Hillary 2.0

(Cross-posted at Clintonistas for Obama)

When William Jefferson Clinton was elected president, I was still a young girl living with parents who were determined (especially my father) to instill in me a love for the Republican Party, and a sneering disdain for Democrats in general. I grew up around Right wing radio and Fox News (first launched in 1996). I was supposed to detest Bill Clinton and scoff at his wife. I remember when Hillary made her infamous "baking cookies" remark and did her amusing impression of Tammy Wynette's accent. I remember because I giggled delightedly and beamed at her - and because my father chastised me immediately. But I liked her, and I couldn't help it - and at the time, I liked Bill even more. When my father asked me who I wanted for president, I told him I wanted "the friendly one," much to his dismay. As the 1992 election results rolled in, I sat directly in front of the TV with an irrepressible grin on my face, while my parents emitted exasperated sighs from the other side of the room.

For whatever reason, the Republican party never appealed to me - something about it was offensive, and despite my father's best attempts, I never embraced conservative values. I had the  upbringing of a conservative, the "bleeding heart" of a liberal, and the defiant mind of an Independent, but I would be lying if I pretended that a certain amount of Republican propaganda didn't seep into my head. I would sit in my father's office and play computer games or read as Rush Limbaugh'a barking rants spewed forth from the radio. As a result, I eventually came to strongly dislike Hillary Clinton; Bill seldom bothered me, but his wife... she was just so cold and, well, bitchy. Even as I rejected my parents' conservative beliefs, I couldn't help disliking her, and my annoyance became so deeply ingrained that when she first began her run for the presidency - approximately 14 years after I'd first laid eyes on her - I shook my head and turned up my nose at her candidacy. She was cold, she was calculating, she was bitchy, she was dishonest, she was power hungry: She was the one candidate I could rule out at the beginning.

It took me a good while to warm up to her, and when I finally realized the source of my animosity, I was rightly horrified. She'd been demonized by the Right - perhaps even moreso than her husband - and I'd inadvertently bought into it. What's worse, I'd bought into it on a sexist basis: The Right had painted a strong woman as a bitch, and I'd silently nodded, as had much of the rest of the country.

And now we have another strong woman for the Right to attack. They long ago began the process of vilifying Michelle Obama, and it's largely because she's as strong, affluent, and brilliant as her husband. If we think Hillary was demonized, we haven't seen anything yet; Michelle will be fighting a two front war - she will be attacked on both her race and her gender. (Canadian gal has written an excellent analysis on the sexism Hillary and Michelle have faced.) They will try to demean her and reduce her to nothing more than an angry black woman:

"I want to pick up on something that James said about the "angry black woman". Now look at the image of African American women who are on television. Politically, you have Maxine Waters of California, a liberal Democrat. She's always angry, every time she gets on television. Cynthia McKinney, the former congresswoman from Georgia was another angry black woman. And who are the black women you see on the local news at night in cities all over the country? They're usually angry about something. They've had a son who's been shot in a drive by shooting, they are angry at Bush, or something. So you don't really have a profile of non-angry black women. . ." - asshole Fox guy whose name I don't know

Well, our racist, sexist Faux friend backed off that last statement a moment later, when one of his buddies pointed out that Oprah isn't particularly angry: "Oh, yeah, Oprah, there you go." Apparently, Oprah Winfrey is the only African American woman in this country who isn't angry (but don't forget black - they're all black!). This is one of the worst forms of discrimination because it's subtle enough to slip under the radar of those who aren't paying enough attention, and the phrase "angry black woman" just screams "uppity". The Faux correspondent's disdain for black women who are upset about their children being shot is shocking - I suppose the conventional wisdom is that African Americans should smile, shut up, and accept their misfortunes like good little negroes. God forbid black people should criticize Bush - only white folks are allowed to do that.

I was at my parents house the night that clip was playing, and I'm usually able to ignore the fact that they're watching Fox. When we heard that racist bile spewing forth from the TV, however, my mother's jaw dropped, and my father said, "Maybe we could watch the Clinton News Network... just this once." Frankly, I was pleased with how embarrassed they were by their favorite network's "fair and balanced" commentary. There are decent, intelligent Republicans who refuse to condone such bigotry, but it's easy for this sort of racially charged rhetoric to subconsciously creep into the minds of the young, ignorant, or uninformed. And let's not forget that Faux thought it was perfectly appropriate to put the racist/sexist caption, "Outraged Liberals: Stop Picking On Obama's Baby Mama," beneath a clip of Michelle:

That's right, those silly liberals are always outraged, aren't they? Maybe it's because they're offended by outrageous displays of sexism and racism, like the time Mr. Fair and Balanced himself passively suggested we start a lynching party to hunt down Michelle. Ahhh, nothing more appropriate than a fair and balanced lynching remark. I realize there's a certain appeal in denying BillO the satisfaction of knowing he's "gotten under our skin," but there's also a certain amount of danger in allowing comments of this nature go unchallenged. The aforementioned remarks were made long ago, and if you didn't express your outrage then, it's rather late to do so now. In the future, we mustn't let our outrage go unspoken or unacknowledged. We must raise our voices loudly, with reason and composure, and decry the bigotry which will follow Michelle Obama for the next eight years. Speak out against hate, speak out against propaganda, speak out against injustice. Clinton supporters, we defended Hillary against sexist attacks, and Michelle certainly deserves the same consideration. A sexist attack on Michelle is an attack on all women, a racist attack on Michelle is an attack on all African Americans.

Just as Hillary became an icon to so many Americans, so will Michelle (many would argue that she already has). She will be yet another powerful First Lady that the Right loves to hate, and for that alone she should be applauded. There is no doubt that the Right will treat her just as they treated Hillary, but like Hillary, I believe Michelle will rise above it. They are both women of great intelligence, character, and influence, and Michelle will stand as strong in the face of adversity as Hillary always has.



