TRANSGENDER WOMAN APPOINTED TO COMMERCE

Bringing T to the Party

Let me begin this post by (re)stating that I am an advocate for transgender rights. I believe in full equality for all LGBT people and support the inclusion of trans rights in any future gay rights legislation.

As such, I am happy to hear that President Obama made the first presidential appointment of a transgender person by selecting Amanda Simpson (formerly Mitchell Simpson) to join the Commerce Department as a Senior Technical Adviser.

I don't know much about her politics, but I do know she ran, unsuccessfully, as a Democrat for Congress and she sits on the Board of the National Center for Transgender Equality.

More importantly, she'll eventually make it into the history books as a trailblazer in politics, breaking barriers like Keith Ellison, Tammy Baldwin, Shirley Chisholm, and Sandra Day O'Connor did before her.   

*

Now, at the risk of making what appears to be a bad joke, I can't help but confess my difficulty with the fact that Ms. Simpson (or any other M-to-F transgender woman) changed her first name to Amanda.

When I lived in San Francisco, I vaguely recall going to Asia SF and being served by someone who claimed her name was Amanda Reckinwith.  A great drag queen name, to be sure.  But Amanda cannot be the best name for a former defense industry veteran seeking a long future in politics.

I genuinely wonder if she's inviting jokes so she can build a case for a future lawsuit.

The best explanation I can imagine is that she wants to put people at ease and make people laugh by saying, "I used to be a man, but now I'm Amanda."

All I'm saying is, if I were to become a female-to-male transgender man, I wouldn't change my name to Tam Pon.

All I'm saying is, if I chose to pursue a career in valet parking, I wouldn't change my name to Carlotta Tendant.

All I'm saying is, if I chose to get plastic surgery, I wouldn't change my name to Angie O'Plasty.

All I'm saying is, if I were this woman who went into the hospital for a leg operation and instead received a new anus, I wouldn't change my name to Tara Nusphincter.

--Junichi

WHAT HAPPENED TO HONEST OPINIONS?

I watched the above video of a recent teabagger protest thinking some wingnuts might give me a hearty chuckle.

But midway through the video, I remembered that a majority of Americans now disapprove of President Obama's performance. Which is to say, these teabaggers are making a difference.

By the end of the video, I was so frightened by it that it made torture porn movies look like My Little Pony.

What scares me, however, is not the anti-Obama sentiment, but the nature of the actual words expressed.

I know that there will always be fierce opposition to any American president, regardless of his or her ideology. Dissent is an American tradition. Undoubtedly, the anti-Bush rallies were an even larger assembly of angry people with the same passion as the people interviewed above.

But what shocks me about these oft-repeated wingnut talking points is how much they depend on lies.

In expressing their views, these teabaggers rely on "facts" with no credible support. Obama is not an American citizen. Obama is a Communist. Obama is the first president to have "czars." Obama wants to kill my grandma. Obama is Muslim. Obama is raising my taxes (said a person who is probably not making more than $250,000). Obama is taking my doctor away.

In contrast, most anti-Bush protesters never needed to lie. They either chanted pure opinions (e.g., "The war on Iraq is wrong," "Bush is the worst president in US history," etc.) or expressed beliefs stemming from undisputed facts (e.g., "No Tax Dollars to Halliburton", "How can the White House defend torture?," etc.).

Granted, there were many leftists who passionately believed unproven assertions. For example, thousands (including me) believed that the White House was raising the terror alert levels during the 2004 presidential campaign just to skew support towards President Bush. Sure enough, it turned out to be true. But even if it wasn't true, most Bush critics could articulate their opposition to President Bush's policies without lying (or repeating lies that they believed to be true).

Consider the "You Lie" controversy. Personally, I am not outraged with Rep. Joe Wilson for merely interrupting Pres. Obama's speech and violating so-called rules of etiquette. If he blurted out "Shame!" during one of Pres. Bush's speeches defending the Iraqi invasion, I would have praised him. Instead, what outrages me about Rep. Wilson's statement is that it's a patently false assertion. He's not expressing an opinion. He's stating that Obama's proposed bill would apply to illegal immigrants, when it clearly does not.

Also, the imbalance in what constitutes acceptable dissent blows my mind. Among other things, I don't remember any anti-Bush protester holding up a sign like, "Unarmed, this time," which one teabagger is carrying in the above video. Moreover, any anti-Bush supporter who showed up to a Bush rally in 2002 with a gun would have been immediately arrested.

