Senator Clinton Calls for New Stimulus to Boost Economy and Help Those Hardest Hit by Recession, Calls for Investments in Infrastructure, Green Jobs, Mortgage Relief, Aid to Cities and States, and Extending Unemployment Insurance

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton today called for a comprehensive new stimulus package to jump start the ailing economy. In a letter to President Bush and Senate leaders, Senator Clinton outlined a series of measures that would protect those Americans hit hardest by the recession and put the nation on the road to recovery.

The text of her letter to the President follows:

November 11, 2008

The Honorable George W. Bush
The White House
Washington, D.C. 20500

Dear Mr. President:

Our economy has lost more than one million jobs this year alone. The scope and scale of the economic challenges facing the American people are vast. Businesses, large and small, are struggling to secure financing to survive. Families cannot find affordable mortgages and consumer loans. The housing crisis, which has already wiped out hundreds of billions of dollars in home equity and even more in investment losses, grows deeper every day, with another wave of foreclosures looming.

The State of New York is the epicenter of this crisis. New York projects that more than 160,000 New Yorkers will lose their jobs as a result of the economic downturn. A recent analysis estimates that New York City will lose almost 30,000 construction jobs by 2010, in addition to the tens of thousands of jobs already lost to turmoil on Wall Street.

We are in a recession which demands decisive action. I believe that in order to stimulate this economy, we need to get people working, earning, and building – not just spending. We have borrowed hundreds of billions that have gone to banks and financial institutions and borrowed tens of billions more to energize the economy, yet the economic downturn has continued and the financial turmoil has worsened. What is clear is that any action we take – especially as we borrow more money to do so – must pay off in the near and long term. That is what America does best: we can address this crisis while preparing for our future.

However, we do have immediate needs that cannot wait between now and when the next Congress and the next President takes office. And although your Administration has voiced skepticism about the need for a stimulus bill, I believe that the current conditions call for a coordinated response now.

The most recent jobs report, indicating another 240,000 jobs lost last month and the worst unemployment rate in 14 years, shows that steps need to be taken to shore up the safety net as millions of Americans continue the search for work. Expanding Unemployment Insurance and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) would not only provide relief to those hit hardest by our economic downturn, it would also spur economic activity as this money is immediately spent. New York alone has hundreds of thousands of people who will face the unemployment line and the loss of their food assistance during this economic downturn.

In the midst of one of the greatest fiscal crises to hit our states, an increase in the Medicaid FMAP rate would help prevent further and deeper cuts to health care and other essential services like education, child care and public safety. Rising demand for health insurance coverage through Medicaid due to increasing job loss is straining state budgets, and the federal government should act to help ease this growing burden on our states.

It is also increasingly clear that we need to take steps now that not only mitigate the fallout, but also begin putting the nation on the path towards recovery. That is why I believe the stimulus we pursue should focus on rebuilding our infrastructure and building a new, clean energy economy. Stimulus should focus on putting people back to work by investing in infrastructure and green jobs. That is how we can restore our prosperity today and ensure it in the future.

So I am proposing, among other steps, that we speed investments in infrastructure, including $410 million in New York roads, bridges, and transit systems, as well as training for new jobs in the clean energy economy, or “green collar jobs.” A federal investment in our infrastructure serves the dual purpose of modernizing our country’s deteriorating roads, bridges, and transit systems while stimulating the economy. Investing in these projects will create tens of thousands of good paying jobs. More than 40 highway, transit and rail projects are “shovel-ready” in New York alone.

I am also proposing an investment in training programs to prepare a new green workforce for the clean energy jobs of the future. I believe we can create at least five million green collar jobs - and we can speed the creation of those jobs while also training displaced workers to fill them in the very short term.

The next wave of foreclosures looms, and we should address it immediately. It is critical that we modify unworkable mortgages into clear and stable terms if we are to prevent the bottom of the housing market from falling even further. I have proposed HOME, the Home Owners Mortgage Enterprise, based on the successful program enacted during the New Deal which not only saved one million homes but also turned a profit for the Treasury. We should continue focusing on initiatives large and bold enough to meet the scale of the challenges presented by the faltering housing market.

The road to recovery will be difficult. But it is imperative that we take these urgent and important steps to kick-start the economy and hasten a return to prosperity that is shared and strengthens the middle class. I ask that you work with congressional leaders in developing a comprehensive stimulus package that the Congress can pass next week to reach your desk immediately thereafter.

