Sunday, December 23, 2007

Headline as Haiku

The headline summed it up so accurately it made my teeth hurt: "Republican Unity Trumps Democratic Momentum".

Robert Pear and Carl Hulse wrote the article that sums up Congressional Democrats’ 2007 accomplishments, or lack of them, in the New York Times, December 21. But whoever wrote that headline gets my vote for the Pulitzer. In fewer syllables than a classic haiku, he or she described perfectly the essence of American politics since the extreme right has held sway over the Republican Party.

The Democrats might have better ideas and public opinion on their side right now, but the Republicans--even when they’re in the minority—still run strategic circles around them.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA)said she didn't foresee this would happen. Excuse me, but what sand has her idealistic head been buried in? And what a dumb thing to say even if you think it, power politics being what they are.

But at least she took some responsibility. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV)simply blamed the Republicans. Perhaps it’s not surprising that public opinion now ranks Congress even lower than the President.

The conservative right is effective because they stick together and mass their strengths; those on the progressive left not only lack the discipline to stick together, they so distrust power that they sully their own opportunities to advance measures they sincerely believe will make people's lives better—in other words, the very things they were elected to do.

These missed opportunities occur not just because the minority is more highly motivated than a majority to exercise discipline; we’ve seen the Republican majority steamroller brazenly over the Democrats too many times to exonerate the Democrats and their leadership from responsibility for becoming rolees of their own volition. The most obvious example is the continuing flow of money to the Iraq war even after it became clear the Bush administration had lied through its teeth to justify a war that has benefited their Halliburton cronies more than anyone else.

But from the first day George W. Bush took office in 2001, well before 9/11 gave him a free pass, he started to ramrod extreme right wing judicial nominees through the Senate. Democrats, led by wimpy minority leader Tom Daschle, never let the courage of their convictions take precedence over crass vote counting.

Even after the Senate’s breathtaking switch from Republican to Democratic hands when Vermont’s moderate Republican Senator Jim Jeffords switched to Independent and began to caucus with the Democrats in May of 2001, Democratic leaders were still unwilling to seize the opportunity to oppose Bush’s nominees until a large coalition of women’s and civil rights groups poured starch into the senators' spines and perhaps a little fear of reprisal into their hearts.

In one such hearing, Senator Joe Biden (D-DE) looked straight at me and a few other heads of women’s organizations who were observing the committee hearing and angrily accused us of being the problem, rather than Bush’s nominees whose track records guaranteed that they were eminently prepared to eviscerate civil and reproductive rights that are core principles of the Democratic Party.

True, conservatives on occasion fail because they are so heartless in their pursuit of power that the vast silent middle of citizens finally rises up in outrage. The Terry Schiavo
case comes to mind. “Compassionate Conservatism” has been clearly demonstrated during the current Bush administration to be at best an oxymoron and at worst a cruel hoax. And every once in a wonderful while, their rigid acceptance of hierarchy backfires, and the likes of Tom DeLay finally get their due. But most of the time, their discipline to fight out their differences in their party’s caucus and then work the legislative floor together in lockstep allows them to leverage their effectiveness far beyond their numbers.

The Republicans are power mad. The Democrats are power averse.

So what did Pelosi and Reid expect when they took their majority leadership positions last January? Will they learn from their defeats and come out with agendas blazing and party unity next January in order to set a more favorable context for their party in next November’s elections?

Hope springs eternal.

© Gloria Feldt 2007

Thursday, December 20, 2007

You Looking at Me?

This is on Huffington Post too. Some days it seems like journalists don't have enough to do with their time so they create conflicts out of whole cloth as a form of entertainment. Fortunately for me, I make no claim to be objective. Let me know what you think. Better yet, go to HuffPo and put your comment there.

You know Hillary is no longer seen as the inevitable front runner in Iowa when Maureen Dowd (almost, at least till she gets to her punch line) writes something positive about her.

