Fuzzy Math For Women
By Bronwyn's Harbor on October 19, 2009 at 9:10 PM in Barack Obama, Congress (House & Senate), Current Affairs, Employment, Gender Bias, Hillary Clinton, MSNBC, Media Bias, Misogyny, Morning Joe, Sarah Palin, Sexism, Women
Co-written with Reverend Amy.
MSNBC is devoting the week to news and opinion stories on the dramatically shifting power and influence of women in America. The week’s reports, led by Maria Shriver and John Podesta, is called “A Woman’s Nation.” Below you’ll find videos of two segments that contain impressive statistics on the growing status of women.
Over and over again, in segments I caught today, MSNBC played Hillary Clinton’s powerful but saddening speech about those “18 million cracks.” (I still cannot watch that speech without my throat tightening. Every time I hear it, I’m reminded about what might have been had she received the nomination she won, and then the presidency, which she surely would have won.)
Then there’s the gorilla in the room that we all know: Only two women, ever, have been on a national ticket (Geraldine Ferraro and Sarah Palin) and, then, as VP candidates.
The only two women to run for president, said the men of MSNBC (with the females* nodding along), were the wives of top-level politicians — Elizabeth Dole and Hillary. The three women running currently for governor, including Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas, were mentioned as future viable candidates, as was Sarah Palin in passing.
Podesta and Joe Scarborough said there’s no “bench” from which to consider a woman for national office, and the two men referred to the three female candidates as the only potential (emphasis on potent) candidates. Oddly (or typically), in describing the lack of that “bench,” the MSNBC hosts failed to mention the women who currently are governor. Oh, wait - that’s right. Women who are in the same positions as their male counterparts don’t count as much as the men do. How could I forget that reality?
If present and past governors such as Tim Pawlenty, Mitt Romney, and Howard Dean have been easily regarded as part of the male bench — and we all know that male governors are regularly, habitually promoted for national office — why don’t the MSNBC males consider the current female governors serving their states? Are Jodi Rell (CT), Christine Gregoire (WA), Beverly Perdue (NC), and Jan Brewer (AZ) so shunted aside in any national media discussion that no one outside their states even knows who they are? Why don’t any of them merit a mention for national office? Why is a former governor, Sarah Palin, the only female mentioned, and even then, with derision, as if she had no business even being acknowledged as governor of a state? It is a fairly prestigious accomplishment given the fairly low numbers of governors in general. She WON the position. It was not handed to her. Yet, neither she, nor the other female governors are treated the same as their male counterparts.
Ever since I watched that segment on Morning Joe, the MSNBC males’ dismissal of any of the current female governors — not even a word about them, let alone their names — has been eating at me. How dare these males say that women have “no bench” of candidates until they, themselves, realize that the media regularly fail to mention any of these powerful female governors?
Then there are the 13 female U.S. senators. Why do no media outlets ever bring up, say, Senator Maria Cantwell as a potential presidential candidate? Why not Maria Cantwell? If John (yech) Kerry can be the Democratic nominee, why not Cantwell?
Just in case you are keeping score, there are 61 women in the U.S. House of Representatives. As a reminder, there are 435 Representatives in the House.
You know, for a group that is the majority, women are woefully under-represented.
Now, the videos. The first is a segment from Morning Joe followed by Meet The Press.
It’s important to note the discussion in the videos about what MEN need too.
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
Yes, women have made some strides, particularly in the workplace. But women still have to outperform men for comparable jobs, and even then, they are often passed over (look no further than the Clinton v. Obama race). Politics in general is still firmly entrenched in the Boys Club. Seems the same for the media, if these two videos are par for the course, and after this past election, I have no doubt that they are.
And so it goes. I guess this old adage is still true: the more things change, the more they remain the same. I’m ready for a change. How about you?
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
* His co-host, Mika Brzezinski, and guest, Maria Shriver — the two women in the segment — were astonishingly silent on Scarborough’s boisterous “no bench” imbroglio.
