I made clear that I was - and that I thought the urgency to end the 2008 primary process was unprecedented. I pointed out, as I have before, that both my husband's primary campaign, and Sen. Robert Kennedy's, had continued into June.
Almost immediately, some took my comments entirely out of context and interpreted them to mean something completely different - and completely unthinkable.
I want to set the record straight: I was making the simple point that given our history, the length of this year's primary contest is nothing unusual. Both the executive editor of the newspaper where I made the remarks, and Sen. Kennedy's son, Bobby Kennedy Jr., put out statements confirming that this was the clear meaning of my remarks. Bobby stated, "I understand how highly charged the atmosphere is, but I think it is a mistake for people to take offense."
I realize that any reference to that traumatic moment for our nation can be deeply painful - particularly for members of the Kennedy family, who have been in my heart and prayers over this past week. And I expressed regret right away for any pain I caused.
But I was deeply dismayed and disturbed that my comment would be construed in a way that flies in the face of everything I stand for - and everything I am fighting for in this election.
The above is from Hillary Clinton's "Hillary: Why I continue to run" (New York Daily News) and Micah noted it. It is a 'holiday' weekend and, as usual on those, I have been working the e-mail accounts and trying to reply to as many as possible. I'm doing nothing but talking entries 'tonight' (and working on "And the war drags on" while I do this one) so a note on the public account (members, please, please use the private e-mail addresses). There are a number of people working the accounts. We don't have time to read through every e-mail because way too many come in. Visitors need to be specific in their subject headings. Things that even look like junk mail (most of which goes into the "Bulk" folder automatically) will not be read. "Hello" and "How are you doing" and "Treat as urgent" are all automatically deleted without reading. The headings appear to be spam and everyone's going to use any excuse to not have to wade through all that garbage. If you're writing to complain, you will be read but only if you're specific in your title. If you look like spam, you're deleted without reading.
I've deleted 75 in the public account without reading and I'll be telling everyone else to do the same. Your subject heading should be something more than "Hello." (Those writing via an option at the mirror site don't have to worry about subject heading -- it's automatic via the form they provide you with.)
"Confidential" is not a heading that will be read. Repeating, there are too many e-mails, we're all looking for a reason not to read all so you need to be specific in your title or accept that it won't be read.
In addition, David ___ I don't care about your issue. I might have cared until I found you wrote 16 times on Saturday. No one's got the time for that. You're writing about something in England and it has nothing to do with Iraq. Had you written once or twice on Saturday, it might have gotten notice but 16 times?
This came in once to the public account, we'll note it in full:
Dear Colleagues and Friends,
The Center for Asia-Pacific Women in Politics (CAPWIP) and the United
Nations International Strategy for Disaster Risk Reduction (UN/ISDR) are
pleased to invite you to the Third Global Congress of Women in
Politics and Governance which will be held on October 19-22, 2008 at the Dusit
Hotel, Makati City, Metro Manila, Philippines. The theme of the
congress is “Gender in Climate Change and Disaster Risk Reduction.”
Women and environment experts have raised concern over the absence of
women in the discourse and debate on climate change and disaster risk
reduction, both of which are global mainstream issues that are
currently impacting the entire world. The involvement of women in areas of
environmental management and governance should not be perceived as an
afterthought. Women's roles are of considerable importance in the promotion
of environmental ethics.
The current imperative is for women to understand the phenomenon of
climate change and disaster risk reduction and their impacts and
implications at the individual, household, community and national levels.
Studies show that women have a definite information deficit on climate
politics, climate protection, and preparedness through disaster risk
reduction. Only with this information can women take their proper, significant
and strategic role in the issues of climate change and disaster risk
reduction.
Invited to this congress are parliamentarians, decision - makers in
national governments, environment organizations, youth leaders and media
practitioners, funding/ donor agencies/ organizations (Female and male
participants are welcome.)
The Congress will have the following objectives:
Overall Purpose: To provide a forum for legislators and decision-makers
in national governments and leaders at all levels in formulating
gender-responsive legislation and programs related to gender in climate
change and disaster risk reduction.
