BELOW AN OPEN LETER TO BARAK OBAMA'S CAMPAIGN COORDINATOR.

In support of all those who shout here in vain against the Clinton scourge, against the Clinton camp who simply wants more of the same "failed policies of the past", in support who those who want change at any price because it can't be worse than these past eight years, nothing can, I submit a letter requested by the Obama's campaign director. It is an open letter to the super delegates. We all know that the entrenched congress is opposed to Obama and the will of America. We know the bought and paid media is nothing more than an establishment, corrupt, rubber stamp for government policies and afraid of their own shadows. They reflect this gutless country so afraid they might lose their next new car they would defeat any change agent more of the same stupidity regardless of the cost. They are afraid of change, which is necessary for global survival. I am opposed to the infrastructure of the Green party since the level of anarchy dictates against any real positive direction. Or for that matter a run by Nader, not enough charisma to attract sufficient voters, not that his message lacks importance. Hillary followed directly in the footsteps of Karl rove and George Bush and the republicrat from Connecticut, Lieberman her good friend.

Change is the only hope for this country and the world!

Dear Mr. David Plouffe,

Thank you for your request, although by e-mail. I am a visual artist, Filmmaker and global communicator. I have recently returned from Africa and work on both sides of the Atlantic in Europe. I know from my work that people for the first time in a long time are hoping for a change in America. Europeans believe that Barak Obama offers the possibility that America will once again join the global community. His stated environmental objectives create enthusiasm in those in other parts of the world.

There are some who believe that the democratic will of the people should be overturned by the presumption of power as in the super-delegate issue of the Democratic Party. This raises the specter of large-scale defections toward the Republican agenda by the youth vote, should the Democratic Party not align itself with the peoples democratic and non-militant direction. Should this occur it would affect world security and the issue of climate change directly. These issues are dependent upon radical solutions, which include global economic changes. Defection of democrats and particularly the young people-who hope for change and believe that change is necessary could possibly tilt the election toward the Republicans should the youth opt out. They would refuse to turn out for the Clinton camp.

Many fear that Obama may lose the election as a result of the strange electoral system and candidate approval mechanisms, felt to be undemocratic. This reflects the basic problem of what many think is a so-called Democracy in America where a win in the popular vote does not guarantee the change in direction of the country.

The Electoral College can make a change as we saw in the 2004 election which allowed Bush to take office; this renders the popular vote, void. The Democratic Super-delegate issue is a reflection of the absurd non-democratic American condition of the Electoral College. Should Barak Obama win the popular vote from America's Democratic caucuses, delegates and committed states prior to the convention I do not believe that he should accept second place as vice president, which seems to be the mood of the media controlled election process and spin jockeys. I believe that he should maintain himself as the democratically designated elected leader of the Democratic Party. Contrary to that hack journalist, Blitzer and his 'Dream Team".

Obama forced to that position should form a third party and run against both Hillary Clinton and John McCain. This would be true democracy in action but we all know this is a fantasy. People everywhere both in this country and abroad want change in the USA. Should that occur Obama needs a ready made party and given his environmental agenda the Green Party and others might supply the reasoning. However they are in such disarray and is probably an unlikely thought. His rhetoric suggests, that we must move away from the "failed policies of the past" if we are to save this world for future generations. However, his statement should show a willingness to take the lead in the conviction that he espouses.

Obama has stated he has run because the time is now not in the future. The changes needed, are as he puts it, "right now", not in the future and the perils of environmental collapse are approaching so quickly that we do not have the luxury of another eight years of "business as usual" which would be the Clinton way, before he could claim the office of president. Clinton knows that she can not win against McCain without Obama. To defeat Clinton and the return to the failed Bush methodology, she amply displayed to win Ohio with the politic of fear. Obama requires that he turn to a radical shift in campaign policy it necessary to win.