(Release: November 13)
on sale for only $16.95.
has a spatula.)
And check out these: 
("This crazy redhead is on to something. Her pink Rambler story alone is worth the price of the book," writes 
- “Richard Sale’s reportage on Washington, the CIA, the American armed forces, and foreign intrigue has created a perfect background for this account of the steady growth of President Clinton as a master of the game of nations.”--W. Patrick Lang, former head of Middle East Operations, DIA
"Anne C. Heller's stunning biography of Ayn Rand" uses a "plethora of newly unearthed research and fresh insight."
*How could Shriver and Mike not be silent — they were two giant Obama cheerleaders who helped in their own way to put nails in Hillary’s coffin re the nomination last year.
You bet they were silent. They would be huge hypocrites now were either one of them to open their yaws. Finally, we had an eminently qualified candidate in Hillary, regardless of gender — and she was pushed aside in favor of a brand name/symbol.
I just came back from Down Under and guess what? Women there do not like Obama. They still prefer Hillary to be president. They just don’t understand why Americans went for Obama who is not qualified.
Did they also mention Carol Mosely Braun who ran for president in 2004?
Exactly. Did they mention Shirley Chisholm who also ran for President?
Loved Shirley! She was a warrior!
MSNBC should shorten it’s letters to ICN — Idiot Central Network.
Did they mention Pat Schroder who ran for President?
How dare they talk about the advancement of women when they don’t even stand behind their own to suport them. Maria and all the women that supported Obama knowing that Hillary was far more qualified then he ever will be should be ashamed of themselves.After what the womens groups and women journalist did to Hillary I have no faith in any of them and when they come out with stories like this I just laugh at them because with the attitude they have towards their own they deserve to be passed over.
Here, here, Annie! My sentiments precisely. In addition, why were they even doing this women’s thing? The “Meet the Press” program was pathetic with David Gregory having to pull the information given from this extremely inadequate panel on women’s issues for these reasons:
John Pedesta was Bill Clinton’s Chief of Staff, but supported 0bama; Valerie Jarrett is about promoting AA people and was an 0 fanatic. When she named examples of women in the 0 administration, Hillary was the third name she dropped even though Hillary’s position would carry more power than either of the other two names mentioned - with being SoS making her fourth in line to be POTUS if something were to happen to 0, Biden, and Pelosi (in the name of God! Don’t think for one minute that was lost on Pelosi). And, we all remember the hupla surrounding Maria Shriver’s role in the Kennedys coming out in mass to endorse 0bama along with Oprah.
On Mornin’ Joe, Mika Brezenski said horrible things about Hillary all of 2008. Joe is, after all, a republican that presumably voted for McCain/Palin - but one never knows about that MSNBC0 crowd.
No wonder all the women chosen to weigh in on Maria’s “Woman’s Nation” were ‘astonishingly’ quiet - what could they say? I just hate the hypocracy, particularly from Shriver. How could she claim the slightest interest in women’s issues and women breaking glass ceilings on such things as equal pay, stopping violence against women, women succeeding in politics to the higher offices, etc? How could she sit there with a straight face knowing that no one there including herself in either gathering voted for the most viable person for POTUS who had ever run for the office of POTUS and who happened to be a woman. They ALL nauseate me.
Me too. Thank you.
Maria Shriver is deeply offensive in her condescension to other women who weren’t born with a trust fund.
These patronizing do-gooder projects are hobbies for these kind of women, done to enhance their own images rather than the women they purport to care about.
It’s like a rich Junior Leaguer picking a “charity” or a “social concern” to make herself feel useful.
It’s too late, Maria. What you DID showed your true colors.
Now, run off to the spa , while we get-it-done women work our butts off without maids and nannies.
Hear, hear, FranSC. I agree. Because of these bots we are stuck with the biggest bot of all when we could have had a real leader who truly was ready on day one.