In response to the latest Drudge-Limbaugh-sexist bloggers' echo chamber campaign to denigrate Hillary for—gasp!--looking like a 60-year-old woman, when men of that certain age or even—gasp again--older are seen as distinguished and wise, Dowd observed: “Women are still scrutinized more critically on their looks, which seem to fluctuate more on camera, depending on lighting, bloating and wardrobe.”

It takes a sharp sense of humor as well as a tough hide to get beyond the frivolously discriminatory lens with women are judged. Chile’s president, Michele Bachelet, who ranks # 17 on Forbes’ list of “World’s Most Influential Women to Hillary’s #18, told a CNN reporter that when a male journalist asked her how she would wear the pants of the presidency she replied tartly, "or the skirt of the presidency."

Yet for women seeking leadership roles, the appearance issue is just one layer of the perceptual onion; each layer will have to be—and will be--peeled back over time to fully understand what the core resistance is about. By then, of course, it won’t matter because there will be enough women in leadership positions that seeing them in those roles feels normal.

When the luxuriantly pregnant Campbell Brown asked Clinton the first question at the Las Vegas Democratic presidential debate, it was clear that several layers have already disappeared.

To begin with, in Hillary’s elementary school days, a visibly pregnant woman wasn’t allowed to teach school, let alone imagine she could be a network television anchor, and an anchor interviewing a woman leading the presidential pack at that.

Second, this adorable exchange between Brown and Clinton highlighted a generational difference that need not be a divide, but is surely an onion layer to be acknowledged as we bid farewell to it along with Hillary’s knowing wink:

BROWN: But, Senator, if I can just ask you, what did you mean at Wellesley when you referred to the "boy's club"?

CLINTON: Campbell...


BROWN: Just curious.

CLINTON: Well, it is clear, I think, from women's experiences that from time to time, there may be some impediments.


And it has been my goal over the course of my lifetime to be part of this great movement of progress that includes all of us, but has particularly been significant to me as a woman.

And to be able to aim toward the highest, hardest glass ceiling is history-making.

Now, I'm not running because I'm a woman. I'm running because I think I'm the best qualified and experienced person to hit the ground running, but it's humbling...


By that debate, Hillary had taken her attire down a notch since John Edwards disparaged her pink jacket. She stood, earrings glistening, in a crisp but subdued salt-and-pepper tweed jacket with her black pants--a suit she laughingly described as "asbestos" in preparation for the scorching attacks she expected from her competitors.

(Oops, there’s that cackle again—but wait, she needs the humor here—now do we understand why Hillary sometimes seems to be walking a tightrope in her comments? She lives on the tightrope of transition, smack in the middle of profound social change that she is both the product of and the woman leading others to the next level.)

“Hillary doesn’t have to worry about her face. She has to worry about her mask,” concluded the ever-clever Dowd. But when I interviewed Hillary a few years ago for my book, The War on Choice, she summed up the real challenge better herself:

It’s human nature that when the established order has been changed, there will be a reaction, and the magnitude of the reaction shouldn’t surprise us. The advancement of women in the last fifty years has been breathtaking…There are victories along the way, but none of these victories is secure because of the pressures that undermine women’s rights and advancement…So now women who value their autonomy have to step up and take action.

Washington Post writer Howard Kurtz finally got some key journalists to acknowledge the obvious, that Hillary is treated differently, judged more harshly by the media across the board.

She's just held to a different standard in every respect," says Mark Halperin, Time's editor at large. "The press rooted for Obama to go negative, and when he did he was applauded. When she does it, it's treated as this huge violation of propriety." While Clinton's mistakes deserve full coverage, Halperin says, "the press's flaws -- wild swings, accentuating the negative -- are magnified 50 times when it comes to her. It's not a level playing field."

Attacks on Hillary’s gendered physical attributes, as even the Hillary-bashing Dowd has to agree, are often a convenient mask to obscure those odoriferous layers of misogyny that still exist and spill over where they shouldn’t be in determining the outcome of the Presidential race.

