Ava: And our first question was, "What are you talking about?" C.I. and I left the roundtable before that moment, as is noted in the roundtable, to start working on "TV: The return of I Dream of Jeannie" and we didn't take notes during that portion of the roundtable nor did we type up the roundtable or any part of it. We were in Puerto Rico and just trying to get done with the edition so we could get out the door. Get out the door that morning for scheduled events, with no sleep, and doing that because we, C.I. and myself, were told that we'd work straight through Saturday night and Sunday morning and be done. Now normally, C.I. and I would check out the features on Sunday evening. But instead, we finish up Sunday night in Puerto Rico and C.I.'s hoping to post somethings to The Common Ills but Jim calls and informs us nothing went up and, oh, could we participate in the writing of three more pieces? So, to be clear, I was sick of it and had no interesting in reading a damn thing that went up. C.I.?
C.I.: So Jim's on the phone last Monday explaining it to us quickly, the choices selected, and he's told us we need three choices to add to the list -- one for Jim, one for Ava and one for myself. Ava insists on four and Jim says "fine." He lists the people named during the roundtable and my big concern was Jack Nicholson. He's a great artist and I consider him a good friend. So that was my question when Jim was done: "No one named Jack?" Tossing to Jim?
Jim: The list was never supposed to be "These are the only stars" when it ran on Sunday -- only ones who debuted between 1960 and 1979. These were the names that came to mind. As C.I. noted, Ava wanted us to choose four. And we had trouble narrowing it down to four. Diana Ross was offered by C.I. with the caveat that Betty might not have included her for a reason. Betty?
Betty: I love Diana. I did, before I spoke in the roundtable, think about it. She's got three films in that time period. Two were successes, Lady Sings The Blues and Mahogany and she was nominated for an Oscar for the first one. She also has The Wiz which I do love. My thinking was, she's got two films that were successes. She's made three films total. The rest were TV films. We were talking about movies, so I left her off but did advocate for Richard Pryor. But I was torn on Diana.
C.I.: I'm jumping in because I like Diana personally and artistically and since Betty and I already feel she didn't get her just recognition here at the start of 2007, I'm shutting this part off to just Betty and myself. Everything that Betty's said is true. But to add to that, there were films she should have done and wanted to do but her agent worked to undercut her and sell a client that would bring in a larger commission repeatedly. That's not Diana's excuse, that's my assertion. Most people know, for instance, that The Main Event was written with Diana in mind and was supposed to be her film. That's only one example of how the agent was offered jobs for Diana and, instead of making a point to sign Diana, would talk them out of using Diana and instead go with another client of the agent's. My concern when Diana wasn't on the list was that Betty might have thought, "I just don't want to go through this again." Betty and I strongly disagreed with a feature that appeared here in early 2007 and, largely forgotten, we were told that a later feature would be done. That feature was never done. Betty?
Betty: That did play into it. Normally, I wouldn't have counted the math. I mean, if Diana had made Lady Sings The Blues and then died, it wouldn't be an issue about the length of her career. It would be, yes, she was a star. So I'm with C.I. on this, I would put Diana Ross on the list we had last week.
C.I.: Do you want to say anything else, Betty?
Betty: No, I think we covered it.
C.I.: Okay, tossing to Ava.
Ava: So we could have easily have come up with ten, Jim, C.I. and I. And one name that none of us mentioned, that does meet the criteria, is Faye Dunaway. So, repeating Jim's point, there are many others that could be on the list. We, the three of us, debated Robert Redford but we couldn't figure out why he hadn't been put on the list already? Jim said he's mentioned in the discussion but no one brought him up. We didn't know if that was due to Wally maybe not wanting to hear Redford's name -- Wally is repeatedly told he looks like "a young Robert Redford" by older women. We had no idea why some people made the list and others didn't. Beyond subjectivity in composing such a list because there are many names that we would all agree on that didn't make the list. We weren't there for the discussion, we didn't know. All three of us agreed on Jack. There's no way you can't note Al Pacino who had box office, charisma and the talent -- "had" not implying he doesn't now, but the list was for the years 1960 to 1979, so I'm using "had." John Travolta, of course, makes his name at the end of that with Saturday Night Fever and Grease. C.I. pointed out we hadn't even named a woman -- we did this in about three minutes -- and we all three quickly said -- at the same time practically -- Diane Keaton. We stand by our choices but we would have also liked to have included Diana Ross and Robert Redford during that brief discussion. There are many who could have been included.
Jim: Okay, the feature came close to receiving more e-mail than Ava and C.I.'s TV commentary which is rather amazing. That started immeidately and the note added on Monday didn't cut it down. Ty has a few e-mails he wanted to note.
Ty: Lorna is very bothered that Natalie Wood was disqualified by some. Carl thinks that Meryl Streep should have been included. AEL says we overlooked ___.
Jim: I'll toss Natalie to Ava because Natalie Wood was a question C.I. and Ava had -- and note that she actually is included on the list in the roundtable because Braunwyn who brought up the question selected her -- and I'll let C.I. grab Streep and ___.
Ava: Jim told us the reader who had suggested the question had picked Natalie Wood and C.I. murmured agreement before Jim added that there were questions that she qualified. I don't see it as a question. Her films as a child actress? There were a ton of child actresses. Other than Elizabeth Taylor and Natalie Wood, you didn't hear of most of them again. As a juvenile lead in films like Rebel Without a Cause, I don't think you can call that "adulthood." So we agree with Braunwyn. Not to include Wood would penalize her for her earlier work and the question wasn't about child actors. If the list had dropped by a bit more, Elizabeth Taylor could have been included. But work like Cat On A Hot Tin Roof and A Place In The Sun or Giant or any other films where she is an adult playing an adult come before the deadline. We think Natalie Wood should be on the list. C.I.?
C.I.: On ____, pull her name. Those who know what counter-insurgency is are given no passes for supporting Barack. Counter-insurgency is bad during Vietnam but okay in Iraq? We don't buy it and she's made herself ridiculous. Gone are the days when I'd run interference for her. She's on her own. In terms of Meryl Streep, she's a supporting actress in the time period Braunwyn outlined. Meryl becomes a lead actress after that period. In terms of that early period, after she becomes a lead actress, I see technical brilliance but no star power. I think she has it today and I credit her comedy work that is usually slammed by many. The she devil movie is a piece of trash, trainwreck that's unwatchable. Lay the blame for that with the director who not only betrayed the source material, but also betrayed the actresses and the audiences. She's of the Todd Browning school who thinks the more disgusting she makes something the more 'artistic' it is, I'm referring to the director. But even with that bad director, Meryl accomplished something. It was the first time, my opinion, she went beyond technical brilliance and really inhabited a lead character. The comedies that followed, Postcards and Defending Your Life, only found her being more amazing. By the time she completes those three films, she's untouchable and whether she's doing drama or comedy today, she's incredible. Those are my opinions, only. I think comedy allowed her to explore other aspects and that she found spaces in those characterizations that enhanced all of her work later on. She's the rare example of a "name" who continues to explore and improve her craft.