Another reason I am especially flabbergasted by the right-wing talking points is because I have no difficulty articulating legitimate ideological grounds for a conservative to criticize the Obama White House. Opposed to a strong, active federal government? Obama is probably not your man. Do you think stem cell research constitutes murder? Obama is not your man. Should insurance companies suffer financially by being forced to insure people with preexisting conditions? If not, Obama is definitely not your man.

Although I completely disagree with the fundamentalist in the video who compared abortion to a holocaust, I respect that it is an opinion not dependent upon lies. He believes that the termination of any fetus is murder. Fair enough. He doesn't need to believe or spread lies -- e.g., Obama is forcing women to get abortions -- to articulate his opposition.

Similarly, today, I respect any person who says, "I oppose Obama's health care reform because I do not believe that wealthy taxpayers should have to pay for poor people's hospital bills."

I don't share that view. I find it greedy and selfish.

But at least it's an honest opinion.

*

Do these Glenn Beck supporters see any irony in their criticism of Obama as a leader who has used his charisma to create a blind allegiance among supporters?

*

On a related note, I feel compelled to make two points about the recent surge in Hitler comparisons.

First, I think it is inappropriate to seriously compare someone to Adolf Hitler unless he is responsible for the genocide of hundreds of thousands of people.

(I would make an exception, however, for people who have Hitler mustaches.)

I acknowledge that I am a hypocrite in saying this. I have referred to at least one stringent meter maid or iron-fisted supervisor as a Nazi, which, at the very least, is insensitive to Holocaust survivors.

Thus, I cringe when I see Obama compared to Hitler. Today, I would also cringe if someone compared George W. Bush to Hitler.

But having said that, I feel compelled to make this second point: Obama-Hitler comparisons seem far more indefensible than Bush-Hitler comparisons.

Bush was compared to Hitler when he had unilaterally invaded, in the face of global opposition, the sovereign nation of Iraq and killed at least 100,000 -- and, by some estimates, a million -- civilians. Granted, that death toll doesn't rival the millions who died in the Holocaust. And unlike Hitler, Bush did not systemically calculate to decimate a whole race of people. But I can appreciate the point that 100,000 dead innocent civilians puts Bush on a very short list of people responsible for equally grave numbers.

Obama, on the other hand, is being compared to Hitler for trying to ensure that every American has health care.

Do the protesters drawing Hitler mustaches on Barack Obama's face (fun fact: Obama is not an Aryan) really believe the comparison is valid?

(Credit: Thanks to J. Song for the video)

--Junichi

MARK ANTHONY NEAL'S "LETTER TO MY DAUGHTERS"

the new First Daughters

Leave it to Mark Anthony Neal to pen a lovely letter to his daughters about both the social and personal significance of yesterday. (It occurs to me, since I keep noting that my own daughter is a bit too young to appreciate the weight of the moment, I should do that same).

Also, Jodi Kantor at the NY Times put together a strong story on this being the First Family of contemporary America. Let's hope they're not the last.

And Jay Smooth puts in his own message on the occasion:


Also, my man Mr. Lif has a new single out called "Obama."

--O.W.

WHEN STOPPING THE VIOLENCE MEANS TAKING SIDES

The latest casualty of war

The senseless deaths in Israel and in Gaza have been a horrifying way to end 2008 and begin 2009.

But for me, what is equally horrifying is how many people in power -- especially in the United States -- continue to take the stand that calling for a cease-fire is anti-Israeli, pro-Palestinian, or pro-terrorism.

President Bush is balls-out defending Israel's continued aggression, which is hardly a surprise, since for him to do otherwise would be to challenge the core tenet of the Bush Doctrine.

But President-elect Obama has also been painfully mum. He finally broke his silence today, only to say that he is "deeply concerned about the conflict." Sadly, he has yet to utter a single word that calls for calm, cooler heads, or a cease-fire.

I realize Obama isn't president yet, but his silence is costing lives.

What Obama says (or doesn't say) matters, since Israel's war will continue so long as the United States supports Israel's rejection of calls for a cease-fire.

Moreover, the US just blocked approval of a UN Security Council statement that calls for an immediate cease-fire. If Obama indicated today that he would discontinue Bush's blockade in two weeks, his words would have a huge impact now.

