This is very long, but an absolute must read to fully understand what is happening this primary season.Goodbye To All That (#2)
by Robin Morgan
“Goodbye To All That” was my (in)famous 1970 essay breaking free from a politics of accommodation especially affecting women (for an online version, see http://blog.fair-use.org/category/chicago/).
During my decades in civil-rights, anti-war, and contemporary women’s movements, I’ve avoided writing another specific “Goodbye . . .” But not since the suffrage struggle have two communities—joint conscience-keepers of this country—been so set in competition, as the contest between Hillary Rodham Clinton (HRC) and Barack Obama (BO) unfurls. So.
Goodbye to the double standard . . .
—Hillary is too ballsy but too womanly, a Snow Maiden who’s emotional, and so much a politician as to be unfit for politics.
—She’s “ambitious” but he shows “fire in the belly.” (Ever had labor pains?)
—When a sexist idiot screamed “Iron my shirt!” at HRC, it was considered amusing; if a racist idiot shouted “Shine my shoes!” at BO, it would’ve inspired hours of airtime and pages of newsprint analyzing our national dishonor.
—Young political Kennedys—Kathleen, Kerry, and Bobby Jr.—all endorsed Hillary. Senator Ted, age 76, endorsed Obama. If the situation were reversed, pundits would snort “See? Ted and establishment types back her, but the forward-looking generation backs him.” (Personally, I’m unimpressed with Caroline’s longing for the Return of the Fathers. Unlike the rest of the world, Americans have short memories. Me, I still recall Marilyn Monroe’s suicide, and a dead girl named Mary Jo Kopechne in Chappaquiddick.)
—Hillary is too ballsy but too womanly, a Snow Maiden who’s emotional, and so much a politician as to be unfit for politics.
—She’s “ambitious” but he shows “fire in the belly.” (Ever had labor pains?)
—When a sexist idiot screamed “Iron my shirt!” at HRC, it was considered amusing; if a racist idiot shouted “Shine my shoes!” at BO, it would’ve inspired hours of airtime and pages of newsprint analyzing our national dishonor.
—Young political Kennedys—Kathleen, Kerry, and Bobby Jr.—all endorsed Hillary. Senator Ted, age 76, endorsed Obama. If the situation were reversed, pundits would snort “See? Ted and establishment types back her, but the forward-looking generation backs him.” (Personally, I’m unimpressed with Caroline’s longing for the Return of the Fathers. Unlike the rest of the world, Americans have short memories. Me, I still recall Marilyn Monroe’s suicide, and a dead girl named Mary Jo Kopechne in Chappaquiddick.)
Goodbye to the toxic viciousness . . .
Carl Bernstein's disgust at Hillary’s “thick ankles.” Nixon-trickster Roger Stone’s new Hillary-hating 527 group, “Citizens United Not Timid” (check the capital letters). John McCain answering “How do we beat the bitch?" with “Excellent question!” Would he have dared reply similarly to “How do we beat the black bastard?” For shame.
Goodbye to the HRC nutcracker with metal spikes between splayed thighs. If it was a tap-dancing blackface doll, we would be righteously outraged—and they would not be selling it in airports. Shame.
Goodbye to the most intimately violent T-shirts in election history, including one with the murderous slogan “If Only Hillary had married O.J. Instead!” Shame.
Goodbye to Comedy Central’s “Southpark” featuring a storyline in which terrorists secrete a bomb in HRC’s vagina. I refuse to wrench my brain down into the gutter far enough to find a race-based comparison. For shame.
Goodbye to the sick, malicious idea that this is funny. This is not “Clinton hating,” not “Hillary hating.” This is sociopathic woman-hating. If it were about Jews, we would recognize it instantly as anti-Semitic propaganda; if about race, as KKK poison. Hell, PETA would go ballistic if such vomitous spew were directed at animals. Where is our sense of outrage—as citizens, voters, Americans?