Jim: Ty, any others named?
Ty: Cealia wants to object to Rebecca's exclusion of Paul Newman from the list.
Rebecca: Paul Newman's not a star. Sorry. He was popular as a photo with women. He's made very few films that stand up and when he does make one that stands up, he's usually the Rob Lowe in the cast, the weakest actor on stage.
C.I.: If I could jump in, Newman, without Redford, has some films that might have been able to be classics or audience pleasers. His own desire to play "macho" and escape from his wealthy Republican roots led him to use the "f" word in those roles. So a film like Slap Stick isn't going to last and will be slammed for decades to come. The same with Harper which could otherwise be a small classic. Audiences in the near future will be asking, "Why was Paul Newman always attacking gay men on screen?" It's worse than the Clint Eastwood Dirty Harry pictures. And there's no directing of a Midnight In The Garden of Evil that's going to allow for a reconsideration on the use of homophobia in earlier films. Paul's always felt happy to use the "f" word onscreen or otherwise infer that other male characters were gay. It won't be pretty when he dies. He also has a problem like ____, both think they can play working class and neither can because it comes off as slumming. Overall, she's made better choices than he has. Newman's Tab Hunter with a brain and a liberal press fan base. Without having had that, he wouldn't have had a career. The box office certainly didn't warrant a career. Someone like Redford, who is very attractive, has a charisma onscreen. With Newman, he has looks but the charisma is rather thin. So are the classics in a film career that's lasted over fifty years. In those that are classics, it will be for a reason other than Newman. Such as Elizbeth's brilliant performance as Maggie in Cat On A Hot Tin Roof or Shirley MacLaine in What A Way To Go or Melanie Griffith and others in Nobody's Fool. And, of course, Redford in their two films.
Ava: He's a juvenile lead that never grew up. About a year ago, C.I. and were at a friend's home and they were showing Natalie Wood and Robert Wagner's TV movie version of Cat On A Hot Tin Roof. You need to watch Wagner play Brick to realize how little acting Newman gives in the film. His filmography is nothing but a man in a sexual panic trying to prove how 'tough' he is by verbally and physcially abusing women and hurling homophobic statements. He's a pin-up whose liberal press fan base kept going even as the bombs piled up. And Ty had a question about a thing C.I. wrote Friday that I'm going to grab. The one e-mailing was offended that C.I. stated -- stated the truth -- that John Cusak's not a star. He's not a star. A woman with the same box office results would have been sent packing in 1991 if not sooner. Because he's a man, he gets to continue to give the same performance spanning three decades. It is never a good performance. Cameron Crowe was able to structure it, via the script, the direction and the casting of other roles, in Say Anything to make it seem fresh even though the performance had been repeatedly displayed. By the same token Anjelica Huston and Annette Benning's strong performance in The Grifters allowed you to overlook the interior mumbles of Cusak. He can't project. He's not a star. And we were laughing so hard when we heard about the on-air fan club Amy Goodman and Jeremy Scahill staged for John Cusak -- and passed off as 'news' and 'public affairs.' C.I. and my opinion of John Cusak's limited talents are noted in a review we wrote in 2005 or 2006 when we referenced how he tanked America's Sweetheart. He can't play a convincing romantic male lead and after films like City Hall, a woman with the same record would have discovered her box office was over. John Cusak, like Paul Newman, is very lucky to include the liberal press in his fan club base. And, just to clarify that, we're talking about the liberal press. We're not talking about mainstream media. If you prefer, you can equate the liberal press with Panhandle Media because they really are the same thing.
Rebecca: Well City Hall included Bridget Fonda in the cast and certainly her chances of a leading actress in a film appear to be over. She's a woman with a similar box office -- although I believe her films made a little more money before this decade -- and it didn't matter. It never does with women. They're held to the standard while men are given a pass. And Bridget was actually able to deliver the goods in films like Scandal, the piece of fluff Doc Hollywood and Bodies Rest In Motion. I thought she was strong in Jackie Brown but felt the role, the point of it, was "idiot women." I'll assume that's why, despite the fact that she looked better onscreen than she ever had and had the chops, the roles that should have been offered throughout the nineties weren't. Men aren't evaluated the same in the entertainment industry and I learned that when I briefly did p.r. in it. A man can go years on bombs, even one bomb -- forget modest hit -- can kill a woman's leading actress career. My apologies to Braunwyn because the argument she made to me in an e-mail before she brought the question to Third basically addressed the points that Ava made a moment ago. That Natalie Wood wasn't an adult actress in adult roles really until the 1960s. I should have pointed that out last week. I'm surprised Elaine hasn't said anything.
Elaine: Oh. Okay, well Tuesday Weld is a star. It's not just box office, it's also personality. From that period Tuesday Weld would be on the list the way that Angelina Jolie would be today. It's the same kind of onscreen excitement. Steve McQueen and Tuesday Weld were two of kind. Rebecca's tossing to me because I said to her last week that I was surprised we didn't include Tuesday Weld. I would personally include Lily Tomlin. In addition, Ty was telling us about the e-mails throughout the week and C.I. and I wondered about Peter O'Toole? Peter O'Toole was a very magnetic film presence during the time period and that may be forgotten today. I don't know that it is, I'm just saying O'Toole, like Sean Connery, was an international star. One e-mail that Ty forwarded to me was from Jeannie who felt that Audrey Hepburn should have been included. Audrey won an Oscar for 1953's Roman Holiday, therefore she's before the period Braunwyn outlined. However, C.I. and I discussed her film How To Steal a Million in terms of Peter O'Toole last week. That really was the end of Hepburn's career and had nothing to do with her. What should be a charming film is unwatchable in large parts. First, they've styled sideburns -- thick ones -- on Audrey. The sideburns look thicker than her arms in some shots. It wasn't attractive and made her appear older than she was and she was too old for the part of Daddy's little girl to begin with. Then you had Daddy who couldn't project and he and Hepburn are the bulk of the first scenes. You can hear Audrey distinctly but, get the DVD, you'll notice it, you can't understand what Daddy is saying. It has nothing to do with his accent and everything to do with his failure to project. Watch the DVD and you'll note you have to pump up the volume to understand what he's saying. I really like Audrey's films, and have noted that at my site before, which is why Ty forwarded the e-mail to me. The only reason she wasn't included in the roundtable last week was due to the fact that she precedes the starting date by five years due to Roman Holiday.
