WISE WORDS: NELLE MASON & LITTLE BROTHER

Predictably, this article has brought out the feminist backlash in the form of arguments that "feminism itself lies discredited by its association with racist privilege" on the one had and that "Feminists are disservicing themselves and their movement by effectively distancing male involvement" on the other.

These are tired arguments that feminists have engaged for a very long time now. On the one hand feminism is so diverse that to treat it in monolithic terms and claim that it is tainted with racist privilege simply reveals a lack of awareness of this diversity. Many white feminists have long been aware of the way the early feminist movement was built on a rather essentialized notion of women and that this notion derived from a largely white, middle-class set of experiences. This critique has been around for a long time now and was the distinctive contribution of many women of color.

Does that mean that white U.S. feminists have completely "gotten it" (i.e. the race issue)? By no means! But let's not simply trot out Geraldine Ferraro as though she can be made to stand for all white feminists or for something monolitihic like "feminism". To do that is just to traffic in caricatures.

Nor does the argument that feminism needs to label itself something else hold much weight either. I can't possibly rehearse here the long arguments for why feminism (a movement for equality) is not simply a reverse form of sexism (masculinism). If you really want to engage that issue you can do some research on your own. Once again, diverse numbers of feminists have engaged this issue. But it is a mark of the absurdity of these claims that the author of them says that no man would proudly stand up and call himself a feminist. That's just not true. I've seen plenty of men do this in public contexts and have done it myself.

For me the real issue is that given the diversity of feminism the label feminist doesn't automatically convey a lot of useful information (other than informing me that women and gender are an issue of concern for the speaker or writer). Laura Santina and Gloria Steinem are both feminists, but their analysis and evaluation of Senator Clinton from something called a feminist standpoint couldn't be more different.

Okay, I'm a 55 year old white woman who has called myself a feminist; I am more than well enough aware of the various academic debates among the varying kinds of "feminism"; for those who don't know all the terms (essentialism etc.), I am what would be called a "differences feminist". I also know from a life of experience that nonconforming feminists are routinely excoriated by the mainstream feminists, much the way Jews who don't support every action of the Israeli government are labelled self loathing Jews. I have tolerated this kind of academic infighting my whole life; I know feminism is "diverse." I also know one group is running the show; that group put out their candidate; and that group has sickened me for life.

Joyce Marcel and now Laura Santina--thank you liberated and assertive feminist women for seperating Hillary from assertive feminism. There really are some things that only another woman can do best and this is one of them.

"There will be a woman president. She may even be Hillary, but I hope not. We can do better. A woman of integrity will step forward. She'll use "we" instead of "I" when she thinks about the country and when she addresses voters. She won't be married to an ex-president or carry the burdens or reap the political rewards of his reign. She'll be more thoughtful, more truthful and more comfortable in her own skin."

Hillary is more to be pitied than despised. Thanks again Laura for an excellent analysis.

Bill and Hillary are both professional political whores who know and use all the tricks to pimp themselves to the right buyers.
Cynthia McKinney, on the other hand, is a Stateswoman who would serve our country well.
Hoa binh

Bill and Hillary are both professional political people who sell their bodies to other people and who know and use all the tricks to make people want to buy them.
How's that Thomas More?
Hoa binh

Bill and Hillary are both professional political whores who know and use all the tricks to pimp themselves to the right buyers.

Can you not make a comment without abusive language?

Please try.

Connecticut Governor Ella Grasso was not the first woman governor, but she was the first woman governor who didn't succeed her husband, and historians refer to her this way. Hillary Clinton could become the first woman president, but somebody else will be the first woman president who will not have succeeded her husband. Clinton's name would have an asterisk next to it.

I had a dream last night.
President Obama appointed Hillary Rodham Clinton to the Supreme Court. Al Gore, John Edwards, Joe Biden, Cynthia McKinney and Deepak Chopra held cabinet positions.
And all of the unlawful detainees in Guantanamo Bay were replaced with GW Bush and Dick Cheney pending trial for war crimes.

Among the causes Hillary has tainted through her long ugly campaign is feminism. Feminism has always had to fight off a caricature of being run by p.c. entitled rich women; and this campaign has provided all the evidence anyone needs to reinforce that image. And then some; not just affluent women, but white women who never cared about minority women until diversity became p.c. and cool; but who ditched diversity in a heartbeat (Ferraro?) when their real interests showed up. It's their "turn"; the black guy should have "waited". This group isn't even subtle. The author if this article is another kind of feminist, but feminism itself lies discredited by its association with racist privilege. Thanks, Hillary.

