Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Former president of Chicago NOW Switches from Clinton to Obama

By

A very powerful video from the former president of Chicago NOW on why she’s changed her choice of presidential candidate:

Why Lorna Brett Howard Switched from Clinton to Obama.

>> UPDATE By Bob:

The Washington Post reports today from South Carolina:

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s presidential campaign aired a new radio ad here Wednesday that repeated a discredited charge against Sen. Barack Obama, in what some Democrats said is part of an increasing pattern of hardball politics by her and former president Bill Clinton.

The ad takes one line from an Obama interview — “The Republicans were the party of ideas for a pretty long chunk of time there over the last 10, 15 years” — and juxtaposes it with GOP policies that Obama has never advocated.

Clinton may win the primary but she will lose the general election if she keeps this up, I think. She cannot become President if any significant fraction of the Democrats who support Obama do not vote for her. Worst of all, she may lose the possibility of an endorsement by David, a tantalizing prize that is still possible before the Massachusetts primary. [- Bob]

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. What now? Sic the Clinton “pit bull” Bubba on this woman and concoct some smear campaign as he did with J Fowers, K. Will, and M.Lewisky et al. The Clintons are frightening people. I could be tempted to vote for Barak. I would not under any circumstance vote for HR Clinton and I would send money to her opponent. I am an unenrolled voter and I have never missed a presidential election in well over forty years. I have voted D and R. I vote for the candidate. I have never voted party.

    • At least not in MA.  There’s no “Pull this lever to vote all Democrats”.

      <

      p>MCRD, you don’t seem particularly moderate — that is, at least in MA politics, it doesn’t seem like your odds are 50-50 to vote for the Dem or the Repub [assuming no credible 3rd candidate].

      <

      p>So tell us [if you don’t mind, of course, you’re free to choose not to]… since you haven’t missed an election in well over 40 years, who have you voted for in the POTUS race every election since 1968.

        • to read an entire post before being “helpful”.  Note the part I wrote about “assuming no credible 3rd party”.  Those few words indicate that I didn’t need your helpful reminder.

          <

          p>kthx

            • That’s good to know.  The only trouble with the smaller, independent parties, which people vote for as “protest” votes, is that the votes that go to them all too often (but not always) get syphoned off to either Republican or Democratic Presidential candidates who are not well liked for whatever reason.  In 1992, Ross Perot ran as an Independent, and his votes got syphoned off to Bill Clinton.  We were lucky in that respect.  However, in 2000, Ralph Nader’s candidacy helped push G. W. Bush over the top and into the White House.

              <

              p>These independent parties are a gamble, definitely.  

      • Presidential elections:

        <

        p>I voted for LBJ and Perot, the remainder I voted Republican.
        State election I voted for Ed King back in the 70’s. I did not vote for Celluci because of his penchant for gambling, and Jane Swift was an embarrassment.
        Senators, Reps and local elections I vote all over the place.

        <

        p>I typed out the reasons why I think and vote the way I do, but I figure no one is interested. I’ll just leave it that I was the oldest of many children, we were poor, and I worked my butt off my entire life. I am no one special. If I can do it—everyone can do it.

        <

        p>I despise a one party system, because it leads to arrogance, and tyranny. Ergo I despise our current political climate in MA. Every opinion or idea deserves, intelligent debate. No debate results in the mess we currently enjoy. It doesn’t matter who is in power. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. I’ll get off the soap box now.

  2. Here are her donations, all Hillary all the time as of the beginning of 2007, last donation Jan ’07:

    <

    p>Newsmeat

    <

    p>Video is powerful.  

    <

    p>One thing that make me curious, her last presidential donation was in August ’07, Tom Vilsack.  When did she jump off the bandwagon?

  3. If David endorses Clinton — meaning all three editors pick a different candidate — who gets afflicted with the BMG curse?  All of them?  Does this mean that Kucinich sweeps Super Tuesday or that Gore is chosen as the nominee in a brokered convention?

    • he will have endorsed the winner…of the Dem. nomination and the National Election.

