Is the Media Trying to Elect Obama?

by Dee Dee Myers July 21, 2008, 5:15 PM
"Tomorrow, CBS’s Katie Couric will interview Barack Obama from Jordan. On Wednesday, ABC’s Charlie Gibson will chat with him from Israel. And on Thursday, NBC’s Brian Williams will do the honors from Germany. Call it the presidential campaign equivalent of Shooting the Moon.
And to think, a few short months ago the Washington establishment was buzzing about the press’s pending dilemma: With Obama and John McCain looking like the all-but-certain nominees of their respective parties, how would the media choose between its new crush, Obama, and its long-time paramour, McCain? The Illinois senator has been a media darling since he burst onto the scene at the Democratic National Convention in the summer of 2004, and during the Democratic primary season, he bested Hillary Clinton in both quantity of coverage (he got more) and tenor (his was way more positive). But McCain has gotten so much favorable media attention over the years that he often joked that the press was his political base. In a head-to-head competition, who would win?
So far, the answer is clear: Obama is The One. In the first quarter of the general election, he has simply gotten more and better coverage than McCain. For those who need more evidence than the enormous press entourage that is treating Obama’s current trip not like the campaign swing of a presidential candidate, but like the international debut of the New American President, there are several new studies which help quantify the disparity.
The Project for Excellence in Journalism, which evaluates more than 300 newspaper, magazine, and television stories each week, found that from June 9 (after Obama had wrapped up the Democratic nomination) until July 13, Obama was more prominently covered every single week. During one particular week, July 7–13, McCain was a significant presence in 48 percent of the stories—but Obama met that mark in 77 percent of the pieces. Similarly, the Tyndall Report, a media monitoring group, found that Obama received substantially more media attention.
I can only imagine what the gap must be like this week, as Obama continues to meet with world leaders and adoring crowds, while the mere presence of media’s biggest and brightest stars stamps each and every event as important!
Given all that, it’s not surprising that voters, particularly those of the Republican persuasion, think the media is more or less in Obama’s pocket. A recent survey by Rasmussen found that 49 percent of the likely voters they talked to believed that reporters would favor Obama in their coverage, while just 14 percent said the same about McCain. Seventy-eight percent of Republicans thought the press would try and help Obama win, while only 21 percent of Democrats thought journalists were in bed with McCain. Complaints about bias are only exacerbated when the New York Times (the bête noire of the right) rejects an opinion piece written by McCain comparing his position on Iraq to Obama’s—just days after the Times ran a similar piece by Obama.
Suspicions of pro-Obama bias began in the primaries. A Pew survey in late May and early June found that 37 percent of Americans believed that Obama received preferential coverage; only eight percent said the same about his principal opponent, Hillary Clinton.
There are lot of “explanations” for the lopsided coverage: Obama is new and what’s new is “news.” As the first African-American to run a serious race, let alone win a major party’s nomination, Obama is running an historic campaign. Obama has created a “movement,” and Americans are simply more interested in him than in his opponents. Obama is running a smarter campaign, and he knows how to court media attention. It’s also true that intense media coverage is a double- edged sword: the attention is great when things are going well, but it can doom a candidate if and when things start to go badly. And so far, Obama has had way more good days than bad days. Each of those rationales is largely true—and somewhat less than satisfying.
At the end of the day, this will be a long campaign, and what’s true in July may not be true in November. But what seems indisputably true—to quote another dazzling young Democrat who received disproportionately favorable media attention, John Kennedy—is this: “Life is unfair.”

The Incredulous Noam Chomsky, What An Entertainer!

Libertarian socialism is a group of political philosophies that aim to create a society without political, economic or social hierarchies – a society in which all violent or coercive institutions would be dissolved, and in their place every person would have free, equal access to tools of information and production, or a society in which such coercive institutions and hierarchies were drastically reduced in scope.[1](WOULD THIS BE ACHIEVED BY ORDER AND CONTROL OF THOSE WHO ARE SMART TO BEGIN WITH UNTIL EVERYONE ELSE WAS EQUAL? HOW WOULD AN EQUAL SENSE OF EQUAL BE MAINTAINED WHEN EVERYONE, NO MATTER WHAT INTELLEGENCE LEVEL THEY WERE ON, IS GIVEN FREE ACCESS TO THINGS BEYOND THEIR INTELLECTUAL SCOPE OF UNDERSTANDING?

