I've been trying to get people to pay attention to this, yet it seems to be ignored by so many.  People are shocked and upset when they hear that Hillary is connected with the religious right- and many want to deny it as "sexist propaganda".

Somehow, some way we need to get the national media to examine this aspect of Hillary Clinton.  I don't expect it, because as I've learned- that would tend to help Obama- and racism is a much bigger problem in this country than realized.

by ArchaeoBob on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 07:28:39 PM EST

Glad you called attention to this. And am glad Barbara did, too. You'd be surprised at the flak Kathryn and I got from liberals for the simple act of noting Hillary's association with religious conservatives. Worst were a few Kossacks who declared that if Hill was connected to The Family, the Family was good news. Second worst were the nincompoops who figured that if a Democrat is involved, it can't be rightwing.

Sigh. What we need are better civics teachers.
Author of THE FAMILY: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power (Harper, May 20)
by Jeff Sharlet on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:54:52 AM EST

but I hope a good one.  Bob Somerby, at the Daily Howler, had this to say regarding the Ehrenreich article:

HOW TO RUN THE RUBES: People like Ehrenreich will do and say anything in order to drive the rubes to market. Case in point:

In her piece, Ehrenreich says that the Workplace Religious Freedom Act--the (proposed) bill which shows Clinton's "sinister" ways--guarantees religious freedom to "pharmacists who refuse to fill birth control prescriptions and police officers who refuse to guard abortion clinics." From her post, you might think that this is the actual aim of the bill. But in fact, this is a concern about the possible effects of the bill--a concern which has been expressed by groups which oppose the measure. Proponents of the WRFA say the bill wouldn't have those effects. Honest brokers continue working--or pretending to work--to address these points of concern.

As noted, this bill is proposed year after year--and it never passes. We'll guess that it may be one of those measures which gets introduced to placate certain groups, though no one really means to enact it. (We don't know if that is the case.) On balance, is the bill a good idea? We don't have the slightest idea. Why not ask John Kerry or Carolyn McCarthy, two others who have found themselves drawn "into the sinister heart of the international right?"

At some point, liberals and Dems will have to decide: How long do we tolerate rube-running conduct of this type from our "intellectual leadership?" How long do we plan to be insulted by "leaders" who mainly love running us rubes?

I think Somerby's critical comments are fair and accurate of the way Ehrenreich portrays Clinton (Ehrenreich also makes a crack about Clinton's hairstyle that I think is inappropriate and unfortunate).  In a previous edition of the Howler, referenced below, he criticized Ehrenreich for distorting Sharlet's article in Mother Jones on Clinton and The Family.  Personally, I don't know what effect The Family has had on Clinton, but I'll definetely read Sharlet's book when it cames out (Somerby is also interested).  What do people here think?  As an aside, I've admired and enjoyed Ehrenreich's work in the past and her political views are fairly close to my own, so I was kind of disappointed when I read this.

-------------
"I believe in a President whose views on religion are his own private affair" - JFK, Address to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association
by hardindr on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 12:42:28 PM EST