Ty: Others mentioned in e-mails were Albert Finney, Vanessa Redgrave, Sarah Miles -- whom Elaine and C.I. had to explain to me, sorry, Dustin Hoffman, Mia Farrow and Gene Hackman. Other e-mails mentioned performers who came later or before the period in question. We read all the e-mails that came in. As Jim said, it was a ton of e-mails. The most cited person was Jack Nicholson and it usually included a statement of some sort about, "How could you forget Jack Nicholson?" We replied to those noting that there was an addition -- Jim, Ava and C.I.'s four -- to the roundtable that went in on Monday.
Dona: Jim's pointing to me. This also involves e-mails but not from regular readers or even people who enjoy this site. Ava and C.I.'s writing is the site's calling card. There are people who discover 2005 commentaries by Ava and C.I. to this day and write in to comment. In what appears to have been an organized effort by The Cult of Barack, 31 e-mails came in complaining about "TV: Goodman and Rose 'honoring' bad TV past" which was published March 9th. The complaint was that Ava and C.I. were not correct about Chris Dodd receiving one percent of the vote in Michigan and that the proof was in their link to CNN on the primary results. CNN changed the data after they wrote the piece. Ava and C.I. added a note on May 22nd when Ty informed them about the e-mails. First, they used the link and saw that CNN had changed the data, then they went to other publications. They provide links to and copy and paste the results from The Washington Post and The New York Times. Why CNN changed their data is a question to ask CNN and Ava and C.I. include the link to CNN's contact form in their note. Ava and C.I. are not mistaken, The Cult of Barack needs to organize a little better. They also claim that Ava and C.I. may have recognized the sexism in the campaign -- there's no maybe about that, Ava and C.I. did recognize it and call it out loudly -- but if it was 'so important' others would have taken it up and no one did. That's a flat out lie and we don't have time to provide all examples but along with features that we all worked at on this site, everyone noted the sexism -- even in humor posts -- at their own sites. One example I will provide, with link, is Kat's January 8th post entitled "Sexism parades through America, who notices?"
Kat: Thank you for providing that link and the date because I was sitting here thinking, "Well Mike's called it out and Ruth, Rebecca, Marcia, Betty, Elaine, Wally and Cedric . . ." I could remember them doing it but I was thinking, "Wait, did I not call it out?" I mean, it's been going on for so long, and it is the defining characteristic of this campaign, that I had no idea when I called it out.
Dona: To be clear, you may have called it out before that but I went with that one because for those who won't use the link to read, the title makes it clear.
Kat: I may have, I may not have, I honestly don't know. I don't read my site. I know this was something we were talking about, Ava, C.I. and myself, as we were on the road speaking about Iraq. But if I was writing about it in January, we were all covering it. Really, I'm the laziest of all of us and if I'm writing about it, you can be sure everyone else is as well at their sites.
Jim: We can go to Hillary or we can move to another e-mail? I'm thinking the latter because Elaine and C.I. gasped when Ty read one e-mail.
C.I.: Leave the names out of it.
Ty: Okay, Jonah, a community member, notes that C.I. has always said that there are people C.I. doesn't care for and they get highlighted. Jonah thought he figured out three such names and named them. When I read that, Elaine and C.I. gasped and laughed. It was at the last name, in case they're not able to write Jonah back this weekend.
C.I.: The last name is -- or was -- a government snitch. During Vietnam. He played 'left' then as well. We didn't care for him. He had a crush on Elaine back then, she always shot him down. Following the revelations of Watergate, many on the left, especially feminists -- and especially feminists after Ms. published the cover story on how the government had spied on the feminist movement -- began using the Freedom of Information Act to get the government documents on themselves. Elaine and I were two who did. I'm tossing to Elaine.
Elaine: So I'm reading over my file -- redactions and all -- and I come to a passage . . . I'm stopping because regular readers know this but for those late to the party, during Vietnam, C.I. and I went all over the country speaking out for war resisters. That was in college and after. So any thing in my file would most likely be reported in C.I.'s file. So I come across this thing about us being a city, right before Winter Soldier, when name redacted visits our hotel room and finds us plotting 'subversive' activities including getting the word out on Winter Soldier and also meets C.I. quote "colored lover." Now that stood out for a number of reasons including the offensive term, but chiefly because when we had a hotel room, we didn't bring lovers back to them. We drove around the country and usually grabbed a hotel or motel at the end of the day. We always shared a room and if we picked up a man, we went elsewhere. We didn't disrespect the other by saying, "Get lost or listen in!" So I called C.I. who also had received the files or response but hadn't opened them yet. C.I.'s asking me for the date to flip through quickly. And when I give it, C.I. says, "That was ____." That was an African-American war resister that we were in the process of helping to Canada and, no, he wasn't C.I.'s lover. C.I. immediately identifies redacted but says "Hold on" and starts cross-referencing with the journals C.I. kept to back up that this was who redacted was. The piece of filth that was always flirting with me. We remembered the visit quite well because we were at a hotel, a high priced one. When we were helping war resisters to Canada, we usually stayed at a high priced one if we had to stop -- assuming people would be more likely to mind their own business if you were tipped big. No one at the front desk called to announce a visitor so we were shocked when there's a knock at the door and it turns out to be ____. We warned the war resister that the guy was a creep -- we didn't know how much so at the time -- and not to say anything about Canada or anything else. Redacted is let in and states he had been eating at the hotel and thought he saw us checking in -- whatever. He wanted to go out to drinks with me and I refused. He kept asking who the man was, and we were, C.I., myself and the war resister, all vague. He got more insistant and around the time he started asking, "What are you? The new boyfriend?" I told him he needed to leave. Which he refused to do until the war resister stood up and started approaching him. I have no idea whether this 'lefty' used "colored" to the field agent or the field agent added that in. But the war resister who wasn't a radical was said, in the report, to be a "probably Black Panther." Then it followed that redacted had suggested that our -- C.I. and mine -- "subversions" might now include group sex.
C.I.: And to be clear, he's not the only one, "redacted," who was posing as a lefty and really just a snitch. Other than being part of the war resisters underground railroad, Elaine and I weren't doing anything that could be considered breaking the law. We didn't even smoke pot socially with new comers, due to concerns because it was obvious that spying was going on. But there were a number of 'left' and left who were government snitches. He was one of them. We have no respect for him at all.
Elaine: And utilizing C.I.'s memory and the journals, we were able to identify pretty much every snitch that snitched. Our coded talk has been noted here before and at Rebecca's site, how C.I. and I developed a code back then that we still utilize which allows us to talk about anything in public and no one having any idea what we're talking about. The other thing I'll note from our files is that the word "boring" was used repeatedly to describe our conversations in public. If they had known the code, they would have had a lot of information on the peace movement and war resisters. It was and is the best code.
