Mark Fuhrman
- Who Does He Hate More? (or "MAW") Black men? Or Women?
"Don't make me choose. I can't choose..." - Meryl Streep's title-character in the 1982 film "Sophie's Choice"
Roiling in the undertow of this election -- largely unspoken in polite circles -- yet constantly in the consciousness of a large percentage of the American electorate -- is a simple dilemma.
And -- indirectly -- it affects how Democrats who wish their party to win the White House in November should vote in the Primaries.
In William Styron's 1979 novel Sophie's Choice -- the title character (memorably portrayed by Meryl Streep in Alan J. Pakula's 1982 screen adaptation) is forced to choose between two utterly unbearable choices -- both of which will cause her inconsolable grief.
Consider then the dilemma for Mark Fuhrman -- and the tens of millions of unrepentant Mark Fuhrmans in this nation. They are Angry White Men. Racist. And misogynist. Two foul prejudices for the price of one. Perhaps the best value in hatred in America today...
Who would they rather NOT see in the White House.
A black man? Or a woman?
And based on who they would rather NOT see -- Democrats should perhaps vote accordingly.
Mark Fuhrman is recalled by most -- except those at Fox News Channel who for some reason insist on aiding and abetting him in his constant attempts at image rehabilitation -- as a flagrant racist. Despite having denied using the "N" word in the preceding ten years, audio-tape evidence was produced at the first OJ Simpson murder trial of him bragging about beating black men (he always called them "niggers") and multiple usages of the "N" word.
Perhaps less remembered was the evidence that proved unequivocally that he was a member of a secret organization within the LAPD with the sweet acronym "MAW" -- Men Against Women. Men who were proud to proclaim how much they hated women. (Except of course as sexualized objects.)
Yes -- like a very large number of American men under the veneer -- Mark Fuhrman was also a flaming, unrepentant misogynist.
And as much as he despised black men -- he hated women even more. Especially women in a position of power. The scorn he felt was specifically against women in the LAPD. Women who had the temerity to be his equal or (God forbid) his superior.
Such a tough "Sophie's Choice" for Mark Fuhrman -- and millions more Angry White Men in the USA. Who do you hate MORE?
Who would you hate MORE in the presidency?
A black man? Or a woman?
Black men stir deep feelings of sexual inadequacy in racist white men. Especially black men who are overtly African-American in their looks, style and manner.
But as much as they fear and hate black men -- there is something that they fear and hate even MORE. And that is women. Especially women with their own minds and voices.
It would take a slew of Sigmund Freuds to explain the reasons for the attitudes of such men.
The evidence of the past few months suggests to me that the deeply ingrained misogynism of many white men in this nation is even more pronounced than their equally repugnant racism.
(And that doesn't even address the self-loathing and self-doubt of many women.)
Faced with an extraordinarily talented African-American man -- who presents himself with the elan of a dapper, young Colin Powell and with none of the stereotypical imagery associated (in the fearful minds of racists) with the Angry Black Man -- or a woman who expresses herself forcefully and sometimes with anger -- I think those Angry White Men would find a female President even more untenable than a black president.
Barack Obama might be a black man - or more accurately half Africoid and half Caucasian - (from his Kansas-born white mother who's given first name was Stanley no less) - but worst case scenario - he is still a MALE. And THAT is a gender that Angry White Men can comprehend.
Hillary Clinton might be white -- but she is indubitably a WOMAN.
Angry White Men may sub-consciously fear being bested by black Men sexually. But even more than that -- they sub-consciously fear being castrated by a Woman.
So -- when it comes to what is more likely to stir the passions of those Angry White Men to vote AGAINST the Democratic candidate for President in November -- I think it is highly possible that a Hillary Clinton candidacy might inflame them even more than a Barack Obama candidacy.
A safe, polite, nicely-presented man with an African father -- as unpalatable as that might be to racist white Men -- is less intolerable than a strong woman.
Very few of those Angry White Men will be tempted to vote FOR Obama over McCain. But I suspect that they would be LESS moved to vote against OBAMA than they would be to vote against the ultimate terror -- A FEMALE PRESIDENT.
If Obama won the election -- those Angry White Men would then have to face four years of a president identical to every president since America started electing them in 1789 -- a man. And having an identical mother to them -- a Caucasian woman. His primary visual difference to them? He had an African father.