How sad it is that none of the HQ posters saw fit to completely ignore the Letterman fiasco to vindicate Sarah Palin. If the louse, Letterman, chose HRC as his target for his crude, over-the-line, disgusting and heartless comments, you sometimes-feminists and idolators would have tarred and feathered him and then asked for his head. Palin is a far greater figure than HRC and has accomplished more with the minimal amount of resources available to her, compared to HRC who had the Executive Branch at her complete disposal for 8 years and accomplished accomplished shit. Palin is certainly a worthy figure in the discussion of women in the work place and the insults the best of them must endure.
I’m certain you could have made your point (feeling Sarah was left out) without the hyperbolic, mischaracterized attack on Hillary.
Obviously you missed the posts here tarring and feathering Letterman over his treatment of Sarah Palin and her daughter.
There is likewise no need to insult Hillary. She has nothing to do with what you are talking about. This is a thread promoting qualified women, regardless of party.
I am no “sometimes-feminist”, and I am an NQ poster. I call BS on the treatment of Palin AND of HRC. I admire them both, and either would have been better than the bozo the electorate chose.
Letterman/Olbermann/Maher/Matthews had best give me a wide berth if they pass by me anywhere, any time. Seriously, it would be my pleasure to do time for socking any one of them in the mouth. I have a solid left and I fully intend to punch any of these gents in the kisser as soon as is practical, and if saying this brings feds to my door, so be it.
So whats with the attack in your post? Don’t judge NQ posters without the facts. Most people here call a spade a spade and most judged Palin and Clinton fairly.
tillthen - you obviously are not a regular here at NQ. We have stedfastly defended Sarah Palin as well as Hillary. I don’t want to take anything away from Sarah Palin and her accomplishments, but you are way off the beam to suggest Hillary accomplished “shit”. You must be one of those republicans that never supported women’s rights until Sarah Palin came along. Don’t get me wrong - I’m very happy she inspired your support of women.
And,BTW, David Letterman has always made extraordinary fun of Hillary AND Bill Clinton. I used to watch Letterman every night for a number of years. His terrible comments about Hillary’s pants suits, Monica Lewinsky, plus other inhumane jokes made me lose interest in him. You are not playing with a full deck here.
Where is the mischaracterization…and the hyperboles?
That’s funny. I’ve been here going on 3 years and I’ve not seen you before.
Take your foot out of your mouth. I supported Hillary Clinton during the primaries, well before the election, and well documented on these boards. I had the feeling that the goody-goody McCain, would not make it, and that I could live with HRC as POTUS…and then she stumped for the POS we have now. That was unforgivable. That was the most supreme example of party before country, and that ain’t no hyperbole. The Clinton themselves knew enough shit on BO to sink him, and you can be sure, that today, it is eating Bill from the inside out. There is enough cause to investigate Obama as a murderer, and we all know he is not eligible to be POTUS. What is frightening is that the entire upper echelon of the Democratic Party knows and knew all of it. HOW ANY OF YOU CAN CALL YOURSELVES DEMOCRATS TODAY IS ASTONISHING. HYPERBOLE? NO SIREE, IT REALLY DOES ASTONISH ME.
How easy it is for some of you to discredit me as a rank and file Republican. I was a one-time Democrat, then Republican and now a very gay Independant, and served for my country, which is more than Clinton can say. I did support McGovern and Carter. Astonishing? Indeed.
Your article displays the key fault with liberal political thought, that by acknowledging an issue we, the pundits, are protected from anything ridiculous we might say or agree with. The common defense is “I was only discussing the problem factually”, or “at least I am trying.” The classic is “There were women on the panel and they agreed with me,” as if both men and women couldn’t be wrong. (You can insert race and social class for gender.) But as you state in your post the panel demeans while attempting to understand the issue and the troubling aspect is how content they are in their ignorance. But in true liberal fashion effort is all that matters and the fact that they left out black women who ran for President or ignored female governors is irrelevant.
