Goodbye To All That (#2)
by Robin Morgan
The Women's Media Center
- USA -
“Goodbye To All That” was my (in)famous 1970 essay breaking free from a politics of accommodation especially affecting women.
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.
- 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”. 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. 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 black or 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.
Goodbye to a misrepresented generational divide . . .
Goodbye to the so-called spontaneous “Obama Girl” flaunting her bikini-clad ass online—then confessing Oh yeah it wasn’t her idea after all, some guys got her to do it and dictated the clothes, which she said “made me feel like a dork.”
Goodbye to some young women eager to win male approval by showing they’re not feminists (at least not the kind who actually threaten the status quo), who can’t identify with a woman candidate because she is unafraid of eeueweeeu yucky power, who fear their boyfriends might look at them funny if they say something good about her. Goodbye to women of any age again feeling unworthy, sulking “what if she’s not electable?” or “maybe it’s post-feminism and whoooosh we’re already free.” Let a statement by the magnificent Harriet Tubman stand as reply. When asked how she managed to save hundreds of enslaved African Americans via the Underground Railroad during the Civil War, she replied bitterly, “I could have saved thousands—if only I’d been able to convince them they were slaves.”
I’d rather say a joyful Hello to all the glorious young women who do identify with Hillary, and all the brave, smart men—of all ethnicities and any age—who get that it’s in their self-interest, too. She’s better qualified. (D’uh.) She’s a high-profile candidate with an enormous grasp of foreign- and domestic-policy nuance, dedication to detail, ability to absorb staggering insult and personal pain while retaining dignity, resolve, even humor, and keep on keeping on. (Also, yes, dammit, let’s hear it for her connections and funding and party-building background, too. Obama was awfully glad about those when she raised dough and campaigned for him to get to the Senate in the first place.)
I’d rather look forward to what a good president he might make in eight years, when his vision and spirit are seasoned by practical know-how—and he’ll be all of 54. Meanwhile, goodbye to turning him into a shining knight when actually he’s an astute, smooth pol with speechwriters who’ve worked with the Kennedys’ own speechwriter-courtier Ted Sorenson. If it’s only about ringing rhetoric, let speechwriters run. But isn’t it about getting the policies we want enacted?
And goodbye to the ageism . . .
How dare anyone unilaterally decide when to turn the page on history, papering over real inequities and suffering constituencies in the promise of a feel-good campaign? How dare anyone claim to unify while dividing, or think that to rouse U.S. youth from torpor it’s useful to triage the single largest demographic in this country’s history: the boomer generation—the majority of which is female?
Old woman are the one group that doesn’t grow more conservative with age—and we are the generation of radicals who said “Well-behaved women seldom make history.” Goodbye to going gently into any goodnight any man prescribes for us. We are the women who changed the reality of the United States. And though we never went away, brace yourselves: we’re back!
We are the women who brought this country equal credit, better pay, affirmative action, the concept of a family-focused workplace; the women who established rape-crisis centers and battery shelters, marital-rape and date-rape laws; the women who defended lesbian custody rights, who fought for prison reform, founded the peace and environmental movements; who insisted that medical research include female anatomy; who inspired men to become more nurturing parents; who created women’s studies and Title IX so we all could cheer the WNBA stars and Mia Hamm. We are the women who reclaimed sexuality from violent pornography, who put childcare on the national agenda, who transformed demographics, artistic expression, language itself. We are the women who forged a worldwide movement. We are the proud successors of women who, though it took more than 50 years, won us the vote.
We are the women who now comprise the majority of U.S. voters.
Hillary said she found her own voice in New Hampshire. There’s not a woman alive who, if she’s honest, doesn’t recognize what she means. Then HRC got drowned out by campaign experts, Bill, and media’s obsession with everything Bill.
So listen to her voice:
“For too long, the history of women has been a history of silence. Even today, there are those who are trying to silence our words.
“It is a violation of human rights when babies are denied food, or drowned, or suffocated, or their spines broken, simply because they are born girls. It is a violation of human rights when woman and girls are sold into the slavery of prostitution. It is a violation of human rights when women are doused with gasoline, set on fire and burned to death because their marriage dowries are deemed too small. It is a violation of human rights when individual women are raped in their own communities and when thousands of women are subjected to rape as a tactic or prize of war. It is a violation of human rights when a leading cause of death worldwide along women ages 14 to 44 is the violence they are subjected to in their own homes. It is a violation of human rights when women are denied the right to plan their own families, and that includes being forced to have abortions or being sterilized against their will.
“Women’s rights are human rights. Among those rights are the right to speak freely—and the right to be heard.”