Jim: I will agree with that and also note, because I've read a huge number of C.I.'s journals, over sixty volumes, that it's used there as well and you can think, "Well that's pretty boring." If you know the code, it's a page turner.
C.I.: The peace movement and the feminist movement were spied on by the government. Most felt it at the time, some instinctively knew it and it was confirmed following Watergate, the Church Committee, etc. The spying was very real. I believe it is going on today. I wouldn't be at all surprised if yesterday's snitch was also today's. I'll be kind and note that a drug bust or something else may have resulted in redacted cutting a deal with the government where imprisonment would be avoided for being a snitch. Even so, it's not something that I forgive or forget. Jonah saw something instinctively because the third name is a name I avoid at The Common Ills. Elaine has mentioned redacted at her site only once in three years and she didn't go into what we've said, just mentioned him in passing due to the day's news. So Jonah is very astute.
Elaine: And the information in the files, in our files at least, was not just filled with typos, it was full of factual inaccuracies. We traveled in one car for the longest until it died on us. At which point, we bought a new one the same day. They were both the same color. But it's hilarious to read all the makes, models and colors of cars we were driving around the country in. I also found it interesting that when I had dental surgery, my file says I was having an abortion. I mention that mainly to go on record because there are already books using government spying on people who have passed away, using it as source material. They need to grasp that those are not necessarily factually correct and there was a practice of inflating anything they could.
Jim: A good point because they could just be accepted as 'government documents' and made part of the 'official record' without any verification. Okay, we're going to move to Oregon and Kentucky. Tuesday, Hillary won Kentucky and Barack won Oregon. Somehow that translated to the press as Barack is the nominee. Was anyone surprised by how quickly the press moved into that?
Cedric: I was. Because Hillary's victory in Kentucky was over 35% and, following a similar blow out in West Virginia, this should have registered. It didn't appear to. I don't know why I was surprised -- the press certainly hasn't played fair -- but I did expect it would garner significant attention. And it didn't.
Ruth: It really did not. There is a desire, on the part of the press, to make Barack the nominee. There was a Bloomberg News article on Saturday where the woman opens with there is no way for Senator Hillary Clinton to win the nomination. That is how the press has played it.
Betty: When no one's going to win the nomination. Neither Hillary or Barack will win under the traditional system the press keeps presenting of delegates awarded. Neither's going to reach that magic number. They, the press, don't seem to understand or willing to recognize, that this means it goes to the convention. That's what the rules and bylaws say. I wasn't surprised that the signs in Hillary Kentucky victory didn't receive large press attention, I figured it would be ignored as a lead story but I was surprised by how little attention it received even as a sidestory and, by the end of last week, they were calling the race over. Oh, okay, let's give it to the weakest candidate just because he and the press say so. Let's ignore who the people are voting for, Hillary leads the popular vote, and ignore all of his weaknesses just because he wants it and the press wants it for him.
Wally: They really do think they can do that, steam roll over the people. My grandfather says the whole thing's starting to feel exactly like Florida 2000 to him. I'm from Florida. Obviously, I wasn't old enough to vote in 2000 but I remember my grandfather, my mother and I staying up all night as it flipped and flipped again. And I remember the disgust with people like Joe Lieberman and Donna Brazile who refused to fight for Florida. Right or wrong, her decision to create new rules for Florida this go round are seen as her bitterness at Florida. Donna, you were a failure before 2000, Florida didn't make you one. Get over it.
Marcia: Donna Brazile needs to be stripped of her super delegate status. The second you do an e-mail with "Message to the Base: Stay home," you don't need to be a super delegate or sitting on the DNC. There is no oversight in the Democratic Party. Had a Republican sent out that same message, I would assume he or she would be forced to publicly apologize and even still might find himself stripped of his role.
Jim: How ineffective is Howard Dean? I should note my question was greeted with loud laughter.
Mike: Howard Dean, the failed nominee famous for his fundraising appears to care only about fundraising and not winning. He seems to think, "Hey, it made me famous!" Yeah, but it didn't get you into the White House, Howard. And it won't get Barack in either.
Betty: I would say that Dean has conveyed that the Democratic Party is for sale. It's not about beliefs, it's not about anything but money. And if the DNC ever needed a fighter, it is right now. Barack's the nominee, the base has been screwed. Barack's the nominee, the GOP takes the White House. Kentucky and West Virginia especially demonstrate that Barack can't win. Hillary winning Indiana demonstrates that the race isn't over. But they ignored that as well, didn't they? It's hilarious to read the same journalists arguing the popular vote mattered now setting it aside because Hillary wins the popular vote. They set it aside about the same time the Barack campaign stopped insisting on it.
Jim: Does anyone think the DNC cares about winning at this point?
Rebecca: I think they care about the money, like Mike said. I think they're fooling themselves that (a) Barack hasn't peeked and (b) that he's electable. I think greed is one reason for that. I can think of a blogger who I won't name, I don't want to embarrass him or make it uncomfortable for him, but he stated the Toilet Scrubbers online didn't want to win in 2004. He stated that before Kerry lost. He had a very good view of what they were up to and it wasn't about democracy or the Democratic Party. It was about control. I think his argument is only more solid today. This is an attempted take over of the Democratic Party by a lot of Republicans, a lot of Socialist, a lot of Communists and who knows what else. It's not led by Democrats and I think you'll see Democrats leave the party if the takeover is successful. It's one thing to show party loyalty with a bad nominee, it's another to show party loyalty when your party is taken over. Where they would go, I don't know. The Green Party is a complete mess on the national level. They utilize far too many spokespeople who are not Greens. The leadership appears to be willing to set itself up as nothing but a DNC surrogate.
Jim: You're saying not just that they just will not vote for Barack but also that they will leave the Democratic Party?
Rebecca: That's exactly what I'm saying.
C.I.: I think Jim should pursue this topic with Rebecca. Rebecca's field was public relations, she was highly effective in that field and that's measurable by the campaigns she ran and by the fact that she was able to retire early because she did so well in the field financially.
Jim: Okay. Let's talk public relations. First of all, if he were to be the nominee, how does Barack bring in the voters he can't currently?
Rebecca: He can't. If he's the nominee and the goal is winning, making Hillary the running mate would stop some of the bleeding. But Hillary or any v.p. choice can only do so much. He can't, from the top of the ticket, send a message that goes against every message he and his campaign has sent.
Jim: Let me toss out that the Los Angeles Times had a poll Friday that said Barack could beat John McCain among Hispanics.
