Well, it’s official: Scott Brown won the US Senate seat in Massachusetts, easily one of the most liberal states in the Union. Brown’s win is the first by a Republican in that state since 1972. Holy moley. Time and time again, people claimed the Healthcare Bill the Democrats are trying to ram through as the reason they voted for Scott Brown. If this isn’t a wake up call to the Democrats, I don’t know what is.

And yet, there are people like Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, who seems completely oblivious to the massive alarm bells ringing throughout the country. One would think this would filter into her, but apparently no:

“The reports of its death, as Mark Twain would say, have been exaggerated,” Larson added. “We’re going to move forward, and we’re going to pass health care reform.”

This afternoon, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said much the same. “Whatever happens in Massachusetts, we have to do that,” she said. “And whatever happens in Massachusetts we will have quality affordable health care for all Americans, and it will be soon.”

Oh, boy. Add to that the ramped up call for the “Reconciliation Option,” including by the organization, Credo, which sent out an email immediately following the declaration of Brown’s win asking people to sign this petition:

Your message to President Obama, Speaker Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid:

“The loss of Ted Kennedy’s seat — due to a lack of enthusiasm among Democrats and Independents — sends a clear message to Congress. The Senate health care bill is not the change we were promised in 2008, and it must be improved. The Senate must use ‘reconciliation’ to pass a better bill with a strong public option.”

In case you don’t know what “reconciliation” means, they are suggesting the Democrats use a 51 majority vote to shove through this bill with its payoffs, bribes, and strong-arming. I might add, this tactic was designed for use with BUDGET bills. Clearly, Credo didn’t like the message Massachusetts sent, and believes it is a better idea for the Democrats to inflame passions against this bill even MORE by using a filibuster-proof tactic. Nice.

Make no mistake, the Democrats are trying mighty hard to figure out how to get this bill through regardless of what the people say. I mean, really – it’s not like it’s their JOB or anything to care, right? Ahem.

On the other side, though, one of my favorite Democratic senators (and one I have supported), is Sen. Jim Webb of VA. This was his immediate response to Scott Brown’s win:

Less than 15 minutes after the race was called for Republican Scott Brown, the first of what could be many conservative Democrats asks for leadership to put the brakes on health care reform.

Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA) congratulated Brown on his win and delivered a zinger:

“In many ways the campaign in Massachusetts became a referendum not only on health care reform but also on the openness and integrity of our government process. It is vital that we restore the respect of the American people in our system of government and in our leaders. To that end, I believe it would only be fair and prudent that we suspend further votes on health care legislation until Senator-elect Brown is seated.”

That is more like it. He is hearing the message the people are sending, and wants to take a step back here, and look again at this bill.

But Senator Webb is not the only one. You may be a bit surprised by this, but Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA), of all people, warns against changing horses in mid-stream (of course, my cynical side says he is a bit worried about his seat in the future, too):

“I have two reactions to the election in Massachusetts. One, I am disappointed. Two, I feel strongly that the Democratic majority in Congress must respect the process and make no effort to bypass the electoral results. If Martha Coakley had won, I believe we could have worked out a reasonable compromise between the House and Senate health care bills. But since Scott Brown has won and the Republicans now have 41 votes in the Senate, that approach is no longer appropriate. I am hopeful that some Republican Senators will be willing to discuss a revised version of health care reform because I do not think that the country would be well-served by the health care status quo. But our respect for democratic procedures must rule out any effort to pass a health care bill as if the Massachusetts election had not happened. Going forward, I hope there will be a serious effort to change the Senate rule which means that 59 votes are not enough to pass major legislation, but those are the rules by which the health care bill was considered, and it would be wrong to change them in the middle of the process.”

Gee, ya think?? You know, it is amazing what it takes to actually get through to these people. Maybe if this doesn’t hammer it home, this great piece by Lady Lynn Forester de Rothschild will:

The problem for the Democrats in Massachusetts was not Martha Coakley; it was the Obama agenda. In 2008, voters believed that they were electing a person who would focus on the economy with laser intensity and lead in a bipartisan and principled matter. What they have gotten is a deeply divisive President committed to transforming America into a European-style social democracy. In this first year, he forced a health care bill at the expense of vitally needed focus on job creation. He has scared hard-working American voters with his hard-left rhetoric and his signature policies.

The Obama approach to health care reform is the most egregious example of breaking trust with the American people. He brokered no Republican compromise; he demonized the other side for being captive to vested interests as he made private deals with Democratic special interest groups like the unions, the insurance companies and “hold-out” Senators like Ben Nelson (who was just looking for his pound of flesh at the expense of the rest of the American people); he outsourced the bill to Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid behind closed doors as he focused only on taking the victory lap for pathetic, piecemeal legislation that does not deal with our exorbitant health care costs. Have no doubt, the speech trumpeting “his” historic achievement, where other less talented Presidents than himself have failed, is already loaded on the teleprompter.

These are major negative factors for the independent voters who believed that Barack Obama was a principled and moderate Democrat. This is particularly true in Massachusetts where the nation’s only universal health care plan is bankrupting the state because of politicians’ congenital inability to deal with spiraling costs. In Massachusetts, a full 47% of voters are Independents, with 33% Democrat and only 11% Republican. For many of these voters, Barack Obama is now a busted flush; he was full of promise but has neither delivered on that promise nor exhibited the capability to deliver. He has broken the trust of the people, and voters are taking the only action available to them: Electing a candidate who can stop the Obama agenda and help restore balance to a broken political system. The voters in the Bay State are resorting to the principle that our Founding Fathers made famous: checks and balances. It is unlikely that all voters overwhelmingly support Republican State Senator Scott Brown, but it is certain that they see him as a vital player in forcing Barack Obama to come back to the center.

Preach it, Sister Lynn! Bring it on home:

This is important to keep in mind in reviewing Tuesday’s results. Equally important is to reject the demonization of Coakley that is being perpetrated by the Obama White House and the Pelosi/Reid Congress. Coakley’s troubles were never about her as a candidate; she has won state-wide elections before and few would argue she is more removed than John Kerry. Her problem was simply about the President and the radical course being charted by Democrats in Congress. A year after his inauguration — and three years since Democrats regained Congress — voters were holding Obama accountable. This simple fact makes scapegoating Coakley unconscionable, and yet this week all knives are out from the Obama White House. Coakley was insufficiently charismatic, leading Democrats are saying; she did not have an emotional connection to the voters. She did not work hard enough. She was more a “nun” than a political candidate!

This is all nonsense of course, but not surprising. After all, it’s not the first time the current crop of Democratic party leaders have torn down a talented woman in their midst.

That Hillary Clinton won Massachusetts by a resounding sixteen points in 2008 is not unrelated. While Massachusetts may be bluest of the blue, it’s a state where working class liberalism still runs deep, where an honest day’s work is still held in higher esteem than entitlement handouts. When Hillary ran on these principles, Massachusetts voters embraced her. And for this same reason, on Tuesday they embraced Scott Brown.

Obama’s team may want to make the election about Martha Coakley, but it’s not about her. As rank-and-file Democrats try to make Martha Coakley the issue and engage in her assassination, they miss the fact that they are in a circular firing squad. Their problem is that they are out of touch, and their boosters in the media cannot save them.

Voters this week stood up and said ‘enough is enough.’ It’s high time Obama and the Democrats in Congress got the message.

Amen to that. And if they don’t get it after this, there is always November…

*Updated: Ohmygosh – now Barney Frank has done a COMPLETE 180, saying he could vote for the Senate bill now. WTH is wrong with this guy? And who got to him? Wow, he is a piece of work. Way to stick to your guns there, Barney! Yeah. Right.

