Independent Women's Forum - In the Media > Media Coverage

In the News: Energy price crisis in hands of lawmakers

Wed, 30 Apr 2008 11:13:00 EDT

One News Now

Congress could send energy prices even higher, warns one conservative pundit.

Carrie Lukas of the Independent Women's Forum is urging consumers to be wary of "the policies opportunistic politicians will pass in a rush to 'solve' problems" such as rising fuel and food costs.

Lukas has written a new column for TownHall.com titled "Spare Consumers the High Costs of Bad Government Policy." In the column, Lukas is especially critical of the Energy Price Gouging Act touted by Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-California). Under the measure, the Federal Trade Commission would have more power to levy fines against refineries and oil companies found to "artificially inflate the price of energy."

"She really seems to think of oil companies and energy companies as the enemy and wants to target them and somehow punish them," says Lukas. But Lukas argues that these types of policies would in fact "make gas more scarce and make prices go even higher." The conservative columnist also suggests that the nationwide push for ethanol-based fuels has not driven down the price of gas, but rather caused problems in the agriculture market.

"Right now we have [a] pretty intrusive set of regulations and legislation that does restrict some of the creation of new energy supplies," she explains. "We've had really limited ability to improve our refineries or to create new refining capacity; there's a lot of limitations on domestic exploration for oil. All these things make it harder for American companies to generate more energy."

Lukas notes there is no "magic wand" Pelosi and others can wave to fix problems related to soaring gas prices -- but they can create more problems, she adds, with bad policies that restrict the creation of new energy supplies.

According to Lukas, consumers frustrated with high fuel or food prices should be asking politicians to "first do no harm."

The Telegraph: Stop the CO2 scare, before it's too late

Mon, 21 Apr 2008 17:31:00 EDT

The Telegraph

As President Bush finally caved in to international pressure last week and committed the US to spending untold billions of dollars on "the fight against global warming", I happened to be in Washington at the same time, talking on the same subject to more than a dozen very lively and opinionated radio shows.

I was there with my co-author Richard North, at the invitation of an enterprising Washington think-tank, the Independent Women's Forum, to launch our book Scared to Death: From BSE to Global Warming, Why Scares are Costing Us the Earth.

Speaking to audiences across the country, for up to an hour at a time, we were impressed by how well informed -and sceptical about global warming - were the array of presenters who interviewed us. We told them it would have been unthinkable to have such intelligent conversations on this subject on any BBC programme back in Britain.

But the highlight of our visit was dinner with Dr Fred Singer, a distinguished US scientist, formerly professor at two universities, and founder of the US satellite weather service. He has done more than anyone in the scientific counter-attack against the ruthless promotion of global warming orthodoxy by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Dr Singer played a key part in last month's scientific conference in New York organised by the Non-governmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), and gave me an advance copy of its new report (which is now available online - just Google "sepp" and "NIPCC").

The report - Nature Not Human Activity Rules the Climate - presents a devastating analysis of the IPCC's case. Intended for a lay audience and signed by scientists from 15 countries, it takes all the key points of the IPCC's "consensus" case and tears them expertly apart, showing how the Intergovernmental Panel has either exaggerated, distorted or suppressed the evidence available to it, or has imputed much greater certainty to its findings than is justified by the data.

One of the central flaws in the IPCC's case is its reliance on computer models, based only on those parts of the evidence which suit its chosen "narrative", omitting or downplaying hugely important factors which might produce a very different picture. These range from the role played by water vapour, by far the most important of the greenhouse gases, to the influence of solar activity on cloud cover.

The report's most startling passage, however, is one that examines the "fingerprint" of warming at different levels of the atmosphere which the computer models come up with as proof that the warming is man-made. The pattern actually shown by balloon and satellite records is so dramatically different that, even on the IPCC's own evidence, the report concludes, "anthropogenic greenhouse gases can contribute only in a minor way to the current warming, which is mainly of natural origin".

The significance of this can scarcely be overestimated. At just the moment when, thanks to the overwhelming pressure generated by the IPCC, the world's politicians, led by the EU, are committing us to spending untold trillions of pounds, dollars and euros on measures to "mitigate" the claimed effects of man-made warming, here is a galaxy of experts producing hard evidence that - if the problem exists at all - the official explanation for it is oriented in wholly the wrong direction.

Furthermore the consequences of that warming and of increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have, on balance, been wholly beneficial, by increasing plant growth.

The real danger, the report warns, is not a continued warming but that temperatures and agricultural production might drop as the world faces its worst food shortage in decades (now being made worse by the crazed rush to give over farmland to biofuels). And if that is the way the evidence lies, how much are any of our politicians doing to prepare for a crisis already upon us?

In the News: Literally Chicken

Fri, 18 Apr 2008 11:46:00 EDT

ShopFloor.org

On 30 September [2005] David Nabarro, the senior official in charge of co-ordinating the WHO's worldwide response to bird flu, hit the headlines by warning that a pandemic could now occur at any time, and that the number of resulting deaths could be anything up to ‘150 million people'. ‘It's like a combination of global warming and HIV/Aids,' he told the BBC. Although a WHO ‘media spokesman' quickly pointed out that this was not an official WHO view, Mr Nabarro insisted that he stood by his claim.

Hey, where did all those dead victims of the avian plague go, anyway?

A good story to remember when mongerers demand immediate action and wrenching social change to address this, that or the other crisis, especially man-made global warming -- a theory subject to extraordinary amounts of misinformation, disinformation and nonsense. (See today's Wall Street Journal op-ed page, "Our Climate Numbers Are a Big Old Mess" by Patrick Michaels, a Cato fellow and professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia.)

The bird flu story is so illustrative that the authors of "Scared to Death -- From BSE to Global Warming: Why Scares Are Costing Us the Earth" open their book with it. The two, Christopher Booker and Richard North, spoke at an Independent Women's Forum book event Wednesday, laying out in detail the workings of the hype-steria machine -- activist groups, grasping and politicized "scientists," power-accreting bureacrats and the media, always the media, ginning up crises for their own ends.

Entertaining presentation and good context to remember as the world responds to the latest scare, whatever it may be. Cranberries? Nah, that's been done.

North and Booker are guests on this week's "America's Business with Mike Hambrick." Links later in the day.

For more on the bird flu scare, here's an excerpt from the book's prologue: Scared to Death.

In the News: What Needs to Happen in Tonight's Debate to Push Either Obama or Clinton Over the Top?

Thu, 17 Apr 2008 12:10:00 EDT

BlackAmericaWeb.com

By: Michael H. Cottman, BlackAmericaWeb.com

One day before a high-stakes debate in Philadelphia between Democratic presidential candidates Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, one thing is certain: The gloves are off.

The Clinton campaign's strategy is to keep the pressure on and "bloody" Obama in the weeks ahead, Bill Murrain, a lawyer and longtime political observer, told BlackAmericaWeb.com.

Obama seemed to agree with Murrain's assessment, acknowledging this week how brutal the campaign has become heading into the Wednesday debate and beyond.

"I have tried to figure out how to show restraint and make sure that, during this primary contest, we're not damaging each other so badly that it's hard for us to run in November," Obama said at a media luncheon this week sponsored by The Associated Press.

"I'm sure that Senator Clinton feels like she's doing me a great favor, because she's been deploying most of the arguments that the Republican Party will be using against me in November," said Obama, "and so, it's toughening me up. And I'm getting a run through the paces here."

[During the media luncheon, AP Chairman Dean Singleton questioned Obama about Afghanistan, where "Obama bin Laden is still at large." "I think that was Osama bin Laden," Obama responded.]

Wednesday's debate comes during the so-called "bitter" debate -- where Obama has been criticize by Clinton for talking down to small-town blue-collar workers. The Clinton campaign released a new television ad Monday referring to Obama's remarks. Obama countered with an ad of his own Tuesday.

Obama has clarified his comments repeatedly over the past few days after a San Francisco fundraiser where he suggested working class people are "bitter" about their economic circumstances and "cling to guns and religion" as a result. Clinton has used what Obama has characterized as a misstatement to peg him as "condescending" and "elitist."

Most political analysts agree that Clinton -- or the moderators -- will likely raise the issue during the debate.

"I'm not so sure Obama needs to deflect questions about this controversy during Wednesday's debate," Peter C. Groff, a Colorado state senator, publisher of Blackpolicy.org and executive director of the Center for African-American Policy at the University of Denver, told BlackAmericaWeb.com.

"There is a grand opportunity here to stick to his talking points on the economy, to present what makes his plan stronger," Groff said. "Here, he can discuss the need to rally people into a cause that motivates Washington to do things differently. What he needs to talk about is that during the course of this campaign, he is talking to people and is aware of their frustrations. The issue is not whether people are bitter or angry; the issue is whether or not government has been responsive to their needs during times of economic crisis over the past three decades."

Groff said he believes small towns in rural areas are frustrated and bitter about a whole array of economic challenges.

"Senator Obama has picked up on that sort of frustration during the course of this campaign and tapped into it -- which is underscored by the type of enthusiasm generated by his candidacy," Groff added. "When examining the entire quote, one finds that it is appropriate and cogent within the context of the question that was asked: How do you effectively reach out to 'blue collar voters?"

Craig Kirby, a Democratic political strategist, agreed with Groff, telling BlackAmericaWeb.com that Obama should continue to focus on the core issues of his campaign because "the desperation of Senator Clinton is now showing."

Michelle Bernard, a black conservative, president of the Washington, D.C.-based Independent Women's Voice and a political analyst for MSNBC, will be watching the debate closely.

"In order to win [Wednesday's] Democratic debate, Senator Obama must prove himself to be as facile a debater as he is an orator," Bernard told BlackAmericaWeb.com Tuesday. "While it is imperative that he continue to show the American public who he is and why he believes that he is an agent of change, he must also be facile and nimble in his handling of questions related to what our nation's domestic and foreign policy would like in an Obama administration."

Initial indications are that Obama's remarks have not worked against him. A new Gallup Poll shows Obama continuing to hold a solid lead over Clinton in national Democratic voters' support for the presidential nomination, 50 percent to her 41 percent.

In Pennsylvania, Clinton still leads Obama by about five points, according to most polls, but Obama has cut deeply into Clinton's 26-point lead. Obama remains more popular among the state's black voters, 75 percent to 17 percent, and Clinton does better among whites, 56 percent to 38 percent. As in past surveys, Clinton leads among older voters, and Obama leads among younger ones.