© Gloria Feldt 12/20/07

Wednesday, December 12, 2007

Why Oprah and Hillary are in this election together

12/12/07, 11:12 am--I filed this on Huffington Post just now. It should get posted later today. This time I am leaving in the HTML for the links in case you want to see them from this version. But if you go to read it at HuffPo, it will not only look nicer, you'll be able to leave your comment there and if you are so moved, to sign up to be notified when I have posted a HuffPo commentary, which is more or less weekly.
I want to expand on the Hillary-Oprah connection and would love to hear your thoughts on that. Here's today's post:

Her exquisitely lacquered red nails clasp the lever confidently, six fashion-
statement gold bangles punctuating her slender wrist. Though you can't see the
rest of her, if you read women's fashion magazines, you might guess this is
the smart, sophisticated Marie Claire

There's a good reason why the word "voting" is clearly painted under the lever, with an arrow pointing to it. This woman might well be one of the 35 million eligible women who didn't vote in the 2004 presidential election. And single women , we are told by the article, are less likely to vote than their married counterparts.

Marie Claire's "Election '08" articles, of which this is the start, are joined
with a larger nonpartisan effort called “Every Woman Counts” that is spearheaded by Lifetime TV and two other Hearst magazines--CosmoGirl! and Redbook--plus a coalition of dozens of other organizations working to elevate the women's vote in 2008 ,and to increase women’s participation in the political process in general. (Disclosure, I've signed on to the campaign as an individual,

The whole political activist world seems to know, even if the word still hasn't
permeated the consciousness of those 35 million eligible-but-not-voting women, that women are the key to the outcome of the 2008 elections, not just at the presidential level but all up and down the ticket. Especially telling is that women in the typically “red” Midwestern states are more likely to vote than women in the typically “blue” states. One must wonder whether this translates to higher voting rates for conservative women than for centrist, progressive and liberal women.

These facts are precisely the reason why Oprah
and Hillary, not Barak and Hillary, and are currently the leading players in the presidential campaign.

As the crawl at bottom of one Marie Claire pages tells us without needing to
explain its application to 2008: "If more single women had voted in the swing states in 2000, Al Gore would have won the election."

And the rest, as they say, would have been a very different history for our country.

Tuesday, December 04, 2007

Henry Hyde's Hypocrisy: Rest Not in Peace

I posted this on Huffington Post late yesterday. Best to read it there so you get all the links, but I did include the comments so far. What do you think? Let me know here or at HuffPo or both.

I was in Arizona awaiting my grandson Eli's birth in March, 1997, when I received a panicked call from my Washington, D. C. staff. "We've been summoned to appear before the joint House of Representatives and Senate Judiciary Committees to testify about the so-called Partial Birth Abortion Act. It's going to be a witch hunt," they told me. "You have to come back and prepare. It's a really big deal--you'll be under oath and intense media scrutiny."

This would be my first face-to-face encounter with Rep. Henry Hyde (R-IL), the silver-maned, vociferously anti-choice, then-chair of the House Judiciary Committee, who died on November 29. It'd be my first congressional testimony since I had become national president of Planned Parenthood the previous year, when President Clinton vetoed in play again.

The Federal Abortion Ban, as I call it because it is, had engendered as much controversy within the pro-choice movement as within the Congress and public. In my view, that internal angst came about because the abortion ban wasn't immediately outed for the frontal assault on Roe v Wade it has since proven itself to be. (A full rendition of this brilliantly deceptive legislation's history is in my book, The War on Choice.)

Green though I was to the federal political theater, I knew we had to reset the agenda and change the terms of the debate. And one thing I'd learned from the frontlines during 22 years at the helm of Planned Parenthood affiliates in bright red West Texas and Arizona was that the hotter the flames of controversy, the more they got people's attention and illuminated what we had to say.