Truth be told they have pleased as punch that they were on tv “Speaking about such an important issue.” Kind of like Obama demanding equal pay for equal work and deriding McCain for his lack of legislative support, while paying women on his campaign less than their male counterparts. But don’t listen to the facts or look at their actions just listen to how concerned and erudite they seem to be because they are quite impressed with themselves.
…it’s MSNBC (Male Sexist Network Broadcasting Crap) and I stopped exposing myself to their leakage long ago.
um, hello, but you didn’t include Sarah Palin, who was the VP nominee.
I had been following her career LONG before dumbass McCain picked her.
A woman who took on her own party. A woman who came from being a PTA Mom to becoming Governor.
And she was treated like a piece of garbage by the media.
You loved Hillary. I loved Sarah Palin. I didn’t agree with all of her(Sarah’s) positions, but I knew she was the REAL maverick, not McVain McCain.
Until women stand up and support their own this madness will continue.
Tammy — Sarah Palin is indeed included in the above article.
I, too, am a fan of Sarah just as I’m a fan of Hillary. Either one of them are more qualified for the POTUS job - instead we have a witless wonder.
Lest we forget:
On January 25, 1972, Shirley Chisholm became the first major-party black candidate for President of the United States and the first woman to run for the Democratic presidential nomination (Margaret Chase Smith had previously run for the Republican presidential nomination).[2] She received 152 first-ballot votes at the 1972 Democratic National Convention.[2][3] Wikipedia
Whoa! OT, sorry! But Juan Williams (still angry at the “back on the porch” comment the other night) is on Bill O’Reilly’s show, and he’s sounding like Bill Cosby! He’s talking about blacks taking responsibility - ex: instead of complaining that one kind of cocaine has a higher penalty, get the crackhouses out of the neighborhood! Also, put the focus on the large black middle class that now exists (I assume, instead of glorifying the ghetto as “real black” and thereby making the “man who is keeping them down” be themselves).. He’s on fire!
Wow — lorac, can you get a link to this? I’ll check as well.
Ani, I can’t believe I found it! It’s from around 4:30 to 5:30 in this clip. Not very long, but I couldn’t believe he was actually saying it out loud. The mention of blacks taking responsibility for their own community is in the context of a discussion of that guy who told Juan to go back on the porch.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFti1gOOcT0
Thank you. Always nice to “see” you!
lorac, I was really impressed with the two AA’s on Hannity tonight that had been on last week as well. The one with the beard (sorry I don’t have their names) said after siting the black caucus support of Louis Farrakhan: “the black community including the black congressional caucus (he said he calls them the black congressional choir), the AA liberals in politics and otherwise want to be all things to all AAs”.
Truer words were never spoken. In the 90s in the city I lived for many years, an AA county commissioner was convicted of molesting an AA mentally challenged teenager. He even had a short jail sentence and then probation. Without missing a beat, he ran again for county commissioner after that humiliating incident and was overwhelmingly re-elected in the bk district he ran in.
Don’t you remember growing up and your parents telling you that you’ll be judged by your behavior, your dress, your attitude, your work ethic, etc? Nowadays, that seems all but gone - with some people, all that matters is your color, or your political party. You can do something egregious, but if you’re the “right” color or party, some people will fight to keep you in power or defend you. Crazy. It makes no sense.
I’m already fed up with Shriver’s “A Woman’s Nation.” It better get better, because at the moment it’s sure failing to impress.
Maria Shriver is absolutely useless. I cannot believe she says that women do not want the same jobs as men, because they dont want the pressure. Hello? Maria? Most MEN dont want the job stress either. The point is that when a qualified woman does want the job, she should have the same chance as a man. Nobody who sat through the 2008 election can possibly believe they do. And part of the problem is other women - women like Shriver - who do not give other women equal consideration.
If I am understanding correctly that Ms. Shriver will be hosting yet another piece of MSNBC drivel, it confirms my decision to avoid tv news.
She is selling drivel to justify herself.
MoDowd did the same thing with her book “Are Men Necessary” — every column she wrote after that was designed to justify the thesis of her book, which is: ‘now that women got the rights and careers they always asked for they are finding out they didn’t really want what they thought they wanted.’