But if Hillary Clinton won the election -- those Angry White Men would have to face four years of a presidency that would be truly revolutionary. And even more anathema to them. A WOMAN.
And for an Angry White Man -- that is Change You Can GRIEVE In.
It is far more appalling a prospect to that large disturbed constituency than the urbane, dapper, politely respectful Obama.
Especially a Metrosexual man who is preaching "Kumbaya" and the intention of confronting those opposed to him with a smile and conciliatory Rodney King-like "can we all get along?" talk.
So -- much to the bafflement of scores of HuffPo readers who have consistently challenged my repeated declaration that my primary agenda is the well-being of the Democratic Party - and have accused me of being anti-Obama and/or pro-Clinton (even though my biggest concern is with the ADD qualities of Obama's fair-weather new supporters) - I am close to reaching a conclusion that underscores the veracity of my long-stated support for the Democratic Party above all.
It is a conclusion that has NOTHING to do with the merits of Obama or Clinton as candidates or prospective presidents.
It is a conclusion that has EVERYTHING to do with the deficiencies and iimmaturities of many of the citizens of this still-growing, young nation.
(To those who wonder: I love this nation very much. Sometimes love means having to tell it like it is. The fact that there are a large number of White Men with Neanderthal attitudes towards race and gender doesn't lessen my love for this country.)
So -- my feeling at present is that the November election could be decided by a bunch of real MFs.
Legions of Mark Furhmans - A Million (Angry White) Men March in all 50 states. On the march against women.
Unless of course women rise up in the next 48 hours -- aware of what is at stake...
That John Lennon and Yoko Ono really were correct when they said -- with the full support of the Chairman/Co-Founder of the Black Congressional Caucus - Rep. Ron Dellums*** - WOMAN IS THE NIGGER OF THE WORLD.
*** Not that any of them know or care - but it would undoubtedly bewilder many of the 'lefter-than-thou' Hillary-haters on the far left of the Democratic Party - that Ron Dellums - the first openly-declared SOCIALIST elected to Congress since World War II and the first African-American Congressman from Northern California -- who is now Mayor of Oakland -- has heartily endorsed Hillary Clinton. But what does a black socialist age 72 know? Probably nothing....
Follow Martin Lewis on Twitter: www.twitter.com/TheMartinLewis
It will be most interesting to see how Texas votes today, of course, with all those
Repos pretending to be Demos. Are they going to do as Rush Limbo says and
vote for Hillary? Are they going to break away and god-knows-why vote for Obama?
Do they not understand that if they vote for a Demo in the primary, they are required to
vote for the Demo candidate in November? (Yes, it's true! I read about it on the 'Net!)
voters were Repos, and they mostly voted for Obama (52% to 47%).
Maybe, however, the Repos (& Limbo) got what they mostly wanted,
which is for the Demos to keep slogging it out for months to come.
As McCain said, channeling Rumsfeld, 'It's a long, hard slog!'
Worse, it is more accepted.
I came to the same conclusion about two months ago. For years I have believed that racism trumped misogyny. This primary season opened my eyes.
I honestly believe that EITHER Obama or Clinton will bring out the respective haters in droves. However, I also believe that either Clinton or Obama COULD win - IF the Democratic Party is fully committed and mobilized to support whoever the nominee is.
Problem is, I don't see that happening. I've never seen the Party so bitterly divided as it is now. The vitriol against Hillary coming from the Obama camp has soured a great many Clinton supporters. The refusal to believe in Obama has enraged a great many of Obama supporters. (Many of whom, truth to tell, seem more interested in voting AGAINST Hillary rather than FOR Obama. Thus demonstrating that misogeny knows no political boundaries.) There are legions in each camp who emphatically say they will not vote for the other as the Dem nominee.
And DNC leadership is missing in action. I'm not sure what they're waiting for, but they're standing by and watching the Party tear itself apart. At this rate, I'm not sure that we can win in November at all.
I find it all rather depressing.
Does corruption trump misogyny? Does misogyny figure into a poorly run campaign?
Come Nov, it won't matter a bit who ran the better campaign. All that will matter is that the Democrats will not have enough votes for either candidate to beat McCain.