Second Update: well, Nancy must have heard an earful from the other representatives. Now she says the House has to make changes to the Senate’s bill:

Pelosi (D-Calif.) has been struggling for days to sell the Senate legislation to reluctant Democrats in order to get a health-care bill to the president’s desk quickly. But House liberals strongly dislike the Senate version, while moderate Democrats in both the House and Senate have raised doubts about forging ahead with the ambitious legislation without bipartisan support.

The only way to keep the Senate bill alive, Pelosi said, would be for senators to initiate a package of fixes that would address House concerns about the bill. In particular, Pelosi described her members as vehemently opposed to a provision that benefits only Nebraska’s Medicaid system. Also problematic are the level of federal subsidies the Senate would offer to uninsured individuals and its new excise tax on high-value policies, which could hit union households.

“There are certain things the members simply cannot support,” Pelosi said.

Like I said, I guess the representatives let her have it. It will sure be interesting to see what happens next.

And that governor from Alaska. Oh, can you just imagine how upset Sally Quinn would have been if she and D.C. society had had to deal with that woman?

Jeralyn is so relieved. Look at this story, “Another Bullet Dodged By Palin’s Loss” (h/t Andy):

We're not going to have Gov. Sarah Palin to kick around any more much longer, which is fine by me, since all I ever wanted was for her not to become Vice President and for people to recognize John McCain's astoundingly reckless judgment in choosing her for the ticket, but I do find this amusing and can't resist writing about it.

The New York Times recaps her final moments at the Arizona Biltmore Wednesday and last trip aboard her McCain-Palin campaign plane:

As Ms. Palin’s entourage of two dozen family members and friends boarded the plane, and aides scurried around loading diapers, bottled water and a Louis Vuitton duffel onto it, Ms. Palin darted over to the reporters, whom she regularly derided as “Barack Obama’s friends in the media” in her stump speech, to shake hands and say goodbye.

24 family members and friends? Wow, did we dodge a bullet. With Obama, we often complained he threw people under the bus. Palin, it seems, wanted to put everyone and then some on it.

Good riddance, Sarah. Had you and McCain won, watching (and paying for) your entourage for the next four years would have been as unbearable as listening to your garbled sentences.

Boy, we sure are lucky, aren’t we!

Just out of curiosity, I wonder what Lady Lynn Rothschild and Dr. Lynette Long thought of Sarah.

Lady Lynn and Dr. Lynette are unusual in their willingness to mix it up with BOTH Arkansas trailer trash and Sarah and all those, um, people on Sarah’s bus.

What does that say about Lady Lynn and Dr. Lynette?!?!?!? Goodness.

I really don’t think that Sally Quinn will be extending any soiree invitations any time soon to those two!

Sarah, you’re not the only one. I’ll reprint my story — when I was known by another name that must now not be spoken aloud — from last February, “‘Singled Out’ as Fair Game“:

At Shakespeare’s Sister, certainly one of our most erudite, and refreshingly pithy blogs, Mustang Bobby joins the brilliant blogger Digby in pondering the question that simply isn’t asked enough either by the media or by most Americans who unthinkingly buy into the fashionably negative patter about the Clintons:

Following up on the story of MSNBC reporter David Shuster being suspended for his comments about Chelsea Clinton, Digby has it right: why are the Clintons held to a different standard than every other candidate?

It hasn’t been just the self-important elite class who annoint, from on high, who meets their tight-nostriled criteria. It extended even to the White House staff. When the Clintons moved in to the White House in 1993, they “ordered that portraits of Franklin D. Roosevelt and Harry S. Truman be hung prominently,” writes Sidney Blumenthal in his book about the Clinton presidency:

But the pictures were not put in place. The instructions to the staff were relayed again. Only after a month, and further prodding, was the order carried out. Some of the White House staf held, it seemed, a class deference to the previous Republican residents. From their upstairs-downstairs angle, patricians were being replaced by outlanders who didn’t know their place.

One of the more poignant passages I read in Blumenthal’s book on his years as a senior adviser in the Clinton White House was on a scarcely known, unreported outcome of the incessant investigations and media obsession with Whitewater:

On December 13, 1995, the Resolution Trust Corporation [created by the U.S government to oversee the S&L meltdown] released its … report on Whitewater … the result of an inquiry directed by the Republican Jay Stephens, a former U.S. attorney, and his law firm, Pillsbury, Madison and Sutro. … all fears from the White House turned out to be misplaced. The report completely and categorically absolved the Clintons–and answered all outstanding questions about Whitewater.

Why do I call the passage poignant? Because after describing the enormous relief that the Clintons felt — “they were vindicated” — Blumenthal reports that the White House sent out copies of the report to “more than 150 news organizations,” and that the Clintons eagerly anticipated the widespread reports of the extremely positive findings from a neutral agency:

Then, nothing happened. … The Wall Street Journal ran a straightforward article in its news pages. But days passed and nothing appeared in The Washington Post and The New York Times. No network broadcast any report. As it happened, the Post never mentioned it, and almost two weeks later, in an item in the Sunday “News of the Week in Review,” the Times published only a few lines, and somewhat misleading ones at that.

Mustang Bobby explains further:

The Clintons have always been held to a different standard than just about every other modern political family. We have the right wing to thank for that, and in a magnificent fit of attempted equalization, they say the left is just as bad about the Bush family, labeling it “Bush Derangement Syndrome.” (As is the case with all right-wing attempts at equalization, it doesn’t work. I am unaware that anyone is out there promoting a film that accuses George W. Bush of murdering his opponents.)But the question remains: what is it about the Clintons that sets them apart?

I have friends — otherwise bright, analytical people — who simply dislike the Clintons and have NO conscious awareness of the ORIGINS of their dislike, and how much their dislike has been shaped by the years and years and years of attacks from the rightwing noise machine, and has seeped through the mainstream media.

I suppose there are any number of answers, ranging from some deep-seated resentment based on a socio-economic snobbery (the Clintons were referred to as the “Arkansas HillBillies” by the wingnuts when Bill was elected in 1992) to just pure visceral hatred that reaches Shakespearean levels and is just as inexplicable: Iago never fully explains why he hates Othello.

How dare those “Arkansas Hillbillies” invade the D.C. elites’ patrician turf? Those friends of mine have no idea how, in 1992, the socialite snob of Washington, D.C. — Sally Quinn — declared the Clintons to be just not the right kind of people for Washington, D.C., and how the venom of her and other Washington insiders’ attacks have filtered throughout the press corps who, most of all, want to feel like they “belong.” These days, Frank Rich and Maureen Dowd continue the smirking, sniffing, looking-down-upon — burying the Clintons up to their necks in sand and lobbing hard rocks of verbal attacks upon them. (I’m certain that a good part of Shuster’s nastiness to the Clinton’s emanates from that pressure to fit in to the elite media.) Quinn regularly wrote Washington Post columns belittling or advising the Clintons on how they should behave. One 1992 article was subtitled, “Welcome to Washington, but Play by Our Rules.” Bill Clinton made numerous efforts, holding several intimate dinners at the White House, trying to charm the Washington elite. Blumenthal writes that he attended one of the dinners and that “every amenity available” was extended to the elite. But there was nothing that he or Hillary could say, as Blumenthal makes clear in another Sally Quinn story:

In his inaugural, Clinton honed the line he had used at Mrs. [Katherine] Graham’s. “This beautiful capital, like every capital since the dawn of civilization,” he said, “is often a place of intrigue and calculation. Powerful people maneuver for position and worry endlessly about who is in and who is out, who is up and who is down, forgetting those people whose toil and sweat ends us here and pays our way.” In the CBS studio in Washington, Sally Quinn, who was serving as a commentator, turned to a producer. “That’s a terrible mistake he’s made, attacking Washington. He said the same thing the other night at Kay’s and everyone reacted very negatively. I have to go on the air to say that,” Quinn said, according to the producer.