This equality and freedom would be achieved through the abolition of authoritarian institutions such as private property,[2] in order that direct control of the means of production and resources will be shared by the working class and society as a whole. Libertarian socialism also constitutes a tendency of thought that informs the identification, criticism and practical dismantling of illegitimate authority in all aspects of social life. Accordingly libertarian socialists believe that “the exercise of power in any institutionalized form – whether economic, political, religious, or sexual – brutalizes both the wielder of power and the one over whom it is exercised.”[3] I BELIEVE THAT CUBA, RUSSIA, ITALY, AND MANY COUNTRIES IN AFRICA TRIED THIS ALREADY. HOW'D THAT WORK OUT.

While many varieties of socialism emphasize the role of the state or political party in promoting state control and social engineering, libertarian socialists place their hopes in trade unions, workers' councils, municipalities, citizens' assemblies, and other non-bureaucratic, decentralized means of action.[4] Most libertarian socialists advocate doing away with the state altogether, seeing it as a bulwark of capitalist class rule.[5]THE TEAMSTERS, AFL-CIO, NATIONAL TEACHERS UNION,ARE GOOD EXAMPLES OF WHETHER THIS WOULD WORK NO? CHICAGO,VALLEJO,WASHINGTON D.C.,TOLEDO OHIO, ARE ALSO PRIME EXAMPLES.

Political philosophies commonly described as libertarian socialist include: most varieties of anarchism (especially anarchist communism, anarchist collectivism, anarcho-syndicalism[6], social ecology,[7] and council communism[8] (or even communism itself, as it is described by Karl Marx or Lenin in a further stage of development of socialism). Some writers use libertarian socialism synonymously with anarchism.[9]AGAIN ALL OF THE MENTIONED SYSTEMS SEEMED TO HAVE WORKED PRETTY WELL! OR HAVE THEY?


OF COURSE THEY DID YOU NINNY!!
Chomsky: Bush & Cheney
Always Saw Iraq as a Sweetheart Oil Deal
By Noam Chomsky*
Khaleej Times Online
July 12, 2008
The deal just taking shape between Iraq's Oil Ministry and four Western oil companies raises critical questions about the nature of the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq -- questions that should certainly be addressed by presidential candidates and seriously discussed in the United States, and of course in occupied Iraq, where it appears that the population has little if any role in determining the future of its country.

Negotiations are under way for Exxon Mobil, Shell, Total and BP -- the original partner’s decades ago in the Iraq Petroleum Company, now joined by Chevron and other smaller oil companies -- to renew the oil concession they lost to nationalization during the years when the oil producers took over their own resources. The no-bid contracts, apparently written by the oil corporations with the help of U.S. officials, prevailed over offers from more than 40 other companies, including companies in China, India and Russia.

"There was suspicion among many in the Arab world and among parts of the American public that the United States had gone to war in Iraq precisely to secure the oil wealth these contracts seek to extract," Andrew E. Kramer wrote in the New York Times. Kramer's reference to "suspicion" is an understatement. Furthermore, it is highly likely that the military occupation has taken the initiative in restoring the hated Iraq Petroleum Company, which, as Seamus Milne writes in the U.K. Guardian, was imposed under British rule to "dine off Iraq's wealth in a famously exploitative deal."

Later reports speak of delays in the bidding. Much is happening in secrecy, and it would be no surprise if new scandals emerge. The demand could hardly be more intense. Iraq contains perhaps the second-largest oil reserves in the world, which are, furthermore, very cheap to extract: no permafrost or tar sands or deep-sea drilling. For U.S. planners, it is imperative that Iraq remain under U.S. control, to the extent possible, as an obedient client state that will also house major U.S. military bases, right at the heart of the world's major energy reserves.

That these were the primary goals of the invasion was always clear enough through the haze of successive pretexts: weapons of mass destruction, Saddam Hussein's links with al Qaeda, democracy promotion and the war against terrorism, which, as predicted, sharply increased as a result of the invasion. Last November, the guiding concerns were made explicit when President Bush and Iraq's prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki, signed a "Declaration of Principles," ignoring the U.S. Congress, the Iraqi parliament and the populations of the two countries.