Neither candidate can win the general without the votes of his or her opponent's supporters. If you think Obama can win without the support of roughly half his party, you're kidding yourself.
Have you ever been to a circus performance? It takes the workers hours to put the Big Top up. Inside all is glamor, lights, and performer in glittering costumes defying the odds. But when the last performer leaves the Ring, it takes only minutes to bring the tent down.
With due respect, I find it doubtful that "angry white men" in the image of Mark Fuhrman, as you have characterized them, will have a noticeable impact in the General Election.
Some of us believe this election is about the transition of a power center. It is about a political "paradigm shift" - one that restores the hope that Government can actually be "of the people by the people and for the people."
As FDR said, "The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic State itself." ~ Franklin D. Roosevelt
Of necessity a shift like this, which seems in harmony with the Founder's stated intentions, cannot include those who have prospered as a result of politics being as they are - which is heavily dependent upon an "uniformed citizenry."
For many of us, Senator Obama is the candidate representing organic ideas in harmony with the type of political paradigm shift that is inclusive of all citizens. That's why we support him.
Senator Clinton being a woman is not a sufficient reason to support her. It is her attachment to, and aggressive use of, the current style of politics that make many of us feel she is unsuited to bring about the change we long for.
Besides, angry, racist, misogynist, white men will find the current election process far too confusing to have any major impact upon it. Registration and voting now requires more of them than the semi readable scribbling of a "X."
=============MARTIN RESPONDS==========
Thank you for your heartfelt response. It would be nice if the assertion in your last paragraph was correct. What we saw in 2000 and 2004 does not support your position. We underestimate the numbers and power of this group at our peril.
===============================
As for that great thinker Mark Fuhrerman, I suppose he has some good qualities. We haven't seen any yet, but he must have some.
But what does his notions have to do with anything real?
And what are you bringing him up for? Are you by any chance suggesting that we should weigh our prejudices and determine what foolishness will determine the way we vote? Isn't that what we always do? Isn't that how the professionals figure things. Oh, I know that the foolish amateur Obama doesn't seem to realize it, but he will. Hillary is very experienced in the old style and she will show him.
What kind of idiot would try to change such things?
I'll do my part this year, perhaps, by reaching out and singing Kumbahya with Nader. :)
Let me help your frustration meter here: According to Martin's circular logic, if you disagree, you didn't get it. Is there really a point in engaging with someone like that? Martin has never, ever conceded that anyone but himself has a legitimate point.
My suggestion: ignore his anti-Obama rants and hope HRC concedes soon and Martin can find another obsession.
==========MARTIN RESPONDS============
Because I have been dubbed a "Hillary supporter" by Obama supporters who are troubled by my frequent exhortations for Democrats to think before voting - does not mean that I AM one. That is THEIR way of branding me. I have said repeatedly - though it is always ignored or doubted - that MY candidate is the Democratic Party. That my motivation is to provoke serious thought among Democrats. Not always an easy task. So read into my column what you will...
==========================
She has it won!!
Celebrate?
But why would anyone want to think about the Furhman's of the world before voting on Tuesday. They are not particularly swing voters. They are not the ones the election will turn on.
So instead we get another argument that on its face would work as an argument for Obama, but clearly intended as a silly call to arms to women to come out for Clinton. The biggest mystery here is why you would want to do it in such a clownish way.
Why would anyone want to vote for a candidate based on who Mark Fuhrman hates more. Why not vote based on the candidate that one can make the better case for. I am still waiting for you to make a positive case for Clinton. Of course I am not expecting it.
=========MARTIN RESPONDS===========
You wrote: "This is more a question of who they see as parts of the divisive politics of the past..." Well I'm glad to see evidence that you are clearly not an Angry White Man. They certainly don't think or write that way. This notion of "the divisive politics of the past" is a meme-cum-slogan devised to try and characterize as "old school" any Democratic politician who made the mistake of fighting against the pernicious Republican machine for the past four decades. By this flawed logic - if Eleanor Roosevelt had run for the presidency in 1952 or 1956, she would have been decried by some holier-than-thou Adlai Stevenson supporters as "part of the divisive politics of the past". Well what FDR and Eleanor Roosevelt were doing in the 1930s and 1940s was FIGHTING the reactionary forces of Big Business and the Republican Party. So much for those who fought in the trenches against Nixon, Ford, Reagan and Bush Snr. "Part of the divisive politics of the past" indeed... We shall see what happens when those reactionary forces are fought with a smile...
