It is the night after the primary in Indiana, and Julia's endorsement has not helped the situation. What will Julia's mother think about this?
When divorcing, who gets the house? The issue is unclear.
Recently I was part of a group of women who filmed public service announcements for an organization called Women's Voices. Women Vote. The goal of the PSA campaign is to encourage high voter turn-out amongst women, especially single women, 20 million of whom have been known to stay home on Election Day. It is an issue about which I am deeply passionate. However, there have been reports about WVWV which questioned the intention behind my PSA and which candidate I am endorsing for president. For the record, I am proudly supporting Senator Barack Obama.
The news reports came about because there was evidence that an individual or a small group of individuals affiliated with WVWV may have issued misleading robo-calls in North Carolina designed to suppress voter turnout in African American neighborhoods. I find these activities appalling and hope WVWV will immediately disassociate themselves from such individuals and denounce such actions.
I am not affiliated with WVWV in any way other than participating in this PSA campaign, and I debated whether to ask WVWV to pull my PSA from their website. In the end, I realized the message of the PSA is more important than the actions of some its members. Every woman, 18 or older, should exercise their right to vote for the candidate and the issues they believe in. As women, we are a powerful voting bloc. But that does not mean we will automatically align with female candidates.
My spot was set in a replica of the Oval Office and entitled "Who Do You Want in Here?" This was meant as a legitimate question, not to serve as an endorsement for a particular candidate. The PSA was meant to inspire women to vote regardless of their party or their position. The PSA, like me, is not pro-Clinton, but rather pro-women. And yes, you can be both.
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

It is the night after the primary in Indiana, and Julia's endorsement has not helped the situation. What will Julia's mother think about this?
When divorcing, who gets the house? The issue is unclear.
So Elaine was portrayed as a Clinton supporter by Clinton supporters.
Would this qualify then as yet another dirty trick by the Clintsters?
Our plot so far: Hillary dodging gun fire; Hillary smearing Obama Mccarthy-style on past associations: the Clinton gang making a hundred mill and calling Obama elitist: Hillary playing Annie Oakley; Hillary playing Dirty Hillary -- I will obliterate Iran!
Pretty sick. Has she no decency?
No. The end justifies the means.
I'm bummed that NOW endorsed Hillary so early (and at all).
I'm not donating to them anymore.
I support Barack Obama.
I'm stunned that a Hollywood liberal would support my guy Obama.
I thought for sure she'd break for McCain.
I applaud Ms. L-D's independent thinking.
And I look forward, like she does, to seeing what happens when normal non-"progressive" voters get to weigh in this fall.
Character is not fair game.
Character is not an issue.
Hope is an issue.
So is change,
I don't know what they mean, other than as general terms, but Obama gives great pseudo-revival house style speeches so I'm down.
BHO '08!!
I wonder if Julia Louise Dreyfus also support's Barack Obama's racist anti-white church? Did she consider pulling her endorsement for Obama when she discovered he attended a racist church for 20 years?
Or maybe she should consider McCain's anti Catholic Rev Haggee? (there's more Catholics than Blacks in America)
or maybe she should support Hillary "I'll say anything for your vote" Clinton?
Tough choice, beetlejuice.....which one do you prefer?
Beetle - You are engaging in guilt-by-association, which, ironically, is exactly why Ms. Louis-Dreyfus wrote this clarification. She made it abundantly clear that she was in no way associated either with the Clinton campaign or the individuals responsible for those reprehensible robo-calls.
Senator Obama has clearly and unequivocally repudiated the objectionable comments made by Reverend Wright. This is far more than Senator McCain has done in relation to his endorsements by Pastors Hagee and Parsley, one of whom advocates nuclear war with Iran, the other of whom believes the hand of God helped found the United States in order to destroy Islam.
Senator Obama, in dealing with the Reverend Wright issue, actually acted a couple of months ago in a classically Christian way. He made it clear he loved the sinner and hated the sin. It was only after a distinctly personal attack - Reverend Wright mischaracterized Senator Obama's comments about him and personally demeaned the senator's character in general - that Senator Obama made a clear, unequivocal break with his former pastor.
Obama is not racist though many blacks are.
Okay, I strongly disagree with that and if you do not mind could you explain the reason that you think that.
We are all racist to one degree or another. Racism begets racism. The most effectively desegregated organizations in the U.S. are the military and athletics, but even there it sometimes rears its head.
Can you say,
No
Traction
Didn't think so.
Wow, really? The congregation takes on the thoughts and opinions of its pastor?
I imagine you are a Clinton supporter. With your logic, you are - if not outright racist - one who panders, winks, and nods to racists. You don't believe in education or in letting people trained in a profession to give expert opinion on it. You don't believe in math, or in solid goals. You are fine with a cheating spouse as long as it helps your career along. You can go to Ivy League schools and then pretend to be "of the people". You want to irradiate 50 plus million people for the potential actions of *their* leadership. You will send our sons and daughters off to die in a war you KNEW was wrong, but didn't disagree because you didn't want to look soft.
That's a start. Others can add.
And yes, while not African-American, other than a few comments, I have no real opposition to the stuff Jeremiah Wright has said. One, it's nowhere near as awful as the Falwells/Robertsons/Hagels of this world. Hell, Billy Graham was an anti-Semite and no one ever had to denounce (and reject) him. And two, if I were an elderly black man in this country, I'd probably be just as pissed off.
More to the point, Wright said these things. Obama didn't. Hillary didn't get head from Monica Lewinsky, but she condoned it. Does that count too? I mean, according to Carville, she's got three balls.
Amen!
Now that stinks...you attempt to do something good, and in accomplishing that you risk becoming associated with the evil that is the fringe element that uses hate to put "their" Republicans - or the closest substitute they can find - in office.
