Submitted by working for change on Wed, 04/25/2007 - 3:11pm
Last Thursday I attended the monthly meeting of the Mecklenburg County chapter of Woman for President 2008 where UNCC lecturer Carol Gay was presenting the topic “Media Coverage of Women in Politics.”
Although I hadn’t attended any prior meetings of the WFP ’08 group, I knew I had to participate in this discussion. You see, just a few weeks before receiving the invitation, I had read the Washington Post’s coverage of Speaker Pelosi’s decision to appoint Alcee Hastings as chair of the House Intelligence Committee over the Committee’s Ranking Democrat, Jane Harman. While Pelosi’s choice to by-pass the ranking member may have been notable, the most astonishing aspect of the story was how it was played by the media, specifically, through the use of the term
Submitted by fake consultant on Fri, 03/09/2007 - 1:50am
I don’t usually make direct statements without some qualifications, but I believe I can safely say that unless Gore gets in the race, we have our 3 choices on the D side, and that’s about it.
I’m looking at a March 8th American Research Group poll suggesting no candidate other than Clinton, Obama, and Edwards currently attracts more than 2% of likely D primary voters. That same poll shows Clinton and Obama statistically tied (34 and 31%, respectively, with a 4% margin of error).
Rasmussen reports 34/26/15% for the same three, in the same order, on March 5th, and reported a 3% Clinton slip from the previous week. (Most likely voters, 4% margin of error.)
An average of polls shows about 36/25/12, with Obama moving sharply upward.
Unfortunately for Hillary, her trend is going the wrong way-a Quinnipiac poll taken February 13th-19th, asking “for whom would you vote today?” showed her at 38%/23%/6% (Clinton/Obama/Edwards, 3.8% margin of error).
Unless somebody does something more severe in their lives than Giuliani has done so far, the top three seems pretty much in place.
Submitted by whichrevolution on Mon, 01/22/2007 - 11:38pm
With another peace march approaching, I would guess that the leaders of the peace movement are quite excited to see if the President's low approval ratings and the low approval ratings of the situation in Iraq will bring a united call for immediate withdrawal.
At my university, I remember the early peace movement well and attended the few debates on campus about the need to go to war. What struck me most was the absence of any groups representing what I would think of as the middle ground or the mainstream. There were a few hawkish, young republican neo-cons who were dwarfed by a much larger group of hippy types and punks (I’m trying to descriptive, and intend no offense.) They were outfitted in their respective uniforms from Hot Topic or from the Salvation Army. They were also, based on what they had to say, completely devoid of any specific reasoning regarding the specific question of invading Iraq and Afghanistan.
BlueNC is a labor of love. Views expressed by any particular community member are simply that: the views of that particular member. If you have questions or concerns about the content you see here, please contact us.