From primary season, let’s move secondary season; from the singular to the plural. For as long as Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have been battling it out for the Democratic nomination, the spotlight’s been on them: their qualifications, their promises, their baggage. According to a Pew Centers study, in the first half of last year, only three percent of campaign coverage focused on issues. This year, that’s stumbled to a pathetic seven percent. It’s no surprise.
Feminists say the personal is political. In our privatized economy neoliberals say it’s strictly personal. Your troubles, your chances, the way you’re treated, it’s all unique to – and determined by – you! So we’re told. It’s a convenient way to take systems of wealth and privilege out of the picture and a happy for some way to eradicate history. We’ve privatized prisons and healthcare and education and war. And we do the same to our politics and our politicians. It’s all about them.
Well, enough about them. We better make this about us. The people I know who rooted for Hillary Clinton did it for a reason. It wasn’t her hair, her shoes, her husband… It was out of a stubbon, long-suffering belief that after centuries of being put second, a woman president might put gender justice first. And by gender justice we mean human justice. As Kavita Ramdas of the Global Fund for Women said on GRITtv Tuesday night, you can’t teeter the welfare of the world on that part of society – the female part – the you treat the worst without consequences.
The Clinton supporters I know long for a president who would reprioritize. A president who would reapportion spending and security and power so that women had our fair share. They thought (and many still believe) that that would take a woman and maybe it will. But it shouldn’t have to. Not if we de-privatize and re-personalize. The problem – it’s not about her. And the solution – it’s not about him. It’s about us.
Dean emphasized this on Saturday.
Is this where we’re going to have to come to see GRITtv? I’ve haven’t seen it on FDL’s front page this week and was wondering what was up.
By SouthernDragon on June 4th, 2008 at 1:52 pm
jus cogens!
By tw3k on June 4th, 2008 at 2:13 pm
Ah, glad to see you calling out the neoliberals.
By tw3k on June 4th, 2008 at 2:16 pm
Clinton has already done a lot to “reapportion…security and power.” Now women have their “fair share” of this war because of her vote for it.
By brendanx on June 4th, 2008 at 2:17 pm
I percieve that if Hilary were to be President, it would be about her, and not about us.
By Synoia on June 4th, 2008 at 2:22 pm
When you done watching the flick be sure and Digg this Post for the Lake and Laura who put this together for US.
By nahant on June 4th, 2008 at 2:23 pm
Wasn’t good for feminism of which I am a proponent. Good for warmongering and filling the coffers of the MIC, but very counterintuitive to the feminist (equal rights for all) movement.
By hackworth on June 4th, 2008 at 2:24 pm
Pivotal was Hillary’s refusal to back away from AUMF vote. She dug her heels in. There was lots of room on the left, especially in this primary. Going right in matters of foreign policy was a turn-off to her base.
By hackworth on June 4th, 2008 at 2:30 pm
I’m not sure why anyone would think the HRC was some great harbinger of the change you’re talking about.
By Tom65 on June 4th, 2008 at 2:30 pm
I’m afraid that you are right. Watch her speech last night, it was all about Hillary. Too sad, for what might have been.
I want to see a female in the White House before I did. I just don’t want it to be Hillary.
By GrandmaJo on June 4th, 2008 at 2:35 pm
Well put, Laura.
By lilybelle on June 4th, 2008 at 2:37 pm
Without sounding irritated, as a Dodd–Edwards–Hilary supporter, I did support Clinton over Obama on a number of issues. I chose Clinton for her healthcare plan. I chose Clinton because I thought she would be more solid on gay rights. I chose Clinton because she challenged Timmie Russert on the republikan framing of social security. I chose Clinton because she said she’d deep six No Child Left Behind. In all the above she was stronger than Obama in my view. About the war, I didn’t buy his stance because he wasn’t even in the senate, and when in, he continued to fund the war. no more poo flinging, I am just trying to make a point. Two basically non-progressive middle of the road candidates were propped up in front of us voters. I voted on issues, not because I thought this was the second coming of FDR (althought that would have been nice.) And I don’t know too many women supporting Clinton who didn’t feel a sort of cynicism about both candidates, who are politicans after all.
By mui1 on June 4th, 2008 at 2:44 pm
Because *all* politicians are mother Theresa. Honestly even those who voted for Lieberman ”so strong on Israel” should be on notice that he’d sell Israel down the river to Kuwait if John McCain or ”Moses” Hagee told him too.