What is the political risk for Obama (or Bush), especially when almost half of all Americans are questioning Israel's aggression in Gaza?

Moreover, what would be the political cost to calling on Israel to let the media into Gaza?

I wish Bush or Obama said something similar to the statement issued by J Street, a Jewish group in the United States:

Israel has a special place in each of our hearts. But we recognize that neither Israelis nor Palestinians have a monopoly on right or wrong. While there is nothing "right" in raining rockets on Israeli families or dispatching suicide bombers, there is nothing "right" in punishing a million and a half already-suffering Gazans for the actions of the extremists among them.

And there is nothing to be gained from debating which injustice is greater or came first. What's needed now is immediate action to stop the violence before it spirals out of control.

J Street is urging people to sign a petition that calls for "immediate and strong U.S.-led diplomatic efforts to urgently reinstate a meaningful ceasefire that ends all military operations, stops the rockets aimed at Israel and lifts the blockade of Gaza. This is in the best interests of Israel, the Palestinian people and the United States."

Sounds like a harmless statement to me. It certainly isn't questioning, for example, Israel's right to exist or defend itself.

But given that other prominent members of the Jewish community have attacked J Street's position, there isn't much hope for the peace movement.

I still hold out a knowingly-naive hope that Barack Obama represents the kind of change necessary to help effect a lasting peace in Israel and Palestine.

But as of now, I am disappointed.

If I were the president-elect, when children and other innocent civilians are dying, I wouldn't care if the victims are Israeli or Palestinian. I wouldn't care who started it or whose attacks are retaliatory. And I wouldn't care if the inauguration were still two weeks away.

I would want the killing to stop.

But sadly, in 2009, after eight years of witnessing the epic fail that is the Bush Doctrine, those of us Americans pushing for peace are still being marginalized.

--Junichi

THE O OFFICE

Thank you for being instrumental to my election, sir.

The current tenant occupying 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, #43, is now giving the future tenant, #44, a tour of the government-subsidized housing project.

That welcome must be incredibly awkward in light of these mirror image approval ratings:

I can only process what this meeting will be like if I imagine Billy Bob Thorton giving a tour of Angelina Jolie's house to Brad Pitt while Thorton acts like his mentally challenged character in Sling Blade.

Apparently, the two are to meet alone. I can't imagine what they will discuss.

Obama will want to talk about whether US intelligence confirms that Russian President Dmitry Medvedev chose to recognize Abkhazia and South Ossetia as independent states in order to mask the incursions Prime Minister Vladimir Putin secretly has planned for Georgia.

Bush will want to show Obama which button on the remote control for the ceiling fan makes the paddles spin the other way.

*

Choice commentary from a TPM reader: "I can't believe Obama is already sitting down with an unpopular, aggressive world leader without preconditions."

--Junichi

COLIN POWELL MUST BE ON THE VERGE OF ENDORSING OBAMA CUZ HE'S ACTING KINDA BLACK

I realize that calling out Fox News for being ludicrous is as pointless as trying to diagram a Sarah Palin sentence.

But I challenge anyone to find a more asburd Fox News headline and tagline than this one:

Hip-Hop-Dancing Colin Powell Fuels Speculation He'll Endorse Obama: Colin Powell showed off his hip-hop moves at an 'Africa Rising' celebration in London Tuesday, fueling speculation that the former secretary of state is about to endorse Barack Obama for president.

(I put a screen capture of the article at the top of this post, in case you don't want to actually visit the Fox News site.)

What did Colin Powell need to do to fuel speculation that he is about to endorse John McCain? Do the Viennese Waltz at the Hazzard County Convalescent Home's Bingo Night?

Plus, if busting out some sick tongue-wagging, ass-grabbing, b-boy dance move is the equivalent of endorsing Obama, then I think John McCain just endorsed Barack Obama at tonight's debate ...

--Junichi

BAILOUTS AND BAILING OUT

Somebody just read the latest polls

The last 48 hours have been some of the most fascinating of any news cycle. Let's review.

McCain has allegedly "suspended" his campaign to work on the bailout, even though the fundamentals of our economy is strong and even though Republicans and Democrats already have reached a compromise.

McCain also wants to postpone Friday's debate in order to devote time in the Senate chamber toward staging a photo opportunity building a bipartisan consensus. This is surprising, since he has been absent for more votes in the Senate than any other current senator.