The declaration left open the possibility of an indefinite long-term U.S. military presence in Iraq that would presumably include the huge air bases now being built around the country, and the "embassy" in Baghdad, a city within a city, unlike any embassy in the world. These are not being constructed to be abandoned. The declaration also had a remarkably brazen statement about exploiting the resources of Iraq. It said that the economy of Iraq -- which means its oil resources -- must be open to foreign investment, "especially American investments." That comes close to a pronouncement that we invaded you so that we can control your country and have privileged access to your resources.

The seriousness of this commitment was underscored in January, when Bush issued a "signing statement" declaring that he would reject any congressional legislation that restricted funding "to establish any military installation or base for the purpose of providing for the permanent stationing of United States Armed Forces in Iraq" or "to exercise United States control of the oil resources of Iraq."

Extensive resort to "signing statements" to expand executive power is yet another Bush innovation, condemned by the American Bar Association as "contrary to the rule of law and our constitutional separation of powers." To no avail.Not surprisingly, the declaration aroused immediate objections in Iraq, among others from Iraqi unions, which survive even under the harsh anti-labor laws that Hussein instituted and the occupation preserves. In Washington propaganda, the spoiler to U.S. domination in Iraq is Iran. U.S. problems in Iraq are blamed on Iran. U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice sees a simple solution: "Foreign forces" and "foreign arms" should be withdrawn from Iraq -- Iran's, not ours.

The confrontation over Iran's nuclear program heightens the tensions. The Bush administration's "regime change" policy toward Iran comes with ominous threats of force (there Bush is joined by both U.S. presidential candidates). The policy also is reported to include terrorism within Iran -- again legitimate, for the world rulers. A majority of the American people favor diplomacy and oppose the use of force. But public opinion is largely irrelevant to policy formation, not just in this case. An irony is that Iraq is turning into a U.S.-Iranian condominium. The Maliki government is the sector of Iraqi society most supported by Iran. The so-called Iraqi army -- just another militia -- is largely based on the Badr brigade, which was trained in Iran and fought on the Iranian side during the Iran-Iraq War.

Nir Rosen, one of the most astute and knowledgeable correspondents in the region, observes that the main target of the U.S.-Maliki military operations, Moktada al-Sadr, is disliked by Iran as well: He's independent and has popular support, and is therefore dangerous. Iran "clearly supported Prime Minister Maliki and the Iraqi government against what they described as 'illegal armed groups' (of Moktada's Mahdi army) in the recent conflict in Basra," Rosen writes, "which is not surprising given that their main proxy in Iraq, the Supreme Iraqi Islamic Council, dominates the Iraqi state and is Maliki's main backer." "There is no proxy war in Iraq," Rosen concludes, "because the U.S. and Iran share the same proxy."

Tehran is presumably pleased to see the United States institute and sustain a government in Iraq that's receptive to its influence. For the Iraqi people, however, that government continues to be a disaster, very likely with worse to come.

In Foreign Affairs, Steven Simon points out that current U.S. counterinsurgency strategy is "stoking the three forces that have traditionally threatened the stability of Middle Eastern states: tribalism, warlordism and sectarianism." The outcome might be "a strong, centralized state ruled by a military junta that would resemble" Saddam Hussein's regime.

If Washington achieves its goals, then its actions are justified. Reactions are quite different when Vladimir Putin succeeds in pacifying Chechnya, to an extent well beyond what Gen. David Petraeus has achieved in Iraq. But that is them, and this is the United States. Criteria are therefore entirely different.