Sincerely,

Hillary Rodham Clinton

cc: Majority Leader Harry Reid
Senator Robert C. Byrd
Senator Daniel Inouye

Take a good look. That’s leadership: the difference between a work horse and a show horse. Not for glory. No headlines. For the American people. It is still heartbreaking that we are being deprived of someone so caring and capable at the helm.

I know some are angry that Senator Clinton went out and campaigned for Barack Obama. But before anyone starts any Hillary bashing, this woman has been fighting on behalf of the Democratic Party for over 35 years. Severely outspent, in debt, with the press lynching her daily and her own party actively pushing and rigging it for the other guy, she did what she had to do to live to fight another day. Furthermore, she kept her word to the American people to fight for the Democratic nominee and a Democratic agenda.

I know that President-elect Obama has reversed himself on his policies and associations at lightning fast speed, so giving his word may not mean anything. But I do know to her, it means everything. It may seem an irritating quality at times. If I give my word, I don’t break it. Ever. My word is my bond.

Furthermore, had Hillary behaved any differently and shunned the Party, rest assured her crucifixion would have followed. Just witness the disgraceful treatment Governor Palin is receiving as we speak if you doubt this.

I will not second guess her. I just observe that Hillary is still out there “putting her shoes on” and doing her job. And while I may wish she had acted differently these last couple of months, I am certainly glad to have her earnest and dedicated voice in the Senate, still working on our behalf.

Notice, too, Senator Clinton is asking for action to be taken immediately, unlike Obama who is basically saying ‘it’s Bush’s mess ’til I get here in a couple of months.’ Where are his immediate solutions? Suggestions? He is not even planning on attending the emergency economic summit later in the week, but sending surrogates in his stead. If I were set to take over in a couple of months — I’d want to show up and keep my ears open and learn something.

People are hurting right now. It doesn’t matter which administration gets the credit. Help is required for the American people. Scorekeeping is not the issue. Hillary gets that.

Thank you so much Speaker Pelosi, Chairman Dean, Senator Reid, Senators Byrd, Kerry, Kennedy, McCaskill, Rockefeller and the rest of the backstabbers for throwing this good lady under the bus and instead, leaving us with Mr. Hopey Changey who seems to think it’s more important he choose a puppy for his daughters right now.

How’s that working out for ya’?

The image above was posted on Post Secret on November 8, 2008. I have no doubt that the dominate narrative of this campaign — the forceful suppression of women — is responsible for the author’s “secret.” In the Obama-realm, feminism isn’t just bad, it’ll ruin your life. One only need to look to Hillary and Sarah Palin as examples.

Dr. Violet Socks writes:

A few days ago I was asking you all to think about why there is still so much deeply-felt resistance to women’s equality. This is the lesson of radical feminism: that the gender revolution requires just that — a revolution.

Why does there need to be a revolution for equality? Because this year misogyny was used a political tool. As many of us witnessed, this election was so poisoned with hate speech against women that it’s not an exaggeration to say that the FBI would have been investigating the perpetrators if it had been against any other oppressed group.

Let’s be clear: Hillary Clinton was the choice of most Democrats this year. The Democratic establishment, consisting of Donna Brazile, Howard Dean, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, and many others, worked furiously to keep Hillary Clinton from receiving the Democratic nomination. Their left-wing allies and the media worked to sabotage her campaign at every turn.

It’s not entirely clear why there was such intense animous towards Hillary by such a large and diverse group. We do know, however, that the most vile tactics were used to suppress Hillary’s campaign; caucus fraud, race-baiting, and outright misogyny comes to mind. As examples, the Obama campaign initiated a not-so-secret whisper campaign that President Clinton was a racist when Clinton called Obama’s Iraq War position a “fairy tale,” Hillary was accused of waiting for the unthinkable to happen to Obama when she mentioned the length of the 1968 campaign and Bobby Kennedy and, from January on, there was a constant drumbeat that she must leave the race.

Running below the murky currents of this campaign, however, was a sexism so deep and so pervasive that it can be said that sexism defined this campaign. Indeed, I believe the subtext and central narrative of Obama’s campaign was sexism. Because two women were the biggest political threat to his campaign, Obama needed to unleash sexism.

Dr. Socks continues:

Narratives: think about narratives. Anthropologists of gender, like Peggy Reeves Sandy, talk about “scripts”: the stories that a society tells itself to explain the world. How men are. How women are. How they should be.