Wednesday's debate, airing live at 8 p.m. on ABC, comes a less than a week before the April 22 Pennsylvania primary. ABC News anchor Charles Gibson and chief Washington correspondent George Stephanopoulos will moderate.

"The stakes, at least for Senator Clinton couldn't be higher," Stephanopoulos told reporters. "Pennsylvania has become a must-win."

Meanwhile, a day before a critical face-off with Clinton in Philadelphia, the Obama campaign is hoping the "bitter" issue will not distract Pennsylvania voters from Obama's central message of hope and change.

"I regret some of the words I chose, partly because the way that these remarks have been interpreted have offended some people and partly because they've served as one more distraction from the critical debate that we must have in this election," Obama said at the media luncheon. "But I will never walk away from the larger point that I was trying to make and have made in the past."

IWF in the News: Like the Candidates, TV's Political Pundits Show Signs of Diversity

Wed, 02 Apr 2008 16:31:00 EDT

The New York Times

By FELICIA R. LEE

The historic and long-running presidential campaigns of Senator Barack Obama and Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton have injected issues of race and gender into politics as never before. With campaign coverage center stage on the cable channels, producers and critics are again assessing the diversity among pundits, who talk (and talk) about things like Mr. Obama's pastor, the Hispanic vote, Iraq and the economy.

Both MSNBC and CNN this election season have given new prominence to a handful of contributing commentators from varied backgrounds and perspectives: blacks, Hispanics and women. Whether such moves signal real progress in diversifying the punditocracy or merely reflect the needs of a particular news cycle is the question, some media experts say. The most prominent positions on television remain overwhelmingly with those who are white and male, and some critics note how striking that non-inclusion can seem during this election year.

"Whatever progress has been made with contributors and commentators as of late, the cable networks have a long way to go before they look like the American people," said Karl Frisch, the spokesman for Media Matters for America, a liberal television watchdog group. He added that white men were the hosts of all the major Sunday morning talk shows, the major prime-time cable news programs and - except for Katie Couric, a relative newcomer - the network evening news broadcasts.

But incremental gains should not be dismissed even if more change is needed, said Pamela Newkirk, an associate professor of journalism at New York University and author of "Within the Veil: Black Journalists, White Media" (New York University Press, 2000).

Black commentators under 40 at CNN, like the journalist and radio host Roland S. Martin; Amy Holmes, a conservative strategist and a former senior speechwriter for Bill Frist, Republican of Tennessee, the former Senate majority leader; and Jamal Simmons, a Democratic strategist, Obama supporter and veteran press spokesman with international experience, have been "breakout stars" this election, Professor Newkirk said.

"They bring such a fresh perspective that we are unaccustomed to hearing in the mainstream media," she said. "Hopefully, the value of having different perspectives will be appreciated beyond this historic campaign."

The 2008 lineup at CNN also includes Alex Castellanos, a Cuban-born Republican strategist, and Leslie Sanchez, a Mexican-American Republican strategist who has also appeared on Fox News.

Donna Brazile, who is black and a well-known Democratic strategist, is also a regular CNN contributor who was part of the team in 2004.

Their counterparts at MSNBC include Michelle Bernard, a lawyer by training, who is black and conservative; Rachel Maddow, who is white and has a show on the liberal Air America Radio; Eugene H. Robinson, a black columnist for The Washington Post; and Joe Watkins, a Republican strategist who is also black. Last week Harold Ford Jr., a former congressman from Tennessee, made his MSNBC debut as a political analyst. Mr. Ford, a black Democrat, had been an analyst at Fox News.

Juan Williams, who is black and a National Public Radio correspondent, is a longtime regular on "Fox News Sunday," which also uses minority female analysts like Angela McGlowan, a Republican strategist who is black; Michelle Malkin, a conservative Filipino-American journalist; and Linda Chavez, who is Hispanic and held positions in the Reagan administration. A recent addition is Laura Ingraham, a syndicated radio host who is white.

All the commentators appear when the networks need them, but are on television more than guest pundits from the outside. While a few are unknown to general audiences, they all come with extensive résumés that mostly include backgrounds in journalism, politics, academe, nonprofit organizations or business.

"We're trying to attract a new audience drawn to the broad interest in this campaign," said Phil Griffin, senior vice president of NBC News and the executive in charge of MSNBC.

When asked how the network finds its commentators, Mr. Griffin said, "It's word of mouth - someone says, ‘Let's use this person.' " He added, "After the Don Imus situation, we had to reflect and say we've got to make a bigger commitment" to diversity.

Jon Klein, the president of CNN's domestic networks, said he believed that the same historical forces that put Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton on the cusp of the Democratic nomination also meant that more people of color and more women were available as talking heads. The channel did not round them up just because of this election, he said, adding that CNN has a commitment to reflect the country.

"With the advent of the Internet, consumers realized that there are a lot of other voices," he said. "There are an awful lot of people writing, at think tanks, advising campaigns."

Barbara Ciara, president of the National Association of Black Journalists, said that all the election coverage on television left "a lot to be desired" when it comes to her members. The black pundits often disappear as quickly as they arrive, she said, and too often talk only about race.

A more saladlike pundit mix has been front and center in the last couple of weeks, she said, because of news developments: Mr. Obama's speech on race, prompted by the controversy over the remarks of his former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr.; and Geraldine Ferraro's assertion that Mr. Obama's race was a reason for his political success.

Diversity is not just good journalism but also good business, Ms. Ciara and others said.

"It doesn't take a brain surgeon to understand that a large number of the audience is black, Hispanic and women," said Al Primo, a television news executive who invented the "Eyewitness News" format decades ago and helped give many black and Hispanic journalists their first breaks. He added, "If you're a Hispanic-American or an African-American, you don't want to get a sense that they don't understand your perspective."

With hours to fill, political coverage consumes the cable channels. During the week that included Feb. 5 (the day of coast-to-coast nominating contests) CNN's ratings among viewers 18 to 34 were up 232 percent over the corresponding week in the 2004 election, and, CNN officials said, its audience on that date was 36 percent black and Hispanic. Fox attracted 78 percent more young viewers, and MSNBC was up 400 percent (although from a much smaller base) from the same week during the 2004 election.

Tom Rosenstiel, director of the Project for Excellence in Journalism, said that cable programs relied more and more on people who can analyze campaign developments, rather than just report them. So television needs more pundits and more kinds of pundits, he said.

"In the past week we have seen a distinct difference in commentary on Rev. Wright from people who have spent time in black churches and those who have not," said Gwen Ifill, a senior correspondent for "The Newshour With Jim Lehrer" on PBS and moderator of "Washington Week."

Recently, on CNN, when Mr. Martin butted heads with a guest, Tony Beam, a host of "Christian Worldview Today," he was able to say that his listeners at his radio station back in Chicago understood why Mr. Obama stood by Mr. Wright.

"In any other year, when Geraldine Ferraro said what she did, it would have been people saying, ‘Oh, no, she didn't mean anything,' " added Mr. Martin, a nationally syndicated columnist and author. He predicted a growing appetite for more multidimensional analysis.

Indeed, Ms. Sanchez indicated that she had plenty of television suitors. "I'm everywhere," she said, adding that in addition to her work for CNN, she had recently been on "Studio B With Shepherd Smith" on Fox discussing the controversy over Mr. Obama's former pastor, as well as the fight over the primaries in Michigan and Florida.

She and Ms. Bernard of MSNBC, like the other analysts, said they were not confined to speaking about race and gender but did not shy away from them, either.

Ms. Bernard, the president of the Independent Women's Forum, a right-of-center research and education institution in Washington, recalled chiding Patrick J. Buchanan, the conservative commentator, for calling Mr. Obama "articulate," saying the term, when used to describe an accomplished black person, often carries the connotation of being unexpected.

Those different voices have injected some new life into the world of talking heads, some critics said.

"We haven't ever had as much talk about women as voters, except as soccer moms," said Marie C. Wilson, president of the White House Project, which seeks to advance women in business, politics and media. "Now there's talk about white women, African-American women, women over 60, and what about Latinos?"

Mark Anthony Neal, who is black and teaches black popular culture at Duke University, said: "There is suddenly a demand for smart Negroes. You're seeing a lot less of the Jesse Jacksons and the Al Sharptons and more academics and thought-leaders. This is expressly in response to Barack Obama, less so Hillary. Because of the combination of Hillary and Barack, you're seeing more black women."

The shift to more interpretation and less reporting calls for greater transparency about who is talking, said Mr. Rosenstiel of the Project for Excellence in Journalism. Often the channels put labels like "Clinton supporter" or "Republican strategist" on the screen.

"If these are people you don't know well, that's an issue," Mr. Rosenstiel said. "Just because people aren't aligned officially, it doesn't mean that they don't have allegiances."

Many of the pundits said they had received an overwhelmingly positive response from viewers. Mr. Martin described getting e-mail messages from junior high school students and being hailed by men who shine shoes.

"Even in this day and age, people have not been exposed to a lot of different kinds of people," Ms. Bernard said, "so it's important for us to all be here on TV together, talking about these things that really matter."

In the News: Obama vs. Clinton

Tue, 04 Mar 2008 15:48:00 EST

BlackAmericaWeb.com

Obama Sharpens His Arguments Against Clinton, Questions Her Foreign-Policy Experience

Date: Monday, March 03, 2008
By: BlackAmericaWeb.com and Associated Press

Democrat Barack Obama worked to fend off an intensified attack on his foreign policy credentials from rival Hillary Rodham Clinton on Sunday as their paths crossed days ahead of a potentially race-ending showdown in Ohio and Texas.

"What precise foreign-policy experience is she claiming that makes her qualified to answer that telephone call at 3 a.m. in the morning?" Obama asked of the former first lady at a town-hall meeting in Westerville, Ohio. It was a reference to dueling television ads over who would exercise superior judgment in responding to a national emergency in the middle of the night.

The Illinois senator also sought to ease lingering Internet-fed concerns about his religion, in particular whether he was a closet Muslim.

"I am a devout Christian. I have been a member of the same church for 20 years. I pray to Jesus every night," he declared at an earlier appearance in the rural southern Ohio town of Nelsonville. He said he wanted to halt "confusion that has been deliberately perpetrated."

Unlike Clinton, who has been barnstorming Ohio, Obama had only two events in the state on Sunday spent the night in hometown Chicago. He heads to Texas on Monday for a final day of campaigning before awaiting returns on Tuesday in San Antonio.

His aides said privately that they felt they had a good shot at a win in Texas, but were less certain about Ohio, where they braced for a possible loss.