His potential pullout from the debate is all the more suspicious when considering that he wants to reschedule it for the date of the Vice Presidential debate, which would be indefinitely bumped.

Meanwhile, Palin, who apparently didn't get the message that McCain suspended the campaign, went trolling for votes at Ground Zero today and was actually allowed by the non-sexists at the McCain campaign to take four questions from the press. Four! Wow!

One can understand why the GOP is nervous about her talking to any reporter outside of Fox News, given last night's train wreck of an interview with Katie Couric:

One conclusion you can reach from the interview: Katie Couric is not a witch. Because Palin was recently protected from witchcraft at her hometown church.

Her interview, however, wasn't half as bad as McCain's non-interview with David Letterman, who might have single-handedly tilted public opinion about McCain's campaign suspension and debate bailout:

McCain may not be happy with Letterman, but he's probably even less thrilled with his campaign manager, Rick Davis, who -- Newsweek just uncovered -- is still an officer with the lobbying firm that represents Freddie Mac. I see no conflicts there in the same way that I do not see my widening posterior when I look in the mirror.

As for Obama? He's finally up in the polls, which is a miracle given how many Democrats have negative views about black people.

As if that race survey was not depressing enough, somebody at George Fox University wanted to really hammer home the point that this election really might come down to whether America is ready for a black president. That's why he or she decided to hang a life-size depiction of Obama in effigy from a tree.

Just in case you were starting to get optimistic that the bailout and Clay Aiken's refreshing honesty might cure our economic woes, the Congressional Budget Office director just said the proposed bailout might worsen the current financial crisis.

Good times!

--Junichi

FLIP-FLOPPING ON HUMAN RIGHTS

A tortured POW tortures POWs

I oppose the use of torture. I have no idea why any politician would be hesitant to say the same.

Supporting the troops should include respecting and complying with the Geneva Convention, especially to maximize the chances that our soldiers -- if captured by enemy forces -- are treated in a manner that is neither degrading nor cruel.

Similarly, maintaining a strong national defense should include minimizing unnecessary efforts that isolate, offend, or provoke others in the international community -- efforts like, say, waterboarding captives who have yet to even be accused of any crime.

I supported John McCain on this issue until John McCain stopped supporting John McCain on this issue. I lost all respect for him when he changed his mind in 2005 on this vital issue and caved into the sadistic, inhuman forces of the Republican party.

To wit, a valuable timeline courtesy of David Swanson:

1788 - United States ratifies Constitution, ordaining that all treaties made under the authority of the United States shall be the supreme law of the land.

1791 - United States ratifies the Bill of Rights, banning cruel and unusual punishment.

1948 - United States ratifies the Universal Declaration of Human Rights banning torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

1949 - United States ratifies Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, banning violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture, as well as outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment.

1968 - John McCain is tortured.

1992 - United States ratifies the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), banning torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

1994 - United States ratifies the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT), requiring that the United States work to prevent all forms of torture.

2002 - On February 7, President George W. Bush signs a directive purporting to authorize torture.

2005 - John McCain champions the McCain Detainee Amendment to the Defense Appropriations bill for 2005, which passes the Congress and is signed into law by Bush, adding one more redundant ban on torture to existing U.S. law, despite Vice President Cheney having lobbied hard against it. But McCain allows a major loophole for the CIA and then keeps quiet when Bush throws out the whole thing with a "signing statement." Bush and Cheney's administration continues to torture.

2006 - Time Magazine recognizes McCain's efforts to supposedly ban torture in naming him one of America's 10 Best Senators. Time makes no mention of the fact that torture had always been illegal, the fact that Bush had thrown out the new law with a "signing statement," or the fact that the United States was continuing to torture people on a large scale.

2006 - McCain votes in favor of the Military Commissions Act which supposedly leaves torture decisions up to the president.

2008 - In February, McCain votes against a bill that would supposedly ban torture, and then applauds Bush for vetoing the bill.

2008 - McCain runs for president, and almost nobody mentions his positions on torture, not even his fiercest critics. ... And yet McCain and his campaign rarely open their mouths without taking us back to 1968 when McCain was tortured. McCain critics even make lists and videos of his "flip-flops" and never mention the most frightening reversal of position imaginable.

One of the many reasons I support Senator Obama is because he has consistently opposed the use of torture.

I do wish, however, that his camp would use this as a talking point in its efforts to demonstrate why Senator McCain is not fit to be commander in chief.