Ava: C.I. and I are laughing. First off, you're talking about LAT which has a real problem with numbers as evidenced by the fact that they doubled Hillary's debt in an article last week. Second of all, LAT doesn't know how to poll Latinos and never has. Only someone not familiar with or part of the Latino community --
Jim: And you're Latina.
Ava: And I'm Latina. Only someone not familiar with or a part of it would think that a daily paper could poll the community. Even a Spanish language newspaper would have difficulty polling although they would have a stronger grasp of the majority of the community. I'm coming in specifically for that point and then I'll let Rebecca speak. But Barack is weak to the Latino community, on top of his other problems. We don't see him as a leader. That won't change.
Rebecca: Well that has been his problem with voters, his weakness. Wally and Cedric were noting that in the summer of 2007 and noting how John Edwards only looked all the more weaker because he refused to challenge someone so weak. I would say that's a problem for him across the base because there's no way to fix that and any attempts to will backfire a la Dukakis in a tank. Mike noted Thursday about how people were starting to notice -- commentators -- about Barack's disconnect from the bulk of working class voters and Mike paired that up with C.I. pointing that out in January. This is nothing new. People ignored it while there was a wave of Barack mania going on. The wave's gone. The crush is over. Along with weakness, there's the airy quality of his 'proposals' and that's difficult to fix as well because if he goes into policy mode everyone will assume it's fake, that he was tutured by his advisers and the whole problem is that he constructed his own trap -- with the help of the media. I believe Ava and C.I. have long noted that. His image is "Vote for me, I was right." He wasn't right about Iraq because being right about it requires taking action. Not just giving a speech that you're pulled on stage for at the last minute in 2002 and then doing nothing. But that's his image "I was right." Well know it alls grate on people. If he's the nominee, look for his gaffes to be heavily reported by the press because the narrative he and his campaign created was superior judgement. The press loves nothing more than popping a hole in a balloon. There seems to be a mistaken belief that because of his easy ride and press love thus far, he'll get a better deal than Hillary would. I know Bob Somerby has argued that. That's not reality. Reality is press access is largely denied by the campaign and, should he become the nominee, that will only be more true. As a result back biting and sniping will be expressed by members of the press to each other and it will make it's way into the press. Due to the trap he's created, a gaffe by him reported in the press will quickly become late night fodder. The press, always eager to sit at the popular table in the lunch room, will then feed into that repeatedly. His past, his unexplored past, leaves him ripe to exposures on topics such as Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn. Among others. He is a nightmare. You don't want him at the top of the ticket. You're letting it ride on a long shot who's already been weakened by exhaustion -- and this isn't the general election, if he can't handle the primaries, how's he going to hold up to the general election which will have even more people paying attention? -- and by the press. If the DNC could have rewritten the law so that the general election was held in February 2008, Barack would have been a sure nominee to win the White House. He's yet to be bloodied by the press -- that will happen -- but with what's taken place so far, he's already staggering. Staggering through the primary and you think he can run a general election and win it?
Jim: There's undisclosed things, granted, but what's his biggest weakness?
Rebecca: Michelle. I saw the GOP ad at a website recently and was laughing my ass off because they used the wrong clip. She's in all white, professionally dressed doing her "For the first time in my life . . ." That's not the clip where she said it. That's the clip where she responded. When she said it, she wasn't wearing white, her hair was askew and she was leaning down on the mike and looking out of the corner of her eyes. That will play "shifty." That will play "untrustworthy." Her hair is a mess in the original clip, the one the GOP didn't use. And the way she's coking her head and darting her eyes and also the speaking voice she's using aren't polished, aren't professional. They'll use the original clip. They'll call her "Crazy Michelle." Her thesis, largely dismissed as a topic during a Democratic primary, will become of huge interest during a general election. Her huge raise once Barack became a US Senator will be endlessly dissected. Barack will be asked about her and he obviously has no way of defending her as evidenced by his repeated, "She's off limits!" You're a blank slate and no one can talk about your wife? Don't think so. There is no bigger public relations nightmare for Barack than Michelle because it brings up everything else, all of his other associations. It is all linked together by the press and in the public's mind. It's the perfect storm.
Jim: Can Michelle save the moment?
Rebecca: C.I. thinks Michelle is a very smart woman. I'm not talking out of school, that's been stated at The Common Ills. She may be intelligent but she's an idiot when it comes to the public. The immediate response a pro would have used after the for-the-first-time-I'm-proud-of-my-country would have been to go to one of the morning shows, let them play the clip, look at Diane Sawyer or whoever and laugh. Laugh and say, "Oh, Diane, what can I say? Sometimes you're so much in love with your husband, you'll say anything." Everyone would have laughed and the situation would have been diffused. She didn't do that. And she can't now. All this time later, it wouldn't play out as it would have when she said it. Now it would look lying. But a pro would have done that. Instead, it was hide Michelle -- shades of the Kerry campaign in 2004 -- and have Barack go on TV and say, "Forget what she said, this is what she meant."
Jim: Okay --
Rebecca: Hold it. This is the biggest problem and part of the trap he's constructed for himself. The devoted go along with that "what she meant" or "what I meant" and that's fooled a huge number of people into believing he's a viable nominee. But no one's believable when they repeatedly have to resort to, "Forget what was said, here's what was meant." He is a disaster, his campaign is a disaster. It has created all of these traps for him that, should he be the nominee, will be no one's fault but his own.
Mike: I'm going to jump in real quick. Like Rebecca said earlier, there was a gas bag this week 'discovering' the point about Barack and the working class -- the point C.I. made back in January. And I don't see how that gets fixed.
Rebecca: It doesn't. He's too established in the public eye. Anything he does to try to change isn't seen as a reach out, it's seen as pandering and trickery.
Betty: Well let me jump in. No one says, "Golly, thanks for calling me a racist, that sure was sweet of you." But that's what Barack's campaign has done. The way it works is people in his campaign declare someone a racist. Barack sort of stays out of it. The person has to publicly respond -- usually with an apology that's not needed -- and then Barack plays the Love God who says all is forgiven. Then a week or two later, he's bringing it back up. That creates resentment. His campaign has used the race card over and over. They've overplayed it and it's not going to work in the general election. More importantly, it will fire up the GOP base if it's used against McCain. I would see that as his biggest trap.