By mui1 on June 4th, 2008 at 2:47 pm
Dear Ms. Flanders,
Thank you again for pointing out another fundamental issue that is too little discussed; how the privatization of everything has undermined so much of our lives. I sent the following to my local newspaper about 6 years ago when feeling similar frustration, some of the references are local but I think the gist of it is even more relevant and could resonate with many.
Feb.02,’02
Dear Editor,
Fifty years ago people built schools and hospitals for the public good; today we build malls and casinos. Fifty years ago business subsidized educational and healthcare institutions with taxes and contributions; today the public subsidizes business with tax credits and subsidies. Fifty years ago people empathized with those less well off and set up ”safety nets” for the poor and elderly knowing that we and our progeny would/could all be there one day; today we empathize with the rich and set up tax shelters and rebates for corporations fantasizing that we will be there one day. Fifty years ago people built and fostered businesses that actually made things and paid ”living wages” so that one person with one job could support a family: today we foster businesses that buy and sell things made far away and pay wages such that two people need several jobs to get by.
To add insult to injury, not only are we abandoning all those institutions built by the public for the public that have served us so well, but we are actively dismantling them as we substitute and subsidize institutions built by private interests for private interest while plaintively (pathetically?) crossing our fingers that our subsidies (”incentives”) will result in a ”trickle down” of public crumbs from the private table. Fifty years ago we, the public, were builders, today we are beggars. About the only ideas we have preserved from 50 years ago are an acceptance of pollution and of weapons of mass destruction as the price of ”progress” and ”freedom”.
I know ”it’s out of our hands, times have changed, so one must get with the program!” The problem, however, is that getting with the program seems to increasingly require chemical intervention or why would fully 1/3 of the locally most prescribed drugs be for treatment of depression or ulcers? I am not saying that there are no instances of strictly organic causes for the conditions these drugs treat, only suggesting that in the the majority of cases we medicate ourselves as a substitute for dealing with the absurdities of ”the program”. So that, when we read ”mega-mall built”/”hospital bankrupt”,”mega-aquarium coming”/”schools closing”,”stock market sky high”/”employment rock bottom”, its OK because we’ve taken our medication. Fifty years ago people taxed themselves and their businesses to fix problems, today our ”fix” is in the drug store.
Why? Do we need the drugs because, as we were told in one recent letter, ”thinking” (a legacy of our old educational system) has left ”the vast majority (of us so) totally unprepared for (the) ordinary life” we find ourselves in? How depressing when petitions to save hospitals go unremarked as mall builders are courted. How corrosive when our employers have no place for us as CEOs are rewarded. Perhaps ”thinking” and ”getting with the program” are mutually exclusive. If we could just stop thinking, maybe we wouldn’t need the drugs.
Or perhaps we need them to forget that in substituting laissez-faire, private competition and individual/corporate tax forgiveness for the old communitarian ones of cooperation and public/private taxation as paradigms for progress, we have left ourselves no role as social beings in the fashioning of our collective welfare.
Or perhaps they are necessary to dull the discomfort of admitting that it is we who have made this ”ordinary life” we find ourselves in, that it is we who have given it the lie of inevitability and progress, and that it is we who, having built a world that values individual choice above all else, routinely deny ourselves the one choice that might free us, the choice to affirm the value of public institutions and programs built for us by a vibrant public 50 years ago.
For reasons which escape me, apparently we prefer to take our medication, go to the mall, and insist that our schools stick to the ”facts” of our new, improved ”ordinary life” and ”not be charged…with teaching students to think.” After all, aren’t fish tanks better than think tanks? Or are even the fish, at least the ones in the lake, depressed? I suppose we can always look on the bright side; if we persist in this course long enough, there will be one legacy we can leave our progeny 50 years from now; freed from the burden of ”thinking”, they won’t need to take so many drugs, which is just as well, because they won’t have the money to pay for them, either.
By Aquifer on June 4th, 2008 at 2:47 pm
I felt Hillary had to sacrifice her true “feminism” sensibility to get a ticket to the patriarchal boy’s club of politics. She was in a paradoxical bind. She is taken seriously because she plays hardball. She lost me because she played hardball. The ends don’t justify the means. And what is the cost for power — unfortunately pricier if you are a woman.
But she has pushed the line farther down the field for the next woman who won’t have to overcompensate so much as as she did we can hope. Until then I am counting on the males who aren’t afraid to talk harmony, communication, altruism and don’t have to sacrifice so much of their yin for the “yang” dominated society as a woman would have to.