The Obama campaign, with the help of the media and “progressives” blogs, pushed a narrative against Hillary and later Sarah Palin, that invalidated them as public servants because on their gender. Misogyny, wrapped in the protective shell of race-baiting, was the central narrative of the Obama campaign.

I subscribe to the bumper sticker view that “feminism is the radical notion that women are people.” My wife and I are expecting a girl in January. I want this girl to live the full and free life our son enjoys, without gender being an obstacle in her path. I don’t want my daughter to be called a “bitch,” or for someone to wear a t-shirt calling her a “cunt.” Put in those terms, the Obama movement unleashed something very ugly into the culture. The Obama campaign, in its subterranean narrative, encouraged the hatred of women. It is little wonder then that the author of the Post Secret card blames feminism for her unhappiness; she’s witnessed that women who expect equal treatment will be beat down.

Next up, did the Democrats get a “mandate”? And how will Republican Senators treat Ted Stevens when he returns to D.C.?

Here’s an interesting piece on what’s going to happen to Ted Stevens:

Sen. Ted Stevens of Alaska may not have the warmest of welcomes from fellow Republicans when he returns to the Senate later this month for Congress’ lame-duck session.

No matter the outcome of Stevens’ still-undecided election, some Republican senators are concerned about welcoming a convicted felon back into the Republican conference come Nov. 18, when the Senate returns for a postelection session in Washington, D.C.

They include Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., who was among those to call for Stevens to step down after the Alaska Republican’s Oct. 27 conviction on seven felony counts of failing to report gifts and services, including renovations that doubled the size of his Alaska home.

DeMint’s fellow Republican from South Carolina, Sen. Lindsey Graham, called on Stevens to step down, too, as did Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain, of Arizona, and his running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin.

Appealing verdict

Since his conviction, Stevens, 84, has maintained his innocence and says he “has not been convicted of anything.” Stevens, who is appealing the jury verdict, has been relying on the technical definition of “conviction,” which doesn’t take effect until sentencing. Stevens’ sentencing has been postponed pending the appeal of his conviction.

DeMint’s spokesman, Wesley Denton, said the South Carolina senator would prefer to see Stevens be removed from the GOP Senate conference, which would keep Stevens from representing the Republican Party and also strip him of all committee assignments. Stevens continues to sit on committees, including the Commerce and Appropriations committees, but he has lost his leadership posts on them.

“Clean our own house”

Republicans should “be the first to act by expelling Stevens from the GOP conference and not assigning him any committees,” Denton said. “We should clean our own house first.”

Any move on ousting Stevens from the conference would probably be up to the Republican leader of the Senate, Mitch McConnell, of Kentucky. A decision would need to be made Tuesday, so that senators have a week to consider an ouster before they return Nov. 18 to vote on it.

McConnell has said that if Stevens is re-elected and “the felony charge stands through the appeals process, there is zero chance that a senator with a felony conviction would not be expelled from the Senate.” … Read all.

Sometimes, stubbornness is a virtue. Sometimes, it’s just plain stupid.

I came to the Democratic Party because of its commitment to working Americans, civil rights, and an activist government. But I also believe in the value of work, capitalism, and a strong military. I have always distrusted the far-Left and its focus on identity politics and anti-Americanism. I believe the United States is a force for good and I believe in the prudent use of our military power.

Read the rest ->

I see the Obama campaign as a resurgence of McGovern liberalism, albeit better packaged and mixed with a good dose of Chicago-style corruption. In a brilliant speech, Lynette Long summed up exactly how I feel about Obama:

Obama is a brand just like any other brand. Obama the Brand has a logo, a tag line, and a song. But Obama the man is not the same as Obama the Brand. Obama the Brand talks about new style politics, while Obama the man used Chicago style politics in every election. Obama the brand is for women’s rights while Obama the man pays the women in his office 77 cents on the dollar compared to men … Obama the Brand is a post-racial candidate while Obama the man plays the race card at every turn, listens for 20 years to the racial teachings of Rev.. Wright, and makes contributions exclusively to Trinity United Church of Christ, the NAACP and Care Africa. Obama the man and Obama the brand are not one in the same.

I find it unacceptable that Obama and his supporters have used sexism and race-baiting as a political tactic. I believe that Sarah Palin is more qualified than Obama to be president, and the sexism against her (and Hillary Clinton) has been one of our worst moments as a Party, comparable to Southern Democrats voting against Civil Rights in the 1960s.