Display:


By the way, (2.00 / 34)

I should point out that my parents are wonderful people. They may be Republicans, but they taught me tolerance for diversity and kindness toward everyone I meet. And sparring with my dad about politics is one of my favorite activities. So no dissing my parents, por favor.


Even John McCain lusts after teh engels.
by sricki on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 12:26:17 PM EST

Of course they are wonderful people... (2.00 / 11)

an apple does not fall far from the tree, does it =)


If you follow history with a long enough arc, things always get better, and the truth always prevails...Gandhi
by SevenStrings on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 12:37:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Thanks, sricki... (2.00 / 13)

I already see "Clinton Derangement Syndrome" morphing into "Obama Derangement Syndrome" on the right. And just like how they demonized Hillary Clinton as the "ugly, power-hungry Lady MacBeth bitch from hell", they're already working on demonizing Michelle Obama as the "ugly, uppity black bitch". It's so disgusting to see this kind of character assassination, and I hope we all remain vigilant in fighting it.


No way, no how, no McCain! :-)
by atdleft on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 12:38:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thanks, sricki... (2.00 / 1)

agreed!! This is what they do and we must try and stop it.


"And I scream at the top of my lungs, what's going on?"
by Hollede on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 10:02:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thanks, sricki... (none / 0)

Yes and the point is for all this talk about Hillary hate; people seem to forget that Obama probably won't be too hard to demonize either. We just don't the extent yet that it could reach. So when people say we can't add her to the ticket b/c she has been stigmatized - well what makes you think that people won't have just as much hatred for Obama come November?  It wasn't her fault that she was smeared & likewise it probably won't take much to alienate people who are still warming up to Obama or hearing about him to become alienated. So I just don't get the fear of losing votes with Hillary on the ticket at all.


by jrsygrl on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 01:58:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: By the way, (2.00 / 9)


by Kysen on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 12:41:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Nice diary, sricki. I, too, was once (2.00 / 8)

corrupted by the wingnut (no offense to your parents intended) caricature of Hillary, without even being aware. Once I got beyond that, to see Hillary as the remarkable woman she really is, I was astounded at how I bought into that - not fully, but enough to slant my perceptions of her. I guess when a thing is repeated so often, even if we disagree, it has a way of creeping in. Never again!!!


Obama supporter working to defeat McCain.
by Rumarhazzit on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 12:50:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

sricki.... (2.00 / 6)

as i have said before - you don't write enough diaries.  this is just an incredible piece of work.  well done!


"Me Fail English? That's Unpossible." Ralph Wiggum
by canadian gal on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 03:29:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Thanks, CG. (2.00 / 7)

That means a lot coming from you. You know I'm a big fan of your work.


Even John McCain lusts after teh engels.
by sricki on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 03:43:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: By the way, (2.00 / 2)

99% of the primary was recycled garbage from the right. all the way from her being "angry" because of the smear about her throwing stuff at Bill in the WH to reprising Harry & Louise ads then claiming she "ruined" the health care system, to the Travelgate crapfest. So it is nice you are just now realizing why you hated her...but it is your attitude that changed not her's after all. Perhpas you diary should be titled :

sricki 2.0 instead?


by zerosumgame on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 09:29:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Whatever you like. n/t (2.00 / 1)


Even John McCain lusts after teh engels.
by sricki on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 09:34:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Whatever you like. n/t (2.00 / 1)

just a suggestion, the 'tude was uncalled for


by zerosumgame on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 11:17:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary 2.0 (2.00 / 12)

Really good diary.  Well written, thoughtful, and personal.  Thanks for this.


by HSTruman on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 12:28:18 PM EST

Re: Hillary 2.0 (2.00 / 10)

Great diary. Tipped and recc'd. Thanks for the thoughtful analysis, sricki!


Two riders were approaching......the wind begins to howl!
by John in Chicago on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 12:33:16 PM EST

Re: Hillary 2.0 (2.00 / 12)

It was so disheartening to hear Obama supporters and "objective" reporters repeat some of the right-wing Faux News talking points about Hillary.  For so many people, the regurgitated right-wing talking points are all they know.

Thanks for the diary.


by InigoMontoya on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 12:34:11 PM EST

Yep, yep, yep... (2.00 / 9)

It was disheartening for me as well. I think sricki wasn't the only leftie who was also affected by the "Clinton Derangement Syndrome" being spread by the radical right. But now that Michelle Obama is getting "The Hillary Treatment", I hope that we've all wisened up since. Just because a woman is strong and independent doesn't make her a "witchy woman".


No way, no how, no McCain! :-)
by atdleft on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 12:42:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yep, yep, yep... (2.00 / 1)

Sricki was a Clinton supporter, doofus.


by Reaper0Bot0 on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 04:15:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I know that... (2.00 / 3)

I was referring to her earlier expereinces listening to right wing radio and watching Faux News with her parents. I guess you didn't read the story fully like I did. And jeez, what's with the namecalling? The primary's over now, and so should the hostility.


No way, no how, no McCain! :-)
by atdleft on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 04:20:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I know that... (2.00 / 3)

I meant doofus in a kindly way.  Were I being hostile I would have used an aggressive moniker.  My apologies.


by Reaper0Bot0 on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 05:10:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Apology accepted... (2.00 / 2)

Thank you, Reaper. I love you. ;-)


No way, no how, no McCain! :-)
by atdleft on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 05:28:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yep, yep, yep... (2.00 / 2)

Clinton Derangement Syndrome wasn't only spread by the Right. In fact, it was hard to get depressed about that since it's what we all should expect.  