By libbyliberal on June 4th, 2008 at 2:53 pm
Hillary’s followers, some of them, complained that the press, etc. referred to her as “Hillary” and not Senator Clinton, proved second class female citizenship. If Hillary wanted to be called “Senator Clinton” she should have insisted on it. She might also have given a speech on misogyny if she thought it relevant (and I’m not sure it was-I think race is a larger negative)much like Obama spoke about race. True it was the flap about Rev Wright that brought that about, but it would have had to be faced sooner or later.
Hillary never acknowledged her votes for the war and Kyle-Lieberman were mistaken. The Bosnia sniper fire was way over the line. Race and/or gender are no reason to vote for anyone.
By ekunin on June 4th, 2008 at 2:55 pm
We have been betrayed by the patriarchal society, all about power and competition. And we need a partnership society. Feminine priority is partnership, Masculine priority is power and competition. Not DNA feminine and masculine, necessarily, but feminine and masculine PRINCIPLES.
By libbyliberal on June 4th, 2008 at 2:57 pm
If Senator Clinton had said “early” in the campaign some of the things she said “later” in the campaign she would have lost by a larger margin. Her supporters must realize that in politics someone wins and someone loses and that’s that.
By Twain on June 4th, 2008 at 2:58 pm
Sorry, but while there may have been women who supported Hillary because they thought she’d reprioritize based on “gender justice”, I don’t know them.
I do know women who supported Clinton because she is an avatar of gender justice — and gender injustice. And because she’s a brilliant dedicated, prepared, hardworking PERSON who would make an excellent President.
And these women know (in fact, all Clinton supporters know) that no man would ever have been treated like Hillary Clinton has these past few months. If Clinton was a man, she’d be the nominee — the narrative would not have been warped into a four month festival of “Why Won’t This Stupid Bitch Quit”.
The narrative would have been that Obama had two good weeks, and even since then his consistent failure demonstrated his weakness as a general election candidate — and that while he was VP material maybe, the Democrats would be idiots to nominate him.
But Hillary wasn’t a man, and got treated differently than any man would have. And THAT has her supporters, especially her female supporters, very, very angry.
You can disrespect people for three months, then insist that its all about “us” suddenly — its not about “us” because you lost the right to stand with US over the last six months.
By lukasiak on June 4th, 2008 at 3:00 pm
First off, thank you for bringing Grit TV and Laura Flanders to FDL. I think she is great and love her interviews.
As to her commentary, she was insightful. I too think privatization is a cynical reactionary process. I hadn’t connected the Clinton supporter phenomena to this but it does make sense.
The insulting and self-serving speech by Clinton last night serves only John McCain. Democratic supporters of Clinton that are even slow to supporting Obama are no different than the schlubs that vote against self-interest and give the Bushs’ of the world the ability to punish them for their support.
By moondancer on June 4th, 2008 at 3:00 pm
o/t
someone please make sure Christy sees this link -
from the FDL Newsbox -GOP congresswoman moves to distance herself from Bush
bwaaahaaahaaa! many of us here contributed to the Rubber Stamp action in 06 – none of us having any clue at the time it would reverberate in 08
all good things come to dfh’s who wait
link
By cbl2 on June 4th, 2008 at 3:03 pm
More site gremlins today? FDL is unviewable from my seat. the ”1957” look.
By BobbyG on June 4th, 2008 at 3:06 pm
actually Bobby, from here (FF/XP) Laura’s page looks “normal” was just over at EW’s place a few minutes ago, not so much
By cbl2 on June 4th, 2008 at 3:08 pm
How about Obama picks a different woman for VP?
By GeorgeSimian on June 4th, 2008 at 3:10 pm
nahant, thanks for the digg reminders!
By Elliott on June 4th, 2008 at 3:10 pm
I’m not sure you are right. Obama opposed the war from the get go. As things turned out, he was right. She was wrong.
She and Bill played the race card and the experience card (I’ll take good judgment over experience any day)and were far more negative than Obama. I got the feeling they would do anything to achieve their ends.
Your point, that she shifted with the times to what she perceived as the present need, proves my point. There’s no there, there.
By ekunin on June 4th, 2008 at 3:13 pm
Interesting. Some of the pro-Hillary websites have turned on a dime and are saying kind things about McCain – with lots of pro-McCain comments. I thought maybe that was where they were going to go.