And the beat goes on.

I remember a time when, if a woman was brutally raped, the cops would ask her,

“What were you wearing?”.

Those were the days, not so long past, when it was the woman’s fault if her husband kicked the crap out of her. She asked for it. It was also her fault if she got raped because she asked for it.

I thought we had improved since then. But we haven’t. Well, actually we had made progress, but there is a certain man who is now the elected President of the United States, who set back gender relations by a minimum of 50 years. But nobody is blaming him. It can’t possibly be his fault as a maliciously gleeful Enabler. Why blame him when there is a woman or two around to blame? And why not? When men aren’t busy blaming us women, we are busy blaming each other.

This morning I tuned into FOX. It was the first time I had bothered with a news channel since the election. FOX was my only choice, as MSNBC and CNN are forever dead to me. There, I watched the classy Lady Lynn Forester De Rothschild sitting there on a panel designed to discuss What’s Wrong With Sarah.

Yes, “regressive progressive” boys, I know that Lady R is married to a rich man, so that cancels her out in some of your little minds.

The fact that Lady De Rothschild was a successful businesswoman and a millionaire in her own right before she married isn’t really relevant is it? I recall my immigrant grandmother, who had no education to speak of all, telling me that it’s not wise to hang around with a guy who has less than you do.

So Lady R was smart enough to marry somebody who wasn’t going to suck down her assets. Too bad some other women I have known in my life didn’t take that same advice. Sorry Lynn’s good sense disappoints you, regressives fellas.

So there I was, watching Lady R sitting on an “esteemed” FOX panel discussing Sarah Palin and how we can pin John McCain’s loss on her. So, who was on this “panel” with her?: None other than the morally bankrupt Jerry I love prostitutes so that makes me a real politician, but I got caught so now I encourage white trash to throw pies at each other in order to earn a living Springer.

But they weren’t alone. Nope. Nick DePaolo was there offering his ‘wisdom’ as well. Being Italian, I recognize a dago greaseball when I see one. This is why I was not surprised when ole Nick said in his best hairy macho, “Some female in the campaign had a problem with her” to describe why she is enduring smears at the moment.

I thought, Wow! Double-Dipping Woman-Blaming, Nick! Brilliant! You’re experienced at this! Your mother enabled you well! It’s a woman’s fault but we’ve got the wrong woman in our sights! It’s not Sarah at all! It’s some other woman who had a problem with Sarah who started all these rumors!

Yeah, that’s it, It’s a woman’s fault that it’s a woman’s fault. Nicky! Paisano! You didn’t let me down!

I’m not sure, but I think I saw Lady R nearly roll her eyes at that point. But, being a disciplined, well-educated person with a solid three-digit IQ unmatched by the two goons next to her, she was very gracious to these two knuckle dragging beasts she was forced to talk to. I really admired her at that moment. Here she was on a panel with two accurate remnant-samplings of Pithecanthropus Erectus and she didn’t haul off and tell them both just how stupid and useless they both really are. I suspect that Lady R understands the concept that you can’t make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear.

So just to recap. John McCain’s loss was Sarah’s problem. This is an important point to make because, behind the scenes, there are several cowardly unnamed members of McCain’s staff who are trying to save their own incompetent asses in hopes that somebody will hire them again to work on another horribly run campaign.

Flailing, because they all look like idiots for managing a campaign that was suitable for a council candidate in a town of 10,000, they needed someone to blame. Fortunately for them, there was a woman there, else whatEVER would they have done?

So, because several seriously inept and embarrassing staffers in the McCain campaign are wondering whether they will ever work again, it worked for them to just say “It’s Sarah’s fault that we are stupid, inept and really should be working here instead of ever being allowed to run another high-powered campaign”.

And the main stream Unmedia was more than willing to jump on that wagon. After all, they were experienced at trashing a woman, having gotten plenty of practice on Hillary. ironically just as it was a few decades ago when women got raped, they even had the audacity to use “What were you wearing?” on Sarah.

And by the way, exactly where is John McCain during this current Sarah Palin trash session?

::::Crickets::::

Ok, so now we have it analyzed. In true, “Blame the victim not the perpetrator” fashion, we can only conclude that it’s all Sarah’s fault that we are about to install America’s first Marxist-Leninist President.

But wait! No!!!!!

It’s not Sarah’s fault at all!

It’s Hillary’s fault!

As I cruised the former We Love Hillary blogs and websites yesterday, I found myself reading all about how all of this is Hillary’s fault. There, in front of my eyes, respected people, people I truly admire, were blaming Hillary. Hillary didn’t push back. Hillary didn’t abandon the Party, Hillary didn’t expose Barack Obama, Hillary stumped for the candidate. Hillary sent us a message to go back to our abuser. Hillary put up with the sexism. Hillary didn’t spend every dime she had for principle! Hillary didn’t run as an Independent!

Let me ask you something, folks: Can you name me ONE President of the United States who won a race as an Independent? Go ahead, take your time. I’ll wait…..

The fact is, folks, Hillary did EVERYTHING she could, and YES she was a victim of an Enabler, and there wasn’t a single thing she could do about it without winding up NOWHERE! Anybody who imagines it would have been different is a fool and has certainly never run for office at any level.

But apparently, Hillary didn’t get skewered enough for The Cause, so now we all need to join in.

I mean, she wasn’t the victim or anything right!? The hypocritical biggoted DNC shouldn’t bear the brunt of our resentment, right? Barack Obama and his vibrating cell phone shouldn’t bear the brunt of our resentment, right? CNN and MSNBC shouldn’t bear the brunt of our resentment, right?. That would be far too difficult. Let’s make it easy on ourselves and blame her! And let’s get other women to join in! That always works well!

What was she wearing?

.

So Ok, I’ll play along: It’s Hillary’s fault!

But wait! No!!!!

It’s not just Sarah’s fault or Hillary’s fault, it’s the fault of all women !!!!

Yeah that’s it! Why stop with just two of you when we can blame all of you?

Below is a comment I received right here from a guy on this blog::

I am a long-time lurker here, and a first-time poster. My depression over BO’s victory is compounded by the apparent lack of impact from the millions of Clinton supporters who could have/should have been the difference in this election. What happened?

Here is my answer.

We women are pretty much accustomed to being blamed for every goddamned thing that you guys feel like laying on us, but this time I gotta push back.You need to ask the same question of those whiney far right republicans who sulked because some Far right whackjob wasn’t nominated instead of a centrist. I’ll bet more PUMAs voted for McCain than far right, social conservatives. Boy I guess they showed everybody huh?

You need to ask the same question of the evangelicals who, by last count, gave thirty percent of their votes to a communist who belongs to a religion tied to marxism and the middle east. And then ask them what size burka they would like because they are all fools.

You need to ask the same question of Catholics who went for Barack Obama on one issue only: Abortion.

We PUMAs aren’t going to take your own party’s rap. Sorry but no cigar.

This commenter didn’t even realize what he was trying to do. He was blaming The Women en masse for McCain’s horrendous campaign and loss, not because the commenter is malicious, but because he is programmed. So don’t hold it against him. He is programmed and we women helped to program him.

In addition, we women help enable this kind of thought process daily–by trashing each other. In a “man’s world” this is the oldest trick in the world–and probably the single most powerful device known to Man to ensure that women help them to keep other women down. It works well in Corporate America and it works well in politics. I’m here to tell you, I am NOT playing along. And if you, my sisters, had any brains, you wouldn’t play along either. We need to stop allowing other women who are victimized to be blamed by the perpetrators.