Rebecca: I'd agree with you that is a significant problem. Anyone who doesn't vote for him is stupid and/or racist. He's insulted half the Democratic Party in the primaries but don't think that this attitude hasn't been noticed outside the Democratic Party. I mean John McCain already responded to one attempt by noting he wasn't going to stand for it or be bullied. And that's with no nominnee from the Democratic Party. If Barack's the nominee, McCain's going to see it as a personal mission, a 'save the country' kind of thing, to defeat him and it won't be pretty. McCain doesn't respect Barack and it goes to the, pre-primaries, back stab that Barack did to him in the press and then the mealy mouthed apology Barack publicly offered. I don't mean to imply that McCain would take the high road against Hillary but I am stating that Barack's burned that bridge and McCain's going to take the race very personally. If you thought Hillary blew Barack off the stage -- and she did -- during the debates, you better get ready for what John McCain plans to do and Barack stammering and stumbling on stage and all of his groupies whining about the moderators being unfair aren't going to change the fact that the general public just saw one candidate for president who was prepared and one who looked like an idiot.
Wally: Well maybe Barack's thinking he can skip those debates as well!
Cedric: Wally's joking, but yeah, maybe Barack will take the press he needs to reach the voters and, like then, no one will point out, "Couldn't you reach more of them in a nationally televised debate?"
Ava: And that goes to his weakness in the eyes of many. He can't handle a debate. He does poorly and declares no more debates. And his fan club goes along with it. He's a pampered baby and if the Democratic Party is stupid enough to nominate him, I'm not going to be crying in the general, I'm going to be laughing all the way.
Jim: Would you vote for McCain?
Ava: You asked me that in a roundtable awhile back and I'm not sure it got included.
Jim: We deleted it because of comments you made about friends in the press.
Ava: Okay. No, I wouldn't. If Barack's the nominee, Ralph Nader gets my vote. But a large segment of the Latino community is willing to vote for McCain. And, if anyone's wondering, Jess is participating but he's waiting for a topic Jim will be introducing shortly to speak.
Jim: Okay, that's the case against Barack. What if Hillary's the nominee?
Rebecca: Well her campaign is on the upswing. She's known. There are no suprises. She has the support of the bulk of the base. There are no 'pretend' Democrats supporting her. The real issue is the African-American vote. Talk about riots and other things are led by the likes of Melissa Harris-Lacewell. I doubt she'll risk her Princeton gig by rioting. But, most importantly, if she's the nominee, Barack has two choices, leave the party or work for her campaign. You'll note that Hillary has repeatedly stated for some time that she'll work for the party in the general election. Barack hasn't made that claim loudly. So some may assume he'll encourage a brown out or worse. But he's a one term senator and I don't see him being that stupid. So here's the way that plays out, he campaigns for her and a few people -- most likely White -- try to agitate unrest but it doesn't work out that way.
Cedric: You're talking about after the nomination. There's concern about before it, there's concern about violence outside or during the convention.
Rebecca: I think the pictures of such an incident would doom the Obama campaign. I think televised and photographed reports of such actions would ensure that he loses the nomination. I also think the White leadership trying to seed such action right now would be exposed. For instance, one person involved in the violence in Chicago during 1969 that likes to pretend today he wasn't is trying to seed such action. There's the fact that he's out of touch today and there's the fact that he has huge enemies -- including Ava and C.I. -- who would be very happy to slip the press various details and proofs of what he's gearing up for -- or rather, what he's gearing up for others to do. He doesn't like to get his White hands dirty. It will backfire and it will backfire big time.
C.I.: I want to jump in real quick to point out that Rebecca referenced 1969, not 1968. That is the true reference. Not the violence at the Democratic Convention in 1968. This would be seen like 1969 and, indeed, can be connected to it due to the 'leaders.' 1968's violence, the police attacking students, delegates, the press, etc., had a bit of sympathy, I don't think enough. There was very little public sympathy for the riots of 1969 in Chicago and it will be a similar group and the reaction will be even more disgust. With 1969, some of the actions could be connected to the illegal war. That's not true of Cult of Bambi who are not about ending the illegal war going on today. So a bunch of White kids acting out in public will not go over well with the country. The feelers going out are largely being responded by Whites and some Asian-Americans. The African-American community is taking a back off stance, rightly. They're fully aware of how this could lead to a backlash against the African-American community. So what you'll have is a predominately White, young, crowd and the attitude will be, "You go to college where?" And that will only cause more outrage in the public. A pampered set using violence to get their way. And Rebecca's right about the slipping of information, Ava and I are already passing along e-mails about that and other things to the press. Not only will it backfire, it will probably lead to criminal charges on the part of the 'leaders' who are attempting to prepare for such an event and, if so, it will so funny to watch them live out their final years in prison.
Ava: The very fact that some are floating it goes to how strong a candidate Hillary is and how weak they grasp Barack is. They talk a big game in public but they're scared to death. If the press stops calling Barack the 'inevitable' nominee -- which he isn't, the spin factor goes down. Before someone e-mails regarding turning anything over to the authorities, this is vaguely floated in careful langague. It's the same way some avoided being connected to 1969's riots. Should the violence take place, the case against them will be connected by the press. They will not be able to hide in the shadows this time. And possibly making the clear here will cause some agitators to settle down.
Marcia: I'm reminded of two things. First, in terms of what Ava's talking about, I'm reminded of Elaine and C.I. pointing out months ago, believe the end of 2007, about the White elite support for Barack that they wondered, in a roundtable, whether it was hoping to impose disillusionment and create and foster violence. Second, Betty talked about the harm of playing the race card a little while ago in terms of how it makes people immune to or angry over the constant charge. In an earlier roundtable, she also made a point about how it hurts the African-American community and I was hoping she'd make that point again.
Betty: Sure. The fact is Blacks are in the minority in this country. We're not the expanding population, that would be the Latino community, and we're not the largest population currently, that would be Whites. So to get things accomplished legislatively, we need coalitions. Barack's made it that much harder for us to get that by screaming racism falsely at various people who now, in the future, may take the attitude because of the bi-racial Barack that it's smarter to keep the Black community at arms' length.
Cedric: I would agree with that and note that it's amazing how much the community, the African-American community has been willing to throw away for this bi-racial candidate promising us nothing. He gets likened to the Civil Rights Movement and that's a huge insult because that movement was about overcoming huge injustices. Barack's campaign offers nothing like that for the community. And he hasn't 'suffered.' If he were a Black man, he'd be considered to have had a pretty cushy life. He didn't do anything for the community. Voter registration isn't 'community organizer' no matter how much the press tries to inflate his modest credentials.
Marcia: I'm appalled by the threats that have been used to drum up support for him. I know of people who didn't vote in the primary because they were told, in their churches, that it would be known how they voted. There has been tremendous intimidation in his campaign and that's something that will only be fully discussed when it's over. When it is discussed, it won't be pretty and a number of 'leaders' in the African-American community will be damaged goods.
Cedric: And the community will be damaged as well as a result of Barack's playing the race card over and over. By the way, what was the reaction to Ty's "Ty's Point of View" last week? I didn't read it until C.I. mailed it out to everyone on Tuesday and asked, "Have you read this?"
