HILLARY--DIGGING UP DELIGATES IN DESPERATION

JUST BEFORE I STUMBBLED UPON THIS VIDEO I HAD JUST WRITTEN A RESPONSE TO A FRIEND'S EMAIL. I SAID THE FOLLOWING:
*
First, I don't accept the position that either Hillary or Obama are bigots. And I doubt very seriously that the writer can produce any evidence that the "race card" is being played by the Obama camp. Yes, Hillary has been an activist all of her life, but I notice there's a glaringly conspicuous omission in the the writer's recitation of Hillary's resume--when she was working for Barry Goldwater during the time that MLK was marching on Washington.
*
No, I don't think Hillary's a racist, but neither is she the angel of mercy. Hillary is a hard-nosed politician, and an extremely ambitious and driven women. And like most hard-nosed politicians, she's also a chameleon, as she's clearly demonstrated in the past week. She'll do absolutely anything to further her political goals--including taking credit for her husband's presidency when it's to her advantage, and distancing herself from it when it's a political liability. In fact, she'd probably still be a Republican if she hadn't calculated that it would be next to impossible for a woman to become president in the Republican Party. I think she put her finger to the wind, saw which way it was blowing, and did a coldhearted calculation of which party would benefit her the most.
*
As for her "experience", and kind of president she would be, I think we're getting a preview of that during this election--she's mismanaged her budget, her campaign is highly unorganized and in a state of disarray, she's shown very bad judgement, an inability to see beyond what she wants to see, and she gets flustered and angry under pressure.
*
Sounds like presidential material to me.
*
WELL, I GUESS I CAN REST MY CASE--NOW SHE'S DIGGING UP DELIGATES FROM THE GRAVE.

Eric L. Wattree
wattree.blogspot.com

Sphere: Related Content

HILLARY CLINTON MOCKS FAITH

A Democrat on the DNC board wrote the following:

"Decency trumps politics. When she mocked Obama with her celestial remark she [Hillary] insulted every god fearing, church going person and faithful person. That's unforgiveable."

Hillary’s statement was a slap in the face of all people of faith. Although it was directed at Obama supporters, it clearly betrayed her disdain for all those people who are “naive enough” to believe in faith, and the intervention of God in the matters of mankind.

Hillary went on to say, "Maybe I've just lived a little long . . . but you're not just going to wave a magic wand and have the special interests disappear."

Maybe that's the problem with her campaign--she doesn't understand the power of people coming together in faith and good will.

She says, the magic wand held by the people of faith won't make special interests disappear, but maybe she'd better take another look . . .

BECAUSE OBAMA'S "MAGIC WAND" OF THE PEOPLE OF FAITH IS DOING A PRETTY GOOD JOB OF MAKING HER DISAPPEAR.

Sphere: Related Content

WILL THE REAL HILLARY CLINTON PLEASE STAND UP?