The two senators came close to running into each other in this Columbus suburb, where Clinton spoke at one high school and Obama spoke several hours later at another. Obama supporters boasted of a much larger crowd.

Obama said his opposition to the war in 2002 was not a single speech -- as Clinton has asserted -- but a series of remarks during his 2002 successful Senate campaign.

Obama criticized Clinton expressly for failing to read the classified National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq's weapons capabilities, a report available at the time of her October 2002 vote authorizing the Iraq war. "She didn't give diplomacy a chance. And to this day, she won't even admit that her vote was a mistake -- or even that it was a vote for war," Obama said.

"When it came time to make the most important foreign policy decision of our generation -- the decision to invade Iraq -- Senator Clinton got it wrong," Obama said.

He said that Sen. Jay Rockefeller, a fellow Democrat from neighboring West Virginia, had read the intelligence estimate as a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee. However, Rockefeller wound up voting for the war resolution.

Rockefeller, who is now chairman of that committee, endorsed Obama on Friday and campaigned with him on Saturday.

Rockefeller called Obama "brilliant" and "well grounded" and prepared to take the reins as commander in chief.

Obama picked up another high-profile endorsement Sunday from hip-hop icon Russell Simmons as the Illinois senator and his rival continue to shatter fund raising records in February, taking in more than $80 million combined.

"Today I am announcing my personal endorsement of Senator Barack Obama for President of the United States," Simmons said in a statement Sunday.

"During the last nine months, I have closely observed the presidential campaigns, analyzed the issues and platforms of the major candidates and have had substantive discussions with Senator Clinton and Senator Obama." Simmons said.

Simmons' endorsement one day before Tuesday's critical primaries in Texas and Ohio could help Obama attract even more younger voters of all ethnic backgrounds, and particularly with young African-Americans and Latinos.

"From the sidelines of the primaries and debates, I have been particularly inspired by the fact that Senator Obama has built an unprecedented national movement comprised of people from all ethnic, racial, political, social and economic backgrounds," said Simmons, chairman of The Foundation for Ethnic Understanding and the Hip-Hop Summit Action Network. "In particular, the response to Obama by young voters across America continues to be monumental."

Meanwhile, the Obama campaign did not release an official estimate of its February fundraising totals this weekend as expected, but according to media reports, donors estimated it at about $50 million. An aide to Obama told BlackAmericaWeb.com that fundraising totals for February are not due to the Federal Election Commission until mid-March.

Last February, Obama pledged to accept public financing and its spending limit of an estimated $85 million in the general election race if he wins the Democratic nomination, and his Republican opponent agreed to the same spending limits.

Clinton announced last week that she raised $35 million -- by far her biggest one-month total of the campaign -- and has stepped up television ads in Texas questioning whether Obama's is prepared to keep America safe during a national crisis. Tuesday's Texas and Ohio primary showdown could decide the Democratic nominee.

"The enormous sums of money raised by the Democratic presidential nominees this election cycle are unprecedented," Michelle Bernard, a black conservative and president of the Washington, D.C.-based Independent Women's Voice, told BlackAmericaWeb.com.

"Given that a large number of these donors have not yet reached the federal ceiling on campaign contributions, this is a well of highly enthusiastic donors that the Obama campaign can tap into repeatedly," she said. "It has been reported that the Obama campaign may have raised $50 million or more in February alone. The Obama campaign has managed to do was inconceivable in the 2004 presidential election. It is truly the dawn of a new day in American politics."

Clinton has lost 11 straight primaries and caucuses to Obama, and she badly needs a win in Texas and Ohio to keep her hopes of winning the White House alive. Even her husband, former president Bill Clinton, said if Clinton loses Texas sand Ohio on Tuesday, her campaign is over, and Democratic leaders would increase calls for Clinton to bow out.

Last week, Clinton campaign aides -- in a reverse of Bill Clinton's statements -- suggested that if Clinton splits a win with Obama in Texas or Ohio, she could stay in the race.

In the meantime, the Obama machine is raising millions of dollars the old-fashioned way: One buck at a time.

Many Democratic strategists -- including some in the Clinton camp -- were surprised by Obama's January fundraising take of $36 million and took notice at his ability to raise small-dollar amounts from over one million donors.

According to media reports, an analysis by the Campaign Finance Institute, which tracks trends in political money, found that Obama raised about a third of his money in 2007 from donors who gave $200 or less.

Peter C. Groff, a Colorado state senator, publisher of Blackpolicy.org and executive director of the Center for African-American Policy at the University of Denver, said Sen. Obama's recent fundraising numbers show more than just an edge over Clinton's performance last month -- they also show the depth and substance of his campaign.

"One can argue that for him to raise so much cash in this political climate is even more impressive than the number of contests he's won or the number of delegates he's managed to amass," Groff told BlackAmericaWeb.com.

"That much money has allowed him to maintain the kind of hype the campaign has generated while building on more excitement," he said. "Plus, it continues sending a signal that he's the stronger candidate and that he can, potentially, outperform the Republican nominee in fundraising and other areas during a general match-up. He needs that kind of excitement to propel his campaign, particuarly on the eve of the March 4th primaries."

Last week, the Obama campaign announced that more than one million Americans had donated to his campaign -- a milestone by all presidential campaign standards.

"When I announced my candidacy a little over a year ago, I knew we wouldn't be able to compete unless hundreds of thousands of ordinary people got involved and took a personal stake in this campaign," Obama said in a statement. "As of today, over one million people have donated -- an extraordinary outpouring that has exceeded everybody's expectations."

"I'm humbled by this historic total, and I'm proud of the fact that 90 percent of our contributions have come in amounts of $100 or less, and that we haven't taken a dime from Washington lobbyists or special interest PACs." he said. "Because so many ordinary people are participating this time, each day our improbable goal becomes more and more probable."

Last week, the Clinton campaign released this statement to rally its troops: "The media has anointed Barack Obama the presumptive nominee and he's playing the part....The Obama campaign and its allies are outspending us two to one in paid media and have sent more staff into the March 4 states. In fact, when all is totaled, Senator Obama and his allies have outspent Senator Clinton by a margin of $18.4 million to $9.2 million on advertising in the four states that are voting next Tuesday. ....If he cannot win all of these states with all this effort, there's a problem."

A survey by the Associated Press showed that of the 796 superdelegates, Clinton has backing from 242, Obama has support from 188, and the remainder are uncommitted or unknown.

Groff said Obama is able to continue solidifying his dominance while earning the amount of flexibility needed to spend dollars on advertising, messaging, canvassing and other critical operational areas.

"Another point we should not ignore: This story continues to highlight an important chapter in the political maturity and progress of African-American political candidates," Groff said.

"There was a time, not so long ago, where many black political candidates and elected officials running for office could not begin to imagine raising this much money for a campaign," he said. "One constant, troubling issue for black candidates is fundraising; in politics, the amount of money raised determines the winner in a race."

"Since the 2006 elections and especially during this 2008 presidential election, we've seen signals of that trend reversing as African-American candidates are becoming much more savvy in fundraising," Groff added. "Let's hope that trend continues."

In the News: All Eyes on Texas and Ohio

Tue, 04 Mar 2008 15:42:00 EST

BlackAmericaWeb.com

It's All Eyes on Texas and Ohio as Dems Square Off in Potentially Race-Changing Primaries

Date: Tuesday, March 04, 2008
By: Michael H. Cottman, BlackAmericaWeb.com

DALLAS - Chris Powell, a manager for a Texas-based transportation company, is proud to support Barack Obama's historic quest for the White House and considers Tuesday's primary in the Lone Star state as an unprecedented moment in American politics.

"Like many African-Americans in my age group, I never thought I would live to see a person of color seriously contend for the Presidency of the United States of America," Powell, 49, told BlackAmericaWeb.com.

"In many ways, the Obama campaign has re-written the modern day rules of political engagement," Powell said. "His unique message of hope, inspiration and ability to bring people together, coupled with his impeccable credentials and youthful looks, reminds many of JFK."

Tuesday's Texas primary has become a political firewall for Hillary Clinton, Obama's Democratic opponent. She has lost 11 straight primaries and caucuses to Obama, and she needs a win in Texas and Ohio Tuesday to keep her campaign on track. Even her husband, former President Bill Clinton, said if Hillary Clinton loses Texas and Ohio, her bid for the White House is over as Democratic leaders would no doubt increase calls for Clinton to bow out.

Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico hasn't endorsed anyone yet, but said of Clinton: "I just think that D-Day is Tuesday." But last week, Clinton's senior campaign aides seemed to contradict Bill Clinton, suggesting that if Clinton splits a win in Texas or Ohio, she could remain in the race.

More than 2 million Democratic voters in Texas' 15 largest counties have cast early ballots -- 10 times the total early-voting numbers in the 1996 and 2000 elections. And in yet another unusual twist to an unpredictable campaign, many Texas Republicans now say they are voting for Obama because they do not like Clinton and they also believe GOP frontrunner John McCain can defeat Obama in a general election.

"The stakes for senators Clinton and Obama could not be higher going into Tuesday's primaries in Ohio, Texas, Rhode Island and Vermont," Michelle Bernard, a black conservative and president of the Washington, D.C.-based Independent Women's Voice, told BlackAmericaWeb.com. "It is quite possible that the outcome of Tuesday's primaries will, for all intent and purposes, determine who the Democratic nominee will be."

According to all major polls, Obama and Clinton are locked in a statistical dead heat in Texas, and Clinton has a slight edge in Ohio. Black voters in both states could play a major role for Obama's campaign. Last month, about 18,000 people attended an Obama rally in Houston and 17,000 jammed into Reunion Arena in Dallas, many of whom were black.

A bizarre delegate allocation system that awards more delegates to urban areas with high concentrations of black and young voters favors Obama. The Texas contest, a primary followed by limited same-night caucusing, will yield 193 delegates, with Ohio offering 141 delegates. Obama's delegate total stands at 1,362, Clinton's at 1,266, with 2,025 needed to claim the nomination.

A survey by the Associated Press showed that of the 796 superdelegates, Clinton has backing from 242, Obama has support from 188, and the remainder are uncommitted or unknown.

For Powell, a product of the 1960s civil rights movement who remembers the assassinations of John F. Kennedy and Bobby Kennedy, Martin Luther King and Malcolm X, race riots and the ongoing call for stronger black political leadership, Obama's candidacy is more than a political campaign.

He represents a growing number of black professionals in Texas who are energized and engaged in the political process. Many black voters in Texas believe Obama has made an extraordinary transition from leader of a grass-roots movement to perhaps leader of the nation.