We can make a long list of female elected officials at all levels whose voting record favors women's issues. Clinton is not on that list.

With each speech Clinton makes it appears she put more testosterone in her coffee than the day before.

The Clintons are self righteous, self serving, conniving politicians lacking ethics or veracity, using their public position for private gain to the tune of $100 million and counting. Is that better, Thomas More?

kathyodat

"Political Whores" is the perfect phrase to describe, Bill, Hillary and the majority of our leaders. Distasteful, yes - inappropriate, no.

Also - a bone to pick with feminism.

If it's about EQUALING the playing field, then feminism is not the solution. Feminism by definition is the polar opposite of "masculinism" (I know it's not a word, but you get my drift). If masculinism is our current state of affairs, and things are tilted towards men, doesn't that conversely mean that "feminism" is tilting things towards women?

We don't need a feminist movement, we need an equality movement. Feminists are disservicing themselves and their movement by effectively distancing male involvement. What man is going to proudly stand up and say "I'm a feminist", even if they agree with some aspects of it? If women want to make serious strides for the advancement of their gender, then don't call it "feminism". It puts people off and it doesn't actually mean equality.

The civil rights movement wasn't called "blackism" or "negroism" or "I'm-not-white-ism", and its success was in its ability to bring in people from all sorts of classes and races to force equality in our society. Shouldn't feminists be interested in emulating that successful example?

"...Bill and Hillary are both professional political whores who know and use all the tricks to pimp themselves to the right buyers...."

I'd say that's perfect way to describe Lady Macbeth and her "foot in the mouth" offsider..

To Hilliary supporters, Hilliary is a feminist woman first, who just happens to be a mendacious cynical opportunist. To everyone else, Hilliary is a mendacious cynical opportunist first, who just happens to be a feminist woman.

When I think about Hillary representing the embodyment of the 19th ammendment, and her recent actions in the race for the Dem nomination.... I always think of those recently enfranchised ladies in the southern states, happliy laying out the picnic lunches at the "nigger BBQs" AKA lynchings....cheerfully mixing up the chicken salad to the sound of the black mens screams as they were being publically castrated, set on fire, and hanged.

Hillary is not the perfect feminist candidate, but she is the first woman to win a primary in a presidential contest and we have seen just how tough it has been for her. She did serve on the Walmart Board for a brief period when Sam Walton ran the company. It was a different company under his leadership. Walmart was a major employer in Arkansas so I find nothing odd about her serving on its board for a brief period when her husband was the governor and she was employed by a law firm in that state. I would have a problem if she was on the board under the current regime.

I find the level of misogyny aimed at Clinton, even by women who should know better, to be appalling. The ignorance of younger feminists about the struggle to get to this less than perfect point is extremely destructive. There is no model for a woman candidate...Hillary is setting a precedent which those who may choose to follow in her footsteps can improve upon. Nonetherless, I don't see a lot of volunteers out there now or in the near future. A candidate must raise obscene amounts of money to run for office in this country. Revolting insults, intolerable invasions of the personal privacy of the candidates and the requirement for herculean physical stamina necessary to run a national campaign limits the potential pool of volunteers willing to put themselves on the line. I simply do not see another female politician who has the network necessary to run for the presidency. At the very least Hillary deserves credit for trying. You don't have to support her candidacy, but at least acknowledge her contribution to bringing down yet another barrier to full equality for women of whatever race. I wish we had the perfect candidate but we don't so for now Hillary, with all of her flaws, will have to do. Ronald Reagan embellished the truth constantly, but that was regarded as cute by the media and much of the public. Hillary embellishes the tale of her trip to Bosnia and she's Satan. Why isn't Obama's tall tale about how the Kennedy's were instrumental in bringing his father to the US also a big deal? Yet another double standard.

Since when was calling a politician a "whore" abusive? I thought it was just descriptive.

And after decades of stinking corpses piling up because of the actions and inactions of our "representatives," who in their right mind cares about abusive language in this context anyway?

longingforsanity:

I apologize for criticizing you in my post, but your initial post didn't make it sufficiently clear that what you were critiquing was a particular part of the feminist movement (i.e. mainstream feminists like Steinem who have come out in support of Hillary).