By Fern on June 4th, 2008 at 3:15 pm
Every time someone speaks out in favor of HIllary the Obamacans swarm. And when they open their mouths they reveal that they are ignorant of their candidate’s voting record, policy posititions and character to an incredible degree.
Hillary has her faults but she’s far and away a better politician, the kind I like…one that wants to count all the votes, and much better on policy.
We’ll see how it works out but I have zero confidence in Obama’s ability to do anything….
Other than suppress the vote.
By ACitizen on June 4th, 2008 at 3:15 pm
Terribly self-destructive. Like throwing the baby out with the bath water. Don’t understand this attitude at all.
By Twain on June 4th, 2008 at 3:16 pm
I’m not sure I agree here. I’m a Hillary supporter.. I’ll say it (or was until last night.. now, as a loyal Democrat, I’m an Obama supporter). I’m a male professional with multiple graduate and post-graduate degrees (not her usual base). I supported her because I think she has a firmer grasp on how policies work and can get implemented and because I like many of her domestic policies. I like the fact that she rejects NCLB altogether (instead of Senator Obama’s misguided intent to reform it) and because I think she has the stronger health plan. I also believe she has the more nuanced approach on the environment. Am I entitled to my opinion or must I be consigned to the category of “stubborn feminist” as we appear to be suggesting here?
By Blub on June 4th, 2008 at 3:17 pm
Another Hillary bash?
Just one last time?
By rwcole on June 4th, 2008 at 3:17 pm
How on earth would Obama suppress the vote?
By Twain on June 4th, 2008 at 3:17 pm
some others (myDD) are very supportive of Obama now that he is the presumptive nominee.
give them a bit more time. The policy differences were slim (outside of the war vote) between the two. So if it was policy, they will join and get the good senator elected. If it was personal, not a whole lot we can do but wish them well and save them a line in the food bank line.
By wobblybits on June 4th, 2008 at 3:18 pm
Twain, for at least one of these blogs, I think this was the intention from the outset.
By Fern on June 4th, 2008 at 3:18 pm
You are more than entitled to your opinion. I welcome it. It will take Hillary supporters to push at the party and say that they want NCLB abolished and some of her other (healthcare) policies put into place.
By wobblybits on June 4th, 2008 at 3:20 pm
Okay Clinton has something like almost 18,000,000 supporters according to ABC news, and Obama has something similair. Criticizing Clinton and her supporters at this point is worthless and counterconstructive. Let’s not be 1930s Germany where two parties should have joined in a coalition to beat the f*cists (McCain/H*tler). I think in all practicallity Clinton must be nominated VP, as a consolation prize to her supporters.
By mui1 on June 4th, 2008 at 3:20 pm
Not stubborn. It is so painful to lose and I have been through many. But this is so much bigger than Hillary or Obama or you or me. This is not the time in our history to refuse to support – not a certain candidate – but our country. McC is deadly for all of us.
By Twain on June 4th, 2008 at 3:20 pm
it’s a bad talking point.
power scroll
By wobblybits on June 4th, 2008 at 3:21 pm
I agree with you except nominating her for VP. I would like to see her in another area but not VP. But we need to listen to the supporters and include Clinton policies (hell, they are rather good – the healthcare esp)
By wobblybits on June 4th, 2008 at 3:22 pm
I am glad you gave that testimonial. see mine above. We’re not stupid or misguided and we don’t deserve to be treated so.
By mui1 on June 4th, 2008 at 3:23 pm
What mui said. Especailly about the healthcare. Except I was an Edwards spporter throughout.
Still am.
But will vote for my parties nomiee. It’s all about the SCOYUS
By looseheadprop on June 4th, 2008 at 3:24 pm
C’mon 18 million is a lot of supporters. There has to be a major treaty. And we all need to back off from poo-flinging on either side. At least until we are sure that McCain/H*tler is soundly defeated (in a horrror movie, they always come back.)
By mui1 on June 4th, 2008 at 3:25 pm
LHP, one of the reasons I switched over from Edwards to Clinton was it was the same healthcare plan, non? If I couldn’t get Edwards, at least we get the healthcare plan.
By mui1 on June 4th, 2008 at 3:26 pm
Scary reminder, that. Alito, Scalito. we need a sane one in there.
By mui1 on June 4th, 2008 at 3:27 pm
It is about the Scotus and we are truly finished if we get more wingnuts there. I was an early Edwards supporter but could have voted for any of our candidates – well, not Gravel. We Dems should be proud of that group. I have never seen a finer field of candidates in my life and I was delighted that the country could see what we have to offer.
