Hitlary, Totally Incompetent, Spent $1 Million/Day, Lost 11 In a Row; She CANNOT Manage Anything! Sh

http://www.newsmax.com/politics/campaign_money/2008/02/21/74561.html

Obama, Clinton Big Spenders

Thursday, February 21, 2008

WASHINGTON -- One million dollars a day.

As Democratic Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton rushed from

presidential contest to contest in January, that was how quickly they burned

through their money.

On the Republican side, Sen. John McCain and Mitt Romney were spending a

third as much. To see the difference, all a voter in Iowa or New Hampshire

or South Carolina had to do was turn on the television.

Of the $30.5 million Obama spent in January, more than $18 million was to

place and produce television and radio ads, according to his January report

to the Federal Election Commission. For Clinton, who spent a total of $28.5

million in January, $11 million was for ads.

Clinton relied more heavily on direct mail than Obama, spending $3.5 million

on mail expenses, compared to Obama who spent less than half of that.

Both campaigns also choose vendors differently. Clinton tends to stay

in-house, using her strategists' firms for major campaign operations. The

firm operated by Mark Penn, her senior strategist, received the $3.5 million

for direct mail and was also paid more than $315,000 for polling in January.

Overall, his firm, Penn, Schoen & Berland, has been paid about $7.5 million

so far in the campaign. The campaign also reported that it still owed Penn's

firm $2.1 million

Clinton media strategist Mandy Grunwald's firm has been paid more than $2

million for producing ads for the campaign.

Obama relies on a number of strategists and consultants for major campaign

functions. His polling has been handled by Harstad Strategic Research from

Boulder, Colo., David Binder Research from San Francisco, the Benenson

Strategy Group from New York and Brilliant Corners of Washington, D.C. The

campaign has paid the four pollsters a total of $2.7 million over the length

of the campaign.

Obama has paid about $1.2 million for media consulting and media production

to the firm run by his senior strategist, David Axelrod. But he has also

used other outside consultants for media productions.

The different emphasis offers a glimpse into the two campaign's strategic

decisions.

Obama, the freshman senator from Illinois, needed television to introduce

himself to an electorate that did not know him well. Clinton, on the other

hand, was a known quantity and used extensive direct mail to reach voters

whom Penn had identified as being a part of her voting coalition.

"I bet they felt they could more effectively communicate with people they

had identified though a long-term process, which would lead you to making

resource decisions about mail,' said Tad Devine, a Democratic strategist who

advised John Kerry's 2004 presidential campaign.

If the candidates maintain that level of spending heading into the crucial

March 4 contests in Ohio and Texas, Obama is likely to have the financial

advantage. Clinton was forced to lend her campaign $5 million and still

ended the month with $7.6 million in debts. He ended January with $18

million cash on hand and about $1 million in debts.

The difference was Obama's fundraising explosion in January. He raised $35

million for the primary; she raised $13 million.

McCain, meanwhile, emerged as the all-but-certain Republican nominee, but

became embroiled in a dispute with the Federal Election commission. McCain

had applied for public matching funds for the primary, but after his

nomination became virtually assured, he notified the FEC that he was

withdrawing from the public finance system.

This week, the FEC notified McCain that his withdrawal was premature. FEC

chairman David Mason, in a letter, told McCain he must first show that he

did not use the promise of matching funds to help secure a $4 million line

of credit he received late last year. Mason also said the decision to

withdraw would have to be approved by at least four members of the

six-member commission. That, however, could not happen until the Senate

fills four vacancies on the panel.

McCain's lawyer, former FEC chairman Trevor Potter, said McCain had, indeed,

withdrawn and that the FEC could not stop him. He also asserted that the

matching funds did not secure the loan.

"We think it's perfectly legal," McCain said at a news conference Thursday.

"One of our advisers is a former chairman of the FEC, and we are confident

that it was an appropriate thing to do."

McCain needs to stay out of the public finance system because he would

otherwise have to abide by spending limits that he is close to reaching now.

That would prevent him form spending any money until the Republican national

convention in early September.

In the loan agreement with Fidelity & Trust Bank, McCain agreed to secure

the loan using his list of contributors, his promise to use that list to

raise money to pay off the loan and by taking out a life insurance policy.

But the agreement also said that if McCain were to withdraw from the public

financing system and then lose a primary contest by more than 10 percentage

points, he would have had to reapply to the FEC for public matching funds

and provide the bank additional collateral for the loan.