WILL THE REAL HILLARY CLINTON PLEASE STAND UP?
*
After seven years of agony during the Bush administration, America has learn that the most important characteristics to look for in a president is good character and common sense. We’ve learned, in a most painful way, that if a president lacks either of these qualities, everything else is meaningless. These past seven years have taught us that putting our hatred, ignorance, and self-service ahead of the best interest of the country can bring us all down. Thus, when the voters turned out the Republicans in the 2006 election, it was over character; and the current rallying cry across this land for change, is actually about electing a president with good character and common sense. Barack Obama’s meteoric rise to national prominence is America’s way of saying we are tired of the old self-serving, cutthroat, win-at-any-price type politics of the past. Therefore, it is incumbent upon us all to watch what takes place in the next two weeks very closely.
*
Barack Obama has Hillary Clinton on the ropes. He’s blown the heretofore presumptive presidential nominee out of the water by large margins in the last ten states of the primary election. He’s also won among Americans voting outside the country. Even Bill Clinton has acknowledged that if Hillary doesn’t get a win in Texas, she won’t get the presidential nomination. So in the next two weeks her character, and the kind of experience she brings to the table will be on display. If she’s truly committed to change, and what’s in the best interest of the United States, we’ll see a lady engaged in a valiant, yet, clean fight for the nomination. But if the “experience” she so often speaks of is of the old-style, me-first, America-be-damned kind of politics of the past, we’re going to see a lot of lying, desperate mudslinging, and win-at-any-cost kind of tactics. Personally, I’m betting on the latter–in fact, it’s no longer a bet, she’s already started.
*
While Hillary speaks in wistful tones of how important it is for a Democrat to be elected president in the November election, it seems that it’s only important to her if she happens to be that Democrat. Instead of lifting herself up by telling the people of Texas why she’ll be the better president, she’s engaging in the old Republican-style politics of trying to tear Obama down. She says, for example, that all Obama brings to the table is a lot of inspirational rhetoric, while she has solutions. This begs the question, if she truly believes that it is essential for a Democrat to be elected president in the next election, doesn’t it matter to her that if Obama is the nominee the Republicans will seize upon her words to try to defeat him? If she truly has the solutions to America’s problems, why doesn’t she simply lay them out, instead of attacking a fellow Democrat?
*
The fact is, she has no solutions. What she’s calling solutions are nothing more than a laundry list of what she thinks Americans want to hear. She says, for example, that she’s going to bring our troops home with honor--but she’s not saying how she intends to accomplish that, she simply says she’s going to do it. She also says she’s going to “work towards” providing universal healthcare. Ok, but how? That’s not a solution, that’s a goal–a goal that she’s already failed miserably at during the eight years that Bill was in office--and that was at a time when she didn’t have to focus on anything but that. If she couldn’t do it then, what makes her think she can do it now, with all the other responsibilities of being president? On the other hand, Obama has demonstrated during his eight years in the Illinois State Senate that he has the ability--or experience, if you will–to work with Republicans to get things done, including a healthcare bill.
*
Hillary also says that as president she can hit the ground running “on day one”, andAmerica doesn’t need a president who requires on-the-job-training. That statement is both arrogant, presumptuous, and disingenuous. Every president requires on-the-job-training. Even if Bill could return to office, the world has changed tremendously since he was president, so even he would have to take the time to learn to adapt to a new and different world. Even if that wasn’t the case, however, Hillary seems to be implying that she doesn’t require training because she’s been president before. So it seems that she’s either naive, unrealistic, or trying to take credit for her husband’s experience, none of which inspires confidence in her character. In addition, it sets feminism back fifty years.
*
There’s another thing about Hillary’s “day one” statement–she’s failing to acknowledge the certain gridlock that would result from Republican antipathy towards her. For Republicans, cooperating with a Clinton is one of the worse offenses that can be committed in political life. She’s got to know that–thus, she must also know that she’s lying to the American people about her ability to get things done. On the other hand, while Hillary is straining credulity to the limit, Barack Obama, with his so-called “flowery speeches”, is mending fences, building bridges, and laying the groundwork for an effective presidency. He recognizes that character and experience are great qualities for a president to have, but in order to get his policies through congress, having the ability to inspire the American people is indispensable.
*
Hillary is right in one respect, however–experience can be impressive, as we saw in the Texas debate–and she certainly has it. But Hillary has the wrong kind of experience–she’s experienced in the old ways of voter manipulation. During the debate we saw a chameleon at work–first we saw the cordial Hillary, but she felt she needed to set herself apart; then she morphed into presidential Hillary, but Obama easily matched her sober, no nonsense veneer; so she went into attack dog Hillary, only to quickly change tactics after being booed; towards the end, she finally settled on Immaculate Hillary, to bestow love upon her opponent–a love offering that it turns out now was both scripted and plagiarized.
*
Being the “experienced” politician that she is, it took her the entire debate, but she finally stumbled upon just the right tone of manipulation. But now, it turns out, not only was she plagiarizing John Edwards, after making such a big deal of the issue of plagiarism, but her most glowingly poignant moment in the debate was staged, insincere, and just another example of the old politics of voter manipulation. View the evidence above for yourself.
*
I have a feeling we’re going to see a lot more of this in the future, so I just wanted to give you a playbook, so you can keep up with which Hillary is on display.
*
Eric L. Wattree
wattree.blogspot.com

