A SHAKEUP OF THE SHIBBOLETHS?

N.E. Hills are alive with the debate on whether marriage must be restricted to one husband and one wife - lesbian and gays need not apply. In Vermont, both Houses have passed bills that allow same-gender marriage but the Governor has promised a veto.

Vermont does have Civil Unions, which at the time of passage, appeared to be a big step forward but now as more states are making marriage legal, the push is on to join in or be left behind.

It is interesting to read the pros and cons and compare them to the hissy-fits that emerged during the Civil Union debates of yore. All the dire predictions of Vermont turning into California just never happened. Somehow those same gender couples that lived among us were remarkable just like us and the fervor died down to the plaintive bleating of a few diehards and of course the Fundies.

Today the debate is showing something quite different and it seems to me that it is pointing to the real fear of what same gender marriage will precipitate. Possibly this is because of the changes made by having Civil Unions and more people came to think of them as pals living together rather than a threat to their own marriage and children.

Now the caption under pictures of same gender couples identify them as Mary Roe - husband; or John Doe - wife. This has brought out one more of those hidden prejudices that manifest in sexism and misogyny. Man and his society, aided and abetted by women, have spent eons defining and enforcing gender roles. A woman husband! ? A man wife! ?

Oh, no! Our well entrenched patriarchy screams. This cannot be allowed because it will forever endanger our carefully constructed male superiority meme and challenge the Biblical admonition that: God is the head of the husband and man is the head of his wife.


Many may profess not to believe this but it is only buried in a shallow grave in the amygdala [Limbic System of the brain] because it is reinforced daily by our language, our customs, our laws and our fears.

Is it just possible that tearing down the old definition of marriage will force our society to re-evaluate women and men and gender rolls? Maybe all the Women's Movement needs is a shakeup of the shibboleths.

RAMEY III - WOMEN DOCTORS A TRAVESTY

Women doctors? Ya gotta be kidding! Yet for the early years of the 25 that I spent in a medical school teaching and doing research that was sadly a fact. But strong women pushed and prodded to get in and one or two were finally accepted only to face a hell few people today can imagine.

“There was recently an obituary in The Lancet of a famous woman physician. The obituary writer describes her going on one of her clinical rotations, and the professor saying, "I don't want you here. They say you have to be here, but you are not welcome here. I don't want any women on my service."

One woman, Dr. Estelle Ramey, just took the all-male medical establishment on in their own science, leading the way for more women to study medicine in very difficult times.

The early anatomy lectures I audited were difficult to endure as many professors showed pornographic slides ostensible to teach about the skin. These were greeted by hoots and ribald comments from the med students – all male. As first one woman and then more were accepted in my State’s medical school, the Professors confined these fun and games to private lectures given only to the males in the class – females were not invited. Most women got around this by getting the notes from a male classmate in order to pass the exams.

Things certainly got better every year as more women instructors were hired but it was still shocking to us when a new anatomy textbook came on the scene in 1971. Anatomy faculty as is usual, got advanced complimentary copies. Understand now that the human body and all its parts was no stranger to those of us in anatomy, but this book by three anatomy professors from Duke did more that raise eyebrows, it created a storm of protest all over the country and Dr Ramey led it.

This textbook was titled: “The Anatomical Basis of Medical Practice. So you have a picture of a male torso, in which the head, the arms, and the genitals are cropped out, and little arrows point to where the muscles are of the male torso. But for the female torso, you have a full frontal nude shot, head to toe, of a woman in a seductive pose, with little lines pointing to the linea alba and the other muscles of the abdomen. You have women, nude, swinging on garden swings, with towels wrapped around their head, and splashing in the surf, ostensibly to show the effect of ultraviolet ray on the skin.

The short review above does not even begin to describe the pornography throughout a textbook written under the guise of teaching human anatomy.

This book engenders a national boycott organized by the American Association of Women in Science. Their president is Dr. Estelle Ramey-who was a physiology professor at Georgetown. She organizes a boycott of the Duke anatomy textbook. It is decried in Time magazine and Newsweek magazine, and eventually Williams and Wilkins chooses not to reprint it.

