Saturday, February 23, 2008


GenderGappers 2008 ­ 010


Most of the media have a different set of value statements depending on whom they are talking about. Seldom is heard a disparaging word when it comments on Barack Obama [BO], but Hillary Rodham Clinton [HRC] gets them all.

Searching for some articles actually critiquing BO, we came across this one by Robert Samuelson. He dissects BO’s campaign promises and concludes: “The contrast between his broad rhetoric and his narrow agenda is stark, and yet the press corps ­ preoccupied with the political ‘horse race’ ­ has treated his invocation of ‘change’ as a serious idea rather than a shallow campaign slogan. He seems to have hypnotized much of the media and the public with his eloquence and the symbolism of his life story. The result is a mass delusion that Obama is forthrightly engaging the nation’s major problems when, so far, he isn’t.”

It is nothing short of miraculous that HRC has done as well as she has in light of the media’s 24/7/366 positively adoring support of BO. What is confusing about this is that the media pundits and various news shows made a big deal out of saying that HRC was getting smacked because she was the front runner; if BO pulls out in front, then we’ll go after him, they promised.

So far with BO leading, it seems the media have no intention of going after their love child, the messiah; but it still, with energy aplenty is hell bent for leather to prevent a woman from becoming president by undermining her at every opportunity.

HRC sneaked off to meet with John Edwards; begged for his support.

BO left his reporters behind when he went to meet with Edwards; talked about relieving poverty.

BO backed away from his declaring to receive public financing for general election.

HRC flip-flopped on any number of occasions.

Nary a word of censure directed toward BO’s spouse, Michelle, for her mean spirited remark about HRC. Or, following this statement: “For the first time in my adult life, I am proud of my country because it feels like hope is making a comeback”, the mainstream media mavins rushed to alibi her and tell the audience what she really meant to say.

But headlines screaming that HRC spouse, Bill, lashes out and angrily confronted a BO supporter with only the sparsest of note taken that said supporter was harassing and interrupting Bills’s speech.

We are told that the so-called gray beards of the Dem Party [the charter misogynist members of the Anyone but Hillary movement] led by Al Gore will call this race based on electibility. We can only hope they heard the footsteps of yet a third defeat in John McCains speech following his victory in Wisconsin.

A speech that blew away the talking heads of CNN and NBC who have constantly shown they are enamored with BO; most interesting because McCain is and has been a great favorite with them.

It is hardly surprising. After all, this is the same media that nearly totally supported the Bush wars, the Bush lies and the Bush administration’s liars for years. Doing the same thing for him as they are now for BO ­ total support without one disparaging word of warning in either case to the American public it professes to serve. #

To subscribe, unsubscribe or comment e-mail: Visit the GenderGapper’s link page: GenderGappers articles may be forwarded if you wish, and translated into other languages, but please keep them intact. They are archived at the following sites:http ://

Friday, February 15, 2008


GenderGappers 2008 – 009 NEW MEXICO, YOU ROCK!

Having trouble choosing your presidential candidate? Here’s a sports analogy that has helped many thinking people: Hillary [HRC] is a quarterback – hands on, experienced and running the game; Barack [BO] is a cheerleader – flashy and entertaining to the onlookers. The cheerleader induces excitement but it’s the quarterback that knows how to get the job done.

Finally some of the media are actually reporting that the huge BO crowds they rave about are actually made up of a majority of those not qualified or old enough to vote – the old bobby-soxers of yore and are mostly held at colleges to get the crowds. His so-called movement and the weirdness of some of his discourse are also getting a closer look by some columnists.

Joe Klein [Time] wrote, "And yet there was something just a wee bit creepy about the mass messianism -- 'We are the ones we've been waiting for' -- of the Super Tuesday speech and the recent turn of the Obama campaign."

Jake Tapper [Political Punch] wrote of Obama's supporters: "Inspiration is nice. But some folks seem to be getting out of hand. It's as if [former Senate Majority Leader] Tom Daschle [D-SD] descended from on high saying, "Be not afraid; for behold I bring you good tidings of great joy which shall be to all the people: for there is born to you this day in the city of Chicago a Savior, who is Barack the Democrat." Concluding the post, Tapper compared Obama supporters to followers of Charles Manson.