Gee, Maureen, generalize much? I guess she thought that gave her carte blanche to trash Hillary on the grounds that Hillary shouldn’t “want” the presidency.
CNN and MSNBC …hypocrites all of them ,they were the worst woman bashing in the last few years and we are supposed to have been getting equal rights,equal pay, equal everything but what we got was hatred and disrespect.The really sad thing a lot came from the AA’s ,who know how they have been treated but feel it is okay to treat women that way, just because they don’t fall in line. The media who got their marching orders from the powers that be, built those fires.
Hillary,Sarah Palin,Ferraro,any women that supported them were beaten up everyday by these jerks on their so called NEWS shows. They just proved once more how they are deceitful, hypocritical hacks they are.
Yes, I feel bitter and sometimes hateful because we have been betrayed on a level that is unreal.Other countries that are supposed to be less advanced than us are way ahead in their women leaders.
Another thing that David Gregory said on “Meet the Press” that made me ill was, “If Hillary had been able to overcome 0bama in the primaries to get the nomination…..” Are these people really clueless about how that happened? Did they not know anything about the caucus meetings being organized by MoveOn.org whereby they brought in out-of-state and county people to up the numbers.
All these caucus meetings had at least 3 times the numbers they had had in the past. Whether they had the numbers or not, the numbers were calculated for 0 to win the caucuses by 12-17 points EVEN those 4 states that had both caucuses and primaries. 0 won the caucuses by 12-17 points even when Hillary won the primary in those same states. Dr. Lynette Long has said that is a mathmatical impossibility.
Hillary won all the primaries that counted. 0bama won through stacking red state caucuses that none of the other democrats organized, including Hillary. There would be nothing wrong with that except the numbers were made up or people voted that didn’t live in those districts. They were nothing more than crime scenes. Yet, 0bama’s campaign is revered as the most *brilliant* ever run.
Oh, they know all that. They were part of it.
But now, with Obama’s numbers down, they need you again, so they’ll pat you on the head and act concerned for your welfare.
Don’t be fooled by the Axelrod techniques; they’re only for political manipulation.
MSNBC, once again, is enabling the whole crew.
They really do think you’re too stupid to see it.
2010 can not come too soon, eh?
I don’t know to what extent commentators know the truth (they SHOULD know!), but I never even hear Fox mention how BO “won” the primaries - so I think most “regular’ people don’t even know. I figure Fox is willing to tell the truth about BO, but not to the point where it might elevate Hillary. “Fair and balanced” doesn’t really include speaking too well of any democrat - but at least they’re willing to expose BO, which the other stations aren’t. I’m hoping that one day Fox will finally tell the whole truth. Not that it will help Hillary now, but let’s let HIStory reflect the truth about who actually had the HIStoric win - the competent woman.
lorac, I have emailed all of the hosts at FoxNews again and again talking about the caucus fraud and asking them to look into it. I have finally come to the conclusion that they think it is a sort of ‘meddling’ in partisan politics. Even the courts look at it that way. When the democrats tried to take their grievances about the 2000 election to court, it got no where.
In early 2008 when FL and MI finally realized the DNC was indeed not going to seat their delegates due to the arbitrary changing of their primary dates, FL Senator Nelson was on a panel with the dispicable Donna Brazile. Senator Nelson said FL would be taking the case to court. Brazile confidently reminded the Senator that going to court did not work for them in 2000 (the case was thrown out) and it would not work for them in 2008.
Brazile and the rest of the DNC and dem leadership were well aware this was the case and the reason they decided the dems would succeed in 2008 because they would use even more illegal, unethical tactics than the republicans used in 2000 because they knew they could.
This is better understood for me if I imagine the republicans having an internal party dispute, even with illegal tactics. Unless you are a member of that party, you are not particularly moved by it. This is the only rationalization I can come up with.
But even worse, the dems were cheating other dems - the republicans cheated the “enemy”. (not that either is good, but maybe cheating your own is worse!)