"I continue to be moved by Sen. Obama's ability to articulate a vision of a restored America and a return to pride in our nation and its leaders," Kristi Grant Coleman, a Dallas-based training manager who watches the presidential debates closely, told BlackAmericaWeb.com.

"I think he is a refreshingly new kind of political leader," Grant Coleman said. "While I believe he is young and not necessarily the most experienced candidate for president, I think he has a remarkable grasp on the issues, and he has demonstrated his ability to surround himself with competent people, evident in part by his historical fund-raising and campaign organizing. I am very excited about the possibilities."

Obama and Clinton have spent the past five days barnstorming through Texas and Ohio campaigning at a frantic pace. Obama outspent Clinton on ads in both states, $7 million to her $4 million. Both candidates were campaigning aggressively in Texas Monday and the 3.6 million eligible Hispanic voters in the Lone Star state will likely play a major role in the too-close-to-call primary.

Hispanic voters in Texas are now experiencing a generational divide, with middle-aged and older Hispanics supporting Clinton and younger Latinos backing Obama. A recent Gallup poll of eligible Hispanic voters nationwide showed Obama not only erasing a 31-point gap against Clinton in just a week, but taking the lead by four percentage points.

"I want a change in the politics. I just don't want to see another Clinton name up there -- and all that baggage coming off her husband," Manuel Hernandez, who works with Austin parks and recreation, told CNN. "However," he said, "my friends that are Hispanic are all voting for Hillary."

In Waco last week, Clinton said Obama was "missing in action" on foreign policy issue. Her remarks were timed for a new ad campaign in Texas that asks voters who they want to answer the phone in the White House at 3 a.m. when "there's something happening in the world." Obama criticized the ad saying it was an attempt to "scare up votes."

Early voting in urban areas has swelled to record numbers in Texas. The latest early voting numbers suggest Obama is seeing success in Texas' big cities like Dallas and Houston. Clinton's strategy is to amass smaller delegate numbers over broader areas of the state like El Paso, with the hope of topping Obama overall.

"What we do in the next couple of weeks will allow us to change the world," former Dallas Mayor Ron Kirk, who is supporting Obama, told a rally of black voters earlier this month.

On Sunday, Obama picked up a significant high-profile endorsement from hip-hop icon Russell Simmons.

"Today, I am announcing my personal endorsement of Sen. Barack Obama for president of the United States," Simmons said in a statement.

Simmons, chairman of The Foundation for Ethnic Understanding and the Hip-Hop Summit Action Network, said he supports the overwhelming number of voters from the hip-hop generation who are supporting Obama.

Simmons will fly to Cleveland Tuesday for appearances at a housing complex, a barber shop and a community college, according to Obama's campaign.

In polls less than a year ago, Clinton was leading Obama among black voters nationally and some questioned whether Obama was "black enough," and if he could actually win a presidential election because of his race.

But times have changed.

Today, Ernest White, a black District Court judge from Dallas, said Obama's candidacy is a source of pride.

"I am overwhelmed not only by Senator Obama's run for the presidency, but the success he has achieved thus far," White told BlackAmericaWeb.com.

"As a African-American man born in the mid-1950's, I never felt that another black man or woman for that matter, would have a chance to be president," White said. "That would be something that would hopefully occur in my children's lifetime, a statement my parents would often recite to me when I was a child."

"The fact that he has run such a positive campaign, speaking of change and hope, is the anecdote needed by all Americans who are living in these troubled times and has been the reason that hhis message has been accepted across racial and gender lines," White added. "I cannot predict whether Senator Obama will win in November, but his message has truly given this country hope."

Clinton and Obama were about even in a CNN-Opinion Research Corp. poll conducted a week ago. With the Texas contest Tuesday, whites are divided about equally in the new survey, Obama has a large lead among blacks and Clinton is ahead with Hispanics.

Last week, in a huge blow to the Clinton camp, U.S. Rep. John Lewis of Georgia -- who is also a superdelegate -- said that he's now backing Obama and switching his support from Clinton. A day later, State Rep. Senfronia Thompson of Houston also defected from Clinton to support Obama. Democrats predict other members of the Congressional Black Caucus may follow Lewis' lead in the weeks ahead.

The 42-member Caucus is spilt, 18 for Obama, 17 for Clinton and others remain uncommitted.

"At this point in time, neither candidate can win the Democratic nomination with only pledged delegates," Bernard said. "The eventual nominee will have to win enough superdelegates to make it over the proverbial finish line."

"More likely than not, most superdelegates will follow the will of their constituents and others, supporting the candidate with the majority of the popular vote," she added. "Accordingly, if Senator Clinton loses either Ohio or Texas, her 2008 presidential run will end. She must win both states, and she must win by an enormous margin if her campaign is to retain an appearance of viability. If she does so, the race will continue, and it will be a bitter battle to the end."

Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee of Houston, national co-chair of the Clinton campaign and a superdelegate, has told reporters that Obama's campaign has slowed support from Clinton, but she said the Clinton campaign would not write off the black vote.

In Ohio, even though her colleague Rep. Lewis switched to Obama, Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones (D-Ohio) said she remains loyal to Clinton.

Tubbs Jones said on CNN last week that folks don't jump ship because a candidate "is down and out." Tubbs Jones said Clinton "is not out, but she is down" and maintained that she's on the Clinton bandwagon until the end, win or lose, insisting that Clinton has the experience to lead the nation.

Last week, Obama's Ohio campaign announced "One Million for Change," an ambitious grassroots effort to knock on one million doors before the Tuesday primary.

The plan may be paying off.

According to Time magazine: "At least on Cleveland's east side, Obama's surging grassroots success has stolen Clinton's establishment base right out from under her. Cleveland City Councilman Kevin Conwell came out early for Clinton, winning a trip to the national convention to vote for her. Then Conwell's constituents sat him down for a little chat. "I met with my residents and tried to get them to go with Hillary," Conwell says. "Not one of them would move. All of my volunteers, all my block club presidents, every last one of them was going for Barack."

Chris Redfern, the Ohio Democratic Party chairman, told The New York Times Monday that the Obama political machine and outreach is unlike anything he's ever seen in Ohio.

"She's [Clinton] doing everything right, and had there not been a guy named Barack Obama in the race, she'd be the nominee," said Redfern, who is staying neutral. "The Obama army is larger, more enthusiastic, more confident, and they are young and naive enough to think they can win."

Back in Texas, the site of Tuesday's major primary showdown, Powell told BlackAmericaWeb.com he will head to his voting precinct early because he expects long lines.

"He has a solid foundation," Powell said of Obama, "That being a grassroots movement of change."

Ariana TV: Securing Afghanistan

Fri, 01 Feb 2008 15:44:00 EST

Afghan television station Ariana TV covered IWF's panel discussion "Securing Afghanistan: The Role of Women." The following is in Pashto.

In the News: Fueled by Nevada Caucus Results, Democratic Candidates Set Their Sights on South Carolina

Tue, 22 Jan 2008 10:43:00 EST

BlackAmericaWeb.com

By: Associated Press and BlackAmericaWeb.com

A day after winning the Nevada caucuses, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton flew to Missouri, a key Feb. 5 battleground state, while rival Sen. Barack Obama hoped to invigorate his candidacy with the help of black voters in South Carolina.

Although Clinton won 51 percent of the popular vote in Nevada, Obama's campaign argued that the outcome in Nevada was a shared victory because Obama collected 13 delegates, compared with 12 for Clinton.

Obama left Nevada without delivering a concession speech. "We're not treating this as a loss," an aide to Obama told The Washington Post.

Clinton campaign aides disagreed with the delegate count, saying there has been no final count from state elections officials. The Obama campaign also alleged the Clinton camp resorted to voter suppression tactics, a claim the Clinton campaign denies.

"This race is still wide open on both sides of the partisan aisle -- these primaries only emphasized that point more, Peter C. Groff, a Colorado state senator, publisher of Blackpolicy.org and executive director of the Center for African American Policy at the University of Denver, told BlackAmericaWeb.com.

"The win in Nevada was actually not much of that for Clinton, considering Obama still snags a large enough amount of delegates to keep him at the top," Groff said. "Plus, he won 11 out of 17 counties in that state. He should be touting that, including the fact that he experienced a 20-point surge in the polls within 30 days. Remember, he was 25 points down in December."

"What's ironic here," he added, "is that the Clinton campaign for so long insisted that this race was all about the delegates; now they're placing greater emphasis on the states won."

According to The New York Times, Clinton dismissed questions about the delegate count.

"We're looking really good," Clinton said during a news conference. "I find it somewhat strange, actually, that there's such a reaction when this was a very effective campaign to reach as many as people as possible."

Meanwhile, Sen. John McCain won a hard-fought South Carolina primary Saturday night, avenging a bitter personal defeat in a bastion of conservatism and gaining ground in an unpredictable race for the Republican presidential nomination.

"We've got a long way to go," McCain told The Associated Press in an interview. The man whose campaign was left for dead six months ago quickly predicted that victory in the first southern primary would help him next week when Florida votes, and again on Feb. 5 when more than two dozen states hold primaries and caucuses

Nevada's presidential caucuses gave Clinton a big boost, powering her to a second straight win over Obama in the first Western contest of the 2008 calendar. She bested Obama among women, as she did in New Hampshire, and showed significant strength among Hispanic voters -- an important and growing segment of the Democratic electorate in the mountain West and key states like California, Florida and New York.

But Obama won decisively among black voters -- nearly 80 percent -- who could account for more than 50 percent of the voters in South Carolina's primary Saturday. And Nevada's likely delegate count appeared to be almost evenly split between Clinton and Obama, indicating a protracted delegate battle yet to come.

Clinton acknowledged the excruciatingly tight race before departing Nevada, calling her win "one step on a long journey."

"The results of the Democratic caucus in Nevada do not necessarily portend the future, but they do set the stage for what will be a very interesting battle among the Democratic candidates for the votes of African-Americans, Hispanics, and women," Michelle Bernard, president of the Washington, D.C.-based Independent Women's Forum, told BlackAmericaWeb.com.

"In Nevada, it appears that a clear majority of Democratic women and Hispanics favored Sen. Clinton. African-Americans voted for Sen. Obama five to one," Bernard said. "Although Sen. Clinton won the popular vote in Nevada, Sen. Obama won more delegates. This is as much a race for the popular vote as it is for delegates and the all-important superdelegates."