Paul Krugman asks: “Why, then, is there so much venom out there? I won’t try for fake evenhandedness here: most of the venom I see is coming from supporters of Mr. Obama, who want their hero or nobody. I’m not the first to point out that the Obama campaign seems dangerously close to becoming a cult of personality. We’ve already had that from the Bush administration — remember Operation Flight Suit? We really don’t want to go there again.” -- Hate Springs Eternal

It takes a French idiom -- chi-chi -- to adequately describe the "Obamaphiles", the members of "the Cult of Obama." Chi-chi literally means, “curl of false hair”. The English definition of chi-chi is, “showily or affectedly elegant or trendy; pretentious”.

Which brings to mind the Republican phrase of a few years back, “tree-hugging, Birkenstock-wearing, hippie, tie-dyed liberals. This is because these BO-philes are the trendy, multi-tasking, wine/Starbuck drinking, Fountain-of-Youth seeking liberals. They are easily seduced by anyone they think might hold the keys to the mythical Fountain, and relieve them of the awful burden of thinking for themselves.

Make no mistake about it. The 5000-pound gorilla in the race is race. When 80+% of the African American votes go to an African American, it’s because of race and no one dares to talk about it except for a few real journalists. HRC has been hamstrung from saying anything about her opponent while the media has relentlessly pummeled her on his behalf with constant gender bashing.

If it were not for this almost total racial support, BO would not have won several states. If it were not for the prohibition against criticizing him, there would be no movement. If the media treated HRC equally, the total delegate count would be much different.

Bill Press observed that the “media is declaring open season on the Clintons. In contrast to fawning reports about Obama crowds, every story about the Clinton campaign is sprinkled with snide, critical, even crude, comments about Hillary or Bill. Now not even Chelsea is spared.”

ANY criticism of BO is considered racial. Already, spokespersons for the BO campaign have stopped just short of predicting riots if BO is defeated. The mean-stream media back away from commenting on it, yet freely and gleefully present the Clintons as pimping out their daughter, Chelsea. This ban on BO critiquing may not bother you now, but just think how you’ll have to watch your tongue if he gets elected.

It doesn’t have to be a racial slur, or wording. Cartoonists will not be allowed to make unattractive Negroid sketches of him as they have always done when illustrating women. As long as African Americans in this country are offended, the threat is there and he is protected. The chi-chi’s messiah will be ordained and it will be too late for democracy, because freedom of speech has capitulated to threat.

But maybe that won’t happen. Bush has started the 9/11 trials that are sure to influence the general election. More people than ever are now expecting Bush to declare a state of emergency, an October-surprise, so a Repug will win and preserve his legacy in Iraq.

If BO were the Dem Party nominee, he would lose big as the Bush-induced fear would cause the country to turn toward the more experienced, proven, seasoned, competent and Republican standard-bearer, Senator McCain.
To subscribe, unsubscribe or comment e-mail: gapperserve@peoplepc.com the GenderGapper’s link page: articles may be forwarded if you wish, and translated into other languages, but please keep them intact. They are archived at the following sites:http ://

Friday, February 08, 2008

No you can't

GenderGappers 2008 – 008


No! You damn well can’t just run rough shod over women with your obamabots. Even Repugs admit that women are not under their control. As Bill Kristol wryly conceded, “White women are a problem – that’s, you know – we all live with that.”

It’s sad that he had to qualify it with race because there are plenty of Blacks and Hispanic women that present a problem to the man and will continue to do so.

We women won big in several ways, even though Hillary was tripled and quadrupled teamed by the media that still continues to sing the praises of BO and ignore his campaign gaffes even in light of her considerable wins.

Just a few days before Super T, Michele O was asked if she would support Clinton if she won. Her answer was, “I’ll have to think about that. I’d have to think about policies, her approach, her tone”. She went on to say that everyone would support the Dem ticket, but the mean-stream media ignored her ungracious answer; a media that would have castigated Bill Clinton had he said it.