He is a populist candidate that has offered hope! He should continue that platform with the courage to take the steps necessary if the standard-bearer position is denied to him to effect party and changes in American direction. He should take this radical shift and direction, if necessary! By doing so he would serve notice to the Democratic Party that democracy is not lost in America should the first place be denied. The party is being prepared for Clinton to take the crown with the discussion now on the table for Michigan and Florida to vote once again. We all lose and the possibility of change and it goes down with her selection.

If Obama takes half the country with him to a third party we all have a chance. He believes that the failed policies of the past exist within the entrenched two party systems in congress represented by the Super delegates. The only way of preventing another move to those failed policies is not to allow Hillary Clinton to win by forcing Barak Obama to take second place. But does Barak Obam have that amount of courage to suggest this option, I doubt it, though I support the man. This would be the last hand to play and he should be discussing this in the back rooms of the party as Hillary is discussing, the two other states she covets for her crown.

This public denial by him of allowing super-delegates to determine the election would be a way of circumventing the second place the congress and CNN want him to accept. It would force the super delegates to reflect the will of the people. I heard one of the super-delegates speaking from Georgia. He was black and under examination by the press, it was clear that the position of many "super delegates" would be to overturn the national-will, regardless of Barak Obama taking the popular vote or the majority of delegates. "The failed policies of the past" has put the youth of the USA and the World in the present circumstances of possibly destroying their future and their life.

In the final analysis the USA did not rise to the level of intelligence and courage necessary by electing George Bush to office for two terms and I doubt that it will by choosing Barak Obama to lead. The media and the democratic establishment suggests the "dream team" scenario by supporting the status quo and have the temerity to think it can choose the way the people's choice will be suborned and thus nullifying the very democracy they espouse. The height of cynical belief. This congress has not dealt with Bush and Cheney for lying to the American people and Wolf Blitzer on CNN is the scourge of presumption and simply a clone of the establishment.

These policies, if continued will lead to chaos and the disaffection of the youth and could, by default, elect John McCain and with him a continuation of war for another hundred years. This is a moot point since thirty years remain before environmental disaster takes hold because that is the time we have left to make the radical shift in global politics, environmental direction and economics.

This is an open response from a European blogger. Included below:

Aggie67 February 16th, 2008 2:20 am 
I hope you Americans realize that we, in the rest of the world, are following these primary elections of yours with the greatest of interest. Whatever you do affects us so much. The election of George W Bush seemed to have been such a corruption of the democracy you hold dear, please don't let it happen again by your incessant bickering amongst yourselves. The world needs you to get back to REAL DEMOCRACY, so that we can all live a safer life. What we can't understand is why you don't seem to have "one man, one vote" It all seems to be based on which candidate has the most money, delegates and very strong lobbyists. Definitely not one, man one vote and the winner of the popular vote don't seem to win the election. Weird definition of democracy. 


Bottom line, Nader or McKinney, or don't vote at all.

I haven't decided between my three options yet.

CANDIDATES' VOTING RECORDS COMPARED (updated March 4, 2008)

What is more important, image or substance? Rhetoric or record?

Candidates' campaign speeches change from week to week. They pander to one group, then they pander to the next group. So, how do we know what they really stand for? Check their voting records!

Right now, Clinton and Obama are promising to fix NAFTA and other trade deals. But, how did they vote on that issue when they had the chance? They are promising to end the war in Iraq. How did they vote on that issue when they had the chance? Corporate welfare, environmental protection, social justice, public health, consumer protection — they've voted on all these important Progressive issues, and more!

