaps older individuals, those genuinely struggling with day-to-day concerns and who may not have the time or the werewithal to post comments online as we do here, might put greater value in knowing the candidate plans to do to improve things in reality. Of course, a realist also knows that these are merely plans, and post-election, these plans may not always push through after they've been through Congress, etc., etc.. However, plans are the only things candidates can offer before they actually take office, no?

This piece may just be another distracting, race- and sex/gender-themed essay on Salon as elsewhere that will be of little use in truly parsing the candidates' strengths and weaknesses in this election. Interesting, I don't find the evidence for the article's contention to be that compelling.

Oh, gawd, I completely agree. BEST POST in a long time! That about sums it up for many Hillary Clinton supporters, who may not be visible on the 'net, or in the media, or even in the real world, for the reasons you state. So where do people think that 10 million dollars raised since Tuesday coming from? Manna from heaven?

...expresses your same sentiments (Obama's candidacy as a GOP ruse), as it does a lot of mine:

http://www.thecityedition.com/Pages/Archive/Winter08/2008Election.html

Indeed, Rove is NOT at present devoting himself to merely posting little essays in the Opinion pages. That strange pattern in the current primary season bespeaks a Trojan Horse wreaking havoc in the Dem camp, with a view to the Dems' ultimate loss.