Patriarchy:1000, Hillary:0

Posted February 13, 2008 | 10:35 AM (EST)




Ever since I wrote an article in the Washington Post ten days ago, I've been getting love letters from women and super-smart men and brickbats from the Hillary-Haters. Unfortunately the Hillary-Haters are in charge. They monopolize the networks, the newspapers, the talk shows -- both radio and TV. They are crossing their legs for fear of castration. They are wearing the body armor our troops never got. Or got too late to matter. They are determined that a woman will not prove herself competent as Commander in Chief.

What's their ammunition? Oh, it's simple. They call her Mrs. Clinton, not Ms. or Senator. They pull out those nutcrackers in the shape of her supposed thighs. They complain about her ankles -- too thick. They complain on Fox TV that "White women are the problem" -- (idiot boy Kristol, the brain-damaged scion of Irving who rose through nepotism like our unelected "president"). Then they say she has "baggage" -- which could mean wrinkles, or her husband, or her daughter Chelsea whom they say she is "pimping." Then they say she never divorced Bill -- as if it's anyone's business. Then they moon over Obama's rhetorical style. Then they make it appear that she's a drone or a worker bee and has no royal jelly. Or else she has royal jelly and is queen bee. And that's her problem.

If Bill defends her, he's a pimp. If he doesn't, he's a creep. If Chelsea campaigns, it's cynical. If Obama trots out those cute little girls Michelle gave birth to, he's a family man. If Michelle attacks Hillary, it's news. If Hillary attacks Michelle -- well she can't because that would be racist. All we need now is a black woman in this race -- Maya or Oprah or Toni or Gayle or Donna -- any of whom would be a far better president than the one we've still got (not to mention his surrogate Dad, Dick Cheney, his co war-criminal). You couldn't attack Oprah or Maya or Toni or Gayle or Donna because of their color. Wow -- what an idea! Oprah for President. I'd definitely vote for that. I adore Maya Angelou as both person and poet. Toni Morrison is a genius and a true progressive. Gayle King is an executive, mother, communicator. Donna B. is a spokeswoman on CNN. Oprah -- well, she's Oprah -- way beyond having a last name.

Let me tell you about the Hillary-Haters who fill my inbox, they can't spell. They also believe in witchcraft. They believe HRC boils eye of newt with unborn baby's hair and little Jewish children not yet circumcised. They think she had a child with Vince Foster (even though Chelsea looks much like Bill and even his mother), then murdered him. They think she will leave Iraq, not leave Iraq, give us universal health care, not give us universal health care, sanction the killing of fetuses, not sanction the killing of fetuses, defend Israel, not defend Israel, end the Death Tax, not end the Death tax.

Honey, they are all mixed up. But they know they hate. And not just her -- but lots of people and things and ideas.

Ho hum. We've seen this all before in the United States of Amnesia (Gore Vidal's brilliant phrase). Remember Geraldine Ferraro -- tarred with the brush of her Italian-American husband, whom they claimed was a mafioso? Remember Bella Abzug, attacked for her hats (which covered too large a brain)? Remember Eleanor Roosevelt, attacked for her teeth? Remember Victoria Woodhull (the first woman to run for president) "hanged" as a whore? Remember Emma Goldman rode out of town on a rail -- for being Jewish, liking to dance and supporting the rights of the working classes?

Perhaps you know the history. Most likely you don't. They'd rather you didn't know it. Hence trillions for guns and pennies for education. The military industrial complex needs your boys and your girls in Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan. But there's no one to guard the "homeland" -- a nice Hitlerian locution. Perhaps they'd rather you didn't know that every great empire -- from Persia to Greece to Rome -- fell when it spent more on war than on its people. This is history, kids. But we don't read history any more. History begins with Britney and ends with Paris.

I give up. If I have to watch another great American woman thrown in the dustbin of history to please the patriarchy, I'll move to Canada -- where they live four years longer than we because they have universal health care. Or Italy -- where Berlusconi played at being Mussolini but life is sweet anyway and people take vacations in August and at Chanukah (Christmas or Diwali or Kwaanza) and Passover (Easter).

Ok folks, stick your heads in the sand like Maureen Dowd who thinks we're not against women but just against Clinton "baggage." Or Barbara Walters who seems to have forgotten how viciously she was attacked when she got her first million dollar contract -- worth only half a million in Euros today.

Or Oprah who forgets she wasn't always Oprah -- I knew her when she had two names. She was always really smart, but she used to identify with women. And now she's joined the Obamarama. I get it. I understand. People want their own color in the White House (pun intended). And nobody said Barack wasn't brilliant.