Clinton, Obama and McCain have all been U.S. Senators for the past three years. Here's how they voted:

(1) Confirmation of Condoleeza Rice to be Secretary of State (vote taken 1/26/2005)
Analysis: Neo-con, war criminal
Clinton: Yes, Obama: Yes, McCain: Yes

(2) Tort "reform" (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005) (vote taken 2/10/2005)
Analysis: Opposed by more than 68 consumer, civil rights, environmental and labor groups, it was described as the "final [Republican] payback to the tobacco, asbestos, oil and chemical industries, at the expense of ordinary families whose health has been compromised."
Clinton: No, Obama: Yes, McCain: Yes

(3) Dayton Amendment (S.Amdt. 31) to the 2005 Bankruptcy Act (vote taken 3/3/2005)
Analysis: Would cap credit card interest rates at 30%. Senator Dayton provided examples of predatory lenders charging vulnerable people more than 1000%/year interest. Republicans argued that "free-markets" should set interest rates, and government should not interfere.
Clinton: Yes, Obama: No, McCain: No

(4) Energy Policy Act of 2005 (vote taken 7/29/2005)
Analysis: A corporate-welfare bill called "bad policy" by Public Citizen because it gives "billions of dollars in unjustified subsidies to the fossil fuel and nuclear energy industries," rolls back environmental regulations for the oil and gas industry, and "repeals the Public Utility Holding Company Act (PUHCA), an essential consumer protection that ensures that electric utilities exist to serve the people, not the profit interests of large corporations."
Clinton: No, Obama: Yes, McCain: No

(5) Dorgan Amendment (S.Amdt. 1665) to the 2005 Commerce Appropriations Bill (vote taken 9/15/2005)
Analysis: Would prevent future trade deals that allow "dumping" of products into the U.S. at prices below their cost of acquisition (harming U.S. farmers, ranchers, businesses and workers), by prohibiting the Commerce Department from weakening current countervailing duties and antidumping laws.
Clinton: Yes, Obama: No, McCain: No

(6) Confirmation of John Roberts to the Supreme Court (vote taken 9/29/2005)
Analysis: Hard right-winger
Clinton: No, Obama: No, McCain: Yes

(7) Confirmation of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court (vote taken 1/31/2006)
Analysis: Hard right-winger
Clinton: No, Obama: No, McCain: Yes

(8) USA PATRIOT Act Reauthorization (vote taken 3/1/2006)
Analysis: Allows the government to spy on citizens in "fishing expeditions" without probable cause or a court order, including listening to telephone calls, intercepting emails, accessing private medical records, library records and bank records, and searching homes and businesses without permission or knowledge.
Clinton: Yes, Obama: Yes, McCain: Yes

(9) Feinstein Amendment (S.Amdt. 4882) to the 2007 Department of Defense Appropriations Act (vote taken 9/06/2006)
Analysis: Outlaws use of cluster bombs in most cases, in order to protect civilian lives from unexploded cluster munitions.
Clinton: No, Obama: Yes, McCain: No

(10) Iraq withdrawal timeline goal (2007 Supplemental Appropriations Act) (vote taken 3/29/2007)
Analysis: Provides that, "The President shall commence the phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, with the goal of redeploying, by March 31, 2008, all United States combat forces from Iraq."
Clinton: Yes, Obama: Yes, McCain: No

(11) Kyl-Lieberman resolution on Iran (vote taken 9/26/2007)
Analysis: Tantamount to a declaration of war (Sen. James Webb, former Secretary of the Navy).
Clinton: Yes, Obama: NV, McCain: NV

(12) Feingold-Reid Amendment (S.Amdt. 3164) to the 2008 Department of Defense Appropriations Act (vote taken 10/3/2007)
Analysis: Requires the President to safely redeploy all U.S. troops from Iraq by June 30, 2008, except for those needed for al Qaeda operations, security and training.
Clinton: Yes, Obama: NV, McCain: No

A good Progressive would have voted as follows:

(1) Condoleeza Rice: NO
(2) Tort "reform": NO
(3) Cap credit card interest rates at 30%: YES
(4) Energy bill: NO
(5) Prevent unfair trade deals: YES
(6) John Roberts: NO
(7) Samuel Alito: NO
(8) USA PATRIOT Act Reauthorization: NO
(9) Outlaw cluster bombs: YES
(10) Iraq withdrawal timeline goal: YES
(11) Kyl-Lieberman resolution on Iran: NO
(12) Iraq withdrawal timeline requirement: YES

Here are the candidates' Progressive vote totals:

