<p>Too bad Andrew Cuomo’s dad is so squirrelly. I can’t believe he turned down a Supreme Court appointment.</p>
<p>I can understand turning down that appointment - it’s a gag order for life.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>He went back and forth on it for a week, jerking Bill Clinton around waiting for a decision. Same thing Cuomo did on his decision to run for President. I figure that Cuomo probably has a big skeleton in the closet that he was afraid would come out. Who knows?</p>
<p>Hillary Clinton has said that she would like to appoint some people to the Court who have actual real-life political experience instead of being nothing but Ivory Tower constitutional law wonks. I think she’s right that the Court needs a bit of real world perspective. I guess that’s what Bill was trying to do with Cuomo.</p>
<p>"“He went back and forth on it for a week, jerking Bill Clinton around waiting for a decision. Same thing Cuomo did on his decision to run for President. I figure that Cuomo probably has a big skeleton in the closet that he was afraid would come out. Who knows?”</p>
<p>I always thought the same thing and I’d love to know what it is. But I think his son is doing a fine job.</p>
<p>^^I’ve always wondered the same thing about Colin Powell. He’s had presidential and VP opportunities dangled in front of him, but he always walks away.</p>
<p>Barring any big skeletons coming out of the closet, Powell is a Republican I could actually vote for for president. His wisdom over the whole Iraq thing (the need to have the allies on board, whether to fight, how to wage the war once we’re in) certainly has proven to be correct.</p>
<p>“I’ve always wondered the same thing about Colin Powell. He’s had presidential and VP opportunities dangled in front of him, but he always walks away”</p>
<p>Not to be Pollyannaish here, but I could really understand if a large part of the reason why Powell won’t run is that his family is genuinely afraid for his safety.</p>
<p>ZM - I think that is a big part of it. His wife received threats against the family when it was rumored he might run. I also think he values his integrity, honesty and sincerity too much to sacrifice it - even for the presidency. He knows what would be required of him to win. I would like to see him as a VP candidate - on the Democratic ticket.</p>
<p>He didn’t value his integrity enough to resign as Secretary of State instead of using his unique credibility to sell the invasion of Iraq in the United Nations speech. He already sacrificed his “integrity, honesty, and sincerity”.</p>
<p>I should have said “what’s left of his integrity honesty and sincerity.”</p>
<p>Todays news summery is, the Ds are raising more money than the Rs, Bushs poll numbers are at his all time low, the Wall Street Journal is writing articles about the business community moving away from the Rs, and some in the R base are thinking about forming a 3rd party. </p>
<p>With 13 months to go, I would rather be in our shoes than theirs.</p>
<p>“He didn’t value his integrity enough to resign as Secretary of State instead of using his unique credibility to sell the invasion of Iraq in the United Nations speech. He already sacrificed his “integrity, honesty, and sincerity”.”</p>
<p>You can’t dwell for any length of time in the upper echelons of power, and emerge totally clean. You will get dirty. You will compromise and compromise and compromise your standards. </p>
<p>If you think Hllary hasn’t already done so, you’re delusional. When she’s Prez., she too will do things you will have to crank up the old spin factory to excuse. That’s politics. Old Colin may not be the paragon of integrity, honesty and sincerity you would have him to be, Idad, but I doubt he’s any dirtier than our girl Hillary.</p>
<p>As a footnote, Powell’s wife has long been plagued by serious bouts of clinical depression. She is vehemently opposed to the idea of his running for President. Besides the fact that she’s had enough of a ringside seat to glimpse the sordid underbelly of it all, she wants to keep what’s left of her husband for herself. I don’t blame her, especially since there wouldn’t be an iceberg’s chance in hell of him getting elected President.</p>
<p>Colin Powell is also, very quietly, pro-choice. No way would he get a Republican nomination. But kudos to him for not even running after talking to Alma. </p>
<p>That said, I think he has something to atone for in not going public about the duplicity in assembling the support for invading Iraq.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This will matter most only in really tight races. Young people vote much less often than older (50% less than in my age cohort), women vote less than men by a couple of percentage points, and single people vote less than married (29% vs. 40%). (Pew Research Center) If the Dems wanted to pick up ground they should focus on middle-aged, white, married men.</p>
<p>Also, if that growth in single women is among elderly widows, that doesn’t help the Dems, either. Older people trend Republican. If it is among the 18-50 year-old set, wouldn’t that growth in single women be pretty much matched by the growth in numbers of single men? Polygamy is still rare, right?</p>
<p>Middle-aged married white man…well, they’ve got me. But the GOP can keep the nationalistic, jingoistic, and dominionist vote, all of which is white-male dominated. In fact, the GOP is increasingly the party of angry [Southern] white men. They deserve each other.</p>
<p>WD, I think some historical norms aren’t going to be broken but they’re going to be bent in this election, re women voting. It’s a lead-pipe cinch that women have been quietly voting in opposition to their husbands in significant numbers.</p>
<p>Btw, it’s funny for a Bush supporter to be telling Democrats how they can do better. Hillary will lose the married white male vote by a few points, lose the married white women vote by 1-3 points, and will clean up among single women, Latinos, and African Americans. I got $50 right now that says she carries a majority of the Catholic vote. </p>
<p>Of course, if Tony Perkins is running on a third-party Dominionist platform, the blood will really flow.</p>