Back when Feminism actually meant something other than Roe v. Wade, back when feminists weren’t politically correct and would never have tolerated the abuses of women around the world, knowing that as we speak, a woman is being set aflame in the middle east for “shaming” the family after being raped, back when feminists actually DID circle each others’ wagons, I listened to a speaker whose name I no longer remember. But I remember her message well, if only in paraphrase:

Humans are the only species that has the female actually give birth to her own oppressors. Then the female teaches them the art of oppression.

I admittedly felt the need to join in with the “blame Hillary” movement at one point. It was the quote above that reminded me that this is wrong on so many levels.

I hope I have given at least one of my sisters food for thought today. Lady R clearly understands that when a woman enables her oppressors by joining in on the man’s game of trashing another woman, all women lose. And when one woman loses, the game continues– and one day you will be the victim of the very same game (if you haven’t already!).

We need to stop being so hard on each other, sisters! Lady R understands this!

Did Sarah say some dumb things? Yup. But let me ask you: HOW STUPID WAS JOE BIDEN during this campaign? Do we hear ONE thing about this moron who is a heartbeat away from the Presidency? Of course not! Do you know why? Because men circle each other’s wagons, ladies. And that’s our problem. We haven’t learned to do the same for our sisters. And as long as we continue being used by the Oldest Trick Known, we will always be the victims who are blamed by the perpetrators. It is the single biggest reason why we women, who comprise MORE THAN HALF of the electorate, are sitting in mud at this very moment.

Did Hillary fight like we have never seen another woman fight before? You bet she did! Then why have we forgotten this? What do we remember? We remember that she gave up. Well damn her for giving up in the face of an ENTIRE media assault, an Enabling Lying, Cheating Sexist Pig opponent she couldn’t vet without being called a racist, and an ENTIRE political party working against her! Shame on her for giving up, when she could have instead had the pleasure of losing her job, her life, her career, and the ability to do anything good for humanity in the future.

Oh I just know you would have done it differently, right? Right? Me too! Right!

In closing, I would like to ask all of my sisters out there one question: Do you think these women succeeded by joining in with men and bashing each other in public?

ONLINE, WASHINGTON DC & NATIONWIDE – The Just Say No Deal Coalition, a group of Senator Hillary Clinton’s most ardent supporters, presents Closing Arguments: The Case for a McCain/Palin Administration via a nationwide conference call on Sunday, November 2 at 5PM Eastern.

A bipartisan team of distinguished women and men — Democrats Lady Lynn de Rothschild and Dr. Lynette Long, and Republicans Charlie Crist and Rudy Giuliani — unite to appeal to Hillary supporters, PUMAs and undecided voters to push through to election day to get out the vote for the McCain/Palin ticket.

This 90-minute conference call will be broadcast worldwide via BlogTalkRadio and NoQuarterUSA.net. Larry Johnson, the owner of NoQuarterUSA.net, will be the host. Mr. Johnson is a former counter-terrorism official and intelligence officer who served in the Reagan, Bush and Clinton administrations. Mr. Johnson became a vociferous critic of Karl Rove and of the Bush administration for their involvement in the outing of former CIA officer Valerie Plame, and he delivered the National Democratic Party’s weekly address on July 25, 2005.

Please join us at 5PM Eastern at our broadcast, Closing Arguments.

Just Say No Deal, which was born the weekend that Hillary Clinton suspended her campaign, is comprised largely of Democrats and Independents who believe in putting Country, not party affiliation, first. We have spoken out against political intimidation in the states and the blogosphere, condemned the mainstream media bias, publicized voter and caucus fraud, and criticized the refusal of the Democratic Party to disassociate itself from the fraud and corrupt actions of ACORN.

Join us at 5PM Eastern for the live broadcast of Closing Arguments: The Case for a McCain/Palin Administration. You’ll need to be registered at BlogTalkRadio to post comments in the live chat.

An audio archive of the conference call will be available immediately after the call concludes at around 6:30 p.m. ET.

In a stunning about face this week, Barack Obama announced that “I’ve got an economic plan that is similar to Bill Clinton’s.” On its face, this would mean that, if elected, Barack Obama would raise taxes on all taxpayers, support NAFTA and reduce welfare, three cornerstones of the Clinton economic legacy. This would be a serious reversal of Senator Obama’s campaign promises and his stated policies.

Other than a crass attempt to hitch his fate to the Clinton star, the comment highlights the serious risk to our current economic situation that is posed by Barack Obama’s pledge to raise taxes on the producers of jobs and capital, increase welfare and abrogate our commitment to NAFTA. These policies create a serious probability of leading our economy into further economic dismay.

Barack Obama is wholly disingenuous in implying that his tax policy will have the same success as the Clinton policy when, in fact, the economic environment inherited by Bill Clinton was vastly different from today’s economy.

Obama’s assertion is similar to saying that because an aspirin cures a headache it will do the same for cancer. President Clinton benefited from an economy that grew by 4.2% in the first quarter of his Presidency, the Dow was up 5.8% for the year prior to his election, total national debt was 54% of national output and information technology was in its infancy. Tax rates inherited by Clinton had been reduced by 60% under Reagan and Bush Senior since the Carter years. When President Clinton increased taxes, he simultaneously brought our national budget into balance in sixteen months. He signed NAFTA against the will of his own party.

Yesterday, the country’s growth contracted by .3%, providing one-half of the technical verification of the recession being felt around the country and certain to be inherited by the next President. The Dow is down 32.5% for the year, our national debt is at nearly 70% of total GDP (after WWII national debt was 102% of GDP and America was at the beginning of its stunning economic success). Currently, unless investors are able to forcefully advance new energy technologies, there is no analog to the 1990′s information revolution which can give us the necessary economic stimulus for innovation and job growth.

Supporters of the Illinois Senator not only ignore the current fragile economy, but also the obvious consequences of Obama’s opposition to NAFTA and his destructive economic philosophy. In fact, Senator Obama’s policy of higher taxes and higher tariffs for our fragile economy at this time is exactly the wrong direction for the country.

One of the reasons that Barack Obama could well lose on Tuesday is because voters are beginning to realize that his policies will tank the economy and the markets. The stock market looks forward, not backward, and there is a direct correlation between the declining Dow and the increasing poll numbers for Barack Obama. According to the June Gallop Poll, by a margin of 87 to 13, Americans care more about improving the economy than they do about redistributing wealth.

According to his rhetoric, Barack Obama is helping working Americans. In fact, John McCain offers bigger tax breaks to the working class than Barack Obama. (The only reason you do not know this is because you have not looked at the fact that no one earning under $50,000 will pay any tax under John McCain and, on the famous “Obama Taxometer”, the untruthful Obama campaign does not include the $5,000 health care tax credit that John McCain in giving to every American). Moreover, almost 75% of Americans making $100,000 have some capital gains. As the value of their investments turns negative they will suffer badly, even if Barack Obama does not raise their taxes. A declining economy is bad for everyone.

It is dishonest for Senator Obama to claim he will fix this economy by taxing the top 5%. His spending increases on programs alone amount to $300 billion per year. The dishonesty is to say that this will be paid by his tax on the top 5%. It is simply not possible. As the Obama plan makes clear, the additional taxes of the “rich” have already been committed to his “refundable tax credits”. According to the Tax Policy Center, the Obama tax plan will take $70 billion from the top 5% of earners in the country and redistribute it to the 60 million Americans who pay no tax.

Senator Obama’s economic philosophy will make America neither stronger nor fairer. Today, the top 1% of earners contributes 40% of the nation’s $2.6 trillion tax intake and the bottom 50% pay 2.9% of our nation’s total needs. This is in contrast to the 17% of total tax paid by the top filers under the Carter Administration when the top marginal rate was 70%. It has been shown that reductions in tax rates increase tax revenues because incentives to private enterprise strengthen the economy and create jobs and a larger tax base.