==================================
It's one thing, if as a Repo, you pretend to be a Demo so as to vote for whoever you think will be the your weakest opponent in November. It's another entirely to base your vote on the notion that people are actually doing that, and try to counteract them. Unless, of course you're suggesting that people should vote for Hillary so as to somehow frighten the Angry White Men who might be intending to vote for Obama, even though they really want McCain. But you wouldn't be doing that, right? Elections are confusing enough, just trying to vote for the person you want to win. You ever seen a 'butterfly ballot'? There really isn't a practical way, as an individual, to vote AGAINST a candidate at this point, if ever.
============MARTIN RESPONDS==============
It's simply about being smart enough to anticipate which candidate is most likely to motivate Angry White Men to turn out and vote for McCain out of a desire to prevent the Democrat becoming President. My apologies that that confuses you. I have seen a Butterfly Ballot - when I was campaigning hard on TV for Al Gore's votes to be counted in Florida. Whoops - sorry - we're not counting votes in Florida this year! My bad!
================================
=============MARTIN RESPONDS============
Glad that you're not confused. It is admirable that you vote for the candidate that you want to win. Some of us feel the need to take other factors into consideration - especially for the longterm benefit of the party. My personal choice in 1988 was Jesse Jackson. But I knew that it was impossible for him to win the presidency that year.
================================
============MARTIN RESPONDS==========
I commend you for a well-thought out response. And for admirable sentiments. You are correct that we cannot KNOW the future. But some people (certainly not Bob Shrum) can make reasonable estimations of what MIGHT happen and make preparations as a contingency. Al Gore didn't. See: ""Friends, Republicans and Countrymen"" http://www.martinlewis.com/column.pl?cat=gst&col=25
John Kerry didn't. See: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/martin-lewis/oops-kerry-does-it-again_b_81005.html We will find out soon enough if Obama or Clinton have the right stuff. We know that Clinton has experience of successfully combatting the Arkansas state and national Republican smear machines since the 1980s. And Obama has shown that he knows how to rout the fearsome Allan Keyes machine. So they are about equal in experience in that regard...
======================================
fan once both parties have their candidates, and the voters will
finally get to understand how they REALLY feel about each other.
Your posts regarding sexism all seem to conclude that we should vote for Clinton. Even though we disagree about the candidates, I hope you will continue to focus your attention on fighting sexism when this nomination process is over.
===========MARTIN RESPONDS============
It was John Lennon and Yoko Ono that opened me - and I suspect many other male baby-boomers - to the deep injustices facing women. And it has informed my political consciousness ever since. Certainly not without imperfectlons. Watching the sliming of Geraldine Ferraro, Maxine Waters, Nancy Pelosi and now Hillary Clinton by media pundits (primarily Angry White Men) and others - has been a dispiriting experience. Especially when the veneer of "political differences" is invoked to camouflage the underlying disdain for women.
===============================
==============MARTIN RESPONDS=========
Apparently Angry White Men do not want you voting for the w-word...
============================
Try American history. What a hoot!
============MARTIN RESPONDS==========
Even though I am British-born and raised I do know all about Fannie Lou Hamer - and it is a tragedy that I as a Brit probably know more about her than many Americans. When my friend (and fellow Brit) Alan Parker made the film "Mississippi Burning" I observed first-hand here in America during the campaign for that film how few people knew or cared about the struggles of the civil rights movement. That lack of knowledge was especially evident in the young African-American community who I thought would be very well-versed in the history of what was done just a few years earlier by their parents' generation. But most of those surveyed weren't. And they just didn't care. But as time goes by I see that each generation takes for granted the struggles of preceding generations. Hence the current dismissive attitude to those who fought the tough political battles of the 60s and 70s while some people were still in diapers) and references to them being part of the "old divisive partisan politics". That's like referring to the generation that fought World War II as those old militaristic types. Utterly disgusting and belittling.
================================
Here's why, Hillary's main argument for the upcoming vacancy at the white house is her "35 years of experience" (not sure what portion of that is relevant for the presidency). Folks like Chris Dodd and Joe Biden had several more years of what people would regards as "conventional experience" for the president, but they were roundly rejected by the voters. Hillary even way more support than Barack, Joe, Bill Richardson, Chris Dodd and everyone else combined at some point in time last yearf (based on the poll). These supporters were both men and women.