The Anatomical Basis of Medical Practice disappears from the bookshelves about six months to a year after it’s published. But the story of the pornographic anatomy book, The Anatomical Basis of Medical Practice, is a story of how women are subjected to victimization, how they’re portrayed in medical illustration, about how some professors thought there was no big deal. They were “just being cute.” By the 1970s, women were prepared to push back. If this episode had occurred a generation earlier, women would have simply looked down at the floor, and hoped the unpleasant would have gone away.”

http://medspace.mc.duke.edu/medwmn/bground.php?bid=3&body=trans

Certainly if it happened today, lacking the strong convictions and leadership of Dr Ramey in the Women’s Movement, it would be just dandy to publish such a book. After all, so many women of today seem to feel it’s old fashion to protest sexism and misogyny or even battering.

Just imagine what Ramey’s reaction to Obama’s campaign against Clinton would have been. Unlike all the present women leaders in science, industry, politics and our Movement for Equality [like NOW] she would have had his guts for garters and women would have a leader in the White House.

Her wit and wisdom are still valid today and it took immense courage to say things like this during the early years of women’s self-revival:

“If it’s testosterone the public wants in a president, as an endocrinologist I can’t recommend a 70-year-old man in the White House. They should get a 16-year-old boy instead,” she said. “It seems the only thing the public doesn’t want to see in a president is estrogen.”

Men, she said, are clearly the weaker sex, and Mother Nature may well be a radical feminist, based on the biological evidence. The female of every species, she noted, is stronger in terms of stamina, longevity and performance under stress.

“Men were designed for short, nasty, brutal lives. Women are designed for long, miserable ones,” she opined.

We are the only animal that cries. It is a God-given emotional outlet. When men aren’t allowed to cry tears, they cry blood. They bleed internally.

I have worked all my life with men, and I have discovered that some of them are very smart, some of them are very stupid, and most of them are mediocre hacks. Women fall into the same categories. We will have equality when a female schlemiel moves ahead as fast as a male schlemiel. That’s equality, not when a female Einstein gets promoted to associate professor.

Asked once by a sneering lawyer if she preferred the title “chairperson,” Dr. Ramey responded, “I’d rather be a chairman. They make more.”

“I am appalled at the fact that men have not studied the differences between males and females for their own advantage,” she said in the 1980s. Such studies would help men as well as women and society, she said, because women outlive men by seven to nine years.

“Now, I like testosterone. Every home should have some,” she said. “But it becomes damaging as a man gets older. I’m trying to help men live longer, although I’m not sure all of them deserve it.”

Dr Ramsey’s medical contributions to both women and men have earned her an honored place in medical history. However, the leadership of our movement for equality has largely ignored her and few women of today have even heard of her. Perhaps this is because she spent her time bravely and forthrightly promoting women’s abilities and value rather than the political posturing we see among women in the Movement today.

MY WILD IRISH VERONICA

Veronica Guerin, right, pictured with son Cathal and husband Graham Turley

One thing we generally agree about is the lack of dedicated, or even honest, reporters in our country. It seems that all they do now is sit in their office, take phone calls and cue videos of the horrors that abound.

Although some do get off their bums during a presidential campaign, the truth seldom is in them and they are far from even-handed in their coverage of the candidates. Especially true in the recent campaign where they fell head over teakettle in love with one of the candidates. Some even admitted their bias.

Investigative reporters seem to be a dying breed so we are thrilled one did exist fairly recently. That’s part of what makes the story of Ireland’s Veronica Guerin so fascinating despite the fact that her reporting ended tragically 13 years ago followed by attempts to discredit her.

For two years, Reporter Guerin single handedly went after the drug lords in her city of Dublin. She and her family were harassed and threatened. She was beaten up but she kept on digging and reporting the facts. Her life ended in a hail of bullets.

“When the renowned crime reporter Veronica Guerin was gunned down on the outskirts of Dublin in June 1996 she became a modern-day Irish saint.” A movie was made about her and authorities vowed to punish her killers.

Two years later another Irish reporter, Emily O’Reilly wrote a book claiming that Guerin was “ruthless, devious and – worst of all – a bad mother”.

"Mrs O'Reilly says Ms Guerin blurred the line between journalist and detective in her hunt for a story and made herself and her son a target.

Veronica had a child-like ignorance of danger. No Gardai would have done what she done without back up from six squad cars and a direct phone line to the commissioner of police _ I think it was done to disarm these hard men she was interviewing."