Carl Bernstein's disgust at Hillary’s “thick ankles.” Nixon-trickster Roger Stone’s new Hillary-hating 527 group, “Citizens United Not Timid” (check the capital letters). John McCain answering “How do we beat the bitch?" with “Excellent question!” Would he have dared reply similarly to “How do we beat the black bastard?” For shame.
Goodbye to the HRC nutcracker with metal spikes between splayed thighs. If it was a tap-dancing blackface doll, we would be righteously outraged—and they would not be selling it in airports. Shame.
Goodbye to the most intimately violent T-shirts in election history, including one with the murderous slogan “If Only Hillary had married O.J. Instead!” Shame.
Goodbye to Comedy Central’s “Southpark” featuring a storyline in which terrorists secrete a bomb in HRC’s vagina. I refuse to wrench my brain down into the gutter far enough to find a race-based comparison. For shame.
Goodbye to the sick, malicious idea that this is funny. This is not “Clinton hating,” not “Hillary hating.” This is sociopathic woman-hating. If it were about Jews, we would recognize it instantly as anti-Semitic propaganda; if about race, as KKK poison. Hell, PETA would go ballistic if such vomitous spew were directed at animals. Where is our sense of outrage—as citizens, voters, Americans?
Goodbye to the news-coverage target-practice . . .
The women’s movement and Media Matters wrung an apology from MSNBC’s Chris Matthews for relentless misogynistic comments (http://www.womensmediacenter.com/). But what about NBC’s Tim Russert’s continual sexist asides and his all-white-male panels pontificating on race and gender? Or CNN’s Tony Harris chuckling at “the chromosome thing” while interviewing a woman from The White House Project? And that’s not even mentioning Fox News.
The women’s movement and Media Matters wrung an apology from MSNBC’s Chris Matthews for relentless misogynistic comments (http://www.womensmediacenter.com/). But what about NBC’s Tim Russert’s continual sexist asides and his all-white-male panels pontificating on race and gender? Or CNN’s Tony Harris chuckling at “the chromosome thing” while interviewing a woman from The White House Project? And that’s not even mentioning Fox News.
Goodbye to pretending the black community is entirely male and all women are white . . .
Surprise! Women exist in all opinions, pigmentations, ethnicities, abilities, sexual preferences, and ages—not only African American and European American but Latina and Native American, Asian American and Pacific Islanders, Arab American and—hey, every group, because a group wouldn’t exist if we hadn’t given birth to it. A few non-racist countries may exist—but sexism is everywhere. No matter how many ways a woman breaks free from other discriminations, she remains a female human being in a world still so patriarchal that it’s the “norm.”
So why should all women not be as justly proud of our womanhood and the centuries, even millennia, of struggle that got us this far, as black Americans, women and men, are justly proud of their struggles?
Goodbye to a campaign where he has to pass as white (which whites—especially wealthy ones—adore), while she has to pass as male (which both men and women demanded of her, and then found unforgivable). If she were blackor he were female we wouldn’t be having such problems, and I for one would be in heaven. But at present such a candidate wouldn’t stand a chance—even if she shared Condi Rice’s Bush-defending politics.
I was celebrating the pivotal power at last focused on African American women deciding on which of two candidates to bestow their vote—until a number of Hillary-supporting black feminists told me they’re being called “race traitors.”
So goodbye to conversations about this nation’s deepest scar—slavery—which fail to acknowledge that labor- and sexual-slavery exist today in the U.S. and elsewhere on this planet, and the majority of those enslaved are women.
Women have endured sex/race/ethnic/religious hatred, rape and battery, invasion of spirit and flesh, forced pregnancy; being the majority of the poor, the illiterate, the disabled, of refugees, caregivers, the HIV/AIDS afflicted, the powerless. We have survived invisibility, ridicule, religious fundamentalisms, polygamy, teargas, forced feedings, jails, asylums, sati, purdah, female genital mutilation, witch burnings, stonings, and attempted gynocides. We have tried reason, persuasion, reassurances, and being extra-qualified, only to learn it never was about qualifications after all. We know that at this historical moment women experience the world differently from men—though not all the same as one another—and can govern differently, from Elizabeth Tudor to Michele Bachelet and Ellen Johnson Sirleaf.
