More People Hate Hitlary More Than Anyone Else

[Patriot Games]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,312264,00.html

Poll: Obama and Giuliani Seen As Most Likable Presidential Candidates
Tuesday, November 20, 2007

WASHINGTON - Democrats and Republicans alike have strong opinions about
who has the best chance of capturing the presidency in 2008 - Hillary
Clinton and Rudy Giuliani, that is - but that's not necessarily the
candidate they'd rather go bowling with, take along on a family vacation or
even vote for.

An in-depth survey of more than 2,000 people offers a window into the
thinking of Americans as they look far beyond electability in making their
choices for president - grappling with matters of personality, policy and
religion in sorting through the candidates.

Overall, the poll finds, Democrats are weighing personal traits more heavily
than policy positions this election season; Republicans are putting greater
emphasis on policy. The survey by The Associated Press and Yahoo News is a
departure from traditional polling in that it will track the opinions of the
same people across the country as their beliefs develop and change through
the campaign.

The interplay of the personal and the political doesn't always make for neat
and tidy decision-making.

Take self-described die-hard Republican Donald Stokes. The 48-year-old
steelworker from Waterbury, Conn., would pick Democrat John Edwards if he
could take a candidate along on his family vacation. He likes Edwards'
personality and his family values. But he supports Giuliani for president,
largely because of the former New York mayor's leadership after the 9-11
terror attacks in 2001.

"I'd rather have a president that's going to get in somebody's face if he's
got a problem with them or another country," says Stokes.

Charolette Thompson, a 48-year-old retired landscaper from Federal Way,
Wash., is a Democrat backing Barack Obama for president. But she would
probably pick "the Mormon guy" - that would be Republican Mitt Romney - for
a bowling partner.

Jasmine Zoschak, a 30-year-old physician's assistant from Milford, Pa.,
would love to see a woman in the White House - "just not the female that's
running this year." She's backing Republican Mike Huckabee for president
because of his positive outlook and opposition to abortion, but she'd rather
invite Obama to dinner.

In this first gut-check of the polling series, the voters signaled there's
still hope for candidates playing catchup: Half of likely Democratic voters
said they could change their minds about who should win their party's
nomination, as did two-thirds of Republicans.

Ask Democrats to size up their party's candidates on personal qualities, and
it's easy to see why Clinton is leading national polls of Democrats. She is
the candidate most often seen as strong, experienced, decisive,
compassionate. Looking for strength, for example, 78 percent of Democrats
see the quality in Clinton, 61 percent find it in Obama, 56 percent in
Edwards.

The picture is less clear-cut when it comes to ethics and honesty, where
Clinton and Obama run about even.

Which Democrat is judged the most likable? None has a clear advantage among
Democratic voters, with Clinton, Obama and Edwards running about even. Among
all voters, however, Obama has the edge.

It is a measure of how polarizing Clinton can be that she is the both the
voters' favored bowling or vacation companion and the one most often ruled
out.

Irene Soria, a 60-year-old Democrat from Tulare, Calif., says she's backing
Clinton because "she knows how to play Washington. ... The other two,
Edwards and Obama, seem kind of weak to me."

Likability, Soria says, is over-rated. A lot of people thought they could
have a beer with George W. Bush, she said, but "look at all the things he's
done to the United States. He hasn't done much good."

When Republican voters size up the GOP candidates, Giuliani claims the
advantage on a host of personal qualities. He is the GOP candidate most
often seen as decisive, strong and compassionate. But, just as for Clinton,
ethics and honesty are a potential soft spot. Some 59 percent of GOP voters
see Sen. John McCain as ethical, compared with 54 percent for Giuliani, 45
percent for Fred Thompson and 42 percent for Romney. On honesty, McCain and
Giuliani run about even.

Which Republican is the most likable? Giuliani gets the nod, both from GOP
voters and among voters overall.

Hold a sheer popularity contest, pitting the most likable Democrat vs. the
best-liked Republican, and it would be Obama over Giuliani, 54 percent to 46
percent.

Ask voters which qualities are most important, though, and they put
likability well down the list. They attach far more importance to being
honest, ethical, decisive and strong.

The AP-Yahoo News survey, conducted by Knowledge Networks, also asked voters
to shine the spotlight in the other direction, to evaluate some of their own
qualities.

It turns out that supporters of former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee are the
most likely to be happy. Huckabee has a relatively high proportion of
support among Evangelicals, who tend to be happier than most people.

Among Democrats, supporters of Obama and Edwards are more likely to say they
are very happy than are Clinton's backers. Her supporters include more
lower-income and less-educated voters, who tend to be less happy.

The voters do own up to some reservations about the age, sex and religion of
certain candidates, but some also manage to swallow their concerns. Nearly
60 percent of 71-year-old John McCain's supporters say they have at least
some reservations about supporting a candidate who is over 70. About 30
percent of Romney's supporters have qualms about voting for a Mormon.
Fifteen percent of those who support thrice-married Giuliani have
reservations about someone who is divorced.

On the Democratic side, 7 percent of Clinton's supporters report some
reservations about voting for a woman.

The numbers show a significant share of respondents resisting the pack
mentality. Fully half of Obama's supporters and a third of Edwards' backers
think Clinton is the Democrat with the best chance of winning next November.
On the Republican side, a third or more of the voters supporting McCain,
Thompson and Romney think Giuliani has a better chance of winning.

Who would win right now? When an unidentified Democratic nominee is pitted
against an unidentified Republican, the Democrat gets 42 percent of voters,
the Republican 27 percent and another 27 percent don't know who they'd vote
for.

The survey of 2,230 adults was conducted Nov. 2-12 by Knowledge Networks and
had a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 2.1 percentage points. The
survey included 1,049 Democrats, for whom the margin of sampling error was
plus or minus 3 points, and 827 Republicans, for whom the margin of sampling
error was plus or minus 3.4 points. Unlike most Internet polls, this one is
nationally representative because people are first contacted using
traditional telephone polling methods, and are then followed using online
interviews. People selected for the study who do not already have Internet
access are provided with Internet access for free.

More information is available at http://news.yahoo.com/polls

 

[Topaz]

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