Clinton score: 8 of 12
Obama score: 4 of 12
McCain score: 1 of 12

Womenomics seems, just as posited here, a yet another financial scam being hatched by some wall street investment firm. This notion of womenomics surely ignores a two thirds of the developing world where women have to toil for sub subsistence wage levels in order that their liberated counterparts in Europe, North America and the upper crust in India, China and Brazil might find their freedom of expression: be it in loads of expensive garments, shoe racks, cosemetics, restaurnt food, two vacations a year, two cars and an SUV, oversized suburban home with 200$/month electricity bill, outsourced childcare (again provided by underpaid immigrants from Phillippines and South America).

As also did the other aspect of liberation of women as we know it - single moms striking it hard to raise their kids - social structures promoted by governments by making it easy to break up families in a snap.

It is hard to beleive that corporations and governments do not have a stake in doubling the size of the workforce, by transferring time & money from families to corporations - especially in a country where every form of employment is outsourced to another part of the world within a decade: twice the tax money, twice the number of cars, larger homes, more gas, more outsourced family functions like food and childcare, more discretionary spending etc. Of course, overall economy rises - but if history is any indicator, it raises the most for corporations while depressing individuals & families.

If working women are important enough to be given more concessions in workplace, what about homemakign women - who are raising the next generation of skilled, cultured and productive workers? I am not saying that the former dont, not the latter do a better job; but a majority of non working women tend to be home makers dedicated to the task of raising children. Any political concessions for the homemaking women, who perform a priceless job of taking care of families - be them children or the elderly?

Paul M March 3rd, 2008 12:32 am

"The joke's on them, of course. A century of penis-envy and now they too can have what was previously the male-only life of showing up and working for a boss, day after soul-destroying day. Grass ain't so green when you're on our side of the fence, is it?"

Paul M,

Let me reassure you that the majority of working women in this country are not envious of "any" penis that has no balls attached to it; and sadly, that would encompass the majority of men on this planet who don't like competition from a "woman". Secondly, let me add that balanced women love men who are not intimidated by a woman's human need and desire to create and express her soul's desire.

The soul of creativity lives within all of us, both male and female; there is something in the human spirit that desires both change and challenge and can only be expressed through the creative process, whatever that process may be.

Also, keep in mind that studies have shown that people who live their lives participating in what they believe to be creative behavior are mentally, physically, emotionally and spiritually healthier than those who "repress and try to control".

Perhaps we're moving into a new dimension of space and time where clitoris-envy will become the new buzz-psyhcology.

Frankly Paul, I, like many other women, don't really give a shit what Freud or any other psychotherapist has to say about women wanting to express their true, creative selves. Religious doctrine and dogma can also take a back-seat to what I am and choose to express!

it appears that nobody actually wants to talk about the work that needs doing and how the workers get paid. seriously, google "intentional communities" sometime, and even if you don't want to metaphorically run off and join the circus, there is lots to think about.

by far the best candidate for making the economy more fair is hillary clinton.

I hear the word "womenomics" and it strikes me as sounding to similar to Reaganomics - I wonder if that is intentional.

It is difficult for women to get into politics - unless they are single or have very supportive husbands (the latter which most men in politics take for granted).

The tone of this article sounds like it is blaming maternity leave and affordable child care for an anti-feminist backlash.

While there is an anti-feminist tint to this election, I doubt that Hillary Clinton's problems are linked entirely to gender.

One person points to the fact that people would ask questions if Bill was not involved in Hillary's campaign so that she was forced to have her husband in the campaign in a way that male candidates are not forced to have their wives in the campaign - which is pure bull! In the US (unlike Canada), the role of First Lady (or First Man) has taken on a life of their own and a Presidential candidate can be held back if their choice of spouse is not deemed suitable. Thus, even if it was Hillard (rather than Hillary) and Wilhemina (rather than Bill) the situation would be no different.