While reluctant to criticise Ms Guerin outright she says: "It's always difficult for journalists but (former BBC war correspondent) Martin Bell didn't bring his children along to the frontline in Bosnia. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/86191.stm

It’s not difficult to see the pattern here, a pattern of squelching the important work and life of a woman who was doing what no man dared to do. And of using a woman to do it so hopefully no one will notice the blatant sexism employed to rob a brave woman of her rightful place in history.

Expect more of this kind of reporting as SoS Clinton continues to be extreamly effective.

"NBC's Andrea Mitchell utilizes the International Women of Courage award ceremony to compare the First Lady careers of Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and current First Lady Michelle Obama. Andrea presents Michelle as clearly more traditional, or wifely, than Hillary." TGW

WE WON!

Events in life seem to continually put us in a position of being winners or losers. But each of us must define for ourselves what is meant by winning and losing and not be led astray by how the media may define it.

We subscribe to the conviction of Grantland Rice: “It's not whether you win or lose, it's how you play the game.”

Some may think the winners are the ones who voted for and supported the media’s choice. But those of us who have stood fast against the onslaught of misogyny, hate and derision know that we are the winners.

We won because we believe deeply in gender equality. We won because we censored the Democratic Party for cooking the books in their Primary for the sole purpose of defeating a woman and maintaining the status quo of good ol’ boy politics.

We won because no matter how much it hurt and no matter how cruelly we were taunted and blasphemed by friend and foe alike, we stood firm because all the evidence showed that the best candidate for the job of president was a woman.

We won because we never wavered in our passion despite the piles of crap and garbage thrown at us. We watched former ally after former ally turn away from us as their courage and conviction evaporated in the storm of blog and media hype.

INVICTUS
by William Ernest Henley; 1849-1903

Out of the night that covers me,
Black as the Pit from pole to pole,
I thank whatever gods may be
For my unconquerable soul.

In the fell clutch of circumstance
I have not winced nor cried aloud.
Under the bludgeonings of chance
My head is bloody, but unbowed.


Beyond this place of wrath and tears
Looms but the horror of the shade,
And yet the menace of the years
Finds, and shall find me, unafraid.


It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishments the scroll,
I am the master of my fate;
I am the captain of my soul.

PROOF IS IN THE PUDDING

Cries of “not true” reverberate across the country aimed at each campaign by the other. The media either promulgates or joins in the cry of liar. Disturbing, yes but fairly normal for election politics.

But this year there is a big difference. Why? It’s not just the nasty blogger boyz or the continuous rehash by the cable and broadcast and radio talk. Those were in place in ’04.

So what variable is different? Gender. Two women have been front and center this election year and since our society finds nothing wrong with denigrating women sexually, misogyny is having a wild and unbridled roughshod ride.

Another but lesser factor is age. True, there have been senior candidates in the past but that was before the media had such a stranglehold on the information pipeline.

But one has only to hear the anger in Letterman’s voice condemning McCain for canceling an appearance on his show to fathom the depths of the power media has assumed. We the people have allowed the media to grow into a hydra-headed bully.

Also age is still somewhat revered as evidenced by Joe Biden’s harsh criticism of a BO ad for which he was soundly lambasted by the media and the BO campaign acting in tandem. Is Joe on the way out?

But there are no holes or indecency barred when it comes to bashing women. Where a male candidate having an affair [John Edwards] is giggled over but unreported by media, a female candidate, whether guilty or not is presumed to be promiscuous. Evidence is unnecessary.

Still, what makes this year stand out for misogyny is not the expected male, high school locker room, toilet words and sexual innuendos. It is the viciousness and intensity of feminist/women’s hatred of the female candidates.

Is this the “Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned” affect played large? Are these women jealous because another woman, not them, would have won a Primary [save for intervention and rule breaking by the DNC]?

Or angry because another woman, not them, would be chose to run for the office of Vice President? OMG! And these women are smart and intelligent too!

The real horror of all of this for the many women, that once supported Democrats for what they perceived was their devotion toward women’s civil and reproductive rights, is to see it is Democrats that are front and center with the cruelest and falseness of the onslaught toward women.

It was Democratic Party leadership that stole votes from the woman candidate and gave them to the man; that defied Convention Rules and cooked the books against the most qualified candidate.

But many did not go along with that treachery. Thanks be to the great band of sisters and brothers: a huge community of women and men, both young and old, who are blogging for principal instead of being out to slit their sister's throat; for believing that Democracy is for every gender.