I grumpily boarded the plane to Washington, hoping the baby would await my return. Perusing Hyde's voting record, I found something striking: in all his years of strident opposition to abortion, the man had never voted to support family planning programs that would lessen the need for abortion. What kind of hypocrisy was that? Not only was he the author of the infamous Hyde Amendment that since 1977 had robbed women relying on Medicaid for health care of coverage for abortion, but he had done absolutely nothing to help them prevent unintended pregnancy in the first place.

In the imposing hearing room, Committee members sat behind tables on a high, well-lighted platform looking down upon the testifiers below in what felt like a pit. Behind us sat an audience of advocates from both sides. News cameras lined the back of the room.

The prepared testimony of the four pro-choice organization leaders called to testify had been carefully vetted by our staffs, legal advisors, and media consultants. Tension was thick.

But one thing you can depend on is that a zealot will eventually hoist himself on the petard of his own extremism. Hyde didn't even attempt to cloak himself in the charade of the abortion ban bill's supposed moderation. Instead, he roared his first question: "Ms. Feldt, does it trouble you that there are so many abortions?"
"Mr. Hyde, if it troubles you," I went off script to reply, "why have you never once voted for family planning services?"

The chamber erupted in applause; the hearing chairman cautioned them to quiet down or be ejected. The previously timid committee Democrats perked up. The lion had been bearded in his lair. Hyde's response can only be described as "blub, blub", while he attempted to deflect the palpable shift in energy. Then he began to attack me in earnest, and Sen. Ted Kennedy leapt to my defense and cut him off.

The other testifiers similarly took energy from this confrontation so that in the end, the hearing was not the rout anti-choice forces had hoped for and pro-choice forces had feared. But it was a line of demarcation between a pro-choice strategy of defense and one where we would put forward a positive agenda.

Afterward, I stepped to the platform to shake hands with the Congress members. When I got to Mr. Hyde, he leaned over the table and looked searingly into my eyes. I expected he would either compliment me for taking him on or lecture me on the error of my ways.

Instead, he leered, "Your organization hires the best-looking women."

I wish I could say I had a clever retort, but I burst out laughing at this typical male technique for diminishing a woman.

I made it back for Eli's joyfully awaited birth. But America has yet to ensure every woman can enjoy the blessings of motherhood in freedom.
Hyde would go on to lead the impeachment process against President Clinton, only to have his own hypocrisy revealed again: he'd had an affair -- which he excused as a "youthful indiscretion" though when it happened, he was married with children and in his 40's.

Hyde's relentless opposition to a woman's human right to make her own childbearing decisions, including his consistent record, through his retirement last year, of voting against preventive family planning services, continues to cause immense human suffering and injustice.

Let Henry Hyde rest, but not in peace.

Comments (31)as of 12/4/ at noon
1 comment pending
FAQ: Comments & Moderation | FAQ: Huffpost Accounts
Post a comment
NEW expand collapse Goofy (See profile | I'm a fan of Goofy)
Bravo!! This country is in a civil war, and this is not the time to comfort the enemey ...
Reply | Favorite| Flag as abusive | posted 08:41 am on 12/04/2007
expand collapse rucognizant (See profile | I'm a fan of rucognizant)
jumundstuk, REREAD............That was 1997 NOT 1977!
Reply | Favorite| Flag as abusive | posted 07:18 am on 12/04/2007
expand collapse retarius (See profile | I'm a fan of retarius)
I have no particular axe to grind on abortion: from my perspective it is a private issue between the folks that were involved in the pregnancy (that is 'folks' rathrr than 'folk' or 'woman' in my opinion the man should have a say as well)...but I'm glad that this filthy hypocrite has finally died...if there were any justice he would have died years ago, after a long, painful, disfiguring and disabling is times like these that I wished that I believed in some sort of afterlife, since the thought of this silver-maned turd roasting in hell would have warmed my heart.
Reply | Favorite| Flag as abusive | posted 06:26 am on 12/04/2007
expand collapse jmundstuk (See profile | I'm a fan of jmundstuk)
Nice post and story, except that Hyde couldn't have been chair of the House Judiciary Committee in 1977. The Democrats were in the majority and would remain so until the 1994 election. Maybe you testified before a joint committee, which would explain why Kennedy, a senator, was present and maybe Hyde was ranking member or something. Makes a better story your way, but facts do matter.
Reply | Favorite| Flag as abusive | posted 02:21 am on 12/04/2007
expand collapse retarius (See profile | I'm a fan of retarius)
Reply | Parent | Favorite| Flag as abusive | posted 06:20 am on 12/04/2007
NEW expand collapse GloriaFeldt (See profile | I'm a fan of GloriaFeldt)
Just to clarify- he was chair of the Judiciary committee in 1997. The Hyde amendment went into effect in 1977. It's easy to transpose those two dates when you are reading.
Reply | Parent | Favorite| Flag as abusive | posted 08:41 am on 12/04/2007
expand collapse Lisette (See profile | I'm a fan of Lisette)