Oh, have you read this (just beginning posted):

Stereotypes prevail, change still distant

Through good times and bad, we still use individuals as symbols

Hillary Clinton has been handed the impossible task of representing All Women. It's always the way. So few females are permitted to earn a place in the spotlight that when they do, they are rated as categories, not individuals. Britney Spears represents young women, although Rufus Wainwright extends her kingdom.

Miley Cyrus is the exemplar of young teen girls, and so on. Any prominent non-male becomes shorthand for a certain grouping.

So ingrained is this that I find myself doing it. If Clinton loses, it will look like a loss for all women, I think. I have no doubt that a President Barack Obama would do more good for women, simply because he isn't comfortable with the status quo.

Nevertheless, if Clinton loses, it will grind in the truth of what I always say to skeptical audiences: Never underestimate how hated women are, including by women. The day Clinton loses is going to be one hell of a bad day for women, and for men who love them.
Male stereotypes?

Fair's fair. Let's see how men like it.

Brian Mulroney is the exemplar of all Canadian men. ...

http://www.cbc.ca/news/viewpoint/vp_mallick/20080303.html

Seems to me the ratio of women to men in colleges, medical and law schools is approaching 60:40. I'd say womenomics is a done deal. It's also interesting that the agencies making micro-loans, make the loans almost exclusively to women. They know that men will simply blow a loan in the bars, coffee shops or brothels.

And how the hell can Clinton claim to be any kind of leader when she whines about being asked the first question?

Here is the tragedy:

She reinforces the stereotype of why women are unfit to lead--especially since she seems to feel the need to emulate the worst charecteristics of stupid white male hawks and looks like an idiot.

Gender for Clinton is just another cynical angle for her own personal ambitions to join the boys club.

dlnelson7 March 2nd, 2008 1:55 pm

"I would love to see a woman president. Not this woman. This woman voted for the Iraq war. This women blows with the political wind. We need a leader…not Hillary and it has nothing to do with her hormones. For the first time in my life if she is the candidate I will not be able to vote (of course, being from MA I am sure she would carry the State, but I still, I find her repugnant as a politician…and it has nothing to do with gender."

Just because the Dems and the Repubs don't field acceptable candidates is no reason not to vote. Pick a third party candidate that most closely fits your views and vote for them. Who knows? Maybe if enough disaffected voters like you and myself do that, we might actually get some third party candidates elected to office. Then we might see some real change for the better.

Lobo Gris

You can trace the shocking decline in wages and conditions back to the 60's and early 70's, when women started to enter the (paid) workforce. It's just basic market economics - double the supply of labor, and the price drops.

The joke's on them, of course. A century of penis-envy and now they too can have what was previously the male-only life of showing up and working for a boss, day after soul-destroying day. Grass ain't so green when you're on our side of the fence, is it?

Thanks to the fact that most families are two-income, it is now no longer possible to raise a family on one.

The central failing of feminism is that it was always a creation of bored relatively well-off women with nothing to do during the day. It never has come to grips with the lives of most people - the working class, who are increasingly (thanks to the success of their policies) the working poor.

Did Thatcher run under the banner of womenomics also?

I don't think I've heard any poor/middle-class/maternal interests in Hillary's agenda:

* Guaranteed paid maternal AND paternal leave on par with Scandinavian countries.
* A shorter work-week (e.g. 32-35) to spend more time with our families, communities, etc.
* Genuine single-payer, not forced tribute to the insurance companies and Big pharm.
etc...

It ain't there. Hillary's womenomics is just the regular back-stabbing of the middle-class, just a little bit gentler than Bush's approach.

I have to hand it to Dems, though, they have the biggest challenge of all: they need to make more promises, and therefore break more promises. The Republicans are probably worse, but they don't make as many promises.

there is another alternative movement that applies, and that is the local money movement. i believe there is something called the "syracuse salamander." a town prints and controls local money, and local people can use it instead of money in local exchanges for goods and services. the advantage is it tends to help local economies.

i don't think "womenomics" will get very far, but an entire rethinking of how an economy runs and everybody's efforts to make that more fair are likely to produce some results.

despite falling short of perfection, i think hillary would make a good president if given a chance. unfortunately, everybody wants to elect the music man.

countess:

I heard the 200,000 job promise number when I lived in Buffalo, NY, and am sure that it is true, and I think the 30,000 job loss number is probably low. But maybe not. Do you have citations that I can use when telling pro-Clinton people about this?