That was Hillary Rodham Clinton defying the U.S. State Department and the Chinese Government at the 1995 UN World Conference on Women in Beijing.
And this voice, age 22, in “Commencement Remarks of Hillary D. Rodham, President of Wellesley College Government Association, Class of 1969.”
“We are, all of us, exploring a world none of us understands. . . . searching for a more immediate, ecstatic, and penetrating mode of living. . . . [for the] integrity, the courage to be whole, living in relation to one another in the full poetry of existence. The struggle for an integrated life existing in an atmosphere of communal trust and respect is one with desperately important political and social consequences. . . . Fear is always with us, but we just don't have time for it.”
She ended with the commitment “to practice, with all the skill of our being: the art of making possible.”
And for decades, she’s been learning how.
So goodbye to Hillary’s second-guessing herself. The real question is deeper than her re-finding her voice. Can we women find ours? Can we do this for ourselves?
“Our President, Ourselves!”
Time is short and the contest tightening. We need to rise in furious energy—as we did when Anita Hill was so vilely treated in the U.S. Senate, as we did when Rosie Jiminez was butchered by an illegal abortion, as we did and do for women globally who are condemned for trying to break through. We need to win, this time. Goodbye to supporting HRC tepidly, with ambivalent caveats and apologetic smiles. Time to volunteer, make phone calls, send emails, donate money, argue, rally, march, shout, vote.
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.
About the Author
An award-winning writer, feminist leader, political analyst, journalist, editor, and co-founder of the Women's Media Center, Robin Morgan has published 21 books, including six of poetry, four of fiction, and the now-classic anthologies Sisterhood Is Powerful, Sisterhood Is Global, and Sisterhood Is Forever.
Her work has been translated into 13 languages. A founder of contemporary U.S. feminism, she has also been a leader in the international women's movement for 25 years. Recent books include A Hot January: Poems 1996-1999; Saturday's Child: A Memoir; her best-selling The Demon Lover: The Roots of Terrorism, updated and reissued in 2001; and her novel, The Burning Time. Her nonfiction work, Fighting Words: A Took Kit for Combating the Religious Right, came out in September 2006.

Comments (11)
Best of luck to Senator Hillary Clinton on Super Tuesday and the remaining primaries. I am a 50 year old female supporter and voted for her in my state of Florida.
She has the strength and qualification to be President. A woman president will be CHANGE.
Oprah Winfrey should remember that she made her fortune promoting women's issues and most of her viewers are women. She is only supporting Obama because of his race. The Kennedy's represent the past even though Obama claims he is for the "future".
I support Hillary all the way to the White House !!!
Posted by tsr | February 4, 2008 9:57 AM
Ms. Morgan,
As one of the partners behind the Hillary Nutcracker, I can tell you that the vast majority of purchasers are women and that sales break down almost evenly between her supporters and her detractors. Her supporters believe the product depicts her as a tough leader who can best handle all the right wing nuts. Several of Senator Clinton's top campaigners proudly display the Hillary Nutcracker on their desks and the Senator has taken to signing them at her rallys. I can certainly understand where you're coming from, but just wanted you to know that not all feminists agree with your point of view. To say this is equivalent to a tap-dancing, blackface doll is way over the top.
Posted by Gibson Carothers | February 4, 2008 10:55 AM
I found this article by Robin Morgan both enlightening and very sad. It is inconceivable to me that still in the first decade of the 21st century we find it so difficult to countenance a female president!
I also regret that so much of the antagonism felt for Bill Clinton -- by both Democrats as well as Republicans -- has so easily and thoughtlessly been passed on to Hillary. In closing, I would like to suggest one correction. Hillary did indeed smash the first-lady stereotype but her model/ predecessor was Eleanor Roosevelt. Eleanor visited the troops during WW II, fought against lynching in the United States as a strong partisan of the civil rights movement long before it became fashionable, and was an eloquent supporter of the United Nations.
Posted by George L. Vásquez | February 4, 2008 2:23 PM
What a refreshing article and your ending is terrific!! You did a great job of summarizing the "Hillary bashing" for what it is. Thank you for an extremely well written and thoughtful article. It is the best summation I've read of the underlying issues that have shaped this campaign...Sylvia
Posted by Sylvia | February 4, 2008 9:55 PM
I cannot help but notice that for all intents and purposes, this article seems designed to anger women into voting for Hillary, in spite of simultaneously expressing anger that women are still being emotionally manipulated into choosing (or not choosing) HRC as their candidate.