<p>washdad:</p>
<p>Unmarried women include single, divorced, and widowed. They include all ages, make up 25% of the eligible voters and vote OVERWHELMINGLY Democratic.</p>
<ul>
<li><p>50.3% of all US households are headed by an unmarried head of household.</p></li>
<li><p>Women made up 54% of the voters in 2004. 47% of women are unmarried. </p></li>
<li><p>Unmarried women make up 25% of the eligible voters in the United States (50 million eligible voters, more than African American and Latinos combined).</p></li>
<li><p>There are 10 million more unmarried women in the US than unmarried men.</p></li>
<li><p>Unmarried women vote at a lower rate (55%) than married women (71%), but they are the fastest growing group of voters in the country. 2.3 million more unmarried women voted in the 2006 election than voted in the 2002 midterm. Married voters declined as a percentage of the electorate in both the 2004 and 2006 elections compared to the prior presidential and midterm elections, respectively.</p></li>
<li><p>20 million unmarried women did not vote in 2004. 30 million did not vote in the 2006 mid-terms. A huge untapped potential that is increasing its voting percentages faster than any other group.</p></li>
</ul>
<p>A few stats from the 2004 election:</p>
<p>Married Men: Bush 60% - Kerry 39%
Unmarried Men: Bush 45% - Kerry 53%</p>
<p>Married Women: Bush 55% - Kerry 44%
Unmarried Women: Bush 37% - Kerry 62%</p>
<p>Looking at just white voters, unmarried women were the only group that voted for Kerry. Married and unmarried men voted for Bush:</p>
<p>Married White Women: Bush 61% - Kerry 38%
Unmarried White Women: Bush 45% - Kerry 55%</p>
<p>Marriage correlates with women’s voting, across the entire spectrum:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>Married working women voted for Bush by 16%. Unmarried working women for Kerry by 30%. </p></li>
<li><p>Married union family women voted for Kerry by 13%. Unmarried union family women for Kerry by 43%.</p></li>
<li><p>Married women with children voted for Bush by 14%. Unmarried women with children voted for Kerry by 33%.</p></li>
<li><p>Married women college graduates voted for Bush by 6%. Unmarried women college graduates voted for Kerry by 34%.</p></li>
</ul>
<p>Above average numbers of unmarried women live in Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Illinois, North Carolina, Tennessee, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Lousiana, Florida, Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada, and California.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.wvwv.org/docs/ppt/summary2.pdf[/url]”>Wealth & Value – The Truth About Online Brokers;
<p>The killer is that Clinton has set up the women’s get-out-the-vote effort as independent political action organizations with no limits on campaign contributions. George Soros can give $50 million himself to turn out the women’s vote if he wants to. </p>
<p>They tested four different TV ads, four different direct mail pieces, and various combinations of mail, phone, and e-mail outreach in the 2004 election so they know the cost effectiveness of each approach. They figure $10 per each new single woman voter in marketing costs. One of the less expensive efforts they test marketed in several states in 2004 was direct mail, with mail-in voter registration cards to every woman turning 18 that year. More elaborate test markets included direct mail plus multiple phone bank calls on or before election day.</p>
<p>Clintonista Harold Ickes has spent $11 million on a private voter database, largely funded by Soros, with technology developed by some amazon.com computer gurus, so they know where the voters are, where they work, what magazines they read, etc.</p>
<p>There are reasons that veteran campaign watchers are saying that Clinton has built the most impressive presidential campaign organization in history. The Clinton campaign is relying on the DNC for nothing. The resources they have been building for the last four years dwarf the DNC’s efforts.</p>
<p>BTW, here’s an example of a “public service TV ad” that Clinton’s ad guy did in the 2006 New York State race. Just a little taste of what to expect in 2008: </p>
<p><a href=“http://www.nywomenvote.org/[/url]”>http://www.nywomenvote.org/</a></p>
<p>Here’s an example of the national advertising:</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QkAjIy0D6uY[/url]”>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QkAjIy0D6uY</a></p>
<p>washdad: If you don’t think the womens vote is playing a role in this election, ask B-Rock why he’s trailing Hillary in support from the African American community. He leads her among African American men.</p>
<p>theDad: My guess is that Clinton is targeting married women with children under 18. At least, it certainly looks that way from the imagery in her TV advertisements so far. 66% of Republican households do not have children under 18.</p>
<p>If news reports are correct, President Bush will veto the SCHIP legislation. This veto will further tarnish the R brand among all women, but especially unmarried women with children. </p>
<p>If I were a Legislative Director for a R MC who represented a CD that Bush carried 64% to 36% I would advise to vote to override the veto .why would anyone oppose legislation that is supported by 72% of the voters in order to show loyalty to a president with 32% approval?</p>
<p>“Despite rivals’ efforts to portray her as too polarizing to win the general election, a clear majority of those surveyed, 57 percent, said Clinton is the Democratic candidate with the best chance on Nov. 4, 2008. The percentage saying Clinton has the best shot at winning is up 14 points since June. By contrast, 20 percent think Edwards is most electable and 16 percent think Obama is, numbers that represent a huge blow to the “electability” argument rivals have sought to use against her.”</p>
<p>Read Article…<a href=“http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/02/AR2007100202365_pf.html[/url]”>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/02/AR2007100202365_pf.html</a></p>
<p>Not if this question is being asked.</p>