But as for the "MLK was great, but we wouldn't have had the Civil Rights Act passed if it weren't for LBJ" bit.... Are you fucking kidding me?
And then we've got Gloria Steinem's whining and divisive defense of Hil in the NYT filled with such gems as "Black men were given the vote a half-century before women of any race were allowed to mark a ballot, and generally have ascended to positions of power, from the military to the boardroom, before any women," the whole while claiming not to be "advocating a competition for who has it toughest" and that "the caste systems of sex and race are interdependent and can only be uprooted together." Is that so?
Let us not even address the fact that plenty of white women jumped the abolitionist ship and instead waved flags of racist rhetoric when they realized that black men might win the vote before them. And no, the suffrage of black women wasn't being discussed at all, either by their men or those white proto-feminists whose ideological descendants would later benefit far more from affirmative action programs than either black men or women do--so much so that their sense of entitlement to seats in universities encouraged two of them to charge the University of Michigan with "reverse racism" for maintaining race-based admissions policies.
But if I don't vote for Hillary, I'm apparently a traitor to my gender: "some women, perhaps especially younger ones, hope to deny or escape the sexual caste system."
And as for the furor over which candidate is more experienced--Barack Obama entered electoral politics before either John Edwards or Hillary Clinton, running for the Illinois Senate in 1995. (Here is a great article from whittles written about him that year that gives his credentials as a community organizer and activist as well as some insight into his racial politics.) And if we really want to buck sexism in our analysis of Clinton as a candidate, can we all please stop substituting her marriage to Bill for years of real political experience? Being married to the President doesn't make her a politician. It makes her a politician's wife.
And finally, what the hell is wrong with supposedly progressive folks talking up Ron Paul like he's the second coming? He's anti-choice. He's anti-affirmative action. He's anti-immigrant. He is, in fact, an isolationist, though he keeps denying it. (If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck...) Just to be clear, here--the man wants to amend the Constitution to do away with citizenship as a birthright.
He also would like to do away with the Departments of Education and Energy, and of course, the IRS.
He's voted in support of bills that prohibit adoption by same-sex couples. He's pretty fully on the "Christians are being oppressed by the secularists" bandwagon.
So, what are the pros, here?
And with that, I'm done.