I can imagine your frustration with the marginalization of other feminist voices by certain powerful mainstream feminist organizations. That's one of the reasons it is nice to see a piece like Santina's gaining wider circulation her at CD. Whether it will serve as an effective counter to voices like Steinem's or Robin Morgan's I don't know.

I can understand (on some level) why folks like Steinem and Morgan think women (and men too) ought to vote for Clinton. Clearly she represents a certain kind of success of the early feminist movement and embodies some of its principles.

But in many ways HRC is so much a tangle of contradictions that she puts mainstream feminists like Steinem and Morgan in the awkward position of having to pick and choose from among them in order to make their case that she deserves feminists' support.

Her recent comments about Iran (i.e. that should Iran develop nuclear weapons and attack Israel we would be able to obliterate them) are a perfect case in point. You can parse her statement any way you like---she said "would be able to" not "we would," say some of her supporters---but on any level it has to rank as a fairly profound betrayal of even mainstream feminist values.

There's a way in which HRC must make a number of mainstream feminists into only selective and fitful supporters. How can you fully embrace a candidate who voted for dropping bombs on a country knowing that they would kill thousands and thousands of civilians?. What do you say when she starts sounding like any other hawk on how to deal with Iran?

Sure they can try to dismiss this as mere rhetoric ("she needs to say those kind of things to get elected"), but what psychic-line to Clinton's cortex do mainstream feminists have that reassure them she's merely being rhetorical but that someone like McCain is not? There's a glaring problem with this approach that Steinem and Morgan must be aware of, and yet you scarcely hear a word of it when they write about Clinton.

So I appreciate your frustration and hope you'll forgive my suggestion that were too round in your criticism of feminism. If the focus is on certain vocal parts of the mainstream feminist movement (Steinem and Morgan, etc.), then I agree that it has been disheartening to see the rush to embrace HRC as the "feminist" candidate of choice.

Badavis says Hillary is setting a precedent but actually she isn't setting any new precedents. She is behaving just alike all the other political whores in D.C.
A true role model for women to follow would be Cynthia McKinney. Following her will get us to a better place instead of the same old stuff Hillary will bring us.
Hoa binh

This particular young male is as enigmatic as Hillary and no alternative. But how can America provide alternatives when merely being liberal gets one termed "far out", "weird", "crazy", while being a real leftist gets one death threats.

As for caring about the use of language - everyone in their right mind should do exactly that. Corrupt and degrade the language with which we trade ideas and we corrupt and degrade those ideas. Shame on anyone who says otherwise.

You people using rotten, filthy language, mostly about Hillary Clinton, are not making her look bad, you are making yourselves look stupid and immature and does not help CD image.

Better listen to Thomas More, he was right on target.

I am not a woman; however, if I were, I would still refer to myself as a humanist rather than a feminist. Maybe not in the "de facto", but in reality all peoples are equal, have the same rights and responsibilities. I believe that we should be working to make that the "de facto reality".

I have no problem with people calling themselves feminists; however, if I were a woman, I would consider "liberation" to mean that I could freely cast my vote for whomever I believed to be the best candidate, regardless of race, gender, religion, creed, ethnicity, body-type, etc.

--"Hillary, with all of her flaws, will have to do."--

This is the sort of non thinking that scares me. All I can say is that anyone who supports this kind of argument cares nothing about our country and nothing about the future of our children. It is usually a woman who might say this and she cares about her status and possibly that of her girl children, but nothing more and no one else. This is the kind of greed for power and status and selfishness that must end with this administration. THAT is why so many of us are willing to sacrifice time and dollars to support a candidate that will bring us that change and that is OBAMA! My children, both the males and females will be empowered, not because of their gender, but because we the people have taken control of our country once again!

Hillary on the Supreme Court? When she was fired for unethical behavior when she worked on Watergate? When she lies as easily as drawing breath? Don't think so.

A woman as president? We can find a better woman for the job, sometime in the future. Yes we can.

"Ronald Reagan embellished the truth constantly, but that was regarded as cute by the media and much of the public. Hillary embellishes the tale of her trip to Bosnia and she's Satan."

Sorry, I never thought Reagan's "embellishment" of the truth was "cute".

It isn't embellishment of the truth, it's LYING!