As he exploits the current widespread economic uncertainty in the nation and blames the richest, Barack Obama not only ignites an insidious class war, but also ignores the inconvenient fact that America’s top earners have paid double in taxes since the reduction of their tax rates under George Bush. Namely, in 2003 the richest Americans paid $136 billion in taxes and after the tax cut in 2006 they paid $274 billion. Times of economic uncertainty are exactly when our government needs to cling to business and the generators of wealth and jobs, not use them as scapegoats.

Along with my Democratic “friends,” I used to make fun of Republicans by saying that they lived in an “evidence-free zone.” Well, I now see that it is the Democrats, swept away in the “narrative” and “transcendence” of Barack Obama, that are refusing to look at the facts about the likely consequences of electing Barack Obama. The same media outlets that failed to vet the Iraq War are now failing to vet Barack Obama. Unfortunately, they will never accept responsibility; it will be our country that takes the hit. For me, that is very sad.

John McCain may not be the most eloquent or sexiest candidate in this race, but he is the candidate who will best serve this nation for the next four years. He is reducing taxes for all Americans further than Barack Obama, cutting federal spending and encouraging free trade and energy independence as engines for domestic economic growth. More importantly, he and Sarah Palin actually have a record of taking on the vested interests and their own party (while working with Democrats) to make tough decisions. I have yet to be shown the same evidence of the junior Senator from Illinois.

Regrettably, the road kill of Obama’s reckless rhetoric and policies is not the rich taxpayer, but the entire American economy. The pain will be felt mostly by those who lose their jobs in the economic downturn and are the owners of 401ks and other savings who suffer at the stock market continues to decline. Barack Obama has not been held accountable for the obvious consequences of his tax and trade philosophy and policies. If elected, it will be all Americans who will suffer.

PS. Most readers have probably not read this far into the piece, but if you have, I have one more comment…..Since speaking out about this election, I have seen the Obama response is to attack me personally, particularly on the Internet. Fine, but just to let you know, eighteen months ago my husband wrote in the Financial Times that capitalism was in retreat because of the greed on Wall Street. We have subsequently invested only in tax-free government securities. So, my opinion is not driven by my economic interests. I am driven by what I said in the New York Times in June, “I love my country more than my party” … and it is ok with me if you hate me. xoxoxo

Related: Lynn Forester de Rothschild: Barack Obama’s America

A bipartisan team of distinguished women and men — Democrats Lady Lynn de Rothschild and Dr. Lynette Long, and Republicans Charlie Crist and Rudy Giuliani — unite to appeal to Hillary supporters, PUMAs and undecided voters to push through to election day to get out the vote for the McCain/Palin ticket.

This 90-minute conference call will be broadcast worldwide via BlogTalkRadio and NoQuarterUSA.net). Larry Johnson, the owner of NoQuarterUSA.net, will be the host. Mr. Johnson is a former counter-terrorism official and intelligence officer who served in the Reagan, Bush and Clinton administrations. Mr. Johnson became a vociferous critic of Karl Rove and of the Bush administration for their involvement in the outing of former CIA officer Valerie Plame, and he delivered the National Democratic Party’s weekly address on July 25, 2005.

Please join us at 5PM Eastern at our broadcast, Closing Arguments.

Just Say No Deal, which was born the weekend that Hillary Clinton suspended her campaign, is comprised largely of Democrats and Independents who believe in putting Country, not party affiliation, first. We have spoken out against political intimidation in the states and the blogosphere, condemned the mainstream media bias, publicized voter and caucus fraud, and criticized the refusal of the Democratic Party to disassociate itself from the fraud and corrupt actions of ACORN.

Join us at 5PM Eastern for the live broadcast of Closing Arguments: The Case for a McCain/Palin Administration. You’ll need to be registered at BlogTalkRadio to post comments in the live chat.

A bipartisan team of distinguished women and men — Democrats Lady Lynn de Rothschild and Dr. Lynette Long, and Republicans Charlie Crist and Rudy Giuliani — unite to appeal to Hillary supporters, PUMAs and undecided voters to push through to election day to get out the vote for the McCain/Palin ticket.

This 90-minute conference call will be broadcast worldwide via BlogTalkRadio and NoQuarterUSA.net). Larry Johnson, the owner of NoQuarterUSA.net, will be the host. Mr. Johnson is a former counter-terrorism official and intelligence officer who served in the Reagan, Bush and Clinton administrations. Mr. Johnson became a vociferous critic of Karl Rove and of the Bush administration for their involvement in the outing of former CIA officer Valerie Plame, and he delivered the National Democratic Party’s weekly address on July 25, 2005.

Please join us at 5PM Eastern at our broadcast, Closing Arguments.

Just Say No Deal, which was born the weekend that Hillary Clinton suspended her campaign, is comprised largely of Democrats and Independents who believe in putting Country, not party affiliation, first. We have spoken out against political intimidation in the states and the blogosphere, condemned the mainstream media bias, publicized voter and caucus fraud, and criticized the refusal of the Democratic Party to disassociate itself from the fraud and corrupt actions of ACORN.

Join us at 5PM Eastern for the live broadcast of Closing Arguments: The Case for a McCain/Palin Administration. You’ll need to be registered at BlogTalkRadio to post comments in the live chat.

SusanUnPC posted an excellent story on Palin’s speech this morning but we thought it important enough to let you see it in it’s entirety. Thanks also to Greta Van Susteren of FOX News; one of the only fair journalists this campaign season, for reporting on the feminists endorsing the McCain/Palin ticket in front of thousands of cheering supporters.

“Today I have another question that is especially for the women in this audience and all across our great country. [A]re you ready to break the highest, hardest glass ceiling in America? (cheers).”

“It is such an honor for me today to have up here on stage some very independent, very courageous, very accomplished women and I am so honored to get to introduce you to these women who have broken a few glass ceilings of their own and I ask you gals to stand up here as I introduce you. We’re honored. We are proud and I thank them for their confidence, for their support and especially for their courage. Thank you so much. Thank you thank you.”

Palin asked the ladies endorsing her to step up and be recognized: Prameela Bartholomeusz, a small business owner and a member of the Democratic National Platform Committee; Linda Klinge, former Oregon president, currently V.P. of NOW; Shelly Mandell, President of the LA chapter of NOW; Lynn Forester de Rothschild, a member of the Democratic Platform Committee (a huge Hillary fundraiser now boldly campaigning for McCain/Palin); and Elaine Lafferty, former editor in chief of Ms. Magazine.

“Our opponents think that they have the women’s vote all locked up which is a little presumptuous – little presumptuous since only our side has a woman on the ticket so, we won’t ignore any of the men in the audience but again this is for the women in the audience here…

When it came time for choosing someone, how Barack Obama just couldn’t bring himself to pick the woman who got 18 million votes in his primary and that seems to be too familiar a story, isn’t it? How it is for so many American women that the qualifications are there, but for some reason the promotion never comes. There is always some long explanation for why they got passed over or some unseen barrier, some excuse and that’s just one of the things I so admire about John McCain he is not someone who makes excuses.”

“You’ve got to ask yourself why was Senator Hillary Clinton not even vetted by the Obama campaign? Why did it take 24 years, an entire generation from the time Geraldine Ferraro made her pioneering bid until the next time that a woman was asked to join a national ticket. In the long history of our country 74 people have held the position of President or Vice-President and why have the major parties given America only two chances to even consider a woman for either office? 88 years after women gained the right to vote and 83 years after Nellie Tayloe Ross of Wyoming became the first woman governor in our great nation and 60 years after Margaret Chase Smith was elected to the Senate this glass ceiling it–it is still there, but it’s about time that we shattered that glass ceiling once and for all. (Cheers.) … There is a difference between what Barack Obama says and what he does and his primary opponent wasn’t the first one to notice this.”