Sphere: Related Content

BLACKS AND BOOKS JUST DON'T MIX

Sphere: Related Content

LET'S MAKE HIM LOOK LIKE A FOOL

Sphere: Related Content

JUST WORDS

Sphere: Related Content

AN APPOINTMENT WITH DESTINY

A FEARLESS LOVE

A FATHERLESS CHILD

AN APPOINTMENT WITH DESTINY

AN APPOINTMENT WITH DESTINY
*

You’re slipping, Hutch. Your lack of customary objectivity has finally betrayed your loyalties. I came to your site to comment on your Huffington Post article, "What Will Obama Do When There's No Hillary Firewall?", only to find another article that was even more partisan. In the first article you dug up everything you could think of that you indicate Republicans will be able to use against Obama in the November election--and you were right. In fact, you were so effective, that you all but built the Republicans a tailor-made swift boat. You’ve rendered the Republican Party a tremendous service in that article. As a result of your article alone, they can fire all of their researchers--you’ve done all of their research for them. And now I find in your most recent article, "What to Make of Obama’s Strange Bedfellows, Namely Blacks and White Males." In that article you imply that Black people, along White males, have come together in a sexist coalition against Hillary to support Obama. In your final paragraph you say the following:

*

"Even if unconscious gender bias affects only a relatively small percent of men in a close contest between a male and female candidate in which the two are rated fairly evenly in competence, qualifications and experience, the refusal of many men to vote for her could harm her candidacy. Female candidates offset the male bias by getting solid support from women voters." But I think you made a few typos in your last sentence. Didn’t you mean to say, "Female[s][should] offset the male bias by [giving] solid support from women voters"?

*
I really can’t understand this Obama hatred that seems to be centered, primarily, among many Black intellectuals and leaders. First, we have a Black television host jumping up and down because the senator won’t drop everything in the middle of a hard fought presidential primary to come kiss his ring, then we have a that group of Black cynics demanding that he walk the water to earn their vote, and finally, a handful of Black pundits, intellectuals, and political leaders trying to sabotage Obama’s march into time. And, oh yes, I almost forgot those who are prudent enough to want to hedge their bet. They’re maintaining a silence so profound that it’s deafening. In fact, I didn’t think Sharpton was capable of keeping such a low profile–it makes one almost wish this year would never end.

*
I find this situation very sad, yet, extremely interesting–but what’s going to be even more interesting is watching these very same Black intellectuals and so-called leaders squirm when they find themselves stranded on the wrong side of history. It’s really ironic. This nation is about to bring into reality everything these people have been screaming for every since they’ve had permission to open their mouths, and now they’re doing everything they can to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. It’s almost as though they’re afraid they’re going to lose a trusted friend–the right to fail with personal impunity. I’ll be kind and not even mention those who may have to find a new line of work, because they’re gonna have it rough--I don’t think the employment office has a line for social agitator.

*
But just in case I’m wrong, and they really simply don’t understand what everybody is so excited about, let me lay it out. We discussed it the very same week that Obama announced his candidacy. I told you then what was coming–in fact, now that I look back on our discussion, I’m sure you’ll agree, things are happening just like I predicted. Remember when I used the analogy of a runaway train, even before that train left the station? And remember when I compared Obama to JFK and you laughed, and that reporter from KFWB kinda looked at me sideways? I’m certain you both reflected on that when Caroline and Ted Kennedy made the very same remark in their endorsements. But I shouldn’t brag, because it really wasn’t hard to see it coming. The fact is, you’re such an astute political observer, I’m shocked that this one got past you–and even more shocked that you still don’t seem to get it.

*
The key was in understanding the American people. Americans love drama--and I mean that in a good way. They love the idea of hard work and sacrifice–especially when it comes to the underdog fighting to overcome adversity, because that’s the story of America itself. And what we have in Obama is a fearless love, a fatherless child, and now, an appointment with destiny.

*

It's a story that's uniquely American--and the kind of story that will be told and retold as long as man has a yearning for hope. Thus, every American across this land is blessed to be living at this moment in our history. We're living in a time that history will someday record as the defining moment of our legacy as a people. It’s a moment in history when America is on the very brink of disaster, and the founding fathers have literally reached back from the grave to both save this nation, and fulfill their promise to humanity. Historians will someday define this as the moment in our history when America truly became one nation under God--a time when, hundreds of years from now, young people, and particularly young Black people, will look back upon our contribution to their quality of life and say, due to the courage and tenacity of that great generation of Americans, America was finally able to meet its appointment with destiny.

*
So you see, this is not just Obama’s story–it’s an American story. It's a story being written by all of us, and about all of us. So Bill and Hillary can throw all the mud they like, and the Republicans can come with a fleet of swift boats, but it will all be to no avail. Because America is not about to let this opportunity pass them up. Senator Barack Obama is about to walk right into the annals time, and he’s taking us all along with him.