Thanks for the great post. Many people agree with you, including me.

Reply | Favorite| Flag as abusive | posted 11:48 pm on 12/03/2007
expand collapse nunzia (See profile | I'm a fan of nunzia)
I echo Lisette's comment. Great post. Thanks.
Reply | Parent | Favorite| Flag as abusive | posted 06:10 am on 12/04/2007
expand collapse jimhum (See profile | I'm a fan of jimhum)
Instead, he leered, "Your organization hires the best-looking women."

I wish I could say I had a clever retort, but I burst out laughing at this typical male technique for diminishing a woman.
Now why on earth would that be considered diminishing? There is nothing more beautiful than a beautiful lady. That is a compliment. I get sick and tired of ladies who dress to be seen, and complain if anyone looks.

The other day the cashier in the bank bent down to her counter, and I could almost see her belly button. I laughed and said, "That"s beautiful, but did you know that when you got dressed this morning." She laughed and admitted she had no reason at all to complain when a man got the nice view.

Here"s a question that I have posted many times, and have yet to get an answer, "Are you one of those who watch TV news stories of starving babies, then cheer, and say, At least she didn't get an abortion!"
Reply | Favorite| Flag as abusive | posted 10:57 pm on 12/03/2007
expand collapse MsLiz (See profile | I'm a fan of MsLiz)
"Now why on earth would that be considered diminishing?"

The author was at the hearing to address an important issue. She was old enough to be a grandmother. Instead of saying something along the lines of "thank you for your testimony, nice to meet you," he revealed that he had evaluated her solely in terms of what she had to offer his libido. It was a discount of her knowledge and views.

As to your second question: No.
Reply | Parent | Favorite| Flag as abusive | posted 12:46 am on 12/04/2007
NEW expand collapse GloriaFeldt (See profile | I'm a fan of GloriaFeldt)
MsLiz and Jimhum-
I generally am quite happy to be praised for my appearance. These days I even wear a little cleavage from time to time in honor of Hillary. But a Congressional hearing is supposed to be the height of decorum for one thing (hence I wore a very conservative brown suit and pearls that day as I recall). For another, Hyde liked to appear gentlemanly even when he was skewering you, and for a traditional man like him to skewer a woman, he had to resort to diminishing me by reducing me to a physical being rather than acknowledging characteristics that would equal power in the political realm.
Reply | Parent | Favorite| Flag as abusive | posted 08:51 am on 12/04/2007
expand collapse Ravenlea (See profile | I'm a fan of Ravenlea)
Try the situation in reverse. You have just appeared before Congress and done a fine job of it. Nancy Pelosi rather than thanking you or complimenting you on your presentation, leers at you and remarks that "your company sure hires good-looking men." I doubt you'd be just thrilled to your toe-nails that the nice important lady said you were attractive or swoon with delight.

While in some contexts a good compliment is enjoyable, there are other times when it is either not offered to make the recipient feel good but to objectify and thereby diminish them or it's just inappropriate.

Men often use such comments to dismiss smart women. Some men think it's charming. It's not. It's creepy.