No, the really depressing aspect was the way that Left sources propagated it.  Media treatment by lefties Obermann, Dowd, Rich, Matthews etc. are an example.  The Obama campaign certainly also encouraged it with their "she'll say anything to win" negative campaign from the start.  


by steveinohio on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 06:24:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary 2.0 (2.00 / 9)

Marvelous diary -- very well written.  Thanks!


"If you don't care about everybody, you don't care about anybody." --Ethan Mordden
by prodigal on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 12:35:45 PM EST

I am avoiding politics, but I couldnt help it this (2.00 / 11)

time.. I had to rec yours =)


If you follow history with a long enough arc, things always get better, and the truth always prevails...Gandhi
by SevenStrings on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 12:36:39 PM EST

I've noticed it, too (2.00 / 9)

The first time I heard Michelle Obama speak, I got Hillary Clinton flashbacks... in a good way.  She's tough, she's professional, and she's more than a match for her presidency-aspiring husband.


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.
by Dracomicron on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 12:37:14 PM EST

Tipped, Rec'd, and Amen'd! (2.00 / 6)

Good on ya, sricki.
If this were a ballpark....we'd all be gazing over the fence.  ;)
by Kysen on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 12:39:46 PM EST

Re: Hillary 2.0 (2.00 / 4)

Wow.  Excellent diary.  Well written and many valid points.  I do take exception to the comparison of Michelle and Hillary.  Won't go into that except to say that the argument against Michelle is racist, vs. the argument against Hillary was sexist.  In any event, very Rec'd.


Purity! Or else!
by ChitownDenny on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 12:40:05 PM EST

Actually... (2.00 / 9)

I think Michelle has it twice as bad because she's getting BOTH: the racist crap AND the sexist crap. So now, we'll have to work twice as hard to stop the smears against her.


No way, no how, no McCain! :-)
by atdleft on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 12:45:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Actually... (2.00 / 2)

Yeah.  I can see how some may see both as issues for Michelle.  However, I see attacks against her comments as attacks because of race, with gender thrown in to seal the attack.  Michelle's most notable comments do refer/infer to race, at least, that's what many in the MSM have told us.


Purity! Or else!
by ChitownDenny on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 12:53:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Actually... (2.00 / 5)

To some extent your right, but even the racial stereotypes they place on her are stereotypes against black women.  Strong equals angry when it comes to black women.  I guess it comes from having a mostly matriarchal society.


by Tenafly Viper on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 03:05:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Actually... (2.00 / 4)

You know, this whole commentary brings up the issue of what has happened to the black man.  The reason why black women have had to be the purveyors of a "matriarchal socity" is because of what America has "done" to the black man.  Lack of opportunity; high incarceration rates.  Don't get me started!
Speaking as a white man, with two eyes.
Purity! Or else!
by ChitownDenny on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 03:45:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Actually... (2.00 / 3)

I can't argue with you there.  But no matter how awful the reasons why it came about,  I do very much admire the matriarchal black families.  

Maybe I'm partial because I come from a matriarchal family (although I'm white) or because I love very early pre-war blues made by african american females.  

All of their songs were about regaining control in the face of some adversity, usually caused by white or black men.  The most prevalent feeling I get from their music is strength at all costs.  Which is pretty inspiring considering they were in the most powerless position of being weighed down by race, gender and (most of the time)class.


by Tenafly Viper on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 04:48:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The Right will reap what they sowed (2.00 / 7)

They polarized the country against Hillary Clinton, helping to enable the nomination of a candidate who will be their worst nightmare in this election - Barack Obama.   We are going to mop the floor with them.


by activatedbybush on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 12:42:19 PM EST

Re: Hillary 2.0 (2.00 / 7)

clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clapclapclapclapclapclapclapclapclapclap clapclapclapclapclapclapclapclapclapclap clapclapclapclapclapclapclapclapclapclap clapclapclapclapclapclapclapclapclapclap clapclapclapclapclapclapclapclapclapclap clapclapclapclapclapclapclapclapclapclap clapclapclapclapclapclapclapclapclapclap clapclapclapclapclapclapclapclapclapclap clapclapclapclapclapclapclapclapclapclap clapclapclapclapclapclapclapclapclapclap clapclapclapclapclapclapclapclapclapclap clapclapclapclapclapclapclapclapclapclap clapclapclapclapclapclapclapclapclapclap clapclapclapclapclapclapclapclapclapclap clapclapclapclapclapclapclapclapclapclap clapclapclapclapclapclapclapclapclapclap clapclapclapclapclapclapclapclapclapclap clapclapclapclapclapclapclapclapclapclap clapclapclapclapclapclapclapclapclapclap clapclapclapclapclapclapclapclapclapclap clapclapclapclapclapclapclapclapclapclap clapclapclapclapclap!


Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving that there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof.
by jsfox on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 12:46:22 PM EST

Re: Hillary 2.0 (2.00 / 12)

I've said it before, and I'll say it again, if there's anyone who is an embodiment of the intelligence, coherence and unity of the democratic party on this site, it's you.

And I don't say that because you've moved your fantastic support for Hillary to Obama. That's only a side effect. What's really impressed me is the way you've made me realise, having been against her for months, what a great candidate Hillary genuinely was.

I can't tell you how happy I am that you and Canadian girl now regularly make it to the top of the rec list. You're genuine democrats, unlike others who used to dominate the rec list, and now have outed themselves as supporters of McCain all along. And fairweather feminists to boot.

Mojo and kudos to you all the way


Pointing to the inadequacies of John McCain
by duende on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 12:47:28 PM EST

I was only able to write this diary (2.00 / 5)

because of you, Brit. You know I disliked her for a long time -- even longer than Barack. You told me why you liked Michelle and asked me to give her another chance. Thank you, you were right. I would recommend your advice to anyone seeking guidance.