Specific Objectives:
a) to understand the phenomenon of climate change, its impacts, and its
implications and study the appropriate risk reduction strategy;
b) to review and examine the gender aspects in climate change and
disaster risk reduction and formulate appropriate actions to address these;
c) to define the roles women can play in addressing the impacts of
climate change and disaster risk reduction programs and policies at the
global, national and sub-national levels; and
d) to identify and define the action agenda for parliamentarians,
policy advocates, and women leaders to support global and national actions
to adapt gender responsive legislation and programs related to gender in
climate change and disaster risk reduction.
Congress Proceedings:
The discussion on gender in climate and disaster risk reduction change
will be organized around identifying the challenges to action as well
as defining the appropriate responses to effectively address the impacts
of climate change and disaster risk reduction. Inputs to the
discussion will be collected and organized around: 1) geographic location and 2)
types of actions: i.e. preparedness, risk reduction: building
community resilience; adaptation; and mitigation. Cross cutting these
discussions will be the identification of technologies in aid of responding to
climate change and preparedness thru disaster risk reduction.
The focus of the discussions will revolve around defining and
elaborating actions (i.e. preparedness, disaster risk reduction, adaptation, and
mitigation) to cope with climate change and its impacts and
preparedness and disaster risk reduction.
Preparedness and disaster risk reduction is about building individual
and community capacities to position themselves and their communities so
that the likelihood of climate change-induced disasters is reduced;
the intensity or adverse impacts of disasters are cushioned and that
inhabitants are able to respond promptly, expeditiously and effectively.
Adaptation entails actions that moderate harm, or exploit benefits, of
climate change. Mitigation entails actions that minimizes or cushions
the adverse impacts of climate change.
In all of these actions, special attention will be given to defining
how women and gender could be mainstreamed. In other words, the Congress
should define how women can be given the social space to participate,
influence, and benefit from global and local responses to climate
change.
The registration fee for the four day congress is One thousand five
hundred fifty US Dollars (US$ 1,550.) per person for twin room sharing
accommodations (two persons in one room) and one thousand nine hundred
fifty US Dollars (US$ 1,950.) per person for single room accommodations
(one person in one room).
The training will be held on Oct 19-22, 2008. However, the participants
will be requested to be in Manila the day before, October 18, 2008 and
leave Manila only on October 23, 2008. The overnight hotel
accommodation on October 18, 2008 is already included in the fee. Participants
will be billeted in the Dusit Hotel, the venue of the congress and hotels
near the Dusit Hotel, accessible within walking distance. Room
accommodations in the Dusit Hotel, the venue of the Congress will be on a first
come - first served basis.
Importance of the Congress
Today, on the average, one person out of nineteen in a developing
country will be hit by a climate disaster, compared to 1 out of 1,500 in an
OECD country. Climate change creates life time traps: in Niger, a child
born during a drought is 72 percent more likely to be stunted than a
child born during a normal season.
We hope that your organization can send participants to the Third
Global Congress of Women in Politics and Governance. The Theme of “Gender
in Climate Change and Disaster Risk Reduction” is the first time this
will be discussed in a forum whose objective is to formulate gender
responsive legislation and policies for national governments and
parliaments.
We truly hope that the environment organizations will find this forum a
good opportunity to advocate gender and climate change policies and
programs through gender responsive legislation to the women
parliamentarians, decision makers, the youth leaders, media and the funding
agencies/organizations. Let us join hands in promoting gender responsive
governance through transformative leadership and citizenship. We are looking
forward to your participation.
Please download the full information sheet and registration form for
this Third Global Congress of Women in Politics and Governance from our
website, http://www.capwip.org/3rdglobalcongress.htm
Very truly yours,
(signed)
Jung-sook KIM (Ed.D.)
President
Center for Asia Pacific Women in Politics (CAPWIP)
Secretariat:
Center for Asia Pacific Women in Politics (CAPWIP)
YSTAPHIL Building, 4227-4229 Tomas Claudio Street
Parañaque City, Metro Manila, Philippines
Tel. (632) 8516934 (632) 8516954; Tele Fax: Mobile Phone +639184596603
E-mail: globalcongress2008@gmail.com; globalcongress2008@capwip.org
capwip@capwip.org
Rafael __ I don't know what you're writing about but you've written seven times in two days, that's at least four times too many. Not specific in your title and writing too much (Rafael is not community member Rafael) you're deleted without being read.