We remember when Shirley Chisholm and Patricia Schroeder ran for this high office and barely got past the gate—they showed too much passion, raised too little cash, were joke fodder. Goodbye to all that. (And goodbye to some feminists so famished for a female president they were even willing to abandon women’s rights in backing Elizabeth Dole.)
Surprise! Women exist in all opinions, pigmentations, ethnicities, abilities, sexual preferences, and ages—not only African American and European American but Latina and Native American, Asian American and Pacific Islanders, Arab American and—hey, every group, because a group wouldn’t exist if we hadn’t given birth to it. A few non-racist countries may exist—but sexism is everywhere. No matter how many ways a woman breaks free from other discriminations, she remains a female human being in a world still so patriarchal that it’s the “norm.”
So why should all women not be as justly proud of our womanhood and the centuries, even millennia, of struggle that got us this far, as black Americans, women and men, are justly proud of their struggles?
Goodbye to a campaign where he has to pass as white (which whites—especially wealthy ones—adore), while she has to pass as male (which both men and women demanded of her, and then found unforgivable). If she were blackor he were female we wouldn’t be having such problems, and I for one would be in heaven. But at present such a candidate wouldn’t stand a chance—even if she shared Condi Rice’s Bush-defending politics.
I was celebrating the pivotal power at last focused on African American women deciding on which of two candidates to bestow their vote—until a number of Hillary-supporting black feminists told me they’re being called “race traitors.”
So goodbye to conversations about this nation’s deepest scar—slavery—which fail to acknowledge that labor- and sexual-slavery exist today in the U.S. and elsewhere on this planet, and the majority of those enslaved are women.
Women have endured sex/race/ethnic/religious hatred, rape and battery, invasion of spirit and flesh, forced pregnancy; being the majority of the poor, the illiterate, the disabled, of refugees, caregivers, the HIV/AIDS afflicted, the powerless. We have survived invisibility, ridicule, religious fundamentalisms, polygamy, teargas, forced feedings, jails, asylums, sati, purdah, female genital mutilation, witch burnings, stonings, and attempted gynocides. We have tried reason, persuasion, reassurances, and being extra-qualified, only to learn it never was about qualifications after all. We know that at this historical moment women experience the world differently from men—though not all the same as one another—and can govern differently, from Elizabeth Tudor to Michele Bachelet and Ellen Johnson Sirleaf.
We remember when Shirley Chisholm and Patricia Schroeder ran for this high office and barely got past the gate—they showed too much passion, raised too little cash, were joke fodder. Goodbye to all that. (And goodbye to some feminists so famished for a female president they were even willing to abandon women’s rights in backing Elizabeth Dole.)
Goodbye, goodbye to . . .
—blaming anything Bill Clinton does on Hillary (even including his womanizing like the Kennedy guys—though unlike them, he got reported on). Let’s get real. If he hadn’t campaigned strongly for her everyone would cluck over what that meant. Enough of Bill and Teddy Kennedy locking their alpha male horns while Hillary pays for it.
—an era when parts of the populace feel so disaffected by politics that a comparative lack of knowledge, experience, and skill is actually seen as attractive, when celebrity-culture mania now infects our elections so that it’s “cooler” to glow with marquee charisma than to understand the vast global complexities of power on a nuclear, wounded planet.
—the notion that it’s fun to elect a handsome, cocky president who feels he can learn on the job, goodbye to George W. Bush and the destruction brought by his inexperience, ignorance, and arrogance.
Goodbye to the accusation that HRC acts “entitled” when she’s worked intensely at everything she’s done—including being a nose-to-the-grindstone, first-rate senator from my state.
Goodbye to her being exploited as a Rorschach test by women who reduce her to a blank screen on which they project their own fears, failures, fantasies.