In the United States, the Democrats are silenced now because of the supposed success of the U.S. military surge in Iraq. Their silence reflects the fact that there are no principled criticisms of the war. In this way of regarding the world, if you're achieving your goals, the war and occupation are justified. The sweetheart oil deals come with the territory. In fact, the whole invasion is a war crime -- indeed the supreme international crime, differing from other war crimes in that it encompasses all the evil that follows, in the terms of the Nuremberg judgment. This is among the topics that can't be discussed, in the presidential campaign or elsewhere. Why are we in Iraq? What do we owe Iraqis for destroying their country? The majority of the American people favor U.S. withdrawal from Iraq. Do their voices matter?
HEY NOAM WOULD YOU HAVE PREFERRED WE LET RUSSIA MAKE A SWEET HEART DEAL INSTEAD? OR PERHAPS CHINA WOULD HAVE BEEN A BETTER CHOICE. AFTER ALL THEY HAVE CERTAINLY SHOWED THAT LIBERTARIAN SOCIALISM, OR PERHAPS YOU MIGHT CALL IT SOCIAL COMMUNISM HAS DONE WONDERS FOR THEIR SOCIETIES SO FAR. HEY BUT WHAT THE HELL, YOU KEEP AT IT NOAM, MAYBE SOMEDAY WE WILL REGRESS BACK TO A SMALL HAMLET SOCIETY, RUN BY A CENTRAL GOVERNMENT SO FAR AWAY THAT COMMUNAL RULE OR COMMON LAW BECOMES THE VOGUE AGAIN.
FOR SUCH AN EXTREMELY INTELLIGENT INDIVIDUAL YOU HAVE ABOUT THE SAME AMOUNT OF SMARTS WHEN IT COMES TO REALITY AS THE "KEN DOLL" AT TH BOTTOM OF MY CLOSET.

MSN AND MUNDANE CRAP

This morning there was another one of MSN'S useless articles that open up the bowls of societies finger pointing addiction. This one was about kids being expelled from preschool. I couldn't resist and had to add my two cents. So here it is;

MINA BenderMessage #24
07/12/08 09:26 AM What amazes me is the large number of responses that just don't get it.

Here we go again with the "its the schools responsibility to fix my problem kid". If you poor fools want to leave character development up to the social engineers who have so far profited hughly from a "victimized, what's wrong with me 97% percent dysfunctional society", go right ahead. What you will get in return is light pockets from years of future psycho-babel counseling, criminal and emotionally arrested behavior and a society of mind police to take care of your kids when they eventually become adults and begin to repeat the cycle.

All of this touchy feely crap is the result of a extremely socially sick society of "adult I want it alls" who think it is other peoples responsibility to raise their kids. So they can be out equalizing their materialistic life with the "Jones'.

What happened to making the greatest sacrifice for ones children? Which meant, dedicating your time and attention to raise them as a PARENT. Thus insuring they get the undeniable and necessary social building blocks "FROM THEIR PARENTS", in order to fit into a scheme of social interactions that will contribute to the society as a whole, throughout their entire life.

This sacrifice begins from the moment of conception. It is not prorated for the adult in order that he or she may continue with their own narcissistic avocation of materialism first. Then at some point in time connect "in a cool way" with the child when it becomes convenient for the parent .

Mistaking love of offspring their need for the unbroken promise,consistency, and boundaries beginning at birth, with the showering of toys, techno's, self centered emotional preoccupation and detachment, because "mommy or daddy have to work" for all these nice things, is one of the greatest precursors for bestowing a life of serious emotional problems on ones children. Placing a value on materialism before self respect, social respect, and core values, being instilled in a child is condeming that child to Hitler's own teachings of mass social mind control.

Biting a bar of soap cleans up the problem of baby biting. Five fingers and a palm fit nicely around Johnny's cute little butt. It only takes one or two times, and he no longer hits Sally. Sitting in a room ALONE with nothing to look at but an angry playmate until you both fix things makes life long friends out of you. Wake up , or don't have kids, they are not show and tell items to be paraded around at four with a cell phone at their ear. They are real people, and your greatest contribution to the future of mankind and his survival, You dummies.

SOMEONE BRING ME MY WARM MILK AND BLANKET

Is it just me or has the majority of voters grown tired of the SOS. At this point in the game the run for the presidency seems to have lost all of its luster. Quite frankly I think that those of us in the dedicated, died in the wool voting class, have already made up our minds, and cannot be swayed into changing our point of view no matter what.
Even those new prospective voters who were so enthusiastic to come out for the party,(not meaning the political party, but more the caucus type and the rally shindigs) don't seem to have maintained the spunk and vigor of the earlier days of this seasons election bid.