"The Clinton Nevada victory puts a certain amount of pressure on the campaign of Sen. Obama," Craig Kirby, a Democratic strategist, told BlackAmericaWeb.com. "I think a big win is needed in South Carolina for Obama to continue on for Feb. 5 [Super Tuesday] -- with a look to the next round Feb. 12."

On the Republican side, McCain defeated former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee in a close race in the state that snuffed out his presidential hopes eight years ago. The Arizonan was gaining 33 percent of the vote to just under 30 percent for his closest rival.

"It just took us a while. That's all. Eight years is not a long time," McCain told the AP.

Appearing before supporters, Huckabee was a gracious loser, congratulating McCain for "running a civil and a good and a decent campaign."

Far from conceding defeat in the race, he added, "The process is far, far from over."

Former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson was in a struggle for third place with about 16 percent, after saying he needed a strong showing to sustain his candidacy. Another Republican, California Rep. Duncan Hunter, dropped out even before the votes were tallied.

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney cruised to victory earlier in the day in the little-contested Nevada caucuses. Final returns showed him with more than 50 percent support in a multi-candidate field.

"The irony here is that McCain takes South Carolina, solidifying the very conservative and evangelical vote eight years after losing badly to President Bush in 2000 in that same state," Groff said.

"Still, the South Carolina primary shows that McCain could be getting some sort of validation or nod from the Republican right, particularly in light of Huckabee's supposedly strong 'Christian' credentials," he added. "This obviously gives McCain serious momentum into Florida and some credibility with Southern "Bible Belt" states ... but he still has a long way to go before conservatives trust him."

For the Democrats, the Nevada results still spelled trouble for Obama, whose stunning victory in the Iowa caucuses Jan. 3 has been overshadowed amid evidence of his vulnerability among important demographic groups, especially white, working-class Democrats and women.

He tried to remedy that problem in Nevada, holding economic roundtables with women voters and bringing in his popular wife, Michelle, to campaign with him. But women outnumbered men among caucus-goers, and a sizable majority went with Clinton.

Obama is now under greater pressure to win South Carolina, while Clinton is mostly hoping to hold her own there. Both campaigns are also looking ahead to "mega Tuesday" Feb. 5, when more than 20 states hold contests.

Polls in South Carolina have shown black voters shifting to Obama despite their longtime loyalty to the Clintons and particularly to Bill Clinton, who was once nicknamed the first black president.

With her Nevada win, Clinton campaign officials say she will campaign hard this week in South Carolina and hope for a strong enough showing to pick up sizable number of the state's delegates.

"As the Democratic race moves to South Carolina and then Florida, women, African-Americans, and Hispanics may have an unprecedented role in selecting the Democratic party's nominee," Bernard said. "Until recently, African-Americans overwhelmingly supported Sen. Clinton. However, African-American support for her has shifted among black men and women to Sen. Obama since the Iowa caucuses just a few weeks ago."

"Weeks ago, conventional wisdom told us that whites would not vote for an African-American. Iowa dispelled that notion," she added. "Sen. Obama's experience in Illinois demonstrates that Hispanics, both black and white, will vote for an African-American as well. As a result, the role of these three voting blocs will only escalate as the presidential race moves forward."

Clinton visited Abyssinian Baptist Church in Harlem Sunday and is scheduled to attend a prayer service in South Carolina Monday honoring Dr. Martin Luther King's birthday before attending an NAACP rally at the state capitol and a nationally televised debate in Myrtle Beach.

"Obama's strong performance in Nevada certainly opens up momentum for South Carolina, Groff said. "There may be indications that the strong black support for Obama in Nevada underscored a black backlash against Sen. Clinton due to recent comments over race."

"The big question: Will that backlash hold into next week during the South Carolina Democratic primary?" Groff asked. "African-Americans have a very long memory."

Related Content:

Video: Our World with Black Enterprise with Michelle D. Bernard

In the News: Is maternal profiling a problem in the workplace?

Wed, 16 Jan 2008 11:43:00 EST

Atlanta Journal Constitution

Commentary

By Andrea Cornell Sarvady

Andrea Cornell Sarvady

Auto service technician Mailyn Pickler is fired a week after she tells her dealership that she ‘s pregnant. The boss informs her that it wouldn't be prudent to drive the shuttle bus in her condition. Kohl's employee Teresa Lehman gained high marks for a decade, and was assured she was on track to become store manager. Then the mother of two saw five managerial positions go to less experienced employees who were childless or indicated they would have no more children.

"Maternal Profiling," selected by the New York Times as one of their 2007 buzzwords, is definitely alive and well. Popularized by advocacy group momsrising.org, it's "employment discrimination against a woman who has, or will have, children."

"Family Responsibilities Discrimination" is the more inclusive term used at Work Life Law, a center at Hastings College of Law in California. It astutely acknowledges that not all employers who discriminate against mothers are men, and not all caregivers in need of family-friendly policies are women.

Yet mothers still get hit hardest with bias due to presumptions surrounding their caregiver status. The center's deputy director, Cynthia Thomas Calvert, helped me sort through some common offenses: Pregnant women being fired for trumped-up reasons; interview questions designed to weed out mothers and other caregivers; performance reviews designed to eliminate those employees, whether or not work has actually been affected.

Laws are in place to address these grievances, yet laws are not always followed. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission reported a nearly 40 percent increase in pregnancy discrimination complaints since 1992, even though the birthrate has been dropping. No wonder momsrising.org and the Work Life Law Center are just two of many thriving organizations designed to advocate for families, as well as assist companies grappling with this issue.

We should sympathize with the unique challenges of creating a family-friendly work environment. Yet our nation requires it, now more than ever. The recent spike in unemployment and the threat of recession puts any employee with a perceived "domestic deficit" even further at risk. As employees increasingly take on the care of aging parents in addition to their own offspring, let's continue to find solutions that work for both companies and caregivers.

Rebuttal

By Shaunti Feldhahn

Shaunti Feldhahn

I get furious when I hear a Kohl's manager asked Teresa Lehman, "Did you get your tubes tied?" after she had three kids in four years. So, apparently, was the jury in her case: they awarded her $2.1 million.

But offensive statements aside, there's often an uncomfortable but legitimate business dynamic at work in situations that look like "maternal profiling." It's easy to see something as discrimination that is actually a legitimate result of how women with families often choose to work. That's not maternal profiling; its maternal preference.

If a mom chooses a less-intense job that allows her pick up Johnny at 5:30 p.m., for example, and simply can't tackle late-night meetings or last-minute travel, she'll probably be paid and promoted less than her peers who pull the all-nighter to get the client deal finished. It is frustrating for the sidelined mom, but she is getting the benefit that she prioritizes most: Family time instead of money.

Childcare duties are more evenly distributed today, but the fact remains that most women want to be there for their kids. A study by the Center for Policy Alternatives found that 71 percent of women would rather have more flexibility and benefits than a higher wage, and almost 85 percent took flexible work arrangements when they were offered. Andy says we need a solution, but the increasing availability of part-time and flexible work arrangements is a solution. Unfortunately, those arrangements are often simply less productive and convenient for the company. We shouldn't penalize a progressive company by insisting that they pay and promote those employees the same!

Teresa Lehman was apparently a respected Kohl's employee, tracking toward management, but she had several small children, including one who tragically died. I couldn't find specific information on her case, but isn't it possible that she needed several years of special accommodation for time off work, medical visits, and wasn't able to work the long hours her peers could?

As Carrie Lukas of the Independent Women's Forum said in an interview, "I would hope employers would be able to work with [women with family realities], but they have hired employees to work, not just out of the goodness of their heart, and they have to think about their bottom line."

In the News: Hillary Clinton's emotional response

Tue, 08 Jan 2008 16:41:00 EST

New York Daily News

BY MICHAEL McAULIFF
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER

Tuesday, January 8th 2008, 3:58 PM

Snyder/Reuters

'It's not easy. It's not easy. And I couldn't do it if I just didn't passionately believe it was the right thing to do,' Hillary Clinton said Monday in New Hampshire.

In a stunning display of emotion during the closing hours of the New Hampshire primary race, Hillary Clinton choked back tears while answering a 64-year-old woman's question about how she holds it all together.

Clinton, panned by critics as cold and staring down her second consecutive defeat to Barack Obama, appeared overwhelmed by the innocuous query from Marianne Pernold-Young.

She blinked repeatedly as her eyes filled.

Cradling a mike, she delivered a heartfelt soliloquy.

Her voice caught and fluttered.

"It's not easy. It's not easy. And I couldn't do it if I just didn't passionately believe it was the right thing to do," she said.

"I have so many opportunities from this country, I ..." she said, her failing voice forcing her to stop.

Clinton's moist-eyed moment came just hours before New Hampshire voters headed to the polls - with her once-vaunted campaign juggernaut trailing badly to Obama in the polls and facing new questions about her presidential viability.

The former front-runner was overcome by Pernold-Young's "very personal" question: "How do you do it?"

The question from a contemporary caught the tired former front-runner off guard. She paused. The emotion gathered on her face as she worked up an answer.

A round of supportive applause from the group, consisting mostly of women, seemed to give her strength.

"This is very personal for me. It's not just political. It's not just ... I see what's happening and we have to reverse it," she said, her voice cracking. "Some people think elections are a game. They think it's like who's up, who's down. It's about our country. It's about our kids' futures. And it's really about all of us together."

Barely able to compose herself, she labored on: "You know, some of us put ourselves out there and do this against some pretty difficult odds.

"And we do it - each one of us - because we care about our country," she said.

The reaction stunned her audience - and won them over.

Pernold-Young was bowled over, as was Jane Harrington, 52, who sat next to Clinton.

"If she came in here harsh and attacking Obama, I would have said Obama was the one," Harrington said. "The emotion affected me, but it's not just emotion, it's how you do it ... I wanna see someone who can actually can get things done."

Monday's moment of emotion, attention-grabbing given her typically scripted appearances, was treated warily by her rivals.

"What we need in a commander in chief is strength and resolve, and presidential campaigns are a tough business," John Edwards said after hearing about her display of emotion - but without having seen footage of the event.

But after viewing her performance, Edwards said: "These campaigns are grueling and tough, difficult affairs.

"I'm going to stay focused on what I'm doing."

Obama said he didn't see what happened with Clinton or know the context.

But he acknowledged, "This process is a grind."

An increasingly confident Obama crisscrossed the state yesterday whipping up supporters.

"We are happy warriors for change. We are cheerful about the prospects of taking over," Obama declared. "The American people taking over their government, what a radical proposition."