Why is it you and others who support Hillary cannot see this?

Bill did it under oath, that was what got him into trouble, not his sexual escapades.

If our candidates for President cannot be honest as candidates, what makes us think they will be honest once they become President?

As I said in another forum, I am one year Hillary's junior and I will NOT vote for her.
I won't vote for McCain either. He also has a problem with truth and seems lost when it comes to policy issues etc. He is not the war hero he is portrayed to be, and even if he were, that does not mean he has the intelligence to be President.

Hillary has made her bed, now she must lie in it and cease her sniveling about being mistreated.

"I am a liberal, and this is a liberal nation."

I probably paraphrased that a bit; but that is the gist of statements made by............................Will Rogers.

Eric J-D

I appreciate your response.

Coyotita--I couldn't agree more--the line that "with all her flaws Hillary would *have to do*" was incredibly galling.
I'm not opposed to Hillary because of her lines about Bosnia, after all; I am not holding her to some double standard; I agree with Obama that those are distractions regardless of who the target is; though Hillary's jumping on board to increase the use of distractions is quite noteworthy. No, I am opposed to Hillary because she wants to bomb the middle east, because she supported NAFTA and now tries to claim otherwise, and because she has run a racist campaign. John McCain is a warmonger; and I will never vote for a warmonger. Hillary Clinton is a racist warmonger.

For the many responders who complain about language: I'm inclined to say f*** off, but I'll leave just the smidgen of deniability. People vent. People are angry. Some people are even bitter. So be it.

Arise 257 said, "What man is going to proudly stand up and say "I'm a feminist", even if they agree with some aspects of it?"

Well, at least one. I have proudly considered myself a feminist all of my adult life. I'm in my fifties. While I disagree with some strains of radical and middle class feminism - I consider myself a socialist feminist - I disagree with your characterization of feminism. You should read some theory before jumping on an ill-informed semantics-based band wagon. Just because you don't like the term feminism, does not mean that it is the opposite of some imaginary "masculinism."

I'm a feminist, 10 years younger than Hillary.

I've never seen Hillary's run for President as a feminist triumph. If she should win, what would that say to America's little girls? You can grow up to be president, just find and marry a man who can be president first.

Hillary's own experience, as a senator from New York, is not appreciably more than Obama's experience as an Illinois state senator plus U.S. senator. As a feminist, I'm not inclined to consider Bill's work and achievements as belonging to Hillary. I've been turned off by Hillary's talk of "35 years of experience" - when most of that experience is being first lady of Arkansas and the U.S.

The one project she led as first lady, universal health care, was an enormous and damaging failure. Her "plan" was not even brought up for a vote in the Democratic Congress! But it did end any serious discussion of universal health care for the rest of the Clinton presidency.

In the early days of women winning public office, the first female senator or governor was sometimes referred to as 'the first to win in her own right'. Other women had held the position, when appointed to it after the death of their husbands while in office.

If Senator Barbara Mikulski were running and a serious contender, she would be running (and winning!) 100% 'in her own right'. I would indeed see her run as a feminist milestone. Not so much when it comes to Hillary.

Though, if Hillary is the nominee, I will most certainly vote for her in November.

I would like to draw attention to Hillary's use of the term "elitist" as a code word for racist. Her implication is that a black man cannot possibly be---and does not deserve to be---president of the Harvard Law Review and express such thoughtful, considered and wise policy positions. He does not fit the stereotype and therefore has to be put down, by whatever derogatory sneers possible. "Elitist" is particularly effective, but is well understood for what she wants to convey to her supporters.

Folks, feminism is not about replacing a body that has a penis with a body that has a vagina. It's about a society that privileges (white) male bodies only because they're male. Just look at who the leaders are . . . politics, business. It's a society where women are raped at work (Blackwater in Iraq) and prevented from receiving care or due course. It's a society where a woman can be secretly underpaid for her entire career and see the case thrown out of court because she didn't uncover the secret within the required 180 days. It's a society where women can be prevented from getting prescriptions filled or medical care on the whim of the pharmacist or healthcare provider. The U.S.A. couldn't even ratify the Equal Rights Amendment! The MSM has done an excellent job of turning feminism into the new F word. Hegemony works and don't say Gramsci didn't warn you. (I will take Equal Rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms anyday -- thank you Pierre Elliot Trudeau!)