Isn't it time that the compassionate, law-abiding wing of the political spectrum start calling out McCain on his moral failure and flip-flopitude?

--Junichi

McCAIN IS NEVER GOING TO TELL A LIE

If you haven't seen the video clip of John McCain insanely suggesting that Bristol Palin is more qualified than Barack Obama to be president because she "has executive experience in the form of overseeing the production of a human being," click here.

--Junichi

POLL: WHO IS LEAST LIKELY TO BE CHOSEN AS OBAMA'S VP?

--Junichi

OBAMA'S PROBLEM WITH WHITE SUBURBAN WOMEN

Do not ignore the lady in red

According to the most recent NBC/WSJ poll, Obama has a six-point advantage over McCain.

But for me, the most interesting aspect of the survey is that McCain has a six-point advantage over Obama among white suburban women (44 to 38), who constitute 10% of the national electorate.

The same poll concludes that Obama's lead would expand to a nine-point lead if he added Clinton as his running mate, despite evidence of many voters' strong negative association with her.

Given these numbers, how can anybody argue that Clinton would be a net loss? And in response to some of the comments left on this post, how can anybody argue that the selection of a VP doesn't matter? A 3 percentage point swing would have altered the results in 1992, 2000, and 2004, just to name a few.

(Thanks to my $50,000 question on Millionaire, I'm suddenly an expert on election results.)

I have no idea why any Clinton-supporting white suburban woman would vote for McCain over Obama, except for reasons related to prejudice, ignorance of issues, or irrational bitterness. (Is McCain's clear anti-choice record not common knowledge?)

But these numbers reflect a reality that Obama needs to figure out a way to reach out to white suburban women.

And therefore, despite my own personal objections with Senator Clinton, I remain convinced that Obama should consider her for the VP slot.

*

I suppose one other way that Obama could overcome his problem with white suburban women is to simply hope that this excerpt from the book The Real McCain by Cliff Schecter gets more mainstream coverage:

In his 1992 Senate bid, McCain was joined on the campaign trail by his wife, Cindy, as well as campaign aide Doug Cole and consultant Wes Gullett. At one point, Cindy playfully twirled McCain's hair and said, 'You're getting a little thin up there.' McCain's face reddened, and he responded, 'At least I don't plaster on the makeup like a trollop, you cunt.'

Like, for example, in this video below. (NSFW!)

--Junichi

SO WHY NOT?

Hottie or Nottie?

As the post immediately below this one makes clear, I am not a fan of Senator Clinton.

She is a self-absorbed, dishonorable, egomaniacal, shifty, and unscrupulous beltway politician who doesn't have the moral fortitude to apologize for authorizing an unnecessary and unlawful war that has resulted in the evisceration of several hundred thousand lives.

And the nerve of some of her supporters to suggest that she has somehow "earned" the VP slot. Who has the audacity to insult a person as an inexperienced, corrupt, sexist, "secret Muslim" who might be assassinated and is the beneficiary of "reverse racism" - and then suggest that he somehow owes them anything? Like candidate, like supporters.

But all of the above is a long disclaimer to precede my current belief that Senator Clinton might be Senator Obama's best pick for Vice President.

At the very least, I believe she should be seriously considered.

Don't get me wrong. I, personally, would prefer a grip of other viable candidates over Clinton. Al Gore, for starters. (I really do think he could be persuaded.) Claire McCaskill. Russ Feingold. John Edwards. Joe Biden. General Wesley Clark. Jim Webb. Kathleen Sebelius. Jon Stewart. Even Republican Chuck Hagel would be attractive in the veep slot.

But Obama's goal should be to pick the person who will most effectively help him capture the White House. And Clinton may very well be that person who gives Obama the greatest net increase.

Sadly, I think there are currently at least a million voters who voted for Hillary Clinton in the primaries and will (a) vote for McCain, (b) vote for the Libertarian Party candidate, or (c) not vote in November -- before they vote for Obama.

Primary exit polls seemed to indicate that at least 10% of Clinton supporters fell into that camp. Let's say that half of those people change their minds once Clinton endorses him. If the remaining 5% of the 18 million voted for Clinton won't vote for Obama unless he chooses Clinton, that's 900,000 votes.

Are those 900,000 people ill-informed, unprincipled, or racist? No doubt. Given the similarities in their platform, a Clinton supporter who will vote for McCain over Obama is likely to be a naive ignoramus who is voting on the basis of trivial matters like flag pins or the middle name Hussein.

