Why do the homos so furiously rage together?

Despite the election-fatigue I'm experiencing, I've been wondering about the odd phenomenon involving gays not voting in this year's presidential contest. With all the horror of the past 8 years, is it possible that we as a community are so wrapped up in identity politics that we can't see the larger picture? Obama-mania has swept the country, and it's easy to see why. People are hurting on a number of levels largely (but not, to be fair, solely) because of the horrific and entirely predictable results of the Bush/Cheney regime. One only has to observe the incredibly early start of the presidential campaign season to understand how eager and perhaps desperate Americans are to jettison this administration and move forward.

The question then becomes where we're going and how. Lots of people think of gays and lesbians as being this huge block of voters who march in lockstep and share identical values. Not so at all, as any cursory perusal of the comment sections of Towleroad, Joe.My.God, Pam's House Blend, or Queerty will show. The discussion boards on political issues quickly devolve into screeching matches, name-calling, desperate pleading, and angry screeds... and that's just the gays.



Mr. Obama is not a perfect candidate. His vote on the FISA bill was more than troubling, but Mrs. Clinton's vote for the Iraq war was was equally foolish. Mr. Obama has gone on record as being against marriage equality, which the anti-Obama gays are quick to remind us, but they conveniently omit mention of Mrs. Clinton's opposition to the same. I hear phrases like "simply can't be trusted", "a risky choice for the Democrats", and "inexperienced"... followed by promises either to vote for a third-party candidate or, in a fit of pique, to abstain from voting altogether. It's easy to label these folks as embittered supporters of Mrs. Clinton who haven't the fortitude or maturity to follow Mrs. Clinton's pleas to support the party in this important election, but that can't be the whole story.



The gay and lesbian community is a ridiculously diverse population with a vast array of issues influencing their voting behavior. It's no secret among gays that racism is alive and well, and is perhaps as prevalent in our own house as in the general population. (One may consider the still-quite-segregated gay porn industry for visual evidence of this estrangement.) The only difference is that gays with racist sensibilities are slightly more likely than straight folk to veil their opinions with vague suspicions and euphemisms rather than own their own biases. It's also no secret that some gays are more concerned with their own financial status than they are with the larger issues of civil rights... another characteristic that we often share with the straights.



Finally, there are issues that are peculiar to gay folk that could certainly influence political thought. When one comes out as gay or lesbian, familial relationships are often placed at great risk. Sometimes clinging to the conservative political and/or social beliefs of one's parents is the only way to maintain a common ground with those who despise one's "lifestyle". The desire to please our disappointed parents and family can creep into the heart of even the most out and proud queer, and the mighty pull of that basic need can easily cause us to vote against our own interests.



The protracted campaign season has been a fatiguing one for us. We're battered and bruised, and often at the hands of our own gay brothers and sisters. Obama is not perfect, and is not the Messiah. He will not make the crooked straight and the rough places plain. Just like all the presidents before him, he will likely not be able to wave a magic political wand and give us all of the wonderful advances that he's promising us on the campaign trail. To be sure, Mrs. Clinton wouldn't fare much better. But if we look at the larger picture, we see that the alternative (Mr. McCain) would be far worse. Worse for gays, worse for progressives, worse for the downtrodden, worse for America, and worse for the world. My vote this year will be cast not for Obama's zeitgeist-surfing image, but for what he represents to the people of the United States... a return to a modicum of international respect, the establishment of an administration that will nominate moderates or progressives to the judiciary (from which the vast majority of our political and social advances have come in the last 30 years), and the mild sense of comfort that comes from the knowledge that the occupant of the Oval Office has an IQ that is higher than his shoe size.



This vote is not about me, or about specifically gay issues. It's about my country and where I think it needs to go from here. However imperfect Mr. Obama is, he represents the better and more hopeful of two visions for our future. Gay rights will come to us just as they have always come to us... with the slow march of time, the glacial pace of evolving social opinion, and the occasional shove from a much-maligned but right-thinking judiciary. The societal sea-change has already happened, and with time we will see the fruits of that change. Patience will win out as it always has. For now, let's allow ourselves to maintain our strong commitment to equality while at the same time thinking about something larger than our own interests. Let's not cast our votes out of fear, spite, or the baseline desire to be a contrarian. Let's appeal to the better angels of our nature, and plan our actions accordingly.

Ms Dworkin, table for one...