Two former FEC chairmen not involved with the campaign disagree. Michael

Toner said in an interview that it appears the matching funds were not used

as security and that McCain has the right to withdraw without a vote of the

commissioners.

But Brad Smith, a former chairman of the Federal Election Commission and now

a law professor at Capital University Law School in Columbus, Ohio, said the

terms of the loan add a new wrinkle to McCain's effort to bypass the system.

"This new stuff should be very troubling for Senator McCain," Smith said.

"They pledged to go into the public finance system if they thought his

funding was going to fail. ... That's strikes me as pretty darn close to

pledging them as collateral."

Still, even if at some point the FEC determines that McCain violated the

rules, he would likely face little consequences because he did not accept

any of the public funds to which he was entitled.

"What that all makes it is more of a PR problem than anything else," Smith

said.

Bill and Hillary took Arkansas from 48th to 49th in the nation in health

and health care, yet these idiots thought they were qualified to reform

our nation's health care.

Patriot Games <Patriot@America.com> wrote:

> http://www.newsmax.com/politics/campaign_money/2008/02/21/74561.html

>

> Obama, Clinton Big Spenders

>

> Thursday, February 21, 2008

>

> WASHINGTON -- One million dollars a day.

>

> As Democratic Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton rushed from

> presidential contest to contest in January, that was how quickly they burned

> through their money.

>

> On the Republican side, Sen. John McCain and Mitt Romney were spending a

> third as much. To see the difference, all a voter in Iowa or New Hampshire

> or South Carolina had to do was turn on the television.

>

> Of the $30.5 million Obama spent in January, more than $18 million was to

> place and produce television and radio ads, according to his January report

> to the Federal Election Commission. For Clinton, who spent a total of $28.5

> million in January, $11 million was for ads.

>

> Clinton relied more heavily on direct mail than Obama, spending $3.5 million

> on mail expenses, compared to Obama who spent less than half of that.

>

> Both campaigns also choose vendors differently. Clinton tends to stay

> in-house, using her strategists' firms for major campaign operations. The

> firm operated by Mark Penn, her senior strategist, received the $3.5 million

> for direct mail and was also paid more than $315,000 for polling in January.

> Overall, his firm, Penn, Schoen & Berland, has been paid about $7.5 million

> so far in the campaign. The campaign also reported that it still owed Penn's

> firm $2.1 million

>

> Clinton media strategist Mandy Grunwald's firm has been paid more than $2

> million for producing ads for the campaign.

>

> Obama relies on a number of strategists and consultants for major campaign

> functions. His polling has been handled by Harstad Strategic Research from

> Boulder, Colo., David Binder Research from San Francisco, the Benenson

> Strategy Group from New York and Brilliant Corners of Washington, D.C. The

> campaign has paid the four pollsters a total of $2.7 million over the length

> of the campaign.

>

> Obama has paid about $1.2 million for media consulting and media production

> to the firm run by his senior strategist, David Axelrod. But he has also

> used other outside consultants for media productions.

>

> The different emphasis offers a glimpse into the two campaign's strategic

> decisions.

>

> Obama, the freshman senator from Illinois, needed television to introduce

> himself to an electorate that did not know him well. Clinton, on the other

> hand, was a known quantity and used extensive direct mail to reach voters

> whom Penn had identified as being a part of her voting coalition.

>

> "I bet they felt they could more effectively communicate with people they

> had identified though a long-term process, which would lead you to making

> resource decisions about mail,' said Tad Devine, a Democratic strategist who

> advised John Kerry's 2004 presidential campaign.

>

> If the candidates maintain that level of spending heading into the crucial

> March 4 contests in Ohio and Texas, Obama is likely to have the financial

> advantage. Clinton was forced to lend her campaign $5 million and still

> ended the month with $7.6 million in debts. He ended January with $18

> million cash on hand and about $1 million in debts.

>

> The difference was Obama's fundraising explosion in January. He raised $35

> million for the primary; she raised $13 million.

>

> McCain, meanwhile, emerged as the all-but-certain Republican nominee, but

> became embroiled in a dispute with the Federal Election commission. McCain

> had applied for public matching funds for the primary, but after his

> nomination became virtually assured, he notified the FEC that he was

> withdrawing from the public finance system.

>

> This week, the FEC notified McCain that his withdrawal was premature. FEC

> chairman David Mason, in a letter, told McCain he must first show that he

> did not use the promise of matching funds to help secure a $4 million line

> of credit he received late last year. Mason also said the decision to

> withdraw would have to be approved by at least four members of the

> six-member commission. That, however, could not happen until the Senate

> fills four vacancies on the panel.