But I may be wrong. Burger King is the largest private employer in Western NY and maybe there has been a surge of hiring of displaced Delphi workers, now that they are using up UI benefits and "retraining" money. (I wonder how much BK contributes to Hillary).

Certainly there has been a surge of hiring among consultants who run these retraining programs so that auto parts builders can learn the highly skilled art of loading hamburger grilling machines while dodging splattering grease from deep fryers.

first, you have to count work as work. doing the laundry? work. buying the groceries? work. raising the children? work.

then you have to find a way to compensate the laborers. something better than minimum wage for day care and nursing home workers.

i know of no place that has gotten this entirely right, but scandinavia is 'way ahead.

go ahead and read WOMEN AND ECONOMICS by charlotte perkins gilman, published in 1908. eating in restaurants is easier than cooking, and if you can afford it, you are likely to do it sometimes. intentional communities like twin oaks have a work schedule that covers the community's jobs and pays with labor credits, one hour of work equal to one credit. everybody (i've been out of touch for three decades) works maybe 30-40 hours per week to meet the community's needs.

this is a huge topic, and no way is hillary ready to transform our entire society into a set of local, conscious communities.

Let's see both men and woman are working now and families are barely scrapping by with the inflated cost of healthcare, food, gas, housing, and student loans. Only one person in the family worked in the 1950's and whole families were supported on that one person. So logically if both sexes are now in the workforce shouldn't we all be wealthier? Why is it tougher to get by? Secondly, with women working that's more people to pay taxes to make the bankers/Federal Reserve folks even richer. I am a woman but I really question are we better off? Somehow this is a raw deal we Americans have gotten. I love having a career but without good childcare options in DC and with the cost of housing still insanely high I sometimes wonder if things were better back in the old days.

Hillary had her chance in power, and she didn't get it done. Barack will.

Both Barack and Hillary say they can lead America through sweeping legislative changes, yet only Barack has a convincing plan for getting it done.

Hillary's plan is to do what she always has, that is, to work as hard as she can, a strategy which has resulted in creditable incremental changes, but which promises only more-of-the-same.

Barack's plan for getting it done is daring, plausible, and perfectly aligned with his uniquely charismatic and inclusive leadership style.

He will begin by bringing in so many enthusiastic new voters during the general election that he will sweep a solid majority of Democrats, like-minded Independents, and Republicans amenable to his agenda into office along with him.

After he's elected President, he'll use his remarkable consensus-building abilities to transparently bridge divisions and identify workable solutions to pressing common problems.

Then he'll eloquently sell his legislative package to a devoted American public, who by that time will know and trust him far more than they'll trust opposing politicians or special interest lobbies, no matter how much money is spent on media campaigns to the contrary.

Finally, Barack will ask his devoted followers to hound their Members of Congress, and if necessary, turn out in the streets to protest, to get his legislation passed. And they will. And he will.

Hillary's leadership style just doesn't get it done. During fifteen years of unlimited opportunities, connections, and insider information at the center of power—eight years as First Lady and seven years as a U.S. Senator—Hillary diligently chipped away at the edges of big problems, making praiseworthy differences in many lives, all good stuff, but hardly the leadership America needs now.

We need a widely popular President who can articulate, orchestrate, and legislate the urgent changes mandated by a solid majority of newly-mobilized followers—a President who gets it done.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt, a similarly-populist President who led the country through sweeping legislative changes cherished by the American working class, told the activists who sought his support, "You've convinced me. Now go out and make me do it." They turned out to protest, and his legislation passed.