And what does this issue have to do with being for or against abortions? (I'm pro abortion, by the way.)

I hope you're an old fart like me, because I have deluded myself into thinking that younger men have more awareness than the men of my generation did/do.
Reply | Parent | Favorite| Flag as abusive | posted 01:21 am on 12/04/2007
expand collapse dgrffy (See profile | I'm a fan of dgrffy)
A vile editorial. The disrespect and 'who cares if they don't agree with us' attitude speaks volumes for our culture. When I read things like this, it reminds me why I am never surprised when kids walk into schools and open fire. Why shouldn't they? Where are their examples? He sucked, he was evil, I'm glad he's dead? And we have the gall of acting shocked when one of our youngsters (those 3 out of 4 who weren't aborted) walk into a room and open fire. Why wouldn't Henry be a hypocrite? If he wasn't, he would have been a lonely man in a country filled with them.
Reply | Favorite| Flag as abusive | posted 09:25 pm on 12/03/2007
expand collapse DonL (See profile | I'm a fan of DonL)
I think you missed the point. Hyde wasn't evil, he was in a position to actually help stop abortions by preventing unwanted pregnancy and instead he chose to take sides and fight those with whom he disagreed. What should bother you is that in this country, it has become acceptable to go to war with your opposition instead of trying to work with them, to posture and moralize instead of accepting that someone might have a different set of values to which they are entitled. Where does a school shooting come out of this?
Reply | Parent | Favorite| Flag as abusive | posted 10:50 pm on 12/03/2007
expand collapse dgrffy (See profile | I'm a fan of dgrffy)
What you said is true - but for all involved. Hyde merely did what everyone does, and that is pick one side against the other, then fight. Where the school shootings come from is a generation of children watching adults act worse than the children of bygone days. When adults call each other evil, when they speak of others as worthless because of a host of reasons, when they all but crow over the demise of those with whom they disagree - because they feel nothing but contempt - it has an impact on those generations that follow. The hatred and contempt and lack of respect that the adults show in public discourse is being watched, and watched by the kids who will one day run our country; run it if they should live so long.
Reply | Parent | Favorite| Flag as abusive | posted 11:06 pm on 12/03/2007
expand collapse Ravenlea (See profile | I'm a fan of Ravenlea)
Ms Feldt didn't say she was glad he was dead. You are putting words into her mouth that aren't there.

Hyde was a hypocrite across the board. One of the problems these days - one of the reasons this country is in the mess that it's in is because people are choosing sides to be popular or to get ahead, rather than trying to do what's right. Hyde stood against abortion but did nothing to prevent the need for abortion. He made sanctimonious speeches about Clinton's infidelity when his own extra-marital affair wrecked another man's marriage. Now we hear that he supposedly opposed impeachment but didn't want to go against the crowd in power. Talk about the root-cause of high school shootings! Children who do those shootings are almost always outsiders who have been bullied by the in crowd. And that kind of thing goes on because people who know bullying is wrong do nothing to stop it.

I agree that there is too much meanness in the world right now, too much name-calling. But I don't subscribe to the view that it's wrong to criticize people who deserve criticism.
Reply | Parent | Favorite| Flag as abusive | posted 01:39 am on 12/04/2007
expand collapse dgrffy (See profile | I'm a fan of dgrffy)
Of course it isn't wrong to criticize issues, or the people with whom we disagree. But it's how. No, she didn't say she was glad he was dead, though others have. She did, more or less, spit on his grave over various issues. It is a mark of the lack of respect in our culture. Folks are free to disagree and criticize. It's how you do it that says so much. Especially because our kids are listening.
Reply | Parent | Favorite| Flag as abusive | posted 07:12 am on 12/04/2007
expand collapse texanna (See profile | I'm a fan of texanna)
Sweet Karma would be his return as a girl, born to a poor woman who had too many children already and no resources for her latest offspring.
Reply | Favorite| Flag as abusive | posted 08:21 pm on 12/03/2007
expand collapse rollingdivision (See profile | I'm a fan of rollingdivision)
The author's closing remark speaks volumes.
Reply | Favorite| Flag as abusive | posted 07:32 pm on 12/03/2007
expand collapse sorenmeetsdylan (See profile | I'm a fan of sorenmeetsdylan)
How indecent can you get, to wish ill to a man who is deceased?
Reply | Favorite| Flag as abusive | posted 07:22 pm on 12/03/2007
expand collapse davedave (See profile | I'm a fan of davedave)
not ill.