Perhaps, we can thank the Democratic hopefuls and former hopefuls for this. After all they began their race so very early, making this the longest bid for party candidacy and presidential election in history.

The pattern of voters in reality has not changed much since days of old, but because of the much longer drawn out party in-fighting, and the so very apathetically late decision making, whether the party big boys would be getting behind their candidates, things seem to have already run their course.

Both parties are to blame for this lack luster appearance of campaigning. Granted, as much as I have been behind John McCain since he announced his candidacy, I grow tired of his monotone repetitive theme, his stoic expression gracing or maybe I should say plaguing the tube.

Alright already you've got my vote, so go visit foreign countries or the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan or maybe Africa.
He must have heard me because that is what he has recently been doing. Although that too doesn't seem to light up the sky's with lightning bolts of energy.

Obama on the other hand needs to just shut up.
Here is a guy who has charmed the American idealistically hopeful,with his prophetic vocabulary, his intellectual pseudoism, and I might say easily caricaturised features.

He is undoubtedly likable, upon first impression and second impression too. He has a bright future maybe in some far far away election if he would just shut up for the moment and stop giving third impressions. Recently each time he opens his mouth he confirms what others have said he really is, just another far left liberal politician
out for his own self interests, who adjusts his political points of for convenience.

It seems now that he has all but sown up his Democratic nomination, he is hell bent on destroying his chances of winning over certain party factions whom he will desperately need in order to guarantee that he really does get nominated at the convention in August. A nightmare of Hillary rising up out of the ashes like the Phoenix keeps reoccurring on a nightly basis, causing me to lose much needed sleep at my age.

The longer things go on causes me to feel like McCain is and has already been President for at least four years, and that Obama is and always has been a main stream politician, continually belching out polititudes and regularisms.

Every day seems to be like so many other days over the past thirty-two years, dealing with the up and down economy problem, the up and down war problem, the up and down scandal problem surrounding the president's men, the up and down immigration problem, and the up and down popular/unpopular president problem. Geez I think I am beginning to understand what it feels like to be an Israeli.

In truth I don't believe that the American people are so very inclined to want any type of experimental or unsettling change radical change at the moment. I think that they have committed to battening down the hatches and weathering the present storm. This is because they have weathered so many other storms in the past and in doing so are guaranteed a known result, stable times eventually.

I am part of a generation of post war babies(boomers), who for their entire life have heard stories about "The Big One", and "The Great Depression". What great and trying times they were and how everyone overcame. Now we as seniors don't seem to have become much better off post war adults because of those epochs.

Little did our parents know that as a result of the actions of their heroes like Churchill, Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower,during those times and immediately after,they would they leave us with the likes of Korea, Vietnam, the Atomic Bomb,the cold war,the Berlin wall,the invasion of Yugoslavia,Grenada, the Cuban crisis,the Suez crisis,the Six Day War,Oklahoma City, Panama, Nicaragua, El Salvador,legal integration, illegal immigration,inflation, depleted social entitlements while being taxed heavily,Camelot,Enron,Watergate,Whitewater,the assassination of the three K's,the Iranian Hostages, The bombing of the World Trade Center, the destruction of the same,Syria,Lebanon,Palestine,Bosnia, Kosovo,Serbia, Albania,Tibet, Afghanistan,Pakistan,and Iraq,the fall of the Soviet Union, the rise of Great Dragon,and the increase of a gallon of gas from $.17 to $4.00, all as our legacy.

I personally have endured; Truman,Eisenhower,Kennedy,Johnson,Nixon,Ford,Carter,Reagan,G.H. Bush,Clinton,G.W.Bush,and now I must choose again. Truthfully I have only been able to vote since the Nixon era. Including Dick and the six following since him I have only voted for two who have been elected, and those two bore the same first and last initials.What do they say? "the third times a charm!"

I fervently believe that the majority of the voters who do vote this time around will not (contrary to popular press fodder), be looking for change as much as stabilization. And there is only one candidate offering that in any form this general election. Although the populous is growing in numbers towards fogyism, the voters are looking for a steady keel more then additional bureaucratic invasionism or another promise that the gov will do right by them. Of course the latter promise is provided a little more jing is picked from their wallets in the process.