All through FDR's Presidential campaign, detractors had complained loudly that he would prove a flash in the pan, "only" a great communicator, a man of "mere" words. All such complaints ended abruptly, however, on Day One, a day which, after all, turned out to be far less significant than the many other truly transformative days that followed.

(Nancy Pace blogs on breaking news at the intersection of politics, peace, culture and spirituality at www.epharmony.com.)

The key point about Hillary is she's always going to put the interests of her corporate backers first and the interests of workers second. It don't matter whether you are talking about 'male' workers or 'female' workers. Both get screwed equally to help her contributers make money.

People know that about Hillary, and its why she's losing. Nobody knows what the heck Obama stands for, he'll say he's for anything. So, right now he's winning because people can imagine he'll be different. Given the amounts of corporate money flowing into his campaign, he won't be. But most people don't know that yet.

Hate to tell this author, but the people who invented soap operas years ago had already figured out the power of the money that women spend. Its not exactly like this is a group that's always been ignored and suddenly discovered.

The fact that a modern American family seems to need about two and a half to three 'jobs' to keep the heads above water is not a sign of improvement.

Don't get me wrong. It was my mom's generation that wouldn't let women do anything and when women had to fight for even a basic chance to show they could do most jobs. So, the fact that we've gotten beyond that is a good thing. But its not a good thing that most families are so hurting that its not a matter of choice that the women are working but instead its a matter of necessity.

Back when this country was prosperous, one person could work a job and support a family and even have some money left over to save for college or take a vacation. That was back in the 60's and earlier. Back when we had manufacturing and unions and good wages for jobs. Since then, the capitalists have been working hard to kill that in order to cut their costs. They want us all fighting and struggling to get by so we'll take whatever they decide to give us. But it makes you wonder who's going to buy all this junk when we are all broke and all our jobs are in China.

"If you know anything about the Clintons, you know "womenomics" was there as a theme and a potential policy initiative"

Unfortunately I DO know enough about the Clintons to realize Hillary uses the fact that she is a 'woman' to capitalize on womens votes and thats about it. empowering women is the last thing on her mind. Its her own personal ambition thats at play here. Its also unlikely Obama will go out on a limb to help the African-American community. Only a radical overhaul of the political system will help us achieve unified progressive goals.

In the meanwhile my boy Matt Gonzalez is Nader's VP choice !! Go baby !!

Amen Sean Gonzalez, thank you.

Hillary has been doggedly (don't go there haters) following the playbook, and has come tantalyzingly close, though likely to be undone by our absurd open caucus and primary systems, and the mystical rise of the young/minority/celebrity/populist phenomenon from the Lincoln State. If you know anything about the Clintons, you know "womenomics" was there as a theme and a potential policy initiative. (Yes, it is an absurd label, riddimboy, and yes, canuckchuck, the sex worker industry must be kept in mind.)

To make things happen in this system, political animals are needed. We are all animals; fortunately one's reach does exceed one's grasp, sometimes mightily. That's where we get the Clintons and the Obamas. I find it inspiring or depressing, depending on my own ups and downs. What has cheered me up lately, and inexplicably from my viewpoint, is Ralph Nader's reappearance. Another political animal-- an old dog,even-- but certainly one who needs to be taught no new tricks.

womenomics = prostitution

FVHorn March 2nd, 2008 2:38 pm

"Everyone talks about 'jobs' like it was some magic panacaea. Well, a slave had a 'job', too. How much good did that do him? We should talk about right livlihoods and fair wage, and fair trade, and one person at home for the sake of the children. We should talk about what we want our society to be, not who more we can exploit."

This government has been exploiting the average person in favor of corporate elitist wealth for decades:

http://www.economyincrisis.org/

What we want our society to be would involve taking some profits out the pockets of elitist whores who don't give a thought to the needs of humanity; we simply exist as a means to their self-serving goals. "We" are the slaves who work to maintain their self-centered, greedy lifestyles!

As more women have entered the workforce the tax burden has shifted increasingly from corporations to families.