Because Ava and I review American Idol this week at Third, a number of David Cook fans have sent links to various YouTube videos of him. This isn't a David Cook fan site.
Dani e-mailed two or three weeks ago. I didn't reply to her (I don't have time to reply to most e-mails and even everyone working the account doesn't have time to) until last week. She was writing about a just released book by Jerry White. It's entitled "I Will Not Be Broken: Five Steps to Overcoming a Life Crisis." White co-founded Survivor Corps. In PDF format, you can read the introduction of the book, chapters one through four and chapter nine ("Building Resilience To Tragedy") online here. The pitch on this originally had something to do with cancer and the e-mail noted my own experience. That's been mentioned at this site probably five times in over 3,000 entries. It's not a topic I care to discuss and the mentions were "my health scare." That's how I referred to it. I'm not interested in writing about it, I'm not interested in talking about it. It's too personal for me to turn it into an online topic. If I see something on the topic that I think needs to be addressed, I usually call Elaine and she kindly grabs it. I am not going to tear myself apart for an entry online. It's not worth it to me. Dani apparently saw something at Elaine's site or caught one of the rare mentions here and pitched the book with the cancer angle. That's why I was in no rush to reply. When she wrote again, I replied that I would note the book over the Memorial Day weekend and why I wouldn't be writing on the topic. All other things pitched with that angle or having to do with cancer in the future will be deleted. That's not a topic I'm covering here. I have to do X number of entries a day, I have a busy life offline, I do not have the time to rip myself apart to write about the topic and I certainly do not have the time to then attempt to pull myself back together in order to speak about the illegal war or Hillary's campaign (the two things I'm doing offline). That's not my attempt to be rude, that's knowing my limitations and knowing what I can and cannot handle. The book Dani's writing about (and I'm not upset with her for drawing it to the community's attention) is the last book, article, etc. that will be highlighted on that topic or noted on that topic unless it has to do with Iraqis or veterans. (Or if Hillary proposes a plan -- and I really didn't want to write about that but the fact that the press -- Real and Pretend -- ignored that very needed and serious proposal meant we had to address to the topic.)
New features at Third:
Truest statement of the week
A note to our readers
Editorial: Paying for the silence
TV: American Oh-Dull
The VA can't be bothered with MST
Hillary and the Democratic Party
Roundtable
Highlights
Community member comments/replies/credit. First, thank you to Renee. Ty doesn't have time to go through and correct typos on Tuesday. Renee has been catching what she can and e-mailing me on Sunday. I've corrected the typos she found and will continue to try to do that on Sunday. I've told her to always ignore Roundtable because that's billed as a "rush transcript" and the "A note to our readers" because that's Jim's piece and I'm not going to go in correct his writing. That's not me being rude but he may not have a typo, he might be mispelling to make a point. On long feature articles (which is really all this edition is), the spell check (if it works) stops working half-way through, so thank you to Renee.
Thank you to Dallas who there would be no weekly edition at Third without. He locates links for all but Ava and my TV pieces and he is a soundboard throughout the process and he also contributes during the writing of group pieces. This week's "The VA can't be bothered with MST" would not have published without him. Ava and I dictated that piece from the taxi and we wouldn't have done that if he hadn't already said he would check out all the quotes we were offering from memory to make sure they were correct and add in the links. He works very hard each edition and we know that. That's why we hunt down our own links for our TV pieces. Reading over it, I see he also took the initative to add in the snapshots on his own. Thank you for all you do, Dallas.