The voter generation is looking to slowly sink into their sunset years with not much more worry than has been spude upon them for their entire life cycle. Over the next four years at least they are just looking for a breather. They are seeking a president who will sail their ship steady through the rough storm of their everyday struggle and existence with not too awful much more surprise. No new song and dance, no new broken promises, no new ideas that won't be new, nor work. They just need someone who will hold up the traffic of life long enough for them to cross the street and get to the other side,the sunset side.

Only John McCain understands this because he too has paid his dues, even though he is of earlier generation, he has inherited our legacy as well. McCain may not last more than four years and I expect this to be probable, but he will have steadied the rudder, and leveled the keel.He will have a chance at handing helm to a younger but seasoned captain of his making. He is the only person running who leaves the American senior class with a hope of dieing in piece. By preparing the way slowly but surely getting our great country steadily back on tack, through the principles of hard work and honesty unto the end. Thus leaving our off spring with a chance at a less materialistic,but a more politically involved world, conscious of the real needs of its people and its countries. Guaranteeing at least for another generation to come that we will survive as a nation and truly grow stronger, more benevolent,
and better as the world leader.

There Will Be Unity When Bill Clinton Says There Will Be Unity

Posted by Cheri Jacobus

Amid the air kissing and chilly hugs between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton in an attempt to show Democratic Party "unity" stands a formidable obstacle -- Bill Clinton.

At a much ballyhooed Washington meeting with Hillary fundraisers, the former First Lady asked her funders to pony up for Obama. But make no mistake about it -- it was with a wink and a nod. The REAL message came from Bill Clinton and his actions, or rather, "inaction" as he issued a one-line tepid endorsement of Obama through a spokesman. Bill Clinton has been unreachable by phone as Obama has been trying to talk to him for days and days (gives us a whole new meaning to the term cell phone "dead zone") and has largely stayed tersely silent in the days since Obama wrestled the nomination from Hillary.

The Bill Clinton message to the Hillary funders? "Hang back, and hold out." And they won't make a move until he says it's a go. Afterall, the millions these folks can raise is a lot of power -- power that can be wielded in any number of different ways by Bill Clinton. Why would he just hand that over to the young upstart from Chicago? Bill and Hillary could point those folks to Governors races, House and Senate Races and any number of places where they can shore up their ranks for Hillary's next run.

And don't expect to see Bill Clinton on stage with Obama any time soon. The stature gap and gravitas gap between Obama with his experience that can be counted in days and months, and the two-term President and governor would make him appear to be what, in fact, he is -- An inexperienced empty shell, a blank slate on which so many Americans are drawing thier hopes and dreams, only to be dissappointed.

REHASHING HILLARY ONE MORE TIME

When Hillary Clinton didn’t concede to Barack Obama that fateful Tuesday night, members of the media reacted as if she had run over a puppy. MSNBC’s (the late) Tim Russert, and Matthews/Olbermann triumvirate were dumbfounded that she didn’t acknowledge that Obama had sealed up the nomination. Jon Stewart depicted her speech as a series of “I wants” and “I needs” and “I dids.” On CNN, Jeffrey Toobin attributed her refusal to concede to “deranged narcissism.

It is clear however that Hillary's suspension of her campaign for President comes with a price for Obama and the Democrats, that I do not believe they will be able to regain, older white women.

Not all of us,” a woman standing nearby piped up. Indeed, a small but vocal minority of the audience made clear they’d rather eat glass than vote for Obama. Linda Mahoney from Silver Spring had a computer print-out sign taped to her back saying “Remember in November, vote present”—a riff on Obama’s “present” votes in the Illinois senate. It was her partner’s idea, she said, pointing to the woman behind her. Mahoney was visibly sickened by the notion of an Obama presidency. “He’s a do-nothing.” But would she really prefer a McCain administration? “It bothers me a lot, but at least we can unelect him in four years.” Later, when Clinton endorsed Obama, Mahoney and her partner stormed out. What is Hillary going to do?

Prediction:

Hillary will spend the next four years distancing herself from Bill Clinton.She will also take one of two options;

One; if Obama looses she will try to make her stake in the Democratic party once more on her own with new people surrounding her and much more technology.