By Twain on June 4th, 2008 at 3:28 pm
I’m not poo flinging, i’m stating an opinion. I would not like to see her as VP and that is not in any disrespect to the folks that supported her. Others will disagree with me and I don’t take that as poo flinging.
By wobblybits on June 4th, 2008 at 3:29 pm
Thank you for that concession.
By mui1 on June 4th, 2008 at 3:31 pm
I think her talents would be wasted as VP. She can be really powerful in the Senate or any other position. If I were Hillary I would stay in the Senate and really become a star.
By Twain on June 4th, 2008 at 3:31 pm
no one person ever has all the solutions. Hence needing to hear and talk to all supporters from the various candidates. We are all one party and have policies that we would like to see implemented.
By wobblybits on June 4th, 2008 at 3:32 pm
While I do agree that Hiary got treated very differently by the media and that such treatment is a critical contributing factor to the campaign results, now it’s over.
Obama did not create the misoginistic treatment by the media, as a apolitician he would have been a fool not to take advatage of it.
I have no illusions that Obama is some messianic figure. He is a politician for Chicago for Christ’s sake!
Nope, he is a very competent, polished, high performing politicain. And he is our party’s nominee.
If you hate the system that produced this result, the job for you is to go to work on the DNC to create a fairer and more transparent system.
Frankly the GOP primary rules seem more logical. Maybe you want to wage a campaign to get the DNC to do osmething similar?
By looseheadprop on June 4th, 2008 at 3:33 pm
Hi all ! Glad you found your way over here.
Just one tiny thing — I never argued in this piece that Clinton was, in my view, the politician her supporters think she is or want her to be. I live with a Hillary supporter, though, and know her motivation. They may not be right, but they’re real and the longing is real. And when I was interviewing women for the piece I did on Hillary’s ”Inner Clinton” for Seven Stories collection, The Contenders last year, what I heard more than anything was the frustration that I describe here. I wrote in that piece, if women had less reason to be furious [with the guys who’ve been running for president on teh Democratic ticket] Hillary would have less of a chance at the presidency. I think it’s a misguided response to that fury — but the fury was the topic here. When people get mad, they don’t always scrutinize the record of their phantom-savior. I think that’s what Clinton is, but the grievances and hopes she is the beneficiary of are real. The point I’m trying to make here is that the grievances and hopes — or demands — shouldn’t go down with her ship.
By Laura Flanders on June 4th, 2008 at 3:33 pm
No sorry, that was a verbal gush my post. I didn’t accuse you of flinging. I was glad what you said, and then added that I thought others should back off the crapflinging. Word Salads can be confusing, so sorry.
By mui1 on June 4th, 2008 at 3:34 pm
it’s cool. as long as it is straightened out in the end *g*
By wobblybits on June 4th, 2008 at 3:36 pm
That maybe true, and a Sec. job might be more powerful too, but this election is a hurdle. And thinking in terms of voters, Clinton as VP would like more attractive to Clinton supporters, er all 18 million of them.
By mui1 on June 4th, 2008 at 3:37 pm
Ditto
By looseheadprop on June 4th, 2008 at 3:38 pm
Her supporters do seem to feel that way but I would love to see her in a cabinet position where she could really do so many things for our country.
By Twain on June 4th, 2008 at 3:41 pm
Well another good point, Edwards got pushed out by the DLC. And apparently Rahm/Harold Ford was quite happy with the results and the two, yes “two candidates.” That speaks volume for me.
Note: I’ve posted that link so many times, I think people are sick of it.
By mui1 on June 4th, 2008 at 3:43 pm
Yes, you may be right. But I am thinking of that big bad wolf McCain and getting Clinton supporters revved up to join and vote again. Like we need to palliate persons like Harriet Christian (who will probably settle down. she’s a New yorker.)
By mui1 on June 4th, 2008 at 3:45 pm
Well as David Sirota said in book talk a week ago, real change tends to come from teh people and Congress is the last place it reaches. I just wanted to point out there are realistic Clinton supporters among us.
By mui1 on June 4th, 2008 at 3:49 pm
The war vote is a very big difference
By ekunin on June 4th, 2008 at 4:06 pm
Amen. I have been very pissed about this kind of condescending treatment toward Clinton supporters, or to anyone who dared say a kind word about her. I’m an intelligent person, I don’t need a howling mob to force me into supporting someone.