*
Note that I’m dating this communication, because thanks to the internet even the most common scribe can leave a note for posterity, and I want them to know that I could clearly see the significance of this moment. Let’s just call it, my graffiti on the walls of time.
*

Eric L. Wattree
wattree.blogspot.com
February 16, 2008

*

LEGACY

*

I Now stand firm. My dedication to the power of knowledge is the platform upon which my podium rests. I stand firm, strong, and now free--free of anger, free of self-delusion, free of the folly of empty vanity, and free of the pernicious bane of meaningless pride without substance.

*

I now stand free to look upon the eyes of other men, reflecting dignity over sorrow, and accomplishment over pain; I stand with a burning passion, fueled by the very flame that forged ancestral shackles, with a deep sense of pride, and a pride that flows deep.

*

I now stand erect! The steel that once degraded my father, that chained him in bondage to this bitter Earth, now reinforce my character, making me more, rather than less. And the blood and sweat that once drenched his brow, and oozed from the yoke around his neck, now rage with resolve, a sense of purpose, and trembles with passion, within my burning breast.

*

I now stand as a new being–-neither simply African, nor simply American, but a hybrid forced to transcend the sum of my parts-- no longer simply African, since being torn away from the African motherland to suffer and toil in the fields of America, and more than simply American, after being forced to be more than simply American, just to survive within the bowels of this prosperous land.

*

Thus, I stand now armed—-armed with the wisdom of deprivation, the courage of my conviction, and a deep conviction of my courage; and fortified–with the confidence of a survivor, the empowerment of knowledge, and a ravishing hunger for greatness.

*
I now stand the product of love, struggle, and sacrifice; a witness to man's inhumanity to man, and a monument to the hopes and dreams of a million slaves. I stand embraced by my creator, as God now smiles upon my people.
*

Yes, I Now Stand Firm--Firm, Black, and Free.

*

Eric L. Wattree
Wattree.blogspot.com

Sphere: Related Content

EXPERIENCE, WHAT EXPERIENCE?

BENEATH THE SPIN • ERIC L. WATTREE EXPERIENCE, WHAT EXPERIENCE? I have nothing against Hillary Clinton--I'm less than happy with several of her votes, but I'm sure I'd feel the same about any politician that I examined closely enough. But what does rub me the wrong way is this experience sham that she's trying to promote--it's fully transparent, and clearly designed to mislead the politically naive. The problem is, if she's trying to pull the wool of the eyes of some, why should I believe anything she says? But I try not to get too worked up about it, because the hardcore Hillary supporters are doing more to help the Obama campaign than they can possibly imagine. Actually, if they didn't exist, Obama would do well to pay people to play their role. All of the finger pointing, mudslinging, and anger that they're bringing to this campaign is exactly what the American people want to get away from. What Hillary, and many of her supporters, don't understand that the American people realize is that they generate so much bad feeling among such a large sector of American people, that if she is the nomintee, or even president, the only thing she would do is effectively bring the Republican Party back from the dead. Thereafter, there would be total gridlock, and more of the same. We're not dummies, we can see that--and the fact that she can't, doesn't bode well regarding her ability to face reality if she became president. She seems to think we're idiots. She keeps talking about all of this experience that she's suppose to have. She reminds me of the Republicans who continue to try to convince us that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. She seems to think that if you tell a lie often enough we'll buy into it. Exactly what experience is she talking about? What office has she held that dealt with global warming, the military, the economy, negotiating with the enemy, or handling the budget? Absolutely none. She's not talking about Hillary, you're talking Billary--and what does that say about being an independent woman? History has clearly demonstrated that the most valuable asset that a president can have is charisma--the ability to get the American people behind him to support his agenda. Senator Obama has already demonstrated that he has that. Hillary was dragged through the mud in an attempt to get universal healthcare passed while Bill was in the White House, Obama, on the other hand, got his legislation passed in Illinois--with Rebulican assistance. That's the kind of experience we need--the kind of experience that you can't learn, or buy. Obama has the gift of pulling people together. That's exactly what we need at this point in our history. Show me a "Republicans For Hillary" site on the web. I think that just about says it all with respect to who can get things done. Look at all the damage that Bush was able to do because he had the American people behind him--and that was without experience, or a brain. Well, with that very same resource, Obama will be able to do just as much good. Hillary, on the other hand, is going to have total gridlock. Absolutely nothing would be able to pass--and the minute she sneezed, we'd be bogged down in impeachment proceedings The fact is, Senator Barack Obama's time has come, and Hillary can engage in all of the swiftboating she likes and nothing's going to change that. The bottom line is this--the office of the President of the United States is not community property, and Hillary's going to have to get use to that fact. Eric L. Wattree Wattree.blogspot.com

Sphere: Related Content

I'M A SELLOUT FOR SUPPORTING A NON-SLAVE?