The 'care for each other economy' doesn't show up on the books of the gross domestic product.

What seems to be in play is a despoileconomics where trashing our commons accelerates growth to clean up the spoils.

Perhaps it's time for men to be the primary care givers while women could be the new warriors!

The Red Phone

Who do we want on the red red phone?
Oh me oh my ..oh Ma ma ma
Will it be an offer of peace in a pant suit
like motherhood and apple pie,
or a wet willy wagged moment of truth?

Oh who do we want on the red red phone?
Will we duck and cover or jack up the billy bone?
Do we need an answer or should we just let it ring?
Is the freedom story just another loaded family thing
Is the night time going to be the right time to let it ring?

Is the answer going to be a shock be better awe me best,
global sort of chess?
Will it be a history or a herstory
or a barren back boy pack who count down their green backs
while we're all pumped on fear.

The actual start of the modern world could probably be traced to the Black Plague of the fourteenth century. After the scourge, laborers were scarce and could ask for far more payment (or even payment) for their work. This created wealth in towns, and more independence for people, who could then find better payment. This was a sea change from the past.

The point is that Goldman Sachs just wants to exploit more labor. With more 'employees' around begging for work, the cost of labor goes down, just like it does with illegal migration, with offshored labor, with anti-union policies. Remember the economic 'law' of supply and demand - the more supply the lower the price, the more demand the higher the price. Those criminals, the NeoCons, have applied this to life itself, especially the lives of people. So, more women, lower people price. Wonderful.

Everyone talks about 'jobs' like it was some magic panacaea. Well, a slave had a 'job', too. How much good did that do him? We should talk about right livlihoods and fair wage, and fair trade, and one person at home for the sake of the children. We should talk about what we want our society to be, not who more we can exploit.

The Neoliberal Washington Consensus must be thrown under the bus, along with the NeoCons. Wall Street and the International Bankers can no longer be trusted; they are all liars and frauds anyway, and must be put back in their place as simply one aspect and tool of a total and just society.

We just tried under the arch-moron Bush to have the bankers and capitalists rule our society. They 'produced' NOTHING BUT DEBT. And we are now seeing the results of listening to these FRAUDS, CHEATS and LIARS like they were Moses leading us to the promised land. Without the Federal Government's massive debt and the Federal Reserve's welfare-for-the-rich-bankers, there would be nothing left for capitalism to feed on. Burn the Economist and close Goldman Sachs.

And don't tell me that more women working will amount to anything more tham more debt-slavery owed to the high plutocracy, and more worthless 'work' that is grinding up the resouces of the Earth and the souls of its people.

The empowerment of women (especially in the developing world) is far more consequential than just using women as an economic engine and salivating on visualized profits (which seems to be why goldman sachs is having a wet dream). That should also be the real reason we need to support womenomics (what an absurd term).

I would love to see a woman president. Not this woman. This woman voted for the Iraq war. This women blows with the political wind. We need a leader...not Hillary and it has nothing to do with her hormones. For the first time in my life if she is the candidate I will not be able to vote (of course, being from MA I am sure she would carry the State, but I still, I find her repugnant as a politician...and it has nothing to do with gender.

As a resident of Rochester, I can confirm the claim above. She hasn't done the first thing to keep jobs in this part of the state. Under her tutelage, more than 5000 jobs have been cut from Kodak alone, and is no longer the largest employer in the area. Clinton has actually stopped visiting this part of the state because she (no doubt) knows how poorly she will be received.

The idea ,really, is to get women working so the income of the family will be supported by both parents because wages are not good enough for one parent to do so. Already both are working to just barely make it. How is that progress? Day care at the office is just another way to make it easier to screw the workers. I bet the costs will be deducted from the paycheck too.

Here is her economic record: She promised 200,000 new jobs to win votes in upper New York State. The result so far is: minus 30,000 jobs. This is her much vaunted experience. She is more like a middle range bureaucrat than a leader despite her endorsement from the Fox News Sunday panel.