The Clinton camp recognized that it can't close the charisma gap with her archrival.

Former President Bill Clinton, joking ruefully with a Granite State audience Sunday night, said: "What's Hillary to do? I can't make her younger, taller, male - there's a lot of things I can't do. But if you want a President and you need one, she would be by far the best."

Exhausting day on the stump

Was Hillary Clinton's moist-eyed moment a meltdown? A sign of weakness? Bad politics?

Here's the take from five female Hillary-watching veterans:

Dr. Christine Whelan, author, "Why Smart Men Marry Smart Women":

"One typical female reaction to exhaustion is tears, while a typical male reaction to exhaustion is anger ... As a woman voter, I don't think more or less of her for this emotional show."

Marie Brenner, Vanity Fair writer:

"It might help soften her among the women who recoil from her coldness and scripted quality. To me, that moment did not seem scripted."

Michelle Bernard, president of the conservative Independent Women's Forum:

"I think the tears are real. I think she's exhausted and astounded that just a few months' conventional wisdom said that she was just going to ascend to the throne."

Katha Pollitt, columnist for The Nation, has been supporting John Edwards:

"When men cry, it shows that they have feelings and that they're human. When women cry it's taken to show that they're weak or hormonal and they shouldn't have their finger on the nuclear button. That's garbage."

Susan Morrison, editor of the forthcoming anthology "Thirty Ways of Looking at Hillary: Reflections by Women Writers":

"Her tone reminded me of a mom who has been driving a car pool and running around all day but feels that everyone takes her for granted ... I don't think this blip is going to damage her further - even if it was ... calculating."

Sherryl Connelly

In the News: Buoyed by Record Turnout and Most of the Youth Vote, Barack Obama Wins Iowa Caucuses

Mon, 07 Jan 2008 10:01:00 EST

Associated Press and BlackAmericaWeb.com

Sen. Barack Obama swept to victory in the Iowa caucuses Thursday night, pushing his chief rival, N.Y. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, to third place and taking a major stride in a historic bid to become the nation's first black president.

Obama, 46, and a first-term senator from Illinois, eased past a high-powered field that included Clinton, the former first lady, and former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina, the party's 2004 vice presidential nominee.

"On this January night, at this defining moment in history, you have done what the cynics said we couldn't do," Obama told wildly cheering, chanting supporters Thursday night. "We are choosing hope over fear; we are choosing unity over division and sending a powerful message that change is coming to America."

Obama's victory over Clinton and Edwards suggested a hunger among Democrats for a new voice and perhaps a new approach to politics. His historic victory also proved that a black man running for president can have success among voters in a predominantly white state.

Obama, who campaigned as an apostle of change in Washington, gained 38 percent support among caucus-goers. Edwards, who ran promising to battle the special interests in the capital, and Clinton, who stressed her experience, were locked in a razor-close race much of the night, ending up with with Edwards over Clinton, 30 percent to 29 percent.

Obama beat Clinton by nine percentage points, and he likely now will have to duel state by state, probably with her. She has the money and organizational support around the country to fight on; Edwards does not, and he may well find that his loss in Iowa dries up his limited resources. But the third-place showing was a serious blow to Clinton, who just a few months ago was crowned the front-runner by major media.

Craig Kirby, a senior Democratic political strategist, said Americans are desperate for change.

"Iowa has taught us that traditional politics has changed," Kirby told BlackAmericaWeb.com Thursday night. "The people of Iowa have showcased democracy, and this showcase has guaranteed the opportunity for many more to participate."

"Sen. Barack Obama's message of change has ushered and excited many new people to participate in our political process," Kirby said. "More importantly, Sen. Obama is a leader of today, and leaders must address the challenges of their day. It makes no sense to answer questions that no one is asking or answer questions that have already been addressed. America has to look ahead to its new day."

Obama told a raucous victory rally his triumph showed that in "big cities and small towns, you came together to say, 'We are one nation, we are one people, and our time for change has come.'"

Projections estimated that 236,000 Democrats showed up on a cold midwinter's night, shattering the previous mark of 124,000.

Turnout was also up on the Republican side, where projections showed about 114,000 people taking part. The last previous contested Republican caucuses in 2000 drew over 85,000 participants.

His victory in 95 percent white Iowa proved that he could appeal across racial lines and even draw women away from Clinton, despite her push for them to make her the first female president. Next he'll try to build on his record in New Hampshire, which is 96 percent white. The state's primary election is Tuesday.

Nearly a quarter of Democratic caucus-goers interviewed in the entrance poll were under 30 years old, a jump from 2004. Obama got 57 percent of the vote from the under-30 crowd, compared with just 14 percent for Edwards and 11 percent for Clinton. Twenty-eight percent of Obama's support came from the over-30 set, according to a survey of voters entering the caucuses by The Associated Press and the television networks.

Obama also won the greatest percentages of independents, first-time caucus-goers, self-identified liberals and -- most troubling for Clinton -- women. Obama got 35 percent of women voters, compared to 30 percent for Clinton and 23 percent for Edwards. This despite the fact that Clinton focused her campaign on bringing fellow women to the polls.

Rev. Jesse Jackson took note that "this is the 40th year since the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr. Tonight, he would proud of Barack, proud of Iowa and proud of America."

Democratic consultant Jamal Simmons said Obama's victory "proves that America is changing when it comes to race and politics."

"Winning in Iowa is not winning the nomination, but is very significant," Simmons said. "Tonight, Barack Obama has made it more true that every black child in America can do whatever they want to if they work hard for it -- really."

Roland Martin, a political analyst for CNN, said Obama is becoming more "comfortable" campaigning and noted that Obama easily weaved the civil rights movement into victory speech Thursday.

Martin added that behind Obama on stage in Iowa -- and in the cheering crowd -- was a "rainbow" or supporters which symbolized Obama's diverse constituency and his ability to reach out to a multi-cultural America. He predicted that Obama's campaign will continue to resonate with voters because of Obama's message of hope and change.

On Obama, The Washington Post reported: "Seeking to become the first African American president, he found a receptive audience nationally for his candidacy almost from the moment he announced last winter, and he proved his mettle in this largely white and rural state."

"They said this day would never come," Obama said at his Thursday night rally. "They said our sights were set too high. They said this country was too divided -- too disillusioned to ever come together around a common purpose." He continued, "We are one nation. We are one people. And our time for change has come."

Among Republicans, Mike Huckabee rode a wave of support from evangelical Christians to win the opening round in the 2008 campaign for the White House.

Huckabee, a preacher turned politician, handily defeated Mitt Romney despite being outspent by tens of millions of dollars, and deciding in the campaign's final days to scrap a television commercial that would have assailed the former Massachusetts governor.

Huckabee won 34 percent support, compared to 25 percent for Romney. Former Sen. Fred Thompson and Sen. John McCain battled for third place.

Romney sought to frame his defeat as something less than that, saying he had trailed Huckabee, a former Arkansas governor, by more than 20 points a few weeks ago. "I've been pleased that I've been able to make up ground and I intend to keep making up ground, not just here but across the country," he said.

Michelle D. Bernard, a black conservative and president & CEO of the Washington, D.C.-based Independent Women's Forum, said the results of the Iowa caucases demonstrate why America is the greatest nation on earth.

"Although just a snapshot in time, the Democratic and Republican voters of Iowa have shown the world that America has changed in its historic attitudes towards race and gender, that we are truly a government of the people. And it would appear that the people want change," Bernard told BlackAmericaWeb.com.

"A black man won the majority of votes of Democratic voters in an overwhelmingly white state -- a feat many thought impossible," she said. "Republican voters ignored conventional wisdom and voted for man many pundits believed had no chance whatsoever of winning in Iowa or anywhere else."

Edwards tried to put the best face on a disappointing loss in the Iowa Democratic caucus, but vowed a vigorous campaign against Obama in New Hampshire.

"The status quo lost, and change won," Edwards told a crowded ballroom of supporters. He said he would go to New Hampshire "to determine who's best suited to bring about the change this country so desperately needs."

The former senator made clear that he will portray himself as more willing than Obama to battle the "corporate greed" that Edwards has condemned repeatedly.

"Thank you for second place," he said, taking solace in edging out Clinton.

Clinton, meanwhile, unbowed by her third-place finish, hailed a "great night for Democrats" and said the strong turnout pointed for sure to the election of a Democratic president in November. She said she would "keep pushing as hard as we can."

Clinton, who had once held a commanding lead in polls in Iowa, congratulated Obama and Edwards. She promised cheering supporters she would take "this enthusiasm and go tonight to New Hampshire."

"We're going to keep pushing as hard as we can," she said. Supporters chanted, "Hillary, Hillary."

With former President Bill Clinton and their daughter, Chelsea, standing to one side of her and former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright to the other, Clinton said, "I am so ready for the rest of this campaign, and I am so ready to lead."

"This is a great night for Democrats. We have seen an unprecedented turnout here in Iowa, and that is good news because today we are sending a clear message that we are going to have change and that change will be a Democratic president in the White House in 2009."

David Gergen, a former White House aide under Republican and the Clinton administrations, pointed out that Iowa was not a strong state for Clinton from the start.

"The Clintons are nothing if not resilient," he said. "They will fight back. For Barack Obama, this is a personal triumph. For an African-American to go into a state that's 95 percent white and win against Mrs. Clinton is an absolutely remarkable victory."

Iowans rendered their judgments in meetings at 1,781 precincts from Adel to Zwingle, in schools, firehouses and community centers where the candidates themselves could not follow.

In interviews as they entered the caucuses, more than half of all the Republicans said they were either born-again or evangelical Christians, and they liked Huckabee more than any of his rivals. Romney led handily among the balance of the Iowa Republican voters, according to the survey.

About half the Democratic caucus-goers said a candidate's ability to bring about needed change was the most important factor as they made up their minds, according to the entrance interviews by The Associated Press and the television networks.

"The unprecedented grassroots enthusiasm for Democrats we saw today shows that piece by piece, we are rebuilding our Party," Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean said in a statement. "As we head towards November, it's clear that Americans will elect a Democratic president to bring our country the change we need."

Change was Obama's calling card in the arduous campaign for Iowa's backing. Fewer voters cited experience, which Clinton said was her strong suit, or a candidate's chance of capturing the White House or ability to care about people like the voters themselves.

Bernard told BlackAmericaWeb.com it was the issues that mattered most to voters in Iowa, and the process transcended race.