Juan is really afraid, from last week's note and this week's, that Third is about to end. No. Jim's a let it all hang out type and his notes to the readers reflect that. Everyone is tired. Everyone is on the road nearly every week. No one hates Jim or dislikes him (I love Jim). In his note this week, he notes the roundtable and how long it went on and how so much of it is not posted. It did go on too long. That's not just Jim's fault. He notes I called an end to it. I (or anyone else) could have (and should have) done that a lot sooner. The roundtable was a never-ending nightmare. The fault that goes to all of us, not just Jim. Ava and Jim have no problems but Ava also has no problem letting Jim know what she thinks. (And Jim has no problem repeating that in his notes.) Third's not in any problem. Those participating may not want to and I haven't had time to ask them about that. But in terms of the core group, we know each weekend will be a nightmare. We know things written will be decided -- at the last minute -- not good enough to go up online. Ava and I know that Jim will try to insist -- if we've planned something ahead of time -- that we instead cover ___. We know that no matter how much time is spent, we will still have to spend more time (we is everyone). None of that is new, none of that just developed. That has been the pattern at Third from the start. It is a marathon each Saturday night/Sunday morning. And we know that. I replied to Juan's e-mail but if he's worried, some other member may be as well, so I'm making it clear that the only difference of late is that we are all on the road. After Puerto Rico votes, things should return to what passes for 'normal.' But Jim's note reflects his opinions and the opinions of Dona, Ty, Jess, Ava and myself. For the six (counting me), I can say it's nothing new. I haven't talked about it with others who participate in the writing edition so I can't speak for them. For those of us in the six, we're used to this and it's not any different than it was in 2005, 2006 or 2007. It's a normal writing edition for us.
Sabrina notes "TV: American Oh-Dull" and that Ava and I are reviewing American Idol. She's glad that entertainment TV was a focus (there's also public affairs programming in that) and wonders if it's too late now because of summer repeates to expect any more such reviews. No, Ava and I have scripts and episodes of some programs (CBS will have some new entertainment shows broadcasting this summer). The writers strike meant Ava and I had to step away from entertainment programming. Due to that and due to the rank sexism in the campaign coverage, we began tackling the public affairs programming. When the writers strike ended, a number of shows we had planned to tackle did not come back on or were going to be cancelled. As we know from a Fox show a few years back, if we review a bad show when the networks are deciding to what to pick up, our criticism will be blamed for the cancellation. So it wasn't worth it to us to note the shows that were going to be pulled. Jim has always noted he would prefer that we cover 'news' and 'public affairs' programming. That's his preference and that may seem like an edict considering our output since the writers strike began. However, Ava and I are the final say in what we write and we are longing to return to entertainment television. We plan to mingle in campaign coverage from time to time but ideally will have an entertainment piece at by summer. In terms of, Becky's point, the CNN nonsense towards Hillary that we cover in this week's piece, it could have gone up here as Becky points out but we're doing TV there and we will probably (unless I really hit the roof on something) gather up things like that for Third in our TV commentaries.
Kyle notes that he has written twice to Third trying to get "TV: Satan tires a sitcom" mentioned. He and his wife are seeing non-stop reports in the last three weeks on the problems plaguing the set of the now cancelled Back to You. A lot of e-mails come in on the TV pieces and there's not time for them to all be noted in the roundtables (and mail bags aren't going to be done in an edition with roundtables because they're both transcript pieces). Unless Ty's taking a break, I don't go into the Third e-mail account. (After Puerto Rico, Ty will be taking a two week break from the e-mails and we'll all be picking up the slack. At present, it's mainly Ty and Dona reading those e-mails with help from Jim.) Yes, the set of that show was a nightmare. Yes, Kelsey Grammer and Patti Heaton were in huge conflict. Grammer was on two very funny shows and knows about comedy. Patti picked up Emmys as "the girl" on a popular show that didn't appreciate women and, honestly, wasn't that funny. They were in conflict from the beginning and it was a nightmare for many working on the show. I don't have time to go back and read that piece (or am using that as an excuse to avoid doing so) but what Ava and I were documenting, those conflicts, were known from the start. It was an effort at classic sitcom on Grammer's part and an effort at lowest common denominator on Patti's. I'm not surprised it's now being written about (I haven't seen anything but I have heard about some of it on the phone from friends) but it was known from the start. One of them should have been immediately replaced. My argument would be Patti should have been replaced. But the show could not gell (or even be a pleasant working experience) with two people thinking they were steering it and steering it in such opposite directions. It should also be noted that the actual concept was so weak from the beginning that both felt the need to steer. (As they should have, the problem was they were in conflict with what direction.) If anyone had been in charge at Fox, the smart thing to do would have been to have written Heaton out of the show by the third week. Instead, they kidded themselves that it would all work out. It never did. And it never would have because Grammer signed on for something in the tradition of his past shows and Patti thought the Raymond approach would become the show's approach. (In fairness to her, the only time you'll ever hear me say that of my nemisis Patti, with her character having a daughter and vague comments made at the start, she was led to believe the focus would be on the family. Just the fact that the cast -- all but the kid -- were playing co-workers should have told she was being hyped.) My thoughts on her 'acting' abilities are well known. Setting that aside, it was a mistake from the casting and was never going to recover. The attitude at the network appeared to be, let 'em duke it out and maybe we'll have a show. Trying to create a concept after you begin filming rarely (if ever) works. As much as I dislike Patti (intensely), I am sympathetic to what she went through. And it was not all her fault. That said, from the start Kelsey knew what was working and what wasn't and his points were more valid than her points were.