Geraldine Ferraro, in her piece in the Boston Globe entitled "Healing the Wounds of Democrats' Sexism", she posits:

"[N]either the Barack Obama campaign nor the media seem to understand what is at the heart of the anger on the part of women who feel that Hillary Clinton was treated unfairly because she is a woman or what is fueling the concern of Reagan Democrats for whom sexism isn't an issue, but reverse racism is... Sore loser, petty, silly, vengeful are words that have dominated the headlines. But scolding and name calling don't resolve disputes. The truth is that tens of thousands of women have watched how Clinton has been treated and are not happy. We feel that if society can allow sexism to impact a woman's candidacy to deny her the presidency, it sends a direct signal that sexism is OK in all of society."

She continues, addressing the concerns of poor, uneducated white voters (to whom she euphemistically refers as "Reagan Democrats"):

"They see Obama's playing the race card throughout the campaign and no one calling him for it as frightening. They're not upset with Obama because he's black; they're upset because they don't expect to be treated fairly because they're white. It's not racism that is driving them, it's racial resentment. And that is enforced because they don't believe he understands them and their problems. That when he said in South Carolina after his victory "Our Time Has Come" they believe he is telling them that their time has passed.

Whom he chooses for his vice president makes no difference to them. That he is pro-choice means little. Learning more about his bio doesn't do it. They don't identify with someone who has gone to Columbia and Harvard Law School and is married to a Princeton-Harvard Law graduate. His experience with an educated single mother and being raised by middle class grandparents is not something they can empathize with. They may lack a formal higher education, but they're not stupid. What they're waiting for is assurance that an Obama administration won't leave them behind.

Hope, change, and inspiration don't do it. A speech on racism might persuade editorial boards, but to these voters it's 'just words.'"

How can Ferraro write this drivel with a straight face?

Aside from some clearly misogynistic but ultimately toothless comments made by the talking heads on television and radio (Chris Matthews, Rush Limbaugh, etc), I defy anyone to show me specific instances that prove that the results of Senator Clinton's campaign were dogged in any significant way by sexism. I've been looking for it for months, and can't see it. Does Geraldine Ferraro really think that people are stupid and gullible enough to become misogynistic based on a tasteless quip from talk radio? They might have chuckled or cringed, but I doubt that those insults influenced anyone's vote.

What may have influenced those votes are Clinton's hawkish approach to foreign policy, her clear preference for the Republican nominee to her Democratic rival, and her tendency to place fast and loose with the truth (a la Bill) in the hope that we're too self-absorbed to notice or care. Perhaps Ms. Ferraro could consider the fact that opposing Senator Clinton's nomination does not automatically make one a sexist bigot. Her patently false claim of unfair treatment due to sexist media and voters is an insult to those many Americans who have suffered the effects of true sexism.

And how dare Ms. Ferraro excuse the idiotic sentiments of white people who fear being left behind by an Obama administration? What possible evidence do they have that being white in America will suddenly become a barrier to success? No, being poorly educated doesn't make one stupid. Without major and lifelong self-education efforts, being poorly educated usually makes one ignorant, which is not the same thing at all. Ferraro is clearly desperate to find someone to blame for Clinton's strong second-place finish, and claiming sexism is the easiest choice and the hardest to prove. Her bias is showing, and it's bitter, spiteful, and ugly.

Further, Ms. Ferraro should also be wary of allowing the Clinton campaign to fund their own Harvard study. If she wants the results to have any credibility, the study must be funded by a truly impartial source.

Obama has taken the high road consistently throughout his campaign. As Clinton's campaign has foundered, her spokespeople (either official or de facto) have become increasingly shrill in their claims of sexism and unfair play, all the while advocating equally unfair tactics that might benefit them. Americans are justifiably weary and resentful of this kind of duplicitous behavior that we have tragically come to expect from the Clinton and Bush styles of politics.

Is it any wonder that we're looking for a new voice, instead of walking across Sen. Clinton's "bridge to the 1990s"?

The truth, unmasked

I was horrified by the blatant racism evident in the presidential campaign over the past week or so. Yeah, there was the isolated "sweetie" comment from Obama (for which the candidate personally called the reporter to whom he said it, and apologized profusely... BEFORE the story broke in the media and BEFORE Clinton and Ferraro started whining about it). But the piddly amount of misogyny in this campaign pales into insignificance when compared with the mountain of racism and xenophobia heaped upon Obama. It's not that the media is trumping up the race issue, or that there's a regional bias against southerners... all you have to do is let the people of West Virginia and Kentucky speak for themselves.

