Quote of the Day: Robert Scheer

In response to Gloria Steinem's column asserting that women become more radical as they age, and that's why they voted in N.H. for Clinton:

What is radical about voting for a corporate lawyer who, in defense of her Arkansas savings and loan shenanigans, once said you can't be a lawyer without working for banks? Steinem boasts of Clinton's "unprecedented eight years of on-the-job training in the White House" without referencing the Clinton White House's giveaways to corporate America at the expense of poor and working Americans, the majority of them being women. Sen. Clinton's key election operative, Mark Penn, was the other half of the Dick Morris team that recast populist Bill Clinton as the master of triangulation. . . .

Yes, Bill Clinton was a very good president compared to what came immediately before and after, and his wife has many strong points in her favor, not the least of which is her wonkish intelligence. What I object to is the notion that the perspective of gender or race trumps that of economic class in considering the traumas of this nation. That is because the George W. Bush administration engaged in class warfare for the rich with a vengeance that has left many Americans hurting, and we desperately need change to reverse that destructive course.

Let's get our priorities straight, shall we? Having a woman or an African-American president would mean our having reached a wonderful milestone, but it's secondary to the more significant problems that confront us, which have to do with economic structure, power aggregation, and foreign adventurism.