Yes, Hillary did notice the difference between Obama’s “word, just words” and his actions. I certainly don’t agree with Palin on all of her policies but I have to hand it to her: the lady is fearless. She basically grabs Obama by the ears here and invites him to charge – if he dares. This has been discussed on NoQ – the fact that Obama does not pay the women on his staff as much as the men in his Senate office:

“Out on the stump he talks a good game about equal pay for equal work, but according to the Senate pay roll records, women on his own staff get just 83 cents for every dollar that the men get. That’s 9,000 dollars less every year than he pays the guys. Does he think that the women aren’t working as hard? Does he think that they are 17 percent less productive? And Barack Obama can’t say that this is just the way that it’s always been done around the Capitol, because I know one senator who actually does pay equal wages for equal work, Sen. John McCain.”

Ouch. Yes, this sounds like Obama: the man who told Rep. Diane Watson of California that Hillary supporters should “get over it” and basically threatened us with our reproductive freedoms and conservative SCOTUS appointments if we didn’t vote for him.

Then Palin took apart his tax plan and squarely targeted the women she felt would be hurt by it:

“See this is just another reason why American women, Democrat, Republican, independent, should not just let Barack Obama take their votes for granted. And let me give you a few more reasons, starting with his plan to, as he puts it, spread the wealth around. That is how our opponent defended his so called tax cut to Joe the plumber the other day. Or Wendy the plumber’s daughter, there you go. Now this spreading the wealth around really is just a scheme for income distribution. Joe didn’t buy it. Joe the plumber, he would have none of that. He called him on it. In fact he said that he sure thought that sounded like socialism. Joe the plumber.

And the rest of us shouldn’t buy it either, especially the millions of women in America who own small businesses. Women start as many new businesses as men start, and they are entrepreneurs, trying to make a better life for themselves and for their families. And trying to make payroll for their employees. They’re women, just like Erma Aggier (sp) is her name, she owns a restaurant close by. She dreamed for years of owning her own restaurant and she made it just a year ago. Erma, she owns the La Madonna Mexican Restaurant, right here in Las Vegas. She employs 20 people.

And she’s exactly the kind of small business owner whose taxes would go way up under the Obama tax plan. And the healthcare fines and the mandates that our opponent would impose aren’t gonna help her much either. They’re gonna force her to let employees go if they are too high and they could even put her out of business. And our opponent thinks he’s got problems with Joe the Plumber, well, he should talk to Erma the restaurant owner, because she’s voting for John McCain too.

The working women of this country, those who work inside the home and outside of the home, they’re overlooked by politicians in Washington and Barack Obama hasn’t given us a single reason to believe that he would be any better. A company’s balance sheet tallies up just the same whether it’s a man who owns the business or a women (sic). And women want the same opportunities as men. And they’re entitled to the same rewards.

See, the point here, the point here is that women would suffer just as much from the massive tax increase that Sen. Obama proposes. And you know, there are a lot of families in this country with no father present. And when we make laws in Washington, those laws need to understand that, they need to serve the mothers who are taking care of their families.

I’ve been very, very blessed to have a husband who’s supported me along the way. He’s a great dad who doesn’t disappear at bath time or run from diaper duty, and I appreciate that. But a lot of women have it much, much harder than I’ve had it. And they need child care, which today can cost some families a third of their household budget. And they need reforms in labor laws that allow greater flexibility in the workplace, including more tele-commuting. And they need a tax code that doesn’t penalize working families. (applause)

They need health care that the family can take with them when they move or change jobs. And they need better choices in retirement plans, and worker retraining when things get tough. Women also need equal pay for equal work, and not just be a talking point. (applause)

Really, it is that simple. It’s a matter of fundamental fairness — fairness in this country. And to make all this happen, working mothers need an advocate, and they will have one when this working mother is working for all of you in the White House.”(applause)

She then closed by praising Title IX, which allowed millions of girls to participate in sports:

“…[A]nd over time, that opened more than just the doors to the gymnasium. Along with other reforms, Title IX helped us to see ourselves and our futures a different way. Women of my generation were allowed finally to make more of our own choices with education, with career, and I have never forgotten that we owe that opportunity to women, to feminists who came before us. We were allowed to be participants instead of just spectators on the achievements of others. And I was lucky to have a lot of support at home, too. Now among the many things that I owe my parents is one simple lesson, and that was this is America and every woman can walk through every door of opportunity. The belief in equal opportunity is not just the cause of feminists: it’s the creed of our country-equal opportunity.”

The ‘participants instead of spectators’ line is one for the books. Well done. She may not be Hillary, but she is clearly taking a page from Hillary’s Beijing speech in 1995:

“And if I’m given the honor of serving you in the White House, I intend to advance that creed in our own nation and beyond because across the world, there are still places where women are subjugated and persecuted as they were in Afghanistan, places we’re they’re bullied and brutalized and murdered in honor killings, places where women are sold like commodities in the nightmare world of the sex trade, and places where baby girls are unwelcome as a matter of state policy and their mothers are forced to have abortions. Now no one person, no one leader, can bring an end to all of those ills, to all of the injustices inflicting upon women, but I can promise you this, if I am elected, these women, too, will have an advocate and a defender in the 47th vice president of the United States.”

John McCain and Sarah Palin have both been channeling a little Hillary – McCain with his “fight with me” speech and now Palin, clearly picking up the feminist torch.

Is it politics as usual? Cynics among you may say so. But it’s hard to sell that when you see two people living their principles, who can point to records that back up what they say. I must also note that after feeling a capitive audience to Senator Obama’s arrogance and dismissive behavior toward Senator Clinton these many months, it is both refreshing and heartening that every single time Senator McCain is asked to speak of Governor Palin, he lights up. You can clearly see that this man has respect for this lady and is proud to stand along side her on this ticket.

Judging by today’s speech, I can see why.

Some prominent feminists — including two members of the Democratic National Platform Committee — also stand up for all women (not just women whose politics they prefer):

[A] small group of high-profile feminists has lined up behind the Republican ticket. They stood on stage today at Governor Palin’s side — Linda Klinge, the former Oregon president and now current vice president of the organization NOW, Shelley Mandell, president of the LA chapter of NOW, Elaine Lafferty, former editor-in-chief of “Ms.” magazine, and Lynn Rothschild, a member of the Democratic platform committee. — From the transcript of “Behind the Feminist ‘Left’ Jabs to Palin, On The Record With Greta, October 21, 2008.” [Below the fold, you'll see a more detailed description of these women.]

All of you, especially our longtime fervent supporters of Hillary Clinton, will love the quotes below from Sarah’s spirited speech yesterday:

The ABC News blog Political Radar wrote an excellent, detailed report on Sarah Palin’s speech yesterday. “Palin Reaches Out to Women Voters, Slams Obama for Passing Over Clinton” includes a number of direct quotes from Sarah’s speech, as well as backgrounder facts and details relevant to Sarah’s remarks.

First, here’s the ABC blog’s more detailed description of the prominent feminists who stood up with Sarah on stage yesterday, which I’ve broken up into bullet points for easier reading:

Palin was joined on stage by five women who endorsed her candidacy, including two members of the Democratic National Platform Committee, two leaders of chapters of the National Organization of Women, and a former editor of Ms. Magazine.

• Lynn Rothschild, a Democratic National Platform Committee member and prominent supporter of Sen. Clinton, had endorsed the McCain-Palin ticket in September, but had not appeared publicly with Palin.
• Prameela Bartholomeusz also served on the Democratic Platform Committee …
• Linda Klinge, the current vice president of the Oregon Chapter of the  National Organization for Women.
• Shelly Mandell, president of the Los Angeles chapter of the National Organization for Women, also appeared in Henderson, and had previously endorsed Palin at a public rally in Carson, CA earlier this month.