I was hoping, in a stunning display of naivete, that we were better than this. That we had gotten past this kind of tired racial hatred. I was hoping that the battle our nation was fighting was not against this sort of mindless race-related mental retardation, but rather a more insidious and latent racism of which even the racially biased might not be aware. I was proven wrong.

I love the idea of this country, but the absence of any kind of societal premium placed on education in the United States has resulted in a pervasive impoverishment of the mind. The thought that great swaths of America are populated by these "blue-collar hard working Americans" as Clinton likes to call them (also known as idiotic redneck racist assholes) makes me more than a little ashamed. The answer can't be as simple as advocating for stronger education. I'm sure some of these people graduated from college. The issue also isn't necessarily one of class... those who grew up in Appalachia with limited means aren't necessarily going to grow into racists. I don't know what the answer is, but until West Virginia, Kentucky, and other cognitively-impoverished states tackle this issue, more and more of their children will leave the state for greener and more welcoming pastures.

If this primary election has taught me one thing, it is this: one can never underestimate the American capacity for insane bias or useless stupidity.

Hurricaine McCain and the Hateful Hagee

John McCain has lately been attempting to distance himself from a recent endorsement (which the McCain campaign aggressively sought) from John Hagee, a well-known right-wing televangelist. Hagee is known among the thinking set as the stunning intellect behind the claim that Hurricaine Katrina was the manifestation of God's punishment for New Orleans for their plans to have held the annual Southern Decadence festival. As a city-wide festival that featured events of interest to GLBT people, it's not surprising that someone like Hagee would object. Anytime GLBT people gather together in the absence of self-hatred and gnashing of teeth, people like Hagee get nervous and defensive. This is nothing new.

After McCain spent last weekend on This Week offering lame excuses to the wee George Stephanopoulos for his association with this bigot ("I condemn remarks that are, in any way, viewed as anti-anything." What?) Hagee appeared on right-wing radio talk show host Dennis Prager's program to clear things up. And what did La Hagee say to de-fuse the situation?


PRAGER: Right, but in the case, did NPR get, is this quote correct though that in the case of New Orleans you do feel it was sin?
HAGEE: In the case of New Orleans, their plan to have that homosexual rally was sin. But it never happened. The rally never happened.
PRAGER: No, I understand.
HAGEE: It was scheduled that Monday.
PRAGER: No, I’m only trying to understand that in the case of New Orleans, you do feel that God’s hand was in it because of a sinful city?
HAGEE: That it was a city that was planning a sinful conduct, yes.

So Hagee's response to the criticism was to say the exact same horribly offensive thing? At least he's consistent... you've got to give him that. And his next comment?

HAGEE: That’s why secular humanists hate the bible because it gives a definite standard of right and wrong. There’s light and darkness, there’s wheat and pears, there’s sheep and goats. You can’t be all things to all people. You either do live by the word of God or you don’t live by the word of God. And there’s nothing in between. And…and our secular permissive society, that’s just a hateful idea.


Yes. The Bible is full of these dualistic, black and white, right and wrong statements. Apparently, for fundamentalist christianists, it's simply impossible to have any sort of moral dilemma. No difficult decisions. No gray areas full of contradiction. No "slippery slope" problems. It must be nice to live in such a world... so easy to plan. I've not enjoyed that kind of sophomoric mindset since I was about 15 years old, but perhaps maturity doesn't come to christianists in the same way it came to me.

Last night's Pennsylvania primary coverage featured a shocking poll result... that over 50% of Hillary Clinton's supporters would not vote for Barack Obama if he became the Democratic nominee. Fifty. Percent. Does this mean that many Democrats will either vote for McCain or not vote at all simply because their first choice didn't win enough delegates or the popular vote? I voted for Obama, but I'd certainly hold my nose and vote for Clinton if she were the nominee... I disagree with her on many issues, but she'd certainly be better than McCain. Why don't Clinton's followers recognize this?

I'll tell you why. It's because the base of Clinton's support is from aging baby boomers who have been coddled all their lives. After decades of having the media tell you over and over that your generation was the be-all end-all of human existence, ascribing to your cohorts the sole credit for much of the social and political advances of the 20th century, I would imagine it would be difficult to hear that you might not get your way on this one. Spoiled children often throw tantrums like this. It's my understanding that a little tough-love is in order...