We will never give up and never give in.

ON THE ROAD TO DESTRUCTION - AGAIN?

We must admit that we believed it possible that the Obomacons were right and we were wrong about The One, his character and his judgment. Even David Gergen, noting BO’s fall in the polls, advised the obvious.

“If he were to surprise the country — and the press — by naming Hillary Clinton as his running mate, he could turn the race upside down. Making the announcement in Springfield this Saturday, drawing from Lincoln’s experience in assembling a “team of rivals” (the glorious book by Doris Kearns Goodwin), would be transformative. No one else would so galvanize the Democrats, bring a fighter to his side, and send a clear message that an Obama administration would bring experience to solving problems both at home and abroad. Has anyone looked what happened to jobs and wages under Bush vs. Clinton? The comparison is startling. And remember that a quarter of Hillary’s voters still haven’t “come home” to the Democratic column.”
http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2008/08/20/obama-in-need-of-a-game-changer/

Now we have no doubts. Despite our hope, that he would be honest, intelligent and confident enough to choose as his running mate the woman who, if the rules had been followed, would have won the Democratic Primary instead of him, he followed his own craven image.

Brotherhood prevailed to once again shut a woman out from what she had earned. “This is all about the old white guys staying in power. They needed a front man -- enter the neophyte, incompetent Obama -- this is a new kind of politics? This is change we can believe in?” - Oft repeated blog comment

For surely if you compare the nasty things Biden has said of BO in the debates and TV interviews to what Hillary was and still is, roundly criticized for, Biden’s were definitely racist, more critical of BO’s judgment and experience; and they are on video.

"I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that's a storybook, man." – Joe Biden

Biden saying in debate that Barack isn't ready to be president, Biden saying in interview that McCain would be a good President and he would support him or serve with him as VP if asked.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R...h? v=RDVUPqoowf8

Biden also voted for and supported the Iraqi war. Oh, and he dropped out early after getting around 25000 votes.
Hillary won the popular vote: (ABC news)
Hillary: 17,785,009
Obama: 17,479,990
If the Rules Committee had not halved the votes in Florida and Michigan, Hillary would have netted 100 delegates from Florida and 73 from Michigan. If Obama had gotten none from Michigan (he took his name off the ballot to placate Iowa), and not given him delegates he had not earned, Hillary would have had 1725 delegates at the end of the primaries and Obama 1707. She would have won the pledged delegates. http://noquarterusa.net/blog/

“Thank you, Egalia for bringing up the Clarence Thomas hearings. I would highly recommend the book Strange Justice, written shortly after the hearings. Joe Biden was the ‘guy’ in charge of those hearings. He kept several other women witnesses sitting & waiting in a hotel room - women who would have testified to the same sort of behavior that Anita Hill - courageously - related to the committee. Those women were never questioned and Clarence Thomas was appointed to the Supreme Court. -- Connie Graham

Congresswoman Stephanie Tubbs Jones “One true friend” Geeklove
http://tinyurl.com/6jr5ot

Odd choices in Obama’s career by J. R. Dunn
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/08/the_odd_choices_in_barack_obam.html
Barack Obama will be defeated. Seriously and convincingly defeated. Not due to racism, not due to the forces of reaction, not even due to Karl Rove sending out mind rays over the national cable system. He will lose for one reason above all, one that has been overlooked in any analysis that I've yet seen. Barack Obama will lose because he is a flake.
I'm using the term in its generally accepted sense. A flake is not only a screwup, but someone who truly excels in making bizarre errors and creating incredibly convoluted disasters. A flake is a "fool with energy", as the Russian proverb puts it. ("A fool is a terrible thing to have around, but a fool with energy is a nightmare".)