I'm not one to pray to a "God" to strike down such elements, but I'm certainly not above hoping that karma is in a horribly bad mood the next time the scales are balanced...
Too bad there is no good way to encourage only the folks who are smart enough to cast an intelligent vote to get themselves to the voting booth. Contrary to what a lot of people think, there are many folks in this Country who are too ill informed or too dimly lit to trust with the right to vote.
Ain't it the truth! I feel seriously annoyed when I discuss politics and someone says they can't stand Clinton, Obama, Bush, or McCain then can't come up with one single fact to support their opinion. I know why I don't like Bush and McCain.
Then there are those who say they support Clinton and can only come up with either "She's a woman" or "Bill Clinton was a good president". What does either tell us about her as president? Just as irritating are the people who say they support Obama because he is an inspirational speaker or simply because he has black skin even though he sounds like a white Kansan and has a white mother who raised him after his black Kenyan father abandoned them.
Excellent read Julia, insightful and well done!
Thank you Julia
i disagree with who she supports but I do think it's important to get as many people out as possible to vote. they"ll need it if he gets the nomiation. male 26 won't vote for a guy with less experience than the loser currently in that office i'm not the only one either. I fully support the right to vote or not vote. In past elections I ws a big proponent of the australian way of doing it, you vote or you get a nice fine in the mail. This time eh stay home I'm having a day of political movies and comedies esp since if he wins or loses it will be a nightmare either way for either 4 years he won't be re-elected or 8yrs when everyone regrets ever voting for him and gives the next reagan or nixon a shot at winning.
the experience argument is something that always puzzled me. It's really quite unconvincing when you take a historical view on past presidencies. Some of our worst presidents, such as Nixon, were extremely experienced (member of the house, senate, and former VP) and some of the best had very little experience, like Lincoln (who was only a state senator before becoming president - arguably less experience than even Obama has). Clearly this is somewhat of a selective reading, but that's exactly my point: there's very little evidence that experience is much of an indicator of anything. To further illustrate my point, if experience was a critical factor, it would logically follow that 2nd term presidents would be much more effective than first term presidents, but one need not look very hard to discover that this hasn't been true in many situations (clear example: our current president, who has vastly more 'presidential experience' than any current contender for the spot, and yet enjoys some of the lowest approval ratings in history).
Okay would you really mind explaining your dislike for Obama, which is obviously who you are talking about even though you didn't mention a name. And also, please tell me what kind of experience does any of the other canindates have that he doesn't because the last time I checked...NO ONE HAS EXPERIENCE BEING A PRESIDENT UNLESS THEY WERE PREVIOUSLY A PRESIDENT...female, 23, will vote for a man that she feels and believes will make a change and get me and my friends out of Iraq, Afganistan, Kuwait and everywhere else! And I wouldn't call being a First Lady (if that's what they called her) experience. And McCain...PLEEEEAAASSSSEEEE!!!
You don't care that Clinton had here hands in this. At any point that does not give you reason to wonder why we as Obama supporter would think that she DIRTY?
I am very, very glad that Ms.Louis-Dreyfus wrote this, because Emily's List has been in the news an awful lot lately, and the folks who run that shop have been pretty clear about their Hillary-or-bust stance. I think that their statements may have created the false impression that any group that focuses on the role of women in the political arena automatically supports Hillary, and that's simply. Not. True.
Good for you, Julia. Smart chicks that vote are hot ;-b
Wow. This woman should run for the presidency. It is so refreshing to hear honesty and substance.
It is my understanding that you are not alone with this problem.
Try to do something nice, and some douchies come along and make it more trouble than it's worth!!!
Thanks for the good intentions, you're a doll, and funny as hell, too.
Julia,
Thanks for speaking honestly and supporting quite a noble cause.
Citizen of the US and NC
When I read that last week in N.C. news, I contacted a local official and they said they were dealing with it and are very concerned. One name that popped up was ....a former member of Bill Clinton's administration, John Podests...remember him? Well, it is now being investigated diligently. Also PA race was expected to see voter fraud, in turn, officials were called in to monitor. I think they know many of the wins in state's for Hillary Clinton were skewed, but, watching more closely now. I think Nevada, Texas and New Hampshire were definitly skewed.
We the people of USA should back someone for president not because of their gender, age or race. Rather, we should elect someone who can bring us together and best lead this country to be the best it can be.
OBAMA 08
Now you see that is the kind of talk that I like to hear..
GOD BLESS YOU OBAMANATION31
Thank you for your clairification. And, I agree that the original intent of WVWV- to get out the single female vote is such an important one. I do believe this group has been linked to this same type of deceptive calling in 11 other states during this primary, including my state of Virginia. They acted illegally in some states by either falsely identifying who they were or not identifying themselves at all. An organization IS accountable for the actions of any of it's membership, especially such well-organized and methodical actions.
Perhaps, another PSA to warn unsuspecting voters (they targeted the AA community, not just single females) of this deceptive practice would be helpful.
Well played, Ms. Louis-Dreyfuss. I appreciate the clarification.
I think it will take some major deconstruction for WVWV to lose this baggage - all the consultants who responsible for this are on their leadership team!
Julia, I knew you were funny and could act, but I had no idea you were politically adept as well. A triple threat! Way to go on your post. It was well taken.
but you know you would have to have s-x.
Get out of here Julia : You're just upset that you are not "The Candidate".
If you're not with us....
Pro-woman is good, however people need to understand that voting for someone just because of what is between their legs does not good politics make.
First things first:
I LOVE THE ADVENTURES OF OLD CHRISTINE!
Ok, about your post - thank you for clarifying and for being so cool about it. Very classy.
Posted May 2, 2008 | 09:52 PM (EST)