>

> McCain's lawyer, former FEC chairman Trevor Potter, said McCain had, indeed,

> withdrawn and that the FEC could not stop him. He also asserted that the

> matching funds did not secure the loan.

>

> "We think it's perfectly legal," McCain said at a news conference Thursday.

> "One of our advisers is a former chairman of the FEC, and we are confident

> that it was an appropriate thing to do."

>

> McCain needs to stay out of the public finance system because he would

> otherwise have to abide by spending limits that he is close to reaching now.

> That would prevent him form spending any money until the Republican national

> convention in early September.

>

> In the loan agreement with Fidelity & Trust Bank, McCain agreed to secure

> the loan using his list of contributors, his promise to use that list to

> raise money to pay off the loan and by taking out a life insurance policy.

>

> But the agreement also said that if McCain were to withdraw from the public

> financing system and then lose a primary contest by more than 10 percentage

> points, he would have had to reapply to the FEC for public matching funds

> and provide the bank additional collateral for the loan.

>

> Two former FEC chairmen not involved with the campaign disagree. Michael

> Toner said in an interview that it appears the matching funds were not used

> as security and that McCain has the right to withdraw without a vote of the

> commissioners.

>

> But Brad Smith, a former chairman of the Federal Election Commission and now

> a law professor at Capital University Law School in Columbus, Ohio, said the

> terms of the loan add a new wrinkle to McCain's effort to bypass the system.

>

> "This new stuff should be very troubling for Senator McCain," Smith said.

> "They pledged to go into the public finance system if they thought his

> funding was going to fail. ... That's strikes me as pretty darn close to

> pledging them as collateral."

>

> Still, even if at some point the FEC determines that McCain violated the

> rules, he would likely face little consequences because he did not accept

> any of the public funds to which he was entitled.

>

> "What that all makes it is more of a PR problem than anything else," Smith

> said.

Feminism is Jewish.

Gloria Steinem was a Jew. Bella Abzug was a Jew. Betty Friedan was

a Jew.

Friedan, as the writer of "The Feminen Mystique" and founder of

NOW, really

started the modern feminist movement.

"THE JEWISH 100: A Ranking Of the Most Influential Jews Of All Time"

By Michael Shaprio

# 56 Betty Friedan (b. 1921)

Born Betty Naomi Goldstein to Harry and Miriam (Horowitz) Goldstein in

Peoria, Illinois, educated at Smith College, married in 1947 to Carl

Friedan, the mother of three children, divorced in 1969, activist,

best-selling author, professor, a founder of the National Organization

for Women (NOW), the National Women's Political Caucus, and the First

Women's Bank, researcher, journalist, Democrat, clinical psychologist,

and grandmother, Betty Friedan was the most influential feminist of

the postwar era. Deemed by Marilyn French and others as an "initiator

of the 'second wave' of feminism, " Friedan's writings and lectures,

including the highly influential books THE FEMININE MYSTIQUE and THE

SECOND STAGE, synthesized women's views on what equality meant and how

to live and work... When the war against fascism ended two decades

later, four million women lost their jobs to returning GIs. Women were

again told that their place was in the home. The freedom to work to

build up and defend their nation was over. Men would earn the family's

bread. What the boys needed was a warm place to come home to every

night. Ironically, American soldiers had accepted some of the values

toward women (Kinder, Kuche, Kirche - children, kitchen, church) as

the Nazis they thought they had defeated...

http://www.ihr.org/ http://www.natvan.com

http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.nsm88.com/

http://wsi.matriots.com/jews.html

"Ralph" <nospam@noway.net> wrote in message

news:1icq1df.iqlkusmvpedcN%nospam@noway.net...

> Bill and Hillary took Arkansas from 48th to 49th in the nation in health

> and health care, yet these idiots thought they were qualified to reform

> our nation's health care.

They will be remembered as FAILURES.

If they are remembered at all.

Goebbels speech on March 18, 1933:

"German women, German men !

It is a happy accident that my first speech since taking charge of the

Ministry for Propaganda and People's Enlightenment is to German women.

Although I agree with Treitschke that men make history, I do not

forget that women raise boys to manhood. You know that the National

Socialist movement is the only party that keeps women out of daily

politics. This arouses bitter criticism and hostility, all of it very

unjustified. We have kept women out of the parliamentary-democratic

intrigues of the past fourteen years in Germany not because we do not

respect them, but because we respect them too much. We do not see the

woman as inferior, rather as having a different mission, a different

value, than that of the man. Therefore we believed that the German

woman, who more than any other in the world is a woman in the best

sense of the word, should use her strength and abilities in other

areas than the man.

