By Ginette Townsend

February 29, 2008 11:11 AM | Link to this

5 * FOR SENATOR CLINTON February 25th 2008 I am a Canadian and I have been watching the democratic political debates and like so many I have this very uncomfortable feeling about this Obamania that has spread over the USA. How much do you really know about Barak Hussein Obama? He sounds like a very shrewd politician. He has little experience and it shows every time he opens his mouth. He has a way of wrapping people around his little finger. We all know that he is no Martin Luther King no matter how hard he tries to make it seem like so. He borrows themes and speeches that others have used before him. Themes that he knows will ignite any naïve voter who is looking for changes after the last disastrous eight years of the Bush administration. He is so desperate to get the delegates and nomination that he subtly plays on people’s emotions. To women, no matter their races or origins, he portrays himself as a kind and compassionate man. Just what women love to hear. Through his speeches one would believe that he has met and encouraged every poor single mother, has seen and held every sick baby in desperate need of medical care, has sat down and listened to every distressed teenager ignored by today’s society. By doing so he touches women in just the right way, through their emotions. And he has this unnerving habit of saying, very innocently, that him and Senator Clinton are on the wave length, that there is very little difference between their politics. And then very subtly he goes on and criticizes Senator Clinton, even patronizing her. To me, like to so many others, Senator Clinton is the only person that has the intelligence, love for America, and the ability to be your next president. She has years of experience. She has met leaders of countries all over the world. She has been involved and saw through a multitude of great projects. She is proud of her country and has always been. Please think twice before you decide who will be your next democratic representative. AND … TWO WEIGHTS TWO MEASURES? Lysiane Gagnon, La Presse, February 28 2008 And if Barak Obama was a white man? And if Hillary Clinton was a man? Would an ordinary white opponent, with the relatively limited experience of Obama, have had a trajectory so spectacular? Would Hillary have had it easier? It is almost impossible to imagine Hillary’s male version, because one of her main handicaps is to be married to the former president. The voters have had it with family dynasties, and she inherits, apart from everything, what we can blame her husband for. The case of a man who wants to succeed his wife to the White House is very difficult to imagine! It is clear that a part of the disdain of which Hillary is the object - a disdain which increases in each of her defeats – is the fact that she is a woman. A man showing an equivalent balance sheet (assessment) would be more respected and would have more chances to take away the nomination, in front of a candidate so insubstantial as an Obama in a white skin. Hillary in a male version would not have faced all these unfriendly comments on her clothes, her line, her tone of voice. On the other hand Obama in a white skin would not have been considered with both weight/two measures approach still popular today. Hillary shows determination, we say she is stiff, cold and castrating. If she expresses emotions, we say she is a manipulator, or too fragile to become “a commander-in-chief”. The law of both weights, two measures also applies to Obama. But he, on the other hand, benefits from it. In his place a white contendant would probably have been judged more severely. We would have more often asked him where is the substance behind the eloquence and the charisma. We would have underlined in big red lines his lack of experience on the national stage, and the naivety of its positions in foreign policy, him who says he is ready to meet unconditionally, without preliminaries, the most inflexible enemies of the United States (Chavez and especially Ahmadinejad). We would have examined much closer the “pedigree” of his councilors (advisers) of which the troubling minister of the church to which he belongs. We would have accused him in big shouts of being irresponsible, him who advocates the immediate retreat (withdrawal) of the troops in Iraq, a ravaged country which the retreat (withdrawal) without transition of the American strengths could lead at the edge of the civil war. Please understand me. I do not speak here about charges launched against Obama by republican partisans, who do not hesitate to find anything about Obama just to invent scandals. I speak about relatively neutral observers, about moderate media and about commentators of democratic allegiance, I speak about the public opinion generally, about all this world which, just now, sees Obama in its soup. I admit it, I too am transported in the idea that the United States give themselves a black president. I have an indirect but long-lived memory (souvenir) of the segregation. I like the idea that the big American democracy made her detractors lie, I like the idea that in most of the States, it is white majorities which voted for Obama. But finally, it is not a reason to lose any critical sense and/or direction! Would there be a reversed racism in the work? Maybe. At least, I have never heard, in The Press ” mainstream ” which never miss a chance to report all the extremist attacks, that one would have publicly treated Obama of ” n****r “, while Hillary on the other hand was often treated of ” b***h “, and while there is an association anti-Hillary whose abbreviation is “C**T “, a word which is the worst misogynous insult of the English vocabulary. Would it mean that the anti-black racism would have disappeared? Regrettably, no. I have friends in Ohio, Will and Mary, respectively doctor and nurse. Convinced democrats. They hesitated for a long time between Hillary and Obama, but will doubtless vote for Hillary for the simple reason which she would have, according to them, more chances to beat McCain. Why? “Because once in the polling booth, predicted Will with sadness, the Americans will not want of a black president.” If this hypothesis is exact, Obama would have benefited from both weights, two measures in the stage of the primary, to be later a victim, at the time of the presidential elections. Nothing is simple, here on earth. AND … Barack ALENA Alain Dubuc, La Presse - February 29th 2008 We follow the fight between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama as a sports match, or another reality show. Nevertheless, in the last miles of this campaign a subject which touches us very close took an increasing place. The North American Free-Trade Agreement (ALENA) between the United States, Canada and Mexico. This fight is mainly carried by Barack Obama, the favourite who, for several weeks, multiplies the very virulent criticisms towards the ALENA. And it reminds us that there is a backhand to the populism. Mr Obama has known a remarkable success with his message of change. But behind all of this, when we scratch a little, in a file as the ALENA, what he says is stunning of ignorance, bad faith and even stupidity. Last week, one asked him what he would do with the ALENA if he was elected president: He answered: “I would phone at once, the president of Mexico and the president of Canada to try and modify the ALENA.” Let us begin with the ignorance. We can understand that an average American does not know that Canada has a Prime Minister or that a presidential candidate does not master all the nuances of the foreign policy. But Mr Obama is a senator, a senator of Illinois, a State in the Great Lakes region, stuck to Canada, which is the main partner of the United States. A speech he pronounced two weeks ago in Wisconsin tells us a bit more about it: He said: “Commercial agreements as the ALENA send our jobs overseas and force the parents to compete with their teenagers to work at the minimum wage in Wal-Mart.” Before going further, let us stop one moment to admire the sentence, its exaltation, its suggestive power. But we can note all the same that the ALENA is an agreement between Canada and Mexico, countries of America, which have ground borders with the United States, which can be hardly be considered as overseas. On the other hand, we do not observe a phenomenon of exodus of jobs, certainly not towards Canada, nor even towards Mexico. To understand where Mr Obama is going with this, it is necessary to say that its crescendo rhetoric is explained by the fact that he is getting ready for the primary of Ohio, next week, a State which was hard touched by the loss of 250 000 industrial jobs, many in the field of the automobile. But we know that the drama of the automobile does not come from the ALENA, but the strategies of the American giants of the automobile. And that the job shortage comes much more from the state of the economics. He thus makes a mistake about his target. But why attack the ALENA, rather than China? I suspect two reasons. The first one, it is the populism. It allows him to attack big business as he seems to pretend when he speaks: “Agreements as the ALENA place particular interests before the interests of the workers “. And the second is political opportunism. The ALENA was signed by president Clinton, which allows Obama to attack Hillary Clinton by association.