Irony from Riverdaughter – concerning how women are expected to act:
“But most importantly, it is Hillary Clinton’s responsibility to put all of her policy experience, political expertise, energy and professionalism at Barack Obama’s disposal and allow all of her accomplishments to be relevant only in reference to him, in order to shore up his abysmally sinking poll numbers and save his ass in November. This is a task for which she is uniquely qualified since she would have been able to win the White House without much assistance at all. This makes her obligation to him even stronger since she has the mojo that he lacks. But it is her joy to become the plaster that holds his crumbling foundation in place. And when her task is finished, she will modestly step back in to the shadows while she privately beams with pride at her creation. It is what we all live for.
#
To subscribe, unsubscribe or comment e-mail: gapperserve@comcast.net
http://gendergappers.blogspot.com
Visit the GenderGapper’s link page: http://www.gendergappers.org/links.htm
GenderGappers articles may be forwarded if you wish, and translated into other languages, but please keep them intact. They are archived at the following site:
http :// www.gendergappers.org

BAA BAA BLAH

Today's Democrats are yesterday's Republicans: might makes right backed by money. The former staunch advocates of democracy in Liberal Talk always claimed that Democrats allowed free speech and allowed differences of opinion. Now Thom Hartman, who often said movements came not from the leaders but from the people, refuses to even hear anyone who is not full of the BO kool-aid. And of course, he avoids any mention of The Denver Group or PUMA, unless it is to derogate them.

It isn’t just that they consider us “poor little sheep who have gone astray” that “will get over it” and come to genuflect at the feet of their holy one. Oh, no, it goes deeper than that. We are being removed from more and more so-called Democratic Blogs and Lists because any OPINION adverse to BO is forbidden.

As you may have noted the BO campaign and supporters accuse any group, person or article that is critical of him with racism. Freedom of speech in America is on the way out. Magazine covers and articles that portray Hillary Clinton in hideously mutilated and sexist ways were and are just fine; but BO is not to be treated as anything less than a divinity.

Nonetheless millions are speaking out against the Democratic leadership that purged the Party’s laws and values to assure BO of the nomination and freeze out Hillary and her 18 million from the nomination process. There are still Democratic/Liberal Lists and Blogs that allow discussion and differences to be expressed.

And now there is Liberal Democratic Talk Radio available to us. Check these URLs for info: http://www.blogtalkradio.com/morningq
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/no-we-wont

Deserving your attention is the latest ad from the Denver Group we have told you about before. Remember that all they are asking is for a fair Convention with Hillary’s name to be placed in nomination too, just as Franklin D. Roosevelt’s was in 1932 when he was 90 delegates short of the 2/3 needed to win.
http://thedenvergroup.blogspot.com/2008/07/latest-ad-from-denver-group.html

Don’t be fooled by Howard Dean’s statement that of course, Hillary would be on the ballot – it means nothing to “be on the ballot” UNLESS HER NAME IS PLACED IN NOMINATION.

Dem Superdelegates Rule After All
By Craig Crawford | July 14, 2008 6:00 AM
“There was a time months ago -- when Hillary Rodham Clinton led the Democratic nomination race -- that party superdelegates were the bad guys according to the rhetoric coming out of Barack Obama's camp.
Obama supporters trashed the unelected, automatic and unpledged delegates as undemocratic autocrats when it looked as though they might put Clinton over the top. Not anymore.
With the dust settled on the primary season, one thing is clear: Obama is the presumed nominee thanks only to superdelegates. He never did win enough pledged delegates to reach the winning number, falling about 350 votes short. His expected victory stems from beating Clinton among superdelegates 463-257, according to a tally on Real Clear Politics.
All the more reason for Obama to make sure that there is no roll call including Clinton's name on the ballot at the national convention -- which a few die-hard fans of the former First Lady are still clamoring for.
Why highlight just how close the Democratic contest really was? And there is certainly no gain for Obama in dwelling on how he had to depend on super delegates to win the nomination.” Crawford writes for CQPolitics
If you do not like Obama and are conflicted about who to vote for that will not hurt women, here’s an excerpt of, and a URL for a must read article by Melissa McEwan:

“Even before the primary had ended, feminists/womanists (hereafter FWs) who had become disenchanted with Senator Barack Obama as a result of worrying rhetoric on reproductive rights, his and his campaign's use of sexist dog whistles, and/or his silence in response to an appalling onslaught of misogyny unleashed upon his opponent, were being bullied at any indication (real or imagined) that they would not vote for him. The usual cudgels were brought out to browbeat them -- Roe (to which I'll return later) and the ominous accusation that if McCain won, it would be their fault. As ever, it was the people calling out sexism and/or anti-FW policies who were charged with creating division among progressives, as opposed to the people engaging in sexism and their defenders.