But the truth is, we have no idea what he stands for. At least I don't. All we have are soundbites and attacks on "the" Clintons. But I guess the great American Amnesiate prefers it that way. And they always get what they deserve in the White House. Last time it was Dubya -- the dumb son of the CIA who showed them by never heeding their warnings. We lost Al Gore to sound bites about his nerdiness. Then we lost him again to hanging chads in Florida. We lost Adlai for being too intellectual. They used to say "egghead" in the olden days. And we lost Kerry to touch screens in Ohio and to election officials later indicted and tried and convicted. I didn't like him anyway. I especially hated his not returning fire at the Swiftboaters, and that stupid salute at the Democratic convention where Barack was born from the head of Athena.

Flip Flop, Flop Flip. This is the nature of our political dialogue. Might as well vote Repugnican as Democratic -- though I never have in my whole life. They're all just pols who secretly pledge to ignore fifty three percent of the population. And guess what? The fifty three percent is resigned to it. We don't like it. We wish it were otherwise. But we adore our sons and grandsons and husbands and fathers and grandfathers -- not to mention our nephews whom we happily nepotize.

One of my nephews works for Hillary. I bet his heart is breaking too.

Comments for this post are now closed


 

Comments
1614
Pending Comments
0

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

Hint sample
View Comments:
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next › Last » (25 pages total)

As voting citizen of NY, I find your remarks to be offensive and uninformed. I have voted for Hillary Clinton twice. From neither vote have I felt castrated. I even donated to her campaign months ago. Since then, time and time again, she has demonstrated that she doesn't understand the electorate. We want a president that is sorry that we all had to suffer through this war and make a foreign land suffer for the idealogy of a vocal few in this country. We want a president that thinks forward and doesn't rely on age-old solutions to new problems. We want a leader that doesn't attack other democratic party candidates for their own ends and at the expense of the party and the progress of this nation. Shame on you for making this a man against woman thing. You are the perfect example of a sexist. I am sorry you get this forum to express your uniformed views and bewilder us all with the details of your opulent lifestyle.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 01:32 AM on 02/25/2008

The Hillary & "Bill in a China Shop" show is in freefall.
There are two stages before political irrelevancy.
First the politician becomes the object of derision and then they become the object of pity. That is where HRC finds herself.
Hey, call me silly, but doesn"t her campaign remind you of the war in Iraq.
Bush was fixated on winning Baghdad, thinking that constituted victory and gave little thought to the aftermath.
HRC was fixated on winning Super Tuesday, feeling confident that she would have it wrapped up by then, so why bother with the caucus states.
Bush thought that the Iraqi people wanted democracy but what they really wanted was security.
HRC thought the American people wanted experience, but what they really wanted was change.
Bush thought that since he had the support of the Chalabis the support of the Iraqi people would follow.
HRC thought that if she had the support of the Rangels and Youngs, she would have the support of a core constituency.
Both Bush and HRC can be faulted for hiring people based on loyalty and a distant, secondarily, competence.
Neither Bush nor HRC can be accused of admitting to error.
Neither can be accused of humility.
Both feel that if you are not with them, you are against them.
Bush calls his enemies evil.
HRC threatens to "demonize" those who question her wisdom.
All of this is so old school!
Well a political Tsunami is sweeping across this land and I am reminded of a Dylan line, "Something is happening here and you don"t know what it is, do you Mr. Jones!"

Skycontrol 02/20/08

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 10:59 AM on 02/20/2008

Senator Obama is a stalking horse for Mussolini Mike Bloomberg--Wall Street/London's choice for American Mussolini. The intelligence community, it should be noted, profiles liberals, and figures out how to put one over on them.

The corporate media has heavily hyped Obama's campaign the last few months and the same corporate media, will end his campaign as fast as they hyped it.

The corporate media wants corporatist, fascist Bloomberg. The unfortunate senator Barry Obama has been their marketing gimmick. The Chicago skeletons arranged in his closet make it most unlikely that he will ever be president.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 11:47 PM on 02/18/2008

My candidate is Kucinich. But the war profiteering owned MSM wouldn't even let him debate.

Should I scream because the MSM is so against white men? Now it's just a wrestling match between the corporatist vetted candidates. I don't watch the MSM because it's 99.9% bull. Kristol and Fuks Noise are idiots. I wouldn't give them a second thought.