And what a smack down Hillary delivered, by taking Massachusetts and California, to false friend, Teddy and the Oprah, and the ghost of Jack K. and Camelot, and his daughter and Kerry and Cal-e-4-nia’s first lady, and a plethora of lesser or greater lights by taking Massachusetts and California. Women deserve this little schadenfreude since they are usually the victims of it, especially during this campaign.

Certainly there must have been some one in that bunch to vote for – but wait! They weren’t running. Why did BO have to hide behind their gloss and glitter? Could it be that he is an inexperienced, hollow man who needs the aura of other’s greatness to mask his many faults?

We know it’s not about race, although BO gets 80+% of the Black vote, because the media says it isn’t. We know it’s not about celebrity or even about who has the most million$.

IT IS ABOUT GENDER and anyone who does not see the huge pile-on and gang-up against Hillary by nearly every informational outlet is comatose. Don’t ever be ashamed of voting for a qualified woman. As Robin wrote: “As for the "woman thing"? Me, I'm voting for Hillary not because she's a woman, but because I am.

We still have to fear the coming caucus results where Iowa showed us how the obomamobs forced at least some older voters into his corner of the caucus halls against their will. We just have to get our friends, relatives and Everywoman’s future involved.

Please send every woman you know have not yet voted an e-mail or write or call them. Urge them to pass it on. Please copy this great article by Robin [below], paste it and send it out to women you know to stir their ancient memories, awaken their inner self and strengthen their trust and faith in themselves.

Goodbye To All That (#2)by Robin MorganThe Women's Media Center- USA -•Goodbye to the double standard . . .