If you look at what's happened, Obama has introduced himself to the American people and he's had a message that resonates with them. In every state his entered, he's been able to connect and rise up in the polls based on his message. Hillary is being rejected because apart from her die hard loyalist, people are judging her character based on how she's campaign and what she's willing to do to get elected. The question becomes is this about the American people or this the Clinton's legacy and their hold on the democratic party? Keep in mind that the rejection is not just coming from white men, but also from a good 45% of white women. Might I add that her conduct on the trail has displayed someone who's not had a mastery of her emotional intelligence. Howard Dean lost the democratic nomination because he was framed as a very angry person. I can't remember the name of the presidential candidate who cried because a lot of negative stuff was being said about his wife. But that was the end of his election. Hillary cried and it provided a temporary rebirth of her campaign. Add the recent constant changes on a daily basis and her yelling and screaming in a debate, men who yell and scream in debates don't win. The winners of nominations and elections are normally folks who have a mastery of their emotions in public and preferably in private. Barack has displayed that, coupled with a far superior message in this election, plus very similar stands with Hillary on policy. That's why he's winning and Hillary is loosing.
It's the curse of the intelligent, to sometimes overthink, and parse, and have doubts, and misgivings. We talked ourselves out of Hillary and are about to talk ourselves out of Mr. Obama. It's just the nature of the beast.
The key to the election, I've always held is the south. All those southern Democrats, the good ole' boys and girls who go to the voting booth, who at the end of the day, when they walk into their local watering hole to drink a beer and shoot some pool do they want to tell their friends they voted for.
Baracks race, and Hillarys sex are both their Achilles heel in that department, not on the coasts, in erudite urban areas, but in all those areas that magically turn red on that electoral map every four years. Barack never seemed to make his presidential bid about race, but his cause seems to have been co-opted by those who do. He was just a guy who wanted to make a difference in the lives of all Americans, but now he's a torchbearer for all the injustices done to Black America over the last four centuries. That's too much pressure to lay on one man's shoulders.
And all the GOP has to do is paint him as someone with an agenda in exacting some sort of reparations for those egregious indiscretions and criminal acts to scare the masses into shying away from him. The question is, who can they paint as having more of a vendetta against America, a black man with a middle name that scares the BeJesus out of them, or a woman who's been in the White House before. Something tells me Hillary has a slight edge in the not causing fear department, based on her past experience.
Its a potentially disastrous situation for the left. But honestly, Mr. Martin, what do you think of this superdelegate issue. It won't carry much weight in a numbers sense in this race, as both candidates possess that status, but do you care enough about the primary system of party to address this inequitable practice, or did I miss your post.
I think its fairly obvious black people do. As bad as women have had it, they were never degraded the way the people shanghaied from Africa and sent to work on cotton plantations were. Women were never lynched for talking back.
The verdict in the O.J. Simpson trial spoke volumes about the need to settle racial scores. What should've been a slam dunk for the prosecution, plunked off the rim, and out of the bounds of all that was just. The people on that jury, the preponderence of which were black women, proved justice was going to have to take a back seat for once, on the side of black America.
And thats what scares the hell out of the mass electorate in Barack Obama.
"It is difficult at this day to realize the state of public opinion in regard to that unfortunate race which prevailed in the civilized and enlightened portions of the world at the time of the Declaration of Independence, and when the Constitution of the United States was framed and adopted; but the public history of every European nation displays it in a manner too plain to be mistaken. They had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations, and so far unfit that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_B._Taney
Ben Tillman:
"We of the South have never recognized the right of the negro to govern white men, and we never will. We have never believed him to be the equal of the white man, and we will not submit to his gratifying his lust on our wives and daughters without lynching him."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Tillman
This nonsense is embedded into the white man's DNA.
Then why would he now vote for a black man?
Because the white man is ashamed of voting his hatred, instead of his hopes, to a point that the country's very existance is now in doubt. He has voted that way since the civil rights gains of the 60's.
Actually, he has voted that way since the founding of the country!
And it has now caught up with him.