For me, it is not about race or sex, it is about issues, history and voting record. Senator Hillary Rodam Clinton is a DLC.ORG centrist, pro-war, corporatist.

As for Obama, This is a video of Obama being interviewed by the SF newspaper board. It's all issues. It is comforting to see that Obama is not just pretty rhetoric.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/object/article?f=/c/a/2008/01/20/EDIAUHASH.DTL&o=0

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 04:21 PM on 02/18/2008

PLZ. If you don't understand what Barack stands for, you just don't get it. Have you listened to him? Have you thought outside the box? You must be happy with the way our country has gone in the last 7 years. The Clinton's are more of the same and it is time that we break out of that mold. Hillary has allowed Bill to go out in public unchecked and he has managed to divide my Democratic party. I am over the "establishment."
If she had stood by HER convictions and RAN her campaign on her own maybe she would still have some credibility. I am a 50ish, white female and I can spell.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 10:41 AM on 02/18/2008

I am a life-long liberal Democrat, white female, Hillary Clinton's age, feminist, and an Erica Jong fan. I supported Bill and Hillary Clinton through eight years in the White House. I am a Barack Obama supporter, based on the issues and voting records. I have been angry with Hillary Clinton over some of her votes, but I will vote for her in November and fully support her if she is the nominee. I expect rational grownup Democrats to do the same regardless of who ends up being the nominee. Voting Republican is not an option for me under any circumstances - EVER. The Republicans have wrecked our economy and our government in the last seven years and will continue to do so until they destroy the Constitution, the Supreme Court, and the country if they remain in office.

We have two candidates from the Democratic Party running for president. One of them will be the nominee, and regardless of who that person is, responsible Democrats must vow to support that decision. The alternative is the destruction of all that we believe. John McCain and four to eight more years of Republican control will bring us a never-ending war in the Middle East and the continued pillaging of our treasury to pay for it, not to mention the innocent lives that will be lost. He will also bring more Scalias to the Supreme Court, GUARANTEEING the end of reproductive rights, civil rights, habeus corpus, detainee representation, and environmental rights.

If the loss of your rights is what any of you would prefer rather than to swallow your pride and vote for your party's nominee, then so be it. Hang your heads in shame. You and I both know that neither Barack Obama nor Hillary Clinton will destroy the Supreme Court - but the Republicans WILL. This I can promise: I SWEAR TO ALL MY SISTERS in this country that I will not be a party to causing them to lose all the rights, ESPECIALLY ROE VS. WADE, that we have spent decades achieving.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 11:42 PM on 02/17/2008

I believe that I am equal-opportunity in my non-support of Hillary, I think she makes a lot of promises, rather than talking about some much-needed reforms.
This country's pretty badly in the hole. That doesn't bode well for the future of independence, as such. In english, we're being bought out/sold out. I don't know who or what you chalk that up to, exactly, but there's been some trans-national fiscal funnybusiness that's a damn sight more important than any pie-in-the-sky that Hillary's selling. Sunshine singalongs won't end the war, either.
I still think Paul's the right choice. He's the only one out there not promising billions in handouts, though, so people are kind of ignoring him. Doesn't change much, but my feeling is, the Pandidates such as Hillary will likely draw bigger crowds, but the concept of Independence, the whole declaration thing, the whole 'impeach Cheney' concept, the whole idea of not having Texaco in the white house, that's pretty much Paul's direction. Hillary's more of a social engineer. For that matter, so is Barack. The law is the law is the law, and waffling on it has helped put this country into this war/not war state of being that's caused a lot of problems, blurring our borders, and burying people in debt. If Hillary thinks she can be a clear decision-maker, then by all means, more power to her, comma, the starting point is the Constitution, and an aversion to real estate bribe money, or payola from other sources. If she can turn out her pockets, and have clean karma in that regard, well, that's great, then I'd tentatively support her. But, those are the kind of issues that have nothing to do with gender, but rather public accountability.
Candidate: Are you now, or have you ever been, a real estate agent?

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 10:49 PM on 02/17/2008

WOW! 1600 comments.. I think you touched a nerve.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 09:08 PM on 02/17/2008

It seems to me that feminism is about dismantling structures of power that have kept women down for centuries. And there is really no debate about which of these two candidates does more to open the structures of power in this country to the disempowered--women and men alike. And it is not the person who lived in the white house for 8 years.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 08:59 PM on 02/17/2008

OK, if Hillary wants to claim responsibility for Bill"s Presidency then below is a laundry list of baggage from that era, which is reason enough for her not to be President in her own right.