Even John McCain lusts after teh engels.
by sricki on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 12:53:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Believe me (2.00 / 1)

You're a star, sricki.


Pointing to the inadequacies of John McCain
by duende on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 01:37:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary 2.0 (2.00 / 1)

D---
I mojo'd your comment, even though I disagree with:
", unlike others who used to dominate the rec list, and now have outed themselves as supporters of McCain all along"
I'm just sayin'....
Purity! Or else!
by ChitownDenny on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 12:57:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary 2.0 (2.00 / 3)

Well certainly fair weather feminists then. Have you checked Texasdarlin's blog recently? She's trying to do to Michelle what the worst repubs did to Hillary during the 90s. The Whitey Tapes reward she was offering was just one example.

Any feminist who uses such tactics is partisan hypocrite, wouldn't you agree?

PS I suspect TD was a republican all along. She was always changing identity.


Pointing to the inadequacies of John McCain
by duende on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 01:22:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary 2.0 (none / 0)

I'm sure many will recognize that TD is a "pissed-off" Dem, as many are.  That is different from being a Repub.


Purity! Or else!
by ChitownDenny on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 01:27:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary 2.0 (2.00 / 1)

I'm not so sure. And she's a complete McCain supporter now. And a promoter of sexist bullshit. If someone talks like a repub, acts like one, etc...

Which reminds me Chitown. I don't get it. You argue reasonably, you mojo comments you don't entirely agree with, and you rarely troll rate. What is going on with that McCain site? Is that someone else or are - shock horror - a reasonable republican who could be persuaded.

Just asking. Don't want to get these identities confused.


Pointing to the inadequacies of John McCain
by duende on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 01:33:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary 2.0 (2.00 / 1)

Line----crossing it!  Chill!  


Purity! Or else!
by ChitownDenny on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 01:36:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary 2.0 (2.00 / 1)

No, no. You misread me. Totally chill. Just confused. But hey, I rate your comments anyway.


Pointing to the inadequacies of John McCain
by duende on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 01:39:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary 2.0 (2.00 / 5)

"I'm sure many will recognize that TD is a "pissed-off" Dem, as many are.  That is different from being a Repub."

If Senator Clinton had won the nomination, I'd have been a pissed off Dem.

But I would. not. ever. have considered voting for anyone other than Senator Clinton.  And I damn sure as hell wouldn't have run around offering a freaking reward for dirt on the Clintons.


by Collideascope on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 01:42:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

TD is betraying Hillary. (2.00 / 6)

She might as well be a Republican now.


Even John McCain lusts after teh engels.
by sricki on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 01:43:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary 2.0 (none / 0)

You speak to why I am proud to be an American.  We, all, have the ability to make up our own minds and vote on it.


Purity! Or else!
by ChitownDenny on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 01:51:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary 2.0 (2.00 / 2)

Do you know if TD has figured out that a McCain presidency would hurt HRC?  I mean I hope she realizes that Presidential veto powers would be used against any Universal Health Care plan, which quite frankly is the most defining policy/program for Hillay.  I really hope people that adamantly supported Hillary realize that all of her other positions would be compromised, if not reversed, by a McCain presidency.

I have asked others who supported Hillary and now openly support McCain and I never get a response.  


Democrat for the democratic nominee
by KLRinLA on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 02:27:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary 2.0 (2.00 / 1)

Well, she, and many PUMAs have little faith in a McCain presidency, or for that matter, an Obama presidency.  They are hoping for Hillary '12, at least from what I've observed lurking on the varios sites.  
Given that as an action (and assuming they can actually read the writing on the wall), I support an American's right to assemble, protest, and vote.
Purity! Or else!
by ChitownDenny on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 02:42:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary 2.0 (none / 0)

Oh, so only 4 more years of Iraq, likeyl invasion into Iran, no chance of Universal Healthcare, potential conservative appointments to the Supreme Court, veto'd regulations on various markets, industries, oh I wonder if they know that the guys who started this war and got thrown under the bus by Bush (a political attempt to maintian some integrity) are McCain's advisors.  Cool, Just 4 more years of BushIII.  I apologize if it seems I am using you as an intermediary to rant on them, really I'm not, just expressing my frustrations of their short-sightedness in this forum.

But you are right, one of America's virtues is their right to hold any political positon they desire, no matter how callous and thoughtless.  I give them credit for at least having the resemblance of a plan.


Democrat for the democratic nominee
by KLRinLA on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 02:52:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary 2.0 (2.00 / 1)

OK. I know the audience to which I speak (being a--former--Hillary supporter).
"Oh, so only 4 more years of Iraq, likeyl invasion into Iran, no chance of Universal Healthcare...."
I...still...don't...know...Barack's...po sition...on...Iraq.  Barack campaigned on something LESS than Universal Healthcare.  And, blah, blah, blah.  I'm listening to Barack.  I'm waiting.  I suspect many are.
Purity! Or else!
by ChitownDenny on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 03:00:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary 2.0 (none / 0)

I am not talking about Barack, my point is that these PUMAs aren't thinking this through.  If they truly support Hillary, then a McCain presidency does not help HIllary advance her goals and agendas and could potential harm or reverse her accomplishments and goals.  It doesn't make sense, that is my point.  How does McCain winning help Hillary?  Is it just her attaining the presidency in 4 years without regard to possible destruction of Hillary's actual goals, objectives, beliefs?


Democrat for the democratic nominee
by KLRinLA on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 03:05:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary 2.0 (2.00 / 1)

OK.  Barack's out of the equation for this conversation.  Party unity vs. protesting the Dem party.  What's hard to understand about that?  How many Dem AA's threatened the same if Barack wasn't the nominee?  


