I don't respond to every negative group email I receive, but just below is one that called me to action:

Subject: Fw: Why not Hillary? let me count the ways!

Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2008 9:41 PM
Subject: Why not Hillary? let me count the ways!

OK M, because you asked for it.. Here goes. ( bccd to most of my women - and some men- friends who care about the world - thank you!)

Because she is no better/different than a Republican? In terms of who she plays ball with.. corporate old boyz system. Because Hillary v McCain is a no brainer. Backwards into the past. It does not compute. It's not a real choice. Kids won't vote, blacks won't vote..but white men will.

Because a corporate Dem is not the change we need. More of the same will not take this country where it wants and needs to go. A bunch of middle-aged women voting for her (rah rah feminism) who don't necessarily know what she really stands for in terms of the world and our place in it.. well, they don't convince me that she is any better than the men she emulates so well. WAY too much testosterone- more than Obama, by far. Although I will say she finally showed some attractive softness this wk- BECAUSE HER HANDLERS TOLD HER TO... ROFLMAO

And this is not just generational. I'm "middle aged" or so they tell me. :-) I just got off the phone w S, one of my best friends, celebrating her 75th in two wks. She and I are 100 % in agreement vis a vis this race, and pro Obama. Or Edwards. We'd mostly prefer Kucinich over here, but we are realists. Zero appreciation for Hillary. I'm rooting through my piggy bank now for Obama~ And you are talking to a formerly huge Clinton fan. I gave him 1000 bucks back in the 90's when I had it to spare. Back when he was fighting impeachment, a real threat to the powers that be. He was great. But that was then, this is now. Having seen what NAFTA and welfare reform have done to this country and the world... These "free trade agreements " seem to be nothing but a license to impoverish the world for the sake of the multinational corporations, robbing working people here of their jobs and standard of living.

Did you notice that they (both Clintons) gave cover to Bush for this war which has ruined our country?

Because she voted for the war, and never apologized for it, and then she voted to give Bush cover to go into IRAN!!? It's only by the grace of God and a bunch of people like moi (and we are legion.. think moveon.com) who are paying attention and raising hell with our legislators on a regular basis that we are not in Iran rt now. If Cheney had his way it would be so. And Hillary would be the last one to stand in his way. Because she plays to the right. She is a right wing Dem.

Because she is widely hated by certain factions of the electorate, and will bring out the knuckledragger vote and is the ONLY Dem who can inspire that kind of hatred, hence most likely to get McCain, or whomever elected.. personally I am rooting for Huckabee, think more knuckledraggers.. Let's just go for it, bring them all out of the woodwork, and get out the popcorn :-) (sorry, must have some comic relief! )

Because I will never vote for a woman just because she is a woman.. think that is just the height of foolishness... What would you think of blacks who voted for someone JUST because he is black? Fortunately that is not Obama~ the opposite in fact. His appeal is widespread. He is a real human with a real soul, a real smart wife, a real marriage, who appears to have some integrity. Can't settle for less, not this time around. We need a real leader. Someone who reflects the best of who we are, not someone who sold out before she got out of the gate. How sad that anyone thinks she is the best woman we can find to run!

Because she is a political hack through and through; today she is the candidate of change, yesterday no. Watch the Daily Show on her! Jon Stewart made mincemeat of her tonight !! (repeat of last night's show I think- should be available on their site- dailyshow.com? ) She is a joke! Craven, unprincipled and EVERY left of center person I'ver talked to feels the same way.. you'll be damn lucky to get us to the polls at all if she is the candidate. (ps- we are the ones who volunteer on all the phone banks, do much of the grunt work in campaigns..because we believe. ) I could not be more serious. I have voted in every election of my life ...I won't be talking anyone into voting this time around if she is the candidate. And I speak for so many. This is a serious mistake, even considering nominating her.

So there you have it. aren't you glad you asked? :-)

Still friends ? :-)

Here is my response to the above group email:

Negative advertising works. Even when it's inaccurate, some people buy it.
Unfortunately, when it's repeated long enough, more people buy it. That's one
of the central problems with Hillary's candidacy. She has been the target of
negative right-wing advertising for a very long time. And particularly since
her vote for the Iraq War Resolution in 2003, Hillary has been the target of
negative "word-of -mouth" advertising from the anti-war left.

The anti-Hillary screed above is but one example of this negative
"word-of-mouth" advertising from the left. It proves only that even good
Democrats are capable of spreading inaccurate politically-biased information.

I'm definitely pretty far left of center, and probably closest in thinking to
John Edwards, of all the candidates. I was among the very first people to speak
against the (then) hypothetical invasion of Iraq. I've watched what Hillary did
on her agonizingly slow path to very belatedly but finally speaking against the
war, and I must say that she made me angry until relatively recently. That said,
it is a mistake to classify her evolving position as no better than that of a
typical Republican. She is now quite clearly an advocate of bringing our troops
home and bringing a workable peace to this conflict as quickly as possible. She
does not in any way echo Republican calls for the USA to fight on until achieving
some sort of military victory.

As a Senator from New York, Hillary early on received major support from the
Israel lobby. Unfortunately, some of the most powerful supporters of the state
of Israel have also backed the Bush invasion of Iraq. As "their" Senator, it is
only natural that Hillary would have supported that invasion also, at first.
However, at some point after the 2004 election, Hillary (like many other elected
Democrats) began to slowly and cautiously move away from supporting the
continuation of the war. While she was doing this, her votes on Iraq war
related issues were no different than Senator Obama's. Yet, Senator Obama did not
have a similarly powerful right-wing Israel lobby to answer to in Illinois.

John Edwards was wooed early in his campaign by AIPAC, and for a while, he
seemed to be buying their line that Iran must not be allowed to have nuclear
weapons under any circumstance. However, to his credit, he moved away from that
position last summer, and conceded that it was theoretically preferable for Iran
to become a member of the nuclear club rather than for the USA to launch another
ill-advised preventive war (which ultimately would prove counter-productive
anyway). He did that only after learning from his staffers that they could not
refute the arguments of supporters of General Wesley Clark to that effect. I
was personally involved in that effort.

For several years now, Wes Clark has been harshly and unfairly criticized by
some AIPAC supporters for speaking out against the USA possibly launching an
attack on Iran. In September last, Wes Clark endorsed Hillary for President.
He did so only after assuring himself that she and he were on the same page
vis-vis the use of war as a "last, last, last resort". And it may surprise you
to learn that Wes was speaking against a potential war with Iran long before
moveon.org joined the party. Moreover, if you were to actually look beyond his
4 stars, and examine his speeches, some of you would be surprised at what a great
Progressive he is. He advocated Single-Payer health-care before any candidate
other than Dennis Kucinich, and he has called for the reversal of Bush tax cuts
for the rich since 2003. He is very pro-Union and opposed to the tax breaks we
give corporations who export jobs and claim their profits overseas.

Hillary and Wes have appeared together in many campaign stops since then. Based
on his decision to support her, as well as what I now hear her saying, I am
convinced that she has what it takes to oppose and defeat the efforts of the
right-wing to dominate our country.

Let's give every Democrat a fair appraisal.

Please.

Nick Kelly

I'm posting this here simply to encourage you to consider responding to the various inaccurate and/or downright unfair group emails you may be receiving. I'm sure most of you can do a far better job at this than I just did. But, as we are now in a sort of early "homestretch", I want to encourage you to respond even if you don't think your response is really perfect. There's a lot of damaging negativity in circulation, and I think we should at least try to counter it. And there's no better time than right now.