Insider trading
Whitewater land deal scandal
Travelgate
Obstruction of justice regarding Vince Foster"s suicide
Suspicions of bribery involving NY Hasidic Jews during her run for the Senate
The self-serving pardons of Mark Rich, Almon Glenn Braswell, and Carlos Vignali (to name a few)
Standing idly by and watched genocide take place in Rwanda
Exchanging earmarks for endorsements


And the list goes on and on¦.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 08:42 PM on 02/17/2008

This really needs to stop. A loss by Hillary Clinton isn't any more a victory for patriarchy than a loss by Obama would have been a victory for white supremacy.

The biggest factor undoing her is her war vote. THAT should be the lesson of this primary, not "women will never be able be President". Feminism and opposition to stupid wars are both two noble causes, and you're doing both a disservice.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 08:27 PM on 02/17/2008

Yes! BrooklynLager has it right. Ms. Jong is way off here. I'm actually a little offended, and I don't offend easily. And yes, I am a woman and a femininst.

Ms. Jong, you say you don't even know what Barack Obama stands for. Well, lots of other people do. (He did write a book, you know.) Grow up. It's not always about race or gender.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 10:26 PM on 02/17/2008

I agree with BrooklynLager. Miss Jong is over the top with her comments. Trying to outdo the hate mongers with more angry fulmination is not a useful strategy to advance feminism or opposition to the war.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 09:13 PM on 02/17/2008

Polls are only as good as the vote count. The problem, will the votes be counted in November 2008? We have seen problems in the Democratic Primary of votes not being counted choose your State, New Hampshire, New Mexico, California(Los Angeles), New York¦etc. We know it will require a massive turnout to win this election. Only a paper ballot process throughout the United States will bring much needed integrity to what we call paper trail. The question we have to ask ourselves, who of the too candidates could accomplish this mission?

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 07:48 PM on 02/17/2008

And yet, you know, many years after that, when many people are pronouncing welfare reform a great success, you know, we"ve got growing child poverty, we have more children in poverty and in extreme poverty over the last six years than we had earlier in the year. When an economy is down, and the real test of welfare reform is what happens to the poor when the economy is not booming. Well, the poor are suffering, the gap between rich and poor widening. We have what I consider one of"a growing national catastrophe of what we call the cradle-to-prison pipeline. A black boy today has a one-in-three chance of going to prison in his lifetime, a black girl a one-in-seventeen chance. A Latino boy who"s born in 2001 has a one-in-six chance of going to prison. We are seeing more and more children go into our child welfare systems, go dropping out of school, going into juvenile justice detention facilities. Many children are sitting up"15,000, according to a recent congressional GAO study"are sitting up in juvenile institutions solely because their parents could not get mental health and health care in their community. This is an abomination.


Or please tell me if this women, in her open letter to Hillary Clinton, is a filthy woman hating liar and right wing conspiracist:

http://www.counterpunch.org/cole02082008.html

How are you a champion of women and children while in bed with frankenfood giants like Monsanto? Please-if these charges are false address them and show PROOF to the contrary.

Don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining and please don't try to tell me that legitimate questions about the specifics of Hillary Clinton's 35 years of change are simply sexist, personal, ignorant attacks.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 07:33 PM on 02/17/2008

Please read this interview between Amy Goodman and Marianne Wright Edelman :http://www.democracynow.org/2007/7/24/childrens_defense_funds_marian_wright_edelman

The most telling part of this exhange follows:

AMY GOODMAN: Marian Wright Edelman, we just heard Hillary Rodham Clinton. She used to be the head of the board of the Children"s Defense Fund, of the organization that you founded. But you were extremely critical of the Clintons. I mean, when President Clinton signed off on the, well, so-called welfare reform bill, you said, "His signature on this pernicious bill makes a mockery of his pledge not to hurt children." So what are your hopes right now for these Democrats? And what are your thoughts about Hillary Rodham Clinton?