Goodbye to the phrase “polarizing figure” to describe someone who embodies the transitions women have made in the last century and are poised to make in this one. It was the women’s movement that quipped, “We are becoming the men we wanted to marry.” She heard us, and she has.
Goodbye to some women letting history pass by while wringing their hands, because Hillary isn’t as “likeable” as they’ve been warned they must be, or because she didn’t leave him, couldn’t “control” him, kept her family together and raised a smart, sane daughter. (Think of the blame if Chelsea had ever acted in the alcoholic, neurotic manner of the Bush twins!) Goodbye to some women pouting because she didn’t bake cookies or she did, sniping because she learned the rules and then bent or broke them. Grow the hell up. She is not running for Ms.-perfect-pure-queen-icon of the feminist movement. She’s running to be president of the United States.
Goodbye to the shocking American ignorance of our own and other countries’ history. Margaret Thatcher and Golda Meir rose through party ranks and war, positioning themselves as proto-male leaders. Almost all other female heads of government so far have been related to men of power—granddaughters, daughters, sisters, wives, widows: Gandhi, Bandaranike, Bhutto, Aquino, Chamorro, Wazed, Macapagal-Arroyo, Johnson Sirleaf, Bachelet, Kirchner, and more. Even in our “land of opportunity,” it’s mostly the first pathway “in” permitted to women: Representatives Doris Matsui and Mary Bono and Sala Burton; Senator Jean Carnahan . . . far too many to list here.
—blaming anything Bill Clinton does on Hillary (even including his womanizing like the Kennedy guys—though unlike them, he got reported on). Let’s get real. If he hadn’t campaigned strongly for her everyone would cluck over what that meant. Enough of Bill and Teddy Kennedy locking their alpha male horns while Hillary pays for it.
—an era when parts of the populace feel so disaffected by politics that a comparative lack of knowledge, experience, and skill is actually seen as attractive, when celebrity-culture mania now infects our elections so that it’s “cooler” to glow with marquee charisma than to understand the vast global complexities of power on a nuclear, wounded planet.
—the notion that it’s fun to elect a handsome, cocky president who feels he can learn on the job, goodbye to George W. Bush and the destruction brought by his inexperience, ignorance, and arrogance.
Goodbye to the accusation that HRC acts “entitled” when she’s worked intensely at everything she’s done—including being a nose-to-the-grindstone, first-rate senator from my state.
Goodbye to her being exploited as a Rorschach test by women who reduce her to a blank screen on which they project their own fears, failures, fantasies.
Goodbye to the phrase “polarizing figure” to describe someone who embodies the transitions women have made in the last century and are poised to make in this one. It was the women’s movement that quipped, “We are becoming the men we wanted to marry.” She heard us, and she has.
Goodbye to some women letting history pass by while wringing their hands, because Hillary isn’t as “likeable” as they’ve been warned they must be, or because she didn’t leave him, couldn’t “control” him, kept her family together and raised a smart, sane daughter. (Think of the blame if Chelsea had ever acted in the alcoholic, neurotic manner of the Bush twins!) Goodbye to some women pouting because she didn’t bake cookies or she did, sniping because she learned the rules and then bent or broke them. Grow the hell up. She is not running for Ms.-perfect-pure-queen-icon of the feminist movement. She’s running to be president of the United States.
Goodbye to the shocking American ignorance of our own and other countries’ history. Margaret Thatcher and Golda Meir rose through party ranks and war, positioning themselves as proto-male leaders. Almost all other female heads of government so far have been related to men of power—granddaughters, daughters, sisters, wives, widows: Gandhi, Bandaranike, Bhutto, Aquino, Chamorro, Wazed, Macapagal-Arroyo, Johnson Sirleaf, Bachelet, Kirchner, and more. Even in our “land of opportunity,” it’s mostly the first pathway “in” permitted to women: Representatives Doris Matsui and Mary Bono and Sala Burton; Senator Jean Carnahan . . . far too many to list here.
[...]