But you can't dismiss their numbers.

Plus, the polls strongly suggest that Clinton appeals strongly to groups like blue-collar workers and the elderly for whom Obama is apparently not an obvious choice.

If a million people transfer their vote to Obama because Clinton is his VP candidate, those voters may very well decide the fate of the election.

You might argue that this million will be canceled out by the millions more who find the idea of a black man/white woman ticket too much. But those bigots are not going to vote for a Democratic candidate anyway.

As for those of us who take issue with Clinton, we will undoubtedly recognize that she, if offered the veep slot, should not stop us from working to put Obama in the White House.

*

Although my wife (also an Obama supporter) hates this opinion of mine, I am nonetheless choosing to voice it because I seem to be in a very small minority of Obama supporters.

*

I'm not sure this debate is even necessary, however, as Clinton probably won't accept. Among other reasons, her husband will never release his list of donors and business dealings, which Obama would certainly require.

--Junichi

A PRINCPLED STAND?

sitting out of the general election?

All Things Considered had an interview today with Mark McKinnon - John McCain's campaign manager - and he told Michele Norris that if Obama becomes the Dem nominee, McKinnon will not manage McCain in the general election. When Norris pressed him to explain why, he said:

"I would be uncomfortable being in a campaign that, inevitably, would be attacking Obama...it would be uncomfortable for me and I think it would be bad for the McCain campaign."

Naive as it may be, I read this is a principled stand on first glance...that McKinnon doesn't want to play a role in tearing down Obama as, presumably, is bound to happen if he and McCain are the two candidates.

I was talking about this with my wife and she had a different take. Given that McKinnon was part of Bush's team in 2000 - when they took down McCain in South Carolina on some incredibly shady, racial smear tactics - and she thinks McKinnon would excuse himself as a way to avoid drawing undue attention to his possible role in that campaign.

Thoughts?

--O.W.

BARACK OBAMA T-SHIRT

Probably not an official Obama shirt

After seeing somebody in San Diego sporting the above T-shirt, I actually understood -- for the first time -- why some women have voted for Hillary Clinton even though they prefer Barack Obama on the issues.

Clearly, the Republican Party doesn't have a monopoly on jackasses.

*

That stupid shirt inspired me to design my own Barack Obama for President shirt:

Since the official Obama 2008 t-shirts are dull, I decided to make one of my own.

If you'd like an Obamania shirt, too, you can catch the fever here.

--Junichi

QUESTION OF THE WEEK #127

Who supports this sign more: Republicans or other Democrats?

This Week's Question:

You are a Democrat in Iowa. Your #1 goal is to get a Democrat elected to the White House.

Your favorite candidate is Hillary Clinton, who maintains the lead for the Democratic nomination in Iowa and nationwide.

However, current polls suggest that Clinton would lose in the general election against at least five GOP candidates -- Giuliani, Romney, McCain, Huckabee, and Fred Thompson. The same poll indicates that Obama and Edwards would do better than Clinton among independent and young voters.

For the upcoming primary election, do you vote for Hillary Clinton?

--Junichi

OPRAH'S BOOK PRESIDENT CLUB

O [Heart] O

If I know anything, it's that whatever Oprah Winfrey touches turn to gold. And Oprah just endorsed Obama.

Using my powers of deductive reasoning, I can therefore conclude that Barack Obama will be elected our next president.

The only way this conclusion will not come true is if:

1. Oprah decides to run herself;
   


2. Voters have been lying about being willing to elect an African American president; or
   


3. Oprah's followers discover that this photo is real.
   

--Junichi

REASON #492 WHY I WILL NEVER SUPPORT HILLARY

Hillary speaks at a shadow hand puppet convention

When Senator Clinton was recently asked whether she thinks homosexuality is immoral, she deflected the question by answering, "Well I'm going to leave that to others to conclude."

Shame. And lame.

Does the spineless senator really think that she's going to get any votes from people who consider all gays and lesbians to be sinners?

I hate the sexist jokes about Hillary having male genitals. But quite frankly, I wish she'd grow a pair, metaphorically speaking.

* * *

Update: Apparently, Barack Obama isn't much a person of principle either.

Will somebody please point me to an electable Democratic nominee for president who is not afraid to stand up for what she believes?

--Junichi