I fear for the future of our country. We're so close to wresting control of the government from the Woodstock generation and their toxic effect on our culture. I simply worry that this election cycle is too early in that process for us to prevail. Get ready for 4-8 more years of Republican rule, whether it's through McCain or via the Clintonian wolf-in-sheep's-clothing approach. Either way, many of us will be screwed.

Why do the gays love Hillary?

It's a question that was posed to a listserve that I belong to, and no one seemed to have much of an answer.

Why do so many gays just love love love Hillary?

The initial question suggested that the support that Hillary enjoys from gay men revolves around a combination of diva worship and a historical support for the mistreated and underestimated woman. But given the fact that Hillary's positions on gay issues are as conservative and unfair as many moderate Republicans, it's a little puzzling to know that she continues to enjoy the vociferous and enthusiastic support (both moral and financial) of so very many gay people. Hell, she just had a big fund raiser featuring none other than Elton John, and you don't get much gayer than that.

Here is the current thought by the bloggers at TPM cafe:

"Hillary is the diva, the fabulous woman who is fabulous just because she says so. She's the woman who is abused (by her husband), ridiculed (by the press), hated (by Republican mouth-breathers), yet she's still standing. She's like from some exploitation film where the heroine is beaten and barely raped before pulling a knife out of her sock and slicing the mean guy's balls off. Her supporters have stood by her and fought her battles with her - and sometimes for her -since the 1990s. The emotional connection runs too deep. R-e-s-p-e-c-t, she shakes her finger. Find out what it means to me. And the crowd eats it up.... Nevermind that Hillary Clinton hasn't ever really ever done anything for the gay community. They just like her moxie. It's the defensive/aggressive posturing of a member of an ostracized community, and they identify with that. I see it my friends who are gay who support Hillary. They say the same trite things over and over: she's a fighter, she's a strong woman, people hate strong women, people are jealous... Surprisingly, they like my Diva theory. To them, a diva is exactly what we need in the White House. "

I should start by saying that I'm not a Hillary hater. (Frankly, I'm not really a McCain hater either, but that's another story.) But one thing that I don't like about how Hillary is running her campaign is her tendency to attempt to take collaborative credit for some popular accomplishments of her her husband's administration while in the same breath distancing herself from the more unpopular issues. Her tendency to play fast and loose (at best) with the truth has been documented over and over, and I just don't think that that's something we need... not after the long national nightmare of the Bush administration. I also think she's a bit hawkish when it comes to military adventures overseas. From a GLBT perspective, she has certainly not been any great advocate for us. (To be fair, Barack isn't exactly the straight version of Barney Frank, either.) So, for me, my vote was decided based almost entirely on issues other than GLBT-related talking points. That felt weird, but I did feel a little more engaged than when I was a 1- or 2-issue voter.

I think that gay people are supporting Hillary for many reasons. It's a cop-out (and more than a little bit offensive) to say that gays are caught up in the diva-drama... the subtext suggesting that gay men are like ferrets who are transfixed by a brightly-colored pants suit and an expensive wash-and-set. Some gays I've spoken to are supporting Hillary because she's got lots of practical experience and connections in Washington and can pull favors when necessary... the idea that though she is clearly a calculating, conniving politician with terrier-like tenacity (like all the others), it's more useful to have a person like that on your side than on the Republican ticket. (Whether she is really on "our side" remains to be seen, as that needs to be judged through evaluation of action rather than rhetoric.)

But given that most Americans are relatively passive when it comes to political decision-making, I fear that many are supportive of Hillary simply because they supported the Clintons in the past and are voting out of inertia, or because she's a more familiar figure (better the devil you know, and that sort of thing).

That said, any of the Democratic candidates would be a far sight better than the drooling nitwit we have endured for the past EIGHT YEARS.

Betty Butterfield on Hillary Clifman Rodman and the other Presidential candidates

My very favorite drag queen, Miss Betty Butterfield, has returned from a long absence to weigh in on the presidential race. Welcome back, Miss Betty. You've been missed.

I'll post more about her. I just realized that I've not mentioned her at all on this bloggish-thingy, and I just can't believe it. This drag queen's character has infiltrated almost my whole life in little bitty ways... just the word "mmmmhyelllo?" has become an almost ubiquitous greeting in my little circle of friends. Miss Betty is a phenomenon that illustrates the power of the internet (and YouTube) upon our culture. Amazing.

Ladies, please! You're BOTH pretty!

Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have spent more time and energy in recent weeks putting out stupid little fires caused by their glassy-eyed overzealous supporters than they have spent forming ideas and goals for their respective candidacies. Obama's tendency to reach out to church leaders like Wright and McClurkin have tarnished the shiny new penny quality of his campaign, while Clinton's duplicitous manipulations have been consistent with her modus operandi. And where is John "100 More Years!" McCain? On vacation, getting the rest that he'll need in order to finish off the bloody and battered winner of the Democratic nomination. Thanks to the tendency of the left to eat its own, we may yet end up with another disastrous right-wing Republican presidency, with all the wars, civil rights deterioration, and bloated big-wig tax incentives that will undoubtedly accompany it. And we'll deserve it, you know.

The Democratic primary bloodbath points out, to me at least, an important social movement that the Republicans have not yet demonstrated... that is the movement away from Baby Boomer hegemony and toward the next generation of leadership. The Boomers have a long history of zealotry, starting on the left, many moving to the right (when it was socially and politically convenient to do so), and sometimes back again. The legacy of the Baby Boom generation includes a shocking selfishness and self-aggrandizement (see the Ameritrade commercials offering investment advice from Dennis Hopper), a scorched-earth social policy that encourages bickering about minutiae while ignoring the big picture, and a cloying nostalgia for a twee America that never existed in the first place. Clinton clearly is the standard-bearer for the Boomers (the "even greater" generation, as some have called them), while Obama has energized their children and grandchildren.

That's why, in my humble opinion, the primary has devolved from spirited debate to puerile ad hominem attacks and silly sound-bite manipulation... the Boomers aren't quite ready to relinquish the power that they have wielded over American culture. In ten years or so, the balance of power will likely shift toward the younger generation a bit more, but right now it's too close to be a kinder, gentler debate.

I'm really thinking of turning off the news channels on my cable system.

Look like the innocent flower, but be the serpent under it.

So Hillary Clinton won the Texas and Ohio primaries, and we are now in for a nasty, bitter, and utterly nauseating fight for the Democratic presidential nomination. On the one hand is Obama, who has been remarkably effective in avoiding negativity in his campaign. When he debates, he brings up salient issues and truthful differences in policy and opinion. On the other hand, we have Clinton, whose campaign has shown that "turning negative" can be effective. It worked. She won. What happens now? Are we to be treated with negative campaigning for the next six weeks, all the way up to the Pennsylvania primary? Do we now get to watch the former first lady hammer Obama with unsubstantiated and spurious accusations, while the Illinois senator does his best to take the high road?

I have a hard time believing that this is good for the Democratic Party or for America.

And more interesting news from C:

"It was widely reported heading into the primaries yesterday that there was a coordinated Repube effort to get out the vote for Hillary, to "bloody up Obama" and keep the race going, and give a boost to the preferred nominee of the Repubes. Rush Limbaugh was instrumental in that. Hard to tell if it was all bluster, if it had any effect, but on Air America this morning they reported that something like 20 counties in Texas recorded ZERO votes for the Republican primary, and HRC beat Obama in the Dem primary in those counties by a 2-1 or greater margin. Hmm, curious. Does that strike you as rather odd? There was still a contest on the Repube side yesterday, wasn't there? Wasn't there a Southern Baptist preacher archconservative candidate up against John McCain? Here all this time I thought Texas was crawling with Repubes, but I guess yesterday they all just stayed home. Funny, that."

I am so over this primary contest I could just puke. I'm also starting to think that some of the Republican yammering about Hillary Clinton might have a grain of truth to it. Just a grain... most of their hyperbole is utterly repulsive... but their lingering criticism that the Clintons are power hungry opportunists who prioritize their own struggle for power and influence above the good of the country as a whole seems to be pretty accurate right now. I still don't consider myself a Hillary Hater. I don't have seething anger or hatred toward her... I just simply disagree with her on several important issues. What I do feel right now is disappointment, suspicion, and frustration, though... all due to the apparent ease with which she stoops to the negativity campaign. She seems to have a sense of entitlement that the baby boomers have perfected since the 1980s, and I imagine that this is a difficult thing to jettison after all these years. I hope that Obama will continue to inspire and show that a presidential race can be based on optimism and cooperation.

It's going to be a long spring and summer. I might block the news channels from my cable.

Election business.

Here's a little flowchart that might help y'all wade through the spin of the various presidential campaigns, thanks to Next magazine (embiggen to read). After the "super Tuesday" extravaganza last night, it still appears that the Democratic nomination is up for grabs.