Purity! Or else!
by ChitownDenny on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 03:12:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary 2.0 (none / 0)

Ahh, protesting the party, the party that Clinton is firmly entrenched in as one of the largest players, the party that Hillary needs to fulfill her goals, protesting that party.   And by protesting that party, this group is going to teach everyone that if they don't get what want, then everyone pays, including Hillary.  
Cool
Democrat for the democratic nominee
by KLRinLA on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 03:44:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary 2.0 (2.00 / 1)

Pot, meet kettle?  Anyway, just tryin' to enlighten.


Purity! Or else!
by ChitownDenny on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 03:50:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary 2.0 (none / 0)

What do you mean?  How am I a pot or a kettle?  I am re-reading what I posted and I think you may think I am saying This.

And again, I am not directing any of this towards you, I was under the impression that you had a clearer understanding of their motivations than I and I am trying to get to understand it


Democrat for the democratic nominee
by KLRinLA on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 04:01:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary 2.0 (none / 0)

Something got lost in translation up there, I was just reiterating PUMAs position how their protesting the party is going to hurt Hillary.  I don't see how I am a pot or kettle by attempting to summarize their position and reasoning


Democrat for the democratic nominee
by KLRinLA on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 04:05:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary 2.0 (2.00 / 1)

No.  You're not pot or kettle.  Tactics by supporters of the Dem candidates refers to pot and kettle.


Purity! Or else!
by ChitownDenny on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 04:10:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary 2.0 (none / 0)

I don't think it is really a fair comparison by asserting a certain segment would stay home if Obama didn't win vs. HRC supporters for McCAin...But I agree, given this Obama's lead in this race, if theSupers gave it to Hillary, yes many people would've stayed home.  Not sure if many would vote for McCain.  However, again, even this is different because everyone knows this primary was won fair and square and people that don't beleive that are either insincere, not getting their news from a reliable source, is  kidding themselves, or just doesn't know enough about how primary elections work.

But I undertand your point by reviewing your posts further down, that even if there is a perception that it was unfair, people could be led to this protest, and that is understandable.  I think I gleaned some understanding from this PUMA group, though my intial analysis of it remains the same.


Democrat for the democratic nominee
by KLRinLA on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 04:29:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary 2.0 (2.00 / 2)

If Hillary had won the primary fairly, I wouldn't have been pissed off. If I felt she had stolen it then, yes, I would have been pissed. However, keep in mind that many Clinton supporters see it the second way. They feel that somehow Obama stole the nomination. It doesn't matter if it is true or not, perception is what matters. I'm not sure how  you can counter those feelings.


"The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good." Samuel Johnson
by MS01 Indie on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 03:18:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary 2.0 (2.00 / 2)

What?????
Either nominee would have/is the presumptive nominee because of Supers.  What FAIRNESS are you speaking of?
Just stupid!
Purity! Or else!
by ChitownDenny on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 03:22:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary 2.0 (2.00 / 1)

Woah, calm down. I didn't say anything about supers. I said I wouldn't have been upset about Hillary winning if it had been done fairly. She didn't win, so how can I be accusing her of winning unfairly? My point was that many Clinton supporters think Obama won unfairly and that many Obama supporters, including myself, would have been upset if we thought the opposite had happened.


"The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good." Samuel Johnson
by MS01 Indie on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 03:31:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary 2.0 (2.00 / 1)

Pray tell; what "unfairness" do you speak of when you speak of Hillary's effort to win the nomination?
Regarding:  "My point was that many Clinton supporters think Obama won unfairly...."  I will just say;
  1.  Dem Party
  2.  DNC
  3.  MSM
  4.  Obama campaign tactics.
Let me be clear, I'm not arguing the primary.  I accepts the results.  I'm now looking at the
General.
Purity! Or else!
by ChitownDenny on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 04:03:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary 2.0 (none / 0)

I'm not speaking of any unfairness by Hillary's campaign. I said 'if' people thought she had won unfairly. It's like saying, 'if Obama was a woman the results would have been different'. That sure doesn't mean I think Obama is a woman.


"The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good." Samuel Johnson
by MS01 Indie on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 04:12:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary 2.0 (2.00 / 2)

Ok, so if the PUMA's want to change that system, don't you think it would be easier to do from the inside?  As opposed to alienting themselves from the party by voting for McCain, how exactly is that going to change the democratic primary system?  Seems to be a bit odd, so you can understand my frustration with their reasoning and my suspicions of their sincerity.

And, I find it interesting that anyone could claims that it is "unfair" to have Supers vote for the leader of the pledged delgates.  


Democrat for the democratic nominee
by KLRinLA on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 03:53:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary 2.0 (2.00 / 3)

Yes you have had a positive influence on the healing process. Like Senator Clinton you know who the enemy is. Cheers.


by Politicalslave on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 07:11:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Pushing back with gusto (2.00 / 4)

We're not going to allow ourselves to be pushed around by the right wing this year.

Thanks sricki for leading the charge.

And on a personal note, I kinda always figured you were a dude, i think it's because "rick" is in your nickname. Mea culpa


John McCain: Four More Years of Failure.
by dannybauder on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 01:06:38 PM EST

Heh, that's okay. (2.00 / 4)

I tend to "run with the boys" anyway. ;)


Even John McCain lusts after teh engels.
by sricki on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 01:08:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary 2.0 (1.11 / 9)

Dont make me throw up. to compare Michelle with Hillary is utterly nauseating. One spent her life working for the Country the other one works at a made up job that takes money out of health care.  there is no other Hospital in the country that pays this kind of money for "community relations". What has Michelle done for the Country?


by rocky on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 01:07:46 PM EST

Pardon me (2.00 / 5)

for upsetting your delicate sensibilities. Might I recommend a bit of Mylanta for that nausea? Best of luck with it.