Two; if by remote chance Obama wins and goes on to become president, she will run (like Liberman) on an independent ticket, only to lose once again because she will only have the old white women behind her.

One of the main reasons Hillary lost is because she is most definitely a product of her epoch.

She is a relic of the sixties generational rebellion, but not a true rebellionist, she is of the class, much like my sister, whose main focus was on (in this order) money, power, and revenge.

A woman who never quite felt like she got equal recognition by her father when compared to privilege of men as opposed to women.

Not unlike Geraldine Ferraro, who is a true misogynist Hillary has suffered from a life long complex of inequality. She has consistently since childhood been trying to overcome this complex by doing all of the right things.Unfortunately the things she has been doing right all of these years were dictated to her and measured by the very people she has secretly despised.... men who remind her of her father.

Hillary is still trying to gain the male approval, without going over the line and being depicted as a butch or worse yet the opposite, subservient to male will.

Hillary is the first modern generation of feminists who emerged in a rebellious movement based on hate of the male gender, not an urge to be equal. They have been looking at men in envy, and secretly have been housing a desire to have what men have. I am not talking about equality here by any means I am talking about a penis.

Hillary Clinton is the epitome of dysfunctional rational or commonly called "penis envy."

Penis envy is based on a woman's secret desire to experience the exact same sensation or control and orgasm that men experience when reaching their sexual crescendo of intercourse. The feeling of being in control of the sexual exchange through the wielding of the almighty "tool". The ability to control every moment of an encounter by the shear act of ramming penetration, slow,smooth extraction or in some cases immeidate deprivation at the moment of climax.

Hillary Clinton suffers from this syndrome and unfortunately this type of woman is neither bull dyke, lesbian, feminist, sensual woman, nor what she secretly desires to be "male with a penis"

Hillary demonstrates all of the signs of this syndrome. she excelled in school, constantly seeking recognition for her good works, and consistently never truly gaining a sense of equality. This is because the itch was always between her thighs not between her ears.

She further sought recognition in a mans working world. And although she gained status, she has never felt that she truly gained recognition or sufficient power again and again from the male gender.

She married Bill because of an intuitive sense of what he could accomplish and she was right. The only problem was, she married a man with many flaws, of which would also never really give her the sense of conquering male-dom.

Although it is clear she has always felt that she would be able to dominate Bill and assert power over him because he already had a weakness for women, but she also recognized that Bill has never been the type of man that she truely feels the need to conquer. That man is her father, and Bill could never fill those shoes.

It is a complicated explanation for what Hillary suffers from but in the end mother nature wins, and Hillary never gets what she wants.

A generation of these women maybe more prior to the sixties as I suspect also suffer from this syndrome, and they too have just watched their last "Great White Hope" crash and burn.

This was clear by the violent reaction of many of Hillary's supporters beginning with the public display of " the video lady" for what they saw were years of their frustrations which had finally surfaced in Hillary Clinton suddenly going down in flames, and once more perhaps for the final time threatening their breed to succumb to final extinction.

Now as the majority of these ladies were already post menopausal, only the pipe dreams of their desires remaining were about to be extinguished, and as demonstrated they were pretty upset about it.

There is no righteous epitaph for this movement or more properly for this disorder, disguised as a movement, and that brings up another revelation about these women. They are the fakers of years gone by. These are your mothers best friends who married out of tradition before your mom and secretly told her how to get what she wanted when she did finally get married, and her husband demonstrated his ineptness to satisfying her sexually. Just fake it !, they told her and covertly slipped her a copy of the Sunday times with the add that has been running for three generations.

Presently it has a black and white picture of a woman massaging her face with what looks like a "Confirmation Day" candle in her left hand with her index finger extended along the side and a placid angelic calm shines across the face of the model as she looks pensive and satified in hindsight, all the long advertising this Mandingo tool as a facial massage instrument.

Clinton is clearly trying to salvage her next run on a ticket as a victim of the press and angry white male reporters. In reality though she only wants to win for the reasons above. Once and for all she wants to piss on her fathers grave standing up, and say," See I am equal to you, you son of a bitch so there"

But unless she takes the leap and gets an implant, no matter what, when she looks down at what she is holding it won't look very much like a cucumber with a mushroom on the end.