I don’t do groupthink.
I did vote for Obama in my primary and will vote for him in November; I’m a yellow dog Democrat.
By Margot on June 4th, 2008 at 4:29 pm
Your comment is very interesting to me because why all the talk of feminism now? and feminist supporters. Hillary did get more than that. BTW I am for women’s rights and didn’t see any of the candidates as taking a stand for that necessarily. Feminism isn’t at the top of my priority list this election year. Iraq and economy are.
I think we’re talking feminism now because of the charges of bias late in the game.
By dosido on June 4th, 2008 at 4:45 pm
Exactly! We have a local dude here who uses the prolife issue to channel his most abusive freaking mysogynist’s reign of terror on all women in our neighborhood. What a guy! Prolifers love him but the rest of us know it isn’t about that. It’s about an excuse to verbally beat up on women.
By dosido on June 4th, 2008 at 4:48 pm
”It wasn’t her hair, her shoes, her husband… ”
Face it — without her husband, Hillary would have been OUT of the race long ago — or not have even gotten in it.
Real feminists need a woman as president who got there on her own — truly — not because her husband was POTUS first.
A Hillary win would just have been pretty much the same old thing — women can never get ahead without a MAN.
By shell on June 4th, 2008 at 5:51 pm
Hillary (and Bill) are way too pro-corporate. Obama is also too pro-corporate, but probably much less so, particularly with Edwards as Attorney-General. Possessing neither dark skin nor a vagina, that is really all I care about. Any Clintion supporter who votes for McCain’t out of spite deserves an unwanted pregnancy. Any who are offended by this probably deserve to be. I didn’t get the candidate I wanted, either. Grow up, get real, and defeat the fascist threat, OK?
By anonosassin on June 4th, 2008 at 5:59 pm
Ms. Flanders,
First, it’s good to know that you actually read comments people make! I get the impression that often journalists don’t even bother to see, let alone respond to, observations by their readers. Thank you!
I also think that perhaps many women jumped on the Hillary bandwagon out of sheer frustration – “any woman has GOT to be better” – without checking beyond the DNA. I’ve heard too many sad, mumbling defenses of her policies on TV by women who should know better to doubt that this is a real phenomenon.
But, and here I tremble waiting for the “racist” label to be attached to me, I think that a lot of Obama supporters support him for the same reason – his symbolism to a long suffering group of people.
Both groups are bound to be disappointed, whether their candidate gets elected or not, because neither one offers anything of real substance. I, too “hope” for a “change”, but not from either one of these guys (let alone McCain). But for me, hope is not enough, we’re too far down the road for that. I will only give my vote to someone who earns it. I know healthcare is too far gone to waste time on tinkering with either Obama or Clinton (forget Mc Cain). The only one who gets my vote is a proponent of single payer. Same with the issues of Iraq (just plain out, with reparations), trade (out of NAFTA/WTO). I would love a woman, or a member of a “minority” or better yet, a woman member of a minority to be Pres. but not if that person would sacrifice the things we really need in this country. And for all the talk of differences, a 20 foot bridge may be twice as long as a 10 foot one but it is no better for a 90 foot chasm – at the end of either you still fall off.
By Aquifer on June 4th, 2008 at 6:08 pm
I got that Laura. I was dismayed by the profound fury of a coworker last week who declared she would now sit out the election.
Politics is personal. And when our gut and heart get committed it can feel glorious when our candidate is atop the waves and devastating when not.
For Hillary to climb to where she got to she had to compromise. It is a patriarchal game. And how does one not throw the “baby” — integrity — out with the bath water of insider politics? Is it possible to have moral leadership in a corrupted system? And the populace is manipulated by MSM, indifferent or so remote from the machinery of government, that things have to get pretty insane or finally penetrate the narcissism to rally our collective pain.
By libbyliberal on June 5th, 2008 at 10:32 am
Oprah, who launched Obama, focused on feminist issues a lot more than Hillary and has done so much for empowering women for so many years. Hillary had to overcompensate by not leaning that direction so as not to fret the patriarchy. Ironic, she is hailed by so many as a bastion of feminism now.
By libbyliberal on June 5th, 2008 at 10:37 am
There’s an excerpt of a film in Thursday’s show that you might enjoy – What Would Jesus Buy following Rev Billy and the Church of Stop Shopping across America on a mission against “the shopocalypse”
It’s super smart and funny.
By LisaG on June 5th, 2008 at 10:29 pm