"If the rest of the nation follows Iowa's lead, we will see that conventional wisdom is not always correct -- whites will vote for a black candidate; women are above gender politics, and message and the messenger matter above all else," Bernard said.

"Clearly, neither the Republican nor the Democratic races ended tonight," she added. "As they look to New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada, each of the candidates will have to ask and answer the question: What does America really want?"

In the News: GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS OF AMERICA

Thu, 20 Dec 2007 15:20:00 EST

Campus Report Online

by: Heyecan Veziroglu, December 20, 2007

At the Independent Women's Forum at the Marriot on December 5, 2007, panelists from business and academic circles identified the most significant challenges facing America and suggested rational, free-market policies to enhance U.S. competitiveness in the global economy. "Government shouldn't keep its old-fashioned forms," said Dr. Elaine Kamarck from the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard. "In our era, governments talk about citizens as customers."

"Today, we've reinvented government. Social security system is an example of reinvented efficient bureaucracy," she argued. "Productivity is brought to government services."

"The old-fashioned bureaucracy is not efficient to have productivity."

John Engler, the president & CEO of The National Association of Manufacturers pointed out that "The life blood of the manufacturers is remarkable productivity."

"We've got to have an energy strategy," he insisted. "We have to be smarter about how to use energy."

"Otherwise, this could be a great threat to our economic stability." He emphasized the significance of innovation in the 21st century.

He gave statistical data and said: "Among Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries, Turkey's corporate tax rate in 2006 has been 30%, whereas in 2007 it was 20%."

Stephen Moore, Editorial Board Member from The Wall Street Journal, stressed the high rate of taxes and remarked "We are the only country in the planet that is raising tax rates. All others reduce taxes! ..."

Karen Tandy, VP of Global Government Relations from Motorola, stated that the U.S.'s strongest performance is in the role of innovation. "That's what our competition comes from," she explained. She went on to say that that is where "the federal funding side comes from."

"We should keep the technology talent in the U.S.," she argued. "The limitation on HB1 visas is limited to 65000 per year," she pointed out about the documentation designed to import technical experts.

"We have to invest to drive innovation at home." Angela Antonelli, Director of Federal strategy & Operations from Deloitte Consulting, LLP, offered some observations about education in America. "Based on the intellectual capital, we have to build a focus on 21st century work force to find skillful people," she observed. "There is a lot of concern about the American educational system."

"Students are not proficient in their math and science classes," she noted. "We cannot rely much on foreign workers to be players in the workforce particularly in finance and business sectors."

Dr. Robert Atkinson, President, Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, stressed the point that tax policies need to focus on enterprises. "We need to invest in IT equipment investments," he said. "That's the engine we have in the U.S..."

"Health care reform must be a top priority," Dr. Isabel Sawhill from the Brookings Institution said. "It should cover the uninsured; improve the efficiency of the system, bring modern technology to the system."

"We need much more research on competitiveness; we need more coordinated care, and better image of chronic diseases," she contended. "We need to learn the prevention of diseases and be careful about health and life styles."

"We need a few more radical policies on Medicare system but there is a strong resistance to income relating benefits," she asserted. "Health care is highly valued for most people."

"Technology is helping us to live longer and healthier, The public sector is going to require higher taxes...." Dr. Atkinson said "We are one of the few countries that are based on employer based health system... This is a huge political challenge."

Heyecan Veziroglu is an intern at the American Journalism Center, a training program run jointly by Accuracy in Media and Accuracy in Academia.

In the News: Schwab Warns Against Using Blunt Tools On China Disputes

Tue, 11 Dec 2007 16:04:00 EST

National Journal Congress Daily

By Martin Vaughan

Trade Representative Schwab said Wednesday it is probable that Congress will address legislation next year to restrict imports from China, and warned lawmakers to "be wary of quick fixes for complex international challenges."

"It is likely that both houses of Congress will grapple with this legislation related to currency, trade remedies, product safety, and enforcement," Schwab said in a speech to the Independent Women's Forum.

"They are crude tools for our complex tasks. They focus on the wrong issues and are likely to do nothing to help or could even hurt American workers, farmers and entrepreneurs that they purport to help," she continued.

As late as June, key Senate sponsors of legislation to spur China to let its yuan rise in value more quickly said a vote in 2007 on Chinese currency legislation was a near-certainty.

"I don't see how this doesn't pass the Senate and the House by a veto-proof majority," Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., said when his legislation was unveiled.

But a jurisdictional dispute between two key Senate chairmen, opposition from the White House and divisions among supporters of China currency legislation about the best approach combined to slow action on the bill.

The Senate's Finance and Banking committees got as far as marking up competing measures, while the House Ways and Means Committee did not mark up a currency bill this year.

Schwab said congressional inaction on China trade measures might be in part an acknowledgment that administration efforts to negotiate trade policy changes with China are succeeding.

Last week, China announced it would end subsidies the United States challenged in a World Trade Organization dispute case.

She noted that U.S. export growth has accelerated substantially this year, helped by growth in the Japanese and European economies.

"I'd like to think that I'm wrong" about China legislation next year, she said, adding, "There is perhaps a more robust debate going on; we'll see."

In her speech, Schwab urged lawmakers more generally to reject the temptation to blame imports for all economic woes.

"Three centuries ago, Thomas Hobbes proclaimed life 'nasty, brutish and short.' Today, we have [CNN anchor] Lou Dobbs presenting life as unfair, isolationist and doomed," she said.

In the News: U.S.-China trade ties face rollback risks: Schwab

Wed, 05 Dec 2007 12:35:00 EST

Boston Globe

By Doug Palmer | December 5, 2007

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Congress and Chinese policymakers should think carefully before taking action that could damage the U.S.-China trade relationship, U.S. Trade Representative Susan Schwab said on Wednesday.

Although China has become the "chief target" in the United States for concerns about globalization, both countries benefit from a deepening trade and economic relationship, Schwab argued in a speech to the Independent Women's Forum.

"Both countries, in their own ways, must steer clear of economic retrenchment," Schwab said, just a few days before heading to Beijing with other senior Bush administration officials for high-level economic talks.

She expressed concern about several bills in Congress aimed at addressing concerns about China's trade and currency policies, as well as the safety of Chinese goods.

"They are crude tools for a complex task. They focus on the wrong issues and are likely to do nothing to help, and -- even worse -- could hurt American workers, farmers and entrepreneurs," Schwab said.

Even so, there are signs China is "slowing or even backsliding" on economic reforms in ways that could harm U.S. companies trying to compete in that market, Schwab said.

"Recent actions by the Chinese government, taken together, provide reason to worry that China will use its regulatory and other policies to develop so-called national champions and tilt the playing field against foreign competitors," she said.

LONG LIST

Schwab and U.S. Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez are the U.S. co-chairs of the U.S.-China Joint Commission on Commerce and Trade (JCCT), which is meeting next Tuesday in Beijing.

A second bilateral forum, led for the United States by Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, meeting next week focuses on longer-term issues in the trade and economic relationship.

The United States is pressing China in the JCCT for action on a long list of market access concerns, including its long-standing ban on imports of U.S. beef, Schwab said.

At the last JCCT meeting in April 2006, the United States trumpeted a Chinese commitment to "reopen the Chinese market to U.S. beef" once final technical issues were resolved.

However, the market remains closed.

The U.S. government said another important achievement of 2006 meeting was a Chinese government decision to improve transparency by publishing all its laws, and regulations affecting trade and control of foreign exchange in a single journal.

But Schwab said in her speech China's opaque rulemaking procedures and commitment to rule of law remained a concern.

She urged Beijing to "establish a mandatory process for public notice and comment on proposed rules and regulations."

Schwab acknowledged the United States would be revisiting some issues next week previously thought to be resolved.

"We'll keep going until we get them done," she said, adding that the United States could possibly take legal action under U.S. and global trade laws if dialogue fails.

(Editing by Eric Walsh)

In the News: Barack Obama Shines in Philadelphia Debate, 'Standing Out from the Pack,' Says MSNBC Poll

Wed, 31 Oct 2007 12:05:00 EDT

blackamericaweb.com

Democratic candidates Sen. Barack Obama and John Edwards sharply challenged Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's candor, consistency and judgment Tuesday in a televised debate that underscored her front-runner status two months before the first presidential primary votes.

Obama, the Illinois senator, began immediately, saying Clinton has changed her positions on the North American Free Trade Agreement, torture policies and the Iraq war. Leadership, he said, does not mean "changing positions whenever it's politically convenient."

According to an poll of likely caucus-goers in Iowa conducted Oct. 17 through 24 by the University of Clinton and Obama are locked in a two-way heat in the top spots, with the New York senator leading at 28.9 percent, followed by Obama with 26.6 percent and Edwards with 20.0 percent.

Obama, who had promised to step up his attacks on Clinton, blasted her after she refused to directly answer a challenge from the debate's co-moderator, Tim Russert, to release to the public all the papers on her health care proposal she exchanged with her husband, former President Bill Clinton, during her tenure as First Lady.

"I'm glad that Hillary [used] the phrase, 'Turn the page,' but this is an example of not turning the page." Obama said. He emphasized that after "one of the most secretive administrations in history" a need for transparency was crucial.

Edwards, the former North Carolina senator, was even sharper at times, saying Clinton "defends a broken system that's corrupt in Washington, D.C." He stood by his earlier claim that she has engaged in "doubletalk."

Clinton, standing between the two men, largely shrugged off the remarks and defended her positions. She has been the focus of Republican candidates' "conversations and consternation," she said, because she is leading in the polls.

She said she has specific plans on Social Security, diplomacy and health care. "I have been standing against the Republicans, George Bush and Dick Cheney," she said, "and I will continue to do so, and I think Democrats know that."

Obama's efforts appeared to bear fruit.

In an MSNBC.com poll taken immediately after the debate, 27 percent of nearly 22,000 respondents said Obama "stood out from the pack," versus Clinton's 23 percent and Edwards' 19 percent. Twenty-nine percent said Obama "showed the most leadership qualities," versus Clinton's 26 percent and Edwards' 15 percent. Twenty-nine percent said Obama was "the most convincing candidate," while Clinton got 23 percent and Edwards polled at 18 percent.

Clinton got top spots in the MSNBC poll asking "Who had the most rehearsed answers?" and "Who avoided the questions?" She got 59 and 70 percent respectively, while Obama had 16 and 14 percent.

But a poll on YouPoll.com asking respondents who they believed won the debate, Clinton received 31 percent; Obama received 30 percent; Edwards got 12 percent, with Sen. Joe Biden and Rep. Dennis Kucinich tied at 11 percent.