MARIAN WRIGHT EDELMAN: Well, you know, Hillary Clinton is an old friend, but they are not friends in politics. We have to build a constituency, and you don"t"and we profoundly disagreed with the forms of the welfare reform bill, and we said so. We were for welfare reform, I am for welfare reform, but we need good jobs, we need adequate work incentives, we need minimum wage to be decent wage and livable wage, we need health care, we need transportation, we need to invest preventively in all of our children to prevent them ever having to be on welfare.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 07:31 PM on 02/17/2008

I may have changed my vote, but I still wish Hillary well and do not spend my time trashing her. On the contrary I'm constantly sickened by what I hear or read with re to Hillary. It's horrible. People are bullies, hypocrites, and yes, sexists. We are not going to begin reversing the tide, however, if we keep promoting the word "hate." It's become so commonplace that we don't even flinch anymore. I wish people (including her campaign) would start objecting to the constant inclusion of this word. I've "hated" Bush and his policies for years now, and I'm by no means alone. But not once have I heard the word hate used when Bush's name is raised. That, my friends, is no coincidence.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 07:29 PM on 02/17/2008

Some of it's just human nature -- especially in forums like this one, where there's pretty much anonymity. We can find lashing out going on amongst people of ALL stripes, creeds, political parties, etc. People seem to need bad guys these days. Luckily, we're not the ones running to be leader of the free world!

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 09:27 PM on 02/17/2008

Dear Erica Jong,
If you wrote in this article that the reason you support Hillary Clinton over Barack Obama is because she's a centrist who'll get more done. We could have logical debate about why you feel that, why I disagree, and we'd probably go off not feeling totally sickened by engaging in that debate.

When you start on this tiresome claptrap, I have to tune you out. This arguement is wearing so thin-T.I.R.E.D.

Don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining.

Hillary Clinton, over her 35 years of change, has managed to throw women and children under the bus with her policies and the policies she supported under her husband's watch.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 07:29 PM on 02/17/2008

Tastic:
What a refreshing post.
A lot of "liberals" are showing their true colors. We expect the right wing to be racist, sexist and elitist. But when the Krugmans, Jongs and Steinems act similarly it is fking depressing..... Where were the liberals and feminists when the Clintons threw Lani Guinier and Monica Lewinsky under the bus? If it was the CEO of Enron who had stained a blue dress, call me naive, but I think the reaction would have been quite different. Now we know who we can depend on when the going gets rough. Thank you Paul, Erica and Gloria.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 12:04 AM on 02/19/2008

Tastic - you mean like Clinton helping David and Susan Axelrod's children and their life cause to cure epilepsy for children and others:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/01/magazine/01axelrod.t.html?_r=3&pagewanted=5&adxnnlx=1203225155-It983aFml9FuWgXuQ1RcOg&oref=slogin
It was January 1999, President Clinton"s impeachment trial was just beginning in the Senate and Hillary Clinton was scheduled to speak at the foundation"s fund-raiser in Chicago. Despite all the fuss back in Washington, Clinton kept the appointment. She spent hours that day in the epilepsy ward at Rush Presbyterian hospital, visiting children hooked up to machines by electrodes so that doctors might diagram their seizure activity and decide which portion of the brain to remove. At the hospital, a local reporter pressed her about the trial in Washington, asked her about that woman. At the organization"s reception at the Drake Hotel that evening, Clinton stood backstage looking over her remarks, figuring out where to insert anecdotes about the kids. "She couldn"t stop talking about what she had seen," Susan Axelrod recalled. Later, at Hillary Clinton"s behest, the National Institutes of Health convened a conference on finding a cure for epilepsy. Susan Axelrod told me it was "one of the most important things anyone has done for epilepsy." And this is how politics works: David Axelrod is now dedicated to derailing this woman"s career.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 09:01 PM on 02/17/2008

GWB is not charismatic, and he has no speaking skills.
What you are basically saying is that anyone who can charm us should be President of the United States. That's shallow and silly. I want a leader that knows what to do and how to can get things done. That's not Barack Obama. He knows how to charm us.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 07:10 PM on 02/17/2008

Nothing was ever his fault.

Nothing is ever her fault.

If one disagrees with them such person must be a tool of rightwing extremists, a bigot (closeted or out and out), or just not too bright.

And, if events are not going to suit them, well break out the umbrellas because the self pity is going to come pouring down (he with the red face and the wagging finger, she with the narrowed eyes and the set jaw).

No, the record numbers of voters taking part in the Democratic nominating process this year should just stay at home because they are obviously too dumb or too prejudiced to make informed decisions.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 07:09 PM on 02/17/2008

I'm sorry if it seems wrong to you that "Senator ?Clinton" has lost my vote, but she has done so because of her support of the war and her willing embrace of special interests and corporations.