BENEATH THE SPIN • ERIC L. WATTREE I'M A SELLOUT FOR SUPPORTING A NON-SLAVE? My good brother, I've heard some uniquely original ideas about why Black people shouldn't support Barack Obama, but I must admit, you've all but stumped me here. It is your position that I'm selling out for supporting Obama, not because his mother was White, but because his father is from Africa, therefore, Obama is not a true son of slavery. You indicate, that's why White people are supporting him–it's a racist plot to first, preclude a son of slavery from becoming the first Black president of the United States, and second, to get African Americans to embrace someone who looks like us, but is not truly one of us. Therefore, by supporting Obama, we dishonor those African Americans who were forced to suffer in bondage. But you go on to say--and this is the part that I like about your thinking--that your mind remains open, so you're ready to be convinced that your wrong. I received your e-mail last night, but instead of giving in to the knee-jerk tendency to immediately respond, I thought I'd take the night to respectfully consider some of the issues you've brought to the table. In doing so I've come to the conclusion that our positions are not as far apart as it may seem at first blush. First of all, while I do honor the contribution that the African motherland contributed to who I am, I fully agree that the plight of African American slaves is often overlooked and, indeed, ignored as an embarrassment when we consider our journey as a people. I've been pushing that position for years. In fact, it is more than ironic that one of my positions that you object to most--that African Americans make up a new and distinct culture that is in the infancy of its development--was from an article that I wrote in response to an Earl Ofari Hutchinson article about ten years ago (Our History Lies Before Us). Clearly, I'm an unabashed Obama supporter, and I would love to get you to support him as well, but I clearly recognized many years ago that since I corner the market on neither wisdom, knowledge, nor intellect, what is more important than getting Black people to agree with me, is getting them to become thoughtful and independent thinkers. It'll take much more than my opinion to move our people forward--after all, it's all I can do to move myself forward. So what's much more important is that we learn to listen to one another, and seriously consider one another's opinion without demonizing each other as fools, or the enemy. We've got to realize that the Black community isn't a blanket so much as it is a quilt, made up of differing fabrics, colors and ideas. That diversity in our people, and in America as a whole, is not a shortcoming, but an asset, which can make us strong, and uniquely viable as both a people, and a nation. Pointing our finger at this Black man and that Black man as less than truly Black is something that we picked up somewhere in our history that has hurt us tremendously. If we were once a great and powerful people, I'm certain it was that very tendency that led to our downfall. You said that we should not support Barack Obama because he is not a true child of slavery. But you have no way of knowing that. You're only looking at his father's heritage. While his mother was White, how do you know that her family, or someone in her family line, didn't start out as a slave? In fact, her tendency to mate with a Black man during the years before Obama's birth may very well indicate that may have been the case. It doesn't take but two to three generations for a family to move from one race to another. There are many people in America that would seem to be pure White, or pure Black, whose family was the complete opposite three generations prior. Take my family for example. Two of my grandsons, Eric I and Elijah, on my son's side of the family are mixed. My daughter-n-law is mixed with Spanish and Jew (both European). Her mother is a pure, White Jew, and her father is Spanish. My grandsons are just a tad darker than any White man–at least, one who isn't absolutely pale. Therefore, if they marry White women, for all intent and purposes, my great grandchildren will be White people--and the very same dynamic is happening on the other side of the ledger. So unless we thoroughly check Obama's family line on his mother's side, we don't know if he's a child of slavery or not–and what difference does it make? Would finding out one way or the other make him either better or worse as a man? As a sort of humorous aside, I insisted that my grandsons study and get to know ALL of their heritage so they could choose for themselves what part of their heritage they wanted to identify. So we have this family joke where my daughter-n-law pulls my son to the side and says, "Listen Eric, I know Poppie insisted that the boys get to know their heritage, but things are not working out." Then my son asks, "What's the Problem?" "Well, now Little Eric wants to move to the West Bank, and the Honorable Elijah Wattree has cursed that his brother's crotch be embraced by the flees of a thousand angry camels. So I want you to stop Eli from wearing that fez to school. And another thing, he keeps throwing water bombs at his older brother, and he put a sign on his brother's door saying, 'Down with the Jews--Get the hell out of Palestine.' I mean, he's only in the third grade, and his teacher told me she said good morning to him and he said, 'Assalamu Alilkum, my ravishing Nubian princess.' Eric, I'm afraid we're gonna have a jihad right here in the living room." So you see, Alex, what we're dealing with here, as a species, is just as childish as what my grandsons are going through above. In the universal scheme of things, what we're dealing with is a white Cocker Spaniel telling Black Cocker Spaniel that I'm better than you. We weren't put here for that. God or, nature, if you will (they're synonymous to me) provided man with the most powerful computer in the known universe, and we're wasting all of that potential using it to play video games. Man is the very soul of creation--the eyes of the universe looking back upon itself--but instead of revelling in that realization, using that potential in the pursuit of knowledge, we're wasting it contemplating our navels, and arguing about whose belly button is the prettiest. We're involved in a meaningless argument that we will never resolve. In the end, nature will determine who is superior–because the other group won't be here. Evolution has clearly demonstrated that there are superior members of every species--they are the ones that nature selects to survive. Prior to man, survival of the fittest use to mean what species, and members of a species, was strongest, most ferocious and best able to adapt to an ever changing environment. But after man was placed on Earth as a naked ape, that dynamic changed. Now, the fittest, or more superior is about brain over brawn. When man arrived here on Earth, there was no reason to think he would be successful--he was neither as ferocious as the lion, as powerful as the elephant, nor could he fly like an eagle. But nature provided man with something new, a cerebral cortex--the human mind. Now, through the use of that mind, man is now the true king of beasts. We can slaughter the most ferocious lion, trample the most powerful elephant, and soar far beyond the eagle's domain. Thus, it is the human mind, and only the human mind, that separates superior men from lessor men--race, creed, and color serve as mere distractions for lesser men, with lesser minds. So from my point of view, there are only two races of people--people who think, and people who don't think. As far as I'm concern, anyone who considers any other attribute in their assessment of their fellow man, is pedestrian in their thinking. Therefore, race, creed color, experience, gender, culture, and all the other distractions that man can come up with are just that--distractions. What I am more than anything else, is a thinker, and so is Obama, that's why he's my man. Eric L. Wattree wattree.blogspot.com