By Dina S

February 21, 2008 3:38 PM | Link to this

I am voting for Hillary 100%. She is a better candidate than Obama. I hope that everyone will do the same. I pray to God that she’ll be our president. OHIO NEED TO BACK HILLARY FOR PRESIDENT Go Hillary! and God Bless You!

By Dina S

February 21, 2008 3:37 PM | Link to this

I am voting for Hillary 100%. She is a better candidate than Obama. I hope that everyone will do the same. I pray to God that she’ll be our president. OHIO NEED TO BACK HILLARY FOR PRESIDENT Go Hillary! and God Bless You!

By shirley

February 21, 2008 10:33 AM | Link to this

Never in my life have I seen a woman with more “guts” than Hillary..She has been attacked by the far left, by the right, by pundits and their “sexist” remarks, by Obama, by all the news media, by men who would never vote for a woman for president, by women who degrade her for staying with Bill, and more..And if she tries to defend herself against attacks by Obama supporters, she gets called racist..Yet, this brave woman shows that she is the best contender to win in the general election, because of her never-ending strength..I do NOT know how she could show so much courage under fire..She is such a srong woman to be able to withstand such hatred bestowed on her..I am proud to give my support for this strong, courageous woman, whose words come from her heart, unlike Obamas whose words are copied and who has fooled so many people with his Messiah message..

By Ethel S

February 19, 2008 4:30 PM | Link to this

I hope that every Ohio shows up and votes for Hillary Clinton because of proven leadership on issues that deeply effect children and the family. The policies she supports range all the way from reforming No Child Left Behind (No Child Left a Dime) to health care, a workout plan to keep homes from foreclosure, and energy independence including the development of green collar jobs. Hillary is smart, experienced, and never gives up. Go Hillary!