If it were I, I would say, Goodbye to articles designed to influence one's vote through anger. Anger is not a good basis for sound judgement.
Posted by Matthew Huntley | February 4, 2008 10:00 PM
Yawn,
The same old rhetoric over and over. It's like a broken record. Before the "all men are bastards" brigade climb on to their female high horse and pump out rubbish such as 'patriarchal system", "Misogynistic", "gender inequality" and other references to the 50s and 60s etc etc, they should have a peek into the remainder of society. For instance the Family Court. Where men are instantly castrated and separated form their children, assets and generally their whole life is taken from them! Men don't stand a chance in this politically correct society. So when I read that women are crying a river of tears over "equal Pay" I am shocked to the core. Apparently, a man is a bastard if he is simply the best candidate for a particular position! Give me a break.
Posted by Robert | February 5, 2008 3:39 AM
Thank you, Robin Morgan, and the editors of the WIP for publishing this article and for the WIP to being a place where no one is marginalized and trivialized.
Unlike Robin Morgan, I am not going to vote for Hillary even though I am a woman, but I am very grateful for the issues she raises and for this article. Sexism in this campaign is another of the ways that the corporate media fail to act as the free press needed in a democracy. Professor of communications Susan MacMillan says that we have a "media lockdown" at this time in our history. We know that the New York Times, withheld information about electronic spying and allowed Judith Miller to write what amounts to Bush regime propaganda on its front page. Fox television news just blatantly publishes lies. But those are not the only ways the media works to serve the interests not of most men and women in this country, but of the very powerful few.
The views of women in the traditional media that Morgan shows skillfully here is a serious concerted effort to keep women, who might really change things, trivialized and marginalized. It is part of the same strategy that trivializes and marginalizes dissent of any kind. I believe this view of women is harmful to men and to women.
Posted by Nancy Van Ness | February 5, 2008 6:25 AM
Thank you Matthew, for your great take on this article.
Anger wont lead us anywhere. Goodbye to that.
Hope, forgivness, grace and strength in the face of opposition does better. I look forward to seeing a more united and stronger united states of america after these elections. Take yourselves seriously and stop being so anxious to "be liked" by the rest of the world!
Posted by Sally Park | February 6, 2008 5:05 AM
From one Woman to Another
An open letter to the Feminists of Yesterday….
From this 30 year old, recently married, educated woman to Gloria Steinem, Robin Morgan, and all the other "feminists" yelling at me to vote for Hillary Clinton: Please stop. My own mother doesn't yell at me this much.
Let's get something straight ladies…..with all do respect. I am a woman. I live every day of my life as one. I never forget what it is to be a woman, as I am one. So your constant op-ed pieces, speeches and essays explaining to me what it is to be a woman seem a bit absurd, no? Your degradation of another Democratic candidate who is also trying to make history in the name of your own definition of "progress" is to put it simply, hurtful.
You remind me of how much your generation did, that I wouldn't be here if it weren't for you. You then say "shame on you", and "how dare" and….blah blah blah. I am indeed indebted to you and grateful, but I will not be bullied into voting for your candidate out of some misguided sense of gratitude.
I am and always have been a feminist. I went to an all-girls high school that was phenomenally impactful in shaping my identity as a woman unafraid to speak her mind, comfortable in her own identity, and extremely cognizant of the woman's movement.
That being said, I have been continually disappointed with the dialogue that has arisen out of Mrs. Clinton's run for the Democratic nomination. To my surprise, I am much more disappointed with the words and actions of the elder-stateswomen of the Woman's Movement than I have been by any man. You have proven to be divisive, out of touch, and ignorant.
I am grateful for the movement that preceded me, but this is a new generation, and yelling at me to act as you would isn't going to go far in swaying this opinionated, independent woman. Blame yourself for making me. The ultimate irony.
You are both imploring me, no – yelling at me with words and exclamation points to vote for Mrs. Clinton. I have yet to hear any convincing reasons to do so. Her policies may fit your ideals, but they do not fit mine. I will not degrade her as you have Mr. Obama, because I respect progress in any form, and I refuse to push another group down in the name of saving another. In all your glorification of Mrs. Clinton (or is Saint Clinton?), you conveniently gloss over her implicit role in the race card politics that arose prior to South Carolina. We are all progressives and pitting one against the other is abhorrent. None of the candidates are saints, and we need not treat them as such. It is not an honest debate if we gloss over our favorite candidates' follies and shortcomings and focus only on our rival's. Needless to say if Mrs. Clinton is the Democratic nominee, I will vote for her as her politics are eons closer to my ideals than any Republican nominee.