Sphere: Related Content

CAN A WOMAN BE A GOOD PRESIDENT?

BENEATH THE SPIN • ERIC L. WATTREE CAN A WOMAN BE A GOOD PRESIDENT? . Anyone who can't answer the above question in the affirmative couldn't have been raised in the Black community. As ashamed as I am to have to admit it, it is clear to anyone with eyeballs that the African American culture is matriarchal by it's very nature. That said, now I'm supposed to start explaining all of the conditions beyond the Black man's control that led to this state of affairs, but the fact is, I'm not predisposed to lying, so I refer you to Black Entertainment Television (BET) and you can be the judge. . Ok, had enough? Now that you've viewed the misogynistic subculture that has all but seized the soul of the young Black male, it has to be clear that any woman who can manage to raise well rounded, productive, and stable children--by herself--in such an environment can do anything. . So, of course a woman can be a good, even great, president. But I don't count Hillary Clinton among those women. Hillary, and many other so-called "feminists" of her generation, suffer from seriously misguided views on what it truly means to be a strong and independent woman. They actually diminish the meaning of womanhood by embracing the position that the only way a woman can truly be strong and independent is by being more like a man. . She, and many other modern women have dedicated their entire lives to the proposition that the traditional role that women have played in society is something less than what a modern woman should aspire to. I firmly disagree with that position. While I think that a woman should be free to compete with a man in any and every area in this society, I also think the role of the traditional "housewife" has been severely undervalued in this society. What our society looks upon as a "mere housewife" is actually a mother, a psychologist, a nurse, a chef, an economist, an interior designer, and in many cases, a sex therapist for a philandering husband--and society has been going downhill every since these women were convinced that what they did wasn't worthwhile. . Remember Donna Reed? Women of Hillary's ilk tend to look down their nose at women like that, but consider this--there was no such thing as a drive-by on Donna's watch. She created a stable home environment that served to stablize society as a whole. She did more for society from her family's house, than a Hillary clone could ever do as president from the White House. The problem with the Hillary kind of women is that they fail to recognize that fact. They see women like Donna as "quaint", and completely fail to realize that women like Donna are directly responsible for who, and where they are today. So it's not Hillary that I dislike, or her chosen path in life; it's the condescending attitude of Hillary-type women towards homemakers--and I don't think I'm alone. Hillary hasn't personally done a thing to deserve the hostility that she engenders in many Americans. While much hostility is directed at her, it's not about her, it's about what she represents--the degradation of America. . The American people don't have a problem with women seizing the opportunity to express their creativity and potential as human beings, but what they do resent is a handful of abitious women attempting to further their personal goals by convincing a generation of housewives that they're being less than productive by not entering the workforce to take up arms against men. Prior to these women entering the workforce, one income was sufficient to comfortably support a family. Now, a woman must work whether she wants to or not just for most families to survive, because once working women put more money into circulation, the business community simply doubled the cost of living. So what we're left with as a result of this mass exodus of housewives into the workforce is a rise in the of the cost of living, women being forced to juggle family and a fulltime job, latchkey children, a hoard of incorrigible teenagers, a rise in workplace indiscretions, failed marriages, and skyrocketing crime--a net loss anyway you look at