Given Obama's most recent flub on abortion rights, first stating he doesn't "think that 'mental distress' qualifies as the health of the mother" regarding late-term abortion exceptions, then clarifying by reiterating the same thing and fleshing out the pregnant straw-woman who wants a late term abortion just because she's "feeling blue," plus more of the "pastor and family" rhetoric -- a veritable symphony of rightwing talking points, infantilization and mistrust of women, and hostility toward their autonomy -- one might expect the bullies to realize that perhaps the FWs who had concerns about Obama also had a point, but if bullies were rational, they wouldn't be bullies. And so the drumbeat to cast FWs with legitimate complaints as the root of progressive discordance has only intensified.
http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=6808

How many Obots does it take to screw in a light bulb?
(by Joseph Cannon at Cannonfire)

Two. One does the screwing, while the other beats your face in if you don’t see the light. http://cannonfire.blogspot.com/
#
To subscribe, unsubscribe or comment e-mail: gapperserve@comcast.net
http://gendergappers.blogspot.com
Visit the GenderGapper’s link page: http://www.gendergappers.org/links.htm
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 :// www.gendergappers.org

POLITICAL PURITY CHICAGO STYLE

In a major shakeup at the Democratic National Committee -- and a departure from tradition -- large parts of the committee's operations are relocating to Chicago to be fully integrated with the Obama campaign. - Ben Smith Blog
Yup, you heard it right. BO is moving HIS Party to Chicago, taking most of the DNC out of the corruption of DC and its bad old lobbyists and bringing it to the strong-arm grittiness of the Daley’s graduate school of dirty political tricks.

The new name for the Democratic National Committee: Obama Idolaters National Committee – OINC. “Chicago corruption: decades of sleeze” – Anglachel

http://nalert.blogspot.com/2008/06/chicago-corruption-decades-of-sleaze.html

One thing very noticeable is how nearly every word spoken or written that is critical of BO is immediately called racists. Those very commentators and pundits who were so tone deaf to sexism have become hyper in defense of their Precious.

If you read the material at the following URL, have a barf-bag handy. It’s a hair curler.

http://obamamessiah.blogspot.com/

Now that Hillary has been forced out of contention by super delegate and OINC pressure, some of the mean stream media are finally waking up to what she endured.

Katie Couric attributed the latent sexism contributed, in part, to Hillary's defeat.
She referred to one "prominent member of the commentariat" who said he "found it hard to be objective when it came to Obama."

"That's your job," she remembers thinking when hearing this, before suggesting that he "find another line of work."

Chris Matthews still has no idea. He thinks all women are hostage to Roe v Wade: "[W]omen are low-hanging fruit, though, in the terms of politics. You can reach up and say, 'I'm pro-choice, he's not.'

Many have questioned the appropriateness of Olbermann — and his primary-night partner Chris Matthews — anchoring election night coverage while espousing strong opinions of his own. During coverage of the Montana and South Dakota primaries, Tom Brokaw, on air, took him to task for alleging that Hillary Clinton was "trying to shoe-horn her way into" the night of McCain's and Obama's speeches. Brokaw later claimed that the press drumbeat for Clinton's exit from the race — of which Olbermann was a major part — was "inappropriate," and it was "commentary disguised as reporting." The current wave of the backlash against Olbermann was sparked by Time television critic James Poniewozik, who wrote last month (after Olbermann's "Special Comment" on Hillary Clinton's RFK remarks) that Olbermann "sounds like just another of the cable gasbags he used to be a corrective to." - fishbowlDC

Jossip writes: “Keith Olbermann's popular segment is as much a place to criticize world leaders guilty of human rights violations as it is for him to defend his own.”

Phil Griffin [at MSNBC] has to repair a fractured audience base, a portion of which saw sexism in his network’s Clinton coverage and vowed to boycott MSNBC. Griffin said of the relationship between Olbermann and the Clinton supporters among his viewers. “And then you commit yourself to him, and he turns out to be a jerk and difficult and brutal. And that is how the Hillary viewers see him. It’s true.”

Hillary Clinton not for sale: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SpwYu_-2jQw

There are still many Hillary supporters who know rape whenever it happens no matter what form it may take. The following cartoon is clever, but sharply reflects the truth of what the BO unity pony means to women.