Jim: It was praised and the third most noted thing. But everyone wanted to weigh in on the movie star aspect which is why we started with that at the top of the roundtable. But thanks for mentiong that because everyone was exhausted from the writing and it really was a great piece.
Ty: Thanks to everyone who e-mailed on it. I tried to answer all e-mails but Dona replied to some.
Jim: Ralph Nader, on Friday, stood outside the White House and called for Bully Boy and Dick Cheney to resign. Tabitha, who identifies herself as a Barack supporter, says Barack's for impeachment and we've ridiculed it but we probably won't ridicule Ralph Nader for it.
Ruth: Barack Obama has not publicly claimed to be for impeachment. That is ridiculous.
Jess: It really is. In terms of us ridiculing impeachment, we think Bully Boy should be impeached. We've said that -- barring war on Iran -- the moment passed. It's nearly June. Can all the idiots count? In a little over five months the next election will be held. Come August, Democrats in Congress will only be focusing on the convention, after that only on the election. So that means you have June and July to get impeachment introduced, voted on and hearings held. Lots of luck, crazies. They've had seven years to impeach Bully Boy and seriously explored the option prior to the start of the Iraq War. They elected not to do so. You need to find a better way to utizlie your time. What Ralph did on Friday is different. He is a political candidate. His standing outside the White House and calling for a resignation is different. He should follow that up with a press conference outside Congress calling for impeachment of the Bully Boy. Ralph Nader is not a Democrat or Republican. His standing outside the White House telegraphs the message that he is the true change agent, not Barack, that he is unconnected to the corruption. That he is one of us. It was very smart, a very savy move on his part. I don't know what the turnout will be like for him if Hillary is the nominee but if the nominee is Barack, I think you're going to see record turnout for Ralph. Could he make it into the White House? If Barack's the nominee, I think he could. There are a large number of people who will be upset and though some will go to John McCain, all will not. Add in the likelihood that Barack gets a September surprise followed by an October surprise and you've got a large number of voters who could go for Ralph. They're not going to go Green, Cynthia McKinney's campaign defining 'victory' as 5% guarantees that a number of voters will see that campaign as a joke. So you've got that and on McCain, you could see some people who might vote for him choosing Bob Barr instead. So it could be a very competative race and I think it's not at all unlikely that in that four-way race, Ralph could end up in the White House.
Jim: On Bob Barr, we had an e-mail asking why we're not covering him? I'm going to toss to C.I. because that's really where the bulk of coverage comes from.
C.I.: In a general election, he might get noted at The Common Ills. His party's not a left party and TCI is a party for the left. I went back and forth on whether to include that he had announced the day he did. But I decided no because (a) it's not a left party and (b) I know him from his work this decade against the abuses of the White House. He didn't fit in and I didn't want to hear, "You just included him because you knew him." I honestly felt like, if he had been included in that day's snapshot, it would have just been due to the fact that I did know him. So I left him out. There are nice things that can be said about him, there are nice things that can be said about McCain. That doesn't mean I'd vote for them. As Rebecca noted earlier, I have had nice words for Michelle Obama.
Jim: Would you defend Michelle from sexist attacks if Barack got the nomination?
C.I.: Probably not. His supporters have used sexist attacks on Hillary non-stop. She hasn't called it out. Her own brother launched a sexist attack on Hillary to the press -- The New Yorker -- she didn't call it out. She's on her own in terms of any defense from me. If she had once called it out, I'd be happy to defend her. She never did. She's on her own. Or that's my answer right now. If some outlets that have stayed silent on the sexism utilized against Hillary suddenly decided they gave a damn, that would make me all the more likely not to defend her. Early on, at The Common Ills, I spent forever writing an entry on Susan Estrich. An e-mail had come in slamming her and I was explaining the sexism at play and the way she was ostracized. I never published that entry. At the end of the day, I figured, "What was the point?" If I didn't do that for her, who has stood up for other women, I certainly wouldn't rush to the defense of someone whose, at best, silence has given approval for the attacks on Hillary. And let's note something that The Cult of Bambi says at newspapers when they leave comments, "She's a traditional wife." They use that against Hillary. That's their belief of Michelle. That's not Michelle -- and I don't mean that as an insult. But a campaign and a crowd that's used sexism non-stop has a lot of nerve asking for feminist support afterwards. So, if he's the nominee, no.
Ruth: What about Susan Estrich? In terms of why you ended up not posting that?
C.I.: I was actually working on two things that night and neither got published. One was on the Dark Prince of Hollywood High. The other, the Susan thing, I read it over the phone to Rebecca.
Rebecca: I thought it was well written and made important points but I said, "No one's going to care. She's identified with Fox 'News,' no one's going to get the point. No one's going to agree that there is sexism in the Democratic Party. If you post it, you're begging for non-stop e-mails asking 'What are you saying?'" But it was well written, I agreed with it, I said save it and assume it still exists.
C.I.: It does. I'll see if Hilda wants it for Hilda's Mix. That would be the first newsletter that would be available because Polly's Brew and El Espirto have already firmed up their editions. But let's just underscore that sexism was alive and well in the Democratic Party in 2004 and anyone who doubts that needs to only remember that a state legislator with no record of accomplishment was allowed to make the keynote address -- that would be Barack Obama -- while no women were invited to speak. It was only after non-stop protests over the decision that Hillary was allowed to speak. Someone might want to ask John Kerry -- who refused to address the single woman vote -- exactly what kind of pig he is because that took place in 2004. To summarize the article for those who don't get Hilda's Mix -- assuming it runs in that -- Susan Estrich isn't the devil, she's a woman who has to pay the bills and she was kicked to the curb following the failed Dukakis campaign. I've never insulted Susan at The Common Ills and I doubt many that know the story of Susan and the Democratic Party would make a point of insulting her.
Dona: I had forgotten, until C.I. just mentioned it, that women were shut out of the 2004 convention. All the prime time speakers were male and it did take complaints to get even one woman. Barack was a nobody, not running for the state that the convention was held in, but he was invited onstage. While every woman went uninvited. That point needs to be made loudly. Right there you see the desire to ignore women and reward someone with no record who didn't need the publicity because at that point he either had Alan Keyes or still no declared opponent.
Elaine: And this is the sort of point and facts that I would call the "nuclear option" and that the DNC should be prepared for should Hillary not win the nomination. A lot of us have a lot of stories, the Susan Estrich story being only one prime example, that we can tell and it won't be pretty.
Jim: Good point and I would love to explore it, maybe next week, but I promised Jillian that we would get to her question this week because I forgot it last week after promising her then. She wants to know about Roe. How can women not support "the Democratic nominee who ever he is" -- yes, she supports Barack -- "with Roe hanging in the balance."