I will be voting for McCain because I trust him not to divide Americans along lines of race and sex for his own electoral gain. I will be voting for McCain to send a message to Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid that a rigged nominating process is not acceptable in the Democratic Party. I will be voting for McCain because Obama is not qualified to be president.

And this one:

So - just to be clear - the very people who are supposed to be on the look out for organizations like ACORN, which is now under investigation in at least FIFTEEN states, is backing off. Huh - so much for that whole “one person, one vote” democracy thing.

And one last video on voting. This one deals with our military and their ability to vote while serving oversees:

OPEN THREAD! Have at it.

At the end of the Democratic Primary season, this was the situation:

Popular Vote
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton: 17,857,446, (48.04%)
Senator Barack Obama: 17,584,649 (47.31%)

Pledged delegates

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton: 1,730.5 (39.17%)
Senator Barack Obama: 1,747.5 (39.55%)

(source)

Then, for no apparent good reason, in June Howard Dean and Nancy Pelosis decided THEY, not the delegates chosen by the electorate and not the superdelegates appointed via proper party procedure, were going to decide who would represent the top of the ticket for the general election. Now that same leadership wants YOU to legitimize their undemocratic and unprincipled methods by putting their selected candidate into the White House on November 4.

But WE can say no to the subversion of democratic principles within the Democratic Party. We can say no with our votes and by urging our fellow Democrats to pay attention to the particulars of the candidate Howard Dean and Nancy Pelosi selected to represent the Democratic Party.

Put this ad on the air and let America know that our voices count.

Over the next 24 hours and across the internet, we as a community will urgently be raising money to run edgy and persuasive ads made by Democrats in key battleground states. Generous contributors have pledged $500 in matching funds. Your voice counts. Please contribute now

CLICK ON ROSIE TO DONATE:

Or go to Democrats For Principle Before Party - The Denver Group’s general election website, where you can view other ads the group is running:

He doesn’t seem to be having a problem. He is a cash cow. Or rather, a whole herd.

I dreamt that I heard Barrack Obama had spent $500 million dollars on his campaign to secure the presidency. Maybe I am off by a few mil. If I am, no doubt some brilliant blogger will help set me straight. I can almost always count on a diligent investigative blogger for the real facts since in the latest chapter of the world gone mad, the New York Times seems to be giving up on actual investigative reporting. At least where Barack Obama is concerned. They are more concerned with the cost of Sarah Palin’s wardrobe or Cindy McCain’s personal trials.

There’s transparency in this election season. But it mostly centers around how many usually reliable mainstream media sources are in the tank for Obama.

But here’s the thing. With this kind of money in the tank, why do I get so many emails from Barack, Michele, Joe, David and Nancy? I get them every day, sometimes several times a day. Sarah Palin had barely walked off the stage at the Vice Presidential debate when I got an email from David about what a great job Joe had done. Send money.

I guess it takes a lot of money to rig an election. All those people to bus in. All those free lunches and dinners. All those homeless or disenfranchised people to pay to register voters and get them to vote the same day when their address or identities can’t be verified. All those ACORN workers and zealous volunteers to tear up McCain and Palin signs, destroy other property and intimidate people. All those bloggers to infiltrate sites promoting freedom of speech, election reform and accountability in the media.

And all that media time to purchase for the much touted upcoming infomercials set to run during sports events.

Yup, fraud, is indeed, expensive.

Money is a sore spot right now. As we witness the collapse of the economy, it seems more obscene than usual that any candidate is spending millions of dollars on the election. So I am confused by the Democrats, my usual party of choice.

How is it that Republican nominee John McCain, along with Democratic Senator Russell Feingold from Wisconsin have pushed for campaign finance reform and not Obama or party leaders like Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid? McCain and Feingold have been talking about campaign finance for a long time. They first introduced their bi-partisan bill in 1995. Talk about tenacity. I wonder what Barack Obama was doing thirteen years ago.

I’m also wondering if Obama is so concerned about the economy and sending a message of unity that we need to work together, why didn’t he head for Washington immediately as a Senator and the current leader of the party when the bail out was on the table? Why did he need to be summoned by the president?

And why isn’t he willing to honor staying within a budget that can be agreed upon by both parties? Was all this work on campaign finance reform for nothing?