Peter C. Groff, a Colorado state senator, publisher of Blackpolicy.org and executive director of the Center for African American Policy at the University of Denver, said Obama stepping up his attacks on Clinton is a calculated strategy that could have repercussions -- particularly as a black man criticizing a white woman.

"It's a plan of attack that was certain to happen sooner or later, particularly as we get closer to the primaries," Groff told BlackAmericaWeb.com.

"But, Obama has to be very careful with that approach," he added. "Despite the media sharks and pundits smelling blood in the water and pressing his campaign to take the offensive, he can't attack a woman the same way he can attack a man."

"I believe that he's somewhat sensitive to this," Groff said, "and, he has to be extremely careful how aggressive he is with what could determine his electoral fate amongst many white voters. So, there has to be a balance. He could maintain such a balance by keeping a policy focus, rather than a focus that appears too personal."

Clinton defended her Senate vote in favor of designating Iran's Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist group. Obama, Edwards and others have said Bush could interpret the measure as congressional approval for a military attack.

Edwards caustically challenged Clinton's claim that she stands up to the Bush administration. "So the way to do that is to vote yes on a resolution that looks like it was written literally by the neocons?" he said.

"In my view, rushing to war -- we should not be doing that -- but we shouldn't be doing nothing," Clinton said. "And that means we should not let them acquire nuclear weapons, and the best way to prevent that is a full court press on the diplomatic front."

Clinton also was the main focus during a discussion of the Iraq war. Again, Edwards leveled the toughest charges against the New York senator.

"If you believe that combat missions should be continued in Iraq" without a timetable for withdrawal, Edwards said, "then Senator Clinton is your candidate." Edwards vowed to have all combat troops out of Iraq "in my first year in office."

Clinton replied forcefully, saying "I stand for ending the war in Iraq, bringing our troops home." She added, however, that "it is going to take time," and some troops must remain to fight al-Qaida in Iraq.

"I don't know how you pursue al-Qaida without engaging them in combat," she said.

Edwards, drawing a link between Iraq and Iran, pressed on. "What I worry about is, if Bush invades Iran six months from now, I mean, are we going to hear: 'If only I had known then what I know now?'" He was alluding to comments Clinton has made about her 2002 vote to authorize military action against Saddam Hussein.

Michelle Bernard, a black conservative and president of the Independent Women's Forum, said Americans deserve forward-thinking leadership.

"Too much time in these debates is spent looking backwards," Bernard told BlackAmericaWeb.com. "The democratic candidates in particular spend too much time focusing on decisions that have been made in the past."

"Whether it is the war in Iraq or our nation's overgrown budget, it is not enough to complain about the Bush administration and the state we are in," she said. "All of the candidates need to offer a positive vision that shows where they want to take the country and how they will get us there. The American public wants something to vote for and the candidates need to give us something more than empty rhetoric."

During the debate, some candidates expressed frustration that most of the questions were directed to Clinton, Obama and Edwards. Seventeen minutes into the debate, Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich had yet to get a question and blurted out, "Is this a debate here?" Minutes later, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson threw up his hands in protest that he hadn't been called on either and exchanged a frustrated glance with Kucinich.

It was the Democrats' first debate in a month, and during that time Clinton has solidified her position as the front-runner in national polls and taking a slight lead in fundraising.

Obama has criticized her for failing to explain how she would save Social Security and for a vote on Iran. Edwards has turned to questions of honesty and integrity, areas where polling shows voters are divided on Clinton.

The Clinton campaign on Tuesday posted videos of Obama and Edwards in the past saying they would campaign on hope, not tearing down their opponents, next to news reports of their criticisms of her.

So how's Obama doing in these debates?

"He's doing fair," Groff said. "One thing to consider is that Obama still has to find a way to manage the soundbite. He appears to have so much on his mind that he's having trouble organizing thoughts into clear, crisp and succinct sentences."

"He's a great policy thinker with solid ideas, but does that translate into simple language for the "common folk? Is he connecting? Overall, Obama's problem isn't really him versus Clinton in the debate. It's him versus everyone else since it's difficult for Obama to distinguish himself from so many other talented and articulate voices crowding the stage."

In the News: Inside the Beltway

Mon, 15 Oct 2007 10:30:00 EDT

Saluting women

Friendship brought Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas to the Andrew W. Mellon Auditorium, where the Independent Women's Forum's (IWF) Woman of Valor award was given posthumously to R. Gaull Silberman, known as "Ricky," an IWF founder and board member who died of cancer in February.

Elizabeth "Liz" Cheney, daughter of Vice President Dick Cheney, presented the award to Mrs. Silberman's husband, U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Senior Judge Laurence Silberman.

"Ricky gave real hugs in a town where people give air-brush kisses," Mrs. Cheney praised.

Inside the Beltway is told that Justice Thomas will write a "long, personal reminiscence" about Mrs. Silberman in the IWF's forthcoming newsletter. IWF's president and CEO, Michelle Bernard, explained that Justice Thomas had "inadvertently" contributed to the decision by Mrs. Silberman and others to found IWF, because during his stormy Supreme Court confirmation hearings the founders felt that the women interviewed by the press for a "women's view" did not represent mainstream America.

In addition, the newly appointed chief of protocol of the U.S., Ambassador Nancy Brinker, founder of the Susan G. Komen Foundation for the Cure, also was awarded the Woman of Valor award at last week's gala. The award was presented to Mrs. Brinker by former U.S. Solicitor General Theodore Olson. Each year, the award is given in honor of Mr. Olson's late wife, Barbara K. Olson, who was killed during the September 11, 2001, attacks.

In the News: Speech , study analyze Duke hook-ups

Mon, 15 Oct 2007 10:18:00 EDT

The Chronicle

By Ally Helmers

Casual sex is increasingly described as the normative form of romantic relationships on campuses, said Suzanne Shanahan, associate director of the Kenan Institute of Ethics and assistant professor of sociology.

Shanahan led the presentation "Love on the Quad: Romantic Relationships," Saturday to an audience of Duke's Half-Century Club members, who attended the event as a part of Homecoming Weekend activities. In a cross-disciplinary research study, Shanahan examined the changing relationships among students at Duke and other college campuses, along with the concept of a "hook-up" and its effects on student interaction.

"Popular press has become obsessed with the hook-up culture of young people," she said.

According to a report produced for the Independent Women's Forum in 2001, 91 percent of college women surveyed on campuses nationwide described their school as having a "salient hook-up culture," Shanahan added. Other surveys found that approximately 70 to 80 percent of college students engaged in intercourse with a casual sex partner during the previous year.

The study aims not only to define "hook-up," but also to understand how students' environments affect their decisions and perceptions of relationships.

"We are just getting underway with our systematic work at Duke-so much is still speculative," Shanahan said. "[In the winter] we hope to bring the survey findings back to the students to think them through."

Some Half-Century Club audience members such as Tom Cottingham, Trinity '37, said they found the statistics "fascinating." For an audience familiar with the transient relationships of past campus culture, the prevalence of a casual romantic interaction is still surprising, he said.

A few current Duke students said, however, that they are not at all surprised.

"I don't really know anyone who is in a relationship with someone here," freshman Jessie Mark said. "There's drama because one person always wants more."

Generally, females are more likely than males to prefer a relationship to a "hook-up," Shanahan said. Her research found that only 40 percent of women surveyed had themselves participated in casual sex during the previous year-a contrast to the percentage engaging in casual intercourse as a whole.

"Right now, I'd rather be in a relationship than not," Mark said. "I'm not trying to be that crazy girl at Shooters."

For first-year students like Mark, entering college is like taking a break from your life course, Shanahan said to a crowd of Duke alumni nodding in agreement.

"There's a periodicity involved in participation," she added. "Freshman and sophomores tend to participate more than juniors and seniors."

Nastassja Marshall, a junior, has witnessed her peers move each year from hooking up to entering into relationships.

"Freshman year makes you want to go out and explore," she said. "By junior year, people have realized what they want in a relationship."

Jonathan Schwartz, a senior, said he has also noticed the changing ideas of relationships on campus.

"I know a lot of people who got in a relationship after their freshman year," he said. "They have been together since and are just hoping for that long-term commitment."

Another cause of "relationship avoidance" is students' sense that long-term, committed relationships get in the way of other activities in which they want to engage during college, Shanahan said. University students are often over-committed, and they instead anticipate getting into a relationship shortly after graduation.

"Relationships may be too time-consuming and distracting for some people," Schwartz said, explaining his peers' preference for non-commitment.

Mark, commenting on her opinion of the campus "hook-up" scene, agreed.

"People are trying to have fun without the complications of a relationship," she said.

In the News: 'Having it all' is a feminist myth

Tue, 09 Oct 2007 10:42:00 EDT

Tucson Citizen

Shaunti Feldhahn: From the right

'Having it all' is a feminist myth

Published: 10.09.2007

The reason women feel so pressured isn't because the choices exist but because feminism told us we should seize them all. Feminism wasn't just about equality for women, but about pushing the superwoman addiction. But as all frazzled superwomen know, that's a recipe for nervous breakdown - or for years of regret down the road.

I was blessed with a college-graduate mom who chose to be a domestic engineer. But in the 1970s, she was ridiculed so much for her stay-at-home status that she dreaded even talking about it and risk hearing condescending women say, "That's all you do?"

However, I'm sure my mother is far more happy - not less - for her choice to wait on her nursing career until her children were older, instead of trying to have it all, all at once.

Carrie Lukas, vice president of policy at the Independent Women's Forum and author of "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Women, Sex and Feminism," shared in an interview how hurtful feminist messages can be to women's happiness.

For example, she found feminist literature tended to "only focus on the negative problems of marriage, which contributes to the idea that marriage is disposable. But married women in general are much happier."

One of feminism's biggest and most devastating myths is that you can "have it all."

But as Lukas also pointed out: "Having choices doesn't mean you don't have to make a choice. There are going to be sacrifices no matter what choice you make."

I agree it's significant that the "Happiness Gap" study found increased dissatisfaction for women across the board - but for a very different reason.

Most women have a deep desire for someone with whom to share their life, to have children and watch them grow.

There's nothing wrong with seizing our modern workplace opportunities.

But if a woman pursues those opportunities at the expense of her personal desires and then finds that she's lonely, past child-bearing age or has missed the key moments in her children's lives, why wouldn't she have regrets?

I believe women would be far happier if feminism had been content with just pressing for equality for women - and hadn't made my last paragraph so politically incorrect.