Me? I support Hillary Rodham because she’s the best qualified of all candidates running in both parties. I support her because she’s refreshingly thoughtful, and I’m bloodied from eight years of a jolly “uniter” with ejaculatory politics. I needn’t agree with her on every point. I agree with the 97 percent of her positions that are identical with Obama’s—and the few where hers are both more practical and to the left of his (like health care). I support her because she’s already smashed the first-lady stereotype and made history as a fine senator, because I believe she will continue to make history not only as the first U.S. woman president, but as a great U.S. president.
As for the “woman thing”?
Me, I’m voting for Hillary not because she’s a woman—but because I am.
As for the “woman thing”?
Me, I’m voting for Hillary not because she’s a woman—but because I am.
----------------------
Read the full story here.
10 comments:
"I’m bloodied from eight years of a jolly “uniter” with ejaculatory politics."
That sums up so much...
"I’m voting for Hillary not because she’s a woman—but because I am."
What a great way to turn the debate on it's head
This is a pretty far reaching post, so please pardon my somewhat rambling response.
Has the media been sexist in its coverage of Clinton? Yes. Has the media been racist in its coverage of Obama? Yes. Has Obama been sexist in talking about Clinton? No. Have the Clintons been racist in talking about Obama? Yes. Why has that hurt Clinton less than the inverse would have hurt Obama? Women make up 51% of the population while African-Americans make up 30ish%.
"blaming anything Bill Clinton does on Hillary" I don't, but Obama has spoken out against some of his supporters making false comments about Clinton, I haven't seen as much of the latter, including her standing on stage while a supporter tried (yet again) to label Obama as a drug addict.
"Unlike the rest of the world, Americans have short memories. Me, I still recall Marilyn Monroe’s suicide, and a dead girl named Mary Jo Kopechne in Chappaquiddick." Last I checked, these weren't the qualities Obama was being compared to Kennedy on. Clinton however, is running on her husband signing the balanced budget created by the Republicans, if you want to talk about short memory (yes, the Republicans have since completely thrown that out the window, but it was a Contract With America provision, not a Bill Clinton campaign promise).
I believe my wife said it best, (paraphrasing) "A win for Clinton is a victory for feminism, but it is not a triumph."
And don't get me wrong, I believe that a woman president is a good thing. I know that women are very capable leaders (Queen Elizabeth, I and II) probably being one of the best examples). But Hillary Clinton is no Queen Elizabeth or Golda Meir. These women used their strength to unite their countries. Hillary Clinton, so far this campaign, has used her power to divide the Democratic party, with the intent to reunify it after she has taken care of her uppity challenger(s).
Most importantly, I have to question this, and please answer objectively. The quote from your post - "If she were black or he were female we wouldn’t be having such problems, and I for one would be in heaven"
If Senator Clinton, running with the exact same history, the same negatives, the same ingrained hatred from the 90s and the same experience, were a black male and Senator Obama, with the same charisma, the same ability to appeal across demographics, and his (equal to Clinton's legislative) experience, were a white woman, who do you honestly think would have a better chance to win the Democrat's nomination? Personally I think in reality Edwards would already have the nomination locked because the media and national biases against both are so great, which says a lot about the strength of both Sens Clinton and Obama. But please think honestly about this.
I understand that there are two key things separating our ability to see eye to eye on this: I am a white male, and have not had to personally deal with bigotry of the kind you have. And also, from personal experience, my generation has been raised by women of the feminist revolution; this has changed the world view of this generation in a way that (hopefully) will in and of itself lead to greater equality among the sexes. I can't speak for everyone of my generation, but among those that I know, women are treated equally to men, the problem is now the entrenched mindset of the previous generations that still hold the reins of power. It may be that I, working in a technology field which is much more of a meritocracy than much of the business world, am exposed to a completely different climate, but I have hopes that that is not the case.