I believe that point is made by Ava and I in our piece. We also note that the two are mismatched (in terms of their styles). More importantly, the supporting cast was badly written and miscast as well. Montana started out a stereotype and when we shared that critique with a producer with the show we were told that a 'joke' would later be Montana wasn't actually Latina. Oh, that's funny. (That's saracasm.) She's a stupid stereotype and at some point (I don't know if they ever did) it would emerge that not only is she a stereotype, she's a White woman pretending to be a Latina. So not only do Latinas get insulted for numerous episodes, there's never a chance that at some point they'll get any representation. (We may hint at that in our piece -- we don't do spoilers, but I know we called that character out.) (To be clear, not having seen what's now being written, this wasn't a case of Kelsey not willing to work with a woman. Or Heaton having problems working with a man. The conflict was in their approaches and what they thought made for comedy. Ava and I side with Kelsey. Heaton's delivery was all wrong for the character and for the comedy. It worked for Raymond but Raymond wasn't that funny and has already moved from the big syndication channels to the minor ones. A sure sign to anyone paying attention that it wasn't all that. Raymond was Married With Children with less sparkle. Most comedies move quickly, Raymond depended on the slow burn and the overlong reaction shot. That was all it had to offer over and over. So Heaton moves at sub-speed and also favors gross-out comedy. That's not what Kelsey's career has been. He thought the show would be something along the lines of screwball comedy and that has to move quickly. The lines of banter between the two were supposed to be delivered lightly with an occasional bearing down. All Heaton knows is bearing down. It was not funny.) Kyle, I don't usually comment on our TV pieces here. I hope going into it in depth makes up for your points not being raised at Third but, at Third, it was a time issue.
Lewis notes a HUBdate and notes none appeared yesterday. That's because time ran out and I didn't have time to go through the e-mails for them. Here's Howard Wolfson's "HUBdate: 'Why I Continue To Run'" (HillaryClinton.com):
"Why I Continue To Run" Hillary wrote an op-ed in today's New York Daily News outlining her reasons for continuing to fight for the Democratic nomination: "I am running because I still believe I can win on the merits. Because, with our economy in crisis, our nation at war, the stakes have never been higher -- and the need for real leadership has never been greater -- and I believe I can provide that leadership." Read more.
Automatic Delegate Watch: Hillary received the endorsement of Georgia automatic delegate Verna Cleveland. "More than 17 million Americans have voted for Hillary Clinton in this primary election season and I am proud to continue to support Hillary with my delegate vote at the national convention in August in Denver," Cleveland said. Read more.
Puerto Rico's Champion: At a campaign stop in Aguadilla, Hillary told a crowd of supporters that she will fight for Puerto Rican families: "My commitment to Puerto Rico did not start last month or last year…I will be Puerto Rico's partner as president and your champion in the White House." Read more.
In Case You Missed It: "Media Hype -- How Small Stories Become Big News" Read more.
Today on the Trail: Hillary hosts "Solutions for Puerto Rican Families” events in Penuelas, Carolina, and San Juan, Puerto Rico.On Tap: Hillary will campaign in South Dakota on Wednesday, with a stop already planned at the Pine Ridge reservation. Read more.
Norah notes that nothing on Saturday went up at the mirror site. I'll be doing that after I finish "And the war drags on" as well as Monday morning's entry.
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.