On the one hand, Clinton is clearly a savvy, experienced player in the Washington world. She'd be a pit-bull for the issues she chooses to support. Could it be that our interests would be best served by savvy manipulation instead of kumbaya "coming together"? I'm just not certain that I want to have a return of the Clintonian dynasty to the national scene. I'd prefer a new, fresh start.


Obama, on the other hand, has an inspirational style that can theoretically help to improve cooperation among voters who disagree with each other on various issues. I think that's something that our country desperately needs, but I'm not convinced yet that Obama has the ability to back up that inspirational talk with effective action. And the squalid Donnie McClurkin episode still resonates with me.


Does that make me "undecided"? Guess so. I won't know how I'll vote until my pen hits the paper. One thing I do know though... either Clinton or Obama will be light-years better than what we've got now.

Honey versus vinegar.

After watching the Democratic presidential primary debates, I'm left with a nagging question. When it comes to getting legislation through the House and Senate, what's the most effective strategy?

Obama is charming, and is inspiring as he speaks of "coming together" for the common good. However, given the fact that the divisive nature of two-party politics is not likely to change simply as a result of an Obama presidency, will his kum-ba-ya approach be effective in the real world? The message of unity might play just fine in January 2008, but will it play effectively in Washington in January 2009?

Another question is whether I even want to "come together" with some of these people... Obama's tendency to pander to right-wing evangelicals (demonstrated during his recent and squalid Donnie McClurkin episode) tends to leave a bad taste in my mouth. I will compromise on just about any issue for the good of the country, but my common and equal human worth is one of the few issues that are inappopriate topics for compromise. Until the religious right supports my equal worth and equal rights under the secular American law, there's no point in "coming together" with them.

The other option is Hillary Clinton. I have posted previously on Senator Clinton's suspicious win in New Hampshire's primary and the Republican salivation response whenever the possibility of a Clinton candidacy is mentioned. Diebold shenanigans aside, would it be better from a legislative efficacy standpoint to have Clinton's calculated, experienced, hard-nosed Washington savvy than Obama's idealistic "we're all in this together" vibe? If I'm looking for an attorney, for example, I don't necessarily want the nicest person. I want the person who's got the most experience and is the most aggressively effective in pursuing my interests. But with Clinton's divisive baggage, and with her opinions on many other issues that are at odds with my own, I'm just not convinced yet that she is the right one for the job.

My mom always said that you attract more flies with honey than with vinegar. But in this case, do we really want all those flies? And can't vinegar be useful in certain situations?

I call "shenanigans".

The recent primary election in New Hampshire raised some troubling issues on the Democratic side.

Anyone else recall how, in the 2000 and 2004 elections, the exit polling was wildly inaccurate? Polls in years past had been so spot-on that states had been called for one candidate or another when only 10 or 20 percent of the vote had been counted.

After the start of the Diebold electronic voting revolution, that accuracy has dipped substantially. All of a sudden we're seeing these strange surges among underdog candidates, usually Republican. You'd have to be day-old stupid to ignore the obvious signs of election-day tampering.

Why, then, would the right wing want to skew an election toward Hillary Clinton, arguably the most hated woman in the world among conservatives? Hell, they hate her even more than they hate Barbra Streisand... although I'd bet dollars to donuts that there are plenty of closeted Republicans hiding DVDs of Funny Girl in their underwear drawer.

The answer is easy. The Republicans know that after the last eight years, during which the party took a huge dump on the Constitution, destroyed our economy, and eliminated any shred of respect we enjoyed in the international community, the only person in the Democratic field that they have any hope of beating in a national election would be... wait for it... Hillary Clinton. No, it's not because she's a woman. It's because she's a Clinton... with all the crazy baggage that comes along with it. I'm of the opinion that one's personal baggage should be small enough to fit into the overhead compartment or underneath the seat in front of you. Senator Clinton's baggage would clearly need to be shipped via some sort of railroad boxcar.

Just look at all the totals from the NH primary... particularly when the voting results are separated out, Diebold machine vs. paper ballot. The results show that Obama clearly won the paper ballots, which were consistent with exit polling... but Clinton somehow managed to surge ahead in those electronic voting districts despite her own "doom and gloom" predictions.

I call "shenanigans".

Oh... and someone needs to tell HillHill that she needs to lay off the rick-rack if she's gonna sew her own blouses. Just sayin.