- Hillary is too ballsy but too womanly, a Snow Maiden who's emotional, andso much a politician as to be unfit for politics. - She's "ambitious" but heshows "fire in the belly." (Ever had labor pains?) - When a sexist idiotscreamed "Iron my shirt!" at HRC, it was considered amusing; if a racistidiot shouted "Shine my shoes!" at BO, it would've inspired hours of airtimeand pages of newsprint analyzing our national dishonor. - Young politicalKennedys—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-lookinggeneration backs him." (Personally, I'm unimpressed with Caroline's longingfor the Return of the Fathers. Unlike the rest of the world, Americans haveshort memories. Me, I still recall Marilyn Monroe's suicide, and a dead girlnamed Mary Jo Kopechne in Chappaquiddick.)
Goodbye to the toxic viciousness . . .Carl Bernstein's disgust at Hillary's "thick ankles." Nixon-trickster RogerStone's new Hillary-hating 527 group, "Citizens United Not Timid". JohnMcCain 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. Ifit was a tap-dancing blackface doll, we would be righteously outraged—andthey 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 whichterrorists secrete a bomb in HRC's vagina. I refuse to wrench my brain downinto 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 "Clintonhating," not "Hillary hating." This is sociopathic woman-hating. If it wereabout Jews, we would recognize it instantly as anti-Semitic propaganda; ifabout race, as KKK poison. Hell, PETA would go ballistic if such vomitousspew 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 ChrisMatthews for relentless misogynistic comments. But what about NBC's TimRussert's continual sexist asides and his all-white-male panelspontificating on race and gender? Or CNN's Tony Harris chuckling at "thechromosome 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 arewhite . . .Surprise! Women exist in all opinions, pigmentations, ethnicities,abilities, sexual preferences, and ages—not only African American andEuropean American but Latina and Native American, Asian American and PacificIslanders, Arab American and—hey, every group, because a group wouldn'texist if we hadn't given birth to it. A few non-racist countries mayexist—but sexism is everywhere. No matter how many ways a woman breaks freefrom other discriminations, she remains a female human being in a worldstill so patriarchal that it's the "norm."So why should all women not be as justly proud of our womanhood and thecenturies, even millennia, of struggle that got us this far, as blackAmericans, women and men, are justly proud of their struggles?Goodbye to a campaign where he has to pass as white (which whites—especiallywealthy ones—adore), while she has to pass as male (which both men and womendemanded of her, and then found unforgivable). If she were black or he werefemale we wouldn't be having such problems, and I for one would be inheaven. But at present such a candidate wouldn't stand a chance—even if sheshared Condi Rice's Bush-defending politics.I was celebrating the pivotal power at last focused on African Americanwomen deciding on which of two candidates to bestow their vote—until anumber of Hillary-supporting black feminists told me they're being called"race traitors."So goodbye to conversations about this nation's deepest scar—slavery—whichfail 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 thepoor, the illiterate, the disabled, of refugees, caregivers, the HIV/AIDSafflicted, the powerless. We have survived invisibility, ridicule, religiousfundamentalisms, polygamy, teargas, forced feedings, jails, asylums, sati,purdah, female genital mutilation, witch burnings, stonings, and attemptedgynocides. We have tried reason, persuasion, reassurances, and beingextra-qualified, only to learn it never was about qualifications after all.We know that at this historical moment women experience the worlddifferently from men—though not all the same as one another—and can governdifferently, from Elizabeth Tudor to Michele Bachelet and Ellen JohnsonSirleaf.We remember when Shirley Chisholm and Patricia Schroeder ran for this highoffice and barely got past the gate—they showed too much passion, raised toolittle cash, were joke fodder. Goodbye to all that. (And goodbye to somefeminists so famished for a female president they were even willing toabandon women's rights in backing Elizabeth Dole.)Goodbye, goodbye to . . .- blaming anything Bill Clinton does on Hillary (even including hiswomanizing like the Kennedy guys—though unlike them, he got reported on).Let's get real. If he hadn't campaigned strongly for her everyone wouldcluck over what that meant. Enough of Bill and Teddy Kennedy locking theiralpha male horns while Hillary pays for it.- an era when parts of the populace feel so disaffected by politics that acomparative lack of knowledge, experience, and skill is actually seen asattractive, when celebrity-culture mania now infects our elections so thatit's "cooler" to glow with marquee charisma than to understand the vastglobal complexities of power on a nuclear, wounded planet.- the notion that it's fun to elect a handsome, cocky president who feels hecan learn on the job, goodbye to George W. Bush and the destruction broughtby his inexperience, ignorance, and arrogance.Goodbye to the accusation that HRC acts "entitled" when she's workedintensely 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 herto a blank screen on which they project their own fears, failures,fantasies.Goodbye to the phrase "polarizing figure" to describe someone who embodiesthe transitions women have made in the last century and are poised to makein this one. It was the women's movement that quipped, "We are becoming themen 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, orbecause she didn't leave him, couldn't "control" him, kept her familytogether and raised a smart, sane daughter. (Think of the blame if Chelseahad ever acted in the alcoholic, neurotic manner of the Bush twins!) Goodbyeto some women pouting because she didn't bake cookies or she did, snipingbecause 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 headsof 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, andmore. Even in our "land of opportunity," it's mostly the first pathway "in"permitted to women: Representatives Doris Matsui and Mary Bono and SalaBurton; 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-cladass online—then confessing Oh yeah it wasn't her idea after all, some guysgot her to do it and dictated the clothes, which she said "made me feel likea dork."Goodbye to some young women eager to win male approval by showing they'renot