it. . But of course, now I'm going to be accused of wanting women to remain barefoot and pregnant, but that's not at all the case. Women should be free to go into whatever profession they choose, but if they choose homemaker as their chosen profession, they shouldn't be denigrated as "barefoot and pregnant", because as our current situation clearly demonstrates, they are actually the backbone of this society. . This country is falling apart because we allowed the "feminists" of the sixties to sell us a bill of goods. When these women chose to pursue professions and then ran into sexism in the workplace, instead of addressing the problem within the workplace itself, they decided to hitch their wagon to the civil rights movement in order to sop up some of the gravy that the eloquence of Martin Luther King had stirred. But in order for these White, middle and upper class women to make an effective case--many of whom, living comfortably, and supported by husbands--they had to convince all of the housewives across America that they, as a class, were just as victimized as Black civil rights activists, who were not allowed to vote, couldn't find jobs, and were being attacked by police dogs. . So while these women did have a just cause, they addressed that cause in a fraudulent manner--and in the process, convinced women across this land that raising a family and laying the foundation that everything else in our society is built upon was something less than a desirable pursuit. They also convinced many women that the only things that are of value in this world are those things that men do--in fact, focusing on being a lady, in itself, was a frivolous pursuit. The message was, the only way to compete with men was on a man's terms--a message that places women at a gross disadvantage. . I have a good friend who happens to be an Asian. She's so beautiful she doesn't look real--she looks like someone drew her. In addition, she's brilliant, and one of the sexiest women I've ever laid eyes on--and she knows it. Her only shortcoming is she's bought into the nonsense that it's against the rules to use her femininity to help her get ahead. She told me one day that her boss wouldn't allow her to move up any farther in management. When I asked why, she said, her boss always tries to flirt with her and she doesn't want to play that game. So I asked her, doesn't your boss use his deep voice and intimidating personality to get what he wants? And she told me that he did. I then asked, so why shouldn't you use your beauty and feminine wiles to get what you want? You don't have to give in to your boss, just make him think you might--right after the next promotion, then the next, and the next. You don't have to give up a thing. Just keep hope alive. There's nothing immoral about that.  You're simply manipulating him with your feminine beauty in the same way that he manipulates you with his masculine ability to intimidate. . So, absolutely a woman can be good president--and quite possibly, one of the greatest presidents we've ever had. But I don't want one who thinks she has to act like a man to be successful. I want to vote for a female who's intelligent, charismatic, and well educated, yet, not afraid to stick her hands in dishwater. Yes, I want her to be professional and dignified, yet, also know the value of a short skirt and silk shiny stockings. I don't want any president who's going to try to be effective with one hand tied behind his or her back. A president should be prepared to bring every resource to bear. So if the president happens to be a woman, sure I want her to know how to be firm when she needs to be, but she should also know how to work it like it's hot. .  If a man's strong suit is intimidation, the illusion of power, and brute force, a woman's is insight, subtlety, and finesse. Once a woman loses sight of that fact, she's tying one hand behind her back. . Eric L. Wattree Http://wattree.blogspot.com Ewattree@Gmail.com Citizens Against Reckless Middle-Class Abuse (CARMA) Religious bigotry: It's not that I hate everyone who doesn't look, think, and act like me - it's just that God does.

Sphere: Related Content