Your broad brush stroke seems to be made more out of frustration than logic.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 06:49 PM on 02/17/2008

Obama supports this war as well with his funding votes. Clinton has a chance to get us out. What does Obama know about this? Just because he gave a "speech" does not deem him capable of getting the U.S. out of Iraq without disaster. I have heard specifics with Clinton's plan, not with Obama's. The only thing I have heard is the tired line, "I will be as careful getting the troops out as Bush was careless going in". Sure that sounds nice, what EXACTLY does his careful plan entail?

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 08:02 PM on 02/17/2008

Supporting the troops who are already in harm's way is different from supporting the authorization of war in the first place. Ms. Clinton belongs to second category; Obama, the first. The problem with Ms. Clinton is that she wants it both ways. She is both the pro-war candidate and the anti-war candidate. And, she flip flops when she gets cornered. As to the "speech", it is one speech (available here: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Barack_Obama's_Iraq_Speech ) that Ms. Clinton was incapable of giving or unwilling to give, despite her supposed anti-war sentiments. As to getting out: I am averse to any specific (as opposed to broad) plans one year in advance -- i.e. when either Obama or Clinton would be sworn in. The situation on the ground is fluid, a moving target that requires the many, many variables to be taken into account.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 11:00 PM on 02/17/2008

I think the American public should be spanked
for not being nice to Hillary!
At the very least, maybe we should take away their right to vote.
It's just not right. Just a lot of stupid people saying all these bad things about her when we all know it's just because she is a female and that's just not right!
Yeah, that's it!

Spin it however you like, I'm still voting for
Barak Obama.


favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 06:32 PM on 02/17/2008

Don't count me in your 53%. I don't like being associated with your brand of feminism, even though I'm your age and gender, and a strong feminist.

You need to take a step back from your anger and frustration over your reason d'etre, the gender war. Hillary is one of the reasons why we spend more on war than education, she's not the solution. She voted us into this endless occupation, remember?

Please, go over to Obama's website and do some reading. Obama supporters don't depend upon the main stream media to show/tell them what they need to know about the candidates, and you shouldn't either. You'll find that Obama's got some good ideas, an excellent record of competence and success, and a refreshing approach to solving our problems without us having to hate our Republican neighbors anymore.

I'm tired of the vast, right-wing conspiracy approach. And I'm tired of people telling me that I'm a victim.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 06:16 PM on 02/17/2008

i totally appreciate your sentiments. what is disappointing to me is that we expect the right wing to be racist, sexist and elitist. but to see the krugmans, jongs, and steinems act similarly is a real let down. now we know who our real friends are!

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 11:45 PM on 02/18/2008

The new campaign strategy is to demean Barack Obama as the new "Messiah who can walk on water" ...touted by both Clinton AND McCain. Are these the politics that will change the country or keep it the way Rove wanted it?

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 06:00 PM on 02/17/2008

Skycontrol:
I like Obama. But unlike you I don't put my hands over my ears and scream "No-no-no-I-can't-hear-you," when the facts are clear. And you can forget about those polls that show Obama beating McCain. These are pre-GOP-crucifixion-of-Obama polls.
If Obama gets the nomination, the GOP will SWIFTBOAT him on his voting record. See the following article about Obama's voting record in Illinois and please read to the end before you demonize me or anyone who disagrees with you: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/17/politics/main2369157.shtml

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 05:22 PM on 02/17/2008

Susan:
You seem to believe that Kerry lost because of Swift Boating. He lost because he was an extraordinarily mediocre candidate running an amazingly inept campaign. Remember when Bush asked him, "If you knew back then what you know now, would you still have supported the war?" And Kerry said, "Yes." He lost thousands of votes, including mine. I witnessed directly the mediocrity of the Kerry campaign. I worked on two commercials three weeks before the election. They were directed by a man who had graduated from film school four years prior. He knew nothing about commercials or communicating. They had a POW talking about Kerry's heroism in battle. The logical question would be, how would he know? The second commercial featured one of the "Jersey Girls" who were instrumental in realizing the 9/11 Commission. She complained that they were putting words in her mouth. All of us were amazed by the amateur effort and we took turns correcting their English and offering constructive criticism. No one is claiming that Obama is a mediocre candidate and that he is running an inept campaign. In fact, there is a good chance that campaigns in the future will look to his as a model. So stop with the Swift Boating nonsense, it is boring. McCain has huge negatives. His stance on the war is opposed by over 60% of Americans. Many in his party do not consider him a true conservative and are adamantly opposed to his stance on illegal immigration. Additionally, we are in a recession and he admits that economics is not one of his strong points. The intelligent Obama campaign should be able to counter whatever they throw their way. Keep hope alive! This will be my last post to you.