I guess fraud is, indeed, expensive. As are below the belt commercials that criticize John McCain for not doing email or that question his life expectancy.

It’s true that John McCain can’t type or raise his arm very high.

Kind of tough to do when you have nerve damage after being tortured in a prisoner of war camp for five and half years.

And it’s true that John McCain has had a recurrence of a kind of skin cancer. It is a commonplace cancer that affects many Americans who go to the doctor, have it taken care of and go about their lives.

But raise the specter of technological incompetence or cancer and you can really get a bang for your buck. Through the magic of television alone, you can suggest that McCain is an old guy who is out of touch. An old guy on the verge of death.

Nice. I guess indecency is also expensive.

As more and more Americans struggle with gas prices, foreclosures and unemployment, it is understandable to want to lash out. For many the obvious target would be the Republicans, since so much of the disaster in our financial world happened under George Bush’s watch. But many Democrats were also asleep at the wheel, or so tied up in angry partisan politics that they refused to participate in substantive discussions and actions to prevent a collapse.

The buck needs to stop somewhere. How misleading that the Democrats, under Nancy Pelosi’s supposed leadership do not want to acknowledge that both parties have played a role in the collapse of the economy. What a poor example that the Democrats and Barack Obama have rejected reasonable campaign finance reform so that they can spends millions upon millions of dollars to promote his candidacy while many hardworking Americans have to choose between filling their plate at dinner time or their gas tank at the pump.

The buck needs to stop somewhere. I’m thinking, Just say No deal.

In the October 17 edition of the Wall Street Journal, Lanny Davis writes that Democrats should be glad Senator Clinton stayed in the race because she made Senator Obama a better general election candidate. THIS is why Clinton supporters - most of whom were presumably Democrats - should be glad she stayed in the race?

Mr. Davis, we were glad Senator Clinton stayed in the race because we watched her win the popular vote. Many of us believe that if the Democratic Party had followed its own rules and the superdelegates and regular delegates had not been coerced by Howard Dean and Nancy Pelosi and Senator Obama’s campaign (who Chairman Dean turned over the DNC to in June when no candidate had actually won the party’s nomination), Senator Clinton might very well have been the party’s nominee.

We were glad Senator Clinton stayed in the race because we thought she would make a superior President to either Senator Obama or any Republican, including Senator McCain. I still believe that.

If the best you can say about Senator Clinton’s campaign is that it helped Senator Obama then you really are not saying much about the millions of voters who cast their ballots for Senator Clinton, the thousands of us who donated money, time, and energy to Senator Clinton’s campaign. I assure you we did not do it so that her run for the nomination would help Senator Obama. We did it because wanted Senator Clinton to represent our party this November.

I am not sure, Mr. Davis, if you realize how insulting it is to those of us who are not “prominent” or “key” Democrats for you to define Senator Clinton’s campaign as some sort of testing ground for Senator Obama. Please give Senator Clinton some respect and some credit: presumably she stayed in the race because she wanted to win. She wanted to win. And it was perfectly ok for her to want to win, and to want to win because she thought she would make a better President than would Senator Obama.

I certainly agree with you, Mr. Davis, that “the cartoon caricature [of Senator Clinton] created over the years by extremists left and right has nothing to do with reality.” But although I have not known her personally over the years, as you make clear you have, I did not need to see Senator Clinton keep her word about campaigning for whoever became the Democratic nominee to recognize her as “principled and authentically committed to progressive issues”. I saw that when I first learned about Senator Clinton, which was before her husband ever ran for President, when I was studying the lawyers who worked to prosecute Richard Nixon’s participation in the Watergate break-in.

Finally, Mr. Davis, I must take issue with this particularly offensive passage in your commentary:

There always was a danger that certain working-class/rural voters who strongly supported Mrs. Clinton in such state primaries as Kentucky, Ohio, Pennsylvania and West Virginia would not easily transfer their support to Mr. Obama. The same worry was often repeated about Democratic women who were angry or simply grieving about Mrs. Clinton not being picked as the nominee.

Mr. Davis, by definition, I do not qualify as one of the “certain working-class/rural voters” you disparage with the remark. But let me make it perfectly clear: I am not angry or “simply grieving” about “Mrs. Clinton not being picked as the nominee.” I am distressed that the Democratic Party rigged its own nomination process and PICKED a candidate rather than ELECTING one.