Ruth: Can I grab that? Not all but many young women have decided that abortion does not matter. Hillary has a record of supporting abortion rights. Barack has a history of voting not for them but "present." You made your decision. I am a grandmother, I stopped ovulating long ago. Abortion is not a concern of mine. I have money and if one of my granddaughters needs one, I am sure the same back alley ones would be available. But when the bulk of young women today decide that it is not an issue and when it is not an option I have to worry about, you are on your own, Jillian. If you cared about abortion, you should have supported Hillary.
Marcia: Well said. I am a lesbian and, short of being raped, it would be difficult for me to get pregnant. But don't toss Roe out at us. It's not going to play. You've got a candidate weak on abortion rights. You've got a Democrats in Congress that have repeatedly refused to fight for abortion rights. If young women, in college, aren't going to fight for it, tough. We will not be blackmailed. We will not be forced into voting for Barack out of fear. If that's the threat, it's not going to work. And maybe losing Roe would wake up some of the spoiled princess of today to the realities of what it means to be a woman? Maybe all the little girls piling on Hillary and claiming that they aren't being sexist would wake up to the realities of very real discrimination if they lost Roe as well? I don't care at this point. Barack's not going to fight for Roe and the idea that he's suddenly going to discover it in the general election is pandering to the extreme.
Elaine: C.I. wrote a few weeks ago about how Roe would not be an effective threat and I agreed with that then and I agree with what Ruth and Marcia are saying. I think the scorn and lies heaped on women who helped bring about Roe has been such that the ungrateful are on their own. Go shwo your tits, get your Mardi Gras beads and vote Barack. When you end up pregnant that's your own problem. You've made it clear that there's no discrimination -- in your eyes -- of women. You've made it clear that feminism is -- in your eyes -- so passe. Well try living without some of the breakthroughs earlier generations made possible. See you in forty years when you're trying to start your own feminist revolution. Ungrateful describes them completely. I said in a roundtable here that I had my tubes tied a long time ago. I can't get pregnant. I'm happy to help other women in the battle to preserve Roe but I'm not going to help women that don't see it as important. Live without it and then tell me how that worked out for you. Feminists will know how to have abortions if they're needed. Roe goes under, I'd love to hear the calls home from collge, "Daddy, I'm pregnant. No, he won't marry me. Well, we weren't dating. I was drunk and so was he." And then, I'm sure they'll figure out, as they're forced into some version of the scarlet letter while the guy walks away unscathed, that, yeah, sexism does exist in this country.
Kat: I had an abortion. I don't talk about the circumstances, but I had one and I've blogged on that back in 2005. I was very lucky that it was legal and accessible. Since I had my abortion, it's become less accessible. You've had doctors targeted and murdered, you've had facilities bombed. If Barack's young female groupies don't appreciate the fight that brought about abortion rights, then it's no concern on my part. I've actively championed abortion rights, I've attended every rally in DC. And as late as 2004, I saw young women who realized it was important. The current crop of college women doesn't appreciate it. I won't waste my time defending a right that they've declared unimportant throughout the primary but want to use as a scare tactic in the general election if Barack gets the nomination.
Wally: That really is where you see the line in college today on Barack and Hillary. Young women who appreciate the rights won and know that more rights are needed are firmly behind her. And the 'Girls Gone Wild' are the ones who are for Barack. That's true at my own college and at every college I've visited. They seem to be eager to deny their gender in order to fit in.
Betty: I think what Wally and everyone said was true but I most identify with Kat's comments. That's in terms of I am a big supporter of the right to choose. I am pro-choice and I'm using that term intentionally because there's an effort by some women of my race to start whining, "Oh pro choice isn't good and isn't inclusvie and blah blah blah I'm a big whiner." But like Kat said, if you didn't appreciate it, I'm not fighting for you. My time is limited, to steal from C.I., and I can't do everything. I have to pick and choose my battles. I will be far less interested in fighting for abortion rights in the future as a result of NARAL and others refusing to support the candidate who has fought for them. If it's not appreciated it -- and young women have sent the message that it's not -- then why bother? I make a wonderful chess pie but if I make it and no one eats it, I'm not going to make it again. What's the point? I can use my time in other ways. "Ungrateful" really does describe those young women supporting Barack. And I would ask if Jillian identifies as a feminist?
Jim: No, she states she's pro-woman but not a feminist.
Betty: Well, I guess that's pro-some-women since Hillary's not good enough for her. Jillian, you're on your own. Take it from me, a mother of three, you don't know what you're in store for. Hopefully, your pregnancies will be planned and wanted like mine but if not, you made your bed by refusing to support abortion rights so wallow in it. I will not vote for Barack. If he's the nominee, I will vote for Ralph. There is no way in the world that Barack would get my vote. Jillian needs to try to cozy up to someone else because she sounds like just another entitled White woman who thinks she's too good to identify with other women. If she were a character in a book I was writing, I would imagine gang-rape waiting in the future from all the boys she hangs with trying to fit in. I also think that the Democratic Party has held women hostage with Roe and that we've all grown sick of that because they've helped chip away at Roe year after year while also expecting us to see them as the strong defenders of it. If you can't tell, I'm angry.
Marcia: I'd like to ask 'pro-woman' but non-feminist Jillian if she includes lesbians in her 'pro-woman' stance because her candidate used homophobia to win South Carolina. No feminist can support that and I'd wonder how a pro-woman could. But, for the record, all women supporting Barack that present themselves as pro-women or feminists aren't in my book and they can all rot in hell. That's Jane Fonda, that's Joan Baez, that's Eve Ensler and all the rest. And lots of luck to hagged out Fonda whose cleavage is the joke at my work everytime she forgets she's about to be 71-years-old when dressing for a night out and gets her photo taken. But Ensler and Fonda should especially pay attention. Fonda's ticked off women and, hate to break it to her, but there's no miracle role in her future and she might have hoped for a gay crowd following that would give her some lasting fame but supporting a homophobic candidate guarantees that won't happen. As for Ensler, lots of luck, you failed actress, trying to make it again as a playwright -- a medium that depends upon the LGBT community buying tickets. You both guaranteed that you'll have no support in the future. Honkey women, you are the new Anita Bryants. Embrace it, wallow it and accept it.
Jim: Okay, we're closing off the roundtable. With Marcia, comments that took place after will be stripped by the ones making them, I know. And this roundtable went on way too long and I was completely unfocused. I own that. This is a rush transcript. If you see an illustration, it's done by Betty's son. And the drawing is of a table, chairs and bust at a friend of C.I.'s home that we stay when we go to DC, to Marty who wondered if he was seeing someone, no, that's a bust.