The campaign has often had former Hillary Clinton supporters introduce Palin at campaign events since her nomination [including Dr. Lynette Long, whose writings you've read at No Quarter], in an attempt to win over disaffected Clinton supporters. After introducing the women, Palin sought to dispute the idea that the Democratic ticket would easily win the female vote.

"Our opponents think that they have the women’s vote all locked up which is a little presumptuous since only our side has a woman on the ticket," Palin said to strong applause.

Here’s the lead section of Political Radar‘s story:

>ABC News’ Imtiyaz Delawala Reports: A day after Sen. Barack Obama campaigned with former Democratic rival Sen. Hillary Clinton in Florida, Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin slammed him for not seriously considering Clinton to be his second-in-command, citing Obama’s decision as an example of the barriers women face in the workplace.

"When it came time for choosing, somehow Barack Obama just couldn’t bring himself to pick the woman who got 18 million votes in his primary, and that seems to be too familiar a story isn’t it?" Palin said at a rally in Henderson, NV yesterday. "How it is for so many American women that the qualifications are there, but for some reason the promotion never comes?

In stronger language than Palin has used on the campaign trail before, the comments were part of a broader attempt to sell herself as an advocate for women and working numbers at a time when Palin’s support among women has slipped dramatically in national polls since becoming the Republican vice presidential nominee.

"You’ve got to ask yourself why was Senator Hillary Clinton not even vetted by the Obama campaign?" Palin continued. "Why did it take 24 years, an entire generation from the time Geraldine Ferraro made her pioneering bid until the next time that a woman was asked to join a national ticket?"

"In the long history of our country, 74 people have held the position of President or Vice-President, and why have the major parties given America only two chances to even consider a woman for either office?" Palin asked. "This glass ceiling, it is still there, but it’s about time that we shattered that glass ceiling once and for all."

[...]

Building on her theme of equal rights for women, ABC News reports, Sarah Palin next “sought to tie her critique of Obama’s tax plans with her support for working women.”

As all of you regular readers here know, Barack Obama pays female staffers far less than do John McCain and Hillary Clinton, but ABC News excuses that because Obama has more male staffers.

Palin sought to tie her critique of Obama’s tax plans with her support for working women, while charging that Obama does not pay women in his Senate office at the same level as men, raising the issue as one of "fundamental fairness" that she would address as an advocate for working women.

"Out on the stump he talks a good game about equal pay for equal work, but according to the Senate pay roll records women on his own staff get just 83 cents for every dollar that the men get," Palin said of Obama. "That’s 9,000 dollars less every year that he pays the guys. Does he think that the women aren’t working as hard? Does he think that they are 17 percent less productive?"

The Palin campaign cited press reports from last month and Senate records to back its claims on Obama’s pay to Senate staffers. The discrepancy, however, appears be that more top level staffers in Obama’s Senate office are men, and therefore have higher pay. The Obama campaign points to the many senior-level female staffers currently employed on the presidential campaign trial. …

Excuses, excuses.

While we’re talking about women, can anyone tell me where in the hell Michelle Obama is? Is she too assertive, too blunt, too acrimonious and divisive to be seen? Must she be kept hidden to protect her husband’s campaign?

Has Obama’s campaign “tested” the effect of Michelle Obama’s visibility versus her invisibility? Does Obama lose a point or two in the polls when she’s seen and heard?

I’m just curious. But it’s good that the Republican candidates proudly let their female candidates and partners speak.

It is notable, though, that neither Cindy McCain or Sarah Palin has ever felt compelled to mention that their husbands are “stinky” in the morning or can’t remember to put the butter away.

And I’ve never heard the husband of either woman mention, frequently, that his wife reminds him constantly how imperfect he is — like Barack Obama does. (In his speeches, Obama uses the example of Michelle’s criticisms to convey to rally crowds that he is an imperfect man, but the frequency with which he makes the reference sets off alarms for me.)

In contrast, Sarah Palin always speaks positively about her husband. In yesterday’s speech, she praised her husband’s help in allowing her the time to attain her political goals and the importance of KEY legislation that has helped women:

Palin praised her husband Todd for his support while she has pursued her political career, while saying said that federal laws need to better support working mothers — especially those in households without a father.

"I’ve been very, very blessed to have a husband who’s supported me along the way. He’s a great dad who doesn’t disappear at bath time or run from diaper duty, and I appreciate that," Palin added. "But a lot of women have it much, much harder than I’ve had it. And they need child care, which today can cost some families a third of their household budget. And they need reforms in labor laws that allow greater flexibility in the workplace, including more tele-commuting. And they need a tax code that doesn’t penalize working families."

As she has done before on the campaign trail, Palin cited the positive impact that Title IX had on her career.

"Women of my generation were allowed finally to make more of our own choices with education, with career, and I have never forgotten that we owe that opportunity to women, to feminists who came before us," Palin said. "The belief in equal opportunity is not just the cause of feminists, it’s the creed of our country — equal opportunity."

Palin said that if elected, she would seek to spread that opportunity to other women around the world, especially for those in countries facing persecution where women are "murdered in honor killings, places where women are sold like commodities in the nightmare world of the sex trade, and places where baby girls are unwelcome as a matter of state policy and their mothers are forced to have abortions."

“Now no one person, no one leader, can bring an end to all of those ills, to all of the injustices inflicting upon women,” Palin said. “But I can promise you this, if I am elected, these women, too, will have an advocate and a defender in the 47th vice president of the United States.”

We bash the MSM all the time here. While this ABC News report isn’t perfect, it is rich in detail and direct quotes, and it gave all of us who didn’t see Palin’s speech a great picture of her messages in her speech yesterday, as well as the stories of the prominent women who stood with Sarah Palin.

And I think it is notable that Sarah Palin is GROWING as a candidate. Her delivery and the construction of the thoughts behind her remarks are excellent. There’s no doubt, in my mind, that as vice president, she will grow and learn and work very, very hard to represent this nation proudly.

That is quite a group of women, all with very impressive credentials and resumes. They help make all of us feel not quite so “alien” in our support for the McCain/Palin ticket.

And what else is going on in the world?

Lady de Rothschild has been instrumental in helping “Democrats for McCain,” including the activist efforts of Harriet Christian and other New Yorkers who travel every Saturday by bus to Scranton, Pennsylvania to connect with voters, and return home the same evening to Penn Station. If you would like to join the lively, revved-up group of Hillary supporters for McCain — or you can drive to Scranton and meet up with the group — here are the details that Harriet Christian described to me:

(These are the same notices and instructions as we posted last week, because everything is the same, except that when Harriet called me this morning, she told me that last Saturday evening, as the group returned to NYC, they were all in such great moods, and felt energized.)

If you can’t do the “Real Democrats” Ohio jaunt (but you still will want to donate to help our McCain Democrats make their Ohio campaign a success), you East Coasters can’t pass up joining Harriet Christian Saturday and every weekend until November. Harriet e-mailed me about a campaign blitz in Pennsylvania this Saturday. E-mail Harriet at hchristian@infnyc.com to CONFIRM, hopefully by mid-afternoon Thursday.

The best parts: The bus trip is free. You’ll meet Harriet and other supporters. And you’ll be helped at every step and given everything you’ll need!

The details: The bus taking you to Scranton leaves NYC’s Penn Station at 9:00 a.m.. Meet up outside Penn Station, along West 31st St., before the corner with Eighth Ave. The bus arrives in Scranton at 11:00 a.m. You depart Scranton at 6:00 p.m., and get back to Penn Station @ 8:00 p.m.

NOTE the Scranton location correction: “If you want to drive to Scranton,” Harriet says, “meet up with everyone coming from NYC at @ 11:00 at Scranton’s McCain/Palin campaign office at 430 Lackawanna Ave..” GO TO Democrats for McCain at 420 North Main Ave., Scranton, PA 18504.