You began this election cycle supporting Senator Clinton, Mr. Davis. And as the tagline in the WSJ article states you are ending it as an Obama supporter. Given the patronizing and dismissive tone of the passage I quote above, I imagine you feel much more comfortable with the candidate you now back than the one you originally preferred.

So, did millions of Americans become intrigued with and mesmerized by Obama and end up on “dates” with him, only to have some doubts about his readiness and qualifications emerge in their minds, and so now they are choosing instead to “marry” McCain?

Or, are Americans becoming aware that, if they elect Obama, they will end up with a one-party government, with Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi running our nation and Obama signing off on everything Nancy and Harry want?

There’s a reason our Founding Fathers created separate branches of government, and gave the Senate’s minority party more power than is the case in the House. The minority must have a seat at the table — and our nation is dangerously close to losing the voice of the minority.

You can view all the poll stories here.

What else is happening?

I’m furious at these young people, naturally. For thinking that calling the Governor of Alaska a despicable terms is not just fine, but “cool.” Every photo, they are just BEAMING with pride at how clever they are. And why? Because they know they can. Because they have seen that they can say whatever they want to about women because the DNC and the MSM have.

I’m furious that it has become acceptable this Election Season to treat women with such blatant hatred. These people are not calling Gov. Palin a “c–t” because she is a Republican, after all - they are calling her one because she is a WOMAN. They did exactly the same thing to Clinton, so no party affiliation claims will wash here. This is flat out misogyny.

I am furious that it has become more important to try to embarrass Gov. Palin with “Troopergate” than to mention that her former brother-in-law had a Domestic Violence Restraining Order , in addition to all of the OTHER issues with him (drunk driving in a patrol car, tasering his stepson, etc.). Rather, the desire to “take her down a peg” was more important than to acknowledge that this is one violent, abusive man who should not BE a law enforcement officer.

I am furious at the men and women in the Democratic Party, people in my own family with daughters of their own, standing by while their Party began a systematic attack on women - standing by and saying NOTHING. I think we all remember the youtube videos of the horrible things said about Senator Clinton this season, not just by the media (HERE’S one), but by members of CONGRESS (Cohen, Jackson, Jr., et. al). Even worse, though, were the ones who were happy that Clinton was being treated like this because it meant their candidate was going to be the nominee (despite Clinton continuing to win big state after big state after big state). Evidently, they didn’t care WHAT it took to get Obama there - attack Clinton for being a woman, steal votes, and claim RACISM every time anyone tried to ask a question of their candidate. If they had supported their candidate and spoken out about this horrible, sexist treatment, that would be one thing, but they did not. Speaker Pelosi even stated in an interview with Greta van Susteren that she had been “too busy” to notice the level of vitriol directed at Clinton, and women, this year.

I am furious that I have worked so hard for women’s equality to see it thrown away so cavalierly. All of those marches, all of those protests, all of the work, the pain, the dedication, to have it just disappear in the blink of an eye. Even worse, to have women’s organizations like NOW support the very candidate who used misogyny to get the nomination is just staggering.

I am saddened that this is the country in which my nieces and grand-nieces will be growing up, where they can be called the filthiest of names just because they are female. And my nephews and grand-nephews will grow up thinking this is perfectly acceptable behavior because in both cases, their PARENTS allowed this to happen. (And for my family who work in universities, go look at those kids in the photos and tell me they are not college-aged kids. These are the people YOU are teaching, and look at what they think is acceptable political discourse.) I wanted better for them than what I had to deal with growing up. Now it seems that they will have it at least as hard - they may have more employment opportunities, but they will know they are not held in the same regard as men. They will know they are considered less than, not as good as, just sex objects for, men.

Honestly, I am alternating between raging at what my former Party has become, that so many people in my life will support it anyway, and weeping for what is happening to women in this country. This is not what I wanted for my nieces and grand-nieces, my sister and cousins, my mother, my aunts, myself. This is not what I expect from my country. It bears repeating: THEY ARE NOT WEARING THESE T-SHIRTS BECAUSE PALIN IS A REPUBLICAN BUT BECAUSE SHE IS A WOMAN.

So when your daughters come home from school, and toss out the c-word, or the b-word, you can thank yourselves for supporting a party that treats women like crap. Thanks shitloads.

If, goddess forfend, Barack Obama wins (read: steals) this election, I guess he will have a record: he, along with the DNC, will have not just set back race relations fifty years, they will have set back the Women’s movement 50 years, too.