Hillary spends too much time peering into a mirror of what she considers her achievements instead of focusing on the myriad grave issues facing the country. Women succeed on their merits and we don't "deserve" to break any glass ceilings. A lot of us have, on our merits and with lots of hard work.

And that's why I really get angry with women voters fascinated by the elementary notion that the opposite in the White House is enough reason to vote for Clinton. Of course, it's a lot easier choosing that way than trying to stay informed from multiple sources, and thinking things through.

I'm also fed up with Hillary telling us everything that's wrong with Obama as if she not only has some entitlement to the White House but also is so much wiser than millions of Obama voters.

This woman is a prime candidate for indictment as a war criminal.

Remember Nuremberg?

"Since when was calling a politician a "whore" abusive? I thought it was just descriptive."

Good one, JBPM! You got it right. The whore description does fit most (although not all) politicians, no matter whether you are a female or male politician.

Hillary is no friend to women - unless that woman is herself. I am a feminist AND a humanist and I say she is unqualified to lead this country. Hillary supporters who call people who disagree with them "immature" (or worse)need to grow up themselves. Look at the political history (okay, HERstory) of each candidate. Listen to what they have to say. Then if you can honestly say that your favorite candidate represents feminist - or even humanist - values, then by all means vote for her or him.

I've already done my investigation and soul-searching. Which is why I am voting for Green Party candidate Cynthia McKinney. She is a woman, by the way.

From the following article, "Hillary Clinton threatens to 'obliterate' Iran," by Joe Kay --

"Clinton's comments (about obliterating Iran) are revealing not only in what they say about her own campaign, but what they say about the Democratic Party as a whole, including Obama. No one in the Democratic Party establishment challenges the basic premise underlying the threats by Clinton against Iran: that US policy in the Middle East is aimed at countering Iranian aggression. Neither of the candidates will point out that the policy of unprovoked aggression has been practiced not by Iran, but by the United States, which has killed over 1 million Iraqis, and turned 4 million into refugees, in its determination to gain control of the country and the region.

"The danger of war against Iran—or against China, Russia, or some other country—does not come just from the Republican Party. While the Democrats seek to posture as critics of the Iraq war, they are just as committed as the Republicans to the aims the war was meant to secure, and they will just as surely use military force in the future to achieve these aims."

Click here for the entire article -- http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/apr2008/iran-a24.shtml

We all know very well who Hillary is now - she is the one who can talk glibly about obliterating entire countries.

This is not a person we want with a finger on the red button.

I hate to be a pedant, but let's look the denotations and connotations of whore/prostitute to clarify why some might object to the choice of words.

The dictionary: one who sells his (sic) abilities or name to an unworthy cause.
Well, superficially, that seems to fit, but the social reality is more complex

Connotations: prostitutes, sex workers, are often/usually forced to make this decision as victims of abusive men, or hunger, or desperation (for example, drug dependency).
This doesn't fit the Clintons.
One imagines that the sexual prostitute despises and is revolted by his/her clients.
This doesn't fit the Clinton's either.

I can't help but hear in the cry "whore" a shallow, prudish morality: Prostitutes bad; Clintons bad. What actually makes being a whore bad? Don't tell me that the Clintons are worse, whores who have a choice – it is that lack of choice that makes prostitution objectionable.

What's wrong with the Clintons isn't that they are "whores," but rather that they have sold out; they have joined the club; they have betrayed their progressive/feminist supporters in the search for power. There seems ample evidence that they have done good things, especially before coming to power, but also evidence that now they are really only concerned with power.

I leave it to others to argue that selling out is actually "compromising" to accomplish what is possible.

To whomever in this website who objects to Bill and Hillary being characterized as "politcal whores" ...

I think it's terrible, simply TERRIBLE to write such things about Bill and Hillary -- calling them whores. How outrageous! It gives hard-working whores the world over a bad name.

Most whores work because they need the dough. What's Bill and Hillary's excuse???

I learned something new today. So it is despicable to play up to the American voter? Wow.

Americans have always, as long as I remember, preferred to vote for political "whores", although I hasten to add that I find prostitution an honest profession compared to the deals many women actually choose to make (and I am a woman, thank you very much) in daily life without labelling it as such, just to lay their hands on someone's money. So I dislike the use of that word in this connection.