Here’s more from Harriet:

Flyers and other materials will be provided by the McCain campaign. They have flyers for Hillary supporters in Scranton – Hillary won by almost 70% there.

Tell people to dress comfortably – and to wear layers – in case the weather changes.

This is the first weekend trip. The free buses will be provided by the McCain Campaign every Saturday and some Sundays for the rest of the campaign.

:::::::::::

Check out Truthteller’s great report on the exciting Ohio trip: Your donations, small or large, will make the difference in how far this great group can go in Ohio!

Here, we usually talk politics. This time we can DO politics. We can not only talk the talk, but walk the walk — by helping financially and/or by hopping on those buses.

Wow – I love his description of Father Pfleger as a “whacko” – perfect! His advice is solid, I think – and I agree that McCain SHOULD have been hammering away about Wright and Ayers long ago. Frankly, the MSM should have been as well, but I have given up expecting them to actually do their jobs anymore.

And with the debate coming up, one can expect questions about the economy. Needless to say, it has been BIG in the news of late. For some reason, the majority of people polled believe Obama will do better. Why, I don’t know – he has absolutely no track record on anything anywhere in the neighborhood of dealing with an issue of this magnitude. I think we can chalk that up to the MSM shilling for him shamelessly. But, many of this country’s CEOs do not think so. Out of 751 CEOs polled, 80% think McCain is better for the long term health of the economy, according to Chief Executive Magazine. This assertion was affirmed by the former CEO of Godfather’s Pizza, Herman Cain this morning. He said, in no uncertain terms, that John McCain is CLEARLY better for the economy. Oh, and since everyone is keeping score these days (thanks so much for that, Barack), Mr. Cain is African American.

Mr. Cain isn’t the only one who thinks McCain would be better. The following is basically a combination of Krauthammer and Cain in one Rudy Guiliani (I know – I cannot believe I am including him either, but I think he is right on this issue):

And while we are talking Economics, last night, a bunch of former Hillary Clinton supporters, led by Lady Lynn Forester de Rothchild, held a major fundraiser for John McCain and Sarah Palin. They raised $10,000,000 in that fundraiser. As to why these people decided to hold this fundraiser, the article contained the answer:

While Mrs. Clinton has implored her former supporters to back Senator Barack Obama, some still harbor ill will towards him, organizers said.

“These people want to give their vote of disapproval,” said Mr. Lausell. “This is a way they’re doing it.”

Well, yeah, that’s sure one way of voicing one’s disapproval – raising a cool $10 mil. Wowie zowie.

Gee willikers, who could not want to support someone as humble, warm, and supportive as these folks (h/t to Paul Villareal)??

Oh, yeah. Add in the “Bros Before Hos” t-shirts, and the more despicable ones Obamabots are wearing these days, and I simply cannot imagine how people like Lady Lynn and others aren’t supporting this guy? Sheesh – what sore losers. (That is major snark, just in case you were confused.)

Hmmm – I wonder if McCain will bring up those t-shirts tonight? That would sure be an interesting debate, wouldn’t it?? Can’t you just SEE Obama trying to WORM his way out of that one??

Anywho, those Hillary-Now-McCain supporters are not the only ones who are resistant to Obama as president. Not by a long shot. There was an interesting comment by Desgans – in French – overnight at No Quarter’s post, “Barack Obama- First President of the World“:

Bonjour je suis Française et je viens de penser à un feuilleton que j’adorai ici en France, les acteurs : Jane Badler, Marc Singer, Faye Grant pour le film Vqui me fait penser à ce qui se passe aux US, PUMA sont les résistants et BHO partisants les lézards !!

Mon Dieu! Basically (according to PA goes Red),those of us who will not support this Selected nominee, the one who espouses the ideologies of William Ayers and Jeremiah Wright, whose arrogance, hubris, and just plain condescension, coupled with a dearth of experience, are Freedom Fighters like in the movie, “V.” Or like John Connors and company from “The Terminator,” I’m thinking. Yep, I can buy that. I do feel like I am fighting for my country to not be overtaken by those who do not have her best interests at heart, or at the least, have primarily THEIR interests at heart. The way in which the Obama campaign treats citizens of this country, especially women (and don’t forget Donna Brazile’s concept of the New Democratic Party – none of you bitter, clingy, religious, rural, elderly, and Hispanics need apply) makes that pretty clear. At the very least, our presidents should have the nation’s best interest as their bottom line. Obama is not only unqualified for this position, he does not fulfill that qualification. So, yeah – resistance here I come!

Ya think McCain can work THAT into the debate?!

As most of you know, she shocked the political world when she announced that she was supporting McCain/Palin for president. Today, she spoke with Neil Cavuto about the crisis, about Bill Clinton’s remarks in defense of John McCain’s decisions, and more:

It was September 17th when Uppity Woman posted “Prominent Clinton Backer Lynn Forester de Rothschild To Endorse McCain Today.”

You can check out more stories on her decision here.

Besides wishing desperately it were Hillary in the meeting today.

P.S. If body language and facial expressions mean anything, and they do imho, as the cameras scanned over the group in the White House, John McCain looked FAR more confident and at ease in the group whereas Barack looked like the new kid in school who doesn’t know anybody gazing around and wondering what to do and say.

::::::

Lynn Forester de Rothschild in interview with Neil Cavuto, asking her about Bill Clinton’s indication that he understands why John McCain was considering postponing the debate:

“Well, back up to what John McCain really wanted.

“John McCain knows that two-thirds of Americans are really frightened right now. And this is the biggest crisis to face this country in a hundred years.

And that Barack Obama says, ‘Let’s issue a joint statement,’ and says to Washington, ‘Call me if you need me.’

“The other one, John McCain, says, ‘No, we’re going to sit down, eyeball to eyeball, Democrats and Republicans, and do what’s right for the American people.’ That’s what John McCain said. …”

[Cavuto interrupts]

Cavuto: “You know that by agreeing with the guy who’s challenging your party’s guy, it’s not going to look good for your party’s guy, Barack Obama, right?”

de Rothschild: “Bill Clinton has always put the best interests of America first. That’s why he got 45 million people to vote for him. So he’s not going to play politics with the lives of Americans. He never did. And so he’s not being political.”

[Cavuto interrupts]

Cavuto: “So when the Obama folks [unintelligible] Barney Frank, Harry Reid were saying that John McCain was actually the one playing politics, using it to showboat an issue, to make a ‘Hail Mary’ pass, what do you make of it?”

de Rothschild: “I make that such a cheap shot. I mean, how many times does John McCain have to prove he will take a shot from the hallelujah Obama chorus of the media to do the right thing for the American people?

“John McCain knows who he is, he knows where he is going, he knows what is right and he will always do it.

“Obama will always say it’s political. Well, it’s getting to be a little thin. …”

[She said much more. I hope we can get the video later from Fox News. And if you don't know about Lynn Forester de Rothschild's shocking announcement that she was supporting McCain/Palin, click on her name in the Category list just below the title of this story, and you'll see the other stories we've posted, along with videos of her announcement.]

On Fox News with Neil Cavuto:

Please see our earlier stories today on Lynn Forester de Rothschild’s endorsement of John McCain and Sarah Palin, as well as her resignation from the DNC’s Platform Committee (although she stated she fully intends to remain a member in long standing of the Democratic Party):

• “McCain/Palin Press Release: “LYNN FORESTER DE ROTHSCHILD, MEMBER OF DNC PLATFORM COMMITTEE, ENDORSES JOHN MCCAIN” [Update]“
• “Our Economy: “The Foundation””
• “Prominent Clinton Backer Lynn Forester de Rothschild To Endorse McCain Today“