Even John McCain lusts after teh engels.
by sricki on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 01:11:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary 2.0 (2.00 / 4)

What has Michelle done for the Country?

Need a favor...

Can you make sure you add "TM - Fox News Corp." after that?


by Lance Bryce on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 01:46:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary 2.0 (1.66 / 3)

For your nausea my Doctor would prescribe a healthy dose of "Gobacktohillaryis44."

I am sure you will feel much better over there.


"And to my fellow Americans I say this... get off my lawn." John McCain, August 2008
by JDF on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 04:28:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Wrong (2.00 / 2)

I agree that Hillary has made great contributions to this country. There is no need to compare Michelle and Hillary. They will never be the same person, okay?

MIchelle Obama does not work at a "made up" job. It's a job that brings in money to pay for health care providers and unionized support staff and health care.

Also, people like Rush Limbaugh make millions of dollars a year. What has Rush done for the country? How do we bill him for the damage he has caused? What have you done for the country for that matter?

Let's keep what someone earns for professional skills separate from being a valuable participant in our Democracy. There are people who earn $12,000 a year who I consider to be as valuable and patriotic and needed to run this country as anyone making more or less money. I also feel the same way about people on social security or disability. Because they may not be making money is their value as human beings or voters less than someone who is 21 and earning $43,000 a year? Think about the implications of what you are saying.

There are hospitals that pay that kind of money for both development and/or public relations. You can look up compensation levels for just about any position based on the revenue of the hospital or not for profit organization anywhere on the web. Most hospitals provide emergency and outpatient care for a lot of people who have no money at all. In the corporate world she could be earning huge bonuses. That's not especially  savory in the not-for-profit world, but like I said, if she is getting wealthy people to hand over millions to fund care or a hospital building with their name on it, she deserves every cent that she makes.

Does it bother you more that she is a woman getting paid a decent salary for the level of work she does (men do the same work and that's about an average salary for what the work entails and the annual revenue of a hospital) or that she is a black women getting paid a salary equal to what a white person  would make in the same position?  


Barack Obama is my President. He'll be yours, too.
by Jeter on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 07:06:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wrong (2.00 / 2)

Sorry to go off, Rocky. That was such a Republican way of framing things. It's like Rove calling Obama "an elitist with a martini smoking a cigarette at a country club". Being a 45 year old man or woman who has made good through lots of study and work and concern for others is one of the opportunities America offers us all. The Obamas are just getting a lot of attention. I think Barack is going to be a really good President. He'll bring change that no one needs to be afraid of, and we could use some new solutions to problems we have all be complaining about for far two long. Nothing is going to happen overnight, but I feel that we all will have a say in how things get decided. It will be good to have a President who doesn't think he is a monarch.


Barack Obama is my President. He'll be yours, too.
by Jeter on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 09:27:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary 2.0 (2.00 / 1)

She has helped our candidate reach this point. Senator Obama didn't do this on his own. Michelle Obama is a great role model. She is also very young and I imagine she will accomplish a great deal by the time she reaches Senator Clinton's age. Look at what she has acomplished already.


by Politicalslave on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 08:12:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary 2.0 (2.00 / 10)

I loved Hillary as first lady, and, having grown up in the same era of rampant, pre-modern-feminist-movement sexism, had enormous respect for and understanding of what it took for her to be the force that she was (and is).

I think in some weird way this campaign, where so much gender bias was directed against Hillary, may end up helping Michelle Obama and all political women (and just plain strong and ambitious and capable women) more than anyone could have anticipated.  The sexist rhetoric was so blatant (I am an Obama supporter but a woman, and I remember about halfway through the campaign looking in shock at some really ugly cartoon portrayals of Hillary and feeling overwhelmingly split about why I support who I support) it finally seems to be registering on the national consciousness.  

I hope so anyway.  

At any rate, terrific diary.


by mady on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 01:13:22 PM EST

Thanks, mady. (2.00 / 4)

You've been one of my favorite voices of reason on this site for a long time.


Even John McCain lusts after teh engels.
by sricki on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 01:45:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thanks, mady. (2.00 / 4)

Back at you.


by mady on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 02:03:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary 2.0 (2.00 / 8)

A couple notes on the clip --

note the use of the diminuitive "picking on" equating liberal outrage with sibling rivalry between grade schoolers.  It suggests the objections are juvenile, petty and easily brushed off as "liberals being liberals".

I dare say if we started in on Cindy McCain we'd be "attacking her" or "smearing her" or "assaulting her"  and not "picking on her".  then, of course, Cindy is a Real American and a Real Woman, both.

By comparison, and most notably, Cindy is blond and white therefore more likely to be viciously attacked for no good reason and profoundly suffer for it.  She's also undoubtedly more fragile and thus chivalry demands standing up for her honor, while, of course, as a black woman Michelle is no doubt immune to just about any form of denegration and shit just bounces off of her or something.

"Baby Momma" could take days to unpack -- like I guess "wife" wasn't descriptive enough and "mother of his children" didn't fit well on the screen.  Besides, isn't that phrase some sort of "with it" reference that "the blacks" will appreciate?  

Ugh.  And then we are still debating whether or not the wife of the candidate is "patriotic" or not?  Young soldiers are dying, the economy is in the shitter, Americans are dying for lack of healthcare and affordable housing, we are devolving by every metric but somewhere, out there in Idiot America, some mouth breather or elitist waste of space is saying to themself "Yes, I must choose the candidate with the more visibly inarguably patriotic wife."