feminists (at least not the kind who actually threaten the status quo),who can't identify with a woman candidate because she is unafraid ofeeueweeeu yucky power, who fear their boyfriends might look at them funny ifthey say something good about her. Goodbye to women of any age again feelingunworthy, sulking "what if she's not electable?" or "maybe it'spost-feminism and whoooosh we're already free." Let a statement by themagnificent Harriet Tubman stand as reply. When asked how she managed tosave hundreds of enslaved African Americans via the Underground Railroadduring the Civil War, she replied bitterly, "I could have saved thousands—ifonly I'd been able to convince them they were slaves."I'd rather say a joyful Hello to all the glorious young women who doidentify with Hillary, and all the brave, smart men—of all ethnicities andany age—who get that it's in their self-interest, too. She's betterqualified. (D'uh.) She's a high-profile candidate with an enormous grasp offoreign- and domestic-policy nuance, dedication to detail, ability to absorbstaggering insult and personal pain while retaining dignity, resolve, evenhumor, and keep on keeping on. (Also, yes, dammit, let's hear it for herconnections and funding and party-building background, too. Obama wasawfully glad about those when she raised dough and campaigned for him to getto the Senate in the first place.)I'd rather look forward to what a good president he might make in eightyears, when his vision and spirit are seasoned by practical know-how—andhe'll be all of 54. Meanwhile, goodbye to turning him into a shining knightwhen actually he's an astute, smooth pol with speechwriters who've workedwith the Kennedys' own speechwriter-courtier Ted Sorenson. If it's onlyabout ringing rhetoric, let speechwriters run. But isn't it about gettingthe 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 ofa feel-good campaign? How dare anyone claim to unify while dividing, orthink that to rouse U.S. youth from torpor it's useful to triage the singlelargest demographic in this country's history: the boomer generation—themajority of which is female?Old woman are the one group that doesn't grow more conservative with age—andwe are the generation of radicals who said "Well-behaved women seldom makehistory." Goodbye to going gently into any goodnight any man prescribes forus. We are the women who changed the reality of the United States. Andthough 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 whoestablished rape-crisis centers and battery shelters, marital-rape anddate-rape laws; the women who defended lesbian custody rights, who foughtfor prison reform, founded the peace and environmental movements; whoinsisted that medical research include female anatomy; who inspired men tobecome more nurturing parents; who created women's studies and Title IX sowe all could cheer the WNBA stars and Mia Hamm. We are the women whoreclaimed sexuality from violent pornography, who put childcare on thenational agenda, who transformed demographics, artistic expression, languageitself. We are the women who forged a worldwide movement. We are the proudsuccessors 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 womanalive who, if she's honest, doesn't recognize what she means. Then HRC gotdrowned out by campaign experts, Bill, and media's obsession with everythingBill.So listen to her voice:"For too long, the history of women has been a history of silence. Eventoday, 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 theslavery of prostitution. It is a violation of human rights when women aredoused with gasoline, set on fire and burned to death because their marriagedowries are deemed too small. It is a violation of human rights whenindividual women are raped in their own communities and when thousands ofwomen are subjected to rape as a tactic or prize of war. It is a violationof human rights when a leading cause of death worldwide along women ages 14to 44 is the violence they are subjected to in their own homes. It is aviolation of human rights when women are denied the right to plan their ownfamilies, and that includes being forced to have abortions or beingsterilized against their will."Women's rights are human rights. Among those rights are the right to speakfreely—and the right to be heard."That was Hillary Rodham Clinton defying the U.S. State Department and theChinese 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 oneanother in the full poetry of existence. The struggle for an integrated lifeexisting in an atmosphere of communal trust and respect is one withdesperately important political and social consequences. . . . Fear isalways 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 deeperthan her re-finding her voice. Can we women find ours? Can we do this forourselves?"Our President, Ourselves!"Time is short and the contest tightening. We need to rise in furiousenergy—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 didand do for women globally who are condemned for trying to break through. Weneed to win, this time. Goodbye to supporting HRC tepidly, with ambivalentcaveats and apologetic smiles. Time to volunteer, make phone calls, sendemails, donate money, argue, rally, march, shout, vote.Me? I support Hillary Rodham because she's the best qualified of allcandidates running in both parties. I support her because she's refreshinglythoughtful, and I'm bloodied from eight years of a jolly "uniter" withejaculatory politics. I needn't agree with her on every point. I agree withthe 97 percent of her positions that are identical with Obama's—and the fewwhere hers are both more practical and to the left of his (like healthcare). I support her because she's already smashed the first-lady stereotypeand made history as a fine senator, because I believe she will continue tomake 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."Goodbye To All That" was my (in)famous 1970 essay breaking free from apolitics of accommodation especially affecting women.During my decades in civil-rights, anti-war, and contemporary women'smovements, I've avoided writing another specific "Goodbye . . .." But notsince the suffrage struggle have two communities—joint conscience-keepers ofthis country—been so set in competition, as the contest between HillaryRodham Clinton (HRC) and Barack Obama (BO) unfurls. So.
To subscribe, unsubscribe or comment e-mail: gapperserve@peoplepc.comhttp://gendergappers.blogspot.comVisit the GenderGapper’s link page: articles may be forwarded if you wish, and translated into other languages, but please keep them intact. They are archived at the following sites:http :// www.gendergappers.org