This is a great writing BAC nd I thank you for posting it here as I am not sure I would have seen it otherwise. I am not sure it changes my mind on HRC, I still like her, still think she is a great person and candidate and would have no issues voting for her, but I do also have some concerns about her. I have concerns about Obama too and so I really am torn between the two of them since I have no other choices at this point. I would like to see who either of them choose as their running mate as that would seem to reflect what kind of government they would want and would allow me to have a better idea about them.
Again, thank you for posting this, it has given me food for thought.
Thanks for sharing this BAC. This was powerful stuff.
Boxer and Spartacus -- thanks!
BAC
Oh, and Swinebread, too!
BAC
John, let me start by saying this is not about YOU -- and I say this with all due respect. You, by your admission, are a white man who will NEVER face either sexism or racism.
There are clips of the sexism that have permeated this election season. Please share with me an incident where the media – other than FOX News – has been racist in their coverage of Obama. If anything they have gone out of their way to NOT appear racist.
John you have not been paying attention if you have not heard the media blame Hillary for Bill’s every movement. And when Hillary’s state campaign chair made a comment about Obama’s drug use he was asked to resign. When Obama’s national co-chair went on television and race-baited Senator Clinton over getting emotional in NH was he asked to resign? NO. The Black Entertainment Television owner, who made the comments you reference, is not part of the campaign staff.
You missed the point completely in Robin’s comments about Ted Kennedy, and I quite sincerely do not have the energy to explain it to you right now. We can discuss that part later.
JOHN, JOHN, JOHN … when did YOU become a cheerleader for the Republicans???? The CONTRACT ON AMERICA was the WORST piece of garbage to come down the pike!! FIRST you defend Obama on his Reagan comments. Then you defend Obama, when he said the Republicans were the “party of ideas” … and now THIS BULLSHIT!!!!!
I swear to God, John, if you try and defend the Contract ON America I will delete your comment. I have respect for YOU, but I simply won’t allow that crap on my blog.
And John, Queen’s aren’t elected – and your reference to Golda Meir is addressed in Robin Morgan’s piece.
John, please read the quote again: "If she were black or he were female we wouldn’t be having such problems, and I for one would be in heaven." Robin didn’t say ‘if she were a black MAN.’ Imagine if Hillary Clinton were a black woman, with all her experience and proven ability to GET THINGS DONE was running against a younger and less experience black woman, do you think we would even be having this discussion?
I have hope that someday there will be equality between the sexes, but we are not there yet. Women still earn around 75 cents for every dollar a man earns, and as she climbs the corporate ladder that shrinks to somewhere in the 40 cent range. Very few CEO’s are women, and there are still FAR more men in Congress than women. And most state legislatures are vastly more male than female in their make up.
These are the positions of power that control much of our lives, and until women are 50/50 with men, there will continue to be an imbalance.
As I was writing this the NBC owned station in DC just ran a special edition of Hardball from 7:30-8:00 pm tonight. The entire half hour – the NIGHT BEFORE SUPER TUESDAY – was an endorsement for Barack Obama. The pundits couldn’t get to a mic quickly enough to talk about him. In advertising (my former profession) that’s called “earned media” – or, supportive media that YOU DIDN’T HAVE TO PAY FOR. Do you have any idea how much that would have cost, had Obama paid for that kind of exposure? I swear he’s getting a complete free pass by the media.
I'm really sick of the sexist attacks on Hillary Clinton, and will continue to criticize them, but that's not reason enough for me to vote for her. She's not the best candidate, IMO (not that my favored candidate is even in the race anymore). War, imperialism, using Bush's bullying Orwellian rhetoric are all of far greater concern to me, and affect far more people. Goodbye to All That, after all, is the title of Robert Graves' anti-war autobiography. I still don't know where Clinton really stands on the growing surveillance state. I've also read posts that question her commitment to women of color. There are quite a few other points in this testimonial that can be strongly challenged, and some strike me as cheap shots, although I don't question Robin Morgan's sincerity in preferring Hillary. I also don't question Hillary's commitment to reproductive freedom, issues of gender equity and gay rights, and those are nothing to sneeze at. But it's not as if sexism is going to disappear overnight, or as if Clinton is the standard bearer for everyone. She was always, arguably, the most conservative of the major Dems, although she's still far better than any of the Republicans.