      <

      p>Today’s LA Times/Bloomberg Match Up poll results: 1312 Sample of registered voters Nationally…taken between 1-18 and 01/20

      <

      p>Here are % results:

      <

      p>McCain 42, Clinton 46
      McCain 42, Obama 41

      <

      p>Giulliani 37, Clinton 53
      Giulliani 32, Obama 49

      <

      p>Huckabee 38, Clinbton 51
      Huckabee 37, obama 47

      <

      p>Romney 39, Clinton 50
      Romney 35, Obama 46

      <

      p>And I agree with David, Bill should sit back a bit and let Senator Clinton carry the day..she is smart enough, tough enough and capable enough…more than enough.

      • unless we have a national democratic election.

        <

        p>We don’t.

        <

        p>How did FL, OH, IA, MO, NM, NV, OR, MI, MN, or NH feel about JMcC v HRC?  The weight by which voters in CA, NY, VA, or TX feel about the two is irrelevant, but could swing the poll by more than a few percent.

  5. http://www.fashionwindows.com/…

    <

    p>Style Alert: New England Socialites Receive Senator Hillary Clinton
    By: Contributing Writer
    PARIS, Jun 3, 2005/ FW/ — On Friday May, 20, former First Lady and current New York senator, Hillary Rodham Clinton, rubbed elbows with some of New England’s most stylish socialites at a fundraiser/cocktail for the Every Child Matters Education Fund.

    <

    p>The event was a rare opportunity to speak with some of New England’s most prominent socialites and to learn a bit more of their style choices in their world replete with social obligations. Here, European and American labels got on well together.

    <

    p>Lorna Brett Howard of New York hosted the fundraiser in her elegant home located adjacent to Gramercy Park, New York’s only private park.

    <

    p>Mrs. Howard opted for a layered dress in green created by Prada, and which falls just below the knees. The dress was set off by wide satin belt and Mrs. Howard’s sensible selection of diamond earrings and a gold bracelet.

    <

    p>Jessie Brett, the mother of Mrs. Howard, was lovely in an Elaine Fisher dress, complimented by an Hermès scarf.
    ——————————————————–

    <

    p>Could there be more than one Lorna Brett Howard?
    Was she NOW president before or after NY? Am confused if they are one and the same…is she the socialite friend of Penny Pritzker, Chicago Realty family heiress who is Chairing obama’s finance committee?  Or are they two different Lorna brett howards?

    • In the video she says “My name is Lorna Brett Howard. I live in Chicago and New York.”

    • Especially a former president of a city chapter of a national organization.  I’m sure glad this was front-paged rather than, say, the letter of the actual organization endorsing Hillary.

      <

      p>There is a miasma of desperation exuding from the Obama camp these days…

  8. Um, who cares about endorsements? Who cares about endorsements from NOW? Who cares about an endorsement from a former president from the Chicago (a city Obama represents) chapter of NOW?

    <

    p>Winning politics is about timing, and as Rove unfortunately demonstrated, attacking people’s strengths. The pundits have noticed attacks on Obama. So what? I may be wrong, but I don’t see a problem here. If Hillary gets the nod, the negativity will be far behind her by the general election.

    <

    p>Mark

  9. I mean really.  She may be a perfectly fine human being, but her reasons for not supporting Hillary Clinton seem pretty petty and completely out of touch with real world politics.  She, however, does illustrate one key point that I think is telling about the candidates.  Hillary Clinton has the support of more working class women than Barack Obama and wealthier liberals, as this woman so clearly appears to be, tend to support Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton.  I wonder why that is…..      

  10. Bob, I think you are wrong on general election but you might be right about David.  Indecision 2008 it is.

  11. I don’t disagree with her assertion on Obama and the war, and I believe Obama brought up the race issue first, but the Reagan comments are taken out of context and I’m a little dissapointed by the tactic.

    <

    p>However – I am equally dissapointed with all the clearly coordinated “heart felt regret”. Please, it’s a bit much.

  12. Bob has become a concern troll.  

    <

    p>Holy shit.  

    <

    p>I think an intervention is in order.  

    • As has been discussed ad nauseum there are no trolls on BMG. In my personal view, that is a silly game that clubby insiders try to play to shut down discussion, as on places like DailyKos/FreeRepublic.