Friday, February 01, 2008


GenderGappers 2008 - 007


The very definition of class, “grace under pressure”, was exhibited by candidate for president, Hillary Clinton, at the State of the Union speech. At the same time, her main opponent, Barack Obama, exhibited the opposite, and then denied it despite the pictorial proof that showed him ducking away from the handshake of a fellow senator.

This action follows his history in the Illinois senate of avoiding taking a stand by voting “present”; claiming he made a mistake when he voted so he could vote again thus voting on both sides, and the way he has formerly ducked questions at the debates. Barack’s behavior was similar to the way Bush treats people he fears or does not like by avoiding, ignoring and bad mouthing them.

In this pictorial tableau, we saw the character of these two candidates writ large. And a media that would have crucified Hillary for such an action just treated it like a joke – but many of the voting public did not.

With a sincere smile Hillary leaned in to shake the hand of Teddy Kennedy who had, hours before stabbed her in the back. But Obama, unable to face her, turned away, possibly ashamed of his cowardice. He was standing right beside Kennedy who had to extend his arm in front of Barack to shake Clinton’s hand.

The reaction of many voters to that childish action of Obama caused his campaign to call a halt to his nastier attacks on Clinton in his speeches. It eagerly agreed to Clinton’s proposal that they stop being puppets jerked around by the media circus. This resulted in a great debate, giving Barack a chance to rehabilitate himself from his former snub and we all got a better idea of what they stand for.

But at the end of the day, Barack is not a person we can trust to make correct decision, or perhaps even make decisions, under pressure, under fire. Avoidance is historically his method of action when challenged.

The elderly Teddy Kennedy, a long time DC insider, admitted that he was angry and wanted to get back at Bill Clinton so he endorsed a man that had slandered him in the past.

The real outside-Washington Kennedys endorsed Hillary Clinton. For anyone who did not see this endorsement for Hillary by three children of Robert Kennedy int the LA Times, we have copied the first part and an URL where you may go to read the rest of it. Naturally, the mean-stream media ignored it as they only focus on things that are detrimental to Hillary. Our media promotes Barack constantly and is a dependable fund raiser for him.

Kennedys for Clinton – LATimes
By Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Kerry Kennedy January 29, 2008

While talk of unity and compromise are inspiring to a nation wary of divisiveness, America stands at a historic crossroads where real issues divide our political landscapes. Democrats believe that America should not be torturing people, eavesdropping on our citizens or imprisoning them without habeas corpus or other constitutional rights. We should not be an imperial power. We need healthcare for all and a clean, safe environment. The loftiest poetry will not solve these issues. We need a president willing to engage in a fistfight to safeguard and restore our national virtues. We have worked with Hillary Clinton for 15 years (and in Kathleen's case, 25 years) and witnessed the power and depth of her convictions firsthand. We've seen her formidable work ethic, courage in the face of adversity and her dignity and clear head in crisis. We've also seen her two-fisted willingness to enter the brawl when America's principles are challenged. Her measured rhetoric, political savvy and pragmatism shield the heart of our nation's most determined and most democratic warrior.[More of this endorsement may be found at:,0,1618955.story
To subscribe, unsubscribe or comment e-mail: gapperserve@peoplepc.comhttp://gendergappers.blogspot.comVisit the GenderGapper’s link page: articles may be forwarded if you wish, and translated into other languages, but please keep them intact. They are archived at the following sites:http :// www.gendergappers.org