Excellent point, lorac!
We see all we need to know about any program coming from MSNBC about women when the two women present sat quietly by while two women, Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin were treated to misogyny by MSNBC.
Now they sit quietly like good little girls while the menfolk discuss “women’s” issues.
Shriver and Mika are an embarrassment to “real” feminists. They are quite simply, just simple liberals. Which is fine so long as they don’t pretend to be anything else.
Neither woman would make a pimple on a “real” feminist’s ass. But then neither would most of what passes as “real’ feminists these days. Liberals? Yes. Feminists? No!
I’ll never forget Andrea Mitchell interviewing Dee Dee Meyers during the primarie about her book “Why Women Should Rule the World.” Andrea was really snarky saying “except THAT woman,” referring to Hillary.
Oh, so a woman who was actually qualified for the leadership position shouldn’t get it? Yeah, DeeDee - that makes a lotta sense.
DeeDee Meyers, another female disappointment. Perhaps she became stupid by injection?
And what makes that even more infuriating is the fact Dee Dee Myers is who she is thanks to Bill Clinton.
Remember it was Dee Dee’s husband who wrote the scathing piece on Bill Clinton in Vanity Fair just weeks before the primaries ended - a real dirty trick. DD swore she had nothing to do with that - that she and her husband had independent views.
After the elections I read somewhere that Dee Dee Myers sister was a big wig for the 0bama campaign. Dee Dee was surely not a Hillary supporter, yet she was asked to be a pundit with people assuming she was for Hillary for obvious reasons. They would have republican strategists that spoke for the “other” side (Hillary) - the closest thing to “fair and balanced” on MSNBC0. Often the pundits would all be for 0bama. He had no critics.
I guess you have to be a community organizer to be presidential material. Being a governor is not really good enough.
Great post, RRRA!
LOL - good one!
And thanks, but it was largely Bronwyn’s!
Rachelrachel, quite right, along with a couple of others we clearly missed (my excuse was my complete and utter involvement in my Yankees game!!).
I loved Carol Moseley Braun. I agreed with a NUMBER of her policies. I thought she, and Wes Clark, were the two best in that whole process. I could not understand why she wasn’t taken seriously. She was smart, funny, experienced, and right on the issues (IMHO, that is). She definitely saw GLBT rights as Human Rights, to which Clark concurred, I might add. I thought she would be great.
Obviously, the difference with Hillary and these other women is that she was the first to win a primary, and won more votes than any other PERSON in the history of Primaries. Kinda boggles the mind that she WASN’T the nominee…
Congresswoman Patricia Schroeder entered the Dem primary in 1988.
pardon me (to the REAL MEN) but fk the misogynist wussie lib bois!!! (they’re sooo skeeeered of a Rrrrrrrreal Woman)
They will be scratching their
balzhEADs in 2012 when Lady Sarah comes SWEEPING through with a TRUE example of what it means to WORK FOR IT BABY! And NOT have it handed to you on a silver plate or have some foreign entity PROP U UP 4 it!yeap
I’ll be ROFLMAO!! can’t wait!
ladydawnelle, unless something is done about the reckless abandon used by the 0bama campaign in 2008, it will be - “second verse same as the first”. Their campaign is already operating as “Organizing for America”. From the precinct level to the state conventions, all their mechanisms are in place.
The only person on MSNBC that I can listen to is Buchanan. Joe is all over the board being agreeable. He’s a Republican?
I watched the Republican convention to see Palin’s debut, but there were many other women speakers and I was totally impressed!
It is still a man’s world and that may not change in my lifetime, especially now that women have seen what happens if they step out of their comfort zone.
If Hillary couldn’t break through, there are few who could best her!
Who knows? No one would have dreamt that Carter would become POTUS. Maybe Sarah will herself be a long-shot winner, and I think she could hold her own against anyone.
Well well. This is what our Sec of State has been up to if you can believe email (Does this break some law for fraud?)