FWIW, I know several women, who have been criticized, however mildly, as traitors to their gender for not supporting Hillary, so it's not as if that's a one-way dynamic. If Hillary were a black woman up against another black woman with less experience but better judgment, particularly on the war and related issues, and if Hillary continued to retain "experts" like O'Hanlon who still whines that he was right on Iraq and isn't respected enough, damn straight I wouldn't support her. If Hillary Clinton continues to assert that her hawkish, counterfactual claims about Iran give her stronger "credibility" on national security, how seriously can I take her? 97% agreement? I have to wonder about all the issues besides sexism not mentioned.
Having a woman president, or a black president, will change things in important ways, and it's hard to imagine because some of those changes will be subtle. But just the other day I saw (I think on ABC) a group of women, mostly older, discussing Hillary Clinton. Their consensus was that at this point, there will definitely be a woman president soon (maybe next year). So for them, the question was whether this was the right woman. For me, it's just about who's the best candidate, or rather, who's the best candidate available right now. I think everyone should vote his or her conscience, especially in the primary vote. I'll support whoever the Dem nominee is in the general.
BAC, you raise a number of excellent points @ 8:38pm, as does Robin Morgan, whether directly or tangentially. FWIW, all other things being equal when it comes to positions on issues, I'm more likely to vote for a woman or a "minority," for reasons I know you understand and have touched on. But positions are rarely equal, and some are just too large and important for me to ignore. For some people, that really big, unavoidable issue is sexism, the glass ceiling, gender inequity, a dynamic of bullshit that's gone on with various degrees of mendacity for millennia. None of that has been improved, and none of it will further improve, without the efforts of a few people making it their primary cause, and without many more people fighting the same fight in smaller ways, or simply changing their minds. But we all feel passionate about different things, and that diversity is healthy. I'll continue to challenge sexist attacks on Hillary Clinton, and should she be the nominee and the president, I'll take special relish in the pain it causes Chris Matthews, Tucker Carlson, Rush Limbaugh and the entire Fox News crew. But I have serious questions about Hillary Clinton's fundamental judgment, justifications and positions, whether those be authentic or feigned because of their perceived "seriousness."
(Come to think of it, whether it's Clinton or Obama in the White House, I'm much more intent on appointing a solidly liberal female jurist to the Supreme Court.)
In any case, thanks for being thought-provoking, and I'll try to stop by later for your other posts. Peace.
Batocchio - It's late and I can't sleep because I'm coughing ... but I do what to address one thing in your comment. Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) has endorsed Sen. Clinton. Rep. Waters is as strong as they come, and I cannot image she would endorse Hillary if there were any question of Hillary's commitment to women of color.
Dolores Huerta, co-founder of the United Farm workers, is one of Hillary's national campaign co-chairs. If there were any question about Hillary's commitment to women of color I can assure you -- as someone who knows Dolores -- she would not be working as hard as she is to get Hillary elected.
And finally, I just read today that Wilma Mankiller, the first woman Principal Chief of the Cherokee Nation and the first female in modern history to lead a major Native American tribe, announced her endorsement of Hillary Clinton. Chief Mankiller will serve as a National Campaign Co-Chair for the Clinton campaign.
These are women who have worked within their respective communities for decades -- and are all well respected.
BAC
ps: thanks for stopping by
BAC, thanks for the info. I can probably dig up those posts I read if you like, but I'm not sure it's terribly important, apart from the point that not everyone's of the same mind. Obama's record is very strong on reproductive freedom, but as I said, one of the pluses with Hillary Clinton for me is her support for reproductive freedom, women's rights, pay equity, and gay rights as well.
In any case, if you're in a Super Tuesday region, have a good voting day!
(Oh, and I hope your cough gets better... I've got one developing, too!)
Post a Comment