      <

      p>However, if you want to discuss the substance of the post, preferably with reasoned argument and citations, that would be terrific!

      <

      p>As far as interventions go, it sounds from some of the posts higher up that Lanny Davis could use your help, if you’re really, “concerned.”

      • “Clubby insiders”?  

        <

        p>Oh my, aren’t we rather sanctimonious these days.  Well, Mr. Bob, if you think your comment here is the sort of comment that “keeps this place useful,” chock full of “reasoned argument and citations,” then there’s really nothing more to say. You have, if you’ll forgive the “bloggy jargon,” jumped the shark.  Smile, now, and untwist your knickers.  Life is too short, big fella.  

    • as to the meaning of “concern troll”?

      <

      p>I’m assuming that you are a Hillary supporter, and are accusing Bob of making partisan shots?   Why can’t you write that in English?

      <

      p>I can’t even tell if you agree with him or not.

      <

      p>I’m not a big Obama guy, but it is surely accurate to note that the gloves have come off over the last week, no?

      <

      p>BTW, proprietors:  If whatever was written above amounts to a discount of the entire post on the grounds that the writers are simply electioneering, it exposes a fundamental downside of your decision to do endorsements.  I do acknowledge that there is a dilemma: support Obama privately, and pretend to play it straight, or to just admit that you support Obama.  I don’t necessarily disagree with the choice to be up front about it.  I just note the downside.

      • i.e.

        <

        p>Gee, I think Hillary would make a great President and of course I’m confident she’ll inevitably be elected, but I am concerned that there’s oppo research that proves she’s a souless bitch, with ties to Satan and the Republicans will use that against her, so that her inevitable Presidentcy will drag the country down a path of ruin unparalleled since the Black Plague swept Europe.

        • it’s an almost-positive guarantee that we’ll end up with another Republican in the White House.

      • Is insider jargon popular among contributors to DailyKos and other blogs:

        <

        p>

        Concern Trolls. Marginally more clever, they pretend at being progressive Democrats, but at every turn seem to suggest the most obviously damaging or boneheaded or offensive thing they can. These are easier to catch than you might imagine: since it hardly matters whether someone is an obvious concern troll or just an unmitigated idiot, sometimes it doesn’t pay to think about it too hard.

        <

        p>It’s a silly way to avoid engaging in substantive argument, in my view (which is the normal situation at places like DailyKos and its equivalent FreeRepublic), and that’s why I was so sarcastic in my response. Your comment, “why can’t you say that in English,” is exactly right.

        <

        p>As to being public with endorsements, I think transparency is useful. It’s better than the alternative, at least, I think.

        • I find it amusing that the purported definition doesn’t really give any aid to someone trying to figure out what the heck it means.

          <

          p>I don’t think your “advice” was boneheaded, but probably wise.  HRC needs to respect the border between hardball and beanball.  On the other hand, Obama must learn to play hardball without whining.

          <

          p>Another reason that yours is the superior blog.

          <

          p>Yes, I recognize the value of transparency.  It is just a doubled edged blade.  Your undecided colleage has been playing straight lately, in my view, and nevertheless is repeatedly accused of bias.  Then, once you make your disclosures, the weight of criticism of the other side is reduced, and the weight of criticism of one’s own side is heightened.  Again, I don’t disagree with the policy decision.

      • Despite the incredibly cultish groupies he attracts who actually have a detrimental effects on his campaign, I’ll be voting for Obama in the primary.  

          • While eating dinner at a low-end restaurant, with a limited menu of beverages, my son who was about 4 at the time, asked “what are you drinking Daddy?”  “Beer” I said.  “But I can see right through it” he replied.  Prior to that, the only “beer” he had ever seen me drink was Guinness Stout.

          • Thank you and consider one in the queue for you tonight as I believe Obama will win handily in SC today.  

  13. …credible 3d party candidate during even your lifetime.  There are two purposes for voting 3d party.  It is the equivalent of “none of the above.”  And it may encourage the candidae to work foryour vote instead of taking yur vote for granted.

Archives