Remember when pro-Obama forces argued that an African-American president would inherently represent radical change? Now pro-Hillary Clinton forces are saying the same thing about a woman president. Will liberals fall for the same line?
A Woman President Would Change Everything
Ted Rall
Ted Rall is a syndicated political cartoonist for Andrews McMeel Syndication and WhoWhatWhy.org and Counterpoint. He is a contributor to Centerclip and co-host of "The Final Countdown" talk show on Radio Sputnik. He is a graphic novelist and author of many books of art and prose, and an occasional war correspondent. He is, recently, the author of the graphic novel "2024: Revisited."
12 Comments. Leave new
Ted,
I usually don’t spot an error in your material. But Barack Obama isn’t black. Oh, phenotypically, he appears to have African ancestry, but calling him black? Bill Clinton was blacker than Barack Obama. Jimmy Carter was blacker than Barack Obama.
I admit, the first time around, I though Obama would bring forth an egalitarian society dripping with universal health care, an end to wars of aggression, and a nationally televised series of trials for Dubya, Cheney, the banksters, etc. Why? Because he looked black. He’d been on the receiving end of so much racism and low-level hostility through his life, who wouldn’t just at the chance to end that kind of world?
By the second time, I understood that Obama might look black, but in his mind, he’s blond-haired, blue-eyed, and can’t these poor people just fuck off already and let him continue golfing at the club?
@Ted
“Remember when pro-Obama forces argued that an African-American president would inherently represent radical change? ”
No, but then again I would have been smart enough to immediately and indefinitely ignore anyone who babbled anything that obviously, mind-numbingly stupid.
Ted, Why do you hate America?
Liberals will fall for anything.
Dead on target.
The bathroom thing is great. How absurd is it to be a citizen in a great city in your own country, with 1,000’s of bathrooms surrounding you, and you can’t use one without having to buy something? Suicide level ridiculousness right there. Do not pass go, do not look on the bright side, just off yourself now because this world is fucked.
Honestly there’s something seriously wrong with the country that can pay a hedge manager, one single human being, $1.5 billion in a single year. Check out yesterday’s New York Times. Meanwhile, when you want to go pee there’s no place you can do it without buying something. It’s a national scandal, and the fact that we don’t do anything about it shows that we are truly and regally screwed.
Along these lines though perhaps as far as creating the missing civil disobedience and even open revolt we have all been talking about the lack of public bathrooms may actually help things. No seriously, if enough people loose their job and have no where to go, then when they get pissed off, something sacrosanct to the establishment is basically guaranteed to get pissed on (possibly defecated upon as well).
The revolution won’t be televised – because it will be far too inappropriate for TV.
The thought occurs that the reason there is no revolt is that it’s following the same pattern as rape and cancer.
For decades (centuries?) when someone got cancer or got raped, the stigma was on the victim. Take your cancerous self to the attic and have the decency to not talk of it anymore as you speed toward death. Raped? You seven-year-old whore! How could you bring shame like that upon your family. We must never speak of it again! And you go apologize to the reverend when we go to church next week for leading him astray, you slut.
Isn’t that where we are now? Someone loses their job, house, kids, health, and sanity, while a CEO somewhere rakes in a bonus in the tens of millions for doing so, and what’s the message? “You need to shut up about how you lost your job. You need, quietly, to try harder to be more humble and accept ANY work whatsoever.”
Imagine what will happen when we hit the tipping point. I’ve never been to a hanging.
Right now, most Democrats want Billary. (Like Ma Ferguson, the ‘First’* female governor of Texas, Hillary will get a * as ‘First*’ female president.) Given what Bush, Jr did, she should get it.
And then?
Obama has strongly urged we go back to the way social security used to be: set at enough for the elderly to live on in ’36, then eroded by inflation until they couldn’t afford Alpo Helper, then a big raise, then eroded by inflation…
Then Congress agreed to index social security, and real benefits have stayed enough for seniors to eat since the ’70s (but they’ve raised the retirement age, so good luck until between the time your employer lays you off as too old and the time you qualify for social security–a friend with cancer was laid off, and now he has only COBRA which he can ill afford, and nothing when that runs out).
Obama wants to abolish that index, so, in a few years, Social Security won’t be enough to buy Alpo Helper. Plus slashing medical benefits for those under 76 (if you live that long, the government will pick up 80% of your medical bills, but, unless you’re in the 1%, we hope you won’t live that long so we won’t have to waste any healthcare costs on you.)
And Romney would have been better? Or Billary’s opponent in ’16?
The choices will be between someone who wants to abolish all social security and medicare, and someone who only wants to cut them in half. No other option will be allowed.
And the days when 100 king-makers picked the candidates are gone, it’s the voters who choose between one candidate who wants to slash Medicare and social security, and another who wants to abolish both.
How did this happen?
The US is a Democracy, not a monarchy, but the ruling gentry seem to have bought the 99% to vote for their interests, so whomever gets nominated and elected will only do what the 1% wants.
As St Paul wrote, ‘Gentile or Jew, Servant or Free, Woman or Man’ it doesn’t matter any more.
I don’t think Hillary will run cuz she’s not going to have the strength and health by then…..I support her running because she will win and it will make right wing fanatics go insane with rage. This amuses me, and that is the only reason to want one or the other choice to win at this point, for bragging rights and amusement
Heck Ted – check out what this guy earned! “David Tepper, pictured in 2011, runs the Short Hills-based hedge fund Appaloosa Management. He earned $2.2 billion last year, according to Institutional Investor’s Alpha magazine.” – No wonder that my Merril-Lynch acquaintance is pushing her kids into employment in her sector – and, to top it off, she never went to college or university – she started as a clerk/cashier at Secuity Pacific, it got bought out by BAC, and she landed in the sales dept. of the Investments side of the bank. Her salesman skills at convincing people to invest with her guidance took her all the way to where she is today accruing millions. Ya don’t needs to be having a super education to succeed in her field, ya just gots to be able to tell half truths and put spin on what you say peppered with politically correct and lame advice – it also helps to have no empathy or a conscience. “Buy low, sell high; a penny saved is a penny earned!” But on the negative side, she did get hurt in the 2008 debacle too – but it’s all come back now, and she barely has time to fit in the Carribean Cruises and vacations along with her “work”.
A women (US) president would certainly change everything, just the way a women (UK) prime minister changed everything. Be careful what you wish for….
Henri