It boils down to this: They hate women and the middle class.

And so it went, back and forth, back and forth... a discussion on US politics between me and my in-laws on the day after my mother-in-law's funeral. I didn't want to go there, but the discussion in the living room was all about Hillary- the dreaded threat to the American way of life.

After my debunking claim after claim, then asking why Hillary's position is any different or worse than any GOP position and then my insisting that my father-in-law tell me exactly why he hates her with such passion, it all came out: They hate her because she had people killed. I thought that all that hoohah about the Clinton's killing people had been debunked. The debunking email didn't get to the Hillary haters (or maybe they just deleted it).

In all honesty, Republicans (including jealous Republican housewives) don't like women who assert themselves outside of the home. "Assertive women must be murderers too," they think. That's just projection. It also makes me wonder what kind of mothers these dipshits had.

Now the focus is on Nancy Pelosi, a 19 year congresswoman from San Francisco who could be Speaker of the House if the Democrats gain congress. San Francisco has gay implications if you didn't already know. The fear mongering is in full swing. She has been vilified and portrayed as evil incarnate, the woman who would drag the country to the radical left when in fact, she's moderate and reasonable. Her positions might even lessen the amount of poor people in the country thus reducing crime and ignorance. (oh wait, the stupid white men in power want a certain segment of the population to wither away in jail, dead end jobs or the military.)

I can see why rich, white, conservative men might fear her, but her plans wouldn't hurt anyone else. Rich, white men make up a tiny percentage of the population, yet their hateful opinions of women, homosexuals and now people afflicted with dreaded diseases always make the headlines. The speak double talk and ignorant Americans eat it up.

If I were Pelosi, the first thing I'd do if I were House Majority Leader would be to regulate the media. This minority opinion of the wealthy gets waaaay too much air time. A free press is tantamount to a Democracy. She hasn't proposed that as far as I know, but here's Pelosi's plan to "Drain the Swamp" if she becomes House Majority Leader:

Day One: Put new rules in place to "break the link between lobbyists and legislation."
That's only scary to congressmen and corporations. It should be good news to your average citizens whose interests have been relegated to the trash can in favor of cash and prizes to legislators from special interest groups whose only goal is to enrich themselves.

Day Two: Enact all the recommendations made by the commission that investigated the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
Frightening. Not. You would think that among all the fear mongering administered by the right, they might bother to actually do something to make us safer. Securing the country is not liberal at all. It's downright patriotic.

After the first two "radical" reforms she also suggests:
Raise the minimum wage to $7.25 an hour, maybe in one step.
Again, that would hurt (the profits of) a tiny segment of the population and they're already rich. Interestingly, most of the red state evangelicals would benefit by such a reform.

Cut the interest rate on student loans in half.
Oh my god, how not radical is that? (Unless you count on a bunch of terminal Walmart employees to vote for you.)

Allow the government to negotiate directly with the pharmaceutical companies for lower drug prices for Medicare patients.
Isn't that like what they are supposed to do in DC? Represent OUR interests.

Broaden the types of stem cell research allowed with federal funds.
How much do we spend manufacturing WMD's? It would be nice to spend money on something that saves lives.

"Pay as you go," meaning no increasing the deficit, whether the issue is middle class tax relief, health care or some other priority.
A responsible economy? Perish the thought.
She suggests that tax rollbacks to the Clinton era would be in order for those who make over $250,000 or $300,00/year. Somebody has to pay for Bush's folly. Let it be those who supported it in the first place and those who can afford to pay. I didn't vote for the war. Why should I pay for it?

"We must share the benefits of our wealth" beyond the privileged few.
Oh there you go. She's a socialist just like that radical, Jesus Christ. The rich white men are thinking: "If we look out for each other, then we won't be as rich and powerful." That only proves that they aren't "christian" and their jig would be up. Too bad.