I had always thought the point of the Woman's Movement was to give women equal treatment and the freedom to do as I damn well please.
How dare you connotate, no - assert that my decision to vote for Mr. Obama is less educated and less progressive then your own. Patronizing, dismissive, egotistical – the first words that came to mind when I read your pieces. I take my vote very seriously, and I have researched my vote endlessly. I came to my decision after much quiet contemplation, education, and no small amount of internal dialogue.
You belittle my vote knowing nothing about how I came to that decision simply because it doesn't fall into line with your expectations of what it is to be a feminist. To borrow from Ms. Morgan's hyperbole, shame on you….You are truly a disservice to your own message. You shame the person who called a Black Female Clinton supporter a race traitor, yet in no uncertain terms, you are calling me a gender traitor.
I also happen to be multi-racial, my father also happens to be an immigrant. So who is to say I shouldn't vote for Mr. Obama because we share these characteristics? Would that be shallow in your opinion? I will venture an educated guess and say it would be. But neither of you are those things, so, shame on you for minimizing their impact on the shaping of my identity.
Shame on you for playing the game of "who's had it worse." As human beings we should be activists for all human kind. I stand for Black rights even though I am not Black. I stand for Latino rights even though I am not Latino. And, you'll love this one…..I stand for Men's rights, even though I am not a man. I am for equality, period. Playing this juvenile game of "we're worse off than you!" does no one any good. I find it repugnant coming from two middle to upper class White Females who as far as I can tell have never been Black, or for that matter, a Black Man.
Mr. Obama has had a savagely racist whisper campaign going on for over a year attacking his religion, heritage, upbringing, family, and everything else that helps to define this man. I don't see either of you addressing this indignity.
I am not voting for Hillary. And I shouldn't be made to feel guilty about that. Isn't that what the Woman's Movement was trying to do away with…..guilt? Life is too short and I refuse to live it according to your definition of success. I live my life according to my own. And in that, it is I who truly exemplifies the meaning of the Movement.
Wake up ladies, this generation is different. I don't know a single man in my generation threatened by a strong female. My husband is all too happy to cook for me, help around the house, stay home and be the homemaker. He supports me and I support him. Every man I know is a progressive and a feminist and none of them would be ashamed to call themselves such. We cannot continue to fight a Woman's Movement based on the status quo of 40 years ago. Men today are not the men of yesterday….and to treat them as such isn't going to win many over to our side of the debate. It is insulting.
There is still a struggle to be fought, for all of us. Fighting the wars of yesterday with tools from 40 years ago will go nowhere in the very real battles we need to fight today.
I am no less a feminist because I disagree with you and am an ardent supporter of Mr. Obama. In fact, I may be more of one because I don't dictate to other women what it is to be one.
Posted by Kristina | February 11, 2008 5:37 PM
The sad part is that bigotry has ALWAYS existed and always will. It is the only way that narrow minded people with low egos can survive. Bush is an excellent example. He sees things the way his personal religious belief says SHOULD exist rather than what really is. Similar people should be immediately dismissed as they have learned, and enjoin, the basic arguments: 1. God says (of course it is only their god who says it), 2. For the children, 3. It's always been that way. If bigoted conservatives had their way mankind would still be living in caves, eating raw meat, and wearing animal skins. The conservative bigots latches onto liberal ideas, twists them to suit their purpose and promotes them as conservative. Moses was a liberal. He refused to accept slavery by the Egyptians and gave birth to a new conservative movement. Jesus was a liberal. He refused to strictly adhere to the Jewish law. Jews may have invented guilt but the Christians and Moslems perfected it. Every conservative bigot has the only solution to problems to the persecution of others. Inertia on the part of the majority allows these bigots control over them. Information and interest will keep them in check. Only when who is running the country becomes more important than Sunday Night Football and a can of Budweiser will the bigots be on the run. Until then, the Bushes and their ilk will rule. Good luck America
Posted by Robert Quade | February 12, 2008 9:15 AM
"Me, I’m voting for Hillary not because she’s a woman—but because I am."
Given today's news, that's not a good enough reason. Hillary's campaign is planning to try and flip Obama's pledged delegates. Not the superdelegates, mind you, we're talking the ones chosen by Democrat voters.
How democratic is that? How do you feel about supporting a candidate so eager to upend our democratic institutions in an all-or-nothing bid for power? That's exactly what she's doing. Negative campaigning pales by comparison to this direct attack on Democratic voters ability to choose the candidate they want to run for President.
Doubt it? Read about it.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8583.html
Posted by Matthew Huntley | February 19, 2008 12:30 PM