How do these assclowns sleep at night?


Sexism is real.
by grassrootsorganizer on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 01:34:53 PM EST

Sleep comes easily (2.00 / 4)

to those with no conscience.


Even John McCain lusts after teh engels.
by sricki on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 01:39:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sleep comes easily (2.00 / 1)

I'm not sure if it's conscience or not, but many conservatives just don't believe that people unlike them matter.  Whether it's based on wealth, education, race, or nationality, most conservatives care only about people similar to them.


by ProgressiveDL on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 03:04:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary 2.0 (2.00 / 6)

How do these assclowns sleep at night?

They sleep soundly wearing their assclown pajamas nestled under their assclown bedspread. All available at SeanHannity.com, by the way.
by Lance Bryce on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 01:49:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The Left (2.00 / 5)

"There is no doubt that the Right will treat her just as they treated Hillary, but like Hillary, I believe Michelle will rise above it."

Yes, and let's just hope that the LEFT doesn't treat her the way they treated Hillary. If they do- let's hope she can be half as graceful and successful as Hillary.

Good post.


by easyE on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 01:38:40 PM EST

Agreed, (2.00 / 5)

the attacks coming at Hillary from the Right didn't hurt nearly as much as the attacks coming from the Left.


Even John McCain lusts after teh engels.
by sricki on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 01:42:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary 2.0 (2.00 / 1)

" I suppose the conventional wisdom is that African Americans should smile, shut up, and accept their misfortunes like good little negroes."

I like it how they can smile while they tap dance.

Sometimes the sing and tap dance and smile all at once.


John McCain: Cheney with a temper
by wrb on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 01:50:19 PM EST

Where has Obama been on sexism? (1.50 / 2)

Obama has my vote.  I'm a Democrat.

But his stunning silence on the revolting, rampant sexim used against Hillary makes me ill.  His brand of "progressive" seems somehow to exclude the fight for gender equality.

Until (if) he speaks out on this issue, I will not--choose not--to respect or support (not the same as vote for) this man who let the vile, sexist MSM trounce Hillary.

For shame...


by borlov on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 01:53:11 PM EST

I'm very glad he has your vote. (2.00 / 7)

That's what matters. But you know, Hillary didn't speak up every time racism was used against Obama. I don't think either of them were strictly required to do so, though I would have been pleased if they had.


Even John McCain lusts after teh engels.
by sricki on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 01:56:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Really (2.00 / 2)

When there was perception that a guy on her campaign in the beginning was being racists he "resigned".
When Cuomo said something perceived as racist, even though he was NOT working for the campaign, Hillary said she disagreed with his choice of words.  Ditto Feraro.

Never heard any of the male candidates take Matthews to task and in fact Obama spent a whole hour with the pig.
When Ed Shultz trashed McCain in a perceived unacceptable way, the Obama campaign made sure it was known they did not agree.  But when Randi Rhodes called Hillary a "f*cking whore" never a word from the Obama campaign.

While Bill was unfairly accused by Michelle of saying a black man running for president was a "fairy tale", it was never taken back and there was not apology for the lie.  To this day it is perceived to be true except for those of us who heard the whole conversation.

Sorry the Obama campaign was nasty and unfair and yet the blogs were sanctimonious and hypocritical as they demonized Hillary. I still have a problem with that.


by Jjc2008 on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 09:45:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Really (none / 0)

Randi Rhodes was employed by Air America not by Obama.  I didn't know that Obama has to apologize to Clinton for every mean thing said by anybody in the country.  Want to point that out in the Bill of Rights or my employment contract?

Didn't know that Obama had to apologize for me when I complained about Hillary's vote on the war.

Ditto Ferraro doesn't quite work since she was working for Clinton's campaign.  Right?  Or are you just pulling BS out of your intestinal track?

As for Cuomo, he still has his job, Randi doesn't, but that doesn't seem to satisfy your hunger for vengeance.


by Regenman on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 01:44:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Where has Obama been on sexism? (2.00 / 7)

I think our filters cause us to hear some things more loudly than others some clearly are tuned to sexism. I thought it disgusting but as far as I could tell every bit of crap that could be thought of was being thrown.  Edward's hair, Kerry's wetsuit, sexism against Michelle, weird complex sexism against Barack (mot masculine enough, "testicular fortitude).  Hell, these are the folks who brought us "Barack the Magic Negro"

That was I was surprised when I found how hurt many women were by the sexism-- through my filter set it seemed awful but no worse than the rest of the crap being thrown


John McCain: Cheney with a temper
by wrb on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 02:21:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Where has Clinton been on racism? (none / 0)

Perhaps he would have spoken out if Hillary had called Bill and her supporters out who used race during the Primary and don't give me the lame excuses that state they did not use race or that the Obama camp used it first. They used it and Hillary let them without calling them out.
What's good for the goose is good for the gander so before you blow stop and deal with reality.
by Grissom1001 on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 11:52:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Excellent Diary! (2.00 / 6)

Well stated, well written, well well well..

highly recced!! (does it help if I click it five times?).

-woof!

-chris


"Because after an eight-year hiatus it is vital to have a president who leads the country instead of lassoing, roping and branding it." Shaun Appleby
by chrisblask on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 02:06:28 PM EST

Re: Hillary 2.0 (2.00 / 5)

sricki,

BRAVA
BRAVA
BRAVA

Thanks for sharing.


"In the primary you should vote with your heart, but in the general, you should vote with your head" Hillary's husband
by venician on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 02:51:09 PM EST

While I have no love (2.00 / 3)

for Hillary Clinton, I can say that I have tried hard to separate substantive policy-based and even character-based criticism of her from the right-wing smears.