The woman has always been not only the man's sexual companion, but

also his fellow worker. Long ago, she did heavy labor with the man in

the field. She moved with him into the cities, entering the offices

and factories, doing her share of the work for which she was best

suited. She did this with all her abilities, her loyalty, her selfless

devotion, her readiness to sacrifice.

The woman in public life today is no different than the women of the

past. No one who understands the modern age would have the crazy idea

of driving women from public life, from work, profession, and bread

winning. But it must also be said that those things that belong to the

man must remain his. That includes politics and the military. That is

not to disparage women, only a recognition of how she can best use her

talents and abilities.

Looking back over the past year's of Germany's decline, we come to the

frightening, nearly terrifying conclusion, that the less German men

were willing to act as men in public life, the more women succumbed to

the temptation to fill the role of the man. The feminization of men

always leads to the masculinization of women. An age in which all

great idea of virtue, of steadfastness, of hardness and determination

have been forgotten should not be surprised that the man gradually

loses his leading role in life and politics and government to the

woman.

It may be unpopular to say this to an audience of women, but it must

be said, because it is true and because it will help make clear our

attitude toward women.

The modern age, with all its vast revolutionary transformations in

government, politics, economics and social relations has not left

women and their role in public life untouched. Things we thought

impossible several years or decades ago are now everyday reality. Some

good, noble and commendable things have happened. But also things that

are contemptible and humiliating. These revolutionary transformations

have largely taken from women their proper tasks. Their eyes were set

in directions that were not appropriate for them. The result was a

distorted public view of German womanhood that had nothing to do with

former ideals.

A fundamental change is necessary. At the risk of sounding reactionary

and outdated, let me say this clearly: The first, best, and most

suitable place for the women is in the family, and her most glorious

duty is to give children to her people and nation, children who can

continue the line of generations and who guarantee the immortality of

the nation. The woman is the teacher of the youth, and therefore the

builder of the foundation of the future. If the family is the nation's

source of strength, the woman is its core and center. The best place

for the woman to serve her people is in her marriage, in the family,

in motherhood. This is her highest mission. That does not mean that

those women who are employed or who have no children have no role in

the motherhood of the German people. They use their strength, their

abilities, their sense of responsibility for the nation, in other

ways. We are convinced, however, that the first task of a socially

reformed nation must be to again give the woman the possibility to

fulfill her real task, her mission in the family and as a mother.

The national revolutionary government is everything but reactionary.

It does not want to stop the pace of our rapidly moving age. It has no

intention of lagging behind the times. It wants to be the flag bearer

and pathfinder of the future. We know the demands of the modern age.

But that does not stop us from seeing that every age has its roots in

motherhood, that there is nothing of greater importance than the

living mother of a family who gives the state children.

German women have been transformed in recent years. They are beginning

to see that they are not happier as a result of being given more

rights but fewer duties. They now realize that the right to be elected

to public office at the expense of the right to life, motherhood and

her daily bread is not a good trade.

A characteristic of the modern era is a rapidly declining birthrate in

our big cities. In 1900 two million babies were born in Germany. Now

the number has fallen to one million. This drastic decline is most

evident in the national capital. In the last fourteen years, Berlin's

birthrate has become the lowest of any European city. By 1955, without

emigration, it will have only about three million inhabitants. The

government is determined to halt this decline of the family and the

resulting impoverishment of our blood. There must be a fundamental

change. The liberal attitude toward the family and the child is

responsible for Germany's rapid decline. We today must begin worrying

about an aging population. In 1900 there were seven children for each

elderly person, today it is only four. If current trends continue, by

1988 the ratio will be 1 : 1. These statistics say it all. They are

the best proof that if Germany continues along its current path, it

will end in an abyss with breathtaking speed. We can almost determine

the decade when Germany collapses because of depopulation.

We are not willing to stand aside and watch the collapse of our

national life and the destruction of the blood we have inherited. The

national revolutionary government has the duty to rebuilt the nation

on its original foundations, to transform the life and work of the

woman so that it once again best serves the national good. It intends

to eliminate the social inequalities so that once again the life of

our people and the future of our people and the immortality of our

blood is assured..."

http://www.ihr.org/ http://www.natvan.com

http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.nsm88.com/

http://wsi.matriots.com/jews.html