UNITED STATE OF AMERICA
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN PAYMENT
RESOLUTION PANEL ON PAYMENT)
WASHINGTON DC
Attention: Beneficiary
I wish to use this medium and my new office to inform you that your CONTRACT/INHERITANCE Payment of USD$10m (TEN Million Dollars) from CITI BANK OF NEW YORK has been RELEASED and APPROVED for onward transfer to you via an ATM CARD which you will use to withdraw all the USD$10m in any ATM SERVICE MACHINE in any part of the world, but the maximum you can withdraw in a day is USD$10,000 Only
The UNITED STATES OF AMERICA government has mandated CITI BANK OF NIGERIA, to send you the ATM CARD and PIN NUMBER with other relevant document from our government and British government and the united nation, You are therefore advice to contact director and the Head of ATM CARD Department of CITI BANK OF NIGERIA for further instructions and to release your approved ATM CARD to you.
Contact Person: Mr. PHILIP EZE
CITI BANK OF NIGERIA
Phone number: +2348050777232
EMAIL: ( mr.philipezee@sify.com )
Tell Mr. PHILIP EZE that you received a message from the OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF STATES to send you the ATM CARD and PIN NUMBER AND ALL THE DOCUMENT which you will use to withdraw your USD$10 Million Dollars, also send him your direct phone number and contact address where you want him to send the ATM CARD and PIN NUMBER to you BUT YOU WILL PAY FOR THE LITTLE INSURANCE AND SHIPMENT FEES FOR DELIVERY.
All the document regards to the release of the fund has been handed over to Mr. PHILIP EZE for delivery.
We are very sorry for the delay you have gone through in the past years. Thanks for adhering to this instruction and once again accept my congratulations.
Best Regards.
MRS. HILLARY CLINTON
SECRETARY OF STATES
Another Nigerian scam. Secretary of WHAT states lol And how many people in STATES would even think they have an inheritance coming from Nigeria? I think they need to borrow that 26-year old writer for their next pitch….
Isn’t that hilarious? And sorta sad if there are people who believe it. I think scams like that should be prosecuted for using Hillary to try to fool people.
Oh. My. GODDESS! That is unbelievable!
But it probably originated in Nigeria. I don’t know if they’d be held to our laws. Maybe there would have to be an international law to govern that kind of fraud. Seems like there should be, with telecommunication advances making the world so much “smaller”.
I hope it is a fair interview.
http://www.oprah.com/article/pressroom/pressrelease/20091020-orig-sarah-palin-oprah-winfrey-november-16
It won’t be. Oprah will lying in wait to diminish Sarah, with her half-lidded snake smile on her face. Axelrod will have counseled Oprah how to do so, with full intentions to “play nice,” but give Axelrod and his buddies plenty of material to use going into 2010 and 2012.
Oprah won’t ask any good questions about actually running a state, negotiating contracts with oil companies, or creating jobs. She doesn’t know how to do any of that.
Oprah’s questions will be about FEEEELINGS, with a few fake questions expressing concern about Sarah’s daughter being a single mother, but hoping that fake concern will get great scoop for the Axelrodians.
It’s how Oprah rolls. She LIKES celebrity gossip, feel-good new age religions, recipes, expensive gifts. She can’t discuss economics, because she doesn’t understand it. It’s not her “niche.”
It’s why many in her audience abandoned her show completely.
Watch your back, Sarah. Oprah has different motives than you do.
Well said, Mary. Oprah can be a snake in the grass. Maybe Sarah’s answer to the cobra, Oprah, is to play the mongoose and grab her by the neck. No more nicey, nicey.
What is the most frightening aspect of an Oprah interview is that her audience are dumber than rocks, and easily manipulated.
That’s when Palin should take off the gloves and deflate the puffy souffle that is really Oprah.
Would Oprah dare to do a one-on-one?
Thanks, Maria Shriver, for not supporting Hillary when you had the chance. I guess a Woman’s Nation could not actually be run by a woman.