My Dad consistently calls her a "terrible human being" who reminds him of academic "feminist types" he dislikes.  I constantly challenge him on his charicatures, and he retreats.  My hope is that he'll either moderate his disdain for her or at least articulate it better.

My mom initiallly couldn't stand her either, mostly because of televised character traits.  Since then, she's read Bernstein's biography of her, which I hear is pretty nuanced.  My mom now sees Hillary as a remarkable accomplished woman, although she still believes she wouldn't make a very good president.

While I applaud your evenhandedness, sricki, I want to offer a cautionary note.  We naturally tend to empathize with someone whom we feel has been attacked unfairly.  I admit I may have felt more warmly toward Hillary if I had listened to Rush more in the 1990s.

The problem is falling into a false dichotomy fallacy trap.  While people like my Dad believed the right-wing smears (at least subconciously), it is little better to react to the smear by taking the opposite position.  In short, the smears are no reason to support Hillary Clinton or Michelle Obama.  They should be called out and denounced, but they shouldn't have any influence.  

Annoyingly, almost every fund-soliciting e-mail is an appeal to victimhood and the need to "fight back" against smears.  Well, fine, but why is it important to fight back?  Why should you actually be elected, other than that some creeps don't like you?

I suppose my argument boils down to this: I don't want Obama to be elected because Limbaugh was mean to his wife.


by corph on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 03:05:28 PM EST

Why is it that the right wing is (2.00 / 1)

used as a blanket statement in regards to Hillary Clinton? It implys that everything bad we have ever heard was a lie or distorted. It wasn't.
There are many instances where she has made poor choices and taken paths that were not in her best interest or the best interest of this country.
Did the Right Wing make and distort MANY things? Yes they did bit the reality falls somewhere in the middle.
by Grissom1001 on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 11:55:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Exactly. (none / 0)

Victim of sexism/misogyny/smear-based arguments are brought up way too often in defense of her.  You can't engage the substantive criticism if you're too busy being outraged over the petty irrelevant crap.


by corph on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 02:36:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary 2.0 (2.00 / 8)

Heh.  My parents are both liberals, and lifelong Dems.  They've become a skosh more conservative (fiscally not socially) as they've grown older though.

When I was 18, I rebelled against my Dad by registering as a Republican and threatening to vote for G.H.W. Bush.  See, Dad was my history, government, and economics teacher in High School.

Naturally, I re-registered Dem and voted for Clinton when he wasn't looking.  The old coot still teases me about it, saying "I always new you'd never cross over to the dark side".

Gad, I love my folks.  :)


Unseen, in the background, Fate was quietly slipping the lead into the boxing glove.
by fogiv on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 03:12:07 PM EST

That's hilarious. (2.00 / 4)

My parents are great. Did you know that conservatives, when faced with cold, hard logic, can be convinced that abortion should be legal? Amazing what Republicans with brains and morals are capable of conceding! They're pro-life, and yet they've argued with me until they decided that outlawing abortion is wrong.

Gotta love it.


Even John McCain lusts after teh engels.
by sricki on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 03:20:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Great diary, and deserving of a rec..... (2.00 / 4)

I still am not quite over my anger at (some of) the Obama left for their unfair treatment of Hillary, for repeating and pushing the right wing narrative.
I am not over my disappointment at Michell's willingness to spin against Hillary and for saying on national television that she was not sure she could support Hillary if she won.

However no way ever will I let any woman be demonized by the right (or left) again. I won't.

It would help however if some of the Obama left who still feel it is justified to trash, demean and insult Hillary......


by Jjc2008 on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 05:05:31 PM EST

Mega amens to that! (2.00 / 1)

I'm not over it either!

We are right on the same pagel.


by Radiowalla on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 10:18:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Kinda like some Clintons supporters (none / 0)

still feel it is O.K to lies and distort regarding the Obama's? It's a 2 way street and until you and other Clinton supporters wake and realize that? Obama supporters will continue to push back and nothing changes.


by Grissom1001 on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 11:58:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Really???? (none / 0)

Well here's a clue for ya.
Your person won.  Now it's up to him and his supporters to cajole and work to convince us to join your team, not vice-versa.  I don't give a crap what you think of me or my candidate anymore.  But if you feel that way, then you really are a naive sore winner.  Perhaps you should take a course on "Winning the GE, 101".  Cause whether you like it or not, YOU need us.....not the other way around.
by Jjc2008 on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 03:46:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

That Faux clip (2.00 / 2)

Was truly disheartening. I guess what bothers me more than the shit that guy was spewing--though it is indeed nasty--is that, as you say above, people listen to it, and slowly, if they hear it often enough, and thanks to Faux News they will, it seeps in and becomes part of what they think.
As an aside, I don't understand why it seems so weird that a lot of black women are angry. Jeez, when you look at this country's history, why would it be any shock that black women are angry? I'm amazed and saddened that we aren't ALL angry.
ооо
by Mumphrey on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 05:25:42 PM EST

Thank you for this (2.00 / 3)

A great diary, and a wonderful read.


by Neef on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 05:39:56 PM EST

Re: Hillary 2.0 (2.00 / 2)

Superb diary - tipped & rec'd.

I've long-admired your diaries & comments.  I guess this is as good a time as any to say thanks for the all the cool, clean reason!


by candidate D on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 07:19:49 PM EST

Re: Hillary 2.0 (2.00 / 1)

I want a first lady debate.  Please let this shining light be used, especially if put beside the very dim bulb of Cindy McCain.


by moondancer on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 07:20:45 PM EST

Re: Hillary 2.0 (2.00 / 2)

OVER 70 RECOMENDATIONS and counting what does this say about how we feel on these issues? I guess we all agree!  Thank you Sricki


by Politicalslave on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 08:37:35 PM EST