BLOGS MEANSTREAM MEDIA IGNORE

A rapidly growing list of sexist remarks against Hillary.
http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2008/05/hillary-sexism-watch-part-eighty.html

Women threaten Obama boycott
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/05/women-threaten.html

I do not find any qualities in Obama that indicate he is capable of bringing about this cooperation. I see arrogance, imperiousness, inflexibility, and contempt for those who do not hand him what he wants. He does not appear to want unity, only capitulation. Anglachel’s Journal

"DNC: Fractured Fairly Tales" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FvuMDmqwwbI
is our (IndyRobin and GeekLove) latest video from "Shut the Freud Up" Productions.

Our last video "Mad as Hell" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcdnlNZg2iM
http://shutthefreudup.blogspot.com

How ironic is it that we internet activists have been hollering for eight years for Democrats to fight, and now that we have a fighter on our hands, so many of those hollerers are hollering AGAINST her? lambert at Corrente

Obama merely has his words, hope and the video of his wife sounding unpatriotic which will be used over and over and over again. And that's why so many Clinton supporters are reluctant to vote for Obama if he becomes the nominee. It's not because they are bitter. It is because they chose Hillary over Obama for two real reasons: experience and definition.

We know what we are getting with Hillary Clinton. We've read the label that has been on the box for years. And, yes, we may not like everything about her, but at least we know what we are getting when we support her. There are no surprises, no baggage left unexamined. Hillary has been in the public eye for years. She has a record that can be followed and seen in plain view. We know who she is. We know that she is a hard worker and a smart fighter who will never give up. And we have a pretty good idea of what she would do as president. Perhaps most importantly though, we know that she wins vital states that have proven to be essential to winning the WH.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kristen-breitweiser/you-broke-it-you-own-it_b_101673.html

“… coupled with the growing list of gaffes, the Great Lakes in Oregon, needing more Arabic translators in Afghanistan, his campaign in 57 states, Kentucky being closer to Arkansas than Illinois, his future meeting with the President of Canada and yesterday, his speech of Sen Kennedy in the past tense is too reminiscent of the current White House occupant. It's beginning to look like we are being hoodwinked and bamboozled. Again.” -- From a reader’s comment on Kristin’s article above.

“Can we conclude from this that it has been policy for Mr. Obama to NOT rein in his supporters and bloggers previously? Can we conclude that even with his own very optimistic figures, Mr. Obama realizes he needs some if not all of the Clinton 17 MILLION VOTES? Does this make anyone else feel as if they cannot vote for this person? After all, some of his supporters indulged themselves—without a word of protest from Mr. Obama until NOW—with bashing Hillary, and bashing women, the older votes, lunch bucket Dems, the Appalachians, and Latinos over and over again. Many of us were taunted for being our selves—actually BEING women or older or carrying lunch buckets, etc., etc.—as if there is something WRONG with us because we ARE women or older or lunch bucket workers or from certain areas or of certain heritage. We were personally attacked. And Mr. Obama knew it.”
http://donnadarko.wordpress.com/

Solidarity Sunday (by garychapelhill at The Confluence)
We have been talking a lot lately about the “sweetie” commenters that will try to butter us up and convince us that we must “take them back”. Most women have been through this before… Women have far too many times acquiesced to further the goals of men… Many women opposed the 15th amendment which gave black men the right to vote because it didn’t include women, but in the end many deferred… Feminists in the ’60’s allied with men to end the Vietnam War, only to have the men abandon them once their goal was accomplished. See, the war did end, but afterward when women wanted to pass the ERA, support from a lot of those men evaporated… We all need to stick to our guns. Hillary must be our nominee. Promises and sweet talk will not work this time. These promises, I should add, are more and more resembling threats as they get increasingly desperate. Not going to work. Not this time. We have the power, and we’re going to use it.
http://hillarysvoice.reclusiveleftist.com/2008/05/19/from-todays-postings-51908/#more-147

There's Something About Barry [BO]...
And his adoring crowd, estimated 75,000 strong. Amazing! Astonishing! Unprecedented! Historical! Mind-boggling! Did you hear??? Barry drew 75,000 fans to his rally!!! Except...as shrewd Lambert of Corrente observes, Kerry did one better in 2004, drawing 80,000 - 100,000 people in Philadelphia -- and we know how well that worked out.
http://howlinglatina.blogspot.com/

Maps of the electoral college outcomes for all three candidates.
http://www.correntewire.com/clinton_election_juggernaut_accelerates_0