============MARTIN RESPONDS============
The entire point appears to have eluded you. This isn't about complaining who has it worse. it's a psephological point about strategy. Who do Angry White Men hate more? And who are they more likely to be motivated to vote against. And which Democratic candidate would be less hurt by that answer. The evidence points towards Obama.
===============================
It really is who has it worse. Why, might I ask, would you spend weeks here bashing Obama (rather incoherently at times) and then write something that appears to benefit him? Why would you write an adulatory piece two days before the battle of your candidate's lifetime?
Your point wasn't "which democratic candidate would be less hurt" or that nonsense. That might have been the text of your post, but the subtext was a call to arms. It's a rambling piece about how women should vote for Hillary Clinton because she's a woman. That seems to be the entire crux of her candidacy now that it's in its last throes. If you don't think she tries to exploit the women vote, you don't have your eyes open--but you do know, because it's what you're trying to do right now.
I find it disgusting the sort of stuff that gets out there, from Kristen Breweitzer basically arguing that because girls are from Mars, they get more stars, and thus men are from Venus, and have a stupid penis. You see the stuff thrown out there by Taylor Marsh, who claims to support any Democrat, but the damage has already done--she's basically a Republican surrogate at this point. And then Hillary herself. She had a recipe for SNICKERDOODLES on her webpage. SNICKERDOODLES. She had an entire vignette during the debate about how a "woman being elected president would be a sea-change". What if Barack Obama said that an "African American being elected would be a sea-change"? He'd be laughed out quicker than Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton.
=========MARTIN RESPONDS==========
According to you I have "no point" - and then two paragraphs later I have a sub-text that is a call to arms.
My apologies to you. It wasn't the point of this post that eluded you. It's ALL of my posts that elude you.
My biggest concern - often stated - is more about the longterm psephological [look it up] ramifications for the Democratic Party. 2010, 2012, 2014 and 2016. This coming Tuesday is important. But the longterm is what has been on my mind for some time. Notwithstanding your lack of comprehension - please feel free to debate the actual points in my column. Who do Angry White Men hate and fear most? And who are they more likely to vote against?
=============================
If your concern is the psephological ramifications for the Democratic party, and you're a Hillary Clinton partisan, you need to take a deep look into a mirror. The Republican party is having trouble raising money. They're having trouble rallying around their candidate. They're having trouble invigorating their base. And how shall they seek to do this? A Hillary Clinton candidacy would be the perfect antidote. So your psephological argument doesn't hold water. You also bring up that Hillary was endorsed by a socialist. Yeah, that'll be GREAT for the general.
But if your assertion does hold water, and the Mark Fuhrmans of the world would rather have a female President, I don't think that it is a general thing--I think it's these two specific candidates that would make them feel this way. I mean, even David Duke, the grand master of the KKK, isn't virulently against Obama! This is the guy that said a Jesse Jackson presidency would be the end of America. It's not that David Duke has started hating black men more. It's that Obama's appeal is so disarming. But Hillary is quite polarizing in this way. While Obama ignores differences (whether for political gain is notwithstanding, considering we are talking about the "psephologics" of this point) between people, Hillary tries to exploit them. She cast herself in the role of the vanquished woman, as just another qualified woman that went down because she has a vagina. I say that she went down because of her Iraq vote, and the ineptitude of her campaign, because of her talking out of both sides of her mouth and for her perceived insincerity. So the likes of David Duke are more likely to resist Clinton--she doesn't ignore the differences. She, like Jesse Jackson, gives ammunition to the people with hate in their hearts. Obama deflects it.
So, maybe they're more likely to vote against Clinton. Is this because she's a woman, and women just have it worse? I think not. I think it has more to do with the appeal of Barack Obama.
=========MARTIN RESPONDS================
I think I've discovered the reason the point of my posts elude you. You don't read them carefully! Just one example: You write: "But if your assertion does hold water, and the Mark Fuhrmans of the world would rather have a female President..." That is the exact OPPOSITE of what I wrote! I wrote that the Mark Fuhrmans would rather have a black man than a woman. Perhaps another reason my columns elude you is that you have a set agenda - irrespective of what I write! As to the psephological ramifications - my concerns are not just about November. But about the next 8 years and more. I remember the lessons of the Jimmy Carter presidency. Alas not everyone thinks ahead...
================================