Hillary Clinton is only doing what they all have been doing for decades: Change their stories according to the polls.

Because if they don't, they won't win. Americans want to hear Disney-like fairy tales (remember Reagan's campaign, anyone??), they want to be sugar-coated, they want to be cradled and cooed, they don't want to engage in a serious discussion about what's really going on in this world.

Only a tiny minority is inclined to accept truths, alas.

Obama has lately said a few very true sentences, I found. Only lately, IMO, though (no, the "yes we can" is just another chapter of the habitual sugar-coating) did he find words which surprised me. But that was exactly the moment when he was losing support, see??

So don't chide Hillary for playing the game Americans have been shown to want. Fairy tales. Disneyland. America the Beautiful. The eternal good guys. Every 4 years another beautiful fairy tale.

And Americans and their politicians will live happily forever after in blissful ignorance until finally one ugly day the stock market or the world economy does you part...

"We are the tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes. We are the jumping-jacks; they pull the strings and we dance. Our talents, our possibilities and our lives are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes."
John Swinton, editor of the New York Tribune, in the 1880s, at a banquet of his fellow editors

And so it goes. There is nothing new about this sort of characterization. Vote for the least sold-out candidate.

I am a feminist and I am voting for Cynthia McKinney.

She's an AIPAC whore and no I will not apologize for stating the obvious. McCain is also.

Little Brother___ I realize you are one of the most intelligent people to post here, but do you not know that there are many very vulgar, racist, put downs that could be used in describing Obama? Strangely, the posters that have some reservations about his ability to do all that he is promising for fixing the country and uniting everyone do not seem to have to resort to bad language to make their point. What would be the reaction from you Obama supporters if that were the case? I am sure you would all think it entirely appropriate and a big help to the discussion.

A feminist should vote for a feminist. There are no feminists in this race. I have heard nothing from any candidate in the running about the plight of women. A true feminist would be very angry about what has been done to Iraqi women. I am a feminist. I initially supported the invasion of Afghanistan EXCLUSIVELY because of the good I thought it could do for women there. I was wrong. Women are no better off. Iraq was the best example of an arab country where women were achieving liberation. It is now no longer so. Iraqi women have been set back deecades. Has any candidate said this and given it the importance is greatly deserves? I would like to know.

I didn't read all of 40+ comments to the article, so I might
be repeating something.
The only thing remotly feminine about Hi-liar-y is that she
happens to have boobs instead of balls. (not sure about the
balls)
When Barack gets the nomination, he would do well to pick a
woman as a running mate. Barack will be the nominee unless
he has the same fate as JFK, MLK, RFK and Paul Wellstone.

Her statement about Iran shows that Hillary
R. Clinton is every much as loose a cannon
as George W. Bush. And being a loose cannon has nothing to do with gender. Can this country bear another loose cannon as
president? I think not.

I've done my own analysis of the PA primary and have arrived at the following conclusions.

The PA primary took place shortly after a debate rigged by the Clintons courtesy of ABC. The timing was no mistake. Even though this deceptive charade was very obvious, not everyone could see that, including (unfortunately) a number of Pennsylvanians. The truth is that the Clintons are just as slimy as your average Republican when it comes to campaigning, and you've got to give them credit for staging a good show. But it was just a show – very little meaningful dialogue was triggered.

Then there was Hillary visiting PA bars and bowling alleys using her acting skills to try to convince people she's a regular Joe. The only thing she didn't do to try to fit in with the crowd was to belch the words to the Pledge of Allegiance and light her own farts. I heard she actually got a skull and crossbones tattoo for the occasion and initially planned to wear a halter top and hot pants, but Bill disapproved. The whole thing was a pretty obvious deception, but not everyone could see that.

I have been to Pennsylvania a few times in my life and the people there struck me as folks of average intelligence. But I must have missed the kinds of places in Pennsylvania out of which comes the gun slingin', beer drinkin', wife beatin', minority hatin' lower class white crowd ("white Trash") that Hillary tends to draw. Apparently there are a number of these folks in the Keystone State.

Bottom line, Hillary would do or say anything if it would get her an extra vote, whereas Obama is consistently Obama and there are just things he won't do . I believe that's called "integrity", a term which the Clinton clan does not comprehend.

Little Brother and dmia, LOVE your posts! Thanks for a good belly aching laugh.

Ditto here, great posts Little Brother and dmia