he is dead, way beyond ill.

but one can express relief...

Reply | Parent | Favorite| Flag as abusive | posted 07:52 pm on 12/03/2007
expand collapse Superfelo (See profile | I'm a fan of Superfelo)
Well, let us say we cannot get as indecent as being a hypocrite; not voting for family planning programs; cheating on one's wife, while married with children; being a Republican; never speaking out against Racism; that, it seems to me, goes beyond the limit of indecency; almost as indecent as tapping on the filthy floor of a bathroom stall.
Reply | Parent | Favorite| Flag as abusive | posted 08:12 pm on 12/03/2007
expand collapse Dlynne14 (See profile | I'm a fan of Dlynne14)
Like Mr. Falwell, who passed away this year, Mr. Hyde is your typical, hypocritical right wing Neocon man.
And he was awarded the Congressional Medal of Freedom for his love of the unborn???!!! What a joke. What about the love of the already born?

It is so sad that these foolish, self centered men, who could never walk in the foot steps of a woman, have the power to dictate what he believes is best for them.
Reply | Favorite| Flag as abusive | posted 07:19 pm on 12/03/2007
expand collapse mediamarv (See profile | I'm a fan of mediamarv)
I had forgotten that he died! I was traveling and not at the computer where I get my news....
I won't miss him and I don't care what the HuffPo interns think about that!
Now, puttiing together my Christmas wish list......
Reply | Favorite| Flag as abusive | posted 07:03 pm on 12/03/2007
expand collapse Desiderata (See profile | I'm a fan of Desiderata)
Hyde's sanctimoneous speeches during the impeachment hearings over Bill Clinton's morals opened the pandora's box of personal destruction to overturn the will of the majority of the American electorate.

That attempted coup birthed the treason of the Supreme Court in Bush vs Gore.

Rest in Hell.
Reply | Favorite| Flag as abusive | posted 06:35 pm on 12/03/2007
expand collapse rollingdivision (See profile | I'm a fan of rollingdivision)
Do you have a link to Hyde's sanctimonious speeches you referred to in your post?
Reply | Parent | Favorite| Flag as abusive | posted 07:38 pm on 12/03/2007
expand collapse MsLiz (See profile | I'm a fan of MsLiz)
Reply | Parent | Favorite| Flag as abusive | posted 12:51 am on 12/04/2007
expand collapse MsLiz (See profile | I'm a fan of MsLiz)
Here's more:,%20Henry%20J.
Reply | Parent | Favorite| Flag as abusive | posted 12:59 am on 12/04/2007
expand collapse nunzia (See profile | I'm a fan of nunzia)
Desiderata -well said.
Hyde, rest in hell.
Reply | Parent | Favorite| Flag as abusive | posted 06:14 am on 12/04/2007
expand collapse Joeseo (See profile | I'm a fan of Joeseo)
Reply | Parent | Favorite| Flag as abusive | posted 08:05 am on 12/04/2007
expand collapse Ravenlea (See profile | I'm a fan of Ravenlea)
Brava! Once again there is an effort at death to revise who someone was in life and make them seem better than they were. Hyde seems to me to have been the embodiment of hypocrisy and I see no reason to praise him simply because he is dead. Good for you beating him at his own game at the hearings. Must have felt good.
Reply | Favorite| Flag as abusive | posted 06:07 pm on 12/03/2007
More new features than ever. Check out the new AOL Mail!