I mean, come on--is this why liberals and the left want to elect, re-elect or promote Hillary Clinton? Because she fought against foreign ownership of our ports?

No, but it may be a way of getting a few additional independents and disaffected Republicans to vote for Hillary - especially in New York where the terrorism issue remains a big motivator. Hence the use of noted movie tough guy Robert DeNiro. The base is going to vote for Clinton anyway - they don't need a lot of additional motivation.

I assume Clinton's campaign is all about increasing her margin at this point, so as to maintain her status as the party "frontrunner." There might also be an effort to experiment with certain messages to see how they play among swing voters or in particular districts in advance of 2008. Your phone number was probably just included in a larger sweep targetting more than just the base.

What's interesting is that you don't remember much about the phone message other than the point about the ports. But it's clear you also remember the most important message from the call: "Robert DeNiro is voting for Hillary."

Interesting post. My sister, who is an absentee New York State voter, has decided to skip the elections this year. Her lack of enthusiasm for Clinton because of her record on Iraq and because of Clinton's lack of leadership on any progressive issues (as well as the lack of any close battles in her districts) is prompting her to pass. I couldn't mount a reasonable argument against her stance. Somehow this call from deNiro would not have helped.

Excellent post, workerbee! Hillary is a wonderful candidate for us and she's going to be our next president! Remember The Progressive Motto: "JUST SHUT UP AND VOTE!"

it's called the "new bosses replacing the old bosses but the business is the same." Unlike some of our Democratic friends, some of us want to change the direction this country is going, not simply change the leadership taking us over the cliff. It doesn't mean not voting, but it means at a minimum letting these centrists know enough of their tiptoeing in opposition to the right-wing, fascist-wannabees and not applauding every sellout as a "great political maneuver".

From New York Magazine's "Intelligencer" section in the Nov. 6 issue, in a piece on listing how New Yorkers could still help out either party if one was was interested, this brag in the GOP section was interesting on the GOTV matter:

Also related to GOTV, John Heileman's article in the same issue on the GOP's Pelosi gambit is very interesting and also frightening as to what he argues might be the possible results.

The call I would have liked to receive from Robert DeNero:

Greetings, fellow voter and concerned citizen.  I know you're going to go to the polls and vote for Hillary Clinton. But before you do, call someone you know in Virginia or Montana or Missouri or Rhode Island, or next door in Connecticut or Pennsylvania, and urge them to get out and vote for the democratic candidate in their state.  We need to take back this congress.

While you're at it, drop a few bucks in their campaign kitties.  Hillary has plenty already.  Send her colleagues on her side of the aisle, and reward her for being a good Senator from New York by getting her a chairmanship of a Committee or Sub-committee.  Your buddy,

Bob.

aMike

I don't believe that the venom for Pelosi is just a fear and hatred of her being liberal, from SF or a Democrat. Likewise I don't think that the critique of Katharine Jefferts Schori soon to be installed as the head of the US Episcopal Church is just about her support of gays in the church.

I believe the unspoken issue of many is a woman in a major leadership role. 

Pelosi has a retort that I think is great, and effective to counter the out of the mainstream picture: I am an Italian, Catholic mother of 5 and grandmother of 5 going on 6.

As to her skills as a leader she sounds tough when talking about how she will lead but I am looking to  see how she handles the committee chairmanships. The tradeoffs for intelligence chair will say alot to me. Whatever issues she has with Jane Harman the alternative choices I've seen discussed are less credible as intellence experts and come with significant downsides.

I am interested in how Pelosi is trying to create a new leadership model that will work for her. She is smart to improve what she has but to stay close to what she is so that she does not have to try to be something in a job that is 7 days a week.

She is visually and from what I hear/read unlike the almost manly, asexual Golda Meir, Margaret Thatcher and Indira Ghandi. Since she has neither their look nor the stature to try to carry off a pseudo male look she keeps her feminine look (color, hair, jewelry) but wears tailored suits.

In words and tone she is a leader in process. I read somewhere, and now cannot find, that she has been working with media type consultants to improve how she communicates ideas in interviews (eg Sunday talk shows) and speeches. From her recent tv interviews she is succinct and clear.  I watch and listen to how uses tough language and exhibits authority along the lines of the matriarch. She subtly emphasizes it with the Italian mother/grandmother.

The most difficult for a leader who is a female is to be challenging and a fighter in ways that reduce the use of labels such as shrill, feisty, etc. Death to a woman in authority.

I recently finished former HP CEO Carly Fiorina's memoir. She highlights her belief in the importance of and her skill in dealing with people. Not a bleeding heart but someone who deals ith her own heart and considered those of the others in her realm.  I don't believe she was booted for business failings of a kind that would have gotten a male fired. She had taken corporate risks, had business failing but the clincher was that she was a strong leader who was a woman. The performance standard is higher for those who don't fit in. If what she says is true that the Board never said to her face that she was fired (they sent a couple of attorneys) that says it all. She probably never had their respect. She did get their money, CEO experience and quite the public platform.

A simplistic, condescending view of leadership male and female and Carly Fiorina:

...Leadership will change when women are not afraid to be women in business and men who are not afraid to use their feminine brain to close the breach of chaos. Daniel Goleman’s social intelligence paradigm is not only a little too much, but misleading. He should have stuck to “Emotional Intelligence” which is the intelligence that is least understood and most abused.

Carly Fiorina male speak does not serve her well. “When I finally reached the top after striving my entire career to be judged by results and accomplishments, the coverage of my gender, my appearance and the perceptions of my personality would vastly outweigh anything else,” suggests she had forgotten the rule that had served her so well as a secretary, from which she rose to the top.

Every secretary knows this rule: lead by listening, move immovable objects by whispering wisdom into the ear of the monster, and let the monster take credit, as your influence rules.

[emphais mine]

I never had a secretary that wasn’t smarter than I was; never had a secretary that wasn’t wiser than I was, and never had a secretary that had to roll her shoulders and lead with her chin, as I did, to get things done.

...I wish her well as she invites that secretary in her soul back in her future endeavors. 

Clueless.  A CEO who is a woman should not follow a leadership model appropriate for a secretary.